Conflict of Laws Case Digest

AZNAR v. GARCIA, G.R. No. L-16749, January 31, 1963

The deceas deceased ed Edwa Edward rd Chris Christe tens nsenw enwas as a citi citize zen n of the the U.S. U.S. and of the the Stat Statee of  FACTS: CTS: The California at the time of his death, but was domiciled in the Philippines. He left a will leaving all his properties to aria !uc" Christensen, his onl" child residing in California# and devise and  be$ueath unto aria Helen Christensen %arciathe sum of three thousand si& hundred pesos, the latter allegedl" being the testator's ac(nowledged natural child in the Philippines.)pposition to the partition was filed b" Helen, insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as an ac(nowledged natural child. Under the Philippine law, intestate and testamentar" successions shall be regulated  b" the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. However, under  California internal law, it is provided that the testator ma" dispose of his propert" b" will in the form and manner he desires. Herein appellee !uc", argues that since deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof, should govern the validit" of the testam testamenta entar" r" provis provision ionss of Christ Christens ensen* en*ss will. will. +ppell +ppellant ant,, on the other other hand, hand, insist insistss that that in accordance therewith and following the doctrine of the renvoi, renvoi, the $uestion of the validit" of the testamentar" provision in $uestion should be referred bac( to the law of the decedent*s domicile, the Philippines. SSUE- hether or not, b" recognizing the renvoi doctrine, the !aws of the Philippines should govern the distribution of the estate of the deceased Christensen. /U!0%- 1es. The laws of California prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for  residents therein and another for those domiciled in other 2urisdictions. /eason demands that e should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict conflict of laws laws rules rules for the citizen citizenss domici domiciled led abroad. abroad. The conflic conflictt of laws laws rule rule in California, +rticle 345, Civil Code, precisel" refers bac( 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 bac( to California# such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be li(e a football, tossed bac( and forth between the two states, between the countr" of which the decedent was a citizen and the countr" of his domicile. The Philippine court must appl" its own law as directed in the conflict of  laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the $uestion has to be decided, especiall" as the applic applicati ation on of the interna internall law of Califo Californi rniaa provid provides es no legiti legitime me for childr children en while while the Philippine law, +rts. 667849 and 634, Civil Code of the Philippines, ma(es natural children legall" ac(nowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.

:ellis v. :ellis, G.R. No. L-2367, Jun! 6, 1967 ;+CTS- +mos :elliswas both a national of Te&as and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. He had five legitimate children with his first wife whom he divorced# three legitimate children with his second wife# and three illegitimate children. :efore his death, +mos e&ecuted a will in the Philippines directing his distributable estate to be divided to his first wife, his illegitimate children, and the remainder to his seven other surviving children. The will was then admitted for   probate in anila, and the e&ecutor paid all be$uests therein. Subse$uentl", two of the deceased' illegitimate children filed to the pro2ect of partition alleging that the" were deprived of their  legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsor" heirs of the deceased, but was overruled. The trial court having relied upon +rt.  percent of all of the con2ugal assets of the spouses, 8