G.R. No.

L-16749 January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDARD E. !HRISTENSEN,
DE!EASED.
ADOLFO !. A"NAR, E#$%u&or an' L(!) !HRISTENSEN, H$*r o+ &,$
'$%$a-$', Executor and Heir-appellees,
vs.
HELEN !HRISTENSEN GAR!IA, oppositor-appellant.
M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees.
Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant.
LA.RADOR, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N.
Cusi, r., presidin!, in "pecial #roceedin! No. $%% of said court, dated "eptem&er '(, ')(),
approvin! amon! thin!s the final accounts of the executor, directin! the executor to
reim&urse *aria +uc, Christensen the amount of #-,$.. paid &, her to Helen Christensen
/arcia as her le!ac,, and declarin! *aria +uc, Christensen entitled to the residue of the
propert, to &e en0o,ed durin! her lifetime, and in case of death 1ithout issue, one-half of
said residue to &e pa,a&le to *rs. Carrie +ouise C. 2orton, etc., in accordance 1ith the
provisions of the 1ill of the testator Ed1ard E. Christensen. The 1ill 1as executed in *anila
on *arch 3, ')3' and contains the follo1in! provisions4
-. I declare ... that I have &ut 5NE 6'7 child, named *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN
6no1 *rs. 2ernard Dane,7, 1ho 1as &orn in the #hilippines a&out t1ent,-ei!ht ,ears
a!o, and 1ho is no1 residin! at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun! Villa!e, +os 8n!eles,
California, :.".8.
(. I further declare that I no1 have no livin! ascendants, and no descendants except
m, a&ove named dau!hter, *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE;.
x x x x x x x x x
<. I !ive, devise and &e=ueath unto *89I8 HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN, no1 married to
Eduardo /arcia, a&out ei!hteen ,ears of a!e and 1ho, not1ithstandin! the fact that
she 1as &apti>ed Christensen, is not in an, 1a, related to me, nor has she &een at
an, time adopted &, me, and 1ho, from all information I have no1 resides in E!pit,
Di!os, Davao, #hilippines, the sum of TH9EE TH5:"8ND "I? H:ND9ED #E"5"
6#-,$.....7, #hilippine Currenc, the same to &e deposited in trust for the said *aria
Helen Christensen 1ith the Davao 2ranch of the #hilippine National 2an@, and paid
to her at the rate of 5ne Hundred #esos 6#'.....7, #hilippine Currenc, per month
until the principal thereof as 1ell as an, interest 1hich ma, have accrued thereon, is
exhausted..
x x x x x x x x x
'%. I here&, !ive, devise and &e=ueath, unto m, 1ell-&eloved dau!hter, the said
*89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE; 6*rs. 2ernard Dane,7, no1 residin! as
aforesaid at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun! Villa!e, +os 8n!eles, California, :.".8., all the
income from the rest, remainder, and residue of m, propert, and estate, real,
personal andAor mixed, of 1hatsoever @ind or character, and 1heresoever situated,
of 1hich I ma, &e possessed at m, death and 1hich ma, have come to me from an,
source 1hatsoever, durin! her lifetime4 ....
It is in accordance 1ith the a&ove-=uoted provisions that the executor in his final account
and pro0ect of partition ratified the pa,ment of onl, #-,$.. to Helen Christensen /arcia and
proposed that the residue of the estate &e transferred to his dau!hter, *aria +uc,
Christensen.
5pposition to the approval of the pro0ect of partition 1as filed &, Helen Christensen /arcia,
insofar as it deprives her 6Helen7 of her le!itime as an ac@no1led!ed natural child, she
havin! &een declared &, :s in /.9. Nos. +-''(B--B( an ac@no1led!ed natural child of the
deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen. The le!al !rounds of opposition are 6a7 that the
distri&ution should &e !overned &, the la1s of the #hilippines, and 6&7 that said order of
distri&ution is contrar, thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of t1o
ac@no1led!ed natural children, one-half of the estate in full o1nership. In amplification of
the a&ove !rounds it 1as alle!ed that the la1 that should !overn the estate of the deceased
Christensen should not &e the internal la1 of California alone, &ut the entire la1 thereof
&ecause several forei!n elements are involved, that the forum is the #hilippines and even if
the case 1ere decided in California, "ection )($ of the California Civil Code, 1hich re=uires
that the domicile of the decedent should appl,, should &e applica&le. It 1as also alle!ed that
*aria Helen Christensen havin! &een declared an ac@no1led!ed natural child of the
decedent, she is deemed for all purposes le!itimate from the time of her &irth.
The court &elo1 ruled that as Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates and
of the "tate of California at the time of his death, the successional ri!hts and intrinsic
validit, of the provisions in his 1ill are to &e !overned &, the la1 of California, in
accordance 1ith 1hich a testator has the ri!ht to dispose of his propert, in the 1a, he
desires, &ecause the ri!ht of a&solute dominion over his propert, is sacred and inviola&le
6In re *cDanielCs Estate, << Cal. 8ppl. %d B<<, '<$ #. %d )3%, and In re Daufman, ''< Cal.
%B$, () #ac. ')%, cited in pa!e '<), 9ecord on 8ppeal7. 5ppositor *aria Helen
Christensen, throu!h counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, &ut these 1ere
denied. Hence, this appeal.
The most important assi!nments of error are as follo1s4
I
THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN I/N59IN/ THE DECI"I5N 5F THE H5N5982+E
":#9E*E C5:9T TH8T HE+EN I" THE 8CDN5E+ED/ED N8T:98+ CHI+D 5F
EDE89D E. CH9I"TEN"EN 8ND, C5N"EF:ENT+;, IN DE#9IVIN/ HE9 5F HE9 :"T
"H89E IN THE INHE9IT8NCE.
II
THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN ENTI9E+; I/N59IN/ 8NDA59 F8I+IN/ T5
9EC5/NIGE THE E?I"TENCE 5F "EVE98+ F8CT59", E+E*ENT" 8ND
CI9C:*"T8NCE" C8++IN/ F59 THE 8##+IC8TI5N 5F INTE9N8+ +8E.
III
THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN F8I+IN/ T5 9EC5/NIGE TH8T :NDE9
INTE9N8TI5N8+ +8E, #89TIC:+89+; :NDE9 THE 9ENV5I D5CT9INE, THE
INT9IN"IC V8+IDIT; 5F THE TE"T8*ENT89; DI"#5"ITI5N 5F THE DI"T9I2:TI5N
5F THE E"T8TE 5F THE DECE8"ED EDE89D E. CH9I"TEN"EN "H5:+D 2E
/5VE9NED 2; THE +8E" 5F THE #HI+I##INE".
IV
THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T THE "CHED:+E 5F
DI"T9I2:TI5N ":2*ITTED 2; THE E?EC:T59 I" C5NT989; T5 THE #HI+I##INE
+8E".
V
THE +5EE9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T :NDE9 THE #HI+I##INE
+8E" HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN /89CI8 I" ENTIT+ED T5 5NE-H8+F 6'A%7 5F THE
E"T8TE IN F:++ 5ENE9"HI#.
There is no =uestion that Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates and of
the "tate of California at the time of his death. 2ut there is also no =uestion that at the time
of his death he 1as domiciled in the #hilippines, as 1itness the follo1in! facts admitted &,
the executor himself in appelleeCs &rief4
In the proceedin!s for admission of the 1ill to pro&ate, the facts of record sho1 that
the deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as &orn on Novem&er %), 'B<3 in Ne1 ;or@
Cit,, N.;., :.".8.H his first arrival in the #hilippines, as an appointed school teacher,
1as on ul, ', ').', on &oard the :.". 8rm, Transport I"heridanI 1ith #ort of
Em&ar@ation as the Cit, of "an Francisco, in the "tate of California, :.".8. He
sta,ed in the #hilippines until ').(.
In Decem&er, ').(, *r. Christensen returned to the :nited "tates and sta,ed there
for the follo1in! nine ,ears until ')'-, durin! 1hich time he resided in, and 1as
teachin! school in "acramento, California.
*r. ChristensenCs next arrival in the #hilippines 1as in ul, of the ,ear ')'-.
Ho1ever, in ')%B, he a!ain departed the #hilippines for the :nited "tates and came
&ac@ here the follo1in! ,ear, ')%). "ome nine ,ears later, in ')-B, he a!ain
returned to his o1n countr,, and came &ac@ to the #hilippines the follo1in! ,ear,
')-).
Eherefore, the parties respectfull, pra, that the fore!oin! stipulation of facts &e
admitted and approved &, this Honora&le Court, 1ithout pre0udice to the parties
adducin! other evidence to prove their case not covered &, this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.!"t
2ein! an 8merican citi>en, *r. Christensen 1as interned &, the apanese *ilitar,
Forces in the #hilippines durin! Eorld Ear II. :pon li&eration, in 8pril ')(3, he left
for the :nited "tates &ut returned to the #hilippines in Decem&er, ')(3. 8ppellees
Collective Exhi&its I$I, CFI Davao, "p. #roc. $%%, as Exhi&its I88I, I22I and ICC-
Dane,IH Exhs. I**I, I**-lI, I**-%-Dane,I and p. (<-, t.s.n., ul, %', ')3-.7
In 8pril, ')3', Ed1ard E. Christensen returned once more to California shortl, after
the ma@in! of his last 1ill and testament 6no1 in =uestion herein7 1hich he executed
at his la1,ersC offices in *anila on *arch 3, ')3'. He died at the "t. +u@eCs Hospital
in the Cit, of *anila on 8pril -., ')3-. 6pp. %--7
In arrivin! at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the #hilippines, 1e are
persuaded &, the fact that he 1as &orn in Ne1 ;or@, mi!rated to California and resided
there for nine ,ears, and since he came to the #hilippines in ')'- he returned to California
ver, rarel, and onl, for short visits 6perhaps to relatives7, and considerin! that he appears
never to have o1ned or ac=uired a home or properties in that state, 1hich 1ould indicate
that he 1ould ultimatel, a&andon the #hilippines and ma@e home in the "tate of California.
"ec. '$. 9esidence is a term used 1ith man, shades of meanin! from mere
temporar, presence to the most permanent a&ode. /enerall,, ho1ever, it is used to
denote somethin! more than mere ph,sical presence. 6/oodrich on Conflict of +a1s,
p. %)7
8s to his citi>enship, ho1ever, Ee find that the citi>enship that he ac=uired in California
1hen he resided in "acramento, California from ').( to ')'-, 1as never lost &, his sta, in
the #hilippines, for the latter 1as a territor, of the :nited "tates 6not a state7 until ')($ and
the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citi>en of California &, the fact that
1hen he executed his 1ill in ')3' he declared that he 1as a citi>en of that "tateH so that he
appears never to have intended to a&andon his California citi>enship &, ac=uirin! another.
This conclusion is in accordance 1ith the follo1in! principle expounded &, /oodrich in his
Conflict of +a1s.
The terms ICresidenceI and IdomicileI mi!ht 1ell &e ta@en to mean the same thin!, a
place of permanent a&ode. 2ut domicile, as has &een sho1n, has ac=uired a
technical meanin!. Thus one ma, &e domiciled in a place 1here he has never &een.
8nd he ma, reside in a place 1here he has no domicile. The man 1ith t1o homes,
&et1een 1hich he divides his time, certainl, resides in each one, 1hile livin! in it.
2ut if he 1ent on &usiness 1hich 1ould re=uire his presence for several 1ee@s or
months, he mi!ht properl, &e said to have sufficient connection 1ith the place to &e
called a resident. It is clear, ho1ever, that, if he treated his settlement as continuin!
onl, for the particular &usiness in hand, not !ivin! up his former Ihome,I he could not
&e a domiciled Ne1 ;or@er. 8c=uisition of a domicile of choice re=uires the exercise
of intention as 1ell as ph,sical presence. I9esidence simpl, re=uires &odil,
presence of an inha&itant in a !iven place, 1hile domicile re=uires &odil, presence in
that place and also an intention to ma@e it oneCs domicile.I 9esidence, ho1ever, is a
term used 1ith man, shades of meanin!, from the merest temporar, presence to the
most permanent a&ode, and it is not safe to insist that an, one use et the onl, proper
one. 6/oodrich, p. %)7
The la1 that !overns the validit, of his testamentar, dispositions is defined in 8rticle '$ of
the Civil Code of the #hilippines, 1hich is as follo1s4
89T. '$. 9eal propert, as 1ell as personal propert, is su&0ect to the la1 of the
countr, 1here it is situated.
Ho1ever, intestate and testamentar, successions, &oth 1ith respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic validit, of
testamentar, provisions, shall &e re!ulated &, the national la1 of the person 1hose
succession is under consideration, 1hatever ma, &e the nature of the propert, and
re!ardless of the countr, 1here said propert, ma, &e found.
The application of this article in the case at &ar re=uires the determination of the meanin! of
the term #national law# is used therein.
There is no sin!le 8merican la1 !overnin! the validit, of testamentar, provisions in the
:nited "tates, each state of the :nion havin! its o1n private la1 applica&le to its citi>ens
onl, and in force onl, 1ithin the state. The Inational la1I indicated in 8rticle '$ of the Civil
Code a&ove =uoted can not, therefore, possi&l, mean or appl, to an, !eneral 8merican la1.
"o it can refer to no other than the private la1 of the "tate of California.
The next =uestion is4 Ehat is the la1 in California !overnin! the disposition of personal
propert,J The decision of the court &elo1, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee
that under the California #ro&ate Code, a testator ma, dispose of his propert, &, 1ill in the
form and manner he desires, citin! the case of Estate of *cDaniel, << Cal. 8ppl. %d B<<,
'<$ #. %d )3%. 2ut appellant invo@es the provisions of 8rticle )($ of the Civil Code of
California, 1hich is as follo1s4
If there is no la1 to the contrar,, in the place 1here personal propert, is situated, it is
deemed to follo1 the person of its o1ner, and is !overned &, the la1 of his domicile.
The existence of this provision is alle!ed in appellantCs opposition and is not denied. Ee
have chec@ed it in the California Civil Code and it is there. 8ppellee, on the other hand,
relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to &, a 1itness. 65nl, the case of
Daufman is correctl, cited.7 It is ar!ued on executorCs &ehalf that as the deceased
Christensen 1as a citi>en of the "tate of California, the internal la1 thereof, 1hich is that
!iven in the a&ovecited case, should !overn the determination of the validit, of the
testamentar, provisions of ChristensenCs 1ill, such la1 &ein! in force in the "tate of
California of 1hich Christensen 1as a citi>en. 8ppellant, on the other hand, insists that
8rticle )($ should &e applica&le, and in accordance there1ith and follo1in! the doctrine of
therenvoi, the =uestion of the validit, of the testamentar, provision in =uestion should &e
referred &ac@ to the la1 of the decedentCs domicile, 1hich is the #hilippines.
The theor, of doctrine of renvoi has &een defined &, various authors, thus4
The pro&lem has &een stated in this 1a,4 IEhen the Conflict of +a1s rule of the
forum refers a 0ural matter to a forei!n la1 for decision, is the reference to the purel,
internal rules of la1 of the forei!n s,stemH i.e., to the totalit, of the forei!n la1 minus
its Conflict of +a1s rulesJI
5n lo!ic, the solution is not an eas, one. The *ichi!an court chose to accept the
renvoi, that is, applied the Conflict of +a1s rule of Illinois 1hich referred the matter
&ac@ to *ichi!an la1. 2ut once havin! determined the the Conflict of +a1s principle
is the rule loo@ed to, it is difficult to see 1h, the reference &ac@ should not have &een
to *ichi!an Conflict of +a1s. This 1ould have resulted in the Iendless chain of
referencesI 1hich has so often &een critici>ed &e le!al 1riters. The opponents of the
renvoi 1ould have loo@ed merel, to the internal la1 of Illinois, thus re0ectin! the
renvoi or the reference &ac@. ;et there seems no compellin! lo!ical reason 1h, the
ori!inal reference should &e the internal la1 rather than to the Conflict of +a1s rule.
It is true that such a solution avoids !oin! on a merr,-!o-round, &ut those 1ho have
accepted the renvoi theor, avoid this inextricabilis circulas &, !ettin! off at the
second reference and at that point appl,in! internal la1. #erhaps the opponents of
the renvoi are a &it more consistent for the, loo@ al1a,s to internal la1 as the rule of
reference.
"tran!el, enou!h, &oth the advocates for and the o&0ectors to the renvoi plead that
!reater uniformit, 1ill result from adoption of their respective vie1s. 8nd still more
stran!e is the fact that the onl, 1a, to achieve uniformit, in this choice-of-la1
pro&lem is if in the dispute the t1o states 1hose la1s form the le!al &asis of the
liti!ation disa!ree as to 1hether the renvoi should &e accepted. If &oth re0ect, or &oth
accept the doctrine, the result of the liti!ation 1ill var, 1ith the choice of the forum. In
the case stated a&ove, had the *ichi!an court re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould
have &een a!ainst the 1omanH if the suit had &een &rou!ht in the Illinois courts, and
the, too re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould &e for the 1oman. The same result
1ould happen, thou!h the courts 1ould s1itch 1ith respect to 1hich 1ould hold
lia&ilit,, if &oth courts accepted the renvoi.
The 9estatement accepts the renvoi theor, in t1o instances4 1here the title to land is
in =uestion, and 1here the validit, of a decree of divorce is challen!ed. In these
cases the Conflict of +a1s rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties
in the divorce case, is applied &, the forum, &ut an, further reference !oes onl, to
the internal la1. Thus, a personCs title to land, reco!ni>ed &, the situs, 1ill &e
reco!ni>ed &, ever, courtH and ever, divorce, valid &, the domicile of the parties, 1ill
&e valid ever,1here. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. <, pp. '--'(.7
?, a citi>en of *assachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leavin! mova&le
propert, in *assachusetts, En!land, and France. The =uestion arises as to ho1 this
propert, is to &e distri&uted amon! ?Cs next of @in.
8ssume 6'7 that this =uestion arises in a *assachusetts court. There the rule of the
conflict of la1s as to intestate succession to mova&les calls for an application of the
la1 of the deceasedCs last domicile. "ince &, h,pothesis ?Cs last domicile 1as
France, the natural thin! for the *assachusetts court to do 1ould &e to turn to
French statute of distri&utions, or 1hatever corresponds thereto in French la1, and
decree a distri&ution accordin!l,. 8n examination of French la1, ho1ever, 1ould
sho1 that if a French court 1ere called upon to determine ho1 this propert, should
&e distri&uted, it 1ould refer the distri&ution to the national la1 of the deceased, thus
appl,in! the *assachusetts statute of distri&utions. "o on the surface of thin!s the
*assachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action4 6a7 either to appl,
the French la1 is to intestate succession, or 6&7 to resolve itself into a French court
and appl, the *assachusetts statute of distri&utions, on the assumption that this is
1hat a French court 1ould do. If it accepts the so-called renvoidoctrine, it 1ill follo1
the latter course, thus appl,in! its o1n la1.
This is one t,pe of renvoi. 8 0ural matter is presented 1hich the conflict-of-la1s rule
of the forum refers to a forei!n la1, the conflict-of-la1s rule of 1hich, in turn, refers
the matter &ac@ a!ain to the la1 of the forum. This is renvoi in the narro1er sense.
The /erman term for this 0udicial process is C9uc@ver1eisun!.CI 6Harvard +a1
9evie1, Vol. -', pp. 3%--3<'.7
8fter a decision has &een arrived at that a forei!n la1 is to &e resorted to as
!overnin! a particular case, the further =uestion ma, arise4 8re the rules as to the
conflict of la1s contained in such forei!n la1 also to &e resorted toJ This is a
=uestion 1hich, 1hile it has &een considered &, the courts in &ut a fe1 instances,
has &een the su&0ect of fre=uent discussion &, text1riters and essa,istsH and the
doctrine involved has &een descriptivel, desi!nated &, them as the I9envo,erI to
send &ac@, or the I9uchvers1eisun!I, or the IEeiterver1eisun!I, since an
affirmative ans1er to the =uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption of the
forei!n la1 in toto 1ould in man, cases result in returnin! the main controvers, to &e
decided accordin! to the la1 of the forum. ... 6'$ C..". B<%.7
8nother theor,, @no1n as the Idoctrine of renvoiI, has &een advanced. The theor, of
the doctrine of renvoiis that the court of the forum, in determinin! the =uestion &efore
it, must ta@e into account the 1hole la1 of the other 0urisdiction, &ut also its rules as
to conflict of la1s, and then appl, the la1 to the actual =uestion 1hich the rules of
the other 0urisdiction prescri&e. This ma, &e the la1 of the forum. The doctrine of
therenvoi has !enerall, &een repudiated &, the 8merican authorities. 6% 8m. ur.
%)$7
The scope of the theor, of renvoi has also &een defined and the reasons for its application
in a countr, explained &, #rof. +oren>en in an article in the ;ale +a1 ournal, Vol. %<, ')'<-
')'B, pp. 3%)-3-'. The pertinent parts of the article are =uoted herein &elo14
The reco!nition of the renvoi theor, implies that the rules of the conflict of la1s are to
&e understood as incorporatin! not onl, the ordinar, or internal la1 of the forei!n
state or countr,, &ut its rules of the conflict of la1s as 1ell. 8ccordin! to this theor,
Cthe la1 of a countr,C means the 1hole of its la1.
x x x x x x x x x
Von 2ar presented his vie1s at the meetin! of the Institute of International +a1, at
Neuchatel, in ').., in the form of the follo1in! theses4
6'7 Ever, court shall o&serve the la1 of its countr, as re!ards the application of
forei!n la1s.
6%7 #rovided that no express provision to the contrar, exists, the court shall respect4
6a7 The provisions of a forei!n la1 1hich disclaims the ri!ht to &ind its
nationals a&road as re!ards their personal statute, and desires that said
personal statute shall &e determined &, the la1 of the domicile, or even &,
the la1 of the place 1here the act in =uestion occurred.
6&7 The decision of t1o or more forei!n s,stems of la1, provided it &e certain
that one of them is necessaril, competent, 1hich a!ree in attri&utin! the
determination of a =uestion to the same s,stem of la1.
x x x x x x x x x
If, for example, the En!lish la1 directs its 0ud!e to distri&ute the personal estate of an
En!lishman 1ho has died domiciled in 2el!ium in accordance 1ith the la1 of his
domicile, he must first in=uire 1hether the la1 of 2el!ium 1ould distri&ute personal
propert, upon death in accordance 1ith the la1 of domicile, and if he finds that the
2el!ian la1 1ould ma@e the distri&ution in accordance 1ith the la1 of nationalit, K
that is the En!lish la1 K he must accept this reference &ac@ to his o1n la1.
Ee note that 8rticle )($ of the California Civil Code is its conflict of la1s rule, 1hile the rule
applied in In re Daufman, Supra, its internal la1. If the la1 on succession and the conflict of
la1s rules of California are to &e enforced 0ointl,, each in its o1n intended and appropriate
sphere, the principle cited In re Daufman should appl, to citi>ens livin! in the "tate, &ut
8rticle )($ should appl, to such of its citi>ens as are not domiciled in California &ut in other
0urisdictions. The rule laid do1n of resortin! to the la1 of the domicile in the determination of
matters 1ith forei!n element involved is in accord 1ith the !eneral principle of 8merican la1
that the domiciliar, la1 should !overn in most matters or ri!hts 1hich follo1 the person of
the o1ner.
Ehen a man dies leavin! personal propert, in one or more states, and leaves a 1ill
directin! the manner of distri&ution of the propert,, the la1 of the state 1here he 1as
domiciled at the time of his death 1ill &e loo@ed to in decidin! le!al =uestions a&out
the 1ill, almost as completel, as the la1 of situs is consulted in =uestions a&out the
devise of land. It is lo!ical that, since the domiciliar, rules control devolution of the
personal estate in case of intestate succession, the same rules should determine the
validit, of an attempted testamentar, dispostion of the propert,. Here, also, it is not
that the domiciliar, has effect &e,ond the &orders of the domiciliar, state. The rules
of the domicile are reco!ni>ed as controllin! &, the Conflict of +a1s rules at the situs
propert,, and the reason for the reco!nition as in the case of intestate succession, is
the !eneral convenience of the doctrine. The Ne1 ;or@ court has said on the point4
CThe !eneral principle that a dispostiton of a personal propert,, valid at the domicile
of the o1ner, is valid an,1here, is one of the universal application. It had its ori!in in
that international comit, 1hich 1as one of the first fruits of civili>ation, and it this a!e,
1hen &usiness intercourse and the process of accumulatin! propert, ta@e &ut little
notice of &oundar, lines, the practical 1isdom and 0ustice of the rule is more
apparent than ever. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. '$(, pp. ((%-((-.7
8ppellees ar!ue that 1hat 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines pointed out as
the national law is the internal la1 of California. 2ut as a&ove explained the la1s of
California have prescri&ed t1o sets of la1s for its citi>ens, one for residents therein and
another for those domiciled in other 0urisdictions. 9eason demands that Ee should enforce
the California internal la1 prescri&ed for its citi>ens residin! therein, and enforce the conflict
of la1s rules for the citi>ens domiciled a&road. If 1e must enforce the la1 of California as in
comit, 1e are &ound to !o, as so declared in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code, then 1e must
enforce the la1 of California in accordance 1ith the express mandate thereof and as a&ove
explained, i.e., appl, the internal la1 for residents therein, and its conflict-of-la1s rule for
those domiciled a&road.
It is ar!ued on appelleesC &ehalf that the clause Iif there is no la1 to the contrar, in the
place 1here the propert, is situatedI in "ec. )($ of the California Civil Code refers to 8rticle
'$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines and that the la1 to the contrar, in the #hilippines is
the provision in said 8rticle '$ that the national law of the deceased should !overn. This
contention can not &e sustained. 8s explained in the various authorities cited a&ove the
national la1 mentioned in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code is the la1 on conflict of la1s in the
California Civil Code, i.e., 8rticle )($, 1hich authori>es the reference or return of the
=uestion to the la1 of the testatorCs domicile. The conflict of la1s rule in California, 8rticle
)($, Civil Code, precisel, refers &ac@ the case, 1hen a decedent is not domiciled in
California, to the la1 of his domicile, the #hilippines in the case at &ar. The court of the
domicile can not and should not refer the case &ac@ to CaliforniaH such action 1ould leave
the issue incapa&le of determination &ecause the case 1ill then &e li@e a foot&all, tossed
&ac@ and forth &et1een the t1o states, &et1een the countr, of 1hich the decedent 1as a
citi>en and the countr, of his domicile. The #hilippine court must appl, its o1n la1 as
directed in the conflict of la1s rule of the state of the decedent, if the =uestion has to &e
decided, especiall, as the application of the internal la1 of California provides no le!itime
for children 1hile the #hilippine la1, 8rts. BB<6(7 and B)(, Civil Code of the #hilippines,
ma@es natural children le!all, ac@no1led!ed forced heirs of the parent reco!ni>in! them.
The #hilippine cases 6In re Estate of ohnson, -) #hil. '3$H 9iera vs. #almaroli, (. #hil.
'.3H *iciano vs. 2rimo, 3. #hil. B$<H 2a&coc@ Templeton vs. 9ider 2a&coc@, 3% #hil. '-.H
and /i&&s vs. /overnment, 3) #hil. %)-.7 cited &, appellees to support the decision can not
possi&l, appl, in the case at &ar, for t1o important reasons, i.e., the su&0ect in each case
does not appear to &e a citi>en of a state in the :nited "tates &ut 1ith domicile in the
#hilippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of 1hich the
su&0ect is a citi>en, a la1 similar to or identical 1ith 8rt. )($ of the California Civil Code.
Ee therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citi>en of California, is
the #hilippines, the validit, of the provisions of his 1ill deprivin! his ac@no1led!ed natural
child, the appellant, should &e !overned &, the #hilippine +a1, the domicile, pursuant to 8rt.
)($ of the Civil Code of California, not &, the internal la1 of California..
EHE9EF59E, the decision appealed from is here&, reversed and the case returned to the
lo1er court 1ith instructions that the partition &e made as the #hilippine la1 on succession
provides. ud!ment reversed, 1ith costs a!ainst appellees.
$adilla% &autista Angelo% 'oncepcion% Re(es% &arrera% $aredes% )i*on% Regala and
Ma+alintal% JJ.% concur.
&eng*on% '.J.% too+ no part.