G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967 Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G.

Bellis died a resident of

San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958.
PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor.
MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors- The People's Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid
appellants, all the bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the
vs. form of shares of stock to Mary E. Mallen and to the three (3)
EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and
Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts totalling P40,000.00 each in
Vicente R. Macasaet and Jose D. Villena for oppositors appellants. satisfaction of their respective legacies, or a total of
Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno for heirs-appellees E. A. P120,000.00, which it released from time to time according as the
Bellis, et al. lower court approved and allowed the various motions or petitions
Quijano and Arroyo for heirs-appellees W. S. Bellis, et al. filed by the latter three requesting partial advances on account of
J. R. Balonkita for appellee People's Bank & Trust Company. their respective legacies.
Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta for appellee A. B. Allsman.
On January 8, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, the
BENGZON, J.P., J.: executor submitted and filed its "Executor's Final Account, Report
of Administration and Project of Partition" wherein it
reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary E.
This is a direct appeal to Us, upon a question purely of law, from Mallen by the delivery to her of shares of stock amounting to
an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated April 30, $240,000.00, and the legacies of Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina
1964, approving the project of partition filed by the executor in Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis in the amount of P40,000.00 each or
Civil Case No. 37089 therein.1äwphï1.ñët

a total of P120,000.00. In the project of partition, the executor —

pursuant to the "Twelfth" clause of the testator's Last Will and
The facts of the case are as follows: Testament — divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions
for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his
first and second marriages.
Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas
and of the United States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom
he divorced, he had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on
Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman; by his second wife, the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as
Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children: illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the
Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, deceased.
he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria
Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis. Amos Bellis, Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him,
proof of service of which is evidenced by the registry receipt
On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the submitted on April 27, 1964 by the executor.1
Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes,
obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other
distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following pertinent pleadings, the lower court, on April 30, 1964, issued an
order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor's final
Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos account, report and administration and project of partition.
Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law
P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not
satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children provide for legitimes.
by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A.
Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis,
Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares. Their respective motions for reconsideration having been denied by
the lower court on June 11, 1964, oppositors-appellants appealed to
1äwphï1.ñët
this Court to raise the issue of which law must apply — Texas law Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property,
or Philippine law. and those which have for their object public order, public
policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is
usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code
and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not disputed afore-quoted. This is not correct. Precisely, Congress deleted the
that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile phrase, "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next
thereof at the time of his death.2 So that even assuming Texas has a preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the old Civil
conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of Code as Art. 17 of the new Civil Code, while reproducing without
the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 10 of the old Civil
reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Code as Art. 16 in the new. It must have been their purpose to make
Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the the second paragraph of Art. 16 a specific provision in itself
situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As
of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, further indication of this legislative intent, Congress added a new
since the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. In provision, under Art. 1039, which decrees that capacity to succeed
the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of is to be governed by the national law of the decedent.
Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours.3 Appellants'
position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs
stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not
arguments. Rather, they argue that their case falls under the intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals.
circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 17 in For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of
relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code. successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific
provisions must prevail over general ones.
Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render
applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two
testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine
of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the decedent's
capacity to succeed. They provide that — intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not
alter the law, for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. Brimo, 50
ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is Phil. 867, 870, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect
subject to the law of the country where it is situated. that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with
Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void,
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of national law should govern.
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
law of the person whose succession is under consideration, The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen
whatever may he the nature of the property and regardless of of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas,
the country wherein said property may be found. there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the
intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of
ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the
nation of the decedent. Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of
Amos G. Bellis.
Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, paragraph three, of
the Civil Code, stating that — Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in
toto, with costs against appellants. So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1He later filed a motion praying that as a legal heir he be

included in this case as one of the oppositors-appellants; to
file or adopt the opposition of his sisters to the project of
partition; to submit his brief after paying his proportionate
share in the expenses incurred in the printing of the record
on appeal; or to allow him to adopt the briefs filed by his
sisters — but this Court resolved to deny the motion.

2 San Antonio, Texas was his legal residence.

3Lim vs. Collector, 36 Phil. 472; In re Testate Estate of

Suntay, 95 Phil. 500.