6/13/2017 G.R.No.

L54919

TodayisTuesday,June13,2017

CustomSearch

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.L54919May30,1984

POLLYCAYETANO,petitioner,
vs.
HON.TOMAST.LEONIDAS,inhiscapacityasthePresidingJudgeofBranchXXXVIII,CourtofFirst
InstanceofManilaandNENITACAMPOSPAGUIA,respondents.

ErmeloP.Guzmanforpetitioner.

ArmandoZ.Gonzalesforprivaterespondent.

GUTIERREZ,JR.,J.:

Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,seekingtoannultheorderoftherespondentjudgeoftheCourtofFirst
InstanceofManila,BranchXXXVIII,whichadmittedtoandallowedtheprobateofthelastwillandtestamentof
AdoracionC.Campos,afteranexpartepresentationofevidencebyhereinprivaterespondent.

On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her
sisters,privaterespondentNenitaC.Paguia,RemediosC.LopezandMarietaC.Medinaasthesurvivingheirs.
AsHermogenesCamposwastheonlycompulsoryheir,heexecutedanAffidavitofAdjudicationunderRule74,
Section I of the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the
deceasedAdoracionCampos.

Eleven months after, on November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of the
deceased, Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly executed in the United States and for her appointment as
administratrixoftheestateofthedeceasedtestatrix.

In her petition, Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a
permanentresidentof4633DitmanStreet,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,U.S.A.thatthetestatrixdiedinManilaon
January 31, 1977 while temporarily residing with her sister at 2167 Leveriza, Malate, Manila that during her
lifetime,thetestatrixmadeherlastwigandtestamentonJuly10,1975,accordingtothelawsofPennsylvania,
U.S.A., nominating Wilfredo Barzaga of New Jersey as executor that after the testatrix death, her last will and
testament was presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wins at the County of
Philadelphia, U.S.A., that Clement L. McLaughlin, the administrator who was appointed after Dr. Barzaga had
declinedandwaivedhisappointmentasexecutorinfavoroftheformer,isalsoaresidentofPhiladelphia,U.S.A.,
andthattherefore,thereisanurgentneedfortheappointmentofanadministratrixtoadministerandeventually
distributethepropertiesoftheestatelocatedinthePhilippines.

OnJanuary11,1978,anoppositiontothereprobateofthewillwasfiledbyhereinpetitionerallegingamongother
things,thathehaseveryreasontobelievethatthewillinquestionisaforgerythattheintrinsicprovisionsofthe
willarenullandvoidandthatevenifpertinentAmericanlawsonintrinsicprovisionsareinvoked,thesamecould
notapplyinasmuchastheywouldworkinjusticeandinjurytohim.

OnDecember1,1978,however,thepetitionerthroughhiscounsel,Atty.FrancoLoyola,filedaMotiontoDismiss
Opposition(WithWaiverofRightsorInterests)statingthathe"hasbeenabletoverifytheveracitythereof(ofthe
will) and now confirms the same to be truly the probated will of his daughter Adoracion." Hence, an exparte
presentationofevidenceforthereprobateofthequestionedwillwasmade.

OnJanuary10,1979,therespondentjudgeissuedanorder,towit:

Atthehearing,ithasbeensatisfactorilyestablishedthatAdoracionC.Campos,inherlifetime,wasa
citizen of the United States of America with a permanent residence at 4633 Ditman Street,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/may1984/gr_l54919_1984.html 1/4
6/13/2017 G.R.No.L54919

Philadelphia,PA19124,(ExhibitD)thatwhenalive,AdoracionC.CamposexecutedaLastWilland
TestamentinthecountyofPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania,U.S.A.,accordingtothelawsthereat(Exhibits
E3toE3b)thatwhileintemporarysojourninthePhilippines,AdoracionC.CamposdiedintheCity
ofManila(ExhibitC)leavingpropertybothinthePhilippinesandintheUnitedStatesofAmericathat
theLastWillandTestamentofthelateAdoracionC.Camposwasadmittedandgrantedprobateby
theOrphan'sCourtDivisionoftheCourtofCommonPleas,theprobatecourtoftheCommonwealth
ofPennsylvania,CountyofPhiladelphia,U.S.A.,andlettersofadministrationwereissuedinfavorof
ClementJ.McLaughlinallinaccordancewiththelawsofthesaidforeigncountryonprocedureand
allowanceofwills(ExhibitsEtoE10)andthatthepetitionerisnotsufferingfromanydisqualification
whichwouldrenderherunfitasadministratrixoftheestateinthePhilippinesofthelateAdoracionC.
Campos.

WHEREFORE,theLastWillandTestamentofthelateAdoracionC.Camposisherebyadmittedto
and allowed probate in the Philippines, and Nenita Campos Paguia is hereby appointed
AdministratrixoftheestateofsaiddecedentletLettersofAdministrationwiththeWillannexedissue
infavorofsaidAdministratrixuponherfilingofabondintheamountofP5,000.00conditionedunder
theprovisionsofSectionI,Rule81oftheRulesofCourt.

Another manifestation was filed by the petitioner on April 14, 1979, confirming the withdrawal of his opposition,
acknowledgingthesametobehisvoluntaryactanddeed.

On May 25, 1979, Hermogenes Campos filed a petition for relief, praying that the order allowing the will be set
aside on the ground that the withdrawal of his opposition to the same was secured through fraudulent means.
According to him, the "Motion to Dismiss Opposition" was inserted among the papers which he signed in
connection with two Deeds of Conditional Sales which he executed with the Construction and Development
CorporationofthePhilippines(CDCP).Healsoallegedthatthelawyerwhofiledthewithdrawaloftheopposition
wasnothiscounselofrecordinthespecialproceedingscase.

The petition for relief was set for hearing but the petitioner failed to appear. He made several motions for
postponementuntilthehearingwassetonMay29,1980.

OnMay18,1980,petitionerfiledanothermotionentitled"MotiontoVacateand/orSetAsidetheOrderofJanuary
10,1979,and/ordismissthecaseforlackofjurisdiction.Inthismotion,thenoticeofhearingprovided:

PleaseincludethismotioninyourcalendarforhearingonMay29,1980at8:30inthemorningfor
submission for reconsideration and resolution of the Honorable Court. Until this Motion is resolved,
mayIalsorequestforthefuturesettingofthecaseforhearingontheOppositor'smotiontosetaside
previouslyfiled.

ThehearingofMay29,1980wasresetbythecourtforJune19,1980.Whenthecasewascalledforhearingon
thisdate,thecounselforpetitionertriedtoarguehismotiontovacateinsteadofadducingevidenceinsupportof
the petition for relief. Thus, the respondent judge issued an order dismissing the petition for relief for failure to
presentevidenceinsupportthereof.Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutthesamewasdenied.Inthe
sameorder,respondentjudgealsodeniedthemotiontovacateforlackofmerit.Hence,thispetition.

Meanwhile, on June 6,1982, petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a will, which, incidentally has been
questioned by the respondent, his children and forced heirs as, on its face, patently null and void, and a
fabrication,appointingPollyCayetanoastheexecutrixofhislastwillandtestament.Cayetano,therefore,fileda
motion to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was granted by the court on September 13,
1982.

AmotiontodismissthepetitiononthegroundthattherightsofthepetitionerHermogenesCamposmergedupon
hisdeathwiththerightsoftherespondentandhersisters,onlyremainingchildrenandforcedheirswasdenied
onSeptember12,1983.

Petitioner Cayetano persists with the allegations that the respondent judge acted without or in excess of his
jurisdictionwhen:

1)HeruledthepetitionerlosthisstandingincourtdeprivedtheRighttoNotice(sic)uponthefilingof
the Motion to Dismiss opposition with waiver of rights or interests against the estate of deceased
AdoracionC.Campos,thus,pavingthewayforthehearingexparteofthepetitionfortheprobateof
decedentwill.

