Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 630 views

    Bellis VS Bellis

    Uploaded by

    joy dayag
    1) Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas who had both legitimate and illegitimate children from different marriages. He created two wills six years before his death dividing his estate among his seven surviving children. 2) The illegitimate children claimed they were deprived of their legitime rights under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that as a foreigner, Bellis' will and estate must be governed by his national law of Texas, not Philippine law. 3) Under Texas law, which does not recognize legitimes, Bellis' will that deprived his illegitimate children of legitime shares was valid. The illegitimate children were not entitled to legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bellis VS Bellis

    Uploaded by

    joy dayag
    630 views1 page
    1) Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas who had both legitimate and illegitimate children from different marriages. He created two wills six years before his death dividing his estate among his seven surviving children. 2) The illegitimate children claimed they were deprived of their legitime rights under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that as a foreigner, Bellis' will and estate must be governed by his national law of Texas, not Philippine law. 3) Under Texas law, which does not recognize legitimes, Bellis' will that deprived his illegitimate children of legitime shares was valid. The illegitimate children were not entitled to legitimes.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    BELLIS VS BELLIS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas who had both legitimate and illegitimate children from different marriages. He created two wills six years before his death dividing his estate among his seven surviving children. 2) The illegitimate children claimed they were deprived of their legitime rights under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that as a foreigner, Bellis' will and estate must be governed by his national law of Texas, not Philippine law. 3) Under Texas law, which does not recognize legitimes, Bellis' will that deprived his illegitimate children of legitime shares was valid. The illegitimate children were not entitled to legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    630 views1 page

    Bellis VS Bellis

    Uploaded by

    joy dayag
    1) Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas who had both legitimate and illegitimate children from different marriages. He created two wills six years before his death dividing his estate among his seven surviving children. 2) The illegitimate children claimed they were deprived of their legitime rights under Philippine law. However, the court ruled that as a foreigner, Bellis' will and estate must be governed by his national law of Texas, not Philippine law. 3) Under Texas law, which does not recognize legitimes, Bellis' will that deprived his illegitimate children of legitime shares was valid. The illegitimate children were not entitled to legitimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE DIGEST: BELLIS VS.

    BELLIS
    1 Reply

    G.R. No. L-23678 (June 6, 1967)

    Testate of Amos Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis, et al

    FACTS:

    Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five legitimate
    children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his second wife (who
    survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.

    6 years prior Amos Bellis’ death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his estate
    and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to the project of
    partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they were entitled according
    to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his Philippine estate to be governed
    by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate
    children’s successional rights

    RULING:

    Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in
    accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law
    cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states
    said national law should govern.

    Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should
    be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which
    deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.

    The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas
    law, which is the national law of the deceased.

    You might also like