Você está na página 1de 2

In re Estate of Christensen (Aznar v.

Garcia) 029
GR No. L-16749, January 31, 1963, Labrador, J.
Digested by Chris N Law 105 Succession
Topic: Testamentary successionl; law governing form and content

Christensen, California citizen but domiciled in Philippines, died and left a will. Will provided
that his acknowledged natural daughter Maria Helen was to receive P3,600 only, and that her
legitimate daughter was to receive the rest. Maria Helen contested this, saying that under
Philippine law, she was entitled to of the entire estate as an acknowledged natural child. But
Probate Court applied California law where the decedent can dispose of his properties
according to his will (no compulsory heirs), because the Civil Code (Art. 16) provides that the
applicable law is the national laws of the decedent.

SC held that, following the doctrine of renvoi, the national laws in Art. 16 of the Civil Code
should not only include the succession laws of the foreign jurisdiction, but also its Conflict of
Laws rule. Since the Conflict of Laws rule in California says that the governing law is the law of
the place of the decedents domicile, in this case the Philippines, then the governing law should
be Philippine law.

FACTS
Edward Christensen, a citizen of California but domiciled in the Philippines, died in
Manila. He left a will, which was executed in Manila. The will provided:
o He declared that he only had 1 child, Maria Lucy, now living in California, and
that he had no other living ascendants nor descendants except his daughter
o He gave, devised and bequeathed unto Maria Helen, living in Davao, who he
said was not in any way related to him, nor was at any time adopted, P3600.
o He gave, devised and bequeathed unto Maria Lucy (daughter), all the rest of the
property.
In an earlier ruling, however, Maria Helen was declared by the Supreme Court as his
acknowledged natural child.
Aznar, the executor of the estate, ratified the payment of only P3600, in accordance with
the will of the decedent, and that the rest be transferred to the daughter Maria Lucy.
Maria Helen opposed this, saying that since she is an acknowledged natural child, she
was entitled to ownership of the entire estate under the laws of the Philippines.
RELEVANT LAWS:
o PHILIPPINE CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE; Art. 16, Civil Code: succession
shall be regulated by the national law of the decedent.
o CALIFORNIA CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE; Art. 946, California Probate
Code: succession shall be governed by the law of the decedents domicile, if he is
not domiciled in California at the time of death.
o California law: testator is free to dispose of his entire estate according to his will
(aka no compulsory heirs)
Probate Court applied California law, in that the decedent is free to dispose of his
entire estate according to his will. Therefore, Maria Helen did not have any claim beyond
what she was given in the will.

ISSUES & HOLDING


Which law should apply? Philippine law.

RATIO
Philippine law should apply, following the doctrine of
renvoi.
This doctrine provides that the court must take into account the whole law of the other
jurisdiction (including the Conflict of Laws provisions), and not only its internal laws
(just the succession provisions).
In this case, since Civil Code provides that the applicable law is the national law of the
decedent (California law), the court must look at the entire laws of California, which
includes its Conflict of Laws rule.
Since the California Conflict of Laws rule refers back to the law of the decedents
domicile, in this case the Philippines, then Philippine law should apply.

DISPOSITIVE
Case is remanded. Philippine law
applies.

Note:
There is a discussion on the decedents domicile. Basically, the court ruled that because the
decedent kept coming back to the Philippines, and because he never had any property in
California, he established his domicile in the Philippines.

Você também pode gostar