Discussion on Conflict of LAws by Agpalo

7/23/2019 Discussion on Conflict of LAws by Agpalo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discussion-on-conflict-of-laws-by-agpalo 1/186

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner,vs.COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA a! "ON. RODOLFO A.

ORTI#, $ %$& ca'ac$t( a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o Brac% 89, Re)$oa- Tr$a-Co+rt o +e/o C$t(, respondents.

UISUMBING, J.:

This petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks toannul and set aside the Resolution 1 dated September 27, 1995 and the e!ision

2 dated "pril 1#, 199$ of the Court of "ppeals 0 in C"%&.R. S' (o. )$5)), andthe *rders dated "u+ust 29, 1994 3 and ebruar- 2, 1995 4 that ere issued b-

the trial !ourt in Civil Case (o. /%9)%10)94. 8

The pertinent ante!edent fa!ts hi!h +ave rise to the instant petition, as stated inthe uestioned e!ision 9, are as follos

*n 3anuar- 21, 1900 defendant S"" hired plaintiff as a li+ht "ttendant forits airlines based in 3eddah, Saudi "rabia. . . .

*n "pril 27, 199#, hile on a la-%over in 3akarta, ndonesia, plaintiff ent to adis!o dan!e ith fello !re members Thamer "l%&a66ai and "llah "l%&a66ai,both Saudi nationals. e!ause it as almost mornin+ hen the- returned to theirhotels, the- a+reed to have breakfast to+ether at the room of Thamer. 8hen the-ere in te sic : room, "llah left on some prete;t. Shortl- after he did, Thamerattempted to rape plaintiff. ortunatel-, a roombo- and several se!urit- personnelheard her !ries for help and res!ued her. <ater, the ndonesian poli!e !ame andarrested Thamer and "llah "l%&a66ai, the latter as an a!!ompli!e.

8hen plaintiff returned to 3eddah a fe da-s later, several S"" offi!ialsinterro+ated her about the 3akarta in!ident. The- then reuested her to +o ba!kto 3akarta to help arran+e the release of Thamer and "llah. n 3akarta, S""<e+al *ffi!er Sirah "kkad and base mana+er aharini ne+otiated ith the poli!efor the immediate release of the detained !re members but did not su!!eedbe!ause plaintiff refused to !ooperate. She as afraid that she mi+ht be tri!kedinto somethin+ she did not ant be!ause of her inabilit- to understand the lo!aldiale!t. She also de!lined to si+n a blank paper and a do!ument ritten in thelo!al diale!t. =ventuall-, S"" alloed plaintiff to return to 3eddah but barredher from the 3akarta fli+hts.

'laintiff learned that, throu+h the inter!ession of the Saudi "rabian +overnment,the ndonesian authorities a+reed to deport Thamer and "llah after to eeks ofdetention. =ventuall-, the- ere a+ain put in servi!e b- defendant S" sic :. nSeptember 199#, defendant S"" transferred plaintiff to >anila.

*n 3anuar- 14, 1992, ?ust hen plaintiff thou+ht that the 3akarta in!ident asalread- behind her, her superiors reuested her to see >r. "li >enie-, Chief



<e+al *ffi!er of S"", in 3eddah, Saudi "rabia. 8hen she sa him, hebrou+ht her to the poli!e station here the poli!e took her passport anduestioned her about the 3akarta in!ident. >inie- simpl- stood b- as the poli!eput pressure on her to make a statement droppin+ the !ase a+ainst Thamer and

"llah. (ot until she a+reed to do so did the poli!e return her passport andalloed her to !at!h the afternoon fli+ht out of 3eddah.

*ne -ear and a half later or on lune 1$, 199), in Ri-adh, Saudi "rabia, a feminutes before the departure of her fli+ht to >anila, plaintiff as not alloed toboard the plane and instead ordered to take a later fli+ht to 3eddah to see >r.>inie-, the Chief <e+al *ffi!er of S"". 8hen she did, a !ertain @halid ofthe S"" offi!e brou+ht her to a Saudi !ourt here she as asked to si+n ado!ument ritten in "rabi!. The- told her that this as ne!essar- to !lose the!ase a+ainst Thamer and "llah. "s it turned out, plaintiff si+ned a noti!e to her toappear before the !ourt on 3une 27, 199). 'laintiff then returned to >anila.

Shortl- afterards, defendant S"" summoned plaintiff to report to 3eddahon!e a+ain and see >inie- on 3une 27, 199) for further investi+ation. 'laintiffdid so after re!eivin+ assuran!e from S""As >anila mana+er, "slam Saleemi,

that the investi+ation as routinar- and that it posed no dan+er to her.

n 3eddah, a S"" le+al offi!er brou+ht plaintiff to the same Saudi !ourt on3une 27, 199). (othin+ happened then but on 3une 20, 199), a Saudi ?ud+einterro+ated plaintiff throu+h an interpreter about the 3akarta in!ident. "fter onehour of interro+ation, the- let her +o. "t the airport, hoever, ?ust as her planeas about to take off, a S"" offi!er told her that the airline had forbidden herto take fli+ht. "t the nfli+ht Servi!e *ffi!e here she as told to +o, the se!retar-of >r. Bah-a Saddi!k took aa- her passport and told her to remain in 3eddah, atthe !re uarters, until further orders.

*n 3ul- ), 199) a S"" le+al offi!er a+ain es!orted plaintiff to the same !ourthere the ?ud+e, to her astonishment and sho!k, rendered a de!ision, translated

to her in =n+lish, senten!in+ her to five months imprisonment and to 20$ lashes.*nl- then did she reali6e that the Saudi !ourt had tried her, to+ether ith Thamer and "llah, for hat happened in 3akarta. The !ourt found plaintiff +uilt- of 1:adulter- 2: +oin+ to a dis!o, dan!in+ and listenin+ to the musi! in violation ofslami! las and ): so!iali6in+ ith the male !re, in !ontravention of slami!tradition. 15

a!in+ !onvi!tion, private respondent sou+ht the help of her emplo-er, petitionerS"". nfortunatel-, she as denied an- assistan!e. She then asked the'hilippine =mbass- in 3eddah to help her hile her !ase is on appeal.>eanhile, to pafor her upkeep, she orked on the domesti! fli+ht of S"",hile Thamer and "llah !ontinued to serve in the international

fli+hts.11

e!ause she as ron+full- !onvi!ted, the 'rin!e of >akkah dismissed the !asea+ainst her and alloed her to leave Saudi "rabia. Shortl- before her return to>anila, 12 she as terminated from the servi!e b- S"", ithout her bein+informed of the !ause.



*n (ovember 2), 199), >orada filed a Complaint 10 for dama+es a+ainstS"", and @haled "l%alai D"l%alaiD:, its !ountr- mana+er.

*n 3anuar- 19, 1994, S"" filed an *mnibus >otion To ismiss 1 hi!hraised the folloin+ +rounds, to it 1: that the Complaint states no !ause of

a!tion a+ainst Saudia 2: that defendant "l%alai is not a real part- in interest): that the !laim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been aived,abandoned or otherise e;tin+uished and 4: that the trial !ourt has no

?urisdi!tion to tr- the !ase.

*n ebruar- 1#, 1994, >orada filed her *pposition To >otion to ismiss: 1.Saudia filed a repl- 13 thereto on >ar!h ), 1994.

*n 3une 2), 1994, >orada filed an "mended Complaint 14 herein "l%alai asdropped as part- defendant. *n "u+ust 11, 1994, Saudia filed its >anifestationand >otion to ismiss "mended Complaint 18.

The trial !ourt issued an *rder 19 dated "u+ust 29, 1994 den-in+ the >otion toismiss "mended Complaint filed b- Saudia.

rom the *rder of respondent 3ud+e 25 den-in+ the >otion to ismiss, S""filed on September 2#, 1994, its >otion for Re!onsideration 21 of the *rder dated

"u+ust 29, 1994. t alle+ed that the trial !ourt has no ?urisdi!tion to hear and tr-the !ase on the basis of "rti!le 21 of the Civil Code, sin!e the proper laappli!able is the la of the @in+dom of Saudi "rabia. *n *!tober 14, 1994,>orada filed her *pposition 22 To efendantAs >otion for Re!onsideration:.

n the Repl-20

filed ith the trial !ourt on *!tober 24, 1994, S"" alle+ed thatsin!e its >otion for Re!onsideration raised la!k of ?urisdi!tion as its !ause ofa!tion, the *mnibus >otion Rule does not appl-, even if that +round is raised forthe first time on appeal. "dditionall-, S"" alle+ed that the 'hilippines doesnot have an- substantial interest in the prose!ution of the instant !ase, andhen!e, ithout ?urisdi!tion to ad?udi!ate the same.

Respondent 3ud+e subseuentl- issued another *rder 2 dated ebruar- 2,1995, den-in+ S""As >otion for Re!onsideration. The pertinent portion of theassailed *rder reads as follos

"!tin+ on the >otion for Re!onsideration of defendant Saudi "rabian "irlinesfiled, thru !ounsel, on September 2#, 1994, and the *pposition thereto of theplaintiff filed, thru !ounsel, on *!tober 14, 1994, as ell as the Repl- thereith of defendant Saudi "rabian "irlines filed, thru !ounsel, on *!tober 24, 1994,!onsiderin+ that a perusal of the plaintiffs "mended Complaint, hi!h is one forthe re!over- of a!tual, moral and e;emplar- dama+es plus attorne-As fees, uponthe basis of the appli!able 'hilippine la, "rti!le 21 of the (e Civil Code of the'hilippines, is, !learl-, ithin the ?urisdi!tion of this Court as re+ards the sub?e!tmatter, and there bein+ nothin+ ne of substan!e hi!h mi+ht !ause the reversal



or modifi!ation of the order sou+ht to be re!onsidered, the motion forre!onsideration of the defendant, is =(=.

S* *R=R=. 2

Conseuentl-, on ebruar- 2#, 1995, S"" filed its 'etition for Certiorari and

'rohibition ith 'ra-er for ssuan!e of 8rit of 'reliminar- n?un!tion andEorTemporar- Restrainin+ *rder 23 ith the Court of "ppeals.

Respondent Court of "ppeals promul+ated a Resolution ith Temporar-Restrainin+ *rder 24 dated ebruar- 2), 1995, prohibitin+ the respondent 3ud+efrom further !ondu!tin+ an- pro!eedin+, unless otherise dire!ted, in the interim.

n another Resolution 28 promul+ated on September 27, 1995, no assailed, theappellate !ourt denied S""As 'etition for the ssuan!e of a 8rit of 'reliminar-n?un!tion dated ebruar- 10, 1995, to it

The 'etition for the ssuan!e of a 8rit of 'reliminar- n?un!tion is hereb-=(=, after !onsiderin+ the "nser, ith 'ra-er to en- 8rit of 'reliminar-n?un!tion Rollo, p. 1)5: the Repl- and Re?oinder, it appearin+ that hereinpetitioner is not !learl- entitled thereto Unciano Paramedical College, et . Al ., v.Court of Appeals, et . Al ., 100335, April 7, 1993, econd !ivision:.

S* *R=R=.

*n *!tober 2#, 1995, S"" filed ith this Fonorable Court the instant 'etition29 for Revie ith 'ra-er for Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder dated *!tober 1),1995.

Foever, durin+ the penden!- of the instant 'etition, respondent Court of "ppeals rendered the e!ision 05 dated "pril 1#, 199$, no also assailed. t ruledthat the 'hilippines is an appropriate forum !onsiderin+ that the "mendedComplaintAs basis for re!over- of dama+es is "rti!le 21 of the Civil Code, andthus, !learl- ithin the ?urisdi!tion of respondent Court. t further held that certiorari is not the proper remed- in a denial of a >otion to ismiss, inasmu!has the petitioner should have pro!eeded to trial, and in !ase of an adverse rulin+,find re!ourse in an appeal.

*n >a- 7, 199$, S"" filed its Supplemental 'etition for Revie ith 'ra-erfor Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder 01 dated "pril )#, 199$, +iven due !ourse b- this

Court. "fter both parties submitted their >emoranda, 02 the instant !ase is nodeemed submitted for de!ision.

'etitioner S"" raised the folloin+ issues



The trial !ourt has no ?urisdi!tion to hear and tr- Civil Case (o. /%9)%10)94based on "rti!le 21 of the (e Civil Code sin!e the proper la appli!able is thela of the @in+dom of Saudi "rabia inasmu!h as this !ase involves hat isknon in private international la as a D!onfli!ts problemD. *therise, theRepubli! of the 'hilippines ill sit in ?ud+ment of the a!ts done b- anothersoverei+n state hi!h is abhorred.

<eave of !ourt before filin+ a supplemental pleadin+ is not a ?urisdi!tionalreuirement. esides, the matter as to absen!e of leave of !ourt is no moot anda!ademi! hen this Fonorable Court reuired the respondents to !omment onpetitionerAs "pril )#, 199$ Supplemental 'etition or Revie 8ith 'ra-er or "Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder 8ithin Ten 1#: a-s rom (oti!e Thereof. urther,the Revised Rules of Court should be !onstrued ith liberalit- pursuant toSe!tion 2, Rule 1 thereof.

'etitioner re!eived on "pril 22, 199$ the "pril 1#, 199$ de!ision in C"%&.R. S'(*. )$5)) entitled DSaudi "rabian "irlines v. Fon. Rodolfo ". *rti6, et al .D andfiled its "pril )#, 199$ Supplemental 'etition or Revie 8ith 'ra-er or "Temporar- Restrainin+ *rder on >a- 7, 199$ at 1#29 a.m. or ithin the 15%da-re+lementar- period as provided for under Se!tion 1, Rule 45 of the RevisedRules of Court. Therefore, the de!ision in C"%&.R. S' (*. )$5)) has not -etbe!ome final and e;e!utor- and this Fonorable Court !an take !o+ni6an!e of this!ase. 00

rom the fore+oin+ fa!tual and pro!edural ante!edents, the folloin+ issuesemer+e for our resolution

.

8F=TF=R R=S'*(=(T "''=<<"T= C*RT =RR= ( F*<(& TF"TTF= R=&*("< TR"< C*RT * /=G*( CTB F"S 3RSCT*( T*F="R "( TRB CH< C"S= (*. /%9)%10)94 =(TT<= D><"&R*S '.>*R"" H. S" "R""( "R<(=SD.

.

8F=TF=R R=S'*(=(T "''=<<"T= C*RT =RR= ( R<(& TF"T (TFS C"S= 'F<''(= <"8 SF*< &*H=R(.

'etitioner S"" !laims that before us is a !onfli!t of las that must be settledat the outset. t maintains that private respondentAs !laim for alle+ed abuse ofri+hts o!!urred in the @in+dom of Saudi "rabia. t alle+es that the e;isten!e of aforei+n element ualifies the instant !ase for the appli!ation of the la of the@in+dom of Saudi "rabia, b- virtue of the le" loci delicti commissi rule. 0



*n the other hand, private respondent !ontends that sin!e her "mendedComplaint is based on "rti!les 19 0 and 21 03 of the Civil Code, then the instant!ase is properl- a matter of domesti! la. 04

nder the fa!tual ante!edents obtainin+ in this !ase, there is no dispute that the

interpla- of events o!!urred in to states, the 'hilippines and Saudi "rabia.

"s stated b- private respondent in her "mended Complaint 08 dated 3une 2),1994

2. efendant S" "R""( "R<(=S or S"" is a forei+n airlines!orporation doin+ business in the 'hilippines. t ma- be served ith summonsand other !ourt pro!esses at Travel 8ide "sso!iated Sales 'hils.:. n!., )rdloor, Cou+ar uildin+, 114 Halero St., Sal!edo Hilla+e, >akati, >etro >anila.

;;; ;;; ;;;

$. 'laintiff learned that, throu+h the inter!ession of the Saudi "rabian+overnment, the ndonesian authorities a+reed to deport Thamer and "llah afterto eeks of detention. =ventuall-, the- ere a+ain put in servi!e b- defendantS"". #n eptem$er 1990, defendant AU!#A transferred plaintiff to %anila.

7. &n 'anuar( 1), 199*, +ust -en plaintiff t-oug-t t-at t-e 'aarta incident asalread( $e-ind -er, -er superiors reauested -er to see %R. Ali %enie(, C-ief/egal &fficer of AU!#A in 'edda-, audi Ara$ia. 8hen she sa him, he brou+hther to the poli!e station here the poli!e took her passport and uestioned herabout the 3akarta in!ident. >inie- simpl- stood b- as the poli!e put pressure onher to make a statement droppin+ the !ase a+ainst Thamer and "llah. (ot untilshe a+reed to do so did the poli!e return her passport and alloed her to !at!hthe afternoon fli+ht out of 3eddah.

0. *ne -ear and a half later or on 3une 1$, 199), in Ri-adh, Saudi "rabia, a feminutes before the departure of her fli+ht to >anila, plaintiff as not alloed toboard the plane and instead ordered to take a later fli+ht to 3eddah to see >r.>enie-, the Chief <e+al *ffi!er of S"". 8hen she did, a !ertain @halid ofthe S"" offi!e brou+ht her to a Saudi !ourt here she as asked to si+h ado!ument ritten in "rabi!. The- told her that this as ne!essar- to !lose the!ase a+ainst Thamer and "llah. "s it turned out, plaintiff si+ned a noti!e to her toappear before the !ourt on 3une 27, 199). Plaintiff t-en returned to %anila.

9. -ortl( afterards, defendant AU!#A summoned plaintiff to report to 'edda-once again and see %inie( on 'une *7, 1993 for furt-er investigation. Plaintiffdid so after receiving assurance from AU!#As %anila manger, Aslam aleemi,

t-at t-e investigation as routinar( and t-at it posed no danger to -er .

1#. n 3eddah, a S"" le+al offi!er brou+ht plaintiff to the same Saudi !ourt on3une 27, 199). (othin+ happened then but on 3une 20, 199), a Saudi ?ud+einterro+ated plaintiff throu+h an interpreter about the 3akarta in!ident. "fter onehour of interro+ation, the- let her +o. "t the airport, hoever, ?ust as her planeas about to take off, a S"" offi!er told her that the airline had forbidden herto take that fli+ht. "t the nfli+ht Servi!e *ffi!e here she as told to +o, the



se!retar- of >r. Bah-a Saddi!k took aa- her passport and told her to remain in3eddah, at the !re uarters, until further orders.

11. *n 3ul- ), 199) a S"" le+al offi!er a+ain es!orted plaintiff to the same!ourt here the ?ud+e, to her astonishment and sho!k, rendered a de!ision,translated to her in =n+lish, senten!in+ her to five months imprisonment and to

20$ lashes. *nl- then did she reali6e that the Saudi !ourt had tried her, to+etherith Thamer and "llah, for hat happened in 3akarta. The !ourt found plaintiff+uilt- of 1: adulter- 2: +oin+ to a dis!o, dan!in+, and listenin+ to the musi! inviolation of slami! las ): so!iali6in+ ith the male !re, in !ontravention ofslami! tradition.

12. ecause AU!#A refused to lend -er a -and in t-e case, plaintiff soug-t t-e-elp of t-e P-ilippines 2m$ass( in 'edda-. The latter helped her pursue anappeal from the de!ision of the !ourt. To pafor her upkeep, she orked on thedomesti! fli+hts of defendant S"" hile, ironi!all-, Thamer and "llah freel-served the international fli+hts. 09

8here the fa!tual ante!edents satisfa!toril- establish the e;isten!e of a forei+n

element, e a+ree ith petitioner that the problem herein !ould present aD!onfli!tsD !ase.

" fa!tual situation that !uts a!ross territorial lines and is affe!ted b- the diverselas of to or more states is said to !ontain a Dforei+n elementD. The presen!e of a forei+n element is inevitable sin!e so!ial and e!onomi! affairs of individualsand asso!iations are rarel- !onfined to the +eo+raphi! limits of their birth or!on!eption. 5

The forms in hi!h this forei+n element ma- appear are man-. 1 The forei+nelement ma- simpl- !onsist in the fa!t that one of the parties to a !ontra!t is an

alien or has a forei+n domi!ile, or that a !ontra!t beteen nationals of one Stateinvolves properties situated in another State. n other !ases, the forei+n elementma- assume a !omple; form. 2

n the instant !ase, the forei+n element !onsisted in the fa!t that privaterespondent >orada is a resident 'hilippine national, and that petitioner S""is a resident forei+n !orporation. "lso, b- virtue of the emplo-ment of >oradaith the petitioner Saudia as a fli+ht steardess, events did transpire durin+ herman- o!!asions of travel a!ross national borders, parti!ularl- from >anila,'hilippines to 3eddah, Saudi "rabia, and vi!e versa, that !aused a D!onfli!tsDsituation to arise.

8e thus find private respondentAs assertion that the !ase is purel- domesti!,impre!ise. " conflicts problem presents itself here, and the uestion of

?urisdi!tion 0 !onfronts the !ourt a uo.

"fter a !areful stud- of the private respondentAs "mended Complaint, and theComment thereon, e note that she aptl- predi!ated her !ause of a!tion on

"rti!les 19 and 21 of the (e Civil Code.



*n one hand, "rti!le 19 of the (e Civil Code provides

"rt. 19. =ver- person must, in the e;er!ise of his ri+hts and in the performan!e of his duties, a!t ith ?usti!e +ive ever-one his due and observe honest- and +oodfaith.

*n the other hand, "rti!le 21 of the (e Civil Code provides

"rt. 21. "n- person ho illfull- !auses loss or in?ur- to another in a manner thatis !ontrar- to morals, +ood !ustoms or publi! poli!- shall !ompensate the latterfor dama+es.

Thus, in P-ilippine 4ational an P46 vs. Court of Appeals , this Court heldthat

The afore!ited provisions on human relations ere intended to e;pand the!on!ept of torts in this ?urisdi!tion b- +rantin+ adeuate le+al remed- for theuntold number of moral ron+s hi!h is impossible for human foresi+ht to

spe!ifi!all- provide in the statutes.

"lthou+h "rti!le 19 merel- de!lares a prin!iple of la, "rti!le 21 +ives flesh to itsprovisions. Thus, e a+ree ith private respondentAs assertion that violations of

"rti!les 19 and 21 are a!tionable, ith ?udi!iall- enfor!eable remedies in themuni!ipal forum.

ased on the alle+ations 3 in the "mended Complaint, read in the li+ht of theRules of Court on ?urisdi!tion 4 e find that the Re+ional Trial Court RTC: of/ue6on Cit- possesses ?urisdi!tion over the sub?e!t matter of the suit. 8 tsauthorit- to tr- and hear the !ase is provided for under Se!tion 1 of Republi! "!t

(o. 7$91, to it

Se!. 1. Se!tion 19 of atas 'ambansa l+. 129, otherise knon as theD3udi!iar- Reor+ani6ation "!t of 190#D, is hereb- amended to read as follos

Se!. 19. 3urisdi!tion in Civil Cases. I Re+ional Trial Courts shall e;er!isee;!lusive ?urisdi!tion

;;; ;;; ;;;

0: n all other !ases in hi!h demand, e"clusive of interest,damages of -atever ind , attorne-As fees, liti+ation e;penses,

and !ots or the value of the propert- in !ontrovers- e;!eeds *nehundred thousand pesos '1##,###.##: or, in su!h other !asesin >etro >anila, here the demand, e;!lusive of the above%mentioned items e;!eeds To hundred Thousand pesos'2##,###.##:. =mphasis ours:

;;; ;;; ;;;



"nd folloin+ Se!tion 2 b:, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court I the venue,/ue6on Cit-, is appropriate

Se!. 2 Henue in Courts of irst nstan!e. I J(o Re+ional Trial CourtK

a: ;;; ;;; ;;;

b: 'ersonal a!tions. I "ll other a!tions ma- be !ommen!ed and tried here thedefendant or an- of the defendants resides or ma- be found, or here theplaintiff or an- of the plaintiff resides, at the ele!tion of the plaintiff.

'ra+mati! !onsiderations, in!ludin+ the !onvenien!e of the parties, also ei+hheavil- in favor of the RTC /ue6on Cit- assumin+ ?urisdi!tion. 'aramount is theprivate interest of the liti+ant. =nfor!eabilit- of a ?ud+ment if one is obtained isuite obvious. Relative advanta+es and obsta!les to a fair trial are euall-important. 'laintiff ma- not, b- !hoi!e of an in!onvenient forum, Dve;D, DharassD,or DoppressD the defendant, e.g. b- infli!tin+ upon him needless e;pense or

disturban!e. ut unless the balan!e is stron+l- in favor of the defendant, theplaintiffs !hoi!e of forum should rarel- be disturbed. 9

8ei+hin+ the relative !laims of the parties, the !ourt a uo found it best to hearthe !ase in the 'hilippines. Fad it refused to take !o+ni6an!e of the !ase, itould be for!in+ plaintiff private respondent no: to seek remedial a!tionelsehere, i.e. in the @in+dom of Saudi "rabia here she no lon+er maintainssubstantial !onne!tions. That ould have !aused a fundamental unfairness toher.

>oreover, b- hearin+ the !ase in the 'hilippines no unne!essar- diffi!ulties and

in!onvenien!e have been shon b- either of the parties. The !hoi!e of forum ofthe plaintiff no private respondent: should be upheld.

Similarl-, the trial !ourt also possesses ?urisdi!tion over the persons of the partiesherein. - filin+ her Complaint and "mended Complaint ith the trial !ourt,private respondent has voluntar- submitted herself to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt.

The re!ords sho that petitioner S"" has filed several motions 5 pra-in+ forthe dismissal of >oradaAs "mended Complaint. S"" also filed an "nser n 2" A$undante Cautelam dated ebruar- 2#, 1995. 8hat is ver- patent ande;pli!it from the motions filed, is that S"" pra-ed for other reliefs under the

premises. ndeniabl-, petitioner S"" has effe!tivel- submitted to the trial!ourtAs ?urisdi!tion b- pra-in+ for the dismissal of the "mended Complaint on+rounds other than la!k of ?urisdi!tion.

"s held b- this Court in Repu$lic vs. er and Compan(, /td . 1

8e observe that the motion to dismiss filed on "pril 14, 19$2, aside fromdisputin+ the loer !ourtAs ?urisdi!tion over defendantAs person, pra-ed fordismissal of the !omplaint on the +round that plaintiffAs !ause of a!tion has



pres!ribed. - interposin+ su!h se!ond +round in its motion to dismiss, @er andCo., <td. availed of an affirmative defense on the basis of hi!h it pra-ed the!ourt to resolve !ontrovers- in its favor. or the !ourt to validl- de!ide the saidplea of defendant @er L Co., <td., it ne!essaril- had to a!uire ?urisdi!tion uponthe latterAs person, ho, bein+ the proponent of the affirmative defense, shouldbe deemed to have abandoned its spe!ial appearan!e and voluntaril- submitteditself to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt.

Similarl-, the !ase of !e %idgel( vs. 8erandos, held that

8hen the appearan!e is b- motion for the purpose of ob?e!tin+ to the ?urisdi!tionof the !ourt over the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose ofob?e!tin+ to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt. f his motion is for another purposethan to ob?e!t to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt over his person, he thereb- submitshimself to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt. " spe!ial appearan!e b- motion made forthe purpose of ob?e!tin+ to the ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt over the person ill beheld to be a +eneral appearan!e, if the part- in said motion should, for e;ample,ask for a dismissal of the a!tion upon the further +round that the !ourt had no

?urisdi!tion over the sub?e!t matter. 2

Clearl-, petitioner had submitted to the ?urisdi!tion of the Re+ional Trial Court of/ue6on Cit-. Thus, e find that the trial !ourt has ?urisdi!tion over the !ase andthat its e;er!ise thereof, ?ustified.

"s to the !hoi!e of appli!able la, e note that !hoi!e%of%la problems seek toanser to important uestions 1: 8hat le+al s-stem should !ontrol a +ivensituation here some of the si+nifi!ant fa!ts o!!urred in to or more states and2: to hat e;tent should the !hosen le+al s-stem re+ulate the situation. 0

Several theories have been propounded in order to identif- the le+al s-stem that

should ultimatel- !ontrol. "lthou+h ideall-, all !hoi!e%of%la theories shouldintrinsi!all- advan!e both notions of ?usti!e and predi!tabilit-, thedo not ala-sdo so. The forum is then fa!ed ith the problem of de!idin+ hi!h of these toimportant values should be stressed.

efore a !hoi!e !an be made, it is ne!essar- for us to determine under hat!ate+or- a !ertain set of fa!ts or rules fall. This pro!ess is knon asD!hara!teri6ationD, or the Ddo!trine of ualifi!ationD. t is the Dpro!ess of de!idin+hether or not the fa!ts relate to the kind of uestion spe!ified in a !onfli!ts rule.D The purpose of D!hara!teri6ationD is to enable the forum to sele!t the properla. 3

*ur startin+ point of anal-sis here is not a le+al relation, but a fa!tual situation,event, or operative fa!t. 4 "n essential element of !onfli!t rules is the indi!ationof a DtestD or D!onne!tin+ fa!torD or Dpoint of !onta!tD. Choi!e%of%la rulesinvariabl- !onsist of a fa!tual relationship su!h as propert- ri+ht, !ontra!t !laim:and a !onne!tin+ fa!tor or point of !onta!t, su!h as the situs of the res, the pla!eof !elebration, the pla!e of performan!e, or the pla!e of ron+doin+. 8



(ote that one or more !ir!umstan!es ma- be present to serve as the possibletest for the determination of the appli!able la. 9 These Dtest fa!torsD or Dpoints of !onta!tD or D!onne!tin+ fa!torsD !ould be an- of the folloin+

1: The nationalit- of a person, his domi!ile, his residen!e, his pla!e of so?ourn,or his ori+in

2: the seat of a le+al or ?uridi!al person, su!h as a !orporation

): the situs of a thin+, that is, the pla!e here a thin+ is, or is deemed to besituated. n parti!ular, the le" situs is de!isive hen real ri+hts are involved

4: t-e place -ere an act -as $een done, t-e locus actus, suc- as t-e place-ere a contract -as $een made, a marriage cele$rated, a ill signed or a tortcommitted. -e le" loci actus is particularl( important in contracts and torts:

5: the pla!e here an a!t is intended to !ome into effe!t, e.+., the pla!e ofperforman!e of !ontra!tual duties, or the pla!e here a poer of attorne- is to be

e;er!ised

$: the intention of the !ontra!tin+ parties as to the la that should +overn theira+reement, the le" loci intentionis

7: the pla!e here ?udi!ial or administrative pro!eedin+s are instituted or done.The le" fori I the la of the forum I is parti!ularl- important be!ause, as ehave seen earlier, matters of Dpro!edureD not +oin+ to the substan!e of the !laiminvolved are +overned b- it and be!ause the le" fori applies henever the!ontent of the otherise appli!able forei+n la is e;!luded from appli!ation in a+iven !ase for the reason that it falls under one of the e;!eptions to theappli!ations of forei+n la and

0: the fla+ of a ship, hi!h in man- !ases is de!isive of pra!ti!all- all le+alrelationships of the ship and of its master or oner as su!h. t also !overs!ontra!tual relationships parti!ularl- !ontra!ts of affrei+htment. 35 =mphasisours.:

"fter a !areful stud- of the pleadin+s on re!ord, in!ludin+ alle+ations in the "mended Complaint deemed admitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, eare !onvin!ed that there is reasonable basis for private respondentAs assertionthat althou+h she as alread- orkin+ in >anila, petitioner brou+ht her to3eddah on the pretense that she ould merel- testif- in an investi+ation of the!har+es she made a+ainst the to S"" !re members for the atta!k on her

person hile the- ere in 3akarta. "s it turned out, she as the one made to fa!etrial for ver- serious !har+es, in!ludin+ adulter- and violation of slami! las andtradition.

There is likeise lo+i!al basis on re!ord for the !laim that the Dhandin+ overD orDturnin+ overD of the person of private respondent to 3eddah offi!ials, petitionerma- have a!ted be-ond its duties as emplo-er. 'etitionerAs purported a!t!ontributed to and amplified or even pro;imatel- !aused additional humiliation,



miser- and sufferin+ of private respondent. 'etitioner thereb- alle+edl- fa!ilitatedthe arrest, detention and prose!ution of private respondent under the +uise ofpetitionerAs authorit- as emplo-er, takin+ advanta+e of the trust, !onfiden!e andfaith she reposed upon it. "s purportedl- found b- the 'rin!e of >akkah, thealle+ed !onvi!tion and imprisonment of private respondent as ron+ful. ut

these !apped the in?ur- or harm alle+edl- infli!ted upon her person andreputation, for hi!h petitioner !ould be liable as !laimed, to provide!ompensation or redress for the ron+s done, on!e dul- proven.

Considerin+ that the !omplaint in the !ourt a uo is one involvin+ torts, theD!onne!tin+ fa!torD or Dpoint of !onta!tD !ould be the pla!e or pla!es here thetortious !ondu!t or le" loci actus o!!urred. "nd appl-in+ the torts prin!iple in a!onfli!ts !ase, e find that the 'hilippines !ould be said as a situs of the tort thepla!e here the alle+ed tortious !ondu!t took pla!e:. This is be!ause it is in the'hilippines here petitioner alle+edl- de!eived private respondent, a ilipinaresidin+ and orkin+ here. "!!ordin+ to her, she had honestl- believed that

petitioner ould, in the e;er!ise of its ri+hts and in the performan!e of its duties,Da!t ith ?usti!e, +ive her due and observe honest- and +ood faith.D nstead,petitioner failed to prote!t her, she !laimed. That !ertain a!ts or parts of the in?ur-alle+edl- o!!urred in another !ountr- is of no moment. or in our vie hat isimportant here is the pla!e here the over%all harm or the totalit- of the alle+edin?ur- to the person, reputation, so!ial standin+ and human ri+hts of !omplainant,had lod+ed, a!!ordin+ to the plaintiff belo herein private respondent:. "ll told, itis not ithout basis to identif- the 'hilippines as the situs of the alle+ed tort.

>oreover, ith the idespread !riti!ism of the traditional rule of le" loci delicticommissi , modern theories and rules on tort liabilit- 31 have been advan!ed to

offer fresh ?udi!ial approa!hes to arrive at ?ust results. n keepin+ abreast ith themodern theories on tort liabilit-, e find here an o!!asion to appl- the DState ofthe most si+nifi!ant relationshipD rule, hi!h in our vie should be appropriate toappl- no, +iven the fa!tual !onte;t of this !ase.

n appl-in+ said prin!iple to determine the State hi!h has the most si+nifi!antrelationship, the folloin+ !onta!ts are to be taken into a!!ount and evaluateda!!ordin+ to their relative importan!e ith respe!t to the parti!ular issue a: thepla!e here the in?ur- o!!urred b: the pla!e here the !ondu!t !ausin+ thein?ur- o!!urred !: the domi!ile, residen!e, nationalit-, pla!e of in!orporation andpla!e of business of the parties, and d: the pla!e here the relationship, if an-,beteen the parties is !entered. 32

"s alread- dis!ussed, there is basis for the !laim that over%all in?ur- o!!urred andlod+ed in the 'hilippines. There is likeise no uestion that private respondent isa resident ilipina national, orkin+ ith petitioner, a resident forei+n !orporationen+a+ed here in the business of international air !arria+e. Thus, theDrelationshipD beteen the parties as !entered here, althou+h it should bestressed that this suit is not based on mere labor la violations. rom the re!ord,



the !laim that the 'hilippines has the most si+nifi!ant !onta!t ith the matter inthis dispute, 30 raised b- private respondent as plaintiff belo a+ainst defendantherein petitioner:, in our vie, has been properl- established.

'res!indin+ from this premise that the 'hilippines is the situs of the tort

!omplained of and the pla!e Dhavin+ the most interest in the problemD, e find,b- a- of re!apitulation, that the 'hilippine la on tort liabilit- should haveparamount appli!ation to and !ontrol in the resolution of the le+al issues arisin+out of this !ase. urther, e hold that the respondent Re+ional Trial Court has

?urisdi!tion over the parties and the sub?e!t matter of the !omplaint theappropriate venue is in /ue6on Cit-, hi!h !ould properl- appl- 'hilippine la.>oreover, e find untenable petitionerAs insisten!e that DJsKin!e privaterespondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleadin+ and provin+ theappli!able Saudi la on the matter.D 3 "s aptl- said b- private respondent, shehas Dno obli+ation to plead and prove the la of the @in+dom of Saudi "rabiasin!e her !ause of a!tion is based on "rti!les 19 and 21D of the Civil Code of the

'hilippines. n her "mended Complaint and subseuent pleadin+s, she neveralle+ed that Saudi la should +overn this !ase. 3 "nd as !orre!tl- held b- therespondent appellate !ourt, D!onsiderin+ that it as the petitioner ho asinvokin+ the appli!abilit- of the la of Saudi "rabia, then the burden as on itJpetitionerK to plead and to establish hat the la of Saudi "rabia isD. 33

<astl-, no error !ould be imputed to the respondent appellate !ourt in upholdin+the trial !ourtAs denial of defendantAs herein petitionerAs: motion to dismiss the!ase. (ot onl- as ?urisdi!tion in order and venue properl- laid, but appeal aftertrial as obviousl- available, and e;peditious trial itself indi!ated b- the nature ofthe !ase at hand. ndubitabl-, the 'hilippines is the state intimatel- !on!erned

ith the ultimate out!ome of the !ase belo, not ?ust for the benefit of all theliti+ants, but also for the vindi!ation of the !ountr-As s-stem of la and ?usti!e in atransnational settin+. 8ith these +uidelines in mind, the trial !ourt must pro!eedto tr- and ad?ud+e the !ase in the li+ht of relevant 'hilippine la, ith due!onsideration of the forei+n element or elements involved. (othin+ said herein, of !ourse, should be !onstrued as pre?ud+in+ the results of the !ase in an- mannerhatsoever.

8F=R=*R=, the instant petition for certiorari is hereb- S>SS=. Civil Case(o. /%9)%10)94 entitled D>ila+ros '. >orada vs. Saudi "rabia "irlinesD is hereb-R=>"(= to Re+ional Trial Court of /ue6on Cit-, ran!h 09 for furtherpro!eedin+s.

S* *R=R=.

G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDARD E. !HRISTENSEN,

DE!EASED.



ADOLFO !. A"NAR, E#$%u&or an' L(!) !HRISTENSEN, H$*r o+ &$ '$%$a$', Executor and Heir-appellees,vs.HELEN !HRISTENSEN GAR!IA, oppositor-appellant.

M. R. Sotelo for executor and heir-appellees. Leopoldo M. Abellera and Jovito Salonga for oppositor-appellant.

LARADOR, J.:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente N.Cusi, r., presidin!, in "pecial #roceedin! No. $%% of said court, dated "eptem&er '(,')(), approvin! amon! thin!s the final accounts of the executor, directin! the executor toreim&urse *aria +uc Christensen the amount of #,$ paid & her to HelenChristensen /arcia as her le!ac, and declarin! *aria +uc Christensen entitled to theresidue of the propert to &e en0oed durin! her lifetime, and in case of death 1ithout

issue, one-half of said residue to &e paa&le to *rs. Carrie +ouise C. 2orton, etc., inaccordance 1ith the provisions of the 1ill of the testator Ed1ard E. Christensen. The 1ill1as executed in *anila on *arch 3, ')3' and contains the follo1in! provisions4

. I declare ... that I have &ut 5NE 6'7 child, named *89I8 +:C;CH9I"TEN"EN 6no1 *rs. 2ernard Dane7, 1ho 1as &orn in the #hilippinesa&out t1ent-ei!ht ears a!o, and 1ho is no1 residin! at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun!Villa!e, +os 8n!eles, California, :.".8.

(. I further declare that I no1 have no livin! ascendants, and no descendantsexcept m a&ove named dau!hter, *89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE;.

x x x x x x x x x

<. I !ive, devise and &e=ueath unto *89I8 HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN, no1married to Eduardo /arcia, a&out ei!hteen ears of a!e and 1ho, not1ithstandin!the fact that she 1as &apti>ed Christensen, is not in an 1a related to me, nor hasshe &een at an time adopted & me, and 1ho, from all information I have no1resides in E!pit, Di!os, Davao, #hilippines, the sum of TH9EE TH5:"8ND "I?H:ND9ED #E"5" 6#,$.7, #hilippine Currenc the same to &e deposited intrust for the said *aria Helen Christensen 1ith the Davao 2ranch of the#hilippine National 2an@, and paid to her at the rate of 5ne Hundred #esos

6#'.7, #hilippine Currenc per month until the principal thereof as 1ell asan interest 1hich ma have accrued thereon, is exhausted..

x x x x x x x x x

'%. I here& !ive, devise and &e=ueath, unto m 1ell-&eloved dau!hter, the said*89I8 +:C; CH9I"TEN"EN D8NE; 6*rs. 2ernard Dane7, no1 residin! asaforesaid at No. $$3 9od!er ;oun! Villa!e, +os 8n!eles, California, :.".8., all



the income from the rest, remainder, and residue of m propert and estate, real, personal andAor mixed, of 1hatsoever @ind or character, and 1heresoever situated,of 1hich I ma &e possessed at m death and 1hich ma have come to me froman source 1hatsoever, durin! her lifetime4 ....

It is in accordance 1ith the a&ove-=uoted provisions that the executor in his final accountand pro0ect of partition ratified the pament of onl #,$ to Helen Christensen /arciaand proposed that the residue of the estate &e transferred to his dau!hter, *aria +ucChristensen.

5pposition to the approval of the pro0ect of partition 1as filed & Helen Christensen/arcia, insofar as it deprives her 6Helen7 of her le!itime as an ac@no1led!ed naturalchild, she havin! &een declared & :s in /.9. Nos. +-''(B-B( an ac@no1led!ed naturalchild of the deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen. The le!al !rounds of opposition are 6a7 thatthe distri&ution should &e !overned & the la1s of the #hilippines, and 6&7 that said orderof distri&ution is contrar thereto insofar as it denies to Helen Christensen, one of t1o

ac@no1led!ed natural children, one-half of the estate in full o1nership. In amplificationof the a&ove !rounds it 1as alle!ed that the la1 that should !overn the estate of thedeceased Christensen should not &e the internal la1 of California alone, &ut the entire la1thereof &ecause several forei!n elements are involved, that the forum is the #hilippinesand even if the case 1ere decided in California, "ection )($ of the California Civil Code,1hich re=uires that the domicile of the decedent should appl, should &e applica&le. It1as also alle!ed that *aria Helen Christensen havin! &een declared an ac@no1led!ednatural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes le!itimate from the time ofher &irth.

The court &elo1 ruled that as Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates

and of the "tate of California at the time of his death, the successional ri!hts and intrinsicvalidit of the provisions in his 1ill are to &e !overned & the la1 of California, inaccordance 1ith 1hich a testator has the ri!ht to dispose of his propert in the 1a hedesires, &ecause the ri!ht of a&solute dominion over his propert is sacred and inviola&le6In re *cDaniels Estate, << Cal. 8ppl. %d B<<, '<$ #. %d )3%, and In re aufman, ''<Cal. %B$, () #ac. ')%, cited in pa!e '<), 9ecord on 8ppeal7. 5ppositor *aria HelenChristensen, throu!h counsel, filed various motions for reconsideration, &ut these 1eredenied. Hence, this appeal.

The most important assi!nments of error are as follo1s4

I

THE +5E9 C5:9T E99ED IN I/N59IN/ THE DECI"I5N 5F THEH5N5982+E ":#9E*E C5:9T TH8T HE+EN I" THE 8CN5+ED/ED N8T:98+ CHI+D 5F ED89D E. CH9I"TEN"EN 8ND, C5N"E:ENT+;, INDE#9IVIN/ HE9 5F HE9 :"T "H89E IN THE INHE9IT8NCE.

II



THE +5E9 C5:9T E99ED IN ENTI9E+; I/N59IN/ 8NDA59 F8I+IN/ T59EC5/NIGE THE E?I"TENCE 5F "EVE98+ F8CT59", E+E*ENT" 8NDCI9C:*"T8NCE" C8++IN/ F59 THE 8##+IC8TI5N 5F INTE9N8+ +8.

III

THE +5E9 C5:9T E99ED IN F8I+IN/ T5 9EC5/NIGE TH8T :NDE9INTE9N8TI5N8+ +8, #89TIC:+89+; :NDE9 THE 9ENV5I D5CT9INE, THEINT9IN"IC V8+IDIT; 5F THE TE"T8*ENT89; DI"#5"ITI5N 5F THEDI"T9I2:TI5N 5F THE E"T8TE 5F THE DECE8"ED ED89D E.CH9I"TEN"EN "H5:+D 2E /5VE9NED 2; THE +8" 5F THE #HI+I##INE".

IV

THE +5E9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T THE "CHED:+E 5FDI"T9I2:TI5N ":2*ITTED 2; THE E?EC:T59 I" C5NT989; T5 THE

#HI+I##INE +8".

V

THE +5E9 C5:9T E99ED IN N5T DEC+89IN/ TH8T :NDE9 THE#HI+I##INE +8" HE+EN CH9I"TEN"EN /89CI8 I" ENTIT+ED T5 5NE-H8+F6'A%7 5F THE E"T8TE IN F:++ 5NE9"HI#.

There is no =uestion that Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as a citi>en of the :nited "tates and ofthe "tate of California at the time of his death. 2ut there is also no =uestion that at thetime of his death he 1as domiciled in the #hilippines, as 1itness the follo1in! facts

admitted & the executor himself in appellees &rief4

In the proceedin!s for admission of the 1ill to pro&ate, the facts of record sho1that the deceased Ed1ard E. Christensen 1as &orn on Novem&er %), 'B<3 in Ne1;or@ Cit, N.;., :.".8. his first arrival in the #hilippines, as an appointed schoolteacher, 1as on ul ', ')', on &oard the :.". 8rm Transport "heridan 1ith#ort of Em&ar@ation as the Cit of "an Francisco, in the "tate of California,:.".8. He staed in the #hilippines until ')(.

In Decem&er, ')(, *r. Christensen returned to the :nited "tates and staed therefor the follo1in! nine ears until ')', durin! 1hich time he resided in, and 1as

teachin! school in "acramento, California.

*r. Christensens next arrival in the #hilippines 1as in ul of the ear ')'.Ho1ever, in ')%B, he a!ain departed the #hilippines for the :nited "tates andcame &ac@ here the follo1in! ear, ')%). "ome nine ears later, in ')B, he a!ainreturned to his o1n countr, and came &ac@ to the #hilippines the follo1in! ear,')).



herefore, the parties respectfull pra that the fore!oin! stipulation of facts &eadmitted and approved & this Honora&le Court, 1ithout pre0udice to the partiesadducin! other evidence to prove their case not covered & this stipulation offacts. 1äwph1.!"t

2ein! an 8merican citi>en, *r. Christensen 1as interned & the apanese *ilitarForces in the #hilippines durin! orld ar II. :pon li&eration, in 8pril ')(3, heleft for the :nited "tates &ut returned to the #hilippines in Decem&er, ')(3.8ppellees Collective Exhi&its $, CFI Davao, "p. #roc. $%%, as Exhi&its 88,22 and CC-Dane Exhs. **, **-l, **-%-Dane and p. (<, t.s.n.,ul %', ')3.7

In 8pril, ')3', Ed1ard E. Christensen returned once more to California shortlafter the ma@in! of his last 1ill and testament 6no1 in =uestion herein7 1hich heexecuted at his la1ers offices in *anila on *arch 3, ')3'. He died at the "t.+u@es Hospital in the Cit of *anila on 8pril , ')3. 6pp. %-7

In arrivin! at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the #hilippines, 1e are persuaded & the fact that he 1as &orn in Ne1 ;or@, mi!rated to California and residedthere for nine ears, and since he came to the #hilippines in ')' he returned toCalifornia ver rarel and onl for short visits 6perhaps to relatives7, and considerin! thathe appears never to have o1ned or ac=uired a home or properties in that state, 1hich1ould indicate that he 1ould ultimatel a&andon the #hilippines and ma@e home in the"tate of California.

"ec. '$. 9esidence is a term used 1ith man shades of meanin! from meretemporar presence to the most permanent a&ode. /enerall, ho1ever, it is used

to denote somethin! more than mere phsical presence. 6/oodrich on Conflict of+a1s, p. %)7

8s to his citi>enship, ho1ever, e find that the citi>enship that he ac=uired in California1hen he resided in "acramento, California from ')( to ')', 1as never lost & his stain the #hilippines, for the latter 1as a territor of the :nited "tates 6not a state7 until ')($and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citi>en of California & the factthat 1hen he executed his 1ill in ')3' he declared that he 1as a citi>en of that "tate sothat he appears never to have intended to a&andon his California citi>enship & ac=uirin!another. This conclusion is in accordance 1ith the follo1in! principle expounded &/oodrich in his Conflict of +a1s.

The terms residence and domicile mi!ht 1ell &e ta@en to mean the samethin!, a place of permanent a&ode. 2ut domicile, as has &een sho1n, has ac=uireda technical meanin!. Thus one ma &e domiciled in a place 1here he has never &een. 8nd he ma reside in a place 1here he has no domicile. The man 1ith t1ohomes, &et1een 1hich he divides his time, certainl resides in each one, 1hilelivin! in it. 2ut if he 1ent on &usiness 1hich 1ould re=uire his presence forseveral 1ee@s or months, he mi!ht properl &e said to have sufficient connection



1ith the place to &e called a resident. It is clear, ho1ever, that, if he treated hissettlement as continuin! onl for the particular &usiness in hand, not !ivin! up hisformer home, he could not &e a domiciled Ne1 ;or@er. 8c=uisition of adomicile of choice re=uires the exercise of intention as 1ell as phsical presence.9esidence simpl re=uires &odil presence of an inha&itant in a !iven place,

1hile domicile re=uires &odil presence in that place and also an intention toma@e it ones domicile. 9esidence, ho1ever, is a term used 1ith man shades ofmeanin!, from the merest temporar presence to the most permanent a&ode, and itis not safe to insist that an one use et the onl proper one. 6/oodrich, p. %)7

The la1 that !overns the validit of his testamentar dispositions is defined in 8rticle '$of the Civil Code of the #hilippines, 1hich is as follo1s4

89T. '$. 9eal propert as 1ell as personal propert is su&0ect to the la1 of thecountr 1here it is situated.

Ho1ever, intestate and testamentar successions, &oth 1ith respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional ri!hts and to the intrinsic validit oftestamentar provisions, shall &e re!ulated & the national la1 of the person1hose succession is under consideration, 1hatever ma &e the nature of the propert and re!ardless of the countr 1here said propert ma &e found.

The application of this article in the case at &ar re=uires the determination of the meanin!of the term #national law# is used therein.

There is no sin!le 8merican la1 !overnin! the validit of testamentar provisions in the:nited "tates, each state of the :nion havin! its o1n private la1 applica&le to its citi>ens

onl and in force onl 1ithin the state. The national la1 indicated in 8rticle '$ of theCivil Code a&ove =uoted can not, therefore, possi&l mean or appl to an !eneral8merican la1. "o it can refer to no other than the private la1 of the "tate of California.

The next =uestion is4 hat is the la1 in California !overnin! the disposition of personal propertJ The decision of the court &elo1, sustains the contention of the executor-appellee that under the California #ro&ate Code, a testator ma dispose of his propert &1ill in the form and manner he desires, citin! the case of Estate of *cDaniel, << Cal.8ppl. %d B<<, '<$ #. %d )3%. 2ut appellant invo@es the provisions of 8rticle )($ of theCivil Code of California, 1hich is as follo1s4

If there is no la1 to the contrar, in the place 1here personal propert is situated,it is deemed to follo1 the person of its o1ner, and is !overned & the la1 of hisdomicile.

The existence of this provision is alle!ed in appellants opposition and is not denied. ehave chec@ed it in the California Civil Code and it is there. 8ppellee, on the other hand,relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to & a 1itness. 65nl the case ofaufman is correctl cited.7 It is ar!ued on executors &ehalf that as the deceased



Christensen 1as a citi>en of the "tate of California, the internal la1 thereof, 1hich is that!iven in the a&ovecited case, should !overn the determination of the validit of thetestamentar provisions of Christensens 1ill, such la1 &ein! in force in the "tate ofCalifornia of 1hich Christensen 1as a citi>en. 8ppellant, on the other hand, insists that8rticle )($ should &e applica&le, and in accordance there1ith and follo1in! the doctrine

of the renvoi, the =uestion of the validit of the testamentar provision in =uestion should &e referred &ac@ to the la1 of the decedents domicile, 1hich is the #hilippines.

The theor of doctrine of renvoi has &een defined & various authors, thus4

The pro&lem has &een stated in this 1a4 hen the Conflict of +a1s rule of theforum refers a 0ural matter to a forei!n la1 for decision, is the reference to the purel internal rules of la1 of the forei!n sstem i.e., to the totalit of the forei!nla1 minus its Conflict of +a1s rulesJ

5n lo!ic, the solution is not an eas one. The *ichi!an court chose to accept the

renvoi, that is, applied the Conflict of +a1s rule of Illinois 1hich referred thematter &ac@ to *ichi!an la1. 2ut once havin! determined the the Conflict of+a1s principle is the rule loo@ed to, it is difficult to see 1h the reference &ac@should not have &een to *ichi!an Conflict of +a1s. This 1ould have resulted inthe endless chain of references 1hich has so often &een critici>ed &e le!al1riters. The opponents of the renvoi 1ould have loo@ed merel to the internal la1of Illinois, thus re0ectin! the renvoi or the reference &ac@. ;et there seems nocompellin! lo!ical reason 1h the ori!inal reference should &e the internal la1rather than to the Conflict of +a1s rule. It is true that such a solution avoids !oin!on a merr-!o-round, &ut those 1ho have accepted the renvoi theor avoid thisinextricabilis circulas & !ettin! off at the second reference and at that point

applin! internal la1. #erhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a &it moreconsistent for the loo@ al1as to internal la1 as the rule of reference.

"tran!el enou!h, &oth the advocates for and the o&0ectors to the renvoi plead that!reater uniformit 1ill result from adoption of their respective vie1s. 8nd stillmore stran!e is the fact that the onl 1a to achieve uniformit in this choice-of-la1 pro&lem is if in the dispute the t1o states 1hose la1s form the le!al &asis ofthe liti!ation disa!ree as to 1hether the renvoi should &e accepted. If &oth re0ect,or &oth accept the doctrine, the result of the liti!ation 1ill var 1ith the choice ofthe forum. In the case stated a&ove, had the *ichi!an court re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould have &een a!ainst the 1oman if the suit had &een &rou!ht in theIllinois courts, and the too re0ected the renvoi, 0ud!ment 1ould &e for the1oman. The same result 1ould happen, thou!h the courts 1ould s1itch 1ithrespect to 1hich 1ould hold lia&ilit, if &oth courts accepted the renvoi.

The 9estatement accepts the renvoi theor in t1o instances4 1here the title to landis in =uestion, and 1here the validit of a decree of divorce is challen!ed. In thesecases the Conflict of +a1s rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the divorce case, is applied & the forum, &ut an further reference !oes



onl to the internal la1. Thus, a persons title to land, reco!ni>ed & the situs, 1ill &e reco!ni>ed & ever court and ever divorce, valid & the domicile of the parties, 1ill &e valid ever1here. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. <, pp. '-'(.7

?, a citi>en of *assachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leavin!

mova&le propert in *assachusetts, En!land, and France. The =uestion arises asto ho1 this propert is to &e distri&uted amon! ?s next of @in.

8ssume 6'7 that this =uestion arises in a *assachusetts court. There the rule of theconflict of la1s as to intestate succession to mova&les calls for an application ofthe la1 of the deceaseds last domicile. "ince & hpothesis ?s last domicile 1asFrance, the natural thin! for the *assachusetts court to do 1ould &e to turn toFrench statute of distri&utions, or 1hatever corresponds thereto in French la1, anddecree a distri&ution accordin!l. 8n examination of French la1, ho1ever, 1ouldsho1 that if a French court 1ere called upon to determine ho1 this propertshould &e distri&uted, it 1ould refer the distri&ution to the national la1 of the

deceased, thus applin! the *assachusetts statute of distri&utions. "o on thesurface of thin!s the *assachusetts court has open to it alternative course ofaction4 6a7 either to appl the French la1 is to intestate succession, or 6&7 toresolve itself into a French court and appl the *assachusetts statute ofdistri&utions, on the assumption that this is 1hat a French court 1ould do. If itaccepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it 1ill follo1 the latter course, thus applin!its o1n la1.

This is one tpe of renvoi. 8 0ural matter is presented 1hich the conflict-of-la1srule of the forum refers to a forei!n la1, the conflict-of-la1s rule of 1hich, inturn, refers the matter &ac@ a!ain to the la1 of the forum. This is renvoi in the

narro1er sense. The /erman term for this 0udicial process is 9uc@ver1eisun!.6Harvard +a1 9evie1, Vol. ', pp. 3%-3<'.7

8fter a decision has &een arrived at that a forei!n la1 is to &e resorted to as!overnin! a particular case, the further =uestion ma arise4 8re the rules as to theconflict of la1s contained in such forei!n la1 also to &e resorted toJ This is a=uestion 1hich, 1hile it has &een considered & the courts in &ut a fe1 instances,has &een the su&0ect of fre=uent discussion & text1riters and essaists and thedoctrine involved has &een descriptivel desi!nated & them as the 9envoer tosend &ac@, or the 9uchvers1eisun!, or the eiterver1eisun!, since anaffirmative ans1er to the =uestion postulated and the operation of the adoption ofthe forei!n la1 in toto 1ould in man cases result in returnin! the maincontrovers to &e decided accordin! to the la1 of the forum. ... 6'$ C..". B<%.7

8nother theor, @no1n as the doctrine of renvoi, has &een advanced. The theorof the doctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determinin! the =uestion &efore it, must ta@e into account the 1hole la1 of the other 0urisdiction, &ut alsoits rules as to conflict of la1s, and then appl the la1 to the actual =uestion 1hichthe rules of the other 0urisdiction prescri&e. This ma &e the la1 of the forum. The



doctrine of the renvoi has !enerall &een repudiated & the 8merican authorities.6% 8m. ur. %)$7

The scope of the theor of renvoi has also &een defined and the reasons for its applicationin a countr explained & #rof. +oren>en in an article in the ;ale +a1 ournal, Vol. %<,

')'<-')'B, pp. 3%)-3'. The pertinent parts of the article are =uoted herein &elo14

The reco!nition of the renvoi theor implies that the rules of the conflict of la1sare to &e understood as incorporatin! not onl the ordinar or internal la1 of theforei!n state or countr, &ut its rules of the conflict of la1s as 1ell. 8ccordin! tothis theor the la1 of a countr means the 1hole of its la1.

x x x x x x x x x

Von 2ar presented his vie1s at the meetin! of the Institute of International +a1, at Neuchatel, in '), in the form of the follo1in! theses4

6'7 Ever court shall o&serve the la1 of its countr as re!ards the application offorei!n la1s.

6%7 #rovided that no express provision to the contrar exists, the court shallrespect4

6a7 The provisions of a forei!n la1 1hich disclaims the ri!ht to &ind itsnationals a&road as re!ards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall &e determined & the la1 of the domicile, or even &the la1 of the place 1here the act in =uestion occurred.

6&7 The decision of t1o or more forei!n sstems of la1, provided it &ecertain that one of them is necessaril competent, 1hich a!ree inattri&utin! the determination of a =uestion to the same sstem of la1.

x x x x x x x x x

If, for example, the En!lish la1 directs its 0ud!e to distri&ute the personal estateof an En!lishman 1ho has died domiciled in 2el!ium in accordance 1ith the la1of his domicile, he must first in=uire 1hether the la1 of 2el!ium 1ould distri&ute personal propert upon death in accordance 1ith the la1 of domicile, and if he

finds that the 2el!ian la1 1ould ma@e the distri&ution in accordance 1ith the la1of nationalit K that is the En!lish la1 K he must accept this reference &ac@ tohis o1n la1.

e note that 8rticle )($ of the California Civil Code is its conflict of la1s rule, 1hile therule applied in In re aufman, Supra, its internal la1. If the la1 on succession and theconflict of la1s rules of California are to &e enforced 0ointl, each in its o1n intended andappropriate sphere, the principle cited In re aufman should appl to citi>ens livin! in



the "tate, &ut 8rticle )($ should appl to such of its citi>ens as are not domiciled inCalifornia &ut in other 0urisdictions. The rule laid do1n of resortin! to the la1 of thedomicile in the determination of matters 1ith forei!n element involved is in accord 1iththe !eneral principle of 8merican la1 that the domiciliar la1 should !overn in mostmatters or ri!hts 1hich follo1 the person of the o1ner.

hen a man dies leavin! personal propert in one or more states, and leaves a1ill directin! the manner of distri&ution of the propert, the la1 of the state 1herehe 1as domiciled at the time of his death 1ill &e loo@ed to in decidin! le!al=uestions a&out the 1ill, almost as completel as the la1 of situs is consulted in=uestions a&out the devise of land. It is lo!ical that, since the domiciliar rulescontrol devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the samerules should determine the validit of an attempted testamentar dispostion of the propert. Here, also, it is not that the domiciliar has effect &eond the &orders ofthe domiciliar state. The rules of the domicile are reco!ni>ed as controllin! &the Conflict of +a1s rules at the situs propert, and the reason for the reco!nition

as in the case of intestate succession, is the !eneral convenience of the doctrine.The Ne1 ;or@ court has said on the point4 The !eneral principle that a dispostitonof a personal propert, valid at the domicile of the o1ner, is valid an1here, isone of the universal application. It had its ori!in in that international comit1hich 1as one of the first fruits of civili>ation, and it this a!e, 1hen &usinessintercourse and the process of accumulatin! propert ta@e &ut little notice of &oundar lines, the practical 1isdom and 0ustice of the rule is more apparent thanever. 6/oodrich, Conflict of +a1s, "ec. '$(, pp. ((%-((.7

8ppellees ar!ue that 1hat 8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines pointed out asthe national law is the internal la1 of California. 2ut as a&ove explained the la1s of

California have prescri&ed t1o sets of la1s for its citi>ens, one for residents therein andanother for those domiciled in other 0urisdictions. 9eason demands that e shouldenforce the California internal la1 prescri&ed for its citi>ens residin! therein, and enforcethe conflict of la1s rules for the citi>ens domiciled a&road. If 1e must enforce the la1 ofCalifornia as in comit 1e are &ound to !o, as so declared in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code,then 1e must enforce the la1 of California in accordance 1ith the express mandatethereof and as a&ove explained, i.e., appl the internal la1 for residents therein, and itsconflict-of-la1s rule for those domiciled a&road.

It is ar!ued on appellees &ehalf that the clause if there is no la1 to the contrar in the place 1here the propert is situated in "ec. )($ of the California Civil Code refers to8rticle '$ of the Civil Code of the #hilippines and that the la1 to the contrar in the#hilippines is the provision in said 8rticle '$ that the national law of the deceased should!overn. This contention can not &e sustained. 8s explained in the various authorities citeda&ove the national la1 mentioned in 8rticle '$ of our Civil Code is the la1 on conflict ofla1s in the California Civil Code, i.e., 8rticle )($, 1hich authori>es the reference orreturn of the =uestion to the la1 of the testators domicile. The conflict of la1s rule inCalifornia, 8rticle )($, Civil Code, precisel refers &ac@ the case, 1hen a decedent is notdomiciled in California, to the la1 of his domicile, the #hilippines in the case at &ar. The



court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case &ac@ to California such action1ould leave the issue incapa&le of determination &ecause the case 1ill then &e li@e afoot&all, tossed &ac@ and forth &et1een the t1o states, &et1een the countr of 1hich thedecedent 1as a citi>en and the countr of his domicile. The #hilippine court must applits o1n la1 as directed in the conflict of la1s rule of the state of the decedent, if the

=uestion has to &e decided, especiall as the application of the internal la1 of California provides no le!itime for children 1hile the #hilippine la1, 8rts. BB<6(7 and B)(, CivilCode of the #hilippines, ma@es natural children le!all ac@no1led!ed forced heirs of the parent reco!ni>in! them.

The #hilippine cases 6In re Estate of ohnson, ) #hil. '3$ 9iera vs. #almaroli, ( #hil.'3 *iciano vs. 2rimo, 3 #hil. B$< 2a&coc@ Templeton vs. 9ider 2a&coc@, 3% #hil.' and /i&&s vs. /overnment, 3) #hil. %).7 cited & appellees to support the decisioncan not possi&l appl in the case at &ar, for t1o important reasons, i.e., the su&0ect ineach case does not appear to &e a citi>en of a state in the :nited "tates &ut 1ith domicilein the #hilippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in the state of

1hich the su&0ect is a citi>en, a la1 similar to or identical 1ith 8rt. )($ of the CaliforniaCivil Code.

e therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citi>en of California,is the #hilippines, the validit of the provisions of his 1ill deprivin! his ac@no1led!ednatural child, the appellant, should &e !overned & the #hilippine +a1, the domicile, pursuant to 8rt. )($ of the Civil Code of California, not & the internal la1 of California..

HE9EF59E, the decision appealed from is here& reversed and the case returned tothe lo1er court 1ith instructions that the partition &e made as the #hilippine la1 onsuccession provides. ud!ment reversed, 1ith costs a!ainst appellees.



G.R. No. L-3/694 D$%$0$r 23, 1933

ALLISON G. GIS, petitioner-appelle,

vs.THE GOERNMENT OF THE HILIINE ISLANDS, oppositor-appellant.THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE !IT) OF MANILA, respondent-appellant.

$ffice of the Solicitor-%eneral &ilado for appellants.

Allison '. %ibbs in his own behalf.

(TTE, J.:

This is an appeal from a final order of the Court of First Instance of *anila, re=uirin! there!ister of deeds of the Cit of *anila to cancel certificates of title Nos. %BB, %B$and %B', coverin! lands located in the Cit of *anila, #hilippine Islands, and issue inlieu thereof ne1 certificates of transfer of title in favor of 8llison D. /i&&s 1ithoutre=uirin! him to present an document sho1in! that the succession tax due under 8rticle?I of Chapter ( of the 8dministrative Code has &een paid.

The said order of the court of *arch ', ')', recites that the parcels of land covered &said certificates of title formerl &elon!ed to the con0u!al partnership of 8llison D. /i&&sand Eva ohnson /i&&s that the latter died intestate in #alo 8lto, California, on Novem&er %B, ')%) that at the time of her death she and her hus&and 1ere citi>ens of the

"tate of California and domiciled therein.

It appears further from said order that 8llison D. /i&&s 1as appointed administrator ofthe state of his said deceased 1ife in case No. $<)3 in the same court, entitled In the*atter of the Intestate Estate of Eva ohnson /i&&s, Deceased that in said intestate proceedin!s, the said 8llison D. /i&&s, on "eptem&er %%,'), filed an ex parte petitionin 1hich he alle!ed that the parcels of land hereunder descri&ed &elon! to the con0u!al partnership of our petitioner and his 1ife, Eva ohnson /i&&s, descri&in! in detail thethree facts here involved and further alle!in! that his said 1ife, a citi>en and resident ofCalifornia, died on Novem&er %B,')%) that in accordance 1ith the la1 of California, thecommunit propert of spouses 1ho are citi>ens of California, upon the death of the 1ife

previous to that of the hus&and, &elon!s a&solutel to the survivin! hus&and 1ithoutadministration that the con0u!al partnership of 8llison D. /i&&s and Eva ohnson /i&&s,deceased, has no o&li!ations or de&ts and no one 1ill &e pre0udiced & ad0ucatin! said parcels of land 6and seventeen others not here involved7 to &e the a&solute propert of thesaid 8llison D. /i&&s as sole o1ner. The court !ranted said petition and on "eptem&er %%,'), entered a decree ad0ucatin! the said 8llison D. /i&&s to &e the sole and a&soluteo1ner of said lands, applin! section '(' of the Civil Code of California. /i&&s



presented this decree to the re!ister of deeds of *anila and demanded that the latter issueto him a transfer certificate of title.

"ection '3(< of 8rticle ?I of Chapter ( of the 8dministrative Code provides in partthat4

9e!isters of deeds shall not re!ister in the re!istr of propert an documenttransferrin! real propert or real ri!hts therein or an chattel mort!a!e, & 1a of!ifts (ortis causa, le!ac or inheritance, unless the pament of the tax fixed inthis article and actuall due thereon shall &e sho1n. 8nd the shall immediatelnotif the Collector of Internal 9evenue or the correspondin! provincial treasurerof the non pament of the tax discovered & them. . . .

8ctin! upon the authorit of said section, the re!ister of deeds of the Cit of *anila,declined to accept as &indin! said decree of court of "eptem&er %%,'), and refused tore!ister the transfer of title of the said con0u!al propert to 8llison D. /i&&s, on the

!round that the correspondin! inheritance tax had not &een paid. Thereupon, under dateof Decem&er %$, '), 8llison D. /i&&s filed in the said court a petition for an orderre=uirin! the said re!ister of deeds to issue the correspondin! titles to the petitioner1ithout re=uirin! previous pament of an inheritance tax. 8fter due hearin! of the parties, the court reaffirmed said order of "eptem&er %%, '), and entered the order of*arch ', ')', 1hich is under revie1 on this appeal.

5n anuar , '), this court remanded the case to the court of ori!in for ne1 trial uponadditional evidence in re!ard to the pertinent la1 of California in force at the time of thedeath of *rs. /i&&s, also authori>in! the introduction of evidence 1ith reference to thedates of the ac=uisition of the propert involved in this suit and 1ith reference to the

California la1 in force at the time of such ac=uisition. The case is no1 &efore us 1ith thesupplementar evidence.

For the purposes of this case, 1e shall consider the follo1in! facts as esta&lished & theevidence or the admissions of the parties4 8llison D. /i&&s has &een continuousl, sincethe ear ')%, a citi>en of the "tate of California and domiciled therein that he and Evaohnson /i&&s 1ere married at Colum&us, 5hio, in ul ')$ that there 1as noantenuptial marria!e contract &et1een the parties that durin! the existence of saidmarria!e the spouses ac=uired the follo1in! lands, amon! others, in the #hilippineIslands, as con0u!al propert4lawphil.net

'. 8 parcel of land in the Cit of *anila represented & transfer certificate of title No.%BB, dated *arch '$, ')%, and re!istered in the name of 8llison D. /i&&s casadocon Eva ohnson /i&&s.

%. 8 parcel of land in the Cit of *anila, represented & transfer certificate of title No.%B$, dated *a '(, ')%<, in 1hich it is certified that spouses 8llison D. /i&&s andEva ohnson /i&&s are the o1ners in fee simple of the land therein descri&ed.



. 8 parcel of land in the Cit of *anila, represented & transfer certificate of title No.%B', dated 8pril $, ')%<, 1hich it states that 8llison D. /i&&s married to Eva ohnson/i&&s is the o1ner of the land descri&ed therein that said Eva ohnson /i&&s diedintestate on Novem&er %B, ')%), livin! survivin! her her hus&and, the appellee, and t1osons, 8llison . /i&&s , no1 a!e %3 and Finle . /i&&s, no1 a!ed %%, as her sole heirs of

la1.

8rticle ?I of Chapter ( of the 8dministrative Code entitled Tax on inheritances,le!acies and other ac=uisitions (ortis causa provides in section '3$ that Evertransmission & virtue of inheritance ... of real propert ... shall &e su&0ect to thefollo1in! tax. It results that the =uestion for determination in this case is as follo1s4 asEva ohnson /i&&s at the time of her death the o1ner of a descendi&le interest in the#hilippine lands a&ove-mentionedJ

The appellee contends that the la1 of California should determine the nature and extentof the title, if an, that vested in Eva ohnson /i&&s under the three certificates of title

Nos. %BB, %B$ and %B' a&ove referred to, citin! article ) of the Civil Code. 2utthat, even if the nature and extent of her title under said certificates &e !overned & thela1 of the #hilippine Islands, the la1s of California !overn the succession to such title,citin! the second para!raph of article ' of the Civil Code.

8rticle ) of the Civil Code is as follo1s4

The la1s relatin! to famil ri!hts and duties, or to the status, condition, and le!alcapacit of persons, are &indin! upon "paniards even thou!h the reside in aforei!n countr. It is ar!ued that the con0u!al ri!ht of the California 1ife incommunit real estate in the #hilippine Islands is a personal ri!ht and must,

therefore, &e settled & the la1 !overnin! her personal status, that is, the la1 ofCalifornia. 2ut our attention has not &een called to an la1 of California thatincapacitates a married 1oman from ac=uirin! or holdin! land in a forei!n 0urisdiction in accordance 1ith the lex rei sitae. There is not the sli!htest dou&tthat a California married 1oman can ac=uire title to land in a common la1 0urisdiction li@e the "tate of Illinois or the District of Colum&ia, su&0ect to thecommon-la1 estate & the courtes 1hich 1ould vest in her hus&and. Nor is therean dou&t that if a California hus&and ac=uired land in such a 0urisdiction his 1ife1ould &e vested 1ith the common la1 ri!ht of do1er, the prere=uisite conditionso&tainin!. 8rticle ) of the Civil Code treats of purel personal relations and statusand capacit for 0uristic acts, the rules relatin! to propert, &oth personal and real, &ein! !overned & article ' of the Civil Code. Furthermore, article ), & its verterms, is applica&le onl to "paniards 6no1, & construction, to citi>ens of the#hilippine Islands7.

The 5r!anic 8ct of the #hilippine Islands 68ct of Con!ress, 8u!ust %), ')'$,@no1n as the ones +a17 as re!ards the determination of private ri!hts, !rants practical autonom to the /overnment of the #hilippine Islands. This/overnment, therefore, ma appl the principles and rules of private international



la1 6conflicts of la1s7 on the same footin! as an or!ani>ed territor or state of the:nited "tates. e should, therefore, resort to the la1 of California, the nationalitand domicile of *rs. /i&&s, to ascertain the norm 1hich 1ould &e applied here asla1 1ere there an =uestion as to her status.

2ut the appellants chief ar!ument and the sole &asis of the lo1er courts decision restsupon the second para!raph of article ' of the Civil Code 1hich is as follo1s4

Nevertheless, le!al and testamentar successions, in respect to the order ofsuccession as 1ell as to the amount of the successional ri!hts and the intrinsicvalidit of their provisions, shall &e re!ulated & the national la1 of the person1hose succession is in =uestion, 1hatever ma &e the nature of the propert or thecountr in 1hich it ma &e situated.

In construin! the a&ove lan!ua!e 1e are met at the outset 1ith some difficult & theexpression the national la1 of the person 1hose succession is in =uestion, & reason of

the rather anomalous political status of the #hilippine Islands. 6Cf. *anresa, vol. ',)odigo )ivil , pp. ', '(.7 e encountered no difficult in applin! article ' in thecase of a citi>en of Tur@e. 6*iciano vs. 2rimo, 3 #hil., B$<.7 Havin! re!ard to the practical autonom of the #hilippine Islands, as a&ove stated, 1e have concluded that ifarticle ' is applica&le and the estate in =uestion is that of a deceased 8merican citi>en,the succession shall &e re!ulated in accordance 1ith the norms of the "tate of hisdomicile in the :nited "tates. 6Cf. 2a&coc@ Templeton vs. 9ider 2a&coc@, 3% #hil., ','< *n re Estate of ohnson, ) #hil., '3$, '$$.7

The trial court found that under the la1 of California, upon the death of the 1ife, theentire communit propert 1ithout administration &elon!s to the survivin! hus&and that

he is the a&solute o1ner of all the communit propert from the moment of the death ofhis 1ife, not & virtue of succession or & virtue of her death, &ut & virtue of the factthat 1hen the death of the 1ife precedes that of the hus&and he ac=uires the communit propert, not as an heir or as the &eneficiar of his deceased 1ife, &ut &ecause she neverhad more than an inchoate interest or expentanc 1hich is extin!uished upon her death.uotin! the case of Estate of lump@e 6'$< Cal., ('3, (')7, the court said4 Thedecisions under this section 6'(' Civil Code of California7 are uniform to the effect thatthe hus&and does not ta@e the communit propert upon the death of the 1ife &succession, &ut that he holds it all from the moment of her death as thou!h re=uired &himself. ... It never &elon!ed to the estate of the deceased 1ife.

The ar!ument of the appellee apparentl leads to this dilemma4 If he ta@es nothin! &succession from his deceased 1ife, ho1 can the second para!raph of article ' &einvo@edJ Can the appellee &e heard to sa that there is a le!al succession under the la1 of the #hilippine Islands and no le!al succession under the la1 of CaliforniaJ It seems clearthat the second para!raph of article ' applies onl 1hen a le!al or testamentarsuccession has ta@en place in the #hilippines and in accordance 1ith the la1 of the#hilippine Islands and the forei!n la1 is consulted onl in re!ard to the order ofsuccession or the extent of the successional ri!hts in other 1ords, the second para!raph



of article ' can &e invo@ed onl 1hen the deceased 1as vested 1ith a descendi&leinterest in propert 1ithin the 0urisdiction of the #hilippine Islands.

In the case of Clar@e vs. Clar@e 6'<B :. "., 'B$, ')' (( +a1 ed., '%B, ''7, the courtsaid4

It is principle firml esta&lished that to the la1 of the state in 1hich the land issituated 1e must loo@ for the rules 1hich !overn its descent, alienation, andtransfer, and for the effect and construction of 1ills and other conveances.6:nited "tates vs. Cros&, < Cranch, ''3 +. ed., %B< Clar@ vs. /raham, $heat., 3<< 3 +. ed., ( *c/oon vs. "cales, ) all., % ') +. ed., 3(3 2rinevs. Hartford F. Ins. Co., )$ :. "., $%< %( +. ed., B3B.7 6See also Estate of +lod,'<3 Cal., <(, <3.7 This fundamental principle is stated in the first para!raph ofarticle ' of our Civil Code as follo1s4 #ersonal propert is su&0ect to the la1sof the nation of the o1ner thereof real propert to the la1s of the countr in1hich it is situated.

It is stated in 3 Cal. ur., (<B4

In accord 1ith the rule that real propert is su&0ect to the lex rei sitae, therespective ri!hts of hus&and and 1ife in such propert, in the a&sence of anantenuptial contract, are determined & the la1 of the place 1here the propert issituated, irrespective of the domicile of the parties or to the place 1here themarria!e 1as cele&rated. 6See also "aul vs. His Creditors, 3 *artin LN. ".M, 3$)'$ 8m. Dec., %'% L+a.M Heidenheimer vs. +orin!, %$ ". ., )) LTexasM.7

:nder this &road principle, the nature and extent of the title 1hich vested in *rs. /i&&s at

the time of the ac=uisition of the communit lands here in =uestion must &e determined inaccordance 1ith the lex rei sitae.

It is admitted that the #hilippine lands here in =uestion 1ere ac=uired as communit propert of the con0u!al partnership of the appellee and his 1ife. :nder the la1 of the#hilippine Islands, she 1as vested of a title e=ual to that of her hus&and. 8rticle '(< ofthe Civil Code provides4

8ll the propert of the spouses shall &e deemed partnership propert in thea&sence of proof that it &elon!s exclusivel to the hus&and or to the 1ife. 8rticle')3 provides4

The con0u!al partnership shall &e !overned & the rules of la1 applica&le to the contractof partnership in all matters in 1hich such rules do not conflict 1ith the express provisions of this chapter. 8rticle '('( provides that the hus&and ma dispose & 1illof his half onl of the propert of the con0u!al partnership. 8rticle '(%$ provides thatupon dissolution of the con0u!al partnership and after inventor and li=uidation, the netremainder of the partnership propert shall &e divided share and share ali@e &et1een thehus&and and 1ife, or their respective heirs. :nder the provisions of the Civil Code and



the 0urisprudence prevailin! here, the 1ife, upon the ac=uisition of an con0u!al propert, &ecomes immediatel vested 1ith an interest and title therein e=ual to that of herhus&and, su&0ect to the po1er of mana!ement and disposition 1hich the la1 vests in thehus&and. Immediatel upon her death, if there are no o&li!ations of the decedent, as istrue in the present case, her share in the con0u!al propert is transmitted to her heirs &

succession. 68rticles $3<, $3), $$', Civil Code cf. also Coronel vs. 5na, #hil., (3$,($).7

It results that the 1ife of the appellee 1as, & the la1 of the #hilippine Islands, vested ofa descendi&le interest, e=ual to that of her hus&and, in the #hilippine lands covered &certificates of title Nos. %BB, %B$ and %B', from the date of their ac=uisition to thedate of her death. That appellee himself &elieved that his 1ife 1as vested of such a titleand interest in manifest from the second of said certificates, No. %B$, dated *a '(,')%<, introduced & him in evidence, in 1hich it is certified that the spouses 8llison D./i&&s and Eva ohnson /i&&s are the o1ners in fee simple of the con0u!al lands thereindescri&ed.

The descendi&le interest of Eva ohnson /i&&s in the lands aforesaid 1as transmitted toher heirs & virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainl falls 1ithin the lan!ua!e of section '3$ of 8rticle ?I of Chapter ( of the 8dministrative Code 1hich levies a tax oninheritances. 6Cf. Re Estate of *a0ot, ')) N. ;., %) )% N. E., (% %) +. 9. 8. LN. ".M,<B.7 It is unnecessar in this proceedin! to determine the order of succession or theextent of the successional ri!hts 6article ', Civil Code, supra7 1hich 1ould &ere!ulated & section 'B$ of the Civil Code of California 1hich 1as in effect at the timeof the death of *rs. /i&&s.

The record does not sho1 1hat the proper amount of the inheritance tax in this case

1ould &e nor that the appellee 6petitioner &elo17 in an 1a challen!ed the po1er of the/overnment to lev an inheritance tax or the validit of the statute under 1hich there!ister of deeds refused to issue a certificate of transfer recitin! that the appellee is theexclusive o1ner of the #hilippine lands included in the three certificates of title hereinvolved.

The 0ud!ment of the court &elo1 of *arch ', ')', is reversed 1ith directions todismiss the petition, 1ithout special pronouncement as to the costs.



G.R. No. L615443 Dece7ber , 199

BIENENIDO M. CADALIN, ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONATO B.

EANGELISTA, a! t%e re&t o 1,434 NAMED6COMPLAINANTS, t%r+ a! b(t%e$r Attore(6$6act, Att(. GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO, petitioners,vs.P"ILIPPINE OERSEAS EMPLOMENT ADMINISTRATION:SADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BRO;N< ROOT INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND=OR ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERSCORPORATION, respondents.

G.R. No&. 1591161 Dece7ber , 199

BIENENIDO M. CADALIN, ET AL., petitioners,

vs."ON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BRO;N < ROOTINTERNATIONAL, INC. a!=or ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERSCORPORATION, respondents.

G.R. No&. 15529602 Dece7ber , 199

ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDER CORPORATION a! BRO;N < ROOTINTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioners,vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, BIENENIDO M. CADALIN,

ROLANDO M. AMUL, DONATO B. EANGELISTA, ROMEO PATAG,RI#ALINO REES, IGNACIO DE ERA, SOLOMON B. REES, *OSE M.ABAN, EMIGDIO N. ABARUE#, ANTONIO ACUPAN, ROMEO ACUPAN,BEN*AMIN ALE*ANDRE, ;ILFREDO D. ALIGADO, MARTIN AMISTAD, *R.,ROLANDO B. AMUL, AMORSOLO ANADING, ANTONIO T. ANGLO, ICENTEARLITA, "ERBERT AO, SILERIO BALATA#O, ALFREDO BALOBO,FALCONERO BANAAG, RAMON BARBOSA, FELI> BARCENA, FERNANDOBAS, MARIO BATACLAN, ROBERTO S. BATICA, ENRICO BELEN, ARISTEOBICOL, LARR C. BICOL, PETRONILLO BISCOC"O, FELI> M. BOBIER,DIONISIO BOBONGO, BAANI S. BRACAMANTE, PABLITO BUSTILLO,GUILLERMO CABE#AS, BIENENIDO CADALIN, RODOLFO CAGATAN,

AMANTE CAILAO, IRENEO CANDOR, *OSE CASTILLO, MANUELCASTILLO, REMAR CASTRO*ERES, RENALDO CAAS, ROMEO CECILIO,TEODULO CREUS, BAANI DARIT, RICARDO DARIT, ERNESTO T. DELACRU#, FRANCISCO DE GU#MAN, ONOFRE DE RAMA, IGNACIO DE ERA,MODESTO DI#ON, RENALDO DI#ON, ANTONIO S. DOMINGUE#, GILBERTEBRADA, RICARDO EBRADA, ANTONIO E*ERCITO, *R., EDUARTEERIDAO, ELADIO ESCOTOTO, *O"N ESGUERRA, EDUARDO ESPIRITU,ERNESTO ESPIRITU, RODOLFO ESPIRITU, NESTOR M. ESTEA,



BEN*AMIN ESTRADA, ALERIO EANGELISTA, OLIGARIO FRANCISCO,*ESUS GABA;AN, ROLANDO GARCIA, ANGEL GUDA, PACITO"ERNANDE#, ANTONIO "ILARIO, "ENR L. *ACOB, "ONESTO*ARDINIANO, ANTONIO *OCSON, GERARDO LACSAMANA, EFREN U.LIRIO LORETO LONTOC, ISRAEL LOREN#O, ALE*ANDRO LORINO, *OSE

MABALA, "ERMIE MARANAN, LEOIGILDO MARCIAL, NOEL MARTINE#,DANTE MATREO, LUCIANO MELENDE#, RENATO MELO, FRANCISMEDIODIA, *OSE C. MILANES, RAMUNDO C. MILA, CRESENCIANOMIRANDA, ILDEFONSO C. MOLINA, ARMANDO B. MONDE*ARRESURRECCION D. NA#ARENO, *UAN OLINDO, FRANCISCO R.OLIARES, PEDRO ORBISTA, *R., RICARDO ORDONE#, ERNIE PANC"O,*OSE PANC"O, GORGONIO P. PARALA, MODESTO PINPIN, *UANITOPAREA, ROMEO I. PATAG, FRANCISCO PINPIN, LEONARDO POBLETE,*AIME POLLOS, DOMINGO PONDALIS, EUGENIO RAMIRE#, LUCIEN M.RESPALL, GAUDENCIO RETANAN, *R., TOMAS B. RETENER, ALIN C.REES, RI#ALINO REES, SOLOMON B. REES, IRGILIO G. RICA#A,

RODELIO RIETA, *R., BENITO RIERA, *R., BERNARDO *. ROBILLOS,PABLO A. ROBLES, *OSE ROBLE#A, UIRINO RONUILLO, AELINO M.ROUE, MENANDRO L. SABINO, PEDRO SALGATAR, EDGARDOSALONGA, NUMERIANO SAN MATEO, FELI#ARDO DE LOS SANTOS, *R.,GABRIEL SANTOS, *UANITO SANTOS, PAUITO SOLANTE, CONRADO A.SOLIS, *R., RODOLFO SULTAN, ISAIAS TALACTAC, ;ILLIAM TARUC,MENANDRO TEMPROSA, BIENENIDO S. TOLENTINO, BENEDICTOTORRES, MA>IMIANO TORRES, FRANCISCO G. TRIAS, SERGIO A.URSOLINO, ROGELIO ALDE#, LEGORIO E. ERGARA, DELFIN ICTORIA,GILBERT ICTORIA, "ERNANE ICTORIANO, FRANCISCO ILLAFLORES,DOMINGO ILLA"ERMOSA, ROLANDO ILLALOBOS, ANTONIO ILLAU#,DANILO ILLANUEA, ROGELIO ILLANUEA, ANGEL ILLARBA,*UANITO ILLARINO, FRANCISCO #ARA, ROGELIO AALAGOS, NICANORB. ABAD, ANDRES ABANES, RENALDO ABANES, EDUARDO ABANTE,*OSE ABARRO, *OSEFINO ABARRO, CELSO S. ABELANIO, "ERMINIOABELLA, MIGUEL ABESTANO, RODRIGO G. ABUBO, *OSE B. ABUSTAN,DANTE ACERES, RENALDO S. ACO*IDO, LEO;ILIN ACTA, EUGENIO C.ACUE#A, EDUARDO ACUPAN, RENALDO ACUPAN, SOLANO ACUPAN,MANUEL P. ADANA, FLORENTINO R. AGNE, UITERIO R. AGUDO,MANUEL P. AGUINALDO, DANTE AGUIRRE, "ERMINIO AGUIRRE,GON#ALO ALBERTO, *R., CONRADO ALCANTARA, LAMBERTO .ALCANTARA, MARIANITO *. ALCANTARA, BENCIO ALDOER, EULALIO .ALE*ANDRO, BEN*AMIN ALE*ANDRO, EDUARDO L. ALE*ANDRO,MA>IMINO ALE*ANDRO, ALBERTO ALMENAR, ARNALDO ALON#O,AMADO ALORIA, CAMILO ALARE#, MANUEL C. ALARE#, BEN*AMIN R.AMBROCIO, CARLOS AMORES, BERNARD P. ANC"ETA, TIMOTEO O.ANC"ETA, *EOFRE ANI, ELINO P. ANTILLON, ARMANDRO B. ANTIPONO,LARR T. ANTONIO, ANTONIO APILADO, ARTURO P. APILADO,FRANCISCO APOLINARIO, BARTOLOME M. AUINO, ISIDRO AUINO,PASTOR AUINO, ROSENDO M. AUINO, ROBERTO ARANGORIN,



BEN*AMIN O. ARATEA, ARTURO . ARAULLO, PRUDENCIO ARAULLO,ALE>ANDER ARCAIRA, FRANCISCO ARCIAGA, *OSE AREALO, *UANTOAREALO, RAMON AREALO, RODOLFO AREALO, EULALIOARGUELLES, ;ILFREDO P. ARICA, *OSE M. ADESILLO, ANTONIOASUNCION, ARTEMIO M. ASUNCION, EDGARDO ASUNCION, RE> M.

ASUNCION, ICENTE AURELIO, ANGEL AUSTRIA, RICARDO P. AERILLA,*R., IRGILIO AILA, BARTOLOME A>ALAN, ALFREDO BABILONIA,FELIMON BACAL, *OSE L. BACANI, ROMULO R. BALBIERAN, ICENTEBALBIERAN, RODOLFO BALITBIT, TEODORO . BALOBO, DANILO O.BARBA, BERNARDO BARRO, *UAN A. BASILAN, CEFERINO BATITIS,IENCIO C. BAUAN, GAUDENCIO S. BAUTISTA, LEONARDO BAUTISTA,*OSE D. BAUTISTA, ROSTICO BAUTISTA, RUPERTO B. BAUTISTA,TEODORO S. BAUTISTA, IRGILIO BAUTISTA, *ESUS R. BAA,;INIEFREDO BAACAL, ;INIEFREDO BEBIT, BEN G. BELIR, ERIC B.BELTRAN, EMELIANO BENALES, *R., RAUL BENITE#, PERFECTOBENSAN, IRENEO BERGONIO, ISABELO BERMUDE#, ROLANDO I.

BERMUDE#, DANILO BERON, BEN*AMIN BERSAMIN, ANGELITO BICOL,ANSELMO BICOL, CELESTINO BICOL, *R., FRANCISCO BICOL, ROGELIOBICOL, ROMULO L. BICOL, ROGELIO BILLIONES, TEOFILO N. BITO,FERNANDO BLANCO, AUGUSTO BONDOC, DOMINGO BONDOC, PEPE S.BOOC, *AMES R. BOR*A, ;ILFREDO BRACEROS, ANGELES C. BRECINO,EURECLDON G. BRIONES, AMADO BRUGE, PABLITO BUDILLO,ARC"IMEDES BUENAENTURA, BASILIO BUENAENTURA, GUILLERMOBUENCONSE*O, ALE>ANDER BUSTAMANTE, IRGILIO BUTIONG, *R.,"ONESTO P. CABALLA, DELFIN CABALLERO, BENEDICTO CABANIGAN,MOISES CABATA, "ERMANELI CABRERA, PEDRO CAGATAN, *OEN C.CAGAAT, ROGELIO L. CALAGOS, RENALDO . CALDE*ON, OSCAR C.CALDERON, NESTOR D. CALLE*A, RENATO R. CALMA, NELSON T.CAMAC"O, SANTOS T. CAMAC"O, ROBERTO CAMANA, FLORANTE C.CAMANAG EDGARDO M. CANDA, SEERINO CANTOS, EPIFANIO A.CAPONPON, ELIAS D. CARILLO, *R., ARMANDO CARREON, MENANDROM. CASTA?EDA, BENIGNO A. CASTILLO, CORNELIO L. CASTILLO,*OSEP" B. CASTILLO, ANSELMO CASTILLO, *OAUIN CASTILLO, PABLOL. CASTILLO, ROMEO P. CASTILLO, SESINANDO CATIBOG, DANILOCASTRO, PRUDENCIO A. CASTRO, RAMO CASTRO, *R., ROMEO A. DECASTRO, *AIME B. CATLI, DURANA D. CEFERINO, RODOLFO B. CELIS,"ERMINIGILDO CERE#O, ICTORIANO CELESTINO, BEN*AMIN C"AN,ANTONIO C. C"UA, IENCIO B. CIABAL, RODRIGO CLARETE, AUGUSTOCOLOMA, TURIANO CONCEPCION, TERESITO CONSTANTINO, ARMANDOCORALES, RENATO C. CORCUERA, APOLINAR CORONADO, ABELARDOCORONEL, FELI> CORONEL, *R., LEONARDO CORPU#, *ESUS M.CORRALES, CESAR CORTEMPRATO, FRANCISCO O. CORERA,FRANCISCO COSTALES, SR., CELEDONIO CREDITO, ALBERTO A. CREUS,ANACLETO . CRU#, DOMINGO DELA CRU#, AMELIANO DELA CRU#, *R.,PANC"ITO CRU#, RENALDO B. DELA CRU#, ROBERTO P. CRU#,TEODORO S. CRU#, #OSIMO DELA CRU#, DIONISIO A. CUARESMA,



FELIMON CUI#ON, FERMIN DAGONDON, RIC"ARD DAGUINSIN,CRISANTO A. DATA, NICASIO DANTINGUINOO, *OSE DATOON,EDUARDO DAID, ENRICO T. DAID, FAIO DAID, ICTORIANO S. DAID,EDGARDO N. DAACAP, *OSELITO T. DELOSO, CELERINO DE GU#MAN,ROMULO DE GU#MAN, LIBERATO DE GU#MAN, *OSE DE LEON,

*OSELITO L. DE LUMBAN, NAPOLEON S. DE LUNA, RICARDO DE RAMA,GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO, ALBERTO DELA CRU#, *OSE DELA CRU#,LEONARDO DELOS REES, ERNESTO F. DIATA, EDUARDO A. DIA#, FELI>DIA#, MELC"OR DIA#, NICANOR S. DIA#, GERARDO C. DIGA, CLEMENTEDIMATULAC, ROLANDO DIONISIO, P"ILIPP G. DISMAA, BEN*AMINDOCTOLERO, ALBERTO STO. DOMINGO, BEN*AMIN E. DO#A, BEN*AMINDUPA, DANILO C. DURAN, GREGORIO D. DURAN, RENATO A. EDUARTE,GODOFREDO E. EISMA, ARDON B. ELLO, UBED B. ELLO, *OSEFINOENANO, RENALDO ENCARNACION, EDGARDO ENGUANCIO, ELIASEUIPANO, FELI#ARDO ESCARMOSA, MIGUEL ESCARMOSA, ARMANDOESCOBAR, ROMEO T. ESCUOS, ANGELITO ESPIRITU, EDUARDO S.

ESPIRITU, RENALDO ESPIRITU, ROLANDO ESPIRITU, *ULIANESPREGANTE, IGMIDIO ESTANISLAO, ERNESTO M. ESTEBAN, MELANIOR. ESTRO, ERNESTO M. ESTEA, CONRADO ESTUAR, CLDE ESTUE,ELISEO FA*ARDO, PORFIRIO FALUE#A, ;ILFREDO P. FAUSTINO,EMILIO E. FERNANDE#, ARTEMIO FERRER, MISAEL M. FIGURACION,ARMANDO F. FLORES, BEN*AMIN FLORES, EDGARDO C. FLORES,BUENAENTURA FRANCISCO, MANUEL S. FRANCISCO, ROLANDOFRANCISCO, ALERIANO FRANCISCO, RODOLFO GABA;AN,ESMERALDO GA"UTAN, CESAR C. GALANG, SANTIAGO N. GALOSO,GABRIEL GAMBOA, BERNARDO GANDAMON, *UAN GAN#ON, ANDRESGARCIA, *R., ARMANDO M. GARCIA, EUGENIO GARCIA, MARCELO L.GARCIA, PATRICIO L. GARCIA, *R., PONCIANO G. GARCIA, PONCIANO G.GARCIA, *R., RAFAEL P. GARCIA, ROBERTO S. GARCIA, OSIAS G.GAROFIL, RAMUNDO C. GARON, ROLANDO G. GATELA, AELINOGAETA, RAMUNDO GERON, PLACIDO GON#ALES, RUPERTO ".GON#ALES, ROGELIO D. GUANIO, MARTIN . GUERRERO, *R., ALE>ISGUNO, RICARDO L. GUNO, FRANCISCO GUPIT, DENNIS *. GUTIERRE#,IGNACIO B. GUTIERRE#, ANGELITO DE GU#MAN, *R., CESAR ". "ABANA,RAUL G. "ERNANDE#, RENALDO "ERNANDE#, *OENIANO D. "ILADO,*USTO "ILAPO, ROSTITO "INA"ON, FELICISIMO "INGADA, EDUARDO"IPOLITO, RAUL L. IGNACIO, MANUEL L. ILAGAN, RENATO L. ILAGAN,CONRADO A. INSIONG, GRACIANO G. ISLA, ARNEL L. *ACOB, OSCAR *.*APITENGA, CIRILO "ICBAN, MA>IMIANO "ONRADES, GENEROSOIGNACIO, FELIPE ILAGAN, E>PEDITO N. *ACOB, MARIO *ASMIN,BIENENIDO *AIER, ROMEO M. *AIER, PRIMO DE *ESUS, RENALDODE *ESUS, CARLOS A. *IMENE#, DANILO E. *IMENE#, PEDRO C.*OAUIN, FELIPE ;. *OCSON, FELINO M. *OCSON, PEDRO N. *OCSON,ALENTINO S. *OCSON, PEDRO B. *OLOA, ESTEBAN P. *OSE, *R., RAUL*OSE, RICARDO SAN *OSE, GERTRUDO @ABIGTING, EDUARDO S.@OLIMLIM, SR., LAURO *. LABA, EMMANUEL C. LABELLA, EDGARDO B.



LACERONA, *OSE B. LACSON, MARIO *. LADINES, RUFINO LAGAC,RODRIGO LAGANAPAN, EFREN M. LAMADRID, GUADENCIO LATANAN,IRGILIO LATAAN, EMILIANO LATO*A, ;ENCESLAO LAUREL, ALFREDOLA>AMANA, DANIEL R. LA#ARO, ANTONIO C. LEANO, ARTURO S.LEGASPI, BENITO DE LEMOS, *R., PEDRO G. DE LEON, MANOLITO C.

LILOC, GERARDO LIMUACO, ERNESTO S. LISING, RENATO LISING,;ILFREDO S. LISING, CRISPULO LONTOC, PEDRO M. LOPERA, ROGELIOLOPERA, CARLITO M. LOPE#, CLOD LOPE#, GARLITO LOPE#, GEORGEF. LOPE#, IRGILIO M. LOPE#, BERNARDITO G. LORE*A, DOMINGO B.LORICO, DOMINGO LOOLA, DANTE LUAGE, ANTONIO M. LUAL"ATI,EMMANUEL LUAL"ATI, *R., LEONIDE# C. LUAL"ATI, SEBASTIANLUAL"ATI, FRANCISCO LUBAT, ARMANDO LUCERO, *OSELITO L. DELUMBAN, T"OMAS ICENTE O. LUNA, NOLI MACALADLAD, ALFREDOMACALINO, RICARDO MACALINO, ARTURO . MACARAIG, ERNESTO .MACARAIG, RODOLFO . MACARAIG, BEN*AMIN MACATANGA,"ERMOGENES MACATANGA, RODEL MACATANGA, ROMULO

MACATANGA, OSIAS . MADLANGBAAN, NICOLAS P. MADRID,EDELBERTO G. MAGAT, EFREN C. MAGBANUA, BEN*AMIN MAGBU"AT,ALFREDO C. MAGCALENG, ANTONIO MAGNAE, ALFONSO MAGPANTA,RICARDO C. MAGPANTA, SIMEON M. MAGPANTA, ARMANDO M.MAGSINO, MACARIO S. MAGSINO, ANTONIO MAGTIBA, ICTOR .MAGTIBA, GERONIMO MA"ILUM, MANUEL MALON#O, RICARDOMAMADIS, RODOLFO MANA, BERNARDO A. MANALILI, MANUELMANALILI, ANGELO MANALO, AGUILES L. MANALO, LEOPOLDOMANGA"AS, BAANI MANIGBAS, ROLANDO C. MANIMTIM, DANIELMANONSON, ERNESTO F. MANUEL, EDUARDO MAN#ANO, RICARDO N.MAPA, RAMON MAPILE, ROBERTO C. MARANA, NEMESIO MARASIGAN,;ENCESLAO MARASIGAN, LEONARDO MARCELO, "ENR F. MARIANO,*OEL MARIDABLE, SANTOS E. MARINO, NARCISO A. MARUE#,RICARDO MARTINE#, DIEGO MASICAMPO, AURELIO MATABERDE,RENATO MATILLA, ICTORIANO MATILLA, IRGILIO MEDEL, LOLITO M.MELECIO, BENIGNO MELENDE#, RENER *. MEMI*E, RENALDO F.MEMI*E, RODEL MEMI*E, AELINO MENDO#A, *R., CLARO MENDO#A,TIMOTEO MENDO#A, GREGORIO MERCADO, ERNANI DELA MERCED,RICARDO MERCENA, NEMESIO METRELLO, RODEL MEMI*E, GASPARMINIMO, BEN*AMIN MIRANDA, FELI>BERTO D. MISA, CLAUDIO A.MODESTO, *R., OSCAR MONDEDO, GENEROSO MONTON, RENATOMORADA, RICARDO MORADA, RODOLFO MORADA, ROLANDO M.MORALES, FEDERICO M. MORENO, ICTORINO A. MORTEL, *R., ESPIRITUA. MUNO#, IGNACIO MUNO#, ILDEFONSO MUNO#, ROGELIO MUNO#,ERNESTO NAPALAN, MARCELO A. NARCI#O, RENALDO NATALIA,FERNANDO C. NAARETTE, PACIFICO D. NAARRO, FLORANTENA#ARENO, RI#AL B. NA#ARIO, *OSUE NEGRITE, ALFREDONEPUMUCENO, "ERBERT G. NG, FLORENCIO NICOLAS, ERNESTO C.NINON, AELINO NUUI, NEMESIO D. OBA, DANILO OCAMPO, EDGARDOOCAMPO, RODRIGO E. OCAMPO, ANTONIO B. OCCIANO, RENALDO P.



OCSON, BEN*AMIN ODESA, ANGEL OLASO, FRANCISCO OLIGARIO,#OSIMO OLIMBO, BEN*AMIN . ORALLO, ROMEO S. ORIGINES, DANILOR. ORTANE#, ;ILFREDO OSIAS, IRGILIO PA6A, DAID PAALAN, *ESUS N.PAC"ECO, ALFONSO L. PADILLA, DANILO PAGSAN*AN, NUMERIANOPAGSISI"AN, RICARDO T. PAGUIO, EMILIO PA@INGAN, LEANDRO

PALABRICA, UINCIANO PALO, *OSE PAMATIAN, GON#ALO PAN,PORFIRIO PAN, BIENENIDO PANGAN, ERNESTO PANGAN, FRANCISCO .PASIA, EDILBERTO PASIMIO, *R., *OSE . PASION, ANGELITO M. PENA,DIONISIO PENDRAS, "ERMINIO PERALTA, RENALDO M. PERALTA,ANTONIO PERE#, ANTOLIANO E. PERE#, *UAN PERE#, LEON PERE#,ROMEO E. PERE#, ROMULO PERE#, ;ILLIAM PERE#, FERNANDO G.PERINO, FLORENTINO DEL PILAR, DELMAR F. PINEDA, SALADORPINEDA, ELI#ALDE PINPIN, ;ILFREDO PINPIN, ARTURO POBLETE,DOMINADOR R. PRIELA, BUENAENTURA PRUDENTE, CARMELITOPRUDENTE, DANTE PUEO, RENALDO . PUEO, RODOLFO O. PULIDO,ALE*ANDRO PUNIO, FEDERICO UIMAN, ALFREDO L. UINTO, ROMEO

UINTOS, EDUARDO ;. RACABO, RICARDO C. DE RAMA, RICARDO L. DERAMA, ROLANDO DE RAMA, FERNANDO A. RAMIRE#, LITO S. RAMIRE#,RICARDO G. RAMIRE#, RODOLFO . RAMIRE#, ALBERTO RAMOS,ANSELMO C. RAMOS, TOBIAS RAMOS, ;ILLARFREDO RAMUNDO,RENALDO RAUEDAN, MANUEL F. RAELAS, ;ILFREDO D.RAMUNDO, ERNESTO E. RECOLASO, ALBERTO REDA#A, ART"URRE*USO, TORIBIO M. RELLAMA, *AIME RELLOSA, EUGENIO A.REMOUILLO, GERARDO RENTO#A, REDENTOR C. RE, ALFREDO S.REES, AMABLE S. REES, BENEDICTO R. REES, GREGORIO B. REES,*OSE A. REES, *OSE C. REES, ROMULO M. REES, SERGIO REES,ERNESTO F. RICO, FERNANDO M. RICO, EMMANUEL RIETA, RICARDORIETA, LEO B. ROBLES, RUBEN ROBLES, RODOLFO ROBLE#A, RODRIGOROBLE#A, EDUARDO ROCABO, ANTONIO R. RODRIGUE#, BERNARDORODRIGUE#, ELIGIO RODRIGUE#, ALMONTE ROMEO, ELIAS RONUILLO,ELISE RONUILLO, LUIS AL B. RONUILLO, RENOSO P. RONUILLO,RODOLFO RONUILLO, ANGEL ROSALES, RAMON ROSALES, ALBERTODEL ROSARIO, GENEROSO DEL ROSARIO, TEODORICO DEL ROSARIO,IRGILIO L. ROSARIO, CARLITO SALADOR, *OSE SAMPARADA,ERNESTO SAN PEDRO, ADRIANO . SANC"A, GERONIMO M. SANC"A,ARTEMIO B. SANC"E#, NICASIO SANC"E#, APOLONIO P. SANTIAGO,*OSELITO S. SANTIAGO, SERGIO SANTIAGO, EDILBERTO C. SANTOS,EFREN S. SANTOS, RENATO D. SANTOS, MIGUEL SAPUOT, ALE> S.SERUINA, DOMINADOR P. SERRA, ROMEO SIDRO, AMADO M. SILANG,FAUSTINO D. SILANG, RODOLFO B. DE SILOS, ANICETO G. SILA,EDGARDO M. SILA, ROLANDO C. SILERTO, ART"UR B. SIMBA"ON,DOMINGO SOLANO, *OSELITO C. SOLANTE, CARLITO SOLIS, CONRADOSOLIS, III, EDGARDO SOLIS, ERNESTO SOLIS, ISAGANI M. SOLIS,EDUARDO L. SOTTO, ERNESTO G. STA. MARIA, ICENTE G. STELLA,FELIMON SUPANG, PETER TANGUINOO, MA>IMINO TALIBSAO,FELICISMO P. TALUSI@, FERMIN TARUC, *R., LE S. TEMPLO, RODOLFO



S. TIAMSON, LEONILO TIPOSO, ARNEL TOLENTINO, MARIO M.TOLENTINO, FELIPE TORRALBA, *OITO . TORRES, LEONARDO DETORRES, GAINO U. TUA#ON, AUGUSTO B. TUNGUIA, FRANCISCOUMALI, SIMPLICIO UNIDA, ;ILFREDO . UNTALAN, ANTONIOALDERAMA, RAMON ALDERAMA, NILO ALENCIANO, EDGARDO C.

ASUE#, ELPIDIO ELASUE#, NESTOR DE ERA, ;ILFREDO D. ERA,BIENENIDO ERGARA, ALFREDO ERGARA, RAMON R. ER#OSA,FELICITO P. ICMUNDO, ALFREDO ICTORIANO, TEOFILO P. IDALLO,SABINO N. IERNE#, *ESUS *. ILLA, *OEN ILLABLANCO, EDGARDOG. ILLAFLORES, CEFERINO ILLAGERA, ALE> ILLA"ERMO#A, DANILOA. ILLANUEA, ELITO ILLANUEA, LEONARDO M. ILLANUEA,MANUEL R. ILLANUEA, NEPT"ALI ILLAR, *OSE . ILLAREAL,FELICISIMO ILLARINO, RAFAEL ILLAROMAN, CARLOS ILLENA,FERDINAND IO, ROBERTO ABUT, ICENTE NGENTE, AND ORO C.#UNIGA, respondents.

&erardo ". el >undo and "sso!iates for petitioners.

Romulo, >abanta, Sa-o!, uenaventura, e los "n+eles <a *ffi!es forRE"C.

lorante >. e Castro for private respondents in 1#5#29%)2.

UIASON, J.:

The petition in &.R. (o. 1#477$, entitled Dienvenido >. Cadalin, et. al. v.'hilippine *verseas =mplo-ment "dministrationAs "dministrator, et. al.,D as filedunder Rule $5 of the Revised Rules of Court

1: to modif- the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of the (ational <aborRelations Commission (<RC: in '*=" Cases (os.<%04%#$%555, <%05%1#%777, <%05%1#%779 and <%0$%#5%4$# 2: to render a nede!ision i: de!larin+ private respondents as in default ii: de!larin+ the saidlabor !ases as a !lass suit iii: orderin+ "sia nternational uilders Corporation"C: and ron and Root nternational n!. R: to pa- the !laims of the1,7$7 !laimants in said labor !ases iv: de!larin+ "tt-. lorante >. de Castro+uilt- of forum%shoppin+ and v: dismissin+ '*=" Case (o. <%0$%#5%4$# and

): to reverse the Resolution dated >ar!h 24, 1992 of (<RC, den-in+ the motionfor re!onsideration of its Resolution dated September 2, 1991 Rollo, pp. 0%200:.

The petition in &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, entitled Dienvenido >. Cadalin, et. al., v.Fon. (ational <abor Relations Commission, et. al.,D as filed under Rule $5 ofthe Revised Rules of Court



1: to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of (<RC in '*=" Cases(os. <%04%#$%555, <%05%1#%777, <%05%1#%799 and<%0$%#5%4$# insofar as it i: applied the three%-ear pres!riptive period under the<abor Code of the 'hilippines instead of the ten%-ear pres!riptive period underthe Civil Code of the 'hilippines and ii: denied theDthree%hour dail- avera+eD formula in the !omputation of petitionersA overtimepa- and

2: to reverse the Resolution dated >ar!h 24, 1992 of (<RC, den-in+ the motionfor re!onsideration of its Resolution dated September 2, 1991 Rollo, pp. 0%252$%22#:.

The petition in &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, entitled D"sia nternational uildersCorporation, et. al., v. (ational <abor Relations Commission, et. al.D as filedunder Rule $5 of the Revised Rules of Court

1: to reverse the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of (<RC in '*=" Cases(os. <%04%#$%555, <%05%1#%777, <%05%1#%779 and<%0$%#5%4$#, insofar as it +ranted the !laims of 149 !laimants and

2: to reverse the Resolution dated >ar!h 21, 1992 of (<RC insofar as it deniedthe motions for re!onsideration of "C and R Rollo, pp. 2%59 $1%2)#:.

The Resolution dated September 2, 1991 of (<RC, hi!h modified the de!isionof '*=" in four labor !ases 1: aarded monetar- benefits onl- to 149!laimants and 2: dire!ted <abor "rbiter atima 3. ran!o to !ondu!t hearin+sand to re!eive eviden!e on the !laims dismissed b- the '*=" for la!k ofsubstantial eviden!e or proof of emplo-ment.

Consolidation of Cases

&.R. (os. 1#477$ and 1#5#29%)2 ere ori+inall- raffled to the Third ivisionhile &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 ere raffled to the Se!ond ivision. n the Resolutiondated 3ul- 2$, 199), the Se!ond ivision referred &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 to theThird ivision &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, p. 095:.

n the Resolution dated September 29, 199), the Third ivision +ranted themotion filed in &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 for the !onsolidation of said !ases ith &.R.(os. 1#477$ and 1#5#29%)2, hi!h ere assi+ned to the irst ivision &.R.(os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 90$%1,1#7 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)#, Rollo, pp. )$9%)77,42$%4)2:. n the Resolution dated *!tober 27, 199), the irst ivision +ranted

the motion to !onsolidate &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 ith &.R. (o. 1#477$ &.R. (os.1#4911%14, Rollo, p. 11#9 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, p. 15$2:.

*n 3une $, 1904, ienvenido >.. Cadalin, Rolando >. "mul and onato .=van+elista, in their on behalf and on behalf of 720 other overseas !ontra!torkers *C8s: instituted a !lass suit b- filin+ an D"mended ComplaintD ith the



'hilippine *verseas =mplo-ment "dministration '*=": for mone- !laimsarisin+ from their re!ruitment b- "C and emplo-ment b- R '*=" Case (o.<%04%#$%555:. The !laimants ere represented b- "tt-. &erardo del >undo.

R is a forei+n !orporation ith headuarters in Fouston, Te;as, and is

en+a+ed in !onstru!tion hile "C is a domesti! !orporation li!ensed as aservi!e !ontra!tor to re!ruit, mobili6e and deplo- ilipino orkers for overseasemplo-ment on behalf of its forei+n prin!ipals.

The amended !omplaint prin!ipall- sou+ht the pa-ment of the une;pired portionof the emplo-ment !ontra!ts, hi!h as terminated prematurel-, and se!ondaril-,the pa-ment of the interest of the earnin+s of the Travel and Reserved und,interest on all the unpaid benefits area a+e and salar- differential pa- frin+ebenefits refund of SSS and premium not remitted to the SSS refund ofithholdin+ ta; not remitted to the R penalties for !ommittin+ prohibitedpra!ti!es as ell as the suspension of the li!ense of "C and the a!!reditation

of R &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1)%14:.

"t the hearin+ on 3une 25, 1904, "C as furnished a !op- of the !omplaintand as +iven, to+ether ith R, up to 3ul- 5, 1904 to file its anser.

*n 3ul- ), 1904, '*=" "dministrator, upon motion of "C and R, ordered the!laimants to file a bill of parti!ulars ithin ten da-s from re!eipt of the order andthe movants to file their ansers ithin ten da-s from re!eipt of the bill ofparti!ulars. The '*=" "dministrator also s!heduled a pre%trial !onferen!e on3ul- 25, 1904.

*n 3ul- 1), 1904, the !laimants submitted their DComplian!e and >anifestation.D*n 3ul- 2), 1904, "C filed a D>otion to Strike *ut of the Re!ordsD, theDComplaintD and the DComplian!e and >anifestation.D *n 3ul- 25, 1904, the!laimants filed their DRe?oinder and Comments,D averrin+, amon+ other matters,the failure of "C and R to file their ansers and to attend the pre%trial!onferen!e on 3ul- 25, 1904. The !laimants alle+ed that "C and R hadaived their ri+ht to present eviden!e and had defaulted b- failin+ to file theiransers and to attend the pre%trial !onferen!e.

*n *!tober 2, 1904, the '*=" "dministrator denied the D>otion to Strike *ut ofthe Re!ordsD filed b- "C but reuired the !laimants to !orre!t the defi!ien!ies

in the !omplaint pointed out in the order.

*n *!tober 1#, 1904, !laimants asked for time ithin hi!h to !ompl- ith the*rder of *!tober 2, 1904 and filed an Dr+ent >anifestation,D pra-in+ that the'*=" "dministrator dire!t the parties to submit simultaneousl- their positionpapers, after hi!h the !ase should be deemed submitted for de!ision. *n thesame da-, "tt-. lorante de Castro filed another !omplaint for the same mone-



!laims and benefits in behalf of several !laimants, some of hom ere also!laimants in '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555 '*=" Case (o. 05%1#%779:.

*n *!tober 19, 1904, !laimants filed their DComplian!eD ith the *rder dated*!tober 2, 1904 and an Dr+ent >anifestation,D pra-in+ that the '*=" dire!t the

parties to submit simultaneousl- their position papers after hi!h the !ase ouldbe deemed submitted for de!ision. *n the same da-, "C asked for time to fileits !omment on the DComplian!eD and Dr+ent >anifestationD of !laimants. *n(ovember $, 1904, it filed a se!ond motion for e;tension of time to file the!omment.

*n (ovember 0, 1904, the '*=" "dministrator informed "C that its motion fore;tension of time as +ranted.

*n (ovember 14, 1904, !laimants filed an opposition to the motions fore;tension of time and asked that "C and R be de!lared in default for failure

to file their ansers.

