Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEPH G. BRIMO. JUAN MICIANO v. ANDRE BRIMO

    Uploaded by

    GRAND LINE GMS
    The case involves the partition of the estate of Joseph G. Brimo. Andre Brimo opposed the scheme of partition filed by the estate's administrator. The court approved the scheme. On appeal, the court found that while the condition in Brimo's will excluding those who did not follow his wish to distribute the estate under Philippine law was invalid, the remaining provisions were valid. The court thus approved the scheme but included Andre Brimo as a beneficiary in accordance with the national law of the testator.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEPH G. BRIMO. JUAN MICIANO v. ANDRE BRIMO

    Uploaded by

    GRAND LINE GMS
    24 views5 pages
    The case involves the partition of the estate of Joseph G. Brimo. Andre Brimo opposed the scheme of partition filed by the estate's administrator. The court approved the scheme. On appeal, the court found that while the condition in Brimo's will excluding those who did not follow his wish to distribute the estate under Philippine law was invalid, the remaining provisions were valid. The court thus approved the scheme but included Andre Brimo as a beneficiary in accordance with the national law of the testator.

    Original Description:

    4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves the partition of the estate of Joseph G. Brimo. Andre Brimo opposed the scheme of partition filed by the estate's administrator. The court approved the scheme. On appeal, the court found that while the condition in Brimo's will excluding those who did not follow his wish to distribute the estate under Philippine law was invalid, the remaining provisions were valid. The court thus approved the scheme but included Andre Brimo as a beneficiary in accordance with the national law of the testator.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    24 views5 pages

    TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEPH G. BRIMO. JUAN MICIANO v. ANDRE BRIMO

    Uploaded by

    GRAND LINE GMS
    The case involves the partition of the estate of Joseph G. Brimo. Andre Brimo opposed the scheme of partition filed by the estate's administrator. The court approved the scheme. On appeal, the court found that while the condition in Brimo's will excluding those who did not follow his wish to distribute the estate under Philippine law was invalid, the remaining provisions were valid. The court thus approved the scheme but included Andre Brimo as a beneficiary in accordance with the national law of the testator.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5

    TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEPH G.

    BRIMO. JUAN MICIANO,


    ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER
    AND APPELLEE, VS. ANDRE
    BRIMO, OPPONENT AND
    APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
    50 Phil. 867

    [ G.R. No. 22595, November 01, 1924 ]


    ROMUALDEZ, J.:

    The partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph G. Brimo is in


    question in this case.

    The judicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition.


    Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The
    court, however, approved it.

    The errors which the oppositor-appellant assigns are: (1) The


    approval of said scheme of partition; (2) the denial of his
    participation in the inheritance; (3) the denial of the motion for
    reconsideration of the order approving the partition; (4) the approval
    of the purchase made by Pietro Lanza of the deceased's business

    http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce301 21/07/2019, 9;58 PM


    Page 1 of 5
    and the deed of transfer of said business; and (5) the declaration that
    the Turkish laws are impertinent to this cause, and the failure not to
    postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the delivery of
    the deceased's business to Pietro Lanza until the receipt of the
    depositions requested in reference to the Turkish laws.

    The appellant's opposition is based on the fact that the partition in


    question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph G. Brimo's will
    which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality,
    for which reason they are void as being in violation of article 10 of the
    Civil Code which, among other things, provides the following:

    "Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to


    the order of succession as well as to the amount of the
    successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions,
    shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
    succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the
    property or the country in which it may be situated."

    But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary
    dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as
    he did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on
    the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are
    presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. (Lim and Urn vs.
    Collector of Customs, 36 Phil., 472.)

    It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws
    are. He, himself, acknowledges it when he desires to be given an
    opportunity to present evidence on this point; so much so that he
    assigns as an error of the court in not having deferred the approval

    http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce301 21/07/2019, 9;58 PM


    Page 2 of 5
    of the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimony
    requested regarding the Turkish laws on the matter. The refusal to
    give the oppositor another opportunity to prove such laws does not
    constitute an error. It is discretionary with the trial court, and, taking
    into consideration that the oppositor was granted ample opportunity
    to introduce competent evidence, we find no abuse of discretion on
    the part of the court in this particular.

    There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national law of
    the testator Joseph G. Brimo was violated in the testamentary
    dispositions in question which, not being contrary to our laws in force,
    must be complied with and executed.

    Therefore, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect was


    not erroneous.

    In regard to the first assignment of error which deals with the


    exclusion of the herein appellant as a legatee, inasmuch as he is one
    of the persons designated as such in the will, it must be taken into
    consideration that such exclusion is based on the last part of the
    second clause of the will, which says:

    "Second. I likewise desire to state that although, by law, I am a


    Turkish citizen, this citizenship having been conferred upon me by
    conquest and not by free choice, nor by nationality and, on the
    other hand, having resided for a considerable length of time in.
    the Philippine Islands where I succeeded in acquiring all of the
    property that I now possess, it is my wish that the distribution of
    my property and everything in connection with this, my will, be

    http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce301 21/07/2019, 9;58 PM


    Page 3 of 5
    made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the
    Philippine Islands, requesting all of my relatives to respect this
    wish, otherwise, I annul and cancel beforehand whatever
    disposition found in this will favorable to the person or persons
    who fail to comply with this request."

    The institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the condition


    is that the instituted legatees must respect the testator's will to
    distribute his property, not in accordance with the laws of his
    nationality, but in accordance with the laws of the Philippines.

    If this condition as it is expressed were legal and valid, any legatee


    who fails to comply with it, as the herein oppositor who, by his
    attitude in these proceedings has not respected the will of the
    testator, as expressed, is prevented from receiving his legacy.

    The fact is, however, that the said condition is void, being contrary to
    law, for article 792 of the Civil Code provides the following:

    "Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals


    shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir
    or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even should the testator
    otherwise provide."

    And said condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores


    the testator's national law when, according to article 10 of the Civil
    Code above quoted, such national law of the testator is the one to
    govern his testamentary dispositions.

    Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions above cited, is

    http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce301 21/07/2019, 9;58 PM


    Page 4 of 5
    considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is
    unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the
    herein oppositor.

    It results from all this that the second clause of the will regarding the
    law which shall govern it, and to the condition imposed upon the
    legatees, is null and void, being contrary to law.

    All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions and
    requests are perfectly valid and effective it not appearing that said
    clauses are contrary to the testator's national laws.

    Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified and it is directed


    that the distribution of this estate be made in such a manner as to
    include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as one of the legatees, and
    the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator is
    approved in all other respects, without any pronouncement as to
    costs. So ordered.

    Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.

    Johnson, J., dissents.

    http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce301 21/07/2019, 9;58 PM


    Page 5 of 5

    You might also like