AZNAR VS.

GARCIA 7 S 95
G.R. No. L-16749, 31 January 1963

Facts:

Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to

California where he resided and consequently was considered a California
Citizen for a period of nine years to 1913. He came to the Philippines where
he became a domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the
entire period of his residence in this country, he had always considered
himself as a citizen of California.

In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged

natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir but left a legacy of
some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who, in a decision
rendered by the Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged
natural daughter of his. 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
daughter Maria , in as much that it is clear under Art, 16 (2) of the  Mew
Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our courts must apply
internal law of California on the matter. Under California law, there are no
compulsory heirs and consequently a testator should dispose any property
possessed by him in absolute dominion.
 
Issue:
Whether Philippine Law or California Law should apply.
 
Ruling:

The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen

Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two rules in California on the
matter.
1. The conflict rule which should apply to Californian’s outside the
California, and
2. The internal Law which should apply to California domiciles in
califronia.

The California conflict rule, found on Art. 946 of the California Civil code
States that “if there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal
property is situated, it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is
governed by the law of the domicile.”

Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law of his domicile,

the Philippines is ought to be followed.

Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed and case is remanded to the

lower court with instructions that partition be made as that of the Philippine
law provides.