Aznar vs. GarciaNo. L-16749. January 31, 1963Ponente: Labrador, J

FACTS:On December 14, 1949, the court of first instance of Davao rendered a decision approving among other

things the final accounts of the executor, directing the executor to reimburse to Maria Lucy Christensen the amount of P3,600 and be given to Helen Christensen for her legacy. The court also declared that Maria Lucy Christensen is entitled to the residue of the property of Edward Christensen in accordance in the will made by the testator (Edward Christensen).

The will is executed in Manila on March 5, 1951.

In the will, the testator also declared that he has but one child named Maria Lucy Christensen and that he had no living ascendants and descendants except her daughter. He also stated the Helen Christensen is not related to him, nor he did not adopt the latter to be his daughter.

Opposition to the approval of the project partition was filed by Helen Christensen, insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as acknowledge natural child as she having been declared by US an acknowledge natural child of the testator in an earlier case.

As to his citizenship, the court ruled that Edward is a citizen of United States and of State of California though when he went to Philippines he rarely goes back to California. The court found out that the citizenship he acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento from 1904 to 1913 was never lost by his stay in the Philippines and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when he execute his will he declared that he is a citizen of California.

But at the time of his death, he was domiciled in the Philippines.

ISSUE:Whether or not the Philippine or California law will apply in deciding the testate of the deceased Edward

Christensen.

 HELD:

The Philippine law must apply. The decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides.

The law that governs the validity of his testamentary disposition is defined in Art. 16 of the civil code of the

Philippines which states that

“Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and

to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the

national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and

regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

Though applying the said article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term “national law”. The term national law indicated in Art. 16 can not, therefore apply to any general American rule. So it can refer to no other than the private law of the state of the deceased –the private law of the State of California.

The next question is what is the law in California governing the disposition of personal property? The court sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and manner he desires. But the appellant invokes the provision of Art. 946 of the Civil code of California saying that if there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.

It is argued on executor’s behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof, which is that given in the Kaufman case, should govern the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of Christensen’s will, such law being in force in the State of California of which Christensen was a citizen.

Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and following the doctrine of the renvoi , the question of the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent’s domicile, which is the Philippines.