TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN vs.

HELEN CHRISTENSEN
GARCIA

G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN,

DECEASED.
ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased, Executor and
Heir-appellees, VS. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant
January 31, 1963

FACTS:
Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California, where he resided and
consequently was considered a California citizen. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he
became a domiciliary until his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this
country he had always considered himself 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 sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who was rendered
to have been declared acknowledged natural daughter. Counsel for appellant claims that
California law should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law
of the domicile; that therefore Philippine law is ultimately applicable; that finally, the share of
Helen must be increased in view of the success ional rights of illegitimate children under
Philippine law. On the other hand, counsel for the heir of Christensen contends that inasmuch
as it is clear that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the national law of the deceased must apply,
our courts must immediately apply the internal law of California on the matter; that under
California law there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any
property possessed by him in absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not being
entitled to anything and his will remain undisturbed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail in administering the estate of Christensen?

RULING:
The court in deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect that there are two
rules in California on the matter: the internal law which should apply to Californians domiciled in
California; and the conflict rule which should apply to Californians domiciled outside of
California. The California conflict rule says: If there is no law to the contrary in the place where
personal property is situated, is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the
law of his domicile. Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law of his domicile, the
Philippines, ought to be followed. Where it is referred back to California, it will form a circular
pattern referring to both country back and forth.
 Bellis vs Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased, PEOPLES BANK & TRUST

COMPANY,
executor, MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, VS.
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET. AL., heir-appellees
G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967

FACTS:
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had
5 legitimate children with his wife, Mary Mallen, whom he had divorced, 3 legitimate children
with his 2nd wife, Violet Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate children.

Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in which his distributable estate
should be divided in trust in the following order and manner:

a. $240,000 to his 1st wife Mary Mallen;

b. P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000 each;
c. The remainder shall go to his surviving children by his 1st and 2nd wives, in equal shares.

Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, USA. His will was admitted to
probate in the Philippines. The Peoples Bank and Trust Company, an executor of the will, paid
the entire bequest therein.

Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its Executors Final
Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition where it reported, inter alia, the
satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the shares of stock amounting to $240,000
delivered to her, and the legacies of the 3 illegitimate children in the amount of P40,000 each or
a total of P120,000. In the project partition, the executor divided the residuary estate into 7
equal portions
for the benefit of the testators 7 legitimate children by his 1st and 2nd marriages.

Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective
opposition to the project partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimates as
illegitimate children.

The lower court denied their respective motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether Texan Law of Philippine Law must apply.

RULING:
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the
time of his death. So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of law rule providing that the
same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine Law, but would still refer to
Texas Law.

Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the
application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since
the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however of proofs as
to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from our appellants,
position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi.

The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, USA and
that under the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimates. Accordingly, since the
intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights has to be
determined under Texas Law, the Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the
testate of Amos Bellis.