G.R. No.

L-16749

January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF ED ARD E. !HRISTENSEN, DE!EASED. ADOLFO !. A"NAR, E#$%u&or an' L(!) !HRISTENSEN, H$*r o+ &,$ '$%$a-$', Executor and Heir-appellees, vs. HELEN !HRISTENSEN GAR!IA, oppositor-appellant. M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees. Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant. LA.RADOR, J.: This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, r., presidin!, in "pecial #roceedin! No. $%% of said court, dated "eptem&er '(, ')(), approvin! amon! thin!s the final accounts of the executor, directin! the executor to reim&urse *aria +uc, Christensen the amount of #-,$.. paid &, her to Helen Christensen /arcia as her le!ac,, and declarin! *aria +uc, Christensen entitled to the residue of the propert, to &e en0o,ed durin! her lifetime, and in case of death 1ithout issue, one-half of said residue to &e pa,a&le to *rs. Carrie +ouise C. 2orton, etc., in accordance 1ith the provisions of the 1ill of the testator Ed1ard E. Christensen. The 1ill 1as executed in *anila on *arch 3, ')3' and contains the follo1in! provisions4 -. I declare ... that I have &ut 5NE 6'7 child, named *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN 6no1 *rs. 2ernard Dane,7, 1ho 1as &orn in the #hilippines a&out t1ent,-ei!ht ,ears a!o, and 1ho is no1 residin! at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun! Villa!e, +os 8n!eles, California, :.".8. (. I further declare that I no1 have no livin! ascendants, and no descendants except m, a&ove named dau!hter, *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE;. <. I !ive, devise and &e=ueath unto *89I8 HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN, no1 married to Eduardo /arcia, a&out ei!hteen ,ears of a!e and 1ho, not1ithstandin! the fact that she 1as &apti>ed Christensen, is not in an, 1a, related to me, nor has she &een at an, time adopted &, me, and 1ho, from all information I have no1 resides in E!pit, Di!os, Davao, #hilippines, the sum of TH9EE TH5:"8ND "I? H:ND9ED #E"5" 6#-,$.....7, #hilippine Currenc, the same to &e deposited in trust for the said *aria Helen Christensen 1ith the Davao 2ranch of the #hilippine National 2an@, and paid to her at the rate of 5ne Hundred #esos 6#'.....7, #hilippine Currenc, per month until the principal thereof as 1ell as an, interest 1hich ma, have accrued thereon, is exhausted.. '%. I here&, !ive, devise and &e=ueath, unto m, 1ell-&eloved dau!hter, the said *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE; 6*rs. 2ernard Dane,7, no1 residin! as aforesaid at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun! Villa!e, +os 8n!eles, California, :.".8., all the income from the rest, remainder, and residue of m, propert, and estate, real, personal andAor mixed, of 1hatsoever @ind or character, and 1heresoever situated, of 1hich I ma, &e possessed at m, death and 1hich ma, have come to me from an, source 1hatsoever, durin! her lifetime4 .... It is in accordance 1ith the a&ove-=uoted provisions that the executor in his final account and pro0ect of partition ratified the pa,ment of onl, #-,$.. to Helen Christensen /arcia and proposed that the residue of the estate &e transferred to his dau!hter, *aria +uc, Christensen. 5pposition to the approval of the pro0ect of partition 1as filed &, Helen Christensen /arcia, insofar as it deprives her 6Helen7 of her le!itime as an ac@no1led!ed natural child, she havin! &een declared &, :s in /.9. Nos. +-''(B--B( an ac@no1led!ed natural child of the deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen. The le!al !rounds of opposition are 6a7 that the distri&ution should &e !overned &, the la1s of the #hilippines, and 6&7 that said order of distri&ution is contrar, thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of t1o ac@no1led!ed natural children, one-half of the estate in full o1nership. In amplification of the a&ove !rounds it 1as alle!ed that the la1 that should !overn the estate of the deceased Christensen should not &e the internal la1 of California alone, &ut the entire la1 thereof &ecause several forei!n elements are involved, that the forum is the #hilippines and even if the case 1ere decided in California, "ection )($ of the California Civil Code, 1hich re=uires that the domicile of the decedent should appl,, should &e applica&le. It 1as also alle!ed that *aria Helen Christensen havin! &een declared an ac@no1led!ed natural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes le!itimate from the time of her &irth. The court &elo1 ruled that as Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates and of the "tate of California at the time of his death, the successional ri!hts and intrinsic validit, of the provisions in his 1ill are to &e !overned &, the la1 of California, in accordance 1ith 1hich a testator has the ri!ht to dispose of his propert, in the 1a, he desires, &ecause

the ri!ht of a&solute dominion over his propert, is sacred and inviola&le 6In re *cDanielCs Estate, << Cal. 8ppl. %d B<<, '<$ #. %d )3%, and In re Daufman, ''< Cal. %B$, () #ac. ')%, cited in pa!e '<), 9ecord on 8ppeal7. 5ppositor *aria Helen Christensen, throu!h counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, &ut these 1ere denied. Hence, this appeal. The most important assi!nments of error are as follo1s4 I THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN I/N59IN/ THE DECI"I5N 5F THE H5N5982+E ":#9E*E C5:9T TH8T HE+EN I" THE 8CDN5E+ED/ED N8T:98+ CHI+D 5F EDE89D E. CH9I"TEN"EN 8ND, C5N"EF:ENT+;, IN DE#9IVIN/ HE9 5F HE9 :"T "H89E IN THE INHE9IT8NCE. II THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN ENTI9E+; I/N59IN/ 8NDA59 F8I+IN/ T5 9EC5/NIGE THE E?I"TENCE 5F "EVE98+ F8CT59", E+E*ENT" 8ND CI9C:*"T8NCE" C8++IN/ F59 THE 8##+IC8TI5N 5F INTE9N8+ +8E. III THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN F8I+IN/ T5 9EC5/NIGE TH8T :NDE9 INTE9N8TI5N8+ +8E, #89TIC:+89+; :NDE9 THE 9ENV5I D5CT9INE, THE INT9IN"IC V8+IDIT; 5F THE TE"T8*ENT89; DI"#5"ITI5N 5F THE DI"T9I2:TI5N 5F THE E"T8TE 5F THE DECE8"ED EDE89D E. CH9I"TEN"EN "H5:+D 2E /5VE9NED 2; THE +8E" 5F THE #HI+I##INE". IV THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T THE "CHED:+E 5F DI"T9I2:TI5N ":2*ITTED 2; THE E?EC:T59 I" C5NT989; T5 THE #HI+I##INE +8E". V THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T :NDE9 THE #HI+I##INE +8E" HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN /89CI8 I" ENTIT+ED T5 5NE-H8+F 6'A%7 5F THE E"T8TE IN F:++ 5ENE9"HI#. There is no =uestion that Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates and of the "tate of California at the time of his death. 2ut there is also no =uestion that at the time of his death he 1as domiciled in the #hilippines, as 1itness the follo1in! facts admitted &, the executor himself in appelleeCs &rief4 In the proceedin!s for admission of the 1ill to pro&ate, the facts of record sho1 that the deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as &orn on Novem&er %), 'B<3 in Ne1 ;or@ Cit,, N.;., :.".8.H his first arrival in the #hilippines, as an appointed school teacher, 1as on ul, ', ').', on &oard the :.". 8rm, Transport I"heridanI 1ith #ort of Em&ar@ation as the Cit, of "an Francisco, in the "tate of California, :.".8. He sta,ed in the #hilippines until ').(. In Decem&er, ').(, *r. Christensen returned to the :nited "tates and sta,ed there for the follo1in! nine ,ears until ')'-, durin! 1hich time he resided in, and 1as teachin! school in "acramento, California. *r. ChristensenCs next arrival in the #hilippines 1as in ul, of the ,ear ')'-. Ho1ever, in ')%B, he a!ain departed the #hilippines for the :nited "tates and came &ac@ here the follo1in! ,ear, ')%). "ome nine ,ears later, in ')-B, he a!ain returned to his o1n countr,, and came &ac@ to the #hilippines the follo1in! ,ear, ')-). Eherefore, the parties respectfull, pra, that the fore!oin! stipulation of facts &e admitted and approved &, this Honora&le Court, 1ithout pre0udice to the parties adducin! other evidence to prove their case not covered &, this stipulation of facts. 1wph 1.!"t 2ein! an 8merican citi>en, *r. Christensen 1as interned &, the apanese *ilitar, Forces in the #hilippines durin! Eorld Ear II. :pon li&eration, in 8pril ')(3, he left for the :nited "tates &ut returned to the #hilippines in

Decem&er, ')(3. 8ppellees Collective Exhi&its I$I, CFI Davao, "p. #roc. $%%, as Exhi&its I88I, I22I and ICCDane,IH Exhs. I**I, I**-lI, I**-%-Dane,I and p. (<-, t.s.n., ul, %', ')3-.7 In 8pril, ')3', Ed1ard E. Christensen returned once more to California shortl, after the ma@in! of his last 1ill and testament 6no1 in =uestion herein7 1hich he executed at his la1,ersC offices in *anila on *arch 3, ')3'. He died at the "t. +u@eCs Hospital in the Cit, of *anila on 8pril -., ')3-. 6pp. %--7 In arrivin! at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the #hilippines, 1e are persuaded &, the fact that he 1as &orn in Ne1 ;or@, mi!rated to California and resided there for nine ,ears, and since he came to the #hilippines in ')'- he returned to California ver, rarel, and onl, for short visits 6perhaps to relatives7, and considerin! that he appears never to have o1ned or ac=uired a home or properties in that state, 1hich 1ould indicate that he 1ould ultimatel, a&andon the #hilippines and ma@e home in the "tate of California. "ec. '$. 9esidence is a term used 1ith man, shades of meanin! from mere temporar, presence to the most permanent a&ode. /enerall,, ho1ever, it is used to denote somethin! more than mere ph,sical presence. 6/oodrich on Conflict of +a1s, p. %)7 8s to his citi>enship, ho1ever, Ee find that the citi>enship that he ac=uired in California 1hen he resided in "acramento, California from ').( to ')'-, 1as never lost &, his sta, in the #hilippines, for the latter 1as a territor, of the :nited "tates 6not a state7 until ')($ and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citi>en of California &, the fact that 1hen he executed his 1ill in ')3' he declared that he 1as a citi>en of that "tateH so that he appears never to have intended to a&andon his California citi>enship &, ac=uirin! another. This conclusion is in accordance 1ith the follo1in! principle expounded &, /oodrich in his Conflict of +a1s. The terms ICresidenceI and IdomicileI mi!ht 1ell &e ta@en to mean the same thin!, a place of permanent a&ode. 2ut domicile, as has &een sho1n, has ac=uired a technical meanin!. Thus one ma, &e domiciled in a place 1here he has never &een. 8nd he ma, reside in a place 1here he has no domicile. The man 1ith t1o homes, &et1een 1hich he divides his time, certainl, resides in each one, 1hile livin! in it. 2ut if he 1ent on &usiness 1hich 1ould re=uire his presence for several 1ee@s or months, he mi!ht properl, &e said to have sufficient connection 1ith the place to &e called a resident. It is clear, ho1ever, that, if he treated his settlement as continuin! onl, for the particular &usiness in hand, not !ivin! up his former Ihome,I he could not &e a domiciled Ne1 ;or@er. 8c=uisition of a domicile of choice re=uires the exercise of intention as 1ell as ph,sical presence. I9esidence simpl, re=uires &odil, presence of an inha&itant in a !iven place, 1hile domicile re=uires &odil, presence in that place and also an intention to ma@e it oneCs domicile.I 9esidence, ho1ever, is a term used 1ith man, shades of meanin!, from the merest temporar, presence to the most permanent a&ode, and it is not safe to insist that an, one use et the onl, proper one. 6/oodrich, p. %)7 The la1 that !overns the validit, of his testamentar, dispositions is defined in 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines, 1hich is as follo1s4 89T. '$. 9eal propert, as 1ell as personal propert, is su&0ect to the la1 of the countr, 1here it is situated. Ho1ever, intestate and testamentar, successions, &oth 1ith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic validit, of testamentar, provisions, shall &e re!ulated &, the national la1 of the person 1hose succession is under consideration, 1hatever ma, &e the nature of the propert, and re!ardless of the countr, 1here said propert, ma, &e found. The application of this article in the case at &ar re=uires the determination of the meanin! of the term #national law# is used therein. There is no sin!le 8merican la1 !overnin! the validit, of testamentar, provisions in the :nited "tates, each state of the :nion havin! its o1n private la1 applica&le to its citi>ens onl, and in force onl, 1ithin the state. The Inational la1I indicated in 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code a&ove =uoted can not, therefore, possi&l, mean or appl, to an, !eneral 8merican la1. "o it can refer to no other than the private la1 of the "tate of California. The next =uestion is4 Ehat is the la1 in California !overnin! the disposition of personal propert,J The decision of the court &elo1, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California #ro&ate Code, a testator ma, dispose of his propert, &, 1ill in the form and manner he desires, citin! the case of Estate of *cDaniel, << Cal. 8ppl. %d B<<, '<$ #. %d )3%. 2ut appellant invo@es the provisions of 8rticle )($ of the Civil Code of California, 1hich is as follo1s4

If there is no la1 to the contrar,, in the place 1here personal propert, is situated, it is deemed to follo1 the person of its o1ner, and is !overned &, the la1 of his domicile. The existence of this provision is alle!ed in appellantCs opposition and is not denied. Ee have chec@ed it in the California Civil Code and it is there. 8ppellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to &, a 1itness. 65nl, the case of Daufman is correctl, cited.7 It is ar!ued on executorCs &ehalf that as the deceased Christensen 1as a citi>en of the "tate of California, the internal la1 thereof, 1hich is that !iven in the a&ovecited case, should !overn the determination of the validit, of the testamentar, provisions of ChristensenCs 1ill, such la1 &ein! in force in the "tate of California of 1hich Christensen 1as a citi>en. 8ppellant, on the other hand, insists that 8rticle )($ should &e applica&le, and in accordance there1ith and follo1in! the doctrine of the renvoi, the =uestion of the validit, of the testamentar, provision in =uestion should &e referred &ac@ to the la1 of the decedentCs domicile, 1hich is the #hilippines. The theor, of doctrine of renvoi has &een defined &, various authors, thus4 The pro&lem has &een stated in this 1a,4 IEhen the Conflict of +a1s rule of the forum refers a 0ural matter to a forei!n la1 for decision, is the reference to the purel, internal rules of la1 of the forei!n s,stemH i.e., to the totalit, of the forei!n la1 minus its Conflict of +a1s rulesJI 5n lo!ic, the solution is not an eas, one. The *ichi!an court chose to accept the renvoi, that is, applied the Conflict of +a1s rule of Illinois 1hich referred the matter &ac@ to *ichi!an la1. 2ut once havin! determined the the Conflict of +a1s principle is the rule loo@ed to, it is difficult to see 1h, the reference &ac@ should not have &een to *ichi!an Conflict of +a1s. This 1ould have resulted in the Iendless chain of referencesI 1hich has so often &een critici>ed &e le!al 1riters. The opponents of the renvoi 1ould have loo@ed merel, to the internal la1 of Illinois, thus re0ectin! the renvoi or the reference &ac@. ;et there seems no compellin! lo!ical reason 1h, the ori!inal reference should &e the internal la1 rather than to the Conflict of +a1s rule. It is true that such a solution avoids !oin! on a merr,-!o-round, &ut those 1ho have accepted the renvoi theor, avoid this inextricabilis circulas &, !ettin! off at the second reference and at that point appl,in! internal la1. #erhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a &it more consistent for the, loo@ al1a,s to internal la1 as the rule of reference. "tran!el, enou!h, &oth the advocates for and the o&0ectors to the renvoi plead that !reater uniformit, 1ill result from adoption of their respective vie1s. 8nd still more stran!e is the fact that the onl, 1a, to achieve uniformit, in this choice-of-la1 pro&lem is if in the dispute the t1o states 1hose la1s form the le!al &asis of the liti!ation disa!ree as to 1hether the renvoi should &e accepted. If &oth re0ect, or &oth accept the doctrine, the result of the liti!ation 1ill var, 1ith the choice of the forum. In the case stated a&ove, had the *ichi!an court re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould have &een a!ainst the 1omanH if the suit had &een &rou!ht in the Illinois courts, and the, too re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould &e for the 1oman. The same result 1ould happen, thou!h the courts 1ould s1itch 1ith respect to 1hich 1ould hold lia&ilit,, if &oth courts accepted the renvoi. The 9estatement accepts the renvoi theor, in t1o instances4 1here the title to land is in =uestion, and 1here the validit, of a decree of divorce is challen!ed. In these cases the Conflict of +a1s rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied &, the forum, &ut an, further reference !oes onl, to the internal la1. Thus, a personCs title to land, reco!ni>ed &, the situs, 1ill &e reco!ni>ed &, ever, courtH and ever, divorce, valid &, the domicile of the parties, 1ill &e valid ever,1here. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. <, pp. '-'(.7 ?, a citi>en of *assachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leavin! mova&le propert, in *assachusetts, En!land, and France. The =uestion arises as to ho1 this propert, is to &e distri&uted amon! ?Cs next of @in. 8ssume 6'7 that this =uestion arises in a *assachusetts court. There the rule of the conflict of la1s as to intestate succession to mova&les calls for an application of the la1 of the deceasedCs last domicile. "ince &, h,pothesis ?Cs last domicile 1as France, the natural thin! for the *assachusetts court to do 1ould &e to turn to French statute of distri&utions, or 1hatever corresponds thereto in French la1, and decree a distri&ution accordin!l,. 8n examination of French la1, ho1ever, 1ould sho1 that if a French court 1ere called upon to determine ho1 this propert, should &e distri&uted, it 1ould refer the distri&ution to the national la1 of the deceased, thus appl,in! the *assachusetts statute of distri&utions. "o on the surface of thin!s the *assachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action4 6a7 either to appl, the French la1 is to intestate succession, or 6&7 to resolve itself into a French court and appl, the *assachusetts statute of distri&utions, on the assumption that this is 1hat a French court 1ould do. If it accepts the so-called renvoidoctrine, it 1ill follo1 the latter course, thus appl,in! its o1n la1.

This is one t,pe of renvoi. 8 0ural matter is presented 1hich the conflict-of-la1s rule of the forum refers to a forei!n la1, the conflict-of-la1s rule of 1hich, in turn, refers the matter &ac@ a!ain to the la1 of the forum. This is renvoi in the narro1er sense. The /erman term for this 0udicial process is C9uc@ver1eisun!.CI 6Harvard +a1 9evie1, Vol. -', pp. 3%--3<'.7 8fter a decision has &een arrived at that a forei!n la1 is to &e resorted to as !overnin! a particular case, the further =uestion ma, arise4 8re the rules as to the conflict of la1s contained in such forei!n la1 also to &e resorted toJ This is a =uestion 1hich, 1hile it has &een considered &, the courts in &ut a fe1 instances, has &een the su&0ect of fre=uent discussion &, text1riters and essa,istsH and the doctrine involved has &een descriptivel, desi!nated &, them as the I9envo,erI to send &ac@, or the I9uchvers1eisun!I, or the IEeiterver1eisun!I, since an affirmative ans1er to the =uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption of the forei!n la1 in toto 1ould in man, cases result in returnin! the main controvers, to &e decided accordin! to the la1 of the forum. ... 6'$ C. .". B<%.7 8nother theor,, @no1n as the Idoctrine of renvoiI, has &een advanced. The theor, of the doctrine of renvoiis that the court of the forum, in determinin! the =uestion &efore it, must ta@e into account the 1hole la1 of the other 0urisdiction, &ut also its rules as to conflict of la1s, and then appl, the la1 to the actual =uestion 1hich the rules of the other 0urisdiction prescri&e. This ma, &e the la1 of the forum. The doctrine of the renvoi has !enerall, &een repudiated &, the 8merican authorities. 6% 8m. ur. %)$7 The scope of the theor, of renvoi has also &een defined and the reasons for its application in a countr, explained &, #rof. +oren>en in an article in the ;ale +a1 ournal, Vol. %<, ')'<-')'B, pp. 3%)-3-'. The pertinent parts of the article are =uoted herein &elo14 The reco!nition of the renvoi theor, implies that the rules of the conflict of la1s are to &e understood as incorporatin! not onl, the ordinar, or internal la1 of the forei!n state or countr,, &ut its rules of the conflict of la1s as 1ell. 8ccordin! to this theor, Cthe la1 of a countr,C means the 1hole of its la1. Von 2ar presented his vie1s at the meetin! of the Institute of International +a1, at Neuchatel, in ').., in the form of the follo1in! theses4 6'7 Ever, court shall o&serve the la1 of its countr, as re!ards the application of forei!n la1s. 6%7 #rovided that no express provision to the contrar, exists, the court shall respect4 6a7 The provisions of a forei!n la1 1hich disclaims the ri!ht to &ind its nationals a&road as re!ards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall &e determined &, the la1 of the domicile, or even &, the la1 of the place 1here the act in =uestion occurred. 6&7 The decision of t1o or more forei!n s,stems of la1, provided it &e certain that one of them is necessaril, competent, 1hich a!ree in attri&utin! the determination of a =uestion to the same s,stem of la1. If, for example, the En!lish la1 directs its 0ud!e to distri&ute the personal estate of an En!lishman 1ho has died domiciled in 2el!ium in accordance 1ith the la1 of his domicile, he must first in=uire 1hether the la1 of 2el!ium 1ould distri&ute personal propert, upon death in accordance 1ith the la1 of domicile, and if he finds that the 2el!ian la1 1ould ma@e the distri&ution in accordance 1ith the la1 of nationalit, K that is the En!lish la1 K he must accept this reference &ac@ to his o1n la1. Ee note that 8rticle )($ of the California Civil Code is its conflict of la1s rule, 1hile the rule applied in In re Daufman, Supra, its internal la1. If the la1 on succession and the conflict of la1s rules of California are to &e enforced 0ointl,, each in its o1n intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re Daufman should appl, to citi>ens livin! in the "tate, &ut 8rticle )($ should appl, to such of its citi>ens as are not domiciled in California &ut in other 0urisdictions. The rule laid do1n of resortin! to the la1 of the domicile in the determination of matters 1ith forei!n element involved is in accord 1ith the !eneral principle of 8merican la1 that the domiciliar, la1 should !overn in most matters or ri!hts 1hich follo1 the person of the o1ner. Ehen a man dies leavin! personal propert, in one or more states, and leaves a 1ill directin! the manner of distri&ution of the propert,, the la1 of the state 1here he 1as domiciled at the time of his death 1ill &e loo@ed to in decidin! le!al =uestions a&out the 1ill, almost as completel, as the la1 of situs is consulted in =uestions a&out

the devise of land. It is lo!ical that, since the domiciliar, rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the same rules should determine the validit, of an attempted testamentar, dispostion of the propert,. Here, also, it is not that the domiciliar, has effect &e,ond the &orders of the domiciliar, state. The rules of the domicile are reco!ni>ed as controllin! &, the Conflict of +a1s rules at the situs propert,, and the reason for the reco!nition as in the case of intestate succession, is the !eneral convenience of the doctrine. The Ne1 ;or@ court has said on the point4 CThe !eneral principle that a dispostiton of a personal propert,, valid at the domicile of the o1ner, is valid an,1here, is one of the universal application. It had its ori!in in that international comit, 1hich 1as one of the first fruits of civili>ation, and it this a!e, 1hen &usiness intercourse and the process of accumulatin! propert, ta@e &ut little notice of &oundar, lines, the practical 1isdom and 0ustice of the rule is more apparent than ever. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. '$(, pp. ((%-((-.7 8ppellees ar!ue that 1hat 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines pointed out as the national law is the internal la1 of California. 2ut as a&ove explained the la1s of California have prescri&ed t1o sets of la1s for its citi>ens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other 0urisdictions. 9eason demands that Ee should enforce the California internal la1 prescri&ed for its citi>ens residin! therein, and enforce the conflict of la1s rules for the citi>ens domiciled a&road. If 1e must enforce the la1 of California as in comit, 1e are &ound to !o, as so declared in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code, then 1e must enforce the la1 of California in accordance 1ith the express mandate thereof and as a&ove explained, i.e., appl, the internal la1 for residents therein, and its conflict-of-la1s rule for those domiciled a&road. It is ar!ued on appelleesC &ehalf that the clause Iif there is no la1 to the contrar, in the place 1here the propert, is situatedI in "ec. )($ of the California Civil Code refers to 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines and that the la1 to the contrar, in the #hilippines is the provision in said 8rticle '$ that the national law of the deceased should !overn. This contention can not &e sustained. 8s explained in the various authorities cited a&ove the national la1 mentioned in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code is the la1 on conflict of la1s in the California Civil Code, i.e., 8rticle )($, 1hich authori>es the reference or return of the =uestion to the la1 of the testatorCs domicile. The conflict of la1s rule in California, 8rticle )($, Civil Code, precisel, refers &ac@ the case, 1hen a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the la1 of his domicile, the #hilippines in the case at &ar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case &ac@ to CaliforniaH such action 1ould leave the issue incapa&le of determination &ecause the case 1ill then &e li@e a foot&all, tossed &ac@ and forth &et1een the t1o states, &et1een the countr, of 1hich the decedent 1as a citi>en and the countr, of his domicile. The #hilippine court must appl, its o1n la1 as directed in the conflict of la1s rule of the state of the decedent, if the =uestion has to &e decided, especiall, as the application of the internal la1 of California provides no le!itime for children 1hile the #hilippine la1, 8rts. BB<6(7 and B)(, Civil Code of the #hilippines, ma@es natural children le!all, ac@no1led!ed forced heirs of the parent reco!ni>in! them. The #hilippine cases 6In re Estate of ohnson, -) #hil. '3$H 9iera vs. #almaroli, (. #hil. '.3H *iciano vs. 2rimo, 3. #hil. B$<H 2a&coc@ Templeton vs. 9ider 2a&coc@, 3% #hil. '-.H and /i&&s vs. /overnment, 3) #hil. %)-.7 cited &, appellees to support the decision can not possi&l, appl, in the case at &ar, for t1o important reasons, i.e., the su&0ect in each case does not appear to &e a citi>en of a state in the :nited "tates &ut 1ith domicile in the #hilippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of 1hich the su&0ect is a citi>en, a la1 similar to or identical 1ith 8rt. )($ of the California Civil Code. Ee therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citi>en of California, is the #hilippines, the validit, of the provisions of his 1ill deprivin! his ac@no1led!ed natural child, the appellant, should &e !overned &, the #hilippine +a1, the domicile, pursuant to 8rt. )($ of the Civil Code of California, not &, the internal la1 of California.. EHE9EF59E, the decision appealed from is here&, reversed and the case returned to the lo1er court 1ith instructions that the partition &e made as the #hilippine la1 on succession provides. ud!ment reversed, 1ith costs a!ainst appellees. G.R. No. L-//090 No1$23$r 1, 19/7

T$-&a&$ E-&a&$ o+ Jo-$4, G. .r*2o, J(AN MI!IANO, a'2*n*-&ra&or, petitioner-appellee, vs. ANDRE .RIMO, opponent-appellant. Ross$ Lawrence and Selph for appellant. %a&us and 'elgado for appellee. ROM(ALDE", J.: The partition of the estate left &, the deceased oseph /. 2rimo is in =uestion in this case.

The 0udicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of partition. 8ndre 2rimo, one of the &rothers of the deceased, opposed it. The court, ho1ever, approved it. The errors 1hich the oppositor-appellant assi!ns are4 6'7 The approval of said scheme of partitionH 6%7 denial of his participation in the inheritanceH 6-7 the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approvin! the partitionH 6(7 the approval of the purchase made &, the #ietro +ana of the deceasedCs &usiness and the deed of transfer of said &usinessH and 637 the declaration that the Tur@ish la1s are impertinent to this cause, and the failure not to postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the deliver, of the deceasedCs &usiness to #ietro +an>a until the receipt of the depositions re=uested in reference to the Tur@ish la1s. The appellantCs opposition is &ased on the fact that the partition in =uestion puts into effect the provisions of oseph /. 2rimoCs 1ill 1hich are not in accordance 1ith the la1s of his Tur@ish nationalit,, for 1hich reason the, are void as &ein! in violation or article '. of the Civil Code 1hich, amon! other thin!s, provides the follo1in!4 Nevertheless, le!al and testamentar, successions, in respect to the order of succession as 1ell as to the amount of the successional ri!hts and the intrinsic validit, of their provisions, shall &e re!ulated &, the national la1 of the person 1hose succession is in =uestion, 1hatever ma, &e the nature of the propert, or the countr, in 1hich it ma, &e situated. 2ut the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testimentar, dispositions are not in accordance 1ith the Tur@ish la1s, inasmuch as he did not present an, evidence sho1in! 1hat the Tur@ish la1s are on the matter, and in the a&sence of evidence on such la1s, the, are presumed to &e the same as those of the #hilippines. 6+im and +im vs. Collector of Customs, -$ #hil., (<%.7 It has not &een proved in these proceedin!s 1hat the Tur@ish la1s are. He, himself, ac@no1led!es it 1hen he desires to &e !iven an opportunit, to present evidence on this pointH so much so that he assi!ns as an error of the court in not havin! deferred the approval of the scheme of partition until the receipt of certain testimon, re=uested re!ardin! the Tur@ish la1s on the matter. The refusal to !ive the oppositor another opportunit, to prove such la1s does not constitute an error. It is discretionar, 1ith the trial court, and, ta@in! into consideration that the oppositor 1as !ranted ample opportunit, to introduce competent evidence, 1e find no a&use of discretion on the part of the court in this particular. There is, therefore, no evidence in the record that the national la1 of the testator oseph /. 2rimo 1as violated in the testamentar, dispositions in =uestion 1hich, not &ein! contrar, to our la1s in force, must &e complied 1ith and executed. lawphil.net Therefore, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect 1as not erroneous. In re!ard to the first assi!nment of error 1hich deals 1ith the exclusion of the herein appellant as a le!atee, inasmuch as he is one of the persons desi!nated as such in 1ill, it must &e ta@en into consideration that such exclusion is &ased on the last part of the second clause of the 1ill, 1hich sa,s4 "econd. I li@e desire to state that althou!h &, la1, I am a Tur@ish citi>en, this citi>enship havin! &een conferred upon me &, con=uest and not &, free choice, nor &, nationalit, and, on the other hand, havin! resided for a considera&le len!th of time in the #hilippine Islands 1here I succeeded in ac=uirin! all of the propert, that I no1 possess, it is m, 1ish that the distri&ution of m, propert, and ever,thin! in connection 1ith this, m, 1ill, &e made and disposed of in accordance 1ith the la1s in force in the #hilippine islands, re=uestin! all of m, relatives to respect this 1ish, other1ise, I annul and cancel &eforehand 1hatever disposition found in this 1ill favora&le to the person or persons 1ho fail to compl, 1ith this re=uest. The institution of le!atees in this 1ill is conditional, and the condition is that the instituted le!atees must respect the testatorCs 1ill to distri&ute his propert,, not in accordance 1ith the la1s of his nationalit,, &ut in accordance 1ith the la1s of the #hilippines. If this condition as it is expressed 1ere le!al and valid, an, le!atee 1ho fails to compl, 1ith it, as the herein oppositor 1ho, &, his attitude in these proceedin!s has not respected the 1ill of the testator, as expressed, is prevented from receivin! his le!ac,.

The fact is, ho1ever, that the said condition is void, &ein! contrar, to la1, for article <)% of the civil Code provides the follo1in!4 Impossi&le conditions and those contrar, to la1 or !ood morals shall &e considered as not imposed and shall not pre0udice the heir or le!atee in an, manner 1hatsoever, even should the testator other1ise provide. 8nd said condition is contrar, to la1 &ecause it expressl, i!nores the testatorCs national la1 1hen, accordin! to article '. of the civil Code a&ove =uoted, such national la1 of the testator is the one to !overn his testamentar, dispositions. "aid condition then, in the li!ht of the le!al provisions a&ove cited, is considered un1ritten, and the institution of le!atees in said 1ill is unconditional and conse=uentl, valid and effective even as to the herein oppositor. It results from all this that the second clause of the 1ill re!ardin! the la1 1hich shall !overn it, and to the condition imposed upon the le!atees, is null and void, &ein! contrar, to la1. 8ll of the remainin! clauses of said 1ill 1ith all their dispositions and re=uests are perfectl, valid and effective it not appearin! that said clauses are contrar, to the testatorCs national la1. Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the distri&ution of this estate &e made in such a manner as to include the herein appellant 8ndre 2rimo as one of the le!atees, and the scheme of partition su&mitted &, the 0udicial administrator is approved in all other respects, 1ithout an, pronouncement as to costs. "o ordered.

5G.R. No. 1/4371. No1$23$r /3, /6667

8A(LA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, vs. !O(RT OF A88EALS an' ALI!IA F. LLORENTE, respondents. DE!ISION 8ARDO, J.9

T,$ !a-$ The case raises a conflict of la1s issue. Ehat is &efore us is an appeal from the decision of the Court of 8ppeals L'M modif,in! that of the 9e!ional Trial Court, Camarines "ur, 2ranch -3, Iri!a Cit, L%M declarin! respondent 8licia F. +lorente 6herinafter referred to as N8liciaO7, as coo1ners of 1hatever propert, she and the deceased +oren>o N. +lorente 6hereinafter referred to as N+oren>oO7 ma, have ac=uired durin! the t1ent,-five 6%37 ,ears that the, lived to!ether as hus&and and 1ife.

T,$ Fa%&The deceased +oren>o N. +lorente 1as an enlisted serviceman of the :nited "tates Nav, from *arch '., ')%< to "eptem&er -., ')3<.L-M 5n Fe&ruar, %%, ')-<, +oren>o and petitioner #aula +lorente 6hereinafter referred to as N#aulaO7 1ere married &efore a parish priest, 9oman Catholic Church, in Na&ua, Camarines "ur. L(M 2efore the out&rea@ of the #acific Ear, +oren>o departed for the :nited "tates and #aula sta,ed in the con0u!al home in &arrio 8ntipolo, Na&ua, Camarines "ur.L3M

5n Novem&er -., ')(-, +oren>o 1as admitted to :nited "tates citi>enship and Certificate of Naturali>ation No. 33<)B'$ 1as issued in his favor &, the :nited "tates District Court, "outhern District of Ne1 ;or@. L$M :pon the li&eration of the #hilippines &, the 8merican Forces in ')(3, +oren>o 1as !ranted an accrued leave &, the :. ". Nav,, to visit his 1ife and he visited the #hilippines. L<M He discovered that his 1ife #aula 1as pre!nant and 1as Nlivin! inO and havin! an adulterous relationship 1ith his &rother, Ceferino +lorente. LBM 5n Decem&er (, ')(3, #aula !ave &irth to a &o, re!istered in the 5ffice of the 9e!istrar of Na&ua as NCrisolo!o +lorente,O 1ith the certificate statin! that the child 1as not le!itimate and the line for the fatherPs name 1as left &lan@. L)M +oren>o refused to for!ive #aula and live 1ith her. In fact, on Fe&ruar, %, ')($, the couple dre1 a 1ritten a!reement to the effect that 6'7 all the famil, allo1ances allotted &, the :nited "tates Nav, as part of +oren>oPs salar, and all other o&li!ations for #aulaPs dail, maintenance and support 1ould &e suspendedH 6%7 the, 1ould dissolve their marital union in accordance 1ith 0udicial proceedin!sH 6-7 the, 1ould ma@e a separate a!reement re!ardin! their con0u!al propert, ac=uired durin! their marital lifeH and 6(7 +oren>o 1ould not prosecute #aula for her adulterous act since she voluntaril, admitted her fault and a!reed to separate from +oren>o peacefull,. The a!reement 1as si!ned &, &oth +oren>o and #aula and 1as 1itnessed &, #aulaPs father and stepmother. The a!reement 1as notari>ed &, Notar, #u&lic #edro 5sa&el.L'.M +oren>o returned to the :nited "tates and on Novem&er '$, ')3' filed for divorce 1ith the "uperior Court of the "tate of California in and for the Count, of "an Die!o. #aula 1as represented &, counsel, ohn 9ile,, and activel, participated in the proceedin!s. 5n Novem&er %<, ')3', the "uperior Court of the "tate of California, for the Count, of "an Die!o found all factual alle!ations to &e true and issued an interlocutor, 0ud!ment of divorce. L''M 5n Decem&er (, ')3%, the divorce decree &ecame final. L'%M In the meantime, +oren>o returned to the #hilippines. 5n anuar, '$, ')3B, +oren>o married 8licia F. +lorente in *anila. L'-M 8pparentl,, 8licia had no @no1led!e of the first marria!e even if the, resided in the same to1n as #aula, 1ho did not oppose the marria!e or coha&itation. L'(M From ')3B to ')B3, +oren>o and 8licia lived to!ether as hus&and and 1ife. L'3M Their t1ent,-five 6%37 ,ear union produced three children, 9aul, +u> and 2everl,, all surnamed +lorente. L'$M 5n *arch '-, ')B', +oren>o executed a +ast Eill and Testament. The 1ill 1as notari>ed &, Notar, #u&lic "alvador *. 5cciano, dul, si!ned &, +oren>o 1ith attestin! 1itnesses Francisco Hu!o, Francisco Nei&res and Tito Tra0ano. In the 1ill, +oren>o &e=ueathed all his propert, to 8licia and their three children, to 1it4 N6'7 I !ive and &e=ueath to m, 1ife 8+ICI8 9. F59T:N5 exclusivel, m, residential house and lot, located at "an Francisco, Na&ua, Camarines "ur, #hilippines, includin! 8++ the personal properties and other mova&les or &elon!in!s that ma, &e found or existin! thereinH N6%7 I !ive and &e=ueath exclusivel, to m, 1ife 8licia 9. Fortuno and to m, children, 9aul F. +lorente, +u> F. +lorente and 2everl, F. +lorente, in e=ual shares, all m, real properties 1hatsoever and 1heresoever located, specificall, m, real properties located at 2aran!a, 8ro-8ldao, Na&ua, Camarines "urH 2aran!a, #alo,on, Na&ua, Camarines "urH 2aran!a, 2aras, "itio #u!a, Na&ua, Camarines "urH and 2aran!a, #alo,on, "itio Nalilidon!, Na&ua, Camarines "urH N6-7 I li@e1ise !ive and &e=ueath exclusivel, unto m, 1ife 8licia 9. Fortuno and unto m, children, 9aul F. +lorente, +u> F. +lorente and 2everl, F. +lorente, in e=ual shares, m, real properties located in Fue>on Cit, #hilippines, and covered &, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 'BB$3%H and m, lands in 8ntipolo, 9i>al, #hilippines, covered &, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. '%(')$ and '$3'BB, &oth of the 9e!istr, of Deeds of the province of 9i>al, #hilippinesH N6(7 That their respective shares in the a&ove-mentioned properties, 1hether real or personal properties, shall not &e disposed of, ceded, sold and conve,ed to an, other persons, &ut could onl, &e sold, ceded, conve,ed and disposed of &, and amon! themselvesH N637 I desi!nate m, 1ife 8+ICI8 9. F59T:N5 to &e the sole executor of this m, +ast Eill and Testament, and in her default or incapacit, of the latter to act, an, of m, children in the order of a!e, if of a!eH N6$7 I here&, direct that the executor named herein or her la1ful su&stitute should served 6 sic7 1ithout &ondH N6<7 I here&, revo@e an, and all m, other 1ills, codicils, or testamentar, dispositions heretofore executed, si!ned, or pu&lished, &, meH

N6B7 It is m, final 1ish and desire that if I die, no relatives of mine in an, de!ree in the +lorentePs "ide should ever &other and distur& in an, manner 1hatsoever m, 1ife 8licia 9. Fortunato and m, children 1ith respect to an, real or personal properties I !ave and &e=ueathed respectivel, to each one of them &, virtue of this +ast Eill and Testament.O L'<M 5n Decem&er '(, ')B-, +oren>o filed 1ith the 9e!ional Trial Court, Iri!a, Camarines "ur, a petition for the pro&ate and allo1ance of his last 1ill and testament 1herein +oren>o moved that 8licia &e appointed "pecial 8dministratrix of his estate.L'BM 5n anuar, 'B, ')B(, the trial court denied the motion for the reason that the testator +oren>o 1as still alive. L')M 5n anuar, %(, ')B(, findin! that the 1ill 1as dul, executed, the trial court admitted the 1ill to pro&ate. L%.M 5n une '', ')B3, &efore the proceedin!s could &e terminated, +oren>o died. L%'M 5n "eptem&er (, ')B3, #aula filed 1ith the same court a petition L%%M for letters of administration over +oren>oPs estate in her favor. #aula contended 6'7 that she 1as +oren>oPs survivin! spouse, 6%7 that the various propert, 1ere ac=uired durin! their marria!e, 6-7 that +oren>oPs 1ill disposed of all his propert, in favor of 8licia and her children, encroachin! on her le!itime and 'A% share in the con0u!al propert,. L%-M 5n Decem&er '-, ')B3, 8licia filed in the testate proceedin! 6"p. #roc. No. I9-<337, a petition for the issuance of letters testamentar,.L%(M 5n 5cto&er '(, ')B3, 1ithout terminatin! the testate proceedin!s, the trial court !ave due course to #aulaPs petition in "p. #roc. No. I9-BBB.L%3M 5n Novem&er $, '- and %., ')B3, the order 1as pu&lished in the ne1spaper N2icol "tarO. L%$M 5n *a, 'B, ')B<, the 9e!ional Trial Court issued a 0oint decision, thus4 NEherefore, considerin! that this court has so found that the divorce decree !ranted to the late +oren>o +lorente is void and inapplica&le in the #hilippines, therefore the marria!e he contracted 1ith 8licia Fortunato on anuar, '$, ')3B at *anila is li@e1ise void. This &ein! so the petition of 8licia F. +lorente for the issuance of letters testamentar, is denied. +i@e1ise, she is not entitled to receive an, share from the estate even if the 1ill especiall, said so her relationship 1ith +oren>o havin! !ained the status of paramour 1hich is under 8rt. <-) 6'7. N5n the other hand, the court finds the petition of #aula Titular +lorente, meritorious, and so declares the intrinsic disposition of the 1ill of +oren>o +lorente dated *arch '-, ')B' as void and declares her entitled as con0u!al partner and entitled to one-half of their con0u!al properties, and as primar, compulsor, heir, #aula T. +lorente is also entitled to onethird of the estate and then one-third should !o to the ille!itimate children, 9aul, +u> and 2everl,, all surname 6 sic7 +lorente, for them to partition in e=ual shares and also entitled to the remainin! free portion in e=ual shares. N#etitioner, #aula +lorente is appointed le!al administrator of the estate of the deceased, +oren>o +lorente. 8s such let the correspondin! letters of administration issue in her favor upon her filin! a &ond in the amount 6 sic7 of #'..,...... conditioned for her to ma@e a return to the court 1ithin three 6-7 months a true and complete inventor, of all !oods, chattels, ri!hts, and credits, and estate 1hich shall at an, time come to her possession or to the possession of an, other person for her, and from the proceeds to pa, and dischar!e all de&ts, le!acies and char!es on the same, or such dividends thereon as shall &e decreed or re=uired &, this courtH to render a true and 0ust account of her administration to the court 1ithin one 6'7 ,ear, and at an, other time 1hen re=uired &, the court and to perform all orders of this court &, her to &e performed. N5n the other matters pra,ed for in respective petitions for 1ant of evidence could not &e !ranted. N"5 59DE9ED.OL%<M In time, 8licia filed 1ith the trial court a motion for reconsideration of the afore=uoted decision. L%BM 5n "eptem&er '(, ')B<, the trial court denied 8liciaPs motion for reconsideration &ut modified its earlier decision, statin! that 9aul and +u> +lorente are not children Nle!itimate or other1iseO of +oren>o since the, 1ere not le!all, adopted &, him.L%)M 8mendin! its decision of *a, 'B, ')B<, the trial court declared 2everl, +lorente as the onl, ille!itimate child of +oren>o, entitlin! her to one-third 6'A-7 of the estate and one-third 6'A-7 of the free portion of the estate. L-.M 5n "eptem&er %B, ')B<, respondent appealed to the Court of 8ppeals. L-'M 5n ul, -', '))3, the Court of 8ppeals promul!ated its decision, affirmin! 1ith modification the decision of the trial court in this 1ise4

NEHE9EF59E, the decision appealed from is here&, 8FFI9*ED 1ith the *5DIFIC8TI5N that 8licia is declared as coo1ner of 1hatever properties she and the deceased ma, have ac=uired durin! the t1ent,-five 6%37 ,ears of coha&itation. N"5 59DE9ED.OL-%M 5n 8u!ust %3, '))3, petitioner filed 1ith the Court of 8ppeals a motion for reconsideration of the decision. L--M 5n *arch %', '))$, the Court of 8ppeals,L-(M denied the motion for lac@ of merit. Hence, this petition.L-3M

T,$ I--u$ "trippin! the petition of its le!alese and sortin! throu!h the various ar!uments raised, L-$M the issue is simple. Eho are entitled to inherit from the late +oren>o N. +lorenteJ Ee do not a!ree 1ith the decision of the Court of 8ppeals. Ee remand the case to the trial court for rulin! on the intrinsic validit, of the 1ill of the deceased.

T,$ A44:*%a3:$ La; The fact that the late +oren>o N. +lorente &ecame an 8merican citi>en lon! &efore and at the time of4 6'7 his divorce from #aulaH 6%7 marria!e to 8liciaH 6-7 execution of his 1illH and 6(7 death, is dul, esta&lished, admitted and undisputed. Thus, as a rule, issues arisin! from these incidents are necessaril, !overned &, forei!n la1. The Civil Code clearl, provides4 N8rt. '3. +a1s relatin! to famil, ri!hts and duties, or to the status, condition and le!al capacit, of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even thou!h livin! a&road. N8rt. '$. 9eal propert, as 1ell as personal propert, is su&0ect to the la1 of the countr, 1here it is situated. NHo1ever, intestate and testamentar, succession, &oth 1ith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic validit, of testamentar, provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration , 1hatever ma, &e the nature of the propert, and re!ardless of the countr, 1herein said propert, ma, &e found.O 6e&phasis ours7 True, forei!n la1s do not prove themselves in our 0urisdiction and our courts are not authori>ed to ta@e 0udicial notice of them. +i@e an, other fact, the, must &e alle!ed and proved. L-<M Ehile the su&stance of the forei!n la1 1as pleaded, the Court of 8ppeals did not admit the forei!n la1. The Court of 8ppeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, 1here the case 1as Nreferred &ac@O to the la1 of the decedentPs domicile, in this case, #hilippine la1. Ee note that 1hile the trial court stated that the la1 of Ne1 ;or@ 1as not sufficientl, proven, in the same &reath it made the cate!orical, al&eit e=uall, unproven statement that N8merican la1 follo1s the Qdomiciliar, theor,P hence, #hilippine la1 applies 1hen determinin! the validit, of +oren>oPs 1ill. L-BM F*r-&, there is no such thin! as one 8merican la1. The Inational la1I indicated in 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code cannot possi&l, appl, to !eneral 8merican la1. There is no such la1 !overnin! the validit, of testamentar, provisions in the :nited "tates. Each "tate of the union has its o1n la1 applica&le to its citi>ens and in force onl, 1ithin the "tate. It can therefore refer to no other than the la1 of the "tate of 1hich the decedent 1as a resident. L-)M S$%on', there is no sho1in! that the application of the renvoi doctrine is called for or re=uired &, Ne1 ;or@ "tate la1. The trial court held that the 1ill 1as intrinsicall, invalid since it contained dispositions in favor of 8lice, 1ho in the trial courtPs opinion 1as a mere para&our. The trial court thre1 the 1ill out, leavin! 8lice, and her t1o children, 9aul and +u>, 1ith nothin!.

The Court of 8ppeals also disre!arded the 1ill. It declared 8lice entitled to one half 6'A%7 of 1hatever propert, she and +oren>o ac=uired durin! their coha&itation, appl,in! 8rticle '(( of the Civil Code of the #hilippines. The hast, application of #hilippine la1 and the complete disre!ard of the 1ill, alread, pro&ated as dul, executed in accordance 1ith the formalities of #hilippine la1, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.

<a:*'*&y o+ &,$ For$*=n D*1or%$ In (an 'orn v. Ro&illo$ Jr.L(.M 1e held that o1in! to the nationalit, principle em&odied in 8rticle '3 of the Civil Code, onl, #hilippine nationals are covered &, the polic, a!ainst a&solute divorces, the same &ein! considered contrar, to our concept of pu&lic polic, and moralit,. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens ma, o&tain divorces a&road, provided the, are valid accordin! to their national la1. Citin! this landmar@ case, the Court held in )uita v. %ourt of Appeals ,L('M that once proven that respondent 1as no lon!er a Filipino citi>en 1hen he o&tained the divorce from petitioner, the rulin! in (an 'orn 1ould &ecome applica&le and petitioner could Nver, 1ell lose her ri!ht to inheritO from him. In *ilapil v. +ba,-So&era,L(%M 1e reco!ni>ed the divorce o&tained &, the respondent in his countr,, the Federal 9epu&lic of /erman,. There, 1e stated that divorce and its le!al effects ma, &e reco!ni>ed in the #hilippines insofar as respondent is concerned in vie1 of the nationalit, principle in our civil la1 on the status of persons. For failin! to appl, these doctrines, the decision of the Court of 8ppeals must &e reversed. L(-M Ee hold that the divorce o&tained &, +oren>o H. +lorente from his first 1ife #aula 1as valid and reco!ni>ed in this 0urisdiction as a matter of comit,. No1, the effects of this divorce 6as to the succession to the estate of the decedent7 are matters &est left to the determination of the trial court.

<a:*'*&y o+ &,$ The Civil Code provides4

*::

N8rt. '<. The forms and solemnities of contracts, 1ills, and other pu&lic instruments shall &e !overned &, the la1s of the country in which they are executed. NEhen the acts referred to are executed &efore the diplomatic or consular officials of the 9epu&lic of the #hilippines in a forei!n countr,, the solemnities esta&lished &, #hilippine la1s shall &e o&served in their execution.O 6 underscoring ours7 The clear intent of +oren>o to &e=ueath his propert, to his second 1ife and children &, her is !larin!l, sho1n in the 1ill he executed. Ee do not 1ish to frustrate his 1ishes, since he 1as a forei!ner, not covered &, our la1s on Nfamil, ri!hts and duties, status, condition and le!al capacit,.O L((M Ehether the 1ill is intrinsicall, valid and 1ho shall inherit from +oren>o are issues &est proved &, forei!n la1 1hich must &e pleaded and proved. Ehether the 1ill 1as executed in accordance 1ith the formalities re=uired is ans1ered &, referrin! to #hilippine la1. In fact, the 1ill 1as dul, pro&ated. 8s a !uide ho1ever, the trial court should note that 1hatever pu&lic polic, or !ood customs ma, &e involved in our s,stem of le!itimes, Con!ress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of forei!n nationals. Con!ress specificall, left the amount of successional ri!hts to the decedentCs national la1. L(3M Havin! thus ruled, 1e find it unnecessar, to pass upon the other issues raised.

T,$ Fa::o HEREFORE, the petition is /98NTED. The decision of the Court of 8ppeals in C8-/. 9. "# No. '<(($ promul!ated on ul, -', '))3 is "ET 8"IDE.

In lieu thereof, the Court 9EVE9"E" the decision of the 9e!ional Trial Court and 9EC5/NIGE" as V8+ID the decree of divorce !ranted in favor of the deceased +oren>o N. +lorente &, the "uperior Court of the "tate of California in and for the Count, of "an Die!o, made final on Decem&er (, ')3%. Further, the Court 9E*8ND" the cases to the court of ori!in for determination of the intrinsic validit, of +oren>o N. +lorentePs 1ill and determination of the partiesP successional ri!hts allo1in! proof of forei!n la1 1ith instructions that the trial court shall proceed 1ith all deli&erate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased 1ithin the frame1or@ of the 9ules of Court. No costs. SO ORDERED.

5G.R. No. 16>0>1. D$%$23$r >, 19997

LO(RDES L. DOROTHEO, petitioner, vs. !O(RT OF A88EALS, NILDA D. ?(INTANA, +or H$r-$:+ an' a- A&&orn$y*n-Fa%& o+ <I!ENTE DOROTHEO an' JOSE DOROTHEO, respondents. DE!ISION )NARES-SANTIAGO, J.9 *a, a last 1ill and testament admitted to pro&ate &ut declared intrinsicall, void in an order that has &ecome final and executor, still &e !iven effectJ This is the issue that arose from the follo1in! antecedents4 #rivate respondents 1ere the le!itimate children of 8le0andro Dorotheo and 8niceta 9e,es. The latter died in ')$) 1ithout her estate &ein! settled. 8le0andro died thereafter. "ometime in ')<<, after 8le0androPs death, petitioner, 1ho claims to have ta@en care of 8le0andro &efore he died, filed a special proceedin! for the pro&ate of the latterPs last 1ill and testament. In ')B', the court issued an order admittin! 8le0androPs 1ill to pro&ate. #rivate respondents did not appeal from said order. In ')B-, the, filed a N*otion To Declare The Eill Intrinsicall, Void.O The trial court !ranted the motion and issued an order, the dispositive portion of 1hich reads4 NEHE9EF59E, in vie1 of the fore!oin!, 5rder is here&, issued declarin! +ourdes +e!aspi not the 1ife of the late 8le0andro Dorotheo, the provisions of the last 1ill and testament of 8le0andro Dorotheo as intrinsicall, void, and declarin! the oppositors Vicente Dorotheo, ose Dorotheo and Nilda Dorotheo Fuintana as the onl, heirs of the late spouses 8le0andro Dorotheo and 8niceta 9e,es, 1hose respective estates shall &e li=uidated and distri&uted accordin! to the la1s on intestac, upon pa,ment of estate and other taxes due to the !overnment.O L'M #etitioner moved for reconsideration ar!uin! that she is entitled to some compensation since she too@ care of 8le0andro prior to his death althou!h she admitted that the, 1ere not married to each other. :pon denial of her motion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed to the Court of 8ppeals, &ut the same 1as dismissed for failure to file appellantPs &rief 1ithin the extended period !ranted.L%M This dismissal &ecame final and executor, on Fe&ruar, -, ')B) and a correspondin! entr, of 0ud!ment 1as forth1ith issued &, the Court of 8ppeals on *a, '$, ')B). 8 1rit of execution 1as issued &, the lo1er court to implement the final and executor, 5rder. Conse=uentl,, private respondents filed several motions includin! a motion to compel petitioner to surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles 6TCT7 coverin! the properties of the late 8le0andro. Ehen petitioner refused to surrender the TCTPs, private respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of ne1 titles in their names. #etitioner opposed the motion. 8n 5rder 1as issued on Novem&er %), ')). &, ud!e Gain 2. 8n!as settin! aside the final and executor, 5rder dated anuar, -., ')B$, as 1ell as the 5rder directin! the issuance of the 1rit of execution, on the !round that the order 1as merel, Ninterlocutor,O, hence not final in character. The court added that the dispositive portion of the said 5rder even directs the distri&ution of the estate of the deceased spouses. #rivate respondents filed a motion for reconsideration 1hich 1as denied in an 5rder dated Fe&ruar, ', '))'. Thus, private respondents filed a petition &efore the Court of 8ppeals, 1hich nullified the t1o assailed 5rders dated Novem&er %), ')). and Fe&ruar, ', '))'. 8!!rieved, petitioner instituted a petition for revie1 ar!uin! that the case filed &, private respondents &efore the Court of 8ppeals 1as a petition under 9ule $3 on the !round of !rave a&use of discretion or lac@ of 0urisdiction. #etitioner contends that in issuin! the t1o assailed orders, ud!e 8n!as cannot &e said to have no 0urisdiction &ecause he 1as particularl, desi!nated to hear the case. #etitioner li@e1ise assails the 5rder of the Court of 8ppeals upholdin! the

validit, of the anuar, -., ')B$ 5rder 1hich declared the intrinsic invalidit, of 8le0androPs 1ill that 1as earlier admitted to pro&ate. #etitioner also filed a motion to reinstate her as executrix of the estate of the late 8le0andro and to maintain the status -uo or lease of the premises thereon to third parties. L-M #rivate respondents opposed the motion on the !round that petitioner has no interest in the estate since she is not the la1ful 1ife of the late 8le0andro. The petition is 1ithout merit. 8 final and executor, decision or order can no lon!er &e distur&ed or reopened no matter ho1 erroneous it ma, &e. In settin! aside the anuar, -., ')B$ 5rder that has attained finalit,, the trial court in effect nullified the entr, of 0ud!ment made &, the Court of 8ppeals. It is 1ell settled that a lo1er court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court, for to do so 1ould &e to ne!ate the hierarch, of courts and nullif, the essence of revie1. It has &een ruled that a final 0ud!ment on pro&ated 1ill, al&eit erroneous, is &indin! on the 1hole 1orld.L(M It has &een consistentl, held that if no appeal is ta@en in due time from a 0ud!ment or order of the trial court, the same attains finalit, &, mere lapse of time. Thus, the order allo1in! the 1ill &ecame final and the =uestion determined &, the court in such order can no lon!er &e raised ane1, either in the same proceedin!s or in a different motion. The matters of due execution of the 1ill and the capacit, of the testator ac=uired the character of res 0udicata and cannot a!ain &e &rou!ht into =uestion, all 0uridical =uestions in connection there1ith &ein! for once and forever closed. L3M "uch final order ma@es the 1ill conclusive a!ainst the 1hole 1orld as to its extrinsic validit, and due execution. L$M It should &e noted that pro&ate proceedin!s deals !enerall, 1ith the extrinsic validit, of the 1ill sou!ht to &e pro&ated,L<M particularl, on three aspects4 R 1hether the 1ill su&mitted is indeed, the decedentPs last 1ill and testamentH R compliance 1ith the prescri&ed formalities for the execution of 1illsH R the testamentar, capacit, of the testatorHLBM R and the due execution of the last 1ill and testament. L)M :nder the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of 1hether the testator 1as of sound and disposin! mind at the time of its execution, that he had freel, executed the 1ill and 1as not actin! under duress, fraud, menace or undue influence and that the 1ill is !enuine and not a for!er,, L'.M that he 1as of the proper testamentar, a!e and that he is a person not expressl, prohi&ited &, la1 from ma@in! a 1ill. L''M The intrinsic validit, is another matter and =uestions re!ardin! the same ma, still &e raised even after the 1ill has &een authenticated.L'%M Thus, it does not necessaril, follo1 that an extrinsicall, valid last 1ill and testament is al1a,s intrinsicall, valid. Even if the 1ill 1as validl, executed, if the testator provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the la1ful heirs of their le!itime or ri!htful inheritance accordin! to the la1s on succession, L'-M the unla1ful provisionsAdispositions thereof cannot &e !iven effect. This is speciall, so 1hen the courts had alread, determined in a final and executor, decision that the 1ill is intrinsicall, void. "uch determination havin! attained that character of finalit, is &indin! on this Court 1hich 1ill no lon!er &e distur&ed. Not that this Court finds the 1ill to &e intrinsicall, valid, &ut that a final and executor, decision of 1hich the part, had the opportunit, to challen!e &efore the hi!her tri&unals must stand and should no lon!er &e reevaluated. Failure to avail of the remedies provided &, la1 constitutes 1aiver. 8nd if the part, does not avail of other remedies despite its &elief that it 1as a!!rieved &, a decision or court action, then it is deemed to have full, a!reed and is satisfied 1ith the decision or order. 8s earl, as ')'B, it has &een declared that pu&lic polic, and sound practice demand that, at the ris@ of occasional errors, 0ud!ments of courts must at some point of time fixed &, la1L'(M &ecome final other1ise there 1ill &e no end to liti!ation. +nteres rei publicae ut finis sit litiu& - the ver, o&0ect of 1hich the courts 1ere constituted 1as to put an end to controversies. L'3M To fulfill this purpose and to do so speedil,, certain time limits, more or less ar&itrar,, have to &e set up to spur on the slothful. L'$M The onl, instance 1here a part, interested in a pro&ate proceedin! ma, have a final li=uidation set aside is 1hen he is left out &, reason of circumstances &e,ond his control or throu!h mista@e or inadvertence not imputa&le to ne!li!ence, L'<M 1hich circumstances do not concur herein. #etitioner 1as priv, to the suit callin! for the declaration of the intrinsic invalidit, of the 1ill, as she precisel, appealed from an unfavora&le order therefrom. 8lthou!h the final and executor, 5rder of anuar, -., ')B$ 1herein private respondents 1ere declared as the onl, heirs do not &ind those 1ho are not parties thereto such as the alle!ed ille!itimate son of the testator, the same constitutes res .udicata 1ith respect to those 1ho 1ere parties to the pro&ate proceedin!s. #etitioner cannot a!ain raise those matters ane1 for reliti!ation other1ise that 1ould amount to forumshoppin!. It should &e remem&ered that forum shoppin! also occurs 1hen the same issue had alread, &een resolved

adversel, &, some other court.L'BM It is clear from the executor, order that the estates of 8le0andro and his spouse should &e distri&uted accordin! to the la1s of intestate succession. #etitioner posits that the anuar, -., ')B$ 5rder is merel, interlocutor,, hence it can still &e set aside &, the trial court. In support thereof, petitioner ar!ues that Nan order merel, declarin! 1ho are heirs and the shares to 1hich set of heirs is entitled cannot &e the &asis of execution to re=uire deliver, of shares from one person to another particularl, 1hen no pro0ect of partition has &een filed.O L')M The trial court declared in the anuar, -., ')B$ 5rder that petitioner is not the le!al 1ife of 8le0andro, 1hose onl, heirs are his three le!itimate children 6petitioners herein7, and at the same time it nullified the 1ill. 2ut it should &e noted that in the same 5rder, the trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses &e distri&uted accordin! to the la1s of intestac,. 8ccordin!l,, it has no option &ut to implement that order of intestate distri&ution and not to reopen and a!ain re-examine the intrinsic provisions of the same 1ill. It can &e clearl, inferred from 8rticle )$. of the Civil Code, on the la1 of successional ri!hts that testac, is preferred to intestac,.L%.M 2ut &efore there could &e testate distri&ution, the 1ill must pass the scrutini>in! test and safe!uards provided &, la1 considerin! that the deceased testator is no lon!er availa&le to prove the voluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usuall, onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to !ive - /e&o praesu&itur donare.L%'M No intestate distri&ution of the estate can &e done until and unless the 1ill had failed to pass &oth its extrinsic and intrinsic validit,. If the 1ill is extrinsicall, void, the rules of intestac, appl, re!ardless of the intrinsic validit, thereof. If it is extrinsicall, valid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic validit, S that is 1hether the provisions of the 1ill are valid accordin! to the la1s of succession. In this case, the court had ruled that the 1ill of 8le0andro 1as extrinsicall, valid &ut the intrinsic provisions thereof 1ere void. Thus, the rules of intestac, appl, as correctl, held &, the trial court. Furthermore, 8le0androPs disposition in his 1ill of the alle!ed share in the con0u!al properties of his late spouse, 1hom he descri&ed as his Nonl, &eloved 1ifeO, is not a valid reason to reverse a final and executor, order. Testamentar, dispositions of properties not &elon!in! exclusivel, to the testator or properties 1hich are part of the con0u!al re!ime cannot &e !iven effect. *atters 1ith respect to 1ho o1ns the properties that 1ere disposed of &, 8le0andro in the void 1ill ma, still &e properl, ventilated and determined in the intestate proceedin!s for the settlement of his and that of his late spousePs estate. #etitionerPs motion for appointment as administratrix is rendered moot considerin! that she 1as not married to the late 8le0andro and, therefore, is not an heir. HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed from is 8FFI9*ED. SO ORDERED.