[4] Bellis v. Bellis 1. Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas.
He had 5 children (4 survived
GR No. L-23678 | 6 June 1967 | Art. 16 | Francis
Petitioner: TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE'S
BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and
MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants,
Respondents: EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.
Recit-Ready Facts:
1. Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas. He fathered 7 legitimate children,
and 3 illegitimate children who survived him. He executed a will in the
Philippines ordering the payment of USD 40,000 for each of his
illegitimate children while the rest are to be divided among the
legitimate children.
2. Amos Bellis died in Texas. His will was admitted to probate in Manila.
The executor paid all bequests and submitted a project of partition.
The 3 illegitimate children opposed the project of partition claiming that
it deprived them of their legitimes.
3. The SC ruled in favor of the 7 legitimate children. Art. 16 of the Civil
Code clearly provides that for intestate and testate succession, the
order of succession, amount of successional rights, and intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions shall be governed by the national
law of the decedent. Art. 1039 of the Civil Code further solidifies this
point.
4. Since Amos Bellis died as a national of Texas, Texas law shall apply
as regards the order of succession, amount of successional rights,
and intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions.
5. Given that Texas law does not provide for legitimes, then the project of
partition remains valid.
Doctrine:
Intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity
of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration.
Application to the case:
Since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law
on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
FACTS:
him) with his first wife. He later divorced her and married another,
with whom he had 3 children. He also had 3 illegitimate children who
survived him.
2. On 1952, Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines ordering that
after the payment of all of his obligations, his estate should be
divided accordingly:
a. USD 240,000 to his first wife
b. USD 120,000 to his three illegitimate children (USD 40,000
each)
c. The remainder to his 7 surviving legitimate children
3. On 1958, Amos Bellis died and his will was admitted to probate in
the CFI of Manila.
4. The executor of the will paid all bequests in the form of shares of
stock to the first wife and the three illegitimate children. On 1964, the
executor submitted its Final Account, Report of Administration and
Project of Partition, reporting the satisfaction of the aforementioned
legacies.
5. The 3 illegitimate children filed their opposition on the project of
partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes.
6. The lower court ruled in favor of the legitimate heirs and upheld the
project of partition. It relied on Art. 16 of the Civil Code and applied
Texas law which did not provide for legitimes.
ISSUES:
WON Texas law or Philippine law should apply.
- TEXAS LAW APPLIES.
RATIO:
1. The doctrine of renvoi does not apply in this case. Amos Bellis was
both a national and a resident of Texas at the time of his death.
2. ART. 16 of the Civil Code clearly provides:
Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may he the
 nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said
property may be found.
3. ART. 1039 of the Civil Code further provides:
Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.
4. The illegitimate children invoke ART. 17 of the Civil Code which
provides:
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and
those which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country.
5. Legislative history however leads to the opposite conclusion.
Congress deleted the phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of this
and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the
old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code. Their purpose was to
make the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself
which must be applied in testate and intestate succession.
6. As further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new
provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that capacity to succeed is
to be governed by the national law of the decedent.
7. Whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our
System of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same
to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen
to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights, to the
decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over
general ones.
8. The parties admit that, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced
heirs or legitimes.
9. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas
law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy
of Amos G. Bellis.

Disposition of the Court

Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with
costs against appellants. So ordered.