I

.Ef
fect
ivi
tyofLaws-Ar
ti
cle2 c]Gener
alOr
der
sNos.
:14,
52,
58,
59,
60,
62,
63,
64&65.

G.
R.No.L-
63915Apr
il24,
1985 d]Proclamat i
onNos. :1126,1144,1147,1151,1196,1270,1281,
1319-1526,1529,1532,1535,1538,1540- 1547,1550-1558,1561-
1588,1590- 1595,1594-1600,1606-1609,1612- 1628,1630-
1649,
LORENZOM.TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F.SARMI ENTO, andMOVEMENTOFATTORNEYS
1694-1695,1697- 1701,1705-1723,1731-1734,1737-1742,1744,
FORBROTHERHOOD, I
NTEGRITYANDNATI ONALI SM, I
NC.[ MABINI ],
 
petit
ioners, 
1746-1751,1752,1754,1762,1764- 1787,1789-1795,1797,1800,
vs.
1802-1804,1806-1807,1812- 1814,1816,1825-1826,1829,1831-
HON.JUANC.TUVERA, i
nhiscapaci
tyasExecuti
veAssi st
antt othePr esi
dent, HON.
1832,1835-1836,1839- 1840,1843-1844,1846-1847,1849,1853-
JOAQUIN VENUS,inhiscapaci
tyasDeputyExecut iv
eAssi stantt othePr esi
dent,
1858,1860,1866,1868,1870,1876- 1889,1892,1900,1918,1923,
MELQUIADES P.DELA CRUZ,i nhiscapacit
yasDi rector,Mal acañangRecor ds
1933,1952,1963,1965- 1966,1968-1984,1986-2028,2030-
2044,
Off
ice,and FLORENDO S.PABLO,i n his capacity as Di rector,Bur eau of
2046-2145,2147-2161,2163-2244.
Pri
nti
ng,
 r
espondent
s.

e]Executi
veOr der
sNos. :411,413,414,427,429-
454,457-471, 474
 
-492,494-507,509-510,522,524-528,531-532,536,538,543-544,
549,551-553,560,563,567- 568,570,574,593,594,598-604,609,
ESCOLI
N,J.
  : 611-647,649-677,679-703,705-707,712-
786,788-852,854-857.

I
nvoki
ngthepeopl
e'
sri
ghttobei
nformedonmatter
sofpubli
cconcern,ar
ight f]Let
tersofI
mpl
ement
ati
onNos. :7,8,9,10,11-
22,25-
27,39,50,
r
ecogni
zedi
nSecti
on6,Ar
ti
cl
eIVofthe1973Phi
l
ippi
neConst
it
uti
on,
 
1
 aswel
las 51,59,76,
80-
81,
92,
94,95,107,
120, 122,
123.
theprincipl
et hatl
awstobev ali
dandenf orceablemustbepubl ishedinthe
Offi
cialGazet teorother
wiseef f
ecti
vel
ypromul gated,peti
ti
onersseekawr i
t g]Admini
str
ati
veOr
der
sNos.
:347,
348,
352-
354,
360-378,
380-
433,
ofmandamust ocompelrespondentpubli
coffici
alstopublish,and/orcause 436-
439.
thepublicationi nt
heOffi
cialGazetteofvari
ouspr esident
ialdecrees,l
ett
ers
ofinstructions,generalorders,procl
amations,execut i
veor ders,let
terof Ther espondents,throught heSol i
cit
orGeneral,woul dhav et hiscasedi smissed
i
mpl ement ationandadministr
ati
veorders. outr
ightont hegroundt hatpeti
ti
onershav enolegalper sonali
tyorstandi
ngt obring
theinstantpeti
ti
on.Thev i
ew i
ssubmi tt
edthatint heabsenceofanyshowi ngthat
Speci
fi
cal
l
y,t
hepubl
i
cat
ionoft
hef
oll
owi
ngpr
esi
dent
ial
issuancesi
ssought
: peti
ti
oner sarepersonallyanddi rectl
yaf f
ect
edorpr ej
udicedbyt heallegednon-
publ
icationofthepr esi
denti
alissuancesinquestion 2
 saidpet i
tioner
sar ewi t
hout
a]Presi
dentialDecr
eesNos.12,22,37,38,59,64,103,171,179,
therequisi
tel
egalpersonal
i
tytoinsti
tut
ethi
smandamuspr oceedi
ng,t
hey
184,197,200,234,265,286,298,303,312,
324,325,326,337,355, arenotbeing"aggri
evedpar
ti
es"wit
hinthemeani
ngofSect
ion3,Rule65of
358,359,360,361,368,404,406,415,427,
429,445,447,473,486, theRulesofCourt,
whichwequote:
491,503,504,521,528,551,566,573,574,
594,599,644,658,661,
718,731,733,793,800,802,835,836,923,935,961,1017- 1030, SEC.3.Pet it
ionf orMandamus. —Whenanyt ribunal,corporati
on,
1050,1060-1061,1085,1143,1165,1166,1242,1246,1250,1278, boar dorper sonunl awfull
ynegl ectst heper formanceofanact
1279,1300,1644,1772,1808,1810,1813-1817,1819-1826,1829- whi cht helawspeci fi
callyenjoinsasadut yresul ti
ngfrom anof fi
ce,
1840,1842-1847. trust,orst ati
on,orunl awf ul
lyexcl udesanot herf rom theusear d
enjoy mentofar ightorof f i
cet owhi chsuchot herisent i
tl
ed,and
b]LetterofInstructi
onsNos.:10,39,49,72,107,108,116,130,
136, therei snoot herplain,speedyandadequat er emedyi nt heordinary
141,150, 153,155, 161,173,180,187,188,192,
193, 199,
202,204, cour seofl aw,theper sonaggr ievedt herebymayf il
eav eri
fied
205,209,211- 213,215-224,226-
228,231-239,241-245,248,251, petiti
oni nt hepr opercour tallegingt hef act swi thcer t
aintyand
253-261,263- 269,271-273,275-283,285-289,291,293,297-299, pray i
ng thatj udgmentber ender ed commandi ng thedef endant,
301-303,309,312- 315,325,327,343,346,349,357,358,362,367, i
mmedi atel
yoratsomeot herspeci f
iedt ime,t odot heactr equired
370,382,385,386,396- 397,405,438-440,444-445,473,486,488, tobedonet oPr otectther ightsoft hepet iti
oner ,andt opayt he
498,501, 399,527, 561,576,587,594,599,600,
602, 609,
610,611, damagessust ai
nedbyt hepet it
ionerbyr easonoft hewr ongfulacts
612,615,641,642,665,702,712- 713,726,837-839,878-
879,881, oft hedef endant.
882,939-940, 964,997,
1149-1178,
1180-1278.
Upont
heot
herhand,pet
it
ioner
smai
ntai
nthatsi
ncet
hesubj
ectoft
hepet
it
ion
concernsapubli
cri
ghtandit
sobjectist
ocompelt
heperfor
manceofapublicdut
y, empoweredt
orepr
esentt
hepeopl
e,hasent
eredhi
sappear
ancef
orr
espondent
sin
theyneednotshowanyspeci
fi
cint
erestf
ort
hei
rpet
it
iont
obegivenduecour
se. thi
scase.

Theissueposedi
snotoneoffi
rsti
mpressi
on.Asearl
yasthe1910caseofSever
  ino Respondent sfurthercontendt hatpublicati
oni ntheOf fi
cialGaz etteisnotasi nequa
vs.Gover
norGener
al,
 
3
 t
hisCourthel
dthatwhilethegeneralrul
eisthat"awr i
t nonr equi
rementf ortheef fecti
vit
yofl awswher et hel awst hemsel vesprovidefor
ofmandamuswoul dbegr antedtoapr i
vat
ei ndi
vi
dualonl yi nt hosecases theirownef fecti
vit
ydat es.Itisthussubmi ttedthatsi ncet hepr esidenti
alissuances
wherehehassomepr ivateorpar ti
cularint
eresttobesubser ved,orsome i
n quest i
on contain specialpr ovi
sions as t ot he dat et heyar et ot ake effect
,
parti
cularrightt obepr otected,i
ndependentoft hatwhi chhehol dswi ththe publicati
onint heOf f
ici
alGazet teisnoti ndispensablef ortheireffectivi
ty.Thepoint
stressedisanchor edonAr ti
cle2oft heCi vi
lCode:
publi
catl ar ge,
"and" i
ti sfort hepubl i
cof fi
cersexcl usi
velytoappl yforthe
writwhenpubl i
cr ightsaret obesubser ved[Mithchellvs.Boardmen, 79M.e.,
Art.2.Laws shal
ltake ef
fectaf
terf
if
teen daysf ol
lowing the
469],
"nev ertheless,"whent hequest ioni soneofpubl i
crightandt heobject
completi
onofthei
rpubl
icat
ionint
heOffi
cialGazet
te,unlessitis
ofthemandamusi stopr ocuret heenf orcementofapubl icduty,t hepeople other
wisepr
ovi
ded,..
.
areregardedast herealpar tyininterestandt herelatoratwhosei nsti
gat
ion
theproceedi ngsar einst i
tutedneednotshowt hathehasanyl egalorspeci al
Theint
erpret
ati
ongivenbyr
espondentisinaccor
dwitht
hisCourt
'sconst
ruct
ionof
i
nterestint her esult,itbeingsuf f
ici
entt oshow thathei saci t
izenandas
sai
darti
cle.I
nal ongli
neofdeci
sions,
 
4
 t
hisCourthasruledthatpubli
cati
oni n
such interested i nthe execut i
on oft he l
aws [Hi gh,Ext r
aordi naryLegal
theOf fi
cialGazettei snecessar
yinthosecaseswher ethelegi
slat
ionit
sel
f
Remedi es,3r ded.,sec.431] .
doesnotpr ovi
def oritseff
ecti
vi
tydate-
forthenthedateofpubl i
cati
onis
mat er
ialf ordeterminingitsdateofef f
ect
ivi
ty,whi
chist hefift
eenthday
Thus,insaidcase,t
hisCourtrecognizedtherel
atorLopeSeveri
no,apri
vateindiv
idual
, fol
lowingi t
spublication-
butnotwhent helaw it
sel
fprovi
desf orthedate
asapr operpart
yt othemandamuspr oceedi
ngsbr oughttocompelt heGov ernor
Generaltocallaspeci
alelect
ionforthepositi
onofmuni ci
palpresi
dentinthetownof
wheni tgoesi ntoeffect.
Si
lay,
Negr osOccidental
.Speakingforthi
sCour t
,Mr.Justi
ceGrantT.Trentsai
d:
Respondent
s'argument,howev er,islogi
call
ycorrectonlyi
nsof
arasi tequatesthe
ef
fecti
vi
tyofl awswi t
ht hef actofpubl icat
ion.Consider
ed i
nt heli
ghtofot her
We ar et heref
ore oft he opi ni
on thatt he wei ghtofaut hori
ty
st
atutesappl
icabl
et otheissueathand,t heconclusi
oniseasi
lyreachedthatsaid
supportst he proposi
tion t hatt he r
elatori s a properpar tyt o
Art
icl
e2doesnotpr ecl
udether equirementofpubli
cati
onintheOff
ici
alGazett
e,even
proceedingsoft hischaracterwhenapubl icr i
ghtissoughtt obe
i
ft he law i
tsel
fpr ovi
des f ort he date ofits eff
ecti
vi
ty.Thus,Secti
on 1 of
enforced.Ifthegeneralr ul
ei nAmer icawer eot herwise,wet hink
Commonweal thAct638providesasf oll
ows:
thatitwouldnotbeappl icablet othecaseatbarf orthereason'that
i
ti salway sdangeroust oappl yageneralr ul
et oapar t
icul
arcase
withoutkeepingi nmindt her easonforther ule,because,ifunder Secti
on1.Ther eshal lbepubl ishedi ntheOf f
ici
alGazet t
e[ 1]all
thepar t
icul
arcir
cumst ancest hereasonfort heruledoesnotexi st
, i
mpor tantlegisiati
v eact sandr esoluti
onsofapubl icnatureoft he,
theruleitsel
fisnotappl icableandr eli
anceupont herulemaywel l Congressoft hePhi li
ppines;[2]al lexecut
iveandadmi nistr
ative
l
eadt oer r
or' orders and pr oclamat ions,except such as hav e no gener al
appli
cabili
ty;[
3]deci sionsorabst ractsofdeci
sionsoft heSupr eme
Courtandt heCour tofAppeal sasmaybedeemedbysai dcourtsof
Nor easonexist
sint hecaseatbarf orappl yi
ngt hegener
alrule
suffi
cientimpor tancet obesopubl i
shed;[
4]suchdocument sor
i
nsist eduponbycounself orther espondent .Theci r
cumstances
cl
assesofdocument sasmayber equir
edsot obepublishedbyl aw;
whichsur roundthiscasear ediff
erentf r
om t hoseintheUnited
and[5]suchdocument sorclassesofdocument sast hePr esident
States,inasmuchasi fther el
atorisnotapr operpartyt
ot hese
ofthePhi l
ippinesshal ldeter
mi nef r
om timetotimetohav egener al
proceedingsnoot herpersoncoul dbe,aswehav eseenthatitis
appli
cabili
tyandl egalef f
ect,orwhi chhemayaut horizesot obe
nott hedut yofthelaw officeroftheGov ernmentt oappearand
publi
shed.. .
.
representthepeoplei
ncasesoft hi
schar acter.

Theclearobjectoft heabove-quotedpr ovi

sioni
st ogi
vethegeneralpubli
cadequat e
Ther easonsgi venbyt heCourtinr ecognizi
ngapr i
vatecit
izen'slegalpersonal
it
yi n
noti
ceoft hevari
ousl awswhi charetor egul
atethei
racti
onsandconductasci t
izens.
theaf or
ement ionedcaseappl ysquar el
yt othepr esentpet i
ti
on.Cl ear
ly,theright
Withoutsuchnot iceandpubl icat
ion,therewouldbenobasi sfortheapplicat
ionof
soughtt obeenf or
cedbypet it
ionersher einisapubl i
cr i
ghtr ecognizedbynol ess
themaxim" ignorant
ialegisnonexcusat ."I
twouldbetheheightofinj
usti
cetopunish
thanthef undament all
awoft heland.I fpeti
ti
onerswer enotal l
owedt oi
nstit
utethis
orotherwi
sebur denaci t
izenforthet r
ansgressi
onofalawofwhi chhehadnonot ice
proceeding,i
twoul dindeedbedi f
ficulttoconceiveofanyot herper sontoinit
iat
et he
whatsoever,notevenaconst r
uct i
veone.
same,consi deri
ng thatthe SolicitorGener al
,t he governmentof fi
cergener all
y
Perhapsatno t imesi ncet heest abli
shmentoft hePhi l
i
ppineRepubl i
chast he si
tuat
ionsi
nthepastthisCour
thadt akenthepragmat i
candr
eal
i
sti
ccour
sesetf
ort
h
publi
cat ionofl awst akensov i
talsignifi
cancethatatt hist i
mewhent hepeopl ehav e i
n Chi
cotCount
yDrainageDist
ri
ctvs.BaxterBank 8
 t
owit:
bestowedupont hePr esidentapowerher etoforeenjoy edsol el
ybyt helegi slature.
Whilet he peopl e ar e keptabr eastby t he mass medi a oft he debat es and
Thecour tsbelow hav epr oceededont het heor yt hatt heActof
deli
berat ionsi ntheBat asanPambansa—andf orthedi l
igentones, r
eadyaccesst othe
Congr ess, havi
ngbeenf oundt obeunconst it
ut i
onal ,wasnotal aw;
l
egislati
v er ecor ds—nosuchpubl icityaccompani est hel aw-makingpr ocessoft he
thati twasi noper ativ
e, conferringnor ightsandi mposi ngnodut ies,
President .Thus,wi t
houtpubl icat
ion,t hepeopl ehav enomeansofknowi ngwhat
andhenceaf fordingnobasi sf ort hechal lengeddecr ee.Nor t onv .
presi
dent ialdecr eeshav eact uall
ybeenpr omul gat
ed,muchl essadef i
nit
ewayof
Shel byCount y,118U. S.425, 442; Chicago, 1.&L.Ry .Co.v .Hacket t
,
i
nformi ngt hemsel vesoft hespeci ficcontentsandt ext sofsuchdecr ees.Ast he
228 U. S.559,566.I tis qui te clear ,howev er,t hatsuch br oad
Supreme Cour tofSpai nr uled:" Bajol a denomi nacion gener ica de l ey es,se
statement s as t o t he ef f
ect of a det ermi nation of
compr endent ambi enlosr eglament os,Realesdecr etos,I nstr
ucciones,Ci r
cul aresy
unconst ituti
onalitymustbet akenwi thqual i
fications.Theact ual
Realesor dinesdi ctadasdeconf ormi dadconl asmi smasporelGobi er noenusode
existenceofast atute,priortosuchadet ermi nation, isanoper ative
supot est ad. 
5
factandmayhav econsequenceswhi chcannotj ust lybei gnor ed.
Thepastcannotal way sbeer asedbyanew j udicialdecl aration.
Thev eryfi
rstclauseofSect i
onIofCommonweal t
hAct638r eads:"Thereshal lbe Theef fectoft hesubsequentr uli
ngast oi nval i
ditymayhav et obe
publi
shedi ntheOf fi
cialGazette...."Thewor d" shall
"usedthereinimposesupon consi der edi nv ariousaspect s- withr espectt opar ti
cularconduct ,
respondentof f
icial
s an imper ati
v e duty.Thatdut y mustbe enf orced ift he privateandof ficial.Quest ionsofr i
ght scl ai
medt ohav ebecome
Constit
uti
onalri
ghtoft hepeoplet obei nfor
medonmat ter
sofpublicconcernist obe vested,ofst atus,ofpr iordet ermi nationsdeemedt ohav ef inal ity
givensubstanceandr eal
it
y.Thel awi t
selfmakesal i
stofwhatshouldbepubl ishedin andact eduponaccor dingly,ofpubl i
cpol i
cyi nt hel ightoft he
theOffici
alGazette.Suchlist
ing,toourmi nd,l
eavesrespondent
swi thnodi screti
on natur ebot hoft hest atuteandofi tspr evi
ousappl icat i
on,demand
whatsoeverastowhatmustbei ncludedorexcludedf r
om suchpubli
cati
on. exami nat i
on.These quest i
onsar e among t he mostdi ff
icul tof
thosewhi chhav eengagedt heat tenti
onofcour ts,st ateandf eder al
Thepubl icati
on ofal lpr esident
ialissuances" ofa publ i
cnat ure"or" ofgener al andi tismani festf rom numer ousdeci si
onst hatanal l-i
nclusi ve
appli
cabili
ty"ismandat edbyl aw.Obv iousl
y ,presi
dentialdecreest hatprovidef or statementofapr inci
pleofabsol uteret r
oact i
v einval idit
ycannotbe
fi
nes,forfei
turesorpenal t
iesforthei
rv i
olati
onorot her
wi seimposeabur denor .the j
ust i
f i
ed.
people,suchast axandr evenuemeasur es,fallwithi
nthiscategory.Otherpresidential
i
ssuances whi ch appl
yonl yt o par
ticularper sons orcl ass ofper sons such as Consi
stent
lywi
tht
heabov
epr
inci
ple,
thi
sCour
ti Rut
n  tervs.Est
eban 
9
 sust
ainedt
he
administr
ativeandexecut iveordersneednotbepubl i
shedont heassumpt i
ont hat r
ightofapart
yundert
heMoratori
um Law,al
bei
tsai
dri
ghthadaccr
uedi
nhi
s
theyhavebeenci r
cular
izedt oallconcerned. 
6
f
avorbefor
esaidl
awwasdeclaredunconst
it
uti
onal
bythi
sCourt
.

I
tisneedlesstoaddt hatthepubl
icat
ionofpresi
denti
alissuances"ofapubl
icnature"
Simi larl
y,the implementati
on/enfor
cementofpr esi
denti
aldecrees pr
iortot heir
or"ofgeneralappl
i
cabi l
it
y"isarequirementofduepr ocess.Iti
sar ul
eoflaw that
publ icat
ionintheOf f
ici
alGazettei
s"anoperat
ivefactwhichmayhav econsequences
befor
eaper sonmaybeboundbyl aw,hemustf i
rstbeof f
ici
all
yandspecifi
cally
whi chcannotbej ustl
yignored.Thepastcannotalwaysbeer asedbyanewj udi
cial
i
nformedofitscontents.AsJusti
ceCl audi
oTeehankeesaidin 
Peralt
avs.COMELEC  7
: decl arati
on...thatanal l
-i
nclusi
vestat
ementofapr inci
pleofabsoluteret
roacti
ve
i
nv alidit
ycannotbej ust
if
ied.
"
Inat i
meofpr oli
ferati
ngdecr ees,or dersandlet
tersofinst
ruct
ions
whichallform par toft hel aw oft heland,t
her equir
ementofdue From thereportsubmit
tedtot heCourtbyt heClerkofCourt,i
tappearsthatofthe
processandt heRul eofLaw demandt hattheOf f
ici
alGazett
eas presi
denti
aldecreessoughtbypet i
ti
onerstobepublishedint
heOffi
cialGazet
te,onl
y
theoffi
cialgovernmentr eposi
torypr omulgat
eandpubl isht
hetexts Presi
denti
alDecreesNos.1019t o1030,incl
usi
ve,1278,and1937to1939,inclusi
ve,
ofallsuchdecr ees, or
der sandi nstruct
ionssothatthepeoplemay havenotbeensopubl i
shed. 
10
 Neit
herthesubjectmat t
ersnorthet ext
soft hese
knowwher etoobt aintheiroff
ici
al andspecif
iccontents.
PDscanbeascer tai
nedsincenocopi est hereofareavai l
able.Butwhat ever
thei
rsubj ectmat termaybe,itisundi sputedt hatnoneoft heseunpubl ished
TheCourtt heref
oredeclarest hatpresidenti
ali
ssuancesofgener alapplicati
on,which
PDshasev erbeeni mplementedorenf orcedbyt hegov ernment.I Pesi
n  gan
havenotbeenpubl i
shed,shallhav enof orceandeffect.Somemember softheCour t
,
qui
teappr ehensiveaboutt hepossi bleunsettl
ingeffectt hi
sdecisionmi ghthaveon
vs. Angel es,
 11
 t
he Cour t
,t hrough Just ice Ramon Aqui no,ruled t hat
act
s done i nr el
iance oft he v al
idi
tyoft hose presidenti
aldecr ees which were "publi
cati
oni snecessar yt oappr i
set hepubl icofthecont entsof[ penal ]
publ
ishedonl ydur i
ngt hependencyoft hispeti
ti
on,hav eputt hequest i
onast o regulat
ionsandmaket hesaidpenal ti
esbi ndingont heper sonsaf fect ed
whethertheCour t'
sdeclarationofi nvalidi
tyappl
yt oP.D.swhi chhadbeenenf orced thereby."The cogency of t his hol di
ng i s apparentlyr ecognized by
orimplement edpr i
ortot heirpubl i
cation.Theansweri salltoof amil
iar.I
nsimi l
ar respondentof ficialsconsi
deri
ngt hemani f
estationintheircommentt hat" the
government,asamat terofpoli
cy,ref
rai
nsfrom prosecut
ingviolat
ionsof r
econsi
derat
iononSept
ember24,1987butt
hiswasdeni
edi
ntheResol
uti
onof
cri
minall
awsunt ilthesameshal lhavebeenpubl
ishedintheOff
icialGazette Oct
ober27,1987.
orinsomeot herpublicati
on,eventhoughsomecr iminall
awspr ovi
det hat
theyshal
ltakeeffectimmedi at
ely. ThisCourtfi
ndst hattheCour tofAppeal sdidnotcommi tagr aveabuseofdi screti
on
when itdeni ed peti
tioners'mot ion forextension oft ime t of i
l
e a mot i
on f or
reconsi
derat
ion, directed ent ry of j udgment and deni ed their mot i
on f or
WHEREFORE,t heCourtherebyor der
srespondentst
opubli
shintheOffi
cialGazet
te
al
lunpubli
shedpresi
dent
ialissuanceswhichareofgener
alappl
i
cati
on,
andunl essso
reconsi
derat
ion.Itcorrect
lyappliedther ul
elaiddowni n HabaluyasEnterpr
ises,Inc.v.
publ
ished,
theyshall
havenobi ndingfor
ceandeffect
.
Japzon,[G.
R.No.70895, August5, 1985,138SCRA461, t
hatthef i
ft
een-dayperiodf or
appeali
ng orf orf i
li
ng a mot ion forr econsider
ation cannotbe ext ended.I ni ts
Resolut
iondeny i
ngt hemot ionf orreconsiderati
on,promul gatedonJul y30,1986
SOORDERED. (142SCRA208) ,
thisCour t
 enbanc  r
estatedandcl ar
ifi
edther ul
e,towit:

FELIZAP.DEROYandVI RGILI
ORAMOS, 
pet
iti
oners,
  Beginningonemont hafterthepr omulgat
ionoft hi
sResoluti
on,t
her uleshal lbe
vs. stri
ctl
y enforced thatno mot ion forextension oft i
me t ofil
e a mot i
on for
COURTOFAPPEALSandLUI SBERNAL,SR.,GLENIABERNAL,LUI SBERNAL,JR.
, reconsi
derationmaybef il
edwi ththeMet ropoli
tanorMuni ci
palTrialCour t
s,the
HEIRS OFMARI SSA BERNAL,namel
y,GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNALandLUI S RegionalTrialCourts,andtheI nter
mediateAppellateCourt
.Suchamot i
onmaybe
BERNAL,SR.
, 
respondent
s. fi
ledonl yi
ncasespendi ngwi ththeSupremeCour tasthecourtofl
astr esort
,which
mayi nitssounddiscreti
oneithergrantordenytheextensi
onrequested.(atp.212)
RESOLUTION
Lacsamana v.Second Speci
alCases Di vi
sion of t
he i
nter
mediat
e Appel
l
ate
J.
CORTES,
  : Court,
 
[G.
R.No.73146-
53,August26,1986,143SCRA643],reit
erat
edther
uleand
wentf
urt
hert
orest
ateandcl
ari
fyt
hemodesandper
iodsofappeal
.
Thisspeci
al ci
vil
acti
onf orcer
tiorar
iseekstodecl
arenullandvoidtwo( 2)resolutions
oftheSpecialFir
stDivi
sionoftheCour tofAppeal
sinthecaseofLui sBernal,Sr.,etal
. Bacayav.I
nter
medi
ateAppel
l
ateCour
t,
 [
G.R.No.74824,Sept
.15,1986,
144SCRA
v.Felisa Perdosa De Roy ,etal .,CA-G.R.CV No.07286.The f i
rstr esolution 161],
str
essedtheprospect
iveappl
i
cat
ionofsai
drul
e,andexpl
ainedt
heoper
ati
onof
promulgat
edon30Sept ember1987deni edpeti
ti
oners'motionforextensionoft i
me thegraceper
iod,t
owi t
:
tofil
eamot ionforreconsider
ationanddirect
edentryofjudgmentsincet hedeci sion
i
nsai dcasehadbecomef i
nal;andt hesecondResoluti
ondat ed27Oct ober1987 In otherwor ds,t
herei s a one-month gr
ace per
iod fr
om t he
deniedpeti
ti
oners'motionforreconsider
ati
onforhavi
ngbeenf il
edoutoft i
me. promulgati
ononMay30,1986oft heCourt'
sResolut
ionint he
clar
if
icator
yHabaluyascase,orupt oJune30,1986,withi
nwhi ch
Attheout set
,thi
sCourtcoul
dhav edeni
edthepeti
ti
onoutr
ightfornotbei
ngveri
fi
ed therulebarri
ngextensionsoftimet of
il
emot i
onsfornew tr
ialor
asr equi
redbyRule65sect i
on1oft heRulesofCourt
.Howev er
,evenift
heinst
ant reconsider
ati
onis,
asy et,notst
ri
ctl
yenf
orceabl
e.
peti
tiondidnotsuf f
erfrom thi
sdefect
,thisCour
t,onproceduralandsubst
anti
ve
grounds,wouldsti
ll
resol
vetodenyit
. Si
ncepetit
ioner
sherei
nfil
edthei
rmotionforext
ensi
ononFebruary
27,1986,i
tisst
il
lwit
hint
hegraceper
iod,whichexpi
redonJune30,
Thef actsoft hecasear eundi sputed.Thef irewal lofaburned- outbui l
dingownedby 1986,andmaystil
lbeall
owed.
petitioner scol l
apsedanddest royedt het ailoringshopoccupi edbyt hef amilyof
privater espondent s,resulti
ngi ninjuriest opr iv aterespondent sandt hedeat hof Thi
sgr aceper
iodwasalsoappl
i
edi Mi
n  ssi
onv.I
nter
medi
ateAppel
l
ateCour
t 
[G.
R.
Mar issaBer nal,adaught er.Pr i
vater espondent shadbeenwar nedbypet iti
onerst o No.73669,Oct
ober28,
1986,
145SCRA306].
]
vacat et heirshopi nv i
ewofi t
spr oximi tytot heweakenedwal lbutthef ormerf ail
edt o
doso.Ont hebasi soft hef oregoingf act s,t heRegi onalTr i
alCour t.Fi r
stJudici al
I
nt hei nst
antcase,howev er,peti
ti
oners'motionf orextensionoft i
mewasf i
l
edon
Regi on,Br anchXXXVI I
I,presidedbyt heHon.Ant oni
oM.Bel en,render edj udgment
September9, 1987,mor et hanay earaftert
heexpi rat
ionoft hegr aceperi
odonJune
fi
ndi ng pet it
ioner s gui
ltyofgr oss negl igence and awar ding damages t o private
30,1986.Hence,i tisnol ongerwi t
hinthecover ageoft hegr aceper iod.Consi
deri
ng
respondent s.Onappeal ,thedeci sionoft het rialcour twasaf f
irmedi nt otobyt he
thelengthoft imef r
om t heexpi r
ati
onoft hegr aceperiodt ot hepr omulgati
onofthe
Cour tofAppeal sinadeci sionpr omul gat edonAugust17, 1987, acopyofwhi chwas
decisi
onoft heCour tofAppeal sonAugust25,1987,pet i
tioner scannotseekr ef
uge
receiv edbypet i
tionersonAugust25, 1987.OnSept ember9, 1987, thelastdayoft he
i
nt heignoranceoft heircounsel r
egardingsaidr ul
efortheirfailuretof i
l
eamot i
onf or
fi
fteen- dayper iodt ofil
eanappeal ,pet iti
oner sf iledamot i
onf orext ensionoft i
met o
reconsider
ationwi t
hinther eglementaryperi
od.
fi
leamot i
onf orr econsiderati
on,whi chwasev ent ual
lydeniedbyt heappel lat
ecour t
i
nt he Resol uti
on of Sept ember 30,1987.Pet it
ioner
sf i
led t heir mot i
on f or
Petit
ionerscont endt hatther uleenunciatedi nt Habal
he  uyas caseshoul dnotbe Cour tofSta.Monica-Bur
gos,Suri
gaodelNor t
e.Theweddingwassol emni
zedatthe
made t o appl y to t he case at bar owi ng t o t he non- publi
cati
on of respondentjudge'sresi
denceinthemuni cipali
tyofDapa,whichdoesnotfal
lwit
hin
t Habal
he  uyas deci
sionint heOf f
ici
alGazet t
easoft het imet hesubj ectdecisi
onof hisjuri
sdicti
onalareaofthemunicipal
i
tiesofSt a.Moni
caandBur gos,l
ocat
edsome
theCour tofAppeal swaspr omulgated.Cont r
arytopet i
ti
oner s'vi
ew,t hereisnolaw 40t o45ki l
ometersawayfrom t
hemuni cipali
tyofDapa,Sur
igaodelNort
e.
requir
ingt hepubl i
cati
onofSupr emeCour tdecisi
onsi ntheOf fi
cialGazettebefore
theycanbebi ndingandasacondi ti
ontot hei
rbecomi ngef fecti
ve.Itisthebounden Inhislet
ter
-commentt otheof fi
ceoftheCour tAdmi ni
str
ator
,respondentjudgeav er
s
dutyofcounselasl awy erinactivelaw practi
cet okeepabr eastofdeci si
onsoft he thattheoff
iceandnameoft heMunicipalMay orofDapahav ebeenusedbysomeone
SupremeCour tpar t
icul
arlywherei ssueshav ebeenclarifi
ed,consi stentl
yreit
erat
ed, else,who,ast hemay or'
s" l
ackey,
"isov erl
yconcer nedwithhisact uat
ionsbot has
andpubl ishedi ntheadv ancer eportsofSupr emeCour tdeci si
ons( G.R.s)andi n j
udgeandasapr iv
ateper son.Thesameper sonhadear l
ierfil
edAdmi nistr
ativ
e
suchpubl icat
ionsast heSupr emeCour tReportsAnnotated( SCRA)andl awjournal
s. Mat t
erNo94- 980-
MTC, whichwasdi smissedf orlackofmeri
tonSept ember15, 1994,
andAdmi nist
rati
veMat t
erNo.OCA- IPI
-95-16,"AntonioAdaponv .JudgeHer nandoC.
ThisCour tli
kewi sefindsthatt heCourtofAppeal scommi tt
ednogr av
eabuseof Domagt oy,
"whichissti
llpending.
discr
eti
oni naf f
irmingthetri
alcour t
'sdeci
sionholdi
ngpetit
ionerl
iableunderArti
cle
2190oft heCi vi
lCode, whi
chpr ovi
desthat"t
hepropriet
orofabui l
dingorstr
uctur
ei s Inrelat
iont othechargesagai nsthim,respondentjudgeseeksexculpat
ionfrom his
responsibl
ef orthedamager esult
ingfr
om itstot
alorpart
ialcoll
apse,ifi
tshouldbe actofhav ingsolemnizedt hemar ri
agebet weenGasparTagadan,amar r
iedman
duetot helackofnecessaryrepai r
s. separatedf rom hi
swife,andAr l
ynF.Bor gabyst ati
ngthathemer elyr
eli
edont he
Affi
dav i
tissuedbytheMuni cipalTri
alJudgeofBasey ,Samar,
confi
rmingthefactthat
Norwast her
eerrorinrejectingpetiti
onersargumentt hatpri
vat
erespondentshadt he Mr.Tagadan and hi sf i
rstwi f
e have notseen each ot herf oralmostsev en
"l
astclearchance"toav oidt heaccidentifonl
yt heyheededthe.warni
ngtov acatethe years. 
1
 Withrespectt othesecondchar ge,hemai ntai
nsthati nsolemnizing
tail
ori
ngshopand,t her efore,petit
ionerspriornegligenceshoul
dbedi sregarded, themar riagebetweenSumay l
oanddelRosar
io,hedi dnotvi
olat
eArti
cle7,
since the doctr
ine of" lastcl earchance,"whi ch has been appli
ed tov ehi
cular paragr
aph 1 oft he Fami l
yCode which st
ates that:"Mar
ri
age maybe
accidents,i
sinappl
icablet othiscase. solemnizedby :(1)Anyi ncumbentmemberofthej udi
ciar
ywit
hinthecourt
's
j
urisdi
ction;"andthatarti
cle8ther
eofappl
i
estot hecaseinquesti
on.
WHEREFORE,
invi
ewoft
hef
oregoi
ng,
theCour
tResol
vedt
oDENYt
hei
nst
antpet
it
ion
f
orl
ackofmeri
t.
Thecompl
aintwasnotref
err
ed,asisusual,f
orinv
est
igat
ion,sincet
hepl
eadi
ngs
submi
tt
edwereconsi
der
edsuff
ici
entf
oraresol
uti
onoft
hecase. 
2

I
I.REPEALOFLAWS(
Art
icl
e7)
Sincethecounterchar
gesofsini
stermotivesandfraudont hepartofcomplainant
A.
M.No.MTJ-
96-
1088Jul
y19,
1996RODOLFOG.NAVARRO,
 
compl
ainant
,vs. havenotbeensuf f
ici
entl
ypr
oven,t
heywi l
lnotbedweltupon.Theactscompl
ainedof
andrespondentjudge'
sanswertheret
owi l
lsuff
iceandcanbeobj ecti
vel
yassessed
JUDGEHERNANDOC.DOMAGTOY,
 
respondent
.  bythemselv
estopr ovethel
att
er'
smalfeasance.

J.
ROMERO,
  :
p Thecer t
ifi
edtruecopyoft hemar ri
agecont r
actbetweenGasparTagadanandAr l
yn
Borgastatest hatTagadan'
scivilstat
usi s"separat
ed."Despi t
et hisdeclar
ation,t
he
weddingcer emonywassol emnizedbyr espondentjudge.Hepr esentedinevidencea
Thecompl ainanti nthi
sadmi ni
str
ati
vecaseistheMuni ci
palMayorofDapa,Suri
gao j
ointaffi
davitbyMaur eci
oA.Labado, Sr.andEugenioBul lecer,
subscr i
bedandswor n
delNorte,Rodol foG.Nav arro.Hehassubmi t
tedev i
denceinrel
ati
ontotwospecifi
c to before Judge Demost henes C.Duqui ll
a,Muni cipalTr ialJudge of Basey ,
acts commi tted by r espondentMuni ci
palCircuitTrialCourtJudge Hernando
Samar. 
3
 Theaf f
idavitwasnoti ssued byt hel atterj udge,ascl aimed by
Domagt oy,whi ch,hecont ends,exhi
bit
sgrossmi sconductaswellasi
neff
ici
encyin
off
iceandi gnor anceofthelaw.
respondentjudge,butmerelyacknowledgedbef orehim.I ntheiraff
idav
it,t
he
affi
antsstatedthatt
heyknewGasparTagadant ohav ebeenci vil
l
ymar r
iedt o
IdaD.Peñar andainSept
ember1983; thatafterthirt
eeny ear
sofcohabi tati
on
Fi
rst
,onSeptember27,1994,respondentjudgesol
emnizedt heweddingbetween
GasparA.TagadanandArlynF.Bor ga,despi
tetheknowledgethatthegroom is
andhav i
ngbor nefi
vechildr
en,IdaPeñar andal efttheconj ugaldwell
ingi n
merel
ysepar
atedfr
om hi
sfi
rstwif
e. Valenci
a,Buki dnonandt hatshehasnotr eturnednorbeenhear doff or
almostsev enyears,
ther
ebygivingri
set othepresumpt ionthatshei salr
eady
Second,i
tisall
egedthatheper
formedamar r
iageceremonybetweenFl or
ianoDador
dead.
SumayloandGemmaG.delRosar i
ooutsi
dehi scourt
'sj
urisdi
cti
ononOct ober27,
1994.Respondentj
udgeholdsoff
iceandhasj
urisdi
cti
onintheMuni ci
palCir
cuitTri
al I
n ef
fect
,Judge Domagt
oymai
ntai
ns t
hatt
he af
orement
ioned j
ointaf
fi
dav
iti
s
suffi
cientproofofIdaPeñaranda'
spresumpt
ivedeath,andampl
ereasonf
orhi
mto Art.8.Themar r
iageshallbesol emnizedpubl i
clyint hechambers
proceedwi t
ht hemarr
iageceremony.Wedonotagree. thejudgeori
nopencour t
,inthechurch, chapelort emple,orint
he
off
iceoftheconsul-
general,consulorvice-consul,asthecasemay
Ar
ti
cl
e41oft
heFami
l
yCodeexpr
essl
ypr
ovi
des: be,andnotelsewhere,
 exceptincasesofmar r
iagescont r
actedon
thepointofdeathorinr
emoteplacesinaccordancewithArti
cle29
ofthisCode,orwherebothpart
iesrequestthesolemnizi
ngofficer
Amar ri
agecontractedbyanyper sondur i
ngthesubsi st
enceofa i
nwr it
inginwhichcasethemarr
iagemaybesol emnizedatahouse
previous marri
age shal lbe nulland v oi
d,unl ess beforethe orplacedesi
gnatedbythem i
naswor nstat
ementt othatef
fect.
celebrat
ionofthesubsequentmar ri
age,t hepri
orspousehadbeen
absentf orfourconsecutiveyearsandt hespousepr esenthada
well-
foundedbelieft hattheabsentspousewasal readydead.In Respondentj udgepoi ntst oArticl
e8andi tsexcept ionsast hejust i
ficat
ionf orhis
caseofdi sappearancewher etherei sdangerofdeat hunderthe havingsolemni zedt hemar ri
agebet weenFlorianoSumay loandGemmadelRosar io
ci
rcumst ancessetfor t
hintheprovi
sionsofAr t
icles391oft heCi
vi
l outsideofhiscour t'
sjur i
sdicti
on.Ast heaforequotedpr ovi
sionstates, amar r
iagecan
Code, anabsenceofonl ytwoyearsshallbesufficient. behel doutsideoft hej udge'schamber sorcour t
room onl yint hefollowinginstances:
(1)atthepointofdeat h,(2)inremoteplacesi naccor dancewi thArticle29or( 3)upon
requestofbot hpar ti
esi nwr it
inginaswor nst atementt othisef fect.Therei sno
Forthepurposeofcontr
act
ingt
hesubsequentmarri
ageundert
he pretensethateitherSumay l
oordelRosar i
owasatt hepoi ntofdeathori ntheremot e
precedi
ngparagr
aph,t
hespousepr
esent
 mustinst
it
uteasummary place.Mor eover,thewr it
tenrequestpr esentedaddr essedt other espondentj udge
pr
oceedi
ng as pr
ovi
ded i
nt hi
s Code forthe declar
ati
on of wasmadebyonl yonepar ty,Gemmadel Rosar i
o. 
4

pr
esumpti
vedeat
hoftheabsent
ee,wi
thoutpr
ejudi
cetotheeff
ect
ofr
eappear
anceoft
heabsentspouse.(
Emphasi
sadded.
)
Mor eimpor tant
ly,theelement ar
ypr inci
pleunder l
yingthispr ovisi
onistheaut horit
yof
thesol emnizingjudge.UnderAr ticle3,oneoft hef ormalrequi sit
esofmar r
iageisthe
Thereisnot hi
ngambi guousordi f
fi
culttocompr ehendinthisprovi
sion.I
nf act,the "authorit
yoft hesolemni zi
ngof f
icer."UnderAr t
icl
e7, mar r
iagemaybesol emnizedby,
l
awi sclearandsi mple.Evenifthespousepr esenthasawel l-
foundedbeli
efthatt he amongot hers,"anyincumbentmemberoft hejudiciar
y withinthecour t
'sjuri
sdicti
on.
"
absentspousewasal readydead,asummar ypr oceedi
ng forthedeclaration of Arti
cle8,whi chi sadi rectorypr ovisi
on,refersonl ytot hev enueoft hemar ri
age
presumptive deathis necessaryi n orderto contracta subsequentmar riage,a ceremonyanddoesnotal terorqual i
fytheaut horit
yoft hesol emnizi
ngof f
iceras
mandat or
yr equi
rementwhi chhasbeenpr eci
selyincorpor
atedintotheFami l
yCode providedint hepr ecedi
ngpr ovi
sion.Non- compl i
anceher ewi t
hwi llnotinvali
datethe
todiscouragesubsequentmar ri
ageswher eitisnotproventhattheprevi
ousmar r
iage mar ri
age.
hasbeen di ssolved ora mi ssing spouse i
sf actuall
yorpr esumpt i
vel
ydead,i n
accordancewi t
hperti
nentprov i
sionsoflaw.
Apr i
estwhoi scommi ssionedandal l
owedbyhi slocalor di
narytomar rythef ait
hful
,
i
saut horizedt odosoonl ywi t
hint hear eaoft hedioceseorpl aceal l
owedbyhi s
Int hecaseatbar ,GasparTagadandi dnotinstit
uteasummar ypr oceedingfort he Bishop.Anappel latecourtJusticeoraJust i
ceofthisCour thasj uri
sdicti
onov erthe
decl arati
onofhisfirstwi fe'
spr esumptiv
edeat h.Absentthisjudicialdeclar
ati
on,he enti
rePhi li
ppinest osol emnizemar ri
ages,regardl
essoft hev enue,asl ongast he
remai nsmar r
iedtoI daPeñar anda.Whet herwitt
inglyorunwitt
ingly,itwasmani fest requisitesoft hel aw ar ecompl iedwi t
h.Howev er
,j udgeswho ar eappoi ntedt o
erroront hepartofrespondentj udgetohav eacceptedthejoi
ntaffidavitsubmit
tedby specificjurisdi
ctions,mayof fi
ciateinweddi ngsonlywithinsaidareasandnotbey ond.
thegr oom.Suchnegl ectori gnoranceoft helaw hasr esul
tedinabi gamous,and Wher eaj udgesol emnizesamar ri
ageout sidehiscour t
'sjuri
sdicti
on,t herei sa
theref or
ev oi
d,mar riage.UnderAr t
icl
e 35 oft he Famil
yCode,"The f ol
l
owi ng resul
t anti r
regularit
yint heformalr equisi
telai
ddowni nAr t
icl
e3,whi chwhi l
ei tmay
mar riageshallbev oidf rom thebegi nni
ng:(4)Thosebi gamous...mar ri
agesnot notaf fectt he v ali
dit
y oft he mar r
iage,may subj ectt he offici
ati
ng of fici
alt o
fal
lingunderAr t
icl
e41. " admi nistrati
veliabil
ity
. 
5

Thesecondissueinv
olv
esthesol
emnizat
ionofamar r
iagecer
emonyout
sidet
he Inasmuchasr espondentj
udge'
sjur
isdi
ctioncov er
sthemuni ci
pali
ti
esofSta.Monica
cour
t'
sjur
isdi
cti
on,
cover
edbyAr
ti
cles7and8oftheFami
lyCode,t
hus: and Burgos,hewasnotcl ot
hed wit
h aut hor
ityto sol
emnizea mar r
iageint he
municipal
it
yofDapa, Suri
gaodelNort
e.Byci ti
ngAr t
icl
e8andt heexcept
ionsther
ein
Ar
t.7.Mar
ri
agemaybesol
emni
zedby: asgr oundsf ortheexerciseofhismi splaced author
it
y ,r
espondentj
udgeagai n
demonst r
atedalackofunderst
andi
ngoft hebasicprinci
plesofci
vil
law.
(
1)Any incumbentmemberoft
he j
udi
ciar
y wi
thi
nthe cour
t'
s
j
uri
sdi
cti
on; Accordi
ngl
y,theCour tfi
ndsr espondenttohav
eactedingrossignoranceofthelaw.
Thelegalpri
nciplesapplicabl
eint hecasesbr
oughttoourattenti
onar eel
ementary
xxxxxxxxx(
Emphasi
ssuppl
i
ed.
) anduncomplicated,prompt i
ngust oconcl
udethatr
espondent
'sfai
luretoappl
ythem
i
sduet oalackofcompr ehensi
onoft hel
aw.
Thej udiciaryshoul d becomposed ofper
sonswho,i fnotexperts,ar
eatl east
, b.ThattheceremonywasattendedbyPACI
FICOMAGHACOTwhoact
edas
prof
icienti nthel aw t
heyaresworntoapply,morethant heordi
narylay
men.They ourpri
ncipal
sponsorandspousesRAMONDEANandTERESI
TADEAN;...
should be ski l
l
ed and competenti
n underst
anding and appl
ying t
he law.Itis
i
mper ativethatt heybeconver
santwi
thbasi
clegalpri
ncipl
esli
ketheonesinvol
vedin c.Thataf
terourwedding,myhusbandBERNARDI
TOYMANabandonedme
i
nstantcase.  6
 I
tisnott oomucht oexpectt hem t oknow andappl ythelaw wit
houtanyreasonatal
l;
i
ntel
l
igentl
y. 
7
 Other
wise,thesy st
em ofjusticerestsonashakyf oundati
on
i
ndeed,compoundedbyt heerrorscommi t
tedbyt hosenotlearnedinthel
aw. d.ThatIsmel
lsomet
hingf
ishy;sowhatIdi
dwasIwenttoCalbay
ogCi
ty
Whil
emagi stratesmayatt i
mesmakemi stakesinjudgment ,forwhi
chthey andwrot
etheCit
yCi
vi
lRegi
strart
oinqui
remyMar
ri
ageCont
ract
;
ar
enotpenal i
zed,therespondentj udgeexhibit
edignoranceofel ementar
y
pr
ovisi
onsofl aw,inanar eawhi chhasgr eat
lyprej
udicedt hestatusof e.Thatto mysur
pri
se,Iwasi nf
ormed bytheLocalCi
vi
lRegi
str
arof
marr
iedpersons. Cal
bayogCi
tyt
hatmymarr
iagewasnotregi
ster
ed;
...

Themarr
iagebet
weenGasparTagadanandArly
nBor gai
sconsider
edbigamousand f.Thatuponadvi
sementoft
heLocalCi
vi
lRegi
str
ar;Iwr
oteJudgeJuan
voi
d,t
her
ebeingasubsi
sti
ngmarri
agebetweenGasparTagadanandIdaPeñar
anda. Daguman,toi
nqui
re;

TheOf f
iceoftheCour tAdminist
rat
orr ecommends,i nitsMemor andum totheCourt
, g.Thatt
omysecondsur
pri
se,Iwasinfor
medbyJudgeDagumanthatal
lthe
asix-monthsuspensionandast er
nwar ni
ngt hatarepeti
ti
onoft hesameorsi mil
ar copi
esoftheMar
ri
ageCont
ractweretakenbyOl
oy(Ber
nar
dit
oA.Yman);
actswillbedeal twithmor esev erely.Consideri
ngt hatoneoft hemar ri
agesin
questi
onr esul
tedinabi gamousuni onandt heref
orevoid,andtheot herl
ackedthe
h.Thatnotcopywasr
etai
nedbyJudgeDaguman;
necessaryauthorit
yofr espondentjudge,t heCour tadoptssaidr ecommendati
on.
Respondentisadv i
sedtobemor ecircumspecti nappl
y i
ngthelawandt ocul
ti
vat
ea
deeperunderstandi
ngoft hel
aw. i
.ThatIbeli
evet
hatt
her
espondentj
udgecommi
tt
edact
spr
ejudi
cialt
omy
i
nter
estsuchas:
I
N VIEW OFTHEFOREGOING,respondentJudgeHer
nandoC.Domagt
oyishereby
SUSPENDED foraper
iodofsix(6)monthsandgivenaSTERN WARNING t
hata 1.Sol
emni
zi
ngourmar
ri
ageout
sidehi
sjur
isdi
cti
on;
repet
it
ionoft
hesameorsi
mil
aractswil
lbedeal
twi
thmoresev
erel
y.
2.Negl
i
gence in notret
aini
ng a copyand notregi
ster
ing our
A.M.No.99-
1211     Januar
y28,
2000 mar
ri
agebefor
etheoffi
ceoftheLocalCi
vi
lRegi
str
ar.
(For
merl
yOCA-IPINo.98-471-
MTJ)
TheAf
fi
dav
it-
Compl
aintwast
her
eaf
terr
efer
redt
orespondentJudgef
orcomment
.
ZENAIDAS.BESO, 
compl
ainant
, 
vs. I
nhi
sComment
,respondentJudgeav
err
edt
hat
:
Judge JUAN DAGUMAN, MCTC, St
a. Mar
gar
it
a-Tar
angan-
Pagsanj
an,
Samar,
 r
espondent
.
1.Thecivi
lmarri
ageofcompl ai
nantZenai
daBesoandBernardi
toYmanhad
tobesolemnizedbyrespondenti
nCalbayogCi
tythoughout
sidehist
err
it
ory
YNARES-
SANTI J.
AGO,
  : asmuni ci
palJudgeofSt a.Margari
ta,Samarduet othef ol
lowi
ng and
pressi
ngcir
cumstances:
I
nt hi
sadministr
ativecomplai
nt,r
espondentJudgest andschargedwit
hNeglectof
DutyandAbuseofAut hor
it
y.InaCompl aint
-Aff
idavitdat
edDecember12,1997, 1.1.OnAugust28,1997r espondentwasphy sicall
yi ndisposedand
Zenai
daS.Besochar gedJudgeJuanJ.Daguman,Jr .wit
hsol emni
zi
ngmar ri
age unabletor eportt ohisstati
oni nSt a.Mar gita.Int hef orenoonof
outsi
deofhisjur
isdi
cti
onandofnegli
gencei nnotretaini
ngacopyandnotregi
steri
ng thatdate,wi thoutpriorappointment ,compl ainantBesoandMr .
themarr
iagecontractwit
htheoffi
ceoftheLocal Registr
aral
l
eging— Ymanunexpect edl
ycamet other esi denceofr espondenti nsaid
City,
urgentlyrequesti
ngt hecelebrati
onoft hei rmar r
iager i
ghtthen
a.ThatonAugust28,1997,Iandmyf i
ancee(si
c)BERNARDI TOA.YMAN andt her  
f
e,irst,becausecompl ai
nant ssaidshemustl eavethat
gotmarri
edandourmar r
iagewassol
emnizedbyjudge(si
c)JuanDaguman same day t o be able t o f l
yf rom Mani l
a f or abr oad as
i
nhisresi
denceofJ.
P.R.Subdi
vi
sioni
nCalbayogCit
y,Samar;
... scheduled;
 second, t
hatforthepartiest ogot oanot hertownf orthe
mar r
iagewoul dbeexpensi veandwoul dentailseriouspr oblemsof
 fi
ndi ng a sol emnizi
ng officerand anot herpai rofwi t
nessesor beli
evet he clai
m ofcompl ai
nantt hataf terAugust28,1997
sponsor s, whi l
e i n f act f ormer Under secretary Paci fi
co mar r
iage herhusband,Mr .Yman,abandoned herwi thoutany
Maghacot ,
 Sangguni
angPangl unsod [
member ]RamonDeanwer e reason...butt hatsai
dhusbandadmi tted"hehadanothergirlby
alreadywi t
ht hem assponsor s;
 t
hir
d,iftheyfail
edt ogetmar ri
edon thenameofLI TADANGUYAN"...itseemsr easonabl
yclearwhoof
August28,1997,compl ainantwoul dbeoutoft hecount ryfora thetwomar r
iagecontr
act
ingpart
iesprobablyabscondedwi t
ht he
l
ongper i
odandt hei
rmar r
iagel i
censewoul dlapseandnecessi tate missingcopiesofthemarr
iagecer
tif
icate.
anot herpubl icat
ionofnotice; f
ourth,i
fthepar ti
esgobey ondt hei
r
plansf ort he schedul
ed mar ri
age,compl ainantf eared i
twoul d 3.4.Undert he f
acts abov e stated,r espondenthas no ot her
compl icat eherempl oy
mentabr oad;and,last,allotheralt
ernat
ives recoursebutt oprotectt hepubl i
ci nterestbyt ryi
ngallpossi bl
e
ast odat eandv enueofmar r
iagewer econsideredimpr acti
cabl
eby meanst orecovercust odyoft hemi ssing documentsi n some
thepar ties; amicablewaydur i
ngt heexpectedhear ingoft heabovement ioned
civi
lcaseintheCityofMar iki
na,f
aili
ngt odowhi chsaidrespondent
1.2.Thecont
ract
ingpart
ieswer
er eadywit
ht hedesi
redcocument
s would confer wi t
h t he Civil Regi st
rar Gener al f
or possi bl
e
(sic)f
oraval
idmarri
age,whi
chrespondentfoundall
inorder
. 1âwphi
1.nêt regi
strat
ionofreconsti
tutedcopiesofsai ddocument s.

1.
3.Compl ai
nantbrideisanaccredi
tedFil
ipi
noov erseasworker, TheOf f
iceoftheCour tAdmi ni
str
ator(OCA)i
nanev al
uati
onr epor
tdatedAugust11,
who,respondentreali
zed,deser
ved moret han ordi
naryoff
icial 1998f oundthatr espondentJudge" ...commi t
tednon-feasanceinof f
ice"and
at
tent
ionunderpresentGover
nmentpoli
cy. recommendedt hathebef inedFiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00)wit
hawar ningt
hat
thecommi ssi
onoft hesameorf utur
eactswillbedeal
twi t
hmor eseverel
ypointi
ng
2.Att
het i
mer espondentsolemnizedthemarri
ageinquesti
on,hebeli
eved outthat:
i
ngoodf ait
hthatbysodoi nghewasl eaningonthesi
deofl i
beral
i
tyofthe
l
awsot hatitmaybenotbet ooexpensi
veandcomplicat
edf orci
ti
zensto Aspr esidi
ngjudgeoftheMCTCSt a.Mar
gar
it
aTarangnan-
Pagsanj
an,
Samar ,
getmar
ried. theaut hori
tytosolemnizemar r
iageisonl
yli
mit
edt othosemunici
pali
ti
es
underhi sjuri
sdi
cti
on.Clear
ly,Calbay
ogCit
yisnolongerwithi
nhisareaof
3.Anotherpointbroughtupinthecomplai
ntwasthefai
l
ureofregi
str
ati
onof j
urisdicti
on.
theduplicat
eandt r
ipl
i
catecopiesofthemarri
agecert
ifi
cat
e,whichfail
ure
wasal sooccasionedbyt hefoll
owi
ngcircumst
ancesbeyondthecontrolof Addi
ti
onall
y,ther
ear eonl
ythreeinst
ances,asprov
idedbyArt
icl
e8ofthe
respondent: Famil
yCode,wher ei
namar r
iagemaybesol emni
zedbyajudgeoutsi
dehi
s
chamber
[s]orataplaceot
herthanhissal
a,towit
:
3.1.Af terhandl i
ngt othehusbandt hef i
rstcopyofthemarri
age
cer t
if
icate, r
espondentleftthethreeremainingcopi
esontopofthe (1)whenei
therorbot
hoft
hecont
ract
ingpar
ti
esi
satt
hepoi
ntof
deski nhi spr i
vateoff
icewher ethemar r
iageceremoni
eswereheld, death;
i
nt endingl atertoregi
sterthedupl i
cateandt r
ipl
i
cat
ecopiesandto
keept hef orth(sic)i
nhisoffice. (
2)whent
her
esi
denceofei
therpar
tyi
slocat
edi
nar
emot
epl
ace;

3.2.Afteraf ew daysfoll
owingthewedding,respondentgat her ed (3)wherebot hoftheparti
esr equestt
hesol emnizingoffi
cerin
allthepaper srelati
ngtot hesaidmar ri
agebutnot wi t
hstandi ng writ
inginwhichcasethemar r
iagemaybesol emnizedatahouse
dil
igentsearchint hepremisesandprivatefi
les,al
lthet hr
eel ast orplacedesi
gnat
edbyt hem i
naswor nst
atementtot hatef
fect.
copiesoft hecert
ifi
cateweremissi
ng.Promptly,r
espondenti nvited
by subpoena ....Mr .Yman t o shed li
ghton t he mi ssing
document sandhesai dhesawcompl ainantBesoputt hecopi esof Thef
oregoi
ngci
rcumst
ancesar
eunav
ail
i
ngi
nthei
nst
antcase.
the mar r
iage certi
fi
catein herbag dur i
ng the weddi ng par ty
.
Unfortunatel
y,itwas t oo lat
et o contractcompl ainantf ora Moreov
er,assolemni
zi
ngoff
icer
,respondentJudgeneglect
edhisdut
ywhen
confir
mat i
onofMr .Yman'sclai
m. f
ail
edtoregi
sterthemar
ri
ageofcompl ai
nanttoBernar
ditoYman.

3.3.Consi
der
ingthefuti
li
tyofcont r
act
ingcomplainantnow that Suchdutyi
sentrust
eduponhi
m pur
suantt
oAr
ti
cle23oft
heFami
l
yCode
sheisoutoft
hecountry
,ar easonabl
econclusi
oncanbedr awnon whichpr
ovi
des:
thebasisoft heest
abl
ishedf actssof arinthi
sdi sput
e.Ifwe
 I
tshal
lbet
hedut
yoft
heper
son sol
emni
zi
ng t
hemar
ri
age 
to Ast heabove-quotedprov
isi
onclear l
ystat
es,amar r
iagecanbehel doutsi
det he
fur
nisheit
herofthecontr
act
ingpar
ti
est
heor
igi
naloft
hemarri
age j
udge'schamber sorcourtr
oom onlyi nthefoll
owi
ngi nstances:1.]att
hepoi ntof
cer
tifi
cat
er ef
err
edtoi nArt
icl
e6and t
osendthedupli
cat
eand death;2.
]inremoteplacesinaccordancewithArti
cle29,or3. ]upontherequestof
t
ri
pli
catecopi
esoft
hecerti
ficatenotlaterthanfif
teendaysaf
ter bothpart
iesi
nwr it
ingi
naswor nstatementtothi
seffect.
t
he marri
age,
t
 othe l
ocalcivilregi
steroft he pl
ace wheret
he
marr
iagewassol
emni
zed....(emphasisours) Inthiscase,t hereisnopr etensethateithercompl ainantBesoorherf i
ancéYman
wasatt hepointofdeat hori nar emot eplace.Nei t
herwast hereaswor nwr it
ten
Itisclearl
yev identfrom t hef oregoingt hatnotonl yhast her espondent requestmadebyt hecont r
actingpart
iestor espondentJudget hatthemar r
iagebe
Judge commi t
ted non- f
easance i n of f
ice,he al so under mined the v ery solemni zedout si
dehischamber soratapl aceot herthanhi ssala.What,inf act
,
foundati
onofmar r
iagewhi chi st hebasi csoci alinst
itutioninoursoci ety appear sonr ecordist hatr espondentJudgewaspr omptedmor ebyur gencyt o
whosenat ure,consequencesandi ncidentsaregov er
nedbyl aw.Gr anting solemni zethemar ri
ageofBesoandYmanbecausecompl ainantwas"[a]
nov erseas
thatrespondentJudgei ndeedf ail
edt ol ocatet hedupl i
cateandt ri
plicate wor ker,who,respondentr eali
zeddeservedmor ethanor dinar
yof f
ici
alatt
enti
onunder
copiesoft hemar r
iagecer tif
icate,heshoul dhav eex ertedmor eeffortt o presentGov ernmentpol icy."RespondentJudgef urt
herav ersthatinsolemnizi
ngt he
l
ocat eorreconst it
utet hesame.Asahol derofsuchasensi ti
veposi t
ion,he mar ri
agei nquestion,"
[h]ebel i
evedingoodf aiththatbydoi ngsohewasl eaningon
i
s expect ed t o be consci enti
ous i n handl i
ng of fi
cialdocument s.Hi s thesi deofliberal
it
yoft hel awsot hatitmaynotbet ooexpensiveandcompl i
cated
i
mput ati
ont hatthemi ssingcopi esoft hemar ri
agecer tifi
catewer etakenby forcitizenstogetmar r
ied."
Bernardi
toYmani sbasedmer elyonconj ecturesanddoesnotdeser ve
consider
ationf orbeingdev oidofpr oof . Aper sonpr esidi
ngov eracourtoflawmustnotonl yapplythelawbutmustal sol i
ve
andabi debyi tandrenderjust
iceatalltimeswi thoutresort
ingtoshortcut
scl earl
y
Af
tera caref
uland thor
ough examinat
ion oft
he ev
idence,t
he Cour
tfi
nds t
he uncalledf or.2
 Ajudgeisnotonlyboundbyoat htoappl ythelaw;
3
 hemustal sobe
ev
aluat
ionr
eportoft
heOCAwell-t
aken. consci ent
iousandt horoughindoingso.
4
 Cert
ainly
, j
udges,bytheverydel
icat
enat ure
oftheirofficeshoul dbemor ecir
cumspecti ntheperformanceoftheirdut
ies.
5

Ji
menezv.
 Republ
i
c1 
under
scor
est
hei
mpor
tanceofmar
ri
ageasasoci
ali
nst
it
uti
on
thus:"[
M]arr
iageinthiscountryisani nst
itut
ioninwhi cht hecommuni t
yisdeeply If at all
,t he reasons proffered by respondent Judge toj ustify his hurr
ied
i
nterest
ed.The st at
e has surrounded i
twi th safeguards t
o maintai
ni t
s puri
ty, solemnizationofthemar ri
ageint hi
scaseonlyt endstodegradether everedposit
ion
conti
nuit
y and permanence.The secur it
y and stabili
ty ofthe st
ate arelargel
y enjoinedbymar r
iageinthehierarchyofsocialinsti
tuti
onsinthecount ry
.Theyal so
dependentuponi t.Iti
st heinterestanddut yofeachandev er
ymemberoft he betrayrespondent'scaval
ierprocli
vi
tyonitssignif
icanceinourcul
turewhi chismor e
communi t
yt oprev
entthebringi
ngaboutacondi tionthatwouldshakei t
sfoundati
on disposedt owardsanex t
endedper iodofengagementpr i
ortomar r
iageandf r
owns
anduntimelyleadt
oitsdestr
uction." uponhast y,il
l
-advisedandil
l-
ti
medmar i
taluni
ons.

Wit
hregardtothesol
emni
zat
ionofmar
ri
age,Ar
ti
cle7oft
heFami
l
yCodepr
ovi
des, Anel ementar
yregardforthesacrednessofl aws—l etalonethatenactedinordert o
amongother
s,t
hat— preservesosacrosanctaninvi
olablesoci ali
nstituti
onasmar r
iage—andt hestabi l
it
y
ofjudici
aldoctr
ineslaiddownbysuper ioraut hori
tyshouldhav egivenrespondent
Ar
t.7.
 Mar
ri
agemybesol
emni
zedby: j
udgepauseandmadehi m mor ev i
gilantint heexer ci
seofhi saut hori
tyandt he
performanceofhisduti
esasasol emnizingof f
icer.Ajudgeis,fur
ther
mor e,pr
esumed
toknow t heconsti
tuti
onalli
mitsoft heaut hor ityorjur
isdi
cti
onofhi scourt
.6
 Thus
(
1)Anyincumbentmemberoft
hej
udi
ciar
ywi
thi
nthecour
t'
sjur
isdi
cti
on;
... respondentJudgeshouldberemi ndedt hat—
(
Emphasisour
s)
A priestwhoi scommi ssionedandal l
owedbyhi sordinar yt omar ryt he
I
nrel
ati
ont
her
eto,
Art
icl
e8oft
hesamest
atut
emandat
est
hat
: fai
thful,i
saut hor i
zedt odosoonl ywithint hear eaofthedi oceseorpl ace
all
owedbyi sBi shop.Anappel l
atecour tjust i
ceoraJust iceoft hisCour thas
Art
.8.Themar ri
ageshal
lbesolemni zedpublicl
yinthechambersoft he j
urisdicti
onov ert heent i
rePhi l
i
ppi nestosol emnizemar ri
ages, regar dl
essof
j
udgeori nopencourt
,int
hechurch,chapelortemple,ori
ntheoffi
ceofthe thev enue,asl ongast her equisi
tesoft hel awar ecompl iedwi th.Howev er
,
counsel
-general
,consulorvice-
consul,as t he case may be,and not Judgeswhoar eappoi ntedt ospeci f
icjurisdicti
onsmayof fici
ateinweddi ngs
el
sewhere,excepti
  ncasesofmar r
iagescontractedatthepoi
ntofdeat
hor onlywi t
hinsaidar easandnotbey ond.Wher eajudgesol emni zesamar ri
age
i
nr emot
epl acesinaccordancewithAr t
icl
e29oft hi
sCode,orwer
ebot h outsidehi scour t
'sj ur
isdi
ction,thereisar esult
antirr
egul ari
tyint hef ormal
part
iesr
equestthesolemnizi
ngoffi
cerinwr i
ti
nginwhi
chcasethemarr
iage requisit
el ai
ddowni nAr t
icle3,whi chwhi l
ei tmaynotaf fectt hev ali
dityof
maybesol emnizedatahouseorpl acedesignat
edbythem inaswor n themar riage,maysubj ecttheof f
iciat
ingof fici
altoadmi nistrati
veliabil
ity.
7

stat
ementtothateff
ect.(
Emphasisours)
Consi
deri
ngthatrespondentsJudge'
sjuri
sdict
ioncov
erst
hemunici
pal
it
yofSt a. vs.
Margar
it
a-Tar
angan-
Pagsanjan,Samaronly
,hewasnotcl othedwi
thauthor
it
yto LUCIOBERNAS,
 
def
endant
-appel
l
ant
.
sol
emnizeamarri
ageintheCityofCal
bay
og.8

Sul
pici
oV.Ceaf
orappel
l
ant
.
Further
more,from thenatureofmar r
iage,asi
def rom themandatet hataj udge
shouldexer
ciseextr
acar ei
ntheexerci
seofhisauthori
tyandtheperfor
manceofhi s J.
ARAULLO,
  :
duti
es ini t
s solemnizati
on,he isl i
kewise commanded t o observance ext
ra
precauti
onstoensur ethattheeventisproperlydocumentedinaccor dancewith
Arti
cle23oftheFami l
yCodewhichstat
esinnouncertai
ntermsthat— On t he af ternoon ofJune 26,1913,a mat ch was hel dint he cockpi toft he
muni cipali
tyofTabaco, Albay ,
bet weent wococksbel ongi ngtothepl aintiffandt othe
defendantr especti
vely
.Eachofsai dper sonshadputupawagerofP160;andast he
Art.23.—  I
tshallbet hedut yoftheper sonsol emni zingt hemar ri
age to refereeoft hecockpithaddecl ar
edt hedef endant'
scockt hewi nneri nt hebout ,the
furnisheitherofthecontracti
ngpart
ies,theori
ginaloft hemar r
iagecontract plainti
ffbr oughtsuitagainstt hedef endanti nthejusticeoft hepeacecour toft he
referredtoi nArti
cle6andt o sendt
hedupl i
cateandt riplicatecopiesoft he saidpuebl o,askingthathisownr oosterbedecl ar
edt hewi nner.Thej usticeoft he
certifi
catenotl at
ert hanfift
eendaysaf terthemar r
iage, t
 othel ocalcivi
l peacecour tdecidedthattheboutwasadr aw.From t hisjudgmentt hedef endant
registraroft heplacewher ethemarriagewassol emni zed.Pr
  operreceipts appeal edtot heCour tofFir
stInstanceoft heprovi
nce.Fort hepur posesoft heappeal ,
shallbe issued by t
he localci vi
lr egi
str
art othe solemnizi
ng of f
icer thepl ainti
fffil
edhiscompl aintandpr ayedt hiscourttor enderjudgmentor deri
ngt he
transmi
tti
ngcopiesofthemar ri
agecer ti
fi
cate.
 Thesolemnizi
ngof fi
cershall defendantt oabidebyandcompl ywithther ul
esandr egul at
ionsgov erningcockf ights,
retai
nin hisf i
l
et he quadrupl
icate copyoft he marr
iage certi
fi
cate,
 the topayt hest ipulat
edwagerofP160;t or et
urntheot herl i
keamount( bot hsumsof
origi
nalofthemar ri
agel i
cense and,inpropercases,t heaf f
idavi
toft he wagerbei nghel dforsafe-keepingbyt hecockpitowner ,TomasAl mont e)andt o
contract
ingpartyr
egardi
ngthesolemnizat
ionofthemarri
agei
napl
ace assesst hecost sofbothinstancesagai nstthedefendant .
otherthanthosement
ionedi
nArt
icl
e8.(Emphasissuppl
i
ed)
Thedef endantdeniedeachandal loftheallegati
onsoft hecompl ai
ntandmov edto
Inv i
ew oft hef oregoi ng,weagr eewitht heev al uat i
onoft heOCAt hatr espondent dismi sswiththecost sagainstt
hepl ai
nti
ff
.OnSept ember11, 1913,thesai dCourtof
Judgewasl esst hanconsci entiousinhandl i
ngof ficialdocument s.Ajudgei scharged FirstInstancerenderedjudgmentdi smissi
ngt heappealwi thoutspecialfindingasto
withexer cisingex tracar einensur i
ngt hatt her ecordsoft hecasesandof fi
cial cost s.Thedefendantex ceptedtothisj
udgmentaswel last oanorderdi ctatedbythe
document si nhi scust odyar eintact.Thereisnoj ust i
fi
cationf ormi ssi
ngr ecor dssave samecour tonNov ember8t hofthesamey ear,ontheplainti
ff
'smotion, orderi
ngthe
for
tuitousev ents.9
 Howev er,ther ecordsshow t hatt hel osswasoccasi oned by prov i
ncialtr
easurerofAl bayand,ifnecessar y,t
hemuni cipaltr
easurerofTabacoof
carelessnessonr espondentJudge' spar t.ThisCour tr eit
erat esthatj udgesmust thesamepr ovi
nce,t oreleasethedeposi tofP160andr et
urnittoi tsowner ,the
adoptasy stem ofr ecor dmanagementandor gani zet hei
rdocket sinor dert obolst
er plaintif
fChinaman,ChuJan.Thesepr oceedingshav ecomebef oreusonappealby
thepr omptandef ficientdi spatchofbusi ness.10
 Itis,infact ,incumbentuponhi mt o meansoft heproperbi l
lofexcepti
ons.
deviseanef fici
entr ecor dingandf i
li
ngsy stem inhi scour tbecausehei saf teral
lthe
onedi rect
lyr esponsi blef orthepr operdischargeofhi soffici
al functi
ons.11

The groundsfort he dismi

ssalpr onounced byt he l
owercour tint he judgment
appeal
edf r
om erethatthecourthasalwaysdismissedcasesoft hi
snat ure,
thatheis
I
nt heeval
uati
onreport,t
heOCAr ecommendedt hatr
espondentJudgebefinedFiv
e notfamili
arwit
ht herulesgov erni
ngcockfight
sandt hedutiesofrefereest her
eof
;
ThousandPesos(P5,000.
00)andwar nedthatar
epeti
ti
onofthesameorsimi l
aract
s thathedoesnotknowwher etof i
ndthelawont hesubjectand,fi
nal
ly,thatheknows
wil
lbedealtwi
thmoresev er
ely
.ThisCourtadopt
stherecommendationoft
heOCA. 1âwphi
1.nêt

ofnol aw whateverthatgov ernsther i

ghtstot hepl ai
nti
ffandt hedef endantin
questi
onsconcerni
ngcockf i
ghts.
WHEREFORE,i nvi
ew ofallt
heforegoi
ng,respondentJudgeisherebyFINED Fi
ve
ThousandPesos(P5,
000.
00)andSTERNLYWARNEDt hatarepet
it
ionoft
hesameor Thei gnoranceoft hecourtorhi sl ackofknowl edger egardi
ngt helawappl i
cablet oa
si
milari
nfr
act
ionswil
lbedeal
twit
hmor esev
er el
y. casesubmi ttedtohi mfordeci sion,thefactthatt hecour tdoesnotknow t her ul
es
applicabletoacer tainmattert hati sthesubjectofanappealwhi chmustbedeci ded
SOORDERED. byhi m andhi snotknowingwher et ofindthelawr elati
vetot hecase,arenotr easons
thatcanser vetoexcuset hecour tforterminatingt hepr oceedingsbydi smi ssi
ng
them wi thoutdecidingthei ssues.Suchanexcusei st helessaccept abl
ebecause,
I
II
.DUTYofJUDGES(Ar
ti
cle9) foreseeingt hatacasemi ghtar iset owhichnol aw woul dbeexact lyappli
cable,the
CivilCode,i nthesecondpar agr aphofar ti
cle6,pr ovi
dest hatthecust omsoft he
G.
R.No.L-
10010      
August1,
1916 placeshal lbeobserved,and, i
nt heabsencet hereof,thegener al
princi
plesoflaw.

CHUJAN,
 
plai
nti
ff
-appel
l
ee,
 
Therefor
et hejudgmentandt heorderappealedfrom,herei
nbef
orementioned,ar
e Nor
ber
toPar
tof
orr
espondent
sCandel
osas,
BaesandGar
cia.
rever
sedandt or ecor
doft heproceedi
ngsshallremandedtothecour
tfrom whence
theycamef orduet ri
alandjudgmentasprovidedbyl aw.Nospeci
alf
indi
ngi smade AmadoC.del
aMar
cedf
orr
espondent
sSi
meonBundal
i
anJr
.,etal
.
withregar
dt ocosts.Soordered.
ManuelF.deJesusf
oral
lther
espondent
sinL-
46229-
32andL-
46313-
16.

Nor
ber
toL.Apost
olf
orr
espondentPanchi
toRef
unci
on.
I
V.Doubt
ful
stat
es(Ar
ti
cle10)
Hon.Amant
eP.Pur
isi
maf
orandi
nhi
sownbehal
f.
G.
R.No.L-
42050-
66Nov
ember20,
1978
 
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHI LI
PPI
NES, 
peti
ti
oner
, 
vs.
J.
MUÑOZPALMA,
  :
HONORABLE JUDGE AMANTE P.PURI SI
MA,COURT OF FIRST I
NSTANCE OF
MANILA,BRANCH VI I
,and PORFIRI
O CANDELOSAS,NESTOR BAES,ELIAS L.
GARCIA,SI
MEON BUNDALI AN,JR.,JOSEPH C.MAISO,EDUARDO A.LIBORDO, Thesetwent y-si
x( 26)Pet i
ti
onsf orRevi
ew fil
edbyt hePeopleofthePhil
ippi
nes
ROMEOL.SUGAY,FEDERI COT.DI
ZON,GEORGEM.ALBI NO,MARI
ANOCOTI A,JR.
, repr
esented,respectiv
ely,bytheOf f
iceoftheCityFiscalofManil
a,t
heOff
iceofthe
ARMANDO L.DI ZON,ROGELI
O B.PARENO,RODRIGO V.ESTRADA,ALFREDO A. Provi
nci
alFiscalofSamar ,andj
oinedbytheSolici
torGeneral
,ar
econsol
i
datedinthi
s
REYES, JOSE A. BACARRA, REYNALDO BOGTONG, and EDGARDO M. oneDecisionast heyinvolveonebasicquesti
onoflaw.
MENDOZA, r
espondent
s.
ThesePetiti
onsorappealsinvolvethreeCourtsofFir
stInstance,namely
:theCourtof
G.
R.No.L-
46229-
32Nov
ember20,
1978 Fi
rstInstance ofManila,Br anch VII,presi
ded byHon.Amant e P.Puri
sima (17
Peti
ti
ons),theCourtofFi rstI nst
anceofMani l
a,BranchXVI II
,presi
ded byHon.
MaximoA.Macer en(8Pet i
tions)and, theCourtofFi
rstInstanceofSamar,withHon.
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHI LI
PPI
NES, pet
it
ioner,
 
WenceslaoM.Polo,presidi
ng, (
1Pet i
tion)
.
vs.
JUDGEMAXI MOA.MACEREN,COURTOFFI RSTI
NSTANCEOFMANILA,BRANCH
XVII
I,and REYNALDO LAQUIY AQUI NO,ELPIDI
O ARPON,VI
CTOR EUGENI
OY Beforethosecour ts,Inf
ormat ionswer ef il
edchargingtherespecti
veaccusedwi th
ROQUEandALFREDOVERSOZA,  
respondents. "i
ll
egalpossessionofdeadl yweapon"i nv iol
ati
onofPr esi
denti
alDecreeNo.9.Ona
mot i
ontoquashf il
edbyt heaccused,t het hr
eeJudgesment i
onedabov eissuedin
therespecti
vecasesf il
edbef oret hem —t hedetail
sofwhichwi l
lberecount
edbelow
G.
R.No.L-
46313-
16Nov
ember20,
1978
— anOr derquashingordi smi ssingtheI nfor
mations,ona commongr ound,viz,t
hat
the I
nformation did notallege f acts which consti
tut
et he off
ense penali
zed by
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHI LI
PPINES,
 
pet
it
ioner,
  Presi
dential
Decr eeNo.9becausei tf
ail
edt ostateoneessenti
alelementofthecri
me.
vs.
JUDGEMAXI MOA.MACEREN,COURTOFFI RSTI NSTANCEOFMANI
LA,BRANCH
Thus,aretheInformati
onsf i
l
edbyt hePeoplesuf
fici
enti
nf or
m andsubstanceto
XVII
I,andJUANITODELACRUZYNUNEZ, SABINOBUENOYCACAL,TI
RSOISAGAN
consti
tut
et heoffenseof" i
ll
egalpossessi
onofdeadl yweapon"penali
zedunder
YFRANCI SCOandBENCASTI
LLOYUBALDO,  
respondent
s.
Presi
denti
alDecree( PDforshort)No.9?Thisisthecentrali
ssuewhichweshall
resol
veanddi sposeof,allothercor
oll
arymatt
ersnotbeingindi
spensabl
eforthe
G.
R.No.L-
46997Nov
ember20,
1978 moment .

THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES, 
peti
ti
oner
,  TheI
A—  nfor
mat
ionf
il
edbyt
hePeopl
e —
vs.
THEHONORABLEWENCESLAO M.POLO,Judgeoft
heCour
tofFi
rstI
nst
anceof
1.I
nL- 42050-66,onet
ypi
calI
nfor
mat
ionf
il
edwi
tht
heCour
tpr
esi
dedbyJudge
Samar
,andPANCHI
TOREFUNCION,
 r
espondent
s.
Pur
isi
maf ol
lows:

JoseL.Gamboa,Fermi
nMart
in,Jr.&JoseD.Cajucom,OfficeoftheCi
tyofFi
scalof THE PEOPLE OF THE PHI
LIPPI
NES,pl
aint
if
f,ver
sus PORFI
RIO CANDELOSAS Y
Manil
aandtheOffi
ceofPr
ovi
ncialFi
scalofSamarforpet
it
ioners. DURAN,accused.
Cr
im.CaseNo.19639 saidaccuseddidthenandtherewi
lf
ull
y,unl
awful
lyandknowingl
ycarr
youtsi
deofhi
s
resi
denceabl adedandpointedweapon,towi
t:anicepickwithanover
alll
engt
hof
VI
OLATI
ONOFPAR.3,
PRES.DECREENo.9OFPROCLAMATI
ON1081 about8½i nches,t
hesamenotbeingusedasanecessar ytoolori
mplementtoear
n
hisli
vel
ihoodnorbeingusedi
nconnecti
onther
ewith.
I
NFORMATI
ON
Cont
rar
ytol
aw.(
p.14,
rol
l
oofL-
46229-
32)
The under
signed accuses PORFI
RIO CANDELOSAS Y DURAN ofa viol
ati
on of
par
agraph3,Presi
denti
alDecreeNo.9ofPr
ocl
amation1081,
commit
tedasfol
lows: Theot herInf
ormat
ionsareli
kewisesi
milar
lywor
dedexceptforthenameoft he
accused,thedat
eandplaceofthecommissi
onoft
hecr
ime, andt
hekindofweapon
i
nvolved.
Thatonoraboutt he14t hdayofDecember ,1974,int heCi t
yofMani la,Phil
i
ppines,
thesaidaccuseddi dthenandt herewil
full
y,unlawfully
,f el
oniousl
yandknowi ngl
y
haveinhispossessi
onandunderhi scustodyandcont rolone( 1)carv
ingknifewitha 3.I
nL-46997,t
heI
nfor
mat
ionbef
oret
heCour
tofFi
rstI
nst
anceofSamari
squot
ed
bladeof6-½inchesandawoodenhandl eof5- 1/
4i nches,oranov eral
llengthof11-¾ her
eunder
:
i
nches,whichthesaidaccusedcarri
edout si
deofhi sresidence,thesaidweaponnot
beingusedasat oolorimplementnecessarytoear nhislivel
ihoodnorbei ngusedin PEOPLEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES,
compl
ainant
,ver
susPANCHI
TOREFUNCI
ON,
accused.
connecti
ontherewi
th.
CRI
M.CASENO.933
Cont
rar
ytol
aw.(
p.32,
rol
l
oofL-
42050-
66)
For
:
Theot
herI
nfor
mati
onsar
esimil
arl
ywordedexceptfort
henameoft heaccused,t
he
dat
eandpl
aceoft
hecommissi
onofthecri
me,andthekindofweaponinv
olved. I
LLEGALPOSSESSI
ONOF

2.InL-
46229-
32andL-46313-
16,t
heI
nfor
mat
ionf
il
edwi
tht
heCour
tpr
esi
dedby DEADLYWEAPON
JudgeMacer
enfol
l
ows:
(
VIOLATI
ONOFPDNO.9)
THEPEOPLEOFTHEPHI
LIPPI
NES,pl
aint
if
f,v
ersusREYNALDO LAQUIYAQUI
NO,
accused.
I
NFORMATI
ON
CRI
M.CASENO.29677
Theunder si
gned Fi
rstAssist
antProvi
nci
alFiscalofSamar,accusesPANCHITO
REFUNCI ON ofthe crime ofILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DEADLY WEAPON or
VI
OL.OFPAR.3, VIOLATIONOFPDNO.9i ssuedbythePresi
dentofthePhi
l
ippi
nesonOct.2,1972,
pursuanttoProcl
amat i
onNo.1081dat edSept .21and23,1972,committedas
PD9I
NREL.TOLOI fol
lows:

