Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Bellis, oppositors-appellants vs Edward Bellis, et al.

, heirs-
appellees

Facts:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of Texas and of the U.S.. He had 5 legitimate children with his first wife (whom
he divorced), 3 legitimate children with his second wife (who survived him) and finally, 3 illegitimate
children (appellants).

6 yrs prior to his death, he executed 2 wills, apportioning the remainder of his estate and properties to his
seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to the project of partition claiming that
they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they are entitled according to the Philippine law
(illegitimate children are compulsory heirs here) . Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his
Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of 2 separate wills.

The CFI Manila ruled in favor of the appellees and MR was denied by the court. Hence, the appeal to the
Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case of determination of the illegitimate children's
successional rights

Held:
Court ruled that the 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 view of those matters that Article 10- now Article 16- of the civil code states said
national law should govern. Art 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law
of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, with respect to the
order 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 can be found.)

Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of the will should be
governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his
illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under Texas law,
which is the national law of the deceased.

Note:
SC added Art 1039 as basis for its decision.
It states that capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.

The Renvoi doctrine cannot be applied and was never invoked nor mentioned in their arguments. It is only
pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country and a domiciliary of another. In this case, the
decedent was both a national and domiciliary of Texas at the time of death.