G.R. No. 139868 ; June 8, 2006
ALONZO Q. ANCHETA, Petitioner, vs. CANDELARIA GUERSEY-DALAYGON, Respondent.

FACTS

Spouses Audrey and W. Richard Guersey, both American citizens, resided in the Philippines. Audrey died in 1979, devising her entire estate to Richard in a will probated in Maryland, USA, and ancillary proceedings were instituted in Pasig, Philippines. The ancillary administrator, petitioner Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta, inventoried Audrey’s Philippine estate, including a Makati property held conjugally. In 1984, Richard died, leaving a will bequeathing his entire estate to respondent Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon, except for shares in a corporation left to his adopted daughter Kyle. Richard’s will was also probated in Maryland and ancillary proceedings commenced in Makati.
In Audrey’s estate proceedings, petitioner filed a project of partition, apportioning the Makati property: ¾ to Richard’s estate and ¼ to Kyle. The trial court approved this in 1988. Later, in Richard’s estate proceedings, a project of partition allocated only 2/5 of his ¾ interest to respondent, with the rest to his children. Respondent opposed, citing Maryland law that a legacy passes the testator’s entire interest. The trial court upheld respondent, adjudicating Richard’s entire ¾ interest to her. Respondent then filed with the Court of Appeals an action to annul the 1988 orders in Audrey’s case, arguing petitioner breached his fiduciary duty by not applying Maryland law, which would have given Audrey’s entire estate to Richard, and thus, through Richard’s will, the whole property to her.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the trial court’s 1988 orders that partitioned Audrey’s estate under Philippine law instead of Maryland law.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The core legal principle is that in testate succession, the law of the testator’s nationality governs the validity of the will and the succession of personal property. For immovable property, the law of the country where it is situated (lex rei sitae) applies. However, this case involves the interpretation of wills, not the intrinsic validity of succession to the land itself. Audrey’s will, executed in Maryland by a Maryland resident, must be interpreted according to Maryland law to determine what property rights she intended to bequeath. Under Maryland law, a legacy of the “entire estate” passes the testator’s complete interest in the property subject to the legacy.
Petitioner, as ancillary administrator, had a fiduciary duty to effectuate the testator’s intent under the proper foreign law. His failure to ascertain and apply Maryland law, instead relying on Philippine intestate rules, constituted gross negligence, making the 1988 orders voidable. The Court also noted that the constitutional prohibition on alien land ownership was not violated, as the property ultimately passed to respondent, a Filipino citizen, curing any prior defect. Petitioner was admonished for his lack of circumspection in discharging his court-appointed duties.