Lucy Christensen v. Helen Christensen Garcia / January 31, 1963 (Aznar vs.

Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963) Facts: Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at the time of his death and at the time of his death was domiciled in the Philippines. In the will of Christensen, he gave only a legacy of money to Helen Christensen Garcia and gave all the rest of his properties to his only daughter Lucy. Opposition was filed by Helen, insofar as it deprives her (Helen) of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child. According to Lucy, under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and manner he desires. Helen invokes the provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows: "If there is no law to the contrary, in 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." Ruling: The national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of law rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of law rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887 (4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. As the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Padura v. Baldovino / December 27, 1958 Facts: The reservatario was survived by eleven nephews and nieces of the descendant prepositus in the line of origin, four of whole blood and seven of half blood, and the claim was also made that all eleven were entitled to the reversionary property in equal shares. Issue: In a case of reserva troncal where the only reservatarios surviving the reservista, and belonging to the line of origin, are nephews of the descendant (prepositus), but some are nephews of the half blood and the others are nephews of the whole blood, should the reserved properties be apportioned among them equally, or should the nephews of the whole blood take a share twice as large as that of the nephews of the half blood? Ruling: The nephews and nieces of whole blood were each entitled to a share double that of each of the nephews and nieces of half blood in accordance with Article 1006 of the Civil Code. Within the third degree, the nearest relatives exclude the more remote subject to the rule of representation. But the representative should be within the third degree from the prepositus. Proximity of degree and right of representation are basic principles of ordinary intestate succession; so is the rule that whole blood brothers and nephews are entitled to a share double that of brothers and nephews of half blood. If in determining the rights of the reservatarios inter se, proximity of degree and the right of representation of nephews are made to apply, the rule of double share for immediate collaterals of the whole blood should be likewise operative. In other words, the reserva troncal merely determines the group of relatives (reservatarios) to whom the property should be returned; but within that group, the individual right to the property should be decided by the applicable rules of ordinary intestate succession. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that the reserva being an exceptional case, its application should be limited to what is strictly needed to accomplish the purpose of the law. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------