Doctrine: International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or

processual presumption; real or immovable property is exclusively subject

to the laws of the country or state where it is located (lex loci rei sitae)

Case Title: Orion Savings Bank vs. Suzuki; GR No. 205487; November
12, 2014 (J. Brion) (Nov. 12, 2014)

Facts:

Suzuki, a Japanese national, met Soneja to inquire about a condominium

unit and a parking lot at Cityland Pioneer allegedly owned by Kang, a
Korean national. Soneja informed Suzuki that the unit and parking lot were
for sale and likewise assured Suzuki that the titles were clean. The parties
agreed at the price of P2.8M.

Suzuki issued to Kang a cheque worth P100,000.00 as reservation fee and

P2,700,000.00 representing the price. Suzuki and Kang executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale and the former took possession of the condominium unit
and parking lot, and commenced the renovation of the interior of the
condominium unit.

Kang thereafter made several representations with Suzuki to deliver the

titles to the properties, which were then allegedly in possession of
Alexander Perez (Perez, Orion's Loans Officer) for safekeeping. Despite
several verbal demands, Kang failed to deliver the documents. Suzuki later
on learned that Kang had left the country, prompting Suzuki to verify the
status of the properties with the Mandaluyong City Registry of Deeds.
Suzuki learned that the titles to the properties remained in possession of
Perez. To protect his interests, Suzuki then executed an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim with the Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong City. Suzuki
demanded the delivery of the titles. Orion, (through Perez), however,
refused to surrender the titles.

Suzuki filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against

Kang and Orion.

Issues:
Whether or not the Deed of Sale executed by Kang in favor of Suzuki is null
and void because under Korean law, any conveyance of a conjugal
property should be made with the consent of both spouses;

Held: It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is

exclusively subject to the laws of the country or state where it is located
(lex loci rei sitae). However, property relations between spouses are
governed principally by the national law of the spouses. Thus, matters
concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be governed by
Philippine law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property
shall be governed by South Korean law, provided it is proven as a fact

Matters concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be

governed by Philippine law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of
the property shall be governed by South Korean law, provided it is proven
as a fact.

In the present case, Orion, unfortunately failed to prove the South Korean
law on the conjugal ownership of property. It merely attached a
"Certification from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea" to prove the
existence of Korean Law. This certification, does not qualify as sufficient
proof of the conjugal nature of the property for there is no showing that it
was properly authenticated by the seal of his office, as required under
Section 24 of Rule 132.

The International Law doctrine of presumed-identity approach or

processual presumption comes into play, i.e., where a foreign law is not
pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is that foreign
law is the same as Philippine Law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of

merit.  Costs against petitioner Orion Savings Bank.

Doctrine: The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to

the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided.

Case Title: NMSMI vs. DND, GR No. 187587; (SERENO, CJ) June 5,
2013

Facts: Former President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 208, amending

Proclamation No. 423, (which reserved parcels of land in the Municipalities of
Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City for a military
reservation.) The military reservation, then known as Fort William McKinley,
was later on renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio which excluded a certain area of
Fort Bonifacio and reserved it for a national shrine. The excluded area is now
known as Libingan ng mga Bayani, which is under the administration of herein
respondent MSS-PVAO.

In 1986, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending

Proclamation No. 423, which excluded barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper
Bicutan and Signal Village from the operation of Proclamation No. 423 and
declared it open for disposition under the provisions of Republic Act Nos.
(R.A.) 274 and 730. 

At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a

handwritten addendum.

President Corazon C. Aquino (Aquino) issued Proclamation No. 172 which

substantially reiterated Proclamation No. 2476, as published, but this time
excluded Lots 1 and 2 of Western Bicutan from the operation of Proclamation
No. 423 and declared the said lots open for disposition under the provisions of
R.A. 274 and 730. 

Memorandum Order No. 119, implementing Proclamation No. 172, was

issued on the same day. 

Through the years, informal settlers increased and occupied some areas of
Fort Bonifacio including portions of the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Thus,
Brigadier General Fredelito Bautista issued General Order No. 1323 creating
TFB, primarily to prevent further unauthorized occupation and to cause the
demolition of illegal structures at Fort Bonifacio. 

Members of petitioner Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc.

(NMSMI) filed a Petition with the COSLAP. The Petition prayed for the
following: 
1. the reclassification of the areas they occupied, covering Lot 3 of SWO-
13-000-298 of Western Bicutan, from public land to alienable and
disposable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476; 
2. the subdivision of the subject lot by the Director of Lands; and 
3. the Land Management Bureau’s facilitation of the distribution and sale
of the subject lot to its bona fide occupants.
Petitioner (WBLOAI) filed a Petition-in-Intervention substantially praying for
the same reliefs as those prayed for by NMSMI with regard to the area the
former then occupied. 

COSLAP issued a Resolution granting the Petition and declaring the portions
of land in question alienable and disposable, with Associate Commissioner
Lina Aguilar-General dissenting.

COSLAP ruled that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was an

integral part of Proclamation No. 2476, and was therefore, controlling. The
intention of the President could not be defeated by the negligence or
inadvertence of others. Further, considering that Proclamation No. 2476 was
done while the former President was exercising legislative powers, it could not
be amended, repealed or superseded, by a mere executive enactment. Thus,
Proclamation No. 172 could not have superseded much less displaced
Proclamation No. 2476, as the latter was issued on October 16, 1987 when
President Aquino’s legislative power had ceased. 

Issues: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the subject
lots were not alienable and disposable by virtue of Proclamation No. 2476
on the ground that the handwritten addendum of President Marcos was not
included in the publication of the said law.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled applying the ruling in Tanada vs. Tuvera
to the instant case. It held that the Court cannot rely on a handwritten note
that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication,
the note never had any legal force and effect.

Furthermore, under Section 24, Chapter 6, Book I of the Administrative

Code, "the publication of any law, resolution or other official documents
in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie evidence of its
authority."  Thus, whether or not President Marcos intended to include
Western Bicutan is not only irrelevant but speculative. Simply put, the courts
may not speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the
words appearing in the law. 

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petitions are hereby

DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 97925 dated 29 April 2009 is AFFIRMED in toto.
Accordingly, this Court's status quo order dated 17 June 2009 is hereby
LIFTED. Likewise, all pending motions to cite respondent in contempt is
DENIED, having been rendered moot. No costs.