Conflict of Laws Midterm Examinations Atty. Roderick S, Cipriano On December 18, 1971, a cargo was discharged in Sta. Ana port of Cagayan unto the custody of the consignee and thus a corresponding claim on the damages sustained by the cargo was filed by the Jose Moko to herein defendant Maritime Company of the Philippines on May 4, 1972. Upon the denial of the claim for damages, the plaintiff filed on June 11, 1973 in the Regional Trial Courts of Aparri, Cagayan a complaint involving three causes of action based on the three (3) different and separate shipments. However, on December 11, 1974, the first and, second cause of action was dismissed based on comprom seat the third cause of action w; issed without judice. Thus the third cause of action was on January 6, (owner the defendant now fted-an answer with affirmative fense of prescription. However, the plaintiff claimed that the filing of an extrajudicial demand tolled the running of the - prescriptive period in accordance with Article 1155 of the Civil \NVOLVE: peve!D\ Code \oss aby qgway.t- Whether or not the Carriage of Goods by the Sea Act governs the case with respect to the issue on prescription (10 pts)f) OF GUS Whether or not the claim on the damages sustained by the cargo filed by the plaintiff to the defendant tolled the running of NES ea : Ae i the prescriptive period (10 pts) H ‘old © Granting that there was an insurer upon the goods and that the 10, no Pewnp tw said insurer undertook to pay the consignee the value of the On insuraty, damage of the goods on June 30, 1973, may this insurer be bound by the prescriptive period provided for by the law? (10 pts) (Simplicio Grifio was invited to participate in the 1993 ASEAN Annual Golf Tournament in Jakarta, Indonesia. He decided to te-hllea purchase a ticket with the following points of passage: Manila- Singapore-Jakarta-Singapore-Manila. In the route from Manila to Singapore was through Philippine Airlines while the leg flown from Singapore to Jakarta is through Singapore Airlines. Upon his arrival in Singapore on October 3, 1993, Singapore Airlines rejected his ticket because Philippine Airlines failed to endorse his pe me aly Waly pyubeet Sw errnt of and vr ba foe = pliqe abe yal oy | orga b odd of aye o G yr Godt nach [petmring Abeat—Gul> one Gen! HI hy hy a Pohyinm — ahreen o+ putnicd pe fe tryst of «pars a iliby fF walubhe minvel repens af Veneto a flannel Ararat ON Wyte teh pawnsConflict of Laws Midterm Examinations Atty. Roderick S. Cipriano ticket to the former. Because of what happened, Simplicio simply (‘bought a ticket from another airlines with Garuda Airlines and w y | boarded its last flight to Jakarta and when he arrived at Jakarta, it was followed by a nerve-wracking experiences where he eventually made him ill and unable to participate in the tournament, Aside from this his baggage was lost and could not be located. ‘ Upon his return in the Philippines, Simplicio brought the matter to the attention of Philippine Airlines through a demand letter on December 20, 1993 and Singapore Airlines on March 21, 1994. Both disowned the liability and blamed each other. Thus this instant case against both Philippine Airlines and Singapore Airlines for his distress and the loss of his baggage. —~e@ Whether or not the cause of action of Simplicio is governed by the Civil Code or the Warsaw Convention (10 pts) wnt {cama Whether or not the claim of Simplicio prescribed (10 pts) ND Whether or not Philippine Courts has jurisdiction over the case ‘against Philippine Airlines and Singapore Airlines (10 pts) wR Mario Brothers went to the Florida and obtained a status as ‘a citizen thereof on June 6, 1980 and since then have maintained a __ residence in the said state. Sometime in June 6.1999, he met -{ } Lucia Go, an American citizen who, after their marriage in the same year, gave him a sop), Patrick Brothers, on July 30, 1991. Upon the passage of Republic Act No. 9225, Mario forthwith took his oath of allegiance with the Republic of the Philippines on is 2009p 2005 and registered as an absentee voter on January wih Z 15, 2004 pefore the Philippine Embassy. As per COMELEC advice, his registtation was denied because the Overseas Absentee Voting, \ ‘Act was not enacted for them. Thus a petition for Certiorari against the COMELEC. Can Mario Brothers be allowed to register as an absentee voter? (10 pts) YES ,reoamusthen 4 ohisting 2 cial 64 gla! yh J, &) Jacot, a natural born Filipino citizen, naturalized in the United States on December 13, 1989, applied for the reacquisition of his Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 with the Philippine Consulate General of Los Angeles, California, On June 19, 2006, the Philippine Consulate General issued an order of approval and Jacot subsequently took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.Conflict of Laws = alttough yervunced Atty. Roderick S. Cipriano Midterm Examinations 0) jresicheny equi t a fa dhe yer petition ¢Fonounee ie US Citizenship as required by Repub 1 —tacot arexed that his Oath of Allegiance and the Oath cont: v.)) Carmencita was an Australian citizen + Republic Act No. 9225,whe On March 26, 2007, Jacat filéd his certificate 9 position of Vice Mayor of Catamaran in itionfor Jacot’s disqualification on the ¢ his certificate of candidacy operated as an effective renunciation of zenship. Is Jacot qualified to run as the Vice his Baiiippine Mayotof Catamaran? (10 pts) YE (Bay alow aby ch aut bs n who is a beneficiary of ¢ took her Oath of Allegiance to the om AU 5. Republic of the-Phitippines on October 3, 2012 and executed ai Ce Affidavit off neiatieh of Australian Citizenship on October 1.5}. 2012, = hi On May 13, 2013, she was one of the candidates for the position of 4~y"" Mayor in the City of Tuguegarao. Ramon Carlo sought to deny due course the Certificate of Candidacy of Carmencita on the ground that there are material misrepresentations in her COC particularly her citizenship, and residence. Is Carmencita qualified to run as the Mayor of the City of Tuguegaraof (10 pts) “ES ,teored ref born \p vi. \Churva Cannon died intestate on May 20, 1998 in New Jersey and 9 eft some properties here and abroad. One of these properties are Certifi ates_of Stocks/“Which are in the possession of the {40? ~aaministrator of her estate before the courts in New Jersey. These IC ~wny ote Certificates of Stocks are evidence of her ownership of the stocks in Tuguegarao City/Corp) Echo Cera, the administrator of her estate herein the Philippines, moved for the court to issue an order ordering Tuguegarao City Corp. to produce the said certificates of stocks. Upon the refusal of the Tuguegarao City Corp. to obey the said order, the Regional Trial Court issued an order to consider the said certificates of stocks as lost and thereby directing the corporation to cancel the said certificates and issue a new one to Echo Cera in favour of the estate of Churva Cannon. May Regional Trial Court issue an order to cancel the certificates of stocks in the Possession of the administrator of Churva Cannon in New Jersey? (ao pts) 5, quirements for a Valid Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement. (10 pts bonus) ¢ 5