1

`CONFLICT OF LAWS 1st SET DIGEST SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs. CA (1998) - "State of the most significant relationship" rule FACTS: defendant SAUDIA hired plaintiff as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of Thamer. When they were in te (sic) room, Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after he did, Thamer attempted to rape plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal Officer Sirah Akkad and base manager Baharini negotiated with the police for the immediate release of the detained crew members but did not succeed because plaintiff refused to cooperate. She was afraid that she might be tricked into something she did not want because of her inability to understand the local dialect. She also declined to sign a blank paper and a document written in the local dialect. SAUDIA allowed plaintiff to return to Jeddah but barred her from the Jakarta flights. The Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after two weeks of detention. Eventually, they were again put in service by defendant SAUDI. Defendant SAUDIA transferred plaintiff to Manila. Just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. One year and a half later, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy, the Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA. When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court. Plaintiff then returned to Manila. Defendant SAUDIA summoned plaintiff to report to Jeddah once again and see Miniewy for further investigation. Plaintiff did so after receiving assurance from SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, that the investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her. A Saudi judge interrogated plaintiff through an interpreter about the Jakarta incident. After one hour of interrogation, they let her go. At the airport, however, just as her plane was about to take off, a SAUDIA officer told her that the airline had forbidden her to take flight. To her astonishment and shock, the court rendered a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to 5 months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition. Private respondent sought the help of her employer, petitioner SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she was denied any assistance. Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. She was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause. Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi ("AlBalawi"), its country manager. SAUDIA alleged that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try the case on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code, since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. HELD: Petitioner SAUDIA claims that before us is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the outset. It maintains that private respondent's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It alleges that the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. 34 Private respondent contends that since her Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 35 and 21 36 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is properly a matter of domestic law. Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem herein could present a "conflicts" case. A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said to contain a "foreign element". The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a complex form. 42In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of jurisdiction 43 confronts the court a quo. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides: Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for damages. (RTC) of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. 48 Its authority to try and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691, to wit: Sec. 1. Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980", is hereby amended to read as follows: Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction: (8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above-mentioned items exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos (P200,000.00). (Emphasis ours) And following Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court the venue, Quezon City, is appropriate: Venue in Courts of First Instance. [Now

2
Regional Trial Court] (b) Personal actions. All other actions may be commenced and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction. Paramount Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. 49 By hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by either of the parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (now private respondent) should be upheld. The trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the persons of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent has voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court. Petitioner SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction by praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction. If his motion is for any other purpose than to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, he thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court. Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus, we find that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case and that its exercise thereof, justified. As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choiceof-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
53

Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the "connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place). This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. What is important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of the alleged tort. "State of the most significant relationship" rule (ICDR) - In applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. There is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is likewise no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage. Thus, the "relationship" between the parties was centered here, that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place "having the most interest in the problem", the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. The respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the appropriate venue is in Quezon City, which could properly apply Philippine law. the Philippines is the state intimately concerned with the ultimate outcome of the case below, not just for the benefit of all the litigants, but also for the vindication of the country's system of law and justice in a transnational setting. Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabia Airlines" is hereby REMANDED to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, CHRISTENSEN vs. AZNAR (1963) California, international football, renvoi FACTS: Edward S. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California where he resided and consequently was considered a California Citizen for a period of nine years to 1913. He came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until the time of his death. However, during the entire period of his residence in this country, he had always considered himself as a citizen of California. In his will, executed on March 5, 1951, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as 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,

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." 55 The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. There is reasonable basis for private respondent's assertion that although she was already working in Manila, petitioner brought her to Jeddah on the pretense that she would merely testify in an investigation of the charges she made against the two SAUDIA crew members for the attack on her person while they were in Jakarta. There is likewise logical basis on record for the claim that the "handing over" or "turning over" of the person of private respondent to Jeddah officials, petitioner may have acted beyond its duties as employer. Petitioner's purported act contributed to and amplified or even proximately caused additional humiliation, misery and suffering of private respondent.

3
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 increased in view of successional rights of illegitimate children 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. Whether Philippine Law or California Law should apply. HELD: The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen Christensen Garcia said in effect that there be two rules in California on the matter. 1. The conflict rule which should apply to Californians 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. Christensen being domiciled outside california, the law of his domicile, the Philippines is ought to be followed. Wherefore, the decision appealed is reversed and case is remanded to the lower court with instructions that partition be made as that of the Philippine law provides It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the place where the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased should govern. This contention can not be sustained. As explained in the various authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. no antenuptial marriage contract between the parties. During the existence of said marriage the spouses acquired lands in the Philippine Islands as conjugal property. Eva Johnson Gibbs later died intestate in Palo Alto, California, on November 28, 1929. At the time of her death she and her husband were citizens of the State of California and domiciled therein. Allison D. Gibbs was appointed administrator of the estate of his said deceased wife. Allison D. Gibbs filed an ex parte petition in which he alleged that his wife, a citizen and resident of California, died on November 28,1929; that in accordance with the law of California, the community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the surviving husband without administration; that the conjugal partnership of Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs, deceased, has no obligations or debts and no one will be prejudiced by adjucating said parcels of land to the absolute property of the said Allison D. Gibbs as sole owner. The court granted said petition and entered a decree adjucating Allison D. Gibbs to be the sole and absolute owner of said lands, applying section 1401 of the Civil Code of California. Gibbs presented this decree to the register of deeds of Manila and demanded that the latter issue to him a "transfer certificate of title". Section 1547 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code provides in part that: Registers of deeds shall not register in the registry of property any document transferring real property or real rights therein or any chattel mortgage, by way of gifts mortis causa, legacy or inheritance, unless the payment of the tax fixed in this article and actually due thereon shall be shown. And they shall immediately notify the Collector of Internal Revenue or the corresponding provincial treasurer of the non payment of the tax discovered by them. . . . Acting upon the authority of said section, the register of deeds of the City of Manila, declined to accept as binding said decree of court and refused to register the transfer of title of the said conjugal property to Allison D. Gibbs, on the ground that the corresponding inheritance tax had not been paid. Allison D. Gibbs filed in the said court a petition for an order requiring the said register of deeds "to issue the corresponding titles" to the petitioner without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax. After due hearing of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order. Supreme court remanded the case to the court of origin for new trial upon additional evidence in regard to the pertinent law of California in force at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs, also authorizing the introduction of evidence with reference to the dates of the acquisition of the property involved in this suit and with reference to the California law in force at the time of such acquisition. The case is now before us with the supplementary evidence. Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code entitled "Tax on inheritances, legacies and other acquisitions mortis causa" provides in section 1536 that "Every transmission by virtue of inheritance ... of real property ... shall be subject to the following tax." Issue: Was Eva Johnson Gibbs at the time of her death the owner of a descendible interest in the Philippine lands above-mentioned? Contention of the Appellee: The appellee contends that the law of California should determine the nature and extent of the title, if any, that vested in Eva Johnson Gibbs under the three certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331 above referred to, citing

GIBBS vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS (1933) California, inheritance tax

FACTS: Allison D. Gibbs has been continuously, since the year 1902, a citizen of the State of California and domiciled therein. He and Eva Johnson Gibbs were married at Columbus, Ohio, in July 1906. There was

