Forum law decrees application of internal law -Our civil code specifies when our court has to apply

forum law Examples: Article 16 Real & personal property sub ect to the law of the country where they are situated while testamentary & intestate succession is !overned by lex nationale" Article #$% Revocation done outside the &hilippines is valid accordin! to the law where the will was made" Article #1% &rohibits 'ilipinos from ma(in! oint wills even if valid in the country where they were executed" Forum law -)hould be applied when there is failure to plead and prove pertinent forei!n law" Our courts may not ta(e udicial co!ni*ance of any forei!n law+ hence, failure to plead and prove forei!n law leads to the presumption that it is the same as forei!n law"

TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN, deceased. PHI IPPINE T!"ST CO. #s. $A%&A ENA C. BOHANAN, E&'A!& C. BOHANAN, and $A!( (&IA BOHANAN, 'A-.): Accordin! to the evidence of the opponents the testator was born in /ebras(a and therefore a citi*en of that state, or at least a citi*en of -alifornia where some of his properties are located 0is permanent residence or domicile in the 1nited )tates depended uponhis personal intent or desire, and he selected /evada as his homicide and therefore at the time of his death, he was a citi*en of that state" /obody can choose his domicile or permanent residence for him" .hat is his exclusive personal ri!ht" 2t will be seen from the above that out of the total estate 3after deductin! administration expenses4 of &$11,65%"55 in cash, the testator !ave his !randson &%6,#1%"67 and one-half of all shares of stoc( of several minin! companies and to his brother and sister the same amount" .o his children he !ave a le!acy of only &6,666 each, or a total of &1$,666" 2))1E: 8hether the testamentary dispositions, especially those for the children which are short of the le!itime !iven them by the -ivil -ode of the &hilippines, are valid"

0E9:: .he old -ivil -ode, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1%;;, expressly provides that successional ri!hts to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person whose succession is in <uestion" )ays the law on this point: /evertheless, le!al and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent of the successional ri!hts and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be re!ulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in <uestion, whatever may be the nature of the property and the country in which it is found" 3par" $, Art" 16, old -ivil -ode, which is the same as par" $ Art" 16, new -ivil -ode"4 2n the proceedin!s for the probate of the will, it was found out and it was decided that the testator was a citi*en of the )tate of /evada because he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent residence" 3)ee :ecision dated April $;, 1%=6, supra4" )o the <uestion at issue is whether the testamentary dispositions, especially those for the children which are short of the le!itime !iven them by the -ivil -ode of the &hilippines, are valid" 2t is not disputed that the laws of /evada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will 3)ec" %%6=, -omplied /evada 9aws of 1%$=, supra4" 2t does not appear that at time of the hearin! of the pro ect of partition, the above-<uoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor>s duly to do" .he law of /evada, bein! a forei!n law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules, which are as follows: SEC. 41. 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 tested by the officer havin the le al custody of he record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not !ept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . . . "#ule 1$%&. 8e have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found that durin! the hearin! on October ;, 1%=; of the motion of ?a!dalena -" @ohanan for withdrawal of &$6,666 as her share, the forei!n law, especially )ection %%6=, -ompiled /evada 9aws" was introduced in evidence by appellant>s 3herein4 counsel as Exhibits A$A 3)ee pp" 77-7%, BO9" 22, and t"s"n" pp" $;-;;, Records, -ourt of 'irst 2nstance4" A!ain said laws presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the -ourt as Exhibit A@A durin! the hearin! of the case on Canuary $5, 1%=6 before Cud!e Rafael Amparo

2n addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-<uoted provision of the laws of the )tate of /evada" 1nder all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of /evada, especially )ection %%6= of the -ompiled /evada 9aws of 1%$=, can be ta(en udicial notice of by us, without proof of such law havin! been offered at the hearin! of the pro ect of partition" As in accordance with Article 16 of the old -ivil -ode, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be !overned by the national law of the testator, and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the )tate of /evada, already indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his property accordin! to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the court approvin! the pro ect of partition made in accordance with the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs a!ainst appellants"

