Case Digest: Roberts v Leonidas 1984

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

ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS, petitioner,

vs.

JUDGE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, Branch 38, CFI of Manila; MAXINE TATE-GRIMM, EDWARD MILLER
GRIMM II and LINDA GRIMM, respondents

FACTS:

Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his second wife (Maxine), their two children (Pete and
Linda), and by his two children by a first marriage (Juanita and Ethel).

Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959.

One will disposed of his Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife.

The other will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.

The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Maxine on March 1978. Maxine admitted that she received notice
of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January 1978.

The Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil to probate on April 1978

Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a compromise agreement
in Utah regarding the estate.

As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel.

On March 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. However, 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.

In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the 2 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.

Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by Judge Leonidas for lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying Ethel’s motion to dismiss.

HELD:

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. 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