Conflict of Laws Full Cases

7/25/2019 Conflict of Laws Full Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-full-cases 1/10

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-32636 March 17, 1930

In th !attr E"tat o# E$%ar$ Ran$o&'h ()*, $ca"$.+.. LUEMER, petitioner-appellant,vs.+NNIE COUS(ING (I, oppositor-appellee.

C.A. Sobral for appellant.Harvey & O' Brien and Gibbs & McDonoug for appellee.

M+LCOLM, J.:

The special administrator of the estate of Edard Randolph !i" appeals from a decision of #ud$e of

%irst &nstance Tuason den'in$ the probate of the document alle$ed to b' the last ill and testament ofthe deceased. Appellee is not authori(ed to carr' on this appeal. )e thin*, hoever, that the appellant,ho appears to have been the movin$ part' in these proceedin$s, as a +person interested in thealloance or disalloance of a ill b' a Court of %irst &nstance,+ and so should be permitted to appeal tothe upreme Court from the disalloance of the ill Code of Civil Procedure, sec. /0, as amended12illanueva vs. 3e 4eon 506789, :7 Phil., /;<.

&t is theor' of the petitioner that the alle$ed ill as e"ecuted in El*ins, )est 2ir$inia, on November =,0678, b' !i" ho had his residence in that >urisdiction, and that the las of )est 2er$inia Code, Annotated, b' !o$$, Charles E., vol. 7, 060:, p. 0?6;, and as certified to b' the 3irector of the National4ibrar'. But this as far from a compliance ith the la. The las of a forei$n >urisdiction do not provethemselves in our courts. the courts of the Philippine &slands are not authori(ed to ta*e American @nion.uch las must be proved as facts. &n re Estate of #ohnson 5060/9, =6 Phil., 08?.< !ere thereuirements of the la ere not met. There as no as printed or published under the authorit' of the

tate of )est 2ir$inia, as provided in section =;; of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor as the e"tractfrom the la attested b' the certificate of the officer havin$ char$e of the ori$inal, under the sale of thetate of )est 2ir$inia, as provided in section =;0 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence asintroduced to sho that the e"tract from the las of )est 2ir$inia as in force at the time the alle$edill as e"ecuted.

&n addition, the due e"ecution of the ill as not established. The onl' evidence on this point is to befound in the testimon' of the petitioner. Aside from this, there as nothin$ to indicate that the ill asac*noled$ed b' the testator in the presence of to competent itnesses, of that these itnessessubscribed the ill in the presence of the testator and of each other as the la of )est 2ir$inia seems toreuire. n the supposition that the itnesses to the ill reside ithout the Philippine &slands, it ouldthen the dut' of the petitioner to prove e"ecution b' some other means Code of Civil Procedure, sec.?==.<

&t as also necessar' for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in )est 2ir$inia andnot establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the C+T(/ ill and the testimon' of the petitioner. Alsoin be$innin$ administration proceedin$s or$inall' in the Philippine &slands, the petitioner violated hison theor' b' attemptin$ to have the principal administration in the Philippine &slands.

)hile the appeal pendin$ submission in this court, the attorne' for the appellant presented an unverifiedpetition as*in$ the court to accept as part of the evidence the documents attached to the petition. ne of these documents discloses that a paper ritin$ purportin$ to be the as presented for probate on #une/, 0676, to the cler* of Randolph Countr', tate of )est 2ir$inia, in vacation, and as dul' proven b'the oaths of 3ana )amsle' and #oseph 4. MAdden, the subscribin$ itnesses thereto , and ordered tobe recorded and filed. &t as shon b' another document that, in vacation, on #une /, 0676, the cler* of court of Randolph Countr', )est 2ir$inia, appointed Claude ). Ma"ell as administrator, cu!testa!ento anne"o, of the estate of Edard Randolph !i", deceased. &n this connection, it is to benoted that the application for the probate of the ill in the Philippines as filed on %ebruar' 7;, 0676,

hile the proceedin$s in )est 2ir$inia appear to have been initiated on #une /, 0676. These facts arestron$l' indicative of an intention to ma*e the Philippines the principal administration and )est 2ir$inia



the ancillar' administration. !oever this ma' be, no attempt has been made to compl' ith CivilProcedure, for no hearin$ on the uestion of the alloance of a ill said to have been proved andalloed in )est 2ir$inia has been reuested. There is no shoin$ that the deceased left an' propert' atan' place other than the Philippine &slands and no contention that he left an' in )est 2ir$inia.

Reference has been made b' the parties to a divorce purported to have been aarded EdardRandolph !i" from Annie Cousins !i" on ctober /, 0678, in the tate of )est specific pronouncementson the validit' or validit' of this alle$ed divorce.

%or all of the fore$oin$, the >ud$ment appealed from ill be affirmed, ith the costs of this instancea$ainst the appellant.




Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-229 No!r 1, 1927

T"tat E"tat o# o"'h G. 4r)!o, U+N MICI+NO, a$!)n)"trator, petitioner-appellee,vs.+N5RE 4RIMO, opponent-appellant.

#oss$ %arence and Selp for appellant.Ca!us and Delgado for appellee.

ROMU+L5E, J.:

The partition of the estate left b' the deceased #oseph . Brimo is in uestion in this case.

The >udicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers ofthe deceased, opposed it. The court, hoever, approved it.

The errors hich the oppositor-appellant assi$ns areD

0< The approval of said scheme of partition1 7< denial of his participation in the inheritance1 =< thedenial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approvin$ the partition1 :< the approval of thepurchase made b' the Pietro 4ana of the deceaseds business and the deed of transfer of saidbusiness1 and 8< the declaration that the Tur*ish las are impertinent to this cause, and the failure notto postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the deliver' of the deceaseds business toPietro 4an(a until the receipt of the depositions reuested in reference to the Tur*ish las.

The appellants opposition is based on the fact that the partition in uestion puts into effect theprovisions of #oseph . Brimos ill hich are not in accordance ith the las of his Tur*ish nationalit',for hich reason the' are void as bein$ in violation or article 0; of the Civil Code hich, amon$ otherthin$s, provides the folloin$D

Nevertheless, le$al and testamentar' successions, in respect to the order of succession asell as to the amount of the successional ri$hts and the intrinsic validit' of their provisions,shall be re$ulated b' the national la of the person hose succession is in uestion, hateverma' be the nature of the propert' or the countr' in hich it ma' be situated.

But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testimentar' dispositions are not in accordanceith the Tur*ish las, inasmuch as he did not present an' evidence shoin$ hat the Tur*ish las are

on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such las, the' are presumed to be the same asthose of the Philippines. 4im and 4imvs. Collector of Customs, =? Phil., :7.<

&t has not been proved in these proceedin$s hat the Tur*ish las are. !e, himself, ac*noled$es ithen he desires to be $iven an opportunit' to present evidence on this point1 so much so that heassi$ns as an error of the court in not havin$ deferred the approval of the scheme of partition until thereceipt of certain testimon' reuested re$ardin$ the Tur*ish las on the matter.

The refusal to $ive the oppositor another opportunit' to prove such las does not constitute an error. &tis discretionar' ith the trial court, and, ta*in$ into consideration that the oppositor as $ranted ampleopportunit' to introduce competent evidence, e find no abuse of discretion on the part of the court inthis particular. There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national la of the testator #oseph. Brimo as violated in the testamentar' dispositions in uestion hich, not bein$ contrar' to our lasin force, must be complied ith and e"ecuted. lapil.net

Therefore, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect as not erroneous.



&n re$ard to the first assi$nment of error hich deals ith the e"clusion of the herein appellant as ale$atee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons desi$nated as such in ill, it must be ta*en intoconsideration that such e"clusion is based on the last part of the second clause of the ill, hich sa'sD

econd. & li*e desire to state that althou$h b' la, & am a Tur*ish citi(en, this citi(enship havin$been conferred upon me b' conuest and not b' free choice, nor b' nationalit' and, on theother hand, havin$ resided for a considerable len$th of time in the Philippine &slands here &succeeded in acuirin$ all of the propert' that & no possess, it is m' ish that the distributionof m' propert' and ever'thin$ in connection ith this, m' ill, be made and disposed of inaccordance ith the las in force in the Philippine islands, reuestin$ all of m' relatives torespect this ish, otherise, & annul and cancel beforehand hatever disposition found in thisill favorable to the person or persons ho fail to compl' ith this reuest.

The institution of le$atees in this ill is conditional, and the condition is that the instituted le$atees mustrespect the testators ill to distribute his propert', not in accordance ith the las of his nationalit', butin accordance ith the las of the Philippines.

&f this condition as it is e"pressed ere le$al and valid, an' le$atee ho fails to compl' ith it, as theherein oppositor ho, b' his attitude in these proceedin$s has not respected the ill of the testator, ase"pressed, is prevented from receivin$ his le$ac'.

The fact is, hoever, that the said condition is void, bein$ contrar' to la, for article 67 of the civil Codeprovides the folloin$D

&mpossible conditions and those contrar' to la or $ood morals shall be considered as notimposed and shall not pre>udice the heir or le$atee in an' manner hatsoever, even should thetestator otherise provide.

And said condition is contrar' to la because it e"pressl' i$nores the testators national la hen,accordin$ to article 0; of the civil Code above uoted, such national la of the testator is the one to$overn his testamentar' dispositions.

aid condition then, in the li$ht of the le$al provisions above cited, is considered unritten, and the

institution of le$atees in said ill is unconditional and conseuentl' valid and effective even as to theherein oppositor.

&t results from all this that the second clause of the ill re$ardin$ the la hich shall $overn it, and tothe condition imposed upon the le$atees, is null and void, bein$ contrar' to la.

All of the remainin$ clauses of said ill ith all their dispositions and reuests are perfectl' valid andeffective it not appearin$ that said clauses are contrar' to the testators national la.

Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the distribution of this estate bemade in such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as one of the le$atees, and thescheme of partition submitted b' the >udicial administrator is approved in all other respects, ithout an'pronouncement as to costs.

o ordered.




Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No". L-307 an$ L-30 8& 31, 19:

In r; T"tat E"tat o# th $ca"$ OSE 4. SUNT+/. SIL<INO SUNT+/, petitioner-appellant,vs.In r; Int"tat E"tat o# th $ca"$ OSE 4. SUNT+/,E5ERICO C. SUNT+/, administrator-appellee.

Claro M. #ecto for appellant.Sison and Aruego for appellee.

P+5ILL+, J.;

This is an appeal from a decree of the Court of %irst &nstance of Bulacan disalloin$ the alle$ed ill and

testament e"ecuted in Manila on November 0676, and the alle$ed last ill and testament e"ecuted inFulan$su, Amo', China, on : #anuar' 06=0, b' #ose B. unta'. The value of the estate left b' thedeceased is more than P8;,;;;.

n 0: Ma' 06=: #ose B. unta', a %ilipino citi(en and resident of the Philippines, died in the cit' of Amo', %oo*ien province, Republic of China, leavin$ real and personal properties in the Philippines anda house in Amo', %oo*ien province, China, and children b' the first marria$e had ith the late ManuelaT. Cru( namel', Apolonio, Concepcion, An$el, Manuel, %ederico, Ana, Aurora, Emiliano, and #ose, #r.and a child named ilvino b' the second marria$e had ith Maria Natividad 4im Billian ho survivedhim. &ntestate proceedin$s ere instituted in the Court of %irst &nstance of Bulacan special proceedin$sNo. :/67< and after hearin$ letters of administration ere issued to Apolonio unta'. After the lattersdeath %ederico C. unta' as appointed administrator of the estate. n 08 ctober 06=: the survivin$ido filed a petition in the Court of %irst &nstance of Bulacan for the probate of a last ill and testamentclaimed to have been e"ecuted and si$ned in the Philippines on November 0676 b' the late #ose B.

unta'. This petition as denied because of the loss of said ill after the filin$ of the petition and beforethe hearin$ thereof and of the insufficienc' of the evidence to establish the loss of the said ill. Anappeal as ta*en from said order den'in$ the probate of the ill and this Court held the evidence beforethe probate court sufficient to prove the loss of the ill and remanded the case to the Court of %irst&nstance of Bulacan for the further proceedin$s ?= Phil., 6=<. &n spite of the fact that a commissionfrom the probate court as issued on 7: April 06= for the ta*in$ of the deposition of o Toh, anattestin$ itness to the ill, on %ebruar' 06=/ the probate court denied a motion for continuance ofthe hearin$ sent b' cable$ram from China b' the survivin$ ido and dismissed the petition. &n themeantime the Pacific )ar supervened. After liberation, claimin$ that he had found amon$ the files,records and documents of his late father a ill and testament in Chinese characters e"ecuted andsi$ned b' the deceased on : #anuar' 06=0 and that the same as filed, recorded and probated in the Amo' district court, Province of %oo*ien, China, ilvino unta' filed a petition in the intestateproceedin$s pra'in$ for the probate of the ill e"ecuted in the Philippines on November 0676 E"hibit B<or of the ill e"ecuted in Amo', %oo*ien, China, on : #anuar' 06=0 E"hibit N<.

There is no merit in the contention that the petitioner ilvino unta' and his mother Maria Natividad 4imBillian are estopped from as*in$ for the probate of the lost ill or of the forei$n ill because of thetransfer or assi$nment of their share ri$ht, title and interest in the estate of the late #ose B. unta' to#ose . utierre( and the spouses Ricardo utierre( and 2ictoria oGo and the subseuentassi$nment thereof b' the assi$nees to %rancisco Pascual and b' the latter to %ederico C. unta', forthe validit' and le$alit' of such assi$nments cannot be threshed out in this proceedin$s hich isconcerned onl' ith the probate of the ill and testament e"ecuted in the Philippines on November0676 or of the forei$n ill alle$edl' e"ecuted in Amo' on : #anuar' 06=0 and claimed to have beenprobated in the municipal district court of Amo', %oo*ien province, Republic of China.

As to prescription, the dismissal of the petition for probate of the ill on %ebruar' 06=/ as no bar tothe filin$ of this petition on 0/ #une 06:, or before the e"piration of ten 'ears.

As to the lost ill, section ?, Rule , providesD



No ill shall be proved as a lost or destro'ed ill unless the e"ecution and validit' of the samebe established, and the ill is proved to have been in e"istence at the time of the death of thetestator, or is shon to have been fraudulentl' or accidentall' destro'ed in the lifetime of thetestator ithout his *noled$e, nor unless its provisions are clearl' and distinctl' proved b' atleast to credible itnesses. )hen a lost ill is proved, the provisions thereof must bedistinctl' stated and certified b' the >ud$e, under the seal of the court, and the certificate mustbe filed and recorded as other ills are filed and recorded.

The itnesses ho testified to the provisions of the lost ill are o Toh, an attestin$ itness, AnastacioTeodoro and Ana unta'. Manuel 4ope(, ho as an attestin$ itness to the lost ill, as dead at thetime of the hearin$ of this alternative petition. &n his deposition o Toh testifies that he as one of theitnesses to the lost ill consistin$ of tent'-three sheets si$ned b' #ose B. unta' at the bottom of theill and each and ever' pa$e thereof in the presence of Alberto Barretto, Manuel 4ope( and himself andunderneath the testators si$nature the attestin$ itnesses si$ned and each of them si$ned theattestation clause and each and ever' pa$e of the ill in the presence of the testator and of the otheritnesses ansers to the =0st, :0st, :7nd, :6th, 8;th, 88th and ?=rd interro$atories, E"hibit 3-0<, butdid not ta*e part in the draftin$ thereof anser to the 00th interro$ator', d.<1 that he *ne the contentsof the ill ritten in panish althou$h he *ne ver' little of that lan$ua$e ansers to the 77nd and 7=rdinterro$atories and to H-7 cross-interro$ator', d .< and all he *nos about the contends of the lost illas revealed to him b' #ose B. unta' at the time it as e"ecuted ansers to the 78th interro$ator'and to H-: and H-/ cross-interro$atories, d .<1 that #ose B. unta' told him that the contents thereof are

the same as those of the draft E"hibit B< ansers to the ==rd interro$ator' and to H-/ cross-interro$ator', d.< hich he sa in the office of Alberto Barretto in November 0676 hen the ill assi$ned ansers to the ?6th, 7nd, and :th interro$atories,d <1 that Alberto Barretto handed the draftand said to #ose B. unta'D +Iou had better see if 'ou ant an' correction+ ansers to the /0st, /7ndand /=rd interro$atories, d .<1 that +after chec*in$ #ose B. unta' put the +E"hibit B+ in his poc*et andhad the ori$inal si$ned and e"ecuted+ ansers to the 60st interro$ator', and to H-0/ cross-interro$ator', d .<1 that Mrs. unta' had the draft of the ill E"hibit B< translated into Chinese and heread the translation ansers to the ?th interro$ator', d .<1 that he did not read the ill and did notcompare it chec* it up< ith the draft E"hibit B< ansers to H-? and H-7; cross-interro$atories, d.<.

Ana unta' testifies that sometime in eptember 06=: in the house of her brother Apolonio unta' shelearned that her father left a ill +because of the arrival of m' brother Manuel unta', ho as brin$in$alon$ ith him certain document and he told us or he as tellin$ us that it as the ill of our father #oseB. unta' hich as ta*en from o Toh. ...+ p. 87:, t. s. n., hearin$ of 7: %ebruar' 06:/<1 that she sa

her brother Apolonio unta' read the document in her presence and of Manuel and learned of thead>udication made in the ill b' her father of his estate, to itD one-third to his children, one-third toilvino and his mother and the other third to ilvino, Apolonio, Concepcion and #ose, #r. pp. 87?-/,8=;-0, 8:7, t. s. n. d .<1 that +after Apolonio read that portion, then he turned over the document toManuel, and he ent aa',+ p. 87/, t. s. n., d .<. n cross-e"amination, she testifies that she read thepart of the ill on ad>udication to *no hat as the share of each heir pp. 8=;, 8::, t. s. n., d .< and onredirect she testifies that she sa the si$nature of her father, o Toh, Manuel 4ope( and AlbertoBarretto p. 8:?, t. s. n., d .<.

Anastacio Teodoro testifies that one da' in November 06=: p. 7=, t. s. n., hearin$ of 06 #anuar'06:/<, before the last postponement of the hearin$ $ranted b' the Court, o Toh arrived at his la officein the 3e los Re'es Buildin$ and left an envelope rapped in red hand*erchief 5E"hibit C9 p. =7, t. s. n.,hearin$ of 0= ctober 06:<1 that he chec*ed up the si$natures on the envelope E"hibit A ith those onthe ill placed in the envelope p. ==, t. s. n., d .<1 that the ill as e"actl' the same as the draft E"hibit B

pp. =7, :, 8;, t. s. n., d .<.

