12/12/2017 G.R. No.

L-12105

TodayisTuesday,December12,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L12105January30,1960

TESTATEESTATEOFC.O.BOHANAN,deceased.PHILIPPINETRUSTCO.,executorappellee,
vs.

MAGDALENAC.BOHANAN,EDWARDC.BOHANAN,andMARYLYDIABOHANAN,oppositorsappellants.

JoseD.Cortesforappellants.

Ohnick,VelillaandBalonkitaforappellee.

LABRADOR,J.:

AppealagainstanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,Hon.RamonSanJose,presiding,dismissingthe
objectionsfiledbyMagdalenaC.Bohanan,MaryBohananandEdwardBohanantotheprojectofpartitionsubmitted
bytheexecutorandapprovingthesaidproject.

OnApril24,1950,theCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,Hon.RafaelAmparo,presiding,admittedtoprobatealast
willandtestamentofC.O.Bohanan,executedbyhimonApril23,1944inManila.Inthesaidorder,thecourtmade
thefollowingfindings:

AccordingtotheevidenceoftheopponentsthetestatorwasborninNebraskaandthereforeacitizenofthat
state,oratleastacitizenofCaliforniawheresomeofhispropertiesarelocated.Thiscontentioninuntenable.
NotwithstandingthelongresidenceofthedecedentinthePhilippines,hisstayherewasmerelytemporary,
andhecontinuedandremainedtobeacitizenoftheUnitedStatesandofthestateofhispertinentresidence
tospendtherestofhisdaysinthatstate.HispermanentresidenceordomicileintheUnitedStatesdepended
uponhispersonalintentordesire,andheselectedNevadaashishomicideandthereforeatthetimeofhis
death,hewasacitizenofthatstate.Nobodycanchoosehisdomicileorpermanentresidenceforhim.Thatis
hisexclusivepersonalright.

Wherefore,thecourtfindsthatthetestatorC.O.BohananwasatthetimeofhisdeathacitizenoftheUnited
StatesandoftheStateofNevadaanddeclaresthathiswillandtestament,ExhibitA,isfullyinaccordance
with the laws of the state of Nevada and admits the same to probate. Accordingly, the Philippine Trust
Company,namedastheexecutorofthewill,isherebyappointedtosuchexecutoranduponthefilingofa
bondinthesumofP10,000.00,letletterstestamentarybeissuedandaftertakingtheprescribedoath,itmay
enterupontheexecutionandperformanceofitstrust.(pp.2627,R.O.A.).

It does not appear that the order granting probate was ever questions on appeal. The executor filed a project of
partitiondatedJanuary24,1956,making,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthewill,thefollowingadjudications:
(1)onehalfoftheresiduaryestate,totheFarmersandMerchantsNationalBankofLosAngeles,California,U.S.A.
in trust only for the benefit of testator's grandson Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several mining
companies(2)theotherhalfoftheresiduaryestatetothetestator'sbrother,F.L.Bohanan,andhissister,Mrs.M.B.
Galbraith,shareandsharealike.Thisconsistinthesameamountofcashandofsharesofminingstocksimilarto
thosegiventotestator'sgrandson(3)legaciesofP6,000eachtohis(testator)son,EdwardGilbertBohana,andhis
daughter,MaryLydiaBohanan,tobepaidinthreeyearlyinstallments(4)legaciestoClaraDaen,intheamountof
P10,000.00KatherineWoodward,P2,000BeulahFox,P4,000andElizabethHastings,P2,000

Itwillbeseenfromtheabovethatoutofthetotalestate(afterdeductingadministrationexpenses)ofP211,639.33in
cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and onehalf of all shares of stock of several mining companies
andtohisbrotherandsisterthesameamount.TohischildrenhegavealegacyofonlyP6,000each,oratotalof
P12,000.

The wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children question the validity of the testamentary provisions
disposingoftheestateinthemanneraboveindicated,claimingthattheyhavebeendeprivedofthelegitimatethat
thelawsoftheformconcedetothem.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/jan1960/gr_l-12105_1960.html 1/3
12/12/2017 G.R. No. L-12105
The first question refers to the share that the wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, should be entitled to
received.Thewillhasnotgivenheranyshareintheestateleftbythetestator.Itisarguedthatitwaserrorforthe
trial court to have recognized the Reno divorce secured by the testator from his Filipino wife Magdalena C.
Bohanan, and that said divorce should be declared a nullity in this jurisdiction, citing the case of Querubin vs.
Querubin,87Phil.,124,47Off.Gaz.,(Sup,12)315,CousinsHizvs.Fluemer,55Phil.,852,Ramirezvs.Gmur,42
Phil.,855andGorayebvs.Hashim,50Phil.,22.Thecourtbelowrefusedtorecognizetheclaimofthewidowonthe
groundthatthelawsofNevada,ofwhichthedeceasedwasacitizen,allowhimtodisposeofallofhisproperties
withoutrequiringhimtoleaveanyportionofhisestatetohiswife.Section9905ofNevadaCompiledLawsof1925
provides:

Everypersonovertheageofeighteenyears,ofsoundmind,may,bylastwill,disposeofallhisorherestate,
realandpersonal,thesamebeingchargeablewiththepaymentofthetestator'sdebts.

Besides,therightoftheformerwifeofthetestator,MagdalenaC.Bohanan,toashareinthetestator'sestafahad
already been passed upon adversely against her in an order dated June 19, 1955, (pp. 155159, Vol II Records,
Court of First Instance), which had become final, as Magdalena C. Bohanan does not appear to have appealed
therefromtoquestionitsvalidity.OnDecember16,1953,thesaidformerwifefiledamotiontowithdrawthesumof
P20,000fromthefundsoftheestate,chargeableagainsthershareintheconjugalproperty,(Seepp.294297,Vol.
I, Record, Court of First Instance), and the court in its said error found that there exists no community property
ownedbythedecedentandhisformerwifeatthetimethedecreeofdivorcewasissued.AsalreadyandMagdalena
C.Bohananmaynolongerquestionthefactcontainedtherein,i.e.thattherewasnocommunitypropertyacquired
bythetestatorandMagdalenaC.Bohananduringtheirconverture.

Moreover, the court below had found that the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on January 30,
1909, and that divorce was granted to him on May 20, 1922 that sometime in 1925, Magdalena C. Bohanan
marriedCarlAaronandthismarriagewassubsistingatthetimeofthedeathofthetestator.Sincenorighttoshare
intheinheritanceinfavorofadivorcedwifeexistsintheStateofNevadaandsincethecourtbelowhadalready
foundthattherewasnoconjugalpropertybetweenthetestatorandMagdalenaC.Bohanan,thelattercannowhave
nolongerclaimtopayportionoftheestateleftbythetestator.

Themostimportantissueistheclaimofthetestator'schildren,EdwardandMaryLydia,whohadreceivedlegacies
in the amount of P6,000 each only, and, therefore, have not been given their shares in the estate which, in
accordancewiththelawsoftheforum,shouldbetwothirdsoftheestateleftbythetestator.Isthefailureoldthe
testatortogivehischildrentwothirdsoftheestateleftbyhimatthetimeofhisdeath,inaccordancewiththelawsof
theforumvalid?

The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944, expressly provides that
successionalrightstopersonalpropertyaretobeearnedbythenationallawofthepersonwhosesuccessionisin
question.Saysthelawonthispoint:

Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the
extentofthesuccessionalrightsandtheintrinsicvalidityoftheirprovisions,shallberegulatedbythenational
law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the
country in which it is found. (par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil
Code.)

Intheproceedingsfortheprobateofthewill,itwasfoundoutanditwasdecidedthatthetestatorwasacitizenof
the State of Nevada because he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent residence. (See Decision
datedApril24,1950,supra).Sothequestionatissueiswhethertheestementarydispositions,especiallyhosefor
the children which are short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is not
disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec. 9905, Complied
NevadaLawsof1925,supra).Itdoesnotappearthatattimeofthehearingoftheprojectofpartition,theabove
quotedprovisionwasintroducedinevidence,asitwastheexecutor'sdulytodo.ThelawofNevada,beingaforeign
lawcanonlybeprovedinourcourtsintheformandmannerprovidedforbyourRules,whichareasfollows:

SEC.41.Proofofpublicorofficialrecord.Anofficialrecordoranentrytherein,whenadmissibleforany
purpose,maybeevidencedbyanofficialpublicationthereoforbyacopytestedbytheofficerhavingthelegal
custodyofherecord,orbyhisdeputy,andaccompanied,iftherecordisnotkeptinthePhilippines,witha
certificatethatsuchofficerhasthecustody....(Rule123).

Wehave,however,consultedtherecordsofthecaseinthecourtbelowandwehavefoundthatduringthehearing
onOctober4,1954ofthemotionofMagdalenaC.BohananforwithdrawalofP20,000ashershare,theforeignlaw,
especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws. was introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as
Exhibits "2" (See pp. 7779, VOL. II, and t.s.n. pp. 2444, Records, Court of First Instance). Again said laws
presentedbythecounselfortheexecutorandadmittedbytheCourtasExhibit"B"duringthehearingofthecaseon
January23,1950beforeJudgeRafaelAmparo(seRecords,CourtofFirstInstance,Vol.1).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/jan1960/gr_l-12105_1960.html 2/3
12/12/2017 G.R. No. L-12105
Inaddition,theotherappellants,childrenofthetestator,donotdisputetheabovequotedprovisionofthelawsofthe
StateofNevada.Underalltheabovecircumstances,weareconstrainedtoholdthatthepertinentlawofNevada,
especiallySection9905oftheCompiledNevadaLawsof1925,canbetakenjudicialnoticeofbyus,withoutproof
ofsuchlawhavingbeenofferedatthehearingoftheprojectofpartition.

AsinaccordancewithArticle10oftheoldCivilCode,thevalidityoftestamentarydispositionsaretobegovernedby
thenationallawofthetestator,andasithasbeendecidedanditisnotdisputedthatthenationallawofthetestator
is that of the State of Nevada, already indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his property
according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the court approving the project of partition made in
accordancewiththetestamentaryprovisions,mustbe,asitisherebyaffirmed,withcostsagainstappellants.

Paras,Bengzon,C.J.,Padilla,BautistaAngeloandEndencia,JJ.,concur.
Barrera,J.,concursintheresult.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1960/jan1960/gr_l-12105_1960.html 3/3