Case Name Amos v.

Bellis

Topic Arts. 14-18 NCC | Conflict of Laws

Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-23678 | June 6, 1967

Ponente Bengzon, J.P.

Summary Amos G. Bellis was both a national of Texas and a domile thereof at the time of his
death. Prior to his death, he executed a will to distribute his Philippine estate
properties. After the People’s Bank and Trust Company, executor of the will, filed
it’s final account, Amos G. Bellis’ illegitimate children (Maria Cristina Bellis and
Miriam Palma Bellis) filed a petition stating they were deprived of their legitimes
as compulsory heirs under the Philippine law. The lower court overruled the
oppositions and approved the executor’s final account. The appellants filed their
respective motions for reconsideration raising the issue of whether Texas or
Philippine law must apply to the decedent’s property. The Court affirmed the
lower court’s decision stating that Art. 16 provides that intestate and
testamentary succession shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose success is under consideration. Therefore, the Court ruled that the
Philippine law on legitimes cannot apply. The Texas law should apply and in the
said law, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.

Doctrine Doctrine of Renvoi

● Renvoi is applied when a court is faced with a conflict of law and must
consider a foreign law
● Never mentioned in the arguments of the appellants but was mentioned
in the decision of the court as a possible angle for argument should
Texas law adopt the situs theory where a property is governed by the
laws of the land of where it is situated
● If a proof of the conflict of law on Texas was presented before the Court,
then the doctrine of renvoi would apply to the appellants’ position

Provisions Article 16 NCC

Article 1039
Article 17 NCC (paragraph 3)

Facts
● Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and the United States
● He had two (2) wives with five (5) and three (3) legitimate children
respectively, and three (3) illegitimate children
● On Auguet 5, 1952, he executed a will in the Philippines directing that
after paying all administrative taxes and expenses, his estate property in
the Philippines should be divided in the ff. order:
a. $240,000 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen
b. ₱120,000 to his three (3) illegitimate children (Amos Bellis, Jr.,
Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis)
c. Remainder shall go to his seven (7) surviving children by first and
second wives

3
 ● On July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died in San Antonio, Texas, USA
● On September 15, 1958, his will was admitted to probate in the Court of
First Instance iof Manila
● People’s Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the
bequests according to the will of the deceased and filed its executor’s
final account
● On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis,
illigitemate daughters, filed a petition to the partition as they were
deprived of the residuary estates
● On April 30, 1964, the lower court issued an order overruling the
oppositions and approving the executor’s final account
○ Relying on Art. 16 of the Civil Code where the the national law of
the decedent applies
● The appellants argue that their case falls under the 3rd paragraph of
Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code
● Under Texas law, there are no forced heirs or legitimes

Issue Ratio

Issue 1: W/N the NO. Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that intestate and testamentary
Philippine law of successions shall be regulated by national law of the person whose succession is
legitimes apply to under consideration. Therefore, Texas law should apply to the testacy of the
the testacy of the decedent. And under Texas law, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.
decedent? ● Art. 16, par. 2: 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 be the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found.
● Art. 1039: Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent
○ Both aforementioned articles follow the national law of the
decedent in intestate or testamentary succesions with regard to:
(a) order of succession; (2) amount of successional rights; ©
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity
to succeed)
● The appellants argued that Article 17, par. 3 of the Civil Code stating at it
prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2.
Art. 17, par. 3: 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
○ The Court said the appellant’s counterargument is INCORRECT
because of legislative intent. It is presumed that the Congress’
purpose in deleting the phrase “notwithstanding the provisions of
this and the next preceding article” when they incorporated Art. 11
of the old Civil Code to Art. 17, without changing Art. 10, par. 2 of
the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new is to make Art. 16 a specific
provision in itself which must be applied in intestate successions.
○ As further indication to the legislative intent, the Congress also
added a new provision under Art. 1039 which decrees that the
capacity to succeed is governed by the national law of the

3
 decedent
● Appellants argued that the decedent executed two wills–one to govern
his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate–arguing that the
Philippine law should govern over his Philippine estate
○ In Miciano vs. Brimo Phil. 867, 870, the Court ruled that a
provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall
be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not his
national law, is ILLEGAL and VOID.

Disposition The order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against
appellant