C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y .

T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

The compromise agreement should not be invalidated.

Case for nullification of already approved compromise
agreement by Benedicto (Marcos crony) & PCGG for
cases related stolen government funds and properties (in
While the rule of lex loci celebrationis US, Switzerland & PH).
entered into freely and voluntarily by the parties.
1. Issue on fraud: The SC agreed with the SBs findings
that the contract on its face does not appear to be
contrary to law, morals, or public policy and that it was

generally governs forms and solemnities of

contracts under Article 17 of the Civil Under the compromise agreement, Benedicto and his 2. Issue on estoppel: A party that availed himself of and
Code, the principle of lex rei sitae group-controlled corporations ceded to the government complied with the provisions of a judicial compromise
REPUBLIC OF THE generally applies with respect to formalities certain pieces of property listed in Annex A of the is under estoppel to question its validity.

PHILIPPINES VS agreement and assigned or transferred whatever

Conflict Rules Marcos Crony, for the acquisition, encumbrance, and rights he may have, if any, to the government over all 3. Issue on the validity due to the fact that the agreement
1 SANDIGANBAYAN ET on Property: authentication alienation of real and personal property.
corporate assets listed in Annex B of the agreement.
was not authenticated before the consular officials
AL Lex Rei Sitae by Consul abroad and without the participation of witnesses and
GR 108292, 10
And relative to this precept on lex situs, PCGG in turn, lifted the sequestrations over the property
SEPTEMBER 1993 Philippine substantive law is certainly clear of the Solicitor General.

on the matter that contracts are obligatory, listed in Annex Cas well as other assets mentioned in the The fact that the compromise agreement was not
in whatever form they may have been agreement and extended absolute immunity to
Benedicto, his fam and employees.
authenticated before the consular officers abroad, as well
entered into, subject to the existence of all as the absence of witnesses, cannot be of much legal
the essential requisites for their validity. PCGG (new management) contended it be invalidated:
significance under Philippine law inasmuch as the
1) consent was obtained through fraud
requirement under Article 1358(a) of the Civil Code, that a
contract intended to extinguish or transmit real rights
2) agreement was not authenticated by consul & slogan over the immovables must be in a public document is
merely designed for greater efficacy or convenience.
Sale of 3,179 sqm property in Roppongi, which includes
(1) Nampeidai Property (Philippine Embassy Chancery); 1. As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is
(2) Kobe Commercial Property (warehouse and parking outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated.
We see no reason why a conflict of law rule lot); and (3) Kobe Residential Property (vacant).
There can be no doubt that the property is of public
should apply when no conflict of law Reparations Agreement provides that reparations dominion and the respondents have failed to show that
situation exists.
valued at $550 million would be payable in twenty (20) it has become patrimonial.

A conflict of law situation arises only when:

years. The procurements are divided into those for use 2. The Roppongi property is correctly classified under
LAUREL VS GARCIA 1) There is a dispute over the title or by the government sector and those for private parties.
paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as
GR 92013, 25 JULY ownership of an immovable, such that Philippine Embassy was transfrred to Nampeidai and property belonging to the State and intended for some
1990
the capacity to take and transfer Roponggi properry has remained undeveloped ever public service. The fact that the Roppongi site has not
immovables, the formalities of since. A proposal to renovate the property at the been used for a long time for actual Embassy service
PET: SALVADOR LAUREL
Conflict Rules Roppongi expense of a would-be lessee was not acted upon so does not automatically convert it to patrimonial
2 (VICE PRESIDENT)
on Property:
Properties conveyance, the essential validity and property. Any such conversion happens only if the
Lex Rei Sitae effect of the transfer, or the interpretation Pres Aquino issued E.O. 296 selling the said property.

RESP: RAMON GARCIA property is withdrawn from public use.

(ASSET PRIVATIZATION and effect of a conveyance, are to be Petitioner (VP Laurel) opposed that lots are classified as
TRUST), RAUL MANGLAPUS determined; and
public dominion, and not of private ownership under 3. No conflict of law. In the instant case, none of the
(SEC OF FA), CATALINO elements exists. The issues are not concerned with
MACARAIG (EXEC SEC) 2) A foreign law on land ownership and its Art. 420 of CC and no ownership can attach to it, not
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a even the state, and cannot be appropriated for being validity of ownership or title. There is no question that
domestic law on the same matters.
outside the commerce of man.
the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is
the authority of the respondent officials to validly
Hence, the need to determine which law Respondents argued that property is not governed by dispose of property belonging to the State. And the
should apply. our Civil Code but laws of Japan where the property is validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale.
located, relying upon rule of lex situs which is used in This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex
determining the applicable law regarding the acquisition, situs does not apply.
transfer and devolution of the title to a property

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 1 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

1. Foreign laws do not prove themselves
nor can the courts take judicial notice of
them. Like any other fact, they must be Petitioners purchased 3 airline tickets with confirmed
alleged and proved. Written law may be reservations from respondent. They had 2 discount 1. Yes, there was fraud or bad faith on the part of
evidenced by an official publication tickets and 1 full fare.
respondent airline.

SPOUSES ZALAMEA thereof or by a copy attested by the 2 days before their flight, they received reconfirmation of 2. Court's finding that overbooking is specifically allowed
VS COURT OF officer having the legal custody of the by the US Code of Federal Regulations has no basis
record, or by his deputy, and their reservation. However, on the day of the flight, they
APPEALS & were placed on waitlist and those with full-fare tickets in fact.

TRANSWORLD Imong mama accompanied with a certificate that such

nabilin sa flight officer has custody. The certificate may were given priority. Mr. Zalamea board the plane first. 3. The principle of lex loci contractus applies. This
AIRLINES, INC NY to LA; be made by a secretary of an embassy or
Mrs. Zalamea and her daughter could not be principle requires that the law of the place where the
3 (TWAI) accommodated on the next flights which constrained
legation, consul general, consul, vice- airline ticket was issued should be applied by the court
GR 104235, 18 T-wai (TY) sa them to book another flight from American Airlines where the passengers are residents and nationals of
NOVEMBER 1993 flight consul, or consular agent or by any officer costing them $918.

in the foreign service of the Philippines the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the
stationed in the foreign country in which RTC ruled TWA breached its contract of carriage and defendant airline. Since the tickets were sold and
PET: CESAR C. ZALAMEA the record is kept, and authenticated by breach was characterized by bad faith.
issued in the Philippines, the applicable law in this
AND SUTHIRA ZALAMEA
the seal of his office.
case would be Philippine law. Existing Philippine
CA — breach of contract of carriage only hen there is jurisprudence explicitly states that overbooking
2. Principle of lex loci contractus which fraud or bad faith. Overbooking is common accepted amounts to bad faith.
requires that the law of the place where practice in US and allowed, hence, no fraud or bad faith.
the airline ticket was issued should be
applied by the court.
Ancieto Fontanilla purchased from United Airlines through
the Philippine Travel Bureau 3 tickets to US (DC, Chicago
Apply the doctrine of lex loci contractus. & LA). All flights had been confirmed previously the Philippine law is applicable in the case at bar.
The law of the place where a contract is United Airlines.
Although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in
made or entered into governs with respect the United States, the tickets were purchased through
to its nature and validity, obligation and While in Washington DC, Ancieto bought 2 more coupons
each for his wife and son. After they checked in, the petitioners agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were
interpretation. This has been said to be the rewritten in Washington, D.C. However, such fact did not
UNITED AIRLINES rule even though the place where the stewardess at the gate did not allow them to board as
INC VS CA & they had no assigned seat numbers and directed them to change the nature of the original contract of carriage
contract was made is different from the entered into by the parties in Manila.

FONTANILLA Conflict Rules US family place where it is to be performed, and go back to the check in counter.

4 GR 124110, 20 APRIL
on Contracts: vacation gone particularly so, if the place of the making The law of the forum on the subject matter is Economic
Intrinsic Validity wrong Linda, (girl from check in counter) who treated them
2001 and the place of performance are the same.
arrogantly and uttered discriminatory words, informed Regulations No. 7 provides that check-in requirement be
complied with before a passenger may claim against a
Hence, the court should apply the law of the them that the flight had been overbooked, and were not carrier for being denied boarding: “Sec. 5 …carriers shall
place where the airline ticket was issued, immediately booked on the next flight, which prompted
them to file a civil case.
pay to passengers holding confirmed reserved space and
when the passengers are residents and who have presented themselves at the proper place and
nationals of the forum and the ticket is UA contended Fontanillas did not check in to get their time and fully complied with the carriers check-in and
issued in such State by the defendant seat assignments and that they booked them on the next
airline. reconfirmation procedures…”
available flight and offered boarding compensation.

