1. CADALIN VS. POEAG.R. No.

L-104776December 5, 1994
Facts:
On June 6, 1984, Cadalin, Amul and Evangelista, in their own
behalf and on behalf of 728 other OCWs instituted a class suit
by filing an “Amended Complaint” with the POEA for money
claims arising from their recruitment byASIA 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
construction; while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a
service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino
workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign
principals. The amended complaint sought the payment of the
unexpired portion of the employment contracts, which was
terminated prematurely, and secondarily, the payment of the
interest of the earnings of the Travel and Reserved Fund;
interest on all the unpaid benefits; area wage and salary
differential pay; fringe benefits; reimbursement of SSS and
premium not remitted to the SSS; refund of withholding tax not
remitted to the BIR; penalties for committing prohibited
practices; as well as the suspension of the license of AIBC and
the accreditation of BRII On October 2, 1984, the POEA
Administrator denied the “Motion to Strike Outof the Records”
filed by AIBC but required the claimants to correct the
deficiencies in the complaint pointed out. AIB and BRII kept on
filing Motion for Extension of Time to file their answer. The
POEA kept on granting such motions. Claimants filed an
opposition to the motions for extension of time and asked that
AIBC and BRII declared in default for failure to file their
answers. The POEA Administrator issued an order directing
AIBC and BRII to file their answers within ten days from receipt
of the order
On June 19, 1987, AIBC finally submitted its answer to the
complaint. At the same hearing, the parties were given a period
of 15 days from said date within which to submit their
respective position papers. On October 27, 1988, AIBC and BRII
filed a “Consolidated Reply,” POEA Adminitartor rendered his
decision which awarded the amount of $824, 652.44 in favor of
only 324 complainants. 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 Decree No. 23 on June 16, 1176, otherwise
known re the Labour Law for the Private Sector.
NLRC promulgated its Resolution, modifying the decision of the
POEA. The resolution removed some of the benefits awarded in
favor of the claimants. NLRC denied all the MRs. Hence, these
petitions filed by the claimants and by AlBC and BRII.
Issue:
Whether or not the Bahrain law on prescription based on the
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription
shall apply.
Ruling:
The Philippine law will apply.As a general rule, a foreign
procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural
matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period
andrequisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws
of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a
foreign substantive law. A law on prescription of actions is sui
generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that itmay be 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 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
to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims
based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of
“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 has not run against
it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said
Section provides:
“If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action
arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippine
Islands.
 2. https://www.scribd.com/document/424104424/Conflict-
of-laws-cases

3. AZNAR vs. GARCIA

G.R. No. L-16749
January 31, 1963
FACTS: EDWARD Christensen died testate. The estate was
distributed by Executioner Aznar according to the will, which
provides that: Php 3,600 be given to HELEN Christensen as her
legacy, and the rest of his estate to his daughter LUCY
Christensen, as pronounced by CFI Davao.
Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed
by Helen, insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as an
acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us an
acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward in an
earlier case.
As to his citizenship, we find that the citizenship that he
acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento from
1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines, and
the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of
California by the fact that when he executed his will he
declared that he was a citizen of that State; so that he appears
never to have intended to abandon his California citizenship by
acquiring another. But at the time of his death, he was
domiciled in the Philippines.
ISSUE: what law on succession should apply, the Philippine law
or the California law?
HELD: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed and the case returned to the lower court with
instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on
succession provides.
The law that governs the validity of his testamentary
dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which is as follows:
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 successions, 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 where said
property may be found.
We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its
conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman, its
internal law. If the law on succ ession and the conflict of laws
rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own
intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re
Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article
946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in
California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of
resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of
matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the
general principle of American law that the domiciliary law
should govern in most matters or rights which follow the
person of the owner.

4. Testate estate of amos bellis, et al. vs. Edward a. bellis

G.R. No. L-23678            June 6, 1967
FACTS:
 Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the
United States.
 By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he
had 5 legitimate children: Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis
(who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis,
Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman
 By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he
had 3 legitimate children: Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis
and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate
children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam
Palma Bellis
  August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the
Philippines dividing his estate as follows:
1.    $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen
2.    P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis,
Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis
3.    remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his
first and second wives
 July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A
 September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in
the CFI of Manila on
 People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will
did as the will directed
 Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their
respective oppositions on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children
 Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it
applied the national law of the decedent, which in this
case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.
ISSUE: W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern
the intrinsic validity of the will

HELD: YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

 Doctrine of Processual Presumption:
  The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be
proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise, such
law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the
law of the forum.
 In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule
of Texas, it should not be presumed different from
ours.  Apply Philippine laws.
 Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render
applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate or
testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a)
the order of succession; (b) the amount of successional
rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will;
and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that —
 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 successions, 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 he the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found.
 5. https://www.scribd.com/document/272337270/CON-of-
LAWS-Case-Digest

