TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS V. vs.

EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL

G.R. No. L-23678

June 6, 1967

Facts:

Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United
States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five 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
three 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.

Six (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 children’s successional rights

Ruling:

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.

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.

Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s 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.
 PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. vs.
MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN, EDWARD C. BOHANAN, and MARY LYDIA BOHANAN

G.R. No. L-12105

January 30, 1960

Facts:

Testator Bohanan was born in Nebraska and was a US citizen. He has some
properties in California. Despite his long residence in the Philippines, his stay was found by
the CFI to be merely temporary, and he remained to be a US citizen. The CFI declared his
will as fully in accordance with the laws of Nevada and admitted it to probate. The Philippine
Trust Co. was named executor of the will.

A project of partition was filed by Phil Trust which distributed the residuary estate into
3: 1) ½ to his grandson, 2) ½ to his brother and sister, to be distributed equally, 3) legacies
of P6,000 each to his son and daughter, and 4) legacies to other people.

Respondent Magdalena Bohanan, his ex-wife, questions the validity of the partition,
claiming that she and her children were deprived of their legitimes. (It must be noted that
Magdalena and decedent C.O. Bohanan were married in 1909 but he divorced her in 1922.
She re-married in 1925 and this marriage was subsisting at the time of the death of decedent.)
Nevada law allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will. His ex-wife
and children oppose the project of partition filed by the executor-petitioner, saying they were
deprived of their legitimes. According to them, Philippine law must prevail, requiring decedent
to reserve the legitime for surviving spouse and children.

Issue: Whether or not the Philippine law be applied.

Ruling:

Old CC Art. 10(2), now NCC Art. 16(2) “Nevertheless, legal and testamentary
successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional
rights to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person whose
succession is in question.”

As in accordance with Art. 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary
dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided
and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the State of Nevada, already
indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will, as
in the case at bar, the order of the court approving the project of partition made in accordance
with the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
 Testate Estate of Joseph G. Brimo, JUAN MICIANO, administrator
vs.
ANDRE BRIMO
G.R. No. L-22595
November 1, 1927
Facts:

The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased, Joseph Brimo, filed a scheme
of partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said partition. ccording
to the scheme and its provision, that the deceased requests that all his relatives respect his
wishes, otherwise those who opposed the same shall be cancelled in said disposition in favor
of the oppositor. The apellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on
the fact that the deceased was a Turkish citizen, that his disposition should be in accordance
with the laws of his nationality.

Issue: Whether or not the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine Laws

Ruling:

No, although the disposition provides an express provision that it shall be governed
by Philippine Laws and those who opposed the condition of the provisions given shall be
cancelled from the disposition, the fact is that the condition itself is void for being contrary to
law. Article 792 of the Civil Code provides:

“Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be considered
as not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even
should the testator otherwise provide.”