Idonah Perkins vs Roxas (72 Phil 514) The only issue in this case is whether or not, in view of the

alleged judgment entered in favor of petitioner by the Supreme Court of New York, and which is claimed by her to be res judicata on all questions raised by respondent in Civil Case No. 53317 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the local court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in said case. In this case, Eugene Perkins filed a case in Manila for recovery of dividends from a company which allegedly withheld his rights to dividends because of a claim made by Idonah Perkins. The complaint included Idonah Perkins and asked that they be adjudged without interest in the said shares of stock. Perkins, in her answer with a cross complaint set up a judgment she obtained from the Supreme Court of New York adjudging her as the sole owner. According to her, respondent judge is about to render judgment disregarding her constitutional rights contrary to and annulling the judgment by the Supreme Court of New York which decision is res judicata on all questions constituting the subject matter of the civil case in question. The court denied the petition in this case. Idonah Perkins in her cross complaint brought a suit against Arthur Perkins and the company upon the alleged judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of New York. She asked the local court to enforce the decision of the Supreme Court of New York and to issue execution thereon. Such form of action is recognized by the old code of civil procedure which is now embodied in section 47, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. It falls within the general jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila. Petitioner feared that the court may render judgment annulling the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of New York which according to her is res judicata on all questions constituting the said subject matter and hence the respondent judge is without jurisdiction to try the case. But it was held that such issue is a question that goes into the merits of the controversy and the rights of the parties and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal has power to enter upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusions in the course of it is right or wrong. Fleumer vs Hix ( 54 Phil 610) In this case, the special administrator of the Estate of Edward Hix appealed from the decision of the lower court denying the probate of a document alleged to be the will of Hix. According to him the will was executed in West Virginia by Hix who was a resident of said place hence the laws of West Virginia should govern. It was ruled that the laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. Philippine Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of various states of the American Union. Said laws must be proved as facts. Philippine Trust Co. vs Bohanan (106 Phil 997)

The will made by CO Bohanan was admitted to probate in the order of the CFI of Manila which order also declared him to be a citizen of Nevada USA. In the hearing of the proposed project of partition of the estate, Nevada law was not introduced. The widow and her two children questioned the validity of the will which gave to a grandson Php 90, 819.67 and one half of all the shares of stock of several mining companies. The same number of shares were given to the brothers and sisters of the deceased and only Php 6000 was left to each of his children. The issue here is whether or not the laws of Nevada should apply. The court ruled that the Old Civil Code which is applicable in this case expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in question. In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was proved that he was a citizen of Nevada. It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will but such law was not introduced in evidence. It being a foreign law, it can only be proved in our courts in the manner and form provided for by our rules. Gibbs vs Government of PI (59 Phil 293) In this case, petitioner Gibbs was the husband of Eva Gibbs. They were citizens of California and were domiciled therein. During their marriage they acquired parcels of land Manila which formed part of their conjugal partnership property. Petitioner was appointed administrator of the estate of Eva and in the intestate proceedings he filed an ex parte petition alleging that the parcels of land in Manila form part of the conjugal partnership property and according to California Law, the community property of spouses upon the death of the wife previous to that of the husband belongs absolutely to the husband without administration. The petition was granted and petitioner was adjudged sole owner. He then went to the Register of Deeds of Manila and demanded that he be issued a transfer certificate of title on the basis of the order of the court granting his petition. The register of deeds declined to accept as binding the said decree and refused to register the transfer of title. The Court remanded the case to the CFI for new trial for presentation of additional evidence with regard to pertinent law of Californiain force at the time of death of Eva gibbs. The issue in this case is therefore the application of the law of California. In this case the court had to face the issue of characterization, whether the case is one involving real property to be governed by lex situs or one of succession to be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. Cadalin vs POEA (238 SCRA 721) In this case, Cadalin et al filed a class suit with POEA for money claims arising from their recruitment by one foreign corporation and a domestic corporation. It was

established that in the state of Bahrain where some of the complainants were deployed, a decree was issued providing among others the terms and conditions of employment to govern employees and workers in Bahrain. Their claims were dismissed on the ground of prescription. The issue in this case is whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription which should govern since the action is based on the provisions of a decree issued on Bahrain. The Court ruled that as a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. This is true even if the action is based on a foreign substantive law. A law on prescription is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed as either procedural or substantive. The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forums public policy. To enforce the one -year prescriptive period of the Bahrain decree as regards the claim in question is to contravene the public policy on the protection of labor. Aznar vs Garcia (117 Phil 106) The partition of the estate of Edward Christensen was opposed by Helen on the ground that the approval of the project partition deprived her of her legitime as acknowledged natural child of the decedent. According to her, Philippine laws should govern the partition and distribution of the property if the decedent. Since the decedent was a citizen of the United States at the time of his death, the issue here is whether or not Philippine laws should apply. According to the Civil Code of the Philippines, the national law of the decedent should govern the validity of his testamentary dispositions. The law of California states that if there is no law to the contrary, in the place where the personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile. According to appellant, following the renvoi doctrine, Philippine laws should govern. The court accepted the renvoi doctrine and applied forum law. Bellis vs Bellis (20 SCRA 359) In this case, Amos Bellis was a citizen of Texas . He executed a will in the Philippines. He died a resident of San Antonio, Texas. His will was admitted to probate in Manila. The illegitimate children opposed the partition. The issue in this case is whether Texas law or Philippine law should apply. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the probate court in toto. The parties admit that the decedent was a citizen of Texas and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will and the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied.

Philippine Commercial and Industrial bank vs Escolin (56 SCRA 266) Charles Hodges and his wife provided mutually in their respective wills that they give, devise, and bequeath all of their estate to each other subject to the condition that upon the death of whoever of them survived the other , the remainder of what he or she would inherit from the other is given, devised, and bequeathed to the brothers and sisters of the latter. Mrs. Hodges died first and Mr. Hodges was appointed special administrator. When Mr. Hodges died, one Magno was appointed as Administrator of the testate estate of Mrs. Hodges. She was also the administrator of the estate of Mr. Hodges but was replaced by PCIB. The issue in this case is the determination of whetehr it should be Texas law or Philippine Law that should govern the estate of the spouses. The Court ruled that it must be borne in mind that the question as to what are the laws of Texas in one of fact not of law. Foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and must be proven as a fact. The exception to is when the laws are already within the actual knowledge of the court.