Professional Documents
Culture Documents
537 SCRA 277 Conflict of Laws Private International Law summons must be served upon them. Further, the certificate is
Service of Summons Personal Action Real Action indivisible, Cynthias and Teresas interests thereto can only be
Extraterritorial Service determined if both are summoned in court.
FACTS:
In personal actions, if the respondents are residents of the
Cynthia Logarta and Teresa Tormis were the daughters of Luis Philippines, they may be served summons in the following
Regner in his first marriage with Anicita Regner. Victoria order:
Regner is the second wife of Luis.
1. Personal Service;
In 1999, Victoria alleged that Cynthia and Teresa with the help 2. If (1) is not possible, Substituted Service;
of another sibling defrauded Luis, who was then very ill and 3. If respondent cant be found because he is abroad but still
was unable to write, into placing his thumbmark into a Deed of a resident of the Philippines, by publication with leave of
Donation. In said Deed, Luis purportedly donated a Proprietary court.
Ownership Certificate pertaining to membership shares in the In personal actions still, if the respondents are non-residents,
Cebu Country Club. Victoria alleged that said Deed is void they may be served summons in the following manner:
because the placing of thumbmark by Luis was done without
the latters free will and voluntariness considering his physical 1. Personal service through the Philippine embassy;
state; that it was done without Luiss lawyer; that the ratification 2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
made by Luis before he died is likewise void because of similar such places and for such time as the court may order, in
circumstances. which case a copy of the summons and order of the court
should be sent by registered mail to the last known
In the same year, Victoria filed a complaint to annul said deed address of the defendant; or
with the RTC of Cebu. The sheriff could not deliver the 3. in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.
summonses against Cynthia and Teresa because apparently, The above must be with leave of court.
although they are Filipinos, they are not residing here; they are
residing in California. It was only in the year 2000 that one of In the case at bar, Cynthia was never served any summons in
the summonses was served to one of the sisters, Teresa, any of the manners authorized by the Rules of Court. The
when she came back to the Philippines. summons served to Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is
incumbent upon Victoria to compel the court to authorize the
Teresa immediately filed a motion to dismiss on the ground extraterritorial service of summons against Cynthia. Her failure
that Victoria failed to prosecute her case for an unreasonable to do so for a long period of time constitutes a failure to
length of time. Naturally, Victoria opposed the MTD. Teresa, in prosecute on her part.
her rejoinder, alleged that the case should be dismissed
because Cynthia, who is an indispensable party, was not ***What if the petition is an action in rem? What are the
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Victorias complaint is country, summons may be served extraterritorially in the
The certificate, subject of the donation, is a personal property. In the above instances, summons may be effected by:
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS COURT OF APPEALS going to appear in a court trial. Clearly, she was defrauded into
appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful
297 SCRA 469 CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIVATE
conviction. The act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was
INTERNATIONAL LAW SITUS LOCUS ACTUS
committed in Manila and this led to her humiliation, misery, and
suffering. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case,
FACTS: the SC finds that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the
tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).
Milagros Morada was working as a stewardess for Saudia
Arabian Airlines. In 1990, while she and some co-workers were BANCO DO BRASIL VS COURT OF APPEALS
in a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, an Arab co-worker tried to 333 SCRA 545 Conflict of Laws Private International Law
rape her in a hotel room. Fortunately, a roomboy heard her cry Service of Summons in In Personam Cases
for help and two of her Arab co-workers were arrested and FACTS:
HELD:
HELD:
No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia
No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally in
Airlines when the latter filed a motion to dismiss with petition
rem as it was BDBs claim on the sunken ship which was used
for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked
as the basis for it being impleaded, the action nevertheless
the court to make a determination of Saudia Airliness rights
became an in personam one when Urbino asked for damages
hence a submission to the courts jurisdiction.
in the said amount. As such, only a personal service of
Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case
summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB.
because as alleged in the complaint of Morada, she is bringing
Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person
the suit for damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and
on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person
not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the right to file it in
of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and
the QC RTC because under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may
decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident,
elect whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the
personal service of summons within the state is essential to the
place where she resides or where the defendant resides.
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be done,
Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here
however, if the defendant is not physically present in the
because if shell file it in Saudi Arabia, it will be very
country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
disadvantageous for her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil
person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case
Law is the law invoked).
against him.
Conveniens must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties,
FACTS: the issues, the property, the res. Also considers, whether
it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice
In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, a of law asks the further question whether the application of
Japanese firm, was contracted by the Department of Public a substantive law which will determine the merits of the
Works and Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction of case is fair to both parties.
the Southern Tagalog Access Road. In April 1999, Nippon 2. Choice of Law Which law will the court apply? Once a
entered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with local court takes cognizance, it does not mean that the
Minoru Kitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICA local laws must automatically apply. The court must
was entered into in Japan and is effective for a period of 1 year determine which substantive law when applied to the
(so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded the merits will be fair to both parties.
Bongabon-Baler Road project to Nippon. Nippon subsequently 3. Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment Where can
assigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February the resulting judgment be enforced?
2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nippon This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the
informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract. RTCs taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately
Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused to filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a motion
negotiate. Kitamura then filed a complaint for specific for reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he bypassed
performance and damages against Nippon in the RTC of Lipa. the proper procedure by immediately filing a petition for
certiorari. The question of which law should be applied should
Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the have been settled in the trial court had Hasegawa not
contract was entered in Japan hence, applying the principle of improperly appealed the interlocutory order denying his MFR.
lex loci celebracionis, cases arising from the contract should be
cognizable only by Japanese courts. The trial court denied the ASIAVEST LIMITED VS COURT OF APPEALS
motion. Eventually, Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with the 295 SCRA 469 Conflict of Laws Private International Law
Supreme Court. Service of Summons to a Non Resident Processual
Presumption
Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this time FACTS:
invoking forum non conveniens; that the RTC is an
inconvenient forum because the parties are Japanese In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay
nationals who entered into a contract in Japan. Kitamura on US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd.
the other hand invokes the trial courts ruling which states that Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and
matters connected with the performance of contracts are the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest,
regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, so ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even
since the obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines, during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he
courts here have jurisdiction. returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest
filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received
dismissed. any summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He
HELD: also claimed that he never received a copy of the foreign
No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking cognizance of judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually
it. In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaint given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
for specific performance and damages. Such case is incapable Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to
of pecuniary estimation; such cases are within the jurisdiction one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law.
of the regional trial court.
Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forum ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced
non conveniens. However, such ground is not one of those against Heras in the Philippines.
provided for by the Rules as a ground for dismissing a civil HELD:
case. No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated
(Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in support thereto) and
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention that Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannot
Japanese laws should apply is premature. In conflicts cases, be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because
Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the
Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never case.
acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that HELD:
Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for the following
judgment. reasons:
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far 1. The only link that the Philippines has in this case is the
as Hong Kong is concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a fact that Santos is a Filipino;
non resident because prior to the judgment, he already 2. However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are foreign
abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of corporations MHC cannot be held liable because it
summons in in personam cases against non residents was merely owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the
never presented in court hence processual presumption is affairs of the Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction
applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong law in as far cant be pierced because it was not shown that MHC is
as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are
under our laws, in an action in personam wherein the separate entities.
defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit 3. Santos contract with the Palace Hotel was not entered
himself to the authority of the court, personal service of into in the Philippines;
summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of 4. Santos contract was entered into without the intervention
jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible of the POEA (had POEA intervened, NLRC still does not
if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which will
not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his hear the case);
person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case 5. MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the
against him. Without a personal service of summons, the Hong Philippines; their agents/officers are not residents of the
Kong court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to say, the Philippines;
summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all
the same does not satisfy the requirement of personal service. the relevant facts pertaining to the case. It is not competent to
determine the facts because the acts complained of happened
MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR outside our jurisdiction. It cannot determine which law is
343 SCRA 1 Private International Law Forum Non enforced against the Palace Hotel (in the first place, it was not
FACTS:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum
In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume
Oman. In June 1988, he was recruited by Palace Hotel in jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, Santos agreed (1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may
to the hotels job offer and so he started working there in conveniently resort to;
the Bank. Ejercito et al argued that the second case constitutes case.
forum shopping.
HELD:
ISSUE: Whether or not there is forum shopping. No. The specific Singaporean Law which holds valid the
dismissal of Laureano is not proved in court. As such, the trial
HELD: court cannot make a determination if the termination is indeed
Yes. There is forum shopping because there is identity of valid under Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do not take
interest and parties between the first case and the second judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. SAL has the burden of
case. There is identity of interest because both cases sought to proof. SAL failed to prove such law hence Philippine law shall
have the agreement, which involves the same property, be apply. However, the case must be dismissed on the ground of
declared unenforceable as against the Bank. There is identity estoppel. Under our laws, all money claims arising from
of parties even though the first case is in the name of the bank employer-employee relationships must be filed within three
as defendant, and the second case is in the name of Henry Co years from the time the cause of action accrued. Laureanos
as plaintiff. There is still forum shopping here because Henry cause of action accrued in 1982 when he was terminated but
Co essentially represents the bank. Both cases aim to have the he only filed the money claim in 1987 or more than three years
bank escape liability from the agreement it entered into with from 1982. Hence he is already barred by prescription.
Demetria et al.
The Supreme Court also discussed that to combat forum OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
shopping, which originated as a concept in international law, CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
the principle of forum non conveniens was developed. The COMMISSION
doctrine of forum non conveniens provides that a court, in 00 SCRA 213 Conflict of Laws Private International Law
conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction Proof of Foreign Law
where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the FACTS:
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.
In February 1993, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co.,
**Forum Shopping: occurs when a party attempts to have his Ltd., through its local agent, Omanfil International Manpower
action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels Development Corporation, engaged Eduardo Felipe to work as
he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict. a rigger in Malaysia. In June 1993, the ferry boat in which
Eduardo was assigned met an accident. His body was never
found.
MENANDRO LAUREANO VS COURT OF APPEALS
324 SCRA 414 Conflict of Laws Private International Law A provision in the Malaysia labor law provides:
Proof of Foreign Law - Applicability of Foreign Laws
Where death has resulted from the injury, a lump sum equal
to forty five months earnings or fourteen thousand four
FACTS: hundred ringgit [RM], whichever is the less;
A local labor office in Malaysia then wrote a letter to Hyundai del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and
advising the latter of the computation it arrived at, to wit; owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the pilot of the
ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to
45 months x US $620.04 (monthly salary of Eduardo) = US check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing
$27,902.02. while traversing the river.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable
RM14,400 which is equivalent to US $5,393.29 is less than US
under the said Venezuelan laws.
$27,902.02, hence, Hyundai deposited the lesser amount with
the said labor office.
HELD:
The wife of Eduardo, Lora Felipe, does not agree that Hyundai No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact
is liable for the lesser amount hence she filed a labor case before the court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were
against Hyundais agent, Omanfil. The labor arbiter ordered presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public
Omanfil to pay $27,902.02 to Lora. This was affirmed by the document to be admissible, the following requisites are
Malaysian labor law is susceptible to two interpretations (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the
because it is vague; that in case of doubt of labor laws, it must records or by his deputy; and
ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Relations is correct. the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular
or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of
Grans employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Grans for PNCCs failure to complete a construction project there
termination due to incompetence and insubordination is valid; despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC
that Grans insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the
failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest
termination letter Gran received. The labor arbiter dismissed
filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling
the labor case but on appeal, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The against PNCC in the Philippines. The case was filed with the
Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC. Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court
EDI did not present proof as to the existence and the specific jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud,
provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual presumption and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed
applies and Philippine labor laws shall be used. Under our
the arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCCs counsel
laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon just
participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.
cause. The allegations against him, at worst, shall only merit a
suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not proven
ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should
because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the
required trade test to prove his competence. The presumption be enforced against PNCC in the Philippines.
the two notice rule whereby prior to termination he should was able to present evidence as to the validity of the
receive two notices. In the case at bar, he only received one proceedings that took place in Malaysia. Asiavest presented
and he was immediately terminated on the same day he
the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and the
received the notice.
order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented
Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability.
Philippine laws is again applied here sans proof of Saudi laws. correspondences between Asiavests lawyers and PNCCs
Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCCs allegation that
and are strictly examined. In this case, based on the
the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCCs
circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the
allegation of fraud is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked
quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation
pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower than the $850.00 the same in the Malaysian Court.
monthly salary (3,190 Riyal). The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the
FACTS:
Conflict of Laws Private International Law Foreign In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the California
Judgments When May It Be Enforced court. PAWIs insistence that its American lawyer colluded with
FACTS: FASGI; that he entered into the compromise agreement
without PAWIs authority is belied by the fact that PAWI initially
In 1978, FASGI Enterprises Inc. (FASGI), a foreign corporation complied with the agreement. It did not disclaim the
organized under the laws of California, USA, entered into a agreement. It sent two installments (though belatedly) but
contract with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. (PAWI), a failed to comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the
Philippine corporation, whereby the latter agrees to deliver agreement is without its authority. Further, it is just but fair for
8,594 wheels to FASGI. FASGI received the wheels and so it the California court not to order FASGI to return the remaining
paid PAWI $216,444.30. Later however, FASGI found out that wheels because of PAWIs arrears.
the wheels are defective and did not comply with certain US
standards. So in 1979, FASGI sued PAWI in a California court.
In 1980, a settlement was reached but PAWI failed to comply PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RECLAIM PRACTICE OF LAW
with the terms of the agreement. A second agreement was OF BENJAMIN DACANAY
made but PAWI was again remiss in its obligation. The 540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private International Law
agreement basically provides that PAWI shall return the Nationality Theory Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos
purchase price in installment and conversely, FASGI shall FACTS:
return the wheel in installment. PAWI was only able to make
two installments (which were actually made beyond the In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek
scheduled date). FASGI also returned the corresponding medical help. In order for him to take advantage of Canadas
number of wheels. Eventually in 1982, FASGI sought the free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in
enforcement of the agreement and it received a favorable 2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his Philippine
judgment from the California court. PAWI is then ordered to citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship
pay an equivalent of P252k plus damages but FASGI was not Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he
ordered to return the remaining wheels. PAWI was not able to returned to the Philippines and he now intends to resume his
comply with the court order in the US. So in 1983, FASGI filed practice of law.
a complaint for the enforcement of a foreign judgment with
RTC-Makati. Hearings were made and in 1990, the trial judge ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his
ruled against FASGI on the ground that the foreign judgment practice of law.
American lawyer entered into the agreements without the Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in the
consent of PAWI. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens.
the trial court. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar.
So when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment may be enforced ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
here in the Philippines. However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
HELD: Philippine citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in
Yes. The judgment is valid. A valid judgment rendered by a accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires
foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his membership to the
parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so Philippine bar was deemed to have never been terminated.
long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of practice of law right after reacquisition?
competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings has No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before
been conducted, following due citation or voluntary he can resume his practice of law, to wit:
appearance of the defendant and under a system of
jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership
justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in dues in the IBP;
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good ISSUE: Whether or not respondent can remarry under Art. 26
standing as a member of the Philippine bar. of the Family Code
HELD:
The petition is granted. The OSG contends that par. 2 Art. 26
of FC is not applicable to the instant case because it only
TONGOL vs. TONGOL applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage
celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien.
FACTS: Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs the
respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of
On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati legislation and not of judicial determination.
City a verified petition for the declaration of nullity of his The respondent admits that Art. 26 is not directly applicable to
marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is his case, but insists that since his naturalized alien wife
psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential obtained a divorce decree which capacitated her to remarry, he
is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section
marital obligations. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas was
12, Article II of the Constitution. The Court noted that the
unable to perform her duty as a wife because of Filipinas petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court
unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant quarrel. In actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. The
her Answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must
at reconciliation have been fruitless and that their marriage is a be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be
failure. However, she claims that their marriage failed because between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the
it is Orlandos insufficiency to fulfill his obligation as married party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy;
and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. This
man. Both parties underwent a psychological exam which case satisfies all the requisites for the grant of a petition for
proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a declaratory relief.
psychological insufficiency. Article 26 does not appear to govern the situation presented by
the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the
ISSUE: Does the psychological problem of Mrs. Filipina Tongol time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a
enough to compel the court to nullify their marriage? Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is one where
at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two
HELD: Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an
American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting
No, as elucidated in Molina the psychological incapacity must her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an
American citizen while residing in the USA
exist during the ceremony of the marriage, the psychological
incapacity must be apparent as to the extent that the other Congress of the Philippines
party is incapable the significance of their marriage and lastly, Twelfth Congress
the malady must be incurable. The definition or manifestation Third Regular Session
of marriage must within the scope of article 36of the Family
Code. As in the present case, the psychological sufficiency of
Mrs Tongol is not severe that would render her incapable of Begun held in Metro Manila on Monday, the twenty-eighth day
of July, two thousand three.
recognize the sanctity of her marital contract with her husband,
second, Dr. Villegas failed to prove the that the ailment is
incurable. As to the facts of the psychological examination
report say: the emotional malady iscused merely by rejection of Republic Act No. 9225 August 29, 2003
Mrs. Tongol by her mother when she was young. Further, the AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE
facts of the case did not show thatMrs. Tongol did not care CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT.
about the welfare of their children.And the financial issue as
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT.
being cited in the facts, the courtdeemed that such phenomena NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
is natural in evry marriage andcan be settled easily. Hence the Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
court dismissed the petitionof the nullity of marriage. the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as the
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country
III shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
GR. No. 154380, 5 October 2005 under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by
one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country
valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship
Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I
FACTS: will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the
On 24 May 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by
Villanueva and their marriage was blessed with a son and a the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby
daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of
V. Orbecido. the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
In 1986, his wife left for the United States bringing along their thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself
son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the RTC-Pasay,
of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain stating that Alices business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath. property of the parties, and asking that Alice be ordered to
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child,
render an accounting of that business, and that Richard be
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship declared with right to manage the conjugal property.
upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines. Alice moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce
retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had
enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant acknowledged that he and petitioner had no community
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the property as of June 11, 1982.
Philippines and the following conditions:
The Court below (presiding judge: Judge Romillo) denied the
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must
Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the MTD in the mentioned case on the ground that the property
Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the
laws; subject of this certiorari proceeding.
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet
the qualification for holding such public office as required by ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties
the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines?
of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public HELD:
officer authorized to administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and
swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is hereby ordered to
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their dismiss the Complaint
assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath
of allegiance to the country where they took that oath; For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the whether the property relations between Alice and Richard, after
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or their marriage, were upon absolute or relative community
permit to engage in such practice; and property, upon complete separation of property, or upon any
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada
office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended
to, those who: divorce of the parties.
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the
country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non- obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person
commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which before the Court during the trial of the case. It also obtained
they are naturalized citizens. jurisdiction over private respondent who authorized his
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of attorneys in the divorce case to agree to the divorce on the
this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or
ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were
provision not affected thereby shall remain valid and effective.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules neither community property nor community obligations.
and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly. As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in
Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take effect after favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD. to represent him in
fifteen (15) days following its publication in theOfficial the divorce proceedings:
Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general circulation.
xxx xxx xxx
You are hereby authorized to accept service of Summons, to
Approved,
file an Answer, appear on my behalf and do all things
FRANKLIN DRILON JOSE DE VENECIA JR. necessary and proper to represent me, without further
President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives
contesting, subject to the following:
This Act, which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2130 and
House Bill No. 4720 was finally passed by the the House of 1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of
Representatives and Senate on August 25, 2003 and August
26, 2003, respectively. incompatibility.
2. That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by
OSCAR G. YABES ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
Secretary of Senate Secretary General the Court.
House of Represenatives 3. That there are no community obligations to be adjudicated
Approved: August 29, 2003 by the court.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO xxx xxx xxx
President of the Philippines
There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada
divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is
binding on private respondent as an American citizen. What he
is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and
VAN DORN vs. HON. ROMILLO and RICHARD UPTON binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law
G.R. No. L-68470 and public policy.
October 8, 1985
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in
FACTS: Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are
covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same
Petitioner Alice Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while
being considered contrary to our concept of public police and
private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the USA. They
morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
were married in Hongkong in 1972 and begot two children. The
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
parties were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982. Alice has then
according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in
re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from
the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for
the marriage. the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign
divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no the aliens national law have been duly proven according to our
longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in
sue in the case below as petitioners husband entitled to favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules
exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
Decision of his own countrys Court, which validly exercised This Section states:
jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not
repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.The
said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
property country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:
Furthermore, Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or Thus, Fe D. Quita is no longer recognized as a wife of Arturo.
inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital She cannot be the
obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less,
ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Irreconcilable primary beneficiary or will be recognized as surviving spouse
differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and of Arturo.
irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual
infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also
do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the
said Article. AZNAR VS. GARCIA 7 S 95
FACTS: domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, entire period of his residence in this country, he had always
were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got
considered himself as a citizen of California.
divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954.Both of them
remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan,
the respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children. In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted
On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as
declared as to who will be the intestate heirs. The trial court his only heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen
invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held that the divorce
acquired by the petitioner is not recognized in our country. Christensen Garcia who, in a decision rendered by the
Private respondent stressed that the citizenship of petitioner
Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged
was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Rommillo
Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the natural daughter of his. Counsel of Helen claims that under Art.
Philippnes provided they are valid according to their national
law. The petitioner herself answered that she was an American 16 (2) of the civil code, California law should be applied, the
citizen since 1954. Through the hearing she also stated that
matter is returned back to the law of domicile, that Philippine
Arturo was a Filipino at the time she obtained the divorce.
Implying the she was no longer a Filipino citizen. law is ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be
The Trial court disregarded the respondents statement. The increased in view of successional rights of illegitimate children
net hereditary estate was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and
under Philippine laws. On the other hand, counsel for daughter
Ruperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina and thePadlan
children moved for reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 Maria , in as much that it is clear under Art, 16 (2) of the Mew
partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan
children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our courts
estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and the other half to
must apply internal law of California on the matter. Under
Fe Quita.Private respondent was not declared an heir for her
marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated California law, there are no compulsory heirs and consequently
during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner.
Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals that a testator should dispose any property possessed by him in
the case was decided without a hearing in violation of the
absolute dominion.
Rules of Court.
No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo is not void. The to Helen Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two
citizenship of Fe D.Quita at the time of their divorce is relevant
rules in California on the matter.
to this case. The divorce is valid here since she was already an
procedures also manifests this silence.In the absence of a law
1. The conflict rule which should apply to or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An
application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and
Californians outside the California, and
hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law.
Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these
2. The internal Law which should apply to rights from a prospective extraditee. The doctrine of
incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local
California domiciles in califronia.
courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to
be a conflict between a rule of international law and the
The California conflict rule, found on Art. 946 of the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.
Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give
California Civil code States that if there is no law to the effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was
contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted
principles of international law in observance of the observance
deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is governed by of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional
provision.
the law of the domicile.
PETITION is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Christensen being domiciled outside california, the
case is remanded to the lower court with instructions OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER and H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC.
that partition be made as that of the Philippine law
G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995
provides.
ISSUE: 1 Whether or not there is a conflict between the treaty the word 'Lee' which draws the attention of the buyer and leads
and the due process clause in the Constitution? him to conclude that the goods originated from the same
manufacturer. It is undeniably the dominant feature of the
HELD:
mark.
1.NO.En contrario, these two components of the law of the
land are not pined against each other. There is no occasion to ISSUE:
choose which of the two should be upheld. Instead, we see a
Whether or not a trademark causes confusion and is
void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as
implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1069, as regards the likely to deceive the public is a question of fact which is to be
basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the resolved by applying the "test of dominancy", meaning, if the
evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From the competing trademark contains the main or essential or
procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition
dominant features of another by reason of which confusion and
petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of
extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted deception are likely to result.
to the prospective extraditee. However, prior thereto, the law is
silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition HELD:
laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from
The word "LEE" is the most prominent and distinctive
liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers
feature of the appellant's trademark and all of the appellee's under the contract of carriage, especially if willful misconduct
"LEE" trademarks. It is the mark which draws the attention of on the part of the carriers employees is found or established.
the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated
2) No. While his 2nd cause of action (an action for damages
from the same manufacturer. The alleged difference is too
arising from theft or damage to property or goods) is well within
insubstantial to be noticeable. The likelihood of confusion is the bounds of the Warsaw convention, his 1st cause of action
further made more probable by the fact that both parties are (an action for damages arising from the misconduct of the
engaged in the same line of business. airline employees and the violation of respondents rights as
passengers) clearly is not.
Although the Court decided in favor of the The 2-yr limitation incorporated in Art. 29 of the Warsaw
respondent, the appellee has sufficiently established its right to Convention as an absolute bar to suit and not to be made
prior use and registration of the trademark "LEE" in subject to the various tolling provisions of the laws of the
forum, forecloses the application of our own rules on
the Philippines and is thus entitled to protection from any
interruption of prescriptive periods. (Art. 29, par. 2 was
infringement upon the same. The dissenting opinion of Justice indented only to let local laws determine whether an action
Padilla is more acceptable shall be deemed commenced upon the filing of a complaint.)
Since, it is indisputable that respondent filed the present action
beyond the 2-yr time frame his 2nd cause of action must be
UNITED AIRLINES vs. UY G.R. No. 127768, November barred.
19,1999
However, it is obvious that respondent was forestalled from
FACTS:
immediately filing an action because petitioner gave him the
runaround, answering his letters but not giving in to his
On October 13, 1989, respondent, a passenger of United
demands. True, respondent should have already filed an action
Airlines, checked in together with his luggage one piece of
at the first instance when petitioner denied his claims but the
which was found to be overweight at the airline counter. To his
same could only be due to his desire to make an out-of-court
utter humiliation, an employee of petitioner rebuked him saying
settlement for which he cannot be faulted. Hence, despite the
that he should have known the maximum weight allowance per
express mandate of Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention that
bag and that he should have packed his things accordingly.
an action for damages should be filed within 2 years from the
Then, in a loud voice in front of the milling crowd, she told
arrival at the place of destination, such rule shall not be applied
respondent to repair his things and transfer some of them to
in the instant case because of the delaying tactics employed by
the light ones. Respondent acceded but his luggage was still
petitioner airlines itself. Thus, respondents 2nd cause of action
overweight. Petitioner billed him overweight charges but its
cannot be considered as time barred.
employee reused to honor the miscellaneous charges under
MCD which he offered to pay with. Not wanting to leave
without his luggage, he paid with his credit card. Upon arrival in
manila, he discovered that one of his bags had been slashed AMERICAN AIRLINES, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
and its contents stolen. In a letter dated October 16, 1989, he BERNARDO LL. SALAS and DEMOCRITO MENDOZA,
notified petitioner of his loss and requested reimbursement.
Petitioner paid for his loss based on the maximum liability per March 9, 2000
pound. Respondent considered the amount grossly
inadequate. He sent two more letters to petition but to no avail. FACTS:
On June 9, 1992, respondent filed a complaint for damages
against petitioner Airline. Petitioner moved to dismiss the Plaintiff Mendoza filed an action for damages before the
complaint invoking the provisions of Article 29 of the Warsaw Regional Trial Court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment
Convention. Respondent countered that according to par. 2 of and mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva airport when
Article 29, the method of calculating the period of limitation the American Airlines security officers prevented him from
shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is boarding the plane, detained him for about an hour and
submitted. allowed him to board the plane only after all the other
passengers have boarded. Petitioner American Airlines filed a
ISSUES: motion to dismiss the action for damages filed by the private
1) Does the Warsaw Convention preclude the operation of the respondent for the lack of jurisdiction under section 28 (1) of
Civil Code and other pertinent laws? the Warsaw Convention. However the motion was denied. The
2) Has the respondents cause of action prescribed? Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial courts decision.