TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA LUISA PALACIOS vs.

MARCELLE D. VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL

G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982

FACTS: Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, 1964, with
only his widow as compulsory heir. His will was admitted to probate. Maria Luisa Palacios was
appointed administratrix of the estate.

On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a project of partition as follows: the property of
the deceased is to be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow in satisfaction of her
legitime; the other part or "free portion" shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez. Furthermore,
one third (1/3) of the free portion is charged with the widow's usufruct and the remaining two-
thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda.

Jorge and Roberto opposed the project of partition on the grounds: (a) that the provisions for
vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda de Wrobleski with respect to the widow's usufruct and in
favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio V. Ramirez, with respect to Wanda's usufruct are
invalid because the first heirs Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator; (b) that the provisions
for fideicommissary substitutions are also invalid because the first heirs are not related to the
second heirs or substitutes within the first degree, as provided in Article 863 of the Civil Code;
(c) that the grant of a usufruct over real property in the Philippines in favor of Wanda Wrobleski,
who is an alien, violates Section 5, Article III of the Philippine Constitution; and that (d) the
proposed partition of the testator's interest in the Santa Cruz (Escolta) Building between the
widow Marcelle and the appellants, violates the testator's express win to give this property to
them. Nonetheless, the lower court approved the project of partition in its order dated May 3,
1967.

ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of a usufruct over real property in the Philippines in favor of
Wanda Wrobleski, who is an alien, violates Section 5, Article III of the Philippine Constitution.

RULING: NO. The 1935 Constitution which is controlling provides as follows: SEC. 5. Save in
cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned
except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain in the Philippines. (Art. XIII.)

The Constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands does not extend to
testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless. Any
alien would be able to circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine landowner in
exchange for a devise of a piece of land.

The Supreme Court upheld the usufruct in favor of Wanda because a usufruct, albeit a real
right, does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor
of aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
JOHANNES vs. HARVEY
G.R. NO. 18600 MARCH 9, 1922

FACTS: Mrs. Carmen Theodora Johannes nee Carmen D'Almeida, died intestate in Singapore,
Straits Settlements, on August 31, 1921. Of her immediate family there remained the husband,
B. E. Johannes, the brothers, Frederick Charles D'Almeida and Alfred D'Almeida, and the sister,
Ida D'Almeida Johannes. Of these, the husband, the brother Frederick, and the sister Ida, were
residents of Singapore, while the brother Alfred was in Manila.

The Singapore heirs apparently joined in asking that letters of administration be granted by the
Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements to B. E. Johannes, the lawful husband of the
deceased.
On September 19, 1921, the husband was named the administrator of the property of the
deceased wife, which was locally situate within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the
Straits Settlements. Under the British law, it would seem that the husband is entitled to the
whole of the estate of his wife if she die intestate to the exclusive of any other next of kin. On
October 1, 1921, the brother Alfred D' Almeida was, on his petition, appointed administrator of
the Manila estate of the deceased consisting of P109,732.55.

The burden of the relator's contention is that the Honorable George R. Harvey, as judge of First
Instance of the City of Manila, has acted in excess of his jurisdiction in appointing Alfred
D'Almeida administrator of the funds of the estate on deposit in the Philippines, and that an
administration in the jurisdiction is unnecessary. Accordingly, relators pray the court to annul the
appointment of Alfred D'Almeida and to issue an order directing the Judge of First Instance to
have placed to the credit of B. E. Johannes as administrator of the estate of Carmen Theodora
Johannes all of the funds of the late Carmen D'Almeida Johannes, now on deposit and subject
to the order of the court, with P5,000 as damages.

ISSUE: Whether or not the judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in appointing Alfred
D'Almeida administrator of the funds of the estate on deposit in the Philippines.

RULING: NO. It is almost a universal rule to give the surviving spouse a preference when an
administrator is to be appointed, unless for strong reasons it is deemed advisable to name
someone else. This preference has particular force under Spanish law precedents. However,
the Code of Civil Procedure, in section 642, while naming the surviving husband or wife, as the
case may be, as one to whom administration can be granted, leaves this to the discretion of the
court to determine, for it may be found that the surviving spouse is unsuitable for the
responsibility. Moreover, nonresidence is a factor to be considered in determining the propriety
of the appointment, and in this connection, it is to be noted that the husband of the deceased,
the administrator of the principal administration, resides in Singapore. Undoubtedly, if the
husband should come into this jurisdiction, the court would give consideration to this petition
that he be named the ancillary administrator for local purposes. Ancillary letters should ordinarily
be granted to the domicilliary representative, if he applies therefor, or to his nominee, or
attorney; but in the absence of express statutory requirement the court may in its discretion
appoint some other person.

The Court of First Instance has not acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and as there in an appeal,
certiorari will not lie. Accordingly, the writ prayed for cannot be granted.
MANUEL PALAGANAS vs. ERNESTO PALAGNAS
G.R. No. 169144 January 26, 2011

FACTS: Ruperta Palaganas, a Filipino who became a naturalized U.S. citizen, died without
issue. In her last will and testament, she designated her brother Sergio as the executor of her
will. Respondent Ernesto filed a petition for probate of Ruperta’s will and for his appointment as
special administrator of her estate. This petition was opposed by Ruperta’s nephew’s on the
ground that the will should be probated in the U.S. where the same was executed. The RTC
allowed the will to be probated here in the Philippines. This was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ruperta’s will, which was executed abroad, may be probated in the
Philippines.

RULING: YES. Article 816 of the Civil Code states that the will of an alien who is abroad
produces effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities prescribed by the
law of the place where he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country. Our
rules require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must show, so far as known to
the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional facts; (b) the names, ages, and residences of the heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator or decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the
property of the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are prayed; and (e) if the will
has not been delivered to the court, the name of the person having custody of it. Jurisdictional
facts refer to the fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his death in the
province where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the
estate he left in such province. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will has already
been allowed and probated in the country of its execution.