Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS

7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 1/22

MHC AND MHICL vs. NLRC et al

G.R. No. 120077

October 13, 2000

FACT: private respondent Santos was an

overseas worker employed as a printer at the

Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of Oman.

Subsequently he was diretly hired by the

Palae !otel, "ei#ing, People$s %epubli of

&hina and later terminated due to

retrenhment.

Petitioners are the Manila !otel &orporation'(M!&)* and the Manila !otel +nternational

&ompany, imited '(M!+&)*.

-hen the ase was led in /001, M!& was

still a government2owned and ontrolled

orporation duly organized and e3isting under

the laws of the Philippines. M!+& is a

orporation duly organized and e3isting under

the laws of !ong 4ong. M!& is an

(inorporator) of M!+&, owning 516 of its

apital stok.

"y virtue of a (management agreement) with

the Palae !otel, M!+& trained the personnel

and sta7 of the Palae !otel at "ei#ing, &hina.

8ow the fats.

9uring his employment with the Mazoon

Printing Press, respondent Santos reeived a

letter from Mr. Shmidt, eneral Manager,

Palae !otel, "ei#ing, &hina. Mr. Shmidt

informed respondent Santos that he was

reommended by one "uenio, a friend of his

Mr. Shmidt o7ered respondent Santos the

same position as printer, but with a highe

monthly salary and inreased benets%espondent Santos wrote to Mr. Shmidt and

signied his aeptane of the o7er.

;he Palae !otel Manager, Mr. !enk mailed a

ready to sign employment ontrat to

respondent Santos. Santos resigned from the

Mazoon Printing Press. Santos wrote the

Palae !otel and aknowledged Mr. !enk$s

letter. ;he employment ontrat stated that

his employment would be for a period of two

years. !e then started to work at the Palae

!otel.

Subsequently, respondent Santos signed an

amended (employment agreement) with the

Palae !otel. +n the ontrat, Mr. Shmidt

represented the Palae !otel. ;he <ie

President 'Operations and 9evelopment* o

petitioner M!+& &ergueda signed the

employment agreement under the word

(noted).

=fter working in the Palae hotel for less than/ year, the Palae !otel informed respondent

Santos by letter signed by Mr. Shmidt that his

employment at the Palae !otel print shop

would be terminated due to business reverses

brought about by the politial upheaval in

&hina. ;he Palae !otel terminated the



employment of Santos and paid all benets

due him, inluding his plane fare bak to the

Philippines. Santos was repatriated to the

Philippines.

Santos led a omplaint for illegal dismissalwith the =rbitration "ranh, 8&%, 8%&. !e

prayed for an award of =9, >9 and =? for. ;he

omplaint named M!&, M!+&, the Palae

!otel and Mr. Shmidt as respondents. ;he

Palae !otel and Mr. Shmidt were not served

with summons and neither partiipated in the

proeedings before the =.

;he = deided the ase against petitioners.

Petitioners appealed to the 8%&, arguing that

the PO>=, not the 8%& had #urisdition over

the ase. ;he 8%& promulgated a resolution,

stating that the appealed 9eision be

delared null and void for want of #urisdition

Santos moved for reonsideration of the

afore2quoted resolution. !e argued that the

ase was not ognizable by the PO>= as he

was not an (overseas ontrat worker. ;he

8%& granted the motion and reversed itself.

;he 8%& direted another = to hear the

ase on the question of whether private

respondent was retrenhed or dismissed. ;he

a found that Santos was illegally dismissed

from employment and reommended that he

be paid atual damages equivalent to his

salaries for the une3pired portion of his

ontrat. ;he 8%& ruled in favor of private

respondent. Petitioners led an M% arguing

that the =$s reommendation had no basis in

law and in fat, however it was denied. !ene

this petition.

I!": +s the 8%& a proper forum to deide

this ase@

!>9: petition grantedA the orders and

resolutions of the 8%& are annulled.

NO

?orum 8on2&onveniens

;he 8%& was a seriously inonvenient forum.

-e note that the main aspets of the ase

transpired in two foreign #urisditions and the

ase involves purely foreign elements. ;he

only link that the Philippines has with the ase

is that Santos is a ?ilipino itizen. ;he Palae

!otel and M!+& are foreign orporations. 8ot

all ases involving our itizens an be tried

here.

;he employment ontrat. B %espondent

Santos was hired diretly by the Palae !otel,

a foreign employer, through orrespondene

sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where

respondent Santos was then employed. !ewas hired without the intervention of the

PO>= or any authorized reruitment ageny o

the government.

Cnder the rule of forum non onveniens, a

Philippine ourt or ageny may assume

#urisdition over the ase if it hooses to do so



provided: '/* that the Philippine ourt is one

to whih the parties may onveniently resort

toA 'D* that the Philippine ourt is in a position

to make an intelligent deision as to the law

and the fatsA and 'E* that the Philippine ourt

has or is likely to have power to enfore its

deision. ;he onditions are unavailing in the

ase at bar.

8ot &onvenient. B -e fail to see how the

8%& is a onvenient forum given that all the

inidents of the ase B from the time of

reruitment, to employment to dismissal

ourred outside the Philippines. ;he

inonveniene is ompounded by the fat that

the proper defendants, the Palae !otel and

M!+& are not nationals of the Philippines.

8either .are they (doing business in the

Philippines.) ikewise, the main witnesses, Mr.

Shmidt and Mr. !enk are non2residents of the

Philippines.

8o power to determine appliable law. B

8either an an intelligent deision be made as

to the law governing the employment

ontrat as suh was perfeted in foreign soil.

;his alls to fore the appliation of the

priniple of le3 loi ontratus 'the law of the

plae where the ontrat was made*.

;he employment ontrat was not perfeted

in the Philippines. Santos signied his

aeptane by writing a letter while he was in

the %epubli of Oman. ;his letter was sent to

the Palae !otel in the People$s %epubli of

&hina.

8o power to determine the fats. B 8either

an the 8%& determine the fats surrounding

the alleged illegal dismissal as all atsomplained of took plae in "ei#ing, People$s

%epubli of &hina. ;he 8%& was not in a

position to determine whether the ;iannamen

Square inident truly adversely a7eted

operations of the Palae !otel as to #ustify

Santos$ retrenhment.

Priniple of e7etiveness, no power to e3eute

deision. B >ven assuming that a prope

deision ould be reahed by the 8%&, suh

would not have any binding e7et against the

employer, the Palae !otel. ;he Palae !ote

is a orporation inorporated under the laws

of &hina and was not even served with

summons. Furisdition over its person was notaquired.

;his is not to say that Philippine ourts and

agenies have no power to solve

ontroversies involving foreign employers

8either are we saying that we do not have

power over an employment ontrat e3euted

in a foreign ountry. +f Santos were an

(overseas ontrat worker), a Philippine

forum, speially the PO>=, not the 8%&

would protet him. !e is not an (overseas

ontrat worker) a fat whih he admits with

onvition.



GG

>ven assuming that the 8%& was the proper

forum, even on the merits, the 8%&$s

deision annot be sustained.

++. M!& 8ot iable

>ven if we assume two things: '/* that the

8%& had #urisdition over the ase, and 'D*

that M!+& was liable for Santos$

retrenhment, still M!&, as a separate and

distint #uridial entity annot be held liable.

;rue, M!& is an inorporator of M!+& andowns 516 of its apital stok. !owever, this is

not enough to piere the veil of orporate

tion between M!+& and M!&. +n ;raders

%oyal "ank v. &=, we held that (the mere

ownership by a single stokholder or by

another orporation of all or nearly all of the

apital stok of a orporation is not of itself a

suHient reason for disregarding the tion of

separate orporate personalities.)

+t is basi that a orporation has a personality

separate and distint from those omposing it

as well as from that of any other legal entity

to whih it may be related. &lear and

onvining evidene is needed to piere theveil of orporate tion. +n this ase, we nd

no evidene to show that M!+& and M!& are

one and the same entity.

+++. M!+& not iable

Santos prediates M!+&$s liability on the fat

that M!+& (signed) his employment ontrat

with the Palae !otel. ;his fat fails to

persuade us.

?irst, we note that the <ie Presiden'Operations and 9evelopment* of M!+&

&ergueda signed the employment ontrat as

a mere witness. !e merely signed under the

word (noted).

-hen one (notes) a ontrat, one is not

e3pressing his agreement or approval, as a

party would. +n Sihango v. "oard o

&ommissioners of +mmigration, the &ourt

reognized that the term (noted) means that

the person so noting has merely taken

ognizane of the e3istene of an at o

delaration, without e3erising a #udiious

deliberation or rendering a deision on the

matter.Seond, and more importantly, there was no

e3isting employer2employee relationship

between Santos and M!+&. +n determining

the e3istene of an employer2employee

relationship, the following elements are

onsidered:

('/* the seletion and engagement of the

employeeA

('D* the payment of wagesA

('E* the power to dismissA and

('I* the power to ontrol employee$s

ondut.)



M!+& did not have and did not e3erise any

of the aforementioned powers. +t did not

selet respondent Santos as an employee for

the Palae !otel. !e was referred to the

Palae !otel by his friend, "uenio. M!+& did

not engage respondent Santos to work. ;he

terms of employment were negotiated and

nalized through orrespondene between

Santos, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. !enk, who were

oHers and representatives of the Palae

!otel and not M!+&. 8either did Santos

addue any proof that M!+& had the power

to ontrol his ondut. ?inally, it was thePalae !otel, through Mr. Shmidt and not

M!+& that terminated respondent Santos$

servies.

ikewise, there is no evidene to show that

the Palae !otel and M!+& are one and the

same entity. ;he fat that the Palae !otel is a

member of the (Manila !otel roup) is not

enough to piere the orporate veil between

M!+& and the Palae !otel.

&onsidering that the 8%& was forum non2

onveniens and onsidering further that no

employer2employee relationship e3isted

between M!+&, M!& and Santos, the =

learly had no #urisdition over respondent$s

laim in the 8%& ase. +n all the ases under

the e3lusive and original #urisdition of the

=, an employer2employee relationship is an

indispensable #urisditional requirement.

COMM!NICATION MAT"RIAL AND

D"IGN, INC et al vs.CA et al.

G.R. No. 102223

A#$#st 22, 1%%&

FACT: Petitioners &OMMC8+&=;+O8

M=;>%+=S =89 9>S+8, +8&., '&M9+* and

=SP=& MC;+2;%=9> +8&., '=SP=&* are both

domesti orporations.. Private %espondents

+;>&, +8&. andJor +;>&, +8;>%8=;+O8=, +8&

'+;>&* are orporations duly organized and

e3isting under the laws of the State o

=labama, CS=. ;here is no dispute that +;>& is

a foreign orporation not liensed to do

business in the Philippines.

+;>& entered into a ontrat with =SP=&

referred to as (%epresentative =greement)

Pursuant to the ontrat, +;>& engaged =SP=&

as its (e3lusive representative) in the

Philippines for the sale of +;>&$s produts, in

onsideration of whih, =SP=& was paid a

stipulated ommission. ;hrough a (iense

=greement) entered into by the same parties

later on, =SP=& was able to inorporate and

use the name (+;>&) in its own name. ;hus

=SP=& Multi2;rade, +n. beame legally and

publily known as =SP=&2+;>& 'Philippines*

One year into the seond term of the parties$

%epresentative =greement, +;>& deided to

terminate the same, beause petitione

=SP=& allegedly violated its ontratua

ommitment as stipulated in their

agreements. +;>& harges the petitioners and

another Philippine &orporation, 9++;= "=S>

&OMMC8+&=;+O8S, +8&. '9++;=*, the

President of whih is likewise petitione



=guirre, of using knowledge and information

of +;>&$s produts speiations to develop

their own line of equipment and produt

support, whih are similar, if not idential to

+;>&$s own, and o7ering them to +;>&$s

former ustomer.

;he omplaint was led with the %;&2Makati

by +;>&, +8&. 9efendants led a M;9 the

omplaint on the following grounds: '/* ;hat

plainti7 has no legal apaity to sue as it is a

foreign orporation doing business in the

Philippines without the required "O+ authority

and S>& liense, and 'D* that plainti7 is simply

engaged in forum shopping whih #usties the

appliation against it of the priniple of

(forum non onveniens). ;he M;9 was

denied.

Petitioners elevated the ase to the

respondent &= on a Petition for &ertiorari andProhibition under %ule K5 of the %evised %O&.

+t was dismissed as well. M% denied, hene

this Petition for %eview on &ertiorari under

%ule I5.

I!":

/. 9id the Philippine ourt aquire #urisdition

over the person of the petitioner orp, despite

allegations of lak of apaity to sue beause

of non2registration@

D. &an the Philippine ourt give due ourse to

the suit or dismiss it, on the priniple of forum

non onveniene@

H"LD: petition dismissed.

/. L>SA -e are persuaded to onlude that

+;>& had been (engaged in) or (doing

business) in the Philippines for some time

now. ;his is the inevitable result after a

srutiny of the di7erent ontrats and

agreements entered into by +;>& with its

various business ontats in the ountry. +ts

arrangements, with these entities indiate

onviningly that +;>& is atively engaging in

business in the ountry.

= foreign orporation doing business in the

Philippines may sue in Philippine &ourts

although not authorized to do business here

against a Philippine itizen or entity who had

ontrated with and beneted by said

orporation. ;o put it in another way, a party

is estopped to hallenge the personality of a

orporation after having aknowledged the

same by entering into a ontrat with it. =nd

the dotrine of estoppel to deny orporate

e3istene applies to a foreign as well as to

domesti orporations. One who has dealt

with a orporation of foreign origin as a

orporate entity is estopped to deny its

orporate e3istene and apaity.

+n =ntam &onsolidated +n. vs. &= et al. we

e3pressed our hagrin over this ommonly

used sheme of defaulting loal ompanies

whih are being sued by unliensed foreign

ompanies not engaged in business in the

Philippines to invoke the lak of apaity to

sue of suh foreign ompanies. Obviously, the



same ploy is resorted to by =SP=& to prevent

the in#untive ation led by +;>& to en#oin

petitioner from using knowledge possibly

aquired in violation of duiary

arrangements between the parties.

D. L>SA Petitioner$s insistene on the dismissal

of this ation due to the appliation, or non

appliation, of the private international law

rule of forum non onveniens dees well2

settled rules of fair play. =ording to

petitioner, the Philippine &ourt has no venue

to apply its disretion whether to give

ognizane or not to the present ation,

beause it has not aquired #urisdition over

the person of the plainti7 in the ase, the

latter allegedly having no personality to sue

before Philippine &ourts. ;his argument is

misplaed beause the ourt has already

aquired #urisdition over the plainti7 in the

suit, by virtue of his ling the original

omplaint. =nd as we have already observed,

petitioner is not at liberty to question

plainti7$s standing to sue, having already

aeded to the same by virtue of its entry into

the %epresentative =greement referred to

earlier.

;hus, having aquired #urisdition, it is now for

the Philippine &ourt, based on the fats of the

ase, whether to give due ourse to the suit

or dismiss it, on the priniple of forum non

onveniene. !ene, the Philippine &ourt may

refuse to assume #urisdition in spite of its

having aquired #urisdition. &onversely, the

ourt may assume #urisdition over the ase if

it hooses to do soA provided, that the

following requisites are met:

/* ;hat the Philippine &ourt is one to whih

the parties may onveniently resort toA

D* ;hat the Philippine &ourt is in a position to

make an intelligent deision as to the law and

the fatsA and,

E* ;hat the Philippine &ourt has or is likely to

have power to enfore its deision.

;he aforesaid requirements having been met,

and in view of the ourt$s disposition to give

due ourse to the questioned ation, the

matter of the present forum not being the

(most onvenient) as a ground for the suit$s

dismissal, deserves sant onsideration.

'HIL"C IN("TM"NT et al vs.CA et al

G.R. No. 103)%3

*#+e 1%, 1%%7

FACT: Private respondent 9uat obtained

separate loans from petitioners =yala

+nternational ?inane imited '=L==* and

Philse +nvestment &orp 'P!+S>&*, seured

by shares of stok owned by 9uat.

+n order to failitate the payment of the loans

private respondent /I, +n., through its

president, private respondent 9ai, assumed

9uat$s obligation under an =greement

whereby /I, +n. e3euted a -arranty 9eed

with <endor$s ien by whih it sold to

petitioner =thona !oldings, 8.<. '=;!O8=* a

parel of land in ;e3as, C.S.=., while P!+S>&



and =L== e3tended a loan to =;!O8= as

initial payment of the purhase prie. ;he

balane was to be paid by means of a

promissory note e3euted by =;!O8= in favor

of /I, +n. Subsequently, upon their reeipt

of the money from /I, +n., P!+S>& and

=L== released 9uat from his indebtedness

and delivered to /I, +n. all the shares of

stok in their possession belonging to 9uat.

=s =;!O8= failed to pay the interest on the

balane, the entire amount overed by the

note beame due and demandable.

=ordingly, private respondent /I, +n.

sued petitioners P!+S>&, =L==, and =;!O8=

in the Cnited States for payment of the

balane and for damages for breah of

ontrat and for fraud allegedly perpetrated

by petitioners in misrepresenting the

marketability of the shares of stok delivered

to /I, +n. under the =greement.

-hile the &ivil &ase was pending in the Cnited

States, petitioners led a omplaint (?or Sum

of Money with 9amages and -rit of

Preliminary =ttahment) against private

respondents in the %;& Makati. ;he omplaint

reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their

respetive ounterlaims in the &ivil =tion in

the Cnited States 9istrit &ourt of Southern

;e3as that private respondents ommitted

fraud by selling the property at a prie I11

perent more than its true value.

9uat moved to dismiss the &ivil &ase in the

%;&2Makati on the grounds of '/* litis

pendentia, vis2a2vis the &ivil =tion in the

C.S., 'D* forum non onveniens, and 'E* failure

of petitioners P!+S>& and "P+2+? to state a

ause of ation.

;he trial ourt granted 9uat$s M;9, stating

that (the evidentiary requirements of the

ontroversy may be more suitably tried before

the forum of the litis pendentia in the C.S.,

under the priniple in private international law

of forum non onveniens,) even as it noted

that 9uat was not a party in the C.S. ase.

Petitioners appealed to the &=, arguing that

the trial ourt erred in applying the priniple

of litis pendentia and forum non onveniens.

;he &= aHrmed the dismissal of &ivil &ase

against 9uat, /I, +n., and 9ai on the

ground of litis pendentia.

I!": is the &ivil &ase in the %;&2Makat

barred by the #udgment of the C.S. ourt@

H"LD: &= reversed. &ase remanded to %;&

Makati

NO

-hile this &ourt has given the e7et of res

#udiata to foreign #udgments in severa

ases, it was after the parties opposed to the

#udgment had been given ample opportunity

to repel them on grounds allowed under the

law. ;his is beause in this #urisdition, with



respet to ations in personam, as

distinguished from ations in rem, a foreign

#udgment merely onstitutes prima faie

evidene of the #ustness of the laim of a

party and, as suh, is sub#et to proof to the

ontrary. %ule E0, N51 provides:

Se. 51. >7et of foreign #udgments. B ;he

e7et of a #udgment of a tribunal of a foreign

ountry, having #urisdition to pronoune the

#udgment is as follows:

'a* +n ase of a #udgment upon a spei

thing, the #udgment is onlusive upon the

title to the thingA

'b* +n ase of a #udgment against a person,

the #udgment is presumptive evidene of a

right as between the parties and their

suessors in interest by a subsequent titleA

but the #udgment may be repelled by

evidene of a want of #urisdition, want of notie to the party, ollusion, fraud, or lear

mistake of law or fat.

