Title
Wells Fargo Bank and Union Trust Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue
Case
G.R. No. 46720
Decision Date
Jun 28, 1940
Non-resident decedent's shares in a Philippine corporation subject to Philippine inheritance tax; situs determined by corporation's location, not decedent's domicile.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 46720)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner/Appellant: Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Company
Respondent/Appellee: Collector of Internal Revenue

Key Dates

September 16, 1932 – Death of Birdie Lillian Eye
June 28, 1940 – Decision by the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Applicable Law

1935 Philippine Constitution; Administrative Code, Section 1536 (as amended) imposing inheritance tax on shares in Philippine‐organized corporations; principles of due process and situs of intangible property as developed in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Factual Background

Decedent died domiciled in California, owning a half-interest in 70,000 shares of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a Philippine partnership. Her will was probated in California, and U.S. federal and California inheritance taxes on the shares were paid. The Philippine Collector of Internal Revenue assessed Philippine inheritance tax on the transmission of 35,500 shares to the trust. Wells Fargo filed a declaratory‐judgment petition in the Manila Court of First Instance, disputing Philippine tax jurisdiction over intangibles of a nonresident decedent.

Issue

Whether the transmission by inheritance of shares in a Philippine‐organized corporation owned by a nonresident decedent is subject to Philippine inheritance tax.

Statutory Provision

Administrative Code, Section 1536 (as amended): “Every transmission by virtue of inheritance of any share issued by any corporation or sociedad anonima organized or constituted in the Philippines is subject to the [inheritance] tax herein provided.”

Petitioner’s Argument

Intangible property follows the domicile of its owner (mobilia sequuntur personam). Citing U.S. cases (Farmers Loan & Tr. Co. v. Minnesota; Baldwin v. Missouri; Beidler v. South Carolina; First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Maine), petitioner contended that due process prohibits taxation of a nonresident’s intangibles by the jurisdiction of incorporation.

Government’s Position and Lower Court Ruling

The Court of First Instance applied Section 1536, holding the inheritance of shares in a Philippine entity taxable in the Philippines. It found that property situated in the Philippines may be taxed here regardless of the decedent’s domicile.

Court’s Analysis on Philippine Taxing Power

– The Philippines, though under U.S. sovereignty in international law, is a separate domestic jurisdiction; unlike U.S. states, there is no constitutional limitation against one jurisdiction taxing property physically in its territory.
– The Philippine Government has inherent power to tax transmissions by inheritance of property within its borders unless the law is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of due process.

U.S. Case Law Consideration

– Burnet v. Brooks: federal estate tax on intangibles of a nonresident decedent upheld notwithstanding due‐process concerns, as the Government may tax property within its jurisdiction.
– Curry v. McCanless: multiple states may constitutionally tax intangibles when the owner’s activities invoke the protection and be

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.