CASE DIGEST ON EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

By: JOHN PHILLIP C. CORPUZ

Doctrine: Lex Rei Sitae. It is universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively
subject to the laws of the country or state where it is located.

Case Title: Orion Savings Bank vs. Shigekane Suzuki, G.R. No. 205487, A. Brion, November 12,
2014

Facts: In the first week of August 2003, Shigekane Suzuki, who is a Japanese national met
Helen Soneja to inquire on a condominium unit and a parking slot at City Land Pioneer in
Mandaluyong City. The same is owned by Yung Sam Kang, a Korean national. After brief
negotiations including the representations made by Helen on the property, parties agreed for
the sale where Suzuki made two payments representing his down payment and full payment.
Suzuki and Kang then executed a Deed of Absolute Sale.

However, in January 2004, Suzuki filed an action for specific performance and damages against
Kang and Orion in order to protect his interest over the subject property in relation to the
annotation which provided that any conveyance or encumbrance of CCT No. 18186 shall be
subject to approval by the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA).

He alleges among others in his complaint that as of August 2003, he is the registered owner of
the subject property, the mortgage of the said property with orion bank was actually cancelled,
the dacion en pago was never annotated and that orion bank merely paid for the capital gains
tax and the documentary stamp of the said dacion en pago, that the subject property covering
the parking lot was never mortgaged, and that he went to Orion bank to obtain the titles
concerned.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale executed by Kang in favor of Suzuki is null and void.

Held: The Supreme Court said no.

Under the law, real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of the country or
state where it is located. However, property relations between spouses are governed principally
by the national law of the spouses. Thus, matters concerning the title and disposition of real
property shall be governed by Philippine law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of
the property shall be governed by South Korean law, provided it is proven as a fact.

Here, Orion bank unfortunately failed to prove the South Korean law on the conjugal ownership
of property.

Doctrine: Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform
the public of the contents of the laws.

Case Title: NAGKAKAISANG MARALITA NG SITIO MASIGASIG, INC. vs. MILITARY SHRINE
SERVICES – PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
G.R. No. 187587, M. Sereno, June 5, 2013
Facts: On 12 July 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia reserved parcels of land in the Municipalities
of Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Province of Rizal and Pasay City for a military reservation.
On 28 May 1967, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (President Marcos) issued Proclamation No.
208, amending Proclamation No. 423, which excluded a certain area of Fort Bonifacio and
reserved it for a national shrine. The excluded area is now known as Libingan ng mga Bayani.
Again, on 7 January 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, which excluded
barangays Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal Village from the operation of Proclamation
No. 423 and declared it open for disposition under the provisions of Republic Act Nos. (R.A.)
274 and 730.

At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum,
which reads: "P.S. – This includes Western Bicutan. The proclamation was published without
the said handwritten addendum. The members of NMSMI and WBLOAI filed for a petition on
settlement on land problems. They prayed for the reclassification of the areas they are
occupying as already alienable and disposable. The Commission on Settlement of Land
Problems ruled that the handwritten addendum was not published which made the areas
occupied by the petitioners as alienable and disposable.

Issue: Whether or not the handwritten addendum of President Marcos have the force and
effect of law.

Held: No, because it was not included in the publication.

Under the law, the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to
inform the public of the contents of the laws. The phrase "unless otherwise provided" refers to
a different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s
publication in the Official Gazette but does not imply that the requirement of publication may be
dispensed with.

Doctrine: Generality of Penal Laws of the Philippines.

Case Title: Norma A. Del Socorro vs. Ernst Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, D. Peralta,
December 10, 2014

Facts: Petitioner Norma A. Del Socorro and respondent Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem
contracted marriage in Holland on September 25, 1990. They were blessed with a son named
Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. They divorced on July 19, 1995 by virtue of a Divorce Decree
issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Roderigo was only 18 months old. Thereafter,
petitioner and her son came home to the Philippines.

According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to their son in
the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene which is equivalent to Php17,500.00 more or
less. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent never
gave support to Roderigo.

Respondent came to the Philippines and remarried in Pinamungahan, Cebu, and since then,
have been residing thereat. He and his new wife established a business.
Norma, through counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from respondent. However, Ernst
Van refused to receive the letter. Thus, Norma filed a complaint affidavit with the Provincial
Prosecutor of Cebu City against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262. The Provincial Prosecutor
of Cebu City issued a Resolution recommending the filing of an information for the crime
charged against herein Ernst.

On February 19, 2010, the RTC-Cebu issued the herein assailed Order, dismissing the instant
criminal case against Ernst on the ground that the facts charged in the information do not
constitute an offense with respect to the respondent who is an alien.

Norma filed her Motion for Reconsideration reiterating Ernst’s obligation to support their child
under Article 195 of the Family Code. On September 1, 2010, the lower court denied the motion
for reconsideration. Thus, the instant petition before the Supreme Court. Roderigo was 16 years
old when the matter was filed before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for
his unjustified failure to support his minor child.

Held: Yes. Considering that Ernst was currently living in the Philippines when the case was
filed, the Supreme Court found strength in Norma’s claim that the territoriality principle in
criminal law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case.

Here, it is indisputable that the alleged continuing acts of Ernst in refusing to support his child
with Norma is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the
Province of Cebu City. As such, Philippine courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense
charged against Erns. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the Ernst was acquired upon
his arrest.

Doctrine: Philippine law is definite as to what governs the formal or extrinsic validity of
contracts. The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the forms and
solemnities of contracts shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.

Case Title: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, M. Leonen,
January 14, 2015

Facts: Saudi Arabian Airlines is a foreign corporation established and existing under the laws of
Jedah, Saudi Arabia. Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al., were hired and worked as flight attendants
of the said airlines with the accreditation and approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration until their separation in the various dates of 2006.

Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al., filed for illegal dismissal because according to them, they were
terminated due to the sole reason that they were pregnant. They alleged that they informed the
airlines of their pregnancies. They underwent the necessary procedures to process their
maternity benefits. Moreover, they alleged that airlines had given its approval but later on
disapproved the same. Finally, it was alleged that they were asked by the airlines to submit
their resignation letters and that if they will not resign, they will be terminated from
employment.

On the other hand, the airlines affixed its disapproval of respondents maternity leaves and
demand for the resignation letters based on the provision of the “Unified Employment Contract
for Female Cabin Attendants”. The same provides that if the Flight Attendant becomes pregnant
at any time during the term of the contract, it shall render the employment contract as void due
to lack of medical fitness.

Respondents contended that the said contract took effect after the approval of their maternity
benefits. They filed for appeal before the airlines but were all denied. Hence, due to fear of
losing their benefits, they all executed handwritten resignation letters.

Issue: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case.

Held: Yes. Under the rule on conflict of laws, forum non conveniens is a means of addressing
the problem of parallel litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions. According to the Supreme
Court, forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleased as a ground for dismissal, rather
be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity.

Relative hereto, in connection with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it is proper and
practicable, Philippine courts may apply the foreign law selected by the parties. Here, the
airlines made averments as to the laws of Saudi Arabia.

Doctrine: Processual presumption. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and
judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien
must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.

Case Title: Grace Garcia vs. Rederick Recio, G.R. No. 138322, A. Panganiban, October 2, 2001

Facts: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in
Malabon, Rizal, on March 1, 1987 but later on divorced by a decree dissolving their marriage by
an Australian family court. They lived in Australia during their marriage.

On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen. Petitioner, Grace is a Filipina and
respondent were married on January 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan City. In their application for a
marriage license, respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino.

On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the
ground of bigamy. She alleged that petitioner had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he
married her in 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent's marriage to Editha Samson
only in November, 1997. In his Answer, respondent averred that respondent is aware of the
said prior marriage and contended that the same had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree
obtained in Australia.

Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complained be dismissed on the ground that it stated
no cause of action.
Issues: 1. Whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven;

2) Whether respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner.

Held: 1. No. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by Philippine courts, the party
pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law
allowing it. When the divorce decree in May 18, 1989 was submitted in evidence, counsel for
petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but only to the fact that it had not been registered in
the Local Civil Registry of Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject
to petitioner's qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight by the
judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the divorce decree admissible as
a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia.

2. No. There is no evidence that proves respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner. Based
on the records, the Court cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized
Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994.

Doctrine: When the Courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Case Title: Moreto Mirallosa vs. Carmel Development, G.R. No. 194538, M. Sereno, November
27, 2013

Facts: Respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Caloocan City. The same is
called Pangarap Village. Then President Marcos promulgated PD 293 invalidating the said title
which includes orders on the distribution to the members of MHAI. Petitioner still constructed a
house on the said lot.

The Supreme Court declared the said presidential decree as unconstitutional being void as it
produces no right. The respondent then filed case of unlawful detainer against the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not Millarosa is a builder in good faith.

Held: No. The Tuason case have an effect on the rights of the petitioner as it is premised on
the constitutionality of PD 293 which is void thus having no effect and produce no right.
Petitioner cannot also avail of the operative fact doctrine which recognized the interim effects of
a law prior to its declaration of nullity. Petitioner is not a builder in good faith because she
acquired the right from Pelagio, a predecessor in interest.

Doctrine: In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.

Case Title: Ramonito Acaac vs. Melquiades D. Azcuna, Jr. GR No. 187378, E. Bernabe,
September 30, 2013
Facts: PETAL is a non-government organization founded by Ramonito Acaac, which is engaged
in the protection and construction of ecology, tourism, livelihood, projects within Misamis
Occidental. In line with its objectives, PETAL built some cottages made of indigenous materials
on Capayas Island in 1995 as well as seminar cottage in 20021 which it rented out to the public
and became the source of livelihood of its beneficiaries, among whom are petitioners.

However, they were ordered by the Municipal Mayor to demolish the structure because it was
not secured by any permit for its construction and thereafter an ordinance was enacted. It
provides that Capayas Island being a sanctuary, that no company may enter and construct any
structure without prior approval.

Petitioner averred that the ordinance did not get the approval of the Sangguniang Panglungsod
and did not go through publication.

Issue: Whether or not the subject ordinance is valid and enforceable against petitioners.

Held: Yes. In accordance with the presumption of validity in favor of an ordinance, its legality
should be upheld in the absence of any showing that the process prescribed by law was not
observed in the enactment.

It is legally correct to assume that the officials have done what the law requires them to do.

Doctrine: To be vested, a right must have become a title legal or equitable to the person of
future employment of property.

Case Title: Brigido Quiao vs. Rita Quiao, et.al., G.R No. 176556, B. Reyes, July 2, 2012

Facts: Respondent filed for legal separation being an innocent spouse, upon the inventory of
the property sha has granted a custody of the children one half of the property and the other
half to the minor.

Petitioner asked the Court several times as regards the term ‘net profit’ but did not assai the
decision.

Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of a vested right of the petitioner; and
Whether or not it is equitable and justifiable to use net profit for the distribution of the
property that are conjugal.

Held: None. There was no violation of vested right, it should be legal and equitable to the
present or future enjoyment of property. Having no other property other than that conjugal, the
half is vested to the innocent spouse and the other half to the minor.

Doctrine: The rule on Nationality. Article 15 of the Civil Code.

Case Title: Lavadia vs. Heirs of Juan Luces Luna, GR No. 171194, L. Bersamin, July 23, 2014
Facts: Atty. Luna and Eugenia were married and had 7 children in 1966. They mutually agreed
to live separate lives. They obtained divorce decree in the Dominican Republic. They both
executed an agreement for separation of property and settlement on that same day Atty. Luna
and Soledad got married.

One of the property disputed is the condominium unit which Atty. Luna was name 25/100 pro-
division owner. When Atty. Luna died, his son administered the property by having it leased.
Solidad argued before the Court that she was deprived as a co-owner of the property because
the previous marriage was already dissolved by a divorce decree.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia was validly dissolved by
the divorce decree obtained in Dominican Republic.

Held: No. The Nationality Rule applies to the case at bar. Under the law, Laws relating to
family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

There was no valid marriage between Atty. Luna And Eugenia. Hence, Soledad’s marriage,
being bigamous, she is obliged to present valid evidence to support her claim as co-owner.

Doctrine: Conflict of laws rule on forum non-conveniens.

Case Title: Kazuhiro Hasegawa vs. Minuro Nikamura, GR. No. 149177; November 23, 2007,
A. Nachura

Facts: Petitioner engaged the services of respondent through independent contracting

arrangement as project manager of STAR Toll. At the near completion of the project,
petitioner was able to secure another project and confirmed the ICA, but nearing the end of
the contract, petitioner informed the respondent that upon completion of STAR Toll they will
not renew the contract. Respondent requested himself to be transferred to the new project
but no positive response was given. Lurking to the possible unemployment, he sought the
guidance of RTC Lipa for specific performance. RTC ruled in favor of respondent.

Petitioner argued that RTC does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because it
was an agreement between 2 Japanese nationals.

Issue: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

Held: Yes. For the motion to dismiss to be granted, the amount must show that the court or
tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grant such power.

To ascertain which case should be applied to a dispute, the Court should determine which
state has the substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties.