Gutierrez, Merlyn U.

Amos  vs. Bellis, 20 SCRA 358

I. Facts

Amos Bellis was an American citizen who executed a will in the Philippines.
Subsequently, he died as a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was
admitted to probate in RTC of Manila. After the filing of the executor's final account,
report of administration and project of partition was submitted and filed, the illegitimate
children of Amos Bellis in the Philippines filed their respective opposition on the ground
that they were deprived of their legitimes to which they should be entitled if Philippine
law were to apply. The lower court issued an order approving the executor’s final
account and administration and project partition relying upon Article 16 of the Civil Code
where it applied the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, did
not provide for legitimes.

II. Issue

Whether or not the Texas law or Philippine law must apply to determine the
successional rights of the illegitimate children.

III. Ruling

The Supreme Court held that the Texas law must apply. As provided in Article
16, paragraph 2, “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 be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found”. Under the Texas law,
being the national law of the deceased, there are no legitimes, further even if the
deceased had given them share, such would be invalid because the law governing the
deceased does not allow such.

IV. Topic: Conflict of Laws

As a general rule, Article 16, paragraph 1 of the New Civil code states real
property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it
is situated or lex loci rei sitae. However, paragraph 2 of the same article, it
provides exceptions as to successions, whether testate or intestate as to order of
succession, amount of successional rights, intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions and capacity to succeed from decedent shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. In addition,
Article 1039 also provides that capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the
nation of the decedent.
 In this case, it applied the exception to the rule, applying the national law
of the person because the subject matter of controversy is the intrinsic validity of
the provision of his will and the amount of successional rights which must be
determined under Texas law and therefore, the Philippine law on legitimes
cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos Bellis.