PCIB V. ESCOLIN Short Summary: Mr.

and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges’ estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. (believe me, this is a short summary… case is long…) Facts -Charles & Linnie Hodges, both TEXAN nationals, provided in their respective wills that • bequeath remainder of estate to spouse…during lifetime • remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse -Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR • in Financial Statements submitted before the court, he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is 1/2 of conjugal estate • that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in US • for 5 years before his death, he failed to make accounting, failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's estate -Charles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse's estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate WON Action is prescribed? NO. 33 appeals were timely made -Court did not pass upon its timeliness WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper? YES. Appeal insufficient remedy -many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' HEIRS? YES. 1. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED, BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO ….no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate 2. R90.1 (on RESIDUE): …after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE: 1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled 2. Debts • Funeral expenses • Expenses of administration • Widow allowance • Taxes • Etc. …should be paid already 3. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) Would include distribution of residue of estate -Here: a. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estate b. No special application made by charles/PCIB c. Merely allowed advance or partial payments/implementation of will before final liquidation


If charles already deemed sole heir, why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is indeed the sole heir?

3. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. HODGES PCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus, no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na special proceeding) BUT SC: 1. Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate 2. Order - motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding 3. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights: • In FS, stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney • In Petition for will's probate, he listed the bros and sis as heirs • Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of Charles when latter was still executor of Linney's estate – so may know what Charles' intended • Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney • He even allegedly renounced his share of the estate (but was not proven) • Charles had duty, as Surviving spouse, of trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF 4. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue, can't close SP yet >PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET, PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY, OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER H: NO. both PCIB and Magno should administer a. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate yet b. Admin should both be • impartial • extent of interest c. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles, over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78.6 d. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings - R73.2 SUCCESSION: WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None 1. No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC) • no provision for: i. Predecease of T for designated heir ii. Refusal iii. Incapacity of designated heir to accept inheritance 2. No fideicomissary substitution • no obligation on Charles to preserve the estate 3. There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to resolutory condition of Charles' death • Charles was to enjoy the whole estate • but he can't dispose of property mortis causa (because it's already subject to the will made by his wife, which he agreed in the provision of his will) 4. Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full ownership PRIL: WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES? No answer yet. Remanded Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality If we apply Texas PRIL law: • Personal property: law of domicile • Real property: law of situs (both in RP)

however. and We. cannot be less than one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties. ISSUE: Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable. Charles made executor by Linney. of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix. Escolin If there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir to preserve the property and transmit it to a second heir. on any of these two issues. Here it must be proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law makes the testamentary provisions valid. The institution is not necessarily void. and (2) whether or not it can be held that Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. the Court is not in a position to make a final ruling. that which should be proven is the law enforced during the death of Hodges and not in any other time. there is no fideicomisaria. gets 1/2 o the conjugal property. as explained earlier. The Supreme Court held that the estate of Mrs. At the time of her death. but it is not a fideicomisaria. PCIB can't claim that the estate of Linney is not entitled to at least 1/4 of conjugal property. however domiciled in the Philippines. therefore. taking into account already the legitime of her husband under Article 900 of the Civil Code. have been gratuitously disposed of therefrom. under Article 16 of the Civil Code and applying renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones ultimately applicable. as of now. it is apparent and necessary to know what law should be applied. Court said that Texas law may apply. NOTES: 1. it may be valid as some other disposition.Oklahoma 2. as there's a time difference between this case and that case. albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime. as contended by PCIB. they having argued that it is so. under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges. as matters stand at this stage. PCIB VS. but Charles had no executor .IF Art16 applies. thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS. her husband could not have anyway legally adjudicated or caused to be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal partnership. Under the circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases. the resulting estate of Mrs. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid. In line with Texas law. then 1/2 goes to the estate of the spouse. then Texas law should govern. for even if it were assumed that. being the sole heir. Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since. Hodges. by Hodges in favor of third persons since then. it will appear . such one-fourth share would be her free disposable portion. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir. whether of fact or of law. but this would depend on (1) whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas. that pending such further proceedings. that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno. RULING: It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. was. Hodges inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just stated. as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate. as regards foreign laws: • Should be proved as a fact • R132 on Public documents • SIR: Dapat use an expert witness • Prove in accordance w/RP law PCI Bank vs. she was citizen of Texas but. then Charles gets 1/4 of the whole conjugal property.so administrator dapat 3. ESCOLIN 56 SCRA 266 FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. Texas law provides no legitime So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse. as of the time of her death. but since not proven as… • Courts can't take JN • should show foreign law: o As certified by person holding/having custody of such law o Certificate that such officer does have custody over said law o Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law may contain. minus what. will executed in Texas . reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the court o quo.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.