BEAM V.

YATCO, 82 PHIL 30
FACTS: A.W. Beam and Lydia McKee-Beam were married in 1913 and

begot out of their union two (legitimate) children A.W. Beam Jr. and
Eugenia. They were citizens of United States of America from birth. Mr.
A.W. Beam was a resident domiciled in Philippines for many years,
beginning from 1902. Until 18 April 1934, he was Vice-President and
Assistant General Manager of Benguet Consolidated Mining Company,
member of Board of Directors of the said company and of Balatoc Mining

Company. He was also the President of the Beam Investment Company. Beam
Investment Company, Balatoc Mining Company and Manila Building and Loan
Association are corporations organized and existing under Philippine laws, while
Benguet Consolidated Mining Company is a sociedad anonima organized and
existing under Philippine laws.
He filed an application for a tax clearance certificate with Bureau of Internal
Revenue, prior to his departure from the Philippines for California on 18 April
1934 with his wife Lydia and daughter Eugenia. Except for A.W. Beam who was in
the Philippines from 20 December 1936 until 15 January 1937, neither Lydia nor
her children have been in the Philippines since they arrived in San Francisco.
During their marriage and up until Lydia s death, A.W. Beam, his wife and

children acquired shares of stocks, deposit of P2,933.18 in Manila Building

and Loan Association.
Lydia left a last will and testament upon her death in the State of
California on 8 October 1934, which after due and regular proceedings,
was admitted to probate in the superior court of State of California for the
County of Almeda.
As plaintiffs, A.W. Beam, his children A.W. Beam, Jr. and Eugenia Beam
filed on 17 June 1937 complaint for refund as paid as inheritance tax.
However, on 30 September 1940, the lower courts decision dismissed
their complaint for refund of inheritance tax and as a result; they went to
the Supreme Court to appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the properties acquired from Lydia by her husband and
children subject to inheritance tax?
2. Whether the laws of California can be invoked by plaintiffsappellants as the law applicable to the properties of A.W. and Lydia
McKee-Beam?
HELD:
1. The Court ruled that properties acquired by spouses (husband and
wife) during their marriage should be considered community
property, and upon the wifes death, the one that belonged to her
passed by succession to heirs is subject to estate (inheritance) tax.

Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 1536 of 1917 Administrative Code

states that the shares of A.W. Beam, his wife and children are
subject to inheritance tax.
2. The Supreme Court held that when foreign law is pleaded and no
evidence has been presented as to the law, it is presumed that it is
the same of the law of the forum.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FISHER, 110 PHIL 636
FACTS: Walter G. Stevenson was born in the Philippines of British parents
and married in the City of Manila to Beatrice Mauricia Stevenson another
British subject. He died on February 22, 1951 in San Francisco, California,
U.S.A. whereto he and his wife moved and established their permanent
residence since May 10, 1945. In his will executed in San Francisco on May
22, 1947, and which was duly probated in the Superior Court of California,
Stevenson instituted his wife Beatrice as his sole heiress to real and
personal properties acquired by the spouses while residing in the
Philippines
Stevenson's will was duly admitted to probate by our court and Ian Murray
Statt was appointed ancillary administrator who filed a preliminary estate
and inheritance tax return.
Preliminary return was made by the ancillary administrator in order to
secure the waiver of the Collector of Internal Revenue on the inheritance
tax. Acting upon said return, the Collector of Internal Revenue accepted
the valuation of the personal properties declared therein, but increased
the appraisal of the two parcels of land.
On December 1, 1952, Beatrice Mauricia Stevenson assigned all her rights
and interests in the estate to the spouses, Douglas and Bettina Fisher. On
September 7, 1953, the ancillary administrator filed a second amended
estate and inheritance tax return that has new claims for additional
exemption and deduction to wit: deduction from the gross estate of
decedent as provided by the US Federal Internal Revenue Code as
allowable by way of reciprocity 2. exemption from the imposition of estate
and inheritance taxes on the 210,000 shares of stock allowable also by
way of reciprocity. Since they overpaid the Govt, they were requesting for
a refund. The Collector denied the claim, thus a complaint was filed in the
CFI in Manila.
From the decision of the CFI of Manila, the Collector appealed the decision,
with the assignees as respondents.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not, in determining the taxable net estate of the
decedent, one-half () of the net estate should be deducted
therefrom as the share of the surviving spouse in accordance with

