BELLIS V.

BELLIS [20 S 358 (1967)] - Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas,
the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require
legitimes, then his will which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes is valid.

While Art. 17, par. 3 provides that prohibitive laws of our country concerning persons and their property
shall not be rendered ineffective by contrary laws in a foreign country, this cannot be considered an
exception to Art. 16 which categorically provides for the situations when the national law shall apply.
Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding
article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the New Civil Code, while
reproducing without substantial change Art. 10 paragraph 2 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 16 of the New
Civil Code. It must have been their purpose to make Art. 16, paragraph 2, a specific provision in itself
which must be applied in testate and intestate successions.

Thus, in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his
national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 10 - now Art. 16 - states said national
law shall govern.

Baviera: Why was Texas law applied when there was no proof of Texas law?

Other Conflict of Law Rules:

Art. 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a person who does not have his domicile in this
country, is valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made, or according
to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time; and if the revocation takes
place in this country, when it is in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

Art. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.

Art. 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of
the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.

Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

xxx. (Family Code.)

- Art. 35 (1) - must not be below 18

- Art. 35 (4) - not bigamous or polygamous

- Art. 35 (5) - no mistake as to identity of the other party

- Art. 35 (6) - void marriages for failure to comply with Art. 53 on recording in the Civil Registry of the
judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of marriage, partition and distribution of properties of the
spouses, and the delivery of the children's presumptive legitimes.
- Art. 36 - psychological incapacity

- Art. 37 - incestuous marriages

- Art. 38 - void marriages by reason of public policy.

Art. 26. xxx

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by EO No. 227, prom.
July 17, 1987) (Family Code.)

Balane: This is a qualified divorce law.

Q: Would the ruling in Tenchavez still be the same, even after the amendment introduced in Art. 26 by
EO 227?

A: Yes, bec. the Tenchavez spouses are Filipinos. Art. 26 par. 2 does not apply to them.

Note in the the Van Dorn v. Romillo ruling, we are not told, at whose instance the divorce was obtained.

Requisites of Art. 26 par. 2:

(1) one of the spouses is a foreigner

(2) a divorce decree is obtained

(3) the divorce decree is obtained at the instance of the foreign spouse

(4) under the divorce decree, the foreigner-spouse acquires the capacity to remarry.

Q: Suppose at the time of the marriage, both spouses are Filipinos. Afterwards, one becomes
naturalized. Would Art. 26 par. 2 still be applied?

Baviera: This refers to the formal or extrinsic requirements only, namely (1) authority of the solemnizing
officer; (2) valid marriage license; (3) marriage ceremony.

As to the essential or intrinsic requirements, namely (1) legal capacity and (2) consent, these must be
complied with in accordance with the national law of the parties.

Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property relations of the
spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage
and their residence.

This rule shall not apply:

(1) Where both spouses are aliens;

(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines
and executed in the country where the property is located; and
(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting
property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for their extrinsic validity.
(Family Code.)

(not in Baviera's outline)

Art. 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall
be supplied by the provisions of this Code.

Tolentino: Exceptions to Article.-- The Code does not observe the principle contained in this article w/
consistency. There are special cases expressly provided in the Code itself, where the special law of the
Code of Commerce is made only suppletory, while the NCC is made primary law. For Example, Art. 1766
provides that: "In all matters not regulated by this Code, the rights and obligations of common carriers
shall be governed by the Code of Commerce and by special laws."