Bellis v. Bellis 126 Phil.

726 (1967)

FACTS: Mr. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. He had five (5) legitimate children with his first wife, Mary Mallen, whom he divorced. He had three (3) legitimate daughters with his second wife, Violet, who survived him, and another three (3) illegitimate children with another woman. Before he died, he executed two (2) wills, disposing of his Texas properties, the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, he recognized his illegitimate children but they were not given anything. Under Texas law, there are no compulsory heirs or legitime reserved to illegitimate children. Naturally, the illegitimate children, Maria Cristina and Merriam Palma, opposed the wills on the ground that they were deprived of their legitime as illegitimate children. Under Philippine law, they are entitled to inherit even if they are illegitimate children. They claim that Philippine law should be applied.

ISSUES: Which law must be applied Texas law or Philippine law? May the illegitimate children inherit?

RULING: Applying the nationality principle, the law of Texas shall govern. Mr. Bellis is a citizen and domicile of Texas at the time of his death. Under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity 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. Since under Texas law, the decedent may dispose of his property as he wishes, the Will should be respected, and therefore, the illegitimate daughters are not entitled to any legitime. But since the law of Texas was never proven, the doctrine of processual presumption was applied. Hence, SC assumed that Texas law is the same as Philippine laws, which upholds the nationality rule. Renvoi doctrine is not applicable because there is no conflict as to the nationality and domicile of Mr. Bellis. He is both a citizen and a resident of Texas. So even if assuming the law of Texas applies the domiciliary rule, it is still Texas law that governs because his domicile is Texas. Assuming that Texas law has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of domicile) should govern, the same should not result in a reference back (renvoi) to the Philippine law since Mr. Bellis was both a national and domicile of Texas at the time of his death. Nonetheless, if Texas law has a conflict rule, renvoi would not arise, since the properties covered by the second will are found in the Philippines. The renvoi doctrine applied in the case of Aznar v. Garcia cannot be applied since said doctrine is pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country and domiciliary of another country. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the decedent executed two (2) wills- one to govern his Texas properties and the other his Philippine estate; the latter being the basis of the argument of illegitimate children that he intended Philippine law to govern. Assuming that such was the intention of the decedent in executing a separate Philippine will, it would not alter the law. As rule in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision of foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with the national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored.