In re: Riosa, G.R. No. 14074, Nov.

7, 1918

Facts:
On Jan. 1908 Jose Riosa executed a will in which he disposed his
estate worth P35,000 that is in conformity with sec. 618 of Civil
Procedure. Said provision was amended and additional formalities for
the signing and attestation of wills were added pursuant to Act. No. 2645
that took effect after the making of the will and before the death of the
testator. Thus, the will was in writing, signed, attested and subscribed by
3 credible witnesses in the presence of the testator, but was not signed
by the testator and the witnesses on the left margin of each and every
page, nor did the attestation state these facts. Riosa died without having
left a will which conformed to the new law.

Issue:
Whether in the Phil. Islands the law existing on the date of the
execution of a will, or the law existing at the death of the testator
controls.

Ruling:
Court ruled on the date of the execution of the will. The will of
Riosa is valid. The validity of the execution of a will must be tested by
the statutes in force at the time of its execution and statutes
subsequently enacted have no retrospective effect. All statutes are to be
construed as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose
and intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective effect is
expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the language used. In
every doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the retrospective effect.
The language of Act no. 2645 gives no indication of retrospective effect.
Such, likewise, has been the uniform tendency of the SC on cases
having special application to testamentary succession.
Roxas De Jesus v De Jesus Jr., G.R. No. L-38338, Jan. 28, 1985

Facts:
After the death of spouses Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas
de Jesus, the petitioner Simeon R. Roxas, the brother of the deceased
Bibiana filed a special proceeding entitled “In the matter of the intestate
estate of Andres G. de Jesus and Bibiana Roxas de Jesus”. On March
26, 1973, Simeon Roxas was appointed administrator. He delivered to
the lower court the holographic will of Bibiana and testified that he found
the notebook of Bibiana a letter win addressed to her children and
entirely written and signed in her writing. The will is dated “FEB/61” and
states “This is my win which I want to be respected although it is not
written by a lawyer.” However, respondent Luz Henzon opposed to
probate that the holographic will is void for non-compliance with art. 810
of the Civil Code.

Issue:
W/N the date “FEB./61” appearing on the holographic will of the
deceased Bibiana Roxas de Jesus is a valid compliance with Art 810 of
the Civil Code.

Ruling:
Yes. Court departs from a strict and literal application of the
statutory requirements regarding due execution of wills. We should not
overlook the liberal trend of the civil code in the manner of execution of
wills, the purpose of which is case of doubt is to prevent intestacy. We
found no evidence of bad faith and fraud in its execution nor was there
any substitution of wins and testaments. There is no question that the
holographic will of the deceased Bibiana Rixas de Jesus was entirely
written, dated, and signed by the testratix herself and in a language
known to her. There is also no question as to its genuineness and due
execution. Therefore, probate of the holographic will whould be allowed
under the principle of substantial compliance. Instant petition is granted.
Aznar v Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 31, 1963

Facts:
Edward Christensen A Californian National came to the Philippines
where he became a domiciliary, had a Filipina lived-in partner with 2
children Helen and Lucy, but only Lucy was acknowledged. Helen
brought an action against his father for compulsory acknowledgement as
natural child. Edward Christensen executed a will. He left most of his
properties to Lucy while Helen only with a legacy. Helen claims that
under art. 16 par 2 of civil code, California law should be applied that
under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of domicile.
On the other hand, counsel for Maria contends that national law of the
deceased must apply and illegitimate children not being entitled to
anything under California law.

Issue:
What law on succession should apply, the Phil. Law or California
law?

Ruling:
The court ruled that Phil. Law should apply.
Art. 16 of the Civil Code. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights 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 where said property may be found.
Renvoi doctrine was applied in the case. “When a problem arisen
another jurisdiction and it is tossed to another jurisdiction, then the issue
will no longer be tossed back” Hence, Helen gets her legitime as a
natural child.
Bellis v Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

Facts:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of US. With
his first wife whom he divorced he had 5 legitimate children, 3 legitimate
children with his second wife who survived him and finally, three
illegitimate children. Prior to his death, he executed 2 wills, apportioning
the remainder of his estate and properties to his 7 surviving children.
Appellants filed oppositions to the project of partition claiming that they
have been deprived of their legitimes to which they were entitled
according to Phil. Law.

Issue:
W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the
intrinsic validity of the will.

Ruling:
Texas law. Doctrine of Processual Presumption. The foreign law,
whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent theoreof,
otherwise such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law
of the forum.
Art. 1039. Civil code. Capacity to succed is govered by the law of
the nation of the decedent.
The parties admit that the decedent Amos G. Bellis was a citizen
of Texas USA and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced
heirs or legitime. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision
of the will and the amounts of successional rights are to be determined
under Texas law, the Phil law on legitime cannot be applied to testacy of
Amos G. Bellis.
Gaspi v Pacis-Trinidad, G.R. No. 229010, Nov. 23, 2020

Facts:
Luz Gaspe Lipson, an American citizen temporarily residing in Iriga
City executed her last will and testament and designated Roel P. Gaspi
as executor. Due to lymphoma, Lipson passed away at 70 years old.
Gaspi filed a petition for the probate of Lipson’s will and the issuance of
letters testamentary without bond in his behalf. The court dismissed the
petition for probate for lack of jurisdiction, pointed out that Lipson’s
national law must govern and her will must be probated in the USA, and
not in the Philippines.

Issue:
W/N the Trial Court has the competence to take cognizance of an
alien’s will executed in the Philippines, even if it had not yet been
probated before the alien decedent’s national court.

Ruling:
Yes. Generally, the extrinsic validity of the will, which is the
preliminary issue in probate of wills is governed by the law of the country
where thee will was executed and presented for probate. The court
where a will is presented for probate should, by default apply only the
law of the forum, as we do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Even if
we assume that the foreign law applies, it does not necessarily mean
that the Philippine court loses jurisdiction. Foreign law, when relevant
must still be proven as a fact by evidence. Court, therefore, retain
jurisdiction over the subject matter (probate) and the res, which is the
real property in Iriga in this case.
Further, Art. 817 NCC does not exclude the participation of
Philippine courts in the probate of an alien’s will, especially when the will
passes real property in the Philippines. It provides an option to the heirs
or the executor to use Philippine law, or plead and prove foreign law.
Thus, it does not remove jurisdiction from the Philippine court.
Dizon-Rivera v Dizon, G.R. No. L-24561, June 30, 1970

Facts:
Agripina Valdez (widow) died and was survived by seven
compulsory heirs. Six legitimate children and one legitimate
granddaughter. Marina is the appellee while the others were the
appellants. In Feb. 1960, Valdez executed a will written in Pampango.
The 7 compulsory heirs and the 6 grandchildren were the beneficiaries.
In her will, Valdez distributed and disposed of her properties assessed
P1.8M which included real and personal properties and shares of stocks
at Pampanga sugar central dev’t co. During the probate proceedings, the
appellee Marina was name the executor of the deceased estate. Valdez
commanded that her property be divided in accordance with her
testamentary disposition where she devised and bequeathed specific
real properties comprising almost her entire estate among her heirs.
Subsequently, Marina filed her project of partition which the other heirs
opposed and proposed a counter-partition on the estate where Marina
nad Tomas were to receive considerably less.

Issue:
W/N the last will of the deceased is to be considered controlling in
this case.

Ruling:
Yes. Art. 788 and 791 NCC provides that if a testamentary
disposition admits of different interpretations, in case of doubt, that
interpretation by which the disposition is to be operative shall be
preferred. The SC held that the intentions and wishes of the testator,
when clearly expressed in his will, constitute the fixed law of
interpretation, and all questions raised at the trial, relative to its
execution and fulfillment, must be settled in accordance therewith,
following the plain and literal meaning of the testator’s words, unless it
clearly appears that his intention was otherwise.