TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN, DECEASED. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., EXECUTOR AND APPELLEE, VS. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN, EDWARD C. BOHANAN, AND MARY LYDIA BOHANAN, OPPOSITORS AND APPEL…

Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
Hon. Ramon San Jose, presiding, dismissing the objections filed by
Magdalena C. Bohanan, Mary Bohanan and Edward Bohanan to the project of
partition submitted by the executor and approving the said project.

On April 24, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon.
Rafael Amparo, presiding, admitted to probate a last will and testament
of C. O. Bohanan, executed by him on April 23, 1944 in Manila. In the
said order, the court made the following findings:

“According to the evidence of the opponents the
testator was born in Nebraska and therefore a citizen of that state, or
at least a citizen of California where some of his properties are
located. This contention is untenable. Notwithstanding the long
residence of the decedent in the Philippines, his stay here was merely
temporary, and he continued and remained to be a citizen of the United
States and of the state of his particular choice, which is Nevada, as
stated in his will. He had planned to spend the rest of his days in
that state. His permanent residence or domicile in the United States
depended upon his personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as
his domicile and therefore at the time of his death, he was a citizen
of that state. Nobody can choose his domicile or permanent residence
for him. That is his exclusive personal right.

Wherefore, the
court finds that the testator C. O. Bohanan was at the time of his
death a citizen of the United States and of the State of Nevada and
declares that his will and testament, Exhibit A, is fully in accordance
with the laws of the state of Nevada and admits the same to probate.
Accordingly, the Philippine Trust Company, named as the executor of the
will, is hereby appointed to such executor and upon the filing of a
bond in the sum of P10,000.00, let letters testamentary be issued and
after taking the prescribed oath, it may enter upon the execution and
performance of its trust.” (pp. 26-27, R.O.A.)

It does not appear that the order granting probate was ever
questioned on appeal. The executor filed a project of partition dated
January 24, 1956, making, in accordance with the provisions of the
will, the following adjudications: (1) one-half of the residuary
estate, to the Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles,
California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator’s grandson
Edward George Bohanan, which consists of P90,819.67 in cash and
one-half in shares of stock of several mining companies; (2) the other
half of the residuary estate to the testator’s brother, F. L. Bohanan,
and his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This
consists in the same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock
similar to those given to testator’s grandson; (3) legacies of P6,000
each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohanan, and his daughter,
Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments; (4)
legacies to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine
Woodward, P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000;

It will be seen from the above that out of the total estate (after
deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash, the testator
gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of
several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount.
To his children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of
P12,000.

The wife Magdalena C. Bohanan and her two children question the
validity of the testamentary provisions disposing of the estate in the
manner above indicated, claiming that they have been deprived of the
legitime that the laws of the forum concede to them.

The first question refers to the share that the wife of the
testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, should be entitled to receive. The will
has not given her any share in the estate left by the testator. It is
argued that it was error for the trial court to have recognized the
Reno divorce secured by the testator from his Filipino wife Magdalena
C. Bohanan, and that said divorce should be declared a nullity in this
jurisdiction, citing the cases of Querubin vs. Querubin, 87 Phil., 124, 47 Off. Gaz., (Sup, 12) 315, Cousins Hiz vs. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 851, Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855 and Gorayeb vs.
Hashim, 50 Phil., 22. The court below refused to recognize the claim of
the widow on the ground that the laws of Nevada, of which the deceased
was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without
requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Section
9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides:

“Every person over the age of eighteen years, of
sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his or her estate, real
and personal, the same being chargeable with the payment of the
testator’s debts.”

Besides, the right of the former wife of the testator, Magdalena C.
Bohanan, to a share in the testator’s estate had already been passed
upon adversely against her in an order dated June 18, 1955, (pp.
155-159, Vol. II Records, Court of First Instance), which had become
final, as Magdalena C. Bohanan does not appear to have appealed
therefrom to question its validity. On December 16, 1953, the said
former wife filed a motion to withdraw the sum of P20,000 from the
funds of the estate, chargeable against her share in the conjugal
property, (See pp. 294-297, Vol. I, Record, Court of First Instance),
and the court in its said order found that there exists no community
property owned by the decedent and his former wife at the time the
decree of divorce was issued. As already adverted to, the decision of
the court had become final and Magdalena C. Bohanan may no longer
question the fact contained therein, i.e. that there was no community
property acquired by the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan during their
coverture.

Moreover, the court below had found that the testator and Magdalena
C. Bohanan were married on January 30, 1909, and that divorce was
granted to him on May 20, 1922; that sometime in 1925, Magdalena C.
Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was subsisting at the time
of the death of the testator. Since no right to share in the
inheritance in favor of a divorced wife exists in the State of Nevada
and since the court below had already found that there was no conjugal
property between the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan, the latter can
now have no legal claim to any portion of the estate left by the
testator.

The most important issue is the claim of the testator’s children,
Edward and Mary Lydia, who had received legacies in the amount of
P6,000 each only, and, therefore, have not been given their shares in
the estate which, in accordance with the laws of the forum, should be
two-thirds of the estate left by the testator. Is the failure of the
testator to give his children two-thirds of the estate left by him at
the time of his death, in accordance with the laws of the forum valid?

The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the
testator died in 1944, expressly provides that successional rights to
personal property are to be governed by the national law of the person
whose succession is in question. Says the law on this point:

“Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions,
in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the
successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession
is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the
country in which it is found.” (par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which
is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil Code.)

In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was found out and
it was decided that the testator was a citizen of the State of Nevada
because he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent
residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950, supra). So the
question at issue is whether the testamentary dispositions, especially
those for the children which are short of the legitime given them by
the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is not disputed that
the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by
will (Sec. 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, supra). It does
not appear that at the time of the hearing of the project of partition,
the above-quoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was the
executor’s duty to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law, can only
be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our
Rules, which are as follows:

“Sec. 41. Proof of public or official record.—An
official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by
his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.” * *
* (Rule 123).

We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court
below and we have found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of
the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for withdrawal of P20,000 as her
share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws,
was introduced in evidence by appellants’ (herein) counsel as Exhibit
“2” (See pp. 77-79, Vol. II, and t.s.n. pp. 24-44, Records, Court of
First Instance). Again said law was presented by the counsel for the
executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit “B” during the hearing of
the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo (see Records,
Court of First Instance, Vol. 1). .

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not
dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada.
Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the
pertinent law of Nevada, specially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada
Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of
such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.

As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity
of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the national law of
the testator, and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that
the national law of the testator is that of the State of Nevada,
already indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his
property according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the
court approving the project of partition made in accordance with the
testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs
against appellants.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.