+n the ase at bar, it annot be said that

petitioners were given the opportunity to

hallenge the #udgment of the C.S. ourt as

basis for delaring it res #udiata or onlusive

of the rights of private respondents. ;he

proeedings in the trial ourt were summary.

8either the trial ourt nor the appellate ourt

was even furnished opies of the pleadings in

the C.S. ourt or apprised of the evidene

presented thereat, to assure a proper

determination of whether the issues then

being litigated in the C.S. ourt were e3atly

the issues raised in this ase suh that the

#udgment that might be rendered would

onstitute res #udiata.

Seond. 8or is the trial ourt$s refusal to take

ognizane of the ase #ustiable under the

priniple of forum non onveniens:

?irst, a M;9 is limited to the grounds under

%ule /K, se./, whih does not inlude forum

non onveniens. ;he propriety of dismissing a

ase based on this priniple requires a fatua

determination, hene, it is more properly

onsidered a matter of defense

Seond, while it is within the disretion of the

trial ourt to abstain from assuming

#urisdition on this ground, it should do so

only after (vital fats are established, to

determine whether speial irumstanes)

require the ourt$s desistane.

HONGONG AND HANGHAI -ANING

COR'ORATION H-C/ vs. H"RMAN et al

G.R. No. 72)%)

A#$#st 11, 1%%

FACT: +t appears that sometime in /0/

>astern "ook Supply Servie P;>, td

'&OMP=8L*, a ompany inorporated in

Singapore applied with and was granted by

!S"& Singapore branh an overdraft faility in

the ma3imum amount of Singapore dollars

D11,111 with interest at E6 over !S"& prime



rate, payable monthly, on amounts due under

said overdraft faility.

=s a seurity for the repayment by the

&OMP=8L of sums advaned by !S"& to it

through the aforesaid overdraft faility, in

/0D, both private respondents and a ertain

owe, all of whom were diretors of the

&OMP=8L at suh time, e3euted a Foint and

Several uarantee in favor of !S"& whereby

private respondents and owe agreed to pay,

#ointly and severally, on demand all sums

owed by the &OMP=8L to petitioner "=84

under the aforestated overdraft faility.

;he Foint and Several uarantee provides,

inter alia, that:

;his guarantee and all rights, obligations and

liabilities arising hereunder shall be onstrued

and determined under and may be enfored

in aordane with the laws of the %epubli of

Singapore. -e hereby agree that the &ourts of

Singapore shall have #urisdition over all

disputes arising under this guarantee.

;he &OMP=8L failed to pay its obligation.

;hus, !S"& demanded payment and

inasmuh as the private respondents still

failed to pay, !S"& led = omplaint for

olletion of a sum of money against private

respondents Sherman and %elo# before %;& of

uezon &ity.

Private respondents led an M;9 on the

ground of lak of #urisdition over the sub#et

matter. ;he trial ourt denied the motion.

;hey then led before the respondent +=& a

petition for prohibition with preliminary

in#untion andJor prayer for a restraining

order. ;he +=& rendered a deision en#oining

the %;& uezon &ity from taking furthe

ognizane of the ase and to dismiss the

same for ling with the proper ourt o

Singapore whih is the proper forum. M%

denied, hene this petition.

I!": 9o Philippine ourts have #urisdition

over the suit, vis2a2vis the uarantee

stipulation regarding #urisdition@

H"LD: L>S

One basi priniple underlies all rules o

#urisdition in +nternational aw: a State does

not have #urisdition in the absene of some

reasonable basis for e3erising it, whether the

proeedings are in rem quasi in rem or in

personam. ;o be reasonable, the #urisdition

must be based on some minimum ontats

that will not o7end traditional notions of fair

play and substantial #ustie

;he defense of private respondents that the

omplaint should have been led in Singapore

is based merely on tehniality. ;hey did not

even laim, muh less prove, that the ling of

the ation here will ause them any

unneessary trouble, damage, or e3pense. On

the other hand, there is no showing tha

petitioner "=84 led the ation here #ust to

harass private respondents.

+n the ase of 8eville L. amis >nts., et al. v

agamon, et., where the stipulation was (QiRn



ase of litigation, #urisdition shall be vested

in the &ourt of 9avao &ity.) -e held:

=nent the laim that 9avao &ity had been

stipulated as the venue, suHe it to say that a

stipulation as to venue does not prelude the

ling of suits in the residene of plainti7 or

defendant under Setion D 'b*, %ule I, %O&, in

the absene of qualifying or restritive words

in the agreement whih would indiate that

the plae named is the only venue agreed

upon by the parties.

=pplying the foregoing to the ase at bar, the

parties did not thereby stipulate that only the

ourts of Singapore, to the e3lusion of all the

rest, has #urisdition. 8either did the lause in

question operate to divest Philippine ourts of

#urisdition. +n +nternational aw, #urisdition is

often dened as the light of a State to

e3erise authority over persons and things

within its boundaries sub#et to ertain

e3eptions. ;hus, a State does not assume

#urisdition over travelling sovereigns,

ambassadors and diplomati representatives

of other States, and foreign military units

stationed in or marhing through State

territory with the permission of the latter$s

authorities. ;his authority, whih nds its

soure in the onept of sovereignty, is

e3lusive within and throughout the domain of

the State. = State is ompetent to take hold of

any #udiial matter it sees t by making its

ourts and agenies assume #urisdition over

all kinds of ases brought before them

NOT":

;he respondent +=& likewise ruled that

+n a onit problem, a ourt will simply

refuse to entertain the ase if it is not

authorized by law to e3erise #urisdition. =nd

even if it is so authorized, it may still refuse to

entertain the ase by applying the priniple of

forum non onveniens.

!owever, whether a suit should be

entertained or dismissed on the basis of the

priniple of forum non onveniens depends

largely upon the fats of the partiular ase

and is addressed to the sound disretion of

the trial ourt. ;hus, the +=& should not have

relied on suh priniple.