4
article 9 of the Civil Code. But that, even if the nature and extent of her title under said certificates be governed by the law of the Philippine Islands, the laws of California govern the succession to such title, citing the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code. Appellant's chief argument and the sole basis of the lower court's decision rests upon the second paragraph of article 10 of the Civil Code which is as follows: Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may be situated. Decision: The trial court found that under the law of California, upon the death of the wife, the entire community property without administration belongs to the surviving husband; that he is the absolute owner of all the community property from the moment of the death of his wife, not by virtue of succession or by virtue of her death, but by virtue of the fact that when the death of the wife precedes that of the husband he acquires the community property, not as an heir or as the beneficiary of his deceased wife, but because she never had more than an inchoate interest or expentancy which is extinguished upon her death. The argument of the appellee apparently leads to this dilemma: If he takes nothing by succession from his deceased wife, how can the second paragraph of article 10 be invoked? Can the appellee be heard to say that there is a legal succession under the law of the Philippine Islands and no legal succession under the law of California? It seems clear that the second paragraph of article 10 applies only when a legal or testamentary succession has taken place in the Philippines and in accordance with the law of the Philippine Islands; and the foreign law is consulted only in regard to the order of succession or the extent of the successional rights. The second paragraph of article 10 can be invoked only when the deceased was vested with a descendible interest in property within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands. In the case of Clarke vs. Clarke the court said: It is principle firmly established that to the law of the state in which the land is situated we must look for the rules which govern its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. This fundamental principle is stated in the first paragraph of article 10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is subject to the laws of the nation of the owner thereof; real property to the laws of the country in which it is situated. It is stated in 5 Cal. Jur., 478: In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitae, the respective rights of husband and wife in such property, in the absence of an antenuptial contract, are determined by the law of the place where the property is situated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place where the marriage was celebrated. Under this broad principle, the nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of the acquisition of the community lands here in question must be determined in accordance with the lex rei sitae. It is admitted that the Philippine lands here in question were acquired as community property of the conjugal partnership of the appellee and his wife. Under the law of the Philippine Islands, she was vested of a title equal to that of her husband. Article 1407 of the Civil Code provides: All the property of the spouses shall be deemed partnership property in the absence of proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Article 1395 provides: "The conjugal partnership shall be governed by the rules of law applicable to the contract of partnership in all matters in which such rules do not conflict with the express provisions of this chapter." Article 1414 provides that "the husband may dispose by will of his half only of the property of the conjugal partnership." Article 1426 provides that upon dissolution of the conjugal partnership and after inventory and liquidation, "the net remainder of the partnership property shall be divided share and share alike between the husband and wife, or their respective heirs." Under the provisions of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence prevailing here, the wife, upon the acquisition of any conjugal property, becomes immediately vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband, subject to the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband. Immediately upon her death, if there are no obligations of the decedent, as is true in the present case, her share in the conjugal property is transmitted to her heirs by succession. It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands, vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of her husband, in the Philippine lands covered by certificates of title Nos. 20880, 28336 and 28331, from the date of their acquisition to the date of her death. That appellee himself believed that his wife was vested of such a title and interest in manifest from the second of said certificates, No. 28336, dated May 14, 1927, introduced by him in evidence, in which it is certified that "the spouses Allison D. Gibbs and Eva Johnson Gibbs are the owners in fee simple of the conjugal lands therein described." The descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly falls within the language of section 1536 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances. The record does not show what the proper amount of the inheritance tax in this case would be nor that the appellee (petitioner below) in any way challenged the power of the Government to levy an inheritance tax or the validity of the statute under which the register of deeds refused to issue a certificate of transfer reciting that the appellee is the exclusive owner of the Philippine lands included in the three certificates of title here involved. CADALIN, vs. POEA (1994) - amiri decree, bahrain FACTS: In 1984, Bienvenido M.. Cadalin, et.al, in their own behalf and on behalf of 728 other overseas contract workers (OCWs) instituted a class suit by filing an "Amended Complaint" with the (POEA) for money claims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII. It appears that the complainants-appellants allege that they were recruited by respondent-appellant AIBC for its accredited foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975 to 1983. They were all deployed at various projects undertaken by Brown & Root in several countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Libya, United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, as

5
well as in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia and Malaysia BRII is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged in construction; while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign principals. The complaint principally sought the payment of the unexpired portion of the employment contracts, which was terminated prematurely, and secondarily, the payment of the interest of the earnings of the Travel and Reserved Fund, interest on all the unpaid benefits; area wage and salary differential pay; fringe benefits; refund of SSS and premium not remitted to the SSS; refund of withholding tax not remitted to the BIR; penalties for committing prohibited practices; as well as the suspension of the license of AIBC and the accreditation of BRII In the State of Bahrain, where some of the individual complainants were deployed, His Majesty Isa Bin Salman Al Kaifa, Amir of Bahrain, issued his Amiri Decree No. 23 on June 16, 1976, otherwise known as the Labour Law for the Private Sector (Records, Vol. 18). This decree took effect on August 16, 1976. Some of the provisions of Amiri Decree No. 23 that are relevant to the claims of the complainants-appellants. On January 30, 1989, the POEA Administrator rendered his decision in POEA Case No. L-84-06-555 and the other consolidated cases, which awarded the amount of $824,652.44 in favor of only 324 complainants. AIBC and BRII appealed the decision to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA with modifications. It held that the Amiri Decree No. 23 applied only to the claimants, who worked in Bahrain, and set aside awards of the POEA Administrator in favor of the claimants, who worked elsewhere. It ruled that the prescriptive period for the filing of the claims of the complainants was three years, as provided in Article 291 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, and not ten years as provided in Article 1144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines nor one year as provided in the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. ISSUE: 1. prescription 23 of 1976 shall be the are entitled No. 23 HELD: Article 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 provides: A claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of one year from the date of the expiry of the contract. (G.R. Nos. 105029-31, Rollo, p. 226). As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive law (Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685; Salonga, Private International Law, 131 [1979]). A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law. Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company, supra, the American court applied the statute of limitations of New York, instead of the Panamanian law, after finding that there was no showing that the Panamanian law on prescription was whether it is the Bahrain law on of action based on the Amiri Decree No. or a Philippine law on prescription that governing law 2. Whether the claimants to the benefits provided by Amiri Decree intended to be substantive. Being considered merely a procedural law even in Panama, it has to give way to the law of the forum on prescription of actions. However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute." Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153 [1938]). A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel, Conflicts, 183 [1975]). While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it (Goodrich and Scoles, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines Islands. Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedures as to which were inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is inconsistent with or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws 104 [7th ed.]). In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore(By its own inherent force.) insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy (Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553, 40 S. Ct. 402, 64 L. ed. 713 [1920]). To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the 1987 Constitution emphasized that: The state shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. (Sec. 10). The state affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare (Sec. 18). In article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights, the 1987 Constitution provides: Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. NLRC applied the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, which provides for greater benefits than those stipulated in the overseas-employment contracts of the claimants. It was of the belief that "where the laws of the host country are more favorable and beneficial to the workers, then the laws of the host country shall form part of the overseas employment contract." It quoted with approval the observation of the POEA Administrator that ". . . in labor proceedings, all doubts in the implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor" (Rollo, pp. 90-94). AIBC and BRII claim that NLRC acted capriciously and whimsically when it refused to enforce the overseasemployment contracts, which became the law of the parties. They contend that the principle that a law is

