2) Dacasin vs. Dacasin G.R. No.

G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the
Philippines, service may be made:
G.R. No. 168785 February 5, 2010 Lessons Applicable: Territoriality Principle (conflicts of law)
(1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or,
(2) if there is no such resident agent, on the government official designated by law to that
FACTS: FACTS: effect; or
Petitioner Herald Dacasin (petitioner), American, and respondent Sharon Del Mundo Northwest Airlines (Northwest) and C.F. Sharp & Company (C.F.), through its Japan branch, (3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Dacasin (respondent), Filipino, were married in Manila in April 1994. They have one entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the Northwest
daughter, Stephanie, born on 21 September 1995. In June 1999, respondent sought and authorized the C.F. to sell its air transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the
obtained from the Circuit Court, 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Illinois court) a ticket sales, Northwest sued C.F. in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds
divorce decree against petitioner which dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent, of the ticket sales, with claim for damages on March 25, 1980. Writ of summons was issued If the foreign corporation has designated an agent to receive summons, the designation is
awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for by the 36th Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan but the attempt to serve the exclusive, and service of summons is without force and gives the court no jurisdiction unless
enforcement purposes. same was unsuccessful because Mr. Dinozo was in Manila and would be back only on April made upon him.
24, 1980. Mr. Dinozo returned to C.F. Office but he refused to receive it claiming that he is Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official
On 28 January 2002, petitioner and respondent executed in Manila a contract for the joint no longer an employee.
custody of Stephanie. The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate designated by law, to wit:
disputes arising from the Agreement. Respondent undertook to obtain from the Illinois court After the 2 unsuccessful attempts of service, Supreme Court of Japan sent the summons (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance company
an order relinquishing jurisdiction to Philippine courts. In 2004, petitioner sued respondent in together with the other legal documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan in the
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 60 (trial court) to enforce the Agreement. Japanese Embassy in Manila and forwarded to Executive Judge of the Court of First (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking corporation
Petitioner alleged that in violation of the Agreement, respondent exercised sole custody over Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila who ordered Deputy Sheriff Rolando Balingit
Stephanie. to serve it to C.F. Main Office, which received the writ of summons but failed to appear at the (c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly
scheduled hearing. licensed to do business in the Philippines. Whenever service of process is so made, the
Respondent sought the dismissal of the complaint for, among others, lack of jurisdiction government office or official served shall transmit by mail a copy of the summons or other
because of the Illinois courts retention of jurisdiction to enforce the divorce decree. The trial Tokyo Court rendered judgment on January 29, 1981 ordering the C.F. to pay 83,158,195 legal proccess to the corporation at its home or principal office. The sending of such copy is
court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court held that: (1) it is precluded Yen and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per annum from August 28, 1980 until payment a necessary part of the service.
from taking cognizance over the suit considering the Illinois courts retention of jurisdiction to is completed. C.F. received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment but did not
enforce its divorce decree, including its order awarding sole custody of Stephanie to appeal so it became final and executory. Northwest filed a suit for enforcement of the The service on the proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of
respondent; (2) the divorce decree is binding on petitioner following the nationality rule judgment a RTC. C.F. averred that the Japanese Court judgment sought to be enforced is Court, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation Code. Our laws and jurisprudence
prevailing in this jurisdiction; and (3) the Agreement is void for contravening Article 2035, null and void and unenforceable in this jurisdiction having been rendered without due and indicate a purpose to assimilate foreign corporations, duly licensed to do business here, to
paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibiting compromise agreements on jurisdiction. Hence, proper notice and/or with collusion or fraud and/or upon a clear mistake of law and fact. The the status of domestic corporations. We think it would be entirely out of line with this policy
this petition. foreign judgment in the Japanese Court sought in this action is null and void for want of should we make a discrimination against a foreign corporation, like the petitioner, and
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant considering that this is an action in personam. subject its property to the harsh writ of seizure by attachment when it has complied not only
The process of the Court in Japan sent to the Philippines which is outside Japanese with every requirement of law made specially of foreign corporations, but in addition with
jurisdiction cannot confer jurisdiction over the defendant in the case before the Japanese every requirement of law made of domestic corporations. Accordingly, the extraterritorial
ISSUE: service of summons on it by the Japanese Court was valid not only under the processual
Court of the case at bar.
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and presumption but also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of official
enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child. CA sustained RTC: Court agrees that if the C.F. in a foreign court is a resident in the court of duty.
that foreign court such court could acquire jurisdiction over the person of C.F. but it must be
served in the territorial jurisdiction of the foreign court
HELD: 4) Valmonte v. CA
The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain petitioners suit but not to enforce the Agreement ISSUE: G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996
which is void. However, factual and equity considerations militate against the dismissal of
petitioners suit and call for the remand of the case to settle the question of Stephanie’s Whether or not the Japanese Court has jurisdiction over C.F. Service of Summons
custody. In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to stipulate the terms of agreement
subject to the minimum ban on stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy. Even supposing that petitioner and respondent are not barred from HELD: YES. FACTS:
entering into the Agreement for the joint custody of Stephanie, respondent repudiated the
Instant petition is partly GRANTED, and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED insofar as it Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign resident. Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo are
Agreement by asserting sole custody over Stephanie. Respondent’s act effectively brought
denied NORTHWEST's claims for attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary husband and wife both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.
the parties back to ambit of the default custodial regime in the second paragraph of Article
damages. Consequently, the party attacking (C.F.) a foreign judgment has the burden of Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine bar, however, practices
213 of the Family Code vesting on respondent sole custody of Stephanie. The trial court
overcoming the presumption of its validity his profession in the Philippines, commuting for this purpose between his residence in the
should not have dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The case is remanded back to the
state of Washington and Manila, where he holds office at S-304 Gedisco Centre, 1564 A.
trial court to settle the questions of custody of Stephanie. Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the service of summons and the Mabini, Ermita, Manila.
decision thereafter rendered by the Japanese court must stand. Applying it, the Japanese
law on the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine law on service of summons Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner filed an action for
3) Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. v. CA on a private foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. Section 14, Rule 14 of the partition against former and her husband. She alleged that, the plaintiff is of legal age, a
widow and is at present a resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri, U.S.A.,
while the defendants are spouses but, for purposes of this complaint may be served with
summons at Gedisco Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila where defendant Facts: As a rule, when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, Philippine
Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmonte’s spouse holds office and courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction
where he can be found. Her husband was also her counsel, who has a law office in the Abelardo Licaros and Margarita Romualdez-Licaros were lawfully married on December 15, over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court. But when the case is one of actions in
Philippines. The summons were served on her husband. 1968. Ironically, marital differences, squabbles and irreconcilable conflicts transpired rem or quasi in rem enumerated in Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court, Philippine
between the spouses, such that sometime in 1979, they agreed to separate from bed and courts have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. In such instances, Philippine courts
Petitioner in a letter, referred private respondent’s counsel to her husband as the party to board. have jurisdiction over the res, and jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident defendant
whom all communications intended for her should be sent. Service of summons was then is not essential.
made upon petitioner Alfredo at his office in Manila. Alfredo D. Valmonte accepted his In 1982, Margarita left for the United States and there, to settle down with her two (2)
summons, but not the one for Lourdes, on the ground that he was not authorized to accept children. On April 26, 1989, Margarita applied for divorce before the Superior Court of Actions in personam and actions in rem or quasi in rem differ in that actions in personam are
the process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server left without leaving a copy of the California, County of San Mateo and was granted the decree of divorce together with a directed against specific persons and seek personal judgments. On the other hand, actions
summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte. distribution of properties between her and Abelardo. in rem or quasi in rem are directed against the thing or property or status of a person and
Not long after, on August 17, 1990, Abelardo and Margarita executed an Agreement of seek judgments with respect thereto as against the whole world.
Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer with Counterclaim. Petitioner
Lourdes A. Valmonte, however, did not file her Answer. For this reason private respondent Separation of Properties. This was followed-up by a petition filed on August 21, 1990 before At the time Abelardo filed the petition for nullity of the marriage in 1991, Margarita was
moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte entered a special the Regional Trial Court of Makati for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains of residing in the United States. She left the Philippines in 1982 together with her two children.
appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private respondent’s motion. RTC denied the spouses and for the approval of the agreement of separation of their properties. The trial court considered Margarita a non-resident defendant who is not found in the
the MR of respondents. CA declared petitioner Lourdes in default. Said decision was Abelardo commenced Civil Case for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Margarita, Philippines. Since the petition affects the personal status of the plaintiff, the trial court
received by Alfredo hence this petition. based on psychological incapacity under the New Family Code. As Margarita was then authorized extraterritorial service of summons under Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of
residing at 96 Mulberry Lane, Atherton, California, U.S.A., Abelardo initially moved that Court. The term personal status includes family relations, particularly the relations between
summons be served through the International Express Courier Service. The court a quo husband and wife.
ISSUE: denied the motion. Instead, it ordered that summons be served by publication in a Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the
newspaper of general circulation once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, at the same country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances:
Whether or not petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was validly served with summons. time furnishing respondent a copy of the order, as well as the corresponding summons and
a copy of the petition at the given address in the United States through the Department of (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the
Foreign Affairs, all at the expense of Abelardo. action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in
HELD: NO. which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3)
On July 15, 1991, Process Server, submitted his Officers Return shows that the summons when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant
There was no valid service of summons on Lourdes. The action herein is in the nature of an addressed to Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property
action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of affecting the defendant’s Department of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of receipt. of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.
interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment against him. As petitioner
Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of Thereafter, with the negative report of collusion, Abelardo was allowed to present his In these instances, extraterritorial service of summons may be effected under any of three
summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14. Such service, to be effective outside evidence ex-parte. On November 8, 1991, the Decision was handed down in Civil Case modes: (1) by personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) by publication and
the Philippines, must be made either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a declaring the marriage between Abelardo and Margarita null and void. sending a copy of the summons and order of the court by registered mail to the defendants
newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order, in Almost nine (9) years later, Margarita received a letter dated November 18, 1991 from a last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any other means the judge may
which case a copy of the summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail certain Atty. Angelo Q. Valencia informing her that she no longer has the right to use the consider sufficient.
to the last known address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may family name Licaros inasmuch as her marriage to Abelardo had already been judicially
deem sufficient. Applying the foregoing rule, the trial court required extraterritorial service of summons to be
dissolved by the Regional Trial Court of Makati on November 8, 1991. effected on Margarita in the following manner:
In the case at bar, the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not CA ruled in favor of Abelardo. Hence, the instant petition.
done by means of any of the first two modes. This mode of service, like the first two, must x x x, service of Summons by way of publication in a newspaper of general circulation once
be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, at the same time, furnishing respondent copy of this
country where the defendant resides. The service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D. Order as well as the corresponding Summons and copy of the petition at her given address
Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as required by Rule 14, Sec. 17 and Issues: at No. 96 Mulberry Lane, Atherton, California, U.S.A., thru the Department of Foreign Affairs,
certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in fact refused to consider the all at the expense of petitioner. (Emphasis ours)
service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her The trial courts prescribed mode of extraterritorial service does not fall under the first or
failure to file an answer. Whether Margarita was validly served with summons in the case for declaration of nullity of second mode specified in Section 15 of Rule 14, but under the third mode. This refers to any
her marriage with Abelardo; YES other means that the judge may consider sufficient.
Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior leave
of the trial court as required also in Rule 14. As provided in Sec. 19, such leave must be The Process Servers Return of 15 July 1991 shows that the summons addressed to
applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or some person on his Margarita together with the complaint and its annexes were sent by mail to the Department
behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application. Whether there was extrinsic fraud in the preparation and filing by Abelardo of the Petition for
Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of Foreign Affairs with acknowledgment of receipt. The Process Servers certificate of service
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave, petitioner of Properties. NO of summons is prima facie evidence of the facts as set out in the certificate. Before
Lourdes was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the rules, shall be proceeding to declare the marriage between Margarita and Abelardo null and void, the trial
not less than sixty (60) days after notice. court stated in its Decision dated 8 November 1991 that compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements have been duly established. We hold that delivery to the Department of
RULING: Foreign Affairs was sufficient compliance with the rule. After all, this is exactly what the trial
First Issue: Validity of the Service of Summons on Margarita court required and considered as sufficient to effect service of summons under the third
5)MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS, petitioner, vs. ABELARDO B. LICAROS mode of extraterritorial service pursuant to Section 15 of Rule 14.
Second Issue: Validity of the Judgment Dissolving the Conjugal Partnership of Gains personam nature of the action, personal or, if not possible, substituted service of summons
on petitioner, and not extraterritorial service, is necessary to confer jurisdiction over the
Margarita claims that Abelardo coerced her into signing the Petition for Dissolution of the Issue: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over Banco do Brasil. NO person of petitioner and validly hold it liable to private respondent for damages. Thus, the
Conjugal Partnership of Gains (Petition) and its annex, the Agreement of Separation of trial court had no jurisdiction to award damages amounting to $300,000.00 in favor of private
Properties (Agreement). Abelardo allegedly threatened to cut off all financial and material respondent and as against herein petitioner.
support to their children if Margarita did not sign the documents. Petitioner avers that the action filed against it is an action for damages, as such it is an
action in personam which requires personal service of summons be made upon it for the (NOT RELATED TO OUR TOPIC) Second. We settled the issue of finality of the trial courts
The trial court did not find anything amiss in the Petition and Agreement that Abelardo filed, decision dated February 18, 1991 in the Vlason case, wherein we stated that, considering
and thus the trial court approved the same. The Court of Appeals noted that a meticulous court to acquire jurisdiction over it. However, inasmuch as petitioner Banco do Brasil is a
non-resident foreign corporation, not engaged in business in the Philippines, unless it has the admiralty case involved multiple defendants, "each defendant had a different period
perusal of the Petition and Agreement readily shows that Margarita signed the same on the within which to appeal, depending on the date of receipt of decision." Only upon the lapse of
proper space after the prayer and on the portion for the verification of the petition. The Court property located in the Philippines which may be attached to convert the action into an
action in rem, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over it in respect of an action in the reglementary period to appeal, with no appeal perfected within such period, does the
of Appeals observed further that on 6 August 1990, Margarita appeared before Consul decision become final and executory.
Amado Cortez in the Philippine Consulate Office in San Francisco, California, to affirm that personam.
she executed the Agreement of her own free will. There was no showing that Abelardo was In the case of petitioner, its Motion to Vacate Judgment and to Dismiss Case was filed on
at that time with her at the Philippine Consulate Office. The due and regular execution of an April 10, 1991, only six (6) days after it learned of the existence of the case upon being
instrument acknowledged before an officer authorized to administer oaths cannot be Ruling: informed by the Embassy of the Federative Republic of Brazil in the Philippines, on April 4,
overthrown by bare allegations of coercion but only by clear and convincing proof. A person 1991, of the February 18, 1991 decision.] Thus, in the absence of any evidence on the date
acknowledging an instrument before an officer authorized to administer oaths acknowledges Under Section 15 of Rule 14, a defendant who is a non-resident and is not found in the of receipt of decision, other than the alleged April 4, 1991 date when petitioner learned of the
that he freely and voluntarily executed the instrument, giving rise to a prima facie country may be served with summons by extraterritorial service in four instances: decision, the February 18, 1991 decision of the trial court cannot be said to have attained
presumption of such fact. (1) when the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff; (2) when the finality as regards the petitioner.
action relates to, or the subject of which is property within the Philippines, in
which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent; (3)
6) BANCO DO BRASIL vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS when the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant 7) ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
from any interest in property located in the Philippines; or (4) when the property PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
of the defendant has been attached within the Philippines.
Facts: Clear from the foregoing, extrajudicial service of summons apply only where the action is in
rem, an action against the thing itself instead of against the person, or in an action quasi in Facts:
Poro Point Shipping Services, then acting as the local agent of Omega Sea Transport rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to
Company of Honduras & Panama, a Panamanian Company, requested permission for its subject his interest therein to the obligation or loan burdening the property. This is so The petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a corporation organized under the
vessel M/V Star Ace, which had engine trouble, to unload its cargo and to store it at the inasmuch as, in in rem and quasi in rem actions, jurisdiction over the person of the laws of Malaysia while private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation is a
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) compound in San Fernando, La Union while awaiting defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided that the court corporation duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws.
transshipment to Hongkong. The request was approved by the Bureau of Customs. acquires jurisdiction over the res. [Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 539, On 1983, Asiavest initiated a suit for collection against Construction and Development
Despite the approval, the customs personnel boarded and seized the vessel, on suspicion 552-554 [1998]; Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 92, 99-102 [1996].] Corporation of the Philippines, before the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
that it was the hijacked M/V Silver Med owned by Med Line Philippines Co., and that its However, where the action is in personam, one brought against a person on the basis of his
cargo would be smuggled into the country. Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up in favor of
personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to private respondent to guarantee the completion of the Felda Project and the non-payment of
While seizure proceedings were ongoing, La Union was hit by three typhoons, and the validly try and decide the case. When the defendant is a non-resident, personal service of the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the completion of Paloh Hanai and
vessel ran aground and was abandoned. Its authorized representative entered into salvage summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.57 Kuantan By-Pass Project.
agreement with to secure and repair the vessel at the agreed consideration of $1 million and [The Dial Corporation v. Soriano, 161 SCRA 737, 743 [1988] citing Boudard v. Tait, 67 Phil
"fifty percent (50%) [of] the cargo after all expenses, cost and taxes." 170, 174 [1939].] This cannot be done, however, if the defendant is not physically present in High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division) rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner and
the country, and thus, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore against the private respondent which is also designated therein as the 2nd Defendant.
Finding that no fraud was committed, the District Collector of Customs, lifted the warrant of cannot validly try and decide the case against him. [Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals]
seizure on. However, in a new Customs Commissioner declined to issue a clearance Following unsuccessful attempts to secure payment from private respondent under the
instead, he forfeited the vessel and its cargo and issued a Decision decreeing the forfeiture In the instant case, private respondent’s suit against petitioner is premised on petitioners judgment, petitioner initiated on September 5, 1988 the complaint before Regional Trial
and the sale of the cargo in favor of the government. being one of the claimants of the subject vessel M/V Star Ace. Thus, it can be said that Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaya.
private respondent initially sought only to exclude petitioner from claiming interest over the
To enforce its preferred salvors lien, herein Private Respondent Duraproof Services filed subject vessel M/V Star Ace. However, private respondent testified during the presentation Private respondent sought the dismissal of the case contending that the alleged judgment of
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and assailing the of evidence that, for being a nuisance defendant, petitioner caused irreparable damage to the High Court of Malaya should be denied recognition or enforcement since on its face, it is
actions of Commissioner Mison. private respondent in the amount of $300,000.00.60. Therefore, while the action is in rem, by tainted with want of jurisdiction, want of notice to private respondent, collusion and/or fraud,
claiming damages, the relief demanded went beyond the res and sought a relief totally alien and there is a clear mistake of law or fact.
Subsequently, upon the motion of Omega, Singkong Trading Co., and private respondent, to the action.
the trial court approved a Compromise Agreement among the movants, reducing by 20
percent the amounts adjudged. For their part, respondents-movants agreed not to appeal It must be stressed that any relief granted in rem or quasi in rem actions must be confined to Issue:
the Decision. the res, and the court cannot lawfully render a personal judgment against the defendant.
Clearly, the publication of summons effected by private respondent is invalid and ineffective WON THE MALAYSIAN COURT DID NOT ACQUIRE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
On 1991, petitioner Banco do Brasil filed, by special appearance, an Urgent Motion to for the trial court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, since by seeking to PNCC AND IN EFFECT THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE ENFORCED.
Vacate Judgement and to Dismiss Case On the ground that the February 18, 1991 Decision recover damages from petitioner for the alleged commission of an injury to his person or
of the trial court is void with respect to it for having been rendered without validly acquiring property [Hernandez v. Development Bank of the Phil] caused by petitioners being a
jurisdiction over the person of Banco do Brasil. nuisance defendant, private respondents action became in personam. Bearing in mind the in Ruling: NO. the judgment can be enforced
In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar (f) Billing Memorandum of Sycip Salazar Law Offices dated January 2, 1990 showing presumption of validity and regularity of service of summons and the decision thereafter
as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is attorneys fees paid by and due from petitioner; rendered by the High Court of Malaya must stand.
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a
court of competent jurisdiction; that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, (g) Statement of Claim, Writ of Summons and Affidavit of Service of such writ in petitioners On the matter of alleged lack of authority of the law firm of Allen and Gledhill to represent
following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of suit against private respondent before the Malaysian High Court; private respondent, not only did the private respondents witnesses admit that the said law
jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and that there is nothing firm of Allen and Gledhill were its counsels in its transactions in Malaysia, but of greater
(h) Memorandum of Conditional Appearance dated March 28, 1983 filed by counsel for significance is the fact that petitioner offered in evidence relevant Malaysian jurisprudence to
to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or private respondent with the Malaysian High Court;
fraud in procuring the judgment. the effect that:
(i) Summons in Chambers and Affidavit of Khaw Chay Tee, counsel for private respondent, (a) it is not necessary under Malaysian law for counsel appearing before the
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, submitted during the proceedings before the Malaysian High Court;
until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the Malaysian High Court to submit a special power of attorney authorizing him to
giving of due notice in the foreign forum. Under Section 50(b), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules (j) Record of the Courts Proceedings in Civil Case No. C638 of 1983; represent a client before said court;
of Court, which was the governing law at the time the instant case was decided by the trial (b) that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court has full authority to
court and respondent appellate court, a judgment, against a person, of a tribunal of a foreign (k) Petitioners verified Application for Summary Judgment dated August 14, 1984; and
compromise the suit; and
country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a right as (l) Letter dated November 6, 1985 from petitioners Malaysian counsel to private respondents
between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. The judgment counsel in Malaysia. (c) that counsel appearing before the Malaysian High Court need not comply
