Case Digest: Miciano vs Brimo

Civil Code Article 16                        

Real Property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.

                                                                

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated be the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

Miciano vs Brimo

GR No.22595, November 1, 1927| 50 Phil 867

FACTS:

Juan Miciano, judicial administrator of the estate in question, filed a scheme of partition.  Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed Miciano’s participation in the inheritance.  Joseph Brimo is a Turkish citizen.

ISSUE:

Whether Turkish law or Philippine law will be the basis on the distribution of Joseph Brimo’s estates.

HELD:

Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that “it be made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine Island”, this condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide.  Impossible conditions are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals.  Thus, national law of the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions. Because a provision of foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with the national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored.

  

The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.