GASPI v. PACIS-TRINIDAD GR # 229010, NOVEMBER 23, 2020

7/2/22, 10:27 AM G.R. No.
R. No. 229010 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P. GASPI, Pe…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2020novemberdecisions.php?id=1429 1/45
7/2/22, 10:27 AM G.R. No. 229010 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P. GASPI, Pe…
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.

November 2020 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2020 > November 2020
Decisions >
G.R. No. 229010 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO
APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS
TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P. GASPI, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA
CLARISSA L. PACIS-TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36,
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
IRIGA CITY,* Respondent.:
Review
G.R. No. 229010 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE

WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY,
ROEL P. GASPI, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA CLARISSA L.

PACIS-TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA CITY,*
Respondent.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 229010, November 23, 2020
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ

GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY,
ChanRobles CPA Review ROEL P. GASPI, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA CLARISSA
Online
L. PACIS-TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA

CITY,* Respondent.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
The nationality principle is not applied when determining the extrinsic

validity of an alien's last will and testament. When it comes to the probate
of an alien's will, whether executed here or abroad, the alien's national law
may be pleaded and proved before the probate court. Otherwise, Philippine
law will govern by default.
This Court resolves a Petition1 for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, assailing the October 6, 20162 and November 16, 20163
ChanRobles Special Orders of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36, which motu
Lecture Series
proprio dismissed a petition for probate and issuance of letters

testamentary.
On February 23, 2011, Luz Gaspe Lipson (Lipson), an American citizen

temporarily residing in Iriga City, executed her last will and testament and
designated Roel R Gaspi (Gaspi) as executor.4
On October 17, 2015, at 70 years old, Lipson passed away due to
lymphoma.5
On October 3, 2016, Gaspi filed a Petition6 for the probate of Lipson's will
and the issuance of letters testamentary without bond in his behalf.
On October 6, 2016, the Regional Trial Court7motu proprio dismissed the

petition for probate for lack of jurisdiction.
The Regional Trial Court pointed out that Lipson was an American citizen.
Thus, her national law must govern and her will must be probated in the
United States of America, and not in the Philippines.8
The Regional Trial Court continued that it is only when Lipson's will is
probated, according to her national law, that the Philippines may recognize
and execute her will through a petition for recognition of foreign
judgment.9
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Order read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is motu

proprio DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of herein
Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.10 (Emphasis in the original)
Gaspi moved for reconsideration11 of the Regional Trial Court Order, but his
motion was denied on November 16, 2016.12
In denying the motion for reconsideration, the Regional Trial Court stated
that the ruling in Palaganas v. Palaganas13 was not applicable to Gaspi's

petition. It continued that the jurisprudence cited in Palaganas involved the
probate in the Philippines of an alien's will, which was executed abroad,
while Lipson's will was executed in the Philippines.14
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Order reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for

Reconsideration filed by the petitioner is DENIED for lack of
merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.15
In the Petition16 for review on certiorari, petitioner Gaspi contends that

there is no prohibition under Philippine law for the probate of wills executed
by aliens. He adds that under the Civil Code, the will of an alien residing
abroad is also recognized in the Philippines, if it is made in accordance with
the laws of the alien's place of residence or country, or if done in
conformity with Philippine laws.17
Citing the ruling in Palaganas, petitioner pointed out that this Court has
allowed the probate of a will executed by an alien abroad, even though it
has not yet undergone probate in the alien decedent's country of
citizenship or residence. Thus, he stresses that with more reason should an
alien's will executed in the Philippines, in conformity with our law, be
allowed to undergo probate.18
This Court then directed19 respondent to comment on the petition.
In her Comment,20 respondent stresses that the petition for probate was
properly dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.21 She points out petitioner's

admission that the decedent was an American citizen, yet Lipson's will was
executed in accordance with Philippine laws, contrary to the nationality
principle.22 Respondent states:
Logic and reason dictate that this Court a quo cannot establish
the extrinsic validity of a will in a testamentary succession of a
foreigner, which must be based on his national law and
executed in accordance with the formalities of the law of the
country of which he is a citizen or subject. In view thereof,
clearly herein Court a quo cannot take cognizance of the
petition.23 (Emphasis in the original)
Respondent likewise posits that petitioner's reliance on the ruling in

Palaganas was misplaced, as it involved the probate of a will executed by
an alien abroad, while in this case, the will was executed in the Philippines
by an alien 24 She opines that instead of Article 816 of the Civil Code, upon
which Palaganas was based, the applicable provision was Article 817.25
In his Reply,26 petitioner explains that the nationality principle adverted to

by respondent in Article 16 of the Civil Code not only pertains to the
decedent's internal law, but also to conflict of laws.27
Petitioner also states that there was no basis for respondent's statement
that the probate of an alien's will in the Philippines was conditioned on its
prior probate and acceptance in the alien's country of nationality or
residence.28
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the Regional 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.
Generally, a person's death passes ownership over their properties to the

heirs.29 When there is no will, or when there is one—but does not pass
probate, the law provides for the order of succession and the amount of
successional rights for each heir.30 When real properties are involved, law
will also govern the formalities and consequences in the transfer of
properties.
However, prior to death, a person retains control as to how their estate will
be distributed. This is done by executing a written31 document referred to
as a will.32
Wills may be notarial33 or holographic.34 In either case, the formalities

required for their execution is more elaborate than most deeds relating to
other transfers of property.
Death makes it impossible for the decedent to testify as to the authenticity

and due execution of the will, which contains their testamentary desires.
The proof of the formalities substitutes as the legal guarantee to ensure
that the document purporting to be a will is indeed authentic, and that it
was duly executed by the decedent.
A will is then submitted to the Regional Trial Court for probate proceeding
to determine its authenticity, as "no will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
Court."35 Heirs of Las am v. Umengan36 describes the probate proceeding:
To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal,

vested by law with authority for that purpose, that the
instrument offered to be proved is the last will and testament of
the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be,

and that it has been executed, attested and published as
required by law, and that the testator was of sound and
disposing mind. It is a proceeding to establish the validity of the
will." Moreover, the presentation of the will for probate is
mandatory and is a matter of public policy.37 (Citation omitted)
The probate court can then disallow a will under any of the following
circumstances enumerated by the Civil Code:
ARTICLE 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following

cases:
(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied

with;
(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable

of making a will, at the time of its execution;
(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the

influence of fear, or threats;
(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

influence, on the part of the beneficiary or of some other
person;
(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;
(6) If the testator acted by mistake or did not intend that the
instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing
his signature thereto.
The disallowance list is likewise echoed in the Rule 76, Section 9 of the
Rules of Special Proceedings:

