You are on page 1of 6

PRIL Digests 6

(which is initially at least 1/2 of the estate), for
admissions by a party related to the effects of
foreign laws, which have to be proven in our
courts like any other controverted fact, create
estoppel.

Philippine Commercial and Industrial
Bank v Escolin (1974)
PCIB (administrator of Mr. Hodge’s estate) and Magno
(administratix of Mrs. Hodge’s estate) are in disagreement
as to the estate left by Mrs. Hodge.
SC: Since the position now of PCIB is that the estate of
Mrs. Hodges, pursuant to the law of Texas, should only be
1/4 of the conjugal estate, such contention constitutes an
admission of fact. It would be in estoppel in any further
proceedings in these cases to claim that said estate could
be less, irrespective of what might be proven later to be the
actual provisions of Texas law.



Charles Hodge and his wife Jane (Texas citizen)
provided in their wills that:
They bequeath the remainder of their respective
estates to their spouse during his/her lifetime
Upon that spouse’s death, the remainder of what
he/she will inherit from the other will be given to
the brothers and sisters of the one who died first

Mr. Hodge later on died.



Magno – adminsitratix of MRS. Hodge’s estate
PCIB – administrator of MR. Hodge’s estate
Probate proceedings were held jointy.

PCIB says: PHILIPPINE law applies

Because the spouses were both Philippine residents,
the estate left by MRS. Hodges to her siblings is ONE
HALF of her share in the conjugal partnership, or
LESS, even if she was a Texas citizen.

Basis: Art 16 in relation to Arts 900 and 872 of the Civil
Code.
Magno says: TEXAS law applies

Texas law, where there is no system of legitime,
applies.

SO: The estate of MRS. Hodges is ONE HALF or
MORE of her share of the conjugal properties.
HELD:

PCIB is estopped from claiming that the estate of
Mrs. Hodges is less than ¼, because it already
said that it is ¼ under Texas law (?)

RATIO:
What the laws of Texas state is NO longer of consequence

1.

Regardless what law is applicable and regardless of
whether or not Mr. Hodges did renounce his share, it is
clear from the inventory submitted by Mr. Hodges
himself as executor of his wife's estate that there are
properties which constitute the estate of Mrs. Hodges
which should be distributed among her heirs pursuant
to her will

2.

Whatever be the provisions of Texas Law applicable,
the estate of Mrs. Hodges is AT LEAST 1/4 OF THE
CONJUGAL ESTATE OF THE SPOUSES
Existence and effects of foreign laws are
questions of fact
Since the position now of PCIB is that the
estate of Mrs. Hodges, pursuant to the law of
Texas, should only be 1/4 of the conjugal
estate, such contention constitutes an
admission of fact
Consequently, it would be in estoppel in any
further proceedings in these cases to claim
that said estate could be less, irrespective of
what might be proven later to be the actual
provisions of Texas law...

3.

Special Proceeding for the settlement of testate estate
of Mrs. Hodges cannot be closed, should proceed,
there having no proper and legal adjudication or
distribution yet of the estate
Magno remains to be the Administratrix of Mrs.
Hodges's estate

MRS. Hodge died first.
MR. Hodge was appointed executor of the will but no
liquidation occurred.
MR. Hodge allegedly stated to US inheritance tax
authorities that he had renounced his inheritance from
Mrs. Hodge in favor of her other heirs (siblings)

Issues that can be decided by the court:

PCIB allegedly averred that under the laws of
Texas (although it was arguing that RP laws apply),
there is such legitime of 1/4 of the said conjugal
estate
So PCIB would be estopped to claim that the estate of
Mrs. Hodges should be less than as contended by it

4.

What cannot be decided:
1. WON Mr. Hodges renounced his share
2. WON estate of Mrs. Hodges is more than 1/4 of
the conjugal property
(case is remanded to trial court to allow the parties to
present evidence in relation to these issues)
Court does NOT make a determination as to the validity of
testamentary dispositions

Since under the Civil Code, the nationality of the
testator is controlling, and since Mrs. Hodges is a US
citizen, the case must be remanded so that the parties
can prove what Texas law provides

In Re Estate of Johnson (1918)
Johnson was a US citizen, whose will was probated in
Manila. His daughter now wants to annul the probate
because his will was not made in accordance with Illinois
laws.
SC: Found that the probate judge took judicial notice of
Illinois law by reading an annotated book on the Revised
Statutes of Illinois. This is a mistake because courts can
only take judicial notice of acts of the US Congress, not of
laws of different states. BUT court did not annull probate.
1

Court refused to take judicial notice of Saudi Arabian laws. not easy. has in some way adequately assisted the court in judicially learning it 2 . which are like those of any state in US Probate judge erred in taking judicial notice of Illinois law The Court cannot rule on whether the will was executed in accordance with Illinois law because no witness testified on the law of Illinois The trial judge took judicial notice of Illinois law –he examined the Revised Statutes of Illinois in an annotated book The judge was MISTAKEN Walton Citizen and resident of Arkansas Seriously injured while temporarily in Saudi Arabia by a truck owned by Saudi ARAMCO Saudi ARAMCO Incorporated in Delaware Licensed to do business in NY Engaged in extensve business activities in Saudi Arabia IN THIS CASE:  It involved Saudi Arabian Law: Comprehension of foreign "law" is. who would otherwise have had the burden of proving that "law". it might seem that the judge erred in refusing to take judicial notice of Saudi Arabian law. a court "abuses" its discretion under that statute perhaps if it takes judicial notice of foreign "law" when it is not pleaded. Cunard White Star.PRIL Digests 6 2. probate cannot be set aside for lack of necessary citizenship Walton sued Saudi Aramco in NY. NY TC  Defendant was negligent under NY law HELD:  Substantive law applicable to alleged tort is the LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE ALLEGED TORT OCCURRED .  Under the Code of Civil Procedure. because unlike those of Britain it cannot be easily comprehended. and surely does so unless the party. nor did the defendant offered to prove it.      Emil Johnson – US Citizen. then. Effect of failure to plead 1: Dismiss case Walton v Arabian American Oil Co (1956) A petition for probate was filed on the ground that at the time of his death. the will was admitted to probate Parties are US citizens. Also. court took JN of foreign law but this is an exception because US Court can easily comprehend of ENGLISH decisions. in light og Siegelman v Cunard White Star  In Siegelman v.So should apply Saudi Arabian law…  BUT Saudi Arabian law was not proved. processual presumption does NOT apply because Saudi Arabia might have different tort principles. it could be properly probated here under the Code of Civil Procedure So. the courts are authorized to take judicial notice of acts of the legislative department of the US These refer to Acts of the Congress of the US. his alleged daughter. Later on. died in Manila He left a holographic will Signed by himself and 2 witnesses only (Code of Civil Procedure requires 3 witnesses) The judge’s error was not raised in the assignment of error. Will was not probated in accordance with the laws of Illinois ISSUE: W/N the will was validly admitted to probate  YES RATIO: NO allegation that Johnson is NOT a CITIZEN of Illinois The daughter’s petition only says that he is a RESIDENT of the Philippines –did not deny US citizenship So. moved for the annulment of the decree of probate and commencement of intestate administration of the estate   Daughter says: a. according to the somewhat narrow interpretation of the NY Statute by NY courts. and NOT the laws in different states Even reference to those “similar” to the enumeration in the Code cannot refer to the different laws of the states SO: The proper RULE is to require proof of the statutes of the States when their provisions are determinative of the issues in an action litigated in Philippine courts BUT: Doesn’t bolster daughter’s case even if the judge erred in taking judicial notice 1. The daughter’s petition does not state that Illinois law is different from what the court found No evidence of Saudi Arabian law alleged by plaintiff. Johnson was NOT a RESIDENT of Illinois b. Johnson was a citizen of Illinois and the will was duly executed in accordance with the laws of Illinois – so. accident occurred in Saudi Arabia. to say the least. So. Ebba Ingeborg.  Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. a federal court must receive evidence if it is admissible according to the rules of evidence of the state in which the court sits.

Leary sued Gledhill to recover the loan. ISSUE: Which law applies. Walton v. Leary sued Gledhill for the payment in a New Jersey court. the court said it should strictly enforce its laws Leary v Gledhill (1951) Leary and Gledhill entered into a contract in France (loan). parties by failing to prove the law of France have acquiesced in having their dispute determined by the law of the forum  So the court presumed that the law of France in common with that of other civilized countries recognizes a liability to make repayment under the facts here present. e. Though it deemed unjust. When Leary returned to Germany. and to a master's liability for his servant's acts.g. no official publication of the law was presented in evidence IN ANY CASE: Even if the Code of Federal Regulations does exist. French law recognizes certain fundamental principles. Processual Presumption Miciano v Brimo (1924) 3 . overbooking being an accepted practice in US Airlines so no fraud nor bad faith on the part of TransWorld Airlines ISSUE: W/N the Zalameas should have been awarded for Bad faith on the part of Transworld  YES RATIO:       The US law allegedly authorizing overbooking has never been proved. that the taking of a loan creates an obligation upon the borrower to make repayment 3. French law same as law of forum 2.    (Probably in NY) the 3 were wait-listed as their seats were already taken. our doctrines relative to negligence. it is NOT applicable to this case Why? Because we adhere to the principle of lex loci contractus Since the tickets were sold and issued in the Philippines. France. So Walton can't argue that the rudimentary tort principles should have been presumed to be recognized in Saudi Arabia. Code of Federal Regulations fo the Civil Aeronautics Board Transworld Airlines relied solely on the statement of its customer service agent that their aeronautics laws allows overbooking BUT aside from this statement. may not exist or will be vastly different. Gledhill moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no pleading or proof of the law of France. Gledhill mentioned to Leary that he needed a sum of money. not deemed to have lost COA and the court could presume any the ff: 1. or New Jersey? NEW JERSEY RATIO:  Transaction occurred in France  France is not a common law jurisdiction (Court took JN): so inappropriate to presume that the principles of common law prevail there  BUT HERE (cf.PRIL Digests 6 assumption that it would be similarly treated by the laws of all civilized countries No processual presumption    In countries where the common law does not prevail. Saudi Aramco): even if did not present French law. As Mr. refund ticket price + MD + Atty's fees CA: MD cannot be recovered. Zalamea was holding the full-fare ticket. he was allowed to board the plane and Mrs. Later on. he mailed Gledhill a check for $1500. 2 for 75% All tickets confirmed in Manila and re-confirmed in NY RTC: for Zalameas. where the transaction occurred. entitling passengers to an award of moral damages. and its decision is not w/o substantial merit  BUT this approach has a limitation: It’s difficult to determine WON the question presented was of such a fundamental nature as reasonably to warrant the Zalamea spouses and their daughter purchased 3 airline tickets from Manila agent of Tans World Airlines Inc One on full fare. Zalamea and their daughter were compelled to buy tickets back to Manila from other airlines  Zalameas filed ACTION FOR DAMAGES based on breach of contract of carriage before RTC Makati Court: court presumed that the law of France in common with that of other civilized countries recognizes a liability to make repayment     While they were in France. as this involves both US citizens. without indicating what it was for. Here: the presumption # 2 (that forum law applies when parties fail to prove foreign law) is universally applied regardless of the nature of controversy Zalamea v CA (1993) NY law re overbooking was pleaded but not proved. the applicable law would be Philippine law So applying Philippine law  Jurisprudence states that overbooking amounts to bad faith.

Hence. and not by Philippine law. The proceedings in the Amoy court were only for the taking of depositions of witnesses. HELD: The approval of the scheme of partition was NOT erroneous    In the absence of evidence on such laws. Fookien in China Left properties in the Philippines One of his children from a first marriage was appointed administrator of his estate. ISSUE: What law applies  ENGLISH LAW. for which personal notice and publication to interested parties must be made IN THIS CASE: Notice requirement was not complied with CIR v Fisher (1961) The pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the husband full ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage has NOT been proven.PRIL Digests 6 Since the brother failed to prove Turkish law. since they are British  English laws do NOT recognize legal partnership between spouses  Under English law. the administrator of the estate filed a preliminary estate and inheritance tax return CIR says: The taxable estate is the whole of the decendent’s estate  The property relation of the spouses should be determined by English law. SO: There is no evidence on record that the national law of Brimo was violated in the testamentary dispositions Not being contrary to our laws. his son from his second marriage. or the will executed in Amoy. and not for the probate of the will  In the absence of proof that the Amoy court is a probate court and on the Chinese rules of procedure. Consul General is not necessarily an expert on Chinese law on procedure in probate matters 2. Applied Philippine law – without an ante-nuptial agreement. CTA – Reduced taxable net estate to ½. married to Beatrice who is also British Stevenson died in 1951 and instituted his wife as his sole heiress. the dispositions must be executed. Suntay v Suntay (1952)      Jose Suntay – Filipino citizen and resident Died in Amoy. Silvino filed a petition for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines in 1929.    Walter Stevenson – British. the court presumed that Turkish law was the same as Philippine law. The law of China providing the procedure for the probate of wills 3. and allowed the testamentary dispositions. all properties acquired during the marriage belong exclusively to the husband. they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines. they are void for violating the Philippine Civil Code provision that provides that testamentary successions shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question BUT The oppositor failed to prove that the testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with Turkish laws. executed a will in the Philippines Juan Miciano – judicial administrator of the estate of Brimo Filed a scheme for partition. China in 1931. which was opposed by one of Brimo’s brothers Basis of opposition: The will was not in accrodance with Turkish laws. After the Pacific War. China is a probate court 2. conjugal partnership applies. claimed that he had found among the documents of Jose a will in Chinese characters which was allegedly probated in the Amoy district court. but Court applied processual presumption 4 . That the municipal district court of Amoy. ISSUE: W/N the wills may be probated  NO RATIO: 1929 will in the Philippines  Falls short of the legal requirement that the provisions of the lost will must be proved by at least 2 credible witnesses Will in China  Court enumerated some facts which had to be proved: 1. So.    Joseph Brimo – Turkish national. Turkish laws were not proved. Later on. applying Philippine rules…   Probate is a proceeding in rem. Silvino. Legal requirements for the execution of the valid will in China IN THIS CASE:  These things were not proven  What was presented was just the statements of the Consul General of China (depositions) These are INADMISSIBLE because: 1. His will (executed in the Philippines in 1929) was not probated because a copy could not be found. it may be presumed that the proceedings are the same as those under Philippine laws.

the other is foreign) Manresa’s view: the applicable law is the English law. For the marriages to be valid in the Philippines. But with the presumption in favor of the solidarity of families. much less Gatchalian himself who was only 12 then.  The grandfather was not pressed by the CID to prove China marriage laws – it was believed that the marriage certificate was lost during the Japanese occupation of China. executed to separate contracts of employment with the 2 respondents. Family Code Philippines follows the Lex loci celebrationis  All marriages performed outside RP in accordance with the laws in force in the country were performed and valid there shall also be valid in this country (FC 26)  All presumptions favor the solidarity of the family (CC 20)  He who asserts that the marriage is not valid under our laws bear the burden of proof to present the foreign law  Since the marriages are valid. thus. an alleged Chinese citizen. the burden of proving that the marriages were not valid. In such case. was transferred to CID. 2. Contract provides: Contract of employment is for 3 years Clause 6(b) – PIA may terminate the employment contract at any time.  BUT: the pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the husband full ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage has NOT been proven. and the marriage of his father also in China. 4. The marriages of Gatchalian’s Filipino grandfather Santiago to a Chinese in China. were not supported by evidence except their own selfserving testimony. for violation of the Immigration Act. there arises the presumption that it is the same as that of Philippine law. Santiago Gatchalian is a Filipino citizen (because rule is that a legitimate child follows the citizenship of his father) NOTE: At first. 3. since both of them are foreigners. CID says: 1. with one month advance notice 1st clause Par 10: Agreement shall be construed and governed under the laws of Pakistan 5 . birth and relationship to each other are admissible in evidence as statements or declarations regarding family reputation or tradition in matters of pedigree. it should have been shown that they were valid in China. Civil Code. Why no evidence was presented  Lack of proof of Chinese law cannot be blamed on the grandfather.  So Court applied processual presumption – presumed that the law of England is the same as our law Board of Commissioners v Dela Rosa (1991)  Commission on Immigration and Deportation commenced deportation proceedings against William Gatchalian. he followed the citizenship of his mother (Chinese) ISSUE: W/N Santiago Gatchalian is a Chinese citizen  NO RATIO: Court applied processual presumption  Apply processual presumption: In the absence of proof of Chinese law relating to marriage. of proving the Chinese law which says so. SO: Since Santiago was born out of a valid marriage. the national law of the HUSBAND applies in determining the property relaitons    BUT: there are differences in the 2 articles: Art 124 NCC – provides that it shall be applicable regardless of whether the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines or abroaed Art 1325 OCC – limited to marriages contracted in a foreign land HOWEVER: The said provisions apply only to MIXED marriages (one is a Filipino. There was no showing what the laws of China were. Public policy exception Pakistan Intl Airlines Corp v Ople (1990)   PIA. In accordance with Rules of Court.PRIL Digests 6 RATIO:  The case is governed by the Old Civil Code since the marriage of the spouses in the Philippines took place in 1909  It’s true that the relevant articles in both the old and new Civil Code adhere to the nationality theory in determining the property relation where one of the spouses is a foreigner and they have made no prior arrangement pertaining to their property relations. a Pakistan corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines. it was Gatchalian who was required to prove the existence of Chinese law to prove that the marriages of his grandpa and papa were valid. Statements regarding pedigree or family relation  The testimonies of the grandfather and the father before the Philippine consular and immigration authorities regarding their marriages.

Respondents are Philippine citizens 3. There ware multiple and substantive contacts between Philippine law. PIA is licensed to do business here and has a resident here 4. and the relationship of the parties. In any case…  PIA did not plead and prove the contents of Pakistan law.  SO: processual presumption: Presume that Pakistan law is the same as Philippine law 6 .PRIL Digests 6 - 2nd clause par 10: Only the Court of Karachi. Contract was executed and performed here 2. That relationship is much affected with public interest and Philippine laws cannot be rendered illusory by the agreement of the parties. Philippine courts. Respondents were based in the Philippines in between their assigned flights These contacts point to Philippine courts as the proper forum. Pakistan will have jurisdiction over any matter arising out of the contract  1 year and 4 months before the expiration of the contracts. PIA terminated the flight stewardesses conformably to clause 6(b)  Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal Par 10 2nd clause (use of Pakistan Court)   ISSUE: W/N PIA may dismiss the employees pursuant to the contract  NO RATIO: Par 10 1st clause (application of Pakistan law)   The first clause of Par 10 cannot be invoked to prevent application of Philippine labor laws to the employment relationship between PIA and the respondents.  This clause also cannot be invoked. 1.