CONFLICT Batch 1 Saudi-recto

7/25/2019 CONFLICT Batch 1 Saudi-recto

1/30

1

CONFLICT OF LAWS 1st SET DIGEST

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINESvs. CA (1998) - "State ofte !ost s#$f%a$t &e'ato$s" &'e

FACTS*defendant SAUDIA hired plaintiff as a FlightAttendant for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff entto a dis!o dan!e ith fello !re "e"bers #ha"er Al-$a%%ai and Allah Al-$a%%ai, both Saudi nationals.&e!ause it as al"ost "orning hen they returned totheir hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together atthe roo" of #ha"er. When they ere in te 'si!( roo",Allah left on so"e prete)t. Shortly after he did, #ha"eratte"pted to rape plaintiff. Fortunately, a roo"boy andseveral se!urity personnel heard her !ries for help and

res!ued her. *ater, the Indonesian poli!e !a"e andarrested #ha"er and Allah Al-$a%%ai, the latter as ana!!o"pli!e.

In Jakarta, SAUDIA *egal +ffi!er Sirah Akkad and base"anager &aharini negotiated ith the poli!e for thei""ediate release of the detained !re "e"bers butdid not su!!eed be!ause plaintiff refused to !ooperate.She as afraid that she "ight be tri!ked into so"ethingshe did not ant be!ause of her inability to understandthe lo!al diale!t. She also de!lined to sign a blank

paper and a do!u"ent ritten in the lo!al diale!t.SAUDIA alloed plaintiff to return to Jeddah but barredher fro" the Jakarta flights. #he Indonesian authoritiesagreed to deport #ha"er and Allah after to eeks ofdetention. ventually, they ere again put in servi!e bydefendant SAUDI. Defendant SAUDIA transferredplaintiff to anila. Just hen plaintiff thought that theJakarta in!ident as already behind her, her superiorsreuested her to see r. Ali eniey, /hief *egal+ffi!er of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. When shesa hi", he brought her to the poli!e station here the

poli!e took her passport and uestioned her about theJakarta in!ident. +ne year and a half later, in 0iyadh,Saudi Arabia, a fe "inutes before the departure of herflight to anila, plaintiff as not alloed to board theplane and instead ordered to take a later flight toJeddah to see r. iniey, the /hief *egal +ffi!er ofSAUDIA. When she did, a !ertain 1halid of the SAUDIAoffi!e brought her to a Saudi !ourt here she asasked to sign a do!u"ent ritten in Arabi!. #hey toldher that this as ne!essary to !lose the !ase against#ha"er and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed anoti!e to her to appear before the !ourt. 2laintiff then

returned to anila. Defendant SAUDIA s!!o$e+'a$tff to &eo&t to ,e++a o$%e a#a$ a$+ see$e./ fo& f&te& $0est#ato$ 2'a$tff ++ soafte& &e%e0$# ass&a$%e f&o! SAUDIA3s a$'a!a$a#e&4 As'a! Sa'ee!4 tat te $0est#ato$ .as&ot$a&/ a$+ tat t ose+ $o +a$#e& to e& ASa+ 5+#e $te&&o#ate+ 'a$tff t&o# a$$te&&ete&about the Jakarta in!ident. After one hour ofinterrogation, they let her go. At the airport, hoever,

3ust as her plane as about to take off, a SAUDIAoffi!er told her that the airline had forbidden her to takeflight. #o her astonish"ent and sho!k, the !ourtrendered a de!ision, translated to her in nglish,senten!ing her to 4 "onths i"prison"ent and to 567lashes. +nly then did she reali%e that the Saudi !ourthad tried her, together ith #ha"er and Allah, for hat

happened in Jakarta. #he !ourt found plaintiff guilty of'8( adultery9 '5( going to a dis!o, dan!ing and listeningto the "usi! in violation of Isla"i! las9 and ':(so!iali%ing ith the "ale !re, in !ontravention ofIsla"i! tradition.

2rivate respondent sought the help of her e"ployer,petitioner SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she as denied anyassistan!e. &e!ause she as rongfully !onvi!ted, the2rin!e of akkah dis"issed the !ase against her andalloed her to leave Saudi Arabia. She as ter"inated

fro" the servi!e by SAUDIA, ithout her beinginfor"ed of the !ause. orada filed a /o"plaint forda"ages against SAUDIA, and 1haled Al-&alai ';Al-&alai;(, its !ountry "anager. SAUDIA alleged that thetrial !ourt has no 3urisdi!tion to hear and try the !ase onthe basis of Arti!le 58 of the /ivil /ode, sin!e theproper la appli!able is the la of the 1ingdo" ofSaudi Arabia.

6ELD* 2etitioner SAUDIA !lai"s that before us is a!onfli!t of las that "ust be settled at the outset. It

"aintains that private respondent


2/30

2

fa!tual situation that !uts a!ross territorial lines and isaffe!ted by the diverse las of to or "ore states issaid to !ontain a ;foreign ele"ent;. #he foreign ele"ent"ay si"ply !onsist in the fa!t that one of the parties toa !ontra!t is an alien or has a foreign do"i!ile, or that a!ontra!t beteen nationals of one State involvesproperties situated in another State. In other !ases, theforeign ele"ent "ay assu"e a !o"ple) for". ;In theinstant !ase, the foreign ele"ent !onsisted in the fa!tthat private respondent orada is a resident 2hilippinenational, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a residentforeign !orporation. A !onfli!ts proble" presents itselfhere, and the uestion of 3urisdi!tion 7 !onfronts the!ourt a uo.

Arti!le 8= of the >e /ivil /ode provides? very person

"ust, in the e)er!ise of his rights and in theperfor"an!e of his duties, a!t ith 3usti!e giveeveryone his due and observe honesty and good faith.

Arti!le 58 of the >e /ivil /ode provides? Any personho illfully !auses loss or in3ury to another in a"anner that is !ontrary to "orals, good !usto"s orpubli! poli!y shall !o"pensate the latter for da"ages.

'0#/( of @ue%on /ity possesses 3urisdi!tion over thesub3e!t "atter of the suit. 8Its authority to try and hear

the !ase is provided for under Se!tion 8 of 0epubli! A!t>o. 7=8, to it? Se!. 8. Se!tion 8= of &atas 2a"bansa&lg. 85=, otherise knon as the ;Judi!iary0eorgani%ation A!t of 8=6B;, is hereby a"ended toread as follos? Jurisdi!tion in /ivil /ases. C 0egional#rial /ourts shall e)er!ise e)!lusive 3urisdi!tion? '6( Inall other !ases in hi!h de"and, e)!lusive of interest,da"ages of hatever kind, attorneyo0egional #rial /ourtG 'b( 2ersonal a!tions. C All othera!tions "ay be !o""en!ed and tried here thedefendant or any of the defendants resides or "ay befound, or here the plaintiff

2rag"ati! !onsiderations, in!luding the !onvenien!e ofthe parties, also eigh heavily in favor of the 0#/@ue%on /ity assu"ing 3urisdi!tion. 2ara"ount 2laintiff"ay not, by !hoi!e of an in!onvenient foru", ;ve);,;harass;, or ;oppress; the defendant, e.g. by infli!tingupon hi" needless e)pense or disturban!e. &ut unlessthe balan!e is strongly in favor of the defendant, theplaintiffs !hoi!e of foru" should rarely be disturbed. 9

&y hearing the !ase in the 2hilippines no unne!essarydiffi!ulties and in!onvenien!e have been shon byeither of the parties. #he !hoi!e of foru" of the plaintiff'no private respondent( should be upheld. #he trial!ourt also possesses 3urisdi!tion over the persons ofthe parties herein. &y filing her /o"plaint and A"ended/o"plaint ith the trial !ourt, private respondent has

voluntary sub"itted herself to the 3urisdi!tion of the!ourt. 2etitioner SAUDIA has effe!tively sub"itted tothe trial !ourt


3/30

3

as the situs of the res, the pla!e of !elebration, thepla!e of perfor"an!e, or the pla!e of rongdoing.

#here is reasonable basis for private respondent


4/30

4

no !o"pulsory heirs and !onseuently a testator shoulddispose any property possessed by hi" in absolutedo"inion. Whether 2hilippine *a or /alifornia *ashould apply.

6ELD*#he Supre"e /ourt de!iding to grant "ore

su!!essional rights to elen /hristensen $ar!ia said ineffe!t that there be to rules in /alifornia on the "atter.8. #he !onfli!t rule hi!h should apply to /aliforniansoutside the /alifornia, and 5. #he internal *a hi!hshould apply to /alifornia do"i!iles in !alifronia.

#he /alifornia !onfli!t rule, found on Art. =7 of the/alifornia /ivil !ode States that Kif there is no la to the!ontrary in the pla!e here personal property issituated, it is dee"ed to follo the de!ree of its onerand is governed by the la of the do"i!ile.L

/hristensen being do"i!iled outside !alifornia, the laof his do"i!ile, the 2hilippines is ought to be folloed.Wherefore, the de!ision appealed is reversed and !aseis re"anded to the loer !ourt ith instru!tions thatpartition be "ade as that of the 2hilippine la provides

It is argued on appellees< behalf that the !lause ;if thereis no la to the !ontrary in the pla!e here the propertyis situated; in Se!. =7 of the /alifornia /ivil /oderefers to Arti!le 87 of the /ivil /ode of the 2hilippinesand that the la to the !ontrary in the 2hilippines is the

provision in said Arti!le 87 that the national la of thede!eased should govern. #his !ontention !an not besustained. As e)plained in the various authorities !itedabove the national la "entioned in Arti!le 87 of our/ivil /ode is the la on !onfli!t of las in the /alifornia/ivil /ode, i.e., Arti!le =7, hi!h authori%es thereferen!e or return of the uestion to the la of thetestator

FACTS* Allison D. $ibbs has been !ontinuously, sin!ethe year 8=B5, a !iti%en of the State of /alifornia anddo"i!iled therein. e and va Johnson $ibbs ere"arried at /olu"bus, +hio, in July 8=B7. #here as noantenuptial "arriage !ontra!t beteen the parties.During the e)isten!e of said "arriage the spouses

a!uired lands in the 2hilippine Islands as !on3ugalproperty. va Johnson $ibbs later died intestate in 2aloAlto, /alifornia, on >ove"ber 56, 8=5=. At the ti"e ofher death she and her husband ere !iti%ens of theState of /alifornia and do"i!iled therein. Allison D.$ibbs as appointed ad"inistrator of the estate of hissaid de!eased ife. Allison D. $ibbs filed an ex partepetition in hi!h he alleged that his ife, a !iti%en andresident of /alifornia, died on >ove"ber 56,8=5=9 thatin a!!ordan!e ith the la of /alifornia, the !o""unityproperty of spouses ho are !iti%ens of /alifornia, upon

the death of the ife previous to that of the husband,belongs absolutely to the surviving husband ithoutad"inistration9 that the !on3ugal partnership of AllisonD. $ibbs and va Johnson $ibbs, de!eased, has noobligations or debts and no one ill be pre3udi!ed byad3u!ating said par!els of land to the absolute propertyof the said Allison D. $ibbs as sole oner. #he !ourtgranted said petition and entered a de!ree ad3u!atingAllison D. $ibbs to be the sole and absolute oner ofsaid lands, applying se!tion 8B8 of the /ivil /ode of/alifornia. $ibbs presented this de!ree to the register

of deeds of anila and de"anded that the latter issueto hi" a ;transfer !ertifi!ate of title;.

Se!tion 84 of Arti!le MI of /hapter B of theAd"inistrative /ode provides in part that? 0egisters ofdeeds shall not register in the registry of property anydo!u"ent transferring real property or real rightstherein or any !hattel "ortgage, by ay of gifts mortiscausa, lega!y or inheritan!e, unless the pay"ent of theta) fi)ed in this arti!le and a!tually due thereon shall beshon. And they shall i""ediately notify the /olle!torof Internal 0evenue or the !orresponding provin!ial


5/30

5

treasurer of the non pay"ent of the ta) dis!overed bythe". . . . A!ting upon the authority of said se!tion, theregister of deeds of the /ity of anila, de!lined toa!!ept as binding said de!ree of !ourt and refused toregister the transfer of title of the said !on3ugal propertyto Allison D. $ibbs, on the ground that the!orresponding inheritan!e ta) had not been paid.

Allison D. $ibbs filed in the said !ourt a petition for anorder reuiring the said register of deeds ;to issue the!orresponding titles; to the petitioner ithout reuiringprevious pay"ent of any inheritan!e ta). After duehearing of the parties, the !ourt reaffir"ed said order.Supre"e !ourt re"anded the !ase to the !ourt of originfor ne trial upon additional eviden!e in regard to thepertinent la of /alifornia in for!e at the ti"e of the

death of rs. $ibbs, also authori%ing the introdu!tion ofeviden!e ith referen!e to the dates of the a!uisitionof the property involved in this suit and ith referen!e tothe /alifornia la in for!e at the ti"e of su!ha!uisition. #he !ase is no before us ith thesupple"entary eviden!e. Arti!le MI of /hapter B of theAd"inistrative /ode entitled ;#a) on inheritan!es,lega!ies and other a!uisitions mortis causa; providesin se!tion 84:7 that ;very trans"ission by virtue ofinheritan!e ... of real property ... shall be sub3e!t to thefolloing ta).;

Isse*Was va Johnson $ibbs at the ti"e of her deaththe oner of a des!endible interest in the 2hilippinelands above-"entionedN

Co$te$to$ of te Ae''ee* #he appellee !ontendsthat the la of /alifornia should deter"ine the natureand e)tent of the title, if any, that vested in va Johnson$ibbs under the three !ertifi!ates of title >os. 5B66B,56::7 and 56::8 above referred to, !iting arti!le = ofthe /ivil /ode. &ut that, even if the nature and e)tent of

her title under said !ertifi!ates be governed by the laof the 2hilippine Islands, the las of /alifornia governthe su!!ession to su!h title, !iting the se!ondparagraph of arti!le 8B of the /ivil /ode.

Appellant


6/30

6

!a&&a#e .as %e'e=&ate+. Under this broad prin!iple,te $at&e a$+ e>te$t of te tt'e .% 0este+ $&s G==s at te t!e of te a% o$ $e&ta$%es #he re!ord does notsho hat the proper a"ount of the inheritan!e ta) inthis !ase ould be nor that the appellee 'petitionerbelo( in any ay !hallenged the poer of the$overn"ent to levy an inheritan!e ta) or the validity ofthe statute under hi!h the register of deeds refused toissue a !ertifi!ate of transfer re!iting that the appellee isthe e)!lusive oner of the 2hilippine lands in!luded inthe three !ertifi!ates of title here involved.

CADALIN4vs. 2OEA (199) - a!& +e%&ee4 =a&a$

FACTS*In 8=6, &ienvenido .. /adalin, et.al, in theiron behalf and on behalf of 56 other overseas!ontra!t orkers '+/Ws( instituted a !lass suit by filingan ;A"ended /o"plaint; ith the '2+A( for "oney!lai"s arising fro" their re!ruit"ent by AI&/ ande"ploy"ent by &0II. It appears that the !o"plainants-appellants allege that they ere re!ruited byrespondent-appellant AI&/ for its a!!redited foreignprin!ipal, &ron O 0oot, on various dates fro" 8=4 to

8=6:. #hey ere all deployed at various pro3e!tsundertaken by &ron O 0oot in several !ountries in theiddle ast, su!h as Saudi Arabia, *ibya, United Arab"irates and &ahrain, as ell as in Southeast Asia, inIndonesia and alaysia &0II is a foreign !orporation

ith headuarters in ouston, #e)as, and is engaged in!onstru!tion9 hile AI&/ is a do"esti! !orporationli!ensed as a servi!e !ontra!tor to re!ruit, "obili%e anddeploy Filipino orkers for overseas e"ploy"ent onbehalf of its foreign prin!ipals. #he !o"plaint prin!ipallysought the pay"ent of the une)pired portion of the

e"ploy"ent !ontra!ts, hi!h as ter"inatedpre"aturely, and se!ondarily, the pay"ent of theinterest of the earnings of the #ravel and 0eservedFund, interest on all the unpaid benefits9 area ageand salary differential pay9 fringe benefits9 refund ofSSS and pre"iu" not re"itted to the SSS9 refund of

ithholding ta) not re"itted to the &I09 penalties for!o""itting prohibited pra!ti!es9 as ell as thesuspension of the li!ense of AI&/ and the a!!reditationof &0II


7/30

7

In the State of &ahrain, here so"e of the individual!o"plainants ere deployed, is a3esty Isa &inSal"an Al 1aifa, A"ir of &ahrain, issued his A"iriDe!ree >o. 5: on June 87, 8=7, otherise knon asthe *abour *a for the 2rivate Se!tor '0e!ords, Eol.86(. #his de!ree took effe!t on August 87, 8=7. So"eof the provisions of A"iri De!ree >o. 5: that arerelevant to the !lai"s of the !o"plainants-appellants.+n January :B, 8=6=, the 2+A Ad"inistrator renderedhis de!ision in 2+A /ase >o. *-6-B7-444 and theother !onsolidated !ases, hi!h aarded the a"ount ofP65,745. in favor of only :5 !o"plainants. AI&/and &0II appealed the de!ision to the >*0/. >*0/affir"ed the de!ision of the 2+A ith "odifi!ations. Itheld that the A"iri De!ree >o. 5: applied only to the!lai"ants, ho orked in &ahrain, and set aside

aards of the 2+A Ad"inistrator in favor of the!lai"ants, ho orked elsehere. It ruled that thepres!riptive period for the filing of the !lai"s of the!o"plainants as three years, as provided in Arti!le5=8 of the *abor /ode of the 2hilippines, and not tenyears as provided in Arti!le 88 of the /ivil /ode ofthe 2hilippines nor one year as provided in the A"iriDe!ree >o. 5: of 8=7.

ISSUE* 1 hether it is the &ahrain la on pres!riptionof a!tion based on the A"iri De!ree >o. 5: of 8=7 or a

2hilippine la on pres!ription that shall be thegoverning la ; Whether the !lai"ants are entitled tothe benefits provided by A"iri De!ree >o. 5:

6ELD*

Arti!le 847 of the A"iri De!ree >o. 5: of 8=7 provides?A !lai" arising out of a !ontra!t of e"ploy"ent shallnot be a!tionable after the lapse of one year fro" thedate of the e)piry of the !ontra!t. '$.0. >os. 8B4B5=-:8, Rollo, p. 557(. As a general rule, a foreign

pro!edural la ill not be applied in the foru".2ro!edural "atters, su!h as servi!e of pro!ess, 3oinderof a!tions, period and reuisites for appeal, and soforth, are governed by the las of the foru". #his istrue even if the a!tion is based upon a foreignsubstantive la '0estate"ent of the /onfli!t of *as,Se!. 7649 Salonga, 2rivate International *a, 8:88==G(. A 'a. o$ &es%&to$ of a%to$s s sui

generis $ Co$f'%t of La.s $ te se$se tat t !a/=e 0e.e+ ete& as &o%e+&a' o& s=sta$t0e4+ee$+$# o$ te %a&a%te&ato$ #0e$ s% a'a. #hus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company,

supra, the A"eri!an !ourt applied the statute ofli"itations of >e Hork, instead of the 2ana"anian la,after finding that there as no shoing that the2ana"anian la on pres!ription as intended to besubstantive. &eing !onsidered "erely a pro!edural laeven in 2ana"a, it has to give ay to the la of theforu" on pres!ription of a!tions. oever, the%a&a%te&ato$ of a statte $to a &o%e+&a' o&s=sta$t0e 'a. =e%o!es &&e'e0a$t .e$ te%o$t&/ of te fo&! as a "=o&&o.$# statte"Sa+ statte as te &a%t%a' effe%t of t&eat$# tefo&e#$ statte of '!tato$ as o$e of s=sta$%e'$oodri!h, /onfli!t of *as 845-84: 8=:6G(. A"=o&&o.$# statte" +&e%ts te state of te fo&! toa'/ te fo&e#$ statte of '!tato$s to tee$+$# %'a!s =ase+ o$ a fo&e#$ 'a. 'Siegel,

/onfli!ts, 86: 8=4G(. While there are several kinds of;borroing statutes,; o$e fo&! &o0+es tat a$a%to$ =a&&e+ =/ te 'a.s of te 'a%e .e&e ta%%&e+4 .'' $ot =e e$fo&%e+ $ te fo&! e0e$to# te 'o%a' statte as $ot &$ a#a$st t'$oodri!h and S!oles, /onfli!t of *as, 845-84:8=:6G(. Se%to$ 8 of o& Co+e of C0' 2&o%e+&eisof this kind. Said Se!tion provides? If =/ te 'a.s ofte state o& %o$t&/ .e&e te %ase of a%to$a&ose4 te a%to$ s =a&&e+4 t s a'so =a&&e+ $ te2'$es Is'a$+s.Se!tion 6 has not been repealed

or a"ended by the /ivil /ode of the 2hilippines. Arti!le55B of said /ode repealed only those provisions ofthe /ode of /ivil 2ro!edures as to hi!h erein!onsistent ith it. #here is no provision in the /ivil/ode of the 2hilippines, hi!h is in!onsistent ith or!ontradi!tory to Se!tion 6 of the /ode of /ivil2ro!edure '2aras, 2hilippine /onfli!t of *as 8B thed) I$ te '#t of te 198 Co$sttto$4 o.e0e&4Se%to$ 8 %a$$ot =e e$fo&%e+ ex proprio vigore(&yits on inherent for!e) $sofa& as t o&+a$s tea'%ato$ $ ts 5&s+%to$ of Se%to$ 1: of te

A!& De%&ee No ;7 of 19: Te %o&ts of tefo&! .'' $ot e$fo&%e a$/ fo&e#$ %'a! o=$o>osto te fo&!3s ='% o'%/ '/anadian >orthern0ailay /o. v. ggen, 545 U.S. 44:, B S. /t. B5, 7*. ed. 8: 8=5BG(. To e$fo&%e te o$e-/ea&&es%&t0e e&o+ of te A!& De%&ee No ;7 of19: as &e#a&+s te %'a!s $


8/30

8

that? #he state shall pro"ote so!ial 3usti!e in allphases of national develop"ent. 'Se!. 8B(. #hestate affir"s labor as a pri"ary so!ial e!ono"i!for!e. It shall prote!t the rights of orkers andpro"ote their elfare 'Se!. 86(. In arti!le MIIIon So!ial Justi!e and u"an 0ights, the 8=6/onstitution provides? Se!. :. #he State shallafford full prote!tion to labor, lo!al andoverseas, organi%ed and unorgani%ed, andpro"ote full e"ploy"ent and euality ofe"ploy"ent opportunities for all.

>*0/ applied the A"iri De!ree >o. 5: of 8=7, hi!hprovides for greater benefits than those stipulated in theoverseas-e"ploy"ent !ontra!ts of the !lai"ants. It asof the belief that ;here the las of the host !ountry are

"ore favorable and benefi!ial to the orkers, then thelas of the host !ountry shall for" part of the oversease"ploy"ent !ontra!t.; It uoted ith approval theobservation of the 2+A Ad"inistrator that ;. . . in laborpro!eedings, all doubts in the i"ple"entation of theprovisions of the *abor /ode and its i"ple"entingregulations shall be resolved in favor of labor; ' Rollo,pp. =B-=(. AI&/ and &0II !lai" that >*0/ a!ted!apri!iously and hi"si!ally hen it refused to enfor!ethe overseas-e"ploy"ent !ontra!ts, hi!h be!a"e thela of the parties. #hey !ontend that the prin!iple that a

la is dee"ed to be a part of a !ontra!t applies only toprovisions of 2hilippine la in relation to !ontra!tse)e!uted in the 2hilippines.

#he overseas-e"ploy"ent !ontra!ts, hi!h ereprepared by AI&/ and &0II the"selves, provided thatthe las of the host !ountry be!a"e appli!able to said!ontra!ts f te/ offe& te&!s a$+ %o$+to$s !o&efa0o&a='e tat tose st'ate+ te&e$While a partthereof provides that the !o"pensation to the e"ployee"ay be ;ad3usted donard so that the total

!o"putation 'thereunder( plus the non-aivablebenefits shall be euivalent to the !o"pensation;therein agreed, another part of the sa"e provision!ategori!ally states ;that total re"uneration andbenefits do not fall belo that of the host !ountryregulation and !usto".;

Any a"biguity in the overseas-e"ploy"ent !ontra!tsshould be interpreted against AI&/ and &0II, theparties that drafted it 'astern Shipping *ines, In!. v.argarine-Eerkaufs-Union, =: S/0A 54 8==G(.Arti!le 8: of the /ivil /ode of the 2hilippines

provides? #he interpretation of obs!ure ords orstipulations in a !ontra!t shall not favor the party ho!aused the obs!urity. Said rule of interpretation isappli!able to !ontra!ts of adhesion here there isalready a prepared for" !ontaining the stipulations ofthe e"ploy"ent !ontra!t and the e"ployees "erely;take it or leave it.; #he presu"ption is that there asan i"position by one party against the other and thatthe e"ployees signed the !ontra!ts out of ne!essitythat redu!ed their bargaining poer 'Field"enevada, United States, in 8=65. Ali!e Ean

Dorn has re-"arried also in >evada, this ti"e to#heodore Ean Dorn. Upton filed suit against petitionerin /ivil /ase >o. 8B4-2 of the 0egional #rial /ourt, in2asay /ity, stating that petitioner


9/30

9

obtained 3urisdi!tion over petitioner ho appeared inperson before the /ourt during the trial of the !ase. Italso obtained 3urisdi!tion over private respondent ho,giving his address as >o. :68 &ush Street, SanFran!is!o, /alifornia, authori%ed his attorneys in thedivor!e !ase, 1arp O $radt *td., to agree to the divor!eon the ground of in!o"patibility in the understandingthat there ere neither !o""unity property nor!o""unity obligations. #here !an be no uestion as tothe validity of that >evada divor!e in any of the Statesof the United States. #he de!ree is binding on privaterespondent as an A"eri!an !iti%en. For instan!e,private respondent !annot sue petitioner, as herhusband, in any State of the Union.

