MONTINOLA v.

HERBOSA
FACTS: Montinola filed an action against the heirs of Dr. Jose Rizal for
recovery of possession of personal property (the RIZAL RELICS)
allegedly sold to him by Doa Trinidad Rizal. The trial court held that
neither party is entitled to the possession of such property, relying
principally on the fact that in Rizal's Mi Ultimo Adios, there is a line
where Rizal bequeathed all his property to the Filipino people. The
court argued that the handwritten work of Rizal constitutes a
holographic will giving the State all his property.
ISSUE: Does Mi Ultimo Adios constitute a last will?
HELD: No. An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a
thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of property, and
executed without Animus Standi cannot be legally considered a will.
Rizal's Mi Ultimo Adios is but a literary piece of work, and was so
intended. It may be considered a will in a grammatical sense but not in
a legal or juridical sense. Moreover, it also lacks the requirements of a
holographic will such as a statement of the year month and day of its
execution and his signature.

MACIANO v. BRIMO - G.R. No. L-22595

FACTS: The case involves the estate left by the deceased Joseph G.
Brimo. The judicial administrator of this estate filed a scheme of
partition. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it.
The court, however, approved it. The appellant's opposition is based on
the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of
Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in accordance with the laws of his
Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation
or article 10 of the Civil Code: Nevertheless, legal and testamentary
successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the
amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose

succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property

or the country in which it may be situated.
ISSUE: Can the court direct that the distribution of this estate be made
in such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as
one of the legatees?
HELD: Yes, Though the last part of the second clause of the will
expressly said that it be made and disposed of in accordance with the
laws in force in the Philippine Island, this condition, described as
impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall not
prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even should
the testator otherwise provide. Impossible conditions are further
defined as those contrary to law or good morals. Thus, national law of
the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial
administrator, in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the
legatees.

BELLIS v. BELLIS
FACTS: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas. He had 5
legitimate children from his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he
divorced. And by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he
had three legitimate children.
On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines.
Subsequently, Amos G. Bellis died in Texas, U.S.A. His will was
admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila The People's Bank and Trust
Company, as executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein.
Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and
filed its "Executor's Final Account, Report of Administration and Project
of Partition." 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. Amos Bellis,
Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him. The lower court, on
issued an order overruling the oppositions. Relying upon Art 16 of the

Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this
case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.
ISSUE: Is it correct to apply the Philippine law rather than the Turkish
Law?
HELD: Yes, SC affirmed the lower court. The said illegitimate children
are not entitled to their legitimes under the Texas Law (which is the
national law of the deceased), here are no legitimes. The renvoi
doctrine cannot be applied. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the
decedent is a national of one country and a domiciliary of another. In
this case, it is the deceased was both a national of Texas and a
domicile thereof at the time of his death.

Article 16, Paragraph 2 of Civil code render applicable the national law
of the decedent, in intestate and testamentary successions, with
regard to four items: (a) the order of succession, (b) the amount of
successional rights, (c) the intrinsic validity of provisions of 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 to where it is situated.However, intestate and
testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
successions 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.