Gaspi v. Pacis-Trinidad
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Luz Gaspe Lipson, an American citizen temporarily residing in Iriga City, executed a last will and testament on February 23, 2011, naming Roel P. Gaspi as executor. Lipson passed away on October 17, 2015. The underlying dispute concerns the probate of this will. 2. Procedural History: Roel P. Gaspi filed a petition for the probate of Luz Gaspe Lipson's will and for the issuance of letters testamentary on October 3, 2016. The Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36, motu proprio dismissed the petition on October 6, 2016, for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning that the national law of the alien testatrix must govern and her will should be probated in the United States. Gaspi's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 16, 2016, with the court distinguishing this case from Palaganas v. Palaganas by noting that Lipson's will was executed in the Philippines, not abroad. 3. The Petition: Gaspi filed a Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He contends that Philippine law does not prohibit the probate of wills executed by aliens and that under the Civil Code, such wills are recognized if executed in accordance with Philippine laws. He argues that if a foreign will executed abroad can be probated in the Philippines, then an alien's will executed in the Philippines in conformity with Philippine law should likewise be allowed. The petition raises the sole issue of whether the Regional Trial Court has the competence to take cognizance of an alien's will executed in the Philippines, even if it has not yet been probated in the alien decedent's national court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court has the competence to take cognizance of an alien's will executed in the Philippines, even if it had not yet been probated before the alien decedent's national court. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the petition for probate for lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Orders dated October 6, 2016 and November 6, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City, Branch 36 in Spec. Proc. No. IR-2919 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the competence of the Regional Trial Court to take cognizance of an alien's will executed in the Philippines: The nationality principle, embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, pertains to family rights, status, condition, and legal capacity, and applies to Filipino citizens abroad. Article 16 of the Civil Code states that while intestate and testamentary successions, including intrinsic validity, are regulated by the national law of the decedent, the forms and solemnities of wills are governed by the law of the country where they are executed, as per Article 17 of the Civil Code. The probate of a will concerns its extrinsic validity, which is determined by the law of the place where the will was executed and presented for probate. Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws; thus, they apply the law of the forum by default. Furthermore, Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Special Proceedings grants RTCs jurisdiction over the settlement of estates of aliens residing in foreign countries but possessing property in the Philippines. Therefore, the RTC has jurisdiction over the probate of Lipson's will concerning her real property in Iriga City. On whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction: The RTC erred in dismissing the petition motu proprio based on a misapplication of the nationality principle. The probate court retains jurisdiction over the subject matter and the res (the real property in Iriga City). The extrinsic validity of an alien's will executed in the Philippines is governed by Philippine law, and the will may be probated here even if it has not yet been probated in the alien's country of nationality, as established in Palaganas v. Palaganas. Articles 816 and 817 of the Civil Code also allow for the application of Philippine law to the probate of an alien's will. Since there was no objection to the RTC's jurisdiction, its dismissal of the case motu proprio constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
The nationality principle does not apply to the determination of the extrinsic validity of an alien's last will and testament. When it comes to the probate of an alien's will, whether executed here or abroad, the alien's national law may be pleaded and proved before the probate court; otherwise, Philippine law will govern by default. A Philippine court retains jurisdiction over the probate of a will concerning real property located in the Philippines, even if the testator is an alien and the will has not yet been probated in the alien's country of nationality.