Testate estate of Amos G.

Bellis AUTHOR: Ocampo, Miguel

[ G.R. No. L-23678, June 06, 1967 ]
TOPIC: NCC16
PONENTE: Bengzon, J.
FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis lived and was a citizen of San Antonio, Texas. He had 2 marriages with several
legitimate children respectively, and finally 3 illegitimate children.
In Aug. 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis made a will that his estate be divided after its liquidation:
1. $240k to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen
2. Php120k to the 3 illegitimate children
3. Remainder goes to the children of the 1st and 2nd wives
After his death in July 8, 1958, Peoples Bank and Trust Co. (PBTC), as executor of the will,
liquidated the estate according to the will above. But in Jan 8, 1964, PBTC filed its
Executors Final Account, report for administration and project of partition, reporting the
respective shares of the wife and children respectively.
Subsequently, Maria and Miriam Bellis (both belong to the 3 illegitimate children) filed an
opposition against the project of partition alleging that they were deprived of their legitimes as
illegitimate children, because they were compulsory heirs of their father Amos G. Bellis.
But RTC ruled approving the Executors Final Account relying on NCC16 par. 2, applying
the national law of the deceased which is Texas law that did not provide for legitimes.
Appellants appealed to SC using NCC17 as a counter-argument (Which should be an exception
to NCC16 par. 2). Hence, Philippine law should govern

ISSUE:
WON Philippine law applies to the will of the deceased
HELD: NO
SC stated that Congress has already amended NCC17 and even provided Art. 1039 to support
NCC16 par. 2
a. Art. 1039 - Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent."
b. Art. 16 Par. 1 - Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated.
Par. 2 - However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of Texas and was domiciled in Texas. Hence, Philippine law
should not govern the estate rather it should be Texas law, which did not provide legitimes or
no compulsory heirs.
If it were to apply Philippine law and ignore Texas law, such distribution of the properties is
void and illegal.
DOCTRINE: NCC16 Par. 2 (Nationality Principle)