Case Digest: Bellis vs. Bellis, GR No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

Private International Law
  


  • Petitioners: Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis

  • Respondents: Edward A. Bellis, et.al


Recit Version:

  • Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of Texas, had two wives and children from both marriages. He executed a will in the Philippines, specifying the distribution of his estate. 

  • After his death in Texas, his will was probated in the Philippines. Two illegitimate children contested, claiming deprivation of legitimes. 

  • The court ruled that Texas law is applicable. 

  • Philippine law on legitimes could not be applied as his national law determined the validity of his will and the extent of succession rights. 

  • Under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.


Facts:

  • Amos G. Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen of the State of Texas and the United States.

  • He had two wives during his lifetime:

  1. First wife, Mary E. Mallen, with whom he had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (+), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis, and Anna Bellis Allsman.

  2. Second wife, Violet Kennedy, with whom he had three legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy Bellis.

  3. He also had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis.

  • In 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, distributing the following: 

    • First Wife: $240,000.00 to Mary E. Mallen.

    • Illegitimate Children: P120,000.00 to Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis (P40,000.00 each).

    • Surviving Children: The remainder will be divided equally among Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis, Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis.

  • In 1958, Amos G. Bellis died in Texas.

  • His will was admitted to probate in the CFI-Manila.

  • The People's Bank and Trust Company, as executor, paid the bequests in the will, including the legacies to the illegitimate children.

  • The executor submitted a project of partition dividing the remaining estate among the legitimate children from both marriages.

  • Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis opposed the project of partition, claiming that they were deprived of their legitimes as compulsory heirs. 

    • Amos Bellis, Jr. did not oppose the partition.


CFI-Manila: Approved the project of partition, applying Texas law which did not provide for legitimes.


Issues: 

  1. WoN the doctrine of renvoi applies in this case. NO

  2. WoN Philippine law on legitimes should apply in the partition of dividing the remaining estate. NO


Held:


In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death


So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law


Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. 


In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours (processual presumption). Appellants' position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments. Rather, they argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code.


Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: 

  1. the order of succession;

  2. the amount of successional rights; 

  3. the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and 

  4. the capacity to succeed. 


They provide that —


ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.


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 he the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.


ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.


Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, paragraph three, of the Civil Code, stating that —


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.


prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted. This is not correct. Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been their purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent.


It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.


Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for as this Court ruled a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.


The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.


Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against appellants. So ordered.


Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered