Properties of public dominion is outside the
commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. The
This case involves a proposal to lease to
a japanese corporation one of the four
properties the Phippine acquired from
Japan under the
Reparations Agreement, namely the
Laurel v. Roppongi Property.
Garcia, G.R.
No. 92013 (25 WoN the Roppongi and its related
July 1990) properties can be sold by the Executive -
NO
The petition is about a parcel of land in
Paranaque, which was registered to Holy
See and was donated to the Papal
Holy See v. Nuncio for his residence. The lots were
Rosario, G.R. sold to Ramon Licup who assigned his
No. G.R. No. rights to Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.
101949 WoN Holy See can invoke sovereign
(December 1, immunity – YES
1994)
Greg Bartelli, an American tourist,
detained and raped 12-year-oldKaren
Salvacion. . The civil case for preliminary
attachment was granted, so the sheriff
Salvacion v. served a Notice of Garnishment on China
Central Bank, Banking Corporation.
G.R. No.
94723 (21 WoN Greg’s dollar deposits are exempt
August 1997) from attachment or garnishment due to
CB Circular No. 960 - NO
PERSONAL LAW, NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE
Mali ata name when I searched it online
Gibbs v Government lumabas pero
linagay ko yung sa pamana
Templeton v. This was a petition by Beatrice to admit
Government, into probate the holographic will of her
59 Phil. 293 mom. The will disposed of all her
(1933) properties to Beatrice and her children.
WoN the deceased established legal
domicile in California? YES
Alcantara v. This is a petition for the issuance of a writ The petitioners are not permitted to return to their
Secretary of of mandamus to compel respondents to
Interior, 61 register the petitioners as qualified
Phil. 459 electors to vote in the plebiscite for the
(1935) approval or rejection of the 1935
Constitution.
WoN the petitioners are residents of
purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical
person, but the citizens; it is intended for the
common and public welfare and cannot be the
object of appropriation
The issues are not concerned with validity of
ownership or title. There is no question that the
property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the
authority of the respondent officials to validly
dispose of property belonging to the State. And the
validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale.
This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex
situs does not apply.
Holy See is immune from suit because the act of
selling the lot of concern is non-propriety in nature.
The lot was acquired through a donation from the
Archdiocese of Manila, not for a commercial
purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct the
official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio
thereof. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire
property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
necessary for the creation and maintenance of its
diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations
In fine, the application of the law depends on the
extent of its justice. Eventually, if the Court rules that
the questioned provision is applicable to a foreign
transient, injustice would result specially to a citizen
aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg
Bartelli. When the statute is silent or ambiguous, it
must be presumed that the lawmaking body
intended justice to prevail.
By looking at the records of the case, the court
notes the intention of the deceased to establish
legal domicile in California.
It is a recognized rule that the intention with which
removal is made from a particular state determines
whether or not the domicile is abandoned; and
intention is revealed only in the acts and declaration
of the person concerned
home to vote and even if they have an intention to
return therein, a mere intention to return to their
former homes, not realized and which may never be
realized should not prevent them from acquiring
residence for voting purposes
Three rules though are well established:
 A man must have a residence or domicile
 somewhere
 Where once established, it remains until a
Culion? SC held YES.
new one is acquired
 A man can have but one domicile at a time

This was a case wherein the

administrator of the estate of Moody was
assessed an inheritance and income tax
The deceased had no deliberate intention to
of the estate and paid such under protest.
Vellila v. establish a new domicile elsewhere when he
The administrator was claiming no law
Posadas, 62 surreptitiously left the Philippines.
allowed the BIR to collect inheritance
Phil. 624 Our Civil Code defines domicile as the “place of
taxes from a person not domiciled in the
(1935) their usual residence”
Philippines

WoN Arthur Moody was domiciled in the

Philippines? YES
This was a petition for review by Gallego,
a winning mayoralty candidate of the
1940 elections, against the RTC and CA
Gallego v. decision voiding his win due to his alleged
Vera, 73 Phil. lack of residency requirement.
450 (1941)
WoN Gallego had been a resident of
Abuyog for at least one year prior to his
election? The YES
Despite him being a registered voter and actually
voted and had a resident certificate in Malaybalay,
Bukidnon, he never had the intention to abandon his
domicile in Abuyog, Leyte
In order to acquire domicile by choice:
 Residence or bodily presence in the new
locality
 An intention to remain there
 An intention to abandon the old domicile

Delfin Co, a minor, was born of Chinese

father Co Suy and mother Florentina
Villahermosa. Delfin left for China after
Mere birth in the Philippines of a Chinese father and
Villhermosa v. his father died. Due to financial
Filipino mother does not ipso facto confer Philippine
Commissione difficulties, he took steps to return to the
citizenship and that jus sanguinis instead off jus soli
r of Philippines. In doing so, he led in
is the predominating factor on questions of
Immigration, smuggling a group of Chinese men into
citizenship.
G.R. No. L- the country
Reacquisition of Filipino citizenship cannot be used
1663 (21
to evade liability for violating immigration laws.
March 1948) WoN Delfin Co reacquired Filipino
citizenship and therefore cannot be
deported? NO

Robert Cu filed a petition for

naturalization. He testified that he was
born in Bulacan; that his mother was a
In re: Robert Filipino citizen as believed his parents
Cu, G.R. No. were not legally married; that he failed to
L-3018 (18 elect Philippine citizenship; hence, he is
July 1951) filing for naturalization.
WoN Robert Cu is qualified to be
naturalized as Filipino citizen? - NO
In naturalization petitions, the Courts are peculiarly
at the mercy of the witnesses offered by the
candidate. The Courts cannot be expected to
possess acquaintance with the candidates with the
presenting themselves for naturalization. A witness
who is incompetent renders an application void.