G.R. No.

L-16749 January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED.

M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees.

LABRADOR, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr., presiding, in Spec
Proceeding No. 622 of said court, dated September 14, 1949, approving among things the final accounts of the exec
directing the executor to reimburse Maria Lucy Christensen the amount of P3,600 paid by her to Helen Christensen G
legacy, and declaring Maria Lucy Christensen entitled to the residue of the property to be enjoyed during her lifetime,
of death without issue, one-half of said residue to be payable to Mrs. Carrie Louise C. Borton, etc., in accordance wit
provisions of the will of the testator Edward E. Christensen. The will was executed in Manila on March 5, 1951 and co
following provisions:

3. I declare ... that I have but ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN (now Mrs. Bernard
who was born in the Philippines about twenty-eight years ago, and who is now residing at No. 665 Ro
Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

4. I further declare that I now have no living ascendants, and no descendants except my above name
MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY.

xxx xxx xxx

7. I give, devise and bequeath unto MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, now married to Eduardo Garcia,
eighteen years of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that she was baptized Christensen, is not in
related to me, nor has she been at any time adopted by me, and who, from all information I have now
Egpit, Digos, Davao, Philippines, the sum of THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P3,600.00
Philippine Currency the same to be deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen Christensen with the D
Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and paid to her at the rate of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00),
Currency per month until the principal thereof as well as any interest which may have accrued thereon
exhausted..

xxx xxx xxx

12. I hereby give, devise and bequeath, unto my well-beloved daughter, the said MARIA LUCY CHRI
DANEY (Mrs. Bernard Daney), now residing as aforesaid at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Ange
California, U.S.A., all the income from the rest, remainder, and residue of my property and estate, rea
and/or mixed, of whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever situated, of which I may be possess
death and which may have come to me from any source whatsoever, during her lifetime: ....

It is in accordance with the above-quoted provisions that the executor in his final account and project of partition ratifi
payment of only P3,600 to Helen Christensen Garcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his
Maria Lucy Christensen.

Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed by Helen Christensen Garcia, insofar as it deprives her
her legitime as an acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us in G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 an acknowl
natural child of the deceased Edward E. Christensen. The legal grounds of opposition are (a) that the distribution sho
governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b) that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to
Christensen, one of two acknowledged natural children, one-half of the estate in full ownership. In amplification of the
grounds it was alleged that the law that should govern the estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the inter
California alone, but the entire law thereof because several foreign elements are involved, that the forum is the Philip
even if the case were decided in California, Section 946 of the California Civil Code, which requires that the domicile
decedent should apply, should be applicable. It was also alleged that Maria Helen Christensen having been declared
acknowledged natural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes legitimate from the time of her birth.

The court below ruled that as Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California
of his death, the successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of
accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right of a
dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable (In re McDaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952, and
Kaufman, 117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, cited in page 179, Record on Appeal). Oppositor Maria Helen Christensen, thro
counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, but these were denied. Hence, this appeal.

The most important assignments of error are as follows:

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT THAT HE
ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN DEPRIVING H
JUST SHARE IN THE INHERITANCE.

II

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTIRELY IGNORING AND/OR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF
FACTORS, ELEMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING FOR THE APPLICATION OF INTERNAL LAW.

III

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PARTICULARL
THE RENVOI DOCTRINE, THE INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRIBU
THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF TH
PHILIPPINES.

IV

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE SCHEDULE OF DISTRIBUTION SUBMITTED BY T
EXECUTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWS.

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT UNDER THE PHILIPPINE LAWS HELEN CHRISTENSE
IS ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE ESTATE IN FULL OWNERSHIP.

There is no question that Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and of the State of California at th
death. But there is also no question that at the time of his death he was domiciled in the Philippines, as witness the fo
facts admitted by the executor himself in appellee's brief:
 In the proceedings for admission of the will to probate, the facts of record show that the deceased Ed
Christensen was born on November 29, 1875 in New York City, N.Y., U.S.A.; his first arrival in the Ph
an appointed school teacher, was on July 1, 1901, on board the U.S. Army Transport "Sheridan" with
Embarkation as the City of San Francisco, in the State of California, U.S.A. He stayed in the Philippin
1904.

In December, 1904, Mr. Christensen returned to the United States and stayed there for the following n
until 1913, during which time he resided in, and was teaching school in Sacramento, California.

Mr. Christensen's next arrival in the Philippines was in July of the year 1913. However, in 1928, he ag
departed the Philippines for the United States and came back here the following year, 1929. Some nin
later, in 1938, he again returned to his own country, and came back to the Philippines the following ye

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approv
Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not cov
stipulation of facts.
1äw phï1.ñët

Being an American citizen, Mr. Christensen was interned by the Japanese Military Forces in the Philip
during World War II. Upon liberation, in April 1945, he left for the United States but returned to the Ph
December, 1945. Appellees Collective Exhibits "6", CFI Davao, Sp. Proc. 622, as Exhibits "AA", "BB"
Daney"; Exhs. "MM", "MM-l", "MM-2-Daney" and p. 473, t.s.n., July 21, 1953.)

In April, 1951, Edward E. Christensen returned once more to California shortly after the making of his
testament (now in question herein) which he executed at his lawyers' offices in Manila on March 5, 19
at the St. Luke's Hospital in the City of Manila on April 30, 1953. (pp. 2-3)

In arriving at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he
New York, migrated to California and resided there for nine years, and since he came to the Philippines in 1913 he re
California very rarely and only for short visits (perhaps to relatives), and considering that he appears never to have ow
acquired a home or properties in that state, which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the Philippines an
home in the State of California.

Sec. 16. Residence is a term used with many shades of meaning from mere temporary presence to th
permanent abode. Generally, however, it is used to denote something more than mere physical prese
(Goodrich on Conflict of Laws, p. 29)

As to his citizenship, however, We find that the citizenship that he acquired in California when he resided in Sacrame
California from 1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the latter was a territory of the United S
state) until 1946 and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by the fact that when
executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to
his California citizenship by acquiring another. This conclusion is in accordance with the following principle expounde
Goodrich in his Conflict of Laws.

The terms "'residence" and "domicile" might well be taken to mean the same thing, a place of perman
But domicile, as has been shown, has acquired a technical meaning. Thus one may be domiciled in a
where he has never been. And he may reside in a place where he has no domicile. The man with two
between which he divides his time, certainly resides in each one, while living in it. But if he went on bu
which would require his presence for several weeks or months, he might properly be said to have suff
connection with the place to be called a resident. It is clear, however, that, if he treated his settlement
continuing only for the particular business in hand, not giving up his former "home," he could not be a
New Yorker. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires the exercise of intention as well as physical p
"Residence simply requires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires
 presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." Residence, however, is a term
many shades of meaning, from the merest temporary presence to the most permanent abode, and it i
insist that any one use et the only proper one. (Goodrich, p. 29)

The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philip
which is as follows:

ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situ

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property a
regardless of the country where said property may be found.

The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term "national law" is
therein.

There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States, each state of t
having its own private law applicable to its citizens only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated
16 of the Civil Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law. So it can
other than the private law of the State of California.

The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition of personal property? The decision of the
below, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispos
property by will in the form and manner he desires, citing the case of Estate of McDaniel, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P
But appellant invokes the provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows:

If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follo
person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.

The existence of this provision is alleged in appellant's opposition and is not denied. We have checked it in the Califo
Code and it is there. Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a witness
case of Kaufman is correctly cited.) It is argued on executor's behalf that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen
of California, the internal law thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, should govern the determination of t
the testamentary provisions of Christensen's will, such law being in force in the State of California of which Christens
citizen. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and fo
doctrine of the renvoi, the question of the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back to
the decedent's domicile, which is the Philippines.

The theory of doctrine of renvoi has been defined by various authors, thus:

The problem has been stated in this way: "When the Conflict of Laws rule of the forum refers a jural m
foreign law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., t
of the foreign law minus its Conflict of Laws rules?"

On logic, the solution is not an easy one. The Michigan court chose to accept the renvoi, that is, appli
Conflict of Laws rule of Illinois which referred the matter back to Michigan law. But once having determ
the Conflict of Laws principle is the rule looked to, it is difficult to see why the reference back should n
been to Michigan Conflict of Laws. This would have resulted in the "endless chain of references" whic
often been criticized be legal writers. The opponents of the renvoi would have looked merely to the int
Illinois, thus rejecting the renvoi or the reference back. Yet there seems no compelling logical reason
original reference should be the internal law rather than to the Conflict of Laws rule. It is true that such
avoids going on a merry-go-round, but those who have accepted the renvoi theory avoid this inextrica
circulas by getting off at the second reference and at that point applying internal law. Perhaps the opp
the renvoi are a bit more consistent for they look always to internal law as the rule of reference.

Strangely enough, both the advocates for and the objectors to the renvoi plead that greater uniformity
from adoption of their respective views. And still more strange is the fact that the only way to achieve
this choice-of-law problem is if in the dispute the two states whose laws form the legal basis of the litig
disagree as to whether the renvoi should be accepted. If both reject, or both accept the doctrine, the r
litigation will vary with the choice of the forum. In the case stated above, had the Michigan court rejec
the renvoi, judgment would have been against the woman; if the suit had been brought in the Illinois c
they too rejected the renvoi, judgment would be for the woman. The same result would happen, thoug
would switch with respect to which would hold liability, if both courts accepted the renvoi.

The Restatement accepts the renvoi theory in two instances: where the title to land is in question, and
validity of a decree of divorce is challenged. In these cases the Conflict of Laws rule of the situs of the
domicile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied by the forum, but any further reference goes only
internal law. Thus, a person's title to land, recognized by the situs, will be recognized by every court; a
divorce, valid by the domicile of the parties, will be valid everywhere. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec
14.)

