UP Law F2021 Roberts vs Leonidas

Special Proceedings Sec 1, Rule 75 1984 Aquino, J.

SUMMARY

Edward Grimm died leaving two (2) sets of heirs. The heirs from his 1 st marriage are
Juanita (1st wife), Juanita and Ethel (children). The heirs from his 2 nd marriage are
Maxine (2nd wife) and Pete and Linda (children). Grimm executed 2 wills favoring the
second set of heirs. Ethel filed an intestate proceeding, which resulted in a
compromise agreement between the 2 parties. The Grimm estate was partitioned NOT
according to the wills of Grimm. Maxine later filed a testate proceeding (probate of
Grimm’s 2 wills) and the annulment of the partition approved by the intestate court.

SC ruled that 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). It is anomalous that
the estate of a person who died testate (with will) 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

 Edward M. Grimm an American resident of Manila, died at 78 in the Makati

Medical Center. He was survived by his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm and
their two children, named Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm and
by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden), his two
children by a first marriage which ended in divorce.
 He executed two wills in San Francisco, California. One will disposed of his
Philippine estate which he described as conjugal property of himself and his
second wife. The second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.
 In both wills, Maxine and (2nd wife) and the 2 children were favored.
 Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden) (daughter of 1 st wife) filed a petition for
intestate proceeding in Branch 20 of CFI Manila. This intestate proceeding
resulted in a compromise agreement between the two parties, Ethel and Maxine.
And the estate was partitioned between the heirs according to the compromise
agreement and NOT according the wills of Grimm.
 Maxine later filed with Branch 38, CFI Manila, a petition for probate of the two
(2) wills (testate proceedings), and prayed that the partition approved by Branch
20, the intestate court, be set aside. Maxine alleges that the Utah compromise
agreement was illegal, that the intestate proceeding is void because Grimm died
testate (with a will) and that the partition was contrary to decedent’s wills.
 Branch 38, CFI Manila (Judge Leonidas) ruled in favor of Maxine.
 Hence, petition by Ethel Roberts.

RATIO

WON CFI Manila Branch 38 committed grave abuse of discretion?

NO. 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 (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil.
249; Baluyot vs. Panio, L-42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). It is anomalous that the
estate of a person who died testate (with will) 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.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The temporary restraining order is dissolved.

No costs.