G.R. No. L-23678; June 6, 1967
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.

FACTS

Amos G. Bellis, a citizen and domiciliary of Texas, U.S.A., died in 1958. He executed a will in the Philippines in 1952. He had legitimate children from two marriages and three illegitimate children (Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis). His will provided specific legacies: $240,000 to his first wife, P120,000 (P40,000 each) to his three illegitimate children, and the remainder of his estate to be divided equally among his seven surviving legitimate children. His will was probated in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The executor paid the legacies and submitted a project of partition dividing the residuary estate among the seven legitimate children. Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis opposed the project of partition, claiming they were deprived of their legitimes as compulsory heirs under Philippine law. The lower court overruled the opposition, applying Texas law (the national law of the decedent), which does not provide for legitimes, pursuant to Article 16 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether Philippine law on legitimes should govern the testamentary succession of Amos G. Bellis, a foreign national, or whether his national law (Texas law) applies.

RULING

The national law of the decedent governs. The order of the probate court is affirmed. Under Article 16, paragraph 2, and Article 1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent governs intestate and testamentary succession with respect to: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions; and (d) the capacity to succeed. The decedent was a citizen of Texas, and under Texas law, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Therefore, the Philippine law on legitimes does not apply. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that Article 17 (on prohibitive laws concerning public order, policy, and good customs) prevails as an exception, noting that Congress specifically made Article 16 a distinct provision for succession. The Court also noted that the doctrine of renvoi was not invoked and, in any case, would not apply as the decedent was both a national and domiciliary of Texas. The fact that the decedent executed a separate will for his Philippine estate did not imply an intent to apply Philippine law to matters (like legitimes) expressly governed by his national law under the Civil Code.