Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PERSONS
CONFLICT OF LAWS
PERSONS
David and Leticia are US citizens who own properties in the USA and in the Philippines. Leticia
obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of California in June 2005 wherein the court
awarded all the properties in the USA to Leticia. With respect to their properties in the Philippines,
Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of conjugal properties. The Court ruled that even if the
Court applies the doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts did with respect to the
property regime of the parties, the recognition of divorce is entirely a different matter because, to
begin with, divorce is not recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid
recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally married in the
Philippines. The trial court thus erred in proceeding directly to liquidation. DAVID A. NOVERAS vs.
LETICIA T. NOVERAS, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014, J. Perez
Under the doctrine of processual presumption, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded
and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or
internal law. Hence, pleading a foreign law without proving the same will bar its application in the
Philippines. NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO for and in behalf of her Minor Child RODERIGO NORJO
VAN WILSEM vs. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM, G.R. No. 193707, December 10,
2014, J. Peralta
HUMAN RELATIONS
PERSONS
The principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions. First, a person must have been benefited
without a real or valid basis or justification. Second, the benefit was derived at another persons
expense or damage. In this case, Loria received P2,000,000.00 from Muoz for a subcontract of a
government project to dredge the Masarawag and San Francisco Rivers in Guinobatan, Albay.
However, contrary to the parties agreement, Muoz was not subcontracted for the project.
Nevertheless, Loria retained the P2,000,000.00. Thus, Loria was unjustly enriched. He retained
Muozs money without valid basis or justification. Under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Loria must return the P2,000,000.00 to Muoz. CARLOS A. LORIA vs. LUDOLFO P.
MUOZ, G.R. No. 187240, October 15, 2014, J. Leonen
Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any
other unjust, oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action by the person
who thereby suffers damage. What is being sought to be prevented is not competition per se but the
use of unjust, oppressive or highhanded methods which may deprive others of a fair chance to
engage in business or to earn a living. Thus, when a manufacturer of plastic kitchenware products
employed the former employees of a neighboring partnership engaged in the manufacture of plastic
automotive parts; deliberately copied the latters products and even went to the extent of selling
these products to the latters customers, there is unfair competition. WILLAWARE PRODUCTS
CORPORATION vs. JESICHRIS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 195549, September
3, 2014, J. Peralta
Page 1 of 49
PROPERTY
Page 4 of 49
Page 7 of 49
Page 9 of 49
Page 10 of 49
Page 12 of 49
Page 14 of 49
Page 20 of 49
Page 21 of 49
Page 22 of 49
Page 25 of 49
Page 34 of 49
Page 35 of 49
Page 38 of 49
Page 40 of 49
Page 41 of 49
Page 48 of 49
Page 49 of 49