Isse*hether or not the divor!e is valid and binding in

this 3urisdi!tion, the sa"e being !ontrary to lo!al laand publi! poli!y.

R'$#? Hes, it is valid in the 2hilippines. It is true thatoing to the nationality prin!iple e"bodied in Arti!le 84of the /ivil /ode, only 2hilippine nationals are !overedby the poli!y against absolute divor!es the sa"e being!onsidered !ontrary to our !on!ept of publi! poli!e and"orality. oever, a'e$s !a/ o=ta$ +0o&%esa=&oa+4 .% !a/ =e &e%o#$e+ $ te2'$es4 &o0+e+ te/ a&e 0a'+ a%%o&+$# to

te& $ato$a' 'a.. In this !ase, the divor!e in >evadareleased private respondent fro" the "arriage fro" thestandards of A"eri!an la, under hi!h divor!edissolves the "arriage. 2&sa$t to s $ato$a' 'a.4&0ate &eso$+e$t s $o 'o$#e& te s=a$+ ofetto$e& 6e .o'+ a0e $o sta$+$# to se $ te%ase =e'o. as etto$e&3s s=a$+ e$tt'e+ toe>e&%se %o$t&o' o0e& %o$5#a' assets As he isbound by the De!ision of his on !ountry


10/30

10

II. >+. #he stats of te %o!'a$a$t 0s-J-0s tea%%se+ !st =e +ete&!$e+ as of te t!e te%o!'a$a$t .as f'e+ Ts4 te e&so$ .o$tates te a+'te&/ %ase !st =e te offe$+e+sose4 a$+ =/ ts s !ea$t tat e s st'' !a&&e+to te a%%se+ soseat the ti"e of the filing of the!o"plaint. #he allegation of private respondent that he!ould not have brought this !ase before the de!ree ofdivor!e for la!k of knoledge, even if true, is of no legalsignifi!an!e or !onseuen!e in this !ase. When saidrespondent initiated the divor!e pro!eeding, heobviously kne that there ould no longer be a fa"ilynor "arriage vos to prote!t on!e a dissolution of the"arriage is de!reed. #herefore, it is indispensable thatthe status and !apa!ity of the !o"plainant to!o""en!e the a!tion be definitely established and, as

already de"onstrated, su!h status or !apa!ity "ustindubitably e)ist as of the ti"e he initiates the a!tion. Itould be absurd if his !apa!ity to bring the a!tion ouldbe deter"ined by his status beforeor subsequentto the!o""en!e"ent thereof, here su!h !apa!ity or statuse)isted prior to but !eased before, or as a!uiredsubseuent to but did not e)ist at the ti"e of, theinstitution of the !ase. We ould thereby have theano"alous spe!ta!le of a party bringing suit at the veryti"e hen he is ithout the legal !apa!ity to do so.

LLORENTE vs.CA +0o&%e4 .''4 $e. /o&?4 &e$0o4$t&$s% 0a'+t/ of .''s #o0e&$e+ =/ fo&e#$ 'a.($ato$a' 'a. of testato&)4 e>t&$s% 0a'+t/ =/ 'La. ('a%e of e>e%to$)

FACTS* Lo&e$o>. *lorente, an enlisted servi!e"anof the United States and husband of 2a'a *lorente

as ad"itted to United States !iti%enship. When*oren%o visited the 2hilippines, he dis!overed that his

ife 2aula as pregnant and as Kliving inL and havingan adulterous relationship ith his brother, /eferino*lorente.

*oren%o refused to forgive 2aula and live ith her. Infa!t, the !ouple dre a ritten agree"ent to the effe!tthat '8( all the fa"ily alloan!es allotted by the UnitedStates >avy as part of *oren%os salary and all otherobligations for 2aulas daily "aintenan!e and support

ould be suspended9 '5( they ould dissolve their"arital union in a!!ordan!e ith 3udi!ial pro!eedings9':( they ould "ake a separate agree"ent regarding

their !on3ugal property a!uired during their "arital life9and '( *oren%o ould not prose!ute 2aula for heradulterous a!t sin!e she voluntarily ad"itted her faultand agreed to separate fro" *oren%o pea!efully. #heagree"ent as signed by both *oren%o and 2aula and

as itnessed by 2aulas father and step"other. #heagree"ent as notari%ed. *oren%o returned to theUnited States and filed for divor!e. #he Superior /ourtof the State of /alifornia, for the /ounty of San Diegofound all fa!tual allegations to be true and issued aninterlo!utory 3udg"ent of divor!e. +ne year after, thedivor!e de!ree be!a"e final.

In 8=46, *oren%o "arried A'%aF. *lorente in anila.#heir '54( year union produ!ed three !hildren, 0aul,*u% and &everly, all surna"ed *lorente. In 8=68,

*oren%o e)e!uted a *ast Will and #esta"ent. In theill, *oren%o beueathed all his property to Ali!ia andtheir three !hildren. In 8=6:, *oren%o filed a petition forthe probate and alloan!e of his last ill and testa"ent

herein *oren%o "oved that Ali!ia be appointedSpe!ial Ad"inistratri) of his estate. Finding that the ill

as duly e)e!uted, the trial !ourt ad"itted the ill toprobate. &ut before the pro!eedings !ould beter"inated, *oren%o died. 2aula filed ith the sa"e!ourt a petition for letters of ad"inistration over*oren%os estate in her favor. 2aula !ontended '8( that

she as *oren%os surviving spouse, '5( that thevarious property ere a!uired during their "arriage,':( that *oren%os ill disposed of all his property infavor of Ali!ia and her !hildren, en!roa!hing on herlegiti"e and 8Q5 share in the !on3ugal property. Ali!iafiled in the testate pro!eeding, a petition for theissuan!e of letters testa"entary. Without ter"inatingthe testate pro!eedings, the trial !ourt gave due !ourseto 2aulas petition.

#he 0egional #rial /ourt de!ided that the divor!e

de!ree granted to the late *oren%o *lorente is void andinappli!able in the 2hilippines, therefore the "arriagehe !ontra!ted ith Ali!ia Fortunato is likeise void.#his being so the petition of Ali!ia F. *lorente for theissuan!e of letters testa"entary as denied. She asnot entitled to re!eive any share fro" the estate even ifthe ill espe!ially said so her relationship ith *oren%ohaving gained the status of para"our hi!h is underArt. := '8(. Also, the !ourt de!lared the intrinsi!disposition of the ill of *oren%o *lorente as void andde!lared 2aula entitled as !on3ugal partner and entitledto one-half of their !on3ugal properties, and as pri"ary


11/30

11

!o"pulsory heir, also entitled to one-third of the estateand then one-third should go to the illegiti"ate !hildren,0aul, *u% and &everly, all surna"e 'si!( *lorente, forthe" to partition in eual shares and also entitled to there"aining free portion in eual shares. Ali!ia *lorenteappealed to the /ourt of Appeals, hi!h affir"ed theloer !ourts de!ision ith "odifi!ation that Ali!ia isde!lared as !o-oner of hatever properties she andthe de!eased "ay have a!uired during the '54( yearsof !ohabitation.

Isse*Was the divor!e validN

R'$#* Hes.#he fa!t that the late *oren%o >. *lorentebe!a"e an A"eri!an !iti%en long before and at the ti"eof? '8( his divor!e fro" 2aula9 '5( "arriage to Ali!ia9 ':(

e)e!ution of his ill9 and '( death, is duly established,ad"itted and undisputed.#hus, as a rule, issues arisingfro" these in!idents are ne!essarily governed byforeign la.

#he /ivil /ode !learly provides?KArt. 84. *as relating to fa"ily rights and duties, or tothe status, !ondition and legal !apa!ity of persons are=$+$# o$ %te$s of te 2'$es, eventhough living abroad.KArt. 87. 0eal property as ell as personal property is

sub3e!t to the la of the !ountry here it is situated.Koever, intestate and testa"entary su!!ession, both

ith respe!t to the o&+e& of s%%esso$ a$+ to tea!o$t of s%%esso$a' ts a$+ to te $t&$s%0a'+t/ of testa!e$ta&/ &o0so$s, sa'' =e&e#'ate+ =/ te $ato$a' 'a. of te e&so$ .oses%%esso$ s $+e& %o$s+e&ato$, hatever "ay bethe nature of the property and regardless of the !ountry

herein said property "ay be found.L 'e"phasis ours(

#rue, foreign las do not prove the"selves in our

3urisdi!tion and our !ourts are not authori%ed to take3udi!ial noti!e of the". *ike any other fa!t, they "ustbe alleged and proved. While the substan!e of theforeign la as pleaded, the /ourt of Appeals did notad"it the foreign la. #he Co&t of Aea's a$+ tet&a' %o&t %a''e+ to te fo&e te &e$0o +o%t&$e,

here the !ase as Kreferred ba!kL to the la of thede!edents do"i!ile, in this !ase, 2hilippine la. Wenote that hile the t&a' %o&t stated that the la of>e Hork as not suffi!iently proven, in the sa"ebreath it !a+e te %ate#o&%a'4 a'=et e


12/30

12

2hilippines insofar as respondent is !on!erned in vieof the nationality prin!iple in our !ivil la on the statusof persons. For failing to apply these do!trines, thede!ision of the /ourt of Appeals "ust be reversed. Wehold that the divor!e obtained by *oren%o . *lorentefro" his first ife 2aula as valid and re!ogni%ed in this

3urisdi!tion as a "atter of !o"ity. >o, the effe!ts ofthis divor!e 'as to the su!!ession to the estate of thede!edent( are "atters best left to the deter"ination ofthe trial !ourt.

Ealidity of the Will

#he /ivil /ode provides?

KArt. 8. #he fo&!s a$+ so'e!$tes of !ontra!ts,

ills, and other publi! instru"ents shall be governed bythe las of te %o$t&/ $ .% te/ a&e e>e%te+.KWhen the a!ts referred to are e)e!uted before thediplo"ati! or !onsular offi!ials of the 0epubli! of the2hilippines in a foreign !ountry, the sole"nitiesestablished by 2hilippine las shall be observed in theire)e!ution.L 'unders!oring ours(

#he !lear intent of *oren%o to beueath his property tohis se!ond ife and !hildren by her is glaringly shonin the ill he e)e!uted. We do not ish to frustrate his

ishes, sin!e he as a foreigner, not !overed by ourlas on Kfa"ily rights and duties, status, !ondition andlegal !apa!ity.L Wete& te .'' s $t&$s%a''/ 0a'+a$+ .o sa'' $e&t f&o! Lo&e$o a&e sses =est&o0e+ =/ fo&e#$ 'a. .% !st =e 'ea+e+ a$+&o0e+ Wete& te .'' .as e>e%te+ $a%%o&+a$%e .t te fo&!a'tes &eullity of arriage in the !ourt a uo, onthe ground of biga"y R respondent allegedly had aprior subsisting "arriage at the ti"e he "arried her in8==. She !lai"ed that she learned of respondent


13/30

13

dissolved even by a divor!e obtained abroad, be!auseof Arti!les 84 and 8 of the /ivil /ode. In "i)ed"arriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Arti!le57 of the Fa"ily /ode allos the for"er to !ontra!t asubseuent "arriage in !ase the divor!e is ;validlyobtained abroad by the alien spouse !apa!itating hi"or her to re"arry.; A divor!e obtained abroad by a!ouple, ho are both aliens, "ay be re!ogni%ed in the2hilippines, provided it is !onsistent ith theirrespe!tive national las. &efore a foreign divor!ede!ree !an be re!ogni%ed by our !ourts, the a&t/'ea+$# t !st &o0e? '8( the fo&e#$ 'a. a''o.$#a=so'te +0o&%eand '5( the alleged +0o&%e +e%&eeitself.

D0o&%e as a esto$ of Fa%t

&efore a foreign 3udg"ent is given presu"ptiveevidentiary value 'authenti!ity and due e)e!ution(, thedo!u"ent 'divor!e de!ree( "ust first be presented andad"itted in eviden!e.:BA divor!e obtained abroad isproven by the divor!e de!ree itself. Indeed the besteviden!e of a 3udg"ent is the 3udg"ent itself.

Under Se!tions 5 and 54 of 0ule 8:5, on the otherhand, a .&t$# o& +o%!e$t !a/ =e &o0e$ as a='% o& off%a' &e%o&+ of a fo&e#$ %o$t&/ by

either '8( an off%a' ='%ato$or '5( a %o/thereofatteste+ by the off%e& a0$# 'e#a' %sto+/ of thedo!u"ent. If the re!ord is $ot ?et $ te 2'$es,su!h !opy "ust be 'a( a%%o!a$e+ =/ a %e&tf%atesse+ =/ te &oe& +'o!at% o& %o$s'a& off%e&$ te 2'$e fo&e#$ se&0%e stato$e+ $ tefo&e#$ %o$t&/ in hi!h the re!ord is kept and 'b(ate$t%ate+ =/ te sea' of s off%e . /o"plian!e

ith the afore"entioned rules on eviden!e "ust bede"onstrated.

Fortunately for respondent, hen the 8=6= divor!ede!ree as sub"itted in eviden!e, !ounsel forpetitioner ob3e!ted, not to its ad"issibility, but only tothe fa!t that it had not been registered in the *o!al /ivil0egistry 'as reuired by Art. 45 of the Fa"ily/ode(. 2etitionerullity of arriage on the ground of biga"y( raised byrespondent, the burden of proving the pertinentAustralian la validating it falls suarely upon hi". +ur!ourts !annot take 3udi!ial noti!e of foreign las. *ikeany other fa!ts, they "ust be alleged and proved.

Reso$+e$t3s Le#a' Caa%t/ to Re!a&&/

Divor!es are of different types. #he to basi! ones are'8( a=so'te +0o&%eor a vin!ulo "atri"onii and '5(

'!te+ +0o&%e or a "ensa et thoro. #he f&st ?$+te&!$ates te !a&&a#e, hile the se%o$+ sse$+st a$+ 'ea0es te =o$+ $ f'' fo&%e. #here is noshoing in the !ase at bar hi!h type of divor!e aspro!ured by respondent. 0espondent presented ade!ree nisi or an interlo!utory de!ree R a !onditional orprovisional 3udg"ent of divor!e. It is in effe!t the sa"eas a separation fro" bed and board, although anabsolute divor!e "ay follo after the lapse of thepres!ribed period during hi!h no re!on!iliation iseffe!ted. +n its fa!e, the herein Ast&a'a$ +0o&%e

+e%&ee %o$ta$s a &est&%to$ tat &ea+s* "1 A a&t/to a !a&&a#e .o !a&&es a#a$ =efo&e ts +e%&ee=e%o!es a=so'te ($'ess te ote& a&t/ as +e+)%o!!ts te offe$%e of =#a!/"

#his uotation bolsters our !ontention that the +0o&%eo=ta$e+ =/ &eso$+e$t !a/ a0e =ee$ &est&%te+It ++ $ot a=so'te'/ esta='s s 'e#a' %aa%t/ to&e!a&&/ a%%o&+$# to s $ato$a' 'a.. en!e, efind no basis for the ruling of the trial !ourt, hi!herroneously assu"ed that the Australian divor!e ipso

fa!to restored respondent


14/30

14

pri"a fa!ie eviden!e of legal !apa!ity to "arry on thepart of the alien appli!ant for a "arriage li!ense.

#here is absolutely no eviden!e that provesrespondentD this !aseto the trial !ourt to re!eive eviden!e, if any, hi!h shopetitioner A FI*I2I>+/I#I> A>D A F+0I$>0 IS EA*ID*H/*&0A#D A>D A DIE+0/ IS #0AF#0EA*ID*H +AI>D A&0+AD &H # A*I>S2+US /A2A/I#A#I>$ I +0 0 #+0A00H, # FI*I2I>+ S2+US SA** *I1WISAE /A2A/I#H #+ 0A00H U>D0 2I*I22I>

*AW.L #he rationale behind the se!ond paragraph ofthe above-uoted provision is to avoid the absurd andun3ust situation of a Filipino !iti%en still being "arried tohis or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer"arried to the Filipino spouse be!ause he or she hasobtained a divor!e abroad. In the !ase at ben!h, thedefendant has undoubtedly a!uired her A"eri!anhusbands !iti%enship and thus has be!o"e an alien as

ell. #his /ourt !annot see hy the benefits of Art. 57aforeuoted !an not be e)tended to a Filipino !iti%en

hose spouse eventually e"bra!es another !iti%enship

and thus be!o"es herself an alien. /A affir"ed thede!ision of the 0#/.

Isse* Whether or not par. 5 of Art. 57 of the Fa"ily/ode is finds appli!ation to the !ase at bar.

6ELD* As it is orded, Arti!le 57, paragraph 5, refers toa spe!ial situation herein one of the !ouple getting"arried is a Filipino !iti%en and the other a foreigner atthe ti"e the "arriage as !elebrated. B/ ts 'a$ a$+'te&a' $te&&etato$4 te sa+ &o0so$ %a$$ot =e

a'e+ to te %ase of &eso$+e$t C&ass a$+ s


15/30

15

.fe Fe'/ =e%ase at te t!e Fe'/ o=ta$e+ e&+0o&%e4 se .as st'' a F'$o %te$. Although thee)a!t date as not established, Fe'/ e&se'f a+!tte+$ e& A$s.e& f'e+ =efo&e te RTC tat seo=ta$e+ a +0o&%e f&o! &eso$+e$t C&assso!et!e afte& se 'eft fo& te U$te+ States $1984 afte& .% se !a&&e+ e& A!e&%a$s=a$+ $ 198 I$ te sa!e A$s.e&4 se a''e#e+tat se a+ =ee$ a$ A!e&%a$ %te$ s$%e 1988At te t!e se f'e+ fo& +0o&%e4 Fe'/ .as st'' aF'$o %te$4 a$+ &sa$t to te $ato$a't/&$%'e e!=o+e+ $ A&t%'e 1 of te C0' Co+e ofte 2'$es4 se .as st'' =o$+ =/ 2'$e'a.s on fa"ily rights and duties, status, !ondition, andlegal !apa!ity, e0e$ .e$ se .as a'&ea+/ '0$#a=&oa+. 2hilippine las, then and even until no, do

not allo and re!ogni%e divor!e beteen Filipinospouses. #hus, Fely !ould not have validly obtained adivor!e fro" respondent /rasus.

RE2UBLIC vs. ORBECIDO - 2a&a#&a ; of A&t%'e;:should be $te&&ete+ to $%'+e %ases $0o'0$#a&tes .o4 at te t!e of te %e'e=&ato$ of te!a&&a#e .e&e F'$o %te$s4 =t 'ate& o$4 o$e ofte! =e%o!es $at&a'e+ as a fo&e#$ %te$ a$+o=ta$s a +0o&%e +e%&ee. #he F'$o soseso'+ '?e.se =e a''o.e+ to &e!a&&/ as f te

ote& a&t/ .e&e a fo&e#$e& at te t!e of teso'e!$ato$ of te !a&&a#e.FACTS* In 8=68, /ipriano +rbe!ido III "arried *adyyros . Eillanueva in +%a"is /ity. In 8=67,/iprianos ife left for the United States. A fe yearslater, /ipriano dis!overed that his ife had beennaturali%ed as an A"eri!an !iti%en. So"eti"e in 5BBB,/ipriano learned fro" his son that his ife had obtaineda divor!e de!ree and then "arried a !ertain Inno!entStanley. /ipriano thereafter filed ith the trial !ourt apetition for authority to re"arry invoking 2aragraph 5 of

Arti!le 57 of the Fa"ily /ode. >o opposition as filed.Finding "erit in the petition, the !ourt granted thesa"e. #he 0epubli!, herein petitioner, through the'+S$(, sought re!onsideration but it as denied. #he+S$ !ontends that 2aragraph 5 of Arti!le 57 of theFa"ily /ode is not appli!able to the instant !asebe!ause it only applies to a valid "i)ed "arriage9 thatis, a "arriage !elebrated beteen a Filipino !iti%en andan alien. Further"ore, the +S$ argues there is no lathat governs respondents situation. #he +S$ positsthat this is a "atter of legislation and not of 3udi!ial

deter"ination. #his !ase !on!erns the appli!ability of

2aragraph 5 of Arti!le 57 to a "arriage beteen toFilipino !iti%ens here one later a!uired alien!iti%enship, obtained a divor!e de!ree, and re"arried

hile in the U.S.A. #he interests of the parties are alsoadverse, as petitioner representing the State asserts itsduty to prote!t the institution of "arriage hilerespondent, a private !iti%en, insists on a de!laration ofhis !apa!ity to re"arry.

Isse* Does 2aragraph 5 of Arti!le 57 of the Fa"ily/ode apply to the !ase of respondentN 2ero ang issuenga related sa atong sub3e!t kay "urag related sa ho!an a foreign divor!e de!ree be re!ogni%ed in our!ourtsN 2ara !onfli!t5) of las kunuhay. $iven a valid"arriage beteen to Filipino !iti%ens, here one partyis later naturali%ed as a foreign !iti%en and obtains a

valid divor!e de!ree !apa!itating hi" or her to re"arry,!an the Filipino spouse likeise re"arry under2hilippine laN

6ELD* A0#. 57. All "arriages sole"ni%ed outside the2hilippines in a!!ordan!e ith the las in for!e in the!ountry here they ere sole"ni%ed, and valid there assu!h, shall also be valid in this !ountry, e)!ept thoseprohibited under Arti!les :4'8(, '(, '4( and '7(, :7, :and :6.Where a "arriage beteen a Filipino !iti%enand a foreigner is validly !elebrated and a divor!e is

thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse!apa!itating hi" or her to re"arry, the Filipino spouseshall have !apa!ity to re"arry under 2hilippine la.'"phasis supplied(

#he instant !ase is one here at te t!e te!a&&a#e .as so'e!$e+4 te a&tes .e&e t.oF'$o %te$s4 =t 'ate& o$4 te .fe .as$at&a'e+ as a$ A!e&%a$ %te$ a$+s=se


16/30

16

o=ta$s a +0o&%e +e%&ee Te F'$o soseso'+ '?e.se =e a''o.e+ to &e!a&&/ as f teote& a&t/ .e&e a fo&e#$e& at te t!e of teso'e!$ato$ of te !a&&a#e #o rule otherise

ould be to san!tion absurdity and in3usti!e. Where theinterpretation of a statute a!!ording to its e)a!t andliteral i"port ould lead to "is!hievous results or!ontravene the !lear purpose of the legislature, itshould be !onstrued a!!ording to its spirit and reason,disregarding as far as ne!essary the letter of the la. Astatute "ay therefore be e)tended to !ases not ithinthe literal "eaning of its ter"s, so long as they !o"e

ithin its spirit or intent.

In vie of the foregoing, e state the t.$ e'e!e$tsfo& te a'%ato$ of 2a&a#&a ; of A&t%'e ;:as

follos?8. #here is a 0a'+ !a&&a#e tat as =ee$%e'e=&ate+ =et.ee$ a F'$o %te$ a$+ afo&e#$e&9 and5. A 0a'+ +0o&%e s o=ta$e+ a=&oa+ =/ tea'e$ sose %aa%tat$# ! o& e& to&e!a&&/.

#he &e%?o$$# o$t s $ot te %te$s of tea&tes at te t!e of te %e'e=&ato$ of te !a&&a#e4=t te& %te$s at te t!e a 0a'+ +0o&%e s

o=ta$e+ a=&oa+ =/ te a'e$ sose %aa%tat$# te'atte& to &e!a&&/. In this !ase, hen /iprianos ife

as naturali%ed as an A"eri!an !iti%en, there as still avalid "arriage that has been !elebrated beteen herand /ipriano. As fate ould have it, the naturali%edalien ife subseuently obtained a valid divor!e!apa!itating her to re"arry. /learly, the tin reuisitesfor the appli!ation of 2aragraph 5 of Arti!le 57 are bothpresent in this !ase. #hus /ipriano, the Kdivor!edLFilipino spouse, should be alloed to re"arry.

oever, e note that the re!ords are bereft of!o"petent eviden!e duly sub"itted by respondent!on!erning the divor!e de!ree and the naturali%ation ofrespondents ife. It is settled rule that one hoalleges a fa!t has the burden of proving it and "ereallegation is not eviden!e. A%%o&+$#'/4 fo& s 'ea to&ose&4 &eso$+e$t e&e$ !st &o0e sa''e#ato$ tat s .fe .as $at&a'e+ as a$A!e&%a$ %te$ L?e.se4 =efo&e a fo&e#$+0o&%e +e%&ee %a$ =e &e%o#$e+ =/ o& o.$%o&ts4 te a&t/ 'ea+$# t !st &o0e te +0o&%e

as a fa%t a$+ +e!o$st&ate ts %o$fo&!t/ to te

fo&e#$ 'a. a''o.$# t S% fo&e#$ 'a. !st a'so=e &o0e+ as o& %o&ts %a$$ot ta?e 5+%a' $ot%eof fo&e#$ 'a.s L?e a$/ ote& fa%t4 s% 'a.s !st=e a''e#e+ a$+ &o0e+ F&te&!o&e4 &eso$+e$t!st a'so so. tat te +0o&%e +e%&ee a''o.s sfo&!e& .fe to &e!a&&/ as se%f%a''/ &e


17/30

17

her "otion for re!onsideration of the order of denial,she no brought the present petition for !ertiorari,praying that the su""ons by publi!ation issued againsther be de!lared null and void, and that, ith respe!t toher, respondent Judge be per"anently prohibited fro"taking any a!tion on the!ase.!hanroblesvirtuallalibrary !hanrobles virtual lalibrary#he !ontrolling issue here involved is hether or not the/ourt of First Instan!e of anila has a!uired

3urisdi!tion over the person of the present petitioner asa non-resident defendant, or, notithstanding the antof su!h 3urisdi!tion, hether or not said !ourt "ayvalidly try the !ase. #he parties have filed lengthy"e"orandu"s relying on nu"erous authorities, but theprin!iples governing the uestion are ell settled in this

3urisdi!tion.!hanroblesvirtuallalibrary !hanroblesvirtual la library

6ELD*Se!tion :=6 of our /ode of /ivil 2ro!edureprovides that hen a non-resident defendant is sued inthe 2hilippine !ourts and it appears, by the !o"plaint orby affidavits, that the a!tion relates to real or personalproperty ithin the 2hilippines in hi!h said defendanthas or !lai"s a lien or interest, a!tual or !ontingent, orin hi!h the relief de"anded !onsists, holly or in part,in e)!luding su!h person fro" any interest therein,

servi!e of su""ons "aybe "ade bypubli!ation.!hanroblesvirtuallalibrary !hanroblesvirtual la libraryWe have fully e)plained the "eaning of this provision inl &an!o spaTol Filipino vs. 2alan!a, : 2hil., =58,

herein e laid don the folloing rules?'8( In order that the !ourt "ay validly try a!ase, it "ust have 3urisdi!tion over the sub3e!t-"atter and over the persons of the parties.Jurisdi!tion over the sub3e!t-"atter is a!uiredby !on!ession of the sovereign authority hi!h

organi%es a !ourt and deter"ines the natureand e)tent of its poers in general and thusfi)es its 3urisdi!tion ith referen!e to a!tions

hi!h it "ay entertain and the relief it "aygrant. Jurisdi!tion over the persons of theparties is a!uired by their voluntaryappearan!e in !ourt and their sub"ission to itsauthority, or by the !oer!ive poer of legalpro!ess e)erted over theirpersons.!hanroblesvirtuallalibrary !hanroblesvirtual la library

'5( When the defendant is a non-resident andrefuses to appear voluntary, the !ourt !annota!uire 3urisdi!tion over his person even if thesu""ons be served by publi!ation, for he isbeyond the rea!h of 3udi!ial pro!ess. >otribunal established by one State !an e)tend itspro!ess beyond its territory so as to sub3e!t toits de!isions either persons or property lo!atedin another State. ;#here are "any e)pressionsin the A"eri!an reports fro" hi!h it "ight beinferred that the !ourt a!uires personal

3urisdi!tion over the person of the defendant bypubli!ation and noti!e9 but su!h is not the !ase.In truth, the proposition that 3urisdi!tion over theperson of a non-resident !annot be a!uired bypubli!ation and noti!e as never !learly

understood even in the A"eri!an !ourts untilafter the de!ision had been rendered by theSupre"e /ourt of the United States in theleading !ase of 2ennoyer v. >eff '=4 U.S., 895 *a. ed., 474(. In the light of that de!isions

hi!h have subseuently been rendered in thatand other !ourts, the proposition that

3urisdi!tion over the person !annot be thusa!uired by publi!ation and noti!e is no longeropen to uestion9 and it is no fully establishedthat a personal 3udg"ent upon !onstru!tive or

substituted servi!e against a non-resident hodoes not appear is holly invalid. #his do!trineapplies to all kinds of !onstru!tive orsubstituted pro!ess, in!luding servi!e bypubli!ation and personal servi!e outside of the

3urisdi!tion in hi!h the 3udg"ent is rendered9and the only e)!eption see"s to be found inthe !ase here the non-resident defendant hase)pressly or i"pliedly !onsented to the "odeof servi!e. '>ote to 0aher vs. 0aher, :4 *. 0.A. >. S.G, 5=59 see also *.0.A. 4649 :4 *.0.A.

>.S.G, :85.( !hanrobles virtual la library':( #he general rule, therefore, is that a suitagainst a non-resident !annot be entertainedby a 2hilippine !ourt. Where, hoever, thea!tion is in re" or uasi in re" in !onne!tion

ith property lo!ated in the 2hilippines, the!ourt a!uires 3urisdi!tion over the res, and its

3urisdi!tion over the person of the non-residentis non-essential. In order that the !ourt "aye)er!ise poer over the res, it is not ne!essarythat the !ourt should take a!tual !ustody of the

property, potential !ustody thereof being


18/30

18

suffi!ient. #here is potential !ustody hen, fro"the nature of the a!tion brought, the poer ofthe !ourt over the property is i"pliedlyre!ogni%ed by la. ;An illustration of hat eter" potential 3urisdi!tion over the res, is foundin the pro!eeding to register the title of landunder our syste" for the registration of land.ere the !ourt, ithout taking a!tual physi!al!ontrol over the property , assu"es, at theinstan!e of so"e person !lai"ing to be oner,to e)er!ise a 3urisdi!tion in re" over theproperty and to ad3udi!ate the title in favor ofthe petitioner against all the orld.; !hanroblesvirtual la library'( As before stated, in an a!tion in re" oruasi in re" against a non-resident defendant,

3urisdi!tion over his person is non-essential,and if the la reuires in su!h !ase that thesu""ons upon the defendant be served bypubli!ation, it is "erely to satisfy the!onstitutional reuire"ent of due pro!ess. Ifany be said, in this !onne!tion, that ;"ayreported !ases !an be !ited in hi!h it isassu"ed that the uestion of the suffi!ien!y ofpubli!ation or noti!e in the !ase of this kind is auestion affe!ting the 3urisdi!tion of the !ourt,and the !ourt is so"eti"es said to a!uire

3urisdi!tion by virtue of the publi!ation. #hisphraseology as undoubtedly originallyadopted by the !ourt be!ause of the analogybeteen servi!e by publi!ation and personalservi!e of pro!ess upon the defendant9 and, ashas already been suggested, prior to thede!ision of 2ennoyer v. >eff 'supra(, thedifferen!e beteen the legal effe!ts of the tofor"s of servi!e as obs!ure. It is a!!ordinglynot surprising that the "odes of e)pression

hi!h had already been "oulded into legal

tradition before that !ase as de!ided havebeen brought don to the present day. &ut it is!lear that the legal prin!iple here involved is notaffe!ted by the pe!uliar languages in hi!h the!ourts have e)pounded their ideas.;

#he reason for the rule that 2hilippine !ourts !annota!uire 3urisdi!tion over the person of a non-resident,as laid don by the Supre"e /ourt of the United Statesin 2ennoyer v. >eff, supra, "ay be found in are!ogni%ed prin!iple of publi! la to the effe!t that ;noState !an e)er!ise dire!t 3urisdi!tion and authority over

persons or property ithout its territory. Story, /onfl. *.,

!h. 59 Wheat, Int. *., pt. 5, !h. 5. #he several States areof eual dignity and authority, and the independen!e ofone i"plies the e)!lusion of poer fro" all others. Andso it is laid don by 3urists, as an ele"entary prin!iple,that the las of one State have no operation outside ofits territory, e)!ept so far as is alloed by !o"ity9 andthat no tribunal established by it !an e)tend its pro!essbeyond that territory so as to sub3e!t either persons orproperty to its de!isions. ;Any e)ertion of authority ofthis sort beyond this li"it,; says Story, ;is a "ere nullity,and in!apable of binding su!h persons or property inany other tribunals.; Story, /onfl. *., se!. 4:=.;'2ennoyer v. >eff, =4 U.S., 89 5 *a. ed., 474, 476-47=.(.!hanroblesvirtuallalibrary !hanrobles virtual lalibraryWhen, hoever, the a!tion relates to property lo!ated in

the 2hilippines, the 2hilippine !ourts "ay validly try the!ase, upon the prin!iple that a ;State, through itstribunals, "ay sub3e!t property situated ithin its li"itsoned by non-residents to the pay"ent of the de"andof its on !iti%ens against the"9 and the e)er!ise of this

3urisdi!tion in no respe!t infringes upon the sovereigntyof the State here the oners are do"i!iled. veryState oes prote!tion to its !iti%ens9 and, hen non-residents deal ith the", it is a legiti"ate and 3uste)er!ise of authority to hold and appropriate anyproperty oned by su!h non-residents to satisfy the

!lai"s of its !iti%ens. It is in virtue of the State


19/30

19

/y!lopedia /orporations, 2er"anent ed. Eol. 88, p. =4(.Under these !ir!u"stan!es, e hold that the a!tionthus brought is uasi in re", for hile the 3udge"entthat "ay be rendered therein is not stri!tly a 3udg"entin re", ;it fi)es and settles the title to the property in!ontroversy and to that e)tent partakes of the nature ofthe 3udg"ent in re".; '4B /.J., p 4B:(. As held by theSupre"e /ourt of the United States in 2ennoyer v. >eff'supra(9

It is true that, in a stri!t sense, a pro!eeding inre" is one taken dire!tly against property, andhas for its ob3e!t the disposition of the property,

ithout referen!e to the title of individual!lai"ants9 but , in a large and "ore generalsense, the ter"s are applied to a!tionsbeteen parties, here the dire!t ob3e!t is to

rea!h and dispose of property oned by the",or of so"e interest therein.#he a!tion being in uasi in re", #he /ourt of FirstInstan!e of anila has 3urisdi!tion over the person ofthe non-resident. In order to satisfy the !onstitutionalreuire"ent of due pro!ess, su""ons has been servedupon her by publi!ation. #here is no uestion as to theadeua!y of publi!ation "ade nor as to the "ailing ofthe order of publi!ation to the petitioner


20/30

20

0espondents !ontend that, as the petitioner in the loer!ourt has pleaded over the sub3e!t-"atter, she hassub"itted herself to its 3urisdi!tion. We have noti!ed,hoever, that these pleas have been "ade not asindependent grounds for relief, but "erely as additionalargu"ents in support of her !ontention that the loer!ourt had no 3urisdi!tion over the person. In other

ords, she !lai"ed that the loer !ourt had no3urisdi!tion over her person not only be!ause she is anon-resident, but also be!ause the !ourt had no

3urisdi!tion over the sub3e!t-"atter of the a!tion andthat the issues therein involved have already beende!ided by the >e Hork !ourt and are being relitigatedin the /alifornia !ourt. Although this argu"ent isobviously erroneous, as neither 3urisdi!tion over thesub3e!t-"atter nor res ad3udi!ata nor lis pendens has

anything to do ith the uestion of 3urisdi!tion over herperson, e believe and so hold that the petitioner hasnot, by su!h erroneous argu"ent, sub"itted herself tothe 3urisdi!tion of the !ourt. Eoluntary appearan!e!annot be i"plied fro" either a "istaken or superflousreasoning but fro" the nature of the relief prayed for.

26ILSEC INESTENT COR2 vs. CA (199)- effe%tof a 5+#!e$t of a t&=$a' of a fo&e#$ %o$t&/* 'a(In !ase of a 5+#!e$t o$ a se%f% t$#4 te

5+#!e$t s %o$%'s0e o$ te tt'e to te t$#'b( In !ase of a 5+#!e$t a#a$st a e&so$4 te

5+#!e$t s &es!t0e e0+e$%e of a t as=et.ee$ te a&tes a$+ te& s%%esso&s $ $te&est=/ a s=seA in the a"ount of USP5,4BB,BBB.BB as initialpay"ent of the pur!hase pri!e. #he balan!e ofUSP:B,5B=.B5 as to be paid by "eans of apro"issory note e)e!uted by A#+>A in favor of 866,In!. As A#+>A failed to pay the interest on thebalan!e of USP:B,5B=.B5, the entire a"ount !overedby the note be!a"e due and de"andable. A!!ordingly,in 8=64, private respondent 1884 I$% se+etto$e&s 26ILSEC4 AALA4 a$+ AT6ONA $ teU$te+ States fo& a/!e$t of te =a'a$%e ofUSP:B,5B=.B5 and for da"ages for brea!h of !ontra!tand for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in"isrepresenting the "arketability of the shares of sto!kdelivered to 866, In!. under the Agree"ent. #he !ase

as do!keted as Case No 8-:.A#+>A filed an anser ith !ounter!lai", i"pleadingprivate respondents herein as !ounterdefendants, forallegedly !onspiring in selling the property at a pri!eover its "arket value. A#+>A sought the re!overy ofda"ages and e)!ess pay"ent allegedly "ade to 866,In!. and, in the alternative, the res!ission of sale of theproperty. For their part, 2I*S/ and AHA*A filed a"otion to dis"iss on the ground of la!k of 3urisdi!tionover their person, but, as their "otion as denied.

In 8=6,.'e C0' Case No 6-8:- .as e$+$#$ te U$te+ States, petitioners 26ILSEC a$+AT6ONA f'e+ a %o!'a$t KFo& S! of o$e/ .tDa!a#es a$+ W&t of 2&e'!$a&/ Atta%!e$tPa#a$st &0ate &eso$+e$ts $ te Re#o$a' T&a'Co&t of a?at4 .e&e t .as +o%?ete+ as C0'Case No 1::7. #he !o"plaint reiterated theallegation of petitioners in their respe!tive!ounter!lai"s in /ivil A!tion >o. -67-B of the UnitedStates Distri!t /ourt of Southern #e)as that privaterespondents !o""itted fraud by selling the property at

a pri!e BB per!ent "ore than its true value ofUSP6BB,BBB.BB. 2etitioners !lai"ed that, as a result ofprivate respondents fraudulent "isrepresentations,A#+>A, 2I*S/, and AHA*A ere indu!ed to enterinto the Agree"ent and to pur!hase the oustonproperty. 2etitioners prayed that private respondents beordered to return to A#+>A the e)!ess pay"ent ofUSP8,BB,BBB.BB and to pay da"ages. +n April 5B,8=6, the trial !ourt issued a rit of preli"inaryatta!h"ent against the real and personal properties ofprivate respondents.


21/30

21

2rivate respondent Du!at "oved to dis"iss /ivil /ase>o. 8747: on the grounds of '8( litis pendentia, vis-a-vis /ivil A!tion >o. -67-B filed by 866, In!. andDai! in the U.S., '5( foru" non !onveniens. +n theother hand, private respondents 866, In!. and itspresident Dai! filed a 3oint KSpe!ial Appearan!e and@ualified otion to Dis"iss,L !ontending that the a!tionbeing in persona", e)traterritorial servi!e of su""onsby publi!ation as ineffe!tual and did not vest the !ourt

ith 3urisdi!tion over 866, In!., hi!h is a non-residentforeign !orporation, and Dai!, ho is a non-residentalien.

trial !ourt granted Du!ats "otion to dis"iss, statingthat Kthe evidentiary reuire"ents of the !ontroversy"ay be "ore suitably tried before the foru" of the litispendentia in the U.S., under the prin!iple in private

international la of foru" non !onveniens,L even as itnoted that Du!at as not a party in the U.S. !ase. #hetrial !ourt also held itself ithout 3urisdi!tion over 866,In!. and Dai! be!ause they ere non-residents and thea!tion as not an a!tion in re" or uasi in re", so thate)traterritorial servi!e of su""ons as ineffe!tive. #hetrial !ourt subseuently lifted the rit of atta!h"ent ithad earlier issued against the shares of sto!ks of 866,In!. and Dai!. /ourt of Appealsaffir"ed the dis"issal of/ivil /ase >o. 8747: against Du!at, 866, In!., andDai! on the ground of litis pendentia.

Isses*

8. Whether or not the do!trine of penden!y ofanother a!tion beteen the sa"e parties for thesa"e !ause 'litis pendentia( relied upon by the!ourt of appeals in affir"ing the trial !ourtsdis"issal of the !ivil a!tion is appli!able.

5. Whether or not the prin!iple of foru" non!onveniens also relied upon by the !ourt ofappeals in affir"ing the dis"issal by the trial !ourt

of the !ivil a!tion is likeise appli!able.

6ELD* While the present !ase as pending in the/ourt of Appeals, the United States Distri!t /ourtfor the Southern Distri!t of #e)as rendered

3udg"ent in the !ase before it. #he 3udg"ent,hi!h as in favor of private respondents, asaffir"ed on appeal by the /ir!uit /ourt of Appeals.#hus, the prin!ipal issue to be resolved in this!ase is hether /ivil /ase >o. 874:7 is barred bythe 3udg"ent of the U.S. !ourt. 2rivate

respondents !ontend that for a foreign 3udg"ent tobe pleaded as res 3udi!ata, a 3udg"ent ad"ittingthe foreign de!ision is not ne!essary. +n the otherhand, petitioners argue that the foreign 3udg"ent!annot be given the effe!t of res 3udi!ata ithoutgiving the" an opportunity to i"pea!h it ongrounds stated in 0ule :=, 4B of the 0ules of/ourt, to it? Kant of 3urisdi!tion, ant of noti!eto the party, !ollusion, fraud, or !lear "istake ofla or fa!t.L

2etitioners !ontention is "eritorious. W'e ts Co&tas #0e$ te effe%t of &es 5+%ata to fo&e#$

5+#!e$ts $ se0e&a' %ases4 t .as afte& te a&tesoose+ to te 5+#!e$t a+ =ee$ #0e$ a!'eoo&t$t/ to &ee' te!on grounds alloed underthe la. It is not ne!essary for this purpose to initiate a

separate a!tion or pro!eeding for enfor!e"ent of theforeign 3udg"ent. Wat s esse$ta' s tat te&e soo&t$t/ to %a''e$#e te fo&e#$ 5+#!e$t, inorder for the !ourt to properly deter"ine its effi!a!y.#his is be!ause in this 3urisdi!tion, ith respe!t toa!tions in persona", as distinguished fro" a!tions inre", a foreign 3udg"ent "erely !onstitutes pri"a fa!ieeviden!e of the 3ustness of the !lai" of a party and, assu!h, is sub3e!t to proof to the !ontrary. 0ule :=, 4Bprovides?

S/. 4B. ffe!t of foreign 3udg"ents. - #he effe%t of a5+#!e$t of a t&=$a' of a fo&e#$ %o$t&/4 a0$#5&s+%to$ to &o$o$%e te 5+#!e$t s asfo''o.s*

'a( In !ase of a5+#!e$t o$ a se%f% t$#4te 5+#!e$t s %o$%'s0e o$ te tt'e to tet$#

'b( In !ase of a5+#!e$t a#a$st a e&so$4 te5+#!e$t s &es!t0e e0+e$%e of a t as=et.ee$ te a&tes a$+ te& s%%esso&s $ $te&est

=/ a s=se


22/30

22

did not "ake a K!lear "istake of la or fa!tL or that its3udg"ent as void for ant of 3urisdi!tion or be!ause offraud or !ollusion by the defendants. #rial had beenpreviously held in the loer !ourt and only afterard

as a de!ision rendered, de!laring the 3udg"ent of theSupre"e /ourt of the State of Washington to have theeffe!t of res 3udi!ata in the !ase before the loer !ourt.In the sa"e vein, in 2hilippine International Shipping/orp. v. /ourt of Appeals, this /ourt held that theforeign 3udg"ent as valid and enfor!eable in the2hilippines there being no shoing that it as vitiatedby ant of noti!e to the party, !ollusion, fraud or !lear"istake of la or fa!t. #he pri"a fa!ie presu"ptionunder the 0ule had not been rebutted.

In the !ase at bar, t %a$$ot =e sa+ tat etto$e&s.e&e #0e$ te oo&t$t/ to %a''e$#e te

5+#!e$t of te US %o&t as =ass fo& +e%'a&$# t&es 5+%ata o& %o$%'s0e of te ts of &0ate&eso$+e$ts Te &o%ee+$#s $ te t&a' %o&t

.e&e s!!a&/ Nete& te t&a' %o&t $o& teae''ate %o&t .as e0e$ f&$se+ %oes of te'ea+$#s $ te US %o&t o& a&se+ of tee0+e$%e &ese$te+ te&eat4 to ass&e a &oe&+ete&!$ato$ of .ete& te sses te$ =e$#'t#ate+ $ te US %o&t .e&e e>a%t'/ te sses&ase+ $ ts %ase s% tat te 5+#!e$t tat!#t =e &e$+e&e+ .o'+ %o$sttte &es 5+%ata Asthe trial !ourt stated in its disputed order dated ar!h =,8=66?

+n the plaintiffs !lai" in its +pposition that the!auses of a!tion of this !ase and the pending!ase in the United States are not identi!al,pre!isely the +rder of January 57, 8=66 neverfound that the !auses of a!tion of this !ase andthe !ase pending before the USA /ourt, ereidenti!al. 'e"phasis added( It as errortherefore for the /ourt of Appeals to su""arily

rule that petitioners a!tion is barred by theprin!iple of res 3udi!ata. 2etitioners in fa!tuestioned the 3urisdi!tion of the U.S. !ourtover their persons, but their !lai" as brushedaside by both the trial !ourt and the /ourt ofAppeals.

oreover, the /ourt notes that on April 55, 8==5, 866,In!. and Dai! filed a petition for the enfor!e"ent of

3udg"ent in the 0egional #rial /ourt of akati, here itas do!keted as /ivil /ase >o. =5-8BB and assigned

to &ran!h 8:, although the pro!eedings ere

suspended be!ause of the penden!y of this !ase. #osustain the appellate !ourts ruling that the foreign

3udg"ent !onstitutes res 3udi!ata and is a bar to the!lai" of petitioners ould effe!tively pre!ludepetitioners fro" repelling the 3udg"ent in the !ase forenfor!e"ent. An absurdity !ould then arise? a foreign

3udg"ent is not sub3e!t to !hallenge by the plaintiffagainst ho" it is invoked, if it is pleaded to resist a!lai" as in this !ase, but it "ay be opposed by thedefendant if the foreign 3udg"ent is sought to beenfor!ed against hi" in a separate pro!eeding. #his isplainly untenable. It has been held therefore that? Afo&e#$ 5+#!e$t !a/ $ot =e e$fo&%e+ f t s $ot&e%o#$e+ $ te 5&s+%to$ .e&e aff&!at0e&e'ef s =e$# so#t 6e$%e4 $ te $te&est of

5st%e4 te %o!'a$t so'+ =e %o$s+e&e+ as a

etto$ fo& te &e%o#$to$ of the ongkong5+#!e$tunder Se!tion 4B 'b(, 0ule := of the 0ules of/ourt in order that the +efe$+a$t4 &0ate &eso$+e$te&e$4 !a/ &ese$t e0+e$%e of 'a%? of 5&s+%to$4$ot%e4 %o''so$4 f&a+ o& %'ea& !sta?e of fa%t a$+'a.4 f a'%a='e. A!!ordingly, to insure the orderlyad"inistration of 3usti!e, this !ase and /ivil /ase >o.=5-8BB 'petition for the enfor!e"ent of 3udg"ent(should be !onsolidated. After all, the to have beenfiled in the 0egional #rial /ourt of akati, albeit indifferent salas, this !ase being assigned to &ran!h 47

'Judge $orospe(, hile /ivil /ase >o. =5-8BB ispending in &ran!h 8: of Judge /apulong. In su!hpro!eedings, petitioners should have the burden ofi"pea!hing the foreign 3udg"ent and only in the eventthey su!!eed in doing so "ay they pro!eed ith theira!tion against private respondents.

Se!ond. No& s te t&a' %o&tMs &efsa' to ta?e%o#$a$%e of te %ase 5stfa='e $+e& te&$%'e of fo&! $o$ %o$0e$e$s F&st4 a !oto$to +s!ss s '!te+ to te #&o$+s $+e& R'e 1:4

Q14 .% +oes $ot $%'+e fo&! $o$ %o$0e$e$s

1:Te &o&et/ of +s!ss$# a %ase =ase+ o$ ts&$%'e &e


23/30

23

+s!ss It fa'e+ to %o$s+e& tat o$e of te'a$tffs (26ILSEC) s a +o!est% %o&o&ato$ a$+o$e of te +efe$+a$ts (e$t&a D%at) s a F'$o ,and that it as the e)tinguish"ent of the latters debt

hi!h as the ob3e!t of the transa!tion under litigation.#he t&a' %o&t a&=t&a&'/ +s!sse+ te %ase evenafter finding that Du!at as not a party in the U.S. !ase.

#hird. It.as e&&o& .e t$? fo& te Co&t of Aea'sa$+ te t&a' %o&t to o'+ tat 5&s+%to$ o0e&1884 I$% a$+ Da% %o'+ $ot =e o=ta$e+ =e%asets s a$ a%to$ $ e&so$a! a$+ s!!o$s .e&ese&0e+ =/ e>t&ate&&to&a' se&0%e R'e 14 Q1 o$e>t&ate&&to&a' se&0%e &o0+es tat se&0%e ofs!!o$s o$ a $o$-&es+e$t +efe$+a$t !a/ =eeffe%te+ ot of te 2'$es =/ 'ea0e of Co&t

.e&e4 a!o$# ote&s4 Kte &oe&t/ of te

+efe$+a$t as =ee$ atta%e+ .t$ te2'$es.Lii86G It is not disputed that the properties,real and personal, of the private respondents had beenatta!hed prior to servi!e of su""ons under the +rderof the trial !ourt. W6EREFORE4 the de!ision of the/ourt of Appeals is 0E0SD and /ivil /ase >o.8747: 'Su" of oney ith Da"ages and Writ of2reli"inary Atta!h"ent - 8=6( is 0A>DD to the0egional #rial /ourt of akati for !onsolidation ith/ivil /ase >o. =5-8BB and for further pro!eedings ina!!ordan!e ith this de!ision.

RAT6EON INTERNATIONAL 0s ROU@IE (;8) -.e&e te %o&t as 5&s+%to$ o0e& te s=5e%t!atte&4 te a&tes a$+ te &es4 t !a/ o& %a$&o%ee+ to t&/ te %ase e0e$ f te &'es of %o$f'%t-of-'a.s o& te %o$0e$e$%e of te a&tes o$t to afo&e#$ fo&!9 Tat te s=5e%t %o$t&a%t $%'+e+ ast'ato$ tat te sa!e sa'' =e #o0e&$e+ =/ te'a.s of te State of Co$$e%t%t +oes $ot s##esttat te 2'$e %o&ts4 o& a$/ ote& fo&e#$

t&=$a' fo& tat !atte&4 a&e &e%'+e+ f&o! ea&$#te %0' a%to$ ,&s+%to$ a$+ %o%e of 'a. a&et.o +st$%t %o$%ets

FACTS* So"eti"e in 8==B, &rand arine Servi!es,In!. '&SI(, a !orporation duly organi%ed and e)istingunder the las of the State of /onne!ti!ut, UnitedStates of A"eri!a, and respondent Sto!kton W. 0ou%ie,Jr., an A"eri!an !iti%en, entered into a !ontra!t

hereby &SI hired respondent as its representative tonegotiate the sale of servi!es in several govern"ent

pro3e!ts in the 2hilippines for an agreed re"uneration

of 8BV of the gross re!eipts. In 8==5, respondentse!ured a servi!e !ontra!t ith the 0epubli! of the2hilippines on behalf of &SI for the dredging of riversaffe!ted by the t. 2inatubo eruption and "udflos. In8==, respondent filed before the >*0/ a suit against&SI and 0ust International, In!. '0US#(, 0odney /.$ilbert and Walter $. &roning for alleged nonpay"entof !o""issions, illegal ter"ination and brea!h ofe"ploy"ent !ontra!t. In 8==4, *abor Arbiter 2ablo /.spiritu, Jr. rendered 3udg"ent ordering &SI and0US# to pay respondents "oney !lai"s. >*0/reversed the de!ision of the *abor Arbiter anddis"issed respondents !o"plaint on the ground of la!kof 3urisdi!tion. 0espondent elevated the !ase to this/ourt but as dis"issed. #he 0esolution be!a"e finaland e)e!utory in 8==6.

In 8===, respondent, then a resident of *a Union,instituted an a!tion for da"ages before the '0#/(. #he/o"plaint, do!keted as /ivil /ase >o. 88=5-&$,na"ed as defendants herein petitioner 0aytheonInternational, In!. as ell as &SI and 0US#, the to!orporations i"pleaded in the earlier labor !ase. #he!o"plaint essentially reiterated the allegations in thelabor !ase that &SI verbally e"ployed respondent tonegotiate the sale of servi!es in govern"ent pro3e!tsand that respondent as not paid the !o""issions due

hi" fro" the 2inatubo dredging pro3e!t hi!h hese!ured on behalf of &SI. #he !o"plaint also averredthat &SI and 0US# as ell as petitioner itself had!o"bined and fun!tioned as one !o"pany.

In its Anser, petitioner alleged that !ontrary torespondents !lai", it as a foreign !orporation dulyli!ensed to do business in the 2hilippines and deniedentering into any arrange"ent ith respondent orpaying the latter any su" of "oney. 2etitioner alsodenied !o"bining ith &SI and 0US# for the purpose

of assu"ing the alleged obligation of the said!o"panies. 2etitioner also referred to the >*0/de!ision hi!h dis!losed that per the ritten agree"entbeteen respondent and &SI and 0US#,deno"inated as KSpe!ial Sales 0epresentativeAgree"ent,L the rights and obligations of the partiesshall be governed by the las of the State of/onne!ti!ut. 2etitioner sought the dis"issal of the!o"plaint on grounds of failure to state a !ause ofa!tion and foru" non !onveniens and prayed forda"ages by ay of !o"pulsory !ounter!lai".


24/30

24

W#0 +0 >+# # /+U0# +F A22A*S00D I> 0FUSI>$ #+ DISISS # /+2*AI>#+> # $0+U>D +F F+0U >+> /+>E>I>S.

6ELD*#he instant petition la!ks "erit. 2etitioner "ainlyasserts that the ritten !ontra!t beteen respondentand &SI in!luded a valid !hoi!e of la !lause, that is,that the !ontra!t shall be governed by the las of theState of /onne!ti!ut. It also "entions the presen!e offoreign ele"ents in the dispute R na"ely, the partiesand itnesses involved are A"eri!an !orporations and!iti%ens and the eviden!e to be presented is lo!atedoutside the 2hilippines R that renders our lo!al !ourtsin!onvenient foru"s. 2etitioner theori%es that theforeign ele"ents of the dispute ne!essitate thei""ediate appli!ation of the do!trine of foru" non

!onveniens.

0e!ently in asegaa v. 1ita"ura, the /ourt outlinedthree !onse!utive phases involved in 3udi!ial resolutionof !onfli!ts-of-las proble"s, na"ely? 3urisdi!tion,!hoi!e of la, and re!ognition and enfor!e"ent of

3udg"ents. #hus, in the instan!eshere the /ourt heldthat the lo!al 3udi!ial "a!hinery as adeuate toresolve !ontroversies ith a foreign ele"ent, thefolloing reuisites had to be proved? '8( that the2hilippine /ourt is one to hi!h the parties "ay

!onveniently resort9 '5( that the 2hilippine /ourt is in aposition to "ake an intelligent de!ision as to the laand the fa!ts9 and ':( that the 2hilippine /ourt has or islikely to have the poer to enfor!e its de!ision.

O$ te !atte& of 5&s+%to$ o0e& a %o$f'%ts-of-'a.s &o='e! .e&e te %ase s f'e+ $ a 2'$e%o&t a$+ .e&e te %o&t as 5&s+%to$ o0e& tes=5e%t !atte&4 te a&tes a$+ te &es4 t !a/ o& %a$&o%ee+ to t&/ te %ase e0e$ f te &'es of %o$f'%t-of-'a.s o& te %o$0e$e$%e of te a&tes o$t to a

fo&e#$ fo&!. #his is an e>e&%se of so0e&e#$&e&o#at0e of te %o$t&/ .e&e te %ase s f'e+,&s+%to$ o0e& te $at&e a$+ s=5e%t !atte& ofa$ a%to$ s %o$fe&&e+ =/ te Co$sttto$ a$+ te'a. a$+ =/ te !ate&a' a''e#ato$s $ te %o!'a$t,irrespe!tive of hether or not the plaintiff is entitled tore!over all or so"e of the !lai"s or reliefs soughttherein. C0' Case No 119;-BG s a$ a%to$ fo&+a!a#es a&s$# f&o! a$ a''e#e+ =&ea% of%o$t&a%t U$+o=te+'/4 te $at&e of te a%to$ a$+te a!o$t of +a!a#es &a/e+ a&e .t$ te

5&s+%to$ of te RTC

Tat te s=5e%t %o$t&a%t $%'+e+ a st'ato$ tatte sa!e sa'' =e #o0e&$e+ =/ te 'a.s of te Stateof Co$$e%t%t +oes $ot s##est tat te 2'$e%o&ts4 o& a$/ ote& fo&e#$ t&=$a' fo& tat !atte&4a&e &e%'+e+ f&o! ea&$# te %0' a%to$,&s+%to$ a$+ %o%e of 'a. a&e t.o +st$%t%o$%ets. Jurisdi!tion !onsiders hether it is fair to!ause a defendant to travel to this state9 !hoi!e of laasks the further uestion hether the appli!ation of asubstantive la hi!h ill deter"ine the "erits of the!ase is fair to both parties. #he %o%e of 'a.st'ato$ .'' =e%o!e &e'e0a$t o$'/ .e$ tes=sta$t0e sses of te $sta$t %ase +e0e'o4 tats4 afte& ea&$# o$ te !e&ts &o%ee+s =efo&e tet&a' %o&t oreover, te &o&et/ of +s!ss$# a%ase =ase+ o$ te &$%'e of fo&! $o$

%o$0e$e$s &e


25/30

25

infor"ed respondent Santos that he as re!o""endedby one >estor &uenio, a friend of his. r. Sh"idtoffered respondent Santos the sa"e position as printer,but ith a higher "onthly salary and in!reased benefits.0espondent Santos rote to r. Sh"idt and signifiedhis a!!eptan!e of the offer.0espondent Santos left for&ei3ing, /hina. e started to ork at the 2ala!e otel.+n August 8B, 8=6=, the 2ala!e otel infor"edrespondent Santos by letter signed by r. Sh"idt thathis e"ploy"ent at the 2ala!e otel print shop ould beter"inated due to business reverses brought about bythe politi!al upheaval in /hina.0espondent Santos filed a !o"plaint for illegaldis"issal ith the >*0/. >*0/ ruled in favor ofSantos.

6ELD* #he >*0/ as a seriously in!onvenient foru".We note that te !a$ ase%ts of te %ase t&a$s&e+$ t.o fo&e#$ 5&s+%to$s a$+ te %ase $0o'0es&e'/ fo&e#$ e'e!e$ts Te o$'/ '$? tat te2'$es as .t te %ase s tat &eso$+e$tSa$tos s a F'$o %te$ Te 2a'a%e 6ote' a$+6ICL a&e fo&e#$ %o&o&ato$s. >ot all !asesinvolving our !iti%ens !an be tried here.#he e"ploy"ent !ontra!t. C 0espondent Santos ashired dire!tly by the 2ala!e otel, a foreign e"ployer,through !orresponden!e sent to the Sultanate of +"an,

here respondent Santos as then e"ployed. e ashired ithout the intervention of the 2+A or anyauthori%ed re!ruit"ent agen!y of the govern"ent.:7

Under the &'e of fo&! $o$ %o$0e$e$s4 a2'$e %o&t o& a#e$%/ !a/ ass!e 5&s+%to$o0e& te %ase f t %ooses to +o so &o0+e+? '8(that the 2'$e %o&t s o$e to .% te a&tes!a/ %o$0e$e$t'/ &eso&t to9 '5( that the 2'$e%o&t s $ a osto$ to !a?e a$ $te''#e$t +e%so$as to te 'a. a$+ te fa%ts9 and ':( that the2'$e %o&t as o& s '?e'/ to a0e o.e& to

e$fo&%e ts +e%so$.:#he %o$+to$s a&e $a0a'$#$ te %ase at =a&>ot /onvenient. C We fail to see ho the >*0/ is a!onvenient foru" given that all the in!idents of the !aseC fro" the ti"e of &e%&t!e$t4 to e!'o/!e$t to+s!ssa' o%%&&e+ ots+e te 2'$es. #hein!onvenien!e is !o"pounded by the fa!t that the&oe& +efe$+a$ts4 te 2a'a%e 6ote' a$+ 6ICL a&e$ot $ato$a's of te 2'$es Nete& a&e te/"+o$# =s$ess $ te 2'$es" *ikeise, the!a$ .t$esses4 & S!+t a$+ & 6e$? a&e $o$-

&es+e$ts of te 2'$es

>o poer to deter"ine appli!able la. C Nete& %a$a$ $te''#e$t +e%so$ =e !a+e as to te 'a.#o0e&$$# te e!'o/!e$t %o$t&a%t as s% .ase&fe%te+ $ fo&e#$ so' Ts %a''s to fo&e tea'%ato$ of te &$%'e of 'e> 'o% %o$t&a%ts(te 'a. of te 'a%e .e&e te %o$t&a%t .as !a+e)#he e!'o/!e$t %o$t&a%t .as $ot e&fe%te+ $ te2'$es Reso$+e$t Sa$tos s#$fe+ sa%%eta$%e =/ .&t$# a 'ette& .'e e .as $ teRe='% of O!a$#his letter as se$t to te 2a'a%e6ote' $ te 2eo'e3s Re='% of C$a>o poer to deter"ine the fa!ts. C Nete& %a$ teNLRC +ete&!$e te fa%ts s&&o$+$# te a''e#e+''e#a' +s!ssa' as a'' a%ts %o!'a$e+ of too?'a%e $ Be5$#4 2eo'e3s Re='% of C$a TeNLRC .as $ot $ a osto$ to +ete&!$e .ete&

te Ta$$a!e$ Savigation9 '5( l /hallenger and ':( shley


26/30

26

/o"pania >aviera 'borroers(, all of hi!h are e)istingunder and by virtue of the las of the 0epubli! of2ana"a and are foreign affiliates of private respondent.Due to the default in the pay"ent of the loana"orti%ations, &A>#SA and the !orporate borroerssigned and entered into restru!turing agree"ents. Asa++to$a' se%&t/ fo& te &est&%t&e+ 'oa$s4&0ate &eso$+e$t ARC as t&+ a&t/ !o&t#a#o&e>e%te+ t.o &ea' estate !o&t#a#es #he !orporateborroers defaulted in the pay"ent of the restru!turedloans pro"pting petitioner &A>#SA to file !ivil a!tionsbefore foreign !ourts for the !olle!tion of the prin!ipalloan.

In the !ivil suits instituted before the foreign !ourts,private respondent A0/, being a third party "ortgagor,

as private not i"pleaded as party-defendant. In 8==5,petitioner &A>#SA filed before the +ffi!e of the2rovin!ial Sheriff of &ula!an, 2hilippines an appli!ationfor e)tra3udi!ial fore!losure of real estate "ortgage. In8==:, after due publi!ation and noti!e, the "ortgagedreal properties ere sold at publi! au!tion in ane)tra3udi!ial fore!losure sale, ith Integrated /redit and/orporation Servi!es /o 'I//S( as the highest bidderfor the su" of '25(.

I$ 19974 &0ate &eso$+e$t f'e+ =efo&e te 2as#

Re#o$a' T&a' Co&t4 a$ a%to$ fo& +a!a#es a#a$stte etto$e&4 fo& te 'atte&3s a%t of fo&e%'os$#e>t&a5+%a''/ te &ea' estate !o&t#a#es +este tee$+e$%/ of %0' sts =efo&e fo&e#$ %o&ts fo& te%o''e%to$ of te &$%a' 'oa$ I$ ts a$s.e&etto$e& a''e#e+ tat te &'e &o=t$# te!o&t#a#ee f&o! fo&e%'os$# te !o&t#a#e afte& a$o&+$a&/ st fo& %o''e%to$ as =ee$ f'e+4 s $ota'%a='e $ te &ese$t %ase4 %'a!$# tat*a( #heplaintiff, being a "ere third party "ortgagor and not aparty to the prin!ipal restru!turing agree"ents, as

never "ade a party defendant in the !ivil !ases filed inongkong and ngland9 b( Te&e s a%ta''/ $o %0'st fo& s! of !o$e/ f'e+ $ te 2'$es s$%ete %0' a%to$s .e&e f'e+ $ 6o$#?o$# a$+E$#'a$+ As s%4 a$/ +e%so$s (s%) .% !a/ =e&e$+e&e+ $ te a=o0e!e$to$e+ %o&ts a&e $ot (s%)e$fo&%ea='e $ te 2'$es $'ess a sea&atea%to$ to e$fo&%e te fo&e#$ 5+#!e$ts s f&st f'e+$ te 2'$es4 &sa$t to R'e 794 Se%to$ of te Re0se+ R'es of Co&t %) U$+e& E$#'sLa.4 .% s te #o0e&$$# 'a. $+e& te &$%a'a#&ee!e$ts4 te !o&t#a#ee +oes $ot 'ose ts

se%&t/ $te&est =/ f'$# %0' a%to$s fo& s!s of!o$e/

ISSUE* Whether or not the petitionero. 886. A!!ordingly,applying the foregoing rules, e hold that etto$e&4 =/te e>e+e$%/ of f'$# fo& %0' sts =efo&efo&e#$ %o&ts4 $e%essa&'/ a=a$+o$e+ te &e!e+/to fo&e%'ose te &ea' estate !o&t#a#es %o$sttte+o0e& te &oe&tes of t&+-a&t/ !o&t#a#o& a$+

e&e$ &0ate &eso$+e$t ARC o&eo0e&4 =/ f'$#te fo& %0' a%to$s a$+ =/ e0e$ta''/ fo&e%'os$#e>t&a-5+%a''/ te !o&t#a#es4 etto$e& $ effe%tt&a$s#&esse+ te &'es a#a$st s'tt$# a %ase ofa%to$ .e''-e$s&$e+ $ 5&s&+e$%e a$+ o&statte =oo?s

BANTSA a''e#es tat $+e& E$#'s La.4 .%a%%o&+$# to etto$e& s te #o0e&$$# 'a. .t&e#a&+ to te &$%a' a#&ee!e$ts4 te !o&t#a#ee+oes $ot 'ose ts se%&t/ $te&est =/ s!'/ f'$#

%0' a%to$s fo& s!s of !o$e/ We rule in thenegative. #his argu"ent shos desperation on the partof petitioner to rivet its !ru"bling !ause. In the !ase atben!h, 2'$e 'a. sa'' a'/ $ot.tsta$+$#te e0+e$%e &ese$te+ =/ etto$e& to &o0e teE$#'s 'a. o$ te !atte& I$ a 'o$# '$e of+e%so$s4 ts Co&t a+ote+ te .e''-!=e++e+&$%'e $ o& 5&s+%to$ tat te&e s $o 5+%a'$ot%e of a$/ fo&e#$ 'a. A fo&e#$ 'a. !st =e&oe&'/ 'ea+e+ a$+ &o0e+ as a fa%t Ts4 f tefo&e#$ 'a. $0o'0e+ s $ot &oe&'/ 'ea+e+ a$+&o0e+4 o& %o&ts .'' &es!e tat te fo&e#$ 'a.


27/30

27

s te sa!e as o& 'o%a' o& +o!est% o& $te&$a' 'a.Ts s .at .e &efe& to as te +o%t&$e of&o%essa' &es!to$

In the instant !ase, assu"ing arguendo that the nglish*a on the "atter ere properly pleaded and proved ina!!ordan!e ith Se!tion 5, 0ule 8:5 of the 0ules of/ourt and the 3urispruden!e laid don in Hao 1ee, et al.vs.Sy-$on%ales, said foreign la ould still not findappli!ability. #hus,.e$ te fo&e#$ 'a.4 5+#!e$t o&%o$t&a%t s %o$t&a&/ to a so$+ a$+ esta='se+='% o'%/ of te fo&!4 te sa+ fo&e#$ 'a.4

5+#!e$t o& o&+e& sa'' $ot =e a'e+Additionally,prohibitive las !on!erning persons, their a!ts orproperty, and those hi!h have for their ob3e!t publi!

order, publi! poli!y and good !usto"s shall not berendered ineffe!tive by las or 3udg"ents pro"ulgated,or by deter"inations or !onventions agreed upon in aforeign !ountry. o&eo0e&4 fo&e#$ 'a. so'+ $ot =ea'e+ .e$ ts a'%ato$ .o'+ .o&? $+e$a='e$5st%e to te %te$s o& &es+e$ts of te fo&!To give justice is the most important function oflaw; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that isobviously unjust negates the fundamental

principles of Conflict of Laws. Clearly then, nglishLaw is not applicable.

AO EEvs. S-GON@ALES (1988) - I$ te a=se$%eof &oof of te C$ese 'a. o$ !a&&a#e4 t so'+=e &es!e+ tat t s te sa!e as o&s S$%e aoee a+!tte+ $ e& test!o$/ tat te&e .as $oso'e!$$# off%e& as s ?$o.$ e&e $ te2'$es .e$ e& a''e#e+ !a&&a#e to S/ at

.as %e'e=&ate+ t te&efo&e fo''o.s tat e&!a&&a#e to S/ at4 e0e$ f t&e4 %a$$ot =e

&e%o#$e+ $ ts 5&s+%to$

FACTS*Sy 1iat, a /hinese national died in /aloo!an/ity here he as then residing, leaving behind realand personal properties here in the 2hilippines orth2:BB,BBB.BB "ore or less. #hereafter, Aida Sy-$on%ales, anuel Sy, #eresita Sy-&ernabe and 0odolfoSy filed a petition for the grant of letters ofad"inistration alleging a"ong others that 'a( they arethe !hildren of the de!eased ith Asun!ion $illego9 'b(to their knoledge Sy at died intestate9 '!( they do notre!ogni%e Sy 1iat


28/30

28

#he la on foreign "arriages is provided by Arti!le 8of the /ivil /ode hi!h states that? Art. 8. A''!a&&a#es e&fo&!e+ ots+e te 2'$es $a%%o&+a$%e .t te 'a.s $ fo&%e $ te %o$t&/

.e&e te/ .e&e e&fo&!e+ a$+ 0a'+ te&e as s%4sa'' a'so =e 0a'+ $ ts %o$t&/4 e>%et =#a!os42o'/#a!os4 o& $%estos !a&&a#es4 as+ete&!$e+ =/ 2'$e 'a.. '"phasis supplied.(/onstruing this provision of la the /ourt has heldthat to esta='s a 0a'+ fo&e#$ !a&&a#e t.o t$#s!st =e &o0e$4 $a!e'/* (1) te e>ste$%e of tefo&e#$ 'a. as a o.4=7: of the /ourt of First Instan!e of anila, entitledKsperan%a 2. de arden vs. Fred . arden and JoseSalu"bides.L

Subseuently, the 2hilippines as invaded by theJapanese and pla!ed under "ilitary o!!upation. #hen!a"e the liberation, in the !ourse of hi!h the re!ordsof this !ase ere destroyed. +n +!tober 5:, 8=7, saidre!ords ere re!onstituted at the instan!e of Appelleeherein. #hereafter, the pro!eedings ere resu"ed and,in due !ourse, the /ourt of First Instan!e of anila


29/30

29

rendered in favour of rs. arden. #he Defendantsappealed fro" said de!ision to this /ourt. While theappeal as thus pending before us, herein Appelleefiled a "anifestation and a "otion stating that rs.arden had instru!ted hi", by letter, to Kdis!ontinue allpro!eedings relative toL said !ase, Kva!ate all ordersand 3udg"ents rendered therein, and abandon andnullify all her !lai"s to the !on3ugal partnership e)istingbeteen her and r. arden, and e)e!uted ithout theknoledge, advise and !onsent of said Appellee, as!ounsel for rs. arden. It as further asserted, inAppellees K"anifestationL, that the purpose of the saidinstru"ents, e)e!uted by r. and rs. arden, as todefeat the !lai" of the for"er for attorneys fees.

Ealidity of the above-uoted !ontra!t of servi!es, hi!h

the Appellants assail as void, "ainly, upon the ground?'8( that rs. arden !annot bind the !on3ugalpartnership ithout her husbands !onsent9 '5( thatArti!le 8=8 of the /ivil /ode of the 2hilippines in effe!tprohibits !ontingent fees ':( that the !ontra!t inuestion has for its purpose to se!ure a de!ree ofdivor!e, allegedly in violation of Arti!les 8:B4, 8:45 and8B= of the /ivil /ode of the 2hilippines9 and '( thatthe ter"s of said !ontra!t are harsh, ineuitable andoppressive.

6ELD* #he third ob3e!tion is not borne out, either bythe language of the !ontra!t beteen the", or by theintent of the parties thereto. Its &ose .as $ot tose%&e a +0o&%e4 o& to fa%'tate o& &o!ote te&o%&e!e$t of a +0o&%e It !e&e'/ so#t to&ote%t te $te&est of &s 6a&+e$ $ te %o$5#a'a&t$e&s4 +&$# te e$+e$%/ of a +0o&a

Documents

CONFLICT Batch 1 Saudi-recto