X, a citizen of Massachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leaving movable property in Massa
England, and France. The question arises as to how this property is to be distributed among X's next

Assume (1) that this question arises in a Massachusetts court. There the rule of the conflict of laws as
succession to movables calls for an application of the law of the deceased's last domicile. Since by hy
X's last domicile was France, the natural thing for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to F
statute of distributions, or whatever corresponds thereto in French law, and decree a distribution acco
examination of French law, however, would show that if a French court were called upon to determine
property should be distributed, it would refer the distribution to the national law of the deceased, thus
Massachusetts statute of distributions. So on the surface of things the Massachusetts court has open
alternative course of action: (a) either to apply the French law is to intestate succession, or (b) to reso
into a French court and apply the Massachusetts statute of distributions, on the assumption that this i
French court would do. If it accepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it will follow the latter course, thus a
own law.

This is one type of renvoi. A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refer
foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the for
renvoi in the narrower sense. The German term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.'" (Harvar
Review, Vol. 31, pp. 523-571.)

After a decision has been arrived at that a foreign law is to be resorted to as governing a particular ca
further question may arise: Are the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such foreign law also to
resorted to? This is a question which, while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instance
the subject of frequent discussion by textwriters and essayists; and the doctrine involved has been de
designated by them as the "Renvoyer" to send back, or the "Ruchversweisung", or the "Weiterverweis
an affirmative answer to the question postulated and the operation of the adoption of the foreign law i
in many cases result in returning the main controversy to be decided according to the law of the forum
C.J.S. 872.)

Another theory, known as the "doctrine of renvoi", has been advanced. The theory of the doctrine of r
the court of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law of th
 jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which
the other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum. The doctrine of the renvoi has gene
repudiated by the American authorities. (2 Am. Jur. 296)

The scope of the theory of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its application in a country explained by
Lorenzen in an article in the Yale Law Journal, Vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. 529-531. The pertinent parts of the article are
herein below:

The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood a
incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign state or country, but its rules of the co
as well. According to this theory 'the law of a country' means the whole of its law.

xxx xxx xxx

Von Bar presented his views at the meeting of the Institute of International Law, at Neuchatel, in 1900
of the following theses:

(1) Every court shall observe the law of its country as regards the application of foreign laws.

(2) Provided that no express provision to the contrary exists, the court shall respect:

(a) The provisions of a foreign law which disclaims the right to bind its nationals abroad as reg
personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall be determined by the law of the
even by the law of the place where the act in question occurred.

(b) The decision of two or more foreign systems of law, provided it be certain that one of them
necessarily competent, which agree in attributing the determination of a question to the same
law.

xxx xxx xxx

If, for example, the English law directs its judge to distribute the personal estate of an Englishman wh
domiciled in Belgium in accordance with the law of his domicile, he must first inquire whether the law
would distribute personal property upon death in accordance with the law of domicile, and if he finds t
Belgian law would make the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality — that is the English
must accept this reference back to his own law.

We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman,
internal law. If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its o
intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Arti
should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of re
the law of the domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the general prin
American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the person of the owner.

When a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states, and leaves a will directing the man
distribution of the property, the law of the state where he was domiciled at the time of his death will be
in deciding legal questions about the will, almost as completely as the law of situs is consulted in ques
the devise of land. It is logical that, since the domiciliary rules control devolution of the personal estate
intestate succession, the same rules should determine the validity of an attempted testamentary dispo
property. Here, also, it is not that the domiciliary has effect beyond the borders of the domiciliary state
of the domicile are recognized as controlling by the Conflict of Laws rules at the situs property, and th
 the recognition as in the case of intestate succession, is the general convenience of the doctrine. The
court has said on the point: 'The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, valid at the
the owner, is valid anywhere, is one of the universal application. It had its origin in that international co
was one of the first fruits of civilization, and it this age, when business intercourse and the process of
accumulating property take but little notice of boundary lines, the practical wisdom and justice of the r
apparent than ever. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 164, pp. 442-443.)

Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal
California. But as above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for resid
and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California interna
prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If w
enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we m
the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e., apply the internal
residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad.

It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is si
Sec. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the con
Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased should govern. This contention can
sustained. As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Cod
on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the questio
of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the d
not and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination be
case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the dece
citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws r
state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California p
legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural childr
acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.

The Philippine cases (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil. 105; Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 P
Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil. 130; and Gibbs vs. Government, 59 Phil. 293.) cited by appellees to
decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar, for two important reasons, i.e., the subject in each case does not a
a citizen of a state in the United States but with domicile in the Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that t
in the state of which the subject is a citizen, a law similar to or identical with Art. 946 of the California Civil Code.

We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the valid
provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine La
domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California..

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructio
partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment reversed, with costs against appellees.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., took no part.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation