Search Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila E !"# G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 IN THE MTTER O! THE TESTTE ESTTE O! E"#R" E. CHRISTENSEN, "ECESE". "OL!O C. $NR, E%&'u(or an) LUC* CHRISTENSEN, H&+r o, (-& )&'&a.&), E$ecutor and %eir&appellees, 's( HELEN CHRISTENSEN GRCI, oppositor&appellant( M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees. Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant. L/R"OR, J.: This is an appeal fro) a decision of the #ourt of *irst +nstance of ,a'ao, %on( -icente ( #usi, Jr(, presidin., in Special Proceedin. o( /22 of said court, dated Septe)ber 10, 1101, appro'in. a)on. thin.s the final accounts of the e$ecutor, directin. the e$ecutor to rei)burse Maria 2ucy #hristensen the a)ount of P3,/00 paid by her to %elen #hristensen 4arcia as her le.acy, and declarin. Maria 2ucy #hristensen entitled to the residue of the property to be en5oyed durin. her lifeti)e, and in case of death without issue, one&half of said residue to be payable to Mrs( #arrie 2ouise #( !orton, etc(, in accordance with the pro'isions of the will of the testator Edward E( #hristensen( The will was e$ecuted in Manila on March 6, 1161 and contains the followin. pro'isions7 3( + declare ((( that + ha'e but 8E 91: child, na)ed M"R+" 2;#< #%R+STESE 9now Mrs( !ernard ,aney:, who was born in the Philippines about twenty&ei.ht years a.o, and who is now residin. at o( //6 Rod.er <oun. -illa.e, 2os "n.eles, #alifornia, ;(S("( 0( + further declare that + now ha'e no li'in. ascendants, and no descendants e$cept )y abo'e na)ed dau.hter, M"R+" 2;#< #%R+STESE ,"E<( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ =( + .i'e, de'ise and be>ueath unto M"R+" %E2E #%R+STESE, now )arried to Eduardo 4arcia, about ei.hteen years of a.e and who, notwithstandin. the fact that she was bapti?ed #hristensen, is not in any way related to )e, nor has she been at any ti)e adopted by )e, and who, fro) all infor)ation + ha'e now resides in E.pit, ,i.os, ,a'ao, Philippines, the su) of T%REE T%8;S", S+@ %;,RE, PES8S 9P3,/00(00:, Philippine #urrency the sa)e to be deposited in trust for the said Maria %elen #hristensen with the ,a'ao !ranch of the Philippine ational !anA, and paid to her at the rate of 8ne %undred Pesos 9P100(00:, Philippine #urrency per )onth until the principal thereof as well as any interest which )ay ha'e accrued thereon, is e$hausted(( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 12( + hereby .i'e, de'ise and be>ueath, unto )y well&belo'ed dau.hter, the said M"R+" 2;#< #%R+STESE ,"E< 9Mrs( !ernard ,aney:, now residin. as aforesaid at o( //6 Rod.er <oun. -illa.e, 2os "n.eles, #alifornia, ;(S("(, all the inco)e fro) the rest, re)ainder, and residue of )y property and estate, real, personal andBor )i$ed, of whatsoe'er Aind or character, and wheresoe'er situated, of which + )ay be possessed at )y death and which )ay ha'e co)e to )e fro) any source whatsoe'er, durin. her lifeti)e7 (((( +t is in accordance with the abo'e&>uoted pro'isions that the e$ecutor in his final account and pro5ect of partition ratified the pay)ent of only P3,/00 to %elen #hristensen 4arcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his dau.hter, Maria 2ucy #hristensen( 8pposition to the appro'al of the pro5ect of partition was filed by %elen #hristensen 4arcia, insofar as it depri'es her 9%elen: of her le.iti)e as an acAnowled.ed natural child, she ha'in. been declared by ;s in 4(R( os( 2&11083&80 an acAnowled.ed natural child of the deceased Edward E( #hristensen( The le.al .rounds of opposition are 9a: that the distribution should be .o'erned by the laws of the Philippines, and 9b: that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to %elen #hristensen, one of two acAnowled.ed natural children, one&half of the estate in full ownership( +n a)plification of the abo'e .rounds it was alle.ed that the law that should .o'ern the estate of the deceased #hristensen should not be the internal law of #alifornia alone, but the entire law thereof because se'eral forei.n ele)ents are in'ol'ed, that the foru) is the Philippines and e'en if the case were decided in #alifornia, Section 10/ of the #alifornia #i'il #ode, which re>uires that the do)icile of the decedent should apply, should be applicable( +t was also alle.ed that Maria %elen #hristensen ha'in. been declared an acAnowled.ed natural child of the decedent, she is dee)ed for all purposes le.iti)ate fro) the ti)e of her birth( The court below ruled that as Edward E( #hristensen was a citi?en of the ;nited States and of the State of #alifornia at the ti)e of his death, the successional ri.hts and intrinsic 'alidity of the pro'isions in his will are to be .o'erned by the law of #alifornia, in accordance with which a testator has the ri.ht to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the ri.ht of absolute do)inion o'er his property is sacred and in'iolable 9+n re Mc,anielCs Estate, == #al( "ppl( 2d 8==, 1=/ P( 2d 162, and +n re Dauf)an, 11= #al( 28/, 01 Pac( 112, cited in pa.e 1=1, Record on "ppeal:( 8ppositor Maria %elen #hristensen, throu.h counsel, filed 'arious )otions for reconsideration, but these were denied( %ence, this appeal( The )ost i)portant assi.n)ents of error are as follows7 + T%E 28EER #8;RT ERRE, + +48R+4 T%E ,E#+S+8 8* T%E %88R"!2E S;PREME #8;RT T%"T %E2E +S T%E "#D8E2E,4E, "T;R"2 #%+2, 8* E,E"R, E( #%R+STESE ",, #8SEF;ET2<, + ,EPR+-+4 %ER 8* %ER J;ST S%"RE + T%E +%ER+T"#E( ++ T%E 28EER #8;RT ERRE, + ET+RE2< +48R+4 ",B8R *"+2+4 T8 RE#84+GE T%E E@+STE#E 8* SE-ER"2 *"#T8RS, E2EMETS ", #+R#;MST"#ES #"22+4 *8R T%E "PP2+#"T+8 8* +TER"2 2"E( +++ T%E 28EER #8;RT ERRE, + *"+2+4 T8 RE#84+GE T%"T ;,ER +TER"T+8"2 2"E, P"RT+#;2"R2< ;,ER T%E RE-8+ ,8#TR+E, T%E +TR+S+# -"2+,+T< 8* T%E TEST"MET"R< ,+SP8S+T+8 8* T%E ,+STR+!;T+8 8* T%E EST"TE 8* T%E ,E#E"SE, E,E"R, E( #%R+STESE S%8;2, !E 48-ERE, !< T%E 2"ES 8* T%E P%+2+PP+ES( +- T%E 28EER #8;RT ERRE, + 8T ,E#2"R+4 T%"T T%E S#%E,;2E 8* ,+STR+!;T+8 S;!M+TTE, !< T%E E@E#;T8R +S #8TR"R< T8 T%E P%+2+PP+E 2"ES( - T%E 28EER #8;RT ERRE, + 8T ,E#2"R+4 T%"T ;,ER T%E P%+2+PP+E 2"ES %E2E #%R+STESE 4"R#+" +S ET+T2E, T8 8E&%"2* 91B2: 8* T%E EST"TE + *;22 8EERS%+P( There is no >uestion that Edward E( #hristensen was a citi?en of the ;nited States and of the State of #alifornia at the ti)e of his death( !ut there is also no >uestion that at the ti)e of his death he was do)iciled in the Philippines, as witness the followin. facts ad)itted by the e$ecutor hi)self in appelleeCs brief7 +n the proceedin.s for ad)ission of the will to probate, the facts of record show that the deceased Edward E( #hristensen was born on o'e)ber 21, 18=6 in ew <orA #ity, (<(, ;(S("(H his first arri'al in the Philippines, as an appointed school teacher, was on July 1, 1101, on board the ;(S( "r)y Transport ISheridanI with Port of E)barAation as the #ity of San *rancisco, in the State of #alifornia, ;(S("( %e stayed in the Philippines until 1100( +n ,ece)ber, 1100, Mr( #hristensen returned to the ;nited States and stayed there for the followin. nine years until 1113, durin. which ti)e he resided in, and was teachin. school in Sacra)ento, #alifornia( Mr( #hristensenCs ne$t arri'al in the Philippines was in July of the year 1113( %owe'er, in 1128, he a.ain departed the Philippines for the ;nited States and ca)e bacA here the followin. year, 1121( So)e nine years later, in 1138, he a.ain returned to his own country, and ca)e bacA to the Philippines the followin. year, 1131( Eherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the fore.oin. stipulation of facts be ad)itted and appro'ed by this %onorable #ourt, without pre5udice to the parties adducin. other e'idence to pro'e their case not co'ered by this stipulation of facts( 1wph1.!"t !ein. an ")erican citi?en, Mr( #hristensen was interned by the Japanese Military *orces in the Philippines durin. Eorld Ear ++( ;pon liberation, in "pril 1106, he left for the ;nited States but returned to the Philippines in ,ece)ber, 1106( "ppellees #ollecti'e E$hibits I/I, #*+ ,a'ao, Sp( Proc( /22, as E$hibits I""I, I!!I and I##& ,aneyIH E$hs( IMMI, IMM&lI, IMM&2&,aneyI and p( 0=3, t(s(n(, July 21, 1163(: +n "pril, 1161, Edward E( #hristensen returned once )ore to #alifornia shortly after the )aAin. of his last will and testa)ent 9now in >uestion herein: which he e$ecuted at his lawyersC offices in Manila on March 6, 1161( %e died at the St( 2uAeCs %ospital in the #ity of Manila on "pril 30, 1163( 9pp( 2&3: +n arri'in. at the conclusion that the do)icile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in ew <orA, )i.rated to #alifornia and resided there for nine years, and since he ca)e to the Philippines in 1113 he returned to #alifornia 'ery rarely and only for short 'isits 9perhaps to relati'es:, and considerin. that he appears ne'er to ha'e owned or ac>uired a ho)e or properties in that state, which would indicate that he would ulti)ately abandon the Philippines and )aAe ho)e in the State of #alifornia( Sec( 1/( Residence is a ter) used with )any shades of )eanin. fro) )ere te)porary presence to the )ost per)anent abode( 4enerally, howe'er, it is used to denote so)ethin. )ore than )ere physical presence( 94oodrich on #onflict of 2aws, p( 21: "s to his citi?enship, howe'er, Ee find that the citi?enship that he ac>uired in #alifornia when he resided in Sacra)ento, #alifornia fro) 1100 to 1113, was ne'er lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the latter was a territory of the ;nited States 9not a state: until 110/ and the deceased appears to ha'e considered hi)self as a citi?en of #alifornia by the fact that when he e$ecuted his will in 1161 he declared that he was a citi?en of that StateH so that he appears ne'er to ha'e intended to abandon his #alifornia citi?enship by ac>uirin. another( This conclusion is in accordance with the followin. principle e$pounded by 4oodrich in his #onflict of 2aws( The ter)s ICresidenceI and Ido)icileI )i.ht well be taAen to )ean the sa)e thin., a place of per)anent abode( !ut do)icile, as has been shown, has ac>uired a technical )eanin.( Thus one )ay be do)iciled in a place where he has ne'er been( "nd he )ay reside in a place where he has no do)icile( The )an with two ho)es, between which he di'ides his ti)e, certainly resides in each one, while li'in. in it( !ut if he went on business which would re>uire his presence for se'eral weeAs or )onths, he )i.ht properly be said to ha'e sufficient connection with the place to be called a resident( +t is clear, howe'er, that, if he treated his settle)ent as continuin. only for the particular business in hand, not .i'in. up his for)er Iho)e,I he could not be a do)iciled ew <orAer( "c>uisition of a do)icile of choice re>uires the e$ercise of intention as well as physical presence( IResidence si)ply re>uires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a .i'en place, while do)icile re>uires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to )aAe it oneCs do)icile(I Residence, howe'er, is a ter) used with )any shades of )eanin., fro) the )erest te)porary presence to the )ost per)anent abode, and it is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one( 94oodrich, p( 21: The law that .o'erns the 'alidity of his testa)entary dispositions is defined in "rticle 1/ of the #i'il #ode of the Philippines, which is as follows7 "RT( 1/( Real property as well as personal property is sub5ect to the law of the country where it is situated( %owe'er, intestate and testa)entary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the a)ount of successional ri.hts and to the intrinsic 'alidity of testa)entary pro'isions, shall be re.ulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whate'er )ay be the nature of the property and re.ardless of the country where said property )ay be found( The application of this article in the case at bar re>uires the deter)ination of the )eanin. of the ter) #national law# is used therein( There is no sin.le ")erican law .o'ernin. the 'alidity of testa)entary pro'isions in the ;nited States, each state of the ;nion ha'in. its own pri'ate law applicable to its citi?ens only and in force only within the state( The Inational lawI indicated in "rticle 1/ of the #i'il #ode abo'e >uoted can not, therefore, possibly )ean or apply to any .eneral ")erican law( So it can refer to no other than the pri'ate law of the State of #alifornia( The ne$t >uestion is7 Ehat is the law in #alifornia .o'ernin. the disposition of personal propertyJ The decision of the court below, sustains the contention of the e$ecutor&appellee that under the #alifornia Probate #ode, a testator )ay dispose of his property by will in the for) and )anner he desires, citin. the case of Estate of Mc,aniel, == #al( "ppl( 2d 8==, 1=/ P( 2d 162( !ut appellant in'oAes the pro'isions of "rticle 10/ of the #i'il #ode of #alifornia, which is as follows7 +f there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is dee)ed to follow the person of its owner, and is .o'erned by the law of his do)icile( The e$istence of this pro'ision is alle.ed in appellantCs opposition and is not denied( Ee ha'e checAed it in the #alifornia #i'il #ode and it is there( "ppellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a witness( 98nly the case of Dauf)an is correctly cited(: +t is ar.ued on e$ecutorCs behalf that as the deceased #hristensen was a citi?en of the State of #alifornia, the internal law thereof, which is that .i'en in the abo'ecited case, should .o'ern the deter)ination of the 'alidity of the testa)entary pro'isions of #hristensenCs will, such law bein. in force in the State of #alifornia of which #hristensen was a citi?en( "ppellant, on the other hand, insists that "rticle 10/ should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and followin. the doctrine of therenvoi, the >uestion of the 'alidity of the testa)entary pro'ision in >uestion should be referred bacA to the law of the decedentCs do)icile, which is the Philippines( The theory of doctrine of renvoi has been defined by 'arious authors, thus7 The proble) has been stated in this way7 IEhen the #onflict of 2aws rule of the foru) refers a 5ural )atter to a forei.n law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the forei.n syste)H i(e(, to the totality of the forei.n law )inus its #onflict of 2aws rulesJI 8n lo.ic, the solution is not an easy one( The Michi.an court chose to accept the ren'oi, that is, applied the #onflict of 2aws rule of +llinois which referred the )atter bacA to Michi.an law( !ut once ha'in. deter)ined the the #onflict of 2aws principle is the rule looAed to, it is difficult to see why the reference bacA should not ha'e been to Michi.an #onflict of 2aws( This would ha'e resulted in the Iendless chain of referencesI which has so often been critici?ed be le.al writers( The opponents of the ren'oi would ha'e looAed )erely to the internal law of +llinois, thus re5ectin. the ren'oi or the reference bacA( <et there see)s no co)pellin. lo.ical reason why the ori.inal reference should be the internal law rather than to the #onflict of 2aws rule( +t is true that such a solution a'oids .oin. on a )erry&.o&round, but those who ha'e accepted the renvoi theory a'oid this inextricabilis circulas by .ettin. off at the second reference and at that point applyin. internal law( Perhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a bit )ore consistent for they looA always to internal law as the rule of reference( Stran.ely enou.h, both the ad'ocates for and the ob5ectors to the renvoi plead that .reater unifor)ity will result fro) adoption of their respecti'e 'iews( "nd still )ore stran.e is the fact that the only way to achie'e unifor)ity in this choice&of&law proble) is if in the dispute the two states whose laws for) the le.al basis of the liti.ation disa.ree as to whether the renvoi should be accepted( +f both re5ect, or both accept the doctrine, the result of the liti.ation will 'ary with the choice of the foru)( +n the case stated abo'e, had the Michi.an court re5ected the renvoi, 5ud.)ent would ha'e been a.ainst the wo)anH if the suit had been brou.ht in the +llinois courts, and they too re5ected the renvoi, 5ud.)ent would be for the wo)an( The sa)e result would happen, thou.h the courts would switch with respect to which would hold liability, if both courts accepted the renvoi( The Restate)ent accepts the renvoi theory in two instances7 where the title to land is in >uestion, and where the 'alidity of a decree of di'orce is challen.ed( +n these cases the #onflict of 2aws rule of the situs of the land, or the do)icile of the parties in the di'orce case, is applied by the foru), but any further reference .oes only to the internal law( Thus, a personCs title to land, reco.ni?ed by the situs, will be reco.ni?ed by e'ery courtH and e'ery di'orce, 'alid by the do)icile of the parties, will be 'alid e'erywhere( 94oodrich, #onflict of 2aws, Sec( =, pp( 13& 10(: @, a citi?en of Massachusetts, dies intestate, do)iciled in *rance, lea'in. )o'able property in Massachusetts, En.land, and *rance( The >uestion arises as to how this property is to be distributed a)on. @Cs ne$t of Ain( "ssu)e 91: that this >uestion arises in a Massachusetts court( There the rule of the conflict of laws as to intestate succession to )o'ables calls for an application of the law of the deceasedCs last do)icile( Since by hypothesis @Cs last do)icile was *rance, the natural thin. for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to *rench statute of distributions, or whate'er corresponds thereto in *rench law, and decree a distribution accordin.ly( "n e$a)ination of *rench law, howe'er, would show that if a *rench court were called upon to deter)ine how this property should be distributed, it would refer the distribution to the national law of the deceased, thus applyin. the Massachusetts statute of distributions( So on the surface of thin.s the Massachusetts court has open to it alternati'e course of action7 9a: either to apply the *rench law is to intestate succession, or 9b: to resol'e itself into a *rench court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distributions, on the assu)ption that this is what a *rench court would do( +f it accepts the so&called renvoidoctrine, it will follow the latter course, thus applyin. its own law( This is one type of renvoi( " 5ural )atter is presented which the conflict&of&laws rule of the foru) refers to a forei.n law, the conflict&of&laws rule of which, in turn, refers the )atter bacA a.ain to the law of the foru)( This is ren'oi in the narrower sense( The 4er)an ter) for this 5udicial process is CRucA'erweisun.(CI 9%ar'ard 2aw Re'iew, -ol( 31, pp( 623&6=1(: "fter a decision has been arri'ed at that a forei.n law is to be resorted to as .o'ernin. a particular case, the further >uestion )ay arise7 "re the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such forei.n law also to be resorted toJ This is a >uestion which, while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instances, has been the sub5ect of fre>uent discussion by te$twriters and essayistsH and the doctrine in'ol'ed has been descripti'ely desi.nated by the) as the IRen'oyerI to send bacA, or the IRuch'ersweisun.I, or the IEeiter'erweisun.I, since an affir)ati'e answer to the >uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption of the forei.n law in toto would in )any cases result in returnin. the )ain contro'ersy to be decided accordin. to the law of the foru)( ((( 91/ #(J(S( 8=2(: "nother theory, Anown as the Idoctrine of renvoiI, has been ad'anced( The theory of the doctrine of renvoiis that the court of the foru), in deter)inin. the >uestion before it, )ust taAe into account the whole law of the other 5urisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual >uestion which the rules of the other 5urisdiction prescribe( This )ay be the law of the foru)( The doctrine of therenvoi has .enerally been repudiated by the ")erican authorities( 92 ")( Jur( 21/: The scope of the theory of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its application in a country e$plained by Prof( 2oren?en in an article in the <ale 2aw Journal, -ol( 2=, 111=&1118, pp( 621&631( The pertinent parts of the article are >uoted herein below7 The reco.nition of the renvoi theory i)plies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood as incorporatin. not only the ordinary or internal law of the forei.n state or country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well( "ccordin. to this theory Cthe law of a countryC )eans the whole of its law( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -on !ar presented his 'iews at the )eetin. of the +nstitute of +nternational 2aw, at euchatel, in 1100, in the for) of the followin. theses7 91: E'ery court shall obser'e the law of its country as re.ards the application of forei.n laws( 92: Pro'ided that no e$press pro'ision to the contrary e$ists, the court shall respect7 9a: The pro'isions of a forei.n law which disclai)s the ri.ht to bind its nationals abroad as re.ards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall be deter)ined by the law of the do)icile, or e'en by the law of the place where the act in >uestion occurred( 9b: The decision of two or )ore forei.n syste)s of law, pro'ided it be certain that one of the) is necessarily co)petent, which a.ree in attributin. the deter)ination of a >uestion to the sa)e syste) of law( $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ +f, for e$a)ple, the En.lish law directs its 5ud.e to distribute the personal estate of an En.lish)an who has died do)iciled in !el.iu) in accordance with the law of his do)icile, he )ust first in>uire whether the law of !el.iu) would distribute personal property upon death in accordance with the law of do)icile, and if he finds that the !el.ian law would )aAe the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality K that is the En.lish law K he )ust accept this reference bacA to his own law( Ee note that "rticle 10/ of the #alifornia #i'il #ode is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in +n re Dauf)an, Supra, its internal law( +f the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of #alifornia are to be enforced 5ointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited +n re Dauf)an should apply to citi?ens li'in. in the State, but "rticle 10/ should apply to such of its citi?ens as are not do)iciled in #alifornia but in other 5urisdictions( The rule laid down of resortin. to the law of the do)icile in the deter)ination of )atters with forei.n ele)ent in'ol'ed is in accord with the .eneral principle of ")erican law that the do)iciliary law should .o'ern in )ost )atters or ri.hts which follow the person of the owner( Ehen a )an dies lea'in. personal property in one or )ore states, and lea'es a will directin. the )anner of distribution of the property, the law of the state where he was do)iciled at the ti)e of his death will be looAed to in decidin. le.al >uestions about the will, al)ost as co)pletely as the law of situs is consulted in >uestions about the de'ise of land( +t is lo.ical that, since the do)iciliary rules control de'olution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the sa)e rules should deter)ine the 'alidity of an atte)pted testa)entary dispostion of the property( %ere, also, it is not that the do)iciliary has effect beyond the borders of the do)iciliary state( The rules of the do)icile are reco.ni?ed as controllin. by the #onflict of 2aws rules at the situs property, and the reason for the reco.nition as in the case of intestate succession, is the .eneral con'enience of the doctrine( The ew <orA court has said on the point7 CThe .eneral principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, 'alid at the do)icile of the owner, is 'alid anywhere, is one of the uni'ersal application( +t had its ori.in in that international co)ity which was one of the first fruits of ci'ili?ation, and it this a.e, when business intercourse and the process of accu)ulatin. property taAe but little notice of boundary lines, the practical wisdo) and 5ustice of the rule is )ore apparent than e'er( 94oodrich, #onflict of 2aws, Sec( 1/0, pp( 002&003(: "ppellees ar.ue that what "rticle 1/ of the #i'il #ode of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal law of #alifornia( !ut as abo'e e$plained the laws of #alifornia ha'e prescribed two sets of laws for its citi?ens, one for residents therein and another for those do)iciled in other 5urisdictions( Reason de)ands that Ee should enforce the #alifornia internal law prescribed for its citi?ens residin. therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citi?ens do)iciled abroad( +f we )ust enforce the law of #alifornia as in co)ity we are bound to .o, as so declared in "rticle 1/ of our #i'il #ode, then we )ust enforce the law of #alifornia in accordance with the e$press )andate thereof and as abo'e e$plained, i(e(, apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict&of&laws rule for those do)iciled abroad( +t is ar.ued on appelleesC behalf that the clause Iif there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situatedI in Sec( 10/ of the #alifornia #i'il #ode refers to "rticle 1/ of the #i'il #ode of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the pro'ision in said "rticle 1/ that the national law of the deceased should .o'ern( This contention can not be sustained( "s e$plained in the 'arious authorities cited abo'e the national law )entioned in "rticle 1/ of our #i'il #ode is the law on conflict of laws in the #alifornia #i'il #ode, i(e(, "rticle 10/, which authori?es the reference or return of the >uestion to the law of the testatorCs do)icile( The conflict of laws rule in #alifornia, "rticle 10/, #i'il #ode, precisely refers bacA the case, when a decedent is not do)iciled in #alifornia, to the law of his do)icile, the Philippines in the case at bar( The court of the do)icile can not and should not refer the case bacA to #aliforniaH such action would lea'e the issue incapable of deter)ination because the case will then be liAe a football, tossed bacA and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citi?en and the country of his do)icile( The Philippine court )ust apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the >uestion has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of #alifornia pro'ides no le.iti)e for children while the Philippine law, "rts( 88=90: and 810, #i'il #ode of the Philippines, )aAes natural children le.ally acAnowled.ed forced heirs of the parent reco.ni?in. the)( The Philippine cases 9+n re Estate of Johnson, 31 Phil( 16/H Riera 's( Pal)aroli, 00 Phil( 106H Miciano 's( !ri)o, 60 Phil( 8/=H !abcocA Te)pleton 's( Rider !abcocA, 62 Phil( 130H and 4ibbs 's( 4o'ern)ent, 61 Phil( 213(: cited by appellees to support the decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar, for two i)portant reasons, i(e(, the sub5ect in each case does not appear to be a citi?en of a state in the ;nited States but with do)icile in the Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that there e$ists in the state of which the sub5ect is a citi?en, a law si)ilar to or identical with "rt( 10/ of the #alifornia #i'il #ode( Ee therefore find that as the do)icile of the deceased #hristensen, a citi?en of #alifornia, is the Philippines, the 'alidity of the pro'isions of his will depri'in. his acAnowled.ed natural child, the appellant, should be .o'erned by the Philippine 2aw, the do)icile, pursuant to "rt( 10/ of the #i'il #ode of #alifornia, not by the internal law of #alifornia(( E%ERE*8RE, the decision appealed fro) is hereby re'ersed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be )ade as the Philippine law on succession pro'ides( Jud.)ent re'ersed, with costs a.ainst appellees( $adilla% &autista Angelo% 'oncepcion% Re(es% &arrera% $aredes% )i*on% Regala and Ma+alintal% JJ.% concur. &eng*on% '.J.% too+ no part. The 2awphil Pro5ect & "rellano 2aw *oundation