02 Roberts v.

Leonidas AUTHOR: TIGLAO

[G.R. No. L-55509 | 27 April 1984] NOTES: Straightforward case. This was also discussed in
TOPIC: Rule 73 Succession.
PONENTE: J. Aquino
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
Civil Law; Wills; Testate proceeding, proper where decedent died with two wills. A testate proceeding is proper in this
case because Grimm died with two wills and no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed.

Probate of will mandatory; Settlement in an intestate proceeding of an estate of a person who died testate, anomalous;
Consolidation of intestate case with testate proceeding, proper; Case at bar. The probate of the will is mandatory It is
anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the
intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should
continue hearing the two cases.
FACTS:
Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died. He was survived by Maxine (second wife), their two (2)
children, and by his two children by a first marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended by divorce.
The deceased executed two (2) wills in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1959. One will disposed of his
Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and Maxine. The second will disposed of his estate
outside the Philippines. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Maxine on March
1978.
Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in January 1978. The
Utah Court admitted the two wills and codicil to probate on April 1978 and was issued upon consideration of
the stipulation between the attorneys for Maxine and Ethel.
Also in April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into a
compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.
As mentioned, in January 1978, an intestate proceeding was instituted by Ethel. On March 1978, Maxine filed
an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on the ground of pendency of the Utah probate
proceedings. She submitted to the court a copy of Grimms will. However, pursuant to the compromise
agreement, Maxine withdrew the opposition and the motion to dismiss. The court ignored the will found in the
record. The estate was partitioned.
In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills (already probated in Utah), that the
partition approved by the intestate court be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be
appointed executrix and Ethel be ordered to account for the properties received by them and return the same to
Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were defrauded due to the machinations of Ethel, that the compromise
agreement was illegal and the intestate proceeding was void because Grimm died testate so partition was
contrary to the decedents wills.
Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by Judge Leonidas for lack of merit.
ISSUE(S): W/N the judge erred in denying Ethels motion to dismiss.

HELD: No. The judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying
Ethels motion to dismiss.
RATIO:
A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real
or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).
The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be
settled in an intestate proceeding.
Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the
testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.