Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its
equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain
loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor,
Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even during
trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines.
So when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce
the foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received any
summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he
never received a copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that
Heras was actually given service of summons when a messenger from the
Sycip Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one
Dionisio Lopez who was Heras son in law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in
the Philippines.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was
able to adduce evidence in support thereto) and Heras was never able to
overcome the validity of it, it cannot be enforced against Heras here in the
Philippines because Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as
Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired
jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that Philippine courts cannot act to
enforce the said foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is
concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non resident because prior to the
judgment, he already abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of
summons in in personam cases against non residents was never presented in
court hence processual presumption is applied where it is now presumed that
Hong Kong law in as far as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine
laws. And under our laws, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is
a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the
court, personal service of summons within the state is essential to the
acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of service is possible if
such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is not found therein,
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot
validly try and decide the case against him. Without a personal service of
summons, the Hong Kong court never acquired jurisdiction. Needless to say,
the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because the same does
not satisfy the requirement of personal service.
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by
his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign
service officer, and with the seal of his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where
the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine
laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of
Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot
the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela
in good standing when he was engaged.
Held: NO. The court held that it is principle firmly established that to the law of
the state in which the land is situated we must look for the rules which govern
its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills
and other conveyances. This fundamental principle is stated in the first
paragraph of article 10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is
subject to the laws of the nation of the owner thereof; real property to the laws
of the country in which it is situated.
Under the provisions of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence prevailing here,
the wife, upon the acquisition of any conjugal property, becomes immediately
vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband, subject to
the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband.
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands,
vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of her husband and the
descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was
transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly
falls within the language of section 1536 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the
Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances.
ISSUE:
Whether
Texan
Law
of
Philippine
Law
must
apply.
RULING:
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile
thereof at the time of his death. So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of
law rule providing that the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to
Philippine
Law,
but
would
still
refer
to
Texas
Law.
Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae)
calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are
situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the
Philippines. In the absence, however of proofs as to the conflict of law rule of
Texas, it should not be presumed different from our appellants, position is
therefore
not
rested
on
the
doctrine
of
renvoi.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, USA and that under the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights has to be determined under Texas Law, the
Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.