28. Asiavest v.

CA the Court of Appeals rendered its decision 3 reversing the

decision o f t h e t r i a l co u r t a n d d i s m i s s i n g A S I
Facts: The plaintiff Asiavest Limited filed a complaint on AV E S T ' s co m p l a i n t w i t h o u t p r e j u d i ce . I t
December 3, 1987 against the defendant Antonio Heras underscored the fact that a foreign judgment does not of itself
praying that said defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff have any extraterritorial application. For it to be given effect,
the amounts awarded by the Hong Kong Court Judgment. the foreign tribunal should have acquired jurisdiction over the
(guarantor sya) person and the subject matter. If such tribunal has not acquired
jurisdiction, its judgment is void.
On October 19, 1988 defendant filed his Answer. The case
was then set for pre-trial conference. At the conference, the Issue: Whether service of summons was properly effected
parties could not arrive at any settlement. However, they
agreed on the following stipulations of facts: Held: Under paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules
of Court, 5 which was the governing law at the time this case
1. The defendant admits the existence of the judgment dated was decided by the trial court and respondent Court of
December 28, 1984 as well as its amendment dated April 13, Appeals, a foreign judgment against a person rendered by a
1987, but not necessarily the authenticity or validity thereof; court having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and
2. The plaintiff is not doing business and is not licensed to do their successors in interest by the subsequent title. However,
business in the Philippines; the judgment may be repelled by evidence of want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
3. The residence of defendant, Antonio Heras, is New Manila, clear mistake of law or fact.
Quezon City.
Hence, once the authenticity of the foreign judgment is
the plaintiff presented only documentary evidence to show proved, the burden to repel it on grounds provided for in
rendition, existence, and authentication of such judgment by paragraph (b) of Section 50, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is
the proper officials concerned (Pls. See Exhibits "A" thru "B", on the party challenging the foreign judgment — HERAS in
with their submarkings). In addition, the plaintiff presented this case. cdrep
testimonial and documentary evidence to show its entitlement
to attorney's fees and other expenses of litigation . . . At the pre-trial conference, HERAS admitted the existence of
the Hong Kong judgment. On the other hand, ASIAVEST
On the other hand, the defendant presented two witnesses, presented evidence to prove rendition, existence, and
namely, Fortunata dela Vega and Russel Warren Lousich. authentication of the judgment by the proper officials. The
judgment is thus presumed to be valid and binding in the
The gist of Ms. dela Vega's testimony is to the effect that no country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown.
writ of summons or copy of a statement of claim of Asiavest
Limited was ever served in the office of the Navegante We note that there was no objection on the part of ASIAVEST
Shipping Agency Limited and/or for Mr. Antonio Heras, and on the qualification of Mr. Lousich as an expert on the Hong
that no service of the writ of summons was either served on Kong law. Under Sections 24 and 25, Rule 132 of the New
the defendant at his residence in New Manila, Quezon City. Rules of Evidence, the record of public documents of a
Her knowledge is based on the fact that she was the personal sovereign authority, tribunal, official body, or public officer
secretary of Mr. Heras may be proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof,
Mr. Lousich was presented as an expert on the laws of Hong which must be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Kong, and as a representative of the law office of the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
defendant's counsel who made a verification of the record of The certificate may be issued by the secretary of the embassy
the case filed by the plaintiff in Hong Kong against the or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular
defendant as well as the procedure in serving Court processes agent, or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
in Hong Kong. stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation
The trial court held that since the Hong Kong court judgment must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the
had been duly proved, it is a presumptive evidence of a right original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and
as between the parties; hence, the party impugning it had the must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
burden to prove want of jurisdiction over his person. HERAS
failed to discharge that burden. He did not testify to state Nevertheless, the testimony of an expert witness may be
categorically and under oath that he never received summons. allowed to prove a foreign law.

The trial court concluded that the Hong Kong court judgment There is, however, nothing in the testimony of Mr. Lousich
should be recognized and given effect in this jurisdiction for that touched on the specific law of Hong Kong in respect of
failure of HERAS to overcome the legal presumption in favor service of summons either in actions in rem or in
of the foreign judgment It then decreed personam, and where the defendant is either a resident or
nonresident of Hong Kong. In view of the absence of proof in which the defendant has or claims a lien or interest; (3)
of the Hong Kong law on this particular issue, the the action seeks the exclusion of the defendant from any
presumption of identity or similarity or the so-called interest in the property located in the Philippines; or (4)
processual presumption shall come into play. It will thus the property of the defendant has been attached in the
be presumed that the Hong Kong law on the matter is Philippines — service of summons may be effected by (a)
similar to the Philippine law. 17 personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (b)
publication, also with leave of court; or (c) any other
An action in personam is an action against a person on the manner the court may deem sufficient. 28
basis of his personal liability. An action in rem is an action
against the thing itself instead of against the person. 19 An In the case at bar, the action filed in Hong Kong against
action quasi in rem is one wherein an individual is named HERAS was in personam, since it was based on his personal
as defendant and the purpose of the proceeding is to guarantee of the obligation of the principal debtor.
subject his interest therein to the obligation or lien
burdening the property. 20 For its part, ASIAVEST, in its Opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss 36 contended: "The question of Hong Kong court's
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of 'want of jurisdiction' is therefore a triable issue if it is to be
the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and pleaded by the defendant to 'repel' the foreign judgment. In his
decide the case. Jurisdiction over the person of a resident Reply (to the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss), 38 HERAS
defendant who does not voluntarily appear in court can be argued that the lack of jurisdiction over his person was
acquired by personal service of summons as provided corroborated by ASIAVEST's allegation in the complaint that
under Section 7, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. If he he "has his residence at No. 6, 1st St., New Manila, Quezon
cannot be personally served with summons within a City, Philippines." He then concluded that such Judicial
reasonable time, substituted service may be made in admission amounted to evidence that he was and is not a
accordance with Section 8 of said Rule. If he is temporarily resident of Hong Kong. Significantly, in the pre-trial
out of the country, any of the following modes of service conference, the parties came up with stipulations of facts,
may he resorted to: (1) substituted service set forth in among which was that "the residence of defendant, Antonio
Section 8; 21 (2) personal service outside the country, with Heras, is New Manila, Quezon City." 39 We note that the
leave of court; (3) service by publication also with leave of residence of HERAS insofar as the action for the enforcement
court; 22 or (4) any other manner the court may deem of the Hong Kong court judgment is concerned, was never in
issue. What was in issue was his residence as far as the Hong
sufficient. 23
Kong suit was concerned. We therefore conclude that the
stipulated fact that HERAS "is a resident of New Manila,
However, in an action in personam wherein the defendant
Quezon City, Philippines" refers to his residence at the
is a non-resident who does not voluntarily submit himself
time jurisdiction over his person was being sought by the
to the authority of the court, personal service of summons
Hong Kong court. With that stipulation of fact,
within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction
ASIAVEST cannot now claim that HERAS was a resident
over her person. 24 This method of service is possible if of Hong Kong at the time.
such defendant is physically present in the country. If he is
not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction Accordingly, since HERAS was not a resident of Hong
over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide Kong and the action against him was, indisputably, one in
the case against him. 25 An exception was laid down in personam, summons should have been personally served
Gemperle v. Schenker 26 wherein a non-resident was on him in Hong Kong. The extraterritorial service in the
served with summons through his wife, who was a resident Philippines was therefore invalid and did not confer on the
of the Philippines and who was his representative and Hong Kong court jurisdiction over his person. It follows
attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case filed by him; that the Hong Kong court judgment cannot be given force
moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first and effect here in the Philippines for having been rendered
case. without jurisdiction.

On the other hand, in a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, 23. Fujiki v. Marinay
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a
prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court provided Facts: Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national
that the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay)
Nonetheless, summons must be served upon the defendant in the Philippines 2 on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not
not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction sit well with petitioner's parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring
but merely for satisfying the due process requirements. 27 his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost
Thus, where the defendant is a non-resident who is not contact with each other.
found in the Philippines and (1) the action affects the
personal status of the plaintiff; (2) the action relates to, or In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara
the subject matter of which is property in the Philippines (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved,
Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. the Rules of Court. =yes
However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from
Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki. 3 Held:

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No.
obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where
ground of bigamy. 4 On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.
petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki I
prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be
recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment
and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35 (4) relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only
and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines; 5 and (3) for the
needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the
RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to
Rules of Court. To be more specific, a copy of the foreign
annotate the Japanese Family
judgment may be admitted in evidence and proven as a
fact under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule
Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between 39, Section 48 (b) of the Rules of Court. 49 Petitioner may
Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an
Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by
the officer who has custody of the judgment. If the office
National Statistics Office (NSO). 6
which has custody is in a foreign country such as Japan,
the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC consular officer of the Philippine foreign service in Japan
immediately issued an Order dismissing the petition and
and authenticated by the seal of office. 50 EaISTD
withdrawing the case from its active civil docket. 7 The RTC
cited the following provisions of the Rule on Declaration of To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the trial
Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC):
court and the parties should follow its provisions, including
Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void the form and contents of the petition,51 the service of
marriages. — summons, 52 the investigation of the public prosecutor, 53 the
setting of pre-trial, 54 the trial 55 and the judgment of the trial
(a) Who may file. — A petition for declaration of absolute court. 56 This is absurd because it will litigate the case anew.
nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments,
the wife. which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues." 57
The interpretation of the RTC is tantamount to relitigating the
xxx xxx xxx
case on the merits. In Mijares v. Rañada, 58 this Court
Sec. 4. Venue. — The petition shall be filed in the Family explained that "[i]f every judgment of a foreign court were
reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be forced back on
Court of the province or city where the petitioner or the
his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the
respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to
the date of filing, or in the case of a non- resident respondent, previously concluded litigation." 59
where he may be found in the Philippines, at the election of
the petitioner. . . . A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects
the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties.
Issue: (1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable. =no Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is
consistent w ith domestic public policy and other mandatory
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a laws.
petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a
citizen on the ground of bigamy. =yes marriage void does not require relitigation under a
Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for
(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the declaration of nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot
foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or presume to know the foreign law s under w hich the
foreign judgment w as rendered. They cannot substitute
their judgment on the status, condition and legal capacity derives from the substantive right of the spouse not only to
of the foreign citizen who is under the jurisdiction of preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances) 68 his most
another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize intimate human relation, but also to protect his property
the foreign judgment as a fact according to the rules of interests that arise by operation of law the moment he
evidence. ECcTaS contracts marriage.

Section 48 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a
a foreign judgment or final order against a person creates spouse of a subsisting marriage to question the validity of a
a "presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the
and their successors in interest by a subsequent title." contrary, when Section 2 (a) states that "[a] petition for
Moreover, Section 48 of the Rules of Court states that "the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
judgment or final order may be repelled by evidence of a
filed solely by the husband or the wife" 75 — it refers to
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion,
the husband or the wife of the subsisting marriage. Under
fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." Thus, Philippine
Article 35 (4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are
courts exercise limited review on foreign judgments. void from the beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous
Courts are not allowed to delve into the merits of a foreign marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the
judgment. Once a foreign judgment is admitted and proven in
law. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting
a Philippine court, it can only be repelled on grounds external
marriage is the one who has the personality to file a
to its merits, i.e., "want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact." The
under Section 2 (a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
rule on limited review embodies the policy of efficiency and
the protection of party expectations, 61 as well as respecting the prior spouse "is clearly the aggrieved party as the
the jurisdiction of other states. 62 bigamous marriage not only threatens the financial and the
property ownership aspect of the prior marriage but most of
There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove all, it causes an emotional burden to the prior spouse." 80
as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the Being a real party in interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of in order to declare a bigamous marriage void. For this
bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the purpose, he can petition a court to recognize a foreign
Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with judgment nullifying the bigamous marriage and judicially
Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared declare as a fact that such judgment is effective in the
void from the beginning under Article 35 (4) of the Family Philippines. Once established, there should be no more
Code. impediment to cancel the entry of the bigamous marriage in
the civil registry.
II
III
Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires
proof of fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special In Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City,
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Negros Occidental, this Court held that a "trial court has no
civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, jurisdiction to nullify marriages" in a special proceeding for
Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special cancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules
proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a
of Court. 81 Thus, the "validity of marriage[] . . . can be
status, a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy
to rectify facts of a person's life which are recorded by the questioned only in a direct action" to nullify the marriage. 82
State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. The RTC relied on Braza in dismissing the petition for
recognition of foreign judgment as a collateral attack on the
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the marriage between Marinay and Maekara. EAcTDH
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage
between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy Braza is not applicable because Braza does not involve a
because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality to file a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign
petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage country.
between Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the
basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court. In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his
marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and marriage in the civil registry. However, this does not
material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he apply in a petition for correction or cancellation of a civil
contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign
also no doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an judgment annulling a marriage where one of the parties is
entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry, which a citizen of the foreign country. There is neither
compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest circumvention of the substantive and procedural
safeguards of marriage under Philippine law, nor of the bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.
jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A
recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify 22. San Luis v. San Luis
a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to
recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which Facts: The instant case involves the settlement of the estate of
presupposes a case which was already tried and decided Felicisimo T. San Luis (Felicisimo), who was the former
under foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC governor of the Province of Laguna. During his lifetime,
does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign Felicisimo contracted three marriages. His first marriage was
judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were born
parties is a citizen of the foreign country. Neither can R.A. six children, namely: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda, Emilita and
No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of the foreign court. Manuel. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased
Felicisimo.
A critical difference between the case of a foreign divorce
decree and a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry
is that bigamy, as a ground for the nullity of marriage, is fully Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on
consistent with Philippine public policy as expressed in October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
Article 35 (4) of the Family Code and Article 349 of the Complaint for Divorce 5 before the Family Court of the First
Revised Penal Code. The Filipino spouse has the option to Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States of America (U.S.A.),
undergo full trial by filing a petition for declaration of nullity which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and
of marriage under A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC, but this is not the
Awarding Child Custody on December 14, 1973. 6
only remedy available to him or her. Philippine courts have
jurisdiction to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying a
bigamous marriage, without prejudice to a criminal On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married respondent Felicidad
prosecution for bigamy. San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos, before Rev. Fr. William
Meyer, Minister of the United Presbyterian at Wilshire
In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.7 He had no
incompetent to substitute their judgment on how a case was children with respondent but lived with her for 18 years from
decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family the time of their marriage up to his death on December 18,
rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal 1992.
capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign
judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question Thereafter, respondent sought the dissolution of their conjugal
of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimo's estate. On
Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a December 17, 1993, she filed a petition for letters of
marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine administration 8 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino City, docketed as SP. Proc. No. M-3708 which was raffled to
party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 Branch 146 thereof.
of the Civil Code.
On February 4, 1994, petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, one of the
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) children of Felicisimo by his first marriage, filed a motion to
whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an dismiss 9 on the grounds of improper venue and failure to
overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) state a cause of action. Rodolfo claimed that the petition for
whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic letters of administration should have been filed in the Province
ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e., want of of Laguna because this was Felicisimo's place of residence
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, prior to his death. He further claimed that respondent has no
or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither legal personality to file the petition because she was only a
inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his death,
repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, was still legally married to Merry Lee.
recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of
nations. Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this Linda, Rodolfo and herein petitioner Edgar San Luis,
right becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the separately filed motions for reconsideration from the Order
basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil
denying their motions to dismiss. 15 They asserted that
registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a
paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be given
bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a
retroactive effect to validate respondent's bigamous marriage
new status, right and fact 92 that needs to be reflected in the with Felicisimo because this would impair vested rights in
civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency
derogation of Article 256 16 of the Family Code.
between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign
judgment and the public records in the Philippines.
TC = dismissed petition CA= reversed
However, the recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a
Issue: (1) whether venue was properly laid YES, and (2)
bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecution for
whether respondent has legal capacity to file the subject
petition for letters of administration. (1) whether venue was Likewise, in Quita v. Court of Appeals, 57 the Court stated
properly laid, and (2) whether respondent has legal capacity to that where a Filipino is divorced by his naturalized foreign
file the subject petition for letters of administration. YES spouse, the ruling in Van Dorn applies. 58 Although decided
on December 22, 1998, the divorce in the said case was
Held: 1. Under Section 1, 39 Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, obtained in 1954 when the Civil Code provisions were still in
the petition for letters of administration of the estate of effect.
Felicisimo should be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the
province "in which he resides at the time of his death."
Petitioners cite Articles 15 65 and 17 66 of the Civil Code in
stating that the divorce is void under Philippine law insofar as
It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that "residence," for Filipinos are concerned. However, in light of this Court's
purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of the estate of rulings in the cases discussed above, the Filipino spouse
Felicisimo, is synonymous with "domicile." The rulings in should not be discriminated against in his own country if the
Nuval and Romualdez are inapplicable to the instant case ends of justice are to be served.
because they involve election cases. Needless to say, there is a
distinction betw een "residence" for purposes of election laws
Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the
and "residence" for purposes of fixing the venue of actions. In
divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which
election cases, "residence" and "domicile" are treated as
absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have
synonymous terms, that is, the fixed permanent residence to
vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the
which when absent, one has the intention of returning. 42 present petition as Felicisimo's surviving spouse. However,
However, for purposes of fixing venue under the Rules of the records show that there is insufficient evidence to
Court, the "residence" of a person is his personal, actual or prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as
physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode, well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under
which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile
the laws of the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, 70 the Court laid
provided he resides therein w ith continuity and consistency.
down the specific guidelines for pleading and proving foreign
43 Hence, it is possible that a person may have his residence law and d i v o r ce j u d g m e n t s . I t h e l d t h a t p r e s e
in one place and domicile in another. n t a t i o n s o l e l y o f t h e d i v o r ce d e cr e e i s
insufficient and that proof of its authenticity and due
2. Anent the issue of respondent Felicidad's legal personality execution must be presented. Under Sections 24 and 25 of
to file the petition for letters of administration, we must first Rule 132, a writing or document may be proven as a public
resolve the issue of whether a Filipino who is divorced by his or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an
alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code, official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the
considering that Felicidad's marriage to Felicisimo was officer having legal custody of the document. If the record
solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the Family Code took is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a)
effect on August 3, 1988. In resolving this issue, w e need not accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code, diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign
particularly Art. 26, par. (2) considering that there is sufficient service stationed in the foreign country in which the record
jurisprudential basis allowing us to rule in the affirmative. is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office. 71
To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our W ith regard to respondent's marriage to Felicisimo allegedly
laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted photocopies
private respondent and still subject to a wife's obligations
under Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code cannot be just. of the Marriage Certificate and the annotated text 72 of the
Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe Family Law Act of California which purportedly show that
respect and fidelity, and render support to private respondent. their marriage was done in accordance with the said law. As
The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with stated in Garcia, however, the Court cannot take judicial
possible rights to conjugal property. She should not be notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and proved.
discriminated against in her own country if the ends of 73
justice are to be served. 54 (Emphasis added) AcaEDC
Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court
for further reception of evidence on the divorce decree
This principle was thereafter applied in Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
obtained by Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent
55 where the Court recognized the validity of a divorce
and Felicisimo.
obtained abroad. In the said case, it was held that the alien
spouse is not a proper party in filing the adultery suit against VERY IMPORTANT
his Filipino wife. The Court stated that "the severance of the
marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to
spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would marry respondent in 1974, nevertheless, we find that the
not affect or cast obloquy on the other." 56 latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition
for letters of administration, as she may be considered the
co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that were
acquired through their joint efforts during their which involved the issue of co-ownership of properties
cohabitation. TIEHDC acquired by the parties to a bigamous marriage and an
adulterous relationship, respectively, we ruled that proof of
Section 6, 74 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that actual contribution in the acquisition of the property is
letters of administration may be granted to the surviving essential. . . .
spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79
thereof also provides in part: In view of the foregoing, we find that respondent's legal
capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration
SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. — A may arise from her status as the surviving wife of Felicisimo
petition for letters of administration must be filed by an or as his co-owner under Article 144 of the Civil Code or
interested person and must show, as far as known to the Article 148 of the Family Code.
petitioner: . . . .
21. Catalan v. Catalan-Lee
An "interested person" has been defined as one who would
be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has FACTS: (no issue, same issue as no. 23)
a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest
must be material and direct, and not merely indirect or Orlando B. Catalan was a naturalized American citizen. After
contingent. 75 allegedly obtaining a divorce in the United States from his
first wife, Felicitas Amor, he contracted a second marriage
with petitioner herein.
In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an
interested person who has a direct interest in the estate of
Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence of On 18 November 2004, Orlando died intestate in the
which was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the Philippines.
validity of the divorce and Felicisimo's capacity to
remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage with him was Thereafter, on 25 February 2005, petitioner filed with the
validly performed under the laws of the U.S.A., then she Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan a Petition
for the issuance of letters of administration for her
may be considered as a co-owner under Article 144 76 of appointment as administratrix of the intestate estate of
the Civil Code. This provision governs the property Orlando. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings (Spec.
relations between parties who live together as husband and Proc.) No. 228.
wife without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is
void from the beginning. It provides that the property
On 3 March 2005, while Spec. Proc. No. 228 was pending,
acquired by either or both of them through their work or
respondent Louella A. Catalan-Lee, one of the children of
industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by
Orlando from his first marriage, filed a similar petition with
the rules on co-ownership. In a co-ownership, it is not
the RTC docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 232.
necessary that the property be acquired through their
joint labor, efforts and industry. Any property acquired
The two cases were subsequently consolidated.
during the union is prima facie presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts. Hence, the portions
Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of Spec. Proc. No. 232 on
belonging to the co-owners shall be presumed equal, unless
the ground of litis pendentia, considering that Spec. Proc. No.
the contrary is proven. 77 228 covering the same estate was already pending. HcaDIA
Meanwhile, if respondent fails to prove the validity of both On the other hand, respondent alleged that petitioner was not
the divorce and the marriage, the applicable provision considered an interested person qualified to file a petition for
would be Article 148 of the Family Code which has filled the issuance of letters of administration of the estate of
the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly Orlando. In support of her contention, respondent alleged that
regulating the property relations of couples living together a criminal case for bigamy was filed against petitioner before
as husband and w ife but are incapacitated to marry. Branch 54 of the RTC of Alaminos, Pangasinan, and docketed
as Crim. Case No. 2699-A.
The regime of limited co-ownership of property governing
the union of parties who are not legally capacitated to Apparently, Felicitas Amor filed a Complaint for bigamy,
marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as alleging that petitioner contracted a second marriage to
husband and wife, applies to properties acquired during Orlando despite having been married to one Eusebio Bristol
said cohabitation in proportion to their respective on 12 December 1959.
contributions. Co-ownership will only be up to the extent
of the proven actual contribution of money, property or On 6 August 1998, the RTC had acquitted petitioner of
industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their
contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed bigamy. 3 The trial court ruled that since the deceased was a
to be equal. divorced American citizen, and since that divorce was not
recognized under Philippine jurisdiction, the marriage between
In the cases of Agapay v. Palang, and Tumlos v. Fernandez , him and petitioner was not valid.
Furthermore, it took note of the action for declaration of bank for illegally withholding taxes charged against interest
nullity then pending action with the trial court in Dagupan on his checking account, returning a check due to signature
City filed by Felicitas Amor against the deceased and p e t i t i verification problems, and unauthorized conversion of his
o n e r. I t c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e n d i n g a c t i o n t o b e a account. In answer thereto, petitioner alleged that the issue
p r e j u d i c i a l q u e s t i o n i n determining the guilt of should be limited to actual damages as respondent's account is
petitioner for the crime of bigamy. governed by the New York law. In support thereof, petitioner
presented the authenticated affidavit of New York Attorney
Finally, the trial court found that, in the first place, petitioner Alyssa Walden. Thus, petitioner filed a motion for partial
had never been married to Eusebio Bristol. summary judgment. ATICcS

On 26 June 2006, Branch 70 of the RTC of Burgos, Petitioner's motion for summary judgment is not proper as it
Pangasinan dismissed the Petition for the issuance of letters of does not demonstrate that respondent's claims are sham,
administration filed by petitioner and granted that of private fictitious, or contrived. There can be no summary judgment
respondent. Contrary to its findings in Crim. Case No. 2699- where material allegations of the pleadings are in dispute and
A, the RTC held that the marriage between petitioner and can be resolved only by trial on the merits. On the alleged
Eusebio Bristol was valid and subsisting when she married foreign law applicable, the Walden affidavit and attached US
Orlando. Without expounding, it reasoned further that her court decisions therein are not proper substantiation thereof
acquittal in the previous bigamy case was fatal to her cause. for failure to comply with Sec. 24, Rule 132 on proof of
Thus, the trial court held that petitioner was not an interested foreign laws, records, and decisions.
party who may file a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration. 4 Held:

Ca also dismissed the petition A court may grant a summary judgment to settle expeditiously
a case if, on motion of either party, there appears from the
Hence, this Petition. pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no
important issues of fact are involved, except the amount of
At the outset, it seems that the RTC in the special proceedings damages. In such event, the moving party is entitled to a
failed to appreciate the finding of the RTC in Crim. Case No. judgment as a matter of law. 4
2699-A that petitioner was never married to Eusebio Bristol.
Thus, the trial court concluded that, because petitioner was In a motion for summary judgment, the crucial question is: are
acquitted of bigamy, it follows that the first marriage with the issues raised in the pleadings genuine, sham or fictitious,
Bristol still existed and was valid. By failing to take note of as shown by affidavits, depositions or admissions
the findings of fact on the nonexistence of the marriage accompanying the motion? 5
between petitioner and Bristol, both the RTC and CA held that
petitioner was not an interested party in the estate of Orlando. A genuine issue means an issue of fact which calls for the
presentation of evidence as distinguished from an issue which
Second, it is imperative to note that at the time the bigamy is fictitious or contrived so as not to constitute a genuine issue
case in Crim. Case No. 2699-A was dismissed, we had already for trial. 6
ruled that under the principles of comity, our jurisdiction
recognizes a valid divorce obtained by a spouse of foreign
the Bank's motion for partial summary judgment as supported
nationality.
by the Walden affidavit does not demonstrate that Guerrero's
claims are sham, fictitious or contrived. On the contrary, the
It appears that the trial court no longer required petitioner Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations
to prove the validity of Orlando's divorce under the laws as pleaded by the parties are disputed and there are substantial
of the United States and the marriage between petitioner triable issues necessitating a formal trial.
and the deceased. Thus, there is a need to remand the
proceedings to the trial court for further reception of
There can be no summary judgment where questions of
evidence to establish the fact of divorce.
fact are in issue or where material allegations of the
Should petitioner prove the validity of the divorce and the pleadings are in dispute. 7 The resolution of whether a
subsequent marriage, she has the preferential right to be foreign law allows only the recovery of actual damages is a
issued the letters of administration over the estate. Otherw question of fact as far as the trial court is concerned since
ise, letters of administration may be issued to respondent, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our courts. 8
w ho is undisputedly the daughter or next of kin of the Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. 9 Like any
deceased, in accordance with Sec. 6 of Rule 78 of the other fact, they must be alleged and proven. Certainly, the
Revised Rules of Court. conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or
Philippine law applies to Guerrero's claims present a clear
20 Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (bank) v. Guerrero dispute on material allegations which can be resolved only
by a trial on the merits.
Respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioner
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public veracity of the statements in the Walden affidavit.
documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be
proved by (1) an official publication thereof or (2) a copy Moreover, it would have been redundant and pointless for
attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Guerrero to submit an opposing affidavit considering that
Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if what the Bank seeks to be opposed is the very subject matter
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate of the complaint. Guerrero need not file an opposing affidavit
that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The to the Walden affidavit because his complaint itself
certificate may be issued by any of the authorized controverts the matters set forth in the Bank's motion and the
Philippine embassy or consular offi cials stationed in the Walden affidavit. A party should not be made to deny
foreign country in w hich the record is kept, and matters already averred in his complaint.
authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must
state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the 17. Pioneer Concrete v. Todaro
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be, and
must be under the official seal of the attesting officer. Facts: On January 16, 1998, herein respondent Antonio D.
Todaro (Todaro) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Certain exceptions to this rule were recognized in Asiavest Makati City, a complaint for Sum of Money and Damages
Limited v. Court of Appeals 10 which held that: with Preliminary Attachment against Pioneer International
Limited (PIL), Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI),
The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamete Iron and Steel Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald
Works v. Muzzal or Collector of Internal Revenue v. (McDonald) and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig). 3 Todaro has
Fisher to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys been the managing director of Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc.
testifying in open court during the trial in the Philippines and (Betonval), a company engaged in pre-mixed concrete and
quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be established. concrete aggregate production; he resigned from Betonval in
On the other hand, the Walden affidavit was taken abroad ex February 1996; in May 1996, PIL contacted Todaro and asked
parte and the affiant never testified in open court. The Walden him if he was available to join them in connection with their
affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York law on intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other
damages not only because it is self-serving but also because it related operations in the Philippines; Todaro informed PIL of
does not state the specific New York law on damages. We his availability and interest to join them; subsequently, PIL
reproduce portions of the Walden affidavit as follows: and Todaro came to an agreement wherein the former
consented to engage the services of the latter as a consultant
The Walden affidavit states conclusions from the affiant's for two to three months, after which, he would be employed as
personal interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case the manager of PIL's ready- mix concrete operations should
vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing the company decide to invest in the Philippines; subsequently,
any law in particular. The citations in the Walden affidavit PIL started its operations in the Philippines; however, it
of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute proof of refused to comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a
the official records or decisions of the U.S. courts. While permanent basis. 4
the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court
decisions cited in the Walden affidavit, these copies do not Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and Klepzig
comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that
records or decisions of foreign courts. the complaint states no cause of action, that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, as the
The Bank's intention in presenting the Walden affidavit is same is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, and that the
to prove New York law and jurisprudence. However, complaint should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of
because of the failure to comply with Section 24 of Rule forum non conveniens. 5 TIDcE H
132 on how to prove a foreign law and decisions of foreign
courts, the Walden affidavit did not prove the current
In its Order dated January 4, 1999, the RTC of Makati, Branch
state of New York law and jurisprudence. Thus, t h e B a n
khasonlyalleged,buthasnotproved,wha 147, denied herein petitioners' respective motions to dismiss. 6
t N e w Yo r k l a w a n d jurisprudence are on the matters Herein petitioners, as defendants, filed an Urgent Omnibus
at issue. Motion 7 for the reconsideration of the trial court's Order of
January 4, 1999 but the trial court denied it via its Order 8
Guerrero cannot be said to have admitted the averments in the dated June 3, 1999.
Bank's motion for partial summary judgment and the Walden
affidavit just because he failed to file an opposing affidavit. On August 3, 1999, herein petitioners filed a Petition for
Guerrero opposed the motion for partial summary Certiorari with the CA. 9 On October 31, 2000, the CA
judgment, although he did not present an opposing rendered its presently assailed Decision denying herein
affidavit. Guerrero may not have presented an opposing petitioners' Petition for Certiorari. Petitioners filed a Motion
affidavit, as there was no need for one, because the Walden for Reconsideration but the CA denied it in its Resolution
affidavit did not establish what the Bank intended to prove. dated August 21, 2002.
Certainly, Guerrero did not admit, expressly or impliedly, the
Issues (assigned errors) the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court. In the case of Communication Materials
A. and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held that
". . . [a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the
THE COURT OF APPEALS' CONCLUSION THAT THE case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following
COMPLAINT STATES A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to
PETITIONERS IS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS. THE which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the
ANNEXES TO THE COMPLAINT CLEARLY BELIE THE Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent
ALLEGATION OF EXISTENCE OF AN EMPLOYMENT decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the
CONTRACT BETW EEN PRIVATE RESPONDENT AND Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce
PETITIONERS. its decision."

B. Moreover, this Court enunciated in Philsec. Investment

Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, that the doctrine of
THE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a
SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of
AND WITH APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. This
SUPREME COURT WHEN IT UPHELD THE Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of
JURISDICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on
FACT THAT THE COMPLAINT INDUBITABLY SHOWS this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
THAT IT IS AN ACTION FOR AN ALLEGED BREACH established, to determine whether special circumstances
OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, AND HENCE, FALLS require the court's desistance; and that the propriety of
WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is
more properly considered a matter of defense. 22
C (emphasis supplied)

THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED AND In the present case, the factual circumstances cited by
FAILED TO CONSIDER THE PRINCIPLE OF "FORUM petitioners which would allegedly justify the application of
NON CONVENIENS" AS A VALID GROUND FOR the doctrine of forum non conveniens are matters of
DISMISSING A COMPLAINT. 10 defense, the merits of which should properly be threshed
out during trial.
Held:
10. Perkins v. Dizon
A. the complaint does not have to establish or allege facts
proving the existence of a cause of action at the outset; this Facts: On July 6, 1938, respondent, Eugene Arthur Perkins,
will have to be done at the trial on the merits of the case. 14 instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila
To sustain a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, the against the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for
complaint must show that the claim for relief does not exist, dividends amounting to P71,379.90 on 52,874 shares of stock
rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is registered in his name, payment of which was being withheld
by the company; and, for the recognition of his right to the
ambiguous, indefinite or uncertain. 15 control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all
others. To the complaint, the company filed its answer
This Court has reviewed respondent's allegations in its alleging, by way of defense, that the withholding of such
Complaint. In a nutshell, respondent alleged that herein dividends and the non- recognition of plaintiff's right to the
petitioners reneged on their contractual obligation to employ disposal and control of the shares were due to certain demands
him on a permanent basis. This allegation is sufficient to made with respect to said shares by the petitioner herein,
constitute a cause of action for damages. Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H. Engelhard. The
answer prays that the adverse claimants be made parties to the
The issue as to whether or not there was a perfected contract action and served with notice thereof by publication, and that
between petitioners and respondent is a matter which is not thereafter all such parties be required to interplead and settle
ripe for determination in the present case; rather, this issue the rights among themselves. On September 5, 1938, the trial
must be taken up during trial, considering that its resolution court ordered respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to include in
would necessarily entail an examination of the veracity of the his complaint as parties defendant petitioner, Idonah Slade
allegations not only of herein respondent as plaintiff but also Perkins, and George H. Engelhard. The complaint was
of petitioners as defendants. accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in
the original complaint,-respondent Perkins prayed that
B. Not necessary petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard be
adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in question
C. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on and excluded from any claim they assert thereon. Thereafter,
the basis of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of
summons by publication were served upon the non-resident property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is
defendants, Idonah Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, potential custody when, from the nature of the action brought,
pursuant to the order of the trial court. On December 9, 1938, the power of the court over the property is impliedly
Engelhard filed his answer to the amended complaint, and on recognized by law. "An illustration of w hat w e term potential
December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register
counsel, filed her pleading entitled "objection to venue, the title of land under our system for the registration of land.
motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she Here the court, without taking actual physical control over the
challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. property, assumes, at the instance of some person claiming to
Petitioner's objection, motion and demurrer having been be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property
overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration of the and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all
order of denial, she now brought the present petition for the world."
certiorari, praying that the summons by publication issued
against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to When, however, the action relates to property located in
her, respondent judge be permanently prohibited from taking the Philippines, the Philippine courts may validly try the
any action on the case. case, upon the principle that a "State, through its
tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits
Issue: whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has owned by non-residents to the payment of the demand of
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the present petitioner its own citizens against them; and the exercise of this
as a non-resident defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of
such jurisdiction, whether or not said court may validly try the the State where the owners are domiciled. Every State
case. owes protection to its own citizens; and, when non-
residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise
Held: Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides of authority to hold and appropriate any property owned
that when a non- resident defendant is sued in the Philippine by such non- residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens.
courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that
the action relates to real or personal property within the In the instant case, there can be no question that the action
Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or brought by Eugene Arthur Ferkins in his amended
interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief demanded complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins,
consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from seeks to exclude her from any interest in a property
any interest therein, service of summons may be made by located in the Philippines. That property consists in certain
publication. shares of stock of the Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company, a sociedad anonima, organized in the Philippines
under the provisions of the Spanish Code of Commerce, with
its principal office in the City of Manila and which conducts
(1) In order that the court may validly try a case, it must its mining activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the
have jurisdiction over the subject-matter and over the jurisdiction where the corporation is created, whether the
persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is certificates evidencing the ownership of those shares are
acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which within or without that jurisdiction. Under these
organizes a court and determines the nature and extent of its circumstances, we hold that the action thus brought is
powers in general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with reference quasi in rem, for, while the judgment that may be
to actions which it may entertain and the relief it may grant. rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it fixes
Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired by their and settles the title to the property in controversy and to
voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its that extent partakes of the nature of the judgment in rem.
authority, or by the coercive power of legal process exerted
over their persons. "It is true that, in a strict sense, a proceeding in rem is one
taken directly against property, and has for its object the
(2) When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to disposition of the property, without reference to the title of
appear voluntarily, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction individual claimants; but, in a larger and more general senses
over his person even if the summons be served by the terms are applied to actions between parties, where the
publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by
them, or of some interest therein."

