Scribd
Upload
25 views1 page

60 - Estate of Christensen GR No. 16759

Uploaded by

aiza eroy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views1 page

60 - Estate of Christensen GR No. 16759

Uploaded by

aiza eroy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

60.

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


DECEASED.
ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Executor and LUCY CHRISTENSEN, Heir of the deceased vs
HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA
GR. No. 16759

Facts:

Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California, where he resided and
consequently was considered a California citizen. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he
became a domiciliary until his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this
country he had always considered himself a citizen of California. In his will executed on March
5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only
heir, but left a legacy of sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who was rendered to
have been declared acknowledged natural daughter. Counsel for appellant claims that California
law should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the
domicile; that therefore Philippine law is ultimately applicable; that finally, the share of Helen
must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Philippine
law. On the other hand, counsel for the heir of Christensen contends that inasmuch as it is clear
that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the national law of the deceased must apply, our courts
must immediately apply the internal law of California on the matter; that under California law
there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any property
possessed by him in absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not being entitled
to anything and his will remain undisturbed.

Issue:

Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail administering the estate of Christensen?

Held:

The court in deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect that there are two
rules in California on the matter: the internal law which should apply to Californians domiciled
in California; and the conflict rule which should apply to Californians domiciled outside of
California. The California conflict rule says: “If there is no law to the contrary in the place where
personal property is situated, is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the
law of his domicile.” Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law of his domicile, the
Philippines, ought to be followed. Where it is referred back to California, it will form a circular
pattern referring to both country back and forth.

You might also like