Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Miciano v. Primo Succession CivRev Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Mae A. Sibala
    The Supreme Court ruled that while nationality determines the applicable succession laws, the opponent did not provide evidence of the Turkish laws. As no evidence of contradictory Turkish laws was presented, the court was not wrong to approve the partition scheme according to local law. The opponent had opportunities to submit proof but did not, and the court was within its discretion to not delay the case further.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miciano v. Primo Succession CivRev Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Mae A. Sibala
    71 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that while nationality determines the applicable succession laws, the opponent did not provide evidence of the Turkish laws. As no evidence of contradictory Turkish laws was presented, the court was not wrong to approve the partition scheme according to local law. The opponent had opportunities to submit proof but did not, and the court was within its discretion to not delay the case further.

    Original Description:

    civil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that while nationality determines the applicable succession laws, the opponent did not provide evidence of the Turkish laws. As no evidence of contradictory Turkish laws was presented, the court was not wrong to approve the partition scheme according to local law. The opponent had opportunities to submit proof but did not, and the court was within its discretion to not delay the case further.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Miciano v. Primo Succession CivRev Digest

    Uploaded by

    Rhea Mae A. Sibala
    The Supreme Court ruled that while nationality determines the applicable succession laws, the opponent did not provide evidence of the Turkish laws. As no evidence of contradictory Turkish laws was presented, the court was not wrong to approve the partition scheme according to local law. The opponent had opportunities to submit proof but did not, and the court was within its discretion to not delay the case further.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Miciano v. Brimo, G.R. No.

    L-22595, November 1, 1927

    FACTS:

     Partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph G. Brimo is in question in this case.

     The judicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of the
    brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, however, approved it.

     The errors which the oppositor-appellant assigns are:

    XXX

    (5) the declaration that the Turkish laws are impertinent to this cause, and the failure not to
    postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the delivery of the deceased's business to
    Pietro Lanza until the receipt of the depositions requested in reference to the Turkish laws.

    XXX

    ISSUE: WON nationality of the decedent determines the law applicable in succession cases.

    RULING: YES, but evidences must be presented.

     The appellant's opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the
    provisions of Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish
    nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation or article 10 of the Civil Code
    which, among other things, provides the following:

    Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of


    succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic
    validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
    whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or
    the country in which it may be situated.

     But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testimentary dispositions are not in
    accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence showing what
    the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are
    presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines.

     It has not been proved in these proceedings what the Turkish laws are.

     He, himself, acknowledges it when he desires to be given an opportunity to present evidence on


    this point; so much so that he assigns as an error of the court in not having deferred the approval
    of the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimony requested regarding the Turkish
    laws on the matter.

     The refusal to give the oppositor another opportunity to prove such laws does not constitute an
    error. It is discretionary with the trial court, and, taking into consideration that the oppositor was
    granted ample opportunity to introduce competent evidence, we find no abuse of discretion on
    the part of the court in this particular.
     There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national law of the testator Joseph G.
    Brimo was violated in the testamentary dispositions in question which, not being contrary to our
    laws in force, must be complied with and executed.

     Therefore, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect was not erroneous.

    You might also like