MICIANO VS.

BRIMO contrary to law because it expressly ignores the testator's national law
when, according to article 10 of the civil Code above quoted, such national
G.R. No. L-22595 November 1, 1927 law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary dispositions.

FACTS: Said condition then, in the light of the legal provisions above cited, is
considered unwritten, and the institution of legatees in said will is
unconditional and consequently valid and effective even as to the herein
The partition of the estate left by the deceased Joseph G. Brimo is in
oppositor.
question in this case. The judicial administrator of this estate filed a
scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased,
opposed it. The court, however, approved it. The opposition is based on TESTATE ESTATE OF CHRISTENSEN
the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of
Joseph G. Brimo's will which are not in accordance with the laws of his January 31, 1963
Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation or
article 10 of the Civil Code which, among other things, provides the
FACTS:
following:

Edward E. Christensen was born in New York but he migrated

Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to
to California where he resided for 9 years. In 1913, he came to the
the order of succession as well as to the amount of the
Philippines where he became a domiciliary until the time of his death. In
successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions,
his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
Lucy Christensen as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor
succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the
of Helen Christensen Garcia. Counsel for the acknowledged natural
property or the country in which it may be situated.
daughter Helen claims that under Article 16, par. 2 of the Civil
Code, California law should be should be applied; that under California law,
But the fact is that the oppositor did not prove that said testamentary the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On the other hand,
dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws, in as much as he the counsel for Maria Lucy contends that the national law of the deceased
did not present any evidence showing what the Turkish laws are on the must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything
matter, and in the absence of evidence on such laws, they are presumed under California law.
to be the same as those of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Part of his will, nonetheless, states: “it is my wish that the distribution of
my property and everything in connection with this, my will, be made and
Whether or not the national law of the deceased should be applied
disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine islands,
in determining the successional rights on his heirs?
requesting all of my relatives to respect this wish, otherwise, I annul and
cancel beforehand whatever disposition found in this will favorable to the
person or persons who fail to comply with this request.” HELD:

ISSUE: What law governs the succession of the estate of Brimo?
RULE: The national law of the decedent governs the succession of the
estate of Brimo.
The approval of the scheme of partition in this respect was not erroneous.
The institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the condition is
that the instituted legatees must respect the testator's will to distribute his
property, not in accordance with the laws of his nationality, but in
accordance with the laws of the Philippines. However, said condition is
Yes, the national law of the decedent governs. The Supreme
Court grants more successional rights to Helen. It said in effect that there
are two rules in California on the matter: the internal law which applies to
California’s domiciled in California, and the conflict rule for Californian’s
domiciled out of California. Christensen, being domiciled in the Philippines,
the law of his domicile must be followed. For the determination of the
successional rights under Philippine Law, the case was remanded to the
lower court for further proceedings.
The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to
defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of
follows: California.

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, both with

respect to the order of succession and to the amount 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 where said
property may be found.

The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination
of the meaning of the term "national law"is used therein.

The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code refers to no

other than the private law of the State of California.

Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
pointed out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as
above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for
its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in
other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California
internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the
conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If we must enforce
the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in
Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in
accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e.,
apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for
those domiciled abroad.

The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code,

precisely 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 Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict
of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided,
especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no
legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil
Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged
forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.

We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a

citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions
of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant,