Scribd
Upload
74 views1 page

Facts:: Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis, Et Al. V. Edward A. Bellis

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the estate of Amos G. Bellis, a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Bellis made two wills, one for his Texas properties and one for his Philippine properties, but did not provide anything for his illegitimate children. The illegitimate children argued they were entitled to their legitimes (compulsory shares) under Philippine law. The Supreme Court held that (1) the children were not entitled to legitimes under Texas law, which must apply, as there are no compulsory heirs; (2) the renvoi doctrine did not apply; and (3) the decedent's intention that Philippine law govern

Uploaded by

Paula Toroba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
74 views1 page

Facts:: Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis, Et Al. V. Edward A. Bellis

The document summarizes a Supreme Court case from the Philippines regarding the estate of Amos G. Bellis, a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Bellis made two wills, one for his Texas properties and one for his Philippine properties, but did not provide anything for his illegitimate children. The illegitimate children argued they were entitled to their legitimes (compulsory shares) under Philippine law. The Supreme Court held that (1) the children were not entitled to legitimes under Texas law, which must apply, as there are no compulsory heirs; (2) the renvoi doctrine did not apply; and (3) the decedent's intention that Philippine law govern

Uploaded by

Paula Toroba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, et al.

v. EDWARD A. BELLIS
L-23678, June 6, 1967

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and a resident of Texas at the time of his death. Before he
died, he made two wills, one disposing of his Texas properties, the other, disposing of his
Philippine properties. In both wills, his recognized illegitimate children were not given anything.
Texas has no conflict rule (rule of private International Law) governing successional rights.
Furthermore, under Texas Law, there are no compulsory heirs, and therefore, no legitimes. The
illegitimate children opposed the wills on the ground that they have been deprived of their
legitimes (to which they would be entitled, if Philippine law were to apply).

ISSUE:

Are they entitled to their legitimes?

HELD:

(1) Said children are NOT entitled to their legitimes, for under Texas Law which we must
apply, there are no legitimes (Art.16 par.2, Civil Code)
(2) The renvoi doctrine cannot be applied because said doctrine is usually pertinent
where the decedent is national of one country, and a domiciliary of Texas.
(3) The contention that the national law of the deceased (Art,16 par.2; Art. 1039) should
be disregarded because of Art.17, par 3 which in effect states that our prohibitive
laws should not be rendered nugatory by foreign laws, is wrong, firstly because Art.
16, par. 2 and Art 1039 are special provisions while Art 17, par 3 is merely a general
provision. It is therefore evident that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the same to
the succession of foreign nationals.
(4) It has been pointed out by the oppositor that the decdent executed two wills- one to
govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate – arguing from this
intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Assuming that such was the
decedent’s intention in executing a separate Philippine will, it will NOT ALTER the
law, for as the court rules in Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil.867, 870, a provision in a
foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with
the Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void for his national
law, in this regard, cannot be ignored.

You might also like