RTC dismissed. CA reversed and favored Fontanillas.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 2 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

Korean Technologies CO., Ltd (KOGIES) is engaged in the
supply and installation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG) Cylinder manufacturing plants, while private The Supreme Court ruled the arbitration clause of their
respondents Pacific General Street Manufacturing Corp contract was valid and binding. Lex Loci Contractus. (Di
is a domestic corporation.
ko sure pero murag nagsayop na sad ang SC diri) Under
The two entered into an agreement whereby KOGIES the PH jurisdiction, the law of the place where the
would set up an LPG Cylinder Manufacturing Plant in contract was made governs. In this case, it was executed
Cavite. Under the contract, if ever there will be a dispute in the Philippines. Thus, Philippine laws will apply. Article
between the two parties, the Commercial Arbitration 2044 stated that: “Any stipulation that the arbitrators’
Rules of the Korean Arbitration Board will apply. It award or decision shall be final, is valid.” This clause was
was agreed voluntarily by the parties. The contract was agreed upon between the parties. It is not contrary to any
executed in the Philippines.
law, morals, good customs, public policy or public order.

The Contract and its amendment stipulated that KOGIES The Supreme in Gonzales vs. Climax Mining Ltd. and in
KOREA will ship the machinery and facilities necessary for Del Monte Corp-USA vs. CA, that a clause in contract
TECHNOLOGIES CO. manufacturing LPG cylinders and install it for a stipulated providing that all matters in dispute between the parties
price. However, after the installation, the initial shall be referred to arbitration is a contract.

VS HON. ALBERTO Arbitration clause is not against public policy. operation could not be conducted as PGSMC Having ruled that the arbitration clause of the subject
LERMA & PGSMC The arbitration clause which stipulates that
GR 143581, 7 JANUARY
encountered financial difficulties. Both agreed that contract is valid and binding on the parties, and not
2008 Arbitration in the arbitration must be done in Seoul, Korea KOGIES would be deemed to have complied with the contrary to public policy; consequently, being bound to
5 in accordance with the Commercial terms and conditions of the contract. KOGIES would be
Korea the contract of arbitration, a party may not unilaterally
Arbitration Rules of the KCAB, and that the deemed to have successfully initiated its operation.
rescind or terminate the contract for whatever cause
PET: KOREA arbitral award is final and binding, is not
TECHNOLOGIES CO.
contrary to public policy. PGSMC paid its balance through checks which without first resorting to arbitration.

(KOGIES)
bounced. KOGIES sent demand letters threatening to
RESP: PACIFIC GENERAL file a criminal case. PGSMC sent a letter that it was
STEEL MANUFACTURING
CORP. (PGSMC) cancelling their contract on the ground that KOGIES had
altered the quantity and lowered the quality of the
machineries and equipment it delivered to PGSMC.
KOGIES informed the latter that it could not unilaterally
rescind the contract and their dispute should be settled
by arbitration stated in their agreement. Thus, an
application for arbitration in Korea.
law.
The Supreme Court also discussed in this case that
foreign arbitrations should be confirmed first by the
Regional Trial Court. This is pursuant to RA 9285. Foreign
arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by the parties in
the arbitration clause to be final and binding are not
immediately enforceable or cannot be implemented
immediately. Upon the confirmation of the RTC, it now is
enforced as final and executory decisions of our courts of

PGSMC contended that the arbitration clause is null and Considering that it is still reviewable by the RTC, the
void for being against public policy as it ousts the local contention of PGSMC that the arbitration clause ousts
courts of jurisdiction over the controversy.
the jurisdiction of the PH courts is not true because
The RTC agreed with PGSMC that the clause intended to foreign arbitral awards are not absolute and without
oust court disputes that will arise between the parties exceptions as they are still judicially reviewable.
thus it is invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 3 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

Trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit but not
to enforce the contract which is void. But the
circumstances of the case call for a remand of the case
to the trial court in order to determine the child’s custody

1. The agreement is illegal for being contrary to law.

Herald Dacasin (Herald) is an American and Sharon
Dacasin (Sharon) Filipino were married. They have 1
daughter, Stephanie. Sharon obtained from Illinois court
a divorce decree against her husband. The marriage was
Nor can petitioner rely on the divorce dissolved and sole custody was given to Sharon. Illinois
decrees alleged invalidity - not because the court reserved jurisdiction for enforcement.
contrary is void.
The contract was void. It would have been valid if they
were still living together but they were already
separated. Upon separation of the spouses, the
mother takes sole custody under the law if the child is
below seven years old and any agreement to the

HERALD BLACK Illinois court lacked jurisdiction or that the

DACASIN VS Conflict Rules
In manila they executed a contract for joint custody over 2. As to the legality of the divorce. The divorce is legal,
divorce decree violated Illinois law, but the child. They choose Philippine Courts as exclusive based on the case of Van Dorn which was cited by the
6 SHARON DEL on Personal
The agreement because the divorce was obtained by his
Law: Rules on forum to adjudicate disputes arising from the agreement. court here, the foreign spouse is bound by the divorce
MUNDO DACASIN Divorce Filipino spouse - to support the Agreements Sharon undertook to get order from Illinois court validly obtained abroad and he may not question it
GR 168785, 5 FEBRUARY enforceability. The argument that foreigners relinquishing jurisdiction to Philippine Court.
validity to enforce the contract he had with Sharon.
2010 in this jurisdiction are not bound by foreign Thus, it should be clear by now that a foreign divorce
divorce decrees is hardly novel. Herald sued Sharon for violation of the agreement in decree carries as much validity against the alien
Makati. Sharon said the court had no jurisdiction due to divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction
the reservation of Illinois Court.

of the aliens’ nationality, irrespective of who obtained

Trial court ruled in favor of Sharon saying it had no the divorce.

jurisdiction over the matter.
3. As to the custody of the child. The court ruled that as
Stephanie is already 15 yrs old and invoking the rule of
the paramount interest of the child, it is better to
remand the case to the lower court because by
executing the agreement, the parties showed the
interest to honor the same.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 4 O F 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

and respondent is not considered to be in default under
No conflicts rule on essential validity of
contracts is expressly provided for in our
State Organization of Buildings (SOB) awarded a No, petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement because
construction of a PT Medical Rehab Center to Ayjal the contract entered into was in the nature of a guaranty
Trading for $18M.
Joint venture agreement = 3-Plex (execution of entire the doctrine of processual presumption.

laws. The rule followed by most legal
In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection
systems, however, is that the intrinsic
validity of a contract must be governed by
the lex contractus or "proper law of the
Hence, the issue of whether respondent VPECI defaulted
contract." This is the law voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or
the law intended by them either expressly or
or proved, the presumption of identity or similarity,
PHIL. EXPORT AND implicitly (the lex loci intentionis). The law
FOREIGN LOAN selected may be implied from such factors
comes into play. Where foreign law is not pleaded or,
GUARANTY CORP. as substantial connection with the
VS V.P. EUSEBIO transaction, or the nationality or domicile of
project) + Ayjal (commission of 4%)
3-Plex is not accredited Because 3-Plex is not accredited
by PH Overseas Construction Board (POCB), it assigned
and transferred all its rights and interests to VPECI.
SOB required contractors to submit a performance bond.
3-Plex & VPECI applied with Philguarantee.
Rafidain Bank issued performance bond to SOB and Al
Ahli Bank of Kuwait issued counter-guarantee.
This case involves a contract with three layers of
to the transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi
Government and the place of performance is in Iraq.
in its obligations may be determined by the laws of Iraq.
However, since that foreign law was not properly pleaded
otherwise known as the processual presumption,
even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that
foreign law is the same as ours.

the parties.
counterbonds. VPECI was called upon to reimburse the
CONSTRUCTION Conflict Rules third guarantor, Phil Guarantee.
Our law, specifically Article 1169, last paragraph, of the
7 INC, ET AL on Contracts: Iraqi Contract Philippine courts would do well to adopt the Civil Code, provides: "In reciprocal obligations, neither
GR 140047, 13 JULY
Intrinsic Validity
first and most basic rule in most legal Phil Guarantee’s argument: All the performance bonds
2004 were validly called. VP Eusebio should be liable to party incurs in delay if the other party does not comply or
systems, namely, to allow the parties to is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is
select the law applicable to their contract, reimburse the guarantor, Phil Guarantee, on the basis of
its solidary undertaking and they entered into was a incumbent upon him.”

PET: PHILGUARANTEE subject to the limitation that it is not against

RESP: VPECI, 3-PLEX the law, morals, or public policy of the forum contract of surety. It was alleged that he incurred delay As a rule, a guarantor who pays for a debtor should be
and that the chosen law must bear a since the project was not completed within the stipulated indemnified by the latter 67 and would be legally
substantive relationship to the transaction.
completion period.
subrogated to the rights which the creditor has against
VP Eusebio’s argument: It is not liable because it did not the debtor. 68 However, a person who makes payment
Foreign law was not properly pleaded or without the knowledge or against the will of the debtor
proved, PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION will incur in delay. The reason for the delay is attributable not
to VP Eusebio but to the Iraqi government. Therefore, has the right to recover only insofar as the payment has
apply.
been beneficial to the debtor.

