Miciano vs. Brimo
Accordingly, since
50 Phil. 867
Facts:
A will of a Turkish testator (Joseph Brimo) provided that his
Philippine estate is disposed of in accordance with the Philippine
Law. The testator further provided that whoever fails to comply
with his request (that his estate be distributed in accordance with
Philippine Law) would forfeit his inheritance.
The Appellant (Andre Brimo), one of the brothers of the deceased,
opposed the Appellee (Juan Miciano) partition scheme of the
estate which denies his participation in the inheritance.
Issue:
WON the Turkish Law or Philippine Law will be the basis on the
distribution of Joseph Brimo’s estates. Will Andre Brimo forfeit his
inheritance?
Ruling:
Article 10 of the Civil Code provides that “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.
Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said
that “it be made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in
force in the Philippine Island”, this condition, described as
impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and
shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever,
even should the testator otherwise provide. Impossible conditions
are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals. Thus,
the national law of the testator shall govern in his testamentary
dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the
judicial administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo,
as one of the legatees.
Bellis vs. Bellis
G.R. No. L-23678
Facts:
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas and
of the US. He had 5 legitimate children with his wife, Mary Mallen,
whom he had divorced, 3 legitimate children with his 2 nd wife,
Violet Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate children.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in
which his distributable estate should be divided in trust in the
following manner: a) $ 240,000 to his 1st wife Mary Mallen; b)
P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000 each; and c) the
remainder shall go to his surviving children by his 1 st and 2nd wives,
in equal shares.
Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas,
USA. His will was admitted to probate in the Philippines. The
People’s Bank and Trust Company, an executor of the will, paid
the entire bequest therein.
Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted
and filed its “Executor’s Final Account, Report of Administration
and Project of Partition where it reported, inter alia, the
satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the shares of stock
amounting to $240,000 delivered to her and the legacies of the 3
illegitimate children in the amount of P40,000 each or a total of
P120,000. In the project partition, the executor divided the
residuary estate into 7 equal portions for the benefit of the
testator’s 7 legitimate children by his 1st and 2nd marriages.
Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and Miriam
Palma Bellis filed their respective opposition to the project
partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes
as illegitimate children.
The lower court denied their respective motions for
reconsideration.
Issue:
Which law will apply in executing the deceased’s will? Philippine
law or Texas law?
Ruling:
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen
of the State of Texas, USA and that there are no forced heirs or
legitimes under the laws of the state of Texas.
the intrinsic validity of the provisions 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 of
Amos G. Bellis.
Ratio: Article 16, par. 2 and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render
applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or
testamentary successions, with regard to four items: a) the order
of succession; b) the amount of successional rights; c) the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of the will; and d) the capacity to
succeed. 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.
Jimenez v. Fernandez
184 SCRA 190
Facts:
The eastern portion of a land, belonging to the decedent, is the
subject of this case. The decedent, Fermin Hernandez, had 2 sons
in which Fortunator (other child), predeceased the decedent. On
the other hand, Fortunato also had one child, Sulpicia Jimenez,
the petitioner in this case. Upon registration of the land, it was
under the name of Sulpicia and the alive child of the decedent,
Carlos Jimenez, in equal shares. The latter (Carlos), had an
illegitimate child, named Melecia Jimenez. The latter sold the
eastern portion to Cagampan and Grado. Upon the death of
Carlos, Sulpicia executed an Affifavir of Adjudication as the sole
heir of the deceased uncle. She filed a recovery of the eastern
portion occupied by Grado, the person whom Melecia sold that
portion of the Land.
Lower Court: Held that grado is the absolute owner of the land
CA: Affirmed RTC in toto
Ruling:
The lower courts erred in declaring that Sulpicia does not own the
property in question. Melecia, an illegitimate child, is not the
daught of Carlos Jimenez and therefore, had no right in the
property in question. Even assuming that she was proven to be an
illegitimate child, she HAD NO RIGHT TO SUCCEED Carlos Jimenez
and could have not validly acquired nor legally transferred to
buyers that portion of the property.
Art. 795. The validity of the will as to form depends upon the
observance of the law in force at the time it is made.
The right to inheritance of a person who died with or without will,
before the effectivity of the NCC(195), shall be governed by the
Civil Code of 1889. Carlos Jimenez died on 09 July 1936 before the
effectivity of the NCC so it must be in accordance with Civil Code
of 1889. In the former Civil Code, a child must either be a
legitimate, legitimated, or adopted or else an acknowledged
natural child – for an illegitimate not natural is DISQUALIFIED TO
INHERIT. She cannot be considered an acknowledged natural child
