PCIB V. ESCOLIN

Short Summary: Mr. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges’ estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. (believe me, this is a short summary…case is long…)

Facts-Charles & Linnie Hodges, both TEXAN nationals, provided in their respective wills that

bequeath remainder of estate to spouse…during lifetime

remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse

-Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR in Financial Statements submitted before the court,

he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is 1/2 of conjugal estate

that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in US

for 5 years before his death, he failed to make accounting, failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's estate

-Charles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse's estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate

WON Action is prescribed?NO. 33 appeals were timely made-Court did not pass upon its timeliness

WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper?YES. Appeal insufficient remedy-many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits

WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' HEIRS?YES.

1. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED, BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO….no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate

2. R90.1 (on RESIDUE): …after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE:

1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled2. Debts

Funeral expenses Expenses of administration Widow allowance Taxes Etc.

…should be paid already

3. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) Would include distribution of residue of estate-Here:

a. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estateb. No special application made by charles/PCIBc. Merely allowed advance or partial

payments/implementation of will before final liquidation

d. If charles already deemed sole heir, why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is indeed the sole heir?

3. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. HODGESPCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus, no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na specialproceeding)

BUT SC:1. Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who

have rights over the estate2. Order - motion filed merely for exercise of ownership

pending proceeding3. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights:

In FS, stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney

In Petition for will's probate, he listed the bros and sis as heirs

Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of Charles when latter was still executor of Linney's estate – so may know what Charles' intended

Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney He even allegedly renounced his share of

the estate (but was not proven) Charles had duty, as Surviving spouse, of

trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF

4. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue, can't close SP yet>PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET, PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY, OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER H:

NO. both PCIB and Magno should administera. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate

yetb. Admin should both be

impartial extent of interest

c. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles, over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78.6

d. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings - R73.2

SUCCESSION: WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None1. No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC)

no provision for:i. Predecease of T for designated heirii. Refusaliii. Incapacity of designated heir to

accept inheritance2. No fideicomissary substitution

no obligation on Charles to preserve the estate

3. There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to resolutory condition of Charles' death

Charles was to enjoy the whole estate but he can't dispose of property mortis

causa (because it's already subject to the will made by his wife, which he agreed in the provision of his will)

4. Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full ownership

PRIL: WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES? No answer yet. Remanded

Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality

If we apply Texas PRIL law: Personal property: law of domicile Real property: law of situs (both in RP)

IF Art16 applies, then Texas law should govern; Texas law provides no legitime

So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse, being the sole heir,gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estate of the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4 of the whole conjugal property.

Court said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven as…

Courts can't take JN should show foreign law:

o As certified by person holding/having custody of such law

o Certificate that such officer does have custody over said law

o Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law may contain, as there's a time difference between this case and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings

BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS, PCIB can't claim that the estate of Linney is not entitled to at least 1/4 of conjugal property, they having argued that it is so.

NOTES:1. will executed in Texas - Oklahoma2. Charles made executor by Linney, but Charles had no

executor - so administrator dapat3. as regards foreign laws:

Should be proved as a fact R132 on Public documents SIR: Dapat use an expert witness Prove in accordance w/RP law

PCI Bank vs. Escolin

If there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir to preserve the property and transmit it to a second heir, there is no fideicomisaria. The institution is not necessarily void; it may be valid as some other disposition, but it is not a fideicomisaria.

PCIB VS. ESCOLIN56 SCRA 266

FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. At the time of her death, she was citizen of Texas but, was, however domiciled in the Philippines. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparent and necessary to know what law should be applied.

ISSUE: Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable.

RULING: It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it must be proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law makes the testamentary provisions valid. In line with Texas law, that which should be proven is the law enforced during the death of Hodges and not in any other time.

The Supreme Court held that the estate of Mrs. Hodges inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just stated, but this would depend on (1) whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will appear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and (2) whether or not it can be held that Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under the

circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a position to make a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of these two issues, and We, therefore, reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the court o quo, as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate, however, that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, her husband could not have anyway legally adjudicated or caused to be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal partnership, albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be less than one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, have been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that, as contended by PCIB, under Article 16 of the Civil Code and applying renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones ultimately applicable, such one-fourth share would be her free disposable portion, taking into account already the legitime of her husband under Article 900 of the Civil Code.