Where foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
From the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial
pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is
that foreign law is the same as ours.
since it did not incur any delay, it did not violate the
terms and conditions of the agreement.
court, it is clear that the payment made by the petitioner
The liability on the performance bond is premised on the
liability of the principal contractor. If the contractor is not guarantor did not in any way benefit the principal debtor,
liable, then the guarantor is not liable. There was no given the project status and the conditions obtaining at
basis to call on the guaranty of their performance bond. the Project site at that time.

Spouses Audrey O'Neill (Audrey) and Richard Guersey

(Richard) were American citizens who have resided in the
PH for 30 years and has an adopted daughter, Kyle Hill.
residing in the PH but domiciled in Maryland and her
1971 - Audrey died leaving a will and bequeathed her
entire estate to Richard. Will was probated in Baltimore
which named James Philips as executor due to Richard’s
renunciation of appointment. Court also named Atty.
1. US law is applicable. During Audrey’s death, she was
will was probated there. Being a foreign national, the
intrinsic validity of Audrey's will, especially with
regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by her
national law.

ALONZO ANCHETA The entire Ancheta as ancillary administrator.

2. YES there exist extrinsic fraud to qualify as an
VS CANDELARIA estate is 1981 - Richard then married Candelaria Dalaygon with exception to annul the partition.

GUERSEY- bequeathed to whom he was two children.

8 my husband, 3. YES. The Court may take judicial notice of the law
DALAYGON 1982 - Audrey’s will was admitted to probate in Rizal. despite failure to prove the same. In this case, given
GR 139868, 8 JUNE
which is now
2006 entirely mine Petitioner filed for inventory and appraisal.
that the pertinent law of the State of Maryland has
1984 - Richard died leaving a will where he bequeathed been brought to record before the CA, then Audrey's
his entire estate to respondent and his rights and and Richard's estate should be distributed according
interests over A/G interiors for Kyle. Will was also to their respective wills.Consequently, the entire
probated in Baltimore and James was appointed as Makati property belongs to respondent.

executor and designated Atty. Quasha, or any member of 4. YES. The prohibition against acquisition of private
the law office as administrator.
lands by aliens was cured.
1986 - Richard’s will was submitted for probate in Makati.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 5 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

Section 1, Rule 73 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that if the
decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the RTC of the province where he 2001 - Ruperta Palaganas (Ruperta), Filipino who became 1. Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed
has an estate may take cognizance of the naturalized US citizen, died single and childless. In her by foreigners abroad although the same have not as
settlement of such estate.
will she executed in California, she designated her yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their
brother, Sergio, as the executor of her will for she had execution. A foreign will can be given legal effects in
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 76 further state that left properties in the Philippines and in the US.

the executor, devisee, or legatee named in our jurisdiction.

the will, or any other person interested in the 2003 - Ernesto (brother) filed in RTC for appointment as 2. The rules do not require proof that the foreign will
PALAGANAS VS Naturalized US estate, may, at any time after the death of special administrator of her estate. However, petitioners
citizen has already been allowed and probated in the
PALAGANAS the testator, petition the court having Manuel & Benjamin (nephews) opposed that will country of its execution.

GR 169144, 26 JANUARY executed a will jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether should be probated US where she executed it else it will
2011 in California be invalid for being executed under duress without full 3. Reprobate or re-authentication of a will already
9 the same be in his possession or not, or is probated and allowed in a foreign country is different
with properties lost or destroyed.
understanding of the consequences. They claimed
PET: MANUEL & in the Ernesto was not qualified to be administrator.
from that probate where the will is presented for the
BENJAMIN Philippines and Our rules require merely that the petition for first time before a competent court. Reprobate is
RESP: ERNESTO US the allowance of a will must show, so far RTC issued order admitting Ruperta’s will and appointing specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.
as known to the petitioner:
Ernesto as administrator and issuing letters of special Contrary to petitioner’s stance, since this latter rule
a) the jurisdictional facts; b) the names, administrator.
applies only to reprobate of a will, it cannot be made
ages, and residences of the heirs, legatees, CA affirmed that RTC properly allowed the probate of the to apply to the present case. In reprobate, the local
and devisees of the testator or decedent; c) will, subject to respondent Ernestos submission of the court acknowledges as binding the findings of the
the probable value and character of the authenticated copies of the documents specified in the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over the
property of the estate; d) the name of the order and his posting of require bond. matter can be established.
person for whom letters are prayed; and e) if
the will has not been delivered to the court,
the name of the person having custody of it.
Perez does NOT have legal interest in the annulment
Legal interest, which entitles a person to case because she was never the legal wife of Tristan.

