BELLIS vs BELLIS (Conflict of Laws)

G.R. No. L-23678             June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. 

PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor. 

MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, 

vs.

EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees.

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first wife, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children; by his second wife, he had three legitimate children ;and finally, he had three illegitimate children. 

Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, infavor of his first wife,3 illegitimate children and the remaining would be to his legitimate children.

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

Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis 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.

ISSUE:

Whether Renvoi doctrine is applicable.

RULING:

NO, in his regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. 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. So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours.Appellants' position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments. Rather, they argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code.