The Renvoi Doctrine

What is the Renvoi Doctrine?

The Renvoi Doctrine is a judicial precept whereby the Conflict of Laws Rule in the place of the forum refer a matter to the Conflict of Laws Rule in another, and the latter refers the matter back to the forum (remission) or to a third state (transmission). Thus, owing to its french translation: "to send back" or "to refer back unopened".

It becomes relevant in cases where the individual involved is a national of one country and a domiciliary of another; or with respect to property, the property is located in one country and the law of another is being invoked relative to the issues concerning the property. So much so that where an individual (a decedent) is a national and a domiciliary of one country (say, Texas U.S.), there can be no Renvoi as to the issue concerning the validity of his disposition by virtue of the will here in the Philippines since it is the law of the nationality which is to be applied and there was no instance of the matter being referred back (Bellis vs. Bellis; Note that in the case, the Doctrine of Processual Presumption was applied).

An example  where the Renvoi Doctrine was applied was in the case of Aznar vs. Garcia. The Decedent was a national of California and a domiciliary of the Philippines. The acknowledged natural child claimed her right to her legitime pursuant to Philippine law. This was opposed by the decedent's executor contending  that the will, not mentioning her legitimes, was valid pursuant to Californian law. The Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the child. The reason: while the Philippine laws hold that it is the law of the country of nationality of the decedent which should govern, where the law of the latter refers back the matter to the forum or domiciliary, there is Renvoi. Thus the Philippine  Court will take cognizance of the issue and apply the law of the Philippines. The law of the state of California provides for the applicBility of the law of the domicile, by reason of which the Court validly ruled in favor of the acknowledged natural child.

Read More

The Renvoi Doctrine

What is the Renvoi Doctrine?

The Renvoi Doctrine is a judicial precept whereby the Conflict of Laws Rule in the place of the forum refer a matter to the Conflict of Laws Rule in another, and the latter refers the matter back to the forum (remission) or to a third state (transmission). Thus, owing to its french translation: "to send back" or "to refer back unopened".

It becomes relevant in cases where the individual involved is a national of one country and a domiciliary of another; or with respect to property, the property is located in one country and the law of another is being invoked relative to the issues concerning the property. So much so that where an individual (a decedent) is a national and a domiciliary of one country (say, Texas U.S.), there can be no Renvoi as to the issue concerning the validity of his disposition by virtue of the will here in the Philippines since it is the law of the nationality which is to be applied and there was no instance of the matter being referred back (Bellis vs. Bellis; Note that in the case, the Doctrine of Processual Presumption was applied).

An example  where the Renvoi Doctrine was applied was in the case of Aznar vs. Garcia. The Decedent was a national of California and a domiciliary of the Philippines. The acknowledged natural child claimed her right to her legitime pursuant to Philippine law. This was opposed by the decedent's executor contending  that the will, not mentioning her legitimes, was valid pursuant to Californian law. The Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the child. The reason: while the Philippine laws hold that it is the law of the country of nationality of the decedent which should govern, where the law of the latter refers back the matter to the forum or domiciliary, there is Renvoi. Thus the Philippine  Court will take cognizance of the issue and apply the law of the Philippines. The law of the state of California provides for the applicBility of the law of the domicile, by reason of which the Court validly ruled in favor of the acknowledged natural child.

Read More

Case Digest: Bellis vs. Bellis

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

Bellis vs. Bellis

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.

N.B. To see why the Renvoi doctrine was not applied in this case, click HERE for the explanation.

Read More