Topic: Intrinsic Validity of Wills

Cayetano vs. Leonidas

No. L-54919. May 30, 1984

POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of
Branch XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA, respondents

FACTS:

 Adoracion Campos died, leaving her father Hermogenes Campos and her sisters Nenita Paguia et al as
surviving heirs.

 As Hermogenes was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication under Rule 74,
Section I of the Rules of Court whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of
the deceased Adoracion.

 Eleven months after, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition in the trial court for the reprobate of a will of the
deceased, Adoracion, which was allegedly executed in the United States and for her appointment as
administratrix of the estate.

 It was alleged in the petition that Adoracion was an American citizen at the time of her death and a
permanent resident of Pennsylvania, USA; that Adoracion died in Manilla while temporarily residing with
her sister; and that during her lifetime, Adoracion made her last will and testatment according to the laws
of Pennsylvania, which after her death was probated and registered in Pennsylvania.

 The will of Adoracion was admitted to and allowed probate in the Philippines, and Paguia was appointed
administratix. Thereafter, Hermogenes 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.

 The respondent judge issued an order dismissing the petition for relief for failure to present evidence in
support thereof. MR was denied, hence this petition.

 Hermogenes died and left a will, appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix of his last will and testament,
who substituted him as petitioner.

 Cayetano raised several issues among which was that the respondent judge erred when he ruled that the
right of a forced heir to his legitime can be divested by a decree admitting a will to probate in which no
provision is made for the forced heir in complete disregard of Law of Succession.

 Cayetano maintained that since the respondent judge allowed the reprobate of Adoracion’s will,
Hermogenes was divested of his legitime which was reserved by law for him.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge erred in allowing the reprobate of Adoracion’s will, thus divesting Hermogenes
of his legitime?

RULING: No.
Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited Hermogenes 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, under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which respectively provide below, the law which
governs Adoracion Campos’ will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent.

Art. 16 par. (2).

xxxxxxxxx
“However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law
of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless
of the country wherein said property may be found.”

Art 1039
“Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.”

Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be
given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it
would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of
Philippine Law.

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) wherein we ruled:

“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.”