ROBERTS V.

LEONIDAS

Short summary: Intestate proceedings already commenced and was about to be closed (there already
been a project of partition) when testate proceedings initiated. The decedent left 2 wills which the
petitioners for the intestate proceedings knew. Court held that probate proceedings are proper and
intestate proceedings should be consolidated with the testate proceedings.

Facts:

-Edward Grimm died in Makati Med

-Heirs

1st marriage (ended in divorce) children:

Juanita Grimm Morris

Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden)

2nd marriage

2nd wife MAXINE

Son Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete)

Daughter Linda Grimm

-he left 2 wills: 1 for his properties in RP (conjugal property w/ 2nd wife), the other for his estate outside
RP wherein the daughters in the 1st marriage were intentionally not given anything

-43 days after decedent's death, ETHEL filed Intestate proceedings, was named special administrator

>>>Maxine (2nd wife/stepmom) filed OPPOSITION + MTD:

there's Utah proceedings for the probate of will

Prayed that she be appointed special administratrix

>>>w/drawn by Maxine

INTESTATE COURT: since the parties wanted it, Maxine, Pete and Ethel were all appointed as joint
administrators (Intestate court already knew there was a will but did not do anything about it)

-Administrators submitted an inventory

-Palawan Pearl Project (business owned by deceased) sold to Makiling Management Co (owned by Ethel
and husband and lawyer), acquiesced by Linda (daughter in 2nd marriage) and Juanita (other daughter
in 1st marriage)

-PROJECT PARTITION APPROVED BY INTESTATE COURT

-Ethel filed MOTION for accounting so that Estate properties can be partitioned among heirs and
intestate estate be closed.

TESTATE COURT: filed 2 years after intestate proceedings

-sought to set aside the 1979 partition approved by intestate court

-Ethel filed MTD - denied for lack of merit

WON THE TESTATE COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR PROBATE? NO

-A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass
either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75,
Rules of Court).

-The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate
should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with
the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the
two cases.

-so dismissed Ethel's petition for certiorari