Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS: Allison D. Gibbs has been continuously, since the year 1902, a citizen of the State of
California and domiciled therein; that he and Eva Johnson Gibbs were married at Columbus, Ohio, in
July 1906; that there was no antenuptial marriage contract between the parties; that during the
existence of said marriage the spouses acquired the real properties in the Philippine Islands, as
conjugal property.
December 26, 1930, Allison D. Gibbs filed in the said court a petition for an order requiring the
register of deeds to issue the corresponding titles to the petitioner without requiring previous
payment of any inheritance tax.
The appellee contends that the law of California should determine the nature and extent of the title, if
any that vested in Eva Johnson Gibbs under the three certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and
28331 above referred to, citing article 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of
her title under said certificates be governed by the law of the Philippine Islands, the laws of
California govern the succession to such title, citing the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil
Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer of title in favor of Allison Gibbs from the conjugal ownership with
Eva Gibbs, his wife, be subject to succession or inheritance tax by the government of the
Philippines?
HELD: YES. The nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the
acquisition of the community lands here in question must be determined in accordance with the lex
rei sitae.
The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs
by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls within the language of section 1536 of
Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances.
The judgment of the court below of March 10, 1931, is reversed with directions to dismiss the
petition.
answered by the conflict of laws which presently says that you go to law of domicile
which is the Philippine Law. The forum court now applied the internal law of the
Philippines. And under the Philippine law on succession part. Amount of
successional rightthe illegitimate child is entitled to of the share of the legit
child.
3.)
Theory of Desistment /Mutual Disclaimerunder this solution, the forum
court desist from applying the internal law of the foreign country and apply the rules
of the internal law. This is similar to the second solution where the forum court
accepts the referral of the issue.
4.)
Forum Court Theory-the forum court should do what the foreign court will do
if confronted w/ the same prob..gaya gaya puto maya..what court may probably do,
had it been filed in the foreign court, the forum court in the phils. shall do the same.
What is the solution adhered to in the Phils.?
So far, we have this casethe forum court should accept the referral of the issue
and ultimately apply the internal law of the Philippines.
Rule in the case of Aznar that foreign law being referred to should be understood as
the entire body of laws including the conflict of laws rule.
So there are basically three guidelines in making the proper choice of law in order to
resolve a case involving a foreign element. Using the guidelines, it may happen that
the court will decide to apply the appropriate foreign lawallowing the foreign law
to operate in the Philippines.
those matters that Article 10 now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said
national law should govern.
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic
validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not
require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the
legitimes, is valid.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the
legitimes under the texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.