University of the Philippines College of Law

[PERSONS] I-B; JAT Manotok

Case Name Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it
is stipulated.

Topic 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)
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 139868 June 8, 2006
 Petitioner requests for appeal on a ruling which annuls the partition of a will that was already
granted and approved. Respondent alleges that petitioner acted fraudulently and the
Case Summary
aforementioned partition goes against the law of the foreign national and is therefore not
truly following the will of the decedent.
 The Supreme Court rules in favor of Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon, the respondent. The Court
Decision of Appeal’s annulment of the Trial Court’s orders dated Feb 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988 is
upheld.
Doctrine 

RELEVANT FACTS
o July 29, 1979: Audrey O’Neill, wife of W. Richard Guersey, passed away leaving everything in her will to
her husband and nothing to their adopted child Kyle.
 Court names James N. Phillips as executor and Alonzo Q. Ancheta as ancillary administrator
since Richard renounces his appointment as the executor of Audrey’s will.
o 1981: Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon and has two children with her, Kimberly and Kevin.
o October 12, 1982: Inventory and appraisal of Audrey’s estate filed the following properties: (1) real
estate in Forbes Park, Makati, (2) current account in Audrey’s name, and (3) shares of stock in A/G
Interiors, Inc.
o July 20, 1984: Richard dies leaving his entire estate to respondent, save for the shares in A/G interiors
which he left to Kyle. He also assigns the same people executing Audrey’s will to execute his will.
o October 19, 1987: Petitioner filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey.
o October 23, 1987: Petitioner further filed for the partition of Audrey’s estate: ¾ to Richard and ¼ to
Kyle.
o February 12, 1988: Motion was granted and approved.
o April 7, 1988: Aforementioned motion was carried out.
 Ancillary Administrator filed for a project of partition wherein 2/5 of Richard’s ¾ was allocated
to respondent while 3/5 were allocated to Richard’s three children.
o December 6, 1991: Trial court disapproved the proposed second partition.
o October 20, 1993: Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals to annul the trial court’s orders dated Feb
12, 1988 and April 7, 1988 on the ground that petitioner “willfully breached his fiduciary duty when he
disregarded the laws of the State of Maryland on the distribution of Audrey’s estate”.
 Petitioner denied respondent’s allegations, justifying that he acted in good faith and believed
that it was in the "best interests of the surviving children that Philippine law be applied as they
would receive their just shares.” Petitioner further claimed that the order cannot be annulled
since it is already final and executory.
o March 18, 1999: CA annulled the orders dated Feb 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
[PERSONS] I-B; JAT Manotok
o August 27, 1999: Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied.

Issue
W/N The petitioner  YES, THE PETITIONER COMMITED FRAUD IN HIS DUTY AS AN ANCILLARY
committed fraud in his
duty as an ancillary
administrator over
Audrey’s will and
Richard’s will
W/N The will of the  NO, THE WILL OF THE DECEDENTS WERE NOT FOLLOWED
decedents were
followed
RATIO DECIDENDI
Ratio
ADMINISTRATOR OVER AUDREY’S WILL AND RICHARD’S WILL
o Extrinsic fraud occurs when the fraudulent party prevents the defeated party
from fully presenting his side of the case through means of fraud or deception.
Being a foreign national, Audrey’s national laws are what should be followed
as stated in Article 16.1 Therefore, the petitioner’s failure to follow Audrey’s
will and the applicable law amounts to extrinsic fraud.2 The petitioner, as
ancillary administrator was duty-bound to state and follow the relevant law
of the State of Maryland.
o It was noted that the distribution made by petitioner was in part caused by
petitioner’s belief that Kyle should equally benefit from her parent’s will. The
court then stated that under normal circumstances, such duty would not be
considered extrinsic fraud; however due to the fiduciary nature of petitioner’s
role as well as the deceased’s will, this act was tantamount to extrinsic fraud.
o The project of partition proposed by the petitioner, splitting Audrey’s estate
with ¼ going to Kyle and ¾ going to Richard, does not follow Audrey’s will
entrusting her full estate to Richard.

RULING
The Decision dated March 18, 1999 and the Resolution dated August 27, 1999 of the Court of Appeals are
AFFIRMED.
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an official of the court.
No pronouncement as to costs.

SEPARATE OPINION/S

NOTES
1
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, 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. (Emphasis supplied)
2
The law of the state of Maryland (The domicile of Audrey) states that “a legacy passes to the legatee the entire
interest of the testator in the property subject to the legacy”.