CASE DIGESTS: Roberts v. Leonidas; G.R. No. L-55509; 27 April 1984

Roberts v. Leonidas

G.R. No. L-55509

27 April 1984

Doctrine: When the testator executed will/s, the probate of the will is mandatory in the settlement of his estate.

Facts:

Edward Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died at Makati Medical Center on 27 November 1977. He was survived by his second wife, their two children and his two children by the first marriage (the petitioner and Juanita Grimm Morris.

 

Before he died, he executed two wills in San Francisco, California. One will disposed of his Philippine estate which he described as conjugal property with his second wife and the second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.

In both wills, the second wife and two children were favored. The two children of the first marriage were given their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in the Philippines. However, In the will dealing with his property outside this country, the testator purposely has made no provisions for his daughters of the first marriage since he provided each of them in a separate will disposing of my Philippine property.

 

Consequently, Maxine (the second wife) presented for probate the two wills and a codicil were before the Third Judicial District Court of Tooele County, Utah on 7 March 1978. Accordingly, the daughters of the first marriage were notified of the probate proceeding. While Maxine admitted being having notified of the intestate proceeding filed by the petitioner in Manila.

Third Judicial District Court admitted to probate the two wills and the codicil.

Subsequently, the heirs entered into a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila.

 

It was stipulated that Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as personal representatives (administrators) of Grimm's Philippine estate. Also, it was stipulated that Maxine's one-half conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for her and that would not be less than $1,500,000 plus the homes in Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila. Likewise, the agreement indicated the computation of the "net distributable estate". It recognized that the estate was liable to pay the fees of the Angara law firm.

 

In January 9, 1978, the daughters in first marriage filed with the Manila Court of First Instance an intestate proceeding for the settlement of his estate where she was named special administratrix. However, the second wife filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the ground of the pendency of Utah of a proceeding for the probate of Grimm's will. Likewise, she moved that she be appointed special administratrix and submitted to the court a copy of Grimm's will disposing of his Philippine estate.

 

However, due to the compromise agreement the intestate court ignored the wills and appointed the three as joint administrator (Maxine, Ethel and Jaunita)

 

However, Maxine – the second wife, filed before the court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm's two wills (already probated in Utah), that the 1979 partition approved by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be appointed executrix and that Ethel and Juanita Morris be ordered to account for the properties received by them and to return the same to Maxine. She alleged that they were defraud due to the machinations of the Roberts spouses, that the 1978 Utah compromise agreement was illegal, that the intestate proceeding is void because Grimm died testate and that the partition was contrary to the decedent's wills.

 

Ethel then file a motion to dismiss the petition. Thus, Respondent Judge Leonidas denied it for lack of merit in his order of October 27, 1980. Thus the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court, praying that the testate proceeding be dismissed, or alternatively that the two proceedings be consolidated and heard in Branch 20 and that the matter of the annulment of the Utah compromise agreement be heard prior to the petition for probate.

 

Issue:

 

Whether the intestate court is correct in ruling for allowance of wills and to annul a partition despite the existence of the two wills of the testator.

 

Ruling:

No. The intestate court is incorrect.

 

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.