You are on page 1of 4

GIBBS VS GOVT OF THE PHILIPPINES, 59 PHIL 293 (1933)

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.

CADALIN V. POEA ADMINISTRATOR 238 SCRA 721 (1994)


FACTS: A class suit filed by less than a hundred complainants who were OFWs,
some worked in Bahrain. Alleging violation of the employment contract returned to
the Phil and filed an action against the foreign ER and local recruitment agency.
Crucial issue raised in this case dwells on the matter of prescription. The case calls
for 3 conflicting rules on prescription. 1144 of the NCC an action to enforce a written
agreement prescribes in 10 years; 291 LC action arising from ER-EE relationship
prescribes in 3 yrs; Amiri Decree in Bahrain where employment took place,
prescription is 1 yr.

HELD: SC ruled it is 3 yrs. It cannot be 10 year-prescription in Art. 1144 because


that applies only in contracts other than employment contracts. Not also 1 year
under the Amihri Decree although it is deemed incorporated in the contract; it
cannot be applied because to do so is contrary to sound and established public
policy of the forum PROTECTION TO LABOR.

AZNAR VS GARCIA, 117 PHIL 106, 7 SCRA 95 (1965)


FACTS: Christensen is an American citizen but domiciled in the Philippines. Before
he died he executed a will and left an estate located in the Philippines. In his will, he
bequeathed the bulk of his estate to his legit daughter while leaving a portion to a
Filipino, a certain Helen who turned out to be his illegitimate child. Helen objected
because her legitime is impaired. Under phil. Laws the internal law involving
succession particularly in this case is about share of the illegitimate daughter. On
the other hand, the conflict of laws rule of Succession is Art. 16 2nd par. So we have
here a situation of an internal law on succession particularly on the amount of
successional rights of an illegitimate child and conflict law rule Art. 16. In making
now the choice of law, the forum court naturally apply Art. 16. There is now an issue
whether or not to apply the internal law of the US or the internal law of the
Philippines. In the US there is no system of legitime, every person has the right to
dispose of his estate in any manner as he wishes. No legitime. So thats the internal
law of the US particularly on the distribution of the estate. So the forum court was
confronted with this whether or not to apply the internal law of the US or the
internal law of the Phils. xxx
Art. 16 refers to the NATIONAL LAW of the decedent. Since Christensen is an
American Citizen, the law referred to by the Court is the law of the US in so far as
succession is concerned. But as I said earlier, that law did not specify whether it
refers to the internal law or the entire laws including the conflict law rules. What is
the conflict law rule on Succession in US? According to a case, it is the law of the
place where the decedent is DOMICILED. So while in the Phils, our conflict law rule is
National Law. In the US, the conflict law rule is law of decedents Domicile at the
time of death. Should the court interpret the law being referred to in 16 as the
internal law of the US or is it national law of the decedent- including the conflict of
law rules which adheres to the domiciliary theory ? So thats the renvoi now.
ISSUE: Whether or not the PH Laws should be applied
HELD: 4 Solutions of Renvoi:
1.) Reject the referral of the issue and apply the internal law of the foreign country
-forum court will consider the law being referred to as internal law of the foreign
country and therefore applying it in the case of Aznar, the opposition of Helen is w/o
basis.
2.) Considering the law being referred to as the entire body of laws of the country
including the conflict of laws rules of the foreign country (Art. 16 par. 2) and in the
process ultimaltely applying the internal law. In this case, the court accepted the
referral because by considering the law being referred to in art.16 as the entire
body of laws of the US including the conflict of laws rule,. The question now is being

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.

Bellis vs. Bellis 20 SCRA 359 (1968)


FACTS: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.
He had five legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three
legitimate children with his second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three
illegitimate children.
6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the
remainder of his estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The
appellants filed their oppositions to the project of partition claiming that they have
been deprived of their legitimes to which they were entitled according to the
Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his Philippine estate to
be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the
determination of the illegitimate childrens successional rights
RULING: Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his
properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his
national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of

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.

You might also like