DJUMANTAN VS. DOMINGO Facts: Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a contract worker.

On April 3, !"#, he e$braced and was con%erted to Isla$. On Ma& ", !"#, he $arried petitioner in accordance with Isla$ic rites. 'e returned to the (hilippines in )anuar& !"!. On )anuar& 3, !"!, petitioner and her two children with Banez, arri%ed in Manila as the *+uests* of Banez. ,he latter $ade it appear that he was -ust a friend of the fa$il& of petitioner and was $erel& repa&in+ the hospitabilit& e.tended to hi$ durin+ his sta& in Indonesia. /hen petitioner and her two children arri%ed at the 0ino& A1uino International Airport on )anuar& 3, !"!, Banez, to+ether with Marina Cabael, $et the$.As *+uests,* petitioner and her two children li%ed in the house of Banez. (etitioner and her children were ad$itted to the (hilippines as te$porar& %isitors under 2ection !3a4 of the I$$i+ration Act of !#5. In !6 , Marina Cabael disco%ered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner. On March 78, !67, the i$$i+ration status of petitioner was chan+ed fro$ te$porar& %isitor to that of per$anent resident under 2ection 33a4 of the sa$e law. On April #, !67, petitioner was issued an alien certificate of re+istration.

the arrest in the deportation proceedin+s is $ade within fi%e &ears after the cause for deportation arises*. ,ollin+ the prescripti%e period fro$ 0o%e$ber !, !65, when ;eonardo C. Banez infor$ed the CI< of the ille+al entr& of petitioner into the countr&, $ore than fi%e &ears had elapsed before the issuance of the order of her deportation on 2epte$ber 7", !!5. REPUBLIC VS. DELA ROSA Facts: ,his is a petition for certiorari under ?ule #8 of the ?e%ised ?ules of Court in relation to ?.A. 0o. 8##5 and2ection 78 of the Interi$ ?ules, filed b& the ?epublic of the (hilippines: 3 4 to annul the <ecision of the?e+ional ,rial Court, Branch 76, Manila, which re9ad$itted pri%ate respondent as a Filipino citizen under the?e%ised 0aturalization ;aw 3C.A. 0o. @3 as a$ended b& C.A. 0o. #"34A and 374 to nullif& the oath of alle+iance taken b& pri%ate respondent on Februar& 7", !!7.On 2epte$ber 75, !! , petitioner filed a petition for naturalization captioned to be re9ad$itted as citizen of th (hilippines. ,he respondent )ud+e set the petition for hearin+ on March @, !!7, and directed the publication of the saidorder and petition in the Official >azette and a newspaper of +eneral circulation, for three consecuti%e weeks,the last publication of which should be at least si. $onths before the said date of hearin+.On )anuar& #, !!7, pri%ate respondent filed a *Motion to 2et 'earin+ Ahead of 2chedule, that it shall bedone on )anuar& instead of ha%in+ it on March, * where he $anifested his intention to run for public office inthe Ma& !!7 elections. ,he $otion was +ranted and the hearin+ was $o%ed on Februar&.2i. da&s later, on Februar& 7", respondent )ud+e rendered the assailed <ecision and held that (etitioner )BA0 >. F?ICA;<O, is re9ad$itted as a citizen of the ?epublic of the (hilippines b& naturalization,thereb& %esitin+ upon hi$, all the ri+hts and pri%ile+es of a natural born Filipino citizen After recei%in+ a cop& of the <ecision on March 6, !!7, the 2olicitor >eneral interposed a ti$el& appealdirectl& with the 2upre$e Court. Issue:

0ot acceptin+ the set9back, Banez: eldest son, ;eonardo, filed a letter co$plaint with the O$buds$an, who subse1uentl& referred the letter to the CI<. On the basis of the said letter, petitioner was detained at the CI< detention cell.

,he CI< issued an order re%okin+ the status of per$anent resident +i%en to petitioner, the Board found the 7nd $arria+e irre+ular and not in accordance with the laws of the (hils. ,here was thus no basis for +i%in+ her the status of per$anent residence, since she was an Indonesian citizen and her $arria+e with a Filipino Citizen was not %alid.

,hus this petition for certiorari

/O0 the petitioner was dul& re9ad$itted o his citizenship as Filipino. 'eld: 0o. ,he supre$e court ruled that (ri%ate respondent is declared 0O, a citizen of the (hilippines andtherefore <I2DBA;IFIE< fro$ continuin+ to ser%e as >OCE?0O? of the (ro%ince of 2orso+on. 'e isordered to CACA,E his office and to 2B??E0<E? the sa$e to the Cice9>o%ernor of the (ro%ince of 2orso+on once this decision beco$es final and e.ecutor&. 0o pronounce$ent as to costs. ,he proceedin+sof the trial court was $arred b& the followin+ irre+ularities: 3 4 the hearin+ of the petition was set ahead of thescheduled date of hearin+, without a publication of the order ad%ancin+ the date of hearin+, and the petitionitselfA 374 the petition was heard within si. $onths fro$ the last publication of the petitionA 334 petitioner wasallowed to take his oath of alle+iance before the finalit& of the -ud+$entA and 3#4 petitioner took his oath of alle+iance without obser%in+ the two9&ear waitin+ period.

Issue: /hether or not the courts $a& re%iew deportation proceedin+s

'eld : =es. 2ection of Article 6 sa&s )udicial (ower includes 4 settle actual contro%ersies in%ol%in+ ri+hts which are le+all& de$andable and enforceable 74 deter$ine whether or not there has been a +ra%e abuse of discretion a$ountin+ to lack or e.cess of -urisdiction on the part of an& branch or instru$entalit& of the +o%ern$ent.

/e need not resol%e the %alidit& of petitioner:s $arria+e to Banez, if under the law the CI< can %alidl& deport petitioner as an *undesirable alien* re+ardless of her $arria+e to a Filipino citizen. >enerall&, the ri+ht of the (resident to e.pel or deport aliens whose presence is dee$ed ini$ical to the public interest is as absolute and un1ualified as the ri+ht to prohibit and pre%ent their entr& into the countr&.

ROMUALDEZ VS RTC, 226 SCRA 408 Facts: (hilip ?o$ualdez, the petitioner, is a natural born citizen of the (hilippines, the son of the for$er >o%ernor of ;e&te, Ben-a$in *Foko&* ?o$ualdez, and nephew of the then First ;ad& I$elda Marcos. 2o$eti$e in the earl& part of !65, the petitioner, in consonance with his decision to establish his le+al residence at Baran+a& Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te, caused the construction of his residential house therein. 'e soon thereafter also ser%ed as Baran+a& Captain of the place where he %oted. After the people power, petitioner left the countr& and fled to A$erica for as&lu$. /hen ?o$ualdez arri%ed in the (hilippines in <ece$ber !! , he did not dela& his return to

'owe%er, under clause of 2ection 3"3a4 of the I$$i+ration Act of !#5 an *alien who enters the (hilippines after the effecti%e date of this Act b& $eans of false and $isleadin+ state$ents or without inspection and ad$ission b& the i$$i+ration authorities at a desi+nated port of entr& or at an& place other than at a desi+nated port of entr&* is sub-ect to deportation.

,he deportation of an alien under said clause of 2ection 3"3a4 has a prescripti%e period and *shall not be effected ... unless

his residence at Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te. <urin+ the re+istration of %oters conducted b& the COME;EC on Februar& , !!7 for the 2&nchronized 0ational and ;ocal Election scheduled for Ma& , !!7, petitioner re+istered hi$self anew as a %oter at (recinct 0o. ! of Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te. On Februar& 7 , !!7, <onato Ad%incula, respondent, filed a petition with the M,C of ,olosa, ;e&te, pra&in+ that ?o$ualdez be e.cluded fro$ the list of %oters in (recinct 0o. ! of Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te, under B( 66 and ?A " @@ alle+in+ that ?o$ualdez was a resident of Massachusetts, B.2.A.A that his profession and occupation was in the B.2.A.A that he had -ust recentl& arri%ed in the (hilippinesA and that he did not ha%e the re1uired one9&ear residence in the (hilippines and the si.9$onth residence in ,olosa to 1ualif& hi$ to re+ister as a %oter in Baran+a& Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te. ?o$ualdez contends that he has been a resident of ,olosa, ;e&te, since the earl& !65:s, and that he has not abandoned his said residence b& his ph&sical absence therefro$ durin+ the period fro$ !6@ up to the third week of <ece$ber !! . After due hearin+, the Municipal Court of ,olosa, ;e&te held in fa%or of the petitioner Ad%incula then appealed the case to the respondent court then it rendered the assailed decision that the petitioner is dis1ualified to re+ister as a %oter for the !!7 elections and hereb& re%erses the decision of the lower court in toto. 'ence, this recourse.

On March 8, 755 , respondent incu$bent $a&or of Oras who was runnin+ for re9election, sou+ht the cancellation of petitionerJs COC on the +round that the latter had resided in Oras for onl& about @ $onths since when he took his oath as a citizen of the (hilippines.

On Ma& #, 755 , petitioner +arnered the hi+hest nu$ber of %otes and was subse1uentl& proclai$ed $a&or of Oras.

Issue: /O0 petitioner satisfied the residenc& re1uire$ent for the position of $a&or.

'eld: 0o. (ar. 3!, Chapter , ,itle 7 of the ;ocal >o%ern$ent Code 3?A " @54 pro%ides that an electi%e official $ust be a KL resident therein 3baran+a&, $unicipalit&, cit& or pro%ince4 for at least &ear i$$ediatel& preceedin+ the da& of the electionLM

Issue: /hether or not the respondent court erred in findin+ the petitioner to ha%e %oluntaril& left the countr& and abandoned his residence in Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te.

,he ter$ KresidenceM is to be understood not in its co$$on acceptation as referrin+ to Kdwellin+M or Khabitation,M but rather to Kdo$icileM or le+al residence, that is, Kthe place where a part& actuall& or constructi%el& has his per$anent ho$e, where he, no $atter where he $a& be found at an& +i%en ti$e, e%entuall& intends to return and re$ain 3ani$us $anendi4. A do$icile of ori+in is ac1uired b& e%er& person at birth. It is usuall& the place where the childJs parents reside and continues until the sa$e is abandoned b& ac1uisition of a new do$icile 3do$icile of choice4.

'eld: /'E?EFO?E (?EMI2E2 CO02I<E?E<, the court finds the respondent to be a resident of Br+&. Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te and 1ualified to re+ister as a %oter thereat. 'ence, the instant petition for e.clusion of (hilip >. ?o$ualdez fro$ the list of %oter of (recinct 0o. !, Malbo+, ,olosa, ;e&te is hereb& ordered <E0IE< and petition <I2MI22E<. Co1uilla %s COME;EC G368 2C?A @5"A >? 2epte$ber ", 7557H 8 ! #,

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his do$icile of ori+in in Oras b& beco$in+ a B2 citizen after enlistin+ in the B2 0a%& in !@8. Fro$ then on and until 0o%e$ber 5, 7555, when he reac1uired (hilippine citizenship, he was an alien.

2unta& %s. 2unta& >? 0o. 3787# (etitioner Federico is the oppositor to respondent IsabelJs (etition for ;etters of Ad$inistrationo%er the estate of Cristina A. 2unta& who had died without lea%in+ a will. ,he decedent is the wife of Federico and the +rand$other of Isabel. IsabelJs father E$ilio, had predeceased his $other Cristina.,he $arria+e of IsabelJs parents had pre%iousl& been decalred b& the CFI as Knull and %oid.MFederico anchors his oppostion on this fact, alle+in+ based on Art. !!7 of the CC, that Isabel hasno ri+ht to succeed b& ri+ht of representation as she is an ille+iti$ate child. ,he trial court haddenied FedericoJs Motion to <is$iss, hence this petition for certiorari. Federico contends that,inter alia, that the dispositi%e portion of the the decision declarin+ the $arria+e of IsabelJs parentsKnull and %oidM be upheld. Issue:In case of conflict between the bod& of the decision and the disposti%e portion thereof, whichshould pre%ailN ?elated thereto, was the $arria+e of IsabelJs parents a case of a %oid or %oidable$arria+eN/hether or not Isabel is an le+iti$ate childN ?ulin+: (etition dis$issedArt. 5 of the Ci%il Code states that in case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, itis presu$ed that the law$akin+ bod& intended ri+ht and -ustice to pre%ail. ,his is also applicableand bindin+ upon courts in relation to its -ud+$ent. /hile the dispositi%e portion of the CFIdecision states that the $arria+e be Kdeclared null and %oid,M the bod& had shown that the le+albasis was par. 3 Art. 68 of the Ci%il Code, which was in effect at the ti$e. Art. 68 enu$erates thecauses for which a $arria+e $a& be annulled. As such the conflict between the bod& and thedispositi%e portion of the decision $a& be reconcilable as noted b& the 2upre$e Court.,he funda$ental distinction between %oid and %oidable $arria+es is that %oid $arria+e isdee$ed ne%er to

(osted b& (ius Morados on 0o%e$ber @, 75 3Municipal Corporation, Dualifications I ?esidence4

Facts: (etitioner Co1uilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern 2a$ar, where he +rew up and resided.

In !@8, he -oined the B2 0a%& and subse1uentl& naturalized as a B2 citizen.

On October 8, !!6, petitioner ca$e to the (hilippines and took out a residence certificate, albeit continued $akin+ se%eral trips to the B2.

On 0o%e$ber 5, 7555, he took his oath as a citizen of the (hilippines subse1uentl& after his application for repatriation was appro%ed.

On 0o%e$ber 7 , 7555, he applied for re+istration as a %oter of Butun+a, Oras, Eastern 2a$ar.

On Februar& 7", 755 , he filed his COC statin+ therein that he has been a resident of Oras, Eastern 2a$ar for 7 &ears.

ha%e taken place at all. ,he effects of %oid $arria+es, with respect to propert&relations of the spouses are pro%ided for under Article ## of the Ci%il Code. Children born of such $arria+es who are called natural children b& le+al fiction ha%e the sa$e status, ri+hts andobli+ations as acknowled+ed natural children under Article 6! irrespecti%e of whether or not theparties to the %oid $arria+e are in +ood faith or in bad faith.On the other hand, a %oidable $arria+e, is considered %alid and produces all its ci%il effects, untilit is set aside b& final -ud+$ent of a co$petent court in an action for annul$ent. )uridicall&, theannul$ent of a $arria+e dissol%es the special contract as if it had ne%er been entered into but thelaw $akes e.press pro%isions to pre%ent the effects of the $arria+e fro$ bein+ totall& wiped out.,he status of children born in %oidable $arria+es is +o%erned b& the second para+raph of Article6! which pro%ides that:Children concei%ed of %oidable $arria+es before the decree of annul$ent shall be consideredle+iti$ateA and children concei%ed thereafter shall ha%e the sa$e status, ri+hts and obli+ations asacknowled+ed natural children, and are also called natural children b& le+al fiction.In %iew thereof, the status of Isabel would be co%ered b& the second para+raph of Article 6! of the Ci%il Code which pro%ides that K children concei%ed of %oidable $arria+es before the decreeof annul$ent shall be considered le+iti$ate.M ?epublic %s Orbecido ?epublic %s. Orbecido >? 0O. 8#365, October 8, 7558

FAC,2:

I$elda M. (ilapil, a Filipino citizen, was $arried with pri%ate respondent, Erich Ekkehard >eilin+, a >er$an national before the ?e+istrar of Births, Marria+es and <eaths at Friedensweiler, Federal ?epublic of >er$an&. ,he& ha%e a child who was born on April 75, !65 and na$ed Isabella (ilapil >eilin+. Con-u+al dishar$on& e%entuated in pri%ate respondent and he initiated a di%orce proceedin+ a+ainst petitioner in >er$an& before the 2choneber+ ;ocal Court in )anuar& !63. ,he petitioner then filed an action for le+al separation, support and separation of propert& before the ?,C Manila on )anuar& 73, !63. ,he decree of di%orce was pro$ul+ated on )anuar& 8, !6@ on the +round of failure of $arria+e of the spouses. ,he custod& of the child was +ranted to the petitioner. On )une 7", !6@, pri%ate respondent filed 7 co$plaints for adulter& before the Cit& Fiscal of Manila alle+in+ that while still $arried to I$elda, latter Khad an affair with /illia$ Chia as earl& as !67 and another $an na$ed )esus Chua so$eti$e in !63M.

I22BE: /hether pri%ate respondent can prosecute petitioner on the +round of adulter& e%en thou+h the& are no lon+er husband and wife as decree of di%orce was alread& issued.

FAC,2:

'E;<: ,he law specificall& pro%ided that in prosecution for adulter& and concubina+e, the person who can le+all& file the co$plaint should be the offended spouse and nobod& else. ,hou+h in this case, it appeared that pri%ate respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a %alid di%orce in his countr&, the Federal ?epublic of >er$an&, and said di%orce and its le+al effects $a& be reco+nized in the (hilippines in so far as he is concerned. ,hus, under the sa$e consideration and rationale, pri%ate respondent is no lon+er the husband of petitioner and has no le+al standin+ to co$$ence the adulter& case under the i$posture that he was the offended spouse at the ti$e he filed suit. QUITA vs. CA

Cipriano Orbecido III was $arried with ;ad& M&ros Cillanue%a on Ma& 7#, !6 at the Bnited Church of Christ in the (hilippines in Oza$is Cit&. ,he& had a son and a dau+hter na$ed Fristoffer and Fi$berl&, respecti%el&. In !6@, the wife left for B2 brin+in+ alon+ their son Fristoffer. A few &ears later, Orbecido disco%ered that his wife had been naturalized as an A$erican citizen and learned fro$ his son that his wife so$eti$e in 7555 had obtained a di%orce decree and $arried a certain 2tanle&. 'e thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authorit& to re$arr& in%okin+ (ara+raph 7 of Article 7@ of the Fa$il& Code.

I22BE: /hether or not Orbecido can re$arr& under Article 7@ of the Fa$il& Code.

'E;<:

,he court ruled that takin+ into consideration the le+islati%e intent and appl&in+ the rule of reason, Article 7@ (ar.7 should be interpreted to include cases in%ol%in+ parties who, at the ti$e of the celebration of the $arria+e were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of the$ beco$es naturalized as a forei+n citizen and obtains a di%orce decree. ,he Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to re$arr& as if the other part& were a forei+ner at the ti$e of the sole$nization of the $arria+e.

'ence, the courtJs unani$ous decision in holdin+ Article 7@ (ar 7 be interpreted as allowin+ a Filipino citizen who has been di%orced b& a spouse who had ac1uired a citizenship and re$arried, also to re$arr& under (hilippine law. (ilapil %s Iba&92o$era ,I,;E: I$elda Manala&sa& (ilapil % 'on. Corona Iba&92o$era CI,A,IO0: >? 0o. 65 @, )une 35, !6!O "# 2C?A @83

FAC,2:Fe <. Duita, the petitioner, and Arturo ,. (adlan, both Filipinos, were $arriedin the (hilippines on Ma& 6, !# . ,he& +ot di%orce in 2an Francisco on )ul& 73, !8#. Both of the$ re$arried another person. Arturo re$arried Bladina <andan,the respondent herewith. ,he& were blessed with si. children. On April @, !"7,when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who will be the intestateheirs. ,he trial court in%okin+ ,encha%ez %s Escano case held that the di%orceac1uired b& the petitioner is not reco+nized in our countr&. (ri%ate respondentstressed that the citizenship of petitioner was rele%ant in the li+ht of the rulin+ inCan <orn %. ?o$$illo )r that aliens who obtain di%orce abroad are reco+nized in the(hilippnes pro%ided the& are %alid accordin+ to their national law. ,he petitionerherself answered that she was an A$erican citizen since !8#. ,hrou+h the hearin+she also stated that Arturo was a Filipino at the ti$e she obtained the di%orce.I$pl&in+ the she was no lon+er a Filipino citizen. ,he ,rial court disre+arded therespondentJs state$ent. ,he net hereditar& estate was ordered in fa%or the Fe <.Duita and ?uperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina and the (adlan children $o%edfor reconsideration. On Februar& 8, !66 partial reconsideration was +ranteddeclarin+ the (adlan children, with the e.ception of Ale.is, entitled to one9 half of the estate to the e.clusion of ?uperto (adlan, and the other half to Fe Duita. (ri%aterespondent was not declared an heir for her $arria+e to Arturo was declared %oidsince it was celebrated

durin+ the e.istence of his pre%ious $arria+e to petitioner.Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of Appeals thatthe case was decidedwithout a hearin+ in %iolation of the ?ules of Court. I22BE: 3 4 /hether or not BlandinaJs $arria+e to Arturo %oid ab initio. 374 /hetheror not Fe <. Duita be declared the pri$ar& beneficiar& as sur%i%in+ spouse of Arturo. 'E;<:0o. ,he $arria+e of Blandina and Arturo is not %oid. ,he citizenship of Fe <.Duita at the ti$e of their di%orce is rele%ant to this case. ,he di%orce is %alid heresince she was alread& an alien at the ti$e she obtained di%orce, and such is %alid intheir countr&Js national law. ,hus, Fe <. Duita is no lon+er reco+nized as a wife of Arturo. 2he cannot be the pri$ar& beneficiar& or will be reco+nized as sur%i%in+spouse of Arturo. GARCIA VS RECIO ?ederick ?ecio, a Filipino, was $arried to Editha 2a$son an Australian citizen, on March , !6". On Ma& 6, !6! a decree of di%orce dissol%in+ the $arria+e was issued b& the Australian Fa$il& Court. On )une 7@, !!7, respondent beca$e an Australian citizen. 2ubse1uentl&, respondent entered into $arria+e with petitioner a Filipina on )anuar& 7, !!#. 2tartin+ October 77, !!8, petitioner and respondent li%ed separatel& without prior -udicial dissolution of their $arria+e. On March 3, !!6, petitioner filed a co$plaint for <eclaration of 0ullit& of Marria+e on the +round of bi+a$&. ?esponded contended that his prior $arria+e had been %alidl& dissol%ed b& a decree of di%orce obtained in Australia thus he is le+all& capacitated to $arr& petitioner. ,he trial court rendered the decision declarin+ the $arria+e between petitioner and respondent dissol%ed and both parties can now re$arr&. 'ence, this petition. I22BE: /hether or not the di%orce obtained b& respondent in Australia ipso facto capacitated hi$ to re$arr&. 'E;<: ,he 2C re$anded the case to the court a 1uo to recei%e e%idence. Based on the records, the court cannot conclude that respondent who was then a naturalized Australian citizen was le+all& capacitated to $arr& petitioner. 0either can the court +rant petitionerJs pra&er to declare her $arria+e null and %oid on the +round of bi+a$&. After all it $a& turn out that under Australian law he was reall& capacitated to $arr& petitioner as result of the di%orce decree. ,he 2C laid down the followin+ basic le+al principlesA a $arria+e between two Filipino cannot be dissol%ed e%en b& a di%orce decree obtained abroad because of Articles 8 and " of the Ci%il Code. WOL GANG O. ROE!R, "#$%$%&'#(, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, !ON. JUDGE JOSE INA GUEVARA) SALONGA, P(#s%*%'+ J,*+# &- M./.$% RTC, B(.'01 243, (#s"&'*#'$s. G.R. N&. 242820 J,'# 20, 2004 Facts: (etitioner /olf+an+, a >er$an citizen and resident of >er$an&, $arried pri%ate respondent Car$en, a Filipina, on <ece$ber !65 in 'a$bur+, >e$an&. Earl& !6 , the $arria+e was ratified in ,a&asan, 0e+ros Oriental. ,he& had two dau+hters, Carol&ne and Ale.andria Fristine. (ri%ate respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullit& of $arria+e before the ?e+ional ,rial Court of Makati on 76 Au+ust !!@. (etitioner filed a $otion to dis$iss but was denied b& trial court. A $otion for reconsideration was filed b& pri%ate respondent but was a+ain denied b& the trial court. In !!", petitioner obtained a decree of di%orce fro$ the Court of First Instance of 'a$bur+9Blankenese and +rantin+ the custod& of the children to the father. It was )une #, !!! when public respondent issued

an order +rantin+ the petitionerJs $otion to dis$iss, but was partiall& set aside on 2epte$ber !!! for the purpose of tacklin+ issues re+ardin+ propert& relations of the spouses as well as support and custod& of their children. (etitioner assailed for the trial courtJs lack of -urisdiction, and +ra%e abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent -ud+e. Issue: /hether or not the (hilippine courts can deter$ine the le+al effects of a decree of di%orce fro$ a forei+n countr&. 'eld: =es. Our courts can deter$ine the le+al effects of a di%orce obtained fro$ a forei+n countr& such as those concernin+ with support and custod& of the children. In this case, the decree did not touch as to who the offendin+ spouse was. ,he trial court was correct in settin+ the issue for hearin+ to deter$ine the issue of parental custod&, care, support and education of the best interests of the children. After all, the childJs welfare is alwa&s the para$ount consideration in all 1uestions concernin+ his care and custod&. /'E?EFO?E, the orders of the ?e+ional ,rial Court of Makati, Branch #!, issued on 2epte$ber 35, !!! and March 3 , 7555 are AFFI?ME< with MO<IFICA,IO0. /e hereb& declare that the trial court has -urisdiction o%er the issue between the parties as to who has parental custod&, includin+ the care, support and education of the children, na$el& Carol&ne and Ale.andra Fristine ?oehr. ;et the records of this case be re$anded pro$ptl& to the trial court for continuation of appropriate proceedin+s. 0o pronounce$ent as to costs. 2O O?<E?E<. G.R. N&. 265203 #6(,.(7 6, 2005 ELICITAS AMOR)CATALAN, (etitioner, %s. COURT O APPEALS, MANILA, ORLANDO B. CATALAN .'* MEROPE E. BRAGANZA, ?espondents.

FAC,2:

(etitioner Felicitas A$or9Catalan $arried respondent Orlando on )une #, !85 in Mabini, (an+asinan. ,hereafter, the& $i+rated to the Bnited 2tates of A$erica and alle+edl& beca$e naturalized citizens thereof. After 36 &ears of $arria+e, Felicitas and Orlando di%orced in April )une @, Calasiao, (an+asinan. (etitioner contends that said $arria+e was bi+a$ous since Merope had a prior subsistin+ $arria+e with Eusebio Bristol. 2he filed a petition for declaration of nullit& of $arria+e with da$a+es in the ?,C of <a+upan Cit& a+ainst Orlando and Merope. !66. On !66, Orlando $arried respondent Merope in

I22BE:

/hether or not petitioner has the personalit& to file a petition for the declaration of nullit& of $arria+e of the respondents on the +round of bi+a$&N

?B;I0>:

A petition to declare the nullit& of $arria+e, like an& other actions, $ust be prosecuted or defended in the na$e of the real part& in interest and $ust be based on a cause of action. A petition for declaration of absolute nullit& of %oid $arria+e $a& be filed solel& b& the husband or the wife. (etitionerJs personalit& to file the petition to declare the nullit& of $arria+e cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the di%orce decree and the forei+n law allowin+ it. After all, she $a& ha%e the personalit& to file the petition if the di%orce decree obtained was a li$ited di%orce or a mensa et thoroA or the forei+n law $a& restrict re$arria+e e%en after the di%orce decree beco$es absolute. /e note that it was the petitioner who alle+ed in her co$plaint that the& ac1uired A$erican citizenship and that respondent Orlando obtained a -udicial di%orce decree. It is settled rule that one who alle+es a fact has the burden of pro%in+ it and $ere alle+ation is not e%idence 'ence, a re$and of the case to the trial court for reception of additional e%idence is necessar& to deter$ine whether respondent Orlando was +ranted a di%orce decree and whether the forei+n law which +ranted the sa$e allows or restricts re$arria+e. If it is pro%ed that a %alid di%orce decree was obtained and the sa$e did not allow respondent OrlandoJs re$arria+e, then the trial court should declare respondentsJ $arria+e as bi+a$ous and %oid ab initio.

'owe%er, the 1uestion of how a Chinese citizen $a& strip hi$self of that status is necessaril& +o%erned Qpursuant to Articles 8 and @ of our Ci%il Code Q b& the laws of China, not b& those of the (hilippines. As a conse1uence, a Chinese national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the (hilippines, unless he has co$plied with the laws of 0ationalist China re1uirin+ pre%ious per$ission of its Minister of the Interior for the renunciation of nationalit&. 2ection 7 of Co$$onwealth Act 0o.#"3 pro%ides, howe%er, that before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall *sole$nl& swear,* interalia, that he renounces *absolutel& and fore%er all alle+iance and fidelit& to an& forei+n prince, potentate* and particularl& to the state *of which* he is *a sub-ect or citizen.* ,he ob%ious purpose of this re1uire$ent is to di%est hi$ of his for$er nationalit&, before ac1uirin+ (hilippine citizenship, because, otherwise, he would ha%e two nationalities and owe alle+iance to two 374 distinct so%erei+nties, which our laws do not per$it, e.cept that, pursuant to ?epublic Act 0o. 7@3!, *the ac1uisition of citizenship b& a natural9born Filipino citizen fro$ one of the Iberian and an& friendl& de$ocratic Ibero9A$erican countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his (hilippine citizenship, if the law of that countr& +rants the sa$e pri%ile+e to its citizens and such had been a+reed upon b& treat& between the (hilippines and the forei+n countr& fro$ which citizenship is ac1uired.*

MO; ;A LIM ;AO VS COMMISSIONER O IMMIGRATION (osted b& ka&e lee on :#5 (M >? R ;97 76!, October #, !" G0aturalization 9 Dualification

O! !E8 !OW VS REPUBLIC .0$s9 (etitioner Oh 'ek 'ow ha%in+ been +ranted naturalization throu+h his petition filed a $otion alle+in+ that he had co$plied with the re1uire$ents of ?epublic Act 0o. 835 and pra&in+ that he be allowed to take his oath of alle+iance as such citizen and issued the correspondin+ certificate of naturalization. ,he Court of First Instance of Pa$boan+a del 0orte issued forthwith an order authorizin+ the takin+ of said oath. On that sa$e date, petitioner took it and the certificate of naturalization was issued to hi$. ,he >o%ern$ent seasonabl& +a%e notice of its intention to appeal fro$ said order of Februar&!, !@@ and filed its record on appeal a$on+ the +rounds that the oath was taken prior to -ud+$ent ha%in+ been final and e.ecutor&. Iss,#9 9 Is the oath %alid 9 /hether or not a per$ission to renounce citizenship is necessar& fro$ the Minister of the Interior of 0ationalist China.

and ACTS9

<is1ualificationA

CA

#"3H

;au =uen =eun+, an alien %isitin+ the (hilippines, whose authorized sta& in the (hilippines was to e.pire, clai$s herself to be lawfull& naturalized upon her $arria+e to a Filipino citizen. 2olicitor >eneral opposes the +round that the $arria+e of the alien to a Filipino citizen does not auto$aticall& confer on the latter (hilippine citizenship. (laintiff9appellant does not possess all the 1ualifications re1uired for applicant for naturalization 3CA #"34, e%en she has pro%en that she possesses ISSUE9 /hether or not ;au =uen =eun+ beca$e ipso facto a Filipino citizen RULING9 =es. An alien wo$an, upon her $arria+e to a Filipino citizen, beco$es lawfull& naturalized ipso facto, pro%ided that she does not possess all of the dis1ualifications enu$erated in CA upon her $arria+e to a Filipino citizen. none of the dis1ualifications in said law.

!#:*9 First issue: ,he order of Februar& !, !@@ 3oath9takin+4 had not Q and up to the present has not beco$e final and e.ecutor&in %iew of the appeal dul& taken b& the >o%ern$ent. 7nd Issue: It is ar+ued that the per$ission is not re1uired b& our laws and that the naturalization of an alien, as a citizen of the (hilippines, is +o%erned e.clusi%el& b& such laws and cannot be controlled b& an& forei+n law.

#"3. 32ections 8 and #4 Cate+ories: Citizenship, Constitutional ;aw

TECSON VS. COMELEC >.?. 0o. @ #3#, March 3 755#

FAC,2: ?espondent ?onald Allan Fell& (oe, also known as Fernando (oe, )r. 3F()4 filed his certificate of candidac& on 3 <ece$ber 7553 for theposition of (resident of the ?epublic of the (hilippines in the forthco$in+ national elections. In his certificate of candidac&, F(), representin+ hi$self to be a

natural9born citizen of the (hilippines, stated his na$e to be *Fernando )r.,* or *?onald Allan* (oe, his date of birth to be 75 Au+ust !3! and his place of birth to be Manila. (etitioner Fornier filed before the COME;EC a petition to dis1ualif& F() and cancel his certificate of candidac& b& clai$in+ that F() is not a natural9born Filipino citizen, his parents were forei+ners: his $other, Bessie Felle& (oe, was an A$erican, and his father, Allan (oe, was a 2panish national, bein+ the son of ;orenzo (ou, a 2panish sub-ect.

A$ended, and for Other (urposes* which he a%ers that ?ep. Act 0o. !778 is unconstitutional as it %iolates 2ection 8, Article IC of the !6" Constitution that states, *<ual alle+iance of citizens is ini$ical to the national interest and shall be dealt with b& law.* ?.A. !778: 2EC. 7. Declaration of Policy.9It is hereb& declared the polic& of the 2tate that all (hilippine citizens who beco$e citizens of another countr& shall be dee$ed not to ha%e lost their (hilippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

,he COME;EC dis$issed the petition for lack of $erit.

I22BE: /hether or not F() is a natural9born citizen of the (hilippines.

2EC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.9An& pro%ision of law to the contrar& notwithstandin+, natural9born citizens of the (hilippines who ha%e lost their (hilippine citizenship b& reason of their naturalization as citizens of a forei+n countr& are hereb& dee$ed to ha%e reac1uired (hilippine citizenship upon takin+ the oath of alle+iance to the ?epublic. ISSUES9 3 4 Is ?ep. Act 0o. !778 unconstitutionalN 374 <oes this Court ha%e -urisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual alle+ianceN RULING9 0o. 2ection 8, Article IC of the Constitution is a declaration of a polic& and it is not a self9e.ecutin+ pro%ision. /hat ?ep. Act 0o. !778 does is allow dual citizenship to natural9born Filipino citizens who ha%e lost (hilippine citizenship b& reason of their naturalization as citizens of a forei+n countr&. On its face, it does not reco+nize dual alle+iance. B& swearin+ to the supre$e authorit& of the ?epublic, the person i$plicitl& renounces his forei+n citizenship. (lainl&, fro$ 2ection 3, ?ep. Act 0o. !778 sta&ed clear out of the proble$ of dual alle+iance and shifted the burden of confrontin+ the issue of whether or not there is dual alle+iance to the concerned forei+n countr&. /hat happens to the other citizenship was not $ade a concern of ?ep. Act 0o. !778. On the other hand, Con+ress was +i%en a $andate to draft a law that would set specific para$eters of what reall& constitutes dual alle+iance. Bntil this is done, it would be pre$ature for the -udicial depart$ent, includin+ this Court, to rule on issues pertainin+ to dual alle+iance. PETITION is DISMISSED &( :.0/ &- ?#(%$.

'E;<: 2ection 7, Article CII, of the !6" Constitution e.presses: 0o person $a& be elected (resident unless he is a natural9 born citizen of the (hilippines, a re+istered %oter, able to read and write, at least fort& &ears of a+e on the da& of the election, and a resident of the (hilippines for at least ten &ears i$$ediatel& precedin+ such election. 0atural9born citizens are those who are citizens of the (hilippines fro$ birth without ha%in+ to perfor$ an& act to ac1uire or perfect their (hilippine citizenship. Based on the e%idence presented which the 2upre$e consider as %iable is the fact that the death certificateof ;orenzo (oe, father of Allan (oe, who in turn was the father of pri%ate respondent Fernando (oe, )r. indicates that he died on2epte$ber , !8# at the a+e of 6# &ears, in 2an Carlos, (an+asinan. E%identl&, in such death certificate, the residence of ;orenzo (oe was stated to be 2an Carlos, (an+ansinan. In the absence of an& e%idence to the contrar&, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presu$e, that the place of residence of a person at the ti$e of his death was also his residence before death. Considerin+ that the alle+ations of petitioners are not substantiated with proof and since ;orenzo (oe $a& ha%e been benefited fro$ the Ken $asse FilipinizationM that the (hilippine Bill had effected in !57, there is no doubt that Allan (oe father of pri%ate respondent Fernando (oe, )r. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter wasborn on Au+ust 75, !3!, +o%erned under !38 Constitution, which constitution considers as citizens of the (hilippines those whose fathers are citizens of the (hilippines, Fernando (oe, )r. was in fact a natural9born citizen of the (hilippines re+ardless of whether or not he is le+iti$ate or ille+iti$ate. R#.* -,:: $#<$ G.R. N&. 260863 M.7 22, 2005

AASJS =ADVOCATES AND AD!ERENT O SOCIAL JUSTICE OR SC!OOL TEAC!EARS 9 !ECTOR AND ALLIED WOR8ERS> $e$ber CALILUNG. (etitioner, C2. ,he honorable SIMEON DATUMANONG, in his official capacit& as the SECRETAR; O JUSTICE, ?espondent QUISUMBING, J. ACTS9 (etitioner filed a petition and pra&s that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent fro$ i$ple$entin+ ?epublic Act 0o. !778, entitled *An Act Makin+ the Citizenship of (hilippine Citizens /ho Ac1uire Forei+n Citizenship (er$anent, A$endin+ for the (urpose Co$$onwealth Act 0o. @3, As GUMANGAN

E(#?#s 8&&/&&(%$01/%' v. S&:%0%$&( G#'#(.:,G.R. N&. L)2822, A,+,s$ 25, 2348 FAC,2:In Au+ust !# , appellee9petitioner Fookooritchkin filed with the CFI of Ca$arines 2ur apetition for naturalization, supported b& 3a4 the affida%its of e.9)ud+e )ai$e M. ?e&es and<r. 2al%ador Mariano, residents of Ca$arines 2ur, 3b4 his declaration of intention whichwas sworn in )ul& !#5, and 3c4 notice of hearin+. ,he petition was filed in Au+ust !# but was not heard until Au+ust 76 and 2ept. 35, !#" when appellee9 petitioner presentedhis e%idence, since the pro%ince was in%aded b& the )apanese forces durin+ //I and thecase records had to be reconstituted after bein+ destro&ed durin+ the war. Appellant2ol>en cross9e.a$ined appellee9petitionerJs witnesses but did not file an& opposition anddid not present an& e%idence to contro%ert the petition. ,he CFI +ranted the petition for naturalization, findin+ that appellee9petitioner was a nati%e9born ?ussian who +rew up as acitizen of and was part of the $ilitar& of the defunct I$perial ?ussian >o%ern$ent under the Czars. 'e had se%eral stints while in $ilitar& ser%ice before he -oined the /hite?ussian Ar$& at Cladi%ostok and

fou+ht a+ainst the Bolshe%iks until !77 when the latter force defeated the for$er. ?efusin+ to -oin the Bolshe%ik re+i$e, he fled b& sea to2han+hai, and e%entuall& went to Manila as part of the +roup of /hite ?ussians under Ad$iral 2tark in March !73. 'e finall& per$anentl& resided in Iri+a, Ca$arines 2ur e.cept durin+ his stint in the +uerrilla force in Cara$oan fro$ !#7 to )ul& !#8. ,helower court also $ade findin+s of the establish$ent of his fa$il&, e$plo&$ent, social life,his abilit& to speak and write En+lish and Bicol, his +ood $oral character, adherence to theunderl&in+ principles of the (hilippine Constitution, and bein+ a stateless refu+eebelon+in+ to no 2tate. I22BE2:/S0 3 4 appellee9petitionerJs declaration of intention to beco$e a Filipino citizen was %alidand sufficient basis for his petition for naturalization, 374 appellee9petitioner sufficientl&established le+al residence in the (hilippines and could speak and write an& of theprincipal (hilippine lan+ua+es, and 334 appellee9petitioner was stateless refu+ee. 'E;<:3 4 2ection 8 of the ?e%ised 0aturalization ;aw applies and pro%ides that KGnHo declarationshall be %alid until entr& for per$anent residence has been established and a certificateshowin+ the date, place and $anner of his arri%al has been issued.M /hile appellee9petitionerJs declaration was reconstituted, the attached certificate referred to in thedeclaration was not reconstituted. ,he 2C ruled that the law does not state that thecertificate is essential to the %alidit& of the declaration as the onl& re1uire$ent is for thesaid certificate to be issued. ,here is the uncontro%erted fact of appellee9 petitionerJspeaceful and continuous residence in the (hilippines for 78 &ears and state$ent in hisdeclaration that a certificate had been attached to the said declaration. 'ence, appellee9petitionerJs declaration was %alid under law in %iew of other co$petent e%idence showin+the facts sou+ht to be established under the certificate that was not reconstituted.374 Appellee9petitioner has sufficientl& shown le+al residence in the (hilippines for acontinuous period of not less than 5 &ears as re1uired b& 2ection 7 of the ?e%ised0aturalization ;aw. In addition, appellee9petitioner had +ood co$$and of both En+lish andBicol. /hile there $a& be $an& standards out there, none was set in the law on there1uired abilit& to speak and write an& of the principal (hilippine lan+ua+es. Appellee9 petitioner +ot alon+ well with his co$rades durin+ his hazardous da&s in the +uerrilla$o%e$ent thus showin+ that he satisfied the re1uire$ent of the law. ,here was alsocircu$stantial e%idence that appellee9petitioner also ou+ht to know how to write Bicol, which uses the sa$e alphabet used in En+lish and so widel& used in the (hilippines.>i%en his +ood co$$and of En+lish as shown in his testi$on&, appellee9 petitioner couldeasil& $ake use of the sa$e alphabet in the place where he had been residin+ for 78&ears.334 Appellant 2ol>en asserted that appellee9petitioner failed to show that he lost hiscitizenship under the laws of ?ussia and that ?ussia +ranted to Filipinos the sa$e ri+ht tobe naturalized citizens. 'owe%er, the 2C still found that lower court did not err in findin+appellee9petitioner as a stateless refu+ee. Appellee9 petitionerJs testi$on& that he is not a?ussian citizen and that he has no citizenship is uncontro%erted. ,here is also the well9 known ruthlessness of $odern dictatorships +i%in+ rise to a +reat nu$ber of statelessrefu+ees or displaced persons, without countr& or fla+. ,he t&rannical intolerance of dictatorships to opposition translates into beastl& oppression, concentration ca$ps andblood& pur+es, such that it is onl& natural that those who flee to other countries to escapesuch a situation, such as appellee9petitioner, lose all bonds of attach$ents to their for$er fatherlands. I' $1# M.$$#( &- $1# C:.%? -&( A$$&('#7@s ##s. CLARO M. RECTO, 0:.%?.'$)Appellee, vs. ESPERANZA P. DE !ARDEN .'* RED M. !ARDEN, Defendants)Appellants. DECISION

CONCEPCION, J.: ,his is an appeal taken b& Esperanza (. de 'arden and Fred M. 'arden fro$ a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the pertinent part of which is of the followin+ tenor:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar&. K,he contin+ent fee to which the clai$ant is entitled under para+raph 3 of the contract, E.hibit ))) or 75, is 75T of ( ,!75,88#.68 or the su$ of (36#, 5.!". K/'E?EFO?E, this Court hereb& appro%es the reco$$endation of the Co$$issioner with the abo%e9stated $odification, and finds that Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto is entitled to the su$ of ,'?EE 'B0<?E< EI>',=9FOB? ,'OB2A0< O0E 'B0<?E< A0< ,E0 (E2O2 A0< 0I0E,=92ECE0 CE0,ACO2 3(36#, 5.!"4, representin+ 75T of Esperanza (. de 'ardenJs share in the con-u+al properties owned b& her and her husband, Fred M. 'arden, as contin+ent fee stipulated in para+raph 3 of the Contract of (rofessional 2er%ices, E.hibit ))) or 75, and the said Esperanza (. de 'arden is hereb& ordered to pa& the said a$ount abo%e9stated.M It appears that so$eti$e in )ul&, !# , Appellant, Mrs. 'arden, and Appellee, Claro M. ?ecto, e.ecuted the followin+:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& KCO0,?AC, OF (?OFE22IO0A; 2E?CICE2 F0O/ A;; ME0 (?E2E0,2:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& B= ,'E2E

K,hat I, E2(E?A0PA (E?EP <E 'A?<E0, of a+e, $arried to Fred M. 'arden, and te$poraril& residin+ in the (hilippines, with address at 83# 2ales 2treet, Manila, ha%e en+a+ed the ser%ices of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto to appear and act as $& counsel in the action which I will file a+ainst $& husband, Fred M. 'arden, for the purpose of securin+ an increase in the a$ount of support bein+ recei%ed b& $e fro$ the con-u+al partnership of $&self and said Fred M. 'arden, and for the purpose likewise of protectin+ and preser%in+ $& ri+hts in the properties of the said con-u+al partnership, in conte$plation of the di%orce suit which I intent to file a+ainst hi$ in the co$petent Court of California and of the li1uidation of the con-u+al partnership between us, this contract of ser%ices to be under the followin+ conditions:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& K . ,hat in lieu of retainer fee, which under the circu$stances I a$ not in a position to pa&, I hereb& a+ree to pa& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto, such pa&$ent to be $ade $onthl&, durin+ the pendenc& of the liti+ation and until the ter$ination of the sa$e, twent&9fi%e 378T4 per cent of the total increase in allowance or pension which $a& be awarded to $e b& the court o%er and abo%e the a$ount of ( ,855.55 which I now recei%e $onthl& fro$ Defendant Fred M. 'arden out of the funds of the con-u+al partnershipA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&(ro%ided, that should the case be ter$inated or an a$icable settle$ent thereof be arri%ed at b& the parties before the e.piration of two &ears fro$ the date of the filin+ of the co$plaint, I shall continue to pa& the said twent&9fi%e 378T4 per cent up to the end of said period. K7. ,hat the aforesaid $onthl& pa&$ents shall be in addition to whate%er a$ount $a& be ad-ud+ed b& the court a+ainst the Defendant Fred M. 'arden or a+ainst the con-u+al partnership b& wa& of litis e.pense, that is, attorne&Js fees char+eable as e.penses of liti+ation. K3. ,hat as full and co$plete satisfaction of the fees of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto in connection with the case abo%e referred to, and said case bein+ for the purposes aforestated, that is, to secure an increase in the a$ount of support I now recei%e as well as to protect and preser%e $& ri+hts and interest in the properties of the con-u+al partnership, in conte$plation of di%orce and of the li1uidation of said partnership, I hereb& a+ree to pa& said Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto twent& 375T4 per cent of the %alue of the share and participation which I $a& recei%e in the funds and properties of the said con-u+al partnership of $&self and Defendant Fred M. 'arden, as a result of the li1uidation thereof either b& death, di%orce, -udicial separation, co$pro$ise or b& an& $eans or $ethod b& %irtue of which said partnership is or $a& be li1uidated. K#. All e.penses in connection with the liti+ation are to be for $& account, but the sa$e $a& be ad%anced b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto, to be rei$bursed to hi$ either fro$ the $one& which I recei%e b& wa& of support or fro$ the funds of the con-u+al partnership.

K8. It is hereb& understood that this contract includes the ser%ices of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto in connection with the securin+ of the li1uidation of the properties and assets of the con-u+al partnership of $&self and Fred M. 'arden, upon dissolution of said partnership or for an& other cause $entioned in (ara+raph 334 hereof. I0 /I,0E22 /'E?EOF, I ha%e si+ned these presents in the Cit& UUUUU of Manila, (hilippines this UUUUUUU da& of )ul&, !# . sS Esperanza (. de 'arden tS E2(E?A0PA (. <E 'A?<E0 ACCE(,E<:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& sS Claro M. ?ecto tS C;A?O M. ?EC,OM In co$pliance therewith, on )ul& 7, !# , the Appellee, as counsel for Mrs. 'arden, co$$enced Ci%il Case 0o. 8!@3# of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled KEsperanza (. de 'arden %s. Fred M. 'arden and )ose 2alu$bides.M In the co$plaint therein filed, it was pra&ed, a$on+ other thin+s:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3a4 that Mrs. 'arden be +i%en the e.clusi%e ad$inistration of the business and all properties of the con-u+al partnership of Mr. and Mrs. 'ardenA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3b4 that, in the e%ent of denial of this pra&er, the Defendants be ordered to infor$ her Kof e%er&thin+ pertainin+ to the ad$inistration of said business and propertiesM, as well as to render accounts thereof and to per$it her to e.a$ine the books and records pertinent theretoA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3c4 that Mr. 'arden be ordered to account to Mrs. 'arden, and to return to this -urisdiction, the su$ of (##!,5 8.## alle+edl& withdrawn b& hi$ fro$ the (hilippines or sent b& hi$ to 'on+kon+ on April , !# A chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3d4 that Defendant 2alu$bides be ordered to account for all $one&s, a$ountin+ to (768,555.55, belon+in+ to the business and assets of said con-u+al partnership and deposited b& hi$ in a safet& bo., either in his na$e, or in that of Antonio /ilson, fro$ )anuar& 73 to <ece$ber 73, !#5A chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3e4 that the transfer, in the na$e of 2alu$bides, of certain shares of stock, alle+edl& belon+in+ to the con-u+al partnership, be rescinded and saidDefendant ordered to transfer said shares of stock in the na$e of Mrs. 'arden or in that of Mr. and Mrs. 'arden, should Mr. 'arden be allowed to continue as ad$inistrator of said partnershipA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3 f 4 that the transfer, $ade b& Mr. 'arden andSor b& Defendant 2alu$bides, as his attorne&9in9fact, of 3@,555 shares of stock of the An+elo Minin+ Co$pan&, to so$e residents of 'on+kon+, be rescinded and said shares returned to the assets of the con-u+al partnership and placed in the na$e of Mr. and Mrs. 'ardenA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3+4 that the $onthl& allowance of Mrs. 'arden be increased fro$ ( ,855 to ( 8,555A chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3h4 that, pendin+ final decision, Mr. 'arden be ordered to increase the allowance or pension of Mrs. 'arden and their dau+hter 2arah Elizabeth to ( 5,555 a $onthA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 3i4 that a writ of preli$inar& in-unction be issued restrainin+ the Defendants fro$ disposin+ of the assets of the con-u+al partnership in fraud of Mrs. 'arden. B& an order dated )ul& 7, !# , the court authorized the issuance of said writ, upon the filin+ of the correspondin+ bond. It appears that, pursuant to an a+ree$ent sub$itted b& both parties, and with a %iew to a%oidin+ unnecessar& e$barrass$ent, restraint or incon%enience in the financial operations of the business enterprises affected b& said writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the sa$e was a$ended b& an order dated )ul& !, !# , in the sense that. K cralaw without pre-udicin+ in an& wa& the ri+hts of the parties in this case, a separate bank account be established in the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, of Manila, and all transactions in connection with the aforesaid businesses passed throu+h that account b& Mr. 'arden or his dul& authorized representati%e, who at present is Mr. 2alu$bides, without the necessit& of securin+ a particular order fro$ this Court on each occasionA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&that the present funds in the (hilippine 0ational Bank in the na$e of (laza ;unch and Fred M. 'arden be utilized for the purpose of startin+ said special bank account in the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and ChinaA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&that all inco$e fro$ the aforesaid businesses be deposited in this

special bank account and no checks be drawn upon the sa$e, e.cept to pa& the necessar& o%erhead and runnin+ e.penses includin+ purchases of tobacco, $erchandise, etc., re1uired for the proper operation of said businessesA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&that a new set of books be opened b& Mr. 'arden or his dul& authorized representati%e co%erin+ all business transactions passed throu+h said special bank account and the sa$e be opened for inspection b& the PlaintiffJs dul& authorized representati%e. K,he order of in-unction of )ul& 7, !# , is $odified onl& to the abo%e e.tent, and in all other respects is $aintained.M 2ubse1uentl&, the (hilippines was in%aded b& the )apanese and placed under $ilitar& occupation. ,hen ca$e the liberation, in the course of which the records of this case were destro&ed. On October 73, !#@, said records were reconstituted at the instance of Appelleeherein. ,hereafter, the proceedin+s were resu$ed and, in due course, the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered, on or about October 3 , !#!, a decision the dispositi%e part of which we 1uote:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& KIn %iew of the fore+oin+ considerations, this court finds and so holds that Q K3a4 Fred M. 'arden abandoned his do$icile of ori+in in 0ew )erse& and established a do$icile of choice in Manila, (hilippines, since !5 A K3b4 ,he $atri$onial do$icile of Fred M. 'arden and Esperanza (. de 'arden was established in Manila, (hilippines, fro$ the date of their $arria+e on <ece$ber #, ! "A K3c4 2ince the& did not e.ecute an& antenuptial contract before their $arria+e, all the properties, real or personal, ac1uired b& either or both of the$ on and after <ece$ber #, ! ", up to the present, o%er and abo%e the su$ of (75,555.55 representin+ Fred M. 'ardenJs capital, are hereb& declared con-u+al propertiesA K3d4 ,he total a$ount of ( ,!##,"!#.3" representin+ deposits in safet& deposit bo.es in the na$e of )ose 2alu$bides, the sellin+ price of the house in ;os An+eles, California, and the pre9war and post9war re$ittances abroad of Fred M. 'arden, fro$ which has alread& been deducted the su$ of ( @5,555.55 co%erin+ pa&$ents for deficienc& Federal inco$e ta.es and attorne&Js fees, both in the ta. case and the present one, is hereb& declared char+eable to the share of Defendant 'arden and deductible fro$ whate%er participation he $a& still ha%e in the said con-u+al partnership upon the li1uidation thereof, upon his failure to return and deposit the$ in the na$e of the (laza ;unch with the Manila branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China up to the ti$e this decision shall beco$e finalA K3e4 A con-u+al lien be annotated in the ori+inal and ownerJs duplicate of ,ransfer Certificates of ,itle 0os. 7#3!3, 87#3@ and 8#! of the ?e+ister of <eeds of Manila and in Ori+inal Certificate of ,itle 0o. 77!7 of Duezon (ro%ince, and on all the certificates of shares belon+in+ to said con-u+al partnership, as well as in the correspondin+ books of the co$panies or corporations issuin+ the$, whereb& it will be $ade to appear that an& subse1uent alienation or encu$brance of said properties b& Fred M. 'arden alone or his representati%e without the consent of his wife will be dee$ed fraudulent and sub-ect to re%ocation or cancellation for bein+ in fraud and pre-udicial to the ri+ht of Esperanza (. de 'ardenA K3 f 4 /ithin a period of fifteen 3 84 da&s after this decision shall ha%e beco$e final, Fred M. 'arden and Esperanza (. de 'arden are hereb& ordered to e.ecute a docu$ent to be appro%ed b& this court creatin+ and e.press acti%e trust upon the re$ainin+ cash assets and inco$e of the con-u+al partnership in the (hilippines, whereb& the (hilippine ,rust Co$pan&, with offices in Manila, will act as trustee, sub-ect to the ri+ht of Fred M. 'arden to recei%e therefro$ the su$ of (7,855,55 a $onth b& wa& of allowance and an e1ual a$ount for thePlaintiff as separate support and $aintenanceA K3+4 /ithin thirt& 3354 da&s after this decision shall ha%e beco$e final, Fred M. 'arden shall infor$ the Plaintiff of all the properties and businesses of the con-u+al partnership, be the& in the (hilippines or abroad, and render a true and co$plete accountin+ of the earnin+s and profits thereofA K3h4 ,he Plaintiff is entitled to litis e.pensae in the a$ount of ( "8,555.55 for ser%ices rendered b& her counsel up to the

rendition of this -ud+$ent, which Fred M. 'arden or the herein recei%er is ordered to pa& within a period of fifteen 3 84 da&s after this decision has beco$e finalA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and K3i4 ,he writ of preli$inar& in-unction of )ul& 7, !# , is hereb& declared per$anent and the order of recei%ership of 0o%e$ber 75, !#@, is hereb& $aintained, but said au.iliar& re$edies will be auto$aticall& lifted upon the conclusion of the annotation of the con-u+al lien and the e.ecution of the deed of trust abo%e $entioned. /ithout costs. KI, I2 SO ORDERED.M ,he Defendants appealed fro$ said decision to this Court, where the case was docketed as case 0o. ;93@6". /hile the appeal was thus pendin+ before us, herein Appellee filed a $anifestation and a $otion, both dated Februar& 75, !87. In said K$anifestationM, Appelleestated that Mrs. 'arden had instructed hi$, b& letter, to Kdiscontinue all proceedin+s relati%e toM said case, K%acate all orders and -ud+$ents rendered therein, and abandon and nullif& all her clai$s to the con-u+al partnership e.istin+ between her and Mr. 'ardenM, in accordance with se%eral instru$ents dated )anuar& 7!, !87, and e.ecuted without the knowled+e, ad%ise and consent of said Appellee, as counsel for Mrs. 'arden, whereb&:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3 4 Mr. and Mrs. 'arden had purportedl& a+reed to settle their differences in consideration of the su$ of V8,555 paid b& Mr. 'arden to Mrs. 'arden, and a $onthl& pension of (855 to be paid b& hi$ to herA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&374 Mr. 'arden had created a trust fund of V75,555 fro$ which said $onthl& pension of V855 would be takenA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 334 Mr. and Mrs. 'arden had $utuall& released and fore%er dischar+ed each other fro$ all actions, debts, duties, accounts, de$ands and clai$s to the con-u+al partnership, in consideration of the su$ of V . It was further asserted, in AppelleeJs K$anifestationM, that the purpose of the said instru$ents, e.ecuted b& Mr. and Mrs. 'arden, was to defeat the clai$ of the for$er for attorne&Js fees, for which reason, he pra&ed, in his afore$entioned $otion, that Ka4 (endin+ the resolution of this $otion, the recei%er appointed herein be authorized to continue holdin+ the properties abo%e $entioned in his custod& in order not to defeat the undersi+nedJs inchoate lien on the$A Kb4 A da& set aside to recei%e the e%idence of the undersi+ned and those of the Plaintiff and the Defendant Fred M. 'arden, in order to deter$ine the a$ount of fees due to the undersi+ned, b& the appoint$ent of a referee or co$$issioner for the reception of such Kc4 After due hearin+, the undersi+ned be declared entitled to the su$ of (#55,555.55 as his fees for ser%ices rendered in behalf of the Plaintiff in this case, under para+raph 3 of the contract, Anne. WAJ, and to that end a char+in+ lien therefore be established upon the properties abo%e9$entionedA Kd4 And the recei%er be ordered to pa& to the undersi+ned the full a$ount of the fees to which the latter is found to be entitled.M Counsel for the Defendants9Appellants, in turn, $o%ed for the dis$issal of the case, to whichAppellee ob-ected. Actin+ upon the issues raised in such $otion for dis$issal and in AppelleeJs $otion to establish and enforce his char+in+ lien, as counsel for Mrs. 'arden, this Court issued on )ul& 77, !87, a resolution the pertinent part of which reads:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& KIt will be seen fro$ the abo%e that the Defendants9 Appellants pra& for the co$plete dis$issal of the abo%e entitled case without pre-udice to the annotation of the contin+ent clai$ of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto on the propert& under recei%ership, other than the 3@6,883 shares of the Balatoc Minin+ Co$pan& which belon+ to Fred M. 'arden. On the other hand, Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto a+rees to the liftin+ of the writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the orders of conte$pt and co$$it$ent, and all other interlocutor& orders which were issued in the course of this case, with the e.ception of the recei%ership, but ob-ects to the dis$issal of the case on the +round that, since recei%ership is $erel& an au.iliar& re$ed&, the present case should be allowed to re$ain pendin+ for the purpose of $aintainin+ the recei%ership to safe+uard his ri+ht to collect the fees that $a& be due hi$.

