CADALIN VS POEA 238 SCRA 721 Facts: On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul and Donato B.

Evangelista, in theirown behalf and on behalf of 728 other overseas contract workers (OCWs) instituted a class suit by filingan "Amended Complaint" with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for moneyclaims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII . BRII is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged inconstruction; while AIBC is a domestic corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilizeand deploy Filipino workers for overseas employment on behalf of its foreign principals. The amended complaint principally sought the payment of the unexpired portion of theemployment contracts, which was terminated prematurely, and secondarily, the payment of the interest ofthe earnings of the Travel and Reserved Fund, interest on all the unpaid benefits; area wage and salarydifferential pay; fringe benefits; refund of SSS and premium not remitted to the SSS; refund ofwithholding tax not remitted to the BIR; penalties for committing prohibited practices; as well as thesuspension of the license of AIBC and the accreditation of B Issue: Whether or not the proceedings conducted by the POEA, as well as the decision that is the subject of these appeals, conformed with the requirements of due process. Whether or not what is the prevalent law to be applied in this case, Art. 291 of Labor Code or Art. 1144 of Civil Code. Ruling: Wherefore, all the three petitions are dismissed. The three petitions were filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court on the grounds thatNLRC had committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing thequestioned orders. We find no such abuse of discretion. NLRC believed money claims-all money claims arising from employer-employee relationsaccruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause ofaction accrued, otherwise they shall be forever barred. This is embodied in the Article 291 of Labor Codewhich the petitioners failed to comply. It applied the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976, which provides forgreater benefits than those stipulated in the overseasemployment contracts of the claimants. It was of thebelief that "where the laws of the host country are more favorable and beneficial to the workers, then thelaws of the host country shall form part of the overseas employment contract." Its interpretation is applicable to contracts of adhesion where there is already a prepared formcontaining the stipulations of the employment contract and the employees merely

"take it or leave it." Thepresumption is that there was an imposition by one party against the other and that the employees signedthe contracts out of necessity that reduced their bargaining power.

Bellis vs. Bellis 20 scra 258 Facts: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. Before he died, he made two wills, one disposing his Texas properties, the other disposing his Philippine properties. In both wills, the recognized illegitimate children were not given any share. Texas has no conflict rule (Rule of Private International Law) governing successional rights. Furthermore, under Texas law, there are no compulsory heirs.

Issue: Whether or not such illegitimate children of Bellis be entitled to successional rights. Held: The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes. Under Texas law, there are no legitimes. Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines, his national law, still, will govern the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by the Philippine law.

Phil. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp. v. V.P. Eusebio Construction Inc. (2004)

FACTS: November 8, 1980: State Organization of Buildings (SOB), Ministry of Housing and Construction, Baghdad, Iraq, awarded the construction of the Institute of Physical Therapy Medical Rehabilitation Center, Phase II, in Baghdad, Iraq, (Project) to Ajyal Trading and Contracting Company (Ajyal), a firm duly licensed with the Kuwait Chamber of Commerce for ID5,416,089/046 (or about US$18,739,668) March 7, 1981: 3-Plex International, Inc. represented by Spouses Eduardo and Iluminada Santos a local contractor engaged in construction business, entered into a joint venture agreement with Ajyal. However since it was not accredited under the Philippine Overseas

Construction Board (POCB), it had to assign and transfer all its right to VPECI. VPECI entered into an agreement that the execution of the project will be under their joint management. To comply with the requirements of performance bond of ID271,808/610 and an an advance payment bond of ID541,608/901, 3-Plex and VPECI applied for the issuance of a guarantee with Philguarantee, a government financial institution empowered to issue guarantees for qualified Filipino contractors to secure the performance of approved service contracts abroad. Subsequently, letters of guarantee were issued by Philguarantee to the Rafidain Bank of Baghdad. Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait was, therefore, engaged to provide a counter-guarantee to Rafidain Bank, but it required a similar counter-guarantee in its favor from the Philguarantee. The Surety Bond was later amended to increase the amount of coverage from P6.4 million to P6.967 million and to change the bank in whose favor the petitioner's guarantee was issued, from Rafidain Bank to Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait. SOB and the joint venture VPECI and Ajyal executed the service contract for the construction of the Institute of Physical Therapy Medical Rehabilitation Center, Phase II, in Baghdad, Iraq. It commenced only on the last week of August 1981 instead of the June 2 1981

