Laurel v.

Garcia
187 SCRA 797
Facts: The subject property in this case is one of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by
the Philippine government under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan,
the Roppongi property. The said property was acquired from the Japanese government
through Reparations Contract No. 300. It consists of the land and building for the
Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. As intended, it became the site of the Philippine
Embassy until the latter was transferred to Nampeidai when the Roppongi building
needed major repairs. President Aquino created a committee to study the
disposition/utilization of Philippine government properties in Tokyo and Kobe, Japan.
The President issued EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of
separations' capital goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition.

Issues: Whether or not the Chief Executive, her officers and agents, have the authority
and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi property.

Ruling: It is not for the President to convey valuable real property of the government on
his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved by a
law enacted by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative concurrence. It is
indeed true that the Roppongi property is valuable not so much because of the inflated
prices fetched by real property in Tokyo but more so because of its symbolic value to all
Filipinos, veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not the Roppongi and related
properties will eventually be sold is a policy determination where both the President and
Congress must concur. Considering the properties' importance and value, the laws on
conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be faithfully followed.

Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

30 SCRA 968

William Reagan is a US citizen assigned at Clark Air Base to help provide technical
assistance to the US Air Force (USAF). In April 1960 Reagan imported a 1960 Cadillac car
valued at $6,443.83. Two months later, he got permission to sell the same car provided that
he would sell the car to a US citizen or a member of the USAF. He sold it to Willie Johnson,
Jr. for $6,600.00 as shown by a Bill of Sale. The sale took place within Clark Air Base. As a
result of this transaction, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue calculated the net taxable
income of Reagan to be at P17,912.34 and that his income tax would be P2,797.00.
Reagan paid the assessed tax but at the same time he sought for a refund because he
claims that he is exempt. Reagan claims that the sale took place in “foreign soil” since Clark
Air Base, in legal contemplation is a base outside the Philippines. Reagan also cited that
under the Military Bases Agreement, he, by nature of his employment, is exempt from
Philippine taxation.

ISSUE: Is the sale considered done in a foreign soil not subject to Philippine income tax?
HELD: No. The Philippines is independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised
over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits,
its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone
to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both
territorial and personal. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement
that lends support to Reagan’s assertion. The Base has not become foreign soil or territory.
This country’s jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding the power to tax, have
been preserved, the Philippines merely consents that the US exercise jurisdiction in certain
cases – this is just a matter of comity, courtesy and expediency. It is likewise noted that he
indeed is employed by the USAF and his income is derived from US source but the income
derived from the sale is not of US source hence taxable.

Bank of America, NT & SA v. Litonjua

G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003.

Facts:

1. The Litonjuas (Eduardo and Aurelio), private respondents, were engaged in the shipping
business. They owned 2 vessels through their company and deposited their revenues with
the petitioner banks in both Hongkong and UK. The respondents alleged that the petitioner
offered easy loans to help them acquire additional three (3) vessels through their company.
The operation and the funds were then placed under the control of the petitioner while the
possession of the vessels were left in the hands of persons designated.

2. The said vessels were subsequently foreclosed when the business of respondents
declined. However, the bank as trustee failed to render an accounting of the incomes of the
said vessels. This prompted the Litonjuas to file a complaint. The petitioner bank filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action. The
MD was denied by the lower court. The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorariwith
the CA. The Court of Appeals dismissed. It was treated by the CA as a petition for certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the case should have been dismissed on the ground of FNC

HELD:
NO. Whether a suit is to be dismissed on the ground of FNC depends largely upon the facts
of the case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. The following requisites
must be met:
- The Philippine court must be one to which the parties may conveniently resort to
- The Philippine courts is in the position to make intelligent decisions as to law and facts
- It has or likely have the power to enforce its decision.

As to the issue on forum shopping, the court held that there is no forum shopping due to the
pendency of the foreign action. Forum shopping exists where elements of litis pendentia are
present and where a final judgement is one case will amount to res judicatain the other. Litis
pendentia presuposses the existence of these elements; identity of parties, identity of righs
asserted and relief prayed for (founded on the same acts) and the identity of the two cases
is such that judgement in one case would amount to res judicatain the other.
Not all the elements for litis pendentia are present here. The petitioner failed to show these
as it merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and UK without showing the
identity of the rights asserted or reliefs sought, as well as the presence of elements of res
judicata should one of the case be adjudged.