Wills Case Digest

conflict rule for Californians domiciled outside of California.
Adolfo Aznar vs Christensen being domiciled in the Philippines, the law of

his domicile must be followed. The case was remanded to
Helen Christensen
the lower court for further proceedings – the determination
of the successional rights under Philippine law only.
Garcia Non v. CA
G.R. No. 137287 February 15, 2000
Civil Law – Application of Laws – Foreign Law
– Nationality Principle – Internal and Conflict Rule
Spouses Julian and Virginia Viado owned several pieces
Application of the Renvoi Doctrine of property, among them was the disputed property.
Edward Christensen was born in New York but he migrated Virginia died on 20 October 1982. Julian C. Viado died
to California where he resided for a period of 9 years. In three years later on 15 November 1985.
1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a
domiciliary until his death. In his will, he instituted an Petitioners and respondents shared, since 1977, a
acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen common residence at the Isarog property. However,
(legitimate), as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money tension would appear to have escalated between
in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia (illegitimate). Adolfo petitioner Rebecca Viado and respondent Alicia Viado
Aznar was the executor of the estate. Counsel for Helen (wife of Nilo Viado) after the former had asked that the
claims that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code, property be equally divided between the two families.
California law should be applied; that under California law, Respondents, forthwith, claimed absolute ownership over
the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On the the entire property and demanded that petitioners vacate
other hand, counsel for Maria, averred that the national law the portion occupied by the latter. Hence, petitioners,
of the deceased must apply, illegitimate children not being asserting co-ownership over the property in question,
entitled to anything under California law. filed a case for partition before the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased
should be applied in determining the successional rights of Respondents predicated their claim of absolute
his heirs. ownership over the subject property on two documents —
a deed of donation executed by the late Julian covering
HELD: The Supreme Court deciding to grant more his one-half conjugal share of the Isarog property in favor
successional rights to Helen said in effect that there are two of Nilo and a deed of extrajudicial settlement in which
rules in California on the matter; the internal law which Julian Viado, Leah Viado Jacobs and petitioner Rebecca
applies to Californians domiciled in California and the
waived in favor of Nilo their rights and interests over NO. The exclusion of petitioner Delia, alleged to be a
their share of the property inherited from Virginia. retardate, from the deed of extrajudicial settlement verily
Both instruments were executed on 26 August 1983 and has had the effect of preterition. This kind of preterition,
registered on 07 January 1988 by virtue of which TCT however, in the absence of proof of fraud and bad faith,
No.373646 was issued to the heirs of Nilo Viado. does not justify a collateralattack on TCT No. 373646.
The relief, as so correctly pointed out by the CA, instead
Petitioners, in their action for partition, attacked the rests on Article 1104 of the Civil Code to the effect that
validity of the foregoing instruments, contending that the where the preterition is not
late Nilo employed forgery and undue influence to coerce
Julian to execute the deed of donation. Petitioner attended by bad faith and fraud, the partition shall not be
Rebecca, in her particular case, averred that her brother rescinded but the preterited heir shall be paid the value of
Nilo employed fraud to procure her signature to the share pertaining to her. The appellate court has thus
the deed of extrajudicial settlement. She added that acted properly in ordering the remand of the case for
the exclusion of her retardate sister, Delia, in the further proceedings to make the proper valuation of the
extrajudicial settlement, resulted in the latter’s Isarog property and ascertainment of the amount due
preterition that should warrant its annulment. Finally, petitioner Delia Viado.
petitioners asseverated that the assailed instruments,
although executed on 23 August 1983, were registered
only five years later, on 07 January 1988, when the three
Johnny Rabadilla vs
parties thereto, namely, Julian, Nilo and Leah had
already died.
The RTC then found for respondents and adjudged Alicia

Viado and her children as being the true owners of
the disputed property. The CA affirmed with modification
Court of Appeals
by ordering the remand of the records of the case to the Civil Law – Succession – Transmissible Obligations
court a quo for further proceedings to determine
A certain Aleja Belleza died but he instituted in his will Dr.
the value of the property and the amount respondents Jorge Rabadilla as a devisee to a 511, 855 hectare land. A
should pay to petitioner Delia for having been preterited condition was however imposed to the effect that:
in the deed of extrajudicial settlement.
1. the naked ownership shall transfer to Dr. Rabadilla;
ISSUE: WON the partition should be rescinded due to 2. he shall deliver the fruits of said land to Maria Belleza,
the preterition of Delia as an heir. sister of Aleja, during the lifetime of said Maria Belleza;
3. that in case Dr. Rabadilla shall die before Maria Rabadilla had by virtue of the Will were transmitted to his
Belleza, the near descendants, shall continue delivering forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations
the fruits to Maria Belleza; not extinguished by death also form part of the estate of the
decedent; corollarily, the obligations imposed by the Will on
4. that the said land may only be encumbered, mortgaged,
the deceased Dr. Jorge Rabadilla, were likewise transmitted
or sold only to a relative of Belleza.
to his compulsory heirs upon his death. It is clear therefore,
In 1983, Dr. Rabadilla died. He was survived by Johnny that Johnny should have continued complying with the
Rabadilla. terms of the Will. His failure to do so shall give rise to an
In 1989, Maria Belleza sued Johnny Rabadilla in order to obligation for him to reconvey the property to the estate of
compel Johnny to reconvey the said land to the estate of Aleja.
Aleja Belleza because it is alleged that Johnny failed to
comply with the terms of the will; that since 1985, Johnny
failed to deliver the fruits; and that the the land was
mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank, which is a
violation of the will.
Elena Morente vs
In his defense, Johnny avers that the term “near
descendants” in the will of Aleja pertains to the near
descendants of Aleja and not to the near descendants of
Gumersindo De La
Dr. Rabadilla, hence, since Aleja had no near descendants
at the time of his death, no can substitute Dr. Rabadilla on
the obligation to deliver the fruits of the devised land.
Santa
Conditions on the Institution of Heirs – Prohibition to
ISSUE: Whether or not Johnny Rabadilla is not obliged to Remarry
comply with the terms of the Will left by Aleja Belleza.
Sometime in the early 1900s, Consuelo Morente died
HELD: No. The contention of Johnny Rabadilla is bereft of leaving a will which provides that she is leaving all her real
merit. The “near descendants” being referred to in the will estate in favor of her husband, Gumersindo De La Santa. It
are the heirs of Dr. Rabadilla. Ownership over the devised is also provided in the will that De La Santa “shall not
property was already transferred to Dr. Rabadilla when remarry anyone“.
Aleja died. Hence, when Dr. Rabadilla himself died,
ownership over the same property was transmitted to But four months after the death of Consuelo, De La Santa
Johnny Rabadilla by virtue of succession. contracted a subsequent marriage.
Under Article 776 of the Civil Code, inheritance includes all Elena Morente, sister of Consuelo, now filed a petition to
the property, rights and obligations of a person, not annul the institution made in favor of De La Santa on the
extinguished by his death. Conformably, whatever rights Dr.
ground that by reason of De La Santa’s subsequent
marriage, he ad forfeited his inheritance.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid prohibition in the
case at bar.
HELD: No. It is true that a prohibition to remarry imposed
by the testator on his or her spouse is allowed. However, in
this case, from the clauses in the will left by Consuelo, the
prohibition was not so worded. There was no express
prohibition. The phrase that De La Santa “shall not remarry
anyone” was a mere statement or declaration. There was
even no provision as to what consequences will happen if in
the event that De La Santa will remarry. The will did not say
that he should reconvey the property to the estate of
Consuelo. Therefore, his second marriage did not give rise
to an action for the annulment of the institution made in his
favor in the will of his deceased wife.

Wills Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wills Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wills Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

conflict rule for Californians domiciled outside of California.

Adolfo Aznar vs Christensen being domiciled in the Philippines, the law of

The RTC then found for respondents and adjudged Alicia

You might also like