AZNAR VS GARCIA

Facts:

Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California where he resided and consequently
was considered a California Citizen for a period of nine years to 1913. He came to the Philippines where he
became a domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this
country, he had always considered himself as a citizen of California.
In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy
Christensen as his only heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who, in a decision
rendered by the Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged natural daughter of his. Counsel of Helen
claims that under Art. 16 (2) of the civil code, California law should be applied, the matter is returned back to the
law of domicile, that Philippine law is ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be increased in view of
successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine laws. On the other hand, counsel for daughter Maria ,
in as much that it is clear under Art, 16 (2) of the New Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our
courts must apply internal law of California on the matter. Under California law, there are no compulsory heirs and
consequently a testator should dispose any property possessed by him in absolute dominion.
--Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled in the Philippines. He executed in
his will acknowledging his natural daughter Maria Lucy Christensen as sole heir but left a legacy of some money in
favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared by the Supreme Court in its decision as acknowledged natural
daughter of Edward C. Counsel of Helen asserts that her claim must be increased in view of the successional rights
of illegitimate children under Phil. law. Counsel of Maria insists that Art. 16 (2) provides that the NATIONAL LAW OF
THE PERSON applies in intestate and testamentary successions and since Edward C. is a citizen of CA, its law
should be applied. Lower court ruled that CA law should be applied thus this petition for review.
Issue:
What law should be applicable Philippine or California Law?
Ruling:
The court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary successions with respect to order of
succession and amt. of successional right is regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON.
California Probate Code provides that a testator may dispose of his property in the form and manner he desires.
Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that if no law on the contrary, the place where the personal
property is situated is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the LAW OF HIS DOMICILE.
These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of Renvoi may be applied where the question of validity of the
testamentary provision in question is referred back to the decedents domicile the Philippines.
S.C. noted the California law provides 2 sets of laws for its citizens: One for residents therein as provided by the
CA Probate Code and another for citizens domiciled in other countries as provided by Art. 946 of the Civil Code
of California.
The conflicts of law rule in CA (Art. 946) authorize the return of question of law to the testators domicile. The
court must apply its own rule in the Philippines as directed in the conflicts of law rule in CA, otherwise the
case/issue will not be resolved if the issue is referred back and forth between 2 states.
The SC reversed the lower courts decision and remanded the case back to it for decision with an instruction that
partition be made applying the Philippine law.