CONFLICT OF LAWS BATCH 2 Cases_MH Herrera
1) Republic vs Sandiganbayan (GR 108292, 1993)
RP (PCGG) sought nullification of approved and partially
implemented compromise agreement between Benedicto (a
Marcos crony) and PCGG. In March 1990, Republic vs Benedicto,
New York court approved plea bargaining agreement. California
court also approved settlement & partial release of claims.
PCGG: Sandiganbayan erred in approving agreement contray to
law, morals etc. Agreement is defective since it was not
authenticated before the consular officials abroad and w/o
participation of witnesses and of the SolGen. SC: PCGG can enter
into compromise agreements. A party that availed himself of &
complied w/ provisions of a judicial compromise is under
estoppel to question validity, nor can he ask for rescission after
he has enjoyed benefits.
2) Laurel vs Garcia (GR 92013, 1990)
4 properties in Japan acquired by Ph under Reparations
Agreement (as indemnification for losses in life & property by
WW2) - Nampedei, 2 Kobe lots, Roppongi. Pres Cory created
cmtee to study disposition of these lots thru AO 3, 3A, B, C, D.
Garcia: Roppongi (classified as for govt sector) is not governed by
Ph CC but by Japan laws, where it is located. Issue: Validity to
dispose of State's property. SC: Issue doesn't concern w/ validity
of title. The property belongs to the Ph. It is public dominion - no
formal declaration to change to patrimonial, nor law authorizing
conveyance.
3) Sps Zalamea vs CA (GR 104235, 1993)
CA: No moral damages. Since it is a matter of record that
overbooking of flights is a common and accepted practice of
airlines in US and allowed under the Code of Federal Regulations
by the Civil Aeronautics Board, no fraud nor bad faith could be
imputed on TWA. SC: CA erred. Jurisprudence states that
overbooking amounts to bad faith, entitling the passengers
concerned to an award of moral damages. There was breach of
contract of carriage. Contract of carriage generates a relation
attended with public duty — a duty to provide public service and
convenience to its passengers which must be paramount to self-
interest or enrichment. Granting overbooking is allowed, TWA is
still guilty of bad faith as it did not inform it could breach the
contract notwithstanding confirmed tickets.
4) United Airlines vs CA (GR 124110, 2001)
Aniceto Fontanilla bought from United Airlines 3 "Visit the USA"
tickets for himself, wife and son. San Fo → Washington →
Chicago → LA → San Fo. All flights confirmed. Boarding pass had
words "Check in required" but Fontanillas were informed that
flight was overbooked. Fontanillas were left by plane. Breach of
contract in bad faith? SC: No. CA erred in applying US law as it is
Ph law that is applicable. Although, the contract of carriage was
to be performed in the United States, the tickets were purchased
through petitioner's agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets
were "rewritten" in Washington, D.C. However, such fact did not
change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered
into by the parties in Manila. No bad faith -- bad faith is the
willful and deliberate overbooking on the part of the airline
carrier. ER #7: deliberate if overbooking exceeds 10%.
5) Korea Technologies vs Lerma and Pacific General Steel Mftg Corp (GR 143581, 2008)
Contract between KTech (to set up LPG cylinder mftg plant in
Cavite) and Pacific Gen. Initial ops could not be conducted as
Pacific had financial difficulties, forcing them to agree that KTech mutually stipulated by the parties in the arbitration clause to be here in the Ph. So our laws ought to govern.
is deemed to have completely complied with the contract.
Balance of USD 306k paid by check. Dishonored as "payment
stopped." Pacific: Cancel contract since KTech atered the
quantity and lowered the quality of machineries it delivered. Art foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award, and when
15, contract: Arbitration in Seoul, SK; award shall be final and
binding. KTech: Cannot unilaterally rescind; Submit to arbitration courts of law. Petitioner is correct in its contention that an
before Korean Comm Arbitration Board. SC: The arbitration
clause was mutually and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. binding, does not oust our courts of jurisdiction as the
It has not been shown to be contrary to any law, or against
morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. There has
been no showing that the parties have not dealt with each other conditions provided for by the UNCITRAL Model Law on ICA as
on equal footing. The clause is not against public policy.
Compromise covered properties owned by Benedicto & his
group-controlled corp. NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE - compromise
agreement was not authenticated before consular officers
abroad; or absence of witnesses, as reqmt under Art 1358, CC: a
contract intended to extinguish or transmit real rights over the
immovables must be in a public document is merely designed for
greater efficacy or convenience. Neither does the absence of the
SolGen's participation render the agreement invalid since under
EO 2 and EO 14-A, it is the PCGG which has been "primarily
charged" with recovering illegally acquired or misappropriated
assets.
NO CONFLICT OF LAW EXISTS. The Japanese law was not
presented to the Court. It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei
sitae or Japanese law should apply w/o stating that law. It is
assumed on faith that Japanese law would allow the sale.
CA erred. TWA relied solely on the statement of Ms. Lather, its
customer service agent, in her deposition that the Code of Fed
Reg of the CAB allows verbooking. Besides this, no official
publication of said code was presented as evidence. The US law/
regulation authorizing overbooking has never been proved.
Granting it exists, it is N/A here as Lex Loci Contractus apples -
law of the place where the airline ticket was issued, where
passengers are RC of forum, ie Ph law.
Code of Federal Regulation Part on Oversales, which states:
250.6 A passenger denied board involuntarily from an oversold
flight shall not be eligible for denied board compensation if: (a)
The passenger does not comply with the carrier's contract of
carriage or tariff provisions regarding ticketing, reconfirmation,
check-in, and acceptability for transformation. Ph's Economic
Regulation #7 as amended: Subject to the exceptions provided
hereinafter under Section 6, carriers shall pay to passengers
holding confirmed reserved space and who have presented
themselves at the proper place and time and fully complied with
the carrier's check-in and reconfirmation procedures and who
are acceptable for carriage under the Carrier's tariffs but who
have been denied boarding for lack of space, a compensation at
the rate of xxx.
Art. 2044, CC: Any stipulation that the arbitrators' award or
decision shall be final, is valid xxx. Foreign arbitral awards while contractus. The contract in this case was perfected
final and binding are not immediately enforceable or cannot be
implemented immediately. RA 9285: Foreign arbitral awards
when confirmed by the RTC are deemed not as a judgment of a
confirmed, are enforced as final and executory decisions of our
arbitration clause, stipulating that the arbitral award is final and
international arbitral award, the award of which is not absolute
and without exceptions, is still judicially reviewable under certain
applied and incorporated in RA 9285.
Compromise agreement, purpose - avoid litigation or putting an
end to one already commenced. GR: Lex Loci Celebracionis
governs forms & solemnities of contracts under Art 17, CC viz
"The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in
which they are executed. When the acts referred to are executed
before the diplomatic or consular officials of the RP in a foreign
country, the solemnities established by Ph laws shall be observed
in their execution." X: Lex rei sitae applies re: formalities for
acquisition, encumbrance, alienation of real & personal property.
COL arises when (1) there is a dispute over the title or ownership
of an immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer
immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity
and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a
conveyance, are to be determined; and (2) a foreign law on land
ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a
domestic law on the same matters.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts take
judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged
and proved. Written law may be evidenced by an official
publication or by a copy attested by the custodian-officer or by
his deputy + certificate that such officer has custody. The
certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or
by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
Doctrine of lex loci contractus - GR: the law of the place where a
contract is made or entered into governs with respect to its
nature and validity, obligation and interpretation. Even though
the place where the contract was made is different from the
place where it is to be performed, and particularly so, if the place
of the making and the place of performance are the same. The
court should apply the law of the place where the airline ticket
was issued, when the passengers are residents and nationals of
the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by the defendant
airline.
The law of the place where the contract is made governs. Lex loci
6) Herald Dacasin vs Sharon Dacasin (GR 168785, 2010)
Herald (American) married Sharon (Fil) in Manila. They have a
daughter, Staphanie, born Sep 1995. In June 1999, Sharon
obtained from Illinois Court a divorce decree. Granted, sole
custody of child to Sharon. In 2002, H & S executed an
agreement in Manila for joint custody of child. They chose Ph
courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes aising from the
agreement. Sharon is to obtain an order from Illinois court
relinquishing jurisdiction to Ph courts. Sharon still had sole
custody. Herald sued in RTC to enforce agreement. SC: RTC erred
in thinking it did not have jurisdiction as the Illinois court only
retained J over the divorce decree and NOT the post-divorce
agreement.
WON TC has J to take cognizance of case? Yes, but not to enforce A foreign divorce decree carries as much validity against the
the agreement which is void. Subject matter jurisdiction is alien divorcee in this jurisdiction as it does in the jurisdiction of
conferred by law. At the time petitioner filed his suit in the trial the alien's nationality, irrespective of who obtained the divorce.
court, statutory law vests on Regional Trial Courts exclusive
original jurisdiction over civil actions incapable of pecuniary
estimation. Art 213, FC: no child under seven years of age shall
be separated from the mother unless the court finds compelling
reasons to order otherwise (after separation in fact or in law).
Agreeent is void ab initio. But since Stephanie is nearly 15yo,
case is remanded to RTC, to ascertain custody based on best
interest of the child.

7) Phil Export and Foreign Loan Guaranty Corp vs VP Eusebio Construction Corp (GR 140047, 2004)
Service contract entered into by Fil construction firm and Iraqi What law should be applied in determining whether the The intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by the lex
Govt during Iran-Iraq war. respondent contractor has defaulted in the performance of its contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the law
obligations under the service contract? Whether there is a voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (the lex loci voluntatis) or
breach of an agreement, which includes default or mora, the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (the lex
pertains to the essential or intrinsic validity of a contract. It must loci intentionis). The law selected may be implied from such
be noted that the service contract between SOB and VPECI factors as substantial connection with the transaction, or the
contains no express choice of the law that would govern it. In the nationality or domicile of the parties. Ph courts would do well to
United States and Europe, the two rules that now seem to have adopt the first and most basic rule in most legal systems, namely,
emerged as "kings of the hill" are (1) the parties may choose the to allow the parties to select the law applicable to their contract,
governing law; and (2) in the absence of such a choice, the subject to the limitation that it is not against the law, morals, or
applicable law is that of the State that "has the most significant pubic policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear a
relationship to the transaction and the parties." Another substantive relationship to the transaction.
authority proposed that all matters relating to the time, place,
and manner of performance and valid excuses for
nonperformance 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 Govt 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.

8) Atty Ancheta vs Candelaria Dalaygon (GR 139868, 2006)

Sps Audrey and Richard (Americans, Ph residents) have an
adopted daughter Kyle. In 1979, Audrey died, leaving a will. She
bequeathed all her estate to Richard. Probated at Maryland,
USA. Atty Ancheta was ancillary admin. In 1981, Richard married
Candelaria. They had 2 children. Audrey's will was probated in
CFI Rizal. Richard died, leaving a will - gave all but the A/G shares
(from Audrey's legacy) to Candelaria. Probate at Maryland, then
at RTC Makati. Atty Ancheta motioned to declare Richard & Kyle
as heirs of Audrey, submitted a project of partition 3/4 - 1/4.
Granted. As to Richard's, 2/5 to Candelaria, 3/5 to children.
Candelaria: State of Maryland law says "a legacy passes to the
legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject
of the legacy." RTC: Ok, 3/4 to Candelaria. Candelaria: Atty erred
in distributing Audrey's estate - all should've gone to Richard,
pery Maryland law; extrinsic fraud - annul TC's orders. Atty: No
knowledge of Maryland's laws on succession; best interest of
children that Ph law be applied to receive just shares. CA: RTC
orders annulled. SC: Given that the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland has been brought to record before the CA, and the
trial court in Special Proceeding appropriately took note of the
same in disapproving the proposed project of partition of
Richard's estate, not to mention that petitioner or any other
interested person for that matter, does not dispute the existence
or validity of said law, then Audrey's and Richard's estate should
be distributed according to their respective wills, and not
according to the project of partition submitted by petitioner.
Consequently, the entire Makati property belongs to
respondent.
Petitioner's failure to proficiently manage the distribution of While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction
Audrey's estate according to the terms of her will and as dictated and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them;
by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence the CA however, petitioner, as ancillary administrator of Audrey's
Decision annulling the RTC Orders must be upheld. Being a estate, was duty-bound to introduce in evidence the
foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey's will, especially pertinent law of the State of Maryland.
with regard as to who are her heirs, is governed by her national
law, i.e., the law of the State of
Maryland, per Art. 16, CC: "Real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found." How can petitioner honestly
presume that Philippine laws apply when as early as the
reprobate of Audrey's will before the trial court in 1982, it was
already brought to fore that Audrey was a U.S. citizen, domiciled
in the State of Maryland. As asserted by respondent, petitioner is
a senior partner in a prestigious law firm, with a "big legal staff
and a large library."
9) Manuel and Benjamin Palaganas vs Ernesto Palaganas (GR 169144, 2011)
Ruperta (Fil but later naturalized Am) died w/o issue, left a will
executed in California. Ernesto (bro of Ruperta) filed with RTC for country, the RTC of the province where he has an estate may
probate of the will, asking to be admin. Nephews Manuel and
Benj opposed, sayng probate first in US before in Ph. WON will Sec 1 and 2, Rule 76 further state that the executor, devisee, or
executed by a foreigner abroad may be probated in the
Philippines although it has not been previously probated and
allowed in the country where it was executed. SC: Yes.
Reprobate or reauthentication of a will already probated and
allowed in a foreign country is different from that probate where
the will is presented for the first time before a competent court.
Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77. This rule is N/A
here. In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the
findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction
over the matter can be established. The assailed RTC order is
nothing more than an initial ruling that the court can take
cognizance of the petition for probate of Ruperta's will and that,
in the meantime, it was designating Ernesto as special
administrator of the estate. The parties have yet to present
evidence of the due execution of the will, i.e., the testator's state
of mind at the time of the execution and compliance with the
formalities required of wills by the laws of California.
10) Elmar Perez vs CA, Sps Tristan and Lily Catindig (GR 162580, 2006)
Tristan married Lily twice (in Methodist church and Catholic
church). Divorce decree in Dominican Republic. RTC ordered
complete separation of properties. Tristan married Elmar in
Virginia, USA. They had 1 child. Confrontation that led to Tristan the marriage bond between them. Citing Tenchavez vs Escano: A
filing for declaration of nullity of marriage with Lily at RTC. Elmar foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed
motioned to intervene. Being wife of Tristan for 17 yrs vests her after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (RA 386), is not
with requisite legal interest? SC: Nope.
11) PCL Shipping vs NLRC and Rusel (GR 153031, 2006)
Rusel was employed as seaman by PCL, for U-Ming Marine Corp.
While he was cleaning vessel's kitchen, he slipped, broke his left
ankle. Request for med exam was denied by capt. He jumped
overboard, w/ life jacket, swam to shore. Hospitalized for 8 days.
Sent to Ph. Filed w/ NLRC for illegal dismissal, non-pmt of wages
etc. Guilty of Desertion? SC: No. For a seaman to be considered
as guilty of desertion, it is essential that there be evidence to
prove that if he leaves the ship or vessel in which he had
engaged to perform a voyage, he has the clear intention of
abandoning his duty and of not returning to the ship or vessel.
Here, petitioners failed to present clear and convincing proof.
Petitioners admit that they did not inform private respondent in
writing of the charges against him and that they failed to conduct
a formal investigation to give him opportunity to air his side. The
employer should strictly comply with the twin requirements of
notice and hearing without regard to the nature and situs of
employment or the nationality of the employer.
12) Paula Llorente vs CA and Alicia Llorente (GR 124371, 2000)
Lorenzo (naturalized Am) was an enlisted serviceman of US Navy.
He married Paula. He left for war. When he returned yrs later,
Paula was impregnated by his bro. He returned to US, filed for
divorce. Decree final. He married Alicia in Manila. He executed a
will bequeathing all property to Alicia and their 3 children.
Admitted to probate. He died. Paula filed for letters of admin.
SC: The divorce obtained by Lorenzo from his first wife Paula was
valid and recognized in this jurisdiction as a matter of comity.
Now, the effects of this divorce (as to the succession to the
estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the
determination of the trial court. The clear intent of Lorenzo to
bequeath his property to his second wife and children by her
was glaringly shown in the will he executed and the Court did
not wish to frustrate Lorenzo's wishes, since he was a foreigner,
not covered by Philippine laws on family rights and duties,
status, condition and legal capacity. The Court remanded the
cases to the court of origin for determination of the intrinsic
validity of Lorenzo's will and determination of the parties'
successional rights allowing proof of foreign law.
Rule 73 provides that if the decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign
take cognizance of the settlement of such estate.
legatee named in the will, or any other person interested in the
estate, may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition
the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed, whether
the same be in his possession or not, or is lost or destroyed.
When petitioner and Tristan married on July 14, 1984, Tristan
was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree that Tristan
and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved
entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is
the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced
consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled
to validity in the country.
Desertion - act by which a seaman deserts and abandons a ship
or vessel, in which he had engaged to perform a voyage, before
the expiration of his time, and without leave. By desertion, in
maritime law, is meant, not a mere unauthorized absence from
the ship, without leave, but an unauthorized absence from the
ship with an intention not to return to her service; or as it is
often expressed, animo non revertendi, that is, with an intention
to desert. Both the Marine Note Protest and the entry in the
logbook which were prepared by the officers of the vessel were
neither notarized nor authenticated by the proper authorities.
Moreover, a reading of these entries simply shows that Rusel
was presumed to have deserted his post on the sole basis that he
was found missing while the MV Cemtex General was anchored
at the port of Takehara, Japan. Hence, without any corroborative
evidence, these documents cannot be used as bases for
concluding that private respondent was guilty of desertion.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved. While the
substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the Court of Appeals
did not admit the foreign law. The CA and TC called to the fore
the renvoi doctrine, where the case was "referred back" to the
law of the decedent's domicile, in this case, Ph law. We note that
while the trial court stated that the law of New York was not
sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made the categorical,
albeit equally unproven statement that "American law follows
the 'domiciliary theory, hence,
Philippine law applies when determining the validity of Lorenzo's
will. There is no such thing as one American law. The "national
law" indicated in Art 16, CC cannot possibly apply to the general
American law. There is no such law governing the validity of
testamentary provisions in the United States. Each State of the
union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only
within the State. It can, therefore, refer to no other than the law
of the State of which the decedent was a resident and there was
also no showing that the application of the renvoi doctrine was
called for or required by New York State law.
A foreign will can be given legal effects in our jurisdiction. Art
816, CC states that the will of an alien who is abroad produces
effect in the Philippines if made in accordance with the
formalities prescribed by the law of the place where he resides,
or according to the formalities observed in his country. Our rules
require merely that the petition for the allowance of a will must
show, so far as known to the petitioner: (a) the jurisdictional
facts; (b) the names, ages, and
residences of the heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator or
decedent; (c) the probable value and character of the property of
the estate; (d) the name of the person for whom letters are
prayed; and (e) if the will has not been delivered to the court,
the name of the person having custody of it. Jurisdictional facts -
fact of death of the decedent, his residence at the time of his
death in the province
where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of a
foreign country, the estate he left in such province. The rules do
not require proof that the foreign will has already been allowed
and probated in the country of its execution.
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens
of the Philippines, even though living abroad. Hence, if a Filipino
regardless of whether he or she was married here or abroad,
initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from
spouse and eventually becomes successful in getting an absolute
divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize such absolute
divorce.
Principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the
contract is made) governs in this jurisdiction. In the present case,
it is not disputed that the Contract of Employment entered into
by and between petitioners and Rusel was executed here in Ph
with the approval of the POEA. Hence, the Labor Code together
with its IRR and other laws affecting labor apply in this case.
Only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against
absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality. Aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from
Lorenzo are issues best proved by foreign law which must be
pleaded and proved. Whether the will was executed in
accordance with the formalities required is answered by
referring to Philippine law. In fact, the will was duly probated. As
a guide however, the trial court should note
that whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in
our system of legitimes, Congress did not intend to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. Congress specifically
left the amount of successional rights to the
decedent's national law.
