Bellis vs Bellis, G.R. No.

L-23678 June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased, PEOPLES BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
executor, MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, VS.
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET. AL., heir-appellees
G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967

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 legitimates as illegitimate
children.

The lower court denied their respective motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether Texan Law of Philippine Law must apply.

RULING:
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of
his death. So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of law rule providing that the same would not
result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine Law, but would still refer to Texas Law.

Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application
of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here
involved are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however of proofs as to the conflict of law rule of
Texas, it should not be presumed different from our appellants, position is therefore not rested on the
doctrine of renvoi.

The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, USA and that under
the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the
provision of the will and the amount of successional rights has to be determined under Texas Law, the
Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.
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.