2)Heruledthatpetitionercanwaive,renounceorrepudiate(notmadeinapublicorauthenticated
instrument),orbywayofapetitionpresentedtothecourtbutbywayofamotionpresentedpriorto
an order for the distribution of the estatethe law especially providing that repudiation of an

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/may1984/gr_l54919_1984.html 2/4
6/13/2017 G.R.No.L54919

inheritancemustbepresented,within30daysafterithasissuedanorderforthedistributionofthe
estateinaccordancewiththerulesofCourt.

3)Heruledthattherightofaforcedheirtohislegitimecanbedivestedbyadecreeadmittingawill
to probate in which no provision is made for the forced heir in complete disregard of Law of
Succession

4)Hedeniedpetitioner'spetitionforReliefonthegroundthatnoevidencewasadducedtosupport
thePetitionforReliefwhennoNoticenorhearingwassettoaffordpetitionertoprovethemeritofhis
petition a denial of the due process and a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

5) He acquired no jurisdiction over the testate case, the fact that the Testator at the time of death
was a usual resident of Dasmarias, Cavite, consequently Cavite Court of First Instance has
exclusivejurisdictionoverthecase(DeBorjavs.Tan,G.R.No.L7792,July1955).

Thefirsttwoissuesraisedbythepetitionerareanchoredontheallegationthattherespondentjudgeactedwith
graveabuseofdiscretionwhenheallowedthewithdrawalofthepetitioner'soppositiontothereprobateofthewill.

We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. No proof was adduced to support
petitioner'scontentionthatthemotiontowithdrawwassecuredthroughfraudulentmeansandthatAtty.Franco
Loyolawasnothiscounselofrecord.Therecordsshowthatafterthefiringofthecontestedmotion,thepetitioner
atalaterdate,filedamanifestationwhereinheconfirmedthattheMotiontoDismissOppositionwashisvoluntary
actanddeed.Moreover,atthetimethemotionwasfiled,thepetitioner'sformercounsel,Atty.JoseP.Lagrosa
hadlongwithdrawnfromthecaseandhadbeensubstitutedbyAtty.FrancoLoyolawhointurnfiledthemotion.
Thepresentpetitionercannot,therefore,maintainthattheoldman'sattorneyofrecordwasAtty.Lagrosaatthe
timeoffilingthemotion.Sincethewithdrawalwasinorder,therespondentjudgeactedcorrectlyinhearingthe
probateofthewillexparte,therebeingnootheroppositiontothesame.

The third issue raised deals with the validity of the provisions of the will. As a general rule, the probate court's
authorityislimitedonlytotheextrinsicvalidityofthewill,thedueexecutionthereof,thetestatrix'stestamentary
capacityandthecompliancewiththerequisitesorsolemnitiesprescribedbylaw.Theintrinsicvalidityofthewill
normally comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. However, where
practicalconsiderationsdemandthattheintrinsicvalidityofthewillbepassedupon,evenbeforeitisprobated,
thecourtshouldmeettheissue.(Maninangvs.CourtofAppeals,114SCRA478).

Inthecaseatbar,thepetitionermaintainsthatsincetherespondentjudgeallowedthereprobateofAdoracion's
will,HermogenesC.Camposwasdivestedofhislegitimewhichwasreservedbythelawforhim.

Thiscontentioniswithoutmerit.

Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent judge should
have denied its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at
the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Therefore,underArticle16par.(2)and1039oftheCivilCodewhichrespectivelyprovide:

Art.16par.(2).

xxxxxxxxx

However,intestateandtestamentarysuccessions,bothwithrespecttotheorderofsuccessionand
totheamountofsuccessionalrightsandtotheintrinsicvalidityoftestamentaryprovisions,shallbe
regulatedbythenationallawofthepersonwhosesuccessionisunderconsideration,whatevermay
bethenatureofthepropertyandregardlessofthecountrywhereinsaidpropertymaybefound.

Art.1039.

Capacitytosucceedisgovernedbythelawofthenationofthedecedent.

thelawwhichgovernsAdoracionCampo'swillisthelawofPennsylvania,U.S.A.,whichisthenationallawofthe
decedent. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the
estatemaybegivenawaybythetestatrixtoacompletestranger,thepetitionerarguesthatsuchlawshouldnot
apply because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the
specificprovisionsofPhilippineLaw.

Itisasettledrulethatasregardstheintrinsicvalidityoftheprovisionsofthewill,asprovidedforbyArticle16(2)
and1039oftheCivilCode,thenationallawofthedecedentmustapply.Thiswassquarelyappliedinthecaseof
Bellisv.Bellis(20SCRA358)whereinweruled:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/may1984/gr_l54919_1984.html 3/4
6/13/2017 G.R.No.L54919

Itisthereforeevidentthatwhateverpublicpolicyorgoodcustomsmaybeinvolvedinoursystemof
legitimes,Congresshasnotintendedtoextendthesametothesuccessionofforeignnationals.For
it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's
nationallaw.Specificprovisionsmustprevailovergeneralones.

xxxxxxxxx

Thepartiesadmitthatthedecedent,AmosG.Bellis,wasacitizenoftheStateofTexas,U.S.A.,and
underthelawofTexas,therearenoforcedheirsorlegitimes.Accordingly,sincetheintrinsicvalidity
oftheprovisionofthewillandtheamountofsuccessionalrightsaretobedeterminedunderTexas
law,thePhilippineLawonlegitimescannotbeappliedtothetestacyofAmosG.Bellis.

Asregardstheallegedabsenceofnoticeofhearingforthepetitionforrelief,therecordswigbearthefactthat
whatwasrepeatedlyscheduledforhearingonseparatedatesuntilJune19,1980wasthepetitioner'spetitionfor
reliefandnothismotiontovacatetheorderofJanuary10,1979.Thereisnoreasonwhythepetitionershould
havebeenledtobelieveotherwise.Thecourtevenadmonishedthepetitioner'sfailingtoadduceevidencewhen
his petition for relief was repeatedly set for hearing. There was no denial of due process. The fact that he
requested"forthefuturesettingofthecaseforhearing..."didnotmeanthatatthenexthearing,themotionto
vacatewouldbeheardandgivenpreferenceinlieuofthepetitionforrelief.Furthermore,suchrequestshouldbe
embodiedinamotionandnotinamerenoticeofhearing.

Finally,wefindthecontentionofthepetitionastotheissueofjurisdictionutterlydevoidofmerit.UnderRule73,
Section1,oftheRulesofCourt,itisprovidedthat:

SECTION 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the
Philippinesatthetimeofhisdeath,whetheracitizenoranalien,hiswillshallbeproved,orlettersof
administrationgranted,andhisestatesettled,intheCourtofFirstInstanceintheprovinceinwhich
heresidedatthetimeofhisdeath,andifheisaninhabitantofaforeigncountry,theCourtofFirst
Instanceofanyprovinceinwhichhehadestate.Thecourtfirsttakingcognizanceofthesettlement
of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The
jurisdictionassumedbyacourt,sofarasitdependsontheplaceofresidenceofthedecedent,orof
thelocationofhisestate,shallnotbecontestedinasuitorproceeding,exceptinanappealfromthat
court,intheoriginalcase,orwhenthewantofjurisdictionappearsontherecord.

Therefore,thesettlementoftheestateofAdoracionCamposwascorrectlyfiledwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceof
ManilawhereshehadanestatesinceitwasallegedandproventhatAdoracionatthetimeofherdeathwasa
citizenandpermanentresidentofPennsylvania,UnitedStatesofAmericaandnota"usualresidentofCavite"as
alleged by the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is now estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the probate
court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief, against his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same
jurisdiction.(SeeSaulogTransit,Inc.vs.Hon.ManuelLazaro,etal.,G.R.No.63284,April4,1984).

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionisherebydismissedforlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.

MelencioHerrera,Plana,RelovaandDelaFuente,JJ.,concur.

Teehankee,J.,(Chairman),tooknopart.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1984/may1984/gr_l54919_1984.html 4/4