2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

FIRSTDIVISION

ALONZOQ.ANCHETA,G.R.No.139868
Petitioner,
Present:

PANGANIBAN,C.J.(Chairperson)

versus YNARESSANTIAGO,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,SR.,and
CHICONAZARIO,JJ.
CANDELARIAGUERSEY
DALAYGON,Promulgated:
Respondent.June8,2006
xx

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were

American citizens who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an
adopteddaughter,KyleGuerseyHill(Kyle).On July 29, 1979, Audrey died, leaving a
will. In it, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as
[1]
The will was admitted to probate before the Orphans Court of Baltimore,

executor.

Maryland, U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richards

[2]
renunciation of his appointment. The court also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta
(petitioner) of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

1/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

[3]
administrator.

In1981,RichardmarriedCandelariaGuerseyDalaygon(respondent)withwhomhe
hastwochildren,namely,KimberlyandKevin.

OnOctober12,1982,AudreyswillwasalsoadmittedtoprobatebythethenCourt
of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 25, Seventh Judicial District, Pasig, in Special
ProceedingNo.9625.

[4]
AsadministratorofAudreysestateinthePhilippines,petitioner

filedaninventoryandappraisalofthefollowingproperties:(1)Audreysconjugalshare
inrealestatewithimprovementslocatedat28PiliAvenue,ForbesPark,Makati,Metro
Manila,valuedatP764,865.00(Makatiproperty)(2)acurrentaccountinAudreysname
withacashbalanceofP12,417.97and(3)64,444sharesofstockinA/GInteriors,Inc.
[5]
worthP64,444.00.

On July 20, 1984, Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire
estatetorespondent,saveforhisrightsandinterestsovertheA/GInteriors,Inc.shares,
[6]
ThewillwasalsoadmittedtoprobatebytheOrphansCourtof

whichhelefttoKyle.

Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was likewise appointed as
executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or any member of the Quasha
AsperillaAnchetaPena&NolascoLawOffices,asancillaryadministrator.

Richards will was then submitted for probate before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati, Branch 138, docketed as Special Proceeding No. M888.

[7]
Atty. Quasha was

[8]
appointedasancillaryadministratoronJuly24,1986.

OnOctober19,1987,petitionerfiledinSpecialProceedingNo.9625,amotionto
declareRichardandKyleasheirsofAudrey.

[9]
PetitioneralsofiledonOctober23,1987,

aprojectofpartitionofAudreysestate,withRichardbeingapportionedtheundivided
interestintheMakatiproperty,48.333sharesinA/GInteriors,Inc.,andP9,313.48from
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

2/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

theCitibankcurrentaccountandKyle,theundividedinterestintheMakatiproperty,
[10]
16,111sharesinA/GInteriors,Inc.,andP3,104.49incash.

Themotionandprojectofpartitionwasgrantedandapprovedbythetrialcourtin
its Order dated February 12, 1988.

[11]
The trial court also issued an Order on April 7,

1988,directingtheRegisterofDeedsofMakatitocancelTCTNo.69792inthenameof
RichardandtoissueanewtitleinthejointnamesoftheEstateofW.RichardGuersey(
undivided interest) and Kyle ( undivided interest) directing the Secretary of A/G
Interiors,Inc.totransfer48.333sharestotheEstateofW.RichardGuersey and 16.111
shares to Kyle and directing the Citibank to release the amount of P12,417.97 to the
[12]
ancillaryadministratorfordistributiontotheheirs.

Consequently,theRegisterofDeedsofMakatiissuedonJune23,1988,TCTNo.
155823inthenamesoftheEstateofW.RichardGuerseyandKyle.

[13]

Meanwhile,theancillaryadministratorinSpecialProceedingNo.M888alsofiled
aprojectofpartitionwherein2/5ofRichardsundividedinterestintheMakatiproperty
wasallocatedtorespondent,while 3/5thereofwereallocatedtoRichardsthreechildren.
This was opposed by respondent on the ground that under the law of the State of
Maryland, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the
propertysubjectofthelegacy.

[14]
SinceRichardlefthisentireestatetorespondent,

except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire
undividedinterestintheMakatipropertyshouldbegiventorespondent.

The trial court found merit in respondents opposition, and in its Order dated
December 6, 1991, disapproved the project of partition insofar as it affects the Makati
property. The trial court also adjudicated Richards entire undivided interest in the
[15]
Makatipropertytorespondent.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

3/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

OnOctober20,1993,respondentfiledwiththeCourtofAppeals(CA)anamended
complaintfortheannulmentofthetrialcourtsOrdersdatedFebruary12,1988andApril
7,1988,issuedinSpecialProceedingNo.9625.

[16]
Respondentcontendedthatpetitioner

willfully breached his fiduciary duty when he disregarded the laws of the State of
MarylandonthedistributionofAudreysestateinaccordancewithherwill.Respondent
argued that since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard, then the Makati property
shouldbewhollyadjudicatedtohim,andnotmerelythereof,andsinceRichardlefthis
entireestate,exceptforhisrightsandinterestsovertheA/GInteriors,Inc.,torespondent,
thentheentireMakatipropertyshouldnowpertaintorespondent.

PetitionerfiledhisAnswerdenyingrespondentsallegations.Petitioner contended
that he acted in good faith in submitting the project of partition before the trial court in
SpecialProceedingNo.9625,ashehadnoknowledgeoftheStateofMarylandslawson
testateandintestatesuccession.Petitionerallegedthathebelievedthatitistothebest
interests of the surviving children that Philippine law be applied as they would receive
theirjustshares.Petitioneralsoallegedthattheorderssoughttobeannulledarealready
finalandexecutory,andcannotbesetaside.

On March 18, 1999, the CA rendered the assailed Decision annulling the trial
courts Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988, in Special Proceeding No.
[17]
ThedispositiveportionoftheassailedDecisionprovides:

9625.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Orders of February 12, 1998 and April 7, 1988 are
herebyANNULLEDand,inlieuthereof,anewoneisenteredordering:

(a)TheadjudicationoftheentireestateofAudreyONeillGuerseyinfavorofthe
estateofW.RichardGuerseyand

(b)ThecancellationofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.15583oftheMakatiCity
RegistryandtheissuanceofanewtitleinthenameoftheestateofW.RichardGuersey.

[18]
SOORDERED.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

4/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,butthiswasdeniedbytheCAper
ResolutiondatedAugust27,1999.

[19]

Hence,thehereinpetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesof
CourtallegingthattheCAgravelyerredinnotholdingthat:

A) THE ORDERS OF 12 FEBRUARY 1988 AND 07 APRIL 1988 IN SPECIAL

PROCEEDINGS NO. 9625 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR PROBATE
OFTHEWILLOFTHEDECEASEDAUDREYGUERSEY,ALONZOQ.ANCHETA,
ANCILLARYADMINISTRATOR,AREVALIDANDBINDINGANDHAVELONG
BECOME FINAL AND HAVE BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED AND EXECUTED
ANDCANNOLONGERBEANNULLED.

B)THEANCILLARYADMINISTRATORHAVINGACTEDINGOODFAITH,DID
NOT COMMIT FRAUD, EITHER EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC, IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATOR OF
AUDREY ONEIL GUERSEYS ESTATE IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND THAT NO
FRAUD, EITHER EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC, WAS EMPLOYED BY [HIM] IN
[20]
PROCURINGSAIDORDERS.

PetitionerreiterateshisargumentsbeforetheCAthattheOrdersdatedFebruary12,
1988andApril7,1988cannolongerbeannulledbecauseitisafinaljudgment,whichis
conclusiveupontheadministrationastoallmattersinvolvedinsuchjudgmentororder,
andwilldetermineforalltimeandinallcourts,asfarasthepartiestotheproceedingsare
[21]
concerned,allmattersthereindetermined,andthesamehasalreadybeenexecuted.

Petitioneralsocontendsthatthatheactedingoodfaithinperforminghisdutiesas
an ancillary administrator. He maintains that at the time of the filing of the project of
partition, he was not aware of the relevant laws of the State of Maryland, such that the
partition was made in accordance with Philippine laws. Petitioner also imputes
knowledgeonthepartofrespondentwithregardtothetermsofAubreyswill,statingthat
asearlyas1984,healreadyapprisedrespondentofthecontentsofthewillandhowthe
[22]

estatewillbedivided.

Respondent argues that petitioners breach of his fiduciary duty as ancillary

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

5/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

administrator of Aubreys estate amounted to extrinsic fraud. According to respondent,

petitionerwasdutyboundtofollowtheexpresstermsofAubreyswill,andhisdenialof
knowledgeofthelawsofMarylandcannotstandbecausepetitionerisaseniorpartnerina
prestigiouslawfirmanditwashisdutytoknowtherelevantlaws.

Respondentalsostatesthatshewasnotabletofileanyoppositiontotheprojectof
partitionbecauseshewasnotapartytheretoandshelearnedoftheprovisionofAubreys
willbequeathingentirelyherestatetoRichardonlyafterAtty.Anchetafiledaprojectof
partitioninSpecialProceedingNo.M888forthesettlementofRichardsestate.

Adecreeofdistributionoftheestateofadeceasedpersonveststhetitletotheland
oftheestateinthedistributees,which,iferroneousmaybecorrectedbyatimelyappeal.
Onceitbecomesfinal,itsbindingeffectislikeanyotherjudgmentinrem.

[23]

However,

inexceptionalcases,afinaldecreeofdistributionoftheestatemaybesetasideforlackof
jurisdictionorfraud.

[24]

Further,inRamonv.Ortuzar,

[25]
theCourtruledthataparty

interestedinaprobateproceedingmayhaveafinalliquidationsetasidewhenheisleft
outbyreasonofcircumstancesbeyondhiscontrolorthroughmistakeorinadvertencenot
imputabletonegligence.

[26]

ThepetitionforannulmentwasfiledbeforetheCAonOctober20,1993,beforethe
issuance of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure hence, the applicable law is Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129 (B.P. 129) or the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. An
annulmentofjudgmentfiledunderB.P.129maybebasedonthegroundthatajudgment
isvoidforwantofjurisdictionorthatthejudgmentwasobtainedbyextrinsicfraud.

[27]

[28]

Forfraudtobecomeabasisforannulmentofjudgment,ithastobeextrinsicoractual,
andmustbebroughtwithinfouryearsfromthediscoveryofthefraud.

[29]

Inthepresentcase,respondentallegedextrinsicfraudasbasisfortheannulmentof
the RTC Orders dated February 12, 1988 and April 7, 1988. The CA found merit in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

6/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

respondentscauseandfoundthatpetitionersfailuretofollowthetermsofAudreyswill,
despitethelattersdeclarationofgoodfaith,amountedtoextrinsicfraud.TheCAruled
that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, it is the national law of the decedent that is
applicable, hence, petitioner should have distributed Aubreys estate in accordance with
the terms of her will. The CA also found that petitioner was prompted to distribute
AudreysestateinaccordancewithPhilippinelawsinordertoequallybenefitAudreyand
RichardGuerseysadopteddaughter,KyleGuerseyHill.

Petitioner contends that respondents cause of action had already prescribed

because as early as 1984, respondent was already well aware of the terms of Audreys
[30]
and the complaint was filed only in 1993. Respondent, on the other hand,

will,

justifiedherlackofimmediateactionbysayingthatshehadnoopportunitytoquestion
petitionersactssinceshewasnotapartytoSpecialProceedingNo.9625,anditwasonly
after Atty. Ancheta filed the project of partition in Special Proceeding No. M888,
reducing her inheritance in the estate of Richard that she was prompted to seek another
counseltoprotectherinterest.

[31]

It should be pointed out that the prescriptive period for annulment of judgment
basedonextrinsicfraudcommencestorunfromthediscoveryofthefraudorfraudulent
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
fouryearperiodshouldbecountedfromthetimeofrespondentsdiscoverythereof.

RecordsbearthefactthatthefilingoftheprojectofpartitionofRichardsestate,
theoppositionthereto,andtheorderofthetrialcourtdisallowingtheprojectofpartition
[32]
in Special Proceeding No. M888 were all done in 1991.
Respondent cannot be
faulted for letting the assailed orders to lapse into finality since it was only through
Special Proceeding No. M888 that she came to comprehend the ramifications of
petitioners acts. Obviously, respondent had no other recourse under the circumstances
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

7/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

buttofiletheannulmentcase.Sincetheactionforannulmentwasfiledin1993,clearly,
thesamehasnotyetprescribed.

Fraudtakesondifferentshapesandfaces.InCosmicLumberCorporationv.Court
of Appeals,

[33]
the Court stated that man in his ingenuity and fertile imagination will

alwayscontrivenewschemestofooltheunwary.

There is extrinsic fraud within the meaning of Sec. 9 par. (2), of B.P. Blg. 129,
whereitisonetheeffectofwhichpreventsapartyfromhearingatrial,orrealcontest,or
from presenting all of his case to the court, or where it operates upon matters, not
pertainingtothejudgmentitself,buttothemannerinwhichitwasprocuredsothatthere
is not a fair submission of the controversy. In other words, extrinsic fraud refers to any
fraudulentactoftheprevailingpartyinthelitigationwhichiscommittedoutsideofthe
trialofthecase,wherebythedefeatedpartyhasbeenpreventedfromexhibitingfullyhis
sideofthecasebyfraudordeceptionpracticedonhimbyhisopponent.Fraudisextrinsic
wheretheunsuccessfulpartyhasbeenpreventedfromexhibitingfullyhiscase,byfraud
or deception practiced on him by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a
falsepromiseofacompromiseorwherethedefendantneverhadanyknowledgeofthe
suit,beingkeptinignorancebytheactsoftheplaintifforwhereanattorneyfraudulently
orwithoutauthorityconnivesathisdefeattheseandsimilarcaseswhichshowthatthere
hasneverbeenarealcontestinthetrialorhearingofthecasearereasonsforwhichanew
suitmaybesustainedtosetasideandannultheformerjudgmentandopenthecasefora
[34]
newandfairhearing.

Theoverridingconsiderationwhenextrinsicfraudisallegedisthatthefraudulent
schemeoftheprevailinglitigantpreventedapartyfromhavinghisdayincourt.

[35]

PetitioneristheancillaryadministratorofAudreysestate.Assuch,heoccupiesa
position of the highest trust and confidence, and he is required to exercise reasonable
diligenceandactinentiregoodfaithintheperformanceofthattrust.Althoughheisnota
guarantororinsurerofthesafetyoftheestatenorisheexpectedtobeinfallible,yetthe
samedegreeofprudence,careandjudgmentwhichapersonofafairaveragecapacityand
ability exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which his
[36]

conductistobejudged.

Petitioners failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audreys estate

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

8/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

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,
1988andApril7,1988,mustbeupheld.

It is undisputed that Audrey Guersey was an American citizen domiciled in

Maryland,U.S.A.DuringthereprobateofherwillinSpecialProceedingNo.9625,itwas
shown, among others, that at the time of Audreys death, she was residing in the
Philippines but is domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A. her Last Will and Testament dated
August 18, 1972 was executed and probated before the Orphans Court in Baltimore,
Maryland,U.S.A.,whichwasdulyauthenticatedandcertifiedbytheRegisterofWillsof
BaltimoreCityandattestedbytheChiefJudgeofsaidcourtthewillwasadmittedbythe
OrphansCourtofBaltimoreCityonSeptember7,1979andthewillwasauthenticated
bytheSecretaryofStateofMarylandandtheViceConsulofthePhilippineEmbassy.

Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audreys will, especially with
regardastowhoareherheirs,isgovernedbyhernationallaw,i.e.,thelawoftheStateof
Maryland,asprovidedinArticle16oftheCivilCode,towit:

Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
countrywhereitissituated.

However,intestateandtestamentarysuccession,bothwithrespecttotheorderof
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentaryprovisions,shallberegulatedbythenationallawofthepersonwhose
successionisunderconsideration,whatevermaybethenatureofthepropertyand
regardlessofthecountrywhereinsaidpropertymaybefound.(Emphasissupplied)

Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that capacity to succeed is
governedbythelawofthenationofthedecedent.

Asacorollaryrule,Section4,Rule77oftheRulesofCourtonAllowanceofWill
ProvedOutsidethePhilippinesandAdministrationofEstateThereunder,states:

SEC.4. Estate, how administered.Whena will is thus allowed, the court shall
grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such
letterstestamentaryorofadministration,shallextendtoalltheestateofthetestatorinthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

9/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may
operate upon it and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in
cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of another
stateorcountry.(Emphasissupplied)

Whileforeignlawsdonotprovethemselvesinourjurisdictionandourcourtsare
[37]
not authorized to take judicial notice of them
however, petitioner, as ancillary
administrator of Audreys estate, was dutybound to introduce in evidence the pertinent
[38]

lawoftheStateofMaryland.

Petitioner admitted that he failed to introduce in evidence the law of the State of
MarylandonEstatesandTrusts,andmerelyreliedonthepresumptionthatsuchlawisthe
same as the Philippine law on wills and succession. Thus, the trial court peremptorily
appliedPhilippinelawsandtotallydisregardedthetermsofAudreyswill.Theobvious
resultwasthattherewasnofairsubmissionofthecasebeforethetrialcourtorajudicious
appreciationoftheevidencepresented.

Petitioner insists that his application of Philippine laws was made in good faith.
TheCourtcannotacceptpetitionersprotestation.Howcanpetitionerhonestlypresume
thatPhilippinelawsapplywhenasearlyasthereprobateofAudreyswillbeforethetrial
courtin1982,itwasalreadybroughttoforethatAudreywasaU.S.citizen,domiciledin
the State of Maryland. As asserted by respondent, petitioner is a senior partner in a
prestigiouslawfirm,withabiglegalstaffandalargelibrary.

[39]
Hehadallthelegal

resources to determine the applicable law. It was incumbent upon him to exercise his
functionsasancillaryadministratorwithreasonablediligence,andtodischargethetrust
reposedonhimfaithfully.Unfortunately,petitionerfailedtoperformhisfiduciaryduties.

Moreover, whether his omission was intentional or not, the fact remains that the
trial court failed to consider said law when it issued the assailed RTC Orders dated
February12,1988andApril7,1988,declaringRichardandKyleasAudreysheirs,and
distributingAudreysestateaccordingtotheprojectofpartitionsubmittedbypetitioner.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

10/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

This eventually prejudiced respondent and deprived her of her full successional right to
theMakatiproperty.

[40]
InGSISv.BengsonCommercialBldgs.,Inc.,
theCourtheldthatwhentherule
thatthenegligenceormistakeofcounselbindstheclientdesertsitsproperofficeasanaid
to justice and becomes a great hindrance and chief enemy, its rigors must be relaxed to
admit exceptions thereto and to prevent a miscarriage of justice, and the court has the
powertoexceptaparticularcasefromtheoperationoftherulewheneverthepurposesof
justicerequireit.

The CA aptly noted that petitioner was remiss in his responsibilities as ancillary
administratorofAudreysestate.TheCAlikewiseobservedthatthedistributionmadeby
petitioner was prompted by his concern over Kyle, whom petitioner believed should
equally benefit from the Makati property. The CA correctly stated, which the Court
adopts,thus:

In claiming good faith in the performance of his duties and responsibilities,

defendantAlonzoH.Anchetainvokestheprinciplewhichpresumesthelawoftheforum
to be the same as the foreign law (Beam vs. Yatco, 82 Phil. 30, 38) in the absence of
evidenceadducedtoprovethelatterlaw(SladePerkinsvs.Perkins,57Phil.205,210).In
defendinghisactionsinthelightoftheforegoingprinciple,however,itappearsthatthe
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.ConsideringtheprincipleestablishedunderArticle16oftheCivilCodeofthe
Philippines, as well as the citizenship and the avowed domicile of the decedent, it goes
without saying that the defendant was also dutybound to prove the pertinent laws of
Marylandonthematter.
Therecordreveals,however,thatnocleareffortwasmadetoprovethenational
law of Audrey ONeill Guersey during the proceedings before the court a quo. While
there is claim of good faith in distributing the subject estate in accordance with the
Philippinelaws,thedefendantappearstoputhisactuationsinadifferentlightasindicated
inaportionofhisdirectexamination,towit:

xxx

It would seem, therefore, that the eventual distribution of the estate of Audrey ONeill
GuerseywaspromptedbydefendantAlonzoH.Anchetasconcernthatthesubjectrealty
equallybenefittheplaintiffsadopteddaughterKyleGuersey.

Wellintentionedthoughitmaybe,defendantAlonzoH.Anchetasactionappears
to have breached his duties and responsibilities as ancillary administrator of the subject
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

11/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

estate.While such breach of duty admittedly cannot be considered extrinsic fraud

underordinarycircumstances,thefiduciarynatureofthesaiddefendantsposition,
as well as the resultant frustration of the decedents last will, combine to create a
circumstance that is tantamount to extrinsic fraud.Defendant Alonzo H. Anchetas
omissiontoprovethenationallawsofthedecedentandtofollowthelatterslastwill,in
sum,resultedintheprocurementofthesubjectorderswithoutafairsubmissionofthereal
[41]
issuesinvolvedinthecase.
(Emphasissupplied)

This is not a simple case of error of judgment or grave abuse of discretion, but a
totaldisregardofthelawasaresultofpetitionersabjectfailuretodischargehisfiduciary
duties. 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
fromenjoyingfullrightstotheMakatipropertythroughnofaultornegligenceofherown,
aspetitionersomissionwasbeyondhercontrol. She was in no position to analyze the
legal implications of petitioners omission and it was belatedly that she realized the
adverseconsequenceofthesame.Theendresultwasamiscarriageofjustice.In cases
likethis,thecourtshavethelegalandmoraldutytoprovidejudicialaidtopartieswhoare
[42]

deprivedoftheirrights.

ThetrialcourtinitsOrderdatedDecember6,1991inSpecialProceedingNo.M
888notedthelawoftheStateofMarylandonEstatesandTrusts,asfollows:

UnderSection1301,Title3,SubTitle3oftheAnnotatedCodeofthePublic
General Laws of Maryland on Estates and Trusts, all property of a decedent shall be
subject to the estate of decedents law, and upon his death shall pass directly to the
personalrepresentative,whoshallholdthelegaltitleforadministrationanddistribution,
while Section 4408 expressly provides that unless a contrary intent is expressly
indicatedinthewill,alegacypassestothelegateetheentireinterestofthetestatorinthe
propertywhichisthesubjectofthelegacy.Section7101,Title7,SubTitle1,onthe
otherhand,declaresthatapersonalrepresentativeisafiduciaryandassuchheisunder
thegeneraldutytosettleanddistributetheestateofthedecedentinaccordancewiththe
terms of the will and the estate of decedents law as expeditiously and with as little
[43]
sacrificeofvalueasisreasonableunderthecircumstances.

Inherwill,AudreydevisedtoRichardherentireestate,consistingofthefollowing:
(1)AudreysconjugalshareintheMakatiproperty(2)thecashamountofP12,417.97
and (3) 64,444 shares of stock in A/G Interiors, Inc. worth P64,444.00. All these
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

12/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

propertiespassedontoRicharduponAudreysdeath. Meanwhile, Richard, in his will,

bequeathedhisentireestatetorespondent,exceptforhisrightsandinterestsovertheA/G
Interiors,Inc.shares,whichhelefttoKyle.WhenRichardsubsequentlydied,theentire
Makatipropertyshouldhavethenpassedontorespondent.This,ofcourse,assumesthe
proposition that the law of the State of Maryland which allows a legacy to pass to the
legateetheentireestateofthetestatorinthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthelegacy,
was sufficiently proven in Special Proceeding No. 9625. Nevertheless, the Court may
takejudicialnoticethereofinviewoftherulinginBohananv.Bohanan.

[44]
Therein,the

Court took judicial notice of the law of Nevada despite failure to prove the same. The
Courtheld,viz.:

We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we
have found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of the motion of Magdalena C.
BohananforwithdrawalofP20,000ashershare,theforeignlaw,especiallySection9905,
Compiled Nevada Laws, was introduced in evidence by appellants' (herein) counsel as
Exhibit"2"(Seepp.7779,Vol.II,andt.s.n.pp.2444,Records,CourtofFirstInstance).
AgainsaidlawwaspresentedbythecounselfortheexecutorandadmittedbytheCourtas
Exhibit "B" during the hearing of the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael
Amparo(seeRecords,CourtofFirstInstance,Vol.1).

Inaddition,theotherappellants,childrenofthetestator,donotdisputetheabove
quotedprovisionofthelawsoftheStateofNevada.Underalltheabovecircumstances,
weareconstrainedtoholdthatthepertinentlawofNevada,especiallySection9905ofthe
CompiledNevadaLawsof1925,canbetakenjudicialnoticeofbyus,withoutproofof
suchlawhavingbeenofferedatthehearingoftheprojectofpartition.

Inthiscase,giventhatthepertinentlawoftheStateofMarylandhasbeenbrought
to record before the CA, and the trial court in Special Proceeding No. M888
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,doesnotdisputetheexistenceorvalidityofsaidlaw,thenAudreysandRichards
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
belongstorespondent.

Decadesago,JusticeMoreland,inhisdissentingopinioninSantosv.Manarang,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

13/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

[45]
wrote:

A will is the testator speaking after death. Its provisions have substantially the
sameforceandeffectintheprobatecourtasifthetestatorstoodbeforethecourtinfull
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.Menwishedtospeakaftertheyweredeadandthelaw,bythecreationofthat
instrument,permittedthemtodosoxxxAlldoubtsmustberesolvedinfavorofthe
testator'shavingmeantjustwhathesaid.

Honorableasitseems,petitionersmotiveinequitablydistributingAudreysestate
cannotprevailoverAudreysandRichardswishes.AsstatedinBellisv.Bellis:

[46]

x x x 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,tothedecedent'snationalLaw.Specificprovisionsmustprevailovergeneralones.
[47]

Beforeconcluding,theCourtnotesthefactthatAudreyandRichardGuerseywere
American citizens who owned real property in the Philippines, although records do not
showwhenandhowtheGuerseysacquiredtheMakatiproperty.

Under Article XIII, Sections 1 and 4 of the 1935 Constitution, the privilege to
acquire and exploit lands of the public domain, and other natural resources of the
Philippines,andtooperatepublicutilities,werereservedtoFilipinosandentitiesowned
[48]
the Court clarified that the Parity

or controlled by them. In Republic v. Quasha,

Rights Amendment of 1946, which reopened to American citizens and business

enterprises the right in the acquisition of lands of the public domain, the disposition,
exploitation,developmentandutilizationofnaturalresourcesofthePhilippines,doesnot
include the acquisition or exploitation of private agricultural lands. The prohibition
against acquisition of private lands by aliens was carried on to the 1973 Constitution
underArticleXIV,Section14,withtheexceptionofprivatelandsacquiredbyhereditary
successionandwhenthetransferwasmadetoaformernaturalborncitizen,asprovided
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

14/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

inSection15,ArticleXIV.Asitnowstands,ArticleXII,Sections7and8ofthe1986
Constitution explicitly prohibits nonFilipinos from acquiring or holding title to private
landsortolandsofthepublicdomain,exceptonlybywayoflegalsuccessionorifthe
acquisitionwasmadebyaformernaturalborncitizen.

Inanycase,theCourthasalsoruledthatiflandisinvalidlytransferredtoanalien
who subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to a citizen, the flaw in the original
transactionisconsideredcuredandthetitleofthetransfereeisrenderedvalid.

[49]
Inthis

case, since the Makati property had already passed on to respondent who is a Filipino,
then whatever flaw, if any, that attended the acquisition by the Guerseys of the Makati
property is now inconsequential, as the objective of the constitutional provision to keep
ourlandsinFilipinohandshasbeenachieved.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisdenied.TheDecisiondatedMarch18,1999andthe
ResolutiondatedAugust27,1999oftheCourtofAppealsareAFFIRMED.

PetitionerisADMONISHEDtobemorecircumspectintheperformanceofhis
dutiesasanofficialofthecourt.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

15/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

(Onleave)
CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthatthe
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Onleave.
[1]
CArollo,pp.8488.
[2]
Id.at8991.
[3]
Id.at92.
[4]
Supra,note2.
[5]
CArollo,pp.9394.
[6]
Id.at9598.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

16/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

[7]
Id.at99100.
[8]
Id.at101.
[9]
Id.at102103.
[10]
Id.at104106.
[11]
Id.at107.
[12]
Id.at108109.
[13]
Id.at114116.
[14]
RTCOrderdatedDecember6,1991,CArollo,p.48.
[15]
CArollo,pp.117121.
[16]
Id.at7181.
[17]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeFerminA.Martin,Jr.(retired),andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRomeoJ.
Callejo,Sr.(nowAssociateJusticeofthisCourt)andMarianoM.Umali(retired).
[18]
CArollo,p.553.
[19]
Id.at617618.
[20]
Rollo,p.36.
[21]
Id.at174.
[22]
Id.at183.
[23]
Reyesv.BarrettoDatu,125Phil501(1967).
[24]
Kilaykov.Tengco,G.R.No.L45425,March27,1992,207SCRA600.
[25]
89Phil.730(1951).
[26]
Id.at741.
[27]
Ybaezv.CourtofAppeals,323Phil.643(1996).
[28]
Stilianpulosv.TheCityofLegaspi,374Phil.879(1999).
[29]
Article1391,CivilCode.
[30]
Rollo,p.46,183.
[31]
Id.at157158.
[32]
SeeRTCBranch138OrderdatedDecember6,1991,pp.194198,CArollo.
[33]
332Phil.948(1996).
[34]
Id.at961962.
[35]
Teodorov.CourtofAppeals,437Phil.336(2002).
[36]
Laov.Genato,G.R.No.L56451,June19,1985,137SCRA77.
[37]
Llorentev.CourtofAppeals,399Phil.342(2000).
[38]
Bohananv.Bohanan,106Phil.997(1960).
[39]
Rollo,p.156.
[40]
426Phil.111(2002).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

17/18

2/1/2015

G.R.No.139868

[41]
CArollo,pp.551553.
[42]
Paelv.CourtofAppeals,382Phil.222(2000).
[43]
CArollo,p.48.
[44]
Supra.,Bohanancase,note38.
[45]
27Phil.209(1914).
[46]
126Phil.726(1967).
[47]
Id.at732.
[48]
150BPhil.140(1972).
[49]
UnitedChurchBoardofWorldMinistriesv.Sebastian,No.L34672,March30,1988,159SCRA446Haliliv.
CourtofAppeals,350Phil.906(1998)Leev.Republic,418Phil.793(2001).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20139868.htm#_ftn1

18/18