Cayetano v.

Leonidas (May 30, 1984) Doctrine: Intrinsic validity of the will can be passed upon during probate of will. The attested will is still valid even if the compulsory heir was deprived of his legitime because the decedent, at the time of his death, was a citizen of US, and was governed by Pennsylvania law which does not have a system of legitime and forced heirs. Adoracion can therefore dispose of her whole estate and deprive Hermogenes of any share in her estate. (My formulation) Summary: decedent who was a former Filipino citizen naturalized as a citizen of Pennsylvania, executed a will in US which did not leave anything to her father, who was her sole compulsory heir. Court held that since the decedent was already a US Citizen at the time she made her will, US laws would apply as to intrinsic validity (thus, no need for legitimes - her father would not have anything) NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari, seeking to annul orders of respondent judge of CFI of Manila which admitted to probate and allowed last will of Adoracion Campos, after the ex-parte presentation of evidence by private respondent. PONENTE: Gutierrez, 1st Division FACTS: Decedent: Adoracion Campos Surviving heirs: o Father: Hermogenes - only compulsory heir o Sisters: Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez and Marieta Medina -Hermogenes executed an Affidavit of Adjudication whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of Adoracion -11 months after, Nenita Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of Adoracion, which was allegedly executed in the US and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix. - An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by Hermogenes: o will in question is a forgery o intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void o even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked, the same could not apply inasmuch as they would work injustice and injury to him - Hermogenes filed a Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With Waiver of Rights or Interests): confirms validity of will -TC: admitted last will and testament, allowed probate in RP - Hermogenes filed a petition for relief: o alleged that withdrawal of his opposition was secured through fraud (he was made to sign papers, inserted among them, the withdrawal.) - motion entitled "Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside the Order of January 10, 1979, and/or dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

-TC: dismissed: failed to present evidence in support of it WILL: o Adoracion was a US citizen, a permanent resident of Pennsylvania at the time she made the will o She died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister o Made in accordance with Pennsylvania law, probated and registered in Penn. after her death Issues/Held/Ratio: WON the intrinsic validity of the will can be passed upon during probate of the will? YES. GR: probate court's authority is limited only to: the extrinsic validity of the will due execution testatrix's testamentary capacity Compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law Exception:where practical considerations demand intrinsic validity to be passed upon WON the will is valid even if the compulsory heir was deprived of his legitime? YES. It was sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent: law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. [Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code] Pennsylvania law: no legitimes, testator could give away entire estate to strangers! WON the will (which completely deprived compulsory heir of share) is against public policy? NO -cited Bellis v. Bellis: whatever public policy or good customs may be involved, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Was Hermogenes Campos denied due process? There was no denial of due process in this case. As regards the alleged absence of notice of hearing for the petition for relief, the records will bear that what was repeatedly scheduled for hearing on separate dates was Hermogenes petition for relief and not his motion to vacate order. There is no reason why he was led to believe otherwise. The Court even admonished Hermogenes for his failure to adduce evidence when his petition for relief was repeatedly set for hearing. There was no denial of due process. DISPOSITION: Dismissed VOTE: all concur. -Ann for Kes