MICIANO vs.
BRIMO
No. 22595.
November 1, 1924]
Topic/Doctrine: SUCCESSIONS; CONDITIONAL LEGACY; CONDITION CONTRARY TO
LAW; NULLITY OF.—
If the condition imposed upon the legatee is that he respect the testator’s order that
his property be distributed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and not in
accordance with the laws of his nation, said condition is illegal, because, according to
article 10 of the Civil Code, said laws govern his testamentary disposition, and, being
illegal, shall be considered unwritten, thus making the institution unconditional.
Facts:
The partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph G. Brimo is in question in this
case. The judicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. Andre
Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, however,
approved it.
The errors which the oppositor-appellant assigns are:
(1) The approval of said scheme of partition;
(2) the denial of his participation in the inheritance;
(3) the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approving the partition;
(4) the approval of the purchase made by Pietro Lanza of the deceased’s business
and the deed of transfer of said business; and
(5) the declaration that the Turkish laws are impertinent to this cause, and the failure
not to postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the delivery of the
deceased’s business to Pietro Lanza until the receipt of the depositions requested in
reference to the Turkish laws.
The appellant’s opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into
effect the
provisions of Joseph G. Brimo’s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his
Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of article 10
of the Civil Code.
But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary dispositions
are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any
evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of
evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the
Philippines.
It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are. He, himself,
acknowledges it when he desires to be given an opportunity to present evidence on
this point; so much so that he assigns as an error of the court in not having deferred
the approval of the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimony
requested regarding the Turkish laws on the matter. The refusal to give the oppositor
another opportunity to prove such laws does not constitute an error, It is
discretionary with the trial court. and, taking into consideration that the oppositor
was granted ample opportunity to introduce competent evidence, we find no abuse
of discretion on the part of the court in this particular.
There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national law of the testator
Joseph G. Brimo was violated in the testamentary dispositions in question which, not
being contrary to our laws in force must be complied with.
Issue:
Whether or not the court erred in approving the scheme of partition of the estate of
Joseph G. Brimo?
Held:
No. The approval of the scheme of partition in respect was not erroneous. In regard
to the first
assignment of error which deals with the exclusion of the herein appellant as a
legatee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons designated as such in the will, it must
be taken into consideration that such exclusion is based on the last part of the
second clause of the will.
The institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the condition is that the
instituted legatees must respect the testator’s will to distribute his property, not in
accordance with the laws of his nationality, but in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines. If this condition as it is expressed were legal and valid, any legatee who
fails to comply with it, as the herein oppositor who, by his attitude in these
proceedings has not respected the will of the testator, as expressed, is prevented
from receiving his legacy. The fact is, however, that the said condition is void, being
contrary to law, for article 792 of the Civil Code. And said condition is contrary to law
because it expressly ignores the testator’s national law when, according to article 10
of the Civil Code above quoted, such national law of the testator is the one to govern
his testamentary dispositions. Said condition then, in the light of the legal
provisions above cited, is considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said
will is unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the herein
oppositor. Gomez vs. North Negros Sugar Co.
It results from all this that the second clause of the will regarding the law which shall
govern it, and to the condition imposed upon the legatees, is null and void, being
contrary to law. All of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions and
requests are perfectly valid and effective it not appearing that said clauses are
contrary to the testator’s national laws.
The orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the distribution of this
estate be made in such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as
one of the legatees, and the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial
administrator is approved in all other respects, without any pronouncement as to
costs.
