ADOLFO AZNAR vs.

HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

G.R. No. L-16749

Facts:
Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled in
the Philippines. He executed in his will acknowledging his natural daughter
Maria Lucy Christensen, Heir-appellee, as sole heir but left a legacy of some
money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia, Oppositor-appellant. Oppositor-
appellant asserts that her claim must be increased in view of the successional
rights of illegitimate children under Philippine Law. She also insists that Art.
16 (2) provides that the National Law of the Person applies in intestate and
testamentary successions and since Edward Christensen is a citizen of
California therefor it should be applied.
Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine Law should be applied.
Held:
The court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary
successions with respect to order of succession and amt. of successional right
is regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON.

California Probate Code provides that a testator may dispose of his

property in the form and manner he desires.

Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that if no law on the

contrary, the place where the personal property is situated is deemed to follow
the person of its owner and is governed by the LAW OF HIS DOMICILE.

These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of Renvoi may be applied

where the question of validity of the testamentary provision in question is
referred back to the decedent’s domicile – the Philippines.

The Supreme Court noted that the California law provides two (2) sets of laws
for its citizens: One for residents therein as provided by the California Probate
Code and another for citizens domiciled in other countries as provided by Art.
946 of the Civil Code of California.

The conflicts of law rule in California (Art. 946) authorize the return of question
of law to the testator’s domicile. The court must apply its own rule in
the Philippines as directed in the conflicts of law rule in California, otherwise
the case/issue will not be resolved if the issue is referred back and forth
between 2 states.