In re Estate of Christensen (Aznar v. Garcia) executed in Manila.
The will provided: o He declared that
029 he only had 1 child, Maria Lucy, now living in California,
GR No. L-16749, January 31, 1963, Labrador, J. and that he had no other living ascendants nor descendants
Digested by Chris N • Law 105 – Succession except his daughter
Topic: Testamentary successionl; law governing form and o He gave, devised and bequeathed unto Maria
content Helen, living in Davao, who he said was not in any
way related to him, nor was at any time adopted,
Christensen, California citizen but domiciled in Philippines, died P3600.
and left a will. Will provided that his acknowledged natural o He gave, devised and bequeathed unto Maria Lucy
daughter Maria Helen was to receive P3,600 only, and that her (daughter), all the rest of the property.
legitimate daughter was to receive the rest. Maria Helen contested • In an earlier ruling, however, Maria Helen was declared
this, saying that under Philippine law, she was entitled to ½ of the
by the Supreme Court as his acknowledged natural child.
entire estate as an acknowledged natural child. But Probate Court
• Aznar, the executor of the estate, ratified the payment of
applied California law where the decedent can dispose of his
only P3600, in accordance with the will of the decedent,
properties according to his will (no compulsory heirs), because the
Civil Code (Art. 16) provides that the applicable law is the and that the rest be transferred to the daughter Maria Lucy.
“national laws” of the decedent. • Maria Helen opposed this, saying that since she is an
acknowledged natural child, she was entitled to ½
SC held that, following the doctrine of renvoi, the “national laws” ownership of the entire estate under the laws of the
in Art. 16 of the Civil Code should not only include the succession Philippines.
laws of the foreign jurisdiction, but also its Conflict of Laws rule. • RELEVANT LAWS:
Since the Conflict of Laws rule in California says that the o PHILIPPINE CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE; Art.
governing law is the law of the place of the decedent’s domicile, in 16, Civil Code: succession shall be regulated by the
this case the Philippines, then the governing law should be “national law” of the decedent.
Philippine law. o CALIFORNIA CONFLICT OF LAWS RULE;
Art. 946, California Probate Code: succession shall
FACTS be governed by the law of the decedent’s domicile,
• Edward Christensen, a citizen of California but domiciled if he is not domiciled in California at the time of
in the Philippines, died in Manila. He left a will, which was death.
o California law: testator is free to dispose of his • This doctrine provides that the court must take into account
entire estate according to his will (aka no the whole law of the other jurisdiction (including the
compulsory heirs) Conflict of Laws provisions), and not only its internal laws
• Probate Court applied California law, in that the (just the succession provisions).
decedent is free to dispose of his entire estate according to • In this case, since Civil Code provides that the applicable
his will. Therefore, Maria Helen did not have any claim law is the national law of the decedent (California law), the
beyond what she was given in the will. court must look at the entire laws of California, which
includes its Conflict of Laws rule.
ISSUES & HOLDING • Since the California Conflict of Laws rule refers back to
• Which law should apply? – Philippine law. the law of the decedent’s domicile, in this case the
Philippines, then Philippine law should apply.
RATIO
Philippine law should apply,
following the doctrine of renvoi.
DISPOSITIVE
Case is remanded. Philippine law applies.
Note:
There is a discussion on the decedent’s domicile. Basically, the court ruled that because the decedent kept coming back to the Philippines,
and because he never had any property in California, he established his domicile in the Philippines.
