You are on page 1of 4

Case number 8

Topic: Law Governing Content

G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984

POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner,


vs.
HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII,
Court of First Instance of Manila and NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA, respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J./FIRST DIVISION


Doctrine: The order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration. It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good
customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals.
Nature: A petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul the order of the respondent judge of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXXVIII, which admitted to and allowed the probate
of the last will and testament of Adoracion C. Campos, after an ex-parte presentation of evidence
by herein private respondent.
FACTS:
Decedent: Adoracion Campos (Died Jan 31, 1977)
Surviving heirs:
Father: Hermogenes - only compulsory heir
Sisters: Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez and Marieta Medina
*Original party to this action was Hermogenes Campos, but he died. Petitioner Cayetano is the
executrix of his will.

As Hermogenes Campos was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit of


Adjudication under Rule 74, Section I of the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated
unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion
Campos.

Eleven months after, on November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for the
reprobate of a will of the deceased, Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly executed
in the United States(Pennsylvania) and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate
of the deceased testatrix.
In her petition, Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the time
of her death and was a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Nenita alleged that during Adoracions lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and
testament on July 10, 1975, according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.,
nominating Wilfredo Barzaga of New Jersey as executor; that after the testatrix death,
her last will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with
the Registry of Wins at the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A., that Clement L.
McLaughlin, the administrator who was appointed after Dr. Barzaga had declined and
waived his appointment as executor in favor of the former, is also a resident of
Philadelphia, U.S.A., and that therefore, there is an urgent need for the appointment of an
administratrix to administer and eventually distribute the properties of the estate located
in the Philippines.
An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by Hermogenes, stating that :
- The will in question is a forgery;
- The intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void;
- That even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked, the same
could not apply inasmuch as they would work injustice and injury to him as a
compulsory heir under Philippine laws.
*Peculiar fact: however, the petitioner through his counsel, Atty. Franco Loyola, filed a
Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With Waiver of Rights or Interests) stating that he "has
been able to verify the veracity thereof (of the will) and now confirms the same to be truly
the probated will of his daughter Adoracion." Hence, an ex-partepresentation of evidence
for the reprobate of the questioned will was made.
TC allowed the reprobate.
Hermogenes filed a petition for relief, on the ground that the withdrawal of his opposition
was secured through fraud.
TC dismissed said petition for lack of evidence to support the said claim.
Hence this petition for certiorari. (SC found that there is no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of Judge Leonidas)
Contentions of the petitioner:
- The respondent judge divested the petitioner of his right to his legitime in allowing
the reprobate of the Pennsylvania Will, disregarding the Philippine law on
succession.

ISSUE/S:
-

Whether the reprobate was proper? YES


What law should govern the succession of Adoracion Campos? Pennsylvania

RATIO/HELD:
Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent
judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently
established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent
resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Therefore, under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the
Civil Code which respectively provide:
Art. 16 par. (2).
xxx xxx xxx
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order
of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity
of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
Art. 1039.
Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
The law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the
national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not
provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete
stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the
sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine
Law.
It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for
by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply. This was
squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358) wherein we ruled:
It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to
leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national law.
Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
xxx xxx xxx
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, U.S.A., and under the law of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount
of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine Law
on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby dismissed for lack of merit.

You might also like