Miciano v. Brimo accordance with Turkish laws.

However, it was not proved what these Turkish

G.R. No. L-22595 | Nov. 1, 1927 laws were. That the lower court refused to grant Andre an opportunity to prove
Romualdez, J.| Digest by: Dolar, T. such laws is not an error as the same is discretionary. Further, Andre was
already given ample time to introduce competent evidence, as such there was
Topic: Personal Law no abuse of discretion on the part if the court. There was no evidence that the
scheme or partition violated Joseph’s national laws.
Doctrine:
However, as stated by the deceased in his will, he is of a Turkish
The intrinsic validity of a will is determined by the national laws of the decedent.
nationality. As a consequence, the condition that Andre (and the other
However, these national laws must be proven before the Court. relatives) must respect the will is void for being contrary to law under Art. 792
of the Civil Code. Said disposition also expressly ignores the national law of
Facts: the deceased. As a consequence, it is deemed unwritten. Thus, Andre’s
 The case concerns the estate left by the deceased Joseph Brimo. exclusion as legatee, is void as it was done pursuant to a void stipulation.
 Miciano, the judicial administrator on this case filed a scheme of
partition. The order of the lower court is modified so as to include Andre Brimo
 Andre Brimo, one of the deceased’s’ brothers, opposed the partition. as legatee.
o The case is a bit disorganized, but it was later discussed that
part of the reason why Andre opposed the will was because
there was a provision where Joseph stipulated that though he
is Turkish, he desires his estate to be distributed in
accordance with Philippine laws. It was further stipulated that
if any of Joseph’s relatives would not respect his will, such will
be cause for the cancellation of any disposition in such
relative’s favor.
 The CFI of Manila approved the scheme of partition. The lower court
also denied Andre any participation in the inheritance, pursuant to
Joseph’s will.
 Andre now comes before the SC, claiming that the lower court erred
in approving the scheme of partition; in denying him a part in the
inheritance; in denying his MR on the approval of the partition; in
approving the sale of deceased’s business to Pietro Lana (not so
important); and in declaring that Turkish laws are impertinent to the
case.
 Andre also questions provisions of Joseph’s will which are not in
accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality.
 Andre contends that the provisions that caused his removal as an heir
are void because successional rights and the intrinsic validity of wills
are governed by the national law of the deceased under Art. 10 of the
Civil Code. Lastly, he also contends that he should have been allowed
prove the provisions were violative of Turkish law.

Issue:
1. Whether Andre is entitled to inherit from the deceased?

Held:
YES. Andre questions the validity of the will for not being in