Aznar vs.

Garcia [7 SCRA 95]

Post under case digests, Civil Law at Saturday, February 25, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Edward Christensens (citizen of the State of California) will

was executed in Manila where it provides that Helen Christensen
Garcia receive a payment of P3,600 and proposed that the residue of
the estate be transferred to his daughter Maria Lucy Christensen.
Helen Christensen Garcia opposed the project of partition of
Edwards estate claiming that she was deprived of her legitime as
acknowledged natural child under the Philippine law.
Issue: Whether or not the California law or the Philippine law
should apply in the case at bar.
Held: Philippine law should be applied. The State of California
prescribes two sets of laws for its citizens residing therein and a
conflict of law rules for its citizens domiciled in other jurisdictions.
Art. 946 of the California Civil Code states that 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. Edward, a citizen of the State of California, is
considered to have his domicile in the Philippines. The court of
domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to the California,
as such action would leave the issue incapable of determination,
because the case would then be tossed back and forth between the
states(doctrine of renvoi). The validity of the provisions of Edwards
will depriving his acknowledged natural child of latters legacy,
should be governed by the Philippine law.
The decision appealed from is reversed and the case returned to the
lower court with instruction that the partition be made as the
Philippine law on succession provides.