gibbs - bellis

8/16/2019 Gibbs - Bellis

1/31

G.R. No. L-35694 December 23, 1933

ALLISON G. GIBBS, petitioner-appelle,vs.THE GOVERNENT O! THE "HILI""INE ISLANDS, oppositor-appellant.THE REGISTER O! DEEDS O! THE #IT$ O! ANILA, respondent-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellants. Allison D. Gibbs in his own behalf.

B%TTE, J.:

This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring the register ofdeeds of the City of Manila to cancel certificates of title Nos. 2!!, 2!""# and 2!""$, coveringlands located in the City of Manila, %hilippine Islands, and issue in lieu thereof ne& certificates oftransfer of title in favor of 'llison (. )i**s &ithout requiring him to present any document sho&ing

that the succession ta+ due under 'rticle I of Chapter of the 'dministrative Code has *een paid.

The said order of the court of March $, $"$, recites that the parcels of land covered *y saidcertificates of title formerly *elonged to the con/ugal partnership of 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson)i**s that the latter died intestate in %alo 'lto, California, on Novem*er 2!, $2 that at the time of her death she and her hus*and &ere citi3ens of the 4tate of California and domiciled therein.

It appears further from said order that 'llison (. )i**s &as appointed administrator of the state ofhis said deceased &ife in case No. "#56 in the same court, entitled 7In the Matter of the Intestate0state of 0va 1ohnson )i**s, (eceased7 that in said intestate proceedings, the said 'llison (.)i**s, on 4eptem*er 22,$", filed an ex parte petition in &hich he alleged 7that the parcels of landhereunder descri*ed *elong to the con/ugal partnership of your petitioner and his &ife, 0va 1ohnson

)i**s7, descri*ing in detail the three facts here involved and further alleging that his said &ife, aciti3en and resident of California, died on Novem*er 2!,$2 that in accordance &ith the la& ofCalifornia, the community property of spouses &ho are citi3ens of California, upon the death of the&ife previous to that of the hus*and, *elongs a*solutely to the surviving hus*and &ithoutadministration that the con/ugal partnership of 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s, deceased,has no o*ligations or de*ts and no one &ill *e pre/udiced *y ad/ucating said parcels of land 8andseventeen others not here involved9 to *e the a*solute property of the said 'llison (. )i**s as soleo&ner. The court granted said petition and on 4eptem*er 22, $", entered a decree ad/ucating thesaid 'llison (. )i**s to *e the sole and a*solute o&ner of said lands, applying section $$ of theCivil Code of California. )i**s presented this decree to the register of deeds of Manila anddemanded that the latter issue to him a 7transfer certificate of title7.

4ection $65 of 'rticle I of Chapter of the 'dministrative Code provides in part that:

;egisters of deeds shall not register in the registry of property any document transferringreal property or real rights therein or any chattel mortgage, *y &ay of gifts mortis causa,legacy or inheritance, unless the payment of the ta+ fi+ed in this article and actually duethereon shall *e sho&n. 'nd they shall immediately notify the Collector of Internal ;evenueor the corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the ta+ discovered *y them. .. .


2/31

'cting upon the authority of said section, the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined toaccept as *inding said decree of court of 4eptem*er 22,$", and refused to register the transfer oftitle of the said con/ugal property to 'llison (. )i**s, on the ground that the correspondinginheritance ta+ had not *een paid. Thereupon, under date of (ecem*er 2#, $", 'llison (. )i**sfiled in the said court a petition for an order requiring the said register of deeds 7to issue thecorresponding titles7 to the petitioner &ithout requiring previous payment of any inheritance ta+. 'fter

due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of 4eptem*er 22, $", and entered theorder of March $, $"$, &hich is under revie& on this appeal.


3/31

argued that the con/ugal right of the California &ife in community real estate in the %hilippineIslands is a personal right and must, therefore, *e settled *y the la& governing her personalstatus, that is, the la& of California. ?ut our attention has not *een called to any la& ofCalifornia that incapacitates a married &oman from acquiring or holding land in a foreign

/urisdiction in accordance &ith the lex rei sitae. There is not the slightest dou*t that aCalifornia married &oman can acquire title to land in a common la& /urisdiction li@e the 4tate

of Illinois or the (istrict of Colum*ia, su*/ect to the common-la& estate *y the courtesy &hich&ould vest in her hus*and. Nor is there any dou*t that if a California hus*and acquired landin such a /urisdiction his &ife &ould *e vested &ith the common la& right of do&er, theprerequisite conditions o*taining. 'rticle of the Civil Code treats of purely personalrelations and status and capacity for /uristic acts, the rules relating to property, *oth personaland real, *eing governed *y article $ of the Civil Code. Furthermore, article , *y its veryterms, is applica*le only to 74paniards7 8no&, *y construction, to citi3ens of the %hilippineIslands9.

The


4/31

The argument of the appellee apparently leads to this dilemma: If he ta@es nothing *y successionfrom his deceased &ife, ho& can the second paragraph of article $ *e invo@ed> Can the appellee*e heard to say that there is a legal succession under the la& of the %hilippine Islands and no legalsuccession under the la& of California> It seems clear that the second paragraph of article $applies only &hen a legal or testamentary succession has ta@en place in the %hilippines and inaccordance &ith the la& of the %hilippine Islands and the foreign la& is consulted only in regard to

the order of succession or the e+tent of the successional rights in other &ords, the secondparagraph of article $ can *e invo@ed only &hen the deceased &as vested &ith a descendi*leinterest in property &ithin the /urisdiction of the %hilippine Islands.

In the case of Clar@e vs. Clar@e 8$5! B. 4., $!#, $$ Aa& ed., $2!, $"$9, the court said:

It is principle firmly esta*lished that to the la& of the state in &hich the land is situated &emust loo@ for the rules &hich govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effectand construction of &ills and other conveyances. 8Bnited 4tates vs. Cros*y, 5 Cranch, $$6 "A. ed., 2!5 Clar@ vs. )raham, # =heat., 655 6 A. ed., "" Mc)oon vs. 4cales, =all., 2"$ A. ed., 66 ?rine vs. Dartford F. Ins. Co., # B. 4., #25 2 A. ed., !6!.97 8See also 0stateof Aloyd, $56 Cal., 5, 56.9 This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of

article $ of our Civil Code as follo&s: 7%ersonal property is su*/ect to the la&s of the nationof the o&ner thereof real property to the la&s of the country in &hich it is situated.

It is stated in 6 Cal. 1ur., 5!:

In accord &ith the rule that real property is su*/ect to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights ofhus*and and &ife in such property, in the a*sence of an antenuptial contract, are determined*y the la& of the place &here the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of theparties or to the place &here the marriage &as cele*rated. 8See also 4aul vs. Dis Creditors,6 Martin GN. 4.H, 6# $# 'm. (ec., 2$2 GAa.H Deidenheimer vs. Aoring, 2# 4. =., GTe+asH.9

Bnder this *road principle, the nature and e+tent of the title &hich vested in Mrs. )i**s at the time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question must *e determined in accordance &iththe lex rei sitae.

It is admitted that the %hilippine lands here in question &ere acquired as community property of thecon/ugal partnership of the appellee and his &ife. Bnder the la& of the %hilippine Islands, she &asvested of a title equal to that of her hus*and. 'rticle $5 of the Civil Code provides:

'll the property of the spouses shall *e deemed partnership property in the a*sence of proofthat it *elongs e+clusively to the hus*and or to the &ife. 'rticle $"6 provides:

7The con/ugal partnership shall *e governed *y the rules of la& applica*le to the contract ofpartnership in all matters in &hich such rules do not conflict &ith the e+press provisions of thischapter.7 'rticle $$ provides that 7the hus*and may dispose *y &ill of his half only of the property

of the con/ugal partnership.7 'rticle $2# provides that upon dissolution of the con/ugal partnershipand after inventory and liquidation, 7the net remainder of the partnership property shall *e dividedshare and share ali@e *et&een the hus*and and &ife, or their respective heirs.7 Bnder the provisionsof the Civil Code and the /urisprudence prevailing here, the &ife, upon the acquisition of any con/ugalproperty, *ecomes immediately vested &ith an interest and title therein equal to that of her hus*and,su*/ect to the po&er of management and disposition &hich the la& vests in the hus*and.Immediately upon her death, if there are no o*ligations of the decedent, as is true in the presentcase, her share in the con/ugal property is transmitted to her heirs *y succession. 8'rticles #65, #6,##$, Civil Code cf. alsoCoronel vs.


5/31

It results that the &ife of the appellee &as, *y the la& of the %hilippine Islands, vested of adescendi*le interest, equal to that of her hus*and, in the %hilippine lands covered *y certificates oftitle Nos. 2!!, 2!""# and 2!""$, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death. Thatappellee himself *elieved that his &ife &as vested of such a title and interest in manifest from thesecond of said certificates, No. 2!""#, dated May $, $25, introduced *y him in evidence, in &hichit is certified that 7the spouses 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s are the o&ners in fee simple

of the con/ugal lands therein descri*ed.7

The descendi*le interest of 0va 1ohnson )i**s in the lands aforesaid &as transmitted to her heirs*y virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls &ithin the language of section $6"# of

'rticle I of Chapter of the 'dministrative Code &hich levies a ta+ on inheritances. 8Cf. !e 0stateof Ma/ot, $ N. ., 2 2 N. 0., 2 2 A. ;. '. GN. 4.H, 5!.9 It is unnecessary in this proceeding todetermine the 7order of succession7 or the 7e+tent of the successional rights7 8article $, CivilCode, supra9 &hich &ould *e regulated *y section $"!# of the Civil Code of California &hich &as ineffect at the time of the death of Mrs. )i**s.

The record does not sho& &hat the proper amount of the inheritance ta+ in this case &ould *e northat the appellee 8petitioner *elo&9 in any &ay challenged the po&er of the )overnment to levy an

inheritance ta+ or the validity of the statute under &hich the register of deeds refused to issue acertificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the e+clusive o&ner of the %hilippine lands includedin the three certificates of title here involved.

The /udgment of the court *elo& of March $, $"$, is reversed &ith directions to dismiss thepetition, &ithout special pronouncement as to the costs.


6/31

Grant v. McAulife , 41 Cal.2d 859[Sac. No. 6416. In Bank. Dec. 23, 1953.]

WILLIAM R. GRANT, Appean!, ". #RAN$ %. McA&LI##', a( A)*+n+(!a!o, e!c.,Re(pon)en!.

[Sac. No. 641-. In Bank. Dec. 23, 1953]R&SS'LL M. MAN%'ST'R, Appean!, ". #RAN$ %. McA&LI##', a( A)*+n+(!a!o,

e!c., Re(pon)en!.[Sac. No. 641/. In Bank. Dec. 23, 1953.]

D0L' 0. 'NS'N, Appean!, ". #RAN$ %. McA&LI##', a( A)*+n+(!a!o, e!c.,Re(pon)en!.

0&NS'L . 0(ca Go)(!e+n, . M. Baceo, B!on . Go)(!e+n an) Go)(!e+n, Baceo

Go)(!e+n 7o Appean!(.%one8 Ma8a an) on . %e8 7o Re(pon)en!.

0INI0N

TRAN0R, .

0n Dece*:e 1-, 1949, pa+n!+;( W. R. Gan! an) R. M. Mance(!e


7/31

((!a+ne). Mce ". on(on, 5 A+?. -6, /2 [69 .2) 5-3]. See, a(o, McLean ".A!o*o:+e In(. o. o7 %a!7o), onn., / #.2) 344.

[1] T(, !e an(


8/31

115, 123H124 [11 .2) 94]F Ma!+n ". Ba!+*oe 0+o R. o., 151 &.S. 6-3, [41a.2) /64] 692H693 [14 S.!. 533, 3/ L.'). 311]F Ma!+n ". Wa:a( R. o., 142 #.65, 651 [-3 ..A. 646, 6 Ann.a(. 5/2]F a=e ". &n+!e) #+! o., 3 #.2) -4-, -54FMa!!e o7 $+o=, 14/ M+(c. -3, /5H/9 [265 N..S. 31]F Tea( ac. R8. o. ".R+ca)(, 6/ Te. 3-5, 3-/ [4 S.W. 62-]. See, a(o, Bake ". La)), #e).a(. 99 [3Sa


9/31

L.'). -54]. See, a(o, Gaan!8 T(! o. ". ok, 326 &.S. 99, 19 [65 S.!. 1464, /9L.'). 2-9, 16 A.L.R. 1231]F Sa*p(on ". anne, 11 #.2) -54, -56, -5/F '(!a!eo7 aa"a(, 4 a.2) 33, 41H42 [25 .2) 593]F W. W. ook, Te Lo=+ca an) Le=aBa(e( o7 !e onJ+c! o7 La


10/31

[13] Te e(pon(+:++!+e( o7 )e7en)an!, a( a)*+n+(!a!o o7 en>( e(!a!e, 7o +n@+e(+nJ+c!e) :8 en :e7oe +( )ea! ae =o"ene) :8 !e a( a*ena:++!8 !o (+! n)e !e a


11/31

- W+(.2) 13 19592

HAUMSCHILD, Aellant,v.

C!"#I"$"#AL CASUAL#% C!M&A"% and 't(er), *e)'ndent).3

Spe*e o! o7 W+(con(+n.4

Mac 2, 1959.5

Ap+ 1, 1959.6

[131] #o !e appean! !ee


12/31

ecen! )ec+(+on( :8 !e co!( o7 a+7on+a, Ne< e(e8, an) enn(8"an+a, a"eca(e) ( !o eHea*+ne !e Ce(!+on a7e(.12In 1942, o7. Wa!e Weee ook o7 !e No!


13/31


14/31

*a+n!a+n+n=. +!+n= (mery v. (mery, su)ra, an) #o)>( a!+ce +n 15 &n+"e(+!8 o7+!!(:= La< Re"+e


15/31

p:+c po+c8. Te A*e+can La< In(!+!!e +( no< en=a=e) +n e)a7!+n= a e"+(e)Re(!a!e*en! o7 onJ+c! o7 La


16/31

'a+e +n !+( op+n+on ( con(e a(o c+!e) 'o)lik v. C. P.Truckin! Cor)., su)ra, +n


17/31

)oe( no! eco=n+?e !a! !e a< o7 )o*+c+e a( an8!+n= !o )o


18/31

G.R. No. L-16&49 '()*(r+ 31, 1963

IN THE ATTER O! THE TESTATE ESTATE O! EDARD E. #HRISTENSEN, DE#EASED.ADOL!O #. ANAR, Eec*/or ()0 L%#$ #HRISTENSEN, Her o /e 0ece(e0, 0+ecutor andDeir-appellees,vs.

HELEN #HRISTENSEN GAR#IA, oppositor-appellant.

". !. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees.#eopoldo ". Abellera and $ovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant.

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of (avao, Don. Jicente N. Cusi, 1r.,presiding, in 4pecial %roceeding No. #22 of said court, dated 4eptem*er $, $, approving amongthings the final accounts of the e+ecutor, directing the e+ecutor to reim*urse Maria Aucy Christensenthe amount of %",# paid *y her to Delen Christensen )arcia as her legacy, and declaring MariaAucy Christensen entitled to the residue of the property to *e en/oyed during her lifetime, and in case

of death &ithout issue, one-half of said residue to *e paya*le to Mrs. Carrie Aouise C. ?orton, etc., inaccordance &ith the provisions of the &ill of the testator 0d&ard 0. Christensen. The &ill &ase+ecuted in Manila on March 6, $6$ and contains the follo&ing provisions:

". I declare ... that I have *ut


19/31

It is in accordance &ith the a*ove-quoted provisions that the e+ecutor in his final account and pro/ectof partition ratified the payment of only %",# to Delen Christensen )arcia and proposed that theresidue of the estate *e transferred to his daughter, Maria Aucy Christensen.


20/31

TD0 A


21/31

4ec. $#. ;esidence is a term used &ith many shades of meaning from mere temporarypresence to the most permanent a*ode. )enerally, ho&ever, it is used to denote somethingmore than mere physical presence. 8)oodrich on Conflict of Aa&s, p. 29

's to his citi3enship, ho&ever, =e find that the citi3enship that he acquired in California &hen heresided in 4acramento, California from $ to $$", &as never lost *y his stay in the %hilippines,

for the latter &as a territory of the Bnited 4tates 8not a state9 until $# and the deceased appears tohave considered himself as a citi3en of California *y the fact that &hen he e+ecuted his &ill in $6$he declared that he &as a citi3en of that 4tate so that he appears never to have intended toa*andon his California citi3enship *y acquiring another. This conclusion is in accordance &ith thefollo&ing principle e+pounded *y )oodrich in his Conflict of Aa&s.

The terms 7residence7 and 7domicile7 might &ell *e ta@en to mean the same thing, a place of permanent a*ode. ?ut domicile, as has *een sho&n, has acquired a technical meaning.Thus one may *e domiciled in a place &here he has never *een. 'nd he may reside in aplace &here he has no domicile. The man &ith t&o homes, *et&een &hich he divides histime, certainly resides in each one, &hile living in it. ?ut if he &ent on *usiness &hich &ouldrequire his presence for several &ee@s or months, he might properly *e said to have

sufficient connection &ith the place to *e called a resident. It is clear, ho&ever, that, if hetreated his settlement as continuing only for the particular *usiness in hand, not giving up hisformer 7home,7 he could not *e a domiciled Ne& or@er. 'cquisition of a domicile of choicerequires the e+ercise of intention as &ell as physical presence. 7;esidence simply requires*odily presence of an inha*itant in a given place, &hile domicile requires *odily presence inthat place and also an intention to ma@e it ones domicile.7 ;esidence, ho&ever, is a termused &ith many shades of meaning, from the merest temporary presence to the mostpermanent a*ode, and it is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one.8)oodrich, p. 29

The la& that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in 'rticle $# of the CivilCode of the %hilippines, &hich is as follo&s:

';T. $#. ;eal property as &ell as personal property is su*/ect to the la& of the country&here it is situated.

Do&ever, intestate and testamentary successions, *oth &ith respect to the order ofsuccession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity oftestamentary provisions, shall *e regulated *y the national la& of the person &hosesuccession is under consideration, &hatever may *e the nature of the property andregardless of the country &here said property may *e found.

The application of this article in the case at *ar requires the determination of the meaning of theterm *national law* is used therein.

There is no single 'merican la& governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the Bnited4tates, each state of the Bnion having its o&n private la& applica*le to its citi3ens only and in forceonly &ithin the state. The 7national la&7 indicated in 'rticle $# of the Civil Code a*ove quoted cannot, therefore, possi*ly mean or apply to any general 'merican la&. 4o it can refer to no other thanthe private la& of the 4tate of California.

The ne+t question is: =hat is the la& in California governing the disposition of personal property>The decision of the court *elo&, sustains the contention of the e+ecutor-appellee that under theCalifornia %ro*ate Code, a testator may dispose of his property *y &ill in the form and manner he


22/31

desires, citing the case of 0state of Mc(aniel, 55 Cal. 'ppl. 2d !55, $5# %. 2d 62. ?ut appellantinvo@es the provisions of 'rticle # of the Civil Code of California, &hich is as follo&s:

If there is no la& to the contrary, in the place &here personal property is situated, it isdeemed to follo& the person of its o&ner, and is governed *y the la& of his domicile.

The e+istence of this provision is alleged in appellants opposition and is not denied. =e havechec@ed it in the California Civil Code and it is there. 'ppellee, on the other hand, relies on the casecited in the decision and testified to *y a &itness. 87


23/31

persons title to land, recogni3ed *y the situs, &ill *e recogni3ed *y every court and everydivorce, valid *y the domicile of the parties, &ill *e valid every&here. 8)oodrich, Conflict ofAa&s, 4ec. 5, pp. $"-$.9

, a citi3en of Massachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leaving mova*le propertyin Massachusetts, 0ngland, and France. The question arises as to ho& this property is to *e

distri*uted among s ne+t of @in.

'ssume 8$9 that this question arises in a Massachusetts court. There the rule of the conflictof la&s as to intestate succession to mova*les calls for an application of the la& of thedeceaseds last domicile. 4ince *y hypothesis s last domicile &as France, the natural thingfor the Massachusetts court to do &ould *e to turn to French statute of distri*utions, or&hatever corresponds thereto in French la&, and decree a distri*ution accordingly. 'ne+amination of French la&, ho&ever, &ould sho& that if a French court &ere called upon todetermine ho& this property should *e distri*uted, it &ould refer the distri*ution to thenational la& of the deceased, thus applying the Massachusetts statute of distri*utions. 4o onthe surface of things the Massachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action: 8a9either to apply the French la& is to intestate succession, or 8*9 to resolve itself into a French

court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distri*utions, on the assumption that this is&hat a French court &ould do. If it accepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it &ill follo& the latter course, thus applying its o&n la&.

This is one type of renvoi . ' /ural matter is presented &hich the conflict-of-la&s rule of theforum refers to a foreign la&, the conflict-of-la&s rule of &hich, in turn, refers the matter *ac@again to the la& of the forum. This is renvoi in the narro&er sense. The )erman term for this

/udicial process is ;uc@ver&eisung.7 8Darvard Aa& ;evie&, Jol. "$, pp. 62"-65$.9

'fter a decision has *een arrived at that a foreign la& is to *e resorted to as governing aparticular case, the further question may arise: 're the rules as to the conflict of la&scontained in such foreign la& also to *e resorted to> This is a question &hich, &hile it has*een considered *y the courts in *ut a fe& instances, has *een the su*/ect of frequent

discussion *y te+t&riters and essayists and the doctrine involved has *een descriptivelydesignated *y them as the 7;envoyer7 to send *ac@, or the 7;uchvers&eisung7, or the7=eiterver&eisung7, since an affirmative ans&er to the question postulated and the operationof the adoption of the foreign la& in toto &ould in many cases result in returning the maincontroversy to *e decided according to the la& of the forum. ... 8$# C.1.4. !52.9