6
deemed to be a part of a contract applies only to provisions of Philippine law in relation to contracts executed in the Philippines. The overseas-employment contracts, which were prepared by AIBC and BRII themselves, provided that the laws of the host country became applicable to said contracts if they offer terms and conditions more favorable that those stipulated therein. While a part thereof provides that the compensation to the employee may be "adjusted downward so that the total computation (thereunder) plus the non-waivable benefits shall be equivalent to the compensation" therein agreed, another part of the same provision categorically states "that total remuneration and benefits do not fall below that of the host country regulation and custom." Any ambiguity in the overseas-employment contracts should be interpreted against AIBC and BRII, the parties that drafted it (Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Margarine-Verkaufs-Union, 93 SCRA 257 [1979]). Article 1377 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: The interpretation of obscure words or stipulations in a contract shall not favor the party who caused the obscurity. Said rule of interpretation is applicable to contracts of adhesion where there is already a prepared form containing the stipulations of the employment contract and the employees merely "take it or leave it." The presumption is that there was an imposition by one party against the other and that the employees signed the contracts out of necessity that reduced their bargaining power (Fieldmen's Insurance Co., Inc. v. Songco, 25 SCRA 70 [1968]). Applying the said legal precepts, we read the overseas-employment contracts in question as adopting the provisions of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as part and parcel thereof. VAN DORN vs. ROMILLO (1985) divorce, Nevada, accounting & management of business as conjugal property, no standing to sue as husband after divorce FACTS: Alice Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while Richard Upton is a citizen of the United States. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and they established their residence in the Philippines. Alice and Richard had two children. But then the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982. Alice Van Dorn has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. Upton filed suit against petitioner in Civil Case No. 1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon Shop), is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Van Dorn 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 Upton had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss 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. Issue: Whether or not the divorce obtain by the parties in Nevada is valid Ruling: Yes, the divorce obtain in Nevada is valid. 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, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp & Gradt Ltd., to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community property nor community obligations. 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. For instance, private respondent cannot sue petitioner, as her husband, in any State of the Union. Issue: whether or not the divorce is valid and binding in this jurisdiction, the same being contrary to local law and public policy. Ruling: Yes, it is valid in the Philippines. 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. 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. To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. The Respondent should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be served. PILAPIL vs. IBAY-SOMERA (1989) no legal standing to sue for adultery after divorce, capacity determined at TIME OF FILING COMPLAINT FACTS: In 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The records show that under German law said court was locally and internationally competent for the divorce proceeding and that the dissolution of said marriage was legally founded on and authorized by the applicable law of that foreign jurisdiction. 4 On January 27, 1986, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before CFI of Manila, alleging that while still married to him, petitioner had affairs with two other men. The petition is anchored on the main ground that the court is without jurisdiction to try and decide the charge of adultery which is a private offense that cannot be prosecuted de oficio since the purported complainant, a foreigner, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a final decree of divorce under his

7
national law complaint. prior to the filing of the criminal having an adulterous relationship with his brother, Ceferino Llorente. Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. In fact, the couple drew a written agreement to the effect that (1) all the family allowances allotted by the United States Navy as part of Lorenzos salary and all other obligations for Paulas daily maintenance and support would be suspended; (2) they would dissolve their marital union in accordance with judicial proceedings; (3) they would make a separate agreement regarding their conjugal property acquired during their marital life; and (4) Lorenzo would not prosecute Paula for her adulterous act since she voluntarily admitted her fault and agreed to separate from Lorenzo peacefully. The agreement was signed by both Lorenzo and Paula and was witnessed by Paulas father and stepmother. The agreement was notarized. Lorenzo returned to the United States and filed for divorce. The Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Diego found all factual allegations to be true and issued an interlocutory judgment of divorce. One year after, the divorce decree became final. In 1958, Lorenzo married Alicia F. Llorente in Manila. Their (25) year union produced three children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surnamed Llorente. In 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament. In the will, Lorenzo bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children. In 1983, Lorenzo filed a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate. Finding that the will was duly executed, the trial court admitted the will to probate. But before the proceedings could be terminated, Lorenzo died. Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzos estate in her favor. Paula contended (1) that she was Lorenzos surviving spouse, (2) that the various property were acquired during their marriage, (3) that Lorenzos will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children, encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property. Alicia filed in the testate proceeding, a petition for the issuance of letters testamentary. Without terminating the testate proceedings, the trial court gave due course to Paulas petition. The Regional Trial Court decided that the divorce decree granted to the late Lorenzo Llorente is void and inapplicable in the Philippines, therefore the marriage he contracted with Alicia Fortunato is likewise void. This being so the petition of Alicia F. Llorente for the issuance of letters testamentary was denied. She was not entitled to receive any share from the estate even if the will especially said so her relationship with Lorenzo having gained the status of paramour which is under Art. 739 (1). Also, the court declared the intrinsic disposition of the will of Lorenzo Llorente as void and declared Paula entitled as conjugal partner and entitled to one-half of their conjugal properties, and as primary compulsory heir, also entitled to onethird of the estate and then one-third should go to the illegitimate children, Raul, Luz and Beverly, all surname (sic) Llorente, for them to partition in equal shares and also entitled to the remaining free portion in equal shares. Alicia Llorente appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower courts decision with modification that Alicia is declared as co-owner of whatever properties she and the deceased may have acquired during the (25) years of cohabitation. Issue: Was the divorce valid?

Is the divorce obtained by private respondent valid here in the Philippines? Does the private respondent have the legal standing to sue for adultery? HELD: I. YES. The fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in the Federal Republic of Germany is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized here in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned following the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons. 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 policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner.

II.

NO. The status of the complainant vis--vis the accused must be determined as of the time the complainant was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be the offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse; at the time of the filing of the complaint. The allegation of private respondent that he could not have brought this case before the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is of no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously knew that there would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action be definitely established and, as already demonstrated, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates the action. It would be absurd if his capacity to bring the action would be determined by his status before or subsequent to the commencement thereof, where such capacity or status existed prior to but ceased before, or was acquired subsequent to but did not exist at the time of, the institution of the case. We would thereby have the anomalous spectacle of a party bringing suit at the very time when he is without the legal capacity to do so.

