Topic: Proof of Foreign Law

No. 12767, Nov. 16, 1918

In the matter of the estate of Emil H. Johnson
Facts:
On Feb. 4, 1916, Johnson, a native of Sweden and a naturalized citizen of the US, died in Manila
leaving a holographic will. The will was written in his own hand and was signed by two witnesses only,
instead of three which was required by section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
On Feb. 9, 1916, a petition was presented in the CFI of Manila for the probate of the will on the
ground that Johnson died an American citizen and that the will was executed in accordance of the laws
of the Illinois. And under section 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a will made by an alien in the
Philippines, which was executed in accordance to the laws of his State, shall be admitted for probate by
the Philippine court.
On March 16, 1916, the will was declared legal and admitted to probate. Emil Johnsons brother
was appointed as the sole administrator.
The biological facts of the deceased Johnson are as follows: He was born in Sweden and emigrated
to Chicago, Illinois in the US where he married Rosalie Ackeson and had a daughter, Ebba Ingeborg.
Immediately thereafter, he embarked to the Philippines as a soldier for the US. After he was discharged,
he continued to live in the Philippines and was granted a divorce from Rosalie on the ground of
desertion. A littler later, he appeared in the US on a visit and procured a certificate of naturalization at
Chicago. From Chicago, he visited his parents in Sweden and after such visit, he went back to Manila
and married Alejandra Ibanez and had three children, Mercedez, Encarnacion and Victor. Johnson also
had two children by Simeona Ibanez, Eleonor and Alberto.
About three months after the will was probated, attorneys for Ebba Ingeborg Johnson moved for the
court to vacate the order of March 16, 1916 and to annul the decree of the probate and put the estate into
intestate succession for the establishment of the claim of the petitioner as the sole legitimate heir of her
father. The motion was denied, hence this present appeal.
Issue:
Whether the order of the probate can be set aside on the ground that the testator was not a resident of the
State of Illinois and that the will was not made in conformity with the laws of that State
Held:
The Court ruled that Johnson died an American citizen. There was no evidence that Johnson
abandoned his American citizenship when he resided in Manila. In fact, his certificate of naturalization
from Chicago supplies incontrovertible proof that upon the date stated, the testator became an American
citizen.
As to whether the will was executed in conformity with the statutes of the State of Illinois, the Court
ruled that it did not appear from the testimony adduced in the trial court that any witness was examined
with reference to the law of Illinois on the subject of the execution of the will. The trial judge was no
doubt, satisfied that the will was validly executed by examining section 1874 of the Revised Statutes of
Illinois. However, the Court opined that the trial judge was mistaken. Although under section 275 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the judge could take judicial notice of the acts of the legislative department of
the US, the Court holds that there is still doubt that our court courts could take judicial notice of the
diverse laws of various American States. For the Court, the proper rule is to require proof of the statutes
of the States of the American Union whenever their provisions are determinative of the issues in any
action litigated in the Philippine courts.
However, supposing that the trial court may have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of

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.