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 testate in the Philippines. In his will, he expressed his wish that his estate be distributed according to Philippine laws, not Turkish law, and stipulated that any relative who failed to respect this wish would have their legacy annulled. The judicial administrator submitted a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, the testator’s brother and a legatee, opposed the partition, arguing that the will’s provisions violated Article 10 of the Civil Code, which mandates that testamentary successions be governed by the national law of the deceased (Turkish law). The trial court approved the partition, excluding Andre Brimo for opposing the testator’s wish. Andre Brimo appealed, also assigning errors regarding the denial of his participation, the approval of a sale of the deceased’s business, and the court’s refusal to postpone proceedings to receive evidence on Turkish law.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in approving the scheme of partition that gave effect to the will’s provisions, which Andre Brimo claimed violated Turkish law.
2. Whether the condition in the will disinheriting legatees who do not respect the testator’s wish to apply Philippine law is valid.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not deferring its decision to receive evidence on Turkish law.

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err in approving the partition based on the will’s provisions. The appellant failed to prove that the testamentary dispositions were contrary to Turkish law. In the absence of proof, foreign law is presumed to be the same as Philippine law. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a further opportunity to present evidence on Turkish law, as the appellant had ample opportunity to do so.
2. No, the condition is void. The condition imposed by the testatorthat legatees must respect his wish to apply Philippine law instead of his national lawis contrary to Article 10 of the Civil Code, which mandates that testamentary successions be governed by the national law of the deceased. Under Article 792 of the Civil Code, conditions contrary to law are considered not imposed and do not prejudice the heir or legatee. Therefore, the condition is void and treated as unwritten. The institution of legatees remains unconditional and valid. Andre Brimo cannot be excluded from his legacy for opposing the condition.
3. No, the trial court did not err in not deferring its decision. The court’s refusal to grant a further opportunity to present evidence on Turkish law was within its discretion, given the appellant’s prior opportunities.

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