LLORENTE vs. CA divorce, will, new york, renvoi, intrinsic validity of wills governed by foreign law (national law of testator), extrinsic validity by phil. Law (place of execution) FACTS: Lorenzo N. Llorente, an enlisted serviceman of the United States and husband of Paula Llorente was admitted to United States citizenship. When Lorenzo visited the Philippines, he discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was living in and

8
Ruling: Yes. The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula; (2) marriage to Alicia; (3) execution of his will; and (4) death, is duly established, admitted and undisputed. Thus, as a rule, issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law. The Civil Code clearly provides: Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (emphasis ours) True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved. While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of Appeals did not admit the foreign law. The Court of Appeals and the trial court called to the fore the renvoi doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the decedents domicile, in this case, Philippine law. We note that while the trial court stated that the law of New York was not sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit equally unproven statement that American law follows the domiciliary theory hence, Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzos will. First, there is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot possibly apply to general American law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the United States. Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State. It can therefore refer to no other than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident. Second, there is no showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine is called for or required by New York State law. The trial court held that the will was intrinsically invalid since it contained dispositions in favor of Alice, who in the trial courts opinion was a mere paramour. The trial court threw the will out, leaving Alice, and her two children, Raul and Luz, with nothing. The Court of Appeals also disregarded the will. It declared Alice entitled to one half (1/2) of whatever property she and Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation, applying Article 144 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining. Validity of the Foreign Divorce In Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. we held 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 policy and morality. In the same case, the Court ruled that aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. Citing this landmark case, the Court held in Quita v. Court of Appeals, that once proven that respondent was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from him. In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, we recognized the divorce obtained by the respondent in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany. There, we stated that divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. For failing to apply these doctrines, the decision of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. We hold that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of the trial court. Validity of the Will The Civil Code provides: Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution. (underscoring ours) The clear intent of Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children by her is glaringly shown in the will he executed. We do not wish to frustrate his wishes, since he was a foreigner, not covered by our laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity. Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required is answered by referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated. As a guide however, the trial court should note that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifically left the amount of successional rights to the decedent's national law. Court REMANDS the cases to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo N. Llorentes will and determination of the parties successional rights allowing proof of foreign law with instructions that the trial court shall proceed with all deliberate dispatch to settle the estate of the deceased within the framework of the Rules of Court. GARCIA vs. RECIO (2001) Australia divorce, party pleading foreign divorce decree, must prove: (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself, absolute divorce vs limited divorce, bigamy FACTS: Respondent Recio (Filipino citizen at that time) was married to Samson (Australian citizen) in Malabon in 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. In 1989, a decree of divorce was issued by an Australian family court. In 1992,

9
respondent became an Australian citizen. Petitioner Garcia (Filipina) and respondent were married in 1994 in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino." Starting 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. In 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her in 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage to Samson only in 1997. Respondent averred that, as far back as 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and its subsequent dissolution. He contended that his first marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australian in 1989; thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. In 1998 (while the suit for declaration of nullity was pending) respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Australia. The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines. Hence, this Petition. HELD: A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry." A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove: (1) the foreign law allowing absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself. Divorce as a Question of Fact Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value (authenticity and due execution), the document (divorce decree) must first be presented and admitted in evidence.30 A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, 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 which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. Compliance with the aforementioned rules on evidence must be demonstrated. Fortunately for respondent, when the 1989 divorce decree was submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry (as required by Art. 52 of the Family Code). Petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Australia. Compliance with Articles 11, 13 and 52 (registration requirements) of the Family Code (as contended by petitioner) is not necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. By becoming an Australian (naturalization), respondent severed his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to Philippine personal laws. Since the divorce was a defense (in action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy) raised by respondent, the burden of proving the pertinent Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him. Our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Respondent's Legal Capacity to Remarry Divorces are of different types. The two basic ones are (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The first kind terminates the marriage, while the second suspends it and leaves the bond in full force. There is no showing in the case at bar which type of divorce was procured by respondent. Respondent presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree a conditional or provisional judgment of divorce. It is in effect the same as a separation from bed and board, although an absolute divorce may follow after the lapse of the prescribed period during which no reconciliation is effected. On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads: "1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) commits the offence of bigamy." This quotation bolsters our contention that the divorce obtained by respondent may have been restricted. It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Hence, we find no basis for the ruling of the trial court, which erroneously assumed that the Australian divorce ipso facto restored respondent's capacity to remarry despite the paucity of evidence on this matter. Significance of the Certificate of Legal Capacity (as required by Article 21 of the Family Code) The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned. The certificate mentioned in Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly presented it in court. A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. There is absolutely no evidence that proves respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. We

10
cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. Court a quo erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto clothed respondent with the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to show the Australian personal law governing his status; or at the very least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the second marriage. Neither can we grant petitioner's prayer to declare her marriage to respondent null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all, it may turn out that under Australian law, he was really capacitated to marry petitioner as a direct result of the divorce decree. Hence, we believe that the most judicious course is to REMAND this case to the trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show petitioner's legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of the parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines, one in Malabon, Metro Manila dated 1987 and the other, in Cabanatuan City dated 1994. REPUBLIC vs. IYOY (2005) - Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC: obtained divorce in 1984, she married her American husband in 1985, American citizen ONLY since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, she was still bound by Philippine laws FACTS: The proceedings before the RTC commenced with the filing of a Complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage by respondent Crasus in 1997. According to the said Complaint, respondent Crasus married Fely in 1961 in Cebu City. In 1984, Fely left the Philippines for the United States, leaving all of their five children, to the care of respondent Crasus. Sometime in 1985, respondent Crasus learned, through the letters sent by Fely to their children, that Fely got married to an American, with whom she eventually had a child. At the time the Complaint was filed, it had been 13 years since Fely left and abandoned respondent Crasus, and there was no more possibility of reconciliation between them. Respondent Crasus finally alleged in his Complaint that Felys acts brought danger and dishonor to the family, and clearly demonstrated her psychological incapacity to perform the essential obligations of marriage. Such incapacity, being incurable and continuing, constitutes a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, in relation to Articles 68, 70, and 72, of the Family Code. Not long after, RTC promulgated its Judgment declaring the marriage of respondent Crasus and Fely null and void ab initio. The RTC rendered the decision rationating, to wit: Article 26 of the Family Code provides: Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. WHERE A MARRIAGE BETWEEN A FILIPINO CITIZEN AND A FOREIGNER IS VALIDLY CELEBRATED AND A DIVORCE IS THEREAFTER VALIDLY OBTAINED ABROAD BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE CAPACITATING HIM OR HER TO REMARRY, THE FILIPINO SPOUSE SHALL LIKEWISE HAVE CAPACITY TO REMARRY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW. The rationale behind the second paragraph of the above-quoted provision is to avoid the absurd and unjust situation of a Filipino citizen still being married to his or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the Filipino spouse because he or she has obtained a divorce abroad. In the case at bench, the defendant has undoubtedly acquired her American husbands citizenship and thus has become an alien as well. This Court cannot see why the benefits of Art. 26 aforequoted can not be extended to a Filipino citizen whose spouse eventually embraces another citizenship and thus becomes herself an alien. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Issue: Whether or not par. 2 of Art. 26 of the Family Code is finds application to the case at bar. HELD: As it is worded, Article 26, paragraph 2, refers to a special situation wherein one of the couple getting married is a Filipino citizen and the other a foreigner at the time the marriage was celebrated. By its plain and literal interpretation, the said provision cannot be applied to the case of respondent Crasus and his wife Fely because at the time Fely obtained her divorce, she was still a Filipino citizen. Although the exact date was not established, Fely herself admitted in her Answer filed before the RTC that she obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the United States in 1984, after which she married her American husband in 1985. In the same Answer, she alleged that she had been an American citizen since 1988. At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now, do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses. Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from respondent Crasus. REPUBLIC vs. ORBECIDO - Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. FACTS: In 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva in Ozamis City. In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied. The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code 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 respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination. This case concerns the applicability of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 to a marriage between two Filipino citizens where one later acquired alien citizenship, obtained a divorce decree, and remarried while in the U.S.A. The

