Case Summary (G.R. No. 139868)
Procedural History of Audrey O’Neill Guersey’s Estate
Upon Audrey’s death in 1979, her will—bequeathing her entire estate to her husband Richard and naming him executor—was probated in Baltimore, Maryland, where Richard renounced and James N. Phillips was appointed executor. Concurrently, the Orphan’s Court appointed Atty. Ancheta as ancillary administrator in the Philippines. In Special Proceeding No. 9625 before the CFI of Rizal (Pasig), Audrey’s will was allowed for Philippine assets.
Administration and Initial Partition of Audrey’s Estate
As ancillary administrator, Atty. Ancheta filed an inventory and appraisal listing Audrey’s Makati property (valued at ₱764,865), her Citibank account balance (₱12,417.97), and her A/G Interiors shares (64,444 shares worth ₱64,444). In October 1987, he moved to declare Richard and Kyle as Audrey’s heirs and submitted a partition project allocating ⅔ of the Makati property, shares and cash to Richard, and ⅓ to Kyle.
RTC Orders and Implementation of Partition
The trial court granted the motion and approved the partition by orders of February 12 and April 7, 1988. It directed reissuance of Makati title in the names of Richard’s estate (⅔ interest) and Kyle (⅓); transfer of shares; and release of bank funds to the administrator. The Register of Deeds complied on June 23, 1988.
Dispute over Distribution of Richard’s Estate
Following Richard’s death in 1984—with a will leaving his entire estate to respondent except the A/G Interiors shares bequeathed to Kyle—his will was probated in Maryland and before the RTC of Makati (Sp. Proc. No. M-888). A partition project apportioned 2/5 of Richard’s ⅔ interest in the Makati property to respondent and 3/5 among his children. Respondent opposed, invoking Maryland law that a legacy vests the testator’s entire interest in the legatee.
RTC Resolution on Richard’s Estate Partition
Finding respondent’s argument meritorious, the RTC on December 6, 1991 disapproved the Makati partition and adjudicated Richard’s entire ⅔ interest in the property to respondent under Maryland law.
Annulment Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
In October 1993 respondent filed an amended complaint in CA seeking annulment of the 1988 RTC orders in Sp. Proc. No. 9625. She alleged Atty. Ancheta breached his fiduciary duty and committed extrinsic fraud by ignoring Maryland succession law and applying Philippine law, thereby depriving her of her rightful share. Atty. Ancheta denied fraud, asserted good faith, and maintained the orders were final and unassailable.
Court of Appeals’ Decision Annuling Distribution Orders
On March 18, 1999 the CA annulled the 1988 orders, ruling: (a) Audrey’s entire estate must be adjudicated to Richard’s estate; (b) title must be reissued accordingly. The CA held that under Art. 16, Civil Code, national law of the decedent (Maryland law) governs testamentary succession, obligating the ancillary administrator to prove and apply that law.
Petition for Review and Jurisdictional Basis
Petitioner sought SC review under Rule 45, contending the RTC orders were final, executed, and could not be annulled, and that he acted in good faith without fraud. The petition invoked the 1987 Constitution, Civil Code provisions, and B.P. 129 on judgment annulment for extrinsic fraud.
Extrinsic Fraud and Annulment under B.P. 129
Under B.P. 129, a final decree may be set aside for lack of jurisdiction or extrinsic fraud—fraud preventing a party from fully presenting the case. The four‐year prescriptive period begins upon discovery of the fraudulent act (here, failure to prove Maryland law). Respondent filed timely in 1993 based on her 1991 discovery during Sp. Proc. No. M-888.
Fiduciary Duty and Failure to Prove Foreign Law
An ancillary administrator is a fiduciary bound to act with diligence and good faith. Atty. Ancheta admitted he did not introduce Maryland succession law and presumed Philippine law applied. His omission prevented a fair contest on the real issue—testamentary distribution under Audrey’s will—and amounted to extrinsic fraud.
Civil Code Art. 16, Rule 77 Sec. 4 and Judicial Notice
Civil Code Art. 16 and Rule 77 Sec. 4 require Philippine courts in auxiliary probate to admi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 139868)
Facts of the Case
- Audrey O’Neill Guersey and W. Richard Guersey, American citizens domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A., lived in the Philippines for thirty years and adopted a daughter, Kyle Guersey Hill.
- Audrey died on July 29, 1979, leaving a will that bequeathed her entire estate to her husband, Richard, who renounced executorship; James N. Phillips was appointed executor in Maryland, and Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta was named ancillary administrator in the Philippines.
- The will was admitted to probate in the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore and later in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 25, Pasig (Special Proceeding No. 9625).
- Petitioner Ancheta filed an inventory and appraisal listing:
• Audrey’s conjugal share in a Makati real property (valued at ₱764,865.00)
• A Citibank current account (₱12,417.97)
• 64,444 shares of A/G Interiors, Inc. (worth ₱64,444.00) - Richard died on July 20, 1984, leaving a will devising his entire estate to Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent) except the A/G Interiors shares, which were left to Kyle. The will was probated in Maryland and in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138 (Special Proceeding No. M-888), with Atty. Quasha as ancillary administrator.
Procedural History
- October 19, 1987: Petitioner filed a motion in SP No. 9625 to declare Richard and Kyle as Audrey’s heirs and submitted a project of partition allocating a ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property, 48.333 shares of stock, and ₱9,313.48 to Richard; and a ¼ interest, 16,111 shares, and ₱3,104.49 to Kyle.
- February 12 and April 7, 1988: The trial court granted the motion, ordered registration of titles in the names of Richard’s estate (¾ interest) and Kyle (¼ interest), and directed transfer of shares and bank funds.
- December 6, 1991: In SP No. M-888, the court disapproved a proposed partition of Richard’s estate so far as it affected the Makati property, adjudicating Richard’s ¾ interest to respondent.
- October 20