G.R. No. L-55509 April 27, 1984
ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, Branch 38, Court of First Instance of Manila; MAXINE TATE-GRIMM, EDWARD MILLER GRIMM II and LINDA GRIMM, respondents.

FACTS

Edward M. Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in 1977. He was survived by his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm, their two children, and two children from a first marriage, including petitioner Ethel Grimm Roberts. Grimm had executed two wills in 1959, one disposing of his Philippine estate and another for his estate outside the Philippines. These wills were subsequently probated in a Utah district court in April 1978. Prior to this probate, in January 1978, Ethel initiated an intestate proceeding for her father’s estate in Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance. Despite the existence of the wills, and following a Utah compromise agreement among the heirs, Branch 20 proceeded intestately, appointing Ethel, Maxine, and another heir as joint administrators. The court eventually approved a project of partition in July 1979 without any reference to the wills.
In September 1980, Maxine and her children filed a petition in Branch 38 of the same court, seeking the probate of the already Utah-probated wills, the annulment of the 1979 partition, and the revocation of the letters of administration. Ethel moved to dismiss this petition. Respondent Judge Tomas R. Leonidas denied the motion to dismiss, prompting Ethel to file the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the testate proceeding in Branch 38 should be dismissed or, alternatively, consolidated with the intestate proceeding in Branch 20.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the petition for the allowance of wills and to annul the partition approved in the intestate proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory nature of probate proceedings under Philippine law. Article 838 of the Civil Code and Section 1, Rule 75 of the Rules of Court provide that no will shall pass property unless it is proved and allowed. The Court emphasized that the probate of a will is a mandatory proceeding. It is fundamentally anomalous for the estate of a person who died testate, as Edward Grimm indisputably did, to be settled through an intestate proceeding. The intestate case in Branch 20 was therefore improperly instituted from the outset, as it ignored the decedent’s last will and testament. The proper course of action is to allow the testate proceeding in Branch 38 to proceed for the formal probate of the wills. To avoid multiplicity of suits and ensure orderly settlement, the Supreme Court directed the consolidation of the intestate case with the testate proceeding, with the judge assigned to the testate case continuing to hear both. The petition was dismissed, and the temporary restraining order was dissolved.