Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs Venicio Escolin

In November 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas made a will. In May 1957, while she was
domiciled here in the Philippines (Iloilo City), she died.
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton Hodges. Linnie however also stated in her
will that should her husband later die, said estate shall be turned over to her brother and sister.
In December 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled here). Atty. Leon Gellada, the lawyer of Charles
filed a motion before the probate court (there was an ongoing probate on the will of Linnie) so that a certain Avelina
Magno may be appointed as the administratrix of the estate. Magno was the trusted employee of the Hodges when
they were alive. Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same was in an iron trunk in
Charles’ office. Hence, in the meantime, he’d like to have Magno appointed as administratrix. Judge Venicio Escolin
approved the motion.
Later, Charles’ will was found and so a new petition for probate was filed for the said will. Since said will basically
covers the same estate, Magno, as admininistratrix of Linnie’s estate opposed the said petition. Eventually, the
probate of Charles’ will was granted. Eventually still, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed
as administrator. But Magno refused to turn over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the property to Linnie’s brother and sister and
since that is her will, the same must be respected. Magno also contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her
death (an alien testator); that under Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional rights are governed by Linnie’s
national law; that under Texas law, Linnie’s will shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes (Charles’
share in the estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine laws because Linnie was domiciled outside
Texas at the time of her death (applying the renvoidoctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Texas Law should apply.
HELD: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court. Both parties failed to adduce proof as to the
law of Texas. The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law is on the matter, is a question of fact to be
resolved by the evidence that would be presented in the probate court. The Supreme Court however emphasized that
Texas law at the time of Linnie’s death is the law applicable (and not said law at any other time). NOTE: Dynamics
of law.