1
CAYETANO VS LEONIDAS, G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984
FACTS: 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 Adoracion Campos.
Eleven months after, 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. Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an
American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of
4633 Ditman Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. That during her
lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and testament according to the
laws of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., nominating Wilfredo Barzaga of New Jersey
as executor; that after the testatrix death, her last will and testament was
presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the Registry of Wins at
the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A.
An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner
Hermogenes Campos alleging among other things, that he has every
reason to believe that the will in question is a forgery and that the intrinsic
provisions of the will are null and void; and that even if pertinent American
laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked, the same could not apply
inasmuch as they would work injustice and injury to him. RTC ruled that
the Last Will and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos be admitted
to and allowed probate in the Philippines.
WHETHER: Whether or not Philippine law governs in determining
the intrinsic validity of the will of Adoracion C. Campos?
RULE: No. The national law of the decedent must apply. It is 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.
PCIB vs ESCOLIN 56 S 266
In November 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas
made a will. In May 1957, while she was domiciled here in the Philippines
she died.
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton
Hodges. Linnie however also stated in her will that should her husband
later die, said estate shall be turned over to her brother and sister.
In December 1962, Charles died who was also domiciled in the Philippines.
Atty. Leon Gellada, the lawyer of Charles filed a motion before the probate
court (there was an ongoing probate on the will of Linnie) so that a certain
Avelina Magno may be appointed as the administratrix of the estate.
Magno was the trusted employee of the Hodges when they were alive.
Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same was
in an iron trunk in Charles’ office. Hence, in the meantime, he’d like to
have Magno appointed as administratrix. Judge Venicio Escolin approved
the motion.
Later, Charles’ will was found and so a new petition for probate was filed
for the said will. Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno,
as admininistratrix of Linnie’s estate opposed the said petition. Eventually,
the probate of Charles’ will was granted. Eventually still, the Philippine
Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed as administrator. But
Magno refused to turn over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the
property to Linnie’s brother and sister and since that is her will, the same
must be respected. Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at the
time of her death (an alien testator); that under Article 16 of the Civil
Code, successional rights are governed by Linnie’s national law; that under
 2

Texas law, Linnie’s will shall be respected regardless of the presence of

legitimes (Charles’ share in the estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine laws
because Linnie was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death
(applying the renvoidoctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Texas Law should apply?
HELD: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court.
Both parties failed to adduce proof as to the law of Texas. The Supreme
Court held that for what the Texas law is on the matter, is a question of
fact to be resolved by the evidence that would be presented in the probate
court. The Supreme Court however emphasized that Texas law at the time
of Linnie’s death is the law applicable (and not said law at any other time).

The courts of the Philippine Islands 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. (In re Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.)
Here the requirements of the 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. Nor was the extract from
the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the
original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia. No evidence was
introduced to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in
force at the time the alleged will was executed. No evidence of the nature
thus suggested by the Court may be found in the records of the cases at bar.