Case Digest: Bellis vs Bellis

Civil Code Article 16                         Real Property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.

                                                                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 be 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.

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS BELLIS, deceased. PEOPLE’S BANK & TRUST COMPANY, executor. MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-applellants,

Vs.

EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., heirs-appellees

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, 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; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate childred; and he also had three illegitimate children. On Agugust 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children Amos Bellis Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each; and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, et. al, in qual shares. Subsequently, Amos G. Bellis died and the People’s Bank and Trust Company, as executor of the will, paid all the bequests therein including the amount of $240,000.00 in the forms of stocks to Mary E. Mallen and to the three illegitimate children various amounts totaling P40,000.00 eachin satisfaction of their legacies. On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the prejudice of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Texas Law or Philippine Law must apply.

RULING:

                Article 16 of the Civil Code render applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (c) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. It also provide that 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 be 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 . Furthermore, Article 1039 decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. Hence; since 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 the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law and the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.