Suntay vs. Suntay – GR Nos.

L-3087 & L-3088 (July 31, 1954)

Facts:

In 1934, Jose B. Suntay, a Filipino citizen and a resident of the Philippines, died in Amoy, China. He left real and
personal properties in the Philippines and a house in Amoy. During his lifetime, he married twice. The first wife was
Manuela Cruz, with whom he had several children. The second marriage was with Maria Natividad Lim Brillian,
with whom he had a son, petitioner Silvino Suntay. Intestate proceedings were instituted by the heirs from the first
marriage.

While the second wife, the surviving widow who remained in Amoy China, filed a petition for the probate of the last
will and testament of the deceased which was claimed to have been executed and signed in the Philippines on
November 1929. The petition was denied due to the loss of the will before the hearing thereof.

After the Pacific War, Silvino claimed to have found, among the records of his father, a last will and testament in
Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased on January, 1931 and probated in the Amoy District Court.
He filed a petition in the intestate proceedings for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November
1929 or the will executed in Amoy China on November, 1931.

Issue:
Whether or not the will executed in Amoy, China can still be validly probated in the Philippines. – NO. Held:

The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China is a probate court must be proved. The law of China on
procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of the
will in China in 1931 should also be established by competent evidence.

There is no proof on these points. In the absence of proof that the municipal district court of Amoy is a probate court
and on the Chinese law of procedure in probate matters, it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of
probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts are the same as those provided for in our laws on the subject. It is
a proceeding in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all
interested parties must be made.

The evidence shows that no such notice was received by the interested parties residing in the Philippines. The
proceedings had in the municipal district court of Amoy, China, may be likened to a deposition or to a perpetuation
of testimony, and even if it were so, it does not measure or come up to the standard of such proceedings in the
Philippines for lack of notice to all interested parties.

Furthermore, the order of the municipal district court of Amoy, China, which reads, as follows:

x x x The above minutes were satisfactorily confirmed by the interrogated parties, who declare that there are no
errors, after said minutes were loudly read and announced actually in the court.

x x x does not purport to probate or allow the will which was the subject of the proceedings. In view thereof, the will
and the alleged probate thereof cannot be said to have been done in accordance with the accepted basic and
fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills.

Consequently, the authenticated transcript of proceedings held in the municipal district court of Amoy, China,
cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the probate or allowance of a will and, therefore, the will
referred to therein cannot be allowed, filed and recorded by a competent court of this country.
Pakistan International Airline vs Ople (1990)

Doctrine: While parties to a contract may establish stipulations, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, they may not contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions dealing with
matters heavily impressed with public interest.

Facts:

1.

2. 3. 4.

5. PIA submitted a position paper claiming that Farrales and Mamasig were
6. Regional Director ordered reinstatement and payment of full back wages or in the alternative payment of
their salaries for the remainder of the 3-year period.
1. They have attained status of regular employees
2. The provision stipulating a three-year period of employment is null and void for violating LAbor

Code provisions on regular employment

3. Dismissal without clearance from MOLE entitles employees to reinstatement

7. Deputy Minister affirmed the RD’s order.
8. PIA filed a petition for certiorari before the SC.

a.

What law governs the relationship of the parties to the contract?

Held/Ratio: PHILIPPINE LAW

1. Art 1306 of the Civil Code provides: The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy.

2. Pakistan International Airline (PIA) is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the PH. 2 separate
contracts of employment with Farrales and Mamasig were entered into by PIA in Manila. The contracts
became effective in 1979. The contracts contained provisions—
Providing for the term of 3 years extendible upon mutual consent of the parties
That PIA reserves the right to terminate the employee either by giving notice 1 month before the
date of termination or one month’s salary
“This agreement shall be construed and governed under and by the laws of Pakistan, and only
the Courts of Karachi, Pakistan shall have the jurisdiction to consider any matter arising out of
or under this agreement.”
After their training period, Farrales and Mamasig commenced their services as flight attendants with base
station in Manila.
1 year and 4 months before the lapse of the 3-year period, counsel for the local branch of PIA sent
Farrales and Mamasig notices expressing that their services will be terminated a month thereafter.
Farrales and Mamasig filed a joint complaint for illegal termination and non-payment of company benefits
before the then Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE)
Issue/s:

. The law relating to labor and employment is clearly such an area and parties are not at liberty to insulate
themselves and

their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. It is thus
necessary to appraise the contractual provisions invoked by petitioner PIA in terms of their consistency with
applicable Philippine law and regulations. habitual absentees; that both

were in the habit of bringing in from abroad sizeable quantities of "personal effects"; and that PIA

personnel at the Manila International Airport had been discreetly warned by customs officials to advise

private respondents to discontinue that practice.

