CHAPTER ‘THE PROBLEM OF THE “RENVOI” 1. What is meant by “renvoi"? “Renwo ie French word which meane “refer back of “senor! 1p Anglo-American counties, the tm used "remassio. whieh means te refer a matter for consideration ot judgment 2. When does the problem of jenvei™ arise? Every internal ot enunijpal aw uf 4 stae av wo patty (1) Lis purely intemal or domestic Ine which applics to demesne cnset and 2] Tes eules in Contin of Lanes whic apple to cates with some Fores clement [Now the problem of “reine” arises when there is doubt aft ‘whether the eference by the jon te ln oF che country Where the problem arises} to the Fore lw savolves (a seference wo the sernal Th of the Toren law 22) 3 eeference othe enauery oF the foreign la Including ic confiets cules Ji such ea, f the fist stte flows the nationality the second sine Follow the doiciaes dheors the proier of sel most probable arse “Toke the cane of # California citien who had cesided in thin country for 0 years and who dics heze,lenving a sizable extate Act 16 ec. par, of the New Civil Code provides diet im tetate or intecate oceesion, we should appl the national Iw oF the deceased which, 1s ‘ut eate, i California law But California iaceral law has one rule fr its fxn citizens who reside there, and another tle forts etzens who have ‘het domices abroad. In the ater cave, California law provides thatthe law of the domicile ofits decensed citizen should apply. Thus, while out Greil Code refers the mater to California law (@he national lw of the deceased), California law refers the mater back tous, telling # apply the ln of the decease’s damacie, which Philippine law Should the Philippine court tasked to sete the estate of the deceated accept the ‘renvot” and apply Philippine law or insit that California internal law binding on its own cisens-residents should be applied, the same being the deceareds national low? This the “renvoi” problem. 3. Discuss why our Supreme Court accepted the “renvoi" in the cease of The Matter of the Testate Eetate of Edward Christensen, ‘Adolfo Aznar and Lucy Christensen ¥. Helen Christensen Garcia. TSCRA 95 (1963). “The case referred to above is the fist cate decided by ovr Supreme Court which raised the "renvet" problem “The facts of the case ate: The deceased Edward Chestensen ‘war California cizen whe had reided inthe Philippines fora ong me [Prior to his dent; hence, 4 domiciliary of the Philippines. In bis wll he left almost ie entice estate to Lucy, an acknowledged manual child in California, and gave # small legacy to Helen, an acknowledged acura! child nthe Phlppines: Under Cabfornia internal avis deceased ciuzen may dispose of his estate by wil any manner he pleases However, California law also provides that where ie deceased cazen resides in bother country, the law of his domicile should determin his secestion. “Ths, while Ly contended tha the wil ofthe deceased should be given vet, following California termi, Helen sited tat Philippine ly the nw of the domicile of the decemed, should be applic, onder which the i forced eit ant ented toa lege. ‘The euling: Recognizing that there were nwo sets of rules wader California internal lsg one fr its etizene who reste there sid another fori ciuzens who seside in other yunséictons the Supreme Court held ‘hac if it should refer the matter to Califorea law said fw will toss the_peoblem back 1 us, wich would zetue in imernational Football, Hence: ‘We should apply Philippine la (the lnw of the Jecensede demic irected by che conflicts rules of Ciltorsin, especialy ae Bhilpore ie ‘makes acknowledged maura cialdze toned he ofthe psente them, while California law provides no leyitime for sich chilies aes result, Helen. the Fliping chil was piven »legitiane Note: The Supreme Courts rubng wis sbviously intended to favor the Filipino child. Whar ino Filpino citizen wars involved. lke for insance, if those fighting over the estate ofthe deceased were all Cabconn ‘itizens? Would our Supreme Court have sil ceepred the “rene” and ppl Philppane la? 4. Thete are accualy four () solutions that the court can adopt when- exer it ie confronted with a “renvoi” problem like the Chiistencen ‘case. What are they? (@) We may reject the “enviar “This means thar the court doe not want the problem to be seat ‘back tous That is a8 the ease of the festate or intesente succession of ' foreygnee but domiciled in our counts, we would simply apply bes national lw; or dhe intemal lau! Ins covery () We may accept she “revel” As in the Chriscensen ease, our Supreme Cour accepted the refereal o¢ the