Republic of the Philippines

!"#$%&% ()"$*
Nanila
EN BANC
+,$, -., /012345 67897:; <1= 152<
>- *?% &@**%$ )A *?% *%!*@*% %!*@*% )A %BC@$B %,
(?$>!*%-!%-= B%(%@!%B,
@B)/A) (, @D-@$= %EFG9H.: 78I /"(J (?$>!*%-!%-= ?FK: .L HMF
IFGF7NFI= Executoi anu Beii-appellees,
vs.
?%/%- (?$>!*%-!%- +@$(>@= oppositoi-appellant.
!" $" %&'()& *&+ (,(-.'&+ /01 2(3+4/55())((6"
7(&5&)1& !" 89())(+/ /01 :&;3'& %/)&0</ *&+ &55&63'&+4/55())/0'"
/@O$@B)$= !"#
This is an appeal fiom a uecision of the Couit of Fiist Instance of Bavao, Bon.
vicente N. Cusi, }i., piesiuing, in Special Pioceeuing No. 622 of saiu couit,
uateu Septembei 14, 1949, appioving among things the final accounts of the
executoi, uiiecting the executoi to ieimbuise Naiia Lucy Chiistensen the
amount of PS,6uu paiu by hei to Belen Chiistensen uaicia as hei legacy, anu
ueclaiing Naiia Lucy Chiistensen entitleu to the iesiuue of the piopeity to be
enjoyeu uuiing hei lifetime, anu in case of ueath without issue, one-half of
saiu iesiuue to be payable to Nis. Caiiie Louise C. Boiton, etc., in accoiuance
with the piovisions of the will of the testatoi Euwaiu E. Chiistensen. The will
was executeu in Nanila on Naich S, 19S1 anu contains the following
piovisions:
S. I ueclaie ... that I have but 0NE (1) chilu, nameu NARIA L0CY
CBRISTENSEN (now Nis. Beinaiu Baney), who was boin in the
Philippines about twenty-eight yeais ago, anu who is now iesiuing at
No. 66S Rougei Young village, Los Angeles, Califoinia, 0.S.A.
4. I fuithei ueclaie that I now have no living ascenuants, anu no
uescenuants except my above nameu uaughtei, NARIA L0CY
CBRISTENSEN BANEY.
x x x x x x x x x
7. I give, uevise anu bequeath unto NARIA BELEN CBRISTENSEN,
now maiiieu to Euuaiuo uaicia, about eighteen yeais of age anu
who, notwithstanuing the fact that she was baptizeu Chiistensen, is
not in any way ielateu to me, noi has she been at any time auopteu
by me, anu who, fiom all infoimation I have now iesiues in Egpit,
Bigos, Bavao, Philippines, the sum of TBREE TB00SANB SIX
B0NBREB PES0S (PS,6uu.uu), Philippine Cuiiency the same to be
uepositeu in tiust foi the saiu Naiia Belen Chiistensen with the
Bavao Bianch of the Philippine National Bank, anu paiu to hei at the
iate of 0ne Bunuieu Pesos (P1uu.uu), Philippine Cuiiency pei
month until the piincipal theieof as well as any inteiest which may
have acciueu theieon, is exhausteu..
x x x x x x x x x
12. I heieby give, uevise anu bequeath, unto my well-beloveu
uaughtei, the saiu NARIA L0CY CBRISTENSEN BANEY (Nis. Beinaiu
Baney), now iesiuing as afoiesaiu at No. 66S Rougei Young village,
Los Angeles, Califoinia, 0.S.A., all the income fiom the iest,
iemainuei, anu iesiuue of my piopeity anu estate, ieal, peisonal
anuoi mixeu, of whatsoevei kinu oi chaiactei, anu wheiesoevei
situateu, of which I may be possesseu at my ueath anu which may
have come to me fiom any souice whatsoevei, uuiing hei lifetime: ....
