SAUDIA VS. CA SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A.

ORTIZ, in his a!a i"# as P$%sidin& '(d&% )* B$an h +,, RTC )* -(%.)n Ci"# G.R. N). /00/,/ O ")1%$ +, /,,+ FACTS: Petitioner SAUDIA hired private respondent MORADA as a flight attendant in 19 ! "ased in #eddah$ On 199%! &hile on a la'(over in #a)arta! Indonesia! she &ent

to part' &ith * +ale attendants! and on the follo&ing +orning in their hotel! one of the +ale attendants atte+pted to rape her$ She &as res,-ed "' hotel attendants &ho heard her ,r' for help$ The Indonesian poli,e arrested the *$ MORADA ret-rned to #eddah! "-t &as as)ed "' the ,o+pan' to go "a,) to #a)arta and help arrange the release of the * +ale attendants$ MORADA did not ,ooperate &hen she got to #a)arta$

.hat follo&ed &as a series of interrogations fro+ the Sa-di Co-rts &hi,h she did not -nderstand as this &as in their lang-age$ In 199/! she &as s-rprised! -pon "eing ordered "' SAUDIA to go to the Sa-di ,o-rt! that she &as "eing ,onvi,ted of 011 ad-lter'2 0*1 going to a dis,o! dan,ing and listening to the +-si, in violation of Isla+i, la&s2 and 0/1 so,iali3ing &ith the +ale ,re&! in ,ontravention of Isla+i, tradition! senten,ing her to five +onths i+prison+ent and to * 4

lashes$ Onl' then did she reali3e that the Sa-di ,o-rt had tried her! together &ith the *! for &hat happened in #a)arta$ SAUDIA denied her the assistan,e she re5-ested! 6-t "e,a-se she &as &rongf-ll' ,onvi,ted! Prin,e of Ma))ah dis+issed the ,ase against her and allo&ed her to leave Sa-di Ara"ia$ Shortl' "efore her ret-rn to Manila! she &as ter+inated fro+ the servi,e "' SAUDIA! &itho-t her "eing infor+ed of the ,a-se$

On 7ove+"er */! 199/! Morada filed a Co+plaint for da+ages against SAUDIA! and 8haled Al(6ala&i 09Al( 6ala&i:1! its ,o-ntr' +anager$ SAUDIA A;;<=<S: Private respondent>s ,lai+ for alleged a"-se of rights o,,-rred in the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia$ It alleges that the e?isten,e of a foreign ele+ent 5-alifies the instant ,ase for the appli,ation of the la& of the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia! "' virt-e of the le? lo,i deli,ti ,o++issi r-le$ MORADA A;;<=<S: Sin,e her A+ended Co+plaint is "ased

on Arti,les 19 and *1 of the Civil Code! then the instant ,ase is properl' a +atter of do+esti, la&$ ISSUE: .O7 the Philippine ,o-rts have @-risdi,tion to tr' the ,ase HELD: A<S$ On the presen,e of a 9Foreign <le+ent: in the ,ase: A fa,t-al sit-ation that ,-ts a,ross territorial lines and is affe,ted "' the diverse la&s of t&o or +ore states is said to ,ontain a 9foreign ele+ent:$ The presen,e of a foreign ele+ent is inevita"le sin,e so,ial and

e,ono+i, affairs of individ-als and asso,iations are rarel' ,onfined to the geographi, li+its of their "irth or ,on,eption$ The for+s in &hi,h this foreign ele+ent +a' appear are +an'$ The foreign ele+ent +a' si+pl' ,onsist in the fa,t that one of the parties to a ,ontra,t is an alien or has a foreign do+i,ile! or that a ,ontra,t "et&een nationals of one State involves properties sit-ated in another State$ In other ,ases! the foreign ele+ent +a' ass-+e a ,o+ple? for+$

In the instant ,ase! the foreign ele+ent ,onsisted in the fa,t that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national! and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign ,orporation$ Also! "' virt-e of the e+plo'+ent of Morada &ith the petitioner Sa-dia as a flight ste&ardess! events did transpire d-ring her +an' o,,asions of travel a,ross national "orders! parti,-larl' fro+ Manila! Philippines to #eddah! Sa-di Ara"ia! and vi,e

versa! that ,a-sed a 9,onfli,ts: sit-ation to arise$ COURT disagrees &ith MORADA that his is p-rel' a do+esti, ,ase$ Bo&ever! the ,o-rt finds that the RTC of C-e3on Cit' possesses @-risdi,tion over the s-"@e,t +atter of the s-it$ Its a-thorit' to tr' and hear the ,ase is provided for -nder Se,tion 1 of Rep-"li, A,t 7o$ D491! to &it: 6P1*9 Se,$ 19$ #-risdi,tion in Civil Cases$ E Regional Trial Co-rts shall e?er,ise e?,l-sive @-risdi,tion:

??? ??? ??? 0 1 In all other ,ases in &hi,h de+and! e?,l-sive of interest! da+ages of &hatever )ind! attorne'F'>s fees! litigation e?penses! and ,ots or the val-e of the propert' in ,ontrovers' e?,eeds One h-ndred tho-sand pesos 0P1%%!%%%$%%1 or! in s-,h other ,ases in Metro Manila! &here the de+and! e?,l-sive of the a"ove(+entioned ite+s e?,eeds T&o h-ndred Tho-sand pesos 0P*%%!%%%$%%1$ 0<+phasis o-rs1

??? ??? ??? Se,tion * 0"1! R-le G of the Revised R-les of Co-rt E the ven-e! C-e3on Cit'! is appropriate: Se,$ * Hen-e in Co-rts of First Instan,e$ E I7o& Regional Trial Co-rtJ 0a1 ??? ??? ??? 0"1 Personal a,tions$ E All other a,tions +a' "e ,o++en,ed and tried &here the defendant or an' of the defendants resides or +a' "e fo-nd! or &here the plaintiff or an' of the plaintiff resides! at the ele,tion of the plaintiff$

.eighing the relative ,lai+s of the parties! the ,o-rt a 5-o fo-nd it "est to hear the ,ase in the Philippines$ Bad it ref-sed to ta)e ,ogni3an,e of the ,ase! it &o-ld "e for,ing plaintiff 0private respondent no&1 to see) re+edial a,tion else&here! i$e$ in the 8ingdo+ of Sa-di Ara"ia &here she no longer +aintains s-"stantial ,onne,tions$ That &o-ld have ,a-sed a f-nda+ental -nfairness to her$ Moreover! "' hearing the ,ase in the Philippines no -nne,essar' diffi,-lties and

in,onvenien,e have "een sho&n "' either of the parties$ The ,hoi,e of for-+ of the plaintiff 0no& private respondent1 sho-ld "e -pheld$ The trial ,o-rt also a,5-ired @-risdi,tion over the parties$ MORADA thro-gh her a,t of filing! and SAUDIA "' pra'ing for the dis+issal of the A+ended Co+plaint on gro-nds other than la,) of @-risdi,tion$ As to the ,hoi,e of appli,a"le la&! &e note that ,hoi,e(of( la& pro"le+s see) to ans&er t&o i+portant 5-estions:

011 .hat legal s'ste+ sho-ld ,ontrol a given sit-ation &here so+e of the signifi,ant fa,ts o,,-rred in t&o or +ore states2 and 0*1 to &hat e?tent sho-ld the ,hosen legal s'ste+ reg-late the sit-ation$ Considering that the ,o+plaint in the ,o-rt a 5-o is one involving torts! the 9,onne,ting fa,tor: or 9point of ,onta,t: ,o-ld "e the pla,e or pla,es &here the tortio-s ,ond-,t or le? lo,i a,t-s o,,-rred$ And appl'ing the torts prin,iple in a ,onfli,ts

,ase! &e find that the Philippines ,o-ld "e said as a sit-s of the tort 0the pla,e &here the alleged tortio-s ,ond-,t too) pla,e1$ This is "e,a-se it is in the Philippines &here petitioner allegedl' de,eived private respondent! a Filipina residing and &or)ing here$ A,,ording to her! she had honestl' "elieved that petitioner &o-ld! in the e?er,ise of its rights and in the perfor+an,e of its d-ties! 9a,t &ith @-sti,e! give her d-e and o"serve honest' and good faith$: Instead! petitioner

failed to prote,t her! she ,lai+ed$ That ,ertain a,ts or parts of the in@-r' allegedl' o,,-rred in another ,o-ntr' is of no +o+ent$ For in o-r vie& &hat is i+portant here is the pla,e &here the over(all har+ or the totalit' of the alleged in@-r' to the person! rep-tation! so,ial standing and h-+an rights of ,o+plainant! had lodged! a,,ording to the plaintiff "elo& 0herein private respondent1$ All told! it is not &itho-t "asis to identif' the Philippines as the sit-s of the alleged tort$

In appl'ing 9State of the +ost signifi,ant relationship: r-le! to deter+ine the State &hi,h has the +ost signifi,ant relationship! the follo&ing ,onta,ts are to "e ta)en into a,,o-nt and eval-ated a,,ording to their relative i+portan,e &ith respe,t to the parti,-lar iss-e: 0a1 the pla,e &here the in@-r' o,,-rred2 0"1 the pla,e &here the ,ond-,t ,a-sing the in@-r' o,,-rred2 0,1 the do+i,ile! residen,e! nationalit'! pla,e of in,orporation and pla,e of "-siness of the parties! and

0d1 the pla,e &here the relationship! if an'! "et&een the parties is ,entered$ As alread' dis,-ssed! there is "asis for the ,lai+ that over( all in@-r' o,,-rred and lodged in the Philippines$ There is li)e&ise no 5-estion that private respondent is a resident Filipina national! &or)ing &ith petitioner! a resident foreign ,orporation engaged here in the "-siness of international air ,arriage$ Th-s! the 9relationship: "et&een the parties &as ,entered here! altho-gh it

sho-ld "e stressed that this s-it is not "ased on +ere la"or la& violations$ Fro+ the re,ord! the ,lai+ that the Philippines has the +ost signifi,ant ,onta,t &ith the +atter in this disp-te! raised "' private respondent as plaintiff "elo& against defendant 0herein petitioner1! in o-r vie&! has "een properl' esta"lished$ NOTE: These 9test fa,tors: or 9points of ,onta,t: or 9,onne,ting fa,tors: ,o-ld "e an' of the follo&ing:

011 The nationalit' of a person! his do+i,ile! his residen,e! his pla,e of so@o-rn! or his origin2 0*1 the seat of a legal or @-ridi,al person! s-,h as a ,orporation2 0/1 the sit-s of a thing! that is! the pla,e &here a thing is! or is dee+ed to "e sit-ated$ In parti,-lar! the le? sit-s is de,isive &hen real rights are involved2 0G1 the pla,e &here an a,t has "een done! the lo,-s a,t-s! s-,h as the pla,e &here a ,ontra,t has "een +ade! a

+arriage ,ele"rated! a &ill signed or a tort ,o++itted$ The le? lo,i a,t-s is parti,-larl' i+portant in ,ontra,ts and torts2 0K1 the pla,e &here an a,t is intended to ,o+e into effe,t! e$g$! the pla,e of perfor+an,e of ,ontra,t-al d-ties! or the pla,e &here a po&er of attorne' is to "e e?er,ised2 041 the intention of the ,ontra,ting parties as to the la& that sho-ld govern their agree+ent! the le? lo,i intentionis2 0D1 the pla,e &here @-di,ial or

ad+inistrative pro,eedings are instit-ted or done$ The le? fori E the la& of the for-+ E is parti,-larl' i+portant "e,a-se! as &e have seen earlier! +atters of 9pro,ed-re: not going to the s-"stan,e of the ,lai+ involved are governed "' it2 and "e,a-se the le? fori applies &henever the ,ontent of the other&ise appli,a"le foreign la& is e?,l-ded fro+ appli,ation in a given ,ase for the reason that it falls -nder one of the e?,eptions to the appli,ations of foreign la&2 and

0 1 the flag of a ship! &hi,h in +an' ,ases is de,isive of pra,ti,all' all legal relationships of the ship and of its +aster or o&ner as s-,h$ It also ,overs ,ontra,t-al relationships parti,-larl' ,ontra,ts of affreight+ent$

Llorente vs CA 345 scra 592 Nationality Principle Lorenzo an petitioner Pa!la Llorente "as #arrie $e%ore a paris& priest. 'e%ore t&e o!t$rea( o% "ar) Lorenzo eparte %or t&e

Unite States an Pa!la "as le%t at t&e con*!+al &o#e. Lorenzo "as nat!ralize $y t&e Unite State. A%ter t&e li$eration o% t&e P&ilippines &e "ent &o#e an visite &is "i%e to "&ic& &e iscovere t&at &is "i%e "as pre+nant an "as &avin+ an a !ltero!s relations&ip. Lorenzo ret!rne to t&e US an %ile %or ivorce. Lorenzo #arrie Alicia LLorente, t&ey live to+et&er %or 25 years an $e+ot 3 c&il ren. Lorenzo on &is last "ill an testa#ent $e-!eat&e all &is property to Alicia an t&eir 3 c&il ren. Pa!la %ile a petition %or letters a #inistration over

Lorenzo.s estate. /&e 0/C r!le in %avor o% Pa!la. 1n appeal) t&e ecision "as #o i%ie eclarin+ Alicia as co2o"ner o% "&atever properties t&ey &ave ac-!ire . 3ence) t&is petition to t&e S!pre#e Co!rt. ISSUES: 4&et&er or not t&e ivorce o$taine $y Lorenzo capacitate &i# to re#arry. 4&o are entitle to in&erit %ro# t&e late Lorenzo Llorente5 HELD: In Van Dorn vs 0a#illo 6r. t&e S!pre#e Co!rt &el t&at o"in+ to t&e nationality principle e#$o ie in Article 75 o% t&e Civil Co e) only P&ilippine nationals are covere $y t&e policy a+ainst

a$sol!te ivorce. In t&e sa#e case) t&e Co!rt r!le t&at aliens #ay o$tain ivorce a$roa provi e t&at t&ey are vali accor in+ to t&eir national la". /&e S!pre#e Co!rt &el t&at ivorce o$taine $y Lorenzo %ro# &is %irst "i%e Pa!la "as vali an reco+nize in t&is *!ris iction as a #atter o% co#ity. /&e S!pre#e Co!rt re#an e t&e case to t&e co!rt o% ori+in %or t&e eter#ination o% t&e intrinsic vali ity o% Lorenzo.s "ill an eter#ine t&e s!ccessional ri+&ts allo"in+ proo% o% %orei+n la". /&e ecease is not covere $y o!r la"s on family rights and duties,

status, condition and legal capacity since &e "as a %orei+ner Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v V.P. Eusebio Construction Inc. 8acts9 7. /&e State 1r+anization o% '!il in+s :S1';) <inistry o% 3o!sin+ an Constr!ction) 'a+& a ) Ira- a"ar e t&e constr!ction o% t&e Instit!te o% P&ysical /&erapy2<e ical 0e&a$ilitation Center in Ira- to Ay*al /ra in+ an Contractin+ Co#pany %or a total contract price

o% a$o!t =7><. 2. Spo!ses Santos) in $e&al% o% 32 Ple? International) Inc.) a local contractor en+a+e in constr!ction $!siness) entere into a *oint vent!re a+ree#ent "it& Ay*al "&erein t&e %or#er !n ertoo( t&e e?ec!tion o% t&e entire a pro*ect) "&ile t&e latter "o!l $e entitle to a co##ission o% 4@. 3. 32Ple? not accre ite $y t&e P&ilippine 1verseas Constr!ction 'oar :P1C'; assi+ne an trans%erre all its ri+&ts an

interests to VPACI. 4. /&e S1' re-!ire t&e contractors to s!$#it a per%or#ance $on representin+ 5@ o% t&e total contract price) an a vance pay#ent $on representin+ 7B@ o% t&e a vance pay#ent to $e release !pon si+nin+ o% t&e contract. /o co#ply "it& t&ese re-!ire#ents 32Ple? an VPACI applie %or a +!arantee "it& P&il+!arantee) a +overn#ent %inancial instit!tion e#po"ere to iss!e +!arantees %or -!ali%ie 8ilipino contractors.

5. '!t "&at S1' re-!ire "as a +!arantee %ro# t&e 0a%i ain 'an( o% 'a+& a so 0a%i ain 'an( iss!e a per%or#ance $on in %avor o% S1' on t&e con ition t&at anot&er %orei+n $an( :not P&il C!arantee; "o!l iss!e t&e co!nter2+!arantee. 3ence) Al A&li 'an( o% D!"ait "as c&osen to provi e t&e co!nter +!arantee. E.A%ter"ar s) S1' an t&e *oint vent!re o% VPACI an Ay*al e?ec!te t&e service contract. Un er t&e contract) t&e *oint

vent!re "o!l s!pply #anpo"er an #aterials) S1' "o!l re%!n 25@ o% t&e pro*ect cost in Ira-i Dinar an F5@ in US ollars at an e?c&an+e rate o% 7 Dinar to =3.3F. F./&e pro*ect "as not co#plete . Upon seein+ t&e i#possi$ility o% #eetin+ t&e ea line) t&e *oint vent!re "or(e %or t&e rene"al or e?tension :72?; o% t&e per%or#ance $on !p to Dece#$er 79>E. >. In 1cto$er 79>E) Al A&li 'an( sent a tele? call e#an in+ %!ll pay#ent o% its per%or#ance $on

co!nter2+!arantee. Upon receipt) VPACI re-!este Ira- /ra e an Acono#ic Develop#ent <inister 8a &i 3!ssein to recall t&e tele? %or $ein+ in contravention o% its #!t!al a+ree#ent t&at t&e penalty "ill $e &el in a$eyance !ntil co#pletion o% t&e pro*ect. It also "rote S1' protestin+ t&e tele? since t&e Ira-i +overn#ent lac(s %orei+n e?c&an+e to pay VPACI an t&e non2co#pliance "it& t&e F5@ $illin+s in US ollars. 9. P&il+!arantee receive anot&er tele? %ro# Al A&li statin+ t&at it

alrea y pai to 0a%i ain 'an(. /&e Central 'an( a!t&orize t&e re#ittance to Al A&li 'an( representin+ t&e %!ll pay#ent o% t&e per%or#ance co!nter2 +!arantee %or VPACIGs pro*ect in Ira-. 7B. P&il+!arantee sent letters to respon ents e#an in+ t&e %!ll pay#ent o% t&e s!rety $on . 0espon ents %aile to pay so petitioner %ile a civil case %or collection o% s!# o% #oney. 77. /rial Co!rt r!lin+9 Dis#isse .

P&il+!arantee &a no vali ca!se o% action a+ainst t&e respon ents. /&e *oint vent!re inc!rre no elay in t&e e?ec!tion o% t&e pro*ect consi erin+ t&at S1'Gs violations o% t&e contract ren ere i#possi$le t&e per%or#ance o% its !n erta(in+. 72. CA9 A%%ir#e . Iss!e9 4&at la" s&o!l $e applie in eter#inin+ "&et&er or not contractor :*oint vent!re; &as e%a!lte 5

3el 9 /&e -!estion o% "&et&er t&ere is a $reac& o% t&e a+ree#ent "&ic& incl! es e%a!lt pertains to t&e IN/0INSIC vali ity o% t&e contract. No con%licts r!le on essential vali ity o% contracts is e?pressly provi e %or in o!r la"s. /&e r!le %ollo"e $y #ost le+al syste#s is t&at t&e intrinsic vali ity o% a contract #!st $e +overne $y le? contract!s :proper la" o% t&e contract;. /&is #ay $e t&e la" vol!ntarily a+ree !pon $y t&e

parties :le? loci vol!ntatis; or t&e la" inten e $y t&e# eit&er e?pressly or i#plicitly :le? loci intentionis;. /&e la" selecte #ay $e i#plie %ro# %actors s!c& as s!$stantial connection "it& t&e transaction) or t&e nationality or o#icile o% t&e parties. P&ilippine co!rts a opt t&is9 to allo" t&e parties to select t&e la" applica$le to t&eir contract) SU'6AC/ to t&e li#itation t&at it is not a+ainst t&e la") #orals) p!$lic policy o% t&e %or!# an t&at t&e c&osen la" #!st $ear a s!$stantive relations&ip to t&e transaction.

In t&e case) t&e service contract $et"een S1' an VPACI contains no e?press c&oice o% la". /&e la"s o% Ira- $ear s!$stantial connection to t&e transaction an one o% t&e parties is t&e Ira-i +overn#ent. /&e place o% per%or#ance is also in Ira-. 3ence) t&e iss!e o% "&et&er VPACI e%a!lte #ay $e eter#ine $y t&e la"s o% Ira-. 'U/H Since %orei+n la" "as not properly plea e or prove ) process!al pres!#ption "ill apply.

Accor in+ to Art 77E9 o% t&e Civil Co e9 In reciprocal o$li+ations) neit&er party inc!rs in elay i% t&e ot&er party oes not co#ply or is not rea y to co#ply in a proper #anner "&at is inc!#$ent !pon &i#. As %o!n $y t&e lo"er co!rts9 t&e elay or non2co#pletion o% t&e pro*ect "as ca!se $y %actors not i#p!ta$le to t&e 6oint Vent!re) it "as rat&er !e to t&e persistent violations o% S1') partic!larly itGs %ail!re to pay F5@ o% t&e acco#plis&e "or( in US ollars.

3ence) t&e *oint vent!re oes not inc!r in elay i% t&e ot&er party:S1'; %ails to per%or# t&e o$li+ation inc!#$ent !pon &i#. 'AND 18 A<A0ICA VS. A<A0ICAN 0AAL/I Leave a comment Ban2 )* A3%$i a vs A3%$i an R%a4"# C)$!)$a"i)n GR /55+67 D% %31%$ 0,, /,,, Fa "s: Petitioner granted loans to / foreign ,orporations$ As se,-rit'! the latter +ortgaged

a propert' lo,ated in the Philippines o&ned "' herein respondent ARC$ ARC is a third part' +ortgagor &ho pledged its o&n propert' in favor of the / de"tor(foreign ,orporations$ The de"tors failed to pa'$ Th-s! petitioner filed ,olle,tion s-its in foreign ,o-rts to enfor,e the loan$ S-"se5-entl'! it filed a petition in the Sheriff to e?tra( @-di,iall' fore,lose the said +ortgage! &hi,h &as granted$ On 1* Fe"r-ar' 199/! private respondent filed "efore the

Pasig RTC! 6ran,h 1K9! an a,tion for da+ages against the petitioner! for the latter>s a,t of fore,losing e?tra( @-di,iall' the real estate +ortgages despite the penden,' of ,ivil s-its "efore foreign ,o-rts for the ,olle,tion of the prin,ipal loan$ Iss(%: .O7 petitioner>s a,t of filing a ,olle,tion s-it against the prin,ipal de"tors for the re,over' of the loan "efore foreign ,o-rts ,onstit-ted a &aiver of the re+ed' of fore,los-re$

H%4d: Aes$ 1$ ;oan2 Mortgage2 re+edies: In the a"sen,e of e?press stat-tor' provisions! a +ortgage ,reditor +a' instit-te against the +ortgage de"tor either a personal a,tion or de"t or a real a,tion to fore,lose the +ortgage$ In other &ords! he +a' p-rs-e either of the t&o re+edies! "-t not "oth$ 6' s-,h ele,tion! his ,a-se of a,tion ,an "' no +eans "e i+paired! for ea,h of the t&o re+edies is ,o+plete in itself$

In o-r @-risdi,tion! the re+edies availa"le to the +ortgage ,reditor are dee+ed alternative and not ,-+-lative$ 7ota"l'! an ele,tion of one re+ed' operates as a &aiver of the other$ For this p-rpose! a re+ed' is dee+ed ,hosen -pon the filing of the s-it for ,olle,tion or -pon the filing of the ,o+plaint in an a,tion for fore,los-re of +ortgage$ As to e?tra@-di,ial fore,los-re! s-,h re+ed' is dee+ed ele,ted "' the +ortgage ,reditor -pon filing of the petition not &ith

an' ,o-rt of @-sti,e "-t &ith the Offi,e of the Sheriff of the provin,e &here the sale is to "e +ade$ In the ,ase at "ar! petitioner onl' has one ,a-se of a,tion &hi,h is non(pa'+ent of the de"t$ 7evertheless! alternative re+edies are availa"le for its en@o'+ent and e?er,ise$ Petitioner then +a' opt to e?er,ise onl' one of t&o re+edies so as not to violate the r-le against splitting a ,a-se of a,tion$ A,,ordingl'! appl'ing the foregoing r-les! &e hold that

petitioner! "' the e?pedien,' of filing fo-r ,ivil s-its "efore foreign ,o-rts! ne,essaril' a"andoned the re+ed' to fore,lose the real estate +ortgages ,onstit-ted over the properties of third(part' +ortgagor and herein private respondent ARC$ Moreover! "' filing the fo-r ,ivil a,tions and "' event-all' fore,losing e?tra(@-di,iall' the +ortgages! petitioner in effe,t transgressed the r-les against splitting a ,a-se of a,tion &ell(enshrined in

@-rispr-den,e and o-r stat-te "oo)s$ *$ Confli,ts of ;a& In,identall'! petitioner alleges that -nder <nglish ;a&! &hi,h a,,ording to petitioner is the governing la& &ith regard to the prin,ipal agree+ents! the +ortgagee does not lose its se,-rit' interest "' si+pl' filing ,ivil a,tions for s-+s of +one'$ .e r-le in the negative$ In a long line of de,isions! this Co-rt adopted the &ell( i+"edded prin,iple in o-r

@-risdi,tion that there is no @-di,ial noti,e of an' foreign la&$ A foreign la& +-st "e properl' pleaded and proved as a fa,t$ Th-s! if the foreign la& involved is not properl' pleaded and proved! o-r ,o-rts &ill pres-+e that the foreign la& is the sa+e as o-r lo,al or do+esti, or internal la&$ This is &hat &e refer to as the do,trine of pro,ess-al pres-+ption$ In the instant ,ase! ass-+ing arg-endo that the <nglish ;a& on the +atter &ere properl' pleaded and proved in said

foreign la& &o-ld still not find appli,a"ilit'$ Th-s! &hen the foreign la&! @-dg+ent or ,ontra,t is ,ontrar' to a so-nd and esta"lished p-"li, poli,' of the for-+! the said foreign la&! @-dg+ent or order shall not "e applied$ Additionall'! prohi"itive la&s ,on,erning persons! their a,ts or propert'! and those &hi,h have for their o"@e,t p-"li, order! p-"li, poli,' and good ,-sto+s shall not "e rendered ineffe,tive "' la&s or @-dg+ents pro+-lgated! or "'

deter+inations or ,onventions agreed -pon in a foreign ,o-ntr'$ The p-"li, poli,' so-ght to "e prote,ted in the instant ,ase is the prin,iple i+"edded in o-r @-risdi,tion pros,ri"ing the splitting -p of a single ,a-se of a,tion$ Moreover! foreign la& sho-ld not "e applied &hen its appli,ation &o-ld &or) -ndenia"le in@-sti,e to the ,iti3ens or residents of the for-+$ To give @-sti,e is the +ost i+portant f-n,tion of la&2 hen,e! a la&! or

@-dg+ent or ,ontra,t that is o"vio-sl' -n@-st negates the f-nda+ental prin,iples of Confli,t of ;a&s$ Clearl' then! <nglish ;a& is not appli,a"le$ N10/34AS/ VS. CA AND S3A0P Leave a comment NORTH8EST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA and C.F. SHARP 9 COMPAN: INC. G.R. N). //0;65 F%1$(a$# ,, /,,; FACTS: Petitioner 7orth&est Orient Airlines! In,$

07ORTB.<ST1! a ,orporation organi3ed -nder the la&s of the State of Minnesota! U$S$A$! so-ght to enfor,e in the RTC( Manila! a @-dg+ent rendered in its favor "' a #apanese ,o-rt against private respondent C$F$ Sharp L Co+pan'! In,$! 0SBARP1! a ,orporation in,orporated -nder Philippine la&s$ fa,t-al and pro,ed-ral ante,edents of this ,ontrovers': On Ma' 9! 19DG! 7orth&est Airlines and Sharp! thro-gh its #apan "ran,h! entered into an

International Passenger Sales Agen,' Agree+ent! &here"' the for+er a-thori3ed the latter to sell its air transportation ti,)ets$ Una"le to re+it the pro,eeds of the ti,)et sales +ade "' defendant on "ehalf of the plaintiff -nder the said agree+ent! plaintiff on Mar,h *K! 19 % s-ed defendant in To)'o! #apan! for ,olle,tion of the -nre+itted pro,eeds of the ti,)et sales! &ith ,lai+ for da+ages$ On April 11! 19 %! a &rit of s-++ons &as iss-ed "' the

/4th Civil Depart+ent! To)'o Distri,t Co-rt of #apan against defendant at its offi,e at the Taihei'o 6-ilding! /rd floor! 1/*! Aa+ashita(,ho! 7a)a()-! Ao)oho+a! 8anaga&a Prefe,t-re$ The atte+pt to serve the s-++ons &as -ns-,,essf-l "e,a-se the "ailiff &as advised "' a person in the offi,e that Mr$ Dino3o! the person "elieved to "e a-thori3ed to re,eive ,o-rt pro,esses &as in Manila and &o-ld "e "a,) on April *G! 19 %$

On April *G! 19 %! "ailiff ret-rned to the defendant>s offi,e to serve the s-++ons$ Mr$ Dino3o ref-sed to a,,ept the sa+e ,lai+ing that he &as no longer an e+plo'ee of the defendant$ After the t&o atte+pts of servi,e &ere -ns-,,essf-l! the @-dge of the To)'o Distri,t Co-rt de,ided to have the ,o+plaint and the &rits of s-++ons served at the head offi,e of the defendant in Manila$ On #-l' 11! 19 %! the Dire,tor of the To)'o Distri,t Co-rt re5-ested the S-pre+e

Co-rt of #apan to serve the s-++ons thro-gh diplo+ati, ,hannels -pon the defendant>s head offi,e in Manila$ On A-g-st * ! 19 %! defendant re,eived fro+ Dep-t' Sheriff Rolando 6alingit the &rit of s-++ons 0p$ *D4! Re,ords1$ Despite re,eipt of the sa+e! defendant failed to appear at the s,hed-led hearing$ Th-s! the To)'o Co-rt pro,eeded to hear the plaintiff>s ,o+plaint and on I#an-ar' *9! 19 1J! rendered @-dg+ent ordering the defendant to pa' the

plaintiff the s-+ of /!1K !19K Aen and da+ages for dela' at the rate of 4M per ann-+ fro+ A-g-st * ! 19 % -p to and -ntil pa'+ent is ,o+pleted 0pp$ 1*(1G! Re,ords1$ On Mar,h *G! 19 1! defendant re,eived fro+ Dep-t' Sheriff 6alingit ,op' of the @-dg+ent$ Defendant not having appealed the @-dg+ent! the sa+e "e,a+e final and e?e,-tor'$ Plaintiff &as -na"le to e?e,-te the de,ision in #apan! hen,e! on Ma' *%! 19 /! a s-it for

enfor,e+ent of the @-dg+ent &as filed "' plaintiff "efore the Regional Trial Co-rt of Manila 6ran,h KG$ defendant filed its ans&er averring that the @-dg+ent of the #apanese Co-rt: 011 the foreign @-dg+ent so-ght to "e enfor,ed is n-ll and void for &ant of @-risdi,tion and 0*1 the said @-dg+ent is ,ontrar' to Philippine la& and p-"li, poli,' and rendered &itho-t d-e pro,ess of la&$ In its de,ision! the Co-rt of Appeals s-stained the trial ,o-rt$ It agreed &ith the latter

in its relian,e -pon 6o-dard vs$ Tait &herein it &as held that 9the pro,ess of the ,o-rt has no e?traterritorial effe,t and no @-risdi,tion is a,5-ired over the person of the defendant "' serving hi+ "e'ond the "o-ndaries of the state$: To s-pport its position! the Co-rt of Appeals f-rther stated: In an a,tion stri,tl' in persona+! s-,h as the instant ,ase! personal servi,e of s-++ons &ithin the for-+ is re5-ired for the ,o-rt to a,5-ire @-risdi,tion over the

defendant 0Magdalena <state In,$ vs$ 7ieto! 1*K SCRA */%1$ To ,onfer @-risdi,tion on the ,o-rt! personal or s-"stit-ted servi,e of s-++ons on the defendant not e?traterritorial servi,e is ne,essar'$ ISSUE: &hether a #apanese ,o-rt ,an a,5-ire @-risdi,tion over a Philippine ,orporation doing "-siness in #apan "' serving s-++ons thro-gh diplo+ati, ,hannels on the Philippine ,orporation at its prin,ipal offi,e in Manila after prior atte+pts to serve s-++ons in #apan had failed$

HELD: A<S A foreign @-dg+ent is pres-+ed to "e valid and "inding in the ,o-ntr' fro+ &hi,h it ,o+es! -ntil the ,ontrar' is sho&n$ It is also proper to pres-+e the reg-larit' of the pro,eedings and the giving of d-e noti,e therein$ 4 The @-dg+ent +a'! ho&ever! "e assailed "' eviden,e of &ant of @-risdi,tion! &ant of noti,e to the part'! ,oll-sion! fra-d! or ,lear +ista)e of la& or fa,t$0See Se,$ K%! R /91

6eing the part' ,hallenging the @-dg+ent rendered "' the #apanese ,o-rt! SBARP had the d-t' to de+onstrate the invalidit' of s-,h @-dg+ent$ It is settled that +atters of re+ed' and pro,ed-re s-,h as those relating to the servi,e of pro,ess -pon a defendant are governed "' the le? fori or the internal la& of the for-+$ In this ,ase! it is the pro,ed-ral la& of #apan &here the @-dg+ent &as rendered that deter+ines the validit' of the e?traterritorial servi,e of pro,ess on SBARP$ As to &hat

this la& is is a 5-estion of fa,t! not of la&$ It &as then in,-+"ent -pon SBARP to present eviden,e as to &hat that #apanese pro,ed-ral la& is and to sho& that -nder it! the assailed e?traterritorial servi,e is invalid$ It did not$ A,,ordingl'! the pres-+ption of validit' and reg-larit' of the servi,e of s-++ons and the de,ision thereafter rendered "' the #apanese ,o-rt +-st stand$ Alternativel' in the light of the a"sen,e of proof regarding #apanese la&! the

pres-+ption of identit' or si+ilarit' or the so(,alled pro,ess-al pres-+ption +a' "e invo)ed$ Appl'ing it! the #apanese la& on the +atter is pres-+ed to "e si+ilar &ith the Philippine la& on servi,e of s-++ons on a private foreign ,orporation doing "-siness in the Philippines$ Se,tion 1G! R-le 1G of the R-les of Co-rt provides that if the defendant is a foreign ,orporation doing "-siness in the Philippines! servi,e +a' "e +ade: 011 on its resident agent designated in

a,,ordan,e &ith la& for that p-rpose! or! 0*1 if there is no s-,h resident agent! on the govern+ent offi,ial designated "' la& to that effe,t2 or 0/1 on an' of its offi,ers or agents &ithin the Philippines$ .here the ,orporation has no s-,h agent! servi,e shall "e +ade on the govern+ent offi,ial designated "' la&! to &it: 0a1 the Ins-ran,e Co++issioner in the ,ase of a foreign ins-ran,e ,o+pan'2 0"1 the S-perintendent of 6an)s! in the ,ase of a foreign "an)ing ,orporation2 and 0,1

the Se,-rities and <?,hange Co++ission! in the ,ase of other foreign ,orporations d-l' li,ensed to do "-siness in the Philippines$ 7o&here in its pleadings did SBARP profess to having had a resident agent a-thori3ed to re,eive ,o-rt pro,esses in #apan$ .hile it +a' "e tr-e that servi,e ,o-ld have "een +ade -pon an' of the offi,ers or agents of SBARP at its three other "ran,hes in #apan! the availa"ilit' of s-,h a re,o-rse &o-ld not pre,l-de servi,e

-pon the proper govern+ent offi,ial! as stated a"ove$ As fo-nd "' the respondent ,o-rt! t&o atte+pts at servi,e &ere +ade at SBARP>s Ao)oha+a "ran,h$ 6oth &ere -ns-,,essf-l$ The To)'o Distri,t Co-rt re5-ested the S-pre+e Co-rt of #apan to ,a-se the deliver' of the s-++ons and other legal do,-+ents to the Philippines$ A,ting on that re5-est! the S-pre+e Co-rt of #apan sent the s-++ons together &ith the other legal do,-+ents to the Ministr' of

Foreign Affairs of #apan &hi,h! in t-rn! for&arded the sa+e to the #apanese <+"ass' in Manila $ Thereafter! the ,o-rt pro,esses &ere delivered to the Ministr' 0no& Depart+ent1 of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines! then to the <?e,-tive #-dge of the Co-rt of First Instan,e 0no& Regional Trial Co-rt1 of Manila! &ho forth&ith ordered Dep-t' Sheriff Rolando 6alingit to serve the sa+e on SBARP at its prin,ipal offi,e in Manila$ This servi,e is e5-ivalent to servi,e on the

proper govern+ent offi,ial -nder Se,tion 1G! R-le 1G of the R-les of Co-rt! in relation to Se,tion 1* of the Corporation Code$ Ben,e! SBARP>s ,ontention that s-,h +anner of servi,e is not valid -nder Philippine la&s holds no &ater$ .e find 7ORTB.<ST>s ,lai+ for attorne'>s fees! litigation e?penses! and e?e+plar' da+ages to "e &itho-t +erit$ .e find no eviden,e that &o-ld @-stif' an a&ard for attorne'>s fees and litigation e?penses -nder Arti,le **%

of the Civil Code of the Philippines$ 7or is an a&ard for e?e+plar' da+ages &arranted$ .B<R<FOR<! the instant petition is partl' =RA7T<D! and the ,hallenged de,ision is AFFIRM<D insofar as it denied 7ORTB.<ST>s ,lai+s for attorne's fees! litigation e?penses! and e?e+plar' da+ages "-t R<H<RS<D insofar as in s-stained the trial ,o-rt>s dis+issal of 7ORTB.<ST>s ,o+plaint in Civil Case 7o$ /(1D4/D of 6ran,h KG of the Regional

Trial Co-rt of Manila! and another in its stead is here"' rendered ORD<RI7= private respondent C$F$ SBARP ; COMPA7A! I7C$ to pa' to 7ORTB.<ST the a+o-nts ad@-dged in the foreign @-dg+ent s-"@e,t of said ,ase! &ith interest thereon at the legal rate fro+ the filing of the ,o+plaint therein -ntil the said foreign @-dg+ent is f-ll' satisfied$ LAU0AL VS CA0CIA Leave a comment La($%4 vs Ga$ ia GR ,0</5 '(4# 0;, /,,<.

Fa "s= Petitioners see) to stop the Philippine =overn+ent to sell the Roppongi Propert'! &hi,h is lo,ated in #apan$ It is one of the properties given "' the #apanese =overn+ent as reparations for da+age done "' the latter to the for+er d-ring the &ar$ Petitioner arg-es that -nder Philippine ;a&! the s-"@e,t propert' is propert' of p-"li, do+inion$ As s-,h! it is o-tside the ,o++er,e of +en$ Therefore! it ,annot "e alienated$

Respondents aver that #apanese ;a&! and not Philippine ;a&! shall appl' to the ,ase "e,a-se the propert' is lo,ated in #apan$ The' posit that the prin,iple of le? sit-s applies$ Iss(%s and H%4d= 1$ .O7 the s-"@e,t propert' ,annot "e alienated$ The ans&er is in the affir+ative$ Under Philippine ;a&! there ,an "e no do-"t that it is of p-"li, do+inion -nless it is ,onvin,ingl' sho&n that the

propert' has "e,o+e patri+onial$ This! the respondents have failed to do$ As propert' of p-"li, do+inion! the Roppongi lot is o-tside the ,o++er,e of +an$ It ,annot "e alienated$ *$ .O7 Philippine ;a& applies to the ,ase at "ar$ The ans&er is in the affir+ative$ .e see no reason &h' a ,onfli,t of la& r-le sho-ld appl' &hen no ,onfli,t of la& sit-ation e?ists$ A ,onfli,t of la& sit-ation arises onl'

&hen: 011 There is a disp-te over the title or o&nership of an i++ova"le! s-,h that the ,apa,it' to ta)e and transfer i++ova"les! the for+alities of ,onve'an,e! the essential validit' and effe,t of the transfer! or the interpretation and effe,t of a ,onve'an,e! are to "e deter+ined2 and 0*1 A foreign la& on land o&nership and its ,onve'an,e is asserted to ,onfli,t &ith a do+esti, la& on the sa+e +atters$ Ben,e! the need to deter+ine &hi,h la& sho-ld appl'$