*n (ovember 2#, 1904, "C and R filed a DCommentD pra-in+, amon+ otherreliefs, that !laimants should be ordered to amend their !omplaint.

*n e!ember 27, 1904, the '*=" "dministrator issued an order dire!tin+ "Cand R to file their ansers ithin ten da-s from re!eipt of the order.

*n ebruar- 27, 1905, "C and R appealed to (<RC seekin+ the reversal ofthe said order of the '*=" "dministrator. Claimants opposed the appeal,!laimin+ that it as dilator- and pra-in+ that "C and R be de!lared in

default.

*n "pril 2, 1905, the ori+inal !laimants filed an D"mended Complaint andEor'osition 'aperD dated >ar!h 24, 1905, addin+ ne demands namel-, thepa-ment of overtime pa-, e;tra ni+ht ork pa-, annual leave differential pa-,leave indemnit- pa-, retirement and savin+s benefits and their share offorfeitures &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 14%1$:. *n "pril 15, 1905, the '*="

"dministrator dire!ted "C to file its anser to the amended !omplaint &.R.(o. 1#477$, Rollo, p. 2#:.

*n >a- 20, 1905, !laimants filed an Dr+ent >otion for Summar- 3ud+ment.D *n

the same da-, the '*=" issued an order dire!tin+ "C and R to file theiransers to the D"mended Complaint,D otherise, the- ould be deemed to haveaived their ri+ht to present eviden!e and the !ase ould be resolved on thebasis of !omplainantAs eviden!e.

*n 3une 5, 1905, "C !ountered ith a D>otion to ismiss as mproper ClassSuit and >otion for ill of 'arti!ulars Re "mended Complaint dated >ar!h 24,1905.D Claimants opposed the motions.



*n September 4, 1905, the '*=" "dministrator reiterated his dire!tive to "Cand R to file their ansers in '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555.

*n September 10, 1905, "C filed its se!ond appeal to the (<RC, to+ether itha petition for the issuan!e of a rit of in?un!tion. *n September 19, 1905, (<RC

en?oined the '*=" "dministrator from hearin+ the labor !ases and suspendedthe period for the filin+ of the ansers of "C and R.

*n September 19, 1905, !laimants asked the '*=" "dministrator to in!ludeadditional !laimants in the !ase and to investi+ate alle+ed ron+doin+s of R,

"C and their respe!tive la-ers.

*n *!tober 1#, 1905, Romeo 'ata+ and to !o%!laimants filed a !omplaint'*=" Case (o. <%05%1#%777: a+ainst "C and R ith the '*=",demandin+ monetar- !laims similar to those sub?e!t of '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555. n the same month, Solomon Re-es also filed his on !omplaint '*="

Case (o. <%05%1#%779: a+ainst "C and R.

*n *!tober 17, 1905, the la firm of lorante >. de Castro L "sso!iates askedfor the substitution of the ori+inal !ounsel of re!ord and the !an!ellation of thespe!ial poers of attorne- +iven the ori+inal !ounsel.

*n e!ember 12, 1905, "tt-. el >undo filed in (<RC a noti!e of the !laim toenfor!e attorne-As lien.

*n >a- 29, 190$, "tt-. e Castro filed a !omplaint for mone- !laims '*="Case (o. 0$%#5%4$#: in behalf of 11 !laimants in!ludin+ ienvenido Cadalin, a

!laimant in '*=" Case (o. 04%#$%555.

*n e!ember 12, 190$, the (<RC dismissed the to appeals filed on ebruar-27, 1905 and September 10, 1905 b- "C and R.

n narratin+ the pro!eedin+s of the labor !ases before the '*=" "dministrator, itis not amiss to mention that to !ases ere filed in the Supreme Court b- the!laimants, namel- I &.R. (o. 721)2 on September 2$, 1905 and "dministrativeCase (o. 2050 on >ar!h 10, 190$. *n >a- 1), 1907, the Supreme Court issueda resolution in "dministrative Case (o. 2050 dire!tin+ the '*=" "dministrator toresolve the issues raised in the motions and oppositions filed in '*=" Cases

(os. <%04%#$%555 and <%0$%#5%4$# and to de!ide the labor !ases ith deliberatedispat!h.

"C also filed a petition in the Supreme Court &.R. (o. 70409:, uestionin+ the*rder dated September 4, 1905 of the '*=" "dministrator. Said order reuiredR and "C to anser the amended !omplaint in '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555. n a resolution dated (ovember 9, 1907, e dismissed the petition b-



informin+ "C that all its te!hni!al ob?e!tions ma- properl- be resolved in thehearin+s before the '*=".

Complaints ere also filed before the *mbudsman. The first as filed onSeptember 22, 1900 b- !laimant Fermie "r+uelles and 10 !o%!laimants a+ainst

the '*=" "dministrator and several (<RC Commissioners. The *mbudsmanmerel- referred the !omplaint to the Se!retar- of <abor and =mplo-ment ith areuest for the earl- disposition of '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555. The se!ondas filed on "pril 20, 1909 b- !laimants =mi+dio '. autista and Rolando R.<obeta !har+in+ "C and R for violation of labor and so!ial le+islations. Thethird as filed b- 3ose R. Santos, >a;imino (. Talibsao and "mado . ru!edenoun!in+ "C and R of violations of labor las.

*n 3anuar- 1), 1907, "C filed a motion for re!onsideration of the (<RCResolution dated e!ember 12, 190$.

*n 3anuar- 14, 1907, "C reiterated before the '*=" "dministrator its motionfor suspension of the period for filin+ an anser or motion for e;tension of time tofile the same until the resolution of its motion for re!onsideration of the order ofthe (<RC dismissin+ the to appeals. *n "pril 20, 1907, (<RC en $anc deniedthe motion for re!onsideration.

"t the hearin+ on 3une 19, 1907, "C submitted its anser to the !omplaint. "tthe same hearin+, the parties ere +iven a period of 15 da-s from said dateithin hi!h to submit their respe!tive position papers. *n 3une 24, 1907!laimants filed their Dr+ent >otion to Strike *ut "nser,D alle+in+ that theanser as filed out of time. *n 3une 29, 1907, !laimants filed their DSupplement

to r+ent >anifestational >otionD to !ompl- ith the '*=" *rder of 3une 19,1907. *n ebruar- 24, 1900, "C and R submitted their position paper. *n>ar!h 4, 1900, !laimants filed their D2";Parte >otion to =;pun+e from theRe!ordsD the position paper of "C and R, !laimin+ that it as filed out oftime.

*n September 1, 1900, the !laimants represented b- "tt-. e Castro filed theirmemorandum in '*=" Case (o. <%0$%#5%4$#. *n September $, 1900, "C andR submitted their Supplemental >emorandum. *n September 12, 1900, Rfiled its DRepl- to ComplainantAs >emorandum.D *n *!tober 2$, 1900, !laimantssubmitted their D2";Parte >anifestational >otion and Counter%Supplemental>otion,D to+ether ith 44$ individual !ontra!ts of emplo-ments and servi!ere!ords. *n *!tober 27, 1900, "C and R filed a DConsolidated Repl-.D

*n 3anuar- )#, 1909, the '*=" "dministrator rendered his de!ision in '*="Case (o. <%04%#$%555 and the other !onsolidated !ases, hi!h aarded theamount of M024,$52.44 in favor of onl- )24 !omplainants.



*n ebruar- 1#, 1909, !laimants submitted their D"ppeal >emorandum or'artial "ppealD from the de!ision of the '*=". *n the same da-, "C also filedits motion for re!onsideration andEor appeal in addition to the D(oti!e of "ppealDfiled earlier on ebruar- $, 1909 b- another !ounsel for "C.

*n ebruar- 17, 1909, !laimants filed their D"nser to "ppeal,D pra-in+ for thedismissal of the appeal of "C and R.

*n >ar!h 15, 1909, !laimants filed their DSupplement to ComplainantsA "ppeal>emorandum,D to+ether ith their Dnel- dis!overed eviden!eD !onsistin+ ofpa-roll re!ords.

*n "pril 5, 1909, "C and R submitted to (<RC their D>anifestation,D statin+amon+ other matters that there ere onl- 720 named !laimants. *n "pril 2#,1909, the !laimants filed their DCounter%>anifestation,D alle+in+ that there ere1,7$7 of them.

*n 3ul- 27, 1909, !laimants filed their Dr+ent >otion for =;e!utionD of thee!ision dated 3anuar- )#, 1909 on the +rounds that R had failed to appealon time and "C had not posted the supersedeas bond in the amount ofM024,$52.44.

*n e!ember 2), 1909, !laimants filed another motion to resolve the labor!ases.

*n "u+ust 21, 199#, !laimants filed their D>anifestational >otion,D pra-in+ thatall the 1,7$7 !laimants be aarded their monetar- !laims for failure of private

respondents to file their ansers ithin the re+lamentar- period reuired b- la.

*n September 2, 1991, (<RC promul+ated its Resolution, disposin+ as follos

8F=R=*R=, premises !onsidered, the e!ision of the '*=" in these!onsolidated !ases is modified to the e;tent and in a!!ordan!e ith the folloin+dispositions

1. The !laims of the 94 !omplainants identified and listed in "nne; D"D hereof are dismissed for havin+ pres!ribed

2. Respondents "C and ron L Root are hereb- ordered, ?ointl- and severall-, to pa- the 149 !omplainants, identified andlisted in "nne; DD hereof, the peso euivalent, at the time ofpa-ment, of the total amount in S dollars indi!ated oppositetheir respe!tive names

). The aards +iven b- the '*=" to the 19 !omplainants!lassified and listed in "nne; DCD hereof, ho appear to haveorked elsehere than in ahrain are hereb- set aside.



4. "ll !laims other than those indi!ated in "nne; DD, in!ludin+those for overtime ork and favorabl- +ranted b- the '*=", arehereb- dismissed for la!k of substantial eviden!e in supportthereof or are be-ond the !ompeten!e of this Commission topass upon.

n addition, this Commission, in the e;er!ise of its poers and authorit- under "rti!le 210!: of the <abor Code, as amended b- R.". $715, hereb- dire!ts <abor "rbiter atima 3. ran!o of this Commission to summon parties, !ondu!thearin+s and re!eive eviden!e, as e;peditiousl- as possible, and thereaftersubmit a ritten report to this Commission irst ivision: of the pro!eedin+staken, re+ardin+ the !laims of the folloin+

a: !omplainants identified and listed in "nne; DD atta!hed andmade an inte+ral part of this Resolution, hose !laims eredismissed b- the '*=" for la!k of proof of emplo-ment inahrain these !omplainants numberin+ $0), are listed in pa+es1) to 2) of the de!ision of '*=", sub?e!t of the appeals: and,

b: !omplainants identified and listed in "nne; D=D atta!hed andmade an inte+ral part of this Resolution, hose aards de!reedb- the '*=", to *ur mind, are not supported b- substantialeviden!eD &.R. (o. 1#477$ Rollo, pp. 11)%115 &.R. (os.1#4911%14, pp. 05%07 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)1, pp. 12#%122:.

*n (ovember 27, 1991, !laimant "mado S. Tolentino and 12!o%!laimants, ho ere former !lients of "tt-. el >undo, filed a petition forcertiorari ith the Supreme Court &.R. (os. 12#741%44:. The petition asdismissed in a resolution dated 3anuar- 27, 1992.

Three motions for re!onsideration of the September 2, 1991 Resolution of the

(<RC ere filed. The first, b- the !laimants represented b- "tt-. el >undo these!ond, b- the !laimants represented b- "tt-. e Castro and the third, b- "Cand R.

n its Resolution dated >ar!h 24, 1992, (<RC denied all the motions forre!onsideration.

Fen!e, these petitions filed b- the !laimants represented b- "tt-. el >undo&.R. (o. 1#477$:, the !laimants represented b- "tt-. e Castro &.R. (os.1#4911%14: and b- "C and R &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2:.

Compromise Agreements

efore this Court, the !laimants represented b- "tt-. e Castro and "C andR have submitted, from time to time, !ompromise a+reements for our approvaland ?ointl- moved for the dismissal of their respe!tive petitions insofar as the



!laimants%parties to the !ompromise a+reements ere !on!erned See "nne; "for list of !laimants ho si+ned uit!laims:.

Thus the folloin+ manifestations that the parties had arrived at a !ompromisea+reement and the !orrespondin+ motions for the approval of the a+reements

ere filed b- the parties and approved b- the Court

1: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant =mi+dio "barue6 and 47!o%!laimants dated September 2, 1992 &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 2$)%4#$ &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp.47#%$15:

2: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ petitioner ienvenido Cadalin and 02!o%petitioners dated September ), 1992 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. )$4%5#7:

): 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant 3ose>. "ban and )$ !o%!laimants dated September 17, 1992 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2,Rollo, pp. $1)%722 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 510%$2$ &.R. (os. 1#4911%14,

Rollo, pp. 4#7%51$:

4: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant "ntonio T. "n+lo and 17 !o%!laimants dated *!tober 14, 1992 &.R. (os.1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp. 770%04) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. $5#%71) &.R. (os.1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 5)#%59#:

5: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant ionisio obon+o and $ !o%!laimants dated 3anuar- 15, 199) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 01)%0)$ &.R.(os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. $29%$52:

$: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant Halerio ". =van+elista and 4!o%!laimants dated >ar!h 1#, 199) &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 7)1%74$&.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1015%1029:

7: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimants 'al!oneri anaa+ and 5!o%!laimants dated >ar!h 17, 199) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1$57%17#)&.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. $55%$75:

0: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant en?amin "mbrosio and 15other !o%!laimants dated >a- 4, 199) &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp. 9#$%95$&.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. $79%729 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 177)%1014:

9: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ Halerio =van+elista and ) !o%

!laimants dated >a- 1#, 199) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1015%1029:

1#: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ petitioner /uiterio R. "+udo and )$!o%!laimants dated 3une 14, 199) &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp. 974%119#&.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 740%0$4 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1#$$%110):

11: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant "rnaldo 3. "lon6o and 19!o%!laimants dated 3ul- 22, 199) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 117)%12)5 &.R.



(os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp. 119)%125$ &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 09$%959:

12: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant Ri!ardo C. a-rit and 2 !o%!laimants dated September 7, 199) &.R. (os.1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp. 12$$%1270 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 124)%1254 &.R.

(os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 972%904:

1): 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ !laimant ante C. "!eres and )7!o%!laimants dated September 0, 199) &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 1257%1)75&.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 907%11#5 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, pp.120#%1)97:

14: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ Hiven!io H. "bella and 27 !o%!laimants dated 3anuar- 1#, 1994 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, Rollo, Hol. :

15: 3oint >anifestation and >otion involvin+ omin+o . Solano and si; !o%!laimants dated "u+ust 25, 1994 &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2 &.R. (o. 1#477$ &.R.(os. 1#4911%14:.

The fa!ts as found b- the (<RC are as follos

8e have taken painstakin+ efforts to sift over the more than fift- volumes no!omprisin+ the re!ords of these !ases. rom the re!ords, it appears that the!omplainants%appellants alle+e that the- ere re!ruited b- respondent%appellant

"C for its a!!redited forei+n prin!ipal, ron L Root, on various dates from1975 to 190). The- ere all deplo-ed at various pro?e!ts undertaken b- ron LRoot in several !ountries in the >iddle =ast, su!h as Saudi "rabia, <ib-a, nited

"rab =mirates and ahrain, as ell as in Southeast "sia, in ndonesia and

>ala-sia.

Favin+ been offi!iall- pro!essed as overseas !ontra!t orkers b- the 'hilippine&overnment, all the individual !omplainants si+ned standard overseasemplo-ment !ontra!ts Re!ords, Hols. 25%)2. Fereafter, referen!e to the re!ordsould be sparin+l- made, !onsiderin+ their !haoti! arran+ement: ith "Cbefore their departure from the 'hilippines. These overseas emplo-ment!ontra!ts invariabl- !ontained the folloin+ relevant terms and !onditions.

'"RT I

1: =mplo-ment 'osition Classifi!ation IIIIIIIIICode: IIIIIIIII

2: Compan- =mplo-ment Status IIIIIIIII): ate of =mplo-ment to Commen!e on IIIIIIIII4: asi! 8orkin+ Fours 'er 8eek IIIIIIIII5: asi! 8orkin+ Fours 'er >onth IIIIIIIII$: asi! Fourl- Rate IIIIIIIII7: *vertime Rate 'er Four IIIIIIIII0: 'ro?e!ted 'eriod of Servi!eSub?e!t to C1: of this Jsi!K: IIIIIIIII



>onths andEor 3ob Completion

;;; ;;; ;;;

). F*RS * 8*R@ "( C*>'=(S"T*(

a: The =mplo-ee is emplo-ed at the hourl- rate and overtime rate as set out in'art of this o!ument.

b: The hours of ork shall be those set forth b- the =mplo-er, and =mplo-erma-, at his sole option, !han+e or ad?ust su!h hours as ma-be deemedne!essar- from time to time.

4. T=R>("T*(

a: (otithstandin+ another terms and !onditions of this a+reement, the=mplo-er ma-, at his sole dis!retion, terminate emplo-eeAs servi!e ith !ause,under this a+reement at an- time. f the =mplo-er terminates the servi!es of the=mplo-ee under this "+reement be!ause of the !ompletion or termination, orsuspension of the ork on hi!h the =mplo-eeAs servi!es ere bein+ utili6ed, orbe!ause of a redu!tion in for!e due to a de!rease in s!ope of su!h ork, or b-!han+e in the t-pe of !onstru!tion of su!h ork. The =mplo-er ill beresponsible for his return transportation to his !ountr- of ori+in. (ormall- on themost e;peditious air route, e!onom- !lass a!!ommodation.

;;; ;;; ;;;

1#. H"C"T*(ESC@ <="H= =(=TS

a: "fter one 1: -ear of !ontinuous servi!e andEor satisfa!tor- !ompletion of

!ontra!t, emplo-ee shall be entitled to 12%da-s va!ation leave ith pa-. This shallbe !omputed at the basi! a+e rate. ra!tions of a -earAs servi!e ill be!omputed on a pro;rata basis.

b: Si!k leave of 15%da-s shall be +ranted to the emplo-ee for ever- -ear ofservi!e for non%ork !onne!ted in?uries or illness. f the emplo-ee failed to availof su!h leave benefits, the same shall be forfeited at the end of the -ear in hi!hsaid si!k leave is +ranted.

11. *(S

" bonus of 2#N for offshore ork: of +ross in!ome ill be a!!rued and pa-ableonl- upon satisfa!tor- !ompletion of this !ontra!t.

12. *"B '"B

The seventh da- of the eek shall be observed as a da- of rest ith 0 hoursre+ular pa-. f ork is performed on this da-, all hours ork shall be paid at thepremium rate. Foever, this offda- pa- provision is appli!able onl- hen thelas of the Fost Countr- reuire pa-ments for rest da-.



n the State of ahrain, here some of the individual !omplainants eredeplo-ed, Fis >a?est- sa in Salman "l @aifa, "mir of ahrain, issued his "mirie!ree (o. 2) on 3une 1$, 197$, otherise knon as the <abour <a for the'rivate Se!tor Re!ords, Hol. 10:. This de!ree took effe!t on "u+ust 1$, 197$.Some of the provisions of "miri e!ree (o. 2) that are relevant to the !laims ofthe !omplainants%appellants are as follos itali!s supplied onl- for emphasis:

"rt. 79 . . . A orer s-all receive pa(ment for eac- e"tra -oureuivalent to -is age entitlement increased b- a minimum oftent-%five per centum thereof for hours orked durin+ the da-and $( a minimum of fift( per centum t-ereof for -ours oredduring t-e nig-t hi!h shall be deemed to bein+ from sevenoA!lo!k in the evenin+ until seven oA!lo!k in the mornin+. . . .

"rt. 0# rida- shall be deemed to be a eekl- da- of rest on fullpa-.

. . . an emplo(er ma( reuire a orer, ith his !onsent, to oron -is eel( da( of rest if !ir!umstan!es so reuire and in

respect of -ic- an additional sum euivalent to 150< of -isnormal age s-all $e paid to -im. . . .

"rt. 01 . . . =-en conditions of or reuire t-e orer to oron an( official -olida(, -e s-all $e paid an additional sumeuivalent to 150< of -is normal age .

"rt. 04 2ver( orer -o -as completed one (ears continuousservice it- -is emplo(er s-all $e entitled to leave on full pa( for a period of not less t-an *1 da(s for eac- (ear increased to a

period not less t-an *> da(s after five continuous (ears ofservice.

" orker shall be entitled to su!h leave upon a uantum meruitin respe!t of the proportion of his servi!e in that -ear.

"rt. 1#7 " !ontra!t of emplo-ment made for a period of indefiniteduration ma- be terminated b- either part- thereto after +ivin+the other part- thirt- da-sA prior noti!e before su!h termination, in riting , in respe!t of monthl- paid orkers and fifteen da-sAnoti!e in respe!t of other orkers. -e part( terminating acontract it-out giving t-e reuired notice s-all pa( to t-e ot-er

part( compensation euivalent to t-e amount of ages pa(a$leto t-e orer for t-e period of suc- notice or t-e une"pired

portion t-ereof.

"rt. 111 . . . the emplo-er !on!erned shall pa- to su!h orker,upon termination of emplo-ment, a leaving indemnit( for t-e

period of -is emplo(ment calculated on t-e $asis of fifteen da(sages for eac- (ear of t-e first t-ree (ears of service and of onemont-s ages for eac- (ear of service t-ereafter . Su!h orkershall be entitled to pa-ment of leavin+ indemnit- upon auantum meruit in proportion to the period of his servi!e!ompleted ithin a -ear.



"ll the individual !omplainants%appellants have alread- beenrepatriated to the 'hilippines at the time of the filin+ of these!ases R.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 59%$5:.

H

The issues raised before and resolved b- the (<RC ere

8irst I 8hether or not !omplainants are entitled to the benefits provided b- "miri e!ree (o. 2) of ahrain

a: 8hether or not the !omplainants ho have orked in ahrainare entitled to the above%mentioned benefits.

b: 8hether or not "rt. 44 of the same e!ree alle+edl-pres!ribin+ a more favorable treatment of alien emplo-ees: bars!omplainants from en?o-in+ its benefits.

econd I "ssumin+ that "miri e!ree (o. 2) of ahrain is appli!able in these!ases, hether or not !omplainantsA !laim for the benefits provided therein havepres!ribed.

-ird I 8hether or not the instant !ases ualif- as a !lass suit.

8ourt- I 8hether or not the pro!eedin+s !ondu!ted b- the '*=", as ell asthe de!ision that is the sub?e!t of these appeals, !onformed ith thereuirements of due pro!ess

a: 8hether or not the respondent%appellant as denied its ri+htto due pro!ess

b: 8hether or not the admission of eviden!e b- the '*=" afterthese !ases ere submitted for de!ision as valid

!: 8hether or not the '*=" a!uired ?urisdi!tion over ron LRoot nternational, n!.

d: 8hether or not the ?ud+ment aards are supported b-substantial eviden!e

e: 8hether or not the aards based on the avera+es andformula presented b- the !omplainants%appellants are supportedb- substantial eviden!e

f: 8hether or not the '*=" aarded sums be-ond hat the!omplainants%appellants pra-ed for and, if so, hether or notthese aards are valid.

8ift- I 8hether or not the '*=" erred in holdin+ respondents "C and ronL Root ?ointl- are severall- liable for the ?ud+ment aards despite the alle+edfindin+ that the former as the emplo-er of the !omplainants



a: 8hether or not the '*=" has a!uired ?urisdi!tion overron L Root

b: 8hether or not the undisputed fa!t that "C as a li!ensed!onstru!tion !ontra!tor pre!ludes a findin+ that ron L Root isliable for !omplainants !laims.

i"t- I 8hether or not the '*=" "dministratorAs failure to hold respondents indefault !onstitutes a reversible error.

event- I 8hether or not the '*=" "dministrator erred in dismissin+ thefolloin+ !laims

a. ne;pired portion of !ontra!t

b. nterest earnin+s of Travel and Reserve und

!. Retirement and Savin+s 'lan benefits

d. 8ar Gone bonus or premium pa- of at least 1##N of basi!pa-

e. "rea ifferential 'a-

f. "!!rued interests on all the unpaid benefits

+. Salar- differential pa-

h. 8a+e differential pa-

i. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to SSS

?. Refund of ithholdin+ ta; not remitted to R

k. rin+e benefits under L RAs D" Summar- of =mplo-eeenefitsD "nne; D/D of "mended Complaint:

l. >oral and e;emplar- dama+es

m. "ttorne-As fees of at least ten per!ent of the ?ud+ment aard

n. *ther reliefs, like suspendin+ andEor !an!ellin+ the li!ense tore!ruit of "C and the a!!reditation of L R issued b- '*="

o. 'enalt- for violations of "rti!le )4 prohibited pra!ti!es:, note;!ludin+ reportorial reuirements thereof.

2ig-t- I 8hether or not the '*=" "dministrator erred in not dismissin+ '*="Case (o. <: 0$%$5%4$# on the +round of multipli!it- of suits &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. 25%29, 51%55:.



"nent the first issue, (<RC set aside Se!tion 1, Rule 129 of the 1909 RevisedRules on =viden!e +overnin+ the pleadin+ and proof of a forei+n la andadmitted in eviden!e a simple !op- of the ahrainAs "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$<abour <a for the 'rivate Se!tor:. (<RC invoked "rti!le 221 of the <abor Codeof the 'hilippines, vestin+ on the Commission ample dis!retion to use ever- and

all reasonable means to as!ertain the fa!ts in ea!h !ase ithout re+ard to thete!hni!alities of la or pro!edure. (<RC a+reed ith the '*=" "dministratorthat the "miri e!ree (o. 2), bein+ more favorable and benefi!ial to the orkers,should form part of the overseas emplo-ment !ontra!t of the !omplainants.

(<RC, hoever, held that the "miri e!ree (o. 2) applied onl- to the !laimants,ho orked in ahrain, and set aside aards of the '*=" "dministrator in favorof the !laimants, ho orked elsehere.

*n the se!ond issue, (<RC ruled that the pres!riptive period for the filin+ of the!laims of the !omplainants as three -ears, as provided in "rti!le 291 of the

<abor Code of the 'hilippines, and not ten -ears as provided in "rti!le 1144 ofthe Civil Code of the 'hilippines nor one -ear as provided in the "miri e!ree(o. 2) of 197$.

*n the third issue, (<RC a+reed ith the '*=" "dministrator that the labor!ases !annot be treated as a !lass suit for the simple reason that not all the!omplainants orked in ahrain and therefore, the sub?e!t matter of the a!tion,the !laims arisin+ from the ahrain la, is not of !ommon or +eneral interest toall the !omplainants.

*n the fourth issue, (<RC found at least three infra!tions of the !ardinal rules of

administrative due pro!ess namel-, 1: the failure of the '*=" "dministrator to!onsider the eviden!e presented b- "C and R 2: some findin+s of fa!tere not supported b- substantial eviden!e and ): some of the eviden!e uponhi!h the de!ision as based ere not dis!losed to "C and R durin+ thehearin+.

*n the fifth issue, (<RC sustained the rulin+ of the '*=" "dministrator that Rand "C are solidaril- liable for the !laims of the !omplainants and held thatR as the a!tual emplo-er of the !omplainants, or at the ver- least, theindire!t emplo-er, ith "C as the labor !ontra!tor.

(<RC also held that ?urisdi!tion over R as a!uired b- the '*=" "dministrator throu+h the summons served on "C, its lo!al a+ent.

*n the si;th issue, (<RC held that the '*=" "dministrator as !orre!t inden-in+ the >otion to e!lare "C in default.

*n the seventh issue, hi!h involved other mone- !laims not based on the "mirie!ree (o. 2), (<RC ruled



1: that the '*=" "dministrator has no ?urisdi!tion over the !laims for refund ofthe SSS premiums and refund of ithholdin+ ta;es and the !laimants should filetheir !laims for said refund ith the appropriate +overnment a+en!ies

2: the !laimants failed to establish that the- are entitled to the !laims hi!h arenot based on the overseas emplo-ment !ontra!ts nor the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of

197$

): that the '*=" "dministrator has no ?urisdi!tion over !laims for moral ande;emplar- dama+es and nonetheless, the basis for +rantin+ said dama+es asnot established

4: that the !laims for salaries !orrespondin+ to the une;pired portion of their!ontra!t ma- be alloed if filed ithin the three%-ear pres!riptive period

5: that the alle+ation that !omplainants ere prematurel- repatriated prior to thee;piration of their overseas !ontra!t as not established and

$: that the '*=" "dministrator has no ?urisdi!tion over the !omplaint for the

suspension or !an!ellation of the "CAs re!ruitment li!ense and the !an!ellationof the a!!reditation of R.

(<RC passed su$ silencio the last issue, the !laim that '*=" Case (o. <: 0$%$5%4$# should have been dismissed on the +round that the !laimants in said!ase ere also !laimants in '*=" Case (o. <: 04%#$%555. nstead of dismissin+'*=" Case (o. <: 0$%$5%4$#, the '*=" ?ust resolved the !orrespondin+ !laimsin '*=" Case (o. <: 04%#$%555. n other ords, the '*=" did not pass uponthe same !laims ti!e.

H

?.R. 4o. 10)77@

Claimants in &.R. (o. 1#477$ based their petition for certiorari on the folloin++rounds

1: that the- ere deprived b- (<RC and the '*=" of their ri+ht to a speed-disposition of their !ases as +uaranteed b- Se!tion 1$, "rti!le of the 1907Constitution. The '*=" "dministrator alloed private respondents to file theiransers in to -ears on 3une 19, 1907: after the filin+ of the ori+inal !omplainton "pril 2, 1905: and (<RC, in total disre+ard of its on rules, affirmed thea!tion of the '*=" "dministrator

2: that (<RC and the '*=" "dministrator should have de!lared "C and Rin default and should have rendered summar- ?ud+ment on the basis of thepleadin+s and eviden!e submitted b- !laimants

): the (<RC and '*=" "dministrator erred in not holdin+ that the labor !asesfiled b- "C and R !annot be !onsidered a !lass suit

4: that the pres!riptive period for the filin+ of the !laims is ten -ears and



5: that (<RC and the '*=" "dministrator should have dismissed '*=" Case(o. <%0$%#5%4$#, the !ase filed b- "tt-. lorante de Castro Rollo, pp. )1%4#:.

"C and R, !ommentin+ on the petition in &.R. (o. 1#477$, ar+ued

1: that the- ere not responsible for the dela- in the disposition of the labor

!ases, !onsiderin+ the +reat diffi!ult- of +ettin+ all the re!ords of the more than1,5## !laimants, the pie!e%meal filin+ of the !omplaints and the addition ofhundreds of ne !laimants b- petitioners

2: that !onsiderin+ the number of !omplaints and !laimants, it as impossible toprepare the ansers ithin the ten%da- period provided in the (<RC Rules, thathen the motion to de!lare "C in default as filed on 3ul- 19, 1907, said part-had alread- filed its anser, and that !onsiderin+ the sta++erin+ amount of the!laims more than SM5#,###,###.##: and the !ompli!ated issues raised b- theparties, the ten%da- rule to anser as not fair and reasonable

): that the !laimants failed to refute (<RCAs findin+ thatthere as no !ommon or +eneral interest in the sub?e!t matter of the !ontrovers-

I hi!h as the appli!abilit- of the "miri e!ree (o. 2). <ikeise, the nature ofthe !laims varied, some bein+ based on salaries pertainin+ to the une;piredportion of the !ontra!ts hile others bein+ for pure mone- !laims. =a!h !laimantdemanded separate !laims pe!uliar onl- to himself and dependin+ upon theparti!ular !ir!umstan!es obtainin+ in his !ase

4: that the pres!riptive period for filin+ the !laims is that pres!ribed b- "rti!le291 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines three -ears: and not the one pres!ribedb- "rti!le 1144 of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines ten -ears: and

5: that the- are not !on!erned ith the issue of hether '*=" Case (o. <%0$%#5%4$# should be dismissed, this bein+ a private uarrel beteen the to laborla-ers Rollo, pp. 292%)#5:.

Attorne(s /ien

*n (ovember 12, 1992, "tt-. &erardo ". del >undo moved to strike out the ?ointmanifestations and motions of "C and R dated September 2 and 11, 1992,!laimin+ that all the !laimants ho entered into the !ompromise a+reementssub?e!t of said manifestations and motions ere his !lients and that "tt-. lorante>. de Castro had no ri+ht to represent them in said a+reements. Fe also !laimedthat the !laimants ere paid less than the aard +iven them b- (<RC that "tt-.e Castro !olle!ted additional attorne-As fees on top of the 25N hi!h he asentitled to re!eive and that the !onsent of the !laimants to the !ompromisea+reements and uit!laims ere pro!ured b- fraud &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp.0)0%01#:. n the Resolution dated (ovember 2), 1992, the Court denied themotion to strike out the 3oint >anifestations and >otions dated September 2 and11, 1992 &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, Rollo, pp. $#0%$#9:.

*n e!ember 14, 1992, "tt-. el >undo filed a D(oti!e and Claim to =nfor!e "ttorne-As <ien,D alle+in+ that the !laimants ho entered into !ompromise



a+reements ith "C and R ith the assistan!e of "tt-. e Castro, had allsi+ned a retainer a+reement ith his la firm &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. $2)%$24 0)0%15)5:.

Contempt of Court

*n ebruar- 10, 199), an omnibus motion as filed b- "tt-. el >undo to !ite "tt-. e Castro and "tt-. @at6 Tierra for !ontempt of !ourt and for violation ofCanons 1, 15 and 1$ of the Code of 'rofessional Responsibilit-. The saidla-ers alle+edl- misled this Court, b- makin+ it appear that the !laimants hoentered into the !ompromise a+reements ere represented b- "tt-. e Castro,hen in fa!t the- ere represented b- "tt-. el >undo &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo,pp. 15$#%1$14:.

*n September 2), 1994, "tt-. el >undo reiterated his !har+es a+ainst "tt-. eCastro for unethi!al pra!ti!es and moved for the voidin+ of the uit!laims

submitted b- some of the !laimants.

?.R. 4os. 10)911;1)

The !laimants in &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 based their petition for certiorari on the+rounds that (<RC +ravel- abused its dis!retion hen it 1: applied the three%-ear pres!riptive period under the <abor Code of the 'hilippines and 2: itdenied the !laimantAs formula based on an avera+e overtime pa- of three hours ada- Rollo, pp. 10%22:.

The !laimants ar+ue that said method as proposed b- R itself durin+ the

ne+otiation for an ami!able settlement of their mone- !laims in ahrain as shonin the >emorandum dated "pril 1$, 190) of the >inistr- of <abor of ahrainRollo, pp. 21%22:.

R and "C, in their Comment, reiterated their !ontention in &.R. (o. 1#477$that the pres!riptive period in the <abor Code of the 'hilippines, a spe!ial la,prevails over that provided in the Civil Code of the 'hilippines, a +eneral la.

"s to the memorandum of the >inistr- of <abor of ahrain on the method of!omputin+ the overtime pa-, R and "C !laimed that the- ere not bound b-hat appeared therein, be!ause su!h memorandum as proposed b- a

subordinate ahrain offi!ial and there as no shoin+ that it as approved b-the ahrain >inister of <abor. <ikeise, the- !laimed that the avera+in+ methodas dis!ussed in the !ourse of the ne+otiation for the ami!able settlement of thedispute and an- offer made b- a part- therein !ould not be used as an admissionb- him Rollo, pp. 220%2)$:.

?.R. 4os. 1050*9;3*



n &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)2, R and "C !laim that (<RC +ravel- abused itsdis!retion hen it 1: enfor!ed the provisions of the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$and not the terms of the emplo-ment !ontra!ts 2: +ranted !laims for holida-,overtime and leave indemnit- pa- and other benefits, on eviden!e admitted in!ontravention of petitionerAs !onstitutional ri+ht to due pro!ess and ): ordered

the '*=" "dministrator to hold ne hearin+s for the $0) !laimants hose !laimshad been dismissed for la!k of proof b- the '*=" "dministrator or (<RC itself.<astl-, thealle+e that assumin+ that the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ asappli!able, (<RC erred hen it did not appl- the one%-ear pres!ription providedin said la Rollo, pp. 29%)#:.

H

?.R. 4o. 10)77@: ?.R. 4os. 10)911;1): ?.R. 4os. 1050*9;3*

"ll the petitions raise the !ommon issue of pres!ription althou+h the- disa+reed

as to the time that should be embra!ed ithin the pres!riptive period.

To the '*=" "dministrator, the pres!riptive period as ten -ears, appl-in+ "rti!le1144 of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines. (<RC believed otherise, fi;in+ thepres!riptive period at three -ears as provided in "rti!le 291 of the <abor Code ofthe 'hilippines.

The !laimants in &.R. (o. 1#477$ and &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, invokin+ different+rounds, insisted that (<RC erred in rulin+ that the pres!riptive period appli!ableto the !laims as three -ears, instead of ten -ears, as found b- the '*="

"dministrator.

The Soli!itor &eneral e;pressed his personal vie that the pres!riptive periodas one -ear as pres!ribed b- the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ but he deferredto the rulin+ of (<RC that "rti!le 291 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines asthe operative la.

The '*=" "dministrator held the vie that

These mone- !laims under "rti!le 291 of the <abor Code: refer to those arisin+from the emplo-erAs violation of the emplo-eeAs ri+ht as provided b- the <aborCode.

n the instant !ase, hat the respondents violated are not the ri+hts of theorkers as provided b- the <abor Code, but the provisions of the "miri e!ree(o. 2) issued in ahrain, hi!h ipso facto amended the orkerAs !ontra!ts ofemplo-ment. Respondents !ons!iousl- failed to !onform to these provisionshi!h spe!ifi!all- provide for the in!rease of the orkerAs rate. t as onl- after3une )#, 190), four months after the bron builders brou+ht a suit a+ainst L Rin ahrain for this same !laim, hen respondent "CAs !ontra!ts haveunder+one amendments in ahrain for the ne hiresEreneals RespondentAs=;hibit 7:.



Fen!e, premises !onsidered, the appli!able la of pres!ription to this instant!ase is "rti!le 1144 of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines, hi!h provides

"rt. 1144. The folloin+ a!tions ma- be brou+ht ithin ten -earsfrom the time the !ause of a!tion a!!rues

1: pon a ritten !ontra!t

2: pon an obli+ation !reated b- la

Thus, herein mone- !laims of the !omplainants a+ainst the respondents shallpres!ribe in ten -ears from "u+ust 1$, 197$. nasmu!h as all !laims ere filedithin the ten%-ear pres!riptive period, no !laim suffered the infirmit- of bein+pres!ribed &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, 09%9#:.

n overrulin+ the '*=" "dministrator, and holdin+ that the pres!riptive period isthree -ears as provided in "rti!le 291 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines, the(<RC ar+ued as follos

The <abor Code provides that Dall mone- !laims arisin+ from emplo-er%emplo-eerelations . . . shall be filed ithin three -ears from the time the !ause of a!tiona!!rued otherise the- shall be forever barredD "rt. 291, <abor Code, asamended:. This three%-ear pres!riptive period shall be the one applied here andhi!h should be re!koned from the date of repatriation of ea!h individual!omplainant, !onsiderin+ the fa!t that the !ase is havin+ si!: filed in this !ountr-.8e do not a+ree ith the '*=" "dministrator that this three%-ear pres!riptiveperiod applies onl- to mone- !laims spe!ifi!all- re!overable under the 'hilippine<abor Code. "rti!le 291 +ives no su!h indi!ation. <ikeise, 8e !an not !onsider!omplainantsA !auseEs of a!tion to have a!!rued from a violation of theiremplo-ment !ontra!ts. There as no violation the !laims arise from the benefitsof the la of the !ountr- here the- orked. &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp.

9#%91:.

"nent the appli!abilit- of the one%-ear pres!riptive period as provided b- the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$, (<RC opined that the appli!abilit- of said la asone of !hara!teri6ation, i.e., hether to !hara!teri6e the forei+n la onpres!ription or statute of limitation as DsubstantiveD or Dpro!edural.D (<RC !itedthe de!ision in ournias v. Atlantic %aritime Compan( 22# . 2d. 152, 2d Cir.J1955K, here the issue as the appli!abilit- of the 'anama <abor Code in a!ase filed in the State of (e Bork for !laims arisin+ from said Code. n said!ase, the !laims ould have pres!ribed under the 'anamanian <a but notunder the Statute of <imitations of (e Bork. The .S. Cir!uit Court of "ppeals

held that the 'anamanian <a as pro!edural as it as not Dspe!ifi!all- intendedto be substantive,D hen!e, the pres!riptive period provided in the la of the forumshould appl-. The Court observed

. . . "nd here, as here, e are dealin+ ith a statute of limitations of a forei+n!ountr-, and it is not !lear on the fa!e of the statute that its purpose as to limitthe enfor!eabilit-, outside as ell as ithin the forei+n !ountr- !on!erned, of thesubstantive ri+hts to hi!h the statute pertains, e think that as a -ardsti!k fordeterminin+ hether that as the purpose this test is the most satisfa!tor- one. t



does not lead "meri!an !ourts into the ne!essit- of e;aminin+ into the unfamiliarpe!uliarities and refinements of different forei+n le+al s-stems. . .

The !ourt further noted

;;; ;;; ;;;

"ppl-in+ that test here it appears to us that the libelant is entitled to su!!eed, forthe respondents have failed to satisf- us that the 'anamanian period of limitationin uestion as spe!ifi!all- aimed a+ainst the parti!ular ri+hts hi!h the libelantseeks to enfor!e. The 'anama <abor Code is a statute havin+ broad ob?e!tives,vi6 DThe present Code re+ulates the relations beteen !apital and labor, pla!in+them on a basis of so!ial ?usti!e, so that, ithout in?urin+ an- of the parties, therema- be +uaranteed for labor the ne!essar- !onditions for a normal life and to!apital an euitable return to its investment.D n pursuan!e of these ob?e!tives theCode +ives laborers various ri+hts a+ainst their emplo-ers. "rti!le $2)establishes the period of limitation for all su!h ri+hts, e;!ept !ertain ones hi!hare enumerated in "rti!le $21. "nd there is nothin+ in the re!ord to indi!ate thatthe 'anamanian le+islature +ave spe!ial !onsideration to the impa!t of "rti!le

$2) upon the parti!ular ri+hts sou+ht to be enfor!ed here, as distin+uished fromthe other ri+hts to hi!h that "rti!le is also appli!able. 8ere e !onfronted iththe uestion of hether the limitation period of "rti!le $21 hi!h !arves outparti!ular ri+hts to be +overned b- a shorter limitation period: is to be re+ardedas DsubstantiveD or Dpro!eduralD under the rule of Dspe!ifit-D e mi+ht have adifferent !ase but here on the surfa!e of thin+s e appear to be dealin+ ith aDbroad,D and not a Dspe!ifi!,D statute of limitations &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp.92%94:.

Claimants in &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 are of the vie that "rti!le 291 of the <aborCode of the 'hilippines, hi!h as applied b- (<RC, refers onl- to !laimsDarisin+ from the emplo-erAs violation of the emplo-eeAs ri+ht as provided b- the

<abor Code.D The- assert that their !laims are based on the violation of theiremplo-ment !ontra!ts, as amended b- the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ andtherefore the !laims ma- be brou+ht ithin ten -ears as provided b- "rti!le 1144of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines Rollo, &.R. (os. 1#4911%14, pp.10%21:. To bolster their !ontention, the- !ite PA/2A v. P-ilippine Airlines, #nc ., 7#SCR" 244 197$:.

"C and R, insistin+ that the a!tions on the !laims have pres!ribed under the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$, ar+ue that there is in for!e in the 'hilippines aDborroin+ la,D hi!h is Se!tion 40 of the Code of Civil 'ro!edure and thathere su!h kind of la e;ists, it takes pre!eden!e over the !ommon%la !onfli!ts

rule &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 45%4$:.

irst to be determined is hether it is the ahrain la on pres!ription of a!tionbased on the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ or a 'hilippine la on pres!ription thatshall be the +overnin+ la.

"rti!le 15$ of the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ provides



" !laim arisin+ out of a !ontra!t of emplo-ment shall not be a!tionable after thelapse of one -ear from the date of the e;pir- of the !ontra!t. &.R. (os. 1#5#29%)1, Rollo, p. 22$:.

"s a +eneral rule, a forei+n pro!edural la ill not be applied in the forum.'ro!edural matters, su!h as servi!e of pro!ess, ?oinder of a!tions, period and

reuisites for appeal, and so forth, are +overned b- the las of the forum. This istrue even if the a!tion is based upon a forei+n substantive la Restatement ofthe Confli!t of <as, Se!. $05 Salon+a, 'rivate nternational <a, 1)1 J1979K:.

" la on pres!ription of a!tions is sui generis in Confli!t of <as in the sense thatit ma- be vieed either as pro!edural or substantive, dependin+ on the!hara!teri6ation +iven su!h a la.

Thus in ournias v. Atlantic %aritime Compan(, supra, the "meri!an !ourtapplied the statute of limitations of (e Bork, instead of the 'anamanian la,after findin+ that there as no shoin+ that the 'anamanian la on pres!ription

as intended to be substantive. ein+ !onsidered merel- a pro!edural la evenin 'anama, it has to +ive a- to the la of the forum on pres!ription of a!tions.

Foever, the !hara!teri6ation of a statute into a pro!edural or substantive labe!omes irrelevant hen the !ountr- of the forum has a Dborroin+ statute.D Saidstatute has the pra!ti!al effe!t of treatin+ the forei+n statute of limitation as oneof substan!e &oodri!h, Confli!t of <as 152%15) J19)0K:. " Dborroin+ statuteDdire!ts the state of the forum to appl- the forei+n statute of limitations to thependin+ !laims based on a forei+n la Sie+el, Confli!ts, 10) J1975K:. 8hilethere are several kinds of Dborroin+ statutes,D one form provides that an a!tionbarred b- the las of the pla!e here it a!!rued, ill not be enfor!ed in the forum

even thou+h the lo!al statute has not run a+ainst it &oodri!h and S!oles,Confli!t of <as, 152%15) J19)0K:. Se!tion 40 of our Code of Civil 'ro!edure is of this kind. Said Se!tion provides

f b- the las of the state or !ountr- here the !ause of a!tion arose, the a!tionis barred, it is also barred in the 'hilippines slands.

Se!tion 40 has not been repealed or amended b- the Civil Code of the'hilippines. "rti!le 227# of said Code repealed onl- those provisions of the Codeof Civil 'ro!edures as to hi!h ere in!onsistent ith it. There is no provision inthe Civil Code of the 'hilippines, hi!h is in!onsistent ith or !ontradi!tor- to

Se!tion 40 of the Code of Civil 'ro!edure 'aras, 'hilippine Confli!t of <as 1#4J7th ed.K:.

n the li+ht of the 1907 Constitution, hoever, Se!tion 40 !annot be enfor!ed e" proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the appli!ation in this ?urisdi!tion of Se!tion15$ of the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$.



The !ourts of the forum ill not enfor!e an- forei+n !laim obno;ious to theforumAs publi! poli!- Canadian (orthern Raila- Co. v. =++en, 252 .S. 55), 4#S. Ct. 4#2, $4 <. ed. 71) J192#K:. To enfor!e the one%-ear pres!riptive period ofthe "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ as re+ards the !laims in uestion ould!ontravene the publi! poli!- on the prote!tion to labor.

n the e!laration of 'rin!iples and State 'oli!ies, the 1907 Constitutionemphasi6ed that

The state shall promote so!ial ?usti!e in all phases of national development.Se!. 1#:.

The state affirms labor as a primar- so!ial e!onomi! for!e. t shall prote!t theri+hts of orkers and promote their elfare Se!. 10:.

n arti!le O on So!ial 3usti!e and Fuman Ri+hts, the 1907 Constitutionprovides

Se!. ). The State shall afford full prote!tion to labor, lo!al and overseas,or+ani6ed and unor+ani6ed, and promote full emplo-ment and eualit- ofemplo-ment opportunities for all.

Favin+ determined that the appli!able la on pres!ription is the 'hilippine la,the ne;t uestion is hether the pres!riptive period +overnin+ the filin+ of the!laims is three -ears, as provided b- the <abor Code or ten -ears, as provided b-the Civil Code of the 'hilippines.

The !laimants are of the vie that the appli!able provision is "rti!le 1144 of theCivil Code of the 'hilippines, hi!h provides

The folloin+ a!tions must be brou+ht ithin ten -ears from the time the ri+ht ofa!tion a!!rues

1: pon a ritten !ontra!t

2: pon an obli+ation !reated b- la

): pon a ?ud+ment.

(<RC, on the other hand, believes that the appli!able provision is "rti!le 291 of

the <abor Code of the 'hilippines, hi!h in pertinent part provides

>one- !laims%all mone- !laims arisin+ from emplo-er%emplo-ee relationsa!!ruin+ durin+ the effe!tivit- of this Code shall be filed ithin three ): -earsfrom the time the !ause of a!tion a!!rued, otherise the- shall be forever barred.

;;; ;;; ;;;



The !ase of P-ilippine Air /ines 2mplo(ees Association v. P-ilippine Air /ines,#nc., 7# SCR" 244 197$: invoked b- the !laimants in &.R. (os. 1#4911%14 isinappli!able to the !ases at ben!h Rollo, p. 21:. The said !ase involved the!orre!t !omputation of overtime pa- as provided in the !olle!tive bar+ainin+a+reements and not the =i+ht%Four <abor <a.

"s noted b- the Court DThat is pre!isel- h- petitioners did not make an-referen!e as to the !omputation for overtime ork under the =i+ht%Four <abor<a Se!s. ) and 4, C" (o. 494: and instead insisted that ork !omputationprovided in the !olle!tive bar+ainin+ a+reements beteen the parties beobserved. Sin!e the !laim for pa- differentials is primaril- an!hored on the ritten!ontra!ts beteen the liti+ants, the ten%-ear pres!riptive period provided b- "rt.11441: of the (e Civil Code should +overn.D

Se!tion 7%a of the =i+ht%Four <abor <a C" (o. 444 as amended b- R.". (o.199)): provides

"n- a!tion to enfor!e an- !ause of a!tion under this "!t shall be !ommen!edithin three -ears after the !ause of a!tion a!!rued otherise su!h a!tion shallbe forever barred, . . . .

The !ourt further e;plained

The three%-ear pres!riptive period fi;ed in the =i+ht%Four <abor <a C" (o. 444as amended: ill appl-, if the !laim for differentials for overtime ork is solel-based on said la, and not on a !olle!tive bar+ainin+ a+reement or another!ontra!t. n the instant !ase, the !laim for overtime !ompensation is not so mu!hbe!ause of Commonealth "!t (o. 444, as amended but be!ause the !laim isdemandable ri+ht of the emplo-ees, b- reason of the above%mentioned !olle!tive

bar+ainin+ a+reement.

Se!tion 7%a of the =i+ht%Four <abor <a provides the pres!riptive period for filin+Da!tions to enfor!e an- !ause of a!tion under said la.D *n the other hand,

"rti!le 291 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines provides the pres!riptive periodfor filin+ Dmone- !laims arisin+ from emplo-er%emplo-ee relations.D The !laims inthe !ases at ben!h all arose from the emplo-er%emplo-ee relations, hi!h isbroader in s!ope than !laims arisin+ from a spe!ifi! la or from the !olle!tivebar+ainin+ a+reement.

The !ontention of the '*=" "dministrator, that the three%-ear pres!riptive period

under "rti!le 291 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines applies onl- to mone-!laims spe!ifi!all- re!overable under said Code, does not find support in theplain lan+ua+e of the provision. (either is the !ontention of the !laimants in &.R.(os. 1#4911%14 that said "rti!le refers onl- to !laims Darisin+ from the emplo-erAsviolation of the emplo-eeAs ri+ht,D as provided b- the <abor Code supported b-the fa!ial readin+ of the provision.

H



?.R. 4o. 10)77@

". "s to the first to +rounds for the petition in &.R. (o. 1#477$, !laimants aver1: that hile their !omplaints ere filed on 3une $, 1904 ith '*=", the !aseas de!ided onl- on 3anuar- )#, 1909, a !lear denial of their ri+ht to a speed-

disposition of the !ase and 2: that (<RC and the '*=" "dministrator shouldhave de!lared "C and R in default Rollo, pp.)1%)5:.

Claimants invoke a ne provision in!orporated in the 1907 Constitution, hi!hprovides

Se!. 1$. "ll persons shall have the ri+ht to a speed- disposition of their !asesbefore all ?udi!ial, uasi%?udi!ial, or administrative bodies.

t is true that the !onstitutional ri+ht to Da speed- disposition of !asesD is notlimited to the a!!used in !riminal pro!eedin+s but e;tends to all parties in all!ases, in!ludin+ !ivil and administrative !ases, and in all pro!eedin+s, in!ludin+

?udi!ial and uasi%?udi!ial hearin+s. Fen!e, under the Constitution, an- part- to a!ase ma- demand e;peditious a!tion on all offi!ials ho are tasked ith theadministration of ?usti!e.

Foever, as held in Ca$allero v. Alfonso, 'r ., 15) SCR" 15) 1907:, Dspeed-disposition of !asesD is a relative term. 3ust like the !onstitutional +uarantee ofDspeed- trialD a!!orded to the a!!used in all !riminal pro!eedin+s, Dspeed-disposition of !asesD is a fle;ible !on!ept. t is !onsistent ith dela-s anddepends upon the !ir!umstan!es of ea!h !ase. 8hat the Constitution prohibitsare unreasonable, arbitrar- and oppressive dela-s hi!h render ri+hts nu+ator-.

Ca$allero laid don the fa!tors that ma- be taken into !onsideration indeterminin+ hether or not the ri+ht to a Dspeed- disposition of !asesD has beenviolated, thus

n the determination of hether or not the ri+ht to a Dspeed- trialD has beenviolated, !ertain fa!tors ma- be !onsidered and balan!ed a+ainst ea!h other.These are len+th of dela-, reason for the dela-, assertion of the ri+ht or failure toassert it, and pre?udi!e !aused b- the dela-. The same fa!tors ma- also be!onsidered in anserin+ ?udi!ial inuir- hether or not a person offi!iall- !har+edith the administration of ?usti!e has violated the speed- disposition of !ases.

<ikeise, in ?onales v. andigan$a(an, 199 SCR" 290, 1991:, e held

t must be here emphasi6ed that the ri+ht to a speed- disposition of a !ase, likethe ri+ht to speed- trial, is deemed violated onl- hen the pro!eedin+ is attendedb- ve;atious, !apri!ious, and oppressive dela-s or hen un?ustifiedpostponements of the trial are asked for and se!ured, or hen ithout !ause or

?ustified motive a lon+ period of time is alloed to elapse ithout the part- havin+his !ase tried.



Sin!e 3ul- 25, 1904 or a month after "C and R ere served ith a !op- ofthe amended !omplaint, !laimants had been askin+ that "C and R bede!lared in default for failure to file their ansers ithin the ten%da- periodprovided in Se!tion 1, Rule of ook H of the Rules and Re+ulations of the'*=". "t that time, there as a pendin+ motion of "C and R to strike out of

the re!ords the amended !omplaint and the DComplian!eD of !laimants to theorder of the '*=", reuirin+ them to submit a bill of parti!ulars.

The !ases at ben!h are not of the run%of%the%mill variet-, su!h that their finaldisposition in the administrative level after seven -ears from their in!eption,!annot be said to be attended b- unreasonable, arbitrar- and oppressive dela-sas to violate the !onstitutional ri+hts to a speed- disposition of the !ases of!omplainants.

The amended !omplaint filed on 3une $, 1904 involved a total of 1,7$7 !laimants.Said !omplaint had under+one several amendments, the first bein+ on "pril ),

1905.

The !laimants ere hired on various dates from 1975 to 190). The- eredeplo-ed in different areas, one +roup in and the other +roups outside of,ahrain. The monetar- !laims totallin+ more than SM$5 million a!!ordin+ to

"tt-. el >undo, in!luded

1. ne;pired portion of !ontra!t

2. nterest earnin+s of Travel and und

). Retirement and Savin+s 'lan benefit

4. 8ar Gone bonus or premium pa- of at least 1##N of basi! pa-

5. "rea ifferential pa-

$. "!!rued nterest of all the unpaid benefits

7. Salar- differential pa-

0. 8a+e ifferential pa-

9. Refund of SSS premiums not remitted to So!ial Se!urit- S-stem

1#. Refund of 8ithholdin+ Ta; not remitted to ureau of nternal Revenue..R.:

11. rin+e enefits under ron L RootAs D" Summar- of =mplo-ees enefits!onsistin+ of 4) pa+es "nne; D/D of "mended Complaint:

12. >oral and =;emplar- ama+es



1). "ttorne-As fees of at least ten per!ent of amounts

14. *ther reliefs, like suspendin+ andEor !an!ellin+ the li!ense to re!ruit of "Cand issued b- the '*=" and

15. 'enalt- for violation of "rti!le )4 'rohibited pra!ti!es: not e;!ludin+

reportorial reuirements thereof (<RC Resolution, September 2, 1991, pp. 10%19 &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp. 7)%74:.

nasmu!h as the !omplaint did not alle+e ith suffi!ient definiteness and !larit- of some fa!ts, the !laimants ere ordered to !ompl- ith the motion of "C for abill of parti!ulars. 8hen !laimants filed their DComplian!e and >anifestation,D

"C moved to strike out the !omplaint from the re!ords for failure of !laimantsto submit a proper bill of parti!ulars. 8hile the '*=" "dministrator denied themotion to strike out the !omplaint, he ordered the !laimants Dto !orre!t thedefi!ien!iesD pointed out b- "C.

efore an intelli+ent anser !ould be filed in response to the !omplaint, there!ords of emplo-ment of the more than 1,7## !laimants had to be retrieved fromvarious !ountries in the >iddle =ast. Some of the re!ords dated as far ba!k as1975.

The hearin+s on the merits of the !laims before the '*=" "dministrator ereinterrupted several times b- the various appeals, first to (<RC and then to theSupreme Court.

"side from the in!lusion of additional !laimants, to ne !ases ere filed a+ainst "C and R on *!tober 1#, 1905 '*=" Cases (os.

<%05%1#%777 and <%05%1#%779:. "nother !omplaint as filed on >a- 29, 190$'*=" Case (o. <%0$%#5%4$#:. (<RC, in e;asperation, noted that the e;a!tnumber of !laimants had never been !ompletel- established Resolution, Sept. 2,1991, &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, p. 57:. "ll the three ne !ases ere !onsolidatedith '*=" Case (o. <%04%#$%555.

(<RC blamed the parties and their la-ers for the dela- in terminatin+ thepro!eedin+s, thus

These !ases !ould have been spared the lon+ and arduous route toardsresolution had the parties and their !ounsel been more interested in pursuin+ thetruth and the merits of the !laims rather than e;hibitin+ a fanati!al relian!e on

te!hni!alities. 'arties and !ounsel have made these !ases a liti+ation of emotion.The intransi+en!e of parties and !ounsel is remarkable. "s late as last month,this Commission made a last and final attempt to brin+ the !ounsel of all theparties this Commission issued a spe!ial order dire!tin+ respondent ron LRootAs resident a+entEs to appear: to !ome to a more !on!iliator- stan!e. =venthis failed Rollo,p. 50:.



The suabble beteen the la-ers of !laimants added to the dela- in thedisposition of the !ases, to the lament of (<RC, hi!h !omplained

t is ver- evident from the re!ords that the prota+onists in these !onsolidated!ases appear to be not onl- the individual !omplainants, on the one hand, and

"C and ron L Root, on the other hand. The to la-ers for the

!omplainants, "tt-. &erardo el >undo and "tt-. lorante e Castro, have -et tosettle the ri+ht of representation, ea!h one persistentl- !laimin+ to appear inbehalf of most of the !omplainants. "s a result, there are to appeals b- the!omplainants. "ttempts b- this Commission to resolve !ounselsA !onfli!tin+!laims of their respe!tive authorit- to represent the !omplainants prove futile. Thebi!kerin+s b- these to !ounsels are refle!ted in their pleadin+s. n the !har+esand !ounter!har+es of falsifi!ation of do!uments and si+natures, and in thedisbarment pro!eedin+s b- one a+ainst the other. "ll these have, to a lar+ee;tent, abetted in !onfoundin+ the issues raised in these !ases, ?umble thepresentation of eviden!e, and even derailed the prospe!ts of an ami!ablesettlement. t ould not be far%fet!hed to ima+ine that both !ounsel, unittin+l-,perhaps, painted a rainbo for the !omplainants, ith the proverbial pot of +oldat its end !ontainin+ more than SM1## million, the a++re+ate of the !laims in

these !ases. t is, likeise, not improbable that their mispla!ed 6eal ande;uberan!e !aused them to thro all !aution to the ind in the matter ofelementar- rules of pro!edure and eviden!e Rollo, pp. 50%59:.

"ddin+ to the !onfusion in the pro!eedin+s before (<RC, is the listin+ of some of the !omplainants in both petitions filed b- the to la-ers. "s noted b- (<RC,Dthe problem !reated b- this situation is that if one of the to petitions isdismissed, then the parties and the publi! respondents ould not kno hi!h!laim of hi!h petitioner as dismissed and hi!h as not.D

. Claimants insist that all their !laims !ould properl- be !onsolidated in a D!lasssuitD be!ause Dall the named !omplainants have similar mone- !laims and similar ri+hts sou+ht irrespe!tive of hether the- orked in ahrain, nited "rab=mirates or in "bu habi, <ib-a or in an- part of the >iddle =astD Rollo, pp. )5%)0:.

" !lass suit is proper here the sub?e!t matter of the !ontrovers- is one of!ommon or +eneral interest to man- and the parties are so numerous that it isimpra!ti!able to brin+ them all before the !ourt Revised Rules of Court, Rule ),Se!. 12:.

8hile all the !laims are for benefits +ranted under the ahrain <a, man- of the!laimants orked outside ahrain. Some of the !laimants ere deplo-ed inndonesia and >ala-sia under different terms and !onditions of emplo-ment.

(<RC and the '*=" "dministrator are !orre!t in their stan!e that inasmu!h asthe first reuirement of a !lass suit is not present !ommon or +eneral interestbased on the "miri e!ree of the State of ahrain:, it is onl- lo+i!al that onl-those ho orked in ahrain shall be entitled to file their !laims in a !lass suit.



8hile there are !ommon defendants "C and R: and the nature of the!laims is the same for emplo-eeAs benefits:, there is no !ommon uestion of laor fa!t. 8hile some !laims are based on the "miri <a of ahrain, man- of the!laimants never orked in that !ountr-, but ere deplo-ed elsehere. Thus,ea!h !laimant is interested onl- in his on demand and not in the !laims of the

other emplo-ees of defendants. The named !laimants have a spe!ial orparti!ular interest in spe!ifi! benefits !ompletel- different from the benefits inhi!h the other named !laimants and those in!luded as members of a D!lassDare !laimin+ erses v. Hillanueva, 25 'hil. 47) J191)K:. t appears that ea!h!laimant is onl- interested in !olle!tin+ his on !laims. " !laimants has no!on!ern in prote!tin+ the interests of the other !laimants as shon b- the fa!t,that hundreds of them have abandoned their !o%!laimants and have entered intoseparate !ompromise settlements of their respe!tive !laims. " prin!iple basi! tothe !on!ept of D!lass suitD is that plaintiffs brou+ht on the re!ord must fairl-represent and prote!t the interests of the others ima-u+a v. Court of ndustrialRelations, 1#1 'hil. 59# J1957K:. or this matter, the !laimants ho orked in

ahrain !an not be alloed to sue in a !lass suit in a ?udi!ial pro!eedin+. Themost that !an be a!!orded to them under the Rules of Court is to be alloed to ?oin as plaintiffs in one !omplaint Revised Rules of Court, Rule ), Se!. $:.

The Court is e;tra%!autious in alloin+ !lass suits be!ause the- are thee;!eptions to the !ondition sine ua non, reuirin+ the ?oinder of allindispensable parties.

n an improperl- instituted !lass suit, there ould be no problem if the de!isionse!ured is favorable to the plaintiffs. The problem arises hen the de!ision isadverse to them, in hi!h !ase the others ho ere impleaded b- their self%

appointed representatives, ould surel- !laim denial of due pro!ess.

C. The !laimants in &.R. (o. 1#477$ also ur+ed that the '*=" "dministrator and(<RC should have de!lared "tt-. lorante e Castro +uilt- of Dforum shoppin+,ambulan!e !hasin+ a!tivities, falsifi!ation, dupli!it- and other unprofessionala!tivitiesD and his appearan!es as !ounsel for some of the !laimants as ille+alRollo, pp. )0%4#:.

The "nti%orum Shoppin+ Rule Revised Cir!ular (o. 20%91: is intended to put astop to the pra!ti!e of some parties of filin+ multiple petitions and !omplaintsinvolvin+ the same issues, ith the result that the !ourts or a+en!ies have toresolve the same issues. Said Rule, hoever, applies onl- to petitions filed iththe Supreme Court and the Court of "ppeals. t is entitled D"dditionalReuirements or 'etitions iled ith the Supreme Court and the Court of

"ppeals To 'revent orum Shoppin+ or >ultiple ilin+ of 'etitioners andComplainants.D The first senten!e of the !ir!ular e;pressl- states that said!ir!ular applies to an +overns the filin+ of petitions in the Supreme Court and theCourt of "ppeals.



8hile "dministrative Cir!ular (o. #4%94 e;tended the appli!ation of the anti%forum shoppin+ rule to the loer !ourts and administrative a+en!ies, said !ir!ular took effe!t onl- on "pril 1, 1994.

'*=" and (<RC !ould not have entertained the !omplaint for unethi!al !ondu!t

a+ainst "tt-. e Castro be!ause (<RC and '*=" have no ?urisdi!tion toinvesti+ate !har+es of unethi!al !ondu!t of la-ers.

Attorne(s /ien

The D(oti!e and Claim to =nfor!e "ttorne-As <ienD dated e!ember 14, 1992 asfiled b- "tt-. &erardo ". el >undo to prote!t his !laim for attorne-As fees forle+al servi!es rendered in favor of the !laimants &.R. (o. 1#477$, Rollo, pp.041%044:.

" statement of a !laim for a !har+in+ lien shall be filed ith the !ourt or

administrative a+en!- hi!h renders and e;e!utes the mone- ?ud+ment se!uredb- the la-er for his !lients. The la-er shall !ause ritten noti!e thereof to bedelivered to his !lients and to the adverse part- Revised Rules of Court, Rule1)0, Se!. )7:. The statement of the !laim for the !har+in+ lien of "tt-. el >undoshould have been filed ith the administrative a+en!- that rendered ande;e!uted the ?ud+ment.

Contempt of Court

The !omplaint of "tt-. &erardo ". el >undo to !ite "tt-. lorante e Castro and "tt-. @at6 Tierra for violation of the Code of 'rofessional Responsibilit- should be

filed in a separate and appropriate pro!eedin+.

?.R. 4o. 10)911;1)

Claimants !har+e (<RC ith +rave abuse of dis!retion in not a!!eptin+ theirformula of DThree Fours "vera+e ail- *vertimeD in !omputin+ the overtimepa-ments. The- !laim that it as R itself hi!h proposed the formula durin+the ne+otiations for the settlement of their !laims in ahrain and therefore it is inestoppel to dis!laim said offer Rollo, pp. 21%22:.

Claimants presented a >emorandum of the >inistr- of <abor of ahrain dated

"pril 1$, 190), hi!h in pertinent part states "fter the perusal of the memorandum of the Bice President and t-e Area%anager, %iddle 2ast, of ron Root Co. and the Summar- of the!ompensation offered b- the Compan- to the emplo-ees in respe!t of thedifferen!e of pa- of the a+es of the overtime and the differen!e of va!ationleave and the perusal of the do!uments atta!hed thereto i.e., minutes of themeetin+s beteen the Representative of the emplo-ees and the mana+ement ofthe Compan-, the !omplaint filed b- the emplo-ees on 14E2E0) here the- have!laimed as hereinabove stated, sample of the Servi!e Contra!t e;e!uted



beteen one of the emplo-ees and the !ompan- throu+h its agent in si!:P-ilippines, Asia #nternational uilders Corporation here it has been providedfor 40 hours of ork per eek and an annual leave of 12 da-s and an overtimeage of 1 1D) of t-e normal -ourl( age.

;;; ;;; ;;;

The Compan- in its !omputation rea!hed the folloin+ avera+es

". 1. The avera+e duration of the a!tual servi!e of the emplo-ee is )5 months for the 'hilippino si!: emplo-ees . . . .

2. The avera+e a+e per hour for the 'hilippino si!: emplo-ee is SM2.$9 . . . .

). -e average -ours for t-e overtime is 3 -ours plus in all pu$lic -olida(s andeeends.

4. Pa(ment of UE>.7* per mont-s sic6 of service as compensation for t-edifference of t-e ages of t-e overtime done for ea!h 'hilippino si!:emplo-ee . . . Rollo, p.22:.

R and "C !ountered 1: that the >emorandum as not prepared b- thembut b- a subordinate offi!ial in the ahrain epartment of <abor 2: that thereas no shoin+ that the ahrain >inister of <abor had approved saidmemorandum and ): that the offer as made in the !ourse of the ne+otiationfor an ami!able settlement of the !laims and therefore it as not admissible ineviden!e to prove that an-thin+ is due to the !laimants.

8hile said do!ument as presented to the '*=" ithout observin+ the rule onpresentin+ offi!ial do!uments of a forei+n +overnment as provided in Se!tion 24,

Rule 1)2 of the 1909 Revised Rules on =viden!e, it !an be admitted in eviden!ein pro!eedin+s before an administrative bod-. The opposin+ parties have a !op-of the said memorandum, and the- !ould easil- verif- its authenti!it- anda!!ura!-.

The admissibilit- of the offer of !ompromise made b- R as !ontained in thememorandum is another matter. nder Se!tion 27, Rule 1)# of the 1909 RevisedRules on =viden!e, an offer to settle a !laim is not an admission that an-thin+ isdue.

Said Rule provides

*ffer of !ompromise not admissible. I n !ivil !ases, an offer of !ompromise isnot an admission of an- liabilit-, and is not admissible in eviden!e a+ainst theofferor.

This Rule is not onl- a rule of pro!edure to avoid the !lutterin+ of the re!ord ithunanted eviden!e but a statement of publi! poli!-. There is +reat publi! interestin havin+ the prota+onists settle their differen!es ami!able before these ripen into



liti+ation. =ver- effort must be taken to en!oura+e them to arrive at a settlement.The submission of offers and !ounter%offers in the ne+otiation table is a step inthe ri+ht dire!tion. ut to bind a part- to his offers, as hat !laimants ould makethis Court do, ould defeat the salutar- purpose of the Rule.

?.R. 4os. 1050*9;3*

". (<RC applied the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$, hi!h provides for +reaterbenefits than those stipulated in the overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts of the!laimants. t as of the belief that Dhere the las of the host !ountr- are morefavorable and benefi!ial to the orkers, then the las of the host !ountr- shallform part of the overseas emplo-ment !ontra!t.D t uoted ith approval theobservation of the '*=" "dministrator that D. . . in labor pro!eedin+s, all doubtsin the implementation of the provisions of the <abor Code and its implementin+re+ulations shall be resolved in favor of laborD Rollo, pp. 9#%94:.

"C and R !laim that (<RC a!ted !apri!iousl- and himsi!all- hen itrefused to enfor!e the overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts, hi!h be!ame the la ofthe parties. The- !ontend that the prin!iple that a la is deemed to be a part of a!ontra!t applies onl- to provisions of 'hilippine la in relation to !ontra!tse;e!uted in the 'hilippines.

The overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts, hi!h ere prepared b- "C and Rthemselves, provided that the las of the host !ountr- be!ame appli!able to said!ontra!ts if the- offer terms and !onditions more favorable that those stipulatedtherein. t as stipulated in said !ontra!ts that

The =mplo-ee a+rees that hile in the emplo- of the =mplo-er, he ill noten+a+e in another business or o!!upation, nor seek emplo-ment ith an-oneother than the =mplo-er that he shall devote his entire time and attention and hisbest ener+ies, and abilities to the performan!e of su!h duties as ma- beassi+ned to him b- the =mplo-er that he shall at all times be sub?e!t to thedire!tion and !ontrol of the =mplo-er and that the benefits provided to =mplo-eehereunder are substituted for and in lieu of all other benefits provided b- an-appli!able la, provided of course, t-at total remuneration and $enefits do not fall $elo t-at of t-e -ost countr( regulation or custom, it $eing understood t-ats-ould applica$le las esta$lis- t-at fringe $enefits, or ot-er suc- $enefitsadditional to t-e compensation -erein agreed cannot $e aived , =mplo-eea+rees that su!h !ompensation ill be ad?usted donard so that the total!ompensation hereunder, plus the non%aivable benefits shall be euivalent tothe !ompensation herein a+reed Rollo, pp. )52%)5):.

The overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts !ould have been drafted more feli!itousl-.8hile a part thereof provides that the !ompensation to the emplo-ee ma- beDad?usted donard so that the total !omputation thereunder: plus the non%aivable benefits shall be euivalent to the !ompensationD therein a+reed,another part of the same provision !ate+ori!all- states Dthat total remunerationand benefits do not fall belo that of the host !ountr- re+ulation and !ustom.D



"n- ambi+uit- in the overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts should be interpreteda+ainst "C and R, the parties that drafted it =astern Shippin+ <ines, n!. v.>ar+arine%Herkaufs%nion, 9) SCR" 257 J1979K:.

"rti!le 1)77 of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines provides

The interpretation of obs!ure ords or stipulations in a !ontra!t shall not favorthe part- ho !aused the obs!urit-.

Said rule of interpretation is appli!able to !ontra!ts of adhesion here there isalread- a prepared form !ontainin+ the stipulations of the emplo-ment !ontra!tand the emplo-ees merel- Dtake it or leave it.D The presumption is that there asan imposition b- one part- a+ainst the other and that the emplo-ees si+ned the!ontra!ts out of ne!essit- that redu!ed their bar+ainin+ poer ieldmenAsnsuran!e Co., n!. v. Son+!o, 25 SCR" 7# J19$0K:.

"ppl-in+ the said le+al pre!epts, e read the overseas%emplo-ment !ontra!ts inuestion as adoptin+ the provisions of the "miri e!ree (o. 2) of 197$ as partand par!el thereof.

The parties to a !ontra!t ma- sele!t the la b- hi!h it is to be +overnedCheshire, 'rivate nternational <a, 107 J7th ed.K:. n su!h a !ase, the forei+nla is adopted as a Ds-stemD to re+ulate the relations of the parties, in!ludin+uestions of their !apa!it- to enter into the !ontra!t, the formalities to beobserved b- them, matters of performan!e, and so forth 1$ "m 3ur 2d,15#%1$1:.

nstead of adoptin+ the entire mass of the forei+n la, the parties ma- ?ust a+ree

that spe!ifi! provisions of a forei+n statute shall be deemed in!orporated intotheir !ontra!t Das a set of terms.D - su!h referen!e to the provisions of theforei+n la, the !ontra!t does not be!ome a forei+n !ontra!t to be +overned b-the forei+n la. The said la does not operate as a statute but as a set of!ontra!tual terms deemed ritten in the !ontra!t "nton, 'rivate nternational<a, 197 J19$7K i!e- and >orris, The Confli!t of <as, 7#2%7#), J0th ed.K:.

" basi! poli!- of !ontra!t is to prote!t the e;pe!tation of the parties Reese,Choi!e of <a in Torts and Contra!ts, 1$ Columbia 3ournal of Transnational <a1, 21 J1977K:. Su!h part- e;pe!tation is prote!ted b- +ivin+ effe!t to the partiesAon !hoi!e of the appli!able la ri!ke v. sbrandtsen Co., n!., 151 . Supp.

4$5, 4$7 J1957K:. The !hoi!e of la must, hoever, bear some relationship to theparties or their transa!tion S!oles and Fa-es, Confli!t of <a $44%$47 J1902K:.There is no uestion that the !ontra!ts sou+ht to be enfor!ed b- !laimants havea dire!t !onne!tion ith the ahrain la be!ause the servi!es ere rendered inthat !ountr-.

n 4orse %anagement Co. P26 v. 4ational eamen oard , 117 SCR" 40$1902:, the D=mplo-ment "+reement,D beteen (orse >ana+ement Co. and the



late husband of the private respondent, e;pressl- provided that in the event ofillness or in?ur- to the emplo-ee arisin+ out of and in the !ourse of hisemplo-ment and not due to his on mis!ondu!t, D!ompensation shall be paid toemplo-ee in a!!ordan!e ith and sub?e!t to the limitation of the 8orkmenAsCompensation "!t of the Republi! of the 'hilippines or the 8orkerAs nsuran!e

"!t of re+istr- of the vessel, hi!hever is +reater.D Sin!e the las of Sin+apore,the pla!e of re+istr- of the vessel in hi!h the late husband of private respondentserved at the time of his death, +ranted a better !ompensation pa!ka+e, eapplied said forei+n la in preferen!e to the terms of the !ontra!t.

The !ase of agong 8ilipinas &verseas Corporation v. 4ational /a$or RelationsCommission, 1)5 SCR" 270 1905:, relied upon b- "C and R is inappositeto the fa!ts of the !ases at ben!h. The issue in that !ase as hether theamount of the death !ompensation of a ilipino seaman should be determinedunder the shipboard emplo-ment !ontra!t e;e!uted in the 'hilippines or theFon+kon+ la. Foldin+ that the shipboard emplo-ment !ontra!t as !ontrollin+,

the !ourt differentiated said !ase from (orse >ana+ement Co. in that in the latter !ase there as an e;press stipulation in the emplo-ment !ontra!t that the forei+nla ould be appli!able if it afforded +reater !ompensation.

. "C and R !laim that the- ere denied b- (<RC of their ri+ht to duepro!ess hen said administrative a+en!- +ranted rida-%pa- differential, holida-%pa- differential, annual%leave differential and leave indemnit- pa- to the !laimantslisted in "nne; of the Resolution. "t first, (<RC reversed the resolution of the'*=" "dministrator +rantin+ these benefits on a findin+ that the '*="

"dministrator failed to !onsider the eviden!e presented b- "C and R, thatsome findin+s of fa!t of the '*=" "dministrator ere not supported b- the

eviden!e, and that some of the eviden!e ere not dis!losed to "C and RRollo, pp. )5%)$ 1#$%1#7:. ut instead of remandin+ the !ase to the '*=" "dministrator for a ne hearin+, hi!h means further dela- in the termination ofthe !ase, (<RC de!ided to pass upon the validit- of the !laims itself. t is thispro!edure that "C and R !omplain of as bein+ irre+ular and a Dreversibleerror.D

The- pointed out that (<RC took into !onsideration eviden!e submitted onappeal, the same eviden!e hi!h (<RC found to have been Dunilaterall-submitted b- the !laimants and not dis!losed to the adverse partiesD Rollo, pp.)7%)9:.

(<RC noted that so man- pie!es of evidentiar- matters ere submitted to the'*=" administrator b- the !laimants after the !ases ere deemed submitted forresolution and hi!h ere taken !o+ni6an!e of b- the '*=" "dministrator inresolvin+ the !ases. 8hile "C and R had no opportunit- to refute saideviden!e of the !laimants before the '*=" "dministrator, the- had all theopportunit- to rebut said eviden!e and to present their !ounter%eviden!e before (<RC. "s a matter of fa!t, "C and R themselves



ere able to present before (<RC additional eviden!e hi!h the- failed topresent before the '*=" "dministrator.

nder "rti!le 221 of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines, (<RC is en?oined to Duseever- and all reasonable means to as!ertain the fa!ts in ea!h !ase speedil- and

ob?e!tivel- and ithout re+ard to te!hni!alities of la or pro!edure, all in theinterest of due pro!ess.D

n de!idin+ to resolve the validit- of !ertain !laims on the basis of the eviden!e of both parties submitted before the '*=" "dministrator and (<RC, the latter!onsidered that it as not e;pedient to remand the !ases to the '*="

"dministrator for that ould onl- prolon+ the alread- protra!ted le+al!ontroversies.

=ven the Supreme Court has de!ided appealed !ases on the merits instead ofremandin+ them to the trial !ourt for the re!eption of eviden!e, here the same

!an be readil- determined from the un!ontroverted fa!ts on re!ord evelopmentank of the 'hilippines v. ntermediate "ppellate Court, 19# SCR" $5) J199#K'a+donsalan v. (ational <abor Relations Commission, 127 SCR" 4$) J1904K:.

C. "C and R !har+e (<RC ith +rave abuse of dis!retion hen it orderedthe '*=" "dministrator to hold ne hearin+s for $0) !laimants listed in "nne; of the Resolution dated September 2, 1991 hose !laims had been denied b-the '*=" "dministrator Dfor la!k of proofD and for $9 !laimants listed in "nne; =of the same Resolution, hose !laims had been found b- (<RC itself as notDsupported b- eviden!eD Rollo, pp. 41%45:.

(<RC based its rulin+ on "rti!le 210!: of the <abor Code of the 'hilippines,hi!h empoers it DJtoK !ondu!t investi+ation for the determination of a uestion,matter or !ontrovers-, ithin its ?urisdi!tion, . . . .D

t is the posture of "C and R that (<RC has no authorit- under "rti!le 210!:to remand a !ase involvin+ !laims hi!h had alread- been dismissed be!ausesu!h provision !ontemplates onl- situations here there is still a uestion or!ontrovers- to be resolved Rollo, pp. 41%42:.

" prin!iple ell embedded in "dministrative <a is that the te!hni!al rules ofpro!edure and eviden!e do not appl- to the pro!eedin+s !ondu!ted b-

administrative a+en!ies irst "sian Transport L Shippin+ "+en!-, n!. v. *ple,142 SCR" 542 J190$K "siaorld 'ublishin+ Fouse, n!. v. *ple, 152 SCR" 219J1907K:. This prin!iple is enshrined in "rti!le 221 of the <abor Code of the'hilippines and is no the bedro!k of pro!eedin+s before (<RC.

(otithstandin+ the non%appli!abilit- of te!hni!al rules of pro!edure andeviden!e in administrative pro!eedin+s, there are !ardinal rules hi!h must beobserved b- the hearin+ offi!ers in order to !ompl- ith the due pro!ess



reuirements of the Constitution. These !ardinal rules are !ollated in Ang i$a(v. Court of #ndustrial Relations, $9 'hil. $)5 194#:.

H

The three petitions ere filed under Rule $5 of the Revised Rules of Court on the+rounds that (<RC had !ommitted +rave abuse of dis!retion amountin+ to la!kof ?urisdi!tion in issuin+ the uestioned orders. 8e find no su!h abuse ofdis!retion.

8F=R=*R=, all the three petitions are S>SS=.

S* *R=R=.



G.R. No. L63845 October 8, 198

ALICE REES AN DORN, petitioner,

vs."ON. MANUEL . ROMILLO, *R., a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o Brac% C>,Re)$oa- Tr$a- Co+rt o t%e Nat$oa- Ca'$ta- Re)$o Pa&a( C$t( a!RIC"ARD UPTON respondents.

MELENCIO6"ERRERA, J.:\

n this 'etition for !ertiorari and 'rohibition, petitioner "li!e Re-es Han ornseeks to set aside the *rders, dated September 15, 190) and "u+ust ), 1904, in

Civil Case (o. 1#75%', issued b- respondent 3ud+e, hi!h denied her >otion toismiss said !ase, and her >otion for Re!onsideration of the ismissal *rder,respe!tivel-.

The basi! ba!k+round fa!ts are that petitioner is a !iti6en of the 'hilippines hileprivate respondent is a !iti6en of the nited States that the- ere married inFon+kon+ in 1972 that, after the marria+e, the- established their residen!e inthe 'hilippines that thebe+ot to !hildren born on "pril 4, 197) and e!ember10, 1975, respe!tivel- that the parties ere divor!ed in (evada, nited States,in 1902 and that petitioner has re%married also in (evada, this time to TheodoreHan orn.

ated 3une 0, 190), private respondent filed suit a+ainst petitioner in Civil Case(o. 1#75%' of the Re+ional Trial Court, ran!h COH, in 'asa- Cit-, statin+ thatpetitionerAs business in =rmita, >anila, the &alleon Shop, for short:, is !on?u+alpropert- of the parties, and askin+ that petitioner be ordered to render ana!!ountin+ of that business, and that private respondent be de!lared ith ri+ht tomana+e the !on?u+al propert-. 'etitioner moved to dismiss the !ase on the+round that the !ause of a!tion is barred b- previous ?ud+ment in the divor!epro!eedin+s before the (evada Court herein respondent had a!knoled+edthat he and petitioner had Dno !ommunit- propert-D as of 3une 11, 1902. TheCourt belo denied the >otion to ismiss in the mentioned !ase on the +round

that the propert- involved is lo!ated in the 'hilippines so that the ivor!e e!reehas no bearin+ in the !ase. The denial is no the sub?e!t of this !ertioraripro!eedin+.

&enerall-, the denial of a >otion to ismiss in a !ivil !ase is interlo!utor- and isnot sub?e!t to appeal. !ertiorari and 'rohibition are neither the remedies touestion the propriet- of an interlo!utor- order of the trial Court. Foever, hena +rave abuse of dis!retion as patentl- !ommitted, or the loer Court a!ted



!apri!iousl- and himsi!all-, then it devolves upon this Court in a !ertioraripro!eedin+ to e;er!ise its supervisor- authorit- and to !orre!t the error!ommitted hi!h, in su!h a !ase, is euivalent to la!k of ?urisdi!tion. 1 'rohibitionould then lie sin!e it ould be useless and a aste of time to +o ahead ith thepro!eedin+s. 2 8e!onsider the petition filed in this !ase ithin the e;!eption, and

e have +iven it due !ourse.

or resolution is the effe!t of the forei+n divor!e on the parties and their alle+ed!on?u+al propert- in the 'hilippines.

'etitioner !ontends that respondent is estopped from la-in+ !laim on the alle+ed!on?u+al propert- be!ause of the representation he made in the divor!epro!eedin+s before the "meri!an Court that the- had no !ommunit- of propert-that the &alleon Shop as not established throu+h !on?u+al funds, and thatrespondentAs !laim is barred b- prior ?ud+ment.

or his part, respondent avers that the ivor!e e!ree issued b- the (evadaCourt !annot prevail over the prohibitive las of the 'hilippines and its de!larednational poli!- that the a!ts and de!laration of a forei+n Court !annot, espe!iall-if the same is !ontrar- to publi! poli!-, divest 'hilippine Courts of ?urisdi!tion toentertain matters ithin its ?urisdi!tion.

or the resolution of this !ase, it is not ne!essar- to determine hether thepropert- relations beteen petitioner and private respondent, after their marria+e,ere upon absolute or relative !ommunit- propert-, upon !omplete separation ofpropert-, or upon another re+ime. The pivotal fa!t in this !ase is the (evadadivorce of the parties.

The (evada istri!t Court, hi!h de!reed the divor!e, had obtained ?urisdi!tionover petitioner ho appeared in person before the Court durin+ the trial of the!ase. t also obtained ?urisdi!tion over private respondent ho, +ivin+ his addressas (o. )01 ush Street, San ran!is!o, California, authori6ed his attorne-s in thedivor!e !ase, @arp L &radt <td., to a+ree to the divor!e on the +round ofin!ompatibilit- in the understandin+ that there ere neither !ommunit- propert-nor !ommunit- obli+ations. 0 "s e;pli!itl- stated in the 'oer of "ttorne- hee;e!uted in favor of the la firm of @"R' L &R" <T., ))$ 8. <ibert-, Reno,(evada, to represent him in the divor!e pro!eedin+s

;;; ;;; ;;;

Bou are hereb- authori6ed to a!!ept servi!e of Summons, to file an "nser,appear on m- behalf and do an thin+s ne!essar- and proper to represent me,ithout further !ontestin+, sub?e!t to the folloin+

1. That m- spouse seeks a divor!e on the +round of in!ompatibilit-.

2. That there is no !ommunit- of propert- to be ad?udi!ated b- the Court.



). AAhat there are no !ommunit- obli+ations to be ad?udi!ated b- the !ourt.

;;; ;;; ;;;

There !an be no uestion as to the validit- of that (evada divor!e in an- of theStates of the nited States. The de!ree is bindin+ on private respondent as an

"meri!an !iti6en. or instan!e, private respondent !annot sue petitioner, as -er-us$and , in an- State of the nion. 8hat he is !ontendin+ in this !ase is that thedivor!e is not valid and bindin+ in this ?urisdi!tion, the same bein+ !ontrar- tolo!al la and publi! poli!-.

t is true that oin+ to the nationalit- prin!iple embodied in "rti!le 15 of the CivilCode, onl- 'hilippine nationals are !overed b- the poli!- a+ainst absolutedivor!es the same bein+ !onsidered !ontrar- to our !on!ept of publi! poli!e andmoralit-. Foever, aliens ma- obtain divor!es abroad, hi!h ma- be re!o+ni6edin the 'hilippines, provided the- are valid a!!ordin+ to their national la. 3 n this!ase, the divor!e in (evada released private respondent from the marria+e from

the standards of "meri!an la, under hi!h divorce dissolves t-e marriage. "sstated b- the 8ederal upreme Court of t-e United tates in At-erton vs.

At-erton, 45 <. =d. 794, 799

The purpose and effe!t of a de!ree of divor!e from the bond of matrimon- b- a!ourt of !ompetent ?urisdi!tion are to !han+e the e;istin+ status or domesti!relation of husband and ife, and to free them both from the bond. The marria+etie hen thus severed as to one part-, !eases to bind either. " husband ithout aife, or a ife ithout a husband, is unknon to the la. 8hen the la provides,in the nature of a penalt-. that the +uilt- part- shall not marr- a+ain, that part-, asell as the other, is still absolutel- freed from the bond of the former marria+e.

Thus, pursuant to his national la, private respondent is no lon+er the husbandof petitioner. Fe ould have no standin+ to sue in the !ase belo as petitionerAshusband entitled to e;er!ise !ontrol over !on?u+al assets. "s he is bound b- thee!ision of his on !ountr-As Court, hi!h validl- e;er!ised ?urisdi!tion over him,and hose de!ision he does not repudiate, he is estopped b- his onrepresentation before said Court from assertin+ his ri+ht over the alle+ed!on?u+al propert-.

To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our las, petitioner has tobe !onsidered still married to private respondent and still sub?e!t to a ifeAsobli+ations under "rti!le 1#9, et. se. of the Civil Code !annot be ?ust. 'etitioner

should not be obli+ed to live to+ether ith, observe respe!t and fidelit-, andrender support to private respondent. The latter should not !ontinue to be one ofher heirs ith possible ri+hts to !on?u+al propert-. She should not bedis!riminated a+ainst in her on !ountr- if the ends of ?usti!e are to be served.

8F=R=*R=, the 'etition is +ranted, and respondent 3ud+e is hereb- orderedto dismiss the Complaint filed in Civil Case (o. 1#75%' of his Court.



8ithout !osts.

S* *R=R=.



G.R. No. 85113 *+e 05, 1989

IMELDA MANALASA PILAPIL, petitioner,

vs."ON. CORONA IBA6SOMERA, $ %er ca'ac$t( a& Pre&$!$) *+!)e o t%eRe)$oa- Tr$a- Co+rt o Ma$-a, Brac% >>I "ON. LUIS C. ICTOR, $ %$&ca'ac$t( a& t%e C$t( F$&ca- o Ma$-a a! ERIC" E@@E"ARD GEILING,respondents.

REGALADO, J.:

"n ill%starred marria+e of a ilipina and a forei+ner hi!h ended in a forei+n

absolute divor!e, onl- to be folloed b- a !riminal infidelit- suit of the lattera+ainst the former, provides s the opportunit- to la- don a de!isional rule onhat hitherto appears to be an unresolved ?urisdi!tional uestion.

*n September 7, 1979, petitioner melda >anala-sa- 'ilapil, a ilipino !iti6en,and private respondent =ri!h =kkehard &eilin+, a &erman national, ere marriedbefore the Re+istrar of irths, >arria+es and eaths at riedenseiler in theederal Republi! of &erman-. The marria+e started auspi!iousl- enou+h, andthe !ouple lived to+ether for some time in >alate, >anila here their onl- !hild,sabella 'ilapil &eilin+, as born on "pril 2#, 190#. 1

Thereafter, marital dis!ord set in, ith mutual re!riminations beteen thespouses, folloed b- a separation de fa!to beteen them.

"fter about three and a half -ears of marria+e, su!h !onnubial disharmon-eventuated in private respondent initiatin+ a divor!e pro!eedin+ a+ainst petitioner in &erman- before the S!honeber+ <o!al Court in 3anuar-, 190). Fe !laimedthat there as failure of their marria+e and that the- had been livin+ apart sin!e

"pril, 1902. 2

'etitioner, on the other hand, filed an a!tion for le+al separation, support andseparation of propert- before the Re+ional Trial Court of >anila, ran!h OOO,

on 3anuar- 2), 190) here the same is still pendin+ as Civil Case (o. 0)%150$$.0

*n 3anuar- 15, 190$, ivision 2# of the S!honeber+ <o!al Court, ederalRepubli! of &erman-, promul+ated a de!ree of divor!e on the +round of failure of marria+e of the spouses. The !ustod- of the !hild as +ranted to petitioner. There!ords sho that under &erman la said !ourt as lo!all- and internationall-!ompetent for the divor!e pro!eedin+ and that the dissolution of said marria+e



as le+all- founded on and authori6ed b- the appli!able la of that forei+n ?urisdi!tion.

*n 3une 27, 190$, or more than five months after the issuan!e of the divor!ede!ree, private respondent filed to !omplaints for adulter- before the Cit- is!al

of >anila alle+in+ that, hile still married to said respondent, petitioner Dhad anaffair ith a !ertain 8illiam Chia as earl- as 1902 and ith -et another mannamed 3esus Chua sometime in 190)D. "ssistant is!al 3a!into ". de los Re-es,3r., after the !orrespondin+ investi+ation, re!ommended the dismissal of the!ases on the +round of insuffi!ien!- of eviden!e. Foever, upon revie, therespondent !it- fis!al approved a resolution, dated 3anuar- 0, 190$, dire!tin+ thefilin+ of to !omplaints for adulter- a+ainst the petitioner. 3 The !omplaints erea!!ordin+l- filed and ere eventuall- raffled to to bran!hes of the Re+ional TrialCourt of >anila. The !ase entitled FPeople of t-e P-ilippines vs. #melda Pilapiland =illiam C-iaF, do!keted as Criminal Case (o. 07%524)5, as assi+ned toran!h OOH presided b- the respondent ?ud+e hile the other !ase, FPeople of

t-e P-ilippines vs. #melda Pilapil and 'ames C-uaF , do!keted as Criminal Case(o. 07%524)4 ent to the sala of 3ud+e <eonardo Cru6, ran!h OOH, of thesame !ourt. 4

*n >ar!h 14, 1907, petitioner filed a petition ith the Se!retar- of 3usti!e askin+that the aforesaid resolution of respondent fis!al be set aside and the !asesa+ainst her be dismissed. 8 " similar petition as filed b- 3ames Chua, her !o%a!!used in Criminal Case (o. 07%524)4. The Se!retar- of 3usti!e, throu+h theChief State 'rose!utor, +ave due !ourse to both petitions and dire!ted therespondent !it- fis!al to inform the epartment of 3usti!e Dif the a!!used havealread- been arrai+ned and if not -et arrai+ned, to move to defer further

pro!eedin+sD and to elevate the entire re!ords of both !ases to his offi!e forrevie. 9

'etitioner thereafter filed a motion in both !riminal !ases to defer her arrai+nmentand to suspend further pro!eedin+s thereon. 15 "s a !onseuen!e, 3ud+e<eonardo Cru6 suspended pro!eedin+s in Criminal Case (o. 07%524)4. *n theother hand, respondent ?ud+e merel- reset the date of the arrai+nment inCriminal Case (o. 07%524)5 to "pril $, 1907. efore su!h s!heduled date,petitioner moved for the !an!ellation of the arrai+nment and for the suspension of pro!eedin+s in said Criminal Case (o. 07%524)5 until after the resolution of thepetition for revie then pendin+ before the Se!retar- of 3usti!e. 11 " motion touash as also filed in the same !ase on the +round of la!k of ?urisdi!tion, 12 hi!h motion as denied b- the respondent ?ud+e in an order dated September0, 1907. The same order also dire!ted the arrai+nment of both a!!used therein,that is, petitioner and 8illiam Chia. The latter entered a plea of not +uilt- hilethe petitioner refused to be arrai+ned. Su!h refusal of the petitioner bein+!onsidered b- respondent ?ud+e as dire!t !ontempt, she and her !ounsel erefined and the former as ordered detained until she submitted herself forarrai+nment. 10 <ater, private respondent entered a plea of not +uilt-. 1



*n *!tober 27, 1907, petitioner filed this spe!ial !ivil a!tion for certiorari andprohibition, ith a pra-er for a temporar- restrainin+ order, seekin+ theannulment of the order of the loer !ourt den-in+ her motion to uash. Thepetition is an!hored on the main +round that the !ourt is ithout ?urisdi!tion Dto tr-and de!ide the !har+e of adulter-, hi!h is a private offense that !annot be

prose!uted de officio si!:, sin!e the purported !omplainant, a forei+ner, does notualif- as an offended spouse havin+ obtained a final divor!e de!ree under hisnational la prior to his filin+ the !riminal !omplaint.D 1

*n *!tober 21, 1907, this Court issued a temporar- restrainin+ order en?oinin+the respondents from implementin+ the aforesaid order of September 0, 1907and from further pro!eedin+ ith Criminal Case (o. 07%524)5. Subseuentl-, on>ar!h 2), 1900 Se!retar- of 3usti!e Sedfre- ". *rdoPe6 a!ted on the aforesaidpetitions for revie and, upholdin+ petitionerAs ratio!inations, issued a resolutiondire!tin+ the respondent !it- fis!al to move for the dismissal of the !omplaintsa+ainst the petitioner. 13

8e find this petition meritorious. The rits pra-ed for shall a!!ordin+l- issue.

nder "rti!le )44 of the Revised 'enal Code, 14 the !rime of adulter-, as ell asfour other !rimes a+ainst !hastit-, !annot be prose!uted e;!ept upon a sornritten !omplaint filed b- the offended spouse. t has lon+ sin!e beenestablished, ith unaverin+ !onsisten!-, that !omplian!e ith this rule is a

?urisdi!tional, and not merel- a formal, reuirement. 18 8hile in point of stri!t lathe ?urisdi!tion of the !ourt over the offense is vested in it b- the 3udi!iar- <a,the reuirement for a sorn ritten !omplaint is ?ust as ?urisdi!tional a mandatesin!e it is that !omplaint hi!h starts the prose!utor- pro!eedin+ 19 and ithout

hi!h the !ourt !annot e;er!ise its ?urisdi!tion to tr- the !ase.

(o, the la spe!ifi!all- provides that in prose!utions for adulter- and!on!ubina+e the person ho !an le+all- file the !omplaint should be theoffended spouse, and nobod- else. nlike the offenses of sedu!tion, abdu!tion,rape and a!ts of las!iviousness, no provision is made for the prose!ution of the!rimes of adulter- and !on!ubina+e b- the parents, +randparents or +uardian ofthe offended part-. The so%!alled e;!lusive and su!!essive rule in theprose!ution of the first four offenses above mentioned do not appl- to adulter-and !on!ubina+e. t is si+nifi!ant that hile the State, as parens patriae, asadded and vested b- the 1905 Rules of Criminal 'ro!edure ith the poer toinitiate the !riminal a!tion for a de!eased or in!apa!itated vi!tim in the aforesaidoffenses of sedu!tion, abdu!tion, rape and a!ts of las!iviousness, in default ofher parents, +randparents or +uardian, su!h amendment did not in!lude the!rimes of adulter- and !on!ubina+e. n other ords, onl- the offended spouse,and no other, is authori6ed b- la to initiate the a!tion therefor.

Corollar- to su!h e;!lusive +rant of poer to the offended spouse to institute thea!tion, it ne!essaril- follos that su!h initiator must have the status, !apa!it- or



le+al representation to do so at the time of the filin+ of the !riminal a!tion. This isa familiar and e;press rule in !ivil a!tions in fa!t, la!k of le+al !apa!it- to sue, asa +round for a motion to dismiss in !ivil !ases, is determined as of the filin+ of the!omplaint or petition.

The absen!e of an euivalent e;pli!it rule in the prose!ution of !riminal !asesdoes not mean that the same reuirement and rationale ould not appl-.nderstandabl-, it ma- not have been found ne!essar- sin!e !riminal a!tions are+enerall- and fundamentall- !ommen!ed b- the State, throu+h the 'eople of the'hilippines, the offended part- bein+ merel- the !omplainin+ itness therein.Foever, in the so%!alled Dprivate !rimesD or those hi!h !annot be prose!utedde oficio, and the present prose!ution for adulter- is of su!h +enre, the offendedspouse assumes a more predominant role sin!e the ri+ht to !ommen!e thea!tion, or to refrain therefrom, is a matter e;!lusivel- ithin his poer and option.

This poli!- as adopted out of !onsideration for the a++rieved part- ho mi+ht

prefer to suffer the outra+e in silen!e rather than +o throu+h the s!andal of apubli! trial. 25 Fen!e, as !o+entl- ar+ued b- petitioner, "rti!le )44 of the Revised'enal Code thus presupposes that the marital relationship is still subsistin+ at thetime of the institution of the !riminal a!tion for, adulter-. This is a lo+i!al!onseuen!e sin!e the raison detre of said provision of la ould be absenthere the supposed offended part- had !eased to be the spouse of the alle+edoffender at the time of the filin+ of the !riminal !ase. 21

n these !ases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and !apa!it- of the!omplainant to !ommen!e the a!tion be definitel- established and, as alread-demonstrated, su!h status or !apa!it- must indubitabl- e;ist as of the time he

initiates the a!tion. t ould be absurd if his !apa!it- to brin+ the a!tion ould bedetermined b- his status $efore or su$seuent to the !ommen!ement thereof,here su!h !apa!it- or status e;isted prior to but !eased before, or as a!uiredsubseuent to but did not e;ist at the time of, the institution of the !ase. 8eould thereb- have the anomalous spe!ta!le of a part- brin+in+ suit at the ver-time hen he is ithout the le+al !apa!it- to do so.

To repeat, there does not appear to be an- lo!al pre!edential ?urispruden!e onthe spe!ifi! issue as to hen pre!isel- the status of a !omplainant as anoffended spouse must e;ist here a !riminal prose!ution !an be !ommen!edonl- b- one ho in la !an be !ate+ori6ed as possessed of su!h status. Stateddifferentl- and ith referen!e to the present !ase, the inuir- ould be hether itis ne!essar- in the !ommen!ement of a !riminal a!tion for adulter- that themarital bonds beteen the !omplainant and the a!!used be unsevered ande;istin+ at the time of the institution of the a!tion b- the former a+ainst the latter.

"meri!an ?urispruden!e, on !ases involvin+ statutes in that ?urisdi!tion hi!h arein pari materia ith ours, -ields the rule that after a divorce -as $een decreed,t-e innocent spouse no longer -as t-e rig-t to institute proceedings against t-e



offenders here the statute provides that the inno!ent spouse shall have thee;!lusive ri+ht to institute a prose!ution for adulter-. 8here, hoever,pro!eedin+s have been properl- !ommen!ed, a divor!e subseuentl- +ranted!an have no le+al effe!t on the prose!ution of the !riminal pro!eedin+s to a!on!lusion. 22

n the !ited /oftus !ase, the Supreme Court of oa held that I

A(o prose!ution for adulter- !an be !ommen!ed e;!ept on the !omplaint of thehusband or ife.A Se!tion 49)2, Code. -oug- /oftus as -us$and of defendant-en t-e offense is said to -ave $een committed, -e -ad ceased to $e suc--en t-e prosecution as $egun and appellant insists that his status as notsu!h as to entitle him to make the !omplaint. 8e have repeatedl- said that theoffense is a+ainst the unoffendin+ spouse, as ell as the state, in e;plainin+ thereason for this provision in the statute and e are of the opinion that t-eunoffending spouse must $e suc- -en t-e prosecution is commenced .=mphasis supplied.:

8e see no reason h- the same do!trinal rule should not appl- in this !ase andin our ?urisdi!tion, !onsiderin+ our statutor- la and ?ural poli!- on the matter. 8eare !onvin!ed that in !ases of su!h nature, the status of the !omplainant vis%a%vis the a!!used must be determined as of the time the !omplaint as filed. Thus,the person ho initiates the adulter- !ase must be an offended spouse, and b-this is meant that he is still married to the a!!used spouse, at the time of the filin+of the !omplaint.

n the present !ase, the fa!t that private respondent obtained a valid divor!e inhis !ountr-, the ederal Republi! of &erman-, is admitted. Said divor!e and itsle+al effe!ts ma- be re!o+ni6ed in the 'hilippines insofar as private respondent

is !on!erned 20 in vie of the nationalit- prin!iple in our !ivil la on the matter ofstatus of persons.

Thus, in the re!ent !ase of Ban !orn vs. Romillo, 'r., et al., 2 after a divor!e as+ranted b- a nited States !ourt beteen "li!e Han orn?a ilipina, and her

"meri!an husband, the latter filed a !ivil !ase in a trial !ourt here alle+in+ thather business !on!ern as !on?u+al propert- and pra-in+ that she be ordered torender an a!!ountin+ and that the plaintiff be +ranted the ri+ht to mana+e thebusiness. Re?e!tin+ his pretensions, this Court perspi!uousl- demonstrated theerror of su!h stan!e, thus

There !an be no uestion as to the validit- of that (evada divor!e in an- of theStates of the nited States. The de!ree is bindin+ on private respondent as an

"meri!an !iti6en. or instan!e, private respondent !annot sue petitioner, as herhusband, in an- State of the nion. ...

t is true that oin+ to the nationalit- prin!iple embodied in "rti!le 15 of the CivilCode, onl- 'hilippine nationals are !overed b- the poli!- a+ainst absolutedivor!es the same bein+ !onsidered !ontrar- to our !on!ept of publi! poli!- and



moralit-. Foever, aliens ma- obtain divor!es abroad, hi!h ma- be re!o+ni6edin the 'hilippines, provided the- are valid a!!ordin+ to their national la. ...

Thus, pursuant to his national la, private respondent is no lon+er the husbandof petitioner. Fe ould have no standin+ to sue in the !ase belo as petitionerAshusband entitled to e;er!ise !ontrol over !on?u+al assets. ... 2

nder the same !onsiderations and rationale, private respondent, bein+ nolon+er the husband of petitioner, had no le+al standin+ to !ommen!e the adulter-!ase under the imposture that he as the offended spouse at the time he filedsuit.

The alle+ation of private respondent that he !ould not have brou+ht this !asebefore the de!ree of divor!e for la!k of knoled+e, even if true, is of no le+alsi+nifi!an!e or !onseuen!e in this !ase. 8hen said respondent initiated thedivor!e pro!eedin+, he obviousl- kne that there ould no lon+er be a famil- nor marria+e vos to prote!t on!e a dissolution of the marria+e is de!reed. (either

ould there be a dan+er of introdu!in+ spurious heirs into the famil-, hi!h issaid to be one of the reasons for the parti!ular formulation of our la on adulter-,23 sin!e there ould then!eforth be no spousal relationship to speak of. Theseveran!e of the marital bond had the effe!t of disso!iatin+ the former spousesfrom ea!h other, hen!e the a!tuations of one ould not affe!t or !ast oblou- onthe other.

The afore!ited !ase of United tates vs. %ata !annot be su!!essfull- relied uponb- private respondent. n appl-in+ "rti!le 4)) of the old 'enal Code, substantiall-the same as "rti!le ))) of the Revised 'enal Code, hi!h punished adulter-Dalthou+h the marria+e be afterards de!lared voidD, the Court merel- stated that

Dthe lamakers intended to de!lare adulterous the infidelit- of a married omanto her marital vos, even thou+h it should be made to appear that she is entitledto have her marria+e !ontra!t de!lared null and void, until and unless shea!tuall- se!ures a formal ?udi!ial de!laration to that effe!tD. efinitel-, it !annotbe lo+i!all- inferred therefrom that the !omplaint !an still be filed after thede!laration of nullit- be!ause su!h de!laration that the marria+e is void a$ initio is euivalent to statin+ that it never e;isted. There bein+ no marria+e from thebe+innin+, an- !omplaint for adulter- filed after said de!laration of nullit- ouldno lon+er have a le+ to stand on. >oreover, hat as !onseuentl-!ontemplated and ithin the purvie of the de!ision in said !ase is the situationhere the !riminal a!tion for adulter- as filed $efore the termination of the

marria+e b- a ?udi!ial de!laration of its nullit- a$ initio. The same rule andreuisite ould ne!essaril- appl- here the termination of the marria+e aseffe!ted, as in this !ase, b- a valid forei+n divor!e.

'rivate respondentAs invo!ation of !onio;eves, et al. vs. Bamenta, hereinbefore!ited, 24 must suffer the same fate of inappli!abilit-. " !ursor- readin+ of said !asereveals that the offended spouse therein had dul- and seasonabl- filed a!omplaint for adulter-, althou+h an issue as raised as to its suffi!ien!- but



hi!h as resolved in favor of the !omplainant. Said !ase did not involve afa!tual situation akin to the one at bar or an- issue determinative of the!ontrovers- herein.

8F=R=*R=, the uestioned order den-in+ petitionerAs motion to uash is 2

A#!2 and another one entered !#%##4? the !omplaint in Criminal Case(o. 07%524)5 for la!k of ?urisdi!tion. The temporar- restrainin+ order issued inthis !ase on *!tober 21, 1907 is hereb- made permanent.

S* *R=R=.



J&.R. (o. 124)71. (ovember 2), 2###K

'"<" T. <<*R=(T=, petitioner, vs. C*RT * "''="<S and "<C" .

<<*R=(T=, respondents.

= C S * (

'"R*, ' .

The Case

The !ase raises a !onfli!t of las issue.

8hat is before us is an appeal from the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals

modif-in+ that of the Re+ional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, ran!h )5, ri+a Cit-de!larin+ respondent "li!ia . <lorente herinafter referred to as Q"li!ia:, as !o%oners of hatever propert- she and the de!eased <oren6o (. <lorentehereinafter referred to as Q<oren6o: ma- have a!uired durin+ the tent-%five25: -ears that the- lived to+ether as husband and ife.

The a!ts

The de!eased <oren6o (. <lorente as an enlisted servi!eman of the nitedStates (av- from >ar!h 1#, 1927 to September )#, 1957.

*n ebruar- 22, 19)7, <oren6o and petitioner 'aula <lorente hereinafterreferred to as Q'aula: ere married before a parish priest, Roman Catholi!Chur!h, in (abua, Camarines Sur.

efore the outbreak of the 'a!ifi! 8ar, <oren6o departed for the nited Statesand 'aula sta-ed in the !on?u+al home in barrio "ntipolo, (abua, Camarines Sur.

*n (ovember )#, 194), <oren6o as admitted to nited States !iti6enship andCertifi!ate of (aturali6ation (o. 557901$ as issued in his favor b- the nitedStates istri!t Court, Southern istri!t of (e Bork.

pon the liberation of the 'hilippines b- the "meri!an or!es in 1945, <oren6oas +ranted an a!!rued leave b- the . S. (av-, to visit his ife and he visitedthe 'hilippines. Fe dis!overed that his ife 'aula as pre+nant and as Qlivin+in and havin+ an adulterous relationship ith his brother, Ceferino <lorente.

*n e!ember 4, 1945, 'aula +ave birth to a bo- re+istered in the *ffi!e of theRe+istrar of (abua as QCrisolo+o <lorente, ith the !ertifi!ate statin+ that the!hild as not le+itimate and the line for the fathers name as left blank.



<oren6o refused to for+ive 'aula and live ith her. n fa!t, on ebruar- 2, 194$,the !ouple dre a ritten a+reement to the effe!t that 1: all the famil-alloan!es allotted b- the nited States (av- as part of <oren6os salar- and allother obli+ations for 'aulas dail- maintenan!e and support ould be suspended2: the- ould dissolve their marital union in a!!ordan!e ith ?udi!ial

pro!eedin+s ): the- ould make a separate a+reement re+ardin+ their !on?u+alpropert- a!uired durin+ their marital life and 4: <oren6o ould not prose!ute'aula for her adulterous a!t sin!e she voluntaril- admitted her fault and a+reedto separate from <oren6o pea!efull-. The a+reement as si+ned b- both<oren6o and 'aula and as itnessed b- 'aulas father and stepmother. Thea+reement as notari6ed b- (otar- 'ubli! 'edro *sabel.

<oren6o returned to the nited States and on (ovember 1$, 1951 filed fordivor!e ith the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Count-of San ie+o. 'aula as represented b- !ounsel, 3ohn Rile-, and a!tivel-parti!ipated in the pro!eedin+s. *n (ovember 27, 1951, the Superior Court of

the State of California, for the Count- of San ie+o found all fa!tual alle+ations tobe true and issued an interlo!utor- ?ud+ment of divor!e.

*n e!ember 4, 1952, the divor!e de!ree be!ame final.

n the meantime, <oren6o returned to the 'hilippines.

*n 3anuar- 1$, 1950, <oren6o married "li!ia . <lorente in >anila. "pparentl-, "li!ia had no knoled+e of the first marria+e even if the- resided in the sameton as 'aula, ho did not oppose the marria+e or !ohabitation.

rom 1950 to 1905, <oren6o and "li!ia lived to+ether as husband and ife. Their tent-%five 25: -ear union produ!ed three !hildren, Raul, <u6 and everl-, allsurnamed <lorente.

*n >ar!h 1), 1901, <oren6o e;e!uted a <ast 8ill and Testament. The ill asnotari6ed b- (otar- 'ubli! Salvador >. *!!iano, dul- si+ned b- <oren6o ithattestin+ itnesses ran!is!o Fu+o, ran!is!o (eibres and Tito Tra?ano. n theill, <oren6o beueathed all his propert- to "li!ia and their three !hildren, to it

Q1: +ive and beueath to m- ife "<C" R. *RT(* e;!lusivel- m-residential house and lot, lo!ated at San ran!is!o, (abua, Camarines Sur,

'hilippines, in!ludin+ "<< the personal properties and other movables orbelon+in+s that ma- be found or e;istin+ therein

Q2: +ive and beueath e;!lusivel- to m- ife "li!ia R. ortuno and to m-!hildren, Raul . <lorente, <u6 . <lorente and everl- . <lorente, in eualshares, all m- real properties hatsoever and heresoever lo!ated, spe!ifi!all-m- real properties lo!ated at aran+a- "ro%"ldao, (abua, Camarines Sur



aran+a- 'alo-on, (abua, Camarines Sur aran+a- aras, Sitio 'u+a, (abua,Camarines Sur and aran+a- 'alo-on, Sitio (alilidon+, (abua, Camarines Sur

Q): likeise +ive and beueath e;!lusivel- unto m- ife "li!ia R. ortuno andunto m- !hildren, Raul . <lorente, <u6 . <lorente and everl- . <lorente, in

eual shares, m- real properties lo!ated in /ue6on Cit- 'hilippines, and !overedb- Transfer Certifi!ate of Title (o. 100$52 and m- lands in "ntipolo, Ri6al,'hilippines, !overed b- Transfer Certifi!ate of Title (os. 12419$ and 1$5100,both of the Re+istr- of eeds of the provin!e of Ri6al, 'hilippines

Q4: That their respe!tive shares in the above%mentioned properties, hether realor personal properties, shall not be disposed of, !eded, sold and !onve-ed to an-other persons, but !ould onl- be sold, !eded, !onve-ed and disposed of b- andamon+ themselves

Q5: desi+nate m- ife "<C" R. *RT(* to be the sole e;e!utor of this m-

<ast 8ill and Testament, and in her default or in!apa!it- of the latter to a!t, an-of m- !hildren in the order of a+e, if of a+e

Q$: hereb- dire!t that the e;e!utor named herein or her laful substitute shouldserved sic : ithout bond

Q7: hereb- revoke an- and all m- other ills, !odi!ils, or testamentar-dispositions heretofore e;e!uted, si+ned, or published, b- me

Q0: t is m- final ish and desire that if die, no relatives of mine in ande+ree inthe <lorentes Side should ever bother and disturb in an- manner hatsoever m-

ife "li!ia R. ortunato and m- !hildren ith respe!t to an- real or personalproperties +ave and beueathed respe!tivel- to ea!h one of them b- virtue ofthis <ast 8ill and Testament.

*n e!ember 14, 190), <oren6o filed ith the Re+ional Trial Court, ri+a,Camarines Sur, a petition for the probate and alloan!e of his last ill andtestament herein <oren6o moved that "li!ia be appointed Spe!ial "dministratri;of his estate.

*n 3anuar- 10, 1904, the trial !ourt denied the motion for the reason that thetestator <oren6o as still alive.

*n 3anuar- 24, 1904, findin+ that the ill as dul- e;e!uted, the trial !ourtadmitted the ill to probate.

*n 3une 11, 1905, before the pro!eedin+s !ould be terminated, <oren6o died.

*n September 4, 1905, 'aula filed ith the same !ourt a petition for letters ofadministration over <oren6os estate in her favor. 'aula !ontended 1: that she



as <oren6os survivin+ spouse, 2: that the various propert- ere a!uireddurin+ their marria+e, ): that <oren6os ill disposed of all his propert- in favorof "li!ia and her !hildren, en!roa!hin+ on her le+itime and 1E2 share in the!on?u+al propert-.

*n e!ember 1), 1905, "li!ia filed in the testate pro!eedin+ Sp. 'ro!. (o. R%755:, a petition for the issuan!e of letters testamentar-.

*n *!tober 14, 1905, ithout terminatin+ the testate pro!eedin+s, the trial !ourt+ave due !ourse to 'aulas petition in Sp. 'ro!. (o. R%000.

*n (ovember $, 1) and 2#, 1905, the order as published in the nespaperQi!ol Star.

*n >a- 10, 1907, the Re+ional Trial Court issued a ?oint de!ision, thus

Q8herefore, !onsiderin+ that this !ourt has so found that the divor!e de!ree+ranted to the late <oren6o <lorente is void and inappli!able in the 'hilippines,therefore the marria+e he !ontra!ted ith "li!ia ortunato on 3anuar- 1$, 1950 at>anila is likeise void. This bein+ so the petition of "li!ia . <lorente for theissuan!e of letters testamentar- is denied. <ikeise, she is not entitled tore!eive an- share from the estate even if the ill espe!iall- said so herrelationship ith <oren6o havin+ +ained the status of paramour hi!h is under

"rt. 7)9 1:.

Q*n the other hand, the !ourt finds the petition of 'aula Titular <lorente,meritorious, and so de!lares the intrinsi! disposition of the ill of <oren6o

<lorente dated >ar!h 1), 1901 as void and de!lares her entitled as !on?u+alpartner and entitled to one%half of their !on?u+al properties, and as primar-!ompulsor- heir, 'aula T. <lorente is also entitled to one%third of the estate andthen one%third should +o to the ille+itimate !hildren, Raul, <u6 and everl-, allsurname sic : <lorente, for them to partition in eual shares and also entitled tothe remainin+ free portion in eual shares.

Q'etitioner, 'aula <lorente is appointed le+al administrator of the estate of thede!eased, <oren6o <lorente. "s su!h let the !orrespondin+ letters ofadministration issue in her favor upon her filin+ a bond in the amount sic : of'1##,###.## !onditioned for her to make a return to the !ourt ithin three ):

months a true and !omplete inventor- of all +oods, !hattels, ri+hts, and !redits,and estate hi!h shall at an- time !ome to her possession or to the possessionof another person for her, and from the pro!eeds to pa- and dis!har+e alldebts, le+a!ies and !har+es on the same, or su!h dividends thereon as shall bede!reed or reuired b- this !ourt to render a true and ?ust a!!ount of heradministration to the !ourt ithin one 1: -ear, and at another time henreuired b- the !ourt and to perform all orders of this !ourt b- her to beperformed.



Q*n the other matters pra-ed for in respe!tive petitions for ant of eviden!e!ould not be +ranted.

QS* *R=R=.

n time, "li!ia filed ith the trial !ourt a motion for re!onsideration of theaforeuoted de!ision.

*n September 14, 1907, the trial !ourt denied "li!ias motion for re!onsiderationbut modified its earlier de!ision, statin+ that Raul and <u6 <lorente are not!hildren Qle+itimate or otherise of <oren6o sin!e the- ere not le+all- adoptedb- him. "mendin+ its de!ision of >a- 10, 1907, the trial !ourt de!lared everl-<lorente as the onl- ille+itimate !hild of <oren6o, entitlin+ her to one%third 1E): ofthe estate and one%third 1E): of the free portion of the estate.

*n September 20, 1907, respondent appealed to the Court of "ppeals.

*n 3ul- )1, 1995, the Court of "ppeals promul+ated its de!ision, affirmin+ ithmodifi!ation the de!ision of the trial !ourt in this ise

Q8F=R=*R=, the de!ision appealed from is hereb- "R>= ith the>*C"T*( that "li!ia is de!lared as !o%oner of hatever properties sheand the de!eased ma- have a!uired durin+ the tent-%five 25: -ears of!ohabitation.

QS* *R=R=.

*n "u+ust 25, 1995, petitioner filed ith the Court of "ppeals a motion forre!onsideration of the de!ision.

*n >ar!h 21, 199$, the Court of "ppeals, denied the motion for la!k of merit.

Fen!e, this petition.

The ssue

Strippin+ the petition of its le+alese and sortin+ throu+h the various ar+umentsraised, the issue is simple. 8ho are entitled to inherit from the late <oren6o (.

<lorente

8e do not a+ree ith the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals. 8e remand the !aseto the trial !ourt for rulin+ on the intrinsi! validit- of the ill of the de!eased.

The "ppli!able <a



The fa!t that the late <oren6o (. <lorente be!ame an "meri!an !iti6en lon+before and at the time of 1: his divor!e from 'aula 2: marria+e to "li!ia ):e;e!ution of his ill and 4: death, is dul- established, admitted and undisputed.

Thus, as a rule, issues arisin+ from these in!idents are ne!essaril- +overned b-

forei+n la.

The Civil Code !learl- provides

Q"rt. 15. <as relatin+ to famil- ri+hts and duties, or to the status, !ondition andle+al !apa!it- of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, eventhou+h livin+ abroad.

Q"rt. 1$. Real propert- as ell as personal propert- is sub?e!t to the la of the!ountr- here it is situated.

QFoever, intestate and testamentar- su!!ession, both ith respe!t to the orderof su!!ession and to the amount of su!!essional ri+hts and to the intrinsi! validit-of testamentar- provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the

person whose succession is under consideration, hatever ma- be thenature of the propert- and re+ardless of the !ountr- herein said propert- ma-be found. emp-asis ours:

True, forei+n las do not prove themselves in our ?urisdi!tion and our !ourts arenot authori6ed to take ?udi!ial noti!e of them. <ike another fa!t, the- must bealle+ed and proved.

8hile the substan!e of the forei+n la as pleaded, the Court of "ppeals did notadmit the forei+n la. The Court of "ppeals and the trial !ourt !alled to the forethe renvoi do!trine, here the !ase as Qreferred ba!k to the la of thede!edents domi!ile, in this !ase, 'hilippine la.

8e note that hile the trial !ourt stated that the la of (e Bork as notsuffi!ientl- proven, in the same breath it made the !ate+ori!al, albeit euall-unproven statement that Q"meri!an la follos the Udomi!iliar- theor- hen!e,'hilippine la applies hen determinin+ the validit- of <oren6os ill.

F$r&t, there is no su!h thin+ as one "meri!an la. The Dnational laD indi!ated in

"rti!le 1$ of the Civil Code !annot possibl- appl- to +eneral "meri!an la. Thereis no su!h la +overnin+ the validit- of testamentar- provisions in the nitedStates. =a!h State of the union has its on la appli!able to its !iti6ens and infor!e onl- ithin the State. t !an therefore refer to no other than the la of theState of hi!h the de!edent as a resident. Seco!, there is no shoin+ thatthe appli!ation of the renvoi do!trine is !alled for or reuired b- (e Bork Statela.



The trial !ourt held that the ill as intrinsi!all- invalid sin!e it !ontaineddispositions in favor of "li!e, ho in the trial !ourts opinion as a mere

paramour . The trial !ourt thre the ill out, leavin+ "li!e, and her to !hildren,Raul and <u6, ith nothin+.

The Court of "ppeals also disre+arded the ill. t de!lared "li!e entitled to onehalf 1E2: of hatever propert- she and <oren6o a!uired durin+ their!ohabitation, appl-in+ "rti!le 144 of the Civil Code of the 'hilippines.

The hast- appli!ation of 'hilippine la and the !omplete disre+ard of the ill,alread- probated as dul- e;e!uted in a!!ordan!e ith the formalities of'hilippine la, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legalcircumstances here obtaining .

Halidit- of the orei+n ivor!e

n Ban !orn v. Romillo, 'r . e held that oin+ to the nationalit- prin!ipleembodied in "rti!le 15 of the Civil Code, onl- 'hilippine nationals are !overed b-the poli!- a+ainst absolute divor!es, the same bein+ !onsidered !ontrar- to our!on!ept of publi! poli!- and moralit-. n the same !ase, the Court ruled thataliens ma- obtain divor!es abroad, provided the- are valid a!!ordin+ to theirnational la.

Citin+ this landmark !ase, the Court held in Guita v. Court of Appeals, that on!eproven that respondent as no lon+er a ilipino !iti6en hen he obtained thedivor!e from petitioner, the rulin+ in Ban !orn ould be!ome appli!able andpetitioner !ould Qver- ell lose her ri+ht to inherit from him.

n Pilapil v. #$a(;omera, e re!o+ni6ed the divor!e obtained b- the respondentin his !ountr-, the ederal Republi! of &erman-. There, e stated that divor!eand its le+al effe!ts ma- be re!o+ni6ed in the 'hilippines insofar as respondentis !on!erned in vie of the nationalit- prin!iple in our !ivil la on the status ofpersons.

or failin+ to appl- these do!trines, the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals must bereversed. 8e hold that the divor!e obtained b- <oren6o F. <lorente from his firstife 'aula as valid and re!o+ni6ed in this ?urisdi!tion as a matter of !omit-.(o, the effe!ts of this divor!e as to the su!!ession to the estate of the

de!edent: are matters best left to the determination of the trial !ourt.

Halidit- of the 8ill

The Civil Code provides



Q"rt. 17. The forms and solemnities of !ontra!ts, ills, and other publi!instruments shall be +overned b- the las of the country in which they areexecuted .

Q8hen the a!ts referred to are e;e!uted before the diplomati! or !onsular

offi!ials of the Republi! of the 'hilippines in a forei+n !ountr-, the solemnitiesestablished b- 'hilippine las shall be observed in their e;e!ution.underscoring ours:

The !lear intent of <oren6o to beueath his propert- to his se!ond ife and!hildren b- her is +larin+l- shon in the ill he e;e!uted. 8e do not ish tofrustrate his ishes, sin!e he as a forei+ner, not !overed b- our las on Qfamil-ri+hts and duties, status, !ondition and le+al !apa!it-.

8hether the ill is intrinsi!all- valid and ho shall inherit from <oren6o areissues best proved b- forei+n la hi!h must be pleaded and proved. 8hether

the ill as e;e!uted in a!!ordan!e ith the formalities reuired is ansered b-referrin+ to 'hilippine la. n fa!t, the ill as dul- probated.

"s a +uide hoever, the trial !ourt should note that hatever publi! poli!- or+ood !ustoms ma- be involved in our s-stem of le+itimes, Con+ress did notintend to e;tend the same to the su!!ession of forei+n nationals. Con+ressspe!ifi!all- left the amount of su!!essional ri+hts to the de!edentAs national la.

Favin+ thus ruled, e find it unne!essar- to pass upon the other issues raised.

The allo

;"EREFORE, the petition is &R"(T=. The de!ision of the Court of "ppealsin C"%&. R. S' (o. 1744$ promul+ated on 3ul- )1, 1995 is S=T "S=.

n lieu thereof, the Court R=H=RS=S the de!ision of the Re+ional Trial Court andR=C*&(G=S as H"< the de!ree of divor!e +ranted in favor of the de!eased<oren6o (. <lorente b- the Superior Court of the State of California in and for theCount- of San ie+o, made final on e!ember 4, 1952.

urther, the Court R=>"(S the !ases to the !ourt of ori+in for determination ofthe intrinsi! validit- of <oren6o (. <lorentes ill and determination of the parties

su!!essional ri+hts alloin+ proof of forei+n la ith instru!tions that the trial!ourt shall pro!eed ith all deliberate dispat!h to settle the estate of thede!eased ithin the frameork of the Rules of Court.

(o !osts.

S* *R=R=.



G.R. No. 108022 October 2, 2551

GRACE *. GARCIA, a..a. GRACE *. GARCIA6RECIO, petitioner,vs.REDERIC@ A. RECIO, respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J .

" divor!e obtained abroad b- an alien ma- be re!o+ni6ed in our ?urisdi!tion, provided su!h de!ree is valid a!!ordin+ to thenational la of the forei+ner. Foever, the divor!e de!ree and the +overnin+ personal la of the alien spouse ho obtained thedivor!e must be proven. *ur !ourts do not take ?udi!ial noti!e of forei+n las and ?ud+ment hen!e, like another fa!ts, both thedivor!e de!ree and the national la of the alien must be alle+ed and proven a!!ordin+ to our la on eviden!e.

T%e Ca&e

efore us is a 'etition for Revie under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seekin+ to nullif- the 3anuar- 7, 1999 e!ision 1 and the>ar!h 24, 1999 *rder 2 of the Re+ional Trial Court of Cabanatuan Cit-, ran!h 20, in Civil Case (o. )#2$%". The assailede!ision disposed as follos

D8F=R=*R=, this Court de!lares the marria+e beteen &ra!e 3. &ar!ia and Rederi!k ". Re!io solemni6ed on3anuar- 12, 1994 at Cabanatuan Cit- as dissolved and both parties !an no remarr- under e;istin+ and appli!ablelas to an- andEor both parties.D)

The assailed *rder denied re!onsideration of the above%uoted e!ision.

T%e Fact&

Rederi!k ". Re!io, a ilipino, as married to =ditha Samson, an "ustralian !iti6en, in >alabon, Ri6al, on >ar!h 1, 1907.4 The-lived to+ether as husband and ife in "ustralia. *n >a- 10, 1909,5 a de!ree of divor!e, purportedl- dissolvin+ the marria+e, asissued b- an "ustralian famil- !ourt.

*n 3une 2$, 1992, respondent be!ame an "ustralian !iti6en, as shon b- a DCertifi!ate of "ustralian Citi6enshipD issued b- the "ustralian +overnment.$ 'etitioner V a ilipina V and respondent ere married on 3anuar- 12, 1994 in *ur <ad- of 'erpetual FelpChur!h in Cabanatuan Cit-.7 n their application for a marria+e li!ense, respondent as de!lared as Dsin+leD and Dilipino.D0

Startin+ *!tober 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent lived separatel- ithout prior ?udi!ial dissolution of their marria+e. 8hile theto ere still in "ustralia, their !on?u+al assets ere divided on >a- 1$, 199$, in a!!ordan!e ith their Statutor- e!larationsse!ured in "ustralia.9

*n >ar!h ), 1990, petitioner filed a Complaint for e!laration of (ullit- of >arria+e 1# in the !ourt a uo, on the +round of bi+am- Vrespondent alle+edl- had a prior subsistin+ marria+e at the time he married her on 3anuar- 12, 1994. She !laimed that shelearned of respondentAs marria+e to =ditha Samson onl- in (ovember, 1997.

n his "nser, respondent averred that, as far ba!k as 199), he had revealed to petitioner his prior marria+e and its subseuentdissolution.11 Fe !ontended that his first marria+e to an "ustralian !iti6en had been validl- dissolved b- a divor!e de!ree obtainedin "ustralian in 190912 thus, he as le+all- !apa!itated to marr- petitioner in 1994.1Hp-i1.nIt

*n 3ul- 7, 1990 V or about five -ears after the !oupleAs eddin+ and hile the suit for the de!laration of nullit- as pendin+ Vrespondent as able to se!ure a divor!e de!ree from a famil- !ourt in S-dne-, "ustralia be!ause the Dmarria+e haJdK irretrievabl-broken don.D1)

Respondent pra-ed in his "nser that the Complained be dismissed on the +round that it stated no !ause of a!tion. 14 The *ffi!eof the Soli!itor &eneral a+reed ith respondent.15 The !ourt marked and admitted the do!umentar- eviden!e of both parties.1$ "fter the- submitted their respe!tive memoranda, the !ase as submitted for resolution.17

Thereafter, the trial !ourt rendered the assailed e!ision and *rder.

R+-$) o t%e Tr$a- Co+rt



The trial !ourt de!lared the marria+e dissolved on the +round that the divor!e issued in "ustralia as valid and re!o+ni6ed in the'hilippines. t deemed the marria+e ended, but not on the basis of an- defe!t in an essential element of the marria+e that is,respondents alleged lac of legal capacit( to remarr( . Rather, it based its e!ision on the divor!e de!ree obtained b- respondent.The "ustralian divor!e had ended the marria+e thus, there as no more martial union to nullif- or annual.

Fen!e, this 'etition.10

I&&+e&

'etitioner submits the folloin+ issues for our !onsideration

D

The trial !ourt +ravel- erred in findin+ that the divor!e de!ree obtained in "ustralia b- the respondent ipso facto terminated his first marria+e to =ditha Samson thereb- !apa!itatin+ him to !ontra!t a se!ond marria+e ith thepetitioner.

D2

The failure of the respondent, ho is no a naturali6ed "ustralian, to present a !ertifi!ate of le+al !apa!it- to marr-!onstitutes absen!e of a substantial reuisite voidin+ the petitionerA marria+e to the respondent.

D)

The trial !ourt seriousl- erred in the appli!ation of "rt. 2$ of the amil- Code in this !ase.

D4

The trial !ourt patentl- and +rievousl- erred in disre+ardin+ "rts. 11, 1), 21, )5, 4#, 52 and 5) of the amil- Code asthe appli!able provisions in this !ase.

D5

The trial !ourt +ravel- erred in pronoun!in+ that the divor!e +ravel- erred in pronoun!in+ that the divor!e de!reeobtained b- the respondent in "ustralia ipso facto !apa!itated the parties to remarr-, ithout first se!urin+ a re!o+nitionof the ?ud+ment +rantin+ the divor!e de!ree before our !ourts.D19

The 'etition raises five issues, but for purposes of this e!ision, e shall !on!entrate on to pivotal ones 1: hether the divor!ebeteen respondent and =ditha Samson as proven, and 2: hether respondent as proven to be le+all- !apa!itated to marr-petitioner. e!ause of our rulin+ on these to, there is no more ne!essit- to take up the rest.

T%e Co+rt:& R+-$)

The 'etition is partl- meritorious.

F$r&t I&&+e

Proving the Divorce Between espondent and !ditha "amson

'etitioner assails the trial !ourtAs re!o+nition of the divor!e beteen respondent and =ditha Samson. Citin+ Adong v. C-eong

eng ?ee,2# petitioner ar+ues that the divor!e de!ree, like another forei+n ?ud+ment, ma- be +iven re!o+nition in this ?urisdi!tiononl- upon proof of the e;isten!e of 1: the forei+n la alloin+ absolute divor!e and 2: the alle+ed divor!e de!ree i tself. Sheadds that respondent miserabl- failed to establish these elements.

'etitioner adds that, based on the f irst para+raph of "rti!le 2$ of the amil- Code, marria+es solemni6ed abroad are +overned b-the la of the pla!e here the- ere !elebrated the le" loci cele$rationist :. n effe!t, the Code reuires the presentation of theforei+n la to sho the !onformit- of the marria+e in uestion to the le+al reuirements of the pla!e here the marria+e asperformed.

"t the outset, e la- the folloin+ basi! le+al prin!iples as the take%off points for our dis!ussion. 'hilippine la does not providefor absolute divor!e hen!e, our !ourts !annot +rant it.21 " marria+e beteen to ilipinos !annot be dissolved even b- a divor!e



obtained abroad, be!ause of "rti!les 1522 and 172) of the Civil Code.24 n mi;ed marria+es involvin+ a ilipino and a forei+ner, "rti!le 2$25 of the amil- Code allos the former to !ontra!t a subseuent marria+e in !ase the divor!e is Dvalidl- obtained abroadb- the alien spouse !apa!itatin+ him or her to remarr-.D2$ " divor!e obtained abroad b- a !ouple, ho are both aliens, ma- bere!o+ni6ed in the 'hilippines, provided it is !onsistent ith their respe!tive national las. 27

" !omparison beteen marria+e and divor!e, as far as pleadin+ and proof are !on!erned, !an be made. Ban !orn v. Romillo 'r. de!rees that Daliens ma- obtain divor!es abroad, hi!h ma- be re!o+ni6ed in the 'hilippines, provided the- are valid a!!ordin+ totheir national la.D20 Therefore, before a forei+n divor!e de!ree !an be re!o+ni6ed b- our !ourts, the part- pleadin+ it must prove

the divor!e as a fa!t and demonstrate its !onformit- to the forei+n la alloin+ it.29

'resentation solel- of the divor!e de!ree isinsuffi!ient.

Divorce as a #uestion of $act

'etitioner insists that before a divor!e de!ree !an be admitted in eviden!e, it must first !ompl- ith the re+istration reuirementsunder "rti!les 11, 1) and 52 of the amil- Code. These arti!les read as follos

D"RT. 11. 8here a marria+e li!ense is reuired, ea!h of the !ontra!tin+ parties shall file separatel- a sorn appli!ationfor su!h li!ense ith the proper lo!al !ivil re+istrar hi!h shall spe!if- the folloin+

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

D5: f previousl- married, ho, hen and here the previous marria+e as dissolved or annulled

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

D"RT. 1). n !ase either of the !ontra!tin+ parties has been previousl- married, the appli!ant shall be reuired tofurnish, instead of the birth of baptismal !ertifi!ate reuired in the last pre!edin+ arti!le, the death !ertifi!ate of thede!eased spouse or the ?udi!ial de!ree of annulment or de!laration of nullitof his or her previous marria+e. ; ; ;.

D"RT. 52. The ?ud+ment of annulment or of absolute nullitof the marria+e, the partition and distribution of theproperties of the spouses, and the deliver- of the !hildrenAs presumptive le+itimes shall be re!orded in the appropriate!ivil re+istr- and re+istries of propert- otherise, the same shall not affe!t their persons.D

Respondent, on the other hand, ar+ues that the "ustralian divor!e de!ree is a publi! do!ument V a ritten offi!ial a!t of an "ustralian famil- !ourt. Therefore, it reuires no further proof of its authenti!it- and due e;e!ution.

Respondent is +ettin+ ahead of himself. efore a forei+n ?ud+ment is +iven presumptive evidentiar- value, the do!ument must first

be presented and admitted in eviden!e.)#

" divor!e obtained abroad is proven b- the divor!e de!ree itself. ndeed the besteviden!e of a ?ud+ment is the ?ud+ment itself.)1 The de!ree purports to be a rit ten a!t or re!ord of an a!t of an offi!iall- bod- ortribunal of a forei+n !ountr-.)2

nder Se!tions 24 and 25 of Rule 1)2, on the other hand, a rit in+ or do!ument ma- be proven as a publi! or offi!ial re!ord of aforei+n !ountr- b- either 1: an offi!ial publi!ation or 2: a !op- thereof attested)) b- the offi!er havin+ le+al !ustod- of thedo!ument. f the re!ord is not kept in the 'hilippines, su!h !op- must be a: a!!ompanied b- a !ertifi!ate issued b- the properdiplomati! or !onsular offi!er in the 'hilippine forei+n servi!e stationed in the forei+n !ountr- in hi!h the re!ord is kept and b:authenti!ated b- the seal of his offi!e.)4

The divor!e de!ree beteen respondent and =ditha Samson appears to be an authenti! one issued b- an "ustralian famil-!ourt.)5 Foever, appearan!e is not suffi!ient !omplian!e ith the aforemetioned rules on eviden!e must be demonstrated.

ortunatel- for respondentAs !ause, hen the divor!e de!ree of >a- 10, 1909 as submitted in eviden!e, !ounsel for petitionerob?e!ted, not to its admissibilit-, but onl- to the fa!t that it had not been re+istered in the <o!al Civil Re+istr- of Cabanatuan Cit-.)$ The trial !ourt ruled that it as admissible, sub?e!t to petitionerAs ualifi!ation.)7 Fen!e, it as admitted in eviden!e and a!!orded

ei+ht b- the ?ud+e. ndeed, petitionerAs failure to ob?e!t properl- rendered the divor!e de!ree admissible as a ritten a!t of theamil- Court of S-dne-, "ustralia.)0

Complian!e ith the uoted arti!les 11, 1) and 52: of the amil- Code is not ne!essar- respondent as no lon+er bound b-'hilippine personal las after he a!uired "ustralian !iti6enship in 1992. )9 (aturali6ation is the le+al a!t of adoptin+ an alien and!lothin+ him ith the politi!al and !ivil ri+hts belon+in+ to a !iti6en.4# (aturali6ed !iti6ens, freed from the prote!tive !loak of theirformer states, don the atti res of their adoptive !ountries. - be!omin+ an "ustralian, respondent severed his alle+ian!e to the'hilippines and the vinculum +uris that had tied him to 'hilippine personal las.

Burden of Proving %ustralian &aw



Respondent !ontends that the burden to prove "ustralian divor!e la falls upon peti tioner, be!ause she is the part- !hallen+in+the validit- of a forei+n ?ud+ment. Fe !ontends that petitioner as satisfied ith the ori+inal of the divor!e de!ree and as!o+ni6ant of the marital las of "ustralia, be!ause she had lived and orked in that !ountr- for uite a lon+ time. esides, the "ustralian divor!e la is alle+edl- knon b- 'hilippine !ourts thus, ?ud+es ma- take ?udi!ial noti!e of forei+n las in the e;er!iseof sound dis!retion.

8e are not persuaded. The burden of proof lies ith Dthe part- ho alle+es the e;isten!e of a fa!t or thin+ ne!essar- in theprose!ution or defense of an a!tion.D41 n !ivil !ases, plaintiffs have the burden of provin+ the material alle+ations of the !omplaint

hen those are denied b- the anser and defendants have the burden of provin+ the material alle+ations in their anser henthe- introdu!e ne matters.42 Sin!e the divor!e as a defense raised b- respondent, the burden of provin+ the pertinent "ustralian la validatin+ it falls suarel- upon him.

t is ell%settled in our ?urisdi!tion that our !ourts !annot take ?udi!ial noti!e of forei+n las. 4) <ike another fa!ts, the- must bealle+ed and proved. "ustralian marital las are not amon+ those matters that ?ud+es are supposed to kno b- reason of their ?udi!ial fun!tion.44 The poer of ?udi!ial noti!e must be e;er!ised ith !aution, and ever- reasonable doubt upon the sub?e!tshould be resolved in the ne+ative.

Seco! I&&+e

espondent's &egal (apacity to emarry

'etitioner !ontends that, in vie of the insuffi!ient proof of the divor!e, respondent as le+all- in!apa!itated to marr- her in 1994.

Fen!e, she !on!ludes that their marria+e as void a$ initio.

Respondent replies that the "ustralian divor!e de!ree, hi!h as validl- admitted in eviden!e, adeuatel- established his le+al!apa!it- to marr- under "ustralian la.

RespondentAs !ontention is untenable. n its stri!t le+al sense, divorce means the le+al dissolution of a laful union for a !ausearisin+ after marria+e. ut divor!es are of different t-pes. The to basi! ones are 1: absolute divor!e or a vinculo matrimonii and2: limited divor!e or a mensa et t-oro. The first kind terminates the marria+e, hile the se!ond suspends it and leaves the bondin full for!e.45 There is no shoin+ in the !ase at bar hi!h t-pe of divor!e as pro!ured b- respondent.

Respondent presented a de!ree nisi or an interlo!utor- de!ree V a !onditional or provisional ?ud+ment of divor!e. t is in effe!t thesame as a separation from bed and board, althou+h an absolute divor!e ma- follo after the lapse of the pres!ribed period durin+hi!h no re!on!iliation is effe!ted.4$

=ven after the divor!e be!omes absolute, the !ourt ma- under some forei+n statutes and pra!ti!es, still restri!t remarria+e. nder

some other ?urisdi!tions, remarria+e ma- be limited b- statute thus, the +uilt- part- in a divor!e hi!h as +ranted on the +roundof adulter- ma- be prohibited f rom remarr-in+ a+ain. The !ourt ma- allo a remarria+e onl- after proof of +ood behavior.47

*n its fa!e, the herein "ustralian divor!e de!ree !ontains a restri!tion that reads

D1. " part- to a marria+e ho marries a+ain before this de!ree be!omes absolute unless the other part- has died:!ommits the offen!e of bi+am-.D40

This uotation bolsters our !ontention that the divor!e obtained b- respondent ma- have been restri!ted. t did not absolutel-establish his le+al !apa!it- to remarr- a!!ordin+ to his national la. Fen!e, e find no basis for the rulin+ of the trial !ourt, hi!herroneousl- assumed that the "ustralian divor!e ipso facto restored respondentAs !apa!it- to remarr- despite the pau!it- ofeviden!e on this matter.

8e also re?e!t the !laim of respondent that the divor!e de!ree raises a disputable presumption or presumptive eviden!e as to his!ivil status based on Se!tion 40, Rule )949 of the Rules of Court, for the simple reason that no proof has been presented on the

le+al effe!ts of the divor!e de!ree obtained under "ustralian las.

"ignificance of the (ertificate of &egal (apacity

'etitioner ar+ues that the !ertifi!ate of le+al !apa!it- reuired b- "rti!le 21 of the amil- Code as not submitted to+ether ith theappli!ation for a marria+e li!ense. "!!ordin+ to her, its absen!e is proof that respondent did not have le+al !apa!it- to remarr-.

8e !larif-. To repeat, the le+al !apa!it- to !ontra!t marria+e is determined b- the national la of the part- !on!erned. The!ertifi!ate mentioned in "rti!le 21 of the amil- Code ould have been suffi!ient to establish the le+al !apa!it- of respondent, hadhe dul- presented it in !ourt. " dul- authenti!ated and admitted !ertifi!ate is prima fa!ie eviden!e of le+al !apa!it- to marr- on thepart of the alien appli!ant for a marria+e li!ense.5#



"s it is, hoever, there is absolutel- no eviden!e that proves respondentAs le+al !apa!it- to marr- petitioner. " revie of there!ords before this Court shos that onl- the folloin+ e;hibits ere presented before the loer !ourt 1: for petitioner a: =;hibitD"D V Complaint51 b: =;hibit DD V Certifi!ate of >arria+e eteen Rederi!k ". Re!to ilipino%"ustralian: and &ra!e 3. &ar!iailipino: on 3anuar- 12, 1994 in Cabanatuan Cit-, (ueva =!i?a52 !: =;hibit DCD V Cert ifi!ate of >arria+e eteen Rederi!k ".Re!io ilipino: and =ditha . Samson "ustralian: on >ar!h 1, 1907 in >alabon, >etro >anila5) d: =;hibit DD V *ffi!e of theCit- Re+istrar of Cabanatuan Cit- Certifi!ation that no information of annulment beteen Rederi!k ". Re!to and =ditha .Samson as in its re!ords54 and e: =;hibit D=D V Certifi!ate of "ustralian Citi6enship of Rederi!k ". Re!to55 2: for respondent=;hibit D1D V "mended "nser5$ b: =;hibit DSD V amil- <a "!t 1975 e!ree (isi of issolution of >arria+e in the amil- Courtof "ustralia57 !: =;hibit D)D V Cert ifi!ate of "ustralian Citi6enship of Rederi!k ". Re!to50 d: =;hibit D4D V e!ree (isi of

issolution of >arria+e in the amil- Court of "ustralia Certifi!ate59 and =;hibit D5D V Statutor- e!laration of the <e+alSeparation eteen Rederi!k ". Re!to and &ra!e 3. &ar!ia Re!io sin!e *!tober 22, 1995.$#

ased on the above re!ords, e !annot !on!lude that respondent, ho as then a naturali6ed "ustralian !iti6en, as le+all-!apa!itated to marr- petitioner on 3anuar- 12, 1994. 8e a+ree ith petitionerAs !ontention that the !ourt a uo erred in findin+ thatthe divor!e de!ree ipso fa!to !lothed respondent ith the le+al !apa!it- to remarr- ithout reuirin+ him to addu!e suffi!ienteviden!e to sho the "ustralian personal la +overnin+ his status or at the ver- least, to prove his le+al !apa!it- to !ontra!t these!ond marria+e.

(either !an e +rant petitionerAs pra-er to de!lare her marria+e to respondent null and void on the +round of bi+am-. "fter all, itma- turn out that under "ustralian la, he as reall- !apa!itated to marr- petitioner as a dire!t result of the divor!e de!ree.Fen!e, e believe that the most ?udi!ious !ourse is to remand this !ase to the trial !ourt to re!eive eviden!e, if an-, hi!h shopetitionerAs le+al !apa!it- to marr- petitioner. ailin+ in that, then the !ourt a uo made!lare a nullitof the partiesA marria+e onthe +round of bi+am-, there bein+ alread- in eviden!e to e;istin+ marria+e !ertifi!ates, hi!h ere both obtained in the'hilippines, one in >alabon, >etro >anila dated >ar!h 1, 1907 and the other, in Cabanatuan Cit- dated 3anuar- 12, 1994.

8F=R=*R=, in the interest of orderl- pro!edure and substantial ?usti!e, e !)%*D the !ase to the !ourt a uo for thepurpose of re!eivin+ eviden!e hi!h !on!lusivel- sho respondentAs le+al !apa!it- to marr- petitioner and failin+ in that, ofde!larin+ the partiesA marria+e void on the +round of bi+am-, as above dis!ussed. (o !osts.

S* *R=R=.



9E#:2+IC 5F THE#HI+I##INE",

# e t i t i o n e r ,

- versus-

C98":" +. I;5;,

9 e s p o n d e n t.

/.9. No. '3%3<<

#resent4

#:N5,

Chairman,

8:"T9I8-*89TINEG,

C8++E5, "9.,

TIN/8, and

CHIC5-N8G89I5, JJ .

#romul!ated4

"eptem&er %', %3

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

D E ! I S I O N

!HI!O-NA"ARIO, J .5



In this #etition for 9evie1 on )ertiorari under 9ule (3 of the 9ules

of Court, petitioner 9epu&lic of the #hilippines, represented & the 5ffice of

the "olicitor /eneral, pras for the reversal of the Decision of the Court of

8ppeals in C8-/.9. CV No. $%3), dated ul %',L'M affirmin! the

ud!ment of the 9e!ional Trial Court 69TC7 of Ce&u Cit, 2ranch %%, in

Civil Case No. CE2-%<<, dated 5cto&er '))B,L%M declarin! the

marria!e &et1een respondent Crasus +. Io and Fel 8da 9osal-Io null

and void on the &asis of 8rticle $ of the Famil Code of the #hilippines.

The proceedin!s &efore the 9TC commenced 1ith the filin! of a

ComplaintLM for declaration of nullit of marria!e & respondent Crasus on

%3 *arch '))<. 8ccordin! to the said Complaint, respondent Crasus

married Fel on '$ Decem&er ')$' at 2radford *emorial Church, ones

8venue, Ce&u Cit. 8s a result of their union, the had five children

Crasus, r., Daphne, De&&ie, Calvert, and Carlos 1ho are no1 all of le!al

a!es. 8fter the cele&ration of their marria!e, respondent Crasus discovered

that Fel 1as Ohot-tempered, a na!!er and extrava!ant.P In ')B(, Fel left

the #hilippines for the :nited "tates of 8merica 6:.".8.7, leavin! all of their

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/sep2005/152577.htm#_ftn1








five children, the oun!est then &ein! onl six ears old, to the care of

respondent Crasus. 2arel a ear after Fel left for the :.".8., respondent

Crasus received a letter from her re=uestin! that he si!n the enclosed divorce

papers he disre!arded the said re=uest. "ometime in ')B3, respondent

Crasus learned, throu!h the letters sent & Fel to their children, that Fel

!ot married to an 8merican, 1ith 1hom she eventuall had a child. In ')B<,

Fel came &ac@ to the #hilippines 1ith her 8merican famil, stain! at Ce&u

#la>a Hotel in Ce&u Cit. 9espondent Crasus did not &other to tal@ to Fel

&ecause he 1as afraid he mi!ht not &e a&le to &ear the sorro1 and the pain

she had caused him. Fel returned to the #hilippines several times more4 in

')), for the 1eddin! of their eldest child, Crasus, r. in '))%, for the &rain

operation of their fourth child, Calvert and in '))3, for un@no1n reasons.

Fel continued to live 1ith her 8merican famil in Ne1 erse, :.".8. "he

had &een openl usin! the surname of her 8merican hus&and in the

#hilippines and in the :.".8. For the 1eddin! of Crasus, r., Fel herself

had invitations made in 1hich she 1as named as O*rs. Fel 8da *[email protected]

8t the time the Complaint 1as filed, it had &een ' ears since Fel left and

a&andoned respondent Crasus, and there 1as no more possi&ilit of

reconciliation &et1een them. 9espondent Crasus finall alle!ed in his

Complaint that FelQs acts &rou!ht dan!er and dishonor to the famil, and



clearl demonstrated her pscholo!ical incapacit to perform the essential

o&li!ations of marria!e. "uch incapacit, &ein! incura&le and continuin!,

constitutes a !round for declaration of nullit of marria!e under 8rticle $,

in relation to 8rticles $B, <, and <%, of the Famil Code of the #hilippines.

Fel filed her 8ns1er and CounterclaimL(M 1ith the 9TC on 3 une '))<. "he asserted

therein that she 1as alread an 8merican citi>en since ')BB and 1as no1 married to

"tephen *ic@lus. hile she admitted &ein! previousl married to respondent Crasus and

havin! five children 1ith him, Fel refuted the other alle!ations made & respondent

Crasus in his Complaint. "he explained that she 1as no more hot-tempered than an

normal person, and she ma had &een indi!nant at respondent Crasus on certain

occasions &ut it 1as &ecause of the latterQs drun@enness, 1omani>in!, and lac@ of sincere

effort to find emploment and to contri&ute to the maintenance of their household. "he

could not have &een extrava!ant since the famil hardl had enou!h mone for &asic

needs. Indeed, Fel left for a&road for financial reasons as respondent Crasus had no 0o&

and 1hat she 1as then earnin! as the sole &read1inner in the #hilippines 1as insufficient

to support their famil. 8lthou!h she left all of her children 1ith respondent Crasus, she

continued to provide financial support to them, as 1ell as, to respondent Crasus.

"u&se=uentl, Fel 1as a&le to &rin! her children to the :.".8., except for one, Calvert,

1ho had to sta &ehind for medical reasons. hile she did file for divorce from

respondent Crasus, she denied havin! herself sent a letter to respondent Crasus re=uestin!

him to si!n the enclosed divorce papers. 8fter securin! a divorce from respondent






Crasus, Fel married her 8merican hus&and and ac=uired 8merican citi>enship. "he

ar!ued that her marria!e to her 8merican hus&and 1as le!al &ecause no1 &ein! an

8merican citi>en, her status shall &e !overned & the la1 of her present nationalit. Fel

also pointed out that respondent Crasus himself 1as presentl livin! 1ith another 1oman

1ho &ore him a child. "he also accused respondent Crasus of misusin! the amount of

#),. 1hich she advanced to him to finance the &rain operation of their son,

Calvert. 5n the &asis of the fore!oin!, Fel also praed that the 9TC declare her

marria!e to respondent Crasus null and void and that respondent Crasus &e ordered to

pa to Fel the #),. she advanced to him, 1ith interest, plus, moral and exemplar

dama!es, attorneQs fees, and liti!ation expenses.

8fter respondent Crasus and Fel had filed their respective #re-Trial

2riefs,L3M the 9TC afforded &oth parties the opportunit to present their

evidence. #etitioner 9epu&lic participated in the trial throu!h the #rovincial

#rosecutor of Ce&u.L$M

9espondent Crasus su&mitted the follo1in! pieces of evidence in

support of his Complaint4 6'7 his o1n testimon on B "eptem&er '))<, in

1hich he essentiall reiterated the alle!ations in his Complaint L<M 6%7 the

Certification, dated ' 8pril ')B), & the Health Department of Ce&u Cit,









on the recordin! of the *arria!e Contract &et1een respondent Crasus and

Fel in the 9e!ister of Deeds, such marria!e cele&ration ta@in! place on '$

Decem&er ')$'LBM and 67 the invitation to the 1eddin! of Crasus, r., their

eldest son, 1herein Fel openl used her 8merican hus&andQs surname,

*[email protected])M

FelQs counsel filed a Notice,L'M and, later on, a *otion,L''M to ta@e

the deposition of 1itnesses, namel, Fel and her children, Crasus, r. and

Daphne, upon 1ritten interro!atories, &efore the consular officers of the

#hilippines in Ne1 ;or@ and California, :.".8, 1here the said 1itnesses

reside. Despite the 5rdersL'%M and CommissionsL'M issued & the 9TC to

the #hilippine Consuls of Ne1 ;or@ and California, :.".8., to ta@e the

depositions of the 1itnesses upon 1ritten interro!atories, not a sin!le

deposition 1as ever su&mitted to the 9TC. Ta@in! into account that it had

&een over a ear since respondent Crasus had presented his evidence and

that Fel failed to exert effort to have the case pro!ress, the 9TC issued an

5rder, dated 3 5cto&er '))B,L'(M considerin! Fel to have 1aived her ri!ht

to present her evidence. The case 1as thus deemed su&mitted for decision.

















Not lon! after, on 5cto&er '))B, the 9TC promul!ated its

ud!ment declarin! the marria!e of respondent Crasus and Fel null and

void ab initio, on the &asis of the follo1in! findin!s

The !round &earin! defendantQs pscholo!ical incapacitdeserves a reasona&le consideration. 8s o&served, plaintiffQstestimon is decidedl credi&le. The Court finds that defendant hadindeed exhi&ited unmista@a&le si!ns of pscholo!ical incapacit tocompl 1ith her marital duties such as strivin! for famil unit,o&servin! fidelit, mutual love, respect, help and support. From theevidence presented, plaintiff ade=uatel esta&lished that thedefendant practicall a&andoned him. "he o&tained a divorce decreein the :nited "tates of 8merica and married another man and hasesta&lish L sicM another famil of her o1n. #laintiff is in ananomalous situation, 1herein he is married to a 1ife 1ho is alreadmarried to another man in another countr.

DefendantQs intolera&le traits ma not have &een apparent or

manifest &efore the marria!e, the F8*I+; C5DE nonetheless

allo1s the annulment of the marria!e provided that these 1ereeventuall manifested after the 1eddin!. It appears to &e the case inthis instance.

Certainl defendantQs posture &ein! an irresponsi&le 1ife

errin!l reveals her ver lo1 re!ard for that sacred and inviola&leinstitution of marria!e 1hich is the foundation of human societthrou!hout the civili>ed 1orld. It is =uite evident that the defendantis &ereft of the mind, 1ill and heart to compl 1ith her maritalo&li!ations, such incapacit 1as alread there at the time of the

marria!e in =uestion is sho1n & defendantQs o1n attitude to1ardsher marria!e to plaintiff.

In sum, the !round invo@ed & plaintiff 1hich is defendantQs

pscholo!ical incapacit to compl 1ith the essential maritalo&li!ations 1hich alread existed at the time of the marria!e in=uestion has &een satisfactoril proven. The evidence in herein case



esta&lishes the irresponsi&ilit of defendant Fel 8da 9osal Io,firml.

/oin! over plaintiffQs testimon 1hich is decidedl credi&le,

the Court finds that the defendant had indeed exhi&ited unmista@a&le

si!ns of such pscholo!ical incapacit to compl 1ith her maritalo&li!ations. These are her excessive disposition to material thin!sover and a&ove the marital sta&ilit. That such incapacit 1asalread there at the time of the marria!e in =uestion is sho1n &defendantQs o1n attitude to1ards her marria!e to plaintiff. 8nd for these reasons there is a le!al !round to declare the marria!e of plaintiff Crasus +. Io and defendant Fel 8da 9osal Io null andvoid ab initio.L'3M

#etitioner 9epu&lic, &elievin! that the afore-=uoted ud!ment of the

9TC 1as contrar to la1 and evidence, filed an appeal 1ith the Court of

8ppeals. The appellate court, thou!h, in its Decision, dated ul %',

affirmed the appealed ud!ment of the 9TC, findin! no reversi&le error

therein. It even offered additional ratiocination for declarin! the marria!e

&et1een respondent Crasus and Fel null and void, to 1it

Defendant secured a divorce from plaintiff-appellee a&road,has remarried, and is no1 permanentl residin! in the :nited "tates.#laintiff-appellee cate!oricall stated this as one of his reasons for see@in! the declaration of nullit of their marria!eR

R 8rticle %$ of the Famil Code provides4





O8rt. %$. 8ll marria!es solemni>ed outside the#hilippines in accordance 1ith the la1s in force in thecountr 1here the 1ere solemni>ed, and valid thereas such, shall also &e valid in this countr, except those prohi&ited under 8rticles 36'7, 6(7, 637 and 6$7, $, <

and B. OHE9E 8 *899I8/E 2ETEEN 8

FI+I#IN5 CITIGEN 8ND 8 F59EI/NE9 I"V8+ID+; CE+E298TED 8ND 8 DIV59CE I"THE9E8FTE9 V8+ID+; 52T8INED 82958D 2;THE 8+IEN "#5:"E C8#8CIT8TIN/ HI* 59 HE9 T5 9E*899;, THE FI+I#IN5 "#5:"E"H8++ +IEI"E H8VE C8#8CIT; T59E*899; :NDE9 #HI+I##INE +8.P

The rationale &ehind the second para!raph of the a&ove-=uoted provision is to avoid the a&surd and un0ust situation of aFilipino citi>en still &ein! married to his or her alien spouse,althou!h the latter is no lon!er married to the Filipino spouse &ecause he or she has o&tained a divorce a&road. In the case at &ench, the defendant has undou&tedl ac=uired her 8mericanhus&andQs citi>enship and thus has &ecome an alien as 1ell. This

Court cannot see 1h the &enefits of 8rt. %$ afore=uoted can not &eextended to a Filipino citi>en 1hose spouse eventuall em&racesanother citi>enship and thus &ecomes herself an alien.

It 1ould &e the hei!ht of unfairness if, under these

circumstances, plaintiff 1ould still &e considered as married todefendant, !iven her total incapacit to honor her marital covenantsto the former. To condemn plaintiff to remain shac@led in a marria!ethat in truth and in fact does not exist and to remain married to aspouse 1ho is incapacitated to dischar!e essential marital covenants,is veril to condemn him to a perpetual disadvanta!e 1hich thisCourt finds a&horrent and 1ill not countenance. ustice dictates that plaintiff &e !iven relief & affirmin! the trial courtQs declaration of the nullit of the marria!e of the parties.L'$M





8fter the Court of 8ppeals, in a 9esolution, dated B *arch %%,L'<M denied its *otion

for 9econsideration, petitioner 9epu&lic filed the instant #etition &efore this Court, &ased

on the follo1in! ar!umentsA!rounds

I. 8&andonment & and sexual infidelit of respondentQs 1ife donot per se constitute pscholo!ical incapacit. II. The Court of 8ppeals has decided =uestions of su&stance not inaccord 1ith la1 and 0urisprudence considerin! that the Court of8ppeals committed serious errors of la1 in rulin! that 8rticle %$,

para!raph % of the Famil Code is inapplica&le to the case at &ar.L'BM

In his CommentL')M to the #etition, respondent Crasus maintained that FelQs

pscholo!ical incapacit 1as clearl esta&lished after a full-&lo1n trial, and that

para!raph % of 8rticle %$ of the Famil Code of the #hilippines 1as indeed applica&le to

the marria!e of respondent Crasus and Fel, &ecause the latter had alread &ecome an

8merican citi>en. He further =uestioned the personalit of petitioner 9epu&lic,

represented & the 5ffice of the "olicitor /eneral, to institute the instant #etition, &ecause

8rticle (B of the Famil Code of the #hilippines authori>es the prosecutin! attorne or

fiscal assi!ned to the trial court, not the "olicitor /eneral, to intervene on &ehalf of the

"tate, in proceedin!s for annulment and declaration of nullit of marria!es.










8fter havin! revie1ed the records of this case and the applica&le la1s and

0urisprudence, this Court finds the instant #etition to &e meritorious.

*

+he totalit, of evidence presented during trial is insufficient to support the finding of ps,chological incapacit, of el,.

8rticle $, concededl one of the more controversial provisions of the Famil Code of

the #hilippines, reads

89T. $. 8 marria!e contracted & an part 1ho, at the time of thecele&ration, 1as pscholo!icall incapacitated to compl 1ith theessential marital o&li!ations of marria!e, shall li@e1ise &e void evenif such incapacit &ecomes manifest onl after its solemni>ation.

Issues most commonl arise as to 1hat constitutes pscholo!ical incapacit.

In a series of cases, this Court laid do1n !uidelines for determinin! its

existence.



In Santos v. )ourt of Appeals,L%M the term pscholo!ical incapacit

1as defined, thus

O. . . L#Mscholo!ical incapacitP should refer to no less thana mental 6not phsical7 incapacit that causes a part to &e trulco!nitive of the &asic marital covenants that concomitantl must &eassumed and dischar!ed & the parties to the marria!e 1hich, as soexpressed & 8rticle $B of the Famil Code, include their mutualo&li!ations to live to!ether, o&serve love, respect and fidelit andrender help and support. There is hardl an dou&t that theintendment of the la1 has &een to confine the meanin! of

Opscholo!ical incapacitP to the most serious cases of personalitdisorders clearl demonstrative of an utter insensitivit or ina&ilitto !ive meanin! and si!nificance to the marria!e. This pscholo!ical condition must exist at the time the marria!e iscele&ratedRL%'M

The pscholo!ical incapacit must &e characteri>ed &

6a7 /ravit It must &e !rave or serious such that the part 1ould

&e incapa&le of carrin! out the ordinar duties re=uired in a marria!e

6&7 uridical 8ntecedence It must &e rooted in the histor of the

part antedatin! the marria!e, althou!h the overt manifestations ma emer!e

onl after the marria!e and







6c7 Incura&ilit It must &e incura&le or, even if it 1ere other1ise,

the cure 1ould &e &eond the means of the part involved.L%%M

*ore definitive !uidelines in the interpretation and application of

8rticle $ of the Famil Code of the #hilippines 1ere handed do1n & this

Court in Republic v. )ourt of Appeals and Molina,L%M 1hich, althou!h =uite

len!th, & its si!nificance, deserves to &e reproduced &elo1

6'7 The &urden of proof to sho1 the nullit of the marria!e &elon!s to the plaintiff. 8n dou&t should &e resolved in favor of theexistence and continuation of the marria!e and a!ainst its dissolutionand nullit. This is rooted in the fact that &oth our Constitution and

our la1s cherish the validit of marria!e and unit of the famil.Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire 8rticle on the Famil,reco!ni>in! it Oas the foundation of the nation.P It decrees marria!eas le!all Oinviola&le,P there& protectin! it from dissolution at the1him of the parties. 2oth the famil and marria!e are to &eOprotectedP & the state.

The Famil Code echoes this constitutional edict on marria!e

and the famil and emphasi>es their permanence, inviola&ilit andsolidarit.

6%7 The root cause of the pscholo!ical incapacit must &e 6a7

medicall or clinicall identified, 6&7 alle!ed in the complaint, 6c7sufficientl proven & experts and 6d7 clearl explained in thedecision. 8rticle $ of the Famil Code re=uires that the incapacitmust &e pscholo!ical - not phsical, althou!h its manifestationsandAor smptoms ma &e phsical. The evidence must convince thecourt that the parties, or one of them, 1as mentall or pschicall ill







to such an extent that the person could not have @no1n theo&li!ations he 1as assumin!, or @no1in! them, could not have !ivenvalid assumption thereof. 8lthou!h no example of such incapacitneed &e !iven here so as not to limit the application of the provisionunder the principle of eusde( generis, nevertheless such root cause

must &e identified as a pscholo!ical illness and its incapacitatin!nature full explained. Expert evidence ma &e !iven & =ualified pschiatrists and clinical pscholo!ists.

67 The incapacit must &e proven to &e existin! at Othe time

of the cele&rationP of the marria!e. The evidence must sho1 that theillness 1as existin! 1hen the parties exchan!ed their OI dos.P Themanifestation of the illness need not &e perceiva&le at such time, &utthe illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

6(7 "uch incapacit must also &e sho1n to &e medicall or clinicall permanent or incura&le. "uch incura&ilit ma &e a&soluteor even relative onl in re!ard to the other spouse, not necessarila&solutel a!ainst everone of the same sex. Furthermore, suchincapacit must &e relevant to the assumption of marria!eo&li!ations, not necessaril to those not related to marria!e, li@e theexercise of a profession or emploment in a 0o&R

637 "uch illness must &e !rave enou!h to &rin! a&out the

disa&ilit of the part to assume the essential o&li!ations of

marria!e. Thus, Omild characteriolo!ical peculiarities, moodchan!es, occasional emotional out&urstsP cannot &e accepted as rootcauses. The illness must &e sho1n as do1nri!ht incapacit or ina&ilit, not a refusal, ne!lect or difficult, much less ill 1ill. Inother 1ords, there is a natal or supervenin! disa&lin! factor in the person, an adverse inte!ral element in the personalit structure thateffectivel incapacitates the person from reall acceptin! andthere& complin! 1ith the o&li!ations essential to marria!e.

6$7 The essential marital o&li!ations must &e those em&raced

& 8rticles $B up to <' of the Famil Code as re!ards the hus&andand 1ife as 1ell as 8rticles %%, %%' and %%3 of the same Code inre!ard to parents and their children. "uch non-complied maritalo&li!ation6s7 must also &e stated in the petition, proven & evidenceand included in the text of the decision.

6<7 Interpretations !iven & the National 8ppellate

*atrimonial Tri&unal of the Catholic Church in the #hilippines,



1hile not controllin! or decisive, should &e !iven !reat respect &our courtsR

6B7 The trial court must order the prosecutin! attorne or

fiscal and the "olicitor /eneral to appear as counsel for the state. No

decision shall &e handed do1n unless the "olicitor /eneral issues acertification, 1hich 1ill &e =uoted in the decision, &riefl statin!therein his reasons for his a!reement or opposition, as the case ma &e, to the petition. The "olicitor /eneral, alon! 1ith the prosecutin!attorne, shall su&mit to the court such certification 1ithin fifteen6'37 das from the date the case is deemed su&mitted for resolutionof the court. The "olicitor /eneral shall dischar!e the e=uivalentfunction of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon ')3.L%(M

8 later case, Marcos v. Marcos,L%3M further clarified that there is no

re=uirement that the defendantArespondent spouse should &e personall

examined & a phsician or pscholo!ist as a condition sine /ua non for the

declaration of nullit of marria!e &ased on pscholo!ical incapacit. "uch

pscholo!ical incapacit, ho1ever, must &e esta&lished & the totalit of the

evidence presented durin! the trial.

:sin! the !uidelines esta&lished & the afore-mentioned 0urisprudence, this Court finds

that the totalit of evidence presented & respondent Crasus failed misera&l to esta&lish

the alle!ed pscholo!ical incapacit of his 1ife Fel therefore, there is no &asis for

declarin! their marria!e null and void under 8rticle $ of the Famil Code of the

#hilippines.







The onl su&stantial evidence presented & respondent Crasus &efore the 9TC 1as his

testimon, 1hich can &e easil put into =uestion for &ein! self-servin!, in the a&sence of

an other corro&oratin! evidence. He su&mitted onl t1o other pieces of evidence4 6'7

the Certification on the recordin! 1ith the 9e!ister of Deeds of the *arria!e Contract

&et1een respondent Crasus and Fel, such marria!e &ein! cele&rated on '$ Decem&er

')$' and 6%7 the invitation to the 1eddin! of Crasus, r., their eldest son, in 1hich Fel

used her 8merican hus&andQs surname. Even considerin! the admissions made & Fel

herself in her 8ns1er to respondent CrasusQs Complaint filed 1ith the 9TC, the evidence

is not enou!h to convince this Court that Fel had such a !rave mental illness that

prevented her from assumin! the essential o&li!ations of marria!e.

It is 1orth to emphasi>e that 8rticle $ of the Famil Code of the #hilippines

contemplates do1nri!ht incapacit or ina&ilit to ta@e co!ni>ance of and to assume the

&asic marital o&li!ations not a mere refusal, ne!lect or difficult, much less, ill 1ill, on

the part of the errant spouse.L%$M Irreconcila&le differences, conflictin! personalities,

emotional immaturit and irresponsi&ilit, phsical a&use, ha&itual alcoholism, sexual

infidelit or perversion, and a&andonment, & themselves, also do not 1arrant a findin!

of pscholo!ical incapacit under the said 8rticle.L%<M









8s has alread &een stressed & this Court in previous cases, 8rticle $ Ois not to

&e confused 1ith a divorce la1 that cuts the marital &ond at the time the causes therefore

manifest themselves. It refers to a serious pscholo!ical illness afflictin! a part even

&efore the cele&ration of marria!e. It is a malad so !rave and so permanent as to

deprive one of a1areness of the duties and responsi&ilities of the matrimonial &ond one is

a&out to assume.PL%BM

The evidence ma have proven that Fel committed acts that hurt and em&arrassed

respondent Crasus and the rest of the famil. Her hot-temper, na!!in!, and extrava!ance

her a&andonment of respondent Crasus her marria!e to an 8merican and even her

flauntin! of her 8merican famil and her 8merican surname, ma indeed &e

manifestations of her alle!ed incapacit to compl 1ith her marital o&li!ations

nonetheless, the root cause for such 1as not identified. If the root cause of the incapacit

1as not identified, then it cannot &e satisfactoril esta&lished as a pscholo!ical or

mental defect that is serious or !rave neither could it &e proven to &e in existence at the

time of cele&ration of the marria!e nor that it is incura&le. hile the personal

examination of Fel & a pschiatrist or pscholo!ist is no lon!er mandator for the

declaration of nullit of their marria!e under 8rticle $ of the Famil Code of the

#hilippines, & virtue of this CourtQs rulin! in Marcos v. Marcos,L%)M respondent Crasus

must still have complied 1ith the re=uirement laid do1n in Republic v. )ourt of Appeals

and MolinaLM that the root cause of the incapacit &e identified as a pscholo!ical

illness and that its incapacitatin! nature &e full explained.










In an case, an dou&t shall &e resolved in favor of the validit of the marria!e.

L'M No less than the Constitution of ')B< sets the polic to protect and stren!then the

famil as the &asic social institution and marria!e as the foundation of the famil.L%M

**

Article 02 paragraph 0 of the a(il, )ode of the 3hilippines is notapplicable to the case at bar.

8ccordin! to 8rticle %$, para!raph % of the Famil Code of the #hilippines

here a marria!e &et1een a Filipino citi>en and a forei!ner

is validl cele&rated and a divorce is thereafter validl o&tained

a&road & the alien spouse capacitatin! him or her to remarr, theFilipino spouse shall li@e1ise have capacit to remarr under #hilippine la1.

8s it is 1orded, 8rticle %$, para!raph %, refers to a special situation 1herein one of the

couple !ettin! married is a Filipino citi>en and the other a forei!ner at the time the

marria!e 1as cele&rated. y *& a*n an' *&$ra *n&$rr$&a&*on, &$ a*' ro8**on

%anno& $ a*$' &o &$ %a$ o+ r$on'$n& !rau an' * *+$ F$y $%au$ a& &$

&*0$ F$y o&a*n$' $r '*8or%$, $ a &* a F***no %*&*:$n. 8lthou!h the exact

date 1as not esta&lished, Fel herself admitted in her 8ns1er filed &efore the 9TC that







she o&tained a divorce from respondent Crasus sometime after she left for the :nited

"tates *n 19;4, after 1hich she married her 8merican hus&and in ')B3. In the same

8ns1er, she alle!ed that she had &een an 8merican citi>en *n%$ 19;;. 8t the time she

filed for divorce, Fel 1as &* a F***no %*&*:$n, and pursuant to the nationalit

principle em&odied in 8rticle '3 of the Civil Code of the #hilippines, she 1as still &ound

& #hilippine la1s on famil ri!hts and duties, status, condition, and le!al capacit, even

1hen she 1as alread livin! a&road. #hilippine la1s, then and even until no1, do not

allo1 and reco!ni>e divorce &et1een Filipino spouses. Thus, Fel could not have validl

o&tained a divorce from respondent Crasus.

***

+he Solicitor %eneral is authori4ed to intervene2 on behalf of

the Republic2 in proceedings for annul(ent and declaration of

nullit, of (arriages.

Invo@in! 8rticle (B of the Famil Code of the #hilippines, respondent Crasus ar!ued that

onl the prosecutin! attorne or fiscal assi!ned to the 9TC ma intervene on &ehalf of

the "tate in proceedin!s for annulment or declaration of nullit of marria!es hence, the

5ffice of the "olicitor /eneral had no personalit to file the instant #etition on &ehalf of

the "tate. 8rticle (B provides



89T. (B. In all cases of annulment or declaration of a&solute nullitof marria!e, the Court shall order the prosecutin! attorne or fiscalassi!ned to it to appear on &ehalf of the "tate to ta@e steps to preventcollusion &et1een the parties and to ta@e care that the evidence is notfa&ricated or suppressed.

That 8rticle (B does not expressl mention the "olicitor /eneral does not &ar him

or his 5ffice from intervenin! in proceedin!s for annulment or declaration of nullit of

marria!es. Executive 5rder No. %)%, other1ise @no1n as the 8dministrative Code of

')B<, appoints the "olicitor /eneral as the principal la1 officer and le!al defender of the

/overnment.LM His 5ffice is tas@ed to represent the /overnment of the #hilippines,

its a!encies and instrumentalities and its officials and a!ents in an liti!ation, proceedin!,

investi!ation or matter re=uirin! the services of la1ers. The 5ffice of the "olicitor

/eneral shall constitute the la1 office of the /overnment and, as such, shall dischar!e

duties re=uirin! the services of la1ers.L(M

The intent of 8rticle (B of the Famil Code of the #hilippines is to ensure that the

interest of the "tate is represented and protected in proceedin!s for annulment and

declaration of nullit of marria!es & preventin! collusion &et1een the parties, or the

fa&rication or suppression of evidence and, &earin! in mind that the "olicitor /eneral is

the principal la1 officer and le!al defender of the land, then his intervention in such

proceedin!s could onl serve and contri&ute to the reali>ation of such intent, rather than

th1art it.







Furthermore, the !eneral rule is that onl the "olicitor /eneral is authori>ed to

&rin! or defend actions on &ehalf of the #eople or the 9epu&lic of the #hilippines once

the case is &rou!ht &efore this Court or the Court of 8ppeals.L3M hile it is the

prosecutin! attorne or fiscal 1ho activel participates, on &ehalf of the "tate, in a

proceedin! for annulment or declaration of nullit of marria!e &efore the 9TC, the 5ffice

of the "olicitor /eneral ta@es over 1hen the case is elevated to the Court of 8ppeals or

this Court. "ince it shall &e eventuall responsi&le for ta@in! the case to the appellate

courts 1hen circumstances demand, then it is onl reasona&le and practical that even

1hile the proceedin! is still &ein! held &efore the 9TC, the 5ffice of the "olicitor

/eneral can alread exercise supervision and control over the conduct of the prosecutin!

attorne or fiscal therein to &etter !uarantee the protection of the interests of the "tate.

In fact, this Court had alread reco!ni>ed and affirmed the role of the "olicitor

/eneral in several cases for annulment and declaration of nullit of marria!es that 1ere

appealed &efore it, summari>ed as follo1s in the case of Ancheta v. AnchetaL$M

In the case of Republic v. )ourt of Appeals L%$B "C98 ')B6'))<7M, this Court laid do1n the !uidelines in the interpretation andapplication of 8rt. (B of the Famil Code, one of 1hich concerns therole of the prosecutin! attorne or fiscal and the "olicitor /eneral toappear as counsel for the "tate4








6B7 The trial court must order the prosecutin! attorneor fiscal and the "olicitor /eneral to appear as counselfor the state. No decision shall &e handed do1n unlessthe "olicitor /eneral issues a certification, 1hich 1ill &e =uoted in the decision, &riefl statin! therein his

reasons for his a!reement or opposition, as the casema &e, to the petition. The "olicitor /eneral, alon!1ith the prosecutin! attorne, shall su&mit to the courtsuch certification 1ithin fifteen 6'37 das from the datethe case is deemed su&mitted for resolution of thecourt. The "olicitor /eneral shall dischar!e thee=uivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon ')3. L *d., at %'M

This Court in the case of Malca(po-Sin v. Sin L33 "C98 %B3

6%'7M reiterated its pronouncement in Republic v. )ourt of AppealsLSupra.M re!ardin! the role of the prosecutin! attorne or fiscal andthe "olicitor /eneral to appear as counsel for the "tateRL<M

Finall, the issuance of this Court of the 9ule on Declaration of 8&solute Nullit of

Void *arria!es and 8nnulment of Voida&le *arria!es,LBM 1hich &ecame effective on

'3 *arch %, should dispel an other dou&ts of respondent Crasus as to the authorit

of the "olicitor /eneral to file the instant #etition on &ehalf of the "tate. The 9ule

reco!ni>es the authorit of the "olicitor /eneral to intervene and ta@e part in the

proceedin!s for annulment and declaration of nullit of marria!es &efore the 9TC and on

appeal to hi!her courts. The pertinent provisions of the said 9ule are reproduced &elo1

"ec. 3. )ontents and for( of petition.

R








6(7 It shall &e filed in six copies. The petitioner shall serve a cop of the petition on the 5ffice of the "olicitor /eneral and the 5ffice ofthe Cit or #rovincial #rosecutor, 1ithin five das from the date ofits filin! and su&mit to the court proof of such service 1ithin thesame period.

R "ec. 'B. Me(oranda. The court ma re=uire the parties and the pu&lic prosecutor, in consultation 1ith the 5ffice of the "olicitor/eneral, to file their respective memoranda in support of their claims1ithin fifteen das from the date the trial is terminated. It mare=uire the 5ffice of the "olicitor /eneral to file its o1nmemorandum if the case is of si!nificant interest to the "tate. Noother pleadin!s or papers ma &e su&mitted 1ithout leave of court.8fter the lapse of the period herein provided, the case 1ill &e

considered su&mitted for decision, 1ith or 1ithout the memoranda.

"ec. '). 'ecision. R 6%7 The parties, includin! the "olicitor /eneral and the pu&lic prosecutor, shall &e served 1ith copies of the decision personall or & re!istered mail. If the respondent summoned & pu&lication

failed to appear in the action, the dispositive part of the decisionshall &e pu&lished once in a ne1spaper of !eneral circulation. 67 The decision &ecomes final upon the expiration of fifteen dasfrom notice to the parties. Entr of 0ud!ment shall &e made if nomotion for reconsideration or ne1 trial, or appeal is filed & an ofthe parties, the pu&lic prosecutor, or the "olicitor /eneral.R

"ec. %. Appeal. R 6%7 5otice of Appeal. 8n a!!rieved part or the "olicitor /eneralma appeal from the decision & filin! a Notice of 8ppeal 1ithinfifteen das from notice of denial of the motion for reconsideration



or ne1 trial. The appellant shall serve a cop of the notice of appealon the adverse parties.

/iven the fore!oin!, this Court arrives at a conclusion contrar to those of the 9TC

and the Court of 8ppeals, and sustains the validit and existence of the marria!e &et1een

respondent Crasus and Fel. 8t most, FelQs a&andonment, sexual infidelit, and &i!am,

!ive respondent Crasus !rounds to file for le!al separation under 8rticle 33 of the Famil

Code of the #hilippines, &ut not for declaration of nullit of marria!e under 8rticle $ of

the same Code. hile this Court commiserates 1ith respondent Crasus for &ein!

continuousl shac@led to 1hat is no1 a hopeless and loveless marria!e, this is one of

those situations 1here neither la1 nor societ can provide the specific ans1er to ever

individual pro&lem.L)M

HE9EF59E, the #etition is /98NTED and the assailed Decision of the Court

of 8ppeals in C8-/.9. CV No. $%3), dated ul %', affirmin! the ud!ment of the

9TC of Ce&u Cit, 2ranch %%, in Civil Case No. CE2-%<<, dated 5cto&er '))B, is

9EVE9"ED and "ET 8"IDE.

The marria!e of respondent Crasus +. Io and Fel 8da 9osal-Io remains valid and

su&sistin!.





"5 59DE9ED.



RE(LI! OF THE HILIINES,

#etitioner, G.R. No. 154380

- versus -

#resent4

Davide, r., ).J.2

6Chairman7,

uisum&in!,

;nares-"antia!o,

Carpio, and

8>cuna, JJ .!IRIANO ORE!IDO III,

9espondent.

#romul!ated4

5cto&er 3, %3

# - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

/iven a valid marria!e &et1een t1o Filipino citi>ens, 1here one part is later

naturali>ed as a forei!n citi>en and o&tains a valid divorce decree capacitatin! him or her

to remarr, can the Filipino spouse li@e1ise remarr under #hilippine la1J

2efore us is a case of first impression that &ehooves the Court to ma@e a definite

rulin! on this apparentl novel =uestion, presented as a pure =uestion of la1.



In this petition for revie1, the "olicitor /eneral assails the D$%**on<1= dated

*a '3, %%, of the 9e!ional Trial Court of *olave, Gam&oan!a del "ur, 2ranch % and

its R$ou&*on<2= dated ul (, %% denin! the motion for reconsideration. The court a

/uo had declared that herein respondent Cipriano 5r&ecido III is capacitated to remarr.

The fallo of the impu!ned Decision reads4

HE9EF59E, & virtue of the provision of the second para!raphof 8rt. %$ of the Famil Code and & reason of the divorce decreeo&tained a!ainst him & his 8merican 1ife, the petitioner is !iven thecapacit to remarr under the #hilippine +a1.

IT I" "5 59DE9ED.<3=

The factual antecedents, as narrated & the trial court, are as follo1s.

5n *a %(, ')B', Cipriano 5r&ecido III married +ad *ros *. Villanueva at the

:nited Church of Christ in the #hilippines in +am-an, 5>amis Cit. Their marria!e 1as

&lessed 1ith a son and a dau!hter, ristoffer "im&ortri> V. 5r&ecido and +ad im&erl

V. 5r&ecido.

In ')B$, CiprianoQs 1ife left for the :nited "tates &rin!in! alon! their son

ristoffer. 8 fe1 ears later, Cipriano discovered that his 1ife had &een naturali>ed as an

8merican citi>en.

"ometime in %, Cipriano learned from his son that his 1ife had o&tained a

divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent "tanle. "he, "tanle and her child &

him currentl live at 33$$ 8. alnut /rove 8venue, "an /a&riel, California.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/154380.htm#_ftn1








Cipriano thereafter filed 1ith the trial court a petition for authorit to remarr

invo@in! #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ of the Famil Code. No opposition 1as filed. Findin!

merit in the petition, the court !ranted the same. The 9epu&lic, herein petitioner, throu!h

the 5ffice of the "olicitor /eneral 65"/7, sou!ht reconsideration &ut it 1as denied.

In this petition, the 5"/ raises a pure =uestion of la14

HETHE9 59 N5T 9E"#5NDENT C8N 9E*899; :NDE9

89TIC+E %$ 5F THE F8*I+; C5DE<4=

The 5"/ contends that #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ of the Famil Code is not

applica&le to the instant case &ecause it onl applies to a valid mixed marria!e that is, a

marria!e cele&rated &et1een a Filipino citi>en and an alien. The proper remed,

accordin! to the 5"/, is to file a petition for annulment or for le!al separation. </=

Furthermore, the 5"/ ar!ues there is no la1 that !overns respondentQs situation. The

5"/ posits that this is a matter of le!islation and not of 0udicial determination.<6=

For his part, respondent admits that 8rticle %$ is not directl applica&le to his case

&ut insists that 1hen his naturali>ed alien 1ife o&tained a divorce decree 1hich

capacitated her to remarr, he is li@e1ise capacitated & operation of la1 pursuant to

"ection '%, 8rticle II of the Constitution.<7=

8t the outset, 1e note that the petition for authorit to remarr filed &efore the trial

court actuall constituted a petition for declarator relief. In this connection, "ection ',

9ule $ of the 9ules of Court provides4











9:+E $DEC+898T59; 9E+IEF 8ND "I*I+89 9E*EDIE"

"ection '. 6ho (a, file petition7 8n person interested under a

deed, 1ill, contract or other 1ritten instrument, or 1hose ri!hts are

affected & a statute, executive order or re!ulation, ordinance, or other !overnmental re!ulation ma, &efore &reach or violation thereof, &rin! anaction in the appropriate 9e!ional Trial Court to determine an =uestion of construction or validit arisin!, and for a declaration of his ri!hts or duties, thereunder.

. . .

The re=uisites of a petition for declarator relief are4 6'7 there must &e a 0usticia&le

controvers 6%7 the controvers must &e &et1een persons 1hose interests are adverse 67

that the part see@in! the relief has a le!al interest in the controvers and 6(7 that the

issue is ripe for 0udicial determination.<;=

This case concerns the applica&ilit of #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ to a marria!e

&et1een t1o Filipino citi>ens 1here one later ac=uired alien citi>enship, o&tained a

divorce decree, and remarried 1hile in the :.".8. The interests of the parties are also

adverse, as petitioner representin! the "tate asserts its dut to protect the institution of

marria!e 1hile respondent, a private citi>en, insists on a declaration of his capacit to

remarr. 9espondent, prain! for relief, has le!al interest in the controvers. The issue

raised is also ripe for 0udicial determination inasmuch as 1hen respondent remarries,

liti!ation ensues and puts into =uestion the validit of his second marria!e.

Comin! no1 to the su&stantive issue, does #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ of the Famil

Code appl to the case of respondentJ Necessaril, 1e must d1ell on ho1 this provision





had come a&out in the first place, and 1hat 1as the intent of the le!islators in its

enactmentJ

r*$+ H*&or*%a a%>?roun'

5n ul $, ')B<, then #resident Cora>on 8=uino si!ned into la1 Executive 5rder

No. %), other1ise @no1n as the OFamil Code,P 1hich too@ effect on 8u!ust , ')BB.

8rticle %$ thereof states4

8ll marria!es solemni>ed outside the #hilippines in accordance1ith the la1s in force in the countr 1here the 1ere solemni>ed, andvalid there as such, shall also &e valid in this countr, except those prohi&ited under 8rticles 3, <, and B.

5n ul '<, ')B<, shortl after the si!nin! of the ori!inal Famil Code, Executive

5rder No. %%< 1as li@e1ise si!ned into la1, amendin! 8rticles %$, $, and ) of the

Famil Code. 8 second para!raph 1as added to 8rticle %$. 8s so amended, it no1

provides4

89T. %$. 8ll marria!es solemni>ed outside the #hilippines inaccordance 1ith the la1s in force in the countr 1here the 1eresolemni>ed, and valid there as such, shall also &e valid in this countr,except those prohi&ited under 8rticles 36'7, 6(7, 637 and 6$7, $, < andB.

6here a (arriage between a ilipino citi4en and a foreigner is

validl, celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl, obtained abroad b,

the alien spouse capacitating hi( or her to re(arr,2 the ilipino spouse shall have capacit, to re(arr, under 3hilippine law. 6Emphasis supplied7

5n its face, the fore!oin! provision does not appear to !overn the situation

presented & the case at hand. It seems to appl onl to cases 1here at the time of the



cele&ration of the marria!e, the parties are a Filipino citi>en and a forei!ner. The instant

case is one 1here at the time the marria!e 1as solemni>ed, the parties 1ere t1o Filipino

citi>ens, &ut later on, the 1ife 1as naturali>ed as an 8merican citi>en and su&se=uentl

o&tained a divorce !rantin! her capacit to remarr, and indeed she remarried an

8merican citi>en 1hile residin! in the :.".8.

Note1orth, in the 9eport of the #u&lic Hearin!s<9= on the Famil Code, the

Catholic 2ishopsQ Conference of the #hilippines 6C2C#7 re!istered the follo1in!

o&0ections to #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$4

'. +he rule is discri(inator,. *t discri(inates against those whose spouses are ilipinos who divorce the( abroad. +hese spouses

who are divorced will not be able to re-(arr,2 while the spouses of

foreigners who validl, divorce the( abroad can.

%. This is the &e!innin! of the reco!nition of the validit of divorceeven for Filipino citi>ens. For those 1hose forei!n spouses validldivorce them a&road 1ill also &e considered to &e validl divorcedhere and can re-marr. e propose that this &e deleted and madeinto la1 onl after more 1idespread consultation. 6Emphasis

supplied.7

L$?*a&*8$ In&$n&

9ecords of the proceedin!s of the Famil Code deli&erations sho1ed that the

intent of #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$, accordin! to ud!e 8licia "empio-Di, a mem&er of

the Civil Code 9evision Committee, is to avoid the a&surd situation 1here the Filipino

spouse remains married to the alien spouse 1ho, after o&tainin! a divorce, is no lon!er

married to the Filipino spouse.





Interestin!l, #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ traces its ori!in to the ')B3 case of 8an

'orn v. Ro(illo, Jr .<1@= The 8an 'orn case involved a marria!e &et1een a Filipino

citi>en and a forei!ner. The Court held therein that a divorce decree validl o&tained &

the alien spouse is valid in the #hilippines, and conse=uentl, the Filipino spouse is

capacitated to remarr under #hilippine la1.

Does the same principle appl to a case 1here at the time of the cele&ration of the

marria!e, the parties 1ere Filipino citi>ens, &ut later on, one of them o&tains a forei!n

citi>enship & naturali>ationJ

The 0urisprudential ans1er lies latent in the '))B case of 9uita v. )ourt of

Appeals.<11= In 9uita, the parties 1ere, as in this case, Filipino citi>ens 1hen the !ot

married. The 1ife &ecame a naturali>ed 8merican citi>en in ')3( and o&tained a divorce

in the same ear. The Court therein hinted, & 1a of obiter dictu(, that a Filipino

divorced & his naturali>ed forei!n spouse is no lon!er married under #hilippine la1 and

can thus remarr.

Thus, ta@in! into consideration the le!islative intent and applin! the rule of

reason, 1e hold that #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ should &e interpreted to include cases

involvin! parties 1ho, at the time of the cele&ration of the marria!e 1ere Filipino

citi>ens, &ut later on, one of them &ecomes naturali>ed as a forei!n citi>en and o&tains a

divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should li@e1ise &e allo1ed to remarr as if the other

part 1ere a forei!ner at the time of the solemni>ation of the marria!e. To rule other1ise

1ould &e to sanction a&surdit and in0ustice. here the interpretation of a statute

accordin! to its exact and literal import 1ould lead to mischievous results or contravene








the clear purpose of the le!islature, it should &e construed accordin! to its spirit and

reason, disre!ardin! as far as necessar the letter of the la1. 8 statute ma therefore &e

extended to cases not 1ithin the literal meanin! of its terms, so lon! as the come 1ithin

its spirit or intent.<12=

If 1e are to !ive meanin! to the le!islative intent to avoid the a&surd situation

1here the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse 1ho, after o&tainin! a

divorce is no lon!er married to the Filipino spouse, then the instant case must &e deemed

as comin! 1ithin the contemplation of #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$.

In vie1 of the fore!oin!, 1e state the t1in elements for the application of

#ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ as follo1s4

'. There is a valid marria!e that has &een cele&rated &et1een aFilipino citi>en and a forei!ner and

%. 8 valid divorce is o&tained a&road & the alien spouse

capacitatin! him or her to remarr.

The rec@onin! point is not the citi>enship of the parties at the time of the

cele&ration of the marria!e, &ut their citi>enship at the ti(e a valid divorce is obtained

abroad & the alien spouse capacitatin! the latter to remarr.

In this case, 1hen CiprianoQs 1ife 1as naturali>ed as an 8merican citi>en, there

1as still a valid marria!e that has &een cele&rated &et1een her and Cipriano. 8s fate

1ould have it, the naturali>ed alien 1ife su&se=uentl o&tained a valid divorce

capacitatin! her to remarr. Clearl, the t1in re=uisites for the application of #ara!raph %





of 8rticle %$ are &oth present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the OdivorcedP Filipino spouse,

should &e allo1ed to remarr.

e are also una&le to sustain the 5"/Qs theor that the proper remed of the

Filipino spouse is to file either a petition for annulment or a petition for le!al separation.

8nnulment 1ould &e a lon! and tedious process, and in this particular case, not even

feasi&le, considerin! that the marria!e of the parties appears to have all the &ad!es of

validit. 5n the other hand, le!al separation 1ould not &e a sufficient remed for it

1ould not sever the marria!e tie hence, the le!all separated Filipino spouse 1ould still

remain married to the naturali>ed alien spouse.

Ho1ever, 1e note that the records are &ereft of competent evidence dul su&mitted

& respondent concernin! the divorce decree and the naturali>ation of respondentQs 1ife.

It is settled rule that one 1ho alle!es a fact has the &urden of provin! it and mere

alle!ation is not evidence.<13=

8ccordin!l, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove his alle!ation

that his 1ife 1as naturali>ed as an 8merican citi>en. +i@e1ise, &efore a forei!n divorce

decree can &e reco!ni>ed & our o1n courts, the part pleadin! it must prove the divorce

as a fact and demonstrate its conformit to the forei!n la1 allo1in! it.<14= "uch forei!n

la1 must also &e proved as our courts cannot ta@e 0udicial notice of forei!n la1s. +i@e

an other fact, such la1s must &e alle!ed and proved.<1/= Furthermore, respondent must

also sho1 that the divorce decree allo1s his former 1ife to remarr as specificall









re=uired in 8rticle %$. 5ther1ise, there 1ould &e no evidence sufficient to declare that

he is capacitated to enter into another marria!e.

Nevertheless, 1e are unanimous in our holdin! that #ara!raph % of 8rticle %$ of

the Famil Code 6E.5. No. %), as amended & E.5. No. %%<7, should &e interpreted to

allo1 a Filipino citi>en, 1ho has &een divorced & a spouse 1ho had ac=uired forei!n

citi>enship and remarried, also to remarr. Ho1ever, considerin! that in the present

petition there is no sufficient evidence su&mitted and on record, 1e are una&le to declare,

&ased on respondentQs &are alle!ations that his 1ife, 1ho 1as naturali>ed as an 8merican

citi>en, had o&tained a divorce decree and had remarried an 8merican, that respondent is

no1 capacitated to remarr. "uch declaration could onl &e made properl upon

respondentQs su&mission of the aforecited evidence in his favor.

A!!ORDINGL), the petition & the 9epu&lic of the #hilippines is GRANTED.

The assailed Decision dated *a '3, %%, and 9esolution dated ul (, %%, of the

9e!ional Trial Court of *olave, Gam&oan!a del "ur, 2ranch %, are here& SET ASIDE.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.



G.R. No. 46631 No8$0$r 16, 1939

IDONAH SLADE ERINS, petitioner,

vs.ARSENIO . DI"ON, Ju'?$ o+ F*r& In&an%$ o+ Man*a, E(GENE ARTH(R

ERINS, an' ENG(ET !ONSOLIDATED MINING !OMAN), respondents.

Alva J. &ill for petitioner.

Ross2 Lawrence2 Selph : )arrascoso for respondent Judge and ;enguet )onsolidated Mining )o(pan,.

'e6itt2 3er<ins : 3once =nrile for respondent 3er<ins.

MORAN, J.:

5n ul $, ')B, respondent, Eu!ene 8rthur #er@ins, instituted an action in theCourt of First Instance of *anila a!ainst the 2en!uet Consolidated *inin! Compan fordividends amountin! to #<',<).) on 3%,B<( shares of stoc@ re!istered in his name, pament of 1hich 1as &ein! 1ithheld & the compan and, for the reco!nition of hisri!ht to the control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. To thecomplaint, the compan filed its ans1er alle!in!, & 1a of defense, that the 1ithholdin!of such dividends and the non-reco!nition of plaintiffs ri!ht to the disposal and control of the shares 1ere due to certain demands made 1ith respect to said shares & the petitionerherein, Idonah "lade #er@ins, and & one /eor!e H. En!elhard. The ans1er pras that the

adverse claimants &e made parties to the action and served 1ith notice thereof & pu&lication, and that thereafter all such parties &e re=uired to interplead and settle theri!hts amon! themselves. 5n "eptem&er 3, ')B, the trial court ordered respondentEu!ene 8rthur #er@ins to include in his complaint as parties defendant petitioner, Idonah"lade #er@ins, and /eor!e H. En!elhard. The complaint 1as accordin!l amended and inaddition to the relief praed for in the ori!inal complaint, respondent #er@ins praed that petitioner Idonah "lade #er@ins and /eor!e En!elhard &e ad0ud!ed 1ithout interest in theshares of stoc@ in =uestion and excluded from an claim the assert thereon. Thereafter,summons & pu&lication 1ere served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah "lade#er@ins and /eor!e H. En!elhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. 5n Decem&er), ')B, En!elhard filed his ans1er to the amended complaint, and on Decem&er ',

')B, petitioner Idonah "lade #er@ins, throu!h counsel, filed her pleadin! entitledo&0ection to venue, motion to =uash, and demurrer to 0urisdiction 1herein shechallen!ed the 0urisdiction of the lo1er court over her person. #etitioners o&0ection,motion and demurrer havin! &een overruled as 1ell as her motion for reconsideration ofthe order of denial, she no1 &rou!ht the present petition for certiorari, prain! that thesummons & pu&lication issued a!ainst her &e declared null and void, and that, 1ithrespect to her, respondent ud!e &e permanentl prohi&ited from ta@in! an action on thecase.



The controllin! issue here involved is 1hether or not the Court of First Instance of*anila has ac=uired 0urisdiction over the person of the present petitioner as a non-resident defendant, or, not1ithstandin! the 1ant of such 0urisdiction, 1hether or not saidcourt ma validl tr the case. The parties have filed len!th memorandums relin! onnumerous authorities, &ut the principles !overnin! the =uestion are 1ell settled in this

0urisdiction.

"ection )B of our Code of Civil #rocedure provides that 1hen a non-residentdefendant is sued in the #hilippine courts and it appears, & the complaint or &affidavits, that the action relates to real or personal propert 1ithin the #hilippines in1hich said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contin!ent, or in 1hich therelief demanded consists, 1holl or in part, in excludin! such person from an interesttherein, service of summons ma&e made & pu&lication.

e have full explained the meanin! of this provision in =l ;anco =spa!ol

ilipino vs. 3alanca, < #hil., )%', 1herein 1e laid do1n the follo1in! rules4

6'7 In order that the court ma validl tr a case, it must have 0urisdiction over thesu&0ect-matter and over the persons of the parties. urisdiction over the su&0ect-matter is ac=uired & concession of the soverei!n authorit 1hich or!ani>es acourt and determines the nature and extent of its po1ers in !eneral and thus fixesits 0urisdiction 1ith reference to actions 1hich it ma entertain and the relief itma !rant. urisdiction over the persons of the parties is ac=uired & theirvoluntar appearance in court and their su&mission to its authorit, or & thecoercive po1er of le!al process exerted over their persons.

6%7 hen the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntar, the

court cannot ac=uire 0urisdiction over his person even if the summons &e served & pu&lication, for he is &eond the reach of 0udicial process. No tri&unalesta&lished & one "tate can extend its process &eond its territor so as to su&0ectto its decisions either persons or propert located in another "tate. There areman expressions in the 8merican reports from 1hich it mi!ht &e inferred that thecourt ac=uires personal 0urisdiction over the person of the defendant & pu&lication and notice &ut such is not the case. In truth, the proposition that 0urisdiction over the person of a non-resident cannot &e ac=uired & pu&licationand notice 1as never clearl understood even in the 8merican courts until afterthe decision had &een rendered & the "upreme Court of the :nited "tates in theleadin! case of 3enno,er v. 5eff 6)3 :."., <'( %( +a1. ed., 3$37. In the li!ht ofthat decisions 1hich have su&se=uentl &een rendered in that and other courts, the proposition that 0urisdiction over the person cannot &e thus ac=uired & pu&lication and notice is no lon!er open to =uestion and it is no1 fullesta&lished that a personal 0ud!ment upon constructive or su&stituted servicea!ainst a non-resident 1ho does not appear is 1holl invalid. This doctrineapplies to all @inds of constructive or su&stituted process, includin! service & pu&lication and personal service outside of the 0urisdiction in 1hich the 0ud!mentis rendered and the onl exception seems to &e found in the case 1here the non-



resident defendant has expressl or impliedl consented to the mode of service.6Note to 9aher vs. 9aher, 3 +. 9. 8. LN. ".M, %)% see also +.9.8. 3B3 3 +.9.8.LN.".M, '%.7

67 The !eneral rule, therefore, is that a suit a!ainst a non-resident cannot &e

entertained & a #hilippine court. here, ho1ever, the action is in re( or /uasi inre( in connection 1ith propert located in the #hilippines, the court ac=uires 0urisdiction over the res, and its 0urisdiction over the person of the non-resident isnon-essential. In order that the court ma exercise po1er over the res, it is notnecessar that the court should ta@e actual custod of the propert, potentialcustod thereof &ein! sufficient. There is potential custod 1hen, from the natureof the action &rou!ht, the po1er of the court over the propert is impliedlreco!ni>ed & la1. 8n illustration of 1hat 1e term potential 0urisdiction over theres, is found in the proceedin! to re!ister the title of land under our sstem for there!istration of land. Here the court, 1ithout ta@in! actual phsical control over the propert , assumes, at the instance of some person claimin! to &e o1ner, to

exercise a 0urisdiction in re( over the propert and to ad0udicate the title in favorof the petitioner a!ainst all the 1orld.

6(7 8s &efore stated, in an action in re( or /uasi in re( a!ainst a non-residentdefendant, 0urisdiction over his person is non-essential, and if the la1 re=uires insuch case that the summons upon the defendant &e served & pu&lication, it ismerel to satisf the constitutional re=uirement of due process. If an &e said, inthis connection, that ma reported cases can &e cited in 1hich it is assumed thatthe =uestion of the sufficienc of pu&lication or notice in the case of this @ind is a=uestion affectin! the 0urisdiction of the court, and the court is sometimes said toac=uire 0urisdiction & virtue of the pu&lication. This phraseolo! 1as

undou&tedl ori!inall adopted & the court &ecause of the analo! &et1eenservice & pu&lication and personal service of process upon the defendant and, ashas alread &een su!!ested, prior to the decision of 3enno,er v. 5eff 6 supra7, thedifference &et1een the le!al effects of the t1o forms of service 1as o&scure. It isaccordin!l not surprisin! that the modes of expression 1hich had alread &eenmoulded into le!al tradition &efore that case 1as decided have &een &rou!ht do1nto the present da. 2ut it is clear that the le!al principle here involved is notaffected & the peculiar lan!ua!es in 1hich the courts have expounded theirideas.lawphi1.net

The reason for the rule that #hilippine courts cannot ac=uire 0urisdiction over the person of a non-resident, as laid do1n & the "upreme Court of the :nited "tates in 3enno,er v. 5eff2 supra, ma &e found in a reco!ni>ed principle of pu&lic la1 to theeffect that no "tate can exercise direct 0urisdiction and authorit over persons or propert 1ithout its territor. "tor, Confl. +., ch. % heat, Int. +., pt. %, ch. %. Theseveral "tates are of e=ual di!nit and authorit, and the independence of one implies theexclusion of po1er from all others. 8nd so it is laid do1n & 0urists, as an elementar principle, that the la1s of one "tate have no operation outside of its territor, except sofar as is allo1ed & comit and that no tri&unal esta&lished & it can extend its process



&eond that territor so as to su&0ect either persons or propert to its decisions. 8nexertion of authorit of this sort &eond this limit, sas "tor, is a mere nullit, andincapa&le of &indin! such persons or propert in an other tri&unals. "tor, Confl. +.,sec. 3). 6#ennoer v. Neff, )3 :."., <'( %( +a1. ed., 3$3, 3$B-3$).7.

hen, ho1ever, the action relates to propert located in the #hilippines, the#hilippine courts ma validl tr the case, upon the principle that a "tate, throu!h itstri&unals, ma su&0ect propert situated 1ithin its limits o1ned & non-residents to the pament of the demand of its o1n citi>ens a!ainst them and the exercise of this 0urisdiction in no respect infrin!es upon the soverei!nt of the "tate 1here the o1ners aredomiciled. Ever "tate o1es protection to its citi>ens and, 1hen non-residents deal 1iththem, it is a le!itimate and 0ust exercise of authorit to hold and appropriate an properto1ned & such non-residents to satisf the claims of its citi>ens. It is in virtue of the"tates 0urisdiction over the propert of the non-resident situated 1ithin its limits that itstri&unals can in=uire into the non-residents o&li!ations to its o1n citi>ens, and thein=uir can then &e carried onl to the extent necessar to control the disposition of the

propert. If the non-resident has no propert in the "tate, there is nothin! upon 1hich thetri&unals can ad0udicate. 6#ennoer v. Neff, supra.7

In the instant case, there can &e no =uestion that the action &rou!ht & Eu!ene8rthur #er@ins in his amended complaint a!ainst the petitioner, Idonah "lade #er@ins,see@s to exclude her from an interest in a propert located in the #hilippines. That propert consists in certain shares of stoc@s of the 2en!uet Consolidated *inin!Compan, a sociedad anoni(a, or!ani>ed in the #hilippines under the provisions of the"panish Code of Commerce, 1ith its principal office in the Cit of *anila and 1hichconducts its minin! activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the 0urisdiction 1herethe corporation is created, 1hether the certificated evidencin! the o1nership of those

shares are 1ithin or 1ithout that 0urisdiction. 6Fletcher Cclopedia Corporations,#ermanent ed. Vol. '', p. )37. :nder these circumstances, 1e hold that the action thus &rou!ht is /uasi in re(, for 1hile the 0ud!ement that ma &e rendered therein is notstrictl a 0ud!ment in re(, it fixes and settles the title to the propert in controvers andto that extent parta@es of the nature of the 0ud!ment in re(. 63 C.., p 37. 8s held &the "upreme Court of the :nited "tates in 3enno,er v. 5eff 6 supra7

It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceedin! in re( is one ta@en directla!ainst propert, and has for its o&0ect the disposition of the propert, 1ithoutreference to the title of individual claimants &ut , in a lar!e and more !eneralsense, the terms are applied to actions &et1een parties, 1here the direct o&0ect isto reach and dispose of propert o1ned & them, or of some interest therein.

The action &ein! in /uasi in re(, The Court of First Instance of *anila has 0urisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to satisf the constitutionalre=uirement of due process, summons has &een served upon her & pu&lication. There isno =uestion as to the ade=uac of pu&lication made nor as to the mailin! of the order of pu&lication to the petitioners last @no1n place of residence in the :nited "tates. 2ut, ofcourse, the action &ein! /uasi in re( and notice havin! &e made & pu&lication, the relief



that ma &e !ranted & the #hilippine court must &e confined to the res, it havin! no 0urisdiction to render a personal 0ud!ment a!ainst the non-resident. In the amendedcomplaint filed & Eu!ene 8rthur #er@ins, no mone 0ud!ment or other relief in persona( is praed for a!ainst the petitioner. The onl relief sou!ht therein is that she &edeclared to &e 1ithout an interest in the shares in controvers and that she &e excluded

from an claim thereto.

#etitioner contends that the proceedin! instituted a!ainst her is one of interpleadin!and is therefore an action in persona(. "ection '% of our Code of Civil #rocedure provides that 1henever conflictin! claims are or ma &e made upon a person for orrelatin! to personal propert, or the performance of an o&li!ation or an portion thereof,so that he ma &e made su&0ect to several actions & different persons, such person ma &rin! an action a!ainst the conflictin! claimants, disclaimin! personal interest in thecontrovers, and the court ma order them to interplead 1ith one another and liti!atetheir several claims amon! themselves, there upon proceed to determine their severalclaims. Here, The 2en!uet Consolidated *inin! Compan, in its ans1er to the complaint

filed & Eu!ene 8rthur #er@ins, averred that in connection 1ith the shares of stoc@ in=uestion, conflictin! claims 1ere &ein! made upon it & said plaintiff, Eu!ene 8rthur#er@ins, his 1ife Idonah "lade #er@ins, and one named /eor!e H. En!elhard, and praedthat these last t1o &e made parties to the action and served 1ith summons & pu&lication,so that the three claimants ma liti!ate their conflictin! claims and settle their ri!htsamon! themselves. The court has not issued an order compellin! the conflictin!claimants to interplead 1ith one another and liti!ate their several claims amon!themselves, &ut instead ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint includin! the othert1o claimants as parties defendant. The plaintiff did so, prain! that the ne1 defendantsthus 0oined &e excluded fro an interest in the shares in =uestion, and it is upon thisamended complaint that the court ordered the service of the summons & pu&lication. It is

therefore, clear that the pu&lication of the summons 1as ordered not in virtue of aninterpleadin!, &ut upon the filin! of the amended complaint 1herein an action /uasi in

re( is alle!ed.

Had not the complaint &een amended, includin! the herein petitioner as anadditional defendant, and had the court, upon the filin! of the ans1er of the 2en!uetConsolidated *inin! Compan, issued an order under section '% of the Code of Civil#rocedure, callin! the conflictin! claimants into court and compellin! them to interplead1ith one another, such order could not perhaps have validl &een served & pu&lication or other1ise, upon the non-resident Idonah "lade #er@ins, for then the proceedin! 1ould &e purel one of interpleadin!. "uch proceedin! is a personal action, for it merel see@s tocall conflictin! claimants into court so that the ma interplead and liti!ate their severalclaims amon! themselves, and no specific relief is praed for a!ainst them, as theinterpleader have appeared in court, one of them pleads o1nership of the personal propert located in the #hilippines and see@s to exclude a non-resident claimant from aninterest therein, is a =uestion 1hich 1e do not decide not. "uffice it to sa that here theservice of the summons & pu&lication 1as ordered & the lo1er court & virtue of anaction /uasi in re( a!ainst the non-resident defendant.



9espondents contend that, as the petitioner in the lo1er court has pleaded over thesu&0ect-matter, she has su&mitted herself to its 0urisdiction. e have noticed, ho1ever,that these pleas have &een made not as independent !rounds for relief, &ut merel asadditional ar!uments in support of her contention that the lo1er court had no 0urisdictionover the person. In other 1ords, she claimed that the lo1er court had no 0urisdiction over

her person not onl &ecause she is a non-resident, &ut also &ecause the court had no 0urisdiction over the su&0ect-matter of the action and that the issues therein involved havealread &een decided & the Ne1 ;or@ court and are &ein! reliti!ated in the Californiacourt. 8lthou!h this ar!ument is o&viousl erroneous, as neither 0urisdiction over thesu&0ect-matter nor res adudicata nor lis pendens has anthin! to do 1ith the =uestion of 0urisdiction over her person, 1e &elieve and so hold that the petitioner has not, & sucherroneous ar!ument, su&mitted herself to the 0urisdiction of the court. Voluntarappearance cannot &e implied from either a mista@en or superflous reasonin! &ut fromthe nature of the relief praed for.

For all the fore!oin!, petition is here& denied, 1ith costs a!ainst petitioner.



G.R. No. 15090 *+e 19, 1994

P"ILSEC INESTMENT CORPORATION, BPI6INTERNATIONAL FINANCE

LIMITED, a! AT"ONA "OLDINGS, N.., petitioners,vs.T"E "ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 188, INC., DRAGO DAIC,ENTURA O. DUCAT, PRECIOSO R. PERLAS, a! ;ILLIAM ". CRAIG,respondents.

MENDO#A, J.:

This !ase presents for determination the !on!lusiveness of a forei+n ?ud+ment

upon the ri+hts of the parties under the same !ause of a!tion asserted in a !asein our lo!al !ourt. 'etitioners brou+ht this !ase in the Re+ional Trial Court of>akati, ran!h 5$, hi!h, in vie of the penden!- at the time of the forei+na!tion, dismissed Civil Case (o. 1$5$) on the +round of litis pendentia, inaddition to forum non conveniens. *n appeal, the Court of "ppeals affirmed.Fen!e this petition for revie on certiorari .

The fa!ts are as follos

*n 3anuar- 15, 190), private respondent Hentura *. u!at obtained separateloans from petitioners "-ala nternational inan!e <imited hereafter !alled

"B"<":1

and 'hilse! nvestment Corporation hereafter !alled 'F<S=C: in thesum of SM2,5##,###.##, se!ured b- shares of sto!k oned b- u!at ith amarket value of '14,#00,995.##. n order to fa!ilitate the pa-ment of the loans,private respondent 1400, n!., throu+h its president, private respondent ra+oai!, assumed u!atAs obli+ation under an "+reement, dated 3anuar- 27, 190),hereb- 1400, n!. e;e!uted a 8arrant- eed ith HendorAs <ien b- hi!h itsold to petitioner "thona Foldin+s, (.H. hereafter !alled "TF*(": a par!el ofland in Farris Count-, Te;as, .S."., for SM2,0#7,2#9.#2, hile 'F<S=C and

"B"<" e;tended a loan to "TF*(" in the amount of SM2,5##,###.## as initialpa-ment of the pur!hase pri!e. The balan!e of SM)#7,2#9.#2 as to be paid b-means of a promissor- note e;e!uted b- "TF*(" in favor of 1400, n!.

Subseuentl-, upon their re!eipt of the SM2,5##,###.## from 1400, n!.,'F<S=C and "B"<" released u!at from his indebtedness and delivered to1400, n!. all the shares of sto!k in their possession belon+in+ to u!at.

"s "TF*(" failed to pa- the interest on the balan!e of SM)#7,2#9.#2, theentire amount !overed b- the note be!ame due and demandable. "!!ordin+l-, on*!tober 17, 1905, private respondent 1400, n!. sued petitioners 'F<S=C,

"B"<", and "TF*(" in the nited States for pa-ment of the balan!e of



SM)#7,2#9.#2 and for dama+es for brea!h of !ontra!t and for fraud alle+edl-perpetrated b- petitioners in misrepresentin+ the marketabilit- of the shares ofsto!k delivered to 1400, n!. under the "+reement. *ri+inall- instituted in thenited States istri!t Court of Te;as, 1$5th 3udi!ial istri!t, here it asdo!keted as Case (o. 05%5774$, the venue of the a!tion as later transferred to

the nited States istri!t Court for the Southern istri!t of Te;as, here 1400,n!. filed an amended !omplaint, reiteratin+ its alle+ations in the ori+inal!omplaint. "TF*(" filed an anser ith !ounter!laim, impleadin+ privaterespondents herein as !ounterdefendants, for alle+edl- !onspirin+ in sellin+ thepropert- at a pri!e over its market value. 'rivate respondent 'erlas, ho hadalle+edl- appraised the propert-, as later dropped as !ounterdefendant.

"TF*(" sou+ht the re!over- of dama+es and e;!ess pa-ment alle+edl- madeto 1400, n!. and, in the alternative, the res!ission of sale of the propert-. ortheir part, 'F<S=C and "B"<" filed a motion to dismiss on the +round of la!k of

?urisdi!tion over their person, but, as their motion as denied, the- later filed a ?oint anser ith !ounter!laim a+ainst private respondents and =d+ardo H.

&uevarra, 'F<S=CAs on former president, for the res!ission of the sale on the+round that the propert- had been overvalued. *n >ar!h 1), 199#, the nitedStates istri!t Court for the Southern istri!t of Te;as dismissed the !ounter!laima+ainst =d+ardo H. &uevarra on the +round that it as Dfrivolous and JasKbrou+ht a+ainst him simpl- to humiliate and embarrass him.D or this reason, the.S. !ourt imposed so%!alled Rule 11 san!tions on 'F<S=C and "B"<" andordered them to pa- dama+es to &uevarra.

*n "pril 1#, 1907, hile Civil Case (o. F%0$%44# as pendin+ in the nitedStates, petitioners filed a !omplaint Dor Sum of >one- ith ama+es and 8ritof 'reliminar- "tta!hmentD a+ainst private respondents in the Re+ional Trial

Court of >akati, here it as do!keted as Civil Case (o. 1$5$). The !omplaintreiterated the alle+ation of petitioners in their respe!tive !ounter!laims in Civil "!tion (o. F%0$%44# of the nited States istri!t Court of Southern Te;as thatprivate respondents !ommitted fraud b- sellin+ the propert- at a pri!e 4##per!ent more than its true value of SM0##,###.##. 'etitioners !laimed that, as aresult of private respondentsA fraudulent misrepresentations, "TF*(", 'F<S=C,and "B"<" ere indu!ed to enter into the "+reement and to pur!hase theFouston propert-. 'etitioners pra-ed that private respondents be ordered toreturn to "TF*(" the e;!ess pa-ment of SM1,7##,###.## and to pa- dama+es.*n "pril 2#, 1907, the trial !ourt issued a rit of preliminar- atta!hment a+ainstthe real and personal properties of private respondents. 2

'rivate respondent u!at moved to dismiss Civil Case (o. 1$5$) on the +roundsof 1: litis pendentia, vis;a;vis Civil "!tion (o. F%0$%44# filed b- 1400, n!. andai! in the .S., 2: forum non conveniens, and ): failure of petitioners'F<S=C and '%< to state a !ause of a!tion. u!at !ontended that thealle+ed overpri!in+ of the propert- pre?udi!ed onl- petitioner "TF*(", as bu-er,but not 'F<S=C and '%< hi!h ere not parties to the sale and hose onl-parti!ipation as to e;tend finan!ial a!!ommodation to "TF*(" under a



separate loan a+reement. *n the other hand, private respondents 1400, n!. andits president ai! filed a ?oint DSpe!ial "ppearan!e and /ualified >otion toismiss,D !ontendin+ that the a!tion bein+ in personam, e;traterritorial servi!e ofsummons b- publi!ation as ineffe!tual and did not vest the !ourt ith

?urisdi!tion over 1400, n!., hi!h is a non%resident forei+n !orporation, and ai!,

ho is a non%resident alien.

*n 3anuar- 2$, 1900, the trial !ourt +ranted u!atAs motion to dismiss, statin+that Dthe evidentiar- reuirements of the !ontrovers- ma- be more suitabl- triedbefore the forum of the litis pendentia in the .S., under the prin!iple in privateinternational la of forum non conveniens,D even as it noted that u!at as not apart- in the .S. !ase.

" separate hearin+ as held ith re+ard to 1400, n!. and ai!As motion todismiss. *n >ar!h 9, 1900, the trial !ourt 0 +ranted the motion to dismiss filed b-1400, n!. and ai! on the +round of litis pendentia !onsiderin+ that

the Dmain factual element D of the !ause of a!tion in this !ase hi!h is the validit-of the sale of real propert- in the nited States beteen defendant 1400 andplaintiff "TF*(" is the sub?e!t matter of the pendin+ !ase in the nited Statesistri!t Court hi!h, under the do!trine of forum non conveniens, is the better ifnot e;!lusive: forum to liti+ate matters needed to determine the assessmentandEor flu!tuations of the fair market value of real estate situated in Fouston,Te;as, .S.". from the date of the transa!tion in 190) up to the present andveril-, . . . emphasis b- trial !ourt:

The trial !ourt also held itself ithout ?urisdi!tion over 1400, n!. and ai!be!ause the- ere non%residents and the a!tion as not an a!tion in rem or uasi in rem, so that e;traterritorial servi!e of summons as ineffe!tive.

The trial !ourt subseuentl- lifted the rit of atta!hment it had earlierissued a+ainst the shares of sto!ks of 1400, n!. and ai!.

'etitioners appealed to the Court of "ppeals, ar+uin+ that the trial !ourt erred inappl-in+ the prin!iple of litis pendentia and forum non conveniens and in rulin+that it had no ?urisdi!tion over the defendants, despite the previous atta!hment of shares of sto!ks belon+in+ to 1400, n!. and ai!.

*n 3anuar- $, 1992, the Court of "ppeals affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case(o. 1$5$) a+ainst u!at, 1400, n!., and ai! on the +round of litis pendentia,thus

The plaintiffs in the .S. !ourt are 1400 n!. andEor ra+o ai!, hile thedefendants are 'hilse!, the "-ala nternational inan!e <td. '%<As formername: and the "thona Foldin+s, (H. The !ase at bar involves the same parties.The transa!tion sued upon b- the parties, in both !ases is the 8arrant- eede;e!uted b- and beteen "thona Foldin+s and 1400 n!. n the .S. !ase,brea!h of !ontra!t and the promissor- note are sued upon b- 1400 n!., hi!hlikeise alle+es fraud emplo-ed b- herein appellants, on the marketabilit- ofu!atAs se!urities +iven in e;!han+e for the Te;as propert-. The re!over- of a



sum of mone- and dama+es, for fraud purportedl- !ommitted b- appellees, inoverpri!in+ the Te;as land, !onstitute the a!tion before the 'hilippine !ourt,hi!h likeise stems from the same 8arrant- eed.

The Court of "ppeals also held that Civil Case (o. 1$5$) as an a!tion inpersonam for the re!over- of a sum of mone- for alle+ed tortious a!ts, so

that servi!e of summons b- publi!ation did not vest the trial !ourt ith ?urisdi!tion over 1400, n!. and ra+o ai!. The dismissal of Civil Case(o. 1$5$) on the +round of forum non conveniens as likeise affirmedb- the Court of "ppeals on the +round that the !ase !an be better triedand de!ided b- the .S. !ourt

The .S. !ase and the !ase at bar arose from onl- one main transa!tion, andinvolve forei+n elements, to it 1: the propert- sub?e!t matter of the sale issituated in Te;as, .S.". 2: the seller, 1400 n!. is a non%resident forei+n!orporation ): althou+h the bu-er, "thona Foldin+s, a forei+n !orporation hi!hdoes not !laim to be doin+ business in the 'hilippines, is holl- oned b-'hilse!, a domesti! !orporation, "thona Foldin+s is also oned b- '%<, also

a forei+n !orporation 4: the 8arrant- eed as e;e!uted in Te;as, .S.".

n their present appeal, petitioners !ontend that

1. TF= *CTR(= * '=(=(CB * "(*TF=R "CT*( =T8==( TF=S">= '"RT=S *R TF= S">= C"S= /## P24!24#A: R=<= '*(B TF= C*RT * "''="<S ( "R>(& TF= TR"< C*RTASS>SS"< * TF= CH< "CT*( S (*T "''<C"<=.

2. TF= 'R(C'<= * 8&RU% 4&4 C&4B24#24 "<S* R=<= '*( BTF= C*RT * "''="<S ( "R>(& TF= S>SS"< B TF= TR"<C*RT * TF= CH< "CT*( S <@=8S= (*T "''<C"<=.

). "S " C*R*<<"RB T* TF= RST T8* &R*(S, TF= C*RT * "''="<S =RR= ( (*T F*<(& TF"T 'F<''(= '<C '*<CBR=/R= TF= "SS>'T*(, (*T TF= R=<(/SF>=(T, B TF= TR"<C*RT * TS R&FT< 3RSCT*( ( TF= CH< "CT*( *R TF=R=S =H=RB R="S*( T* 'R*T=CT "( H(C"T= '=TT*(=RSA R&FTS*R T*RT*S *R 8R*(&< "CTS *R C*(CT 'RH"T=R=S'*(=(TS 8F* "R= >*ST<B (*(%R=S=(T "<=(S: (<CT='*( TF=> F=R= ( TF= 'F<''(=S.

8e ill deal ith these !ontentions in the order in hi!h the- are made.

8irst . t is important to note in !onne!tion ith the first point that hile the present!ase as pendin+ in the Court of "ppeals, the nited States istri!t Court for theSouthern istri!t of Te;as rendered ?ud+ment in the !ase before it. The

?ud+ment, hi!h as in favor of private respondents, as affirmed on appeal b-the Cir!uit Court of "ppeals. 3 Thus, the prin!ipal issue to be resolved in this !aseis hether Civil Case (o. 1$5)$ is barred b- the ?ud+ment of the .S. !ourt.



'rivate respondents !ontend that for a forei+n ?ud+ment to be pleaded as res ?udi!ata, a ?ud+ment admittin+ the forei+n de!ision is not ne!essar-. *n the other hand, petitioners ar+ue that the forei+n ?ud+ment !annot be +iven the effe!t ofres ?udi!ata ithout +ivin+ them an opportunit- to impea!h it on +rounds stated inRule )9, W5# of the Rules of Court, to it Dant of ?urisdi!tion, ant of noti!e to

the part-, !ollusion, fraud, or !lear mistake of la or fa!t.D

'etitionersA !ontention is meritorious. 8hile this Court has +iven the effe!t of res ?udi!ata to forei+n ?ud+ments in several !ases, 4 it as after the parties opposedto the ?ud+ment had been +iven ample opportunit- to repel them on +roundsalloed under the la. 8 t is not ne!essar- for this purpose to initiate a separatea!tion or pro!eedin+ for enfor!ement of the forei+n ?ud+ment. 8hat is essential isthat there is opportunit- to !hallen+e the forei+n ?ud+ment, in order for the !ourtto properl- determine its effi!a!-. This is be!ause in this ?urisdi!tion, ith respe!tto a!tions in personam, as distin+uished from a!tions in rem, a forei+n ?ud+mentmerel- !onstitutes prima facie eviden!e of

the ?ustness of the !laim of a part- and, as su!h, is sub?e!t to proof to the!ontrar-. 9 Rule )9, W5# provides

Se!. 5#. 2ffect of foreign +udgments. I The effe!t of a ?ud+ment of a tribunal of aforei+n !ountr-, havin+ ?urisdi!tion to pronoun!e the ?ud+ment is as follos

a: n !ase of a ?ud+ment upon a spe!ifi! thin+, the ?ud+ment is !on!lusive uponthe title to the thin+

b: n !ase of a ?ud+ment a+ainst a person, the ?ud+ment is presumptiveeviden!e of a ri+ht as beteen the parties and their su!!essors in interest b- asubseuent title but the ?ud+ment ma- be repelled b- eviden!e of a ant of

?urisdi!tion, ant of noti!e to the part-, !ollusion, fraud, or !lear mistake of la or

fa!t.

Thus, in the !ase of ?eneral Corporation of t-e P-ilippines v . Union #nsuranceociet( of Canton, /td ., 15 hi!h private respondents invoke for !laimin+!on!lusive effe!t for the forei+n ?ud+ment in their favor, the forei+n ?ud+ment as!onsidered res ?udi!ata be!ause this Court found Dfrom the eviden!e as ell asfrom appellantAs on pleadin+sD 11 that the forei+n !ourt did not make a D!learmistake of la or fa!tD or that its ?ud+ment as void for ant of ?urisdi!tion orbe!ause of fraud or !ollusion b- the defendants. Trial had been previousl- held inthe loer !ourt and onl- afterard as a de!ision rendered, de!larin+ the

?ud+ment of the Supreme Court of the State of 8ashin+ton to have the effe!t of

res ?udi!ata in the !ase before the loer !ourt. n the same vein, in P-ilippines#nternational -ipping Corp. v . Court of Appeals, 12 this Court held that the forei+n

?ud+ment as valid and enfor!eable in the 'hilippines there bein+ no shoin+that it as vitiated b- ant of noti!e to the part-, !ollusion, fraud or !lear mistakeof la or fa!t. The prima facie presumption under the Rule had not beenrebutted.



n the !ase at bar, it !annot be said that petitioners ere +iven the opportunit- to!hallen+e the ?ud+ment of the .S. !ourt as basis for de!larin+ it res ?udi!ata or!on!lusive of the ri+hts of private respondents. The pro!eedin+s in the trial !ourtere summar-. (either the trial !ourt nor the appellate !ourt as even furnished!opies of the pleadin+s in the .S. !ourt or apprised of the eviden!e presented

thereat, to assure a proper determination of hether the issues then bein+liti+ated in the .S. !ourt ere e;a!tl- the issues raised in this !ase su!h that the ?ud+ment that mi+ht be rendered ould !onstitute res ?udi!ata. "s the trial !ourtstated in its disputed order dated >ar!h 9, 1900.

*n the plaintiffAs !laim in its *pposition that the !auses of a!tion of this !ase andthe pendin+ !ase in the nited States are not identi!al, precisel( t-e &rder of'anuar( *@, 19>> never found t-at t-e causes of action of t-is case and t-e case

pending $efore t-e UA Court, ere identical . emphasis added:

t as error therefore for the Court of "ppeals to summaril- rule thatpetitionersA a!tion is barred b- the prin!iple of res ?udi!ata. 'etitioners in

fa!t uestioned the ?urisdi!tion of the .S. !ourt over their persons, buttheir !laim as brushed aside b- both the trial !ourt and the Court of

"ppeals. 10

>oreover, the Court notes that on "pril 22, 1992, 1400, n!. and ai! filed apetition for the enfor!ement of ?ud+ment in the Re+ional Trial Court of >akati,here it as do!keted as Civil Case (o. 92%1#7# and assi+ned to ran!h 1)4,althou+h the pro!eedin+s ere suspended be!ause of the penden!- of this !ase.To sustain the appellate !ourtAs rulin+ that the forei+n ?ud+ment !onstitutes res

?udi!ata and is a bar to the !laim of petitioners ould effe!tivel- pre!ludepetitioners from repellin+ the ?ud+ment in the !ase for enfor!ement. "n absurdit-

!ould then arise a forei+n ?ud+ment is not sub?e!t to !hallen+e b- the plaintiffa+ainst hom it is invoked, if it is pleaded to resist a !laim as in this !ase, but itma- be opposed b- the defendant if the forei+n ?ud+ment is sou+ht to beenfor!ed a+ainst him in a separate pro!eedin+. This is plainl- untenable. t hasbeen held therefore that

J"K forei+n ?ud+ment ma- not be enfor!ed if it is not re!o+ni6ed in the ?urisdi!tionhere affirmative relief is bein+ sou+ht. Fen!e, in the interest of ?usti!e, the!omplaint should be !onsidered as a petition for the re!o+nition of the Fon+kon+

?ud+ment under Se!tion 5# b:, Rule )9 of the Rules of Court in order that thedefendant, private respondent herein, ma- present eviden!e of la!k of

?urisdi!tion, noti!e, !ollusion, fraud or !lear mistake of fa!t and la, if appli!able.1

"!!ordin+l-, to insure the orderl- administration of ?usti!e, this !ase and CivilCase (o. 92%1#7# should be !onsolidated. 1 "fter all, the to have been filed inthe Re+ional Trial Court of >akati, albeit in different salas, this !ase bein+assi+ned to ran!h 5$ 3ud+e ernando H. &orospe:, hile Civil Case (o. 92%1#7# is pendin+ in ran!h 1)4 of 3ud+e +na!io Capulon+. n su!h pro!eedin+s,petitioners should have the burden of impea!hin+ the forei+n ?ud+ment and onl-



in the event thesu!!eed in doin+ so ma- the- pro!eed ith their a!tion a+ainstprivate respondents.

econd . (or is the trial !ourtAs refusal to take !o+ni6an!e of the !ase ?ustifiableunder the prin!iple of forum non conveniens. irst, a motion to dismiss is limited

to the +rounds under Rule 1$, W1, hi!h does not in!lude forum non conveniens.13 The propriet- of dismissin+ a !ase based on this prin!iple reuires a fa!tualdetermination, hen!e, it is more properl- !onsidered a matter of defense.Se!ond, hile it is ithin the dis!retion of the trial !ourt to abstain from assumin+

?urisdi!tion on this +round, it should do so onl- after Dvital fa!ts are established, todetermine hether spe!ial !ir!umstan!esD reuire the !ourtAs desistan!e. 14

n this !ase, the trial !ourt abstained from takin+ ?urisdi!tion solel- on the basis of the pleadin+s filed b- private respondents in !onne!tion ith the motion todismiss. t failed to !onsider that one of the plaintiffs 'F<S=C: is a domesti!!orporation and one of the defendants Hentura u!at: is a ilipino, and that it

as the e;tin+uishment of the latterAs debt hi!h as the ob?e!t of thetransa!tion under liti+ation. The trial !ourt arbitraril- dismissed the !ase evenafter findin+ that u!at as not a part- in the .S. !ase.

-ird . t as error e think for the Court of "ppeals and the trial !ourt to hold that ?urisdi!tion over 1400, n!. and ai! !ould not be obtained be!ause this is ana!tion in personam and summons ere served b- e;traterritorial servi!e. Rule14, W17 on e;traterritorial servi!e provides that servi!e of summons on a non%resident defendant ma- be effe!ted out of the 'hilippines b- leave of Courthere, amon+ others, Dthe propert- of the defendant has been atta!hed ithinthe 'hilippines.D 18 t is not disputed that the properties, real and personal, of the

private respondents had been atta!hed prior to servi!e of summons under the*rder of the trial !ourt dated "pril 2#, 1907. 19

8ourt-. "s for the temporar- restrainin+ order issued b- the Court on 3une 29,1994, to suspend the pro!eedin+s in Civil Case (o. 92%1445 filed b- =d+ardo H.&uevarra to enfor!e so%!alled Rule 11 san!tions imposed on the petitioners b-the .S. !ourt, the Court finds that the ?ud+ment sou+ht to be enfor!ed isseverable from the main ?ud+ment under !onsideration in Civil Case (o. 1$5$).The separabilit- of &uevaraAs !laim is not onl- admitted b- petitioners, 25 itappears from the pleadin+s that petitioners onl- belatedl- impleaded &uevarraas defendant in Civil Case (o. 1$5$). 21 Fen!e, the TR* should be lifted andCivil Case (o. 92%1445 alloed to pro!eed.

8F=R=*R=, the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals is R=H=RS= and CivilCase (o. 1$5$) is R=>"(= to the Re+ional Trial Court of >akati for!onsolidation ith Civil Case (o. 92%1#7# and for further pro!eedin+s ina!!ordan!e ith this de!ision. The temporar- restrainin+ order issued on 3une29, 1994 is hereb- <T=.



S* *R=R=.



G.R. No. 162;94 F$ruary 26, 2@@;

RA)THEON INTERNATIONAL, IN!., petitioner,

vs.STO!TON . RO("IE, JR., respondent.

D E ! I S I O N

TINGA, J.5

2efore this Court is a petition for revie1 on certiorari under 9ule (3 of the '))< 9ules ofCivil #rocedure 1hich see@s the reversal of the Decision' and 9esolution% of the Court of8ppeals in C8-/.9. "# No. $<' and the dismissal of the civil case filed & respondenta!ainst petitioner 1ith the trial court.

8s culled from the records of the case, the follo1in! antecedents appear4

"ometime in ')), 2rand *arine "ervices, Inc. 62*"I7, a corporation dul or!ani>edand existin! under the la1s of the "tate of Connecticut, :nited "tates of 8merica, andrespondent "toc@ton . 9ou>ie, r., an 8merican citi>en, entered into a contract 1here&2*"I hired respondent as its representative to ne!otiate the sale of services in several!overnment pro0ects in the #hilippines for an a!reed remuneration of 'S of the !rossreceipts. 5n '' *arch '))%, respondent secured a service contract 1ith the 9epu&lic ofthe #hilippines on &ehalf of 2*"I for the dred!in! of rivers affected & the *t. #inatu&oeruption and mudflo1s.

5n '$ ul '))(, respondent filed &efore the 8r&itration 2ranch of the National +a&or9elations Commission 6N+9C7 a suit a!ainst 2*"I and 9ust International, Inc. 69:"T7,9odne C. /il&ert and alter /. 2ro1nin! for alle!ed nonpament of commissions,ille!al termination and &reach of emploment contract.( 5n %B "eptem&er '))3, +a&or8r&iter #a&lo C. Espiritu, r. rendered 0ud!ment orderin! 2*"I and 9:"T to parespondentQs mone claims.3 :pon appeal & 2*"I, the N+9C reversed the decision ofthe +a&or 8r&iter and dismissed respondentQs complaint on the !round of lac@ of 0urisdiction.$ 9espondent elevated the case to this Court &ut 1as dismissed in a9esolution dated %$ Novem&er '))<. The 9esolution &ecame final and executor on ) Novem&er '))B.

5n B anuar '))), respondent, then a resident of +a :nion, instituted an action fordama!es &efore the 9e!ional Trial Court 69TC7 of 2auan!, +a :nion. The Complaint,< doc@eted as Civil Case No. '')%-2/, named as defendants herein petitioner 9atheonInternational, Inc. as 1ell as 2*"I and 9:"T, the t1o corporations impleaded in theearlier la&or case. The complaint essentiall reiterated the alle!ations in the la&or casethat 2*"I ver&all emploed respondent to ne!otiate the sale of services in !overnment pro0ects and that respondent 1as not paid the commissions due him from the #inatu&o

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_162894_2008.html#fnt1



















dred!in! pro0ect 1hich he secured on &ehalf of 2*"I. The complaint also averred that2*"I and 9:"T as 1ell as petitioner itself had com&ined and functioned as onecompan.

In its 8ns1er ,B petitioner alle!ed that contrar to respondentQs claim, it 1as a forei!n

corporation dul licensed to do &usiness in the #hilippines and denied enterin! into anarran!ement 1ith respondent or pain! the latter an sum of mone. #etitioner alsodenied com&inin! 1ith 2*"I and 9:"T for the purpose of assumin! the alle!edo&li!ation of the said companies.) #etitioner also referred to the N+9C decision 1hichdisclosed that per the 1ritten a!reement &et1een respondent and 2*"I and 9:"T,denominated as "pecial "ales 9epresentative 8!reement, the ri!hts and o&li!ations ofthe parties shall &e !overned & the la1s of the "tate of Connecticut.' #etitioner sou!htthe dismissal of the complaint on !rounds of failure to state a cause of action and foru(

non conveniens and praed for dama!es & 1a of compulsor counterclaim.''

5n 'B *a '))), petitioner filed an 5mni&us *otion for #reliminar Hearin! 2ased on

8ffirmative Defenses and for "ummar ud!ment

'%

see@in! the dismissal of thecomplaint on !rounds of foru( non conveniens and failure to state a cause of action.9espondent opposed the same. #endin! the resolution of the omni&us motion, thedeposition of alter 2ro1nin! 1as ta@en &efore the #hilippine Consulate /eneral inChica!o.'

In an 5rder '( dated ' "eptem&er %, the 9TC denied petitionerQs omni&us motion. Thetrial court held that the factual alle!ations in the complaint, assumin! the same to &eadmitted, 1ere sufficient for the trial court to render a valid 0ud!ment thereon. It alsoruled that the principle of foru( non conveniens 1as inapplica&le &ecause the trial courtcould enforce 0ud!ment on petitioner, it &ein! a forei!n corporation licensed to do

&usiness in the #hilippines.

'3

#etitioner filed a *otion for 9econsideration'$ of the order, 1hich motion 1as opposed & respondent.'< In an 5rder dated ' ul %','B the trial court denied petitionerQsmotion. Thus, it filed a 9ule $3 #etition') 1ith the Court of 8ppeals prain! for theissuance of a 1rit of certiorari and a 1rit of in0unction to set aside the t1in orders of thetrial court dated ' "eptem&er % and ' ul %' and to en0oin the trial court fromconductin! further proceedin!s.%

5n %B 8u!ust %, the Court of 8ppeals rendered the assailed Decision%' denin! the petition for certiorari for lac@ of merit. It also denied petitionerQs motion forreconsideration in the assailed 9esolution issued on ' *arch %(.%%

The appellate court held that althou!h the trial court should not have confined itself to thealle!ations in the complaint and should have also considered evidence aliunde inresolvin! petitionerQs omni&us motion, it found the evidence presented & petitioner, thatis, the deposition of alter 2ro1nin!, insufficient for purposes of determinin! 1hetherthe complaint failed to state a cause of action. The appellate court also stated that it couldnot rule one 1a or the other on the issue of 1hether the corporations, includin!





































petitioner, named as defendants in the case had indeed mer!ed to!ether &ased solel onthe evidence presented & respondent. Thus, it held that the issue should &e threshed outdurin! trial.% *oreover, the appellate court deferred to the discretion of the trial court1hen the latter decided not to desist from assumin! 0urisdiction on the !round of theinapplica&ilit of the principle of foru( non conveniens.

Hence, this petition raisin! the follo1in! issues4

HETHE9 59 N5T THE C5:9T 5F 8##E8+" E99ED IN 9EF:"IN/ T5DI"*I"" THE C5*#+8INT F59 F8I+:9E T5 "T8TE 8 C8:"E 5F8CTI5N 8/8IN"T 98;THE5N INTE9N8TI5N8+, INC.

HETHE9 59 N5T THE C5:9T 5F 8##E8+" E99ED IN 9EF:"IN/ T5DI"*I"" THE C5*#+8INT 5N THE /95:ND 5F $R>M 5$5)$58=5*=5S .%(

Incidentall, respondent failed to file a comment despite repeated notices. The Ceferino#adua +a1 5ffice, counsel on record for respondent, manifested that the la1er handlin!the case, 8tt. 9o!elio ara!da!, had severed relations 1ith the la1 firm even &efore thefilin! of the instant petition and that it could no lon!er find the 1herea&outs of 8tt.ara!da! or of respondent despite dili!ent efforts. In a 9esolution%3 dated % Novem&er%$, the Court resolved to dispense 1ith the filin! of a comment.

The instant petition lac@s merit.

#etitioner mainl asserts that the 1ritten contract &et1een respondent and 2*"I includeda valid choice of la1 clause, that is, that the contract shall &e !overned & the la1s of the

"tate of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of forei!n elements in the dispute namel, the parties and 1itnesses involved are 8merican corporations and citi>ens andthe evidence to &e presented is located outside the #hilippines that renders our localcourts inconvenient forums. #etitioner theori>es that the forei!n elements of the disputenecessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of foru( non conveniens.

9ecentl in &asegawa v. ?ita(ura,%$ the Court outlined three consecutive phasesinvolved in 0udicial resolution of conflicts-of-la1s pro&lems, namel4 0urisdiction, choiceof la1, and reco!nition and enforcement of 0ud!ments. Thus, in the instances%< 1here theCourt held that the local 0udicial machiner 1as ade=uate to resolve controversies 1ith aforei!n element, the follo1in! re=uisites had to &e proved4 6'7 that the #hilippine Court is

one to 1hich the parties ma convenientl resort 6%7 that the #hilippine Court is in a position to ma@e an intelli!ent decision as to the la1 and the facts and 67 that the#hilippine Court has or is li@el to have the po1er to enforce its decision.%B

5n the matter of 0urisdiction over a conflicts-of-la1s pro&lem 1here the case is filed in a#hilippine court and 1here the court has 0urisdiction over the su&0ect matter, the partiesand the res, it ma or can proceed to tr the case even if the rules of conflict-of-la1s or
















the convenience of the parties point to a forei!n forum. This is an exercise of soverei!n prero!ative of the countr 1here the case is filed.%)

urisdiction over the nature and su&0ect matter of an action is conferred & theConstitution and the la1 and & the material alle!ations in the complaint, irrespective of

1hether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefssou!ht therein.' Civil Case No. '')%-2/ is an action for dama!es arisin! from analle!ed &reach of contract. :ndou&tedl, the nature of the action and the amount ofdama!es praed are 1ithin the 0urisdiction of the 9TC.

8s re!ards 0urisdiction over the parties, the trial court ac=uired 0urisdiction over hereinrespondent 6as part plaintiff7 upon the filin! of the complaint. 5n the other hand, 0urisdiction over the person of petitioner 6as part defendant7 1as ac=uired & itsvoluntar appearance in court.%

That the su&0ect contract included a stipulation that the same shall &e !overned & the

la1s of the "tate of Connecticut does not su!!est that the #hilippine courts, or an otherforei!n tri&unal for that matter, are precluded from hearin! the civil action. urisdictionand choice of la1 are t1o distinct concepts. urisdiction considers 1hether it is fair tocause a defendant to travel to this state choice of la1 as@s the further =uestion 1hetherthe application of a su&stantive la1 1hich 1ill determine the merits of the case is fair to &oth parties. The choice of la1 stipulation 1ill &ecome relevant onl 1hen thesu&stantive issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearin! on the merits proceeds &efore the trial court.

:nder the doctrine of foru( non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-la1s cases, marefuse impositions on its 0urisdiction 1here it is not the most convenient or availa&le

forum and the parties are not precluded from see@in! remedies else1here.

(

#etitionerQsaverments of the forei!n elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trialcourt of its 0urisdiction over Civil Case No. No. '')%-2/ and the parties involved.

*oreover, the propriet of dismissin! a case &ased on the principle of foru( non

conveniens re=uires a factual determination hence, it is more properl considered as amatter of defense. hile it is 1ithin the discretion of the trial court to a&stain fromassumin! 0urisdiction on this !round, it should do so onl after vital facts are esta&lished,to determine 1hether special circumstances re=uire the courtQs desistance.3

Findin! no !rave a&use of discretion on the trial court, the Court of 8ppeals respected its

conclusion that it can assume 0urisdiction over the dispute not1ithstandin! its forei!nelements. In the same manner, the Court defers to the sound discretion of the lo1er courts &ecause their findin!s are &indin! on this Court.

#etitioner also contends that the complaint in Civil Case No. '')%-2/ failed to state acause of action a!ainst petitioner. Failure to state a cause of action refers to theinsufficienc of alle!ation in the pleadin!.$ 8s a !eneral rule, the elementar test for






















failure to state a cause of action is 1hether the complaint alle!es facts 1hich if true1ould 0ustif the relief demanded.<

The complaint alle!ed that petitioner had com&ined 1ith 2*"I and 9:"T to function asone compan. #etitioner contends that the deposition of alter 2ro1nin! re&utted this

alle!ation. 5n this score, the resolution of the Court of 8ppeals is instructive, thus4

x x x 5ur examination of the deposition of *r. alter 2ro1nin! as 1ell as otherdocuments produced in the hearin! sho1s that these evidence aliunde are not=uite sufficient for us to mete a rulin! that the complaint fails to state a cause ofaction.

8nnexes 8 to E & themselves are not su&stantial, convincin! and conclusive proofs that 9atheon En!ineers and Constructors, Inc. 69EC7 assumed the1arrant o&li!ations of defendant 9ust International in the *a@ar #ort #ro0ect in/eneral "antos Cit, after 9ust International ceased to exist after &ein! a&sor&ed

& 9EC. 5ther documents alread su&mitted in evidence are li@e1ise mea!er to preponderantl conclude that 9atheon International, Inc., 9ust InternationalL,MInc. and 2rand *arine "ervice, Inc. have com&ined into one compan, so muchso that 9atheon International, Inc., the survivin! compan 6if at all7 ma &e heldlia&le for the o&li!ation of 2*"I to respondent 9ou>ie for unpaid commissions. Neither these documents clearl spea@ other1ise.B

8s correctl pointed out & the Court of 8ppeals, the =uestion of 1hether petitioner,2*"I and 9:"T mer!ed to!ether re=uires the presentation of further evidence, 1hichonl a full-&lo1n trial on the merits can afford.

HEREFORE, the instant petition for revie1 on certiorari is DENIED. The Decisionand 9esolution of the Court of 8ppeals in C8-/.9. "# No. $<' are here&AFFIRMED. Costs a!ainst petitioner.

SO ORDERED.








G.R. No. 12@@77 O%&o$r 13, 2@@@

THE MANILA HOTEL !OR. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., petitioners,

vs.NATIONAL LAOR RELATIONS !OMMISSION, ARITER !EFERINA J.

DIOSANA AND MAR!ELO G. SANTOS, respondents.

ARDO, J .5

The case &efore the Court is a petition for certiorari' to annul the follo1in! orders of the National +a&or 9elations Commission 6hereinafter referred to as N+9C7 for havin! &een issued 1ithout or 1ith excess 0urisdiction and 1ith !rave a&use of discretion4%

6'7 $rder of Ma, @12 1@. 9eversin! and settin! aside its earlier resolution of

8u!ust %B, '))%.(

The =uestioned order declared that the N+9C, not the#hilippine 5verseas Emploment 8dministration 6hereinafter referred to as#5E87, had 0urisdiction over private respondents complaint

6%7 'ecision of 'ece(ber 1B2 1C.3 Directin! petitioners to 0ointl and severall pa private respondent t1elve thousand and six hundred dollars 6:" '%,$.7representin! salaries for the unexpired portion of his contract three thousand sixhundred dollars 6:",$.7 as extra four months salar for the t1o 6%7 ear period of his contract, three thousand six hundred dollars 6:",$.7 as '(thmonth pa or a total of nineteen thousand and ei!ht hundred dollars6:"'),B.7 or its peso e=uivalent and attornes fees amountin! to ten

percent 6'S7 of the total a1ard and

67 $rder of March @D2 1B.$ Denin! the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners.

In *a, ')BB, private respondent *arcelo "antos 6hereinafter referred to as "antos71as an overseas 1or@er emploed as a printer at the *a>oon #rintin! #ress, "ultanate of5man. "u&se=uentl, in une ')BB, he 1as directl hired & the #alace Hotel, 2ei0in!,#eoples 9epu&lic of China and later terminated due to retrenchment.

#etitioners are the *anila Hotel Corporation 6hereinafter referred to as *HC7 and the

*anila Hotel International Compan, +imited 6hereinafter referred to as *HIC+7.

hen the case 1as filed in ')), *HC 1as still a !overnment-o1ned and controlledcorporation dul or!ani>ed and existin! under the la1s of the #hilippines.

*HIC+ is a corporation dul or!ani>ed and existin! under the la1s of Hon! on!.< *HC is an incorporator of *HIC+, o1nin! 3S of its capital [email protected]



2 virtue of a mana!ement a!reement) 1ith the #alace Hotel 6an! Fu Compan+imited7, *HIC+' trained the personnel and staff of the #alace Hotel at 2ei0in!, China.

No1 the facts.

Durin! his emploment 1ith the *a>oon #rintin! #ress in the "ultanate of 5man,respondent "antos received a letter dated *a %, ')BB from *r. /erhard 9. "hmidt,/eneral *ana!er, #alace Hotel, 2ei0in!, China. *r. "chmidt informed respondent "antosthat he 1as recommended & one Nestor 2uenio, a friend of his.

*r. "hmidt offered respondent "antos the same position as printer, &ut 1ith a hi!hermonthl salar and increased &enefits. The position 1as slated to open on 5cto&er ',')BB.''

5n *a B, ')BB, respondent "antos 1rote to *r. "hmidt and si!nified his acceptance ofthe offer.

5n *a '), ')BB, the #alace Hotel *ana!er, *r. Hans . Hen@ mailed a read to si!nemploment contract to respondent "antos. *r. Hen@ advised respondent "antos that ifthe contract 1as accepta&le, to return the same to *r. Hen@ in *anila, to!ether 1ith his passport and t1o additional pictures for his visa to China.

5n *a , ')BB, respondent "antos resi!ned from the *a>oon #rintin! #ress, effectiveune , ')BB, under the pretext that he 1as needed at home to help 1ith the famils pi!!er and poultr &usiness.

5n une (, ')BB, respondent "antos 1rote the #alace Hotel and ac@no1led!ed *r.

Hen@s letter. 9espondent "antos enclosed four 6(7 si!ned copies of the emplomentcontract 6dated une (, ')BB7 and notified them that he 1as !oin! to arrive in *aniladurin! the first 1ee@ of ul ')BB.

The emploment contract of une (, ')BB stated that his emploment 1ould commence"eptem&er ', ')BB for a period of t1o ears. '% It provided for a monthl salar of ninehundred dollars 6:").7 net of taxes, paa&le fourteen 6'(7 times a ear.'

5n une , ')BB, respondent "antos 1as deemed resi!ned from the *a>oon #rintin!#ress.

5n ul ', ')BB, respondent "antos arrived in *anila.

5n Novem&er 3, ')BB, respondent "antos left for 2ei0in!, China. He started to 1or@ atthe #alace Hotel.'(

"u&se=uentl, respondent "antos si!ned an amended emploment a!reement 1ith the#alace Hotel, effective Novem&er 3, ')BB. In the contract, *r. "hmidt represented the



#alace Hotel. The Vice #resident 65perations and Development7 of petitioner *HIC+*i!uel D. Cer!ueda si!ned the emploment a!reement under the 1ord noted.

From une B to %), ')B), respondent "antos 1as in the #hilippines on vacation leave. Hereturned to China and reassumed his post on ul '<, ')B).

5n ul %%, ')B), *r. "hmidts Executive "ecretar, a certain oanna su!!ested in ahand1ritten note that respondent "antos &e !iven one 6'7 month notice of his releasefrom emploment.

5n 8u!ust ', ')B), the #alace Hotel informed respondent "antos & letter si!ned & *r."hmidt that his emploment at the #alace Hotel print shop 1ould &e terminated due to &usiness reverses &rou!ht a&out & the political upheaval in China.'3 e =uote the letter4'$

8fter the unfortunate happenin!s in China and especiall 2ei0in! 6referrin! toTiannamen "=uare incidents7, our &usiness has &een severel affected. To reduce

expenses, 1e 1ill not openAoperate printshop for the time &ein!.

e sincerel re!ret that a decision li@e this has to &e made, &ut rest assured thisdoes in no 1a reflect our past performance 1hich 1e found up to ourexpectations.

"hould a turnaround in the &usiness happen, 1e 1ill contact ou directl and!ive ou priorit on future assi!nment.

5n "eptem&er 3, ')B), the #alace Hotel terminated the emploment of respondent "antosand paid all &enefits due him, includin! his plane fare &ac@ to the #hilippines.

5n 5cto&er , ')B), respondent "antos 1as repatriated to the #hilippines.

5n 5cto&er %(, ')B), respondent "antos, throu!h his la1er, 8tt. Ednave 1rote *r."hmidt, demandin! full compensation pursuant to the emploment a!reement.

5n Novem&er '', ')B), *r. "hmidt replied, to 1it4'<

His service 1ith the #alace Hotel, 2ei0in! 1as not a&ruptl terminated &ut 1efollo1ed the one-month notice clause and *r. "antos received all &enefits duehim.

For our information the #rint "hop at the #alace Hotel is still not operationaland 1ith a lo1 &usiness outloo@, retrenchment in various departments of the hotelis !oin! on 1hich is a normal mana!ement practice to control costs.

hen !oin! throu!h the latest performance ratin!s, please also &e advised thathis performance 1as &elo1 avera!e and a Chinese National 1ho is doin! his 0o&no1 sho1s a &etter approach.



In closin!, 1hen *r. "antos received the letter of notice, he hardl sho1ed upfor 1or@ &ut still en0oed free accommodationAlaundrAmeals up to the da of hisdeparture.

5n Fe&ruar %, ')), respondent "antos filed a complaint for ille!al dismissal 1ith the

8r&itration 2ranch, National Capital 9e!ion, National +a&or 9elations Commission6N+9C7. He praed for an a1ard of nineteen thousand nine hundred and t1ent threedollars 6:"'),)%.7 as actual dama!es, fort thousand pesos 6#(,.7 asexemplar dama!es and attornes fees e=uivalent to %S of the dama!es praed for. Thecomplaint named *HC, *HIC+, the #alace Hotel and *r. "hmidt as respondents.

The #alace Hotel and *r. "hmidt 1ere not served 1ith summons and neither participatedin the proceedin!s &efore the +a&or 8r&iter.'B

5n une %<, '))', +a&or 8r&iter Ceferina . Diosana, decided the case a!ainst petitioners,thus4')

HE9EF59E, 0ud!ment is here& rendered4

'. directin! all the respondents to pa complainant 0ointl and severall

a7 %,B% :" dollars or its e=uivalent in #hilippine currenc asunearned salaries

&7 #3,. as moral dama!es

c7 #(,. as exemplar dama!es and

d7 Ten 6'7 percent of the total a1ard as attornes fees.

"5 59DE9ED.

5n ul %, '))', petitioners appealed to the N+9C, ar!uin! that the #5E8, not the N+9C had 0urisdiction over the case.

5n 8u!ust %B, '))%, the N+9C promul!ated a resolution, statin!4%

HE9EF59E, let the appealed Decision &e, as it is here&, declared null and

void for 1ant of 0urisdiction. Complainant is here& en0oined to file his complaint1ith the #5E8.

"5 59DE9ED.

5n "eptem&er 'B, '))%, respondent "antos moved for reconsideration of the afore-=uoted resolution. He ar!ued that the case 1as not co!ni>a&le & the #5E8 as he 1as notan overseas contract 1or@er.%'



5n *a ', ')), the N+9C !ranted the motion and reversed itself. The N+9C directed+a&or 8r&iter Emerson Tumanon to hear the case on the =uestion of 1hether privaterespondent 1as retrenched or dismissed.%%

5n anuar ', '))(, +a&or 8r&iter Tumanon completed the proceedin!s &ased on the

testimonial and documentar evidence presented to and heard & him.%

"u&se=uentl, +a&or 8r&iter Tumanon 1as re-assi!ned as trial 8r&iter of the NationalCapital 9e!ion, 8r&itration 2ranch, and the case 1as transferred to +a&or 8r&iter ose /.de Vera.%(

5n Novem&er %3, '))(, +a&or 8r&iter de Vera su&mitted his report.%3 He found thatrespondent "antos 1as ille!all dismissed from emploment and recommended that he &e paid actual dama!es e=uivalent to his salaries for the unexpired portion of hiscontract.%$

5n Decem&er '3, '))(, the N+9C ruled in favor of private respondent, to 1it4%<

HE9EF59E, findin! that the report and recommendations of 8r&iter de Veraare supported & su&stantial evidence, 0ud!ment is here& rendered, directin! therespondents to 0ointl and severall pa complainant the follo1in! computedcontractual &enefits4 6'7 :"'%,$. as salaries for the unexpired portion of the parties contract 6%7 :",$. as extra four 6(7 months salar for the t1o 6%7ears period 6sic7 of the parties contract 67 :",$. as '(th month pafor the aforesaid t1o 6%7 ears contract stipulated & the parties or a total of:"'),B. or its peso e=uivalent, plus 6(7 attornes fees of 'S ofcomplainants total a1ard.

"5 59DE9ED.

5n Fe&ruar %, '))3, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration ar!uin! that +a&or8r&iter de Veras recommendation had no &asis in la1 and in fact.%B

5n *arch , '))3, the N+9C denied the motion for reconsideration.%)

Hence, this petition.

5n 5cto&er ), '))3, petitioners filed 1ith this Court an ur!ent motion for the issuance of

a temporar restrainin! order andAor 1rit of preliminar in0unction and a motion for theannulment of the entr of 0ud!ment of the N+9C dated ul ', '))3.'

5n Novem&er %, '))3, the Court denied petitioners ur!ent motion. The Court re=uiredrespondents to file their respective comments, 1ithout !ivin! due course to the petition.%

5n *arch B, '))$, the "olicitor /eneral filed a manifestation statin! that after !oin! over the petition and its annexes, the can not defend and sustain the position ta@en & the



N+9C in its assailed decision and orders. The "olicitor /eneral praed that he &eexcused from filin! a comment on &ehalf of the N+9C

5n 8pril ,'))$, private respondent "antos filed his comment.(

5n une %$, '))$, the Court !ranted the manifestation of the "olicitor /eneral andre=uired the N+9C to file its o1n comment to the petition.3

5n anuar <, '))<, the N+9C filed its comment.

The petition is meritorious.

*. oru( 5on-)onveniens

The N+9C 1as a seriousl inconvenient forum.

e note that the main aspects of the case transpired in t1o forei!n 0urisdictions and thecase involves purel forei!n elements. The onl lin@ that the #hilippines has 1ith the caseis that respondent "antos is a Filipino citi>en. The #alace Hotel and *HIC+ are forei!ncorporations. Not all cases involvin! our citi>ens can &e tried here.

+he e(plo,(ent contract . K 9espondent "antos 1as hired directl & the #alace Hotel, aforei!n emploer, throu!h correspondence sent to the "ultanate of 5man, 1hererespondent "antos 1as then emploed. He 1as hired 1ithout the intervention of the#5E8 or an authori>ed recruitment a!enc of the !overnment.$

:nder the rule of foru( non conveniens, a #hilippine court or a!enc ma assume

0urisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided 4 6'7 that the #hilippine court isone to 1hich the parties ma convenientl resort to 6%7 that the #hilippine court is in a position to ma@e an intelli!ent decision as to the la1 and the facts and 67 that the#hilippine court has or is li@el to have po1er to enforce its decision.< The conditions areunavailin! in the case at &ar.

5ot )onvenient . K e fail to see ho1 the N+9C is a convenient forum !iven that all theincidents of the case K from the time of recruitment, to emploment to dismissaloccurred outside the #hilippines. The inconvenience is compounded & the fact that the proper defendants, the #alace Hotel and *HIC+ are not nationals of the #hilippines. Neither .are the doin! &usiness in the #hilippines. +i@e1ise, the main 1itnesses, *r.

"hmidt and *r. Hen@ are non-residents of the #hilippines.

5o power to deter(ine applicable law. K Neither can an intelli!ent decision &e made asto the la1 !overnin! the emploment contract as such 1as perfected in forei!n soil. Thiscalls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus 6the la1 of the place1here the contract 1as made7.B



The emploment contract 1as not perfected in the #hilippines. 9espondent "antossi!nified his acceptance & 1ritin! a letter 1hile he 1as in the 9epu&lic of 5man. Thisletter 1as sent to the #alace Hotel in the #eoples 9epu&lic of China.

5o power to deter(ine the facts. K Neither can the N+9C determine the facts

surroundin! the alle!ed ille!al dismissal as all acts complained of too@ place in 2ei0in!,#eoples 9epu&lic of China. The N+9C 1as not in a position to determine 1hether theTiannamen "=uare incident trul adversel affected operations of the #alace Hotel as to 0ustif respondent "antos retrenchment.

3rinciple of effectiveness2 no power to execute decision. K Even assumin! that a properdecision could &e reached & the N+9C, such 1ould not have an &indin! effect a!ainstthe emploer, the #alace Hotel. The #alace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under thela1s of China and 1as not even served 1ith summons. urisdiction over its person 1asnot ac=uired.

This is not to sa that #hilippine courts and a!encies have no po1er to solvecontroversies involvin! forei!n emploers. Neither are 1e sain! that 1e do not have po1er over an emploment contract executed in a forei!n countr. *f Santos were an

#overseas contract wor<er#2 a 3hilippine foru(2 specificall, the 3$=A2 not the 5LR)2

would protect hi(.) He is not an overseas contract 1or@er a fact 1hich he admits 1ithconviction.(

Even assumin! that the N+9C 1as the proper forum, even on the merits, the N+9Csdecision cannot &e sustained.

**. M&) 5ot Liable

Even if 1e assume t1o thin!s4 6'7 that the N+9C had 0urisdiction over the case, and 6%7that *HIC+ 1as lia&le for "antos retrenchment, still *HC, as a separate and distinct 0uridical entit cannot &e held lia&le.

True, *HC is an incorporator of *HIC+ and o1ns fift percent 63S7 of its capitalstoc@. Ho1ever, this is not enou!h to pierce the veil of corporate fiction &et1een *HIC+and *HC.

#iercin! the veil of corporate entit is an e=uita&le remed. It is resorted to 1hen thecorporate fiction is used to defeat pu&lic convenience, 0ustif 1ron!, protect fraud or

defend a crime. (' It is done onl 1hen a corporation is a mere alter e!o or &usinessconduit of a person or another corporation.

In +raders Ro,al ;an< v. )ourt of Appeals,(% 1e held that the mere o1nership & asin!le stoc@holder or & another corporation of all or nearl all of the capital stoc@ of acorporation is not of itself a sufficient reason for disre!ardin! the fiction of separatecorporate personalities.



The tests in determinin! 1hether the corporate veil ma &e pierced are4 irst , thedefendant must have control or complete domination of the other corporations finances, polic and &usiness practices 1ith re!ard to the transaction attac@ed. There must &e proof that the other corporation had no separate mind, 1ill or existence 1ith respect the actcomplained of. Second , control must &e used & the defendant to commit fraud or 1ron!.

+hird , the aforesaid control or &reach of dut must &e the proximate cause of the in0ur or loss complained of. The a&sence of an of the elements prevents the piercin! of thecorporate veil.(

It is &asic that a corporation has a personalit separate and distinct from those composin!it as 1ell as from that of an other le!al entit to 1hich it ma &e related.(( Clear andconvincin! evidence is needed to pierce the veil of corporate fiction.(3 In this case, 1efind no evidence to sho1 that *HIC+ and *HC are one and the same entit.

***. M&*)L not Liable

9espondent "antos predicates *HIC+s lia&ilit on the fact that *HIC+ si!ned hisemploment contract 1ith the #alace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us.

irst , 1e note that the Vice #resident 65perations and Development7 of *HIC+, *i!uelD. Cer!ueda si!ned the emploment contract as a mere 1itness. He merel si!ned underthe 1ord noted.

hen one notes a contract, one is not expressin! his a!reement or approval, as a part1ould.($ In Sichangco v. ;oard of )o((issioners of *((igration,(< the Court reco!ni>edthat the term noted means that the person so notin! has merel ta@en co!ni>ance of theexistence of an act or declaration, 1ithout exercisin! a 0udicious deli&eration or renderin!

a decision on the matter.

*r. Cer!ueda merel si!ned the 1itnessin! part of the document. The 1itnessin! partof the document is that 1hich, in a deed or other formal instrument is that part which

co(es after the recitals, or 1here there are no recitals, after the parties 6e(phasisours7.(B 8s opposed to a part to a contract, a 1itness is simpl one 1ho, &ein! present, personall sees or perceives a thin! a &eholder, a spectator, or ee1itness.() 5ne 1honotes somethin! 0ust ma@es a &rief 1ritten statement3 a memorandum or o&servation.

Second , and more importantl, there 1as no existin! emploer-emploee relationship &et1een "antos and *HIC+. In determinin! the existence of an emploer-emploee

relationship, the follo1in! elements are considered4

3'

6'7 the selection and en!a!ement of the emploee

6%7 the pament of 1a!es

67 the po1er to dismiss and



6(7 the po1er to control emploees conduct.

*HIC+ did not have and did not exercise an of the aforementioned po1ers. It did not select respondent "antos as an emploee for the #alace Hotel. He 1as referred to the#alace Hotel & his friend, Nestor 2uenio. *HIC+ did not en!a!e respondent "antos to

1or@. The terms of emploment 1ere ne!otiated and finali>ed throu!h correspondence &et1een respondent "antos, *r. "chmidt and *r. Hen@, 1ho 1ere officers andrepresentatives of the #alace Hotel and not *HIC+. Neither did respondent "antosadduce an proof that *HIC+ had the po1er to control his conduct. Finall, it 1as the#alace Hotel, throu!h *r. "chmidt and not *HIC+ that terminated respondent "antosservices.

Neither is there evidence to su!!est that *HIC+ 1as a la&or-onl contractor.3% There isno proof that *HIC+ supplied respondent "antos or even referred him for emplomentto the #alace Hotel.

+i@e1ise, there is no evidence to sho1 that the #alace Hotel and *HIC+ are one and thesame entit. The fact that the #alace Hotel is a mem&er of the *anila Hotel /roup isnot enou!h to pierce the corporate veil &et1een *HIC+ and the #alace Hotel.

*8. %rave Abuse of 'iscretion

Considerin! that the N+9C 1as foru( non-conveniens and considerin! further that noemploer-emploee relationship existed &et1een *HIC+, *HC and respondent "antos,+a&or 8r&iter Ceferina . Diosana clearl had no 0urisdiction over respondents claim in N+9C NC9 Case No. -%-'3B-).

+a&or 8r&iters have exclusive and ori!inal 0urisdiction onl over the follo1in!4

3

'. :nfair la&or practice cases

%. Termination disputes

. If accompanied 1ith a claim for reinstatement, those cases that 1or@ers mafile involvin! 1a!es, rates of pa, hours of 1or@ and other terms and conditionsof emploment

(. Claims for actual, moral, exemplar and other forms of dama!es arisin! from

emploer-emploee relations

3. Cases arisin! from an violation of 8rticle %$( of this Code, includin!=uestions involvin! le!alit of stri@es and loc@outs and

$. Except claims for Emploees Compensation, "ocial "ecurit, *edicare andmaternit &enefits, all other claims, arisin! from emploer-emploee relations,includin! those of persons in domestic or household service, involvin! an amount



exceedin! five thousand pesos 6#3,.7 re!ardless of 1hether accompanied1ith a claim for reinstatement.

In all these cases, an emploer-emploee relationship is an indispensa&le 0urisdictionalre=uirement.

The 0urisdiction of la&or ar&iters and the N+9C under 8rticle %'< of the +a&or Code islimited to disputes arisin! from an emploer-emploee relationship 1hich can &eresolved & reference to the +a&or Code, or other la&or statutes, or their collective &ar!ainin! a!reements.3(

To determine 1hich &od has 0urisdiction over the present controvers, 1e rel on thesound 0udicial principle that 0urisdiction over the su&0ect matter is conferred & la1 and isdetermined & the alle!ations of the complaint irrespective of 1hether the plaintiff isentitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein.33

The lac@ of 0urisdiction of the +a&or 8r&iter 1as o&vious from the alle!ations of thecomplaint. His failure to dismiss the case amounts to !rave a&use of discretion.3$

8. +he allo

HE9EF59E, the Court here& /98NT" the petition for certiorari and 8NN:+" theorders and resolutions of the National +a&or 9elations Commission dated *a ', ')),Decem&er '3, '))( and *arch , '))3 in N+9C NC9 C8 No. %''-)' 6N+9C NC9 Case No. -%-'3B-)7.

No costs.

"5 59DE9ED.



G.R. No. 100843 Dece7ber 29, 1999

BAN@ OF AMERICA, NT a! SA, petitioner,

vs.AMERICAN REALT CORPORATION a! COURT OF APPEALS,respondents.

BUENA, J.:

oes a mort+a+e%!reditor aive its remed- to fore!lose the real estate mort+a+e!onstituted over a third part- mort+a+orAs propert- situated in the 'hilippines b-filin+ an a!tion for the !olle!tion of the prin!ipal loan before forei+n !ourts

Sou+ht to be reversed in the instant petition for revie on certiorari under Rule45 of the Rules of Court are the de!ision 1 of publi! respondent Court of "ppealsin C" &.R. CH (o. 51#94, promul+ated on )# September 1997 and its resolution,2 dated 22 >a- 1990, den-in+ petitionerAs motion for re!onsideration.

'etitioner ank of "meri!a (T L S" "(TS": is an international bankin+ andfinan!in+ institution dul- li!ensed to do business in the 'hilippines, or+ani6edand e;istin+ under and b- virtue of the las of the State of California, nitedStates of "meri!a hile private respondent "meri!an Realt- Corporation "RC:is a domesti! !orporation.

ank of "meri!a nternational <imited "<:, on the other hand, is a limitedliabilit- !ompan- or+ani6ed and e;istin+ under the las of =n+land.

"s borne b- the re!ords, "(TS" and "< on several o!!asions +ranted threema?or multi%million nited States S: ollar loans to the folloin+ !orporateborroers 1: <iberian Transport (avi+ation, S.". 2: =l Challen+er S.". and ):=shle- Compania (aviera S.". hereinafter !olle!tivel- referred to asDborroersD:, all of hi!h are e;istin+ under and b- virtue of the las of theRepubli! of 'anama and are forei+n affiliates of privaterespondent. 0

ue to the default in the pa-ment of the loan amorti6ations, "(TS" and the!orporate borroers si+ned and entered into restru!turin+ a+reements. "sadditional se!urit- for the restru!tured loans, private respondent "RC as thirdpart- mort+a+or e;e!uted to real estate mort+a+es, dated 17 ebruar- 190)and 2# 3ul- 1904, over its par!els of land in!ludin+ improvements thereon,lo!ated at arrio Sto. Cristo, San 3ose el >onte, ula!an, and hi!h are



!overed b- Transfer Certifi!ate of Title (os. T%70759, T%707$#, T%707$1, T%707$2and T%707$).

=ventuall-, the !orporate borroers defaulted in the pa-ment of the restru!turedloans promptin+ petitioner "(TS" to file !ivil a!tions before forei+n !ourts for

the !olle!tion of the prin!ipal loan, to it

a: n =n+land, in its Fi+h Court of 3usti!e, /ueenAs en!hivision, Commer!ial Court 1992%olio (o 2#90: a+ainst<iberian Transport (avi+ation S."., =shle- Compania (avieraS."., =l Challen+er S."., =spriona Shippin+ Compan- S.".,=ddie (avi+ation Corp., S."., =duardo @atipunan <iton?ua and

"urelio @atipunan <iton?ua on 3une 17, 1992.

b: n =n+land, in its Fi+h Court of 3usti!e, /ueenAs en!hivision, Commer!ial Court 1992%olio (o. 2245: a+ainst =lChallen+er S."., =spriona Shippin+ Compan- S."., =duardo@atipuan <iton?ua L "urelio @atipunan <iton?ua on 3ul- 2, 1992

!: n Fon+kon+, in the Supreme Court of Fon+kon+ Fi+h Court"!tion (o. 4#)9 of 1992: a+ainst =shle- Compania (avieraS."., =l Challen+er S."., =spriona Shippin+ Compan- S.".'a!ifi! (avi+ators Corporation, =ddie (avi+ation CorporationS."., <iton?ua Charterin+ =d-ship: Co., n!., "urelio @atipunan<iton?ua, 3r. and =duardo @atipunan <iton?ua on (ovember 19,1992 and

d: n Fon+kon+, in the Supreme Court of Fon+kon+ Fi+h Court"!tion (o. 4#4# of 1992: a+ainst =shle- Compania (avieraS."., =l Challen+er S."., =spriona Shippin+ Compan-, S.".,'a!ifi! (avi+ators Corporation, =ddie (avi+ation Corporation

S."., <iton?ua Charterin+ =d-ship: Co., 3r. and =duardo@atipunan <iton?ua on (ovember 21, 1992.

n the !ivil suits instituted before the forei+n !ourts, private respondent "RC,bein+ a third part- mort+a+or, as private not impleaded as part-%defendant.

*n 1$ e!ember 1992, petitioner "(TS" filed before the *ffi!e of the'rovin!ial Sheriff of ula!an, 'hilippines an appli!ation for e;tra?udi!ialfore!losure 3 of real estate mort+a+e.

*n 22 3anuar- 199), after due publi!ation and noti!e, the mort+a+ed real

properties ere sold at publi! au!tion in an e;tra?udi!ial fore!losure sale, ithnte+rated Credit and Corporation Servi!es Co CCS: as the hi+hest bidder forthe sum of Tent- four >illion 'esos '24,###.###.##:. 4

*n 12 ebruar- 199), private respondent filed before the 'asi+ Re+ional TrialCourt, ran!h 159, an a!tion for dama+es 8 a+ainst the petitioner, for the latterAsa!t of fore!losin+ e;tra?udi!iall- the real estate mort+a+es despite the penden!-of !ivil suits before forei+n !ourts for the !olle!tion of the prin!ipal loan.



n its anser 9 petitioner alle+ed that the rule prohibitin+ the mort+a+ee fromfore!losin+ the mort+a+e after an ordinar- suit for !olle!tion has been filed, is notappli!able in the present !ase, !laimin+ that

a: The plaintiff, bein+ a mere third part- mort+a+or and not a part- to the prin!ipalrestru!turin+ a+reements, as never made a part- defendant in the !ivil !asesfiled in Fon+kon+ and =n+land

b: There is a!tuall- no !ivil suit for sum of mone- filed in the 'hilippines sin!e the!ivil a!tions ere filed in Fon+kon+ and =n+land. "s su!h, ande!isions sic :hi!h ma- be rendered in the abovementioned !ourts are not sic : enfor!eable inthe 'hilippines unless a separate a!tion to enfor!e the forei+n ?ud+ments is firstfiled in the 'hilippines, pursuant to Rule )9, Se!tion 5# of the Revised Rules ofCourt.

!: nder =n+lish <a, hi!h is the +overnin+ la under the prin!ipala+reements, the mort+a+ee does not lose its se!urit- interest b- filin+ !ivila!tions for sums of mone-.

*n 14 e!ember 199), private respondent filed a motion for suspension 15 of the redemption period on the +round that Dit !annot e;er!ise saidri+ht of redemption ithout at the same time aivin+ or !ontradi!tin+ its!ontentions in the !ase that the fore!losure of the mort+a+e on its properties isle+all- improper and therefore invalid.D

n an order 11 dated 20 3anuar- 1994, the trial !ourt +ranted the privaterespondentAs motion for suspension after hi!h a !op- of said order as dul-re!eived b- the Re+ister of eeds of >e-!aua-an, ula!an.

*n #7 ebruar- 1994, CCS, the pur!haser of the mort+a+ed properties at thefore!losure sale, !onsolidated its onership over the real properties, resultin+ tothe issuan!e of Transfer Certifi!ate of Title (os. T%10$27, T%10$272, T%10$27), T%1$471 and T%1$472 in its name.

*n 10 >ar!h 1994, after the !onsolidation of onership in its favor, CCS soldthe real properties to Stateland nvestment Corporation for the amount of Thirt-(ine >illion 'esos ')9,###,###.##:. 12 "!!ordin+l-, Transfer Certifi!ate of Title(os. T%107701m:, T%107702m:, T%10770)m:, T%1$$5)'m: and T%1$$52'm:ere issued in the latterAs name.

"fter trial, the loer !ourt rendered a de!ision

10

in favor of private respondent "RC dated 12 >a- 199), the de!retal portion of hi!h reads

8F=R=*R=, ?ud+ment is hereb- rendered de!larin+ that the filin+ in forei+n!ourts b- the defendant of !olle!tion suits a+ainst the prin!ipal debtors operatedas a aiver of the se!urit- of the mort+a+es. Conseuentl-, the plaintiffAs ri+htsas oner and possessor of the properties then !overed b- Transfer Certifi!atesof Title (os. T%70759, T%707$2, T%707$), T%707$# and T%707$1, all of theRe+ister of eeds of >e-!aua-an, ula!an, 'hilippines, ere violated hen the



defendant !aused the e;tra?udi!ial fore!losure of the mort+a+es !onstitutedthereon.

"!!ordin+l-, the defendant is hereb- ordered to pa- the plaintiff the folloin+sums, all ith le+al interest thereon from the date of the filin+ of the !omplaint upto the date of a!tual pa-ment

1: "!tual or !ompensator- dama+es in the amount of (inet- (ine >illion 'esos'99,###,###.##:

2: =;emplar- dama+es in the amount of ive >illion 'esos '5,###,###.##: and

): Costs of suit.

S* *R=R=.

*n appeal, the Court of "ppeals affirmed the assailed de!ision of the loer !ourtpromptin+ petitioner to file a motion for re!onsideration hi!h the appellate !ourt

denied.

Fen!e, the instant petition for revie 1 on certiorari here herein petitioner"(TS" as!ribes to the Court of "ppeals the folloin+ assi+nment of errors

1. The Fonorable Court of "ppeals disre+arded the do!trines laiddon b- this Fon. Supreme Court in the !ases of Calte"P-ilippines, #nc. vs. #ntermediate Appellate Court do!keted as&.R. (o. 747)# promul+ated on "u+ust 25, 1909 and P-ilippineCommercial #nternational an vs. #AC , 19$ SCR" 29 1991!ase:, althou+h said !ases ere dul- !ited, e;tensivel-dis!ussed and spe!ifi!all- mentioned, as one of the issues in the

assi+nment of errors found on pa+e 5 of the de!ision datedSeptember )#, 1997.

2. The Fon. Court of "ppeals a!ted ith +rave abuse ofdis!retion hen it aarded the private respondent a!tual ande;emplar- dama+es totallin+ '171,$##,###.##, as of 3ul- 12,1990 althou+h su!h hu+e amount as not asked nor pra-ed forin private respondentAs !omplaint, is !ontrar- to la and is totall-unsupported b- eviden!e sic :.

n fine, this Court is !alled upon to resolve to main issues

1. 8hether or not the petitionerAs a!t of filin+ a !olle!tion suit

a+ainst the prin!ipal debtors for the re!over- of the loan beforeforei+n !ourts !onstituted a aiver of the remed- of fore!losure.

2. 8hether or not the aard b- the loer !ourt of a!tual ande;emplar- dama+es in favor of private respondent "RC, as third%part- mort+a+or, is proper.

The petition is bereft of merit.



irst, as to the issue of availabilit- of remedies, petitioner submits that a aiver of the remed- of fore!losure reuires the !on!urren!e of to reuisites an ordinar-!ivil a!tion for !olle!tion should be filed and subseuentl- a final ?ud+ment be!orrespondin+l- rendered therein.

"!!ordin+ to petitioner, the mere filin+ of a personal a!tion to !olle!t the prin!ipalloan does not suffi!e a final ?ud+ment must be se!ured and obtained in thepersonal a!tion so that aiver of the remed- of fore!losure ma- be appre!iated.To put it differentl-, absent an- of the to reuisites, the mort+a+ee%!reditor isdeemed not to have aived the remed- of fore!losure.

8e do not a+ree.

Certainl-, this Court finds petitionerAs ar+uments untenable and upholds the ?urispruden!e laid don in a!hra!h 1 and similar !ases ad?udi!ated thereafter,thus

n the absen!e of e;press statutor- provisions, a mort+a+e !reditor ma- institutea+ainst the mort+a+e debtor either a personal a!tion or debt or a real a!tion tofore!lose the mort+a+e. n other ords, he ma- he ma- pursue either of the toremedies, but not both. - su!h ele!tion, his !ause of a!tion !an b- no means beimpaired, for ea!h of the to remedies is !omplete in itself. Thus, an ele!tion tobrin+ a personal a!tion ill leave open to him all the properties of the debtor foratta!hment and e;e!ution, even in!ludin+ the mort+a+ed propert- itself. "nd, ifhe aives su!h personal a!tion and pursues his remed- a+ainst the mort+a+edpropert-, an unsatisfied ?ud+ment thereon ould still +ive him the ri+ht to sue fora defi!ien!- ?ud+ment, in hi!h !ase, all the properties of the defendant, otherthan the mort+a+ed propert-, are a+ain open to him for the satisfa!tion of thedefi!ien!-. n either !ase, his remed- is !omplete, his !ause of a!tionundiminished, and an- advanta+es attendant to the pursuit of one or the otherremed- are purel- a!!idental and are all under his ri+ht of ele!tion. *n the otherhand, a rule that ould authori6e the plaintiff to brin+ a personal a!tion a+ainstthe debtor and simultaneousl- or su!!essivel- another a!tion a+ainst themort+a+ed propert-, ould result not onl- in multipli!it- of suits so offensive to

?usti!e Soriano vs. =nriues, 24 'hil. 504: and obno;ious to la and euit-*sorio vs. San "+ustin, 25 'hil., 4#4:, but also in sub?e!tin+ the defendant to theve;ation of bein+ sued in the pla!e of his residen!e or of the residen!e of theplaintiff, and then a+ain in the pla!e here the propert- lies.

n !anao vs. Court of Appeals, 13 this Court, reiteratin+ ?urispruden!e enun!iatedin %anila rading and uppl( Co vs. Co im 14 and %ovido vs.R8C , 18 invariabl- held

. . . The rule is no settled that a mort+a+e !reditor ma- ele!t to aive hisse!urit- and brin+, instead, an ordinar- a!tion to re!over the indebtedness iththe ri+ht to e;e!ute a ?ud+ment thereon on all the properties of the debtor,in!ludin+ the sub?e!t matter of the mort+a+e . . . , su$+ect to t-e ualification t-atif -e fails in t-e remed( $( -im elected, -e cannot pursue furt-er t-e remed( -e-as aived . =mphasis *urs:



"nent real properties in parti!ular, the Court has laid don the rule that amort+a+e !reditor ma- institute a+ainst the mort+a+e debtor either a personala!tion for debt or a real a!tion to fore!lose the mort+a+e. 19

n our ?urisdi!tion, the remedies available to the mort+a+e !reditor are deemed

alternative and not !umulative. (otabl-, an ele!tion of one remed- operates as aaiver of the other. or this purpose, a remed- is deemed !hosen upon the filin+of the suit for !olle!tion or upon the filin+ of the !omplaint in an a!tion forfore!losure of mort+a+e, pursuant to the provision of Rule $0 of the of the 1997Rules of Civil 'ro!edure. "s to e;tra?udi!ial fore!losure, su!h remed- is deemedele!ted b- the mort+a+e !reditor upon filin+ of the petition not ith an- !ourt of

?usti!e but ith the *ffi!e of the Sheriff of the provin!e here the sale is to bemade, in a!!ordan!e ith the provisions of "!t (o. )1)5, as amended b- "!t (o.4110.

n the !ase at ben!h, private respondent "RC !onstituted real estate mort+a+es

over its properties as se!urit- for the debt of the prin!ipal debtors. - doin+ so,private respondent sub?e!ted itself to the liabilities of a third part- mort+a+or.nder the la, third persons ho are not parties to a loan ma- se!ure the latterb- pled+in+ or mort+a+in+ their on propert-. 25

(otithstandin+, there is no le+al provision nor ?urispruden!e in our ?urisdi!tionhi!h makes a third person ho se!ures the fulfillment of anotherAs obli+ation b-mort+a+in+ his on propert-, to be solidaril- bound ith the prin!ipal obli+or. Thesi+nator- to the prin!ipal !ontra!tIloanIremains to be primaril- bound. t is onl-upon default of the latter that the !reditor ma- have re!ourse on the mort+a+orsb- fore!losin+ the mort+a+ed properties in lieu of an a!tion for the re!over- of the

amount of the loan.

21

n the instant !ase, petitionerAs !ontention that the reuisites of filin+ the a!tionfor !olle!tion and rendition of final ?ud+ment therein should !on!ur, is untenable.

Thus, in Cerna vs. Court of Appeals, 22 e a+reed ith the petitioner in said !ase,that the filin+ of a !olle!tion suit barred the fore!losure of the mort+a+e

" mort+a+ee ho files a suit for !olle!tion abandons the remed- of fore!losure of the !hattel mort+a+e !onstituted over the personal propert- as se!urit- for thedebt or value of the promissor- note hen he seeks to re!over in the said!olle!tion suit.

. . . 8hen the mort+a+ee ele!ts to file a suit for !olle!tion, not fore!losure,thereb- abandonin+ the !hattel mort+a+e as basis for relief, he !learl- manifestshis la!k of desire and interest to +o after the mort+a+ed propert- as se!urit- forthe promissor- note . . . .

Contrar- to petitionerAs ar+uments, e therefore reiterate the rule, for !larit- andemphasis, that the mere a!t of filin+ of an ordinar- a!tion for !olle!tion operatesas a aiver of the mort+a+e%!reditorAs remed- to fore!lose the mort+a+e. - the



mere filin+ of the ordinar- a!tion for !olle!tion a+ainst the prin!ipal debtors, thepetitioner in the present !ase is deemed to have ele!ted a remed-, as a result ofhi!h a aiver of the other ne!essaril- must arise. Corollaril-, no final ?ud+mentin the !olle!tion suit is reuired for the rule on aiver to appl-.

Fen!e, in Calte" P-ilippines, #nc. vs. #ntermediate;Appellate Court ,20

a !aserelied upon b- petitioner, supposedl- to buttress its !ontention, this Court hado!!asion to rule that the mere a!t of filin+ a !olle!tion suit for the re!over- of adebt se!ured b- a mort+a+e !onstitutes aiver of the other remed- offore!losure.

n the !ase at bar, petitioner "(TS" onl- has one !ause of a!tion hi!h is non%pa-ment of the debt. (evertheless, alternative remedies are available for itsen?o-ment and e;er!ise. 'etitioner then ma- opt to e;er!ise onl- one of toremedies so as not to violate the rule a+ainst splittin+ a !ause of a!tion.

