PCIB V. ESCOLIN Short Summary: Mr.

and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. believe me, this is a short summary!case is long!" Facts #$harles % &innie Hodges, both T'()* nationals, provided in their respective wills that bequeath remainder of estate to spouse!during lifetime remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse #Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as '('$UT+, in -inancial .tatements submitted before the court, he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is /01 of con2ugal estate that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in U. for 3 years before his death, he failed to ma4e accounting, failed to acquire final ad2udication of wife5s estate #$harles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse5s estate, later replaced by 6$78 for $harles5 estate WON Action is prescribe ! *+. 99 appeals were timely made #$ourt did not pass upon its timeliness WON Certiorari an Prohibition is proper! :'.. )ppeal insufficient remedy #many appeals, same facts, same issues ; multiplicity of suits WON "#E$E IS S"ILL A $ESI%&E FO$ '$S. #O%(ES) #EI$S! :'.. /. <+* .6'$7)& 6,+$''=7*> -+, .'TT&'M'*T +- M,.. H+=>'. '.T)T' .H+U&= )&,')=: 8' $&+.'=, 8).'= +* TH' ='$'M8', /?3@ $+U,T +,=', )&&'>'=&: )=AU=7$)T7*> M,. H+=>'. ). .+&' H'7,B *+ !.no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate 1. ,?C./ on ,'.7=U'"D !after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, ..6. deemed ready for -7*)& $&+.U,'D /. +rder issued for distribution0assignment of estate among those entitled 1. =ebts -uneral expenses 'xpenses of administration <idow allowance Taxes 'tc. !should be paid already 9. Motion of party requesting the same not motu proprio" <ould include distribution of residue of estate #HereD a. *o final distribution of residue of &inney5s estate b. *o special application made by charles06$78 c. Merely allowed advance or partial payments0implementation of will before final liquidation d. 7f charles already deemed sole heir, why 6$78 needed to file a motion to declare that $harles is indeed the sole heirB 9. +* )&&'>'= 7*T'*T7+* +- M,. H+=>'. 6$78D He intended to ad2udicate whole estate to himself Thus, no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na special proceeding" 8UT .$D /. <hatever was intended, he can5t deprive those who have rights over the estate 1. +rder # motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding 9. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife5s siblings had rightsD 7n -., stated that /01 of con2ugal estate belonged to 'state of &inney 7n 6etition for will5s probate, he listed the bros and sis as heirs &awyer of Magno was initially lawyer of $harles when latter was still executor of &inney5s estate E so may 4now what $harles5 intended $harles admitted omitting a bro of &inney He even allegedly renounced his share of the estate but was not proven" $harles had duty, as .urviving spouse, of trustee of wife5s estate so had to act in >F. +* 6,+6',T7'. -+, .78&7*>.D since there5s still a residue, can5t close .6 yet G6$78D *+ &7HU7=)T7+* +- $+*AU>)& 6,+6',T7'. :'T, 6$78 .H+U&= .+&'&: )=M7*7.T', 'I',:TH7*> T+ ='T',M7*' TH' .'6),)T' '.T)T' +- &7**':, +I', <0$ M)>*+ $+U&= )=M7*7.T', HD *+. both 6$78 and Magno should administer a. 7t was $harles5 fault why no administration of estate yet b. )dmin should both be impartial extent of interest c. 'xecutor 6$78" of 'xecutor $harles, over &inney5s" $an5t administer estate of decedent &inney" J ,@K.L d. &iquidation of con2ugal partnership may be done in either spouse5s probate proceedings # ,@9.1 S&CCESSION: WON "#E$E)S S&BS"I"&"ION! None /. *o simple or vulgar substitution )K3?, *$$" no provision forD i. 6redecease of T for designated heir ii. ,efusal iii. 7ncapacity of designated heir to accept inheritance 1. *o fideicomissary substitution no obligation on $harles to preserve the estate 9. There5s simultaneous institution of heirs sub2ect to resolutory condition of $harles5 death $harles was to en2oy the whole estate but he can5t dispose of property mortis causa because it5s already sub2ect to the will made by his wife, which he agreed in the provision of his will" F. $harles didn5t get mere usufructD he exercises full ownership P$IL: WON $P LAW (OVE$NS LE(I"I'E OF C#A$LES! *o answer yet. ,emanded )rt /L, *$$ G appliesD law of nationality 7f we apply Texas 6,7& lawD 6ersonal propertyD law of domicile ,eal propertyD law of situs both in ,6" 7- )rt/L applies, then Texas law should governM Texas law provides no legitime .o renvoi to ,6D ,6 &aw provides that the .urviving .pouse, being the sole heir, gets /01 o the con2ugal property, then /01 goes to the estate of the spouse. 7f /01 of the estate of the spouse goes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then $harles gets /0F of the whole con2ugal property. $ourt said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven as!

$ourts can5t ta4e A* should show foreign lawD o )s certified by person holding0having custody of such law o $ertificate that such officer does have custody over said law o )Nnar can5t be used to show what Texas law may contain, as there5s a time difference between this case and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings

as of the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, have been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that, as contended by 6$78, under )rticle /L of the $ivil $ode and applying renvoi the laws of the 6hilippines are the ones ultimately applicable, such one#fourth share would be her free disposable portion, ta4ing into account already the legitime of her husband under )rticle ?CC of the $ivil $ode.

8UT <H)T'I', H)66'*., 6$78 can5t claim that the estate of &inney is not entitled to at least /0F of con2ugal property, they having argued that it is so. *+T'.D /. will executed in Texas # +4lahoma 1. $harles made executor by &inney, but $harles had no executor # so administrator dapat 9. as regards foreign lawsD .hould be proved as a fact ,/91 on 6ublic documents .7,D =apat use an expert witness 6rove in accordance w0,6 law PCI Ban* +s. Esco,in 7f there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir to preserve the property and transmit it to a second heir, there is no fideicomisaria. The institution is not necessarily voidM it may be valid as some other disposition, but it is not a fideicomisaria.

PCIB VS. ESCOLIN 3L .$,) 1LL FAC"S: &innie Aane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. )t the time of her death, she was citiNen of Texas but, was, however domiciled in the 6hilippines. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparent and necessary to 4now what law should be applied. ISS&E: <hether or not laws of Texas is applicable. $&LIN(: 7t is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it must be proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law ma4es the testamentary provisions valid. 7n line with Texas law, that which should be proven is the law enforced during the death of Hodges and not in any other time. The .upreme $ourt held that the estate of Mrs. Hodges inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than 2ust stated, but this would depend on /" whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to )rticle /L of the $ivil $ode and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will appear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and 1" whether or not it can be held that Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under the circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the $ourt is not in a position to ma4e a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of these two issues, and <e, therefore, reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the court o quo, as hereinabove indicated. <e reiterate, however, that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, +ur considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, her husband could not have anyway legally ad2udicated or caused to be ad2udicated to himself her whole share of their con2ugal partnership, albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be less than one#fourth of the con2ugal partnership properties,