AZNAR vs GARCIA 7 SCRA 95

Facts:

                Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled in the Philippines. He executed in his will acknowledging his natural daughter Maria Lucy Christensen as sole heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared by the Supreme Court in its decision as acknowledged natural daughter of Edward C. Counsel of Helen asserts that her claim must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Phil. law. Counsel of Maria insists that Art. 16 (2) provides that the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON applies in intestate and testamentary successions and since Edward C. is a citizen of CA, its law should be applied. Lower court ruled that CA law should be applied thus this petition for review.

Issue:

What law should be applicable – Philippine or California Law?

Ruling:

The court refers to Art. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary successions with respect to order of succession and amt. of successional right is regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON.

California Probate Code provides that a testator may dispose of his property in the form and manner he desires.

Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that if no law on the contrary, the place where the personal property is situated is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the LAW OF HIS DOMICILE.

These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of Renvoi may be applied where the question of validity of the testamentary provision in question is referred back to the decedent’s domicile – the Philippines.

S.C. noted the California law provides 2 sets of laws for its citizens: One for residents therein as provided by the CA Probate Code and another for citizens domiciled in other countries as provided by Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California.

The conflicts of law rule in CA (Art. 946) authorize the return of question of law to the testator’s domicile. The court must apply its own rule in the Philippines as directed in the conflicts of law rule in CA, otherwise the case/issue will not be resolved if the issue is referred back and forth between 2 states.

The SC reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back to it for decision with an instruction that partition be made applying the Philippine law.