EN BANC

[November 29, 1920.]

In re Application of MAX SHOOP for admission to practice law.

SYLLABUS

1. ADMISSION TO BAR; PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE RULES FOR THE

EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR ADMISSION TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW
CONSTRUED; COMITY BETWEEN THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS. — Paragraph four of the rules for the examination of candidates for
admission to the practice of law, promulgated by the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands and effective after July 1, 1920, in part, reads: "Applicants for
admission who have been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the
United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court, therein, or in the
highest court of any State or territory of the United States, which State or
territory by comity confers the same privilege on attorneys admitted to practice
in the Philippine Islands, and who can show by satisfactory affidavits that they
have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, may, in the discretion of
the court, be admitted without examination." A portion of the rules adopted by
the Appellate Division of the New York Court, concerning admission to the Bar of
New York without examination, reads: "(1) Any person admitted to practice and
who has practiced five years as member of the bar in the highest law court in any
other state or territory of the American Union or in the District of Columbia. (2)
Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years in another
country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common
Law." The supporting papers of Max Shoop show that he has been admitted to
practice and has practiced for more than five years in the highest court in the
State of New York. Held: That the petition of applicant be granted and that he be
admitted to the practice of law in the Philippine Islands.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHILIPPINE ISLANDS A TERRITORY. — Under paragraph 1
of the New York rule, practice for five years in the highest court in any "State or
territory of the American Union" is the basic qualification. The Philippine Islands is
an unorganized territory of the United States, under a civil government
established by Congress. The Philippine Islands is a territory of the United States
within the meaning of the word as used in that rule.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHILIPPINE COMMON LAW. — A survey of recent cases in
the Philippine Reports, and particularly those of the last few years, shows an
increasing reliance upon English and American authorities in the formation of
what may be termed a Philippine Common Law, as supplemental to the statute
law of this jurisdiction. An analysis of two groups of recent cases — the first,
those under the subjects covered by Spanish statute, and the second, those
covered by American-Philippine legislation and affected by the change in
sovereignty — shows that Anglo-American case law has entered practically every
one of the leading subjects in the field of law and in a large majority of such
subjects has formed the sole basis for the guidance of this court in developing the
local jurisprudence.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The past twenty years have developed a Philippine
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Common Law or case law based almost exclusively, except where conflicting with
local customs and institutions, upon Anglo-American Common Law. The Philippine
Common Law supplements and amplifies our statute law.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon
English Common Law in its present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to
an almost exclusive extent.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — There has been developed, and will continue, a
common law in the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction (which for purposes of
distinction may properly be termed a Philippine Common Law), based upon the
English Common Law in its present day form of an Anglo-American Common Law,
which common law is effective in all of the subjects of law in this jurisdiction in so
far as it does not conflict with the express language of the written law or with the
local customs and institutions.
7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written
laws of this jurisdiction, and in rendering its decision in cases not covered by the
letter of the written law, this court relies upon the theories and precedents of
Anglo-American cases, subject to the limited exception of those instances where
the remnants of the Spanish written law present well-defined civil law theories
and of the few cases where such precedents are inconsistent with local customs
and institutions.
DECISION
MALCOLM, J : p

Application has been made to this court by Max Shoop for admission to
practice law in the Philippine Islands under paragraph four of the Rules for the
Examination of Candidates for Admission to the Practice of Law, effective July 1,
1920. The supporting papers show that the applicant has been admitted to
practice, and has practiced for more than five years in the highest court of the
State of New York.
THE RULES.
That portion of the rules of this court, in point, is as follows:
"Applicants for admission who have been admitted to practice in the
Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or
district court, therein, or in the highest court of any State or territory of the
United States, which State or territory by comity confers the same privilege
on attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands, and who can
show by satisfactory affidavits that they have practiced at least five years in
any of said courts, may, in the discretion of the court, be admitted without
examination."
The above rule requires that New York State by comity confer the privilege
of admission without examination under similar circumstances to attorneys
admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands. The rule of the New York court
permits admission without examination, in the discretion of the Appellate Division
in several cases, among which are the following:
"1. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five
years as a member of the bar in the highest law court in any other state or
territory of the American Union or in the District of Columbia.
"2. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five
years in another country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the English Common Law."
This court is advised informally that under this rule one member of the bar
of the Philippine Islands has been admitted to practice, without examination, in
the State of New York, and one member of the same bar has been refused such
admission, the latter being the more recent case. The rulings of the New York
court have not been brought to the attention of this court authoritatively, but
assuming that reports of such rulings by the New York court are true, in view of
the apparent conflict, it seems proper to enter upon the consideration of whether
or not under the New York rule as it exists the principle of comity is established. It
must be observed that under the rules of both jurisdictions, admission in any
particular case is in the discretion of the court. Refusal to admit in any particular
case is not necessarily conclusive as to the general principles established by the
rules.
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS — A TERRITORY
Under paragraph 1 of the New York rule, practice for five years in the
highest court in any "State or territory of the American Union" is the basic
qualification. If the Philippine Islands is a territory of the United States within the
meaning of the word as used in that rule, comity would seem to exist.
The word "territory" has a general and a technical meaning. It is clear that
the Philippine Islands is not an "organized territory" incorporated into the United
States under the constitution. (Dorr vs. U. S., 195 U. S., 138.) It is likewise clear
that the Philippine Islands is not a "foreign country" (The Diamond Rings, 183 U.
S., 176.) In the language of that case it is a "territory of the United States over
which civil government could be established." So also is Porto Rico (De Lima vs.
Bidwell, 182 U. S., 1.) It has been held that Porto Rico is not a foreign territory
and that the United States laws covering "territories," such as the Federal
Employers' Liability Act, includes Porto Rico. (American Railroad Co. of Porto Rico
vs. Didricksen, 227 U. S., 145.) Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska are now
incorporated, organized territories of the United States. (Muratti vs. Foote, 25
Porto Rico, 527; Hawaii vs. Mankichi, 190 U. S., 197; Rasmussen vs. U. S., 197 U.
S., 516.)
An opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States holds that —
"While, like Porto Rico, the Philippine Islands are not incorporated in
the United States, they clearly are territory of the United States and to the
extent that Congress has assumed to legislate for them, they have been
granted a form of territorial government, and to this extent are a territory."
(30 Op. Atty. Gen., U. S., 462, reversing 24 Op. Atty.-Gen., U. S., 549.)
Further, the Philippine Islands have been held not to be "another country"
within the meaning of the Cuban Commercial Treaty. (Faber vs. U. S., 221 U. S.,
649.) Chief Justice Marshall, in construing the phrase "United States" once
observed:
"Does this term designate the whole or any particular portion of the
American Empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is
the name given to our great Republic, which is composed of states and
territories. The District of Columbia or the territory west of Missouri is not
less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania."
(Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wheat [U. S.], 317, at p. 319.)
This is the broad general view which would seem to have been the point of
view of the New York courts in using the phrase "Any state or territory of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 American Union." The New York rule contemplates "state," "territory," and
"another country." It seems clear that the Philippine Islands is not "another
country." It is not believed that the New York court intended the word territory to
be limited to the technical meaning of organized territory, or it would have used
the more accurate expression. The full phraseology, "any state or territory of the
American Union," indicates a sweeping intention to include all of the territory of
the United States, whatever the political subdivision might be, as distinguished
from foreign country. Otherwise, the Philippine Islands would be in an anomalous
position like unto Edward Everett Hale's "A Man Without a Country" — a land
neither "another country," nor a "state," nor a "territory" — a land without status.
Of course the construction of what is intended by the use of that phrase is
for the New York courts finally to determine, but in the absence of any
authoritative decision from the New York courts on the point, we feel justified in
concluding that under paragraph 1 of the New York rule there exists between that
jurisdiction and this, with reference to admission of attorneys without
examination, a basis of comity sufficient to satisfy the requirement in the rule of
this court in that regard.
A COMMON LAW JURISDICTION.
But assuming that comity is not permitted under paragraph 1 of the New
York rule, we turn to a-consideration of whether or not it exists by virtue of
paragraph 2. This rule applies to "another country whose jurisprudence is based
on the principles of the English Common Law." We have then further to assume
that if the Philippine Islands is not a "state or territory," that it must be "another
country." The question then presented is upon what principles is the present
jurisprudence of these Islands based? This is a question which can properly be
answered by this court. It is a problem, however, upon which books could be and
have been written. We will endeavor to make a brief analysis of the situation.
What is "jurisprudence based on the principles of the English Common
Law?" Jurisprudence is the ground-work of the written law, or, as Bouvier defines
it, "The science of law. The particular science of giving a wise interpretation to
the laws and making a just application of them to all cases as they arise." In an
untechnical sense, it sometimes means Case Law.
COMMON LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.
We must assume that the New York court, in using this phrase, considered
that the jurisprudence of New York State was based upon the principles of the
English Common Law. We should, therefore, consider to what extent the English
Common Law principles apply to New York. In a case in 1881 we find the
following:
"And the Common Law of England was the law of the colony at that
date (April 19, 1775), so far as it was applicable to the circumstances of the
Colonists. And it has since continued so to be, when conformable to our
institutions, unless it was established by an English statute which has since
been abrogated or was rejected in colonial jurisprudence, or has been
abolished by our legislation." (Cutting vs. Cutting, 86 N. Y., 522, p. 529.)
And again:
"This court has interpreted this provision of the constitution to mean
not that all of the Common Law of England was the law of the Colonists at
the time of the making of the Constitution, but only so much of it as was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 applicable to the circumstances of the Colonists and conformable to our
institutions. Cutting vs. Cutting, 86 N. Y., 522, p. 529; Williams vs. Williams,
8 N. Y., 525, p. 541." (Shayne vs. Evening Post Publishing Co., 168 N. Y., 70,
at p. 76.)
In Morgan vs. King (30 Barber [N. Y.], 9), the New York court said that in
adopting the English Common Law, New York adopted:
"The written law of England as a constantly improving science rather
than as an art; as a system of legal logic rather than as a code of rules, —
that is, that the fundamental principles and modes of reasoning and the
substance of the rules of the Common Law are adopted as illustrated by the
reasons on which they are based, rather than the mere words in which they
are expressed."
Once more, in 1903, the New York court said in connection with a question
of the right of the public to use the foreshore:
"In adopting the Common Law of the Mother country we did not
incorporate into our system of jurisprudence any principles which are
essentially inconsonant with our circumstances or repugnant to the spirit of
our institutions." (Barnes vs. Midland Railroad Terminal Co., 193 N. Y., 378,
at p. 384.)
The above statements of the-New York court clearly indicate the scope of
the English Common Law in that state. In most of the States, including New York,
codification and statute law have come to be a very large proportion of the law of
the jurisdiction, the remaining proportion being a system of case law which has
its roots, to a large but not an exclusive degree, in the old English cases. In fact,
present day commentators refer to American jurisprudence or Anglo-American
jurisprudence as distinguished from the English Common Law.
Accordingly, in speaking of a jurisprudence which is "based on the English
Common Law," for present purposes at least, it would seem proper to say that
the jurisprudence of a particular jurisdiction is based upon the principles of that
Common Law, if, as a matter of fact, its statute law and its case law to a very
large extent includes the science and application of law as laid down by the old
English cases, as perpetuated and modified by the American cases.
COMMON LAW ADOPTED BY DECISION
The concept of a common law is the concept of a growing and ever-
changing system of legal principles and theories, and it must be recognized that
due to the modern tendency toward codification (which was the principle of the
Roman and Civil Law), there are no jurisdictions to-day with a pure English
Common Law, with the exception of England itself. In the United States the
English Common Law is blended with American codification and remnants of the
Spanish and French Civil Codes. There a legal metamorphosis has occurred
similar to that which is transpiring in this jurisdiction to-day. Some of the western
states, which were carved out of the original Louisiana territory, have adopted
the Common Law by decision. ( State vs. Two good, 7 Iowa, 252; Barlow vs.
Lambert, 28 Alabama, 704; Parsons vs. Lindsay, 41 Kansas, 336; McKennen vs.
Winn, 1 Okla., 327.)
Louisiana has long been recognized as the one State of the Union which
retained a portion of the Civil Law. In a case in 1842 in Louisiana, the court
considered the question of whether a protest on a promissory note had been
made within the required time. The court rejected the straight Civil Code rule,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 and adopted the custom of New Orleans, which was the law of the sister States,
saying:
"The superior court of the late territory of Orleans very early held that
although the laws of Spain were not abrogated by the taking possession of
the country by the United States, yet from that event the commercial law of
the Union became the commercial law of New Orleans; and this court has
frequently recognized the correctness of these early decisions, principally in
bills of exchange, promissory notes and insurance." (Wagner vs. Kenner, 2
Rob. [La.], 120.)
In Xiques vs. Bujac (7 La. Ann., 498, at p. 504), the court after deciding a
question involving the dedication of real property according to the Civil Code
rules, said:
"I must add that the general doctrine laid down in Common Law
courts has been admitted by our courts with some modification resulting
from our different systems of law."
Louisiana, by statute, adopted certain common law rules, and with
reference to these the court said, in State vs. McCoy (8 Rob. [La.] , 545):
"We concur with the counsel in believing that the legislature in
adopting the Common Law rules of proceeding method of trial, etc., adopted
the system as it existed in 1805, modified, explained and perfected by
statutory enactment, so far as those enactments are not found to be
inconsistent with the peculiar character and genius of our government and
institution."
From this brief survey of the extent of the English Common Law basis in the
States, we may conclude — (1) that the New York Court in referring to a
jurisdiction whose jurisprudence is based on the English Common Law, uses the
phrase in a general sense; and (2) that such Common Law may become the basis
of the jurisprudence by decision of the courts where practical considerations and
the effect of sovereignty gives ground for such a decision. If, in the Philippine
Islands, a comparatively young jurisdiction, English Common Law principles as
embodied in Anglo-American jurisprudence are used and applied by the courts to
the extent that such Common Law principles are not in conflict with the local
written laws, customs, and institutions as modified by the change of sovereignty
and subsequent legislation, and there is no other foreign case law system used to
any substantial extent, then it is proper to say in the sense of the New York rule
that the "jurisprudence" of the Philippine Islands is based on the English Common
Law.
IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
The extent of the English or the Anglo-American Common Law here has not
been definitely decided by this court. But when the subject has been referred to
by this court there has been a striking similarity to the quotations from the
American decisions above cited with reference to the English Common Law.
In Alzua and Arnalot vs. Johnson (21 Phil., 308), this court, in passing upon
an objection of counsel, that while a certain rule was universally recognized and
applied in the courts of England and the United States, it was not the law in the
Philippine Islands, said:
"To this we answer that while it is true that the body of the Common
Law as known to Anglo-American jurisprudence is not in force in these
Islands, 'nor are the doctrines derived therefrom binding upon our courts,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 save only in so far as they are founded on sound principles applicable to
local conditions, and are not in conflict with existing law' (U. S. vs. Cuna, 12
Phil., 241); nevertheless many of the rules, principles, and doctrines of the
Common Law have, to all intents and purposes, been imported into this
jurisdiction, as a result of the enactment of new laws and the organization
and establishment of new institutions by the Congress of the United States
or under its authority; for it will be found that many of these laws can only
be construed and applies with the aid of the Common Law from which they
are derived, and that to breathe the breath of life into many of the
institutions introduced in these Islands under American sovereignty
recourse must be had to the rules, principles, and doctrines of the Common
Law under whose protecting aegis the prototypes of these institutions had
their birth."
xxx xxx xxx
"And it is safe to say that in every volume of the Philippine Reports
numbers of cases might be cited wherein recourse has been had to the
rules, principles and doctrines of the Common Law in ascertaining the true
meaning and scope of the legislation enacted in and for the Philippine
Islands since they passed under American sovereignty." (pp. 331, 333.)
And later in speaking of the judicial system of the Philippine Islands (page
333):
"The spirit with which it is informed, and indeed its very language and
terminology would be unintelligible without some knowledge of the judicial
system of England and the United States. Its manifest purpose and object
was to replace the old judicial system, with its incidents and traditions
drawn from Spanish sources, with a new system modelled in all its essential
characteristics upon the judicial systems of the United States. It cannot be
doubted therefore, that any incident of the former system which conflicts
with the essential principles and settled doctrines on which the new system
rests must be held to be abrogated by the law organizing the new system."
In U. S. vs. De Guzman (30 Phil., 416), the court spoke as follows:
"We have frequently held that, for the proper construction and
application of the terms and provisions of legislative enactments which have
been borrowed from or modelled upon Anglo-American precedents, it is
proper and often-times essential to review the legislative history of such
enactments and to find an authoritative guide for their interpretation and
application in the decisions of American and English courts of last resort
construing and applying similar legislation in those countries. (Kepner vs. U.
S. 195 U. S., 100; 11 Phil., 669; Serra vs. Mortiga, 204 U.S. 470;11 Phil., 762;
Alzua and Arnalot vs. Johnson, 21 Phil, 308.) Indeed it is a general rule of
statutory construction that courts may take judicial notice of the origin and
history of the statutes which they are called upon to construe and
administer, and of the facts which affect their derivation, validity and
operation. (2 Lewis' Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 309.)"
In U. S. vs. Abiog and Abiog (37 Phil., 137), this court made this further
statement on the subject:
"To elucidate — the principles of the Anglo-American Common Law are
for the Philippines, just as they were for the State of Louisiana and just as
the English Common Law was for the United States, of far-reaching
influence. The Common Law is entitled to our deepest respect and
reverence. The courts are constantly guided by its doctrines. Yet it is true as
heretofore expressly decided by this Court that — neither English nor
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 American Common Law is in force in these Islands, nor are the doctrines
derived therefrom binding upon our courts, save only in so far as they are
founded on sound principles applicable to local conditions, and are not in
conflict with existing law.' (U. S. vs. Cuna [1908], 12 Phil., 241.)"
"What we really have, if we were not too modest to claim it, is a
Philippine Common Law influenced by the English and American Common
Law, the derecho comun of Spain, and the customary law of the Islands and
builded on a case law of precedents. Into this Philippine Common Law, we
can properly refuse to take a rule which would estop other courses of
reasoning and which, because of a lack of legal ingenuity would permit men
guilty of homicide to escape on a technicality."
At this juncture, three years after the last quoted comment, the influence of
English and American jurisprudence can be emphasized even more strongly. A
survey of recent cases in the Philippine Reports, and particularly those of the last
few years, shows an increasing reliance upon English and American authorities in
the formation of what may be termed a Philippine Common Law, as supplemental
to the statute law of this jurisdiction. An analysis will show that a great
preponderance of the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon Anglo-
American case law precedents, — exclusively in applying those statutory laws
which have been enacted since the change of sovereignty and which conform
more or less to American statutes, and — to a large extent in applying and
expanding the remnants of the Spanish codes and written laws.
PHILIPPINE STATUTE LAW.
Introductory to analyzing what Spanish written laws remain in force to-day,
we will consider in a general way those Spanish laws which were in force at the
time of the change of sovereignty.
Spanish law became highly codified during the nineteenth century. All of the
laws of Spain were, however, not made applicable to the Philippine Islands; only
those were effective here which were extended by royal decree. The chief codes
of Spain made effective in the Philippines were as follows:
Penal Code 1887
Code of Commerce 1888
Ley Provisional, Code of Criminal
Procedure, and Code of Civil Pro-
cedure 1888
Civil Code 1889
(Except portion relating to mar-
riage, thus reviving a portion of
Marriage Law of 1870
Marriage Law 1870
Mortgage Law 1889
Railway Laws 1875 and 1877
Law of Waters 1866
In addition to these there were certain special laws having limited
application: Las Siete Partidas; Las Leyes de Toro ; Las Leyes de las Indias; La
Novisima Recopilacion ; Mining Law; Notarial Law; Spanish Military Code, and the
Copyright Law.
The foregoing were written laws which, by change of sovereignty, acquired
the force of statute law in the Philippine Islands. There was no properly called
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Common Law or Case Law of Spain to accompany and amplify these statutes,
although there were, of course, the customs of the people of the Islands, which
constituted, in a sense, unwritten law. Spanish jurisprudence does not recognize
the principle of stare decisis; consequently, there could be no Common Law in
any sense analogous to the English or American Common Law. Article 6 of the
Civil Code provides:
"When there is no law exactly applicable to the point in controversy,
the customs of the place shall be observed, and in the absence thereof, the
general principles of law."
In order to determine the general principles of law "judicial decisions cannot
be resorted to" . . .. (2 Derecho Civil of Sanchez Roman, pp. 79-81; 1 Manresa, p.
80.) A lower court of Spain is at liberty to disregard the decisions of a higher
court. This is the general continental rule. (Holland's Jurisprudence, 11th Ed., pp.
68-70.) "The Partidas is still the basis of Spanish Common Law, for the more
recent compilations are chiefly founded on it and cases which cannot be decided
either by these compilations or by the local fueros must be decided by the
provisions of the Partidas." (IV Dunham, History of Spain, p. 109.)
The Partidas is a code law and cannot in any proper sense be considered as
Common Law. It specifically provided, however, for recourse to customs when the
written law was silent. The customs to which resort is to be had are the customs
of the particular place where the case arises; the customs of one locality in Spain
having no effect on the application of law in another place. (1 Manresa, pp. 77,
79; Civil Code, art. 6; Code of Commerce, art. 2.) Accordingly, the Spanish
customary law could not have any force here. The law or custom cannot be
migratory. Manresa does not define what is meant by "general principles of law,"
but from his discussion under article 6 of the Civil Code it appears how far from a
case law system is Spanish jurisprudence. He formulates the rule that courts are
governed: first, by written law; second, by the customs of the place; third, by
judicial decision; and fourth, by general principles of law. In fact, in urging that
resort to judicial decisions should come before resort to general principles of law,
Manresa rather implies that the practice of the courts is the contrary.
English Common Law is quite a different conception. While it grew out of
the early Anglo-Saxon customs, it came in time to be a case law of binding force
which controlled custom. In fact, it became so binding that it was found
necessary, in order to effect justice in particular cases, to establish the Court of
Chancery, which became the court of equity. The English Common Law
recognizes custom only in so far as it does not conflict with the well settled
principles of that law. Under the Spanish system, on the other hand, when the
written law is silent, before considering precedents in the cases the court is
governed by the customs of the locality at the time.
Consequently, by the change of sovereignty there was no body of case law
or common law of Spain which could be considered as existing in connection with
the written law retained in force in these Islands. The only amplification of that
written law was the local customs of the people of the Islands. This is particularly
true of Spanish decisions rendered since the change of sovereignty, which do not
preclude the local courts from exercising an independent judgment. (Cordova vs.
Rijos, 227 U. S., 375.)
SPANISH STATUTE LAW.
The Spanish statute law, as amplified by Spanish commentaries but without
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 a background of Spanish precedent or case law, was by the change of
sovereignty, severed from Spanish jurisprudence and made effective in this
jurisdiction to the same extent as if Congress had enacted new laws for the
Philippines modelled upon those same Spanish statutes. This retention of the
local private law was merely in accordance with the principles of International
Law in that regard. However, by the mere fact of the change of sovereignty, all
portions of that statute law which might be termed political law were abrogated
immediately by the change of sovereignty. Also, all Spanish laws, customs, and
rights of property inconsistent with the Constitution and American principles and
institutions were thereupon superseded. (Sanchez vs. U. S., 216 U. S., 167.)
We will give a brief analysis of the further extent to which the Spanish
statute law has been repealed and cut down since the change of sovereignty. The
table in the note below illustrates the situation in a general way.
Even the Spanish Civil Code has been largely modified as will appear from
the table in the note 2 below.
CASES UNDER AMERICAN DERIVED STATUTES
It thus appears that the bulk of present day Statute Law is derivative from
Anglo-American sources; derivative within the sense of having been copied, and
in the sense of having been enacted by Congress or by virtue of its authority. This
court has repeatedly held that in dealing with the cases which arise under such
statute law the court will be governed by the Anglo-American cases in
construction and application. (U. S. vs. De Guzman, 30 Phil., 416, at p. 419; U. S.
vs. Cuna, 12 Phil., 241; Cerezo vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 33 Phil., 245, 428,
429.)
To illustrate more clearly the scope of the use of Anglo-American cases in
this connection, a brief analysis of some of the more recent decisions of this court
is advisable. For convenience the cases will be taken up in the note 1 by subjects.
In all of them, Anglo-American decisions and authorities are used and relied upon
to a greater or less degree. Although in many cases the use is by way of dictum,
nevertheless, the net result is the building up of a very substantial elaboration of
Anglo-American case law.
From the foregoing selection of the more recent and typical cases, it
appears how broad is the scope of the use of Anglo-American authorities and
precedents in the field of law subjects affected by American derived legislation. In
the application of those statutes in the many cases which come before the court,
there is bound to be developed a substantial common law. There is no question
that this exists. We are merely concerned with its extent; and source.
CASES UNDER SPANISH STATUTES.
In addition to the subjects covered above, there is a wide field of use of
Anglo-American cases in the interpretation and application of the remnants of the
Spanish statutes. Such is of even greater importance in showing the real
permanency of the hold which Anglo-American Common Law has fastened upon
the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction. An analysis of the cases, particularly those
of the later years, justifies completely the well-expressed opinion of former
Attorney-General Araneta quoted below:
"We cannot say with certainty that the courts of the Philippine Islands
will, in the absence of a statute, be guided by the common law. It has been
said that the common law is expanded slowly and carefully by judicial
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 decisions based on a standard of justice derived from the habits, customs,
and thoughts of a people, and by this standard doubtful cases are
determined; that the office of the judge is not to make the common law but
to find it, and when it is found to affix to it his official mark by which it
becomes more certainly known and authenticated. The announcement of
the law comes from the courts after they have had the benefit of the
learning of counsel, which to be comprehensive and useful must embrace a
knowledge of the people and their customs, as well as a knowledge of the
principles established by prior decisions. It is, therefore, reasonable to
assume that the courts of the Philippine Islands in cases not controlled by
statute will lay down principles in keeping with the common law, unless the
habits, customs, and thoughts of the people of these Islands are deemed to
be so different from the habits, customs, and thoughts of the people of
England and the United States that said principles may not be applied
here." (4 Op. Atty.-Gen. P. I., 510, 511.)
To illustrate the scope of the use of Anglo-American cases in connection
with the remaining Spanish statutes, a brief analysis 1 of the more recent cases
under a few of the principal subjects, will be appropriate. Frequently in these
cases reference to Anglo-American precedents is for the purpose of showing that
Spanish law and the Anglo-American law is the same, and frequently it is for the
purpose of amplifying or extending the Spanish statutes. In most cases it is for
the purpose of applying those statutes to the particular case before the court; but
whatever the use, the fact remains that through the influence of these cases a
broad exposition of American case law is made.
The last group of recent cases, which are but typical of many others in the
Reports, illustrates clearly the fact that Anglo-American case law plays a very
great part in amplifying and applying the law on those subjects which are still
governed by the remaining portions of the Spanish statutes.
The foregoing two groups of cases in combination, those under the subjects
covered by Spanish statutes and those under the subjects covered by American-
Philippine legislation and effected by the change of sovereignty, show
conclusively that Anglo-American case law has entered practically every one of
the leading subjects in the field of law, and in the large majority of such subjects
has formed the sole basis for the guidance of this court in developing the local
jurisprudence. The practical result is that the past twenty-years have developed a
Philippine Common Law or case law based almost exclusively, except where
conflicting with local customs and institutions, upon Anglo-American Common
Law. The Philippine Common-Law supplements and amplifies our statute law.
COLLATERAL INFLUENCES.
This conclusion is further justified by the practical situation which has
surrounded the Bench and Bar of the Philippine Islands for many years and which
there is every reason to believe will continue unabated in the future.
This court has, in an increasing degree during the past twenty years, cited
and quoted from Anglo-American cases and authorities in its decisions. The
following analysis of the citations of the last twenty volumes of the Philippine
Reports show this graphically.
Cases Cited.
Volume. U.S. Philippines. Spain. England

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 20
21 207
217 63
127 21
10 1
3
22 273 73 21 5
23 211 181 18 4
24 194 108 19 1
25 143 98 24 2
26 257 104 23
27 145 132 25 1
28 145 130 24 3
29 152 136 9 1
30 98 85 11
31 159 103 8 1
32 311 176 15
33 121 137 6 5
34 214 163 34
35 109 159 17 4
36 125 217 21 2
37 340 242 23 5
38 161 175 19 8
39 228 143 13 6
—— —— —— ——
3,810 2,752 361 52
The American citations are over ten times as numerous as the Spanish
citations. (In Vol. 1 there were 63 Spanish to 53 United States.) Add to this the
cumulative effect of perpetuating this ratio through the citations of Philippine
cases in which American cases have been cited, and it is obvious that Spanish
decisions have had comparatively slight effect in the development of our case
law.
It is a fact of considerable practical importance that there are no digests of
Spanish decisions to aid the study of Bench and Bar. On the other hand, the local
libraries contain both digests and reports of the Federal Courts and Supreme
Court of the United States, and of most of the State courts, and also many reports
of the English courts. Added to this is a liberal supply of English and American
text books. The foregoing not only has a natural influence on the results of the
work of the Bench, but it has a very decided influence on the development of the
present Bar of the Philippine Islands; each year adds to the preponderance of
lawyers trained chiefly from a study of Anglo-American case law.
The fact that prolific use of Anglo-American authorities is made in the
decisions of this court, combined with the fact that the available sources for study
and reference on legal theories are mostly Anglo-American, present a practical
situation at this moment from which this court can draw but one conclusion,
namely, that there has been developed, and will continue, a common law in the
jurisprudence of this jurisdiction (which for purposes of distinction may properly
be termed a Philippine Common Law). based upon the English Common Law in its
present day form of an Anglo-American Common Law, which common law is
effective in all of the subjects of law in this jurisdiction in so far as it does not
conflict with the express language of the written law or with the local customs
and institutions.
CONCLUSIONS.
We may summarize our conclusions as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (1) The Philippine-Islands is an unorganized territory of the United
States, under a civil government established by the Congress.
(2) In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of this
jurisdiction, and in rendering its decisions in cases not covered by the letter of
the written law, this court relies upon the theories and precedents of Anglo-
American cases, subject to the limited exception of those instances where the
remnants of the Spanish written law present well-defined civil law theories and of
the few cases where such precedents are inconsistent with local customs and
institutions.
(3) The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the English
Common Law in its present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an
almost exclusive extent.
(4) By virtue of the foregoing, the New York rule, given a reasonable
interpretation, permits conferring privileges on attorneys admitted to practice in
the Philippine Islands similar to those privileges accorded by the rule of this court.
Accordingly, the supporting papers filed by the application this case
showing to the satisfaction of the court his qualifications as an attorney-at-law,
his petition is hereby granted and he is admitted to the practice of law in the
Philippine Islands. Our decision is based upon our interpretation of the New York
rule, and it does not establish a precedent which may be controlling on this court
with respect to future applications if our interpretation is not borne out by the
future enforcement of that rule by the New York court. So ordered.
Mapa, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, Avanceña and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1.
Subject of
Order or Act. Spanish law affected. Extent.
new
legislation.
1. Judiciary G. O. No. 21, Judicial system Superseded
29, 47, and under Spanish
Act No. 136 Royal Decrees.
2. Marriage Law G. O No. 68 Marriage Law, Modified.
1870.
3. Criminal Pro- G. O. No. 58 Code of Criminal Substantially
cedure Procedure and superseded.
Ley Provisional.
Civil
4. Act No. 190 Code of Civil Do
Procedure
Procedure.
5. Crimes Various Acts of Penal Code Modified.
Philippine Comm-
ission and
Legislation
6. Divorce Law Act No. 2710 Civil Code Sections
applicable
superseded.
7. Real Estate Act No. 496 do Modified.
Titles.
8. Real and Act Nos. 496 Mortgage Law Do.
Chattel and 1508 and Civil Code
Mortgages
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Corporation
9. Act No. 1459 Railway Laws Do.
Law.
Bankruptcy
Act No. 1956
and
Insolvency
Law.
Negotiable
Instrument Act No. 2031
Warehouse
Receipts Law. Act No. 2137 Code of Commerce Substantially
superseded.
Public Utilities Act No. 2307
Law
Insurance Law Act No. 2427
Salvage Law Act No. 2616
10. Usury Law Act No. 2655
Mining Law Act of congress, Leyes de Minas Do.
July 1, 1902
11. Irrigation Act Act No. 2152 Law of Waters Modified.
12. Administrative Act No. 2711 Notarial Law; political Incidentally
Code and Municipal Law; superseded.
Penal Code.
13. Public Land Act Nos. 926 Civil Code Superseded;
Law. and 2874. sections
affected.

2. CIVIL CODE.
Book and title. Subjects. Status. By what law affected.

BOOK I.
Preliminary 1. General rules Modified Act No. 2711.
for the applica-
tion of laws
Title I 2. Citizenship Repealed By change of
sovereignty; Acts
of
Congress, July 1,
1902, Aug. 29,
1916;
Act No. 2927.
Title II 3. Status of persons, Slightly modified Code of Civil
natural or
Procedure.
juridical.
Title III 4. Domicile In force See Marriage Law,
1870; G. O. No.
Title IV 5. Marriage Never in force in
68;
Philippine Act No.
Islands. 2710
Paternity and
Title V 6. Slightly modified Code of Civil
filiation
Procedure.
Title VI 7. Support In force
Title VII 8. Parental authority Modified Do.
(with regard to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 persons and
property
of children).
9. Adoption Repealed Do.
Title VIII 10. Absence Modified Do.
Title IX 11. Guardianship Repealed Do.
Title X 12. Family council do Do
Title XI 13. Emancipation Modified Code of Civil
and Majority Procedure;
Act No. 1891.
Title XII 14. Registry of civil Never in force See G. O. No.
in Philippine
status. 68 and Act No. 2711.
Islands

BOOK II.
Property,
Title I-III 15. Slightly modified Code of Civil
ownership,
and its
Procedure
modification
Special
Title IV 16. Modified Act No. 2152; Act of
properties.
Congress July 1,
1902.
Title V 17. Possession Slightly modified Code of Civil
Procedure.
Title VI 18. Usufruct do Do
Use and
19. In force Do
habitation
Title VII 20. Easements do Do.

BOOK III.

Title I 22. Occupancy In force

Title II 23. Donations Slightly modified Act No. 496.
Title III 24. Wills Mostly repealed Code of Civil
Procedure.
25. Inheritance Slightly modified Do.
26. Executors Repealed Do.
Intestate
27. Slightly modified Do.
succession
28. Property subject In force Do.
to reversion
29. Accretion (in do Do.
succession).
30. Acceptance and
repudiation of Mostly repealed Do.
inheritance
' 31. Collation Slightly modified Do.

BOOK IV.
Title I 32. Partition Modified Do.
33. Obligations Slightly modified Do
Contracts
Title II and III 34. Slightly modified. Code of Civil
(including
also down,
Procedure.
parapher-
nal property,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 conjugal
property,
separation
of property of
spouses).
Purchase and
Title IV and V 35. do Do.
sale,
and barter.
Title VI 36. Lease do Do.
37. Labor contracts. In force
38. Carriers
Title VII 39. Censos do
Title VII 40. Partnership do
Title IX 41. Agency do
Title X 42. Loans do
Title XI 43. Bailments do
44. Sequestration Repealed Do.
Title XII 45. Insurance Modified Act No. 2427.
46. Gambling Repealed Act No. 1757.
47. Life annuities In force
Title
48. Compromise do
XIII
49. Arbitration Repealed Code of Civil Procedure
Title XIV 50. Suretyship In force Do.
Title XV 51. Pledge Modified Act No. 1508
Title XVI 52. Mortgage do Mortgage Law;
Act No. 496;
Code of Civil
Procedure.
53. Antichresis In force
Title XVI 54. Quasi contracts. do
55. Torts do
Title XVII 56. Preference of Mostly repealed Act No. 1956.
credit
Title XVIII 57. Prescription do Code of Civil
Procedure.
1. POLITICAL LAW.
The political and constitutional law of the Spanish sovereignty was entirely
abrogated by the change of sovereignty.
2. CONSTITUTIONAL AND FEDERAL LAWS.
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660.
Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil., 778.
Tan Te vs. Bell, 27 Phil., 354.
3. POLICE POWER.
The police powers of the Government of the Philippine Islands and its political
subdivisions are covered by the rules of American law.
U. S. vs. Pompeya, 31 Phil., 245.
4. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
In re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil., 23, at p. 28.
Statutes are presumed not to be retrospective.
In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil., 41.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The implication in a statute is a part of it (page 90).
U. S. vs. Pineda, 37 Phil., 456, at pp. 462 to 465.
Interpretation of the word "fraudulent" in the pharmacy law. This also includes a
special theory of negligence.
U. S. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil., 731, at p. 740.
In referring to the Philippine Bill of Rights, the court says:
"The language carries with it all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and
American constitutional cases."
H. E. Heacock Co. vs. Collector of Customs, 37 Phil., 970, pp. 978, 980.
Application of tariff law.
U. S. vs. Soliman, 36 Phil., 5, p. 10.
U. S. vs. Palacio, 33 Phil., 208, at p. 216.
Repeals by implication are not favored.
5. JUDICIARY.
Anuran vs. Aquino and Ortiz, 38 Phil., 29, at p. 35.
The Philippine Judiciary system is substantially modelled upon English and
American prototypes.
U. S. vs. Blanco, 37 Phil., 126, at p. 218.
The court will take judicial notice of municipal ordinances on appeals from a
municipal court.
Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, 37 Phil., 186, at pp. 189-194.
Dizon vs. Moir, 36 Phil., 759, p. 761.
In re Kelly, 35 Phil., 944, at p. 950.
Power of court to punish for contempt.
Zarate vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil., 747, at p. 749.
Principle of "Law of the Case" recognized.
Aquino vs. Director of Lands, 39 Phil., 850, at p. 861.
Res Adjudicata and Stare Decisis.
6. CIVIL PROCEDURE AND PLEADING
Javellana vs. Mirasol and Nuñez, 40 Phil., 761, at p. 772.
Leung Ben vs. O'Brien, 38 Phil., 182, at p. 189.
"The Code of Civil Procedure . . speaks the language of the common-law and for
the most part reflects its ideas."
Ramirez vs. Orientalist Co. and Fernandez, 38 Phil., 634, at pp. 642-644.
Rules of pleadings.
Banco Español-Filipino vs. Palanca; 37 Phil., 921, at p. 931.
Judgment upon constructive or substituted service against a non-resident is
invalid.
"The doctrine established by the Supreme Court of the United States on this point,
being based upon the constitutional conception of due process of law, is binding
upon the courts of the Philippine Islands." (Page 932.)
Mortera and Eceiza vs. West of Scotland etc., 36 Phil., 994.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 7. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
U. S. vs. Lahoylahoy and Madanlog, 38 Phil., 330.
U. S. vs. Bagsic, 35 Phil., 327, at p. 336. See also —
U. S. vs. Balaba, 37 Phil., 260, at p. 268.
R e inclusion of several offenses in one information on the ground that this
jurisdiction is not bound, since jury trials do not exist here. The court declines to
follow certain English and American cases but it goes on to point out that the
American practice is not uniform.
8. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LAW.
Tamayo vs. Gsell, 35 Phil., 953, at pp. 966 to 986.
Cerezo vs. Atlantic, Gulf &: Pacific Co., 33 Phil., 425, at pp. 428-443.
9. TORRENS SYSTEM — REAL ESTATE TITLES.
De los Reyes vs. Razon, 38 Phil., 480.
Registered titles are conclusive and binding upon all the world. Title is determined
judicially by action in rem.
Aitken vs. La O, 36 Phil., 510, at p. 516.
De la Cruz vs. Fabie, 35 Phil., 144, at p. 166 et seq.
Franciscan Corp. vs. Archbishop of Manila, 35 Phil., 295.
Referring to title by equitable estoppel.
10. INSURANCE LAW.
Harding vs. Commercial Union Assurance Co., 38 Phil., 464, at p. 471 et seq.
Insurable interest.
Young vs. Midland Textile Insurance Co., 30 Phil., 617.
Interpretation of insurance contract, and effect of increase of risk.
11. LIBEL
U. S. vs. Cañete, 38 Phil., at pp. 253, 260.
Privileged communications.
The Libel Law is supplemented by the "fundamental law of the land" as
incorporated in the Philippine Bill of Rights.
U. S. vs. Bustos, 37 Phil., 731, at p. 742.
Privileged communications and malice.
U S. vs. O'Connell, 37 Phil., 767, at pp. 772, 774. Innuendo may be libel.
12. UNFAIR COMPETITION AND TRADE MARKS.
Ubeda vs. Zialcita, 226 U. S., 462; 40 Phil., 1109.
The rule that under Act No. 666, an infringing plaintiff cannot have relief against
another infringer.
Clarke vs. Manila Candy Co., 36 Phil., 100, ab p. 111.
". . . Our own statute, Act No. 666, is in itself a clear recognition of the more
modern attitude of the law-maker with relation to these practices. Mr. Justice
Holmes said, twenty-five years ago: 'The law has got to be stated over again.
And I venture to say that in fifty years we shall have it in a form of which no one
could have dreamed fifty years ago.' Our statute crystallizing as it does the more
modern view as to what the law should be on this subject, is a striking realization
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 of that prophecy." The court goes on to cite American authorities with reference
to the definition of unfair competition.
Alhambra Cigar, etc., Co. vs. Compañia General de Tabacos, 35 Phil., 62, at p. 73.
Application of the rule respecting similarity calculated to deceive.
13. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS.
Green vs. Lopez, 36 Phil., 1.
Right of a holder for value.
U. S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785, at p. 788.
Effect of alteration of check.
14. INSOLVENCY LAW.
Mitsui Bussan Kaisha vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 36 Phil., 27, at pp.
37, 38, and 42.
"The legislative history of that part of Act 1956, which deals with voluntary and
involuntary insolvency, and which is essentially a bankruptcy law, clearly shows
that the legislature intended to establish in this jurisdiction the essential
features of the American system of bankruptcy. This being true we may look to
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States for guidance in
determining the extent of the title to the insolvent's estate which is vested in the
assignee by the clerk's assignment." (P. 41.)
15. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.
Viña vs. Villareal, 41 Phil., 13.
In divorce cases neither old nor new statutes covered the question, and the court
relies on American cases for the rule that a wife can obtain separate domicile for
the purpose of divorce.
Siman vs. Leus and Leus, 37 Phil., 967.
Consideration of the Civil Code, and Code of Civil Procedure and the Marriage Law
for the purpose of construing them together.
Goitia vs. Campos Rueda, 35 Phil., 252, at pp. 254, 260.
General Orders No. 68 govern the solemnities required for the marriage contract.
The law of marriage under the Civil Code as in force in Spain at the time of
American occupation, is not in force in these Islands.
16. USURY
U. S. vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua, 39 Phil., 502, at pp. 565, 559.
The court holds that the Philippine statute on the subject:
". . . is a drastic law following in many respects the most advanced American
legislation," . . . and refers to American and English cases, analyzing the offense
of usury.
17. CORPORATIONS.
Government of P. I. vs. Philippine Sugar Estates Dev. Co., 38 Phil., 15, at pp. 26
and 27.
Quo warranto as applied to corporations.
Ramirez vs. Orientalist Co., and Fernandez, 38 Phil., 634, at pp. 644, 654.
Defense of lack of authority of officer considered. Contracts must be made by
directors and not by stockholders.
Velasco vs. Poizat, 37 Phil., 802, at p. 805 et seq.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Rights and liabilities under stock subscription.
Viuda e Hijos de Pedro P. Roxas vs. Rafferty, 37 Phil., 957, at p. 965.
The court holds American authorities to be controlling for the proposition that
municipal corporation is liable for interest upon illegally collected taxes.
18. EVIDENCE.
U. S. vs. Agatea, 40 Phil., 596; at p. 600.
Ruling Case Law cited for conclusion with reference to the admissibility of
extrajudicial confessions.
Ed. A. Keller & Co. vs. Ellerman & Bucknall Steamship Co. and Collector of
Customs, 38 Phil., 514.
The court cites American cases for the proposition that a single objection to a line
of evidence is sufficient (p. 519); and for the rule that a judgment of conviction
cannot be admitted in evidence in a civil suit. (P. 520.)
Henry VV. Peabody & Co. vs. Bromfield & Ross, 38 Phil., 841, p. 854.
Parol Evidence Rule.
U. S. vs. Razon & Tayag, 37 Phil., 856.
U. S. vs. Virrey, 37 Phil., 618, at pp. 624-5.
Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson, 37 Phil., 644, pp. 651,
652.
U. S. vs. Antipolo, 37 Phil., 726.
Competency of witnesses.
Canuto vs. Mariano, 37 Phil., 840.
Asencio vs. Bautista, 36 Phil., 470.
U. S. vs. Sy Toon, 36 Phil., 736.
Cuyugan vs. Santos, 34 Phil., 100.
In this case the court considers the parol evidence, rule with reference to the
admission of evidence to alter, vary, or defeat the terms of a written deed. On
page 106 and following the court observes that the Code of Civil Procedure is
based upon American laws, and analyzes it with the help of extensive reference
to American cases. It then considers whether or not under the Spanish law there
in any reason why the courts of these Islands should not have power to enforce
the equitable doctrine of the English and American cases. The court quotes a
broad equitable rule of the Partidas: "No man may wrongfully enrich himself at
the expense of another," and concludes that the elementary and basic principles
of the Civil Code in the absence of express statutory prohibition permits the
application of the equitable doctrine announced by the English and American
cases. (Followed in Villa vs. Santiago, 38 Phil., 151, p. 162.)
19. ARREST.
U. S vs. Santos, 36 Phil., 853.
The court says (page 854): "The powers of peace officers in the Philippines,
generally stated, are the same as those conferred upon constables under the
Anglo-American Common Law."
1. CONTRACTS.
In construing the application of the rules affecting contracts this court hag
frequently resorted to American cases or American principles for its authority,
although the general subject of contracts is still largely governed by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 provisions of the Civil Code. It would be fair to say that the law of contracts has
been as little affected by new legislation as any other subject:
Hanlon vs. Haussermann and Beam, 40 Phil., 796; at p. 825.
Time essence of contract. — Question whether or not contract between an
engineer and a mining company providing for the rehabilitation of the
company's property was a joint adventure and created a fiduciary relationship.
The court says on page 816.
All parts of contract must be construed together. — "We have no criticism to make
against this salutary doctrine when properly applied, and would be slow to
assume that our civil law requires any less degree of good faith between parties
so circumstanced than is required by the court of equity in other countries."
The court thereafter cites American cases but no Spanish cases. On the question
of time being of the essence of the contract, the court (on page 823) says:
". . . To illustrate: The rule has been firmly established from an early date in courts
of equity that in agreements for the sale of land, time is not ordinarily of the
essence of the contract; that is to say, acts which one of the parties has
stipulated to perform on a given date may be performed at a later date." (Citing
from American cases and authors on various ramifications of this principle.)
U. S. vs. Varadero de la Quinta, 40 Phil., 48.
Impossibility of performance. — The court considers the defense of impossibility of
performance of a contract, and relies exclusively on English and American
cases; and concludes:
"From these authorities and facts we can reach no other conclusion than that
since impossibility of performance was not known to both parties at the time of
making the contract, since performance has not been prevented by the acts of
the United States, since the contract related to nothing which was unlawful, and
since the modificatory rules growing out of war conditions did not affect the
same, the contractor and his guarantors are not excused from the consequences
of non-performance." (p. 58.)
Cruz vs. Alberto, 39 Phil., 991.
Consideration and mutuality. — The court, in passing upon the interpretation of a
lease, alleged to contain an agreement for extension of the term, cites, on page
995, R. C. L. and Cyc., with reference to consideration and mutuality, and the
presumptions with reference thereto. No reference is made to Spanish cases.
Allen vs. Province of Tayabas, 38 Phil., 356, pp. 362 and 364.
Requirements of certificates of approval subject to rule of reasonableness. — The
court, in holding a contract, providing for the approval of performance by the
certificate of a third party, binding in the absence of a showing of fraud, cites
liberally Federal and State cases. And in the midst of these citations, on page
362, makes the following observation:
"The old common law rule required a strict or literal performance of contracts. The
modern rule sanctions a substantial performance of contractual relations. The
law now looks to the spirit of the contract and not to its letter. Even though a
plaintiff is not entirely free from fault or omission, the courts will not turn him
away if he has in good faith made substantial performance. . . . But when the
terms, or the nature of the contract, or the circumstances are such as to make it
doubtful whether the contractor has made any such unwise agreement, the
courts will ordinarily construe the contract as an 'agreement to do the thing in
such a way as reasonably ought to satisfy the defendant.' (Parlin & Orendorff Co.
vs. City of Greenville [1904], 127 Fed., 55; Swain vs. Seamens [1870], 9 Wall.,
254.)"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Arbitration agreements. — Again on page 364, referring to an arbitration clause in
the agreement, the court says:
"The New York theory of refusal to uphold such agreements, because of the
opinion that they violate the spirit of the laws creating the courts, is hardly
agreed to by more progressive jurisdictions. (See U. S. Asphalt Refining Co. vs.
Trinidad Lake Petroleum Co. [1915], 222 Fed., 1006.)"
The provisions of the Civil Code are not even referred to in the opinion.
De la Cruz vs. Capinpin and Albea, 38 Phil., 492, p. 497.
Contract annulled for misrepresentations inducing signature. — "It may be proved
by parol evidence that a contract was fraudulently misread to one not able to
read, and that he was thus induced to give his signature, and when such facts
are fully established the contract should be annulled and set aside. (McKessons
vs. Sherman, 51 Wis., 303; Kranich vs. Sherwood, 92 Mich., 397.)" Only authority
cited for the decision.
Uy Soo Lim vs. Tan Unchuan, 38 Phil., 552.
Right of infant to disaffirm; obligation to return consideration. — Right of infant to
disaffirm his contract upon reaching maturity; minor must act promptly in
exercising his election in the matter. Obligations of such minor to return the
consideration upon the rescission of a contract: the court cites American cases
(p. 567-572). No Spanish cases referred to. Provisions of Civil Code quoted (p.
570)
Ollendorff vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil., 585.
Negative covenant by employee in employment contract; public policy. —
Construction of a contract whereby an employee agreed to refrain for a given
time, from engaging in competitive business. "Public order" of the Civil Code is
the same as "public policy" of the Anglo-American law. Quoting from and citing
U. S. Supreme Court cases, this court said:
"Following this opinion, we adopt the modern rule that the validity of restraints
upon trade or employment is to be determined by the intrinsic reasonableness of
the restrictions, in each case, rather than by any fixed rule, and that such
restrictions may be upheld when not contrary to the public welfare and not
greater than is necessary to afford a fair and reasonable protection to the party
in whose favor it is imposed." (Page 592.)
Thereafter the court cites Cyc. and U. S. and English cases at some length. There
is no reference to a Spanish case in this decision, and the only reference beyond
that of the language of the Civil Code are the general statements of Manresa's
Commentaries. (Followed in G. Martini, Ltd, vs. Glaiserman, 39 Phil., 120.)
Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Yangco, 38 Phil., 602.
Substantial breach; terms of sale. — With reference to the proper construction as
to the place and time of delivery under contract of sale, the court cites freely
American writers and American and English cases; but no Spanish cases.
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Compañia Trasatlantica and Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co.,
38 Phil., 875.
Obligations under contract of carriage. — The court, in citing generally the
obligations of the carrier under a contract of carriage, and in construing the
responsibilities of the carrier, and the validity of a provision limiting liability,
cites various articles of the Civil Code and quotes from Manresa, and at the
same time quotes from English and American cases; and, on page 892, after
concluding a quotation from an English case, says:
"Though not stated in so many words, this decision recognizes that from the mere
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 fact that a person takes the property of another into his possession and control
there arises an obligation in the nature of an assumption that he will use due
care with respect thereto. This must be considered a principle of universal
jurisprudence, for it is consonant with justice and common sense, and, as we
have already seen, harmonizes with the doctrine above deduced from the
provisions of the Civil Code."
Negligence ex contractu. — In reference to the article of the Civil Code and
Manresa's comments thereon, the court construes his general observations with
reference to negligence. In applying these generalities the court includes a
quotation from Manresa, reference to two Spanish cases, but the court does not
analyze nor quote from those cases, as it has done with the American and
English cases Songco vs. Sellner, 37 Phil., 254.
Voidability for misrepresentation. — The court, in considering whether or not the
sale was voidable for misrepresentation of opinion as to the subject-matter, cites
freely from American cases and makes no reference either to the Civil Code or
Spanish decisions.
Matute vs. Cheong Boo, 37 Phil., 372.
Specific performance re chattels. — This case involves the principle of specific
performance of a contract for the sale of chattels. The court refers to a former
rule of the Code of Commerce, superseded by the Code of Civil Procedure, but
holds that the principle of the right of a plaintiff seller to deposit in the court, still
exists, and that, therefore, under equity rule of the American and English courts,
to which it refers at length, the court by virtue of its control of the chattel can
compel the transfer. This case is an interesting illustration of the amalgam of the
principles of the two systems of law.
Allen vs. Provinces of Albay and Ambos Camarines, 35 Phil 826.
Waiver; penalty clause. — Questions considered, whether or not the definite time
for performance has been waived by the other, and the effect of a liquidated
damage clause in the contract. The court cites exclusively American cases, it
holding that penalty clause is not enforceable where performance has been
prevented or waived by the complaining party. ( See also dissenting opinion
relying on American cases.)
Macondray & Co. vs. Sellner, 33 Phil., 370.
Brokerage market value; reasonable time to perform . — In passing upon the
question of when a real estate commission is earned, and of what is time for
performance in absence of express stipulation, the court cites State and Federal
authorities.
Centenera vs. Garcia Palicio, 29 Phil., 470.
Relief for mutual mistake . — Question of whether or not relief should be granted
for mutual mistake as to the contents of a written contract setting forth the
terms of an oral contract previously entered into. On pages 478 to 486 the court
discusses the law on the point, and quotes and cites profusely from American
authors and cases. No reference is made to the Civil Code nor to Spanish cases.
Leung Ben vs. O'Brien, 38 Phil., 182.
Contracts implied in law; quasi-contracts . — Case to recover a sum of money lost
at play. The court says with reference to the Code of Civil Procedure: "It
therefore speaks the language of the common law and for the most part reflects
its ideas" . . . and then proceeds to a lengthy review of the English Common Law
theories of contract. The court finds an implied contract by operation of law to
return money won at gambling: "It is thus seen that the provisions of the Civil
Code which might be consulted with a view to the correct theoretical
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 classification of this obligation are unsatisfactory and confusing." (Page 195.)
"We believe that it could, without violence of the doctrines of the Civil Law, be
held that such obligation is an innominate quasi-contract." (Page 196.) The
authorities cited, however, are English and American.
Daywalt vs. Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil., 587.
Interference by third parties in performance . — Action for damages for
interference with the performance of a contract between the plaintiff and
another. The court goes at great length (pp. 596 601) into the development of
the English and American cases since Lumley vs. Gye. Unfortunately, the court
does not definitely adopt the principle as it denies relief on another ground.
However, the case is interesting in showing how the doctrines of the Common
Law have been expounded in the Philippine cases.
Uy Tam and Uy Yet vs. Leonard, 30 Phil., 471.
Contracts for the benefit of a third party. — A material man sought to enforce
liability on a contractor's bond to the city of Manila. The court goes at length into
the development of the principles of law with reference to this type of contract,
and observes that the old Roman Civil Law was contrary to the English Common
Law, but concludes that the rule under the Civil Code is akin to the New York
doctrine announced by Lawrence vs. Fox and the American cases following it.
(Page 489, et seq.)
Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil., 542.
Injunction against interference with the contract rights of plaintiff with third party,
relies exclusively on English and American cases.
2. CRIMES.
Crimes are governed chiefly by the Spanish Penal Code. Nevertheless, in the
application of the provisions of that Code, American and English authorities are
referred to liberally — in some cases as corroborative of the code provisions,
and in many cases as furnishing a more accurate analysis.