may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, with certain pre-requisites as required under Philippine law to appear and
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. In addition, under Section 3(n), Rule 131 of Having thus proven, through the foregoing evidence, the existence and authenticity of the compromise judgments on behalf of their clients before said court.
the Revised Rules of Court, a court, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the foreign judgment, said foreign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden then fell
presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, once the upon the party who disputes its validity, herein private respondent, to prove otherwise. Furthermore, there is no basis for or truth to the appellate courts conclusion that the
authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking a foreign judgment, is conditional appearance of private respondents counsel who was allegedly not authorized to
Private respondent failed to sufficiently discharge the burden that fell upon it to prove by appear and represent, cannot be considered as voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity.
clear and convincing evidence the grounds which it relied upon to prevent enforcement of the High Court of Malaya, inasmuch as said conditional appearance was not premised on
In the instant case, petitioner sufficiently established the existence of the money judgment of the Malaysian High Court judgment. Private respondent relied solely on the testimony of its the alleged lack of authority of said counsel but the conditional appearance was entered to
the High Court of Malaya by the evidence it offered. Vinayak Prabhakar Pradhan, presented two (2) witnesses, namely, Mr. Alfredo N. Calupitan, an accountant of private respondent, question the regularity of the service of the writ of summons. Such conditional appearance
as petitioners sole witness, testified to the effect that he is in active practice of the law and Virginia Abelardo, Executive Secretary and a member of the staff of the Corporate was in fact subsequently withdrawn when counsel realized that the writ was properly served.
profession in Malaysia; that he was connected with Skrine and Company as Legal Assistant Secretariat Section of the Corporate Legal Division, of private respondent, both of whom
up to 1981; that private respondent, then known as Construction and Development failed to shed light and amplify its defense or claim for non-enforcement of the foreign Lastly, there is no merit to the argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view
Corporation of the Philippines, was sued by his client, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) judgment against it. of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the
Berhad, in Kuala Lumpur; that the writ of summons were served on March 17, 1983 at the petitioner was based. As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum governs
Mr. Calupitans testimony centered on the following: that from January to December 1982 he matters of remedy and procedure Considering that under the procedural rules of the High
registered office of private respondent and on March 21, 1983 on Cora S. Deala, a financial
was assigned in Malaysia as Project Comptroller of the Pahang Project Package A and B for Court of Malaya, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating in the judgment
planning officer of private respondent for Southeast Asia operations; that upon the filing of
road construction under the joint venture of private respondent and Asiavest Holdings and, every fact and law upon which the judgment is based, then the same must be accorded
the case, Messrs. Allen and Gledhill, Advocates and Solicitors, with address at 24th Floor,
that Cora Deala was not authorized to receive summons for and in behalf of the private respect and the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign court
UMBC Building, Jalan Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur, entered their conditional appearance for
respondent. Ms. Abelardos testimony, on the other hand, focused on the following: that there simply because our rules provide otherwise.
private respondent questioning the regularity of the service of the writ of summons but
was no board resolution authorizing Allen and Gledhill to admit all the claims of petitioner in
subsequently withdrew the same when it realized that the writ was properly served; that
the suit brought before the High Court of Malaya, though on cross-examination she admitted
because private respondent failed to file a statement of defense within two (2) weeks,
that Allen and Gledhill were the retained lawyers of private respondent in Malaysia.
petitioner filed an application for summary judgment and submitted affidavits and 8) ATTY. JOSE S. GOMEZ, et. Al., vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (WALA JUD KO
documentary evidence in support of its claim; that the matter was then heard before the High The foregoing reasons or grounds relied upon by private respondent in preventing KABALO NGANONG APIL NI)
Court of Kuala Lumpur in a series of dates where private respondent was represented by enforcement and recognition of the Malaysian judgment primarily refer to matters of remedy
counsel;[23] and that the end result of all these proceedings is the judgment sought to be and procedure taken by the Malaysian High Court relative to the suit for collection initiated
enforced. by petitioner. Needless to stress, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not Facts:
necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country in which such
In addition to the said testimonial evidence, petitioner offered the following documentary
judgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the judgment is The lots applied for were Lots Nos. 1, to 12 of Plan Psu-54792 Amd.-2. The lots were among
evidence:
relied on. Ultimately, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service those involved in the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran, wherein this
(a) A certified and authenticated copy of the Judgment promulgated by the Malaysian High of summons or court process upon the defendant, the authority of counsel to appear and Court declared Consolacion M. Gomez owner of certain lots in Sitio Poponto Bayambang,
Court dated September 13, 1985 directing private respondent to pay petitioner the sum of represent a defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are governed by the lex fori Pangasinan. Petitioners are the heirs of Teodoro Y. Gomez (father of Consolacion) who,
$5,108,290.23 Malaysian Ringgit plus interests from March 1983 until fully paid; or the internal law of the forum, i.e., the law of Malaysia in this case. together with Consolacion's son, Luis Lopez, inherited from her parcels of land when
Consolacion Gomez died intestate.
(b) A certified and authenticated copy of the Order dated September 13, 1985 issued by the In this case, it is the procedural law of Malaysia where the judgment was rendered that
Malaysian High Court in Civil Suit No. C638 of 1983; determines the validity of the service of court process on private respondent as well as other Petitioners alleged that after the death of Teodoro Y. Gomez, they became the absolute
matters raised by it. As to what the Malaysian procedural law is, remains a question of fact, owners of the subject lots by virtue of a Quitclaim executed in their favor by Luis Lopez. The
(c) Computation of principal and interest due as of January 31, 1990 on the amount not of law. It may not be taken judicial notice of and must be pleaded and proved like any lots (formerly portions of Lots 15,16, 34 and 41 covered by Plan Ipd-92) were subdivided into
adjudged payable to petitioner by private respondent; other fact. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that it may twelve lots—Lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The subdivision plan was duly
be evidenced by an official publication or by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof. It approved by the Bureau of Lands. Petitioners agreed to allocate the lots among themselves.
(d) Letter and Statement of Account of petitioners counsel in Malaysia indicating the costs
for prosecuting and implementing the Malaysian High Court’s Judgment; was then incumbent upon private respondent to present evidence as to what that Malaysian
procedural law is and to show that under it, the assailed service of summons upon a After notice and publication, and there being no opposition to the application, the trial court
financial officer of a corporation, as alleged by it, is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the issued an order of general default. On 5 August 1981, the court rendered its decision
(e) Letters between petitioners Malaysian counsel, Skrine and Co., and its local counsel,
adjudicating the subject lots in petitioners' favor.
Sycip Salazar Law Offices, relative to institution of the action in the Philippines;
On 6 October 1981, the trial court issued an order 3 expressly stating that the decision of 5 Petitioners insist that the duty of the respondent land registration officials to issue the decree
August 1981 had become final and directed the Chief of the General Land Registration is purely ministerial. It is ministerial in the sense that they act under the orders of the court
Office to issue the corresponding decrees of registration over the lots. and the decree must be in conformity with the decision of the court and with the data found 9) ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO., PTE., LTD., -versus- GRAND INTERNATIONAL
in the record, and they have no discretion in the matter. However, if they are in doubt upon AIRWAYS, INC.,
Respondent Silverio G. Perez, Chief Land Registration Commission submitted a report that any point in relation to the preparation and issuance of the decree, it is their duty to refer the
Lots 15, 16, 34 and 41 of Ipd-92 were already covered by homestead patents issued in 1928 G.R. No. 140288 October 23, 2006 SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
matter to the court. They act, in this respect, as officials of the court and not as
and 1929 and registered under the Land Registration Act. He recommended that the administrative officials, and their act is the act of the court. They are specifically called upon
decision of 5 August 1981, and the order of 6 October 1981 be set aside. to "extend assistance to courts in ordinary and cadastral land registration proceedings ."
Facts
After hearing, the lower court rendered a second decision on 25 March 1985 setting aside The foregoing observations resolve the first two (2) issues raised by petitioners.
the decision dated 5 August 1981 and the order dated 6 October 1981 for the issuance of St. Aviation Services Co., Pte., Ltd., petitioner, is a foreign corporation based in
decrees. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by respondent Petitioners next contend that "the law of the case" is found in Government of the Philippine Singapore. It is engaged in the manufacture, repair, and maintenance of airplanes and
judge on 6 August 1985 for lack of merit. Islands vs. Abran, et al., supra, where it was decided by this Court that the lands of aircrafts. Grand International Airways, Inc., respondent, is a domestic corporation engaged
Consolacion M. Gomez, from whom petitioners derive their ownership over the lots in in airline operations. Sometime in January 1996, petitioner and respondent executed an
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with this Court which in turn referred question, were not public lands. A reading of the pertinent and dispositive portions of the Agreement for the Maintenance and Modification of Airbus A 300 B4-103. The parties
the petition to the Court of Appeals. 6 aforesaid decision will show, however, that the lots earlier covered by homestead patents agreed on the mode and manner of payment by respondent of the contract price, including
were not included among the lands adjudicated to Consolacion M. Gomez. The decision interest in case of default. They also agreed that the construction, validity and performance
states: thereof shall be governed by the laws of Singapore. They further agreed to submit any suit
Issues: arising from their agreement to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
With respect to the portions of land covered by homestead certificates of title, we are of
(a) whether or not respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the decision of 25 March 1985 opinion that such certificates are sufficient to prevent the title to such portion from going to Petitioner undertook the contracted works. During the period from March 1996
which set aside the lower court's earlier decision of 5 August 1981 and the order of 6 appellants aforesaid, for they carry with them preponderating evidence that the respective to October 1997, petitioner billed respondent in the total amount of US$303,731.67 or
October 1981; YES homesteaders held adverse possession of such portions, dating back to 1919 or 1920, S$452,560.18. But despite petitioners repeated demands, respondent failed to pay, in
accordingly to the evidence, and the said appellants failed to object to that possession in violation of the terms agreed upon. On December 12, 1997, petitioner filed with the High
(b) whether or not the respondents Acting Land Registration Commissioner and Engr. time. (Emphasis supplied) Court of the Republic of Singapore an action for the sum of S$452,560.18 against
Silverio Perez, Chief of Land Registration Commission, have no alternative but to issue the respondent. Upon petitioner’s motion before the RTC in Pasay, the court issued a Writ of
decrees of registration pursuant to the decision of 5 August 1981 his duty to do so being Summons to be served extraterritorially or outside Singapore upon respondent. However,
purely ministerial; NO despite receipt of summons, respondent failed to answer the claim. On February 17, 1998,
Wherefore modifying the judgment appealed from, it is hereby ordered that the lots
(c) whether or not "the law of the case" is the decision in Government of the Philippine respectively claimed by Agustin V. Gomez, Consolacion M. Gomez, and Julian Macaraeg, on motion of petitioner, the Singapore High Court rendered a judgment by default against
Islands v. Abran, supra, which held that the lands adjudicated to Consolacion Gomez were be registered in their name, with the exclusion of the portions covered by the homestead respondent. On August 4, 1998, petitioner filed with the same RTC, a Petition for
not public lands, and therefore they could not have been acquired by holders of homestead certificates ... . (Emphasis supplied.) 14 Enforcement of Judgment, which was granted.
titles as against petitioners herein. NO Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on two grounds: (1) the
The report of respondent land registration officials states that the holders of the homestead
It is not disputed that the decision dated 5 August 1981 had become final and executory. patents registered the lots in question in the years 1928 and 1929. The decision in Singapore High Court did not acquire jurisdiction over its person; and (2) the foreign
Petitioners vigorously maintain that said decision having become final, it may no longer be Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Abran was promulgated on 31 December 1931. judgment sought to be enforced is void for having been rendered in violation of its right to
reopened, reviewed, much less, set aside. Hence, the subject lots are specifically excluded from those adjudicated by the aforesaid due process. The RTC, denied it as well as his Motion for Reconsideration, thus, the
decision to Consolacion M. Gomez. respondent filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing the RTC’s Order.
CA granted respondent’s petition, ruling that ”It is an action in personam, therefore, the
It is a settled rule that a homestead patent, once registered under the Land Registration Act, service of summons should be personal or substituted, not extraterritorial, in order to confer
Ruling: becomes indefeasible and incontrovertible as a Torrens title, and may no longer be the jurisdiction on the court. Aggrieved, petitioner filed this instant Petition for Review on
Petitioners' contention is not correct. Unlike ordinary civil actions, the adjudication of land in subject of an investigation for determination or judgment in cadastral proceeding. Certiorari.
a cadastral or land registration proceeding does not become final, in the sense of The aforecited case of Government vs. Abran, therefore, is not "the law of the case", for the
incontrovertibility until after the expiration of one (1) year after the entry of the final decree of lots in question were not private lands of Consolacion M. Gomez when homestead patents
registration. This Court, in several decisions, has held that as long as a final decree has not were issued over them in 1928-1929. There is sufficient proof to show that Lots 15, 16, 34 Issue
been entered by the Land Registration Commission and the period of one (1) year has not and 41 of Ipd-92 were already titled lands way back in 1928 and 1929 as shown by Annexes
elapsed from date of entry of such decree, the title is not finally adjudicated and the decision Whether or not the Singapore High Court has acquired jurisdiction over the person of
"A", "B", "C", and "D" of respondents' Memorandum. 16 respondent by the service of summons upon its office issued to the the Philippines.
in the registration proceeding continues to be under the control and sound discretion of the
court rendering it. Lastly, petitioners claim that if the decision of of the lower court is sustained, the homestead
title holders may still vindicate their rights by filing a separate civil action for cancellation of
Petitioners contend that the report of respondent Silverio Perez should have been submitted titles and for reconveyance in a court of ordinary civil jurisdiction. Conversely, the same Ruling
to the court a quo before its decision became final. But were we to sustain this argument, we recourse may be resorted to by petitioners. "(T)he true owner may bring an action to have
would be pressuring respondent land registration officials to submit a report or study even if the ownership or title to land judicially settled, and if the allegations of the plaintiff that he is YES. Generally, matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the
haphazardly prepared just to beat the reglementary deadline for the finality of the court the true owner of the parcel of land granted as free patent and described in the Torrens title service of process upon a defendant are governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the
decision. and that the defendant and his predecessor-in-interest were never in possession of the forum, which in this case is the law of Singapore. Here, petitioner moved for leave of court to
parcel of land and knew that the plaintiff and his predecessor-in-interest have been in serve a copy of the Writ of Summons outside Singapore, which was granted. This service of
Thus, the duty of respondent land registration officials to render reports is not limited to the summons outside Singapore is in accordance with Order 11, r. 4(2) of the Rules of Court
period before the court's decision becomes final, but may extend even after its finality but not possession thereof be established, then the court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction,
without ordering the cancellation of the Torrens title issued upon the patent, may direct the 1996 of Singapore. In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party is acquired by service of
beyond the lapse of one (1) year from the entry of the decree. summons by the sheriff, his deputy or other proper court officer either personally by handing
defendant, the registered owner, to reconvey the parcel of land to the plaintiff who has been
found to be the true owner thereof." 17 a copy thereof to the defendant or by substituted service. In this case, the Writ of Summons
issued by the Singapore High Court was served upon respondent at its office located at Furthermore, the action filed by petitioner is an action in personam, hence,
Mercure Hotel (formerly Village Hotel), MIA Road, Pasay City. The Sheriffs Return shows general rule requires the personal service of summons on Cynthia within the Philippines, but
that it was received on May 2, 1998 by Joyce T. Austria, Secretary of the General Manager this is not possible in the present case because Cynthia is a non-resident and is not found Ruling
of respondent company. But respondent completely ignored the summons, hence, it was within the Philippines. In the present case, as Cynthia is a nonresident who is not found in NO. The proper service of summons differs depending on the nature of the civil
declared in default. WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 case instituted by the plaintiff or petitioner: whether it is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.
of the Rules of Court. Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be made Actions in personam, are those actions brought against a person on the basis of his
either (1) by personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in personal liability; actions in rem are actions against the thing itself instead of against the
such places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the summons person; and actions are quasi in rem, where an individual is named as defendant and the
10) VICTORIA REGNER, - versus - CYNTHIA R. LOGARTA, TERESA R. TORMIS and and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known address of the
CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, Inc., purpose of the proceeding is to subject his or her interest in a property to the obligation or
defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem sufficient. The third mode, loan burdening the property. Undoubtedly, extraterritorial service of summons applies only
G.R. No. 168747 October 19, 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: like the first two, must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine where the action is in rem or quasi in rem, but not if an action is in personam.
Embassy in the foreign country where Cynthia resides. Since in the case at bar, the service
of summons upon Cynthia was not done by any of the authorized modes, the trial court was In the case at bar, this Court sustains the contention of the petitioner that there
correct in dismissing petitioners complaint. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant can never be a valid extraterritorial service of summons upon it, because the case before the
Facts court a quo involving collection of a sum of money and damages is, indeed, an action in
petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Luis Regner (Luis) had three daughters with his first wife, Anicita C. Regner, personam, as it deals with the personal liability of the petitioner to the respondent by reason
namely, Cynthia Logarta (Cynthia) and Teresa Tormis (Teresa), the respondents herein, and of the alleged unilateral termination by the former of the Distribution Agreement. Even the
Melinda Regner-Borja (Melinda). Herein petitioner Victoria Regner (Victoria) is the second Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated 4 April 2004, upheld the nature of the instant case as
11) PERKIN ELMER SINGAPORE PTE LTD., - versus - DAKILA TRADING an action in personam. Thus, being an action in personam, personal service of summons
wife of Luis. During the lifetime of Luis, he acquired several properties, among which is a CORPORATION,
share at Cebu Country Club Inc. On 15 May 1998, Luis executed a Deed of Donation in within the Philippines is necessary in order for the RTC to validly acquire jurisdiction over the
favor of respondents Cynthia and Teresa covering Proprietary Ownership of the above G.R. No. 172242 August 14, 2007 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: person of the petitioner, and this is not possible in the present case because the petitioner is
mentioned property. Luis passed away on 11 February 1999. On 15 June 1999, Victoria filed a non-resident and is not found within the Philippines. In sum, this Court finds that the
a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Donation with Prayer for Issuance of a petitioner did not submit itself voluntarily to the authority of the court a quo; and in the
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO against Cynthia and Teresa with the RTC, alleging absence of valid service of summons, the RTC utterly failed to acquire jurisdiction over the
Facts person of the petitioner.
that the Deed was fraudulently made, as Luis was already very ill and no longer of sound
and disposing mind when he made it and no longer had the ability to write or affix his Respondent entered into a Distribution Agreement on 1 June 1990 with Perkin- WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby GRANTED.
signature. Sheriff Melchor A. Solon served the summonses on Cynthia and Teresa at the Elmer Instruments Asia Pte Ltd. (PEIA), a corporation duly organized and existing under the
Borja Family Clinic in Tagbilaran City wherein Melinda worked as a doctor, but Melinda laws of Singapore and engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, selling or
refused to receive the summonses for her sisters and informed the sheriff that their Family distributing various laboratory/analytical instruments. By virtue of the said agreement, PEIA
lawyer, Atty. Francis Zosa, would be the one to receive the same as Cynthia and Teresa appointed the respondent as the sole distributor of its products in the Philippines. The 12) LEAH PALMA, - versus - HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ, in his capacity as PRESIDING
lives in California, USA. Upon arrival of Teresa in the Philippines, she was personally served respondent was likewise granted the right to purchase and sell the products of PEIA subject JUDGE of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 24; and PSYCHE
the summons in Cebu City. to the terms and conditions set forth in the Distribution Agreement. PEIA, on the other hand, ELENA AGUDO,
shall give respondent a commission for the sale of its products in the Philippines. Under the
Subsequently Teresa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Cynthia had same Distribution Agreement, respondent shall order the products of PEIA, which it shall sell G.R. No. 165273 March 10, 2010 PERALTA, J.:
not yet been served a summons, therefore the case would not proceed without Cynthia’s in the Philippines, either from PEIA itself or from Perkin-Elmer Instruments (Philippines)
presence. RTC granted the motion. The Court of Appeals ratiocinated that petitioner’s failure Corporation (PEIP), an affiliate of PEIA.
to move for an extraterritorial service of summons constitutes failure to prosecute for an Facts
unreasonable length of time. Hence this appeal via petition for review on certiorari filed by On 2 August 1997, however, PEIA unilaterally terminated the Distribution Agreement,
petitioner. prompting respondent to file before the RTC of Mandaluyong City, a Complaint for Collection On July 28, 2003, petitioner Leah Palma filed with the RTC an action for
of Sum of Money. The RTC denied it as well as its Motion for reconsideration. Respondent damages against the Philippine Heart Center (PHC), Dr. Danilo Giron and Dr. Bernadette O.
then filed Ex-Parte Motions for Issuance of Summons and for Leave of Court to Deputize Cruz, alleging that the defendants committed professional fault, negligence and omission for
Issue: Whether or not there is a delay in the service of summons upon one of the defendants Respondents General Manager, Richard A. Tee, to Serve Summons Outside of the having removed her right ovary against her will, and losing the same and the tissues
constitutes failure to prosecute, which would warrant dismissal of the complaint. Philippines, which the RTC granted. However, the said Alias Summons was received by extracted from her during the surgery; and that although the specimens were subsequently
Perkinelmer Asia, a Singaporean based sole proprietorship, owned by the petitioner and, but found, petitioner was doubtful and uncertain that the same was hers as the label therein
allegedly, a separate and distinct entity from PEIA. PEIP moved to dismiss the Complaint pertained that of somebody else. Defendants filed their respective Answers. Petitioner
filed the wrongful service of summons upon Perkinelmer Asia however, such motion was subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Amended Complaint, praying for the inclusion
Ruling eventually denied by the RTC. Accordingly, respondent filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Admit of additional defendants who were all nurses at the PHC, namely, Karla Reyes, Myra
YES. A Court must acquire jurisdiction over the persons of indispensable parties Amended Complaint, together with the Amended Complaint claiming that PEIA had become Mangaser and herein private respondent Agudo. Thus, summons were subsequently issued
before it can validly pronounce judgments personal to the parties. Rule 3, Section 7 of the a sole proprietorship owned by the petitioner, and subsequently changed its name to to them.
Rules of Court, defines indispensable parties as parties-in-interest without whom there can Perkinelmer Asia. Respondent then filed another Motion for the Issuance of Summons to
PEIP, which was granted this time. Petitioner subsequently filed with the RTC a Motion to On February 17, 2004, the RTC's process server submitted his return of
be no final determination of an action. As such, they must be joined either as plaintiffs or as summons stating that the alias summons, together with a copy of the amended complaint
defendants. In the present case, the Court finds that any decision in Civil Case cannot bind Dismiss. The RTC denied the subsequent motion to dismiss. Petitioner appealed the case
before the CA but the same was denied. Hence this present petition. and its annexes, were served upon private respondent thru her husband Alfredo Agudo, who
Cynthia, and the Court cannot nullify the donation of the property she now co-owns with received and signed the same as private respondent was out of the country, Ireland. The
Teresa, even if limited only to the portion belonging to Teresa, to whom summons was counsel of private respondent filed 2 Notice of Special Appearance and a Motion for
properly served, since ownership of the property is still pro indiviso. Obviously, Cynthia is an Extension of Time to File Answer stating that he was just engaged by private respondent's
indispensable party in the case without whom the lower court is barred from making a final Issue: Whether or not there was a proper service of summons and acquisition of jurisdiction husband as she was out of the country and the Answer was already due and they were just
adjudication as to the validity of the entire donation. by the RTC over the person of the petitioner. finishing the draft of their Answer. On March 30, 2004, private respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had not acquired jurisdiction over her as she was not
properly served with summons, since she was temporarily out of the country. Petitioner filed [G.R. No. 113074. January 22, 1997] BMW moved to dismiss the case, contending that the trial court did not acquire
her Opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing that a substituted service of summons on jurisdiction over it through the service of summons on the Department of Trade and Industry,
private respondent's husband was valid and binding on her. because it (BMW) was a foreign corporation and it was not doing business in the Philippines.
On May 7, 2004, the RTC issued its assailed Order granting private FACTS: It contended that the execution of the Deed of Assignment was an isolated
respondent's motion to dismiss. It found that while the summons was served at private Petitioner: Alfred Hahn is a Filipino citizen doing business under the name and style "Hahn- transaction; that Hahn was not its agent because the latter undertook to assemble and sell
respondent's house and received by respondent's husband, such service did not qualify as a Manila." BMW cars and products without the participation of BMW and sold other products; and that
valid service of summons on her as she was out of the country at the time the summons was Hahn was an indentor or middleman transacting business in his own name and for his own
served. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied. Hence, this Private respondent Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) is a nonresident account.
present petition. foreign corporation existing under the laws of the former Federal Republic of Germany, with
principal office at Munich, Germany. Petitioner Alfred Hahn opposed. He argued that BMW was doing business in the
Philippines through him as its agent, as shown by the fact that BMW invoices and order
On March 7, 1967, petitioner executed in favor of private respondent a "Deed of forms were used to document his transactions; and that he was described in service
Issue Assignment with Special Power of Attorney," which states that: booklets and international publications of BMW as a "BMW Importer" or "BMW Trading
Company" in the Philippines.
Whether or not there was a valid Substituted service of summons upon private respondent, the ASSIGNOR is the present owner and holder of the BMW trademark and device in the
a defendant residing in the Philippines but temporarily outside the country. Philippines which ASSIGNOR uses and has been using on the products manufactured by The question is whether petitioner Alfred Hahn is the agent or distributor in the
ASSIGNEE, and for which ASSIGNOR is the authorized exclusive Dealer of the ASSIGNEE Philippines of private respondent BMW. If he is, BMW may be considered doing business in
in the Philippines; the Philippines and the trial court acquired jurisdiction over it (BMW) by virtue of the service
Ruling of summons on the Department of Trade and Industry. Otherwise, if Hahn is not the agent of
the ASSIGNOR has agreed to transfer and consequently record said transfer of the said BMW but an independent dealer, albeit of BMW cars and products, BMW, a foreign
BMW trademark and device in favor of the ASSIGNEE herein with the Philippines Patent corporation, is not considered doing business in the Philippines within the meaning of the
YES. Considering that private respondent was temporarily out of the country,
Office; Foreign Investments Act of 1991 and the IRR, and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction
the summons and complaint may be validly served on her through substituted service under
Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court which reads: Per the agreement, the parties "continue[d] business relations as has been usual in the past over it (BMW).
without a formal contract."
SEC. 7. Substituted service. If, for justifiable causes, the defendant cannot be
served within a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section, service But on February 16, 1993, in a meeting with a BMW representative and the president of
may be effected (a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendants ISSUE (1): W/N BMW is doing business in the Philippines. YES
Columbia Motors Corporation (CMC), Jose Alvarez, petitioner was informed that BMW was
residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, arranging to grant the exclusive dealership of BMW cars and products to CMC.  ISSUE (2): WN the Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over BMW. YES
or (b) by leaving the copies at defendants office or regular place of business
with some competent person in charge thereof. Nonetheless, BMW expressed willingness to continue business relations with the petitioner
on the basis of a "standard BMW importer" contract, otherwise, it said, if this was not
The Court have held that a dwelling, house or residence refers to the place acceptable to petitioner, BMW would have no alternative but to terminate petitioner's HELD:
where the person named in the summons is living at the time when the service is made, exclusive dealership. (1) What acts are considered "doing business in the Philippines" are enumerated in 3(d) of
even though he may be temporarily out of the country at the time. It is, thus, the service of
Petitioner protested, claiming that the termination of his exclusive dealership would the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (R.A. No. 7042) as follows:[7]
the summons intended for the defendant that must be left with the person of suitable age
and discretion residing in the house of the defendant. Compliance with the rules regarding be a breach of the Deed of Assignment. d) xxx appointing representatives or distributors domiciled in the Philippines 
the service of summons is as important as the issue of due process as that of jurisdiction.
Because of Hahn's insistence on the former business relation, BMW withdrew on ; and any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or
Section 7 also designates the persons with whom copies of the process may be left. The
March 26, 1993 its offer of a "standard importer contract" and terminated the exclusive arrangements and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, or
rule presupposes that such a relation of confidence exists between the person with whom
dealer relationship effective June 30, 1993. On April 29, 1993, BMW proposed that Hahn the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive
the copy is left and the defendant and, therefore, assumes that such person will deliver the
and CMC jointly import and distribute BMW cars and parts. prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business
process to defendant or in some way give him notice thereof.
Hahn found the proposal unacceptable. On May 14, 1993, he filed a complaint for organization: 
In this case, the Sheriff's Return stated that private respondent was out of the
specific performance and damages against BMW to compel it to continue the exclusive Provided, however, That the phrase "doing business" shall not be deemed to
country; thus, the service of summons was made at her residence with her husband, Alfredo
dealership. Later he filed an amended complaint to include an application for temporary include xxx, nor appointing a representative or distributor domiciled in the Philippines
P. Agudo, acknowledging receipt thereof. Alfredo was presumably of suitable age and
restraining order and for writs of preliminary, mandatory and prohibitory injunction to enjoin which transacts business in its own name and for its own account.
discretion, who was residing in that place and, therefore, was competent to receive the
BMW from terminating his exclusive dealership. Hahn's amended complaint alleged in
summons on private respondent's behalf. Notably, private respondent makes no issue as to
pertinent parts: Arrangement that shows agency: As soon as BMW invoices the vehicle ordered,
the fact that the place where the summons was served was her residence, though she was
Hahn is credited with a commission
temporarily out of the country at that time, and that Alfredo is her husband. In fact, in the Summons and copies of the complaint and amended complaint were thereafter
notice of appearance and motion for extension of time to file answer submitted by private served on the private respondent through the Department of Trade and Industry, pursuant to This arrangement shows an agency. An agent receives a commission upon the successful
respondent's counsel, he confirmed the Sheriff's Return by stating that private respondent Rule 14, 14 of the Rules of Court. The order, summons and copies of the complaint and conclusion of a sale.
was out of the country and that his service was engaged by respondent's husband. amended complaint were later sent by the DTI to BMW via registered mail on June 15,
1993[5] and received by the latter on June 24, 1993. As to the service centers and showrooms which he said he had put up at his own
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. expense, Hahn said that he had to follow BMW specifications as exclusive dealer of BMW in
On June 17, 1993, without proof of service on BMW, the hearing on the application the Philippines. According to Hahn, BMW periodically inspected the service centers to see to
for the writ of preliminary injunction proceeded ex parte. On June 30, 1993, the trial court it that BMW standards were maintained. Indeed, it would seem from BMW's letter to Hahn
issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. that it was for Hahn's alleged failure to maintain BMW standards that BMW was terminating
13 ) ALFRED HAHN vs. CA and BMW (BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
Hahn's dealership.
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT) (BMW)
 The fact that Hahn invested his own money to put up these service centers and J. Klepzig (Klepzig). PIL and its co-defendants were served copies of the summons and of The purpose of summons is not only to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant,
showrooms does not necessarily prove that he is not an agent of BMW. For as already the complaint at PPHI and PCPI’s office in Alabang, Muntinlupa, through Cecille L. De Leon but also to give notice to the defendant that an action has been commenced against it and to
noted, there are facts in the record which suggest that BMW exercised control over Hahn's (De Leon), who was Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. afford it an opportunity to be heard on the claim made against it. The requirements of the
activities as a dealer and made regular inspections of Hahn's premises to enforce rule on summons must be strictly followed; otherwise, the trial court will not acquire
compliance with BMW standards and specifications. PIL asserted that the trial court has no jurisdiction over PIL because PIL is a foreign jurisdiction over the defendant.
corporation not doing business in the Philippines. PIL also questioned the service of
(2) Rule 14, 14 provides: summons on it. Assuming arguendo that Klepzig is PIL’s agent in the Philippines, it was not When summons is to be served on a natural person, service of summons should be made in
Klepzig but De Leon who received the summons for PIL. person on the defendant.27 Substituted service is resorted to only upon the concurrence of
14. Service upon foreign corporations.  If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a two requisites: (1) when the defendant cannot be served personally within a reasonable time
nonresident joint stock company or association, doing business in the Philippines, service It claimed that assuming that the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the and (2) when there is impossibility of prompt service as shown by the statement in the proof
may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if action, the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens. Finally, of service in the efforts made to find the defendant personally and that such efforts failed.
there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on PIL maintained that the complaint does not state a cause of action because there was no
any of its officers or agents within the Philippines. perfected contract, and no personal judgment could be rendered by the trial court against The statutory requirements of substituted service must be followed strictly, faithfully, and
PIL because PIL is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines and there was fully, and any substituted service other than by the statute is considered ineffective.
improper service of summons on PIL. Substituted service is in derogation of the usual method of service. It is a method
Anyway, private respondent need not apprehend that by responding to the summons extraordinary in character and may be used only as prescribed and in the circumstances
it would be waiving its objection to the trial court's jurisdiction. It is now settled that. for authorized by the statute.
purposes of having summons served on a foreign corporation in accordance with Rule 14, ISSUE (1): W/N PIL is doing business in the Philippines. YES At present, Section 11 of Rule 14 provides that when the defendant is a domestic private
14, it is sufficient that it be alleged in the complaint that the foreign corporation is doing juridical entity, service may be made on the "president, managing partner, general manager,
business in the Philippines. The court need not go beyond the allegations of the complaint in ISSUE (2): W/N Summon was properly served. NO
corporate secretary, treasurer, or in-house counsel." Section 11 qualified "manager" to
order to determine whether it has jurisdiction. [18] A determination that the foreign corporation "general manager" and "secretary" to "corporate secretary."
is doing business is only tentative and is made only for the purpose of enabling the local
court to acquire jurisdiction over the foreign corporation through service of summons HELD (1): When summons is served on a foreign juridical entity, there are three prescribed ways: (1)
pursuant to Rule 14, 14. Such determination does not foreclose a contrary finding should service on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, (2) service
evidence later show that it is not transacting business in the country. Forum Non-Conveniens on the government official designated by law to receive summons if the corporation does not
The doctrine of forum non-conveniens  requires an examination of the truthfulness of the have a resident agent, and (3) service on any of the corporation’s officers or agents within
allegations in the complaint. Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure does the Philippines.
14) PIONEER INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,  vs. HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR. not mention forum non-conveniens as a ground for filing a motion to dismiss. The propriety In the present case, service of summons on PIL failed to follow any of the prescribed
of dismissing a case based on forum non-conveniens requires a factual determination; processes. PIL had no resident agent in the Philippines. Summons was not served on the
G.R. No. 156848             October 11, 2007 hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the designated government agency, 31 since
the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, the trial court should do PIL is not registered with the SEC. Summons for PIL was served on De Leon, Klepzig’s
so only after vital facts are established to determine whether special circumstances require Executive Assistant. Klepzig is PIL’s "agent within the Philippines" because PIL authorized
FACTS: the court’s desistance.25 Klepzig to notify Todaro of the cessation of his consultancy.
PIL is a corporation duly organized under Australian laws, while PCPI and PPHI are Based on the allegations in Todaro’s complaint, PIL was doing business in the Philippines However, summons was not served personally on Klepzig as agent of PIL. Instead,
corporations duly organized under Philippine laws. PIL is engaged in the ready-mix and when it negotiated Todaro’s employment with PPHI. Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 7042, summons was served on De Leon, Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. In this instance, De Leon
concrete aggregates business and has established a presence worldwide. PIL established Foreign Investments Act of 1991, states: was not PIL’s agent but a mere employee of Klepzig.
PPHI as the holding company of the stocks of its operating company in the Philippines, The phrase "doing business"  shall include soliciting orders, service contracts,
PCPI. McDonald is the Chief Executive Officer of PIL’s Hong Kong office while Klepzig is the Thus, we rule that PIL transacted business in the Philippines and Klepzig was its agent
xxxand any other act or acts that imply a continuity of commercial dealings or within the Philippines. However, there was improper service of summons on PIL since
President and Managing Director of PPHI and PCPI. arrangements and contemplate to that extent the performance of acts or works, summons was not served personally on Klepzig.
According to Todaro, PIL contacted him in May 1996 and asked if he could join it in or the exercise of some of the functions normally incident to, and in progressive
establishing a pre-mixed concrete plant and in overseeing its operations in the Philippines. prosecution of commercial gain or of the purpose and object of the business
Todaro confirmed his availability and expressed interest in joining PIL. organization: xxx
15) COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., ASPAC MULTI-TRADE, INC., ,
An employee of PIL proposed that Todaro "join Pioneer on a retainer basis for 2 to 3 months vs. CA and ITEC INTERNATIONAL, INC.
on the understanding that [Todaro] would become a permanent employee if as we expect, PIL’s alleged acts in actively negotiating to employ Todaro to run its pre-mixed concrete
our entry proceeds." [G.R. No. 102223. August 22, 1996]
operations in the Philippines, which acts are hypothetically admitted in PIL’s motion to
Todaro accepted the proposal of PIL. dismiss, are not mere acts of a passive investor in a domestic corporation. Such are
managerial and operational acts in directing and establishing commercial operations in the
In a letter by Klepzig’s letter to Todaro dated 18 September 1997, Klepzig stated that it was Philippines. FACTS:
not possible PIL to meet with Todaros expectations regarding the conditions of providing Petitioners COMMUNICATION MATERIALS AND DESIGN, INC., (CMDI, for brevity) and
Pioneer with consultancy services. This, and Todaros refusal to consider the terms of offer As further proof of the interconnection of the various Pioneer corporations with regard to
their negotiations with Todaro, McDonald of Pioneer Concrete Group HK confirmed Todaro’s ASPAC MULTI-TRADE INC., (ASPAC, for brevity) are both domestic corporations, while
of permanent employment, leave the company no alternative but to withdraw these offers of petitioner Francisco S. Aguirre is their President and majority stockholder. 
employment engagement as consultant of PIL (Annex "E") while Folwell of PIL stated that Todaro
rendered consultancy services to Pioneer HK (Annex "I"). In this sense, the various Pioneer Private Respondents ITEC, INC. and/or ITEC, INTERNATIONAL, INC. (ITEC, for brevity)
On 16 January 1998, Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed a complaint for sum of money and corporations were not acting as separate corporations. are corporations duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alabama, United
damages with preliminary attachment against PIL, Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. States of America. There is no dispute that ITEC is a foreign corporation not licensed to do
(PCPI), Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald), and Philip HELD (2):
business in the Philippines.
 On August 14, 1987, ITEC entered into a contract with petitioner ASPAC referred to true test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or Petitioners insistence on the dismissal of this action due to the application, or non
as Representative Agreement. [1] Pursuant to the contract, ITEC engaged ASPAC as its substance of the business or enterprise for which it was organized. [30] application, of the private international law rule of forum non conveniens defies well-settled
exclusive representative in the Philippines for the sale of ITECs products, in consideration of rules of fair play. According to petitioner, the Philippine Court has no venue to apply its
which, ASPAC was paid a stipulated commission. Article 44 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 defines the phrase to include: discretion whether to give cognizance or not to the present action, because it has not
soliciting orders, purchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether called liaison offices acquired jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff in the case, the latter allegedly having no
By virtue of said contracts, ASPAC sold electronic products, exported by ITEC, to personality to sue before Philippine Courts. This argument is misplaced because the court
their sole customer, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, (PLDT, for brevity). or branches; appointing representatives or distributors who are domiciled in the Philippines
or who in any calendar year stay in the Philippines for a period or periods totaling one has already acquired jurisdiction over the plaintiff in the suit, by virtue of his filing the original
One year into the second term of the parties Representative Agreement, ITEC hundred eighty (180) days or more; participating in the management, supervision or control complaint.
decided to terminate the same, because petitioner ASPAC allegedly violated its contractual of any domestic business firm, entity or corporation in the Philippines, and any other act or Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the Philippine Court, based on the
commitment as stipulated in their agreements. acts that imply a continuity or commercial dealings or arrangements and contemplate to that facts of the case, whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle of
extent the performance of acts or works, or the exercise of some of the functions normally forum non conveniens. Hence, the Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in
ITEC charges the petitioners and another Philippine Corporation, DIGITAL BASE incident to, and in progressive prosecution of, commercial gain or of the purpose and object
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (DIGITAL, for brevity), the President of which is likewise spite of its having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume jurisdiction over
of the business organization. the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are met: 1) That the
petitioner Aguirre, of using knowledge and information of ITECs products specifications to
develop their own line of equipment and product support, which are similar, if not identical to In determining whether a corporation does business in the Philippines or not, aside Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; 2) That the Philippine
ITECs own, and offering them to ITECs former customer. from their activities within the forum, reference may be made to the contractual agreements Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, 3) That
entered into by it with other entities in the country. the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
On January 31, 1991, the complaint was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 134 by ITEC, INC.  We are persuaded to conclude that private respondent had been engaged in or doing
business in the Philippines for some time now. 
[7]
In due time, defendants filed a motion to dismiss  the complaint on the following 16) THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD. vs.  NLRC
grounds: (1) That plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue as it is a foreign corporation doing Its arrangements, with these entities indicate convincingly ITECs purpose to bring
business in the Philippines without the required BOI authority and SEC license, and (2) that about the situation among its customers and the general public that they are dealing directly [G. R. No. 120077. October 13, 2000]
plaintiff is simply engaged in forum shopping which justifies the application against it of the with ITEC, and that ITEC is actively engaging in business in the country.
principle of forum non conveniens.
A perusal of the agreements between petitioner ASPAC and the respondents shows FACTS:
It is the petitioners submission that private respondents are foreign corporations that there are provisions which are highly restrictive in nature, such as to reduce petitioner
actually doing business in the Philippines without the requisite authority and license from the ASPAC to a mere extension or instrument of the private respondent. In May, 1988, private respondent Marcelo Santos (hereinafter referred to as Santos)
Board of Investments and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and thus, disqualified was an overseas worker employed as a printer at the Mazoon Printing Press, Sultanate of
from instituting the present action in our courts.  When ITEC entered into the disputed contracts with ASPAC and TESSI, they were Oman. Subsequently, in June 1988, he was directly hired by the Palace Hotel, Beijing,
carrying out the purposes for which it was created, i.e., to market electronics and Peoples Republic of China and later terminated due to retrenchment.
communications products. The terms and conditions of the contracts as well as ITECs
conduct indicate that they established within our country a continuous business, and not Petitioners are the Manila Hotel Corporation (hereinafter referred to as MHC) and the
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent ITEC is doing business in the Philippines. YES merely one of a temporary character. Manila Hotel International Company, Limited (hereinafter referred to as MHICL).
Notwithstanding such finding that ITEC is doing business in the country, petitioner is MHICL is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Hong
HELD: nonetheless estopped from raising this fact to bar ITEC from instituting this injunction case Kong. MHC is an incorporator of MHICL.
against it.
Section 133 of the Corporation Code, provides that No foreign corporation, transacting During his employment with the Mazoon Printing Press in the Sultanate of Oman,
business in the Philippines without a license, or its successors or assigns, shall be permitted A foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines may sue in Philippine Courts respondent Santos received a letter dated May 2, 1988 from Mr. Gerhard R. Shmidt,
to maintain or intervene in any action, suit or proceeding in any court or administrative although not authorized to do business here against a Philippine citizen or entity who had General Manager, Palace Hotel, Beijing, China. Mr. Schmidt informed respondent Santos
agency of the Philippines; but such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before contracted with and benefited by said corporation. that he was recommended by one Nestor Buenio, a friend of his.
Philippine Courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action recognized under A party is estopped to challenge the personality of a corporation after having Mr. Shmidt offered respondent Santos the same position as printer, but with a higher
Philippine laws. acknowledged the same by entering into a contract with it.  monthly salary and increased benefits. 
Generally, a foreign corporation has no legal existence within the state in which it is One who has dealt with a corporation of foreign origin as a corporate entity is On May 8, 1988, respondent Santos signified his acceptance of the offer.
foreign. This proceeds from the principle that juridical existence of a corporation is confined estopped to deny its corporate existence and capacity. The principle will be applied to
within the territory of the state under whose laws it was incorporated and organized, and it prevent a person contracting with a foreign corporation from later taking advantage of its On May 30, 1988, respondent Santos resigned from the Mazoon Printing Press,
has no legal status beyond such territory.  noncompliance with the statutes chiefly in cases where such person has received the effective June 30, 1988.
Before a foreign corporation can transact business in this country, it must first obtain benefits of the contract. On June 4, 1988, respondent Santos wrote the Palace Hotel and acknowledged Mr.
a license to transact business in the Philippines, and a certificate from the appropriate The rule is deeply rooted in the time-honored axiom of Commodum ex injuria sua Henks letter. Respondent Santos enclosed four (4) signed copies of the employment
government agency. If it transacts business in the Philippines without such a license, it shall non habere debet - no person ought to derive any advantage of his own wrong. This is as it contract (dated June 4, 1988) and notified them that he was going to arrive in Manila during
not be permitted to maintain or intervene in any action, suit, or proceeding in any court or should be for as mandated by law, every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the the first week of July 1988.
administrative agency of the Philippines, but it may be sued on any valid cause of action performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
recognized under Philippine laws. The employment contract of June 4, 1988 stated that his employment would
good faith. commence September 1, 1988 for a period of two years.[12] It provided for a monthly salary of
There is no exact rule or governing principle as to what constitutes doing or engaging By entering into the Representative Agreement with ITEC, Petitioner is charged with nine hundred dollars (US$900.00) net of taxes, payable fourteen (14) times a year. [13]
or transacting business. Indeed, such case must be judged in the light of its peculiar knowledge that ITEC was not licensed to engage in business activities in the country, and is
circumstances, upon its peculiar facts and upon the language of the statute applicable. The On June 30, 1988, respondent Santos was deemed resigned from the Mazoon
thus estopped from raising in defense such incapacity of ITEC, having chosen to ignore or Printing Press.
even presumptively take advantage of the same.
 On August 10, 1989, the Palace Hotel informed respondent Santos by letter signed No power to determine applicable law.-- Neither can an intelligent decision be made Issue: 1st issue: W/N summary judgment is proper? (Yes)
by Mr. Shmidt that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop would be terminated due as to the law governing the employment contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This
to business reverses brought about by the political upheaval in China. calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus  (the law of the place where 2nd issue: W/N the court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case? (Yes)
the contract was made). 3rd Issue: W/N the principle forum non conveniens is applicable in this case? (No)
On October 3, 1989, respondent Santos was repatriated to the Philippines.
The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos
On October 24, 1989, respondent Santos demanded full compensation pursuant to signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter
the employment agreement. was sent to the Palace Hotel in the Peoples Republic of China. Held:
On February 20, 1990, respondent Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with No power to determine the facts.-- Neither can the NLRC determine the facts 1st Issue:Petitioner vehemently insists that summary judgment is inappropriate to resolve the
the Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region, National Labor Relations Commission surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took place in Beijing, case at bar, arguing that his Answer allegedly raised genuine and material factual matters
(NLRC).  The complaint named MHC, MHICL, the Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt as Peoples Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the which he should have been allowed to prove during trial.
respondents. Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to
justify respondent Santos retrenchment. The RTC granted respondents Motion for Summary Judgment because petitioner, in his
The Palace Hotel and Mr. Shmidt were not served with summons and neither Answer, admitted the existence of the Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment.
participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision.-- Even assuming that a Besides, he had already paid $5,000 to respondent, as provided in the foreign judgment
On July 23, 1991, petitioners appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not the proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect sought to be enforced. Hence, the trial court ruled that, there being no genuine issue as to
NLRC had jurisdiction over the case. against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated any material fact, the case should properly be resolved through summary judgment. The CA
under the laws of China and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person affirmed this ruling.
On August 28, 1992, the NLRC promulgated a resolution the appealed Decision be, was not acquired.
as it is hereby, declared null and void for want of jurisdiction. Complainant is hereby enjoined We concur with the lower courts. Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt
to file his complaint with the POEA. This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve disposition of actions in which the pleadings raise only a legal issue, and not a genuine issue
controversies involving foreign employers. Neither are we saying that we do not have power as to any material fact. By genuine issue is meant a question of fact that calls for the
Santos argued that the case was not cognizable by the POEA as he was not an over an employment contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos were an overseas presentation of evidence. It should be distinguished from an issue that is sham, contrived,
overseas contract worker. contract worker, a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him. set in bad faith and patently unsubstantial.
He is not an overseas contract worker a fact which he admits with conviction.
Summary judgment is resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations and useless
delays. When affidavits, depositions and admissions on file show that there are no genuine
ISSUE: W/N the NLRC is the proper forum for the case. NO. issues of fact to be tried, the Rules allow a party to pierce the allegations in the pleadings
17) GIL PUYAT vs RON ZABARTE G.R. 141536. February 26, 2001 and to obtain immediate relief by way of summary judgment.

