SUCCESSION CASES | RIEGO | 2ND BATCH

2. Miciano vs. Brimo | G.R. No. L-22595, 01 November 1927

FACTS:
The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased, Joseph Brimo, filed a
scheme of partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the
said partition.
According to the scheme and its provision, that the deceased requests that all
his relatives respect his wishes, otherwise those who opposed the same shall be
cancelled in said disposition in favor of the oppositor.
The apellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on the fact
that the deceased was a Turkish citizen that his disposition should be in
accordance with the laws of his nationality.
ISSUE:
WON the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine Laws
HELD:
No, although the disposition provides an express provision that it shall be
governed by Philippine Laws and those who opposed the condition of the
provisions given shall be cancelled from the disposition, the fact is that the
condition itself is void for being contrary to law. Article 792 of the Civil Code
provides:
Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be
considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any
manner whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide.
It is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the decedents national law,
according to Article 10 of the Civil Code, such national law shall govern his
testamentary dispositions.
Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that it be
made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine
Island, this condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be considered
as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner
whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide. Impossible conditions
are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals. Thus, national law
of the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial
administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.
Therefore, the institution of the legatees are unconditional and are valid, as well
as those favorable to herein appellant-oppositor.
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK VS. ESCOLIN | G.R. Nos.
L-27860 and 27896, 29 March 1974
FACTS:
In November 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas made a
will. In May 1957, while she was domiciled here in the Philippines (Iloilo City),
she died.
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton Hodges.
Linnie however also stated in her will that should her husband later die, said
estate shall be turned over to her brother and sister.
In December 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled here). Atty.
Leon Gellada, the lawyer of Charles filed a motion before the probate court (there
was an ongoing probate on the will of Linnie) so that a certain Avelina Magno
may be appointed as the administratrix of the estate. Magno was the trusted
employee of the Hodges when they were alive. Atty. Gellada manifested that
Charles himself left a will but the same was in an iron trunk in Charles office.
Hence, in the meantime, hed like to have Magno appointed as administratrix.
Judge Venicio Escolin approved the motion.
Later, Charles will was found and so a new petition for probate was filed for the
said will. Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno, as
admininistratrix of Linnies estate opposed the said petition. Eventually, the
probate of Charles will was granted. Eventually still, the Philippine Commercial
and Industrial Bank was appointed as administrator. But Magno refused to turn
over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the
property to Linnies brother and sister and since that is her will, the same must
be respected. Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her
death (an alien testator); that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional
rights are governed by Linnies national law; that under Texas law, Linnies will
shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes (Charles share in the
estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine laws
because Linnie was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death (applying
the renvoi doctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Texas Law should apply.
HELD: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court. Both
parties failed to adduce proof as to the law of Texas. The Supreme Court held
that for what the Texas law is on the matter, is a question of fact to be resolved
by the evidence that would be presented in the probate court. The Supreme
Court however emphasized that Texas law at the time of Linnies death is the law
applicable (and not said law at any other time).
The question of what are the laws of Texas governing the matters in issue is, in
the first instance, one of fact, not of law. Elementary is the rule that foreign laws
may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in
dispute between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exception in
instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the
court, such as when they are well and generally known or they have been
actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned
do not claim otherwise.