No.266oft
heChi
ef Thatonoraboutt he6thdayofOct ober
,1976,i ntheeveni ngatBar angayBar r
uz,
Municipali
tyofMat ugi
nao,Pr ovinceofSamarPhi l
i
ppines,andwi t
hinthej ur
isdi
cti
on
Ex
ecut
ivedat
edApr
il1,
1975 ofthi
sHonor abeCourt,theabovenamedaccused,knowi ngly,wi
l
ful
ly,unlawfull
yand
fel
oniouslycarri
edwithhim outsideofhisresidenceadeadl yweaponcal l
edsocyatan,
aninstrumentwhi chfrom i
tsver ynaturei
snosuchascoul dbeusedasanecessar y
I
NFORMATI
ON toolori nst
rumentt oear nal iveli
hood,whichactcommi t
tedbyt heaccusedi sa
Viol
ationofPr esi
denti
alDecreeNo.9.
The under
signed accuses REYNALDO LAQUIY AQUI NO ofa VI OLATI
ON OF
PARAGRAPH3,PRESI DENTIALDECREENO.9i nr
elati
ontoLet
terofI
nstr
uct
ionNo. CONTRARYTOLAW.(
p.8,
rol
l
oofL-
46997)
266oftheChiefExecuti
vedatedApr
il1,
1975,
commi t
tedasf
oll
ows:
B.— 
TheOr
der
sofdi
smi
ssal—
Thatonoraboutt
he28t
hdayofJanuar
y,1977,
int
heCi
tyofMani
l
a,Phi
l
ippi
nes,
the
In dismissing orquashi ng the I
nformations t he tr
ialcourt
s concurred wi t
hthe andsuppr essi
onofal lformsofl awlessviolenceaswel lasanyactofi nsur rect i
onor
submi t
taloft hedefensethatoneessent i
alelementoft heof
fensechargedi smissi
ng rebell
ion.Itisthereforereasonabletoconcludef rom thef oregoingpr emi sest hatt he
fr
om t heI nformati
on,viz:thatthecarryi
ngout sideoft heaccused'
sresi denceofa carryingofbl aded,poi ntedorbl untweaponsout sideofone' sr esidencewhi chi s
bladed,poi ntedorbluntweaponi sinf urt
her anceoront heoccasionof ,connect
ed madeunl awfulandpuni shablebysaidpar .3ofP.D.No.9i sonet hat abet ssubver sion,
withorr elat
edt osubver si
on,insurr
ecti
on,orr ebel
l
ion,organizedl
awl essnessor i
nsur recti
onorr ebelli
on,lawlessviol
ence,criminali
ty,chaosandpubl i
cdi sor derori s
publi
cdi sorder. i
ntendedt obringaboutt hesecondi ti
ons.Thisconcl usionisf ur
t herstrengt henedby
thef actt hatallpr evi
ouslyexi st
inglawst hatalso madet hecar ryingofsi mi l
ar
1.JudgePur
isi
mar
easonedout
, 
int
eral
i
a,i
nthi
smanner
: weaponspuni shabl ehavenotbeenr epealed,whet herexpr esslyori mpl i
edl y.I tis
notewor thythatPr esi
dent i
alDecreeNo.9doesnotcont ai
nanyr epealingcl auseor
provisions.
..
.theCour ti softheopiniont hatinor dert hatpossessionofbl adedweaponort he
l
ikeout si
der esidencemaybepr osecut edandt ri
edunderP. D.No.9,t heinf
ormation
mustspeci fical
lyallegethatt hepossessi onofbl adedweaponchar gedwasf orthe xxxxxxxxx
purposeofabet ti
ng,ori nf ur t
heranceoft hecondi t
ionsofr ampantcriminali
ty,
organized lawlessness,publ i
cdi sorder,et c.asar econtempl ated and r
eci
ted in The mere car
ryi
ng out
side ofone'sresidence ofthese deadl
yweapons i
fnot
ProclamationNo.1081,asj ustifi
cationt herefor.Devoidofthisspecif
icall
egati
on,not conceal
edinone'
spersonandi fnotcar
riedinanyoftheaforesai
dspeci
fi
edpl
aces,
necessaril
yi nthesamewor ds,thei nformat i
oni snotcompl ete,asitdoesnotallege wouldappeart
obenotunlawfulandpunishabl
ebyl aw.
suffi
cientfactstoconst i
tutetheof f
ensecont empl at
edinP. D.No.9.Thei nf
ormation
i
nt hesecasesunderconsi derat i
onsuf ferfrom thisdefect. Witht hepromul gati
onofPr esidentialDecreeNo.9, however,thepr osecuti
on,through
AssistantFiscalHilari
oH.Laqui ,cont endsinhi soppositi
ont ot hemot iontoquash,
xxxxxxxxx thatthisactisnowmadeunl awf ulandpuni shable,parti
cul
arlybypar agraph3t her eof,
regardlessoft hei ntentionoft heper soncar ryi
ngsuchweaponbecauset hel aw
Andwhi l
et hereisnopr oofofi tbef oret heCour t,itisnotdi ff
icul
ttobeli
evet he makesi t"malapr ohibi
ta" .Ifthecont enti
onoft heprosecutioni scor r
ect,theni fa
mur muringsofdet ai
nedper sonsbr oughtt oCour tuponachar geofpossessionof personhappenst obecaughtwhi leonhi swayhomebyl aw enf orcementof ficers
bladedweaponsunderP. D.No.9,t hatmor et haneverbef or
e,pol i
cemen-ofcour se carryi
ngaki tchenknifet hatsai dper sonhadj ustboughtf r
om ast oreinorderthatt he
notallcanbesohear t
less—nowhavei ntheirhandsP. D.No.9asamostconveni ent samemaybeusedbyone' scookf orpr epari
ngt hemeal sinone'shome,suchper son
toolforext orti
on,whatwi ththet erri
fyingriskofbei ngsent encedt oimpri
sonmentof willbeliabl
ef orpunishmentwi t
hsuchasever epenal t
yasi mprisonmentf rom fivet o
fi
vet otenyear sf
orar ustedki t
chenkni f
eorapai rofscissors,whi chonl
yGodknows tenyear sundert hedecr ee.Suchper soncannotcl aimt hatsaidkni feisgoingt obe
wher eitcamef r
om.Wher easbef oremar tiallaw anext orti
on-mindedpeaceof f
icer usedbyhi mt oearnal ivelihoodbecausehei ntendedi tmerelyforusebyhi scooki n
hadt ohaveast ockoft hecheapestpal ti
k,andevent hatcoul donlyconveyt he prepar i
nghismeal s.
coercivemessageofoneyeari nj ail
,nowanyt hingthathast hesembl anceofashar p
edgeorpoi ntedobject,availableeveni nt rashcans,mayal readyservethesame This possibil
i
tycannotbe di
scount ed i
fPr esi
denti
alDecr ee No.9 wer
et o be
purpose, andyetf i
vetot entimesmor eincri
mi nati
ngt hantheinf amouspalt
ik. i
nterpretedandappli
edinthemannert hatthattheprosecuti
onwant si
ttobedone.
Thegood i nt
ent
ionsofthePr esidentin pr
omul gat
ing t
hisdecreemayt husbe
Forsure,P.
D.No.9wasconcei vedwiththebestofintent
ionsandwi selyappli
ed,i
ts perver
tedbysomeunscr upul
ousl awenforcementof f
icer
s.Itmaybeusedasat ool
necessi
tycanneverbeassai
l
ed.Buti tseemsitisback-f
ir
ing,becauseitistoohotin ofoppr essi
onandtyr
annyorofextorti
on.
thehandsofpol
icemenwhoar eincl
i
nedt obacksl
idi
ng.
xxxxxxxxx
ThecheckvalvesagainstabuseofP.D.No.9aret
obef oundintheheartoftheFiscal
andt heconscienceoft heCour
t,andhencethi
sresol
ution,l
etal
onet echni
callegal I
ti stherefor
et heconsideredandhumbl eview ofthisCourtthattheactwhichthe
basis,i
sprompt edbyt hedesi
reofthisCour
ttoapplysaidcheckval
ves.(pp.55-57, Presi
denti nt
endedt omakeunl awfulandpunishablebyPr esi
denti
alDecreeNo.9,
rol
loofL-42050-66) parti
cularl
ybyparagraph3t her
eof,i
sonet hat 
abet
s or 
isi
ntendedtoabetsubversi
on,
rebel
li
on,insurr
ecti
on,lawlessvi
olence,cr
iminal
it
y,chaosandpublicdisor
der.(
pp.28
2.JudgeMacer
eni
ntur
ngavehi
sgr
oundsf
ordi
smi
ssi
ngt
hechar
gesasf
oll
ows: -30,r
oll
oofL- 46229-
32)

xxxxxxxxx 3.JudgePol
ooftheCour
tofFi
rstI
nstanceofSamarexpoundedhi
sor
derdi
smi
ssi
ng
theInf
ormat
ionf
il
edbef
orehi
m,thus:
Asear
li
ernotedthe"desi
redresul
t"soughttobeattai
nedbyProcl
amati
onNo.1081
i
sthemaintenanceoflaw andorderthroughoutt
hePhili
ppi
nesandthepr
eventi
on .
..Webel
i
evet
hatt
oconst
it
uteanof
fenseundert
heaf
orci
tedPr
esi
dent
ialdecr
ee,
the
sameshoul dbeort hereshoul dbeanal l
egati
ont hataf elonywascommi ttedi n publ
icdi
sor
derment
ionedint
heaforesai
dProcl
amati
onNo.1081arecommi
tt
edand
connectionori nf urtheranceofsubver si
on,rebell
ion,i nsur rection,l
awlessviolence abet
tedbyt
heuseoffi
rear
ms,expl
osivesandot
herdeadl
yweapons;
andpubl icdisorder .Precisel
yPr oclamat i
onNo.1081decl ar
ingast ateofmar ti
all aw
throughoutt hecount rywasi ssued becauseofwant ondest ructi
ont oli
vesand NOW,THEREFORE,I ,FERDINANDE.MARCOS,Commander -
in-Chiefofallt
heArmed
properti
es wi despr ead l awlessness and anar chy.And i n or dert orestoret he Forcesoft hePhil
ippi
nes,in ol
derto att
ainthedesi
red resultoft heafor
esaid
tranquil
i
tyandst abilit
yoft hecount r
yandt osecuret hepeopl ef r
om viol
enceant iloss Proclamat
ionNo.1081andGener alOr
dersNos.6and7,doher ebyorderanddecree
ofl i
vesint hequi ckestpossi blemannerandt i
me,car r
yi ngf irearms,expl
osivesand that:
deadlyweaponswi thoutaper mi tunlessthesamewoul df allundert heexceptioni s
prohibi
ted.Thisconcl usionbecomesmor ecompellingwhenweconsi derthepenal t
y
i
mposabl e,whichi sf r
om f i
veyear stotenyears.Ast rictenf orcementoft hepr ovision 1.Anyviol
ati
onoftheaforesai
dGener
alOr
der
sNos.6and7i
sunl
awf
ulandt
he
oft hesaidlawwoul dmeant hei mposi t
ionoftheDraconi anpenal tyupontheaccused. vi
olat
orshal
l,
uponconvi
cti
onsuffer
:

xxxxxxxxx (a)Themandat orypenaltyofdeat hbyaf i

ringsquadorel ectrocuti
onasaMi li
tary,
Court/Tr
ibunal/
Commi ssionmaydi rect
,itt hefirearmi nvolvedi ntheviolat
ioni s
unli
censedandi sattendedbyassaul tupon,orr esistancetoper sonsinauthorit
yor
I
tispublicknowledget
hatinruralareas,evenbef
oreandduringmar t
iallaw,asa thei
ragent sintheper formanceoft heiroffi
cialfunctionsresulti
ngi ndeathtosai d
mat t
erofst
atussymbol,car
ryi
ngdeadl yweaponsisver
ycommon,notnecessar i
ly personsi nauthorityort heiragent;ori fsuchunl i
censedf i
rearmi susedint he
forcommitt
ingacr i
menorastheirfarmimplementbutf
orself
-preser
vati
onorself- commi ssionofcr i
mesagai nstper
sons,propertyorchast i
tycausi ngthedeathoft he
defensei
fnecessit
ywouldar
isespecial
lyingoi
ngtoandfrom t
heirfar
m.( pp.18-
19, vict
im usedinvi olat
ionofanyot herGener alOrder sand/orLet tersofInst
ructi
ons
rol
loofL-
46997) promulgatedundersai dPr oclamat
ionNo.1081:

Inmostifnotallofthecases,t
heorder
sofdi smissalwer
egivenbeforearraignment (b)Thepenal
tyofimprisonmentr
angingfrom twentyyear
stolif
ei mpr
isonmentasa
oftheaccused.Inthecrimi
nalcasebef
oret heCourtof(Fi
rstI
nstanceofSamart he Mili
tar
yCourt/
Tri
bunal/commissi
onmaydi rect
,whent hevi
olat
ionisnotatt
endedby
accusedwasar rai
gnedbutatthesamet i
memovedt oquashtheInfor
mat ion.I
nall anyoftheci
rcumstancesenumeratedundertheprecedi
ngparagraph;
thecaseswher et heaccusedwer eunderar r
est,thethreeJudgesor der edthei
r
i
mmedi at
ereleaseunlesshel
donothercharges.
(c)Thepenaltyprovidedf
ori ntheprecedingparagr
aphsshallbei
mposedupont he
owner,presi
dent,manager,member soft heboar dofdir
ect
orsorotherresponsi
ble
C.—Thel
awunderwhi
cht
heI
nfor
mat
ionsi
nquest
ionwer
efi
l
edbyt
hePeopl
e. offi
cersofanypubl i
corprivatefi
rms,companies,corpor
ati
onsorenti
ti
eswhoshal l
will
ful
l
yorknowi nglyall
ow anyoft hef ir
ear
msowned bysuch f i
rm,company,
Asseenf rom t
heInf
ormat
ionsquotedabove,theaccusedarechar
gedwithi
ll
egal corporat
ionorentit
yconcernedt obeusedi nvi
olati
onofsaidGener
alOrdersNos.6
possessi
onofdeadl
yweaponinvi
olati
onofPresi
dent
ialDecr
eeNo.9,Par
agr
aph3. and7.

Wequot
einf
ullPr
esi
dent
ialDecr
eeNo.9,
towi
t: 2.Itisunlawf ult
opossesdeadl yweapons,i ncl
udinghandgr enades,ri
flegr enades
andot herexplosi
ves,includi ng,butnotlimit
edt o,"pil
lboxbombs, ""molotovcockt ai
l
PRESI
DENTI
ALDECREENO.9 bombs, ""
fi
rebombs, "orot herincendiarydevi
ceconsi sti
ngofanychemi cal,chemi cal
compound,ordet onatingagent scontai
ningcombust i
bleunit
sorot heringredi entsin
suchpr oporti
on,quant i
ty,packi ng,orbot tl
i
ngt hatignit
esbyf ir
e,byf ri
ction,by
DECLARINGVI
OLATIONSOFGENERALORDERSNO.6andNO.7DATEDSEPTEMBER concussion,byper cussion,orbydet onat i
onofal lorpartofthecompoundormi xture
22,1972,AND SEPTEMBER 23,1972,RESPECTI
VELY,TO BE UNLAWFUL AND whichmaycausesuchasuddengener ati
onofhi ghlyheatedgasest hatther esultant
PROVIDI
NGPENALTIESTHEREFORE. gaseouspr essuresar ecapabl eofpr oducingdest r
ucti
veef fect
soncont inguous
object
sorofcausi ngi njuryordeat hofaper son;andanyper sonconvi ct
edt hereof
WHEREAS,pursuantt
o Procl
amati
on No.1081 dated Sept
ember21,1972,t
he shallbepuni shedbyi mpr isonmentr angingf r
om t entof i
fteenyearsasaMi l
i
tary
Phi
l
ippi
neshasbeenpl
acedunderast
ateofmart
iall
aw; Court/Tri
bunal/Commi ssionmaydi r
ect.

WHEREAS,byvi rtueofsai
dPr ocl
amat
ionNo.1081,GeneralOrderNo.6dat ed 3.Itisunlawfultocar ryoutsideofr esidenceanybl aded,pointedorbluntweapon
September22,1972andGener
alOrderNo.7dat
edSeptember23,1972,havebeen suchas"fanknife,""spear,
""dagger,
""bolo,""
bal
isong,""barong,
""kr
is,
"orclub,except
promulgat
edbyme; wheresuchar t
iclesar ebeingusedasnecessar yt oolsori mplementst oear na
l
ivel
ihoodandwhi l
ebei ngusedi nconnect i
ontherewith;andanyper sonfoundgui l
ty
WHEREAS,subver
sion,r
ebel
l
ion,i
nsur
rect
ion,l
awl
essvi
olence,cr
imi
nal
i
ty,chaosand ther
eofshallsufferthepenal t
yofi mprisonmentr angingfrom fi
vet otenyearsasa
Mi
l
itar
yCour
t/Tr
ibunal
/Commi
ssi
onmaydi
rect
. Tocomplywi t
ht hesef undamentalrequirement softheConst it
uti
onandt heRuleson
Cri
minalProcedure,itisimperati
vef orthespeci fi
cstatuteviol
atedtobedesi gnated
4.Whent hevi ol
ationpenal
izedintheprecedi
ngparagr
aphs2and3i scommi t
ted orment i
oned 4 int hechar ge.I nf act
,anot hercompel l
i
ng reasonexi st
swhya
duri
ngthecommi ssi
onoforf orthepurposeofcommi tt
ing,anyothercri
me,the speci
fi
cati
onoft hest atut
eviol
atedisessent ialinthesecases.Asst at
edi ntheorder
penal
tyshallbeimposedupont heoff
enderini
tsmaximum extent
,inaddi
ti
ontothe ofrespondentJudgeMacer ent hecar ryi
ngofso- call
ed" deadlyweapons"i st he
penal
typrovidedforthepart
icul
aroff
ensescommit
tedorint
endedtobecommi tt
ed. subj
ectofanot herpenalstatut
eandaMani lacityordinance.Thus,Secti
on26ofAct
No.1780provides:
Doneint
heCityofManil
a,t
his2nddayofOct
oberi
ntheyearofOurLor
d,ni
net
een
hundr
edandsevent
y-t
wo. Secti
on26.I tshouldbeunlawfulforanypersont ocar
ryconceal
edabouthisper son
anybowi eknife,di
rkdagger,kr
is,orot
herdeadlyweapon:..
.Anypersonviol
atingthe
provi
sionsoft hissect
ionshall
,uponconvicti
oni nacourtofcompetentjur
isdicti
on,
(
SGD)FERDI
NANDE.MARCOS bepuni shedbyaf i
nenotexceedi ngfi
vehundr edpesos,orbyimprisonmentf ora
peri
od notexceedi ng six months,orbot h such fi
ne and i
mpri
sonment ,int he
Pr
esi
dent di
scretionofthecourt.

Republ
i
coft
hePhi
l
ippi
nes OrdinanceNo.3820oft heCi t
yofMani laasamendedbyOr dinanceNo.3928whi ch
tookef f
ectonDecember4,1957,i nturnpenal i
zeswi t
haf ineofnotmor ethan
D.— 
Thear
gument
soft
hePeopl
e — P200. 00ori mprisonmentf ornotmor et hanonemont hs,orbot h,atthediscret
ionof
thecour t,anyonewhoshal lcarr
yconceal edi nhispersoni nanymannert hatwould
disguiseitsdeadl ycharacteranyki ndoff irearm,bowieknife,orotherdeadlyweapon
IntheCommentf il
edinthesecasesbyt heSol i
citorGener alwhoasst atedearl
ier ...i
nanypubl icplace.
 Consequent ly,i
tisnecessar ythatthepar t
icul
arlawvi ol
atedbe
j
oinst heCi t
yFiscalofManil
aandt heProvi
nci alFiscalofSamari nseeki
ngthe specified as there exists a subst ant
ialdi ffer
ence between t he statut
e and cit
y
sett
ingasideofthequesti
onedordersofdismissal,themai nar gumentadvancedon ordinanceont heonehandandP. D.9( 3)ont heotherregardingthecircumstancesof
theissuenowunderconsiderat
ionisthataper usalofpar agraph3ofP. D.9'shows thecommi ssionoft hecrimeandt hepenal tyimposedf ortheof f
ense.
thatthepr ohi
bit
edactsneednotber elat
edt osubver siveact ivi
ti
es;t
hattheact
 
1
proscri
bedisessenti
all
ya 
malum pr
ohibi
tum penal i
zedforreasonsofpubl i
cpoli
cy.
Wedo notagr eewi th pet i
ti
onert hatt heabove- ment i
oned statuteand t hecity
5
ordinancear edeemedr epealedbyP. D.9( 3).
   
P.D.9( 3)doesnotcont ainany
TheCi t
yFi scalofManilai nhi sbriefaddsf urt
herthati nst atutor
yof fensest he 6
repealingclauseorpr ovision,andrepealbyi mpli
cati
oni snotfavored.  
Thispr i
nci
ple
i
ntent i
onoft heaccusedwhocommi tstheacti si mmateri
al;t hatitisenoughi fthe
holdst ruewithgr eat
erf orcewi t
hregar dst openalstatuteswhichasar ul
ear etobe
prohibit
edacti svol
untari
l
yper pet
uated;thatP.D.9pr ovi
desandcondemnsnotonl y 7
thecar ryingofsai dweaponi nconnect i
onwi t
ht hecommi ssionoft hecr imeof const r
uedst rict
lyagainstt hest ateandl iber
all
yi nfavoroft heaccused.   
Inf act
,
subversionort hel
i
ke,butal sothatofcr i
minali
tyingener al,thatis,t oer adi
cate Arti
cle7oft heNew Ci vilCodepr ovidest hatlawsar erepealedonl ybysubsequent
l
awl essvi olencewhichchar acteri
zedpre-mar t
iallawdays.I tisal soar guedt hatthe onesandt heirvi
olati
onornon-obser vanceshal lnotbeexcusedbydi suse,orcustom
realnatur eoft hecr
iminalchar geisdeterminednotf rom thecapt ionorpr eambleof orpr acti
cetot hecontrary.
thei nf
or mat i
onnorf r
om t hespeci fi
cati
onoft heprovisi
onofl aw allegedt ohave
beenvi olatedbutbytheact ualrecit
aloffactsinthecompl aintori nformat i
on. 
2 Thuswear efacedwi ththesituati
onwhereapar ti
cul
aractmaybemadet ofal
l,atthe
discreti
onofapol i
ceof f
icerorapr osecutingfi
scal
,underthest atut
e,ort heci ty
ordinance,ort hepr esidenti
aldecree.Thatbeingthecase,ther i
ghtbecomesmor e
E.—OurRul
i
ngont
hemat
ter—
compel l
ingforanaccusedt obeconf r
ontedwiththefact
sconst i
tut
ingtheessent ial
element soft heoffensechar gedagainsthim,ifheisnottobecomeaneasypawnof
1.Itis a const
it
uti
onalri
ghtofanyperson who stands char
ged i
n a cr
imi
nal oppr essionandhar assment ,orofnegl i
gentormi sgui
dedof f
ici
alaction— af ear
 
3
pr
osecuti
ontobei nf
ormedoft
henat
ureandcauseoftheaccusati
onagai
nsthi
m. under standablyshar edbyr espondentJudgeswhobyt henatureoft hei
rjudicial
funct i
onsar edail
yexposedt osuchdanger s.
Pursuantt otheabove,Section5,Rule110oft heRulesofCour t,expr
esslyrequi
res
thatf oracompl ai
ntori nfor
mat i
ontobesuf f
ici
enti tmust ,interali
ast at
et he 2.Inal
ltheInf
ormat
ionsf
il
edbypeti
ti
onertheaccusedarechargedinthecapti
onas
designati
onoft heoffensebythestatut
e,andtheactsoromi ssionscompl ai
nedofas wellasinthebodyoftheInf
ormati
onwi t
haviolat
ionofpar agr
aph3,P.D.9. 
What
constitut
ingtheof f
ense.Thisisessentialt
oavoidsur pri
seont heaccusedandt o thenar
et heel
ement
softheoff
ensetreat
edint
hepr esi
dent
ialdecr
eeinquesti
on?
4
affordhimt heopportuni
tytopreparehi
sdefenseaccordingl
y. 
Wehol
dthat
 t
heof
fensecar
ri
est
wo el
ement
s:f
ir
st,t
hecar
ryi
ng out
sideone'
s
resi
denceofanybladed,bl
unt,orpointedweapon,etc.notusedasanecessarytool explanat
orynotemerel
ystat
esorexplai
nsther
easonwhi
chpr
ompt
edt
hei
ssuance
orimplementforalivel
i
hood;and second,thattheactofcar ryi
ngtheweaponwas ofthedecree.(
pp.114-
115,r
oll
oof46997)
eit
heri nfur
ther
anceof ,orto abet,ori n connect
ion wit
h subversi
on,r
ebel
l
ion,
i
nsurrecti
on,
lawl
essviol
ence,
criminali
ty,
chaos,orpubli
cdisorder. Wedi sagreewi t
ht hesecont enti
ons.Becauseoft hepr
oblem ofdet ermini
ngwhat
act
sf al
lwi t
hinthepur vi
ewofP. D.9,i
tbecomesnecessarytoi nqui
reintotheint
ent
Itist hesecondel ementwhi chr emovest heactofcar r
yingadeadl yweapon,i f andspiritoft hedecr eeandt hiscanbef oundamongot hersinthepr eambleor,
concealed,outsi
deofthescopeoft hest atuteorthecit
yordinancementi
onedabove. whereas"clauseswhi chenumer atethefact
soreventswhi
chj usti
fyt
hepr omulgat
ion
In otherwor ds,a simpleactofcar rying anyoft heweaponsdescr i
bed int he oft
hedecr eeandt hest i
ffsancti
onsstatedtherei
n.
president
ialdecreeisnotacr i
minaloffensei nit
sel
f.Whatmakest heactcriminalor
punishableunderthedecr eeis 
themot ivationbehindit.Wit
houtthatmotivat
ion,the A" pr
eamble"ist he 
keyoft hestat
ute,toopent hemi ndsofthemakersast o
actf all
s withi
nt he purview oft he ci t
y or di
nance orsome st at
ute when t he the 
mischi
efswhicharet oberemedied,andobj
ectswhicharetobeaccompli
shed,
cir
cumst ancessowar r
ant. bytheprovi
sionsofthestatut
e."(
WestNor manTimberv.Stat
e,224P.2d635,639,
cit
edinWordsandPhr ases,
"Preambl
e";emphasi
ssuppl
ied)
RespondentJudgescorr
ect
lyrul
edthatt
hiscanbet
heonl
yreasonabl
y,l
ogi
cal
,and
val
idconstr
ucti
ongivent
oP.D.9(
3). Whil
et hepr
eambl eofastat
uteisnotstr
ict
lyapar tthereof
,itmay,whent hestatut
e
i
sinitsel
fambiguousanddif
ficul
tofi
nterpr
etat
ion,ber esor
tedto,butnottocreatea
3.Theposi t
iont akenbypet i
ti
onerthatP.D.9(3)coversoneandal lsit
uationswher ea doubtoruncer
taintywhi
chotherwi
sedoesnotexi st.
"(Jamesv.DuBoi s,16N.J.L.(
1
personcar r
iesout sidehisr esi
denceanyoft heweaponsment i
onedordescr ibedi n Har.
)285,294,
citedinWordsandPhrases,"
Preambl e")
thedecr eeirr
espect iveofmot i
vati
on,int
ent,orpur pose,convertsthesecasesi nto
oneof" statutoryconst r
uction."Thatthereisambi guityi
nthepr esi
dentialdecreei s In 
Aboiti
zShi pping Corporat
ion,etal .v.TheCi tyofCebu,etal .
 t
hisCour thad
manifestf r
om t heconf li
cti
ng viewswhi char i
sef rom i
tsi mplementation.When occasiont ostatet
hat'(L)egi
slat
iveintentmustbeascer t
ainedfrom aconsi deration
ambiguityexists, 
itbecomesaj udi
cialt
ask t
oconst rueandinterpr
etthetruemeani ng ofthest atut
easawhol e,andnotofani solatedpar torapar ti
cularprovi
sional one.
andscopeoft hemeasur e,guidedbyt hebasicprinciplet
hatpenalstatutesaret obe Thisisacar dinalr
uleofst at
utoryconst r
uction.Fort akenintheabst ract
,awor dor
construedandappl i
edl i
berall
yinfavoroftheaccusedandst ri
ctlyagainstthestate. phrasemi ghteasil
yconveyameani ngqui tedifferentfrom theoneact ual
lyintended
andevi dentwhent hewor dorphr asei sconsi deredwi ththosewi thwhi chi tis
4.Int heconst ructi
onori nterpretationofal egisl
ati
vemeasur e— apr esidenti
al associated.Thus,anappar entl
ygener alprovisi
onmayhaveal imitedapplicati
oni f
decreeinthesecases—t hepr i
mar yruleist
osear chforanddet er
minetheintentand readtogetherwithotherprovi
sions.
 9

spi
ritofthel aw. Legi
slati
vei ntenti st hecontr
olli
ngf act
or,f orinthewordsoft his
Courtin 
Hidalgov.Hi dalgo,perMr .Just i
ceCl
audioTeehankee,what everi
swi thi
nthe Second,t
her
esul
toref
fect
soft
hepr
esi
dent
ialdecr
eemustbewi
thi
nit
sreasonor
spi
ritofastat ut
ei swithinthest atute,andthishast obesoi fstri
ctadher
encet othe i
ntent.
8
l
etterwouldresultinabsur di
ty,injusti
ceandcont r
adicti
ons.
 
I
nt heparagraphi
mmedi
atel
yfol
l
owi
ngt
hel
ast"
Wher
eas"cl
ause,t
hepr
esi
dent
ial
Ther
ear
ecer
tai
nai
dsavai
l
abl
etoUst
oascer
tai
nthei
ntentorr
easonf
orP.
D.9(
3). decreest
ates:

Fi
rst,t hepresenceofevent swhi chl edt oorpr ecipit
atedt heenact mentofP. D.9. NOW,THEREFORE,I,FERDI NANDE.MARCOS,Commander -
in-ChiefofantheArmed
Theseevent sareclearlyspell
edouti nt he" Wher eas"cl ausesoft hepresidential Forcesoft hePhil
ippi
nes,in or
derto att
ainthedesi
red resultoft heafor
esaid
decree, t
hus:(1)thestateofmartiallawi nt hecount rypursuanttoPr oclamati
on1081 Proclamat
ionNo.1081andGener alOr
dersNos.6and7,doher ebyorderanddecree
datedSept ember21,1972;( 2)thedesi r
edr esul tofPr oclamation1081aswel las that:
Gener alOrdersNos.6and7whi char epar t
icularlyment ionedinP. D.9;and( 3)the
al
leged f actthatsubver si
on,rebel l
ion,i nsur r
ect i
on,l awless viol
ence,cr i
mi nali
ty,
chaos,ai d publi
cdi sorderment ioned in Pr oclamat i
on 1081 ar e commi t
ted and xxxxxxxxx
abettedbyt heuseoff i
rearmsandexpl osivesandot herdeadl yweapons.
From theabovei tisclearthattheactspenal i
zedinP.D.9ar ethoserel
atedto
The Solici
torGener alhowevercont ends that 
a preamble ofa st atut
e usuall
y the 
desir
edr esul
tofPr oclamati
on1081 andGener alOrdersNos.6and7.General
i
ntroducedbyt hewor d"whereas",
 i
snotanessent ialpartofanact  andcannot OrdersNos.6and7r efertofir
earmsandt herefor
ehavenor el
evancetoP.
D.9(3)
enl
argeorconf erpowers,orcurei nherentdefect
sint hestat
ute(p.120,roll
oofL- whichreferstobluntorbladedweapons.WithrespecttoProcl
amati
on1081someof
42050-66);thatthe 
expl
anatorynot eorenactingclauseoft hedecree,ifitindeed theunderlyi
ngreasonsforitsi
ssuancearequotedhereunder:
l
imitstheviolat
ionofthedecree,
 cannotprevai
loverthetextit
sel
f 
inasmuchassuch
WHEREAS,t hesel awl
esselementshavingtakenupar msagai nstourdulyconst i
tuted Republi
ctherewasnointentt
owor kahar dshi
poranoppressi
ver
esult
,apossi
ble
governmentandagai nstourpeople,andhavi ngcommi t
tedandar estil
lcommi tt
ing abuseofauthor
it
yoractofoppr essi
on,ar
mi ngoneper
sonwithaweapontoi
mpose
actsofarmedi nsurr
ecti
onandr ebell
ionconsi st
ingofar medr ai
ds,forays,sorti
es, hardshi
ponanother
,andsoon. 
10

ambushes,want onact sofmurders,spoi

lage,plunder,l
ooti
ng,ar sons,destructi
onof
publi
candpr ivatebuildi
ngs,andat t
acksagai nstinnocentanddef enselesscivil
ian Att
hisi
nst
anceWequot
efr
om t
heor
derofJudgePur
isi
mat
hef
oll
owi
ng:
l
ivesandpr operty,al
lofwhichactivi
ti
eshaveser i
ouslyendanger edandcont i
nuet o
endangerpublicorderandsafet
yandt hesecur i
tyofthenation,..
.
Andwhi l
et hereisnopr oofofi tbef oret heCour t,itisnotdi ff
icul
ttobeli
evet he
mur mur ingsofdet ai
nedper sonsbr oughtt oCour tuponachar geofpossessionof
xxxxxxxxx bladedweaponsunderP. D.No.9,t hatmor et haneverbef or
e,pol i
cemen-ofcour se
notal lcanbesohear t
less—nowhavei ntheirhandsP. D.No.9asamostconveni ent
WHEREAS,i ti sevi dentt hatt her eist hroughoutt hel andast ateofanar chyand toolforext orti
on,whatwi ththet erri
fyingriskofbei ngsent encedt oimpri
sonmentof
l
awlessness,chaosanddi sorder,turmoi landdest r
uctionofamagni t
udeequi valent fivetot enyear sf
orar ustedki t
chenkni f
eorapai rofscissors,whi chonl
yGodknows
toanact ualwarbet weent hef orcesofourdul yconstit
ut edgover nmentandt heNew wher ei tcamef r
om.Wher easbef oremar tiallaw anext orti
on-mindedpeaceof f
icer
People'sAr myandt heirsat ell
iteor gani zati
onsbecauseoft heunmi t
igatedf orays, hadt ohaveast ockoft hecheapestpal ti
k,andevent hatcoul donlyconveyt he
rai
ds, ambuscades, assaul ts,
violence, mur der s,assassinations,act soft error
,decei ts, coercivemessageofoneyeari nj ail
,nowanyt hingthathast hesembl anceofashar p
coercions,t hreats,i nti
mi dati
ons,t reacher y,machi nations,ar sons,pl under s and edgeorpoi ntedobject,availableeveni nt rashcans,mayal readyservethesame
depredationscommi ttedandbei ngcommi ttedbyt heaf oresaidl awlessel ement s purpose, andyetf i
vetot entimesmor eincriminati
ngt hanthei nfamouspalti
k.(
pp.72
whohavepl edgedt ot hewhol enat i
ont hattheywi l
lnotst opt heirdast ardlyeffortand -73,roll
oL- 42050- 66)
schemeunt i
landunl esstheyhavef ullyat t
ainedt heirprimar yandul timat epurposeof
for
ciblyseizingpol i
ticalandst atepoweri nt hiscount rybyover throwingourpr esent Andasr espondentJudgeMacer enpoi nt
sout,t
hepeopl e'
sint
erpretati
onofP.D.9(3)
dulyconst i
tutedgover nment ,...(SeeBookI ,VitalDocument sont heDecl arationof resultsinabsur di
tyatt i
mes.Tohi sexampleWemayaddasi tuationwhereal aw-
MartialLawi nt hePhi li
ppinesbyt heSupr emeCour toft hePhi li
ppines, pp.13-39) abidingci t
izen,alawyerbypr of
ession,aft
ergardeni
ngi nhishouser ememberst o
returnthebol ousedbyhi mt ohisneighborwholi
vesabout30met ersorsoawayand
Itfol
l
owst hatiti
sonlythatactofcarr
yingabluntorbl
adedweaponwit
hamotivat
ion whi l
ecr ossingthest r
eetmeet sapol i
ceman.Thel at
teruponseei ngt hebolobeing
connect
edwi t
horr el
atedtot heafore-quot
eddesir
edresul
tofProcl
amat
ion1081 carri
edbyt hatciti
zenplaceshi m underarr
estandbookshi mf oravi olat
ionofP.D.
thati
swithintheint
entofP.D.9(3),
andnot hi
ngelse. 9(3).Coul dt hepresident
ialdecreehavebeenconcei vedtopr oducesuchabsur d,
unreasonabl e,andinsensi
bleresul
ts?
Stat
utesar etobeconstruedi ntheli
ghtof purposestobeachi eved 
and t
heevil
s
soughttober emedi
ed.
 (
U.S.v.AmericanTrackingAssociat
ion,310U.S.534,ci
tedi
n 6.Penalst
atut
esar
etobeconst
ruedst
ri
ctl
yagai
nstt
hest
ateandl
i
ber
all
yinf
avorof
LVNPi ct
uresv.Phi
li
ppi
neMusi ci
ansGuil
d,110Phi l
.725,731;emphasissuppli
ed) anaccused.

Whenconst rui
ngastat
ut e,
 
thereasonforit
senactmentshouldbekeptinmi nd,and Amer icanj uri
sprudenceset
sdownt hereasonf orthisrul
et obe" thetender
nessof
thestatut
eshouldbeconst ruedwithref
erencet
oi t
sintendedscopeandpur pose. thel aw oft her i
ghtsofindi
vidual
s;theobj ecti sto establi
shacer t
ainrul
eby
(St
atutoryConstr
uct
ionbyE. T.Crawfor
d,pp.604-605,cit
edi nCommi ssi
onerof confor mityt o which manki
nd woul d be safe,and t he discr
etion ofthe cour
t
Int
ernalRevenuev.Fi
li
pinasCompani adeSeguros,107Phil.1055,1060;emphasi s l
imited." 11
 
Thepur poseisnott
oenabl eaguilt
ypersont oescapepuni shmentthr
ough
suppli
ed) atechni cal i
tybut t
oprovi
deaprecisedefini
ti
onoff orbi
ddenact  
12
s.

5.I nthe constr

ucti
on ofP.D.9(
3)i tbecomes relevantt oinqui
reint
ot he Ourowndeci
sionshavesetdownt
hesamegui
del
i
nesi
nthi
smanner
,vi
z:
consequencesofthemeasur
eifast
rictadher
encet
ot hel et
teroft
heparagr
aphis
fol
lowed.
Crimi
nalstat
utesar
etobeconstruedst r
ict
ly.Noper sonshouldbebr oughtwit
hin
thei
rter
mswhoi snotcl
ear
lywi
thi
nt hem,norshoul danyactbepronouncedcrimi
nal
Iti
sasalutarypr i
nci
pleinstatutoryconstruct
ionthatther
eexi st
saval i
dpr esumpti
on whichisnotmadecl
earl
ysobyt
hest atut
e.(U.S.v.AbadSantos,
36Phil.243,246)
thatundesi
rableconsequenceswer eneveri nt
endedbyal egi
slati
vemeasur e,and
thataconstruct i
onofwhi cht hest atut
ei sfai
rlysusceptibl
eisf avored,whichwill
avoid al
lobj ecti
onable,mi schievous,indefensibl
e,wr ongful
,evi l
,and i nj
uri
ous Ther ulethatpenalstatutesaregi
venast r
ictconst
ruct
ionisnottheonlyfact
or
consequences. 
9
-a contr
olli
ngt heint
erpret
ationofsuchlaws,inst
ead,therul
emer el
yservesasan
addi
tional,si
nglefact
ort obeconsider
edasanai dindetermi
ningthemeani
ngof
penallaws.(Peopl
ev.Manant an,
5SCRA684,692)
I
tist
obepr
esumedt
hatwhenP.
D.9waspr
omul
gat
edbyt
hePr
esi
dentoft
he
F.TheI
nfor
mat
ionsf
il
edbypet
it
ionerar
efat
all
ydef
ect
ive. I
nformat i
ontoincludet
hesecondelementoftheof fenseasdefi
nedinthedi sputed
orders ofrespondentJudges.We have ruled thati fthe f
acts al
l
eged i nt he
Thet wo el ementsoft heoffensecover
ed byP. D.9(3)mustbeal l
eged inthe I
nformat i
ondonotconstit
uteapuni
shabl
eoffense,thecaseshouldnotbedismi ssed
 
16
Informat i
oni norderthatthelat
termayconsti
tut
easuf fi
cient
lyval
i
dchar ged.The buttheprosecuti
onshouldbegi
venanopport
unitytoamendt heInfor
mation.
suffi
ciency of an I nformat
ion is det
ermined solel
y by t he facts all
eged
 13
therein.  
Wheret hefactsareincompl
eteanddonotconveyt heelementsoft he Second,i
fthef
actssojust
ifi
ed,t
hePeoplecouldhavefi
ledacompl aintei
therunder
cri
me, t
hequashi ngoftheaccusati
oni
sinorder
. Secti
on26ofActNo.1780,quot edearli
er,orManil
aCi t
yOr di
nanceNo.3820,as
amendedbyOrdinanceNo.3928,especi
all
ysincei
nmosti fnotallofthecases,the
Secti
on2(a)
,Rul
e117oft
heRulesofCour
tprovi
desthatt
hedefendantmaymovet
o di
smissalwasmadepriort
oarrai
gnmentoftheaccusedandonamot i
ont oquash.
quashthecomplai
ntori
nfor
mationwhenthefactschargeddonotconsti
tut
ean
off
ense. Sect
ion8.Rul
e117st
atest
hat
:

InU.S.U.Gacutan,1914,i
twasheldt hatwher
eanaccusedischargedwit
hknowingl
y Anor dersust
aini
ngt hemoti
ontoquashisnotabart
oanotherpr
osecut
ionf
orthe
renderi
nganunj ustjudgmentunderAr t
icl
e204oftheRevi
sedPenalCode,f
ail
ureto sameof fenseunlessthemotionwasbasedonthegr
oundsspeci
fiedi
nsecti
on2,
all
egei ntheInfor
mat i
onthatthejudgmentwasrender
edknowi ngitt
obeunjust,i
s subsecti
ons(f)and(h)oft
hisrul
e.
14
fatal
. 
Under the foregoing, t
he f i
l
ing of another compl
aint or I nformat i
on i s
In 
Peoplev.Yadao,1954,thisCourtthrought
henJusti
ceCesarBengzonwhol at
er bar
red 
only 
whent hecri
minalact
ionorl
i
abi
li
tyhadbeenext
inguished( Secti
on2[ f
])or
becameChiefJusti
ceoftheCour taffi
rmedanorderoft
het r
ialcour
twhichquashed whenthemot i
ontoquashwasgr antedf
orr
easonsofdoubl
ej eopardy.(i
bid.
,[h]
)
anI nf
ormati
onwher ei
nt hef act
sr eci
teddidnotconsti
tuteapubl i
cof f
enseas
15
defi
nedinSecti
on1,RepublicAct145.  Ast owhet
herornotapleaofdoublej
eopar
dymaybesuccessful
l
yi nvokedbyt
he
accusedi
nallt
hesecasesshouldnewcompl
aint
sbef
il
edagainstthem,isamatter
G.Thefi
li
ngofthesePetit
ionswasunnecessar
ybecauset
hePeopl
ecoul
dhave Weneednotresol
vefort
hepresent
.
avai
l
edi
tsel
fofot
heravai
l
ableremedi
esbel
ow.
H.—Weconcl udewithhighexpectat
ionsthatpoliceauthorit
iesandt heprosecuti
ng
Per
ti
nentpr
ovi
sionsoft
heRul
esofCour
tfol
l
ow: arm ofthegover nmenttruetotheoathofoffi
cet heyhavet akenwi l
lexer
ciseutmost
ci
rcumspect ionandgoodf ai
thineval
uati
ngthepar ti
cularci
rcumst ancesofacaseso
astor eachaf ai
randjustconclusi
onifasit
uationfall
swi t
hinthepur vi
ewofP. D.9(
3)
Rule117,Sect i
on7.Ef fectofsust ai
ningt hemot iont oquash.— Ifthemot i
ont o andt hepr osecuti
onundersai ddecreeiswar r
antedandj ust
if
ied.Thisobl i
gati
on
quashissustainedthecourtmayor derthatanot herinfor
mat i
onbefil
ed.Ifsuchorder becomesasacr eddutyinthefaceoftheseverepenaltyimposedf ortheoffense.
i
smadet hedef endant
,ifincustody,shallremai nsounl essheshallbeadmi tt
edt o
bail
.Ifsuchorderisnotmadeori fhavi
ngbeenmadeanot herinf
ormati
oni snotfil
ed
withunti
metobespeci fi
edi ntheor der
,orwi thi
nsuchf urt
hertimeasthecour tmay Onthi
spoi nt
,WecommendtheChiefStateProsecut
orRodol
foA.Nocononhislet
ter
all
ow f orgood cause shown,t he def endant,ifin custody,shallbe discharged t
ot heCi t
yFiscalofMani
l
aonOct ober15,1975,wr i
tt
enfortheSecret
ary,now
theref
rom,unlessheisincustodyonsomeot herchar ge. Mini
sterofJust
ice,
wher
ehest
atedthef ol
lowi
ng:

Rule110,Section13.Amendment .—Theinfor
mationorcompl aintmaybeamended, Inanycase,pleasestudywelleachandeverycaseoft hi
snaturesothatpersons
i
nsubst anceorform,withoutl
eaveofcour
t,atanyti
mebeforet hedef endantpleads; accusedofcarr
yingbl
adedweapons,speci
all
ythosewhosepurposei
snottosubvert
andt hereaf
terandduringt hetr
ialastoallmatter
soff orm,byl eaveandatt he thedulyconst
it
utedauthori
ti
es,maynotbeundulyindi
ctedfort
heseri
ousoffenses
 
17
discr
etionofthecourt
,whent hesamecanbedonewi t
houtprejudicetot heri
ghtsof fal
li
ngunderP.D.No.9.
thedefendant.
Yes,whil
eitisnotwit
hinthepowerofcour tsofj usticetoinquireint
ot hewi sdom ofa
xxxxxxxxx l
aw,i tishoweveraj udicialtaskandpr er ogat
ivet odeterminei fof f
ici
alactioni s
wit
hinthespiri
tandletteroft helawandi fbasi cf undament alri
ghtsofani ndi
vidual
Twocoursesofacti
onwer
eopent
oPet
it
ionerupont
hequashi
ngoft
heI
nfor
mat
ions guarant
eedbyt heConst i
tuti
onar enotviolatedint hepr ocessofi t
si mplementation.
i
nthesecases,
 
viz: Wehavet of acethef actt hatiti sanunwi seandunj ustappl i
cationofal aw,
necessaryandjust
ifi
edunderpr evail
ingcircumst ances,whi chrenderst hemeasur e
aninstr
umentofoppr essionandevi landleadst heci ti
zenrytoloset heirfait
hintheir
Fi
rst
,ift
heevi
denceonhandsowar
rant
ed,t
hePeopl
ecoul
dhavef
il
edanamended government.
WHEREFORE,WeDENYt hese26Pet i
ti
onsforRevi ewandWeAFFI RM theOr der
sof xxx     xxx     xxx
respondentJudges di smi ssi
ng orquashi ng the I nfor
mat
ion concerned,
 
subject
however t
oOurobser vationsmadei nthepr ecedingpages23t o25oft hisDecision Thesef actsarenotdi spute,butt hedef endantpr esentedev idencet ot heef fectthat
regardi
ng the ri
ghtoft he Stat
e orPet i
ti
onerher eint of
il
e ei
theran amended thecocher o,whowasdr ivi
nghi sdel iverywagonatt het i
met heacci dentoccur red,
Infor
mationunderPresident i
alDecr
eeNo.9,par agraph3,oranewoneunderot her wasagoodser vantandwasconsi deredasaf eandr eli
ablecocher o;thatt hedel i
very
exist
ingstatut
eorcit
yor dinanceasthefactsmaywar rant
. wagonhadsentt odeliversomef orageatPacoLi verySt ableonCal leHer ran,andt hat
fort hepur poseofdel i
veryt hereoft hecocher odr i
vingt het eam asdef endant '
s
Wi
thoutcost
s. empl oy eet i
edthedr ivingl i
nesoft hehor sest ot hef rontendoft hedel iverywagon
andt henwentbacki nsideoft hewagonf ort hepur poseofunl oadingt hef oraget obe
SOORDERED. delivered;thatwhi leunl oadingt hef orageandi nt heactofcar ryi
ngsomeofi tout,
anot herv ehicl
edr oveby ,thedr i
verofwhi chcr ackedawhi pandmadesomeot her
noises, whichf r
ightenedt hehor sesat tachedt othedel iverywagonandt heyr anaway ,
andt hedr i
verwast hrownf rom thei nsideoft hewagonoutt hrought her earupont he
groundandwasunabl et ost opthehor ses;t hatthehor sesthenr anupandonwhi ch
streett heycamei ntocol li
sionwi t
ht hecar romat ai nwhi chthepl aintiff,CarmenOng
deMar tinez,wasr i
ding.
V.Cust
oms-Ar
ti
cle11-
12
Thedef
endanthi
msel
fwasnotwi
tht
hev
ehi
cleont
hedayi
nquest
ion.
G.
R.No.L-
5691December27,
1910
Uponthesefactst
hecour
tbelowf oundt hedefendantgui
lt
yofnegl
igenceandgave
j
udgmentagainsthi
mforP442.50,wi t
hinterestt
hereonatther
ateof6percentper
S.D.MARTINEZandhi
swi f
e, CARMENONGDEMARTI
NEZ,
 
plai
nti
ff
s-appel
l
ees,
 
annum f
rom the17t
hdayofOct ober,1908,andforthecost
softheacti
on.Thecase
vs.
i
sbeforeusonanappealf
rom thatjudgment .
WILLI
AM VANBUSKIRK,
 defendant
-appel
l
ant
.

Ther
eisnogenerallawofnegl
igenceinthePhi
li
ppi
neIsl
andsexceptt
hatembodi
ed
Li
onelD.Har
gisforappell
ant.
i
ntheCiv
ilCode.Theprov
isi
onsofthatcodeper
ti
nentt
othi
scaseare—
SanzandOppissoforappel
lee.
Ar
t.1902.Apersonwhobyanactoromi
ssi
oncausesdamagetoanot
herwhent
her
e
 
i
sfaul
tornegl
igenceshal
lbeobl
i
gedtor
epai
rthedamagesodone.

J.
MORELAND,
  :
Art
.1903.Theobligat
ionimposedbyprecedi
ngar
ti
clei
sdemandabl
e,notonlyfor
per
sonalactsandomissi
ons,butal
sof
orthoseoft
heper
sonsf
orwhom theyshould
Thef
act
sfoundbyt
het
ri
alcour
tar
eundi
sput
edbyei
therpar
tyi
nthi
scase.Theyar
e beresponsi
ble.
—
Thef at
her
,andonhisdeat
horincapaci
tyt
hemot
her
,isl
i
abl
efort
hedamages
Thatont he11t hdayofSept ember ,1908, t
hepl aintiff,CarmenOngdeMar t
inez, was causedbythemi
nor
swholi
vewi
ththem.
ri
dinginacar romat aonCal leReal,dist
rictofEr mi ta, ci
tyofMani l
a,P.I.
, alongt heleft-
handsi deoft hest reetasshewasgoi ng,whenadel iverywagonbel ongingt othe
Guar
diansareli
ablef
orthedamagescausedbymi
nor
sori
ncapaci
tat
edper
sonswho
defendantusedf orthepur poseoft ranspor tationoff odderbyt hedef endant ,andt o
ar
eundertheiraut
hor
ityandl
iv
ewitht
hem.
whichwasat tachedapai rofhor ses,cameal ongt hest reetintheopposi tedi recti
on
tothattheinwhi chsai dpl ainti
ffwaspr oceedi ng, andt hatthereupont hedr i
veroft he
sai
dpl ainti
ff'
scar romat a,obser vi
ngt hatt hedel i
v erywagonoft hedef endantwas Ownersofdirect
orsofanest abl
ishmentorenterpri
seareequall
yli
abl
eforthe
comi ngatgr eatspeed,cr owdedcl oset ot hesi dewal kont hel eft-
handsi deoft he damagescausedbytheemployeesintheserv
iceofthebr
anchesinwhi
chthel
att
er
str
eetandst opped, inordert ogi v
edef endant 'sdel i
v erywagonanoppor tunitytopass maybeemployedoronaccountofthei
rdut
ies.
by,butt hatinsteadofpassi ngbyt hedef endant '
swagonandhor sesr ani nt othe
carromata occupi ed bysai d plainti
ffwi th herchi l
d and ov erturned i t,sev erel
y TheStat
eisli
ablei
nthi
ssensewheni tact
sthroughaspeci
alagent,
butnotwhenthe
woundingsai dpl ai
ntiffbymaki ngaser i
ouscutuponherhead,andal soi njuri
ngt he damagesshouldhavebeencausedbytheoff
icialt
owhom proper
lyitper
tai
nedtodo
carromataitselfandt hehar nessupont hehor sewhi chwasdr awingit. theactperf
ormed,inwhichcaset heprovi
sionsoftheprecedingarti
cleshal
lbe
appl
i
cabl
e. I
nthecaseof
 Gr
iggsvs.Fl
eckenst
ein 
(14Mi
nn.
,81)
,thecour
tsai
d:

Finall
y,mast
ersordir
ector
sofart
sandtr
adesareliabl
ef ort
hedamagescausedby Thedegreeofcar erequir
edoft heplaint
if
f,ort hosei
nchar gedofhi shor se,atthe
theirpupi
l
sorapprent
iceswhi
l
etheyar
eundert
heircustody. ti
meoft heinjur
y,ist
hatwhichwoul dbeexer ci sedbyaper sonofor dinarycareand
prudenceunderlikecir
cumstances.Itcannotbesai dthatthefactofl eavi
ngt he
Theli
abi
li
tyref
err
edt
ointhi
sart
icl
eshallceasewhent
hepersonsmenti
onedther
ein horseunhit
chedi sinitsel
fnegligence.Whet heri tisnegli
gencet ol eaveahor se
prov
ethattheyempl
oyedal
lthedil
igenceofagoodfatherofafami
lytoavoidthe unhit
chedmustbedependupont hedisposit
ionoft hehorse;whetherhewasunder
damage. the obser
vati
on and cont r
olof some per son al lthe time,and many ot her
cir
cumstances;andisaquestiontobedet ermi nedbyt hejur
yf r
om thef actsofeach
case.
Passingthequest i
onwhet herornotanempl oyerwhohasf urnishedagent leand
tr
actabl
et eam andat rust
yandcapabl edriv
eri s,underthelastpar agraphofthe
aboveprovisi
ons,li
ableforthenegl
igenceofsuchdr iveri
nhandlingthet eam,weare I
nt hecaseof Bell
esvs.Kel
lner 
(67N.J.L.,255),i
twasheldt hatitwaser r
oronthe
oftheopinionthatthejudgmentmustber eversedupont hegroundt hattheevi
dence partofthetri
alcourtt
orefuset ocharget
hat"itisnotnegl
igencef ort
hedr i
verofa
doesnotdisclosethatthecocherowasnegli
gent . qui
te,gentl
ehorset ol
eavehim unhit
chedandot her
wiseunattendedont hesideofa
publi
chighwayswhi l
ethedr i
verisuponthesidewalkloadi
nggoodsont hewagon.
"
Thesaidcourtclosedi
tsopini
onwi t
hthesewords:
Whilet helaw r elat
ingt onegligenceint hi
sj urisdi
ctionmaypossi blybesomewhat
dif
ferentfrom t hatinAngl o-Saxoncount ri
es,aquest ionwedonotnowdi scuss,the
rul
esunderwhi chthef actofnegligenceisdet erminedar e,nev er
theless,gener al
lythe Therewasev i
dencewhi chcoul dhav efull
yjusti
fi
edt hejuryi
nfindingt hatthehorse
same.Thati st osay ,
whi l
ethel awdesignatingt he person responsibleforanegl i
gent wasqui teandgentle,andthatt hedriverwasupont hesidewalkloadinggoodsont he
actmaynotbe t he same her e as in many j urisdi
ctions,t he law det er
mining wagon, atti
meoft heallegedinjury,
andt hatthehorsehadbeenusedf ory earsint
hat
what is 
a negligent 
acti sthesameher e,gener all
yspeaki ng,asel sewher e.(Supreme waywi thoutacci
dent.Ther efusalofthetri
alcourttochargeasrequest edleftthej
ury
courtofSpai n,4December ,1903;16May ,1893;27June,1894;9Apr i
l
,1896;14 freetof i
ndwasv erdictagainstthedef endant,al
thought hej
urywasconv i
ncedthat
March, 1901; 2Mar ch, 1904;7Febr uary,
1905; 16June, 1905; 23June, 1905; 13Apr i
l
, thesefactswereproven.lawphil.
net
1903; 7Mar ch, 1902;12June, 1900; 2Mar ch,1907; 18Mar ch,1898; 3June, 1901.)
I
nthecaseof
 Sout
hwor
thvs.Ry.Co.
 (
105Mass.
,342)
,itwashel
d:
Itappearsfrom theundi sputedev i
dencethatt hehor seswhi chcausedt hedamage
weregent l
eandt ractable;thatthecocher owasexper iencedandcapabl e;thathehad Thatevidencethataservant
,whom tr
adersempl oyedtodel i
vergoods,uponstopping
dri
venoneoft hehor sessev er
aly earsandt heot herf i
veorsi xmont hs;t
hathehad wit
hhi shorseandwagont odeli
veraparcelatahousef rom fi
ft
ytoahundr edr ods
beeni nthehabit,duringal lthatt i
me,ofleav i
ngt hem i ntheconditi
oni nwhi chthey fr
om ar ail
roadcrossi
ng,lef
tthehorseunfastenedf orfourorf i
veminuteswhi l
ehe
werel ef
tont hedayoft heacci dent;thatt
heyhadnev err unawayupt othatti
meand wasi nthehouse,knowingthatitwasnotafraidofcar s,andhavingusedi tf
orthree
ther
ehadbeen,t herefore,noacci dentduetosuchpr acti
ce;thattoleavethehor ses orfourmont hswithouteverhi
tchi
ngitorknowi ngittost ar
t,isnotconclusi
ve,asa
andassi sti
nunloadi ngt hemer chandiseinthemannerdescr i
bedont hedayoft he matteroflaw,ofawantofduecar eonhispart.
accidentwast hecust om ofal lcocher owhodel i
veredmer chandi
seoft hechar act
er
ofthatwhi chwasbei ngdel iv
er edbyt hecocher ooft hedef endantont hedayi n Thedut y
, aviol
ationofwhi chisclaimedt obenegligenceint herespectinquesti
on,i
s
question,whi
chcust om wassanct ionedbytheirempl oyers. toexerciser easonablecar eandpr udence.Wher ereasonabl ecareisempl oyedin
doinganactnoti t
selfill
egalori nherentl
yli
kelytopr oducedamaget oot her
s,ther
e
I
nourj udgment ,thecocher ooft hedefendantwasnotnegligenti
nl eavi
ngt hehorses willbenoliabil
it
y,althoughdamagei nfactensues.(MilwaukeeRy .Co.vs.
   
Arms,91U.
i
nt he mannerdescr i
bed byt he evi
dence inthi
scase,ei t
herunderSpani sh or S.,489;Par r
ottvs.
   Wells,15Wal l
.,524;Brown vs. 
Kendal l
,6Cushi ng,292;Jackson
Americanjur i
sprudence.( Lynch vs.
 Nurdi
n,1Q.B. ,422;Rumsey  vs. 
Nelson,58Vt .
, Archit
ecturalIr
onWor ks vs.Hurl
but,158N.Y. ,34West er
fi
eld vs.
 Lev
is,43La.An.,63;
590;Drake vs. 
Mount ,33N.J.L. ,442;HobokenLandandI mprovementCo. vs.
   Lal
ly
, Niosivs.
   Empi r
eSt eam Laundr y,117Cal .
,257.)
48N.J.L. ,
604; Wasmer  vs. 
D.L.&W.R.R.Co. ,80N.Y.,212.)
 l
awphi 1.
net
Theactofdef endant '
sdr i
verinleavi
ngt hehor sesi nthemannerpr ovedwasnot
I
nthecaseof
 Haymanvs.
 Hewi
tt(
PeakeN.P.Cas.
,pt
.2,
p.170)
,Lor
dKeny
onsai
d: unreasonabl
e ori mpr udent.Act sthe performance ofwhi ch has notpr oved
destruct
iveori
njur
iousandwhi chhave,ther
ef ore,beenacquiescedinbysocietyfor
Hewasper f
orminghisdutywhi
ler
emovi
ngthegoodsi nt
ot hehouse,and,i
fever
y solongat imethattheyhav er i
penedint
ocust om,cannotbehel dtobet hemselves
personwhosuf f
eredacarttor
emaini
nthestr
eetwhilehetookgoodsoutofitwas unreasonabl
eorimpr udent.Indeedtheveryreasonwhyt heyhav ebeenpermit
tedby
obli
gedt oemployanothertol
ookaft
erthehorses,i
twouldbeimpossiblefort
he societyisthattheybenef i
cialrat
herthan pr ejudi
cial
.i
tc-
alf
 Acci
dent
ssomet imes
businessoft
hemet r
opoli
stogoon. happenandi nj
uri
esr esultfr
om themostor dinaryactsofl i
fe.Butsucharenott hei
r
naturalorcust omar yresult
s.Tohol dt hat,becausesuchanactoncer esultedin AI
DA SY-
GONZALES,MANUEL SY,TERESI TA SY-
BERNABE,RODOLFO SY,and
accidentori nj
ury,theact orisnecessar il
ynegl i
gent,ist ogof ar.Thef actt hatthe HONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALS,
 
respondents.
doctrineof resipsal oquit
ur i
ssomet imessuccessf ull
yinvokedi nsuchacase,does
notinanysensemi li
tateagainstther easoningpr esent
ed.Thatmaxi m atmostonl y Mont
esa,
Albon,
&Associ
atesf
orpet
it
ioner
s.
createsapr i
maf aci
e case,andt hatonlyintheabsenceofpr oofofthecircumst ances
underwhi cht heactcompl ai
nedofwasper formed.Itissomet hi
nginvokedinf avorof
thepl aint
iffbef oredef endant'
scaseshowi ng thecondi ti
onsand ci rcumst ances DeLapa,
Sal
onga,
Ful
genci
o&DeLunasf
orr
espondent
s.
underwhi cht hei njuryoccurred,thecr eat i
ver easonf ort hedoctrineof  r
esi psa
l
oqui t
ur di
sappear s.Thisisdemonst r
atedbyt hecaseof I
 nlandandSeaboar dCosting  
Co.vs.Tol son (139U. S.,
551),wher ethecour tsaid(p.554):
J.
CORTES,
  :
...Thewhol eef fectoftheinstructioninquestion,asappli
edt ot hecasebef oret he
j
ury ,wast hatifthest eamboat,onacal m dayandi nsmoot hwat er,wast hrownwi th SyKiat,aChinesenati
onal
.diedonJanuary17,1977inCaloocanCi
tywher
ehewas
suchf orceagai nstawhar fproper l
ybui l
t,astot earupsomeoft heplanksoft he thenresidi
ng,leavi
ngbehindr ealandper
sonalproper
ti
esher einthePhi
li
ppi
nes
fl
oor ing,t his woul d be pr
ima f acie 
evidence ofnegligence on t he partoft he worthP300,000.00moreorless.
defendant 'sagenti nmaki ngthel anding,unlessuponthewhol eev i
denceint hecase
t s 
hi pri
maf aci
e ev i
dencewasr ebutted.Assuchdamaget oawhar fi snotor dinaril
y
donebyast eamboatundercont rolofherof fi
cersandcar ef
ull
ymanagedbyt hem, Thereaf
t er,AidaSy -
Gonzales,ManuelSy ,TeresitaSy -BernabeandRodol foSyf i
l
eda
evidence t hatsuch damage was done i nt s case was 
hi prima f acie,
 and,i f peti
ti
onf orthegr antofletter
sofadmi ni
st r
ationdocket edasSpeci alPr oceedi ngs
unexpl ained,suf fi
cientev i
dence ofnegl i
gence on theirpart
,and t he jurymi ght CaseNo.C- 699oft hethenCourtofFirstI nstanceofRi zalBranchXXXI II,Cal oocan
proper lybesoi nst r
ucted. Cit
y.Insai dpet it
iontheyall
egedamongot herst hat( a)theyaret hechi ldr enoft he
deceasedwi thAsuncionGill
ego;(b)t
othei rknowl edgeSyMatdi edintestat e;(c)they
donotr ecogni zeSyKiat'
smar ri
agetoYaoKeenort hef i
li
ationofherchi ldr ent ohim;
Therewaspresentedint hi
scase,andbythepl
ainti
ff
sthemselves,notonl
ythef actof and,(d)t heynomi nat
eAi daSy -
Gonzalesf orappoi ntmentasadmi nist
rat rixoft he
therunwayandtheacci dentresul
ti
ngther
efr
om, butal
sothecondi t
ionsunderwhi ch i
ntestat
eest ateofthedeceased[RecordonAppeal ,pp.4-9;Roll
o, p.107.]
therunawayoccurred.Thoseconditi
onsshowingofthemselvesthatthedef endant'
s
cocherowasnotnegl igentinthemanagementoft hehorse,the 
primafacie casein
plai
nti
ff
s'f
avor,
ifany ,
wasdest roy
edassoonasmade. Thepetit
ionwasopposedbyYaoKee,SzeSookWah,SzeLaiChoandSyYunChen
whoal l
egedt hat:(a)YaoKeei sthelawfulwifeofSyKi atwhom hemar r
iedon
January19,1931i nChina;(
b)theotheropposi
torsarethelegi
ti
mat echi
ldr
enofthe
Iti
samat t
erofcommonknowl edgeaswel laspr ooft hati ti
st heuni ver
salpr act
ice deceasedwi t
hYaoKee;and,( c)SzeSookWahi stheeldestamongt hem andis
ofmer chant stodel i
vermer chandiseoftheki ndoft hatbei ngdel i
veredatt hetimeof competent,wil
li
nganddesi r
oustobecomet headmi ni
str
atr
ixoftheestat
eofSyKiat
theinjury ,int hemanneri nwhi cht hatwast henbei ngdel iv
ered;andt hatiti sthe [Recor
donAppeal ,pp.12-
13;Rol
lo,p.107.
]Afterheari
ng,theprobatecour
t,fi
ndi
ng
universal practicet oleav ethehor sesinthemanneri nwhi cht heywer el
eftatthet i
me amongot hersthat:
oft heacci dent .Thi si st hecust om in allci t
ies.I thasnotbeen pr oduct i
veof
accident sori njuries.Thepubl ic,findi
ngi t
sel funpr ejudicedbysuchpr acti
ce,has
acquiescedf ory earswi t
houtobj ecti
on.Oughtt hepubl i
cnow,t hrought hecour ts, (
1)SyKi
atwasl
egal
l
ymar
ri
edt
oYaoKee[
CFIdeci
sion,
pp.12-
27;
Rol
l
o,pp.49-
64;
]
withoutpr i
orobj ect i
onornot i
ce,tobeper mi ttedt orev er
set hepr acti
ceofdecades
andt her ebymakecul pableandgui l
tyonewhohadev er
yr easonandassur ancet o (2)SzeSookWah,SzeLaiChoandSzeChunYenar ethelegi
ti
mat
echi
l
drenofYao
beli
evet hathewasact ingundert hesanctionoft hest rongestofal lcivi
lforces,the KeewithSyMat[
CFIdeci
sion,
pp.28-
31;
Rol
lo.pp.65-
68;
]and,
custom ofapeopl e?Wet hinknot .
(3)Aida Sy-
Gonzal
es,ManuelSy,Teresi
ta Sy
-Bernabe and Rodol
fo Syar ethe
Thej
udgementi
srev
ersed,
wit
houtspeci
alf
indi
ngast
ocost
s.Soor
der
ed. acknowl
edgedil
legi
ti
mateoff
spr
ingsofSyKiatwithAsuncionGill
ego[CFIdeci
sion,
pp.27-
28;Rol
lo,
pp.64-65.
]
Ar
ell
ano,
C.J.
,Mapa,
Johnson,
Car
sonandTr
ent
,JJ.
,concur
.
hel
diffavoroft
heopposi
tor
s(pet
it
ioner
sherei
n)andappoi
ntedSzeSookWahast he
G.
R.No.L-
55960Nov
ember24,
1988 admini
str
atri
xofthei
ntest
ateest
ateofthedeceased[
CFIdecisi
on,pp.68-
69;Rol
lo,
pp.105-
106.]
YAOKEE,
SZESOOKWAH,
SZELAICHO,
andSYCHUNYEN,
 
pet
it
ioner
s, 
vs. Onappealt
heCourtofAppeal
srender
edadeci
sionmodi
fyi
ngt
hatoft
hepr
obat
e
cour
t,t
hedi
sposi
ti
vepor
ti
onofwhi
chreads:
I
NVIEW OFTHEFOREGOING,t
hedecisi
onofthelowerCour
tisher
ebyMODI
FIEDand I
.Petit
ionersarguethatt hemar r
iageofSyKi attoYaoKeei naccor
dancewith
SETASI
DEandanewjudgmentrender
edasfoll
ows: Chi
neselawandcust om wasconclusiv
elypr
oven.Tobuttr
esst
hisar
gumenttheyr
ely
onthefoll
owingtest
imonialanddocumentar
yevidence.
(1)Declari
ngpetit
ionersAidaSy-Gonzales,ManuelSy,Teresi
taSy-Bernabeand
RodolfoSyacknowl edgednat
uralchil
drenoft hedeceasedSyKiatwit
hAsunci on Fi
rst
,thet
est
imonyofYaoKeesummar
izedbyt
het
ri
alcour
tasf
oll
ows:
Gil
lego,anunmarri
edwomanwi thwhom hel i
vedashusbandandwifewi
thoutbenefi
t
ofmar r
iageformanyy ear
s: YaoKeet est ifi
edt hatshewasmar ri
edt oSyKi atonJanuar y19,1931i nFooki en,
Chi na;thatshedoesnothav eamar ri
agecer tifi
cat ebecauset hepr act i
cedur ingt hat
(2)Declari
ng opposi
tors Sze Sook Wah,Sze LaiChu and Sze Chun Yen,t he ti
mewasf orel der st oagr eeupont hebet rothaloft hei rchi l
dren,andi nhercase,her
acknowledgednat
uralchil
drenofthedeceasedSyKiatwit
hhisChinesewif
eYaoKee, elderbr otherwast heonewhocont ract edorent eredi nt o[ an]agr eementwi tht he
alsoknownasYuiYip,sincethelegali
tyoft
heall
egedmar r
iageofSyMatt oYaoKee par entsofherhusband;t hatt heagr eementwast hatsheandSyMatwoul dbe
i
nChi nahadnotbeenpr oventobev al
idtothel
awsoft heChinesePeopl
e'
sRepubli
c mar r
ied,t heweddi ngdat ewasset ,andi nv itationswer esentout ;thatt hesai d
ofChina(si
c); agr eementwascompl i
edwi th;thatshehasf i
v echi l
drenwi thSyKi at ,butt wooft hem
died;t hatt hosewhoar eal ivear eSzeSookWah,SzeLaiCho,andSzeChunYen,t he
(3)Declar
ingt hedeedofsal eexecutedbySyKi atonDecember7,1976i
nfavorof eldestbei ngSzeSookWahwhoi sal ready38y ear sol d;t hatSzeSookWahwasbor n
TomasSy( Exhibi
t"G-1"
,Engli
shtranslati
onofExhi
bit"
G")oft
heAvenueTr
actorand onNov ember7, 1939;t hatsheandherhusband, SyMat ,hav ebeenl i
vingi nFooKi en,
DieselPartsSupplyt obev ali
dandaccor di
ngl
y,sai
dproper
tyshoul
dbeexcluded Chi nabef orehewentt ot hePhi l
ippinesonsev eraloccasi ons; t
hatt hepr act icedur i
ng
from t
heest at
eoft hedeceasedSyKiat ;
and thet imeofhermar r i
agewasawr ittendocument[ i
sexchanged]j ustbet weent he
par entsoft hebr ideandt hepar entsoft hegr oom, oranyel derfort hatmat ter; thati n
Chi na,t hecust om i st hatt herei sago-bet ween,asor tofmar riagebr okerwhoi s
(4)Aff
ir
mi ng t
he appointmentbyt he lowercourtofSze SookWah asj udi
cial knownt obot hpar ti
eswhowoul dt alkt ot hepar entsoft hebr i
de- to-be;t hati fthe
admini
str
atri
xoftheestateofthedeceased.[CAdeci
sion,
pp.11-
12;
Rol
l
o,pp.36-37.] par entsoft hebr i
de- to-beagr eet ohav et hegr oom- t
o- bet heirsoni n-l
aw,t hent hey
agr eeonadat easanengagementday ;t hatonengagementday ,thepar ent soft he
From sai
d deci
sion bot
h parti
es mov ed f
orparti
alreconsi
derati
on,which was groom woul dbr ingsomepi ecesofj ewel ryt ot hepar ent soft hebr i
de- to-be, andt hen
howeverdeni
edbyrespondentcour
t.Theythusi
nter
posedthei
rrespecti
veappeal
sto onemont haf tert hat ,adat ewoul dbesetf ort heweddi ng,whi chi nhercase,t he
thi
sCourt. weddi ngdat et oSyKi atwassetonJanuar y19,1931;t hatdur i
ngt heweddi ngt he
bridegr oom br i
ngswi thhi m acouch( sic)wher et hebr idewoul dr i
deandont hat
Privaterespondentsfil
edapetiti
onwi t
ht hisCour tdocketedasG. R.No.56045 sameday ,thepar ent soft hebr idewoul dgi vet hedowr yf orherdaught erandt hent he
enti
t l
ed"AidaSy-Gonzal
es,
ManuelSy ,Teresi
taSy -
BernabeandRodolfoSyv .Courtof documentwoul dbesi gnedbyt hepar tiesbutt herei snosol emni zingof f
icerasi s
Appeal s,Yao Kee,Sze SookWah,Sze LaiCho and SyChun Yen"quest i
oning knowni nt hePhi li
ppi nes; thatdur i
ngt heweddi ngday ,thedocumenti ssi gnedonl yby
paragraphs( 3)and(4)ofthedisposi
tivepor t
ionoft heCourtofAppeals'decisi
on. thepar ent soft hebr idegroom aswel lasbyt hepar ent soft hebr i
de;t hatt hepar ti
es
The Supr eme Courthowev err
esolved t o denythe peti
tion and t
he mot i
on for themsel vesdonotsi gnt hedocument ;t hatt hebr i
dewoul dthenbepl acedi na
reconsiderat
ion.ThusonMar ch8,1982ent r
yofj udgmentwasmadei nG.R.No. carr i
agewher eshewoul dbebr oughtt ot het ownoft hebr i
degr oom andbef or e
56045.  
** depar tur ethebr idewoul dbecov eredwi thasor tofav eil;thatuponr eachi ngt het own
oft hebr i
degr oom,t hebr i
degr oom t akesawayt hev eil
;t hatdur i
ngherweddi ngt oSy
Kiat( accor di ngt osai dChi nesecust om) ,therewer emanyper sonspr esent ;thataf ter
Thei nst
antpeti
ti
on,ont heotherhand,questi
onspar agraphs(1)and( 2)oft he SyKi atopenedt hedooroft hecar riage,t wool dl adi eshel pedhergodownt he
disposi
ti
veport
ionofthedecisi
onoftheCourtofAppeal s.Thispeti
ti
onwasi ni
ti
all
y carr i
ageandbr oughtheri nsidet hehouseofSyMat ;t hatdur i
ngherweddi ng,Sy
deniedbytheSupremeCour tonJune22,1981.Uponmot i
onoft hepeti
ti
onersthe Chi ck,theel destbr ot herofSyKi at,signedt hedocumentwi thhermot her ;thatast o
Courtinaresol
uti
ondatedSeptember16,1981r econsi
deredthedenialanddecided thewher eabout soft hatdocument , sheandSyMatwer emar riedfor46  year sal ready
togiveduecour
setothispeti
ti
on.Her
einpet
it
ionersassignthefoll
owingaserr
ors: andthedocumentwasl ef
tinChinaandshedoubtifthatdocumentcanst i
l
lbefound
now;thati
twaslef
tinthepossessionofSyKi
at'
sfami l
y;thatrightnow,shedoesnot
I
.RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS SERI
OUSLY ERRED I
N DECLARING THE know thewher
eaboutsoft hatdocumentbecauseoft helapseofmanyyear sand
MARRIAGEOFSYKIATTOYAOYEEASNOTHAVE( si
c)BEEN PROVEN VALI
DIN becausetheyl
efti
tinacer tai
nplaceanditwasalreadyeat enbyt hetermit
es;t
hat
ACCORDANCEWI
THLAWSOFTHEPEOPLE' SREPUBLI
COFCHI NA. aft
erherweddi
ngwi t
hSyKi at,t
heyli
vedimmediat
elyt oget
herashusbandandwi fe,
andfrom thenon,theyl
i
v edtoget
her ;t
hatSyKi atwenttothePhil
i
ppi
nessomet i
mei n
I
I.RESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERRED I N DECLARING AI
DA SY- MarchorApr ili
nthesamey eartheywer emar ri
ed;thatshewenttot
hePhili
ppinesin
GONZALES,MANUELSY,TERESI
TASY-
BERNABEANDRODOLFO SYASNATURAL 1970,andt hencamebackt oChi na;thatagainshewentbackt othePhil
i
ppinesand
CHILDRENOFSYKI
ATWITHASUNCIONGILLEGO.[
Pet
it
ion,
p.2;
Roll
o,p.6.
] l
ivedwithSyMatashusbandandwi fe;thatshebegotherchil
drenwi
thSyKiatduring
theseveraltr
ipsbySyKiatmadebackt oChina.[CFIdecisi
on,
pp.13-
15;Roll
o,pp.50-
52.
] Art
.71.Allmarr
iagesper f
ormedout si
dethePhi l
ippi
nesi
naccordancewit
ht helaws
i
nforceinthecountrywher etheywereperfor
medandval i
dthereassuch,shallal
so
Second,t
het
est
imonyofGanChi
ng,
ayoungerbr
otherofYaoKeewhost
atedt
hathe bevali
dinthiscountry,exceptbigamous,Polygamous,ori
ncestuousmarr
iages,as
wasamongt hemanypeopl ewhoattendedtheweddingofhi
ssisterwit
hSyKiatand det
erminedbyPhili
ppinelaw.(Emphasissuppl
ied.) 
***
thatnomarr
iagecert
if
icat
eisissuedbytheChinesegover
nment,adocumentsigned
bythepar
entsoreldersoftheparti
esbeingsuff
ici
ent[
CFIdeci
sion,pp.15-
16;Rol
lo, Constr
uingt
hisprov
isionoflaw theCour thasheldthattoestabl
ishav al
idfor
eign
pp.  marri
agetwothi
ngsmustbepr oven,namely:(
1)theexi
stenceoftheforei
gnlawasa
52-53.
] quest
ionoff
act;
and( 2)t
heallegedforei
gnmar ri
agebyconv i
nci
ngevidence[
Adongv .
CheongSengGee,43Phil.43,
49( 1922).
]
Thi
rd,t
hest
atement
smadebyAsunci
onGi
l
legowhenshet
est
if
iedbef
oret
het
ri
al
cour
ttotheeffectthat(a)SyMatwasmar r
iedtoYaoKeeaccordi
ngt oChi
nese I
nprovi
ngaf or
eignlawtheprocedur
eisprov
idedi
ntheRulesofCour
t.Wi
thr
espect
cust
om;and,(b)SyKi at'
sadmissi
ontoherthathehasaChi nesewif
ewhom he t
oan unwr
it
ten 
forei
gnlaw,Rul
e130secti
on45stat
esthat
:
marri
edaccor
dingtoChinesecust
om [
CFIdeci
sion,
p.17;
Rol
l
o,p.54.
]
SEC.45.Unwr i
tten l
aw.—The or
alt esti
mony ofwi tnesses,skil
led t
herei
n,i s
Four
th,
SyKi
at'
sMast
erCar
dofRegi
ster
edAl
i
eni
ssuedi
nCal
oocanCi
tyonOct
ober3, admissi
bleasev
idenceoftheunwri
tt
enl awofaf or
eigncountry,asareal
soprinted
1972wherethef ol
lowi
ngent r
iesarefound:"
Mari
talst
atus—Mar r
ied"
;"Ifmar
ri
edgive andpubli
shedbooksofreport
sofdecisionsofthecourtsoft heforei
gncountry
,if
nameofspouses—YaoKee" ;"
Address-Chi
na;"
Dat
eofmar r
iage—1931";and"
Placeof prov
edtobecommonl yadmit
tedi
nsuchcour t
s.
marr
iage—China"[Exhi
bit"
SS-1".
]
Proofofawr i
tt
enf
orei
gnl
aw,ont
heot
herhand,i
spr
ovi
dedf
orunderRul
e132
Fi
ft
h,SyKi
at'
sAl
i
enCer
ti
fi
cat
eofRegi
str
ati
oni
ssuedi
nMani
l
aonJanuar
y12,1968 secti
on25,
thus:
wheret
hefol
l
owingent
ri
esareli
kewisef
ound:"
Civi
lstat
us—Marri
ed"
;and,'
Ifmar
ri
ed,
st
atenameandaddr
essofspouse—YaoKeeChingkang,
China"[
Exhi
bit"
4".
] SEC.25.Pr oofof publ
  i
corof fi
cialr ecord.—Anof f
icialr
ecordoranent r
yther ei
n,when
admissibleforanypur pose, maybeev i
dencedbyanof fi
cialpublicati
ont hereoforby
And l
astly,t
hecerti
fi
cat
ioni
ssuedi
nMani l
aonOct ober28,1977byt heEmbassyof acopyat testedbyt heofficerhav ingt hel egalcustodyofther ecord,orbyhi sdeput y
,
thePeopl e'
sRepublicofChinatot heeffectthat" accordi
ng t
ot hei nf
ormati
on andaccompani ed,ifther ecordisnotkepti nthePhi li
ppines,wi thacer ti
f i
cat
et hat
avail
ableattheEmbassyMr .SyKi
ataChi nesenationalandMr s.YaoKeeal i
asYui suchof f
icerhast hecust ody.Ift heof f
icei nwhicht herecor di skeptisi naf oreign
YipalsoChineseweremarri
edonJanuary19,1931inFuki en,t
hePeople'
sRepubli
cof country
,thecer t
if
icatemaybemadebyasecr etaryofembassyorl egati
on,consul
China"[Exhi
bit"
5".
] general
,consul ,vi
ceconsul ,orconsul aragentorbyanyof f
icerint heforeignservice
ofthePhi li
ppinesst ati
onedi nt hef oreigncount ryinwhi cht herecordi skeptand
Theseev i
dencemayv erywellpr
ovet f
he actofmar
ri
age 
betweenYaoKeeandSy authenti
catedbyt heseal ofhisof fice.
Kiat
.Howev er,thesamedonotsuf fi
cetoestabl
i
shtheval
idi
tyofsai
dmarr
iagei
n
accordancewithChineselaworcust
om. The Courthas interpret
ed sect
ion 25 toincl
ude competentevidence l
ike t
he
testi
monyofawi tnesst opr
ov etheexist
enceofawr i
tt
enforei
gnlaw [Coll
ect
orof
Custom i
sdefi
nedas" aruleofconductfor
medbyr epet
it
ionofact
s,uni
formly I
nt er
nalRevenuev.Fisher110Phi l
.686,700-
701(1961)ci
ti
ngWi l
l
amet t
eIronand
observ
ed(pr
act
iced)asasoci
alr
ule,l
egal
l
ybindi
ngandobli
gator
y I
"[nt
heMatterof SteelWorksv.Muzzal,61Phi
l.471(1935).
]
thePet
it
ionforAut
horit
ytoContinueUseoftheFi
rm Name"Ozaet
a,Romul
o,deLeon,
MabantaandReyes",
July30,1979,SCRA3,12cit
ingJBLReyes&RCPuno,Outl
i
neof Inthecaseatbarpet it
ioner
sdidnotpr esentanycompet entevidencerelat
ivetothe
Phil
.Ci
vilLaw,Fourt
hEd. ,Vol
.1,p.7.]Thel aw r
equi
resthat"
acustom mustbe l
awandcust om ofChinaonmar riage.Thet esti
moni esofYaoandGanChi ngcannot
prov
edasaf act,accordi
ngtother ul
esofevidence"[ Arti
cle12,Civi
lCode.]Ont his beconsi der
edaspr oofofChina'slaworcust om onmar r
iagenotonlybecauset hey
scor
etheCour thadoccasiontostatethat"
al ocalcust om asasour ceofrightcan are
notbeconsideredbyacour tofjust
iceunl
esssuchcust om isproperl
yestabl
ishedby sel
f -
servi
ng evi
dence,butmor ei mpor t
antly,therei s no showing thattheyar e
competentevidencelikeanyotherfact
"[Pat
ri
ar cav .Orate,7Phil.390,395( 1907).
] compet enttotesti
fyont hesubjectmat t
er.Forf ailur
etopr ovetheforeignlaw or
Thesameev i
dence,ifnotoneofahi gherdegr ee,shouldber equir
edofaf or
eign custom, andconsequentl
y,t
hev ali
dit
yoft hemar riageinaccordancewithsaidlawor
cust
om. custom,t hemarriagebetweenYaoKeeandSyKi atcannotber ecognizedinthis
j
urisdict
ion.
Thelawonf
orei
gnmar
ri
agesi
spr
ovi
dedbyAr
ti
cle71oft
heCi
vi
lCodewhi
chst
ates
that
: Peti
ti
oner
scontendthatcont
rar
ytot
heCourtofAppeals'rul
ingtheyar
enotduty
boundtoprov
etheChinesel
awonmarr
iageasj
udi
cialnot
icether
eofhadbeent
aken
byt
hisCour
tint
hecaseof
 SyJocLi
engv.SyQui
a [
16Phi
l
.137(
1910)
.] (2)t
hetesti
monyoftheirmotherYaoKeewhost at
edt
hatshehadfiv
echi
ldr
enwit
h
SyKiat
,onl
ythreeofwhom arealiv
enamel y,
SzeSookWah,SzeLai
ChuandSzeChi
n
Thiscontent
ioniserroneous.Well
-establ
ishedi
nthisj
uri
sdi
cti
onisthepri
nci
plet
hat Yan[TSN,December12,1977,pp.9-11;
]and,
Phil
ippi
necourtscannottakejudi
cialnoti
ceoffor
eignl
aws.Theymustbeall
egedand
provedasanyot herf
act[Yam KaLi mv .Coll
ect
orofCust
oms, 30Phil
.46,
48(1915)
; (3)anaff
idavitexecutedonMar ch22,1961bySyKiatforpr esent
ati
ontotheLocal
Fl
uemerv .Hix,
54Phil.610(1930).
] Civi
lRegi
str
arofMani l
atosupportSzeSookWah'
sapplicati
onf oramarr
iagel
icense,
wherei
nSyKi atexpresslyst
atedt
hatsheishi
sdaughter[Exhi
bit"3"
.]
Moreoverar eadi
ngofsai dcasewoul dshow t hatt hepartyal l
egi
ngt hef oreign
marri
agepresentedawi t
ness,oneLiUngBi eng,topr ovethatmat ri
moni all
etters Li
kewiseontherecor
disthetest
imonyofAsunci
onGill
egothatSyKiattol
dherhe
mutual
lyexchangedbyt hecontr
actingpartiesconstit
utet heessenti
alrequisi
tefora hasthreedaught
erswit
hhisChinesewif
e,twoofwhom—SookWahandSzeKai
marri
agetobeconsi dereddulysolemnizedi nChina.Basedonhi stestimony,whi ch Cho—sheknows,andoneadopt
edson[TSN,December6,
1977,pp.87-
88.
]
asf
oundbyt heCourtisunif
ormlycorroboratedbyaut horsont hesubjectofChinese
marri
age,whatwasl ef
ttobedeci dedwast heissueofwhet herornott he f
actof Howev er,aspet i
tionersf ai
ledtoest abli
sht hemar ri
ageofYaoKeewi thSyMat
marri
age 
in accordance wit
h Chinese law was dul ypr oven [SyJoc Lieng v .Sy accordingtot helawsofChi na,theycannotbeaccor dedthestatusofl egi
ti
mate
Qui
a,supr
  a.
,atp.160.] chil
dren butonl yt hatofacknowl edged nat ur
alchil
dren.Pet
it
ioners are nat
ural
chil
dren,itappeari
ngt hatatthetimeoft heirconcepti
onYaoKeeandSyKi atwere
Furt
her,evenassumingforthesakeofar gumentt hattheCourthasi ndeedt aken notdisqualif
iedbyanyi mpedi menttomar ryoneanot her[SeeArt
.269,Ci vi
lCode.]
j
udici
alnoticeofthelaw ofChinaonmar r
iagei ntheafor
ecit
edcase,pet i
ti
oners Andt heyareacknowl edgedchi l
drenofthedeceasedbecauseofSyKi at
'srecogni
ti
on
howeverhav enotshownanyprooft
hattheChi neselaworcust
om obtainingatt he ofSzeSookWah[ Exhi bi
t"3"]anditsextensi
ont oSzeLaiChoandSyChunYenwho
ti
met SyJocLi
he  eng 
marri
agewascelebratedi n1847wasst il
lthelaw whent he arehersistersofthef ullbl
ood[SeeAr t
.271,Civ i
lCode.
]
al
legedmar ri
ageofSyKiattoYaoKeet ookpl acein1931oreighty-
four( 84)years
l
ater. Pri
v aterespondentsont heotherhandar ealsot hedeceased' sacknowl edgednatur al
chi
ldr enwi t
hAsuncionGi l
l
ego,aFili
pinawi t
hwhom hel iv
edf ortwenty-
five(25)years
Pet
iti
onersmor eov ercitet hecaseof U.
  S.v.Memor aci
on [
34Phil
.633( 1916)]as without t he benefit of mar ri
age. They hav e i n t heirf avor theirf at
her '
s
bei
ngapplicabl
et ot heinstantcase.Theyaverthatt
hejudici
alpr
onouncementint he acknowl edgment ,evi
denced by a compr omi se agreementent er
ed into by and
Memor aci
oncase,t hatthet est
imonyofoneoft hecontr
acti
ngpart
iesiscompet ent betweent heirpar
entsandappr ovedbyt heCour tofFi r
stI nstanceonFebr uar
y12,
evi
dencetoshowt hef actofmar ri
age,
holdstr
ueinthi
scase. 1974wher einSyKiatnotonlyacknowl egedt hem ashischi ldrenbyAsunci onGillego
butlikewisemadepr ovi
sionsfortheirsupportandf utureinher i
tance,
thus:
The Memoraci
on casehoweveri
snotappl
icabl
etothecaseatbarassai
dcasedid
notconcer
naf orei
gnmarri
ageandt hei
ssueposedwaswhet herornottheoral xxxxxxxxx
test
imonyofaspousei scompetentevi
dencetoprovet f
he actofmarri
age 
i
na
complai
ntf
oradul t
ery. 2.Thepar
ti
esal
soacknowl
edget
hatt
heyar
ecommon-
law husbandandwi
feand
thatoutofsuchrel
ati
onshi
p,whichtheyhavelikewisedecidedt
odefinitel
yandfinal
ly
Accordi
ngly,i
nt heabsenceofpr oofoft heChi neselaw onmar r
iage,i tshouldbe terminat
eeffect
iveimmediat
ely,t
heybegotf ivechildr
en,namely:AidaSy,bor non
presumedthatitisthesameasour s *
** [
WongWooYi uv .Vivo,G. R.No.L- 21076, May30,1950;ManuelSy,bornonJul y1,1953;Teresit
aSy,bornonJanuar y28,1955;
Mar ch31,1965,13SCRA552,555. ]Si
nceYaoKeeadmi t
tedinhert est i
monyt hat Ricar
doSynowdeceased, bor
nonDecember14, 1956;andRodol
foSy, bornonMay7,
therewasnosol emnizi
ngof f
icerasi sknownher einthePhili
ppines[ SeeAr ti
cle56, 1958.
Civi
lCode]whenheral l
egedmar r
iagetoSyMatwascel ebrated[CFIdeci sion,p.14;
Roll
o,p.51],i
ttheref
orefoll
owst hathermar r
iaget oSyKiat,eveni ftrue,cannotbe 3.Wit
hr espectt
otheAVENUETRACTORANDDI
ESELPARTSSUPPLY.
..,
thepar
ti
es
recogni
zedinthi
sjuri
sdict
ion[WongWooYi uv.Vivo,supr
  a.,pp.555-556. ] mutual
lyagreeandcovenantt
hat
—

I
I.Thesecondi
ssuer
aisedbypet
it
ioner
sconcer
nst
hest
atusofpr
ivat
erespondent
s. (a)Thestocksandmerchandizeandthefur
nit
ureandequipment
s...
,shal
lbedivi
ded
i
ntot woequalshar
esbetween,anddist
ri
but
edto,SyKi
atwhoshallown
Respondentcour
tfoundt
hef
oll
owi
ngev
idenceofpet
it
ioner
s'f
il
iat
ion: one-hal
foft hetot
aland t
heot herhal
ftoAsuncionGil
legowhoshal lt
ransf
erthe
samet
othei
rchi
l
dren,
namel
y,Ai
daSy,
ManuelSy,
Ter
esi
taSy,
andRodol
foSy.
(
1)SyKi at'
sMasterCar
d ofRegi
ster
ed Ali
en wherethe f
oll
owing ar
e ent
ered:
"
Chil
drenifany:gi
venumberofchil
dren—Four
";and,"
Name—Al lli
vi
ng inChina" (b)t
hebusi
nessnameandpr
emi
ses...shal
lber
etai
nedbySyKi
at.Howev
eri
,
 tshal
l
[
Exhi
bit"
SS-1"
;] behisobli
gat
iontogi
vetot
he 
afor
enamedchil
drenanamountofOneThousand
Pesos (Pl
,000.
00 )monthl
youtoft he r
entaloft
he t
wo door
s oft
he same andtherul
i
ngi
nthecaseofBart
olomev.Bart
olome[
G.R.No.L-
23661,
21SCRA1324]
bui
ldi nowoccupi
ng  edbyEver
ettConst
ruct
ion. rei
ter
atedi
nDi
vi
nagr
aciav.Rov
ira[G.
R.No.L-
42615,
72SCRA307.]

xxxxxxxxx WiththeenactmentofBat asPambansaBl g.129,otherwiseknownast heJudici

ar y
Reorgani
zati
on Actof1980,t he Juveni
le and Domest ic Relat
ions Court
s were
(5)Withr
especttotheacquisi
ti
on,duri
ngtheexi
stenceoft he  abol
ished.Thei
rfunctionsandj uri
sdi
cti
onar enow v estedwi t
ht heRegionalTrial
common-law husband-
and-wif
er el
ati
onshipbet
weent heparti
es,oftherealestates Courts[SeeSecti
on19( 7) ,B.P.Blg.129andDi vinagraciav .Bel
osil
lo,G.R.No.L-
andpropert
iesregi
ster
edand/ orappeari
nginthenameofAsunci onGil
lego...,the 47407,August12,1986,143SCRA356,360]hencei tisnol ongernecessarytopass
part
iesmutual
lyagreeandcov enantt
hatt
 hesai
dr ealestatesandproper
tiesshallbe upontheissueofjur
isdict
ionr aisedbypeti
ti
oners.
tr
ansf
err
edinequalshar
est
otheirchi
ldr
en,namel
y,Ai
daSy,ManuelSy,Ter
esit
aSy,
andRodolf
oSy,butt obeadmini
ster
edbyAsuncionGil
legoduri
ngherl i
fet
ime 
..
. Moreover
,evenwithouttheexact
mentofBat
asPambansaBl
g.129wef
indi
nRep.
[
Exhi
bit"
D".
](Emphasi
ssuppl
i
ed.
) ActNo.5502sec.91-Alastpar
agr
apht
hat:

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

Thi
scompromi
seagr
eementconsti
tut
esast at
ementbeforeacourtofr
ecor
dby Ifanyquesti
oninvol
vi
nganyoftheabov ematter
sshoul
dariseasaninci
denti
nany
whi
chachi
l
dmaybevolunt
ari
l
yacknowledged[
SeeArt
.278,Ci
vi
lCode.
] casependingintheor
dinar
ycour
t,sai
dinci
dentshal
lbedet
erminedi
nthemaincase.

