Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher
94
95
96
BARRERA, J.:
97
Gross Estate
Real Property2 parcels of land in Ba
guio, covered by T.C.T. Nos. 378
and 379 ................................. P 43,500.00
Personal Property
(1) 177 shares of stock of Canacao
Estate at P10.00 each............... 1,770.00
(2) 210,000 shares of stock of Min
danao Mother Lode Mines, Inc.
at F0.88 per share .................. 79,800.00
(3) Cash credit with Canacao Es
tate, Inc. 4,870.88
(4) Cash with the Chartered Bank of
India, Australia & China ............... 851.97
Total Gross Assets ............................... P130.792.86
98
99
"In fine, we are of the opinion and so hold that: (a) the
100
101
102
_______________
103
_______________
4 Yam Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46; Lim & Lim vs.
Collector of Customs, 36 Phil. 472; International Harvester Co. vs.
Hamburg-American Line, 42 Phil. 845; Beam vs. Yatco, 46 O.G. No. 2, p.
530.)
104
and Taxation Code, on the ground that: (1) the said proviso
of the California Revenue and Taxation Code has not been
duly proven by the respondents; (2) the reciprocity
exemptions granted by section 122 of the National Internal
Revenue Code can only be availed of by residents of foreign
countries and not of residents of a state in the Uttit&d
States; and (3) there is no "total" reciprocity between the
Philippines and the state of California in that while the
former exempts payment of both estate and inheritance
taxes on intangible personal properties, the latter only
exempts the payment of inheritance tax.
To prove the pertinent California law, Attorney Allison
Gibbs, counsel for herein respondents, testified that as an
active member of the California Bar since 1931, he is
familiar with the revenue and taxation laws of the State of
California. When asked by the lower court to state the
pertinent California law as regards exemption of intangible
personal properties, the witness cited article 4, section
13851 (a) and (b) of the California Internal and Revenue
Code as published in Derring's California Code, &
publication of the Bancroft-Whitney Company, Inc. And as
part of his testimony, a full quotation of the cited section
was offered in evidence as Exhibits "V-2" by the
respondents.
It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove
themselves in our jurisdiction and our5 courts are not
authorized to take judicial notice of them.
6
Like any other f
act, they must be alleged and proved.
Section 41, Rule 123 of our Rules of Court prescribes the
manner of proving foreign laws before our tribunal.
However, although we believe It desirable that these laws
be proved in accordance with said rule, we heM in the case
of Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, 81 Phil. 471,
that "a reading of sections 300 and 301 of our Code of Civil
Procedure (now section 41, Rule 128) will convince one that
these sections do not exclude the presentation of
_______________
105
106
107
108
109
VOL. 1, JANUARY 28, 1961 109
Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher
stock was bid for at only P.325 (p. 103, t.s.n.). Significantly,
the testimony of Atty. Gibbs in this respect has never been
questioned nor refuted by petitioner either before this court
or in the court below. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we are, therefore, constrained to reverse the Tax
Court on this point and to hold that the value of a share in
the said mining company on August 22, 1951 in the
Philippine market was P.325 as claimed by respondents.
It should be noted that the petitioner and the Tax Court
valued each share of stock of P.38 on the basis of the
declaration made by the estate in its preliminary return.
Patently, this should not have been the case, in view of the
fact that the ancillary administrator had reserved and
availed of his legal right to have the properties of the estate
declared at their fair market value as of six months from
the time the decedent died.
On the fifth issue, we shall consider the various
deductions, from the allowance or disallowance of which by
the Tax Court, both petitioner and respondents have
appealed.
Petitioner, in this regard, contends that no evidence of
record exists to support the allowance of the sum of
P8.604.39 for the following expenses:
110
111
_______________
8 In the matter of the testate estate of Basil Gordon Butler, G.R. No.
L-3677, Nov. 29, 1951.
9 Rule 78, Secs. 1, 2 and 3, Rules of Court. See also Hix vs. Fluemer,
54 Phil. 610.
112
10
ment of just debts and expenses of administration. In
other words, there is a regular administration under the
control of the court, where claims must be presented and
approved, and expenses of administration allowed before
deductions from the estate can be authorized. Otherwise,
we would have the actuations of our own probate court, in
the settlement and distribution of the estate situated here,
subject to the proceedings before the foreign court over
which our courts have no control. We do not believe such a
procedure is countenanced or contemplated in the Rules of
Court.
Another reason for the disallowance of this indebtedness
as a deduction, springs from the provisions of Section 89,
letter (d), number (1), of the National Internal Revenue
Code which reads:
_______________
113
114
Judgment affirmed.