TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE’S BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS AND MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. No. L-23678. June 6, 1967.

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

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.

RATIONALE:

Doctrine of Renvoi (not applicable to this case) 

The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent. (Aznar vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963)

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.

Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867, 870, 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.

Laws Applicable: Art. 16, 17 1039 NCC

Violet Kennedy (2nd wife) ß Amos G. Bellis --- Mary E. Mallen (1st wife)

Legitimate Children: Legitimate Children:

Edward A. Bellis Amos Bellis, Jr.                              

George Bellis (pre-deceased) Maria Cristina Bellis       

Henry A. Bellis Miriam Palma Bellis

Alexander Bellis

Anna Bellis Allsman

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.

By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman

By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis

August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines dividing his estate as follows:

1. $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen

2. P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis

3. remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives

July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A

September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on

People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will did as the will directed

Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children

Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.

ISSUE:

 W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of the will

HELD:

 YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

Doctrine of Processual Presumption:

The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of the forum.

In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. Apply Philippine laws.

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: (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. 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.

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.