Subject: Special Proceedings

Doctrine: 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.
Topic: CHAPTER II
Sub-topic: RULE 73. VENUE AND PROCESS; Sec.1. Where estate of deceased persons settled
Digester: Jensen Floren

G.R. No. L-55509 April 27, 1984

RECIT-READY SUMMARY

FACTS:
The deceased, Edward Grimm who was an American who resided in the Philippines upon his death), executed 2 wills
(one disposing his Philippine estate and the other his estate outside the Philippines). Both wills favored the second
family of the deceased. These two wills were admitted to probate in Utah. However, there is a pending intestate case
in the Philippines where a project of partition was already approved. Maxine, Edward’s 2nd wife, prayed for the probate
of the two wills (already probated in Utah) and that the partition approved by the intestate court be set aside. Ethel,
Edward’s daughter from his first marriage, filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by Judge Leonidas for lack of
merit.

ISSUE: WON Judge Leonidas committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.

Ruling: NO
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.

In the instant case, 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."

• Decedent: Edward M. Grimm (an American who resided in the Philippines upon his death)
• Surviving Spouse: Maxine Tate Grimm (2nd wife)
• Children from 2nd marriage: Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm and Juanita Grimm Morris
• Children from 1st marriage which ended in divorce: Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden)

Facts:
1. Edward M. Grimm an American resident of Manila, died at 78 in the Makati Medical Center. He was survived by
his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm and their two children, named Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda
Grimm and by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden), his two children by a first marriage
which ended in divorce.
2. Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California. In both of the wills, the second wife and the two children
were favored.
• 1st will: Involved Philippine estate which was described as conjugal property of the second marriage;
Legitimes of Juanita and Ethel were given.
• 2nd will: Involved properties outside the Philippines. There is a provision which expressly said that the
testator made no provision in the 2nd will as regards Juanita and Ethel because they are provided for in
the first will.
 3. Both of the wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah in March 7 1978. Juanita (in California) and Ethel
(in Quezon City) were notified of the probate proceedings.
4. Earlier that year (January 1978), Ethel filed an intestate petition. Maxine admitted that she received a notice of
the said petition.
- On March 11, 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.
5. On April 10, 1978, the Court in Utah admitted to probate the two wills and the codicil upon consideration of the
stipulation dated April 4, 1978 "by and between the attorneys for Maxine Tate Grimm, Linda Grimm, Edward
Miller Grimm II, E. LaVar Tate, Juanita Kegley Grimm (first wife), Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts".
Juanita Grimm Morris was notified.
6. Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a compromise Agreement
in Utah on April 25, 1978. They agreed that Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as administrators of
Grimm's Philippine estate. Pursuant to this compromise agreement, the intestate court appointed Maxine Pete
and Ethel.
7. 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 by the intestate court (PH Court).
8. 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.
9. Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the motion but Judge Leonidas denied the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the
present petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the testate proceeding to be dismissed, or
alternatively that the two proceedings be consolidated and that the matter of the annulment of the Utah
compromise agreement be heard prior to the petition for probate.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Leonidas committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss the
testate proceedings.

Ruling:
No, Judge Leonidas did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss the
testate proceedings.

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.

In the instant case, 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."

Hence, Judge Leonidas did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss
the testate proceedings.

FULL TEXT AHEAD:

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-55509 April 27, 1984

ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS, petitioner,

N. J. Quisumbing and Associates for petitioners.

Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz for respondents.

AQUINO, J.: ñé+.£ª wph!1

The question in this case is whether a petition for allowance of wills and to annul a partition, approved in
an intestate proceeding by Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance, can be entertained by its Branch
38 (after a probate in the Utah district court).

Antecedents. — Edward M. Grimm an American resident of Manila, died at 78 in the Makati Medical Center on
November 27, 1977. He was survived by his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm and their two children, named
Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm and by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts
(McFadden), his two children by a first marriage which ended in divorce (Sub-Annexes A and B. pp. 36-47, Rollo).

He executed on January 23, 1959 two wills in San Francisco, California. One will disposed of his Philippine estate
which he described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife. The second win disposed of his estate
outside the Philippines.

In both wills, the second wife and two children were favored. The two children of the first marriage were
given their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in this country. In the will dealing with his
property outside this country, the testator said: têñ.£îhqwâ£

I purposely have made no provision in this will for my daughter, Juanita Grimm Morris, or my
daughter, Elsa Grimm McFadden (Ethel Grimm Roberts), because I have provided for each of
them in a separate will disposing of my Philippine property. (First clause, pp. 43-47, Rollo).

The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by Maxine Tate Grimm and E. LaVar Tate on March 7, 1978
in Probate No. 3720 of the Third Judicial District Court of Tooele County, Utah. Juanita Grimm Morris of Cupertino,
California and Mrs. Roberts of 15 C. Benitez Street, Horseshoe Village, Quezon City were notified of the probate
proceeding (Sub-Annex C, pp. 48-55, Rollo).

Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January, 1978 (p. 53,
Rollo). In its order dated April 10, 1978, the Third Judicial District Court admitted to probate the two wills and the
codicil It was issued upon consideration of the stipulation dated April 4, 1978 "by and between the attorneys for
Maxine Tate Grimm, Linda Grimm, Edward Miller Grimm II, E. LaVar Tate, Juanita Kegley Grimm (first wife), Juanita
Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts" (Annex C, pp. 48-51, Rollo).

Two weeks later, or on April 25, 1978, Maxine and her two children Linda and Pete, as the first parties, and
Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and their mother Juanita Kegley Grimm as the second parties, with knowledge
of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate. It
was signed by David E. Salisbury and Donald B. Holbrook, as lawyers of the parties, by Pete and Linda and the
attorney-in-fact of Maxine and by the attorney-in-fact of Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and Juanita Kegley Grimm.

In that agreement, it was stipulated that Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as personal
representatives (administrators) of Grimm's Philippine estate (par. 2). It was also stipulated that Maxine's one-
half conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for her and that would not be less than $1,500,000 plus the
homes in Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila (par. 4). The agreement indicated the computation of the "net distributable
estate". It recognized that the estate was liable to pay the fees of the Angara law firm (par. 5).

It was stipulated in paragraph 6 that the decedent's four children "shall share equally in the Net Distributable Estate"
and that Ethel and Juanita Morris should each receive at least 12-1/2% of the total of the net distributable estate and
marital share. A supplemental memorandum also dated April 25, 1978 was executed by the parties (Sub-Annex F,
pp. 49-61, Annex, F-1, pp. 75-76, Testate case).

Intestate proceeding No. 113024.-At this juncture, it should be stated that forty- three days after Grimm's death, or
January 9, 1978, his daughter of the first marriage, Ethel, 49, through lawyers Deogracias T. Reyes and. Gerardo B.
Macaraeg, filed with Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance intestate proceeding No. 113024 for the
settlement of his estate. She was named special administratrix.

On March 11, the second wife, Maxine, through the Angara law office, filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the
intestate proceeding on the ground of the pendency of Utah of a proceeding for the probate of Grimm's will. She
also moved that she be appointed special administratrix, She submitted to the court a copy of Grimm's will disposing
of his Philippine estate. It is found in pages 58 to 64 of the record.

The intestate court in its orders of May 23 and June 2 noted that Maxine, through a new lawyer, William C.
Limqueco (partner of Gerardo B. Macaraeg, p. 78, testate case withdrew that opposition and motion to dismiss
and, at the behest of Maxine, Ethel and Pete, appointed them joint administrators. Apparently, this was done
pursuant to the aforementioned Utah compromise agreement. The court ignored the will already found in
the record.

The three administrators submitted an inventory. With the authority and approval of the court, they sold for P75,000
on March 21, 1979 the so-called Palawan Pearl Project, a business owned by the deceased. Linda and Juanita
allegedly conformed with the sale (pp. 120-129, Record). It turned out that the buyer, Makiling Management Co.,
Inc., was incorporated by Ethel and her husband, Rex Roberts, and by lawyer Limqueco (Annex L, p. 90, testate
case).

Also with the court's approval and the consent of Linda and Juanita, they sold for P1,546,136 to Joseph Server and
others 193,267 shares of RFM Corporation (p. 135, Record).

Acting on the declaration of heirs and project of partition signed and filed by lawyers Limqueco and Macaraeg (not
signed by Maxine and her two children), Judge Conrado M. Molina in his order of July 27, 1979 adjudicated to
Maxine onehalf (4/8) of the decedent's Philippine estate and one-eighth (1/8) each to his four children or 12-1/2%
(pp. 140-142, Record). No mention at all was made of the will in that order.

Six days later, or on August 2, Maxine and her two children replaced Limqueco with Octavio del Callar as their
lawyer who on August 9, moved to defer approval of the project of partition. The court considered the motion moot
considering that it had already approved the declaration of heirs and project of partition (p. 149, Record).

Lawyer Limqueco in a letter to Maxine dated August 2, 1979 alleged that he was no longer connected with Makiling
Management Co., Inc. when the Palawan Pearl Project was sold: that it was Maxine's son Pete who negotiated the
sale with Rex Roberts and that he (Limqueco) was going to sue Maxine for the lies she imputed to him (Annex H, p.
78, testate case).

Ethel submitted to the court a certification of the Assistant Commissioner of Internal Revenue dated October 2,
1979. It was stated therein that Maxine paid P1,992,233.69 as estate tax and penalties and that he interposed no
objection to the transfer of the estate to Grimm's heirs (p. 153, Record). The court noted the certification as in
conformity with its order of July 27, 1979.
After November, 1979 or for a period of more than five months, there was no movement or activity in the intestate
case. On April 18, 1980 Juanita Grimm Morris, through Ethel's lawyers, filed a motion for accounting "so that the
Estate properties can be partitioned among the heirs and the present intestate estate be closed." Del Callar,
Maxine's lawyer was notified of that motion.

Before that motion could be heard, or on June 10, 1980, the Angara law firm filed again its appearance in
collaboration with Del Callar as counsel for Maxine and her two children, Linda and Pete. It should be recalled that
the firm had previously appeared in the case as Maxine's counsel on March 11, 1978, when it filed a motion to
dismiss the intestate proceeding and furnished the court with a copy of Grimm's will. As already noted, the firm was
then superseded by lawyer Limqueco.

Petition to annul partition and testate proceeding No. 134559. — On September 8, 1980, Rogelio A. Vinluan of
the Angara law firm in behalf of Maxine, Pete and Linda, filed in Branch 38 of the lower court a petition
praying for the probate of Grimm's two wills (already probated in Utah), that the 1979 partition approved by
the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be appointed
executrix and that Ethel and Juanita Morris be ordered to account for the properties received by them and
to return the same to Maxine (pp. 25-35, Rollo).

Grimm's second wife and two children alleged that they were defraud due to the machinations of the
Roberts spouses, that the 1978 Utah compromise agreement was illegal, that the intestate proceeding is
void because Grimm died testate and that the partition was contrary to the decedent's wills.

Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Leonidas denied it for lack of merit in his order of October
27, 1980. Ethel then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court, praying that the testate proceeding be
dismissed, or. alternatively that the two proceedings be consolidated and heard in Branch 20 and that the matter of
the annulment of the Utah compromise agreement be heard prior to the petition for probate (pp. 22-23, Rollo).

Ruling. — 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 (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot vs. Panio,
L-42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). 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.

Ethel may file within twenty days from notice of the finality of this judgment an opposition and answer to the petition
unless she considers her motion to dismiss and other pleadings sufficient for the purpose. Juanita G. Morris, who
appeared in the intestate case, should be served with copies of orders, notices and other papers in the testate case.

WHEREFORE the petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order is dissolved. No costs.

SO ORDERED. 1äw phï1.ñët

Makasiar (Chairman), Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Escolin, J., concur in the result.

Concepcion, Jr. and Abad Santos, JJ., took no part.