TodayisWednesday,January25,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.48122October29,1948

A.W.BEAM,A.W.BEAM,Jr.,andEUGENIABEAM,thelattertwoassistedbytheirguardianadlitem,
JohnW.Haussermann,plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
A.L.YATCO,CollectorofInternalRevenueofthePhilippines,defendantappellee.

Ross,Selph,CarrascosoandJandaforappellants.
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralRomanOzaetaandAssistantSolicitorGeneralRafaelAmparoforappellee.

PERFECTO,J.:

OnJuly17,1937,plaintiffsfiledacomplaintprayingthattheamountofP343,298.72,paidbythemasinheritance
tax,berefundedtothemasfollows:P40,480toA.W.Beam,P151,409.36toA.W.Beam,Jr.andP151,409.36to
EugeniaBeam.

InMarch,1938,thepartiesenteredintoastipulationoffactsfromwhichthefollowingcanbegathered:

That on or before April 26, 1937, the Collector of Internal Revenue declared and assessed the following items of
property of A. W. Beam and Lydia McKee Beam at the time of the death of the latter on October 18, 1934, at
P8,100,544.91:

15,000sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.2,15and25issuedtoandin
thenameofLydiaMcKeeBeam

88,163sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.11,23and24issuedtoandin
thenameofA.W.Beam

500sharesofstockofBenguetConsolidatedMiningCompany,evidencedbyCertificateNo.3342issuedtoandin
thenameofA.W.Beam

2,080sharesofstockofBalatocMiningCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.600,614and809issuedtoandin
thenameofA.W.Beam

5,000sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompanyevidencedbyCertificatesNos.17and26issuedtoandinthe
nameofA.W.Beam,Junior lawphil.net

DepositofP2,933.18inManilaBuildingandLoanAssociationinthenameandtothecreditofA.W.Beam,Junior

5,000sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.19and27issuedtoandinthe
nameofEugeniaBeam

DepositofP2,933.18inManilaBuildingandLoanAssociationinthenameandtothecreditofEugeniaBeam.

Onehalf thereof, appraised at P4,050,272.46, was the estate to the deceased Lydia McKee Beam located in the
PhilippinesandtransmittedtoplaintiffsandtoSyrenaMcKeeandRoseP.McKeebyvirtueofinheritance,devise,or
bequest, gifts mortis causa or advance in anticipation of inheritance, and the collector assessed and demanded
inheritancetaxesthereonasfollows:

Heirs Share Tax

P4,050,272.46 P343,698.72

On April 26, 1937, plaintiffs, together with Syrena McKee and Rose T. McKee, both sister of Lydia Mckee Beam,
paid respectively the amounts assessed and demanded by the collector, aggregating P343,698.72, under protest
thatwasoverruledbythecollectoronMay11,1937.

A.W.Beamisofagebuttheothertwoplaintiffsareminorsandareassistedbytheirguardianadlitem, John W.
Haussermann.

OnherdeathintheStateofCaliforniaonOctober8,1934,LydiaMcKeeBeamleftalastwillandtestamentwhich,
after due and regular proceedings, was admitted to probate in the superior court of the State of California for the
CountyofAlmeda.

Lydia McKee Beam was the wife of A. W. Beam from their marriage in 1913 until her death, and the other two
plaintiffs are the legitimate children of said marriage. Plaintiffs are, and since birth, have been, and Lydia McKee
Beam was, throughout of her life, citizens of the United States of America. A. W. Beam was for many years,
beginningfromyear1902,aresidentdomiciledinthePhilippines.

On April 18, 1934, A. W. Beam, with his wife Lydia and daughter Eugenia, left the Philippines for California and
arrived at San Francisco on May 9, 1934, and since such arrival neither said Lydia nor any of the plaintiffs have
been in the Philippines, except A. W. Beam who was in the Philippines from December 20, 1936, to January 15,
1937.

