private international law case digests 3

SANTOS, JEWELLE ANN LOU P.2009-31291PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

WONG WOO YIU v. VIVONo. L-21076 March 31, 1965

Petitioner-appellee: WONG WOO YIU alias NG YAORespondents-appellants: HON. MATINIANO P. VIVO, etc. et al.

FACTSThe petition alleged the following:

On June 28, 1961, Board of Special Inquiry No. 3 decided the petitioner to be legally married to Perfecto Blas and admitted as non-quota immigrant.

On the proceedings before the Board of Special Inquiry, the petitioner declared that she was married to Perfecto Blas in Chiangkang, China on January 15, 1929; that there marriage was celebrated by on Chua Tio, a village leader. The petitioner asserted that she came to the Philippines in 1961 for the first time to join her husband.

On July 12, 1961, the decision was affirmed by the Board of Commissioners. However, on June 28, 1962, the decision was reversed by the same Board but composed of

entirely new set of members. The Board held that during the entry proceedings of Perfecto Blass on January 23, 1947, he

declared that he first visited China in 1935 and married petitioner in 1936; while other affidavits sworn by Blas were also inconsistent with the petitioner’s assertion.

On August 9, 1962, petitioner filed a motion for new trial but denied due to lack of merit. On September 14, 1962, petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction

before the Court of First Instance of Manila. The court, thereafter, declared the validity of the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 3.

ISSUEWhether the claim of the petitioner to be a lawful wife of Perfecto Blas can be entertained under the Philippine law on family relations

HELDPetitioner’s marriage cannot be recognized in Philippine jurisdiction since no proof was presented relative to the validity of the marriage under law in China. Under Article 17 of the Civil Code, marriages contracted outside the Philippines which are rendered valid by the law of that country is also valid in the Philippines. In the case presented, without proof, “In the absence of pleading and proof the laws of a foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our own” (Yam Ka Lim v. Collector of Customs, 30 Phil. 46). Marriage celebrated before a village leader cannot be recognized before Philippine jurisdiction.

Hence, the court reversed the decision appealed.

NAGARMUKK v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC.


No. L-22470 May 28, 1970

Plaintiff-appellee: SOORAJMULL NAGARMULLDefendant-appellant: BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.


- On May 6, 1949, under Contract G/4370, plaintiff, a foreign corporation based in Calcutta, India, agreed to sell to defendant, a domestic corporation based in Manila, 1,700,000 piese of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags. Shipment was to be made in equal instalments of 425,000 pcs during each month of July, August, September and October 1949.

- On September 1949, the plaintiff advised the defendant that the shipments scheduled for July, August and September were defaulted.

- On October 1, 1949, the Government of India increased the export duty of jute bags from 80 to 350 ru pees per ton.

- On October 27, 1949, the plaintiff wrote the defendant to increase its letter of credit to cover the defaulted shipments for July, August and September.

- The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration decided in favour of the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of 18,562 rupees and 8 annas. This award was thereafter affirmed by the Calcutta High Court.

- On September 22, 1952, the plaintiff sought to enforce its claim through the Department of Foreign Affairs, defendant replied that they are not bound by the decision rendered by Bengal Chamber of Commerce and not obligated to pay the claim.

ISSUEWhether the decision rendered by the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, is enforceable in the Philippines

HELDThe decision sought to be enforced was rendered upon a “clear mistake of law”. The increase in export tax would have not been imposed if the one-hundred fifty-four bales been delivered in accordance to the terms of the contract. The court cannot sanction a clear mistake of law that would cause the appellant to suffer consequence of the breach of contract committed by the appellee.

Hence, the court reversed and set aside the appealed judgment.

BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA v. AMERICAL REALTY CORPORATION


G.R. No. 133876 December 29, 1999

Petitioner: BANK OF AMERICA, NT and SARespondents: AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS


- Bank of America NT and SA (BANTSA) - an international banking institution existing under the laws of State of California, USA - and Bank of America International Limited (BAIL) - limited liability company existing under laws of England – granted multi-million US dollar loans to: (1) Liberian Transport Navigation, S.A.; (2) El Challenger S.A; and (3) Eshley Compania Naviera S.A., which were all existing under laws of Republic of Panama

- As additional security, American Realty Corporation (ARC) as third party mortgagor executed two real party estate mortgages over its parcel of land at San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan.

- The borrowers defaulted in the payment of loans prompting petitioner BANTSA to file civil action before courts of England and Hong Kong.

- On December 16, 1992, petitioner BANTSA filed before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

- On December 14, 1993, ARC filed a motion for suspension of redemption.- On May 12, 1993, lower court rendered a decision ordering BANTSA to pay ARC compensatory

damages of ninety-nine million pesos, exemplary damages of five million pesos and costs of suits.

- On September 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

ISSUES1. Whether or not the petitioner’s act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors for the

recovery of the loans before the foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of the foreclosure.

2. Whether or not the award by the lower court of actual and exemplary damages in favour of the private respondent ARC, as third-party mortgagor, is proper.

HELD1. By the act of filing of the ordinary action for collection against the principal debtors in foreign

courts, the petitioner is deemed to have elected the remedy of civil suit; thus, abandoning he remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over properties of the respondent. Furthermore, Philippine law shall apply on the present case as the foreign law alleged by the petitioners was contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum.

2. The lower court actions of awarding actual and exemplary damages in favour of the private respondent are sanctioned by the Rule 10, Section 5 of the Rules of Court and supported by jurisprudence; however, exemplary damages is modified to fifty thousand pesos.

Hence, the court denied the petition for lack of merit.

LAUREANO v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. 114776 February 7, 2000

Petitioner: MENANDRO B. LAUREANORespondents: COURT OF APPEALS and SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED


- In 1978 plaintiff Menandro B. Laureano applied for employment with the defendant company Singapore Airlines Ltd.

- On January 20, 1979, plaintiff commenced working for the defendant after accepting a contract of employment for an original period of two (2) year.

- On July 21, 1979, dependant ordered plaintiff an extension of his two-year contract to five (5) years effective January 21, 1979 to January 20, 1984.

- In 1982, defendant, hit by recession, decided to terminate its excess personnel including the plaintiff.

- On October 5, 1982, defendant informed plaintiff of his termination effective November 1, 1982 and he will be paid three (3) month-salary in lieu of three-month notice. Due to the request of plaintiff, private respondent gave two (2) months notice and one (1) month salary.

- On June 29, 1983, plaintiff filed a case for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter which was later withdrawn.

- On February 11, 1987, alleging lack of jurisdiction of the court over the matter, private respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which was later denied by the court.

- On April 10, 1991, trial court decided in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the private respondent to pay him his unearned compensation, consequential, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.

- On October 29, 1993, the Court of Appeals set aside and reversed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUES1. Whether the Singapore Law was applicable to the case at hand2. Whether the Philippine court had jurisdiction over the case

HELD1. The court cannot determination the applicability of Singapore Laws due to the defendant’s failure

to show which specific laws of Singapore that apply to the case at hand; thus, Philippine law should be applied.

2. Respondent Court of Appeals had acquired jurisdiction when the defendant filed its appeal before the said court; hence, the former was correct it barred the latter from raising the issue of jurisdiction.

Hence, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000

Petitioner: WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO., LTD.Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE PRESIDENT LINES, INC.


- In February 1988, the Philippine Roxas, vessel owned by private respondent Philippine President Lines, Inc., arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela to load iron ore.

- Upon completion of loading, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez, an official pilot of Venezuela, was designated to navigate the Philippine Roxas through Orinoco River.

- On February 12, 1988, at around 4:35 a.m., Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels.

- Due to the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by petitioner Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day.

- Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. filed a suit for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch III, which ruled in favour of the petitioner on October 16, 1991.

- On June 14, 1994, Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the of the lower court favouring the private respondent.

ISSUEWhether or not Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar

HELDForeign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact; otherwise domestic courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. The written laws of Venezuela were not proven in the manner provided by Section 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which requires a duly authenticated copy of the statute. Hence, Venezuelan law was not pleaded before the lower court and presumed to be the same as the law of the forum.

Hence, the court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.

PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC. v. FASGI ENTERPRISES, INC.


G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000

Petitioner: PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS, INC.Respondent: FASGI ENTERPRISES, INC.


- On June 1, 1978, FASGI Enterprises Incorporated (FASGI), corporation existing under laws of State of California, USA, entered into a distributorship agreement with Philippine Aluminum Wheels, Incorporated (PAWI).

- The agreement provided for the purchase, importation and distributorship in the US of aluminium wheels manufactured by PAWI.

- FASGI later found the shipment defective and in non-compliance with distributorship requirements.

- On September 21, 1979, the parties entered into a settlement entitled “Transaction” where it was stipulated that PAWI would accept the return of the wheels after return to FASGI the purchase price via four irrevocable letters of credit (LC).

- On March 2, 1980, PAWI president Romeo Rojas expressed the company’s inability to comply and proposed a revised schedule of payment.

- On November 26, 1980, the parties – through FASGI president Elena Buholzer and PAWI counsel Thomas Ready - entered into another agreement entitled “Supplemental Settlement Agreement”, wherein stipulated that FASGI would deliver toe PAWI a container of wheels for every LC opened and paid by PAWI and the motion of entry of judgement in favour of FASGI.

- PAWI totally defaulted in opening and paying the third and fourth LCs.- On September 7, 1982, US District Judge of the District Court of California issued a finality of

judgement based on FASGI’s filing of notice of entry of judgment.- In February 1983, FASGI filed a complaint for “enforcement of foreign judgment” before the

RTC Branch 61 of Makati, Philippines, which was later dismissed by the said court.- FASGI appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision and ordered

full enforcement of the California judgment.

ISSUES1. Whether the judgment of California court is valid, recognized and enforceable in the country2. Whether the Philippine court can pass a judgment on a decision by a foreign court3. Whether fraud can hinder the enforcement of a foreign judgment within domestic jurisdiction

HELD1. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may be recognized and enforced as long as it is

shown that there has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction and compliant to the proceedings of foreign forum.

2. In line with the principle of international comity, court of another jurisdiction should refrain from passing judgment on the correctness of the application of law and evaluation of facts of the judgment issued by another tribunal.

3. Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a foreign judgment, must be extrinsic.

Hence, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

PAULA T. LLORENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. 124371 November 23, 2000

Petitioner: PAULA T. LLORENTERespondents: COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTE


- On February 22, 1937, Lorenco N. Llorente, an enlisted serviceman of the United States Navy, and petitioner Paula Llorente were married before a Catholic priest in Nabua, Camarines Sur.

- On November 30, 1943, Lorenzo was admitted to United States citizenship.- Lorenzo discovered that the petitioner Paula was having an adulterous relationship with this

brother; thus he returned to the United States and filed for divorce which was granted by the Superior Court of the State of California on November 27, 1951 and became final in December 4, 1952.

- On January 16, 1958, Lorenzo married the private defendant Alicia F. Llorente in Manila. The union produced three children – Raul, Luz and Beverly.

- On March 13, 1981, Lorenzo executed a Last Will and Testament which bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children and appointing the private defendant as the sole executor of the will.

- On June 11, 1985, Lorenzo died.- On September 4, 1985, Paula filed a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in

her favour since (1) she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse, (2) the property were acquired during their marriage, (3) and the will encroaches here legitimate and ½ share of the conjugal property.

- On May 18, 1987, the RTC ruled in favour of the petitioner since the divorce decree is void and inapplicable to the Philippines and that the defendant is not entitled to any share from the estate.

- On July 31, 1995, Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision with modification that the defendant would be a co-owner of properties Lorenzo acquired during their cohabitation.

- Petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration which is denied due to lack of merit.

ISSUES1. Whether the divorce obtained by Lorenzo Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and

recognized under Philippine jurisdiction2. Whether the Last Will and Testament of Lorenzo Llorente is valid

HELD1. As a matter of comity, divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in view

of the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons or lex patriae.2. As per Art. 17 of the Civil Code, “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.” Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities required by the Philippine law, the will was duly probated.

Hence, the petition is granted and decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside.

ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. 110263 July 20, 2001

Petitioner: ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHADRespondents: COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION


- In 1983, petitioner initiated a suit to recover the indemnity of the performance bond it had put in favour of the private respondent, then known as Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines.

- On September 13, 1985, the High Court of Malaysia rendered judgment in favour of the petitioner and against the private respondent

- On September 5, 1988, petitioner initiated a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig to enforce the judgment of the High Court of Malaysia.

- On October 14, 1991, the trial court dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.- On May 19, 1993, the Court of Appeals dismissed the same and affirmed the decision of the trial

court.

ISSUES1. Whether the judgment of High Court of Malaysia is valid and binding to Philippine jurisdiction2. Whether it is the procedural law of Malaysia that determines the validity of the service of the

court process

HELD1. Having proven through evidence the existence of and authenticity of foreign judgment, said

foreign judgment enjoys presumptive validity and the burden to prove otherwise fell upon the party who disputed its validity.

