Roberts v.

Leonidas
129 SCRA 754

FACTS:

Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his second wife (Maxine), their
two children (Pete and Linda), and by his two children by a first marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended
by divorce.

Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959. One will disposed of his
Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife. The second will disposed
of his estate outside the Philippines. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by
Maxine on March 1978. Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila
by Ethel in January 1978. The Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil to probate on April 1978 and
was issued upon consideration of the stipulation between the attorneys for Maxine and Ethel.

Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a
compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.

As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel. On March 1978, Maxine
filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah
probate proceedings. She submitted to the court a copy of Grimm’s will. However, pursuant to the
compromise agreement, Maxine withdrew the opposition and the motion to dismiss. The court ignored the
will found in the record.The estate was partitioned.

In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills (already probated in Utah), that the
partition approved by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that
Maxine be appointed executrix and Ethel be ordered to account for the properties received by them and
return the same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were defrauded due to the machinations of Ethel,
that the compromise agreement was illegal and the intestate proceeding was void because Grimm died
testate so partition was contrary to the decedent’s wills.

Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by Judge Leonidas for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying Ethel’s
motion to dismiss.

HELD:

We hold that respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.
A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and “no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed” (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of
Court).

The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should
be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate
proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
 Benedicto vs. Javellana

February 21, 1908

Facts:

Maximino Jalandoni, brother of the deceased Maximo Jalandoni, petitioned that the administrator or
executor, Julio Javellana, be directed to pay him the sum of P985 which he held, in lieu of the land donated
to him in his brother’s will. He alleged that one-half of the hacienda “Lantad” had been bequeathed to him,
subject to the payment of certain debts and expenses of the estate; that one-half of said hacienda was sold,
the sum of P985 remaining in the possession of Javellana; that Javellana is no longer entitled to retain the
P985 since, with the value of the portion inherited by the heirs Francisco Jalandoni and Sofia Jalandoni,
there would be more than enough required to pay the other debts and expenses of the estate.

Javellana alleged that it was not proper to ask, by means of a motion, for the relief that Maximino Jalandoni
claimed, but that a complaint should have been filed and action brought against the other legatees or rather
against all the parties concerned in the estate, not against the administrator alone. The lower court judge
granted the motion.

Issue: Whether Maximino’s claim should be filed in the special proceedings or in a separate action?

Held: In the special proceedings. Any challenge to the validity of a will, any objection to the authentication
thereof, and every demand or claim which any heir, legatee or party in interest in a testate or intestate
succession may make must be acted upon and decided within the same special proceedings, not in a
separate action, and the same judge having jurisdiction in the administration of the estate shall take
cognizance of the question raised.

However, considering that everyone stated by the will are mere legatees they have no right to receive their
share of the property of the deceased until after his debts have been paid. Contrary to Maximino’s
contention, Francisco and Sofia Jalandoni are not heirs but mere legatees. Thus, since all of them are
legatees, the debts and expenses of the estate must be paid pro rate by the legatees in the manner
provided in the will.

Doctrine: Every demand or claim which any heir, legatee or party in interest in a testate or intestate
succession may make must be acted upon and decided within the same special proceedings, not in a
separate action.

PCIB

vs ESCOLIN

Facts:
Charles & Linnie Hodges, both texan nationals, provided in their respective wills that bequeath remainder
of estate to spouse during lifetime remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse. Mrs. Hodges
died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR in Financial Statements submitted before the court, he made
statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is 1/2 of conjugal estate that he allegedly renounced his
inheritance in a tax declaration in US for 5 years before his death, he failed to make accounting, failed to
acquire final adjudication of wife's estate. Charles died. Magno, initially administrator of both spouse's
estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate.

WON Action is prescribed?

NO. 33 appeals were timely made
Court did not pass upon its timeliness

WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper?

YES. Appeal insufficient remedy
Many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits

WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' HEIRS?

YES. After residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE:
1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled
2. Debts

Funeral expenses
Expenses of administration
Widow allowance
Taxes

Supereme Court Held:

Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate. Mr. Hodges was aware
that wife's siblings had rights. Since there's still a residue, can't close special proceedings yet.

WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None

No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC)

There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to resolutory condition of Charles' death

Charles was to enjoy the whole estate but he can't dispose of property mortis causa (because it's already
subject to the will made by his wife, which he agreed in the provision of his will)

Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full ownership

WON PH LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES?

No answer yet. Remanded

Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality

If we apply Texas PRIL law:
Personal property: law of domicile
Real property: law of situs (both in RP)

IF Art 16 applies, then Texas law should govern; Texas law provides no legitime

So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse, being the sole heir,
gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estate of the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the
spouse goes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4 of the whole conjugal
property.