6. Bank of America vs American Realty Corporation

GR 133876 December 29, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner granted loans to 3 foreign corporations. As security,
the latter mortgaged a property located in the Philippines
owned by herein respondent ARC. ARC is a third party
mortgagor who pledged its own property in favor of the 3
debtor-foreign corporations.
The debtors failed to pay. Thus, petitioner filed collection suits
in foreign courts to enforce the loan. Subsequently, it filed a
petition in the Sheriff to extra-judicially foreclose the said
mortgage, which was granted.
On 12 February 1993, private respondent filed before the Pasig
RTC, Branch 159, an action for damages against the petitioner,
for the latter’s act of foreclosing extra-judicially the real estate
mortgages despite the pendency of civil suits before foreign
courts for the collection of the principal loan.
Issue:
WON petitioner’s act of filing a collection suit against the
principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before foreign
courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure.
Held: Yes.
1. Loan; Mortgage; remedies:
In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage
creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a
personal action or debt or a real action to foreclose the
mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either of the two
remedies, but not both. By such election, his cause of action
can by no means be impaired, for each of the two remedies is
complete in itself.
In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage
creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. Notably,
an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other.
For this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of
the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an
action for foreclosure of mortgage. As to extrajudicial
foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage
creditor upon filing of the petition not with any court of justice
but with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where the sale
is to be made.
In the case at bar, petitioner only has one cause of action which
is non-payment of the debt. Nevertheless, alternative remedies
are available for its enjoyment and exercise. Petitioner then
may opt to exercise only one of two remedies so as not to
violate the rule against splitting a cause of action.
Accordingly, applying the foregoing rules, we hold that
petitioner, by the expediency of filing four civil suits before
foreign courts, necessarily abandoned the remedy to foreclose
the real estate mortgages constituted over the properties of
third-party mortgagor and herein private respondent ARC.
Moreover, by filing the four civil actions and by eventually
foreclosing extra-judicially the mortgages, petitioner in effect
transgressed the rules against splitting a cause of action well-
enshrined in jurisprudence and our statute books.

7. J.A Sison vs. Board of Accountancy

G.R. No. L-2529 DEC 31 1949
Facts:

The Board of Accountancy issued a CPA certificate to a British

national named Robert Orr Ferguson to practice his profession
in the Philippines without examination.  The issuance of the
said certificate was questioned by herein petitioner on the
ground that there is no reciprocity between the Philippines and
the United Kingdom as regards the practice of accountancy.

To resolve this matter, the Board of Accountancy suspended

the validity of the CPA certificates until it can be proven that (a)
Filipinos are allowed to take the professional accountant
examination given by the British government, if any, and (b)
Filipino certified public accountants can, upon application, be
registered as chartered accountants or granted similar degrees
by the British Government." This resolution is based on the
findings that there is no law which regulates the practice of
accountancy in England.  However, the Philippine Accountancy
Law explicitly provides that the suspension or revocation of the
certificate issued under the said Act may be done by the
board  for unprofessional conduct of the holder or other
sufficient cause. The Secretary of Justice further said that he
believes that "the change in administrative interpretation with
respect to the existence of reciprocity between the Philippines
and Great Britain as to the practice of accountancy," does not
constitute sufficient cause for the suspension or revocation of
the certificates in question within the meaning of said
provision.

Issue:

W/N the issuance of the CPA certificates was valid in the

absence of reciprocity between the Philippines and the British
Government?

Ruling:
Yes it is valid as it comes within the realm of comity as
contemplated in our law.  Comity is defined as the recognition
which one nation allows within its territory the acts of foreign
governments and tribunals, having due regard both to the
international duty and convenience and the rights of its own
citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its
laws.

The British minister in a note sent to the President of the

Philippines wrote that that qualified Philippine citizen are
allowed to practice the profession of accountancy including
income tax accounting, in the United Kingdom since there is no
governmental control of the accounting profession in the said
country and any resident of the United Kingdom, of whatever
nationality, may engage in the profession of accounting without
formality.

Therefore, the SC finds no reason why Robert Orr Ferguson

who had previously been registered as certified public
accountants and issued the corresponding certificate public
accountant in the Philippine Islands, should be suspended from
the practice of his profession in these Islands. 

8. LLORENTE VS. CA                                                         

   G.R. No. 124371 , November 23, 2000

FACTS:

In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a Filipino, was enlisted in the

U.S. Navy. In 1937, he and Paula Llorente got married in
Camarines Sur. In 1943, Lorenzo became an American citizen.

In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the Philippines for a vacation. He

discovered that Paula was already living illicitly with Ceferino
Llorente, a brother of Lorenzo and the two even have a son. 

Lorenzo then refused to live with Paula. He also refused to give

her monetary support. Eventually, Lorenzo and Paula agreed in
writing that Lorenzo shall not criminally charge Paula if the she
will agree to waive all monetary support from Lorenzo. Later,
Lorenzo returned to the US.
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In 1958, Lorenzo married
Alicia Fortuno. They had three children.

In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will and testament where he

left all his estate to Alicia and their children and left nothing for
Paula. In 1983, Lorenzo went to the court for the will’s probate
and to have Alicia as the administratrix of his property. In 1985,
before the probate proceeding can be terminated, Lorenzo
died. Later, Paula filed a petition for letters of administration
over Lorenzo’s estate.

RTC ruled that Lorenzo’s marriage with Alicia is

void because the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo
Llorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore
the marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato on January 16,
1958 at Manila is likewise void.

The CA affirmed the trial court decision.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Lorenzo’s divorce abroad should be

recognized in the Philippines.

HELD:
YES. It is undisputed by Paula Llorente that Lorenzo became an
American citizen in 1943. Hence, when he obtained the divorce
decree in 1952, he is already an American citizen.

 Article 15 of the Civil Code provides, Laws relating to family

rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad.

9. http://noobcasedigest.blogspot.com/2019/02/fir
st-philippine-international-bank-vs.html