G.R. No.

L-23678 (June 6, 1967)

Testate of Amos Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis, et al

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his
second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.

6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his
estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to
the project of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they
were entitled according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his
Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate
childrens successional rights

RULING:

Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void,
for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 now Article 16
of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.

Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his
will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then
his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under
the texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.

What is the Renvoi Doctrine?

The Renvoi Doctrine is a judicial precept whereby the Conflict of Laws Rule in the
place of the forum refer a matter to the Conflict of Laws Rule in another, and the
latter refers the matter back to the forum (remission) or to a third state
(transmission). Thus, owing to its french translation: to send back or to refer back
unopened.

It becomes relevant in cases where the individual involved is a national of one

country and a domiciliary of another; or with respect to property, the property is
located in one country and the law of another is being invoked relative to the issues
concerning the property. So much so that where an individual (a decedent) is a
national and a domiciliary of one country (say, Texas U.S.), there can be no Renvoi as
to the issue concerning the validity of his disposition by virtue of the will here in the
Philippines since it is the law of the nationality which is to be applied and there was
no instance of the matter being referred back (Bellis vs. Bellis; Note that in the case,
the Doctrine of Processual Presumption was applied).
An example where the Renvoi Doctrine was applied was in the case of Aznar vs.
Garcia. The Decedent was a national of California and a domiciliary of the
Philippines. The acknowledged natural child claimed her right to her legitime
pursuant to Philippine law. This was opposed by the decedents executor contending
that the will, not mentioning her legitimes, was valid pursuant to Californian law.
The Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the child. The reason: while the
Philippine laws hold that it is the law of the country of nationality of the decedent
which should govern, where the law of the latter refers back the matter to the forum
or domiciliary, there is Renvoi. Thus the Philippine Court will take cognizance of the
issue and apply the law of the Philippines. The law of the state of California provides
for the applicBility of the law of the domicile, by reason of which the Court validly
ruled in favor of the acknowledged natural child.

BELLIS vs BELLIS 20 SCRA 358 G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

FACTS:

Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of Texas. He left two wills -- one
devising a certain amount of money to his first wife and three illegitimate
children and another, leaving the rest of his estate to his seven legitimate
children. Before partition, the illegitimate children who are Filipinos
opposed on the ground that they are deprived of their legitimes.

ISSUE:

Whether the applicable law is Texas law or Philippine laws

HELD:

Applying the nationality rule, the law of Texas should govern the intrinsic
validity of the will and therefore answer the question on entitlement to
legitimes. But since the law of Texas was never proven, the doctrine of
processual presumption was applied. Hence, SC assumed that Texas law is
the same as Philippine laws, which upholds the nationality rule. Renvoi
doctrine is not applicable because there is no conflict as to the nationality
and domicile of Bellis. He is both a citizen and a resident of Texas. So even
if assuming the law of Texas applies the domiciliary rule, it is still Texas law
that governs because his domicile is Texas.

BELLIS vs. BELLIS

G.R. No. L-23678

June 6, 1967

FACTS:

AMOS G. BELLIS was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his
death. He executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after
all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his
distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and
manner

a) $240,000.00 to his first wife MARY E. MALLEN

b) $120,000.00 to his three illegitimate childrenAMOS BELLIS, JR., MARIA

CRISTINA BELLIS, MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS,or $40,000.00 each, and

c) After foregoing the two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall
go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives EDWARD A.
BELLIS, HENRY A. BELLIS, ALEXANDER BELLIS, and ANNA BELLIS-ALLSMAN,
EDWARD G. BELLIS, WA LTER S. BELLIS, and DOROTHY E. BELLIS in equal
shares.

MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS filed their respective
oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore,
compulsory heirs of the deceased.

The LOWER COURT issued an order overruling the oppositions and

approving the executors final account, report and administration, and
project of partition. Relying upon Article 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the
national law of the decedent, which in this case is which did not provide
for legitimes

ISSUE:
Which law must apply in executing the will of the deceased Texas Law or
Philippine Law?

HELD:

The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes under the
Texas Law(which is the national law of the deceased), here are no
legitimes. The renvoi doctrinecannot be applied. Said doctrine is usually
pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country ad a domiciliary
of another. In the said case, it is not disputed that the deceased was both
a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.

Article 16, Paragraph 2 of Civil code render applicable the national law of
the decedent, in intestate and testamentary successions, with regard to
four items: (a) the order of succession, (b) the amount of successional
rights, (c) the intrinsic validity of provisions of will, and (d) the capacity to
succeed.

They provide that

ART.16 Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of

the country to where it is situated.However, intestate and testamentary
successions, both with respect to the order of successions 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.
Bellis vs Bellis

G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967

Lessons Applicable: Divorce, Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Laws Applicable: Art. 16, 17 1039 NCC

Violet Kennedy (2nd wife) Amos G. Bellis --- Mary E. Mallen (1st wife)

Legitimate Children: Legitimate Children:

Edward A. Bellis Amos Bellis, Jr.

George Bellis (pre-deceased) Maria Cristina Bellis

Henry A. Bellis Miriam Palma Bellis

Alexander Bellis

Anna Bellis Allsman

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.

By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children:
Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A.
Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman

By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate
children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had
 three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam
Palma Bellis

August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines dividing his
estate as follows:

1. $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen

2. P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina
Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis

3. remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second
wives

July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A

September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on

People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will did as the will directed

Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on
the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children

Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law
of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for
legitimes.

ISSUE: W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of the
will

HELD: YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

Doctrine of Processual Presumption:

The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent

thereof, otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law
of the forum.

In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be
presumed different from ours. Apply Philippine laws.

Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national
law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four
items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They
provide that
 ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated.

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 he the nature of the
property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.

The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the
Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.