It is in accoiuance with the above-quoteu piovisions that the executoi in his
final account anu pioject of paitition iatifieu the payment of only PS,6uu to
Belen Chiistensen uaicia anu pioposeu that the iesiuue of the estate be
tiansfeiieu to his uaughtei, Naiia Lucy Chiistensen.
0pposition to the appioval of the pioject of paitition was fileu by Belen
Chiistensen uaicia, insofai as it uepiives hei (Belen) of hei legitime as an
acknowleugeu natuial chilu, she having been ueclaieu by 0s in u.R. Nos. L-
1148S-84 an acknowleugeu natuial chilu of the ueceaseu Euwaiu E.
Chiistensen. The legal giounus of opposition aie (a) that the uistiibution
shoulu be goveineu by the laws of the Philippines, anu (b) that saiu oiuei of
uistiibution is contiaiy theieto insofai as it uenies to Belen Chiistensen, one
of two acknowleugeu natuial chiluien, one-half of the estate in full
owneiship. In amplification of the above giounus it was allegeu that the law
that shoulu govein the estate of the ueceaseu Chiistensen shoulu not be the
inteinal law of Califoinia alone, but the entiie law theieof because seveial
foieign elements aie involveu, that the foium is the Philippines anu even if
the case weie ueciueu in Califoinia, Section 946 of the Califoinia Civil Coue,
which iequiies that the uomicile of the ueceuent shoulu apply, shoulu be
applicable. It was also allegeu that Naiia Belen Chiistensen having been
ueclaieu an acknowleugeu natuial chilu of the ueceuent, she is ueemeu foi all
puiposes legitimate fiom the time of hei biith.
The couit below iuleu that as Euwaiu E. Chiistensen was a citizen of the
0niteu States anu of the State of Califoinia at the time of his ueath, the
successional iights anu intiinsic valiuity of the piovisions in his will aie to be
goveineu by the law of Califoinia, in accoiuance with which a testatoi has the
iight to uispose of his piopeity in the way he uesiies, because the iight of
absolute uominion ovei his piopeity is sacieu anu inviolable (In ie
NcBaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2u 877, 176 P. 2u 9S2, anu In ie Kaufman,
117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, citeu in page 179, Recoiu on Appeal). 0ppositoi
Naiia Belen Chiistensen, thiough counsel, fileu vaiious motions foi
ieconsiueiation, but these weie uenieu. Bence, this appeal.
The most impoitant assignments of eiioi aie as follows:
I
TBE L0WER C00RT ERREB IN IuN0RINu TBE BECISI0N 0F TBE
B0N0RABLE S0PRENE C00RT TBAT BELEN IS TBE ACKN0WLEBuEB
NAT0RAL CBILB 0F EBWARB E. CBRISTENSEN ANB, C0NSEQ0ENTLY, IN
BEPRIvINu BER 0F BER }0ST SBARE IN TBE INBERITANCE.
II
TBE L0WER C00RT ERREB IN ENTIRELY IuN0RINu ANB0R FAILINu T0
REC0uNIZE TBE EXISTENCE 0F SEvERAL FACT0RS, ELENENTS ANB
CIRC0NSTANCES CALLINu F0R TBE APPLICATI0N 0F INTERNAL LAW.
III
TBE L0WER C00RT ERREB IN FAILINu T0 REC0uNIZE TBAT 0NBER
INTERNATI0NAL LAW, PARTIC0LARLY 0NBER TBE RENv0I B0CTRINE,
TBE INTRINSIC vALIBITY 0F TBE TESTANENTARY BISP0SITI0N 0F TBE
BISTRIB0TI0N 0F TBE ESTATE 0F TBE BECEASEB EBWARB E.
CBRISTENSEN SB00LB BE u0vERNEB BY TBE LAWS 0F TBE PBILIPPINES.
