Campos Rueda Corp vs. Sta. Cruz Timber Co., Inc.

and Feliz FACTS: The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the case of Petitioner against Respondent to recover the value of two promissory notes for the amounts of P1,125 and P1,075, for lack of jurisdiction; holding that the two notes constitute two separate causes of action involving less than P2,000. The Municipal Court likewise dismissed the case of Petitioner Corporation against Respondents for collection of the same promissory notes object of the former action, on the ground that the amount of two notes, which Petitioner now consolidated under a single cause of action, was in excess of its jurisdiction. ISSUE: W/N the Municipal Court of Manila has jurisdiction over the subject matter of appellants complaint. HELD: No. The jurisdiction of a court depends, not upon the value or demand in each single case of action contained in the complaint, but upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action. LATIN MAXIM: 2B/11g, h, i Latin Maxim: B2 Ambiguitas verborum patens nulla verificatione excluditur (A patent ambiguity can be cleared up by extrinsic evidence) Quote from Case: The rule, furthermore appears to be in accord with the weight of American authority, including the Federal courts and those of the State of California from which our own rules of practice and procedure were mainly taken. ANG GIOK CHIP V. SPRINGFIELD FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

contract of insurance, is valid and sufficient under Sec. 65 of the Philippine Insurance Act as it was taken verbatim from Sec. 2605 of the Civil Code of California which states, The section as it now reads is in harmony with the rule that a warranty may be contained in another instrument than the policy when expressly referred to in the policy as forming a part thereof. LATIN MAXIM: 2B/11g, h, i Quote from Case: As the Philippine law was taken verbatim from the law of California, in accordance with well-settled canons of statutory construction, the court should follow in fundamental points, at least, the construction placed by California courts on a California law. We cannot believe that it was ever the legislative intention to insert in the Philippine Law on Insurance an oddity, an incongruity, entirely out of harmony with the law as found in other jurisdictions, and destructive of good business practice. OSSORIO V. POSADAS (Macalino) FACTS Plaintiff and appellant filed for the recovery from the Defendant Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P56,246.72, which the Defendant, according to the complaint, collected from the Plaintiff in excess of what he should have collected by way of income tax. ISSUE: W/N the paraphernal property of the Plaintiffs wife constitutes her separate estate within the scope and meaning of this phrase for the purposes of the additional income tax. HELD: Yes. It is ordered that the Defendant make two separate assessments of the additional income tax, one against the Plaintiff, and the other against his wife on her paraphernal property, returning the sum of P56,203.59 to said plaintiff, without prejudice to his levying against and collecting from said Plaintiffs wife upon her own separate individual declaration, in accordance with law, the additional income tax for the income from her paraphernal property. LATIN MAXIM: 2b/11g, h, i Quote from the Case: We see no reason for not applying to the instant case the resolution of the United States Department of Treasury passed upon a case that originated in

FACTS: Petitioners warehouse was destroyed by fire while the policy taken out with Respondent for the amount of P10,000 was in force. The Respondent Company has appealed claiming that Petitioner violated a rider on the insurance contract. ISSUE: W/N a rider as forming part of the contract of insurance is null and void because it does not comply with the Philippine Insurance Act. HELD: Yes. A rider attached to the face of the insurance policy and referred to in the

the Philippines, and therefore, arrived at after a consideration of our laws on conjugal properties and those o separate property of husband and wife, quoted with approval Explanation for 3 cases

Latin Maxim: B2 Ambiguitas verborum patens nulla verificatione excluditur (A patent ambiguity can be cleared up by extrinsic evidence) The 3 cases all used this legal maxim. In all 3 cases, the Court removed from the four corners of the law and went to the Court decisions and interpretations of the Court of the State from which the statute/law was copied from. Explanation: When copying the text of the law (of another State), not just the bare text is to be copied. What is also copied is how the words were interpreted, understood and applied by the foreign Courts at the time such law was copied. It is important to note thought that the interpretation of the foreign courts is only persuasive on our courts because we are a sovereign state. The different understanding and interpretation though must be based on good reason.