ETHEL GRIMM ROBERTS vs. JUDGE TOMAS R. LEONIDAS, et al.

129 SCRA 33 (1984)

129 SCRA 33 (1984)| Production of Will, Allowance of Will Necessary (Rule 75)|J. Aquino MND

DOCTRINE: A testate proceeding is proper in a case where decedent died with a will and "no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court). The
probate of such will is mandatory.
CASE SUMMARY: Grimm died testate, leaving 2 sets of children and his second wife. In rhe wills, the 2nd family was favored.
The wills were probated in Utah. However, the children by the 1st wife initiated intestate proceedings in Manila, to which the 2nd
wife opposed. The former filed a motion to dismiss the petition for probate of wills in Manila, which Judge Leonidas dismissed.
The Court upheld this decision by the Judge.
Counsel for Petitioner: N.J. Quisumbing and Associates
Counsel for Respondents: ACCRALAW (Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala and Cruz)

FACTS:
o Edward Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died in Makati Medical Center on Nov. 27, 1977.
o He was survived by his (1) 2nd wife Maxine Tate Grimm and their two children – Edward Miller (Pete) and Linda,
and (2) by Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden), children by first marriage which ended
in divorce.
o On January 23, 1959, Grimm executed two wills in San Francisco, California.
o First will disposed of his Philippine estate, which he described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife.
o Second will disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.
o In both wills, the second wife and two children were favored. The two children of the first marriage were given
their legitimes in the first will as stated by Edward (testator) in the 2nd will.
o The two wills and a codicil (an addition or supplement that explains, modifies, or revokes a will or part of one) were
presented for probate by Maxine and E. LaVar Tate on March 7, 1978 in the District Court of Tooele County, Utah.
Juanita Grimm Morris (Cupertino, California) and Mrs. Ethel Roberts (15 C. Benitez Street, Horseshoe Village, Quezon
City) were both notified.
o [April 10, 1978] The Utah District Court admitted to probate the two wills and the codicil upon consideration of
the stipulation dated April 4, 1978 “by and between the attorneys for Maxine Tate Grimm, Linda Grimm, Edward Miller
Grim II, E. LaVar Tate, Juanita Kegley Grimm (1st wife), Juanita Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts.”
o 2 weeks later or on April 25, 1978, Maxine and her children and Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and their mother Juanita
Kegley Grimm, with knowledge of the intestate proceedings in Manila, entered into a compromise agreement in
Utah regarding the estate.
o It was stipulated, among others, that Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as administrators (par. 2) of
Grimm’s Philippine estate.
o Also stipulated that Maxine’s one-half conjugal share should be reserved for her and that would not be less than
$1,500,000 plus the homes in Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila (par. 4) and that the estate was liable to pay the fees of
the Angara law firm (par. 5).
o It was also stated that the 4 children would equally share in the Net Distributable Estate (par. 6).

INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS:

o On January 9, 1978 Ethel, through her lawyers Deogracias T. Reyes and Gerardo B. Macaraeg, filed with Branch 20 of the
Manila CFI, intestate proceeding 113024 for the settlement of Edward’s estate. She was named special administratrix.
o Maxine, thru ACCRA, filed an opposition and motion to dismiss on the ground of the pendency in Utah of a
proceeding for the probate of Grimm’s will. She also moved that she be appointed special administratrix, and submitted
a copy of Grimm’s will disposing of his Philippine Estate.
o This was later withdrawn, through a new lawyer, William C. Limqueco (partner of Gerardo B. Macaraeg). Court
appointed Maxine, Ethel and Pete as joint administrators pursuant to the Utah compromise agreement.
o The court ignored the will already found in the record.
o The 3 administrators submitted an inventory and sold several properties (including the Palawan Pearl Project for 75k).
o A project of partition was later signed and filed. It turned out that the buyer, Makiling Management Co., Inc., was
incorporated by Ethel and her husband, Rex Roberts, and by lawyer Limqueco. Acting on the declaration of heirs
and project of partition signed and filed by lawyers Limqueco and Macaraeg (not signed by Maxine and her two
children), Judge Conrado M. Molina adjudicated to Maxine 4/8 of decedent’s Philippine estate and 1/8 to each of
his four children. No mention was made of the will.
o On August, 2, Maxine and her two children replaced Limqueco with Octavio del Collar as their lawyer and moved to defer
approval of the project of partition.
o Court considered this motion moot since it has already approved the declaration of heirs and the project of partition.
For a period of more than five months, there was no movement or activity in the intestate case.
o On April 18, 1980 Juanita Grimm Morris, through Ethel’s lawyers, filed a motion for accounting so that the Estate properties
can be partitioned among the heirs and the present intestate estate be closed.
o On September 8, 1980, Atty. Rogelio A. Vinluan from the ACCRA, in behalf of Maxine, Pete and Linda, filed in Br. 38
of the lower court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm’s two wills (already probated in Utah), that the 1979
partition be set aside and the letters of administration revoked, that Maxine be appointed executrix and that Ethel
and Juanita Morris be ordered to account for the properties received by them and to return the same to Maxine.
o Maxine and her children alleged that they were defrauded due to the machinations of the Roberts spouses (Ethel
and spouse), and that the 1978 Compromise Agreement was illegal. Moreover, they contend that the intestate
proceeding is void because Grimm died testate, while the partition was contrary to his wills.
o Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Leonidas denied it.
o Ethel then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this Court, praying that the testate proceeding be
dismissed, or alternatively that the two proceedings be consolidated and heard in Branch 20 and that the matter of
the annulment of the Utah compromise agreement be heard prior to the petition for probate.

ISSUE: W/N Judge Leonidas committed GAD in dismissing Ethel’s motion to dismiss? NO

DISCUSSION:
 A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either
real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of
Court).
 The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in
an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge
assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
 Ethel may file within twenty days from notice of the finality of this judgment an opposition and answer to the petition
unless she considers her motion to dismiss and other pleadings sufficient for the purpose. Juanita G. Morris, who
appeared in the intestate case, should be served with copies of orders, notices and other papers in the testate case.

HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

NOTES: