Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLS, !e"e#$e!.
PEOPLE%S BAN& #n! TRUST COMPAN', executor.
MARA CRSTNA BELLS #n! MRAM PALMA BELLS, oppositors-appellants,
vs.
E()AR( A. BELLS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
Vicente R. Macasaet and Jose D. Villena for oppositors appellants.
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno for heirs-appellees E. A. ellis, et al.
!ui"ano and Arro#o for heirs-appellees $. %. ellis, et al.
J. R. alon&ita for appellee People's an& ( )rust Co*pan#.
+zaeta, ,ibbs and +zaeta for appellee A. . Alls*an.
BENG*ON, J.P., J.:
This is a direct appeal to s, upon a !uestion purel" of la#, fro$ an order of the Court of %irst
&nstance of Manila dated April '(, )*+,, approvin- the pro.ect of partition filed b" the executor
in Civil Case No. '/(0* therein.-./ph0-.12t
The facts of the case are as follo#s1
A$os 2. Bellis, born in Texas, #as 3a citi4en of the 5tate of Texas and of the nited 5tates.3 B"
his first #ife, Mar" E. Mallen, #ho$ he divorced, he had five le-iti$ate children1 Ed#ard A.
Bellis, 2eor-e Bellis 6#ho pre-deceased hi$ in infanc"7, 8enr" A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and
Anna Bellis Alls$an9 b" his second #ife, :iolet ;enned", #ho survived hi$, he had three
le-iti$ate children1 Ed#in 2. Bellis, <alter 5. Bellis and =oroth" Bellis9 and finall", he had
three ille-iti$ate children1 A$os Bellis, >r., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miria$ Pal$a Bellis.
?n Au-ust @, )*@A, A$os 2. Bellis executed a #ill in the Philippines, in #hich he directed that
after all taxes, obli-ations, and expenses of ad$inistration are paid for, his distributable estate
should be divided, in trust, in the follo#in- order and $anner1 6a7 BA,(,(((.(( to his first #ife,
Mar" E. Mallen9 6b7 P)A(,(((.(( to his three ille-iti$ate children, A$os Bellis, >r., Maria
Cristina Bellis, Miria$ Pal$a Bellis, or P,(,(((.(( each and 6c7 after the fore-oin- t#o ite$s
have been satisfied, the re$ainder shall -o to his seven survivin- children b" his first and second
#ives, na$el"1 Ed#ard A. Bellis, 8enr" A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Alls$an,
Ed#in 2. Bellis, <alter 5. Bellis, and =oroth" E. Bellis, in e!ual shares.-./ph0-.12t
5ubse!uentl", or on >ul" 0, )*@0, A$os 2. Bellis died a resident of 5an Antonio, Texas, .5.A.
8is #ill #as ad$itted to probate in the Court of %irst &nstance of Manila on 5epte$ber )@, )*@0.
The PeopleCs BanD and Trust Co$pan", as executor of the #ill, paid all the be!uests therein
includin- the a$ount of BA,(,(((.(( in the for$ of shares of stocD to Mar" E. Mallen and to the
three 6'7 ille-iti$ate children, A$os Bellis, >r., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miria$ Pal$a Bellis,
various a$ounts totallin- P,(,(((.(( each in satisfaction of their respective le-acies, or a total of
P)A(,(((.((, #hich it released fro$ ti$e to ti$e accordin- as the lo#er court approved and
allo#ed the various $otions or petitions filed b" the latter three re!uestin- partial advances on
account of their respective le-acies.
?n >anuar" 0, )*+,, preparator" to closin- its ad$inistration, the executor sub$itted and filed its
3ExecutorCs %inal Account, Report of Ad$inistration and Pro.ect of Partition3 #herein it
reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the le-ac" of Mar" E. Mallen b" the deliver" to her of
shares of stocD a$ountin- to BA,(,(((.((, and the le-acies of A$os Bellis, >r., Maria Cristina
Bellis and Miria$ Pal$a Bellis in the a$ount of P,(,(((.(( each or a total of P)A(,(((.((. &n
the pro.ect of partition, the executor E pursuant to the 3T#elfth3 clause of the testatorCs Fast <ill
and Testa$ent E divided the residuar" estate into seven e!ual portions for the benefit of the
testatorCs seven le-iti$ate children b" his first and second $arria-es.
?n >anuar" )/, )*+,, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miria$ Pal$a Bellis filed their respective
oppositions to the pro.ect of partition on the -round that the" #ere deprived of their le-iti$es as
ille-iti$ate children and, therefore, co$pulsor" heirs of the deceased.
A$os Bellis, >r. interposed no opposition despite notice to hi$, proof of service of #hich is
evidenced b" the re-istr" receipt sub$itted on April A/, )*+, b" the executor.
)
After the parties filed their respective $e$oranda and other pertinent pleadin-s, the lo#er court,
on April '(, )*+,, issued an order overrulin- the oppositions and approvin- the executorCs final
account, report and ad$inistration and pro.ect of partition. Rel"in- upon Art. )+ of the Civil
Code, it applied the national la# of the decedent, #hich in this case is Texas la#, #hich did not
provide for le-iti$es.
Their respective $otions for reconsideration havin- been denied b" the lo#er court on >une )),
)*+,, oppositors-appellants appealed to this Court to raise the issue of #hich la# $ust appl" E
Texas la# or Philippine la#.
&n this re-ard, the parties do not sub$it the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi,
applied b" this Court in Aznar 3. Christensen ,arcia, F-)+/,*, >anuar" '), )*+'. 5aid doctrine
is usuall" pertinent #here the decedent is a national of one countr", and a do$icile of another. &n
the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent #as both a national of Texas and a do$icile
thereof at the ti$e of his death.
A
5o that even assu$in- Texas has a conflict of la# rule providin-
that the do$iciliar" s"ste$ 6la# of the do$icile7 should -overn, the sa$e #ould not result in a
reference bacD 6renvoi7 to Philippine la#, but #ould still refer to Texas la#. Nonetheless, if
Texas has a conflicts rule adoptin- the situs theor" 6lex rei sitae7 callin- for the application of the
la# of the place #here the properties are situated, renvoi #ould arise, since the properties here
involved are found in the Philippines. &n the absence, ho#ever, of proof as to the conflict of la#
rule of Texas, it should not be presu$ed different fro$ ours.
'
AppellantsC position is therefore not
rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, the" never invoDed nor even $entioned it in their
ar-u$ents. Rather, the" ar-ue that their case falls under the circu$stances $entioned in the third
para-raph of Article )/ in relation to Article )+ of the Civil Code.
Article )+, par. A, and Art. )('* of the Civil Code, render applicable the national la# of the
decedent, in intestate or testa$entar" successions, #ith re-ard to four ite$s1 6a7 the order of
succession9 6b7 the a$ount of successional ri-hts9 6e7 the intrinsic validit" of the provisions of
the #ill9 and 6d7 the capacit" to succeed. The" provide that E
ART. )+. Real propert" as #ell as personal propert" is sub.ect to the la# of the countr"
#here it is situated.
8o#ever, intestate and testa$entar" successions, both #ith respect to the order of
succession and to the a$ount of successional ri-hts and to the intrinsic validit" of
testa$entar" provisions, shall be re-ulated b" the national la# of the person #hose
succession is under consideration, #hatever $a" he the nature of the propert" and
re-ardless of the countr" #herein said propert" $a" be found.
ART. )('*. Capacit" to succeed is -overned b" the la# of the nation of the decedent.
Appellants #ould ho#ever counter that Art. )/, para-raph three, of the Civil Code, statin- that
E
Prohibitive la#s concernin- persons, their acts or propert", and those #hich have for their
ob.ect public order, public polic" and -ood custo$s shall not be rendered ineffective b"
la#s or .ud-$ents pro$ul-ated, or b" deter$inations or conventions a-reed upon in a
forei-n countr".
prevails as the exception to Art. )+, par. A of the Civil Code afore-!uoted. This is not correct.
Precisel", Con-ress deleted the phrase, 3not#ithstandin- the provisions of this and the next
precedin- article3 #hen the" incorporated Art. )) of the old Civil Code as Art. )/ of the ne#
Civil Code, #hile reproducin- #ithout substantial chan-e the second para-raph of Art. )( of the
old Civil Code as Art. )+ in the ne#. &t $ust have been their purpose to $aDe the second
para-raph of Art. )+ a specific provision in itself #hich $ust be applied in testate and intestate
succession. As further indication of this le-islative intent, Con-ress added a ne# provision, under
Art. )('*, #hich decrees that capacit" to succeed is to be -overned b" the national la# of the
decedent.
&t is therefore evident that #hatever public polic" or -ood custo$s $a" be involved in our
5"ste$ of le-iti$es, Con-ress has not intended to extend the sa$e to the succession of forei-n
nationals. %or it has specificall" chosen to leave, inter alia, the a*ount of successional ri-hts, to
the decedentCs national la#. 5pecific provisions $ust prevail over -eneral ones.
Appellants #ould also point out that the decedent executed t#o #ills E one to -overn his Texas
estate and the other his Philippine estate E ar-uin- fro$ this that he intended Philippine la# to
-overn his Philippine estate. Assu$in- that such #as the decedentCs intention in executin- a
separate Philippine #ill, it #ould not alter the la#, for as this Court ruled in Miciano 3. ri*o, @(
Phil. 0+/, 0/(, a provision in a forei-nerCs #ill to the effect that his properties shall be distributed
in accordance #ith Philippine la# and not #ith his national la#, is ille-al and void, for his
national la# cannot be i-nored in re-ard to those $atters that Article )( E no# Article )+ E of
the Civil Code states said national la# should -overn.
The parties ad$it that the decedent, A$os 2. Bellis, #as a citi4en of the 5tate of Texas, .5.A.,
and that under the la#s of Texas, there are no forced heirs or le-iti$es. Accordin-l", since the
intrinsic validit" of the provision of the #ill and the a$ount of successional ri-hts are to be
deter$ined under Texas la#, the Philippine la# on le-iti$es cannot be applied to the testac" of
A$os 2. Bellis.
<herefore, the order of the probate court is hereb" affir$ed in toto, #ith costs a-ainst
appellants. 5o ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Re#es, J..4., Dizon, Re5ala, Ma&alintal, 6aldi3ar, %anchez and Castro, JJ.,
concur.

Foo+no+e$
)
8e later filed a $otion pra"in- that as a le-al heir he be included in this case as one of
the oppositors-appellants9 to file or adopt the opposition of his sisters to the pro.ect of
partition9 to sub$it his brief after pa"in- his proportionate share in the expenses incurred
in the printin- of the record on appeal9 or to allo# hi$ to adopt the briefs filed b" his
sisters E but this Court resolved to den" the $otion.
A
5an Antonio, Texas #as his le-al residence.
'
Fi$ vs. Collector, '+ Phil. ,/A9 7n re Testate Estate of 5unta", *@ Phil. @((.