testate of belis vs belis

8/18/2019 Testate of Belis vs Belis

1/6

Testate of Belis vs Belis

The facts of the case are as follows:

Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of theState of Texas and of the United States." By his rst

wife, !ary . !allen, whom he divorced, he had vele#itimate children: dward A. Bellis, Geor#e Bellis$who %re&deceased him in infancy', (enry A. Bellis,

Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman) by his secondwife, *iolet +ennedy, who srvived him, he had threele#itimate children: dwin G. Bellis, -alter S. Bellisand orothy Bellis) and nally, he had threeille#itimate children: Amos Bellis, /r., !aria 0ristinaBellis and !iriam 1alma Bellis.

2n A#st 3, 4536, Amos G. Bellis exected a will inthe 1hili%%ines, in which he directed that after alltaxes, obli#ations, and ex%enses of administration are%aid for, his distribtable estate shold be divided, intrst, in the followin# order and manner: $a'7689,999.99 to his rst wife, !ary . !allen) $b'1469,999.99 to his three ille#itimate children, AmosBellis, /r., !aria 0ristina Bellis, !iriam 1alma Bellis, or189,999.99 each and $c' after the fore#oin# two itemshave been satised, the remainder shall #o to his seven

srvivin# children by his rst and second wives,namely: dward A. Bellis, (enry A. Bellis, AlexanderBellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, dwin G. Bellis, -alterS. Bellis, and orothy . Bellis, in eal shares.

Sbseently, or on /ly ;, 453;, Amos G. Bellis died aresident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A . (is will wasadmitted to %robate in the 0ort of s Ban? and Trst 0om%any, as exector of the will, %aid all the beests therein incldin# theamont of 7689,999.99 in the form of shares of stoc? to!ary . !allen and to the three $@' ille#itimatechildren, Amos Bellis, /r., !aria 0ristina Bellis and!iriam 1alma Bellis, varios amonts totallin#189,999.99 each in satisfaction of their res%ective

le#acies, or a total of 1469,999.99, which it releasedfrom time to time accordin# as the lower corta%%roved and allowed the varios motions or %etitionsled by the latter three reestin# %artial advances onaccont of their res%ective le#acies.

2n /anary ;, 458, %re%aratory to closin# itsadministration, the exector sbmitted and led its"xector>s


2/6

After the %arties led their res%ective memoranda andother %ertinent %leadin#s, the lower cort, on A%ril @9,458, issed an order overrlin# the o%%ositions anda%%rovin# the exector>s nal accont, re%ort andadministration and %roCect of %artition. elyin# %on

Art. 4 of the 0ivil 0ode, it a%%lied the national law of

the decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which didnot %rovide for le#itimes.

Their res%ective motions for reconsideration havin#been denied by the lower cort on /ne 44, 458,o%%ositors&a%%ellants a%%ealed to this 0ort to raisethe isse of which law mst a%%ly D Texas law or1hili%%ine law.

=n this re#ard, the %arties do not sbmit the case on,

nor even discss, the doctrine of renvoi, a%%lied by this0ort in Aznar v. 0hristensen Garcia, E&4F85, /anary@4, 45@. Said doctrine is sally %ertinent where thedecedent is a national of one contry, and a domicile of another. =n the %resent case, it is not dis%ted that thedecedent was both a national of Texas and a domicilethereof at the time of his death.6 So that evenassmin# Texas has a conict of law rle %rovidin# thatthe domiciliary system $law of the domicile' shold#overn, the same wold not reslt in a reference bac?

$renvoi' to 1hili%%ine law, bt wold still refer to Texaslaw. Honetheless, if Texas has a conicts rle ado%tin#the sits theory $lex rei sitae' callin# for the a%%licationof the law of the %lace where the %ro%erties aresitated, renvoi wold arise, since the %ro%erties hereinvolved are fond in the 1hili%%ines. =n the absence,however, of %roof as to the conict of law rle of Texas,it shold not be %resmed diIerent from ors.

A%%ellants> %osition is therefore not rested on thedoctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never invo?ed noreven mentioned it in their ar#ments. ather, they

ar#e that their case falls nder the circmstancesmentioned in the third %ara#ra%h of Article 4F inrelation to Article 4 of the 0ivil 0ode.

Article 4, %ar. 6, and Art. 49@5 of the 0ivil 0ode,render a%%licable the national law of the decedent, inintestate or testamentary sccessions, with re#ard to

for items: $a' the order of sccession) $b' the amontof sccessional ri#hts) $e' the intrinsic validity of the%rovisions of the will) and $d' the ca%acity to scceed.They %rovide that D

AT. 4. eal %ro%erty as well as %ersonal %ro%erty issbCect to the law of the contry where it is sitated.

(owever, intestate and testamentary sccessions, bothwith res%ect to the order of sccession and to the

amont of sccessional ri#hts and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary %rovisions, shall be re#latedby the national law of the %erson whose sccession isnder consideration, whatever may he the natre of the%ro%erty and re#ardless of the contry wherein said%ro%erty may be fond.

AT. 49@5. 0a%acity to scceed is #overned by the lawof the nation of the decedent.

A%%ellants wold however conter that Art. 4F,%ara#ra%h three, of the 0ivil 0ode, statin# that D

1rohibitive laws concernin# %ersons, their acts or%ro%erty, and those which have for their obCect %blicorder, %blic %olicy and #ood cstoms shall not berendered ineIective by laws or Cd#ments%roml#ated, or by determinations or conventionsa#reed %on in a forei#n contry.


3/6

%revails as the exce%tion to Art. 4, %ar. 6 of the 0ivil0ode afore&oted. This is not correct. 1recisely,0on#ress deleted the %hrase, "notwithstandin# the%rovisions of this and the next %recedin# article" whenthey incor%orated Art. 44 of the old 0ivil 0ode as Art.4F of the new 0ivil 0ode, while re%rodcin# withotsbstantial chan#e the second %ara#ra%h of Art. 49 of

the old 0ivil 0ode as Art. 4 in the new. =t mst havebeen their %r%ose to ma?e the second %ara#ra%h of

Art. 4 a s%ecic %rovision in itself which mst bea%%lied in testate and intestate sccession. As frtherindication of this le#islative intent, 0on#ress added anew %rovision, nder Art. 49@5, which decrees thatca%acity to scceed is to be #overned by the nationallaw of the decedent.

=t is therefore evident that whatever %blic %olicy or

#ood cstoms may be involved in or System of le#itimes, 0on#ress has not intended to extend thesame to the sccession of forei#n nationals. s national law.S%ecic %rovisions mst %revail over #eneral ones.=sse: -2H national law of the decedent will #overn

JesK A%%ellants wold also %oint ot that the decedentexected two wills D one to #overn his Texas estate

and the other his 1hili%%ine estate D ar#in# from thisthat he intended 1hili%%ine law to #overn his 1hili%%ineestate. Assmin# that sch was the decedent>sintention in exectin# a se%arate 1hili%%ine will, itwold not alter the law, for as this 0ort rled in!iciano v. Brimo, 39 1hil. ;F, ;F9, a %rovision in aforei#ner>s will to the eIect that his %ro%erties shall bedistribted in accordance with 1hili%%ine law and notwith his national law, is ille#al and void, for his nationallaw cannot be i#nored in re#ard to those matters that

Article 49 D now Article 4 D of the 0ivil 0ode statessaid national law shold #overn.

The %arties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis,was a citizen of the State of Texas, U.S.A., and thatnder the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs orle#itimes. Accordin#ly, since the intrinsic validity of the

%rovision of the will and the amont of sccessionalri#hts are to be determined nder Texas law, the1hili%%ine law on le#itimes cannot be a%%lied to thetestacy of Amos G. Bellis.

-herefore, the order of the %robate cort is herebyaIirmed in toto, with costs a#ainst a%%ellants. Soordered


4/6

G.. Ho. E&66353 Hovember 4, 456F

Testate state of /ose%h G. Brimo, /UAH !=0=AH2,administrator, %etitioner&a%%ellee,

vs. AH B=!2, o%%onent&a%%ellant.

oss, Eawrence and Sel%h for a%%ellant.0ams and el#ado for a%%ellee.

2!UAEL, /.:

The %artition of the estate left by the deceased /ose%hG. Brimo is in estion in this case.

The Cdicial administrator of this estate led a schemeof %artition. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of thedeceased, o%%osed it. The cort, however, a%%roved it.

The errors which the o%%ositor&a%%ellant assi#ns are:

$4' The a%%roval of said scheme of %artition) $6' denialof his %artici%ation in the inheritance) $@' the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order a%%rovin#the %artition) $8' the a%%roval of the %rchase made by

the 1ietro Eana of the deceased>s bsiness and thedeed of transfer of said bsiness) and $3' thedeclaration that the Tr?ish laws are im%ertinent tothis case, and the failre not to %ost%one the a%%rovalof the scheme of %artition and the delivery of thedeceased>s bsiness to 1ietro Eanza ntil the recei%t of the de%ositions reested in reference to the Tr?ishlaws.

The a%%ellant>s o%%osition is based on the fact that the%artition in estion %ts into eIect the %rovisions of

/ose%h G. Brimo>s will which are not in accordance withthe laws of his Tr?ish nationality, for which reasonthey are void as bein# in violation or article 49 of the0ivil 0ode which, amon# other thin#s, %rovides thefollowin#:

Hevertheless, le#al and testamentary sccessions, in

res%ect to the order of sccession as well as to theamont of the sccessional ri#hts and the intrinsic

validity of their %rovisions, shall be re#lated by thenational law of the %erson whose sccession is inestion, whatever may be the natre of the %ro%ertyor the contry in which it may be sitated.

Bt the fact is that the o%%ositor did not %rove that saidtestimentary dis%ositions are not in accordance withthe Tr?ish laws, inasmch as he did not %resent any

evidence showin# what the Tr?ish laws are on thematter, and in the absence of evidence on sch laws,they are %resmed to be the same as those of the1hili%%ines. $Eim and Eim vs. 0ollector of 0stoms, @1hil., 8F6.'

=t has not been %roved in these %roceedin#s what theTr?ish laws are. (e, himself, ac?nowled#es it when hedesires to be #iven an o%%ortnity to %resent evidenceon this %oint) so mch so that he assi#ns as an error of

the cort in not havin# deferred the a%%roval of thescheme of %artition ntil the recei%t of certaintestimony reested re#ardin# the Tr?ish laws on thematter.

The refsal to #ive the o%%ositor another o%%ortnity to%rove sch laws does not constitte an error. =t isdiscretionary with the trial cort, and, ta?in# intoconsideration that the o%%ositor was #ranted am%leo%%ortnity to introdce com%etent evidence, we ndno abse of discretion on the %art of the cort in this


5/6

%articlar. There is, therefore, no evidence in therecord that the national law of the testator /ose%h G.Brimo was violated in the testamentary dis%ositions inestion which, not bein# contrary to or laws in force,mst be com%lied with and exected. law%hil.net

Therefore, the a%%roval of the scheme of %artition in

this res%ect was not erroneos.

=n re#ard to the rst assi#nment of error which dealswith the exclsion of the herein a%%ellant as a le#atee,inasmch as he is one of the %ersons desi#nated assch in will, it mst be ta?en into consideration thatsch exclsion is based on the last %art of the secondclase of the will, which says:

Second. = li?e desire to state that altho#h by law, = am

a Tr?ish citizen, this citizenshi% havin# beenconferred %on me by conest and not by free choice,nor by nationality and, on the other hand, havin#resided for a considerable len#th of time in the1hili%%ine =slands where = scceeded in acirin# all of the %ro%erty that = now %ossess, it is my wish that thedistribtion of my %ro%erty and everythin# inconnection with this, my will, be made and dis%osed of in accordance with the laws in force in the 1hili%%ineislands, reestin# all of my relatives to res%ect this

wish, otherwise, = annl and cancel beforehandwhatever dis%osition fond in this will favorable to the%erson or %ersons who fail to com%ly with this reest.

The instittion of le#atees in this will is conditional,and the condition is that the institted le#atees mstres%ect the testator>s will to distribte his %ro%erty, notin accordance with the laws of his nationality, bt inaccordance with the laws of the 1hili%%ines.

=f this condition as it is ex%ressed were le#al and valid,any le#atee who fails to com%ly with it, as the hereino%%ositor who, by his attitde in these %roceedin#s hasnot res%ected the will of the testator, as ex%ressed, is%revented from receivin# his le#acy.

The fact is, however, that the said condition is void,

bein# contrary to law, for article F56 of the civil 0ode%rovides the followin#:

=m%ossible conditions and those contrary to law or#ood morals shall be considered as not im%osed andshall not %reCdice the heir or le#atee in any mannerwhatsoever, even shold the testator otherwise %rovide.

And said condition is contrary to law becase itex%ressly i#nores the testator>s national law when,

accordin# to article 49 of the civil 0ode above oted,sch national law of the testator is the one to #overnhis testamentary dis%ositions.

Said condition then, in the li#ht of the le#al %rovisionsabove cited, is considered nwritten, and the instittionof le#atees in said will is nconditional andconseently valid and eIective even as to the hereino%%ositor.

=t reslts from all this that the second clase of the willre#ardin# the law which shall #overn it, and to thecondition im%osed %on the le#atees, is nll and void,bein# contrary to law.

All of the remainin# clases of said will with all theirdis%ositions and reests are %erfectly valid andeIective it not a%%earin# that said clases are contraryto the testator>s national law.


6/6

Therefore, the orders a%%ealed from are modied and itis directed that the distribtion of this estate be madein sch a manner as to inclde the herein a%%ellant

Andre Brimo as one of the le#atees, and the scheme of %artition sbmitted by the Cdicial administrator is

a%%roved in all other res%ects, withot any%rononcement as to costs.

So ordered.

testate of belis vs belis

Documents