HELD: Petitioner contends that by allowing summary judgment, the two courts a quo prevented him
from presenting evidence to substantiate his claims. We do not agree. Summary judgment is
I. Forum Non-Conveniens Facts: based on facts directly proven by affidavits, depositions or admissions. In this case, the CA
Ron Zabarte commenced an action to enforce the money judgment rendered by the and the RTC both merely ruled that trial was not necessary to resolve the case. Additionally
The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. and correctly, the RTC specifically ordered petitioner to submit opposing affidavits to support
Superior Court for the State of California. Puyat filed his Answer with the following special
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and and affirmative defenses: his contentions.
the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the 2nd Issue: Petitioner alleges that jurisdiction over the case, which involved partnership
case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign 1. The Superior Court for the State of California did not properly acquire jurisdiction over the
subject matter of and over the persons involved in this case. interest, was vested in the Securities and Exchange Commission, not in the Superior Court
corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here. of California, County of Contra Costa.
The employment contract.-- Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace 2. The Judgment on Stipulation for Entry in Judgment in the case is null and void and
unenforceable in the Philippines. We disagree. In the absence of proof of California law on the jurisdiction of courts, we
Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where presume that such law, if any, is similar to Philippine law. We base this conclusion on the
respondent Santos was then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA The RTC a quo issued an Order granting Zabarte’s Motion for Summary Judgment and presumption of identity or similarity, also known as processual presumption. The Complaint,
or any authorized recruitment agency of the government. likewise granting Puyat ten (10) days to submit opposing affidavits, after which the case which respondent filed with the trial court, was for the enforcement of a foreign judgment. He
Under the rule of forum non conveniens , a Philippine court or agency may assume would be deemed submitted for resolution. Puyat filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the alleged therein that the action of the foreign court was for the collection of a sum of money,
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one aforesaid Order. breach of promissory notes, and damages.
to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to Subsequently Puyat filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the In our jurisdiction, such a case falls under the jurisdiction of civil courts, not of the Securities
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has subject matter of the case and forum-non-conveniens. In his Opposition to the Motion, and Exchange Commission (SEC). The jurisdiction of the latter is exclusively over matters
or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. The conditions are unavailing in the case at Zabarte contended that Puyat could no longer question the jurisdiction of the lower court on enumerated in Section 5, PD 902-A, prior to its latest amendment. If the foreign court did not
bar. the ground that Puyat’s Answer had failed to raise the issue of jurisdiction. really have jurisdiction over the case, as petitioner claims, it would have been very easy for
Not Convenient.-- We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all him to show this. Since jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in a complaint, he only
the incidents of the case - from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred had to submit a copy of the complaint filed with the foreign court. Clearly, this issue did not
outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper The RTC eventually rendered its in favor of Zabarte. warrant trial.
defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither are 3rd Issue: Petitioner argues that the RTC should have refused to entertain the Complaint for
they doing business in the Philippines. Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. The CA also ruled that summary judgment was proper, because petitioner had failed to
tender any genuine issue of fact and was merely maneuvering to delay the full effects of the enforcement of the foreign judgment on the principle of forum non conveniens. He claims
Henk are non-residents of the Philippines. that the trial court had no jurisdiction, because the case involved partnership interest, and
judgment.
there was difficulty in ascertaining the applicable law in California. All the aspects of the
transaction took place in a foreign country, and respondent is not even Filipino.
We disagree. Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of delivered to it. ATHONA filed an answer with counterclaim, impleading private respondents whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the issues raised in this
jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of herein as counter defendants, for allegedly conspiring in selling the property at a price over case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata.
the following practical reasons: its market value.
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either because the While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners filed a complaint
main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the material witnesses have “For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment” against private
their residence there; respondents in the RTC Makati. The complaint reiterated the allegation of petitioners in their (2) On Forum Non Conveniens
respective counterclaims in the Civil Action in the United States District Court of Southern
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known as forum Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling the property at a price 400 The Lower Courts refusal to take cognizance of the case on the said ground is unjustifiable.
shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass the defendant; percent more than its true value of US$800,000.00. (Ang land ang gipertain diri na First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1, which does not include
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when the overpriced). Petitioners claimed that, as a result of private respondents (1488, Ducat,etc.) forum non conveniens.The propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a
docket may already be overcrowded; fraudulent misrepresentations, ATHONA, PHILSEC, and AYALA were induced to enter into factual determination, hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. Second,
the Agreement and to purchase the Houston property (land). Petitioners prayed that private while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to be respondents be ordered to return to ATHONA the excess payment of US$1,700,000.00 and ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
maintained; and to pay damages. circumstances require the courts desistance.
The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law. Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis- In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the
a-vis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S., (2)forum non pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It failed to
None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from exercising its jurisdiction. In the conveniens,  and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a cause of action. consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and one of the
present action, there was no more need for material witnesses, no forum shopping or Ducat contended that the alleged overpricing of the property prejudiced only petitioner defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latters
harassment of petitioner, no inadequacy in the local machinery to enforce the foreign ATHONA, as buyer, but not PHILSEC and BPI-IFL which were not parties to the sale and debt which was the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily
judgment, and no question raised as to the application of any foreign law. whose only participation was to extend financial accommodation to ATHONA under a dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case.
Authorities agree that the issue of whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the separate loan agreement. The trial court granted Ducats motion to dismiss, stating that the
basis of the above-mentioned principle depends largely upon the facts of each case and on evidentiary requirements of the controversy may be more suitably tried before the forum of
the sound discretion of the trial court. Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for the the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in private international law of forum non
19) KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.,
enforcement of a foreign judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and the conveniens, even as it noted that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. CA also dismissed
vs MINORU KITAMURA
obligations of the parties based on foreign laws or contracts. The parties needed only to the case on same grounds.
perform their obligations under the Compromise Agreement they had entered into. G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007
Under Section 48, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a judgment in an action in FACTS:
Issue: WON the dismissal of the case was proper on the grounds of LITIS PENDENTIA and
personam rendered by a foreign tribunal clothed with jurisdiction is presumptive evidence of FORUM NON CONVENIENS.
a right as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title. Nippon Engineering Consultants (Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical
and management support in the infrastructure projects national permanently residing in the
Also, under Section 5(n) of Rule 131, a court -- whether in the Philippines or elsewhere -- Philippines. The agreement provides that Kitamaru was to extend professional services to
enjoys the presumption that it is acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction, and that it is Held: No. Nippon for a year. Nippon assigned Kitamaru to work as the project manager of the
regularly performing its official duty. Its judgment may, however, be assailed if there is Southern Tagalog Access Road (STAR) project. When the STAR project was near
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud or clear mistake (1) On Litis Pendentia completion, DPWH engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, this time for the detailed
of law or fact. But precisely, this possibility signals the need for a local trial court to exercise While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several engineering & construction supervision of the Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI)
jurisdiction. Clearly, the application of forum non coveniens is not called for. cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to Project. Kitamaru was named as the project manger in the contract.
repel them on grounds allowed under the law. This is because in this jurisdiction, with Hasegawa, Nippon’s general manager for its International Division, informed Kitamaru that
respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment the company had no more intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be
18) PHILSEC INVESMENT CORP. vs. CA G.R. No. 103493; June 19, 1997 merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project.
is subject to proof to the contrary. Rule 39, §50 provides:
Facts: Kitamaru demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon insisted that
Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign Kitamaru’s contract was for a fixed term that had expired. Kitamaru then filed for specific
Ventura Ducat obtained separate loans in the sum of 2.5m dollars from AYALA and country, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: performance & damages w/ the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon filed a MTD.
PHILSEC secured by shares of stocks of Ducat with a market value of P14m . To pay the
loan, another respondent, 1488, INC. thru its president Daic assumed Ducats obligation (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to Nippon’s contention: The ICA had been perfected in Japan & executed by & between
whereby it sold to ATHONA, Inc. a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas for 2.8m dollars the thing; Japanese nationals. Thus, the RTC of Lipa City has no jurisdiction. The claim for improper
while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA worth 2.5m dollars as initial (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right pre-termination of Kitamaru’s ICA could only be heard & ventilated in the proper courts of
payment of the purchase price. ATHONA executed a promissory note in favor of 1488, Inc. as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis & lex contractus.
for the balance of 300K dollars (2.8-2.5= 300k). So now, 1488, Inc. has 2.5M to pay judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
PHILSEC and AYALA . Thereafter, Ducat was released from his indebtedness to PHILSEC The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled hat the principle of lex loci
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. celebrationis was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the
and AYALA and the SHARES of Ducat (security) was delivered into the possession of 1488,
Inc. Libog no? KBYE. In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the opportunity to validity of the written agreement put in issue. It held that the RTC was correct in applying the
challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive of principle of lex loci solutionis.
ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance which made the entire amount due the rights of private respondents. The proceedings in the trial court were summary. Neither
and demandable. 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA and ATHONA in the US for the payment the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S.
of the balance of U$ 307, 209.20 and for damages for breach of contract and for fraud court or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of ISSUE:
allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability of the shares
Whether or not the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for specific Further, Nippon’s premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI and RUST, the
performance & damages involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before two corporations impleaded in the earlier labor case. The complaint essentially
nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus, “the state determining which law should apply, 1st there should exist a conflict of laws situation reiterated the allegations in the labor case that BMSI verbally employed
of the most significant relationship rule,” or forum non conveniens. requiring theapplication of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country respondent to negotiate the sale of services in government projects and that
is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a case, the existence of such law respondent was not paid the commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging
must be pleaded and proved. project which he secured on behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that
HELD: BMSI and RUST as well as petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is brought company.
NO. In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, 3 consecutive phases are involved: before a court or administrative agency, there are 3 alternatives open to the latter in
jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Jurisdiction & disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or refusal to In its Answer,8 petitioner alleged that contrary to respondent’s claim, it was a
choice of law are 2 distinct concepts.Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and denied
defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether internal law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or entering into any arrangement with respondent or paying the latter any sum of
the application of a substantive law w/c will determine the merits of the case is fair to both apply the law of some other State or States. The court’s power to hear cases and money. Petitioner also denied combining with BMSI and RUST for the purpose
parties. The power to exercise jurisdiction does notautomatically give a controversies is derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may choose to of assuming the alleged obligation of the said companies. 9 Petitioner also
state constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the choice of the lex recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not limited by foreign sovereign law short of referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the written agreement
foriwill often coincide, the “minimum contacts” for one do not always provide the necessary treaties or other formalagreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign between respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as "Special Sales
“significant contacts” for the other.The question of whether the law of a state can be applied sovereigns. Representative Agreement," the rights and obligations of the parties shall be
to a transaction is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut.
jurisdiction to enter a judgment. The RTC denied petitioner’s omnibus motion. The trial court held that the factual
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens , be used to deprive the RTC of allegations in the complaint, assuming the same to be admitted, were sufficient
In this case, only the 1st phase is at issue—jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, however, has various its jurisdiction. 1st, it is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of
aspects. For a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must have for the trial court to render a valid judgment thereon. It also ruled that the
the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground.2nd, whether a suit should be entertained principle of forum non conveniens was inapplicable because the trial court could
jurisdiction over the plaintiff/petitioner, over the defendant/respondent, over the subject or dismissed on the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the
matter, over the issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res or the thing enforce judgment on petitioner, it being a foreign corporation licensed to do
particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the RTC. In this case, the RTC business in the Philippines.
w/c is the subject of the litigation.In assailing the trial court's jurisdiction herein, Nippon is decided to assume jurisdiction. 3rd, the propriety of dismissing a case based on this
actually referring to subject matter jurisdiction. principle requires a factual determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more properly
Jurisdiction over the subject matter  in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign considered a matter of defense.
Issue: 1st issue: W/N the RTC had jurisdiction over the case? (Yes)
authority w/c establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner
prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of 2nd issue: W/N the principle of forum non conveniens should be applied? (No)
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.To succeed in its 20) RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR.
motion for the dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
claim, the movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to G.R. No. 162894             February 26, 2008 Held:
it because no lawgrants it the power to adjudicate the claims.
1st Issue: On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is
In the instant case, Nippon, in its MTD, does not claim that the RTC is not properly vested by filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
law w/ jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for a civil case for specific performance & Facts:
parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws
damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation & is properly cognizable by the RTC of Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign
Lipa City.What they rather raise as grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States prerogative of the country where the case is filed.
principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus ,  and the “state of the most significant of America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen,
relationship rule.” The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound. entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its representative to Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution
negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the Philippines and the law & by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of w/n the plaintiff is
Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law of the place of the ceremony” or the law of the place entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. The case file was an
where a contract is made. The doctrine of lex contractus   or lex loci contractus means the for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. On 11 March 1992,
respondent secured a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of
“law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed.”  It controls the nature, the action and the amount of damages prayed are w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC.
construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption
upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.Under the and mudflows.  As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Rouzi upon
“state of the most significant relationship rule,” to ascertain what state law to apply to a In 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of Raytheon was
dispute, the court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the Relations Commission (NLRC) a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc. acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.
occurrence and the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged nonpayment of
the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, and the domicile, place of THAT THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION THAT THE SAME SHALL
commissions, illegal termination and breach of employment contract. BE GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES NOT
business, or place of incorporation of the parties.This rule takes into account several
contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment ordering BMSI and RUST to pay SUGGEST THAT THE PHILIPPINE COURTS,
particular issue to be resolved. respondent’s money claims.5 Upon appeal by BMSI, the NLRC reversed the OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE PRECLUDED FROM H
decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed respondent’s complaint on the EARING THE CIVIL ACTION.
Since these 3 principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, ground of lack of jurisdiction. 6 Respondent elevated the case to this Court but
they are rules proper for the 2 nd phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's law JURISDICTION & CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 DISTINCT CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers
was dismissed in a Resolution. whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further
is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the
only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but Respondent, then a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the
also not yet called for. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Complaint named as defendants case is fair to both parties. The choice of law stipulation will be come relevant only when the
substantive issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds HELD: No, there was no illegal dismissal since it is clear from the facts here that the amount th e re fro m , by Ho d ge s i n favo r of third persons since then, for even if it
before the trial court. of the monthly salary base was a prime or essential consideration of the parties in signing were assumed that, as con te nde d by PCIB, un der Arti cl e 16 of th e Civ il
the employment contract.  Mutual mistake, however, prevented the proposed contract from Code and a p p l y i n g r e n v o i t h e l a w s o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s a r e t h e
2nd issue: arising.  Each of the parties signed the employment agreement bearing a different salary o n e s u ltimately a pplica bl e, s uch one- fo ur th s hare would be her fr ee dis pos ab le
UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN CONFLICTS-OF- rate in mind. po rtion, taki ng into account alr eady th e l eg itime of he r hus ba nd unde r Ar tic l e
LAWS CASES, MAY REFUSE IMPOSITIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS NOT 90 0 o f the Ci v il C od e.
The mutual mistake here present should be distinguished from mistake which vitiates
THE MOST “CONVENIENT” OR AVAILABLE FORUM AND THE PARTIES ARE NOT consent in a voidable contract.  The latter case pre-supposes a valid and existing contract
PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING REMEDIES ELSEWHERE. with all the essential requisites present, with the element of consent, however, being
Raytheon’s averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its vitiated.  In the case at bar, the element of consent was not present at all.  There was no 24) Yao Kee vs Sy-Gonzales
jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved. concurrence of the offer and acceptance upon the subject matter and the cause which are to
constitute the contract. 167 SCRA 737
Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non conveniens
requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a matter of
defense. While it is w/c the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction FACTS: Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died on January 17, 1977 leaving behind properties
on this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether 22) PCIB VS. ESCOLIN 56 SCRA 266 here in the Philippines.
special circumstances require the court’s desistance.
Thereafter, Aida Sy-Gonzales et al filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration
FACTS: alleging that they are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego. The petition was
opposed by Yao Kee et al alleging that Yao Kee is the lawful wife of the deceased whom he
21) DUMEZ COMPANY OF FRANCE v. NLRC Linnie Jane Hodges died giving her testamentary provisions to her husband. At married in China. The trial court rendered decision in favor of Yao Kee. On appeal, the Court
the time of her death, she was citizen of Texas but, was, however domiciled in of Appeals rendered a decision, modifying the decision declaring the marriage of Sy Kiat to
[ GR No. 82340, Aug 12, 1991 ] the Philippines. To see whether the testamentary provisions are valid, it is Yao Kee as not proven valid in accordance with the laws of China. Both parties moved for
apparent and necessary to know what law should be applied. reconsideration.

FACTS: Sometime in 1984, Dumez needed additional manpower, including four (4) Senior

Draftsmen at a proposed wage of US$600.00 per month for its Medical City project in ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat is valid in accordance with
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  Upon approval by the POEA of its corresponding request, ECCOI Philippine laws.
summoned these draftsmen and gave each of them copy of their respective Manpower Whether or not laws of Texas is applicable.
Requisition Slip which indicated their name, category ("Senior Draftsmen") and monthly
basic salary (US$600.00).  Among the draftsmen hired was private
respondent Florante Jose.  Consequently, ECCOI and the draftsmen entered into an HELD: No. Well-established in this jurisdiction is the principle that Philippine courts cannot
RULING: take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proven as any other fact. To
overseas employment agreement.
It is necessary that the Texas law be ascertained. Here it must be proven whether establish the validity of marriage, the existence of foreign law as a question of fact and the
On 23 January 1985, private respondent commenced working at Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi a renvoi will happen or whether Texas law makes the testamentary provisions alleged marriage must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Arabia.  Petitioner avers that it discovered the discrepancy in respondent's monthly base valid. In line with Texas law, that which should be proven Is the law enforced
salary when the site management in Saudi Arabia prepared the papers relating to In this case, for failure to prove the foreign law or custom and consequently of the marriage,
during the death of Hodges and not in any other time. the marriage between Yao Kee and Sy Kiat in China cannot be recognized in the jurisdiction
respondent's first month's salary.  ECCOI explained that affidavit that the discrepancy was
due to a typographical error, further alleging that private respondent was given a copy of the T he S u pr em e C ou r t he l d th at th e e s t at e of M r s . Ho d g es of Philippine courts.
Manpower Requisition Slip prior to his signing of the employment agreement with Dumez.  Inherited by her brothers and sisters could be more than just s ta te d , b u t th is
w o uld d ep end on (1) wh eth er upon the pro p er application of the principle of
On 9 February 1985, Mr. Jose's services were terminated on the ground of "surplus renvoi in relation to Artic le 16 of t h e C i v i l C o d e a n d t h e p e r t i n e n t l a w s o f
employee, excess of manpower and retrenchment." On 28 February 1985, private 25) WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL WORKS vs. A.H. MUZZAL
T exas, it will ap pear that Hodges had no legitime as contended by Magno,
respondent was repatriated to the Philippines with petitioner shouldering his return fare and (2) w h e t h e r o r n o t i t c a n b e h e l d t h a t H o d g e s h a d l e g a l l y a n d G.R. No. L-42538 May 21, 1935
expenses. e ffe c tiv e ly re no un c e d hi s in he r itan c e fro m hi s wi fe . U nd er th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
On 13 September 1985, private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the p r e s e n t l y o b t a i n i n g a n d i n t h e s t a t e o f t h e re c or d o f th es e c as es , a s
POEA, raising the issue of whether or not there had been a breach of contract of o f n ow , the Cour t i s n ot in a po s i ti on t o m a k e a f i n a l r u l i n g , w h e t h e r o f FACTS:
employment on the part of Dumez. fac t or of law , on a ny of these two issues, and We, therefore, reserve
s a i d i s s u e s f o r fu r t he r pr oc e e di ng s a nd r e s ol ut i o n in th e fi r s t i ns ta nc e b y The defendant, a former resident of the State of California, now residing in the Philippine
The POEA in its decision dated 9 April 1987 dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, t h e c o u r t o q u o, as h e r e i n a bo v e i nd ic at ed . W e r e it er at e , h ow ev er , t h a t Islands, was sued for obligations contracted by a California corporation of which he was a
holding that the termination of private respondent's services was for a just cause in pending such further proceedings, as matters stand at this stage, stockholder at the time said obligations were contracted with Willamette Iron & Steel Works.
accordance with Article 284 of the Labor Code and that the requirement of notice was duly Our considered opinion is that it is beyond cavil th at since, under Plaintiff seeks to recover defendant’s liability for the debt due under Section 322 of the Civil
complied with. Hence, the petition. t h e t e r m s o f t h e w i l l o f M r s . H o d g e s , h e r hu s b an d c ou l d n o t h av e Code of California. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the
a ny wa y le g al ly ad ju d ic a te d or c a us e d to b e ad judi c ate d to hi mse lf h er w ho le defendant, for the first cause of action, to pay to plaintiff the sum of P2,837.34, with interest
s ha r e o f th ei r c on ju ga l p a r t n e r s h i p , a l b e i t h e c o u l d h a v e d i s p o s e d a n y thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from March 11, 1929, until paid, and to pay also
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal dismissal part thereof during his lifetime, the resulting estate of Mrs. Hodges, the amount of P1,590.63, for the second cause of action, with interest thereon at 7 per cent
o f which Magno is the uncontested administratrix, cannot be les s t h a n o n e - per annum from April 8, 1929, until paid. The defendant is further ordered to pay the amount
fourth of the conjugal partnership properties, as of the time of her death, of P500 as reasonable attorney's fees in prosecuting this action, and to pay the costs of
minus what, as explained earlier, have be e n g ratu i to u sl y d isp os ed o f these proceedings.
Defendant appealed alleging that the lower court erred in finding that plaintiff has proven the will executed in San Francisco on May 22, 1947, and which was duly probated in the of England. Adopting the view of Manresa, the law determinative of the property relation of
existence of the foreign law involved in this action and in enforcing the law of California as it Superior Court of California on April 11, 1951, Stevenson instituted his wife Beatrice as his the Stevensons, married in 1909, would be the English law even if the marriage was
is inconsistent with the Philippine Corporation Law. sole heiress to the following real and personal properties acquired by the spouses while celebrated in the Philippines, both of them being foreigners. But, as correctly observed by
residing in the Philippines. the Tax Court, the pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the decedent husband full
ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage has not been proven by petitioner.
Preliminary return was made by the ancillary administrator in order to secure the waiver of Except for a mere allegation in his answer, which is not sufficient, the record is bereft of any
ISSUE: the Collector of Internal Revenue on the inheritance tax due on the 210,000 shares of stock evidence as to what English law says on the matter. In the absence of proof, the Court is
Whether or not the law of California was properly enforced. in the Mindanao Mother Lode Mines Inc. which the estate then desired to dispose in the justified, therefore, in indulging in what Wharton calls "processual presumption," in
United States. Acting upon said return, the Collector of Internal Revenue accepted the presuming that the law of England on this matter is the same as our law. We, therefore, find
valuation of the personal properties declared therein, but increased the appraisal of the two that the lower court correctly deducted the half of the conjugal property in determining the
parcels of land located in Baguio City by fixing their fair market value in the amount of hereditary estate left by the deceased Stevenson.
HELD: YES. P52.200.00, instead of P43,500.00. After allowing the deductions claimed by the ancillary
Mr. Arthur W. Bolton, an attorney-at-law of San Francisco, California, since the year 1918, administrator for funeral expenses in the amount of P2,000.00 and for judicial and As to the exemption from inheritance tax of the intangible personal property of the decedent,
under oath, quoted verbatim section 322 of the California Civil Code and stated that said administration expenses in the sum of P5,500.00, the Collector assessed the state the it is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts
section was in force at the time the obligations of the defendant to the plaintiff were incurred, amount of P5,147.98 for estate tax and P10,875,26 or inheritance tax, or a total of are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
i. e., on November 5, 1928 and December 22, 1928. This evidence sufficiently established P16,023.23. Both of these assessments were paid by the estate on June 6, 1952. and proved. It is clear from both Sec 122 of our NIRC and Sec 13851 of the California
the fact that the section in question was the law of the State of California on the above Inheritance Tax Law that the reciprocity must be total, that is, with respect to transfer or
The ancillary administrator filed a two amended estate and inheritance tax return death taxes of any and every character, in the case of the Philippine law, and to legacy,
dates. A reading of sections 300 and 301 of our Code of Civil Procedure will convince one subsequently, on September 27, 1952 and on September 7, 1953. In the first amended
that these sections do not exclude the presentation of other competent evidence to prove succession, or death taxes of any and every character, in the case of the California law.
return the valuation of the 210,000 shares of stock in the Mindanao Mother Lode Mines, Inc. Therefore, if any of the two states collects or imposes and does not exempt any transfer,
the existence of a foreign law. was reduced from 0.38 per share, as originally declared, to P0.20 per share, or from a total death, legacy, or succession tax of any character, the reciprocity does not work. This is the
SEC. 322 provides: Each stockholder of a corporation is individually and personally liable for valuation of P79,800.00 to P42,000.00. This change in price per share of stock was based underlying principle of the reciprocity clauses in both laws. Be that as it may, we now declare
such proportion of all its debts and liabilities contracted or incurred during the time he was a by the ancillary administrator on the market notation of the stock obtaining at the San that in view of the express provisions of both the Philippine and California laws that the
stockholder as the amount of stock or shares owned by him bears to the whole of the Francisco California) Stock Exchange six months from the death of Stevenson. The second exemption would apply only if the law of the other grants an exemption from legacy,
subscribed capital stock or shares of the corporation. Any creditor of the corporation may return declared the same assets of the estate stated in the first amended return, except that succession, or death taxes of every character, there could not be partial reciprocity. It would
institute joint or several actions against any of its stockholders, for the proportion of his claim it contained new claims for additional exemption and deduction. In this last return, the estate have to be total or none at all.
payable by each, and in such action the court must (1) ascertain the proportion of the claim claimed that it was liable only for the amount of P525.34 for estate tax and P238.06 for
or debt for which each defendant is liable, and (2) a several judgment must be rendered inheritance tax and that, as a consequence, it had overpaid the government. The refund of As to the correctness of the appraisal of the two parcels of land situated in Baguio City, it is
against each, in conformity therewith. If any stockholder pays his proportion of any debt due the amount of P15,259.83, allegedly overpaid, was accordingly requested by the estate. contended that their assessed values, as appearing in the tax rolls 6 months after the death
from the corporation, incurred while he was such stockholder, he is relieved from any further of Stevenson, ought to have been considered by petitioner as their fair market value,
The Collector denied the claim. For this reason, action was commenced in the Court of First pursuant to section 91 of the National Internal Revenue Code. In respect to the valuation of
personal liability for such debt, and if an action has been brought against him upon such Instance of Manila by respondents, as assignees of Beatrice Mauricia Stevenson, for the
debt, it must be dismissed, as to him, upon his paying the costs, or such proportion thereof the 210,000 shares of stock in the Mindanao Mother Lode Mines, Inc., the situs of the
recovery of said amount. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 1125, the case was forwarded to the shares of stock, for purposes of taxation, being located here in the Philippines, as
as may be properly chargeable against him. The liability of each stockholder is determined Court of Tax Appeals which court, after hearing, rendered decision that: (a) the one-half (½)
by the amount of stock or shares owned by him at the time the debt or liability was incurred; respondents themselves concede and considering that they are sought to be taxed in this
share of the surviving spouse in the conjugal partnership property as diminished by the jurisdiction, consistent with the exercise of our government's taxing authority, their fair
and such liability is not released by any subsequent transfer of stock. obligations properly chargeable to such property should be deducted from the net estate of market value should be taxed on the basis of the price prevailing in our country.
The herein defendant is chargeable with notice of the law of California as to the liability of the deceased Walter G. Stevenson, pursuant to Section 89-C of the National Internal
stockholders for debt of a corporation proportionate to their stock holdings, in view of the fact Revenue Code; (b) the intangible personal property belonging to the estate of said
that he was one of the incorporators of the Meyer-Muzzal Company in the year 1924 and Stevenson is exempt from inheritance tax, pursuant to the provision of section 122 of the
was still a stockholder in that company in the year 1928. Exhibit 10 of the plaintiff is a National Internal Revenue Code in relation to the California Inheritance Tax Law but 27) YAP vs SOLICITOR GENERAL
certified company of the articles of incorporation of Meyer-Muzzal Company in which it decedent's estate is not entitled to an exemption of P4,000.00 in the computation of the
estate tax; (c) for purposes of estate and inheritance taxation the Baguio real estate of the GR No. L-20372 May 14, 1966
appears that that company was incorporated on August 22, 1924, and that the incorporators
were A.H. Muzzal, Leo W. Meyer and James Rolph, Jr., "all of whom are residents and spouses should be valued at P52,200.00, and 210,000 shares of stock in the Mindanao
citizens of the State of California." The defendant cannot now escape liability by alleging that Mother Lode Mines, Inc. should be appraised at P0.38 per share; and (d) the estate shall be
the California law is unjust and different from the inconsistent with the Philippine Corporation entitled to a deduction of P2,000.00 for funeral expenses and judicial expenses of Facts:
Law. P8,604.39. Both parties appeal to said decision.
The Solicitor General appeals from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu which
granted the petition for naturalization of Benjamin Yap alias Uy Wei Kim.

ISSUE: Appellees's evidence shows: He was born as Uy Wei Kim in Cebu City September 8, 1934,
26) CIR vs. Fisher was baptized Benjamin Yap at the Roman Catholic in Cebu in November 1941, and has
Whether or not the decision of the Court of Tax appeals in assessing the tax liability of the been residing in the Philippines since birth. He is single, a citizen of the Republic of China,
G.R. No. L-11622 January 28, 1961
estate of Stevenson is correct. registered as an alien and has a "native-born" certificate. Since 1957 he has been employed
at the San Su Trading, a commercial firm owned by his uncle. He started with a monthly
salary of P200, which was increased to P300 in 1962. In 1959 he became a partner in the
FACTS: same business concern with a share of P15,000.00 in its capital. He filed his income tax
Held:
Walter G. Stevenson (born in the Philippines on August 9, 1874 of British parents and returns for the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 and paid the corresponding taxes thereon. The
As to the deduction of ½ of the share of the surviving spouse from the taxable net estate of San Su Trading provides him with free board and lodging (worth P50 monthly) at 422
married in the City of Manila on January 23, 1909 to Beatrice Mauricia Stevenson another
the decedent, the property relation of the spouses Stevensons ought not to be determined Manalili Street, Cebu City, which he considers his place of residence. He finished his
British subject) died on February 22, 1951 in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. whereto he
by the Philippine law, but by the national law of the decedent husband, in this case, the law elementary and secondary education at the Cebu Chinese High School, Cebu City, and at
and his wife moved and established their permanent residence since May 10, 1945. In his
the time of the hearing was enrolled as first-year commerce student in the Colegio de San Both of the aforementioned circulars, however, contained a saving clause, excepting from applied independently. Hence, no fault lies at the prosecutions door for having instituted
Jose-Recoletos, Cebu City. He can speak and write the local Visayan dialect and the their coverage pending criminal actions involving violations of Circular No. 960 and, in the separate cases before separate tribunals involving the same subject matter.
English language. case of Circular No. 1353, violations of both Circular No. 960 and Circular No. 1318.
Preliminary investigation is not part of the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. It is
Appellee also presented evidence to prove that he has all the other qualifications and none On August 11, 1994, petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against them in an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
of the disqualifications enumerated in the Naturalization Law. Criminal Cases. Their motion was grounded on lack of jurisdiction, forum shopping, that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof. Instead, the
extinction of criminal liability with the repeal of Circular No. 960, prescription, exemption from right to a preliminary investigation is personal. It is afforded to the accused by statute, and
the Central Banks reporting requirement, and the grant of absolute immunity as a result of a can be waived, either expressly or by implication. The waiver extends to any irregularity in
ISSUES: compromise agreement entered into with the government. the preliminary investigation, where one was conducted.

(1) Whether or not the appellee's character witnesses are not credible persons; The petition in the present case contains the following admissions:

(2) whether or not he does not possess good moral character; and Issue: 1. Allowed to return to the Philippines on September 19, 1993on the condition that he face
the criminal charges pending in courts, petitioner-appellant Benedicto, joined by his co-
(3) whether or not he does not have a lucrative employment or occupation. Did the Court of Appeals err in denying the Motion to Quash for lack of jurisdiction on the petitioner Rivera, lost no time in attending to the pending criminal charges by posting bail in
part of the trial court, forum shopping by the prosecution, and absence of a valid preliminary the above-mentioned cases.
investigation? NO
2. Not having been afforded a real opportunity of attending the preliminary investigation
HELD: Did the repeal of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Republic Act No. 265 by Circular No. because of their forced absence from the Philippines then, petitioners-appellants invoked
1353 and Republic Act No. 7653 respectively, extinguish the criminal liability of petitioners? their right to due process thru motions for preliminary.
Nothing in the testimony of the two witnesses shows that their relations with appellee were NO
such as would have enabled them to observe his behavior, or to know his character, his 3. Thus, instead of remanding the Informations to the Department of Justicerespondent
beliefs, his social contacts and associations. Had the criminal cases in violation of Circular No. 960 already prescribed? NO Judge set the case for pre-trial in order to afford all the accused access to the records of the
The question of possession of lucrative trade or occupation is determined as of the time of Were petitioners exempted from the application and coverage of Circular No. 960? prosecution
the filing of the petition (Senecio Dy Ong alias Senecio Dy Govs. Republic, L-21017, xxx
November 29, 1965), which in this case was December 29, 1960, when appellee was Were petitioners' alleged violations of Circular No. 960 covered by the absolute immunity
receiving only P200 a month. For purposes of qualifying an applicant for naturalization, such granted in the Compromise Agreement of November 3, 1990? 5. On the basis of disclosures at the pre-trial, the petitioners-appellants Benedicto and
a salary is not considered lucrative employment, even if appellee has free board and lodging Rivera moved for the quashing of the informations/cases
(Yap v. Republic, L-19649, April 30, 1965). The conclusion would be the same even if we
add thereto the amount which appellee allegedly received in 1960 as his share in the net Ruling: The foregoing admissions lead us to conclude that petitioners have expressly waived their
profits of the partnership. According to his income tax return it was P1,514.62, and during right to question any supposed irregularity in the preliminary investigation or to ask for a new
the trial appellee testified that it was only P100.00. On the first issue, petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. They aver preliminary investigation. Petitioners, in the above excerpts from this petition, admit posting
that the dollar-salting charges filed against them were violations of the Anti-Graft Law or bail immediately following their return to the country, entered their respective pleas to the
Wherefore the judgment appealed from is reversed and petition denied, with costs Republic Act No. 3019, and the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction over charges, and filed various motions and pleadings. By so doing, without simultaneously
their cases. demanding a proper preliminary investigation, they have waived any and all irregularities in
28) ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO and HECTOR T. RIVERA, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, the conduct of a preliminary investigation. The trial court did not err in denying the motion to
Settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal case is determined by the quash the informations on the ground of want of or improperly conducted preliminary
law in force at the time the action is instituted. The 25 cases were filed in 1991-92. Under investigation. The absence of a preliminary investigation is not a ground to quash the
P.D. No. 1606, offenses punishable by imprisonment of not more than six years fall within information.
Facts: the jurisdiction of the regular trial courts, not the Sandiganbayan.
On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960, Circular No.
In the instant case, all the Informations are for violations of Circular No. 960 in relation to 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving earnings or profits
indicted for violation of the Central Bank act in five Informations filed with the Regional Trial Section 34 of the Central Bank Act and not, as petitioners insist, for transgressions of
Court of Manila. The charge sheets alleged that the trio failed to submit reports of their from non-trade foreign exchange transactions. Second, even the most cursory glance at the
Republic Act No. 3019. Pursuant to Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265, violations of Circular repealing circulars, Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 shows that both contain a saving clause,
foreign exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to register with the Foreign Exchange No. 960 are punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years and a fine of not more
Department of the Central Bank within the period mandated by Circular No. 960. That same expressly providing that the repeal of Circular No. 960 shall have no effect on pending
than P20,000.00. Since under P.D. No. 1606 the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction to try actions for violation of the latter Circular. A saving clause operates to except from the effect
day, nine additional Informations charging Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto with the same criminal cases where the imposable penalty is less than six years of imprisonment, the
offense, but involving different accounts, were filed. On 1992, eleven more Informations of the repealing law what would otherwise be lost under the new law. In the present case,
cases against petitioners for violations of Circular No. 960 are, therefore, cognizable by the the respective saving clauses of Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353 clearly manifest the intent to
accusing Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto of the same offense, again in relation to different trial court. No error may thus be charged to the Court of Appeals when it held that the RTC
accounts, were filed. reserve the right of the State to prosecute and punish offenses for violations of the repealed
of Manila had jurisdiction to hear and try the dollar-salting cases. Circular No. 960, where the cases are either pending or under investigation.
All of the aforementioned criminal cases were consolidated before Branch 26 of the said trial For a charge of forum shopping to prosper, there must exist between an action pending in
court. A comparison of the old Central Bank Act and the new Bangko Sentrals charter repealing
one court and another action before another court: (a) identity of parties, or at least such the former show that in consonance with the general objective of the old law and the new
On the same day that Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969 were filed, the Central parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and law to maintain internal and external monetary stability in the Philippines and preserve the
Bank issued Circular No. 1318 which revised the rules governing non-trade foreign relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two international value of the peso, both the repealed law and the repealing statute contain a
exchange transactions. It took effect on January 20, 1992. preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless penal clause which sought to penalize in general, violations of the law as well as orders,
of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. Here, instructions, rules, or regulations issued by the Monetary Board. In the case of the Bangko
On August 24, 1992, the Central Bank, pursuant to the government’s policy of further we find that the single act of receiving unreported interest earnings on Treasury Notes held Sentral, the scope of the penal clause was expanded to include violations of other pertinent
liberalizing foreign exchange transactions, came out with Circular No. 1353 deleted the abroad constitutes an offense against two or more distinct and unrelated laws, Circular No. banking laws enforced or implemented by the Bangko Sentral. In the instant case, the acts
requirement of prior Central Bank approval for foreign exchange-funded expenditures 960 and R.A. 3019. Said laws define distinct offenses, penalize different acts, and can be of petitioners sought to be penalized are violations of rules and regulations issued by the
obtained from the banking system.
Monetary Board. These acts are proscribed and penalized in the penal clause of the
repealed law and this proviso for proscription and penalty was reenacted in the repealing authorized officer in the Philippine foreign service assigned to said country that such officer 29) WILDVALLEY vs CA
law. We find, therefore, that while Section 34 of Republic Act No. 265 was repealed, it was has custody.[55] Absent such evidence, this Court cannot take judicial cognizance of the
nonetheless, simultaneously reenacted in Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653. foreign law invoked by Benedicto and Rivera. GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000

