8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

1/9

1. Juan Miciano v Andre Brimo

CITATION: GR No.22595, November 1, 192! 5" #$i% &' 

FACTS:

Juan Miciano, judicial administrator of the estate in question, filed a scheme of partition.Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed Miciano’s

participation in the inheritance. Joseph Brimo is a Turkish citien.

ISSUE: !hether Turkish la" or #hilippine la" "ill be the basis on the distribution of Joseph

Brimo’s estates.

HELD:

Thou$h the last part of the second clause of the "ill e%pressl& said that 'it be made and

disposed of in accordance "ith the la"s in force in the #hilippine sland, this condition,

described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall not

prejudice the heir or le$atee in an& manner "hatsoe*er, e*en should the testator other"ise

pro*ide. mpossible conditions are further defined as those contrar& to la" or $ood morals.

Thus, national la" of the testator shall $o*ern in his testamentar& dispositions.

The court appro*ed the scheme of partition submitted b& the judicial administrator, in such

manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the le$atees.

G.R. No. L-22595 November 1, 1927

Tes!e Es!e o" #ose$% G. &r'mo, #UAN (ICIAN), !*m'+'sr!or, petitioner+appellee,

*s.

ANDRE &RI(), opponent+appellant.

FACTS: A "ill of a Turkish testator (Joseph Brimo) pro*ided that his #hilippine estate isdisposed of in accordance "ith the #hilippine a". The testator further pro*ided that "hoe*er

fails to compl& "ith this request (that his estate be distributed in accordance "ith #hilippinela") "ould forfeit his inheritance.

The Appellant (Andre Brimo), one of the brothers of the deceased Joseph Brimo, opposed theAppellee (Juan Miciano)-s partition scheme of the estate "hich denies his participation in theinheritance.

ISSUE: !hether the Turkish a" or #hilippine a" be the basis on the distribution of Joseph

Brimo-s estates. !ill Andre Brimo forfeit his inheritance

RULING: The court held that the pro*ision of a forei$ner-s "ill that his properties shall bedistributed accordin$ to #hilippine la" and not his national la" is /0T 12A because ite%pressl& i$nores the testator-s national la" "hen, accordin$ to article 34 of the ci*il 5ode,such national la" of the testator is the one to $o*ern his testamentar& dispositions.

Testator’s estate shall be distributed accordin$ to his national (Turkish) la". 6e cannot pro*ideother"ise. The appellant-s inheritance "ill not be forfeited because the pro*ision is not le$al.

7. &ELLIS vs. &ELLIS

G.R. No. L-27 #/+e , 197

FACTS:

Amos 2. Bellis, born in Te%as, "as 8a citien of the 9tate of Te%as and of the :nited

9tates.8

Amos 2. Bellis lea*in$ a "ill "hich pro*ides that his distributable estate should be

di*ided, in the follo"in$ order and manner; (a) ,>>>.>> to his first "ife, (b) #37>,>>>.>> to

his three ille$itimate children (c) the remainder shall $o to his se*en sur*i*in$ children b& his

first and second "i*es,

9ubsequentl&, Amos 2. Bellis died a resident of 9an Antonio, Te%as, :.9.A

n the project of partition, the e%ecutor ? pursuant to the 8T"elfth8 clause of the

testator-s ast !ill and Testament ? di*ided the residuar& estate into se*en equal portions for

the benefit of the testator-s se*en le$itimate children b& his first and second marria$es.

@espondents filed oppositions on the $round that the& "ere depri*ed of their

le$itimes as ille$itimate children and, therefore, compulsor& heirs of the deceased.

The lo"er court, issued an order o*errulin$ the oppositions. @el&in$ upon Art. 34 of

the 5i*il 5ode, it applied the national la" of the decedent, "hich in this case is Te%as la", "hich did not pro*ide for le$itimes.

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

2/9

99:1;

  !hether or not the respondents are depri*ed of their le$itimes as compulsor& heirs

of the deceased.

@:/2;

T61 95 ruled in the ne$ati*e. Article 34, par. 7, and Art. 3> of the 5i*il 5ode,

render applicable the national la" of the decedent, in intestate or testamentar& successions,

  The parties admit that the decedent, Amos 2. Bellis, "as a citien of the 9tate of

Te%as, :.9.A., and that under the la"s of Te%as, there are no forced heirs or le$itimes.

Accordin$l&, since the intrinsic *alidit& of the pro*ision of the "ill and the amount of

successional ri$hts are to be determined under Te%as la", the #hilippine la" on le$itimes

cannot be applied to the testac& of Amos 2. Bellis.

. Ta&a$ *s Ben$uet

n March 34>, donah #erkins died in /e" Cork. 9he left behind properties here and abroad.

0ne propert& she left behind "ere t"o stock certificates co*erin$ ,>>7 shares of stocks of

the Ben$uet 5onsolidated, nc (B5). 9aid stock certificates "ere in the possession of the

5ountr& Trust 5ompan& of /e" Cork (5T5+/C). 5T5+/C "as the domiciliar& administrator of

the estate of #erkins (ob*iousl& in the :9A). Mean"hile, in 34, @enato Ta&a$ "as

appointed as the ancillar& administrator (of the properties of #erkins she left behind in the

#hilippines).

A dispute arose bet"een 5T5+/C and Ta&a$ as to "ho bet"een them is entitled to possess

the stock certificates. A case ensued and e*entuall&, the trial court ordered 5T5+/C to turn

o*er the stock certificates to Ta&a$. 5T5+/C refused. Ta&a$ then filed "ith the court a petition

to ha*e said stock certificates be declared lost and to compel B5 to issue ne" stock

certificates in replacement thereof. The trial court $ranted Ta&a$’s petition.

B5 assailed said order as it a*erred that it cannot possibl& issue ne" stock certificates

because the t"o stock certificates declared lost are not actuall& lostD that the trial court as "ell

Ta&a$ ackno"led$ed that the stock certificates e%ists and that the& are "ith 5T5+/CD that

accordin$ to B5’s b& la"s, it can onl& issue ne" stock certificates, in lieu of lost, stolen, or

destro&ed certificates of stocks, onl& after court of la" has issued a final and e%ecutor& order

as to "ho reall& o"ns a certificate of stock.

ISSUE: !hether or not the ar$uments of Ben$uet 5onsolidated, nc. are correct.

HELD: /o. Ben$uet 5onsolidated is a corporation "ho o"es its e%istence to #hilippine la"s.

t has been $i*en ri$hts and pri*ile$es under the la". 5orollar&, it also has obli$ations under

the la" and one of those is to follo" *alid le$al court orders. t is not immune from judicial

control because it is domiciled here in the #hilippines. B5 is a #hilippine corporation o"in$

full alle$iance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. ts shares of stock

cannot therefore be considered in an& "ise as immune from la"ful court orders. Eurther, to

allo" B5’s opposition is to render the court order a$ainst 5T5+/C a mere scrap of paper. t

 "ill lea*e Ta&a$ "ithout an& remed& simpl& because 5T5+/C, a forei$n entit& refuses tocompl& "ith a *alid court order. The final recourse then is for our local courts to create a le$al

fiction such that the stock certificates in issue be declared lost e*en thou$h in realit& the& e%ist

in the hands of 5T5+/C. This is *alid. As held time and a$ain, fictions "hich the la" ma& rel&

upon in the pursuit of le$itimate ends ha*e pla&ed an important part in its de*elopment.

Eurther still, the ar$ument in*oked b& B5 that it can onl& issue ne" stock certificates in

accordance "ith its b&la"s is misplaced. t is "orth notin$ that 5T5+/C did not appeal the

order of the court F it simpl& refused to turn o*er the stock certificates hence o"nership can

be said to ha*e been settled in fa*or of estate of #erkins here. Also, assumin$ that there reall&

is a conflict bet"een B5’s b&la"s and the court order, "hat should pre*ail is the la"ful court

order. t "ould be hi$hl& irre$ular if court orders "ould &ield to the b&la"s of a corporation.

A$ain, a corporation is not immune from judicial orders.

=. Johannes *s 6ar*e&

G. s& jo$ lien$ *s s& quia

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

3/9

4. GI&&S vs. G)0T. )F THE HILIINE ISLANDS

G.R. No. L-59 De3ember 2, 19

FACTS: Allison H. 2ibbs and his "ife 1*a Johnson 2ibbs are both citiens of 5alifornia anddomiciled therein since their marria$e in Jul& 3>4. There "as no antenuptial marria$econtract bet"een the parties and durin$ the e%istence their marria$e the spouses acquiredlands in the #hilippine slands, as conju$al propert&. 0n /o*ember 7I, 37, Mrs. 2ibbs diedand that in accordance "ith the la" of 5alifornia, the communit& propert& of spouses "ho arecitiens of 5alifornia, upon the death of the "ife pre*ious to that of the husband, belon$sabsolutel& to the sur*i*in$ husband "ithout administration. n intestate proceedin$s, Allison H.2ibbs, on 9eptember 77, 3>, filed an ex parte petition. The court $ranted said petition andentered a decree adjudicatin$ the said Allison H. 2ibbs to be the sole and absolute o"ner ofsaid lands, appl&in$ section 3=>3 of the 5i*il 5ode of 5alifornia. !hen this decree presentedto the @e$ister of Heeds of Manila and demanded for the issuance of a Transfer 5ertificate ofTitle, it declined to accept as bindin$ said decree of court and refused to re$ister the transfer

of title of the said conju$al propert& to Allison H. 2ibbs, on the $round that the correspondin$inheritance ta% had not been paid. Thereupon, Allison filed in the said court a petition for anorder requirin$ the said re$ister of deeds 8to issue the correspondin$ titles8 to the petitioner

 "ithout requirin$ pre*ious pa&ment of an& inheritance ta%.

ISSUE:  !hether or not 1*a Johnson 2ibbs at the time of her death is the o"ner of adescendible interest in the #hilippine lands.

RULING: The second para$raph Article 3> of the 5i*il 5ode pro*ides;

/e*ertheless, le$al and testamentar& successions, in respect to the order of

succession as "ell as to the amount of the successional ri$hts and the intrinsic

*alidit& of their pro*isions, shall be re$ulated b& the national la" of the person "hose succession is in question, "hate*er ma& be the nature of the propert& or the

countr& in "hich it ma& be situated.

The second para$raph of article 3> applies onl& "hen a le$al or testamentar&

succession has taken place in the #hilippines and in accordance "ith the la" of the #hilippine

slandsD and the forei$n la" is consulted onl& in re$ard to the order of succession or the e%tent

of the successional ri$htsD '+ o%er 4or*s, %e se3o+* $!r!r!$% o" !r'36e 1 3!+ be

'+vo8e* o+6 4%e+ %e *e3e!se* 4!s vese* 4'% ! *es3e+*'b6e '+eres '+ $ro$er

 4'%'+ %e /r's*'3'o+ o" %e %'6'$$'+e Is6!+*s.

n the case of 5larke vs. 5larke, the court said;

It is principle firmly established that to the law of the state in which the

land is situated we must look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and 

transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills and other conveyances.

This fundamental principle is stated in the first para$raph of article 3> of our 5i*il

5ode as follo"s; 8#ersonal propert& is subject to the la"s of the nation of the o"ner thereofD

real propert& to the la"s of the countr& in "hich it is si tuated.

:nder this broad principle, the nature and e%tent of the title "hich *ested in Mrs.

2ibbs at the time of the acquisition of the communit& lands here in question must be

determined in accordance "ith the lex rei sitae. t is admitted that the #hilippine lands here in

question "ere acquired as communit& propert& of the conju$al partnership of the appellee and

his "ife. :nder the la" of the #hilippine slands, she "as *ested of a title equal to that of her

husband. I res/6s %! %e 4'"e o" %e !$$e66ee 4!s, b %e 6!4 o" %e %'6'$$'+e Is6!+*s,

vese* o" ! *es3e+*'b6e '+eres, e;/!6 o %! o" %er %/sb!+*, '+ %e %'6'$$'+e 6!+*s

3overe* b 3er'"'3!es o" '6e Nos. 2, 2 !+* 21, "rom %e *!e o" %e'r

!3;/'s''o+ o %e *!e o" %er *e!%.

The descendible interest of 1*a Johnson 2ibbs in the lands aforesaid "as

transmitted to her heirs b& *irtue of inheritance and this transmission plainl& falls "ithin the

lan$ua$e of section 3G4 of Article of 5hapter => of the Administrati*e 5ode "hich le*ies a

ta% on inheritances. t is unnecessar& in this proceedin$ to determine the 8order of

succession8 or the 8e%tent of the successional ri$hts8 (article 3>, 5i*il 5ode, supra) "hich

 "ould be re$ulated b& section 3I4 of the 5i*il 5ode of 5alifornia "hich "as in effect at the

time of the death of Mrs. 2ibbs.

K. CI& vs. ESC)LINPhilippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, Administrator of the estate !state of Charles

"ewton #odges, *s. #on. $enicio !scolin %C&I'Iloilo( and Avelina A. )agno* estate !state of

the late +innie ane #odges. estate !state of the late Charles "ewton #odges. PCIB,

administrator'appellant, vs. +oren-o Carles, ose Pablico, Alfredo Catedral, alvador

/u-man, Belcesar Causing, &lorenia Barrido, Purificacion Coronado, /raciano +ucero, Ariteo

homas amir, )el0uiades Batisanan, Pepito Iyulores, !speridion Partisala, 1inifredo

!spada, 2osario Alingasa, Adelfa Premaylon, antiago Pacaonsis, and Avelina A. )agno,

appellees, 1estern Institute of echnology, Inc., movant'appellee

March 7, 3K=D Barredo, J.

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

4/9

LThis case has the len$th of a # case. 5ourt admitted se*eral times that it "as clueless as

to some facts so it copied into the decision entire pleadin$s. () #lus, #5B raised KI

assi$nment of errors !e’ll probabl& read the case a$ain in 9pec #ro.

S%or vers'o+: The 6od$es li*ed in the #hilippines for almost half a centur& and died lea*in$

substantial properties in loilo and in the :9. The missus died G &ears before the husband,

pro*idin$ in her "ill that "hile her estate "ould $o to him, upon %'s death, the remainder

should pass to her siblin$s. (The& "ere childless.) The court held that this testamentar&pro*ision, "hile probabl& ineffectual as a substitution under the 5i*il 5ode, is not actuall& a

substitution, but is a *alid and simultaneous institution of heirs, thou$h the passin$ of title to

the inheritance to the others (the siblin$s) "as made to depend on a resolutor& condition (the

husband’s death). 5ase "as remanded to the trial court for the determination of the proper

application of the ren*oi principle (conflict of la"s bet"een #hilippines and Te%as la"), and the

proper distribution of innie’s, 5harles’, and their conju$al estates.

F!3s:

5harles /e"ton 6od$es and innie Jane 6od$es "ere ori$inall& from Te%as, :9A. Hurin$

their marria$e, the& had acquired and accumulated considerable assets and properties in the

#hilippines and in 0klahoma and Te%as in the :9. The& both l i*ed, "orked and "eredomiciled in loilo 5it& for around G> &ears. Before her death, innie Jane e%ecuted a "ill

lea*in$ her estate, less her debts and funeral e%penses, to her husband 5harles. 9hould

5harles die, the "ill pro*ided that the remainder of her estate $o to her brothers and sisters,

share and share alike. 9hould an& of the brothers and sisters die before the husband, innie

 "illed that the heirs of the said siblin$ be substituted in the deceased’s siblin$’s place.

!hen innie died, 5harles took the "ill to probate court, and "as appointed 1%ecutor, then

later, 9pecial Administrator. 6e mo*ed to be allo"ed to continue administerin$ the famil&

business, as per innie Jane’s "ishes, and to en$a$e in sales, con*e&ances, leases,

mort$a$es and other necessar& transactions. 6e also filed the necessar& and appurtenant

administrationNaccountin$ records, and income ta% returns for the estate. 5harles named

se*en brothers and sisters of innie Jane as her heirs (1sta, 1mma, eonard, Aline, Ha*id,

9adie, 1ra and /imro&), but the order admittin$ the "ill to probate unfortunatel& omitted one

of the heirs, @o& (/imro&) 6i$don, so 5harles filed a *erified motion to ha*e @o&’s name

included.

As an e%ecutor, he "as bound to file ta% returns for the estate he "as administerin$ under

American la". 6e did file such as estate ta% return on Au$ust I, 3GI. n 9chedule 8M8 of such

return, he ans"ered 8Ces8 to the question as to "hether he "as contemplatin$ 8renouncin$

the "ill8. 0n the question as to "hat propert& interests passed to him as the sur*i*in$ spouse,

he ans"ered;

'/one, e%cept for purposes of administerin$ the 1state, pa&in$ debts, ta%es and

other le$al char$es. t is the intention of the sur*i*in$ husband of deceased to

distribute the remainin$ propert& and interests of the deceased in their 5ommunit&

estate to the de*isees and le$atees named in the "ill "hen the debts, liabilities,

ta%es and e%penses of administration are finall& determined and paid.

5harles died in loilo in Hecember 347 "ithout ha*in$ liquidated innie’s estate, "hich

includes her share in the conju$al partnership. A lon$time emplo&ee of the 6od$es, A*elina

Ma$no, "as appointed Administratri% (for innie’s estate) and a 9pecial Administratri% (for

5harles’). Ma$no "as appointed, but later 6arold Ha*ies (representati*e of 5harles’ heirs in

the :9) "as desi$nated 5o+9pecial Administrator, "ho "as then replaced b& one Joe

6od$es, 5harles’ nephe". 0ne Att&. Mirasol "as also appointed as co+administrator, and an

order of probate and letters of administration "ere issued to 6od$es and Mirasol.

At this point, the 95 "as alread& *er& much confused about the $aps in the facts, con*inced

that the parties representin$ both estates had cooked up a modus operandi   to settle mone&

matters (a settlement "ith records the 5ourt ne*er sa")?"hich, ho"e*er, "ent a"r&, "ith

more and more heirs from the :9 flockin$ to the loilo shores, and la"&ers (0aetas

Mabantas Man$lapuses) filin$ their respecti*e claims for retainer fees. Much much later,

#5B became the administrator of 5harles’ estate, assertin$ a claim to all of his estate,

includin$ those propertiesNassets that passed to him upon innie Jane’s death. A*elina

naturall& opposed this, as innie Jane’s other heirs (the 62H0/9) "ould be prejudiced, so

she continued actin$ in her capacit& as administrator (enterin$ into sales and other such

con*e&ances). Eor these acts, the #5B dismissed her as an emplo&ee of 5harles’ estate, to

 "hich she responded b& lock in$ up the premises bein$ used b& #5B as o ffices, "hich "ereamon$ the estate’s properties.

#CIB() C%aim)

innie Jane’s "ill should be $o*erned b& #hilippine a", "ith respect to the order of

succession, the amount of successional ri$hts, and the intrinsic *alidit& of its testamentar&

pro*isions.

• innie intended #hilippine la"s to $o*ern her !ill.

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

5/9

• Article 34, 55, pro*ides that 8the national la" of the person "hose succession is

under consideration, "hate*er ma& be the nature of the propert& and re$ardless of

the countr& "herein said propert& ma& be found8, shall pre*ail. 6o"e*er, the

5onflict of a" of Te%as, "hich is the 8national la"8 of the testatri%, innie Jane

6od$es, pro*ide that the domiciliar& la" (#hilippine la") should $o*ern the

testamentar& dispositions and successional ri$hts o*er mo*ables, and the la" of the

situs of the propert& (also #hilippine la" as to properties located in the #hilippines)

as re$ards immo*ables.

• Thus appl&in$ the 8@en*oi Hoctrine8, as appro*ed and applied in the Christensen

case (34), #hilippine la" should appl&.

• :nder #hilippine and Te%as la", the conju$al or communit& estate of spouses shall,

upon dissolution, be di*ided equall& bet"een them. Thus, upon innie’s death, O of

the entiret& of the assets of the 6od$es spouses constitutin$ their conju$al estate

pertained automaticall& to 5harles, not by way of inheritance, but in his own right as

 partner in the con3ugal partnership.

• The other one+half (3N7) portion formin$ part of innie’s estate, cannot, under a clear

and specific pro*ision of her !ill, be enhanced or increased b& income, earnin$s,

rents, or emoluments accruin$ after her death. ' All rents, emoluments and income

from said estate shall belong to him %C. ". #odges( and he is further authori-ed to

use any part of the principal of said estate as he may need or desire.8

• Articles >>, G and 3>>3 pro*ide that the sur*i*in$ spouse of a deceased lea*in$

no ascendants or descendants is entitled, as a matter of ri$ht and b& "a& of

irre*ocable le$itime, to at least one+half (3N7) of the estate of the deceased, and no

testamentar& disposition b& the deceased can le$all& and *alidl& affect this ri$ht of

the sur*i*in$ spouse. n fact, her husband is entitled to said one+half (3N7) portion of

her estate b& "a& of le$itime. (Article II4)

• 5learl&, therefore, immediatel& upon the death of innie Jane 6od$es, 5. /. 6od$es

 "as the o"ner of at least N= or KGP percent of all of the conju$al assets of the

spouses, G>P b& "a& of conju$al partnership share and 3N= or 7GP b& "a& of

inheritance and le$itime) plus all 8rents, emoluments and income8 accruin$ to said

conju$al estate from the moment of innie Jane 6od$es- death.

• n his capacit& as sole heir and successor to innie’s estate, 5harles appropriated to

himself the entiret& of her estate. 6e operated all the assets, en$a$ed in business

and performed all acts in connection "ith the entiret& of the conju$al estate, in his

own name alone, just as he had been operatin$, en$a$in$ and doin$ "hile the late

innie Jane 6od$es "as still ali*e. 4pon his death on 5ecember 67, 89:6,

therefore, all said con3ugal assets were in his sole possession and control, and

registered in his name alone, not as executor, but as exclusive owner of all said

assets.

•

As the sole and e%clusi*e heir, 5harles did not need to liquidate the estate. /either "as there an& asset left to innie’s estate at the time of 5harles’ death, thou$h

innie’s estate ma& ha*e referred to 'all of the rest, residue and remainder of m&

estate "hich "ould $o to her siblin$s in the e*ent of 5harles death. The pro*ision is

thus *oid and in*alid at least as to #hilippine assets.

•

There are $enerall& onl& t"o kinds of substitution pro*ided for and authoried b& our

5i*il 5ode (Articles IGK+IK>), namel&, (3) simple or common substitution,sometimes referred to as *ul$ar substitution (Article IG), and (7) fideicommissar&substitution (Article I4). All other substitutions are merel& *ariations of these. Thesubstitution pro*ided for b& para$raph four of the !ill of innie Jane 6od$es is not

fideicommissar& substitution, because there is clearl& no obli$ation on the part of 5./. 6od$es as the first heir desi$nated, to preser*e the properties for the substitute

heirs. At most, it is a *ul$ar or simple substitution. 6o"e*er, in order thata *ul$ar orsimple substitution can be *alid, three alternati*e conditions must bepresent, namel&, that the first desi$nated heir (3) should die before the testatorD or(7) should not "ish to accept the inheritanceD or () should be incapacitated to doso. /one of these conditions appl& to 5. /. 6od$es, and, therefore, the substitutionpro*ided for b& the abo*e+quoted pro*ision of the !ill is not authoried b& the 5ode,and, therefore, it is *oid. Manresa e*en said, '"hen another heir is designated toinherit upon the death of a first heir, the second designation can have effect only incase the first instituted heir dies before the testator, whether or not that was the trueintention of said testator .

•

The remed& of the 6i$dons, then, "ho are claimin$ dubious ri$hts to Q of theconju$al estate of the 6od$es, is to file a claim a$ainst the estate of 5harles.

• t also follo"s that the con*e&ances e%ecuted b& A*elina, claimin$ to be merel& in

continuation of the 6od$es’ businesses, and "hich correspondin$ deeds of sale "ere confirmed b& the probate court, are null and *oid and should be subject torecon*e&ance.

 Ave%ina() C%aim)

%At one point, even +innie;s heirs wanted to have Avelina removed from her capacity as

administrator, but the lower court reversed its earlier grant of the motion, on account of a

 previous in3unction it issued .)

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

6/9

• innie Jane merel& $a*e 5harles a life+estate or a usufruct o*er all her estate, and

$a*e a *ested remainder+estate or the naked title o*er the same estate, to herrelati*es.

• After innie’s death, 5harles, as administrator and e%ecutor of the "ill,

unequi*ocabl& and clearl& throu$h oral and "ritten declarations and s"orn publicstatements, renounced, disclaimed and repudiated his life+estate and usufruct.

• 9ince there "as no separation or se$re$ation of the interests of innie and 5harles

in the combined conju$al estate, as there has been no such separation or

se$re$ation, and because of 5harles’ repudiation, both interests ha*e continuall&earned e%actl& the same amount of rents, emoluments and income.

Iss/e:

3. s innie’s disposition in fa*or of her siblin$s *oid F /0

7. 6o" should the estate be partitionedNliquidated F @1MA/H

Re!so+'+:

3. To a certain e%tent, #5B’s contention that innie’s testamentar& substitution, "hen *ie"ed

as a substitution, ma& not be $i*en effect, is correct. ndeed, le$all& speakin$, innie’s "ill

pro*ides neither for a simple or *ul$ar substitution under Article IG of the 5i*il 5ode nor for a

fideicommissar& substitution under Article I4 thereof. There is no *ul$ar substitution becausethere is no pro*ision for either (3) predecease of the testator b& the desi$nated heir or (7)

refusal or () incapacit& of the latter to accept the inheritance, as required b& Article IGD and

neither is there a fideicommissar& substitution therein because no obli$ation is imposed

thereb& upon 6od$es to preser*e the estate or an& part thereof for an&one else. But from

these premises, it is not correct to jump to the conclusion, as #5B does, that the

testamentar& dispositions in question are therefore inoperati*e and in*alid.