In the instant ,ase! none of the a"ove ele+ents e?ists$ The iss-es are not ,on,erned &ith validit' of o&nership or title$ There is no 5-estion that the propert' "elongs to the Philippines$ The iss-e is the a-thorit' of the respondent offi,ials to validl' dispose of propert' "elonging to the State$ And the validit' of the pro,ed-res adopted to effe,t its sale$ This is governed "' Philippine ;a&$ The r-le of le? sit-s does not appl'$ The assertion that the opinion of the Se,retar' of #-sti,e

sheds light on the relevan,e of the le? sit-s r-le is +ispla,ed$ The opinion does not ta,)le the aliena"ilit' of the real properties pro,-red thro-gh reparations nor the e?isten,e in &hat "od' of the a-thorit' to sell the+$ In dis,-ssing &ho are ,apa"le of a,5-iring the lots! the Se,retar' +erel' e?plains that it is the foreign la& &hi,h sho-ld deter+ine &ho ,an a,5-ire the properties so that the ,onstit-tional li+itation on a,5-isition of lands of the p-"li, do+ain to Filipino

,iti3ens and entities &holl' o&ned "' Filipinos is inappli,a"le$

INTL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE) v. QUISUMBING January 31, 2013 Leave a Comment 8AC/S9 Petitioners "or( !n er private respon ent International Sc&ool. /&e sc&ool &ires $ot& local an %orei+n &ires. 8orei+n &ires are +rante "it& #ore $ene%its an &i+&er salary. 0espon ent says t&is is $eca!se o% islocation %actor

an li#ite ten!re. Petitioners conteste t&e i%%erence in salary rates $et"een %orei+n an local &ires. /&ey clai# t&at it is iscri#inatory to 8ilipinos an it constit!tes racial iscri#ination. 3ALD9 /&ere is violation o% e-!al protection. A-!al pay %or e-!al "or() persons "&o "or( "it& s!$stantially e-!al -!ali%ications) s(ills# e%%ort) an responsi$ility !n er si#ilar con itions s&o!l $e pai si#ilar salaries. I% an e#ployer accor s t&e sa#e ran( an position) t&e pres!#ption is t&at t&ey per%or# e-!al "or(. 3ere) $ot& +ro!ps &ave si#ilar

%!nctions "&ic& t&ey per%or# !n er si#ilar con itions. /&ere is no evi ence t&at %orei+n &ires per%or# 25@ #ore e%%icient t&an local &ires. /&e islocation %actor an ten!re are properly accor e $y t&e $ene%its t&ey receive . ISAA vs. JUISU<'INC Leave a comment INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS (ISAE), !%"i"i)n%$, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. -UISUMBING in his a!a i"# as "h% S% $%"a$# )* La1)$ and E3!4)#3%n"> HON. CRESENCIANO B.

TRA'ANO in his a!a i"# as "h% A "in& S% $%"a$# )* La1)$ and E3!4)#3%n"> DR. BRIAN MACCAULE: in his a!a i"# as "h% S(!%$in"%nd%n" )* In"%$na"i)na4 S h))4? Mani4a> and INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC., $%s!)nd%n"s., G.R. N). /0++@;, '(n% /, 0<<< FACTS= Private respondent International S,hool! In,$

0S,hool1! p-rs-ant to PD D/*! is a do+esti, ed-,ational instit-tion esta"lished pri+aril' for dependents of foreign diplo+ati, personnel and other te+porar' residents$ The de,ree a-thori3es the S,hool to e+plo' its o&n tea,hing and +anage+ent personnel sele,ted "' it either lo,all' or a"road! fro+ Philippine or other nationalities! s-,h personnel "eing e?e+pt fro+ other&ise appli,a"le la&s and reg-lations attending their e+plo'+ent! e?,ept la&s that

have "een or &ill "e ena,ted for the prote,tion of e+plo'ees$ S,hool hires "oth foreign and lo,al tea,hers as +e+"ers of its fa,-lt'! ,lassif'ing the sa+e into t&o: 011 foreign(hires and 0*1 lo,al( hires$ The S,hool grants foreign( hires ,ertain "enefits not a,,orded lo,al(hires$ Foreign( hires are also paid a salar' rate *KM +ore than lo,al( hires$ .hen negotiations for a ne& C6A &ere held on #-ne 199K! petitioner ISA<! a legiti+ate

la"or -nion and the ,olle,tive "argaining representative of all fa,-lt' +e+"ers of the S,hool! ,ontested the differen,e in salar' rates "et&een foreign and lo,al( hires$ This iss-e! as &ell as the 5-estion of &hether foreign(hires sho-ld "e in,l-ded in the appropriate "argaining -nit! event-all' ,a-sed a deadlo,) "et&een the parties$ ISA< filed a noti,e of stri)e$ D-e to the fail-re to rea,h a ,o+pro+ise in the 7CM6! the +atter rea,hed the DO;<

&hi,h favored the S,hool$ Ben,e this petition$ ISSUE= .hether the foreign(hires sho-ld "e in,l-ded in "argaining -nit of lo,al( hires$ RULING= 7O$ The Constit-tion! Arti,le NIII! Se,tion /! spe,ifi,all' provides that la"or is entitled to 9h-+ane ,onditions of &or)$: These ,onditions are not restri,ted to the ph'si,al &or)pla,e O the fa,tor'! the

offi,e or the field O "-t in,l-de as &ell the +anner "' &hi,h e+plo'ers treat their e+plo'ees$ Dis,ri+ination! parti,-larl' in ter+s of &ages! is fro&ned -pon "' the ;a"or Code$ Arti,le *G de,lares it an -nfair la"or pra,ti,e for an e+plo'er to dis,ri+inate in regard to &ages in order to en,o-rage or dis,o-rage +e+"ership in an' la"or organi3ation$ The Constit-tion en@oins the State to 9prote,t the rights of &or)ers and pro+ote their

&elfare! In Se,tion 1 ! Arti,le II of the ,onstit-tion +andates 9to afford la"or f-ll prote,tion:$ The State has the right and d-t' to reg-late the relations "et&een la"or and ,apital$ These relations are not +erel' ,ontra,t-al "-t are so i+pressed &ith p-"li, interest that la"or ,ontra,ts! ,olle,tive "argaining agree+ents in,l-ded! +-st 'ield to the ,o++on good$ Bo&ever! foreign(hires do not "elong to the sa+e "argaining -nit as the lo,al(hires$

A "argaining -nit is a group of employees of a given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the employer indicate to be the best suited to serve the reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the collective bargaining provisions of the law$ The fa,tors in deter+ining the appropriate ,olle,tive "argaining -nit are 011 the &ill of the e+plo'ees 0=lo"e Do,trine12 0*1 affinit' and

-nit' of the e+plo'ees> interest! s-,h as s-"stantial si+ilarit' of &or) and d-ties! or si+ilarit' of ,o+pensation and &or)ing ,onditions 0S-"stantial M-t-al Interests R-le12 0/1 prior ,olle,tive "argaining histor'2 and 0G1 si+ilarit' of e+plo'+ent stat-s$ The "asi, test of an asserted "argaining -nit>s a,,epta"ilit' is &hether or not it is f-nda+entall' the ,o+"ination &hi,h &ill "est ass-re to all e+plo'ees the e?er,ise of their ,olle,tive "argaining rights$

In the ,ase at "ar! it does not appear that foreign(hires have indi,ated their intention to "e gro-ped together &ith lo,al( hires for p-rposes of ,olle,tive "argaining$ The ,olle,tive "argaining histor' in the S,hool also sho&s that these gro-ps &ere al&a's treated separatel'$ Foreign(hires have li+ited ten-re2 lo,al(hires en@o' se,-rit' of ten-re$ Altho-gh foreign(hires perfor+ si+ilar f-n,tions -nder the sa+e &or)ing ,onditions as the lo,al(hires! foreign(hires are a,,orded

,ertain "enefits not granted to lo,al(hires s-,h as ho-sing! transportation! shipping ,osts! ta?es and ho+e leave travel allo&an,es$ These "enefits are reasona"l' related to their stat-s as foreign(hires! and @-stif' the e?,l-sion of the for+er fro+ the latter$ To in,l-de foreign(hires in a "argaining -nit &ith lo,al( hires &o-ld not ass-re either gro-p the e?er,ise of their respe,tive ,olle,tive "argaining rights$ .B<R<FOR<! the petition is =IH<7 DU< COURS<$ The

petition is here"' =RA7T<D I7 PART

SALVACION VS. CENTRAL BANK FACTS: Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four counts of rape and serious illegal detention against Karen Salvacion. Police recovered from him several dollar checks and a dollar account in the China Banking Corp. He was, however, a le to escape from prison. !n a civil case filed

against him, the trial court awarded Salvacion moral, e"emplar# and attorne#$s fees amounting to almost P%,&&&,&&&.&&. Salvacion tried to e"ecute the 'udgment on the dollar deposit of Bartelli with the China Banking Corp. ut the latter refused arguing that Section %% of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& e"empts foreign currenc# deposits from attachment, garnishment, or an# other order or process of an# court, legislative od#, government agenc# or an# administrative od# whatsoever.

Salvacion therefore filed this action for declarator# relief in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Should Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and Section , of -epu lic Act (o. *./*, as amended # P0 %/.*, otherwise known as the 1oreign Currenc# 0eposit Act e made applica le to a foreign transient2

HELD3 4he provisions of Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and P0 (o. %/.*, insofar as it amends Section , of -epu lic Act (o. *./*, are here # held to e !(APP5!CAB56 to this case ecause of its peculiar circumstances. -espondents are here # re7uired to compl# with the writ of e"ecution issued in the civil case and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount as would satisf# the 'udgment. RATIO3 Supreme Court ruled that the 7uestioned law makes futile the

favora le 'udgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents full# deserve. !t then proceeded to show that the economic asis for the enactment of -A (o. *./* is not an#more present8 and even if it still e"ists, the 7uestioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for eing unreasona le and oppressive. 4he intention of the law ma# e good when enacted. 4he law failed to anticipate the ini7uitous effects producing outright in'ustice and ine7ualit# such as the case efore us. 4he SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued

that the 9ffshore Banking S#stem and the 1oreign Currenc# 0eposit S#stem were designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and, su se7uentl#, to give the latter protection. However, the foreign currenc# deposit made # a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged # P0 (os. %&+. and %&+: and given incentives and protection # said laws ecause such depositor sta#s onl# for a few da#s in the countr# and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the ank onl# for a short time. Considering that Bartelli is 'ust a tourist or a

transient, he is not entitled to the protection of Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and P0 (o. %/.* against attachment, garnishment or other court processes. 1urther, the SC said3 ;!n fine, the application of the law depends on the e"tent of its 'ustice. 6ventuall#, if we rule that the 7uestioned Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& which e"empts from attachment, garnishment, or an# other order or process of an# court, legislative od#, government agenc# or an# administrative od# whatsoever,

is applica le to a foreign transient, in'ustice would result especiall# to a citi<en aggrieved # a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. 4his would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provide th!t "i# c! e of do$%t i# the i#terpret!tio# or !pplic!tio# of l!w & it i pre $'ed th!t the l!w'!(i#) %od* i#te#ded ri)ht !#d +$ tice to prev!il.= CADALIN A/ AL VS. P1AA A/ AL 1 comment BIENAENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONATO B. EAANGELISTA, and "h% $%s" )* /,676

NAMED?COMPLAINANTS, "h$( and 1# "h%i$ A"")$n%#? in?*a ", A""#. GERARDO A. DEL MUNDOvs. PHILIPPINE OAERSEAS EMPLO:MENT ADMINISTRATIONBS ADMINISTRATOR, NLRC, BRO8N 9 ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANDCOR ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS CORPORATION GRN /<@667, D% %31%$ ;,/,,@. FACTS: This is a ,onsolidation of / ,ases of SP<CIA; CIHI;

ACTIO7S in the S-pre+e Co-rt for Certiorari$ On #-ne 4! 19 G! Cadalin! A+-l and <vangelista! in their o&n "ehalf and on "ehalf of D* other OC.s instit-ted a ,lass s-it "' filing an 9A+ended Co+plaint: &ith the PO<A for +one' ,lai+s arising fro+ their re,r-it+ent "' ASIA I7T<R7ATIO7A; 6UI;D<RS CORPORATIO7 0AI6C1 and e+plo'+ent "' 6RO.7 L ROOT I7T<R7ATIO7A;! I7C 06RI1 &hi,h is a foreign ,orporation &ith head5-arters in Bo-ston!

Te?as! and is engaged in ,onstr-,tion2 &hile AI6C is a do+esti, ,orporation li,ensed as a servi,e ,ontra,tor to re,r-it! +o"ili3e and deplo' Filipino &or)ers for overseas e+plo'+ent on "ehalf of its foreign prin,ipals$ The a+ended ,o+plaint so-ght the pa'+ent of the -ne?pired portion of the e+plo'+ent ,ontra,ts! &hi,h &as ter+inated pre+at-rel'! and se,ondaril'! the pa'+ent of the interest of the earnings of the Travel and Reserved F-nd2 interest on all the

-npaid "enefits2 area &age and salar' differential pa'2 fringe "enefits2 rei+"-rse+ent of SSS and pre+i-+ not re+itted to the SSS2 ref-nd of &ithholding ta? not re+itted to the 6IR2 penalties for ,o++itting prohi"ited pra,ti,es2 as &ell as the s-spension of the li,ense of AI6C and the a,,reditation of 6RII On O,to"er *! 19 G! the PO<A Ad+inistrator denied the 9Motion to Stri)e O-t of the Re,ords: filed "' AI6C "-t re5-ired the ,lai+ants to

,orre,t the defi,ien,ies in the ,o+plaint pointed o-t$ AI6 and 6RII )ept on filing Motion for <?tension of Ti+e to file their ans&er$ The PO<A )ept on granting s-,h +otions$ On 7ove+"er 1G! 19 G! ,lai+ants filed an opposition to the +otions for e?tension of ti+e and as)ed that AI6C and 6RII de,lared in defa-lt for fail-re to file their ans&ers$ On De,e+"er *D! 19 G! the PO<A Ad+inistrator iss-ed an order dire,ting AI6C and 6RII

to file their ans&ers &ithin ten da's fro+ re,eipt of the order$ 0at +ada+i pang +otions ang na(file! ne& ,o+plainants @oined the ,ase! ang da+ing inavail na re+edies ng "oth parties1 On #-ne 19! 19 D! AI6C finall' s-"+itted its ans&er to the ,o+plaint$ At the sa+e hearing! the parties &ere given a period of 1K da's fro+ said date &ithin &hi,h to s-"+it their respe,tive position papers$ On Fe"r-ar' *G! 19 ! AI6C and 6RII s-"+itted position paper$ On

O,to"er *D! 19 ! AI6C and 6RII filed a 9Consolidated Repl'!: PO<A Ad+initartor rendered his de,ision &hi,h a&arded the a+o-nt of P *G! 4K*$GG in favor of onl' /*G ,o+plainants$ Clai+ants s-"+itted their 9Appeal Me+orand-+ For Partial Appeal: fro+ the de,ision of the PO<A$ AI6C also filed its MR andQor appeal in addition to the 97oti,e of Appeal: filed earlier$ 7;RC pro+-lgated its Resol-tion! +odif'ing the de,ision of the PO<A$ The

resol-tion re+oved so+e of the "enefits a&arded in favor of the ,lai+ants$ 7;RC denied all the MRs$ Ben,e! these petitions filed "' the ,lai+ants and "' Al6C and 6RII$ The ,ase rooted fro+ the ;a"or ;a& ena,ted "' 6ahrain &here +ost of the ,o+plainants &ere deplo'ed$ Bis Ma@est' Ise 6in Sel+an Al 8aifa! A+ir of 6ahrain! iss-ed his A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ on #-ne 14! 11D4! other&ise )no&n re the ;a"o-r ;a& for the Private Se,tor$ So+e of the provision of A+iri De,ree

7o$ */ that are relevant to the ,lai+s of the ,o+plainants( appellants are as follo&s: 9Art$ D9: ? ? ? A &or)er shall re,eive pa'+ent for ea,h e?tra ho-r e5-ivalent to his &age entitle+ent in,reased "' a +ini+-+ of t&ent'(rive per ,ent-rn thereof for ho-rs &or)ed d-ring the da'2 and "' a +ini+-+ off fift' per ,ent-rn thereof for ho-rs &or)ed d-ring the night &hi,h shall "e dee+ed to "eing fro+ seven o>,lo,) in the evening -ntil seven o>,lo,) in the +orning $:

Art$ %: Frida' shall "e dee+ed to "e a &ee)l' da' of rest on f-ll pa'$ If e+plo'ee &or)ed! 1K%M of his nor+al &age shall "e paid to hi+ ? ? ?$: Art$ 12 ? ? ? .hen ,onditions of &or) re5-ire the &or)er to &or) on an' offi,ial holida'! he shall "e paid an additional s-+ e5-ivalent to 1K%M of his nor+al &age$: Art$ G: <ver' &or)er &ho has ,o+pleted one 'ear>s ,ontin-o-s servi,e &ith his e+plo'er shall "e entitled to ;aos on f-ll pa' for a period of

not less than *1 da's for ea,h 'ear in,reased to a period not less than * da's after five ,ontin-o-s 'ears of servi,e$: A &or)er shall "e entitled to s-,h leave -pon a 5-ant-+ +er-it in respe,t of the proportion of his servi,e in that 'ear$: Art$ 1%D: A ,ontra,t of e+plo'+ent +ade for a period of indefinite d-ration +a' "e ter+inated "' either part' thereto after giving the other part' prior noti,e "efore s-,h ter+ination! in &riting! in respe,t of +onthl' paid

&or)ers and fifteen da's> noti,e in respe,t of other &or)ers$ The part' ter+inating a ,ontra,t &itho-t the re5-ired noti,e shall pa' to the other part' ,o+pensation e5-ivalent to the a+o-nt of &ages pa'a"le to the &or)er for the period of s-,h noti,e or the -ne?pired portion thereof$: Art$ Ill: ? ? ? the e+plo'er ,on,erned shall pa' to s-,h &or)er! -pon ter+ination of e+plo'+ent! a leaving inde+nit' for the period of his e+plo'+ent ,al,-lated on the

"asis of fifteen da's> &ages for ea,h 'ear of the first three 'ears of servi,e and of one +onth>s &ages for ea,h 'ear of servi,e thereafter$ S-,h &or)er shall "e entitled to pa'+ent of leaving inde+nit' -pon a 5-ant-+ +er-it in proportion to the period of his servi,e ,o+pleted &ithin a 'ear$: ISSUE: 1$ .O7 the foreign la& sho-ld govern or the ,ontra,t of the parties$0.O7 the ,o+plainants &ho have &or)ed in 6ahrain are entitled

to the a"ove(+entioned "enefits provided "' A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 6ahrain1$ *$ .O7 the 6ahrain ;a& sho-ld appl' in the ,ase$ 0Ass-+ing it is appli,a"le .O7 ,o+plainants> ,lai+ for the "enefits provided therein have pres,ri"ed$1 /$ .hether or not the instant ,ases 5-alif' as2 a ,lass s-it 0siningit )o nalang1 0the rest of the iss-es in the f-ll te?t of the ,ase refer to ;a"or ;a&1 RULING:

1$ 7;RC set aside Se,tion 1! R-le 1*9 of the 19 9 Revised R-les on <viden,e governing the pleading and proof of a foreign la& and ad+itted in eviden,e a si+ple ,op' of the 6ahrain>s A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4 0;a"o-r ;a& for the Private Se,tor1$ 7;RC applied the A+iri Deere! 7o$ */ of 19D4! &hi,h provides for greater "enefits than those stip-lated in the overseas(e+plo'+ent ,ontra,ts of the ,lai+ants$ It &as of the "elief that &here the la&s of the host ,o-ntr'

are +ore favora"le and "enefi,ial to the &or)ers! then the la&s of the host ,o-ntr' shall for+ part of the overseas e+plo'+ent ,ontra,t$ It approved the o"servation of the PO<A Ad+inistrator that in la"or pro,eedings! all do-"ts in the i+ple+entation of the provisions of the ;a"or Code and its i+ple+enting reg-lations shall "e resolved in favor of la"or$ The overseas(e+plo'+ent ,ontra,ts! &hi,h &ere prepared "' AI6C and 6RII the+selves! provided that the

la&s of the host ,o-ntr' "e,a+e appli,a"le to said ,ontra,ts if the' offer ter+s and ,onditions +ore favora"le than those stip-lated therein$ Bo&ever there &as a part of the e+plo'+ent ,ontra,t &hi,h provides that the ,o+pensation of the e+plo'ee +a' "e 9ad@-sted do&n&ard so that the total ,o+p-tation pl-s the non(&aiva"le "enefits shall "e e5-ivalent to the ,o+pensation: therein agree!> another part of the sa+e provision ,ategori,all' states 9that total re+-neration and

"enefits do not fall "elo& that of the host ,o-ntr' reg-lation and ,-sto+$: An' a+"ig-it' in the overseas(e+plo'+ent ,ontra,ts sho-ld "e interpreted against AI6C and 6RII! the parties that drafted it$ Arti,le 1/DD of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: RThe interpretation of o"s,-re &ords or stip-lations in a ,ontra,t shall not favor the part' &ho ,a-sed the o"s,-rit'$:

Said r-le of interpretation is appli,a"le to ,ontra,ts of adhesion &here there is alread' a prepared for+ ,ontaining the stip-lations of the e+plo'+ent ,ontra,t and the e+plo'ees +erel' 9ta)e it or leave it$: The pres-+ption is that there &as an i+position "' one part' against the other and that the e+plo'ees signed the ,ontra,ts o-t of ne,essit' that red-,ed their "argaining po&er$ .e read the overseas e+plo'+ent ,ontra,ts in 5-estion as adopting the

provisions of the A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4 as part and par,el thereof$ The parties to a ,ontra,t +a' sele,t the la& "' &hi,h it is to "e governed$ In s-,h a ,ase! the foreign la& is adopted as a 9s'ste+: to reg-late the relations of the parties! in,l-ding 5-estions of their ,apa,it' to enter into the ,ontra,t! the for+alities to "e o"served "' the+! +atters of perfor+an,e! and so forth$ Instead of adopting the entire +ass of the foreign la&! the parties +a' @-st agree that spe,ifi, provisions of a foreign

stat-te shall "e dee+ed in,orporated into their ,ontra,t 9as a set of ter+s$: 6' s-,h referen,e to the provisions of the foreign la&! the ,ontra,t does not "e,o+e a foreign ,ontra,t to "e governed "' the foreign la&$ The said la& does not operate as a stat-te "-t as a set of ,ontra,t-al ter+s dee+ed &ritten in the ,ontra,t$ A "asi, poli,' of ,ontra,t is to prote,t the e?pe,tation of the parties$ S-,h part' e?pe,tation is prote,ted "' giving effe,t to the parties>

o&n ,hoi,e of the appli,a"le la&$ The ,hoi,e of la& +-st! ho&ever! "ear so+e relationship the parties or their transa,tion$ There is no 5-estion that the ,ontra,ts so-ght to "e enfor,ed "' ,lai+ants have a dire,t ,onne,tion &ith the 6ahrain la& "e,a-se the servi,es &ere rendered in that ,o-ntr'$ *$ 7;RC r-led that the pres,riptive period for the filing of the ,lai+s of the ,o+plainants &as / 'ears! as provided in Arti,le *91 of the ;a"or Code of the Philippines!

and not ten 'ears as provided in Arti,le 11GG of the Civil Code of the Philippines nor one 'ear as provided in the A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4$ Arti,le 1K4 of the A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4 provides: 9A ,lai+ arising o-t of a ,ontra,t of e+plo'+ent shall not a,tiona"le after the lapse of one 'ear fro+ the date of the e?pir' of the Contra,t:$ As a general r-le! a foreign pro,ed-ral la& &ill not "e applied in the for-+ 0lo,al ,o-rt1! Pro,ed-ral +atters! s-,h as servi,e of pro,ess!

@oinder of a,tions! period and re5-isites for appeal! and so forth! are governed "' the la&s of the for-+$ This is tr-e even if the a,tion is "ased -pon a foreign s-"stantive la&$ A la& on pres,ription of a,tions is s-i generis in Confli,t of ;a&s in the sense that it +a' "e vie&ed either as pro,ed-ral or s-"stantive! depending on the ,hara,teri3ation given s-,h a la&$ In 6o-rnias v$ Atlanti, Mariti+e Co+pan' 0**% F$ *d$ 1K*! *d Cir$ I19KKJ1! &here

the iss-e &as the appli,a"ilit' of the Pana+a ;a"or Code in a ,ase filed in the State of 7e& Aor) for ,lai+s arising fro+ said Code! the ,lai+s &o-ld have pres,ri"ed -nder the Pana+anian ;a& "-t not -nder the Stat-te of ;i+itations of 7e& Aor)$ The U$S$ Cir,-it Co-rt of Appeals held that the Pana+anian ;a& &as pro,ed-ral as it &as not 9spe,ifi,all' intended to "e s-"stantive!: hen,e! the pres,riptive period provided in the la& of the for-+ sho-ld appl'$ The Co-rt o"served:

9$ $ $ &e are dealing &ith a stat-te of li+itations of a foreign ,o-ntr'! and it is not ,lear on the fa,e of the stat-te that its p-rpose &as to li+it the enfor,ea"ilit'! o-tside as &ell as &ithin the foreign ,o-ntr' ,on,erned! of the s-"stantive rights to &hi,h the stat-te pertains$ .e thin) that as a 'ardsti,) for deter+ining &hether that &as the p-rpose! this test is the +ost satisfa,tor' one$ The Co-rt f-rther noted: 9Appl'ing that test here it appears to -s that the li"ellant

is entitled to s-,,eed! for the respondents have failed to satisf' -s that the Pana+anian period of li+itation in 5-estion &as spe,ifi,all' ai+ed against the parti,-lar rights &hi,h the li"ellant see)s to enfor,e$ The Pana+a ;a"or Code is a stat-te having "road o"@e,tives$: The A+eri,an ,o-rt applied the stat-te of li+itations of 7e& Aor)! instead of the Pana+anian la&! after finding that there &as no sho&ing that the Pana+anian la& on

pres,ription &as intended to "e s-"stantive$ 6eing ,onsidered +erel' a pro,ed-ral la& even in Pana+a! it has to give &a' to the la& of the for-+ 0lo,al Co-rt1 on pres,ription of a,tions$ Bo&ever the ,hara,teri3ation of a stat-te into a pro,ed-ral or s-"stantive la& "e,o+es irrelevant &hen the ,o-ntr' of the for-+ 0lo,al Co-rt1 has a 9"orro&ing stat-te$: Said stat-te has the pra,ti,al effe,t of treating the foreign stat-te of li+itation as one of

s-"stan,e$ A 9"orro&ing stat-te: dire,ts the state of the for-+ 0lo,al Co-rt1 to appl' the foreign stat-te of li+itations to the pending ,lai+s "ased on a foreign la&$ .hile there are several )inds of 9"orro&ing stat-tes!: one for+ provides that an a,tion "arred "' the la&s of the pla,e &here it a,,r-ed &ill not "e enfor,ed in the for-+ even tho-gh the lo,al stat-te &as not r-n against it$ Se,tion G of Code of Civil Pro,ed-re is of this )ind$ It provides: 9If "' the la&s of

the state or ,o-ntr' &here the ,a-se of a,tion arose! the a,tion is "arred! it is also "arred in the Philippine Islands$: Se,tion G has not "een repealed or a+ended "' the Civil Code of the Philippines$ In the light of the 19 D Constit-tion! ho&ever! Se,tion G ,annot "e enfor,ed e? proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the appli,ation in this @-risdi,tion of Se,tion 1K4 of the A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4$

The ,o-rts of the for-+ 0lo,al Co-rt1 &ill not enfor,e an' foreign ,lai+ o"no?io-s to the for-+>s p-"li, poli,'$ To enfor,e the one('ear pres,riptive period of the A+iri De,ree 7o$ */ of 19D4 as regards the ,lai+s in 5-estion &o-ld ,ontravene the p-"li, poli,' on the prote,tion to la"or$ In the De,laration of Prin,iples and State Poli,ies! the 19 D Constit-tion e+phasi3ed that:9The state shall pro+ote so,ial @-sti,e in all phases of national develop+ent: 0Se,$

1%1$ RThe state affir+s la"or as a pri+ar' so,ial e,ono+i, for,e$ It shall prote,t the rights of &or)ers and pro+ote their &elfare: 0Se,$ 1 1$ In Arti,le NIII on So,ial #-sti,e and B-+an Rights! the 19 D Constit-tion provides: 9Se,$ /$ The State shall afford f-ll prote,tion to la"or! lo,al and overseas! organi3ed and -norgani3ed! and pro+ote f-ll e+plo'+ent and e5-alit' of e+plo'+ent opport-nities for all$:

Th-s! the appli,a"le la& on pres,ription is the Philippine la&$ The ne?t 5-estion is &hether the pres,riptive period governing the filing of the ,lai+s is / 'ears! as provided "' the ;a"or Code or 1% 'ears! as provided "' the Civil Code of the Philippines$ Arti,le 11GG of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: 9The follo&ing a,tions +-st "e "ro-ght &ithin ten 'ears fro+ the ti+e the right of a,tion a,,ross:

011 Upon a &ritten ,ontra,t2 0*1 Upon an o"ligation ,reated "' la&2 0/1 Upon a @-dg+ent: In this ,ase! the ,lai+ for pa' differentials is pri+aril' an,hored on the &ritten ,ontra,ts "et&een the litigants! the ten('ear pres,riptive period provided "' Art$ 11GG0l1 of the 7e& Civil Code sho-ld govern$ /$ 7O$ A ,lass s-it is proper &here the s-"@e,t +atter of the ,ontrovers' is one of ,o++on or general interest to +an' and the parties are so n-+ero-s that it is

i+pra,ti,a"le to "ring the+ all "efore the ,o-rt$ .hen all the ,lai+s are for "enefits granted -nder the 6ahrain la& +an' of the ,lai+ants &or)ed o-tside 6ahrain$ So+e of the ,lai+ants &ere deplo'ed in Indonesia -nder different ter+s and ,ondition of e+plo'+ent$ Inas+-,h as the First re5-ire+ent of a ,lass s-it is not present 0,o++on or general interest "ased on the A+iri De,ree of the State of 6ahrain1! it is onl' logi,al that onl' those &ho &or)ed in

6ahrain shall "e entitled to rile their ,lai+s in a ,lass s-it$ .hile there are ,o++on defendants 0AI6C and 6RII1 and the nat-re of the ,lai+s is the sa+e 0for e+plo'ee>s "enefits1! there is no ,o++on 5-estion of la& or fa,t$ .hile so+e ,lai+s are "ased on the A+iri ;a& of 6ahrain! +an' of the ,lai+ants never &or)ed in that ,o-ntr'! "-t &ere deplo'ed else&here$ Th-s! ea,h ,lai+ant is interested onl' in his o&n de+and and not in the ,lai+s of the other e+plo'ees of defendants$ A

,lai+ant has no ,on,ern in prote,ting the interests of the other ,lai+ants as sho&n "' the fa,t! that h-ndreds of the+ have a"andoned their ,o(,lai+ants and have entered into separate ,o+pro+ise settle+ents of their respe,tive ,lai+s$ The ,lai+ants &ho &or)ed in 6ahrain ,an not "e allo&ed to s-e in a ,lass s-it in a @-di,ial pro,eeding$ .B<R<FOR<! all the three petitioners are DISMISS<D$

'ellis vs 'ellis on November 5, 2010 20 scra 358 Nationality Principle A#os 'ellis "as a citizen o% t&e State o% /e?as) an o% t&e Unite States. 'y &is %irst "i%e "&o# &e ivorce &e &a %ive le+iti#ate c&il ren) $y &is secon "i%e) "&o s!rvive &i#) &e &a t&ree le+iti#ate c&il ren) an t&ree ille+iti#ate c&il ren. 'e%ore &e ie ) &e #a e t"o "ills) one isposin+ o% &is /e?as properties an t&e ot&er isposin+ &is P&ilippine properties. In $ot& "ills) &is ille+iti#ate c&il ren "ere not +iven anyt&in+. /&e ille+iti#ate

c&il ren oppose t&e "ill on t&e +ro!n t&at t&ey &ave $een eprive o% t&eir le+iti#es to "&ic& t&ey s&o!l $e entitle ) i% P&ilippine la" "ere to $e applie . ISSUE: 4&et&er or not t&e national la" o% t&e ecease s&o!l eter#ine t&e s!ccessional ri+&ts o% t&e ille+iti#ate c&il ren. HELD: /&e S!pre#e Co!rt &el t&at t&e sai c&il ren are not entitle to t&eir le+iti#es !n er t&e /e?as La") $ein+ t&e national la" o% t&e ecease ) t&ere are no le+iti#es G.R. No. L-23678 (June 6, 1967)

Bellis vs. Bellis FACT ! Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children. 6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to the project

of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they were entitled according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills. " #$! Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the illegitimate childrens successional rights R#L"NG! Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his

properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.

The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.

Aznar vs. Garcia F!ct : 6dward Christensen is a citi<en of the State of California and domiciled in the Philippines. He e"ecuted in his will acknowledging his natural

daughter >aria 5uc# Christensen as sole heir ut left a legac# of some mone# in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared # the Supreme Court in its decision as acknowledged natural daughter of 6dward C. Counsel of Helen asserts that her claim must e increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Phil. law. Counsel of >aria insists that Art. %* ?/@ provides that the (A4!9(A5 5AA 91 4H6 P6-S9( applies in intestate and testamentar# successions and since 6dward C. is a citi<en of CA, its law should e applied. 5ower

court ruled that CA law should e applied thus this petition for review. I $e: Ahat law should e applica le B Philippine or California 5aw2 R$li#): 4he court refers to Art, 1./0 providing that intestate and testamentar# successions with respect to order of succession and amt. of successional right is regulated # the NATIONAL LA1 OF THE 2ERSON.

C!lifor#i! 2ro%!te Code provides that a testator ma# dispose of his propert# in the form and manner he desires. Art, 34- of the Civil Code of C!lifor#i! provides that if no law on the contrar#, the place where the personal propert# is situated is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed # the LA1 OF HIS DO5ICILE, 4hese provisions are cases when the Doctri#e of Re#voi ma# e applied where the 7uestion of validit# of the testamentar# provision in 7uestion is referred

ack to the decedent$s domicile B the Philippines. S.C. noted the California law provides / sets of laws for its citi<ens3 9ne for residents therein as provided # the CA Pro ate Code and another for citi<ens domiciled in other countries as provided # Art. ).* of the Civil Code of California. 4he conflicts of law rule in CA ?Art. ).*@ authori<e the return of 7uestion of law to the testator$s domicile. 4he court must appl# its own rule in the Philippines as directed in the conflicts of law

rule in CA, otherwise the caseCissue will not e resolved if the issue is referred ack and forth etween / states. 4he SC reversed the lower court$s decision and remanded the case ack to it for decision with an instruction that partition e made appl#ing the Philippine law. P3ILSAC VS. CA Leave a comment PHILSEC INAESTMENT %" a4 vs.CA %" a4 G.R. N). /<5@,5 '(n% /,, /,,6

FACTS: Private respondent D-,at o"tained separate loans fro+ petitioners A'ala International Finan,e ;i+ited 0AAA;A1 and Philse, Invest+ent Corp 0PBI;S<C1! se,-red "' shares of sto,) o&ned "' D-,at$ In order to fa,ilitate the pa'+ent of the loans! private respondent 1G ! In,$! thro-gh its president! private respondent Dai,! ass-+ed D-,at>s o"ligation -nder an Agree+ent! &here"' 1G ! In,$ e?e,-ted a .arrant' Deed &ith Hendor>s ;ien "'

&hi,h it sold to petitioner Athona Boldings! 7$H$ 0ATBO7A1 a par,el of land in Te?as! U$S$A$! &hile PBI;S<C and AAA;A e?tended a loan to ATBO7A as initial pa'+ent of the p-r,hase pri,e$ The "alan,e &as to "e paid "' +eans of a pro+issor' note e?e,-ted "' ATBO7A in favor of 1G ! In,$ S-"se5-entl'! -pon their re,eipt of the +one' fro+ 1G ! In,$! PBI;S<C and AAA;A released D-,at fro+ his inde"tedness and delivered to 1G ! In,$ all the shares of sto,) in their

possession "elonging to D-,at$ As ATBO7A failed to pa' the interest on the "alan,e! the entire a+o-nt ,overed "' the note "e,a+e d-e and de+anda"le$ A,,ordingl'! private respondent 1G ! In,$ s-ed petitioners PBI;S<C! AAA;A! and ATBO7A in the United States for pa'+ent of the "alan,e and for da+ages for "rea,h of ,ontra,t and for fra-d allegedl' perpetrated "' petitioners in +isrepresenting the +ar)eta"ilit' of the shares

of sto,) delivered to 1G ! In,$ -nder the Agree+ent$ .hile the Civil Case &as pending in the United States! petitioners filed a ,o+plaint 9For S-+ of Mone' &ith Da+ages and .rit of Preli+inar' Atta,h+ent: against private respondents in the RTC Ma)ati$ The ,o+plaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their respe,tive ,o-nter,lai+s in the Civil A,tion in the United States Distri,t Co-rt of So-thern Te?as that private respondents ,o++itted fra-d

"' selling the propert' at a pri,e G%% per,ent +ore than its tr-e val-e$ D-,at +oved to dis+iss the Civil Case in the RTC(Ma)ati on the gro-nds of 011 litis pendentia! vis(a(vis the Civil A,tion in the U$S$! 0*1 for-+ non ,onveniens! and 0/1 fail-re of petitioners PBI;S<C and 6PI(IF; to state a ,a-se of a,tion$ The trial ,o-rt granted D-,at>s MTD! stating that 9the evidentiar' re5-ire+ents of the ,ontrovers' +a' "e +ore s-ita"l' tried "efore the for-+

of the litis pendentia in the U$S$! -nder the prin,iple in private international la& of for-+ non ,onveniens!: even as it noted that D-,at &as not a part' in the U$S$ ,ase$ Petitioners appealed to the CA! arg-ing that the trial ,o-rt erred in appl'ing the prin,iple of litis pendentia and for-+ non ,onveniens$ The CA affir+ed the dis+issal of Civil Case against D-,at! 1G ! In,$! and Dai, on the gro-nd of litis pendentia$

ISSUE: is the Civil Case in the RTC(Ma)ati "arred "' the @-dg+ent of the U$S$ ,o-rtS HELD: CA reversed$ Case re+anded to RTC(Ma)ati NO .hile this Co-rt has given the effe,t of res @-di,ata to foreign @-dg+ents in several ,ases! it &as after the parties opposed to the @-dg+ent had "een given a+ple opport-nit' to repel the+ on gro-nds allo&ed -nder the la&$ This is "e,a-se in this @-risdi,tion! &ith respe,t to a,tions in persona+! as disting-ished

fro+ a,tions in re+! a foreign @-dg+ent +erel' ,onstit-tes pri+a fa,ie eviden,e of the @-stness of the ,lai+ of a part' and! as s-,h! is s-"@e,t to proof to the ,ontrar'$ R-le /9! TK% provides: Se,$ K%$ <ffe,t of foreign @-dg+ents$ E The effe,t of a @-dg+ent of a tri"-nal of a foreign ,o-ntr'! having @-risdi,tion to prono-n,e the @-dg+ent is as follo&s: 0a1 In ,ase of a @-dg+ent -pon a spe,ifi, thing! the @-dg+ent is ,on,l-sive -pon the title to the thing2

0"1 In ,ase of a @-dg+ent against a person! the @-dg+ent is pres-+ptive eviden,e of a right as "et&een the parties and their s-,,essors in interest "' a s-"se5-ent title2 "-t the @-dg+ent +a' "e repelled "' eviden,e of a &ant of @-risdi,tion! &ant of noti,e to the part'! ,oll-sion! fra-d! or ,lear +ista)e of la& or fa,t$ In the ,ase at "ar! it ,annot "e said that petitioners &ere given the opport-nit' to ,hallenge the @-dg+ent of the U$S$ ,o-rt as "asis for

de,laring it res @-di,ata or ,on,l-sive of the rights of private respondents$ The pro,eedings in the trial ,o-rt &ere s-++ar'$ 7either the trial ,o-rt nor the appellate ,o-rt &as even f-rnished ,opies of the pleadings in the U$S$ ,o-rt or apprised of the eviden,e presented thereat! to ass-re a proper deter+ination of &hether the iss-es then "eing litigated in the U$S$ ,o-rt &ere e?a,tl' the iss-es raised in this ,ase s-,h that the @-dg+ent that +ight "e

rendered &o-ld ,onstit-te res @-di,ata$ Se,ond$ 7or is the trial ,o-rt>s ref-sal to ta)e ,ogni3an,e of the ,ase @-stifia"le -nder the prin,iple of for-+ non ,onveniens: First! a MTD is li+ited to the gro-nds -nder R-le 14! se,$1! &hi,h does not in,l-de for-+ non ,onveniens$ The propriet' of dis+issing a ,ase "ased on this prin,iple re5-ires a fa,t-al deter+ination! hen,e! it is +ore properl' ,onsidered a +atter of defense$ Se,ond! &hile it is &ithin the

dis,retion of the trial ,o-rt to a"stain fro+ ass-+ing @-risdi,tion on this gro-nd! it sho-ld do so onl' after 9vital fa,ts are esta"lished! to deter+ine &hether spe,ial ,ir,-+stan,es: re5-ire the ,o-rt>s desistan,e$ <anila 3otel Corp. v. National La$or 0elations Co##ission K343 SC0A 7 :1ct.73) 2BBB;L 0e-!isites to Piercin+ t&e Veil o% Corporate 8iction 8acts9 <arcelo Santos "as an overseas "or(er) a printer at t&e <azoon Printin+ Press) S!ltanate

o% 1#an "&en &e "as irectly &ire $y t&e Palace 3otel) 'ei*in+ $y its C< Cer&ar S&#i t as &e "as reco##en e $y Nestor '!enio) &is %rien . Santos resi+ne %ro# <azoon an t&erea%ter si+ne an e#ploy#ent contract #aile to &i#. /&e contract state it "o!l $e %or a perio o% 2 years. A%ter a s&ort vacation in t&e P&il M $arely a year into t&e contract) Santos "as ter#inate %ro# &is *o$ !e to retrenc&#ent) an repatriate to t&e P&il. Santos) t&ro!+& &is la"yer) e#an e %!ll co#pensation p!rs!ant to t&e e#ploy#ent a+ree#ent "&ic&

