IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C. AZNAR, EXECUTOR AND LUCY CHRISTENSEN, HEIR OF THE DECEASED, EXECUTOR AND HEIR-APPELLEES, vs. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, oppositor-appellant. No. L-16749. January 31, 1963.
FACTS:
Edward E Christensen was born in New York but he migrated to California where he resided for 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until the time of his death. In his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia. Counsel for the acknowledged natural daughter Helen claims that under Article 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code, California law should be should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On the other hand, the counsel for Maria Lucy contends that the national law of the deceased must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the national law of the deceased should be applied in determining the successional rights oh his heirs.
HELD:
The Supreme Court grants more successional rights to Helen. It said in effect that there are two rules in California on the matter: the internal law which applies to California’s domiciled in California, and the conflict rule for Californian’s domiciled out of California. Christensen, being domiciled in the Philippines, the law of his domicile must be followed. For the determination of the successional rights under Philippine Law, the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
