The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andre Brimo, one of the deceased Joseph Brimo's brothers who opposed the partition of Joseph's estate. While Joseph's will stipulated that his estate should be distributed according to Philippine law, it did not prove what the laws were in Joseph's nationality of Turkey. As a Turkish national, Joseph's will and estate distribution must comply with Turkish law. The conditions in the will excluding Andre from inheriting if he challenged it are void and contrary to Turkish law. Thus, the order is modified to include Andre as a rightful legatee of Joseph's estate.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andre Brimo, one of the deceased Joseph Brimo's brothers who opposed the partition of Joseph's estate. While Joseph's will stipulated that his estate should be distributed according to Philippine law, it did not prove what the laws were in Joseph's nationality of Turkey. As a Turkish national, Joseph's will and estate distribution must comply with Turkish law. The conditions in the will excluding Andre from inheriting if he challenged it are void and contrary to Turkish law. Thus, the order is modified to include Andre as a rightful legatee of Joseph's estate.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andre Brimo, one of the deceased Joseph Brimo's brothers who opposed the partition of Joseph's estate. While Joseph's will stipulated that his estate should be distributed according to Philippine law, it did not prove what the laws were in Joseph's nationality of Turkey. As a Turkish national, Joseph's will and estate distribution must comply with Turkish law. The conditions in the will excluding Andre from inheriting if he challenged it are void and contrary to Turkish law. Thus, the order is modified to include Andre as a rightful legatee of Joseph's estate.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Andre Brimo, one of the deceased Joseph Brimo's brothers who opposed the partition of Joseph's estate. While Joseph's will stipulated that his estate should be distributed according to Philippine law, it did not prove what the laws were in Joseph's nationality of Turkey. As a Turkish national, Joseph's will and estate distribution must comply with Turkish law. The conditions in the will excluding Andre from inheriting if he challenged it are void and contrary to Turkish law. Thus, the order is modified to include Andre as a rightful legatee of Joseph's estate.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
Miciano v. Brimo accordance with Turkish laws.
However, it was not proved what these Turkish
G.R. No. L-22595 | Nov. 1, 1927 laws were. That the lower court refused to grant Andre an opportunity to prove Romualdez, J.| Digest by: Dolar, T. such laws is not an error as the same is discretionary. Further, Andre was already given ample time to introduce competent evidence, as such there was Topic: Personal Law no abuse of discretion on the part if the court. There was no evidence that the scheme or partition violated Joseph’s national laws. Doctrine: However, as stated by the deceased in his will, he is of a Turkish The intrinsic validity of a will is determined by the national laws of the decedent. nationality. As a consequence, the condition that Andre (and the other However, these national laws must be proven before the Court. relatives) must respect the will is void for being contrary to law under Art. 792 of the Civil Code. Said disposition also expressly ignores the national law of Facts: the deceased. As a consequence, it is deemed unwritten. Thus, Andre’s The case concerns the estate left by the deceased Joseph Brimo. exclusion as legatee, is void as it was done pursuant to a void stipulation. Miciano, the judicial administrator on this case filed a scheme of partition. The order of the lower court is modified so as to include Andre Brimo Andre Brimo, one of the deceased’s’ brothers, opposed the partition. as legatee. o The case is a bit disorganized, but it was later discussed that part of the reason why Andre opposed the will was because there was a provision where Joseph stipulated that though he is Turkish, he desires his estate to be distributed in accordance with Philippine laws. It was further stipulated that if any of Joseph’s relatives would not respect his will, such will be cause for the cancellation of any disposition in such relative’s favor. The CFI of Manila approved the scheme of partition. The lower court also denied Andre any participation in the inheritance, pursuant to Joseph’s will. Andre now comes before the SC, claiming that the lower court erred in approving the scheme of partition; in denying him a part in the inheritance; in denying his MR on the approval of the partition; in approving the sale of deceased’s business to Pietro Lana (not so important); and in declaring that Turkish laws are impertinent to the case. Andre also questions provisions of Joseph’s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality. Andre contends that the provisions that caused his removal as an heir are void because successional rights and the intrinsic validity of wills are governed by the national law of the deceased under Art. 10 of the Civil Code. Lastly, he also contends that he should have been allowed prove the provisions were violative of Turkish law.
Issue: 1. Whether Andre is entitled to inherit from the deceased?
Held: YES. Andre questions the validity of the will for not being in