Private International Law TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE'S BANK and T !ST "OMPAN#, executor.

MA IA " ISTINA BELLIS and MI IAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. E$%A $ A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. G. . No. L&'()*+ BENG0ON, ,.P., ,.1 FA"TS1 Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the nited States." B! his first wife, "ar! #. "allen, whom he divorced, he had five le$itimate children% #dward A. Bellis, Geor$e Bellis &who pre-deceased him in infanc!', (enr! A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman) b! his second wife, *iolet +enned!, who survived him, he had three le$itimate children% #dwin G. Bellis, ,alter S. Bellis and -oroth! Bellis) and finall!, he had three ille$itimate children% Amos Bellis, .r., "aria /ristina Bellis and "iriam 0alma Bellis. 1n Au$ust 2, 3425, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the 0hilippines, in which he directed that after all taxes, obli$ations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the followin$ order and manner% &a' 6578,888.88 to his first wife, "ar! #. "allen) &b' 0358,888.88 to his three ille$itimate children, Amos Bellis, .r., "aria /ristina Bellis, "iriam 0alma Bellis, or 078,888.88 each and &c' after the fore$oin$ two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall $o to his seven survivin$ children b! his first and second wives, namel!% #dward A. Bellis, (enr! A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, #dwin G. Bellis, ,alter S. Bellis, and -oroth! #. Bellis, in e9ual shares. Subse9uentl!, or on .ul! :, 342:, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, .S.A. (is will was admitted to probate in the /ourt of ;irst <nstance of "anila on September 32, 342:. The 0eople=s Ban> and Trust /ompan!, as executor of the will, paid all the be9uests therein includin$ the amount of 6578,888.88 in the form of shares of stoc> to "ar! #. "allen and to the three &?' ille$itimate children, Amos Bellis, .r., "aria /ristina Bellis and "iriam 0alma Bellis, various amounts totallin$ 078,888.88 each in satisfaction of their respective le$acies, or a total of 0358,888.88, which it released from time to time accordin$ as the lower court approved and allowed the various motions or petitions filed b! the latter three re9uestin$ partial advances on account of their respective le$acies. 1n .anuar! :, 34@7, preparator! to closin$ its administration, the executor submitted and filed its "#xecutor=s ;inal Account, Aeport of Administration and 0roBect of 0artition" wherein it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the le$ac! of "ar! #. "allen b! the deliver! to her of shares of stoc> amountin$ to 6578,888.88, and the le$acies of Amos Bellis, .r., "aria /ristina Bellis and "iriam 0alma Bellis in the amount of 078,888.88 each or a total of 0358,888.88. <n the proBect of partition, the executor C pursuant to the "Twelfth" clause of the testator=s Dast ,ill and Testament C divided the residuar! estate into seven e9ual portions for the benefit of the testator=s seven le$itimate children b! his first and second marria$es. 0a$e . of ( ,-ne ), ./)*

1n .anuar! 3E, 34@7, "aria /ristina Bellis and "iriam 0alma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the proBect of partition on the $round that the! were deprived of their le$itimes as ille$itimate children and, therefore, compulsor! heirs of the deceased. Amos Bellis, .r. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of service of which is evidenced b! the re$istr! receipt submitted on April 5E, 34@7 b! the executor. After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other pertinent pleadin$s, the lower court, on April ?8, 34@7, issued an order overrulin$ the oppositions and approvin$ the executor=s final account, report and administration and proBect of partition. Ael!in$ upon Art. 3@ of the /ivil /ode, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for le$itimes. ISS!E1 ,hat Daw will $overn in the successional ri$hts of the heirs of the decedentF !LING1 <n this re$ard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied b! this /ourt in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, D-3@E74, .anuar! ?3, 34@?. Said doctrine is usuall! pertinent where the decedent is a national of one countr!, and a domicile of another. <n the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death &San Antonio, Texas was his le$al residence'. So that even assumin$ Texas has a conflict of law rule providin$ that the domiciliar! s!stem &law of the domicile' should $overn, the same would not result in a reference bac> &renvoi' to 0hilippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Gonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adoptin$ the situs theor! &lex rei sitae' callin$ for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the 0hilippines. <n the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. Appellants= position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, the! never invo>ed nor even mentioned it in their ar$uments. Aather, the! ar$ue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third para$raph of Article 3E in relation to Article 3@ of the /ivil /ode. Article 3@, par. 5, and Art. 38?4 of the /ivil /ode, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentar! successions, with re$ard to four items% &a' the order of succession) &b' the amount of successional ri$hts) &e' the intrinsic validit! of the provisions of the will) and &d' the capacit! to succeed. The! provide that C AAT. 3@. Aeal propert! as well as personal propert! is subBect to the law of the countr! where it is situated. (owever, intestate and testamentar! successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri$hts and to the intrinsic validit! of testamentar! provisions, shall be re$ulated b! the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever ma! he the nature of the propert! and re$ardless of the countr! wherein said propert! ma! be found. AAT. 38?4. /apacit! to succeed is $overned b! the law of the nation of the decedent.

0a$e ' of (

Appellants would however counter that Art. 3E, para$raph three, of the /ivil /ode, statin$ that C 0rohibitive laws concernin$ persons, their acts or propert!, and those which have for their obBect public order, public polic! and $ood customs shall not be rendered ineffective b! laws or Bud$ments promul$ated, or b! determinations or conventions a$reed upon in a forei$n countr!. prevails as the exception to Art. 3@, par. 5 of the /ivil /ode afore-9uoted. This is not correct. 0recisel!, /on$ressdeleted the phrase, "notwithstandin$ the provisions of this and the next precedin$ article" when the! incorporated Art. 33 of the old /ivil /ode as Art. 3E of the new /ivil /ode, while reproducin$ without substantial chan$e the second para$raph of Art. 38 of the old /ivil /ode as Art. 3@ in the new. <t must have been their purpose to ma>e the second para$raph of Art. 3@ a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As further indication of this le$islative intent, /on$ress added a new provision, under Art. 38?4, which decrees that capacit! to succeed is to be $overned b! the national law of the decedent. <t is therefore evident that whatever public polic! or $ood customs ma! be involved in our S!stem of le$itimes, /on$ress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of forei$n nationals. ;or it has specificall! chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional ri$hts, to the decedent=s national law. Specific provisions must prevail over $eneral ones. Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills C one to $overn his Texas estate and the other his 0hilippine estate C ar$uin$ from this that he intended 0hilippine law to $overn his 0hilippine estate. Assumin$ that such was the decedent=s intention in executin$ a separate 0hilippine will, it would not alter the law, for as this /ourt ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, 28 0hil. :@E, :E8, a provision in a forei$ner=s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with 0hilippine law and not with his national law, is ille$al and void, for his national law cannot be i$nored in re$ard to those matters that Article 38 C now Article 3@ C of the /ivil /ode states said national law should $overn. The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, .S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or le$itimes. Accordin$l!, since the intrinsic validit! of the provision of the will and the amount of successional ri$hts are to be determined under Texas law, the 0hilippine law on le$itimes cannot be applied to the testac! of Amos G. Bellis.

0a$e ( of (