Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 259 views

    07 - Estate of Amos Bellis

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    1) Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in 1952 dividing his estate among his first wife, three illegitimate children, and seven legitimate children. 2) Bellis died in Texas in 1958 and his will was probated in Manila. The executor paid out the bequests in the will. 3) Two of Bellis' illegitimate children opposed the distribution, arguing they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that per the Civil Code, the national law of the deceased applies, which in this case was Texas law that does not provide for legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    07 - Estate of Amos Bellis

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    259 views1 page
    1) Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in 1952 dividing his estate among his first wife, three illegitimate children, and seven legitimate children. 2) Bellis died in Texas in 1958 and his will was probated in Manila. The executor paid out the bequests in the will. 3) Two of Bellis' illegitimate children opposed the distribution, arguing they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that per the Civil Code, the national law of the deceased applies, which in this case was Texas law that does not provide for legitimes.

    Original Description:

    Wills and Succession

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in 1952 dividing his estate among his first wife, three illegitimate children, and seven legitimate children. 2) Bellis died in Texas in 1958 and his will was probated in Manila. The executor paid out the bequests in the will. 3) Two of Bellis' illegitimate children opposed the distribution, arguing they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that per the Civil Code, the national law of the deceased applies, which in this case was Texas law that does not provide for legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    259 views1 page

    07 - Estate of Amos Bellis

    Uploaded by

    OM Molins
    1) Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in 1952 dividing his estate among his first wife, three illegitimate children, and seven legitimate children. 2) Bellis died in Texas in 1958 and his will was probated in Manila. The executor paid out the bequests in the will. 3) Two of Bellis' illegitimate children opposed the distribution, arguing they were deprived of their legitimes under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that per the Civil Code, the national law of the deceased applies, which in this case was Texas law that does not provide for legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Estate of Amos Bellis

    20 SCRA 358

    Facts: On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, declaring
    that his distributable estate should be divided in the following order and manner: (a)
    $240,000 to Mary E. Mallen, his first wife; (b) P40,000 each to his three illegitimate
    children: Amos Jr., Maria Cristina, and Miriam; and (c) the remainder to his seven
    surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward, Henry, Alexander and
    Anna, Edwin, Walter and Dorothy.

    On July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas and on September
    15, 1958, his will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
    People’s Bank and Trust Company paid all the bequest therein, as executor of the will. In
    preparation to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its report,
    declaring the satisfaction of Amos G. Bellis’ will.

    Maria Cristina and Miriam filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on
    the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children. On April 30,
    1964, the lower court overruled the oppositions and approved the executor’s final
    account, report and administration and project of partition, relying upon Article 16 of the
    Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent (Texas law), which did not provide
    for legitimes.

    Issue: Whether or not Texas law or Philippine law should apply to the legitimes of the
    petitioners.

    Ruling: Article 16, par. 2, and Article 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the
    national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four
    items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the intrinsic
    validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. The appellants
    would however counter that Article 17, par. 3 prevails as an exception to Article 16, par. 2
    of the Civil Code.

    The Court ruled it as incorrect. By deleting the phrase, “notwithstanding the provisions of
    this and the next preceding article” in the incorporation of Article 11 of the old Civil Code
    as Article 17 of the new Civil Code, it must have been the purpose of the Congress to
    make the second paragraph of Article 16 as specific provision in itself which must be
    applied in testate and intestate succession.

    It is evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system
    of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign
    nationals. For it has specifically chosen to leave the amount of successional rights to the
    decedent’s national law. As previously ruled, a provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect
    that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not his
    national law, is illegal and void.

    The Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

    You might also like