SPECPRO – 23 - Maguigad
SUNTAY vs. SUNTAY
G.R. No. L-3087, L-3088|July 31, 1954|Padilla. J.,
FACTS
JOSE SUNTAY DIED IN AMOY, CHINA LEAVING
PROPERTIES IN PHILIPPINES AND CHINA.
Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the
Philippines, died in the city of Amoy, Fookien province,
Republic of China, leaving real and personal properties in
the Philippines and a house in Amoy, Fookien province,
China.
LEFT 9 CHILDREN IN HIS FIRST MARRIAGE AND 1 IN
SECOND MARRIAGE.
First marriage had with the late Manuela T. Cruz namely,
Apolonio, Concepcion, Angel, Manuel, Federico, Ana, Aurora,
Emiliano, and Jose, Jr. Silvino by the second marriage had
with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who survived him.
FEDERICO SUNTAY WAS APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR.
Intestate proceedings were instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan (special proceedings No. 4892) and after
hearing letters of administration were issued to Apolonio
Suntay (a child from the first marriage). After the latter's
death Federico C. Suntay was appointed administrator
of the estate.
SURVIVING WIDOW FILED A PETITION FOR PROBATE BUT
IT WAS DENIED.
On 15 October 1934 the surviving widow filed a petition in
the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the probate of a
last will and testament claimed to have been executed and
signed in the Philippines on November 1929 by the late Jose
B. Suntay. This petition was denied because of the loss of
said will after the filing of the petition and before the
hearing thereof and of the insufficiency of the evidence
to establish the loss of the said will. An appeal was taken
from said order denying the probate of the will and this
Court held the evidence before the probate court sufficient
to prove the loss of the will and remanded the case to the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan for further proceedings.
In spite of the fact that a commission from the probate
court was issued on 24 April 1937 for the taking of the
deposition of Go Toh, an attesting witness to the will, on 7
February 1938 the probate court denied a motion for
continuance of the hearing sent by cablegram from China by
the surviving widow and dismissed the petition.
AFTER LIBERATION, SILVINO FIELD A PETITION FOR
PROBATE OF THE WILL EXECUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES.
In the meantime the Pacific War supervened. After
liberation, claiming that he had found among the files,
records and documents of his late father a will and
testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the
deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was filed,
recorded and probated in the Amoy district court, Province
of Fookien, China, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the
intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will
executed in the Philippines on November 1929 (Exhibit B) or
of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China, on 4 January
1931 (Exhibit N).
ISSUE(S)
Whether or not the will executed in China should be
allowed here in the Philippines (NO)
RULING
RULE 77 WILL APPLY IN THIS CASE SINCE THE WILL IS
CLAIMED TO BE EXECUTED IN AMOY, CHINA.
RULE 77:
Section 1. Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country,
according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed,
and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the
Philippines.
Section 2. When a copy of such will and the allowance
thereof, duly authenticated, is filed with a petition for
allowance in the Philippines, by the executor or other
person interested, in the court having jurisdiction, such
court shall fix a time and place for the hearing, and cause
notice thereof to be given as in case of an original will
presented for allowance.
Section 3. If it appears at the hearing that the will should be
allowed in the Philippines, the court shall so allow it, and a
certificate of its allowance, signed by the Judge, and attested
by the seal of the court, to which shall be attached a copy of
the will, shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, and the will
shall have the same effect as if originally proved and
allowed in such court.
THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT COURT OF
AMOY, CHINA, IS A PROBATE COURT MUST BE PROVED.
The law of China on procedure in the probate or allowance
of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the
execution of a valid will in China in 1931 should also be
established by competent evidence. There is no proof on
these points.
CONSUL GENERAL IS NOT AN EXPERT ON CHINESE LAW
WITH REGARD TO PROBATE PROCEDURE.
The unverified answers to the questions propounded by
counsel for the appellant to the Consul General of the
Republic of China set forth in Exhibits R-1 and R-2, objected
to by counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible, because
apart from the fact that the office of Consul General does
not qualify and make the person who holds it an expert on
the Chinese law on procedure in probate matters, if the
same be admitted, the adverse party would be deprived of
his right to confront and cross-examine the witness. Consuls
are appointed to attend to trade matters.
THE PROCEEDINGS IN COURT OF AMOY IS NOT TO
PROBATE THE WILL
It appears that all the proceedings had in the municipal
district court of Amoy were for the purpose of taking the
testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and that the
order of the municipal district court of Amoy does not
purport to probate the will.
PRESUMED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF
PROBATING OR ALLOWING A WILL IN THE CHINESE
COURTS ARE THE SAME AS THOSE PROVIDED FOR IN OUR
LAWS ON THE SUBJECT.
In the absence of proof that the municipal district court of
Amoy is a probate court and on the Chinese law of
 SPECPRO – 23 - Maguigad
procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the
proceedings in the matter of probating or allowing a will in
the Chinese courts are the same as those provided for in our
laws on the subject. It is a proceeding in rem and for the
validity of such proceedings personal notice or by
publication or both to all interested parties must be made.
The interested parties in the case were known to reside in
the Philippines. The evidence shows that no such notice was
received by the interested parties residing in the Philippines.
The proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy,
China, may be likened to a deposition or to a perpetuation
of testimony, and even if it were so it does not measure or
come up to the standard of such proceedings in the
Philippines for lack of notice to all interested parties and the
proceedings were held at the back of such interested parties.

THE ORDER OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT COURT OF

AMOY, CHINA DOES NOT PURPORT TO PROBATE OR
ALLOW THE WILL WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
In view thereof, the will and the alleged probate thereof
cannot be said to have been done in accordance with the
accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles
followed in the probate and allowance of wills.
Consequently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings
held in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, cannot
be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the
probate or allowance of a will and, therefore, the will
referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by
a competent court of this country.

THE WILL REFERRED TO THEREIN CANNOT BE ALLOWED,

FILED AND RECORDED BY A COMPETENT COURT OF THIS
COUNTRY.
Where it appears that the proceedings in the court of a
foreign country were held for the purpose of taking the
testimony of two attesting witnesses to the will and the
order of the probate court did not purport to allow the will,
the proceedings cannot be deemed to be for the probate of
a will, as it was not done in accordance with the basic and
fundamental concepts and principles followed in the
probate and allowance of wills. Consequently, the will
referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by
a competent court of this country.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, without

pronouncement as to costs