Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon 490 SCRA 140 Austria-Martinez, J: Facts: Audrey and Richard were married.

They had a son, Kyle. They are American Citizens, domiciled therein but has been residing in the Philippines for 30 years. When Audrey died she left a will bequeathing ALL HER PROPERTIES (including the Makati property, shares in a company and savings account) to her husband. Richard remarried to herein respodent. When Richard died, he left a will bequeathing also, all his properties to respondent except the shares which he gave to his son. The will of Audrey was duly probated in Maryland. The same is true with that of Richard. Ancheta was appointed as the anciliary administrator of the estate. The latter filed probate proceedings here in the Philippines and filed a PROJECT PARTITION whereby he did not apply the LAW OF MARYLAND but instead applied the Philippine Law. Hence, instead of bequeathing all the Makati property to respondent, he only awarded thereof and gave the to Kyle. Respondent alleged that the latter violated his fiduciary duty because he did not apply the Maryland Law and also, he disregarded the wills of Richard and Audrey Defense of petitioner: He did not act in bad faith as executor. The respondent cannot anymore asked for the setting aside of the PROJECT OF PARTITION because it has already become FINAL. Petitioner also contended that the action has already prescribed since respondent already knew of the distribution of the estate since 1984 but no action was made thereon Respondents allegations: That petitioner committed EXTRINSIC FRAUD because he did not perform his fiduciary duty in upholding the will of Audrey. Hence, such EXTRINSIC FRAUD is sufficient to set aside the decision. Respondent replied that he was not able to question the distribution because he was not a party to it The CA found merit in respondents cause and found that petitioners failure to follow the terms of Audreys will, despite the latters declaration of good faith, amounted to extrinsic fraud Issue: 1. 2. 3. 4. WON the State of Maryland Law shall apply in this case WON the defense of GF in applying Philippine law may be accepted in this case WON the judgment may still be set aside on the ground of FRAUD even if it is already final WON the action for annulment has already prescribed

5. WON there is extrinsic fraud in this case Held:

In this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of Maryland has been brought to record before the CA, and the trial court in Special Proceeding No. M-888 appropriately took note of the same in disapproving the proposed project of partition of Richards estate, not to mention that petitioner or any other interested person for that matter, does not dispute the existence or validity of said law, then Audreys and Richards estate should be distributed according to their respective wills, and not according to the project of partition submitted by petitioner. Consequently, the entire Makati property belongs to respondent.

A will is the testator speaking after death. Its provisions have substantially the same force and effect in the probate court as if the testator stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word of mouth as they appear in the will. That was the special purpose of the law in the creation of the instrument known as the last will and testament. Men wished to speak after they were dead and the law, by the creation of that instrument, permitted them to do so x x x All doubts must be resolved in favor of the testator's having meant just what he said. Honorable as it seems, petitioners motive in equitably distributing Audreys estate cannot prevail over Audreys and Richards wishes. 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 1. Yes.

Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audreys will, especially with regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the Civil Code, to wit: Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, 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. Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that "capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent."

While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audreys estate, was dutybound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland. 2. No. In claiming good faith in the performance of his duties and responsibilities, defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta invokes the principle which presumes the law of the forum to be the same as the foreign law Petitioner insists that his application of Philippine laws was made in good faith. The Court cannot accept petitioners protestation. How can petitioner honestly presume that Philippine laws apply when as early as the reprobate of Audreys will before the trial court in 1982, it was already brought to fore that Audrey was a U.S. citizen, domiciled in the State of Maryland. As asserted by respondent, petitioner is a senior partner in a prestigious law firm, with a "big legal staff and a large library." He had all the legal resources to determine the applicable law. It was incumbent upon him to exercise his functions as ancillary administrator with reasonable diligence, and to discharge the trust reposed on him faithfully. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to perform his fiduciary duties. In defending his actions in the light of the foregoing principle, however, it appears that the defendant lost sight of the fact that his primary responsibility as ancillary administrator was to distribute the subject estate in accordance with the will of Audrey ONeill Guersey. Considering the principle established under Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as the citizenship and the avowed domicile of the decedent, it goes without saying that the defendant was also duty-bound to prove the pertinent laws of Maryland on the matter. Defendant Alonzo H. Anchetas omission to prove the national laws of the decedent and to follow the latters last will, in sum, resulted in the procurement of the subject orders without a fair submission of the real issues involved in the case 3. 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 v. 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. An annulment of judgment filed under B.P. 129 may be based on the ground that a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud. For fraud to become a basis for annulment of judgment, it has to be extrinsic or actual and must be brought within four years from the discovery of the fraud. 4. No.

It should be pointed out that the prescriptive period for annulment of judgment based on extrinsic fraud commences to run from the discovery of the fraud or fraudulent act/s. Respondents knowledge of the terms of Audreys will is immaterial in this case since it is not the fraud complained of. Rather, it is petitioners failure to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland that is the fraudulent act, or in this case, omission, alleged to have been committed against respondent, and therefore, the four-year period should be counted from the time of respondents discovery thereof. 5. Yes. Defendant Alonzo H. Anchetas omission to prove the national laws of the decedent and to follow the latters last will, in sum, resulted in the procurement of the subject orders without a fair submission of the real issues involved in the case Fraud takes on different shapes and faces. In Cosmic Lumber Corporation v.Court of Appeals, the Court stated that "man in his ingenuity and fertile imagination will always contrive new schemes to fool the unwary." There is extrinsic fraud within the meaning of Sec. 9 par. (2), of B.P. Blg. 129, where it is one the effect of which prevents a party from hearing a trial, or real contest, or from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters, not pertaining to the judgment itself, but to the manner in which it was procured so that there is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in the litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. Fraud is extrinsic where the unsuccessful party has been prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a compromise; or where the defendant never had any knowledge of the suit, being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment and open the case for a new and fair hearing. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court. Petitioner is the ancillary administrator of Audreys estate. As such, he occupies a position of the highest trust and confidence, and he is required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith in the performance of that trust. Although he is not a guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he expected to be infallible, yet the same degree of prudence, care and judgment which a person of a fair average capacity and ability exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which his conduct is to be judged Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audreys 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. 6. Assuming there is no fraud, it does not rest upon petitioners pleasure as to which law should be made applicable under the circumstances. His onus is clear. Respondent was thus excluded from

enjoying full rights to the Makati property through no fault or negligence of her own, as petitioners omission was beyond her control. She was in no position to analyze the legal implications of petitioners omission and it was belatedly that she realized the adverse consequence of the same. The end result was a miscarriage of justice. In cases like this, the courts have the legal and moral duty to provide judicial aid to parties who are deprived of their rights 7. OTHERS

As it now stands, Article XII, Sections 7 and 8 of the 1986 Constitution explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or holding title to private lands or to lands of the public domain, except only by way of legal succession or if the acquisition was made by a former natural-born citizen. In any case, the Court has also ruled 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