Aznar vs Garcia

Facts:
Edward Christensen was born in New York but he
migrated to California where he resided for a period
of 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where
he became a domiciliary until his death. In his will,
he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter,
Maria Lucy Christensen (legitimate), as his only heir,
but left a legacy sum of money in favor of Helen
Christensen Garcia (illegitimate). Counsel for Helen
claims that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil
Code, California law should be applied; that under
California law, the matter is referred back to the law
of the domicile. On the other hand, counsel for
Maria, averred that the national law of the deceased
must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled
to anything under California law. Lower court ruled
that CA law should be applied thus this petition for
review.

referred back to the decedents domicile the

Philippines.
S.C. noted the California law provides 2 sets of laws
for its citizens: One for residents therein as provided
by the CA Probate Code and another for citizens
domiciled in other countries as provided by Art. 946
of the Civil Code of California.
The conflicts of law rule in CA (Art. 946) authorize
the return of question of law to the testators
domicile. The court must apply its own rule in the
Philippines as directed in the conflicts of law rule in
CA, otherwise the case/issue will not be resolved if
the issue is referred back and forth between 2
states.
The SC reversed the lower courts decision and
remanded the case back to it for decision with an
instruction that partition be made applying the
Philippine law.

Issue:
Whether or not the national law of the deceased
should be applied in determining the successional
rights of his heirs
Held:
The court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that
intestate and testamentary successions with respect
to order of succession and amt. of successional right
is regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON.
California Probate Code provides that a testator may
dispose of his property in the form and manner he
desires.
Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that
if no law on the contrary, the place where the
personal property is situated is deemed to follow the
person of its owner and is governed by the LAW OF
HIS DOMICILE.
These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of
Renvoi may be applied where the question of
validity of the testamentary provision in question is

Bellis vs Bellis
Facts:
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State
of Texas and of the United States. He had 5
legitimate children with his wife, Mary Mallen,
whom he had divorced, 3 legitimate children with his
2nd wife, Violet Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate
children.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the
Philippines in which his distributable estate should
be divided in trust in the following order and
manner:
a. $240,000 to his 1st wife Mary Mallen;
b. P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000
each;
c. The remainder shall go to his surviving children by
his 1st and 2nd wives, in equal shares.
Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San
Antonio, Texas, USA. His will was admitted to
probate in the Philippines. The Peoples Bank and

Trust Company, an executor of the will, paid the

entire bequest therein.
Preparatory to closing its administration, the
executor submitted and filed its Executors Final
Account, Report of Administration and Project of
Partition where it reported, inter alia, the
satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the
shares of stock amounting to $240,000 delivered to
her, and the legacies of the 3 illegitimate children in
the amount of P40,000 each or a total of P120,000.
In the project partition, the executor divided the
residuary estate into 7 equal portions for the benefit
of the testators 7 legitimate children by his 1st and
2nd marriages.
Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and
Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective opposition
to the project partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children.

to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the

amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic
validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the
capacity to succeed. They provide that
ART. 16. 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.
ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the
law of the nation of the decedent.

Issue:

The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis,

was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that
under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of
the provision of the will and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under
Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be
applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should

govern the intrinsic validity of the will

Gibbs vs Government

Held:

Facts:

YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

Allison D. Gibbs and his wife Eva Johnson Gibbs are

both citizens of California and domiciled therein
since their marriage in July 1906. There was no
antenuptial marriage contract between the parties
and during the existence their marriage the spouses
acquired lands in the Philippine Islands, as conjugal
property. On November 28, 1929, Mrs. Gibbs died
and that in accordance with the law of California, the
community property of spouses who are citizens of
California, upon the death of the wife previous to
that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the
surviving husband without administration. In
intestate proceedings, Allison D. Gibbs, on
September 22, 1930, filed an ex parte petition.

The lower court denied their respective motions for

reconsideration. Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16
of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the
decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did
not provide for legitimes.

Doctrine of Processual Presumption:

The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be
proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise, such
law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the
law of the forum.
In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule
of Texas, it should not be presumed different from
ours. Apply Philippine laws.
Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code,
render applicable the national law of the decedent,
in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard

The court granted said petition and entered a decree

adjudicating the said Allison D. Gibbs to be the sole
and absolute owner of said lands, applying section
1401 of the Civil Code of California. When this
decree presented to the Register of Deeds of Manila
and demanded for the issuance of a Transfer
Certificate of Title, it declined to accept as binding
said decree of court and refused to register the
transfer of title of the said conjugal property to
Allison D. Gibbs, on the ground that the
corresponding inheritance tax had not been paid.
Thereupon, Allison filed in the said court a petition
for an order requiring the said register of deeds "to
issue the corresponding titles" to the petitioner
without requiring previous payment of any
inheritance tax.

2)
Following the Californian law, there was no
inheritance. So the property in question will now be
a real property instead of personal property.
a.
Article 10 can be invoked only when the
deceased was vested with a descendible interest in
property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine
Islands.
b.
It is stated in 5 Cal. Jur., 478 (United States
jurisprudence):
In accord with the rule that real property is subject
to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of husband
and wife in such property, in the absence of an
antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of
the place where the property is situated.

Issue:
Whether or not the transfer of title in favor of
Allison Gibbs from the conjugal ownership with Eva
Gibbs, his wife, be subject to succession or
inheritance tax by the government of the
Philippines?
Held:
1)
Upon the death of the wife, under California
law, the husband is the absolute owner of all the
community property from the moment of the death
of his wife, not by virtue of succession or by virtue of
her death, but by virtue of the fact that when the
death of the wife precedes that of the husband he
acquires the community property, not as an heir or
as the beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because
she never had more than an inchoate interest or
expectancy which is extinguished upon her death.
a.

Quoting the case of Estate of Klumpke (167

Cal., 415, 419):

The decisions under this section (1401 Civil Code of

California) are uniform to the effect that the
husband does not take the community property
upon the death of the wife by succession, but that
he holds it all from the moment of her death as
though required by himself. It never belonged to
the estate of the deceased wife.

c.
The nature and extent of the title which vested
in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the
community lands here in question must be
determined in accordance with the lex rei sitae.
d.
The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs
in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs
by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly
falls within the language of section 1536 of Article XI
of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which
levies a tax on inheritances.
3)
The judgment of the court below of March 10,
1931, is reversed with directions to dismiss the
petition.