IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E.
WON the internal law of California will apply in the determination of the
CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C. AZNAR. Executor and LUCY
CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased, Executor and Heir-appellees, vs.
HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, Oppositor-appellant
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED:
Doctrine of the Renvoi
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Edward Christensen, the decedent executed a will on March 5, 1951. It the
will he declared that he had one child named Maria Lucy Christensen and she
was his only descendant and that he had no ascendant. In the will Christensen
also bequeathed to Maria Helen Christensen 3600 php while the remaining
properties were bequeathed to his daughter Maria Lucy. In accordance with
the will, the executor in his final account and project of partition ratified the
payment of the amount to Maria Helen and proposed that the residue of the
estate be transferred to his Maria Lucy. This was opposed by Maria Helen
arguing that it deprived her of her legitimate considering that he was an
acknowledged natural child by the deceased by no less than the supreme
court in a previous case.
CASES FILED:
Proceedings for admission of the will to probate.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES:
APPELLEES:
They argue that the national law pointed out as the national law is the internal
law of California.
APPELLANTS:
Appellant argues that Article 946 of the California Civil Code should be
applicable which states that “If there is no law to the contrary, the place where
personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner,
and is governed by the law of his domicile.” By virtue of this and in accordance
with he doctrine of the renvoi , the question the validity of the testamentary
provision in question should e referred back to the w of the decedent’s
domicile, which is the Philippines.
DECISIONS OF LOWER COURTS:
The court below ruled in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the appeal of Maria
Helen.
ISSUES:
successional rights.
RULING:
NO. Article 16 of the NCC provides that with regards to successional rights, it
is the national law of the the deceased. It has been established that the
deceased was the citizen of the state of California. By applying article 16, it
shall be the national law of the deceased that will govern. However, in applying
Article 16 in the case at bar, it is important to determine the meaning of the
term “national law” as used in said article. It should be noted that there is no
single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the
United States as fact state has its own private laws which applies to its own
citizen. Thus the national law referred to herein does not mean any general
American law but it refers to the private laws of the State of California. The
law of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for
residents therein and another for its citizens compiled in another jurisdiction.
As such, for residents it shall be the internal law of California that will govern.
But for those citizens who reside abroad, what will govern is the conflict of
laws of California. Hence, the national law mentioned in article 16 of our Civil
Code is the law on conflict of laws in California Civil Code, which is Article
946, which refers back the case to the law of domicile, the Philippines in the
case at bar. The curt of the domicile can not and should not refer back the
case to California as such action would leave the issue to be tossed back and
forth between the two Staes. The Philippines must apply its own laws as
directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent. Hence, the
doctrine of the renvoi (accepting the renvoi) applies and the instant case
should be governed by Philippine law.
Renvoi - A jura matter is presented which the conflict-o-laws rule of the forum
refers to a foreign law, the conflict-o-laws rule of which, in turn refers the
matter back again to the law of the forum.