Aznar vs. Garcia [7 SCRA 95]

Facts: Edward Christensen’s (citizen of the State of California) will was executed in Manila where it provides that Helen Christensen Garcia receive a payment of P3,600 and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his daughter Maria Lucy Christensen. Helen Christensen Garcia opposed the project of partition of Edward’s estate claiming that she was deprived of her legitime as acknowledged natural child under the Philippine law. 

Issue: Whether or not the California law or the Philippine law should apply in the case at bar. 

Held: Philippine law should be applied. The State of California prescribes two sets of laws for its citizens residing therein and a conflict of law rules for its citizens domiciled in other jurisdictions. Art. 946 of the California Civil Code states that “If there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile.” Edward, a citizen of the State of California, is considered to have his domicile in the Philippines. The court of domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to the California, as such action would leave the issue incapable of determination, because the case would then be tossed back and forth between the states(doctrine of renvoi). The validity of the provisions of Edward’s will depriving his acknowledged natural child of latter’s legacy, should be governed by the Philippine law. 

The decision appealed from is reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instruction that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides.

Bellis vs. Bellis [20 SCRA 358]

Facts: Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas, died a resident of Texas. The will he had executed in the Philippines directed that his distributable Philippine estate should be divided in trusts. In the project of partition, the executor of the will –pursuant to the “Twelfth” clause of the testator’s Last Will and Testament- divided the residuary estate into 7 equal portions for the benefit of the testator’s seven legitimate children. Maria Christina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children, and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. 

Issue: Whether or not the Texas law or the Philippine Law should be applied in the case at bar. 

Held: The Court held that since decedent is a citizen of the State of Texas and is domiciled therein at the time of his death, Texas law should apply. Article 16 (2) and Art 1039 render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to 4 items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights ; (c)intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. Under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.