GR 237449; (December, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 237449, December 02, 2020
LINDA A. KUCSKAR, PETITIONER, VS. COSME B. SEKITO, JR., RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Aida A. Bambao, a naturalized American citizen, died in California in 2000. She had executed a Last Will and Testament in California in 1999, nominating her cousin, Cosme B. Sekito, Jr., as the special independent executor over her Philippine assets. Cosme filed a petition for the allowance of this foreign will before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City. Linda A. Kucskar, the decedent’s sister and an heir named in the will, opposed the petition, arguing she was supporting Aida’s adopted minor child and that a property in Calbayog City was excluded.
The RTC granted the petition and allowed the will, appointing Cosme as the special administrator. The RTC held that Linda was estopped from contesting the will’s due execution, as she had indicated in her pleadings that she had no opposition to its approval. Linda appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA applied the rule on substantial compliance under Article 809 of the Civil Code, overlooking formal defects in the attestation clause, such as having only two witnesses and failing to state the number of pages.
ISSUE
Whether the foreign will of Aida A. Bambao should be allowed probate in the Philippines.
RULING
No, the will should not have been allowed probate. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and RTC decisions and remanded the case to the RTC for compliance with the rules on proving foreign law. For a will executed by a foreigner abroad to be probated in the Philippines, the petitioner must prove either: (1) that the will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where it was made, or (2) that it was executed in conformity with Philippine law. Here, Cosme failed to allege and prove the pertinent Californian law governing the execution of wills. The Court emphasized that foreign laws are not subject to judicial notice and must be alleged and proved as facts under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Furthermore, the will did not comply with the mandatory formalities of Philippine law. Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, a will must be subscribed at the end by the testator and three witnesses, and each page must be signed by the testator and the witnesses. The attestation clause must also state the number of pages used. Aida’s will was defective for having only two witnesses, lacking an acknowledgment before a notary public, and containing an insufficient attestation clause. The rule on substantial compliance under Article 809 cannot be applied because the core formalities under Article 805 were not met. The defects are fatal, as the formal requirements are safeguards against fraud and ensure the authenticity of the will.