Bellis vs.

Bellis

FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his
second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.
6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his
estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to
the project of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they
were entitled according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his
Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate
childrens successional rights
RULING:
Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed
in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his
national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 now Article 16 of
the Civil Code states said national law should govern.
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will
should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his
will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the
texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.

BELLIS v. BELLIS
20 SCRA 358

FACTS
Mr. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. He had five (5)
legitimate children with his first wife, Mary Mallen, whom he divorced. He had three (3)
legitimate daughters with his second wife, Violet, who survived him, and another three (3)
illegitimate children with another woman. Before he died, he executed two (2) wills, disposing of
his Texas properties, the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, he recognized
his illegitimate children but they were not given anything. Under Texas law, there are no
compulsory heirs or legitime reserved to illegitimate children.
Naturally, the illegitimate children, Maria Cristina and Merriam Palma, opposed the wills on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitime as illegitimate children. Under Philippine law,
they are entitled to inherit even if they are illegitimate children. They claim that Philippine law
should be applied.
ISSUE
What law should be applied, the Philippine law or the Texas law? May the illegitimate
daughters inherit?
HELD
What applies is the Texas law. Mr. Bellis is a national and domicile of Texas at the time of his
death. Hence, both the intrinsic validity of the will (substance or successional rights) and the
extrinsic validity (forms of the will) are governed by Texas law. Since under Texas law, the
decedent may dispose of his property as he wishes, the Will should be respected. The illegitimate
daughters are not entitled to any legitime.
Assuming that Texas law is in conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of
domicile) should govern, the same should not result in a reference back (renvoi) to the
Philippine law since Mr. Bellis was both a national and domicile of Texas at the time of his
death. Nonetheless, if Texas law has a conflict rule, renvoi would not arise, since the properties
covered by the second will are found in the Philippines. The renvoi doctrine applied in the case
of Aznar v. Garcia cannot be applied since said doctrine is pertinent where the decedent is a
national of one country and domiciliary of another country. Moreover, it has been pointed out
that the decedent executed two (2) wills- one to govern his Texas properties and the other his
Philippine estate; the latter being the basis of the argument of illegitimate children that he
intended Philippine law to govern. Assuming that such was the intention of the decedent in
executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law. As rule in Miciano v. Brimo, a
provision of foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance
with Philippine law and not with the national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot
be ignored.

20 SCRA 358 Civil Law Application of Laws Nationality Principle

Succession Nationality of the Decedent Legitimes
FACTS: Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas, and of the United States. By his first
wife whom he divorced he had five legitimate children (Edward Bellis et al), by his second wife,
who survived him, he had three legitimate children. He, however, also had three illegitimate
children in the Philippines (Maria Cristina Bellis et al). Before he died, he made two wills, one
disposing of his Texas properties and the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills,
his illegitimate children were not given anything. The illegitimate children opposed the will on the
ground that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they should be entitled, if
Philippine law were to be applied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should determine the successional
rights of the illegitimate children.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that the said children, maria Kristina et al, are not entitled
to their legitimes under the Texas Law, being the national law of the deceased, there are no
legitimes.
 Bellis vs Bellis
G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967
Lessons Applicable: Divorce, Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Laws Applicable: Art. 16, 17 1039 NCC
Violet Kennedy (2nd wife) Amos G. Bellis --- Mary E. Mallen (1st wife)
Legitimate Children: Legitimate Children:
Edward A. Bellis Amos Bellis, Jr.
George Bellis (pre-deceased) Maria Cristina Bellis
Henry A. Bellis Miriam Palma Bellis
Alexander Bellis
Anna Bellis Allsman

FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.
By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children:
Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis,
Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman
By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate children:
Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate
children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines dividing his estate as
follows:
1. $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen
2. P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam
Palma Bellis
3. remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives
July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A
September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on
People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will did as the will directed
Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children
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.
ISSUE: W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of the will

HELD: YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

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 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 he 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.
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.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III,
G. R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

Facts:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Molave,
Zamboaga del Sur, Branch 23, granting respondents petition for authority to remarry invoking par. 2 of Article 26
of the Family Code.

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III and Lady Myros Villanueva were married in Lam-an, Ozamis City and
were blessed with a son and a daughter. In 1986, Lady Myros left for the U. S. bringing along their son and after a
few years she was naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, respondent Orbecido learned from his son who was living with his wife in the States that his
wife had remarried after obtaining her divorce decree. Thereafter, he filed a petition for authority to remarry with the
trial court invoking par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code.

Having no opposition, on May 15, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Sur granted the petition of the
respondent and allowed him to remarry.

The Solicitor Generals motion for reconsideration was denied. In view of that, petitioner filed this petition for
review on certiorari of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. Herein petitioner raised the issue of the
applicability of Art. 26 par. 2 to the instant case.

Issue:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER THE ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE
OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Held:

Respondent Orbecido who has the burden of proof, failed to submit competent evidence showing his allegations that
his naturalized American wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried. Therefore, the Petition of the
Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the RTC Br. 32 of Molave, Zamboanga
del Sur is hereby SET ASIDE.

Art. 26 (2) Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall
have capacity to remarry under the Philippine laws.

Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code only applies to case where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the
parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized,
the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently
obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in
the U. S. A. Therefore, the 2nd par. of Art. 26 does not apply to the instant case.

However, the legislative intent must be taken into consideration and rule of reason must be applied. The Supreme
Court ruled that par. 2 of Art. 26 should be construed and interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the
time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of then becomes naturalized as a
foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the
other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be sanction
absurdity and injustice. Were the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to
mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit
and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A stature may therefore be extended to case not
within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirits or intent.
You might also like:
GARCIA vs. RECIO G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES GR No. 174689
October 22, 2007
FRANCISCO M. ALONSO vs. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC. G.R. No. 130876 January 31, 2002
Suntay vs. Suntay GR No. 132524 December 29, 1998