Norma Del Socorro (Roderigo) v Ernst Johan
Brinkman van Wilsem
GR NO 193707 | Dec 10, 2014 | Peralta
Facts:
 Norma and Ernst contracted a marriage in
Holland on Sept 25,1990.
 On Jan 19, 1994, they were blessed with a
son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem,
who at the time of filling of the instant
petition was 16 y/o.
 Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended on
July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree
issued by the appropriate court of Holland.
At that time, their son was 18 months old.
 Thereafter, petitioner and her son came home
to the Philippines.
 Accdg to petitioner, respondent made a
promise to provide monthly support to their
son in the amount of 250 Guildene (which is
equivalent to Php 17,500 more or less).
 However, since the arrival of petitioner and
her son in PH, respondent never gave support
to their son.
 Respondent came to PH and remarried in
Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then, have
been residing thereat.
 Respondent and his new wife established a
business known as Paree Catering.
 To date, all the parties, including their son
are presently living in Cebu.
 On Aug 28, 2009, petitioner through her
counsel, sent a letter demanding for support
from respondent. However, respondent
refused to receive the letter.
 Petitoner filed a complaint with the
Provincial Prosec of Cebu against respondent
for violation of Sec 5, par 2 of RA No. 9262
for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his
minor child with petitioner.
 RTC issued a HDO against respondent.
 Petitioner, also filed a Motion/ Application
of Permanent Protection Order to which
respondent filed his Opposition.
 Respondent filed a Motion to dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged and prescription of the crime
charged.
 On Feb 2010, RTC assailed the 1 st order and
dismissed the criminal case on the ground
that the respondent is an alien.
 Petitioner filed for MoR – legal basis Art 195
of family Code.
 RTC denied.
Issue: W/N the foreign respondent is liable for
his unjustified failure to support his minor
child.
Held:
Yes, he is liable.
The court agree with the respondent thet
petitioner cannot rely on Art 195 of the NCC in
demanding support from respondent, who is a
foreign citizen, since Art 15 of the NCC stresses
the principle of nationality. In other, words,
insofar as PH laws are concerned, specifically the
provisions of the Family Code on support, the
same only applies to Filipino citizen.
Since the respondent is a citizen of Holland or
the Netherlands, the Court agree with RTC-Cebu
that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to
PH laws, as to whether he is obliged to give
support to his child.
However, this does not mean that respondent
is not obliged to support petitioner’s son
altogether. In intl law, the party who wants to
have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case
has the burden of proving the foreign law. In the
present case the respondent hastily concludes that
being a nat’l of the Netherlands, he is governed
by such laws on the matter of provision and
capacity of support, and as he stated the laws of
the nethe, he is not obliged to support his son. HE
NEVER PROVED THE SAME.
FAILURE TO PROVE THE NAT’L LAW OF
THE NETHERLANDS IN HIS FAVOR, THE
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION SHALL GOVERN. THUS,
THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT PROVED, IT IS
PRESUMED THAT THE LAW IS SAME WITH
THE PH LAW.
Yao kee vs Sy-Gonzales
Gr No. 55960 | Nov 24, 1988 | Cortes
Facts:
 Sy Kiat, a chinese national, died on Jan 17,
1977, in Caloocan City where he was then
residing, leaving behind real and personal
properties here in the Philippines worth
3000,000 Php more or less.
 After his death, Aida Sy- Gonzales, manuel
SY, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy
filed a petition.
 In said petition they alleged among others
that they are the children of the deceased
with Asuncion Gillego, and to their
knowledge Sy Kiat died intestate and they do
not recognize Sy Kita’s marriage to Yao Kee
nor the filation of her children to him, and
they nominate Aida for appointment as
administratix of the intestate estate of the
deceased.
 The petition was opposed by Yao Kee and
her children, who alleged that: (1) Yao kee is
the lawful wife of Sy Kiat whom he married
on Jan 19, 1931 in China; (2) the other
oppositors are the legitimate children of the
deceased with Yao Kee; (3) Sze Sook Wah is
the eldest among them and is competent,
willing and desirous to become the
administratrix os the estate of Sy Kiat.
 The probate court, finding among others that
the petitioners are the legal wife and
legitimate children of the deceased.
 CA affirmed and modified.
 Petitioners argue that the marriage of Sy
Kiat to yao kee in accordance with
Chinese law and custom was conclusively
proven To buttress this argument they
rely on the ff testimonial and documentary
evidence.
