Aznar vs.

Garcia
No. L-16749. January 31, 1963
Ponente: Labrador, J
FACTS:
On December 14, 1949, the court of first instance of Davao rendered a decision approving among other
things the final accounts of the executor, directing the executor to reimburse to Maria Lucy Christensen the amount
of P3,600 and be given to Helen Christensen for her legacy. The court also declared that Maria Lucy Christensen is
entitled to the residue of the property of Edward Christensen in accordance in the will made by the testator (Edward
Christensen).
The will is executed in Manila on March 5, 1951.
In the will, the testator also declared that he has but one child named Maria Lucy Christensen and that he
had no living ascendants and descendants except her daughter. He also stated the Helen Christensen is not related to
him, nor he did not adopt the latter to be his daughter.
Opposition to the approval of the project partition was filed by Helen Christensen, insofar as it deprives
her of her legitime as acknowledge natural child as she having been declared by US an acknowledge natural child of
the testator in an earlier case.
As to his citizenship, the court ruled that Edward is a citizen of United States and of State of California
though when he went to Philippines he rarely goes back to California. The court found out that the citizenship he
acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento from 1904 to 1913 was never lost by his stay in the
Philippines and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when he
execute his will he declared that he is a citizen of California.

But at the time of his death, he was domiciled in the Philippines.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine or California law will apply in deciding the testate of the deceased Edward
Christensen.

HELD:

The Philippine law must apply. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the
lower court with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides.

The law that governs the validity of his testamentary disposition is defined in Art. 16 of the civil code of the
Philippines which states that
Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
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.
Though applying the said article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term national
law. The term national law indicated in Art. 16 can not, therefore apply to any general American rule. So it can
refer to no other than the private law of the state of the deceased the private law of the State of California.

The next question is what is the law in California governing the disposition of personal property? The court sustains
the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his
property by will in the form and manner he desires. But the appellant invokes the provision of Art. 946 of the Civil
code of California saying that 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.

It is argued on executors behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal
law thereof, which is that given in the Kaufman case, should govern the determination of the validity of the
testamentary provisions of Christensens will, such law being in force in the State of California of which Christensen
was a citizen.
Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and
following the doctrine of the renvoi , the question of the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be
referred back to the law of the decedents domicile, which is the Philippines.