Title
Aznar vs. Garcia
Case
G.R. No. L-16749
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1963
Edward Christensen, a U.S. citizen domiciled in the Philippines, executed a will bequeathing his estate to his daughter, Maria. Helen, acknowledged as his natural child, claimed her legitime. The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine law governed, applying the Renvoi Doctrine, and entitled Helen to her legitime.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 124518)

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
  • Special Proceeding No. 622, CFI Davao: Executor Adolfo C. Aznar and heir Maria Lucy Christensen Daney filed final account.
  • CFI approved account (Sept. 14, 1949), ordered reimbursement of P3,600 to Maria Lucy (paid to Helen) and awarded residue income to Maria Lucy for life, remainder to third parties per will.
  • Decedent and Will Provisions
  • Edward E. Christensen: born New York (1875), U.S./California citizen, long‐term resident and domiciliary in the Philippines, died Manila (April 30, 1953).
  • Will (Mar. 5, 1951, Manila):
    • Bequest of P3,600 in trust to Maria Helen Christensen Garcia (non‐relative acknowledged natural child) payable P100/month.
    • Income of all residue to Maria Lucy Christensen Daney (only legitimate daughter) for life; remainder as provided.
  • Opposition by Helen Christensen Garcia
  • Helen previously declared acknowledged natural child by Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. L-11483-84).
  • Grounds: estate governed by Philippine succession law; entitled as forced heir to one‐half of estate in full ownership.
  • Lower Court Decision
  • Applied California law (testator’s domicile state): upheld absolute testamentary freedom, denied legitime to Helen.
  • Denied motions for reconsideration; appellant Helen Garcia appealed.
  • Assignments of Error
  • Ignoring Helen’s status as acknowledged natural child and her legitime.
  • Failure to apply international law and renvoi doctrine.
  • Erroneous reliance on California internal law over Philippine national law.
  • Disregard of Philippine mandatory legitime provisions.

Issues:

  • Which law governs intrinsic validity of the will: California internal law or Philippine national law under Civil Code, art. 16?
  • Does California Civil Code, art. 946 (conflict‐of‐laws rule) apply, invoking the renvoi doctrine to refer succession to Philippine law?
  • Is Helen entitled as an acknowledged natural child to her legitime under mandatory Philippine forced‐heirship rules?
  • Did the lower court err in approving the executor’s distribution contrary to Philippine succession law?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.