G.R. No. L-35694December 23, 1933ALLISON G. GIBBS,petitioner-appelle,vs.THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,oppositor-appellant.THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA,respondent-appellant.Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellants.Allison D. Gibbs in his own behalf.BUTTE,J.:This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring the register of deeds of the City of Manila to cancel certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331, covering lands located in the City of Manila, Philippine Islands, and issue in lieu thereof new certificates of transfer of title in favor of Allison D. Gibbs without requiring him to present any document showing that the succession tax due under Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code has been paid.The said order of the court of March 10, 1931, recites that the parcels of land covered by said certificates of title formerly belonged to the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs; that the latter died intestate in Palo Alto, California, on November 28, 1929; that at the time of her death she and her husband were citizens of the State of California and domiciled therein.It appears further from said order that Allison D. Gibbs was appointed administrator of the state of his said deceased wife in case No. 36795 in the same court, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Eva Johnson Gibbs, Deceased"; that in said intestate proceedings, the said Allison D. Gibbs, on September 22,1930, filed anex partepetition in which he alleged "that the parcels of land hereunder described belong to the conjugal partnership of your petitioner and his wife, Eva Johnson Gibbs", describing in detail the three facts here involved; and further alleging that his said wife, a citizen and resident of California, died on November 28,1929; that in accordance with the law of California, the community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the surviving husband without administration; that the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs, deceased, has no obligations or debts and no one will be prejudiced by adjucating said parcels of land (and seventeen others not here involved) to be the absolute property of the said Allison D. Gibbs as sole owner. The court granted said petition and on September 22, 1930, entered a decree adjucating the said Allison D. Gibbs to be the sole and absolute owner of said lands, applying section 1401 of the Civil Code of California. Gibbs presented this decree to the register of deeds of Manila and demanded that the latter issue to him a "transfer certificate of title".Section 1547 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code provides in part that:Registers of deeds shall not register in the registry of property any document transferring real property or real rights therein or any chattel mortgage, by way of giftsmortis causa, legacy or inheritance, unless the payment of the tax fixed in this article and actually due thereon shall be shown. And they shall immediately notify the Collector of Internal Revenue or the corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the tax discovered by them. . . .Acting upon the authority of said section, the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined to accept as binding said decree of court of September 22,1930, and refused to register the transfer of title of the said conjugal property to Allison D. Gibbs, on the ground that the corresponding inheritance tax had not been paid. Thereupon, under date of December 26, 1930, Allison D. Gibbs filed in the said court a petition for an order requiring the said register of deeds "to issue the corresponding titles" to the petitioner without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax. After due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of September 22, 1930, and entered the order of March 10, 1931, which is under review on this appeal.On January 3, 1933, this court remanded the case to the court of origin for new trial upon additional evidence in regard to the pertinent law of California in force at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs, also authorizing the introduction of evidence with reference to the dates of the acquisition of the property involved in this suit and with reference to the California law in force at the time of such acquisition. The case is now before us with the supplementary evidence.For the purposes of this case, we shall consider the following facts as established by the evidence or the admissions of the parties: Allison D. Gibbs has been continuously, since the year 1902, a citizen of the State of California and domiciled therein; that he and Eva Johnson Gibbs were married at Columbus, Ohio, in July 1906; that there was no antenuptial marriage contract between the parties; that during the existence of said marriage the spouses acquired the following lands, among others, in the Philippine Islands, as conjugal property:lawphil.net1. A parcel of land in the City of Manila represented by transfer certificate of title No. 20880, dated March 16, 1920, and registered in the name of "Allison D. Gibbs casado con Eva Johnson Gibbs".2. A parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented by transfer certificate of title No. 28336, dated May 14, 1927, in which it is certified "that spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are the owners in fee simple" of the land therein described.3. A parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented by transfer certificate of title No. 28331, dated April 6, 1927, which it states "that Allison D. Gibbs married to Eva Johnson Gibbs" is the owner of the land described therein; that said Eva Johnson Gibbs died intestate on November 28, 1929, living surviving her her husband, the appellee, and two sons, Allison J. Gibbs , now age 25 and Finley J. Gibbs, now aged 22, as her sole heirs of law.Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code entitled "Tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitionsmortis causa" provides in section 1536 that "Every transmission by virtue of inheritance ... of real property ... shall be subject to the following tax." It results that the question for determination in this case is as follows: Was Eva Johnson Gibbs at the time of her death the owner of a descendible interest in the Philippine lands above-mentioned?The appellee contends that the law of California should determine the nature and extent of the title, if any, that vested in Eva Johnson Gibbs under the three certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331 above referred to, citing article 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of her title under said certificates be governed by the law of the Philippine Islands, the laws of California govern the succession to such title, citing the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code.Article 9 of the Civil Code is as follows:The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country." It is argued that the conjugal right of the California wife in community real estate in the Philippine Islands is a personal right and must, therefore, be settled by the law governing her personal status, that is, the law of California. But our attention has not been called to any law of California that incapacitates a married woman from acquiring or holding land in a foreign jurisdiction in accordance with thelex rei sitae. There is not the slightest doubt that a California married woman can acquire title to land in a common law jurisdiction like the State of Illinois or the District of Columbia, subject to the common-law estate by the courtesy which would vest in her husband. Nor is there any doubt that if a California husband acquired land in such a jurisdiction his wife would be vested with the common law right of dower, the prerequisite conditions obtaining. Article 9 of the Civil Code treats of purely personal relations and status and capacity for juristic acts, the rules relating to property, both personal and real, being governed by article 10 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, article 9, by its very terms, is applicable only to "Spaniards" (now, by construction, to citizens of the Philippine Islands).The Organic Act of the Philippine Islands (Act of Congress, August 29, 1916, known as the "Jones Law") as regards the determination of private rights, grants practical autonomy to the Government of the Philippine Islands. This Government, therefore, may apply the principles and rules of private international law (conflicts of laws) on the same footing as an organized territory or state of the United States. We should, therefore, resort to the law of California, the nationality and domicile of Mrs. Gibbs, to ascertain the norm which would be applied here as law were there any question as to her status.But the appellant's chief argument and the sole basis of the lower court's decision rests upon the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code which is as follows: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.In construing the above language we are met at the outset with some difficulty by the expression "the national law of the person whose succession is in question", by reason of the rather anomalous political status of the Philippine Islands. (Cf. Manresa, vol. 1,Codigo Civil, pp. 103, 104.) We encountered no difficulty in applying article 10 in the case of a citizen of Turkey. (Micianovs. Brimo, 50 Phil., 867.) Having regard to the practical autonomy of the Philippine Islands, as above stated, we have concluded that if article 10 is applicable and the estate in question is that of a deceased American citizen, the succession shall be regulated in accordance with the norms of the State of his domicile in the United States. (Cf. Babcock Templetonvs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil., 130, 137;In reEstate of Johnson, 39 Phil., 156, 166.)The trial court found that under the law of California, upon the death of the wife, the entire community property without administration belongs to the surviving husband; that he is the absolute owner of all the community property from the moment of the death of his wife, not by virtue of succession or by virtue of her death, but by virtue of the fact that when the death of the wife precedes that of the husband he acquires the community property, not as an heir or as the beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because she never had more than an inchoate interest or expentancy which is extinguished upon her death. Quoting the case of Estate of Klumpke (167 Cal., 415, 419), the court said: "The decisions under this section (1401 Civil Code of California) are uniform to the effect that the husband does not take the community property upon the death of the wife by succession, but that he holds it all from the moment of her death as though required by himself. ... It never belonged to the estate of the deceased wife."The argument of the appellee apparently leads to this dilemma: If he takes nothing by succession from his deceased wife, how can the second paragraph of article 10 be invoked? Can the appellee be heard to say that there is a legal succession under the law of the Philippine Islands and no legal succession under the law of California? It seems clear that the second paragraph of article 10 applies only when a legal or testamentary succession has taken place in the Philippines and in accordance with the law of the Philippine Islands; and the foreign law is consulted only in regard to the order of succession or the extent of the successional rights; in other words, the second paragraph of article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with a descendible interest in property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands.In the case of Clarkevs. Clarke (178 U. S., 186, 191; 44 Law ed., 1028, 1031), the court said:It is principle firmly established that to the law of the state in which the land is situated we must look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. (United Statesvs. Crosby, 7 Cranch, 115; 3 L. ed., 287; Clarkvs. Graham, 6 Wheat., 577; 5 L. ed., 334; McGoonvs. Scales, 9 Wall., 23; 19 L. ed., 545; Brinevs. Hartford F. Ins. Co., 96 U. S., 627; 24 L. ed., 858.)" (See alsoEstate of Lloyd, 175 Cal., 704, 705.) This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of article 10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is subject to the laws of the nation of the owner thereof; real property to the laws of the country in which it is situated.It is stated in 5 Cal. Jur., 478:In accord with the rule that real property is subject to thelex rei sitae, the respective rights of husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the place where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated. (See alsoSaulvs. His Creditors, 5 Martin [N. S.], 569; 16 Am. Dec., 212 [La.]; Heidenheimervs. Loring, 26 S. W., 99 [Texas].)Under this broad principle, the nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question must be determined in accordance with thelex rei sitae.It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were acquired as community property of the conjugal partnership of the appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she was vested of a title equal to that of her husband. Article 1407 of the Civil Code provides:All the property of the spouses shall be deemed partnership property in the absence of proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Article 1395 provides:"The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules of law applicable to the contract of partnership in all matters in which such rules do not conflict with the express provisions of this chapter." Article 1414 provides that "the husband may dispose by will of his half only of the property of the conjugal partnership." Article 1426 provides that upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership and after inventory and liquidation, "the net remainder of the partnership property shall be divided share and share alike between the husband and wife, or their respective heirs." Under the provisions of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence prevailing here, the wife, upon the acquisition of any conjugal property, becomes immediately vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband, subject to the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband. Immediately upon her death, if there are no obligations of the decedent, as is true in the present case, her share in the conjugal property is transmitted to her heirs by succession. (Articles 657, 659, 661, Civil Code; cf.alsoCoronelvs. Ona, 33 Phil., 456, 469.)It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of her husband, in the Philippine lands covered by certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death. That appellee himself believed that his wife was vested of such a title and interest in manifest from the second of said certificates, No. 28336, dated May 14, 1927, introduced by him in evidence, in which it is certified that "the spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are the owners in fee simple of the conjugal lands therein described."The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls within the language of section 1536 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances. (Cf.ReEstate of Majot, 199 N. Y., 29; 92 N. E., 402; 29 L. R. A. [N. S.], 780.) It is unnecessary in this proceeding to determine the "order of succession" or the "extent of the successional rights" (article 10, Civil Code,supra) which would be regulated by section 1386 of the Civil Code of California which was in effect at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs.The record does not show what the proper amount of the inheritance tax in this case would be nor that the appellee (petitioner below) in any way challenged the power of the Government to levy an inheritance tax or the validity of the statute under which the register of deeds refused to issue a certificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the exclusive owner of the Philippine lands included in the three certificates of title here involved.The judgment of the court below of March 10, 1931, is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition, without special pronouncement as to the costs.

G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963IN 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.M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees.Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant.LABRADOR,J.:This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., presiding, in Special Proceeding No. 622 of said court, dated September 14, 1949, approving among things the final accounts of the executor, directing the executor to reimburse Maria Lucy Christensen the amount of P3,600 paid by her to Helen Christensen Garcia as her legacy, and declaring Maria Lucy Christensen entitled to the residue of the property to be enjoyed during her lifetime, and in case of death without issue, one-half of said residue to be payable to Mrs. Carrie Louise C. Borton, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator Edward E. Christensen. The will was executed in Manila on March 5, 1951 and contains the following provisions:3. I declare ... that I have but ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN (now Mrs. Bernard Daney), who was born in the Philippines about twenty-eight years ago, and who is now residing at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.4. I further declare that I now have no living ascendants, and no descendants except my above named daughter, MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY.x x x x x x x x x7. I give, devise and bequeath unto MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, now married to Eduardo Garcia, about eighteen years of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that she was baptized Christensen, is not in any way related to me, nor has she been at any time adopted by me, and who, from all information I have now resides in Egpit, Digos, Davao, Philippines, the sum of THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P3,600.00), Philippine Currency the same to be deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen Christensen with the Davao Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and paid to her at the rate of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), Philippine Currency per month until the principal thereof as well as any interest which may have accrued thereon, is exhausted..x x x x x x x x x12. I hereby give, devise and bequeath, unto my well-beloved daughter, the said MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY (Mrs. Bernard Daney), now residing as aforesaid at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., all the income from the rest, remainder, and residue of my property and estate, real, personal and/or mixed, of whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever situated, of which I may be possessed at my death and which may have come to me from any source whatsoever, during her lifetime: ....It is in accordance with the above-quoted provisions that the executor in his final account and project of partition ratified the payment of only P3,600 to Helen Christensen Garcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen.Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed by Helen Christensen Garcia, insofar as it deprives her (Helen) of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us in G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward E. Christensen. The legal grounds of opposition are (a) that the distribution should be governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of two acknowledged natural children, one-half of the estate in full ownership. In amplification of the above grounds it was alleged that the law that should govern the estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the internal law of California alone, but the entire law thereof because several foreign elements are involved, that the forum is the Philippines and even if the case were decided in California, Section 946 of the California Civil Code, which requires that the domicile of the decedent should apply, should be applicable. It was also alleged that Maria Helen Christensen having been declared an acknowledged natural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes legitimate from the time of her birth.The court below ruled that as Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at the time of his death, the successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of California, in accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable (In re McDaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952, and In re Kaufman, 117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, cited in page 179, Record on Appeal). Oppositor Maria Helen Christensen, through counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, but these were denied. Hence, this appeal.The most important assignments of error are as follows:ITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT THAT HELEN IS THE ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN DEPRIVING HER OF HER JUST SHARE IN THE INHERITANCE.IITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTIRELY IGNORING AND/OR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS, ELEMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR THE APPLICATION OF INTERNAL LAW.IIITHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PARTICULARLY UNDER THE RENVOI DOCTRINE, THE INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE PHILIPPINES.IVTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRIBUTION SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWS.VTHE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT UNDER THE PHILIPPINE LAWS HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA IS ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE ESTATE IN FULL OWNERSHIP.There is no question that Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at the time of his death. But there is also no question that at the time of his death he was domiciled in the Philippines, as witness the following facts admitted by the executor himself in appellee's brief:In the proceedings for admission of the will to probate, the facts of record show that the deceased Edward E. Christensen was born on November 29, 1875 in New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.; his first arrival in the Philippines, as an appointed school teacher, was on July 1, 1901, on board the U.S. Army Transport "Sheridan" with Port of Embarkation as the City of San Francisco, in the State of California, U.S.A. He stayed in the Philippines until 1904.In December, 1904, Mr. Christensen returned to the United States and stayed there for the following nine years until 1913, during which time he resided in, and was teaching school in Sacramento, California.Mr. Christensen's next arrival in the Philippines was in July of the year 1913. However, in 1928, he again departed the Philippines for the United States and came back here the following year, 1929. Some nine years later, in 1938, he again returned to his own country, and came back to the Philippines the following year, 1939.Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this stipulation of facts.1wph1.tBeing an American citizen, Mr. Christensen was interned by the Japanese Military Forces in the Philippines during World War II. Upon liberation, in April 1945, he left for the United States but returned to the Philippines in December, 1945. Appellees Collective Exhibits "6", CFI Davao, Sp. Proc. 622, as Exhibits "AA", "BB" and "CC-Daney"; Exhs. "MM", "MM-l", "MM-2-Daney" and p. 473, t.s.n., July 21, 1953.)In April, 1951, Edward E. Christensen returned once more to California shortly after the making of his last will and testament (now in question herein) which he executed at his lawyers' offices in Manila on March 5, 1951. He died at the St. Luke's Hospital in the City of Manila on April 30, 1953. (pp. 2-3)In arriving at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in New York, migrated to California and resided there for nine years, and since he came to the Philippines in 1913 he returned to California very rarely and only for short visits (perhaps to relatives), and considering that he appears never to have owned or acquired a home or properties in that state, which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the Philippines and make home in the State of California.Sec. 16. Residence is a term used with many shades of meaning from mere temporary presence to the most permanent abode. Generally, however, it is used to denote something more than mere physical presence. (Goodrich on Conflict of Laws, p. 29)As to his citizenship, however, We find that the citizenship that he acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento, California from 1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the latter was a territory of the United States (not a state) until 1946 and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when he executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his California citizenship by acquiring another. This conclusion is in accordance with the following principle expounded by Goodrich in his Conflict of Laws.The terms "'residence" and "domicile" might well be taken to mean the same thing, a place of permanent abode. But domicile, as has been shown, has acquired a technical meaning. Thus one may be domiciled in a place where he has never been. And he may reside in a place where he has no domicile. The man with two homes, between which he divides his time, certainly resides in each one, while living in it. But if he went on business which would require his presence for several weeks or months, he might properly be said to have sufficient connection with the place to be called a resident. It is clear, however, that, if he treated his settlement as continuing only for the particular business in hand, not giving up his former "home," he could not be a domiciled New Yorker. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires the exercise of intention as well as physical presence. "Residence simply requires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." Residence, however, is a term used with many shades of meaning, from the merest temporary presence to the most permanent abode, and it is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one. (Goodrich, p. 29)The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as follows:ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession 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 where said property may be found.The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term"national law"is used therein.There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States, each state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its citizens only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law. So it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of California.The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition of personal property? The decision of the court below, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and manner he desires, citing the case of Estate of McDaniel, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952. But appellant invokes the provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows:If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.The existence of this provision is alleged in appellant's opposition and is not denied. We have checked it in the California Civil Code and it is there. Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a witness. (Only the case of Kaufman is correctly cited.) It is argued on executor's behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, should govern the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of Christensen's will, such law being in force in the State of California of which Christensen was a citizen. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and following the doctrine of therenvoi, the question of the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent's domicile, which is the Philippines.The theory of doctrine ofrenvoihas been defined by various authors, thus:The problem has been stated in this way: "When the Conflict of Laws rule of the forum refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law minus its Conflict of Laws rules?"On logic, the solution is not an easy one. The Michigan court chose to accept the renvoi, that is, applied the Conflict of Laws rule of Illinois which referred the matter back to Michigan law. But once having determined the the Conflict of Laws principle is the rule looked to, it is difficult to see why the reference back should not have been to Michigan Conflict of Laws. This would have resulted in the "endless chain of references" which has so often been criticized be legal writers. The opponents of the renvoi would have looked merely to the internal law of Illinois, thus rejecting the renvoi or the reference back. Yet there seems no compelling logical reason why the original reference should be the internal law rather than to the Conflict of Laws rule. It is true that such a solution avoids going on a merry-go-round, but those who have accepted therenvoitheory avoid thisinextricabilis circulasby getting off at the second reference and at that point applying internal law. Perhaps the opponents of therenvoiare a bit more consistent for they look always to internal law as the rule of reference.Strangely enough, both the advocates for and the objectors to therenvoiplead that greater uniformity will result from adoption of their respective views. And still more strange is the fact that the only way to achieve uniformity in this choice-of-law problem is if in the dispute the two states whose laws form the legal basis of the litigation disagree as to whether therenvoishould be accepted. If both reject, or both accept the doctrine, the result of the litigation will vary with the choice of the forum. In the case stated above, had the Michigan court rejected therenvoi, judgment would have been against the woman; if the suit had been brought in the Illinois courts, and they too rejected therenvoi, judgment would be for the woman. The same result would happen, though the courts would switch with respect to which would hold liability, if both courts accepted therenvoi.The Restatement accepts therenvoitheory in two instances: where the title to land is in question, and where the validity of a decree of divorce is challenged. In these cases the Conflict of Laws rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied by the forum, but any further reference goes only to the internal law. Thus, a person's title to land, recognized by the situs, will be recognized by every court; and every divorce, valid by the domicile of the parties, will be valid everywhere. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 7, pp. 13-14.)X, a citizen of Massachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leaving movable property in Massachusetts, England, and France. The question arises as to how this property is to be distributed among X's next of kin.Assume (1) that this question arises in a Massachusetts court. There the rule of the conflict of laws as to intestate succession to movables calls for an application of the law of the deceased's last domicile. Since by hypothesis X's last domicile was France, the natural thing for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to French statute of distributions, or whatever corresponds thereto in French law, and decree a distribution accordingly. An examination of French law, however, would show that if a French court were called upon to determine how this property should be distributed, it would refer the distribution to the national law of the deceased, thus applying the Massachusetts statute of distributions. So on the surface of things the Massachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action: (a) either to apply the French law is to intestate succession, or (b) to resolve itself into a French court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distributions, on the assumption that this is what a French court would do. If it accepts the so-calledrenvoidoctrine, it will follow the latter course, thus applying its own law.This is one type ofrenvoi. A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The German term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.'" (Harvard Law Review, Vol. 31, pp. 523-571.)After a decision has been arrived at that a foreign law is to be resorted to as governing a particular case, the further question may arise: Are the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such foreign law also to be resorted to? This is a question which, while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instances, has been the subject of frequent discussion by textwriters and essayists; and the doctrine involved has been descriptively designated by them as the "Renvoyer" to send back, or the "Ruchversweisung", or the "Weiterverweisung", since an affirmative answer to the question postulated and the operation of the adoption of the foreign law in toto would in many cases result in returning the main controversy to be decided according to the law of the forum. ... (16 C.J.S. 872.)Another theory, known as the "doctrine ofrenvoi", has been advanced. The theory of the doctrine ofrenvoiis that the court of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum. The doctrine of therenvoihas generally been repudiated by the American authorities. (2 Am. Jur. 296)The scope of the theory ofrenvoihas also been defined and the reasons for its application in a country explained by Prof. Lorenzen in an article in the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. 529-531. The pertinent parts of the article are quoted herein below:The recognition of therenvoitheory implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign state or country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According to this theory 'the law of a country' means the whole of its law.x x x x x x x x xVon Bar presented his views at the meeting of the Institute of International Law, at Neuchatel, in 1900, in the form of the following theses:(1) Every court shall observe the law of its country as regards the application of foreign laws.(2) Provided that no express provision to the contrary exists, the court shall respect:(a) The provisions of a foreign law which disclaims the right to bind its nationals abroad as regards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall be determined by the law of the domicile, or even by the law of the place where the act in question occurred.(b) The decision of two or more foreign systems of law, provided it be certain that one of them is necessarily competent, which agree in attributing the determination of a question to the same system of law.x x x x x x x x xIf, for example, the English law directs its judge to distribute the personal estate of an Englishman who has died domiciled in Belgium in accordance with the law of his domicile, he must first inquire whether the law of Belgium would distribute personal property upon death in accordance with the law of domicile, and if he finds that the Belgian law would make the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality that is the English law he must accept this reference back to his own law.We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman,Supra, its internal law. If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the general principle of American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the person of the owner.When a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states, and leaves a will directing the manner of distribution of the property, the law of the state where he was domiciled at the time of his death will be looked to in deciding legal questions about the will, almost as completely as the law of situs is consulted in questions about the devise of land. It is logical that, since the domiciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the same rules should determine the validity of an attempted testamentary dispostion of the property. Here, also, it is not that the domiciliary has effect beyond the borders of the domiciliary state. The rules of the domicile are recognized as controlling by the Conflict of Laws rules at the situs property, and the reason for the recognition as in the case of intestate succession, is the general convenience of the doctrine. The New York court has said on the point: 'The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, valid at the domicile of the owner, is valid anywhere, is one of the universal application. It had its origin in that international comity which was one of the first fruits of civilization, and it this age, when business intercourse and the process of accumulating property take but little notice of boundary lines, the practical wisdom and justice of the rule is more apparent than ever. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 164, pp. 442-443.)Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as thenational lawis the internal law of California. But as above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad.It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that thenational lawof the deceased should govern. This contention can not be sustained. As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.The Philippine cases (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil. 105; Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867; Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil. 130; and Gibbs vs. Government, 59 Phil. 293.) cited by appellees to support the decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar, for two important reasons, i.e., the subject in each case does not appear to be a citizen of a state in the United States but with domicile in the Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of which the subject is a citizen, a law similar to or identical with Art. 946 of the California Civil Code.We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California..WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment reversed, with costs against appellees.

277 Mich. 658270 N.W. 175UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOv.DATER et al.No. 89.Supreme Court of Michigan.Dec. 8, 1936.

Suit by the University of Chicago against George R. Dater and Clara A. Price. From an adverse judgment the plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.SHARPE, BUTZEL, and BUSHNELL, JJ., dissenting.Appeal from Circuit Court, Berrien County; Charles E. White, judge.Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.Webster Sterling, of Benton Harbor (W. M. Cunningham, of Benton Harbor, and L. Dow Nichol, Jr., of Chicago, Ill, of counsel), for appellant.Gore, Harvey & Fisher, of Benton Harbor, for appellee.

WIEST, Justice.I cannot concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice SHARPE.

The obligation in suit was executed in this state by defendant Clara A. Price, a married woman, and bore no relation to her separate estate, and, without more, carried no personal liability when sued upon in this jurisdiction. But, it is claimed, that the obligation was accepted in the state of Illinois, and was there payable and, by the law of that state, Mrs. Price is not saved from liability by reason of want of capacity under the Michigan law of coverture.

As pointed out later in this opinion, personal liability of Mrs. Price could not be enforced in Illinois under the theory of an Illinois contract.

In the case at bar negotiations for the loan, to be secured by mortgage, had reached the stage where the lender prepared the note and mortgage in Illinois and sent the same to an agent in Michigan, with direction as to execution by defendants in this state, and, when executed, to be returned by such agent to the mortgagee in Illinois. Mrs. Price, at the request of the agent, executed the instruments and the agent mailed the same to the mortgagee.

The instant case does not involve conflict of laws relative to the construction, force, and effect of the instruments, signed or executed in one state to be performed in another, but that of capacity of Mrs. Price to enter into such an obligation in this state.

It is well said in a note, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 773: While there are almost numberless cases which state, with slight variations, Story's general proposition that, where the contract is either expressly or tacitly to be performed in some place other than that where it is made, the general rule is, in conformity to the presumed intention of the parties, that the contract, as to its validity, nature, obligation, and interpretation, is to be governed by the law of the place of performance, none of them can be regarded as express authority for the application of that rule to the question of the capacity of a married woman to contract. Few of them can be relied upon for the application of that rule to any question relating to the existence of a contract as distinguished from its interpretation or obligation or essential validity.

It must be agreed that this case is governed by the law of Michigan or of Illinois. [176] If by the law of Michigan, it is clear, and is not disputed, that defendant has no personal liability on the note, recoverable from her separate estate.

Assuming, however, that by the Michigan law of the forum the case is governed by the law of Illinois, it presents the unique situation in the realm of conflict of laws that by the law of Illinois, Burr v. Beckler, 264 Ill. 230, 106 N.E. 206, L.R.A. 1916A, 1049, Ann.Cas.1915D, 1132, the case is governed by the law of Michigan.

In Burr v. Beckler, the wife, a resident of Illinois, was sojourning temporarily in Florida. Her husband owed a concern in Illinois, of which he was treasurer, on an overdraft. He informed his wife that he could borrow the necessary money to pay the overdraft from an estate of which he was trustee. The wife executed a note and trust deed in Florida and mailed them to her husband, as trustee, at Chicago, Ill., as he had directed her to do. The husband also signed the trust deed, but the opinion does not state when. The court held that delivery of the note and trust deed by the wife was complete in Florida, the law of that state governed her capacity to contract, and, because she was not competent to enter into a contract under the law of Florida, her note and trust deed were void.

The question is not whether the decision is in harmony with the law of Michigan, but whether it governs this case. Here, manual delivery was as complete as in the Burr Case because it was made to a bank which had been designated by the mortgagee for that purpose.

In neither case had there been a binding engagement by the mortgagee to make the loan prior to the delivery. In neither case had the money been paid in advance of the delivery or contemporaneously therewith. There is nothing in the Burr Case to indicate that the mortgagee could not have refused to make the loan or that the mortgagors could not have refused to take the money or could not have abandoned the matter after the wife deposited the papers in the mail. The Burr opinion indicates no circumstance fixing the effect of the manual delivery which is not present here. The Burr Case is directly applicable, and, consequently, under the law of Illinois, it must be held that the capacity of defendant Clara A. Price is governed by the law of Michigan. Under the law of Michigan, a married woman cannot bind her separate estate through personal engagement for the benefit of others. Defendant Price is not liable.Affirmed, with costs to defendant Price.

NORTH, C. J., and FEAD and TOY, J.J., concurred with WIEST, J.

SHARPE, Justice (dissenting).In November, 1928, negotiations were commenced to secure a loan in the sum of $75,000 on a piece of property in Chicago. The property was owned by George R. Dater and John R. Price of Benton Harbor, Mich., and they appointed H. S. Gray, an attorney of Benton Harbor, as their agent in the matter. Plaintiff agreed to make the loan if it could be assured that the title was good. A trust deed and certain promissory notes were drawn up with George R. Dater and Nellie E. Dater, his wife, and John R. Price and Clara A. Price, his wife, as parties of the first part, and the Chicago Title & Trust Company, as trustee, and as party of the second part. The notes were payable in the city of Chicago and at such place as the legal holder might appoint. The trust mortgage and notes were sent by mail to the Benton Harbor State Bank for the signature of the parties involved.

The papers were signed in Benton Harbor, Mich., about December 8, 1928, and mailed to plaintiff's agent in the city of Chicago where the trust deed was placed on record, then it was found that there were some objections to certain delinquent taxes of 1927. Further negotiations followed, and finally on January 3, 1929, and after the tax objections were cleared in the tile, the loan was actually made and the money paid over by check made payable to Mr. and Mrs. Dater and Mr. and Mrs. Price and cashed in Chicago, Ill.

January 29, 1929, John R. Price died, and it is conceded that Mrs. Price became the actual and record owner of at least one-half of the property after the death of her husband. Subsequent to December 1, 1933, foreclosure proceedings were commenced on the property and the property purchased at chancery sale. Suit was filed in Michigan before the foreclosure suit was completed in Chicago. The cause was heard November 7, 1934, and on June 18, 1935, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against George R. Dater in the amount of $15,536.32 and from which no appeal has been taken. On the same date judgment was entered in favor of Clara Price of no cause for action, from which judgment plaintiff appeals. It is conceded that under the law of Illinois a married woman is as free to contract as a man, while in Michigan a married woman has not the legal capacity to bind herself or her separate estate by signing these notes. 3 Comp.Laws 1929, 13057.The plaintiff contends that the contract was an Illinois contract; that the signing of the notes in Michigan was not the final act in the making of the contract, but rather a preliminary step, the delivery of the note being conditional upon defendant's producing a satisfactory title, the approval of the title in Illinois was the last act necessary to make a legal delivery.

The general rule is well stated in John A. Tolman Co. v. Reed, 115 Mich. 71, 72 N.W. 1104, where the court said: The law is well settled that contracts must be construed and their validity determined by the law of the country where they were made, unless the contracting parties clearly appear to have had some other law in view.The general rule is that the law of the place where the instrument was executed and delivered so as to become binding as a contract * * * governs the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto, except in so far as they are controlled by the law of the place where the instrument is payable * * *. 8 C.J. 87, 145.There is good authority for the broad proposition, however, that when a note is executed by a married woman in the state of her domicile but made payable in another state, if under the law of the former state she could not have entered into the contract but could have done so under the law of the latter state, it will be presumed that it was the intention of the parties that the note should be governed by the law of the latter state and being valid under such law should be enforced against her even in the state of her domicile. 13 R.C.L. 1247.It is a general rule that every contract as to its validity, nature, interpretation and effect, or, as they may be called, the right, in contradistinction to the remedy, is governed by the law of the place where it is made, unless it is to be performed in another place; and then it is governed by the law of the place where it is to be performed. Poole v. Perkins, 126 Va. 331, 101 S.E. 240, 241, 18 A.L.R. 1509.The next question that presents itself in the case at bar is the place where the contract was made. A contract is deemed to have been made in the state where the last act necessary to make it a binding agreement takes place. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 218. When the contract is made in one jurisdiction to be performed in another the case presents a more complicated question, the rule being that if the parties to a contract are in different jurisdictions, the place where the last act is done which is necessary to the validity of the contract is the place where the contract is entered into. 5 R.C.L. 935.In the case at bar all of the negotiations for the loan occurred in Chicago, the property upon which the mortgage was placed was located in Chicago, and no money was to be paid by plaintiff until such time as the defendants could show good title to the property. We think the mailing of the papers to Chicago was for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to ascertain if the title to the real estate was satisfactory and was but a preliminary step in the whole transaction. The final act in the making of the loan was the payment of the money in Chicago. This concluded the negotiations and made it an Illinois contract.The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded to enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $15,536.32 with interest from June 18, 1935. Plaintiff may recover costs.

BUSHNELL, J., concurred with SHARPE, J.

BUTZEL, Justice (dissenting).I concur in the result reached by Justice SHARPE. The place of contracting controls the question of the capacity of the parties to contract. Palmer National Bank v. Van Doren, 260 Mich. 310, 244 N.W. 485; American Law Institute Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, 333. The notes were dated and payable at Chicago and secured by Chicago real estate. The loan was made in Chicago 25 days after the notes had been signed and not until an actual cloud on the title to the realty had been removed. These circumstances leave no doubt that the notes in question constituted Illinois contracts. See Palmer v. Hill, 140 Mich. 468, 103 N.W. 838; Ohio ex rel. Fulton v. Artie Purse, 273 Mich. 507, 263 N.W. 874. The facts are entirely different from those in Re Estate of Lucas, 272 Mich. 1, 261 N.W. 117, in which the [178] loan was solicited by residents of Michigan, the moneys were first received in Michigan by the borrowers, and subsequently the note was dated and signed in Michigan and was payable in Michigan.

The place of contracting is where the note is first delivered for value. In Beale on Conflict of Laws, page 1047, it is said: Delivery, however, is not the only requisite to the creation of a contract on a negotiable instrument. Value must be given and until, therefore, there has been a delivery for value, the instrument cannot be said to have had any inception. * * * It follows that the place of contracting of a contract on a negotiable instrument, be it the obligation of the maker, the drawer or the endorser, is the place where, after the signature of the party in question, the instrument is first delivered for value.

It is true that the physical act of signing the note in the instant case took place in Michigan and the notes were mailed to plaintiff in Chicago, but there was no absolute delivery until the plaintiff had satisfied itself of the status of the title to the mortgaged property and until an actual cloud had been removed. Until that time the transaction was conditional and the notes of no binding force and effect.

The rule is stated in Beale on Conflict of Laws, p. 1045, as follows: The phrase place of contracting and its equivalents, the place of making or the place where the contract is made, properly mean the place in which the final act was done which made the promise or promises binding.'A somewhat similar case arose in Palmer v. Hill, 140 Mich. 468, 103 N.W. 838, where it was held, as stated in the syllabus to the opinion: Where a note and mortgage executed in California in favor of a Michigan bank, on Michigan real estate, is sent to the mortgagee in Michigan, where it is accepted and the consideration paid, the contract is a Michigan contract.We do not believe that the case of Burr v. Beckler, 264 Ill. 230, 106 N.E. 206, L.R.A.1916A, 1049, Ann.Cas.1915D, 1132, should in any way be controlling on this court in determining the lex loci contractus. The problem in the instant case is termed by the authorities as one of qualifications. The prevailing view in answer to the problem is that the law of the forum should control on the question of lex loci contracts. An excellent treatment of the entire subject may be found in an article entitled, The Theory of Qualifications and Conflict of Laws, by Professor Lorenzen in 20 Columbia Law Review, p. 247.

Were we not to be controlled by our own law and obliged each time to ascertain what a foreign state would have held under similar circumstances, our decisions would be in hopeless confusion, and it would be necessary each time to examine the decisions of other states in determining the lex loci contractus. The question, however, is foreclosed in this state, as we held in the case of Ohio v. Purse, supra, that the law of the place of contracting is to be determined in accordance with the law of the forum.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs to plaintiff.BUSHNELL, J., concurred with BUTZEL, J.

PCIB V. ESCOLIN

Short Summary: Mr. and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. (believe me, this is a short summarycase is long)

Facts-Charles & Linnie Hodges, both TEXAN nationals, provided in their respective wills that bequeath remainder of estate to spouseduring lifetime remainder goes to brothers and sis of surviving spouse-Mrs. Hodges died first. Mr. Hodges appointed as EXECUTOR in Financial Statements submitted before the court, he made statements that the estate of Mrs. Hodges is 1/2 of conjugal estate that he allegedly renounced his inheritance in a tax declaration in US for 5 years before his death, he failed to make accounting, failed to acquire final adjudication of wife's estate

-Charles died. Magno, initially administratrix of both spouse's estate, later replaced by PCIB for Charles' estate

WON Action is prescribed?NO. 33 appeals were timely made-Court did not pass upon its timeliness

WON Certiorari and Prohibition is proper?YES. Appeal insufficient remedy-many appeals, same facts, same issues = multiplicity of suits

WON THERE IS STILL A RESIDUE FOR MRS. HODGES' HEIRS?YES.

1. WON SPECIAL PROCEEDING FOR SETTLEMENT OF MRS. HODGES ESTATE SHOULD ALREADY BE CLOSED, BASED ON THE DECEMBER 1957 COURT ORDER ALLEGEDLY ADJUDICATING MR. HODGES AS SOLE HEIR? NO.no final distribution to all parties concerned of the estate

2. R90.1 (on RESIDUE): after residue assigned to parties entitled to it, S.P. deemed ready for FINAL CLOSURE:1. Order issued for distribution/assignment of estate among those entitled2. Debts Funeral expenses Expenses of administration Widow allowance Taxes Etc.should be paid already

3. Motion of party requesting the same (not motu proprio) Would include distribution of residue of estate-Here:a. No final distribution of residue of Linney's estateb. No special application made by charles/PCIBc. Merely allowed advance or partial payments/implementation of will before final liquidationd. If charles already deemed sole heir, why PCIB needed to file a motion to declare that Charles is indeed the sole heir?

3. ON ALLEGED INTENTION OF MR. HODGESPCIB: He intended to adjudicate whole estate to himself (Thus, no residue left, thus ulit, tapos na specialproceeding)

BUT SC:1. Whatever was intended, he can't deprive those who have rights over the estate2. Order - motion filed merely for exercise of ownership pending proceeding3. Mr. Hodges was aware that wife's siblings had rights: In FS, stated that 1/2 of conjugal estate belonged to Estate of Linney In Petition for will's probate, he listed the bros and sis as heirs Lawyer of Magno was initially lawyer of Charles when latter was still executor of Linney's estate so may know what Charles' intended Charles admitted omitting a bro of Linney He even allegedly renounced his share of the estate (but was not proven) Charles had duty, as Surviving spouse, of trustee of wife's estate so had to act in GF

4. ON PROPERTIES FOR SIBLINGS: since there's still a residue, can't close SP yet>PCIB: NO LIQUIDATION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTIES YET, PCIB SHOULD SOLELY ADMINISTER EVERYTHING TO DETERMINE THE SEPARATE ESTATE OF LINNEY, OVER W/C MAGNO COULD ADMINISTER H:

NO. both PCIB and Magno should administera. It was Charles' fault why no administration of estate yetb. Admin should both be impartial extent of interestc. Executor (PCIB) of Executor (Charles, over Linney's) Can't administer estate of decedent (Linney) _ R78.6d. Liquidation of conjugal partnership may be done in either spouse's probate proceedings - R73.2

SUCCESSION: WON THERE'S SUBSTITUTION? None1. No simple or vulgar substitution (A859, NCC) no provision for:i. Predecease of T for designated heirii. Refusaliii. Incapacity of designated heir to accept inheritance2. No fideicomissary substitution no obligation on Charles to preserve the estate3. There's simultaneous institution of heirs subject to resolutory condition of Charles' death Charles was to enjoy the whole estate but he can't dispose of property mortis causa (because it's already subject to the will made by his wife, which he agreed in the provision of his will)4. Charles didn't get mere usufruct: he exercises full ownership

PRIL: WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES? No answer yet. Remanded

Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality

If we apply Texas PRIL law: Personal property: law of domicile Real property: law of situs (both in RP)

IF Art16 applies, then Texas law should govern; Texas law provides no legitime

So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse, being the sole heir,gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estate of the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to the surviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4 of the whole conjugal property.

Court said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven as Courts can't take JN should show foreign law: As certified by person holding/having custody of such law Certificate that such officer does have custody over said law Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law may contain, as there's a time difference between this case and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings

BUT WHATEVER HAPPENS, PCIB can't claim that the estate of Linney is not entitled to at least 1/4 of conjugal property, they having argued that it is so.

NOTES:1. will executed in Texas - Oklahoma2. Charles made executor by Linney, but Charles had no executor - so administrator dapat3. as regards foreign laws: Should be proved as a fact R132 on Public documents SIR: Dapat use an expert witness Prove in accordance w/RP law

PCI Bank vs. Escolin

If there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir to preserve the property and transmit it to a second heir, there is no fideicomisaria. The institution is not necessarily void; it may be valid as some other disposition, but it is not a fideicomisaria.

PCIB VS. ESCOLIN56 SCRA 266

FACTS: Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. At the time of her death, she was citizen of Texas but, was, however domiciled in the Philippines. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparent and necessary to know what law should be applied.

ISSUE: Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable.

RULING: It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it must be proven whether a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law makes the testamentary provisions valid. In line with Texas law, that which should be proven is the law enforced during the death of Hodges and not in any other time.

The Supreme Court held that the estate of Mrs. Hodges inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just stated, but this would depend on (1) whether upon the proper application of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will appear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and (2) whether or not it can be held that Hodges had legally and effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under the circumstances presently obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a position to make a final ruling, whether of fact or of law, on any of these two issues, and We, therefore, reserve said issues for further proceedings and resolution in the first instance by the court o quo, as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate, however, that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, her husband could not have anyway legally adjudicated or caused to be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugal partnership, albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be less than one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, have been gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that, as contended by PCIB, under Article 16 of the Civil Code and applying renvoi the laws of the Philippines are the ones ultimately applicable, such one-fourth share would be her free disposable portion, taking into account already the legitime of her husband under Article 900 of the Civil Code.