Cayetano V.
Leonidas: the court has declared that the will has been duly
GR L-54919
May 30, 1984
Art. 16, par. 2: On the exception to Lex Rei Sitae/Lex Situs
Facts:
Petitioner: Polly Cayetano
Respondent: Hon. Tomas Leonidas, in his capacity as the
presiding judge of Branch XXXVIII, CFI of Manila and
Nenita Campos Paguia
On January 31, 1977, Adoracion Campos died leaving
her father Hermogenes Campos (petitioner) and her
sisters Nenita Paguia (private respondent), Remedios
Lopez, and Marieta Medina as the surviving heirs. Being
the compulsory heir, Hermogenes adjudicated himself
the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased.
On November 25, 1977, Nenita filed a petition to admit
the will, executed in the United States, and for her
appointment as administratix of the estate. Nenita
alleged that Adoracion, among other things:
 Was an American citizen, a permanent resident
of 4633 Ditman Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA, died on January 31, 1977,
while temporarily residing with her sister at
2167 Leveriza, Malate, Manila.
 Made a last will and testament, according to the
laws of PA. The will was presented, probated,
allowed and registered at Philadelphia, USA.
Pertinent to the case is that respondent Judge issued an
order allowing the will to be admitted and allowed
probate in the Philippines.
Most Pertinent Issue:
Whether the provisions of the will are valid.
Specifically, whether the ruling that “the right of a
forced heir to his legitime can be divested by a decree
admitting a will to probate in which no provision is
made for the forced heir” is in violation of the Law of
Succession.
Ruling:
The Court has ruled that will is VALID and that the
petitioner cannot claim that his legitime is impaired
by the admission of the will in the Philippines.
In Maninang v. Court of Appeals, the Court has held that
the probate court’s authority is limited only to the
extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof,
the testatrix’s testamentary capacity, and the compliance
with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by the law.
The intrinsic validity of the will normally comes after
authenticated. However, where practical considerations
demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed
upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet
this issue.
In the case at bar, the private respondents have
sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at the time
of her death, an American citizen and a permanent
resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Therefore, the
law which governs Adoracion’s will is the law of
Pennsylvania, USA, which is the national law of the
decedent.
Recall Art. 16 par. (2) of the NCC:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
To be read together with Art. 1039 of the NCC:
Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.
Would admitting a law, which does not provide for
legitimes and that all the estate may be given away to
a stranger, be contrary to public policy and
contradict Philippine Law?
It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of
the provision of the will, the national law of the decedent
must apply. In Bellis v. Bellis, the Court has ruled:
It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good
customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress
has not intended to extend the same to the succession of
foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter
alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s
national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general
ones.
In the Belis case, Amos Belis was a citizen of Texas,
USA, under the state law, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes. Since the intrinsic validity of the will and the
amount of successional rights are to be determined under
Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be
applied to the testacy (i.e., whether the will is valid) of
Amos Belis.
Side note: Probate is the process in which a will is reviewed to
determine whether it is valid or authentic. Reprobation means to
allege that certain deeds or instruments have not been duly and
lawfully executed. However, the use of “reprobate” in the case is
confusing since the word means “to reject” but in the decision the
Court has said:
“In the case at bar, the petitioner maintains that since the respondent
judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Hermogenes
Campos was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law
for him.”

However, it is known that the CFI has recognized the validity of the
will in its decision. Maybe “reprobate” here means to probate again,
as the will was already probated in Philadelphia?