G.R. No.

L-23678 June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, dece!ed,
"EO"LE#S BAN$ nd TR%ST &OM"AN', executor.
MARIA &RISTINA BELLIS nd MIRIAM "ALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants,
vs.
E()AR( A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
Facts:
Amos G. Bellis died, on 8
th
of July 1958, a citizen and resident of Texas, UA.
!n Au"ust 5, 195#, Amos executed a $ill in the %hili&&ines, in $hich he directed that after all
taxes, o'li"ations, and ex&enses of administration are &aid for, his distri'uta'le estate should 'e
di(ided, in trust, in the follo$in" order and manner)
1
st
*ife)
+ary +allen
,di(orced-
a- . #/0,000 #
nd
$ife)
1iolet
2ennedy
3e"it. 4hildren)
5d$ard Bellis
Geor"e ,&re6deceased in infancy-
7enry
Alexander
Anna
3e"it.
4hildren)
5d$in Bellis
*alter
8orothy
9lle"it. 4hildren)
Amos Bellis, Jr.
+aria 4hristina
+iriam
'- . /0,000 each
c- the remainin" shall "o to his se(en sur(i(in" children
'y his first and second $i(es, in e:ual shares
After &ayin" for the 'e:uests of the $ill, the executor su'mitted and filed its ;5xecutor<s
=inal Account, >e&ort of Administration and %ro?ect of %artition@ on January 8, 19A/.
!n January 1B, 19A/, the ille"itimate children ,exce&t Amos, Jr. $hose 'elated o&&osition
$as denied 'y the 4ourt- filed their o&&ositions to the &artition on the "round that they $ere
de&ri(ed of their le"itimes ,to $hich they $ould 'e entitled if %hili&&ine la$ $ere to a&&ly, as
ille"itimate children are com&ulsory heirs here-.
!n A&ril C0, 19A/, the lo$er court o(erruled their o&&ositions, relyin" u&on Art. 16 of the
Civil Code $hich says that intestate and testamentary successions shall be regulated by the
national law of the decedent ,Texas la$, in this case-.
The o&&ositor6a&&ellants a&&ealed to the 4 after their motions for reconsideration $ere
denied on June 11, 19A/.
Issue)
Are they entitled to their le"itimesD
Held:
,1- aid children are N! entitled to their le"itimes for under !e"as law $hich $e must a&&ly
,'ecause it is the national la$ of the deceased-, there are no com#ulsory heirs or legitimes.
Note: As a basis$ %C added Art. 1&'( which says that )ca#acity to succeed is governed by the
law of the nation of the decedent*.
,#- !he renvoi doctrine cannot be a##lied. aid doctrine is usually &ertinent $here the decedent is
a national of one country, and a domiciliary of another. 9n the &resent case, the decedent $as B!T7
a national and a domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death. o that e(en assumin" that Texas has
a conflicts of la$ rule &ro(idin" that the la$ of the domicile should
"o(ern, the same $ould not result in a reference 'acE ,ren(oi- to %hili&&ine la$, 'ut $ould still
refer to Texas 3a$. Fonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule ado&tin" the situs theory ,lex rei sitae-
callin" for the a&&lication of the la$ of the &lace $here the &ro&erties are situated, ren(oi $ould
arise, since the &ro&erties here in(ol(ed are found in the %hili&&ines. 9n the a'sence ho$e(er of
&roof as to the conflicts of la$ rule in Texas, it should not 'e &resumed different from ours.
,C- !he contention that the national law of the deceased ,Art. 1A, &ar. #G Art. 10C9- should be
disregarded because of Art. 1+$ #ar. ' $hich in effect &ro(ides that our &rohi'iti(e la$s should
not 'e rendered nu"atory 'y forei"n la$s$ is ,-N. 'ecause)
i- Art. 1A, &ar. # and Art. 10C9 are s&ecial &ro(isions $hile Art. 1B, &ar. C is merely a
"eneral &ro(ision /%01CIFIC 0-2I%IN% 34%! 0-12AI5 21-
.1N1-A5 N1%6
ii- 4on"ress deleted the &hrase ;not$ithstandin" the &ro(isions of this and the next
&recedin" article@ $hen it incor&orated Art. 11 of the old 44 as Art. 1B of the ne$
44, $hile re&roducin" $ithout su'stantial chan"e, the second &ara"ra&h of Art. 10
of the old 44 as Art. 1A in the ne$ 44. 9t must ha(e 'een its &ur&ose to maEe the
second &ara"ra&h of Art. 1A a s&ecific &ro(ision in itself, $hich must 'e a&&lied in
testate and intestate successions. As further indication of this le"islati(e intent,
4on"ress added a ne$ &ro(ision $hich su&&orts Art 1A6 Art. 10C9. 9t is, therefore,
e(ident that $hate(er &u'lic &olicy or "ood customs may 'e in(ol(ed in our system
of le"itimes, 4on"ress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of
forei"n nationals.
,/- The o&&ositors &ointed out that the decedent executed # $ills H one to "o(ern his Texas estate
and the other his %hili&&ine estate H ar"uin" from this that he intended %hili&&ine la$ to "o(ern his
%hili&&ine estate. Assumin" that such $as the decedent<s intention, it $ill N! A5!1- the la$,
for as this 4ourt ruled in 3iciano v. 7rimo$ 6& 0hil. 86+$ 8+&, a #rovision in a foreigner9s will to
the effect that his #ro#erties shall be distributed in accordance with 0hili##ine law and not
with his national law$ is illegal and void for his national la$, in this re"ard, cannot 'e i"nored.