VICTORIA REGNER VS CYNTHIA LOGARTA
order for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the respondents,
537 SCRA 277 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
summons must be served upon them. Further, the certificate is
Service of Summons – Personal Action – Real Action –
indivisible, Cynthia’s and Teresa’s interests thereto can only be
Extraterritorial Service
determined if both are summoned in court.
FACTS: In personal actions, if the respondents are residents of the Cynthia Logarta and Teresa Tormis were the daughters of Luis
Philippines, they may be served summons in the following
Regner in his first marriage with Anicita Regner. Victoria
order:
Regner is the second wife of Luis. 1.
Personal Service;
In 1999, Victoria alleged that Cynthia and Teresa with the help
2.
If (1) is not possible, Substituted Service;
of another sibling defrauded Luis, who was then very ill and
3.
If respondent can’t be found because he is abroad but still
was unable to write, into placing his thumbmark into a Deed of
a resident of the Philippines, by publication with leave of
Donation. In said Deed, Luis purportedly donated a Proprietary
court.
Ownership Certificate pertaining to membership shares in the
In personal actions still, if the respondents are non-residents,
Cebu Country Club. Victoria alleged that said Deed is void
they may be served summons in the following manner:
because the placing of thumbmark by Luis was done without the latter’s free will and voluntariness considering his physical
1.
Personal service through the Philippine embassy;
state; that it was done without Luis’s lawyer; that the ratification
2.
By publication in a newspaper of general circulation in
made by Luis before he died is likewise void because of similar
such places and for such time as the court may order, in
circumstances.
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known
In the same year, Victoria filed a complaint to annul said deed
address of the defendant; or
with the RTC of Cebu. The sheriff could not deliver the
3.
summonses against Cynthia and Teresa because apparently,
The above must be with leave of court.
in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient.
although they are Filipinos, they are not residing here; they are residing in California. It was only in the year 2000 that one of
In the case at bar, Cynthia was never served any summons in
the summonses was served to one of the sisters, Teresa,
any of the manners authorized by the Rules of Court. The
when she came back to the Philippines.
summons served to Teresa cannot bind Cynthia. It is incumbent upon Victoria to compel the court to authorize the
Teresa immediately filed a motion to dismiss on the ground
extraterritorial service of summons against Cynthia. Her failure
that Victoria failed to prosecute her case for an unreasonable
to do so for a long period of time constitutes a failure to
length of time. Naturally, Victoria opposed the MTD. Teresa, in
prosecute on her part.
her rejoinder, alleged that the case should be dismissed because Cynthia, who is an indispensable party, was not
***What if the petition is an action in rem? What are the
issued any summons, hence, since an indispensable party is
applicable rules?
not served with summons, without her who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter there can be no proper determination of the case. The trial court ruled in favor of Teresa; this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
If the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. If the defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the
ISSUE: Whether or not the dismissal of Victoria’s complaint is
country, summons may be served extraterritorially in the
correct.
following instances:
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments
1.
when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff;
2.
when the action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, on which the defendant
presented by Teresa. The Supreme Court also emphasized:
claims a lien or an interest, actual or contingent;
There are generally two types of actions: actions in rem and actions in personam. An action in personam is an action
3.
or in part, in excluding the defendant from any interest in
against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an
property located in the Philippines; and
action in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person.
when the relief demanded in such action consists, wholly
4.
when the defendant non-resident’s property has been attached within the Philippines.
The certificate, subject of the donation, is a personal property.
In the above instances, summons may be effected by:
The action filed by Victoria is therefore a personal action. So in 1.
personal service out of the country, with leave of court;
2.
publication, also with leave of court; or
bar, Morada was already working in Manila when she was
3.
any other manner the court may deem sufficien
summoned by her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer. She was not informed that she was
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS COURT OF APPEALS
going to appear in a court trial. Clearly, she was defrauded into
297 SCRA 469 – CONFLICT OF LAWS – PRIVATE
appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful
INTERNATIONAL LAW – SITUS – LOCUS ACTUS
conviction. The act of defrauding, which is tortuous, was committed in Manila and this led to her humiliation, misery, and suffering. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case,
FACTS:
the SC finds that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).
Milagros Morada was working as a stewardess for Saudia Arabian Airlines. In 1990, while she and some co-workers were
BANCO DO BRASIL VS COURT OF APPEALS
in a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, an Arab co-worker tried to
333 SCRA 545 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
rape her in a hotel room. Fortunately, a roomboy heard her cry
Service of Summons in In Personam Cases
for help and two of her Arab co-workers were arrested and
FACTS:
detained in Indonesia. Later, Saudia Airlines re-assigned her to work in their Manila office. While working in Manila, Saudia Airlines advised her to meet with a Saudia Airlines officer in Saudi. She did but to her surprise, she was brought to a Saudi court where she was interrogated and eventually sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 289 lashes; she allegedly violated Muslim customs by partying with males. The Prince of Makkah got wind of her conviction and the Prince determined that she was wrongfully convicted hence the Prince absolved her and sent her back to the Philippines. Saudia Airlines later on dismissed Morada. Morada then sued Saudia Airlines for damages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Saudia Airlines filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because the applicable law should be the law of Saudi Arabia. Saudia Airlines also prayed for other reliefs under the premises. ISSUE: Whether or not Saudia Airlines’ contention is correct.
In 1989, Cesar Urbino, Sr. sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages the former incurred when one of the latter’s ship ran aground causing losses to Urbino. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil (BDB), a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines nor does it have any office here or any agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship. BDB however failed to appear multiple times. Eventually, a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay $300,000.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a nuisance defendant. BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no valid service of summons because the summons was issued to the ambassador of Brazil. Further, the other summons which were made through publication is not applicable to BDB as it alleged that the action against them is in personam. ISSUE: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil.
HELD: No. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a motion to dismiss with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked
HELD: No. Banco Do Brasil is correct. Although the suit is originally in rem as it was BDB’s claim on the sunken ship which was used
the court to make a determination of Saudia Airlines’s rights
as the basis for it being impleaded, the action nevertheless
hence a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.
became an in personam one when Urbino asked for damages
Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because as alleged in the complaint of Morada, she is bringing the suit for damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Morada then has the right to file it in the QC RTC because under the Rules of Court, a plaintiff may elect whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or where the defendant resides. Obviously, it is well within her right to file the case here because if she’ll file it in Saudi Arabia, it will be very disadvantageous for her (and of course, again, Philippine Civil Law is the law invoked).
in the said amount. As such, only a personal service of summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB. Where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him.
Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a foreign element involved, is the so called ―locus actus‖ or where an act has been done. In the case at
KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA VS MINORU KITAMURA 538 SCRA 261 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
there are three phases and each next phase commences when one is settled, to wit:
Jurisdiction – Lex Loci Celebrationis – Lex Loci Solutionis – State of the Most Significant Relationship – Forum Non
1.
Jurisdiction – Where should litigation be initiated? Court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties,
Conveniens
the issues, the property, the res. Also considers, whether
FACTS:
it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, a
of law asks the further question whether the application of
Japanese firm, was contracted by the Department of Public
a substantive law which will determine the merits of the
Works and Highways (DPWH) to supervise the construction of
case is fair to both parties.
the Southern Tagalog Access Road. In April 1999, Nippon
2.
Choice of Law – Which law will the court apply? Once a
entered into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with
local court takes cognizance, it does not mean that the
Minoru Kitamura for the latter to head the said project. The ICA
local laws must automatically apply. The court must
was entered into in Japan and is effective for a period of 1 year
determine which substantive law when applied to the
(so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded the Bongabon-Baler Road project to Nippon. Nippon subsequently assigned Kitamura to head the road project. But in February
merits will be fair to both parties. 3.
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgment – Where can the resulting judgment be enforced?
2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general manager of Nippon
This case is not yet in the second phase because upon the
informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract.
RTC’s taking cognizance of the case, Hasegawa immediately
Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused to
filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. He filed a motion
negotiate. Kitamura then filed a complaint for specific
for reconsideration, which was also denied. Then he bypassed
performance and damages against Nippon in the RTC of Lipa.
the proper procedure by immediately filing a petition for certiorari. The question of which law should be applied should
Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
have been settled in the trial court had Hasegawa not
contract was entered in Japan hence, applying the principle of
improperly appealed the interlocutory order denying his MFR.
lex loci celebracionis, cases arising from the contract should be cognizable only by Japanese courts. The trial court denied the
ASIAVEST LIMITED VS COURT OF APPEALS
motion. Eventually, Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with the
295 SCRA 469 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
Supreme Court.
Service of Summons to a Non Resident – Processual Presumption
Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this time
FACTS:
invoking forum non conveniens; that the RTC is an inconvenient forum because the parties are Japanese
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay
nationals who entered into a contract in Japan. Kitamura on
US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd.
the other hand invokes the trial court’s ruling which states that
Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and
matters connected with the performance of contracts are
the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest,
regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, so
ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even
since the obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines,
during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he
courts here have jurisdiction.
returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign
ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be
judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received
dismissed.
any summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He
HELD:
also claimed that he never received a copy of the foreign
No. The trial court did the proper thing in taking cognizance of
judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually
it. In the first place, the case filed by Kitamura is a complaint
given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
for specific performance and damages. Such case is incapable
Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to
of pecuniary estimation; such cases are within the jurisdiction
one Dionisio Lopez who was Heras’ son in law.
of the regional trial court. Hasegawa filed his motion to dismiss on the ground of forum
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced
non conveniens. However, such ground is not one of those
against Heras in the Philippines.
provided for by the Rules as a ground for dismissing a civil
HELD:
case.
No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in support thereto) and
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the contention that
Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it, it cannot
Japanese laws should apply is premature. In conflicts cases,
be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because
Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the
Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never
case.
acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that
HELD:
Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign
No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for the following
judgment.
reasons:
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far
1.
as Hong Kong is concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non resident because prior to the judgment, he already
The only link that the Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;
2.
However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are foreign
abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of
corporations – MHC cannot be held liable because it
summons in in personam cases against non residents was
merely owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the
never presented in court hence processual presumption is
affairs of the Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction
applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong law in as far
can’t be pierced because it was not shown that MHC is
as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And
directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are
under our laws, in an action in personam wherein the
separate entities.
defendant is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit
3.
himself to the authority of the court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of
Santos’ contract with the Palace Hotel was not entered into in the Philippines;
4.
Santos’ contract was entered into without the intervention
jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible
of the POEA (had POEA intervened, NLRC still does not
if such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is
have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which will
not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
hear the case);
person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case
5.
MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the
against him. Without a personal service of summons, the Hong
Philippines; their agents/officers are not residents of the
Kong court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to say, the
Philippines;
summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because
Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all
the same does not satisfy the requirement of personal service.
the relevant facts pertaining to the case. It is not competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of happened
MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR
outside our jurisdiction. It cannot determine which law is
RELATIONS COMMISSION
applicable. And in case a judgment is rendered, it cannot be
343 SCRA 1 – Private International Law – Forum Non
enforced against the Palace Hotel (in the first place, it was not
Conveniens FACTS:
served any summons). The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum
In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in
non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume
Oman. In June 1988, he was recruited by Palace Hotel in
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, Santos agreed
(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may
to the hotel’s job offer and so he started working there in
conveniently resort to;
November 1988. The employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without the intervention of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). In
(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
August 1989, Palace Hotel notified Santos that he will be laid
(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to
off due to business reverses. In September 1989, he was
enforce its decision.
officially terminated. None of the above conditions are apparent in the case at bar. In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and Manila Hotel International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel was impleaded but
FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK VS CA
no summons were served upon it. MHC is a government
252 SCRA 259 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
owned and controlled corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL, a foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL manages the affair of
Origin of Forum Non Conveniens FACTS:
the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter who handled the case ruled in favor of Santos. The National Labor Relations Commission
Producers Bank (now called First Philippine International
(NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter.
Bank), which has been under conservatorship since 1984, is the owner of 6 parcels of land. The Bank had an agreement with Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo for the two to
purchase the parcels of land for a purchase price of P5.5
In 1978, Menandro Laureano was hired as a pilot by the
million pesos. The said agreement was made by Demetria and
Singapore Airlines Limited (SAL). In 1982 however, SAL was
Janolo with the Bank’s manager, Mercurio Rivera. Later
hit
however,
Leonida
employees. Laureano was one of them. Laureano asked for
Encarnacion, sought the repudiation of the agreement as it
reconsideration but it was not granted. Aggrieved, Laureano
alleged that Rivera was not authorized to enter into such an
filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against SAL. But in 1987,
agreement, hence there was no valid contract of sale.
he withdrew the labor case and instead filed a civil case for
Subsequently, Demetria and Janolo sued Producers Bank. The
damages due to illegal termination of contract against SAL.
regional trial court ruled in favor of Demetria et al. The Bank
Laureano filed the case here in the Philippines. SAL moved for
filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals.
the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
the
Bank,
through
its
conservator,
by
recession
and
so
it
had
to
lay
off
some
The motion was denied. On trial, SAL alleged that the Meanwhile, Henry Co, who holds 80% shares of stocks with
termination of Laureano is valid pursuant to Singaporean law.
the said Bank, filed a motion for intervention with the trial court. The trial court denied the motion since the trial has been
The trial court ruled in favor of Laureano. SAL appealed the
concluded already and the case is now pending appeal.
case raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction, non-applicability of
Subsequently, Co, assisted by ACCRA law office, filed a
Philippine laws, and estoppel, among others. The Court of
separate civil case against Carlos Ejercito as successor-in-
Appeals reversed the trial court.
interest (assignee) of Demetria and Janolo seeking to have the purported contract of sale be declared unenforceable against
ISSUE: Whether or not Singaporean Law is applicable to this
the Bank. Ejercito et al argued that the second case constitutes
case.
forum shopping. HELD: ISSUE: Whether or not there is forum shopping.
No. The specific Singaporean Law which holds valid the dismissal of Laureano is not proved in court. As such, the trial
HELD:
court cannot make a determination if the termination is indeed
Yes. There is forum shopping because there is identity of
valid under Singaporean Law. Philippine courts do not take
interest and parties between the first case and the second
judicial notice of the laws of Singapore. SAL has the burden of
case. There is identity of interest because both cases sought to
proof. SAL failed to prove such law hence Philippine law shall
have the agreement, which involves the same property, be
apply. However, the case must be dismissed on the ground of
declared unenforceable as against the Bank. There is identity
estoppel. Under our laws, all money claims arising from
of parties even though the first case is in the name of the bank
employer-employee relationships must be filed within three
as defendant, and the second case is in the name of Henry Co
years from the time the cause of action accrued. Laureano’s
as plaintiff. There is still forum shopping here because Henry
cause of action accrued in 1982 when he was terminated but
Co essentially represents the bank. Both cases aim to have the
he only filed the money claim in 1987 or more than three years
bank escape liability from the agreement it entered into with
from 1982. Hence he is already barred by prescription.
Demetria et al. The Supreme Court also discussed that to combat forum
OMANFIL INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
shopping, which originated as a concept in international law,
CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
the principle of forum non conveniens was developed. The
COMMISSION
doctrine of forum non conveniens provides that a court, in
00 SCRA 213 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
Proof of Foreign Law
where it is not the most ―convenient‖ or available forum and the
FACTS:
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. In February 1993, Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co., **Forum Shopping: ―occurs when a party attempts to have his
Ltd., through its local agent, Omanfil International Manpower
action tried in a particular court or jurisdiction where he feels
Development Corporation, engaged Eduardo Felipe to work as
he will receive the most favorable judgment or verdict.‖
a rigger in Malaysia. In June 1993, the ferry boat in which Eduardo was assigned met an accident. His body was never
MENANDRO LAUREANO VS COURT OF APPEALS 324 SCRA 414 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
found. A provision in the Malaysia labor law provides:
Proof of Foreign Law - Applicability of Foreign Laws Where death has resulted from the injury, a lump sum equal to forty five months earnings or fourteen thousand four FACTS:
hundred ringgit [RM], whichever is the less;
A local labor office in Malaysia then wrote a letter to Hyundai
del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and
advising the latter of the computation it arrived at, to wit;
owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to
45 months x US $620.04 (monthly salary of Eduardo) = US
check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing
$27,902.02.
while traversing the river. ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable
RM14,400 which is equivalent to US $5,393.29 is less than US $27,902.02, hence, Hyundai deposited the lesser amount with the said labor office.
under the said Venezuelan laws.
HELD:
The wife of Eduardo, Lora Felipe, does not agree that Hyundai
No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact
is liable for the lesser amount hence she filed a labor case
before the court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were
against Hyundai’s agent, Omanfil. The labor arbiter ordered
presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public
Omanfil to pay $27,902.02 to Lora. This was affirmed by the
document to be admissible, the following requisites are
National Labor Relations Commission. It was ruled that the
mandatory:
Malaysian labor law is susceptible to two interpretations
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the
because it is vague; that in case of doubt of labor laws, it must
records or by his deputy; and
be construed in favor of the laborer. ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Relations is correct.
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
HELD: No. The Malaysian Law in question is not vague. Clearly what is due to Lora as death benefit (for her dead husband) is 14,400 Malaysian Ringgit since that amount is less than US $27,902.02. Further, it appears that the Director General of Labor of Malaysia certified that Eduardo is only entitled to a
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.
maximum of RM14,000.00 pursuant to the labor law in
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual
question. This certification is duly authenticated by Mr. Bayani
presumption where the foreign law is deemed to be the same
V. Mangibin, our Consul General in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain
Such authentication of the said Certification, which provides an
Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of Vasquez.
interpretation of said foreign labor law by none other than the
PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez
Director of Labor of Malaysia is proof of the foreign law.
to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly
Further still, this was never contested by Lora.
accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was engaged.
WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. VS COURT OF APPEALS 342 SCRA 213 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS
Proof of Foreign Law
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
FACTS:
537 SCRA 409 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships
Proof of Foreign Law
passing through it must be piloted by pilots familiar to the river.
In 1993, EDI-Staffbuilders, Inc. (EDI), upon request of Omar
Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine
Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia,
Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL),
sent to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a computer
obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot
specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected. It was agreed that his
in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River.
monthly salary shall be $850.00. But five months into his
Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco
service in Saudi Arabia, Gran received a termination letter and
River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a result, the stranded
right there and then was removed from his post. The
ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned
termination letter states that he was incompetent because he
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused
does not know the ACAD system which is required in his line of
$400k worth of losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make
work; that he failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5 month
its delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of
stay to prove his competence; that he is disobedient because
Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred
he failed to submit the required daily reports to OAB. Gran then
under the laws of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento General de la
signed a quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing
Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1
OAB from any liability in exchange of 2,948.00 Riyal.
When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal against EDI and OAB. EDI in its defense averred that the
In 1985, the High Court of Malaysia ordered the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) to pay $5.1 million
dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the employment contract, both parties agreed that Saudi labor
to Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad. This was the result
laws shall govern all matters relating to the termination of
of a recovery suit filed by Asiavest against PNCC in Malaysia
Gran’s employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Gran’s
for PNCC’s failure to complete a construction project there
termination due to incompetence and insubordination is valid;
despite due payment from Asiavest. Despite demand, PNCC
that Gran’s insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the
failed to comply with the judgment in Malaysia hence Asiavest
termination letter Gran received. The labor arbiter dismissed the labor case but on appeal, the National Labor Relations
filed a complaint for the enforcement of the Malaysian ruling
Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the arbiter. The
against PNCC in the Philippines. The case was filed with the
Court of Appeals likewise affirmed the NLRC.
Pasig RTC which eventually denied the complaint. The Court
ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied.
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Asiavest appealed. In its defense, PNCC alleged that the
HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in court.
foreign judgment cannot be enforced here because of want of
EDI did not present proof as to the existence and the specific
jurisdiction, want of notice to PNCC, collusion and/or fraud,
provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual presumption
and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Asiavest assailed
applies and Philippine labor laws shall be used. Under our
the arguments of PNCC on the ground that PNCC’s counsel
laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated upon just cause. The allegations against him, at worst, shall only merit a
participated in all the proceedings in the Malaysian Court.
suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not proven because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he underwent the required trade test to prove his competence. The presumption
ISSUE: Whether or not the Malaysian Court judgment should be enforced against PNCC in the Philippines.
therefore is that he is competent and that it is upon OAB and EDI to prove otherwise. No proof of his incompetence was ever adduced in court. His alleged insubordination is likewise not
HELD: Yes. PNCC failed to prove and substantiate its bare
proven. It was not proven that the submission of daily track records is part of his job as a computer specialist. There was
allegations of want of jurisdiction, want of notice, collusion
also a lack of due process. Under our laws, Gran is entitled to
and/or fraud, and mistake of fact. On the contrary, Asiavest
the two notice rule whereby prior to termination he should
was able to present evidence as to the validity of the
receive two notices. In the case at bar, he only received one
proceedings that took place in Malaysia. Asiavest presented
and he was immediately terminated on the same day he
the certified and authenticated copies of the judgment and the
received the notice. Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability.
order issued by the Malaysian Court. It also presented
Philippine laws is again applied here sans proof of Saudi laws.
correspondences between Asiavest’s lawyers and PNCC’s
Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon
lawyers in and out of court which belied PNCC’s allegation that
and are strictly examined. In this case, based on the
the Malaysian court never acquired jurisdiction over it. PNCC’s
circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation
allegation of fraud is not sufficient too, further, it never invoked
pay was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower than the $850.00
the same in the Malaysian Court.
monthly salary (3,190 Riyal).
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD VS COURT OF APPEALS on February 27, 2013
fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of validity so long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC failed to present the required evidence.
361 SCRA 489 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Foreign Judgments – How Assailed PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC. VS FASGI ENTERPRISES, INC. FACTS:
Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Foreign
In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the California
Judgments – When May It Be Enforced
court. PAWI’s insistence that its American lawyer colluded with
FACTS:
FASGI; that he entered into the compromise agreement without PAWI’s authority is belied by the fact that PAWI initially
In 1978, FASGI Enterprises Inc. (FASGI), a foreign corporation
complied with the agreement. It did not disclaim the
organized under the laws of California, USA, entered into a
agreement. It sent two installments (though belatedly) but
contract with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc. (PAWI), a
failed to comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the
Philippine corporation, whereby the latter agrees to deliver
agreement is without its authority. Further, it is just but fair for
8,594 wheels to FASGI. FASGI received the wheels and so it
the California court not to order FASGI to return the remaining
paid PAWI $216,444.30. Later however, FASGI found out that
wheels because of PAWI’s arrears.
the wheels are defective and did not comply with certain US standards. So in 1979, FASGI sued PAWI in a California court. In 1980, a settlement was reached but PAWI failed to comply
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RECLAIM PRACTICE OF LAW
with the terms of the agreement. A second agreement was
OF BENJAMIN DACANAY
made but PAWI was again remiss in its obligation. The
540 SCRA 424 – Civil Law – Private International Law –
agreement basically provides that PAWI shall return the purchase price in installment and conversely, FASGI shall
Nationality Theory – Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos FACTS:
return the wheel in installment. PAWI was only able to make two installments (which were actually made beyond the
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek
scheduled date). FASGI also returned the corresponding
medical help. In order for him to take advantage of Canada’s
number of wheels. Eventually in 1982, FASGI sought the
free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in
enforcement of the agreement and it received a favorable
2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his Philippine
judgment from the California court. PAWI is then ordered to
citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship
pay an equivalent of P252k plus damages but FASGI was not
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he
ordered to return the remaining wheels. PAWI was not able to
returned to the Philippines and he now intends to resume his
comply with the court order in the US. So in 1983, FASGI filed
practice of law.
a complaint for the enforcement of a foreign judgment with RTC-Makati. Hearings were made and in 1990, the trial judge
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his
ruled against FASGI on the ground that the foreign judgment
practice of law.
is tainted with fraud because FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that PAWI’s
HELD:
American lawyer entered into the agreements without the
Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in the
consent of PAWI. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens.
the trial court.
Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment may be enforced
ceased to have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
here in the Philippines.
However, under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his
HELD:
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in
Yes. The judgment is valid. A valid judgment rendered by a
accordance with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires
foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate
his Filipino citizenship in 2006, his membership to the
parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so
Philippine bar was deemed to have never been terminated.
long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of
practice of law right after reacquisition?
competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings has
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before
been
he can resume his practice of law, to wit:
conducted,
following
due
citation
or
voluntary
appearance of the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership
justice; and that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in
dues in the IBP;
court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.
(b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially significant to
refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.
TONGOL vs. TONGOL FACTS: On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that the latter is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. Orlando Tongol alleged that Filipinas was unable to perform her duty as a wife because of Filipinas unbearable attitude that will lead to their constant quarrel. In her Answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation have been fruitless and that their marriage is a failure. However, she claims that their marriage failed because it is Orlando’s insufficiency to fulfill his obligation as married man. Both parties underwent a psychological exam which proved that the respondent Filipinas Tongol has a psychological insufficiency. ISSUE: Does the psychological problem of Mrs. Filipina Tongol enough to compel the court to nullify their marriage? HELD: No, as elucidated in Molina the psychological incapacity must exist during the ceremony of the marriage, the psychological incapacity must be apparent as to the extent that the other party is incapable the significance of their marriage and lastly, the malady must be incurable. The definition or manifestation of marriage must within the scope of article 36of the Family Code. As in the present case, the psychological sufficiency of Mrs Tongol is not severe that would render her incapable of recognize the sanctity of her marital contract with her husband, second, Dr. Villegas failed to prove the that the ailment is incurable. As to the facts of the psychological examination report say: the emotional malady iscused merely by rejection of Mrs. Tongol by her mother when she was young. Further, the facts of the case did not show thatMrs. Tongol did not care about the welfare of their children.And the financial issue as being cited in the facts, the courtdeemed that such phenomena is natural in evry marriage andcan be settled easily. Hence the court dismissed the petitionof the nullity of marriage.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III GR. No. 154380, 5 October 2005 Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine law? FACTS: On 24 May 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva and their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido. In 1986, his wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his
wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and sometime in 2000, learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree. His wife then married Innocent Stanley and is now currently living in San Gabriel, California with her child by him. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (FC). No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent can remarry under Art. 26 of the Family Code HELD: The petition is granted. The OSG contends that par. 2 Art. 26 of FC is not applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is, a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs the respondent’s situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination. The respondent admits that Art. 26 is not directly applicable to his case, but insists that since his naturalized alien wife obtained a divorce decree which capacitated her to remarry, he is likewise capacitated by operation of law pursuant to Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. The Court noted that the petition for authority to remarry filed before the trial court actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. The requisites of a petition for declaratory relief are: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) that the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) that the issue is ripe for judicial determination. This case satisfies all the requisites for the grant of a petition for declaratory relief. Article 26 does not appear to govern the situation presented by the case at hand. It seems to apply only to cases where at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties are a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The instant case is one where at the time the marriage was solemnized, the parties were two Filipino citizens, but later on, the wife was naturalized as an American citizen and subsequently obtained a divorce granting her capacity to remarry, and indeed she remarried an American citizen while residing in the USA Congress of the Philippines Twelfth Congress Third Regular Session
Begun held in Metro Manila on Monday, the twenty-eighth day of July, two thousand three.
Republic Act No. 9225 August 29, 2003 AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT. AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. Short Title – this act shall be known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003." Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic: "I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath. Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines. Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions: (1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws; (2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath; (3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath; (4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and (5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who: (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or (b) are in active service as commissioned or noncommissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens. Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other section or provision not affected thereby shall remain valid and effective. Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 8. Effectivity Clause – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in theOfficial Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general circulation.
In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the RTC-Pasay, stating that Alice’s business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that Richard be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Alice moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had ―no community property‖ as of June 11, 1982. The Court below (presiding judge: Judge Romillo) denied the MTD in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding. ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the Philippines? HELD: Petition is granted, and respondent Judge is hereby ordered to dismiss the Complaint… For the resolution of this case, it is not necessary to determine whether the property relations between Alice and Richard, after their marriage, were upon absolute or relative community property, upon complete separation of property, or upon any other regime. The pivotal fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the parties. The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court during the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private respondent who authorized his attorneys in the divorce case to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community property nor community obligations. As explicitly stated in the Power of Attorney he executed in favor of the law firm of KARP & GRAD LTD. to represent him in the divorce proceedings:
xxx xxx xxx You are hereby authorized to accept service of Summons, to Approved, file an Answer, appear on my behalf and do all things FRANKLIN DRILON JOSE DE VENECIA JR. necessary and proper to represent me, without further President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives contesting, subject to the following: This Act, which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2130 and House Bill No. 4720 was finally passed by the the House of 1. That my spouse seeks a divorce on the ground of Representatives and Senate on August 25, 2003 and August incompatibility. 26, 2003, respectively. 2. That there is no community of property to be adjudicated by OSCAR G. YABES ROBERTO P. NAZARENO the Court. Secretary of Senate Secretary General 3. That there are no community obligations to be adjudicated House of Represenatives by the court. Approved: August 29, 2003 xxx xxx xxx GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO President of the Philippines There can be no question as to the validity of that Nevada divorce in any of the States of the United States. The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. What he is contending in this case is that the divorce is not valid and VAN DORN vs. HON. ROMILLO and RICHARD UPTON binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law G.R. No. L-68470 and public policy. October 8, 1985 FACTS: Petitioner Alice Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the USA. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and begot two children. The parties were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982. Alice has then re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from
the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner’s husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country’s Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property
GERBERT R. CORPUZ VS. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010 FACTS: Petitioner (Gerbert Corpuz) is a former Filipino citizen who became a Canadian citizen through naturalization. Subsequently, the petitioner married the respondent (Daisylyn Sto. Tomas), a Filipina, in Pasig City. After the wedding, petitioner went back to Canada due to work commitments; however, when he came back he was shocked to discover that the respondent is having an affair with another man. Thus, petitioner went back to Canada and filed a petition for divorce. The Superior Court of Justice, Windsor, Ontario, Canada granted the petitioner’s petition for divorce. The divorce decree took effect a month later, January 8, 2006. Two years later, the petitioner has already moved on and found another woman that he wants to marry. Thus, for his love to his fiancée; the petitioner went to the Pasig Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and the respondent’s marriage certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the National Statistic’s Office (NSO) informed the petitioner that the marriage between him and the respondent still subsists under the Philippine Law and to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4, Series of 1982. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage dissolved with the RTC. The RTC denied his petition, hence this recourse by the petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree. RULING: No. Even though the trial court is correct in its conclusion that the alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse due to the given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and as such the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code limits its applicability for the benefit of the Filipino spouse. However, we qualify the above conclusion made by the trial court because in our jurisdiction, the foreign divorce decree is presumptive evidence of a right that clothes the party with legal interest to petitions for its recognition. Even though, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens- with the complementary statement that his conclusion is not a sufficient basis to dismiss the petition filed by Corpuz before the RTC. the unavailability of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code to aliens does not
necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly proven according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides for the effect of foreign judgments. This Section states: SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders.—The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of the thing; and (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. To our mind, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment. In a divorce situation, we have declared, no less, that the divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized in the Philippines, provided the divorce is valid according to his or her national law. The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. Justice Herrera explained that, as a rule, ―no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country.‖ This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself. The recognition may be made in an action instituted specifically for the purpose or in another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim or defense. In Gerbert’s case, since both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be official acts of a sovereign authority, Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court comes into play. This Section requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian law on divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the case to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is consistent with the Canadian divorce law. We deem it more appropriate to take this latter course of action, given the Article 26 interests that will be served and the Filipina wife’s (Daisylyn’s) obvious conformity with the petition. A remand, at the same time, will allow other interested parties to oppose the foreign judgment and overcome a petitioner’s
presumptive evidence of a right by proving want of jurisdiction, want of notice to a party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Needless to state, every precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our laws before a recognition is made, as the foreign judgment, once recognized, shall have the effect of res judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In fact, more than the principle of comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves as the deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. This same effect, as discussed above, will not obtain for the Filipino spouse were it not for the substantive rule that the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides. Considerations beyond the recognition of the foreign divorce decree.
and duties, status, condition and legal capacity‖ since he was a foreigner.
RODOLFO SAN LUIS VS FELICIDAD SAGALONGOS-SAN LUIS Bigamy – Void Marriage During his lifetime, Felicisimo (Rodolfo’s dad) contracted three marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born six children. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo. FACTS: Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on
LLORENTE VS CA
October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
345 scra 592
Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First
Nationality Principle
Circuit, State of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on December
FACTS: Lorenzo and petitioner Paula Llorente was married before a parish priest. Before the outbreak of war, Lorenzo departed for the United States and Paula was left at the conjugal home. Lorenzo was naturalized by the United State. After the liberation of the Philippines he went home and visited his wife to which he discovered that his wife was pregnant and was having an adulterous relationship. Lorenzo returned to the US and filed for divorce. Lorenzo married Alicia LLorente; they lived together for 25 years and begot 3 children. Lorenzo on his last will and testament bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their 3 children. Paula filed a petition for letters administration over Lorenzo’s estate. The RTC ruled in favor of Paula. On appeal, the decision was modified declaring Alicia as co-owner of whatever properties they have acquired. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.
14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18, 1992. Upon death of his dad Rodolfo sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. On December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Rodolfo claimed that respondent has no legal personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. Felicidad presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry her by virtue of paragraph 2 Article 26 of the Family Code.
ISSUES: Whether or not the divorce obtained by Lorenzo capacitated him to remarry. Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo Llorente?
HELD:
Rodolfo asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code
cannot
be
given
retroactive
effect
to
validate
respondent’s bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256.
In Van Dorn vs Ramillo Jr. the Supreme Court held that owing
ISSUE: Whether or not Felicidad’s marriage to Felicisimo is
to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil
bigamous.
Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorce. In the same case, the Court ruled
HELD:
that aliens may obtain divorce abroad provided that they are
The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which
valid according to their national law. The Supreme Court held
absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested
that divorce obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was
Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition
valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However, the records show
The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of origin
that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the
for the determination of the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo’s will
divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the marriage of
and determine the successional rights allowing proof of foreign
respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A.
law. The deceased is not covered by our laws on ―family rights
In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific guidelines for pleading and proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It
held that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof of its authenticity and due execution must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
NO Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. This is a logical consequence since the raison d’etre of said provision of law would be absent where the supposed offended party had ceased to be the spouse of the alleged offender at the time of the filing of the criminal case.
which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. With regard to respondent’s marriage to Felicisimo allegedly solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies of
Stated differently, the inquiry would be whether it is necessary in the commencement of a criminal action for adultery that the marital bonds between the complainant and the accused be unsevered and existing at the time of the institution of the action by the former against the latter.
the Marriage Certificate and the annotated text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that their marriage was done in accordance with the said law. As stated in Garcia, however, the Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved. The case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo.
PILAPIL vs. HON IBAY-SOMERA, VICTOR AND GEILING et al G.R. No. 80116 June 30, 1989 FACTS: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany. After about three and a half years of marriage, such connubial disharmony eventuated in Geiling initiating a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in Germany. The Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. More than five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging in one that, while still married to said Geiling, Pilapil ―had an affair with a certain William Chia.‖ The Assistant Fiscal, after the corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, the respondent city fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing the filing of 2 complaint for adultery against the petitioner. The case entitled ―PP Philippines vs. Pilapil and Chia‖ was assigned to the court presided by the respondent judge Ibay-Somera. A motion to quash was filed in the same case which was denied by the respondent. Pilapil filed this special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a TRO, seeking the annulment of the order of the lower court denying her motion to quash. As cogently argued by Pilapil, Article 344 of the RPC thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsisting at the time of the institution of the criminal action for adultery. ISSUE: Did Geiling have legal capacity at the time of the filing of the complaint for adultery, considering that it was done after obtaining a divorce decree? HELD: WHEREFORE, the questioned order denying petitioner’s MTQ is SET ASIDE and another one entered DISMISSING the complaint … for lack of jurisdiction. The TRO issued in this case … is hereby made permanent.
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
REPUBLIC VS IYOY (G.R. NO. 152577) FACTS: The case is a petition for review by the RP represented by the Office of the Solicitor General on certiorari praying for the reversal of the decision of the CA dated July 30, 2001 affirming the judgment of the RTC declaring the marriage of Crasus L. Iyoy(respondent) and Ada Rosal-Iyoy null and void based on Article 36. On December 16, 1961 Crasus Iyoy and Ada Rosal-Iyoy married each other, they had 5 children. In 1984, Fely went to the US, in the same year she sent letters to Crasus asking him to sign divorce papers. In 1985, Crasus learned that Fely married an American and had a child. Fely went back to the Philippines on several occasions, during one she attended the marriage of one of her children in which she used her husband’s last name as hers in the invitation. March 25, 1997, Crasus filed a complaint for declaration of nullity alleging that Fely’s acts brought ―danger and dishonor‖ to the family and were manifestations of her psychological incapacity. Crasus submitted his testimony, the certification of the recording of their marriage contract, and the invitation where Fely used her new husband’s last name as evidences. Fely denied the claims and asserted that Crasus was a drunkard, womanizer, had no job, and that since 1988 she was already an American citizen and not covered by our laws. The RTC found the evidences sufficient and granted the decree; it was affirmed in the CA. ISSUE: Does abandonment and sexual infidelity per se constitute psychological incapacity? HELD:
The evidences presented by the respondent fail to establish psychological incapacity.
alien at the time she obtained divorce, and such is valid in theircountry’s national law.
Furthermore, Article 36 ―contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume the basic marital obligations; not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant spouse. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under the said Article.‖
Thus, Fe D. Quita is no longer recognized as a wife of Arturo. She cannot be the
Finally, Article 36 ―is not to be confused with a divorce law thatcuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting aparty even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.‖
Details
primary beneficiary or will be recognized as surviving spouse of Arturo.
AZNAR VS. GARCIA 7 S 95
Category: Civil Law Jurisprudence FACTS: Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California where he resided and consequently was
QUITA VS COURT OF APPEALS
considered a California Citizen for a period of nine years to
December 22, 1998
1913. He came to the Philippines where he became a
FACTS:
domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23, 1954.Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan, the respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children.
entire period of his residence in this country, he had always
On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who will be the intestate heirs. The trial court invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held that the divorce acquired by the petitioner is not recognized in our country. Private respondent stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad are recognized in the Philippnes provided they are valid according to their national law. The petitioner herself answered that she was an American citizen since 1954. Through the hearing she also stated that Arturo was a Filipino at the time she obtained the divorce. Implying the she was no longer a Filipino citizen.
an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as
The Trial court disregarded the respondent’s statement. The net hereditary estate was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina and thePadlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and the other half to Fe Quita.Private respondent was not declared an heir for her marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the existence of his previous marriage to petitioner. Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals that the case was decided without a hearing in violation of the Rules of Court.
increased in view of successional rights of illegitimate children
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether Philippine Law or California Law should
(1) Whether or not Blandina’s marriage to Arturo void ab initio.
apply.
(2) Whether or not Fe D. Quita be declared the primary beneficiary as surviving spouse of Arturo.
HELD:
HELD:
The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights
No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo is not void. The citizenship of Fe D.Quita at the time of their divorce is relevant to this case. The divorce is valid here since she was already an
to Helen Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two
considered himself as a citizen of California. In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted
his only heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who, in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court had been declared as an acknowledged natural daughter of his. Counsel of Helen claims that under Art. 16 (2) of the civil code, California law should be applied, the matter is returned back to the law of domicile, that Philippine law is ultimately applicable, that the share of Helen must be
under Philippine laws. On the other hand, counsel for daughter Maria , in as much that it is clear under Art, 16 (2) of the Mew Civil Code, the national of the deceased must apply, our courts must apply internal law of California on the matter. Under California law, there are no compulsory heirs and consequently a testator should dispose any property possessed by him in absolute dominion.
rules in California on the matter.
1.
The conflict rule which should apply to Californian’s outside the California, and
2.
The internal Law which should apply to California domiciles in califronia.
The California conflict rule, found on Art. 946 of the California Civil code States that ―if there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the decree of its owner and is governed by the law of the domicile.‖
procedures also manifests this silence.In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application of the basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited constitutional provision. PETITION is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Christensen being domiciled outside california, the law of his domicile, the Philippines is ought to be followed. EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed and
CORPORATION vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU
case is remanded to the lower court with instructions
OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and H.D. LEE COMPANY, INC.
that partition be made as that of the Philippine law
G.R. No. 100098, December 29, 1995
provides. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS JUDGE LANTION GR No 139465 ,Jan 18,2000
FACTS: On 18 September 1981, private respondent H.D. Lee Co., Inc. filed with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks &
FACTS:
Technology Transfer (BPTTT) a Petition for Cancellation of Registration No. SR 5054 for the trademark "STYLISTIC MR.
On January 13, 1977, then President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country". The Decree is founded on: the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution; the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition treaty with the Republic of Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties. On November 13, 1994, then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, signed in Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of America ―On June 18, 1999, the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez to the United States.
LEE" used on skirts, jeans, blouses, socks, briefs, jackets,
ISSUE: 1 Whether or not there is a conflict between the treaty and the due process clause in the Constitution?
the word 'Lee' which draws the attention of the buyer and leads
HELD: 1.NO.En contrario, these two components of the law of the land are not pined against each other. There is no occasion to choose which of the two should be upheld. Instead, we see a void in the provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty, as implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1069, as regards the basic due process rights of a prospective extraditee at the evaluation stage of extradition proceedings. From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition
jogging suits, dresses, shorts, shirts and lingerie under Class 25, issued on 27 October 1980 in the name of petitioner Emerald Garment Manufacturing Corporation. Private respondent averred that petitioner's trademark "so closely resembled its own trademark, 'LEE' as previously registered and used in the Philippines cause confusion, mistake and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the origin of the goods. On 19 July 1988, the Director of Patents rendered a decision granting private respondent's petition for cancellation and opposition to registration. The Director of Patents, using the test of dominancy, declared that petitioner's trademark was confusingly similar to private respondent's mark because "it is him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. It is undeniably the dominant feature of the mark. ISSUE: Whether or not a trademark causes confusion and is likely to deceive the public is a question of fact which is to be resolved by applying the "test of dominancy", meaning, if the competing trademark contains the main or essential or dominant features of another by reason of which confusion and deception are likely to result. HELD:
The word "LEE" is the most prominent and distinctive feature of the appellant's trademark and all of the appellee's "LEE" trademarks. It is the mark which draws the attention of
laws. It does not regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the contract of carriage, especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carriers employees is found or established.
the buyer and leads him to conclude that the goods originated from the same manufacturer. The alleged difference is too insubstantial to be noticeable. The likelihood of confusion is further made more probable by the fact that both parties are engaged in the same line of business. Although
the
Court
decided
in
favor
of
the
respondent, the appellee has sufficiently established its right to prior use and registration of the trademark "LEE" in the Philippines and is thus entitled to protection from any infringement upon the same. The dissenting opinion of Justice Padilla is more acceptable
UNITED AIRLINES vs. UY G.R. No. 127768, November 19,1999 FACTS: On October 13, 1989, respondent, a passenger of United Airlines, checked in together with his luggage one piece of which was found to be overweight at the airline counter. To his utter humiliation, an employee of petitioner rebuked him saying that he should have known the maximum weight allowance per bag and that he should have packed his things accordingly. Then, in a loud voice in front of the milling crowd, she told respondent to repair his things and transfer some of them to the light ones. Respondent acceded but his luggage was still overweight. Petitioner billed him overweight charges but its employee reused to honor the miscellaneous charges under MCD which he offered to pay with. Not wanting to leave without his luggage, he paid with his credit card. Upon arrival in manila, he discovered that one of his bags had been slashed and its contents stolen. In a letter dated October 16, 1989, he notified petitioner of his loss and requested reimbursement. Petitioner paid for his loss based on the maximum liability per pound. Respondent considered the amount grossly inadequate. He sent two more letters to petition but to no avail. On June 9, 1992, respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Airline. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint invoking the provisions of Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention. Respondent countered that according to par. 2 of Article 29, ―the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the court to which the case is submitted.‖ ISSUES: 1) Does the Warsaw Convention preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws? 2) Has the respondent’s cause of action prescribed? HELD: 1) No. Within our jurisdiction we have held that the Warsaw Convention can be applied, or ignored, depending on the peculiar facts presented by each case. Convention provisions do not regulate or exclude liabilities for other breaches of contract by the carrier or misconduct of its officers and employees, or for some particular or exceptional type of damage. Neither may the Convention be invoked to justify the disregard of some extraordinary type of damage. Neither may the Convention be invoked to justify the disregard of some extraordinary sort of damage resulting to a passenger and preclude recovery therefore3 beyond the limits et by said convention. Likewise, we have held that the Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent
2) No. While his 2nd cause of action (an action for damages arising from theft or damage to property or goods) is well within the bounds of the Warsaw convention, his 1st cause of action (an action for damages arising from the misconduct of the airline employees and the violation of respondent’s rights as passengers) clearly is not. The 2-yr limitation incorporated in Art. 29 of the Warsaw Convention as an absolute bar to suit and not to be made subject to the various tolling provisions of the laws of the forum, forecloses the application of our own rules on interruption of prescriptive periods. (Art. 29, par. 2 was indented only to let local laws determine whether an action shall be deemed commenced upon the filing of a complaint.) Since, it is indisputable that respondent filed the present action beyond the 2-yr time frame his 2nd cause of action must be barred. However, it is obvious that respondent was forestalled from immediately filing an action because petitioner gave him the runaround, answering his letters but not giving in to his demands. True, respondent should have already filed an action at the first instance when petitioner denied his claims but the same could only be due to his desire to make an out-of-court settlement for which he cannot be faulted. Hence, despite the express mandate of Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention that an action for damages should be filed within 2 years from the arrival at the place of destination, such rule shall not be applied in the instant case because of the delaying tactics employed by petitioner airlines itself. Thus, respondent’s 2nd cause of action cannot be considered as time barred.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BERNARDO LL. SALAS and DEMOCRITO MENDOZA, March 9, 2000 FACTS: Plaintiff Mendoza filed an action for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu for the alleged embarrassment and mental anguish he suffered at the Geneva airport when the American Airlines security officers prevented him from boarding the plane, detained him for about an hour and allowed him to board the plane only after all the other passengers have boarded. Petitioner American Airlines filed a motion to dismiss the action for damages filed by the private respondent for the lack of jurisdiction under section 28 (1) of the Warsaw Convention. However the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals later affirmed the trial court’s decision. ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of transportation between the private respondent and private respondent would be considered as a single operation and part of the contract of transportation entered into by the private respondent with Singapore Airlines in Manila? RULING: No, the contract of carriage between the private responded and Singapore Airlines although performed by different carriers under a series of airlines tickets, including that issued by the American Airlines constitutes a single operation. Members of the TATA are under a general pool partnership agreement wherein, they act as agent of each other in the issuance of tickets to contracted passengers to boost ticket sales worldwide which are inaccessible in some parts of the world.
Petitioner’s acquiescence to take place of the original designated carrier binds it under the contract of carriage entered into by the private respondent and Singapore Airlines in Manila. Therefore, findings of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Case was ordered to be remanded for more investigation for action against damages. SBMA V. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN September 14, 2000
FACTS: UIG and SBMA entered into a ―Lease and Development Agreement‖ (LDA) wherein SBMA leased to UIG the Binictan Golf Course and appurenant facilities thereto to be transforemed into a world-class 18-hole golf course/resort. The LDA contained pre-termination clauses which authorizes SBMA, after due notice to UIG, to terminate the lease and immediately take possession of the property if UIG commits a material breach of any of the contract’s conditions. SBMA wrote UIG, calling its attention to its failure to deliver its various contactual obligations. UIG imputed the delay to the default of its main contractor, FF Cruz, but committed itself to comply with its undertakibngs. The following month, SBMA declared UIG in default. Six months later, UIG still failed to satisfy its obligations so SBMA served a letter of pretermination to UIG. Shortly thereafter, the golf course was formally closed and SBMA took possession of the subject premises. UIG filed a complaint against SBMA for Injuction and Damages with prayer for TRO and preliminary injuction. TC granted UIG’s prayer and ordered SBMA to restore possession of the golf course to UIG. In a subsequent order, TC denied SBMA’s motion to dismiss. CA upheld UIG’s capacity to sue, holding that SBMA is estopped from questioning its standing. It also held that UIGDC1 and SBGCCI2 were real parties in interest because they made substantial investments in the venture and had been in possession in property when SBMA took over.
ISSUES 1. 2. 3.
WON UIG has capacity to sue. WON UIGDC and SBGCCI are real parties in interest. WON RTC has jurisdiction over the suit.
RULING: 1. YES. As a general rule, unlicensed foreign non-resident corporations cannot file suits in the Philippines. A corporation has legal status only within the state or territory in which it was organized. For this reason, a corporation organized in another country has no personality to file suits in the Philippines. In order to subject a foreign corporation doing business in the country to the jurisdiction of our courts, it must acquire a license from the SEC and appoint an agent for service of process. Without such license, it cannot institute a suit in the Philippines. However, after contracting with a foreign
1 2
UIG International Development Corporation Subic Bay Gold and Country Club, Inc.
corporation, a domestic firm is estopped from denying the former’s capacity to sue.
2. YES. According to Sec. 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court defines a real party in interest as the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. In this case, the CA made a factual finding that UIGDC and SBGCCI were in possession of the property when SBMA took over. Moreover, it also found that they had already made substantial investments in the project. The CA is correct in holding that UIGDC and SBGCCI stand to be benefitted or injured by the present suit and should be deemed real parties in interest.
3.
YES. According to petitioners, the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case because ejectment suits are cognizable by municipal courts. However, the complaint reveals that it sought to enjoin petitioners from rescinding the contract and taking over the property. While possession was a necessary consequence of the suit, it was merely incidental. The main issue is not ejectment, but whether SBMA could rescind the LDA. Because it was a dispute that was incapable of pecuniary estimation, it was within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
4. ERIKS PTE., LTD. V. COURT OF APPEALS [February 6, 1997] Effect of Doing Business in Philippines without a License: Barred From Access to Courts FACTS: 1. Petitioner Eriks Pte., Ltd. is a non¬resident foreign corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of elements used in sealing pumps, valves and pipes for industrial purposes, and PVC pipes and fittings for industrial uses. 2. Private respondent Delfin Enriquez, Jr., doing business under the name and style of Delrene EB Controls Center and/or EB Karmine Commercial, ordered and received from petitioner various elements used in sealing pumps, valves, pipes and control equipment, PVC pipes and fittings. 3. The transfer of goods were perfected in Singapore for private respondent’s account with a 90day credit term. Subsequently, demands were made by petitioner upon private respondent to settle his account, but the latter failed/refused to do so. 4. Petitioner corporation filed with the RTC a complaint for the recovery of US$41,939.63. Private respondent responded with a Motion to Dismiss, contending that petitioner corporation had no legal capacity to sue. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that petitioner is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without a license. 5. On appeal, the respondent court affirmed the RTC as it deemed the series of transactions between petitioner corporation and private respondent not to be an ―isolated or casual transaction.‖ Thus, respondent court found petitioner to be without legal capacity to sue. ISSUE: Is a foreign corporation which sold its products 16 times over a 5-month period to the same Filipino buyer without first obtaining a license to do business in the Philippines, prohibited from
maintaining an action to collect payment therefor in Philippine courts? In other words, is such foreign corporation ―doing business‖ in the Philippines without the required license and thus barred access to our court system? HELD: 1.The Corporation Code provides: ―Section 133. Doing business without a license — No foreign corporation transacting business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative agency of the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.‖ The aforementioned provision prohibits, not merely absence of the prescribed license, but it also bars a foreign corporation ―doing business‖ in the Philippines without such license access to our courts. A foreign corporation without such license is not ipso facto incapacitated from bringing an action. A license is necessary only if it is ―transacting or doing business‖ in the country. 2. The test to determine whether a foreign company is ―doing business‖ in the Philippines, thus: ―x x x The true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized or whether it has substantially retired from it and turned it over to another. The term implies a continuity of commercial dealings and arrangements, and contemplates, to that extent, the performance of acts or works or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, the purpose and object of its organization (Mentholaturn Co., Inc. v. Mangaliman). 3. The accepted rule in jurisprudence is that each case must be judged in the light of its environmental circumstances. It should be kept in mind that the purpose of the law is to subject the foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines to the jurisdiction of our courts. It is not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing single or isolated acts, but to bar it from acquiring a domicile for the purpose of business without first taking the steps necessary to render it amenable to suits in the local courts. 4. Thus, we hold that the series of transactions in question could not have been isolated or casual transactions. What is determinative of ―doing business‖ is not really the number or the quantity of the transactions, but more importantly, the intention of an entity to continue the body of its business in the country. The number and quantity are merely evidence of such intention. The phrase ―isolated transaction‖ has a definite and fixed meaning, i.e. a transaction or series of transactions set apart from the common business of a foreign enterprise in the sense that there is no intention to engage in a progressive pursuit of the purpose and object of the business organization. Whether a foreign corporation is ―doing business‖ does not necessarily depend upon the frequency of its transactions, but more upon the nature and character of the transactions. 5. Accordingly, petitioner must be held to be
incapacitated to maintain the action a quo against private respondent. By this judgment, we are not foreclosing petitioner’s right to collect payment. Res judicata does not set in a case dismissed for lack of capacity to sue, because there has been no determination on the merits. Moreover, this Court has ruled that subsequent acquisition of the license will cure the lack of capacity at the time of the execution of the contract. By securing a license, a foreign entity would be giving assurance that it will abide by the decisions of our courts, even if adverse to it. COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC et al vs.CA et al. G.R. No. 102223 August 22, 1996 FACTS: Petitioners COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., (CMDI) and ASPAC MULTI-TRADE INC., (ASPAC) are both domestic corporations.. Private Respondents ITEC, INC. and/or ITEC, INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ITEC) are corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, USA. There is no dispute that ITEC is a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the Philippines. ITEC entered into a contract with ASPAC referred to as ―Representative Agreement‖. Pursuant to the contract, ITEC engaged ASPAC as its ―exclusive representative‖ in the Philippines for the sale of ITEC’s products, in consideration of which, ASPAC was paid a stipulated commission. Through a ―License Agreement‖ entered into by the same parties later on, ASPAC was able to incorporate and use the name ―ITEC‖ in its own name. Thus , ASPAC Multi-Trade, Inc. became legally and publicly known as ASPAC-ITEC (Philippines). One year into the second term of the parties’ Representative Agreement, ITEC decided to terminate the same, because petitioner ASPAC allegedly violated its contractual commitment as stipulated in their agreements. ITEC charges the petitioners and another Philippine Corporation, DIGITAL BASE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (DIGITAL), the President of which is likewise petitioner Aguirre, of using knowledge and information of ITEC’s products specifications to develop their own line of equipment and product support, which are similar, if not identical to ITEC’s own, and offering them to ITEC’s former customer. The complaint was filed with the RTC-Makati by ITEC, INC. Defendants filed a MTD the complaint on the following grounds: (1) That plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue as it is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines without the required BOI authority and SEC license, and (2) that plaintiff is simply engaged in forum shopping which justifies the application against it of the principle of ―forum non conveniens‖. The MTD was denied. Petitioners elevated the case to the respondent CA on a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised ROC. It was dismissed as well. MR denied, hence this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. ISSUE: 1. Did the Philippine court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner corp, despite allegations of lack of capacity to sue because of non-registration? 2. Can the Philippine court give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of forum non convenience? HELD: petition dismissed. 1. YES; We are persuaded to conclude that ITEC had been ―engaged in‖ or ―doing business‖ in the Philippines for some time now. This is the inevitable result after a scrutiny of the different contracts and agreements entered into by ITEC with its various business contacts in the country. Its arrangements, with these entities indicate convincingly that ITEC is actively engaging in business in the country. A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may sue in Philippine Courts although not authorized to do business
here against a Philippine citizen or entity who had contracted with and benefited by said corporation. To put it in another way, a party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it. And the doctrine of estoppel to deny corporate existence applies to a foreign as well as to domestic corporations. One who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is estopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity. In Antam Consolidated Inc. vs. CA et al. we expressed our chagrin over this commonly used scheme of defaulting local companies which are being sued by unlicensed foreign companies not engaged in business in the Philippines to invoke the lack of capacity to sue of such foreign companies. Obviously, the same ploy is resorted to by ASPAC to prevent the injunctive action filed by ITEC to enjoin petitioner from using knowledge possibly acquired in violation of fiduciary arrangements between the parties. 2. YES; Petitioner’s insistence on the dismissal of this action due to the application, or non application, of the private international law rule of forum non conveniens defies wellsettled rules of fair play. According to petitioner, the Philippine Court has no venue to apply its discretion whether to give cognizance or not to the present action, because it has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in the case, the latter allegedly having no personality to sue before Philippine Courts. This argument is misplaced because the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the suit, by virtue of his filing the original complaint. And as we have already observed, petitioner is not at liberty to question plaintiff’s standing to sue, having already acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into the Representative Agreement referred to earlier. Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the Philippine Court, based on the facts of the case, whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of forum non convenience. Hence, the Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are met: 1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; 2) That the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, 3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. The aforesaid requirements having been met, and in view of the court’s disposition to give due course to the questioned action, the matter of the present forum not being the ―most convenient‖ as a ground for the suit’s dismissal, deserves scant consideration.
