PCIB V. ESCOLIN Facts: Mr.

and Mrs Hodges both made in their wills provisions that upon their deaths, their whole estates should be inherited by the surviving spouse and that spouse could manage and alienate the said lands, with the exception of the Texas property. Upon death of the latter spouse, the residue of the estate inherited by the later spouse from the spouse who predeceased him would redound to the brothers and sisters. Mrs. Hodges died first then Mr. Hodges, but since there was no liquidation of Mrs. Hodges estate, the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Hodges wanted to determine the extent of her estate that they could inherit. Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. At the time of her death, she was citizen of Texas but, was, however domiciled in the Philippines. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is apparent and necessary to know what law should be applied. ISSUE: Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable. WON RP LAW GOVERNS LEGITIME OF CHARLES? No answer yet. Remanded Art 16, NCC > applies: law of nationality If we apply Texas PRIL law: Personal property: law of domicile Real property: law of situs (both in RP) IF Art16 applies, then Texas law should govern; Texas lawprovides no legitime So renvoi to RP: RP Law provides that the Surviving Spouse,being the sole heir,gets 1/2 o the conjugal property, then 1/2 goes to the estateof the spouse. If 1/2 of the estate of the spouse goes to thesurviving spouse which is the sole heir, then Charles gets 1/4of the whole conjugal property.Court said that Texas law may apply, but since not proven as Courts can't take Judicial notice; they should show foreign law: o 1. As certified by person holding/havingcustody of such law o 2. Certificate that such officer does havecustody over said law o Aznar can't be used to show what Texas law may contain, as there's a time difference between this case and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between the rulings. .as regards foreign laws: It Should be proved as a fact on Public documents an expert witness Prove in accordance w/RP law The court discussed the renvoi doctrine as one takes place when the conflicts rule of the forum makes a reference to a foreign law, but the foreign law is found to contain a conflict rule that returns or refers the matter back to the law of the forum RULING: It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it mus tbe proven whether a renvoi will happen or

whether Texas law makes the testamentary provisions valid. In line with Texas law, that which should be proven is the law enforced duringthe death of Hodges and not in any other time. The Supreme Court held that the estate of Mrs. Hodgesinherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just stated, but this would depend on (1) whether upon the properapplication of the principle of renvoi in relation to Article 16 of the Civil Code and the pertinent laws of Texas, it will appearthat Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno, and (2)w h e t h e r o r n o t i t c a n b e h e l d t h a t H o d g e s h a d l e g a l l y a n d effectively renounced his inheritance from his wife. Under thec i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t l y o b t a i n i n g a n d i n t h e s t a t e o f t h e record of these cases, as of now, the Court is not in a positiont o m a k e a f i n a l r u l i n g , w h e t h e r o f f a c t o r o f l a w, o n a n y o f these two issues, and We, therefore, reserve said issues forfurther proceedings and resolution in the first instance by thecourt o quo, as hereinabove indicated. We reiterate, however,that pending such further proceedings, as matters stand atthis stage, Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil that since, under the terms of the will of Mrs. Hodges, herhusband could not have anyway legally adjudicated or causedto be adjudicated to himself her whole share of their conjugalpartnership, albeit he could have disposed any part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, of which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be lessthan one-fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, minus what, as explained earlier, havebeen gratuitously disposed of therefrom, by Hodges in favorof third persons since then, for even if it were assumed that,as contended by PCIB, under Article 16 of the Civil Code anda p p l y i n g r e n v o i t h e l a w s o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s a r e t h e o n e s ultimately applicable, such one-fourth share would be her freedisposable portion, taking into account already the legitime of her husband under Article 900 of the Civil Code PCI Bank vs. Escolin If there is no absolute obligation imposed upon the first heir topreserve the property and transmit it to a second heir, thereis no fideicomisaria. The institution is not necessarily void; itmay be valid as some other disposition, but it is not afideicomisaria.