G.R. No. 22595, November 1, 1927
Testate Estate of Joseph G. Brimo, JUAN MICIANO, administrator, petitioner-appellee, vs. ANDRE BRIMO, opponent-appellant.

FACTS

Joseph G. Brimo, a Turkish citizen, died in the Philippines leaving a will. The will contained a clause stating that although he was a Turkish national by law, he wished his estate to be distributed according to Philippine laws, not Turkish law. It further provided that any relative who failed to respect this wish would have their legacy annulled. The judicial administrator submitted a scheme of partition based on the will. Andre Brimo, a brother and legatee, opposed the partition, arguing that the testamentary dispositions were void for violating Article 10 of the Civil Code, which requires that testamentary successions be regulated by the national law of the deceased (Turkish law). The trial court approved the partition and excluded Andre Brimo as a legatee for opposing the testator’s wish. Andre Brimo appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the testamentary disposition requiring the application of Philippine law, instead of Turkish law, is valid.
2. Whether the condition in the will disinheriting any legatee who challenges the application of Philippine law is valid.
3. Whether Andre Brimo is entitled to his legacy despite his opposition.

RULING

1. On the Applicable Law: The Supreme Court held that under Article 10 of the Civil Code, testamentary successions must be regulated by the national law of the deceased (Turkish law). However, the appellant failed to prove the content of Turkish law. In the absence of such proof, Turkish law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law. Therefore, the partition based on Philippine law was not erroneous for lack of evidence showing a conflict with Turkish law.

2. On the Condition in the Will: The condition imposed by the testatorthat legatees must respect his wish to apply Philippine law, or else forfeit their legacyis void. Article 792 of the Civil Code states that conditions contrary to law are considered not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee. The condition is contrary to law because it disregards the mandatory rule under Article 10 that the national law of the testator governs his succession. Thus, the condition is deemed unwritten.

3. On Andre Brimo’s Right to Inherit: Since the disinheriting condition is void, the institution of legatees remains unconditional and valid. Andre Brimo, as an instituted legatee, cannot be excluded merely for opposing the invalid condition. He is entitled to his share.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The orders of the trial court are modified. The distribution of the estate shall include Andre Brimo as a legatee. The scheme of partition is approved in all other respects. No costs.