Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
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.&), Executor and Heir-
appellees,
vs.
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.:
his is an appeal fro! a decision of the Court of "irst #nstance of $avao, Hon. %icente N. Cusi, &r., presidin', in
(pecial Proceedin' No. )** of said court, dated (epte!ber +,, +-,-, approvin' a!on' thin's the .nal accounts
of the executor, directin' the executor to rei!burse Maria /uc0 Christensen the a!ount of P1,)22 paid b0 her to
Helen Christensen 3arcia as her le'ac0, and declarin' Maria /uc0 Christensen entitled to the residue of the
propert0 to be en4o0ed durin' her lifeti!e, and in case of death 5ithout issue, one-half of said residue to be
pa0able to Mrs. Carrie /ouise C. Borton, etc., in accordance 5ith the provisions of the 5ill of the testator
Ed5ard E. Christensen. he 5ill 5as executed in Manila on March 6, +-6+ and contains the follo5in' provisions7
1. # declare ... that # have but 8NE 9+: child, na!ed MAR#A /;C< CHR#(EN(EN 9no5 Mrs.
Bernard $ane0:, 5ho 5as born in the Philippines about t5ent0-ei'ht 0ears a'o, and 5ho is no5
residin' at No. ))6 Rod'er <oun' %illa'e, /os An'eles, California, ;.(.A.
,. # further declare that # no5 have no livin' ascendants, and no descendants except !0 above
na!ed dau'hter, MAR#A /;C< CHR#(EN(EN $ANE<.
x x x x x x x x x
=. # 'ive, devise and be>ueath unto MAR#A HE/EN CHR#(EN(EN, no5 !arried to Eduardo
3arcia, about ei'hteen 0ears of a'e and 5ho, not5ithstandin' the fact that she 5as bapti?ed
Christensen, is not in an0 5a0 related to !e, nor has she been at an0 ti!e adopted b0 !e, and
5ho, fro! all infor!ation # have no5 resides in E'pit, $i'os, $avao, Philippines, the su! of
HREE H8;(AN$ (#@ H;N$RE$ PE(8( 9P1,)22.22:, Philippine Currenc0 the sa!e to be
deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen Christensen 5ith the $avao Branch of the Philippine
National BanA, and paid to her at the rate of 8ne Hundred Pesos 9P+22.22:, Philippine Currenc0
per !onth until the principal thereof as 5ell as an0 interest 5hich !a0 have accrued thereon, is
exhausted..
x x x x x x x x x
+*. # hereb0 'ive, devise and be>ueath, unto !0 5ell-beloved dau'hter, the said MAR#A /;C<
CHR#(EN(EN $ANE< 9Mrs. Bernard $ane0:, no5 residin' as aforesaid at No. ))6 Rod'er
<oun' %illa'e, /os An'eles, California, ;.(.A., all the inco!e fro! the rest, re!ainder, and
residue of !0 propert0 and estate, real, personal andBor !ixed, of 5hatsoever Aind or character,
and 5heresoever situated, of 5hich # !a0 be possessed at !0 death and 5hich !a0 have co!e to
!e fro! an0 source 5hatsoever, durin' her lifeti!e7 ....
#t is in accordance 5ith the above->uoted provisions that the executor in his .nal account and pro4ect of
partition rati.ed the pa0!ent of onl0 P1,)22 to Helen Christensen 3arcia and proposed that the residue of the
estate be transferred to his dau'hter, Maria /uc0 Christensen.
Page 1 of 7
8pposition to the approval of the pro4ect of partition 5as .led b0 Helen Christensen 3arcia, insofar as it
deprives her 9Helen: of her le'iti!e as an acAno5led'ed natural child, she havin' been declared b0 ;s in 3.R.
Nos. /-++,C1-C, an acAno5led'ed natural child of the deceased Ed5ard E. Christensen. he le'al 'rounds of
opposition are 9a: that the distribution should be 'overned b0 the la5s of the Philippines, and 9b: that said order
of distribution is contrar0 thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of t5o acAno5led'ed natural
children, one-half of the estate in full o5nership. #n a!pli.cation of the above 'rounds it 5as alle'ed that the
la5 that should 'overn the estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the internal la5 of California alone,
but the entire la5 thereof because several forei'n ele!ents are involved, that the foru! is the Philippines and
even if the case 5ere decided in California, (ection -,) of the California Civil Code, 5hich re>uires that the
do!icile of the decedent should appl0, should be applicable. #t 5as also alle'ed that Maria Helen Christensen
havin' been declared an acAno5led'ed natural child of the decedent, she is dee!ed for all purposes le'iti!ate
fro! the ti!e of her birth.
he court belo5 ruled that as Ed5ard E. Christensen 5as a citi?en of the ;nited (tates and of the (tate of
California at the ti!e of his death, the successional ri'hts and intrinsic validit0 of the provisions in his 5ill are to
be 'overned b0 the la5 of California, in accordance 5ith 5hich a testator has the ri'ht to dispose of his propert0
in the 5a0 he desires, because the ri'ht of absolute do!inion over his propert0 is sacred and inviolable 9#n re
Mc$anielDs Estate, == Cal. Appl. *d C==, +=) P. *d -6*, and #n re Eauf!an, ++= Cal. *C), ,- Pac. +-*, cited in
pa'e +=-, Record on Appeal:. 8ppositor Maria Helen Christensen, throu'h counsel, .led various !otions for
reconsideration, but these 5ere denied. Hence, this appeal.
he !ost i!portant assi'n!ents of error are as follo5s7
#
HE /8FER C8;R ERRE$ #N #3N8R#N3 HE $EC#(#8N 8" HE H8N8RAB/E (;PREME C8;R HA
HE/EN #( HE ACEN8F/E$3E$ NA;RA/ CH#/$ 8" E$FAR$ E. CHR#(EN(EN AN$, C8N(EG;EN/<,
#N $EPR#%#N3 HER 8" HER &;( (HARE #N HE #NHER#ANCE.
##
HE /8FER C8;R ERRE$ #N EN#RE/< #3N8R#N3 AN$B8R "A#/#N3 8 REC83N#HE HE E@#(ENCE 8"
(E%ERA/ "AC8R(, E/EMEN( AN$ C#RC;M(ANCE( CA//#N3 "8R HE APP/#CA#8N 8" #NERNA/
/AF.
###
HE /8FER C8;R ERRE$ #N "A#/#N3 8 REC83N#HE HA ;N$ER #NERNA#8NA/ /AF,
PAR#C;/AR/< ;N$ER HE REN%8# $8CR#NE, HE #NR#N(#C %A/#$#< 8" HE E(AMENAR<
$#(P8(##8N 8" HE $#(R#B;#8N 8" HE E(AE 8" HE $ECEA(E$ E$FAR$ E. CHR#(EN(EN
(H8;/$ BE 38%ERNE$ B< HE /AF( 8" HE PH#/#PP#NE(.
#%
HE /8FER C8;R ERRE$ #N N8 $EC/AR#N3 HA HE (CHE$;/E 8" $#(R#B;#8N (;BM#E$ B<
HE E@EC;8R #( C8NRAR< 8 HE PH#/#PP#NE /AF(.
%
HE /8FER C8;R ERRE$ #N N8 $EC/AR#N3 HA ;N$ER HE PH#/#PP#NE /AF( HE/EN
CHR#(EN(EN 3ARC#A #( EN#/E$ 8 8NE-HA/" 9+B*: 8" HE E(AE #N ";// 8FNER(H#P.
here is no >uestion that Ed5ard E. Christensen 5as a citi?en of the ;nited (tates and of the (tate of California
at the ti!e of his death. But there is also no >uestion that at the ti!e of his death he 5as do!iciled in the
Philippines, as 5itness the follo5in' facts ad!itted b0 the executor hi!self in appelleeDs brief7
#n the proceedin's for ad!ission of the 5ill to probate, the facts of record sho5 that the
deceased Ed5ard E. Christensen 5as born on Nove!ber *-, +C=6 in Ne5 <orA Cit0, N.<., ;.(.A.I
his .rst arrival in the Philippines, as an appointed school teacher, 5as on &ul0 +, +-2+, on board
Page 2 of 7
the ;.(. Ar!0 ransport J(heridanJ 5ith Port of E!barAation as the Cit0 of (an "rancisco, in the
(tate of California, ;.(.A. He sta0ed in the Philippines until +-2,.
#n $ece!ber, +-2,, Mr. Christensen returned to the ;nited (tates and sta0ed there for the
follo5in' nine 0ears until +-+1, durin' 5hich ti!e he resided in, and 5as teachin' school in
(acra!ento, California.
Mr. ChristensenDs next arrival in the Philippines 5as in &ul0 of the 0ear +-+1. Ho5ever, in +-*C,
he a'ain departed the Philippines for the ;nited (tates and ca!e bacA here the follo5in' 0ear,
+-*-. (o!e nine 0ears later, in +-1C, he a'ain returned to his o5n countr0, and ca!e bacA to the
Philippines the follo5in' 0ear, +-1-.
Fherefore, the parties respectfull0 pra0 that the fore'oin' stipulation of facts be ad!itted and
approved b0 this Honorable Court, 5ithout pre4udice to the parties adducin' other evidence to
prove their case not covered b0 this stipulation of facts. 1wph1.!"t
Bein' an A!erican citi?en, Mr. Christensen 5as interned b0 the &apanese Militar0 "orces in the
Philippines durin' Forld Far ##. ;pon liberation, in April +-,6, he left for the ;nited (tates but
returned to the Philippines in $ece!ber, +-,6. Appellees Collective Exhibits J)J, C"# $avao, (p.
Proc. )**, as Exhibits JAAJ, JBBJ and JCC-$ane0JI Exhs. JMMJ, JMM-lJ, JMM-*-$ane0J and p.
,=1, t.s.n., &ul0 *+, +-61.:
#n April, +-6+, Ed5ard E. Christensen returned once !ore to California shortl0 after the !aAin'
of his last 5ill and testa!ent 9no5 in >uestion herein: 5hich he executed at his la50ersD oKices
in Manila on March 6, +-6+. He died at the (t. /uAeDs Hospital in the Cit0 of Manila on April 12,
+-61. 9pp. *-1:
#n arrivin' at the conclusion that the do!icile of the deceased is the Philippines, 5e are persuaded b0 the fact
that he 5as born in Ne5 <orA, !i'rated to California and resided there for nine 0ears, and since he ca!e to the
Philippines in +-+1 he returned to California ver0 rarel0 and onl0 for short visits 9perhaps to relatives:, and
considerin' that he appears never to have o5ned or ac>uired a ho!e or properties in that state, 5hich 5ould
indicate that he 5ould ulti!atel0 abandon the Philippines and !aAe ho!e in the (tate of California.
(ec. +). Residence is a ter! used 5ith !an0 shades of !eanin' fro! !ere te!porar0 presence
to the !ost per!anent abode. 3enerall0, ho5ever, it is used to denote so!ethin' !ore than
!ere ph0sical presence. 93oodrich on ConLict of /a5s, p. *-:
As to his citi?enship, ho5ever, Fe .nd that the citi?enship that he ac>uired in California 5hen he resided in
(acra!ento, California fro! +-2, to +-+1, 5as never lost b0 his sta0 in the Philippines, for the latter 5as a
territor0 of the ;nited (tates 9not a state: until +-,) and the deceased appears to have considered hi!self as a
citi?en of California b0 the fact that 5hen he executed his 5ill in +-6+ he declared that he 5as a citi?en of that
(tateI so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his California citi?enship b0 ac>uirin' another. his
conclusion is in accordance 5ith the follo5in' principle expounded b0 3oodrich in his ConLict of /a5s.
he ter!s JDresidenceJ and Jdo!icileJ !i'ht 5ell be taAen to !ean the sa!e thin', a place of
per!anent abode. But do!icile, as has been sho5n, has ac>uired a technical !eanin'. hus one
!a0 be do!iciled in a place 5here he has never been. And he !a0 reside in a place 5here he
has no do!icile. he !an 5ith t5o ho!es, bet5een 5hich he divides his ti!e, certainl0 resides
in each one, 5hile livin' in it. But if he 5ent on business 5hich 5ould re>uire his presence for
several 5eeAs or !onths, he !i'ht properl0 be said to have suKicient connection 5ith the place
to be called a resident. #t is clear, ho5ever, that, if he treated his settle!ent as continuin' onl0
for the particular business in hand, not 'ivin' up his for!er Jho!e,J he could not be a do!iciled
Ne5 <orAer. Ac>uisition of a do!icile of choice re>uires the exercise of intention as 5ell as
ph0sical presence. JResidence si!pl0 re>uires bodil0 presence of an inhabitant in a 'iven place,
5hile do!icile re>uires bodil0 presence in that place and also an intention to !aAe it oneDs
do!icile.J Residence, ho5ever, is a ter! used 5ith !an0 shades of !eanin', fro! the !erest
te!porar0 presence to the !ost per!anent abode, and it is not safe to insist that an0 one use et
the onl0 proper one. 93oodrich, p. *-:
he la5 that 'overns the validit0 of his testa!entar0 dispositions is de.ned in Article +) of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, 5hich is as follo5s7
Page 3 of 7
AR. +). Real propert0 as 5ell as personal propert0 is sub4ect to the la5 of the countr0 5here it
is situated.
Ho5ever, intestate and testa!entar0 successions, both 5ith respect to the order of succession
and to the a!ount of successional ri'hts and to the intrinsic validit0 of testa!entar0 provisions,
shall be re'ulated b0 the national la5 of the person 5hose succession is under consideration,
5hatever !a0 be the nature of the propert0 and re'ardless of the countr0 5here said propert0
!a0 be found.
he 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.
here is no sin'le A!erican la5 'overnin' the validit0 of testa!entar0 provisions in the ;nited (tates, each
state of the ;nion havin' its o5n private la5 applicable to its citi?ens onl0 and in force onl0 5ithin the state. he
Jnational la5J indicated in Article +) of the Civil Code above >uoted can not, therefore, possibl0 !ean or appl0
to an0 'eneral A!erican la5. (o it can refer to no other than the private la5 of the (tate of California.
he next >uestion is7 Fhat is the la5 in California 'overnin' the disposition of personal propert0M he decision
of the court belo5, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a
testator !a0 dispose of his propert0 b0 5ill in the for! and !anner he desires, citin' the case of Estate of
Mc$aniel, == Cal. Appl. *d C==, +=) P. *d -6*. But appellant invoAes the provisions of Article -,) of the Civil
Code of California, 5hich is as follo5s7
#f there is no la5 to the contrar0, in the place 5here personal propert0 is situated, it is dee!ed to
follo5 the person of its o5ner, and is 'overned b0 the la5 of his do!icile.
he existence of this provision is alle'ed in appellantDs opposition and is not denied. Fe have checAed it in the
California Civil Code and it is there. Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and
testi.ed to b0 a 5itness. 98nl0 the case of Eauf!an is correctl0 cited.: #t is ar'ued on executorDs behalf that as
the deceased Christensen 5as a citi?en of the (tate of California, the internal la5 thereof, 5hich is that 'iven in
the abovecited case, should 'overn the deter!ination of the validit0 of the testa!entar0 provisions of
ChristensenDs 5ill, such la5 bein' in force in the (tate of California of 5hich Christensen 5as a citi?en.
Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article -,) should be applicable, and in accordance there5ith and
follo5in' the doctrine of the renvoi, the >uestion of the validit0 of the testa!entar0 provision in >uestion should
be referred bacA to the la5 of the decedentDs do!icile, 5hich is the Philippines.
he theor0 of doctrine of renvoi has been de.ned b0 various authors, thus7
he proble! has been stated in this 5a07 JFhen the ConLict of /a5s rule of the foru! refers a
4ural !atter to a forei'n la5 for decision, is the reference to the purel0 internal rules of la5 of
the forei'n s0ste!I i.e., to the totalit0 of the forei'n la5 !inus its ConLict of /a5s rulesMJ
8n lo'ic, the solution is not an eas0 one. he Michi'an court chose to accept the renvoi, that is,
applied the ConLict of /a5s rule of #llinois 5hich referred the !atter bacA to Michi'an la5. But
once havin' deter!ined the the ConLict of /a5s principle is the rule looAed to, it is diKicult to
see 5h0 the reference bacA should not have been to Michi'an ConLict of /a5s. his 5ould have
resulted in the Jendless chain of referencesJ 5hich has so often been critici?ed be le'al 5riters.
he opponents of the renvoi 5ould have looAed !erel0 to the internal la5 of #llinois, thus
re4ectin' the renvoi or the reference bacA. <et there see!s no co!pellin' lo'ical reason 5h0 the
ori'inal reference should be the internal la5 rather than to the ConLict of /a5s rule. #t is true
that such a solution avoids 'oin' on a !err0-'o-round, but those 5ho have accepted the renvoi
theor0 avoid this inextricabilis circulas b0 'ettin' oK at the second reference and at that point
appl0in' internal la5. Perhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a bit !ore consistent for the0 looA
al5a0s to internal la5 as the rule of reference.
(tran'el0 enou'h, both the advocates for and the ob4ectors to the renvoi plead that 'reater
unifor!it0 5ill result fro! adoption of their respective vie5s. And still !ore stran'e is the fact
that the onl0 5a0 to achieve unifor!it0 in this choice-of-la5 proble! is if in the dispute the t5o
states 5hose la5s for! the le'al basis of the liti'ation disa'ree as to 5hether the renvoi should
be accepted. #f both re4ect, or both accept the doctrine, the result of the liti'ation 5ill var0 5ith
the choice of the foru!. #n the case stated above, had the Michi'an court re4ected the renvoi,
Page 4 of 7
4ud'!ent 5ould have been a'ainst the 5o!anI if the suit had been brou'ht in the #llinois courts,
and the0 too re4ected the renvoi, 4ud'!ent 5ould be for the 5o!an. he sa!e result 5ould
happen, thou'h the courts 5ould s5itch 5ith respect to 5hich 5ould hold liabilit0, if both courts
accepted the renvoi.
he Restate!ent accepts the renvoi theor0 in t5o instances7 5here the title to land is in
>uestion, and 5here the validit0 of a decree of divorce is challen'ed. #n these cases the ConLict
of /a5s rule of the situs of the land, or the do!icile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied
b0 the foru!, but an0 further reference 'oes onl0 to the internal la5. hus, a personDs title to
land, reco'ni?ed b0 the situs, 5ill be reco'ni?ed b0 ever0 courtI and ever0 divorce, valid b0 the
do!icile of the parties, 5ill be valid ever05here. 93oodrich, ConLict of /a5s, (ec. =, pp. +1-+,.:
@, a citi?en of Massachusetts, dies intestate, do!iciled in "rance, leavin' !ovable propert0 in
Massachusetts, En'land, and "rance. he >uestion arises as to ho5 this propert0 is to be
distributed a!on' @Ds next of Ain.
Assu!e 9+: that this >uestion arises in a Massachusetts court. here the rule of the conLict of
la5s as to intestate succession to !ovables calls for an application of the la5 of the deceasedDs
last do!icile. (ince b0 h0pothesis @Ds last do!icile 5as "rance, the natural thin' for the
Massachusetts court to do 5ould be to turn to "rench statute of distributions, or 5hatever
corresponds thereto in "rench la5, and decree a distribution accordin'l0. An exa!ination of
"rench la5, ho5ever, 5ould sho5 that if a "rench court 5ere called upon to deter!ine ho5 this
propert0 should be distributed, it 5ould refer the distribution to the national la5 of the
deceased, thus appl0in' the Massachusetts statute of distributions. (o on the surface of thin's
the Massachusetts court has open to it alternative course of action7 9a: either to appl0 the
"rench la5 is to intestate succession, or 9b: to resolve itself into a "rench court and appl0 the
Massachusetts statute of distributions, on the assu!ption that this is 5hat a "rench court 5ould
do. #f it accepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it 5ill follo5 the latter course, thus appl0in' its
o5n la5.
his is one t0pe of renvoi. A 4ural !atter is presented 5hich the conLict-of-la5s rule of the foru!
refers to a forei'n la5, the conLict-of-la5s rule of 5hich, in turn, refers the !atter bacA a'ain to
the la5 of the foru!. his is renvoi in the narro5er sense. he 3er!an ter! for this 4udicial
process is DRucAver5eisun'.DJ 9Harvard /a5 Revie5, %ol. 1+, pp. 6*1-6=+.:
After a decision has been arrived at that a forei'n la5 is to be resorted to as 'overnin' a
particular case, the further >uestion !a0 arise7 Are the rules as to the conLict of la5s contained
in such forei'n la5 also to be resorted toM his is a >uestion 5hich, 5hile it has been considered
b0 the courts in but a fe5 instances, has been the sub4ect of fre>uent discussion b0 text5riters
and essa0istsI and the doctrine involved has been descriptivel0 desi'nated b0 the! as the
JRenvo0erJ to send bacA, or the JRuchvers5eisun'J, or the JFeiterver5eisun'J, since an
aKir!ative ans5er to the >uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption of the forei'n
la5 in toto 5ould in !an0 cases result in returnin' the !ain controvers0 to be decided accordin'
to the la5 of the foru!. ... 9+) C.&.(. C=*.:
Another theor0, Ano5n as the Jdoctrine of renvoiJ, has been advanced. he theor0 of the doctrine
of renvoi is that the court of the foru!, in deter!inin' the >uestion before it, !ust taAe into
account the 5hole la5 of the other 4urisdiction, but also its rules as to conLict of la5s, and then
appl0 the la5 to the actual >uestion 5hich the rules of the other 4urisdiction prescribe. his !a0
be the la5 of the foru!. he doctrine of the renvoi has 'enerall0 been repudiated b0 the
A!erican authorities. 9* A!. &ur. *-):
he scope of the theor0 of renvoi has also been de.ned and the reasons for its application in a countr0 explained
b0 Prof. /oren?en in an article in the <ale /a5 &ournal, %ol. *=, +-+=-+-+C, pp. 6*--61+. he pertinent parts of
the article are >uoted herein belo57
he reco'nition of the renvoi theor0 i!plies that the rules of the conLict of la5s are to be
understood as incorporatin' not onl0 the ordinar0 or internal la5 of the forei'n state or countr0,
but its rules of the conLict of la5s as 5ell. Accordin' to this theor0 Dthe la5 of a countr0D !eans
the 5hole of its la5.
Page 5 of 7
x x x x x x x x x
%on Bar presented his vie5s at the !eetin' of the #nstitute of #nternational /a5, at Neuchatel, in
+-22, in the for! of the follo5in' theses7
9+: Ever0 court shall observe the la5 of its countr0 as re'ards the application of forei'n la5s.
9*: Provided that no express provision to the contrar0 exists, the court shall respect7
9a: he provisions of a forei'n la5 5hich 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 b0 the la5 of the do!icile, or even b0 the la5 of the place 5here the act in
>uestion occurred.
9b: he decision of t5o or !ore forei'n s0ste!s of la5, provided it be certain that one of
the! is necessaril0 co!petent, 5hich a'ree in attributin' the deter!ination of a
>uestion to the sa!e s0ste! of la5.
x x x x x x x x x
#f, for exa!ple, the En'lish la5 directs its 4ud'e to distribute the personal estate of an
En'lish!an 5ho has died do!iciled in Bel'iu! in accordance 5ith the la5 of his do!icile, he
!ust .rst in>uire 5hether the la5 of Bel'iu! 5ould distribute personal propert0 upon death in
accordance 5ith the la5 of do!icile, and if he .nds that the Bel'ian la5 5ould !aAe the
distribution in accordance 5ith the la5 of nationalit0 N that is the En'lish la5 N he !ust accept
this reference bacA to his o5n la5.
Fe note that Article -,) of the California Civil Code is its conLict of la5s rule, 5hile the rule applied in #n re
Eauf!an, Supra, its internal la5. #f the la5 on succession and the conLict of la5s rules of California are to be
enforced 4ointl0, each in its o5n intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited #n re Eauf!an should appl0
to citi?ens livin' in the (tate, but Article -,) should appl0 to such of its citi?ens as are not do!iciled in
California but in other 4urisdictions. he rule laid do5n of resortin' to the la5 of the do!icile in the
deter!ination of !atters 5ith forei'n ele!ent involved is in accord 5ith the 'eneral principle of A!erican la5
that the do!iciliar0 la5 should 'overn in !ost !atters or ri'hts 5hich follo5 the person of the o5ner.
Fhen a !an dies leavin' personal propert0 in one or !ore states, and leaves a 5ill directin' the
!anner of distribution of the propert0, the la5 of the state 5here he 5as do!iciled at the ti!e of
his death 5ill be looAed to in decidin' le'al >uestions about the 5ill, al!ost as co!pletel0 as the
la5 of situs is consulted in >uestions about the devise of land. #t is lo'ical that, since the
do!iciliar0 rules control devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the
sa!e rules should deter!ine the validit0 of an atte!pted testa!entar0 dispostion of the
propert0. Here, also, it is not that the do!iciliar0 has eKect be0ond the borders of the do!iciliar0
state. he rules of the do!icile are reco'ni?ed as controllin' b0 the ConLict of /a5s rules at the
situs propert0, and the reason for the reco'nition as in the case of intestate succession, is the
'eneral convenience of the doctrine. he Ne5 <orA court has said on the point7 Dhe 'eneral
principle that a dispostiton of a personal propert0, valid at the do!icile of the o5ner, is valid
an05here, is one of the universal application. #t had its ori'in in that international co!it0 5hich
5as one of the .rst fruits of civili?ation, and it this a'e, 5hen business intercourse and the
process of accu!ulatin' propert0 taAe but little notice of boundar0 lines, the practical 5isdo!
and 4ustice of the rule is !ore apparent than ever. 93oodrich, ConLict of /a5s, (ec. +),, pp. ,,*-
,,1.:
Appellees ar'ue that 5hat Article +) of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the
internal la5 of California. But as above explained the la5s of California have prescribed t5o sets of la5s for its
citi?ens, one for residents therein and another for those do!iciled in other 4urisdictions. Reason de!ands that
Fe should enforce the California internal la5 prescribed for its citi?ens residin' therein, and enforce the conLict
of la5s rules for the citi?ens do!iciled abroad. #f 5e !ust enforce the la5 of California as in co!it0 5e are
bound to 'o, as so declared in Article +) of our Civil Code, then 5e !ust enforce the la5 of California in
accordance 5ith the express !andate thereof and as above explained, i.e., appl0 the internal la5 for residents
therein, and its conLict-of-la5s rule for those do!iciled abroad.
Page 6 of 7
#t is ar'ued on appelleesD behalf that the clause Jif there is no la5 to the contrar0 in the place 5here the
propert0 is situatedJ in (ec. -,) of the California Civil Code refers to Article +) of the Civil Code of the
Philippines and that the la5 to the contrar0 in the Philippines is the provision in said Article +) that the national
law of the deceased should 'overn. his contention can not be sustained. As explained in the various authorities
cited above the national la5 !entioned in Article +) of our Civil Code is the la5 on conLict of la5s in the
California Civil Code, i.e., Article -,), 5hich authori?es the reference or return of the >uestion to the la5 of the
testatorDs do!icile. he conLict of la5s rule in California, Article -,), Civil Code, precisel0 refers bacA the case,
5hen a decedent is not do!iciled in California, to the la5 of his do!icile, the Philippines in the case at bar. he
court of the do!icile can not and should not refer the case bacA to CaliforniaI such action 5ould leave the issue
incapable of deter!ination because the case 5ill then be liAe a football, tossed bacA and forth bet5een the t5o
states, bet5een the countr0 of 5hich the decedent 5as a citi?en and the countr0 of his do!icile. he Philippine
court !ust appl0 its o5n la5 as directed in the conLict of la5s rule of the state of the decedent, if the >uestion
has to be decided, especiall0 as the application of the internal la5 of California provides no le'iti!e for children
5hile the Philippine la5, Arts. CC=9,: and C-,, Civil Code of the Philippines, !aAes natural children le'all0
acAno5led'ed forced heirs of the parent reco'ni?in' the!.
he Philippine cases 9#n re Estate of &ohnson, 1- Phil. +6)I Riera vs. Pal!aroli, ,2 Phil. +26I Miciano vs. Bri!o,
62 Phil. C)=I BabcocA e!pleton vs. Rider BabcocA, 6* Phil. +12I and 3ibbs vs. 3overn!ent, 6- Phil. *-1.: cited
b0 appellees to support the decision can not possibl0 appl0 in the case at bar, for t5o i!portant reasons, i.e., the
sub4ect in each case does not appear to be a citi?en of a state in the ;nited (tates but 5ith do!icile in the
Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of 5hich the sub4ect is a citi?en, a
la5 si!ilar to or identical 5ith Art. -,) of the California Civil Code.
Fe therefore .nd that as the do!icile of the deceased Christensen, a citi?en of California, is the Philippines, the
validit0 of the provisions of his 5ill deprivin' his acAno5led'ed natural child, the appellant, should be 'overned
b0 the Philippine /a5, the do!icile, pursuant to Art. -,) of the Civil Code of California, not b0 the internal la5
of California..
FHERE"8RE, the decision appealed fro! is hereb0 reversed and the case returned to the lo5er court 5ith
instructions that the partition be !ade as the Philippine la5 on succession provides. &ud'!ent reversed, 5ith
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.
Page 7 of 7