our law on conjugal partnership and in relation to section 89 (c) of

the National Internal revenue Code;
2. Whether or not the estate can avail itself of the reciprocity proviso
embodied in Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code
granting exemption from the payment of estate and inheritance
taxes on the 210,000 shares of stock in the Mindanao Mother Lode
Mines Inc.;
HELD:
1. Yes! Petitioner contends that pursuant to Article 124 of the New Civil
Code, the property relation of the spouses Stevensons is determined
by the national law of the decedent husband, in this case, the law of
England. It is alleged by petitioner that English laws do not
recognize legal partnership between spouses, wherein all properties
acquired during the marriage pertain and belong Exclusively to the
husband. But, as correctly observed by the Tax Court, the pertinent
English law has not been proven by petitioner. In the absence of
proof, the Court is justified. Processual presumption," is correct in
presuming that the law of England on this matter is the same as our
law.
2. No, reciprocity proviso cannot be applied.
In the Philippines, upon the death of any citizen or resident, or nonresident with properties therein, there are imposed upon his estate
and its settlement, both an estate and an inheritance tax. Under the
laws of California, only inheritance tax is imposed. On the other
hand, the Federal Internal Revenue Code imposes an estate tax on
non-residents not citizens of the United States. In the instant case,
we will have a situation where a Californian, who is non-resident in
the Philippines but has intangible personal properties here, be
subjected to the payment of an estate tax, although exempt from
the payment of the inheritance tax. This being the case, will a
Filipino, non-resident of California, but with intangible personal
properties there, be entitled to the exemption clause of the
California law, since the Californian has not been exempted from
every character of legacy, succession, or death tax because he is,
under our law, under obligation to pay an estate tax? Upon the other
hand, if we exempt the Californian from paying the estate tax, we do
not thereby entitle a Filipino to be exempt from a similar estate tax
in California because under the Federal Law, which is equally
enforceable in California he is bound to pay the same, there being
no reciprocity recognized in respect thereto. In both instances, the
Filipino citizen is always at a disadvantage. We do not believe that
our legislature has intended such an unfair situation to the
detriment of our own government and people.

YU KIAN CHIE V. REPUBLIC, 13 SCRA 282 (1965)

FACTS: Yu Kian Chie, a citizen of the Republic of China, presented
with the CFI of Manila, on February 4, 1960, a petition for
naturalization, containing all the jurisdictional requirements. After
the trial, the Office of the Solicitor General on October 4, 1961, filed
an "Opposition" claiming that the two witnesses of petitioner are not
credible and did not testify as to petitioner's good reputation and
moral irreproachability. On December 18, 1961, the lower court
ordered Yu Kian Chie admitted as a citizen of the Philippines.
Petitioner-appellee herein presented with the lower court a "Motion
to Reopen Case to Enable Petitioner to present Additional
Documentary Proof of his Income. Both the original and the
supplemental decisions are the subjects of the instant appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in not finding that the
petitioner failed to prove that he has a lucrative income.
HELD:
As far as salary is concerned, appellee herein, was only receiving P150.00,
the rest being in the form of allowances and bonuses which may or may
not be given to appellee. In other words, petitioner's employer was not
duty bound to give such allowances and bonuses, but must spring from
purely voluntary actuations, conditioned to the circumstance that the
employer was making profits.
The decision appealed from is reversed and another entered denying Yu
Kian Chie's petition for Philippine citizenship.