In November 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas made a will.

In
May 1957, while she was domiciled here in the Philippines (Iloilo City), she died.
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton Hodges. Linnie
however also stated in her will that should her husband later die, said estate shall be turned
over to her brother and sister.
In December 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled here). Atty. Leon
Gellada, the lawyer of Charles filed a motion before the probate court (there was an
ongoing probate on the will of Linnie) so that a certain Avelina Magno may be appointed as
the administratrix of the estate. Magno was the trusted employee of the Hodges when they
were alive. Atty. Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same was in an
iron trunk in Charles office. Hence, in the meantime, hed like to have Magno appointed as
administratrix. Judge Venicio Escolin approved the motion.
Later, Charles will was found and so a new petition for probate was filed for the said will.
Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno, as admininistratrix of Linnies
estate opposed the said petition. Eventually, the probate of Charles will was granted.
Eventually still, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed as
administrator. But Magno refused to turn over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the property to Linnies
brother and sister and since that is her will, the same must be respected. Magno also
contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her death (an alien testator); that under
Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional rights are governed by Linnies national law; that
under Texas law, Linnies will shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes
(Charles share in the estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine laws because Linnie
was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death (applying the renvoi doctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Texas Law should apply.
HELD: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court. Both parties failed
to adduce proof as to the law of Texas. The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law
is on the matter, is a question of fact to be resolved by the evidence that would be
presented in the probate court. The Supreme Court however emphasized that Texas law at

the time of Linnies death is the law applicable (and not said law at any other time). NOTE:
Dynamics of law.

Hilton v. Guyot case brief

Hilton v. Guyot case brief summary
159 U.S. 113 (1895)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendants appealed an order from the Circuit Court of the United States (SDNY), which directed a
verdict for plaintiffs in the amount that a French court had awarded.
Defendants alleged fraud on the plaintiff's part.
CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs sued the defendants in a French court under a contract claim.
The defendants alleged fraud on the (Ps) part, and the (Ds) sought an injunction from bringing suit. The
court, however, would not admit evidence and entered a directed verdict for plaintiff.
A French appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Defendants sought review in the United States.
DISCUSSION

The court stated that comity was reciprocal.

Because France did not recognize final judgments of the U.S., and would try such judgments
anew, judgements given by France would be given the same treatment.

Therefore, the comity of the United States did not require the court to give conclusive effect
to the judgments of the courts of France.

Defendants could be granted a new trial.

CONCLUSION
The judgment was reversed and the cause was remanded for a new trial.
Comity was not afforded to foreign judgments when the country did not reciprocate comity.

- See more at: http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/12/hilton-v-guyot-case-brief.html#sthash.Hj6fvCk7.dpuf

Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction: International Comity Case: Hilton

v. Guyot (1895, US) 159 U.S. 113, 16 S.Ct. 139, 40 L.Ed. 95
Summary: A case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in
which the court described the factors to be used when considering
the application of comity. No law has any effect beyond the
limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived o The
extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate within the
dominion of another nation, depends upon the "comity of nations."
"Comity" - neither a matter of absolute obligation, nor of mere
courtesy and good will. It is a recognition which one nation allows
within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of
another nation, having due regard both to int'l duty and

convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons

who are under the protection of its laws. o "The comity thus
extended to other nations is no impeachment of sovereignty. It is the
voluntary act of the nation by which it is offered, and is inadmissible
when contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. But it
contributes so largely to promote justice between individuals, and to
produce a friendly intercourse btwn the sovereignty to which they
belong, that courts of justice have continually acted upon it, as a
part of the voluntary law of nations." o "It is not the comity of the
courts, but the comity of the nation, which is administered and
ascertained in the same way, and guided by the same reasoning, by
which all other principles of municipal law are ascertained and
guided."
Notes Comity is a general principle of international law that US
Supreme Court has a long history of acknowledging. A respect of
reciprocity between jurisdictions Respect - we will not demean
the laws and policies of other countries, b/c we expect other
countries to respect ours as well