Miciano vs. Brimo – GR No.

22595 (November 1, 1924)

Facts:
The judicial administrator of the estate of deceased Joseph Brimo filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of
the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, however, approved it. Andre Brimo opposed the denial of his
participation in the inheritance based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of
Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they
are void as being in violation or article 10 of the Civil Code which, among other things, provides the following:
Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the amount of
the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may
be situated.
Issues:
WON testamentary dispositions are in accordance with the Turkish laws
Held:
Andre Brimo did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws,
inasmuch as he did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of
evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines, under the Doctrine of
Processual Presumption.
It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are. He, himself, acknowledges it when he desires
to be given an opportunity to present evidence on this point; so much so that he assigns as an error of the court in not
having deferred the approval of the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimony requested regarding the
Turkish laws on the matter.

Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon – GR No. 139868 (June 8, 2006)

Facts:
Sps. Audrey and Richard Guersey are American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They
adopted Kyle Guersey Hill.
Audrey died leaving a will, bequeathing all her estate to Richard. Richard was also appointed as the executor, but
due to his renunciation of such appointment, one Phillips was named to be the executor. Petitioner Ancheta of the of
the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices was also named as ancillary administrator. The will was
admitted to probate before the Court of Maryland, USA.
In 1981, Richard married respondent Candelaria GuerseyDalaygon. They have 2 children, Kimberly and Kevin.
In 1982, Audrey’s will was also admitted to probate by the CFI of Rizal. Ancheta filed an inventory and appraisal of
the subject properties.
n 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, bequeathing his entire estate to respondent. The will was also admitted to
probate before the Court of Maryland, USA. Phillips was named as the executor, who in turn designated Quasha or
any member of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary administrator.
Petitioner filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey. It was granted and Kyle was given ¼ of the
properties of Audrey, leaving the ¾ to Richard.
Meanwhile, Quasha, the ancillary administrator of Richard’s estate also filed a project of partition wherein 2/5 of
Richard’s 3/4 undivided interest of the Makati property was allocated to respondent, while the 3/5 of which were
given to the three (3) children of Richard.
Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the
entire interest of the testator in the property subject of the legacy." Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent,
then his entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property should be given to respondent.
Issue:
WON the law of the State of Maryland governs. – YES.
Held:
It is undisputed that Audrey Guersey was an American citizen domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A. During the reprobate
of her will, it was shown, among others, that at the time of Audrey’s death, she was residing in the Philippines but is
domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A.; her Last Will and Testament was executed and probated before the Orphan’s Court
in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A., which was duly authenticated and certified by the Register of Wills of Baltimore
City and attested by the Chief Judge of said court; the will was admitted by the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore City on
September 7, 1979; and the will was authenticated by the Secretary of State of Maryland and the Vice Consul of the
Philippine Embassy.
Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey’s will, especially with regard as to who are her heirs, is
governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the Civil Code.
Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that "capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent."
While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey’s estate, was duty-bound to introduce in
evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland.