Documents

7-PCIB-vs-Escolin

Description
wills- inheritance
Categories
Published
of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  PCIB V. ESCOLINShort Summary: Mr. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisionsthat upon their deaths, their whole estates should beinherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse couldmanage and alienate the said lands, with the exceponof the Texas property. Upon death of the laer spouse,the residue of the estate inherited by the later spousefrom the spouse who predeceased him would redoundto the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died rst thenMr. Hodges, but since there was no li!uidaon of Mrs.Hodges estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodgeswanted to determine the extent of her estate that theycould inherit. #believe me, this is a short summary$caseis long$% Facts &'harles ( )innie Hodges, both T*+- naonals,provided in their respecve wills that  be!ueath remainder of estate to spouse$duringlifeme  remainder goes to brothers and sis of survivingspouse&Mrs. Hodges died rst. Mr. Hodges appointed as*+*'UT/  in 0inancial 1tatements submied before thecourt, he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is 234 of con5ugal estate  that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in atax declaraon in U1  for 6 years before his death, he failed to ma7eaccounng, failed to ac!uire nal ad5udicaonof wife8s estate&'harles died. Magno, inially administratrix of bothspouse8s estate, later replaced by 9':; for 'harles8estate WON Acon is prescrie! -. << appeals were mely made&'ourt did not pass upon its meliness WON Cerorari an! Prohiion is proper =*1. ppeal insu>cient remedy&many appeals, same facts, same issues ? mulplicity of suits WON #$E%E IS S#ILL A %ESI&'E FO% (%S. $O&)ES*$EI%S =*1.2. @- 19*':) 9/'**A:-B 0/ 1*TT)*M*-T 0M/1. HAB*1 *1TT* 1HU)A )/*A= ;* ')1*A,;1*A - TH* A*'*M;*/ 2C6D 'U/T /A*/))*B*A)= AEUA:'T:-B M/. HAB*1 1 1)* H*:/F-$.no nal distribuon to all pares concerned of theestate4. /CG.2 #on /*1:AU*% $aIer residue assigned to pares entled to it, 1.9.deemed ready for 0:-) ')1U/*2. rder issued for distribuon3assignment of estate among those entled4. Aebts  0uneral expenses  *xpenses of administraon  @idow allowance  Taxes  *tc.$should be paid already<. Moon of party re!uesng the same #not motuproprio% @ould include distribuon of residue of estate&Herea.-o nal distribuon of residue of )inney8sestateb.-o special applicaon made by charles39':;c.Merely allowed advance or paralpayments3implementaon of will before nalli!uidaond.:f charles already deemed sole heir, why 9':;needed to le a moon to declare that 'harlesis indeed the sole heirF<. - ))*B*A :-T*-T:- 0 M/. HAB*19':; He intended to ad5udicate whole estate to himself #Thus, no residue leI, thus ulit, tapos na specialproceeding%;UT 1'2.@hatever was intended, he can8t deprive thosewho have rights over the estate4.rder & moon led merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding<.Mr. Hodges was aware that wife8s siblings hadrights  :n 01, stated that 234 of con5ugal estatebelonged to *state of )inney  :n 9eon for will8s probate, he listedthe bros and sis as heirs  )awyer of Magno was inially lawyer of 'harles when laer was sll executor of   )inney8s estate J so may 7now what'harles8 intended  'harles admied omiKng a bro of )inney  He even allegedly renounced his shareof the estate #but was not proven%  'harles had duty, as 1urviving spouse,of trustee of wife8s estate so had to actin B0L. - 9/9*/T:*1 0/ 1:;):-B1 since there8s sll aresidue, can8t close 19 yet9':; - ):NU:AT:- 0 '-EUB) 9/9*/T:*1 =*T,9':; 1HU)A 1)*)= AM:-:1T*/ *O*/=TH:-B TA*T*/M:-* TH* 1*9/T* *1TT* 0 ):--*=, O*/@3' MB- 'U)A AM:-:1T*/ H -. both 9':; and Magno should administera.:t was 'harles8 fault why no administraon of estate yetb.dmin should both be  imparal  extent of interestc.*xecutor #9':;% of *xecutor #'harles, over)inney8s% 'an8t administer estate of decedent#)inney% P /DQ.Rd.)i!uidaon of con5ugal partnership may bedone in either spouse8s probate proceedings &/D<.4 S'CCESSION: WON #$E%E*S S'BS#I#'#ION  None 2.-o simple or vulgar substuon #Q6C, -''%  no provision fori.9redecease of T for designatedheirii./efusaliii.:ncapacity of designated heir toaccept inheritance4.-o deicomissary substuon  no obligaon on 'harles to preserve theestate<.There8s simultaneous instuon of heirs sub5ectto resolutory condion of 'harles8 death  'harles was to en5oy the whole estate  but he can8t dispose of property morscausa #because it8s already sub5ect tothe will made by his wife, which heagreed in the provision of his will%L.'harles didn8t get mere usufruct he exercisesfull ownership P%IL: WON %P LAW )OVE%NS LE)I#I(E OF C$A%LES -o answer yet. /emandedrt 2R, -''  applies law of naonality:f we apply Texas 9/:) law  9ersonal property law of domicile  /eal property law of situs #both in /9%:0 rt2R applies, then Texas law should governS Texaslaw provides no legime1o renvoi to /9 /9 )aw provides that the 1urviving1pouse, being the sole heir,gets 234 o the con5ugal property, then 234 goes to theestate of the spouse. :f 234 of the estate of the spousegoes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then'harles gets 23L of the whole con5ugal property.'ourt said that Texas law may apply, but since notproven as$  'ourts can8t ta7e E-  should show foreign law o s cered by person holding3havingcustody of such law o 'ercate that such o>cer does havecustody over said law o nar can8t be used to show what Texaslaw may contain, as there8s a medierence between this case and thatcase, thus the Texas law might havechanged in between the rulings;UT @HT*O*/ H99*-1, 9':; can8t claim that theestate of )inney is not entled to at least 23L of con5ugalproperty, they having argued that it is so.-T*12.will executed in Texas & 7lahoma4.'harles made executor by )inney, but 'harleshad no executor & so administrator dapat<.as regards foreign laws  1hould be proved as a fact  /2<4 on 9ublic documents  1:/ Aapat use an expert witness  9rove in accordance w3/9 law PCI Ban+ ,s. Esco-in :f there is no absolute obligaon imposed upon the rstheir to preserve the property and transmit it to a secondheir, there is no deicomisaria. The instuon is notnecessarily voidS it may be valid as some otherdisposion, but it is not a deicomisaria.  PCIB VS. ESCOLIN 6R 1'/ 4RR FAC#S: )innie Eane Hodges died giving her testamentaryprovisions to her husband. t the me of her death, shewas cien of Texas but, was, however domiciled in the9hilippines. To see whether the testamentary provisionsare valid, it is apparent and necessary to 7now what lawshould be applied. ISS'E: @hether or not laws of Texas is applicable. %'LIN): :t is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here itmust be proven whether a renvoi will happen orwhether Texas law ma7es the testamentary provisionsvalid. :n line with Texas law, that which should be provenis the law enforced during the death of Hodges and notin any other me. The 1upreme 'ourt held that the estate of Mrs. Hodgesinherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than 5ust stated, but this would depend on #2% whether uponthe proper applicaon of the principle of renvoi inrelaon to rcle 2R of the 'ivil 'ode and the pernentlaws of Texas, it will appear that Hodges had no legimeas contended by Magno, and #4% whether or not it canbe held that Hodges had legally and eecvelyrenounced his inheritance from his wife. Under thecircumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the 'ourt is not ina posion to ma7e a nal ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of these two issues, and @e, therefore,reserve said issues for further proceedings andresoluon in the rst instance by the court o !uo, ashereinabove indicated. @e reiterate, however, thatpending such further proceedings, as maers stand atthis stage, ur considered opinion is that it is beyondcavil that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs.Hodges, her husband could not have anyway legallyad5udicated or caused to be ad5udicated to himself herwhole share of their con5ugal partnership, albeit hecould have disposed any part thereof during his lifeme,the resulng estate of Mrs. Hodges, of which Magno isthe uncontested administratrix, cannot be less thanone&fourth of the con5ugal partnership properes, as of the me of her death, minus what, as explained earlier,have been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, byHodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if itwere assumed that, as contended by 9':;, under rcle2R of the 'ivil 'ode and applying renvoi the laws of the9hilippines are the ones ulmately applicable, such one&fourth share would be her free disposable poron,ta7ing into account already the legime of her husbandunder rcle CGG of the 'ivil 'ode.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks