case digest
Aznar vs. Garcia
Facts:
Edward Christensen was born in new York but migrated to California where he resided for a period of 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until his death. In his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter,. Maria lucy Christensen (legitimate), as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor, of Helen Christensen Garcia (illigetimate). Counsel for Helen claims that under article 16, paragraph 2 of the civil code, California law should be applied; that under California law, the matter; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On the other hand, counsel for maria, averred that the national law of the deceased must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California law.
VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, JR.
FACTS:
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen while respondent romillo is an American citizen. They married in hong kong in 1972 and after their marriage, established a residence in the Philippines. The parties were divorced in Nevada in 1982 and now, petitioner is married to Theodore van dorn. Respondent romillo, jr., filed a suit against petitioner’s business in ermita, manila is conjugal property of the parties and that the petitioner ordered to render an accounting of that business and that the private respondent be declared with a rights to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the case of the action is barred of the judgment in the divorce proceeding in the Nevada court where the respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had no “common property” as June 11, 1982.
Issue:
Whether there is an effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.
Held:
It is not necessary to determine the property relations between petitioner and private respondent after their marriage, whether absolute or relative community
Facts:
Edward Christensen was born in new York but migrated to California where he resided for a period of 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until his death. In his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter,. Maria lucy Christensen (legitimate), as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor, of Helen Christensen Garcia (illigetimate). Counsel for Helen claims that under article 16, paragraph 2 of the civil code, California law should be applied; that under California law, the matter; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On the other hand, counsel for maria, averred that the national law of the deceased must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California law.
VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, JR.
FACTS:
The petitioner is a Filipino citizen while respondent romillo is an American citizen. They married in hong kong in 1972 and after their marriage, established a residence in the Philippines. The parties were divorced in Nevada in 1982 and now, petitioner is married to Theodore van dorn. Respondent romillo, jr., filed a suit against petitioner’s business in ermita, manila is conjugal property of the parties and that the petitioner ordered to render an accounting of that business and that the private respondent be declared with a rights to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the case of the action is barred of the judgment in the divorce proceeding in the Nevada court where the respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had no “common property” as June 11, 1982.
Issue:
Whether there is an effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.
Held:
It is not necessary to determine the property relations between petitioner and private respondent after their marriage, whether absolute or relative community