Republic of the Philippines NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CALAMBA CITY, Branch 34 IN RE: IN THE

MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE HOLOGRAPHIC LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LETICIA P. CARINOBOUVET, DECEASED,

Special Proceedings Case No. 1361-2012C

RAMON P. CARINO,

x---------------------------------------------x

Petitioner.

OPPOSITION
Oppositor ANGEL P. CARINO (Oppositor Carino) respectfully submits this opposition for the consideration and appreciation of this Honorable Court and respectfully states that: 1. The Oppositor Carino is of legal age, a Filipino citizen, married and may be served summons, processes and notices of this Honorable Court at ______________. 2. On February 19, 2013, the Oppositor Carino received a notice of hearing setting the date of hearing of the captioned case on April 29 & August 12, 2013 3. On ______________ , the Petitioner Ramon P. Carino (Petitioner Carino) furnished the Oppositor Carino a copy of the Petition together with its attached Annexes. After a cursory review of said Petition, the Oppositor Carino found the need to oppose the same. 4. The Petitioner Carino, alleged that a Holographic Will dated June 8, 2011 (Subject Will) was executed by Leticia P. Carino-Bouvet (Testatrix), the sister of the Petitioner Carino and Oppositor Carino, who died on July 10, 2012 at the age of 87 without any compulsory heirs.

5. In the Subject Will, the Testatrix left as her only asset in the Philippines, a 466/10,000th undivided rights, title to and interest in a parcel of land and all the improvements thereon, covered by TCT No. RT-1379 (13547) situated in Binan, Laguna with a zonal value of Two Hundered Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety Five Pesos and 96/100 (P214,195.96) and she had instituted as her sole heirs thereof, the following- EVA (Evangeline R. Carino), RAMON (Ramon P. Carino) and his family, namely Myla C. La Poll, Ramon R. Carino, Jr. and Joseph R. Carino.1 6. There is no dispute that the Testatrix is a US citizen. The 2 Petition and the Death Certificate clearly indicates that the Testatrix is a US citizen.3 7. A perusal of the Petition will show that there is no mention of the national law of the Testatrix. 8. Article 16 of the Civil Code states that: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, 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. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Following the above quoted provision, the order of succession, amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of the Subject Will must be governed by the national law of the Testatrix. 10. In the case of Miciano v. Brimo4 the Court stated that: The appellant's opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into
1 2

Petition, Page 2, Paragraph 5. Petition, Page 1, Paragraph 1. 3 Attached as Annex B to The Petition. 4 L-22595 November 1, 1927.

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. (Emphasis supplied) 11. While the general rule is that real property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated, the law admits of an exception. With regard to intestate and testamentary successions, the property shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. Being a foreign national, the order of succession, amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of the Testatrixs will, is governed by her national law. Therefore, a will executed under Philippine law, as in this case, cannot prosper when executed by a foreign national whose national laws must apply. 12. In the case of ATCI Overseas Corporation vs. Echin5 the Supreme Court held that: The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court which reads: SEC. 24. Proof of official record. The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
5

G.R. No. 178551. October 11, 2010.

accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the case at bar, the Petitioner Carino failed to present the national law of the Testatrix which is essential for the court to give due course to the instant Petition. 14. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the instant Petition be denied for the failure of the Petitioner Carino to present the national laws of the Testatrix which is the governing law according to Article 16 par. 2 of the Civil Code. 15. Assuming arguendo that despite the failure of the Petitioner Carino to cite the national law of the Testatrix, the Honorable Court gives due course to the instant Petition, the Petition must still be denied for failure of the will to comply with Philippine laws on succession. 16. At the outset, the Oppositor Carino is familiar with the handwriting of his sister and according to the Oppositor Carino, the handwriting appearing on the Subject Will appears to be different from the handwriting of the Testatrix. 17. Likewise, according to the Oppositor Carino, the purported signature appearing on the Subject Will is not the signature of his sister. The supposed signature is actually the handwritten name of the Testatrix, which appears to have been written by another person.

18.

Article 810 of the New Civil Code states: Art. 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

19. In the above quoted provision, it is clear that in order for a holographic will to be valid it must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the Testatrix. It must be stressed that in order for a will to be valid, the said will must be signed by the Testatrix. The Subject Will is not signed by the Testatrix nor is it written in the handwriting of the Testatrix. 20. In the case of Spouses Ajero vs. CA6 the Court stated: In the case of holographic wills, on the other hand, what assures authenticity is the requirement that they be totally autographic or handwritten by the testator himself. 21. In the case of In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of De Jesus vs. De Jesus Jr.7 citing Abangan v. Abanga8 the Court stated: The object of the solemnities surrounding execution of wills is to close the door against faith and fraud, to avoid substitution of wills testaments and to guaranty their truth authenticity. the bad and and

22. In light of the foregoing, the Holographic Will of Leticia P. Carino-Bouvet is void for not complying with Article 810 of the New Civil Code. PRAYER WHEREFORE, above premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition to Approve the Holographic Last Will and Testament of Leticia P. Carino-Bouvet be denied for utter lack of merit.
6 7

G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994 G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985 8 40 Phil. 476

Such other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. Respectfully submitted. ANGEL P. CARINO 21 Granada Street Merville Park Subd. Paranaque City Copies furnished: RAMON P. CARINO 19 Kapilgan Drive, Ayala Greenfield Estates, Calamba City, Laguna PERLAS DE GUZMAN AND PARTNERS Counsel for Petitioner Suite 3304 A&B, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre West Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City