&f the ill as snatched after the deliver' thereof b' o Toh to Anastacio Teodoro And returned b' thelatter to the former because the' could not a$ree on the amount of fees, the former comin$ to the lattersoffice strai$ht from the boat p. =08, t. s. n., hearin$ of 06 #anuar' 06:/< that brou$ht him to thePhilippines from Amo', and that deliver' too* place in November 06=: p. 7=, t. s. n., d .<, then thetestimon' of Ana unta' that she sa and heard her brother Apolonio unta' read the ill sometime ineptember 06=: p. 87:, t. s. n., hearin$ of 7: %ebruar' 06:/<, must not be true.

Althou$h Ana unta' ould be a $ood itness because she as testif'in$ a$ainst her on interest, stillthe fact remains that she did not read the hole ill but onl' the ad>udication pp. 87?-/, 8=;-0, 8:7, t.s. n., d .< and sa onl' the si$nature, of her father and of the itnesses o Toh, Manuel 4ope( and Alberto Barretto p. 8:?, t. s. n.,d .<. But her testimon' on cross-e"amination that she read the part of theill on ad>udication is inconsistent ith her testimon' in chief that after Apolonio had read that part of theill he turned over or handed the document to Manuel ho ent aa' p. 87/, t. s. n., d .<.



&f it is true that o Toh sa the draft E"hibit B in the office of Alberto Barretto in November 0676 henthe ill as si$ned, then the part of his testimon' that Alberto Barretto handed the draft to #ose B.unta' to hom he saidD +Iou had better see if 'ou ant an' correction+ and that +after chec*in$ #oseB. unta' put the +E"hibit B+ in his poc*et and had the ori$inal si$ned and e"ecuted+ cannot be true, forit as not the time for correctin$ the draft of the ill, because it must have been corrected before and allcorrections and additions ritten in lead pencil must have been inserted and copied in the final draft ofthe ill hich as si$ned on that occasion. The brin$in$ in for the draft E"hibit B< on that occasion is

>ust to fit it ithin the frameor* of the appellants theor'. At an' rate, all of o Tohs testimon' b'deposition on the provisions of the alle$ed lost ill is hearsa', because he came to *no or he learnedto them from information $iven him b' #ose B. unta' and from readin$ the translation of the draftE"hibit B< into Chinese.

Much stress is laid upon the testimon' of %ederico C. unta' ho testifies that he read the supposedill or the alle$ed ill of his father and that the share of the survivin$ ido, accordin$ to the ill, is to-thirds of the estate p. 776, t. s. n., hearin$ of 7: ctober 06:<. But this itness testified to oppose theappointment of a co-administrator of the estate, for the reason that he had acuired the interest of thesurvivin$ ido not onl' in the estate of her deceased husband but also in the con>u$al propert' pp.0:/, 7;8, 77/, 776, 7=0, t. s. n., d .< )hether he read the ori$inal ill or >ust the cop' thereof E"hibit B<is not clear. %or him the important point as that he had acuired all the share, participation and interestof the survivin$ ido and of the onl' child b' the second marria$e in the estate of his deceased father.Be that as it ma', his testimon' that under the ill the survivin$ ido ould ta*e to-thirds of the

estate of the late #ose B. unta' is at variance ith E"hibit B and the testimon' of Anastacio Teodoro. Accordin$ to the latter, the third for strict le$itime is for the ten children1 the third for betterment is forilvino, Apolonio, Concepcion and #ose #r.1 and the third for free disposal is for the survivin$ ido andher child ilvino.

!ence, $rantin$ that there as a ill dul' e"ecuted b' #ose B. unta' placed in the envelope E"hibit A<and that it as in e"istence at the time of, and not revo*ed before, his death, still the testimon' of Anastacio Teodoro alone falls short of the le$al reuirement that the provisions of the lost ill must be+clearl' and distinctl' proved b' at least to credible itnesses.+ Credible itnesses mean competentitnesses and those ho testif' to facts from or upon hearsa' are neither competent nor credibleitnesses.

n the other hand, Alberto Barretto testifies that in the earl' part of 0676 he prepared or dre up tomills for #ose B. unta' at the latters reuest, the rou$h draft of the first ill as in his on handritin$,$iven to Manuel 4ope( for the final draft or t'pin$ and returned to him1 that after chec*in$ up the finalith the rou$h draft he tore it and returned the final draft to Manuel 4ope(1 that this draft as in favor ofall the children and the ido pp. =67-:, ::6, t. s. n., hearin$ of 70 %ebruar' 06:/<1 that to monthslater #ose B. unta' and Manuel 4ope( called on him and the former as*ed him to dra up another illfavorin$ more his ife and child ilvino1 that he had the rou$h draft of the second ill t'ped pp. =68,::6 t. s. n., d .< and $ave it to Manuel 4ope( p. =6?, t. s. n., d .<1 that he did not si$n as itness thesecond ill of #ose B. unta' copied from the t'peritten draft 5E"hibit B9 p. :7;, t. s. n., d .<1 that thehandritten insertions or additions in lead pencil to E"hibit B are not his pp. :08- :=8-?, :8, t. s.n., d .<1 that the final draft of the first ill made up of four or five pa$es p. :;;, t. s. n., d .< as si$nedand e"ecuted, to or three months after unta' and 4ope( had called on him pp. =6-/, :;=, ::6, t. s.n., d .< in his office at the Cebu Portland Cement in the China Ban*in$ Buildin$ on 3asmariGas street b'#ose B. unta', Manuel 4ope( and a Chinaman ho had all come from !a$ono' p. =6/, t. s. n., d .<1that on that occasion the' brou$ht an envelope E"hibit A< here the folloin$ ords ere rittenD+Testamento de #ose B. unta'+ pp. =66, :;:, t. s. n., d .<1 that after the si$nin$ of the ill it as placed

inside the envelope E"hibit A< to$ether ith an inventor' of the properties of #ose B. unta' and theenvelope as sealed b' the si$natures of the testator and the attestin$ itnesses pp. =6/, :;0, ::0,::=, :?0, t. s. n., d .<1 that he a$ain sa the envelope E"hibit A< in his house one aturda' in the laterpart of Au$ust 06=:, brou$ht b' o Toh and it as then in perfect condition pp. :;8-?, :00, ::;-7, t. s.n., d .<1 that on the folloin$ Monda' o Toh ent to his la office brin$in$ alon$ ith him the envelopeE"hibit A< in the same condition1 that he told o Toh that he ould char$e P78,;;; as fee for probatin$the ill pp. :;?, ::;-7, d .<1 that o Toh did not leave the envelope E"hibit A< either in his house or inhis la office p. :;, t. s. n., d .<1 that o Toh said he anted to *eep it and on no occasion did o Tohleave it to him pp. :;6, :0;, t. s. n., d .<.

The testimon' of o Toh ta*en and heard b' Assistant %iscal %. B. Albert in connection ith thecomplaint for estafa filed a$ainst Manuel unta' for the alle$ed snatchin$ of the envelope E"hibit A<,corroborates the testimon' of Alberto Barretto to the effect that onl' one ill as si$ned b' #ose B.unta' at his office in hich he Alberto Barretto<, Manuel 4ope( and o Toh too* part as attestin$

itnesses p. 08, t. s. n., E"hibit ?<. o Toh testified before the same assistant fiscal that he did notleave the ill in the hands of Anastacio Teodoro p. 7?, t. s. n., E"hibit ?<. !e said, uotin$ his on



ords, +Because & can not $ive him this envelope even thou$h the contract on fees< as si$ned. & haveto brin$ that document to court or to an'here else m'self.+ p. 7, t. s. n., E"hibit ?<.

As to the ill claimed to have been e"ecuted on : #anuar' 06=0 in Amo', China, the la on the point inRule /. ection 0 of the rule providesD

)ills proved and alloed in a forei$n countr', accordin$ to the las of such countr', ma' bealloed, filed, and recorded b' the proper Court of %irst &nstance in the Philippines.

ection 7 providesD

)hen a cop' of such ill and the alloance thereof, dul' authenticated, is filed ith a petitionfor alloance in the Philippines, b' the e"ecutor or other person interested, in the court havin$ >urisdiction, such court shall fi" a time and place for the hearin$, and cause notice thereof to be$iven as in case of an ori$inal ill presented for alloance.

ection = providesD

&f it appears at the hearin$ that the ill should be alloed in the Philippines, the court shall so

allo it, and a certificate of its alloance, si$ned b' the #ud$e, and attested b' the seal of thecourts, to hich shall be attached a cop' of the ill, shall be filed and recorded b' the cler*,and the ill shall have the same effect as if ori$inall' proved and alloed in such court.

The fact that the municipal district court of Amo', China, is a probate court must be proved. The la ofChina on procedure in the probate or alloance of ills must also be proved. The le$al reuirements forthe e"ecution of a valid ill in China in 06=0 should also be established b' competent evidence. Thereis no proof on these points. The unverified ansers to the uestions propounded b' counsel for theappellant to the Consul eneral of the Republic of China set forth in E"hibits R-0 and R-7, ob>ected tob' counsel for the appellee, are inadmissible, because apart from the fact that the office of Consuleneral does not ualif' and ma*e the person ho holds it an e"pert on the Chinese la on procedurein probate matters, if the same be admitted, the adverse part' ould be deprived of his ri$ht to confrontand cross-e"amine the itness. Consuls are appointed to attend to trade matters. Moreover, it appearsthat all the proceedin$s had in the municipal district court of Amo' ere for the purpose of ta*in$ the

testimon' of to attestin$ itnesses to the ill and that the order of the municipal district court of Amo'does not purport to probate the ill. &n the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amo' is aprobate court and on the Chinese la of procedure in probate matters, it ma' be presumed that theproceedin$s in the matter of probatin$ or alloin$ a ill in the Chinese courts are the a deposition or toa perpetuation of testimon', and even if it ere so it does not measure same as those provided for inour las on the sub>ect. &t is a proceedin$s in rem and for the validit' of such proceedin$s personalnotice or b' publication or both to all interested parties must be made. The interested parties in the caseere *non to reside in the Philippines. The evidence shos that no such notice as received b' theinterested parties residin$ in the Philippines pp. ::, :?, :/0, 8;=-:, t. s. n., hearin$ of 7: %ebruar'06:/<. The proceedin$s had in the municipal district court of Amo', China, ma' be li*ened toe or comeup to the standard of such proceedin$s in the Philippines for lac* of notice to all interested parties andthe proceedin$s ere held at the bac* of such interested parties.

The order of the municipal district court of Amo', China, hich reads as follosD

R3ERD

EE BE4)

The above minutes ere satisfactoril' confirmed b' the interro$ated parties, ho declare thatthere are no errors, after said minutes ere loudl' read and announced actuall' in the court.

3one and subscribed on the Nineteenth da' of the En$lish month of the =8th 'ear of theRepublic of China in the Civil ection of the Municipal 3istrict Court of Amo', China.

!@AN F@AN C!ENCler( of Court



C!&AN TEN !)A)udge

E"hibit N-0=, p. /6 %older of E"hibits.<.

does not purport to probate or allo the ill hich as the sub>ect of the proceedin$s. &n vie thereof,the ill and the alle$ed probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in accordance ith theaccepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles folloed in the probate and alloance of ills.Conseuentl', the authenticated transcript of proceedin$s held in the municipal district court of Amo',China, cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedin$s leadin$ to the probate or alloance of a illand, therefore, the ill referred to therein cannot be alloed, filed and recorded b' a competent court ofthis countr'.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, ithout pronouncement as to costs.

Conflict of Laws Full Cases

Documents

Transcript of Conflict of Laws Full Cases