PALAGANAS vs. PALAGANAS

PALAGANAS vs. PALAGANAS

 

This case is about the probate before Philippine court of a will executed abroad by a foreigner although it has not been probated in its place of execution.

 

FACTS:

Ruperta C. Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and testament she executed in California, she designated her brother as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in the U.S.

 

However, petitioners-nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country where it was executed.

 

HELD:

Yes. The Philippine laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction.

 

Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country.

 

Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner:

(a) the jurisdictional facts;

(b) the names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and

(e) if the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it.

The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985 NEPOMUCENO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner as his sole and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.   ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.   HELD: The petitioner submits th...
Read more

VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265               April 6, 2000 VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ, Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Clarin and Tudela, Misamis Occidental FACTS: Valencides Vercide and his wife filed for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against Daria Lagas Galleros. The land is located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality, while complainant and his wife are residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. ISSUE: Whether or not Lupong Tagapamayapa has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: According to several cases decided by the Honorable Supreme Court, it was ruled that where parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or in adjoining barangays, there is no requirement for them to submit their dispute involving real property to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon sha...
Read more

JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG, Petitioners, v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Cebu City, Branch 20, and THE CITY OF CEBU, Respondents. G. R. No. 126661. December 3, 1999 PARDO, J. FACTS : On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command. Regional Director Jose Andaya submitted to Mayor Alvin Gracias a list of five (5) eligibles for the mayor to choose one to be appointed as the chief of police of Cebu City. The mayor did not choose anyone from the list of five (5) recommendees because the name of certain P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento was not included therein. However, Andaya refused to agree to Mayor Garcias request to include the name of PCI Sarmiento in the list of police officers for appointment by the mayor. His refusal was based on his contention that Sarmiento was not qualified for the position of chief of police because he failed to suffice the minimum qualificati...
Read more