TodayisThursday,April28,2016

poweredby

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L35694December23,1933
ALLISONG.GIBBS,petitionerappelle,
vs.
THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEPHILIPPINEISLANDS,oppositorappellant.
THEREGISTEROFDEEDSOFTHECITYOFMANILA,respondentappellant.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralHiladoforappellants.
AllisonD.Gibbsinhisownbehalf.

BUTTE,J.:
ThisisanappealfromafinalorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,requiringtheregisterofdeedsoftheCity
ofManilatocancelcertificatesoftitleNos.20880,28336and28331,coveringlandslocatedintheCityofManila,
Philippine Islands, and issue in lieu thereof new certificates of transfer of title in favor ofAllison D. Gibbs without
requiringhimtopresentanydocumentshowingthatthesuccessiontaxdueunderArticleXIofChapter40ofthe
AdministrativeCodehasbeenpaid.
The said order of the court of March 10, 1931, recites that the parcels of land covered by said certificates of title
formerly belonged to the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs that the latter died
intestateinPaloAlto,California,onNovember28,1929thatatthetimeofherdeathsheandherhusbandwere
citizensoftheStateofCaliforniaanddomiciledtherein.
ItappearsfurtherfromsaidorderthatAllisonD.Gibbswasappointedadministratorofthestateofhissaiddeceased
wife in case No. 36795 in the same court, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Eva Johnson Gibbs,
Deceased"thatinsaidintestateproceedings,thesaidAllisonD.Gibbs,onSeptember22,1930,filedan exparte
petitioninwhichhealleged"thattheparcelsoflandhereunderdescribedbelongtotheconjugalpartnershipofyour
petitionerandhiswife,EvaJohnsonGibbs",describingindetailthethreefactshereinvolvedandfurtheralleging
thathissaidwife,acitizenandresidentofCalifornia,diedonNovember28,1929thatinaccordancewiththelawof
California,thecommunitypropertyofspouseswhoarecitizensofCalifornia,uponthedeathofthewifepreviousto
that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the surviving husband without administration that the conjugal
partnershipofAllisonD.GibbsandEvaJohnsonGibbs,deceased,hasnoobligationsordebtsandnoonewillbe
prejudicedbyadjucatingsaidparcelsofland(andseventeenothersnothereinvolved)tobetheabsolutepropertyof
the saidAllison D. Gibbs as sole owner. The court granted said petition and on September 22, 1930, entered a
decreeadjucatingthesaidAllisonD.Gibbstobethesoleandabsoluteownerofsaidlands,applyingsection1401
oftheCivilCodeofCalifornia.GibbspresentedthisdecreetotheregisterofdeedsofManilaanddemandedthatthe
latterissuetohima"transfercertificateoftitle".
Section1547ofArticleXIofChapter40oftheAdministrativeCodeprovidesinpartthat:
Registersofdeedsshallnotregisterintheregistryofpropertyanydocumenttransferringrealpropertyorreal
rightsthereinoranychattelmortgage,bywayofgiftsmortiscausa,legacyorinheritance,unlessthepayment
ofthetaxfixedinthisarticleandactuallyduethereonshallbeshown.Andtheyshallimmediatelynotifythe
Collector of Internal Revenue or the corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the tax
discoveredbythem....
Actingupontheauthorityofsaidsection,theregisterofdeedsoftheCityofManila,declinedtoacceptasbinding
saiddecreeofcourtofSeptember22,1930,andrefusedtoregisterthetransferoftitleofthesaidconjugalproperty
toAllisonD.Gibbs,onthegroundthatthecorrespondinginheritancetaxhadnotbeenpaid.Thereupon,underdate
ofDecember26,1930,AllisonD.Gibbsfiledinthesaidcourtapetitionforanorderrequiringthesaidregisterof
deeds"toissuethecorrespondingtitles"tothepetitionerwithoutrequiringpreviouspaymentofanyinheritancetax.

After due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of September 22, 1930, and entered the order of
March10,1931,whichisunderreviewonthisappeal.
On January 3, 1933, this court remanded the case to the court of origin for new trial upon additional evidence in
regard to the pertinent law of California in force at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs, also authorizing the
introductionofevidencewithreferencetothedatesoftheacquisitionofthepropertyinvolvedinthissuitandwith
reference to the California law in force at the time of such acquisition. The case is now before us with the
supplementaryevidence.
Forthepurposesofthiscase,weshallconsiderthefollowingfactsasestablishedbytheevidenceortheadmissions
oftheparties:AllisonD.Gibbshasbeencontinuously,sincetheyear1902,acitizenoftheStateofCaliforniaand
domiciledthereinthatheandEvaJohnsonGibbsweremarriedatColumbus,Ohio,inJuly1906thattherewasno
antenuptialmarriagecontractbetweenthepartiesthatduringtheexistenceofsaidmarriagethespousesacquired
thefollowinglands,amongothers,inthePhilippineIslands,asconjugalproperty:
lawphil.net

1.AparceloflandintheCityofManilarepresentedbytransfercertificateoftitleNo.20880,datedMarch16,1920,
andregisteredinthenameof"AllisonD.GibbscasadoconEvaJohnsonGibbs".
2.AparceloflandintheCityofManila,representedbytransfercertificateoftitleNo.28336,datedMay14,1927,in
whichitiscertified"thatspousesAllisonD.GibbsandEvaJohnsonGibbsaretheownersinfeesimple"oftheland
thereindescribed.
3.AparceloflandintheCityofManila,representedbytransfercertificateoftitleNo.28331,datedApril6,1927,
whichitstates"thatAllisonD.GibbsmarriedtoEvaJohnsonGibbs"istheownerofthelanddescribedthereinthat
saidEvaJohnsonGibbsdiedintestateonNovember28,1929,livingsurvivingherherhusband,theappellee,and
twosons,AllisonJ.Gibbs,nowage25andFinleyJ.Gibbs,nowaged22,ashersoleheirsoflaw.
Article XI of Chapter 40 of theAdministrative Code entitled "Tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitions
mortiscausa"providesinsection1536that"Everytransmissionbyvirtueofinheritance...ofrealproperty...shallbe
subjecttothefollowingtax."Itresultsthatthequestionfordeterminationinthiscaseisasfollows:WasEvaJohnson
GibbsatthetimeofherdeaththeownerofadescendibleinterestinthePhilippinelandsabovementioned?
The appellee contends that the law of California should determine the nature and extent of the title, if any, that
vestedinEvaJohnsonGibbsunderthethreecertificatesoftitleNos.20880,28336and28331abovereferredto,
citing article 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of her title under said certificates be
governedbythelawofthePhilippineIslands,thelawsofCaliforniagovernthesuccessiontosuchtitle,citingthe
secondparagraphofarticle10oftheCivilCode.
Article9oftheCivilCodeisasfollows:
The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are
bindinguponSpaniardseventhoughtheyresideinaforeigncountry."Itisarguedthattheconjugalrightof
theCaliforniawifeincommunityrealestateinthePhilippineIslandsisapersonalrightandmust,therefore,
be settled by the law governing her personal status, that is, the law of California. But our attention has not
beencalledtoanylawofCaliforniathatincapacitatesamarriedwomanfromacquiringorholdinglandina
foreign jurisdiction in accordance with the lex rei sitae. There is not the slightest doubt that a California
marriedwomancanacquiretitletolandinacommonlawjurisdictionliketheStateofIllinoisortheDistrictof
Columbia,subjecttothecommonlawestatebythecourtesywhichwouldvestinherhusband.Noristhere
anydoubtthatifaCaliforniahusbandacquiredlandinsuchajurisdictionhiswifewouldbevestedwiththe
commonlawrightofdower,theprerequisiteconditionsobtaining.Article9oftheCivilCodetreatsofpurely
personal relations and status and capacity for juristic acts, the rules relating to property, both personal and
real,beinggovernedbyarticle10oftheCivilCode.Furthermore,article9,byitsveryterms,isapplicableonly
to"Spaniards"(now,byconstruction,tocitizensofthePhilippineIslands).
TheOrganicActofthePhilippineIslands(ActofCongress,August29,1916,knownasthe"JonesLaw")as
regards the determination of private rights, grants practical autonomy to the Government of the Philippine
Islands.ThisGovernment,therefore,mayapplytheprinciplesandrulesofprivateinternationallaw(conflicts
of laws) on the same footing as an organized territory or state of the United States. We should, therefore,
resorttothelawofCalifornia,thenationalityanddomicileofMrs.Gibbs,toascertainthenormwhichwould
beappliedhereaslawwerethereanyquestionastoherstatus.
Buttheappellant'schiefargumentandthesolebasisofthelowercourt'sdecisionrestsuponthesecondparagraph
ofarticle10oftheCivilCodewhichisasfollows:
Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the
amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the
nationallawofthepersonwhosesuccessionisinquestion,whatevermaybethenatureofthepropertyorthe

countryinwhichitmaybesituated.
Inconstruingtheabovelanguagewearemetattheoutsetwithsomedifficultybytheexpression"thenationallawof
the person whose succession is in question", by reason of the rather anomalous political status of the Philippine
Islands.(Cf.Manresa,vol.1,CodigoCivil,pp.103,104.)Weencounterednodifficultyinapplyingarticle10inthe
case of a citizen of Turkey. (Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil., 867.) Having regard to the practical autonomy of the
PhilippineIslands,asabovestated,wehaveconcludedthatifarticle10isapplicableandtheestateinquestionis
thatofadeceasedAmericancitizen,thesuccessionshallberegulatedinaccordancewiththenormsoftheStateof
his domicile in the United States. (Cf. Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil., 130, 137 In re Estate of
Johnson,39Phil.,156,166.)
The trial court found that under the law of California, upon the death of the wife, the entire community property
withoutadministrationbelongstothesurvivinghusbandthatheistheabsoluteownerofallthecommunityproperty
fromthemomentofthedeathofhiswife,notbyvirtueofsuccessionorbyvirtueofherdeath,butbyvirtueofthe
factthatwhenthedeathofthewifeprecedesthatofthehusbandheacquiresthecommunityproperty,notasan
heir or as the beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because she never had more than an inchoate interest or
expentancywhichisextinguisheduponherdeath.QuotingthecaseofEstateofKlumpke(167Cal.,415,419),the
court said: "The decisions under this section (1401 Civil Code of California) are uniform to the effect that the
husband does not take the community property upon the death of the wife by succession, but that he holds it all
from the moment of her death as though required by himself. ... It never belonged to the estate of the deceased
wife."
Theargumentoftheappelleeapparentlyleadstothisdilemma:Ifhetakesnothingbysuccessionfromhisdeceased
wife,howcanthesecondparagraphofarticle10beinvoked?Cantheappelleebeheardtosaythatthereisalegal
succession under the law of the Philippine Islands and no legal succession under the law of California? It seems
clearthatthesecondparagraphofarticle10appliesonlywhenalegalortestamentarysuccessionhastakenplace
inthePhilippinesandinaccordancewiththelawofthePhilippineIslandsandtheforeignlawisconsultedonlyin
regardtotheorderofsuccessionortheextentofthesuccessionalrightsinotherwords,thesecondparagraphof
article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with a descendible interest in property within the
jurisdictionofthePhilippineIslands.
InthecaseofClarkevs.Clarke(178U.S.,186,19144Lawed.,1028,1031),thecourtsaid:
Itisprinciplefirmlyestablishedthattothelawofthestateinwhichthelandissituatedwemustlookforthe
ruleswhichgovernitsdescent,alienation,andtransfer,andfortheeffectandconstructionofwillsandother
conveyances.(UnitedStatesvs.Crosby,7Cranch,1153L.ed.,287Clarkvs.Graham,6Wheat.,5775L.
ed.,334McGoonvs.Scales,9Wall.,2319L.ed.,545Brinevs.HartfordF.Ins.Co.,96U.S.,62724L.
ed., 858.)" (See also Estate of Lloyd, 175 Cal., 704, 705.) This fundamental principle is stated in the first
paragraphofarticle10ofourCivilCodeasfollows:"Personalpropertyissubjecttothelawsofthenationof
theownerthereofrealpropertytothelawsofthecountryinwhichitissituated.
Itisstatedin5Cal.Jur.,478:
Inaccordwiththerulethatrealpropertyissubjecttothelexreisitae,therespectiverightsofhusbandand
wifeinsuchproperty,intheabsenceofanantenuptialcontract,aredeterminedbythelawoftheplacewhere
the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place where the marriage was
celebrated.(SeealsoSaulvs.HisCreditors,5Martin[N.S.],56916Am.Dec.,212[La.]Heidenheimer vs.
Loring,26S.W.,99[Texas].)
Underthisbroadprinciple,thenatureandextentofthetitlewhichvestedinMrs.Gibbsatthetimeoftheacquisition
ofthecommunitylandshereinquestionmustbedeterminedinaccordancewiththelexreisitae.
It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were acquired as community property of the conjugal
partnershipoftheappelleeandhiswife.UnderthelawofthePhilippineIslands,shewasvestedofatitleequalto
thatofherhusband.Article1407oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Allthepropertyofthespousesshallbedeemedpartnershippropertyintheabsenceofproofthatitbelongs
exclusivelytothehusbandortothewife.Article1395provides:
"The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules of law applicable to the contract of partnership in all
matters in which such rules do not conflict with the express provisions of this chapter."Article 1414 provides that
"thehusbandmaydisposebywillofhishalfonlyofthepropertyoftheconjugalpartnership."Article1426provides
that upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership and after inventory and liquidation, "the net remainder of the
partnershippropertyshallbedividedshareandsharealikebetweenthehusbandandwife,ortheirrespectiveheirs."
UndertheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeandthejurisprudenceprevailinghere,thewife,upontheacquisitionofany
conjugal property, becomes immediately vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband,
subject to the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband. Immediately upon her

death,iftherearenoobligationsofthedecedent,asistrueinthepresentcase,hershareintheconjugalpropertyis
transmittedtoherheirsbysuccession.(Articles657,659,661,CivilCodecf.alsoCoronelvs.Ona,33Phil.,456,
469.)
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest,
equaltothatofherhusband,inthePhilippinelandscoveredbycertificatesoftitleNos.20880,28336and28331,
fromthedateoftheiracquisitiontothedateofherdeath.Thatappelleehimselfbelievedthathiswifewasvestedof
suchatitleandinterestinmanifestfromthesecondofsaidcertificates,No.28336,datedMay14,1927,introduced
byhiminevidence,inwhichitiscertifiedthat"thespousesAllisonD.GibbsandEvaJohnsonGibbsaretheowners
infeesimpleoftheconjugallandsthereindescribed."
The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of
inheritanceandthistransmissionplainlyfallswithinthelanguageofsection1536ofArticleXIofChapter40ofthe
AdministrativeCodewhichleviesataxoninheritances.(Cf.ReEstateofMajot,199N.Y.,2992N.E.,40229L.
R.A.[N.S.],780.)Itisunnecessaryinthisproceedingtodeterminethe"orderofsuccession"orthe"extentofthe
successionalrights"(article10,CivilCode,supra) which would be regulated by section 1386 of the Civil Code of
CaliforniawhichwasineffectatthetimeofthedeathofMrs.Gibbs.
Therecorddoesnotshowwhattheproperamountoftheinheritancetaxinthiscasewouldbenorthattheappellee
(petitionerbelow)inanywaychallengedthepoweroftheGovernmenttolevyaninheritancetaxorthevalidityofthe
statute under which the register of deeds refused to issue a certificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the
exclusiveownerofthePhilippinelandsincludedinthethreecertificatesoftitlehereinvolved.
The judgment of the court below of March 10, 1931, is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition, without
specialpronouncementastothecosts.
Avancea,C.J.,Malcolm,VillaReal,AbadSantos,Hull,andVickers,JJ.,concur.
Street,J.,dissents.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation