Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Amos Vs Bellis

    Uploaded by

    Drexel Arginald Altavano
    - Amos Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen and domiciled in Texas at the time of his death. - In his 1952 will, he left $240,000 to his first wife, $120,000 total to be split equally among his three illegitimate children, and the remainder to be split equally among his seven legitimate children from his first and second marriages. - After Amos died in 1958, his two illegitimate children opposed the will claiming they were deprived of their legitime (forced heir share) under Philippine law as his acknowledged illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that Texas law must govern since Amos was a Texas citizen and domiciled there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Amos Vs Bellis

    Uploaded by

    Drexel Arginald Altavano
    101 views2 pages
    - Amos Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen and domiciled in Texas at the time of his death. - In his 1952 will, he left $240,000 to his first wife, $120,000 total to be split equally among his three illegitimate children, and the remainder to be split equally among his seven legitimate children from his first and second marriages. - After Amos died in 1958, his two illegitimate children opposed the will claiming they were deprived of their legitime (forced heir share) under Philippine law as his acknowledged illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that Texas law must govern since Amos was a Texas citizen and domiciled there.

    Original Description:

    Amos vs Bellis Digest

    Original Title

    amos vs bellis

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Amos Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen and domiciled in Texas at the time of his death. - In his 1952 will, he left $240,000 to his first wife, $120,000 total to be split equally among his three illegitimate children, and the remainder to be split equally among his seven legitimate children from his first and second marriages. - After Amos died in 1958, his two illegitimate children opposed the will claiming they were deprived of their legitime (forced heir share) under Philippine law as his acknowledged illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that Texas law must govern since Amos was a Texas citizen and domiciled there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views2 pages

    Amos Vs Bellis

    Uploaded by

    Drexel Arginald Altavano
    - Amos Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen and domiciled in Texas at the time of his death. - In his 1952 will, he left $240,000 to his first wife, $120,000 total to be split equally among his three illegitimate children, and the remainder to be split equally among his seven legitimate children from his first and second marriages. - After Amos died in 1958, his two illegitimate children opposed the will claiming they were deprived of their legitime (forced heir share) under Philippine law as his acknowledged illegitimate children. However, the court ruled that Texas law must govern since Amos was a Texas citizen and domiciled there.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-23678 June 6, 1967

    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.

    Facts:
    Amos was born in Texas and was a citizen of the state. Amos has 5 legitimate children
    on his first wife, 3 on his second wife and 3 illegitimate children. On Aug 5 1952, Amos
    executed a will stating that

    (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three
    illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or
    P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the
    remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives,
    namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis
    Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares.

    On July 1958, Amos died so the trust company accomplished the will and two illegitimate
    children opposed stating that they are deprived of their legitime as acknowledged
    illegitimate children. The Probate Court ruled in favour of the trust company and ruled that
    the report of the trust company be final.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Philippine Law shall govern.

    Ruling:
    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.2 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.3 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: (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.

    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.

    You might also like