')et)er or not an alien ma* adopt in t)e P)ilippines. Deneral rule: Aliens are not allowed to adopt filipino children for the reason that they have different family orientation, vultures, customs and traditions which could pose a problem for 'ilipino children to adopt themselves to a completely stran!e environment" Exceptions: .hose enumerated under article 1#;+ are aliens who have some relationship with the adopted child by consan!uinity or affinity Special pro+lems in &omicile of C)oice #is a #is constructi#e domicile .wo pervasive problems relatin! to the ac<uisition of a domicile by choice a" people (ept under physical or le!al compulsion b" married women see(in! to ac<uire separate domicile from their husbands An indispensable criterion for determinin! whether a domicile of choice has been secured is the partyEs freedom of choice"

%.!. No. ,-./0/

April 1., -231

IN THE $ATTE! OF THE A&OPTION OF THE $INO! NO!$A EE CABE!, !ICA!&O !. CA!ABA O, #s !epu+lic of t)e P)ilippines 'A-.): 2n a verified petition filed on $6 )eptember 1%=# in the -ourt of 'irst 2nstance of &ampan!a, Ricardo R" -araballo, an American citi*en enlisted in the

1nited )tates Air 'orce as staff ser!eant detailed in -lar( 'ield, An!eles, &ampan!a, where he and his wife Draciela D" -araballo live, alle!es that he and his wife have no le!itimate, le!itimated, ac(nowled!ed natural children, natural children by le!al fiction or any other descendant+ that with his wife>s written consent he desires to adopt as his child /orma 9ee -aber, a five-day old natural dau!hter of ?ercedes C" -aber be!otten by an un(nown father, who !ave her consent to the adoption in a sworn statement On $7 October 1%=# the &rovincial and Assistant &rovincial 'iscal of &ampan!a moved for the dismissal of the petition for adoption on the !round that it states no cause of action and that the petitioner, bein! a non-resident alien, is not <ualified to adopt" 2))1E: whether under the law the petitioner is a person <ualified to adoptF 0E9:: .he Dovernment contends that he is not, invo(in! the provisions of article 55= of the -ivil -ode" .he article provides: " .he followin! cannot adopt -314 .hose who have le!itimate, le!itimated, ac(nowled!ed natural children, or natural children by le!al fiction+ 3$4 .he !uardian, with respect to the ward, before the final approval of his accounts+ 354 A married person, without the consent of the other spouse+ 3;4 /on-resident aliens+ 3=4 Resident aliens with whose !overnment the Republic of the &hilippines has bro(en diplomatic relations+ 364 Any person who has been convicted of a crime involvin! moral turpitude, when the penalty imposed was six months> imprisonment or more" A person is deemed a resident of a place in a country or state where he has his abode and lives there permanently" 2t is a place chosen by him freely and voluntarily, althou!h he may later on chan!e his mind and live elsewhere" A place in a country or state where he lives and stays permanently and to which he intends to return after a temporary absence, no matter how lon!, is his

domicile" Actual or physical presence or stay of a person in a place, not of his free and voluntary choice and without intent to remain there indefinitely, does not ma(e him a resident of the place" 9oo(in! after the welfare of a minor to be adopted the law has surrounded him with safe!uards to achieve and insure such welfare" 2t cannot be !ainsaid that an adopted minor may be removed from the country by the adopter, who is not a resident of the &hilippines, and placed beyond the reach and protection of the country of his birth" #icardo #. Caraballo, the petitioner, an American citi'en who now lives in Clar! (ield, municipality of An eles, province of Pampan a, #epublic of the Philippines, because of his assi nment as staff ser eant in the )nited States Air (orce ** his stay in the Philippines then bein temporary ** is a non*resident alien who, pursuant to clause 4 of the above +uoted article of the Civil Code, is dis+ualified to adopt a child in the Philippines.