CASE DIGEST ON BELLIS V. BELLIS

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests

CASE DIGEST ON BELLIS V. BELLIS [20 S 358 (1967)] - Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes is valid.
While Art. 17, par. 3 provides that prohibitive laws of our country concerning persons and their property shall not be rendered ineffective by contrary laws in a foreign country, this cannot be considered an exception to Art. 16 which categorically provides for the situations when the national law shall apply. Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the New Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change Art. 10 paragraph 2 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. It must have been their purpose to make Art. 16, paragraph 2, a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succes¬sions.
Thus, in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect 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 Art. 10 - now Art. 16 - states said national law shall govern.

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests