Fernandez vs Dimagiba

FACTS

Ismaela Dimagiba submitted to the Court of First Instance a petition for the probate of the purported will of the late
Benedicta de los Reyes. The will instituted the petitioner as the sole heir of the estate of the deceased. However,
Dionisio Fernandez, et al filed oppositions to the probate. Grounds advanced for the opposition were forgery, vices of
consent of the testatrix, estoppel by laches of the proponent and revocation of the will by two deeds of conveyance of
the major portion of the estate made by the testatrix in favor of the proponent. The CFI ruled in favor of the respondent
but deferred resolution on the questions of estoppel and revocation. After receiving further evidence on the issue, the
trial court resolved against the oppositors and held the will of the late Benedicta de los Reyes "unaffected and
unrevoked by the deeds of sale." Whereupon, the oppositors elevated the case to the Court of Appeals and the latter
held that the decree admitting the will to probate had become final for lack of opportune appeal and affirmed the decision
of the Court of First Instance.

ISSUE

WON the decree of the Court of First Instance allowing the will to probate had become final for lack of appeal

HELD

It is elementary that a probate decree finally and definitively settles all questions concerning capacity of the testator
and the proper execution and witnessing of his last will and testament, irrespective of whether its provisions are valid
and enforceable or otherwise. As such, the probate order is final and appealable; and it is so recognized by express
provisions of Section 1 of Rule 109. There being no controversy that the probate decree of the Court below was not
appealed on time, the same had become final and conclusive. Hence, the appellate courts may no longer revoke said
decree nor review the evidence upon which it is made to rest. Thus, the appeal belatedly lodged against the decree
was correctly dismissed.

NITTSCHER vs NITTSCHER

FACTS

Dr. Werner Karl Johann Nittscher filed with the RTC of Makati City a petition for the probate of his holographic will and
for the issuance of letters testamentary to herein respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Nogales. RTC then granted such petition.

Later, Dr. Nittscher died. Hence, Atty. Nogales filed a petition for letters testamentary for the administration of the estate
of the deceased. Dr. Nittscher’s surviving spouse, herein petitioner, moved for the dismissal of the said petition in which
the court denied.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied for lack of merit. She appealed to the CA but was dismissed.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

WON THE LOWER COURT [HAS] NO JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT SUIT

HELD

Yes. The RTC and the Court of Appeals are one in their finding that Dr. Nittscher was a resident of Las Piñas, Metro
Manila at the time of his death. Such factual finding, which we find supported by evidence on record, should no longer
be disturbed. Time and again we have said that reviews on certiorari are limited to errors of law. Unless there is a
showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous, this Court will not
analyze or weigh evidence all over again. Hence, applying the aforequoted rule, Dr. Nittscher correctly filed in the RTC
of Makati City, which then covered Las Piñas, Metro Manila, the petition for the probate of his will and for the issuance
of letters testamentary to respondent.
BONILLA vs ARANZA

FACTS

The appellant filed a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Ricardo Bonilla in 1977. The petition was opposed
by the appellees on the ground that the deceased did not leave any will, holographic or otherwise. The lower court
dismissed the petition for probate and held that since the original will was lost, a photostatic copy cannot stand in the
place of the original.

ISSUE

WON a holographic will which was lost or cannot be found can be proved by means of a photostatic copy

HELD

The Court held that photostatic copy or xerox copy of the holographic will may be allowed because comparison can be
made with the standard writings of the testator. In the case of Gam vs. Yap, 104 PHIL. 509, in Footnote 8 of said
decision, it says that "Perhaps it may be proved by a photographic or photostatic copy. Even a mimeographed or carbon
copy; or by other similar means, if any, whereby the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased may be exhibited
and tested before the probate court," Evidently, the photostatic or xerox copy of the lost or destroyed holographic will
may be admitted because then the authenticity of the handwriting of the deceased can be determined by the probate
court.

PALAGANAS vs PALAGANAS

FACTS

Ruperta C. Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized US citizen, died single and childless. In her will executed
in California, she designated her brother, Sergio, as the executor of the will. Respondent, brother of Ruperta, filed with
the RTC of Malolos a petition for the probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as special administrator of her
estate. However, petitioners Manuel and Benjamin, nephews of Ruperta, opposed the petition on the ground that
Ruperta’s will should not be probated in the Philippines but in the U.S. where she executed it. RTC ruled in favor of the
respondent. Aggrieved, the nephews appealed the decision to the CA in which the latter affirmed the decision of the
court a quo. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

whether or not a will executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the Philippines

HELD

YES. SC ruled that our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although the same have
not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in our
jurisdiction. In this connection, Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the decedent is
an inhabitant of a foreign country, the RTC of the province where he has an estate may take cognizance of the
settlement of such estate. Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, or legatee named in the
will, or any other person interested in the estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court
having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.

ANCHETA vs. DALAYGON

FACTS
Two American citizens have resided in the Philippines. They have an adopted daughter. The wife died and left a will
where she left her entire estate to her husband. Two years after the wife's death, the husband married a Candelaria.
Four years later, Richard died and left a will where he left his entire estate to Candelaria except for some of his shares
in a company which he left to his adopted daughter. Audrey’s will was admitted to probate in CFI Rizal. Inventory was
taken on their conjugal properties. Ancheta, as the administrator, filed for a partition of the first wife's estate. The will
was also admitted in a court in her native land (Maryland).

ISSUE

WON the properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is situated

RULING

Yes. Properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is situated. However, since the first wife is
a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of her will is governed by her national law. The national law of the person who
made the will shall regulate whose succession is in consideration whatever the nature of the property and regardless
of the country where the property maybe found (Art 16 CC). The first wife's properties may be found in the Philippines,
however the successional rights over those properties are governed by the national law of the testator.

ATCI OVERSEAS CORP vs ETCHIN

FACTS

Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal co-petitioner, Ministry of Public
Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist under a two-year contract.Within a year,
Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary period which was under the Memorandum
of Agreement. Respondent filed with the NLRC a complaint against ATCI for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter
rendered judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her salary for the three months
unexpired portion of the contract.

ATCI appealed LA’s decision but NLRC affirmed the latter‘s decision. Petitioner appealed to the Court
Appeals which affirmed NLRC’s decision.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

WON petitioners be held liable considering that the contract specifically stipulates that respondent‘s
employment shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait

HELD

YES. According to RA 8042: “The obligations covenanted in the recruitment agreement entered into by
and between the local agent and its foreign principal are not coterminous with the term of such
agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such
parties towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not at all end, but the same extends
up to and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and employed
pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign
law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. Where a foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus,
we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us.