Is Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653 an ex post facto legislation? Anent the fifth issue, petitioners insist that the government granted them absolute immunity
under the Compromise Agreement they entered into with the government on November 3, Facts:
1990. Petitioners cite our decision in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 226 SCRA 314 (1993),
upholding the validity of the said Agreement and directing the various government agencies In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by
to be consistent with it. Benedicto and Rivera now insist that the absolute immunity from pilots familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine
The test whether a penal law runs afoul of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution is: criminal investigation or prosecution granted to petitioner Benedicto, his family, as well as to Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of
Does the law sought to be applied retroactively take from an accused any right that was officers and employees of firms owned or controlled by Benedicto under the aforesaid Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River.
regarded at the time of the adoption of the constitution as vital for the protection of life and Agreement covers the suits filed for violations of Circular No. 960, which gave rise to the Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by
liberty and which he enjoyed at the time of the commission of the offense charged against present case. Vasquez. As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned
him? Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC
In construing contracts, it is important to ascertain the intent of the parties by looking at the as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of
The crucial words in the test are vital for the protection of life and liberty. We find, however, words employed to project their intention. In the instant case, the parties clearly listed and Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to
the test inapplicable to the penal clause of Republic Act No. 7653. Penal laws and laws limited the applicability of the Compromise Agreement to the cases listed or identified wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No
which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions defining offenses and therein. We have ruled in another case involving the same Compromise Agreement that: 1 del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the
prescribing penalties for their violation operate prospectively. Penal laws cannot be given negligence of the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to
retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to the accused. Nowhere in Republic Act [T]he subject matters of the disputed compromise agreement are Sandiganbayan Civil Case
No. 0009, Civil Case No. 00234, Civil Case No. 0034, the Phil-Asia case before the check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing the river.
No. 7653, and in particular Section 36, is there any indication that the increased penalties
provided therein were intended to operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto Tanodbayan and PCGG I.S. No. 1. The cases arose from complaints for reconveyance,
law in this case. reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, members of his family, and alleged cronies, one of whom was respondent Roberto ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan
In ruling that the dollar-salting cases against petitioners have not yet prescribed, the court a S. Benedicto. laws.
quo quoted with approval the trial courts finding that:
Nowhere is there a mention of the criminal cases filed against petitioners for violations of
[T]he alleged violations of law were discovered only after the EDSA Revolution in 1986 when Circular No. 960. Conformably with Article 1370 of the Civil Code, the Agreement relied
the dictatorship was toppled down. The date of the discovery of the offense, therefore, upon by petitioners should include only cases specifically mentioned therein. Applying the HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only
should be the basis in computing the prescriptive period. Since (the) offenses charged are parol evidence rule, where the parties have reduced their agreement into writing, the mere photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public
punishable by imprisonment of not more than five (5) years, they prescribe in eight (8) years. contents of the writing constitute the sole repository of the terms of the agreement between document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory:
Thus, only a little more than four (4) years had elapsed from the date of discovery in 1986 the parties. Whatever is not found in the text of the Agreement should thus be construed as (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy;
when the cases were filed in 1991. waived and abandoned. Scrutiny of the Compromise Agreement will reveal that it does not and
include all cases filed by the government against Benedicto, his family, and associates.
The fourth issue involves petitioners claim that they incurred no criminal liability for violations (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
of Circular No. 960 since they were exempted from its coverage. Additionally, the immunity covers only criminal investigation or prosecution against said general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or Foreign Service officer, and with the seal
persons for acts (or) omissions committed prior to February 25, 1986 that may be alleged to of his office.
Petitioners correctly point out that Section 10(q) of Circular No. 960 exempts from the have violated any penal laws, including but not limited to Republic Act No. 3019, in relation
reporting requirement foreign currency eligible for deposit under the Philippine Foreign to the acquisition of any asset treated, mentioned, or included in this Agreement. It is only And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible,
Exchange Currency Deposit System, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6426, as amended. But, when the criminal investigation or case involves the acquisition of any ill-gotten wealth as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country
in order to avail of the aforesaid exemption, petitioners must show that they fall within its treated, mentioned, or included in this Agreement[63] that petitioners may invoke immunity. concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.
scope. Petitioners must satisfy the requirements for eligibility imposed by Section 2, The record is bereft of any showing that the interest earnings from foreign exchange
Republic Act No. 6426. Not only do we find the record bare of any proof to support Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law
deposits in banks abroad, which is the subject matter of the present case, are treated,
petitioners claim of falling within the coverage of Republic Act No. 6426, we likewise find is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon
mentioned, or included in the Compromise Agreement. The phraseology of the grant of
from a reading of Section 2 of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act that said law is inapplicable cannot be held liable for the negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due
absolute immunity in the Agreement precludes us from applying the same to the criminal
to the foreign currency accounts in question. Section 2, Republic Act No. 6426 speaks of diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly
charges faced by petitioners for violations of Circular No. 960. A contract cannot be
deposit with such Philippine banks in good standing, as maybe designated by the Central accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was engaged.
construed to include matters distinct from those with respect to which the parties intended to
Bank for the purpose. The criminal cases filed against petitioners for violation of Circular No. contract.[64]
960 involve foreign currency accounts maintained in foreign banks, not Philippine banks. By
invoking the confidentiality guarantees provided for by Swiss banking laws, petitioners admit In sum, we find that no reversible error of law may be attributed to the Court of Appeals in
30) SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES vs CA
such reports made. The rule is that exceptions are strictly construed and apply only so far as upholding the orders of the trial court denying petitioners Motion to Quash the Informations
their language fairly warrants, with all doubts being resolved in favor of the general proviso in Criminal Case Nos. 91-101879 to 91-101883, 91-101884 to 91-101892, and 92-101959 to G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998
rather than the exception. Hence, petitioners may not claim exemption under Section 10(q). 92-101969. In our view, none of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court[65] upon
which petitioners rely, finds application in this case.
(RELATED) With respect to the banking laws of Switzerland cited by petitioners, the rule is
that Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Laws of foreign jurisdictions One final matter. During the pendency of this petition, counsel for petitioner Roberto S. FACTS:
must be alleged and proved. Petitioners failed to prove the Swiss law relied upon, either by: Benedicto gave formal notice to the Court that said petitioner died on May 15, 2000. The
Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA), foreign airlines corporation doing business in the
(1) an official publication thereof; or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal death of an accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability as well as the civil
Philippines and may be served summons in agent in Makati, hired Milagros P. Morada as a
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied by a certification from the liability based solely thereon.[66]
flight attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
secretary of the Philippine embassy or legation in such country or by the Philippine consul
general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent stationed in such country, or by any other April 27, 1990: While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada went to a disco dance with
fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi nationals. It not a real party in interest (3) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been o enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained
was almost morning when they returned to their hotels so they agreed to have breakfast waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished and (4) that the trial court has no jurisdiction
together at the room of Thamer. Shortly after Allah left the room, Thamer attempted to rape to try the case. o relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial
Morada. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and § Plaintiff may not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, "vex", "harass", or "oppress" the
rescued her. Indonesian police arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an After opposition to the motion to dismiss by Morada and reply by SAUDIA, Morada filed an
Amended Complaint dropping Al-Balawi. SAUDIA filed its Manifestation, Motion to Dismiss defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or disturbance. but unless the
accomplice. balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be
Amended Complaint, subsequently motion for reconsideration which were all denied.
When Morada returned to Jeddah, SAUDIA officials interrogated her about the Jakarta disturbed.
incident and requested her to go back to Jakarta to help arrange the release of Thamer and SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals. TRO Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo found it best to hear the case in
Allah. In Jakarta, SAUDIA Legal Officers negotiated with the police for the immediate the Philippines. Had it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff
release of the detained crew members but did not succeed. Afraid was granted but Writ of Preliminary Injunction was denied.
(private respondent now) to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of Saudi
that she might be tricked into something she did not want because of her inability to CA: Philippines is an appropriate forum considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial connections.
understand the local dialect, Morado refused to cooperate and declined to sign a blank recovery of damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of
respondent Court. It further held that certiorari is not the proper remedy in a denial of a That would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her. Moreover, by hearing the case in
paper and a document written in the local dialect. the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by either of
Motion to Dismiss, inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded to trial, and in case of
Eventually, SAUDIA allowed Morada to return to Jeddah but barred her from the Jakarta an adverse ruling, find recourse in an appeal. the parties.
flights. Trial court possesses jurisdiction over the persons of the parties By filing her Complaint and
SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review with Prayer for Temporary Restraining
Indonesian authorities agreed to deport Thamer and Allah and they were again put in Order: Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent has voluntary submitted herself
service. While, Morada was transferred to Manila. to the jurisdiction of the courtSAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction
o It is a conflict of laws that must be settled at the outset: by praying for the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than lack of
January 14, 1992: Morada was asked to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of jurisdiction.
SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He brought her to the police station where the police § Morada's claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. The police pressured her As to the choice of applicable law, it seeks to answer 2 important questions:
§ Existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the law of
to drop the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. o (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts
return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah. occurred in two or more states
Morada: Amended Complaint is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code which is a
June 16, 1993: Morada, while in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, was not allowed to board the plane to matter of domestic law o (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation
Manila and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy. Khalid of the
SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of
in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah justice and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem
but it was actually a notice for her to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then ISSUE: W/N the RTC of Quezon City has jurisdiction over the case and it is the proper forum of deciding which of these two important values should be stressed.
returned to Manila. for recovery of damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code which should govern.
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a
June 27, 1993: SAUDIA's Manila manager, Aslam Saleemi, assured Morada that the certain set of facts or rules fall
investigation was routinary and that it posed no danger to her so she reported to Miniewy in HELD: YES. petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. REMANDED to RTC of Quezon
Jeddah for further investigation. She was brought to the Saudi court. o "characterization" or the "doctrine of qualification”
City, Branch 89 for further proceedings. Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily
June 28, 1993: Saudi judge interrogated Morada through an interpreter about the Jakarta establish the existence of a foreign element, the problem could present a "conflicts" case .A § process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a
incident for an hour and let her go. SAUDIA officers forbidden her to take flight. She was factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or conflicts rule
told to go the Inflight Service Office where her passport was taken and they told her to more states is said to contain a "foreign element".
§ purpose: to enable the forum to select the proper law
remain in Jeddah, at the crew quarters, until further orders. o Morada is a resident Philippine national
Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of: (essential element of conflict rules)
July 3, 1993: She was brought to court again and to her astonishment and shock, rendered o SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation by virtue of the employment of Morada with the
a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to SAUDIA as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel o factual situation/relationship or operative fact (such as property right, contract claim); and
286 lashes. The court tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, and found her guilty of (1) across national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and § starting point of analysis
adultery (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation to arise
and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition. o test or connecting factor or point of contact (such as the situs of the res, the place of
Forms of foreign element: celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing) – could be:
Failing to seek the assistance of her employer, SAUDIA, she asked the Philippine Embassy
in Jeddah to help her while her case is on appeal. She continued to workon the domestic o Simple: one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a § (1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his
flight of SAUDIA, while Thamer and Allah continued to serve in the international flights. contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated in another State origin
Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against o Complex Violations of Articles 19 and 21 are actionable, with judicially enforceable § (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation
her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Before her return to Manila, she was terminated remedies in the municipal forum. RTC of Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the
from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause. subject matter of the suit. § (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In
particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved
November 23, 1993: Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al- Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the parties, also weigh heavily in
Balawi, its country manager. favor of the RTC Quezon City assuming jurisdiction: § (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a
contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex
January 19, 1994: SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss on following grounds: (1) o private interest of the litigant loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts
that the Complaint states no cause of action against SAUDIA (2) that defendant Al-Balawi is
§ (5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance Physical Therapy–Medical Rehabilitation Center, Phase II, in Baghdad, Iraq, (hereinafter the 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of what it paid under Letter
of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised Project) to Ajyal Trading and Contracting Company (hereinafter Ajyal), a firm duly licensed of Guarante it issued to Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait based on the deed of
with the Kuwait Chamber of Commerce for a total contract price of ID5,416,089/046 (or undertaking and surety bond from the respondents.
§ (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their about US$18,739,668). On 7 March 1981, respondent spouses Eduardo and Iluminada
agreement, the lex loci intentionis; Santos, in behalf of respondent 3-Plex International, Inc. (hereinafter 3-Plex), a local
§ (7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex contractor engaged in construction business, entered into a joint venture agreement with Ruling
fori — the law of the forum — is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, Ajyal wherein the former undertook the execution of the entire Project, while the latter would
matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; be entitled to a commission of 4% of the contract price. Later, or on 8 April 1981, respondent
and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign 3-Plex, not being accredited by or registered with the Philippine Overseas Construction
Board (POCB), assigned and transferred all its rights and interests under the joint venture 1. NO. No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly provided for in our
law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the laws. The rule followed by most legal systems, however, is that the intrinsic validity of a
exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and agreement to V.P. Eusebio Construction, Inc. (VPECI), a construction and engineering firm
duly registered with the POCB. However, on 2 May 1981, 3-Plex and VPECI entered into an contract must be governed by the lex contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the
§ (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships agreement that the execution of the Project would be under their joint management. law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by
of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships them either expressly or implicitly (the lex loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied
particularly contracts of affreightment For the purpose of the advance payment to be released upon signing of the from such factors as substantial connection with the transaction, or the nationality or
contract, SOB required 3-Plex and VPECI to file a bond. The said bond was put up by herein domicile of the parties. In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection to the
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the petitioner, Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation (Philguarantee), as transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi Government and the place of performance is
determination of the applicable law. guarantor and with the help of Al Ahli Bank, as the receiving bank of the money coming from in Iraq. Hence, the issue of whether respondent VPECI defaulted in its obligations may be
petitioner. On 11 June 1981, SOB and the joint venture VPECI and Ajyal finally executed the determined by the laws of Iraq. However, since that foreign law was not properly pleaded or
Based on pleadings on record, including allegations in the Amended Complaint: service contract for the construction of the Rehabilitation Center. In October, upon proved, the presumption of identity or similarity, otherwise known as the processual
o Morada was made to face trial for very serious charges, including adultery and violation foreseeing the impossibility of meeting the deadline (Nov. 15, 1982), the joint venture presumption, comes into play. Where foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not
of Islamic laws and tradition contractor requested for the renewal or extension of the Performance Bond and Advance proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours.
payment guarantee. As of March 1986, the status of the Project was 51% accomplished,
o SAUDIA may have acted beyond its duties as employer by handing over the person of meaning the structures were already finished. The remaining 47% consisted in electro- Our law, specifically Article 1169, last paragraph, of the Civil Code, provides: "In
Morada to Jeddah officials which contributed to and amplified or even proximately caused mechanical works and the 2%, sanitary works, which both required importation of equipment reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other party does not comply or is
additional humiliation, misery and suffering. It also took advantage of the trust, confidence and materials. On 26 October 1986, Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait sent a telex call to the petitioner not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him.” Default or mora
and faith in the guise of authority as employer. demanding full payment of its performance bond counter-guarantee. Subsequently, or on 19 on the part of the debtor is the delay in the fulfillment of the prestation by reason of a cause
November 1986, respondent VPECI advised the petitioner not to pay yet Al Ahli Bank imputable to the former. It is the non-fulfillment of an obligation with respect to time. In the
o Conviction and imprisonment was wrongful but injury or harm was inflicted upon her present case, it is undisputed that only 51.7% of the total work had been accomplished. The
because efforts were being exerted for the amicable settlement of the Project.
person and reputation which must be compensated or redress for the wrong doing 48.3% unfinished portion consisted in the purchase and installation of electro-mechanical
Complaint involving torts"connecting factor" or "point of contact" - place or places where the On 14 April 1987, the petitioner received another telex message from Al Ahli equipment and materials, which were available from foreign suppliers, thus requiring US
tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred = Philippines where SAUDIA deceived Morada, a Bank demanding reimbursement by the petitioner of what it paid to the latter bank plus Dollars for their importation. As found by both the CA and the RTC, the delay or the non-
Filipina residing and working here. interest thereon and related expenses. On 10 August 1987, VPECI requested the Central completion of the Project was caused by factors not imputable to the respondent contractor.
Bank to hold in abeyance the payment by the petitioner. On 27 August 1987, the Central It was rather due mainly to the persistent violations by SOB of the terms and conditions of
"State of the most significant relationship" – applied taken into account and evaluated the contract, particularly its failure to pay 75% of the accomplished work in US Dollars, as
Bank authorized the remittance for its account of the amount of US$876,564 (equivalent to
according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: SOB demand payment purely in Dinar. Indeed, where one of the parties to a contract does
ID271, 808/610) to Al Ahli Bank representing full payment of the performance counter-
§ (a) the place where the injury occurred guarantee for VPECI's project in Iraq. On 6 November 1987, Philguarantee informed VPECI not perform in a proper manner the prestation which he is bound to perform under the
that it would remit US$876,564 to Al Ahli Bank, and reiterated the joint and solidary contract, he is not entitled to demand the performance of the other party. A party does not
§ (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred obligation of the respondents to reimburse the petitioner for the advances made on its incur in delay if the other party fails to perform the obligation incumbent upon him.
counter-guarantee. On 19 June 1991, the petitioner sent to the respondents separate letters
§ (c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the
demanding full payment of the amount of P47,872,373.98 plus accruing interest, penalty
parties
charges, and 10% attorney's fees pursuant to their joint and solidary obligations under the 2. NO. As a rule, a guarantor who pays for a debtor should be indemnified by the latter
§ (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered deed of undertaking and surety bond. and would be legally subrogated to the rights which the creditor has against the debtor.
When the respondents failed to pay, the petitioner filed on 9 July 1991 a civil However, a person who makes payment without the knowledge or against the will of the
v private respondent is a resident Filipina national, working here
case for collection of a sum of money against the respondents before the RTC of Makati debtor has the right to recover only insofar as the payment has been beneficial to the debtor.
v a resident foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage City. After due trial, the trial court ruled against Philguarantee and held that the latter had no If the obligation was subject to defenses on the part of the debtor, the same defenses which
valid cause of action against the respondents. It opined that at the time the call was made on could have been set up against the creditor can be set up against the paying guarantor.
the guarantee which was executed for a specific period, the guarantee had already lapsed or From the findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court, it is clear that the
31) PHILIPPINE EXPORT AND FOREIGN LOAN GUARANTEE CORPORATION, petitioner, expired. There was no valid renewal or extension of the guarantee for failure of the petitioner payment made by the petitioner guarantor did not in any way benefit the principal debtor,
vs. V.P. EUSEBIO CONSTRUCTION, INC. to secure respondents' express consent thereto. In its 14 June 1999, the Court of Appeals given the project status and the conditions obtaining at the Project site at that time.
affirmed the trial court's decision. Hence, this present petition via Rule 45 of the Rules of Moreover, the respondent contractor was found to have valid defenses against SOB, which
G.R. No. 140047 July 13, 2004 Court. are fully supported by evidence and which have been meritoriously set up against the paying
guarantor, the petitioner in this case. And even if the deed of undertaking and the surety
bond secured petitioner's guaranty, the petitioner is precluded from enforcing the same by
Facts Issue reason of the petitioner's undue payment on the guaranty. Rights under the deed of
undertaking and the surety bond do not arise because these contracts depend on the validity
On 8 November 1980, the State Organization of Buildings (SOB), Ministry of 1. Whether there is a breach of an agreement, which includes default or mora that of the enforcement of the guaranty.
Housing and Construction, Baghdad, Iraq, awarded the construction of the Institute of pertains to the essential or intrinsic validity of a contract.
 The petitioner guarantor should have waited for the natural course of guaranty: Generally, in the absence of a special compact, no sovereign is bound to give effect within 34) CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD. vs. M/V "LOK MAHESHWARI," THE SHIPPING
the debtor VPECI should have, in the first place, defaulted in its obligation and that the its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal of another country; however, the rules of CORPORATION OF INDIA, and PORTSERV LIMITED and/or TRANSMAR SHIPPING, INC.
creditor SOB should have first made a demand from the principal debtor. It is only when the comity, utility and convenience of nations have established a usage among civilized states
debtor does not or cannot pay, in whole or in part, that the guarantor should pay.71 When by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally G.R. No. 155014 November 11, 2005
the petitioner guarantor in this case paid against the will of the debtor VPECI, the debtor respected and rendered efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in different
VPECI may set up against it defenses available against the creditor SOB at the time of countries.
payment. This is the hard lesson that the petitioner must learn. WHEREFORE, the petition FACTS:
for review on certiorari is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar
as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing vessel of Indian registry that
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a is owned by respondent Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), a corporation organized and
court of competent jurisdiction; that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted, existing under the laws of India and principally owned by the Government of India. It was
33) ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD vs. CA and PNCC following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a system of time-chartered by respondent SCI to Halla Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean
G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001 jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and that there is nothing company. Halla, in turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through a time charter to Transmar
to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under which it is sitting or Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv Limited
fraud in procuring the judgment. (Portserv). Both Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized and existing under the
laws of Canada.
Facts: Petitioner Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad is a corporation organized under A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes,
the laws of Malaysia while private respondent Philippine National Construction Corporation until a contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the Portserv requested petitioner Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. (Crescent), a corporation organized
is a corporation duly incorporated and existing under Philippine laws. giving of due notice in the foreign forum Under Section 50(b), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules and existing under the laws of Canada that is engaged in the business of selling petroleum
of Court, which was the governing law at the time the instant case was decided by the trial and oil products for the use and operation of oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils
Petitioner initiated a suit for collection against private respondent, then known as court and respondent appellate court, a judgment, against a person, of a tribunal of a foreign (bunker fuels) to the Vessel. Petitioner Crescent granted and confirmed the request.Thus,
Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, before the High Court of country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is presumptive evidence of a right as petitioner Crescent contracted with its supplier, Marine Petrobulk Limited (Marine Petrobulk),
Malaya in Kuala Lumpur entitled “Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad v. Asiavest CDCP between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title. The judgment another Canadian corporation, for the physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the Vessel.
Sdn. Bhd. and Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines.” may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. In addition, under Section 3(n), Rule 131 of On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the bunker fuels. Petitioner
Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put up in favor of Crescent issued a check for the same amount in favor of Marine Petrobulk, which check was
private respondent to guarantee the completion of the Felda Project and the nonpayment of the Revised Rules of Court, a court, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere, enjoys the
presumption that it was acting in the lawful exercise of its jurisdiction. Hence, once the duly encashed.
the loan it extended to Asiavest-CDCP Sdn. Bhd. for the completion of Paloh Hanai and
Kuantan By Pass; Project. authenticity of the foreign judgment is proved, the party attacking a foreign judgment, is Having paid Marine Petrobulk, petitioner Crescent issued a revised invoice dated November
tasked with the burden of overcoming its presumptive validity. 21, 1995 to "Portserv Limited, and/or the Master, and/or Owners, and/or Operators, and/or
The High Court of Malaya (Commercial Division) rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner Charterers of M/V ‘Lok Maheshwari’" in the amount of US$103,544.00 with instruction to
and against the private respondent. Following unsuccessful attempts to secure payment In the instant case, petitioner sufficiently established the existence of the money judgment of
the High Court of Malaya by the evidence it offered. Petitioner’s sole witness, testified to the remit the amount on or before December 1, 1995. The period lapsed and several demands
from private respondent under the judgment, petitioner initiated the complaint before RTC of were made but no payment was received. Also, the checks issued to petitioner Crescent as
Pasig, Metro Manila, to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaya. effect that he is in active practice of the law profession in Malaysia; that he was connected
with Skrine and Company as Legal Assistant up to 1981; that private respondent, then security for the payment of the bunker fuels were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.  As a
Private respondent sought the dismissal of the case via a Motion to Dismiss, contending that known as Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines, was sued by his consequence, petitioner Crescent incurred additional expenses.
the alleged judgment of the High Court of Malaya should be denied recognition or client, Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, in Kuala Lumpur; that the writ of summons On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the port of Cebu City, petitioner Crescent
enforcement since on in face, it is tainted with want of jurisdiction, want of notice to private were served on March 17, 1983 at the registered office of private respondent and on March instituted before the RTC of Cebu City an action "for a sum of money with prayer for
respondent, collusion and/or fraud, and there is a clear mistake of law or fact. Dismissal 21, 1983 on Cora S. Deala, a financial planning officer of private respondent for Southeast temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary attachment" against respondents Vessel
was, however, denied by the trial court considering that the grounds relied upon are not the Asia operations; that upon the filing of the case, Messrs. Allen and Gledhill, Advocates and and SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar.
proper grounds in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Court. Solicitors, with address at 24th Floor, UMBC Building, Jalan Sulaiman, Kuala Lumpur,
entered their conditional appearance for private respondent questioning the regularity of the On May 3, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of attachment against the Vessel.
Subsequently, private respondent filed its Answer with Compulsory Counter claim’s and service of the writ of summons but subsequently withdrew the same when it realized that the
therein raised the grounds it brought up in its motion to dismiss. In its Reply filed, the On May 18, 1996, summonses were served to respondents Vessel and SCI, and Portserv
writ was properly served; that because private respondent failed to file a statement of
petitioner contended that the High Court of Malaya acquired jurisdiction over the person of and/or Transmar through the Master of the Vessel. 
defense within two (2) weeks, petitioner filed an application for summary judgment and
private respondent by its voluntary submission the court’s jurisdiction through its appointed submitted affidavits and documentary evidence in support of its claim; that the matter was
counsel. Furthermore, private respondent’s counsel waived any and all objections to the On August 19, 1996, respondents Vessel and SCI appealed to the Court of Appeals. They
then heard before the High Court of Kuala Lumpur in a series of dates where private pointed out that Portserv was a time charterer and that there is a clause in the time charters
High Court’s jurisdiction in a pleading filed before the court. respondent was represented by counsel; and that the end result of all these proceedings is between respondent SCI and Halla, and between Halla and Transmar, which states that "the
In due time, the trial court rendered its decision dismissing petitioner’s complaint. Petitioner the judgment sought to be enforced. Charterers shall provide and pay for all the fuel except as otherwise agreed."
interposed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court dismissed the same In addition to the said testimonial evidence, petitioner also offered the documentary
and affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court denied petitioner Crescent’s motion for reconsideration explaining that it
evidence to support their claim. "dismissed the instant action primarily on the ground of forum non conveniens considering
that the parties are foreign corporations which are not doing business in the Philippines."
Having thus proven, through the foregoing evidence, the existence and authenticity of the
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in denying recognition and enforcement to the Malaysian foreign judgment, said foreign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden then fell
Court judgment. upon the party who disputes its validity, herein private respondent, to prove otherwise.
However, private respondent failed to sufficiently discharge the burden that fell upon it – to ISSUE: W/N the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case. YES.
prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds which it relied upon to prevent
enforcement of the Malaysian High Court judgment.
Ruling: Yes.
HELD:
Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, RTCs exercise is situated inside the territory of the Philippines and not where the necessaries were lien before our courts depended on the existence of a maritime lien under the proper law. By
exclusive original jurisdiction "(i)n all actions in admiralty and maritime where the demand or furnished in a foreign jurisdiction like Canada. erroneously claiming a maritime lien under Philippine law instead of proving that a maritime
claim exceeds two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000) or in Metro Manila, where such lien exists under Canadian law, petitioner Crescent failed to establish a cause of action.
demand or claim exceeds four hundred thousand pesos (₱400,000)." Two (2) tests have The various tests used in the U.S. to determine whether a maritime lien exists are the
been used to determine whether a case involving a contract comes within the admiralty and following:
maritime jurisdiction of a court - the locational test and the subject matter test. The English multiple-contact test- to determine, in the absence of a specific Congressional directive as to
rule follows the locational test wherein maritime and admiralty jurisdiction, with a few 35) SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL vs. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.
the statute’s reach, which jurisdiction’s law should be applied. The following factors were
exceptions, is exercised only on contracts made upon the sea and to be executed thereon. considered: (1) place of the wrongful act; (2) law of the flag; (3) allegiance or domicile of the
This is totally rejected under the American rule where the criterion in determining whether a injured; (4) allegiance of the defendant shipowner; (5) place of contract; (6) inaccessibility of Facts:
contract is maritime depends on the nature and subject matter of the contract, having foreign forum; and (7) law of the forum.
reference to maritime service and transactions. Under a Contract dated May 6, 1949, plaintiff, a foreign corporation with offices at Calcutta,
Applying the test in the present case,the Court cannot sustain petitioner Crescent’s India, agreed to sell to defendant, a domestic corporation with offices at the Manila,
A contract for furnishing supplies like the one involved in this case is maritime and within the insistence on the application of P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 and 1,700,000 pieces of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags, C.I.F. Iloilo. Shipment of these
jurisdiction of admiralty. It may be invoked before our courts through an action in hold that a maritime lien exists. bags was to be made in equal installments of 425,000 pcs. or 425 bales during each of the
rem  or quasi in rem  or an action in personam. Thus: 
months of July, August, September and October, 1949.
First. Out of the seven basic factors listed, Philippine law only falls under one – the law of
xxx the forum. All other elements are foreign – Canada is the place of the wrongful act, of the On September 8, 1949, plaintiff advised defendant that of the 850 bales scheduled for
"Articles 579 and 584 [of the Code of Commerce] provide a method of collecting or enforcing allegiance or domicile of the injured and the place of contract; India is the law of the flag and shipment in July and August, the former was able to ship only 310 bales owing to the alleged
not only the liens created under Section 580 but also for the collection of any kind of lien the allegiance of the defendant shipowner. Balancing these basic interests, it is failure of the Adamjee Jute Mills to supply the goods in due time. In a letter dated September
whatsoever."8 In the Philippines, we have a complete legislation, both substantive and inconceivable that the Philippine court has any interest in the case that outweighs the 29, 1949, defendant requested plaintiff to ship 100 bales of the 540 bales defaulted from the
adjective, under which to bring an action in rem against a vessel for the purpose of enforcing interests of Canada or India for that matter. July and August shipments. In this connection, it may also be mentioned that of the 425
liens. The substantive law is found in Article 580 of the Code of Commerce. The procedural bales scheduled for shipment in September, 54 bales were likewise defaulted resulting in a
Second. P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 is inapplicable following the
law is to be found in Article 584 of the same Code. total of 154 bales which is now the object of the controversy.
factors under Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Like the Federal Maritime Lien Act
The result is, therefore, that in the Philippines any vessel – even though it be a foreign of the U.S., P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 was enacted primarily to Meanwhile, on October 1, 1949, the Government of India increased the export duty of jute
vessel – found in any port of this Archipelago may be attached and sold under the protect Filipino suppliers and was not intended to create a lien from a contract for supplies bags from 80 to 350 rupees per ton. On October 27, 1949, plaintiff wrote to defendant for an
substantive law which defines the right, and the procedural law contained in the Code of between foreign entities delivered in a foreign port. increase of $4,000.00 in its letter of credit to cover the shipment of 154 bales which under
Commerce by which this right is to be enforced. x x x. But where neither the law nor the the contract should have been included in the July, August and September shipments.
Third. Applying P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 and rule that a maritime
contract between the parties creates any lien or charge upon the vessel, the only way in lien exists would not promote the public policy behind the enactment of the law to develop On February 6, 1951, defendant received notification from the Bengal Chamber of
which it can be seized before judgment is by pursuing the remedy relating to attachment the domestic shipping industry. Opening up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them Commerce Tribunal of Arbitration in Calcutta, India, advising it that on December 28, 1950,
under Rule 59 [now Rule 57] of the Rules of Court. a maritime lien under our laws even if they are not entitled to a maritime lien under their laws Plaintiff applied to said Tribunal for arbitration regarding their claim. The Tribunal requested
will encourage forum shopping. the defendant to send them its version of the case. This, defendant did on March 1, 1951,
thru the then Government Corporate Counsel, former Justice Pompeyo Diaz.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner Crescent entitled to a maritime lien under our laws? NO Finally. The submission of petitioner is not in keeping with the reasonable expectation of the
parties to the contract. Indeed, when the parties entered into a contract for supplies in The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration, refused to sustain defendant’s
Canada, they could not have intended the laws of a remote country like the Philippines to contention and decided in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay to the plaintiff
determine the creation of a lien by the mere accident of the Vessel’s being in Philippine the sum of 18,562 rupees and 8 annas. This award was thereafter referred to the Calcutta
HELD territory. High Court which issued a decree affirming the award.
Petitioner Crescent bases its claim of a maritime lien on Sections ISSUE: under which law should petitioner Crescent prove the existence of its maritime lien?
21, 22 and 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1521 (P.D. No. 1521), also known as the Ship
Mortgage Decree of 1978, viz: In light of the interests of the various foreign elements involved, it is clear that Canada has Issue: WON the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce,
the most significant interest in this dispute. The injured party is a Canadian corporation, the as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, is enforceable in the Philippines.
Sec. 21. Maritime Lien for Necessaries; persons entitled to such lien. - Any person furnishing sub-charterer which placed the orders for the supplies is also Canadian, the entity which
repairs, supplies, towage, use of dry dock or maritime railway, or other necessaries, to any physically delivered the bunker fuels is in Canada, the place of contracting and negotiation is
vessel, whether foreign or domestic, upon the order of the owner of such vessel, or of a in Canada, and the supplies were delivered in Canada.
person authorized by the owner, shall have a maritime lien on the vessel, which may be Held:
enforced by suit in rem, and it shall be necessary to allege or prove that credit was given to It is worthy to note that petitioner Crescent never alleged and proved Canadian law as basis
Under the Rules, a judgment for a sum of money rendered by a foreign court “is presumptive
the vessel. for the existence of a maritime lien. To the end, it insisted on its theory that Philippine law
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
applies. Petitioner contends that even if foreign law applies, since the same was not properly
XXX title”, but when suit for its enforcement is brought in a Philippine court, said judgment “may
pleaded and proved, such foreign law must be presumed to be the same as Philippine law
be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
Petitioner Crescent submits that these provisions apply to both domestic and foreign pursuant to the doctrine of processual presumption.
or clear mistake of law or fact”
vessels, as well as domestic and foreign suppliers of necessaries. It contends that the use of Thus, we are left with two choices: (1) dismiss the case for petitioner’s failure to establish a
the term "any person" in Section 21 implies that the law is not restricted to domestic There is no question at all that appellee was guilty of a breach of contract when it failed to
cause of action or (2) presume that Canadian law is the same as Philippine law. In either
suppliers but also includes all persons who supply provisions and necessaries to a vessel, deliver one-hundred fifty-four Hessian bales which, according to the contract entered into
case, the case has to be dismissed.
whether foreign or domestic. with appellant, should have been delivered to the latter in the months of July, August and
It is well-settled that a party whose cause of action or defense depends upon a foreign law September, all of the year 1949. It is equally clear beyond doubt that had these one-hundred
Respondents Vessel and SCI, on the other hand, maintain that Section 21 of the P.D. No. has the burden of proving the foreign law. Such foreign law is treated as a question of fact to fifty-four bales been delivered in accordance with the contract aforesaid, the increase in the
1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 does not apply to a foreign supplier like petitioner be properly pleaded and proved. Petitioner Crescent’s insistence on enforcing a maritime export tax due upon them would not have been imposed because said increased export tax
Crescent as the provision refers only to a situation where the person furnishing the supplies became effective only on October 1, 1949.
To the extent, therefore, that the decisions of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Furthermore, the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not necessarily affected “no sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment rendered by a tribunal
Chamber of Commerce and of the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta fail to apply to the by the fact that the procedure in the courts of the country in which such judgment was of another country.”
facts of this case fundamental principles of contract, the same may be impeached, as they rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the judgment is relied on. If
have been sufficiently impeached by appellant, on the ground of “clear mistake of law”. We the procedure in the foreign court mandates that an Order of the Court becomes final and This means that the foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts under our
can not sanction a clear mistake of law that would work an obvious injustice upon appellant. executory upon failure to pay the necessary docket fees, then the courts in this jurisdiction rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the
cannot invalidate the order of the foreign court simply because our rules provide otherwise.  judgment on the alient himself or herself.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED, and the assailed decision of the Court of The recognition may be made in:
36) OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v Court of Appeals Appeals sustaining the trial court's dismissal of the OIL AND NATURAL GAS 1. An action instituted specifically for that purpose, or
COMMISSION's complaint before Branch 30 of the RTC of Surigao City is REVERSED.
2. Another action where a party invokes the foreign decree as an integral aspect of his claim
FACTS: or defense.

