Illinois, such error is not available for the petitioner. First, because the petition does not state that the law
of Illinois is different from what the court found and secondly, because the assignment of error for the
appellant raises no question based on such supposed error.
According to the Court, the petition submitted was entirely insufficient to warrant the setting aside
of the order probating the will of Johnson.
Topic: Proof of Foreign Law
Nos. L-11622 and L-11668, Jan. 28,1961
The Collector of Internal revenue vs Douglas and Betinna Fisher
Facts:
This case relates to the settlement of the estate of the deceased, Walter Stevenson. Stevenson was
born in the Philippines of British parents and was married to Beatrice Stevenson, also a British national.
He died in San Francisco, California, USA where he and his wife established their residence. Upon his
death, his will was duly probated in the SC of California where he instituted his wife as the sole heiress
of the personal and real properties they acquired while they were residing in the Philippines.
Ancillary administration proceedings were instituted in Manila for the settlement of the estate in the
Philippines. Ian Murray Scott was appointed as administrator. He filed a preliminary estate and
inheritance tax with reservation of having the properties declared finally appraised at their values six
months after the death of Stevenson. Acting upon the return, the Collector increased the appraisal of the
two parcel of lands. The assessments were paid by the estate.
Later, Scott filed an amended estate and inheritance tax return in pursuance to his reservation for the
purpose of availing the right granted by section 91 of the NIRC. In the meantime, Beatrice Stevenson
assigned all her rights and interests in the estate to the spouses, Douglas and Betinna Fisher.
The administrator filed his last return which contained additional tax exemptions. The estate
claimed that it was liable only for P525.34 for estate tax and P238.06 for inheritance tax and that as
consequence, it had overpaid the government. A refund was sought by the estate but the Collector denied
such claim.
The CTA ruled, among others, that one half of the share of the surviving spouse in the conjugal
partnership should be deducted from the net estate and intangible personal property should be exempted
from inheritance tax pursuant section 122 of the NIRC in relation to California Inheritance Tax Law but
the estate is not entitled to an exemption of P4000 in the computation of estate tax. From this decision,
both parties appealed.
Issues:
1)Whether in determining the taxable net estate of the decedent, one half of the net estate should be
deducted as the share of the surviving spouse in accordance with our law on conjugal partnership and in
relation to section 8(c) of the NIRC
2)Whether the estate can avail of the reciprocity proviso embodied in Sec 122 of the NIRC in
relation to Sec 13851 of California Revenue and Taxation Code, granting exemption to pay estate and
inheritance taxes on the shares of stocks in the Mindanao Mother Lode Mines, Inc
Held:
1.)The Court ruled that one half should be deducted from the estate as the share of the surviving
spouse.
In deciding this issue, the lower court applied the well known doctrine that in the absence of any
ante-nuptial agreement, the parties are presumed to have adopted a system of conjugal partnership as to
the properties acquired during their marriage. According to the Collector however, the property relations
of the spouses should be determined by the law of England and not the Philippines (Art124, NCC).
Under English law, all properties acquired during the marriage belong exclusively to the husband.
In this connection, since the marriage of the Stevensons in the Philippines took place in 1909, the
applicable law is Art 1325 of the Old Civil Code and not Art 124 of the NCC. Although the two articles
adhere to the nationality theory of determining the property relations of the spouses, the difference is
that in the Old Civil Code, Art 1325 is limited only to marriages contracted in a foreign land while Art
124 of the NCC is applicable regardless of whether the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines or
abroad.
The Court ruled that the law determinative of the property relations of the spouses, married in 1909,
would be the English law even if they were married in the Philippines because they were both
foreigners. However, the pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the decedent husband full
ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage has not been proven by the petitioner.
In the absence of proof, the Court is justified in indulging in what Wharton calls processual
presumption, in presuming that the law of England on this matter is the same as ours.
Thus, the lower court was correct in deducting one half of the conjugal property in determining the
hereditary estate left by Stevenson.
2.) The Court ruled that the estate is exempted from paying inheritance and estate taxes on the
shares of stock.
To prove the pertinent California law, Atty. Allison Gibbs testified that as an active member of the
California Bar, he is familiar with the revenue and taxation laws of California and that he quoted
verbatim a section of the California Internal Revenue Code as regards exemptions of intangible personal
properties.
Section 41, Rule 123 of the RoC prescribes the manner of proving foreign laws before the
Philippine courts and although it is desirable that foreign laws must be proved in accordance with the
rules, under sections 300 and 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 41, Rule 123) do not
exclude presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of foreign law.
It is well settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.