Testate Estate of Bellis vs. Bellis

Posted: March 6, 2017 in case digests, movies, succession, Uncategorized
Tags: ,

Testate Estate of Bellis vs. Bellis

G.R. No. L-23678  June 6, 1967

By: Karen P. Lustica

 

 

Facts: 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; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children; and finally, he had three illegitimate children.

 

On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, in equal shares.

 

Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A on July 8, 1958. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958.

 

The People’s Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the form of shares of stock to Mary E. Mallen and to the three (3) illegitimate children, Amos, Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts totalling P40,000.00 each in satisfaction of their respective legacies.

 

In the project of partition, the executor — pursuant to the “Twelfth” clause of the testator’s Last Will and 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.

 

Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. Amos Jr. interposed no opposition.

 

Relying upon Article 16 of the Civil Code, the lower court applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.

 

Issue: WON the Texas Law or the Philippine Law must apply

 

Held: The Texas Law on legitimes should be applied.

 

Ratio: In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.

 

Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that,

 

ART. 16. 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 he 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.

 

The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

 

Dispositive: The order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against appellants.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s