Miciano v.

Brimo (1924)
Facts:
The case concerns the partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph Brimo.
The judicial administrator of the estate, Juan Miciano, filed a scheme of partition
which was opposed by one of the brothers of the deceased, Andre Brimo.
The opposition was based on the ground that the partition in question puts into
effect the provisions of the deceaseds will which are not in accordance with the
laws of his Turkish nationality and hence, void for violating the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
o Article 16, par. 2: However, intestate and testamentary successions, both
with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless
of the country wherein said property may be found.
However, the oppositor failed to prove that the said testamentary dispositions are
not in accordance with the Turkish laws, and failed to present any evidence
showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter.
Issue/s:
WON the Turkish laws on testamentary dispositions will apply No
Held:
In the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as
those of the Philippines.
It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are.
o Oppositor himself acknowledges the need to present the laws when he
desired to be given an opportunity to present evidence on this point, so
much so that he assigns an error on the court in not having deferred the
approval 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 considering he was
granted ample opportunity to introduce competent evidence.
There is no abuse of discretion on the part of the court in this particular.
Therefore, there is no evidence in record that the national law of the testator
Joseph 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.

NOTES from book on the case:

- As a result of failure oppositor to prove Turkish law, the court used the
presumption that Turkish law was the same as Philippine law. (processual
presumption)
- The Court ordered the distribution of the estate in accord with Philippine law, but
in the same breath held tat the testators express wish that Philippine law be
applied was void for being contrary to law.
- The use of the most significant relationship theory or disingenuous
characterization would have led the court to arrive at the same conclusion without
flouting the testators intentions.