RULE 77 ALLOWANCE OF A WILL PROVED OUTSIDE OF PHILIPPINE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE THEREUNDER A.W. FLUEMER vs. G.R. No.

. L-32636, 54 Phil. 610 HIX. ( March 17, 1930)

Statement of Facts: The special administrator, A. W. Fleumer, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix filed petition for the probate of the purported last will and testament of Edward Randolf Hix, deceased. Judge Tuason of the Court of First Instance denied the petition A. W. Fleumer appeals the said decision. It is alleged that since the will was executed in West Virginia by a resident therein, West Virginia law should govern. Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will may be probated in the Philippines. Ruling of the Court: The courts of the Philippines are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state of West Virginia as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure; nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original. In addition, the due execution of the will was not established. The only evidence on this point is to be found in the testimony of the petitioner. Aside from this, there was nothing to indicate that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses, of that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems to require. It is to be noted that the application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia appear to have been initiated on June 8, 1929. These facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary administration. However this may be, no attempt has been made to comply with Civil Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to have been proved and allowed in West Virginia has been requested. There is no showing that the deceased left any property at any place other than the Philippine Islands and no contention that he left any in West Virginia.

SUNTAY vs. SUNTAY G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088, 95 Phil. 500

(July 31, 1954)

Statement of Facts: On Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the Philippines, died in the city of Amoy, Fookien province, China, leaving real and personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy and 9 children by the first marriage had with the late Manuela T. Cruz and a child named Silvino by the second marriage had with Maria Natividad Lim Billian who survived him. Intestate proceedings were instituted in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan and after hearing letters of administration were issued to Apolonio Suntay. After the latter's death Federico C. Suntay was appointed administrator of the estate. On 15 October 1934 the surviving widow filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the probate of a last will and testament claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on November 1929 by the late Jose B. Suntay. This petition was denied because of the loss of said will after the filing of the petition and before the hearing thereof and of the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of the said will. After liberation, claiming that he had found among the files, records and documents of his late father a will and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was filed, recorded and probated in the Amoy district court, Province of Fookien, China, Silvino Suntay filed a petition in the intestate proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China. Statement of Issue: Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China may be probated in the Philippines. Ruling of the Court:

The will executed in Amoy, China cannot be allowed. Silvino was unable to adduce the necessary proof under the Rules of Court in order to probate the will in the Philippines, specifically: a. b. c. d. e. The due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws; The testator had his domicile in the foreign country and not in the Philippines; The will has been admitted to probate in such country; The fact that the municipal court of Amoy is a probate court; the procedural law of China regarding probate of wills.

MICIANO vs. BRIMO G.R. No. L-22595, 50 PHil. 867 (November 1, 1927) Statement of Facts: Miciano, as the administrator of the estate of Joseph Brimo, filed a petition for the partition of the estate in accordance with the will of the deceased. Andre Brimo, brother of the deceased opposed the partition because the will itself was not executed in accordance with the laws of Turkey, in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code. The trial court approved the petition for partition, hence this action. Statement of Issue: Whether or not the partition is valid. Ruling of the Court: The Court decided that although Andre Brimo opposed his brothers intention to have Philippine laws apply he was not deemed to have contested the legacy, because the choice of law clause in the will was contrary to law. Our laws apply the lex nationalii of decedent to determine intrinsic validity of a will and this law was purposefully disregarded by decedent. The Court considered this clause as not imposed and shall in no manner prejudice the heir even if the testator should otherwise provide. Hence, Andre Brimo can inherit. But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. The orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the distribution of this estate be made in such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as one of the legatees, and the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator is approved in all other respects

LEON AND GHEZZI vs. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO G.R. No. L-3677, 90 Phil. 459 ( November 29, 1951) Statement of Facts: The case involves the estate of Basil Gordon Butler,formerly a resident of the Philippines, died in Brooklyn, New York City, in 1945, leaving a will which was duly probated in New York County and of which James Ross, Sr., James Madison Ross, Jr. and Ewald E. Selph were named executors. The estate having been settled, the proceedings were closed on July 17, 1947. The will contained this residuary clause bequeathing the remaining estate to Mercedes de Leon who is to receive an amount sufficient for her current needs. James Madison Ross was appointed as trustee. Ross bought an annuity from the Manufacturer's life Insurance Co. at its head office in Toronto, Canada, paying in advance $17,091.03 as the combined premiums. The contract stipulates for a monthly payment of $57.60 to Mercedes Benz during her lifetime. De Leon has been receiving the stipulated monthly allowance through the Insurance Company's Manila Office. To get hold of the entire amount, de Leon presented the will for probate in CFI, Manila with Ghezzi as administrator. After having qualified, the administratrix filed the motion to demand accounting from Manulife which Judge Amparo has denied. Statement of Issue: Whether or not De Leon can demand accounting from Manulife. Ruling of the Court: Section 4 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court provides:

Estate, how administered.-When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the 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 state or country. It is manifest from the facts before set out that the funds in question are outside the jurisdiction of the probate court of Manila. Having been invested in an annuity in Canada under a contract executed in the country, Canada is the suits of the money. The party whose appearance the appellant seeks is only a branch or agency of the company which holds the funds in its possession, the agency's intervention being limited to delivering to the annuitant the checks made out and issued from the home office. There is no showing or allegation that the funds have been transferred or removed to the Manila Branch.

JOHANNES vs. HARVEY 43 Phil 175 (1922) Statement of Facts: Johannes, a married woman, died intestate in Singapore, Straits Settlements. Her husband was named the administrator of her property by the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements. Husband resides in Singapore while brother in Manila. Her brother was appointed by the CFI Manila as ancillary administrator of her properties in Manila. Ruling of the Court: CFI did not act in excess of jurisdiction in naming the brother of the deceased as the ancillary administrator of the estate. When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the principal administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. A grant of administration does not have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the United States. Ancillary letters should ordinarily be granted to the domiciliary representative, or to his nominee, or attorney; but in the absence of express statutory requirement the court may in its discretion appoint some other person.

ANCHETA vs. GUERSEY-DALAYGON G.R. No. 139868 June 8, 2006 Statement of Facts: Spouses Audrey and W. Richard Guersey were American citizens who have resided in the Philippines. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle. When Audrey died, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard. The will was admitted to probate in Maryland, U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor. The court also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta as ancillary administrator. Audreys will was also admitted to probate in the Philippines (CFI-Pasig). Later, Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon with whom he has two childrenKimberly and Kevin. When Richard died, he left a will bequeathing his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was admitted to probate in Maryland, U.S.A. Richards will was then submitted for probate before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. Petitioner filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey. Petitioner also filed a project of partition of Audreys estate, between Richard and Kyle. These were approved by the trial court. Respondent sought annulment of the project partition made arguing that since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard, then the Makati property should be wholly adjudicated to him and since Richard left his entire estate, except for his rights and interests over the A/G

Interiors, Inc., to respondent, then the entire Makati property should now pertain to respondent. The Court of Appeals annulled the questioned orders. Statement of Issue: Whether or not the project of partition filed by the ancillary administrator is valid. Ruling of the Court: 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 annulment of project of partition was valid. Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court states: Estate, how administered.-When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the 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 state or country. 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 duty-bound to introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of Maryland. VI. RULE 78 - LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND TO WHOM ISSUED GUERRERO vs. TERAN 13 Phil 212 (1909) Statement of Facts: CFI of Albay appointed Maria Muoz as guardian for minors Maria Manuela and Maria del Carmen Muoz; Maria Muoz gave the required bond Maria Muoz was not a resident of the Philippine Islands at the time of her appointment. She was removed as guardian but still responsible for mismanagement; from the time of her acceptance of appointment up to the time of her removal Doa Maria Muoz y Gomez was, as above indicated, removed upon the theory that her appointment was void because she did not reside in the Philippine Islands. Ruling of the Court: There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. (Civil Code took effect August 30, 1950) Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here.

NAVAS SIOCA vs. GARCIA 44 Phil 711 (1923) Statement of Facts: A probate court cannot arbitrarily disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of a deceased person; but if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable the court may appoint another person. CFI Samar appointed Jose Garcia, administrator of the estate of the deceased Geronima Uy Coque. Navas Sioca is the surviving spouse of the deceased and maintains that the court erred in not appointing him administrator instead of Jose Garcia. Lower Court based its ruling on the fact that it appeared from the records that the appellant had adverse interest in the estate of such a character as to render him unsuitable as administrator. Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. Ruling of the Court: A probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person.

OZAETA vs. PECSON 93 Phil 673 (1953) Statement of Facts: Carlos Palanca died, leaving a will named former SC associate justice Ozaeta, as executor if General Manuel A. Roxas fails to qualify. Gen. Roxas predeceased Palanca; Ozaeta filed petition for probate of Palancas will, prayed that he be appointed administrator Heirs of Palanca opposed; Court appointed Phil Trust Co. as administrator Judge had some personal issues regarding Ozaeta Ruling of the Court: The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator, a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence, one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the disposal of his estate. The curtailment of this right may be considered as a curtailment of the rights to dispose. And as the rights granted by him will take effect from the time of his death (Article 777, CC), the management of his estate by the administrator of his choice should be made as soon as practicable, when no reasonable objection to his assumption of the trust can be interposed any longer. It has been held that when a will has been admitted to probate, it is the duty of this court to issue letters testamentary to the person named as executor upon his application. It is the testator that appoints his executor, as the question as to his peculiar fitness for such position or his want of ability to manage the estate cannot be addressed to the discretion of the county judge.

DE GUZMAN vs. LIMCOLIOC 68 Phil 673 (1939) Statement of Facts: Proceso de Guzman died without leaving a will. Proceso married Agatona and had four(4) children. When Agatona died, he married Angela Limcolioc with no kids. CFI Rizal appointed Nicolasa de Guzman, child, as judicial administratrix; Limcolioc opposed. Ruling of the Court: Preference of widow as administrator is not absolute. The principal consideration is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as such administrator. If there is another who has more interest therein than the surviving spouse, the preference established in the latter's favor becomes untenable. Proceso acquired properties during 1st marriage; none acquired during 2nd marriage; Children of 1st marriage has more interest.

LIM CHU LAN vs. LIM CHU KUN 54 Phil 190 (1929-30) Statement of Facts: Guardianship of the minors Lim Chu Hiong, et al. LIM CHU LAN, petitioner-appellee vs. LIM CHU KUN, guardian-appellant. CFI Manila removed Lim Chu Kun as guardian of minor Chu Hiong and Chu Lan; appointed Chin, husband of Lim Chu Lan (minor Chu Lan is now 20 years old) Guardian opposed; no sufficient ground has been shown for removing him, none of the reasons specified in section 574 CC relative to the removal of guardians has been shown to exist. Ruling of the Court: Court acted correctly. Guardian became unsuitable; fact of marriage alone introduces a change in the conditions of guardianship over a minor woman.

And although the marriage of a girl who is under guardianship does not abolish the guardianship over the property, it does terminate the guardianship over the person Moreover, the existence of a guardianship over the estate of a married woman in other hands than those of the husband is undesirable, since the husband is legally entitled to the management of conjugal property, and the earnings of the paraphernal property of the wife constitute community property.

GONZALES

vs. AGUINALDO (1990)

Statement of Facts: Intestate proceeding involving the estate of Doa Ramona Gonzales; survived by her four (4) children. RTC presided by Judge Aguinaldo appointed Beatriz Gonzales and Teresa Olbes as coadministratrices of the estate. While Gonzales was in US to accompany ailing husband, Olbes filed motion to remove Gonzales as co-administratrix, on the ground that she is incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and had committed acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the estate and the heirs. Copy of said motion was served upon petitioner's counsel of record, Atty. Manuel Castro who had been suspended by the Supreme Court. Judge Aguinaldo cancelled Gonzaless letters of administration. Ruling of the Court: While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal. There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator The court based the removal of the petitioner on her absence from the country Grave abuse of discretion in removing Gonzales

ANGELES vs. MAGLAYA G.R. No. 153798 September 2, 2005 Statement of Facts: Maglaya filed a petition for letters of administration of the intestate estate of his father opposed by Belen Angeles, fathers wife Francisco died intestate leaving behind four (4) parcels of land and a building Petitioner opposed the petition; she wants to be the administratrix of Franciscos estate. Maglaya: Angeles is not the daughter of Francisco because the birth certificate was not signed by him; and Angeles is not the only child of Francisco, they adopted Concesa Maglaya (daughter) has not even presented a witness to testify that her putative parents really held themselves out to the public as man-and-wife no legal presumption of legitimacy which should flow from a lawful marriage between Francisco and Genevova. Statement of Issue: Whether or not the surviving spouse is preferred as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband. Ruling of the Court: Petition of Angeles (wife) is granted On the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate of the deceased, the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the decedent. Issue of whether an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits. Maglaya is not an interested party; she did not prove her legitimacy nor acceptance of her father.