Testate Estate of C.O. Bohanan, et al. vs. Magdalena C. Bohanan, et al.
G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960
106 SCRA 997
FACTS:
C. O. Bohanan, a citizen the United States and of the State of Nevada executed a last will and testament in accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada on April 23, 1944 in Manila. The testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on January 30, 1909. He secured a divorce which was granted to him on May 20, 1922. Sometime in 1925, Magdalena C. Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was subsisting at the time of the death of the testator in 1944.
On April 24, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo, presiding, admitted to probate the last will and testament of C. O. Bohanan. The Philippine Trust Company was named as the executor of the will.
The executor filed a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, making, in accordance with the provisions of the will, the following adjudications:
(1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator’s grandson Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several mining companies;
(2) the other half of the residuary estate to the testator’s brother, F.L. Bohanan, and his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This consist in the same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to those given to testator’s grandson;
(3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohana, and his daughter, Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments;
(4) legacies to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward, P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000.
Claiming having been deprived of the legitime, the respondents, the wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children questioned the validity of the testamentary provisions disposing of the estate in the manner that:
out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To his children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.
ISSUE 1? Is the wife entitled to a legitime?
No. The laws of Nevada, of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides:
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.
Moreover, in an order dated June 19, 1955 – the court found that there existed no community property owned by the decedent and his former wife at the time the decree of divorce was issued. This order was already final and executory and she had not appealed therefrom.
ISSUE 2: Are the testator’s children entitled to a legitime in accordance with the laws of the forum?
No. In accordance with Par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art. 16, New Civil Code 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. It is therefore the Law of Nevada which will govern the disposition of the properties of the testator but this foreign law must first be proved as our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. However, the laws of Nevada were not introduced in evidence by the executor’s at the hearing of the project of partition. It is Magdalena C. Bohanan, upon her motion for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share, who introduced in evidence the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws. Said laws presented by the counsel for the executor was admitted by the Court. Also the children of the testator, did not dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada.
Under these circumstances, the Court held that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice by the court, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.
The order of the court approving the project of partition was affirmed.
NOTES:
How are foreign laws proved?
Foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules, which are as follows:
SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. — An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody of he record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . . . (Rule 123).
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment