Bohanan vs. Bohanan

The Court held that the intrinsic validity of testamentary dispositions, including the existence and extent of legitimes, is determined by the national law of the decedent at the time of death pursuant to Article 10 of the old Civil Code; where the decedent was a citizen of Nevada, which allows testators to dispose of their entire estate freely without reserving shares for forced heirs, the testamentary provisions excluding the decedent’s children and divorced wife from the bulk of the estate are valid in Philippine jurisdiction.

C. O. Bohanan, a citizen of the United States born in Nebraska but domiciled in Nevada, died in the Philippines in 1944. He executed a will in Manila on April 23, 1944, leaving the bulk of his estate to his grandson and siblings, with minimal legacies to his children and nothing to his former wife Magdalena C. Bohanan, from whom he had obtained a Reno divorce in 1922. The will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila on April 24, 1950, which found that the testator was a citizen of Nevada and that the will conformed to Nevada law.

• C. O. Bohanan died in 1944, leaving a will executed in Manila on April 23, 1944, which was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance of Manila on April 24, 1950.
• The testator was born in Nebraska but had selected Nevada as his domicile and permanent residence; the probate court found him to be a citizen of Nevada at the time of death.
• The testator obtained a divorce from his wife Magdalena C. Bohanan in Reno, Nevada on May 20, 1922; Magdalena subsequently married Carl Aaron in 1925, and this marriage was subsisting at the time of the testator’s death.
• The executor filed a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, distributing the estate (valued at P211,639.33 after expenses) as follows: one-half of the residuary estate in trust for the testator’s grandson Edward George Bohanan; the other half to the testator’s brother F.L. Bohanan and sister Mrs. M. B. Galbraith; legacies of P6,000 each to the testator’s children Edward Gilbert Bohanan and Mary Lydia Bohanan; and various legacies to other individuals.
• The will made no provision for Magdalena C. Bohanan, and the children received only P6,000 each, constituting a small fraction of the total estate.
• In a prior order dated June 19, 1955, the trial court had found that no community property existed between the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan, which finding had become final.
• Section 9905 of the Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides that any person of sound mind over eighteen may dispose of all his or her estate by will.

• Petitioner Magdalena C. Bohanan maintained that the Reno divorce secured by the testator should be declared a nullity in Philippine jurisdiction, citing Querubin v. Querubin and other precedents, thereby restoring her rights as a spouse to share in the estate.
• Petitioners Edward and Mary Lydia Bohanan argued that they had been deprived of their legitime under Philippine law, which entitled them to two-thirds of the estate, and that the testamentary provisions giving them only P6,000 each were invalid for violating mandatory provisions of the Civil Code regarding forced heirs.
• Petitioners contended that the trial court erred in recognizing the testator’s Nevada citizenship and applying Nevada law instead of Philippine law regarding succession and the intrinsic validity of the will.

• Respondent executor maintained that the testator was a citizen of Nevada at the time of death, having selected that state as his domicile, and that Nevada law permitted him to dispose of all his property freely without reserving shares for forced heirs or legitimes.
• Respondent argued that the prior finding regarding the absence of community property between the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan, as well as the recognition of the Reno divorce, were already final and could no longer be collaterally attacked in the partition proceedings.
• Respondent contended that under Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the intrinsic validity of testamentary dispositions, including the extent of successional rights, is governed by the national law of the decedent, which in this case allowed the testator to exclude his children and former wife from the bulk of his estate.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the Supreme Court could take judicial notice of Nevada law (Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925) despite its not having been formally introduced in evidence at the hearing on the project of partition.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the testamentary provisions depriving the testator’s children of their legitime under Philippine law are valid.
  • Whether the former wife Magdalena C. Bohanan has any right to share in the estate notwithstanding the Reno divorce and her subsequent remarriage.
  • Whether Nevada law or Philippine law governs the intrinsic validity of the testamentary dispositions and the extent of the decedent’s successional rights.

• Procedural: The Court held that it could properly take judicial notice of Section 9905 of the Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 because the same provision had been previously introduced in evidence during earlier proceedings in the same case (specifically during the hearing of Magdalena’s motion for withdrawal on October 4, 1954, and during the initial probate hearing on January 23, 1950), and because petitioners themselves did not dispute the content of the Nevada law.
• Substantive:
  • The Court ruled that Article 10 of the old Civil Code (now Article 16 of the new Civil Code) expressly provides that testamentary succession regarding the extent of successional rights and the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions is regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question, regardless of the nature of the property or its location.
  • Because the testator was a citizen of Nevada, which allows testators to dispose of all their property freely pursuant to Section 9905 of the Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925, the provisions giving minimal legacies to his children and nothing to his former wife are valid.
  • The Court affirmed the prior finding that Magdalena C. Bohanan had no share in the estate because the Reno divorce was valid, no community property existed between the parties, and she had remarried; under Nevada law, a divorced wife has no right to inherit.
  • The order approving the project of partition was affirmed with costs against petitioners.

• Nationality Principle in Succession — Under Article 10 of the old Civil Code (Article 16, new Civil Code), the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, the extent of successional rights, and the order of succession are determined by the national law of the decedent at the time of death, irrespective of the nature of the property or its location. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the validity of testamentary dispositions that would have been invalid under Philippine law but were permitted under the decedent’s national law (Nevada).
• Judicial Notice of Foreign Law — Foreign law must generally be proved in accordance with Rule 123, Section 41 of the Rules of Court; however, the Court may take judicial notice of a foreign law when it has been previously introduced and admitted in evidence in the same case, or when the parties do not dispute its provisions.
• Testamentary Freedom — The Court recognized that Nevada law permits complete testamentary freedom, allowing a testator to dispose of his entire estate without reserving shares for forced heirs or legitimes, and that this freedom may be exercised by a foreign testator with respect to property located in the Philippines.

• "Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found." — The Court cited this provision from Article 10 of the old Civil Code as the controlling rule determining that Nevada law governs the validity of the testamentary dispositions.
• "Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose of all his or her estate, real and personal, the same being chargeable with the payment of the testator's debts." — The Court quoted Section 9905 of the Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 to establish that the testator had the right under his national law to dispose of his entire estate freely, without regard to forced heirs.

• Querubin v. Querubin (87 Phil. 124) — Cited by petitioners in support of their argument that the Reno divorce should be declared a nullity in Philippine jurisdiction; the Court distinguished or implicitly rejected this argument by affirming the validity of the divorce and its consequences under Nevada law.
• Cousins Hiz v. Fluemer (55 Phil. 852) — Cited by petitioners regarding the validity of foreign divorces.
• Ramirez v. Gmur (42 Phil. 855) — Cited by petitioners regarding the recognition of foreign divorces.
• Gorayeb v. Hashim (50 Phil. 22) — Cited by petitioners regarding the recognition of foreign divorces.

• Article 10 of the old Civil Code (now Article 16 of the new Civil Code) — Provides that legal and testamentary successions, regarding the order of succession, extent of successional rights, and intrinsic validity of provisions, are regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question; this was the primary statutory basis for applying Nevada law to determine the validity of the will’s provisions.
• Section 9905, Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 — Provides that any person over eighteen years of age and of sound mind may dispose of all his or her estate by will; this provision established the testamentary freedom that allowed the decedent to exclude his children and former wife from the bulk of his estate.
• Rule 123, Section 41 of the Rules of Court — Governs the proof of public or official records of foreign jurisdictions; the Court noted this rule but found that judicial notice of the Nevada law was proper because it had been previously proved in the same case.

• Justice Barrera — Concurred in the result without writing a separate opinion.