PERSONS and FAMILY RELATIONS CASE DIGEST

namely: Amos Jr, Maria Christina,

Miriam;
c. The remaining shall be given to his
seven
(7)
surviving
legitimate
children, all with equal shares.

ARTICLE 08
DM CONSUNJI v CA (G.R. No. 137873)
FACTS:

ARTICLE 15 & 16
BELLIS v BELLIS (G.R. No. L-23678)
FACTS:
Amos Bellis is a US citizen and a resident of
Texas up until his death on July 8, 1958. He had five (5)
legitimate children from his 1st wife Mary Mallen
(divorced), namely: Edward, George (pre-decedent
him), Henry, Alexander, and Anna. On his 2 nd wife,
Violet Kennedy, he had three (3) legitimate children:
Edwin, Walter, Dorothy. He also had three (3)
illegitimate children: Amos Jr, Maria Cristina, and
Miriam.
He left a will wherein it stated, after the taxes
and other deductions, the distributable part of his
estate shall be fulfilled accordingly:
a. $240,000.00 to be given to his 1 st wife
(divorced), Mary Mallen;
b. P120,000.00 or P40,000.00 each to be
given to his 3 illegitimate children,

After the probate of the will, The Peoples Bank

and Trust Company was named as executor of the will.
The executor was able to satisfy (a) and (b). Upon
filing of the PBTC of the Executors Final Account,
Report of Administration and Project of Partition,
Maria Cristina and Miriam opposed the Project Partition
by filing on the ground that they were deprived of their
legitimes as illegitimate and compulsory heirs of the
deceased.
The lower court overruled and favored
executors final account relying upon Art 16 of Civil
Code, where the national law of the decedent, in this
case Texas law, did not provide for legitimes.
Appellants filed Motion for Recon on lower court, but
was denied. Thereby direct petition of this case to SC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Texas law or the Philippine law
must apply
RULING:
Texas Law must be applied. Both parties admit
that the decedent was indeed a citizen of the state of
Texas, and of the United States (Nationality Principle,
Art 15 CC)1. It was not disputed on the application of

this court of the doctrine of revoi2 as in the case of

Aznar v. Christensen-Garcia. Such doctrine is pertinent
when the decedent is a national of one and a domicile
of another. Even if there is a law of domicile in Texas,
the result would not be a reference back (renvoi) to
the Philippine law. If Texas law, however, has conflict
with adopting the lex rei sitae3 (situs theory), renvoi
would arise since the properties involved are found in
the Philippines. However, in absence of proof as to the
conflict of laws, it should not be presumed different
from ours.

Art 15, CC:

Laws relating to family rights and duties or to

the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.

Doctrine of Revoi (referring back):

Article 16 (2)4, and Art. 10395 of the Civil Code,

render applicable the national law of the decedent, in
intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to
four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount
of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed.
The Appellant argued that their case falls on Art 17
(3)6. Specific provisions must prevail over general
ones.

Takes place when the conflicts rule of the forum

makes a reference to a foreign law, but the foreign law
is found to contain a conflict rule that returns or refers
the matter back to the law of the forum.

The Appellant also pointed out that the

decedent executed two wills, one to govern his Texas
estate and one to govern his Philippine estate. Even if
that is the intention of the decedent, and even if there
is a provision stating that Philippine law will govern the
properties over his nationality is illegal and void, for
his national law, as stated in Art 16, should govern.

Real property as well as personal property is

subject to the law of the country where it is situated.

Notes:

Lex rei sitae (or lex situs)

The law where the property is situated

Art 16, CC:

However,
intestate
and
testamentary
successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever
may be the nature of the property and regardless of
the country wherein said property may be found.

Art 1039, CC:

Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of

the nation of the decedent.
6

Art 17 (3), CC:

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts

or property, and those which have for their object
public order, public policy and good customs shall not
be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country.
AZNAR v CHRISTENSEN-GARCIA (G.R.
16749)

No.

L-

Facts:
Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York,
migrated to California, where he resided and
consequently was considered a California citizen. In
1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a
domiciliary until his death. However, during the entire
period of his residence in this country he had always
considered himself 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 sum of
money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who was
rendered to have been declared acknowledged natural
daughter. Counsel for appellant claims that California
law should be applied; that under California law, the

matter is referred back to the law of the domicile; that

therefore Philippine law is ultimately applicable; that
finally, the share of Helen must be increased in view of
the success ional rights of illegitimate children under
Philippine law. On the other hand, counsel for the heir
of Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear
that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the national law
of the deceased must apply, our courts must
immediately apply the internal law of California on the
matter; that under California law there are no
compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could
dispose of any property possessed by him in absolute
dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not
being entitled to anything and his will remain
undisturbed.
ISSUE:

in

Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail

administering
the
estate
of
Christensen?

RULING:

The court in deciding to grant more successional

rights to Helen said in effect that there are two rules in
California on the matter: the internal law which should
apply to Californians domiciled in California; and the
conflict rule which should apply to Californians
domiciled outside of California. The California conflict
rule says: If there is no law to the contrary in the
place where personal property is situated, is deemed
to follow the person of its owner and is governed by
the law of his domicile. Christensen being domiciled

outside California, the law of his domicile, the

Philippines, ought to be followed. Where it is referred
back to California, it will form a circular pattern
referring to both country back and forth.

FACTS:

LLORENTE v SANDIGANBAYAN (202 SCRA 309)

FACTS:

ARTICLE 19 & 21
HERMOSISIMA v CA (109 PHIL 634)