You are on page 1of 1

CAYETANO vs. HON. TOMAS T.

LEONIDAS ISSUES:
G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984 1. Whether CFI Manila acquired jurisdiction? YES.
2. Whether or not a forced heir is entitled to his legitime in case the testator
FACTS: was a citizen of another country? NO
 Adoracion C. Campos, in her lifetime, was a citizen of the United 3. Whether the will which completely deprived compulsory heir of share is
States of America and a permanent resident of Philadelphia. She against public policy? NO
executed a Last Will and Testament in the county of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A., according to the laws thereat, and that while HELD:
in temporary sojourn in the Philippines, Adoracion C. Campos died 1. YES, RULE 73 SECTION 1, the settlement of estate of Adoracion Campos
in the City of Manila, leaving property both in the Philippines and in was correctly filed with the CFI of Manila where she had an estate since it
the United States of America. was alleged and proven that Adoracion at the time of her death was a
 Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving Hermogenes Campos (father) citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, USA and not a usual
and her sisters, Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez, and Marieta resident of Cavite.
Medina as the surviving heirs. As the only compulsory heir is
Hermogenes, he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication, adjudicating Moreover, petitioner is now estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of
unto himself the entire estate of Adoracion. the probate court in the petition for relief. It is a settled rule that a party
 The Last Will and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos was cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief, against
admitted and granted probate by the Orphan's Court Division of the his opponent and after failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question
Court of Common Pleas, the probate court of the Commonwealth of that same jurisdiction.
Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia, U.S.A., and letters of
administration were issued in favor of Clement J. McLaughlin all in 2. Applying Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the law which
accordance with the laws of the said foreign country on procedure governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is
and allowance of wills. Nenita C. Paguia, daughter or the testator, the national law of the decedent.
was appointed Administratrix of the estate of said decedent.
 This was opposed by Adoracion’s father, Hermogenes Campos, who In this case, it was sufficiently established that Adoracion was an American
earlier filed an Affidavit of Self-adjudication not being aware that citizen and the law which governs her will is the law of Pennsylvania, USA,
Adoracion had left a will. He later died and was substituted by Polly which is the national law of the decedent. The U.S. law on succession in the
Cayetano as petitioner in the instant case. state of Pennsylvania applies to the intrinsic and extrinsic validity of the last
 A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of the will and testament of a U.S. national and resident of Pennsylvania under
petitioner Hermogenes Campos merged upon his death with the whose laws a person may give his entire estate to a complete stranger. It is
rights of the respondent and her sisters, only remaining children a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
and forced heirs was denied on September 12, 1983. will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the
 Cayetano alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that the right of national law of the decedent must apply.
a forced heir to his legitime can be divested by a decree admitting a
will to probate in which no provision is made for the forced heir in 3. Bellis vs Bellis: It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good
complete disregard of Law of Succession. customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not
intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby dismissed


for lack of merit.