 She and Sy Kiat were married for 46
years already and the document was
left in China and she doubt if that
document can still be found now; that
it was left in the possession of Sy
Kiat’s family; that right now, she does
not know the whereabouts of that
document because of lapse of many
years and because they left it in a
certain place and it was already eaten
by the termites; that after her wedding
with Sy Kiat, they lived immediately
together as husband and wife; that Sy
Kiat went to Ph sometime in March or
April of the same year they were
married.
 To support her statements, she presented Sy
Kiat’s mastercard of registered alien, which
states that he is married with her.
Issue: Can the marriage of Sy Kiat and Yao
Kee be recognized in the PH.
Held:
No, the marriage of the two cannot be
recognized in the PH as Yao Kee failed to
sufficiently establish the validity of said
marriage in accordance with Chinese law or
custom.
In proving a foreign law the procedure is
provided in the Rules of Court. (130 (45), (25)).
In the case at bar, petitioners did not present any
competent evidence relative to the law and
custom of China on marriage. The testimonies of
Yao and Gan Ching cannot be considered as
proof of China’s law or custom on marriage not
only because they are self-serving evidence, but
more importantly, there is no showing that they
are competent to testify on the subject matter.
For failure to prove the foreign law or custom,
and consequently, the validity of the marriage
in accordance with said law or custom, the
marriage between Yao Kee and SY Kiat
cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction.
Accordingly, in the absence of proof of the
Chinese Law on marriage it should be
presumed that it is the same as ours.
Since Yao admitted in her testimony that there
was no solemnizing officer as is known here in
the PH, when her alleged marriage to Sy Kiat was
celebrated, it therefore follows that her marriage
to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in
this jurisdiction.
IPAMS, SNC Lavalin Engr and contractors,
InC vs Jose De Vera and Alberto Arriola
GR NO. 205703 | March 7, 2016 | Mendoza
Facts:
 Petitioner Industrial Personnel &  They claimed that SNC- Lavalin was greatly
Management Srvices is a local placement
agency duly organized and existing under Ph
laws, with petitioner Angelito as its president.
 SNC Lavalin is the principal of IPAMS, a
Canadian company with business interest in
several countries.
 Respondent Arriola is a licensed general
surgeon in the PH.
 Arriola’s Argument
 He was offered by SNC Lavalin, through
its letter dated May 1, 2008, the position of
Safety Officer in its Abatovy Project site in
Madagascar. (CAD 32/ hour for forty hours
a week with overtime pay in excess of 40
hours.).
 It was a period of 19 months starting from
June 9, 2008 to Dec 31, 2009.
 Arriola was then hired by SNC Lavalin,
through its local manning agency, IPAMS,
and his overseas employment contract was
processed with POEA.
 On June 5, 2008, SNC Lavalin confirmed
Arriola’s assignment in the AMbatovy
Project. He signed the contract of
employment in the PH.
 On June 9, 2008, Arriola started working in
Madagascar.
 After 3 months, Arriola received a notice of
pre-termination of employment dated Sept
9, 2009, from SNC Lavalin. It stated that
his employment would be pre-terminated
effective Sept 11, 2009 due to diminishing
workload in the area of his expertise and
the unavailability of alternative
assignments.
 Consequently, on Sept 15 2009, Arriola
was repatriated.
 SNC lavalin deposited CAD 2,638, based
on Candian Labor law.
 Arriola filed a complaint at Labor Arbiter
that SNC still owed him, more or less,
1,062,936 Php.
 He insisted that the petitioners must
prove the applicability of Candian law
before the same could be applied to his
employment contract.
 Respondents’ arguments:
 They denied the charge of illegal dismissal
against them.
affected by the global financial crises
during the latter part of 2008.
 As proof of its looming financial standing,
SNC presented a copy of a news item in the
Financial Post, dated Mar 5,2009, showing
decline of the value of its stocks. Thus, it
had no choice but to minimize its
expenditures and operational expenses.
 It re-organized its Health and Safety Dept at
the Ambatovy Site and Arriola was one of
those affected.
 They also invoke EDI Staffbuilders case,
pointing out that particular labor laws of a
foreign country incorporated in a contract
freely entered into between and OFW and a
foreign employer through the latter’s agent
was valid.
 Thus, as all of Arriola’s employment
documents were processed in Canada, not
to mention that SNC’s office was in
Ontario, the principle of lex loci
celebrationis was applicable. Thus, the
petitioner insisted that Canadian laws
governed the contract.
 They stated the the pre-termination of
Arriola’s contract was valid for being
consistent with the provisions of both
Expatriate Policy and laws of Canada
which didn’t require any ground for early
termination of employment, and the only
requirement was the written notice of
termination.
 LA ruling: dismissed Arriola’s complaint for
lack of merit.
 NLRC reversed the LA decision and ruled that
Arriola was illegally dismissed by the peti.
 CA affirmed that Ariola was illegally
dismissed by the peti. Presenting ESA doesn’t
mean that the said foreign law automatically
applies, it should be in harmony with the
Consti.
Issue:
Is the foreign law applicable in this case, and
not the Ph Law.
Held:
No, the foreign law is not applicable in the
present case and the Ph laws shall govern.
Base on the foregoing, the general rule is
that PH LAWS apply even to overseas
employment contracts. This rule is rooted in the
constitutional provision of Sec 3, Art XIII that
the State shall affords full protection to labor,
whether local or overseas. Hence, even if the
OFW has his employment abroad, it does not
strip him of his rights to security of tenure,
humane condition of work and a living wage
under our Consti.
As an exception, the parties may agree
that a foreign law shall govern the employment
contract. But it should comply with the ff
requisites:
1. That is expressly stipulated in the overseas
employment contract that a specific foreign
law shall govern - (If this is absent, no foreign
law expressly stipulated in the contract, then
THE DOMESTIC LABOR LAWS APLLY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF
LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS)
2. That the foreign law invoked must be
proven before the courts pursuant to the Ph
rules on evidence. (If this is lacking, then the
international law DOCTRINE OF
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
OPERATES)
3. That the foreign law stipulated in the
overseas employment contract must not be
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy of the PH ( If this is
not met, then PH laws govern.)
4. That the overseas employment contract
must be processed through the POEA (then
Art 18 of Labor Code is violated)
In other words, lacking any one of the 4
requisites would invalidate the application
of the foreign law, and the Ph law shall
govern the overseas employment contract.
In this case, the petitioners were able to
present the ESA, duly authenticated by the
Canadian authorities and certified by the Ph
embassy. (2nd requisite).. and the forth
requisite was also followed because Arriola’s
employment contract was processed through
POEA.
However, the petitioners did not meet the first
and third requisite. Because no foreign law
was expressly stipulated in the overseas
employment contract with Arriola. And they
failed to show on the face of the contract that a
foreign law was agreed upon by the parties.
Further it was shown that the overseas labor
contract was executed by Arriola in Batangas.
Thus, due to the absence of first requisite, the
doctrine of lex loci contractus applies and the
PH laws shall govern the employment of
Arriola.
The 3rd requisite is also not complied with the
petis.
In fine, as the petis failed to meet all the 4
requisites on the applicability of a foreign
law, then the Ph labor laws must govern the
overseas employment contract of Arriola.
Tenchavez v Escaño
Gr No. L-19671 | Nov 29, 1965| Reyes, JBL
Facts:
 Missing her late-afternoon classes on Feb 24
1984 in the USC, Cebu City, where she was
 enrolled as a 2nd year student of commerce, in this case, at the time the divorce decree
Vicenta Escaño, 27 yrs of age, exchanged was issued, Vicenta, like her husband was still a
marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 Filipino citizen. Thus, She was the subject to PH
years of age, an engr, ex-army officer and of laws. S
undistinguished stock, without the
knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic The foreign divorce between Filipino
chaplain, LT Moises Lavares, In the house of citizens, sought and decreed after the effecrivity
one Juan Alburo. of the present CC, is not entitled to recognition as
 Mamerto and Mena Escano (Vicenta’s valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the
parents) were surprised, because Pastol never marriage contracted with another party by
asked for the hand of Vicenta, and were divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign
disgusted because of great scandal that the decree of divorce, entitled to validity in this
clandestine marriage would provoke. country.
 Thereafter, Vocenta continued living with
her parents while Pastor returned to his job in
Manila.
 As of June 1948, the newlyweds were
already estranged.
 On Aug 22, 2950, she led a verified
complaint for divorce against the plaintiff in
the 2nd judicial Dist Court of the State of
Nevada in and for the country of Washoe, on
the ground of “extreme cruelty, entirely
mental in character”.
 On Oct 21, 1950, a decree of divorce, “final
and absolute”, was issued in open court by
the said tribunal.
 On Sept 13, 1954, Vicenta married an
American, Russell Moran, in Nevada. She
now lives with himin California and had
children.
 Vicenta claimed a valid divorce from
plaintiff and an equally valid marriage with
russell.

Issue:
Is the divorce filed by Vicenta in the Dist
Court of the state of Nevada, is binding in the
PH?

Held:
No, the divorce is not binding in the PH.

Art 15 of the CC of the PH was already in force

at the time, expressly provide:
“Laws relating to family rights and duties or to
the status, condition and legal capacity of person
are binding upon the citizens of the PH even
though living abroad”