1

TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O.
BOHANAN, deceased.
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO.,, vs.
MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN,
EDWARD C. BOHANAN, and
MARY LYDIA BOHANAN

G.R. No. L-12105, [January 30, 1960], 106

PHIL 997-1003)
 2

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

Doctrine: As in accordance with Article 10 of

the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary
dispositions are to be governed by the national
law of the testator provided that the law be
evidenced in the court.
 3

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

FACTS: Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on

January 30, 1909, and that divorce was granted
to him on May 20, 1922.

Decedent in this case gave out of the total estate

(after deducting administration expenses) of
P211,639.33 in cash, his grandson P90,819.67 and
one-half of all shares of stock of several mining
companies and to his brother and sister the same
amount. To his children he gave a legacy of only
P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.
 4

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

The wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two

children question the validity of the
testamentary provisions disposing of the estate
in the manner above indicated, claiming that
they have been deprived of the legitime that the
laws of the form concede to them.
 5

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

Lower Court Ruling: Dismissed the objections filed by
Magdalena C. Bohanan, Mary Bohanan and Edward
Bohanan to the project of partition submitted by the
executor and approving the said project.

The testator permanent residence or domicile in the

United States depended upon his personal intent or
desire, and he selected Nevada as his homicide and
therefore at the time of his death, he was a citizen of
that state.

Wherefore, the court finds that the testator C. O.

Bohanan was at the time of his death a citizen of the
United States and of the State of Nevada and declares
that his will and testament, Exhibit A, is fully in
accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada and
admits the same to probate.
 6

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Magdalena C. Bohanan can

claim. NO

2. Whether or not the testamentary dispositions,

especially those for the children which are
short of the legitime given them by the Civil
Code of the Philippines, are valid. YES
 7

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

HELD: Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of

1925 provides:

"Every person over the age of eighteen years, of

sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his
or her estate, real and personal, the same being
chargeable with the payment of the testator's
debts."
 8

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

The court below had found that the testator and

Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on January 30,
1909, and that divorce was granted to him on May
20, 1922; that sometime in 1925, Magdalena C.
Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was
subsisting at the time of the death of the testator.
Since no right to share in the inheritance in favor of
a divorced wife exists in the State of Nevada and
since the court below had already found that there
was no conjugal property between the testator and
Magdalena C. Bohanan, the latter can now have no
legal claim to any portion of the estate left by the
testator.
 9

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

Edward and Mary Lydia, who had received

legacies in the amount of P6,000 each only, and,
therefore, have not been given their shares in the
estate which, in accordance with the laws of the
forum, should be two-thirds of the estate left by the
testator.

The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this

case because the testator died in 1944, expressly
provides that successional rights to personal
property are to be earned by the national law of the
person whose succession is in question.
 10

Phil. Trust Co. vs. Bohanan

In the proceedings for the probate of the will,

it was found out and it was decided that the testator
was a citizen of the State of Nevada because he had
selected this as his domicile and his permanent
residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950,
supra).

So the question at issue is whether the

testementary dispositions, especially those for the
children which are short of the legitime given them
by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is
not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a
testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec.
9905, Complied Nevada Laws of 1925, supra).
 11

IN THE MATTER OF THE

ADOPTION OF THE MINOR
NORMA LEE CABER. RICARDO
R. CARABALLO vs. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. L-15080, [April 25, 1962], 114 PHIL

991-996
 12

In re Caraballo v. Republic

Doctrine: A person is deemed a resident of a place in a

country or state where he has his abode and lives there
permanently. It is a place chosen by him freely and
voluntarily, although he may later on change his mind
and live elsewhere. A place in a country or state where
he lives and stays permanently and to which he intends
to return after a temporary absence, no matter how
long, is his domicile.
 13

In re Caraballo v. Republic

FACTS: Petitioner is an American citizen enlisted in

the US Air Force as staff sergeant detailed in Clark
Field, Angeles, Pampanga, where he and his wife
Graciela Caraballo live. The Spouses desires to adopt
as their child Norma Lee Caber, a five- day old
natural daughter of Mercedes J. Caber begotten by
an unknown father, who gave her consent to the
adoption in a sworn statement.

The Provincial and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of

Pampanga moved for the dismissal of the petition for
adoption on the ground that it states no cause of
action and that the petitioner, being a non-resident
alien, is not qualified to adopt.
 14

In re Caraballo v. Republic

ISSUE: Whether or not under the law

the petitioner is a person qualified to
adopt.
 15

In re Caraballo v. Republic
Government’s Argument:

The Government contends that he is not, invoking the provisions of

article 335 of the Civil Code. The article provides:

The following Cannot adopt —

(1) Those who have legitimate, legitimated, acknowledged natural
children, or natural children by legal fiction;
(2) The guardian, with respect to the ward, before the final approval
of his accounts;
(3) A married person, without the consent of the other spouse;
(4) Non-resident aliens;

xxxx
 16

In re Caraballo v. Republic

HELD: Petitioner is a non-resident alien who,

pursuant to clause 4 of the above quoted article of
the Civil Code, is disqualified to adopt a child in the
Philippines.

A person is deemed a resident of a place in a country

or state where he has his abode and lives there
permanently. It is a place chosen by him freely and
voluntarily, although he may later on change his
mind and live elsewhere. A place in a country or
state where he lives and stays permanently and to
which he intends to return after a temporary
absence, no matter how long, is his domicile.
 17
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE
ESTATE OF EDWARD E.
CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO
C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY
CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased, vs.
HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA

G.R. No. L-16749, [January 31, 1963], 117 PHIL 96-110

 18

Aznar vs. Garcia

FACTS: Edward Christensen (Edward), though born in
New York, migrated to California, where he resided and
consequently was considered a California citizen. In
1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a
domiciliary until his death. During the entire period of
his residence in the Philippines he had always considered
himself a citizen of California.

In his will executed in Manila on March 5, 1951, Edward

instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy
Christensen (Maria) as his only heir, but left a legacy of
sum of money in the amount of Php3,600 in favor of
Helen Christensen Garcia (Helen) who, in a decision
rendered by the Supreme Court had been declared as an
acknowledged natural daughter of the decedent.
 19

Aznar vs. Garcia

In accordance to the provisions of the testator’s will,

the executor in his final account and project of
partition ratified the payment of only P3,600 to
Helen and proposed that the residue of the estate be
transferred to his daughter, Maria.

An Opposition was filed by Helen, the legal grounds

being: (a) that the distribution should be governed
by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said
order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it
denies to Helen Christensen, one of two
acknowledged natural children, one-half of the
estate in full ownership.
 20

Aznar vs. Garcia

On the other hand, counsel for Lucy Christensen

contends that it is clear that under Article 16 of
our Civil Code, the national law of the deceased
must apply, Philippine courts must immediately
apply the internal law of California on the
matter; that under California law there are no
compulsory heirs and consequently a testator
could dispose of any property possessed by him
in absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate
children not being entitled to anything and this
will remain undisturbed.
 21

Aznar vs. Garcia

ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine law should

prevail in administering the estate of
Christensen. YES
 22

Aznar vs. Garcia

HELD: The court in deciding to grant more

successional rights to Helen said in effect that there
are two rules in California on the matter: (1) the
internal law which should apply to Californians
domiciled in California; and (2) the conflict rule
which should apply to Californians domiciled outside
of California.

The California Conflict Rule states: “If there is no

law to the contrary in the place where personal
property is situated, is deemed to follow the person
of its owner and is governed by the law of his
domicile.”
 23

Aznar vs. Garcia

Reason demands that the court of forum should enforce the

California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing
therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens
domiciled abroad. If the law of California is enforced as in
comity, as so declared in Article 16 of the Civil Code, then the
law of California must be enforced in accordance with the
express mandate thereof, i.e., apply the internal law for
residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those
domiciled abroad.

Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law of his

domicile, the Philippines, ought to be followed. The validity of
the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural
child, the oppositor-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.
 24
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE
LAO CHAY and NG SIU LUAN alias
NANG SIU LUAN, petitioners-
appellees, vs. HON. EMILIO L.
GALANG, in his capacity as
Commissioner of Immigration||

G.R. No. L-19977, [October 30, 1964], 120 PHIL 1041-

1043
 25

Lao Cha v. Galang

Doctrine: An alien woman who is married to a citizen of

the Philippines acquires the citizenship of her husband
only if she has the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided in the Revised Naturalization
Law (Com. Act No. 473, as amended.)
 26

Lao Cha v. Galang

FACTS: Ng Siu Luan and her three children, who are all of minor age,
came to the Philippines on January 19, 1960 as temporary visitors,
having been allowed to stay in this country until January 26, 1961.
Instead of departing on that date, however, appellees asked the
Bureau of Immigration for the cancellation of their alien certificates
of registration as well as those of their children on the basis of Lao
Chay's admission to Philippine citizenship on December 12, 1960.

On January 20, 1961, appellant Commissioner of Immigration granted

the petition as far as Lao Chay and the three children were
concerned, but denied the same with respect to Ng Siu Luan on the
ground that "she is not qualified to acquire Philippine citizenship of
her husband under the provision of paragraph 1, Section 15 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as she lacks the requirements provided
for under paragraph 2 of the same Act." He therefore asked her to
leave the country on January 26, 1961. The Immigration Commissioner
denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration, although he gave Ng
Siu Luan a five-day extension within which to arrange for her
departure.
 27

Lao Cha v. Galang

To stop the threatened deportation of Ng Siu Luan

appellees filed a petition for mandamus and
prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila
and secured from it a writ of preliminary injunction.

After trial, the court granted the petition, and held

that the law does not require that an alien wife should
have the same qualifications as those required of
applicants for naturalization, it being enough that she
is not otherwise disqualified.
 28

Lao Cha v. Galang

ISSUE: Whether the wife of a Chinese who

obtained papers of Philippine citizenship,
automatically follows the citizenship of her
husband if not otherwise disqualified under the
Naturalization Law.
 29

Lao Cha v. Galang

HELD: Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law

Effect of the naturalization on wife and Any woman who is

now or may here-after be married to a citizen of the
Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.

It is now settled that under this provision, an alien woman,

who is married to a citizen of the Philippines acquires the
citizenship of her husband only if he has all the
qualifications prescribed in Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications provided in Section 4 of the law.1 Since
Ng Siu Luan admittedly does not possess the qualifications
for naturalization, her marriage to Lao Chay be deemed as
automatically vesting in her Filipino citizenship.