Ancheta vs Guersey-Dalaygon
, to respondent, then the entire Makati property should now pertain to
June 8, 2006| Austria-Martinez| Petition for review on certiorari | Rule 45
PETITIONER: Alonzo Q. Ancheta
RESPONDENT: Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon
SUMMARY: Petitioner Alonzo Ancheta, ancillary administrator for Audrey Guerseys
estate, submitted a project of partition. Audreys will bequeathed her entire estate to her
husband Richard, but the project of partition apportioned some portions to other people.
Petitioner did not adduce evidence of Maryland law regarding the partition of estates
instead he assumed that such law was the same as Philippine law. Respondent Candelaria
assails the partition alleging petitioner willfully breached his fiduciary duty when he
disregarded the laws of the State of Maryland on the distribution of Audreys estate in
accordance with her will.
DOCTRINE: While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction, petitioner,
as ancillary administrator of Audreys estate, was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the
pertinent law of the State of Maryland. It does not rest upon petitioners pleasure as to
which law should be made applicable under the circumstances. Audreys and Richards
estate should be distributed according to their respective wills, and not according to the
project of partition submitted by petitioner.
FACTS:
1. Spouses Audrey ONeill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American
citizens who have resided in the Philippines. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle Guersey
Hill (Kyle).
2. Audrey died, leaving a will. In it, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard. The will was
admitted to probate in Maryland and was reprobated in the Philippines. Petitioner Alonzo
Ancheta was named ancilliary administrator.
3. Audreys properties consisted of: a) conjugal share in real estate with improvements located
in Forbes Park (Makati property), b) a current account with a cash balance of ~P12,000, c)
~65,000 shares in A/G Interiors.
4. Petitioner Alonzo filed a project of partition of Audreys estate apportioning the properties
to Richard AND the adopted daughter, Kyle. This was approved by the RTC.
5. Richard remarried respondent Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon with whom he had 2 children.
Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, except for
A/G Interiors.
6. Respondent filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) a complaint for the annulment of the trial
courts order approving the partition of Audreys estate. Respondent argued that since Audrey
devised her entire estate to Richard, then the Makati property should be wholly adjudicated to
him. Since Richard left his entire estate, except for his rights and interests over the A/G
Interiors, Inc.
respondent. Kyle sould not have any share in the Makati property.
7. The CA annuled the trial courts order. Petitioner Alonzo assailed such order through this
Rule 45 petition.
Petitioner: 1) The RTC order can no longer be annulled because it is a final judgment. 2) He
acted in good faith in performing his duties as an ancillary administrator. 3) The partition was
made in accordance with Philippine laws. 4) He apprised respondent of the contents of the will
and how the estate will be divided.
Respondent: 1) Petitioners breach of his fiduciary duty as ancillary administrator of Aubreys
estate amounted to extrinsic fraud. Petitioner was duty-bound to follow the express terms of
Aubreys will. 2) She was not able to file any opposition to the project of partition because she
was not a party thereto.
ISSUE: W/N there are grounds to annul the RTC Order. YES. Petitioners failure to
proficiently manage the distribution of Audreys estate according to the terms of her will
and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud.
1. The petition for annulment was filed before the CA on October 20, 1993, before the
issuance of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; hence, the applicable law is
BatasPambansa Blg. 129. An annulment of judgment filed under B.P. 129 may be
based on the ground that a judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or that the
judgment was obtained by extrinsic fraud.
2. Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audreys will, especially with
regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the
State of Maryland, as provided in Article 16 of the Civil Code.
3. As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on Allowance of Will
Proved Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder, states:
SEC. 4. Estate, how administered.When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant
letters testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such
letters testamentary or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator
in the Philippines. Such estate, after the payment of just debts and expenses of
administration, shall be disposed of according to such will, so far as such will may
operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of as is provided by law in
cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are inhabitants of
another state or country. (Emphasis supplied)
4. While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are
not authorized to take judicial notice of them; however, petitioner, as ancillary
 administrator of Audreys estate, was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the discharge his fiduciary duties.
pertinent law of the State of Maryland. It does not rest upon petitioners pleasure as
to which law should be made applicable under the circumstances.
8. In her will, Audrey devised to Richard her entire estate. All these properties passed
on to Richard upon Audreys death. Richard, in his will, bequeathed his entire estate
to respondent, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares,
5. Petitioner admitted that he failed to introduce in evidence the law of the State of
which he left to Kyle. When Richard subsequently died, the entire Makati property
Maryland on Estates and Trusts, and merely relied on the presumption that such law
should have then passed on to respondent.
is the same as the Philippine law on wills and succession. The obvious result was
that the RTC order prejudiced respondent and deprived her of her full successional
right to the Makati property. Note 1: The law of Maryland was not proven in this case but the court took judicial notice
thereof because it has been brought to record before the CA, and the trial court through the
respondents pleadings and petitioner or any other interested person for that matter, does not
6. Petitioner cannot honestly presume that Philippine laws apply in this case because as
dispute the existence or validity of said law.
early as the reprobate of Audreys will, it was already brought to fore that Audrey
was a U.S. citizen, domiciled in the State of Maryland. Petitioner is a senior partner Note 2: Audrey and Richard were American citizens who owned real property in the
in a prestigious law firm, he had all the legal resources to determine the applicable Philippines. The 1986 Constitution explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or
law. holding title to private lands or to lands of the public domain. Since the Makati property had
already passed on to respondent who is a Filipino, then whatever flaw, if any, that attended the
acquisition by the Guerseys of the Makati property is now inconsequential, as the objective of
7. The CA likewise observed that the distribution made by petitioner was prompted by
the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
his concern over Kyle, whom petitioner believed should equally benefit from the
Makati property. This is not a simple case of error of judgment or grave abuse of
discretion, but a total disregard of the law as a result of petitioners abject failure to