Iv
TBE L0WER C00RT ERREB IN N0T BECLARINu TBAT TBE SCBEB0LE 0F
BISTRIB0TI0N S0BNITTEB BY TBE EXEC0T0R IS C0NTRARY T0 TBE
PBILIPPINE LAWS.
v
TBE L0WER C00RT ERREB IN N0T BECLARINu TBAT 0NBER TBE
PBILIPPINE LAWS BELEN CBRISTENSEN uARCIA IS ENTITLEB T0 0NE-
BALF (12) 0F TBE ESTATE IN F0LL 0WNERSBIP.
Theie is no question that Euwaiu E. Chiistensen was a citizen of the 0niteu
States anu of the State of Califoinia at the time of his ueath. But theie is also
no question that at the time of his ueath he was uomicileu in the Philippines,
as witness the following facts aumitteu by the executoi himself in appellee's
biief:
In the pioceeuings foi aumission of the will to piobate, the facts of
iecoiu show that the ueceaseu Euwaiu E. Chiistensen was boin on
Novembei 29, 187S in New Yoik City, N.Y., 0.S.A.; his fiist aiiival in
the Philippines, as an appointeu school teachei, was on }uly 1, 19u1,
on boaiu the 0.S. Aimy Tianspoit "Sheiiuan" with Poit of
Embaikation as the City of San Fiancisco, in the State of Califoinia,
0.S.A. Be stayeu in the Philippines until 19u4.
In Becembei, 19u4, Ni. Chiistensen ietuineu to the 0niteu States
anu stayeu theie foi the following nine yeais until 191S, uuiing
which time he iesiueu in, anu was teaching school in Saciamento,
Califoinia.
Ni. Chiistensen's next aiiival in the Philippines was in }uly of the
yeai 191S. Bowevei, in 1928, he again uepaiteu the Philippines foi
the 0niteu States anu came back heie the following yeai, 1929. Some
nine yeais latei, in 19S8, he again ietuineu to his own countiy, anu
came back to the Philippines the following yeai, 19S9.
Wheiefoie, the paities iespectfully piay that the foiegoing
stipulation of facts be aumitteu anu appioveu by this Bonoiable
Couit, without piejuuice to the paities auuucing othei eviuence to
piove theii case not coveieu by this stipulation of facts. =>?52@="AB'
Being an Ameiican citizen, Ni. Chiistensen was inteineu by the
}apanese Nilitaiy Foices in the Philippines uuiing Woilu Wai II.
0pon libeiation, in Apiil 194S, he left foi the 0niteu States but
ietuineu to the Philippines in Becembei, 194S. Appellees Collective
Exhibits "6", CFI Bavao, Sp. Pioc. 622, as Exhibits "AA", "BB" anu "CC-
Baney"; Exhs. "NN", "NN-l", "NN-2-Baney" anu p. 47S, t.s.n., }uly 21,
19SS.)
In Apiil, 19S1, Euwaiu E. Chiistensen ietuineu once moie to
Califoinia shoitly aftei the making of his last will anu testament
(now in question heiein) which he executeu at his lawyeis' offices in
Nanila on Naich S, 19S1. Be uieu at the St. Luke's Bospital in the City
of Nanila on Apiil Su, 19SS. (pp. 2-S)
In aiiiving at the conclusion that the uomicile of the ueceaseu is the
Philippines, we aie peisuaueu by the fact that he was boin in New Yoik,
migiateu to Califoinia anu iesiueu theie foi nine yeais, anu since he came to
the Philippines in 191S he ietuineu to Califoinia veiy iaiely anu only foi
shoit visits (peihaps to ielatives), anu consiueiing that he appeais nevei to
have owneu oi acquiieu a home oi piopeities in that state, which woulu
inuicate that he woulu ultimately abanuon the Philippines anu make home in
the State of Califoinia.
Sec. 16. Resiuence is a teim useu with many shaues of meaning fiom
meie tempoiaiy piesence to the most peimanent aboue. ueneially,
howevei, it is useu to uenote something moie than meie physical
piesence. (uoouiich on Conflict of Laws, p. 29)
As to his citizenship, howevei, We finu that the citizenship that he acquiieu in
Califoinia when he iesiueu in Saciamento, Califoinia fiom 19u4 to 191S, was
nevei lost by his stay in the Philippines, foi the lattei was a teiiitoiy of the
0niteu States (not a state) until 1946 anu the ueceaseu appeais to have
consiueieu himself as a citizen of Califoinia by the fact that when he executeu
his will in 19S1 he ueclaieu that he was a citizen of that State; so that he
appeais nevei to have intenueu to abanuon his Califoinia citizenship by
acquiiing anothei. This conclusion is in accoiuance with the following
piinciple expounueu by uoouiich in his Conflict of Laws.
The teims "'iesiuence" anu "uomicile" might well be taken to mean
the same thing, a place of peimanent aboue. But uomicile, as has
been shown, has acquiieu a technical meaning. Thus one may be
uomicileu in a place wheie he has nevei been. Anu he may iesiue in a
place wheie he has no uomicile. The man with two homes, between
which he uiviues his time, ceitainly iesiues in each one, while living
in it. But if he went on business which woulu iequiie his piesence foi
seveial weeks oi months, he might piopeily be saiu to have
sufficient connection with the place to be calleu a iesiuent. It is cleai,
howevei, that, if he tieateu his settlement as continuing only foi the
paiticulai business in hanu, not giving up his foimei "home," he
coulu not be a uomicileu New Yoikei. Acquisition of a uomicile of
choice iequiies the exeicise of intention as well as physical piesence.
"Resiuence simply iequiies bouily piesence of an inhabitant in a
given place, while uomicile iequiies bouily piesence in that place
anu also an intention to make it one's uomicile." Resiuence, howevei,
is a teim useu with many shaues of meaning, fiom the meiest
tempoiaiy piesence to the most peimanent aboue, anu it is not safe
to insist that any one use et the only piopei one. (uoouiich, p. 29)
The law that goveins the valiuity of his testamentaiy uispositions is uefineu
in Aiticle 16 of the Civil Coue of the Philippines, which is as follows:
ART. 16. Real piopeity as well as peisonal piopeity is subject to the
law of the countiy wheie it is situateu.
Bowevei, intestate anu testamentaiy successions, both with iespect
to the oiuei of succession anu to the amount of successional iights
anu to the intiinsic valiuity of testamentaiy piovisions, shall be
iegulateu by the national law of the peison whose succession is
unuei consiueiation, whatevei may be the natuie of the piopeity
anu iegaiuless of the countiy wheie saiu piopeity may be founu.
The application of this aiticle in the case at bai iequiies the ueteimination of
the meaning of the teim C0/'3&0/) )/?Cis useu theiein.
Theie is no single Ameiican law goveining the valiuity of testamentaiy
piovisions in the 0niteu States, each state of the 0nion having its own piivate
law applicable to its citizens only anu in foice only within the state. The
"national law" inuicateu in Aiticle 16 of the Civil Coue above quoteu can not,
theiefoie, possibly mean oi apply to any geneial Ameiican law. So it can iefei
to no othei than the piivate law of the State of Califoinia.
The next question is: What is the law in Califoinia goveining the uisposition
of peisonal piopeity. The uecision of the couit below, sustains the
contention of the executoi-appellee that unuei the Califoinia Piobate Coue, a
testatoi may uispose of his piopeity by will in the foim anu mannei he
uesiies, citing the case of Estate of NcBaniel, 77 Cal. Appl. 2u 877, 176 P. 2u
9S2. But appellant invokes the piovisions of Aiticle 946 of the Civil Coue of
Califoinia, which is as follows:
If theie is no law to the contiaiy, in the place wheie peisonal
piopeity is situateu, it is ueemeu to follow the peison of its ownei,
anu is goveineu by the law of his uomicile.
The existence of this piovision is allegeu in appellant's opposition anu is not
uenieu. We have checkeu it in the Califoinia Civil Coue anu it is theie.
Appellee, on the othei hanu, ielies on the case citeu in the uecision anu
testifieu to by a witness. (0nly the case of Kaufman is coiiectly citeu.) It is
aigueu on executoi's behalf that as the ueceaseu Chiistensen was a citizen of
the State of Califoinia, the inteinal law theieof, which is that given in the
aboveciteu case, shoulu govein the ueteimination of the valiuity of the
testamentaiy piovisions of Chiistensen's will, such law being in foice in the
State of Califoinia of which Chiistensen was a citizen. Appellant, on the othei
hanu, insists that Aiticle 946 shoulu be applicable, anu in accoiuance
theiewith anu following the uoctiine of the +(0;&3, the question of the valiuity
of the testamentaiy piovision in question shoulu be iefeiieu back to the law
of the ueceuent's uomicile, which is the Philippines.
The theoiy of uoctiine of +(0;&3 has been uefineu by vaiious authois, thus:
The pioblem has been stateu in this way: "When the Conflict of Laws
iule of the foium iefeis a juial mattei to a foieign law foi uecision, is
the iefeience to the puiely inteinal iules of law of the foieign
system; i.e., to the totality of the foieign law minus its Conflict of
Laws iules."
0n logic, the solution is not an easy one. The Nichigan couit chose to
accept the ienvoi, that is, applieu the Conflict of Laws iule of Illinois
which iefeiieu the mattei back to Nichigan law. But once having
ueteimineu the the Conflict of Laws piinciple is the iule lookeu to, it
is uifficult to see why the iefeience back shoulu not have been to
Nichigan Conflict of Laws. This woulu have iesulteu in the "enuless
chain of iefeiences" which has so often been ciiticizeu be legal
wiiteis. The opponents of the ienvoi woulu have lookeu meiely to
the inteinal law of Illinois, thus iejecting the ienvoi oi the iefeience
back. Yet theie seems no compelling logical ieason why the oiiginal
iefeience shoulu be the inteinal law iathei than to the Conflict of
Laws iule. It is tiue that such a solution avoius going on a meiiy-go-
iounu, but those who have accepteu the +(0;&3 theoiy avoiu
this 30(,'+3-/93)36 -3+-.)/6 by getting off at the seconu iefeience anu
at that point applying inteinal law. Peihaps the opponents of
the +(0;&3 aie a bit moie consistent foi they look always to inteinal
law as the iule of iefeience.
Stiangely enough, both the auvocates foi anu the objectois to
the +(0;&3 pleau that gieatei unifoimity will iesult fiom auoption of
theii iespective views. Anu still moie stiange is the fact that the only
way to achieve unifoimity in this choice-of-law pioblem is if in the
uispute the two states whose laws foim the legal basis of the
litigation uisagiee as to whethei the +(0;&3 shoulu be accepteu. If
both ieject, oi both accept the uoctiine, the iesult of the litigation
will vaiy with the choice of the foium. In the case stateu above, hau
the Nichigan couit iejecteu the +(0;&3, juugment woulu have been
against the woman; if the suit hau been biought in the Illinois couits,
anu they too iejecteu the +(0;&3, juugment woulu be foi the woman.
The same iesult woulu happen, though the couits woulu switch with
iespect to which woulu holu liability, if both couits accepteu
the+(0;&3.
The Restatement accepts the +(0;&3 theoiy in two instances: wheie
the title to lanu is in question, anu wheie the valiuity of a ueciee of
uivoice is challengeu. In these cases the Conflict of Laws iule of the
situs of the lanu, oi the uomicile of the paities in the uivoice case, is
applieu by the foium, but any fuithei iefeience goes only to the
inteinal law. Thus, a peison's title to lanu, iecognizeu by the situs,
will be iecognizeu by eveiy couit; anu eveiy uivoice, valiu by the
uomicile of the paities, will be valiu eveiywheie. (uoouiich, Conflict
of Laws, Sec. 7, pp. 1S-14.)
X, a citizen of Nassachusetts, uies intestate, uomicileu in Fiance,
leaving movable piopeity in Nassachusetts, Englanu, anu Fiance.
The question aiises as to how this piopeity is to be uistiibuteu
among X's next of kin.
Assume (1) that this question aiises in a Nassachusetts couit. Theie
the iule of the conflict of laws as to intestate succession to movables
calls foi an application of the law of the ueceaseu's last uomicile.
Since by hypothesis X's last uomicile was Fiance, the natuial thing
foi the Nassachusetts couit to uo woulu be to tuin to Fiench statute
of uistiibutions, oi whatevei coiiesponus theieto in Fiench law, anu
ueciee a uistiibution accoiuingly. An examination of Fiench law,
howevei, woulu show that if a Fiench couit weie calleu upon to
ueteimine how this piopeity shoulu be uistiibuteu, it woulu iefei
the uistiibution to the national law of the ueceaseu, thus applying the
Nassachusetts statute of uistiibutions. So on the suiface of things the
Nassachusetts couit has open to it alteinative couise of action: (a)
eithei to apply the Fiench law is to intestate succession, oi (b) to
iesolve itself into a Fiench couit anu apply the Nassachusetts statute
of uistiibutions, on the assumption that this is what a Fiench couit
woulu uo. If it accepts the so-calleu +(0;&3uoctiine, it will follow the
lattei couise, thus applying its own law.
This is one type of +(0;&3. A juial mattei is piesenteu which the
conflict-of-laws iule of the foium iefeis to a foieign law, the conflict-
of-laws iule of which, in tuin, iefeis the mattei back again to the law
of the foium. This is ienvoi in the naiiowei sense. The ueiman teim
foi this juuicial piocess is 'Ruckveiweisung.'" (Baivaiu Law Review,
vol. S1, pp. S2S-S71.)
Aftei a uecision has been aiiiveu at that a foieign law is to be
iesoiteu to as goveining a paiticulai case, the fuithei question may
aiise: Aie the iules as to the conflict of laws containeu in such foieign
law also to be iesoiteu to. This is a question which, while it has been
consiueieu by the couits in but a few instances, has been the subject
of fiequent uiscussion by textwiiteis anu essayists; anu the uoctiine
involveu has been uesciiptively uesignateu by them as the
"Renvoyei" to senu back, oi the "Ruchveisweisung", oi the
"Weiteiveiweisung", since an affiimative answei to the question
postulateu anu the opeiation of the auoption of the foieign law in
toto woulu in many cases iesult in ietuining the main contioveisy to
be ueciueu accoiuing to the law of the foium. ... (16 C.}.S. 872.)
Anothei theoiy, known as the "uoctiine of +(0;&3", has been
auvanceu. The theoiy of the uoctiine of +(0;&3 is that the couit of the
foium, in ueteimining the question befoie it, must take into account
the whole law of the othei juiisuiction, but also its iules as to conflict
of laws, anu then apply the law to the actual question which the iules
of the othei juiisuiction piesciibe. This may be the law of the foium.
The uoctiine of the +(0;&3 has geneially been iepuuiateu by the
Ameiican authoiities. (2 Am. }ui. 296)
The scope of the theoiy of +(0;&3 has also been uefineu anu the ieasons foi its
application in a countiy explaineu by Piof. Loienzen in an aiticle in the Yale
Law }ouinal, vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. S29-SS1. The peitinent paits of the
aiticle aie quoteu heiein below:
The iecognition of the +(0;&3 theoiy implies that the iules of the
conflict of laws aie to be unueistoou as incoipoiating not only the
oiuinaiy oi inteinal law of the foieign state oi countiy, but its iules
of the conflict of laws as well. Accoiuing to this theoiy 'the law of a
countiy' means the whole of its law.
x x x x x x x x x
von Bai piesenteu his views at the meeting of the Institute of
Inteinational Law, at Neuchatel, in 19uu, in the foim of the following
theses:
(1) Eveiy couit shall obseive the law of its countiy as iegaius the
application of foieign laws.
