CAYETANO vs LEONIDAS

FACTS: On January 31, 1977, Adoracion C. Campos died, leaving her father, petitioner Hermogenes Campos and her sisters,
private respondent Nenita C. Paguia, Remedios C. Lopez and Marieta C. Medina as the surviving heirs. As Hermogenes Campos
was the only compulsory heir, he executed an Affidavit of Adjudication whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the
entire estate of the deceased Adoracion Campos.
On November 25, 1977, Nenita C. 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.
Nenita alleged that the testatrix was an American citizen at the time of her death and was a permanent resident of 4633 Ditman
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; that the testatrix died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister that during her
lifetime, the testatrix made her last will and testament on July 10, 1975, according to the laws of Pennsylvania, after the testatrix
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.,
An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by herein petitioner alleging among other things, that he has every reason to
believe that the will in question is a forgery; that the intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void; and 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.
Issue:
Whether or not the reprobation of the will is invalid for it divested the father of his legitime which was reserved by the law for him and
the same would work injustice and injury to him.
Held:
No, the reprobation of the will is valid. Although on its face, the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner and thus, the
respondent judge should have denied its reprobate outright, the private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion
was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Therefore, under
Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code which respectively provide:
Art. 16 par. (2).
xxx xxx xxx
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
Art. 1039.
Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
the law which governs Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent.
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. This was squarely applied in the case of Bellis v. Bellis (20 SCRA 358)
wherein we ruled:
It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes,
Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically

chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions
must prevail over general ones.
xxx xxx xxx
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and under the
law of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the
will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine Law on
legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
The order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions shall be
regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. It is therefore evident that whatever public
policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the
succession of foreign nationals.