Reviewer in Wills and Succession (Luigi G. Feliciano)Atty. Crisostomo Uribe

I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Succession; definition

Under Article 774 of the New Civil Code, “Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which, the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.”

Succession; concept

The word succession may be understood in either of two concepts. First, it means the transmission of property, rights and obligations of a person.In another sense, it means the universality or entirety of the property, rights and obligations by any of the forms of succession admitted by law.

The first concept is more accurate, inasmuch as under Article 712 of the Civil Code mentions succession as a mode of acquisition of ownership.

Succession and Inheritance; distinguished

Succession- refers to the legal mode by which inheritance is transmitted to the person or persons entitled to it surviving the deceased.

Inheritance- refers to the universality or entirety of the property, rights and transmissible obligations of a person who has died; inheritance refers to the objective element of succession.

Basis of the Law on Succession

1. Based on Family Relations

The individual, during his life, seeks to accumulate wealth in order to perform his duty of service and assistance to the members of the family. The knowledge that, upon his death, the products of his effort and work will be enjoyed by those who are the natural objects of his affection within the family, furnishes the greatest incentive to his initiative, industry, and thrift.

2. Based of the Right of Property

This view gives succession an economic purpose. It maintains that the production of wealth has the following three characteristics: a.) individuality, b.) inequality, and c.) transmissibility.Individuality prevents the stagnation of wealth. Inequality is a product of the independence and freedom of human activities, through labor and the peculiar qualities of each one. The third one is a salient feature of the right of property, which is incomplete without the right to transmit the same.

Note:

Both theory seems insufficient to furnish the true basis of the law on succession. Both theories furnish the foundation on which the superstructure of the law on succession has been founded. Thus, the law on succession is therefore founded upon both theories, family relations and law of property.

Legal Philosophy of the Civil Code on Succession

When the Old Civil Code was drafted, the prevailing philosophy was extreme individualism in the law of property and of succession.

In present, a powerful factor for the attainment of stability of social order is the socialization of ownership, not in the sense of “socialism” but in the sense of effectively adapting property to the needs of society.Hence, the philosophy of socialization of ownership constitutes one of the underlying principles of the present law on succession.

Fundamental Changes in the New Civil Code

a.) Greater freedom is given to the testator in the choice of the form for his will or testament.

b.) Greater facility in the probate of wills is provided by the introduction of the system of probate during the lifetime of the testator.

c.) The surviving spouse is given a better position in the law of succession. In the law of intestate succession, the spouse has been raised to a higher degree in the order of succession.

d.) In the legitime of legitimate children and descendants, the mejora or betterment, consisting of one-third of the estate of the parents or ascendants, has been abolished.

e.) The reservas and reversions, with the exception of reserve troncal, have been abolished.

Law Governing Form: As to Time of Execution

Under Article 795 of the Civil Code, “The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in force at the time it is made.”

Notes:

If the will is invalid when the testator died, no subsequent statute can cure the defect; for that would be taking property without due process of law from those to whom it vested on the death of the testator. On the other hand, and for the same reason, if the will was valid, or any gift in it took effect on the death of the testator, the rights of the devisee or legatee cannot be divested by any law passed afterwards, changing the requirements for wills, or for the validity of any gifts by them.

Case:

Bona v. Briones, 38 Phil. 276

The will was executed on September 16, 1911. The testator died on August 14, 1913. Act No. 2645, amending Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the formalities in execution of wills, was promulgated on February 24, 1916 and took effect on July 1, 1916.

Answer: Act. No. 2645 cannot be applied to the will in question.

Law on Intrinsic Validity

ARTICLE 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.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 wherein said property may be found.

Explanation/Discussion:

(1) Conflicts rule on property (lex rei sitae)

Property whether real or personal is a rule governed by the lex rei sitae (law of the place where the property is situated).

It is inevitable that the rule should be thus for real property, for after all, real property is attached to the land, and a contrary rule may render a judgment on the land ineffective or incapable of enforcement.

On the other hand, the rule enunciated under the new civil code for personal property changes the old rule on the matter. Under the old civil code (article 10, old civil code), personal property was subjected to the law of the nation of the owner; that is, personal property followed the national or

domiciliary law of the owner, under the doctrine of mobilia sequutur personam. The old rule grew up in the middle ages when movable property could be easily carried from place to place. However, now that there has been a great increase in the amount and variety of personal property not immediately connected with the person of the owner (Wharton, conflicts of laws, secs. 297-311), it was deemed advisable by the congress of the Philippines to adopt the doctrine of lex rei sitae also to movables (report of senator tonada, chairman, special committee on the new civil code).

(2) Applications of the doctrine of lex rei sitae

Shares of stocks of a foreigner, even if personal property can be taxed in the Philippines so long as the property is located in this country. Bank deposits in the Philippines even if belonging to a foreigner may be subject of attachment proceedings. Taxes may be imposed on dividends from shares in a gas corporation situated in the Philippines even if the stockholders do not reside here.

(1) Exception to the lex situs rule

One important exception to the lex situs rule occurs in the case of successional rights. Thus the following matters are governed, not by the lex situs, but by the national law of the deceased.

(a) Order of succession(b) Amount of successional rights (this refers to the amount of property that each heir is legally entitled to inherit from the estate available for distribution).(c) Intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will

Examples: whether a disinheritance has properly been made or not; whether a testamentary disposition can be given effect or not.

(d) Capacity to succeed

(4) Examples                        In country X, even recognized illegitimate children are not allowed to inherit. A citizen of country X dies in the Philippines, with some of his parcels of land located in our country. Under our laws, recognized illegitimate child of the deceased, be entitled to inherit?

                        Answer: no, because under the law of his father’s country he has no right to inherit. This is so even if the lands are found in the Philippines.

(5) Defect of art.16, par.2 (successional rights)

If a Filipino dies leaving lands in china, should the inventory of his estate required by our courts include the lands in china?

The conventional answer is “YES” because we have to know the total value of his

estate for eventual distribution to his heirs. As a matter of fact, under art. 16 par.2, it is our law that should govern their disposition. This answer would be all right, provided that Chinese courts would respect the decisions of our courts.

(6) The renvoi problem

Renvoi literally means a referring back; the problem arises when there is a doubt as to whether a reference in our law.a.  Is a reference to the INTERNAL law of said foreign law, orb.  Is a reference to the WHOLE of the foreign law, including its CONFLICTS RULES.

Law Governing Form: As to the Place of Execution

ARTICLE 17: The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

Explanation/Discussion:(1) Doctrine of lex loci celebrationis

The first paragraph of the article lays down the rule of lex loci celebrationis insofar as intrinsic validity (forms and solemnities) is concerned.

(2) Formalities for the acquisition, encumbering, or alienation of property

Formalities of acquisition, encumbering and alienation of property (whether real or personal) shall however, be governed not by the lex loci celebrationis but by the lex rei sitae.

Example:In Japan, a Chinese sold to a Filipino a parcel of land located

in the Philippines. The law of which country governs the formalities of the sale?

ANSWER: The law of the Philippines because the land is located here. This is an exception to lex loci celebrationis.

(3) Rule of exterritoriality

Even if the act be done abroad, still if executed before Philippine diplomatic and consular officials, the solemnities of Philippine law shall be observed. The theory is that the act is being done within an extension of Philippine territory.

(4) Rule respecting prohibitive laws

The third paragraph gives one exception to the rule that a foreign law, contract, or judgment can be given effect. The reason is that public policy in the Philippines prohibits the same.

Examples:

a. A contract for the sale of human flesh (prostitution) even if valid where made cannot be given effect in the Philippines.

b. An absolute divorced granted Filipinos abroad even if valid where given cannot be recognized in the Philippines in as much as under the civil code, absolute divorced is prohibited (except insofar as Mohammedan Filipinos are concerned).

c. A U.S. court allowed a mother living with a man other than her husband to exercise authority over her child with the lawful husband. It was held by our supreme court that such a decision cannot be enforced in the Philippines. The rule is the same today except that in case of separation of his parents, no child under five years of age shall be separated from his mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to do so. Even the commission of adultery, according to the code commission, is not a compelling reason.

(5) Intrinsic validity of contracts

It should be noted that while the first paragraph of art.17 speaks of forms and solemnities, no mention is made of the law that should govern the intrinsic validity of contracts in general. The prevailing rule in private international law today is to consider the lex loci voluntatis (the law of the place voluntarily selected) or the lex loci intentionis (the law of the place intended by the parties to the contract).

Article 810 of the Civil Code provides, “A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.”

Article 815 of the Civil Code provides, “When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines.”

Note:

This article follows the general rule expressed in article 17 of the Code, that the law governing the formal validity of wills is the law of the place where it is executed.

Article 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code provides.

Article 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines.

Note:

If an alien executes a will in the Philippines, not in conformity with our law, but in conformity with the law of his own state or country, the will can be probated in the Philippines.

The provisions of Article 815 and Article 817 refer to the formal validity of wills executed by persons outside of their own state or country. However, the intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will shall be governed by Article 16, which provides that “the national law of the deceased shall apply.”

The place of execution does not affect the intrinsic validity of the contents of the will.

Article 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person.

Note:

Reason for prohibition:

1. A will is a purely personal and unilateral act and this is defeated if two or more persons make their wills in the same instrument.

2. It is contrary to the revocable character of the will3. A joint will, if mutual or reciprocal, may expose a testator to undue

influence, and may even tempt one testator to kill the other.

The real prohibition is the execution of a joint will, or the expression by two or more testators of their wills in a single document or text and by one act. The law does not invalidate two distinct wills, independent of each other which are written on the same sheet of paper, one on each side, or even on the same side but separated by a line between.

Article 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the country where they may have been executed.

Note:

General Rule:

A will made by a Filipino, who is abroad, in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law in the country where the will was executed (Art. 17 and Art. 815)

Exception:

Article 819 is the exception to the rule. A joint will is against public policy of the Philippines.

Cases:

IG.R. No. L-7188 August 9, 1954

In re: Will and Testament of the deceased REVEREND SANCHO ABADIA.SEVERINA A. VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs.

MIGUEL ABADIA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

FACTS:

On September 6, 1923, Father Sancho Abadia, parish priest of Talisay, Cebu, executed a document purporting to be his Last Will and Testament. Resident of the City of Cebu, he died onJanuary 14, 1943, in the municipality of Aloguinsan, Cebu, where he was an evacuee. He left properties estimated at P8,000 in value. On October 2, 1946, Andres Enriquez, one of the legatees filed a petition for the probate of the will in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Some cousins and nephews who would inherit the estate of the deceased if he left no will, filed opposition. During the hearing one of the attesting witnesses, the other two being dead, testified without contradiction that in his presence and in the presence of his co-witnesses, Father Sancho wrote out in longhand the will in Spanish which the testator spoke and understood; that he signed on the left hand margin of the front page of each of the three folios or sheets of which the document is composed, and numbered the same with Arabic numerals, and finally signed his name at the end of his writing at the last page, all this, in the

presence of the three attesting witnesses after telling that it was his last will and that the said three witnesses signed their names on the last page after the attestation clause in his presence and in the presence of each other. The oppositors did not submit any evidence.

The trial court found and declared the will to be a holographic will; that it was in the handwriting of the testator and that although at the time it was executed and at the time of the testator's death, holographic wills were not permitted by law still, because at the time of the hearing and when the case was to be decided the new Civil Code was already in force, which Code permitted the execution of holographic wills, under a liberal view, and to carry out the intention of the testator which according to the trial court is the controlling factor and may override any defect in form, said trial court admitted to probate the Last Will and Testament of Father Sancho Abadia. The oppositors appealed from that decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the holographic will should be allowed despite the fact that when it was executed the civil code proscribes the execution of such wills.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that despite the effectivity of the new Civil Code allowing the execution of holographic wills, the contested holographic will still cannot be allowed and admitted to probate. This is because under Art. 795 of the Civil Code, the extrinsic validity of a will should be judged not by the law existing at the time of the testator’s death nor the law at the time of its probate, but by the law existing at the time of the execution of the instrument. For the very simple reason that although the will becomes operative only after the testator’s death, still his wishes are given expression at the time of execution.

II.

Fleumer vs. Hix54 Phil 610

Facts:

The petitioner is a special administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the latter’s will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as found in West Virginia Code, annotated by Hogg, Charles E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 and as certified to by the Director of National Library.The Judge of the First Instance however denied the probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Is it necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of such law in West Virginia as a prerequisite to the allowance and recording of said will.

Held:

 Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various states of the American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of the law were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an extract was taken was printed or published under the authority of the state of West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia as provided in Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time alleged will was executed. The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of the will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must be proved.

III.

Probate of the late William R. Giberson.LELA G. DALTON vs. SPRING GIBERSON

G.R. No. L-4113June 30, 1952

Facts:

Lela Dalton presented an application in the CFI of Cebu asking for the legalization of a document, which was awarded in San Francisco, California, purporting to be the holographic will of William Giberson, who was a citizen of the State of Illinois, USA, a resident of Cebu and died in Manila. Spring Giberson, son of the deceased, filed an opposition claiming that the will is apocryphal, that it does not represent the true will of the deceased, and that it has not been in accordance with law. The trial court dismissed the application stating that under our existing rules only those wills that have previously been proved to be allowed in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or any foreign country, according to their laws, may be allowed to be filed or recorded in the proper court of first instance in the Philippines. Hence, this petition

Issue:

Whether the will of William Giberson can be authenticated in the Philippines, although such document.

Held:

No. A will awarded outside the Philippine can be legalized and registered in the Philippines, provided that it was awarded in accordance with the laws of the State or

country where it was awarded. This is supported by Article 637 of the Civil Code wherein it was stated that wills authenticated and legalized in the United States, or any state or territory thereof in accordance with the laws of that state, may be legalized and recorded in the CFI of the province in which the testator has a real property or estate.

IV.

PAULA DE LA CERNA, ET AL. vs. MANUELA REBACA POTOT, ET AL., and CAG.R. No. L-20234

December 23, 1964

Facts: Spouses Bernabe de la Cerna and Gervacia Rebaca, executed a joint will and testament in the local dialect whereby they willed that the properties during their marriage be given to Manuela Rebaca, their niece, because they did not have any child. Bernabe died on August 30, 1939, and the aforesaid will was submitted to probate by said Gervasia and Manuela before the CFI of Cebu. Upon the death of Gervasia, another petition for the probate of the same will insofar as Gervasia was concerned was filed on November 6, 1952 of the same CFI, but failure of the petitioner and her attorney to appear, the case was dismissed.The CFI ordered the petition heard and declared the testament null and void, for being executed contrary to the prohibition of joint will in the Civil Code. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision on the ground that the decree of probate in 1939 was issued by a court of probate jurisdiction and conclusive on the due execution of the testament.

Issue:

Whether the joint will executed by the spouses, despite its prohibition under the Civil Code, can be considered as valid.

Held:

Yes. Admittedly the probate of the will in 1939 was erroneous, however, because it was probated by a court of competent jurisdiction it has conclusive effect and a final judgment rendered on a petition for the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. Still, this is only true with respect to the estate of the husband but cannot affect the estate of the wife, who was then still alive, and over whose interest in the conjugal properties the probate court acquired no jurisdiction, precisely because her estate could not then be in issue. Be it remembered that prior to the new Civil Code, a will could not be probated during the testator's lifetime.

Considering that a joint will is a separate will of each testator, It follows that the validity of the joint will, in so far as the estate of the wife was concerned, must be, on her death, reexamined and adjudicated de novo. Hence, the undivided interest of the wife should pass upon her death to her intestate heirs and not to the testamentary heir. A decree of probate decree is conclusive on the due

execution and the formal validity of the will subject to such probate.

V.

RODRIGUEZ vs. BORJA17 SCRA 41

FACTS:

In this case, there were 2 proceedings.  First was an intestate proceeding instituted meaning, a proceeding to settle the estate of a deceased person who died without a will. But subsequently, a will was found and again another proceeding was instituted, this time, testate proceeding wherein the estate of the deceased person is settled if that person has left a will.  We are confronted here of 2 proceedings, one was instituted ahead of the other. 

ISSUE:

Which proceeding should be preferred? 

RULING: 

As long as there is a will, even if that will is found later and even if the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a person with a will is filed later, that should be preferred.  The will should be probated.  The will should be given effect as much as possible in order to give effect to the wishes of the testator.  The wishes of the testator must be given such preference first.  Probate of the will is needed in order to determine whether or not the will was indeed valid, whether or not the will was executed in observance with the formalities required by law and whether or not the testator executed it with a sound mind. 

If later on in the probate proceeding, the will is found not to have validly executed, then you go to intestate proceeding.  But first you go to testate. 

Law Governing Content: As to Time

The effectivity of new succession successional rights recognized by the present Code is governed by the transitional provisions. Under Article 2253, “If a right should be declared for the first time in this Code, it shall be effective at once, even though the act or event which gives rise thereto may have been done or may have occurred under prior legislation, provided said right does not prejudice or impair any vested or acquired right of the same origin.”

Also, under Article 2263, “Rights to the inheritance of a person who died, with or without a will, before the effectivity of this Cod, shall be governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws, and by the Rules of Court. The inheritance of those who, with or without a will, die after the beginning of the effectivity of this Code shall be adjudicated and distributed in accordance with this new body of laws and by the Rules of Court; but the testamentary provisions shall be carried out insofar as may be permitted by this Code.”

Note:

The determining factor in ascertaining the effectivity of new successional rights, is the death of the person whose inheritance is in question.

Rights to inheritance of a person who died after the effectivity of the New Civil Code are governed by the NCC.

Law Governing Content: As to Successional Rights

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

It is a settled rule that as regards to the intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039, the national law of the decedent must apply.

Cases:

VI.

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

v.HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant.

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 underCalifornia 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 successional 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.

VII.

 TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased.PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST

COMPANY, executor.MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants,

vs.EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.

G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." He had eight (8) legitimate children from two wives and three (3) illegitimate children. On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he bequeathed, among others, an amount of P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each. On July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958. The executor of the will paid all the bequests therein including to the three (3) illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr.,

Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts totalling P40,000.00 each in satisfaction of their respective legacies. On January 8, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its "Executor's Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition" wherein it divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages. 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. Their oppositions were overruled by the lower court. 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:

Whether or not the illegitimate children of a person, who is citizen and a domiciliary of a foreign country, and whose estate in the Philippines had been settled in accordance with a will validly probated here, are entitled to their respective legitimes.

RULING:

No.Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the 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 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 he the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.  ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, theamount  of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills—one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate—arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law, for 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 Article 10— now Article 16

— of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of  the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis

VIII.

POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner,vs.

HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch-XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA,

respondents.G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984

 FACTS:

Adoracion C. Campos, in her lifetime, was a citizen of the United States of America and a permanent resident of Philadelphia. She executed a Last Will and Testament in the county of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., according to the laws thereat, and that while in temporary sojourn in the Philippines, Adoracion C. Campos died in the City of Manila, leaving property both in the Philippines and in the United States of America. The Last Will and Testament of the late Adoracion C. Campos was admitted and granted probate by the Orphan's Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas, the probate court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Philadelphia, U.S.A., and letters of  administration were issued in favor of Clement J. McLaughlin all in accordance with the laws of the said foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills. Nenita C. Paguia, daughter or the testator, was appointed Administratrix of the estate of said decedent. This was opposed by Adoracion’s father, Hermogenes Campos, who earlier filed an Affidavit of Self-adjudication not being aware that Adoracion had left a will. He later died and was substituted by Polly Cayetano as petitioner in the instant case.A motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the rights of the petitioner Hermogenes Campos merged upon his death with the rights of the respondent and her sisters, only remaining children and forced heirs was denied on September 12, 1983.Cayetano alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that the right of a forced heir to his legitime can be divested by a decree admitting a will to probate in which no provision is made for the forced heir in complete disregard of Law of Succession.

ISSUE:Whether or not a forced heir is entitled to his legitime in case the testator was a citizen of another country.

RULING:

No.Applying Article 16 par. (2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the law which governs

Adoracion Campo's will is the law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide for legitimes and that all the estate may be given away by the testatrix to a complete stranger, the petitioner argues that such law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and established public policy and would run counter to the specificprovisions of Philippine Law. It is a settled rule that as regards the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, as provided for by Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedentmust apply.