Case Summary (G.R. No. 229010)
Procedural History
The executor-designate, Roel R. Gaspi, filed a petition for probate and issuance of letters testamentary without bond in the RTC of Iriga City on October 3, 2016. The RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition on October 6, 2016 for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that Lipson’s status as an American citizen required probate under her national law in the United States and that Philippine recognition would follow only after foreign probate via recognition of foreign judgment. Gaspi’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 16, 2016. Gaspi secured a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing both RTC orders.
Facts Material to the Case
Lipson, an American citizen temporarily residing in Iriga City, executed a written last will and testament on February 23, 2011 and designated Gaspi as executor. She died on October 17, 2015, leaving real property in Iriga City. The contested will was executed in the Philippines; the petition for probate was brought in the Philippine RTC where the property is situated. The RTC dismissed the probate petition without addressing the will’s extrinsic validity.
Issue Presented
Whether the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City has competence and jurisdiction to take cognizance and probate the will of an alien executed in the Philippines, when that will has not been previously probated in the decedent’s national forum.
Legal Distinction: Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Validity
The Court emphasized the important distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic validity. Extrinsic validity concerns the authenticity and due execution of the will—whether required formalities were observed, the testator’s testamentary capacity, voluntariness, and whether the instrument is indeed the decedent’s last will. Intrinsic validity concerns substantive testamentary dispositions and the order and amount of successional rights. The nationality principle governs intrinsic validity and succession rights (i.e., personal law of the decedent), whereas extrinsic validity (forms and solemnities) is governed by the law of the place where the instrument was executed and presented for probate.
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Their Proper Application
Articles 15 and 16 of the Civil Code reflect the nationality principle: certain personal laws and succession rights are governed by national law. Article 17 provides that forms and solemnities of wills are governed by the law of the country where executed. Article 816 expressly allows that the will of an alien who is abroad takes effect in the Philippines if made in conformity with the law of the place of residence, the law of the alien’s country, or in conformity with the Philippine Code. Article 817 provides that a will made in the Philippines by an alien, if executed in accordance with the law of the alien’s country and could be proved there, shall have the same effect as if executed under Philippine law—creating an option to apply either foreign law (if pleaded and proven) or Philippine law. Rule 73 §1 of the Rules of Special Proceedings grants probate jurisdiction in the province where the decedent had estate even if the decedent was an inhabitant of a foreign country. Rule 76 and its subsections set out petition requirements and grounds for disallowance (Art. 839 and Rule 76 §9) addressing extrinsic defects.
Court’s Analysis of Jurisdiction and the Nationality Principle
The Court held that the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The nationality principle embodied in Articles 15 and 16 governs intrinsic succession matters but does not preclude Philippine courts from determining extrinsic validity of a will executed in the Philippines. Because the will was executed in Iriga City and related to real property in the Philippines, Philippine law governs the forms and solemnities for extrinsic validity (Article 17). Moreover, Articles 816 and 817 explicitly permit the application of Philippine law for the probate of an alien’s will — Article 816 by allowing Philippine formalities for wills of aliens executed abroad, and Article 817 by creating a fiction that a foreign-executed will valid under foreign law shall have the same effect as if executed under Philippine law. Thus, the presence of foreign nationality does not automatically divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction.
Proof of Foreign Law and Judicial Notice
The Court reaffirmed that even where foreign law is relevant, Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law and foreign law must therefore be pleaded and proved as a fact. The requirement to prove foreign law does not, however, remove jurisdiction. The Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the subject matter and the res (the property in Iriga City), and no jurisdictional objection had been raised below. The RTC’s motu proprio dismissal thus constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Precedents and Analogous Doctrines Cited
The decision relied on prior jurisprudence: Palaganas v. Palaganas (allowing probate in the Philippines of an American citizen’s will executed abroad without prior foreign probate), Dorotheo (defining extrinsic validity concerns), Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan (on the mandatory nature and pu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 229010)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing two Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City, Branch 36 dated October 6, 2016 and November 16, 2016 that motu proprio dismissed a petition for probate and issuance of letters testamentary.
- Petitioner Roel R. Gaspi (referred to in the source as both Roel P. Gaspi in the caption and Roel R. Gaspi in the narrative) seeks reversal of the RTC’s dismissal and asks that the will of Luz Gaspe Lipson be admitted to probate and that letters testamentary issue in his behalf without bond.
- The RTC Judge impleaded as respondent was Honorable Judge Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-Trinidad; she was impleaded on September 27, 2017 (rollo, p. 31).
Material Facts
- On February 23, 2011, Luz Gaspe Lipson executed her last will and testament while temporarily residing in Iriga City; she was an American citizen at the time of execution and designated Roel R. Gaspi as executor. (Rollo, p. 4)
- Lipson died on October 17, 2015 at age 70 from lymphoma. (Rollo, p. 21)
- On October 3, 2016, petitioner Gaspi filed a petition for probate of Lipson’s will and issuance of letters testamentary without bond. (Rollo, pp. 18–20)
- The will was executed in the Philippines and involved real property located in Iriga City, Philippines.
RTC Orders and Reasoning (October 6, 2016 and November 16, 2016)
- October 6, 2016 RTC Order: The court motu proprio dismissed the petition for probate for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that because Lipson was an American citizen, her national law must govern and her will must be probated in the United States, not in the Philippines. The RTC stated that the Philippines may recognize and execute the will only after it has been probated according to the decedent’s national law via a petition for recognition of foreign judgment. (Rollo, pp. 10–11)
- Dispositive language of October 6, 2016 Order: “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is motu proprio DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of herein Court. SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis in original.) (Rollo, p. 10)
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied the motion on November 16, 2016. (Rollo, pp. 12–14)
- November 16, 2016 RTC reasoning: The court held that the Palaganas v. Palaganas decision cited by petitioner was inapplicable because Palaganas involved probate in the Philippines of an alien’s will executed abroad, whereas Lipson’s will was executed in the Philippines. The court cited Article 817 (as the applicable provision) rather than Article 816. (Rollo, pp. 12–14, 28)
Petitioner’s Arguments on Review
- Petitioner asserts there is no prohibition under Philippine law against the probate of wills executed by aliens, and that under the Civil Code the will of an alien residing abroad is recognized in the Philippines if made in accordance with the laws of the place of residence or in conformity with Philippine laws. (Rollo, p. 6)
- Citing Palaganas, petitioner argues the Supreme Court has allowed probate of an alien’s will executed abroad even when it had not been probated in the alien’s country of citizenship or residence, and therefore an alien’s will executed in the Philippines, if in conformity with Philippine law, should a fortiori be allowed to undergo probate here. (Rollo)
- In reply to the respondent, petitioner contends the nationality principle in Article 16 pertains not only to internal law but also to conflict of laws and that there was no basis for the RTC’s assertion that probate here was conditioned on prior probate in the alien’s national courts. (Rollo, pp. 40–43)
Respondent’s Comment and Arguments
- Respondent maintained the petition for probate was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the decedent was an American citizen and therefore the extrinsic validity of her will must be established under her national law and according to the formalities of the country of which she is a citizen. (Rollo, pp. 26–28)
- Respondent argued that logical and legal considerations prevent the RTC from establishing the extrinsic validity of a foreigner’s will without reference to the decedent’s national law, and that Palaganas was distinguishable because it involved a will executed abroad whereas Lipson’s will was executed in the Philippines. (Rollo, pp. 26–28)
- Respondent asserted that Article 817, not Article 816, is the applicable provision for wills made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country. (Rollo, p. 28)
Issue Presented
- Whether the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City had competence and jurisdiction to take cognizance of and probate the will of an alien (Luz Gaspe Lipson) executed in the Philippines, even though the will had not been probated before the decedent’s national court.
Legal Framework: Probate, Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Validity, and Applicable Statutes and Rules
- Nature and purpose of probate: Probate proceedings determine the extrinsic validity of a will — whether the instrument is the decedent’s last will, whether required formalities were complied with, and whether th