Monday, February 8, 2010

Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration of Estates

    Will (A783, NCC):
    -an act
    Whereby a person
    Is permitted,
    With the formalities prescribed by law,
    To determine to a certain extent the distribution of his estate
    To take effect after his death
    -Osorio v. Posadas: a disposition made by a competent testator in the form prescribed by law of property over which he has legal power of disposition
    -PRIL perspective: INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER
    Why? You voluntarily make a will but you do not die voluntarily (unless nagsuicide ka). Since properties are transferred only after death through the will, it's considered an involuntary transfer
  1. Extrinsic Validity of Wills
    2. -law of the place where the will was executed (lex loci celebrationis)
    -issue: lugi ba Filipino on what law may be used???
    Filipinos abroad
    Aliens abroad
    Art 17 + Art 815, NCC
    Art 816 and Art 817
    1. RP law
    2. Law of the place where the will was made
    1. RP Law
    2. Law of the place where the will was made
    3. Their own national law
    But since Art 815 lang ang applicable talaga on making wills, it might be interpreted that RP law cannot be applied
    So mukhang lugi ang Filipino kasi sa Aliens their will may be validated using either of 3 choices of law
    TOLENTINO: Art 17 still applies, does, a will by a Filipino made abroad may conform to RP laws
    U©V
    In re Estate of Johnson
    summary: Past case. This is the case where one of the daughters in the first marriage wanted to invalidate the will so that intestate proceedings may instead be conducted (i.e. she will be an heir). Will was earlier probated, allegedly in accordance with Illinois law (TC judge took JN of the law just based on an annotation), and is sought to be nullified on the grounds that it was not made in accordance with Illinois law and that the decedent is an RP resident. Court held that since no Illinois law showed (to prove that it was indeed not made in accordance with Illinois law) and since what matters is that the decedent is a CITIZEN of Illinois and since she did not contest the taking of JN of the TC of a foreign law w/o the proof required, then deemed admitted that the will was in accordance with Illinois law.
    Facts:
    Emil Johnson (decedent)
    -native of Sweden
    -Citizen of US (Illinois)
    -resident of RP at time of death
    -made a WILL
    >in RP
    >holographic
    >signed and written by him
    >only 2 witnesses signed (so did not conform with Section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Philippines, which required 3 witnesses)
    -probate of his will initiated, arguing the will was executed in accordance with the laws of Illinois (he was a citizen of Illinois)
    TC: declared the will to be legal and admitted it to probate (TC judge relied on Section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, as exhibited in vol.3 of Starr & Curtis' Annotated Illinois Statutes, 2nd ed, p.426)
    --after will probated, her daugher from first marriage, Ebba Ingeborg, moved for the annulment of the decree, saying:
    1. will was not executed in accordance with Illinois law
    2. the decedent was not a resident of the state of Illinois
  2. WON Section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to wills of aliens residing in RP?
    3. Section 636: authorizes probate by our courts of a will made within the Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or country, when such will is executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which the testator is a citizen of subject, and which might be proved under the law of such state or country.
    -IT IS APPLICABLE: the "state"  would include US, and the operation of law is not limited to wills of aliens.
    -if Johnson was at the time of his death a citizen of US and of the state of Illinois, his will was provable under this section in the courts of the Philippines, provided the instrument was so executed as to be admissible to probate under laws of the State of Illinois
  3. Decedent a national of Illinois (to warrant the application of Illinois law)
    4. YES. Proof adduced before TC showed he was indeed a national of Illinois. Petition merely contests the residence of the decedent to be in the Philippines, but not the nationality
    Why contested residence: US naturalization laws require residence of at least 5 years in US and 1 year w/n the State or territory where the court granting the naturalization papers is held to grant the certificate of naturalization
    -still, no other proof to rebut the presumption that he was indeed naturalized as a US citizen (particularly of Illinois)
  4. WON will executed in conformity with the State of Illinois
    5. NOT REALLY SURE, BUT THE PETITIONER CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
    -Courts cannot take JN of Foreign laws: TC merely relied on the presentation of Section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois as exhibited in a volume of an annotation and assumed that he could take JN of the laws of Illinois. But it was WRONG!!!
    -proper rule is to require proof of the statutes of the States of the American Union whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in any action litigated in the Philippine courts.
    -still,
    (1) petition does not state any fact from which it would appear that the law of Illinois is different from what the court found
    (2)petition did not raise any assignment of error to question the supposed taking of JN of the court
    U©V
    Extrinsic Validity of JOINT wills
    Art818: prohibition against Joint wills
    Joint wills
    -1 will made by 2 persons (in 1 document) for
    • Reciprocal benefit
    • Benefit of a third person
    -considered VOID in RP: against PUBLIC POLICY
    1. Will purely personal and unilateral act: di na ganito if 2 persons make 1 will
    2. Wills should be revocable: If you're one of the testators and you revoked the will, the other testator would have no will left
    3. This may expose a testator to undue influence and danger of death (papatayin nung isa ung isa) - PREVENT POTENTIAL OVERREACHING
      • IF MUTUAL: there might be undue influence on the part of the more aggressive testator to dictate the terms of the will for his or her own benefit or for that of 3P whom he or she desires to favor
      • IF RECIPROCAL: one might kill the other
    Dacanay v. Florendo: joint will (between husband and wife), even if admitted upon the death of the husband (erroneous though), the first probate only affects estate of husband. Wife may either make a new will or die intestate.
    -Prohibition, though, applies only to Filipinos: if aliens, may be probated AS LONG AS NO FILIPINO IS AFFECTED BY THE WILL
    Extrinsic Validity of Holographic Wills
    Art10: HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS -one entirely written
    Dated
    And signed by the hand of the testator himself
    -not subject to any form
    -Need not be witnessed
    -may be made in or out of RP
    -also called AUTOGRAPHIC WILL
    -advantages:
    • facilitates the secret expression of the desire of the testator
    • guarantees absolute secrecy
    -disadvantages (accdg to JBL Reyes): since validity would depend on the authenticity of the handwriting, how would one determine the authenticity of a very short handwriting???
    Succession review: validity of holographic wills
    REQUISITES FOR A HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
    1. In writing (Art. 804, CC)
    2. In a language or dialect known to the testator (Art. 804, CC)
    3. Entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself (Art. 810, CC)
    U©V
    Babcock Templeton v. Rider Babcock
    Summary: A Californian citizen who resides in RP at the time of her death executed a holographic will which made principal beneficiaries the children of Babcock Templeton. Brother who got something smaller (probably none at all - not clear from book) contests the validity of the will saying that she did not acquire domicile in California (which laws would authorize RP courts to probate the will as a holographic will). Court held that it was the decedent's intention to establish her domicile in California so California law would apply.
    Facts:
    Decedent: Jennie Rider Babcock
    Beatrice Babcock Templeton (mother of 3 children who are principal beneficiaries of the will)
    William Rider Babock (brother of Jennie)
    1. Jennie was a resident of California (though temporarily residing in RP)
    2. She acquired her domicile in California, and never lost it
    1. Jennie never acquired domicile in California; or
    2. If ever Jennie did, she lost it
    Wanted the will probated in RP
    Contested the probate of the will (kasi di sha kasama/maliit part nya)
    "Will":
    • Paper writing
    • Testamentary character
    • Not executed as a will under RP laws
    • But alleged to be made in accordance with CALIFORNIAN Law (and both parties agreed that it may be proved in accordance w/ Californian law as her holographic will)
    -alleged to be authorized for probate under Section 636, Civil Procedure (see In Re Estate of Johnson)
    WON Jennie, at the time the will was made, was a citizen of California (so that her will may be probated in accordance with California laws)? YES
    1. Citizenship: how determined here: According to 14th Amendment of US Constitution, citizenship of a person born in US is dependent upon the place of residence or domicile of the person.  - so it was essential to determine WON she had domicile in California
    2. Jennie voted in California! Voting in a place is an important circumstance and , where the evidence is scanty, may have decisive weight. The exercise of franchise is one of the highest prerogatives of citizenship, and in no other act of his life does the citizen identify his interests with the state in which he lives more than in the act of voting.
    3. No evidence to refute the conclusion that Jennie obtained domicile in California
    WON Jennie subsequently lost her domicile in California? NO
    1. Intention [to establish domicile in one place] determines WON domicile has been abandoned; intention is revealed only in the acts and declarations of the person concerned
    2. No intention to establish domicile in NY: Short stay + repeated statements that she DID NOT INTEND TO ESTABLISH DOMICILE IN NY
    3. No intention to establish domicile in RP:
      • even though she has been a resident of RP for a long time (place of permanent residence), she at no time had any intention of residing here permanently but repeated declarations revealed a fixed intention of returning ultimately to US
      • A citizen of US cannot acquire RP Citizenship by mere residence alone
    *since she is not a Filipino Citizen, she is considered an alien whose will is provable as the will of a citizen of another state or country
    Under which state should Jennie's will be proved? CALIFORNIA
    1. Citizenship depends on domicile
    MASSACHUSETTS: place of her marital abode - but not alleged as her place of domicile here
    CALIFORNIA: domicile of choice + residence
    U©V
  5. Intrinsic Validity of Wills
    6. Unitary system from Roman Law: national law of decedent
    Art 16(2), NCC: national law of the decedent
    • Order of succession
    • Amount of successional rights
    • Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
    Miciano v. Brimo (case where the decedent wanted RP laws instead of his turkish law to apply to the intrinsic validity of his will and whoever contests it loses his "mana" - note that in the end, RP laws still applied by the processual presumption as no evidence of turkish law presented): Although Andre Brimo opposed his brother's will, he's not deemed to have contested the legacy because the choice-of-law clause in the will was contrary to law
    -but since there's a policy of giving primacy to the last will and testament of the testator, the court should have adopted a policy centered approach instead of the mechanical application of lex nationalii.
    • MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH: decedent was a resident of RP, executed will in RP, intended RP law to apply, will concerned properties located in RP - can justify application of RP Law
    • DISINGENUOUS CHARACTERIZATION (applicable choice-of-law rule is determined by how the issue was characterized by the court. So if characterize the main issue to call for the forum's application of its own susbtantive law): here, court could characterize the main issue as a property case instead of succession to justify the application of RP laws - lex rei sitae
    U©V
    Cayetano v. Leonidas
    Summary: decedent who was a former Filipino citizen naturalized as a citizen of Pennsylvania, executed a will in US which did not leave anything to her father, who was her sole compulsory heir. Court held that since the decedent was already a US Citizen at the time she made her will, US laws would apply as to intrinsic validity (thus, no need for legitimes - her father would not have aything)
    Facts
    Decedent:  Adoracion Campos
    Surviving heirs:
    • Father: Hermogenes - only compulsory heir
    • Sisters: Nenita Paguia, Remedios Lopez and Marieta Medina
    -Hermogenes executed an Affidavit of Adjudication whereby he adjudicated unto himself the ownership of the entire estate of Adoracion
    -11 months after, Nenita Paguia filed a petition for the reprobate of a will of Adoracion, which was allegedly executed in the US and for her appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased testatrix.
    - An opposition to the reprobate of the will was filed by Hermogenes:
    • will in question is a forgery
    • intrinsic provisions of the will are null and void
    • even if pertinent American laws on intrinsic provisions are invoked, the same could not apply inasmuch as they would work injustice and injury to him
    - Hermogenes filed a Motion to Dismiss Opposition (With Waiver of Rights or Interests): confirms validity of will
    -TC: admitted last will and testament, allowed probate inRP
    - Hermogenes filed a petition for relief:
    • withdrawal of his opposition was secured through fraud
    + motion entitled "Motion to Vacate and/or Set Aside the Order of January 10, 1979, and/or dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
    -TC: dismissed: failed to present evidence in support of it
    WILL:
    • Adoracion was a US citizen, a permanent resident of Pennsylvania at the time she made the will
    • She died in Manila while temporarily residing with her sister
    • Made in accordance with Pennsylvania law, probated and registered in Penn. after her death
    WON the intrinsic validity of the will can be passed upon during probate of the will? YES HERE.
    GR:  probate court's authority is limited only to:
    •  the extrinsic validity of the will
    • due execution
    • testatrix's testamentary capacity
    • Compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribed by law
    X: where practical considerations demand intrinsic validity to be passed upon
    WON the will is valid even if the compulsory heir was deprived of his legitime? YES
    1. It was sufficiently established that Adoracion was, at the time of her death, an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
    2. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent: law of Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is the national law of the decedent. [Article 16(2) and 1039 of the Civil Code]
    3. Pennsylvania law: no legitimes, testator could give away entire estate to strangers!
    WON the will (which completely deprived compulsory heir of share) is against public policy? NO
    -used Bellis v. Bellis: whatever public policy or good customs may be involved, Congress has not intended to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals
    U©V
  6. Interpretation of Wills
    7. -governed by rules of interpretation of decedent's NATIONAL LAW
    Ambiguity...
    GR: where terms clear and unambiguous, lex intentionis should be followed (A1370)
    X: ambiguous: intention of the party or the exact meaning may be inferred by
    • referring to the context of the instrument itself
    • Referring to testator's contemporaneous and subsequent acts in keeping  with the nature of the document
    Presumptions…
    • Interpretations of ambiguous phrase should be determined accordance w/ the laws and customs of the state most probably in the mind of the grantor or testator when he used the words, and which he is presumed to be most familiar [SPECIFIC LAW IN MIND]
    • Different dispositions: interpretation by which dispositions would be operative shall be preferred [interpret for validity]
    >>>presume that the testator intended a lawful will
  7. Revocation
    8. Art. 828: will revocable at any time before the death of testator
    >>>cannot waive or restrict right to revoke a will
    Art. 829:
    Revocation done outside RP + domicile outside RP: validity depends on:
    1. Law of the place where will was made (lex loci celebrationis)
    2. Law of the place where testator had his domicle (lex domicili)
    Revocation done outside RP + domicile in RP:
    1. Law of the domicile
    2. Law of the place of revocation
    Art 830: When wills deemed revoked in RP:
    1. By implication of law
    2. By some will, codicil, or other writing, executed as provided in the case of wills
    3. By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the will with the intention of revoking it, by the testator himself, or by some other persons in his presence and by his express direction
    Problem:
    Testator domiciled in State A, already had a will. Revoked will in accordance with laws of State A.
    Transferred domicile to State B, where revocation done in State A invalid. Died in State B.
    Is the revocation valid?
    Common law: apply law of domicile at time of death
    RP: law of the place of revocation
  8. Probate
    9. -adjudication that the last will and testament of a person was executed with all the formalities required by law
    -authentication of the will
    -merely procedural: follow law of the forum
    BUT: look at foreign law if suit made as to extrinsic requirements in the execution of the will
    When will shall be disallowed (rule 76, section 9, ROC):
    (a)  If not executed and attested as required by law;
    (b) If the testator was insane, or otherwise mentally incapable to make a will, at the time of its execution;
    (c)  If it was executed under duress, or the influence of fear, or threats;
    (d) If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and influence, on the part of the beneficiary, or of some other person for his benefit;
    (e) If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick, and he did not intend that the instrument should be his will at the time of fixing his signature thereto.
    -proving wills made in foreign country: prove
    1. Will duly executed in manner required by law
    2. Testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution of will
    TESTAMENTARY CAPAITY: capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction in which the testator is engaged at the time, to recollect the property to be disposed of and the persons who would naturally be supposed to have claims upon the testator, and to comprehend the manner in which the instrument will distribute his property among the objects of his bounty [Jocson v. jocson]
    -wills made and probated in foreign country in accordance with laws of that country [Rule 77, section 1]:
  9. should be filed and recorded in the proper RTC
  10. Due execution and testamentary capacity of testator does not need to be proved again (note: sabi ni Sir B it should still undergo probate proceedings in RP)
    11. Art 817, NCC (same ~ similar to Sec 636 of old CivPro rules): A will made in the Philippines
    ...by a citizen or subject of another country,
    ...which is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject,
    ...and which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country,
    shall have the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines.
    Common law:
    • Movable properties: will admitted to probate valid at the last domicile of the testator as valid everywhere
    • Immovable properties: probate of the will in his last domicile does not affect the conveyance of land which is subject to lex situs
    U©V
    Suntay v. Suntay, supra
    Summary: Decedent left two families. Surviving spouse presented alleged will, and so did his son from the first marriage (2nd will made in China, allegedly in accordance with Chinese law). Court held that neither of the will could be probated as the Philippine-made will was not duly proved, and the allegedly already-probated China-made will was not sufficiently established.
    Facts:
    Jose Suntay
    -Filipino Citizen
    -resident of the Philippines
    -died in Amoy, Fookien, China
    -left properties in RP, and a house in China
    -survived by children of 1st marriage and 2nd wife and child of 2nd marriage
    -2 proceedings:
    *intestate proceedings, one of the children of the 1st marriage appointed as administrator of the estate
    *Testate proceedings, by the widow showing a will allegedly executed in 1929 in RP
    >denied: loss of will before hearing
    >appealed: further proceedings, deposition of witnesses to a will taken : still dismissed
    -Pacific war ensued
    -after war: child of 2nd marriage (Silvino) presented the alleged will of his father in Chinese Characters executed and signed by him in 1931 and that the same was filed, recorded and probated in Amoy, China
    -presented petition for probate of either the 1929 will (executed in RP) or the 1931 will - both DISALLOWED
    WON EITHER OF THE WILL COULD BE PROBATED? NO…NONE COULD BE PROBATED
    1. AS TO THE 1929 PHILIPPINE WILL: not proved by Credible witnesses
    -Silvino failed to present 2 credible witnesses to prove the provisions of the lost 1929 will
    -CREDIBLE Witnesses: competent witnesses, not rely on hearsay
    2. AS TO THE ALLEGED PROBATED 1931 WILL: was not established
    -Rule 78.1: if will probated in another country, if could be allowed, filed and recorded by proper CFI
    -Rule 78.2: copy of will + allowance is filed before CFI, court shall fix time and place for hearing, and cause notice to be given as in case of original will
    -Rule 78.3: if will allowed in RP, court shall issue certificate of allowance, signed by Judge, attested by the seal of the court, filed and recorded by clerk, and will would have same effect as if originally proved and allowed in such court
    -in this case: failed to prove…
    1. Municipal district court of Amoy, China is a probate court
    2. law of China on procedure in probate or allowance of wills in 1931
    …here, just presented the unverified answers of Consul General of RC (depositions) which are INADMISSIBLE:
    >Consul General does not qualify and make the person who holds the Chinese law an expert of Chinese law on procedure in probate matters (because they are appointed to attend to trade matters)
    >if admitted, adverse party would be deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
    -plus: proceeding in Amoy, China court were not probate proceedings, but was conducted for the taking of the testimony of 2 attesting witnesses to the will
    3. PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION: in the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amoy is a probate court, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts are the same as those in RP Courts
    -probate: proceeding in rem: can send notices through personal service or service by publication
    -so since no notice of the proceedings before Amoy, China that it was a probate proceeding, it cannot be deemed as a probate proceeding and is deemed as merely a deposition or perpetuation of testimony
    U©V
    VDA DE PEREZ v. TOLETE
    Summary: Specpro case. Mother in law claims that since her son in law made her daughter the heir for all the remainder of the real and personal property, wherever it was situated, she was the sole heir and so she should receive all the properties. Heirs of the son in law contested the acts of the mother in law. Court held that the heirs of the son in law should be given notice of the proceedings in RP and the wills should be proven as made in accordance with NY law in RP.
    Facts:
    -Jose and Evelyn Cunanan lived in NY w/ 3 children (already naturalized, working as doctors). Jose executed a will wherein he bequeathed all the remainder of the real and personal property "wherever situated" to his wife
    -if ever Evelyn dies first, Jose's properties would go to his children and grandchildren upon his death, with his brother Rafael as trustee
    -Evelyn also executed her own will. In both wills, it was stated that if the two of them died at the same time, it would be presumed that Jose died first.
    -Sadly, the whole Cunanan family died in a fire in 1982.
