G.R. No.

L-35694

December 23, 1933

ALLISON G. GIBBS, petitioner-appelle, vs. THE GOVERN ENT O! THE "HILI""INE ISLANDS, oppositor-appellant. THE REGISTER O! DEEDS O! THE #IT$ O! ANILA, respondent-appellant. Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellants. Allison D. Gibbs in his own behalf.

B%TTE, J.: This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring the register of deeds of the City of Manila to cancel certificates of title Nos. 2 !! , 2!""# and 2!""$, covering lands located in the City of Manila, %hilippine Islands, and issue in lieu thereof ne& certificates of transfer of title in favor of 'llison (. )i**s &ithout requiring him to present any document sho&ing that the succession ta+ due under 'rticle ,I of Chapter - of the 'dministrative Code has *een paid. The said order of the court of March $ , $."$, recites that the parcels of land covered *y said certificates of title formerly *elonged to the con/ugal partnership of 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s2 that the latter died intestate in %alo 'lto, California, on Novem*er 2!, $.2.2 that at the time of her death she and her hus*and &ere citi3ens of the 4tate of California and domiciled therein. It appears further from said order that 'llison (. )i**s &as appointed administrator of the state of his said deceased &ife in case No. "#5.6 in the same court, entitled 7In the Matter of the Intestate 0state of 0va 1ohnson )i**s, (eceased72 that in said intestate proceedings, the said 'llison (. )i**s, on 4eptem*er 22,$." , filed an ex parte petition in &hich he alleged 7that the parcels of land hereunder descri*ed *elong to the con/ugal partnership of your petitioner and his &ife, 0va 1ohnson )i**s7, descri*ing in detail the three facts here involved2 and further alleging that his said &ife, a citi3en and resident of California, died on Novem*er 2!,$.2.2 that in accordance &ith the la& of California, the community property of spouses &ho are citi3ens of California, upon the death of the &ife previous to that of the hus*and, *elongs a*solutely to the surviving hus*and &ithout administration2 that the con/ugal partnership of 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s, deceased, has no o*ligations or de*ts and no one &ill *e pre/udiced *y ad/ucating said parcels of land 8and seventeen others not here involved9 to *e the a*solute property of the said 'llison (. )i**s as sole o&ner. The court granted said petition and on 4eptem*er 22, $." , entered a decree ad/ucating the said 'llison (. )i**s to *e the sole and a*solute o&ner of said lands, applying section $- $ of the Civil Code of California. )i**s presented this decree to the register of deeds of Manila and demanded that the latter issue to him a 7transfer certificate of title7. 4ection $6-5 of 'rticle ,I of Chapter - of the 'dministrative Code provides in part that: ;egisters of deeds shall not register in the registry of property any document transferring real property or real rights therein or any chattel mortgage, *y &ay of gifts mortis causa, legacy or inheritance, unless the payment of the ta+ fi+ed in this article and actually due thereon shall *e sho&n. 'nd they shall immediately notify the Collector of Internal ;evenue or the corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the ta+ discovered *y them. . . . 'cting upon the authority of said section, the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined to accept as *inding said decree of court of 4eptem*er 22,$." , and refused to register the transfer of title of the said con/ugal property to 'llison (. )i**s, on the ground that the corresponding inheritance ta+ had not *een paid. Thereupon, under date of (ecem*er 2#, $." , 'llison (. )i**s filed in the said court a petition for an order requiring the said register of deeds 7to issue the corresponding titles7 to the petitioner &ithout requiring previous payment of any inheritance ta+. 'fter due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of 4eptem*er 22, $." , and entered the order of March $ , $."$, &hich is under revie& on this appeal. <n 1anuary ", $."", this court remanded the case to the court of origin for ne& trial upon additional evidence in regard to the pertinent la& of California in force at the time of the death of Mrs. )i**s, also authori3ing the introduction of evidence &ith reference to the dates of the acquisition of the property involved in this suit and &ith reference to the California la& in force at the time of such acquisition. The case is no& *efore us &ith the supplementary evidence.

