Miciano vs Brimo

Facts:

Judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased, Joseph Brimo, filed a scheme of partition. One of
the brothers of the deceased opposed this. Though, this was approved and granted by the Court. His
opposition is based on the ground that the partition puts in effect the provisions of the decedents
will not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, in accordance to Art. 16 of the New Civil
Code.

Issue 1: Testimentary dispositions not in accordance with the Turkish Law

It was not proven that they are not in accordance with the Turkish Laws as much as no evidence
was presented and in the absence of such evidence on such laws, they are presumed to be the same
as those of the Philippines.

Issue 2: Exclusion of appellant as a legatee based on the second clause of the will

He cannot be excluded based on the will of Joseph Brimo that the distribution of his property
and everything in his will shall be made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the
Philippines and any person or persons who disrespects this wish shall be excluded, making the
institution of legatees in his will conditional.

The condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testators national law when in
accordance to Art 16 of NCC, the national law of the testator is the one that will govern in
testamentary dispostions (Intrinsic form such as order of succession , as well as amount of the
successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions).

Art. 792 also applies that all of the remaining clauses of said will with all their dispositions and
requests are perfectly valid and effective it not appearing that said clauses are contrary to the
testator's national law.