FACTS Aznar, the executor, in his final account and project of partition, arranged

such in accordance to Edward’s will, thereby paying Helen P3.6K, and the
Testate Estate of: Edward Christensen; Executor: Adolfo Aznar; Heir: Lucy rest be transferred to Edward’s daughter Lucy.
Christensen; Oppositor: Helen Christensen Garcia
Helen opposed the partition claiming that such deprives her of her legitime
This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI in Davao, presided by Hon. as an acknowledged natural child by Edward, as having been declared by
Vicente Cusi Jr. in Special Proceeding No. 622 dated September 14 1949. the Court in a separate case. Helen argues that:

Such decision approved among other things: - The distribution must be governed by Philippine laws
- Said distribution is contrary thereto as it denies her rightful share,
- the final accounts of Aznar, directing him to reimburse Lucy the
which should be ½ of the estate in full ownership, being an
amount of P3.6K, which Lucy paid to Helen as legacy.
acknowledged natural child
- Declaring Lucy entitled to the residue of the property during her
lifetime; in case of death without issue, ½ of which is to be In amplification of the above grounds it was alleged that the law that
payable to Mrs. Carrie Louise Borton, in accordance with the will should govern the estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the
of Edward internal law of California alone, but the entire law thereof because several
foreign elements are involved, that the forum is the Philippines and even if
The Will was executed in Manila on March 5 1951, containing the ff:
the case were decided in California, Section 946 of the California Civil Code,
- He has one child, Lucy (now Mrs. Bernard Daney), born in the which requires that the domicile of the decedent should apply, should be
Philippines about 28 years ago and is now residing in LA, USA applicable.
- No other living ascendants or descendants
Sec. 946 - If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal
- Give, devise, and bequeath unto Helen Christensen Garcia, about
property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is
18 years of age, not related nor was adopted, residing in Digos,
governed by the law of his domicile
Davao, the sum of P3.6K, to be deposited in trust in her name,
with the PNB Davao Branch and paid to her at the rate of P100 per The Court ruled that Edward was a US citizen at the time of his death, and
month until the principal is exhausted that the successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will
- Give, devise, and bequeath unto Lucy, all the income from the are to be governed by California law (Probate Code), and in accordance
rest, remainder and residue of the property and estate, or with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he
whatever character and wherever situated, which I possess at my desires, because the right of dominion is sacred an inviolable. Hence, this
death and which may come to me from any source, during her appeal.
lifetime
ISSUE: WON California or Philippine law shall govern

RULING
There is no question that Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United the merest temporary presence to the most permanent abode, and it is
States and of the State of California at the time of his death. But there is not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one.
also no question that at the time of his death he was domiciled in the
Philippines. In arriving at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined
is the Philippines, we are persuaded by the fact that he was born in New in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The application of this
York, migrated to California and resided there for nine years, and since article in the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the
he came to the Philippines in 1913 he returned to California very rarely term "national law" is used therein. The "national law" indicated in Article
and only for short visits (perhaps to relatives), and considering that he 16 of the Civil Code above quoted cannot, therefore, possibly mean or
appears never to have owned or acquired a home or properties in that apply to any general American law. So it can refer to no other than the
state, which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the private law of the State of California.
Philippines and make home in the State of California.
The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition
Sec. 16. Residence is a term used with many shades of meaning from mere of personal property? Appellee argues that as the deceased Christensen
temporary presence to the most permanent abode. Generally, however, it was a citizen of the State of California, the internal law thereof should
is used to denote something more than mere physical presence. govern the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of
Christensen's will, such law being in force in the State of California of which
As to his citizenship, however, We find that the citizenship that he Christensen was a citizen. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article
acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento, California from 946 should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and following the
1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines, for the latter doctrine of the renvoi, the question of the validity of the testamentary
was a territory of the United States (not a state) until 1946 and the provision in question should be referred back to the law of the decedent's
deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of California by domicile, which is the Philippines.
the fact that when he executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a
citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws
abandon his California citizenship by acquiring another. rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman, Supra, its internal law. If the
law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be
The terms "'residence" and "domicile" might well be taken to mean the enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the
same thing, a place of permanent abode. Thus one may be domiciled in a principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but
place where he has never been. And he may reside in a place where he has Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in
no domicile. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires the exercise of California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of resorting to the
intention as well as physical presence. "Residence simply requires bodily law of the domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element
presence of an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily involved is in accord with the general principle of American law that the
presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights which follow the
Residence, however, is a term used with many shades of meaning, from person of the owner.
It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the Notes:
contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the
California Civil Code, refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Edward was born in New York on November 29 1875. First came to the
Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the Philippines as a teacher on July 1 1901, aboard the “Sheridan” and stayed
provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased should until 1904. In December 1904, he returned to the USA, stayed for 9 years
govern. This contention cannot be sustained. (1913) as a teacher in Sacramento.

As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law He came back to the Philippines July 1913, left in 1928 for the USA, came
mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in back 1929.Went back to the USA 1938, then went back to the Philippines in
the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or 1939. Was interned by the Japanese during WWII.
return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of
After liberation, went back to the USA in April 1945, returned to the
laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the
Philippines December 1945. Returned to the USA April 1951 shortly after
case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his
making his Last Will and Testament. Died in St. Luke’s Hospital Manila April
domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar.
30 1953.
The court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to
Sabi ni Aznar, California law dapat kasi Art. 16, Par (2), intrinsic matters,
California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination
dapat national law ng ng testator. Eto yung absolute dominion, dispose
because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth
property whichever way he likes.
between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a
citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its Sabi ni Helen, kung i-aapply California law, apply the entire thing. Including
own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the Sec. 946, na sabi if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the
decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of property is situated, the law that should govern is the law of the domicile
the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the of the testator
Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes
natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent Sabi ni Aznar, di applicable Sec. 946 kasi may law na contrary, which is
recognizing them. Article 16, Par 2. Mali. Yung “national law” sa Art 16 Par 2 is referring to
the law on conflict of laws sa California Civil Code. Pag in-apply mo yun,
We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a babalik na naman sa Pinas yung case kasi dito domiciled si testator.
citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his
will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be Pasok mo si renvoi. Hindi pwedeng umikot ng buo, meaning pwede lang
governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the sya ipasa sa iba kung masosolve na sya dun. Pero kung ipapasa mo, na ang
Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California. result is babalik din sayo, wag mo na ipasa.

DECISION REVERSED.