Bellis vs. Bellis - Conflict of Laws

G.R. No. L-23678, June 06, 1967 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
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, DECEASED PEOPLE'S their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of
BANK & TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code.
AND MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS
VS. Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., the national law of the decedent, in in-testate or testamentary successions,
with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of
FACTS suc-cessional rights; (c) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will;
and (d) the capacity to succeed.
Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas
and of the United States. By his first wife, he had 5 legitimate children; by Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, para-graph three, of
his second wife, he had 3 legitimate children; and finally, he had 3 the Civil Code, stating that:
illegitimate children. Amos died, a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. "Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have
His will was ad-mitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila. for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
inef-fective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed
upon in a foreign country."
The CFI approved the executor's final account, report and
administration and project of partition. Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted.
Code, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas
law, which did not provide for legitimes. This is not correct. It must have been Congress’ purpose to make the
second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be
Appellants appealed to this Court to raise the ISSUE: applied in testate and intestate successions. As further indication of this
legislative intent, Congress added a new provision, under Art. 1039, which
Which law must apply - Texas law or Philippine law. decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the
decedent.
RATIO
It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs
In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to
the doctrine of renvoi. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent extend the same to the suc-cession of foreign nationals. For it has
is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the present case, specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to
it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a the decedent's national law. Specific provi-sions must prevail over general
domicile thereof at the time of his death. So that even assuming Texas has a ones.
conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the
domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills
(renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, - one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate - arguing
if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate.
for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate
renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for as this Court ruled in the
Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his
of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. Appellants' position properties shall be distributed in ac-cordance 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 un-der 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.

Bellis vs. Bellis - Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bellis vs. Bellis - Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bellis vs. Bellis - Conflict of Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. L-23678, June 06, 1967 is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi.

As stated, they never

You might also like