teansmission of dhe case back to us, so thet nstesd OF applying the foveige stern! tne Pluuppine law wns appied, besng the Jw of the deceased domicile, a8 dicected by cur om nw fy Hos sce pas, New Civil Code), This is x case of single renvot or single (6) We may follow the theory of desistment, or the mutt disclaimer of jurtadiction theory Here, we refrain from applting the nation! lw of the deemed Foceignes, although eur ise teins so tt aaid law follows the Somiciagythevry and diveets that we appt the law of the donwelle oF the deceased Som the end, we sil annht Phibrine be (6) Se mar appr the foreign couct theory Under the theory. we wold simp do whore Foreign court would do ifconitoneed wich the seme ease, So tha the California cour or {he Chntenten ane) would apply Calfornisioneral le would do the same. I, however, eid court would apply Phippine law, we would follow suit The advantage ofthis heor tthe egnless of forum he sppbenble lw sil be dhe sumer Bu cen sn semen imteens pingpong if we do what te Calfomin contr wend doy but the California Court would do what we do sx. 5. What is meant by “double renvoi"? “This occurs when the loci court, sn adopting the foreign cours theory: discovers thatthe fousign court accepts the "renvok” Buc since the Foreign law ces the case co Phlippine law, being the law of the sdcceased!’s domicile. the foreign Court may discover tua Philippine las oes mot accept the remission (an Ht applies the national Ine of the Seceazed),s0 the forcign court ting as 1 Philippine cont, would sll fen what one court ll apply ppl its own internat laws This 6. What about the theory of “transmission”? Feit the same ws “renv0"? They are not the same because while “renvor" involves 40 laws teaaeeninsion crully inves these lowe ‘"Transenivsion” isthe process of applbing the i of a foreign state thr the law of a accomd foreign sete Example: A Chines en domi in te Phin en England inving some properses thee. Toe Engish court il dos have to sede sid cxote, and folowing the domiciay theory. t refers the” Iratter tothe law ofthe domcie of the doceaed, wach i Pallppine Ins Bic Pippin ln fowing the natonaly inary enna he aes toChinet ln te national lw of tne deeaeed. Hace toe gl court, ‘el aiately falls Chnese lm 7. What is the cane of Testate Ettate of Amot G. Bellis 0. Edward A. Bellis, 20 SCRA 359 (1968)? Did itinwolve the “renvod” problems? Although che “eenvoi” doctrine was invoked in ths eave, ourSupreme Cavart held that there was we “xenval” problem here because the decenwel nn G. Bell wan both « eum. USA, “The ete: Hele. ctinen si resident nf exas at chat dime bis dent leit cme properties an the Philppunes fore hie del, he exerted rv wil one fllowing Texas lve dipyoing ot hiv properics 5 Teng and other, felling Pippin In cisporing of his peoperaes fa the Pippince Bells hac sever gutted nthe Phippane That in his we he did or wiv anno bie llesimace chide, Dunne the seulement af is cette dwilleprimate eikiren oppeed loth wile Beene they iad ew deprived of thei emimes, and inst: Sast Plilippine inv hued be applied. There are ng conipultony heirs under “Texas low, and Texas lav, fuchcemore, doce not have confers rules _goerning the successions aF ee uzens [Held The illepkimate children are no ended to any Iepiame inccanie under ess. ohich te the nama law of the deceased ai ssbjich we mt appl under Art 16, pat of the Cv Code, dere are hho eompulsery Heirs and no legtienes As tor the oppositnrs* arguments thar since the deceased executed ran wills, one to govern hie esti inthe Plsippénes a the fher to govett his "Teens ovtat trust have been the imennon of dhe {eceasel ew have Phsppane Inv gover his properties 39 the Phitipnes, the Suprene Chute held that Falling Adusane 1: Brina. 30) Phi 867. prvi va forces’ wal dh ee tear hac propatisin Doe PppNe | Fa be distbute!m accordance with Pippin las snd notin accordance ‘st maton Law legal aad wos 8. Allin all, in the absence of definitive laws om the matter, how should we resolve the “venve® problem in the Philippines? “To quite tae late Justice Lj To Pans sxx soppestol shat dhe theory be ad considering the crcunsstunees Hf 4 given situabon. will Dest fesule m fers eget, and justice Har ipstaees, i the ease OF Jong time domains wf the: Phiappunes. cenay nee desire to presume that sher mended eo he with Phzppane sacral lave taking ears of the dvesbarion of heir extate tn dhe Plappanes: hence it would be better to acept the “ten” (singe reavo or ple remsion!. In all oer instances, 1 rect the “ren Bald seam to be the more deszable scusion.” ans id. p 2,