Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/113634332/Bellis-v-Bellis
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 08:03:01
Document Index: 767496139

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 16', 'Art. 1039', 'ART. 16', 'ART. 1039', 'Art. 16', 'Art 857']

Bellis v Bellis | Will And Testament | Intestacy
Bellis v BellisUploaded by Alvan G. OliverosRelated InterestsWill And TestamentIntestacyCivil Law (Legal System)Property LawInheritanceRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentG.R. No.L-23678
to the "Twelfth" clause of the testator's Last Will and Testament — divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages. On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased. Amos Bellis, Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of service of which is evidenced by the registry receipt submitted on April 27, 1964 by the executor. 1 After the parties filed their respective memoranda and other pertinent pleadings, the lower court, on April 30, 1964, issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor's final account, report and administration and project of partition. Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes. Their respective motions for reconsideration having been denied by the lower court on June 11, 1964, oppositors-appellants appealed to this Court to raise the issue of which law must apply — Texas law or Philippine law. In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine of renvoi, applied by this Court in Aznar v. Christensen Garcia, L-16749, January 31, 1963. Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. 2 So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. 3 Appellants' position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments. Rather, they argue that their case falls under the circumstances mentioned in the third paragraph of Article 17 in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code. Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that — 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 he the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE'S BANK and TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees. Vicente R. Macasaet and Jose D. Villena for oppositors appellants. Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno for heirs-appellees E. A. Bellis, et al. Quijano and Arroyo for heirs-appellees W. S. Bellis, et al. J. R. Balonkita for appellee People's Bank & Trust Company. Ozaeta, Gibbs and Ozaeta for appellee A. B. Allsman. BENGZON, J.P., J.: This is a direct appeal to Us, upon a question purely of law, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated April 30, 1964, approving the project of partition filed by the executor in Civil Case No. 37089 therein.1äwphï1.ñët The facts of the case are as follows: Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis. On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which 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 order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares.1äwphï1.ñët Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958. The People's Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the form of shares of stock to Mary E. Mallen and to the three (3) illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, various amounts totalling P40,000.00 each in satisfaction of their respective legacies, or a total of P120,000.00, which it released from time to time according as the lower court approved and allowed the various motions or petitions filed by the latter three requesting partial advances on account of their respective legacies. On January 8, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its "Executor's Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition" wherein it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary E. Mallen by the delivery to her of shares of stock amounting to $240,000.00, and the legacies of Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis in the amount of P40,000.00 each or a total of P120,000.00. In the project of partition, the executor — pursuant
Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate Philippine will. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. Amos G. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art.
He later filed a motion praying that as a legal heir he be included in this case as one of the oppositors-appellants. For it has specifically chosen to leave. 16. or to allow him to adopt the briefs filed by his sisters — but this Court resolved to deny the motion. the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto. U. it would not alter the law..
San Antonio.. to submit his brief after paying his proportionate share in the expenses incurred in the printing of the record on appeal. Reyes. JJ. Congress added a new provision. 50 Phil. 36 Phil. Brimo. Lim vs. Concepcion. Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals.. Makalintal. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted. there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Sanchez and Castro. It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our System of legitimes.B. Congress deleted the phrase. Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. is illegal and void. for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. J. The parties admit that the decedent. In re Testate Estate of Suntay. Bellis. their acts or property. Accordingly. "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. It must have been their purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. under Art. concur. to the decedent's national law. Texas was his legal residence. a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law. and that under the laws of Texas. 1039. Bellis. Zaldivar.. with costs against appellants.J. This is not correct. 500.L. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. As further indication of this legislative intent. Collector. while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. par. the amount of successional rights. 870. for as this Court ruled in Miciano v. and those which have for their object public order. So ordered.S. 95 Phil. the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent.A. 867. C. prevails as the exception to Art. to file or adopt the opposition of his sisters to the project of partition.Prohibitive laws concerning persons. was a citizen of the State of Texas. Wherefore. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. 16 in the new.
