1.

BELLIS VS BELLIS 20 SCRA 358

FACTS: Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas, and of the United States. By his first wife
whom he divorced he had five legitimate children, by his second wife, who survived him, he had
three legitimate children, and three illegitimate children. Before he died, he made two wills, one
disposing of his Texas properties and the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, his
illegitimate children were not given anything. The illegitimate children opposed the will on the ground
that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they should be entitled, if Philippine law
were to be applied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should determine the successional rights of
the illegitimate children.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the said children are not entitled to their legitimes under the
Texas Law, being the national law of the deceased, there are no legitimes.


LLORENTE VS CA GR NO 124371 11/23/00
Nationality Principle

FACTS: Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente was married before a parish priest. Before the
outbreak of war, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula was left at the conjugal home.
Lorenzo was naturalized by the United State. After the liberation of the Philippines he went home
and visited his wife to which he discovered that his wife was pregnant and was having an adulterous
relationship. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce. Lorenzo married Alicia LLorente; they
lived together for 25 years and begot 3 children. Lorenzo on his last will and testament bequeathed
all his property to Alicia and their 3 children. Paula filed a petition for letters administration over
Lorenzos estate. The RTC ruled in favor of Paula. On appeal, the decision was modified declaring
Alicia as co-owner of whatever properties they have acquired. Hence, this petition to the Supreme
Court.

ISSUES: Whether or not the divorce obtained by Lorenzo capacitated him to remarry. Who are
entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo Llorente?

HELD: In Van Dorn vs Ramillo Jr. the Supreme Court held that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorce. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorce abroad provided
that they are valid according to their national law. The Supreme Court held that divorce obtained by
Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of origin for the determination of the intrinsic
validity of Lorenzos will and determine the successional rights allowing proof of foreign law. The
deceased is not covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal
capacity since he was a foreigner.


CASTAEDA v. ALEMANY
GR No.1439, March 19, 1904

3 PHIL 426

FACTS: Appellant constested the validity of the will of Doa Juana Moreno upon the ground that although the
attestation clause in the will states that the testator signed the will in the presence of three witnesses who also
each signed in each presence, the will was not actually written by the testator.

ISSUE: Is it necessary that a will be written by the testator herself?

HELD: No. Section 618 of the Civil Code requires (1) that the will be in writing and (2) either that the testator
sign it himself or, if he does not sign it, that it be signed by some one in his presence and by his express
direction. Who does the mechanical work of writing the will is a matter of indifference. The fact, therefore,
that in this case the will was typewritten in the office of the lawyer for the testratrix is of no consequence.