You are on page 1of 8

JURISDICTION JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON William Gemperle v. Helen Schenker Mrs.

Schenker is the representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband in the aforementioned civil case, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned representative capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at bar, which is consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER Idonah Perkins v. Roxas By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in general nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred. The respondent's action (Roxas), therefore, calls for the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, and the granting of affirmative reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICTS PROBLEM DISMISS THE CASE – DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS Heine v. New York Insurance Co. It may retain jurisdiction, or it may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, decline to do so, as the circumstances suggest. The courts have repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to entertain jurisdiction of causes of action arising in a foreign jurisdiction, where both parties are non-residents of the forum. "Circumstances often exist which render it inexpedient for the court to take jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners in cases not arising in the country of the forum; as, where they are governed by the laws of the country to which the parties belong, and there is no difficulty in a resort to its courts; or where they have agreed to resort to no other tribunals * * * not on the ground that it has not jurisdiction, but that, from motives of convenience, or international comity, it will use its discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction or not." ASSUME JURISDICTION Fleumer v. Hix The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to take American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the requirements of

domicile and resident there  His will provides that his estate shall be disposed of in accordance with Nevada law  Nevada law has been presented and admitted in court during probate  His will does not provides for legitime RULING: The old Civil Code. upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed. legal and testamentary successions. Gibbs  in accordance with the law of California. THE PROBLEMS OF CHARACTERIZATION Gibbs v. Says the law on this point: Nevertheless. which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944.the law were not met. as provided in section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Philippine Trust Co v. are . belongs absolutely to the surviving husband without administration  Mr. the community property of spouses who are citizens of California. Nor was the extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original. There was no was printed or published under the authority of the State of West Virginia. as provided in section 301 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Bohanan FACTS:  Testator is a citizen of the State of Nevada. in the absence of an antenuptial contract. expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. under the sale of the State of West Virginia. in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions. Gibbs wanted to secure certificate of titles of the parcels of lands in the Philippine  BIR requires payment of taxes first RULING: The Philippine Law shall apply. Government of the Philippines FACTS:  Spouses Gibbs are citizens and domiciliary of California at the time of death of Mrs. The court does not have to take judicial notice of the Nevada Law because it has already been presented and admitted in court during the probate of the will and that appellant did not dispute the said law. In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitae. the respective rights of husband and wife in such property. whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found.

it is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile. depending on the characterization given to such a law. the action is barred.determined by the law of the place where the property is situated. the characterization of a statue into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a borrowing statute. 16. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country where said property may be found. It directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. One of the borrowing statutes is our Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: “If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose. Garcia Philippine law shall apply. POEA Administrator A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum’s public policy. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. There are two rules in California on the matter. both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. intestate and testamentary successions. THE PROBLEM WITH RENVOI DEALING WITH RENVOI PROBLEM Aznar v. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Section 48 cannot be enforced insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. Article 16 of the NCC provides: ART. However. the nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Borrowing statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. it is also barred in the Philippine Islands. Cadalin v. However.” . the internal law which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled in California and the conflicts rule which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled in other states which states that “If there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree as regards the claim would contravene the public policy on the protection of labor. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question must be determined in accordance with the lex rei sitae.” In light of the 1987 Constitution however. irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated. 23 of 1976. Under this broad principle.

the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law. the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child of the latter’s legacy should be governed by the Phil.As the domicile of the deceased who was citizen of California was the Philippines.2 So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern. depriving his heir of their share in the residuary estate (legitime)  Under Texas law. The trial judge was fully satisfied with the proof of such law presented by the executor of the deceased. NO JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS PHILIPPINE COURTS NOT AUTHORIZED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN LAWS In re estate of Johnson FACTS:  Emil Johnson was a native of Sweden and a naturalized citizen of America. Therefore Helen’s legacy shall be increased. proof of law of Illinois was presented and approved by the trial judge RULING: The will was in accordance with the laws of USA. but would still refer to Texas law. Bellis FACTS:  Amos Bellis was a citizen and domiciliary of Texas at the time of his death  Left a will executed in the Philippines. law. died in the Manila leaving a holographic will signed by him and TWO witnesses ONLY instead of THREE  During probate. and a domicile of another. Bellis. USEFULNESS OF RENVOI Bellis v. In the present case. the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Will renvoi apply? RULING: Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country. since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law. no legitime. Even presuming that the trial judge in taking judicial notice of the law of USA. Accordingly. such error is not available to the petitioner daughter because she did not offer any evidence as what the true law of USA is which would appear that the law found by the court is different from the true law of Illinois USA . it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.

Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute between the parties in any proceeding. Bohanan The law of Nevada. Bohanan. Again said laws were presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the Court during the subsequent hearing of the case. do not dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. all the properties will go to the other RULING: The question of what are the laws of Texas governing the matters herein issue is. Escolin FACTS:  Spouses Hodges were citizens of Texas  They lived in the Philippines at the time of Mrs. the other appellants. Collector of Customs FACTS:  Two minor children of Filipino mother and Chinese father were born in China out of wedlock  They are denied entrance in the Philippines under Chinese immigration laws . which are as follows: SEC. however. or by his deputy. Lim v. The Court. such as when they are well and generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it and none of the parties concerned do not claim otherwise. the Court is constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada can be taken judicial notice of by the Court. Philippine Trust Company v. children of the testator. . they executed mutual will that in case of death of one. with the rare exception in instances when the said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court. (Rule 123). Proof of public or official record. Hodges’ death  Before death. without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition. the foreign law was introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as Exhibits. being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules. in the first instance. consulted the records of the case in the court below and had found that during the hearing of the motion of Magdalena C. The existence and effects of foreign laws being questions of fact. one of fact. with a certificate that such officer has the custody. such previous admission thereof creates estoppels in any further proceedings. when admissible for any purpose. not of law. — An official record or an entry therein. Under all the above circumstances. may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody of the record. . and accompanied. 41.EXCEPTIONS Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank v. In addition. if the record is not kept in the Philippines. .

Philippine law  Beam does not present proof of his citizenship and Utah law RULING: 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. Brimo FACTS:  Deceased is a Turkish national. for the purpose of taking up their residence here with her. no payment of taxes  BIR – he was a Californian citizen – renvoi applies. these children must be held to be entitled to enter the Philippine Islands with their mother. but also by the express mandate of the law.RULING: (1917. and that she is entitled to their custody and control in fulfilling the obligations towards them which are imposed upon her. national law applies – under Turkish law. left a will disposing of his estate in accordance with Phil laws  The brothers opposed – the provisions were void – under Art 16. it appearing that she is natural guardian. Yatco FACTS:  Beam invoked Utah law – he was a citizen of Utah…under this law. laws but testamentary provision made by the testator shall be void for being contrary to the law. Miciano v. The Court was not advised of any provision of Chinese law which differentiates the status of infant children. the court indulged in a presumption that Turkish law was the same as ours. born out of lawful wedlock. hence. . By failure to prove by the brothers on what the Turkish law is all about. the provisions were null and void  The brothers did not present proof as to what Turkish law was about RULING: Foreign laws shall be proved as a fact and in the absence of such proof. entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education. they are presumed to be same as these of the Phil. Thus partition proceedings may be continued. It is therefore assumed. not only by the natural impulses of love and affection. from that of similar children under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. the Philippines is under Americans) The Supreme Court of the United States held that the wives and minor children of Chinese merchants domiciled in the United States may enter that country without certificates. that in China as well as in the Philippine Islands such children have the right to look to their mother for their maintenance and education. And his estate shall be distributed in accordance with the Phil. Beam v.

Fisher 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 except for a mere allegation in his answer which is not sufficient. Co v. it does not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the existence of a foreign law." The testimony of an attorney-at-law of San Francisco. and that the new law carries the provision giving it retroactive effect. In the absence of such proof. it is presumed that the law of England on the matter is the same as our law. Section 41. 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. Uy FACTS:  Uy run for election as mayor and won – contested because he was a Chinese  His father is a Chinese but when his father died while he was still a minor. father was later on naturalized  Ong participated in elections and run for office and won  Contested – failed to file sworn declaration of election of citizenship upon reaching age of majority RULING: He was already a citizen. It is to be noted that when Commonwealth Act No. is sufficient evidence to establish the existence of said law. he acquired his mother’s citizenship.CIR v. However. Not only because his mother was a natural born citizen but also his father had been naturalized when the respondent was still a minor. NATIONALITY NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS Talaroc v. 63 went into effect in 1936. HRET FACTS:  Father is a Chinese married to a natural born Filipina in 1932. This rule was in force until Commonwealth Act No. Uy had been of age 3 years. He exercises his right of suffrage and established . Rule 123 of our Rules of Court prescribes the manner of proving foreign laws before our tribunals. California who quoted verbatim a section of California Civil Code and who stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted. without her mother having repatriated herself RULING: A Filipino woman married to Chinese ipso factoreacquired her Filipino citizenship upon her husband's demise and that there after her minor children's nationality automatically followed that of the mother's. 63 was passed Ursula Diabo had been a widow for 19 years and Alejandro D.

Comelec Aznar v. would not only have been superfluous but would also have resulted in absurdity considering that it was the law itself that had already elected Phil. Republic PROCEDURE FOR NATURALIZATION Vivo v. citizenship for him. Li Yao DUAL OR MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP Oh Hek How v. To require the respondent to elect Phil. Comelec Republic v. Fuster CAPACITY Insular Government v. Republic STATELESSNESS Kookooritchkin v. citizenship. Frank . Cloribel Moy Ya Lim v. The exercise of right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of Phil. CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION Yu Kian Chie v. Solgen PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY DEFINITION Recto v. Comelec Labo v. citizenship. Commissioner of Immigration LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP Frivaldo v. JUDICIAL JURISDICTION Barnuevo v. Harden LEGISLATIVE VS.his life here in the Phil.