(2) Pioviueu that no expiess piovision to the contiaiy exists, the
couit shall iespect:
(a) The piovisions of a foieign law which uisclaims the iight
to binu its nationals abioau as iegaius theii peisonal
statute, anu uesiies that saiu peisonal statute shall be
ueteimineu by the law of the uomicile, oi even by the law of
the place wheie the act in question occuiieu.
(b) The uecision of two oi moie foieign systems of law,
pioviueu it be ceitain that one of them is necessaiily
competent, which agiee in attiibuting the ueteimination of a
question to the same system of law.
x x x x x x x x x
If, foi example, the English law uiiects its juuge to uistiibute the
peisonal estate of an Englishman who has uieu uomicileu in Belgium
in accoiuance with the law of his uomicile, he must fiist inquiie
whethei the law of Belgium woulu uistiibute peisonal piopeity upon
ueath in accoiuance with the law of uomicile, anu if he finus that the
Belgian law woulu make the uistiibution in accoiuance with the law
of nationality that is the English law he must accept this
iefeience back to his own law.
We note that Aiticle 946 of the Califoinia Civil Coue is its conflict of laws iule,
while the iule applieu in In ie Kaufman,%.5+/, its inteinal law. If the law on
succession anu the conflict of laws iules of Califoinia aie to be enfoiceu
jointly, each in its own intenueu anu appiopiiate spheie, the piinciple citeu
In ie Kaufman shoulu apply to citizens living in the State, but Aiticle 946
shoulu apply to such of its citizens as aie not uomicileu in Califoinia but in
othei juiisuictions. The iule laiu uown of iesoiting to the law of the uomicile
in the ueteimination of matteis with foieign element involveu is in accoiu
with the geneial piinciple of Ameiican law that the uomiciliaiy law shoulu
govein in most matteis oi iights which follow the peison of the ownei.
When a man uies leaving peisonal piopeity in one oi moie states,
anu leaves a will uiiecting the mannei of uistiibution of the piopeity,
the law of the state wheie he was uomicileu at the time of his ueath
will be lookeu to in ueciuing legal questions about the will, almost as
completely as the law of situs is consulteu in questions about the
uevise of lanu. It is logical that, since the uomiciliaiy iules contiol
uevolution of the peisonal estate in case of intestate succession, the
same iules shoulu ueteimine the valiuity of an attempteu
testamentaiy uispostion of the piopeity. Beie, also, it is not that the
uomiciliaiy has effect beyonu the boiueis of the uomiciliaiy state.
The iules of the uomicile aie iecognizeu as contiolling by the Conflict
of Laws iules at the situs piopeity, anu the ieason foi the
iecognition as in the case of intestate succession, is the geneial
convenience of the uoctiine. The New Yoik couit has saiu on the
point: 'The geneial piinciple that a uispostiton of a peisonal
piopeity, valiu at the uomicile of the ownei, is valiu anywheie, is one
of the univeisal application. It hau its oiigin in that inteinational
comity which was one of the fiist fiuits of civilization, anu it this age,
when business inteicouise anu the piocess of accumulating piopeity
take but little notice of bounuaiy lines, the piactical wisuom anu
justice of the iule is moie appaient than evei. (uoouiich, Conflict of
Laws, Sec. 164, pp. 442-44S.)
Appellees aigue that what Aiticle 16 of the Civil Coue of the Philippines
pointeu out as the 0/'3&0/) )/? is the inteinal law of Califoinia. But as above
explaineu the laws of Califoinia have piesciibeu two sets of laws foi its
citizens, one foi iesiuents theiein anu anothei foi those uomicileu in othei
juiisuictions. Reason uemanus that We shoulu enfoice the Califoinia inteinal
law piesciibeu foi its citizens iesiuing theiein, anu enfoice the conflict of
laws iules foi the citizens uomicileu abioau. If we must enfoice the law of
Califoinia as in comity we aie bounu to go, as so ueclaieu in Aiticle 16 of oui
Civil Coue, then we must enfoice the law of Califoinia in accoiuance with the
expiess manuate theieof anu as above explaineu, i.e., apply the inteinal law
foi iesiuents theiein, anu its conflict-of-laws iule foi those uomicileu abioau.
It is aigueu on appellees' behalf that the clause "if theie is no law to the
contiaiy in the place wheie the piopeity is situateu" in Sec. 946 of the
Califoinia Civil Coue iefeis to Aiticle 16 of the Civil Coue of the Philippines
anu that the law to the contiaiy in the Philippines is the piovision in saiu
Aiticle 16 that the 0/'3&0/) )/? of the ueceaseu shoulu govein. This
contention can not be sustaineu. As explaineu in the vaiious authoiities citeu
above the national law mentioneu in Aiticle 16 of oui Civil Coue is the law on
conflict of laws in the Califoinia Civil Coue, i.e., Aiticle 946, which authoiizes
the iefeience oi ietuin of the question to the law of the testatoi's uomicile.
The conflict of laws iule in Califoinia, Aiticle 946, Civil Coue, piecisely iefeis
back the case, when a ueceuent is not uomicileu in Califoinia, to the law of his
uomicile, the Philippines in the case at bai. The couit of the uomicile can not
anu shoulu not iefei the case back to Califoinia; such action woulu leave the
issue incapable of ueteimination because the case will then be like a football,
tosseu back anu foith between the two states, between the countiy of which
the ueceuent was a citizen anu the countiy of his uomicile. The Philippine
couit must apply its own law as uiiecteu in the conflict of laws iule of the
state of the ueceuent, if the question has to be ueciueu, especially as the
application of the inteinal law of Califoinia pioviues no legitime foi chiluien
while the Philippine law, Aits. 887(4) anu 894, Civil Coue of the Philippines,
makes natuial chiluien legally acknowleugeu foiceu heiis of the paient
iecognizing them.
The Philippine cases (In ie Estate of }ohnson, S9 Phil. 1S6; Rieia vs.
Palmaioli, 4u Phil. 1uS; Niciano vs. Biimo, Su Phil. 867; Babcock Templeton
vs. Riuei Babcock, S2 Phil. 1Su; anu uibbs vs. uoveinment, S9 Phil. 29S.) citeu
by appellees to suppoit the uecision can not possibly apply in the case at bai,
foi two impoitant ieasons, i.e., the subject in each case uoes not appeai to be
a citizen of a state in the 0niteu States but with uomicile in the Philippines,
anu it uoes not appeai in each case that theie exists in the state of which the
subject is a citizen, a law similai to oi iuentical with Ait. 946 of the Califoinia
Civil Coue.
We theiefoie finu that as the uomicile of the ueceaseu Chiistensen, a citizen
of Califoinia, is the Philippines, the valiuity of the piovisions of his will
uepiiving his acknowleugeu natuial chilu, the appellant, shoulu be goveineu
by the Philippine Law, the uomicile, puisuant to Ait. 946 of the Civil Coue of
Califoinia, not by the inteinal law of Califoinia..
WBEREF0RE, the uecision appealeu fiom is heieby ieveiseu anu the case
ietuineu to the lowei couit with instiuctions that the paitition be maue as
the Philippine law on succession pioviues. }uugment ieveiseu, with costs
against appellees.