Aznar v. Garcia Digest

G.R. No.
L-16749, January 31, 1963
IN THE MATTER OF TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C.

AZNAR, Executor and LUCY CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased, Executor and Heir-appellees, vs.
HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant
Counsel: M.R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees

Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant
Ponente: Justice Labrador
DOCTRINE:
US CITIZENSHIP NOT DEEMED LOST BY STAY IN THE PHILIPPINES BEFORE INDEPENDENCE.

While the deceased lived and stayed in the Philippines for a considerably long period of time, his US
citizenship was not deemed lost, the Philippines being then occupied by the US until 1946.
RESIDENCE V. DOMICILE. Residence merely requires bodily presence in a place, while domicile requires
bodily presence in that place, as well as the intention to make it one’s domicile.
NCC, ARTICLE 16. Intestate and testamentary succession, with respect to the order of succession, the
amounts of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity, shall be governed by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, regardless of the nature of the property, or where said property
can be found. “National law” in the case at bar cannot refer to general American laws on succession, as no
such law exists. It, therefore, refers to the internal succession law of the State of California for its citizens
domiciled in another jurisdiction, as well as its conflict of law rule.
RENVOI DOCTRINE. Where there matter concerns international law, the forum, in the case at bar, t the
Philippines, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, including its conflict of law rule,
and shall apply the law as prescribed by the other jurisdiction. In this case, Article 946 of the California Civil
Code provides the personal property follows the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his
domicile. Applying the renvoi doctrine to avoid inaction through referring the case back and forth from one
jurisdiction’s laws to the other, the Philippine court must apply our laws on this matter, as the conflict of law
rule of California directs.
FACTS:
Edward E. Christensen was born and New York, and went to the Philippines as a teacher on 1901. He went
back to the United States in 1904, and resided in the State of California until 1913. He went back and forth
between the Philippines and the United States, staying notably longer in the former, i.e. staying in the
Philippines for 15 years, leaving for the US, and coming back the following year.
He executed his last will in the Philippines on March 5, 1951, bequeathing to Maria Helen an amount of
PhP 3,600.00 which she was to receive in installments of PhP 100.00 every month, until the sum and all
the interest that shall accrue to it has been exhausted. The rest of his properties, real and personal,
wherever they may be situated, was bequeathed to Maria Lucy. Maria Helen and Maria Lucy are his
acknowledged natural children. He died in Manila on April 30, 1953.
In the disposition of the will of the deceased, Maria Helen opposed the partition as provided in the last will,
asserting that being an acknowledged natural child of the deceased, as previously decided by the courts in
a judicial proceeding, she is entitled to one-half of the estate in full ownership. Maria Helen also stressed
that the estate of the deceased shall be governed by Philippine laws, the deceased being domiciled in the
Philippines. Notwithstanding, should the estate be disposed under the laws of the State of California, Maria
Helen claimed, it is provided under such laws that the property of a resident shall follow the person of the
owner, and shall be governed by the laws of the country of domicile.
AZNAR V. GARCIA | Ruiz

DECISION OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE:
Edward was a citizen of California at the time of his death. Thus, his estate shall be governed by the law of
California. Under such law, there is no concept of legitime, and the deceased has the right to dispose his
property in whatever way he desires. Maria Helen filed various motions for reconsideration, all of which
were denied.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Edward’s estate shall be governed by the law of California – NO.

a. W/N he is a citizen of the United States – Yes.
b. W/N he is domiciled in the United States – No.
c. W/N the laws of the disposition of property of California applies to the deceased’s estate –
No, with reference to its conflict of law rule under Article 946 of the California Civil Code
d. W/N the Philippine courts is to use Philippine laws on the matter under the renvoi doctrine
– Yes.
RULING:
Edward’s status as a citizen of the State of California was not lost by his considerably long periods of stay
in the Philippines before its independence from the United States in 1946. However, he is no longer
considered domiciled in California, his intention to make the Philippines his domicile exhibited in his
obviously length of time he stayed in the Philippines from 1901 to his death in 1953.
Under Article 16, the estate of the deceased, with regard to the order of succession, the amount of
successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions, shall be governed by his
national law. The deceased being a US citizen, the term “national law” cannot refer to a general United
States law on succession, as no such law exists. This, then, shall be construed to be the testamentary
provisions adopted by the State of California for its citizen domiciled in other jurisdictions.
While the law of California provides for the right to absolute dominion of the testator on the testamentary
disposal of property, there exists a conflict of law rule in the California Civil Code under Article 946. It
provides that unless a contrary law exists in the place where the property is situated, it shall follow the
person of the owner and is governed by the law of his domicile.
This provision refers the matter back to the law of the forum, the Philippines. Under the renvoi doctrine, the
forum shall not refer the matter again to the California law, under Article 16. Instead, the Philippine court is
now constrained to use our law to resolve the matter of succession. The argument that Article 16 shall be
considered as “a contrary law…in the place where the property is situated” under Artilce 946 is without
merit, as it will leave the issue incapable of determination.
Thus, pursuant to the conflict of law rule under Article 946 of the California Civil Code, the law on
succession of the place of domicile of the deceased, the Philippines, shall apply to his estate. The
appellant, as an acknowledged natural child, shall not be deprived of her successional rights under the
Philippine laws.
DISPOSITION:
The decision appealed is reversed. The case is returned to the lower court for the partition to be made as
the Philippine law on succession provides. Costs against appellees.
AZNAR V. GARCIA | Ruiz

Aznar v. Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aznar v. Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aznar v. Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-16749, January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C.

Counsel: M.R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees

Ponente: Justice Labrador

US CITIZENSHIP NOT DEEMED LOST BY STAY IN THE PHILIPPINES BEFORE INDEPENDENCE.

AZNAR V. GARCIA | Ruiz

1. W/N Edward’s estate shall be governed by the law of California – NO.

AZNAR V. GARCIA | Ruiz

You might also like