2. Cayetano vs. Leonidas (1984)

8/10/2019 2. Cayetano vs. Leonidas (1984)

1/5

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984

POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner,vs.HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, ! "# $a%a$&y a# &"' P('#)!* +)*' o (a!$" ///III, Co(& o (#&I!#&a!$' o Ma!2a a!) NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA, respondents.

Ermelo P. Guzman for petitioner.

Armando Z. Gonzales for private respondent.

GUTIERRE, +R., J.:

This is a petition for revie on certiorari, see!in" to annul the order of the respondent #ud"e of the $ourt of FirstInstance of Manila, %ranch &&&VIII, hich ad'itted to and alloed the probate of the last ill and testa'ent of(doracion $. $a'pos, after an e)*parte presentation of evidence b+ herein private respondent.

On anuar+ -, /00, (doracion $. $a'pos died, leavin" her father, petitioner 1er'o"enes $a'pos and hersisters, private respondent Nenita $. Pa"uia, Re'edios $. 2ope3 and Marieta $. Medina as the survivin" heirs.(s 1er'o"enes $a'pos as the onl+ co'pulsor+ heir, he e)ecuted an (ffidavit of (d#udication under Rule 04,Section I of the Rules of $ourt hereb+ he ad#udicated unto hi'self the onership of the entire estate of thedeceased (doracion $a'pos.

5leven 'onths after, on Nove'ber 67, /00, Nenita $. Pa"uia filed a petition for the reprobate of a ill of the

deceased, (doracion $a'pos, hich as alle"edl+ e)ecuted in the 8nited States and for her appoint'ent asad'inistratri) of the estate of the deceased testatri).

In her petition, Nenita alle"ed that the testatri) as an ('erican citi3en at the ti'e of her death and as aper'anent resident of 49-- Dit'an Street, Philadelphia, Penns+lvania, 8.S.(.: that the testatri) died in Manilaon anuar+ -, /00 hile te'poraril+ residin" ith her sister at 690 2everi3a, Malate, Manila: that durin" herlifeti'e, the testatri) 'ade her last i" and testa'ent on ul+ ;, /07, accordin" to the las of Penns+lvania,8.S.(., no'inatin" uestioned ill as 'ade.


2/5

On anuar+ ;, /0/, the respondent #ud"e issued an order, to itB

(t the hearin", it has been satisfactoril+ established that (doracion $. $a'pos, in her lifeti'e,as a citi3en of the 8nited States of ('erica ith a per'anent residence at 49-- Dit'anStreet, Philadelphia, P( /64, ?5)hibit D@ that hen alive, (doracion $. $a'pos e)ecuted a2ast


3/5

( 'otion to dis'iss the petition on the "round that the ri"hts of the petitioner 1er'o"enes $a'pos 'er"edupon his death ith the ri"hts of the respondent and her sisters, onl+ re'ainin" children and forced heirs asdenied on Septe'ber 6, /=-.

Petitioner $a+etano persists ith the alle"ations that the respondent #ud"e acted ithout or in e)cess of his#urisdiction henB

@ 1e ruled the petitioner lost his standin" in court deprived the Ri"ht to Notice ?sic@ upon thefilin" of the Motion to Dis'iss opposition ith aiver of ri"hts or interests a"ainst the estate ofdeceased (doracion $. $a'pos, thus, pavin" the a+ for the hearin" ex-parteof the petitionfor the probate of decedent ill.

6@ 1e ruled that petitioner can aive, renounce or repudiate ?not 'ade in a public orauthenticated instru'ent@, or b+ a+ of a petition presented to the court but b+ a+ of a'otion presented prior to an order for the distribution of the estate*the la especiall+ providin"that repudiation of an inheritance 'ust be presented, ithin -; da+s after it has issued anorder for the distribution of the estate in accordance ith the rules of $ourt.

-@ 1e ruled that the ri"ht of a forced heir to his le"iti'e can be divested b+ a decree ad'ittin"a ill to probate in hich no provision is 'ade for the forced heir in co'plete disre"ard of 2a

of Succession

4@ 1e denied petitionerCs petition for Relief on the "round that no evidence as adduced tosupport the Petition for Relief hen no Notice nor hearin" as set to afford petitioner to provethe 'erit of his petition E a denial of the due process and a "rave abuse of discretiona'ountin" to lac! of #urisdiction.

7@ 1e ac>uired no #urisdiction over the testate case, the fact that the Testator at the ti'e ofdeath as a usual resident of Das'arias, $avite, conse>uentl+ $avite $ourt of FirstInstance has e)clusive #urisdiction over the case ?De %or#a vs. Tan, G.R. No. 2*00/6, ul+/77@.

The first to issues raised b+ the petitioner are anchored on the alle"ation that the respondent #ud"e acted ith

"rave abuse of discretion hen he alloed the ithdraal of the petitionerCs opposition to the reprobate of theill.


4/5

This contention is ithout 'erit.

(lthou"h on its face, the ill appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the respondent #ud"e shouldhave denied its reprobate outri"ht, the private respondents have sufficientl+ established that (doracion as, atthe ti'e of her death, an ('erican citi3en and a per'anent resident of Philadelphia, Penns+lvania, 8.S.(.Therefore, under (rticle 9 par. ?6@ and ;-/ of the $ivil $ode hich respectivel+ provideB

(rt. 9 par. ?6@.

))) ))) )))

1oever, intestate and testa'entar+ successions, both ith respect to the order ofsuccession and to the a'ount of successional ri"hts and to the intrinsic validit+ oftesta'entar+ provisions, shall be re"ulated b+ the national la of the person hosesuccession is under consideration, hatever 'a+ be the nature of the propert+ and re"ardlessof the countr+ herein said propert+ 'a+ be found.

(rt. ;-/.

$apacit+ to succeed is "overned b+ the la of the nation of the decedent.

the la hich "overns (doracion $a'poCs ill is the la of Penns+lvania, 8.S.(., hich is the national la ofthe decedent. (lthou"h the parties ad'it that the Penns+lvania la does not provide for le"iti'es and that allthe estate 'a+ be "iven aa+ b+ the testatri) to a co'plete stran"er, the petitioner ar"ues that such la shouldnot appl+ because it ould be contrar+ to the sound and established public polic+ and ould run counter to thespecific provisions of Philippine 2a.

It is a settled rule that as re"ards the intrinsic validit+ of the provisions of the ill, as provided for b+ (rticle9?6@ and ;-/ of the $ivil $ode, the national la of the decedent 'ust appl+. This as s>uarel+ applied in thecase ofBellis v. Bellis?6; S$R( -7=@ herein e ruledB

It is therefore evident that hatever public polic+ or "ood custo's 'a+ be involved in our

s+ste' of le"iti'es, $on"ress has not intended to e)tend the sa'e to the succession offorei"n nationals. For it has specificall+ chosen to leave, inter alia, the a'ount of successionalri"hts, to the decedentCs national la. Specific provisions 'ust prevail over "eneral ones.

))) ))) )))

The parties ad'it that the decedent, ('os G. %ellis, as a citi3en of the State of Te)as,8.S.(., and under the la of Te)as, there are no forced heirs or le"iti'es. (ccordin"l+, sincethe intrinsic validit+ of the provision of the ill and the a'ount of successional ri"hts are to bedeter'ined under Te)as la, the Philippine 2a on le"iti'es cannot be applied to the testac+of ('os G. %ellis.

(s re"ards the alle"ed absence of notice of hearin" for the petition for relief, the records i" bear the fact that

hat as repeatedl+ scheduled for hearin" on separate dates until une /, /=; as the petitionerCs petitionfor relief and not his 'otion to vacate the order of anuar+ ;, /0/. There is no reason h+ the petitionershould have been led to believe otherise. The court even ad'onished the petitionerCs failin" to adduceevidence hen his petition for relief as repeatedl+ set for hearin". There as no denial of due process. Thefact that he re>uested Afor the future settin" of the case for hearin" . . .A did not 'ean that at the ne)t hearin",the 'otion to vacate ould be heard and "iven preference in lieu of the petition for relief. Further'ore, suchre>uest should be e'bodied in a 'otion and not in a 'ere notice of hearin".

Finall+, e find the contention of the petition as to the issue of #urisdiction utterl+ devoid of 'erit. 8nder Rule0-, Section , of the Rules of $ourt, it is provided thatB


5/5

S5$TION . Where estate of deceased persons settled. E If the decedent is an inhabitant ofthe Philippines at the ti'e of his death, hether a citi3en or an alien, his ill shall be proved,or letters of ad'inistration "ranted, and his estate settled, in the $ourt of First Instance in theprovince in hich he resided at the ti'e of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a forei"ncountr+, the $ourt of First Instance of an+ province in hich he had estate. The court firstta!in" co"ni3ance of the settle'ent of the estate of a decedent, shall e)ercise #urisdiction tothe e)clusion of all other courts. The #urisdiction assu'ed b+ a court, so far as it depends on

the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contestedin a suit or proceedin", e)cept in an appeal fro' that court, in the ori"inal case, or hen theant of #urisdiction appears on the record.

Therefore, the settle'ent of the estate of (doracion $a'pos as correctl+ filed ith the $ourt of First Instanceof Manila here she had an estate since it as alle"ed and proven that (doracion at the ti'e of her death asa citi3en and per'anent resident of Penns+lvania, 8nited States of ('erica and not a Ausual resident of$aviteA as alle"ed b+ the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner is no estopped fro' >uestionin" the #urisdiction ofthe probate court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a part+ cannot invo!e the #urisdiction of a courtto secure affir'ative relief, a"ainst his opponent and after failin" to obtain such relief, repudiate or >uestion thatsa'e #urisdiction. ?See Saulo" Transit, Inc. vs. 1on. Manuel 2a3aro, et al., G. R. No. 9- 6=4, (pril 4, /=4@.

2. Cayetano vs. Leonidas (1984)

Documents

Transcript of 2. Cayetano vs. Leonidas (1984)