(14) ALONZO Q. ANCHETA vs.

CANDELARIA GUERSEY-DALAYGON
G.R. No. 139868 Ju! 8" #$$6
Co%!&' o( )*++,
-.%',/ Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were
American citizens who have resided in the hilippines !or "# years. $hey have an
adopted dau%hter& 'yle Guersey (ill ('yle). On )uly *+& ,+-+& Audrey died& leavin% a
will. .n it& she /e0ueathed her entire estate to Richard& who was also desi%nated as
e1ecutor. $he will was admitted to pro/ate /e!ore the 2ourt o! 3altimore& 4aryland&
5.S.A. $he court named Atty. Alonzo 6. Ancheta (petitioner) o! the 6uasha Asperilla
Ancheta ena 7 Nolasco 8aw O9ces as ancillary administrator.
.n ,+:,& Richard married 2andelaria Guersey;<alay%on (respondent) with whom he
has two children& namely& 'im/erly and 'evin. On Octo/er ,*& ,+:*& Audreys will
was also admitted to pro/ate /y the then 2ourt o! =irst .nstance o! Rizal& 3ranch *>&
Seventh )udicial <istrict& asi%. As administrator o! Audreys estate in the
hilippines& petitioner ?led an inventory and appraisal o! the !ollowin% properties@
(,) Audreys conAu%al share in real estate with improvements located at 4aBati&
4etro 4anilaC (*) a current account in Audreys name with a cash /alance o!
,*&D,-.+-C and (") ED&DDD shares o! stocB in AFG .nteriors& .nc. worth ED&DDD.##.
On )uly *#& ,+:D& Richard died& leavin% a will& wherein he /e0ueathed his entire
estate to respondent& save !or his ri%hts and interests over the AFG .nteriors& .nc.
shares& which he le!t to 'yle. $he will was also admitted to pro/ate /y the 2ourt o!
4aryland& 5.S.A and Atty. William 6uasha or any mem/er o! the 6uasha Asperilla
Ancheta ena 7 Nolasco 8aw O9ces& as ancillary administrator. Richards will was
then su/mitted !or pro/ate /e!ore the R$2 o! 4aBati.
On Octo/er ,+& ,+:-& petitioner ?led in Special roceedin% No. +E*>& a motion to
declare Richard and 'yle as heirs o! Audrey and apportioned to them G and H o! all
the estate& respectively. $he motion and proAect o! partition was %ranted and
approved /y the trial court in its Order dated =e/ruary ,*& ,+::. . $his was opposed
/y respondent on the %round that under the law o! the State o! 4aryland& I. +!0.%1
&.,,!, 'o '2! +!0.'!! '2! !'*3! *'!3!,' o( '2! '!,'.'o3 * '2! &3o&!3'1
,u45!%' o( '2! +!0.%1.I Respondent contended that petitioner will!ully /reached
his ?duciary duty when he disre%arded the laws o! the State o! 4aryland on the
distri/ution o! Audreys estate in accordance with her will. Respondent ar%ued that
since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard& then the 4aBati property should
/e wholly adAudicated to him& and not merely G thereo!& and since Richard le!t his
entire estate& e1cept !or his ri%hts and interests over the AFG .nteriors& .nc.& to
respondent& then the entire 4aBati property should now pertain to respondent.
$he 2ourt o! Appeals annulled the trial courts Orders in Special roceedin% No.+E*>
and later denied the appeal o! the petitioner& thus the petition !or review on
certiorari.
,
I,,u!/ Whether or not the petitioner will!ully /reached his ?duciary duty on the
distri/ution o! Audreys estate in accordance o! her will.
H!+6/ etitioners !ailure to pro?ciently mana%e the distri/ution o! Audreys estate
accordin% to the terms o! her will and as dictated /y the applica/le law amounted to
e1trinsic !raud. 3ein% a !orei%n national& the intrinsic validity o! Audreys will&
especially with re%ard as to who are her heirs& is %overned /y her national law& i.e.&
the law o! the State o! 4aryland& as provided in Article ,E o! the 2ivil 2ode& to wit@
Art. ,E. Real property as well as personal property is su/Aect to the law o! the
country where it is situated.
(owever& intestate and testamentary succession& /oth with respect to the o36!3 o(
,u%%!,,*o .6 'o '2! .7ou' o( ,u%%!,,*o.+ 3*02', .6 'o '2! *'3*,*%
8.+*6*'1 o( '!,'.7!'.31 &3o8*,*o," ,2.++ 4! 3!0u+.'!6 41 '2! .'*o.+ +.)
o( '2! &!3,o )2o,! ,u%%!,,*o *, u6!3 %o,*6!3.'*o" )2.'!8!3 7.1 4!
'2! .'u3! o( '2! &3o&!3'1 .6 3!0.36+!,, o( '2! %ou'31 )2!3!* ,.*6
&3o&!3'1 7.1 4! (ou6. (Jmphasis supplied)
Article ,#"+ o! the 2ivil 2ode !urther provides that Icapacity to succeed is %overned
/y the law o! the nation o! the decedent.I
.n this case& Audreys and Richards estate should /e distri/uted accordin% to their
respective wills& and not accordin% to the proAect o! partition su/mitted /y
petitioner. 2onse0uently& the entire 4aBati property /elon%s to respondent.
<ecades a%o& )ustice 4oreland& in his dissentin% opinion in Santos v. 4anaran%&
wrote@
A will is the testator speaBin% a!ter death. .ts provisions have su/stantially the same
!orce and eKect in the pro/ate court as i! the testator stood /e!ore the court in !ull
li!e maBin% the declarations /y word o! mouth as they appear in the will. $hat was
the special purpose o! the law in the creation o! the instrument Bnown as the last
will and testament. 4en wished to speaB a!ter they were dead and the law& /y the
creation o! that instrument& permitted them to do so 1 1 1 All dou/ts must /e
resolved in !avor o! the testatorLs havin% meant Aust what he said.
*