PIA’s relationship with Farrles and Mamasig was governed by the provisions of its contract rather

than by the general provisions of the Labor Code

The governing principle is that parties may not contract away applicable provisions of law especially

peremptory provisions dealing with matters heavily impressed with public interest

1
3. The employment contracts were inconsistent with Arts. 280-281 of the Labor Code
4. In the case of Brent School vs Zamora, the Court ruled that contracts of employment providing for a fied

period are not necessarily unlawful. The presence or absence of a substantial indication that the period
specified in an employment agreement was designed to circumvent the security of tenure of regular
employees which is provided for in Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code is crucial.

5. The provision in the contracts with PIA allowing for termination of services upon notice or payment of one
month’s salary was intended to prevent any security of tenure from accruing in favor of private
respondents even during the limited period of three (3) years, and thus to escape completely the thrust of
Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code by rendering their employment at the pleasure of PIA.
6. PIA cannot take refuge in paragraph 10 of its employment agreement which specifies,
1. The relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable
Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some
other law to govern their relationship.
2. A cursory scrutiny of the relevant circumstances of this case will show the

:
 i. the contract was not only executed in the Philippines, it was also performed here, at

least partially;

ii. private respondents are Philippine citizens and respondents, while petitioner, although

a foreign corporation, is licensed to do business (and actually doing business) and hence

resident in the Philippines;

iii. private respondents were based in the Philippines in between their assigned flights to

the Middle East and Europe.

All the above contacts point to the Philippine courts and administrative agencies as a proper
forum for the resolution of contractual disputes between the parties. Under these circumstances,
paragraph 10 of the employment agreement cannot be given effect so as to oust Philippine
agencies and courts of the jurisdiction vested upon them by Philippine law.

3. Finally, and in any event, the petitioner PIA did not undertake to plead and prove the contents of
Pakistan law on the matter; it must therefore be presumed that the applicable provisions of the
law of Pakistan are the same as the applicable provisions of Philippine law

Digested by: Rea (A2015)

Asiavest v. CA

G.R. No. 110263

July 20, 2001
Ponente: DELEON, JR

  The petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a corporation organized

under the laws of Malaysia
  Private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation is a corporation
duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws.
  In 1983, petitioner initiated a suit for collection against private respondent before the
High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
  Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up in
favor of private respondent to guarantee the completion of the Felda Project and the
nonpayment of the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the completion of
Paloh Hanai and Kuantan By Pass; Project.
  On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division) rendered
judgment in favor of the petitioner and against the private respondent
  The private respondent was asked to pay 5,108,290.23 Ringgits
  Following unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from private respondent under
the judgment, petitioner initiated on September 5, 1988 the complaint

before Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, to enforce the judgment of

the High Court of Malaya

  The RTC of Manila and the CA denied the motion for lack of want of jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over the PNCC ot
the private respondent

Contentions of Private Respondent: (more of the rules of procedure)

1. The Malaysian High Court did not serve the summons to the right persons

a. The summons was sent to the accountant of the PNCC, Cora Deala; she is not authorized to
receive the summons for and in behalf of the private respondent.

2. And that there is no lawyer who will defend or act in behalf of the private respondent

a. According to Abelardo, the private respondent’s executive secretary said that there is no
resolution granting or authorizing Allen and Glendhill (the said to be lawyers of the company) to
admit all the claims of the petitioner.
3. That the decision of the Malaysian High Court is tainted with fraud and clear mistake of
fact/law; since there is no statement of facts and law given which the award is given in favor of
the petitioner.

Held: Petition Granted. The Malaysian High Court acquired jurisdiction over PNCC due to the
following ground:

1. Due to the fact that the rules of procedure (such as those serving of summons) are governed by
the lex fori or the internal law forum—which is in this case is Malaysia

a. it is the procedural law of Malaysia where the judgment was rendered that determines the
validity of the service of court process on private respondent as well as other matters raised by it.

i. Since the burden of proof of showing that there are irregularities in the serving of summons as
to the procedural rules of the Malaysian high court should be shouldered by the private
respondents; however, the private respondent failed to show or give proof in the said
irregularities therefore the PRESUMPTION of validity and regularity of service of summons and
the decision rendered by the High Court of Malaya should stand.

2. On the matter of alleged lack of authority of the law firm of Allen and Gledhill to represent
private respondent, not only did the private respondent's witnesses admit that the said law firm of
Allen and Gledhill were its counsels in its transactions in Malaysia.

a. but of greater significance is the fact that petitioner offered in evidence relevant Malaysian
jurisprudence to the effect that

i. it is not necessary under Malaysian law for counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court
to submit a special power of attorney authorizing him to represent a client before said court,

ii. that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court has full authority to compromise the
suit

iii. that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court need not comply with certain pre-
requisites as required under Philippine law to appear and compromise judgments on behalf of
their clients before said court.

3. On the ground that collusion, fraud and, clear mistake of fact and law tainted the judgment of
the High Court of Malaya, no clear evidence of the same was adduced or shown. Since the
burden of proof again should be shouldered by the private respondent

a.

As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs matters of remedy and
procedure.

i.
Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaya, a valid judgment may
be rendered even without stating in the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is
based, then the same must be accorded respect and the courts in the jurisdiction cannot
invalidate the judgment of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise.