PRIL February 9 Lecture

PRIL February 9 Lecture
Succession different  from administration of the wills
Succession - extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the wills
Extrinsic Validity of wills
-in RP, would depend if it is executed by a Filipino or an Alien if it was made abroad
-Aliens may use 3 kinds of law, but this does not mean that we're giving them more rights than Filipinos
-refer to NCC
In re Estate of Johnson
summary: Past case. This is the case where one of the daughters in the first marriage wanted to invalidate the will so that intestate proceedings may instead be conducted (i.e. she will be an heir). Will was earlier probated, allegedly in accordance with Illinois law (TC judge took JN of the law just based on an annotation), and is sought to be nullified on the grounds that it was not made in accordance with Illinois law and that the decedent is an RP resident. Court held that since no Illinois law showed (to prove that it was indeed not made in accordance with Illinois law) and since what matters is that the decedent is a CITIZEN of Illinois and since she did not contest the taking of JN of the TC of a foreign law w/o the proof required, then deemed admitted that the will was in accordance with Illinois law.
*Citizen in US is determined by the place where the person is domiciled
*Lower court relied on mere annotation - so wrong!
Joint wills - extrinsic validity - in RP VOID
Why not allowed? PUBLIC POLICY!!!
-potential overreaching
-how about
• Filipinos who made joint will abroad (state allows it)
-VOID pa rin, law expressly provides so! (Art 819)
• Foreigners who are allowed under their laws to make joint wills, even in RP
-if the properties governed are abroad, and the only act made in RP is the making of the joint will, applying "the most significant relationship test", the will may be considered valid even in RP since the properties, the heirs and even the testators have more significant contact than RP
Holographic Wills
…
Babcock Templeton v. Rider Babcock
Summary: A Californian citizen who resides in RP at the time of her death executed a holographic will which made principal beneficiaries the children of Babcock Templeton. Brother who got something smaller (probably none at all - not clear from book) contests the validity of the will saying that she did not acquire domicile in California (which laws would authorize RP courts to probate the will as a holographic will). Court held that it was the decedent's intention to establish her domicile in California so California law would apply.
-Issue: What laws should apply: NY law/ California law/ RP law
…go back to lesson of domicile: abandonment of domicile only when there's abandonment of old domicile
Intrinsic Validity of Wills
-personal laws of the decedent apply
WHY: intent of the testator should be promoted, and the laws which are deemed to protect such intention is his own state's law
On Miciano v. Brimo: ma'am's comments:
1. The last will and testament is the last opportunity for the decedent to determine how his estate would be distributed. However, the court here disregarded the will of the testator, but ended up applying RP law by processual presumption
2. Using a modern approach, provide just result w/o shortcutting any legal step - and the court would still end up applying RP law
3. What we see in this case is the application of the Universal Succession/unitary system in succession (the law applicable to the decedent is the same law that would apply to the estate once he's dead - the estate is deemed to continue the personality of the testator for certain purposes; e.g. estate pay the debts, etc.)
Effect: only 1 law that would govern both Movable and Immovable properties (especially in RP)
Cayetano v. Leonidas
Summary: decedent who was a former Filipino citizen naturalized as a citizen of Pennsylvania, executed a will in US which did not leave anything to her father, who was her sole compulsory heir. Court held that since the decedent was already a US Citizen at the time she made her will, US laws would apply as to intrinsic validity (thus, no need for legitimes - her father would not have aything)
-here: what is the intrinsic validity? As to the legitimes
Art 16(2), NCC: national law of the decedent
• Order of succession
• Amount of successional rights
• Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
-on public policy argument (that the rights of a Filipino citizen would be denied): Court held that whatever public policy the Philippines has, it cannot apply to a foreigner! Court followed a traditional approach
--if interest analysis approach /comparative analysis approach applied, RP law may have been applied since RP may have more interest in applying its laws to protect rights of its nationals and exercise power over the properties w/n its territory
Interpretation of wills
-apply NATIONAL law of decedent
GR on interpretation
1. If will clear, apply it
2. If unclear, look at the instrument itself or contemporaneous acts
3. If still unambiguous, apply law intended by testator to apply/ law to which he is familiar to
4. Interpret in favor of validity and legality
Revocation of will
Revocation done outside RP + domicile outside RP: validity depends on:
1. Law of the place where will was made (lex loci celebrationis)
2. Law of the place where testator had his domicle (lex domicili)
Revocation done outside RP + domicile in RP:
1. Law of the domicile
2. Law of the place of revocation (lex loci actus)
*but no clear reason why it's different. :(
*TIP in EXAM: apply the law of ______ (do not specify agad what law of the place would apply)
Probate
Suntay v. Suntay, supra
Summary: Decedent left two families. Surviving spouse presented alleged will, and so did his son from the first marriage (2nd will made in China, allegedly in accordance with Chinese law). Court held that neither of the will could be probated as the Philippine-made will was not duly proved, and the allegedly already-probated China-made will was not sufficiently established.
-this is a decision of a foreign tribunal. To give it effect in RP, show that the will was probated in a court which had jurisdiction
VDA DE PEREZ v. TOLETE
Summary: Specpro case. Mother in law claims that since her son in law made her daughter the heir for all the remainder of the real and personal property, wherever it was situated, she was the sole heir and so she should receive all the properties. Heirs of the son in law contested the acts of the mother in law. Court held that the heirs of the son in law should be given notice of the proceedings in RP and the wills should be proven as made in accordance with NY law in RP.
-Requirements that the court said should have been proven:
1. Due execution of will
2. Domicile of decedent is abroad
3. Will was admitted to probate abroad
4. Court is a probate court
5. Will was allowed in accordance with the foreign law
-all of these should be met
Laws Applicable to Administration of Estate
-law of the place where the properties are located
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc.
Summary: The decedent has properties in rp in the form of certificate of shares of stock in a domestic corporation. Domiciliary administrator has possession of such certificates but the ancillary administrator asserts his right to manage such properties. Court held that since the situs of the shares is in RP and the administrator's power only applies w/n the jurisdiction of the court which granted such power, the ancillary administrator is the one who should manage it.
Scope for Thursday: before alien tort act