You are on page 1of 9


HONGKONG SHANGAI BANKING CORPORATION v. SHERMAN inconvenience, than to have a Philippine court try and resolve the Issues: Whether or not the chinese marriage is valid and
G.R. No. 72494 August 11, 1989 case. Their stance is hardly comprehensible, unless their ultimate recognizable in the Philippines.
intent is to evade, or at least delay, the payment of a just obligation.
FACTS In 1981, Eastern Book Supply Service PTE, Ltd., (Eastern) a Whether or not the mohammedan marriage is valid.
company incorporated in Singapore applied w/, & was granted by the The defense of Sherman & Reloj that the complaint should have been
Singapore branch of HSBC an overdraft facility in the max amount of filed in Singapore is based merely on technicality. They did not even Held: No. Section IV of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68)
Singapore $200,000 (w/c amount was subsequently increased to claim, much less prove, that the filing of the action here will cause provides that “All marriages contracted without these Islands, which
Singapore $375,000) w/ interest at 3% over HSBC prime rate, payable them any unnecessary trouble, damage, or expense. On the other would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were
monthly, on amounts due under said overdraft facility. As a security hand, there is no showing that petitioner BANK filed the action here contracted, are valid in these Islands.” To establish a valid foreign
for the repayment by Eastern of sums advanced by HSBC to it through just to harass Sherman & Reloj. marriage pursuant to this comity provision, it is first necessary to
the aforesaid overdraft facility, in 1982, Jack Sherman, Dodato Reloj, prove before the courts of the Islands the existence of the foreign law
and a Robin de Clive Lowe, all of whom were directors of Eastern at The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, as a question of fact, and it is then necessary to prove the alleged
such time, executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favor of HSBC to the exclusion of all the rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the clause foreign marriage by convincing evidence.
whereby Sherman, Reloj and Lowe agreed to pay, jointly and severally, in question operate to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction. In
on demand all sums owed by Eastern to HSBC under the aforestated International Law, jurisdiction is often defined as the light of a State to In the case at bar there is no competent testimony as to what the laws
overdraft facility. exercise authority over persons and things w/in its boundaries subject of China in the Province of Amoy concerning marriage were in 1895.
to certain exceptions. Thus, a State does not assume jurisdiction over As in the Encarnacion case, there is lacking proof so clear, strong, and
The Joint and Several Guarantee provides that: “This guarantee and all travelling sovereigns, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of unequivocal as to produce a moral conviction of the existence of the
rights, obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed other States, and foreign military units stationed in or marching alleged prior Chinese marriage. Substitute twenty-three years for forty
and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the through State territory w/ the permission of the latter's authorities. years and the two cases are the same.
laws of the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts of This authority, which finds its source in the concept of sovereignty, is
Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this exclusive w/in and throughout the domain of the State. A State is Yes. The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that
guarantee.” competent to take hold of any judicial matter it sees fit by making its of marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract,
courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over all kinds of cases brought but, it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the
Eastern failed to pay its obligation. Thus, HSBC demanded payment of before them. public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law
the obligation from Sherman & Reloj, conformably w/ the provisions leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in
of the Joint and Several Guarantee. Inasmuch as Sherman & Reloj still apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-
failed to pay, HSBC filed a complaint for collection of a sum of money Adong vs Cheong Seng Gee presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The
against them. Sherman & Reloj filed a motion to dismiss on the 43 Phil 43 [GR No. 18081 March 3, 1922] reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties
grounds that (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be
of the complaint, and (2) the court has no jurisdiction over the person Facts: Cheong Boo, a native of China, died intestate in living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption
of the defendants. Zamboanga, Philippine Islands, on August 5, 1919. He left property established by our Code of Civil Procedure is “that a man and woman
worth nearly P100,000. The estate of the deceased was claimed, on deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
ISSUE: W/N Philippine courts should have jurisdiction over the the one hand, by Cheong Seng Gee, who alleged that he was a contract of marriage.”
suit. legitimate child by a marriage contracted by Cheong Boo with Tan Dit
in China in 1895. The estate was claimed, on the other hand, by the Section IX of the Marriage Law is in the nature of a curative provision
RULING YES. While it is true that "the transaction took place in Mora Adong who alleged that she had been lawfully married to intended to safeguard society by legalizing prior marriages. We can
Singaporean setting" and that the Joint and Several Guarantee Cheong Boo in 1896 in Basilan, Philippine Islands, and her daughters, see no substantial reason for denying to the legislative power the right
contains a choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due process Payang, married to Cheng Bian Chay, and Rosalia Cheong Boo, to remove impediments to an effectual marriage. If the legislative
dictates that the stipulation that "this guarantee and all rights, unmarried. The conflicting claims to the estate of Cheong Boo were power can declare what shall be valid marriages, it can render valid,
obligations & liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed & ventilated in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The trial judge, marriages which, when they took place, were against the law. Public
determined under & may be enforced in accordance w/ the laws of the Honorable Quirico Abeto, after hearing the evidence presented by policy should aid acts intended to validate marriages and should retard
the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts in both sides, reached the conclusion, with reference to the allegations acts intended to invalidate marriages.
Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this of Cheong Seng Gee, that the proof did not sufficiently establish the
guarantee" be liberally construed. One basic principle underlies all Chinese marriage, but that because Cheong Seng Gee had been The courts can properly incline the scales of their decisions in favors of
rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have admitted to the Philippine Islands as the son of the deceased, he that solution which will mot effectively promote the public policy. That
jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it, should share in the estate as a natural child. With reference to the is the true construction which will best carry legislative intention into
whether the proceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in personam. To allegations of the Mora Adong and her daughters Payang and Rosalia, effect. And here the consequences, entailed in holding that the
be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum the trial judge reached the conclusion that the marriage between the marriage of the Mora Adong and the deceased Cheong Boo, in
contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and Mora Adong and the deceased had been adequately proved but that conformity with the Mohammedan religion and Moro customs, was
substantial justice. Indeed, as pointed-out by HSBC at the outset, the under the laws of the Philippine Islands it could not be held to be a void, would be far reaching in disastrous result. The last census shows
instant case presents a very odd situation. In the ordinary habits of lawful marriage; accordingly, the daughters Payang and Rosalia would that there are at least one hundred fifty thousand Moros who have
life, anyone would be disinclined to litigate before a foreign tribunal, inherit as natural children. The order of the trial judge, following these been married according to local custom. We then have it within our
w/ more reason as a defendant. However, in this case, Sherman & conclusions, was that there should be a partition of the property of the power either to nullify or to validate all of these marriages; either to
Reloj are Philippine residents (a fact which was not disputed by them) deceased Cheong Boo between the natural children, Cheong Seng make all of the children born of these unions bastards or to make
who would rather face a complaint against them before a foreign Gee, Payang, and Rosalia. them legitimate; either to proclaim immorality or to sanction morality;
court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to mention

either to block or to advance settled governmental policy. Our duty is private international law of forum non conveniens,” even as it noted Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain
a obvious as the law is plain. that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after
“vital facts are established, to determine whether special
We regard the evidence as producing a moral conviction of the Petitioners appealed to the CA, arguing that the trial court erred in circumstances” require the court’s desistance.
existence of the Mohammedan marriage. We regard the provisions of applying the principle of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens.
section IX of the Marriage law as validating marriages performed
according to the rites of the Mohammedan religion. The CA affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case against Ducat, 1488, Inc.,
and Daic on the ground of litis pendentia. PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES v. TODARO
254 SCRA 153 June 8, 2007
Cayetano Lim vs The Insular Collector of Customs ISSUE: Is the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati barred by the judgment
GR No.L-11759, March 16, 1917 of the U.S. court? FACTS: Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed with the RTC of Makati
City, a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages with Preliminary
HELD: CA reversed. Case remanded to RTC-Makati Attachment against Pioneer International Limited (PIL), Pioneer
NO Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI), Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc.
G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997
(PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald) and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig).
FACTS: Private respondent Ducat obtained separate loans from While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign
judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized and existing
petitioners Ayala International Finance Limited (AYALA) and Philsec
judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds under the laws of Australia and is principally engaged in the ready-mix
Investment Corp (PHILSEC), secured by shares of stock owned by
allowed under the law. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect concrete and concrete aggregates business; PPHI is the company
to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign established by PIL to own and hold the stocks of its operating company
judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of in the Philippines; PCPI is the company established by PIL to undertake
In order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private respondent
the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary. its business of ready-mix concrete, concrete aggregates and quarrying
1488, Inc., through its president, private respondent Daic, assumed
Rule 39, §50 provides: operations in the Philippines; McDonald is the Chief Executive of the
Ducat’s obligation under an Agreement, whereby 1488, Inc. executed
Hongkong office of PIL; and, Klepzig is the President and Managing
a Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien by which it sold to petitioner
Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgment of a Director of PPHI and PCPI; Todaro has been the managing director of
Athona Holdings, N.V. (ATHONA) a parcel of land in Texas, U.S.A.,
tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc. (Betonval), a company engaged in pre-
while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA as initial
judgment is as follows: mixed concrete and concrete aggregate production; he resigned from
payment of the purchase price. The balance was to be paid by means
Betonval in February 1996; in May 1996, PIL contacted Todaro and
of a promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc.
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is asked him if he was available to join them in connection with their
Subsequently, upon their receipt of the money from 1488, Inc.,
conclusive upon the title to the thing; intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other related
PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from his indebtedness and
operations in the Philippines; Todaro informed PIL of his availability
delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares of stock in their possession
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is and interest to join them; subsequently, PIL and Todaro came to an
belonging to Ducat.
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their agreement wherein the former consented to engage the services of
successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be the latter as a consultant for two to three months, after which, he
As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance, the entire
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the would be employed as the manager of PIL's ready-mix concrete
amount covered by the note became due and demandable.
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. operations should the company decide to invest in the Philippines;
Accordingly, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC,
subsequently, PIL started its operations in the Philippines; however, it
AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the balance
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the refused to comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a
and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly
opportunity to challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as basis for permanent basis. Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and Klepzig
perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability of the
declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the
shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement.
respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were summary. complaint states no cause of action, that the RTC has no jurisdiction
Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished over the subject matter of the complaint, as the same is within the
While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners filed
copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence jurisdiction of the NLRC, and that the complaint should be dismissed
a complaint “For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary
presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. RTC dismissed
Attachment” against private respondents in the RTC Makati. The
issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the issues the MTD which was affirmed by the CA.
complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respective
counterclaims in the Civil Action in the United States District Court of raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered
would constitute res judicata. ISSUE: W/N the RTC should have dismissed the case on the basis
Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling
of forum non conveniens due to a presence of a foreign element
the property at a price 400 percent more than its true value.
Second. Nor is the trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of the case
justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens: RULING: NO. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on
Ducat moved to dismiss the Civil Case in the RTC-Makati on the
the basis of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the
grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-a-vis the Civil Action in the U.S., (2)
First, a MTD is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, sec.1, which does particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
forum non conveniens, and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-
not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case court. In the case of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs.
IFL to state a cause of action.
based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is Court of Appeals, this Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may
more properly considered a matter of defense. assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that
The trial court granted Ducat’s MTD, stating that “the evidentiary
the following requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to
requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before
which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine
the forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in
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 contract were executed in Singapore, therefore, Singapore laws should
power to enforce its decision." apply. Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption
where the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground Issue: Whether or not art.3 of the civil code is applicable in the Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for
for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court case bar. the negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in
does not include said doctrine as a ground. This Court further ruled selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a
that while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from Held: Yes, the parties are charged with full knowledge of the duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was
assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital existing laws at the time they entered into a contract and at the time it engaged.
facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances is to be operative –and , a person is presumed to be more
require the court’s desistance; and that the propriety of dismissing a knowledgeable about his own state law than his alien or foreign
case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual comtemporary. Augusto Santos III vs Northwest Orient Airlines
determination, hence it is more properly considered a matter of
defense. All these considered, the supreme court found sufficient factual and FACTS: Augusto Benedicto Santos III is a minor represented by his dad.
legal basis to conclude that petitioners unlawful termination was for In October 1986, he bought a round trip ticket from Northwest Orient
Note: the case was also being dismissed on the ground that there was an authorized cause, for which he was given ample notice and Airlines (NOA) in San Francisco. His flight would be from San Francisco
no cause of action but SC held that there was cause of action, to opportunity to be heard by respondent to Manila via Tokyo and back to San Francisco. His scheduled flight was
sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the complaint in December. A day before his departure he checked with NOA and
must show that the claim for relief does not exist, rather than that a NOA said he made no reservation and that he bought no ticket. The
claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite or Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs Court of Appeals next year, due to the incident, he sued NOA for damages. He sued
uncertain. And it was also argued in this case that jurisdiction is with NOA in Manila. NOA argued that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
the NLRC and not with the RTC. SC held it was with RTC, SC has FACTS: In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships over the matter pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention,
consistently held that where no employer-employee relationship passing through it must be piloted by pilots familiar to the river. which provides that complaints against international carriers can only
exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine Roxas, a be instituted in:
resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the 1. the court of the domicile of the carrier (NOA’s domicile is in the
collective bargaining agreement, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction. services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot USA);
the ship in the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran 2. the court of its principal place of business (which is San Francisco,
aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a USA);
Menandro B. Laureano, petitioner, versus Court of Appeals and result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was 3. the court where it has a place of business through which the
Singapore Airlines Limited, respondents owned Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused contract had been made (ticket was purchased in San Francisco so
February 2, 2000 $400k worth of losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its that’s where the contract was made);
delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of Manila. It averred 4. the court of the place of destination (Santos bought a round trip
Facts: In 1978, plaintiff Menandro B. Laureano, then Director of that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, ticket which final destination is San Francisco).
Flight Operations and Chief Pilot of Air Manila, applied for to wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para
employment with defendant company through its Area Manager in la Zona de Pilotaje No 1 del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the The lower court ruled in favor of NOA. Santos III averred that
Manila. Plaintiff’s appointment was confirmed effective July 21, 1979. master and owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the pilot of Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case and he questioned the
On the said date, the defendant also offered plaintiff an extension of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to check constitutionality of Article 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention.
his two-year contract to five (5) years effective January 21, 1979 to on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing
January 20,1984 subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the the river. ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the
contract of employment, which the latter accepted. matter to conduct judicial review.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable
Sometime in 1982, defendant initiated cost-cutting measures due to under the said Venezuelan laws. HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that they cannot rule over the
recession. Seventeen (17) expatriate captains in the Airbus fleet were matter for the SC is bound by the provisions of the Warsaw
found in excess of the defendant’s requirements. Defendant informed HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact Convention which was ratified by the Senate. Until & unless there
its expatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised before the court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were presented would be amendment to the Warsaw Convention, the only remedy for
them to take advance leaves. It did not however immediately as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, Santos III is to sue in any of the place indicated in the Convention such
terminate A-300 pilots. It reviewed their qualifications for possible the following requisites are mandatory: as in San Francisco, USA.
promotion to the B-747 fleet. Among the 17 Airbus pilots reviewed, 12
were found qualified. Unfortunately, plaintiff was not one of the 12. (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the The SC cannot rule upon the constitutionality of Article 28(1) of the
On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination records or by his deputy; and Warsaw Convention. In the first place, it is a treaty which was a joint
effective November 1, 1982 and that he will be paid three (3) months (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the act by the legislative and the executive. The presumption is that it was
salary in lieu of three months notice but defendant gave only two (2) embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular first carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it
months notice and one (1) month salary. agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office. was adopted and given the force of law in this country. In this case,
Santos was not able to offer any compelling argument to overcome
Aggrieved, plaintiff on June 29, 1983, instituted a case for illegal And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert the presumption.
dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. Defendant on February 11, 1987 witnesses is admissible, as are printed and published books of reports
filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds since the plaintiff of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be
was employed in Singapore and all other aspects of his employment commonly admitted in such courts. International Shoe Co. v. Washington

proceedings wherein, under special provisions of law, the power of the Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary appearance
Facts International Shoe Co., Defendant, was a company based court over the property is recognized and made effective. of a party in court and his submission to its authority, or it is acquired
in Delaware with an office in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant employed by the coercive power of legal process exerted over the person.
salesmen that resided in Washington to sell their product in the state * The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceeding quasi in
of Washington. Defendant regularly shipped orders to the salesmen rem, by which is expressed the idea that while it is not strictly speaking Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may
who accepted them, the salesmen would display the products at an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is substantially such. result either from a seizure of the property under legal process,
places in Washington, and the salesmen were compensated by whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may
commission for sale of the products. The salesmen were also * DUE PROCESS IN FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS: Property is always result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein, under special
reimbursed for the cost of renting the places of business in assumed to be in the possession of its owner, in person or by agent; provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is
Washington. Washington sued Defendant after Defendant failed to and he may be safely held, under certain conditions, to be affected recognized and made effective. In the latter case the property, though
make contributions to an unemployment compensation fund exacted with knowledge that proceedings have been instituted for its at all times within the potential power of the court, may never be
by state statutes. The Washington statute said that the commissioner condemnation and sale. taken into actual custody at all. An illustration of the jurisdiction
could issue personal service if Defendant was found within the state, acquired by actual seizure is found in attachment proceedings, where
or by mailing it to Defendant if Defendant was not in the state. The the property is seized at the beginning of the action, or some
notice of assessment was served upon Defendant’s salesperson and a FACTS: Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco mortgaged subsequent stage of its progress, and held to abide the final event of
copy of the notice was mailed to Defendant. Defendant appeared various parcels of real property in Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. the litigation. An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction
specially, moving to set aside the order that service upon the Afterwards, Engracio returned to China and there he died on January over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land
salesperson was proper service. Defendant also argued that it did not 29, 1810 without returning again to the Philippines. The mortgagor under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without
“do business” in the state, that there was no agent upon which service then instituted foreclosure proceeding but since defendant is a non- taking actual physical control over the property assumes, at the
could be made, and that Defendant did not furnish employment within resident, it was necessary to give notice by publication. The Clerk of instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a
the meaning of the statute. Defendant also argued that the statute Court was also directed to send copy of the summons to the jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in
violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and defendant’s last known address, which is in Amoy, China. It is not favor of the petitioner against all the world.
imposed a prohibitive burden of interstate commerce. The trial court shown whether the Clerk complied with this requirement.
found for Washington and the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed, Nevertheless, after publication in a newspaper of the City of Manila, In the terminology of American law the action to foreclose a mortgage
reasoning that the continuous flow of Defendant’s product into the cause proceeded and judgment by default was rendered. The is said to be a proceeding quasi in rem, by which is expressed the idea
Washington was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. decision was likewise published and afterwards sale by public auction that while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of
Defendant appealed was held with the bank as the highest bidder. On August 7, 1908, this that nature and is substantially such. The expression "action in rem" is,
sale was confirmed by the court. However, about seven years after the in its narrow application, used only with reference to certain
Issue Is service of process upon Defendant’s agent sufficient confirmation of this sale, a motion was made by Vicente Palanca, as proceedings in courts of admiralty wherein the property alone is
notice when the corporation’s activities result in a large volume of administrator of the estate of the original defendant, wherein the treated as responsible for the claim or obligation upon which the
interstate business so that the corporation receives the protection of applicant requested the court to set aside the order of default and the proceedings are based. The action quasi rem differs from the true
the laws of the state and the suit is related to the activities which judgment, and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. The action in rem in the circumstance that in the former an individual is
make the corporation present? basis of this application was that the order of default and the named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject
judgment rendered thereon were void because the court had never his interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All
Brief Fact Summary Defendant was an out of state company that acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the proceedings having for their sole object the sale or other disposition of
employed salesmen within the state of Washington. Washington sued action. the property of the defendant, whether by attachment, foreclosure, or
Defendant to recover unpaid unemployment taxes and served other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The
Defendant in two ways: (1) by mail and (2) by serving one of its ISSUE: judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the
salesmen within the state. Defendant appealed from a verdict for * Whether or not the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the parties.
Washington, claiming that Washington had no personal jurisdiction defendant and the subject matter of the action It is true that in proceedings of this character, if the defendant for
over Defendant. * Whether or not due process of law was observed whom publication is made appears, the action becomes as to him a
personal action and is conducted as such. This, however, does not
Synopsis of Rule of Law In order for a state to exercise RULING: affect the proposition that where the defendant fails to appear the
personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have such On Jurisdiction action is quasi in rem; and it should therefore be considered with
minimum contacts with the state so that exercising jurisdiction over The word “jurisdiction” is used in several different, though related, reference to the principles governing actions in rem.
the defendant would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and senses since it may have reference (1) to the authority of the court to
substantial justice. entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind
of relief, or it may refer to the power of the court over the parties, or Gemperle vs. Schenker
(2) over the property which is the subject to the litigation. G.R. No. L-18164; January 23, 1967
El Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca
G.R. No. L-11390, March 26, 1918 The sovereign authority which organizes a court determines the Facts: This case was the result of William Gemperle’s retaliatory
nature and extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its act when respondent spouses Paul and Helen Schenker filed a case
* JURISDICTION, HOW ACQUIRED: Jurisdiction over the property which competency or jurisdiction with reference to the actions which it may against him for the enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial
is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the entertain and the relief it may grant. subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading Co.,
property under legal process, whereby it is brought into the actual Inc. and the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then
custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal How Jurisdiction is Acquired unissued original capital stock of said corporation and the increase
thereof, as well as for an accounting and damages. Petitioner alleged

that the said complaint tainted his name as a businessman. He then the court to authorize the extraterritorial service of summons against
filed a complaint for damages and prays for the retraction of In the same year, Victoria filed a complaint to annul said deed with the Cynthia. Her failure to do so for a long period of time constitutes a
statements made by Helen Schenker. RTC of Cebu. The sheriff could not deliver the summonses against failure to prosecute on her part.
Cynthia and Teresa because apparently, although they are Filipinos,
Summons was personally served to Helen Schenker but not to Paul they are not residing here; they are residing in California. It was only in xxx
Schenker. Helen then filed an answer with a counterclaim, but Paul the year 2000 that one of the summonses was served to one of the What if the petition is an action in rem? What are the applicable rules?
Schenker filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the court never sisters, Teresa, when she came back to the Philippines. If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
acquired jurisdiction over his person since admittedly, he is a Swiss the defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long
citizen, residing in Zurich, Switzerland, and has not been actually Teresa immediately filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a
served with summons in the Philippines. Victoria failed to prosecute her case for an unreasonable length of nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may be
time. Naturally, Victoria opposed the MTD. Teresa, in her rejoinder, served extraterritorially in the following instances:
Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the alleged that the case should be dismissed because Cynthia, who is an 1. when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
person of Paul Schenker. indispensable party, was not issued any summons, hence, since an 2. when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property
indispensable party is not served with summons, without her who has within the Philippines, on which the defendant claims a lien or an
Ruling: Yes, although as a rule, when the defendant is a non- such an interest in the controversy or subject matter there can be no interest, actual or contingent;
resident and in an accion in personam, jurisdiction over the person of proper determination of the case. The trial court ruled in favor of 3. when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly or in
the defendant can be acquired only through voluntary appearance or Teresa; this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in property
personal service of summons. But this case is an exception to the said located in the Philippines; and
rule. The Supreme ratiocinated: ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Victoria’s complaint is 4. when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached
correct. within the Philippines.
“We hold that the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said In the above instances, summons may be effected by:
defendant, through service of the summons addressed to him upon HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments 1. personal service out of the country, with leave of court;
Mrs. Schenker, it appearing from said answer that she is the presented by Teresa. The Supreme Court also emphasized: 2. publication, also with leave of court; or
representative and attorney-in-fact of her husband aforementioned 3. any other manner the court may deem sufficient.
civil case No. Q-2796, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her There are generally two types of actions: actions in rem and actions in
aforementioned representative capacity. In other words, Mrs. personam. An action in personam is an action against a person on the
Schenker had authority to sue, and had actually sued on behalf of her basis of his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against European Resources and Technologies, Inc vs Ingenieuburo Birkhahn
husband, so that she was, also, empowered to represent him in suits the thing itself, instead of against the person. GR No. 159586, July 26, 2004
filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of the one at bar,
which is consequence of the action brought by her on his behalf.” The certificate, subject of the donation, is a personal property. The
action filed by Victoria is therefore a personal action. So in order for Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Briefly, in an accion in personam where the defendant is a non- the court to acquire jurisdiction over the respondents, summons must
resident, substituted service of summons does not apply. However, by be served upon them. Further, the certificate is indivisible, Cynthia’s Facts & Procedural History
way of exception, substituted service of summons may be effected, if and Teresa’s interests thereto can only be determined if both are Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania citizen, was walking along the railroad tracks
the following requisites are present: summoned in court. of the Erie Railroad in Pennsylvania when a train passed and an open
1. The summons is served to the spouse of the defendant door on a car struck him resulting in injury. He sued the railroad, a
2. The spouse must be residing in the Philippines In personal actions, if the respondents are residents of the Philippines, New York corporation, in federal district court in New York. Under
3. The spouse is appointed as attorney-in-fact of the spouse they may be served summons in the following order: Pennsylvania law, plaintiff was a trespasser and the railroad was
defendant in a previous case involving the non-resident spouse. 1. Personal Service; therefore only liable for wanton negligence. The judge, relying on
2. If (1) is not possible, Substituted Service; Swift v. Tyson, instructed the jury according to “general law” under
3. If respondent can’t be found because he is abroad but still a which the railroad was liable even for ordinary negligence. The jury
Victoria Regner vs Cynthia Logarta resident of the Philippines, by publication with leave of returned a verdict for plaintiff, which was upheld by the Second
court. Circuit.
FACTS: Cynthia Logarta and Teresa Tormis were the daughters of
Luis Regner in his first marriage with Anicita Regner. Victoria Regner is In personal actions still, if the respondents are non-residents, they Issue
the second wife of Luis. may be served summons in the following manner: Is a federal district court exercising diversity jurisdiction over a state
1. Personal service through the Philippine embassy; law-based cause of action required to apply the common law of the
In 1999, Victoria alleged that Cynthia and Teresa with the help of 2. By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places state?
another sibling defrauded Luis, who was then very ill and was unable and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of
to write, into placing his thumbmark into a Deed of Donation. In said the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered Holding / Rule
Deed, Luis purportedly donated a Proprietary Ownership Certificate mail to the last known address of the defendant; or (Brandeis) Yes. Reversed and remanded. Federal district courts sitting
pertaining to membership shares in the Cebu Country Club. Victoria 3. in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. in diversity jurisdiction must apply both statutory and judge-man
alleged that said Deed is void because the placing of thumbmark by The above must be with leave of court. common law of the states where it does not conflict with federal law.
Luis was done without the latter’s free will and voluntariness
considering his physical state; that it was done without Luis’s lawyer; In the case at bar, Cynthia was never served any summons in any of Reasoning
that the ratification made by Luis before he died is likewise void the manners authorized by the Rules of Court. The summons served to The Court overruled Swift v. Tyson, which held that federal courts
because of similar circumstances. Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is incumbent upon Victoria to compel exercising diversity jurisdiction over a state law action were under no

obligation to apply the non-statutory or judge-made law of that state, filed a motion to intervene with an attached complaint-in- defense, K.K. Shell cannot therefore, as of yet, be barred from
but instead had the power to apply federal common law or “general intervention, alleging that upon request of NSS, Crestamonte's general instituting an action in the Philippines.
law.” The Swift doctrine encouraged forum shopping by litigants to agent in Japan, K.K. Shell provided and supplied marine diesel oil/fuel
have different substantive law applied. It actually prevented to the W Estella at the ports of Tokyo and Mutsure in Japan and that Private respondents argued that the doctrine of forum non conveniens
uniformity and caused discrimination by non-citizens against citizens, despite previous demands Crestamonte has failed to pay the amounts would be a valid ground to cause the dismissal of K.K. Shell's
as non-citizens had the privilege of deciding whether to have the case of US$16,996.96 and Y1,000,000.00, and that K.K. Shell's claim complaint-in-intervention.K.K. Shell counters this argument by
heard in state or federal court and thus whether federal common law constitutes a maritime lien on the MV Estella. The complaint-in- invoking its right as maritime lienholder - Any person furnishing
would apply. Moreover, except in matters of federal law, the law to intervention sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. repairs, supplies, to wage, use of dry dock or marine railway, or other
be applied in any case is the law of the state, and it is irrelevant necessaries, to any vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the
whether that law is declared by the state’s legislature or high court. Trial court allowed the intervention and preliminary attachments were order of the owner of such vessel, or of a person authorized by the
There is no federal general common law that exists outside of any issued upon the posting of bonds. Thereafter, respondents posted a owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be
particular state, yet is applicable to the states unless changed by counterbond which discharged the earlier issued writ of attachment. enforced by suit in rem, and it shall be necessary to allege or prove
statute. Neither Congress nor federal courts have authority to declare Respondents moved to dismiss the complaints-in- intervention filed by that credit was given to the vessel.
substantive rules of common law applicable to the states, which Fu Hing and K.K. Shell.
interferes with the rights reserved to the states by the Constitution. Private respondents on the other hand argue that even if P.D. No.
Thereafter, CA annulled the orders of the trial court and directed it to 1521 is applicable, K.K. Shell cannot rely on the maritime lien because
Reed concurred in the judgment, stating that Swift should be cease and desist from proceeding with the case. According to the the fuel was provided not exclusively for the benefit of the MV Estella,
overturned not because of the unconstitutionality of the federal Court of Appeals, Fu Hing and K.K. Shell were not suppliers but sub- but for the benefit of Crestamonte in general. Under the law it must
common law approach, but because that case misinterpreted the term agents of NSS, hence they were bound by the Agency Agreement be established that the credit was extended to the vessel itself. Now,
“the laws” in the Rules of Decision Act as excluding state court between Crestamonte and NSS, particularly, the choice of forum this is a defense that calls precisely for a factual determination by the
decisions. clause, which provides that any matter of dispute shalle be resolved in trial court of who benefitted from the delivery of the fuel. Hence,
the district courts of Japan. again, the necessity for the reception of evidence before the trial
Butler (joined by McReynolds) dissented, arguing that the court.
constitutional validity of the Swift doctrine was not raised by the Issue: WON the CA made an error of disallowing the motion for
parties nor necessary to resolving the case and should not have been intervention filed by herein Petitioners In other words, considering the dearth of evidence due to the fact that
considered. the private respondents have yet to file their answer in the
Ruling: Yes. Court finds reversible error on the part of the Court of proceedings below and trial on the merits is still to be conducted,
Appeals in so far as it disallowed petitioners' intervention in the case whether or not petitioners are indeed maritime lienholders and as
K.K. SHELL SEKIYU OSAKA HATSUBAISHO and FU HING OIL CO., LTD., before the trial court and ordered the latter to cease and desist from such may enforce the lien against the MV Estella are matters that still
petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATLANTIC proceeding with the case. A reading of the Agency Agreement fails to have to be established.
VENUS CO., S.A., and THE VESSEL M/V "ESTELLA", respondents. support the conclusion that K.K. Shell is a sub-agent of NSS and is,
therefore, bound by the agreement.No express reference to the Neither are we ready to rule on the private respondents' invocation of
Facts: Kumagai Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd., a corporation formed and contracting of sub-agents or the applicability of the terms of the the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as the exact nature of the
existing under the laws of Japan, filed a complaint for the collection of agreement, particularly the choice-of-forum clause, to sub-agents is relationship of the parties is still to be established. We leave this
a sum of money with preliminary attachment against Atlantic Venus made in the text of the agreement. What the contract clearly states matter to the sound discretion of the trial court judge who is in the
Co., S.A., a corporation registered in Panama, the vessel MV Estella are NSS' principal duties, i.e., that it shall provide for the necessary best position, after some vital facts are established, to determine
and Crestamonte Shipping Corporation, a Philippine corporation. services required for the husbanding of Crestamonte's vessels in whether special circumstances require that his court desist from
Atlantic is the owner of the MV Estella. Japanese portsand shall be responsible for fixing southbound cargoes assuming jurisdiction over the suit.
with revenues sufficient to cover ordinary expenses
The complaint alleged that Crestamonte, as bareboat charterer and
operator of the MV Estella, appointed N.S. Shipping Corporation as its Moreover, the complaint-in-intervention filed by K.K. Shell merely
alleges that it provided and supplied the MV Estella with marine diesel Heine v. New York Life Insurance Company
general agent in Japan. The appointment was formalized in an Agency
Agreement. NSS in turn appointed Kumagai as its local agent in Osaka, oil/fuel, upon request of NSS who was acting for and as duly appointed
agent of Crestamonte. There is thus no basis for the Court of Appeal's Facts The New York Life Insurance Company and the Guardian
Japan. Kumagai supplied the MV Estella with supplies and services but
findingthat "the sub-agents admitted in their pleadings that they were Insurance Company ("the insurance companies") were corporations
despite repeated demands Crestamonte failed to pay the amounts
appointed as local agent/sub-agent or representatives by NSS by virtue created in New York, USA. As conditions to be allowed to conduct
of said Agency Agreement" The allegation of herein Petitioners do not business in Germany, they were made to agree to be supervised by
conclusively establish a sub-agency between NSS and K.K. Shell. It is German authorities, to invest the proceeds of policies in German
Petitioner Fu Hing Oil Co., Ltd., a corporation organized in Hong Kong
therefore surprising how the Court of Appeals could have come to the securities, and to establish a local agency to whom summons may be
and not doing business in the Philippines, filed a motion for leave to
conclusion, just on the basis of the Agency Agreement and the served. The insurance companies were later sued before courts in
intervene with an attached complaint-in-intervention, alleging that Fu
pleadings filed in the trial court, that "Crestamonte is the principal, both the US and Germany for the recovery on some 240 life insurance
Hing supplied marine diesel oil/fuel to the MV Estella and incurred
NSS is the agent and ... Fu Hing and K.K Shell are the sub-agents." policies issued in Germany to German nationals, payable in German
barge expenses for the total sum of US$152,412.5, but such has
remained unpaid. The issuance of a writ of attachment was also
prayed for. In the same vein, as the choice-of-forum clause in the agreement has
not been conclusively shown to be binding upon K.K. Shell, additional Arguments for the Plaintiff
evidence would also still have to be presented to establish this As the US courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
Petitioner K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho, a corporation
parties, they have no choice but to try the case.
organized in Japan and not doing business in the Philippines, likewise

Note: In addition, the due execution of the will was not established.
Issue Whether or not the US courts may dismiss the case on the The only evidence on this point is to be found in the testimony of the QUICK FACTS: Decedent Bohanan was a US citizen. Nevada
ground of forum non conveniens. petitioner. Aside from this, there was nothing to indicate that the will law allows a testator to dispose of all his property according to his will.
was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two competent His ex-wife and children oppose the project of partition filed by the
Held Yes. Under the circumstances, the case may be more witnesses, of that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence executor-petitioner, saying they were deprived of their legitimes.
suitably tried before German courts. of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems to According to them, Philippine law must prevail, requiring decedent to
require. On the supposition that the witnesses to the will reside reserve the legitime for surviving spouse and children.
Ratio Decidendi without the Philippine Islands, it would then the duty of the petitioner
The courts in both jurisdictions are competent to try the case and to prove execution by some other means (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. CONFLICT LAWS: Old CC Art. 10(2), now NCC Art. 16(2)
summons may be served upon the insurance companies in both 633.) “Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the
jurisdictions. Requiring the insurance companies to defend their order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights to
interests in the US would subject them to great and unnecessary It was also necessary for the petitioner to prove that the testator had personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person
inconvenience and expenses, including the possibility of having to his domicile in West Virginia and not establish this fact consisted of the whose succession is in question.”
bring documentary evidence all the way from their office in Germany. recitals in the CATHY will and the testimony of the petitioner. Also in
Moreover, trying the case in the US additionally burden the courts in beginning administration proceedings originally in the Philippine Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925, Sec. 9905
that jurisdiction, to the detriment of other litigants. The assumption of Islands, the petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to have “Every person over the age of 18 years, of sound mind, may, by last
jurisdiction over a case the cause of action of which arose from the principal administration in the Philippine Islands. will, dispose of all his or her estate, real and personal, the same being
another jurisdiction and wherein both parties are non-residents is chargeable with the payment of the testator’s debts.”
discretionary upon the court. While the appeal pending submission in this court, the attorney for the
appellant presented an unverified petition asking the court to accept FACTS: Testator Bohanan was born in Nebraska and was a US
G.R. No. L-32636 March 17, 1930 as part of the evidence the documents attached to the petition. One of citizen. He has some properties in California. Despite his long
In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. these documents discloses that a paper writing purporting to be the residence in the Philippines, his stay was found by the CFI to be merely
A.W. FLUEMER, petitioner-appellant, vs. ANNIE COUSHING HIX, was presented for probate on June 8, 1929, to the clerk of Randolph temporary, and he remained to be a US citizen. The CFI declared his
oppositor-appellee. Country, State of West Virginia, in vacation, and was duly proven by will as fully in accordance with the laws of Nevada and admitted it to
the oaths of Dana Wamsley and Joseph L. MAdden, the subscribing probate. The Philippine Trust Co. was named executor of the will.
FACTS: Fleumer, the special administrator of the estate of Edward witnesses thereto , and ordered to be recorded and filed. It was shown
Randolph Hix appealed from a decision of Judge of First Instance by another document that, in vacation, on June 8, 1929, the clerk of A project of partition was filed by Phil Trust which distributed the
Tuason denying the probate of the document alleged to by the last will court of Randolph Country, West Virginia, appointed Claude W. residuary estate into 3: 1) ½ to his grandson, 2) ½ to his brother and
and testament of the deceased. Appellee is not authorized to carry on Maxwell as administrator, cum testamento annexo, of the estate of sister, to be distributed equally, 3) legacies of P6,000 each to his son
this appeal. We think, however, that the appellant, who appears to Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. In this connection, it is to be noted and daughter, and 4) legacies to other people.
have been the moving party in these proceedings, was a "person that the application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was
interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court of First filed on February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia Respondent Magdalena Bohanan, his ex-wife, questions the validity of
Instance," and so should be permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court appear to have been initiated on June 8, 1929. These facts are strongly the partition, claiming that she and her children were deprived of their
from the disallowance of the will (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 781, as indicative of an intention to make the Philippines the principal legitimes. (It must be noted that Magdalena and decedent C.O.
amended; Villanueva vs. De Leon [1925], 42 Phil., 780). administration and West Virginia the ancillary administration. Bohanan were married in 1909 but he divorced her in 1922. She re-
However this may be, no attempt has been made to comply with Civil married in 1925 and this marriage was subsisting at the time of the
It is theory of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed in Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the allowance of a will death of decedent.)
Elkins, West Virginia, on November 3, 1925, by Hix who had his said to have been proved and allowed in West Virginia has been
residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West Verginia Code, requested. There is no showing that the deceased left any property at ISSUE 1: W/N Magdalena is entitled to legitime as surviving spouse
Annotated, by Hogg, Charles E., and as certified to by the Director of any place other than the Philippine Islands and no contention that he
the National Library, should govern. left any in West Virginia. HELD: NO.There is no right to share in the inheritance in favor of
a divorced wife in the State of Nevada. There is also no conjugal
ISSUE: Whether or not the laws of West Virginia should govern. Reference has been made by the parties to a divorce purported to property between her and decedent.
have been awarded Edward Randolph Hix from Annie Cousins Hix on
RULING: The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves October 8, 1925, in the State of West specific pronouncements on the Moreover, during the proceedings of the case, Magdalena filed a
in our courts. the courts of the Philippine Islands are not authorized to validity or validity of this alleged divorce. motion to withdraw P20,000 from the estate funds, chargeable against
take American Union. Such laws must be proved as facts.(In re Estate her share in the conjugal property. But the Court found that there is
of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.) Here the requirements of the law For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, no community property.
were not met. There was no was printed or published under the with the costs of this instance against the appellant.
authority of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 300 of ISSUE 2: W/N the children are entitled to their legitime
the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law attested
by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, under the TESTATE ESTATE OF C.O BOHANAN ,PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HELD: NO.
sale of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 301 of the BOHANAN 1) The CFI has correctly held that the law to be applied is Nevada law,
Code of Civil Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the because the decedent was a US citizen.
extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the DOCTRINE: The validity of testamentary dispositions are to 2) The children do not dispute the provision.
alleged will was executed. be governed by the national law of the testator, provided that the law 3) While Sec. 9905 was not introduced as evidence in the hearing of
must be proved in courts. the project of partition, it was introduced during the hearing of the

motion to withdraw filed by Magdalena. The Court took judicial notice jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy even if such the ambit of Section 7(a) of Rule 141. It is covered by Section
of the law and deemed it unnecessary to prove the law at the hearing judgment has conclusive effect as in the case of in rem actions, if 7(b)(3), involving as it does, "other actions not involving
of the project of partition. only for the purpose of allowing the losing party an opportunity to property." The petitioners thus paid the correct amount of filing
challenge the foreign judgment. Consequently, the party attacking fees, and it was a grave abuse of discretion for respondent judge
DISPOSITIVE: As in accordance with Art. 10 of the old Civil a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming the to have applied instead a clearly inapplicable rule and dismissed
Code, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be governed by presumption of its validity. Absent perhaps a statutory grant of the complaint.
the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided and it is jurisdiction to a quasi-judicial body, the claim for enforcement of
not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the State of judgment must be brought before the regular courts.
Nevada, already indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of  There are distinctions, nuanced but discernible, between the Pennoyer v. Neff
all his property according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of cause of action arising from the enforcement of a foreign
the court approving the project of partition made in accordance with judgment, and that arising from the facts or allegations that Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Neff was being sued by Mitchell in
the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with occasioned the foreign judgment. They may pertain to the same Oregon for unpaid legal fees. A default judgment was entered against
costs against appellants. set of facts, but there is an essential difference in the right-duty Defendant for his failure to come to court or otherwise resist the
correlatives that are sought to be vindicated. Extensive litigation is lawsuit, despite the fact that he was not personally served with
thus conducted on the facts, and from there the right to and process, nor was a resident of Oregon. Later, in an attempt to collect
Mijares v. Ranada (2005) amount of damages are assessed. On the other hand, in an action upon his judgment, Mitchell attached land located in Oregon
to enforce a foreign judgment, the matter left for proof is the belonging to Defendant, and had it sold to Plaintiff Pennoyer through a
FACTS: foreign judgment itself, and not the facts from which it prescinds. Sheriff’s sale.
 May 9 1991: a complaint was filed by ten Filipino citizens  As stated in Section 48, Rule 39, the actionable issues are generally
representing a class of 10,000 members who each alleged having restricted to a review of jurisdiction of the foreign court, the Synopsis of Rule of Law. Proceedings in a court of law to determine
suffered human rights abuses such as arbitrary detention, torture service of personal notice, collusion, fraud, or mistake of fact or the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom the court has
and rape in the hands of police or military forces during the law. The limitations on review is in consonance with a strong and not jurisdiction are invalid for want of due process of law.
Marcos regime with the United States District Court (US District pervasive policy in all legal systems to limit repetitive litigation on
Court), District of Hawaii, against the Estate of former Philippine claims and issues. Otherwise known as the policy of preclusion, it Facts. Mitchell, a lawyer, sued Defendant, his client, in Oregon state
President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos Estate) seeks to protect party expectations resulting from previous court for unpaid legal fees. At the time Defendant was a non-resident
 US District Court and Affirmed by US CA: awarded them litigation, to safeguard against the harassment of defendants, to of the state who was not personally served with process. Constructive
$1,964,005,859.90 insure that the task of courts not be increased by never-ending service was issued upon Defendant by publication. Defendant did not
litigation of the same disputes, and in a larger sense to promote come to court or otherwise resist the lawsuit, and default judgment
 Petitioners filed Complaint with Makati RTC for the enforcement was entered against him. After the default judgment, Defendant
of the Final Judgment what Lord Coke in the Ferrer's Case of 1599 stated to be the goal
of all law: "rest and quietness." If every judgment of a foreign acquired 300 acres of land in Oregon. To satisfy his judgment against
 Marcos Estate filed a motion to dismiss, raising, among others, the court were reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced Defendant, Mitchell had the sheriff seize and sell Defendant’s land.
non-payment of the correct filing fees paying only P410 back on his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the The land was purchased by Plaintiff, who received a sheriff’s deed as
 Petitioners claimed that an action for the enforcement of a foreign previously concluded litigation. evidence of title. The sheriff then turned the sale proceeds over to
judgment is not capable of pecuniary estimation  Marcos Estate cites Singsong v. Isabela Sawmill and Raymundo v. Mitchell. Shortly after the sheriff’s sale, Defendant discovered what
 RTC: estimated the proper amount of filing fees was Court of Appeals:
had happened to his land and brought suit against Plaintiff to recover
approximately P472 and dismissing the case without prejudice the land. This appeal followed after Defendant lost his suit against
 In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of Plaintiff.
 Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has
adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the Issue. Can judgments obtained against non-residents who fail to
ISSUE: W/N the enforcement of a foreign judgment is incapable principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the
of pecuniary estimation appear in court be sustained by default judgments where service of
recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of process is accomplished solely through publication (i.e. constructive
pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal service)?
HELD: NO. (But belongs to "other actions not involving property") courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the
petition is GRANTED. Is constructive service sufficient notice to attach property within the
amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something forum state owned by a non-resident?
 There is an evident distinction between a foreign judgment in an other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money
action in rem and one in personam. For an action in rem, the claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal
foreign judgment is deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing, relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co
while in an action in personam, the foreign judgment is where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms
presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the parties of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance
Brief Fact Summary. Appellee, a bank located in New York, set up a
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title (now Regional Trial Courts).
trust covering 113 participants and sent notice by publication to all
 However, in both cases, the foreign judgment is susceptible to  An examination of Section 19(6), B.P. 129 reveals that the instant known and unknown beneficiaries regarding Appellee’s application for
impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of complaint for enforcement of a foreign judgment, even if capable judicial settlement of the trust, as required under a New York statute.
jurisdiction or notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of pecuniary estimation, would fall under the jurisdiction of the Upon first distribution of the trust, Appellee would mail notice to
of law or fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is Regional Trial Courts known beneficiaries that could benefit from the interest or principal.
entitled to defend against the enforcement of such decision in the  The complaint to enforce the US District Court judgment is one Appellant, guardian of the beneficiaries, appealed, arguing that notice
local forum. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to capable of pecuniary estimation. But at the same time, it is also an by publication alone violated the beneficiaries’ due process rights
challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this action based on judgment against an estate, thus placing it beyond under the Fourteenth Amendment.

action in Oregon. Plaintiff filed a motion for sequestration of the question with all the cash dividends declared thereon by the Benguet
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Notice must be “reasonably calculated under officers’ stock. Under a Delaware statute, Delaware is the situs of all Consolidated Mining Company.
all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the action and stock in Delaware corporations. The stock was seized. Defendants
give them an opportunity to object. were notified by certified mail of the sequestration and notice was Idonah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on the ground that “the court
published in a Delaware newspaper. Defendants entered a special has no jurisdiction of the subject of the action,” because the alleged
Facts. Appellee, Central Hanover Bank & Trust, set up common fund appearance so they could move to quash service of process and vacate judgment of the SC of the State of New York is res judicata.
pursuant to a New York statute allowing the creation of common the sequestration order. Defendant argued that the order violated due Petitioner’s demurrer was overruled, thus this petition.
funds for distribution of judicial settlement trusts. There were 113 process and therefore the property could not be attached in Delaware.
participating trusts. Appellee petitioned for settlement of its first In addition, Defendants argued that they did not have the minimum ISSUE: WON in view of the alleged judgment entered in favor of
account as common trustee. Some of the beneficiaries were not contacts with Delaware required to establish jurisdiction under the petitioner by the SC of New York and which is claimed by her to be
residents of New York. “Notice” was by publication for four weeks in a International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 res judicata on all questions raised by the respondent, Eugene Perkins,
local newspaper. Appellee had notified those people by mail that were L.Ed. 95 (1945). In addition, Defendants argued that the sequestration the local court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
of full age and sound mind who would be entitled to share in the procedures were inconsistent with the Sniadach cases (see Sniadach v.
principal if the interest they held became distributable. Appellant was Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 RULING: By jurisdiction over the subject matter is meant the nature
appointed as special guardian and attorney for all persons known or (1969)). The Court of Chancery found for Plaintiff and the Supreme of the cause of action and of the relief sought, and this is conferred by
unknown not otherwise appearing who had or might thereafter have Court of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought
any interest in the income of the common trust fund. Appellee was of Delaware reasoned that the Sniadach cases involved default for in general nature of its powers, or in authority specially conferred.
appointed to represent those interested in the principal. Appellant judgments and not compelling a party to appear. This court furthered In the present case, the amended complaint filed by the respondent,
appeared specially, objecting that notice by publication, permitted reasoned that sequestration procedures help to adjudicate claims of Eugene Perkins alleged calls for the adjudication of title to certain
under the applicable statute was inadequate to afford t mismanagement against Delaware companies, and do not cause shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company and the
he beneficiaries due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and permanent deprivation of property to their shareholders. Defendants granting of affirmative reliefs, which fall within the general jurisdiction
that therefore jurisdiction was lacking. appealed. of the CFI- Manila. Similarly CFI- Manila is empowered to adjudicate
the several demands contained in petitioner’s crosscomplaint.
Issue. Is notice by publication of a judicial settlement to unknown Issue. In order for the forum state to exercise in rem jurisdiction on a
beneficiaries of a common trust reasonable notice under the due nonresident, must the nonresident have minimum contacts with the Idonah Perkins in her crosscomplaint brought suit against Eugene
process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment? forum state such that the defendant has purposefully availed itself of Perkins and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company upon the
the benefits of that state’s laws? If so, must the cause of action be alleged judgment of the SC of the State of New York and asked the
Is notice by publication to all of the beneficiaries of a common trust sufficiently related to the contacts the nonresident has with the forum court below to render judgment enforcing that New York judgment,
whose residences are known reasonable notice under the due process state? and to issue execution thereon. This is a form of action recognized by
requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment? section 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47, Rule 39,
Rules of Court) and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the
IDONAH PERKINS vs. ROXAS ET AL. CFI- Manila, to adjudicate, settle and determine.
Shaffer v. Heitner GRN 47517, June 27, 1941
The petitioner expresses the fear that the respondent judge may
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff stockholder brought a shareholder’s FACTS: July 5, 1938, respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint render judgment “annulling the final, subsisting, valid judgment
derivative action in Delaware state court against Defendants, in the CFI- Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company rendered and entered in this petitioner’s favor by the courts of the
corporations incorporated in Delaware with their principal place of for the recovery of a sum consisting of dividends which have been State of New York, which decision is res judicata on all the questions
business in Arizona, and corporate officers of the corporations declared and made payable on shares of stock registered in his name, constituting the subject matter of civil case” and argues on the
(Defendants). Plaintiff moved to sequester Defendants’ property, payment of which was being withheld by the company, and for the assumption that the respondent judge is without jurisdiction to take
which was stock in the company, located in Delaware as defined by recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares to the cognizance of the cause. Whether or not the respondent judge in the
the Delaware statute. Defendants moved to quash the summons and exclusion of all others. The company alleged, by way of defense that course of the proceedings will give validity and efficacy to the New
to vacate the sequestration order, arguing that both exercising the withholding of plaintiff’s right to the disposal and control of the York judgment set up by the petitioner in her cross-complaint is a
personal jurisdiction and seizing Defendants’ property violated due shares was due to certain demands made with respect to said shares question that goes to the merits of the controversy and relates to the
process. by the petitioner Idonah Perkins, and by one Engelhard. rights of the parties as between each other, and not to the jurisdiction
or power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the
Synopsis of Rule of Law. When the only contact the defendant has Eugene Perkins included in his modified complaint as parties tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its
with the forum state is the location of property as defined by statute defendants petitioner, Idonah Perkins, and Engelhard. Eugene Perkins conclusion in the course of it is right or wrong. If its decision is
in the forum state, the forum lacks personal jurisdiction over the prayed that petitioner Idonah Perkins and H. Engelhard be adjudged erroneous, its judgment can be reversed on appeal; but its
defendant unless the minimum contacts test of International Shoe is without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from determination of the question, which the petitioner here anticipates
satisfied. any claim they assert thereon. Summons by publication were served and seeks to prevent, is the exercise by that court and the rightful
upon the nonresident defendants Idonah Perkins and Engelhard. exercise of its jurisdiction.
Facts. Plaintiff, a stockholder for Greyhound Corp., a company Engelhard filed his answer. Petitioner filed her answer with a Petition denied.
incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in crosscomplaint in which she sets up a judgment allegedly obtained by
Arizona, sued Greyhound Corp., Greyhound Lines, Inc., (a subsidiary of her against respondent Eugene Perkins, from the SC of the State of
Greyhound Corp.) and present and former officers of the two New York, wherein it is declared that she is the sole legal owner and
companies for violating duties to Greyhound Corp. by causing it to be entitled to the possession and control of the shares of stock in
liable for damages in an antitrust suit and a fine in a criminal contempt