TOPIC: Renvoi and its Consequences

Testate Estate of Amos Bellis, People’s Bank and Trust Company, et al. vs Edward Belis, et. al.
GR No. L-23678; 6 June 1967
Facts:
 Amos, born in Texas, was a citizen of Texas, USA.
o Mary Mallen, his first wife, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children: Edward, George (pre-deceased in
infancy), Henry, Alexander, and Anna
o Violet Kennedy, his second wife, survived him, had 3 legitimate children: Edwin, Walter and Dorothy
o 3 Illegitimate children: Amos Jr, Maria Cristina and Miriam
 Amos executed a will in the Philippines, he directed that after all taxes, obligations and expenses of administration are paid
for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following manner:
a. $240,000 his first wife Mary Mallen
b. P120,000 to 3 illegitimate children and
c. Remainder shall go to 7 surviving children by first and second wives in equal shares.
 Amos died in Texas. His will was admitted to probate in CFI Manila thereafter.
 People’s Bank and Trust Company, as executor, paid all bequests including $240,000 in form of shares of stock to Mary
Mallen; and to 3 illegitimate children Amos Jr, Maria Cristina and Miriam P40k each released from time to time according to
court approval
 Preparatory to closing its administration, executor submitted and filed its Executor’s Final Account, Report of Administration
and Project Partition, wherein it reported the satisfaction of legacy of Mary Mallen by delivery of shares of stock and
legacies of 3 illegitimate children, and the division of residuary estate into 7 equal portions for legitimate children.
 Maria Cristina and Miriam filed their oppositions to the project partition on the ground that they were deprived of legitimes
as illegitimate children.
 Amos Jr interposed no opposition despite notice and proof of service evidenced by registry receipt submitted on 27 April
1964 by executor.
 CFI issued order overruling oppositions and approving executor’s final account, report and administration and project
partition relying upon Art 16 CC, court applied national law of decedent. (Texas law did not provide for legitimes)
 MRs denied.

Issues:
W/N Texas law must apply
Held:
Yes. Order of Probate court affirmed.
Ruling:
 Doctrine of Renvoi is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country and a domicile of another.
 In the case, it is not disputed that decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at time of his death. Even
assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system should govern, same would not result in a
reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law.
 If Texas has a conflicts of rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for application of law of place where properties
are situated, renvoi would arise, since properties are found in Philippines.
 In the absence of proof as to conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours.
 It is evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes, Congress has not
intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the
amount of successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
 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.