This proceeding involves the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by the Civil Judge 37) Corpus vs Sto Tomas
of Dehra Dun, India in favor of the petitioner, against the private respondent, PACIFIC G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
CEMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED. The petitioner is a foreign corporation owned and 38) EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, RAYMOND ANTONIN BOUDARD,
controlled by the Government of India while the private respondent is a private corporation GINETTE ROSE ADELAIDE BOUDARD and MONIQUE VICTOIRE BOUD ARD, plaintiffs-
duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines.  appellants,
Facts:
The conflict between the petitioner and the private respondent rooted from the failure of the vs.
respondent to deliver 43,000 metric tons of oil well cement to the petitioner even it had Gerbert, a former Filipino, acquired Canadian citizenship through naturalization on Nov 29,
already received payment and despite petitioner’s several demands. The petitioner then 2000. On January 18, 2005, Gerbert Married Daisylyn, a Filipina, in Pasig. Gerbert left for ST EWART EDDIE TAIT, defendant-appellee.
informed the private respondent that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to Canada soon after the wedding. He returned in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was
Clause 16 of their contract which stipulates that he venue for arbitration shall be at Dehra shocked to discover that his wife was having an affair. Gerbert returned to Canada and filed Facts:
dun.  a petition for divorce. The Canadian Court granted Gerbert’s petition in 2005. Emilie Boudard, as widow of Marie Theodore Boudard and as guardian of her children born
during their marriage obtained a judgment in their favor from CFI Hanoi, French Indo-China
The chosen arbitrator, one Shri N.N. Malhotra, resolved the dispute in favour of the Two years later, Gerbert found another Filipino. Desirous of marrying his fiancee in the for the sum of 40,000 piastras plus interest. The judgment was against Stewart Tait who had
petitioner setting forth the arbitral award. To enable the petitioner to execute the above Philippines, Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce with the RTC. been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial before court.
award, it filed a Petition before the Court of the Civil Judge in Dehra Dun. India praying that The RTC denied Gerbert’s petition. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the
the decision of the arbitrator be made "the Rule of Court" in India. This was objected by the remedy, under Art 26(2), in order for him or her to be able to remarry under Philippine Law. Theodore Boudard, who was an employee of Stewart Tait, was killed in Hanoi by other
respondent but foreign court refused to admit the private respondent's objections for failure employees of Tait, although "outside of the fulfillment of a duty", according to the English
to pay the required filing fees. Despite notice sent to the private respondent of the foregoing translation of a certified copy of the French decision. The dismissal of the complaint was
order and several demands by the petitioner for compliance therewith, the private Issue: 1st Issue: W/N Art 26(2) of the Family Code extends to alients the right to petition for based principally on the lack of jurisdiction of the CFI Hanoi to render judgment. It was found
respondent refused to pay the amount adjudged by the foreign court as owing to the the recognition of a foreign divorce decree? (No) that the Tait was not a resident of, nor domiciled in that country. Also, the evidence adduced
petitioner.  at the trial proves that neither Tait nor his agent or employees were ever in Hanoi and that
2nd Issue: Does the unavailability of Art 26 (2) to aliens strip Gerbert of legal interest to Theodore had never, at any time, been his employee.
The petitioner filed a complaint with Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree? (No)
City for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment of the foreign court. The private Issue:
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint. RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of a valid
cause of action. The petitioner then appealed to the respondent Court of Appeals which Held: 1 issue: Art 26 (2) was included in the law “to avoid the absurd situation where the
st

affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. In its decision, the appellate court concurred with the Filipino remains married to the alien who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to 1. Whether or not court erred in admitting evidence for judicial foreign records (in this case, it
RTC's ruling that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties, the Filipino.” The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying her was the Hanoi decision).
thus, the foreign court could not validly adopt the arbitrator's award. The petitioner filed this marital status.
petition for review on certiorari, 
Without Art 26 (2), the judicial recognition of the foreign decree of divorce, whether in a HELD: Yes, Boudard failed to show that the proceedings against Tait in CFI Hanoi were
proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose, or as a related issue in another proceeding, in accordance with the laws of France then in force.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize divorce as
a mode of severing marital bond. Hence, only the Filipino can invoke Art 26 (2) of the Family Further, Boudard failed to show that they are certified copies of judicial records. They argue
and the private respondent under Clause 16 of the contract.  that the papers are the original documents and that the French consul in the Philippines has
Code; the alien can claim no right under this provision.
confirmed this fact. This is not sufficient to authorize a deviation from the rule established by
2nd Issue: The foreign divorce decree intself, after its authenticity and conformity with the law. The best evidence of a foreign judicial proceeding is a certified copy with all the
RULING:  alien’s national law have been duly proven according to our rules ofo evidence, serves as a formalities required.
presumptive evidence of right in favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Sec 48 Rule 39, which
provides for the effect of foreign judgments. 2. Whether or not the court erred in declaring that it was indispensable for Tait to be served
The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without with summons in Hanoi.
Hence, direct involvement or being the subject of the foreign judgment is sufficient to clothe
expressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not a party with the requisite interest to institute an action before our courts for the recognition of
preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of the foreign judgment.
fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. HELD: No. French law regarding summons states that: those who have no known
The starting point in any recognition of a foreign divorce judgment is the acknowledgment residence in France shall be served summons in the place of their present residence; if the
that our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws because as a rule, place is unknown, writ shall be placed at the main door of the hall of the court where the
complaint is filed.

In the case, it was shown that summons were delivered in Manila to J.M. Shotwell, a ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment may be enforced here in the Philippines.
representative or agent of Churchill and Tait, Inc. which is an entity entirely different from
Tait. Also, evidence shows that Tait was not in Hanoi during the time the complaint was filed
by Boudard. The rule is that judicial proceedings in a foreign country,regarding payment of HELD: Yes. The judgment is valid. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be
money, are only effective against a party if summons is duly served on him within such recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are
foreign country before the proceedings. concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full
and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular proceedings
has been conducted, following due citation or voluntary appearance of the defendant and
3. Whether or not the decision of CFI Hanoi was already conclusive. under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice; and
that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of laws under
which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be
HELD: No. The decision cannot be conclusive to such an extent that it cannot be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis
contested. It merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of Boudard's claim and of a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign
admits proof to the contrary. forum.

The effect of a judgment of any tribunal of a foreign country is: In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the California court. PAWI’s insistence that
*In case of judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the its American lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he entered into the compromise agreement
thing. without PAWI’s authority is belied by the fact that PAWI initially complied with the
agreement. It did not disclaim the agreement. It sent two installments (though belatedly) but
* In case of judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as failed to comply on the rest. It cannot now aver that the agreement is without its authority.
between the parties and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title, but the judgment Further, it is just but fair for the California court not to order FASGI to return the remaining
may be repelled by evidence of: want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, wheels because of PAWI’s arrears.
fraud, clear mistake of law or fact.

39) BUCHANAN vs. RRUCKER (9 EAST 192) 1809

40) Philippine Aluminum vs FASGI

G.R. No. 13737

FACTS: In 1978, FASGI Enterprises Inc. (FASGI), a foreign corporation organized under the
laws of California, USA, entered into a contract with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Inc.
(PAWI), a Philippine corporation, whereby the latter agrees to deliver 8,594 wheels to
FASGI. FASGI received the wheels and so it paid PAWI $216,444.30. Later however,
FASGI found out that the wheels are defective and did not comply with certain US
standards. So in 1979, FASGI sued PAWI in a California court. In 1980, a settlement was
reached but PAWI failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. A second agreement
was made but PAWI was again remiss in its obligation. The agreement basically provides
that PAWI shall return the purchase price in installment and conversely, FASGI shall return
the wheel in installment. PAWI was only able to make two installments (which were actually
made beyond the scheduled date). FASGI also returned the corresponding number of
wheels. Eventually in 1982, FASGI sought the enforcement of the agreement and it received
a favorable judgment from the California court. PAWI is then ordered to pay an equivalent of
P252k plus damages but FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels. PAWI was
not able to comply with the court order in the US. So in 1983, FASGI filed a complaint for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment with RTC-Makati. Hearings were made and in 1990, the
trial judge ruled against FASGI on the ground  that the foreign judgment is tainted with fraud
because FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that
PAWI’s American lawyer entered into the agreements without the consent of PAWI. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court.