Facts:

Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California

where he resided and consequently was considered a California Citizen for a
period of nine years to 1913. He came to the Philippines where he became a
domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the entire period of his
residence in this country, he had always considered himself as a citizen of
California.
In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged
natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir but left a legacy of some
money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who, in a decision rendered by the
Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged natural daughter of his.
Counsel of Helen claims that under Art. 16 (2) of the civil code, California law
should be applied, the matter is returned back to the law of domicile, that
Philippine law is ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be increased
in view of successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine laws. On the
other hand, counsel for daughter Maria , in as much that it is clear under Art, 16
(2) of the Mew Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our courts
must apply internal law of California on the matter. Under California law, there are
no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator should dispose any property
possessed by him in absolute dominion.

Issue:
Whether Philippine Law or California Law should apply.

Held:
The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen
Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two rules in California on the
matter.
1.
and

The conflict rule which should apply to Californians outside the California,

2.

The internal Law which should apply to California domiciles in califronia.

The California conflict rule, found on Art. 946 of the California Civil code States
that if there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is
situated, it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is governed by the law
of the domicile.
Christensen being domiciled outside california, the law of his domicile, the
Philippines is ought to be followed.
Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed and case is remanded to the lower
court with instructions that partition be made as that of the Philippine law
provides.

Facts:

Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled

in the Philippines. He executed in his will acknowledging his natural daughter
Maria Lucy Christensen as sole heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of
Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared by the Supreme Court in its decision as
acknowledged natural daughter of Edward C. Counsel of Helen asserts that her
claim must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children
under Phil. law. Counsel of Maria insists that Art. 16 (2) provides that the
NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON applies in intestate and testamentary successions
and since Edward C. is a citizen of CA, its law should be applied. Lower court ruled
that CA law should be applied thus this petition for review.

Issue:
What law should be applicable Philippine or California Law?
Ruling:
The court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary
successions with respect to order of succession and amt. of successional right is
regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON.
California Probate Code provides that a testator may dispose of his property in the
form and manner he desires.
Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that if no law on the contrary, the
place where the personal property is situated is deemed to follow the person of its
owner and is governed by the LAW OF HIS DOMICILE.
These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of Renvoi may be applied where the
question of validity of the testamentary provision in question is referred back to
the decedents domicile the Philippines.
S.C. noted the California law provides 2 sets of laws for its citizens: One for
residents therein as provided by the CA Probate Code and another for citizens
domiciled in other countries as provided by Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California.
The conflicts of law rule in CA (Art. 946) authorize the return of question of law to
the testators domicile. The court must apply its own rule in the Philippines as
directed in the conflicts of law rule in CA, otherwise the case/issue will not be
resolved if the issue is referred back and forth between 2 states.
The SC reversed the lower courts decision and remanded the case back to it for
decision with an instruction that partition be made applying the Philippine law.

Facts
Edward E. Christensen, an American citizen from California and domiciled in the
Philippines, left a will executed in the Philippines in which he bequeathed Php
3,600.00 to Maria Helen Christensen ("Helen") and the remainder of his estate to
his daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen Daney. The laws of California allows the
testator to dispose of his estate in any manner he pleases. However, California
law also provides that the personal property of a person is governed by the laws
of his domicile. The executor, Adolfo C. Aznar, drew a project of partition in
conformity with the will. Helen opposed the project of partition arguing that
Philippine laws govern the distribution of the estate and manner proposed in the
project deprived her of her legitime.
Issue
Whether or not the succession is governed by Philippine laws.
Held
Yes. Philippine law governs.
Ratio
Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that the intrinsic validity of testamentary
dispositions are governed by the national law of the decedent, in this case,
California law. The provision in the laws of California giving a testator absolute
freedom in disposing of his estate is the internal law which applies only to persons
domiciled within the said estate. On the other hand, the provision in the laws of
California stating that personal property is governed by the laws of the domicile of
its owner is the conflict of laws rule that applies to persons not domicile in the
said state. Accordingly, the laws of the Philippines, in which the testator is
domiciled governs the succession and the regime of legitimes must be respected.

FACTS: EDWARD Christensen died testate. The estate was distributed by

Executioner Aznar according to the will, which provides that: Php 3,600 be given
to HELEN Christensen as her legacy, and the rest of his estate to his daughter
LUCY Christensen, as pronounced by CFI Davao.
Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed by Helen, insofar as
it deprives her of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child, she having been
declared by Us an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward in an
earlier case.
As to his citizenship, we find that the citizenship that 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 executed his will he declared that he was a
citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his
California citizenship by acquiring another. But at the time of his death, he was
domiciled in the Philippines.
ISSUE: what law on succession should apply, the Philippine law or the California
law?
HELD: WHEREFORE, 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 dispositions is defined in
Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as follows:
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 be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country where said property may be found.
The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination of the
meaning of the term national law is used therein.
The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition of
personal property?
The decision of CFI Davao, 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 HELEN invokes the provisions of Article 946
of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows:
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.
We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule,
while the rule applied in In re Kaufman, its internal law. If the law on succ ession
and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its
own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re Kaufman should
apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply to such of its
citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid
down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of matters with
foreign element involved is in accord with the general principle of American law
that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the
person of the owner.
Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed
out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as above explained the
laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for
residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions.
It is argued on appellees (Aznar and LUCY) behalf that the clause if there is no
law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated in Sec. 946 of the
California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and
that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in said Article 16
that the national law of the deceased should govern. This contention can not be
sustained.
As explained in the various authorities cited above, the national law mentioned in
Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil
Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to
the law of the testators domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article
946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled
in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The
court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California;
such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case
will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between
the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile.
The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule
of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the
application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while
the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes
natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.
We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Edward, a citizen of
California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his
acknowledged natural child, the appellant HELEN, should be governed by the
Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California,
not by the internal law of California..
NOTES: There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary
provisions in the United States, each state of the Union having its own private law
applicable to its citizens only and in force only within the state. The national law
indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly
mean or apply to any general American law. So it can refer to no other than the
private law of the State of California.