Aznar V Garcia Digest

Aznar v.
Garcia
G.R. No. L-16749
31 January 1963 (En Banc)
Facts:
A Will was executed by Edward E. Christensen in Manila on March 5, 1951. It is in accordance

in the provisions of the will that the executor in his final account and project of partition ratified
the payment of only P3,600 to Helen Christensen Garcia and proposed that the residue of the
estate be transferred to his daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen.
An opposition was filed by Helen Christensen Garcia, insofar as it deprives her (Helen) of her
legitime as an acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us (the Court) in G.R.
Nos. L-11483-84 an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward E. Christensen.
The lower ruled that as 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.
Helen argued that the distribution should be governed by the laws of the Philippines and that the
order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of two
acknowledged natural children, one-half of the estate in full ownership.
Appellees argue that Article 16 of our Civil code provides:
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.
It is argued on executor's behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of
California, the internal law thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, should govern the
determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of Christensen's will, such law being
in force in the State of California of which Christensen was a citizen. Appellant, on the other
hand, insists that Article 946 of the Civil Code of California which provides “If there is no law to
the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of
its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile” should be applicable, and in accordance
therewith and following the doctrine of the renvoi, the question of the validity of the
testamentary provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent's domicile,
which is the Philippines.
Issue:
Should the case be referenced back to California where Edward Christensen is a citizen?
Ruling:
No. As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16
of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946,
which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. 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 can not 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, 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, 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..

Aznar V Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aznar V Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Aznar V Garcia Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aznar v.

A Will was executed by Edward E. Christensen in Manila on March 5, 1951. It is in accordance

Appellees argue that Article 16 of our Civil code provides:

You might also like