Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v.

Escolin -

Renvoi Doctrine is applied because both parties failed because

both parties failed to prove Texas Law.

FACTS:

Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas, made a will in

1952. Unfortunately, she passed away in 1957 while she was domiciled in
Iloilo City. In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles
Newton Hodges. Linnie, however, also stated in her will that should her
husband later die, said estate shall be turned over to her brother and sister.

In 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled in the

Philippines). While the probate proceeding on the will of Linnie was pending,
Atty. Leon Gellada, the lawyer of Charles, filed a motion before the probate
court so that a certain Avelina Magno may be appointed as the administratrix
of the estate. The latter was the trusted employee of the Hodges when they
were alive.

Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same
was in an iron trunk in Charles’ office. Hence, in the meantime, he would like
to have Magno appointed as administratrix. The said motion was approved by
Judge Venicio Escolin.

Later, Charles’ will was found and so a new petition for probate was
filed for the said will. Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno,
as admininistratrix of Linnie’s estate opposed the said petition.

Eventually, the probate of Charles’ will was granted. Eventually still,

the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed as
administrator. But Magno refused to turn over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the
property to Linnie’s brother and sister and since that is her will, the same must
be respected.

Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her
death (an alien testator); that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional
rights are governed by Linnie’s national law; that under Texas law, Linnie’s
will shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes (Charles’ share
in the estate).

PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine
laws because Linnie was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death
(applying the renvoi doctrine).
ISSUE:

WON Texas Law should apply.

HELD:

YES. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court
since both parties failed to adduce proof as to the law of Texas.

The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law is on the matter,
is a question of fact to be resolved by the evidence that would be presented in
the probate court. The Supreme Court further emphasized that Texas law is
the applicable law at the time of Linnie’s death.