AZNAR vs.

CHRISTENSEN-GARCIA
(G.R. NO. L-16749, JANUARY 31, 1963)

FACTS

Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California
and domiciled in the Philippines at the time of his death. He declared in his will executed
in Manila that he have only one child and heir, Maria Lucy Christensen. He further
declared that, notwithstanding the fact that Helen Christensen was baptized
Christensen, she is not related nor adopted by him, but he devise and bequeath unto
her a sum of money.

Helen Christensen opposed to the project of partition, insofar as it deprives her of her
legitime as an acknowledged natural child of the deceased declared by the Court.
Counsel of Helen claims that under Art. 16 (2) of the civil code, California law should be
applied, the matter is returned back to the law of domicile, that Philippine law is
ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be increased in view of successional
rights of illegitimate children under Philippine laws. On the other hand, counsel for
Maria, in as much that it is clear under Art. 16 (2) of the  New Civil Code, the national of
the deceased, the internal law of California must apply where illegitimate children not
being entitled to anything.

ISSUE

Whether or not the national law of the deceased should be applied in the distribution of
the deceased Christensen’s estate.

RULING

NO. 

The Court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary successions
with respect to order of succession and amount of successional right is regulated by the
NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON. But California have prescribed two sets of laws for
its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other
jurisdictions. The conflict of laws rule in California refers back the case, when a
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile. 

Therefore as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the

Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural
child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to
the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California.