intervene, must be in the matter in litigation

and of such direct and immediate character When petitioner and Tristan married on 1984, Tristan was
that the intervenor will either gain or lose by Tristan Catindig married Lily Gomez-Catindig twice and still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that
direct legal operation and effect of the bore 4 children. Years after, the couple obtained a Tristan and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic
judgment. Such interest must be actual, divorce from Dominican Republic. RTC ordered the never dissolved the marriage bond between them.

ELMAR PEREZ VS direct and material, and not simply complete separation of properties between them.
If a Filipino regardless of whether he or she was married
CA & CATINDIG contingent and expectant.
Tristan married Elmar Perez (petitioner) in Virginia. When here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an
GR 162580, 27 JANUARY First wife vs It is basic that laws relating to family rights Elmar learned of the first marriage, she assured that their absolute divorce from spouse and eventually becomes
10 2006
Second wife and duties, or to the status, condition and union be legalized after annulment of first marriage.
successful in getting an absolute divorce decree, the
legal capacity of persons are binding upon Philippines will not recognize such absolute divorce.

Tristan filed petition for declaration of nullity of his

RESP: TRISTAN CATINDIG citizens of the Philippines, even though marriage to Lily in RTC of QC. Petitioner filed motion for A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and
& LILIY GOMEZ-CATINDIG
living abroad.
leave to file intervention claiming that she has legal decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code
Regardless of where a citizen of the interest in the matter of litigation.
(Rep. Act No. 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid
Philippines might be, he or she will be in this jurisdiction.

RTC granted. CA reversed.

governed by Philippine laws with respect to Thus, petitioner’s claim that she is the wife of Tristan even
his or her family rights and duties, or to his if their marriage was celebrated abroad lacks merit. Thus,
or her status, condition and legal capacity. petitioner never acquired the legal interest as a wife upon
which her motion for intervention is based.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 6 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

In the present case, it is not disputed that the Contract of
1996, Rusel was employed as GP/AB seaman by Employment entered into by and between petitioners and
manning agency, PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. (PCL private respondent was executed here in the Philippines
Shipping) for and in behalf of its foreign principal, U-Ming with the approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Marine Transport Corporation (U-Ming Marine). Rusel Administration (POEA).

thereby joined the vessel MV Cemtex General (MV Hence, the Labor Code together with its implementing
Cemtex)
rules and regulations and other laws affecting labor apply
While Rusel was cleaning the vessels kitchen, he slipped, in this case.

PCL SHIPPING and suffered a broken and/or sprained ankle on his left
PHILIPPINES VS Accordingly, as to the requirement of notice and hearing in
foot. A request for medical examination was flatly the case of a seafarer, the Court has already ruled in a
NLRC AND STEVE Conflict Rules Seaman jumps Law of the place where the contract was denied by the captain of the vessel. Feeling an
11 on Contracts:
ship executed governs number of cases that before a seaman can be dismissed
RUSEL Intrinsic Validity unbearable pain in his ankle, Rusel jumped off the vessel and discharged from the vessel, it is required that he be
GR 153031, 14 using a life jacket and swam to shore. He was brought to given a written notice regarding the charges against him
DECEMBER 2006 a hospital where he was confined for eight (8) days.
and that he be afforded a formal investigation where he
A vessels agent fetched Rusel from the hospital and was could defend himself personally or through a
required to board a plane bound for the Philippines.
representative.

Rusel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment
of wages, overtime pay, claim for medical benefits, sick
leave pay and damages against PCL Shipping and U-
Ming Marine before the arbitration branch of the NLRC
1. The Applicable Law is ??????. Foreign laws do not
Lorenzo and Paula Llorente were married in 1937.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our Lorenzo departed for US as serviceman of the US Navy
jurisdiction and our courts are not (1927-1957) and was naturalized.
doctrine.
Hence, the employer should strictly comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing without regard to the
nature and situs of employment or the nationality of the
employer. Petitioners failed to comply with these twin
requirements.
prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are
not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved. CA &
TC called the renvoi doctrine. (1) Cannot apply general
American law. (2) No showing of application of renvoi

Wife having authorized to take judicial notice of them. When he returned in 1945, his wife was pregnant and was 2. Validity of the Foreign Divorce. We hold that the
LLORENTE VS Like any other fact, they must be alleged
LLORENTE relationship living in with his brother. Lorenzo returned to the US and divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. Llorente from his first
12
with husband's and proved; Divorce and its legal effects
Divorce
GR 124371, 23
secured a divorce in Calu and married Alicia in Manila.
wife Paula was valid and recognized in this
brother may be recognized in the Philippines insofar jurisdiction as a matter of comity. Now, the effects of
NOVEMBER 2000
as respondent is concerned in view of the Alicia had no knowledge of the first marriage. He
nationality principle in our civil law on the executed a will in favor of Alicia and their 3 children.
this divorce (as to the succession to the estate of the
status of persons. decedent) are matters best left to the determination of
When he died, Paula filed letters of administration which the trial court.

was opposed by Alicia.

3. Validity of the will. The case was remanded to the
court of origin for determination of the intrinsic validity
of Lorenzo’s will and determination of the parties’
successional rights allowing proof of foreign law.
Gerbert Corpuz was a Filipino citizen who acquired An alien spouse can claim no right under the second
Canadian citizenship through naturalization on 2000. 
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the
substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino
2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas, spouse.

Canadian a Filipina, in Pasig City. 

Even though petitioner is an alien, it does not strip him of

GERBERT CORPUZ naturalized Due to work and other professional commitments, legal interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his
VS DAISYLYN TIROL citizen, Filipino Rights under Family Code Article 26, Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding. He foreign divorce decree.

13 STO. TOMAS spouse, foreign paragraph b is not for aliens but for the returned to the Philippines to surprise Daisylyn, but was
G.R. NO. 186571, 11 decree of Filipino spouse. shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair Gerbert attached to his petition a copy of the divorce
AUGUST 2010 divorce, civil with another man. Hurt and disappointed, Gerbert decree, as well as the required certificates proving its
registry returned to Canada and filed a petition for divorce.
authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the Canadian
law on divorce. Instead of dismissal, the Court remanded
Gerbert found another Filipino fiancée so he filed a the case to the trial court, given the Article 26 interests
petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and that will be served and the Filipina wife's (Daisylyn's)
declaration of marriage as dissolved with the RTC. obvious conformity with the petition.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 7 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2 AT T Y . T ORREGOS A

CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS RULING

1. No. First marriage was not dissolved. When Atty.
Atty. Juan Luna married Eugenia Zaballero. After 20 years Luna married his first wife, the law in force was the
and 7 children, they agreed to live apart. They executed Spanish Civil Code. It adopted the nationality rule,
a document entitled "Agreement For Separation And which held that Philippine laws relating to family rights
Property Settlement" whereby they agreed to live and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
separately and to dissolve and liquidate their conjugal capacity of persons were binding upon citizens of the
Dominican partnership of property. In the Dominican Republic, Atty. Philippines, although living abroad. As long as the
SOLEDAD LAVADIA Republic Under the nationality rule, Philippine laws on Luna obtained a divorce decree and married petitioner public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no
VS HEIRS OF JUAN divorce leads to status follow Filipinos abroad; thus, divorces Soledad Lavadia.
divorce decree dissolving the marriage between them
14 LUCES LUNA case over law obtained abroad by Filipinos are invalid and can ever be given legal or judicial recognition and
books and Luna got 25/100 of the condo for a new law firm. After he
G.R. NO. 171914, 23 unenforceable. died, the area was leased to Gregorio Luna (son of 1st enforcement in this jurisdiction. Thus, the divorce
JULY 2014 share of condo obtained in the Dominican Republic did not dissolve
unit marriage).

the marriage between Atty. Luna and Eugenia

Lavadia filed complaint alleging properties were acquired Zaballero.

during her marriage with Luna.

2. Atty. Luna’s marriage to Soledad Lavadia was void ab
RTC held Luna acquired his share in through his sole initio for being bigamous. The properties acquired
industry and Lavadia be owner of foreign law books. during their marriage were governed by the rules on
co-ownership.
1. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does
not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a marriage where
Fujiki (Japanese) married Maria Marinay. Fujiki’s parents one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.

For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign

judgment relating to the status of a marriage did not approve of the marriage and could not bring her 2. Yes. A husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a
where one of the parties is a citizen of a to Japan so they lost contact.
petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
foreign country, the petitioner only needs to Marinay met another Japanese (without first marriage subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy.
prove the foreign judgment as a fact under being dissolved) and married Maekara who brought her While the Philippines does not have a divorce law,
the Rules of Court through:
to Japan. She suffered physical abuse and left to find Philippine courts may, however, recognize a foreign
(1) an official publication or
Fujiki. They were able to obtain a judgement from family divorce decree under the second paragraph of Article
FUJIKI VS MARINAY Japanese court in Japan declaring the marriage as void (bigamy).
26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a Filipino citizen
15 G.R. NO. 196049, 26 (2) a certification or copy attested by the to remarry when his or her foreign spouse obtained a
JUNE 2013 bigamy Fujiki filed in RTC that the judgement in Japan be
officer who has custody of the judgment.
divorce decree abroad.

recognized and bigamous marriage be declared void.


If the office which has custody is in a foreign RTC dismissed that petition may solely by filed by H or W.

country such as Japan, the certification may
be made by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer of the Philippine foreign
service in Japan and authenticated by the
declared void from the beginning under Article 35 (4) of
seal of office.
Fujiki contended that the Japanese judgment was
consistent with the family code of PH and entitled to be
recognized by PH courts.
While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese
Family Court judgment is fully consistent with
Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are
the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349
of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the
existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in
accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in
relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of
Court.

(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01 PAGE 8 OF 9
C ON F L I C T OF L AW S ( 2019) C AS ES - B AT C H 2
CASES TOPIC KEY PRINCIPLE FACTS
Vicente and Rebecca were married in Mandaluyong City.
On its face, the Marriage Certificate identified Rebecca
to be an American citizen born in USA to Cesar,
American, and Helen, American.
divorce, she was an American citizen and remains to be
1982 - In California, Rebecca gave birth to Alix. From
then on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship
seemed to have soured as the latter, initiated divorce
proceedings in the Dominican Republic.
Divorce Decree obtained abroad is valid.
1996 - the Dominican court ordered the dissolution of the
couple's marriage and settled the couple's property
relations pursuant to an Agreement stating that their
conjugal property was that located on 502 Acacia
Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa.
American citizen, indicating in the pleading that she is
Divorce Decree obtained abroad and issued
while the wife was still an American Citizen Rebecca filed with the Makati City RTC a petition for
Divorce decree is binding to her, even if she used to be, or declaration of nullity of marriage. Rebecca, however,
BAYOT VS BAYOT
16 in Dominican later becomes, a Filipino Citizen. What is later moved and secured approval of the motion to
G.R. NO. 163979, 07
NOVEMBER 2008 Republic important is that at the time the valid divorce withdraw the petition.
decree was obtained, she was not a Filipino Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the
Citizen. Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity
of marriage on the ground of Vicente's alleged
psychological incapacity. In it, Rebecca also sought the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains with
application for support pendente lite for her and Alix for a
permanent monthly support for their daughter Alix in the
amount of Php 220,000.
the Union, the presentation of a copy of foreign divorce
Vicente filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of lack
of cause of action and that the petition is barred by the
prior judgment of divorce (obtained in Dominican
Republic). Rebecca interposed an opposition, insisting
on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid
divorce to speak of.
(sandeesuan)
EH 5 01
AT T Y . T ORREGOS A
RULING
Yes, the divorce decree is valid and binding to
Rebecca since at that time she applied and obtained her
one, being born to American parents in Guam, an
American territory which follows the principle of jus soli.
She was, and still may be, a holder of American passport.
1) First, at the time of the divorce, Rebecca represented
herself in public documents as an American citizen.
2) Second, she secured personally said divorce as an
of “…United States nationality”.
3) Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound
by the national laws of the United States of America, a
country which allows divorce.
The Court has ruled that a foreign divorce can be
recognized here, provided the divorce decree is proven
as a fact and as valid under the national law of the alien
spouse.
Be this as it may, the fact that Rebecca was clearly an
American citizen when she secured the divorce and that
divorce is recognized and allowed in any of the States of
decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing
said decree is, as here, sufficient.
The reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the
time a valid divorce is obtained.
Rebecca only became a Filipino Citizen in Year 2000.
PAGE 9 OF 9