10. Polly Cayetano vs. Hon. Tomas T.
Leonides presentation of evidence for the reprobate of the questioned will was
SUBMITTED BY: Bianca Tinimbang
FACTS:
1. January 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father,
petitioner daddy CAMPOS and her sisters, private respondents
PAGUIA, LOPEZ and MEDINA as the surviving heirs.
2. As CAMPOS was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit
of Adjudication under Rule 74, Section I of the ROC whereby he
adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of the
late Adoracion Campos.
3. In November 1977, PAGUIA filed a petition for the reprobate of a will
of the deceased, Adoracion Campos, which was allegedly executed
in the United States and for her appointment as administratrix of the
estate of the deceased testatrix.
4. PAGUIA alleged that:
a. ADORACION CAMPOS was an American citizen at the
time of her death and was a permanent resident of
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.;
b. that the she died in Manila while temporarily residing with
her sister at Malate, Manila;
c. that during her lifetime, she made her last will and
testament on July 10, 1975, according to the laws of
Pennsylvania, U.S.A., nominating Wilfredo Barzaga of New
Jersey as executor;
d. that after her death, her last will and testament was
presented, probated, allowed, and registered with the
Registry of Wins at the County of Philadelphia, U.S.A.,
e. that Clement L. McLaughlin, the administrator who was
appointed after Dr. Barzaga had declined and waived his
appointment as executor in favor of the former, is also a
resident of Philadelphia, U.S.A., and eventually distribute
the properties of the estate located in the Philippines.
5. An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed and stated that
CAMPOS has every reason to believe that:
a. the will in question is a forgery;
b. that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void; and
c. that even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic provisions
are invoked, the same could not apply inasmuch as they
would work injustice and injury to him
6. CAMPOS through his counsel, Atty. Loyola, filed a Motion to
Dismiss Opposition that he "has been able to verify the veracity
thereof (of the will) and now confirms the same to be truly the
probated will of his daughter Adoracion." Hence, an ex-parte
made.
7. Respondent judge issued an order: Last Will and Testament of the
late Adoracion C. Campos is hereby admitted to and allowed
probate in the Philippines, and Nenita Campos Paguia is hereby
appointed Administratrix of the estate of said decedent.
8. Petitioner Campos filed a manifestation withdrawing his opposition.
9. Later, filed a petition for relief, on the ground that the withdrawal of
his opposition to the same was secured through fraudulent means.
10. Respondent judge issued an order dismissing the petition for relief
for failure to present evidence in support thereof.
11. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was
denied.
12. Hence, this petition.
13. Later, in June 1982, petitioner Hermogenes Campos died and left a
will, which, incidentally has been questioned by the respondent, as
on its face, patently null and void, appointing Polly Cayetano as
the executrix of his last will and testament.
14. Cayetano, therefore, filed a motion to substitute herself as petitioner
in the instant case which was granted by the court.
ISSUE: WON the provisions of the will are valid? [NO]
RULING:
GR: the probate court’s authority is limited only to the extrinsic validity of
the will, the due execution thereof, the testatrix’s testamentary capacity and
the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law. The
intrinsic validity of the will normally comes only after the court has declared
that the will has been duly authenticated.
E: where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will
be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue
In the case at bar, the petitioner maintains that since the respondent judge
allowed the reprobate of Adoracion's will, Hermogenes C. Campos was
divested of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him.
The Court ruled against the contention that Hermogenes was divested of his
legitime which was reserved by the law for him
Private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at
the time of her death, an American. Therefore, under Article 16 and 1039
of the CC, the law which governs Adoracion Campo’s will is the law of
US
Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for
legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a
complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply
because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and
would run counter to the specific provisions of Philippine Law.

It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
will, as provided for by Article 16 (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national
law of the decedent must apply

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby dismissed

for lack of merit.