2. Matters of remedy and procedure such as those relating to the service of summons or court process upon the defendant, the authority of the counsel to appear and represent a defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are governed by lex fori or the internal law of the forum, i.e. the law of Malaysia in this case. In line with this, there is no merit to the respondent’s argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view of the absence of any statement of facts and law upon which the award was based. By lex fori, under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaysia, a valid judgment may be rendered even without stating the law upon the judgement is based.

Hence, the petition is granted and the decision of Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside.

GARCIA v. RECIO


G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001

Petitioner: GRACE J. GARCIA a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIORespondent: REDERICK A. RECIO


- On March 1, 1987, Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal.

- On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce was issued by an Australian family court.- On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen.- On January 12, 1994, petitioner Grace J. Garcia – a Filipina – and respondent were married in

Cabanatuan City.- On March 23, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the

ground of bigamy – respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married the petitioner. In his answer, the respondent contented that his first marriage to an Australian had been validly dissolve by a divorce decree in 1989.

- On July 7, 1998, respondent was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia because the “marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down”

- The trial court declared the marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and recognized in the Philippines and not due to the respondent’s alleged lack of legal capacity to remarry.

ISSUES1. Whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven2. Whether the respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner

HELD1. Foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts as long as the party pleading it must

prove the divorce as fact. The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one but compliance to Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court was not demonstrated by the respondent.

2. The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned which is Australian law. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that respondent, who was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on January 12, 1994.

Hence, the Court remand the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which conclusively show respondent’s legal capacity to marry petitioner.

MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. v. GUERRERO


G.R. No. 136804 February 19, 2003

Petitioners: MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. and/or CHEMICAL BANKRespondents: RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO


- On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero fled before the Regional Trial Court of Mania against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank

- Guerrero sought payment of damages allegedly for (1) illegally withheld taxed charged against interests on his checking account with the Bank, (2) a returned check worth $18,000.00 due to signature verification problems; and (3) unauthorized conversion of his account.

- The bank filed its Answer alleging that Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law which does not permit any Guerrero’s claims except actual damages.

- Seeking the dismissal of Guerrero’s claims, the Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, supported by an affidavit of New York attorney Alyssa Walden.

- The RTC denied the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.- The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the RTC

Orders

ISSUEWhether the Walden affidavit does serve as proof of the New York law and jurisprudence

HELDThe Walden affidavit stated conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case vis-à-vis, the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any laws in particular. While the attached copies of some US court decisions do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts. Thus, the Walden affidavit did not prove the current state of New York law and jurisprudence.

Hence, the petition is denied for lack of merit and Court of Appeal’s decision is affirmed.

BANK OF AMERICA NT &SA v. COURT OF APPEALS


G.R. No. 120135 March 31, 2003

Petitioners: BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA, BANK OF AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, LTD.Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL PADOLINA, EDUARDO LITONJUA, SR. and AURELIO K. LITONJUA, JR.


- The private respondents Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr and Aurelio J. Litonjua, engaged in a shipping business, owned two vessels – Don Aurelio and El Champion - through their wholly-owned corporations. Until 1979, they deposited their revenues to the branches of petitioner-banks in the United Kingdom and Hongkong.

- By offering the private respondents easy loans, the petitioner-banks acquired new four vessels through their (Litonjua’s) corporations as the borrowers.

- Due to the negligence of the petitioners and/or persons designated by them in the operations of private respondents’ six vessel, the revenues derived from the operation of all the vessels declined drastically; the loans acquired then matures and remained unpaid, prompting petitioner-banks to have all the six vessels.

- On May 10, 1993, the respondents filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig and prayed for the accounting og the revenues derived in the operation of the six vessels, etc.

- Petitioner-banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action against them, but later denied by the trial court.

- Petitioner-banks filed for a “Petition for Review on Certiorari” before the Court of Appeals but later dismissed by the appellate court.

ISSUES1. Whether the complaint be dismissed on the ground of forum non-conveniens2. Whether the private respondents are guilty of forum shopping because of the pendency of foreign

action

HELD1. The requisites for assuming jurisdiction presented in Communication Materials and Design, Inc.

vs. Court of Appeals 260 SCRA 673 (1996) are all present in the case: (1) Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have a power to enforce its decisions. Moreover, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground.

2. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present and where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other. The petition failed to show the identity of rights asserted and the reliefs sought for as well as the presence of the elements of res judicata should one of the cases be adjudged.

Hence, the court denied the petition due to lack of merit.

private international law case digests 3

Documents

jewelle ann lou

manufacturers hanover trust

asiavest merchant bankers

american realty corporation

partial summary judgment

philippine aluminum wheels

regional trial court

lower courts decision