ANCHETA v. GUERSEY-DALAYGON in the distribution of Audrey’s estate.
Petitioner denied, contending that (1) he acted in
GR. 139868 | June 8, 2006
Certiorari
PETITIONER: Alonzo Q. Ancheta
RESPONDENT: Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon
TOPIC: Succession, Decree of Distribution, Extrinsic Fraud
RELEVANT LAWS/PROVISIONS:
Article 16 of NCC - Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of
the country where it is stipulated.
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. (10a)
Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129
FACTS:
Spouses Audrey and Richard were American citizens who resided in the Philippines
for 30 years and have an adopted daughter, Kyle. When Audrey died on July 19,
1979, she left her entire estate to Richard, as stated in her Last Will and Testament
executed, authenticated, and registered in Baltimore, Maryland on August 18, 1972.
Richard married Respondent Candelaria in 1981 and had two kids.
In Special Proceeding (SP) No. 9625 on October 12, 1982, an inventory and
appraisal of Audrey’s estate had been filed by ancillary administrator, Petitioner Atty.
Ancheta. Such include (1) Conjugal share in real estate/Makati property, (2)
P12,417.97 from Citibank current account, and (3) 64,444 shares of stock in A/G
Interiors, Inc.
When Richard died in July 20, 1984, he left a will bequeathing his entire estate to
Respondent, except the the A/G shares which was left to Kyle. In same SP 9625,
Petitioner filed (1) a motion to declare both Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey, and
(2) a project of partition of Audrey’s estate, leaving ¾ undivided interest in Makati
property, 48.333 A/G shares, and P9313.48 cash from Citibank account to Richard,
and ¼ undivided interest in Makati property, 16.111 A/G shares, and P3,104.49 cash
from Citibank account to Kyle. Motion and project of partition granted by trial
court in February 12, 1988. Court released an order in April 7, 1988 ordering the
cancellation of TCT. No. 69792 in the name of Richard, issuing a new title in the joint
names of Richard and Kyle, and following the granted project of partition.
In SP M-888, ancillary administrator filed a project of partition dividing Richard’s ¾
undivided interest in Makati property, 2/5 of which to Respondent, 3/5 to Richard’s
three children. Respondent opposed, citing the law of the State of Maryland that “a
legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject
of the legacy”. Trial court disapproved the project of partition, adjudicating the
entire ¾ undivided interest of Makati property to Respondent.
On October 20, 1993, Respondent field a complaint for annulment of RTC orders
granted in SP 9625 on the ground that Petitioner breached his fiduciary duty as
ancillary administrator when he disregarded the pertinent law of the State of Maryland
good faith when he filed the motion and project of partition because he has no
knowledge of the said law and had the best interest of the children when he did the
same, and (2) that RTC orders sought are final and executory. CA annulled RTC
orders in SP 9625 in favor of Richard Guersey and Respondent. Petition for
review on certiorari has been taken.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not (WON) CA erred in not holding that RTC orders from SP 9625 are
valid and binding, and cannot be annulled.
(2) WON CA erred in not holding that Petitioner Atty. Ancheta did not commit fraud.
HOLDING:
(1) No, CA did not err in not holding that RTC orders from SP 9625 are valid and
binding, and cannot be annulled.
(2) No, CA did not err in not holding that Petitioner Atty. Ancheta did not commit
fraud.
RULING:
While it is true that once a Decree of Distribution becomes final, its binding effect is
like any other judgment in rem, a final decree may be set aside or annulled for
exceptional cases with valid reasons, like fraud as in the case at bar. BP 129 applies
in evaluating the petition for annulment since it was filed on October 20, 1993 prior to
the issuance of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. BP 129 (Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1980) provides that an annulment of judgment may be based on the
ground that judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. Petitioner’s failure to
follow the terms of Audrey’s will, despite declaration of good faith, amounted to
extrinsic fraud. His failure to introduce in evidence the relevant law of the State of
Maryland resulted to RTC orders that eventually prejudiced Respondent by depriving
her of full successional right to the Makati property. Petitioner’s lack of knowledge
cannot stand because as ancillary administrator and senior partner in a prestigious
law firm, he is duty-bound to exercise his functions with reasonable diligence, and
that he has the necessary legal resources to research pertinent laws.
Article 16 of NCC states that “intestate and testamentary succession 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.” It was shown in SP 9625 that
Audrey and Richard were American citizens, and that Audrey’s will was executed,
authenticated, and registered in Baltimore, Maryland. As a foreign national, Audrey’s
will is therefore governed by her national law, pursuant to said Art. 16 of NCC.
JUDGMENT: CA affirmed. Audrey’s and Richard’s estate shall be distributed
according to their respective wills, and not according to Petitioner’s project of
partition.
Petitioner Atty. Ancheta admonished.
Notes:
The law of the State of Maryland which allows “a legacy to pass to the legatee the
entire estate of the testator in the property which is the subject of the legacy,”