TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, DECEASED PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS AND MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS, VS. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET…

Bellis versus Bellis

The Case

This is the testate estate of Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States, who died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, leaving a will executed in the Philippines. His three illegitimate children, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis among them, opposed the executor's project of partition because they were given only forty thousand pesos each and were excluded from the residue, and they claimed that Philippine law on legitimes or forced heirs should govern the estate. The case matters because it settles, in a direct appeal on a pure question of law, that the national law of the decedent governs the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, and the capacity to succeed, even over our own system of legitimes.

Procedural History

The will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila. The executor later filed its final account, report of administration, and project of partition, which divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the seven legitimate children of the first and second marriages. Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions, claiming deprivation of their legitimes as compulsory heirs. The trial court overruled the oppositions and approved the project of partition, relying on Article 16 of the Civil Code and applying Texas law, which does not provide for legitimes. Their motions for reconsideration were denied, and they appealed directly to the Supreme Court, raising the issue of which law must apply, Texas law or Philippine law.

Facts

Amos G. Bellis was born in Texas and was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children, one of whom, George, predeceased him in infancy. By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children. He also had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis, Junior, Maria Cristina Bellis, and Miriam Palma Bellis.

On August 5, 1952, he executed a will in the Philippines. He directed that after taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration were paid, his distributable estate should be divided in trust as follows: two hundred forty thousand dollars to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; one hundred twenty thousand pesos to his three illegitimate children, or forty thousand pesos each; and the remainder to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, in equal shares.

He died on July 8, 1958, a resident of San Antonio, Texas, and his will was admitted to probate in Manila on September 15, 1958. The executor paid all the bequests, including the legacies of the three illegitimate children in the total amount of one hundred twenty thousand pesos. When the executor filed its project of partition, it divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the seven legitimate children, pursuant to the twelfth clause of the will. The two illegitimate daughters opposed, and the trial court approved the project, applying Texas law.

Issues

• Whether or not the national law of the decedent, Texas law, governs the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions and the amount of successional rights, to the exclusion of Philippine law on legitimes.
• Whether or not the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code, on prohibitive laws concerning public order, public policy, and good customs, prevails as an exception to the second paragraph of Article 16 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the execution of a separate will to govern the Philippine estate shows an intention that Philippine law should govern that estate.

Applicable Provisions

The second paragraph of Article 16 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the provision the Court applies to hold that Texas law governs the succession of Amos G. Bellis.

Article 1039 of the Civil Code provides:

Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.

This reinforces the rule that the decedent's national law controls capacity to succeed.

The third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code provides:

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

The appellants invoke this as the exception to Article 16, and the Court rejects that reading.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the second paragraph of Article 16 and Article 1039 of the Civil Code render the national law of the decedent applicable to four items: the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, and the capacity to succeed. Since the parties admitted that the decedent was a citizen of Texas and that Texas law has no forced heirs or legitimes, the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to his testacy.

On the second issue, the Court held that the third paragraph of Article 17 does not prevail as an exception. Congress deleted the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when it incorporated Article 11 of the old Civil Code as Article 17 of the new, while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Article 10 of the old Civil Code as Article 16. The purpose was to make the second paragraph of Article 16 a specific provision in itself, applicable in testate and intestate successions. The Court stated the rule plainly:

Specific provisions must prevail over general ones.

Whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals.

On the third issue, the Court held that even assuming the decedent intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate by executing a separate will, that intention would not alter the law. A provision in a foreigner's will 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 16 states said national law should govern.

Doctrine

First, in testate and intestate successions, the national law of the decedent governs the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, and the capacity to succeed, regardless of the nature and location of the property. Second, the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code is a general provision that does not operate as an exception to the specific rule in the second paragraph of Article 16; specific provisions prevail over general ones. Third, the system of legitimes is a matter of public policy that Congress chose not to extend to the succession of foreign nationals. Fourth, a testator cannot, by directing in his will that Philippine law govern his estate, disregard his national law on matters that Article 16 reserves to it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the probate court in its entirety, with costs against the appellants.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the national law of the decedent governs the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, and the capacity to succeed, and that our legitimes do not reach the estate of a foreign national. Examiners use this case in conflict of laws and succession to test whether you will apply Article 16 over Article 17, and whether you know that a will cannot choose Philippine law in place of the decedent's national law.