In re: Intestate Estate of Josefa Delgado and Gulliermo Rustia

GR No. 155733, January 2006

Facts: This case concerns the settlement of the intestate estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa
Delgado. The main issue in this case is relatively simple: who, between petitioners and
respondents, are the lawful heirs of the decedents. However, it is attended by several collateral
issues that complicate its resolution.

The claimants to the estates of Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado may be divided into two
groups: (1) the alleged heirs of Josefa Delgado, consisting of her half- and full-blood siblings,
nephews and nieces, and grandnephews and grandnieces, and (2) the alleged heirs of Guillermo
Rustia, particularly, his sisters, his nephews and nieces, his illegitimate child, and the de
facto adopted child (ampun-ampunan) of the decedents.

Guillermo Rustia and Josefa Delgado died intestate and without descendants. Guillermo outlived
Josefa by two years. Petitioners and respondents are their respective relatives claiming rights to
their intestate estate.

The petition for letters of administration stated that Josefa Delgado and Guillermo Rustia were
never married. According to petitioners, sometime in 1917, Guillermo proposed marriage to
Josefa. Josefa and Guillermo eventually lived together as husband and wife but were never
married. To prove their assertion, petitioners point out that no record of the contested marriage
existed in the civil registry. Moreover, a baptismal certificate naming Josefa Delgado as one of
the sponsors referred to her as "Seorita" or unmarried woman.
Josefa was the daughter of Felisa Delgado by one Lucio Ocampo with five other children
without the benefit of marriage. Felisa had another son by way of Ramon Osorio who is Luis
Delgado, one of the claimants in Josefas estate. But, unlike her relationship with Lucio Campo
which was admittedly one without the benefit of marriage, the legal status of Ramon Osorios
and Felisa Delgados union is in dispute.

The question of whether Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio ever got married is crucial to the
claimants because if Ramon Osorio and Felisa Delgado had been validly married, then their only
child Luis Delgado was a legitimate half-blood brother of Josefa Delgado and therefore excluded
from the latters intestate estate. He and his heirs would be barred by the principle of absolute
separation between the legitimate and illegitimate families. Conversely, if the couple were never
married, Luis Delgado and his heirs would be entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgados intestate
estate, as they would all be within the illegitimate line.

Issue: Who are the lawful heirs of the decedents?

Held: the above-named siblings of Josefa Delgado were related to her by full-blood, except Luis
Delgado, her half-brother. Nonetheless, since they were all illegitimate, they may inherit from
each other. Accordingly, all of them are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado.
Under Article 972 of the new Civil Code, the right of representation in the collateral line takes
place only in favor of the children of brothers and sisters (nephews and nieces). Consequently, it
cannot be exercised by grandnephews and grandnieces.[54] Therefore, the only collateral
relatives of Josefa Delgado who are entitled to partake of her intestate estate are her brothers and
sisters, or their children who were still alive at the time of her death on September 8, 1972. They
have a vested right to participate in the inheritance.[55] The records not being clear on this
matter, it is now for the trial court to determine who were the surviving brothers and sisters (or
their children) of Josefa Delgado at the time of her death. Together with Guillermo Rustia,
[56] they are entitled to inherit from Josefa Delgado in accordance with Article 1001 of the new
Civil Code:[57]

Art. 1001. Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the
latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children
to the other one-half.
Since Josefa Delgado had heirs other than Guillermo Rustia, Guillermo could not have validly
adjudicated Josefa's estate all to himself. Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is clear.
Adjudication by an heir of the decedent's entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit is
allowed only if he is the sole heir to the estate:

SECTION 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. If the decedent left no will
and no debts and the heirs are all of age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal
representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may, without securing letters of
administration, divide the estate among themselves as they see fit by means of a public
instrument filed in the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they may do so in
an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one heir, he may adjudicate to himself the estate
by means of an affidavit filed in the office of the register of deeds. x x x (emphasis supplied)

To determine who the lawful heirs of Josefa Delgado are, the questioned status of the
cohabitation of her mother Felisa Delgado with Ramon Osorio must first be addressed.

As mentioned earlier, presumptions of law are either conclusive or disputable. Conclusive

presumptions are inferences which the law makes so peremptory that no contrary proof, no
matter how strong, may overturn them.[48] On the other hand, disputable presumptions, one of
which is the presumption of marriage, can be relied on only in the absence of sufficient evidence
to the contrary.

Little was said of the cohabitation or alleged marriage of Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio. The
oppositors (now respondents) chose merely to rely on the disputable presumption of marriage
even in the face of such countervailing evidence as (1) the continued use by Felisa and Luis (her
son with Ramon Osorio) of the surname Delgado and (2) Luis Delgado's and Caridad
Concepcion's Partida de Casamiento[49] identifying Luis as "hijo natural de Felisa Delgado" (the
natural child of Felisa Delgado).[50]

All things considered, we rule that these factors sufficiently overcame the rebuttable presumption
of marriage. Felisa Delgado and Ramon Osorio were never married. Hence, all the children born
to Felisa Delgado out of her relations with Ramon Osorio and Lucio Campo, namely, Luis and
his half-blood siblings Nazario, Edilberta, Jose, Jacoba, Gorgonio and the decedent Josefa, all
surnamed Delgado, were her natural children.

United Board of Ministries v. Sebastian

GR No. L-34672, March 30, 1988

Facts: David Jacobson was an American citizen who had been a resident of the Philippines for
more than thirty years and up to the time of his death in 1970. He left a will in which he "devised
and bequeathed" to the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital 60% of his shares of stocks in the
Tagdangua Plantation Co., inc. which was incorporated under Philippine law in 1948. 2 This
corporation was the registered owner of a tract of land in Pantuhan Davao del Norte, with a total
area of about 445 hectares acquired by virtue of a sales patent issued to it in 11953 .

Court of First Instance of Davao del Norte, Judge Alejandro E. Sebastian disallowed the above-
described legacy on the ground that it was in effect an alienation of private agricultural land in
favor of a transferee which was not qualified under the Constitution of 1935. The finding was
that the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital was owned by the United Church Board for World
Ministries (UCBWM), the herein petitioner, which was a non-stock corporation organized in the
United States by virtue of a charter granted by the state legislature of Massachussets .

The basis of this ruling was Article XII, Sections I and 5 of the 1935 Constitution, which barred
foreigners, including Americans, from acquiring agricultural lands in this country except only by
hereditary succession. The court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Solicitor General
so he could take the proper action, in view of the invalidity of the transfer, for the escheat of the
subject property to the State.

Issue: Whether Brokenshire Memorial Hospital is qualified to accept the legacy of the late David
Jacobson.

Ruling: YES. In proof of these circumstances, the new counsel for Brokenshire presented,
among many other documents, the articles of incorporation of the UCCP and the Hospital and
their corresponding certificates of registration issued by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the licenses issued by the Board of Medical Sciences for the operation of the
Hospital to the UCCP from 1968 to 1972 and to the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc. from
1973 to 1974, and the certificate of title over the subject land in the name of the "Mindanao
District Conference, commonly known as the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital."

At any rate, the above-stated documents have now made it clear that the United Church for
Christ in the Philippines and not the United Church Board for World Ministries was the owner of
the Hospital at the time of the execution of the win in 1966 and of the testator's death in 1970. It
is also not disputed that such ownership passed to the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital itself upon
its incorporation in 1970 when it thus became the proper party-in-interest to claim the property
directly devised by Jacobson to it.

Parenthetically, it should be observed, in fairness to Judge Sebastian, that he was unaware of

these circumstances when he declared the legacy invalid to enforce the nationalistic provisions of
Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution. For his vigilance in the protection of the national
patrimony, he should be, as he is hereby, commenced.
Even on the assumption that the UCBWN was really the owner of the Hospital at the time of the
effectivity of the will and that the devise was for that reason unenforceable, the defect in the will
should be deemed rectified by the subsequent transfer of the property to the Brokenshire
Memorial Hospital, Inc. Our consistent ruling on this matter is that if land is invalidly transferred
to an alien who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original
transaction is considered cured and the title of the transferee is rendered valid.

Thus, in Sarsosa vda. de Barsobia v. Cuenco, where a Filipino citizen sold her land to an alien
who later sold it to a Filipino, we held that the invalidity of the initial transfer to the alien was
corrected by the subsequent transfer of the property to a citizen. A similar ruling was made in
Godinez v. Fong Pak Luen, involving a similar set of facts, where we also cited Vasquez v. Li
Seng Giap, and Herrera v. Luy King Guan. In Yap v. Maravillas, we validated the sale of
agricultural land to an alien who, after the purchase, was naturalized as a Filipino and so became
qualified to acquire it. The facts were slightly different in De Castro v. Teng, where, upon the
death of an alien who had purchased a residential lot, his heirs entered into an extrajudicial
partition of his estate and transferred the land to one of his sons who was a naturalized Filipino.
We also sustained the sale.

This action has been pending for quite some time now because of the confusion regarding the
status of the Brokenshire Memorial Hospital as the ultimate beneficiary of the challenged legacy.
The curious thing is that this case was mired in factual and legal complications caused by
needless misunderstanding among the parties which, it now appears, were never in any
substantial disagreement over the ownership of the Hospital. Their common concern for its
welfare, in line with the charitable spirit and purposes of the testator, should have avoided all this
tedious and acrimonious dispute.
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: Situs of Shares of Stock: domicile of the corporation

SUCCESSION: Ancillary Administration: 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 deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among
his heirs.
SUCCESSION: Probate: Probate court has authority to issue the order enforcing the ancillary
administrators right to the stock certificates when the actual situs of the shares of stocks is in the
Philippines.

Facts: Idonah Slade Perkins, an American citizen who died in New York City, left among others,
two stock certificates issued by Benguet Consolidated, a corporation domiciled in the
Philippines. As ancillary administrator of Perkins estate in the Philippines, Tayag now wants to
take possession of these stock certificates but County Trust Company of New York, the
domiciliary administrator, refused to part with them. Thus, the probate court of the Philippines
was forced to issue an order declaring the stock certificates as lost and ordering Benguet
Consolidated to issue new stock certificates representing Perkins shares. Benguet Consolidated
appealed the order, arguing that the stock certificates are not lost as they are in existence and
currently in the possession of County Trust Company of New York.

Issue: Whether or not the order of the lower court is proper

Held: The appeal lacks merit.

Tayag, as ancillary administrator, has the power to gain control and possession of all assets of the
decedent within the jurisdiction of the Philippines

It is to be noted that the scope of the power of the ancillary administrator was, in an earlier case,
set forth by Justice Malcolm. Thus: "It is often necessary to have more than one administration
of an estate. When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well
as in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in the
jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, while 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 it is granted. Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the
[Philippines]. 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 deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs."

Probate court has authority to issue the order enforcing the ancillary administrators right to the
stock certificates when the actual situs of the shares of stocks is in the Philippines.

It would follow then that the authority of the probate court to require that ancillary
administrator's right to "the stock certificates covering the 33,002 shares ... standing in her name
in the books of [appellant] Benguet Consolidated, Inc...." be respected is equally beyond
question. For appellant is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the
unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be considered in any
wise as immune from lawful court orders.

Our holding in Wells Fargo Bank and Union v. Collector of Internal Revenue finds application.
"In the instant case, the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines, the corporation
being domiciled [here]." To the force of the above undeniable proposition, not even appellant is
insensible. It does not dispute it. Nor could it successfully do so even if it were so minded.