Christensen vs.

Aznar, 1963
Principle:
• The conflict of law rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, refers back the case, when a
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case
at bar. The court of domicile cannot and should refer the case back to California, as such
action would leave the issue incapable of determination, because the case will then be tossed
back and forth between the two states.
Facts:
• Edward Christensen was born in New York but he migrated to California where he resided for
a period of 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until
his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this country he had always
considered himself a citizen of California.
• In In his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy
Christensen (legitimate), as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor of Helen
Christensen Garcia (illegitimate). Adolfo Aznar was the executor of the estate.

Page 2 of 30

• Counsel for Helen Garcia claims that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil
Code, California law should be applied. Under California law, the matter is referred back to
the law of the domicile ultimately making Philippine law applicable. Therefore, the share of
Helen must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under
Philippine law.
• On the other hand, counsel for Maria Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear
that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the national law of the deceased must apply, our
courts must immediately apply the internal law of California on the matter. Under California
law, there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any
property possessed by him in absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not
being entitled to anything and his will remain undisturbed.
Issue:
• (1) Whether the Philippine law shall apply
Ruling:
• (1) Yes.
o The court in deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect that
there are two rules in California on the matter: the internal law which should apply to
Californians domiciled in California; and the conflict rule which should apply to
Californians domiciled outside of California.
o The conflict of law rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, refers back the case, when
a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in
the case at bar. The court of domicile cannot and should refer the case back to
California, as such action would leave the issue incapable of determination, because
the case will then be tossed back and forth between the two states.
o The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to
be understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign
state or country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According to this theory
'the law of a country' means the whole of its law.