Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. BOHANAN Topic: Succession and Administration Date: January 30, 1960 Labrador, J.

DOCTRINE: The validity of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the testator, provided that the law must be proved in courts. QUICK FACTS: Decedent Bohanan was a US citizen. 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. CONFLICT LAWS: 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. Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925, Sec. 9905 Every person over the age of 18 years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his or her estate, real and personal, the same being chargeable with the payment of the testators debts. 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) to his grandson, 2) 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.) ISSUE 1: W/N Magdalena is entitled to legitime as surviving spouse HELD: NO. There is no right to share in the inheritance in favor of a divorced wife in the State of Nevada. There is also no conjugal property between her and decedent. Moreover, during the proceedings of the case, Magdalena filed a motion to withdraw P20,000 from the estate funds, chargeable against her share in the conjugal property. But the Court found that there is no community property. ISSUE 2: W/N the children are entitled to their legitime

HELD: NO. 1) The CFI has correctly held that the law to be applied is Nevada law, because the decedent was a US citizen. 2) The children do not dispute the provision. 3) While Sec. 9905 was not introduced as evidence in the hearing of the project of partition, it was introduced during the hearing of the motion to withdraw filed by Magdalena. The Court took judicial notice of the law and deemed it unnecessary to prove the law at the hearing of the project of partition. DISPOSITIVE: 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.