S&#i t enie . Santos t&en %ile a co#plaint "it& t&e NL0C a+ainst <3C) <3ICL) t&e Palace 3otel M S&#i t %or ille+al is#issal. /&e La$or Ar$iter +rants pay#ent o% a#a+es to Santos "&ic& "as vacate on appeal $y t&e NL0C. 1n an <0) t&e NL0C %o!n Santos ille+ally is#isse M reco##en e t&at &e $e pai act!al a#a+es e-!ivalent to &is salaries %or t&e !ne?pire portion o% &is contract. <0s "ere enie ) &ence t&is petition. Iss!e9 41N <3C is lia$le to Santos. 3el 9 Crante . Piercin+ t&e veil o% corporate %iction N %act t&at <3C is

an incorporator M o"ns 5B@ o% t&e capital stoc( o% <3ICL is not eno!+& to pierce t&e veil. Aven i% "e ass!#e9 NL0C &a *!ris iction over t&e case M <3ICL "as lia$le %or Santos. retrenc&#ent) still <3C) as a separate M istinct *!ri ical entity) cannot $e &el lia$le. Piercin+ t&e veil is an e-!ita$le re#e y. 4&en t&e notion o% le+al entity is !se to e%eat p!$lic convenience) *!sti%y "ron+) protect %ra! ) or e%en cri#e) t&e la" "ill re+ar t&e corp as an association o% persons. It is one only "&en t&e corp is a #ere alter e+o or $!siness con !it o% a person or anot&er corp.

5 Clear M convincin+ evi ence is nee e to pierce t&e veil o% corporate %iction. /&ere is no s!c& evi ence to s&o" t&at <3ICL M <3C are 7 M t&e sa#e entity. 5 /est to ena$le piercin+ o% t&e veil) e?cept in e?press a+ency) estoppel or irect tort9 a;Control) not #ere #a*ority or co#plete o#ination, $;S!c& control #!st &ave eO$een !se $y t&e e%en ant to co##it %ra! or "ron+) etc., c;/&e a%oresai control M $reac& o% !ty #!st appro?i#ately ca!se t&e in*!ry or !n*!st loss co#plaine o%. 5 8act t&at t&e Palace 3otel is a #e#$er o% t&e <anila 3otel Cro!p

is not eno!+& to pierce t&e corporate veil N t&ere is no evi ence to s&o" t&at t&ey are 7 M t&e sa#e entity. 5 Contrary to "&at Santos clai#s t&at <3ICL si+ne &is e#ploy#ent contract) <3ICL Vice2Presi ent si+ne as a #ere "itness !n er t&e "or Pnote .. 8!rt&er#ore) t&ere is no AA0 $et"een Santos M <3ICL. 'en+son III vs /&e 3o!se o% 0epresentatives Alectoral /ri$!nal on January 2, 2012 Political Law Natural !orn "e#uirement "e#uirements to $e a %ongressman

'en+son an Cr!z "ere rivals in t&e 799> elections in t&e 2n District o% Pan+asinan. /&ey "ere r!nnin+ %or Con+ress. Cr!z "on $y a si+ni%icant #ar+in over t&e inc!#$ent 'en+son. 'en+son t&en %ile a J!o 4arranto procee in+ in t&e 30A/ alle+in+ t&at Cr!z is not a nat!ral $orn citizen) as e%ine $y la", &ence &e s&o!l $e is-!ali%ie %ro# &ol in+ o%%ice. /&e 30A/ s!$se-!ently eclare an a%%ir#e Cr!z as t&e "inner. 'en+son %ile a #otion %or reconsi eration alle+in+ t&at Cr!z "as in ee $orn a 8ilipino an &e is e%ine !n er t&e 7935

Constit!tion as a nat!ral $orn citizen. Cr!z &o"ever lost &is citizens&ip "&en &e enliste in t&e US Ar#y in 79>5. 3e also s"ore alle+iance to t&e US "it&o!t consent %ro# t&e P&ilippines. Cr!z) on t&e ot&er &an ) ar+!e t&at &e re+aine &is 8ilipino Citizens&ip $y virt!e o% 0A 2E3B "&ic& provi es t&at QAny person "&o &a lost &is P&ilippine citizens&ip $y ren erin+ service to) or acceptin+ co##ission in) t&e Ar#e 8orces o% t&e Unite States) or a%ter separation %ro# t&e Ar#e 8orces o% t&e Unite States) ac-!ire Unite States citizens&ip) #ay reac-!ire P&ilippine citizens&ip $y

ta(in+ an oat& o% alle+iance to t&e 0ep!$lic o% t&e P&ilippinesRS. 'en+son insists t&at Article IV) Section 2 o% t&e Constit!tion e?pressly states t&at nat!ral2$orn citizens are t&ose "&o are citizens %ro# $irt& "it&o!t &avin+ to per%or# any act to ac-!ire or per%ect s!c& citizens&ip. ISSUE: 4&et&er or not Cr!z is a nat!ral2$orn citizen. HELD: Petitioner.s contention t&at respon ent Cr!z is no lon+er a nat!ral2$orn citizen since &e &a to per%or# an act to re+ain &is citizens&ip is !ntena$le. As correctly e?plaine $y t&e 30A/ in its ecision) t&e ter# Qnat!ral2$orn

citizenS "as %irst e%ine in Article III) Section 4 o% t&e 79F3 Constit!tion as %ollo"s9 &ec' (' ) natural*$orn citi+en is one who is a citi+en of the Philippines from $irth without ha,ing to perform any act to ac#uire or perfect his Philippine citi+enship' As e%ine in t&e sa#e Constit!tion) nat!ral2$orn citizens Qare t&ose citizens o% t&e P&ilippines %ro# $irt& "it&o!t &avin+ to per%or# any act to ac-!ire or per%ect &is P&ilippine citizens&ip. In respon ent Cr!z.s case) &e lost &is 8ilipino citizens&ip "&en &e ren ere service in t&e

Ar#e 8orces o% t&e Unite States. 3o"ever) &e s!$se-!ently reac-!ire P&ilippine citizens&ip !n er 0.A. No. 2E3B. <oreover) repatriation res!lts in t&e recovery o% t&e ori+inal nationality. /&is #eans t&at a nat!ralize 8ilipino "&o lost &is citizens&ip "ill $e restore to &is prior stat!s as a nat!ralize 8ilipino citizen. 1n t&e ot&er &an ) i% &e "as ori+inally a nat!ral2$orn citizen $e%ore &e lost &is P&ilippine citizens&ip) &e "ill $e restore to &is %or#er stat!s as a nat!ral2$orn 8ilipino.

LABO VS. COMELEC, diges ed Posted by Pi s !orados on Nove"ber #$ %&'' GR No. 86564, August 1, 1989 (Constitutional Law Loss of Citizenship) FACTS: Herein petitioner, claiming for recognition as a Philippine citizen is a mayor-elect who, through his marriage with an Australian national, was naturalized and took an oath of allegiance as an Australian citizen. Said marriage was found to be bigamous and therefore was annulled. Petitioner claims that his naturalization made him only a

dual national and did not divest him of his Philippine citizenship. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was divested of his Philippine citizenship. HELD: Yes, because Commonwealth Act No. 63 clearly stated that Philippine citizenship may be lost through naturalization in a foreign country; express renunciation of citizenship; and by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, all of which are applicable to the petitioner. T$C %N & . C%'$L$C G.-. (o. %*%.+., >arch + /&&.

1AC4S3 -espondent -onald Allan Kell# Poe, also known as 1ernando Poe, Dr. ?1PD@ filed his certificate of candidac# on +% 0ecem er /&&+ for the position of President of the -epu lic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections. !n his certificate of candidac#, 1PD, representing himself to e a naturalE orn citi<en of the Philippines, stated his name to e F1ernando Dr.,F or F-onald AllanF Poe, his date of irth to e /& August %)+) and his place of irth to e >anila.

Petitioner 1ornier filed efore the C9>656C a petition to dis7ualif# 1PD and cancel his certificate of candidac# # claiming that 1PD is not a naturalE orn 1ilipino citi<en, his parents were foreigners3 his mother, Bessie Kelle# Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, eing the son of 5oren<o Pou, a Spanish su 'ect. 4he C9>656C dismissed petition for lack of merit. the

!SSG63 Ahether or not 1PD is a naturalE orn citi<en of the Philippines. H6503 Section /, Article H!!, of the %),I Constitution e"presses3 (o person ma# e elected President unless he is a naturalE orn citi<en of the Philippines, a registered voter, a le to read and write, at least fort# #ears of age on the da# of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at

least ten #ears immediatel# preceding such election. (aturalE orn citi<ens are those who are citi<ens of the Philippines from irth without having to perform an# act to ac7uire or perfect their Philippine citi<enship. Based on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider as via le is the fact that the death certificate of 5oren<o Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private respondent 1ernando Poe, Dr. indicates that he died on Septem er %%, %):. at the age of

,. #ears, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. 6videntl#, in such death certificate, the residence of 5oren<o Poe was stated to e San Carlos, Pangansinan. !n the a sence of an# evidence to the contrar#, it should e sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence efore death. Considering that the allegations of petitioners are not su stantiated with proof and since 5oren<o Poe ma# have een enefited from the ;en masse

1ilipini<ation= that the Philippine Bill had effected in %)&/, there is no dou t that Allan Poe father of private respondent 1ernando Poe, Dr. was a 1ilipino citi<en. And, since the latter was orn on August /&, %)+), governed under %)+: Constitution, which constitution considers as citi<ens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citi<ens of the Philippines, 1ernando Poe, Dr. was in fact a naturalE orn citi<en of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.

0a#on La$o) 6r. vs Co##ission on Alections on December 3, 2012 -./ &%") - Law on Pu$lic 0fficers 1lection Laws %iti+enship of a Pu$lic 0fficer 2ual %iti+enship La$o 2octrine In 79>>) 0a#on La$o) 6r. "as electe as #ayor o% 'a+!io City. 3is rival) L!is Lar iza$al %ile a petition %or -!o "arranto a+ainst La$o as Lar iza$al asserts t&at La$o is an A!stralian citizen &ence is-!ali%ie , t&at &e "as nat!ralize as an A!stralian a%ter &e #arrie an A!stralian. La$o avers t&at &is #arria+e "it& an A!stralian i not #a(e &i# an

A!stralian, t&at at $est &e &as !al citizens&ip) A!stralian an 8ilipino, t&at even i% &e in ee $eca#e an A!stralian "&en &e #arrie an A!stralian citizen) s!c& citizens&ip "as lost "&en &is #arria+e "it& t&e A!stralian "as later eclare voi %or $ein+ $i+a#o!s. La$o %!rt&er asserts t&at even i% &e.s consi ere as an A!stralian) &is lac( o% citizens&ip is *!st a #ere tec&nicality "&ic& s&o!l not %r!strate t&e "ill o% t&e electorate o% 'a+!io "&o vote %or &i# $y a vast #a*ority. ISSUES: 7. 4&et&er or not La$o can retain &is p!$lic o%%ice.

2. 4&et&er or not Lar iza$al) "&o o$taine t&e secon &i+&est vote in t&e #ayoralty race) can replace La$o in t&e event La$o is is-!ali%ie . HELD9 7. No. La$o i not -!estion t&e a!t&enticity o% evi ence presente a+ainst &i#. 3e "as nat!ralize as an A!stralian in 79FE. It "as not &is #arria+e to an A!stralian t&at #a e &i# an A!stralian. It "as &is act o% s!$se-!ently s"earin+ $y ta(in+ an oat& o% alle+iance to t&e +overn#ent o% A!stralia. 3e i not isp!te t&at &e nee e an A!stralian passport to ret!rn to t&e P&ilippines in 79>B, an t&at &e

"as liste as an i##i+rant &ere. It cannot $e sai also t&at &e is a !al citizen. D!al alle+iance o% citizens is ini#ical to t&e national interest an s&all $e ealt "it& $y la". 3e lost &is 8ilipino citizens&ip "&en &e s"ore alle+iance to A!stralia. 3e cannot also clai# t&at "&en &e lost &is A!stralian citizens&ip) &e $eca#e solely a 8ilipino. /o restore &is 8ilipino citizens&ip) &e #!st $e nat!ralize or repatriate or $e eclare as a 8ilipino t&ro!+& an act o% Con+ress N none o% t&is &appene . La$o) $ein+ a %orei+ner) cannot serve p!$lic o%%ice. 3is clai# t&at &is lac( o% citizens&ip s&o!l not

overco#e t&e "ill o% t&e electorate is not tena$le. /&e people o% 'a+!io co!l not &ave) even !nani#o!sly) c&an+e t&e re-!ire#ents o% t&e Local Covern#ent Co e an t&e Constit!tion si#ply $y electin+ a %orei+ner :c!rio!sly) "o!l 'a+!io &ave vote %or La$o &a t&ey (no"n &e is A!stralian;. /&e electorate &a no po"er to per#it a %orei+ner o"in+ &is total alle+iance to t&e J!een o% A!stralia) or at least a stateless in ivi !al o"in+ no alle+iance to t&e 0ep!$lic o% t&e P&ilippines) to presi e over t&e# as #ayor o% t&eir city. 1nly citizens o% t&e

P&ilippines &ave t&at privile+e over t&eir co!ntry#en. 2. Lar iza$al on t&e ot&er &an cannot assert) t&ro!+& t&e -!o "arranto procee in+) t&at &e s&o!l $e eclare t&e #ayor $y reason o% La$o.s is-!ali%ication $eca!se Lar iza$al o$taine t&e secon &i+&est n!#$er o% vote. It "o!l $e e?tre#ely rep!+nant to t&e $asic concept o% t&e constit!tionally +!arantee ri+&t to s!%%ra+e i% a can i ate "&o &as not ac-!ire t&e #a*ority or pl!rality o% votes is proclai#e a "inner an i#pose as t&e representative o% a constit!ency) t&e #a*ority o% "&ic& &ave positively eclare t&ro!+&

t&eir $allots t&at t&ey o not c&oose &i#. So!n policy ictates t&at p!$lic elective o%%ices are %ille $y t&ose "&o &ave receive t&e &i+&est n!#$er o% votes cast in t&e election %or t&at o%%ice) an it is a %!n a#ental i ea in all rep!$lican %or#s o% +overn#ent t&at no one can $e eclare electe an no #eas!re can $e eclare carrie !nless &e or it receives a #a*ority or pl!rality o% t&e le+al votes cast in t&e election. DI6U<AN/AN VS. 1<INC1 Facts: 'ernar 'anez) t&e &!s$an o% <arina Ca$ael) "ent to

In onesia as a contract "or(er. 1n April 3) 79F4) &e e#$race an "as converte to Isla#. 1n <ay 7F) 79F4) &e #arrie petitioner in accor ance "it& Isla#ic rites. 3e ret!rne to t&e P&ilippines in 6an!ary 79F9. 1n 6an!ary 73) 79F9) petitioner an &er t"o c&il ren "it& 'anez) arrive in <anila as t&e T+!estsT o% 'anez. /&e latter #a e it appear t&at &e "as *!st a %rien o% t&e %a#ily o% petitioner an "as #erely repayin+ t&e &ospita$ility e?ten e to &i# !rin+ &is stay in In onesia. 4&en

petitioner an &er t"o c&il ren arrive at t&e Ninoy A-!ino International Airport on 6an!ary 73) 79F9) 'anez) to+et&er "it& <arina Ca$ael) #et t&e#.As T+!ests)T petitioner an &er t"o c&il ren live in t&e &o!se o% 'anez. Petitioner an &er c&il ren "ere a #itte to t&e P&ilippines as te#porary visitors !n er Section 9:a; o% t&e I##i+ration Act o% 794B. In 79>7) <arina Ca$ael iscovere t&e tr!e relations&ip o% &er &!s$an an petitioner. 1n <arc&

25) 79>2) t&e i##i+ration stat!s o% petitioner "as c&an+e %ro# te#porary visitor to t&at o% per#anent resi ent !n er Section 73:a; o% t&e sa#e la". 1n April 74) 79>2) petitioner "as iss!e an alien certi%icate o% re+istration. Not acceptin+ t&e set2$ac() 'anezG el est son) Leonar o) %ile a letter co#plaint "it& t&e 1#$! s#an) "&o s!$se-!ently re%erre t&e letter to t&e CID. 1n t&e $asis o% t&e sai letter) petitioner "as etaine at t&e CID etention cell.

/&e CID iss!e an or er revo(in+ t&e stat!s o% per#anent resi ent +iven to petitioner) t&e 'oar %o!n t&e 2n #arria+e irre+!lar an not in accor ance "it& t&e la"s o% t&e P&ils. /&ere "as t&!s no $asis %or +ivin+ &er t&e stat!s o% per#anent resi ence) since s&e "as an In onesian citizen an &er #arria+e "it& a 8ilipino Citizen "as not vali . /&!s t&is petition %or certiorari Issue: 4&et&er or not t&e co!rts #ay revie" eportation

procee in+s Held 9 Ies. Section 7 o% Article > says 6! icial Po"er incl! es 7; settle act!al controversies involvin+ ri+&ts "&ic& are le+ally e#an a$le an en%orcea$le 2; eter#ine "&et&er or not t&ere &as $een a +rave a$!se o% iscretion a#o!ntin+ to lac( or e?cess o% *!ris iction on t&e part o% any $ranc& or instr!#entality o% t&e +overn#ent. 4e nee not resolve t&e vali ity o% petitionerGs #arria+e to 'anez) i%

!n er t&e la" t&e CID can vali ly eport petitioner as an T!n esira$le alienT re+ar less o% &er #arria+e to a 8ilipino citizen. Cenerally) t&e ri+&t o% t&e Presi ent to e?pel or eport aliens "&ose presence is ee#e ini#ical to t&e p!$lic interest is as a$sol!te an !n-!ali%ie as t&e ri+&t to pro&i$it an prevent t&eir entry into t&e co!ntry. 3o"ever) !n er cla!se 7 o% Section 3F:a; o% t&e I##i+ration Act o% 794B an Talien "&o enters t&e P&ilippines a%ter

t&e e%%ective ate o% t&is Act $y #eans o% %alse an #islea in+ state#ents or "it&o!t inspection an a #ission $y t&e i##i+ration a!t&orities at a esi+nate port o% entry or at any place ot&er t&an at a esi+nate port o% entryT is s!$*ect to eportation. /&e eportation o% an alien !n er sai cla!se o% Section 3F:a; &as a prescriptive perio an Ts&all not $e e%%ecte ... !nless t&e arrest in t&e eportation procee in+s is #a e "it&in %ive years a%ter t&e

ca!se %or eportation arisesT. /ollin+ t&e prescriptive perio %ro# Nove#$er 79) 79>B) "&en Leonar o C. 'anez in%or#e t&e CID o% t&e ille+al entry o% petitioner into t&e co!ntry) #ore t&an %ive years &a elapse $e%ore t&e iss!ance o% t&e or er o% &er eportation on Septe#$er 2F) 799B. Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC

TITLE: Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

CITATION: 248 SCRA 3

!ACTS: Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, establis ed er domicile in !acloban, Leyte " ere s e studied and #raduated i# sc ool in t e $oly In%ant &cademy %rom 1938 to 19'9( ) e t en *ursued er colle#e de#ree, education, in )t( +aul,s

Colle#e no" -ivine .ord /niversity also in !acloban( )ubse0uently, s e tau# t in Leyte C inese )c ool still in !acloban( ) e "ent to manila durin# 1912 to "or3 "it er cousin, t e late s*ea3er -aniel Romualdez in is o%%ice in t e $ouse o% Re*resentatives( In 191', s e married late +resident 4erdinand Marcos " en e "as still a Con#ressman o% Ilocos 5orte and "as re#istered t ere

as a voter( . en +res( Marcos "as elected as )enator in 1919, t ey lived to#et er in )an 6uan, Rizal " ere s e re#istered as a voter( In 1971, " en Marcos "on *residency, t ey lived in Malacanan# +alace and re#istered as a voter in )an Mi#uel Manila( ) e served as member o% t e 8atasan# +ambansa and 9overnor o% Metro Manila durin# 19:8(

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos "as runnin# %or t e *osition o% Re*resentative o% t e 4irst -istrict o% Leyte %or t e 1991 Elections( Cirilo Roy Monte;o, t e incumbent Re*resentative o% t e 4irst -istrict o% Leyte and also a candidate %or t e same *osition, %iled a <+etition %or Cancellation and -is0uali%ication= "it t e Commission on Elections alle#in# t at *etitioner did not meet t e

constitutional re0uirement %or residency( ! e *etitioner, in an onest misre*resentation, "rote seven mont s under residency, " ic s e sou# t to recti%y by addin# t e "ords =since c ild ood= in er &mended>Corrected Certi%icate o% Candidacy %iled on Marc 29, 1991 and t at =s e as al"ays maintained !acloban City as er domicile or residence( ) e arrived at t e seven mont s

residency due to t e %act t at s e became a resident o% t e Munici*ality o% !olosa in said mont s( ISS"E: . et er *etitioner as satis%ied t e 1year residency re0uirement to be eli#ible in runnin# as re*resentative o% t e 4irst -istrict o% Leyte( #EL$:

Residence is used synonymously "it domicile %or election *ur*oses( ! e court are in %avor o% a conclusion su**ortin# *etitoner,s claim o% le#al residence or domicile in t e 4irst -istrict o% Leyte des*ite er o"n declaration o% : mont s residency in t e district %or t e %ollo"in# reasons?

1( & minor %ollo"s domicile o% er *arents( !acloban became Imelda,s domicile o% ori#in by o*eration o% la" " en er %at er brou# t t em to Leyte@ 2( -omicile o% ori#in is only lost " en t ere is actual removal or c an#e o% domicile, a bona %ide intention o% abandonin# t e %ormer residence and establis in# a ne" one, and acts " ic corres*ond "it t e

*ur*ose( In t e absence and concurrence o% all t ese, domicile o% ori#in s ould be deemed to continue( 3( & "i%e does not automatically #ain t e usband,s domicile because t e term <residenceA in Civil La" does not mean t e same t in# in +olitical La"( . en Imelda married late +resident Marcos in 191', s e 3e*t er domicile o% ori#in and merely

#ained a ne" ome and not domicilium necessarium( '( &ssumin# t at Imelda #ained a ne" domicile a%ter er marria#e and ac0uired ri# t to c oose a ne" one only a%ter t e deat o% +res( Marcos, er actions u*on returnin# to t e country clearly indicated t at s e c ose !acloban, er domicile o% ori#in, as er domicile o% c oice( !o add, *etitioner even

obtained er residence certi%icate in 1992 in !acloban, Leyte " ile livin# in er brot er,s ouse, an act, " ic su**orts t e domiciliary intention clearly mani%ested( ) e even 3e*t close ties by establis in# residences in !acloban, celebratin# er birt days and ot er im*ortant milestones(

.$ERE4ORE, avin# determined t at *etitioner *ossesses t e necessary residence 0uali%ications to run %or a seat in t e $ouse o% Re*resentatives in t e 4irst -istrict o% Leyte, t e COMELECBs 0uestioned Resolutions dated &*ril 2', May :, May 11, and May 21, 1991 are ereby )E! &)I-E( Res*ondent COMELEC is ereby directed to order t e +rovincial 8oard o% Canvassers to *roclaim *etitioner

as

t e

duly o% t e

elected 4irst

Re*resentative -istrict o% Leyte(

Uapanta vs. Local Civil 0e+istrar o% t&e City o% Davao G.R. No. 55380 Se!t. "# 1$$%

CANA0AL 0ULA9 0!le 7B>) 0!les o% Co!rt *!sti%ies t&e correction o% innoc!o!s

or clerical errors apparent on t&e %ace o% t&e recor an capa$le o% $ein+ correcte $y #ere re%erence to it. AVCAP/I1N9 Aven s!$stantial errors in a civil re+istry #ay $e correcte an t&e tr!e %acts esta$lis&e provi e t&e parties a++rieve $y t&e error avail t&e#selves o% t&e appropriate a versary procee in+.

F&'(S: Petitioner Cliceria Uapanta is t&e "i o" o% 8lorencio '. Uapanta. 4&en 8lorencio ie ) t&e local civil re+istrar o% Davao City

iss!e a eat& certi%icate. 3o"ever) s&e %o!n t&at t&e na#e appearin+ t&erein "as Q8laviano Castro UapantaS al$eit t&e ate o% eat& an all ot&er circ!#stances an in%or#ation re%lecte t&erein clearly an concl!sively reveale t&at t&e person re%erre to t&erein "as no ot&er t&an &er late &!s$an ) 8lorencio. Cliceria) t&ere%ore) %ile a petition %orcorrection o% entry in t&e re+ister o% eat&. /&e trial co!rt is#isse t&e petition on t&e +ro!n t&at t&e correction o% t&e na#e Q8laviano Castro UapantaS to Q8lorencio '. UapantaS "as not #erely clerical $!t

s!$stantial ISSUE:

in

nat!re.

4&et&er or not t&e trial co!rt co##itte reversi$le error

HELD: /&e S!pre#e Co!rt &el a%%ir#ative. in t&e

/&e +eneral perception "as t&at t&e *! icial procee in+ !n er Art. 472 o% t&e Civil Co e) i#ple#ente $y 0!le 7B> o% t&e 0!les o% Co!rt)

co!l only *!sti%y t&e correction o% innoc!o!s or clerical errors apparent on t&e %ace o% t&e recor an capa$le o% $ein+ correcte $y #ere re%erence to it) s!c& as #isspellin+s an o$vio!s #ista(es. 3o"ever) in later cases) t&e Co!rt &as &el t&at it a &eres to t&e principle t&at even s!$stantial errors in a civil re+istry #ay $e correcte an t&e tr!e %acts esta$lis&e provi e t&e parties a++rieve $y t&e error avail t&e#selves o% t&e appropriate a versary procee in+.

A versary

Procee in+)

e%ine

'lac(.s La" Dictionary e%ines Qa versary procee in+S as %ollo"s9 1ne &avin+ opposin+ parties, conteste ) as istin+!is&e %ro# an e? parte application) one o% "&ic& t&e party see(in+ relie% &as +iven le+al "arnin+ to t&e ot&er party) an a%%or e t&e latter an opport!nity to contest it...S /&!s) provi e t&e trial co!rt &as con !cte procee in+s "&ere all relevant %acts &ave $een %!lly an properly evelope ) "&ere opposin+ co!nsel &as $een +iven

opport!nity to e#olis& t&e opposite party.s case) an "&ere t&e evi ence &as $een t&oro!+&ly "ei+&e an consi ere ) t&e s!it or procee in+ is Qappropriate.S