Aznar vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, Jan.

3, 1963

FACTS:

Edward Christensen, who at his death was a US citizen but domiciled in the Philippines, left a will, devising unto
Maria Helen a certain amount of money and giving the rest of his estate to Maria Lucy. Helen opposed the partition
on the ground that she is deprived of her legitime. Her contention is that the law of California directs that the law
of the domicile (Philippines) should govern the will.

ISSUE: Whether or not the national law or the domiciliary law should apply

HELD:

The intrinsic validity of wills is governed by the national law of the decedent. In the present case, the national law
of Edward is the laws of California. However, there were two conflicting California laws regarding succession.
One is enunciated in In Re Kaufman (which does not provide for legitimes) and another is Art. 946 of the
California Civil Code (which provides that the law of the domicile applies). SC held that the national law is Art.
946, which is the conflict of laws rule of California. The reason is that In Re Kaufman applies only to residents
while Art. 946 is specific to non-residents. Thus, since Art. 946 contains a refer-back to Philippine laws (the law of
the domicile), then Maria Helen is entitled to her legitime.