"s elu!idated b- this Court in the landmark !ase of ac-rac- %otor Co., #nc, vs.#carangal . 2

or non%pa-ment of a note se!ured b- mort+a+e, the !reditor has a sin+le !auseof a!tion a+ainst the debtor. This sin+le !ause of a!tion !onsists in the re!over-of the !redit ith e;e!ution of the se!urit-. n other ords, the !reditor in hisa!tion ma- make to demands, the pa-ment of the debt and the fore!losure ofhis mort+a+e. ut both demands arise from the same !ause, the non%pa-ment ofthe debt, and for that reason, the- !onstitute a sin+le !ause of a!tion. Thou+h thedebt and the mort+a+e !onstitute separate a+reements, the latter is subsidiar- tothe former, and both refer to one and the same obli+ation. Conseuentl-, theree;ists onl- one !ause of a!tion for a sin+le brea!h of that obli+ation. 'laintiff,then, b- appl-in+ the rules above stated, !annot split up his sin+le !ause of

a!tion b- filin+ a !omplaint for pa-ment of the debt, and thereafter another!omplaint for fore!losure of the mort+a+e. f he does so, the filin+ of the first!omplaint ill bar the subseuent !omplaint. - alloin+ the !reditor to file toseparate !omplaints simultaneousl- or su!!essivel-, one to re!over his !redit andanother to fore!lose his mort+a+e, e ill, in effe!t, be authori6in+ him pluralredress for a sin+le brea!h of !ontra!t at so mu!h !ost to the !ourts and ith somu!h ve;ation and oppression to the debtor.

'etitioner further faults the Court of "ppeals for alle+edl- disre+ardin+ thedo!trine enun!iated in Calte; herein this Fi+h Court rela;ed the appli!ation ofthe +eneral rules to it

n the present !ase, hoever, e shall not follo this rule to the letter but de!larethat it is the !olle!tion suit hi!h as aived andEor abandoned. This rulin+ ismore in harmon- ith the prin!iples underl-in+ our ?udi!ial s-stem. t is of nomoment that the !olle!tion suit as filed ahead, hat is determinative is the fa!tthat the fore!losure pro!eedin+s ended even before the de!ision in the !olle!tionsuit as rendered. . . .

(otabl-, thou+h, petitioner took the Calte; rulin+ out of !onte;t. 8e must stressthat the Calte; !ase as never intended to overrule the ell%entren!hed do!trine



enun!iated a!hra!h, hi!h to our mind still finds appli!abilit- in !ases of thissort. To reiterate, a!hra!h is still +ood la.

8e then uote the de!ision 2 of the trial !ourt, in the present !ase, thus

The aforeuoted rulin+ in Calte" is the e;!eption rather than the rule, di!tated b-the pe!uliar !ir!umstan!es obtainin+ therein. #n t-e said case, t-e upremeCourt c-astised Calte" for maing D. . . a mocer( of our +udicial s(stem hen itinitiall- filed a !olle!tion suit then, durin+ the penden!- thereof, fore!losede;tra?udi!iall- the mort+a+ed propert- hi!h se!ured the indebtedness, and stillpursued the !olle!tion suit to the end.D Thus, to prevent a mo!ker- of our ?udi!ials-stemD, the !olle!tion suit had to be nullified $ecause t-e foreclosure

proceedings -ave alread( $een pursued to t-eir end and can no longer $eundone.

;;; ;;; ;;;

#n t-e case at $ar, it -as not $een s-on -et-er t-e defendant pursued to t-e

end or are still pursuing t-e collection suits filed in foreign courts. -ere is nooccasion, t-erefore, for t-is court to appl( t-e e"ception laid don $( t-eupreme Court in Calte" $( nullif(ing t-e collection suits. Guite o$viousl(, too,t-e aforesaid collection suits are $e(ond t-e reac- of t-is Court . Thus the onl-a- the !ourt ma- prevent the spe!tor of a !reditor havin+ Dplural redress for asin+le brea!h of !ontra!tD is b- holdin+, as the Court hereb- holds, that thedefendant has aived the ri+ht to fore!lose the mort+a+es !onstituted b- theplaintiff on its properties ori+inall- !overed b- Transfer Certifi!ates of Title (os. T%70759, T%707$2, T%707$# and T%707$1. RTC e!ision pp., 1#%11:

n this li+ht, the a!tuations of Calte; are deservin+ of severe !riti!ism, to sa- theleast. 23

>oreover, petitioner attempts to mislead this Court b- !itin+ the !ase of PC# vs.#AC . 24 "+ain, petitioner tried to fit a suare pe+ in a round hole. t must bestressed that far from overturnin+ the do!trine laid don in a!hra!h, this Courtin 'C buttressed its firm stand on this issue b- de!larin+

8hile the la allos a mort+a+e !reditor to either institute a personal a!tion forthe debt or a real a!tion to fore!losure the mort+a+e, he !annot pursue bothremedies simultaneousl- or su!!essivel- as as done b- 'C in this !ase.

;;; ;;; ;;;

Thus, hen the 'C filed Civil Case (o. 29)92 to enfor!e pa-ment of the 1.)million promissor- note se!ured b- real estate mort+a+es and subseuentl- fileda petition for e;tra?udi!ial fore!losure, it violates the rule a+ainst splittin+ a !auseof a!tion.

"!!ordin+l-, appl-in+ the fore+oin+ rules, e hold that petitioner, b- thee;pedien!- of filin+ four !ivil suits before forei+n !ourts, ne!essaril- abandonedthe remed- to fore!lose the real estate mort+a+es !onstituted over the propertiesof third%part- mort+a+or and herein private respondent "RC. >oreover, b- filin+



the four !ivil a!tions and b- eventuall- fore!losin+ e;tra?udi!iall- the mort+a+es,petitioner in effe!t trans+ressed the rules a+ainst splittin+ a !ause of a!tion ell%enshrined in ?urispruden!e and our statute books.

n a!hra!h, this Court resolved to den- the !reditor the remed- of fore!losure

after the !olle!tion suit as filed, !onsiderin+ that the !reditor should not beafforded Dplural redress for a sin+le brea!h of !ontra!t.D or !ause of a!tionshould not be !onfused ith the remed- !reated for its enfor!ement. 28

(otabl-, it is not the nature of the redress hi!h is !ru!ial but the effi!a!- of theremed- !hosen in addressin+ the !reditorAs !ause. Fen!e, a suit brou+ht before aforei+n !ourt havin+ !ompeten!e and ?urisdi!tion to entertain the a!tion isdeemed, for this purpose, to be ithin the !ontemplation of the remed- availableto the mort+a+ee%!reditor. This pronoun!ement ould best serve the interest of

?usti!e and fair pla- and further dis!oura+e the no;ious pra!ti!e of splittin+ up alone !ause of a!tion.

n!identall-, "(TS" alle+es that under =n+lish <a, hi!h a!!ordin+ topetitioner is the +overnin+ la ith re+ard to the prin!ipal a+reements, themort+a+ee does not lose its se!urit- interest b- simpl- filin+ !ivil a!tions for sumsof mone-. 29

8e rule in the ne+ative.

This ar+ument shos desperation on the part of petitioner to rivet its !rumblin+!ause. n the !ase at ben!h, 'hilippine la shall appl- notithstandin+ theeviden!e presented b- petitioner to prove the =n+lish la on the matter.

n a lon+ line of de!isions, this Court adopted the ell%imbedded prin!iple in our ?urisdi!tion that there is no ?udi!ial noti!e of an- forei+n la. " forei+n la mustbe properl- pleaded and proved as a fa!t. 05 Thus, if the forei+n la involved isnot properl- pleaded and proved, our !ourts ill presume that the forei+n la isthe same as our lo!al or domesti! or internalla. 01 This is hat e refer to as the do!trine of pro!essual presumption.

n the instant !ase, assumin+ arguendo that the =n+lish <a on the matter ereproperl- pleaded and proved in a!!ordan!e ith Se!tion 24, Rule 1)2 of theRules of Court and the ?urispruden!e laid don in Jao ee, et al . vs.

(;?onales,

02

said forei+n la ould still not find appli!abilit-.

Thus, hen the forei+n la, ?ud+ment or !ontra!t is !ontrar- to a sound andestablished publi! poli!- of the forum, the said forei+n la, ?ud+ment or ordershall not be applied. 00

"dditionall-, prohibitive las !on!ernin+ persons, their a!ts or propert-, andthose hi!h have for their ob?e!t publi! order, publi! poli!- and +ood !ustoms



shall not be rendered ineffe!tive b- las or ?ud+ments promul+ated, or b-determinations or !onventions a+reed upon in a forei+n !ountr-. 0

The publi! poli!- sou+ht to be prote!ted in the instant !ase is the prin!ipleimbedded in our ?urisdi!tion pros!ribin+ the splittin+ up of a sin+le !ause of

a!tion.

Se!tion 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil 'ro!edure is pertinent I

f to or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same !ause of a!tion, thefilin+ of one or a ?ud+ment upon the merits in an- one is available as a +round for the dismissal of the others.

>oreover, forei+n la should not be applied hen its appli!ation ould orkundeniable in?usti!e to the !iti6ens or residents of the forum. To +ive ?usti!e is themost important fun!tion of la hen!e, a la, or ?ud+ment or !ontra!t that isobviousl- un?ust ne+ates the fundamental prin!iples of Confli!t of <as. 0

Clearl- then, =n+lish <a is not appli!able.

"s to the se!ond pivotal issue, e hold that the private respondent is entitled tothe aard of a!tual or !ompensator- dama+es inasmu!h as the a!t of petitioner"(TS" in e;tra?udi!iall- fore!losin+ the real estate mort+a+es !onstituted a!lear violation of the ri+hts of herein private respondent "RC, as third%part-mort+a+or.

"!tual or !ompensator- dama+es are those re!overable be!ause of pe!uniar-loss in business, trade, propert-, profession, ?ob or o!!upation and the same

must be proved, otherise if the proof is flims- and non%substantial, no dama+esill be +iven. 03 ndeed, the uestion of the value of propert- is ala-s a diffi!ultone to settle as valuation of real propert- is an impre!ise pro!ess sin!e realestate has no inherent value readil- as!ertainable b- an appraiser or b- the!ourt. 04 The opinions of men var- so mu!h !on!ernin+ the real value of propert-that the best the !ourts !an do is hear all of the itnesses hi!h the respe!tiveparties desire to present, and then, b- !arefull- ei+hin+ that testimon-, arrive ata !on!lusion hi!h is ?ust and euitable. 08

n the instant !ase, petitioner assails the Court of "ppeals for rel-in+ heavil- onthe valuation made b- 'hilippine "ppraisal Compan-. n effe!t, "(TS"

uestions the a!t of the appellate !ourt in +ivin+ due ei+ht to the appraisalreport !omposed of tent- three pa+es, si+ned b- >r. <auro >arue6 andsubmitted as eviden!e b- private respondent. The appraisal report, as there!ords ould readil- sho, as !orroborated b- the testimon- of >r. Re-naldolores, itness for private respondent.

*n this matter, the trial !ourt observed



The re!ord herein reveals that plaintiff%appellee formall- offered as eviden!e theappraisal report dated >ar!h 29, 199) =;hibit 3, Re!ords, p. 4#9:, !onsistin+ oftent- three 2): pa+es hi!h set out in detail the valuation of the propert- todetermine its fair market value TS(, "pril 22, 1994, p. 4:, in the amount of'99,90$,592.## TS(, i$id ., p. 5:, to+ether ith the !orroborative testimon- ofone >r. Re-naldo . lores, an appraiser and dire!tor of 'hilippine "ppraisalCompan-, n!. TS(, i$id ., p. ):. The latterAs testimon- as sub?e!ted toe;tensive !ross%e;amination b- !ounsel for defendant%appellant TS(, "pril 22,1994, pp. $%22:. 09

n the matter of !redibilit- of itnesses, the Court reiterates the familiar and ell%entren!hed rule that the fa!tual findin+s of the trial !ourt should be respe!ted. 5 The time%tested ?urispruden!e is that the findin+s and !on!lusions of the trial!ourt on the !redibilit- of itnesses en?o- a bad+e of respe!t for the reason thattrial !ourts have the advanta+e of observin+ the demeanor of itnesses as the-testif-. 1

This Court ill not alter the findin+s of the trial !ourt on the !redibilit- of

itnesses, prin!ipall- be!ause the- are in a better position to assess the samethan the appellate !ourt. 2 esides, trial !ourts are in a better position to e;aminereal eviden!e as ell as observe the demeanor of itnesses. 0

Similarl-, the appre!iation of eviden!e and the assessment of the !redibilit- ofitnesses rest primaril- ith the trial !ourt. n the !ase at bar, e see no reasonthat ould ?ustif- this Court to disturb the fa!tual findin+s of the trial !ourt, asaffirmed b- the Court of "ppeals, ith re+ard to the aard of a!tual dama+es.

n arrivin+ at the amount of a!tual dama+es, the trial !ourt ?ustified the aard b-presentin+ the folloin+ ratio!ination in its assailed de!ision , to it

ndeed, the Court has its on mind in the matter of valuation. The si6e of thesub?e!t real properties are sic : set forth in their individuals titles, and the Courtitself has seen the !hara!ter and nature of said properties durin+ the o!ularinspe!tion it !ondu!ted. ased prin!ipall- on the fore+oin+, the Court makes thefolloin+ observations

1. The properties !onsist of about )9 he!tares in o. Sto. Cristo, San 3ose del>onte, ula!an, hi!h is sic : not distant from >etro >anila I the bi++est urban!enter in the 'hilippines I and are easil- a!!essible throu+h ell%paved roads

2. The properties are suitable for development into a subdivision for lo !osthousin+, as admitted b- defendantAs on appraiser TS(, >a- )#, 1994, p. )1:

). The pi+pens hi!h used to e;ist in the propert- have alread- beendemolished. Fouses of stron+ materials are found in the vi!init- of the propert-=;hs. 2, 2%1 to 2%7:, and the vi!init- is a +roin+ !ommunit-. t has even beenshon that the house of the aran+a- Chairman is lo!ated ad?a!ent to thepropert- in uestion =;h. 27:, and the onl- remainin+ pi++er- named Cherr-arm: in the vi!init- is about 2 kilometers aa- from the estern boundar- of thepropert- in uestion TS(, (ovember 19, p. ):



4. t ill not be hard to find interested bu-ers of the propert-, as indubitabl-shon b- the fa!t that on >ar!h 10, 1994, CCS the bu-er durin+ thefore!losure sale: sold the !onsolidated real estate properties to Statelandnvestment Corporation, in hose favor ne titles ere issued, i .e., TCT (os. T%107701m: T%107702m:, T%10770)m: T%1$$5)'m: and T%1$$521m: b- theRe+ister of eeds of >e-!aua-an sic :, ula!an

5. The fa!t that CCS as able to sell the sub?e!t properties to Statelandnvestment Corporation for Thirt- (ine >illion ')9,###,###.##: 'esos, hi!h ismore than triple defendantAs appraisal =;h. 2: !learl- shos that the Court!annot rel- on defendantAs aforesaid estimate e!ision, Re!ords, p. $#):.

t is a fundamental le+al aphorism that the !on!lusions of the trial ?ud+e on the!redibilit- of itnesses !ommand +reat respe!t and !onsideration espe!iall-hen the !on!lusions are supported b- the eviden!e on re!ord. 3 "ppl-in+ thefore+oin+ prin!iple, e therefore hold that the trial !ourt !ommitted no palpableerror in +ivin+ !reden!e to the testimon- of Re-naldo lores, ho a!!ordin+ tothe re!ords, is a li!ensed real estate broker, appraiser and dire!tor of 'hilippine

"ppraisal Compan-, n!. sin!e 199#. 4 "s the re!ords sho, lores had beenith the !ompan- for 2$ -ears at the time of his testimon-.

*f eual importan!e is the fa!t that the trial !ourt did not !onfine itself to theappraisal report dated 29 >ar!h 199), and the testimon- +iven b- >r. Re-naldolores, in determinin+ the fair market value of the real propert-. "bove all these,the re!ord ould likeise sho that the trial ?ud+e in order to appraise himself ofthe !hara!teristi!s and !ondition of the propert-, !ondu!ted an o!ular inspe!tionhere the opposin+ parties appeared and ere dul- represented.

ased on these !onsiderations and the eviden!e submitted, e affirm the rulin+

of the trial !ourt as re+ards the valuation of the propert- I

. . . a valuation of (inet- (ine >illion 'esos '99,###,###.##: for the )9%he!tareproperties sic : translates to ?ust about To Fundred ift- our 'esos '254.##:per suare meter. This appears to be, as the !ourt so holds, a betterappro;imation of the fair market value of the sub?e!t properties. This is theamount hi!h should be restituted b- the defendant to the plaintiff b- a- ofa!tual or !ompensator- dama+es . . . . 8

urther, petitioner as!ribes error to the loer !ourt aardin+ an amount alle+edl-not asked nor pra-ed for in private respondentAs !omplaint.

(otithstandin+ the fa!t that the aard of a!tual and !ompensator- dama+es b-the loer !ourt e;!eeded that pra-ed for in the !omplaint, the same isnonetheless valid, sub?e!t to !ertain ualifi!ations.

*n this issue, Rule 1#, Se!tion 5 of the Rules of Court is pertinent

Se!. 5. Amendment to conform to or aut-orie presentation of evidence. I8hen issues not raised b- the pleadin+s are tried ith the e;press or implied



!onsent of the parties, the- shall be treated in all respe!ts as if the- had beenraised in the pleadin+s. Su!h amendment of the pleadin+s as ma- be ne!essar-to !ause them to !onform to the eviden!e and to raise these issues ma- bemade upon motion of an- part- at an- time, even after ?ud+ement but failure toamend does not affe!t the result of the trial of these issues. f eviden!e isob?e!ted to at the trial on the +round that it is not ithin the issues made b- thepleadin+s, the !ourt ma- allo the pleadin+s to be amended and shall do so ithliberalit- if the presentation of the merits of the a!tion and the ends of substantial

?usti!e ill be subserved thereb-. The !ourt ma- +rant a !ontinuan!e to enablethe amendment to be made.

The ?urispruden!e enun!iated in alisa(;ila( %illing Co., #nc. vs. Asociacion de Agricultures de alisa(;ila(, #nc . 9 !itin+ 4ort-ern Cement Corporation vs.#ntermediate Appellate Court 5 is enli+htenin+

There have been instan!es here the Court has held that even ithout thene!essar- amendment, the amount proved at the trial ma- be validl- aarded,as in uaon v. olanos 95 'hil. 1#$:, here e said that if the fa!ts shonentitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the !omplaint

as ne!essar-, espe!iall- here defendant had himself raised the point on hi!hre!over- as based. The appellate !ourt !ould treat the pleadin+ as amended to!onform to the eviden!e althou+h the pleadin+s ere a!tuall- not amended.

"mendment is also unne!essar- hen onl- !leri!al error or non substantialmatters are involved, as e held in an of t-e P-ilippine #slands vs. /aguna 40'hil. 5:. n Co iamco vs. !ia 75 'hil. $72:, e stressed that the rule onamendment need not be applied ri+idl-, parti!ularl- here no surprise orpre?udi!e is !aused the ob?e!tin+ part-. "nd in the re!ent !ase of 4ational PoerCorporation vs. Court of Appeals 11) SCR" 55$:, e held that here there is avarian!e in the defendantAs pleadin+s and the eviden!e addu!ed b- it at the trial,the Court ma- treat the pleadin+ as amended to !onform ith the eviden!e.

t is the vie of the Court that pursuant to the above%mentioned rule and in li+ht

of the de!isions !ited, the trial !ourt should not be pre!luded from aardin+ anamount hi+her than that !laimed in the pleadin+ notithstandin+ the absen!e ofthe reuired amendment. ut it is upon the !ondition that the eviden!e of su!hhi+her amount has been presented properl-, ith full opportunit- on the part ofthe opposin+ parties to support their respe!tive !ontentions and to refute ea!hotherAs eviden!e.

The failure of a part- to amend a pleadin+ to !onform to the eviden!e addu!eddurin+ trial does not pre!lude an ad?udi!ation b- the !ourt on the basis of su!heviden!e hi!h ma- embod- ne issues not raised in the pleadin+s, or serve asa basis for a hi+her aard of dama+es. "lthou+h the pleadin+ ma- not have beenamended to !onform to the eviden!e submitted durin+ trial, ?ud+ment ma-nonetheless be rendered, not simpl- on the basis of the issues alle+ed but also

the basis of issues dis!ussed and the assertions of fa!t proved in the !ourse oftrial. The !ourt ma- treat the pleadin+ as if it had been amended to !onform tothe eviden!e, althou+h it had not been a!tuall- so amended. ormer Chief3usti!e >oran put the matter in this a-

8hen eviden!e is presented b- one part-, ith the e;pressed orimplied !onsent of the adverse part-, as to issues not alle+ed inthe pleadin+s, ?ud+ment ma- be rendered validl- as re+ardsthose issues, hi!h shall be !onsidered as if the- have been



raised in the pleadin+s. There is implied !onsent to the eviden!ethus presented hen the adverse part- fails to ob?e!t thereto.

Clearl-, a !ourt ma- rule and render ?ud+ment on the basis of the eviden!ebefore it even thou+h the relevant pleadin+ had not been previousl- amended, solon+ as no surprise or pre?udi!e is thereb- !aused to the adverse part-. 'ut a

little differentl-, so lon+ as the basis reuirements of fair pla- had been met, ashere liti+ants ere +iven full opportunit- to support their respe!tive !ontentionsand to ob?e!t to or refute ea!h otherAs eviden!e, the !ourt ma- validl- treat thepleadin+s as if the- had been amended to !onform to the eviden!e and pro!eedto ad?udi!ate on the basis of all the eviden!e before it.

n the instant !ase, inasmu!h as the petitioner as afforded the opportunit- torefute and ob?e!t to the eviden!e, both do!umentar- and testimonial, formall-offered b- private respondent, the rudiments of fair pla- are deemed satisfied. nfa!t, the testimon- of Re-naldo lores as put under s!rutin- durin+ the !ourseof the !ross%e;amination. nder these !ir!umstan!es, the !ourt a!ted ithin thebounds of its ?urisdi!tion and !ommitted no reversible error in aardin+ a!tual

dama+es the amount of hi!h is hi+her than that pra-ed for. Heril-, the loer!ourtAs a!tuations are san!tioned b- the Rules and supported b- ?urispruden!e.

Similarl-, e affirm the +rant of e;emplar- dama+es althou+h the amount of ive>illion 'esos '5,###,###.##: aarded, bein+ e;!essive, is sub?e!t to redu!tion.=;emplar- or !orre!tive dama+es are imposed, b- a- of e;ample or !orre!tionfor the publi! +ood, in addition to the moral, temperate, liuidated or!ompensator- dama+es. 1 Considerin+ its purpose, it must be fair andreasonable in ever- !ase and should not be aarded to un?ustl- enri!h aprevailin+ part-. 2 n our vie, an aard of '5#,###.## as e;emplar- dama+es inthe present !ase ualifies the test of reasonableness.

8F=R=*R=, premises !onsidered, the instant petition is =(= for la!k ofmerit. The de!ision of the Court of "ppeals is hereb- "R>= ith>*C"T*( of the amount aarded as e;emplar- dama+es. "!!ordin+,petitioner is hereb- ordered to pa- private respondent the sum of'99,###,###.## as a!tual or !ompensator- dama+es '5#,###.## as e;emplar-dama+e and the !osts of suit.

S* *R=R=.



G.R. No. L6935 Noe7ber 2, 1988

AO @EE, S#E SOO@ ;A", S#E LAI C"O, a! S C"UN EN, petitioners,

vs.AIDA S6GON#ALES, MANUEL S, TERESITA S6BERNABE, RODOLFO S,a! "ONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

%ontesa, Al$on, Associates for petitioners.

!e /apa, alonga, 8ulgencio !e /unas for respondents.

CORTES, J.:

S- @iat, a Chinese national. died on 3anuar- 17, 1977 in Caloo!an Cit- here heas then residin+, leavin+ behind real and personal properties here in the'hilippines orth ')##,###.## more or less.

Thereafter, "ida S-%&on6ales, >anuel S-, Teresita S-%ernabe and Rodolfo S-filed a petition for the +rant of letters of administration do!keted as Spe!ial'ro!eedin+s Case (o. C%$99 of the then Court of irst nstan!e of Ri6al ran!hOOO, Caloo!an Cit-. n said petition thealle+ed amon+ others that a: the- arethe !hildren of the de!eased ith "sun!ion &ille+o b: to their knoled+e S- >atdied intestate !: thedo not re!o+ni6e S- @iatAs marria+e to Bao @ee nor the

filiation of her !hildren to him and, d: the- nominate "ida S-%&on6ales forappointment as administratri; of the intestate estate of the de!eased JRe!ord on "ppeal, pp. 4%9 Rollo, p. 1#7.K

The petition as opposed b- Bao @ee, S6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Cho and S- BunChen ho alle+ed that a: Bao @ee is the laful ife of S- @iat hom he marriedon 3anuar- 19, 19)1 in China b: the other oppositors are the le+itimate !hildrenof the de!eased ith Bao @ee and, !: S6e Sook 8ah is the eldest amon+ themand is !ompetent, illin+ and desirous to be!ome the administratri; of the estateof S- @iat JRe!ord on "ppeal, pp. 12%1) Rollo, p. 1#7.K "fter hearin+, the probate!ourt, findin+ amon+ others that

1: S- @iat as le+all- married to Bao @ee JC de!ision, pp. 12%27 Rollo, pp.49%$4K

2: S6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Cho and S6e Chun Ben are the le+itimate !hildren ofBao @ee ith S- >at JC de!ision, pp. 20%)1 Rollo. pp. $5%$0K and,



): "ida S-%&on6ales, >anuel S-, Teresita S-%ernabe and Rodolfo S- are thea!knoled+ed ille+itimate offsprin+s of S- @iat ith "sun!ion &ille+o JCde!ision, pp. 27%20 Rollo, pp. $4% $5.K

held if favor of the oppositors petitioners herein: and appointed S6e Sook 8ahas the administratri; of the intestate estate of the de!eased JC de!ision, pp. $0%

$9 Rollo, pp. 1#5%1#$.K

*n appeal the Court of "ppeals rendered a de!ision modif-in+ that of the probate!ourt, the dispositive portion of hi!h reads

( H=8 * TF= *R=&*(&, the de!ision of the loer Court is hereb->*= and S=T "S= and a ne ?ud+ment rendered as follos

1: e!larin+ petitioners "ida S-%&on6ales, >anuel S-, Teresita S-% ernabe andRodolfo S- a!knoled+ed natural !hildren of the de!eased S- @iat ith "sun!ion&ille+o, an unmarried oman ith hom he lived as husband and ife ithoutbenefit of marria+e for man- -ears

2: e!larin+ oppositors S6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Chu and S6e Chun Ben, thea!knoled+ed natural !hildren of the de!eased S- @iat ith his Chinese ife Bao@ee, also knon as Bui Bip, sin!e the le+alit- of the alle+ed marria+e of S- >atto Bao @ee in China had not been proven to be valid to the las of the Chinese'eopleAs Republi! of China si!:

): e!larin+ the deed of sale e;e!uted b- S- @iat on e!ember 7, 197$ in favorof Tomas S- =;hibit D&%1D, =n+lish translation of =;hibit D&D: of the "venueTra!tor and iesel 'arts Suppl- to be valid and a!!ordin+l-, said propert- shouldbe e;!luded from the estate of the de!eased S- @iat and

4: "ffirmin+ the appointment b- the loer !ourt of S6e Sook 8ah as ?udi!ialadministratri; of the estate of the de!eased. JC" de!ision, pp. 11%12 Rollo, pp.)$% )7.K

rom said de!ision both parties moved for partial re!onsideration, hi!h ashoever denied b- respondent !ourt. The- thus interposed their respe!tiveappeals to this Court.

'rivate respondents filed a petition ith this Court do!keted as &.R. (o. 5$#45entitled D"ida S-%&on6ales, >anuel S-, Teresita S-%ernabe and Rodolfo S- v.Court of "ppeals, Bao @ee, S6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Cho and S- Chun BenDuestionin+ para+raphs ): and 4: of the dispositive portion of the Court of

"ppealsA de!ision. The Supreme Court hoever resolved to den- the petition andthe motion for re!onsideration. Thus on >ar!h 0, 1902 entr- of ?ud+ment asmade in &.R. (o. 5$#45.

The instant petition, on the other hand, uestions para+raphs 1: and 2: of thedispositive portion of the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals. This petition asinitiall- denied b- the Supreme Court on 3une 22, 1901. pon motion of thepetitioners the Court in a resolution dated September 1$, 1901 re!onsidered the



denial and de!ided to +ive due !ourse to this petition. Ferein petitioners assi+nthe folloin+ as errors

. R=S'*(=(T C*RT * "''="<S S=R*S<B =RR= ( =C<"R(&TF= >"RR"&= * SB @"T T* B"* B== "S (*T F"H= si!: ==( 'R*H=(H"< ( "CC*R"(C= 8TF <"8S * TF= '=*'<=AS R='<C *

CF(".

. R=S'*(=(T C*RT * "''="<S &R"H=<B =RR= ( =C<"R(& "" SB%&*(G"<=S, >"(=< SB, T=R=ST" SB%=R("= "( R**<*SB "S ("TR"< CF<R=( * SB @"T 8TF "S(C*( &<<=&*.J'etition, p. 2 Rollo, p. $.K

. 'etitioners ar+ue that the marria+e of S- @iat to Bao @ee in a!!ordan!e ithChinese la and !ustom as !on!lusivel- proven. To buttress this ar+ument the-rel- on the folloin+ testimonial and do!umentar- eviden!e.

irst, the testimon- of Bao @ee summari6ed b- the trial !ourt as follos

Bao @ee testified that she as married to S- @iat on 3anuar- 19, 19)1 inookien, China that she does not have a marria+e !ertifi!ate be!ause thepra!ti!e durin+ that time as for elders to a+ree upon the betrothal of their!hildren, and in her !ase, her elder brother as the one ho !ontra!ted orentered into JanK a+reement ith the parents of her husband that the a+reementas that she and S- >at ould be married, the eddin+ date as set, andinvitations ere sent out that the said a+reement as !omplied ith that shehas five !hildren ith S- @iat, but to of them died that those ho are alive areS6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Cho, and S6e Chun Ben, the eldest bein+ S6e Sook 8ahho is alread- )0 -ears old that S6e Sook 8ah as born on (ovember 7, 19)9that she and her husband, S- >at, have been livin+ in oo@ien, China before heent to the 'hilippines on several o!!asions that the pra!ti!e durin+ the time of

her marria+e as a ritten do!ument Jis e;!han+edK ?ust beteen the parents ofthe bride and the parents of the +room, or an- elder for that matter that in China,the !ustom is that there is a +o% beteen, a sort of marria+e broker ho is knonto both parties ho ould talk to the parents of the bride%to%be that if the parentsof the bride%to%be a+ree to have the +room%to%be their son in%la, then the- a+reeon a date as an en+a+ement da- that on en+a+ement da-, the parents of the+room ould brin+ some pie!es of ?eelr- to the parents of the bride%to%be, andthen one month after that, a date ould be set for the eddin+, hi!h in her!ase, the eddin+ date to S- @iat as set on 3anuar- 19, 19)1 that durin+ theeddin+ the bride+room brin+s ith him a !ou!h si!: here the bride ould rideand on that same da-, the parents of the bride ould +ive the dor- for herdau+hter and then the do!ument ould be si+ned b- the parties but there is nosolemni6in+ offi!er as is knon in the 'hilippines that durin+ the eddin+ da-,

the do!ument is si+ned onl- b- the parents of the bride+room as ell as b- theparents of the bride that the parties themselves do not si+n the do!ument thatthe bride ould then be pla!ed in a !arria+e here she ould be brou+ht to theton of the bride+room and before departure the bride ould be !overed ith asort of a veil that upon rea!hin+ the ton of the bride+room, the bride+roomtakes aa- the veil that durin+ her eddin+ to S- @iat a!!ordin+ to saidChinese !ustom:, there ere man- persons present that after S- @iat openedthe door of the !arria+e, to old ladies helped her +o don the !arria+e andbrou+ht her inside the house of S- >at that durin+ her eddin+, S- Chi!k, theeldest brother of S- @iat, si+ned the do!ument ith her mother that as to the



hereabouts of that do!ument, she and S- >at ere married for 4$ (earsalread( and t-e document as left in C-ina and s-e dou$t if t-at document canstill $e found no: t-at it as left in t-e possession of ( iats famil(: t-at rig-tno, s-e does not no t-e -erea$outs of t-at document $ecause of t-e lapseof man( (ears and $ecause t-e( left it in a certain place and it as alread( eaten$( t-e termites: t-at after -er edding it- ( iat, t-e( lived immediatel(toget-er as -us$and and ife, and from then on, the- lived to+ether that S- @iatent to the 'hilippines sometime in >ar!h or "pril in the same -ear the- eremarried that she ent to the 'hilippines in 197#, and then !ame ba!k to Chinathat a+ain she ent ba!k to the 'hilippines and lived ith S- >at as husbandand ife that she be+ot her !hildren ith S- @iat durin+ the several trips b- S-@iat made ba!k to China. JC de!ision, pp. 1)%15 Rollo, pp. 5#%52.K

econd , the testimon- of &an Chin+, a -oun+er brother of Bao @ee ho statedthat he as amon+ the man- people ho attended the eddin+ of his sister ithS- @iat and that no marria+e !ertifi!ate is issued b- the Chinese +overnment, ado!ument si+ned b- the parents or elders of the parties bein+ suffi!ient JCde!ision, pp. 15%1$ Rollo, pp.

52%5).K

-ird , the statements made b- "sun!ion &ille+o hen she testified before thetrial !ourt to the effe!t that a: S- >at as married to Bao @ee a!!ordin+ toChinese !ustom and, b: S- @iatAs admission to her that he has a Chinese ifehom he married a!!ordin+ to Chinese !ustom JC de!ision, p. 17 Rollo, p. 54.K

8ourt-, S- @iatAs >aster Card of Re+istered "lien issued in Caloo!an Cit- on*!tober ), 1972 here the folloin+ entries are found D>arital statusI>arriedDDf married +ive name of spousesIBao @eeD D"ddress%China Date of marria+eI19)1D and D'la!e of marria+eIChinaD J=;hibit DSS%1D.K

8ift-, S- @iatAs "lien Certifi!ate of Re+istration issued in >anila on 3anuar- 12,19$0 here the folloin+ entries are likeise found DCivil statusI>arriedD and,Af married, state name and address of spouseIBao @ee Chin+kan+, ChinaDJ=;hibit D4D.K

"nd lastl( , the !ertifi!ation issued in >anila on *!tober 20, 1977 b- the =mbass-of the 'eopleAs Republi! of China to the effe!t that Da!!ordin+ to the informationavailable at the =mbass- >r. S- @iat a Chinese national and >rs. Bao @ee aliasBui Bip also Chinese ere married on 3anuar- 19, 19)1 in ukien, the 'eopleAsRepubli! of ChinaD J=;hibit D5D.K

These eviden!e ma- ver- ell prove the fact of marriage beteen Bao @ee andS- @iat. Foever, the same do not suffi!e to establish the validit- of saidmarria+e in a!!ordan!e ith Chinese la or !ustom.

Custom is defined as Da rule of !ondu!t formed b- repetition of a!ts, uniforml-observed pra!ti!ed: as a so!ial rule, le+all- bindin+ and obli+ator-D J #n t-e%atter of t-e Petition for Aut-orit( to Continue Use of t-e 8irm 4ame F&aeta,



Romulo, de /eon, %a$anta and Re(esD, 'ul( 30, 1979, CRA 3, 1* citing '/Re(es RC Puno, &utline of P-il. Civil /a, 8ourt- 2d., Bol. 1, p. 7.K The lareuires that Da !ustom must be proved as a fa!t, a!!ordin+ to the rules ofeviden!eD J"rti!le 12, Civil Code.K *n this s!ore the Court had o!!asion to statethat Da lo!al !ustom as a sour!e of ri+ht !an not be !onsidered b- a !ourt of

?usti!e unless su!h !ustom is properl- established b- !ompetent eviden!e likean- other fa!tD J'atriar!a v. *rate, 7 'hil. )9#, )95 19#7:.K The same eviden!e,if not one of a hi+her de+ree, should be reuired of a forei+n !ustom.

The la on forei+n marria+es is provided b- "rti!le 71 of the Civil Code hi!hstates that

Art. 71. All marriages performed outside t-e P-ilippines in accordance it- t-elas in force in t-e countr( -ere t-e( ere performed and valid t-ere as suc-,s-all also $e valid in t-is countr(, e"cept $igamous, Pol(gamous, or incestuousmarriages, as determined $( P-ilippine la. 2mp-asis supplied.6 +++

Construin+ this provision of la the Court has held that to establish a validforei+n marria+e to thin+s must be proven, namel- 1: the e;isten!e of theforei+n la as a uestion of fa!t and 2: the alle+ed forei+n marria+e b-!onvin!in+ eviden!e J"don+ v. Cheon+ Sen+ &ee, 4) 'hil. 4), 49 1922:.K

n provin+ a forei+n la the pro!edure is provided in the Rules of Court. 8ithrespe!t to an unritten forei+n la, Rule 1)# se!tion 45 states that

S=C. 45. Unritten la .IThe oral testimon- of itnesses, skilled therein, isadmissible as eviden!e of the unritten la of a forei+n !ountr-, as are alsoprinted and published books of reports of de!isions of the !ourts of the forei+n!ountr-, if proved to be !ommonl- admitted in su!h !ourts.

'roof of a ritten forei+n la, on the other hand, is provided for under Rule 1)2se!tion 25, thus

S=C. 25. 'roof of pu$lic or official record .I"n offi!ial re!ord or an entr- therein,hen admissible for an- purpose, ma- be eviden!ed b- an offi!ial publi!ationthereof or b- a !op- attested b- the offi!er havin+ the le+al !ustod- of the re!ord,or b- his deput-, and a!!ompanied, if the re!ord is not kept in the 'hilippines,ith a !ertifi!ate that su!h offi!er has the !ustod-. f the offi!e in hi!h the re!ordis kept is in a forei+n !ountr-, the !ertifi!ate ma- be made b- a se!retar- ofembass- or le+ation, !onsul +eneral, !onsul, vi!e !onsul, or !onsular a+ent or b-an- offi!er in the forei+n servi!e of the 'hilippines stationed in the forei+n !ountr-

in hi!h the re!ord is kept and authenti!ated b- the seal of his offi!e.

The Court has interpreted se!tion 25 to in!lude !ompetent eviden!e like thetestimon- of a itness to prove the e;isten!e of a ritten forei+n la JColle!tor of nternal Revenue v. isher 11# 'hil. $0$, 7##%7#1 19$1: !itin+ 8illamette ronand Steel 8orks v. >u66al, $1 'hil. 471 19)5:.K



n the !ase at bar petitioners did not present an- !ompetent eviden!e relative tothe la and !ustom of China on marria+e. The testimonies of Bao and &an Chin+!annot be !onsidered as proof of ChinaAs la or !ustom on marria+e not onl-be!ause the- areself%servin+ eviden!e, but more importantl-, there is no shoin+ that the- are

!ompetent to testif- on the sub?e!t matter. or failure to prove the forei+n la or!ustom, and !onseuentl-, the validit- of the marria+e in a!!ordan!e ith saidla or !ustom, the marria+e beteen Bao @ee and S- @iat !annot be re!o+ni6edin this ?urisdi!tion.

'etitioners !ontend that !ontrar- to the Court of "ppealsA rulin+ the- are not dut-bound to prove the Chinese la on marria+e as ?udi!ial noti!e thereof had beentaken b- this Court in the !ase of ( 'oc /ieng v. ( Guia J1$ 'hil. 1)7 191#:.K

This !ontention is erroneous. 8ell%established in this ?urisdi!tion is the prin!iplethat 'hilippine !ourts !annot take ?udi!ial noti!e of forei+n las. The- must be

alle+ed and proved as another fa!t JBam @a <im v. Colle!tor of Customs, )#'hil. 4$, 40 1915: luemer v. Fi;, 54 'hil. $1# 19)#:.K

>oreover a readin+ of said !ase ould sho that the part- alle+in+ the forei+nmarria+e presented a itness, one <i n+ ien+, to prove that matrimonial lettersmutuall- e;!han+ed b- the !ontra!tin+ parties !onstitute the essential reuisitefor a marria+e to be !onsidered dul- solemni6ed in China. ased on histestimon-, hi!h as found b- the Court is uniforml- !orroborated b- authors onthe sub?e!t of Chinese marria+e, hat as left to be de!ided as the issue ofhether or not the fact of marriage in a!!ordan!e ith Chinese la as dul-proven JS- 3o! <ien+ v. S- /uia, supra., at p. 1$#.K

urther, even assumin+ for the sake of ar+ument that the Court has indeed taken ?udi!ial noti!e of the la of China on marria+e in the afore!ited !ase, petitionershoever have not shon an- proof that the Chinese la or !ustom obtainin+ atthe time the ( 'oc /ieng marria+e as !elebrated in 1047 as still the la henthe alle+ed marria+e of S- @iat to Bao @ee took pla!e in 19)1 or ei+ht-%four 04:-ears later.

'etitioners moreover !ite the !ase of U.. v. %emoracion J)4 'hil. $)) 191$:K asbein+ appli!able to the instant !ase. The- aver that the ?udi!ial pronoun!ement inthe >emora!ion !ase, that the testimon- of one of the !ontra!tin+ parties is!ompetent eviden!e to sho the fa!t of marria+e, holds true in this !ase.

The %emoracion !ase hoever is not appli!able to the !ase at bar as said !asedid not !on!ern a forei+n marria+e and the issue posed as hether or not theoral testimon- of a spouse is !ompetent eviden!e to prove the fact of marriage ina !omplaint for adulter-.



"!!ordin+l-, in the absen!e of proof of the Chinese la on marria+e, it should bepresumed that it is the same as ours J8on+ 8oo Biu v. Hivo, &.R. (o. <%21#7$, >ar!h )1, 19$5, 1) SCR" 552, 555.K Sin!e Bao @ee admitted in hertestimon- that there as no solemni6in+ offi!er as is knon here in the'hilippines JSee "rti!le 5$, Civil CodeK hen her alle+ed marria+e to S- >at as

!elebrated JC de!ision, p. 14 Rollo, p. 51K, it therefore follos that hermarria+e to S- @iat, even if true, !annot be re!o+ni6ed in this ?urisdi!tion J8on+8oo Biu v. Hivo, supra., pp. 555%55$.K

. The se!ond issue raised b- petitioners !on!erns the status of privaterespondents.

Respondent !ourt found the folloin+ eviden!e of petitionersA filiation

1: S- @iatAs >aster Card of Re+istered "lien here the folloin+ are enteredDChildren if an- +ive number of !hildrenIourD and, D(ameI"ll livin+ in ChinaDJ=;hibit DSS%1DK

2: the testimon- of their mother Bao @ee ho stated that she had five !hildrenith S- @iat, onl- three of hom are alive namel-, S6e Sook 8ah, S6e <ai Chuand S6e Chin Ban JTS(, e!ember 12, 1977, pp. 9%11K and,

): an affidavit e;e!uted on >ar!h 22,19$1 b- S- @iat for presentation to the<o!al Civil Re+istrar of >anila to support S6e Sook 8ahAs appli!ation for amarria+e li!ense, herein S- @iat e;pressl- stated that she is his dau+hterJ=;hibit D)D.K

<ikeise on the re!ord is the testimon- of "sun!ion &ille+o that S- @iat told herhe has three dau+hters ith his Chinese ife, to of homISook 8ah and S6e

@ai ChoIshe knos, and one adopted son JTS(, e!ember $,1977, pp. 07%00.K

Foever, as petitioners failed to establish the marria+e of Bao @ee ith S- >ata!!ordin+ to the las of China, the- !annot be a!!orded the status of le+itimate!hildren but onl- that of a!knoled+ed natural !hildren. 'etitioners are natural!hildren, it appearin+ that at the time of their !on!eption Bao @ee and S- @iatere not disualified b- an- impediment to marr- one another JSee "rt. 2$9, CivilCode.K "nd the- are a!knoled+ed !hildren of the de!eased be!ause of S- @iatAsre!o+nition of S6e Sook 8ah J=;hibit D)DK and its e;tension to S6e <ai Cho andS- Chun Ben ho are her sisters of the full blood JSee "rt. 271, Civil Code.K

'rivate respondents on the other hand are also the de!easedAs a!knoled+ednatural !hildren ith "sun!ion &ille+o, a ilipina ith hom he lived for tent-%five 25: -ears ithout the benefit of marria+e. The- have in their favor theirfatherAs a!knoled+ment, eviden!ed b- a !ompromise a+reement entered into b-and beteen their parents and approved b- the Court of irst nstan!e onebruar- 12, 1974 herein S- @iat not onl- a!knole+ed them as his !hildren b-

"sun!ion &ille+o but likeise made provisions for their support and futureinheritan!e, thus



;;; ;;; ;;;

2. -e parties also acnoledge t-at t-e( are common;la -us$and and ifeand t-at out of suc- relations-ip, -ic- t-e( -ave lieise decided to definitel(and finall( terminate effective immediatel(, t-e( $egot five c-ildren, namel(K Aida(, $orn on %a( 30, 1950: %anuel (, $orn on 'ul( 1, 1953: eresita (, $orn on

'anuar( *>, 1955: Ricardo ( no deceased, $orn on !ecem$er 1), 195@: andRodolfo (, $orn on %a( 7, 195>.

). 8ith respe!t to the "H=(= TR"CT*R "( =S=< '"RTS S''<B ... , theparties mutuall- a+ree and !ovenant thatI

a: The sto!ks and mer!handi6e and the furniture andeuipments ..., shall be divided into to eual shares beteen,and distributed to, S- @iat ho shall onone%half of the total and t-e ot-er -alf to Asuncion ?illego -os-all transfer t-e same to t-eir c-ildren, namel(, Aida (, %anuel (, eresita (, and Rodolfo (.

b: the business name and premises ... shall be retained b- S-@iat. Foever, it s-all $e -is o$ligation to give to t-e aforenamed!hildren an amount of *ne Thousand 'esos 'l,###.## :monthl- out of the rental of the to doors of the same buildin+no occupied $( 2verett Construction.

;;; ;;; ;;;

5: 8ith respe!t to the a!uisition, durin+ the e;isten!e of the!ommon%la husband%and%ife relationship beteen the parties, of the realestates and properties re+istered andEor appearin+ in the name of "sun!ion&ille+o ... , the parties mutuall- a+ree and !ovenant that t-e said real estatesand properties s-all $e transferred in eual s-ares to t-eir c-ildren, namel(, Aida

(, %anuel (, eresita (, and Rodolfo (, $ut to $e administered $( Asuncion?illego during -er lifetime ... J=;hibit DD.K =mphasis supplied.:

;;; ;;; ;;;

This !ompromise a+reement !onstitutes a statement before a !ourt of re!ord b-hi!h a !hild ma- be voluntaril- a!knoled+ed JSee "rt. 270, Civil Code.K

'etitioners further ar+ue that the uestions on the validit- of S- >atAs marria+e toBao @ee and the paternit- and filiation of the parties should have been ventilatedin the 3uvenile and omesti! Relations Court.

Spe!ifi!all-, petitioners rel- on the folloin+ provision of Republi! "!t (o. 55#2,entitled D"n "!t Revisin+ Rep. "!t (o. )270, otherise knon as the Charter ofthe Cit- of Caloo!anA, ith re+ard to the 3uvenile and omesti! Relations Court

S=C. 91%". Creation and 'urisdiction of t-e Court.I

;;; ;;; ;;;



The provisions of the 3udi!iar- "!t to the !ontrar- notithstandin+, the !ourt shallhave e;!lusive ori+inal ?urisdi!tion to hear and de!ide the folloin+ !ases

;;; ;;; ;;;

2: Cases involvin+ !ustod-, +uardianship, adoption, revo!ation of adoption,

paternit- and a!knoled+ment

): "nnulment of marria+es, relief from marital obli+ations, le+al separation ofspouses, and a!tions for support

4: 'ro!eedin+s brou+ht under the provisions of title si; and title seven, !haptersone to three of the !ivil !ode

;;; ;;; ;;;

and the rulin+ in the !ase of artolome v. artolome J&.R. (o. <%2)$$1, 21SCR" 1)24K reiterated in ivina+ra!ia v. Rovira J&.R. (o. <%42$15, 72 SCR"

)#7.K

8ith the ena!tment of atas 'ambansa l+. 129, otherise knon as the3udi!iar- Reor+ani6ation "!t of 190#, the 3uvenile and omesti! RelationsCourts ere abolished. Their fun!tions and ?urisdi!tion are no vested ith theRe+ional Trial Courts JSee Se!tion 19 7:, .'. l+. 129 and ivina+ra!ia v.elosillo, &.R. (o. <%474#7, "u+ust 12, 190$, 14) SCR" )5$, )$#K hen!e it is nolon+er ne!essar- to pass upon the issue of ?urisdi!tion raised b- petitioners.

>oreover, even ithout the e;a!tment of atas 'ambansa l+. 129 e find inRep. "!t (o. 55#2 se!. 91%" last para+raph that

;;; ;;; ;;;

f an- uestion involvin+ an- of the above matters should arise as an in!ident inan- !ase pendin+ in the ordinar- !ourt, said in!ident shall be determined in themain !ase.

;;; ;;; ;;;

"s held in the !ase of ivina+ra!ia v. Rovira J&.R. (o. <42$15. "u+ust 1#, 197$,72 SCR" )#7K

;;; ;;; ;;;

#t is true t-at under t-e aforeuoted section 1 of Repu$lic Act 4o. )>3) a caseinvolving paternit( and acnoledgment ma( $e ventilated as an incident in t-eintestate or testate proceeding ee alu(ot vs. #nes /uciano, /;)**15, 'ul( 13,197@6. ut that le+al provision presupposes that su!h an administrationpro!eedin+ is pendin+ or e;istin+ and has not been terminated. Jat pp. )1)%)14.K=mphasis supplied.:



;;; ;;; ;;;

The reason for ths rule is not onl- Dto obviate the rendition of !onfli!tin+ rulin+son the same issue b- the Court of irst nstan!e and the 3uvenile and omesti!Relations CourtD JHda. de alu-ut v. <u!iano, &.R. (o. <%42215, 3ul- 1), 197$,72 SCR" 52, $)K but more importantl- to prevent multipli!it- of suits. "!!ordin+l-,this Court finds no reversible error !ommitted b- respondent !ourt.

8F=R=*R=, the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals is hereb- "R>=.

S* *R=R=.



<G.R. No. L-1@@6@. No8$0$r 27, 19/6.=

MARIA S. AS!(AL, Plaintiff - Appellee, 8. JOSE LA!SAMANA, Defendant -

Appellant .

D E ! I S I O N

LARADOR, J.:

5n ul %, ')3', the 'efendant executed a document in Ta!alo!, presented at the trial asExhi&it 8, 1hich reads4chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar

O8+8*IN N/ +8H8T N/ *882828"8 NIT54 chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar

ONa a@o, si ose +acsamana, ma sapat na !ulan!, ma asa1a, at @asalu@uannaninirahan sa ') Tra&a0o, "ampaloc, *anila a na!papatuna n! sumusunod4 chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar

O:na. K Na a@o a umutan! n! hala!an! anim na li&o apat na daan at liman! piso atliman! pu at tatlon! sentimos laman! 6#$,(3.37 @ualtan! pilipino, @a /n!. *aria ".#ascual n! *ala&on, 9i>al n!aon! ara1 na ito.

OI@ala1a. K Na an! nasa&in! utan! a ipinan!an!a@o @on! &ahaaran sa nasa&in!/inan! sa Deciem&re ', ')3'.

OI@atlo. K Na an! lahat n! isdan! huhulihin sa amin! palaisdaan! O*8/#IT5P atO#:+5P na nasa #ampan!a, sa punduhan n! isda sa Hulon! Duat, *ala&on, 9i>al, upan!ipa!&ili at sa lahat n! pa!&i&ilhan a aa1asin an! @an!an! @omission! 3 porciento.

OI@aapat. K Na an! nasa&in! hala!a a a@in! &i&i!an n! tu&o o interest n! '% porcientoisan! taon sa nasa&in! /inan! mula n!aon ara1 na ito han!!an! sa Deciem&re ',

')3'.OI@alima. K Na @un! sa@aliQt hindi a@o ma@a&aad sa a@in! utan! sa nasa&in! /inan! satanin! na na@ala!a dito, at an! pa!siU!il sa a@in a uma&ot sa O0us!adoP a@o anan!an!a@o na ma!&a&aad n! a@in! pa!@a@autan! at &u@od sa doon a ma!&a&aada@o n! %3 porciento n! a@in! pa!@a@autan! &ilan! daUos per0uicios o costas n!a&o!ado.

O"8 8T:N8;8N N/ +8H8T N/ IT5, a@o a luma!da sa i&a&a nito, dito sa*ala&on, 9i>al n!aon! i@a % n! ulio, ')3'.

Oose +acsamanaP

5n Fe&ruar %<, ')3, he a!ain executed another document, presented at the trial asExhi&it ODP, 1hich read4 chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar

O"8 +8H8T 8; 8IN/ #IN8T:T:N8;8N4 chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar

O8@o, si 5"E +8C"8*8N8, matapos na ma@apanumpa, a na!sasalasa n! m!asumusunod4chanro&lesvirtualla1li&rar



O'. Na a@o a ma na@uhan! cualta sa /n!. *aria #ascual, sa hala!an! 8nim na li&on! piso at apat na daan at lima at limanpuQt tatlon! centimos 6#$,(3.37 noon! % n! ulion! ')3'.

O%. Na &ilan! @atunaan na a@o a handan! ma!&aad n! nasa&in! utan! a@o anan!a@on! ma!huhulo! n! isda @a /n!. *aria #ascual, at &u@od ditoQ a@oQ

nan!a@on! ma!papaton! n! nuu@ol na interes sa hala!an! a@in! nautan! han!!an! sama&aaran an! hala!an! a@in! na@uha.

O. Na a@oQ nan!a@on! ma!&aad n! nasa&in! utan!, @asama and nauu@ol na interes,san!aon sa @asulatan! a@in! nila!daan, noon! i@a a ' n! Deciem&re, ')3'.

O(. Na han!!a sa n!aon a hindi pa a@o na!&a&aad n! nasa&in! utan! @a /n!. *aria#ascual.

O3. Na noon! Deciem&re, ')3%, a@o a na@ipa!usap @a /n!. *aria #ascual at ulit anan!a@on! ma!&a&aad n! nasa&in! utan! niton! @atapusan n! Fe&rero, ')3, n!uniQthindi pa rin a@o na!&aad n! nasa&in! utan!.

O$. Na n!aon! i@a %< n! Fe&rero, a@oQ mulin! na@ipa!usap sa @a /n!. *aria #ascualat sa @a 8tt. 8rsenio 9oldan, r., at sa harap niton! huli, a@o a nan!a@on! muli nama!&a&aad n! nasa&in! utan! sa fecha % n! *ar>o, ')3.

O"8 8T:N8;8N N/ +8H8T N/ IT5, a@o a luma!da sa @asulatan! ito, n!aon! i@a%< n! Fe&roro, ')3.

O*anila, #hilippines

O5"E +8C"8*8N8P

3laintiff &rou!ht this action alle!in! that 'efendant has not paid the inde&tedness that hehad a!reed and promised to pa in accordance 1ith his promisor note of ul %, ')3'6Exhi&it 87 chan ro&lesvirtuala1li&rarthat 'efendant also promised therein to sell all the fish that 1ould &eharvested from his t1o fishponds, throu!h the 3laintiff , 1ho 1ill receive 3 per centcommission, &ut failed to compl 1ith this o&li!ation, deprivin! 3laintiff of an unreali>edcommission estimated at #<. "he, therefore, pras that 'efendant &e sentenced to pathe sum of #$,(3.3, the amount of the de&t, plus interest thereon at the rate of '%S per annum from the date of the execution of the instrument until the de&t is full paid, andthat she also &e ordered to pa 3laintiff #<, representin! the 3 per cent commission1hich the 3laintiff failed to reali>e. "he also pras that 'efendant &e sentenced to pa#',$'.B, representin! %3 per cent of the de&t, as li=uidated dama!es.

The 'efendant claims that the facts are not presented clearl & 3laintiff . He alle!es thaton Fe&ruar %<, ')3, he and 3laintiff settled and li=uidated all their outstandin!

accounts, and in consideration of said cancellation and renovation, 'efendant executedthe contract, Exhi&it OD O. 2 1a of counterclaim, he alle!es that he had delivered fishvalued at #',')B.'3, and that after deductin! 3laintiff Qs commission thereon, 3laintiff stillo1ed him a &alance of #',(.%3. He, therefore, as@s that 3laintiff Qs complaint &edismissed, and that 3laintiff &e sentenced to pa the sum stated in his counterclaim.

8fter the trial and on anuar (, ')3(, the court rendered 0ud!ment sentencin! 'efendant to pa the sum of #$,(3.3, plus interest thereon at '%S per annum from ul %, ')3'until the 1hole amount is full paid, and the further sum of #',$'.B, representin! %3



per cent of the aforementioned amount, as li=uidated dama!es and attorneQs fees, plusthe costs. 'efendant Qs counterclaim 1as dismissed.

8!ainst the a&ove 0ud!ment, 'efendant appealed to the Court of 8ppeals, 1hich in duetime, certified the case to :s, on the !round that onl =uestions of la1 are involved. Theonl error assi!ned in the appeal is that the lo1er court erred in holdin! that Exhi&it D

did not novate Exhi&it 8.

8 comparison &et1een the t1o instruments 1ill readil sho1 that the second one, Exhi&itD, is a&solutel silent on 'efendant Qs o&li!ation to deliver all the fish produced from hist1o fishponds to the 3laintiff , as 1ell as on the pament of li=uidated dama!es of %3 per cent. It contains nothin! &ut a recital of past unfulfilled promises to pa made & 'efendant , and a final promise to pa the o&li!ation on *arch %, ')3. hether or not 3laintiff a!reed to this date of pament does not appear, &ut even if she did, the chan!e1ould &e limited to the date of pament and it cannot &e held to extend to all other particulars of the contract. For a novation to exist, there must &e a chan!e, su&stitution, or rene1al of an o&li!ation or o&li!ator relation, 1ith the intention of extin!uishin! or modifin! essentiall the former, de&itum pro de&ito. 6( ". 9. (%(.7 If the secondinstrument 1as accepted & 3laintiff so that the period for the pament 1as intended to &e postponed, there 1ould still &e no novation &ecause mere extension of pament and

h ddi i f h &li i i i&l i h h ld i i

Documents

Discussion on Conflict of LAws by Agpalo