Aznar vs.

Garcia 7 s 95
Civil Law Jurisprudence

Facts:
Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California
where he resided and consequently was considered a California Citizen for a period
of nine years to 1913. He came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary
until the time of his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this
country, he had always considered himself as a citizen of California.
In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged
natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir but left a legacy of some
money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who, in a decision rendered by the
Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged natural daughter of his.
Counsel of Helen claims that under Art. 16 (2) of the civil code, California law should
be applied, the matter is returned back to the law of domicile, that Philippine law is
ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be increased in view of
successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine laws. On the other hand,
counsel for daughter Maria , in as much that it is clear under Art, 16 (2) of the Mew
Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our courts must apply internal
law of California on the matter. Under California law, there are no compulsory heirs
and consequently a testator should dispose any property possessed by him in
absolute dominion.

Issue:
Whether Philippine Law or California Law should apply.

Held:
The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen
Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two rules in California on the matter.
1.
2.

The conflict rule which should apply to Californians outside the

California, and
The internal Law which should apply to California domiciles in califronia.

The California conflict rule, found on Art. 946 of the California Civil code
States that if there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is

situated, it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is governed by the law
of the domicile.
Christensen being domiciled outside california, the law of his domicile, the
Philippines is ought to be followed.
Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed and case is remanded to the
lower court with instructions that partition be made as that of the Philippine
law provides.