ANAR vs. GARCIA

G.R. No. L1&7)%

*a+#ar 31, 1%&3

FACT: >9-=%9 &hristensen died testate

;he estate was distributed by >3eutioner

=znar aording to the will, whih provides

that: Php E,K11 be given to !>>8

&hristensen as her legay, and the rest of his

estate to his daughter C&L &hristensen, as

pronouned by &?+ 9avao.

Opposition to the approval of the pro#et of

partition was led by !elen, insofar as it

deprives her of her legitime as an

aknowledged natural hild, she having been

delared by Cs an aknowledged natural hild

of the deeased >dward in an earlier ase.



=s to his itizenship, we nd that the

itizenship that he aquired in &alifornia when

he resided in Saramento from /01I to /0/E,

was never lost by his stay in the Philippines,

and the deeased appears to have onsidered

himself as a itizen of &alifornia by the fat

that when he e3euted his will he delared

that he was a itizen of that StateA so that he

appears never to have intended to abandon

his &alifornia itizenship by aquiring another.

"ut at the time of his death, he was domiiled

in the Philippines.

I!": what law on suession should apply,

the Philippine law or the &alifornia law@

H"LD: -!>%>?O%>, the deision appealed

from is hereby reversed and the ase returned

to the lower ourt with instrutions that the

partition be made as the Philippine law on

suession provides.

;he law that governs the validity of his

testamentary dispositions is dened in =rtile

/K of the &ivil &ode of the Philippines, whih

is as follows:

=%;. /K. %eal property as well as personal

property is sub#et to the law of the ountry

where it is situated.

!owever, intestate and testamentary

suessions, both with respet to the order of

suession and to the amount of suessional

rights and to the intrinsi validity of

testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by

the national law of the person whose

suession is under onsideration, whateve

may be the nature of the property and

regardless of the ountry where said property

may be found.

;he appliation of this artile in the ase at

bar requires the determination of the meaning

of the term (national law) is used therein.

;he ne3t question is: -hat is the law in

&alifornia governing the disposition o

personal property@

;he deision of &?+ 9avao, sustains the

ontention of the e3eutor2appellee that

under the &alifornia Probate &ode, a testato

may dispose of his property by will in the form

and manner he desires. "ut !>>8 invokes

the provisions of =rtile 0IK of the &ivil &ode

of &alifornia, whih is as follows:

+f there is no law to the ontrary, in the plae

where personal property is situated, it is

deemed to follow the person of its owner, and

is governed by the law of his domiile.

+t is argued on e3eutor$s behalf that as the

deeased &hristensen was a itizen of the

State of &alifornia, the internal law thereof

whih is that given in the 4aufman ase

should govern the determination of the

validity of the testamentary provisions o

&hristensen$s will, suh law being in fore in

the State of &alifornia of whih &hristensen

was a itizen. =ppellant, on the other hand



insists that =rtile 0IK should be appliable,

and in aordane therewith and following the

dotrine of the renvoi, the question of the

validity of the testamentary provision in

question should be referred bak to the law of

the deedent$s domiile, whih is the

Philippines.

-e note that =rtile 0IK of the &alifornia &ivil

&ode is its onit of laws rule, while the rule

applied in +n re 4aufman, its internal law. +f

the law on su ession and the onit of laws

rules of &alifornia are to be enfored #ointly,

eah in its own intended and appropriate

sphere, the priniple ited +n re 4aufman

should apply to itizens living in the State, but

=rtile 0IK should apply to suh of its itizens

as are not domiiled in &alifornia but in other

#urisditions. ;he rule laid down of resorting to

the law of the domiile in the determination of

matters with foreign element involved is in

aord with the general priniple of =merian

law that the domiiliary law should govern in

most matters or rights whih follow the

person of the owner.

=ppellees argue that what =rtile /K of the

&ivil &ode of the Philippines pointed out as

the national law is the internal law of

&alifornia. "ut as above e3plained the laws of

&alifornia have presribed two sets of laws for

its itizens, one for residents therein and

another for those domiiled in other

#urisditions.

+t is argued on appellees$ '=znar and C&L*

behalf that the lause (if there is no law to the

ontrary in the plae where the property is

situated) in Se. 0IK of the &alifornia &ivi

&ode refers to =rtile /K of the &ivil &ode of

the Philippines and that the law to the

ontrary in the Philippines is the provision in

said =rtile /K that the national law of the

deeased should govern. ;his ontention an

not be sustained.

=s e3plained in the various authorities ited

above, the national law mentioned in =rtile

/K of our &ivil &ode is the law on onit of

laws in the &alifornia &ivil &ode, i.e., =rtile

0IK, whih authorizes the referene or return

of the question to the law of the testator$s

domiile. ;he onit of laws rule in &alifornia

=rtile 0IK, &ivil &ode, preisely refers bak

the ase, when a deedent is not domiiled in

&alifornia, to the law of his domiile, the

Philippines in the ase at bar. ;he ourt of the

domiile an not and should not refer the ase

bak to &aliforniaA suh ation would leave

the issue inapable of determination beause

the ase will then be like a football, tossed

bak and forth between the two states

between the ountry of whih the deedent

was a itizen and the ountry of his domiile

;he Philippine ourt must apply its own law as

direted in the onit of laws rule of the

state of the deedent, if the question has to

be deided, espeially as the appliation of

the internal law of &alifornia provides no

legitime for hildren while the Philippine law



=rts. T'I* and 0I, &ivil &ode of the

Philippines, makes natural hildren legally

aknowledged fored heirs of the parent

reognizing them.

-e therefore nd that as the domiile of the

deeased >dward, a itizen of &alifornia, is

the Philippines, the validity of the provisions

of his will depriving his aknowledged natural

hild, the appellant !>>8, should be

governed by the Philippine aw, the domiile,

pursuant to =rt. 0IK of the &ivil &ode of

&alifornia, not by the internal law of

&alifornia..

NOT": ;here is no single =merian law

governing the validity of testamentary

provisions in the Cnited States, eah state of

the Cnion having its own private law

appliable to its itizens only and in fore only

within the state. ;he (national law) indiatedin =rtile /K of the &ivil &ode above quoted

an not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to

any general =merian law. So it an refer to

no other than the private law of the State of

&alifornia.

ING"NOHL vs. OL"N AND COM'AN4, INC

G.R. No. L222

*a+#ar 12, 1%25

FACT: +n /0/0, the ating =lien Property

&ustodian of the Cnited States, by virtue of

the ;rading with the >nemy =t as amended,

required and aused to be onveyed to him

the property and business then belonging to

the ompany known as Syndiat Oriente

formed under the laws of "elgium, of whih

the plainti7 was the (gestor,) and an enemy

as dened in said =t. ;he primary purpose of

the proeeding was to seize, sell and onvey

any and all of the property owned and held by

the ompany within the #urisdition of the

Cnited States, as a war measure, upon the

ground that they were alien enemies of the

Cnited States.

9uring the publi sale, defendant orporation

was the highest bidder. ;he said =lien

Property &ustodian of the Cnited States

having thereafter aepted said bid and

reeived from the defendant orporation in

ash the amount of said bid, did e3eute in

favor of the defendant orporation a deed of

onveyane. ;he defendant paid in good faith

and took over the property and assets of the

ompany, inluding its trade2marks and trade

names and its business as a going onern

=fter obtaining the proeeds from the sale

the plainti7 in violation of the onveyane

wrongfully instituted an ation in the Supreme

&ourt of !ongkong against the defendant in

whih the plainti7 laimed to be the sole

owner of the trade2marks for the e3ports of

the business. ;he Supreme &ourt of !ongkong

ruled in favor of the plainti7, allegedly

through misrepresentation, ordering

defendant to pay the former for osts and =?

;he &ourt ruled that the deed of onveyane

limited the sale of the business to the

trademarks within the Philippines, implying



that the plainti7 is still entitled to the sell the

igars under the same trademarks through

e3porting, whih aounts to 056 of the total

sales of the ompany. ';his means that the

plainti7 paid the ash equivalent of the whole

of the business but only entitled to 56 of the

suh, the sales within the Philippines*2 C8?=+%

;===U

;he &?+ rendered #udgment for the plainti7 for

the full amount of his laim, with interest,

from whih the defendant appeals. 9efendant

ompany alleges that when he purhased the

property and business, all trademarks are

inludedA that the sub#et of the sale is not

only those trademarks for sales within the

Philippines.

I!": Should the #udgment rendered by the

!ongkong ourt be enfored by Philippine

ourts@

H"LD: 8OA we do not hesitate to say that the

#udgment rendered in the !ongkong ourt was

a lear mistake of both law and fat, and that

it ought not to be enfored in the Philippine

+slands.

;he business of the plainti7 is almost

e3lusively an e3port business, and that the

transfer of the goodwill thereof neessarily

arried with it the transfer of said e3port

business and of the trade2marks and trade

names whih ould not be disonneted

therefrom

B2 +t is oneded that the !ongkong ourt

had #urisdition and that the defendant

appeared in the ation and ontested the ase

on its merits. !ene, there was no ollusion

8either is it laimed that there was any fraud

but it is vigorously ontended that the

!ongkong #udgment was a lear mistake o

both law and fat. >3lusive of the provisions

of setion E// of the &ode of &ivil Proedure

it is very doubtful whether it ould be

sustained upon the ground of omity or the

aw of 8ations. =s between allied nations and

under the law of omity, their mutual poliy

should be to sustain and enfore the spirit and

intention with whih the seizure and sale of

any property of an alien enemy was made

rather than to minimize, destroy or defeat

them.

-e are onstruing a deed of onveyane from

the Cnited States to the defendant. ;he

primary purpose of the whole proeeding was

to seize and onvey all of the property of the

plainti7 or his ompany within the #urisdition

of the Cnited States, inluding trade names

and trade2marks as those of an alien enemy

;o now give the defendant the use and benet

of only 5 per ent of suh trade names and

trade2marks, and to permit the plainti7 to

have and retain the other 05 per ent to his

own use and benet after he has ratied and

onrmed the sale, would impugn the honor

and good name of the Cnited States in the

whole proeeding and defeat the very

purpose for whih it seized and sold the

property of an alien enemy, to wipe +ngenoh



and his ompany out of e3istene and put

them out of business in so far as the Cnited

States had the power to do so

"e that as it may, this ourt is bound be

setion E// of the &ode of &ivil Proedure.

;hat law was enated by the egislature of

the Philippine +slands, and as to the Philippine

+slands, it is the law of the land. +n the

absene of that statute, no matter how

wrongful the #udgment of the !ongkong ourt

may be, there would be strong reasons for

holding that it should be enfored by this

ourt.

'ILA'IL vs. HON I-A4OM"RA, (ICTOR

AND G"ILING

G.R. No. 011&

*#+e 30, 1%%

FACT: Petitioner +melda Pilapil, a ?ilipino

itizen, and private respondent >rih eiling,a erman national, were married in ermany.

=fter about three and a half years of

marriage, suh onnubial disharmony

eventuated in eiling initiating a divore

proeeding against Pilapil in ermany. ;he

oal &ourt, ?ederal %epubli of ermany,

promulgated a deree of divore on the

ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.

More than ve months after the issuane of

the divore deree, eiling led two

omplaints for adultery before the &ity ?isal

of Manila alleging in one that, while still

married to said eiling, Pilapil (had an a7air

with a ertain -illiam &hia.) ;he =ssistant

?isal, after the orresponding investigation

reommended the dismissal of the ases on

the ground of insuHieny of evidene

!owever, upon review, the respondent ity

sal <itor approved a resolution direting

the ling of D omplaint for adultery against

the petitioner. ;he ase entitled (PP

Philippines vs. Pilapil and &hia) was assigned

to the ourt presided by the respondent #udge

+bay2Somera.

= motion to quash was led in the same ase

whih was denied by the respondent. Pilapi

led this speial ivil ation for ertiorari and

prohibition, with a prayer for a ;%O, seeking

the annulment of the order of the lower ourt

denying her motion to quash.

=s ogently argued by Pilapil, =rtile EII of

the %P& thus presupposes that the marita

relationship is still subsisting at the time ofthe institution of the riminal ation for

adultery.

I!": 9id eiling have legal apaity at the

time of the ling of the omplaint for adultery

onsidering that it was done after obtaining a

divore deree@

H"LD: -!>%>?O%>, the questioned orde

denying petitioner$s M; is S>; =S+9> and

another one entered 9+SM+SS+8 the

omplaint for lak of #urisdition. ;he ;%O

issued in this ase is hereby made

permanent.



NO

Cnder =rtile EII of the %P&, the rime of

adultery annot be proseuted e3ept upon a

sworn written omplaint led by the o7ended

spouse. +t has long sine been established,

with unwavering onsisteny, that ompliane

with this rule is a #urisditional, and not

merely a formal, requirement.

&orollary to suh e3lusive grant of power to

the o7ended spouse to institute the ation, it

neessarily follows that suh initiator must

have the status, apaity or legal

representation to do so at the time of the

ling of the riminal ation. ;his is a logial

onsequene sine the raison d$etre of said

provision of law would be absent where the

supposed o7ended party had eased to be

the spouse of the alleged o7ender at the time

of the ling of the riminal ase.

Stated di7erently, the inquiry would be

whether it is neessary in the ommenement

of a riminal ation for adultery that the

marital bonds between the omplainant and

the aused be unsevered and e3isting at the

time of the institution of the ation by the

former against the latter.

+n the present ase, the fat that private

respondent obtained a valid divore in his

ountry, the ?ederal %epubli of ermany, is

admitted. Said divore and its legal e7ets

may be reognized in the Philippines insofar

as private respondent is onerned in view of

the nationality priniple in our ivil law on the

matter of status of persons Cnder the same

onsiderations and rationale, private

respondent, being no longer the husband of

petitioner, had no legal standing to

ommene the adultery ase under the

imposture that he was the o7ended spouse at

the time he led suit.

-"NGON vs. HR"T a+6 CR!

G.R. No. 1)2)0

Ma 7, 2001

FACT: ;he itizenship of respondent &ruz is

at issue in this ase, in view of the

onstitutional requirement that (no person

shall be a Member of the !ouse of

%epresentatives unless he is a natural2born

itizen.)

&ruz was a natural2born itizen of the

Philippines. !e was born in ;arla in /0K1 of

?ilipino parents. +n /05, however, &ruz

enlisted in the CS Marine &orps and without

the onsent of the %epubli of the Philippines,

took an oath of allegiane to the CS=. =s a

&onsequene, he lost his ?ilipino itizenship

for under &= 8o. KE Q'=n =t Providing for the

-ays in -hih Philippine &itizenship May "e

ost or %eaquired '/0EK*R setion /'I*, a

?ilipino itizen may lose his itizenship by

among other, (rendering servie to o

aepting ommission in the armed fores of

a foreign ountry.)

-hatever doubt that remained regarding his

loss of Philippine itizenship was erased by his



naturalization as a C.S. itizen in /001, in

onnetion with his servie in the C.S. Marine

&orps.

+n /00I, &ruz reaquired his Philippine

itizenship through repatriation under %=

DKE1 Q'=n =t Providing for %eaquisition of

Philippine &itizenship by Persons -ho ost

Suh &itizenship by %endering Servie ;o, or

=epting &ommission +n, the =rmed ?ores of

the Cnited States '/0K1*R. !e ran for and was

eleted as the %epresentative of the Dnd

9istrit of Pangasinan in the /00 eletions.

!e won over petitioner "engson who was then

running for reeletion.

Subsequently, petitioner led a ase for uo

-arranto =d &autelam with respondent !%>;

laiming that &ruz was not qualied to

beome a member of the !O% sine he is not

a natural2born itizen as required under=rtile <+, setion K of the &onstitution.

!%>; rendered its deision dismissing the

petition for quo warranto and delaring &ruz

the duly eleted %epresentative in the said

eletion.

I!": -O8 &ruz, a natural2born ?ilipino who

beame an =merian itizen, an still be

onsidered a natural2born ?ilipino upon his

reaquisition of Philippine itizenship.

H"LD: petition dismissed

4"

?ilipino itizens who have lost their itizenship

may however reaquire the same in the

manner provided by law. &.=. 8o. KE

enumerates the E modes by whih Philippine

itizenship may be reaquired by a former

itizen:

/. by naturalization,

D. by repatriation, and

E. by diret at of &ongress.

VV

%epatriation may be had under various

statutes by those who lost their itizenship

due to:

/. desertion of the armed foresA

D. servies in the armed fores of the allied

fores in -orld -ar ++A

E. servie in the =rmed ?ores of the Cnited

States at any other time,

I. marriage of a ?ilipino woman to an alienA

and

5. politial eonomi neessity

%epatriation results in the reovery of the

original nationality ;his means that a

naturalized ?ilipino who lost his itizenship wil

be restored to his prior status as a naturalized

?ilipino itizen. On the other hand, if he was

originally a natural2born itizen before he lost

his Philippine itizenship, he will be restored

to his former status as a natural2born ?ilipino.

%.=. 8o. DKE1 provides

Se /. =ny person who had lost his Philippine

itizenship by rendering servie to, o



aepting ommission in, the =rmed ?ores of

the Cnited States, or after separation from the

=rmed ?ores of the Cnited States, aquired

Cnited States itizenship, may reaquire

Philippine itizenship by taking an oath of

allegiane to the %epubli of the Philippines

and registering the same with oal &ivil

%egistry in the plae where he resides or last

resided in the Philippines. ;he said oath of

allegiane shall ontain a renuniation of any

other itizenship.

!aving thus taken the required oath of

allegiane to the %epubli and having

registered the same in the &ivil %egistry of

Magantarem, Pangasinan in aordane with

the aforeited provision, &ruz is deemed to

have reovered his original status as a

natural2born itizen, a status whih he

aquired at birth as the son of a ?ilipino

father. +t bears stressing that the at of

repatriation allows him to reover, or return

to, his original status before he lost his

Philippine itizenship.

(AN DORN vs. HON. ROMILLO a+6

RICHARD !'TON

G.R. No. L&)70

October , 1%5

FACT: Petitioner =lie <an 9orn is a itizen

of the Philippines while private respondent

%ihard Cpton is a itizen of the CS=. ;hey

were married in !ongkong in /0TD and begot

two hildren. ;he parties were divored in

8evada, CS= in /0D. =lie has then re2

married also in 8evada, this time to ;heodore

<an 9orn.

+n /0E, %ihard led suit against =lie in the

%;&2Pasay, stating that =lie$s business in

>rmita, Manila is on#ugal property of the

parties, and asking that =lie be ordered to

render an aounting of that business, and

that %ihard be delared with right to manage

the on#ugal property.

=lie moved to dismiss the ase on the

ground that the ause of ation is barred by

previous #udgment in the divore proeedings

before the 8evada &ourt wherein respondent

had aknowledged that he and petitioner had

(no ommunity property) as of Fune //, /0D

;he &ourt below 'presiding #udge: Fudge

%omillo* denied the M;9 in the mentioned

ase on the ground that the property involved

is loated in the Philippines so that the

9ivore 9eree has no bearing in the ase

;he denial is now the sub#et of this ertiorar

proeeding.

I!": -hat is the e7et of the foreign

divore on the parties and their alleged

on#ugal property in the Philippines@

H"LD: Petition is granted, and responden

Fudge is hereby ordered to dismiss the

&omplaint

?or the resolution of this ase, it is not

neessary to determine whether the property

relations between =lie and %ihard, afte



their marriage, were upon absolute or relative

ommunity property, upon omplete

separation of property, or upon any other

regime. ;he pivotal fat in this ase is the

8evada divore of the parties.

;he 8evada 9istrit &ourt, whih dereed the

divore, had obtained #urisdition over

petitioner who appeared in person before the

&ourt during the trial of the ase. +t also

obtained #urisdition over private respondent

who authorized his attorneys in the divore

ase to agree to the divore on the ground of

inompatibility in the understanding that

there were neither ommunity property nor

ommunity obligations.

=s e3pliitly stated in the Power of =ttorney

he e3euted in favor of the law rm of 4=%P W

%=9 ;9. to represent him in the divore

proeedings:

333 333 333

Lou are hereby authorized to aept servie of

Summons, to le an =nswer, appear on my

behalf and do all things neessary and proper

to represent me, without further ontesting,

sub#et to the following:

/. ;hat my spouse seeks a divore on the

ground of inompatibility.

D. ;hat there is no ommunity of property to

be ad#udiated by the &ourt.

E. ;hat there are no ommunity obligations to

be ad#udiated by the ourt.

333 333 333

;here an be no question as to the validity of

that 8evada divore in any of the States of

the Cnited States. ;he deree is binding on

private respondent as an =merian itizen

-hat he is ontending in this ase is that the

divore is not valid and binding in this

#urisdition, the same being ontrary to loa

law and publi poliy.

+t is true that owing to the nationality priniple

embodied in =rtile /5 of the &ivil &ode, only

Philippine nationals are overed by the poliy

against absolute divores the same being

onsidered ontrary to our onept of publi

polie and morality. !owever, aliens may

obtain divores abroad, whih may be

reognized in the Philippines, provided they

are valid aording to their national law. +nthis ase, the divore in 8evada released

private respondent from the marriage from

the standards of =merian law, under whih

divore dissolves the marriage.

;hus, pursuant to his national law, private

respondent is no longer the husband o

petitioner. !e would have no standing to sue

in the ase below as petitioner$s husband

entitled to e3erise ontrol over on#uga

assets. =s he is bound by the 9eision of his

own ountry$s &ourt, whih validly e3erised

#urisdition over him, and whose deision he

does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own



representation before said &ourt from

asserting his right over the alleged on#ugal

property.

TH" GO(T OF TH" 'HILI''IN" ILAND

vs. FRAN

G. R. No. 2%35

Marc 23, 1%0%

?=&;S: +n /01E, in the ity of &hiago, +llinois,

?rank entered into a ontrat for a period of D

years with the Plainti7, by whih ?rank was to

reeive a salary as a stenographer in the

servie of the said Plainti7, and in addition

thereto was to be paid in advane the

e3penses inurred in traveling from the said

ity of &hiago to Manila, and one2half salary

during said period of travel.

Said ontrat ontained a provision that in

ase of a violation of its terms on the part of ?rank, he should beome liable to the Plainti7

for the amount e3pended by the overnment

by way of e3penses inurred in traveling from

&hiago to Manila and the one2half salary paid

during suh period.

?rank entered upon the performane of his

ontrat and was paid half2salary from the

date until the date of his arrival in the

Philippine +slands.

;hereafter, ?rank left the servie of the

Plainti7 and refused to make a further

ompliane with the terms of the ontrat.

;he Plainti7 ommened an ation in the &?+2

Manila to reover from ?rank the sum o

money, whih amount the Plainti7 laimed

had been paid to ?rank as e3penses inurred

in traveling from &hiago to Manila, and as

half2salary for the period onsumed in travel.

+t was e3pressly agreed between the parties

to said ontrat that aws 8o. 1 and 8o. DDI

should onstitute a part of said ontrat.

;he 9efendant led a general denial and a

speial defense, alleging in his speia

defense that

'/* the overnment of the Philippine +slands

had amended aws 8o. 1 and 8o. DDI and

had thereby materially altered the said

ontrat, and also that

'D* he was a minor at the time the ontrat

was entered into and was therefore not

responsible under the lawthe lower ourt rendered a #udgment against

?rank and in favor of the Plainti7 for the sum

of DK5. 01 dollars

I!":

/. 9id the amendment of the laws altered the

tenor of the ontrat entered into between

Plainti7 and 9efendant@

D. &an the defendant allege minorityJinfany@

H"LD: the #udgment of the lower ourt is

aHrmed

/. 8OA +t may be said that the mere fat that

the legislative department of the overnment



of the Philippine +slands had amended said

=ts 8o. 1 and 8o. DDI by =ts 8o. KIE and

8o. /1I1 did not have the e7et of hanging

the terms of the ontrat made between the

Plainti7 and the 9efendant. ;he legislative

department of the overnment is e3pressly

prohibited by setion 5 of the =t of &ongress

of /01D from altering or hanging the terms of

a ontrat. ;he right whih the 9efendant had

aquired by virtue of =ts 8o. 1 and 8o. DDI

had not been hanged in any respet by the

fat that said laws had been amended. ;hese

ats, onstituting the terms of the ontrat,

still onstituted a part of said ontrat and

were enforeable in favor of the 9efendant.

D. 8OA ;he 9efendant alleged in his speial

defense that he was a minor and therefore

the ontrat ould not be enfored against

him. ;he reord disloses that, at the time the

ontrat was entered into in the State of

+llinois, he was an adult under the laws of that

State and had full authority to ontrat. ?rank

laims that, by reason of the fat that, under

that laws of the Philippine +slands at the time

the ontrat was made, made persons in said

+slands did not reah their ma#ority until they

had attained the age of DE years, he was not

liable under said ontrat, ontending that the

laws of the Philippine +slands governed.

+t is not disputed B upon the ontrary the fat

is admitted B that at the time and plae of

the making of the ontrat in question the

9efendant had full apaity to make the

same. 8o rule is better settled in law than

that matters bearing upon the e3eution

interpretation and validity of a ontrat are

determined b the law of the plae where the

ontrat is made. Matters onneted with its

performane are regulated by the law

prevailing at the plae of performane

Matters respeting a remedy, suh as the

bringing of suit, admissibility of evidene, and

statutes of limitations, depend upon the law

of the plae where the suit is brought.

Documents

Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS