AREEJ

Case no. 23
Governing Law of Formal Validity (Art. 795); Governing Law of Substantive Validity of a Will
Testate of Amos G. Bellis v. Edward Bellis et al. | G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

FACTS: This is a direct appeal from an order of the CFI Manila approving the project of partition filed by the executor. Amos G. Bellis
was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. By his 1 st wife (Mary Mallen, whom he divorced), he had 5 legitimate
children –Edward, George, Henry, Alexander and Anna. By his 2 nd wife (Violet Kennedy, who survived him), he had 3 legitimate
children –Edwin, Walter, and Dorothy. Finally, he had 3 illegitimate children –Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma.

Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that his distributable estate should be divided as follows: (a)
$240,000.00 to his first wife; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma or
P40,000.00 each and (c) the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives in equal shares. Amos G.
Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the CFI Manila. The People's Bank and Trust
Company, as executor of the will, reported the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen and the legacies of Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria
Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis. In the project of partition, the executor divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions
for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages.

Thereafter, 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. Lower court
overruled the opposition. 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. MR denied. Maria and Miriam thus appealed to this court. 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.

ISSUE: Which law must be applied, Texas or Philippine law?

RULING: Texas law. 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.

Appellants would however counter that Art. 17, paragraph three, of the Civil Code, prevails as the exception to Art. 16, par. 2 of the
Civil Code afore-quoted.
Art. 17. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

This is not correct. The third paragraph of article 17 of the New Civil Code is not an exception to the second paragraph of article 16.
It is therefore 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 the amount of successional
rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.

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. The Court disagrees. 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, 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.

The decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs
or legitimes. Accordingly, 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.

Order of probate court affirmed in toto.