KAttorne& Claro M. ?ecto pra&s that a co$$issioner or referee be i$$ediatel& appointed b& this Court to recei%e e%idence in support of his alle+ations as to his attorne&Js lien and its enforce$ent. Counsel for the Defendants9Appellants does not ob-ect to this proceedin+ pro%ided that the restrictions set forth b& hi$ be obser%ed. 'owe%er, this Court does not ha%e the proper facilities for recei%in+ e%idence in order to deter$ine the a$ount of the fees clai$ed b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto, and it is dee$ed ad%isable that this $atter be deter$ined b& the Court of First Instance. ,his is speciall& so considerin+ the opposition to the clai$ of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto filed b& Attorne& ). /. Ferrier, 2r. in behalf of Esperanza (. de 'arden. KIn %iew of the fore+oin+, the abo%e entitled case is hereb& re$anded to the court of ori+in in order to deter$ine the a$ount of fees clai$ed b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto in his $otion dated Februar& 75, !87. KIt is understood that, after said fees had been finall& deter$ined and paid, this case will be co$pletel& dis$issed as pra&ed for b& the Defendants9Appellants, without pre-udice to considerin+ the clai$ of the recei%er for co$pensation as stated in his ur+ent $otion dated )ul& 7, !87. K(endin+ the deter$ination of the a$ount of fees clai$ed b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto, the writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the orders of conte$pt and co$$it$ent, and all interlocutor& orders which were issued in the course of this case, are hereb& lifted and %acated, and with re+ard to the recei%ership, the sa$e is hereb& dissol%ed, onl& with respect to the 3@6,883 shares of the Balatoc Minin+ Co$pan&. As to the rest of the properties, the recei%ership shall be $aintained.M In co$pliance with said resolution, the records of this case were re$anded to the lower court, which, on 2epte$ber 7, !87, desi+nated a co$$issioner to recei%e e%idence on the a$ount of the fees collectible b& herein Appellee and to report thereon. After due hearin+, said co$$issioner sub$itted, on Februar& @, !83, a report of about one hundred 3 554 pa+es of the printed record on appeal, settin+ forth, in detail, the e%idence introduced b& both parties, and his findin+s of fact, with the followin+ conclusion and reco$$endation:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& K,akin+ into consideration the %alue of the properties in%ol%ed in this liti+ation, the len+th of ti$e in which clai$ant had handled the sa$e for Esperanza 'arden, the %olu$e and 1ualit& of the work perfor$ed, the co$plicated le+al 1uestions in%ol%ed, the responsibilit& assu$ed b& the clai$ant as counsel, his reputation in the bar, the difficulties encountered b& hi$ while handlin+ the sa$e in which he had to work hard e%er& inch of the wa& because of the stiff oppositions filed b& ad%erse counsel, the dili+ence he e$plo&ed not onl& in the preser%ation of the records in his possession durin+ the da&s of ene$& occupation but also in the protection of the interests of Esperanza 'arden, his successful handlin+ of said case and those cases +rowin+ out of it which reached the 2upre$e Court, and the e.tra ser%ices he rendered in her behalf in the ta. and other court cases, the undersi+ned Co$$issioner concludes that clai$ant is entitled to the full a$ount of 75T of Esperanza 'ardenJs share of the con-u+al properties, as pro%ided in para+raph 3 of the Contract of (rofessional 2er%ices, E.hibit )JJ. K/'E?EFO?E, the undersi+ned Co$$issioner respectfull& reco$$ends that Att&. Claro M. ?ecto be paid the e1ui%alent a$ount of 75T of Esperanza (. de 'ardenJs share of the con-u+al properties or the su$ of (3@!,# 5.5# as his contin+ent fee for ser%ices rendered in her behalf.M After appropriate proceedin+s, the lower court rendered a decision dated April 35, !83, adoptin+ substantiall& said report of the co$$issioner, but increasin+ the contin+ent fee ofAppellee herein fro$ (3@!,# 5.5#, the su$ reco$$ended in the report, to (36#, 5.!". 'ence, this appeal taken b& Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. ,he first 1uestion for deter$ination therein is the %alidit& of the abo%e91uoted contract of ser%ices, which the Appellants assail as %oid, $ainl&, upon the +round:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3 4 that Mrs. 'arden cannot bind the con-u+al partnership without her husbandJs consentA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&374 that Article #! of the Ci%il Code of the (hilippines in effect prohibits contin+ent feesA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&334 that the contract in 1uestion has for its purpose to secure a decree of di%orce, alle+edl& in %iolation of Articles 358, 387 and #5! of the

Ci%il Code of the (hilippinesA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 3#4 that the ter$s of said contract are harsh, ine1uitable and oppressi%e. ,he first ob-ection has no foundation in fact, for the contract in dispute does not seek to bind the con-u+al partnership. B& %irtue of said contract, Mrs. 'arden $erel& bound herself Q or assu$ed the personal obli+ation Q to pa&, b& wa& of contin+ent fees, 75T of her share in said partnership. ,he contract neither +i%es, nor purports to +i%e, to the Appellee an& ri+ht whatsoe%er, personal or real, in and to her aforesaid share. ,he a$ount thereof is si$pl& a basis for the co$putation of said fees. For the sa$e reason, the second ob-ection is, likewise, untenable. Moreo%er, it has alread& been held that contin+ent fees are not prohibited in the (hilippines and are i$pliedl& sanctioned b& our Cannons 30o. 34 of (rofessional Ethics. 3see, also, Blanda& %s. Manila ?ailroad Co., #8 (hil., 8#5, 88#.4 2uch is, likewise, the rule in the Bnited 2tates 3;e+al Ethics b& 'enr& 2. <rinker, p. "@4. K cralaw in the Bnited 2tates, the +reat wei+ht of authorit& reco+nizes the %alidit& of contracts for contin+ent fees, pro%ided such contracts are not in contra%ention of public polic&, and it is onl& when the attorne& has taken an unfair or unreasonable ad%anta+e of his client that such a clai$ is conde$ned.M 32ee 8 A$. )ur. 38! et se1.A chan robles%irtualawlibrar&Ballentine, ;aw <ictionar&, 7nd ed., p. 7"@.4 0eedless to sa&, there is absolutel& nothin+ in the records before us to show that Appelleeherein had, in an& $anner, taken an unfair or unreasonable ad%anta+e of his client Mrs. 'arden. ,he third ob-ection is not borne out, either b& the lan+ua+e of the contract between the$, or b& the intent of the parties thereto. Its purpose was not to secure a di%orce, or to facilitate or pro$ote the procure$ent of a di%orce. It $erel& sou+ht to protect the interest of Mrs. 'arden in the con-u+al partnership, durin+ the pendenc& of a di%orce suit she intended to file in the Bnited 2tates. /hat is $ore, inas$uch as Mr. and Mrs. 'arden are ad$ittedl& citizens of the Bnited 2tates, their status and the dissolution thereof are +o%erned Q pursuant to Article ! of the Ci%il Code of 2pain 3which was in force in the (hilippines at the ti$e of the e.ecution of the contract in 1uestion4 and Article 8 of the Ci%il Code of the (hilippines Q b& the laws of the Bnited 2tates, which sanction di%orce. In short, the contract of ser%ices, between Mrs. 'arden and herein Appellee, is not contrar& to law, $orals, +ood custo$s, public order or public polic&. ,he last ob-ection is based upon principles of e1uit&, but, pursuant thereto, one who seeks e1uit& $ust co$e with clean hands 3Bastida, et al., %s. <& Buncio X Co., !3 (hil., !8A chan robles%irtualawlibrar&35 C.J.2. #"84, and Appellants ha%e not done so, for the circu$stances surroundin+ the case show, to our satisfaction, that their afore$entioned a+ree$ents, ostensibl& for the settle$ent of the differences between husband and wife, were $ade for the purpose of circu$%entin+ or defeatin+ the ri+hts of herein Appellee, under his abo%e9 1uoted contract of ser%ices with Mrs. 'arden. Indeed, ha%in+ secured a -ud+$ent in her fa%or, acknowled+in+ her ri+hts to the assets of the con-u+al partnership, which turned out to be worth al$ost (#,555,555 in addition to litis e.pensae in the su$ of ( "8,555, it is inconcei%able that Mrs. 'arden would ha%e wai%ed such ri+hts, as well as the benefits of all orders and -ud+$ents in her fa%or, in consideration of the paltr& su$ of V8,555 alle+edl& paid to her b& Mr. 'arden and the additional su$ of V75,555 to be paid b& hi$ in install$ents, at the rate of V855 a $onth. In fact, no e.planation has been +i%en for this $ost unusual a%owed settle$ent between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. One cannot e%en consider the possibilit& of a reconciliation between the spouses, the sa$e bein+ inconsistent with the $onetar& consideration for said alle+ed settle$ent. /hat is $ore, the records show that the relations between said spouses Q which were bad indeed, not onl& in )ul&, !# , when Mrs. 'arden en+a+ed the ser%ices of theAppellee, but, e%en, before, for Mr. and Mrs. 'arden were separated since !36 Q had worsened considerabl& thereafter, as e%idence b& an action for di%orce filed b& Mr. 'arden in 0ew )erse&, in )ul& !#6, upon the +round of repeated acts of infidelit& alle+edl& co$$itted b& Mrs. 'arden in !#5 and !# .

A+ain, it appears that Appellee had rendered, under the contract in 1uestion, the followin+ ser%ices, for the benefit of Mrs. 'arden:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& . 'e succeeded in defeatin+ DefendantsJ $otion for the dissolution of the writ of preli$inar& in-unction, issued b& the Court on )ul& 7, !# , and a$ended on )ul& !, !# . 7. On 0o%e$ber 7, !#@, Appellee $o%ed for the appoint$ent of a recei%er, upon the +round that, despite said writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the Defendants had been disposin+ of the properties of the con-u+al partnership for the purpose of defraudin+ Mrs. 'arden. After due hearin+, the court, b& an order dated 0o%e$ber 75, !#@, directed the appoint$ent of Abelardo (erez as recei%er of said properties, upon the filin+ of a ( 5,555 bond. Defendantsasked, on Februar& 3, !#", that the recei%ership be suspended, or else, that the& be allowed to file a bond for the dischar+e of the recei%ership. Appellee replied ob-ectin+ thereto, unless the Defendants posted a (#,555,555 bond. 2ubse1uentl& or on March 8, !#", the Defendantssou+ht a reconsideration of the order of 0o%e$ber 75, !#@, and the dischar+e of the recei%er. B& an order dated March 7 , !#", the Court authorized said dischar+ed upon the filin+, b& theDefendants, of a bond in the su$ of (855,555, pro%ided that Mr. 'arden Kshould brin+ back all the 3@6,883 shares of the Balatoc Minin+ Co., in his na$e to the (hilippines for deposit with the Clerk of Court, or with the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, at Manila cralaw K3. On $otion of the Appellee dated March #, !#", the Court, b& an order dated April 8, !#", directed Mr. 'arden to re$it to Mrs. 'arden the su$ of V7,855, to be char+ed a+ainst her litis e.pensae. Bpon si$ilar $otion, filed b& Appellee on or about April 7@, !#", the Court ordered Mr. 'arden, on Ma& 3, !#", to furnish Mrs. 'arden the su$ of V8,555, under the sa$e conditions. #. On )une 7 , !#", the Defendants instituted Ci%il Case 0o. >. ?. 0o. ;9 #!! of this Court, entitled KFred M. 'arden and )ose 2alu$bides %s. E$ilio (eYa, Abelardo (erez and Esperanza (. 'ardenM for the purpose of annullin+ and settin+ aside, b& writ of certiorari, the afore$entioned orders of the lower court dated )ul& 7, !# , 0o%e$ber 75, !#@, and April 8 and Ma& 3, !#", and to restrain, in the $eanti$e, the enforce$ent thereof. After appropriate proceedin+s, in the course of which Appellee appeared as counsel for Mrs. 'arden, and like counsel for the Petitioners therein, filed se%eral len+th&, detailed pleadin+s and $e$oranda, decision was rendered on 0o%e$ber 7 , !85, den&in+ the writ of certiorari pra&ed for. 8. On or about 2epte$ber !, !#", Appellee filed a $otion alle+in+ that despite the writ of preli$inar& in-unction abo%e $entioned, the Defendants had, fraudulentl& and without -udicial consent, re$itted abroad se%eral su$s of $one& a++re+atin+ ( ,555,@56.@@, and pra&in+ that Mr. 'arden be ordered to return this su$ to the (hilippines, within a stated period, said su$ to be deposited with the account of the (laza ;unch at the Manila Branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China. Mr. 'arden ob-ected to said $otion. Appelleefiled a re-oinder, to which Mr. 'arden replied. Appellee filed a re-oinder to the re-oinder. On October ", !#", the Court +ranted AppelleeJs $otion. Mr. 'arden sou+ht a reconsideration, which was opposed b& the Appellee on October 7", !#", and denied b& an order dated 0o%e$ber 3, !#". Mr. 'arden $o%ed, on 0o%e$ber 6, !#", for the suspension of this order, which was i$$ediatel& ob-ected to b& the Appellee and then denied b& the Court. @. Inas$uch as said order of 0o%e$ber 3, !#" had not been co$plied with, Appellee filed on 0o%e$ber 7", !#", a $otion pra&in+ that Mr. 'arden be declared in conte$pt of court and punished accordin+l&. Meanwhile, or on 0o%e$ber 7#, !#", Mr. 'arden had instituted case >. ?. 0o. ;9 6 @ of this Court a+ainst 'on. E$ilio (eYa, as )ud+e of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and Mrs. 'arden. In the petition therein filed, Mr. 'arden applied for a writ of certiorari annullin+ said orders of )ud+e (eYa of October " and 0o%e$ber 3, !#", and pra&ed that, pendin+ disposition of the case, a writ of preli$inar& in-unction be issued restrainin+ theRespondents therein fro$ enforcin+ said orders, particularl& throu+h conte$pt proceedin+s. 'ence, the lower court deferred action on the afore$entioned $otion of 0o%e$ber 7", !#". After due hearin+, this Court, in a resolution dated Februar& 7, !#6, refused to issue the writ of preli$inar&

