G.R. No. L-4113 June 30, 1952
Testamentaria del finado William R. Giberson. LELA G. DALTON, solicitante-apelante, vs. SPRING GIBERSON, opositor-apelado.

FACTS

Lela G. Dalton filed a petition on February 10, 1949, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking the probate of a document she alleged to be the holographic will of William R. Giberson, executed on April 29, 1920, in San Francisco, California. Giberson was a citizen of Illinois, USA, and a resident of Cebu, who died on August 6, 1943, in the internment camp at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines. Spring Giberson, the legitimate son of William R. Giberson, filed an opposition, alleging the will was apocryphal, did not represent the true will of the deceased, and was not executed in accordance with law. On July 1, 1949, the oppositor filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that under Article 1 of Rule 78, a will executed in a foreign country must first be proved and allowed in that country before it can be probated in the Philippines, and the petition did not allege such prior probate in California. The trial judge granted the motion and dismissed the petition, holding that under the existing rules, only wills previously proved and allowed in the United States or any foreign country could be allowed in the Philippines. The petitioner appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether a will executed in a foreign country must first be probated and allowed in that foreign country before it can be probated in the Philippines, as required by Rule 78, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, thereby repealing the substantive right under Article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appealed order. The Court held that Article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that a will executed outside the Philippines, which can be authenticated and probated according to the laws of the state or country where it was executed, may be authenticated, probated, and recorded in the Philippines, remains a valid substantive law. This article was applied in prior jurisprudence (Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock and Varela vs. Varela Calderon). The power to dispose of property by will is a juridical act that can be done in the Philippines or abroad; if done abroad, it must be in accordance with the laws of that foreign country. Article 635 creates substantive rights for the beneficiaries of a will, ensuring they can probate in the Philippines wills executed abroad if they can be probated in the country of execution. The Court ruled that when it amended the Code of Civil Procedure through the Rules of Court, it amended only procedural aspects, not substantive law, as substantive law cannot be amended by rules of procedure. Article 637 of the Code of Civil Procedure (which corresponds to Rule 78, Section 1) is not in conflict with Article 635 but is its corollary; it provides for the probate of wills already proved and allowed abroad, while Article 635 allows the probate of wills merely capable of being probated abroad. Rule 78, Section 1 does not prohibit the probate in the Philippines of a will executed in a foreign country if it can be probated under that country’s laws, nor does it require prior probate in that foreign country. Therefore, the oppositor’s theory was untenable.