Today is Monday, August 17, 2020

Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960

TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN, deceased. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., executor-appellee,

Jose D. Cortes for appellants.

LABRADOR, J.:
Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Ramon San Jose, presiding, dismissing the objections filed by
Magdalena C. Bohanan, Mary Bohanan and Edward Bohanan to the project of partition submitted by the executor and approving the said
project.

On April 24, 195 0, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo, presiding, admitted to probate a last will and testament of C.
O. Bohanan, executed by him on April 23, 1944 in Manila. In the said order, the court made the following findings:

According to the evidence of the opponents the testator was born in Nebraska and therefore a citizen of that state, or at
least a citizen of California where some of his properties are located. This contention in untenable. Notwithstanding the long
residence of the decedent in the Philippines, his stay here was merely temporary, and he continued and remained to be a
citizen of the United States and of the state of his pertinent residence to spend the rest of his days in that state. His
permanent residence or domicile in the United States depended upon his personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada
as his homicide and therefore at the time of his death, he was a citizen of that state. Nobody can choose his domicile or
permanent residence for him. That is his exclusive personal right.

Wherefore, the court finds that the testator C. O. Bohanan was at the time of his death a citizen of the United States and of
the State of Nevada and declares that his will and testament, Exhibit A, is fully in accordance with the laws of the state of
Nevada and admits the same to probate. Accordingly, the Philippine Trust Company, named as the executor of the will, is
hereby appointed to such executor and upon the filing of a bond in the sum of P10,000.00, let letters testamentary be
issued and after taking the prescribed oath, it may enter upon the execution and performance of its trust. (pp. 26-27,
R.O.A.).

It does not appear that the order granting probate was ever questions on appeal. The executor filed a project of partition dated January 24,
1956, making, in accordance with the provisions of the will, the following adjudications: (1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the Farmers
and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator's grandson Edward George
Bohanan, which consists of several mining companies; (2) the other half of the residuary estate to the testator's brother, F.L. Bohanan, and
his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This consist in the same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to
those given to testator's grandson; (3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohana, and his daughter, Mary Lydia
Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments; (4) legacies to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward, P2,000;
Beulah Fox, P4,000; and Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000;

It will be seen from the above that out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave
his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To
his children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.
The wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children question the validity of the testamentary provisions disposing of the estate in the
manner above indicated, claiming that they have been deprived of the legitimate that the laws of the form concede to them.

The first question refers to the share that the wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, should be entitled to received. The will has not
given her any share in the estate left by the testator. It is argued that it was error for the trial court to have recognized the Reno divorce
secured by the testator from his Filipino wife Magdalena C. Bohanan, and that said divorce should be declared a nullity in this jurisdiction,
citing the case of Querubin vs. Querubin, 87 Phil., 124, 47 Off. Gaz., (Sup, 12) 315, Cousins Hiz vs. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 852,
Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855 and Gorayeb vs. Hashim, 50 Phil., 22. The court below refused to recognize the claim of the widow on the
ground that the laws of Nevada, of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without requiring him to
leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides:

Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his or her estate, real and
personal, the same being chargeable with the payment of the testator's debts.

Besides, the right of the former wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, to a share in the testator's estafa had already been passed
upon adversely against her in an order dated June 19, 1955, (pp. 155-159, Vol II Records, Court of First Instance), which had become final,
as Magdalena C. Bohanan does not appear to have appealed therefrom to question its validity. On December 16, 1953, the said former
wife filed a motion to withdraw the sum of P20,000 from the funds of the estate, chargeable against her share in the conjugal property, (See
pp. 294-297, Vol. I, Record, Court of First Instance), and the court in its said error found that there exists no community property owned by
the decedent and his former wife at the time the decree of divorce was issued. As already and Magdalena C. Bohanan may no longer
question the fact contained therein, i.e. that there was no community property acquired by the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan during
their converture.

Moreover, the court below had found that the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on January 30, 1909, and that divorce was
granted to him on May 20, 1922; that sometime in 1925, Magdalena C. Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was subsisting at
the time of the death of the testator. Since no right to share in the inheritance in favor of a divorced wife exists in the State of Nevada and
since the court below had already found that there was no conjugal property between the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan, the latter
can now have no longer claim to pay portion of the estate left by the testator.

The most important issue is the claim of the testator's children, Edward and Mary Lydia, who had received legacies in the amount of P6,000
each only, and, therefore, have not been given their shares in the estate which, in accordance with the laws of the forum, should be two-
thirds of the estate left by the testator. Is the failure old the testator to give his children two-thirds of the estate left by him at the time of his
death, in accordance with the laws of the forum valid?

The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944, expressly provides that successional rights to
personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. Says the law on this point:
 Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the
successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found. (par. 2, Art. 10,
old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil Code.)

In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was found out and it was decided that the testator was a citizen of the State of Nevada
because he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950, supra). So the question at
issue is whether the estementary dispositions, especially hose for the children which are short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code
of the Philippines, are valid. It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec. 9905,
Complied Nevada Laws of 1925, supra). It does not appear that at time of the hearing of the project of partition, the above-quoted provision
was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor's duly to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in
the form and manner provided for by our Rules, which are as follows:

SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. — An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody of he record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . . .
(Rule 123).

We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of
the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada
Laws. was introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as Exhibits "2" (See pp. 77-79, VOL. II, and t.s.n. pp. 24-44, Records,
Court of First Instance). Again said laws presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B" during the
hearing of the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo (se Records, Court of First Instance, Vol. 1).

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada.
Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled
Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of
partition.

As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the
testator, and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the State of Nevada, already
indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the court
approving the project of partition made in accordance with the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against
appellants.
Paras, Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., concurs in the result.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation