Testate Estate of Bohanan 106 Phil 997 Facts: The testator was actually born in Nebraska, where at least

he was a citizen of the state and also had properties in California. Notwithstanding, eventhough the decedent stayed long in the Philippines, his stay was merely temporary therefore continued and remained to be a citizen of the United States. His permanent residence or domicile in the United States depended upon his personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as his homicide and therefore at the time of his death, he was a citizen of that state. The executor filed a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, making, in accordance with the provisions of the will, the following adjudications: (1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator's grandson Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several mining companies; (2) the other half of the residuary estate to the testator's brother, F.L. Bohanan, and his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This consist in the same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to those given to testator's grandson; (3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohana, and his daughter, Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments; (4) legacies to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward, P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000. It will be seen from the above that out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To his children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000. In the proceedings for the probate of the will, the children and the wife of the deceased Bohanan question the validity of the testamentary dispositions of the executor/testator C.O. Bohanans last will and testament. Issue: Whether or not the testamentary dispositions, especially those for the children which are short of the legitimate given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. Held: Yes. As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code now Article 16 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator 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 accordance with the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Bellis vs Bellis 20 SCRA 358 Facts: Amos G. Bellis, who was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. By his first wife whom he had divorced, Mary E. Mallen, he had 5 legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who predeceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman. Then he married his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis. On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philipiness dividing his estate as follows: $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis; and the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives. Subsequently, on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A. On the day of September 15, 1958 his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on which the will be directed to People's Bank and Trust Company as the executor of the will. However, On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. The probate court relying upon Article 16 of NCC, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case, the Texas laws are no forced heirs or legitimates. Issue: Whether or not the Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of the will. Held: Yes. Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. Thus, ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under 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

Platinum Tours vs Panlilio 411 SCRA 142 Facts: On April 27, 1994, petitioner Platinum Tours and Travel Inc. (Platinum) filed a complaint for a sum of money with damages against Pan Asiatic Travel Corporation (PATC) and its president Nelida G. Galvez. Platinum sought to collect payment for the airline tickets which PATC bought from it docketed as Civil Case No. 94-1634. The RTC of Makati City, Branch 62 ordered PATC and Nelida G. Galvez to solidarily pay Platinum actual damages, legal interest, attorneys fees and cost of suit in favor of the petitioner. However, On June 2, 1995, private respondent Jose M. Panlilio filed a motion to intervene in Civil Case No. 94-1634. Panlilio claimed that, in October 1992, Galvez had executed in his favor a chattel mortgage over her shares of stock in the Manila Polo Club to secure her P1 million loan and that Galvez had already delivered to him the stock certificates valued at P5 million. The trial court denied Panlilios motion for intervention and declaring the sale null and void due to irregularities in the conduct thereof. Thus, On May 3, 1996, Panlilio filed against Galvez a collection case with application for a writ of preliminary attachment of the disputed Manila Polo Club shares, docketed as Civil Case No. 96-365. The case was raffled to Branch 146 of the RTC of Makati City. For the moment, Panlilio again attempted to intervene in Civil Case No. 94-1634, this time by incorporating in his complaint a motion to consolidate Civil Case No. 96-365 and Civil Case No. 94-1634. Judge Roberto Diokno of Branch 62 allowed the consolidation Civil Case No. 96-365 and Civil Case No. 94-1634. Petitioner motion for partial reconsideration of the decision of the Court of Appeals, praying that Civil Case No. 96-365 be returned to Branch 146 or re-raffled to another RTC Branch of Makati. Thus, the motion was denied. In the instant petition, Platinum insists that the Makati RTC, Branch 62, has no jurisdiction to try Civil Case No. 96-365. It argues that, when Judge Dioknos July 23, 1996 order allowing the consolidation of the two cases was annulled and set aside, RTC Branch 62s basis for acquiring jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 96-365 was likewise extinguished. Issue: Whether or not Panlilios collection case docketed as Civil Case No. 96-365 falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC of Makati, Branch 62. Held: Yes. The fact that the Court of Appeals subsequently annulled Judge Dioknos order granting the consolidation of Civil Case No. 96-365 and Civil Case No. 94-1634, did not affect the jurisdiction of the court which issued the said order. Jurisdiction should be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the authority to decide a case, not the orders or the decision rendered therein. Accordingly, where a court has jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, as in the instant case, the decision on all questions arising from the case is but an exercise of such jurisdiction. Any error that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is merely an error of judgment which does not affect its authority to decide the case, much less divest the court of the jurisdiction over the case. All told, nothing legally prevents the RTC of Makati, Branch 62, from proceeding with Civil Case No. 96-365. Should it decide to retain the case, it is hereby directed to resolve the same with dispatch.