Bohanan v.

Bohanan

Doctrine:
As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary
dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided
and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the State of Nevada, which
allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will.

Facts:

The will of C.O. Bohanan, executed in Manila, was admitted to probate by the CFI. The
court made the following findings:
- Notwithstanding the long residence of the testator in the PH, he continued and remained
to be a citizen of US and of the state of his pertinent residence to spend the rest of his
days in that state. His domicile in the US depended upon his personal intent or desire,
and he selected Nevada as his domicile and therefore at the time of his death, he was a
citizen of that state.
- Testator declared that his will and testament is fully in accordance with the laws of the
state of Nevada and admits the same to probate. The Philippine Trust Company was
named as the executor of the will.
- Out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash,
the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of several
mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To his children he
gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.
- The order granting the probate was not questioned on appeal so the executor filed a
project of partition making the above adjudications as stated in the will.

His Filipino wife, Magdalena C. Bohanan, and her two children (Mary and Edward)
question the validity of the testamentary provisions claiming that they have been deprived of the
legitime that the laws of the forum concede to them.
- The wife alleged that will has not given her any share in the estate left by the testator.
She argued that it was error for the trial court to have recognized the Reno divorce
secured by the testator and that said divorce should be declared a nullity in this
jurisdiction.
- Testator’s children alleged that they have not been given their proper shares (only
P6,000 each) which should be 2/3 of the estate in accordance with the laws of the forum.

ISSUE:
WON the testamentary provisions are valid.

RULING: YES

1. As to the wife, the laws of Nevada allow the deceased to dispose all of his properties
without requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Besides, this issue
had already been passed upon adversely against her in an order which had become
final for lack of appeal. In her motion to withdraw the P20,000 from the estate allegedly
being her share in the conjugal property, the court ruled that there exists no community
property owned by the decedent and Magdalena. The order being final, Magdalena may
no longer question such. Magdalena also cannot have any legal claim to the estate since
they are already divorced and it appears that Magdalena was married to Carl Aaron and
this marriage was subsisting at the time of death of the testator.
2. As to the children, the testamentary provision giving them only P6,000 each is valid. The
old Civil Code expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be
governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. The
probate proceedings found out that the testator was a citizen of Nevada because he had
selected this as his domicile and his permanent residence. It is not disputed that the
laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will. Records show that
the foreign law was introduced in evidence by appellant Magdalena’s counsel in
accordance with our Rules in her motion.

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute provision
of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above circumstances, we are
constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the
Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of
such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.

The order of the court approving the project of partition affirmed.