The error in #5B-s position lies simpl& in the fact that it *ie"s the said disposition e%clusi*el&

in the li$ht of substitutions co*ered b& the 5i*il 5ode section on that subject, (9ection ,

5hapter 7, Title R, Book ) "hen it is ob*ious that substitution occurs onl& "hen another heiris appointed in a "ill 8so that he ma& enter into inheritance in default of the heir ori$inall&

instituted,8 (Article IGK) and, in the present case, no such possible default is contemplated.

The brothers and sisters of Mrs. 6od$es are not substitutes for 6od$es because, under her

 "ill, the& are not to inherit "hat 6od$es cannot, "ould not or ma& not inherit, but "hat he

 "ould not dispose of from his inheritanceD rather, therefore, the& are also heirs instituted

simultaneousl& "ith 6od$es, subject, ho"e*er, to certain conditions, partiall& resolutor&

insofar as 6od$es "as concerned and correspondin$l& suspensi*e "ith reference to his

brothers and sisters+in+la". t is partiall& resolutor&, since it bequeaths unto 6od$es the "hole

of her estate to be o"ned and enjo&ed b& him as uni*ersal and sole heir "ith absolute

dominion o*er them onl& durin$ his lifetime, "hich means that "hile he could completel& and

absolutel& dispose of an& portion thereof inter vivos to an&one other than himself, he "as not

free to do so mortis causa, and all his ri$hts to "hat mi$ht remain upon his death "ould cease

entirel& upon the occurrence of that contin$enc&, inasmuch as the ri$ht of his brothers and

sisters+in+la" to the inheritance, althou$h *ested a lread& upon the death of Mrs. 6od$es,

 "ould automaticall& become operati*e upon the occurrence of the death of 6od$es in the

e*ent of actual e%istence of an& remainder of her estate then.

5ontrar& to A*elina’s *ie", ho"e*er, it "as not the usufruct a lone of innie’s estate, as

contemplated in Article I4, that she bequeathed to 5harles durin$ his lifetime, but the fullo"nership thereof, althou$h the same "as to last also durin$ his lifetime onl&, e*en as there

 "as no restriction "hatsoe*er a$ainst his disposin$ or con*e&in$ the "hole or an& portion

thereof to an&bod& other than himself. The 5ourt sa" no le$al impediment to this kind of

institution, e%cept that it cannot appl& to the le$itime of 5harles as the sur*i*in$ spouse,

consistin$ of one+half of the estate, considerin$ that innie had no sur*i*in$ ascendants nor

descendants. (Arts. IK7, >>, and >=.)

6od$es’ acts of administration and accountin$ stron$l& ne$ate #5B’s claims that he had

adjudicated to himself all of innie’s estate. !hile he ma& ha*e used lan$ua$e like 'herein

e%ecutor (bein$) the onl& de*isee or le$atee of the deceased, in accordance "ith the last "ill

and testament alread& probatedS there is no other person interested in the #hilippines of thetime and place of e%aminin$ herein account to be $i*en notice, he "ould’*e kno"n that doin$

so "ould impute bad faith unto him. Also, in his *er& motions, 6od$es asserted the ri$hts of

innie’s named heirs. 6e e*en mo*ed to include @o&’s name included in the probate court’s

order, lest @o&’s heirs think that the& had been omitted.

Thus, he reco$nied, in his o"n "a&, the separate identit& of his "ife’s estate from his o"n

share of the conju$al partnership up to the time of his death, more than G &ears after that of

his "ife. 6e ne*er considered the "hole estate as a sin$le one belon$in$ e%clusi*el& to

himself. The onl& conclusion one can $ather from this is that he could ha*e been preparin$

the basis for the e*entual transmission of his "ife-s estate, or, at least, so much thereof as he

 "ould not ha*e been able to dispose of durin$ his lifetime, to her brothers and sisters in

accordance "ith her e%pressed desire, as intimated in his ta% return in the :9. And assumin$

that he did pa& the correspondin$ estate and inheritance ta%es in the #hilippines on the basis

of his bein$ sole heir, such pa&ment is not necessaril& inconsistent "ith his reco$nition of the

ri$hts of his co+heirs. The 5ourt thus *ie"ed that under the peculiar pro*isions of his "ife-s

 "ill, and for purposes of the applicable inheritance ta% la"s, 6od$es had to be considered as

her sole heir, pendin$ the actual transmission of the remainin$ portion of her estate to her

other heirs, upon the e*entualit& of his death, and "hate*er adjustment mi$ht be "arranted

should there be an& such remainder then is a matter that could "ell be taken care of b& the

internal re*enue authorities in due time. The 5ourt also considered as basis of 5harles’

intentions se*eral questionnaires in solemn forms in filin$ estate ta%es abroad, thou$h the&ha*e not been introduced in e*idence (), onl& referred to se*eral times b& the parties.

