You are on page 1of 16

Principles:

1. HASEGAWA v.  KITAMURA, G.R. 149177

@ Gist of the case: Independent Contractor Agreement entered into between Japanese
nationals. It was also perfected in Japan. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the
action filed by the respondent.

@ Claim of the petitioner: Improper pre-termination of respondent's ICA could only be


heard and ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci
celebrationis , lex contractus and state of the most significant relationship rule. The
Philippine court lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner later dropped the aforementioned
contentions and maintained the claim of forum non-conveniens.

@ Principles discussed in Court’s Ruling:

>Three phases involved in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems:

1. Jurisdiction (Where can or should litigation be initiated?)

2. Choice of Law (Which law will the court apply?)

3. Recognition and enforcement of judgments (Which law will the


court apply?)

> Lex loci celebrationis- the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the
place where a contract is made

> Lex contractus or lex loci contractus - the "law of the place where a contract
is executed or to be performed; may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon
by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly

> state of the most significant relationship rule- to ascertain what state law to
apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state has the most
substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties

> How cases involving contracts resolved? - In a case involving a contract, the
court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be
performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the
parties. They are evaluated according to their relative importance with respect
to the particular issue to be resolved.

> What does the court can do whenever a case involving conflict of laws brought
before it?

1. dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume


jurisdiction over the case;

2. assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the forum;
or

3. assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of
some other State or States.

@Note: The issue in the case is not about which law is applicable. The issue disputed
herein is who has jurisdiction? The Philippine court or the Japanese court. Petitioner
asserted the principle of forum non-conveniens.
@ Court’s Ruling: RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil
case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that
jurisdiction are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly denied the
petitioners' motion to dismiss.

The court's power to hear cases and controversies is derived from the
Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to recognize laws of foreign nations,
the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal
agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign sovereigns.

In addition to, neither can forum non conveniens be used to deprive the trial
court of its jurisdiction. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because
Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. Second,
whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine
depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. In this case, the RTC decided to assume jurisdiction.
Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual
determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of
defense.

*************************************************************************************2.
RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL V STOCKTON ROUZIE JR., G.R. 162894

@ Gist of the case: Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a foreign corporation, and
respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into Special Sales
Representative Agreement with a stipulation that the governing law of the contract
shall be the Law of Connecticut. (Note: Raytheon International named as defendant as
it allegedly combined and functioned as one company with the BMSI and RUST)
Initially, an action for nonpayment of commision was filed in NLRC by the respodent
where LA rendered decision in his favor. Subsequently, respondent filed an action for
damages before the RTC against petitioner Raytheon. The petitioner sought the
dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum
non conveniens.

@Claim of the Petitioner- Petitioner asserts that the written contract between
respondent and BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the
presence of foreign elements in the dispute - namely, the parties and witnesses
involved are American corporations and citizens and the evidence to be presented is
located outside the Philippines - that renders our local courts inconvenient forums.

@Principles discussed in the Court's Ruling:

> On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case
is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case
even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a
foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where
the case is filed.

>Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by


the Constitution and the law and by the material allegations in the complaint,
irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of
the claims or reliefs sought therein
>Doctrine of forum non conveniens- a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or
available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies
elsewhere.

>Requisites in order that the local court can resolve cases with conflict of law
problem:

1. That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may


conveniently resort;

2. That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent


decision as to the law and the facts; and

3. That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to


enforce its decision

@Court's Ruling: RTC has jurisdiction. The nature of the action and the amount of
damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

The subject contract which included a stipulation that the same shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine
courts, or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the
civil action.

The foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court
of its jurisdiction. Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle
of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly
considered as a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to
abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital
facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court's
desistance.

*****************************************************************************

3. WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. v CA G.R. 119602

@Gist of the case: A Filipino vessel caused a blockage in the river of Venezuela.
Due to its blockage, the vessel of the petitioner was unable to sail out. Petitioner
filed an action for damages. The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the petitioner
but reversed by the CA. Petitioner raised the issue at the Supreme Court contending
among others that the CA seriously erred in disregarding Venezuelan Law.

@Principles discussed in the court's decision:

> How to prove unwritten laws/written laws?

Written Law: Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court

1. It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by


his deputy; and 2. It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of
the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or
consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.

3. testimony of a witness to prove the existence of a written foreign law


Unwritten Law

1. Oral testimony of expert witnesses

2. Printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the


country concerned

Note:The person who attested the document must be an officer who has the
custody of the document..

>Foreign law must be pleaded and proved as a fact. A foreign law is


considered to be pleaded if there is an allegation in the pleading about the
existence of the foreign law, its import and legal consequence on the event
or transaction in issue.

> Doctrine of processional presumption- in the absence of pleading and


proof, the laws of a foreign country, or state, will be presumed to be the same as
our own local or domestic law

@ Court's Ruling: Petitioner failed to plead and proved as fact the Venezuelan Law. It
failed to comply the requisites provided in Section 24, Article 132 of the Rules of Court
to prove the existence of such law. The court applied the doctrine of processional
presumption. Thus, the court applied the provisions of Article 1173 of the New Civil
Code which requires only the diligence of the good father of the family as it does not
involve a contractual obligation. The court found that there was no negligence on the
part of the respondent.

******************************************************************************

4.Fujiki v Marinay G.R. 196049

@Gist of the case: Re-establising their marriage in Japan, Fujiki helped Marinay
obtain a divorced against the latter's second husbannd which was duly granted by the
Court of Japan. Fujiki subsequently filed a petition in the RTC entitled: “Judicial
Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage). The RTC
dismissed the case considered Fujiki as a “third person”22 in the proceeding because
he “is not the husband in the decree of divorce issued by the Japanese Family Court,
which he now seeks to be judicially recognized

@Issue: Was the dismissal of the RTC correct?

@Principles discussed in the Court's Ruling:

>For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a


marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the
petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the
Rules of Court

>How to prove the foreign judgement?- Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132 in


relation to Section 48 (b), Rule 39.

1. An official publication; or

2. A certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the


judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country, the
certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer of the Philippine foreign service and authenticated by the seal of
office
>To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines, Philippine courts
must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public
policy and other mandatory laws

>A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is


an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which
presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law.

@Court's decision;

>The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to


recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the parties
is a citizen of the foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of
the foreign court.

>Philippine courts have jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a


bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a criminal prosecution for bigamy.

>Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family
Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground
of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For
the same reason he has the personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the
entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of
the decree of the Japanese Family Court.

Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil
register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry
relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding
civil registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)

>In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to


substitute their judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot
decide on the “family rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity”
of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts
are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a
citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect
to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil
Code.

For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the
foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines;
and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the
foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor
adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize
the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is already “presumptive evidence of a
right between the parties.” Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right
becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction or
cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment
nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status,
right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an
inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the
public records in the Philippines.
(PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE RULING AS ALL ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT TO CONFLICT
OF LAW)

************************************************************************************

5.AMOR-CATALAN V CA G.R.167109

@Gist of the case: Felicitas Amor-Catalan and Orlando Catalan were granted a divorce
by US Court. Orlando got married; Felicitas filed an action for nullity of marriage of
Orlando's second marriage.RTC declared the second marriage void ab initio. CA
reversed the decision. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner
and respondent were naturalized American citizens and that they obtained a divorce
decree in April 1988. However, both have failed to ascertain the validity of the
naturalization and the divorce of the parties as the records, the allegations in the
complaint and the testimony during the trial, are bereft of competent evidence to prove
their naturalization and divorce.

@ Corollary issue in the case: Whether the petitioner and respondent Orlando had
indeed become naturalized American citizens and whether they had actually been
judicially granted a divorce decree?

@Principles discussed in the Ruling:

>A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided
such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, before it
can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact
and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved
considering that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.

@Court's Ruling: Without the divorce decree and foreign law as part of the evidence,
the court cannot rule on the issue of whether petitioner has the personality to file the
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. After all, the petitioner may have the
personality to file the petition if the divorce decree obtained was a limited divorce or a
mensa et thoro; or the foreign law may restrict remarriage even after the divorce decree
becomes absolute.

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for reception of additional evidence
to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a divorce decree and whether
the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage. If it is proved
that a valid divorce decree was obtained and the same did not allow respondent
Orlando's remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondents' marriage as
bigamous and void ab initio. On the contrary, if it is proved that a valid divorce decree
was obtained which allowed Orlando to remarry, then the trial court must dismiss the
instant petition to declare nullity of marriage on the ground that petitioner Felicitas
Amor-Catalan lacks legal personality to file the same.

*****************************************************************************

6. Quita vs Dandan

@Gist of the case: This is a case on who is the rightful heirs of a deceased.
Determination of citizenship at the time of the divorce.

Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan were both Filipinos. The former filed a divorce in
San Francisco and was eventually granted. On the same year, she became a
naturalized American citizen. Arturo married Blandina and blessed with 6 children.
Arturo passed away intestate. Amongst the claimant are the new wife and her
children, previous wife and brother. However, the new wife and her children failed to
attend the scheduled hearing and submit records of the children and thus the court
rendered judgment holding Fe and the brother as intestate heirs. The RTC disregarded
the divorce decree obtained by the petitioner. Said decree was raised by the
respondent saying that petitioner is not entitled to inherit considering that she had
secured a divorce in the USA.

@Issue of the case: Should it be remanded back to the court of origin?

@Ruling of the Court: The court ordered to remand the case to the court of origin
because the court overlooked the materiality of this aspect. The finding on their
citizenship pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not
supplied with a basis to determine petitioner's citizenship at the time of their divorce.
Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce,
petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.

NOTE: Citizenship at the time of the divorce should be determined because it


will tell the validity of the divorce decree obtained abroad.

**********************************************************************

7. Phil Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp v VP EusebioConstruction Inc., et al ,


G.R. 140047

@Gist of the case: This involves a bond guaranty to the construction contract entered
between The State Organization of Buildings (SOB), Ministry of Housing and
Construction of Baghdad Iraq and a joint venture of 3Plex and VPECI. The joint
venture secured a loan to the Phil Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation.
But because the SOB required a guarantee from the Rafidain Bank of Baghdad,
Rafidain Bank issued a performance bond in favor of SOB on the condition that
another foreign bank-Al Ahli Bank (not Phil Guarantee) would issue the counter-
guarantee. However, there was an extension to the period of construction due to the
default of SOB. For this matter, the joint venture sought for the extension of the loan.
Later, Phil Guarantee received a telefax from Al Ahli demanding for payment.
Subsequently it received another telefax stating that it already paid the RAfidain Bank.
Phil Gurantee paid Al Ahli and later demand payment from the respondent for the
payment of the surety bond. Phi Guarantee filed a case but was dismissed for lack of
cause of action The joint venture incurred no delay in the execution of the project
considering that SOB's violations of the contract rendered impossible the performance
of its undertaking.

@Conflict of law issue: A corollary issue is what law should be applied in determining
whether the respondent contractor has defaulted in the performance of its obligations
under the service contract.The question of whether there is a breach of an agreement,
which includes default or mora,45 pertains to the essential or intrinsic validity of a
contract

@Principles discussed in the ruling:

>Rule followed by most legal system: Intrinsic validity of a contract must be


governed by the lex contractus or proper law of the contract. This is the law voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them either
expressly or implicitly (the lex loci intentionis).

> basic rule in most legal systems adopted by the Philippines: to allow the
parties to select the law applicable to their contract, subject to the limitation that it is not
against the law, morals, or public policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear
a substantive relationship to the transaction.
> King of the hills rule: (1) the parties may choose the governing law; and (2) in
the absence of such a choice, the applicable law is that of the State that has the most
significant relationship to the transaction and the parties.

> Lex loci solutionis/law of the place of performance-determines all matters


relating to the time, place, and manner of performance and valid excuses for non-
performance.

@Note: The parties has not chosen any law to govern their contract.

@Court's decision: In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection to the
transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi Government and the place of
performance is in Iraq.Hence, the issue of whether respondent VPECI defaulted in its
obligations may be determined by the laws of Iraq.However, since that foreign law was
not properly pleaded or proved, the presumption of identity or similarity, otherwise
known as the processual presumption, comes into play. Where foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the
same as ours. The court applied the Article 1169, last paragraph, of the Civil Code. It
provides: In reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other party does
not comply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon
him.

As found by both the Court of Appeals and the trial court, the delay or the non-
completion of the Project was caused by factors not imputable to the respondent
contractor.It was rather due mainly to the persistent violations by SOB of the terms
and conditions of the contract, particularly its failure to pay 75% of the accomplished
work in US Dollars.Indeed, where one of the parties to a contract does not perform in
a proper manner the prestation which he is bound to perform under the contract, he
is not entitled to demand the performance of the other party.A party does not incur in
delay if the other party fails to perform the obligation incumbent upon him.

(Ang conflict of laws ani nga kaso katong governing law sa contract between SOB ug
sa joint venture. Please also read para maliwanagan..hahahaha..libog si manay.)

******************************************************************************

8. Bank of America vs American Realty Corporation

Due to the failure of the respondents to pay its maturing obligations, ARC, through a
restructured loan, executed a mortgage in favor of petitioner as a 3 rd party mortgagor.
The corporate defaulted in the payment prompting BANTSA to institute a civil action
in the foreign courts and instituted a foreclosure proceeding in Bulacan.

Petitioner submits that a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure requires the concurrence
of two requisites: an ordinary civil action for collection should be filed and
subsequently a final judgment be correspondingly rendered therein.

The mere filing of a personal action to collect the principal loan does not suffice; a final
judgment must be secured and obtained in the personal action so that waiver of the
remedy of foreclosure may be appreciated. To put it differently, absent any of the two
requisites, the mortgagee-creditor is deemed not to have waived the remedy of
foreclosure.

Ruling:

 The mere act of filing a collection suit for the recovery of a debt secured
by a mortgage constitutes waiver of the other remedy of foreclosure. No final
judgment in the collection suit is required for the rule on waiver to apply.
 There is no judicial notice on any foreign law. A foreign law must be
properly pleaded and proved as a matter of fact.

 However, if the said foreign law judgment or contract even if properly


proved shall not be applied in our jurisdiction if it is contrary to a sound and
established public policy of the forum.

 In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to mortgagee creditor are


deemed alternative and not cumulative. An election of one remedy operates
a waiver to the other.

************************************************************************

9. Norma Socorro vs Ernst Van Wilsem

@Gist of the case: Norma del Socorro was divorced to her Dutch husband, Norjo Van
Wilsem. She was promised that she will be given support for their child but since her
arrival in the PH, said support was not given. Her former husband remarried later and
resided in Cebu. She then sent a demand letter for support but respondent refused.
Petitioner filed a case against her former husband in violation of RA 9262. RTC
dismissed the criminal case on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute a
crime, accused being an alien. Furthermore, MR was also denied reiterating that
foreign national is not subject to the Family Code.

@Issue of the case: Is the respondent alien obliged to give support and can be held
criminally liable under RA 9262?

@Principle discussed:

DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION: If the foreign law is not properly


pleaded and proved, it is presumed to be the same with PH law.

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE UNDER CRIMINAL LAW in relation to ART 14 of


the NCC which provides that "penal laws and those public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principle
of public international law and to treaty stipulations."

INAPPLICABILITY OF A FOREIGN LAW, JUDGMENT, POLICY when it is contrary to


sound and established public policy of the forum or when application would cause
injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.

@Ruling of the Court:

Family Code, insofar as the PH laws are concerned, only applies to Filipino
citizens. Thus, since the respondent is subject to the laws of his country since he is a
Dutch, as to whether he is obliged to give support of his child and as well as the
consequences in his failure to do so. However, respondent failed to prove that he is not
obliged to give support his child under his National Law. Thus, the doctrine of
processual presumption shall govern.

Also, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work
undeniable injustice to the citizens of the forum. It is said that when a foreign law,
judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the
forum, it should not be applied. Thus, even if the Netherlands neither enforce a
parent's obligation to support his child nor penalize non-compliance therewith, such
obligation is still enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice
to the child to be denied financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

Territoriality principle in criminal law, in relation to Art. 14 of the NCC applies


to this case since respondent is currently living in the PH.
***************************************************************************

10. Neddlloyd v Glowlaks, G.R. 156330

@Gist of the case: Neddlloyd and Glowlaks are both foreign corporation who entered
into a contract of carriage of goods destined for Panama. The Neddlloyd, as the carrier,
operated in the Philippines through its local agent East Asiatic.Upon arrival to
Panama the goods were turned over to the National Ports Authority and later released
to an unthorized person, not to the assigned consignee.

@Petitioner claim: Goods were turnover to the NPA according to Panama LAw therefore
it has no liability.

@Prinicples discussed in the ruling:

>Settled Rule: Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proved. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present
a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court:

SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody
of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which
the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice- consul, or
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated
by the seal of his office.

SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of the evidence, the attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as
the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting
officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of
such court.

>Under the rules of private international law, a foreign law must be properly
pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of the
foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law.
This is known as processual presumption

@Court's ruling:

Panamian Law was not proven according to the Rules of Evidence and as scuh cannot
govern the rights and obligation of the parties in the case. It is explicitly required by
Section 24, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court that a copy of the statute must be
accompanied by a certificate of the officer who has legal custody of the records and a
certificate made by the secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consular or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the
foreign country, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

Since, the Panamian Law was not proven according to our rules, the Court applied the
doctrine of proccessual presumption, thus applying, the provisions of the New Civil
Code on common carrier. The Court found that petitioner failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence as required from a common carrier.
Note: The Gaceta Official of the Republica de Panama No. 17.596, the Spanish
text of Law 42 though presented was not supported with the required attestion
and certification. Also, presented witness who made a deposition is not the person
in authority as required by rules.

***********************************************************************

11. GERBERT R. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS

@Gist of the case: Gerbert R. Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen married a


Filipina and was granted a Divorced by the Superior Court of Justice at Canada. He
registered the Canadian divorce decree at Pasig City Civil Registry Office but despite
this, his marriage still subsists under the Philippine Law. He then filed a petition for
judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as
dissolved. The RTC denied the petition. It concluded that Gerbert was not the proper
party to institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he
is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of
the remedy, under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Issue of the case: Is par. 2 of Art 26 applicable only to Filipino spouse?

Ruling of the court: The alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the
Filipino spouse. This was included in the law "to avoid the absurd situation where the
Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is
no longer married to the Filipino spouse”. The legislative intent is for the benefit of the
Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by
the divorce decree.

But, this conclusion is not sufficient basis to dismiss Gerbert's petition before
the RTC. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with
the alien's national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence,
serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments.
However, it was remanded to the RTC.

Why?

In the instant case where the foreigner seeking recognition of the foreign divorce
decree attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required
certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the foreign law
on divorce, the Court deems it more appropriate to remand the case to the trial court
to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the foreign divorce law, to
determine whether the said law allowed or disallowed petitioner to remarry.

*************************************************************************************
*******

12. Orion Savings Bank vs. Shigekani Suzuki G.R. 205487

@Gist of the case: Orion savings bank was the creditor of the former owner of the
condominium unit and the parking slot purchased by Suzuki. Orion refused to
deliver the title upon demand of Suzuki as it is still encumbered by Kang, the
debtor-seller. Thus, an action for specific performance.

@ Petitioner's claim: Lack of spousal consent from Kang's wife as provided under
Korean Law.

@Note: Issue of spousal consent was raised only during petition before SC.
@Principles discussed in the ruling:

>Philippine Law governs the transfer of real property. It is a universal


principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of the
country or state where it is located. Thus, all matters concerning the title and
disposition of real property are determined by what is known as the lex loci rei sitae,
which can alone prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from one person to
another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or lost.This general principle
includes all rules governing the descent, alienation and transfer of immovable
property and the validity, effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. This
principle even governs the capacity of the person making a deed relating to immovable
property, no matter what its nature may be. Thus, an instrument will be ineffective to
transfer title to land if the person making it is incapacitated by the lex loci rei sitae,
even though under the law of his domicile and by the law of the place where the
instrument is actually made, his capacity is undoubted.

>Property relations between spouses are governed principally by the national


law of the spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a foreign law has
the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be
properly pleaded and proved as the judge cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law.
He is presumed to know only domestic or the law of the forum.

>How to prove foreign law? Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132. (See answers above)

---In sum: Matters concerning the title and disposition of real property shall
be governed by Philippine law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the
property shall be governed by South Korean law, provided it is proven as a fact.

@Court's Ruling: Orion unfortunately failed to prove the South Korean law on the
conjugal ownership of property.It merely attached a “Certification from the Embassy of
the Republic of Korea” to prove the existence of Korean Law. This certification, does
not qualify as sufficient proof of the conjugal nature of the property for there is no
showing that it was properly authenticated by the seal of his office, as required
under Section 24 of Rule 132. Thus, doctrine of processual presumption/presumed-
identity approach comes into play-where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as Philippine
Law.

Under Philippine Law, the phrase "Yung Sam Kang ‘married to' Hyun Sook Jung” is
merely descriptive of the civil status of Kang. In other words, the import from the
certificates of title is that Kang is the owner of the properties as they are registered in
his name alone, and that he is married to Hyun Sook Jung. The Court sees no reason
to declare as invalid Kang’s conveyance in favor of Suzuki for the supposed lack of
spousal consent.

Further, Orion failed to prove the authenticity of the Dacion en Pago, the Court sees no
reason for the application of the rules on double sale under Article 1544 of the New
Civil Code. Suzuki, moreover, successfully adduced sufficient evidence to establish the
validity of conveyance in his favor

> PRA restriction cannot affect the conveyance in favor of Suzuki. As pointed out by
CA, the annotation merely serves as a warning to the owner who holds a Special
Resident Retiree’s Visa (SRRV) that he shall lose his visa if he disposes his property
which serves as his investment in order to qualify for such status. Moreover, Orion
should not be allowed to successfully assail the good faith of Suzuki on the basis of
the PRA restriction. Orion knew of the PRA restriction when it transacted with
Kang. Incidentally, Orion admitted accommodating Kang’s request to cancel the
mortgage annotation despite the lack of payment to circumvent the PRA
restriction. Orion, thus, is estopped from impugning the validity of the conveyance in
favor of Suzuki on the basis of the PRA restriction that Orion itself ignored and
“attempted” to circumvent

************************************************************************

13. Mary Grace Natividad Poe-Llamanzares v COMELEC G.R.

FACTS:

Grace Poe was found by spouses Militar abandoned as a newborn in Iloilo. She was
later adopted by spouses Poe.

Age 18-registered as voter of San Juan

1988-Granted Philippine passport

1988-Left for the US to pursue studies

1991-Finished studies in US

1991-Got married to a Filipino in the Phils and flew back to US after wedding

2001-Became a naturalized American citizen

2004, April- came back to Phils to support father's candidacy

2004, July- flew back to US

2004, Dec- flew to Phils to care for ailing father

2005, Feb- father died

2005, Feb- decided to resettle in the Phils permanently

2005, May- secured TIN

2006, Feb- spouses Llamanzares acquired condominium

2006, Feb- went back to US to set up family belongings

2006, March- came back to Phils

2006, July 7- filed petition to reacquire Phil citizenship

2006, July 10- took Oath of Allegiance to Phils

2006, July 18- BOI granted her petition. Poe became dual citizen

2006, Aug- registered as voter, secured Phil passport

2010- appointed MTRCB chair


2011, July- executed oath of renunciation of US nationality

2011, Dec- US vice consul issued Cert of Loss of American Nationality

2012, Oct 2010 - filed COC (not clash of clans) with Comelec for senator and later
voted

as such

2015, Oct -filed COC for President and declared she is a natural born Filipino

-claimed residency of 10 yrs and 11 mos from May 2005

ISSUE: Is Poe a natural born Filipino? (this is the crux of the case in relation to COL)

RULING:

Yes. Foundlings with Poe's circumstances are considered Filipino citizens. '

The 1934 Constitutional Convention manifests that the framers intended


foundlings to be covered by by the enumeration of natural born citizens.

The 1935 ConCon is silent as to foundlings – there is no restrictive language on


the issue. Thus, the need for SC to examine the intent of framers.

The fact that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born


citizenship is supported by treaties and the generally accepted principles of
international law. Although the Phils is not a signatory to some of these treaties, it
adheres to the customary rule to presume foundlings as having been born of the
country in which the foundling is found.

Kbye.

*****************************************************************************************
14. Paula Llorente v CA and Aliicia Llorente G.R.

@Gist of the case: Lorenzo Llorente was granted a divorce against his wife Paula in the
U.S. He subsequently married Alicia and later executed a will that was duly probated
intervivos. Alicia was then appointed as Administrator. When Lorenzo passed away,
Paula filed a letter of administrator over the deceased's estate.RTC granted Paula's
letter but it was modified by CA making Alicia co-owner.

@Issue: Is the National Law applicable?

@Prinicples discussed in the case:

>ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
even though living abroad

ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of
the country where it is situated.

>Intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of


succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

>Renvoi doctrine- where the case in being "referred back" to the law of the
decedent’s domicile.(Note: this is one of the bases of RTC and C's decision.)

>The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly
apply to general American law. (Note: Another basis of RTC: "American law follows the
‘domiciliary theory’ hence, Philippine law applies when determining the validity of
Lorenzo’s will)

@Court's ruling: The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen
long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3)
execution of his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and undisputed.
Thus, as a rule, issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign
law.

Also, there is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" indicated in
Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general American law. There is no
such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States. Each
State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the
State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent
was a resident. Second, there is no showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine
is called for or required by New York State law

> The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will,
already probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law,
is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.The
Court hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula
was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of
this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to
the determination of the trial court.

>Validity of the will. The court do not wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was
a foreigner, not covered by our laws on "family rights and duties, status, condition and
legal capacity. Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from
Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved.
Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered
by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated.As a guide however,
the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good customs may be
involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the same to the
succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of successional
rights to the decedent’s national law.

@Note: Extrinsic validity-not an issue as it is already probated; Intrinsic validity-RTC


must decide and the applicable law shall be the foreign law.)