in-unction pra&ed for. 2ubse1uentl&, or on 0o%e$ber 7 , !85, decision was rendered den&in+ the petition for a writ of certiorari. ". 2oon after the issuance of our resolution in said case >. ?. 0o. 6 @, dated Februar& 7, !#6, or to be e.act on March 7", !#6, the lower court issued an order directin+ Mr. 'arden to co$pl&, within fi%e 384 da&s fro$ notice, with the order of October ", !#". On April @, !#6,Appellee filed with the lower court the correspondin+ for$al char+es a+ainst Mr. 'arden for conte$pt of court. After due hearin+, Mr. 'arden was, b& an order of April 76, !#6, found +uilt& as char+ed and ordered confined Kuntil he co$plies with the afore$entioned ordersM of October ", !#" and March 7", !#6. On $otion of Mr. 'arden, said order of April 76, !#6 was suspended until Ma& #, !#6, on which date he was arrested and placed in confine$ent at the 0ew Bilibid (rison, in Muntin+lupa, ?izal. On )ul& 5, !#6, he filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus a+ainst the <irector of (risons, 3>. ?. 0o. ;9 73#!, entitled KFred M. 'arden %s. ,he <irector of (risonsM4, which, in due course was denied in a decision pro$ul+ated on October 77, !#6. 6. <urin+ the $ilitar& occupation of the (hilippines b& the )apanese, the Appellee $ade representations with the )apanese >o%ern$ent to pre%ent the co$$andeerin+ of a business establish$ent belon+in+ to Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. Moreo%er, he succeeded in persuadin+ the )apanese to refrain fro$ internin+ Mrs. 'arden and her dau+hter and to allow her to withdraw, fro$ the for$erJs deposit in a local bank, fro$ (755 to (785 a $onth, for their subsistence. 'e, likewise, lent her $one& to $eet her needs and spent the su$ of (88,555 in the preser%ation of the records and papers pertainin+ to the business and other properties of the con-u+al partnership of Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. !. Appellee assisted, also, the recei%er, as his counsel and, in such capacit&, took all steps essential for the proper dischar+e of the duties of the for$er. A$on+ other thin+s, Appelleesou+ht and obtained -udicial authorit& for so$e i$portant acts of ad$inistration of, and disposition b&, the recei%er. 'e 3Appellee4 secured -udicial inter%ention for the protection and preser%ation of the assets of the con-u+al partnership, includin+ orders for the deli%er& of certificates of stock, the return thereof andSor its deposit with the clerk of court. 'e, likewise, represented the recei%er in seekin+ war da$a+e pa&$ents. 5. In ci%il case 0o. @777 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled KFrancisco <alupan %s. Fred M. 'ardenM for the reco%er& of ( 3,63". ", it was decided, throu+h AppelleeJs inter%ention, that the con-u+al assets would bear the pa&$ent of (77,"@".#3 onl&, the balance to be char+eable e.clusi%el& a+ainst Mr. 'ardenJs share of the con-u+al partnership. . Appellee instituted ci%il case 0o. @!#5 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled KAbelardo (erez %s. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China and Fred M. 'ardenM, for the reco%er& of ( ,555,@56.@@ and the return of stock certificates of the Balatoc Minin+ Co., which had been sent abroad. 7. 'e 3Appellee4 represented Mrs. 'arden in connection with a $illion9peso federal ta. case a+ainst Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. 3. Appellee successfull& blocked Mr. 'ardenJs atte$pts to withdraw:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3 4 V83,555 and forward the sa$e to the Collector of Internal ?e%enue of ;os An+eles, CaliforniaA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&374 V85,555.55, alle+edl& to defra& e.penses in resistin+ a new ta. assess$ent a+ainst hi$ in the Bnited 2tatesA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 334 (@8,555 for his e.penses. ,hen too, the con-u+al partnership had %arried and e.tensi%e business interests and its assets were worth al$ost (#,555,555. ,he pleadin+s, $otions, oppositions, re-oinders, and $e$oranda filed, and the e%idence introduced, in the afore$entioned cases Q in which Appellee was pitted a+ainst one of the $ost e.perienced and able $e$bers of the (hilippine Bar Q were nu$erous, e.tensi%e and e.hausti%e. For instance, the record on appeal in one of those cases, na$el&, >. ?. 0o. ;93@6", consisted of !@@ pa+es. In short, considerin+ the character of the ser%ices rendered b& the Appellee, the nature and i$portance of the issues in said liti+ations, the a$ount of labor, ti$e 3 !# to !874 and trouble in%ol%ed therein, the skill displa&ed in connection with said cases, the %alue of the propert& affected b& the contro%ers&,

the professional character and standin+ of the Appellee, the risks assu$ed and the results obtained, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the contract of ser%ices in 1uestion is neither harsh nor oppressi%e or ine1uitable. Bnder their second assi+n$ent of error, Appellants $aintain that:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& K,he lower court erred in failin+ to find as a fact borne out b& the e%idence that the le+al ser%ices of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto to Mrs. Esperanza (. de 'arden, pa&$ent, for which is sou+ht b& hi$ in this case, ha%e alread& been paid b& his i$$ediate e.ecution pendin+ appeal of the decision in Ci%il Case 0o. CFI9?98!@3# 32C9>.?. 0o. ;9 3@6"4, wherein he collected the su$ of ( "@,555.55 for all such le+al ser%ices.M 2aid decision, howe%er, states clearl& that the afore$entioned su$ of ( "8,555 represents litis e.pensae, and the contract between the Appellee and Mrs. 'arden e.plicitl& declares that said litis e.pensae shall be Kin addition toM AppelleeJs share of 78T of the increase in the allowance of Mrs. 'arden and his attorne&Js fees of 75T of her share in the con-u+al partnership. ,he second assi+n$ent of error is, therefore, de%oid of $erit. Appellants, further contend, that:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3. ,he lower court erred in holdin+ that the inchoate share of the wife, Esperanza (. de 'arden, in the undissol%ed and unli1uidated con-u+al partnership properties of the 'arden spouses, is capable of certain %aluation before such dissolution and li1uidation, and su$$aril& assessin+ the %alue of Mrs. 'ardenJs share in such con-u+al properties without proper e%idence. #. K,he lower court erred in awardin+ 75T of such inchoate share to Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto fro$ Mrs. 'ardenJs interests in the 'arden con-u+al properties, su$$aril& assessin+ such 75T inchoate share as of a %alue of (36#, 5.!", and orderin+ the pa&$ent of said su$ to Attorne& ?ecto in pursuance of the pro%isions of para+raph 3 of the Contract of (rofessional 2er%ices.M AppellantsJ ar+u$ents in support thereof $a& be su$$arized as follows:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& ,he contract of ser%ices in 1uestion pro%ides that AppelleeJs contin+ent fees shall be 75T of the share of Mrs. 'arden in the con-u+al partnership. (ursuant to law, the share of Mrs. 'arden shall be deter$ined upon the li1uidation of said partnership, which has not taken place, as &et. /hat is $ore, it cannot be effected until the dissolution of the $arria+e relation between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden. Inas$uch as this relation subsists, it follows that the a$ount of attorne&Js fees due to Appellee herein should not ha%e been deter$ined in the decision appealed fro$. ,his line of ar+u$ent o%erlooks the fact that said contract of ser%ices was $ade, principall&, in conte$plation of a suit for di%orce that, accordin+ to Mrs. 'arden, she intended to file before a co$petent court in California, Kand of the li1uidation of the con-u+al partnership betweenM her and Mr. 'arden. 'ad she filed said action for di%orce and secured a decree of di%orce, said con-u+al partnership would ha%e been dissol%ed and then li1uidated, and the share of Mrs. 'arden therein would ha%e been fi.ed. 'owe%er, this cannot take place, either now, or in the foreseeable future, owin+ to the afore$entioned a+ree$ents between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden, which were $ade for the e%ident purpose of defeatin+ AppelleeJs clai$ for attorne&Js fees. In other words, the occurrence, within the ti$e conte$plated b& the parties Q bearin+ in $ind the nature of, and the circu$stances under which the& entered into, said contract of ser%ices Q of the e%ent upon which the a$ount of said fees depended, was rendered i$possible b& Mrs. 'arden. 'ence, whether such e%ent be re+arded as a condition or as a period, she $a& not insist upon its occurrence, prior to the enforce$ent of the ri+hts of the herein Appellee, for Kthe condition shall be dee$ed fulfilled when the obli+or %oluntaril& pre%ents its fulfill$entM 3Art. 6@, Ci%il Code4 and Kthe debtor shall lose e%er& ri+ht to $ake use of the periodM when he K%iolates an& undertakin+, in consideration of which the creditor a+reed to the period.M 3Art. !6, Ci%il Code.4 It should be noted, also, that the co$pensation a+reed upon for AppelleeJs ser%ices, consists of three 334 parts, na$el&:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 3a4 78T of the increase in the allowance of Mrs. 'ardenA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&3b4 litis e.pensaeA chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 3c4 75T of her share in the con-u+al partnership. ,he first part was dealt with in the first para+raph of their contract of ser%ices. ,he second and third parts were the ob-ect of the second and third

para+raphs, respecti%el&. ,he first para+raph li$ited the ri+hts of Appellee thereunder to two 374 &ears, in the e%ent of ter$ination of the case or a$icable settle$ent thereof within two 374 &ears fro$ the filin+ of the co$plaint. 0o such li$itation appears in the second and third para+raphs of said contract. 'ence, the sa$e were intended b& the parties to be full& operati%e under an& and all conditions. It $a& not be a$iss to add that the %alue of the properties in%ol%ed has been assessed, not su$$aril&, but after due notice and full dress hearin+, in the course of which both parties introduced testi$onial and docu$entar& e%idence. Appellants presented E.hibits to 86, whereas those of the Appellee were so nu$erous that, ha%in+ be+un with E.hibit A, his last piece of docu$entar& e%idence was $arked E.hibit 7@ =Js. ,he transcript of the hearin+, which lasted ten 3 54 da&s, co%ers o%er 775 pa+es. ,he other assi+n$ents of error $ade b& Appellants herein are $ere corollaries of those alread& disposed of, and, hence, no further discussion thereof is necessar&. In conclusion, it appears that the assets of the con-u+al partnership between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden are reasonabl& %alued at (3,6# , 5!."5. One9half 3 S74 thereof, representin+ the share of Mrs. 'arden, is therefore, worth ( ,!75,88#.68. ,went& percentu$ 375T4 of this su$ is (36#, 5.!", which is the contin+ent fee due to the Appellee, apart fro$ the litis e.pensae alread& paid to hi$. Inas$uch as the Appellee has collected, also, the su$ of (65,555.55, on account of said contin+ent fees, there results in his fa%or a balance of (35#, 5.!". 2ub-ect to this 1ualification, the decision appealed fro$ is hereb& affir$ed, therefore, with costs a+ainst the Appellants. SO ORDERED. M.( 42, 2003 V.::#s vs. COMELEC G.R. N&. 245000, A,+. 3, 2000

R&s.:%'* ;6.s0& L&"#C B.s 6&(' . 7#.( 6#-&(# $1# 234F C&'s$%$,$%&' $&&/ %'$& #--#0$ .'* .$ $1.$ $%?#, B1.$ s#(v#* .s $1# C&'s$%$,$%&' &- $1# P1%:%""%'#s B#(# $1# "(%'0%".: &(+.'%0 .0$s 67 B1%01 $1# U'%$#* S$.$#s +&v#('#* $1# 0&,'$(7. T1#s# B#(# $1# P1%:%""%'# B%:: &- J,:7 2, 2302 .'* $1# P1%:%""%'# A,$&'&?7 A0$ &- A,+. 23, 2326, .:s& /'&B' .s $1# J&'#s L.B.

U'*#( 6&$1 &(+.'%0 .0$s, .:: %'1.6%$.'$s &- $1# P1%:%""%'#s B1& B#(# S".'%s1 s,6A#0$s &' A"(%: 22, 2833 .'* (#s%*#* $1#(#%' %'0:,*%'+ $1#%( 01%:*(#' .(# *##?#* $& 6# P1%:%""%'# 0%$%C#'s. P(%v.$# (#s"&'*#'$s -.$1#(, T#:#s-&(& ;6.s0&, B.s 6&(' &' J.'. F, 2853 %' D.#$, C.?.(%'#s N&($#.... T1,s, ,'*#( $1# P1%:%""%'# B%:: &- 2302 .'* $1# J&'#s L.B, T#:#s-&(& ;6.s0& B.s *##?#* $& 6# . P1%:%""%'# 0%$%C#'. B7 v%($,# &$1# s.?# :.Bs, B1%01 B#(# $1# :.Bs %' -&(0# .$ $1# $%?# &1#( 6%($1, T#:#s-&(&@s *.,+1$#(, 1#(#%' "(%v.$# (#s"&'*#'$ R&s.:%'* ;6.s0& L&"#C, %s :%/#B%s# . 0%$%C#' &- $1# P1%:%""%'#s.

T1# s%+'%'+ %'$& :.B &- $1# 234F P1%:%""%'# C&'s$%$,$%&' 1.s #s$.6:%s1#* $1# "(%'0%":# &- A,s s.'+,%'%s .s 6.s%s -&( $1# .0D,%s%$%&' &- P1%:%""%'# 0%$%C#'s1%", <<<

P(%'0%":# &- A,s s.'+,%'%s !&B P1%:%""%'# 0%$%C#'s1%" %s .0D,%(#* E--#0$ &- -%:%'+ 0#($%-%0.$# &- 0.'*%*.079 #<"(#ss (#','0%.$%&' &- &$1#( 0%$%C#'s1%"

S& .:s&, $1# "(%'0%":# &- A,s s.'+,%'%s, B1%01 0&'-#(s 0%$%C#'s1%" 67 v%($,# &- 6:&&* (#:.$%&'s1%", B.s s,6s#D,#'$:7 (#$.%'#* ,'*#( $1# 2354 .'* 2385 C&'s$%$,$%&'s. T1,s, $1# 1#(#%' "(%v.$# (#s"&'*#'$, R&s.:%'* ;6.s0& L&"#C, %s . %:%"%'& 0%$%C#', 1.v%'+ 6##' 6&(' $& . %:%"%'& -.$1#(. T1# -.0$ &- 1#( 6#%'+ 6&(' %' A,s$(.:%. %s '&$ $.'$.?&,'$ $& 1#( :&s%'+ 1#( P1%:%""%'# 0%$%C#'s1%". I- A,s$(.:%. -&::&Bs $1# "(%'0%":# &- A,s s&:%, $1#' .$ ?&s$, "(%v.$# (#s"&'*#'$ 0.' .:s& 0:.%? A,s$(.:%.' 0%$%C#'s1%" (#s,:$%'+ $& 1#( "&ss#ss%&' &- *,.: 0%$%C#'s1%". L.,(#: vs G.(0%.

ACTS9

L#.v# . 0&??#'$ G.R. N&. 32024. J,:7 2F, 2330 G.R. N&. 32045, J,:7 2F, 2330

R&s.:%'* ;6.s0& L&"#C B.s 6&(' &' M.7 26, 2344 %' A,s$(.:%. $& . %:%"%'& -.$1#( .'* .' A,s$(.:%.' ?&$1#(. I' 2343, .$ $1# .+# &- -%-$##', s1# :#-$ A,s$(.:%. .'* 0.?# $& s#$$:# %' $1# P1%:%""%'#s, B1#(# s1# :.$#( ?.((%#* . %:%"%'& .'* 1.s s%'0# $1#' ".($%0%".$#* %' $1# #:#0$&(.: "(&0#ss '&$ &':7 .s . v&$#( 6,$ .s . 0.'*%*.$#, .s B#::. I' $1# M.7 2338 #:#0$%&'s, s1# (.' -&( +&v#('&( 6,$ V.::#s -%:#* . "#$%$%&' -&( 1#( *%sD,.:%-%0.$%&' .s 0.'*%*.$# &' $1# +(&,'* $1.$ s1# %s .' A,s$(.:%.'.

OJEDA, "#$%$%&'#(, vs. EGECUTIVE SECRETAR; MACARAIG, JR., #$ .: ACTS9 ,hese are two petitions for prohibition seekin+ to en-oin respondents, their representati%es and a+ents fro$ proceedin+ with the biddin+ for the sale of the 3, "! s1uare $eters of land at 35@ ?oppon++i, 89Cho$e Minato9ku, ,ok&o, )apan scheduled on Februar& 7 , !!5. ,he sub-ect propert& in this case is one of the four 3#4

ISSUE9 W1#$1#( &( '&$ R&s.:%'* %s .' A,s$(.:%.' &( . %:%"%'&

!ELD9

properties in )apan ac1uired b& the (hilippine +o%ern$ent under the ?eparations A+ree$ent entered into with )apan on Ma& !, !8@, and is part of the inde$nification to the Filipino people for their losses in life and propert& and their sufferin+ durin+ /orld /ar II.

T1# P1%:%""%'# :.B &' 0%$%C#'s1%" .*1#(#s $& $1# "(%'0%":# &A,s s.'+,%'%s. T1#(#,'*#(, . 01%:* -&::&Bs $1# '.$%&'.:%$7 &( 0%$%C#'s1%" &- $1# ".(#'$s (#+.(*:#ss &- $1# ":.0# &- 1%sE1#( 6%($1, .s &""&s#* $& $1# *&0$(%'# &- A,s s&:% B1%01 *#$#(?%'#s '.$%&'.:%$7 &( 0%$%C#'s1%" &' $1# 6.s%s &- ":.0# &- 6%($1.

As intended, the sub-ect propert& beca$e the site of the (hilippine E$bass& until the latter was transferred to 0a$peidai on )ul& 77, !"@. <ue to the failure of our

alienated. Its ownership is a special collecti%e ownership for +eneral use and en-o&$ent, an application to the satisfaction of collecti%e needs, and resides in the social +roup. ,he purpose is not to ser%e the 2tate as a -uridical person, but the citizensA it is intended for the co$$on and public welfare and cannot be the ob-ect of appropriation. 3,aken fro$ 3 Manresa, @@9@!A

+o%ern$ent to pro%ide necessar& funds, the ?oppon+i propert& has re$ained unde%eloped since that ti$e. A proposal was presented to (resident Corazon C. A1uino b& for$er (hilippine A$bassador to )apan, Carlos ). Caldez, to $ake the propert& the sub-ect of a lease a+ree$ent with a )apanese fir$ where, at the end of the lease period, all the three leased buildin+s shall be occupied and used b& the (hilippine +o%ern$ent. On Au+ust , !6@, (resident A1uino

cited in ,olentino, Co$$entaries on the Ci%il Code of the (hilippines, !@3 Edition, Col. II, p. 7@4. ,he ?oppon+i propert& is correctl& classified under para+raph 7 of Article #75 of the Ci%il Code as propert& belon+in+ to the 2tate and intended for so$e public ser%ice. ,he fact that the ?oppon+i site has not been used for a lon+ ti$e for actual E$bass& ser%ice does not auto$aticall& con%ert

created a co$$ittee to stud& the dispositionSutilization of (hilippine +o%ern$ent properties in ,ok&o and Fobe. On )ul& 78, !6", the (resident issued E.ecuti%e Order 0o.

it to patri$onial propert&. An& such con%ersion happens onl& if the propert& is withdrawn fro$ public use 3Cebu O.&+en and Acet&lene Co. %. Bercilles, @@ 2C?A #6 G !"8H4. A propert& continues to be part of the public do$ain, not a%ailable for pri%ate appropriation or ownership Kuntil there is a for$al declaration on the part of the +o%ern$ent to withdraw it fro$ bein+ such 3I+nacio %. <irector of ;ands, 56 (hil. 338 G !@5H4.

7!@ entitlin+ non9Filipino citizens or entities to a%ail of reparationsJ capital +oods and ser%ices in the e%ent of sale, lease or disposition. ,he four properties in )apan includin+ the ?oppon+i were specificall& $entioned in the first K/hereasM clause. A$idst opposition b& %arious sectors, the E.ecuti%e branch of the +o%ern$ent has been pushin+, with +reat %i+or, its decision to sell the reparations properties startin+ with the ?oppon+i lot. ,he propert& has twice been set for biddin+ at a $ini$u$ floor price at V778 $illion. ISSUES9 ,he petitioner in >.?. 0o. !75 3 raises the followin+ issues: 3 4 Can the ?oppon+i propert& and others of its kind be alienated b& the (hilippine >o%ern$entNA and 374 <oes the Chief E.ecuti%e, her officers and a+ents, ha%e the authorit& and -urisdiction, to sell the ?oppon+i propert&N In >.?. 0O. !75#", apart fro$ 1uestionin+ the authorit& of the +o%ern$ent to alienate the ?oppon+i propert& assails the constitutionalit& of E.ecuti%e Order 0o. 7!@, the petitioner also 1uestions the biddin+ procedures of the Co$$ittee on the Btilization or <isposition of (hilippine >o%ern$ent (roperties in )apan for bein+ discri$inator& a+ainst Filipino citizens and Filipino9owned entities b& den&in+ the$ the ri+ht to be infor$ed about the biddin+ re1uire$ents. !ELD9 ,he petition is +ranted. As propert& of public do$inion, the ?oppon+i lot is outside the co$$erce of $an. It cannot be

An abandon$ent of the intention to use the ?oppon+i propert& for public ser%ice and to $ake it patri$onial propert& under Article #77 of the Ci%il Code $ust be definite. Abandon$ent cannot be inferred fro$ the non9use alone speciall& if the non9 use was attributable not to the +o%ern$entJs own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and i$pro%e the propert& 32ee 'eirs of Felino 2antia+o %. ;azarao, @@ 2C?A 3@6 G !66H4. Abandon$ent $ust be a

certain and positi%e act based on correct le+al pre$ises. A $ere transfer of the (hilippine E$bass& to 0a$peidai in !"@ is not relin1uish$ent of the ?oppon+i propert&Js ori+inal purpose. E.ecuti%e Order 0o. 7!@, thou+h its title declares an Kauthorit& to sellM, does not ha%e a pro%ision in this te.t e.pressl& authorizin+ the sale of the four properties procured fro$ )apan for the +o%ern$ent sector. It $erel& intends to $ake the properties a%ailable to forei+ners and not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition. ?ep Act 0o. @@8", does not authorize the E.ecuti%e <epart$ent to sell the ?oppon+i propert&. It $erel&

enu$erates possible sources of future fundin+ to au+$ent 3as and when needed4 the A+rarian ?efor$ Fund created under E.ecuti%e Order 0o. 7!!.

Moreo%er, (resident A1uinoJs appro%al of the reco$$endation b& the in%esti+atin+ co$$ittee to sell the ?oppon+i propert& was pre$ature or, at the %er& least, conditioned on a %alid chan+e in the public character of the ?oppon+i propert&. It does not ha%e the force and effect of law since the (resident alread& lost her le+islati%e powers. ,he Con+ress had alread& con%ened for $ore than a &ear. Assu$in+ that the ?oppon+i propert& is no lon+er of public do$inion, there is another obstacle to its sale b& the respondents. ,here is no law authorizin+ its con%e&ance, and thus, the Court sees no co$pellin+ reason to tackle the constitutional issue raised b& petitioner O-eda.