    -Rafael filed separate proceedings for the probate of the 2 wills (Jose's and Evelyn's) in NY
    -both wills admitted to probate, letters testamentary issued to Rafael
    -in 1983, Salud Perez (mother of Evelyn) filed a petition to reprobate the wills, asked that she be appointed the administratrix
    TC of Bulacan: Approved the petition, made her the administratrix of the Cunanan's properties
    Acts of administration:
    • Motion praying that the proceeds of the insurance made by Jose in favor of Evelyn and their children be delivered to her
    • Motion that Rafael be ordered to give her bank deposits and certificates amounting to about P38k
    -Rafael contested proceedings in RP:
    • Salud is not an heir
    • Wills of Jose and Evelyn, who were both American citizens, were executed in accordance with the formalities of NY law
    WON the wills of the Cunanan spouses may be made effective in RP? YES, provided follow rules of court!
    1. When are wills executed by aliens abroad effective in RP? Art 816: if made with the formalities prescribed
      1. by the law of the place in which he resides
      2. in his country
      3. By NCC
    1. Evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills
      1. Due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign laws
      2. Testator has his domicile in the foreign country (not in RP)
      3. The will has been admitted to probate in such country
      4. The fact that the foreign tribunal is a probate court
      5. The laws of a foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills
    1. HERE: all except first and last were proven by evidence
    2. Why need to present evidence of the contents of the foreign law? RP courts cannot take JN of foreign laws
    3. Wills of the Cunanan Spouses should be probated jointly (but it doesn't mean that it's a joint will):
      1. construe rules liberally in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding
      2. No Joint wills: the Cunanan spouses executed SEPARATE WILLS. Since the 2 wills contain essentially the same provisions and pertain to property which in all probability are conjugal, joint probate na!
    1. NOTICE should have been given by Mrs. Perez to the other Cunanan Heirs:
      • they are also heirs of Jose Cunanan
      • As regard to notices, the will probated abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will that is presented for probate for the first time
    Disposition: Remand case, submit evidence necessary (under item 2, a and e) and give notice to the other heirs
    U©V
  11. Administration of Estate
    1. manage and settle decedent's debts
    2. Distribute the residuum of the estate to the deceased's heirs
    Executor
    Administrator
    When there's a person named in the will
    When there's no person named, or the person named unqualified
    Why appoint an administrator of the estate?
    For the protection of creditors, incidentally only for the distribution of the estate
    Scope of Title of domiciliary administration?
    Only as regards properties w/n 1 state
    ANCILIARY ADMINISTRATOR: one appointed by the court of the foreign country where the assets or property are located
    U©V
    Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated Inc.
    Summary: mere excerpt to show the relevance of ancillary administration
    Facts:
    -Decedent: Idonah Slade Perkins - left 2 stock certificates covering 33,002 shares in BCMI
    -BCMI Stock certificates: in possession of Country Trust Company of NY (domiciliary administrator of Idonah's estate)
    -ancillary administration proceedings instituted in Manila: appointed finally Renato Tayag
    -BCMI was compelled by the court to deliver to Tayag the Certificates. BCMI did not comply
    WON Tayag (and not Country Trust Company of NY) is entitled to administration of the BCMI Certificate of Stocks? TAYAG as ancillary administrator
    1. No contest that ancillary administrator has control and possession of all assets of the decedent w/n the jurisdiction of the Philippines
    2. An administrator appointed in one state or country has no power over property in another state or country
    3. Principal vs. Ancillary administration:
    Principal administration: that which is granted in the jurisdiction of the decedent's last domicile
    Ancillary administration: any other administration
    Why? A grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore (by its own force) have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted.
    When proper? When a person dies leaving property in a country other than that of his last domicile
    1. BCMI, as a domestic corporation, owes full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of lower courts.
    2. The situs of the shares of stocks is here in RP [Wells Fargo Bank and Union v. CIR]
    1. Trusts
    -right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another
    -may be created by deed during the lifetime of the settler or by will
    PRIL problem: When properties are located in places other than where the trustor is domiciled and where the trust was made - does the effect of that trust extend extraterritorially?
    • Validity
    • Essential propriety of the trust
    • Compliance with formalities
    Choice-of-law provision: courts of the place where trust is being administered will normally apply the chosen law (carry out intent of the trustor)
    >if none: follow the law that will sustain the validity of the trust
    Testamentary trusts :: contained in a will :: follow the law of the place to which extrinsic validity of the will depend (usu. Lex loci contractus)
    But since it involves properties: lex situs
Posted by
Labels:

1 comment:

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)