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

7/9

t is ob*ious, thou$h, that 5harles’ procrastinatin$ in settlin$ innie’s estate, and his sole

administration of it, commin$led his and his co+heirs interests, makin$ it difficult to properl&

make an accountin$ of their shares. #5B, then, cannot administer the properties on its o"n.

!hat "ould be just and proper is for both administrators of the t"o estates to act conjointl&

until after said estates ha*e been se$re$ated from each other.

7. The parties "ere in disa$reement as to ho" Article 34 of the 5i*il 5ode  should be applied.

0n the one hand, #5B claimed that inasmuch as innie "as a resident of the #hilippines atthe time of her death, under said Article 34, construed in relation to the pertinent la"s of Te%as

and the principle of renvoi , "hat should be applied here should be the rules of succession

under the 5i*il 5ode, and, therefore, her estate could consist of no more than one+fourth of

the said conju$al properties, the other fourth bein$, as alread& e%plained, the le$itime of her

husband (Art. >>) "hich she could not ha*e disposed of nor burdened "ith an& condition

(Art. IK7). 0n the other hand, A*elina denied that innie died a resident of the #hilippines,

since alle$edl& she ne*er chan$ed nor intended to chan$e her ori$inal residence of birth in

Te%as, :nited 9tates of America, and contends that, an&"a&, re$ardless of the question of her

residence, she bein$ indisputabl& a citien of Te%as, under said Article 34 of the 5i*il 5ode,

the distribution of her estate is subject to the la"s of said 9tate "hich, accordin$ to her, do not

pro*ide for an& le$itime, hence, innie’s brothers and sisters are entitled to the remainder ofthe "hole of her share of the conju$al partnership properties consistin$ of one+half thereof.

A*elina further maintained that, in an& e*ent, 5harles had renounced his ri$hts under the "ill

in fa*or of his co+heirs, as alle$edl& pro*en b& the documents touchin$ on the point alread&

mentioned earlier, the $enuineness and le$al si$nificance of "hich #5B questioned.

The 5ourt cannot decide on the claims, thou$h, for neither the e*idence submitted b& the

parties appeared to be adequate enou$h for it to render an intelli$ent comprehensi*e and just

resolution. /o clear and reliable proof of "hat in fact the possibl& applicable la"s of Te%as are,

 "as presented (@emember judicial notice in case of forei$n la"s). Then also, the

$enuineness of documents relied upon b& A*elina is disputed. n Justice, therefore, to all the

parties concerned, these and all other rele*ant matters should first be threshed out full& in the

trial court in the proceedin$s thereafter to be held for the purpose of ascertainin$ and

adjudicatin$ andNor distributin$ the estate of Mrs. 6od$es to her heirs in accordance "ith her

dul& probated "ill.

innie’s estate is the remainder of 3N= of the conju$al partnership properties, considerin$ that

e*en #5B did not maintain that the application of the la"s of Te%as "ould result in the other

heirs of Mrs. 6od$es not inheritin$ an&th in$ under her "ill. And since #5B-s representations

in re$ard to the la"s of Te%as *irtuall& constitute admissions of fact "hich the other parties

and the 5ourt are bein$ made to rel& and act upon, #5B is not permitted to contradict them

or subsequentl& take a position contradictor& to or inconsistent "ith them.

The onl& question that remains to be settled in the remand to the court belo" are;

(3) "hether or not the applicable la"s of Te%as do pro*ide in effect for more, such as, "hen

there is no le$itime pro*ided therein

(7) "hether or not 6od$es has *alidl& "ai*ed his "hole inheritance from Mrs. 6od$es.

n the course of the deliberations, it "as brou$ht out b& some members of the 5ourt that to

a*oid or, at least, minimie further protracted le$al contro*ersies bet"een the respecti*e heirs

of the 6od$es spouses, it is imperati*e to elucidate on the possible consequences of

dispositions made b& 5harles after innie ’s death, from the mass of the unpartitioned estates

 "ithout an& e%press indication in the pertinent documents as to "hether his intention is to

dispose of part of his inheritance from his "ife or part of his o"n share of the conju$al estate

as "ell as of those made b& #5B after the death of 6od$es. After a lon$ discussion, the

consensus arri*ed at "as as follo"s;

(3) an& such dispositions made gratuitously  in fa*or of third parties, "hether these be

indi*iduals, corporations or foundations, shall be considered as intended to be of properties

constitutin$ part of 6od$es- inheritance from his "ife, it appearin$ from the tenor of his

motions of Ma& 7K and Hecember 33, 3GK that in askin$ for $eneral authorit& to make sales

or other disposals of properties under the jurisdiction of the court, "hich include his o"n share

of the conju$al estate, he "as not in*okin$ particularl& his ri$ht o*er his o"n share, but rather

his ri$ht to dispose of an& part of his inheritance pursuant to the "ill of his "ifeD

