Cayetano vs. Leonidas

The intrinsic validity of a foreign national's will and the amount of successional rights are governed by the decedent's national law, which prevails over Philippine public policy on legitimes.

Adoracion C. Campos, a citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., died while temporarily visiting her sister in Manila. She left a will executed in Pennsylvania, which was already probated there. Because she left properties in the Philippines, her sister sought the will's reprobate in a Philippine court to administer the local estate. Hermogenes Campos, Adoracion's father and sole compulsory heir under Philippine law, initially opposed the reprobate claiming forgery and nullity of the will's intrinsic provisions, but later executed a waiver and withdrew his opposition.

• Original Filing: Petition for Reprobate of Will and Appointment of Administratrix, Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch XXXVIII
• Lower Court Decision: January 10, 1979 — Will admitted to probate; Nenita Campos Paguia appointed Administratrix
• Subsequent Motions: Petition for Relief (May 25, 1979) and Motion to Vacate (May 18, 1980) both denied by CFI
• SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CFI's orders

• Death of Adoracion Campos: Adoracion died in Manila on January 31, 1977. She was an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
• Father's Adjudication: Hermogenes Campos, as the sole compulsory heir, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication under Rule 74, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, claiming the entire estate.
• Petition for Reprobate: On November 25, 1977, Nenita C. Paguia filed a petition for reprobate of Adoracion's will (executed and probated in Pennsylvania) and for her appointment as Philippine administratrix.
• Opposition and Withdrawal: Hermogenes opposed the reprobate on January 11, 1978, alleging forgery and invalid intrinsic provisions. On December 1, 1978, through new counsel Atty. Franco Loyola, Hermogenes filed a "Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With Waiver of Rights)," confirming the will's veracity. On April 14, 1979, he filed a manifestation confirming the withdrawal was voluntary.
• Ex-Parte Probate: With the opposition withdrawn, the CFI allowed the will's probate ex-parte on January 10, 1979.
• Petition for Relief: On May 25, 1979, Hermogenes filed a Petition for Relief, claiming the withdrawal motion was fraudulently inserted among CDCP deed documents and that Atty. Loyola was not his counsel-of-record.
• Dismissal for Lack of Evidence: The CFI repeatedly scheduled hearings for the Petition for Relief. On June 19, 1980, instead of presenting evidence for the Petition for Relief, Hermogenes's counsel tried to argue a separately filed Motion to Vacate. The CFI dismissed the Petition for Relief for failure to adduce evidence and denied the Motion to Vacate.
• Substitution of Petitioner: Hermogenes died on June 6, 1982. Polly Cayetano, named executrix in his will, substituted as petitioner.

• The respondent judge gravely abused his discretion by allowing the withdrawal of opposition, claiming it was secured through fraud and filed by a lawyer not of record, thereby depriving petitioner of the right to notice and paving the way for an ex-parte hearing.
• The waiver/repudiation of inheritance was invalid because it was not made in a public or authenticated instrument or by petition to the court within 30 days of the order for distribution, as required by the Rules of Court.
• The right of a forced heir to his legitime cannot be divested by a probate decree that ignores the Law of Succession.
• The CFI denied due process by dismissing the Petition for Relief without a proper hearing to present evidence.
• The CFI lacked jurisdiction because the testatrix was a "usual resident" of Dasmariñas, Cavite at the time of death, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the CFI of Cavite (citing De Borja v. Tan).

• The withdrawal of opposition was valid and confirmed voluntarily by the petitioner.
• The CFI of Manila had jurisdiction over the estate of a foreign decedent who owned property in Manila under Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
• The intrinsic validity of the will and successional rights are governed by Pennsylvania law, the decedent's national law, which does not provide for legitimes.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the CFI gravely abused its discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the opposition and proceeding with ex-parte probate.
  • Whether the CFI denied due process by dismissing the Petition for Relief for lack of evidence.
  • Whether the CFI of Manila had jurisdiction over the probate of the will.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the intrinsic validity of the will and the forced heir's right to a legitime should be governed by Philippine law or the decedent's national law (Pennsylvania law).

• Procedural:
  • The SC found no grave abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal. Petitioner failed to prove fraud; records showed Atty. Loyola had properly substituted the previous counsel, and petitioner himself confirmed the withdrawal was voluntary. The ex-parte hearing was proper given the absence of opposition.
  • There was no denial of due process. The Petition for Relief was repeatedly set for hearing, but petitioner failed to adduce evidence and instead tried to argue a different motion. Requesting a future hearing in a mere notice of hearing, rather than a proper motion, was insufficient.
  • The CFI of Manila had jurisdiction. Under Rule 73, Section 1, if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the CFI of any province where they have estate has jurisdiction. Adoracion was a U.S. resident with Philippine estate. Furthermore, petitioner is estopped from questioning jurisdiction after invoking it to seek affirmative relief.
• Substantive:
  • The intrinsic validity of the will is governed by Pennsylvania law. Under Article 16(2) and Article 1039 of the Civil Code, successional rights and the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions are regulated by the national law of the decedent. Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes. Philippine public policy on legitimes does not extend to the succession of foreign nationals, as Congress specifically chose to leave successional rights to the decedent's national law.

• National Law Principle in Succession — Under Articles 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the order of succession, amount of successional rights, and intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions are governed by the national law of the decedent, regardless of the nature or location of the property. Applied to rule that Pennsylvania law governs Adoracion's will, excluding the application of Philippine legitimes.
• Estoppel from Questioning Jurisdiction — A party who invokes a court's jurisdiction to secure affirmative relief cannot later repudiate or question that same jurisdiction after failing to obtain the relief. Applied to bar petitioner from challenging the CFI Manila's jurisdiction after actively seeking relief from it.
• Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Validity in Probate — As a general rule, the probate court's authority is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will. However, when practical considerations demand, the court may pass upon the intrinsic validity even before probate. Applied to address the issue of preterition and legitimes raised by the petitioner.

• Article 16, par. (2), Civil Code — Governs conflict of laws in succession. Applied to mandate that the national law of the decedent (Pennsylvania law) regulates the intrinsic validity of the will and successional rights, overriding Philippine legitime rules.
• Article 1039, Civil Code — Provides that capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. Applied to reinforce that the decedent's national law controls.
• Rule 73, Section 1, Rules of Court — Venue for settlement of estates. Applied to establish that for a decedent who is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the CFI of any province where they have estate has jurisdiction, validating the CFI Manila's jurisdiction.
• Rule 74, Section 1, Rules of Court — Extrajudicial settlement by affidavit. Referenced as the basis for Hermogenes Campos's initial attempt to adjudicate the entire estate to himself.