Conflict Compiled Batch 1

THE LOYALISTS | EH 404 | CASE DIGESTS IN CONFLICT | BATCH ONE
01. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA [G.R. No. 122191, October 8, Since her complaint is based on Article 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, then it is a
1998] matter of domestic law.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
Characterization - Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as
Denied the motion to Dismiss.
"characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification." It is the "process of deciding
whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." The COURT OF APPEALS:
purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
Affirmed the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss filed by Saudi Air.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
ISSUES
Saudi Airlines hired Milagros Morada as flight attendant for its airlines based in
Jeddah, Saudi arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, she went to dance with fellow 1. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction to hear and try the cased based on
crew members Thamer and Allah, who are both Saudi Nationals. They finished early Art. 19 and 21.
morning and had breakfast at Thamer’s hotel. Thamer attempted to rape Milagros. A 2. Whether or not Philippine Law should govern this case.
roomboy and security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. When she
returned to Jeddah, she was interrogated about the Jakarta incident and was asked RULING
to go back to Jakarta to help arrange the release of Thamer and Allah. The same was
not successful because Milagros refused to cooperate. On the first issue, the court finds that the RTC possesses jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the suit. As per Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, personal actions may
Eventually SAUDI allowed plaintiff to return to Jedah but barred her from the Jakarta be commenced and tried here the defendant resides or where the plaintiff resides, a
flights. Unfortunately, she was eventually conviceted and sentenced to 5 months the choice of the plaintiff.
imprisonment and 286 lashes. On appeal, she was released by the Prince of Makkah
for having been wrongfully convicted. Upon return to the Phils., she filed a complaint On the second issue. Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to
for damages against SAUDI Air and Balawi, the country manager. determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is
known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification." It is the "process of
deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts
rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper
CASES FILED: (if applicable) law. Essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a test or connecting factor
or point of contact, such as: a) situs of the res, b) place of celebration, c) place of
Saudi Air filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court has no jurisdiction to try the
performance, d) place of wrongdoing. Considering that the complaint in court a quo
cased based on Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
involving torts - the connecting factor or point of contact should be the place where
the tortious conduct or ‘LEX LOCI ACTUS’ occured. Indeed, it is in the phils., where
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable)
the petitioner allegedly deceived Milagros. What is important here is the place where
PETITIONER: the over-all harm of the totality of the alleged injury to the person happened.
This is a case of conflict of laws and must be settled at the outset since the abuse of
rights occurred in Saudi Arabia.
RESPONDENT:
Page | 1
02.
Page | 2
3. ALLISON GIBBS vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: The Court of First Instance reaffirmed the order of September 22, 1930
Article 10 of the Civil Code: and entered an order requiring the Register of Deeds of Manila to cancel the
certificates of title covering the 3 lands in question, and to issue in lieu thereof new
● Legal and testamentary succession in respect to the order of succession
certificates of transfer of title in favor of Allison Gibbs without requiring him to
as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic present any document showing that the succession tax due under Article XI of
validity of their provisions shall be regulated by the national law of the
Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code has been paid.
person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of
the property or the country in which it may be situated.
ISSUES
● Personal property is subject to the laws of the nation of the owner
Whether or not Eva Johnson Gibbs, at the time of her death, was an owner of a
thereof; real property to the laws of the country in which it is situated.
descendible interest in the Philippine lands above mentioned?
5 Cal. Jur., 478:
RULING
● In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitate, Yes.
the respective rights of husband and wife in such property, in the
absence of an antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the The main argument of Allison Gibbs and the sole basis of the lower court’s decision
place where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the rests upon the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Civil Code (see first bullet in
parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated. “Relevant Doctrines”), but under the law of California, upon the death of the wife,
the husband is the absolute owner of all the community property, but he does not
FACTS OF THE CASE: take it by succession, instead, he holds it all from the moment of his wife’s death as
Allison Gibbs married Eva Johnson Gibbs in Columbus, Ohio on July 1906. though required by himself. It never belonged to the estate of the deceased wife. It
There was no antenuptial marriage between them. During the existence of their is clear that Article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with a
marriage, they acquired three parcels of land in the Philippine Islands as conjugal descendible interest in property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands.
property, the lands covered by transfer certificates of title.
Under the principle of 5 Cal. Jur., 478 (see “Relevant Doctrines”), the nature and
Eva Johnson Gibbs died intestate in Palo Alto, California on November 28, 1929. At extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the
that time, Allison and Eva were citizens of the State of California and domiciled subject lands are determined in accordance with lex rei sitae. Under the Civil Code
therein. On September 22, 1930, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the provisions and jurisprudence of the Philippines, upon the death of Mrs. Gibbs, if
ex parte petition of Allison Gibbs and adjudicated him as the sole and absolute there are no obligations of the decedent, her share in the conjugal property is
owner of the 3 parcels of land, applying Section 1401 of the Civil Code of California. transmitted to her heirs by succession. Under the Administrative Code, such
descendible interest of Eva Gibbs and the transmission of the same levies a tax on
Allison Gibbs presented the decree to the Register of Deeds of Manila and inheritance.
demanded that the latter issue to him a “transfer certificate of title.” The Register
of Deeds declined to accept as binding the decree of the court because the The records do not show the proper amount of inheritance tax to be paid nor is
corresponding inheritance tax has not been paid. there any showing that Allison Gibbs challenged the power of the Government to
levy an inheritance tax or that the validity of the statute under which the Register
CASES FILED: (if applicable) of Deeds refused to issue the certificates of Transfer reciting Allison Gibbs as the
exclusive owner of the subject lands.
Allison Gibbs filed before the court a petition for an order requiring the Register of
Deeds to issue the corresponding titles to him without requiring previous payment
The judgment of the CFI is reversed with directions to dismiss the petition.
of any inheritance tax.
Page | 3
04. CADALIN v. POEA The case rooted from the Labor Law enacted by Bahrain where most of the complainants
were deployed. His Majesty Ise Bin Selman Al Kaifa, Amir of Bahrain, issued his Amiri
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Decree No. 23 on June 16, 1176, otherwise known re the Labour Law for the Private Sector.
A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be
viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a (Conflict issue): AIIB and AIBC, however, objected to the filing of the motions for being filed
law. However the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes out of time.
irrelevant when the country of the forum (local Court) has a “borrowing statute.” Said statute
has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A
“borrowing statute” directs the state of the forum (local Court) to apply the foreign statute of ISSUES
limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of
W/N the foreign law should govern or the contract of the parties.(WON the complainants
“borrowing statutes,” one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where
who have worked in Bahrain are entitled to the above-mentioned benefits provided by Amiri
it accrued will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute was not run against
Decree No. 23 of Bahrain).
it.
RULING
FACTS OF THE CASE: NLRC ruled that the prescriptive period for the filing of the claims of the complainants was 3
years, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, and not ten years as
On June 6, 1984, Cadalin, Amul and Evangelista, in their own behalf and on behalf of 728
provided in Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines nor one year as provided in the
other OCWs instituted a class suit by filing an “Amended Complaint” with the POEA for
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.
money claims arising from their recruitment by ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS
CORPORATION (AIBC) and employment by BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC (BRI)
which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged in As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum (local court),
construction; while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for
recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino workers for overseas employment on behalf of its appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is
foreign principals. based upon a foreign substantive law.
The amended complaint sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be
contracts, which was terminated prematurely. viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a
law. However the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes
irrelevant when the country of the forum (local Court) has a “borrowing statute.” Said statute
The POEA Administrator rendered his decision which awarded the amount of $824, 652.44
has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A
in favor of only 324 complainants. Claimants submitted their “Appeal Memorandum For
“borrowing statute” directs the state of the forum (local Court) to apply the foreign statute of
Partial Appeal” from the decision of the POEA. AIBC also filed its MR and/or appeal in
limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of
addition to the “Notice of Appeal” filed earlier.
“borrowing statutes,” one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where
it accrued will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute was not run against
NLRC promulgated its Resolution, modifying the decision of the POEA. The resolution it.
removed some of the benefits awarded in favor of the claimants. Hence, these petitions
filed by the claimants and by AlBC and BRII.
Page | 4
05. ALICE REYES VAN DORN, petitioner, laws. She should not be discriminated against her own country if the end of justice is to be
vs. served.
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., as Presiding Judge of Branch CX, Regional Trial Court of the
National Capital Region Pasay City and RICHARD UPTON respondents.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
CASE FILED: Petition for certiorari and Prohibition
FACTS: Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino Citizen and private respondent, Richard Upton, a US
citizen, was married in Hong Kong in 1979. They established their residence in the
Philippines and had 2 children. They were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982 and petitioner
remarried, this time with Theodore Van Dorn. A suit against petitioner was filed on June 8,
1983, stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita Manila, the Galleon Shop, is a conjugal
property with Upton and prayed therein that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of the
business and he be declared as the administrator of the said property.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS: Respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged

conjugal property because of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before
the American Court that they had no community of property; that the Galleon Shop was not
established through conjugal funds, and that respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS: The Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot
prevail over the prohibitive laws of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the
acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot, especially if the same is contrary to public
policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain matters within its jurisdiction.
ISSUES: Whether or not the foreign divorce between the petitioner and private respondent in
Nevada is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino citizen.
DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS: N/A
RULING: Yes, the divorce is binding. Private respondent is no longer the husband of the
petitioner. He would have no standing to sue petitioner to exercise control over conjugal
assets. He is estopped by his own representation before the court from asserting his right
over the alleged conjugal property. Furthermore, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which
may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Petitioner is not bound to her marital obligations to respondent by virtue of her nationality
Page | 5
06. Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil vs Hon. Corona Ibay Somera, Hon. Luis Victor, and Erich ISSUES
Ekkehard Geiling
Whether private respondent has legal standing.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED:
RULING
In relation to status of persons, this jurisdiction follows the nationality principle. Hence, a
valid divorce decree obtained by a foreigner in a foreign court is recognized in the Philippines NO.
insofar as such foreigner is concerned. The person who initiates a case for adultery must be an offended spouse (still married to the
FACTS OF THE CASE: accused) at the time of the filing of the complaint.
Imelda and Erich were married in Germany on Sep 7, 1979. They then separated (de facto). In this case, Erich was able to obtain a valid divorce decree from a German court, and such
Eventually EricH filed for divorce in Germany. The German court promulgated a decree of divorce decree is admitted in this jurisdiction insofar as Erich is concerned in accordance with
divorce, in accordance German laws. the nationality principle in relation to status of persons. As such, he no longer qualifies as an
offended spouse. There being no marriage from the beginning (void ab initio), any complaint
More than 5 months later, Erich filed a case for adultery against Imelda in Manila. The manila for adultery filed after the declaration of nullity of marriage would no longer be meritorious.
city fiscal Victor initially dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but later on,
upon review, directed the filing of 2 information for adultery. The first case was raffled to the Further, no reliance can be made on Art 333 of the RPC because, as interpreted by SC
sala of Respondent Judge Ibay-Somera. The second case was raffled to the sala of another decisions, it contemplates that a criminal action for adultery was seasonably filed before the
Judge. termination of the marriage by a judicial declaration that it is void ab initio.
Petitioner filed a petition with the Sec of Justice to have the fiscal’s resolution set aside and Hence, Judge Ibay-Somera’s decision denying the Motion to Quash is SET ASIDE.
the cases dismissed. Sec of Justice ordered that the entire records of the cases be elevated to
his office for review. Petitioner filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment
and to suspend further proceedings.
Petitioner then moved for the cancellation of the arraignment in the case raffled to Judge
Somera and the suspension of further proceedings until the Sec of Justice resolves the case.
Imelda also filed a Motion to Quash in the case handled by Judge Somera, which motion to
quash was denied by the same judge and ordered the arraignment of Imelda. Imelda
ultimately entered a plea of not guilty.
Imelda then filed the instant civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with prayer for a TRO,
seeking the annulment of the dismissal of her Motion to Quash.
PETITIONER (Imelda):
Complainant Erich has no legal standing because he does not qualify as an offended spouse
for having obtained a divorce decree in Germany.
Page | 6
07. Llorente v CA favor of Alicia and her children, encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal
property.
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur laoreet nisl ac est
convallis, eget lacinia lacus feugiat. Ut maximus elit sit amet varius porttitor. Aliquam REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
turpis libero, varius ut porta id, cursus vitae erat. Sed sit amet vestibulum velit, non
tristique eros. Vestibulum in orci sem. Donec ac dictum eros. Mauris commodo dolor a The court has so found that the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void
dictum feugiat. Suspendisse eu urna vehicula, vehicula dui eu, rutrum ligula. Suspendisse and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia
orci tellus, sagittis at nisi quis, facilisis dignissim mi. In efficitur volutpat risus, ut Fortunato on January 16, 1958 at Manila is likewise void. This being so the petition of Alicia
pellentesque est iaculis vel. Nulla dapibus ornare nibh non ullamcorper. F. Llorente for the issuance of letters testamentary is denied. Likewise, she is not entitled
to receive any share from the estate even if the will especially said so her relationship with
FACTS OF THE CASE: Lorenzo having gained the status of paramour which is under Art. 739.
Llorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente was married before a parish priest. Before the
outbreak of war, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula was left at the conjugal
home. Lorenzo was naturalized by the United State. After the liberation of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS:
he went home and visited his wife to which he discovered that his wife was pregnant and The Court of Appeals promulgated its decision, affirming with modification the decision of
was having an adulterous relationship. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce. the trial court in this wise:
Lorenzo married Alicia LLorente; they lived together for 25 years and begot 3 children.
Lorenzo on his last will and testament bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their 3 WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the
children. Paula filed a petition for letters administration over Lorenzo’s estate. The RTC MODIFICATION that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties she
ruled in favor of Paula. On appeal, the decision was modified declaring Alicia as co-owner and the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years of
of whatever properties they have acquired. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court. cohabitation.
CASES FILED: (if applicable)

Lorenzo filed with the Regional Trial Court, Iriga, Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate ISSUES
and allowance of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be
appointed Special Administratrix of his estate.The trial court denied the motion for the Who are entitled to the properties of Lorenzo Llorente?
reason that the testator Lorenzo was still alive. Finding that the will was duly executed, the
trial court admitted the will to probate. Before the proceedings could be terminated,
RULING
Lorenzo died. Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at
Lorenzos estate in her favor. 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.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) The Civil Code clearly provides:
PETITIONER: Art. 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
Paula contended (1) that she was Lorenzos surviving spouse, (2) that the various property
living abroad.
were acquired during their marriage, (3) that Lorenzos will disposed of all his property in
Page | 7
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated.
However, 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.
In Van Dorn vs Ramillo Jr. the Supreme Court held that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorce. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorce
abroad provided that they are valid according to their national law. The Supreme Court
held that divorce obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in
this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of origin for the determination of the
intrinsic validity of Lorenzo’s will and determine the successional rights allowing proof of
foreign law. The deceased is not covered by our laws on “family rights and duties, status,
condition and legal capacity” since he was a foreigner.
Page | 8
08. RP Vs. Obrecido TRIAL COURT:
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Finding merit in the petition of Cipriano to remarry, the court granted the same.The Republic,
herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the but it was denied.
time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse ISSUES
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of
the solemnization of the marriage. 1. Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him
FACTS OF THE CASE: or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law?
2. WON Cipriano’s petition for authority to remarry will prosper.
On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed with a
son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V . Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V . Orbecido. RULING
In 1986, Cipriano’s wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few 1. The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of
years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. reason, Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the
Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them
certain Innocent Stanley. becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the
CASES FILED: solemnization of the marriage.
Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking 2. No. the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondent’s wife. It is settled rule
that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.
The OSG raises a pure question of law (SC): WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY The court is unable to declare, based on respondent’s bare allegations that his wife, who was
UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY CODE. naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried an
American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could only be
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) made properly upon respondent’s submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor.
PETITIONER (OSG):
The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to the
instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated
between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper remedy, according to the OSG, is to file a
petition for annulment or for legal separation. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law
that governs respondent’s situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not
of judicial determination.
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURT

Page | 9
09. PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORP, BPI-INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LMT, DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
and ATHONA HOLDINGS, petitioner vs CA, DRAGO DAIC, VENTURA
DUCAT, PRECIOSO PERLAS and WILLIAM CRAIG, respondents. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur laoreet nisl ac est
convallis, eget lacinia lacus feugiat. Ut maximus elit sit amet varius porttitor. Aliquam
While the court has given the effect res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was turpis libero, varius ut porta id, cursus vitae erat. Sed sit amet vestibulum velit, non
after the parties opposed to the judgement has been given ample opportunity to repel them tristique eros. Vestibulum in orci sem. Donec ac dictum eros. Mauris commodo dolor a
on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary to initiate a separate proceeding for dictum feugiat. Suspendisse eu urna vehicula, vehicula dui eu, rutrum ligula. Suspendisse
enforcement of the foreign judgement. What is important is the opportunity to challenge the orci tellus, sagittis at nisi quis, facilisis dignissim mi. In efficitur volutpat risus, ut
foreign judgement and for the court to determine its efficacy pellentesque est iaculis vel. Nulla dapibus ornare nibh non ullamcorper.
FACTS OF THE CASE: COURT OF APPEALS:

Ventura Ducat obtained several loans from Ayala and Philsec to the sum USD 2.5M secured Integer varius tempor lacus eget laoreet. In a lacus ullamcorper, rutrum augue sollicitudin,
by the shares of stock owned by Ducat. To facilitate payment, 1488 Inc assumed the mattis velit. Donec sem lorem, sagittis in pellentesque rutrum, efficitur a elit. Quisque
oblgation of Ducat under an Agreement with a Warranty Deed with Vendor’s Lien sold to bibendum egestas leo sed volutpat. Duis rhoncus ut orci sit amet cursus. Morbi non ex
Athona Holdings. The property involved here is a parcel of land in Texas worth 2.8M USD nibh. Fusce ut arcu justo. Nulla pulvinar pretium neque et scelerisque. Integer tempor nunc
PhilSec and Ayala extended a loan to Athona as initial payment for the purchase price. The dapibus hendrerit elementum. Ut eget turpis tincidunt, vestibulum sem eget, vehicula est.
balance is to be paid by a promissory note by Athona for 1488. Duis aliquet pulvinar sollicitudin. Fusce vel mi gravida, fermentum sem ut, dapibus dui.
Duis quis tortor enim. Donec faucibus blandit arcu, sit amet mattis massa. Fusce ultrices
tincidunt finibus.
Athona however failed to pay the interest on the balance. The note now became due and
ISSUES
demandable. 1488 then sued Philsec, Ayala and Athona in the US for the balance and for
damages for breach of contract perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the Morbi ut tincidunt ipsum, semper fermentum purus. Ut feugiat neque ac nunc vehicula, ut
marketability of the shares of stocks to 1488. scelerisque arcu tempor. Mauris et dolor sem. Nullam posuere augue sed vestibulum
pulvinar. Praesent sed felis semper, sagittis diam id, imperdiet ipsum. Nam tincidunt
sagittis ante, non consequat nisl mollis ac. Mauris tincidunt imperdiet elit, a bibendum felis
While Civil Case was pending in the US, petitioners filed for a complaint for sum of money interdum ut. Vestibulum id egestas quam. Vivamus pretium egestas orci id malesuada.
with damages. The allegations of the petitioners in their counterclaims were merely Nam commodo urna metus, ac fringilla odio aliquet vel. Etiam mollis tincidunt est, eu
reiterated that the respondents committed fraud by selling the propertyat a price 400 viverra ligula suscipit nec. Fusce tempor dui ut blandit volutpat.
percent more than its value.
RULING
Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Cras
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) a purus neque. Fusce blandit, massa non tempus accumsan, lorem nunc consequat nisl, sit
amet facilisis odio elit eget diam. Donec tincidunt, felis ac ullamcorper iaculis, orci est porta
RESPONDENT: mi, sed ullamcorper purus nisl ac enim. Sed ante nisi, pretium id elementum nec,
ullamcorper quis metus. Integer nec felis eget nisl convallis ornare ac id risus. Curabitur
Ducat moved to dismiss the civil case on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, (2) forum non laoreet tortor odio, at dictum ligula auctor quis. Nulla condimentum velit ut dui molestie, a
conveniens, and (3) failure to state a cause of action malesuada purus convallis.
Page | 10
10. RAYTHEON INTL INC VS STOCKTON W. ROUZIE JR. The appellate court deferred to the discretion of the trial court when the latter decided
not to desist from assuming jurisdiction on the ground of the inapplicability of the
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: principle of forum non conveniens
When the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial court ISSUES
of its jurisdiction over the case then the court may not desist from assuming
jurisdiction on the ground of the inapplicability of the principle of forum non Were there foreign elements in the instant case sufficient to oust the trial court of its
conveniens. jurisdiction over the case wherein the court may or may not to desist from assuming
jurisdiction on the ground of the inapplicability of the principle of forum non
conveniens?
FACTS OF THE CASE: RULING

BMSI is a corporation organized under the state of Connecticut, USA. It hired No.Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases,
Stockton, a US citizen to represent it in negotiations in obtaining contracts for sale of may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or
services in the form of the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.34
and mudflows with Stockton being remunerated with 10% of the gross receipts. Later Petitioner’s averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient to
on Stockton filed a labor case in the NLRC and another case for damages against oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved.
BMSI, RUST and Raytheon (these 3 had combined to function as one company) bec
To resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to be
he was not paid his commission.
proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently
PETITIONER: 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
They seek the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens power to enforce its decision.28
RESPONDENT: 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
It was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and denied parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-
entering into any arrangement with respondent or paying the latter any sum of of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise
money. of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed.29
This case is an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract.
Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the amount of damages prayed are within
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS the jurisdiction of the RTC.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT: 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
the RTC denied petitioner’s omnibus motion. The trial court held that the factual a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
allegations in the complaint, assuming the same to be admitted, were sufficient for the assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
trial court to render a valid judgment thereon. It also ruled that the principle of forum established, to determine whether special circumstances require the court’s
non conveniens was inapplicable because the trial court could enforce judgment on desistance
petitioner, it being a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS:
Page | 11
11.
Page | 12
12. BANK OF AMERICA V. AMERICAN REALTY RESPONDENT:
The respondent cited the case of People vs. Badilla which talks about the
same issue of right against self-incrimination but in this case the defendants
FACTS OF THE CASE: voluntarily waived their rights. A fact which the SC highlighted in their decision
BANTSA, a corporation recognized to be doing DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

business in the Philippines (petitioner Bank of America) was one of two REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
corporations who, in several occasions, granted multi-million loans to multiple
corporate borrowers all of which were existing under the laws of the Republic of Ruled in favor of respondent ARC, that the filing of
Panama. Due to default in payment, BANTSA entered with the other corporate BANTSA in foreign courts an civil action for collection against the principal debt
borrowers a loan reconstruction plan. As security for the reconstructed loans, operates as a waiver of the security of the mortgages.
private respondent American Realty as a third party mortgagor constituted two real
estate mortgage. COURT OF APPEALS:
Eventually, corporate borrowers failed to pay the Affirmed the decision of the RTC.
reconstructed loan which prompted BANTSA to file civil actions before foreign
ISSUES
courts of the principal loans. It be noted that in the civil actions filed in the foreign
1. Whether the petitioner’s act of filing a civil action for the collection of the principal
courts ARC was not impleaded as a 3rd party mortgagor. However, on the same
debt in foreign courts constitutes as a waiver to exercise his right to foreclose the
year BANTSA filed before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan Philippines,
mortgage?
an application for an extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and then
were later on sold on public auction. RULING
This ultimately prompted private respondent to file in Yes. It is settled in our jurisprudence and rules that a mortgagor creditor
RTC an action for damages against the petitioner for the latter’s act of foreclosing may elect to waive his security and bring, instead, an action to recover the debt
extrajudicially the real estate mortgage despite the pendency of civil suits before subject to the further qualification that if he fails in the remedy elected, he cannot
foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. further pursue the remedy he had waived.
In response to petitioner’s argument regarding the

CASES FILED: (if applicable) rule under English Law, which is the governing law of the principal agreements, the
Action for Damages (see aforementioned reason) court ruled that in our jurisdiction there is no judicial notice of any foreign law.
Thus when a foreign law is not properly pleaded and proved, it shall be presumed
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) to be the same with the Philippines law. This is referred to as “Processual
PETITIONER: Presumption”.
Petitioner argues that the rule prohibiting the mortgagee from foreclosing the
mortgage after an ordinary suit for collection is filed cannot apply for the following However, even assuming arguendo that the English law on the matter was properly
reasons; (1) respondent was not made a party in the civil cases filed in the foreign pleaded and proved in accordance with the Rules of Court said foreign law would
courts of England and Hong Kong; (2) no civil case was filed in the Philippines as the still find no application in our jurisdiction.
cases were filed in foreign courts and that rulings from those courts are not
Additionally, laws which have for their object public order, policy, and good
enforceable in the Philippines unless proven in a separate action.; (3) under english
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgements, or by
law, which is the governing law of the principal agreements, the mortgagee does
determinations, or conventions agreed upon by foreign countries. In this
not lose its security interest in filing civil actions for collection of sums of money.
|| case, the public policy sought to be protected is the principle of splitting up of a single cause
Page | 13
of action under the Civil Rules of Procedure. As ruled, the foreign law should not be applied
when its application would work undeniable justice to citizens or residents of the forum. to
give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law or judgement or contract that
is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.
Page | 14
case at bar, petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law of China
13. YAO KEE VS. SY GONZALES on marriage. In the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it should be
presumed that it is the same as that of the Philippines.
The Supreme Court affirmed (all of them were acknowledged as natural children, hence
given equal rights) the decision of the Court of Appeals.
A custom must be proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence and that a local
custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is
properly established by competent evidence.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Sy Kiat, a Chinese national died in Caloocan City, leaving behind his real and personal
properties in the Philippines worth P 300,000 more or less. Aida Sy-Gonzales, et. al. filed a
petition for the grant of letters of administration claiming among other things that they are
children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego, a Filipina. The petition was opposed by Yao
kee who alleged that she is the lawful wife of the deceased whom he married in China and
that one of her children, Sze Sook Wah, should be the administrator of the deceased.

The CFI decided in favor of Yao Kee’s petition but was modified and set aside by the court
of appeals.
ISSUES
Whether or not Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao Kee in accordance with Chinese Law and Custom
conclusive.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that evidence may prove the fact if marriage between Sy Kiat and
Yao Kee is valid, but it is not sufficient to establish the validity of said marriage in
accordance with Chinese law and custom. A custom must be proved as a fact according to
the rules of evidence and that a local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a
court of justice unless such custom is properly established by competent evidence. In the
Page | 15
14. Recto v. Harden
1. Mrs. Harden cannot bind the conjugal property without the Husband’s consent
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: 2. Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits contingency fees
Although a service contract to obtain a decree of divorce is prohibited in 3. The Service Contract has for its purpose securing a divorce in violation of Articles
our laws, a service contract which has for its purpose the protection of interests
1305, 1352, and 1409 of the Civil Code; and
and rights, in contemplation of a divorce is allowed. Besides, in this case, where the 4. The terms of the contract is harsh, inequitable and oppressive.
subject of the divorce were citizens of the United States, their status and
dissolution are governed by US law which recognizes divorce.
ISSUES
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Whether or not Recto is entitled to the 20% contingent fee.
Respondent Esperanza de Harden engaged the services of Petitioner
Claro M Recto for the purposes of increasing her support from her husband Fred RULING
Harden as well as protecting her rights to the conjugal properties in contemplation
of a divorce. As Harden could not pay Recto right away, their service contract Yes.
stipulated a 20% contingency fee of her share in the conjugal properties as well as
25% of the increase in support. 1st contention: the contract did not seek to bind the entire property of the spouses. The
amount of her share was simply made as the basis of the contingent fee.
After the Japanese Occupation, Petitioner Recto 2nd contention: the Court held that contingent fees are not prohibited in our jurisdiction and
asked the court to reconstitute the records after it was destroyed during the even impliedly recognized in the Canons of Professional Ethics. It is only when attorneys take
occupation. in 1949, the CFI rendered a decision declaring the conjugal properties unfair or unreasonable advantage over a client that such claims are condemned.
to be around P3.8M as well as increasing the monthly support from P1500 to
P2500. 3rd contention: the Service contract merely provides that services be rendered to protect the
rights and interest of Mrs Harden, who contemplated divorce. Procuring the divorce was not
Fred Harden appealed the case. Pending appeal, shown in the language of the contract, nor the intent of the parties. Besides, the Spouses
Petitioner Recto filed a motion and manifestation that Respondent Esperanza de Harden which were admittedly US Citizens, enjoy the status and laws of the United States
Harden and Fred Harden executed an amicable settlement for a sum of $5000. which sanctions divorce.
Recto alleges that this is merely to defeat his claim of his fees.
4th contention: the Court held that one who asks for equity must come with clean hands. In
A commissioner was appointed by the CFI and this case, the Court noted that respondents have not come to court with clean hands as there
recommended that for his work, Recto should be entitled to 20% of the conjugal was no clear explanation on how the spouses (who were shown to still be in a bitter state)
property or a total of P384,110. Respondent Hardens filed this appeal. would reasonably agree on a paltry sum of $5000.
Respondent:
Respondent assails the validity of the service contract

alleging that is is void on the ground that:
Page | 16
15. PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES INC., PHILIPPINE the Philippine courts handling the case for purposes for requiring their attendance during
PIONEER HOLDINGS, PHILP J. KELPZIG, petitioners v. ANTONIO trial. Even if they could be summoned, it would be expensive.
D. TODARO, respondent. [G.R. No. 154830. 8 June 2007] Hence, the case should be dismissed under the principle of forum non conveniens.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: RESPONDENT:

Forum non conveniens – forum is inconvenient; This emerged in private international law to Todaro maintained that factual allegations of the complaint determine whether or not there
deter the practice of global forum shopping, that is to prevent non-resident litigants from was a cause of action. Furthermore, he argued that the complaint was filed based on a
choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to breach of a contractual obligation and not a contract of employment. As to the applicability
secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, respondent argued that for a suit to be entertained
dockets or to select a more friendly venue. A court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse or denied based on this principle, this should be based on the facts of the particular case
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge who is in the best position to decide
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. whether special circumstances require the court to desist assuming jurisdiction.
FACTS OF THE CASE: ISSUES

Todaro was contacted by Pioneer International Limited (Pioneer or PIL), a corporation Whether or not the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a valid ground for the complaint’s
organized under Australian laws, if he was available to join them in establishing a ready-mix dismissal.
concrete plant and other operations in the Philippines. Todaro accepted and joined PIL. They
agreed that PIL will engage the services of Todaro as consultant for 2 to 3 months, after RULING
which he would be employed as manager of PIL’s ready-mix concrete operations should the No. The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to
company decide to invest in the Philippines. PIL started operating in the Philippines, dismiss because the Rules of Court do not include the same as a ground. And even if it is
however, it refused to employ Todaro on a permanent basis. This caused Todaro to file a within the discretion of the trial court t to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground,
complaint for Sum of Money and Damages against PIL, Pioneer Concrete Philippines Inc, and it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
Philip J. Klepzig. circumstances require the court’s desistance.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES The propriety of dismissal of a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires
PETITIONER: a factual determination, hence it is more properly considered a matter of defense. In the
Instead of filing an answer, petitioners moved to dismiss Todaro’s complaint on the ground present case, the factual circumstances cited by the petitioner which would allegedly justify
that there is no cause of action, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the forum non conveniens are matters of defense which should be properly threshed out during
complaint and the same is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, and it should be dismissed on trial.
the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
They argued that the principle of forum non conveniens dictates that where the exercise of
jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may refuse to entertain a case involving a foreign
element where the matter can be better tried elsewhere either because the main aspects of
the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their residence in
a foreign jurisdiction or the case was filed merely to secure procedural advantage or to annoy
or harass the defendant.
They argued that one of the factors in determining the most convenient forum for conflicts
problem is the power of the court to enforce its decision. They contend that since majority of
them are not residents of the Philippines, they are not subject to compulsory processes of
Page | 17
16. BERNABE L. NAVIDA, et al vs. HON. TEODORO A. DIZON, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional of action, which undeniably occurred in the Philippines. First, the plaintiff claimants are all
Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City, SHELL OIL CO., DOW CHEMICAL CO., residents of the Philippines. Second, the specific areas where the alleged exposure to the
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP., STANDARD FRUIT CO., STANDARD FRUIT & STEAMSHIP CO., chemical happened are within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTCs. And lastly, the
DOLE FOOD CO., INC., DOLE FRESH FRUIT CO., DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., DEL testimonial and documentary evidence from important witnesses, such as doctors, co-
MONTE TROPICAL FRUIT CO., CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CHIQUITA workers, family members and other members of the community, would be easier to gather in
BRANDS, INC., the Philippines. Thus, the RTC General Santos City and RTC Davao City obviously have
Topic: Determination of Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction over the subject or nature of the action) reasonable basis to assume jurisdiction over the cases.
Principle: Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the action is determined by the
allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to
recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Here, the tortious acts alleged in the
complaint all occurred in the Philippines. Thus Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
Facts:
Citizens of foreign countries, including Philippines, filed numerous personal injury suits in
Texas state courts seeking for damages due to their exposure to dibromochloropropane
(DBCP), a chemical used to kill nematodes (worms). The Federal District Court dismissed the
complaint and requiring plaintiffs to file their complaint in the courts of their territorial
jurisdiction. In the event the highest court of their country affirms dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction, plaintiffs can return to the District Court for the continuation of the proceedings.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages in the RTC General Santos City and RTC Davao City
against the defendants alleging that their exposure to DBCP used in banana plantation as
workers and residents near the plantation affected their reproductive system.
Both RTCs dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and ruled that the manufacture
and packaging of such chemicals were done abroad and outside the jurisdiction of the
Philippines. Both parties filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 before the SC.
Issue:
Whether RTC General Santos City and RTC Davao City have jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint.
Ruling:
Yes, the injuries and illnesses which the plaintiffs already suffered resulted from their
exposure to DBCP while they were employed in the banana plantation located in the
Philippines or while they were residing within the agricultural areas also located in the
Philippines. The factual allegations in the Amended Joint-Complaints all point to their cause
Page | 18
17.
Page | 19
18.MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK, petitioners, Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign
vs. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO, respondent. authority or tribunal may be proved by:
(1) an official publication

RELEVANT DOCTRINES: While it is true that a foreign law may be proved by a
testimony of an expert witness, the witness must be able to prove the existence of (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official
the foreign law itself. publication or copy must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Walden affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law on damages
Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. not only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific
and/or Chemical Bank for illegally withholding taxes charged against interests on his New York law on damages.
checking account with the Bank and other illegalities.
The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation
and opinion of the facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence
The Bank alleged that Guerrero's account is governed by New York law and this law
without citing any law in particular. The citations in the Walden affidavit of various
does not permit any of Guerrero's claims except actual damages.
U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of the official records or decisions of
the U.S. courts.
The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Bank's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. Alyssa Walden's affidavit stated that Guerrero's There being substantial triable issues between the parties, the courts a quo
New York bank account stipulated that the governing law is New York law and that correctly denied the Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment.
this law bars all of Guerrero's claims except actual damages. The Philippine
Consular Office in New York authenticated the Walden affidavit.
RTC and CA dismissed the bank’s motion for partial summary judgment.
ISSUE: Whether the Walden Affidavit may serve as substantial proof of New York
Law and jurisprudence.
RULING:
NO.
There can be no summary judgment where questions of fact are in issue or where
material allegations of the pleadings are in dispute. The resolution of whether a
foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a question of fact as far as
the trial court is concerned since foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
courts. They are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be
alleged and proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York
law or Philippine law applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on
material allegations which can only be resolved by a trial on the merits.
Page | 20
19. MEROPE ENRIQUEZ VDA. DE CATALAN, Petitioner v. DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
LOUELLA A. CATALAN-LEE, Respondent. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
RTC dismissed Merope’s petition and granted that of Louella. Contrary to the findings in the
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: criminal case, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and Eusebio Bristol was
Divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is valid and subsisting when she married Orlando. Without expounding, it reasoned further that
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. her acquittal in the previous bigamy case was fatal to her cause. Thus, the trial court held
However, before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document that petitioner was not an interested party who may file such petition.
must first be presented and admitted in evidence. courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved
COURT OF APPEALS:
CA affirmed RTC’s decision. Further, it held that the fact that the petitioner had been charged
with bigamy and was acquitted has not been disputed by the petitioner. The deduction of the
FACTS OF THE CASE:
trial court that the acquittal of the petitioner in said case negates the validity of her
Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. He allegedly obtained a divorce in the
subsequent marriage with Orlando had not been disproved by her.
United States from his wife, Felicitas Amor, and subsequently married herein Petitioner
Merope.
Orlando died intestate in 2004. In 2005, Merope filed with the RTC of Dagupan City a petition ISSUES
for the issuance of letters of administration for her appointment as administatrix of the Whether the divorce obtained by Orlando be given effect in our jurisdiction.
intestate estate of Orlando. It was docketed as Spec. Proc. 228. While this case was pending,
Louella, a child of Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition with the RTC which
was docketed as Spec. Proc. 232. The two cases were consolidated. RULING
Yes. Under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction recognizes a valid divorce obtained by
Merope prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. 232 on the ground of litis pendentia, because a spouse of foreign nationality, provided that it is valid under his national law. This doctrine
Spec. Proc. 228 already covered the same estate. was established as early as 1985 in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. Divorce and its legal effects may
be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
Louella, on the other hand, alleged that petitioner was not considered an interested person
qualified to file a petition for the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of However, the fact of divorce must still first be proven as the court. Before a foreign judgment
Orlando, saying that a case for bigamy had been previously filed against her by Felicitas. It is given presumptive evidentiary value, the document must first be presented and admitted
was alleged that Merope had been previously married to Eusebio. in evidence. A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best
evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a written act or
In that bigamy case, it was declared that the marriage between Orlando and Merope was not record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.
valid because (1) Orlando was a divorced American citizen and (2) the divorce he obtained
was not recognized under Philippine jurisdiction. It was also ruled that Merope was not Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or
previously married. official record of a foreign country by either
(1) an official publication or
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
CASES FILED:
Merope filed a Petition for the Issuance of Letters of Administration for her appointment as If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be
administatrix of the intestate estate of Orlando.
Page | 21
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
Philippine Foreign Service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
As to the burden of proving such divorce, the burden of proof lies with the “party who
alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.”
In civil cases, plaintiffs have the burden of proving the material allegations in their answer
when they introduce new matters. It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot
take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved.
In the present case, It appears that the trial court no longer required Merope to prove the
validity of Orlando’s divorce under the laws of the United States and the marriage between
petitioner and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the proceedings to the trial
court for further reception of evidence to establish the fact of divorce.
Should petitioner prove the validity of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, she has the
preferential right to be issued the letters of administration over the estate. Otherwise, letters
of administration may be issued to respondent, who is undisputedly the daughter or next of
kin of the deceased, in accordance with Sec. 6 of Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Page | 22
20. EDGAR SAN LUIS v. FELICIDAD SAN LUIS should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna and not in Makati City. It also ruled that
respondent was without legal capacity to file the petition for letters of administration
because her marriage with Felicisimo was bigamous, thus, void ab initio.
Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved. . COURT OF APPEALS:
Reversed RTC. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, the term "place of residence"
FACTS OF THE CASE:
of the decedent for settlement of the estate, refers to the personal, actual or physical
Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo) was the former governor of the Province of Laguna. During
habitation, or actual residence or place of abode of a person as distinguished from legal
his lifetime, Felicisimo contracted three marriages. The first marriage was with Virginia Sulit
residence or domicile. It noted that although Felicisimo discharged his functions as governor
on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda,
in Laguna, he actually resided in Alabang, Muntinlupa. Thus, the petition for letters of
Emilita and Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. The second was
administration was properly filed in Makati City.
Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias; and Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed
Sagalongos, with whom he had no children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years It also held that Felicisimo had legal capacity to marry respondent by virtue of paragraph 2,
from the time of their marriage up to his death. Article 26 of the Family Code and the rulings in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. Ibay-
Somera. It found that the marriage between Felicisimo and Merry Lee was validly dissolved
Respondent Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the
by virtue of the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit,
settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of
State of Hawaii.
administration before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 146.
CASES FILED: ISSUES

Heirs of Virginia Sulit filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue and failure Whether Felicidad has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration
to state a cause of action.
RULING
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES Felicidad would qualify as an interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of
PETITIONER: Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of which was not denied by
They claimed that the petition for letters of administration should have been filed in the petitioners. If she proves the validity of the divorce and Felicisimo’s capacity to remarry, but
Province of Laguna because this was Felicisimo’s place of residence prior to his death. They fails to prove that her marriage with him was validly performed under the laws of the U.S.A.,
further claimed that Felicidad had no legal personality to file the petition because she was then she may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code.
only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married
to Merry Lee. However, as to respondent’s marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A.,
she submitted photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the annotated text 72 of the
RESPONDENT: Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that their marriage was done in
She presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the State of Hawaii to prove that the accordance with the said law. The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they
marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that must be alleged and proved.
Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her by virtue of paragraph 2, 13 Article 26 of the
Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence
Family Code and the doctrine laid down in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.
on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT:
Denied the two motions to dismiss and its motions for reconsideration, but after re-raffling, it
then dismissed the petition for letters of administration. It held that, at the time of his death,
Felicisimo was the governor and resident of the Province of Laguna. Hence, the petition
Page | 23
21. MINORY FUJIKI v. MARINAY Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Judgment (Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage) A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
The rule on declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages is not
applicable in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment filed by a foreign citizen: DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
He does need to file another action to nullify the already void marriage. He only RTC
needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court. A copy of Dismissed the petition, ruling that the petition grossly violated the
such judgment may be admitted as evidence and proven as fact. provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which states that such petition may be filed
Recognition of foreign judgment relating to the solely by the husband or the wife (so not Fujiki) and that it must be filed in the
status of a marriage where one party is a citizen of a foreign country: The Family Court of the province/city where the petitioner or respondent has been
petitioner need not be the spouse of the prior marriage to recognize foreign residing for at least 6 months prior to the date of filing.
judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his/her spouse and a foreign
citizen on the ground of bigamy. Any person interested in the judgement ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable)
concerning his/her civil status may file for such petition. PETITIONER (FUJIKI):
He contended that the Japanese judgment was
PH courts can recognize foreign judgment in a
consistent with Article 35(4) (bigamous marriages are void from the beginning) of
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry:
the Family Code on bigamy and was therefore entitled to recognition by Philippine
Otherwise, it would have to mean that the PH courts would relitigate the case
Courts.
anew. Recognition of a foreign judgment presupposes that a case has already been
tried and decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the civil status of
ISSUES
foreign citizens under a foreign judgment. They only need to decide whether to
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines.
1. W/N the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages is
FACTS OF THE CASE: applicable.
2. W/N a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize
Petitioner Fujiki is a Japanese national who married Maria Marinay in the foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his/her
Philippines on January 23, 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
parents. Thus, he could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, 3. W/N the RTC can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for
they lost contact with each other.
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court (procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi
the civil registry).
Maekara. Without the 1st marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were
married on May 15, 2008 in the Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. RULING
However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara, so she left him
and started to contact Fujiki. 1. No. The rule does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of
Fujiki and Marinay were able to reestablish their a foreign country.
relationship. They obtained a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
the marriage between her and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
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. A copy of the foreign judgment may be
admitted in evidence and proven as a fact under the Rules of Court.
Page | 24
To hold that the Rule applies to the petition at bar wold mean that it will country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the
litigate the case anew and defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii (Art. 15 of NCC)
judgments. Such petition does not require relitigation.
The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is
2. Yes. Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and fact that
fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under the Rules of inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign
Court. It provides that any person interested in any act, event, order or judgment and the public records in the Philippines.
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.
Thus, Fujiki has the personality to file this petition because the judgment
concerns his civil status as married to Marinay.
3. Yes. Rule 108 provides for the procedure for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry. A petition for correction or cancellation of an
entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a
marriage. A direct action (to nullify a marriage) is necessary to prevent
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage
under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. In
other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere
expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry.
However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation

of a civil registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign judgment
annulling a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign
country.
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.
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
Page | 25
22. LWV CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner v. DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
MARCELO B. DUPO, Respondent; G.R. No. 172342; July 13,
LABOR ARBITER:
2009
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent’s 7-year employment entitled him to the benefit and
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: ordered petitioner to pay respondent P648,526.69 of longevity pay and P64,856.27 of
attorney’s fees.
The courts of the forum will not enforce the one-year prescriptive period under Saudi Labor
Law as regards the claim in question as it would contravene the public policy on the NLRC AND COURT OF APPEALS:
protection to labor.
Upon appeal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter, stating respondent is entitled to longevity
FACTS OF THE CASE: pay, which is different from severance pay. The CA thereafter ruled similarly with the NLRC.
Petitioner recruited and hired respondent to work as a Civil Structural Superintendent in ISSUES
Saudi Arabia for its principal, Mohammad Al-Mojil Group (MMG). In February 1992,
respondent signed the fixed-term, overseas employment contract, renewable after one year. What is the prescriptive period of the claim? Is Dupo’s money claim meritorious?
It was thereafter renewed five times.
RULING
On April 30, 1999, respondent left Saudi Arabia and returned to the Philippines for a
The prescriptive period is 3 years. However, this point has been mooted as respondent
vacation. On July 6, 1999, respondent sent MMG a resignation letter stating he hopes he is
Dupo’s service award has already been paid.
entitled to a long service award, considering he worked for the company for more than 7
years. MMG however, did not respond.
The severance pay received by respondent after the termination of each of his six contracts
CASES FILED: (if applicable) was his service award. Respondent’s service was not cumulative. As respondent’s contract
was for one year, his service award for the sixth contract is equivalent only to half-month’s
On December 11, 2000, respondent filed a complaint for payment of service award against pay plus the proportionate amount for the additional nine days of service he rendered after
petitioner before the NLRC. one year. In this regard, petitioner was right.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) The petitioner, however, erred as to his contention on prescription. Although Section 48 of
our Code of Civil Procedure is a borrowing statute that states “If by the laws of the state or
PETITIONER: country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the
Philippine Islands”, such provision cannot be enforced as it ordains the application in this
Petitioner maintains that MMG pays its workers their service award or severance pay at jurisdiction of [Article] 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976.
every conclusion of their labor contracts. Additionally, under Article 13 of Saudi Labor Law,
the action to enforce payment of the service award must be filed WITHIN ONE YEAR from the The courts of the forum will not enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree
termination of a labor contract for a specific period. Accordingly, action has prescribed as No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claim in question as it would contravene public policy,
respondent had one year from April 30, 1999 to file his complaint. specifically on the protection to labor. What thus applies is Article 291 of the Philippine Labor
Code, which provides for the prescriptive period of 3 years for money claims.
RESPONDENT:
Petition is granted and the LA, NLRC, and CA decisions are reversed and set aside.
Respondent states that he is entitled to longevity pay or service award in accordance with
Article 87 of the Saudi Labor Law, totaling half a month’s pay for the first five years of his
service, and one month’s pay for the subsequent years.
Page | 26
23. ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC PETITIONER:
HEALTH-KUWAIT, petitioners, vs. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, respondent. [G.R. No. Petitioners should not be held liable because respondent’s employment contract specifically
178551 October 11, 2010] stipulates that her employment shall be governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations of
Kuwait.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES:
The party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the law, under Even the Philippine Overseas Employment Act (POEA) Rules relative to master employment
the doctrine of processual presumption. contracts (Part III, Sec. 2 of the POEA Rules and Regulations) accord respect to the "customs,
practices, company policies and labor laws and legislation of the host country."
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be
alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a Assuming arguendo that Philippine labor laws are applicable, given that the foreign principal
copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. is a government agency which is immune from suit, as in fact it did not sign any document
agreeing to be held jointly and solidarily liable, ATCI cannot be held liable, more so since the
FACTS:
Ministry’s liability had not been judicially determined as jurisdiction was not acquired over it.
Repondent Josefina Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of its
principal-co-petitioner, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical
technologist under a two-year contract, denominated as a Memorandum of Agreement ISSUE:
(MOA), with a monthly salary of US$1,200.00. Whether or not petitioners should be held liable under Philippine Laws.
RULING:
Under the MOA, all newly-hired employees undergo a probationary period of 1 year and are
covered by Kuwait’s Civil Service Board Employment Contract No. 2. Respondent was Yes. ATCI, as a private recruitment agency, cannot evade responsibility for the money claims
deployed on February 17, 2000 but was terminated from employment on February 11, 2001, of Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which it deploys abroad by the mere expediency of
she not having allegedly passed the probationary period. As the Ministry denied her request claiming that its foreign principal is a government agency clothed with immunity from suit, or
for reconsideration, she returned to the Philippines on March 17, 2001, shouldering her own that such foreign principal’s liability must first be established before it, as agent, can be held
air fare. jointly and solidarily liable.
On July 27, 2001, respondent filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private recruitment agencies with their
complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner ATCI as the local recruitment agency, foreign principals, R.A. No. 8042 (Sec. 10 on money claims) precisely affords the OFWs with a
represented by petitioner, Amalia Ikdal, and the Ministry, as the foreign principal. recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient payment of what is due them. The
imposition of joint and solidary liability is in line with the policy of the state to protect and
DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS alleviate the plight of the working class.
LABOR ARBITER:
As to petitioners’ contentions that Philippine labor laws on probationary employment are not
Labor Arbiter, finding that petitioners neither showed that there was just cause to warrant
applicable since it was expressly provided in respondent’s employment contract, which she
respondent’s dismissal nor that she failed to qualify as a regular employee, held that
voluntarily entered into, that the terms of her engagement shall be governed by prevailing
respondent was illegally dismissed and accordingly ordered petitioners to pay her
Kuwaiti Civil Service Laws and Regulations as in fact POEA Rules accord respect to such rules,
US$3,600.00, representing her salary for the three months unexpired portion of her contract.
customs and practices of the host country, the same was not substantiated.
NLRC: It is hornbook principle that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied petitioner’s MR. burden of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case,
petitioners failed to discharge.
COURT OF APPEALS:
CA affirmed the NLRC resolution and denied petitioner’s MR.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Page | 27
The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only be
alleged; they must be proven. 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.
To prove the Kuwaiti law, petitioners submitted the following: MOA between respondent and
the Ministry, as represented by ATCI, which provides that the employee is subject to a
probationary period of 1 year and that the host country’s Civil Service Laws and Regulations
apply; a translated copy (Arabic to English) of the termination letter to respondent stating
that she did not pass the probation terms, without specifying the grounds therefor, and a
translated copy of the certificate of termination, both of which documents were certified by
Mr. Mustapha Alawi, Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs-Office of Consular Affairs
Inslamic Certification and Translation Unit; and respondent’s letter of reconsideration to the
Ministry, wherein she noted that in her first 8 months of employment, she was given a rating
of "Excellent" albeit it changed due to changes in her shift of work schedule.
These documents, whether taken singly or as a whole, do not sufficiently prove that
respondent was validly terminated as a probationary employee under Kuwaiti civil service
laws. Instead of submitting a copy of the pertinent Kuwaiti labor laws duly authenticated and
translated by Embassy officials thereat, as required under the Rules, what petitioners
submitted were mere certifications attesting only to the correctness of the translations of the
MOA and the termination letter which does not prove at all that Kuwaiti civil service laws
differ from Philippine laws and that under such Kuwaiti laws, respondent was validly
terminated.
Page | 28
24. Bank of America v. CA 1. YES, Court clarified that a complaint states a cause of action where it contains three
essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of the plaintiff,
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant, and (3) the act or omission of the
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts of law defendant in violation of said legal right. If these elements are absent, the
cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to
or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies state a cause of action.
elsewhere.
In the case at bar, the complaint contains the three elements of a cause of action. It
FACTS OF THE CASE: alleges that: (1) plaintiffs, herein private respondents, have the right to demand for
an accounting from defendants (herein petitioners), as trustees by reason of the
Private Respondents Litonjuas were engaged in the shipping business.
fiduciary relationship that was created between the parties involving the vessels in
Petitioner Bank induced them to take out a loan since their business were doing
question; (2) petitioners have the obligation, as trustees, to render such an
well. Petitioner acquired through Litonjuas, as borrowers, an addition 4 vessels. The
accounting; and (3) petitioners failed to do the same.
registration, operation, income and possession and control was left to the Litonjuas
and their corporations. 2. No. The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning the forum is
inconvenient, emerged in private international law to deter the practice of global
Subsequently, the Litonjuas filed a case before the forum shopping, that is to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum
RTC alleging that Petitioner Bank, as trustees, failed to fully render an accounting of or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to secure
income which resulted in the loss of their 6 vessels and 10% of their personal funds procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded
as well as the unpaid balance of their loan.
dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts
of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most
Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of
convenient or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action against them before the RTC and
remedies elsewhere.
CA which were dismissed.
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said doctrine
depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the sound
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) discretion of the trial court. In the case of Communication Materials and Design,
Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held that xxx [a] Philippine Court may assume
Petitioner:
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following
requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
1. The registered owners of the vessels are the corporations, and not the Litonjuas
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an
themselves, thus they are not the proper parties to the case.
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the Philippine Court
2. The CA should have dismissed the case on the ground of forum non conveniens.
has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. Evidently, all these requisites
3. Respondents are guilty of forum shopping since there is a pending foreign case.
are present in the instant case.
3. No, Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and
ISSUES where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. Parenthetically,
for litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action there must be: (a) identity of
1. Whether or not private respondents have a cause of action to file the case. the parties or at least such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b) identity of
2. Whether or not the case should be dismissed on the ground of forum non rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same acts; and (c) the
conveniens. identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment which may be rendered in one
would, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other.
RULING
Page | 29
In case at bar, not all the requirements for litis pendentia are present. While there may
be identity of parties, notwithstanding the presence of other respondents, as well as the
reversal in positions of plaintiffs and defendants, still the other requirements necessary for
litis pendentia were not shown by petitioner. It merely mentioned that civil cases were filed
in Hongkong and England without however showing the identity of rights asserted and the
reliefs sought for as well as the presence of the elements of res judicata should one of the
cases be adjudged.
Page | 30
25. EDI Staffbuilders v. NLRC [G.R. No. 145587, October 26, 2007] LABOR ARBITER:
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Favored EDI and said that there was a valid ground for dismissal. Respondent Gran
is inefficient and is not qualified.
Processual Presumption - An international law doctrine where a foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the NLRC:
same as ours. Our rules on quitclaim or waiver shall apply only to labor contracts of
OFWs in the absence of proof of the laws of the foreign country agreed upon to Did not agree with the Labor Arbiter and in fact, reversed the LA’s decision. It said
govern said contracts. that there was no valid ground for Gran’s dismissal. It ordered the petitioners to pay
jointly and severally to Gran the amount of USD 16,150 as unpaid salaries.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
COURT OF APPEALS:
EDI recruited Gran, ESI deployed Gran to work for Omar Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est.
(OAB) in Saudi Arabia as “Computer Specialist.” The terms of employment offered Affirmed the NLRC.
included monthly salary of Saudi Riyal (SR) 2,250.00 or USD 600.00. Gran accepted
an employment contract which said that the monthly salary was for USD 850.00 for 2 ISSUES
years. Hence, there was a discrepancy, Gran thought it was USD 850 but he only Whether or not the labor laws of Saudi Arabia apply as stated in the employment
received USD 600. contract or Philippine labor laws?
Saudi Arabian laws does not provide for twin notice requirement prior to termination,
unlike in the Philippine setting. Twin notice means that - first, you inform the
RULING
employee of his fault; and second, you inform him that you are terminating his The employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws
employment. In this case, Gran was just immediately informed that his employment is will govern matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for
terminated without even affording the right to defend himself. termination, termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties (lex
loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters
CASES FILED: (if applicable) relating to the termination of the employment of Gran.
Upon arrival in the Philippines, Gran filed a complaint against ESI/EDI, OAB, Country In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or
Bankers Insurance Corp. and Western Guaranty Corp. for underpayment of wages case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a
and illegal dismissal. question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter
cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable) forum law.
PETITIONER: Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter;
thus, the International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual
Petitioner ESI/EDI said that there was no underpayment or illegal dismissal. He was presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded,
validly dismissed due to insubordination, disobedience and failure to submit reports. is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply
Philippine labor laws in determining the issues presented before us.
RESPONDENT:
Philippine Laws on labor should apply. While it was agreed in the employment
contract that Saudi Arabian Laws should apply, it was not properly presented and
proven by petitioner.
Page | 31
26.
Page | 32
27. GERBERT R. CORPUZ vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS circumstances. She also requested to be considered as a party-in-interest with a
similar prayer to Gerbert.
Articlr 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy PETITIONER (Gerbert Corpus)
against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a Gerbert asks for the determination of his rights under the second
foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, contending that the provision applies to
Code provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the benefit of the alien spouse. He claims that he is a property party to institute the
the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien case as there is a possibility that he might be prosecuted for bigamy if he marries
spouse. his new Filipina fiancee in the Philippines since 2 marriage certificates involving him
will be filed with the Civil Registry Office.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
On November 29, 2000, Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former Filipino citizen, DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS
acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization. On January 18, 2005, Gerbert RTC
married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. Due to work and other personal The RTC denied Gerbert’s petition and concluded that Gerbert was not
commitments, Gerbert for Canada soon after the wedding. On April 2005, Gerbert the proper party to institute the action as he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. The
returned to the Philippines to surprise Daisylyn, but he was shocked to discover RTC ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy under the second
that his wife was having an affair with another man. Gerbert returned to Canada paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.
and filed a petition for divorce. On December 8, 2005, the petition for divorce was
approved by the Superior Court of Justice of Canada, and was to take effect on ISSUES
January 8, 2006. Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens
the right to petition a court of the Philippines for the recognition of a foreign
2 years later, Gerbert found another Filipina to love. divorce decree.
Wanting to marry his new Filipina fiancee, Gerbert went to the Pasig City Civil
Registry Office and registered his divorce decree on his marriage certificate with RULING
Daisylyn. Despite such registration, Gerbert was informed by a NSO official that (1) No. The substantive right established by the second
his marriage with Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law, and (2) for the divorce paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is in favor of the Filipino spouse. As
decree to be enforceable, it must first be judicially recognized by a competent correctly stated by the RTC, the questioned provision is included in the law to avoid
Philippine court. 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.
On November 29, 2000, Gerbert R. Corpuz, a former
Filipino citizen, acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization. On January However, the unavailability of the second paragraph
18, 2005, Gerbert married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina. Due to work and other of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal
personal commitments, Gerbert for Ca interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree as the
decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have
CASES FILED: (if applicable) been duly proven, serves as a presumptive right in favor of Gerbert. Such
presumptive right can be overcome by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice
Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC.
Considering Article 26 of the Family Code and the
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES obvious conformity of Daisylyn with the petition, the Court deems it proper to
RESPONDENT (Daisylyn Sto. Tomas)
remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The order of the RTC is
Daisylyn posed no opposition to Gerbert’s petition and alleged her desire
reversed.
to file a similar case herself but was prevented by financial and personal
Page | 33
Page | 34
28. Philippine Export v. VP Eusebio joint venture. They however, failed to pay. Thus, a case for collection for a sum of money
was filed.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: Foreign law must be properly pleaded in
order for the court to take notice.
RTC ruled the Philguarantee had no valid cause of action due to the fact that the delay was
Jurisdiction and Choice of law are two distinct concepts. It should be noted that when a not caused by the respondents but by the acts of the SOB. CA affirmed.
conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative
agency, there are three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, ISSUES
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 What law should be applied in the case of the joint venture?
jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of some other State or
States. Hence, it is always possible that our courts have jurisdiction, yet in the resolution of
the dispute it may apply a foreign law. RULING
FACTS OF THE CASE: The question of whether there is a breach of the agreement pertains to the intrinsic validity
of a contract. No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly provided for in
The State Organization of Buildings (SOB) and the Ministry of Housing in Iraq awarded the
our jurisdiction. The rule followed by most legal systems is that the intrinsic validity of a
construction of the Institute of Physical Therapy-Medical Rehabilitation Center to Ayjal
contract must be governed by lex contractus (proper law of the contract). This may be the
Trading Corp for $18 million.
law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (lex loci voluntais) or the law intended by them
either expressly or intentionally (lex loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied
Spouses Santos, in behalf of 3-Plex Intl, a local contractor engaged in the construction from factors from factors such as substantial connection with the transaction, or the
business, entered into a JVA with Ayjal for the construction of the project. However, 3-Plex is nationality, or domicile of the parties. Philippine courts adopt this: to allow the parties to
not accredited with the Philippine Overseas Construction Board (PCOB) but nevertheless select the law applicable to their contract, subject to the limitation that it is not contrary to
assigned to transfer all its rights and interests to VPECI. law, morals, public order, and public policy.
In this case, the service contract between SOB and VPECI does not contain an express
The SOB required the contractors to post a bond of 5% the total price. To comply with this
choice of law. The laws of Iraq have a substantial connection to the agreement because it
requirement 3-plex and VPECI applied with Philguarantee to issue guarantee for the bond.
was drafted in Iraq, and the project is in Iraq. However, the foreign law was not pleaded.
But SOB required a guarantee from Rafdain Bank of Baghdad, and not Philguarantee. A
Therefore, processual presumption applies. According to Art. 1169 of the NCC, in reciprocal
compromise was made and the Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait was chosen to post a counter
obligations, no party incurs delay if the other party does not comply or is not ready to
guarantee. Afterwards, the SOB and the joint venture of VPECI and Ayjal executed the comply in a proper manner what is incumbent upon him.
service contract. The project was not completed.
As correctly found by the lower courts, the delay was caused to factors outside the control
Upon seeing the impossibility of completing the project in time, the joint venture worked for of the joint venture, but rather the fault of the SOB. Applying the NCC, the joint venture
the renewal of the performance bond. However, Al Ahli Bank sent a demand for the full did not incur delay.
payment of its counter guarantee. Upon receipt, VPECI requested the Iraq Trade Minister to
recall the demand made by the bank for being in contravention of their agreement that the
penalty will be held in abeyance until completion of the project.
Philguarantee received a telex from Al Ahli Bank that it already paid Rafidain Bank.
Philguarantee remitted to Al Ahli Bank and subsequently demanded payment from from the
Page | 35
29. NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO, for and in behalf of her minor child RODERIGO NORJO VAN
WILSEM, Petitioner, DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS: The RTC dismissed the instant criminal case against
vs. respondent on the ground that the facts charged in the information do not constitute an
ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, Respondent.
offense with respect to the respondent who is an alien.
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED RULING:

Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to 1. YES. While it is true that Respondent is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine
law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of
takejudicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to support
Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law
CASE FILED applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. While Ernst pleaded
the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his
FACTS: Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They son, he never proved the same. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must
bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is
Thereafter, Norma and her son came home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst
the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
made a promise to provide monthly support to their son. However, since the arrival of unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if
petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to Roderigo. Respondent the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor
remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines particulary in Cebu where the penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the
petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial
for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court support when the latter is entitled thereto.
dismissed the complaint since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an
2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner is living
offense with respect to the accused, he being an alien.
here in the Philippines and committed the offense here.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
Article 1953 of the Family Code provides the parent’s obligation to support his child.
Notwithstanding the existence of a divorce decree issued in relation to Article 26 of the
Family Code, respondent is not excused from complying with his obligation to support his
minor child with petitioner.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
There is no sufficient and clear basis presented by petitioner that she, as well as her minor
son, are entitled to financial support. By reason of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated to
petitioner for any financial support.
ISSUES:
1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the
Philippine law?
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No.
9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.
Page | 36
30. Orion Savings Bank vs Shigekane Suzuki RULINGS OF LOWER COURTS
RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: RTC: Suzuki was an innocent purchaser for value whose rights prevailed over Orion.
When a foreign law is not pleaded or proven, the presumed-identity approach or processual CA: Ruled in favor of Orion’s appeal but upheld Suzuki’s right over the properties. Orion filed
presumption is applied which provides that the foreign law is presumed to be the same as Ph an MR but was denied. Hence this case (Petition for Review under Rule 45) was elevated to
law. the SC.
It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of ISSUE
the country where it is located. Lex loci rei sitae.
Whether the sale is void for lack of spousal consent.
Property relations between spouses are governed principally by the national law of the
spouses. RULING
FACTS OF THE CASE: NO.
Suzuki (Japanese) bought from Yung Sam Kang (Korean) a condominium unit and a parking First, the invalidity of the sale for lack of spousal was raised belatedly raised, it was raised
slot (located at Cityland Pioneer, Mandaluyong), for which a Deed of Absolute Sale (Aug 26, only on appeal to the CA. Well-settled is the rule that arguments not brought to the attention
2003) was executed. However, the titles to the property was not yet delivered as it was of the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
allegedly in the possession of Alexander Perez (Orion Savings’ Loan Officer) for safekeeping. Assuming arguendo that it was raised seasonably, it would not still invalidate the sale.
Kang (who left Ph) ultimately failed to deliver the titles despite several demands. Suzuki then It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of
learned, by inquiring with Mandaluyong City Registry of Deeds, that the title to the the country where it is located. Lex loci rei sitae. This principle governs all rules on descent,
condominium unit and parking lot contained no existing encumbrances (past annotations on alienation and transfer of immovable property, and the validity, effect, and construction of
the title to the condo were already cancelled) but it remained under the ownership of conveyances.
Cityland Pioneer.
On the other hand, property relations between spouses are governed principally by the
Suzuki executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim in order to protect his interests. Suzuki national law of the spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a foreign law has
demanded the delivery of the titles but Orion (through Perez) refused as he needed to the burden of proving the same. It is not a matter of judicial notice. The party must comply
consult with Orion’s legal counsel first. with Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
Orion then informed Suzuki that Kang obtained another loan in the amount of 1.8million In sum, matters on the issue of disposition of real property shall be governed by Philippine
pesos and executed a dacion en pago (Feb 2, 2003) which was registered only on October 15, law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by South
2003. Korean law, provided it is proven. Orion, however, failed to prove South Korean law on
Suzuki then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Kang and Orion. spousal consent. It merely attached a Certification from the Embassy of Korea which is
insufficient as it does not comply with Sec 132 on authentication.
When a foreign law is not pleaded or proven, the presumed-identity approach or processual
PETITIONER (Orion): presumption is applied, which provides that foreign law is presumed to be the same as Ph
law. But even applying Ph law, the phrase “Yung Sam Kang married to Hyun Sook Jung” is
The Deed of Sale between Suzuki and Kang is null and void because it is not in accordance merely descriptive of the status of Kang and does not relate to the conjugal nature of the
with Korean law which requires spousal consent on any conveyance of property. (argument property which would then warrant spousal consent.
raised on appeal)
Hence, Orion’s petition is DENIED.
Page | 37

Conflict Compiled Batch 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict Compiled Batch 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE LOYALISTS | EH 404 | CASE DIGESTS IN CONFLICT | BATCH ONE

RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

CASE FILED: Petition for certiorari and Prohibition

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS: Respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged

DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS: N/A

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable)

CASES FILED: (if applicable)

DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURT

FACTS OF THE CASE: COURT OF APPEALS:

FACTS OF THE CASE: RULING

BANTSA, a corporation recognized to be doing DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

In response to petitioner’s argument regarding the

FACTS OF THE CASE:

DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

CASES FILED: (if applicable)

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES (if applicable)

Respondent assails the validity of the service contract

RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED: RESPONDENT:

FACTS OF THE CASE: ISSUES

(1) an official publication

CASES FILED: ISSUES

DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or cancellation

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

In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are

Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS

RELEVANT DOCTRINES DISCUSSED RULING:

FACTS OF THE CASE: NO.

You might also like