BELLIS vs BELLIS 20 SCRA 358

G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

10 ISSUE:
Whether the applicable law is Texas law or Philippine laws

HELD:

15 Applying the nationality rule, the law of Texas should govern the intrinsic validity of the
will
and therefore answer the question on entitlement to legitimes. But since the law of Texas
was never proven, the doctrine of processual presumption was applied. Hence, SC
assumed that Texas law is the same as Philippine laws, which upholds the nationality
20 rule. Renvoi doctrine is not applicable because there is no conflict as to the nationality
and domicile of Bellis. He is both a citizen and a resident of Texas. So even if assuming
the law of Texas applies the domiciliary rule, it is still Texas law that governs because his
domicile is Texas.

25

30

35

40

45

50

55
 Vda de Perez vs Tolete
G. R. No. 76714, June 2, 1994
FACTS:
5 Dr. Jose Cunanan and his wife, Dr. Evelyn Perez-Cunanan, who became American
citizens and residents of New York, each executed a will also in New York, containing
provisions on presumption of survivorship (in the event that it is not known which one of
the spouses died first, the husband shall be presumed to have predeceased his wife).
Later, the entire family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Thus, Rafael, who was
10 named trustee in Jose’s will, filed for separate probate proceedings of the wills. Later,
Evelyn’s mother, Salud Perez, filed a petition for reprobate in Bulacan. Rafael opposed,
arguing that Salud was not an heir according to New York law. He contended that since
the wills were executed in New York, New York law should govern. He further argued
that, by New York law, he and his brothers and sisters were Jose’s heirs and as such
15 entitled to notice of the reprobate proceedings, which Salud failed to give. For her part,
Salud said she was the sole heir of her daughter, Evelyn, and that the two wills were in
accordance with New York law. But before she could present evidence to prove the law
of New York, the reprobate court already issued an order, disallowing the wills.

20 ISSUE: Whether or not the reprobate of the wills should be allowed.

HELD:
Extrinsic Validity of Wills of Non-Resident Aliens The respective wills of the Cunanan
spouses, who were American citizens, will only be effective in this country upon
25 compliance with the following provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines: Art. 816. The
will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the
formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code
prescribes. Thus, proof that both wills conform with the formalities prescribed by New
30 York laws or by Philippine laws is imperative. Evidence for Reprobate of Wills Probated
outside the Philippines. The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills
which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as follows: (1) the due
execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile
in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted to probate
35 in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court, and (5) the laws
of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills (III Moran Commentaries on the
Rules of Court, 1970 ed., pp. 419-429; Suntay v. Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 [1954]; Fluemer v.
Hix, 54 Phil. 610 [1930]). Except for the first and last requirements, the petitioner
submitted all the needed evidencE. The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign
40 laws upon which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by the fact that
our courts cannot take judicial notice of them.

45

50

55
 B.E. Johannes, et al v. Honorable George R. Harvey, et al
FACTS:
Mrs. Carmen Theodora Johannes nee Carmen D’ Almeida, died intestate in Singapore,
5 Straits Settlements, on August 31, 1921. Of her immediate family there remained the
husband, B.E. Johannes, the brothers, Frederick Charles D’ Almeida and Alfred D’
Almeida, and the sister, Ida D’ Almeida Johannes. Of these, the Husband, the brother
Frederick, and the sister Ida, were residents of Singapore, while the brother Alfred was
in Manila. The Singapore heirs apparently joined in asking that the letters of the
10 administration be granted by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements to B.E.
Johannes, the lawful husband of the deceased. At least, on September 19, 1921, the
husband was named the administrator of the property of the deceased wife, which was
locally situate within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements.
(Under the British law [ 22 & 23 Charles II c 10, 29 Charles II c 3, and James II c 17 ], it
15 would seem that the husband is entitled to the whole of the state of his wife if she die
intestate, to the exclusion of any other of kin.) On October 1, 1921, the brother Alfred D’
Almeida was, on his petition, appointed administrator of the Manila estate of the
deceased consisting of P109,732.55. This sum, it appears, was on deposit in the Manila
banks under and by virtue of guardianship proceedings for the late Carmen Theodora
20 Johannes, which were finally terminated by the discharge of the guardian, the Philippine
Trust Company, on January 16, 1922.

ISSUE:
W/N administration in the Philippines is unnecessary.
25
HELD:
No. Administration in the Philippines is necessary. It is o!ten necessay to have more than
one administration of an estate when a person dies intestate owning property in the
county of his domicile as well as in a foreign county, administration is had in both
30 countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent’s last domicile is termed
the principal administration, any other administration is termed the ancillary
administration. The reason for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex
proprio vigore have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which is granted.
Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the United
35 States. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a
country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the nature of
assets of the decedent, liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his
heirs. The principal administration in this Instance is that at the domicile of the Carmen
Theodora Johannes in Singapore, Straits Settlements. What is sought in the Philippine
40 Islands is an ancillary administration subsidiary to the domiciliary administration,
conformable to the provisions of sections 601, 602, and 603 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The proper course of procedure would be for the ancillary administrator to
pay the claims of creditors, if there be any, settle the accounts, and remit the surplus to
the domiciliary jurisdiction, for distribution among the next of kin. Such administration
45 appears to be required in this jurisdiction since the provisions of section 596 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, which permit of the settlement of the certain estates without legal
proceedings, have not been met. The decision of this court in Baldemor v. Malangyaon
([1916], 34 Phil., 368), on which relators rely, is then not in point because predicated
directly on the provisions of the section last cited. There is still another aspect to the
50 case. This is that pursuant to section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of a
Court of First Instance appointing an administrator of the estate of a deceased person
constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties thereunder, within the
meaning of the statute, and is appealable.
As we reach the conclusion that the Court of First Instance has not acted in excess of its
55 jurisdiction, and as there is an appeal, certiorari will not lie. Accordingly, the writ prayed
for cannot be granted. Costs against the relators.
 Suntay III v. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, 16 June 2010
FACTS:
Petitioner argues that Article 992 of the Civil Code, the successional bar between the
5 legitimate and illegitimate relatives of a decedent, does not apply in this instance where
facts indubitably demonstrate the contrary – Emilio III, an illegitimate grandchild of the
decedent, was actually treated by the decedent and her husband as their own son,
reared from infancy, educated and trained in their businesses, and eventually legally
adopted by decedent’s husband, the original oppositor to respondent’s petition for letters
10 of administration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the illegitimate child may inherit from the grandparent, who treated the
former like his own son, notwithstanding Article 992 of the Civil Code.
15
HELD:
YES. The factual antecedents of this case accurately reflect the basis of intestate
succession, i.e., love first descends, for the decedent, Cristina, did not distinguish
between her legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren. Neither did her husband,
20 Federico, who, in fact, legally raised the status of Emilio III from an illegitimate
grandchild to that of a legitimate child. The peculiar circumstances of this case,
painstakingly pointed out by counsel for petitioner, overthrow the legal presumption in
Article 992 of the Civil Code that there exist animosity and antagonism between
legitimate and illegitimate descendants of a deceased.
25

30

35

40

45

50

55
 Cayetano v. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984.
FACTS:
The testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent
5 resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in Manila while temporarily
residing with her sister; that during her lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and
testament according to the laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that after the testatrix death,
her last will and testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the
Registry of Wills at the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A. An opposition to the reprobate of
10 the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging among other things that the intrinsic
provisions of the will are null and void. The petitioner maintains that since the
respondent judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will, Hermogenes C. Campos
was divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him.

15 ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine law will apply to determine the intrinsic validity of a
will executed by an undisputed foreigner.

RULING:
NO. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as
20 provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent
must apply. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358).“It I
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
25 successional rights, to the decedent’s national law. Specific provisions must prevail over
general ones.”

30

35

40

45

50

55
 ANCHETA V. GUERSEY-DALAYGON
FACTS:
Spouses Audrey O’Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American
5 citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted
daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill (Kyle). Audrey died in 1979. She left a will wherein she
bequeathed her
entire estate to Richard consisting of Audrey’s conjugal share in real estate
improvements
10 at Forbes Park, current account with cash balance and shares of stock in A/G Interiors.
Two years after her death, Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon. Four years
thereafter, Richard died and left a will wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to
respondent, except for his shares in A/G, which he left to his adopted daughter.
Petitioner, as ancillary administrator in the court where Audrey’s will was admitted to
15 probate, filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a project of
partition of Audrey’s estate. The motion and project of partition were granted. Meanwhile,
the ancillary administrator with regards to Richard’s will also filed a project of partition,
leaving 2/5 of Richard’s undivided interest in the Forbes property was allocated to
respondent Candelaria, while 3/5 thereof was allocated to their three children.
20 Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, where
Richard was a native of, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator
in the property subject to the legacy.

ISSUE:
25 Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled under the circumstances.

HELD:
A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of
the
30 estate in the distributees, which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once
it becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in rem. However, in
exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be set aside for lack of
jurisdiction or bfraud. Further, in Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court ruled that a party
interested in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside when he is left
35 out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence
not imputable to negligence. Petitioner’s failure to proficiently manage the distribution of
Audrey’s estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law
amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA Decision annulling the RTC Orders dated
February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, must be upheld.
40

45

50

55
5 Miciano v. Brimo G.R. No. L-22595, 1 November 1927
FACTS:
Joseph Brimo, an alien testator (Turk) who made his will in the Philippines stated in the
will thathis property should be distributed in accordance with Philippine law, and not that
of his nation. The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased filed a scheme of
10 partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said partition. The
appellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on the fact that the
deceased was a Turkish citizen, which his disposition should be in accordance with the
laws of his nationality.

15 ISSUE:
Whether or not the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine Laws.

RULING:
No, the Turkish law should govern the disposition of his property pursuant to Article 16.
20 According to Article 16 of the Civil Code, suchnational law of the testator is the one to
governhis testamentary dispositions. The provision in the will is not valid. Said condition
then is considered unwritten, hence the institution of legatees is unconditional and
consequently valid and effective.

25

30

35

40

45

50

55
5 Paganas v. Palaganas GR NO. 169144, January 26, 2011
FACTS:
On November 8, 2001 Ruperta C. Palaganas (Ruperta), a Filipino who became a
naturalized United States (U.S.) citizen, died single and childless. In the last will and
testament she executed in California, she designated her brother, Sergio C. Palaganas
10 (Sergio), as the executor of her will for she had left properties in the Philippines and in
the U.S. On May 19, 2003 respondent Ernesto C. Palaganas (Ernesto), another brother
of Ruperta, filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, a petition for
the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her
estate. On October 15, 2003, however, petitioners Manuel Miguel Palaganas (Manuel)
15 and Benjamin Gregorio Palaganas (Benjamin), nephews of Ruperta, opposed the
petition on the ground that Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in
the U.S. where she executed it. Manuel and Benjamin added that, assuming Ruperta’s
will could be probated in the Philippines, it is invalid nonetheless for having been
executed under duress and without the testator’s full understanding of the consequences
20 of such act. Ernesto, they claimed, is also not qualified to act as administrator of the
estate. Meantime, since Ruperta’s foreignbased siblings, Gloria Villaluz and Sergio, were
on separate occasions in the Philippines for a short visit, respondent Ernesto filed a
motion with the RTC for leave to take their deposition, which it granted. On June 17,
2004 the RTC issued an order: (a) admitting to probate Ruperta’s last will; (b) appointing
25 respondent Ernesto as special administrator at the request of Sergio, the U.S.-based
executor designated in the will; and (c) issuing the Letters of Special Administration to
Ernesto. Aggrieved by the RTC’s order, petitioner nephews Manuel and Benjamin
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that an unprobated will executed by an
American citizen in the U.S. cannot be probated for the first time in the Philippines. On
30 July 29, 2005 the CA rendered a decision, affirming the assailed order of the RTC,
holding that the RTC properly allowed the probate of the will, subject to respondent
Ernesto’s submission of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the order
and his posting of required bond.

35 ISSUE: Whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the
Philippines although it has not been previously probated and allowed in the country
where it was executed.

HELD:
40 YES. The will may be probated in Philippine court. Article 816 of the Civil Code states
that
the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made in
accordance
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or according to
45 the formalities observed in his country. Our rules require merely that the petition for the
allowance of a will must show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional
facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) the name ofn the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will has not been
50 delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts
refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the
province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country,
the estate he left in such province.The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has
already been allowed and probated in the country of its execution.