G.R. No. L-14859 - King vs. Hernaez

The petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 8, 1926, by Beatrice Babcock Templeton to probate a paper writing expressing the testamentary wishes of Jennie Rider Babcock, deceased.
The paper writing was dated May 26, 1926, written entirely in the handwriting of Jennie Rider Babcock, and properly signed by her.
It was found among the deceased’s effects shortly after her death on September 3, 1926, in an envelope addressed to her daughter, Mrs. G. D. Templeton, and son, Mr. W. R. Babcock.
The document left Jennie Rider Babcock’s corporate stock and money to her three grandchildren named Templeton, but provided that the interest and dividends, jewelry, and personal effects were to be given to her only daughter for support until the youngest grandchild reached maturity.

The instrument was admitted as a holographic will, but not executed under the formal will execution provisions under Philippine law (section 618, Code of Civil Procedure).
The will was offered for probate under section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows admission of wills made by citizens or subjects of another country or state in accordance with their own laws, provided the testator was such citizen or subject at time of will’s execution.
The testatrix was alleged to be a resident of California at the time of her death, though temporarily residing in Manila.
Parties agreed the will could be probated as a holographic will under California law, raising the central question whether Jennie Rider Babcock had legal domicile and citizenship in California at the time the will was made.

Beatrice Babcock Templeton argued the testatrix acquired and retained California domicile from her residence periods between 1917 and 1923.
William Rider Babcock contended the testatrix never acquired a legal domicile in California or lost it due to removal to New York State and/or Philippine Islands.

Jennie Rider Babcock lived primarily in Massachusetts during her married life; widowed in 1908 and moved to Manila in 1909 to live with her son until 1917.
She then joined her daughter’s family in San Francisco, California, where the Babcock & Templeton, Inc. business had a branch office managed by her son-in-law, G. D. Templeton.
The testatrix stayed with the Templeton family in California intermittently: several months in 1917-18, returned to Manila from 1918 to 1920, then again living in California from August 1920 to May 1923.
During this second California sojourn, she engaged actively in the community:

Lived in Templetons’ San Francisco home without any apparent intention of leaving California;
Practiced as a Christian Science practitioner;
Participated in political activities and voted in at least one general election;
Expressed attachment to California and intentions to build a home there.

In 1923, the San Francisco business branch was closed and G. D. Templeton moved to New York City, selling their California home. The testatrix moved with them to White Plains, New York.
The testatrix resided only briefly in New York and expressed strong dislike for living there.
She returned to Manila in January 1924 and remained there until her death in September 1926, maintaining statements indicating intention to return to California.
The Passenger Manifest and Baggage Declaration showed New York or Manila as “last residence,” but these were deemed not dispositive of domicile.

The trial court concluded that the testatrix had acquired a domicile in California based on her acts, residence, and statements.
The court also ruled the domicile was not lost despite her removal first to New York and then to Manila, as she lacked intention to acquire domicile elsewhere and maintained intent to return to California.
The will was accordingly admitted to probate as the holographic will of a citizen of the State of California under section 636.

Whether Jennie Rider Babcock had acquired and retained a legal domicile in the State of California at the time the will was executed and at the time of her death.
Whether the removal of the testatrix from California to New York, and later residence in the Philippine Islands, resulted in the loss of her California domicile.
Whether the will should be admitted to probate under section 636 of the Philippine Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that the testatrix be a citizen or subject of another state or country.