Succession
Cayetano v. Leonides, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984
FACTS:
On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes
Campos and her sisters, private respondent Nenita C. Paguia, Remedios C. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina
as the surviving heirs. As Hermogenes Campos was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit of
Adjudication whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the deceased.
On November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of the
deceased, Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly executed in the United States and for her
appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix.
On January 11, 1978, an opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner.
On December 1, 1978, however, the petitioner through his counsel, Atty. Franco Loyola, filed a
Motion to Dismiss Opposition. Hence, an ex-parte presentation of evidence for the reprobate of the
questioned will was made.
On January 10, 1979, the respondent judge issued an order, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the Last Will and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos is hereby
admitted to and allowed probate in the Philippines, and Nenita Campos Paguia is hereby
appointed Administratrix of the estate of said decedent;
Another manifestation was filed by the petitioner on April 14, 1979, confirming the withdrawal
of his opposition, acknowledging the same to be his voluntary act and deed.
On May 25, 1979, Hermogenes Campos filed a petition for relief, praying that the order allowing
the will be set aside on the ground that the withdrawal of his opposition to the same was secured
through fraudulent means.
On May 18, 1980, petitioner filed another motion entitled "Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside
the Order of January 10, 1979, and/or dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The hearing of May 29, 1980 was re-set by the court for June 19, 1980. When the case was
called for hearing on this date, the counsel for petitioner tried to argue his motion to vacate instead of
adducing evidence in support of the petition for relief. Thus, the respondent judge issued an order
dismissing the petition for relief for failure to present evidence in support thereof. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. In the same order, respondent judge also denied
the motion to vacate for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.
Meanwhile, on June 6,1982, petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a will, which,
incidentally has been questioned by the respondent, his children and forced heirs as, on its face, patently
null and void, and a fabrication, appointing Polly Cayetano as the executrix of his last will and testament.
Cayetano, therefore, filed a motion to substitute herself as petitioner in the instant case which was
granted by the court on September 13, 1982.
Succession
A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of the petitioner Hermogenes
Campos merged upon his death with the rights of the respondent and her sisters, only remaining
children and forced heirs was denied on September 12, 1983.
ISSUE:
Whether the Law of Succession on legitimes may be applied to the testacy of a foreign national
RULING:
NO. Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the
respondent judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently
established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Therefore, under Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which
respectively provide:
Art. 16 par. (2). However, intestate and testamentary successions, 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.
Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
The law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the
national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for
legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner
argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and established public
policy and would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.
It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for
by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply. This was
squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358) wherein we ruled:
It is therefore evident that 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.
xxx xxx xxx
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas,
U.S.A., and under the law of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the
intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be
determined under Texas law, the Philippine Law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of
Amos G. Bellis.