PCIB v.

Escolin`

In November 1952, Linnie Jane Hodges, an American citizen from Texas made a will. In May
1957, while she was domiciled here in the Philippines (Iloilo City), she died.
In her will, she left all her estate in favor of her husband, Charles Newton Hodges. Linnie
however also stated in her will that should her husband later die, said estate shall be turned
over to her brother and sister.
In December 1962, Charles died (it appears he was also domiciled here). Atty. Leon Gellada,
the lawyer of Charles filed a motion before the probate court (there was an ongoing probate
on the will of Linnie) so that a certain Avelina Magno may be appointed as the administratrix
of the estate. Magno was the trusted employee of the Hodges when they were alive. Atty.
Gellada manifested that Charles himself left a will but the same was in an iron trunk in Charles
office. Hence, in the meantime, hed like to have Magno appointed as administratrix. Judge
Venicio Escolin approved the motion.
Later, Charles will was found and so a new petition for probate was filed for the said will.
Since said will basically covers the same estate, Magno, as admininistratrix of Linnies estate
opposed the said petition. Eventually, the probate of Charles will was granted. Eventually
still, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank was appointed as administrator. But
Magno refused to turn over the estate.
Magno contended that in her will, Linnie wanted Charles to turn over the property to Linnies
brother and sister and since that is her will, the same must be respected. Magno also
contended that Linnie was a Texan at the time of her death (an alien testator); that under
Article 16 of the Civil Code, successional rights are governed by Linnies national law; that
under Texas law, Linnies will shall be respected regardless of the presence of legitimes
(Charles share in the estate).
PCIB argued that the law of Texas refers the matter back to Philippine laws because Linnie
was domiciled outside Texas at the time of her death (applying the renvoi doctrine).
ISSUE: Whether or not Texas Law should apply.
HELD: The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court. Both parties failed to
adduce proof as to the law of Texas. The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law is
on the matter, is a question of fact to be resolved by the evidence that would be presented in
the probate court. The Supreme Court however emphasized that Texas law at the time of
Linnies death is the law applicable (and not said law at any other time). NOTE: Dynamics of
law.