a.

Exceptions to the Application of Foreign Law

Case Doctrine
Dacanay v. The provision of article 669 of the Civil Code prohibiting the execution
Florendo of a will by two or more persons conjointly or in the same instrument
(1950) either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person, is not
unwise and is not against public policy. The reason for this provision,
especially as regards husband and wife, is that when a will is made jointly
or in the same instrument, the spouse who is more aggressive, stronger in
will or character and dominant is liable to dictate the terms of the will for
his or her own benefit or for that of third persons whom he or she desires
to favor. And, where the will is not only joint but reciprocal, either one of
the spouses who may happen to be unscrupulous, wicked, faithless or
desperate, knowing as he or she does the terms of the will whereby the
whole property of the spouses both conjugal and paraphernal goes to the
survivor, may be tempted to kill or dispose of the other.
Yao Kee, et al To establish a valid foreign marriage two things must be proven, namely:
v. Sy- (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact; and (2) the
Gonzales alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.
(1988)
Accordingly, in the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it
should be presumed that it is the same as ours . . . Since Yao Kee
admitted in her testimony that there was no solemnizing officer as is
known here in the Philippines [See Article 56, Civil Code] when her
alleged marriage to Sy Kiat was celebrated it therefore follows that her
marriage to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in this
jurisdiction.
Bank of The well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial
America v. notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and
American proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded
Realty and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as
Corporation our local or domestic or internal law. This is what we refer to as the
(1999) doctrine of processual presumption.

In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter
were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section 24, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee et
al v. Gonzales, said foreign law would still not find applicability. Thus,
when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and
established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or
order shall not be applied.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property,

and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country. The public policy sought to be protected in the instant
case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting
up of a single cause of action. Moreover, foreign law should not be
applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the
citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important
function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously
unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.
1
2