The action being quasi in rem, the Court of First Instance of

The general rule, therefore, is that a suit against a non- Manila has jurisdiction to try the same even if it can acquire
resident cannot be entertained by a Philippine court. no jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to
Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi in rem in satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process,
connection with property located in the Philippines, the summons has been served upon her by publication. There is no
court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction question as to the adequacy of the publication made nor as to
over the person of the non- resident is non-essential. In the mailing of the order of publication to the petitioner's last
order that the court may exercise power over the res, it is not known place of residence in the United States. But, of course,
necessary that the court should take actual custody of the the action being quasi in rem and notice having been made by
publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine jurisdiction.
court must be confined to the res, it having no jurisdiction to
render a personal judgment against the non-resident. In the we believe and so hold that the petitioner has not, by such
amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money erroneous argument, submitted herself to the jurisdiction of
judgment or other relief in personam is prayed for against the the court. Voluntary appearance cannot be implied from either
petitioner. The only relief sought therein is that she be a mistaken or superfluous reasoning but from the nature of the
declared to be without any interest in the shares in controversy relief prayed for.
and that she be excluded from any claim thereto.
24. LWV Construction v. DUPO
Petitioner contends that the proceeding instituted against her is
one of interpleading and is therefore an action in personam. Facts: Petitioner, a domestic corporation which recruits
Filipino workers, hired respondent as Civil Structural
Here, the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, in its Superintendent to w ork in Saudi Arabia for its principal,
answer to the complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, Mohammad Al-Mojil Group/Establishment (MMG). On
averred that in connection with the shares of stock in February 26, 1992, respondent signed his first overseas
question, conflicting claims were being made upon it by employment contract, renewable after one year. It was
said plaintiff, Eugene Arthur Perkins, his wife Idonah renewed five times on the following dates: May 10, 1993,
Slade Perkins, and one named George H. Engelhard, and November 16, 1994, January 22, 1996, April 14, 1997, and
prayed that these last two be made parties to the action March 26, 1998. All were fixed- period contracts for one year.
and served with summons by publication, so that the three The sixth and last contract stated that respondent's
claimants may litigate their conflicting claims and settle their employment starts upon reporting to work and ends when he
rights among themselves. The court has not issued an order leaves the work site. Respondent left Saudi Arabia on April
compelling the conflicting claimants to interplead with one 30, 1999 and arrived in the Philippines on May 1, 1999.
another and litigate their several claims among themselves,
but instead ordered the plaintiff to amend his complaint On May 28, 1999, respondent informed MMG, through the
including the other two claimants as parties defendant. petitioner, that he needs to extend his vacation because his son
The plaintiff did so, praying that the new defendants thus was hospitalized. He also sought a promotion with salary
joined be excluded from any interest in the shares in adjustment. 3 In reply, MMG informed respondent that his
question, and it is upon this amended complaint that the promotion is subject to management's review; that his services
court ordered the service of the summons by publication. are still needed; that he was issued a plane ticket for his return
It is, therefore, clear that the publication of the summons flight to Saudi Arabia on May 31, 1999; and that his decision
was ordered not in virtue of an interpleading, but upon the regarding his employment must be made within seven days,
filing of the amended complaint wherein an action quasi in
otherwise, MMG "will be compelled to cancel [his] slot". 4
rem is alleged.
On July 6, 1999, respondent resigned. In his letter to MMG, he
Had not the complaint been amended, including the herein
also stated: IEAHca xxx xxx xxx
petitioner as an additional defendant, and had the court,
upon the filing of the answer of the Benguet Consolidated
I am aware that I still have to do a final settlement with the
Mining Company, issued an order under section 120 of the
company and hope that during my more than seven (7) [years]
Code of Civil Procedure, calling the confl icting claimants
services, as the Saudi Law stated, I am entitled for a long
into court and compelling them to interplead with one
another, such order could not perhaps have validly been service award. 5 (Emphasis supplied.)
served by publication or otherwise, upon the non-resident
I donah Slade Perkins, for then the proceeding would be According to respondent, when he followed up his claim for
purely one of interpleading. Such proceeding is a personal long service award on
action, for it merely seeks to call conflicting claimants into
court so that they may interplead and litigate their several December 7, 2000, petitioner informed him that MMG did not
claims among themselves, and no specific relief is prayed respond. 6
for against them, as the interpleader simply disclaims any
personal interest in the controversy. What would be the On December 11, 2000, respondent filed a complaint 7 for
situation if, after the claimants have appeared in court, one of payment of service award against petitioner before the
them pleads ownership of the personal property located in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional
Philippines and seeks to exclude a non-resident claimant from Arbitration Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region, Baguio
any interest therein, is a question which we do not decide now. City.
Suffice it to say that here the service of the summons by
publication was ordered by the lower court by virtue of an LA, NLRC, CA = in favor of respondent
action quasi in rem against the non-resident defendant.
Issues: 1. whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
Respondents contend that, as the petitioner in the lower court respondent is entitled to a service award or longevity pay of
has pleaded res adjudicata, lis pendens and lack of jurisdiction US$12,640.33 under the provisions of the Saudi Labor Law.
over the subject-matter, she has submitted herself to its
=YES nabayran na (not relevant sa Conflict of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides:

2. Related to this issue are petitioner's defenses of payment "If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of
and prescription. = Payment (nabayran na so moot ang action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the
prescription) but Prescription = wala ni prescribe kay ni Philippine Islands."
mention ug case
Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by the Civil
Held: 1. After a careful study of the case, we are constrained Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of said Code repealed
to reverse the Court of Appeals. We find that respondent's only those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to
service award under Article 87 of the Saudi Labor Law has which were inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the
already been paid. Our computation will show that the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is inconsistent with or
severance pay received by respondent was his service award. contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(Paras, Philippine Conflict of Laws, 104 [7th ed.]).
2. On the matter of prescription, however, we cannot agree
with petitioner that respondent's action has prescribed under In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48
Article 13 of the Saudi Labor Law. What applies is Article [of the Code of Civil Procedure] cannot be enforced ex
291 of our Labor Code which reads: proprio vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this
jurisdiction of [Article] 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
ART. 291. Money claims. — All money claims arising from 1976.
employer- employee relations accruing during the effectivity
of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever obnoxious to the forum's public policy . . . . To enforce the
barred. one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene
xxx xxx xxx the public policy on the protection to labor. 29

In Cadalin v. POEA's Administrator, 27 we held that Thus, in our considered view, respondent's complaint was
Article 291 covers all money claims from employer- filed well within the three-year prescriptive period under
employee relationship and is broader in scope than claims Article 291 of our Labor Code. This point, however, has
arising from a specific law. It is not limited to money already been mooted by our finding that respondent's
claims recoverable under the Labor Code, but applies also service award had been paid, albeit the payroll termed such
to claims of overseas contract workers. payment as severance pay.

As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be 25. ATCI Overseas et.al v. Echin
applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service
of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for Facts: Josefina Echin (respondent) was hired by petitioner
appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of its principal-co-
forum. This is true even if the action is based upon a petitioner, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait (the
foreign substantive law (Restatement of the Conflict of Ministry), for the position of medical technologist under a
Laws, Sec. 685; Salonga, Private International Law, 131 two-year contract, denominated as a Memorandum of
[1979]). ScCIaA Agreement (MOA), with a monthly salary of US$1,200.00.

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Under the MOA, 1 all newly-hired employees undergo a
Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as probationary period of one (1) year and are covered by
procedural or substantive, depending on the Kuwait's Civil Service Board Employment Contract No. 2.
characterization given such a law.
Respondent w as deployed on February 17, 2000 but w as
However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or terminated from employment on February 11, 2001, she not
substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of the having allegedly passed the probationary period.
forum has a "borrowing statute". Said statute has the practical
effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of As the Ministry denied respondent's request for
substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 152-153 [1938]). A reconsideration, she returned to the Philippines on March 17,
"borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the 2001, shouldering her own air fare.
foreign statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a
foreign law (Siegel, Conflicts, 183 [1975]). While there are On July 27, 2001, respondent filed with the National Labor
several kinds of "borrowing statutes", one form provides
Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint 2 for illegal
that an action barred by the laws of the place where it
dismissal against petitioner ATCI as the local r e cr u i t m e n
accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the
t a g e n cy , r e p r e s e n t e d b y p e t i t i o n e r , A m a l i a
local statute has not run against it (Goodrich and Scoles,
I k d a l ( I k d a l ) , a n d t h e Ministry, as the foreign
Conflict of Laws, 152- 153 [1938]). Section 48 of our Code
principal.
LA AND NLRC = IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT the application of a foreign law has the burden of proving
the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption
ISSUES: Petitioners maintain that they should not be held which, in this case, petitioners failed to discharge.
liable because respondent's employment contract specifically
stipulates that her employment shall be governed by the Civil In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign
Service Law and Regulations of Kuwait. They thus conclude law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving
that it was patent error for the labor tribunals and the appellate the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of
court to apply the Labor Code provisions governing fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
probationary employment in deciding the present case. labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law.
He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
Further, petitioners argue that even the Philippine Overseas
Employment Act (POEA) Rules relative to master The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws,
employment contracts (Part III, Sec. 2 of the POEA Rules and hence, they must not only be alleged; they must be proven. To
Regulations) accord respect to the "customs, practices, prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy
company policies and labor laws and legislation of the host thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the
country." Revised Rules of Court which reads:

Finally, petitioners posit that assuming arguendo that SEC. 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public
Philippine labor laws are applicable, given that the foreign documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19,
principal is a government agency which is immune from suit, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
as in fact it did not sign any document agreeing to be held official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
jointly and solidarily liable, petitioner ATCI cannot likewise officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
be held liable, more so since the Ministry's liability had not deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
been judicially determined as jurisdiction was not acquired Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
over it. custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary
Held: Petitioner ATCI, as a private recruitment agency, of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
cannot evade responsibility for the money claims of consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which it deploys service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country
abroad by the mere expediency of claiming that its foreign in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal
principal is a government agency clothed with immunity of his office. (emphasis supplied)
from suit, or that such foreign principal's liability must
first be established before it, as agent, can be held jointly SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever
and solidarily liable. a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose
of the evidence, the attestation must state, in substance,
In providing for the joint and solidary liability of private that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific
recruitment agencies with their foreign principals, part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be
Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affords the OFWs with a under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be
recourse and assures them of immediate and sufficient any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the
payment of what is due them. seal of such court.

“[T]he obligations covenanted in the recruitment what petitioners submitted w ere mere certifications
agreement entered into by and between the local agent and attesting only to the correctness of the translations of the
its foreign principal are not coterminous with the term of MOA and the termination letter which does not prove at
such agreement so that if either or both of the parties decide all that Kuwaiti civil service laws differ from Philippine
to end the agreement, the responsibilities of such parties laws and that under such Kuwaiti laws, respondent was
towards the contracted employees under the agreement do not validly terminated.
at all end, but the same extends up to and until the expiration
of the employment contracts of the employees recruited and AS TO CORPORATE OFFICERS LIABILITY, LIABLE
employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. SYA KAY ANG LAW NAG PROVIDE JHUD UG
Otherwise, this will render nugatory the very purpose for SOLIDARY LIABILITY
which the law governing the employment of workers for
foreign jobs abroad was enacted.

Indeed, a contract freely entered into is considered the law 26. Bank of America v. CA
between the parties who can establish stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, Facts: On May 10, 1993, Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. and
including the law s w hich they w ish to govern their Aurelio J. Litonjua (Litonjuas, for brevity) filed a Complaint 2
respective obligations, as long as they are not contrary to before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig against the Bank of
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. It America NT&SA and Bank of America International, Ltd.
is hornbook principle, however, that the party invoking
(defendant banks for brevity) alleging that: they were engaged the application of the principle of forum non conveniens is
in the shipping business; they owned two vessels: Don Aurelio discretionary on the part of the Court, said discretion is limited
and El Champion, through their wholly-owned corporations; by the guidelines pertaining to the private as well as public
they deposited their revenues from said business together with interest factors in determining whether plaintiffs' choice of
other funds with the branches of said banks in the United forum should be disturbed
Kingdom and Hongkong up to 1979; with their business doing
well, the defendant banks induced them to increase the (basta gi mention nilang circumstances na tanan
number of their ships in operation, offering them easy loans to transactions ni occur outside phils.)
acquire said vessels; 3 thereafter, the defendant banks
acquired, through their (Litonjuas') corporations as the 3. private respondents' alleged cause of action is already
borrowers: (a) El Carrier 4 ; (b) El General 5 ; (c) El barred by the pendency of another action or by litis pendentia
Challenger 6 ; and (d) El Conqueror 7 ; the vessels were as shown above. (naa nay foreign case gi file sa pet against
registered in the names of their corporations; the operation and respondents)
the funds derived therefrom were placed under the complete
Held: 1. It is a well-settled rule that the order denying the
and exclusive control and disposition of the petitioners; 8 and
motion to dismiss cannot be the subject of petition for
the possession of the vessels was also placed by defendant
certiorari. Petitioners should have filed an answer to the
banks in the hands of persons selected and designated by them
complaint, proceed to trial and await judgment before
(defendant banks). 9 making an appeal. As repeatedly held by this Court:

The Litonjuas claimed that defendant banks as trustees did not "An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and
fully render an account of all the income derived from the cannot be the subject of the extraordinary petition for
operation of the vessels as well as of the proceeds of the certiorari or mandamus. The remedy of the aggrieved party is
subsequent foreclosure sale; 10 because of the breach of their to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections
fiduciary duties and/or negligence of the petitioners and/or the raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of
persons designated by them in the operation of private an adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due
respondents' six vessels, the revenues derived from the course. . . . Under certain situations, recourse to certiorari
operation of all the vessels declined drastically; the loans or mandamus is considered appropriate, i.e., (a) when the
acquired for the trial court issued the order without or in excess of
jurisdiction; (b) where there is patent grave abuse of
purchase of the four additional vessels then matured and discretion by the trial court; or (c) appeal would not prove
remained unpaid, prompting defendant banks to have all the to be a speedy and adequate remedy as when an appeal
six vessels, including the two vessels originally owned by the would not promptly relieve a defendant from the injurious
private respondents, foreclosed and sold at public auction to effects of the patently mistaken order maintaining the
answer for the obligations incurred for and in behalf of the plaintiff's baseless action and compelling the defendant
operation of the vessels; they (Litonjuas) lost sizeable amounts needlessly to go through a protracted trial and clogging the
of their own personal funds equivalent to ten percent (10%) of court dockets by another futile case." 34
the acquisition cost of the four vessels and were left with the
unpaid balance of their loans with defendant banks. 11 The First issue. Did the trial court commit grave abuse of
Litonjuas prayed for the accounting of the revenues derived in discretion in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground
the operation of the six vessels and of the proceeds of the sale that plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants since
thereof at the foreclosure proceedings instituted by petitioners; plaintiffs are merely stockholders of the corporations which
damages for breach of trust; exemplary damages and are the registered owners of the vessels and the borrowers of
attorney's fees. 12 petitioners?

Defendant banks filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of No. Petitioners' argument that private respondents, being
forum non conveniens and lack of cause of action against mere stockholders of the foreign corporations, have no
them. 13 personalities to sue, and therefore, the complaint should be
dismissed, is untenable. A case is dismissible for lack of
TC = DENIED MOTION TO DISMISS CA = DENIED personality to sue upon proof that the plaintiff is not the
PET FOR CERT. real party-in-interest. Lack of personality to sue can be
used as a ground for a Motion to Dismiss based on the fact
ISSUES: 1. As to the first assigned error: Petitioners argue that the complaint, on the face thereof, evidently states no
that the borrowers and the registered owners of the vessels are cause of action. 35 In San Lorenzo Village Association, Inc.
the foreign corporations and not private respondents Litonjuas vs. Court of Appeals, 36 this Court clarified that a complaint
who are mere stockholders; and that the revenues derived from states a cause of action where it contains three essential
the operations of all the vessels are deposited in the accounts elements of a cause of action, namely: (1) the legal right of
of the corporations. = the plaintiff, (2) the correlative obligation of the defendant,
and (3) the act or omission of the defendant in violation of
2. Anent the second assigned error, petitioners posit that while said legal right. If these elements are absent, the complaint
becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 47 that the doctrine of
failure to state a cause of action. 37 To emphasize, it is not the forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a
lack or absence of cause of action that is a ground for motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of
dismissal of the complaint but rather the fact that the Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. This
complaint states no cause of action. 38 "Failure to state a Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of
cause of action" refers to the insufficiency of allegation in the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on
the pleading, unlike "lack of cause of action" which refers this ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
to the insufficiency of factual basis for the action. "Failure established, to determine whether special circumstances
to state a cause of action" may be raised at the earliest require the court's desistance; and that the propriety of
stages of an action through a motion to dismiss the dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non
complaint, while "lack of cause of action" may be raised conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is
any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on more properly considered a matter of defense. 48
the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented.
Third issue. Are private respondents guilty of forum shopping
In the case at bar, the complaint contains the three elements of because of the pendency of foreign action?
a cause of action. It alleges that: (1) plaintiffs, herein private
respondents, have the right to demand for an accounting from No. Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis
defendants (herein petitioners), as trustees by reason of the pendentia are present and where a final judgment in one case
fiduciary relationship that was created between the parties will amount to res judicata in the other. 49 Parenthetically,
involving the vessels in question; (2) petitioners have the for litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an
obligation, as trustees, to render such an accounting; and (3) action there must be: (a) identity of the parties or at least
petitioners failed to do the same. such as to represent the same interest in both actions; (b)
identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
". . . assuming that the allegation of facts constituting being founded on the same acts; and (c) the identity in the
plaintiffs' cause of action is not as clear and categorical as two cases should be such that the judgment which may be
would otherwise be desired, any uncertainty thereby rendered in one would, regardless of which party is
arising should be so resolved as to enable a full inquiry
successful, amount to res judicata in the other. 50
into the merits of the action." (katung stockholders ra sila
churva ingun ang petitioners pero ni ingun ang
still the other requirements necessary for litis pendentia were
respondents na wholly owned nila ang foreign corp)
not shown by petitioner. It merely mentioned that civil cases
were filed in Hongkong and England without however
Second Issue. Should the complaint be dismissed on the showing the identity of rights asserted and the reliefs sought
ground of forum non- conveniens? for as well as the presence of the elements of res judicata
should one of the cases be adjudged. While it is true that the
No. The doctrine offorum non-conveniens, literally meaning petitioners in their motion for reconsideration (CA Rollo, p.
'the forum is inconvenient', emerged in private international 72), after enumerating the various civil actions instituted
law to deter the practice of global forum shopping, 42 that is abroad, did aver that "Copies of the foreign judgments are
to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or hereto attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes 'B',
place wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as 'C', 'D' and `E'", they failed, wittingly or inadvertently, to
to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass the include a single foreign judgment in their pleadings submitted
defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more to this Court as annexes to their petition.
friendly venue.
19. Kazuhiro Hazegawa & Nippon v. Kitamura
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis
of said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the Facts: On March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering
particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the Consultants Co., Ltd. (Nippon), a J a p a n e s e co n s u l t a n
trial court. 44 In the case of Communication Materials and cy fi r m p r o v i d i n g t e ch n i ca l a n d m a n a g e m e n t
Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 45 this Court held that ". . . s u p p o r t i n t h e infrastructure projects of foreign
[a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case governments, 3 entered into an Independent Contractor
if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following Agreement (ICA) with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a
requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines. 4
which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the The agreement provides that respondent was to extend
Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1,
decision as to the law and the facts; and, (3) that the 1999. 5 Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the
Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road
its decision." 46 Evidently, all these requisites are present (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following the company's
in the instant case. consultancy contract with the Philippine Government. 6

Moreover, this Court enunciated in Philsec. Investment When the STAR Project was near completion, the Department
of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engaged the only on his behalf and not on behalf of the other petitioner, the
consultancy services of Nippon, on January 28, 2000, this time petition has to be denied pursuant to Loquias v. Office of the
for the detailed engineering and construction supervision of Ombudsman. 41 Substantial compliance will not suffice in a
the Bongabon- Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project. 7 matter that demands strict observance of the Rules. 42 While
Respondent was named as the project manager in the technical rules of procedure are designed not to frustrate the
contract's Appendix 3.1. 8 ends of justice, nonetheless, they are intended to effect the
proper and orderly disposition of cases and effectively prevent
On February 28, 2000, petitioner Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the clogging of court dockets. 43 CSTDIE
Nippon's general manager for its International Division,
informed respondent that the company had no more intention Petitioners incorrectly filed a Rule 65 petition to question the
of automatically renewing his ICA. His services would be trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss. It is a well-
engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion established rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is
of the STAR Project on March 31, 2000, just in time for the interlocutory, and cannot be the subject of the extraordinary
ICA's expiry. 9 cDSAEI petition for certiorari or mandamus. The appropriate recourse
is to file an answer and to interpose as defenses the objections
Threatened with impending unemployment, respondent, raised in the motion, to proceed to trial, and, in case of an
through his lawyer, requested a negotiation conference and adverse decision, to elevate the entire case by appeal in due
demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. Nippon course.
insisted that respondent's contract was for a fixed term that
had already expired, and refused to negotiate for the renewal The Court notes that petitioners adopted an additional but
of the ICA. 10 different theory when they elevated the case to the appellate
court. In the Motion to Dismiss 48 filed with the trial court,
As he was not able to generate a positive response from the petitioners never contended that the RTC is an inconvenient
petitioners, respondent consequently initiated on June 1, 2000 forum. They merely argued that the applicable law which
Civil Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages will determine the validity or invalidity of respondent's
with the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City. 11 claim is that of Japan, following the principles of lex loci
celebrationis and lex contractus. 49 While not abandoning
TC & CA = DISMISSED PET FOR CERT AND this stance in their petition before the appellate court,
MOTION TO DISMISS petitioners on certiorari significantly invoked the defense of
forum non conveniens. 50 On petition for review before this
Issues: whether the subject matter jurisdiction of Philippine Court, petitioners dropped their other arguments,
courts in civil cases for specific performance and damages maintained the forum non conveniens defense, and
involving contracts executed outside the country by foreign introduced their new argument that the applicable
nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci principle is the [state of the] most significant relationship
celebrationis, lex contractus, the "state of the most significant rule. 51
relationship rule," or forum non conveniens.
To elucidate, in the judicial resolution of conflicts problems,
Held: We do not agree. When the CA dismissed CA-G.R. SP three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of
No. 60205 on account of the petition's defective certification law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments.
of non-forum shopping, it was a dismissal without prejudice. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: (1)
27 The same holds true in the CA's dismissal of the said case Where can or should litigation be initiated? (2) Which law will
due to defects in the formal requirement of verification 28 and the court apply? and (3) Where can the resulting judgment be
in the other requirement in Rule 46 of the Rules of Court on enforced? 53 HDTISa
the statement of the material dates. 29 The dismissal being
without prejudice, petitioners can re-file the petition, Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct
concepts.54 Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a
The dismissal of a case without prejudice signifies the absence defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further
of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to question whether the application of a substantive law which
litigate the matter in a subsequent action as though the will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties.
dismissed action had not been commenced.
Jurisdiction, however, has various aspects. For a court to
Hasegawa is truly not authorized to act on behalf of Nippon in validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must
this case. The aforesaid September 4, 2000 Authorization and have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or the petitioner, over the
even the subsequent August 17, 2001 Authorization were defendant or the respondent, over the subject matter, over the
issued only by Nippon's president and chief executive officer, issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the res
not by the company's board of directors. In not a few cases, we or the thing which is the subject of the litigation. 57 In
have ruled that corporate powers are exercised by the board of assailing the trial court's jurisdiction herein, petitioners are
directors; thus, no person, not even its officers, can bind the actually referring to subject matter jurisdiction.
corporation, in the absence of authority from the board. 40
Considering that Hasegawa verified and certified the petition Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial
proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which conveniens, 76 be used to deprive the trial court of its
establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law jurisdiction herein. First, it is not a proper basis for a
and in the manner prescribed by law. 58 It is further motion to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules
determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of Court does not include it as a ground. 77 Second,
of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the
claims asserted therein. 59 To succeed in its motion for the basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of
dismissal of an action for lack of jurisdiction over the the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion
subject matter of the claim, 60 the movant must show that of the trial court. 78 In this case, the RTC decided to
the court or tribunal cannot act on the matter submitted to assume jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a
it because no law grants it the power to adjudicate the case based on this principle requires a factual
claims. 61 determination; hence, this conflicts principle is more
properly considered a matter of defense. 79
In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do
not claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with 27. EDI staffbuilders v. NLRC
jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil
Case No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages is Facts: Petitioner EDI is a corporation engaged in recruitment
one not capable of pecuniary estimation and is properly and placement of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). 5 ESI is
cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City. 62 What they rather raise another recruitment agency which collaborated with EDI to
as grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the process the documentation and deployment of private
principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex contractus, and the respondent to Saudi Arabia.
"state of the most significant relationship rule."
Private respondent Gran was an OFW recruited by EDI, and
The Court finds the invocation of these grounds unsound. deployed by ESI to work for OAB, in Riyadh, Kingdom of
DCASIT Saudi Arabia. 6
Lex loci celebrationis relates to the "law of the place of the It appears that OAB asked EDI through its October 3, 1993
ceremony" 63 or the law of the place where a contract is letter for curricula vitae of qualified applicants for the position
made. 64 The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci of "Computer Specialist." 7 In a facsimile transmission dated
contractusmeans the "law of the place where a contract is November 29, 1993, OAB informed EDI that, from the
executed or to be performed." 65 It controls the nature, applicants' curricula vitae submitted to it for evaluation, it
construction, and validity of the contract 66 and it may selected Gran for the position of "Computer Specialist." The
pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties faxed letter also stated that if Gran agrees to the terms and
or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly. conditions of employment contained in it, one of which was a
67 Under the "state of the most significant relationship monthly salary of SR (Saudi Riyal) 2,250.00 (USD 600.00),
rule," to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the EDI may arrange for Gran's immediate dispatch. 8
court should determine which state has the most
substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. After accepting OAB's offer of employment, Gran signed an
In a case involving a contract, the court should consider
where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be employment contract 9 that granted him a monthly salary of
performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of USD 850.00 for a period of two years. Gran was then
deployed to Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on February 7,
incorporation of the parties. 68 This rule takes into
1994.
account several contacts and evaluates them according to
their relative importance with respect to the particular
Upon arrival in Riyadh, Gran questioned the discrepancy in
issue to be resolved. 69
his monthly salary — his employment contract stated USD
850.00; w hile his Philippine Overseas E m p l o y m e n t A g
Since these three principles in conflict of laws make
ency(POEA)InformationSheetindicated
reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules
U S D 6 0 0 . 0 0 o n l y. However, through the assistance of
proper for the second phase, the choice of law.
the EDI office in Riyadh, OAB agreed to pay Gran USD
when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is 850.00 a month. 10
brought before a court or administrative agency, there are
three alternatives open to the latter in disposing of it: (1) After Gran had been working for about five months for OAB,
dismiss the case, either because of lack of jurisdiction or his employment was terminated through OAB's July 9, 1994
refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume letter, 11 on the following grounds:
jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal law of the
forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and take 1. Non-compliance to contract requirements by the
into account or apply the law of some other State or States. recruitment agency primarily on your salary and contract
duration.
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non
2. Non-compliance to pre-qualification requirements by the the Appeal Memorandum constitutes grave abuse of
recruitment agency[,] vide OAB letter ref. F-5751-93, dated discretion.
October 3, 1993. 12
Section 5. 32 Proof and completeness of service. — The
3. Insubordination or disobedience to Top Management Order return is prima facie proof of the facts indicated therein.
and/or instructions (non-submittal of daily activity reports Service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the
despite several instructions). addressee or his agent; but if the addressee fails to claim his
mail from the post office within five (5) days from the date of
LA = dismissed NLRC = reversed in favor of respondent first notice of the postmaster, service shall take effect after
(failed to order the furnishing of appeal memorandum) ca such time. (Emphasis supplied.)
= infavor of respondent
Hence, if the service is done through registered mail, it is only
Issues: I. WHETHER THE FAILURE OF GRAN TO deemed complete when the addressee or his agent received the
FURNISH A COPY OF HIS APPEAL MEMORANDUM TO mail or after five (5) days from the date of first notice of the
PETITIONER EDI WOULD CONSTITUTE A postmaster. However, the NLRC Rules do not state what
JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND A DEPRIVATION OF would constitute proper proof of service.
PETITIONER EDI'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS
WOULD JUSTIFY THE DISMISSAL OF GRAN'S Sec. 13, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, provides for proofs of
APPEAL. =NO formal defect but grave abuse sa nlrc, gi service: AHacIS
resolve nlang sa sc for avoidance of relitigation
Section 13. Proof of service. — Proof of personal service shall
II. W HETHER PETITIONER EDI HAS ESTABLISHED BY consist of a written admission of the party served or the
WAY OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT GRAN'S official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party
TERMINATION WAS JUSTIFIABLE BY REASON OF serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and
INCOMPETENCE. COROLLARY HERETO, WHETHER manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof
THE PRIETO VS. NLRC RULING, AS APPLIED BY THE thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of
COURT OF APPEALS, IS APPLICABLE IN THE facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If
INSTANT CASE. =no as to susbstantial evidence yes to prieto service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by
ruling such affidavit and registry receipt issued by the mailing
office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately
III. WHETHER PETITIONER HAS ESTABLISHED BY upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof the
WAY OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT GRAN'S unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy
TERMINATION WAS JUSTIFIABLE BY REASON OF of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee
INSUBORDINATION AND DISOBEDIENCE.= no (emphasis supplied).

