BELLIS v BELLIS

Art .795
The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observance of the law in
force at the time it is made.
Doctrine
The formal validity of a will is governed by the law in force at the time of
execution. The substantive validity of the dispositions therein is governed by the
laws in force at the time of the death of the testator.
Facts
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas. He executed a will in the
Philippines in which he directed that his distributable estate should be divided in
trust in the following order and manner:
(a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen;
(b) Php120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria
Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, or Php40,000.00 each, and
(c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to
his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A.
Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis, and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis,
Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares.
Amos G. Bellis died. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First
Instance of Manila
Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its
Executors Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition
where it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the
shares of stock amounting to $240,000 delivered to her, and the legacies of the 3
illegitimate children in the amount of P40,000 each or a total of P120,000. In the
project partition, the executor divided the residuary estate into 7 equal portions
for the benefit of the testators 7 legitimate children by his 1st and 2nd marriages.
Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to
the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitime as
illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.

The lower court issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the

executor's project of partition. Relying upon Article 16 of the Civil Code, it applied
the national law of the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not
provide for legitime. Their respective motions for reconsideration having been
denied by the lower court, oppositors-appellants appealed to this Court to raise
the issue of which law must apply - Texas Law or Philippine law.
Issue
WON Philippine law applies
Ratio
No
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile
thereof at the time of his death. So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of
law rule providing that the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to
Philippine Law, but would still refer to Texas Law.
Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae)
calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are
situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the
Philippines. In the absence, however of proofs as to the conflict of law rule of
Texas, it should not be presumed different from our appellants, position is
therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, USA and that under the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights has to be determined under Texas Law, the
Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.
Ruling
Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs
against appellants. So ordered.