CASE DIGEST – BELLIS VS BELLIS GR # L-23678, JUNE.6,1967 If a Texan (US) provides in his will that his properties in the Philippines should be distributed in accordance with the Philippine law on succession, the provision is to be regarded as VOID because it contravenes Art. 16 (par. 2) which ordains the application of his own national law. Thus, if the Texan, under Texan law, has no compulsory heirs, the Philippine law on the legitimes of compulsory heirs cannot be applied.
FACTS: Amos
G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Before he died, he had made two wills, one disposing of his Texas properties, the other, disposing of his Philippine properties. In both wills, his recognized illegitimate children were not given anything. Texas has no conflicts rule (rule of Private Internat ional Law) governing successional rights. Furthermore, under Texas Law, there are no compulsory heirs and therefore, no legitimes. The illegitimate children opposed the wills on the ground that they have been deprived of the legitimes (to which they would be entitled, if Philippine law were to apply). Issue: Are they entitled to their legitimes?
HELD:
(1) Said children are NOT entitled to their legitimes for under Texas law which we must apply (because it is the national law of the deceased), there are no legitimes. (See Art. 16, par. 2, Civil Code). (2) The renvoi doctrine, applied in Testate Estate of Edward Christensen, Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L6759, Jan. 31, 1963, cannot be applied. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a domiciliary of another. In the present case, the decedent was BOTH a national and a domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death. So that even assuming that Texas has a confl icts of law rule providing that the law of the domicile should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas Law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts 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 proof as to the conflicts of law rule in Texas, it
should not be presumed different from ours. (Lim v. Collector, 36 Phil. 427; In re Testate Estate of Suntay, 95 Phil. 500). (3) The contention that the national law of the deceased (Art. 16, par. 2; Art. 1039) should be disregarded because of Art. 17, par. 3 which in effect provides that our prohibitive laws shoul d not be rendered nugatory by foreign laws, is WRONG , fir stly, stly, because Art. 16, par. 2 and Art. 1039 are special provisions while Art. 17, par. 3 is merely a general provision; and secondly, because Congress deleted the phrase “notwithstanding the prov isions of this and the next preceding article” when it incorporated Art. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil
Code, while reproducing without substantial change, the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been its purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself, which must be applied in testate and intestate
successions. As further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. It is, therefore, evident that whatever public policy or good customs may
CASE DIGEST – BELLIS VS BELLIS GR # L-23678, JUNE.6,1967 be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. (4) It has been pointed out by the oppositor that the decedent executed two wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedent’s intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it will NOT ALTER the law, for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, 60 Phil. 867, 870, a 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, in this regard, cannot be ignored.
Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated. As a guide, however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifi cally left the amount of successional rights to the decedent’s
national law. (Bellis v. Bellis, 126 Phil. 726 [1967]).
INTRINSIC VALIDITY
1) From the viewpoint of TIME — successional rights are governed by the law in force at the time of the DECEDENT’S DEATH. (See Art. 2263).
2) From the viewpoint of PLACE or COUNTRY — the national law of the decedent, that is, the law of his country or nationality (Art. 16) — regardless of the place of execution or the place of death. (See Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867). Thus, a provison in the will of an alien to the effect that his properties should be distributed in accordance with internal Philippine law, and not in accordance with his own national law, is void because said proviso contravenes Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code. (Bellis v. Bellis, L-23678, June 8, 1967)
Case Digest on Bellis vs BellisFacts: Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas and was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. Hehad two wives, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced and had five legitimate children namely Edward,George,Henry, Alexander and Anna, and Violet Kennedy who survived him and had three legitimatechildren namely Edwin, Walter and Dorothy, and finally he had three illegitimate children: Amos Jr.,Maria and Miriam. On August 5,1952, Amos executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed thatafter all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate shouldbe divided, in trust, in the following order and manner: (a)$240,000 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b)P120,000 to his three illegitimate children or P40,000 each and (c) after the foregoing two items havebeen satisfied the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives inequal shares. On July 8,1958, Amos died. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15,1958. The People’s Bank and Trust
CASE DIGEST – BELLIS VS BELLIS GR # L-23678, JUNE.6,1967 Company, as the executor of the will,paid all the bequests therein released from time to time according as the lower court approved andallowed the various motions or petitions filed by the latter three requesting partial advances on accountof their respective legacies. On January 17,1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed theirrespective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of theirlegitimes as illegitimate children and therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. On the other hand,Amos Bellis Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him.I ssue:Which law will apply in executing the de ceased’s will? Philippine Law or Texas Law? Held: The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., andthat there are no forced heirs or legitimes under the laws of the state of Texas. Accordingly, since theintrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determinedunder Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.Ratio: Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of thedecedent, 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.Intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the orderof succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentaryprovisions, 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 maybe found.
