SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P.

2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

WONG WOO YIU v. VIVO No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 Petitioner-appellee: WONG WOO YIU alias NG YAO Respondents-appellants: HON. MATINIANO P. VIVO, etc. et al. FACTS The petition alleged the following: On June 28, 1961, Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 decided the petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitted as non-quota immigrant. On the proceedings before the Board of Special Inquiry, the petitioner declared that she was married to Perfecto Blas in Chiangkang, China on January 15, 1929; that there marriage was celebrated by on Chua Tio, a village leader. The petitioner asserted that she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the first time to join her husband. On July 12, 1961, the decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners. However, on June 28, 1962, the decision was reversed by the same Board but composed of entirely new set of members. The Board held that during the entry proceedings of Perfecto Blass on January 23, 1947, he declared that he first visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936; while other affidavits sworn by Blas were also inconsistent with the petitioners assertion. On August 9, 1962, petitioner filed a motion for new trial but denied due to lack of merit. On September 14, 1962, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court, thereafter, declared the validity of the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3. ISSUE Whether the claim of the petitioner to be a lawful wife of Perfecto Blas can be entertained under the Philippine law on family relations HELD Petitioners marriage cannot be recognized in Philippine jurisdiction since no proof was presented relative to the validity of the marriage under law in China. Under Article 17 of the Civil Code, marriages contracted outside the Philippines which are rendered valid by the law of that country is also valid in the Philippines. In the case presented, without proof, In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own (Yam Ka Lim v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46). Marriage celebrated before a village leader cannot be recognized before Philippine jurisdiction. Hence, the court reversed the decision appealed.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

NAGARMUKK v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 Plaintiff-appellee: SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL Defendant-appellant: BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC. FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On May 6, 1949, under Contract G/4370, plaintiff, a foreign corporation based in Calcutta, India, agreed to sell to defendant, a domestic corporation based in Manila, 1,700,000 piese of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags. Shipment was to be made in equal instalments of 425,000 pcs during each month of July, August, September and October 1949. - On September 1949, the plaintiff advised the defendant that the shipments scheduled for July, August and September were defaulted. - On October 1, 1949, the Government of India increased the export duty of jute bags from 80 to 350 ru pees per ton. - On October 27, 1949, the plaintiff wrote the defendant to increase its letter of credit to cover the defaulted shipments for July, August and September. - The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration decided in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 18,562 rupees and 8 annas. This award was thereafter affirmed by the Calcutta High Court. - On September 22, 1952, the plaintiff sought to enforce its claim through the Department of Foreign Affairs, defendant replied that they are not bound by the decision rendered by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and not obligated to pay the claim.

ISSUE Whether the decision rendered by the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, is enforceable in the Philippines HELD The decision sought to be enforced was rendered upon a clear mistake of law. The increase in export tax would have not been imposed if the one-hundred fifty-four bales been delivered in accordance to the terms of the contract. The court cannot sanction a clear mistake of law that would cause the appellant to suffer consequence of the breach of contract committed by the appellee. Hence, the court reversed and set aside the appealed judgment.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA v. AMERICAL REALTY CORPORATION G.R. No. 133876 December 29, 1999 Petitioner: BANK OF AMERICA, NT and SA Respondents: AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS FACTS The petition alleged the following: - Bank of America NT and SA (BANTSA) - an international banking institution existing under the laws of State of California, USA - and Bank of America International Limited (BAIL) - limited liability company existing under laws of England granted multi-million US dollar loans to: (1) Liberian Transport Navigation, S.A.; (2) El Challenger S.A; and (3) Eshley Compania Naviera S.A., which were all existing under laws of Republic of Panama - As additional security, American Realty Corporation (ARC) as third party mortgagor executed two real party estate mortgages over its parcel of land at San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. - The borrowers defaulted in the payment of loans prompting petitioner BANTSA to file civil action before courts of England and Hong Kong. - On December 16, 1992, petitioner BANTSA filed before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. - On December 14, 1993, ARC filed a motion for suspension of redemption. - On May 12, 1993, lower court rendered a decision ordering BANTSA to pay ARC compensatory damages of ninety-nine million pesos, exemplary damages of five million pesos and costs of suits. - On September 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision and denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration. ISSUES 1. Whether or not the petitioners act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors for th e recovery of the loans before the foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of the foreclosure. 2. Whether or not the award by the lower court of actual and exemplary damages in favour of the private respondent ARC, as third-party mortgagor, is proper. HELD 1. By the act of filing of the ordinary action for collection against the principal debtors in foreign courts, the petitioner is deemed to have elected the remedy of civil suit; thus, abandoning he remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over properties of the respondent. Furthermore, Philippine law shall apply on the present case as the foreign law alleged by the petitioners was contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum. 2. The lower court actions of awarding actual and exemplary damages in favour of the private respondent are sanctioned by the Rule 10, Section 5 of the Rules of Court and supported by jurisprudence; however, exemplary damages is modified to fifty thousand pesos. Hence, the court denied the petition for lack of merit.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

LAUREANO v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 114776 February 7, 2000 Petitioner: MENANDRO B. LAUREANO Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED FACTS The petition alleged the following: - In 1978 plaintiff Menandro B. Laureano applied for employment with the defendant company Singapore Airlines Ltd. - On January 20, 1979, plaintiff commenced working for the defendant after accepting a contract of employment for an original period of two (2) year. - On July 21, 1979, dependant ordered plaintiff an extension of his two-year contract to five (5) years effective January 21, 1979 to January 20, 1984. - In 1982, defendant, hit by recession, decided to terminate its excess personnel including the plaintiff. - On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective November 1, 1982 and he will be paid three (3) month-salary in lieu of three-month notice. Due to the request of plaintiff, private respondent gave two (2) months notice and one (1) month salary. - On June 29, 1983, plaintiff filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter which was later withdrawn. - On February 11, 1987, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the court over the matter, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which was later denied by the court. - On April 10, 1991, trial court decided in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the private respondent to pay him his unearned compensation, consequential, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. - On October 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals set aside and reversed the decision of the trial court. ISSUES 1. Whether the Singapore Law was applicable to the case at hand 2. Whether the Philippine court had jurisdiction over the case HELD 1. The court cannot determination the applicability of Singapore Laws due to the defendants failure to show which specific laws of Singapore that apply to the case at hand; thus, Philippine law should be applied. 2. Respondent Court of Appeals had acquired jurisdiction when the defendant filed its appeal before the said court; hence, the former was correct it barred the latter from raising the issue of jurisdiction. Hence, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000 Petitioner: WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT LINES, INC. FACTS The petition alleged the following: - In February 1988, the Philippine Roxas, vessel owned by private respondent Philippine President Lines, Inc., arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela to load iron ore. - Upon completion of loading, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez, an official pilot of Venezuela, was designated to navigate the Philippine Roxas through Orinoco River. - On February 12, 1988, at around 4:35 a.m., Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels. - Due to the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by petitioner Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day. - Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. filed a suit for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch III, which ruled in favour of the petitioner on October 16, 1991. - On June 14, 1994, Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the of the lower court favouring the private respondent. ISSUE Whether or not Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar HELD Foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact; otherwise domestic courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. The written laws of Venezuela were not proven in the manner provided by Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which requires a duly authenticated copy of the statute. Hence, Venezuelan law was not pleaded before the lower court and presumed to be the same as the law of the forum. Hence, the court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC. v. FASGI ENTERPRISES, INC. G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000 Petitioner: PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC. Respondent: FASGI ENTERPRISES, INC. FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On June 1, 1978, FASGI Enterprises Incorporated (FASGI), corporation existing under laws of State of California, USA, entered into a distributorship agreement with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Incorporated (PAWI). - The agreement provided for the purchase, importation and distributorship in the US of aluminium wheels manufactured by PAWI. - FASGI later found the shipment defective and in non-compliance with distributorship requirements. - On September 21, 1979, the parties entered into a settlement entitled Transaction where it was stipulated that PAWI would accept the return of the wheels after return to FASGI the purchase price via four irrevocable letters of credit (LC). - On March 2, 1980, PAWI president Romeo Rojas expressed the companys inability to comply and proposed a revised schedule of payment. - On November 26, 1980, the parties through FASGI president Elena Buholzer and PAWI counsel Thomas Ready - entered into another agreement entitled Supplemental Settlement Agreement, wherein stipulated that FASGI would deliver toe PAWI a container of wheels for every LC opened and paid by PAWI and the motion of entry of judgement in favour of FASGI. - PAWI totally defaulted in opening and paying the third and fourth LCs. - On September 7, 1982, US District Judge of the District Court of California issued a finality of judgement based on FASGIs filing of notice of entry of judgment. - In February 1983, FASGI filed a complaint for enforcement of foreign judgment before the RTC Branch 61 of Makati, Philippines, which was later dismissed by the said court. - FASGI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and ordered full enforcement of the California judgment. ISSUES 1. Whether the judgment of California court is valid, recognized and enforceable in the country 2. Whether the Philippine court can pass a judgment on a decision by a foreign court 3. Whether fraud can hinder the enforcement of a foreign judgment within domestic jurisdiction HELD 1. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized and enforced as long as it is shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction and compliant to the proceedings of foreign forum. 2. In line with the principle of international comity, court of another jurisdiction should refrain from passing judgment on the correctness of the application of law and evaluation of facts of the judgment issued by another tribunal. 3. Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a foreign judgment, must be extrinsic. Hence, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

PAULA T. LLORENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 124371 November 23, 2000 Petitioner: PAULA T. LLORENTE Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTE FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On February 22, 1937, Lorenco N. Llorente, an enlisted serviceman of the United States Navy, and petitioner Paula Llorente were married before a Catholic priest in Nabua, Camarines Sur. - On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship. - Lorenzo discovered that the petitioner Paula was having an adulterous relationship with this brother; thus he returned to the United States and filed for divorce which was granted by the Superior Court of the State of California on November 27, 1951 and became final in December 4, 1952. - On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married the private defendant Alicia F. Llorente in Manila. The union produced three children Raul, Luz and Beverly. - On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament which bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children and appointing the private defendant as the sole executor of the will. - On June 11, 1985, Lorenzo died. - On September 4, 1985, Paula filed a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzos estate in her favour since (1) she was Lorenzos surviving spouse, (2) the property were acquired during their marriage, (3) and the will encroaches here legitimate and share of the conjugal property. - On May 18, 1987, the RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner since the divorce decree is void and inapplicable to the Philippines and that the defendant is not entitled to any share from the estate. - On July 31, 1995, Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision with modification that the defendant would be a co-owner of properties Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation. - Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration which is denied due to lack of merit. ISSUES 1. Whether the divorce obtained by Lorenzo Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized under Philippine jurisdiction 2. Whether the Last Will and Testament of Lorenzo Llorente is valid HELD 1. As a matter of comity, divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons or lex patriae. 2. As per Art. 17 of the Civil Code, The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required by the Philippine law, the will was duly probated. Hence, the petition is granted and decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001 Petitioner: ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE CORPORATION

NATIONAL

CONSTRUCTION

FACTS The petition alleged the following: - In 1983, petitioner initiated a suit to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put in favour of the private respondent, then known as Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines. - On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaysia rendered judgment in favour of the petitioner and against the private respondent - On September 5, 1988, petitioner initiated a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaysia. - On October 14, 1991, the trial court dismissed the petitioners complaint. - On May 19, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the same and affirmed the decision of the trial court. ISSUES 1. Whether the judgment of High Court of Malaysia is valid and binding to Philippine jurisdiction 2. Whether it is the procedural law of Malaysia that determines the validity of the service of the court process HELD 1. Having proven through evidence the existence of and authenticity of foreign judgment, said foreign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden to prove otherwise fell upon the party who disputed its validity. 2. Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of summons or court process upon the defendant, the authority of the counsel to appear and represent a defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are governed by lex fori or the internal law of the forum, i.e. the law of Malaysia in this case. In line with this, there is no merit to the respondents argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award was based. By lex fori, under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaysia, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating the law upon the judgement is based. Hence, the petition is granted and the decision of Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

GARCIA v. RECIO G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 Petitioner: GRACE J. GARCIA a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO Respondent: REDERICK A. RECIO FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On March 1, 1987, Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal. - On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce was issued by an Australian family court. - On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen. - On January 12, 1994, petitioner Grace J. Garcia a Filipina and respondent were married in Cabanatuan City. - On March 23, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married the petitioner. In his answer, the respondent contented that his first marriage to an Australian had been validly dissolve by a divorce decree in 1989. - On July 7, 1998, respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down - The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines and not due to the respondents alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry. ISSUES 1. Whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven 2. Whether the respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner HELD 1. Foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts as long as the party pleading it must prove the divorce as fact. The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one but compliance to Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court was not demonstrated by the respondent. 2. The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned which is Australian law. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994. Hence, the Court remand the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondents legal capacity to marry petitioner.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. v. GUERRERO G.R. No. 136804 February 19, 2003 Petitioners: MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANK Respondents: RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO FACTS The petition alleged the following: - On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero fled before the Regional Trial Court of Mania against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank - Guerrero sought payment of damages allegedly for (1) illegally withheld taxed charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank, (2) a returned check worth $18,000.00 due to signature verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his account. - The bank filed its Answer alleging that Guerreros account is governed by New York law which does not permit any Guerreros claims except actual damages. - Seeking the dismissal of Guerreros claims, the Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, supported by an affidavit of New York attorney Alyssa Walden. - The RTC denied the Banks Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. - The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the RTC Orders ISSUE Whether the Walden affidavit does serve as proof of the New York law and jurisprudence HELD The Walden affidavit stated conclusions from the affiants personal interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case vis--vis, the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any laws in particular. While the attached copies of some US court decisions do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts. Thus, the Walden affidavit did not prove the current state of New York law and jurisprudence. Hence, the petition is denied for lack of merit and Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P. 2009-31291 PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

BANK OF AMERICA NT &SA v. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003 Petitioners: BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA, BANK OF AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, LTD. Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL PADOLINA, EDUARDO LITONJUA, SR. and AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR. FACTS The petition alleged the following: - The private respondents Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr and Aurelio J. Litonjua, engaged in a shipping business, owned two vessels Don Aurelio and El Champion - through their wholly-owned corporations. Until 1979, they deposited their revenues to the branches of petitioner-banks in the United Kingdom and Hongkong. - By offering the private respondents easy loans, the petitioner-banks acquired new four vessels through their (Litonjuas) corporations as the borrowers. - Due to the negligence of the petitioners and/or persons designated by them in the operations of private respondents six vessel, the revenues derived from the operation of all the vessels declined drastically; the loans acquired then matures and remained unpaid, prompting petitioner-banks to have all the six vessels. - On May 10, 1993, the respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig and prayed for the accounting og the revenues derived in the operation of the six vessels, etc. - Petitioner-banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action against them, but later denied by the trial court. - Petitioner-banks filed for a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Court of Appeals but later dismissed by the appellate court. ISSUES 1. Whether the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens 2. Whether the private respondents are guilty of forum shopping because of the pendency of foreign action HELD 1. The requisites for assuming jurisdiction presented in Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 260 SCRA 673 (1996) are all present in the case: (1) Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have a power to enforce its decisions. Moreover, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. 2. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The petition failed to show the identity of rights asserted and the reliefs sought for as well as the presence of the elements of res judicata should one of the cases be adjudged. Hence, the court denied the petition due to lack of merit.