Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon (G.R. NO. 139868. June 8, 2006)

[G.R. NO. 139868 : June 8, 2006] Ruling: yes.
ALONZO Q. ANCHETA, Petitioner, v. CANDELARIA

GUERSEYDALAYGON, Respondent. Art. 16 of NCC provides that real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country where it is
Facts: situated.
Spouses Audrey O Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey
(Richard) were American citizens who have resided in the However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with
Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
Guersey Hill (Kyle). After Audrey died, she left a will stating successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
that she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
also designated as executor. The will was probated before a law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
court in Maryland, USA with petitioner being named as an whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless
ancillary administrator. Thereafter, Richard married of the country wherein said property may be found.
respondent Candelaria with whom he has two children,
namely, Kimberly and Kevin. Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that "capacity
to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
On 1982, Audrey's will was also admitted to probate by the decedent.
then CFI of Rizal wherein petitioner filed an inventory and
appraisal of the following properties: Section 4 of Rule 77 of Rules of Court provides that when a
1. Audrey's conjugal share in real estate known as will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters
Makati property; testamentary, or letters of administration with the will
2. A current account in Audrey's name with a cash annexed, and such letters testamentary or of administration,
balance of P12,417.97; and shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines.
3. 64,444 shares of stock in A/G Interiors, Inc. worth Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
P64,444.00. administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so
far as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any,
When Richard died, he left a will wherein he bequeathed his shall be disposed of as is provided by law in cases of estates
entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants
over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. Said of another state or country.
will was also admitted to probate by the Orphan's Court of
Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N. Phillips was In the present case, it is undisputed that Audrey was an
likewise appointed as executor, who in turn, designated Atty. American citizen domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A. Being a
William Quasha or any member of the Quasha Asperilla foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey's will,
Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices, as ancillary especially with regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by
administrator. It was then submitted for probate before RTC the law of the State of Maryland.
Makati.
Issue 2: whether petitioner committed extrinsic fraud in the
On 1987, petitioner filed a motion to declare Richard and managing Audrey’s will.
Kyle as heirs of Audrey. He also submitted a project of
partition of Audrey's estate, with Richard being apportioned Ruling: yes.
the - undivided interest in the Makati property, 48.333 shares
in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P9,313.48 from the Citibank current While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
account; and Kyle, the - undivided interest in the Makati jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial
property, 16,111 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P3,104.49 notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary
in cash. The motion and project of partition were both administrator of Audrey's estate, was duty-bound to
granted and approved by the RTC. introduce in evidence the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland. His defense that his application of Philippine laws
On the special proceeding for the probate of Richard’s will, on wills and succession was made in good faith was not
the ancillary administrator filed a project of partition wherein accepted by SC. It stated that petitioner cannot honestly
2/5 of Richard's - undivided interest in the Makati property presume that Philippine laws apply when as early as the
was allocated to respondent, while 3/5 thereof were reprobate of Audrey's will before the trial court in 1982, it
allocated to Richard's three children. This was opposed by was already brought to fore that Audrey was a U.S. citizen,
respondent, alleging that under the law of the State of domiciled in the State of Maryland. Petitioner is a senior
Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest partner in a prestigious law firm, with a "big legal staff and a
of the testator in the property subject of the legacy." large library." He had all the legal resources to determine the
According to respondent, since Richard left his entire estate applicable law. It was incumbent upon him to exercise his
to her, except for his rights and interests over the A/G functions as ancillary administrator with reasonable
Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire - undivided interest in diligence, and to discharge the trust reposed on him
the Makati property should be given to her. faithfully. Unfortunately, petitioner failed to perform his
fiduciary duties.
Issue 1: Whether the law of Maryland shall govern Audrey’s
will. It would seem the eventual distribution of the estate of
Audrey was prompted by Ancheta's concern that the subject
realty equally benefit Kyle Guersey. Well-intentioned though
it may be, Ancheta's action appears to have breached his
duties and responsibilities as ancillary administrator of the
subject estate. While such breach of duty admittedly cannot
be considered extrinsic fraud under ordinary circumstances,
the fiduciary nature of the said defendant's position, as well
as the resultant frustration of the decedent's last will,
combine to create a circumstance that is tantamount to
extrinsic fraud. This is not a simple case of error of judgment
or grave abuse of discretion, but a total disregard of the law
as a result of petitioner's abject failure to discharge his
fiduciary duties.
Note: In this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland has been brought to record before the CA, and the
trial court in Special Proceeding No. M-888 appropriately
took note of the same in disapproving the proposed project
of partition of Richard's estate, not to mention that petitioner
or any other interested person for that matter, does not
dispute the existence or validity of said law, then Audrey's
and Richard's estate should be distributed according to their
respective wills, and not according to the project of partition
submitted by petitioner. Consequently, the entire Makati
property belongs to respondent.

Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon (G.R. NO. 139868. June 8, 2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon (G.R. NO. 139868. June 8, 2006)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancheta vs. Guersey-Dalaygon (G.R. NO. 139868. June 8, 2006)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[G.R. NO. 139868 : June 8, 2006] Ruling: yes.

ALONZO Q. ANCHETA, Petitioner, v. CANDELARIA

You might also like