You are on page 1of 2

PCIB V. ESCOLIN d.

If charles already deemed sole heir, why PCIB


needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is
Short Summary: indeed the sole heir?
Mr. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that
upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by 3. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. HODGES
the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and PCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus,
alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na special
property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the proceeding)
estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who
predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. BUT SC:
Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was 1. Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who
no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges’ estate, the brothers and sisters have rights over the estate
of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate 2. Order - motion filed merely for exercise of ownership
that they could inherit. (believe me, this is a short summary… pending proceeding
case is long…) 3. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights:
• In FS, stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate
Facts belonged to Estate of Linney
-Charles & Linnie Hodges, both TEXAN nationals, provided in • In Petition for will's probate, he listed the
their respective wills that bros and sis as heirs
• bequeath remainder of estate to spouse…during • Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of
lifetime Charles when latter was still executor of
• remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving Linney's estate – so may know what Charles'
spouse intended
-Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR • Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney
• in Financial Statements submitted before the court, • He even allegedly renounced his share of
he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges the estate (but was not proven)
is 1/2 of conjugal estate • Charles had duty, as Surviving spouse, of
• that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF
declaration in US
• for 5 years before his death, he failed to make 4. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue,
accounting, failed to acquire final adjudication of can't close SP yet
wife's estate >PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET, PCIB
SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE
-Charles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse's THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY, OVER W/C MAGNO COULD
estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate ADMINISTER H:

WON Action is prescribed? NO. both PCIB and Magno should administer
NO. 33 appeals were timely made a. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate
-Court did not pass upon its timeliness yet
b. Admin should both be
WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper? • impartial
YES. Appeal insufficient remedy • extent of interest
-many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits
c. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles, over Linney's)
WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78.6
HEIRS? d. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in
YES. either spouse's probate proceedings - R73.2

1. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. SUCCESSION: WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None
HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED, BASED ON 1. No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC)
THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY • no provision for:
ADJUDICATING MR. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO i. Predecease of T for designated heir
….no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate ii. Refusal
iii. Incapacity of designated heir to
2. R90.1 (on RESIDUE): accept inheritance
…after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed 2. No fideicomissary substitution
ready for FINAL CLOSURE:
• no obligation on Charles to preserve the
1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate
estate
among those entitled
3. There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to
2. Debts
resolutory condition of Charles' death
• Funeral expenses
• Charles was to enjoy the whole estate
• Expenses of administration
• Widow allowance • but he can't dispose of property mortis
• Taxes causa (because it's already subject to the
• Etc. will made by his wife, which he agreed in
…should be paid already the provision of his will)
4. Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full
3. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) ownership
Would include distribution of residue of estate
-Here: PRIL: WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES?
a. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estate No answer yet. Remanded
b. No special application made by charles/PCIB
c. Merely allowed advance or partial Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality
payments/implementation of will before final
liquidation If we apply Texas PRIL law:
• Personal property: law of domicile
stated, but this would depend on (1) whether upon the proper
• Real property: law of situs (both in RP)
application of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of
the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will appear
IF Art16 applies, then Texas law should govern; Texas law that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and (2)
provides no legitime whether or not it can be held that Hodges had legally and
effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under the
So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse, circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the
being the sole heir, record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a position
gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estate to make a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of
of the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to the these two issues, and We, therefore, reserve said issues for
surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4 further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the
of the whole conjugal property. court o quo, as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate, however,
that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at
Court said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven this stage, Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil
as… that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, her
• Courts can't take JN husband could not have anyway legally adjudicated or caused
• should show foreign law: to be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal
o As certified by person holding/having partnership, albeit he could have disposed any part thereof
custody of such law during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, of
o Certificate that such officer does have which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be less
custody over said law than one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of
the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, have
o Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favor
may contain, as there's a time difference of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that,
between this case and that case, thus the as contended by PCIB, under Article 16 of the Civil Code and
Texas law might have changed in between applying renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones
the rulings ultimately applicable, such one-fourth share would be her free
disposable portion, taking into account already the legitime of
BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS, PCIB can't claim that the estate of her husband under Article 900 of the Civil Code.
Linney is not entitled to at least 1/4 of conjugal property, they
having argued that it is so.

NOTES:
1. will executed in Texas - Oklahoma
2. Charles made executor by Linney, but Charles had no
executor - so administrator dapat
3. 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. Escolin

If there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir to


preserve the property and transmit it to a second heir, there
is no fideicomisaria. The institution is not necessarily void; it
may be valid as some other disposition, but it is not a
fideicomisaria.

PCIB VS. ESCOLIN


56 SCRA 266

FACTS:
Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to
her husband. At the time of her death, she was citizen of
Texas but, was, however domiciled in the Philippines. To see
whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparent
and necessary to know what law should be applied.

ISSUE:
Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable.

RULING:
It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it must
be proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law
makes the testamentary provisions valid. In line with Texas
law, that which should be proven is the law enforced during
the death of Hodges and not in any other time.

The Supreme Court held that the estate of Mrs. Hodges


inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just