PRIL - #007

Testate Estate of Bohanan vs Bohanan et al (1960)

Doctrine: The validity of testamentary dispositions shall be governed by the national law of the person whose
succession is in question.

Facts:
1. The will of C.O. Bohanan, a citizen of Nevada, USA, was admitted to probate. Said will was executed on
April 23, 1944 in Manila.
2. The executor, Phil. Trust Co. filed a project of partition in accordance with the will:
a. One half of the residuary estate to be held in trust for his grandson, Edward George Bohanan;
b. The other half to his brother, FL Bohanan, and sister, MB Galbraith;
c. Legacies of P6000 each to his son Edward Gilbert and his daughter Mary Lydia Bohanan;
d. Legacies to Clara Daen, Katherine Woodward, Beulah Fox and Elizabeth Hastings.
3. The wife Magdalena Bohanan and her 2 children question the validity of the provisions of the will claiming
that their legitimes have been impaired.
a. The Reno divorce procured by the Testator cannot have an effect in the PH
b. [RELEVANT] Legacies of P6000 each given to the children are insufficient to cover their legitime.
They should be given 2/3 of the estate according to the law of the forum, the Philippines

Issue/s:
Whether the will is void for impairing the children’s legitimes

Held/Ratio: NO.
1. Par. 2 of Art 10 of the Old Civil Code expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be
governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in question.
2. It was established that the testator is a citizen of Nevada and it is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a
testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925)
3. It does not appear, however, that the foreign law was presented in evidence. A foreign law can only be
proved in our courts in the form and manner provided by the Rules of Court (official publication or a copy
thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the record and if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, accompanied by a certificate that such officer has custody)
4. Nevertheless, the Court took judicial notice of the law of Nevada because it appears that the said law was
admitted by the lower court as exhibit during the probate of the will; that the same was introduced as
evidence of a motion of one of the appellants for withdrawal of a certain sum of money; and that other
appellants do not dispute the said law.

Digested by: Rea (A2015)