13) Gerbert Corpuz vs Daisylyn Sto Tomas and Sol Gen (GR 186571, 2010)
Gerbert (Fil but later naturalized Canadian) married Daisylyn (Fil). Art. 26, FC:"All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in If the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to
He went to Canada due to work. Months later, he returned, accordance with the laws in force in the country where they remarry, the courts can declare that the Filipino spouse is
seeing Daisy having an affair. He went to Ca, filed divorce. were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No court in
Granted. 2yrs after, Gerbert wanting to marry again, went to Civil this country, except those prohibite under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for the
Registry Ofc and registered the Ca divorce decree. But NSO says and (6), 36, 37 and 38. alien spouse (other than that already established by the decree),
marriage still subsists under Ph law; to be enforceable, foreign Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is whose status and legal capacity are generally governed by his
divorce decree must be judicially recognized by Ph court per NSO validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained national law. The unavailability of the Art 26(2), FC to aliens does
Circular 2, s. 1982. Gerbert filed a Petition for judicial recognition abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, not necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC
of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved the Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under for the recognition of his foreign divorce decree. The foreign
with RTC. RTC: Gerbert is not proper party as he is Canadian; Philippine law." Our family laws do not recognize absolute divorce decree itself, after its authenticity and conformity with
only Fil spouse can avail of remedy under Art 26 (2), FC. SC: Since divorce between Filipino citizens. But while Act 3753 requires the alien's national law have been duly proven according to our
both the foreign divorce decree and the national law of the alien, the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in
recognizing his or her capacity to obtain a divorce, purport to be the submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto favor of Gerbert, pursuant to Sec 48, Rule 39. This ruling should
official acts of a sovereign authority, Sec 24, Rule 132 comes into authorize the decree's registration. The law should be read in not be construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the
play. This requires proof, either by (1) official publications or (2) relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the registration of a foreign divorce decree in the civil registry — one
copies attested by the officer having legal custody of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect. A for recognition of the foreign decree and another specifically for
documents. If the copies of official records are not kept in the petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper cancellation of the entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a
issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the cancellation of entries in the civil registry. Rule 108 sets in detail Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings
Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in the jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be (such as that in Rule 108) is precisely to establish the status or
which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his complied with before a judgment, authorizing the cancellation or right of a party or a particular fact. Moreover,
office. The records show that Gerbert attached to his petition a correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires, Rule 108 can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by
copy of the divorce decree, s well as the required certificates among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured
proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of notice to
Canadian law on divorce. Under this situation, we can, at this located; that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
point, simply dismiss the petition for insufficiency of supporting any interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that
evidence, unless we deem it more appropriate to remand the the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper
case to the RTC to determine whether the divorce decree is of general circulation.
consistent with the Canadian divorce law. We take the latter
course.

14) Soledad Lavadia vs Heirs of Juan Luces Luna (GR 171914, 2014)
Atty Juan married Eugenia, had 7 children. After almost 2 The only two types of defective marital unions under our
decades, they decided to live apart, entered into "Agreement for laws have been the void and the voidable marriages. As such, the
separation and proeprty settlement." Later, Atty obtained a remedies against such defective marriages have been limited to
divorce decree in Domincan Republic. While thereat, Atty Luna the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the annulment of
then married Soledad. Went back to Ph, organized a new law the marriage. The non-recognition of absolute divorce in the
firm Lupsicon. Lupsicon bought a condo unit, named "Juan Luna Philippines is a manifestation of the respect for the sanctity of
married to Soledad xx" Atty Luna's will bequeathed to Soledad. the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It affirms
25/100 pro-indiviso share in the unit (and law books) to 1st fam that the extinguishment of a valid marriage must be grounded
or to Soledad? . SC: 1st fam. Atty and Eugenia married in 1947. only upon the death of either spouse, or upon a ground
The law in force at the time was the Spanish Civil Code, which expressly provided by law. For as long as this public policy on
adopted the nationality rule. The CC continued to follow the marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree dissolving
nationality rule, to the effect that Ph laws relating to family rights the marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial
and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of recognition and enforcement in this jurisdiction. Marriage before
persons were binding upon citizens of the Philippines, although the first marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
living abroad. Atty. Luna and Eugenia having remained Filipinos absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means
until the death of Atty. Luna in 1997 terminated their marriage. of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings - void ab
The Agreement for Separation and Property Settlement was void initio.
for lack of court approval. With the divorce not being itself valid
and enforceable under Ph law for being contrary to Ph public
policy and public law, the approval of the Agreement was not
also legally valid and enforceable under Ph law. The conjugal
partnership of gains of Atty. Luna and Eugenia subsisted in the
lifetime of their marriage.