Aznar vs.

Garcia
7 SCRA 95 GR No. L-16749 January 31, 1963
Nature of Action:
This is an appeal from a decision of Court of First Instance of Davao approving
Maria Lucy Christensen as the only compulsory heir of late Edward Christensen
Facts:

The deceased Edward Christensen was born on November 29, 1875 in New
York City, USA. He was appointed school teacher in the Philippines from his
arrival on July 1, 1901 until 1904 and returned to USA

He resided in California for a period of 9 years from 1904 to 1913. For some
period of time, he came back to the Philippines and became a domiciliary therein.

On March 5, 1951, he executed his last will and testament in Manila and went
back to California shortly on April. He died at St. Lukes Hospital, Manila on April
30, 1953.

His last will and testament acknowledged Maria Lucy Christensen (Mrs. Bernard
Daney) as his only heir although he left Php 3,600 in favor of Helen Christensen
Garcia, his illegitimate child.

The appellant, Garcia claims that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code
of the Philippines, the National Law of the deceased should be applied; wherein
under the conflict of laws rule in California, the matter is referred back to the law
of domicile.

The executor-appellee alleged that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, the National Law of the deceased should be applied;
wherein the internal law of California should govern the determination of validity
of the testamentary provision of the will of the deceased in which provides that
illegitimate children are not entitled to inherit.

Issue:
Whether or not the National Law mentioned in Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines refers to the Internal Law of California in determining the
successional rights of the heirs of the deceased.
Held:
No. The successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in the will of
the deceased shall be governed by the national law of California.
There are two rules in California regarding the matter: (1) the Internal law and (2)
the Conflict Rule. The Internal law in which the appellee is claiming to be the prevailing
provision is only applicable to California citizens that are living in the State. For citizens
that are domiciliary outside California such as Edward Christensen, the Rule on Conflict
must be applied to them.
The Article 946 of Civil Code of California provides that in absence of law to the
contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to be governed
by the law of owners domicile. Following the Renvoi doctrine, the validity should be
referred back to domiciliary place which is the Philippines.

Under the Philippine Laws, natural children legally acknowledged are considered
as compulsory heirs of their parents.
The appeal was GRANTED and the case was remanded for further proceeding in
regards with the partition as what the Philippine law provides on successional rights.