'nother theory, @no&n as the 7doctrine of renvoi 7, has *een advanced. The theory of thedoctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determining the question *efore it, mustta@e into account the &hole la& of the other /urisdiction, *ut also its rules as to conflict ofla&s, and then apply the la& to the actual question &hich the rules of the other /urisdictionprescri*e. This may *e the la& of the forum. The doctrine of therenvoi has generally *eenrepudiated *y the 'merican authorities. 82 'm. 1ur. 2#9

The scope of the theory of renvoi has also *een defined and the reasons for its application in acountry e+plained *y %rof. Aoren3en in an article in the ale Aa& 1ournal, Jol. 25, $$5-$$!, pp.62-6"$. The pertinent parts of the article are quoted herein *elo&:

The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that the rules of the conflict of la&s are to *eunderstood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal la& of the foreign state orcountry, *ut its rules of the conflict of la&s as &ell. 'ccording to this theory the la& of acountry means the &hole of its la&.


24/31

+ + + + + + + + +

Jon ?ar presented his vie&s at the meeting of the Institute of International Aa&, atNeuchatel, in $, in the form of the follo&ing theses:

8$9 0very court shall o*serve the la& of its country as regards the application of foreign la&s.

829 %rovided that no e+press provision to the contrary e+ists, the court shall respect:

8a9 The provisions of a foreign la& &hich disclaims the right to *ind its nationalsa*road as regards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall*e determined *y the la& of the domicile, or even *y the la& of the place &here theact in question occurred.

8*9 The decision of t&o or more foreign systems of la&, provided it *e certain that oneof them is necessarily competent, &hich agree in attri*uting the determination of aquestion to the same system of la&.

+ + + + + + + + +

If, for e+ample, the 0nglish la& directs its /udge to distri*ute the personal estate of an0nglishman &ho has died domiciled in ?elgium in accordance &ith the la& of his domicile,he must first inquire &hether the la& of ?elgium &ould distri*ute personal property upondeath in accordance &ith the la& of domicile, and if he finds that the ?elgian la& &ould ma@ethe distri*ution in accordance &ith the la& of nationality that is the 0nglish la& he mustaccept this reference *ac@ to his o&n la&.

=e note that 'rticle # of the California Civil Code is its conflict of la&s rule, &hile the rule appliedin In re aufman, Supra, its internal la&. If the la& on succession and the conflict of la&s rules ofCalifornia are to *e enforced /ointly, each in its o&n intended and appropriate sphere, the principle

cited In re aufman should apply to citi3ens living in the 4tate, *ut 'rticle # should apply to suchof its citi3ens as are not domiciled in California *ut in other /urisdictions. The rule laid do&n ofresorting to the la& of the domicile in the determination of matters &ith foreign element involved is inaccord &ith the general principle of 'merican la& that the domiciliary la& should govern in mostmatters or rights &hich follo& the person of the o&ner.

=hen a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states, and leaves a &ill directingthe manner of distri*ution of the property, the la& of the state &here he &as domiciled at thetime of his death &ill *e loo@ed to in deciding legal questions a*out the &ill, almost ascompletely as the la& of situs is consulted in questions a*out the devise of land. It is logicalthat, since the domiciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestatesuccession, the same rules should determine the validity of an attempted testamentarydispostion of the property. Dere, also, it is not that the domiciliary has effect *eyond the*orders of the domiciliary state. The rules of the domicile are recogni3ed as controlling *y theConflict of Aa&s rules at the situs property, and the reason for the recognition as in the caseof intestate succession, is the general convenience of the doctrine. The Ne& or@ court hassaid on the point: The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, valid at thedomicile of the o&ner, is valid any&here, is one of the universal application. It had its origin inthat international comity &hich &as one of the first fruits of civili3ation, and it this age, &hen*usiness intercourse and the process of accumulating property ta@e *ut little notice of*oundary lines, the practical &isdom and /ustice of the rule is more apparent than ever.8)oodrich, Conflict of Aa&s, 4ec. $#, pp. 2-".9


25/31

'ppellees argue that &hat 'rticle $# of the Civil Code of the %hilippines pointed out as the nationallaw is the internal la& of California. ?ut as a*ove e+plained the la&s of California have prescri*edt&o sets of la&s for its citi3ens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other

/urisdictions. ;eason demands that =e should enforce the California internal la& prescri*ed for itsciti3ens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of la&s rules for the citi3ens domiciled a*road. If &emust enforce the la& of California as in comity &e are *ound to go, as so declared in 'rticle $# of

our Civil Code, then &e must enforce the la& of California in accordance &ith the e+press mandatethereof and as a*ove e+plained, i.e., apply the internal la& for residents therein, and its conflict-of-la&s rule for those domiciled a*road.

It is argued on appellees *ehalf that the clause 7if there is no la& to the contrary in the place &herethe property is situated7 in 4ec. # of the California Civil Code refers to 'rticle $# of the Civil Codeof the %hilippines and that the la& to the contrary in the %hilippines is the provision in said 'rticle $#that the national law of the deceased should govern. This contention can not *e sustained. 'se+plained in the various authorities cited a*ove the national la& mentioned in 'rticle $# of our CivilCode is the la& on conflict of la&s in the California Civil Code, i.e., 'rticle #, &hich authori3es thereference or return of the question to the la& of the testators domicile. The conflict of la&s rule inCalifornia, 'rticle #, Civil Code, precisely refers *ac@ the case, &hen a decedent is not domiciledin California, to the la& of his domicile, the %hilippines in the case at *ar. The court of the domicilecan not and should not refer the case *ac@ to California such action &ould leave the issue incapa*leof determination *ecause the case &ill then *e li@e a foot*all, tossed *ac@ and forth *et&een the t&ostates, *et&een the country of &hich the decedent &as a citi3en and the country of his domicile. The%hilippine court must apply its o&n la& as directed in the conflict of la&s rule of the state of thedecedent, if the question has to *e decided, especially as the application of the internal la& ofCalifornia provides no legitime for children &hile the %hilippine la&, 'rts. !!589 and !, Civil Codeof the %hilippines, ma@es natural children legally ac@no&ledged forced heirs of the parentrecogni3ing them.

The %hilippine cases 8In re 0state of 1ohnson, " %hil. $6# ;iera vs. %almaroli, %hil. $6Miciano vs. ?rimo, 6 %hil. !#5 ?a*coc@ Templeton vs. ;ider ?a*coc@, 62 %hil. $" and )i**s vs.)overnment, 6 %hil. 2".9 cited *y appellees to support the decision can not possi*ly apply in the

case at *ar, for t&o important reasons, i.e., the su*/ect in each case does not appear to *e a citi3enof a state in the Bnited 4tates *ut &ith domicile in the %hilippines, and it does not appear in eachcase that there e+ists in the state of &hich the su*/ect is a citi3en, a la& similar to or identical &ith

'rt. # of the California Civil Code.

=e therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citi3en of California, is the%hilippines, the validity of the provisions of his &ill depriving his ac@no&ledged natural child, theappellant, should *e governed *y the %hilippine Aa&, the domicile, pursuant to 'rt. # of the CivilCode of California, not *y the internal la& of California..

=D0;0F


26/31

2-- M+c. 65/2- N.W. 1-5

2U"I$*SI#% !- CHICAG!

v.DA#$* et al.

3No. /9.

4Spe*e o! o7 M+c+=an.

5Dec. /, 1936.

6S+! :8 !e &n+"e(+!8 o7 +ca=o a=a+n(! Geo=e R. Da!e an) aa A. +ce. #o*

an an a)"e(e @)=*en! !e pa+n!+; appe(.-

A*e)./

S%AR', B&TQ'L, an) B&S%N'LL, ., )+((en!+n=.9

Appea 7o* +c+! o!, Be+en on!8F ae( '. W+!e, @)=e.1

A=e) :e7oe !e 'n!+e Benc, ecep! 0TT'R, .11

We:(!e S!e+n=, o7 Ben!on %a:o W. M. nn+n=a*, o7 Ben!on %a:o, an) L.Do< N+co, ., o7 +ca=o, I, o7 con(e, 7o appean!.

12Goe, %a"e8 #+(e, o7 Ben!on %a:o, 7o appeee.

13I$S#, +u)tice.

14I canno! conc +n !e op+n+on o7 M. (!+ce S%AR'.15

Te o:+=a!+on +n (+!


27/31

Te +n(!an! ca(e )oe( no! +n"o"e conJ+c! o7 a( =enea popo(+!+on !a!,


28/31

:8 !e a< o7 M+c+=an. &n)e !e a< o7 M+c+=an, a *a+e)


29/31

G.R. No. L-236& '*)e 6, 196&

TESTATE ESTATE O! AOS G. BELLIS, 0ece(e0."EO"LES BAN7 ()0 TR%ST #O"AN$, e+ecutor.ARIA #RISTINA BELLIS ()0 IRIA "ALA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants,vs.

EDARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.

+icente !. "acasaet and $ose D. +illena for oppositors appellants.,aredes ,oblador Cru and /aareno for heirs-appellees 0. A. 1ellis et al.2ui3ano and Arro4o for heirs-appellees 5. S. 1ellis et al.$. !. 1alon6ita for appellee ,eople7s 1an6 8 9rust Compan4.Oaeta Gibbs and Oaeta for appellee A. 1. Allsman.

BENGON, '."., J.:

This is a direct appeal to Bs, upon a question purely of la&, from an order of the Court of FirstInstance of Manila dated 'pril ", $#, approving the pro/ect of partition filed *y the e+ecutor in

Civil Case No. "5! therein.%&wph'%.()t

The facts of the case are as follo&s:

'mos ). ?ellis, *orn in Te+as, &as 7a citi3en of the 4tate of Te+as and of the Bnited 4tates.7 ?y hisfirst &ife, Mary 0. Mallen, &hom he divorced, he had five legitimate children: 0d&ard '. ?ellis,)eorge ?ellis 8&ho pre-deceased him in infancy9, Denry '. ?ellis, 'le+ander ?ellis and 'nna ?ellis

'llsman *y his second &ife, Jiolet ennedy, &ho survived him, he had three legitimate children:0d&in ). ?ellis, =alter 4. ?ellis and (orothy ?ellis and finally, he had three illegitimate children:

'mos ?ellis, 1r., Maria Cristina ?ellis and Miriam %alma ?ellis.


30/31

alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary 0. Mallen *y the delivery to her of shares of stoc@amounting to 2,., and the legacies of 'mos ?ellis, 1r., Maria Cristina ?ellis and Miriam%alma ?ellis in the amount of %,. each or a total of %$2,.. In the pro/ect of partition,the e+ecutor pursuant to the 7T&elfth7 clause of the testators Aast =ill and Testament dividedthe residuary estate into seven equal portions for the *enefit of the testators seven legitimatechildren *y his first and second marriages.


31/31

';T. $". Capacity to succeed is governed *y the la& of the nation of the decedent.

'ppellants &ould ho&ever counter that 'rt. $5, paragraph three, of the Civil Code, stating that

%rohi*itive la&s concerning persons, their acts or property, and those &hich have for theiro*/ect pu*lic order, pu*lic policy and good customs shall not *e rendered ineffective *y la&s

or /udgments promulgated, or *y determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreigncountry.

prevails as the e+ception to 'rt. $#, par. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted. This is not correct.%recisely, Congressdeleted the phrase, 7not&ithstanding the provisions of this and the ne+tpreceding article7 &hen they incorporated 'rt. $$ of the old Civil Code as 'rt. $5 of the ne& CivilCode, &hile reproducing &ithout su*stantial change the second paragraph of 'rt. $ of the old CivilCode as 'rt. $# in the ne&. It must have *een their purpose to ma@e the second paragraph of 'rt. $#a specific provision in itself &hich must *e applied in testate and intestate succession. 's furtherindication of this legislative intent, Congress added a ne& provision, under 'rt. $", &hich decreesthat capacity to succeed is to *e governed *y the national la& of the decedent.

It is therefore evident that &hatever pu*lic policy or good customs may *e involved in our 4ystem oflegitimes, Congress has not intended to e+tend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Forit has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedentsnational la&. 4pecific provisions must prevail over general ones.

'ppellants &ould also point out that the decedent e+ecuted t&o &ills one to govern his Te+asestate and the other his %hilippine estate arguing from this that he intended %hilippine la& togovern his %hilippine estate. 'ssuming that such &as the decedents intention in e+ecuting aseparate %hilippine &ill, it &ould not alter the la&, for as this Court ruled in "iciano v. 1rimo, 6 %hil.!#5, !5, a provision in a foreigners &ill to the effect that his properties shall *e distri*uted inaccordance &ith %hilippine la& and not &ith his national la&, is illegal and void, for his national la&cannot *e ignored in regard to those matters that 'rticle $ no& 'rticle $# of the Civil Codestates said national la& should govern.

The parties admit that the decedent, 'mos ). ?ellis, &as a citi3en of the 4tate of Te+as, B.4.'., andthat under the la&s of Te+as, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. 'ccordingly, since the intrinsicvalidity of the provision of the &ill and the amount of successional rights are to *e determined underTe+as la&, the %hilippine la& on legitimes cannot *e applied to the testacy of 'mos ). ?ellis.

=herefore, the order of the pro*ate court is here*y affirmed in toto, &ith costs against appellants. 4oordered.

gibbs - bellis

Documents