GR NO.

139868
ANCHETA VS. GUERSEY-DALAYGON

FACTS:
Spouses Audrey O’Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens
who have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. They have an adopted daughter, Kyle. Audrey
died, leaving a will. In it, she gave her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as
executor. The will was admitted to probate before the Orphan’s Court of Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richard’s renunciation of his
appointment. The court also named Atty. Ancheta (petitioner) of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta
Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary administrator.

Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent) with whom he has two children,
Kimberly and Kevin. Audrey’s will was also admitted to probate. As administrator of Audrey’s
estate in the Philippines, petitioner filed an inventory and appraisal of the following properties:
(1) Audrey’s conjugal share in real estate with improvements; (2) a current account in Audrey’s
name with a cash balance; and (3) Shares of stock in A/G Interiors, Inc

Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he left his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights
and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was also
admitted to probate by the Orphan’s Court of Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N.
Phillips was likewise appointed as executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or
any member of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices, as ancillary
administrator.

Richard’s will was then submitted for probate before the RTC Makati. Atty. Quasha was
appointed as ancillary administrator. Petitioner filed in a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as
heirs of Audrey and a project of partition of Audrey’s estate, with Richard being apportioned the
¾ undivided interest in the Makati property, 48.333 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P9,313.48
from the Citibank current account; and Kyle, the ¼ undivided interest in the Makati property,
16,111 shares in A/G Interiors, Inc., and P3,104.49 in cash.

The motion and project of partition was granted and approved by the trial court and issued an
order directing the ROD of Makati to cancel TCT No. 69792 in the name of Richard and to issue
a new title in the joint names of the Estate of W. Richard Guersey (¾ undivided interest) and
Kyle (¼ undivided interest); directing the Secretary of A/G Interiors, Inc. to transfer 48.333
shares to the Estate of W. Richard Guersey and 16.111 shares to Kyle; and directing the
Citibank to release the amount of P12,417.97 to the ancillary administrator for distribution to the
heirs.

Respondent opposed on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, where Richard
was a native of, a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property
subject to the legacy.

ISSUE:
1) Whether or not the properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is
situated. YES
2) Whether or not the decree of distribution may still be annulled. YES
RULING:
1) Properties in issue should be governed by the law where the property is situated. However,
since the first wife is a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of her will is governed by her
national law. The national law of the person who made the will shall regulate whose succession
is in consideration whatever the nature of the property and regardless of the country where the
property maybe found. Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that real property as well as
personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and
testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by
the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

In this case the first wife’s properties may be found in the Philippines, however the successional
rights over those properties are governed by the national law of the testator.

2) A decree of distribution of the estate of a deceased person vests the title to the land of the
estate in the distributees, which, if erroneous may be corrected by a timely appeal. Once it
becomes final, its binding effect is like any other judgment in rem.

However, in exceptional cases, a final decree of distribution of the estate may be set aside for
lack of jurisdiction or fraud. Further, in Ramon vs. Ortuzar, the Court ruled that a party interested
in a probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside when he is left out by reason of
circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable to
negligence.

It should be pointed out that the prescriptive period for annulment of judgment based on
extrinsic fraud commences to run from the discovery of the fraud or fraudulent act/s.
Respondent’s knowledge of the terms of Audrey’s will is immaterial in this case since it is not
the fraud complained of. Rather, it is petitioner’s failure to introduce in evidence the pertinent
law of the State of Maryland that is the fraudulent act, or in this case, omission, alleged to have
been committed against respondent, and therefore, the four-year period should be counted from
the time of respondent’s discovery thereof.

Records bear the fact that the filing of the project of partition of Richard’s estate, the opposition
thereto, and the order of the trial court disallowing the project of partition in a special proceeding
were all done in 1991.Respondent cannot be faulted for letting the assailed orders to lapse into
finality since it was only through such special proceeding that she came to comprehend the
ramifications of petitioner’s acts. Obviously, respondent had no other recourse under the
circumstances but to file the annulment case. Since the action for annulment was filed in 1993,
clearly, the same has not yet prescribed.