IV. WHETHER GRAN WAS AFFORDED DUE PROCESS In cases involving OFWs, the rights and obligations among
PRIOR TO TERMINATION. = no and between the OFW, the local recruiter/agent, and the
foreign employer/principal are governed by the
V. WHETHER GRAN IS ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES employment contract. A contract freely entered into is
FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF HIS CONTRACT. 23 considered law between the parties; and hence, should be
= yes waiver of quitclaim not valid respected. In formulating the contract, the parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
Held: The petition lacks merit except with respect to Gran's they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary
failure to furnish EDI with his Appeal Memorandum filed to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public
with the NLRC. policy. 34 HAaDcS

failure of appellant to furnish a copy of the appeal to the In the present case, the employment contract signed by
adverse party is not fatal to the appeal. Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern
matters not provided for in the contract (e.g. specific
failure to furnish the adverse party with a copy of the appeal is causes for termination, termination procedures, etc.).
treated only as a formal lapse, an excusable neglect, and Being the law intended by the parties (lex loci intentiones)
hence, not a jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, in such a to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern
situation, the appeal should not be dismissed; however, it all matters relating to the termination of the employment
should not be given due course either. As enunciated in J.D. of Gran.
Magpayo, the duty that is imposed on the NLRC, in such a
case, is to require the appellant to comply with the rule In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign
that the opposing party should be provided with a copy of law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving
the appeal memorandum. the foreign law. The foreign law is treated as a question of
fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
abject failure of the NLRC to order Gran to furnish EDI with labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law.
He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law. 35 The CA is correct in applying Prieto. The purpose of the
required trade test is to weed out incompetent applicants from
Unfortunately for petitioner, it did not prove the pertinent the pool of available workers. It is supposed to reveal
Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law applicants w ith false educational backgrounds, and expose
doctrine of presumed-identity approach or processual bogus qualifications. Since EDI deployed Gran to Riyadh, it
can be presumed that Gran had passed the required trade test
presumption comes into play. 36 Where a foreign law is
and that Gran is qualified for the job. Even if there was no
not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the
objective trade test done by EDI,
presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. 37
Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws in determining the Procedurally, (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under
issues presented before us. Article 282, the employer must give the employee two written
notices and a hearing or opportunity to be heard if requested
The burden of proving that the termination was for a valid by the employee before terminating the employment: a notice
or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. . . . specifying the grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing
or an opportunity to be heard and after hearing or opportunity
EDI submitted two letters as evidence. The first is the July 9, to be heard, a notice of the decision to dismiss; and (2) if the
1994 termination letter,43 addressed to Gran, from Andrea E. dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and
Nicolaou, Managing Director of OAB. The second is an 284, the employer must give the employee and the Department
unsigned April 11, 1995 letter 44 from OAB addressed to EDI of Labor and Employment written notices 30 days prior to the
and ESI, which outlined the reasons why OAB had terminated effectivity of his separation. EAHcCT
Gran's employment.
A careful examination of the records revealed that, indeed,
However, other than the abovementioned letters, no other OAB's manner of dismissing Gran fell short of the two notice
evidence w as presented to show how and w hy Gran w as requirement. While it furnished Gran the written notice
considered incompetent, insubordinate, or disobedient. informing him of his dismissal, it failed to furnish Gran the
Petitioner EDI had clearly failed to overcome the burden of written notice apprising him of the charges against him, as
proving that Gran was validly dismissed. prescribed by the Labor Code. 56 Consequently, he was
denied the opportunity to respond to said notice. In addition,
An allegation of incompetence should have a factual OAB did not schedule a hearing or conference with Gran to
foundation. Incompetence may be shown by weighing it defend himself and adduce evidence in support of his
against a standard, benchmark, or criterion. However, EDI defenses.
failed to establish any such bases to show how petitioner
found Gran incompetent. Since OAB was in breach of the due process requirements
under the Labor Code and its regulations, OAB, ESI, and EDI,
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, the jointly and solidarily, are liable to Gran in the amount of
following twin elements must concur: (1) the employee's PhP30,000.00 as indemnity.
assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized
by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated The court a quo is correct in its finding that the Declaration is
must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the a contract of adhesion which should be construed against the
employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been employer, OAB. An adhesion contract is contrary to public
engaged to discharge. 47 policy as it leaves the weaker party — the employee — in a
"take-it-or-leave-it" situation. Certainly, the employer is being
in order to justify willful disobedience, we must determine unjust to the employee as there is no meaningful choice on the
whether the order violated by the employee is reasonable, part of the employee while the terms are unreasonably
lawful, made known to the employee, and pertains to the favorable to the employer. 66
duties which he had been engaged to discharge. In the case at
bar, petitioner failed to show that the order of the company Thus, the Declaration purporting to be a quitclaim and
which was violated — the submission of "Daily Activity waiver is unenforceable under Philippine laws in the
Reports" — was part of Gran's duties as a Computer absence of proof of the applicable law of Saudi Arabia.
Specialist.
In order to prevent disputes on the validity and enforceability
In Prieto, this Court ruled that "[i]t is presumed that before of quitclaims and waivers of employees under Philippine laws,
their deployment, the petitioners were subjected to trade tests said agreements should contain the following:
required by law to be conducted by the recruiting agency to
insure employment of only technically qualified workers for 1. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement;
the foreign principal." 50 The CA, using the ruling in the said TCHEDA
case, ruled that Gran must have passed the test; otherwise, he
would not have been hired. Therefore, EDI was at fault when 2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the
it deployed Gran who was allegedly "incompetent" for the job. corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in
consideration of the fixed compromise amount;
3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the Pinatubo dredging project which he secured on behalf of
employee in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI and RUST as
employees — that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are well as petitioner itself had combined and functioned as one
forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits company.
which are due them under the law; and
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of
4. A statement that the employees signed and executed the failure to state a cause of action and forum non conveniens
document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of and prayed for damages by way of compulsory counterclaim.
the document and that their consent was freely given without 11
any threat, violence, duress, intimidation, or undue influence
exerted on their person. iSSUES: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
It is advisable that the stipulations be made in English and FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
Tagalog or in the dialect known to the employee. There AGAINST RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC. = no
should be two (2) witnesses to the execution of the quitclaim
who must also sign the quitclaim. The document should be WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
subscribed and sworn to under oath preferably before any IN REFUSING TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON THE
administering official of the Department of Labor and GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS. =no
Employment or its regional office, the Bureau of Labor
Relations, the NLRC or a labor attaché in a foreign country. Held: parehas rajhud sya pisti

It is made clear that the foregoing rules on quitclaim or Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an
waiver shall apply only to labor contracts of OFWs in the action is conferred by the Constitution and the law 30 and
absence of proof of the laws of the foreign country agreed by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of
upon to govern said contracts. Otherwise, the foreign laws whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or
shall apply.
some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. 31 Civil Case
No. 1192-BG is an action for damages arising from an alleged
12. Raytheon International v. Stockton Rouzie
breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and
the amount of damages prayed are within the jurisdiction of
Facts: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc.
the RTC.
(BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of America,
That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same
and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen,
shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does
entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as its
not suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign
representative to negotiate the sale of services in several
tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil
government projects in the Philippines for an agreed
action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct
remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. On 11 March 1992,
concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause
respondent secured a service contract with the Republic of the
a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the
Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers
further question whether the application of a substantive
affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and mudflows. 3 law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to
both parties. 33 The choice of law stipulation will become
On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration
relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant
Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds
a suit against BMSI and Rust International, Inc. (RUST),
before the trial court.
Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged
nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach of
Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the
employment contract.
principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
LA = Rouzie NLRC = BMSI
matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the
trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La Union,
ground, it should do so only after vital facts are
instituted an action for damages before the Regional Trial
established, to determine w hether special circumstances
Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. The Complaint, 7
require the court's desistance. 35
docketed as Civil Case No. 1192-BG, named as defendants
herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. as well as BMSI
As a general rule, the elementary test for failure to state a
and RUST, the two corporations impleaded in the earlier labor
cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which
case. The complaint essentially reiterated the allegations in the
labor case that BMSI verbally employed respondent to if true would justify the relief demanded. 37
negotiate the sale of services in government projects and that
respondent was not paid the commissions due him from the As correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, the question
of whether petitioner, BMSI and RUST merged together
requires the presentation of further evidence, which only a
full-blown trial on the merits can afford.