because Carlos Jimenez was legally married to Susana Abalos at
that time. She is to be considered an illegitimate spurious child
and not entitled to any successional right in the estate of Carlos,
in the absence of any voluntary conveyance to her by Carlos.
Cayetano vs. Leonidas
129 SCRA 524
Facts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul the
order of the respondent judge of CFI of Manila, which admitted to
and allowed the probate of the last will and testament of
Adoracion C. Campos, after an ex-parte presentation of evidence
by herein private respondent.
Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner
Hermogenes Campos and her sisters, private respondents as the
surviving heirs. As Hermogenes Campos was the only compulsory
heir, he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication under Rule 74, Sec.
1 of the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated unto himself the
ownership of the entire estate of the deceased Adoracion
Campos.
Eleven months after, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for the
reprobate of a will of the deceased, Adoracion Campos, which
was allegedly executed in the US and for her appointment as
administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix.
Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the
time of her death and that her last will and testament was
presented, probated, allowed and registered in Philadelphia.
An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by petitioner
alleging that the will in question is a forgery; that the intrinsic
provisions of the will are null and void; and that even if pertinent
American laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked, the same could
not apply inasmuch as they would work injustice and injury to
him.
The respondent judge issued an order stating that the last will and
testament of the late Adoracion is admitted to and allowed
probate in the Philippines, and appointed Nenita Campos Paguia
as Administratrix of the estate of the said decedent.
Petitioner died and left a will, appointing Polly Cayetano as the
executrix of his last will and testament. Cayetano, filed a motion
to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was
granted by the court.
Petitioner Cayetano persists with the allegations that the
respondent judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction.
Issue:
WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion
when he allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will
Ruling:
SC held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the respondent judge.
As a general rule, 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 law. The intrinsic validity of
the will normally comes only after the court has declared that the
will has been duly 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
the issue.
to the impairment of his hearing, lost the power of speech and
uncontrolled saliva discharge. Despite the paralysis, Paguio
retained the use of his right hand and was able to write fairly well.
Through the medium of signs Paguio was able to indicate his
wishes to his wife and to the other members of his family.
Issue:
WON paralysis would establish mental incapacity that would
disqualify the testator from executing a valid will
Ruling:
No. Neither age, nor sickness, nor extreme distress, nor debility of
body will affect the capacity to make a will, if sufficient
intelligence remains. The law does not require that a person shall
continue in the full enjoyment and use of his pristine physical and
mental powers in order to execute a valid will. Perfect soundness
of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. Even the failure
of memory is not sufficient to create the incapacity, unless it be
total, or extend to his immediate family or property because if
such were the legal standard, few indeed would be the number of
wills that could meet such exacting requirements. The
presumption of law is in favor of the mental capacity of the
testator and the burden is upon the contestants of the will to
prove the lack of testamentary capacity. On the case at hand, it
does not appear that Paguio’s conduct was irrational in any
particular and he seems to have comprehended clearly what the
nature of the business was in which he was engaged. Therefore,
mental incapacity which renders the will invalid, cannot be
established.
Torres vs. Lopez
G.R. No. L-25966
Facts:
Xxxx
Samson vs. Corrales
44 Phil. 573

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.

This contention is without merit.

Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the

petitioner and thus, the respondent judge should have denied its
reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently
established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an
American citizen and a permanent resident of Pennsylvania, USA3

Therefore, under Art. 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which
respectively provides: Art. 16, par. 2 xxx “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.

Art. 1039.

Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the

decedent.

The law which governs Adoracion Campos’ will is the law of

Pennsylvania, USA, which is the national law of the decedent.

It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the

provisions of the will, as provided for by Art. 16(2) and 1039 of the
Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply.

Bagtas vs. Paguio

G.R. No. L-6801

Facts:
The last will and testament executed by Pioquinto Paguio who
died a year and 5 months from the execution, was propounded by
the executrix, Juliana Bagtas, widow of Paguio. But Paguio’s son
and several grandchildren by a former marriage opposed the
probate asserting that Paguio was not in the full enjoyment and
use of his mental faculties and was without the mental capacity
necessary to execute a valid will. According to them, Paguio
suffered from a paralysis of the left side of the body. This resulted