At the time of the death of Lydia McKee Beam, she and plaintiffs owned separately and severally, according to
plaintiffs,andjointlywithLydiaMcKeeBeamandA.W.Beam,accordingtodefendant,thefollowingproperties:

LYDIAMCKEEBEAM:15,000sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.
2,15and25issuedtoandinthenameofLydiaMcKeeBeam

A. W. BEAM: 88,163 shares of stock of Beam Investment Company, evidenced by Certificates Nos. 11, 23
and 24 issued to and in the name of A. W. Beam 500 shares of stock of Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company,evidencedbyCertificateNo.3342issuedtoandinthenameofA.W.Beam2,080sharesofstock
ofBalatocMiningCompany,evidencedbyCertificatesNos.600,614and809issuedtoandinthenameofA.
W.Beam

A.W.BEAM,JUNIOR:5,000sharesofstockofBeamInvestmentCompanyevidencedbyCertificatesNos.
17 and 26 issued to and in the name of A. W. Beam, Junior Deposit of P2,933.18 in Manila Building and
LoanAssociationinthenameandtothecreditofA.W.Beam,Junior

EUGENIA BEAM: 5,000 shares of stock of Beam Investment Company, evidenced by Certificates Nos. 19
and 27 issued to and in the name of Eugenia Beam Deposit of P2,933.18 in Manila Building and Loan
AssociationinthenameandtothecreditofEugeniaBeam.

TheBeamInvestmentCompany,theBalatocMiningCompanyandtheManilaBuildingandLoanAssociationare,
andwereatalltimesmentionedintheamendedcomplaint,corporationsorganizedandexistingunderthelawsof
the Philippines. The Benguet Consolidated Mining Company is, and was at all times mentioned in the amended
complaint,asociedadanonimaorganizedandexistingunderthelawsofthePhilippines.

TheabovelistedpropertieswereacquiredinthePhilippinesduringandwithintheperiodfromthemarriageofA.W.
BeamtoLydiaMcKeeBeamin1913toApril18,1934.A.W.Beamhasbeen,andwasuptoApril18,1934,the
VicePresidentandAssistantGeneralManageroftheBenguetConsolidatedMiningCompanyandamemberofthe
BoardofDirectorsofsaidcompanyandoftheBalatocMiningCompany.Hewasalso,anduptothepresent,is,the
PresidentofBeamInvestmentCompany.

PriortohisdeparturefromthePhilippinesonApril18,1934,withhiswifeandhisdaughterEugenia,A.W.Beam
filedanapplicationforataxclearancecertificatewiththeBureauofInternalRevenue.

OnSeptember30,1940,thelowercourtrendereddecisiondismissingthecomplaintwithcostsagainsttheplaintiffs.

Plaintiffsappealed.
Appellantscomplainthatthelowercourtdismissedthecomplaintonfactualconclusionsdealingwithpointsnotat
issue between the parties. They allege that the issue of fact, under the pleadings, was between the appellants'
contentionthatA.W.BeamanddeceasedwifewereresidentsandcitizensofCaliforniaonOctober18,1934,and
appellee's contention that their Philippine residence and domicile extended to October 18, 1934, and sometime
later, and there was no issue as to whether or not said A. W. Beam changed his residence and domicile in 1923
from the Philippines to California and, therefore, the lower court erred in finding that appellant became a resident
andcitizenofCaliforniain1923.

Appellee alleges that it has been his original theory from the inception of the action that the plaintiffs were and
continuedtobeCaliforniacitizensandthattheyarenotentitledtorecoveronthegroundthataccordingtoCalifornia
lawthepropertyacquiredbyA.W.Beaminonehalfthereofbelongstothedeceasedandpassedbysuccessionto
her heirs subject to the inheritance tax, and said theory is borne out by the following allegation of the amended
answersfiledonSeptember2,1937:

That under the Inheritance Tax Law, the defendant demanded and collected from the plaintiffs the sum of
P343,698.72allegedinthecomplaint,whichhadbeenassessedontheamountofP4,050,272.46,valueof
theestateofsaidLydiaMcKee,locatedandhavingbusinesssitusinthePhilippines,andtransmittedtothe
plaintiffsbyvirtueofinheritance.(Pages15,16,recordonappealemphasissupplied.)

ThatthelawoftheStateofCaliforniaineffectatthetimeofthedeathofLydiaMcKeeBeamprovidedthat,
uponthedeathofawife,onehalfofthecommunitypropertyshallgotothesurvivingspouse,theotherhalf
beingsubjecttothetestamentarydispositionofthedecedent,andthatintheabsencethereof,thathalfshall
gotothesurvivingspousebyinheritance.

ThelastparagraphreproducesonlythepenultimateparagraphoftheoriginalanswerdatedOctober11,1937.

Theallegations necessarilyincludebyimplicationtheallegationofCaliforniacitizenship so that the California law

The finding of the lower court is fully supported by the testimonies of A. W. Beam and John W. Haussermann,
wherein the first stated that in 1923 he bought a house in Oakland, California, and used it as a residence until
December, 1930, when he built another in Piedmont, California, which he has used and occupied as a residence
sincethen,andhischildrenwereinschoolinCaliforniaandMrs.Beamwantedtobewiththemandmadeahome
for them, and it was his intention to live in California and from 1923 on, his family spent most of their time in
California,wherehehimselfusedtotakelongvacations,andthatheneverreallyintendedtolivepermanentlyinthe
Philippines, while Haussermann testified that A. W. Beam left the Philippines somewhere along 1923 and 1924
whenheestablishedahomeforhiswifeandchildrenonKenmoreAvenue,Oakland,andhewenttherefrequently.

Weareofopinionthat,uponthepleadingsandtheevidence,thelowercourtdidnoterrinfindingthatA.W.Beam
andwifebecameresidentsandcitizensofCaliforniain1923.

Ontheotherhand,appelleemaintainsthat,becausetheburdenofproofisontheplaintiffstoestablishtheirrightto
recover, in view of the fact that they had failed to establish that right based on their alleged Utah citizenship, the
dismissalofthecomplaintisfullyjustified,andthedefendantisentitledtotakeadvantageoftheplaintiff'sfailureto
presentsufficientproofandoftheevidenceadducedbythemselves.

PlaintiffpleadedUtahcitizenshiptoinvokethelawsofthestatewhich,itisalleged,istotheeffectthatproperties
acquiredbythespousesduringmarriagebelongtothemseparately,andtheUtahcitizenshipwasthusputinissue
inviewofthegeneraldenialofappelleeandhisspecialdefensepredicatedontheCalifornialaw.

TheevidenceoftheplaintiffontheUtahcitizenshipconsistsexclusivelyinthedepositionofA.W.Beamwhereinhe
states that he was born in Nevada in 1878 he lived with his parents in Nevada until 1883 and then in Utah until
1898, when he enlisted in the army and that upon his discharge from the army in San Francisco in 1889 he
returnedto,andstayedin,Utah,untilhecametothePhilippinesin1902.Ascontendedbyappellee,theevidence
does not sufficiently prove the Utah citizenship claimed by said appellant. There is no evidence that he ever
returnedtoUtah,orhasanyinterestinthatestate,orthatheeverintendedtoreturnthere.

Whereplaintiffsthemselvesshowastateoffactsuponwhichtheyshouldnotrecover,whetherdefendantpleaded
such fact as a defense or not, their claim should be dismissed. Evidence introduced without objection becomes
property of the case and all the parties are amenable to any favorable or unfavorable effects resulting from the
evidence.

Appellantscomplainthattheywerenotgivenopportunitytopresentevidenceregardingthefactfoundbythelower
courtthatplaintiffA.W.Beambecamein1923aresidentandcitizenofCaliforniahasnomerit,becauseplaintiffs
hadinfacttheopportunity,andtakenadvantageofit,topresentallthefactswhich,accordingtothem,wouldentitle
them to recover and they cannot complain of their failure to present more evidence than that appearing in the
record.Asamatteroffact,theevidenceuponwhichthelowercourtconcludedthatA.W.Beambecameresident
and citizen of California in 1923, consists in the testimony of A. W. Beam himself and his witness John W.
Haussermann.

Appellants contend that no evidence whatsoever has been adduced to prove the California law of community
propertyandthatthetrialcourtshouldnothavetakenintoconsiderationtheprovisionofsaidlawasquotedinthe
memorandumfiledbytheSolicitorGeneral.AppelleeallegesthatthereisnodisputethatCaliforniaisacommunity
property state, citing 31 C. J., 12 and the decision in Osorio vs. Posadas (56 Phil., 748 and 756). Appellants
themselves assert that, in the absence of proof as to what the California law is, the presumption would militate
against them, because when a foreign law is pleaded and no evidence has been presented as to said law it is
presumed that the same is the law of the forum. (Yan Ka Lim vs. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil., 46 Lim vs.
CollectorofInternalRevenue,36Phil.,472Micianovs.Brimo,50Phil.,876.)

Accordingly, the properties in question which have been acquired by A.W. Beam and wife during their marriage,
shouldbeconsideredascommunitypropertyanduponthedeathofthewife,theonethatbelongedtoherpassed
bysuccessiontoherheirs,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticles1401,1407and1426oftheCivilCode,and
thereforeissubjecttotheinheritancetaxcollectedbyappellee.

AppellantscontendedthatA.W.BeamhasnotbecomearesidentandcitizenofCaliforniasince1923andthatthe
evidencepointsoutthathechangedhisresidencefromthePhilippinestoCaliforniabetweenthetimeheleftManila
for Piedmont on April 18, 1934, and the time of his wife's death on October 18, 1934. Appellants point to the
testimony of A. W. Beam that his departures before 1934 were without intention of permanently abandoning his
homeinthePhilippines,whilewhenheleftonApril18,1934,hehadnointentionofreturning,forwhichreasonhe
brought his car and all his household belongings with him, and to the testimonies of Robert B. Dell, John W.
Haussermann, W. H. Taylor, W. H. Lawrence. These testimonies, all hearsay, except that A. W. Beam himself,
notwithstanding,cannotchangetheeffectofA.W.Beam'stestimonytotheeffectthatin1923heboughtahousein
Oakland, California, used it as a residence until December 1930, when he built another house in Piedmont,
California,whichheusedandoccupiedasaresidencefromthattimetothepresent,andthathischildrenwerein
schoolinCaliforniaandMrs.Beamwantedtobewiththemandmakeahomeforthem,andfrom1923onhisfamily
spent most of their time in California. He also testified that "he never really intended permanently to live in the
Philippinesallmylife."UndertheprovisionsofthefourteenthamendmenttotheFederalConstitution,"allpersons
bornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesaresubjecttothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesandof
thestatewhereintheyreside."

A.W.BeambecamecitizenofCaliforniain1923whenheestablishedthereinapermanentresidenceforhimand
hisfamily.

One's personal presence at the new domicile is not necessary when the intent to change has been
manifestedandcarriedoutbysendinghiswifeandfamilythere.(19C.J.,425.)

As correctly stated by appellee, even granting appellant's contention that the deceased became a resident of
Californiaonlyin1934,shewasacitizenofthatstateatthetimeofherdeathandhernationallawapplicabletothe
case, in accordance with article 10 of the Civil Code, is the law of California which, in the absence of contrary
evidence,istobepresumedtobethesameasthePhilippinelaw.

The question raised by appellants regarding the situs of the properties in question, has no merit in view of the
expressprovisionsofsection1536oftheRevisedAdministrativeCode,specifyingsharesissuedbyanycorporation
orsociedadanonimaorganizedinthePhilippinesamongpropertiessubjecttoinheritancetax.Thepronouncement
of the lower court that the actual situs of the shares in question is in the Philippines is fully supported by the
evidenceas,accordingtothetestimonyofJohnW.Haussermann,thecorrespondingcertificatesofstockwerein
thePhilippinesbeforeandafterthedeathofMrs.Beam,theownerswererepresentedbyproxyatthestockholders'
meetingsandtheirsharesvotedbytheirattorneyinfactwhohadthepowertocollectdividendscorrespondingto
theshare.

ThequestionsraisedbyappellantsthatarepremisedontheUtahcitizenshipofA.W.Beamandhisdeceasedwife
cannot be countenanced after we have concluded that the lower court declared correctly that they became
Californiacitizenssince1923.

Thelowercourt'sdecisionisaffirmedwithcostsagainstappellants.

Paras,Feria,Pablo,Bengzon,BrionesandTuason,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation