Ethel Grimm Roberts Vs Judge Tomas Leonidas

[CASE TITLE] Ethel Grimm Roberts, petitioner vs. Judge Tomas R.
Leonidas, Branch 38,

Court of First Instance; Maxine Tate-Grimm, Edward Miller Grimm II and Linda Grimm,
respondents.
[CASE #] G.R. No. L-55509
[DATE] June 19, 1982
[PONENTE] Aquino, J.
[NATURE] Petition for Allowance of Wills
Doctrine: 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 (Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249;
Baluyot vs. Panio, L-42088, May 7, 1976, 71 SCRA 86). 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.
Facts: Edward M. Grimm, an American resident of Manila, died at 78 in the Makati Medical
Center on November 27, 1977. He was survived by his second wife, Maxine Tate Grimm and
their two children, named Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete) and Linda Grimm and by Juanita
Grimm Morris and Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden), his two children by a first marriage which
ended in divorce.
He executed two wills in San Francisco, California. One will disposed of his Philippine estate
which he described as conjugal property of himself and his second wife. The second will
disposed of his estate outside the Philippines.
In both wills, the second wife and two children were favored. The two children of the first
marriage were given their legitimes in the will disposing of the estate situated in this country.
The two wills and a codicil were presented for probate by Maxine Tate Grimm and E. LaVar Tate
in Utah.
Maxine admitted that she received notice of the intestate petition filed in Manila by Ethel in
January, 1978. In its order, the Third Judicial District Court admitted to probate the two wills and
the codicil. Two weeks later, or on April 25, 1978, Maxine and her two children Linda and Pete,
as the first parties, and Ethel, Juanita Grimm Morris and their mother Juanita Kegley Grimm as
the second parties, with knowledge of the intestate proceeding in Manila, entered into
a compromise agreement in Utah regarding the estate.
In that agreement, it was stipulated that Maxine, Pete and Ethel would be designated as
personal representatives (administrators) of Grimm's Philippine estate. It was also stipulated
that Maxine's one-half conjugal share in the estate should be reserved for her and that would
not be less than $1,500,000 plus the homes in Utah and Santa Mesa, Manila. The agreement
indicated the computation of the "net distributable estate". It recognized that the estate was
liable to pay the fees of the Angara law firm.
It was stipulated in paragraph 6 that the decedent's four children "shall share equally in the Net
Distributable Estate" and that Ethel and Juanita Morris should each receive at least 12-1/2% of
the total of the net distributable estate and marital share.
Intestate proceeding No. 113024.-At this juncture, it should be stated that forty- three days
after Grimm's death, his daughter of the first marriage, Ethel, through lawyers, filed with Branch
20 of the Manila Court of First Instance intestate proceeding No. 113024 for the settlement of
his estate. She was named special administratrix.
The second wife, Maxine, filed an opposition and motion to dismiss the intestate proceeding on
the ground of the pendency of Utah of a proceeding for the probate of Grimm's will. She also
moved that she be appointed special administratrix, She submitted to the court a copy of
Grimm's will disposing of his Philippine estate.
Petition to annul partition and testate proceeding No. 134559. On September 8, 1980,
Rogelio A. Vinluan of the Angara law firm in behalf of Maxine, Pete and Linda, filed in Branch
38 of the lower court a petition praying for the probate of Grimm's two wills (already probated in
Utah), that the 1979 partition approved by the intestate court 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.
Grimm's second wife and two children alleged that they were defraud due to the machinations
of the Roberts spouses, that the 1978 Utah compromise agreement was illegal, that the
intestate proceeding is void because Grimm died testate and that the partition was contrary to
the decedent's wills.
Ethel filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Leonidas denied it for lack of merit in his order
of October 27, 1980. 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: Whether a petition for allowance of wills and to annul a partition, approved in an intestate
proceeding by Branch 20 of the Manila Court of First Instance, can be entertained by its Branch
38 (after a probate in the Utah district court).
Held: Yes, Branch 38 can entertain the intestate proceeding in Branch 20. 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.
The Court held that respondent judge did not commit any grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack of jurisdiction, in denying Ethel's motion to dismiss.

Ethel Grimm Roberts Vs Judge Tomas Leonidas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethel Grimm Roberts Vs Judge Tomas Leonidas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethel Grimm Roberts Vs Judge Tomas Leonidas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[CASE TITLE] Ethel Grimm Roberts, petitioner vs. Judge Tomas R.

Leonidas, Branch 38,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.