SECTION 9. Grounds for disallowing will. — The will shall be

disallowed in any of the following cases:
(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;
(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally

incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;

November-2020 (c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear,

Jurisprudence
or threats;

(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

G.R. No. 239518 - ALEMAR
influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some
A. BANSILAN, PETITIONER, V.
other person for his benefit;
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT. (e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or

trick, and he did not intend that the instrument should
G.R. No. 236301 - PEOPLE be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V.
WARREN IVERO Y MABUTAS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Thus, the extrinsic validity of the will refers to a finding by a trial court that

all the formalities of either a holographic or notarial will have been
A.C. No. 10933 - WILSON sufficiently complied with, leading to the legal conclusion that the will
B. TAN, COMPLAINANT, V. submitted to probate is authentic and duly executed. Dorotheo v. Court of
ATTY. JAMES ROULYN R. Appeals38 elaborates:
ALVARICO, RESPONDENT.
It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generally with

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1535 -
the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated,
OFFICE OF THE COURT
particularly on three aspects:
ADMINISTRATOR,

COMPLAINANT, V. FORMER
•whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent's last will
PRESIDING JUDGE OWEN B.
and testament;
AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL

•compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of
COURT, BRANCH 41, DAET,
wills;
CAMARINES NORTE,
RESPONDENT. •the testamentary capacity of the testator;

• and the due execution of the last will and testament.39
G.R. No. 235573 - (Citations omitted)
REYNALDO VALENCIA Y

VIBAR, PETITIONER, V.


The extrinsic validity of a will, that is, that the document purporting to be a
RESPONDENT.
will is determined to be authentic and duly executed by the decedent, is

different from its intrinsic validity.
A.C. No. 12081 [Formerly

CBD Case No. 14-4225] -

The intrinsic validity of the will "or the manner in which the properties were
ALBERTO LOPEZ,
apportioned,"40 refers to whether the order and allocation of successional
COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY.
rights are in accordance with law. It can also refer to whether an heir has
ROSENDO C. RAMOS,
not been disqualified from inheriting from the decedent.
RESPONDENT.

Generally, the extrinsic validity of the will, which is the preliminary issue in
A.M. No. RTJ-20-2593
probate of wills, is governed by the law of the country where the will was
Formerly: OCA IPI No. 20-
5067-RTJ - PHILIPPINE executed and presented for probate.41 Understandably, the court where a
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION will is presented for probate should, by default, apply only the law of the
CORPORATION, forum, as we do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.42
COMPLAINANT, V. HON.
JESUS B. MUPAS, PRESIDING This is the situation here. A Filipina who was subsequently naturalized as
JUDGE BRANCH 112, an American executed a will in the Philippines to pass real property found in
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, the country. The designated executor now files a petition for probate in the
PASAY CITY, RESPONDENT. Philippines.
G.R. No. 217656 - Respondent motu proprio dismissed the petition for probate, because it
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC purportedly went against the nationality principle embodied in Article 16 of
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, the Civil Code by not adhering to the required probate proceedings of
PETITIONER, V. EDDIE
Lipson's national law.43
MANALO, RODRIGO

MEDIANISTA, CRISTAN A.
Respondent is mistaken.
ACOSTA, TERESITA D.

SANTOS, ARCHEMEDIS
The nationality principle is embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code:
SARMIENTO, JULIET M.

DATUL, OLIVIA O. SALVADOR,

GIRALINE P. BELLEZA, JULIUS ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
N. ORTEGA, LORENZO C. status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
ACOSTA, JOSEPH S. citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
TRIBIANA, ANALAINE S.

TRIBIANA, LORENA B.

MUNAR, JUN JUN A. DAVAO,

The second paragraph of Article 16 of the Civil Code then provides that the
WILLIAM A. MANALO, PAZ I.
national law of aliens shall regulate their personal rights:
VILLAR, PERCY M. CARAG,

PATRONA R. ROXAS, PABLO P.

RESPICIO, LINA M. ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal property is
VALENZUELA, NEDELYN D. subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
CAJOTE, NOEL L.
HERNANDEZ, NORMA However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with

MARTIN, MA. RODHORA respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
UBANA, LINDA LACARA, successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
NORMAN M. ILAC, MERCY O. provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
RIVERA, JAIME LUMABAS, whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
JULITA PAJARON, CELESTINO nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
PEREZ, CONCHITA V. said property may be found.
NAVALES, REYNALDO V.

NAVALES, EDDIE V. VILLAREY,

VIRGILIO V. ALEJANDRINO,
Under the nationality principle, Philippine laws continue to apply to Filipino
MA. CECILIA P. CALVES,
citizens when it comes to their "family rights and duties... status, condition
EVANGELINE M. MANALO,
and legal capacity" even if they do not reside in the Philippines. In the
CONNIE D. BELZA, SONIA G.
same manner, the Philippines respects the national personal laws of aliens
EVANGELISTA, JEANOR DELA
and defers to them when it comes to succession issues and "the intrinsic
CRUZ, MADELINE
validity of testamentary provisions."
EVANGELISTA, CATHERINE

ANTONIO, JAI D.
However, the probate of a will only involves its extrinsic validity and does
HERNANDEZ, CYNTIA C.
not delve into its intrinsic validity, unless there are exceptional
HERNANDEZ, JULIE H.
circumstances which would require the probate court to touch upon the
DEPIEDRA, JENNIFER H.
intrinsic validity of the will.44
BESMONTE, RICHARD Z.

DIZON, RICHARD H. DIZON,

JR., REYNALDO C. When it comes to the form and solemnities of wills, which are part of its
extrinsic validity, the Civil Code provides that the law of the country of
HERNANDEZ, NOEL C.
execution shall govern:
HERNANDEZ, AUGUSTA H. DE

LEON, VICTORINO U.
HERNANDEZ, MARVIN C. ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and
HERNANDEZ, LETICIA G.
other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
GALOPE, DANIEL P. country in which they are executed.
MABANSAG, EDUARDO J.
MALABRIGA, VANGIE S. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or
NAVARRO, ANSARI P. consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign
DITUCALAN, DIOSA P. country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be
BAUTISTA, HALIL P. observed in their execution.
DITUCALAN, CAIRODEN D.
PUNGINAGINA, CANDIDATO Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and
PUNGINAGINA, RAIKEN P. those which have for their object public order, public policy and
MACARAUB, JALIL MOKSIR, good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
ISIAS MELCHOR, ROMULO judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
NAVALES, RONALDO agreed upon in a foreign country.
GUEVARRA, ANDREA R.

DELOS REYES AND SHIELA R.

DELOS REYES,
Even if we assume that the foreign law applies, it does not necessarily
RESPONDENTS.
mean that the Philippine court loses jurisdiction. Foreign law, when

relevant, must still be proven as a fact by evidence, as Philippine courts do

G.R. No. 245438 -
FRABELLE PROPERTIES not take judicial notice of foreign laws.45
CORP., PETITIONER, V. AC
Courts, therefore, retain jurisdiction over the subject matter (probate) and
ENTERPRISES, INC.,
the res, which is the real property in Iriga in this case.
RESPONDENT.

Moreso, there was no objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the

A.C. No. 12173 - ATTY.
Regional Trial Court. Thus, respondent committed grave abuse of discretion
ANTONIO B. MANZANO,
in motu proprio dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction.

CARLOS P. RIVERA,
RESPONDENT, II
A.C. No. 11241 -
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,
INC., COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. It was error on respondent's part to conclude that Philippine law cannot be
SOCRATES R. RIVERA, applied to determine the extrinsic validity of Lipson's will.
RESPONDENT.

Articles 816 and 817 of the Civil Code provide for the probate of an alien's
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2378 will. Article 816 reads:
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-
3629-RTJ] - IMELDA P. YU, V.

ARTICLE 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
COMPLAINANT, JUDGE
in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the
DECOROSO M. TURLA,
law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
RESPONDENT.
formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those

which this Code prescribes.

G.R. No. 231936 - FIL-
ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.,
PETITIONER, V. HERMANA
REALTY, INC., RESPONDENT. Article 816 covers a situation where the decedent was abroad when the will

was executed. It provides that the will can be submitted for probate here in
A.C. No. 12839 - ROMMEL the Philippines, using either the law where the decedent resides or our own
N. REYES, COMPLAINANT, V. law. Article 816 of the Civil Code clearly made our own law applicable, as
ATTY. GERALD Z. GUBATAN, seen with the phrase "in conformity with those which this Code provides."
RESPONDENT.

On the other hand, Article 817 states:
G.R. No. 235832 -
PHILIPPINE HEALTH
ARTICLE 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
subject of another country, which is executed in accordance with
PETITIONER, V. COMMISSION
the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and
ON AUDIT, MICHAEL G.
which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own
AGUINALDO, CHAIRPERSON,
AND ANGELINA B. country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to
VILLANUEVA, DIRECTOR IV, the laws of the Philippines.
RESPONDENTS.

PET Case No. 005 -

Article 817 provides that a will by an alien executed in the Philippines shall
FERDINAND "BONGBONG" R.
be treated as if it were executed according to Philippine laws, if it was
MARCOS, JR., PROTESTANT,
validly executed and accordingly could have been probated under the laws
V. MARIA LEONOR "LENI
of the alien's country of nationality.
DAANG MATUWID" G.

ROBREDO, PROTESTEE.
Further, Article 817 does not exclude the participation of Philippine courts in

the probate of an alien's will, especially when the will passes real property
A.C. No. 12079 -
in the Philippines. It provides an option to the heirs or the executor: to use
EDUARDO B. MANALANG,
Philippine law, or plead and prove foreign law. Thus, it does not remove
jurisdiction from the Philippine court.
CRISTINA BENOSA BUENDIA,

RESPONDENT.
This option is clear from the clause "which might be proved and allowed by

the law of his own country," which implies that either the alien's national
G.R. No. 185806 -
law or Philippine law applies in the probate proceedings. Additionally, the
GENEROSO G. ABELLANOSA,
clause "shall have the same effect as if executed in accordance with the
CARMENCITA D. PINEDA,
laws of the Philippines" creates a fiction that foreign law if proven will have
BERNADETTE R. LAIGO,
the same effect as Philippine law.
MENELIO D. RUCAT, AND

DORIS A. SIAO,
Clearly, as to the extrinsic validity of an alien's will, Articles 816 and 817 of
PETITIONERS, V.
the Civil Code both allow the application of Philippine law.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND

NATIONAL HOUSING
The power of our courts to probate a will executed by an alien is likewise
AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.
apparent in Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Special Proceedings, which

provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, their will

may be proved in the Regional Trial Court of any province in which they had
G.R. No. 244193 - an estate:
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the
V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his
(COA) AND COA
death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or
CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL G.
letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the
AGUINALDO, RESPONDENTS.
Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the

time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country,

G.R. No. 242696 - PEOPLE
the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
estate. The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of the
estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion
ZALDY BERNARDO Y
of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far
ESPIRITU, MONROY FLORES Y
as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of
CORPUZ, JESUS TIME Y
the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or
CABESA, GILBERT PACPACO Y
proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original
DIRECTO, GILBERT RAMIREZ
case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
Y DUNEGO, DANNY CORTEZ Y
DONIETO, ROGELIO ANTONIO
Y ABUJUELA, TOMMY CABESA
Y VILLEGAS, AND MILA In Palaganas, this Court ruled that the trial court properly allowed the
ANDRES GALAMAY, ACCUSED, probate of an American citizen's will, which had not yet undergone probate
ZALDY BERNARDO Y in the alien decedent's country of nationality:
ESPIRITU, MONROY
FLORESYCORPUZ, DANNY
But our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by
CORTEZ Y DONIETO, AND
foreigners abroad although the same have not as yet been
MILA ANDRES GALAMAY,
probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Article

816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is
G.R. No. 248929 - PEOPLE abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance
OF THE PHILIPPINES, with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country.
PAULINO DELOS SANTOS, JR.
ALIAS "SKYLAB," ACCUSED- In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
APPELLANT. Procedure provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a

foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has an estate
G.R. No. 252914 - may take cognizance of the settlement of such estate. Sections
VIRGILIO S. SUELO, JR., 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, or
PETITIONER, V. MST MARINE legatee named in the will, or any other person interested in the
SERVICES (PHILS.), INC., estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition
THOME SHIP MANAGEMENT the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether
PTE. LTD., AND ERNANDO A. the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
RODIO, RESPONDENTS.

Our rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a
G.R. No. 223763 - will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the
ADORACION L. BASILIO AND jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences of the
LOLITA P. LUCERO, heirs, legatees, and devises of the testator or decedent; (c) the
PETITIONERS, V. PERLA probable value and character of the property of the estate; (d)
CALLO, RESPONDENT. the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if

the will has not been delivered to the court, the name of the
G.R. No. 248941 - 3M person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts refer to the fact
PHILIPPINES, INC., of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death
PETITIONER, V. LAURO D. in the province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an
YUSECO, RESPONDENT. inhabitant of a foreign country, the estate he left in such

province. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has
G.R. No. 229408 - already been allowed and probated in the country of its
CENTRAL REALTY AND execution.46 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
DEVELOPMENT
V. SOLAR RESOURCES, INC.
AND THE REGISTER OF If an alien-decedent duly executes a will in accordance with the forms and
DEEDS OF THE CITY OF solemnities required by Philippine law, barring any other defect as to the
MANILA, RESPONDENTS. extrinsic validity of the will, the courts may take cognizance of the petition

and allow the probate of the will.
G.R. No. 223972 - ALMA
CAMORO PAHKIAT, MAHALITO Wills of foreigners executed in the Philippines may be probated if they have
BUNAYOG LAPINID AND FE estate in the Philippines, because probate of the properties can only be
MANAYAGA LOPEZ, effected under Philippine law. In Johannes v. Harvey,47 this Court held:
PETITIONERS, V. OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN-
MINDANAO AND It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an
estate. When a person dies intestate owning property in the
COMMISSION ON AUDIT -
country of his domicile as well as in a foreign country,
XII, RESPONDENTS.
administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in

the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the

G.R. Nos. 245617 &
principal administration, while any other administration is
245836 - EL DORADO
termed the ancillary administration. The reason for the latter is
CONSULTING REALTY AND
because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore
DEVELOPMENT GROUP CORP.,
have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is
PETITIONER, V. PACIFIC
granted. Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state
UNION INSURANCE
has no authority in the United States. The ancillary
COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

administration is proper, wherever a person dies, leaving in a
country other than that of his last domicile, property to be
A.C. No. 12815 - EDRALYN
administered in the nature of assets of the decedent, liable for
B. BERZOLA, COMPLAINANT,
V. ATTY. MARLON O. his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs....48
BALDOVINO, RESPONDENT. (Citations omitted)
G.R. No. 211073 - EFREN
SANTOS, JR. AND JERAMIL
SALMASAN, PETITIONERS, V. Here, Lipson's will was executed in Iriga City, Philippines, where she had
KING CHEF/MARITES real property. Thus, Philippine law on the formalities of wills applies.
ANG/JOEY DELOS SANTOS, Assuming that Lipson executed the will in accordance with Philippine law,
RESPONDENTS. the Regional Trial Court did not lack jurisdiction over the petition.
G.R. No. 209755 - I- As respondent has yet to rule on the extrinsic validity of the will, it is
REMIT, INC. (FOR ITSELF proper that the petition be remanded to determine due compliance with the
AND ON BEHALF OF JPSA formalities prescribed by law, Lipson's testamentary capacity and voluntary
GLOBAL SERVICES, CO., JTKC execution of the will, and whether it was truly Lipson's last will and
EQUITIES, INC. AND testament.
SUREWELL EQUITIES, INC.),
PETITIONER, V. WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated

COMMISSIONER OF October 6, 2016 and November 6, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga
INTERNAL REVENUE, City, Branch 36 in Spec. Proc. No. IR-2919 are REVERSED and SET
RESPONDENT. ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further

proceedings in accordance with this Decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
G.R. No. 217169 -
OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL SO ORDERED.
MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION & MODH AL- Hernando, Inting, and Rosario., JJ., concur.
ZOABI TECHNICAL PROJECTS Delos Santos, J., on official leave.
CORP., PETITIONERS, V.
ROLANDO B. MESINA,
Endnotes:
RESPONDENT.

* Judge Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-Trinidad was impleaded as

G.R. No. 218277 - THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent on September 27, 2017. See rollo, p. 31.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. XXX,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. 1 Id. at 3-8.
G.R. No. 237330 - ALDRIN 2 Id. at 10-11. The Order docketed as Spec. Proc. No. IR-2919
MADREO, PETITIONER, V.
was penned by Presiding Judge Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-Trinidad
LUCILO R. BAYRON,
of Regional Trial Court Branch No. 36, Iriga City.
RESPONDENT.; G.R. No.

237579, November 3, 2020 -

3 Id. at 12-14. The Order was penned by Presiding Judge Maria
OFFICE OF THE
Clarissa L. Pacis-Trinidad.
OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER,

V. LUCILO R. BAYRON,
4 Id. at 4.
RESPONDENT.

5 Id. at 21.
G.R. No. 216425 -

ANACLETO BALLAHO ALANIS
6 Id. at 18-20.
HI, PETITIONER, V. COURT

OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE
ORO CITY, AND HON. 7 Id. at 10-11.
GREGORIO Y. DE LA PENA III,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 12, 8 Id. at 10.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF

ZAMBOANGA CITY, 9 Id. at 11
RESPONDENTS.

10 Id.
G.R. No. 236572 -

SECURITY BANK
11 Id. at 15-17.
V. SPOUSES JOSE V. MARTEL
12 Id. at 12-14.
AND OLGA S. MARTEL,
RESPONDENTS. 13 655 Phil. 535 (2011) [Per J. Abad, Second Division]
G.R. No. 226409 - RINGO 14Rollo, pp. 12-13.
B. DAYOWAN TRANSPORT

SERVICES OR RINGO B.
15 Id. at 14.
DAYOWAN, PETITIONER, V.

DIONITO D. GUARINO, JR.,

16 Id. at 3-8.
RESPONDENT

17 Id. at 6.

OF THE PHILIPPINES,
18 Id.
ROGELIO NATINDIM, JIMMY
P. MACANA, ROLANDO A. 19 Id. at 25.
LOPEZ, DANNY A. PIANO,
ARNOLD A. ARANETA, 20 Id. at 26-28.
JOHNNY O. LOPEZ,
SATORANE PANGGAYONG, 21 Id. at 26.
NESTOR LABITA, CARLITO

PANGGAYONG, GERRY LOPEZ

22 Id. at 26-27.
NATINDIM, EDIMAR

PANGGAYONG, AND MARQUE

23 Id. at 27.
B. CLARIN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANTS.
24 Id.
G.R. No. 252189 - GAMES
AND AMUSEMENT BOARD 25 Id. at 28.
AND BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, PETITIONERS, V. 26 Id. at 40-43.
KLUB DON JUAN DE MANILA,
INC., AND CESAR AVILA, JR., 27 Id. at 40.
MANILA JOCKEY CLUB, INC.

PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB,

28 Id. at 41.
INC., AND METRO MANILA

TURF CLUB, INC.

29 CIVIL CODE, art. 777 provides:
RESPONDENTS.
ARTICLE 777. The rights to the succession are transmitted from

the moment of the death of the decedent.
G.R. No. 223449 - MINA C.

NACILLA AND THE LATE

ROBERTO C. JACOBE,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ARTICLE 960. Legal or intestate succession takes place:
HIS HEIR AND WIDOW, (1) If a person dies without a will, or with a void will, or one
NORMITA JACOBE, which has subsequently lost its validity;
PETITIONERS, V. MOVIE AND (2) When the will does not institute an heir to, or dispose of all
TELEVISION REVIEW AND the property belonging to the testator. In such case, legal
CLASSIFICATION BOARD, succession shall take place only with respect to the property of
RESPONDENT. which the testator has not disposed;

(3) If the suspensive condition attached to the institution of heir
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2506 - does not happen or is not fulfilled, or if the heir dies before the
OFFICE OF THE COURT testator, or repudiates the inheritance, there being no
ADMINISTRATOR, substitution, and no right of accretion takes place;
COMPLAINANT, V. JUDGE (4) When the heir instituted is incapable of succeeding, except
ANTONIO C. REYES, in cases provided in this Code.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 61, BAGUIO CITY,

BENGUET, RESPONDENT. ARTICLE 804. Every will must be in writing and executed in a

language or dialect known to the testator.
A.C. No. 12702 - DIVINE
GRACE P. CRISTOBAL, 32 CIVIL CODE, art. 783 provides:
COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. ARTICLE 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted,

JONATHAN A. CRISTOBAL, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain
RESPONDENT. degree the disposition of this estate, to take effect after his

death.
G.R. No. 238263 -
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND 33 CIVIL CODE, arts. 805 and 806 provide:
INDUSTRY AND ITS BUREAU

ARTICLE 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be
OF PRODUCT STANDARDS,
subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
PETITIONERS, V. STEELASIA
testator's name written by some other person in his presence,
MANUFACTURING
and by his express direction, and attested and subscribed by
CORPORATION,
three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator
RESPONDENT.
and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his name

and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on the
left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in
ARMANDO BUEZA Y RANAY,
letters placed on the upper part of each page.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon

which the will is written, and the fact that the testator signed
A.C. No. 9417 - JOHN
the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person to
PAUL KIENER, COMPLAINANT,
write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of
V. ATTY. RICARDO R.
the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed and
AMORES, RESPONDENT.
signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the

testator and of one another.
A.C. No. 11119 - ATTY.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
JOSEPH VINCENT T. GO,
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
ARTICLE 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a notary
VIRGILIO T. TERUEL, public by title testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall
RESPONDENT. not be required to retain a copy of the will, or file another with

the office of the Clerk of Court.
G.R. No. 214981 -
EULOGIO ALDE, PETITIONER, 34 CIVIL CODE, arts. 810-814 provide:
V. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, AS ARTICLE 810. A person may execute a holographic will which
REPRESENTED BY CITY must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
MAYOR CELSO L. LOBREGAT, testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be
RESPONDENT. made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

ARTICLE 811. In the probate of a holographic will, it shall be
A.C. No. 11241 - necessary that at least one witness who knows the handwriting
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, and signature of the testator explicitly declare that the will and
INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. the signature are in the handwriting of the testator. If the will is
SOCRATES R. RIVERA, contested, at least three of such witnesses shall be required.
Respondent. In the absence of any competent witness referred to in the

preceding paragraph, and if the court deem it necessary, expert
A.C. No. 12173 - ATTY. testimony may be resorted to.
ANTONIO B. MANZANO, ARTICLE 812. In holographic wills, the dispositions of the

Complainant, v. ATTY. testator written below his signature must be dated and signed
CARLOS P. RIVERA, by him in order to make them valid as testamentary
RESPONDENT, dispositions.

ARTICLE 813. When a number of dispositions appearing in a
G.R. No. 231936 - FIL- holographic will are signed without being dated, and the last
ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC., disposition has a signature and a date, such date validates the
Petitioner, v. HERMANA dispositions preceding it, whatever be the time of prior
REALTY, INC., Respondent. dispositions.

ARTICLE 814. In case of any insertion, cancellation, erasure or
G.R. No. 223763 - alteration in a holographic will, the testator must authenticate
ADORACION L. BASILIO AND the same by his full signature.
LOLITA P. LUCERO,
Petitioners, v. PERLA CALLO, 35 CIVIL CODE, art. 838 provides:
Respondent. ARTICLE 838. No will shall pass either real or personal property

unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of
A.C. No. 12815 - EDRALYN Court.
B. BERZOLA, Complainant, v. The testator himself may, during his lifetime, petition the court
ATTY. MARLON O. having jurisdiction for the allowance of his will. In such case, the
BALDOVINO, Respondent. pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court for the allowance of

wills after the testator's death shall govern.
G.R. No. 226409 - RINGO The Supreme Court shall formulate such additional Rules of
B. DAYOWAN TRANSPORT Court as may be necessary for the allowance of wills on petition
SERVICES OR RINGO B. of the testator.
DAYOWAN, Petitioner, v. Subject to the right of appeal, the allowance of the will, either
DIONITO D. GUARINO, JR., during the lifetime of the testator or after his death, shall be
Respondent conclusive as to its due execution.
G.R. No. 242513 - PEOPLE 36 539 Phil 547 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
37 Id. at 560.
ARMANDO BUEZA Y RANAY,

Accused-Appellant.
38 377 Phil 851 (19991) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
A.C. No. 12822 -

39 Id. at 858.
EDGARDO A. TAPANG,
Complainant, v. ATTY.
40Tanchanco v. Santos, G.R. No. 204793, June 8, 2020, [Per J.

MARIAN C. DONAYRE,
Respondent. Hernando, Second Division].
G.R. No. 207856 - ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
Petitioner, v. LORENZO T. country in which they are executed.
BAL, JR., Respondent. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or

consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign
G.R. No. 214319 - MYRNA country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be
C. PASCO, Petitioner, v. observed in their execution.
ISABEL CUENCA, ROMEO M. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and
YTANG, JR., AND ESTHER C. those which have for their object public order, public policy and
YTANG, Respondents. good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or

judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
A.C. No. 12792 - JOEL A. agreed upon in a foreign country.
PILAR, Complainant, v. ATTY.
CLARENCE T. BALLICUD, 42Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, 642 Phil 420, 432 (2010) [Per J. Brion,
Respondent. Third Division].
G.R. No. 247575 - PEOPLE 43Rollo, p. 10.
OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner, v. EDWIN REAFOR

44Spouses Ajero v. Court of Appeals, 306 Phil 500, 509 (1994)
Y COMPRADO, Respondent.
[Per J. Puno, Second Division].
A.M. No. P-18-3850 -

45 RULES OF COURT, Rule 129, sees. 1 and 2 provide:
OFFICE OF THE COURT

SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall
ADMINISTRATOR,
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
Complainant, v. COURT
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,
STENOGRAPHER III MARY
forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of
ANN R. BUZON, REGIONAL
nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72,
their seals, the political constitution and history of the
MALABON CITY [FORMERLY
AM NO. 18-04-78-RTC (IN Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
RE: LETTER OF EXECUTIVE departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure
JUDGE EDMUND G. BATARA, of time, and the geographical divisions.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SECTION 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may
MALABON CITY, take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or
FORWARDING PERTINENT are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be
DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO known to judges because of their judicial functions.
THE ARREST OF COURT
STENOGRAPHER III MARY 46Palaganas v. Palaganas, 655 Phil. 535, 539-540 (2011) [Per J.
ANN R. BUZON, REGIONAL Abad, Second Division].
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72,
MALABON CITY)], 47 43 Phil. 175 (1922) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
Respondent.

48 Id. at 177-178 (1922).cralawredlibrary

A.M. No. MTJ-20-1938
[Formerly A.M. No. 20-02-14-
MCTC] - FAILURE TO
DISCLOSE CASES
SUBMITTED FOR DECISION

Back to Home | Back to Main
AND PENDING MOTIONS OF
JUDGE TIRSO F.
BANQUERIGO, THEN
PRESIDING JUDGE,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT, TAYASAN-JIMALALUD,
TAYASAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY
DERECO Y HAYAG, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 246553 -

MARILYN B.
MONTEHERMOSO, TANNY B.
MONTEHERMOSO, EMMA B.
MONTEHERMOSO OLIVEROS,
EVA B. MONTEHERMOSO,
TERESA B. MONTEHERMOSO
CARIG, AND SALVAR B.
MONTEHERMOSO, Petitioners,
v. ROMEO BATUTO AND
ARNEL BATUTO,
Respondents.

A.C. No. 7446 - MICHELLE

A. BUENAVENTURA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DANY
B. GILLE, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-21-005

(Formerly A.M. 20-11-161-
RTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v. HON. EVELYN
A. ATIENZA-TURLA,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
40, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

PALAYAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 237178 -

DOMINGA PALACAT,
Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF
FLORENTINO HONTANOSAS,
REPRESENTED BY MALCO
HONTANOSAS, ELIZA
HONTANOSAS, CHOCHE H.
CANDUTAN, NERY
HONTANOSAS, AND HERMIE
HONTANOSAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 232293 - EVELYN

ABADINES CUICO, Petitioner,
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
ROBERTO BERNARDO Y
FERNANDEZ, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 213753 - ARMED

FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
ENELINDA AMOGOD,
NICANOR ARADO, MA.
LEONORA ARBUTANTE,
DARIO ARBUTANTE,
MARCIANA ARBUTANTE,
MARFELINA ARBUTANTE,
CESAR ALFEREZ, GERTRUDES
AGURA, ISIDRO BALAN,
MARY GRACE BACAS, EMILIO
BANTANG, RUTH BULAY-OG,
FELIZA BARANODIN,
ERNESTO BASILIO,
SALVADOR CASTILLO,
AQUILLO CAGAMPANG,
JULIUS CORBETA, PHILIP
CORTES, VICENTE CARULLU,
JR., HENRY DELA CRUZ,
VIOLETA CRUZ, JANICE
CAINGAY, MARCIANO
DENAMARCA, EMMANUEL
DENAMARCA, WILSON
DOMINGO, MARY DELORIA,
FLORANTE DAMO, RODOLFO
ESTRADA, JORGE ESTRONE,
VIVENCIA ELEMANCO, FELIX
FABALLE, ANITO FORTIZA,
JOVELYN FORTIZA, ARSENIO
GEVERO, SR., GREGORIA
GEROCHI, ROSEMARIE
GABUTAN, ANASTACIO
GALVEZ, FELIX GARCIA,
CARLOS GARCIA VALENTINA
GARCIA, RICARDO GALIT,
RITA HERNANE, VIVIAN ILAS,
ELIAS JARAMILLO, ETHEL
KAWALING, ROBERTO
LAMATA, PRIMO LOBICO,
MAMERTO LUZON, JEMUEL
MABANAG, RUTH
MACAHILAS, EDNA
MACANOQUIT, CANDIDO
MANGLICMOT, YOLANDA
MANGLICMOT, DANILO
MANGLICMOT, ARLENE
MANTIS, AQIOLINO
MENDOZA, JILL MACIBALO,
ANTONIA MANUEL MORTEJO,
NONITA NUAL, GODOFREDO
NAVAREZ, PERFECTA NEYRA,
PEDRITO NALA, PANCHITO
NOB, LUZ PIONAN, JIMMY
PERALES, MARCELENO
REYES, CASIMIRO RAGUINE,
BERNABE SANGGUAL,
TERESITA SAGUING, EDWINO
SECILLO, BENJAMIN TAGUD,
CESAR TACOGDOY, JOSE
TORAYNO, SALVADOR TING,

ESPERANZA VALDEZ,
ZENAIDA VIGOR, RODOLFO
VALENCIA, PAZ VALLECER,
JERIC VILLANUEVA, CELSA
BARORO, BENJAMIN TAGUS,
JR., MARIETTA EROLAN,
AMADO RECHA, GERRICA
NAVAREZ, PEDRITO NALA,
AMARIO EROLAN, FE DAWAL,
AMPARO MICANBALO,
ROGELIO SERQUIÑA,
ELIZABETH SUGANOB,
APOLONIO SUGANOB, MELIA
C. ASO, HELEN D. CENTENO,
LORETO SALOMON,
EDUARDO SALOMON,
CRISTINA FIGUEROA, JOSE
ARLO FIGUEROA, BENADETTE
MENDAROS, ARNOLD
FIGUEROA, TERESITA
ESTIGOY, EMPERATRIS
CEBALLOS, EDUARDO
PAUMAR, MARINA ACERO,
CESAR MANDALUCAY, ROSITA
LORENZO, JOCELYN EMONG,
WILBUR MAMAWAG,
JOSEPHINE POGAY,
ROSALINO CUPAY, GERONDIO
TAPANGOT, AURELIA
GALINADA, VICTORIANA T.
ALJAS, JOHNIEL POGAY,
CORAZON ESPINA, MAMERTO
SENERES, FLORDELIZA DE
JESUS, ASUNCION JACALAN
AND NICOLAS POGAY,
Respondents.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO
PINGOL @ ANTON, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 241901 - ERWIN

PASCUAL Y FRANCISCO AND
WILBERT SARMIENTO Y
MUÑOZ A.K.A. "BOYET",*
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NICO
MAZO Y YBAÑEZ AND JOEY
DOMDOMA Y ABLETES,
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. Nos. 190728-29 -

Petitioner, v. HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), ENRIQUE T.
GARCIA, JR., BENJAMIN M.
ALONZO, EDGARDO P.
CALIMBAS, FERNANDO C.
AUSTRIA, EDUARD G.
FLORENDO, EDWARD C.
ROMAN, RODOLFO S.
SALANDANAN, ORLANDO S.
MIRANDA, RODOLFO S.
IZON, DANTE R.
MANALAYSAY, AND MANUEL
N. BELTRAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 244423 -

ROBERTO F. RODELAS,
Petitioner, v. MST MARINE
SERVICES (PHILS.),
Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 222369 and

222502 - STRONG FORT
WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
REMEDIOS T. BANTA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 217450 -

ADELINA A. ROMERO
Petitioner, v. JESSE I.
CONCEPCION, MAYOR,
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF
MARIVELES, PROVINCE OF
BATAAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 221981 - RAUL

OFRACIO, Petitioner, v.
Respondents.

G.R. No. 250477 -

PRIVATIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT OFFICE,
Petitioner, v. MARIANO A.
NOCOM, SUBSTITUTED BY
MARIANO T. NOCOM, JR.,
MARCELINO, MANOLITO,
HERMOSO, ALBERT ALL
SURNAMED NOCOM, AND
CAROLINE N. NG,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 219185 -

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
JOSEPHINE PONCE-PILAPIL,*
Respondents.

G.R. No. 231062 - JORGE

DE OCAMPO, HEIRS OF THE
LATE NAPOLEON DE OCAMPO,
NAMELY: ROSARIO DE
OCAMPO, JOSE DE OCAMPO,
PABLO DE OCAMPO, JAIME
DE OCAMPO, PEDRITO DE
OCAMPO, JOSEPH DE
OCAMPO, NAPOLEON DE
OCAMPO, JR., NORMA DE
OCAMPO, PURITA DE
OCAMPO, FLORENCE DE
OCAMPO, CORAZON DE
OCAMPO, AND ROSEMARIE
DE OCAMPO, Petitioners, v.
JOSE OLLERO, GENOVEVA
OLLERO, AND CONCEPCION
OLLERO-GUECO,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-20-4067

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 19-
4968-P] - JUDGE LILIBETH O.
LADAGA, Complainant, v.
ATTY. ARNAN AMOR P.
SALILIN, CLERK OF COURT,
AND ELGIE G. BONGOSIA,

UTILITY WORKER I, BOTH OF
BRANCH 28, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), SURIGAO DEL
SUR, Respondents.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. XXX,
Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 227715 - FR.

RANHILIO CALLANGAN
AQUINO, DR. PABLO F.
NARAG, IN REPRESENTATION
OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES
OF THE CAGAYAN STATE
UNIVERSITY, Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Respondent.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
ARMANDO PEDIDO Y
BELOERA, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 211327 -

THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS
HOTELS AND RESORTS, INC.,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 200474 -

MAXIMO AWAYAN, Petitioner,
v. SULU RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent.


OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LITO
PAÑA Y INANDAN, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 229010 - IN THE

MATTER OF THE PETITION TO
APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ
GASPE LIPSON AND
ISSUANCE OF LETTERS
TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P.
GASPI, Petitioner, v.
HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA
CLARISSA L. PACIS-
TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA

CITY,* Respondent.

G.R. No. 197422 - REP.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN, Petitioner,
v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. AND
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents. [G.R.
No. 197950] PROSPERO A.
PICHAY, JR., Petitioner, v.
GOVERNANCE COMMISSION
FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED
OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS, EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY PAQUITO N.
OCHOA, JR., AND
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT
SECRETARY FLORENCIO B.
ABAD, Respondents.

G.R. No. 211034 - MARIO

CHIONG BERNARDO, IN HIS
BEHALF AND IN BEHALF OF
ALL THE HEIRS OF THE LATE
JOSE CHIONG, Petitioner, v.
JOSE C. FERNANDO, LILIA C.

FERNANDO, NOEMI
FERNANDO MOLINA,
CYNTHIA C. FERNANDO, AIDA
FERNANDO POINTDEXTER
AND ELSA FERNANDO,
Respondents.[G.R. No.
211076]JOSEFINA L.
BERNARDO, LETICIA L.
BERNARDO, FELIX
BERNARDO, AND MARCELO
SAN JUAN, Petitioners, v.
JOSE C. FERNANDO, LILIA C.
FERNANDO, NOEMI
FERNANDO MOLINA,
CYNTHIA C. FERNANDO, AIDA
FERNANDO POINTDEXTER
AND ELSA FERNANDO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 218870 - THE

COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
ATTY. ELEANOR V. ECHANO,
FELIZARDO B. TOQUERO, JR.,
TITA B. EMBESTRO, SUSIE S.
LAUREANO, JOHANSON V.
DISUANCO, AND ADELA A.
TABUZO, Petitioners, v. HON.
ERWIN VIRGILIO R. FERRER,
ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE

OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI,
CAMARINES SUR, AND LUIS
RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE,
JR., FORMER GOVERNOR OF
CAMARINES SUR,
Respondents.

A.M. No. RTJ-21-015

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-
4162-RTJ] - PHILIPPINE
DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, Complainant,
v. JUDGE WINLOVE M.
DUMAYAS PRESIDING JUDGE
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF MAKATI CITY,
BRANCH 59, Respondent.
[OCA IPI No. 15-4381-
RTJ]FRANCIS R. YUSECO, JR.,
Complainant, v. HONORABLE
WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
59, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 246017 - MARIA

CONSUELO MALCAMPO-
REPOLLO, Petitioner, v.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 198688 -

KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG
PILIPINAS (KMP), ET. AL.,
Petitioners, v. AURORA
PACIFIC ECONOMIC ZONE
AND FREEPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD
COMPOSED OF: ROBERTO K.
MATHAY, PRESIDENT & CEO,
ET. AL., Respondents.[G.R.
No. 208282]PINAG-ISANG
LAKAS NG MGA SAMAHAN SA
CASIGURAN, AURORA
(PIGLACASA), REPRESENTED
BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT
EDWIN C. GARCIA, ET. AL.,
Petitioners, v. AURORA
PACIFIC ECONOMIC ZONE
AND FREEPORT AUTHORITY
(APECO), SENATE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED
BY SENATE PRESIDENT
FRANKLIN DRILON, AND
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES,
REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER
FELICIANO BELMONTE,
Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 216745-46 -

EDMUNDO JOSE T.
BUENCAMINO, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND SANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz

GASPI v. PACIS-TRINIDAD GR # 229010, NOVEMBER 23, 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GASPI v. PACIS-TRINIDAD GR # 229010, NOVEMBER 23, 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/2/22, 10:27 AM G.R. No.

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

November 2020 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

G.R. No. 229010 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE

G.R. No. 229010, November 23, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ

The nationality principle is not applied when determining the extrinsic

On February 23, 2011, Luz Gaspe Lipson (Lipson), an American citizen

designated Roel R Gaspi (Gaspi) as executor.4

On October 17, 2015, at 70 years old, Lipson passed away due to

On October 6, 2016, the Regional Trial Court7motu proprio dismissed the

United States of America, and not in the Philippines.8

The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Order read:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is motu

SO ORDERED.10 (Emphasis in the original)

motion was denied on November 16, 2016.12

that the ruling in Palaganas v. Palaganas13 was not applicable to Gaspi's

while Lipson's will was executed in the Philippines.14

The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Order reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for

In the Petition16 for review on certiorari, petitioner Gaspi contends that

conformity with Philippine laws.17

allowed to undergo probate.18

This Court then directed19 respondent to comment on the petition.

properly dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.21 She points out petitioner's

principle.22 Respondent states:

clearly herein Court a quo cannot take cognizance of the

petition.23 (Emphasis in the original)

Respondent likewise posits that petitioner's reliance on the ruling in

In his Reply,26 petitioner explains that the nationality principle adverted to

decedent's internal law, but also to conflict of laws.27

Generally, a person's death passes ownership over their properties to the

be distributed. This is done by executing a written31 document referred to

Wills may be notarial33 or holographic.34 In either case, the formalities

Death makes it impossible for the decedent to testify as to the authenticity

Court."35 Heirs of Las am v. Umengan36 describes the probate proceeding:

To probate a will means to prove before some officer or tribunal,

the deceased person whose testamentary act it is alleged to be,

mandatory and is a matter of public policy.37 (Citation omitted)

ARTICLE 839. The will shall be disallowed in any of the following

(1) If the formalities required by law have not been complied

(2) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable

(3) If it was executed through force or under duress, or the

(4) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

(5) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud;

SECTION 9. Grounds for disallowing will. — The will shall be

(a) If not executed and attested as required by law;

(b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally

incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;

November-2020 (c) If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear,

(d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and

WARREN IVERO Y MABUTAS,

ATTY. JAMES ROULYN R. Appeals38 elaborates:

It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generally with

AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

different from its intrinsic validity.

A.C. No. 12081 [Formerly

CBD Case No. 14-4225] -

DATUL, OLIVIA O. SALVADOR,

MUNAR, JUN JUN A. DAVAO,

VILLAR, PERCY M. CARAG,

PATRONA R. ROXAS, PABLO P.