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 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 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.
RULING: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, 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to
the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the
amount of successional rights, to the decedent’s national law. Specific provisions must
prevail over general ones.”
ANCHETA V. GUERSEY-DALAYGON
FACTS: Spouses Audrey O’Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were
American 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 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 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. 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: Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled under the
circumstances.
RULING: A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to
the land of the 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 fraud. 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 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.
