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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 2/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 3/22
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.
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 4/22
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.)
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 5/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 6/22
=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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 7/22
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$s ien by whih it sold to
petitioner =thona !oldings, 8.<. '=;!O8=* a
parel of land in ;e3as, C.S.=., while P!+S>&
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 8/22
and =L== e3tended a loan to =;!O8= as
initial payment of the purhase prie. ;he
balane was to be paid by means of a
promissory note e3euted by =;!O8= in favor
of /I, +n. Subsequently, upon their reeipt
of the money from /I, +n., P!+S>& and
=L== released 9uat from his indebtedness
and delivered to /I, +n. all the shares of
stok in their possession belonging to 9uat.
=s =;!O8= failed to pay the interest on the
balane, the entire amount overed by the
note beame due and demandable.
=ordingly, private respondent /I, +n.
sued petitioners P!+S>&, =L==, and =;!O8=
in the Cnited States for payment of the
balane and for damages for breah of
ontrat and for fraud allegedly perpetrated
by petitioners in misrepresenting the
marketability of the shares of stok delivered
to /I, +n. under the =greement.
-hile the &ivil &ase was pending in the Cnited
States, petitioners led a omplaint (?or Sum
of Money with 9amages and -rit of
Preliminary =ttahment) against private
respondents in the %;& Makati. ;he omplaint
reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their
respetive ounterlaims in the &ivil =tion in
the Cnited States 9istrit &ourt of Southern
;e3as that private respondents ommitted
fraud by selling the property at a prie I11
perent more than its true value.
9uat moved to dismiss the &ivil &ase in the
%;&2Makati on the grounds of '/* litis
pendentia, vis2a2vis the &ivil =tion in the
C.S., 'D* forum non onveniens, and 'E* failure
of petitioners P!+S>& and "P+2+? to state a
ause of ation.
;he trial ourt granted 9uat$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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 9/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 10/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 11/22
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.
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 12/22
=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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 13/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 14/22
=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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 15/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 16/22
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.
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 17/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 18/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 19/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 20/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 21/22
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
7/18/2019 Conflict of Laws Cases DIGESTS
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-of-laws-cases-digests 22/22
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.