miciano vs. brimo (50 phil. 867)

7/21/2019 Miciano vs. Brimo (50 Phil. 867)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/miciano-vs-brimo-50-phil-867 1/4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-22595 November 1, 1927

Testate Estate of ose!" G. #r$mo, U%N M&C&%NO, a'm$($strator, petitioner-appellee,

vs.

%N)RE #R&MO, opponent-appellant.

Ross, Lawrence and Selph for appellant.

Camus and Delgado for appellee.

ROMU%L)E*, J.:

The partition of the estate left by the deceased oseph !. Bri"o is in #uestion in this case.

The $udicial ad"inistrator of this estate filed a sche"e of partition. Andre Bri"o, one of the

brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, ho%ever, approved it.

The errors %hich the oppositor-appellant assi&ns are'

()* The approval of said sche"e of partition+ (* denial of his participation in the

inheritance+ (* the denial of the "otion for reconsideration of the order approvin& the

partition+ (* the approval of the purchase "ade by the Pietro /ana of the deceased0s

business and the deed of transfer of said business+ and (1* the declaration that the Tur2ish

la%s are i"pertinent to this cause, and the failure not to postpone the approval of the

sche"e of partition and the delivery of the deceased0s business to Pietro /an3a until the

receipt of the depositions re#uested in reference to the Tur2ish la%s.

The appellant0s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in #uestion puts into effect

the provisions of oseph !. Bri"o0s %ill %hich are not in accordance %ith the la%s of his

Tur2ish nationality, for %hich reason they are void as bein& in violation or article )4 of the

Civil Code %hich, a"on& other thin&s, provides the follo%in&'

Nevertheless, le&al and testa"entary successions, in respect to the order of

succession as %ell as to the a"ount of the successional ri&hts and the intrinsic

validity of their provisions, shall be re&ulated by the national la% of the person

%hose succession is in #uestion, %hatever "ay be the nature of the property or the

country in %hich it "ay be situated.

But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testi"entary dispositions are not in

accordance %ith the Tur2ish la%s, inas"uch as he did not present any evidence sho%in&

%hat the Tur2ish la%s are on the "atter, and in the absence of evidence on such la%s, they

are presu"ed to be the sa"e as those of the Philippines. (/i" and /i" vs. Collector of

Custo"s, 5 Phil., 6.*



7t has not been proved in these proceedin&s %hat the Tur2ish la%s are. 8e, hi"self,

ac2no%led&es it %hen he desires to be &iven an opportunity to present evidence on this

point+ so "uch so that he assi&ns as an error of the court in not havin& deferred the

approval of the sche"e of partition until the receipt of certain testi"ony re#uested

re&ardin& the Tur2ish la%s on the "atter.

The refusal to &ive the oppositor another opportunity to prove such la%s does not constitute

an error. 7t is discretionary %ith the trial court, and, ta2in& into consideration that the

oppositor %as &ranted a"ple opportunity to introduce co"petent evidence, %e find no

abuse of discretion on the part of the court in this particular. There is, therefore, no

evidence in the record that the national la% of the testator oseph !. Bri"o %as violated in

the testa"entary dispositions in #uestion %hich, not bein& contrary to our la%s in force,

"ust be co"plied %ith and e9ecuted. lawphil.net

Therefore, the approval of the sche"e of partition in this respect %as not erroneous.

7n re&ard to the first assi&n"ent of error %hich deals %ith the e9clusion of the herein

appellant as a le&atee, inas"uch as he is one of the persons desi&nated as such in %ill, it

"ust be ta2en into consideration that such e9clusion is based on the last part of the second

clause of the %ill, %hich says'

:econd. 7 li2e desire to state that althou&h by la%, 7 a" a Tur2ish citi3en, this

citi3enship havin& been conferred upon "e by con#uest and not by free choice, nor

by nationality and, on the other hand, havin& resided for a considerable len&th of

ti"e in the Philippine 7slands %here 7 succeeded in ac#uirin& all of the property that

7 no% possess, it is "y %ish that the distribution of "y property and everythin& in

connection %ith this, "y %ill, be "ade and disposed of in accordance %ith the la%s

in force in the Philippine islands, re#uestin& all of "y relatives to respect this %ish,

other%ise, 7 annul and cancel beforehand %hatever disposition found in this %ill

favorable to the person or persons %ho fail to co"ply %ith this re#uest.

The institution of le&atees in this %ill is conditional, and the condition is that the instituted

le&atees "ust respect the testator0s %ill to distribute his property, not in accordance %ith the

la%s of his nationality, but in accordance %ith the la%s of the Philippines.

7f this condition as it is e9pressed %ere le&al and valid, any le&atee %ho fails to co"ply %ith

it, as the herein oppositor %ho, by his attitude in these proceedin&s has not respected the

%ill of the testator, as e9pressed, is prevented fro" receivin& his le&acy.

The fact is, ho%ever, that the said condition is void, bein& contrary to la%, for article 6; of

the civil Code provides the follo%in&'

7"possible conditions and those contrary to la% or &ood "orals shall be considered

as not i"posed and shall not pre$udice the heir or le&atee in any "anner

%hatsoever, even should the testator other%ise provide.

And said condition is contrary to la% because it e9pressly i&nores the testator0s national la%

%hen, accordin& to article )4 of the civil Code above #uoted, such national la% of the

testator is the one to &overn his testa"entary dispositions.



shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or

le&atee in an manner $hatsoever, even should the testator other$ise

provide. *mpossible conditions are further dened as those contrar to

la$ or &ood morals. hus, national la$ of the testator shall &overn in his

testamentar dispositions.

he court approved the scheme of partition submitted b the judicial

administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the

le&atees.

miciano vs. brimo (50 phil. 867)

Documents