PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Topic: CONFLICT OF LAW RULES
CASE
Bellis vs. Bellis G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967
FACTS
1. Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first wife, MaryE.
Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceasedhim in
infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him,
he had three legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate
children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis.
2. On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines.
3. Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admittedto
probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958.
4. On January 17, 1964, 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 legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory
heirs of the deceased.
5. The lower court, on April 30, 1964,issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor's final
account, report and administration andproject of partition. Relying upon Art. 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 legitimes.
6. Respective motions for reconsideration having been denied by the lower court on June 11, 1964, oppositors-
appellants appealed to Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Which law must apply — Texas law or Philippine law.
RULING
In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of
his death.[2] So that... even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the
domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to
Texas law. Nonetheless,... if Texas has a conflicts 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 proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different
from ours.
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. For it has specifically chosen to leave,... inter alia, the amount of
successional rights, to the decedent's national law. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.
a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be... distributed in accordance with Philippine law and
not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10
- now Article 16 - of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of
Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of thewill and the
amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on legitimescannot be applied to
the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
Wherefore, the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against appellants. So ordered.