Prior to the deadline, upon foreseeing the impossibility to meet it, the surety bond was also extended for more than 12 times until May 1987 and the Advance Payment Guarantee was extended three times more until it was cancelled for reimbursement. On 26 October 1986, Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait sent a telex call to the petitioner demanding full payment of its performance bond counter-guarantee. VPECI requested Iraq Trade and Economic Development Minister Mohammad Fadhi Hussein to recall the telex call on the performance guarantee for being a drastic action in contravention of its mutual agreement that (1) the imposition of penalty would be held in abeyance until the completion of the project; and (2) the time extension would be open, depending on the developments on the negotiations for a foreign loan to finance the completion of the project. VPECI advised the Philguarantee not to pay yet Al Ahli Bank because efforts were being exerted for the amicable settlement of the Project. VPECI received another telex message from Al Ahli Bank stating that it had already paid to Rafidain Bank the sum of US$876,564 under its letter of guarantee, and demanding reimbursement by Philguarantee. VPECI requested the Central Bank to hold in abeyance the payment by the Philguarantee "to allow the diplomatic machinery to take its course, for otherwise, the Philippine government , through the Philguarantee and the Central Bank, would become instruments of the Iraqi Government in consummating a clear act of injustice and inequity committed against a Filipino contractor. Central Bank authorized the remittance to Al Ahli BankPhilguarantee informed VPECI that it would remit US$876,564 to Al Ahli Bank, and reiterated the joint and solidary obligation of the respondents to reimburse the Philguarantee for the advances made on its counter-guarantee but they failed to pay so a case was filed in the RTC. RTC and CA: Against Philguarantee since no cause of action since it was expired because VPECI. Inequity to allow the Philguarantee to pass on its losses to the Filipino contractor VPECI which had sternly warned against paying the Al Ahli Bank and constantly apprised it of the developments in the Project implementation.

ISSUE: W/N the Philippine laws should be applied in determining VPECI's default in the performance of its obligations under the service contract.

HELD: YES. No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly provided for in our laws The rule followed by most legal systems, however, is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by the lex contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (the lex loci intentionis) - none in this case In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection to the transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi Government and the place of performance is in Iraq. Hence, the issue of whether respondent VPECI defaulted in its obligations may be determined by the laws of Iraq. However, since that foreign law was not properly pleaded or proved, the presumption of identity or similarity, otherwise known as the processual presumption, comes into play. Where foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. In the United States and Europe, the two rules that now seem to have emerged as "kings of the hill" are (1) the parties may choose the governing law; and (2) in the absence of such a choice, the applicable law is that of the State that "has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties Another authority proposed that all matters relating to the time, place, and manner of performance and valid excuses for non-performance are determined by the law of the place of performance or lex loci solutionis, which is useful because it is undoubtedly always connected to the contract in a significant way. In this case, the laws of Iraq bear substantial connection to the transaction, since one of the parties is the Iraqi Government and the place of performance is in Iraq. Hence, the issue of whether respondent VPECI defaulted in its obligations may be determined by the laws of Iraq. However, since that foreign law was not properly pleaded or proved, the presumption of identity or similarity, otherwise known as the processual presumption, comes into play. Where foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the

same as oursdelay or the non-completion of the Project was caused by factors not imputable to the respondent contractor such as the war in Iraq petitioner as a guarantor is entitled to the benefit of excussion, that is, it cannot be compelled to pay the creditor SOB unless the property of the debtor VPECI has been exhausted and all legal remedies against the said debtor have been resorted to by the creditor. It could also set up compensation as regards what the creditor SOB may owe the principal debtor VPECI. In this case, however, the petitioner has clearly waived these rights and remedies by making the payment of an obligation that was yet to be shown to be rightfully due the creditor and demandable of the principal debtor.

NAZARENO v. CA 343 SCRA 637. October 18, 2000). The estate of a deceased person is a juridical entity that has a personality of its own. Though Romeo represented at one time the estate of Maximo, Sr., the latter has a separate and d i s t i n c t p er s o n a l i t y f r om t h e f o r m e r . H en c e , t h e j u dg m e n t i n c a s e n o. 1 2 3 r eg a r d i n g t h e ownership of Maximo, Jr. over Lot A binds Romeo only, and not the estate of Maximo, Sr.,which also has a right to recover properties which were wrongfully disposed. It cannot be denied that Maximo, Sr. intended to give the six Quezon City lots to X. As Romeo testified, their parents executed the Deed of Sale in favor of X because the latter was the only female and the only unmarried member of the family. She was thus entrusted with the real properties in behalf of her siblings. As she herself admitted, she intended to convey lots ba n d c t o Y i n t h e e ve n t t h e l a t t e r r et u r n e d f r o m a b r o a d . T h e r e wa s t h u s a n im p l i e d t r us t constituted in her favor. Art 1449 of the CC states: there is also an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof. There being an implied trust, the lots in question are therefore subject to collation in accordance with Art. 1061which states: Every compulsory heir who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring in to the mass of the estate any property or right which he nay have received fro m the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition

ASSIGNMENT CASES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos A. Rule 72 1. Lim vs CA 323 SCRA 102 (2000) 2. Vda de Manalo vs CA 349 SCRA (2001) 3. Natcher vs CA 366 SCRA 385 (2001) 4. Agapay vs Palang 276 SCRA 340 (1997) 5. Pascual vs CA 300 SCRA 214 (1998) 6. Nazareno vs CA 343 SCRA 637 (2000) 7. Limjoco vs Estate of Fragante 80 Phil 776 (1948) 8. Rodriguez vs De Borja L-21993, June 21, 1966 B. Rule 73 1. Lim vs CA 884 SCRA 647 (1997) 2. Heirs of Sps. Sandejas vs Lina GR No. 141634 February 5, 2001, 351 SCRA 541 3. Barretto Realty Dev. Inc vs CA L-62431, August 3, 1984 C. Rule 74 1. McMicking vs Magtibay 96 Phil 211 2. Ilustre vs Alaras 34 Phil 367 3. Hernandez vs Andal GR No. L-273 March 29, 1947 4. Verona Pada-Kilario vs CA GR No. 134329 January 19, 2000 5. De Borja vs De Borja GR No. L-28040 GR No. L-28568 Gr No. L-292611 August 18, 1972 6. Guevara vs Guevara 74 Phil 749 7. Vda de Lopez vs Lopez GR No. L-23915 September 28, 1970 8 Tomias vs Tomias 89 Phil46 9. Marquez vs CA GR No. 125715 December 29, 1998 10. Pedrosa vs CA GR No. 118680 March 5 2001 353 SCRA 620 11. Lee vs RTC GR No 146006 February 23, 2004 12. Estate of Olave vs Reyes 123 SCRA 767 13. Manotok Realty Inc vs CA 149 SCRA 174 14. Dolores vda de Gil vs Agustin Cancio 14 SCRA 797 15. Godoy vs Orellano 42 Phil 347 16. Bonga vs Saler 2 SCRA 755 D. RULE 75 1. Mang-Oy vs CA L-27421 September 12, 1986 2. Fernandez vs Dimagiba L-23938 October 12, 1967 3. Pastor Jr vs CA L-56340 June 24, 1983 4. Nuguid vs Nuguid L-23445 June 23 1966 5. Reyes vs CA 281 SCRA 277 (1977) 6. Maninang vs CA 114 SCRA 478 (1982) 7. Estate of Hilario Cruz vs CA 252 SCRA 542 (1996) 8. In Re Kaw Singco 74 Phil 239 9. Reyes vs Diaz 73 Phil 484 10. Bernabe vs Vergara 73 Phil 676

11. Castro et al vs Martinez 10 Phil 307 E. Rule 76 1. Acain vs IAC L72706 October 27, 1987, 155 SCRA 100 2. Codoy vs Calugay August 12, 1999 3. De Aranz vs GAling L-77047 May 28, 1988 161 SCRA 628 4. Sumilang vs Ramagosa 21 SCRA 1369 5. Fernandez vs Tantoco 49 Phil 380 RULE 78 to 90 1. Gonzalez vs. Aguinaldo et al., GR No. 74768, September 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 112 2. Vda de Manalo vs CA, GR No. 129242, January 16, 2007, 349 SCRA 135 3. Ramos vs Judge Barot, AM MTJ- 001338, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 406 4. Tan vs Hon. Gendorio, et al., GR No. 166520, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 528 5. Ocampo vs Ocampo GR No. 187879 July 5, 2010 6. De Gala vs Gonzales 53 Phil 104 7. Roxas vs Pecson, 82 Phil 407 8. Silverio, Jr. Vs CA, GR No. 178933, September 16, 2009, 600 SCRA 1 9. Sanchez vs CA, GR No. 108947, September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 647 10. Estate of Hilario Ruiz vs CA GR No, 118671, January 29, 1996, 252 SCRA 542 11. Heirs of Pedro Escanlar vs CA, GR No, 119777, October 23, 1997, 281 SCRA 176 12. Orola vs Ponteverde GR No. 158566 September 20, 2005, 407 SCRA 352 13. Sikat vs Vda de Villanueva, 57 Phil 486 14. Danan vs Buencamino GR No. 57295, Deecember 14, 1981, 110 SCRA 352 15. Echaus vs Blanco GR No, 41295 December 4, 1989, 179 SCRA 704 16. Sheker vs Sheker GR No. 157912 December 13, 2007 540 SCRA 111 17. Brionesvs Henson-Cruz GR No. 159139 August 22, 2008 563 SCRA 69 18. Silverio vs CA GR No. 178933 September 16, 2009, 600 SCRA 1 19. Vizconde vs CA GR No, 118449, February 11, 1998, 286 SCRA 217 20. Quash a Ancheta Pena vs LCN Construction Corp., GR No. 174873, August 26, 2008 563 SCRA 426 21. Gonzales-Orense vs CA GR No, 80526, July 18, 1988, 163 SCRA. 477 22. Salonga Hernanadez & Allado vs Pascual et al., GR No. 127165, May 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 449 23. Figuracn-Gerilla vs Vda de Figuracion, GR No. 154322 August 22, 2006 499 SCRA 484 24. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs Court of Appeals GR No. 123206 March 22, 2000 328 SCRA 666 25. Tirso T. Reyes vs Barreto-Datu GR No17818 January 27, 1967 19 SCRA 85