11
interests of the parties are also adverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts its duty to protect the institution of marriage while respondent, a private citizen, insists on a declaration of his capacity to remarry. Issue: Does Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code apply to the case of respondent? Pero ang issue nga related sa atong subject kay murag related sa how can a foreign divorce decree be recognized in our courts? Para conflict2x of laws kunuhay. 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? HELD: ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied) 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 U.S.A. Records of the proceedings of the Family Code deliberations showed that the intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26, according to Judge Sempio-Dy, is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse. We hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within its spirit or intent. In view of the foregoing, we state the twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 as follows: 1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and 2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry. In this case, when Ciprianos wife was naturalized as an American citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between her and Cipriano. As fate would have it, the naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the divorced Filipino spouse, should be allowed to remarry. However, we note that the records are bereft of competent evidence duly submitted by respondent concerning the divorce decree and the naturalization of respondents wife. It is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence. Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and proved. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage. PERKINS vs. DIZON (1939) FACTS: On July 6, 1938, respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for dividends amounting to P71,379.90 on 52,874 shares of stock registered in his name, payment of which was being withheld by the company; and, for the recognition of his right to the control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. To the complaint, the company filed its answer alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of such dividends and the non-recognition of plaintiff's right to the disposal and control of the shares were due to certain demands made with respect to said shares by the petitioner herein, Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H. Engelhard. The answer prays that the adverse claimants be made parties to the action and served with notice thereof by publication, and that thereafter all such parties be required to interplead and settle the rights among themselves. On September 5, 1938, the trial court ordered respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to include in his complaint as parties defendant petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, and George H. Engelhard. The complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the original complaint, respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from any claim they assert thereon. Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. On December 9, 1938, Engelhard filed his answer to the amended complaint, and on December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her pleading entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's objection, motion and demurrer having been overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari, praying that the summons by publication issued against her be

12
declared null and void, and that, with respect to her, respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library The controlling issue here involved is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the present petitioner as a non-resident defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such jurisdiction, whether or not said court may validly try the case. The parties have filed lengthy memorandums relying on numerous authorities, but the principles governing the question are well settled in this jurisdiction.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library HELD: Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident defendant is sued in the Philippine courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or personal property within the Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from any interest therein, service of summons maybe made by publication.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library We have fully explained the meaning of this provision in El Banco Espaol Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921, wherein we laid down the following rules: (1) In order that the court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which organizes a court and determines the nature and extent of its powers in general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with reference to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired by their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library (2) When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntary, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person even if the summons be served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. No tribunal established by one State can extend its process beyond its territory so as to subject to its decisions either persons or property located in another State. "There are many expressions in the American reports from which it might be inferred that the court acquires personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by publication and notice; but such is not the case. In truth, the proposition that jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident cannot be acquired by publication and notice was never clearly understood even in the American courts until after the decision had been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case of Pennoyer v. Neff (95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565). In the light of that decisions which have subsequently been rendered in that and other courts, the proposition that jurisdiction over the person cannot be thus acquired by publication and notice is no longer open to question; and it is now fully established that a personal judgment upon constructive or substituted service against a non-resident who does not appear is wholly invalid. This doctrine applies to all kinds of constructive or substituted process, including service by publication and personal service outside of the jurisdiction in which the judgment is rendered; and the only exception seems to be found in the case where the non-resident defendant has expressly or impliedly consented to the mode of service. (Note to Raher vs. Raher, 35 L. R. A. [N. S.], 292; see also L.R.A. 585; 35 L.R.A. [N.S.], 312.) chanrobles virtual law library (3) The general rule, therefore, is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court. Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection with property located in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident is non-essential. In order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property is impliedly recognized by law. "An illustration of what we term potential jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the property , assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world." chanrobles virtual law library (4) As before stated, in an action in rem or quasi in rem against a non-resident defendant, jurisdiction over his person is non-essential, and if the law requires in such case that the summons upon the defendant be served by publication, it is merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. If any be said, in this connection, that "may reported cases can be cited in which it is assumed that the question of the sufficiency of publication or notice in the case of this kind is a question affecting the jurisdiction of the court, and the court is sometimes said to acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the publication. This phraseology was undoubtedly originally adopted by the court because of the analogy between service by publication and personal service of process upon the defendant; and, as has already been suggested, prior to the decision of Pennoyer v. Neff (supra), the difference between the legal effects of the two forms of service was obscure. It is accordingly not surprising that the modes of expression which had already been moulded into legal tradition before that case was decided have been brought down to the present day. But it is clear that the legal principle here involved is not affected by the peculiar languages in which the courts have expounded their ideas." The reason for the rule that Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of a non-resident, as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, may be found in a recognized principle of public law to the effect that "no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or property without its territory. Story, Confl. L., ch. 2; Wheat, Int. L., pt. 2, ch. 2. The several States are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by jurists, as an elementary principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far

13
as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal established by it can extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions. "Any exertion of authority of this sort beyond this limit," says Story, "is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in any other tribunals." Story, Confl. L., sec. 539." (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565, 568569.).chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library When, however, the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the Philippine courts may validly try the case, upon the principle that a "State, through its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its citizens; and, when non-residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It is in virtue of the State's jurisdiction over the property of the nonresident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into the non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the non-resident has no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate." (Pennoyer v. Neff, supra.) chanrobles virtual law library In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by Eugene Arthur Perkins in his amended complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines. That property consists in certain shares of stocks of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a sociedad anonima, organized in the Philippines under the provisions of the Spanish Code of Commerce, with its principal office in the City of Manila and which conducts its mining activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the jurisdiction where the corporation is created, whether the certificated evidencing the ownership of those shares are within or without that jurisdiction. (Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Permanent ed. Vol. 11, p. 95). Under these circumstances, we hold that the action thus brought is quasi in rem, for while the judgement that may be rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes and settles the title to the property in controversy and to that extent partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem." (50 C.J., p 503). As held by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pennoyer v. Neff (supra); It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in rem is one taken directly against property, and has for its object the disposition of the property, without reference to the title of individual claimants; but , in a large and more general sense, the terms are applied to actions between parties, where the direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by them, or of some interest therein. The action being in quasi in rem, The Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process, summons has been served upon her by publication. There is no question as to the adequacy of publication made nor as to the mailing of the order of publication to the petitioner's last known place of residence in the United States. But, of course, the action being quasi in rem and notice having be made by publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-resident. In the amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for against the petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be declared to be without any interest in the shares in controversy and that she be excluded from any claim thereto.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Petitioner contends that the proceeding instituted against her is one of interpleading and is therefore an action in personam. Section 120 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that whenever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation or any portion thereof, so that he may be made subject to several actions by different persons, such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants, disclaiming personal interest in the controversy, and the court may order them to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among themselves, there upon proceed to determine their several claims. Here, The Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, in its answer to the complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, averred that in connection with the shares of stock in question, conflicting claims were being made upon it by said plaintiff, Eugene Arthur Perkins, his wife Idonah Slade Perkins, and one named George H. Engelhard, and prayed that these last two be made parties to the action and served with summons by publication, so that the three claimants may litigate their conflicting claims and settle their rights among themselves. The court has not issued an order compelling the conflicting claimants to interplead with one another and litigate their several claims among themselves, but instead ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint including the other two claimants as parties defendant. The plaintiff did so, praying that the new defendants thus joined be excluded fro any interest in the shares in question, and it is upon this amended complaint that the court ordered the service of the summons by publication. It is therefore, clear that the publication of the summons was ordered not in virtue of an interpleading, but upon the filing of the amended complaint wherein an action quasi in rem is alleged.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Had not the complaint been amended, including the herein petitioner as an additional defendant, and had the court, upon the filing of the answer of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, issued an order under section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, calling the conflicting claimants into court and compelling them to interplead with one another, such order could not perhaps have validly been served by publication or otherwise, upon the non-resident Idonah Slade Perkins, for then the proceeding would be purely one of interpleading. Such proceeding is a personal action, for it merely seeks to call conflicting claimants into court so that they may interplead and litigate their several claims among themselves, and no specific relief is prayed for against them, as the interpleader have appeared in court, one of them pleads ownership of the personal property located in the Philippines and seeks to exclude a non-resident claimant from any interest therein, is a question which we do not decide not. Suffice it to say that here the service of the summons by publication was ordered by the lower court by virtue of an action quasi in rem against the non-resident defendant.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library Respondents contend that, as the petitioner in the lower court has pleaded over the subject-matter, she has submitted herself to its jurisdiction. We have noticed, however, that these pleas have been made not as independent grounds for relief, but merely as additional arguments in support of her contention that

14
the lower court had no jurisdiction over the person. In other words, she claimed that the lower court had no jurisdiction over her person not only because she is a non-resident, but also because the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the action and that the issues therein involved have already been decided by the New York court and are being relitigated in the California court. Although this argument is obviously erroneous, as neither jurisdiction over the subject-matter nor res adjudicata nor lis pendens has anything to do with the question of jurisdiction over her person, we believe and so hold that the petitioner has not, by such erroneous argument, submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the court. Voluntary appearance cannot be implied from either a mistaken or superflous reasoning but from the nature of the relief prayed for. PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORP. vs. CA (1997) effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country: (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment 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; extraterritorial service provides that service of summons on a non-resident defendant may be effected out of the Philippines by leave of Court where, among others, the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines pending in the United States, petitioners PHILSEC and ATHONA filed a complaint For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment against private respondents in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 16563. The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respective counterclaims in Civil Action No. H-86-440 of the United States District Court of Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling the property at a price 400 percent more than its true value of US$800,000.00. Petitioners claimed that, as a result of private respondents fraudulent misrepresentations, ATHONA, PHILSEC, and AYALA were induced to enter into the Agreement and to purchase the Houston property. Petitioners prayed that private respondents be ordered to return to ATHONA the excess payment of US$1,700,000.00 and to pay damages. On April 20, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against the real and personal properties of private respondents. Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 16563 on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-avis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S., (2) forum non conveniens. On the other hand, private respondents 1488, Inc. and its president Daic filed a joint Special Appearance and Qualified Motion to Dismiss, contending that the action being in personam, extraterritorial service of summons by publication was ineffectual and did not vest the court with jurisdiction over 1488, Inc., which is a non-resident foreign corporation, and Daic, who is a non-resident alien. trial court granted Ducats motion to dismiss, stating that the evidentiary requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before the forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in private international law of forum non conveniens, even as it noted that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. The trial court also held itself without jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic because they were non-residents and the action was not an action in rem or quasi in rem, so that extraterritorial service of summons was ineffective. The trial court subsequently lifted the writ of attachment it had earlier issued against the shares of stocks of 1488, Inc. and Daic. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 16563 against Ducat, 1488, Inc., and Daic on the ground of litis pendentia. Issues: 1. Whether or not the doctrine of pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause (litis pendentia) relied upon by the court of appeals in affirming the trial courts dismissal of the civil action is applicable. 2. Whether or not the principle of forum non conveniens also relied upon by the court of appeals in affirming the dismissal by the trial court of the civil action is likewise applicable.

FACTS: In order to facilitate the payment of the loans which the original debtor Ventura Ducat obtained from AYALA and Philsec, private respondent 1488, Inc. assumed Ducats obligation under an Agreement, dated 1983, whereby 1488, Inc. (assumed Ducats obligation) executed a Warranty Deed with Vendors Lien by which it sold to petitioner Athona Holdings a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas, U.S.A., for US$2,807,209.02, while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA in the amount of US$2,500,000.00 as initial payment of the purchase price. The balance of US$307,209.02 was to be paid by means of a promissory note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc. As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance of US$307,209.02, the entire amount covered by the note became due and demandable. Accordingly, in 1985, private respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC, AYALA, and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the balance of US$307,209.02 and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability of the shares of stock delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement. The case was docketed as Case No. 8557746. ATHONA filed an answer with counterclaim, impleading private respondents herein as counterdefendants, for allegedly conspiring in selling the property at a price over its market value. ATHONA sought the recovery of damages and excess payment allegedly made to 1488, Inc. and, in the alternative, the rescission of sale of the property. For their part, PHILSEC and AYALA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over their person, but, as their motion was denied. In 1987, while Civil Case No. H-86-440 was

HELD: While the present case was pending in the Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas rendered judgment in the case before it. The judgment, which was in favor of private respondents, was affirmed on appeal by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Thus, the principal issue to be resolved in this case is whether Civil Case No. 16536 is barred by the judgment of the U.S. court. Private respondents contend that for a foreign judgment to be pleaded as res judicata, a judgment admitting the foreign decision is not necessary.

15
On the other hand, petitioners argue that the foreign judgment cannot be given the effect of res judicata without giving them an opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in Rule 39, 50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Petitioners contention is meritorious. While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for this purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary. Rule 39, 50 provides: SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. - The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment 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. Thus, in the case of General Corporation of the Philippines v. Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd.,which private respondents invoke for claiming conclusive effect for the foreign judgment in their favor, the foreign judgment was considered res judicata because this Court found from the evidence as well as from appellants own pleadings that the foreign court did not make a clear mistake of law or fact or that its judgment was void for want of jurisdiction or because of fraud or collusion by the defendants. Trial had been previously held in the lower court and only afterward was a decision rendered, declaring the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington to have the effect of res judicata in the case before the lower court. In the same vein, in Philippine International Shipping Corp. v. Court of Appeals, this Court held that the foreign judgment was valid and enforceable in the Philippines there being no showing that it was vitiated by want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact. The prima facie presumption under the Rule had not been rebutted. In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata. As the trial court stated in its disputed order dated March 9, 1988: On the plaintiffs claim in its Opposition that the causes of action of this case and the pending case in the United States are not identical, precisely the Order of January 26, 1988 never found that the causes of action of this case and the case pending before the USA Court, were identical. (emphasis added) It was error therefore for the Court of Appeals to summarily rule that petitioners action is barred by the principle of res judicata. Petitioners in fact questioned the jurisdiction of the U.S. court over their persons, but their claim was brushed aside by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Moreover, the Court notes that on April 22, 1992, 1488, Inc. and Daic filed a petition for the enforcement of judgment in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 921070 and assigned to Branch 134, although the proceedings were suspended because of the pendency of this case. To sustain the appellate courts ruling that the foreign judgment constitutes res judicata and is a bar to the claim of petitioners would effectively preclude petitioners from repelling the judgment in the case for enforcement. An absurdity could then arise: a foreign judgment is not subject to challenge by the plaintiff against whom it is invoked, if it is pleaded to resist a claim as in this case, but it may be opposed by the defendant if the foreign judgment is sought to be enforced against him in a separate proceeding. This is plainly untenable. It has been held therefore that: [A] foreign judgment may not be enforced if it is not recognized in the jurisdiction where affirmative relief is being sought. Hence, in the interest of justice, the complaint should be considered as a petition for the recognition of the Hongkong judgment under Section 50 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in order that the defendant, private respondent herein, may present evidence of lack of jurisdiction, notice, collusion, fraud or clear mistake of fact and law, if applicable. Accordingly, to insure the orderly administration of justice, this case and Civil Case No. 92-1070 (petition for the enforcement of judgment) should be consolidated. After all, the two have been filed in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, albeit in different salas, this case being assigned to Branch 56 (Judge Gorospe), while Civil Case No. 92-1070 is pending in Branch 134 of Judge Capulong. In such proceedings, petitioners should have the burden of impeaching the foreign judgment and only in the event they succeed in doing so may they proceed with their action against private respondents. Second. Nor is the trial courts refusal to take cognizance of the case justifiable under the principle of forum non conveniens. First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1, which does not include forum non conveniens.i[16] The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance. In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one of the defendants (Ventura

16
Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latters debt which was the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. Third. It was error we think for the Court of Appeals and the trial court to hold that jurisdiction over 1488, Inc. and Daic could not be obtained because this is an action in personam and summons were served by extraterritorial service. Rule 14, 17 on extraterritorial service provides that service of summons on a nonresident defendant may be effected out of the Philippines by leave of Court where, among others, the property of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.ii[18] It is not disputed that the properties, real and personal, of the private respondents had been attached prior to service of summons under the Order of the trial court. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and Civil Case No. 16563 (Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment 1987) is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati for consolidation with Civil Case No. 92-1070 and for further proceedings in accordance with this decision. RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL vs. ROUZIE (2008) where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum; That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts FACTS: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. In 1992, respondent secured a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and mudflows. In 1994, respondent filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc. (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of employment contract. In 1995, Labor Arbiter Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr. rendered judgment ordering BMSI and RUST to pay respondents money claims. NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed respondents complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Respondent elevated the case to this Court but was dismissed. The Resolution became final and executory in 1998. In 1999, respondent, then a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages before the (RTC). The Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1192-BG, named as defendants herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI and RUST, the two corporations impleaded in the earlier labor case. The complaint essentially reiterated the allegations in the labor case that BMSI verbally employed respondent to negotiate the sale of services in government projects and that respondent was not paid the commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging project which he secured on behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI and RUST as well as petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one company. In its Answer, petitioner alleged that contrary to respondents claim, it was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and denied entering into any arrangement with respondent or paying the latter any sum of money. Petitioner also denied combining with BMSI and RUST for the purpose of assuming the alleged obligation of the said companies. Petitioner also referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the written agreement between respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as Special Sales Representative Agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory counterclaim. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. HELD: The instant petition lacks merit. Petitioner mainly asserts that the written contract between respondent and BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute namely, the parties and witnesses involved are American corporations and citizens and the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines that renders our local courts inconvenient forums. Petitioner theorizes that the foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Recently in Hasegawa v. Kitamura, the Court outlined three consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems, namely: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Thus, in the instances where the Court held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort; (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 the power to enforce its decision. On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-oflaws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law and by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. Civil Case No. 1192-BG is an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the

17
amount of damages prayed jurisdiction of the RTC. are within the link that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. The employment contract. Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized recruitment agency of the government.36 Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (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.37 The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar. Not Convenient. We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of the case from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither .are they "doing business in the Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines. No power to determine applicable law. Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made). The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the People's Republic of China. No power to determine the facts. Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, People's Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos' retrenchment. Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision. Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired. BANK OF AMERICA vs. AMERICAN REALTY CORP. (1999) English law, mortgage, doctrine of processual presumption, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. FACTS: Petitioner Bank of America (BANTSA) is an international banking and financing institution duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, United States of America while private respondent American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a domestic corporation. Bank of America International Limited (BAIL), on the other hand, is a

That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court. Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the courts desistance. MANILA HOTEL CORP. vs. NLRC (2000) - Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (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.37 FACTS: Private respondent Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman. Subsequently, he was directly hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic of China and later terminated due to retrenchment. Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corp. (MHC) and the Manila Hotel International Co. Ltd. (MHICL). MHICL is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong. MHC is an "incorporator" of MHICL, owning 50% of its capital stock. By virtue of a "management agreement"9 with the Palace Hotel (Wang Fu Company Limited), MHICL10 trained the personnel and staff of the Palace Hotel at Beijing, China. During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in the Sultanate of Oman, respondent Santos received a letter from Mr. Shmidt, General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos that he was recommended by one Nestor Buenio, a friend of his. Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the same position as printer, but with a higher monthly salary and increased benefits. Respondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and signified his acceptance of the offer. Respondent Santos left for Beijing, China. He started to work at the Palace Hotel. On August 10, 1989, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. Respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. NLRC ruled in favor of Santos. HELD: The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only

18
limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of England. BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted three major multi-million United States (US) Dollar loans to the following corporate borrowers: (1) Liberian Transport Navigation; (2) El Challenger and (3) Eshley Compania Naviera (borrowers), all of which are existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of Panama and are foreign affiliates of private respondent. Due to the default in the payment of the loan amortizations, BANTSA and the corporate borrowers signed and entered into restructuring agreements. As additional security for the restructured loans, private respondent ARC as third party mortgagor executed two real estate mortgages. The corporate borrowers defaulted in the payment of the restructured loans prompting petitioner BANTSA to file civil actions before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. In the civil suits instituted before the foreign courts, private respondent ARC, being a third party mortgagor, was private not impleaded as partydefendant. In 1992, petitioner BANTSA filed before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. In 1993, after due publication and notice, the mortgaged real properties were sold at public auction in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, with Integrated Credit and Corporation Services Co (ICCS) as the highest bidder for the sum of (P24M). In 1993, private respondent filed before the Pasig Regional Trial Court, an action for damages against the petitioner, for the latter's act of foreclosing extrajudicially the real estate mortgages despite the pendency of civil suits before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. In its answer petitioner alleged that the rule prohibiting the mortgagee from foreclosing the mortgage after an ordinary suit for collection has been filed, is not applicable in the present case, claiming that: a) The plaintiff, being a mere third party mortgagor and not a party to the principal restructuring agreements, was never made a party defendant in the civil cases filed in Hongkong and England; b) There is actually no civil suit for sum of money filed in the Philippines since the civil actions were filed in Hongkong and England. As such, any decisions (sic) which may be rendered in the abovementioned courts are not (sic) enforceable in the Philippines unless a separate action to enforce the foreign judgments is first filed in the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 50 of the Revised Rules of Court. c) Under English Law, which is the governing law under the principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by filing civil actions for sums of money. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner's act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure. HELD: In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. Accordingly, applying the foregoing rules, we hold that petitioner, by the expediency of filing four civil suits before foreign courts, necessarily abandoned the remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over the properties of third-party mortgagor and herein private respondent ARC. Moreover, by filing the four civil actions and by eventually foreclosing extrajudicially the mortgages, petitioner in effect transgressed the rules against splitting a cause of action well-enshrined in jurisprudence and our statute books. BANTSA alleges that under English Law, which according to petitioner is the governing law with regard to the principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money. We rule in the negative. This argument shows desperation on the part of petitioner to rivet its crumbling cause. In the case at bench, Philippine law shall apply notwithstanding the evidence presented by petitioner to prove the English law on the matter. In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law would still not find applicability. Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied. Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Clearly then, English Law is not applicable.

YAO KEE vs. SY-GONZALES (1988) - In the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it should be presumed that it is the same as ours. Since Yao Kee admitted in her testimony that there was no solemnizing officer as is known here in the Philippines when her alleged marriage to Sy Mat was celebrated it therefore follows that her marriage to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. FACTS: Sy Kiat, a Chinese national died in Caloocan City where he was then residing, leaving behind real

19
and personal properties here in the Philippines worth P300,000.00 more or less. Thereafter, Aida SyGonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration alleging among others that (a) they are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego; (b) to their knowledge Sy Mat died intestate; (c) they do not recognize Sy Kiat's marriage to Yao Kee nor the filiation of her children to him; and, (d) they nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales for appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased. The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen who alleged that: (a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat whom he married on January 19, 1931 in China; (b) the other oppositors are the legitimate children of the deceased with Yao Kee; and, (c) Sze Sook Wah is the eldest among them and is competent, willing and desirous to become the administratrix of the estate of Sy Kiat. After hearing, the probate court held in favor of the oppositors and appointed Sze Sook Wah as the administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased . On appeal the Court of Appeals rendered a decision modifying that of the probate court, declaring oppositors Sze Sook Wah, Sze Lai Chu and Sze Chun Yen, the acknowledged natural children of the deceased Sy Kiat with his Chinese wife Yao Kee, also known as Yui Yip, since the legality of the alleged marriage of Sy Mat to Yao Kee in China had not been proven to be valid to the laws of the Chinese People's Republic of China. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Yao Kee has conclusively proven her marriage to Sy Kiat to be in accordance with Chinese law and custom and thus recognized in this jurisdiction. HELD: No, she has not conclusively proven her marriage to Sy Kiat to be in accordance with Chinese law and custom and therefore not recognized in this jurisdiction. The evidence that Yao Kee has presented may very well prove the fact of marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat. However, the same do not suffice to establish the validity of said marriage in accordance with Chinese law or custom. Custom is defined as "a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory" The law requires that "a custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence" [Article 12, Civil Code.] On this score the Court had occasion to state that "a local custom as a source of right can not be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly established by competent evidence like any other fact" The same evidence, if not one of a higher degree, should be required of a foreign custom. The law on foreign marriages is provided by Article 71 of the Civil Code which states that: Art. 71. All marriages performed outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were performed and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except bigamous, Polygamous, or incestuous marriages, as determined by Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied.) *** Construing this provision of law the Court has held that to establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven, namely: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence In proving a foreign law the procedure is provided in the Rules of Court. With respect to an unwritten foreign law, Rule 130 section 45 states that: SEC. 45. Unwritten law.The oral testimony of witnesses, skilled therein, is admissible as evidence of the unwritten law of a foreign country, as are also printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the foreign country, if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts. Proof of a written foreign law, on the other hand, is provided for under Rule 132 section 25, thus: SEC. 25. Proof of public or official record.An official record or an entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept and authenticated by the seal of his office. The Court has interpreted section 25 to include competent evidence like the testimony of a witness to prove the existence of a written foreign law. In the case at bar petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and custom of China on marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching cannot be considered as proof of China's law or custom on marriage not only because they are self-serving evidence, but more importantly, there is no showing that they are competent to testify on the subject matter. For failure to prove the foreign law or custom, and consequently, the validity of the marriage in accordance with said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Well-established in this jurisdiction is the principle that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as any other fact In the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it should be presumed that it is the same as ours. Since Yao Kee admitted in her testimony that there was no solemnizing officer as is known here in the Philippines when her alleged marriage to Sy Mat was celebrated it therefore follows that her marriage to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. RECTO vs. HARDEN (1956) attorneys fees, FACTS: Sometime in July, 1941, Appellant, Mrs. Harden, and Appellee, Claro M. Recto, executed a contract of professional service whereby Mrs. Harden will file against her husband, Fred M. Harden, for the purpose of securing an increase in the amount of support being received by her from the conjugal partnership of herself and said Fred M. Harden, and for the purpose likewise of protecting and preserving her rights in the properties of the said conjugal partnership, in contemplation of the divorce suit which she intent to file against him in the competent Court of California and of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership between them. One of the condition in the said contract states 3. That as full and complete satisfaction of the fees of Attorney Claro M. Recto in connection with the case above referred to, I hereby agree to pay said Attorney Claro M. Recto (20%) per cent of the value of the share and participation which I may receive in the funds and properties of the said conjugal partnership. In compliance therewith, on

20
July 12, 1941, the Appellee, as counsel for Mrs. Harden, commenced Civil Case No. 59634 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled Esperanza P. de Harden vs. Fred M. Harden and Jose Salumbides. Subsequently, the Philippines was invaded by the Japanese and placed under military occupation. Then came the liberation, in the course of which the records of this case were destroyed. On October 23, 1946, said records were reconstituted at the instance of Appellee herein. Thereafter, the proceedings were resumed and, in due course, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered in favour of Mrs. Harden. The Defendants appealed from said decision to this Court. While the appeal was thus pending before us, herein Appellee filed a manifestation and a motion stating that Mrs. Harden had instructed him, by letter, to discontinue all proceedings relative to said case, vacate all orders and judgments rendered therein, and abandon and nullify all her claims to the conjugal partnership existing between her and Mr. Harden, and executed without the knowledge, advise and consent of said Appellee, as counsel for Mrs. Harden. It was further asserted, in Appellees manifestation, that the purpose of the said instruments, executed by Mr. and Mrs. Harden, was to defeat the claim of the former for attorneys fees. Validity of the above-quoted contract of services, which the Appellants assail as void, mainly, upon the ground: (1) that Mrs. Harden cannot bind the conjugal partnership without her husbands consent; (2) that Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines in effect prohibits contingent fees (3) that the contract in question has for its purpose to secure a decree of divorce, allegedly in violation of Articles 1305, 1352 and 1409 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; and (4) that the terms of said contract are harsh, inequitable and oppressive. HELD: The third objection is not borne out, either by the language of the contract between them, or by the intent of the parties thereto. Its purpose was not to secure a divorce, or to facilitate or promote the procurement of a divorce. It merely sought to protect the interest of Mrs. Harden in the conjugal partnership, during the pendency of a divorce suit she intended to file in the United States. What is more, inasmuch as Mr. and Mrs. Harden are admittedly citizens of the United States, their status and the dissolution thereof are governed pursuant to Article 9 of the Civil Code of Spain (which was in force in the Philippines at the time of the execution of the contract in question) and Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines by the laws of the United States, which sanction divorce. In short, the contract of services, between Mrs. Harden and herein Appellee, is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

i ii