Estate of Christensen, 61 O.G#46, P. 7302

Estate of Christensen
Law Governing Content

G.R. No. Ponente Date
L-16749 LABRADOR, J. January 31, 1963
Petitioners Respondents
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE HELEN CHRISTENSEN
ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, GARCIA, oppositor-appellan
DECEASED.
ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY
CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the
deceased, Executor and Heir-appellees,
DOCTRINE: Same; Same; Same; Same; Court of domicile bound to ap-ply its own law as directed in the
conflict of law rule of dece-dents state; Application of the renvoi doctrine.—The conflict of law rule in
California, Article 946 Civil Code, 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 court of domicile can not and should not
refer the case back to California, as such action would leave the issue incapable of determination,
because the case will then be tossed back and forth between the two states. If the question has to be
decided, the Philippine court must apply its own law as the Philippines was the domicile of the decedent,
as directed in the conflict of law rule of the state of the decedent, California, and especially because the
internal law of California provides no legitime for natural children, while the Philippine law (Articles
887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs
of the parent recog-nizing them)
I. Facts of the case
• Edward E. Christensen was born on November 29, 1875 in New York City. He first arrived in the
Philippine, on July 1, 1901. He stayed in the Philippines until December 1904, where he later
returned back to the United States, particularly in Sacramento, California.
• In various years, beginning 1913, he went back and forth between the Philippines and the United
States.
• In his will, he declared that he had one child named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN, who was his only
heir, and that he left all of his property to Maria Lucy. He however left a legacy sum of money
to MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN worth Php 3,600.00 to be deposited at the Philippine National
Bank Davao Branch. It is stipulated in the will that Edward Christensen IS NOT related in any way
to Maria Helen.
• Subsequently Edward died at the St. Luke's Hospital in the City of Manila on April 30, 1953. A
Special Proceedings Case was then instituted before the Court of First Instance of Davao.
• Helen Christensen Garcia, opposed the petition, as she alleged that the said petition insofar
deprived her of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child. The legal grounds she used are (a)
that the distribution should be governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of
distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies her (Helen), one-half of the estate in full
ownership.
• Helen thus alleged that the law that should govern the estate of the deceased Christensen should
not be the internal law of California alone, but the entire law thereof because several foreign
elements are involved, that the forum is the Philippines and even if the case were decided in
California.
• Lucy meanwhile contends that the national law of the deceased must apply hence Helen is not
compulsory heir and so Edward could freely dispose his property
• The Court of First Instance ruled that since Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United
States and of the State of California at the time of his death, the successional rights and intrinsic
validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of California, in accordance with
which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right
of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable.
II. Issue/s
Which is the relevant law insofar as the amount of successional rights of Helen and Lucy are
concerned?
III. Ratio/Legal Basis
● The relevant law will be Philippine Law. 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, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the
domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California.
● 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
● In 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 court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to California; such action
would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football,
tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a
citizen and the country of his domicile.
● 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
IV. Disposition
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court
with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment
reversed, with costs against appellees
V. Notes
• As to the citizenship of Edward Christensen, the Court finds that the citizenship that he
acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento, California from 1904 to 1913, was
never lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the latter was a territory of the United States
(not a state) until 1946 and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of
California by the fact that when he executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a
citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his California
citizenship by acquiring another
• There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the
United States, each state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its citizens
only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil
Code above quoted cannot, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law.
So, it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of California.c

Estate of Christensen, 61 O.G#46, P. 7302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estate of Christensen, 61 O.G#46, P. 7302

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Estate of Christensen, 61 O.G#46, P. 7302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estate of Christensen

Law Governing Content

I. Facts of the case

III. Ratio/Legal Basis

You might also like