For the purposes of this case, &e shall consider the follo&ing facts as esta*lished *y the evidence or the admissions of the parties: 'llison (. )i**s has *een continuously, since the year $. 2, a citi3en of the 4tate of California and domiciled therein2 that he and 0va 1ohnson )i**s &ere married at Colum*us, <hio, in 1uly $. #2 that there &as no antenuptial marriage contract *et&een the parties2 that during the e+istence of said marriage the spouses acquired the follo&ing lands, among others, in the %hilippine Islands, as con/ugal property:
la&phil.net

$. ' parcel of land in the City of Manila represented *y transfer certificate of title No. 2 !! , dated March $#, $.2 , and registered in the name of 7'llison (. )i**s casado con 0va 1ohnson )i**s7. 2. ' parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented *y transfer certificate of title No. 2!""#, dated May $-, $.25, in &hich it is certified 7that spouses 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s are the o&ners in fee simple7 of the land therein descri*ed. ". ' parcel of land in the City of Manila, represented *y transfer certificate of title No. 2!""$, dated 'pril #, $.25, &hich it states 7that 'llison (. )i**s married to 0va 1ohnson )i**s7 is the o&ner of the land descri*ed therein2 that said 0va 1ohnson )i**s died intestate on Novem*er 2!, $.2., living surviving her her hus*and, the appellee, and t&o sons, 'llison 1. )i**s , no& age 26 and Finley 1. )i**s, no& aged 22, as her sole heirs of la&. 'rticle ,I of Chapter - of the 'dministrative Code entitled 7Ta+ on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitionsmortis causa7 provides in section $6"# that 70very transmission *y virtue of inheritance ... of real property ... shall *e su*/ect to the follo&ing ta+.7 It results that the question for determination in this case is as follo&s: =as 0va 1ohnson )i**s at the time of her death the o&ner of a descendi*le interest in the %hilippine lands a*ove-mentioned> The appellee contends that the la& of California should determine the nature and e+tent of the title, if any, that vested in 0va 1ohnson )i**s under the three certificates of title Nos. 2 !! , 2!""# and 2!""$ a*ove referred to, citing article . of the Civil Code. ?ut that, even if the nature and e+tent of her title under said certificates *e governed *y the la& of the %hilippine Islands, the la&s of California govern the succession to such title, citing the second paragraph of article $ of the Civil Code. 'rticle . of the Civil Code is as follo&s: The la&s relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are *inding upon 4paniards even though they reside in a foreign country.7 It is argued that the con/ugal right of the California &ife in community real estate in the %hilippine Islands is a personal right and must, therefore, *e settled *y the la& governing her personal status, that is, the la& of California. ?ut our attention has not *een called to any la& of California that incapacitates a married &oman from acquiring or holding land in a foreign /urisdiction in accordance &ith the lex rei sitae. There is not the slightest dou*t that a California married &oman can acquire title to land in a common la& /urisdiction li@e the 4tate of Illinois or the (istrict of Colum*ia, su*/ect to the common-la& estate *y the courtesy &hich &ould vest in her hus*and. Nor is there any dou*t that if a California hus*and acquired land in such a /urisdiction his &ife &ould *e vested &ith the common la& right of do&er, the prerequisite conditions o*taining. 'rticle . of the Civil Code treats of purely personal relations and status and capacity for /uristic acts, the rules relating to property, *oth personal and real, *eing governed *y article $ of the Civil Code. Furthermore, article ., *y its very terms, is applica*le only to 74paniards7 8no&, *y construction, to citi3ens of the %hilippine Islands9. The <rganic 'ct of the %hilippine Islands 8'ct of Congress, 'ugust 2., $.$#, @no&n as the 71ones Aa&79 as regards the determination of private rights, grants practical autonomy to the )overnment of the %hilippine Islands. This )overnment, therefore, may apply the principles and rules of private international la& 8conflicts of la&s9 on the same footing as an organi3ed territory or state of the Bnited 4tates. =e should, therefore, resort to the la& of California, the nationality and domicile of Mrs. )i**s, to ascertain the norm &hich &ould *e applied here as la& &ere there any question as to her status. ?ut the appellantCs chief argument and the sole *asis of the lo&er courtCs decision rests upon the second paragraph of article $ of the Civil Code &hich is as follo&s: Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as &ell as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall *e regulated *y the national la& of the person &hose succession is in question, &hatever may *e the nature of the property or the country in &hich it may *e situated.

In construing the a*ove language &e are met at the outset &ith some difficulty *y the e+pression 7the national la& of the person &hose succession is in question7, *y reason of the rather anomalous political status of the %hilippine Islands. 8Cf. Manresa, vol. $, Codigo Civil, pp. $ ", $ -.9 =e encountered no difficulty in applying article $ in the case of a citi3en of Tur@ey. 8Miciano vs. ?rimo, 6 %hil., !#5.9 Daving regard to the practical autonomy of the %hilippine Islands, as a*ove stated, &e have concluded that if article $ is applica*le and the estate in question is that of a deceased 'merican citi3en, the succession shall *e regulated in accordance &ith the norms of the 4tate of his domicile in the Bnited 4tates. 8Cf. ?a*coc@ Templeton vs. ;ider ?a*coc@, 62 %hil., $" , $"52 n re 0state of 1ohnson, ". %hil., $6#, $##.9 The trial court found that under the la& of California, upon the death of the &ife, the entire community property &ithout administration *elongs to the surviving hus*and2 that he is the a*solute o&ner of all the community property from the moment of the death of his &ife, not *y virtue of succession or *y virtue of her death, *ut *y virtue of the fact that &hen the death of the &ife precedes that of the hus*and he acquires the community property, not as an heir or as the *eneficiary of his deceased &ife, *ut *ecause she never had more than an inchoate interest or e+pentancy &hich is e+tinguished upon her death. Euoting the case of 0state of Flump@e 8$#5 Cal., -$6, -$.9, the court said: 7The decisions under this section 8$- $ Civil Code of California9 are uniform to the effect that the hus*and does not ta@e the community property upon the death of the &ife *y succession, *ut that he holds it all from the moment of her death as though required *y himself. ... It never *elonged to the estate of the deceased &ife.7 The argument of the appellee apparently leads to this dilemma: If he ta@es nothing *y succession from his deceased &ife, ho& can the second paragraph of article $ *e invo@ed> Can the appellee *e heard to say that there is a legal succession under the la& of the %hilippine Islands and no legal succession under the la& of California> It seems clear that the second paragraph of article $ applies only &hen a legal or testamentary succession has ta@en place in the %hilippines and in accordance &ith the la& of the %hilippine Islands2 and the foreign la& is consulted only in regard to the order of succession or the e+tent of the successional rights2 in other &ords, the second paragraph of article $ can *e invo@ed only &hen the deceased &as vested &ith a descendi*le interest in property &ithin the /urisdiction of the %hilippine Islands. In the case of Clar@e vs. Clar@e 8$5! B. 4., $!#, $.$2 -- Aa& ed., $ 2!, $ "$9, the court said: It is principle firmly esta*lished that to the la& of the state in &hich the land is situated &e must loo@ for the rules &hich govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of &ills and other conveyances. 8Bnited 4tates vs. Cros*y, 5 Cranch, $$62 " A. ed., 2!52 Clar@ vs. )raham, # =heat., 6552 6 A. ed., ""-2 Mc)oon vs. 4cales, . =all., 2"2 $. A. ed., 6-62 ?rine vs. Dartford F. Ins. Co., .# B. 4., #252 2- A. ed., !6!.97 8See also 0state of Aloyd, $56 Cal., 5 -, 5 6.9 This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of article $ of our Civil Code as follo&s: 7%ersonal property is su*/ect to the la&s of the nation of the o&ner thereof2 real property to the la&s of the country in &hich it is situated. It is stated in 6 Cal. 1ur., -5!: In accord &ith the rule that real property is su*/ect to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of hus*and and &ife in such property, in the a*sence of an antenuptial contract, are determined *y the la& of the place &here the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place &here the marriage &as cele*rated. 8See also 4aul vs. Dis Creditors, 6 Martin GN. 4.H, 6#.2 $# 'm. (ec., 2$2 GAa.H2 Deidenheimer vs. Aoring, 2# 4. =., .. GTe+asH.9 Bnder this *road principle, the nature and e+tent of the title &hich vested in Mrs. )i**s at the time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question must *e determined in accordance &ith the lex rei sitae. It is admitted that the %hilippine lands here in question &ere acquired as community property of the con/ugal partnership of the appellee and his &ife. Bnder the la& of the %hilippine Islands, she &as vested of a title equal to that of her hus*and. 'rticle $- 5 of the Civil Code provides: 'll the property of the spouses shall *e deemed partnership property in the a*sence of proof that it *elongs e+clusively to the hus*and or to the &ife. 'rticle $".6 provides: 7The con/ugal partnership shall *e governed *y the rules of la& applica*le to the contract of partnership in all matters in &hich such rules do not conflict &ith the e+press provisions of this chapter.7 'rticle $-$- provides that 7the hus*and may dispose *y &ill of his half only of the property of the con/ugal partnership.7 'rticle $-2# provides that upon dissolution of the con/ugal partnership and after inventory and liquidation, 7the net remainder of the partnership property shall *e divided share and share ali@e *et&een the hus*and and &ife, or their respective heirs.7 Bnder the

provisions of the Civil Code and the /urisprudence prevailing here, the &ife, upon the acquisition of any con/ugal property, *ecomes immediately vested &ith an interest and title therein equal to that of her hus*and, su*/ect to the po&er of management and disposition &hich the la& vests in the hus*and. Immediately upon her death, if there are no o*ligations of the decedent, as is true in the present case, her share in the con/ugal property is transmitted to her heirs *y succession. 8'rticles #65, #6., ##$, Civil Code2 cf. also Coronel vs. <na, "" %hil., -6#, -#..9 It results that the &ife of the appellee &as, *y the la& of the %hilippine Islands, vested of a descendi*le interest, equal to that of her hus*and, in the %hilippine lands covered *y certificates of title Nos. 2 !! , 2!""# and 2!""$, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death. That appellee himself *elieved that his &ife &as vested of such a title and interest in manifest from the second of said certificates, No. 2!""#, dated May $-, $.25, introduced *y him in evidence, in &hich it is certified that 7the spouses 'llison (. )i**s and 0va 1ohnson )i**s are the o&ners in fee simple of the con/ugal lands therein descri*ed.7 The descendi*le interest of 0va 1ohnson )i**s in the lands aforesaid &as transmitted to her heirs *y virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls &ithin the language of section $6"# of 'rticle ,I of Chapter - of the 'dministrative Code &hich levies a ta+ on inheritances. 8Cf. !e 0state of Ma/ot, $.. N. I., 2.2 .2 N. 0., - 22 2. A. ;. '. GN. 4.H, 5! .9 It is unnecessary in this proceeding to determine the 7order of succession7 or the 7e+tent of the successional rights7 8article $ , Civil Code, supra9 &hich &ould *e regulated *y section $"!# of the Civil Code of California &hich &as in effect at the time of the death of Mrs. )i**s. The record does not sho& &hat the proper amount of the inheritance ta+ in this case &ould *e nor that the appellee 8petitioner *elo&9 in any &ay challenged the po&er of the )overnment to levy an inheritance ta+ or the validity of the statute under &hich the register of deeds refused to issue a certificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the e+clusive o&ner of the %hilippine lands included in the three certificates of title here involved. The /udgment of the court *elo& of March $ , $."$, is reversed &ith directions to dismiss the petition, &ithout special pronouncement as to the costs. Avance"a# C. $.# Street# $.# dissents. %alcolm# &illa-!eal# Abad Santos# Hull# and &ic'ers# $$.# concur.