AMOS G. BELLIS v.

MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS et al

No. L-23678. June 6, 1967 | Ponente: BENGZON.

Nature:
This is a direct appeal to Us, upon a question purely of law, from an order of
the Court of First Instance of Manila dated April 30, 1964. approving the project of
partition f iled by the executor in 'Civil Case No. 37089 therein.

Facts:
Amos G. Bellis had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis
(who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna
Bellis Allsman by his wife Mary E. Mallen whom he divorced; and children from
his second wife Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children:
Edwin G. Bellis. Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three
illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma
Bellis.

Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all
taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid f or, his distributable
estate should be divided. Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San Antonio,
Texas, USA. His will was admitted to probate in the Philippines. The People’s Bank
and Trust Company, an executor of the will, paid the entire bequest therein.

Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its
“Executor’s Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition” where
it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the shares of
stock amounting to $240,000 delivered to her, and the legacies of the 3 illegitimate
children in the amount of P40,000 each or a total of P120,000. In the project
partition, the executor divided the residuary estate into 7 equal portions for the
benefit of the testator’s 7 legitimate children by his 1st and 2nd marriages.

Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and Miriam Palma Bellis
filed their respective opposition to the project partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimates as illegitimate children.

Issue:

Whether Texan Law of Philippine Law must apply.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

Texan Law. Renvoi doctrine. The doctrine of renvoi is usually pertinent where
the decedent is a national of one country and is domiciled in another. It does not
apply to a case where the decedent was a citizen of Texas and was domiciled therein

Wills and Successions BELLIS vs BELLIS Case Digested by: Cyhna Torre | 1
at the time of his death. So that, even assuming that Texas has a conflicts rule
providing that the domiciliary law should govern successional rights, the same
would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but itwould still refer
to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule, adopting the rule of lex rei
sitae, which calls for the application of the law of the place where the properties are
situated, renvoi would arise, where the properties involved are found in the
Philippines.
In the absence of proof as to the conflicts rule of Texas, it would be presumed
to be the same as our local conflicts rule. The decedent's national law governs the
order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of the will and capacity to succeed. Whatever public policy and good
customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congres has not intended to
extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. It has specifically chosen the
decedent's national law to govern, inter alia, the amount of successional rights.
Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. Where the decedent was a citizen
of Texas and under Texas laws there are no forced heirs, the system of legitimes in
Philippine law cannot be applied to the succession to the decedent's testate because
the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the decedent's will and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under Texas law.

Wills and Successions BELLIS vs BELLIS Case Digested by: Cyhna Torre | 2