Zairil Gillord DL.

Huelva
BSLM 2-B
CASE TITLE: Roel P. Gaspi, Petitioner, Vs. Honorable Judge Maria Clarissa L. Pacis-
Trinidad, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Iriga City, Respondent.
PONENTE: Leonen, J.
FACTS:
Luz Gaspe Lipson (Lipson), an American citizen temporarily residing in Iriga City,
executed her last will and testament and designated Roel R Gaspi (Gaspi) as executor.
At 70 years old, Lipson passed away due to lymphoma. Gaspi filed a Petition for the
probate of Lipson's will and the issuance of letters testamentary without bond in his behalf.
The Regional Trial Court motu proprio dismissed the petition for probate for lack of
jurisdiction.
The Regional Trial Court pointed out that Lipson was an American citizen. Thus, her
national law must govern and her will must be probated in the United States of America, and
not in the Philippines.
The Regional Trial Court continued that it is only when Lipson's will is probated,
according to her national law, that the Philippines may recognize and execute her will
through a petition for recognition of foreign judgment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has the competence to take cognizance of an alien's
will executed in the Philippines.
RULING:
YES. Under the nationality principle, Philippine laws continue to apply to Filipino
citizens when it comes to their "family rights and duties... status, condition and legal
capacity" even if they do not reside in the Philippines. In the same manner, the Philippines
respects the national personal laws of aliens and defers to them when it comes to succession
issues and "the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions."
However, the probate of a will only involves its extrinsic validity and does not delve
into its intrinsic validity, unless there are exceptional circumstances which would require the
probate court to touch upon the intrinsic validity of the will.
Even if we assume that the foreign law applies, it does not necessarily mean that the
Philippine court loses jurisdiction. Foreign law, when relevant, must still be proven as a fact
by evidence, as Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.
Courts, therefore, retain jurisdiction over the subject matter (probate) and the res,
which is the real property in Iriga in this case.
Moreso, there was no objection with respect to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court. Thus, respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in motu proprio dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction.
Zairil Gillord DL. Huelva
BSLM 2-B
SO ORDERED.