Case Summary (G.R. No. 207145)
Facts and Procedural History
C. O. Bohanan executed his last will and testament on April 23, 1944, in Manila. On April 24, 1950, the Court of First Instance admitted the will to probate, finding that Bohanan remained domiciled in Nevada and was therefore governed by Nevada law. Philippine Trust Company was appointed executor. On January 24, 1956, the executor filed a proposed partition in accordance with the will, allocating:
- One-half of the residuary estate to a U.S. bank in trust for Bohanan’s grandson (P90,819.67 cash plus mining stocks).
- The other half to the testator’s brother and sister, equally.
- Legacies of P6,000 each to the testator’s son Edward and daughter Mary Lydia, payable over three years.
- Additional legacies to various individuals.
Magdalena Bohanan and her children objected, claiming deprivation of their compulsory heirs’ shares (legitime). The trial court overruled their objections and approved the partition. This appeal ensued.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
- Constitution in Force: 1935 Philippine Constitution
- Conflict-of-Laws Rule (Old Civil Code, Art. 10, par. 2): “Legal and testamentary successions … shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question.”
- Philippine Rules of Court, Rule 123, Sec. 41: Requirements for proving foreign law.
- Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925, Sec. 9905: “[E]very person over the age of eighteen years … may, by last will, dispose of all his or her estate, real and personal …”
Widow’s Claim
Magdalena Bohanan contended that the Reno divorce was invalid in the Philippines and that as surviving spouse she was entitled to her legitime. The courts below found:
- The testator’s Nevada divorce from Magdalena was valid under Nevada law.
- No community property existed between the parties at the time of divorce (1922).
- Magdalena remarried in 1925, confirming the dissolution of the Bohanan marriage.
- Nevada law does not protect a divorced spouse’s legitime.
Magdalena did not appeal from the trial court’s final order of June 18, 1955, denying her claim to community property. Accordingly, her claim was barred by res judicata and by the testator’s domiciliary law.
Children’s Claims
Edward and Mary Lydia Bohanan alleged that their legacies of P6,000 each fell short of their compulsory heirship share (two-thirds of the estate) under Philippine law. The key legal question was whether the testator’s testamentary disposition, lawful under Nevada law, could override the Philippine legitime.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
- Nationality and Domicile: The probate court’s finding that the testator was domiciled in Nevada and a U.S. citizen stands unchallenged.
- Choice-of-Law Principle: Under Civil Code Art. 10, par. 2, testamentary succession is governed by the national law of the decedent, regardless of where property is located.
- Proof of Foreign Law: Although the executor did not formally introduce S
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207145)
Background and Probate of the Will
- On April 23, 1944, C. O. Bohanan executed his last will and testament in Manila.
- On April 24, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Rafael Amparo, admitted the will to probate.
- The court found that, despite long residence in the Philippines, Bohanan was domiciled in Nevada and remained a U.S. citizen at death.
- Letters testamentary were granted to the Philippine Trust Company upon filing a P10,000 bond.
Project of Partition by the Executor
- On January 24, 1956, the executor filed a partition plan in compliance with the will’s provisions.
- Residuary estate (cash P181,639.33 plus mining stock):
• One-half to Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles (in trust for grandson Edward George Bohanan).
• One-half to testator’s brother F. L. Bohanan and sister Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, equally. - Specific legacies charged against the principal estate:
• P6,000 each to Edward Gilbert Bohanan and Mary Lydia Bohanan, payable in three annual installments.
• P10,000 to Clara Daen; P2,000 to Katherine Woodward; P4,000 to Beulah Fox; P2,000 to Elizabeth Hastings.
Opposition by Widow and Children
- Magdalena C. Bohanan (widow) and her children Edward C. and Mary Lydia Bohanan filed objections to the partition.
- They claimed deprivation of their legitime under Philippine law:
• Widow received no share.
• Children’s legacies (P6,000 each) fell short of