GIBBS V.

GOVERNMENT (1933) – REYES

FACTS: The subject matter are parcels of land in Manila belonging to the conjugal partnership of Allison
and Eva Gibbs (California citizens). Eva died intestate while residing in California. Subsequently, Allison
was appointed administrator by California Court and granted Allison to be the sole and absolute owner of
all the properties. Gibbs presented this decree to the register of deeds (RD) of Manila and demanded a TCT
be issued to him. The RD declined to accept as binding the California order and refused to register the TCT
on the ground that the corresponding inheritance tax had not been paid. Allison filed a petition for an order
requiring the RD "to issue the corresponding titles" without requiring payment of inheritance tax.

Allison relies on Article 9 of the Civil Code, as follows:

The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity of
persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country."

It is argued that the conjugal right of the California wife in community real estate in the Philippine Islands
is a personal right and must, therefore, be settled by the law governing her personal status, that is, the law
of California. (i.e., that properties of the wife are automatically transferred to husband without need of
administration).  Court counters this argument by saying that

Meanwhile, the lower court relied on Article 10 of the Civil Code, as follows:

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 national law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever
may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may be situated.

The lower court held that California law applies: that Allison is the absolute owner of all the community
property not by virtue of succession or death, but because the wife never had more than an inchoate interest
in the properties. Hence, the Court ordered new TCTs to be issued to Allison. The Government appealed.

ISSUE: What law should be applied in this case?

HELD: Philippine law. 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.
 Under lex rei sitae, the respective rights of husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an
antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the place where the property is situated,
irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated.
 The second paragraph of article 10 applies when a legal or testamentary succession has taken place
in the Philippines and in accordance with the law of the Philippine Islands (and the foreign law is
consulted only in regard to the order of succession or the extent of the successional rights). In other
words, the second paragraph of article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with
a descendible interest in property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands.
 Here, it is admitted that the Philippine lands in question were acquired as community property of
the conjugal partnership of the appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she
was vested of a title equal to that of her husband. It results that Eva Gibbs was, by the law of the
Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of her husband, in the Philippine
lands from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death.
 The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs 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. It is unnecessary in this proceeding
to determine the "order of succession" or the "extent of the successional rights” which would be
regulated by section 1386 of the Civil Code of California.
 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. It is
unnecessary in this proceeding to determine the "order of succession" or the "extent of the
successional rights"
 Hence, the decision was reversed. The net remainder of the partnership property shall be divided
share and share alike between the husband and wife, or their respective heirs; and not just to Allison
alone.