Phil Trust Co vs Bohanan FACTS: On April 24 1950 the RTC Manila admitted to probate the will of CO Bohanan executed

by him in Mnila in 1944. It was decided in the probate that CO Bohanan was a citizen of the state of Nevada at the time of his death and declares that his will was fully in accordance w/ the laws of the state of Nevada. This was not questioned on appeal. In the project of partition applied by Phil Trust Co who was named executor in the will, it was adjudicated that testators grandson will inherit P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of several mining companies and to testators brother and sister the same amount. To his children however, the testator gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000. The wife, Magdalena Bohanan, who was not given any share and children questioned the validity of the testamentary provisions. In accordance of the law of the forum, they should have received 2/3 of the estate of testator instead of the 6k legacy only. ISSUES: whether the estementary dispositions, especially hose for the children which are short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944, expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. Says the law on this point: Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found. (par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil Code.) it was decided that the testator was a citizen of the State of Nevada. It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will. However, It does not appear that at time of the hearing of the project of partition, the above-quoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor's duly to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules, which are as follows: SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody of he record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . . . (Rule 123). We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws. In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition. As to the wife, The wife argued that it was error for the court to recognize the reno divorce secured by the testator from here and should be declared a nullity in this jurisdiction. The court however, refused to recognize the claim of the widow on the ground that the laws of Nevada, of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Accdg. To the court the right of Magdalena to the share in the testators estate had already passed adversely against her when she failed to appeal and question its validity and that there exists no community property owned by the decedent and Magdalena at the time the decree of divorce was issued.