Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
5) Korea Technologies vs Lerma and Pacific General Steel Mftg Corp (GR 143581, 2008)
Contract between KTech (to set up LPG cylinder mftg plant in Art. 2044, CC: Any stipulation that the arbitrators' award or The law of the place where the contract is made governs. Lex loci
Cavite) and Pacific Gen. Initial ops could not be conducted as decision shall be final, is valid xxx. Foreign arbitral awards while contractus. The contract in this case was perfected
Pacific had financial difficulties, forcing them to agree that KTech mutually stipulated by the parties in the arbitration clause to be here in the Ph. So our laws ought to govern.
is deemed to have completely complied with the contract. final and binding are not immediately enforceable or cannot be
Balance of USD 306k paid by check. Dishonored as "payment implemented immediately. RA 9285: Foreign arbitral awards
stopped." Pacific: Cancel contract since KTech atered the when confirmed by the RTC are deemed not as a judgment of a
quantity and lowered the quality of machineries it delivered. Art foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when
15, contract: Arbitration in Seoul, SK; award shall be final and confirmed, are enforced as final and executory decisions of our
binding. KTech: Cannot unilaterally rescind; Submit to arbitration courts of law. Petitioner is correct in its contention that an
before Korean Comm Arbitration Board. SC: The arbitration arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is final and
clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the
It has not been shown to be contrary to any law, or against international arbitral award, the award of which is not absolute
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There has and without exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain
been no showing that the parties have not dealt with each other conditions provided for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as
on equal footing. The clause is not against public policy. applied and incorporated in RA 9285.
6) Herald Dacasin vs Sharon Dacasin (GR 168785, 2010)
Herald (American) married Sharon (Fil) in Manila. They have a WON TC has J to take cognizance of case? Yes, but not to enforce A foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the
daughter, Staphanie, born Sep 1995. In June 1999, Sharon the agreement which is void. Subject matter jurisdiction is alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of
obtained from Illinois Court a divorce decree. Granted, sole conferred by law. At the time petitioner filed his suit in the trial the alien's nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce.
custody of child to Sharon. In 2002, H & S executed an court, statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive
agreement in Manila for joint custody of child. They chose Ph original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary
courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes aising from the estimation. Art 213, FC: no child under seven years of age shall
agreement. Sharon is to obtain an order from Illinois court be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling
relinquishing jurisdiction to Ph courts. Sharon still had sole reasons to order otherwise (after separation in fact or in law).
custody. Herald sued in RTC to enforce agreement. SC: RTC erred Agreeent is void ab initio. But since Stephanie is nearly 15yo,
in thinking it did not have jurisdiction as the Illinois court only case is remanded to RTC, to ascertain custody based on best
retained J over the divorce decree and NOT the post-divorce interest of the child.
agreement.
7) Phil Export and Foreign Loan Guaranty Corp vs VP Eusebio Construction Corp (GR 140047, 2004)
Service contract entered into by Fil construction firm and Iraqi What law should be applied in determining whether the The intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by the lex
Govt during Iran-Iraq war. respondent contractor has defaulted in the performance of its contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the law
obligations under the service contract? Whether there is a voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or
breach of an agreement, which includes default or mora, the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (the lex
pertains to the essential or intrinsic validity of a contract. It must loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied from such
be noted that the service contract between SOB and VPECI factors as substantial connection with the transaction, or the
contains no express choice of the law that would govern it. In the nationality or domicile of the parties. Ph courts would do well to
United States and Europe, the two rules that now seem to have adopt the first and most basic rule in most legal systems, namely,
emerged as "kings of the hill" are (1) the parties may choose the to allow the parties to select the law applicable to their contract,
governing law; and (2) in the absence of such a choice, the subject to the limitation that it is not against the law, morals, or
applicable law is that of the State that "has the most significant pubic policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear a
relationship to the transaction and the parties." Another substantive relationship to the transaction.
authority proposed that all matters relating to the time, place,
and manner of performance and valid excuses for
nonperformance are determined by the law of the place of
performance or lex loci solutionis, which is useful because it is
undoubtedly always connected to the contract in a significant
way. In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection to
the transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi Govt and the
place of performance is in Iraq. Hence, the issue of whether
respondent VPECI defaulted in its obligations may be
determined by the laws of Iraq. However, since that foreign law
was not properly pleaded or proved, the presumption of identity
or similarity, otherwise known as the processual presumption ,
comes into play.
10) Elmar Perez vs CA, Sps Tristan and Lily Catindig (GR 162580, 2006)
Tristan married Lily twice (in Methodist church and Catholic When petitioner and Tristan married on July 14, 1984, Tristan Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
church). Divorce decree in Dominican Republic. RTC ordered was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that Tristan condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens
complete separation of properties. Tristan married Elmar in and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Hence, if a Filipino
Virginia, USA. They had 1 child. Confrontation that led to Tristan the marriage bond between them. Citing Tenchavez vs Escano: A regardless of whether he or she was married here or abroad,
filing for declaration of nullity of marriage with Lily at RTC. Elmar foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from
motioned to intervene. Being wife of Tristan for 17 yrs vests her after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (RA 386), is not spouse and eventually becomes successful in getting an absolute
with requisite legal interest? SC: Nope. entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize such absolute
the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced divorce.
consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled
to validity in the country.
14) Soledad Lavadia vs Heirs of Juan Luces Luna (GR 171914, 2014)
Atty Juan married Eugenia, had 7 children. After almost 2 The only two types of defective marital unions under our
decades, they decided to live apart, entered into "Agreement for laws have been the void and the voidable marriages. As such, the
separation and proeprty settlement." Later, Atty obtained a remedies against such defective marriages have been limited to
divorce decree in Domincan Republic. While thereat, Atty Luna the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the annulment of
then married Soledad. Went back to Ph, organized a new law the marriage. The non-recognition of absolute divorce in the
firm Lupsicon. Lupsicon bought a condo unit, named "Juan Luna Philippines is a manifestation of the respect for the sanctity of
married to Soledad xx" Atty Luna's will bequeathed to Soledad. the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It affirms
25/100 pro-indiviso share in the unit (and law books) to 1st fam that the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded
or to Soledad? . SC: 1st fam. Atty and Eugenia married in 1947. only upon the death of either spouse, or upon a ground
The law in force at the time was the Spanish Civil Code, which expressly provided by law. For as long as this public policy on
adopted the nationality rule. The CC continued to follow the marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree dissolving
nationality rule, to the effect that Ph laws relating to family rights the marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial
and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of recognition and enforcement in this jurisdiction. Marriage before
persons were binding upon citizens of the Philippines, although the first marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
living abroad. Atty. Luna and Eugenia having remained Filipinos absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means
until the death of Atty. Luna in 1997 terminated their marriage. of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings - void ab
The Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement was void initio.
for lack of court approval. With the divorce not being itself valid
and enforceable under Ph law for being contrary to Ph public
policy and public law, the approval of the Agreement was not
also legally valid and enforceable under Ph law. The conjugal
partnership of gains of Atty. Luna and Eugenia subsisted in the
lifetime of their marriage.