ROBERTS vs LEONIDAS

129 SCRA 754

FACTS: Edward M. Grimm, an American resident in Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his second wife
(Maxine Tate Grimm and their two children Edward (Pete) and Linda, and by his two children by his first
marriage Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm which ended by divorce.

Edward Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959. One will disposed of
his Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife. The second will disposed of
his estate outside the Philippines. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Maxine on
March 1978. Maxine admitted that she received notice of intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January
1978. The Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil to probate on April 1978 and was issued upon
consideration of the stipulation between the attorneys for Maxine and Ethel.

Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into
a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.

As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel. On March 1978, Maxine
filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah
probate proceedings. She submitted to the court a copy of Grimm’s will. However, pursuant to the compromise
agreement, Maxine withdrew the opposition and the motion to dismiss. The court ignored the will found in the
record. The estate was partitioned.

In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills which was already probated in
Utah, that the partition approved by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked,
that Maxine be appointed executrix and Ethel be ordered to account for the properties received by them and
return the same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were defrauded due to the machinations of Ethel, that the
compromise agreement was illegal and the intestate proceeding was void because Grimm died testate so
partition was contrary to the decedent’s will.

Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by judge Leonidas for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.

RULING: No. The respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.

A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two will 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.