Pet
it
ioner
sfur
therar
guethatthequest
ionsontheval
idi
tyofSyMat'
smarri
agetoYao xxxxxxxxx
Keeandthepaterni
tyandfi
liat
ionofthepart
iesshoul
dhav ebeenvent
il
atedi
nthe
Juv
enil
eandDomest i
cRelat
ionsCourt
. Ashel
dinthecaseofDi
vi
nagr
aci
av.Rov
ira[
G.R.No.L42615.August10,1976,72
SCRA307]
:
Specif
icall
y,peti
ti
onersr el
yonthefol
lowingprovi
sionofRepubl
icActNo.5502,
enti
tl
ed" AnActRev i
singRep.ActNo.3278,ot
herwiseknownastheChart
eroft
he xxxxxxxxx
Cit
yofCal oocan'
,wit
hr egar
dtot
heJuveni
leandDomest i
cRel
ati
onsCour
t:
I
tist r
uet hatundert heaf orequotedsecti
on1ofRepubl i
cActNo.4834  *
***a 
  case
A.Cr
SEC.91- eat
ionandJur
isdi
cti
onoft
heCour
t.
— i
nvolvingpat ernit
yandacknowl edgmentmaybevent i
l
atedasani nci
dentint he
i
ntestateort estatepr oceeding( SeeBaluyotvs.InesLuciano,L-
42215,July13,
xxxxxxxxx 1976). Butt
hatl egalprovisionpresupposesthatsuchanadmini
str
ati
onproceedingis
pendi
ng orexi
sti
ng and has notbeen t
ermi
nat
ed.[
atpp.313-
314.
](Emphasi
s
Thepr
ovi
sionsoftheJudici
aryActt
ot hecontr
arynot
withst
andi
ng,thecour
tshal
l suppl
i
ed.
)
hav
eexcl
usiveor
igi
nal
jur
isdi
cti
ontohearanddeci
dethefol
lowi
ngcases:
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
Ther easonforthsr uleisnotonly"t
oobv i
atether endi
ti
onofconf l
icti
ngruli
ngson
(2)Casesi
nvol
vi
ngcust
ody
,guar
dianshi
p,adopt
ion,
rev
ocat
ionofadopt
ion,
pat
erni
ty the same issue byt he Cour
tofFi rstInstance and the Juveni
l
e and Domest i
c
andacknowl
edgment
; Relati
onsCour t
"[Vda.deBal uy
utv.Luciano,G.R.No.L-42215,Jul
y13, 1976,72SCRA
52,63]butmor eimpor t
antlytoprev
entmul tipl
ici
tyofsuits.Accor
dingly,t
hisCour
t
fi
ndsnor eversi
bleerrorcommi t
tedbyrespondentcour t.
(3)Annulmentofmarri
ages,rel
i
eff
rom mar
it
alobl
i
gat
ions,l
egalsepar
ati
on of
spouses,
andact
ionsf
orsuppor
t;
WHEREFORE,
thedeci
sionoft
heCour
tofAppeal
sisher
ebyAFFI
RMED.
(
4)Pr
oceedi
ngsbroughtundert
hepr
ovi
sionsoft
it
lesi
xandt
it
lesev
en,
chapt
ersone
t
othr
eeoftheci
vi
lcode; SOORDERED.

xxxxxxxxx VI
.Comput
ati
onofper
iod-Ar
ti
cle13
[
G.R.No.138322.
 Oct
ober2,
2001] Decl
arat
ionssecur
edi
nAust
ral
i
a.[
9]

GRACE J.GARCI A,a.

k.a.GRACE J.GARCI
A-RECI
O,pet
  it
ioner
,vs.REDERI
CK A. On Mar ch 3,1998,pet i
ti
onerfil
ed a Compl aintf
orDeclaration ofNul lit
y of
RECI
O,r
 espondent. Mar r
iage[10] 
i
nt hecourtaquo,
   
onthegr oundofbigamy--r
espondentallegedl
yhada
pri
orsubsi stingmarri
ageattheti
mehemar ri
edheronJanuar
y12, 1994. Sheclai
med
DECISION thatshel ear nedofrespondent
smarriagetoEdit
haSamsononlyinNov ember ,1997.

PANGANI  
J.
BAN, : I
nhi sAnswer,respondentav erredt hat
,asf arbackas1993,hehadr eveal
edt o
[
11]
peti
ti
onerhispr
iormarri
age and  itssubsequentdissolut
ion.  Hecont
endedthathis
Adi v
orceobt ai
nedabr oadbyanal i
enmayber ecognizedi nourj uri
sdi
cti
on,provided fi
rstmarr
iagetoanAust r
ali
anci tizenhadbeenv ali
dlydissolvedbyadivorcedecree
[12]
suchdecr eei sval
idaccor dingt ot henati
onall
aw oft hef oreigner
. 
Howev er,the obtai
nedinAustral
i
ain1989;  
thus,hewasl egal
lycapacitatedtomarrypeti
ti
onerin
divor
cedecr eeandt hegov er
ningper sonall
awoft heal i
enspousewhoobt ainedt he 1994.
divor
cemustbepr ov en. 
Ourcour tsdonott akejudicialnoti
ceoff or
eignlawsand
j
udgment s;hence,l
i
keanyot herfacts,botht
hedivorcedecreeandt henati
onallawof OnJul y7, 1998--oraboutf ivey
earsaftert
hecouplesweddingandwhi
lethesuitf
or
theali
enmustbeal legedandpr ovenaccordi
ngtoourl awonev i
dence. thedecl arat
ionofnulli
tywaspendi ng- -r
espondentwasabletosecureadivorce
decree f r
om a f amily cour tin Sydney,Austr
ali
a because t
he marr
iage ha[
d]
[13]
TheCase i
rret
rievablybrokendown.

BeforeusisaPet i
ti
onf orRevi
ew underRule45oftheRulesofCour t,seeki
ngto Respondentpr ayedinhisAnswert hattheComplai
ntbedismi ssedonthegroundthat
[14]
nul
lif
ytheJanuar
y7,1999Deci on[1] 
si andt
heMar
ch24,1999Or [
der2]
 oftheRegional i
tst ated no cause ofact ion.  The Off
ice ofthe Sol
ici
torGeneralagreed with
[
15]
Tri
alCourtofCabanat uanCi
ty,Branch28,inCi
vi
lCaseNo.3026AF.  Theassail
ed respondent .  Thecour tmarkedandadmi t
tedthedocument ar
yevidenceofbot h
Decisi
ondi
sposedasf oll
ows: parti
es.[
16]
 Aftert heysubmit
tedt heirr
especti
vememor anda,thecasewassubmi tted
[
17]
forresolution.
WHEREFORE,thi
sCourtdecl
aresthemarri
agebetweenGraceJ.Garci
aandReder
ick
A.Reci
osolemni
zedonJanuar y12,1994atCabanatuanCit
yasdissol
vedandboth Ther
eaf
ter
,thet
ri
alcour
trender
edt
heassai
l
edDeci
sionandOr
der
.
par
ti
escannow r emarr
yunderexi st
ingandapplicabl
elawstoanyand/ orboth
[3]
par
ti
es.
Rul
ingoft
heTr
ialCour
t

Theassai
l
edOr
derdeni
edr
econsi
der
ati
onoft
heabov
e-quot
edDeci
sion.
Thetr i
alcourtdeclar
edthemar ri
agedissolvedonthegr oundt hatthedivor
ceissued
i
nAust rali
awasv al
idandr ecognizedint hePhil
ippines. I
tdeemedt hemar ri
age
TheFact
s ended, butnotonthebasisofanydef ecti
nanessent i
alel ementoft hemarri
age;that
i
s,r
 espondent sall
egedl
ackofl egalcapacit
ytoremarry. 
Rat her,i
tbaseditsDecision
Rederi
ckA.Recio,aFil
ipi
no,wasmar r
iedtoEdit
haSamson,anAustral
i
ancit
izen,i
n onthedi v
orcedecreeobtai
nedbyr espondent. 
TheAust rali
andi v
orcehadendedt he
Malabon,Rizal
,onMar ch1,1987. [
4]
 
Theyliv
edt oget
herashusbandandwi fein marriage;thus,t
herewasnomor emar i
tal
uniontonull
ifyorannul .
 
[5]
Austr
ali
a. 
OnMay18, 1989,  adecreeofdi v
orce,pur
port
edl
ydi
ssol
vingthemarri
age,
[
18]
wasissuedbyanAustrali
anf amilycour t. Hence,
thi
sPet
it
ion.

OnJune26, 1992,respondentbecameanAust ral

i
ancit
izen,
asshownbyaCer ti
fi
cate I
ssues
[
6]
ofAust
rali
anCiti
zenshipissuedbyt heAustral
i
angover
nment .  
Peti
ti
oner--aFili
pina
-
-andrespondentwer emar ri
edonJanuar y12,1994i
nOurLadyofPer petualHelp Pet
it
ionersubmi
tst
hef
oll
owi
ngi
ssuesf
orourconsi
der
ati
on:
[7]
Chur
chinCabanat uanCity.  Intheir
 appl
i
cati
on f
oramar ri
agel i
cense,respondent
[
8]
wasdeclar
edassi ngleandFi l
ipino. 1

Star
tingOct ober22,1995,pet
it
ionerandrespondentli
vedseparat
elywithoutprior Thetri
alcourtgr
av el
yerr
edi nfi
ndi
ngthatthedi
vor
cedecreeobtainedi
nAust
rali
aby
j
udicialdissoluti
on oft
heirmar r
iage.
 Whi
l
et he two were st
il
lin Aust
rali
a,their therespondenti
psof
  acto 
termi
natedhisfir
stmarri
agetoEdi t
haSamsont hereby
conjugalasset sweredi
videdonMay16,1996,i naccordancewit
ht hei
rStatutory capaci
tat
inghimt ocontr
actasecondmar r
iagewi
ththepeti
ti
oner.
2 celebrated(t
he l
exlocicel
ebr
ati
oni
s).
 I
nef f
ect
,theCoderequi
rest
hepresent
ati
onof
thef oreignlaw t
oshow t heconf
ormityoft hemarri
ageinquesti
ont othelegal
Thef ai
lureoftherespondent
,whoisnow anat ur
ali
zedAust
ral
i
an,topresenta requirementsoftheplacewher
ethemar r
iagewasperf
ormed.
cer
ti
ficateofl
egalcapacit
ytomarryconsti
tut
esabsenceofasubstant
ialr
equisi
te
voi
dingthepeti
ti
oner
smar ri
agetot
herespondent Att heout set, welayt hefollowingbasicl
egalpr i
nciplesast het ake- of
fpoi ntsforour
discussi on.
 Phi l
i
ppi nel aw doesnotpr ov
idef orabsol utedivorce;hence,ourcour ts
[
21]
3 cannotgr anti t.  Amar r
iagebet weentwoFi lipinoscannotbedi ssolv edev enbya
es15[22] and17[23]  [24]
divor ceobtainedabr oad,becauseofAr ti
cl oft heCi v i
lCode.  In
[
25]
Thetri
alcour
tser
iousl
yer
redi
ntheappl
i
cat
ionofAr
t.26oft
heFami
l
yCodei
nthi
s mi xedmar r
iagesi nv ol v
ingaFi l
i
pinoandaf oreigner ,Arti
cle26   oft heFami l
yCode
case. al
lowst hefor mert ocont ractasubsequentmar r
iagei ncaset hedi vor cei sv alidly
[
26]
obt ainedabr oadbyt heal i
enspousecapaci tatinghi m orhert or emar ry.  Adiv orce
obt ained abr oad bya coupl e,who are bot h al i
ens,maybe r ecogni zed int he
4 [
27]
Phi l
ippines,prov i
dedi tisconsistentwi
ththeirrespect iv
enat i
onal laws.

Thetr
ialcourtpat
entl
yandgr
ievousl
yerr
edindi
sregar
dingArt
s.11,13,
21,
35,
40,
52
A compar i
son between mar r
iageand di vorce,asf araspl eading and proofare
and53oft heFamil
yCodeastheappli
cabl
eprov
isi
onsinthi
scase.
concerned,canbemade.  VanDor nv.Romi l
loJr.  ees 
decr t
hatal i
ensmayobt ai
n
divor
cesabr oad,whichmayber ecogni zedinthePhili
ppines,pr ovidedtheyarevali
d
5 accordi
ngt ot hei
rnationallaw.[
28]
 Ther efore,befor
eaf orei
gndi vorcedecreecanbe
recognizedbyourcour t
s,thepar typl eadingitmustpr ovet hedi vorceasaf actand
Thet ri
alcourtgr
avelyerredi
npronouncingthatthediv
orcedecreeobtai
nedbyt he demonst ratei
tsconformitytothef oreignlawal l
owingit[
29]
.  Present ati
onsolel
yofthe
respondentinAustrali
a i
psofact
o capaci
tat
edt hepart
iestoremar r
y,wit
houtfi
rst divor
cedecr eeisinsuf
fici
ent.
securing a r
ecogni
ti
on oft he j
udgmentgr ant
ing t
he div
orce decr
ee befor
e our
[
19]
courts. Di
vor
ceasaQuest
ionofFact

ThePetit
ionr ai
sesf i
veissues,
butf orpurposesofthi
sDecisi
on,weshallconcentr
ate Peti
ti
onerinsi
ststhatbefor
eadi v
orcedecreecanbeadmitt
edinevi
dence,i
tmust
ontwopi votalones:(1)whetherthedi v
orcebetweenrespondentandEdithaSamson fi
rstcomplywi t
htheregist
rati
onrequi
rement
sunderArt
icl
es11,13and52oft he
waspr oven,and( 2)whetherrespondentwaspr oventobel egall
ycapacitat
edt o FamilyCode. 
Theseart
icl
esreadasfoll
ows:
marrypetiti
oner. 
Becauseofourr uli
ngont hesetwo,ther
ei snomor enecessityto
takeupther est.
ART.11. 
Whereamar r
iagel i
censeisrequi
red,eachoft
hecontr
actingpart
iesshal
l
fi
l
eseparatel
yaswornapplicati
onforsuchl
icensewit
hthepr
operlocalci
vi
lregi
str
ar
TheCour
tsRul
ing whichshal
lspeci
fyt
hefoll
owing:

ThePet
it
ioni
spar
tl
ymer
it
ori
ous. xxx 
xxx 
xxx

Fi
rstI
ssue: (5)
 I
fprevi
ousl
ymar
ri
ed,how,whenandwher
ethepr
evi
ousmar
ri
agewasdi
ssol
ved
orannul
led;
Pr
ovi
ngt
heDi
vor
ceBet
weenRespondentandEdi
thaSamson
xxx 
xxx 
xxx
Petiti
onerassai
lsthetri
alcour
tsrecogni
ti
onoft hedivor cebetweenr espondentand
[20]
Editha Samson. Ci
ti Adong v.Cheong Seng Gee,
ng   peti
ti
onerar gues thatt he ART.13.
 I
ncaseeitherofthecont
ract
ingpar
ti
eshasbeenpr
evi
ousl
ymar
ri
ed,t
he
div
or cedecree,li
keanyot herfor
eignjudgment,maybegi venrecogniti
oni nthis appl
i
cantshal
lber
equiredt
o
j
urisdicti
ononlyuponproofoftheexist
enceof( 1)thef orei
gnl awallowingabsolute
div
or ceand(2)theall
egeddivor
cedecreeitsel
f.
 Sheaddst hatrespondentmi ser
ably
ART.13.  I
ncaseei therofthecont r
actingpar t
ieshasbeenpr evi
ousl
ymarried,the
fai
ledt oest
abli
shtheseelement
s.
applicantshallber equi
redtofur nish,insteadoft hebirthorbapt i
smalcerti
fi
cate
requiredinthelastprecedi
ngarticle,thedeat hcert
if
icat
eoft hedeceasedspouseor
Pet
it
ioneraddsthat
,basedonthefi
rstparagr
aphofAr
ti
cle26oftheFamil
yCode, thejudicialdecreeoft heabsolutedi vorce,ort hejudi
cialdecreeofannulmentor
marr
iagessolemni
zedabroadar
egovernedbythel
awoftheplacewher
etheywer
e declarati
onofnul l
i
tyofhisorherpr eviousmar ri
age. 
xxx.
ART.52.  
Thej udgmentofannul mentorofabsol utenull
it
yoft hemarri
age,the Respondentcont endst hatthebur dentopr oveAust r
ali
andi v
or celaw fal
lsupon
part
iti
onanddi stri
buti
onoft heproper
ti
esoft hespouses,andt hedeli
ver
yoft he peti
ti
oner,becauseshei st hepart
ychal l
engi ngthev al
i
dityofaf orei
gnjudgment. 
He
chil
drenspresumptivelegi
ti
messhallberecor
dedi ntheappropr
iateciv
ilr
egi
stryand contendsthatpetit
ionerwassat i
sfiedwitht heor i
ginalofthedivorcedecreeandwas
regi
stri
esofproperty;
otherwi
se,t
hesameshal lnotaff
ectthei
rpersons. cognizantofthemar i
tallawsofAust ral
i
a,becauseshehadl i
vedandwor kedinthat
countryforquit
eal ongt ime. 
Besides,theAust r
aliandivorcelaw isall
egedlyknown
Respondent
,ont heotherhand,ar
guesthatt
heAust r
ali
andiv
orcedecreeisapubl i
c byPhi l
ippi
necour ts;thus,j udgesmayt akej udicialnoti
ceoff orei
gnlawsi nt he
document--awr it
tenoff
ici
alactofanAustr
ali
anf amil
ycour
t. 
Ther
efore,i
trequi
res exer
ciseofsounddi scr eti
on.
nofurt
herproofofitsaut
henti
ci
tyanddueexecut
ion.
Wear enotper suaded.
 Thebur denofpr ooflieswi t
ht hepar t
ywho al legest he
[
41]
Respondenti s gett
ing ahead ofhimsel f
. 
Beforeaf orei
gn judgmenti s given exist
enceofaf actorthi
ngnecessaryint heprosecut i
onordefenseofanact i
on.  In
presumptiveevi
denti
aryval
ue,thedocumentmustf ir
stbepr esent
edandadmi tt
edi n ci
v i
lcases,pl ainti
ff
shav ethebur denofpr ov ingthemat eri
alall
egationsoft he
evi [
30]
dence.  Adiv
orceobtainedabr
oadi sprovenbyt hedi vorcedecreeit
sel
f.
 I
ndeed compl ai
ntwhent hosearedeniedbyt heanswer ;anddefendantshavethebur denof
[
31] provi
ng t he mat er
ialall
egati
ons i nt heir answer when t hey i
ntroduce new
thebestev i
denceofajudgmentisthejudgmentitsel
f.  Thedecreepurport
stobea [42]
[
32] mat t
ers.  Si
ncet hedivorcewasadef enser aisedbyr espondent
,thebur denof
writt
enactorrecordofanactofanoffici
albodyortri
bunal ofaf or
eigncount
ry.
provi
ngt heper t
inentAustr
ali
anlawv al
idati
ngitf all
ssquarel
yuponhim.

UnderSecti
ons24and25ofRul e132,ont heot herhand,awr it
ingordocumentmay
Itiswel l-
sett
ledi nourj uri
sdi
ct i
ont hatourcourtscannott akejudici
alnoti
ceof
beprovenasapubl i
corof f
ici
alr ecordofaf oreigncount rybyei t
her(1)anof fi
cial [
43]
forei
gnl aws.  Li
keanyot herf act
s,theymustbeal l
egedandpr oved.
 Aust
ral
i
an
publi
cat
ionor(2)acopyt hereofat t
ested[33] bytheof ficerhavinglegalcust
odyoft he
mar i
tallawsar enotamongt hosemat ter
sthatjudgesar esupposedt oknow by
document. 
Ifthe recor
di s notkepti nt he Phi li
ppi nes,such copymustbe ( a) [
44]
accompaniedbyacer t
if
icatei ssuedbyt hepr operdi pl
omat i
corconsul aroffi
cerin reasonoft hei
rjudici
alfuncti
on.  Thepowerofjudi
cialnoti
cemustbeexer ci
sedwith
thePhil
i
ppineforeignservicest ati
onedi nt hef oreigncount ryinwhi chtherecordis cauti
on,andev er
yr easonabledoubtupont hesubj ectshoul
dber esol
vedinthe
 
[34] negative.
keptand(b)authenti
cat
edbyt heseal ofhi sof fice.

The div
orce decree bet
ween r
espondentand Edi
tha Samson appearsto be an
SecondI  
ssue:Respondent
sLegalCapaci
tyt
oRemar
ry
[35]
aut
henticonei ssuedbyanAust r
ali
anfamil
ycourt.  Howev
er,appear
anceisnot
suf
fi
cient;compl i
ance wit
ht he afor
ementi
oned r ules on evi
dence must be Pet
it
ionercont
endsthat,invi
ew ofthei
nsuf
fi
cientpr
oofofthedi
vorce,r
espondent
demonstrat
ed. wasl egal
l
yincapaci
tat
ed to marr
yheri n1994. 
Hence,sheconcl
udest hatthei
r
marr
iagewasvoi abi
d  ni
tio.
Fort
unat el
yf orr espondentscause,whent hedivorcedecr eeofMay18,1989was
submi ttedinev idence,counselforpeti
ti
onerobjected,nottoitsadmi ssi
bil
i
ty,butonly Respondentrepl
iesthattheAustral
iandivor
cedecr
ee,whi
chwasv ali
dlyadmitt
edi
n
tothef actthati thadnotbeenr egi
steredintheLocalCi v
ilRegistryofCabanat uan evi
dence,adequatel
yestabl
ishedhislegal
capaci
tyt
omarryunderAust
rali
anlaw.
[
36]
Cit
y.  The t ri
al courtr uled that it was admi ssi
ble,subject t o petit
ioners
quali
ficat i [
on.37]
 Hence,itwasadmi t
ted in ev
idence and accorded wei ghtbyt he Respondentscontenti
onisunt
enable.
 Ini
tsst
r i
ctlegalsense,
 divorce meanst helegal
j
udge.  
Indeed,pet it
ioner
sf ail
uret o objectproperlyrendered the divorce decree di
ssolut
ionofal awfulunionforacausear i
singaf termarri
age.  
Butdi vorcesar eof
admissi bleasawr i
tt
enactoftheFami lyCourtofSy dney,
Aust r
ali
a.[
38] di
ffer
ent types.
 The two basi c ones are (1) absol ute div orce or  a vi nculo
matri
monii 
and(2)l i
miteddi
vorceoramensaett
  horo.
 Thefi
rstki ndt ermi natest he
[
45]
marri
age,whilethesecondsuspendsi tandleavest hebondi nf ullforce.  
Therei s
Compl iancewi t
ht hequot edar t
icles( 11,13and52)oft heFami lyCodei snot
noshowinginthecaseatbarwhi chtypeofdi
v or
cewaspr ocuredbyr espondent .
necessar y;respondentwasnol ongerboundbyPhi li
ppi
neper sonall awsaf t
erhe
[
39]
acquiredAust ralianciti
zenshipin1992. Nat ur
alizati
onisthelegalactofadopt i
ngan
al
ien and cl ot hing him wi t
h t he pol i
ti
cal and ci vi
lr i
ghts bel onging to a Respondentpr esent
edadecr eeni sioraninterlocutor
ydecr
ee--acondi
tionalor
ci
tizen.[
40]
 Natur alizedcit
izens,fr
eedf rom t hepr otecti
vecloakoft hei
rformerst at
es, provi
sionaljudgmentofdivorce.
 I
tisineff
ectthesameasasepar ati
onfr
om bedand
dont heat ti
resoft hei
radopt i
vecount ri
es. Bybecomi nganAust ral
i
an,r espondent board,althoughanabsol utedivorcemayf oll
ow af terthel
apseofthepr
escribed
[46]
severedhi sal l
egi ancetot hePhil
ippinesandt he vi
nculum j
uris 
thathadt iedhimt o peri
oddur ingwhichnoreconcili
ati
oniseff
ected.
Phili
ppineper sonal l
aws.
Evenaf
terthedivorcebecomesabsol ute,thecour
tmayundersomef or
eignstat
utes
Bur
denofPr
ovi
ngAust
ral
ianLaw andpract
ices,sti
llr est
ri
ctr emarr
iage. Undersomeotherjur
isdi
cti
ons,remarr
iage
maybelimitedbyst atut
e;thus,t
hegui l
typartyinadi
vor
cewhichwasgr antedonthe
groundofadult
erymaybepr ohi
bit
edfr
om mar r
yingagai
n. 
Thecour
tmayal
l
ow a Austr
ali
aCerti
fi
cat
e;[
59]
 andExhi
bit5--Stat
utor
yDeclarat
ionoftheLegalSepar at
ion
[
47]
remarr
iageonl
yaft
erpr
oofofgoodbehav
ior
. BetweenRederi
ckA.Reci oandGraceJ.Gar
ciaReci
osinceOctober22,
1995.[
60]

Oni
tsf
ace,
theher
einAust
ral
i
andi
vor
cedecr
eecont
ainsar
est
ri
cti
ont
hatr
eads: Basedont heabover ecords,wecannotconcl udet hatrespondent
,whowast hena
naturali
zedAustral
i
anci ti
zen,wasl egall
ycapaci t
atedt omar r
ypeti
ti
oneronJanuar y
1. 
A par
tytoamar r
iagewhomar r
iesagai
nbeforethi
sdecreebecomesabsol
ute 12,1994.  
Weagr eewi t
hpet i
tionerscontenti
ont hatt hecourtaquo 
  erredinfinding
(unl
esstheot
herpar
tyhasdi
ed)commit
stheof
fenceofbigamy[
48]
. thatt hedivor
cedecr eei psof actoclothedr espondentwi ththelegalcapacityt o
remar rywit
houtrequir
inghi mt oadducesuf fici
entev idencetoshow theAust ral
ian
personallawgov er
ninghisst atus;oratt heveryleast,toprovehislegalcapacityto
Thisquotati
onbolstersourcontenti
onthatthedivorceobtai
nedbyr espondentmay contractthesecondmar ri
age.
havebeenr est
ri
cted. 
Itdidnotabsolutel
yestabli
shhi slegalcapacit
ytor emar r
y
accordi
ngt ohisnati
onallaw.
 Hence,wef i
ndnobasi sfort
her ul
ingofthetri
alcourt,
which er r
oneously assumed t hat the Austral
ian divor i
pso f
ce  act
o r
estored Neit
hercanwegr antpetit
ioner spray
ertodeclarehermar ri
aget orespondentnul land
respondentscapacit
ytoremarrydespit
ethepaucit
yofev i
denceont hi
smat t
er. voi
dont hegr oundofbi gamy .
 Aft
erall
,itmayt urnoutt hatunderAust rali
anlaw,he
was r eally capacitated to mar r
y petit
ioneras a di rectr esultoft he divorce
decree. Hence,webel ievet hatthemostj udici
ouscoursei storemandt hiscaset o
Weal sorej
ecttheclai
m ofrespondentthatthedivorcedecreeraisesadisput
abl
e thetrialcour ttor eceiveev idence,ifany,whichshow pet i
ti
onerslegalcapaci t
yt o
presumpt i
onorpresumpti
veevidenceastohiscivi
lstatusbasedonSection48,Rul
e marrypet i
ti
oner .
 Fai
li
ngi nt hat,t
hent hecour taquo 
  maydecl areanul l
ityoft he
39[49] 
oft
heRulesofCourt
,fort
hesi mpl
ereasonthatnopr oofhasbeenpresent
edon part
iesmar riageon t hegr ound ofbi gamy ,therebeing alreadyin ev i
dencet wo
thel egal
eff
ectsofthedi
vorcedecreeobt
ainedunderAustrali
anlaws. exi
stingmar riagecer ti
fi
cates,whi chwer ebothobt ai
nedi nthePhi l
ippines,onei n
Malabon,Met roMani ladat edMar ch1,1987andt heother ,i
nCabanat uanCi tydated
Si
gni
fi
canceoft
heCer
ti
fi
cat
eofLegalCapaci
ty Januar y12,1994.

Peti
ti
onerarguesthatt
hecert
ifi
cateofl egalcapacit
yr equi
redbyAr t
icl
e21ofthe WHEREFORE, i n the interest of orderl
y procedure and substanti
al just
ice,
Family Code was notsubmit
ted togetherwi t
ht he applicat
ion f
ora marr
iage we REMAND  t
hecaset othecour t
 aquo f
orthepurposeofreceiv
ingevidencewhich
l
icense.
 Accor
dingtoher,i
tsabsencei spr oofthatrespondentdidnothavel
egal concl
usiv
elyshowr espondentslegalcapaci
tytomar r
ypeti
tioner
;andfaili
nginthat,
capacit
ytoremarr
y. ofdeclari
ng the parti
es mar ri
age void on the ground ofbi gamy,as abov e
di
scussed. 
Nocosts.
Wecl ari
fy.
 Torepeat ,thelegalcapaci t
ytocont r
actmar r
iageisdet erminedbyt he
nati
onallaw oft hepar tyconcerned. Thecer
tifi
catement i
onedinAr t
icl
e21oft he SOORDERED.
FamilyCodewoul dhav ebeensuffici
enttoestabl
ishthelegalcapacit
yofr espondent
,
hadhedul ypresent editincour t
. A dul
yauthenti
catedandadmi t
tedcer ti
fi
cateis VI
I.Nat
ional
it
yRul
e(Ar
ti
cle15)
pri
maf acieevi
denceofl egalcapacit
yt omarr
yont hepartofthealienappl i
cantfora
[
50]
marri
agelicense.
G.
R.No.L-
68470Oct
ober8,
1985
Asi ti s,howev er,t her eisabsol utelynoev idencethatpr ov esr espondent slegal
capacityt omar rypet iti
oner .
 Ar ev i
ewoft herecordsbeforethisCour tshowst hatonly ALI
CEREYESVANDORN,  
peti
ti
oner,
 
thef oll
owi ngexhi bitswer epr esent edbef oret helowercour t:( 1)f orpetit
ioner:(a) vs.
[
51] HON.MANUELV.ROMI LLO,JR.,asPresi
dingJudgeofBr
anchCX,Regi
onalTrial
ExhibitACompl ai nt ;  
(b)Exhi bitBCer t
ifi
cateofMar ri
ageBet weenReder i
ckA.Reci o
Courtoft
heNat
ionalCapi
talRegi
onPasayCityandRI
CHARDUPTON r
espondent
s.
(Fi
li
pino- Aust ral
ian)andGr aceJ.Gar ci
a( Fi
li
pino)onJanuar y12, 1994i nCabanat uan
[
52]
City
,Nuev aEci j
a;  
(c)Exhi bitCCer ti
fi
cateofMar ri
ageBet weenReder i
ckA.Reci o
(Fi
li
pino)andEdi thaD.Samson( Australi
an)onMar ch1,1987i nMal abon,Met ro  
[53]
Mani l
a;  
(d)Exhi bi tDOf ficeoft heCi tyRegi str
arofCabanat uanCi tyCer ti
fi
cati
on
thatnoi nf or mationofannul mentbet weenReder i
ckA.RecioandEdi thaD.Samson MELENCI
O- J.
HERRERA,
  :
\
[
54]
wasi ni tsr ecords;  and( e)Exhi bi
tECer ti
fi
cateofAust r
ali
anCi tizenshipofReder ick
[
55] [56]
A.Reci o;  
(2)forr espondent :(a)Exhi bit1--AmendedAnswer ;  
(b)Exhibit2Fami l
y Inthi
sPetit
ionf
orcerti
orar
iandProhibi
ti
on,peti
tionerAli
ceRey esVanDornseekst
o
Law Act1975 Decr ee Ni siofDi ssoluti
on ofMar ri
age int he Fami l
y Cour tof setasidet
heOrders,dat
edSeptember15, 1983andAugust3, 1984,i
nCivi
lCaseNo.
[57]
Australia;  
(c) Exhi bit 3 Cer tifi
cate of Aust r
ali
an Citi
zenshi p of Reder i
ck A. 1075-P,i
ssuedbyrespondentJudge,whichdeniedherMot iont oDi
smisssai
dcase,
Reci [
58]
o;   (d)Exhi bit4Decr eeNi siofDi ssolutionofMar ri
agei nt heFami l
yCour tof andherMot i
onforReconsi
derat
ionoftheDismissalOrder,r
especti
vel
y.
Thebasi cbackgroundf actsarethatpet it
ionerisaci ti
zenoft hePhil
i
ppineswhi l
e par
ti
es.
priv
ater espondentisa ci t
izen oft he United Stat
es;t hattheywere marri
ed in
Hongkongi n1972;t hat,aft
erthemar ri
age,t heyestabl
ishedtheirr
esi
denceint he TheNev adaDi str
ictCour t,whi chdecr eedt hedivorce,hadobtainedj ur
isdict
ionover
Phili
ppines;t
hattheybegottwochi l
drenbor nonApr il
4,1973andDecember18, 1975, peti
ti
onerwhoappear edi nper sonbef or
et heCour tduri
ngthetri
aloft hecase.Ital
so
respectiv
ely;
thattheparti
esweredi vorcedinNev ada,UnitedSt
ates,i
n1982;andthat obtai
nedj uri
sdictionov erpr i
vater espondentwho, givinghisaddressasNo.381Bush
petit
ionerhasre-
mar r
iedalsoinNev ada,thi
st i
met oTheodor eVanDorn. Str
eet,SanFr ancisco,California,authorizedhisattorneysinthedivorcecase,Kar p&
GradtLt d.,t o agr ee tot he di vorce on t he ground ofi ncompat ibil
ityinthe
DatedJune8,1983,pr i
vater espondentf iledsuitagai nstpet i
ti
oneri nCi vi
lCaseNo. underst
andi ng t hat ther e wer e nei t
her communi t
y property nor communi ty
1075-Poft heRegionalTrialCour t
,Br anchCXV, i
nPasayCi ty
,stati
ngt hatpet i
tioner'
s obli
gati
ons. 3
 Asexpl i
citl
yst atedint hePowerofAt t
orneyheexecut edinf avoroft
he
businessinErmi t
a,Manila,(theGal leonShop,f orshor t)
,isconj ugalpr opertyoft he l
awf ir
m ofKARP&GRADLTD. ,336W.Li bert
y,Reno, Nevada,t
or epresenthimi nt
he
parti
es,andaskingthatpet i
ti
onerbeor deredt orenderanaccount i
ngoft hatbusi ness, di
vorcepr oceedings:
andt hatpri
vaterespondentbedecl ar edwi thri
ghtt omanaget heconj ugalpr operty.
Petit
ionermovedt odismisst hecaseont hegroundt hatt hecauseofact i
onisbar red
xxxxxxxxx
bypr evi
ousjudgmenti nt hedi vorcepr oceedingsbef oret heNev adaCour twher ei
n
respondenthadacknowl edgedt hatheandpet it
ionerhad" nocommuni t
ypr operty"as
ofJune11,1982.TheCour tbelow deni edt heMot i
ont oDi smi ssint hement ioned Youareherebyauthor
izedtoacceptservi
ceofSummons,tofi
leanAnswer,appear
caseont hegroundt hatthepr opertyi nvolv edislocatedint hePhi l
ippinessot hatt he onmybehalfanddoant hi
ngsnecessar
yandpropert
orepr
esentme,wi
thoutfur
ther
DivorceDecreehasnobear ingi nt hecase.Thedeni alisnow t hesubj ectoft hi
s cont
est
ing,
subjecttot
hef ol
lowi
ng:
certi
orari
proceeding.
1.Thatmyspouseseeksadi
vor
ceont
hegr
oundofi
ncompat
ibi
l
ity
.
Gener al
ly,t
hedeni alofaMot iontoDi smi ssi nacivilcasei sinterl
ocutoryandi snot
subjectt oappeal .cer t
iorariandPr ohibiti
onar eneithert heremedi estoquest ionthe 2.Thatt
her
eisnocommuni
tyofpr
oper
tyt
obeadj
udi
cat
edbyt
heCour
t.
proprietyofani nter l
ocut oryorderoft het rialCourt.Howev er,whenagr aveabuseof
discreti
on was pat entl
y commi tted,ort he lowerCour tact ed caprici
ously and 3.'
I
'hatt
her
ear
enocommuni
tyobl
i
gat
ionst
obeadj
udi
cat
edbyt
hecour
t.
whimsi call
y,t
heni tdev olvesupont hisCour tinacer ti
orariproceedingtoexer cisei
ts
super vi
soryaut horityandt ocorrectt heer rorcommi t
tedwhi ch,insuchacase,i s
4
equivalenttolackofj urisdicti
on.
 1
 
Pr ohibi
tionwoul dt henl i
esi nceitwouldbeusel ess xxxxxxxxx 
2
andawast eoft i
met ogoaheadwi t
ht hepr oceedings.   
Weconsi dert
hepet it
ionfil
ed
i
nt hiscasewi thint heexcept i
on,andwehav egivenitduecour se. Ther ecanbenoquest ionastot heval
idit
yofthatNevadadivorceinanyoftheStates
oft heUnitedSt at
es.Thedecr eeisbindingonpr i
vaterespondentasanAmer ican
Forresol
utioni
stheeffectofthefor
eigndi
vor
ceont
hepar
ti
esandt
hei
ral
l
eged ci
tizen.Forinst
ance,priv
aterespondentcannotsuepetiti
onerasherhusband,i
,
  nany
conj
ugalproper
tyi
nthePhil
ippi
nes. StateoftheUni on.Whathei scontendinginthi
scasei sthatthedivor
ceisnotv ali
d
andbi ndi
nginthisjur
isdi
cti
on,thesamebei ngcontr
arytolocallawandpubli
cpolicy.
Petiti
onercont
endst hatrespondentisestoppedf rom l
ayi
ngclaim ontheal l
eged
conjugalpr
opertybecauseofther epr
esentat
ionhemadei nthedivorceproceedi
ngs I
ti st r
uet hatowi ngtot henat i
onali
typr i
ncipleembodi edinAr t
icle15oft heCi vil
5
beforetheAmer i
canCourtthattheyhadnocommuni t
yofpropert
y;thatt
heGal l
eon Code,   onlyPhili
ppinenat i
onalsarecov eredbyt hepol icyagainstabsol utedivorces
Shopwasnotest abli
shedt hr
oughconj ugalfunds,andthatrespondent
'sclaimis thesamebei ngconsideredcont rar
yt oourconceptofpubl icpol i
ceandmor ali
ty.
barredbypri
orjudgment. Howev er,aliens mayobt ain di
vorces abr oad,whi ch maybe r ecognized int he
6
Phili
ppines,pr ovidedtheyar evali
daccor dingt ot heirnat i
onallaw.   I
nthiscase,t he
divorcei nNev adar el
easedpr i
vaterespondentf rom t hemar r
iagef rom thestandar ds
Forhispart
,respondentaversthattheDivorceDecreeissuedbyt heNev adaCourt
of Amer ican law,under whi ch di
vorce di ssolves t he mar riage.As st ated by
cannotprev
ailovertheprohi
biti
velawsoft hePhil
ippinesanditsdeclarednati
onal
the FederalSupr emeCour toftheUni t
edSt atesinAt hertonvs.At herton,45L.Ed.794,
poli
cy;t
hattheactsanddeclarat
ionofaf or
eignCourtcannot,especi
all
yifthesame
799:
i
scont r
aryt
opublicpoli
cy,di
vestPhil
ippi
neCourt
sofj uri
sdi
cti
ontoentertai
nmatter
s
wit
hinit
sjuri
sdi
cti
on.
Thepurposeandef f
ectofadecr eeofdivorcefr
om thebondofmat rimonybyacour t
ofcompetentjuri
sdict
ionar etochanget heexist
ingstat
usordomest i
cr el
ati
onof
Fortheresol
uti
onofthiscase,itisnotnecessar ytodet
erminewhetherthepropert
y
husbandandwi f
e,andt ofreethem bothfrom t
hebond.Themar r
iageti
ewhent hus
rel
ati
onsbetweenpetit
ionerandpr ivat
er espondent
,aft
erthei
rmarri
age,wer eupon
sever
edast oonepar ty,ceasestobindei t
her
.Ahusbandwi t
houtawi fe,orawi fe
absolut
eorr el
ati
vecommuni typroper t
y,uponcompl et
eseparat
ionofpr operty
,or
wit
houtahusband,isunknownt othelaw.Whent helawpr ov
ides,inthenatureofa
uponanyot herregi
me.Thepi votalfactint hi
scaseistheNev ada di
vorce 
ofthe
penal
ty.t
hattheguil
typar
tyshal
lnotmar
ryagai
n,t
hatparty
,aswel
last
heot
her
,is himselftoReno,Nev ada,andsecur edi
nthatjuri
sdicti
onanabsol utedivorceont he
sti
l
labsol
utel
yfreedfr
om t
hebondofthef
ormermarr
iage. groundofdeser t
ion,whichdecr eewasdat edNov ember28,1927.Shor tl
ythereaft
er
thedef endantmov edtoCal i
forni
aandr etur
nedt ot heseIslandsi nAugust1928,
Thus,pursuanttohisnat i
onallaw,pr i
vaterespondentisnol ongert hehusbandof wherehehassi ncer emained.Ont hesamedat et hathesecuredadi vorceinNev ada
peti
tioner
.Hewoul d haveno standing to suei nthecasebel ow aspet it
ioner'
s hewentt hr
ought hef or
msofmar r
iagewit
hanot herciti
zenoftheseI slandsandnow
husbandent i
tl
edtoexer ci
secont rolov erconjugalasset
s.Ashei sboundbyt he hast hreechil
drenasar esultofthatmarri
age.Def endant,aft
erhi sdepar tur
ef r
om
Decisionofhi
sowncount r
y'
sCour t
, whichvali
dlyexerci
sedjur
isdicti
onov erhim, and theseIslands,reducedt heamounthehadagr eedt opaymont hlyforthesuppor tof
whosedeci si
onhedoesnotr epudiate,hei sestoppedbyhi sownr epresentati
on hiswi f
eandf ourmi norchildrenandhasnotmadet hepay ment sf i
xedint heReno
beforesaidCourtf
rom assert
inghisrightovertheall
egedconjugal pr
oper t
y. divor
ceasal imony .
chanroblesv i
rt
ualawl
i
brary 
chanroblesvir
tuallawl i
brary

Tomai ntain,aspr i
vaterespondentdoes,that,underourl aws,petiti
onerhast obe Shortl
yafterhi
sretur
nhiswif
ebroughtacti
onint heCour
tofFirstInst
anceofMani
la
consideredst il
lmarriedtopr i
vat
erespondentandst i
l
lsubj ecttoawi fe'
sobligat
ions request
ingthatthecourt
softhePhili
ppineIsl
andsconfi
rm andr ati
fythedecr
eeof
underAr t
icle109,et
  .seq.oft heCiv
ilCodecannotbej ust.Peti
ti
onershoul dnotbe divor
ceissuedbyt hecour
tsoft
heSt ateofNev ada;t
hatsect
ion9ofActNo.2710,
obli
gedt ol i
vet ogetherwi t
h,observerespectandf ideli
ty,andr endersupportt o whichreadsasfoll
ows:
pri
vater espondent.Thel att
ershoul
dnotcont i
nuetobeoneofherhei rswit
hpossi bl
e
ri
ghtst oconj ugalproperty.Sheshouldnotbedi scriminatedagai nstinherown Thedecreeofdivor
ceshalldi
ssol
vet hecommuni t
yofpr
opert
yassoonassuch
countryift heendsofj usti
cearetobeserved. decreebecomesfi
nal
,butshal
lnotdissol
vethebondsofmatr
imonyunt
iloney
ear
ther
eaft
er.
chanr
obl
esvi
rt
ual
awli
brar
y chanr
obl
esvi
rtuall
awl
i
brar
y
WHEREFORE,t
hePetit
ionisgr
anted,andrespondentJudgeisher
ebyor
der
edt
o
di
smi
sstheCompl
aintf
iledi
nCi
vi
lCaseNo.1075-PofhisCourt
. Thebondsofmat ri
monyshal lnotbeconsi deredasdi ssol
vedwithregardt othe
spousewho,havinglegit
imatechi l
dren,hasnotdel i
ver
edt oeachofthem ort othe
Wi
thoutcost
s. guardi
anappoi
ntedbyt hecour t
,withinsai
dperiodofoney ear,
theequi
valentofwhat
wouldhavebeenduet ot hem ast heirl
egalport
ionifsaidspousehaddiedintest
ate
i
mmedi at
elyaf
terthedissolut
ionoft hecommuni tyofproper
ty.
SOORDERED.
beenf orced,andthatsheandt hedef endantdel iv
ert ot heguar di
an adlitem the
G.
R.No.L-
37048Mar
ch7,
1933 equi valentofwhatwoul dhav ebeenduet othei rchildrenast heirlegalporti
onf rom
ther espect i
veestateshadt hei
rparentsdidintest ateonNov ember28, 1927.Itisalso
MANUELA BARRETTO GONZALEZ,
 Pl
aint
if
f-
Appell
ee, v
s. 
AUGUSTO C. pray edt hatthecommuni t
yexi st
ingbet weenpl ai
ntif
fanddef endantbedecl ared
Def
GONZALEZ, endant
-Appel
l
ant.
  dissol vedandt hedefendantbeor deredt orenderanaccount i
ngandt odel i
vertot he
AUGUSTOC.GONZALEZ,Jr.
,ETAL.,
 
int
erv
enors-
appel
lees. plaintiffhershar eofthecommuni typroperty,t hatthedef endantbeor deredt opay
thepl ainti
ffali
monyatt herateoff iv
ehundr edpesos( P500)permont h,thatt he
Qui
nti
nParedesandBar r
eraandReyesf orappel
lant
. defendantbeor der
edt opayt heplainti
ff
,ascounself ees,t hesum off ivethousand
DeWit
t,Per
kinsandBradyforplai
nti
ff
-appell
ee. pesos( P5000),andt hatthedef endantbeor der edt opaypl ainti
fftheexpenses
CamusandDel gadof
orinter
venors-
appell
ees. i
ncur r
ed i n educat
ing the three minorsons. chanrobl esvirt
ualawlibrary 
chanrobles
virt
ual l
awl i
brary
J.
HULL,
  :
A guar di
an ad litem was appoint
ed forthe mi norchi ldr
en,and theyappearas
i
nt erv
enorsandj ointheirmotherintheseproceedings.TheCour tofFirstI
nstance,
Plainti
ffanddef endantarecitizensofthePhi li
ppineIslandsandatpr esentr esidents afterheari
ng, f
oundagai nstt
hedefendantandgrant edjudgmentaspr ayedforbythe
oft heCi t
yofMani l
a.Theywer emar ri
edint heCi tyofMani l
aonJanuar y19,1919, plaint
iffand intervenors,withtheexception ofr educing att
orneysfeest ot hr
ee
andl i
vedt ogetherasmanandwi f
ei nt
hePhi li
ppineIslandsuntilthespr ingof1926. thousand,andal sogr antedcostsoft heactionagai nstt hedefendant.From thi
s
Theyv oluntaril
yseparatedandsi ncethattimehav enotl i
vedtoget herasmanand j
udgmentdef endantappeal sandmakest hefol
lowingassi gnmentoferrors:
wife.Oft hisunionfourchil
drenwer ebornwhoar enow11,10,8and6y earsofage.
Negot i
ationsbet weenthepar t
ies,bothbeingr epresentedbyattorney s,cont i
nuedf or
severalmont hs,whereuponi twasmut uallyagr eedt oall
ow t hepl ainti
ffforher I
.Thelowercour
terredi
nnotdecl
ari
ngthatparagraph2ofsecti
on9ofthePhil
i
ppi
ne
suppor tandt hatofherchildren,fivehundredpesos( P500)mont hly
;t hisamountt o Di
vorceLaw,isunconst
it
uti
onal
,nul
landv oi
d.chanrobl
esv
irt
ual
awl
ibr
ary 
chanr
obl
es
bei ncreasedi ncaseofi l
l
nessornecessi t
y ,andt hetitl
eofcertai npr operti
est obe vi
rt
uall
awlibr
ary
puti nhername.Shor tlyaftert hi
sagreementt hehusbandl eftt heI slands,bet ook
II
.Thel owercourterredinholdingt hatsect
ion9ofActNo.2710( Di
vor
ceLaw) cour
theretof
oreinrefusingtor ecogni
zet hevali
dit
yoff or
eigndi v
orcehasusually
appli
est otheNev adadecr eeofdi vorcei
ssuedi nfavorofappell
antAugust
oC. beenexpressedinthenegat i
veandhav ebeenbaseduponl ackofmatrimonial
Gonzalez, sai d decree bei
ng enti
tl
ed to conf
ir
mati
on and domici
l
eorf r
audorcollusion,
wehav enotover
lookedtheprovisi
onsoftheCiv
ilCode
recogni
tion.
chanr
oblesvi
rt
ualawl
ibrary
 chanr
oblesvi
rtual
lawli
brar
y nowinforceint
heseIslands.Art
icle9thereofr
eadsasf ol
l
ows:

II
I.Thelowercour
terredinnotdi
smissi
ngthecomplai
ntinint
erv
entionforlackof Thelawsr el
ati
ngt ofami
l
yri
ght
sanddut i
es,ortot
hest at
us,condi
ti
onandlegal
causeofacti
onagainstappel
l
antandappel
l
ee.
chanr
oblesv
irt
ual
awli
brary 
chanrobl
es capaci
tyorpersons,ar
ebi
ndi
nguponSpani
ardsev
enthoughtheyresi
deinaf
orei
gn
vi
rtual
lawli
brar
y countr
y.

I
V.Thel
owercourter
redinnotdecl
ari
ngthenoticeofl
 i
spendens 
fi
ledbyint
erv
enor
s Andar
ti
cle11,
thel
astpar
tofwhi
chr
eads:
t
obenul
landvoid.
chanrobl
esvi
rt
ual
awlibr
ary
 chanrobl
esvi
rt
uallawlibr
ary
...theprohi
bit
ivel awsconcer
ningper
sons,t
hei
ractsandthei
rpr
opert
y,andthose
V.Thelowercourterr
edinor
deri
ngtheappellanttopayt
hesum ofP500permont
h i
ntendedtopromot epubli
corderandgoodmor al
s,shal
lnorberender
edwi t
hout
forthesupportnotonlyofhischil
drenbutal soofhisex-wi
fe,appel
l
eeherei
n, eff
ectbyanyf oreignl
awsorj udgmentsorbyanythi
ngdoneoranyagr eements
ManuelaBar
rett
o.chanr
obl
esv
irt
ual
awli
brar
y chanrobl
esvi
rt
ual
lawli
brar
y enter
edint
oaf oreigncount
ry.

VI.Thelowercour ter
redinnotholdi
ngthatplaint
if
f-appell
ee,Manuel aBarret
to,i
s Itisthereforeaser iousquest i
onwhet heranyf or ei
gndi vorcer elati
ngt ociti
zensof
notentit
ledt osuppor
tfrom herex-
husband,herei
nappellant,overandbey ondthe thePhi l
ippineI sl
ands,wi llber ecogni zedi nthisjur i
sdi ction,excepti tbef oracause,
al
imonyf ixedbythedi
vorcedecr
eeinExhibi
tA.chanrobl
esvi
rtual
awlibr
ary 
chanrobl
es andundercondi t
ionsf orwhi cht hecour tsofPhi li
ppi neI slandswoul dgrantadivor ce.
vi
rtual
lawl ibr
ary Thel owercour ti
ngr ant i
ngr el
iefaspr ayedf orfrankl yst atedt hatt hesecuringoft he
divorce,thecont r
acti
ng ofanot hermar ri
ageand t hebr inging intot hewor ld of
VII
.Thel owercour
terredi
ncondemni ngdef
endantappel
lanttopaytopl ai
ntif
f- i
nnocentchi l
dr enbringsaboutsuchacondi ti
ont hatt hecour tmustgr antreli
ef.The
appell
ee P3,
000 at
tor
ney'
sf ees.
chanr
obl
esvi
rt
ual
awli
brar
y chanr
obl
es v
irt
uall aw hardshipsoft heexistingdi vorcel awsoft hePhilippineI slandsar ewel lknownt ot he
l
ibrar
y member soft heLegi slature.Itisofnomomenti nt hisl it
igationwhatheper sonal
viewsoft hewr i
teront hesubj ectofdi vorcemaybe.I ti sthedut yoft hecour tsto
enforcet hel awsofdi vor ceaswr i
tt
enbyt heLegi slat urei ftheyar econstit
utional.
VI
II
.Thel
owercour
ter
redi
ndeny
ingappel
l
ant
'smot
ionf
ornewt
ri
al. Courts hav e no r ight t o say t hat such l aws ar e t oo st ri
ct or t oo
l
iberal.
chanr oblesvirt
ualawl i
brary chanrobl esvir
tual l
awl i
brary
Whi l
et hepartiesint hisactionar eindi sput
eov erf i
nancialmat terstheyareinuni tyin
tr
yingt osecur et hecour tsoft hisj uri
sdict
iont orecogni zeandappr oveoft heReno Liti
gantsbymut ualagr eementcannotcompelt hecourt
st oapproveoft hei
rown
di
vor ce.Ont her ecor dher epresent edt hi
scannotbedone.Thepubl i
cpolicyi nthis actionsorpermittheper sonalrelati
onsoft heciti
zensoftheseIsl
andstobeaf f
ected
j
urisdicti
onont hequest ionofdi vorcei sclearl
ysetf orthinActNo.2710,andt he bydecr eesofforeigncour t
si namannerwhi chourGov er
nmentbelievesiscontr
ary
decisionsoft hi
scour t:Goi
  tiavs.CamposRueda  (35Phi l.
,252) ;
 Gar
ciaVal dezvs. topublicorderandgoodmor als.Holdingtheabov eviewsitbecomesunnecessaryto
SoteraaTuason  (40 Phi l.
,943- 952) ;
 Ramirezvs.Gmur  (42Phi l
.,855);Cher
  eauvs. discuss the ser
ious const i
tutionalquest i
on presented by appel
lantin hisfir
st
Fuent ebell
a (
43 Phi l.,216) ;Fer
  nandez vs.De Cast ro (48 Phi l
.,123);
 Gorayeb vs. assignmentoferror.chanroblesvir
tualawli
brar
y  
chanrobl
esv i
rt
uall
awl i
brar
y
Hashi m (50Phi l
.,22);Franciscovs.Tayao  (
50Phi l.
,42); AlkuinoLim Pangvs.UyPi an
NgShunandLi m Tingco  (
52Phi l.,
571) ;andt helatecaseofCousi nsHixvs.Fl
  uemer,
decided Mar ch 21, 1931, and reported in 55 Phil
.
, Thej udgmentoftheCour tofFir
stInstanceoftheCit
yofMani l
amustt heref
orebe
851.chanr obl
esv i
rtualawlibrary 
chanr oblesvirt
uallawl i
brar y rever
sedanddef endantabsolv
edf r
om thedemandsmadeagai nsthi
mint hisact
ion.
This,however,wit
houtprejudi
cet oanyr ightofmai
ntenancet hatpl
ainti
ffandt he
i
ntervenorsmayhav eagainstdefendant.Nospeci
alpronouncementast ocosts.So
Theent ireconductoft hepar t
iesfrom t hetimeoft heirseparati
onunt ilthecasewas ordered.
submi t
t edtot hiscourt
,inwhi chtheyal lprayedthattheRenodi v orceber atif
iedand
confir
med, cl
ear l
yindi
catesapur poset ocircumv entthelawsoft hePhi li
ppi neIsl
ands
regardingdi vorceandt osecur efort hemsel v
esachangeofst atusf orr easonsand ENBANC
undercondi t
ionsnotaut hori
zedbyourl aw.Atal lt
imest hemat rimoni aldomi cil
eof
thi
scoupl ehasbeenwi thinthePhi l
ippineI sl
andsandt heresidenceacqui redinthe [
G.R.No.
  
2935.
  
Mar
ch23,
1909.
]
StateofNev adabyt hehusbandoft hepur poseofsecur ingadi v orcewasnotabona
fi
der esidenceanddi dnotconf erj
urisdicti
onupont heCourtoft hatSt atet odissolv
e THEGOVERNMENTOFTHEPHI LI
PPI
NEI Pl
SLANDS,
  ai
nti
ff
-Appel
lee,vs.GEORGEI
.
thebondsi fmat ri
monyi nwhi chhehadent eredin1919.Whi l
et hedeci sionsoft hi
s Def
FRANK,
  endant
-Appel
lant
.
  Tot hecompl ai
ntofthe Plai
nti
ff 
the Def
endant 
fi
ledagener aldenialandaspeci al
defense,al
legi
nginhisspecialdefensethattheGov er
nmentofthePhi l
ippineIsl
ands
DECISION hadamendedLawsNo.80andNo.224andhadt herebymater
ial
lyalteredthesaid
contract
,andalsothathewasami norattheti
met hecontractwasent eredintoand
wast her
eforenotr
esponsibleunderthelaw.
J.
JOHNSON,
  :
Tothespeci
aldefenseoft Def
he  endant
 t Pl
he  ai
nti
ff
 f
il
edademur
rer
,whi
chdemur
rer
Judgmentwasr enderedint hel owercour tont he5thdayofSept ember,1905. thecour
tsust
ained.
t Def
he  endant appealed.Ont he12t hdayofOct ober,1905,t Appel
he  l
ant 
fi
ledhis
pri
ntedbillofexcept i
onswi t
ht hecler
koft heSupr emeCour t.Ont he5t hdayof
December ,1905,t Appel
he  l
ant fi
ledhisbri
efwi ththeclerkoftheSupremeCour t
.On Upont hei ssuet huspr esented,andaf terhearingt heev i
denceadduceddur i
ngthe
the19thdayofJanuar y,1906,t heAttorney-Generalfi
ledhisbriefinsai dcause. tri
alofthecause,t helowercour trender edaj udgmentagai nstthe Defendant 
andin
Nothingfurtherwasdonei nsai dcauseunt i
lonaboutt he30thdayofJanuar y,1909, favoroft Pl
he  ainti
ff 
forthesum of265.90dol lars.Thel owercourtf oundthatatthe
whent her espect i
veparti
eswer erequestedbyt hiscourttoprosecut etheappeal ti
me t he Defendant  
quitthe service oft Pl
he  ainti
ff 
there was due hi m from the
underpenal ty ofhav i
ng the same di smissed f orfail
ure so t
o do;wher eupon said Pl
ainti
ff 
thesum of3.33dol lars,leavi
ngabal anceduet he Pl
aintif
f 
inthesum of
t Appel
he  lant,bypet i
ti
on,hadt hecauseplacedupont hecalendarandt hesamewas 265.90dol l
ars.From thisjudgmentt he Defendant  
appealedandmadet hefoll
owing
heardont he2ddayofFebr uary,1909. assignment sofer r
or: 
chanroblesv i
rtualawlibr
ary

Thef
act
sfr
om t
her
ecor
dappeart
obeasf
oll
ows:
 
chanr
obl
esv
irt
ual
awl
i
brar
y 1.
  
  
  
  
  
  
The cour
ter
red i
n sust
aini Pl
ng  ai
nti
ff
’s demur
rert
o Def
endant
’s speci
al
def
enses.
Fir
st.Thatonoraboutt he17t hdayofApr i
l,1903,i nthecityofChi cago,intheSt ate
ofIl
li
nois,intheUni tedSt ates,the Defendant,throughar epresentati
veoft heI nsular 2.
  
  
  
  
  
  
Thecour
ter
redi
nrender
ingj
udgmentagai
nstt Def
he  endant
 ont
hef
act
s.
Governmentoft hePhi lippi
neI slands,enteredintoacont r
actf oraperiodoft woy ears
withthe Pl
ainti
ff
,bywhi cht he Defendant wast or eceiveasal aryof1,200dol larsper Withrefer
encet otheabov eassignment soferror,i
tmaybesai dthatt hemer efact
yearasast enogr apheri ntheser vi
ceoft hesai d Plaint
if
f,andi nadditi
onther etowas thatthel egi
slat
ivedepartmentoft heGov ernmentoft hePhi l
i
ppi neI sl
andshad
tobepai dinadv ancet heexpensesi ncurredint r
av eli
ngfrom t hesaidcit
yofChi cago amendedsai dAct sNo.80andNo.224byAct sNo.643andNo.1040di dnothav e
toMani l
a,andone- halfsalarydur i
ngsai dper i
odoft r
avel. theeffectofchangi ngthet ermsoft hecont r
actmadebet weent he Pl
aint
if
f 
and
t Def
he  endant.Thelegisl
ati
vedepar tmentoft heGov ernmenti sexpressl yprohi
bited
Second.Saidcontractcontainedaprov
isi
onthati
ncaseofav iolati
onofit
ster
mson bysection5oft heActofCongr essof1902f r
om alteringorchangi ngt het er
msofa
thepartoft he Defendant,heshouldbecomel i
abletot Pl
he  ainti
ff
 f
ortheamount contr
act.Therightwhichthe Defendant 
hadacqui redbyv i
rtueofAct sNo.80andNo.
expendedbyt heGov ernmentbywayofexpensesi ncurr
edi ntravel
ingfr
om Chi
cago 224hadnotbeenchangedi nanyr espectbyt hef actt hatsaidl awshadbeen
toManilaandt heone-halfsalar
ypai
dduri
ngsuchperiod. amended.Theseact s,consti
tuti
ngt hetermsoft hecont r
act,sti
l
lconst it
utedapar tof
saidcontr
actandwer eenforceableinfav oroft Def
he  endant .
Thi
rd.The Defendant
 enter
edupont heperf
ormanceofhi
scont r
actuponthe30thday
ofApri
l,1903,andwaspai dhalf
-sal
aryfr
om thedat
euntilJune4,1903,thedateof The Def endant  al
legedi nhi sspeci aldef enset hathewasami norandt her efor ethe
hi
sarri
valinthePhili
ppineIsl
ands. contractcoul dnotbeenf orcedagai nsthim.Ther ecorddi scl
osest hat,atthet imet he
contractwasent eredi nt oint heSt ateofI ll
inois,hewasanadul tundert hel awsof
thatSt ateandhadf ullaut horit
yt ocont ract.The  Plai
nti
ff [t
he Def endant]cl aimst hat
,
Fourt
h.Thatont he11thdayofFebruar
y,1904,t Def
he  endant 
l
eftt
heservi
ceof byr easonoft hef actt hat,undert hatl awsoft hePhi l
ippineIsl andsatt het imet he
t Pl
he  ai
nti
ff
 andr
efusedt
omakeafur
thercompli
ancewiththeter
msofthecont
ract
. contractwasmade,madeper sonsi nsai dIslandsdi dnotr eacht hei
rmaj orityunt i
l
theyhad at tai
ned t he age of23 y ears,he was notl iable undersai d cont ract
,
Fi
fth.Onthe3ddayofDecember ,1904,the Plai
nti
ff
 commencedanact ioninthe contendi ngt hatthel awsoft hePhi li
ppineI slandsgov er
ned.I tisnotdi sput ed—upon
CourtofFi
rstInst
anceoft hecityofMani l
at orecoverfrom t Def
he  endant thesum of thecont r
ar ythef acti sadmi tt
ed— t hatatt het imeandpl aceoft hemaki ngoft he
269.23doll
ars,whichamountt he Plai
nti
ff 
clai
medhadbeenpai dtothe Defendant
 as contracti nquest iont he Defendant  hadf ullcapaci tytomaket hesame.Nor uleis
expensesincurr
edi ntrav
elingf r
om Chi cagot oMani l
a,andashal f
-salaryforthe betterset tledinlawt hant hatmat ter sbear i
ngupont heexecut ion,interpretationand
peri
odconsumedi ntrav
el. vali
dityofacont ractar edet erminedbt hel aw oft hepl acewher et hecont ractis
made.( Scudderv s.Uni onNat i
onalBank,91U.S. ,406.)  
cralaw  Mattersconnect ed
Sixt
h.I
twasexpressl
yagreedbet
weent hepar
ti
estosai
dcont
ractt
hatLawsNo.80 withi t
sper formancear er egulatedbyt hel awpr evail
ingatt hepl aceofper formance.
andNo.224shouldconst
it
uteapartofsai
dcontr
act
. Matt ersr espect i
ngar emedy ,suchast hebr i
ngingofsui t,admi ssibil
i
tyofev idence,
andst atut esofl i
mi t
ations, dependupont helawoft hepl acewher ethesui tisbr ought.
(
Idem.
) 
 cr
alaw Inthebegi nni ngofMar ch, 1909, t
hewi fereturnedt othePhi l
ippines,butthehusband
hadabsent edhi msel fther efrom intheear lyday sofFebr uaryoft hesamey ear.On
The Defendant’
sclaimt hathewasanadul twhenheleftChicagobutwasami nor the11t hofMar ch,1909,t hewi f
ecommenced di vorcepr oceedingsagai nsther
whenhear r
ivedatMani la;thathewasanadultatheti
mehemadet hecontr
actbut husband,al legingascauseofact iontheadul terycommi ttedbyhi mi noraboutt he
wasami noratthet i
met he Pl
aint
if
f 
att
emptedt
oenforcethecontr
act,mor
ethana year1899wi t
hacer tai
nwomant hatshenamedi nthecompl aintandwi thwhom he
yearlat
er,i
snott enabl
e. hadl i
v edandcohabi tedandbywhom hehadhadt wochi ldren.Shepr ayedt hatshe
begr antedadecr eeofdi vor ce;thatthecour torderthesepar ationoft hepr operti
esof
thepl aint
iffandt hedef endant ,t
odat ef rom t hedateoft hesai ddecr ee;t hatthe
Ourconcl
usi
onswi
thr
efer
encet
othef
ir
stabov
eassi
gnmentofer
rorar
e,t
her
efor
e. conjugalsoci etybe t her eforel i
quidated,and af t
ert he amountoft he conj ugal
propert y had been det ermi ned,t hat one-hal fthereof be adj udicat
ed t o her;
Fi
rst.Thatt
heamendmentstoAct
sNo.80andNo.224i
nnowayaf
fect
edt
het
erms furt
her mor e,ast ot heamountofpensi onowi ngf orhersuppor tbutnotpai dt oher,
ofthecontr
acti
nquest
ion;
and thatthedef endantbeor der edt opayhert hesum of36, 000Spani sh pesetas,thatis,
7,220Spani shdol l
ars,whi ch,r educedt oPhi l
i
ppi necurrencyatt herateofexchange
Second.The Pl
aint
if
f 
[Defendant
]bei
ngf ul
l
yqual
i
fiedtoent
erintot
hecontractatt
he ont hedat eoft hecompl aint,amount edt oP12,959.90.
pl
aceandt imethecont r
actwasmade,hecannotpl eadi
nfancyasadefenseatthe
pl
acewher ethecontr
actisbeingenf
orced. Thedef endantdeni edt hatei therheorhi swi fewasar esi dentoft heci tyofMani la, as
theyhadt hei rdomi cilei nBar cel ona,Spai n,andheal legedt hatbot hoft hem wer e
Webeli
evet
hatt
heabov
econcl
usi
onsal
sodi
sposeoft
hesecondassi
gnmentof nativesandsubj ect sofSpai n.Headmi ttedt hathewasmar riedt oConst anzaYañez;
er
ror
. heal soadmi ttedhav ingexecut edt hedocumentoft he4t hofApr il
, 1899, i
nwhi chhe
hadunder takent omakeanal lowancef ort hesuppor tofhi swi fei nMadr id,buthe
deni edt heot herpar agr aphsoft hecompl ai
nt .Asaspeci aldef ensewi t
hr egar dt ot he
Fort
her
easonsabov
est
ated,
thej
udgmentoft
hel
owercour
tisaf
fi
rmed,
wit
hcost
s. all
owance, heal leged:" Thati noraboutt hemont hofMay ,1900, hewr ot et ohi swi fe,
thepl ai
nt iff,instruct inghert or etur nt oMani l
a, wi thav i
ewofj oini ngherhusbandand
G.
R.No.L-
7487December29,
1913 beingmai ntai nedbyhi mi nhi sownhouse;t hatt hecommuni cat ionwasi gnor edby
thepl aint i
ff,whoagai nstt hewi l
loft hedef endant ,cont i
nuedt ol ivesepar at elyf r om
CONSTANZAYAÑEZDEBARNUEVO,  
plai
nti
ffandappel
l
ant
,  himt hatf r
om t hey ear1901, thedef endantdi dnotknowheraddr ess; thatsi nce1900,
vs. thepl aint i
ffhasl i
v edi ncomf or tandhasknownwher eherhusbandr esi ded;t hatt he
GABRI
ELFUSTER,
 
def
endantandappel
lant
. plaint i
ff,dur ingal loft het i
mer ef er redt o,i naddi tiont o di spossi ngofv aluabl e
proper t
ybel ongi ngt oherhusband,possessedandst i
llpossessespr oper tyofher
own,acqui redbyher ,ingr eat eramountt hant hatownedbyherhusband;andt hati n
O'
Bri
en&DeWittf
orplai
ntif
f. anycaset heact ionhaspr escr ibedbyoper ationofl aw. "
( B.ofE. ,pp.7and8. )Ast o
Chi
cote&Mi
randafordefendant
. thedi vor ce,headmi tst hathehadbyt hepl aintifft wochi ldr ent hathav edi ed.He
expr essl ydeni edt hecont ent sofpar agr aph5oft hecompl aint ,rel atingt ot hechar ge
  ofadul ter yandal sot hoseofpar agr aphs6,7,and8,concer ni ngt hepossessi onof
realandper sonalpr oper tyoft heconj ugalpar tner shi p, thest at ementoft heiramount ,
J.
JOHNSON,
  : andt hei rqual i
f i
cat i
onasbei ngal lconj ugalpr oper ty.Asaspeci aldef ense, heal leged
thatpr iort ot hey ear1899heconf erredpower sofat t orneyupont hepl aint ifft o
admi nisterandcol lectpr oper tyandcr edi t
sper t
ai ningt ohi mt ot hev alueofabout
Ont he7t hofFebr uary,1875,Gabr i
elFust erandConst anzaYañezwer ejoinedina 200, 000pesos;t hatt hepl aint iffaccept edandexer cisedt hesai dpowerofat tor ney ,
Catholicorcanoni calmar ri
agei ntheci tyofMal aga,Spai n.InFebr uaryof1892, attachedt hepr oper t yandcol lect edt hecr edi t
swi thoutev erhav ingr ender edany
GabrielFust ercamet ot hePhili
ppineIslands,sett l
ed,andacqui r
edr ealandpersonal accountoft hem.Asaspeci alpr efer reddef ense, heal legedt hatnei thert het rialcour t
property.Towar dt hemi ddleof1896,Const anzaYañezcamet oMani l
a,whereher noranyot hercour ti nt hePhi lippi neI sl andshasj urisdict ionov ert hesubj ectmat t erof
husbandwasr esiding,andher eli
vedwi t
hhi mi nconjugalr el
ationsunt i
lthemonthof thecompl aint ,because, ast ot heal lowancef orsuppor t,sincenei t hert hepl aint i
f fnor
April
,1899.Ont he4t hdayoft hatmont handy eart heymadeanagr eement,ina thedef endantar er esi dentsofMani la,orofanyot herpl acei nt hePhi lippineI sl ands,
publi
cdocument ,bywhi chthey"resolvedt osepar ateandl iv
eapar t
,bothconsenti
ng theagr eementupont hesubj ectwasnei thercel ebr at ed,norwasi tt obef ulfill
ed,i n
tosuchsepar ati
on,andbyv ir
tuethereoft hehusbandaut horizedt hewi f
etomov eto thePhi lippineI slands; andast ot hedi vorce, becauset heact i
ont her ef oreoughtt obe
Spain,ther etoresi deinsuchpl aceast hesai dladypl eases."(B.ofE. ,p.13.)I
nthe tri
edbyt heeccl esi ast icalcour ts.I nconcl usi on, hepr ay edt hatt hecour tfind:Thatt he
same document ,t he husband under took t o send hi s wi f
e t he sum of cour twaswi thoutj urisdictionov ert het wocausesofact i
on;t hatev eni fi thad
300 peset as monthl yforhersuppor t
,pay ablei nMadr i
d,Spai n,from themont hof j
ur i
sdi ction,i tcoul dnotor dert hepay mentoft hesum cl ai medasar rear sofal imony ;
Juneoft hesai dy ear1899.Thehusbandcompl iedwi ththisobl i
gationunti
lAugust, that,af teral l
,t heact ionwi thr egar dt ot hiscauseofact i
onhaspr escr ibed;andast o
1899, af
terwhi cht i
meheceasedt omakef urt
herpay ment s.
theprayerforadecreeofdivor
ce,t
hedefendantshouldbeacquit
ted,whil
eonthe Grant i
ngt hesef act s,t her ecanbenodoubtt hatt hedef endant ,althoughaSpani sh
otherhandtheplai
nti
ffshoul
dberequir
edtorendertothedef
endantanaccount
ing, subject ,wasar esidentoft heseI sl ands.Ar t
icle26oft heCi v i
l Codet hatheci tesitsel f
support
edbypr oofs,ofheroperat
ionsashi sattor
neyandadmi nist
rat
ri
xofhis providest hat" Spani ar dswhochanget hei rdomi cil
et oaf oreigncount r
y,wher ethey
proper
tyinSpai
n. maybeconsi deredasnat i
v eswi thoutot hercondi tionst hant hatofr esidentst her ein,
shallber equired,i nor dert opr eser vet heSpani shnat ional ity,tost atet hatsuchi s
Indecidingthecase,theCour tofFirstI
nstanceofthecityofManilahelditselftohave theirwi shbef oret heSpani shdi pl omat i
corconsul aragent , whomustr ecordt hem i n
j
urisdi
ction,decreedt hesuspensi onofl i
feincommonbet weent hepl ai
nt i
ffand ther egistryofSpani sh  r
esi dents,aswel last heirspouses,shoul dt heybemar r
ied,
defendant,order
edthel attertopaythef ormerP5,
010.17,dir
ectedthatthecommunal andanychi l
drent heymayhav e."Fr om t hispr ov i
sion,whi chi st heexcl usi veand
propertybedi vi
dedbet weent hepar t
ies,wit
hcostsagai nstthedef endant ,andin i
rrefutablel awgov er ni ngt hedef endant ,wear et oconcl udet hatt hedomi cileoft he
eventt hatthepar t
iescoul dnotagr eet othedi v
isi
on,itwast o beef f
ectedby defendantandt hepl ai ntif
fi sf ull
ypr oven,i rrespect i
veoft heTr eatyofPar i
s.Wi t
hout
commi ssionersaccordingt ol
aw. thi
ssupposi t
ionofhav ingacqui redhi sdomi cil
eandr esidencei nt heseI slands,he
couldnothav er equi redhi swi fet or etur nt ol i
v ewi thhi mt herei nbecauset his
requirementcoul donl ybebasedonar ticles58oft heCi vilCodeofSpai n,accor di ng
Both parties appeal
ed f r
om t hi
sj udgment,butnot wi
thst
anding the appeal
,t he towhi cht hewi f
ei sobl i
gedt ofol l
owherhusbandwher ev erhewi shest oest abl i
shhi s
parti
tionoft heproperty,bymeansofcommi ssi
oners,waspr oceededwi t
h.These resi
dence, oronar ticle48ofchapt er5oft heMar r
iageLawi nf orcei nt hePhi lippines,
l
atter,aft
erv ari
ousvici
ssitudes,r
enderedthei
rrepor
tandaccountoft heparti
ti
ont o whichi mposesupont hewi fethedut yofobey i
ngherhusband, li
vingi nhiscompany ,
thecour t
,whot henrenderedfinalj
udgment,fr
om which,al
so,bothparti
esappealed. oroff ollowinghi mt owher everhet ransf ershi sdomi ci l
eorr esi dence.Andj ust
becausehewasabsentf oramont hbef or ehi swi feret ur nedt ot hePhi l
ippines,he
I
.DEFENDANT'
SAPPEAL. cannotbe under st ood t o hav e sur r
ender ed his habi tualdomi cile ofmor et han
sevent een y ears,wi thouthav i
ng est ablished anyot heraf terwar ds,and wi t
hout
Thefir
ster
rorassignedistheut t
erlackofjuri
sdi
ctionoft hetri
al cour
tandofal lot
her maki nganydecl arat ioni nl egalf orm,bef or eheabsent edhi msel f,ofi tbei nghi s
court
soft heIslandst otryt hecase,ei t
herwi t
hr egardtot hef ul
fil
l
mentoft he i
ntent i
ont ochangehi sdomi cil
e,whi l
eatt hesamet i
meher etainsher ehi shouse,
contr
acttofur
nishal i
mony ,ortodecr eeadivorceorsuspensi onoflifeincommon realpr opertyandal lmannerofmeansofsubsi stence.Sect i
on377oft heCodeof
betweenthespouses:l ackofj ur
isdi
cti
onov ertheper sonsandov erthesubject Civi
lPr ocedur el eav est ot heel ect ionoft hepl ainti
f fthebr ingi ngofaper sonalact ion
matterofthelit
igati
on;andov ert hepersonsoft hecont endingpar t
ies,because l
iket heoneatbarei theri nt hepl acewher et hedef endantmay  reside  orbef ound,or
nei
theroft
hespouseswasar esi
dentoft hePhil
i
ppi nesont hedat eofthecompl ai
nt. i
nt hatwher et hepl aint iffr
 esides.

