PrIL – 008

Bellis vs. Bellis (1967)

Doctrine: In the absence of proof pointing to the conflict rule of the foreign country, it should not be
presumed different from ours – renvoi should therefore not be applied.

FACTS:

 Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the US. He had 5 legitimate
children from his first marriage, 3 from his second, and 3 illegitimate children.
 He executed his will in the Phlippines setting forth as follows:
o $240K to his first wife
o $120K to his 3 illegitimate children
o The remaining to his surviving legitimate children in equal shares
 Testator died a resident of Texas and his will was probated in Manila.
o People’s Bank and Trust Co, executor, paid out all the legacies, settled the ckaims
against the estate of the deceased and divided the residuary among the 7 surviving
legitimate children.
 2 of the illegitimate children filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children.
 Lower court approved the project of partition filed by the executor.
o Court relied upon Art 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines in applying the national law
of the decedent (Texas Law) which did not provide for legitimes.
 Oppositors never raised the application of the doctrine of renvoi; neither did
they point to a conflict rule of the Texas law that will refer the case back to the
Philippines. The case is therefore not rested on the application of the renvoi
theory.
 Oppositors contention is based mainly on Article 17 par 3 of the Philippine Civil
Code which states: “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.” They are
contending that the public policy or good customs in our system of legitime is an
exception to Art 16 par 2 and therefore not invalidated by the national law of
the decedent.

ISSUE: Which law must apply? Texas law or Philippine law?

HELD: Texas Law (which does not provide for legitimes)

 Article 17 of the New Civil Code, copied from Article 11 of the Old Civil Code, deleted the phrase
“notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article.” The court believes that
 the purpose of this is to make the second paragraph of Article 16 the specific law governing
testate and intestate succession.
 It is evident that whatever public policy or good custom that we may have in the system of our
legitimes, the Congress did not intend to extend them to foreign nationals.
o As Art 16 specifically states that national law shall govern successional rights, national
law must apply.
 Miciano vs. Brimo: A provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine Law and not his national law, is illegal and void, for his
national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 (now Article 16) of the
Old CC states said national law should govern.

Digested by: Kaye (A2015)