(7) as re$ards sales, e%chan$es or other remunerative transfers, the proceeds of such sales

or the properties taken in b& *irtue of such e%chan$es, shall be considered as merel& the

products of 8ph&sical chan$es8 of the properties of her estate "hich the "ill e%pressl&

authories 6od$es to make, pro*ided that "hate*er of said products should remain "ith the

estate at the time of the death of 6od$es should $o to her brothers and sistersD

() the dispositions made b& #5B after the death of 6od$es must naturall& be deemed as

co*erin$ onl& the properties belon$in$ to his estate considerin$ that bein$ onl& the

administrator of the estate of 6od$es, #5B could not ha*e disposed of properties belon$in$

to the estate of his "ife. /either could such dispositions be considered as in*ol*in$ conju$al

properties, for the simple reason that the conju$al partnership automaticall& ceased "hen

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

8/9

innie died, and b& the peculiar pro*ision of her "ill, under discussion, the remainder of her

share descended also automaticall& upon the death of 6od$es to her brothers and sisters,

thus outside of the scope of #5B-s administration. Accordin$l&, these constructions of innie’s

 "ill should be adhered to b& the trial court in its final order of adjudication and distribution

andNor partition of the t"o estates in question.

D's$os''o+@emand for determination of proper application of Art. 34, 55 (ren*oi), and of 5harles’ alle$ed

renunciation of his ineritance under innie’s "ill. A*elina remains to be the administrator of

innie’s estate. The said estate consists of Q of the communit& properties of the said spouses,

as of the time of innie ’s death on Ma& 7, 3GK, minus "hate*er the husband had alread&

$ratuitousl& disposed of in fa*or of third persons from said date until his death, pro*ided, first,

that "ith respect to remunerati*e dispositions, the proceeds thereof shall continue to be part

of the "ife-s estate, unless subsequentl& disposed of $ratuitousl& to third parties b& the

husband, and second, that should the purported renunciation be declared le$all& effecti*e, no

deductions "hatsoe*er are to be made from said estate. #5B and A*elina should act

thenceforth al"a&s conjointl&, ne*er independentl& from each other, as administrators.

C)NCURRING )INI)NS

Eernando?concurred "ith procedural aspect of the decision.

Teehankee?a$reed "ith most parts but had substantial differences in the reasonin$;

5. /. 6od$es could not  *alidl& make gratuitous dispositions of an& part or all of his "ife-s

estate ? 8completel& and absolutel& dispose of an& portion thereof inter vivos to an&one other

than himself8 in the lan$ua$e of the main opinion ? and thereb& render ineffectual and

nu$ator& her institution of her brothers and sisters as her desi$nated heirs to succeed to

her whole estate 8at the death of (her) husband.8

f accordin$ to the main opinion, 6od$es could not  make such $ratuitous 8complete and

absolute dispositions8 of his "ife innie-s estate 8mortis causa,8 it "ould seem that b& the

same token and rationale he "as like"ise proscribed b& the "ill from makin$ such

dispositions of innie-s estate inter vivos.

belie*e that the t"o questions of renvoi  and renunciation should be

resol*ed preferentially  and expeditiously  b& the probate court ahead  of the partition andse$re$ation of the minimum one+fourth of the conju$al or communit& properties constitutin$

innie Jane 6od$es- separate estate, "hich task considerin$ that it is no" se*enteen (3K)

&ears since innie Jane 6od$es- death and her conju$al estate "ith 5. /. 6od$es has

remained unli0uidated  up to no" mi$ht take a similar number of &ears to unra*el "ith the

numerous items, transactions and details of the siable estates in*ol*ed.

9uch partition of the minimum one+fourth "ould not  be final, since if the t"o prejudicial

questions of renvoi  and renunciation "ere resol*ed fa*orabl& to innie-s estate meanin$ to

sa& that if it should be held that 5. /. 6od$es is not entitled to an& le$itime of her estate andat an& rate he had totall& renounced his inheritance under the "ill), then innie-s estate "ould

consist not onl& of the minimum one+fourth but one'half  of the conju$al or communit&

properties of the 6od$es spouses, "hich "ould require a$ain the partition and se$re$ation of

still another one+fourth of said properties to complete innie-s separate estate.

 ustice eehankee also drew up suggested guidelines for application in the probate court.

Please see original case.

Makalintal, 5J. F

@e$ardless of "hether or not 5. /. 6od$es "as entitled to a le$itime in his deceased "ife-s

estate ? "hich question, still to be decided b& the said probate court, ma& depend upon "hat

is the la" of Te%as and upon its applicabilit& in the present case ? the said estate consists of

one+half, not one+fourth, of the conju$al properties. There is neither a minimum of one+fourth

nor a ma%imum be&ond that. t is important to bear this in mind because the estate of innie

6od$es consists of her share in the conju$al properties, is still under administration and until

no" has not been distributed b& order of the court.

8/20/2019 Conflicts 021316

9/9

The reference in both the main and separate opin ions to a one+fourth portion of the conju$al

properties as innie 6od$es’ minimum share is a misnomer and is e*identl& meant onl& to

indicate that if her husband should e*entuall& be declared entitled to a le$itime, then the

disposition made b& innie 6od$es in fa*or of her collateral relati*es "ould be *alid onl& as to

one+half of her share, or one+fourth of the conju$al properties, since the remainder, "hich

constitutes such le$itime, "ould necessaril& $o to her husband in absolute o"nership,

unburdened b& an& substitution, term or condition, resolutor& or other"ise. And until the estate

is finall& settled and adjudicated to the heirs "ho ma& be found entitled to it, the administration

must continue to co*er innie-s entire conju$al share.