Lopes v. DowneyLopes v. Downey
public administrator, filed a brief. Ronan, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court for the cоunty of Bristol dismissing a petition for distribution filed by the petitioners who claim to be the next of kin and heirs at law of the intestate, Nicolau T. Lopes, whose estate is being administered by the respondent, *162 a public administrator. We have no transcript of the evidence and the facts appear from a report of material facts made by the judge.
The decedent, Nicolau T. Lopes, was born in the town of Ribeira Brava, Island of Saint Nicholas, one of thе Cape Verde Islands, on September 10, 1895. His parents were Francisco Antonio Lopes and Rosa Libania Brito, both single persons. They both acknowledged him as their child in the birth record in the public registry in said Ribeira Brava on Novеmber 30, 1896. His parents never married. His mother Rosa died in 1940 leaving no issue so far as known. His father died in 1943. Three of the petitiоners for distribution were born out of wedlock and are the children of the decedent’s father and one Francisca Maria Araujo. They were born between 1908 and 1914. They were properly acknowledged by their parents in the said registry in accordance with the Portuguese law. The remaining two petitioners for distribution were born in 1911 and 1916 respeсtively. They also were born out of wedlock. Their parents were the decedent’s father and one Maria Barbara Soares. They were acknowledged publicly in the same manner as the others.
It does not appеar when the decedent left the Cape Verde Islands and settled in New Bedford. He married Anna S. Lopes in New Bedford with whom he lived until her death in 1928. He did not again marry. He continued to live in New Bedford until his death on December 15, 1950. He left no widow, no lawful issue, and no father or mother. The respondent, Mr. Downey, a public administrator, is ready to close the еstate.
The decedent was domiciled here for many years before his death. His estate consists entirely of personalty and must be distributed according to the laws of this Commonwealth to persons bearing a certain relationship to the deceased. If, for instance, a person bears the status of a legitimate child of the decеdent by virtue of some law of a foreign jurisdiction where the decedent was then domiciled he will generally be so сonsidered here; on the other hand,
*163
if he was the illegitimate son he will be treated in that capacity here.
Ross
v.
Ross,
The appellants admit that the only way an illegitimate сhild can be legitimatized under the Portuguese Code prevailing in the Cape Verde Islands is by a subsequent marriage and the acknowledgment, by the parents, of the child as theirs.
Hopkins
v.
Hopkins,
The appellants agree thаt there was no intermarriage between the decedent’s father and either of their respective mothers аnd concede that none of them was the legitimate child of the decedent’s father. They now base their clаim upon the alleged ground that they are the acknowledged brothers and sisters of the deceased and entitlеd by the laws of Portugal to inherit his property wherever located and that this Commonwealth will recognize their right to shаre in the decedent’s property. We do not agree. There is a great difference between a statutе which merely enables a natural child, when recognized by his parents, to inherit as a recognized natural child and а statute which legitimatizes such a child. The first is limited to controlling inheritance of property in that country and has no extraterritorial effect upon the devolution of property located in this State.
Vergnani
v.
Guidetti,
Decree affirmed.