Roberts v.

Leonidas

ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS V. HON. LEONIDAS, MAXINE TATE-GRIMM ET AL, 129

SCRA 33 (1984)
FACTS: Edward Grimm was an American residing in Manila until his death in 1977. He was
survived by his 2nd wife (Maxine), their two children (Pete and Linda), and by his two children
from a 1st marriage (Juanita and Ethel) which ended in divorce
1. Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, CA in January 1959. One will disposed of
his Philippine estate described as conjugal property of himself and his 2 nd wife. The
second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.
2. The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate in Utah by Maxine in March 1978.
Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel
in January 1978. Subsequently, the Utah court admitted the two wills and a codicil for
probate in April 1978, and was issued upon consideration of the stipulation between the
lawyers fro Maxine and Ethel
3. In April 1978, Maxine and Ethel, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila,
entered into an agreement in Utah regarding the estate. The agreement provided that
Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as personal representatives (administrators)
of Grimms Philippine estate and that Maxines conjugal share in the estate should be
reserved for her which would not be less than $1.5 million plus the homes in Utah and
Sta. Mesa.
4. Manila Intestate Proceedings: Maxine filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the
intestate proceeding in Manila on the ground of pendency of the Utah probate
proceedings. However, pursuant to the compromise agreement, Maxine withdrew the
opposition and motion to dismiss. The court ignored the will found in the record. The
estate was partitioned.
5. In 1980, Maxine filed a petition praying for the probate of the two wills (which was
already probated in Utah), that the partition approved by the intestate court be set aside,
and that Maxine be named executrix, and Ethel be ordered to account for the properties
received by them and return the same to Maxine. Maxine alleged that they were
defrauded due to the machinations of the Ethel, that the compromise agreement was
illegal and the intestate proceeding was void because Grimm died testate so the partition
was contrary to the decedents wills.
6. Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition which was denied by respondent Judge for
lack of merit
ISSUE: WON respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Ethels motion
to dismiss

HELD: 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.

The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate
should be settled through 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.