CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY.

WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401 TALA NATION

Minciano vs. Brimo Ruling:

G.R. No. 22595, November 1, 1924
YES. The national law shall govern.
Facts:
HOWEVER, the law of Turkey was not proven by
Joseph G. Brimo (decedent), a citizen of Turkey, the opponent. There was no evidence that the
died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano, scheme of partition violated the decedent’s
the judicial administrator of the estate filed a national law. Thus, they were presumed to be the
scheme of partition. same as those of the Philippines.

However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the YES. The provision is void.
deceased, opposed it. He assigned as error the:
This was based on the issue (second assignment of
1. Approval of said scheme of partition error above) as to the exclusion of the opponent as
a legatee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons
2. Denial of his participation in the designated in such will. The second clause of the
inheritance will states that:

a. because the provision in the will "Second. I likewise desire to state that although, by
was contrary to the law wherein law, I am a Turkish citizen, this citizenship having
the national law shall govern the been conferred upon me by conquest and not by
testamentary dispositions of the free choice, nor by nationality and, on the other
decedent’s will hand, having resided for a considerable length of
time in the Philippine Islands where I succeeded in
3. Denial of MR for the order approving the acquiring all of the property that I now possess, it
partition is my wish that the distribution of my property
and everything in connection with this, my will,
4. The declaration that the Turkish laws be made and disposed of in accordance with the
are impertinent to this cause, and the laws in force in the Philippine Islands,
failure to postpone the approval of the requesting all of my relatives to respect this wish,
scheme of partition and the delivery of the otherwise, I annul and cancel beforehand
deceased’s business to Pietro Lanza until whatever disposition found in this will
the receipt of the depositions requested in favorable to the person or persons who fail to
reference to Turkish laws. comply with this request."

(kana ako mga gibold ang importante – bati So the institution of legatees in this will is
pagkasuwat ang kaso giatay katag kaayo) conditioned that the instituted legatees must
respect the testator’s will to distribute his
Basically, his opposition is based on the fact that property, not in accordance with the laws of his
the partition in question puts into effect the nationality, but in accordance with the laws of the
provisions of the decedent’s will which are not Philippines.
in accordance with the laws of his Turkish
nationality, for which reason they are void as However, such condition is void, being contrary to
being in violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code law because it expressly ignores the testator’s
(Second par., Article 16 sa NCC) national law when, according to Article 10 of the
Civil Code (par. 2, Article 16 of NCC), such national
Issue: law of the testator is the one to govern his
testamentary dispositions. In effect, the provision
1. WON the national law of the testator is the is deemed unwritten.
one to govern his testamentary
disposition. Thus, the exclusion of the oppositor as legatee is
void as it was done pursuant to a void stipulation.
2. WON the provision in the will regarding
the denial of the opponent’s participation
in the inheritance is void.

BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401 TALA NATION

Estate of C.O. Bohanan v. Edward, Mary Lydia, dispositions are to be governed by the national law
and Magdalena Bohanan of the testator, and as it has been decided and it is
G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960 not disputed that the national law of the testator is
that of the State of Nevada.
Facts:
The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case
Court of First Instance of Manila admitted to because the testator died in 1944, expressly
probate a last will and testament of C. O. Bohanan, provides that successional rights to personal
executed by him in Manila. In the said order, the property are to be governed by the national law of
court made the following findings: the person whose succession is in question.

He was born in Nebraska and therefore a citizen of The court below refused to recognize the claim of
that state, or at least a citizen of California where the widow on the ground that the laws of Nevada,
some of his properties are located. of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to
dispose of all of his properties without requiring
Notwithstanding the long residence of the him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife.
decedent in the Philippines, his stay here was Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925
merely temporary, and he continued and remained provides:
to be a citizen of the United States and of the state
of his particular choice, which is Nevada, as stated "Every person over the age of eighteen years, of
in his will. His permanent residence or domicile in sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his or
the United States depended upon his personal her estate, real and personal, the same being
intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as his chargeable with the payment of the testator's
domicile and therefore at the time of his death, he debts."
was a citizen of that state. As stated in the will,
Philippine Trust Company is appointed as It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a
executor. testator to dispose of all his properties by will. It
does not appear that at the time of the hearing of
The executor filed a project of partition, making, in the project of partition, the above-quoted provision
accordance with the provisions of the will: the total was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor's
estate (after deducting administration expenses) of duty to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law,
P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave his grandson can only be proved in our courts in the form and
P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of manner provided for by our Rules, which are as
several mining companies and to his brother and follows:
sister the same amount. To his children he gave a
legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000. "SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record.
(Wife has no share) — An official record or an entry therein, when
admissible for any purpose, may be
The wife Magdalena C. Bohanan and her two evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
children question the validity of the testamentary copy attested by the officer having the legal
provisions disposing of the estate in the manner custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
above indicated, claiming that they have been accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
deprived of the legitime that the laws of the forum Philippines, with a certificate that
concede to them. such officer has the custody." . . . (Rule 123)

Issue: We have, however, consulted the records of the

case in the court below and we have found that
Whether or not the wife and children are entitled during the hearing of the motion of Magdalena C.
to their legitime according to the law of the forum Bohanan for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share,
(Philippine Law). the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled
Nevada Laws, was introduced in evidence by
Held: appellants' (herein) counsel. Again, said law was
presented by the counsel for the executor and
No, As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B" during the
Code (NCC Art. 16), the validity of testamentary hearing of the case.

BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401 TALA NATION

testament was presented, probated, allowed and

In addition, the other appellants, children of the registered with the Registry of Wills at the County
testator, do not dispute the above-quoted of Philadelphia, USA and Clement McLaughlin was
provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under appointed as administrator. And thus, Nenita
all the above circumstances, we are constrained to prayed for her appointment as administratrix of
hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially the estate of the properties located here in the
Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of Philippines.
1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without
proof of such law having been offered at the Hermogenes filed an opposition to the reprobate
hearing of the project of partition. alleging the will in question is a forgery. The
intrinsic provisions (American Laws) of the will are
Notes: null and void and even if such are invoked, it still
could not apply as they would work injustice and
1. Objection of Magdalena were filed during injury to him. However, Hermogenes through Atty.
the submission of Project of Partition. Loyola filed a Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With
Waiver of Rights or Interests). He also filed another
2. Testator and Magdalena secured a divorce manifestation confirming the withdrawal of his
decree in Nevada, USA. It was recognized opposition and acknowledging the same to be his
in the Philippines prior to testator’s death. voluntary act and deed.

3. While the case was involving the estate Hence, ex-parte presentation of evidence for the
was pending, Magdalena filed a motion to reprobate was made. Therafter, it was admitted to
withdraw Php 20,000 from her share in and allowed probate in the Philippines and Nenita
the conjugal property. was appointed administratrix of the estate.
Hermogenes then filed a petition for relief for the
4. A court order, which became final, stated order to be set aside on the ground that withdrawal
that there was no community property of his opposition was secured through fraudulent
acquired by the testator and Magdalena means. That it was inserted among the papers
during their marriage. which he signed and that the lawyer who filed such
opposition is not his counsel of record. And another
Cayetano v Leonidas motion entitled “Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside
G.R. No. 54919, May 30, 1984 the Order and/or dimiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction”.
Facts:
Hermogenes died and left a will appointing Polly
Adoracion Campos, an American Citizen and had a Cayetano as the executrix. She therefore filed a
permanent residence at Philadelphia, motion to substitute in the instant case.
Pennsylvania, USA died in the Philippines leaving
properties here and abroad. She was temporarily Issues:
residing with her sister at Malate, Manila at the
time of her death. The surviving heirs herein are WHETHER OR NOT HERMOGENES WAS
her father, petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her DIVESTED LEGITIME RESERVED BY LAW FOR
sisters, private respondents Nenita, Remedios and HIM. (NO)
Marieta. Hermogenes was the only compulsory
heir so he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication Whether or not CFI Manila has jurisdiction to the
whereby he adjudicated unto himself the case. (YES)
ownership of the entire estate of Adoracion.
Whether or not the respondent judge acted with
Nenita filed a petition for reprobate of a will of the grave abuse of discretion. (NO)
deceased Adoracion. She alleged that the will was
executed in the US, that Adoracion was an Ruling:
American Citizen at the time of her death,
permanent resident of USA and that her will was NO. PENNSYLVANIA, USA LAWS APPLY.
made according to the laws of Pennsylvania, USA.
Also, after her death herein, the last will and

BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text
CONFLICT OF LAWS (2020) CASE DIGEST ATTY. WALDEMAR GRAVADOR
EH401 TALA NATION

Private respondents have sufficiently established

Adoracion was at the time of her death, an
American Citizen and a permanent resident of USA.
Under Article 16 and Article 1039 of the Civil
Code, the law that governs Adoracion’s will is
the law of Pennsylvania, USA which is the
NATIONAL LAW of the decedent.

Pennsylvania laws does not provide for legitimes

and that estate may even be given away to a
complete stranger. However, Petitioner argues
such law should not apply because it would be
contrary to public policy of the Philippine Law.
However, it is a settled rule that as regards to
intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will, the
national law of the decedent must apply.

YES. CFI MANILA HAS JURISDICTION.

Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides

that “...if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the
CFI of any province in which he had estate” has
jurisdiction.

The settlement of the estate of Adoracion was

correctly filed with the CFI of Manila where she had
an estate therein. The contention of petitioner that
Adoracion was a usual resident of Cavite and thus
CFI Cavite should have jurisdiction is untenable.
Moreover, petitioner is now estopped from
questioning the jurisdiction of the probate court. A
party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to
secure affirmative relief, against his opponent and
after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or
question the same.

NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

No proof was adduced to support the contention

that the motion to withdraw was secured through
fraudulent means and that Atty. Loyola at the time
of filing motion was the substitute lawyer for
petitioner and thus, the counsel on record. Also,
there was a manifestation later filed confirming the
Motion to Dismiss Opposition. Repudiation of
inheritance valid.

Respondent judge acted correctly in hearing the

probate of the will ex-parte, there being no other
opposition.

BEANIZA|CADELEÑA|ESTAVILLA|MELENDEZ|SABUSAY UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS

Read the Full Text