Thel owercour tdidnotcommi tthiser r

orat tributedt ohi m.Thedef endanthadnot Thel i
tigati
ngspouseshav egai nednotonl ydomi ci l
e( domi cil
io)butal sor esi dence
prov edt hathehadel sewher eal egaldomi cileot hert hant hatwhi chhemani f
est ly (vecindad)  inMani l
a.I nthislitigati
ont hedef endantcl aimst hat,bor nashesay si n
hadi nt hePhi l
ippinesdur ingt hesev ent eeny ear spr ecedingt hedat eoft hecompl aint. Mal lorca,i nt heBal earicIslands,hei snotsubj ect ,inhi smar ri
age,t ot her ules
Ont hecont rary,itplai
nlyappear s,wi thoutpr ooft ot hecont rary,thatdur ingt hisnot gov erningconj ugalpr opert
y,t hatar ei nf orcei nt het erri
toriesofSpai nt hatar e
i
nconsi der abl eper i
od,ext endi ngf rom t hey ear1892unt i
lamont hpr iort ot hear rival gov ernedbyt hecommonl aw ofCast i
llo(ast hePhi l
ippinesi nt heirday )
,because
ofhi swi fei nt hePhi l
ippi nesi nMar ch,1909,hehadconst antlyr esidedi nt hesai d theyar eopposedt ot heForalLawi nf orceint hesai dIslandsandwhi chisr espect ed
Islands, hadkeptopenhouse, andhadacqui redi ntheci tyofMani laqui teal itt
ler eal byt heCi vilCode.Ev eni fthisdef ensecoul dbesust ainedher ein,par agraph2of
proper tywhi chi snow t heobj ectoft hedi visionoft heconj ugalsoci ety.I tisal so arti
cl e15oft hesai dCi v
ilCodewoul dbeappl icable.I tprov i
des:" Fort hepur posesof
plainlyshown, withoutpr ooft ot hecont rary,thathi swi fer esidedi nt hisci tyofMani l
a this ar ti
cle,r esi
dence ( vecindad)wi l
lbe acqui red:By r esidence oft en y ears
from t hemi ddleof1896unt ilApr i
l,1899,atwhi cht i
meshewasper mittedbyhi mt o i
n common  lawpr ovincesort erri
tories,unlessbef or ethet ermi nationoft hatt i
mehe
changeherr esi dence.Itisaf f
irmedbyt hedef endanti npoi ntf i
veofhi sanswert ot he mani f
est shi swi lltot hecont r
ary;orbyar esidenceoft woy ear s,ift hei nterest ed
compl aint,t hati nMay ,1900,hesental ett er i
nstructi
ng  thepl ai nti
fft or eturnt o persondecl arest hi
st obehi swi l
l...I nanycase, thewi f
ewi llfollowt hecondi tionof
Mani l
at o livewi t
hherhusbandandt obesuppor t
edbyhi mi nhi s house,butt hatt he herhusband.... "Onnooccasi onhadt hedef endantmani fest edhi swi lltot he
plaintiff
, agai nstt hewi l
loft hedef endant ,cont inuedt ol i
vepar tfrom hi m.( B.ofE. ,p. cont rary,notev enashewasl eaving,af terar esidenceofsev enteeny ears,amont h
7.)Iti sal soaf fir
medi nt hesai danswer ,thatdur ingal loft het imer eferredt oint he befor et her eturnofhi swifet otheseI slands.Ont hecont rary,whenhei nscr ibed
compl aint,andespeci allysi nce1900,t hepl ai ntif
fknew wher eherhusband  resided. himsel fint heSpani shconsul ate,hedecl aredhi si ntentionofcont inuingt or esidei n
(B.ofE. ,p.7. )Itisal sov er yevidentt hatt hecont ract,byv irtueofwhi chheaut horized theI slandsasaSpani ardandnotasaMal l
or qui
n,subj ectassucht ot hecommon
hiswi fet o move  toSpai nand  reside therei nsuchpl aceaswasagr eeabl et oher ,was l
awofSpai n.
ex ecutedi nt heseI slands," i
nt heci t
yofMani laont he4t hofApr i
l,1889, "asi st obe
seeni nt heheadi ngoft hedocument .( B.ofE. ,p.12. )Final l
y ,atpage11ofhi sbr i
ef, Inanendeavortodemonst
ratethelackofj
uri
sdi
ctionofthecourtsoftheseIsl
ands
hesay st hatt her ecordshowshi mt obeaSpani shsubj ect ,i
nscr i
bedi nt heconsul at e overt
hesubjectmatt
erofthecompl ai
ntt
hati
stot ryanactionfordi
vorcebetween
ofhi snat i
on,andci t
iesar ti
cle26oft heCi vilCode,t heTr eatyofPar isandt he twoCatholi
cSpaniar
ds,heallegesinhisappeal:Thatbothl i
ti
gantsareSpanish
Phi l
ippineBi ll. subj
ect
sandt hatt
heycont
ractedaCathol
icmarr
iage;thati
naccordancewithart
icl
e
9oft heCi v i
lCodeofSpai n( thesameast hatoft heseI sl
ands)t hel awsr elatingt o whicht hel it
igantsbel ong....I nor dert of osterthei rr elati
onsanddev elopt hei r
fami l
yr i
ght sanddut i
es,ort ot hest atus,condi tionandl egalcapaci tyofper sons, commer ce,allcivil
izednat ionsar ei nterest edi ndoingj ust ice,notal onet ot hei rown
gov ernSpani ar
dsal thought heyr esi dei naf or eigncount ry;that ,inconsequence," all peopl e,butt ot hosef or eignerswhocont ractwi t
hint hecount ryorout sideofi t
quest ionsofaci v i
lnat ure,suchast hosedeal i
ngwi tht hev alidityornul l
ityoft he j
ur i
dicalt i
eswhi chi nsomemanneref fectt heirsov ereignt y.(Ibid,p.107. )Mi ghti ts
mat ri
moni albond,t hedomi cileoft hehusbandandwi fe,thei rsuppor t,asbet ween cour t
s,i nsomecases,i nsui t
sbet weenf oreigner sresi dingi ni tster ri
tory,appl yt he
them, thesepar ationoft heirpr oper ti
es, t
her ulesgov erningpr oper ty,mar i
tal author i
ty, personall awoft hepar ties,butabdi cat et hei rjuri
sdiction,r efrainf r
om admi nist ering
divisi
onofconj ugalpr oper ty ,t hecl assificat i
onoft hei rpr oper ty,legalcausesf or j
ust i
cebecauset heper sonall aw oft hef or eignergav et hej urisdictionoft hegi ven
divorce,t heext entoft hel at ter ,theAUTHORI TYt o decr eei t
,and,i ngener al,theci vil caset osomecour tthati snott het erritorialoneoft henat i
on?Thi shasnev ery et
effectsofmar ri
ageanddi v or ceupont heper sonandpr oper ti
esoft hespouses,ar e beencl aimedi nanyoft het heoriesr egar dingt heconf l
ictofl awsar isingoutof
quest ionst hatar egov er nedexcl usi velybyt henat i
onall awoft hehusbandandwi fe, quest ions of nat ionalit
y and domi cile;i twoul d be equi valentt or ecogni zing
and,i nourcase,byt heSpani shl awbyv ir
tueofar ticle9asabov esetout ."(Brief,p. extrater rit
oriallawi nf avorofpr ivateper sons.Thepr ov isionsofar t
icle80oft heCi v i
l
12.)Theappel l
antanddef endantcont i
nueshi sar gument ,say ing:Thatbyt heexpr ess Law ofSpai nisonl ybindi ngwi thint hedomi nionsofSpai n.Itdoesnotaccompany
prov i
sionofar ticl
e80oft heCi vilCodeofSpai n," jurisdicti
oni nact i
onsf ordi v orce theper sonsoft heSpani shsubj ectwher ev erhemaygo.Hecoul dnotsuccessf ully
andnul li
ficat i
onofcanoni calmar riagesl ieswi theccl esiasticalcour ts,"whi let hatof i
nv okei tifher esidedi nJapan,i nChi na,i nHongkongori nanyot hert er r
itor ynot
civi
lt ri
bunal sisl imi tedt oci vilmar ri
ages;t hatt hisbei ngso,t heact ionf ordi v orce subjectt ot hedomi nionofSpai n.For eignCat holi
csdomi ciledinSpai n, subjectt ot he
broughtbyt hepl ai ntif
fi nt hecausedoesnotf allwi t hi
nt hej urisdictionoft heci vil ecclesi asticalcour tsinact ionsf ordiv orceaccor dingtot hesai dar t
icle80oft heCi v i
l
cour t
s, accor di
ngt ohi sownl awofper sons, becauset hesecour t
soughtt oappl yt he Code,coul dnotal l
egel ackofj uri
sdi ctionbyi nvoking,ast hel aw oft heirper sonal
Spani shl aw i naccor dancewi tht hesai dar ticle9oft heCi vilCodofSpai n,andt his statute,al aw oft heirnat i
onwhi chgi v esj ur i
sdicti
oni nsuchacaset ot er ritorial
Spani shl awgr antst hej urisdi ct i
onov erthepr esentcauset ot heeccl esiastical cour ts, cour t
s, ort oacer taincour twithinorwi thoutt heter r
it
oryoft heirnation.1awphi 1. net
i
nt hepl aceofwhi chnot ribunaloft heseI slandsconsubr ogat ei tself.Say st his
appel l
ant :"Ifal awofaf or eigncount rywer eofr i
gor ousappl icationi nagi vencase, a I
tisaquest
iont
hathasal
readybeensett
ledi
ntwodecisi
onsoft
heSupremeCour
t
Nor thAmer icant ribunalwoul dhav enoj urisdi ctionuponaneccl esiast icalcour tand (
Benedi
ctov
s.DelaRama,
3Phi l
.Rep.
,34,
andIbañezv
s.Ort
iz,
5Phi
l.Rep.
,325)
.
therefor et heNor thAmer i
cant ri
bunali nappl yingi twoul dhav et oexer ci
seaf acul t
y
whi cht hatl awr eser v edt ot heeccl esiastical cour t."( Brief,pp.13, 14, and15. )
Inthepresentact
ionfordivorcetheCour
tofFirstInst
anceoft heci
tyofMani
l
adid
notlackjuri
sdi
cti
onovert hepersonsofthel
it
igants,f
or,al
thoughSpani
shCathol
i
c
Unlesswet aket hequest i
oni tsel
ff orgranted,thef oregoingr easoningcannotbe subject
s,theywer
eresidentsofthi
scit
yandhadt hei
rdomici
leherei
n.
upheld.Thequest ionisprecisel
ywhet hert
hecour tsoft hePhi l
i
ppinesar ecompetent
orhav ejuri
sdict
iont odecreet hedi v
or cenow onappeal ,andi tistakenforgranted
thatthepowert odecr eei tisoneoft herightsincludedi ntheper sonalstat
ute,but TheCour
tsofFirstInstanceofthePhil
i
ppineI
slandshavet
hepowerandjur
isdicti
on
appell
antdoesnotpr ovebyanyl aw orlegaldoct rinewhat ev erthatthepersonal tot
ryact
ionsfordiv
or ce.Thatoft
hecityofManil
adidnotl
ackj
uri
sdi
cti
onbyr eason
statut
eofaf orei
gnercar r
ieswi thit
,towhet herhet r
ansf er
shi sdomi ci
le,t
heauthorit
y oft
hesubjectmatt
eroft heli
ti
gati
on.
establi
shedbyt hel awofhi snat i
ontodecr eehisdi vorce,whichwaswhathehadt o
demonst rat
e. Thesecondassi gnmentoferr
orisdirectedagainstt
hef i
ndingofthecourtthatthe
defendanthadcommi tt
edadulter
ywi thacer t
ainwomani nthi
scityfrom theyear
Theaut horit
yofj urisdictionalpowerofcour tst odecr eeadi vorcei snotcompr i
sed 1899unt il1909;thet
hir
dwasagai nstthefindi
ngthattheadult
erywasaccompani ed
withint heper sonalst atusoft hehusbandandwi fe,si mpl ybecauset hewhol et heor y bypublicscandalandinjur
edthedignit
yofhi swif
e;andthefourt
hforhav i
ngdecreed
oft hest atutesandoft her i
ghtswhi chbel ongt oev eryonedoesnotgobey ondt he thedivorce,suspensi
onofthemarriedli
fe,andtheseparat
ionoftheproperti
esofthe
spher eofpr ivatelaw, andt heauthor ityandj uri
sdictionoft hecour tsar enotamat ter parti
es.
oft hepr i
vatelaw ofper sons,butoft hepubl icorpol iti
call aw oft henat ion." The
j
ur i
sdictionofcour tsandot herquest ionsr elatingt opr ocedur ear econsi deredt obe Theevi
dencer
elat
ingtothefor
egoi
ngnotbei
ngsentuponappeal
,wear
eunabl
eto
ofapubl icnatureandconsequent lyar egener all
ysubmi ttedt ot het erritor
ialpr i
nciple. rev
iewi
t,soweacceptt
hefindi
ngsoft
hetr
ial
cour
t.
...Al lpersonst hathav et odemandj usticei nacasei nwhi chf oreigner sint ervene,
sincet heycangai nnot hi
ngbyasi mpl edecl aration,shoul dendeav ort oappl yt othe Ther eisapointofl aw r
egardingt hecl ai
mt hattheadul t
ery,event houghi twere
tri
bunal esoft hest atewhi chhav ecoer ci v
emeans( proper tysituat edi nthet erri
tory) proven would notbe a cause f ordi v or
ce,because no publ i
c scandalr esul
ted
toenf orceanydeci siont heymayr ender .Ot herwise, onewoul dexposehi msel finthe therefr
om norwast herecontemptdi splayedf orthewife.(Appell
ant '
sbrief
,p.26. )
suittomaki ngusel essexpendi tureswhi ch,al thoughhewonhi scase,woul dnot Thef actsmustbeaccept edbyt hist r
ibunalast heywer ef oundbyt hetri
alcourt,
cont r
ibutet osecur ehi sright sbecauseoft hecour t
'slackofmeanst oenf orcet hem. " sincetheevidencecannotber eviewed;mor eover
,theappelleeaffir
mst hecont r
ar y
(TorresCampos," Element osdeDer echoI nternationalPr ivado,"p.108. )" Just i
ce," andmai ntai
nsthatitisaprov
enf act,publi
candnot ori
ous,anasser t
ionthatthetrial
sayst hesamepr ofessor ," i
sapr incipl esuper iort ot hatofnat ions,andi tshoul d courtmusthav efoundtobepr oven.( Appellee'sbr
ief,
p.5.)Inlaw,itisnotnecessar y
thereforebeadmi nisteredwi thoutt akingi nt oanyaccountwhat soev erthest atet o thatadult
ery,t
obeacausef ordi v
or ce,shoul dbeaccompani edbypubl i
cscandaland
cont
emptf ort
hewif
e.Ther
eisnol
awt
hatr
equi
rest
his.Law2,t
it
le9,oft
heFour
th oferr
ors,clai
med thatthe cour
ter r
ed in notconfi
rming the r
epor
toft he
Part
idadoesnotr
equi
rei
t. commissi
onerswhi
chgavetothesaidpl
aint
if
fthesum of30,000Spani
shdol
l
ars.I
t
i
sunnecessar
ytosayany
thi
ngfurt
her.
Thef i
ft
handsi xthassi gnment sofer roraredirectedagainstthefi
ndingofthet ri
al
courtthatthereexi stsconj ugalproper t
y,af i
ndingt hattheappell
antmai nt
ainsi s Theeight herrorconsistsinthatt hecour tbelowor deredt hedefendanttopayt othe
wit
houtf oundation,andt hatwhichhol dsthatthepr opert
yinthehandsofthereceiver pl
aint
iffP56,010.17Phi l
ippinecurrency ,whereast hepl ai
nt i
ffhadmadenodemandi n
(t
hatsoughtt obedi vided)i sconjugalproper t
y,aconcl usi
onwhicht heappellant hercompl aintwi t
hr espectt othissum;t hatnoar rear
sofpay mentareowi ngfor
cl
aimst obecont r
aryt ot helawwhichshoul dbeappl iedtothecaseandaccordingt o al
imony ,event houghpay ment shadbeenst ipul
at edi nthecont ract
,unlesstheyare
which,asallegedint het enthassi
gnmentofer ror,t
hewhol eoftheproper
tyshouldbe cl
aimedbyt heper sonwhohadf urnishedt heactualsuppor t,andthatal
imonyi sdue
adj
udicatedt othedef endantasbei ngexclusiv
el yhis. onl
ywheni tisnecessar y;sothat,ast hepl ai
ntif
fhashadnoneedofi tfortenyears,
norhasshest atedwhohasf urnishedi t
,therei snor easonf orawar i
nghert he
Facts:Theappel l
antaffi
rmst hathei sanat i
veofMal l
orcaint heBalearicIslandsand amountoft hear r
earsf orallthattime;t hatasshehasal lowedt enyearstoelapse
thatisal sothecondi t
ionofhi swi fe,t
hepl ai
ntif
f.Law:Thatal t
hought her uleofthe bef
orecl aimingit,heracti
onpr escribedin1904, thati stosay ,aft
erfi
veyears.
Civi
lCodei st hatwhichl egallygov er
nsconj ugalproperty
,y etatt hesamet i
meit
admi t
s, asanexcept i
on,thel aws, usages, andcust omsoft heFor alLaw, accordi
ngto Theplai
nti
ffacknowledgest
hatt
hereisnopeti
ti
onorpray
eri
nhercomplai
ntast
o
which, asappliedintheBal eari
cI slands,thel awoft hefamilyisthatoft hedi v
isi
onof thi
scauseofact ion,butsheconsi
dersthati
nequit
ysuchanomi ssi
oncanbe
propertyandt hatofconj ugalpr oper t
yisnotknown;sot hatt hepr opertypertai
ns suppl
i
ed.
exclusivelyt
ot hespousewho,bywhat ev ertitl
e,hasacqui r
edi t.Insuppor tofthe
fact
s, appell
antci t
espages27t o37and39t o41i nt
hebi l
lofexcept i
ons;andoft he Paragraph3ofsect i
on89( 90)oft heCodeofCi v i
lProceduredet er
minesoneoft he
l
aw, thedoctrinalauthori
tyofManr esa,Gutierrez,andAlcubil
l
a. requisi
tesofthecomplaint
:"Ademandf orthereli
efwhi chthepl ai
nti
ffcl
aims."The
secti
ongoesont osay :"I
ft her ecoveryofmoneyordamagesi sdemanded,t he
Theci tationf r
om pages39t o41oft hebillofexcept i
ons,t heonl yper tinentone,is amountdemandedmustbest ated.Ifspeci
alrel
ief,suchasanor derforthespecial
butanaf fidavitfi
ledbyt hedef endanti nwhich,underoat h,hehimsel ftestifi
esast o resti
tuti
onofpropert
y,et
c.,thegr oundofdemandi ngsuchr eliefmustbest at
edand
theFor alLawi ntheBal earicIslands.Theadv er
separtysay swi t
hr egar dt othis:"Thi
s thespecialrel
i
efprayedfor.Butt her
emaybeaddedt othest atementofthespecifi
c
affi
dav i
twasnev erpresent edi npr oof,wasnev err eceivedbyt het ri
alj udge,and rel
iefdemandedagener alpray erforsuchfurt
herorot herreliefasshallbedeemed
cannotser i
ouslybe consi dered as an ef fortto est abli
sh the law ofa f orei
gn equitabl
e."
j
urisdicti
on.Sect i
ons300, 301and302oft heCodeofCi vi
lProcedur e,nowi nf or
cein
thesei slands,i ndicat
et hemet hodbywhi cht helaw ofaf or
eigncount rymaybe Inthecompl aintoft hecaseatbart hepr ov i
sionsofpar agraph2oft hesai dsect ion
proved.Wemai ntainthatt heaf fi
dav i
tofaper sonnotv ersedint hel aw,whi chwas 89[ 90]ar ecompl iedwi thbyset ti
ngf orthinitspar agraphs4and5t her el
ati
onoft he
neversubmi t
tedaspr oof ,neverr eceivedbyt hetr
ialcourt,andwhi chhasnev erbeen causeofact ion, t
hati s,thecont ractoft he4t hofApr il,1899, bywhi cht hedefendant
subjectedt oanycr oss-exami nation,i
snotameansofpr ovingaf oreignl awonwhi ch obli
gat edhimsel ft osendt ot heplaint i
ffinSpai nacer tainamountofmoneymont hly,
thedef endantr eli
es."(Brief,pp.6and7. ) forhersuppor t,andt hef ailur
et ocompl ywi t
ht hisobl igati
onaf t
ert hemont hof
August ,1899.Par agraph6,asaconsequenceoft hepr omi seestablishedi n4and5,
Furthermor e,ont hesupposi t
ionthatthedef endantcouldinvoket heFor alLawast he saysasf oll
ows: "Thatt hedef endantGabr i
el FusteryFust eract ual
lyowest hepl ai
ntif
f
l
aw ofhi sper sonalst atusi nt hemat teroft heregimenofhi smar r
iage,andt hatto thesum of36, 100Spani sh  pesetas,t hati s,7,220dol lars,which,r educedatt he
al
leget hishebeconsi deredasaut horizedbyar ti
cle15oftheCivil Code, wehav esaid presentr ateofexchange, amount stot hesum ofP12, 959.90, Phil
i
ppi necur rency .
"(B.
before,indeal ingwi thhi sl aw ofdomi ci
le,thatpar agr
aph2oft hisar t
icle15oft he ofE. ,
p.2. )Inthecaseofdef aultont hepar tofthedef endant" thecour tshal lproceed
Civi
lCodewoul dbeent irelyadv er
set ohi sclai m,andifi
tbeadv ancedt hatthereisa toheart hepl aintif
fandhi swi tnessesandassesst hedamagesordet ermi net he
si
mi larFor alLawi nt hePhi li
ppinesbyv ir
tueofpar agr
aph1oft hesai dar t
icl
e15,i t otherrelieftowhi cht hepl aintif
fmaybeent
  it
led,i
ncludingt hecost soft heaction,and
mightbesai d, t
hought her eisnotatpr esentanyneedt osayi t
,thati tisnoti nforce. renderf inaljudgmentf orthepl aintifft
 or ecoversuchsum  ortor ecei vesuchot her
Thet wof indingsat tackedar ei nperfectaccor dwi t
hthelaw.Al lt hepr opertyofthe rel
iefast hepl eadingsandt hef actswar rant .
"Thepl eadings,nott hepr ayeroft he
mar ri
age, saysar ti
cle1407oft heCi vi
lCode, shal
lbeconsideredasconj ugalproperty compl aint.
unti
l iti
spr ovent hatitbel ongsexcl usi
v el
yt ot hehusbandort othewi fe.Nopr oofhas
beensubmi t
tedtot hisef fect. Thiscourthasrecent
lydeci
dedt
hatt
hepl
eadi
ngs,nott
hepr
ayer
,exact
ly,ar
ethe
essent
ial
partofacomplai
nt.
Assev ent
hassignmentoferrori
tisallegedthatthecourtbelow erredinholdi
ngin
thejudgmentthatt
heplai
nti
ffhadbroughttothemar r
iageadowr yof30, 000Spani
sh I
tisnotaquest
ionofal
imonyforthepr
esent
,norfort
hefut
ure,whi
chconsti
tutest
he
doll
ars.Butthedefendanthimsel
faddst hatthecour tmadenoor derordecree f
ir
stcauseofacti
on,butofcert
ainsumssti
pulat
edinacontract
.Thiscontr
actisa
regardi
ngtheall
egeddowry.Ontheotherhand, t
heplaint
if
f,i
nherf ourthassi
gnment l
awforthecont
ract
ingpar
ti
es,alawwhichri
sessuperi
ort
othosegenerall
awswhich
regul
atethenatureoft hesubj
ectmatt
erofthecontr
act(
int
hepr
esentcasean wasnoev i
denceastotheki
ndof
 peset
as 
agr
eedupon,i
twastobepr
esumedthati
t
enti
rel
yvolunt
aryone)andwhichgov
ernj
udi
cial
act
ion. wasthatcurrentatt
heti
meandplacewheretheagr
eementwasmade,whi
chwas
Mexi
can pesetas.
Anactionarisi
ngoutofacont ractofthi
snaturedoesnotpr escri
bel i
keallpersonal
ones,but,bythepr ovisi
onsofar t
icl
e1964oft heCivi
lCode,af t
erfift
eeny ears.But I
nherappeal,theplainti
ffcontendst hatthesefindi
ngsareerroneousinthat,fir
stl
y,
eventhought hepr ov i
sionsofar ti
cle1966wer eappl
icable,bywhi chanact iont o thepar
ti
eshadadmi ttedthatthepeset as 
refer
redtointhecontr
actofthe4t hofApri
l,
compelthef ul
fil
lmentofanagr eementtopayalimonyprescribesinfiv
ey ears,
y etby 1899,wereSpani
sh,andi nview ofthisadmi ssi
onthecour twasnotempower edto
sect
ion50oft heCodeofCi v
ilProcedur
e,"whenpaymenthasbeenmadeuponany defi
nethem asbeingdi f
ferentfr
om t heki ndadmitt
edbyt heparti
es;secondly,i
fhe
demandf oundeduponcont ract...anacti
onmaybebr ought...af t
ersuchpay ment .. weresoempower ed,hisinter
pretat
ionshoul dbegovernedbythetermsoft helaw.
.."Andt hepar ti
esadmi tt
hatont he18thofAugust,1908,t heplai
ntif
fsecuredt he
paymentof6, 365.68 pesetas 
byv irt
ueofthecontr
actofApr i
l4,1899.Sot hatf r
om Withregardtot hef i
rsterror,theplai
nt i
ffsaysthatt hestat
ementi smadei nher
August,1908,unt i
lMar ch,1909,t hedateofthecompl aint,thesaidper i
odoff i
ve complaintt
hatthedef endanthadobl i
gatedhi mselft
opayhera" mont
hlypensi onf
or
year
shadnotel apsed. hersupportof300Spani sh pesetas,thatis,60Spani shdoll
ars,whi
ch,r educedto
Phil
i
ppinecurrency,amount st oP107.70;"thatthedefendanthadadmi t
tedt hi
sinhi
Theni nthassignmentoferrorconsi stsint hatthecour tbel ow err
edi nempower i
ng answert ot
hecompl ai
nt,andt hatbyhisf i
ndinginasenseot herthanthataccepted
the receiverto proceed tot he separ ation oft he pr opert
y and i n appointi
ng andnotr ef
utedint heansweroft hedef endant,t
hecour tvi
olat
edthepr ovisi
onsof
commi ssionerstomaket heparti
tionanddi stributi
onbet weenthespouses, si
ncethe sect
ion94oft heCodeofCi vi
lProcedure.
pri
ncipalquestioninthi
sactionhingesupont hecl assi
ficati
onoft heproper ty
;thatit
waser r
oneouslyclassi
fi
edasconj ugalpr oper t
y,wher easal lofitper tai
nedt othe Thecour thasnoti ncur r
edt hi
serror,becausei tdoesnotappeart hatthedefendantin
husbandal oneandshouldbeadj udicatedtohi mf ort hereasont hat,asitrei
terat
edin hisansweraccept edt hefacti nthemanneral legedint hecompl aint.Thedefendant
thet enth assi
gnmentofer ror
,t heconj ugalpar tner
shi p wasnotsubj ectt othe saidthatheadmi ttedhav ingmadet heagreementr ef er r
edt oi npar agraph4oft he
provi
sionsoft helawgov er
ningconj ugalproper ty
,becausesuchpr ovi
sionar etot
all
y complaint,andt hathe  st
ooduponi tscontent s.The  content s 
oft hedocumentt o
forei
gnt otheForalLawoftheBal earicIsl
ands. whichher efersisoft hef oll
owingt enor:"
Mr .Fusterbi ndsandobl i
gateshimselfto
paytohissai dwifet hesum of300  pesetas,mont hly
, pay able desucuent a 
i
ntheci t
y
Theact i
onoft het r
ialcourt
,byt het er
msofsect i
on184 oft heCodeofCi vil andcapi t
alofMadr id,forhersuppor t....
"Hedi dnott hereforeadmi tthematterof
Procedure,wasi naccordancewithlaw.Theonl yquestionbeforet hi
scour tisthe t Spani
he  shpeset as;thatdoesnotappeari nthecont ent soft hedocument—t heonly
parti
ti
onofr ealpropert
y.Allt
hatreferr
edt ointheseconddecisionappeal edfrom, thi
ngheadmi tt
edi nhisanswer .
datedSeptember9,1911,i surbanrealestat
e.It
sclassif
icat
ionasconj ugalpropert
y
i
si naccor dancewi t
hl aw,asi sshowni ntheforegoingreasoning,andt hatno Ast ot heseconder r
or,t hecour tdi dnotcommi titinappl y i
ngt her ul econt ainedi n
consider
ationoftheForalLawentersint
othequestionhasalsobeendemonst rat
ed. arti
cle1287oft heCi vi
lCode." Theusagesorcust omsoft hecount ryshal lbet aken
i
ntoconsi derationi ni nterpreti
ngambi guityincont r
act s.... "I fint hecont ractt he
I
I.PLAI
NTI
FF'
SAPPEAL. word"  pesetas,"notbei ngspeci fi
c,wasambi guous,theni twasi nhar monywi tht hi
s
preceptt ointer pretitasbei ngt hepeset at hen inuse orcur rentwhenandwher et he
Ast het r
ialcourtr ender edjudgmentor deringthedef endanttopayt otheplaint
iffonly agreementwasmade,Mexi can bei ng then t heusualand cur rentmoneyi nt he
P5,010.17,t hepet i
tionerher epr aysthatt hejudgmentber ever
sedandt hati nit
s Phil
ippines.Fur thermor e,t hephr ase desucuent a clearl
ymeanst hati twasnot
pl
acet hi
scour tor dert hedef endanttopayt othepl ai
ntif
fherclaim ofP12, 959.90, "Spanish peset as"thatt hecont ractingpar ti
eshadi nmi nd,becausei ftheagr eement
pl
ust headdi t
ionalsum whi cht heali
monyamount st oatt herateofP107. 70per hadbeenaspeci fi
conet opay300Spani sh pesetas inMadr id,ev eryonewoul dof
mont h,dat i
ngf r om t he1stofAugust ,1909,untilt hedateofpay ment,wi t
hl egal courseunder standt hatt heexpenseoff oll
owi ngthef l
uctuationsofchangeandof
i
nterestupont hesai dP12, 959.90f r
om thedateoft hef i
l
ingofthecompl aintuntilt
he the di f
ferences i nv alue bet ween t he money cur r
enti nt he count r
y,and t he
dateofpay ment , and, f
urthermor e,l
egalinter
estuponeachoft hemont hlypay ments Spanish peset as,woul d hav et o bedef rayed byt heobl igated par ty;wher eas,i f
dueaf terthef i
lingoft hecompl aint
,andwhi chwillcontinuetobecomedueunt ilt
he nothingmor et han  peset as 
wasment i
oned,i twasnecessar yt odeci dewhi chpar t
y
cl
oseoft hisli
ti
gat i
on. shouldpayf ort hedi fferencei nv aluesot hatthe300  peset as stipul
at edher eshoul d
be300Spani sh  peset as paidinMadr i
d.Agai nstthereasonsoft hecour tbelowf orhis
decisiont hi
scour tcanof f
ernol egalgr ounds.Ther ul
eofi nterpr et
at i
onci tedi st he
Thetri
alcour tmadet hefoll
owingfi
ndings:First
,thatthet otalamountoft heal i
mony oneappl icableandi tsuppor tst hereasoni ngoft hedeci sionappeal edf rom.
owingt ot hepl ainti
ffamountedt o34, 200 pesetas;second,t hatofthissum t he
pl
ainti
ffhadcol lectedinMadr i
d6,365.68;thi
rd,thatther emainder ,t
hatis,27,834.
32,
wasequi valentt o$5,566.86Mexicancur rency;fourth,thatt heMexi canpesowas Theappell
antalsoall
egesaserrort
hatthecourtdidnotadj
udicatetoherthe30,
000
worth90cent av osPhi l
i
ppinecurrency;fift
h,thatt hereforet hesum of$5, 566.86 Spani
sh doll
ars which the commissi
oners proposed i
nt heirreport
.Firstshe
Mexicancur rencywasequi val
enttoP5,010Phi l
i
ppinecur rency ;andfi
nally,asthere char
acter
izesthissum of30,000doll
arsasthedowr yofthewifedeliv
eredtothe
husband,
then,
lat
er,
aspar
apher
nal
proper
tybr
oughtt
othemar
ri
age. thereforeaciti
zenoft hatst ate,oratl eastaci t
izenofCal i
for
niawheresomeofhi s
properties ar
el ocated.Thi s cont enti
on i n untenable.Not wit
hstandi
ng the long
Accordi ngt othel astinstruct
ionsoft hecour ttot hecommi ssioners,thisamountof resi
denceoft hedecedenti nt hePhi li
ppines,hisst ayherewasmer el
ytemporary,and
30,000dol larscoul dnotent erintot hepart
ition,andwi threason.I f,aswascl aimed, i
t hecont inuedandr emainedt obeaci ti
zenoft heUni tedStatesandoft hestateofhis
wasi nher i
tedbyt hepl ainti
fffr
om heruncl e,itreall
yconstitutespar aphernalproper t
y perti
nentr esi
dencet o spend t her estofhi sday si nt hatstate.Hisper manent
underar ti
cle1381." Paraphernalproper t
yist hatwhi chthewi febr i
ngst othemar r
iage resi
denceordomi ci
lei ntheUni tedSt atesdependeduponhi spersonalintentor
withoutbei ngincludedi nthedowr yandt hatshemayacqui reaf terthecreationoft he desire,andheselectedNev adaashi shomi ci
deandt heref
oreatthetimeofhisdeat h,
samewi t
houtbei ngaddedt hereto."Butitisapr ovisi
onofar ticl
e1384t hat"Thewi fe hewasa ci ti
zen oft hatst ate.Nobodycan choosehi sdomi cil
eorper manent
shallhav ethemanagementoft hepar aphernalpr opertyunlessshehasdel iver
edt he resi
dencef orhim.Thati shisexcl usiv
eper sonalright.
samet oherhusband,bef oreanot ary,i
nor dert hathemayadmi ni
stersaidpr operty.
Insuchcaset hehusbandi sobl igedtocr eateamor t
gagef ort hev alueoft he Wher efor
e,thecour tfi
ndsthatthet estat
orC.O.Bohananwasatt het i
meofhi s
personalpr operty he may r eceiv e,ort o secur e said pr oper t
y,int he manner deat haciti
zenoft heUnit
edStatesandoft heSt ateofNevadaanddeclarest
hathis
establishedf orthedowr yproperty."Notev enwast hereofferedi nev i
dencet hepubl i
c wi l
landt est
ament ,Exhi
bitA,isf ul
lyinaccordancewi ththelawsoft hestat
eof
deedofdel iver
y,nort heequal l
ypubl i
cmor tgagedeedt hatisr equir
edbyl aw.Sot hat, Nev adaandadmi t
sthesamet opr obate.Accordi
ngly,t
hePhil
ippi
neTrustCompany ,
therefore,thenecessar ypr oofoft heobligationt oreturnparapher nalpropertyasher e namedast heexecutorofthewil
l,isherebyappointedtosuchexecut
orandupont he
demandeddoesnotexi stl
awphi
. l.
net fi
lingofabondi nthesum ofP10,000.00,l
etlet
terstest
amentarybei
ssuedandaf t
er
takingthepr escri
bedoath,i
tmayent erupontheexecut i
onandperformanceofits
Thepar
ti
ti
onofpr opert
ydecreed i
nt hejudgmentappeal
ed f
rom oft
he9t
hof trust.(
pp.26-27,R.O.
A.).
Sept
ember
,1911,
shouldbeandisherebyconfi
rmed.
Itdoesnotappeart hatt heor dergrantingprobatewasev erquestionsonappeal .The
The t wo judgments appeal
ed f r
om ar
e her
eby af
fi
rmed, wi
thout speci
al executorf i
l
edapr ojectofpar ti
tiondat edJanuar y24,1956,maki ng,inaccor dance
pronouncementofcost
sinthi
sinst
ance. witht he prov i
sions oft he will,t
he f oll
owing adjudications:( 1)one- halfoft he
resi
duaryest ate,tot heFar mer sand Mer chantsNat ionalBankofLosAngel es,
Calif
ornia,U.S.A.int r ustonlyf orthebenef i
toft est
ator'sgr andsonEdwar dGeor ge
G.
R.No.L-
12105      Januar
y30,
1960 Bohanan,whi chconsi stsofsev eralmi ni
ngcompani es;( 2)t heot herhal foft he
resi
duaryest atet ot het estator'
sbr other,F.L.Bohanan,andhi ssister,Mr s.M.B.
TESTATEESTATEOFC.O.BOHANAN,deceased.PHI
LIPPI
NETRUSTCO.
,
 execut
or- Galbrait
h,shar eandshar ealike.Thi sconsistint hesameamountofcashandof
appel
l
ee,
  sharesofmi ningst ocksi mil
art othosegi vent otestator'
sgr andson;(3)l egaciesof
vs. P6,000eacht ohis( testator)son,Edwar dGi l
bertBohana,andhi sdaught er
,Mar y
MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN, EDWARD C. BOHANAN, and MARY LYDI A LydiaBohanan,t obepai dint hreey earl
yinstall
ments;( 4)legaciest oClaraDaen,i n
BOHANAN, 
opposi
tor
s-appel
l
ant
s. theamountofP10, 000. 00;Kat her
ineWoodwar d,P2,000;Beul ahFox ,P4,000;and
Eli
zabethHast i
ngs, P2, 000;
JoseD.Cor
tesf
orappell
ants.
Ohnick,
Vel
i
ll
aandBalonki
taforappel
l
ee. Itwi l
lbe seen f r
om t he abovet hatoutoft he tot
alest at
e( af
terdeduct i
ng
administ
rat
ionexpenses)ofP211, 639.33incash,thet estat
orgavehi sgrandson
J.
LABRADOR,
  : P90,819.
67andone- halfofal
lshar
esofstockofseveralmini
ngcompani esandtohis
brot
herandsi stert
hesameamount .Tohischi
l
drenhegav ealegacyofonlyP6,000
each,oratotalofP12,000.
Appealagainstanor deroftheCourtofFirstInst
anceofMani l
a,Hon.RamonSan
Jose,presi
ding,dismissi
ngt heobj
ecti
onsf il
edbyMagdal enaC.Bohanan,Mary
BohananandEdwar dBohanant ot
heprojectofpar t
it
ionsubmitt
edbytheexecut
or Thewi f
eMagadalenaC.Bohananandhert wochi
ldrenquest
iont
heval
idi
tyofthe
andapprovi
ngt hesaidproj
ect. test
amentaryprovi
sionsdisposi
ng oft
heest
ateint hemanneraboveindi
cated,
clai
mingthattheyhav ebeendepri
vedoft
helegi
ti
matethatthel
awsoft heform
concedetothem.
OnApr i
l24,195 0,theCourtofFir
stI nst
anceofManila,Hon.RafaelAmpar o,
presi
ding,admit
tedtopr
obat
ealastwi
llandtest
amentofC.O.Bohanan,executedby
hi
m onApr il23,1944inMani
la.Int
hesai dorder
,thecourtmadet hef oll
owing Thef i
rstquest
ionr ef
erstotheshar et hatthewifeoft hetestator,MagdalenaC.
fi
ndings: Bohanan,shoul
dbeent i
tl
edtoreceived.Thewi l
lhasnotgi v
enheranyshar einthe
estatelef
tbythet estat
or.I
tisar guedt hati
twaser rorforthet r
ialcour
ttohav e
recogni
zedtheRenodi vor
cesecuredbyt hetest
atorfr
om hisFili
pinowifeMagdalena
Accor
dingt
otheev
idenceoft
heopponent
sthet
est
atorwasbor
ninNebr
askaand C.Bohanan,andt hatsaiddivor
ceshoul dbedeclaredanul li
tyint hi
sjuri
sdict
ion,
cit
ingt hecaseofQuer ubi
n vs.
Quer ubi
n,87Phil.
,124,47Of f.Gaz.,(
Sup,12)315, successi
onisinquesti
on,whatev
ermaybethenat
ureoft
heproper
tyandt
hecountry
Cousi ns Hiz vs. 
Fluemer ,55 Phi l
.,852,Rami rezvs.
   
Gmur,42 Phi l.
,855 and i
nwhi chiti
sfound.(par
.2,Art
.10,ol
dCi
vi
lCode,whi
chisthesameaspar
.2Art.16,
Gor ayeb vs.
 Hashim,50Phi l.,22.Thecour tbel
ow ref
usedtor ecogni
zetheclai
m of newCi vi
lCode.
)
thewi dow ont hegr oundt hatt helawsofNev ada,ofwhi chthedeceasedwasa
cit
izen, al
lowhimt odi sposeofal lofhispr
opert
ieswithoutr
equiri
nghimtoleaveany Inthepr oceedingsf ort heprobateoft hewi l
l
,itwasf oundoutandi twasdeci dedt hat
portionofhi sest atet ohiswi fe.Secti
on9905ofNev adaCompi ledLawsof1925 thet estatorwasaci t
izenoft heStateofNev adabecausehehadsel ectedthisashi s
prov i
des: domi cileandhi sper manentr esidence.(SeeDeci siondatedApr il24, 1950,supr
  a).So
thequest i
onati ssuei swhet hertheestement arydisposit
ions,especi all
yhosef ort he
Ever
ypersonovert
heageofeight
eenyears,
ofsoundmi
nd,
may ,bylastwi
ll
,di
spose chil
dr enwhi char eshor tofthelegit
imegi v
ent hem byt heCivilCodeoft hePhi l
ippines,
ofallhi
sorherest at
e,realand per
sonal,t
hesamebeing char
geablewit
ht he arev ali
d.I tisnotdi sput edthatt helawsofNev adaallowat estatort odisposeofal l
paymentofthet
est
ator
'sdebt
s. hispr opertiesbywi ll(Sec.9905,Compl iedNev adaLawsof1925, supr
  a).I
tdoesnot
appeart hatatt i
meoft hehear i
ngoft hepr ojectofpar tit
ion,t heabov e-
quot ed
Besides,t her ightoft hef ormerwi feoft het estator,MagdalenaC.Bohanan,t oa provisionwasi ntroducedi nev i
dence,asitwast heexecut or'
sdul yt odo.Thel awof
sharei nt
het estator'
sest afahadal readybeenpasseduponadv erselyagainstheri n Nev ada, beingaf oreignl awcanonl ybepr ovedi nourcour tsinthef or m andmanner
anor derdatedJune19,1955,( pp.155- 159,VolI IRecords,Cour tofFi r
stInstance) , providedf orbyourRul es,whichar easfoll
ows:
whichhadbecomef i
nal,asMagdal enaC.Bohanandoesnotappeart ohav eappeal ed
therefrom toquest ionitsv ali
dit
y.OnDecember16,1953,t hesai df ormerwi f
ef i
l
eda SEC.41. Pr
  oofofpubl i
corof fi
cialrecor
d.— Anof f
ici
alrecordoranent rytherei
n,
mot iont owi thdraw thesum ofP20, 000f rom thef undsoft heest at
e,chargeabl e whenadmi ssibleforanypurpose, maybeevidencedbyanof fi
cialpubl
icati
onthereof
againsthershar ei ntheconj ugalpr operty,(Seepp.294- 297,Vol.I ,Record,Courtof orbyacopyt est
edbyt heoffi
cerhav i
ngthelegalcustodyofher ecord,orbyhi s
Fir
stI nstance),andt hecour tinitssai der r
orfoundt hatthereex istsnocommuni t
y deputy,andaccompani ed,i
ftherecordisnotkeptinthePhil
ippi
nes, wi
thacer t
if
icate
proper tyownedbyt hedecedentandhi sf ormerwi featthetimet hedecr eeofdivor ce thatsuchof f
icerhast hecustody....(Rul
e123).
wasi ssued.Asal r
eadyandMagdal enaC.Bohananmaynol ongerquest i
ont hef act
contai nedtherein,i.
e.thatt her
ewasnocommuni t
ypr oper
tyacqui redbyt hetestator Wehav e,howev er,consul
tedtherecordsofthecasei nthecour tbelowandwehav e
andMagdal enaC.Bohanandur i
ngt heirconv ert
ure. foundthatdur i
ngt hehear i
ngonOct ober4,1954oft hemot i
onofMagdal enaC.
Bohananf orwithdrawalofP20,000ashershar e,thef orei
gnl aw,especi al
lySecti
on
Mor eov er,thecourtbelow hadf oundthatt het est
atorandMagdal enaC.Bohanan 9905,Compi l
edNev adaLaws.wasi ntroducedi nev idencebyappel lant'
s(herei
n)
wer emar ri
edonJanuar y30,1909,andt hatdi vorcewasgr antedtohim onMay20, counselasExhibits"2"(Seepp.77-79,VOL.II,andt .
s.n.pp.24- 44,Records,Courtof
1922;t hatsomet i
mei n1925,Magdal enaC.Bohananmar ri
edCar lAaronandt hi
s Fir
stInstance).Agai nsaidlawspr esented byt hecounself ortheexecut orand
mar ri
agewassubsi sti
ngatt hetimeoft hedeat hofthetestator
.Sincenor ightto admitt
edbyt heCour tasExhibi
t" B"duri
ngt hehear i
ngoft hecaseonJanuar y23,
sharei nt heinheri
tanceinfav orofadivorcedwi feexi
stsintheStateofNev adaand 1950beforeJudgeRaf aelAmparo(seRecords,Cour tofFi r
stInstance,Vol.1).
sincet hecour tbel
owhadal readyfoundthatt herewasnoconj ugalpropert
ybet ween
thet estatorandMagdal enaC.Bohanan,t helattercannow hav enolongerclaimt o Inaddit
ion,t
heot herappell
ant
s,chil
drenofthetest
ator
,donotdi sput
etheabov e-
paypor t
ionoft heestat
el ef
tbyt hetest
ator. quoted provi
sion oft he laws oft he Stat
e ofNev ada.Underal lthe abov e
cir
cumstances,we ar e const
rai
ned to holdthatthe pert
inentlaw ofNev ada,
Themosti mpor t
antissuei st hecl
aim ofthetestat
or'schil
dren,EdwardandMar y especi
all
ySection9905oft heCompiledNevadaLawsof1925,canbet akenjudicial
Lydi
a,whohadr ecei
vedl egaciesi
nt heamountofP6, 000eachonl y,and,theref
ore, noti
ceofbyus,wi thoutproofofsuchlawhav i
ngbeenoffer
edatt hehear
ingoft he
havenotbeengi ventheirsharesintheestatewhich,i
naccor dancewi t
hthel awsof proj
ectofpart
ition.
theforum,shoul
dbet wo- thi
rdsoftheestatel
eftbythetestat
or.Isthefail
ureoldthe
test
atortogivehi schi
ldrent wo-t
hir
dsoft heestateleftbyhim att hetimeofhi s Asi naccordancewi thAr ti
cle10oft heol dCiv i
lCode,t hev al
idi
tyoft estamentary
death,i
naccordancewitht helawsoft hef
orum val
i
d? disposi
tionsaret obegov ernedbythenat i
onallawoft het estat
or,andasi thasbeen
decidedandi tisnotdi sputedthatthenat i
onallawoft het estat
orist hatoftheState
Theol dCivi
lCode,whichisappli
cabl
etothiscasebecausethetest
atordi
edi
n1944, ofNev ada,alreadyi ndicatedabov e,whichal l
owsat estatortodi sposeofal lhis
expresslyprovi
desthatsuccessi
onalr
ight
st opersonalpr
opert
yaretobeearnedby propert
yaccor dingt ohiswi ll
,asinthecaseatbar ,theor derofthecour tapproving
thenationallawofthepersonwhosesuccessionisinquesti
on.Saysthel
awont hi
s theprojectofpar t
it
ionmadei naccordancewi t
ht hetestament ar
ypr ovisi
ons,mustbe,
point: asitisherebyaf fi
rmed, withcostsagainstappell
ants.

Nevertheless,l
egaland t est
amentary successi
ons,inr espectt
ot he orderof VI
II
.Lawsgov
erni
ngr
ealpr
oper
ty(Ar
ti
cle16)
successionaswel lastot
heextentofthesuccessi
onalri
ghtsandthei
ntri
nsi
cv al
i
dit
y
oftheirpr ovi
sions,shal
lber egul
ated bythenat i
onallaw ofthepersonwhose
G.
R.No.L-
23678      June6,
1967 thei
rr especti
vel
egaci
es,oratotalofP120,000.
00,whichi trel
easedfr
om t
imeto
ti
meaccor dingasthelowercourtapprovedandal l
owedt hevari
ousmoti
onsor
TESTATEESTATEOFAMOSG.BELLI S,deceased.
  peti
tionsf i
ledbythelat
tert
hreerequesti
ngpartialadvancesonaccountofthei
r
PEOPLE'
SBANKandTRUSTCOMPANY,  
execut
or.
  respectiv
elegaci
es.
MARIACRISTI
NABELLI
SandMI RIAM PALMABELLI S,
 
opposi
tor
s-appel
l
ant
s, 
vs. OnJanuar y8, 1964,preparator ytocl osingitsadmi ni
str
at i
on,theexecut orsubmitt
ed
EDWARDA.BELLIS,
ETAL.
,
 hei
rs-appel
lees. and fi
led i
ts" Executor'
sFi nalAccount ,Repor tofAdmi nist
rat i
on and Pr oj
ectof
Parti
ti
on"wher ei
ni treported, i
nteral ia,thesat isf
act
ionoft hel egacyofMar yE.
VicenteR.MacasaetandJoseD.Vi ll
enaf
oropposit
orsappel
lant
s. Mallenbyt hedel i
verytoherofshar esofst ockamount i
ngt o$240, 000.00,andthe
Paredes,Poblador,CruzandNazarenoforhei
rs-
appell
eesE.A.Bel
li
s,etal
. l
egaciesofAmosBel li
s,Jr .
,Mar iaCr isti
naBel li
sandMi r
iam Pal maBel l
isinthe
QuijanoandAr r
oyof orheir
s-appel
l
eesW.S.Bell
is,
etal. amountofP40, 000.00eachorat otalofP120, 000.00.Inthepr ojectofpar t
iti
on,t
he
J.R.Balonkit
af orappell
eePeople'
sBank&TrustCompany. executor—pur suantt othe" Twel f
th"clauseoft hetest
ator'sLastWi llandTestament
Ozaet a,
GibbsandOzaet aforappell
eeA.B.Al
lsman. — divided ther esi
duaryest atei nto sev en equalportionsf ort hebenef i
toft he
test
ator'
ssev enlegiti
matechi ldrenbyhi sfir
standsecondmar riages.
BENGZON,
J.P.
,
 J.
:
On January17,1964,Mar ia Cri
sti
na Bel
l
is and Mir
iam Pal ma Bell
isfil
ed t
hei
r
respecti
veopposit
ionstothepr oj
ectofpar ti
ti
on on theground thattheywere
Thi
sisadi r
ectappealt
oUs, uponaquestionpur el
yoflaw,from anorderoft
heCourt depriv
edoftheirl
egit
imesasil
legi
ti
matechil
drenand,theref
ore,compulsor
yhei
rsof
ofFir
stI
nstanceofManiladatedApr
il30,1964, approv
ingtheprojectofpar
ti
ti
onf
il
ed thedeceased.
bytheexecutori
nCivi
lCaseNo.37089t herei
n.1äwphï1.ñët
AmosBel l
is,Jr.int
erposednoopposit
iondespi
tenot
icetohim,pr
oofofservi
ceof
Thef
act
soft
hecasear
easf
oll
ows: which i
s evidenced byt he r
egi
str
yrecei
ptsubmitt
ed on Apr
il27,1964 bythe
1
execut
or.
AmosG.Bel li
s,borninTexas,was" aciti
zenoft heStateofTex asandoft heUnited
Stat
es."Byhi sf i
rstwife,Mar yE.Mal l
en,whom hedi vorced,hehadf i
velegit
imate
Aft
ert heparti
esfil
edt hei
rrespect
iv ememor andaandot herperti
nentpl eadings,t
he
chil
dren:Edwar dA.Bellis,GeorgeBell
is(whopr e-deceasedhimi ninf
ancy),HenryA.
l
owercour t
,on Apr i
l30,1964,i ssued an orderov er
ruli
ng the opposi ti
ons and
Bell
is,AlexanderBelli
sandAnnaBel li
sAl l
sman;byhi ssecondwi f
e,Viol
etKennedy ,
approving t
heexecut or'
sf i
nalaccount ,reportand administr
ation and projectof
whosur v i
vedhim,hehadt hreelegi
ti
matechi l
dren:Edwi nG.Bel l
i
s,WalterS.Belli
s
part
iti
on.RelyinguponAr t.16oft heCivilCode,itappli
edt henat ionallaw ofthe
andDor othyBel l
is;andf inall
y,hehadt hreeill
egiti
mat echildr
en:AmosBel li
s,Jr.,
decedent,whichinthi
scasei sTexasl aw,whichdi
dnotpr ovi
def orlegit
imes.
MariaCristi
naBellisandMi riam Pal
maBel l
is.

Theirr
espect
ivemoti
onsforreconsider
ati
onhavingbeendeni
edbythelowercour
t
OnAugust5,1952,AmosG.Bel l
isexecut edawi l
linthePhi l
ippines,inwhi chhe
onJune11,1964,opposi
tor
s-appel
lantsappeal
edtothisCour
ttor
aiset
heissueof
directedt hatafteralltaxes,obligati
ons,andexpensesofadmi nistrationarepaidf or,
whichl
awmustapply—Texasl aworPhi l
i
ppinel
aw.
hisdi str
ibutableestateshoul dbedi vided,int r
ust,inthef oll
owingor derandmanner :
(a)$240, 000.00 to hisf ir
stwi f
e,Mar yE.Mal l
en;( b)P120, 000.00 t o hi
st hree
i
llegiti
mat echi l
dren,AmosBel li
s,Jr.,Mar iaCr i
stinaBellis,Miri
am Pal maBel li
s,or Inthisregar d,thepar t
iesdonotsubmi tthecaseon, norevendi scuss, thedoct r
ineof
P40, 000.00eachand( c)af terthef oregoi
ngt wo itemshav ebeensat i
sfi
ed,t he renvoi,appl i
edbyt hi sCour ti
n  Aznarv.Chr i
stensenGar cia,
L- 16749, Januar y31, 1963.
remai ndershal lgot ohissev ensur vivingchildrenbyhi sfirstandsecondwi ves, Saiddoct r
ineisusual l
yper ti
nentwher et hedecedenti sanat i
onalofonecount r
y ,and
namel y
:Edwar dA.Bel li
s,Henr yA.Bel l
is,AlexanderBel l
isandAnnaBel l
isAll
sman, adomi cileofanot her.Int hepr esentcase,i tisnotdi sputedt hatt hedecedentwas
2
Edwi nG.Bel li
s,Wal t
erS.Bel l
is,andDor othyE.Bellis,
inequal shares.1äwphï 1.
ñët bothanat ionalofTexasandadomi cilethereofatt het imeofhi sdeat h.  
Sot hatev en
assumi ngTexashasaconf l
ictofl awr uleprov i
dingt hatthedomi ci
li
arysy stem ( law
ofthedomi cil
e)shoul dgov ern, t
hesamewoul dnotr esulti
nar eferenceback( renv oi)
Subsequent
ly,
oronJuly8,
1958,
AmosG.Bell
i
sdi
edaresi
dentofSanAnt
oni
o,Texas,
toPhi li
ppi nel aw,butwoul dst il
lr efert oTexasl aw.Nonet heless,i fTexashasa
U.S.
A.Hiswillwasadmitt
edtoprobat
eint
heCour
tofFir
stInst
anceofManil
aon
confli
ctsr uleadopt i
ngt hesi t
ust heor y( l
exreisi tae)calli
ngf ort heappl icati
onoft he
September15,1958.
l
aw oft hepl acewher ethepr oper t
iesar esi t
uated,r envoiwoul dar ise,sincet he
proper t
iesher einv olv
edar ef oundi nt hePhi li
ppines.I nt heabsence,howev er,of
ThePeopl e'sBankandTrustCompany,asexecutorofthewill
,pai
dallthebequests proofast ot heconf li
ctofl awr uleofTexas, itshoul dnotbepr esumeddi f
fer
entf r
om
ther
einincludi
ngtheamountof$240,
000.00intheform ofshar
esofstocktoMar yE. ours.3
 
Appel lants'positionist hereforenotr est edont hedoct ri
neofr env oi
.Asst ated,
Mall
enandt othethr
ee(3)il
legi
ti
mat
echildr
en,AmosBel li
s,Jr
.,Mari
aCr i
sti
naBell
is theynev erinvokednorev enment i
onedi tint heirar gument s.Rat her,theyar guet hat
andMi r
iam PalmaBell
is,
vari
ousamountstotal
l
ingP40,000.00eachinsati
sfact
ionof
thei
rcasefal
l
sundertheci
rcumstancesment
ionedi
nthet
hir
dpar
agr
aphofAr
ti
cle forast hi
sCour tr ul
ed i Mi
n  ciano v.Br i
mo,50 Phi l.867,870,a provi
sion i
na
17inrel
ati
ontoAr
ti
cle16oftheCi
vilCode. for
eigner
'swil
ltotheeffectthathispropert
iesshallbedist
ri
butedinaccor
dancewi t
h
Phil
ippi
nelaw andnotwi thhisnat i
onallaw,i sil
l
egalandv oi
d,forhisnati
onallaw
Arti
cl
e16, par.2,
andAr t.1039oft heCivi
lCode,r
enderapplicablethenationall
awof cannotbeignoredinregardtothosemat tersthatArti
cle10—nowAr ti
cle16—oft he
thedecedent,ini
ntestat
eort est
amentar
ysuccessions,wit
hr egardtofouri t
ems:(a) Civi
lCodestatessaidnati
onallawshoul dgovern.
theorderofsuccession;
( b)theamountofsuccessionalr
ight
s; (
e)theintr
insicval
idi
ty
oftheprovisi
onsofthewi ll
;and(d)thecapaci
tyt
osucceed.Theypr ovi
det hat— Thepar t
iesadmi tthatthedecedent ,AmosG.Bel l
is,wasaci ti
zenoft heStateof
Texas,U.S.
A.,andthatundert helawsofTexas,therearenof or
cedheir
sorl egi
ti
mes.
ART.16.Realpr
opert
yaswellasper
sonalpr
oper
tyi
ssubj
ectt
othel
aw oft
he Accordi
ngly,si
ncethei nt
rinsi
cv ali
dit
yoftheprovisi
onoft hewi l
landtheamountof
count
rywher
eiti
ssi
tuated. successi
onalr i
ghtsaret obedet erminedunderTexasl aw,thePhil
ippinelaw on
l
egiti
mescannotbeappl i
edt othetestacyofAmosG.Bel l
is.
Howev er,i
ntestat
eandt est
ament arysuccessions,bothwi t
hr espectt ot
heor derof
successionandt otheamountofsuccessi onalright
sandt othei ntri
nsi
cv al
i
dityof Wheref
ore,theorderofthepr obat
ecour
tisher
ebyaf
fi
r i
nt
med  ot
o,wi
thcost
s
testamentar
ypr ovi
sions,shallber egul
atedbyt henationallawoft hepersonwhose agai
nstappel
lant
s.Soor
dered.
successionisunderconsi derati
on,what ev
ermayhet henat ureoft hepropert
yand
regardl
essoft hecountrywher ei
nsaidpropertymaybef ound. G.
R.No.L-
16749      Januar
y31,
1963

ART.1039.Capaci
tyt
osucceedi
sgov
ernedbyt
hel
awoft
henat
ionoft
hedecedent
. I
N THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E.CHRI STENSEN,
DECEASED. 
Appel
lantswoul
dhowev
ercount
ert
hatAr
t.17,par
agr
apht
hree,oft
heCi
vi
lCode, ADOLFO C. AZNAR, Execut or and LUCY CHRI
STENSEN, Hei
r of t he
st
ati
ngt hat— deceased,
 
Execut
orandHei
r-
appell
ees,
 
vs.
HELENCHRI STENSENGARCIA,
 opposi
tor
-appel
l
ant
.
Prohibi
ti
v el
awsconcer ni
ngper sons,t
hei
ractsorproper
ty,andthosewhichhavefor
thei
robj ectpubli
cor der,publ
icpol i
cyandgoodcust omsshal lnotberendered
i
neffecti
vebyl awsorj udgment spromul
gated,orbydeterminat
ionsorconvent
ions M.R.Sotel
oforexecut
orandhei
r-
appell
ees.
agreeduponi naforei
gncount r
y . Leopol
doM.Abeller
aandJovi
toSalongaforopposi
tor
-appel
l
ant
.

prevai
lsast heexcept i
ont oArt.16,par .2oft heCi vi
lCodeaf or e-quot ed.Thisi snot J.
LABRADOR,
  :
corr
ect.Precisel y,Congr ess delet
ed thephr ase," notwit
hstandi ngt hepr ovi
sionsof
thi
sandt henex tpr ecedingar ti
cle"whent heyi ncorporat
edAr t.11oft heoldCi vi
l Thisisanappeal from adecisionoftheCour tofFi
rstI
nstanceofDav ao,Hon.Vicente
CodeasAr t.17oft henewCi vi
lCode,whi l
er eproducingwithoutsubst anti
alchange N.Cusi ,Jr.
,presiding,inSpecialProceedingNo.622ofsai dcourt
,datedSeptember
thesecondpar agr aphofAr t
.10oft heol dCi vi
lCodeasAr t
.16i nt henew.I tmust 14,1949,appr ov i
ngamongt hingsthef i
nalaccountsoft heexecutor,dir
ecti
ngt he
havebeent heirpur posetomaket hesecondpar agraphofAr t.16aspeci fi
cprov i
sion executortor ei
mbur seMar i
aLucyChr i
stensentheamountofP3, 600paidbyhert o
i
ni tsel
fwhi ch mustbe appl ied int estat
e and i ntestat
e successi on.Asf urt
her HelenChr i
stensenGar ci
aasherl egacy,anddeclar
ingMar iaLucyChri
stensenentit
led
i
ndicati
onoft hisl egi sl
ati
veintent,Congr essaddedanewpr ov ision,underAr t.1039, tother esi
dueoft hepr oper
tyt obeenjoyeddur i
ngherl i
feti
me,andincaseofdeat h
whichdecreest hatcapaci tytosucceedi st obegov ernedbyt henat ionallawoft he withoutissue,one- halfofsaidresi
duet obepay ablet
oMr s.Carr
ieLouiseC.Bor t
on,
decedent. etc.,in accordance wi t
ht he provisi
ons oft he wil
loft he t
estatorEdwar d E.
Christ
ensen.Thewi llwasexecut edi nMani l
aonMar ch5,1951andcont ai
nst he
Iti
stherefor
eevidentthatwhatev erpubli
cpol
icyorgoodcustomsmaybei nvolvedin foll
owingpr ovi
sions:
ourSy stem oflegi
times,Congr esshasnoti nt
endedt oextendthesamet ot he
successionofforeignnat i
onals.Fori thasspecif
ical
l
ychosent oleav i
e,
 nteralia, 3.Ideclare..
.thatIhav ebutONE(
1)chi
ld,
namedMARI ALUCYCHRI STENSEN( now
t amount
he   
ofsuccessionalri
ghts,tothedecedent
'snati
onall
aw.Speci
fi
cpr ovi
sions Mr s.Bernar
dDaney )
,whowasborninthePhil
i
ppinesabouttwent
y-eightyearsago,
mustpr evai
lov
ergener alones. andwhoi snow r esi
dingatNo.665RodgerYoungVil
lage,LosAngel es,Cal
i
forni
a,
U.S.A.
Appell
ant
swoul dalsopointoutthatthedecedentexecut
edtwowil
ls—onet ogovern
hi
sTexasest ateandt heotherhisPhilippi
neestate— argui
ngfrom thist
hathe 4.If
urt
herdecl
aret
hatInowhavenol
i
vingascendant
s,andnodescendant
sexcept
i
ntendedPhil
i
ppinel awt ogover
nhi sPhili
ppi
neestate.Assumi
ngthatsuchwast he myabovenameddaught
er,MARI
ALUCYCHRISTENSENDANEY.
decedent
'si
ntenti
oni nexecut
ingasepar atePhi
li
ppinewil
l,i
twoul
dnotaltert
hel
aw,
xxx     xxx     xxx sacredandinvi
olabl
e( I
nr eMcDani el'
sEstate,77Cal.Appl
.2d877,176P.2d952,
andI nr
eKaufman,117Cal .286,49Pac.192,ci t
edinpage179,Recor
donAppeal).
7.Igive,dev i
seandbequeat huntoMARI AHELEN CHRI STENSEN,now mar ri
edt o Opposit
orMar i
a Hel en Chri
stensen,through counsel
,fil
ed v
ari
ous mot
ions f
or
EduardoGar cia,abouteighteeny ear
sofageandwho,not wi
thstandi
ngt hefactthat reconsi
der
ati
on,butthesewer edenied.Hence,thi
sappeal
.
shewasbapt izedChr i
stensen,isnotinanywayr el
atedt ome,norhasshebeenat
anytimeadopt edbyme,andwho,f rom al
linformati
onIhav enow residesinEgpi t
, Themosti
mpor
tantassi
gnment
sofer
rorar
easf
oll
ows:
Digos,Dav ao,Phi l
ippi
nes,thesum ofTHREE THOUSAND SI X HUNDRED PESOS
(P3,
600.00) ,Phili
ppineCur r
encyt hesametobedeposi tedintrustforthesaidMar ia I
HelenChr istensenwi ththeDav aoBranchofthePhi l
i
ppineNat ionalBank,andpaidt o
heratther ateofOneHundr edPesos( P100.00),Phil
ippineCur r
encypermont hunti
l
theprincipalt hereofaswel lasanyi nt
erestwhi chmayhav eaccruedt hereon,is THE LOWER COURT ERRED I
NIGNORING THE DECI
SION OF THE HONORABLE
exhausted.. SUPREME COURT THAT HELEN I
S THE ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF
EDWARDE.CHRISTENSENAND,CONSEQUENTLY,I
NDEPRIVINGHEROFHERJUST
SHAREINTHEINHERITANCE.
xxx     xxx     xxx
I
I
12.Iher ebygi ve,devi
seandbequeat h,untomywel l
-beloveddaught er,t
hesai d
MARIALUCYCHRI STENSENDANEY( Mrs.BernardDaney ),nowr esidi
ngasaf oresaid
atNo.665RodgerYoungVi ll
age,LosAngeles,Calif
orni
a,U. S.
A.,al ltheincomef rom THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTI
RELY I
GNORI
NG AND/OR FAILI
NG TO
therest,remainder,andresi
dueofmypr opert
yandest ate,r eal,personaland/ or RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS, ELEMENTS AND
mixed,ofwhat soeverki
ndorcharact
er,andwher esoeversituated,ofwhi chImaybe CIRCUMSTANCESCALLI
NGFORTHEAPPLI
CATI
ONOFINTERNALLAW.
possessedatmydeat handwhichmayhav ecomet omef rom anysour cewhat soever,
duri
ngherl i
fet
ime: .
..
. I
II

Iti
si naccor
dancewiththeabov e-quotedprovi
sionsthattheexecutorinhisfi
nal THE LOWER COURT ERRED I N FAILING TO RECOGNI ZE THAT UNDER
accountand proj
ectofpar t
iti
on rati
fied t
he paymentofonl yP3,600 to Hel
en I
NTERNATIONAL LAW,PARTI CULARLY UNDER THE RENVOIDOCTRI NE,THE
Chri
stensenGarci
aandproposedt hattheresi
dueoft heest
atebetransfer
redtohis I
NTRINSI
CVALIDITYOFTHETESTAMENTARYDI SPOSI
TIONOFTHEDI STRI
BUTI
ON
daughter
,Mari
aLucyChri
stensen. OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED EDWARD E.CHRI STENSEN SHOULD BE
GOVERNEDBYTHELAWSOFTHEPHI LI
PPINES.
Opposi tiont otheappr ovaloft hepr ojectofpar titi
onwasf il
edbyHel enChr i
stensen
Gar cia,i nsofarasi tdepr i
v esher( Helen)ofherl egiti
measanacknowl edgednat ural I
V
chil
d,shehav ingbeendecl aredbyUsi nG. R.Nos.L- 11483- 84anacknowl edged
natur alchi l
doft hedeceasedEdwar dE.Chr istensen.Thel egalgr oundsofopposi ti
on THE LOWER COURT ERRED I
N NOT DECLARI
NG THAT THE SCHEDULE OF
are( a)t hatt hedi str
ibuti
onshoul dbegov ernedbyt hel awsoft hePhi l
ippines,and( b) DISTRI
BUTI
ON SUBMI
TTEDBYTHEEXECUTORISCONTRARYTOTHEPHI LIPPI
NE
thatsai d orderofdi st
ribution iscont r
aryt her etoi nsofarasi tdeni est o Helen LAWS.
Christ ensen,oneoft woacknowl edgednat uralchi ldren,one- halfoft heest at
ei nfull
owner shi p.Inampl ifi
cati
onoft heabov egr oundsi twasal legedt hatt helaw that
shoul dgov ernt heest ateoft hedeceasedChr i
stensenshoul dnotbet hei nt
ernallaw V
ofCal iforniaalone,butt heent i
relaw thereofbecausesev eralf or
eignel ement sar e
i
nv olved,t hatthef orum i st hePhi li
ppinesandev eni ft hecasewer edecidedi n THE LOWER COURT ERRED I
N NOT DECLARI
NG THAT UNDER THE PHI
LIPPI
NE
Califor nia,Secti
on946oft heCal if
orni
aCi vi
lCode, whi chrequi resthatt hedomi ci
leof LAWS HELEN CHRI
STENSEN GARCI
AI S ENTI
TLED TO ONE-
HALF(1/2)OFTHE
thedecedentshoul dapply ,shouldbeappl i
cabl e.Itwasal soal l
egedt hatMar i
aHel en ESTATEINFULLOWNERSHIP.
Christ ensenhav ingbeendecl aredanacknowl edgednat uralchi l
doft hedecedent ,she
i
sdeemedf orall purposesl egiti
mat efrom thet imeofherbi rth. Thereisnoquesti
ont hatEdwardE.Christensenwasaci t
izenoft heUni
tedStat
es
andoftheStateofCalifor
niaattheti
meofhi sdeat
h.Butthereisalsonoquesti
on
Thecour tbel
ow ruledthatasEdwar dE.Chr ist
ensenwasaci t
izenoft heUnited thatattheti
meofhi sdeat hhewasdomi ci
ledinthePhili
ppines,aswitnesst
he
Stat
esandoft heStateofCalifor
niaatthetimeofhisdeath,thesuccessionalri
ghts foll
owi
ngfact
sadmi t
tedbyt heexecut
orhimselfi
nappel
lee'
sbrief:
andi nt
ri
nsi
cv al
i
dityofthepr ovi
sionsinhiswi l
laretobegov er
nedbyt helaw of
Cali
forni
a,i
naccordancewithwhichat est
atorhasther
ighttodisposeofhispr opert
y I
nthepr
oceedi
ngsf
oradmi
ssi
onoft
hewi
l
ltopr
obat
e,t
hef
act
sofr
ecor
dshowt
hat
i
nt hewayhedesi res,becausether i
ghtofabsolutedominionov erhi
spr oper
tyis
thedeceasedEdwar dE.Christ
ensenwasbor nonNov ember29,1875i nNew York cit
izenofCal
if
orniabythefactthatwhenheexecutedhi
swi l
li
n1951hedeclar
edthat
Cit
y ,N.Y.
,U.S.A.
;hisfir
starr
ivali
nthePhil
ippi
nes,asanappointedschoolteacher
, hewasaci ti
zenoft hatSt
ate;sothatheappearsnevert
ohav ei
ntendedt
oabandon
wasonJul y1,1901,onboar dtheU.S.ArmyTr anspor
t"Sheridan"wit
hPor tof hisCali
for
niaci
tizenshi
pbyacqui r
inganot
her.Thi
sconclusi
onisinaccor
dancewith
Embar kat
ionast heCityofSanFranci
sco,i
ntheStateofCali
for
nia,U.S.
A.Hestayed thefoll
owi
ngprincipl
eexpoundedbyGoodrichinhi
sConfli
ctofLaws.
i
nt hePhili
ppinesunti
l1904.
Thet erms" '
residence"and" domi cil
e"mi ghtwel lbet akent omeant hesamet hing,a
InDecember ,
1904,Mr.Chri
stensenret
urnedt
otheUni
tedStatesandstay
edt
heref
or placeofper manentabode.Butdomi cil
e,ashasbeenshown, hasacqui redat echni cal
thefol
lowingnineyear
suntil1913,dur
ingwhi
chti
meher esi
dedin,andwast
eachi
ng meani ng.Thusonemaybedomi cil
edi napl acewher ehehasnev erbeen.Andhemay
schoolinSacramento,
Cali
forni
a. residei napl acewher ehehasnodomi ci
le.Themanwi thtwohomes, betweenwhi ch
hedi vi
deshi st i
me,cer t
ainlyr esidesi neachone,whi l
el i
vi
ngi ni t
.Buti fhewenton
Mr.Christensen'
snextarr
ivali
nthePhi l
ippi
neswasinJul yoftheyear1913.Howev
er, busi nesswhi chwoul dr equirehi spr esencef orsev eralweeksormont hs,hemi ght
i
n1928,heagai ndepart
edt hePhil
ippinesfortheUnit
edSt atesandcamebackher e proper lybesai dt ohavesuf f
icientconnect i
onwi ththepl acetobecal l
edar esi dent .It
thefol
lowi ngyear
,1929.Someni neyear sl
ater
, i
n1938,heagai nr
etur
nedt ohi
sown i
scl ear,howev er,that,
ifhet reat edhi ssettl
ementascont i
nuingonl yforthepar ti
cular
countr
y, andcamebackt othePhili
ppinesthefoll
owi
ngy ear,1939. busi nessi nhand,notgi vinguphi sformer" home, "hecoul dnotbeadomi ciledNew
Yor ker.Acqui si
tionofadomi cil
eofchoi cer equirestheexer ci
seofi ntenti
onaswel l
asphy sicalpresence." Residencesi mpl yrequir
esbodi l
ypresenceofani nhabitanti na
Wherefor
e,theparti
esrespectf
ull
ypraythatthef or
egoingst i
pul
ati
onoff actsbe given pl ace,whi l
e domi cil
er equi r
es bodi lypr esence int hatpl ace and al so an
admitt
edandappr ovedbyt hisHonorabl
eCour t
,withoutpr ej
udi
cet otheparti
es i
nt entiont omakei tone'sdomi cile."Residence,howev er,isat erm usedwi thmany
adduci
ng otherevi
dence to prov
etheircase notcov ered bythi
sst i
pul
ation of shadesofmeani ng,from t hemer estt empor arypresencet othemostper manent
fact
s.1äwphï
  1.
ñët abode, anditisnotsaf et oinsi stthatanyoneuseett heonlyproperone.( Goodr ich, p.
29)
BeinganAmer i
canci ti
zen,Mr.Christensenwasi nter
nedbyt heJapaneseMi l
it
ary
ForcesinthePhil
ippinesduri
ngWor l
dWarI I
.Uponl i
berati
on,inApril1945,helef
tfor Thel
awthatgover
nsthevali
dit
yofhistest
amentarydisposi
ti
onsi
sdef
inedi
nAr
ti
cle
theUni t
ed Stat
esbutr etur
ned tot hePhi li
ppinesi n December ,1945.Appellees 16oft
heCivi
lCodeofthePhi
li
ppines,
whichisasfoll
ows:
Collect
iveExhi
bit
s"6",CFIDavao,Sp.Pr oc.622,asExhibits"AA","
BB"and" CC-Daney"
;
Exhs."MM" ,"
MM- l
","
MM- 2-Daney
"andp.473, t.
s.n.,
July21,1953.)
ART.16.Realpr
opert
yaswellasper
sonalpr
oper
tyi
ssubj
ectt
othel
aw oft
he
count
rywher
eiti
ssi
tuated.
InApri
l,1951,Edwar dE.Christ
ensenr et
urnedoncemoretoCal i
for
niashor
tl
yafter
themakingofhisl astwi
llandtest
ament( nowinquest
ionherei
n)whichheexecuted
athi
slawy er
s'of
ficesinManilaonMar ch5,1951.Hedi
edattheSt.Luke'
sHospit
al i
n Howev er,i
ntestat
eandt est
ament arysuccessions,bothwithrespectt ot
heor derof
theCi
tyofMani l
aonApr i
l 30,
1953.(pp.2-3) successionandt otheamountofsuccessi onalright
sandt othei ntri
nsi
cv al
i
dityof
testamentar
ypr ovi
sions,shallber egul
atedbyt henationall
awoft hepersonwhose
successionisunderconsi derati
on,what ev
ermaybet henatureoft hepropert
yand
Inarri
vingatt heconclusiont hatthedomici
leofthedeceasedi sthePhil
ippines,we regardl
essoft hecountrywher esaidpropert
ymaybef ound.
areper suadedbyt hef actthathewasbor ni nNew Yor k,mi gr
atedtoCali
forniaand
resi
dedt hereforni
ney ears,andsincehecamet othePhi li
ppinesin1913her eturned
to Californi
av eryr arely and onl yforshortv i
sit
s( perhaps torel
atives),and Theappl
i
cat
ionofthisart
icl
einthecaseatbarrequi
rest
hedet
ermi
nat
ionoft
he
consideringthatheappear snev ertohaveownedoracqui r
edahomeorpr oper t
iesin meani
ngoft
heter
m "nat
ionall
aw"
isusedt
her
ein.
thatstate,whichwoul dindicatethathewouldul
timatelyabandont hePhil
i
ppi nesand
makehomei ntheStateofCal if
ornia. ThereisnosingleAmer i
canlawgov erni
ngthev al
idityoftestamentar
yprovisi
onsin
theUnitedSt
ates,eachstateoftheUnionhavingitsownpr ivatelawappl
icabletoits
Sec.16.Resi
dence i
sat er
m used wit
h manyshades ofmeani ng f
rom mere cit
izensonl
yandi nforceonlywithi
nthestat
e.The" nat
ionallaw"indi
cat
edinAr ti
cle
temporar
ypr
esencetothemostpermanentabode.Gener
all
y,howev
er,i
tisusedto 16oft heCiv
ilCodeabov equotedcannot ,t
herefore,possibl
ymeanorappl ytoany
denot
esomethi
ngmor ethanmer
ephysicalpr
esence.(
Goodr
ichonConfl
ictofLaws, generalAmeri
canlaw.Soi tcanrefert
onoot herthant hepr i
vatelawoftheSt at
eof
p.29) Calif
orni
a.

Ast o hi
sci t
izenship,however,Wef i
nd thatt hecit
izenshipthatheacquired in Thenextquest i
oni s:Whatist hel
aw inCal i
for
niagov erni
ngt hedisposit
ionof
Cali
for
niawhenher esi
dedinSacr amento,Cali
forni
afrom 1904t o1913,wasnev er personalpropert
y?Thedeci si
onofthecourtbelow,sustainsthecontenti
onoft he
l
ostbyhi sstayint hePhil
ippines,fort
hel at
terwasat er
rit
oryoftheUnitedStat
es executor
-appell
eethatundertheCali
for
niaProbateCode,at estat
ormaydi sposeof
(notastate)until1946andt hedeceasedappear stohaveconsideredhimsel
fasa hispropert
ybywi l
lintheform andmannerhedesires,ci
tingthecaseofEst ateof
McDani
el,
77Cal
.Appl.2d877,
176P.2d952.Butappel
lanti
nvokest
hepr
ovi
sionsof t
heyt ooreject
edthe r
envoi
,judgmentwouldbefort
hewoman.Thesamer esul
t
Ar
ti
cl
e946oftheCi
vil
CodeofCali
for
nia,
whichi
sasf ol
l
ows: wouldhappen,thoughthecour t
swoul dswi
tchwi
threspectt
owhi
chwoul
dhol d
l
iabi
l
ity,
ifbothcour
tsaccept
edthe r
envoi
.
I
fther
eisnolawt
ot hecontr
ary
,int
hepl
acewher
epersonalpr
opert
yissit
uat
ed,i
tis
deemedtof
oll
owthepersonofit
sowner
,andi
sgover
nedbythelawofhisdomici
l
e. TheRest atementaccept st
he renvoi t
heoryintwoi nstances:wher ethet i
tl
et olandis
i
nquest i
on, andwheret heval
idityofadecr eeofdiv orceischal l
enged.Inthesecases
Theexi stenceoft hisprov i
sioni sallegedi nappellant'
sopposi ti
onandi snotdeni ed. theConflictofLawsr uleofthesi t
usoft heland,ort hedomi cil
eofthepar tiesinthe
Wehav echeckedi tintheCal iforniaCiv i
lCodeandi tisthere.Appel l
ee,ont heot her divor
cecase,i sappliedbyt hef orum,butanyf ur t
herr eferencegoesonl ytot he
hand,reli
esont hecaseci tedi nthedeci sionandt est
if
iedtobyawi tness.(Onlyt he i
nternall
aw.Thus,aper son'
st i
tletoland,recognizedbyt hesi t
us,wil
lber ecognized
caseofKauf mani scor r
ectlyci t
ed.)Iti sarguedonexecut or'sbehal fthatast he byev er
ycour t;andev erydivorce,vali
dbyt hedomi ci l
eoft hepar t
ies,willbev ali
d
deceasedChr i
stensenwasaci tizenoft heStateofCal if
ornia,theinternallawthereof , everywhere.(Goodr
ich,Confli
ctofLaws, Sec.7, pp.13- 14.)
whichi st hatgiveni ntheabov ecitedcase,shoul dgov ernthedet er minati
onoft he
vali
dit
yoft hetestament aryprov i
sionsofChr istensen'swill
,suchl awbei nginforcei n X,aci
ti
zenofMassachusett
s,di
esintest
ate,domici
l
edinFrance,l
eav
ingmovabl
e
theStat eofCal iforniaofwhi chChr i
stensenwasaci ti
zen.Appel lant,ont heot her pr
oper
tyi
nMassachuset
ts,Engl
and,andFrance.Thequest
ionari
sesastohowthi
s
hand,insiststhatAr t
icl
e946shoul dbeappl icable,andi naccor dancet herewi
thand pr
oper
tyi
stobedi
str
ibut
edamongX' snextofkin.
fol
lowingt hedoct rineoft he renvoi,thequest i
onoft hev ali
dityoft het est
ament ary
provi
sioni nquest ionshoul dber eferr
edbackt ot helaw oft hedecedent '
sdomi cile, Assume( 1)thatthisquest i
onar isesinaMassachuset tscour t
.Ther ether uleoft he
whichist hePhi l
ippines. confli
ctofl awsast oi nt estatesuccessi ont omov ablescal l
sforanappl i
cati
onoft he
l
awoft hedeceased' sl astdomi cile.Sincebyhy pot hesisX'slastdomi cil
ewasFr ance,
Thet
heor
yofdoct
ri
neof
 r
envoi
 
hasbeendef
inedbyv
ari
ousaut
hor
s,t
hus: thenat uralthi
ngf ort heMassachuset t
scour ttodowoul dbet oturnt oFrenchst at
ute
ofdi stributi
ons,orwhat evercor r
esponds t her etoi n French law,and decr ee a
Thepr oblem hasbeenstatedinthisway:"Whent heConfli
ctofLawsr uleofthe distr
ibutionaccordi ngly .Anexami nati
onofFr enchl aw,howev er,wouldshowt hatifa
for
um r ef
er saj
uralmat
tertoafor
eignlawfordecisi
on,
istherefer
encetothepurel
y Frenchcour twerecal ledupont odet ermi nehowt hispropertyshouldbedi stributed,i
t
i
nternalrulesofl
awoftheforei
gnsystem;i
.e.
,tothetot
ali
tyofthefor
eignl
awmi nus woul dr eferthedi stribut i
ont ot henat i
onallaw oft hedeceased,t husappl yi
ngt he
i
tsConf li
ctofLawsrul
es?" Massachuset ts st atut e of di st ri
butions. So on t he surface of t hings t he
Massachuset tscour thasopent oi talternati
vecour seofact i
on:(a)eit
hert oappl ythe
Frenchl awi stoint est atesuccessi on,or( b)tor esolvei t
selfi
ntoaFr enchcour tand
Onl ogi c,thesol utioni snotaneasyone.TheMi chigancour tchoset oacceptt he applytheMassachuset t
sst atuteofdi stribut
ions, ont heassumpt ionthatt hi
si swhat
renvoi,t hatis,appl iedt heConf li
ctofLawsr uleofI ll
i
noi swhi chr eferredthemat ter aFr enchcour twoul ddo.I fitaccept st heso- called r
envoidoctr
ine,itwi l
lfollow the
backt oMi chiganl aw.Butoncehav i
ngdet er
mi nedt het heConf li
ctofLawspr inciple l
at t
ercour se,thusappl yingi t
sownl aw.
i
st her ulel ookedt o, iti
sdiffi
culttoseewhyt her eferencebackshoul dnothav ebeen
toMi chiganConf l
ictofLaws.Thi swoul dhav er esultedi nt he" endl esschainof
references"whi chhassoof tenbeencr i
tici
zedbel egalwr iters.Theopponent soft he Thisisonetypeof r
envoi
.Ajuralmat teri
spresent
edwhi chtheconf l
i
ct-of
-l
awsrule
renvoiwoul dhav el ookedmer elytot hei nternall aw ofI ll
inoi s,t husr ej
ecti
ngt he oftheforum r
eferstoaforei
gnl aw,theconfl
ict
-of
-l
awsruleofwhi ch,intur
n,r
efers
renvoiort her eferenceback.Yett hereseemsnocompel l
i
ngl ogi calr easonwhyt he thematterbackagaintothelawoft hef or
um.Thisisrenvoiinthenar r
owersense.
origi
nalr ef
erenceshoul dbet hei nter
nallawr at hert hant otheConf li
ctofLawsr ule.It TheGermant er
mf orthi
sjudi
cialprocessis'
Ruckverwei
sung.'
"(Har
v ardLawReview,
i
st r
uet hatsuchasol uti
onav oidsgoi ngonamer r
y-go-round,butt hosewhohav e Vol.31,
pp.523-571.
)
accept ed t he renvoi  
theory avoidt hi i
s nextri
cabi li
s ci rculas by get t
ing of fatt he
secondr ef
erenceandatt hatpoi ntapply i
ngi nternall aw.Per hapst heopponent sof Afteradeci sionhasbeenar ri
vedatt hataf oreignlaw ist ober esortedtoas
the renvoi  
areabi tmor econsist entfortheylookal way stoi nter nall awast heruleof gov erningapar ticularcase,t hef urt
herquest ionmayar ise:Aret her ulesastot he
reference. conf l
ictofl awscont ainedi nsuchf oreignl aw al sot ober esortedt o?Thi sisa
quest ionwhich, whil
ei thasbeenconsi deredbyt hecour tsinbutaf ewi nstances,has
Strangel
yenough,bot ht headv ocat esf orandt heobj ectorst ot he r
envoi 
pleadthat beent hesubjectoff requentdi scussi
onbyt ext wr i
tersandessay i
sts; andt hedoctri
ne
greateruni
formit
ywi llresultf r
om adopt i
onoft hei
rr espectivev iews.Andst i
llmore i
nvol vedhasbeendescr iptivel
ydesignatedbyt hem ast he" Renvoyer "tosendback, or
strangeist hefactt hatt heonl ywayt oachi eveuni formi t
yi nt hischoice-of-
law the" Ruchverswei sung" ,ort he" Weit
erverweisung" ,sinceanaf fi
rmat iv eanswert othe
problem i
si finthedi sputet het wost ateswhosel awsf or mt hel egalbasisoft he quest ionpostulatedandt heoper ati
onoft headopt ionofthef orei
gnl awi ntotowould
l
iti
gationdi
sagreeast owhet hert he renvoi shoul
dbeaccept ed.Ifbothr ej
ect,orboth i
nmanycasesr esultinr eturni
ngt hemai ncont rover syt
obedeci dedaccor dingtothe
acceptthedoctri
ne,ther esultofthel i
ti
gat i
onwi l
lvarywi t
ht hechoi ceoft heforum.In l
awoft heforum.. .
.(16C. J.S.872.)
thecasest atedabov e,hadt heMi chigancour trejectedt he renvoi,j
udgmentwoul d
hav ebeenagainstthewoman;i ft hesui thadbeenbr oughti nt heI l
li
noiscourts,and Anot
hert
heor
y,knownast
he"
doct
ri
neof
 r
envoi
",hasbeenadv
anced.Thet
heor
yof
thedoctri
neof r
envoi 
isthatthecourtoft heforum,indeterminingt hequest i
on theconf l
ictoflawsr ulesofCal iforniaar etobeenf orcedj oi
nt l
y,eachi nitsown
befor
eit,musttakeintoaccountthewholelawoft heotherj
uri
sdicti
on,butal soit
s i
ntendedandappr opri
atespher e,thepr i
ncipl
ecitedI nr eKauf manshoul dappl yto
rul
esast oconf
lictoflaws,andthenapplythel
awt ot
heactualquestionwhi chthe cit
izenslivi
ngintheSt ate,butAr ti
cle946shoul dappl ytosuchofi tscit
izensasar e
rul
esoft heotherjurisdi
cti
onprescr
ibe.Thismaybet helaw oft hef orum.The notdomi cil
edi
nCal if
orniabutinot herjurisdi
cti
ons.Ther ulelaiddownofr esort
ingto
doctr
ineoft r
he envoi
 hasgeneral
lybeenrepudi
atedbyt heAmericanaut hori
ti
es.(2 thel awofthedomi ci
leint hedet ermi nati
onofmat terswi thforeignelementi nv
olved
Am.Jur.296) i
si naccordwiththegener alprincipleofAmer i
canl awt hatthedomi cil
iar
ylawshoul d
gov erni
nmostmat t
ersorr ight
swhi chf ol
lowtheper sonoft heowner .
Thescopeoft het heoryofr
  envoi
 
hasal sobeendef i
nedandt her
easonsforit
s
appli
cat
ioni nacount ryexplainedbyPr of.Lor
enzeninanar t
icl
eintheYaleLaw Whenamandi esl eav ingper sonalpr oper tyinoneormor est at es,andl eav esawi ll
Journal
,Vol.27,1917-1918,
pp.529- 531.Thepert
inentpar
tsoft
heart
icl
earequot
ed dir
ect i
ngt hemannerofdi str
ibut ionoft hepr oper ty,thelawoft hest at
ewher ehewas
herei
nbelow: domi ci
ledatt het i
meofhi sdeat hwi llbel ookedt oi ndeci dingl egalquest ionsabout
thewi l
l,almostascompl etelyast helawofsi tusi sconsul tedi nquest i
onsaboutt he
Therecognit
ionoft r
he envoi 
theoryi
mpli
esthattherul
esoftheconfl
ictofl
awsareto deviseofl and.I tisl ogi calthat ,sincet hedomi ci l
iaryr ulescont roldev olutionoft he
beunderstoodasi ncorpor
atingnotonlytheordinaryori
nternall
aw oftheforei
gn personalest ateincaseofi nt est atesuccessi on, thesamer ulesshoul ddet ermi net he
stat
eorcount r
y,butit
sr ul
esoft heconf
li
ctoflawsaswell.Accordi
ngt ot
histheor
y vali
dityofanat tempt edt estament ar
ydi spost i
onoft hepr oper ty.Her e,also,i tisnot
'
thelawofacount r
y'meanst hewholeofit
slaw. thatthedomi cil
iaryhasef f
ectbey ondt hebor der soft hedomi cil
iarystat e.Ther ules
ofthedomi cil
ear er ecogni zedascont rollingbyt heConf lictofLawsr ulesatt hesi tus
property,andt her easonf ort her ecogni tionasi nt hecaseofi ntestatesuccessi on, i
s
xxx     xxx     xxx thegener alconv eni enceoft hedoct ri
ne.TheNew Yor kcour thassai dont hepoi nt:
'
Thegener alprinci
pl et hatadi spost it
onofaper sonal proper ty,
v ali
datt hedomi cil
eof
VonBarpresent
edhisvi
ewsatthemeetingoftheInst
it
uteofI
nter
nat
ionalLaw,at theowner ,i
sv ali
dany wher e,isoneoft heuni v
ersal applicat ion.Ithadi tsor iginint hat
Neuchat
el,
in1900,
int
hefor
m ofthef
oll
owingt
heses: i
nternationalcomi tywhi chwasoneoft hef i
rstf ruitsofci v i
li
zat i
on,andi tt hisage,
whenbusi nessi ntercour seandt hepr ocessofaccumul atingpr opertyt akebutl ittl
e
(
1)Ever
ycourtshal
lobser
vet
hel
aw ofi
tscount
ryasr
egar
dst
heappl
i
cat
ionof noti
ceofboundar yl i
nes, thepr acticalwi sdom andj ust i
ceoft her uleismor eappar ent
f
orei
gnl
aws. thanev er.(Goodr i
ch, Conf li
ctofLaws, Sec.164, pp.442- 443. )

(
2)Pr
ovi
dedt
hatnoex
presspr
ovi
siont
othecont
rar
yexi
sts,
thecour
tshal
lrespect
: Appelleesar guet hatwhatAr ti
cle16oft heCi vilCodeoft hePhi lippinespoi ntedout
asthe nat ionallaw ist
hei nternal l
awofCal i
fornia.Butasabov eexpl ainedt helawsof
Cali
forniahav epr escr
ibedt woset soflawsf ori t
sci ti
zens,onef orr esident stherein
(a)Thepr ov i
sionsofaf orei
gnlaw whichdisclai
mstheri
ghtt
obi nditsnati
onal
s andanot herf orthosedomi ci
ledi notherjurisdictions.Reasondemandst hatWe
abroadasr egar dstheirper
sonalst
atute,anddesir
est
hatsai
dpersonalst
atut
eshall shouldenf orcet heCaliforniai nternall
awpr escr i
bedf orit
sci ti
zensr esidingt her
ein,
bedeterminedbyt hel awofthedomi cil
e,orevenbyt
helawoftheplacewherethe andenf or cet heconf l
ictofl awsr ulesfortheci tizensdomi cil
edabr oad.I fwemust
actinquestionoccur red. enforcet hel awofCal i
f orniaasi ncomitywear eboundt ogo, assodecl ar edinAr t
icle
16ofourCi v i
lCode,thenwemustenf or
cet hel aw ofCal iforni
ai naccor dancewi th
(b)Thedeci
sionoft
woormor eforei
gnsyst
emsoflaw,provi
dedi
tbecert
ainthatone theexpr essmandat ether eofandasabov eexpl ained,i.e.
,applyt hei nter nallaw for
ofthem i
snecessari
lycompet ent
,whichagreei
nattr
ibuti
ngthedet
erminat
ionofa resi
dent st herein,anditsconf li
ct-
of-l
awsrulefort hosedomi ciledabr oad.
questi
ontothesamesystem oflaw.
Iti
sar guedonappel lees'behal ft hatt hecl ause" iftherei snol awt othecont raryin
xxx     xxx     xxx theplacewher et hepr oper t
yissituat ed"i nSec.946oft heCal i
for niaCi vi
lCoder efer s
toArt i
cle16oft heCi vilCodeoft hePhi l
ippinesandt hatt helawt ot hecont r
aryint he
I
f ,
forexampl
e,theEngli
shlawdirectsit
sj udgetodistri
butethepersonalestateofan Phil
ippinesi sthepr ov isi
oni nsai dAr t i
cle16t hatt he nationall aw  ofthedeceased
Engli
shmanwhohasdi eddomi cil
edi nBel gi
um inaccor dancewi t
ht helaw ofhi s shouldgov ern.Thi scont enti
oncannotbesust ained.Asexpl ainedi nt hev ari
ous
domicil
e,hemustf i
rsti
nquir
ewhet herthel awofBel gi
um woul ddistr
ibut
eper sonal authoritiescit
edabov et henat i
onall aw ment i
onedi nAr ti
cle16ofourCi vi
lCodei s
propert
yupondeathi naccor
dancewi tht helawofdomi ci
le,andifhef i
ndst hatthe the law on conf li
ctofl awsi nt he Cal iforni
a Ci vilCode,i .e.
,Ar ticle 946,whi ch
Belgi
anlawwoul dmaket hedist
ribut
ioni naccordancewi ththelawofnat ionali
ty— authorizest hereferenceorr eturnoft hequest i
ontot helawoft het estator'sdomi cile.
thati
stheEngl
ishlaw—hemustacceptt hisref
erencebackt ohisownl aw. Theconf li
ctoflawsr ul einCal if
orni a,Ar ticle946, CivilCode, pr ecisel yrefersbackt he
case,whenadecedenti snotdomi ciledi nCal i
fornia,tot hel aw ofhi sdomi cil
e,t he
Phil
ippinesi nthecaseatbar .Thecour toft hedomi cil
ecannotandshoul dnotr efer
Wenotet
hatAr
ti
cl
e946oftheCal
if
orniaCi
vilCodeisit
sconf
li
ctofl
awsrule,whil
e the case back t o Cal if
ornia;such act ion woul dl eavet he i ssue i ncapabl e of
t
herul
eappl
i
edinInr
eKauf
man,Supr
  a,i
tsi
nternall
aw.I
fthel
awonsuccessionand determi nati
onbecauset hecasewi l
lt henbel i
keaf ootball
,t ossedbackandf orth
betweenthet wostates,betweent hecount ryofwhichthedecedentwasaci t
izenand
thecountryofhisdomi cil
e.ThePhi l
ippinecourtmustappl yit
sownl awasdirectedi n
theconfl
ictoflawsruleoft hestateoft hedecedent,i
fthequestionhastobedeci ded,
especial
l
yast heappl i
cationoft heinternallawofCalif
orniaprovi
desnolegiti
mef or
chil
drenwhilethePhi l
ippinelaw,Arts.887( 4)and894,Civ i
lCodeoft hePhi
lippines,
makesnat uralchi
ldr
enl egallyacknowl edgedf or
cedheirsoft heparentr
ecogni zi
ng
them.

ThePhi li
ppi necases(I
nr eEstateofJohnson,39Phi l
.156;Rier
avs.Palmaroli
,40Phi l
.
105;Mi cianov s.Bri
mo,50Phi l
.867;BabcockTempl et
onv s.Ri
derBabcock,52Phi l
.
130;andGi bbsv s.Gov er
nment ,59Phil.293.)citedbyappel l
eest osuppor tt he
decisi
oncannotpossi bl
yapplyinthecaseatbar ,fortwoimpor t
antreasons,i
.e.,
t he
subjectineachcasedoesnotappeart obeaci t
izenofastat ei
ntheUnitedStatesbut
wit
hdomi cil
einthePhi l
i
ppines,anditdoesnotappeari neachcaset hatther
eexi sts
i
nt hest ateofwhi chthesubjectisaciti
zen,alawsi mil
artooridenti
calwithArt.946
oftheCal iforni
aCivi
lCode.

Wet hereforef i
ndt hatast hedomi cileofthedeceasedChr i
stensen,aciti
zenof
Cali
for
nia,ist hePhi l
ippines,thevalidit
yoft hepr
ovi
sionsofhi swi l
ldepri
vi
nghi s
acknowledgednat uralchild,theappellant
,shoul
dbegov er
nedbyt hePhil
ippi
neLaw,
thedomi ci
le,pursuantt oAr t
.946oft heCivi
lCodeofCalif
orni
a,notbyt heinter
nal
l
awofCal i
forni
a..

WHEREFORE, thedeci
sionappeal
edfrom i
sherebyrever
sedandthecaseret
urnedt
o
thelowercourtwi
thinstr
uct
ionsthatthepar
ti
ti
onbemadeast hePhili
ppi
nelawon
successi
onprovi
des.Judgmentrever
sed,wi
thcostsagai
nstappel
lees.