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) ß 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.