. inter alia. Regala. since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law. 17 of the new Civil Code. Dizon. Precisely. 472. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Bellis v BellisSkip carouselSuccession (Final)Wills and Succession Syllabus (Atty. Avelino Sebastian)CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSIONcase digest in wills and successionCIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - Succession2. Dizon Rivera vs Dizon DigestCase Succession Bar Questions for WillsSuccessionSuccessionSuccession Memory Aid Ateneoacain v iacBellis v. BellisSuccessionTranscriptions (Pre Finals)nuguid v. nuguidCollation CasesSuccessionSuccession-Cases-Set-4-for-Recits.docxSpecPro Codal 73-91Survey of Frequently Asked Questions Pfr 2011Mid-term Questions and Answers202 Unknown Successions 0Remedial Law FormattedSuccession Full Text Art 857-884 NccAjero vs CA Succession DigestSuccession Seangio, OrtegaVentura vs. VenturaLAW3The Fundamentals Of Contesting A Will RevealedSuccession MidtermsDocuments About Will And TestamentSkip carouselLast Will and TestamentPhilip Seymour Hoffman's willEstate Administration WorksheetPetition for Formal Appointment of Special Administrator for Prince estateGriffith v. Frazier, 12 U.S. 9 (1814)Walter A. Martin v. United States, 780 F.2d 1147, 4th Cir. (1986)Davis v. Gaines, 104 U.S. 386 (1881)Abbott Et Ux. v. Essex Company, 59 U.S. 202 (1856)Robison v. Female Orphan Asylum of Portland, 123 U.S. 702 (1887)Adams v. Cowen, 177 U.S. 471 (1900)b0157_12_dolwb_1960Blount v. Walker, 134 U.S. 607 (1890)Tarver v. Tarver, 34 U.S. 174 (1835)Keely v. Moore, 196 U.S. 38 (1904)Helvering v. Grinnell, 294 U.S. 153 (1935)Santiago Herminio Gonzalez Y Barredo v. Edelmira Folla Schenck, Individually, and as of the Last Will and Testament of Maria Cintas Folla, 428 F.2d 971, 2d Cir. (1970)Kenaday v. Sinnott, 179 U.S. 606 (1901)Doe v. Watson, 49 U.S. 263 (1850)Mayer v. American Security & Trust Co., 222 U.S. 295 (1911)Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188 (1938)Finlay v. King's Lessee, 28 U.S. 346 (1830)Top Ten Reasons to Have a WillEstho v. Lear, 32 U.S. 130 (1833)Will for Parents of Adult ChildrenEdmonds v. Crenshaw, 39 U.S. 166 (1840)Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U.S. 552 (1901)Daly's Lessee v. James, 21 U.S. 495 (1823)David Shriver Junior's Lessee v. Mary Lynn, 43 U.S. 43 (1844)Margaret Klugh, Katherine Klugh Maultsby, Mary Klugh Garner, John Bradley Klugh, William W. Bradley, Iii, Frederick H. Bradley, Patrick H. Bradley, Edna Bradley Troxell, Hugh W. Bradley, Mabel Bradley Payne, Mary Bradley Pressly, Thomas R. Bradley, William T. Bradley, Margaret Bradley Poole, Davis W. Bradley, John T. Bradley, Jr., Frances K. Bradley, Mark E. Bradley, Jr., Elizabeth Bradley McGarity Robert F. Bradley, Iii, Thomas J. Bradley, Frances Wright Bradley, Iii, Mary Bradley Brown, Rufus A. Johnson, Iii, William R. Bradley, Ii, Margaret Bradley Shuford, Arthur L. Bradley, James B. Bradley, Curtis L. Bradley, Davis J. Wardlaw, Martha Wardlaw Buie, Forest Bradley Wardlaw, Jr., Ivey Jean Wardlaw Pressly, Robert S. Wardlaw, William W. Wardlaw, Mildred E. Wardlaw, John U. Wardlaw, Mary Wardlaw Deason, Annie Wardlaw Wright, Frances M. Wardlaw, John K. Bradley, Mary Bradley Miller, Martha Bradley Moody, Frances Trenholm Bradley, Jane H. Bradley, Martha B. Mayo, Robert F. Bradley, JtiunMiller v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 132 U.S. 662 (1890)More From Alvan G. OliverosSkip carouselprof domondon tax notesSample Civillaw 2 Cases Sample Civillaw 2 Atty Uribe Case ListSan Beda 2009 Commercial Law negoEvidence Reviewer Prof San PedroGood Samaritan Act Last Minute Tips EVIDIntellectual Properintellectual property reviewerty Reviewer07 Atienza vs BrillantesVallejocountry bankers.docxCrim 1 Digestcrim 1 digest.docxCorofin.docx gfgdsgdsgdsgdsgdsgdsgcorporate finance ameztuzoDm ConsunjiRogelio OngMarcos Manotocebreo caseVallejo case regarding DNAAtienza caseDel Carmen Jr vs BacoySabili vs Comelecppl v greySabili vs ComelecProhibition of Ambush MartechandthelawketingCriminal Law 1 digestCayetano Leonidas