The cases under Contracts and Crimes are particularly typical of the manner in
which Anglo-American case law creeps into the judicial precedents of this court.
The following are a few of the recent cases:
U. S. vs. Aviado, 38 Phil., 10, at pp. 13 14.
Justifiable homicide. — The rule of justifiable homicide in the defense of another is
referred' to first as established by English and American cases, and thereafter
the general language of the Penal Code is cited.
U. S. vs. Domen, 37 Phil., 57, at pp. 59, 60.
In a case of justifiable homicide, the court, without referring to the Penal Code,
refers to the common law rule denominated "Retreat to the wall," and observes.
''This principle has now given way in the United States to the Stand ground when
in the right' rule" and cites American cases, and holds that the homicide in
question was justified under the rule of the United States cases cited.
U. S. vs. Abiog and Abiog, 37 Phil., 137, at pp. 141, 143.
Homicide. — On the question of whether or not a person, who inflicts a blow which
would otherwise be mortal upon a dying person is guilty of homicide, the court
analyzes the American cases without reference to the Penal Code.
U. S. vs. Guendia, 37 Phil., 337.
Insane — at court's discretion to try or commit. — The defendant was found to be
insane and, therefore, exempt from criminal liability under the Penal Code.
Objection was made that in view of the insanity it was improper to try the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 defendant, and the court examines at length English and American authority and
concludes it is within the court's discretion to make a preliminary investigations
and to permit the trial to proceed.
U. S. vs. Rubal, 37 Phil., 577, at p. 580.
Malicious prosecution. — On the incidental question of what constitutes the crime,
the court said: "What is here termed the crime of false accusation or complaint
(Penal Code) is practically identical with the crime of malicious prosecution as
known to the Anglo-American law."
Buchanan vs. Viuda de Esteban, 32 Phil., 363.
An action for malicious prosecution. The court cites two U. S. Supreme Court cases
and one Spanish Supreme Court case.
"The Philippine law does not differ in any substantial feature from the American
law on this subject." (Page 366.) "Under the Spanish law the element of probable
cause was not treated separately from that of malice, as under the American
law." (Page 367.)
U. S. vs. Albao, 29 Phil., 86, at pp. 107, 108.
Elements of robbery. — The court cites American and English authorities for a
fuller definition of the crime of robbery.
U. S. vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil., 147.
Estafa. — Case of estafa, which is governed by the Penal Code. The court, in
applying the rules of the Civil Code regarding divesting a person of his property
without his consent, cites American cases and sets forth the two exceptions to
the general rule, coming under the head of negotiable paper and estoppel,
which go further than the Code exception.
U. S. vs. Suan, 27 Phil., 12.
Application of rules on crime of seduction. — Crime of seduction. The court quotes
from Viada to the effect that good reputation of the woman is an essential
element; thereupon the court cites at length from the American authorities that
chastity is an essential element. The Penal Code uses the word "virgin." The
court repudiates the definition of Viada in concluding (page 17) after citing
American authorities:
"The authorities seem unanimous that prior absolute chastity on the part of the
woman is an essential element of the crime of seduction, expressly so when
made a requisite by the express words of the statute. As we have seen from the
authorities cited above, the reputation of the woman is not the test; it is a matter
of physical condition, of past conduct, of actual purity."
3. EQUITY.
The court has sometimes said (Cuyugan vs. Santos, 34 Phil., 100, at p. 116;
Bepide vs. Afzelius, 39 Phil., 190, at p. 195) that this court does not have an
equity jurisdiction. Nevertheless, principle of equity are in force and are
repeatedly applied. The Code of Civil Procedure is a fulcrum on which Anglo-
American principles of law are being forced into our jurisprudence.
Philippine Sugar Estates Dev. Co., Ltd., vs. Government of P. I., 62 Law Ed. (U. S.),
1177.
Reformation f or mutual mistake. — In reversing this court, the United States
Supreme Court has authoritatively said: "Here the construction adopted was
rested upon a clearly erroneous assumption as to an established rule of equity.
The Supreme Court erred in refusing to consider the evidence of mutual mistake,
and its judgment must be reversed."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Hanlon vs. Haussermann and Beam, 40 Phil., 796.
"Under the doctrine" of American authorities the court denies the right of specific
performance where default exists and time is of the essence. (Page 825.)
San Miguel Brewery vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., 40 Phil., 674.
In passing upon right to reformation of a contract to correct a mistake, after citing
American cases, the court denies relief because the evidence is insufficient.
De la Cruz vs. Capinpin and Albea, 38 Phil., 492.
Annulment of contract procured through fraud. — The court cites American cases
in support of the rule that a contract executed through fraud may be annulled.
Enage vs. Vda. e Hijos de F. Escano, 38 Phil., 657.
The court, in applying certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, with
reference to the right to redeem under contract held to be a mortgage, says
(page 664):
"It is true that there are many of the earlier decisions of the American courts
which hold that redemption statutes, being in derogation of the Common Law,
must be strictly construed. The modern tendency, however, is to give a liberal
construction to such statutes . . .." The court quotes with approval from an
Illinois case, and adopts the rule of liberal construction.
Franciscan Corporation vs. Archbishop of Manila, 35 Phil 295.
Equitable estoppel. — The court, in support of the principle of law, that no one
may validly repudiate his own acts, cites and quotes American authorities with
reference to equitable estoppel. There is no reference to the codes in this
connection.
4. SURETYSHIP — GUARANTY.
U. S. vs. Varadero de la Quinta, 40 Phil., 48.
Guarantor's liability is secondary. — The court cites American authorities for the
proposition that "The obligation of the surety is primary; the obligation of the
guarantor is secondary; " and modifies the judgment of the lower court as to
eliminate so much of it as to make the guarantor liable as principal.
La Insular vs. Machuca Go-Tauco and Nubla Co-Siong, 39 Phil., 567.
Variation of obligation. — On page 570 the court says: "The rule is settled that the
obligation of the surety cannot be extended by implication beyond its specified
limits.
Article 1827 of the Civil Code so declared (Uy Aloc vs. Cho Jan Ling, 27 Phil., 427);
and with this doctrine the Common Law is accordant," and cites and quotes
American authority for this and further ramifications of the doctrine. The court
relies exclusively on American cases for its decision that a statute increasing the
amount of tax, for the payment of which bond in question was given, is not a
variation of the obligation such as to discharge the surety. (Pages 574 576.)
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Herrero, 38 Phil., 410.
Obligation of suretyship strictly construed. — The court held, on a bare citation
from Cyc., that a surety bond should be strictly construed; no provision of the
Civil Code nor Spanish case is referred to.
5. INJUNCTION.
Ollendorff vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil., 585.
Negative covenants . — On page 593 the court recognizes the right to injunction
on negative covenants, and after quoting from the English and American
authorities and cases governing this principle, affirms judgment enjoining the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 employee from violating the covenant of his contract. The court makes no
reference to any of the codes nor to any Spanish cases.
Golding vs. Balabat, 36 Phil., 941.
Trespass. — The court analyzes fully the right to injunction to prevent repeated
trespass, and cites exclusive American cases, explaining the equitable grounds
upon which the right rests.
Liongson vs. Martinez, 36 Phil., 948.
Based on inadequacy of other remedy. — The court cites American authorities for
the proposition that injunction may not be used for the purpose of trying title to
real property, nor to accomplish any purpose for which an adequate remedy
exists in another form.
De Ayala vs. Barretto, 33 Phil., 538.
Nuisance. — The court cites American cases to assist in analyzing what is a
"nuisance."
6. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
Gutierrez Repide vs. Afzelius and Afzelius, 39 Phil., 190.
Must be reciprocal. — The court considers the question of specific performance
with reference to its common law and civil law status. It refers to the articles of
the Civil Code which provide that the contracting parties may reciprocally
demand the fulfillment of a contract, and to certain decisions of the Supreme
Court of Spain, and of this court.
The court then cites certain of the American cases announcing the rules of specific
performance, mutuality of the remedy, and "Rules of equity jurisprudence."
Matute vs. Cheong Boo, 37 Phil., 372, at p. 378.
Court can compel specific performance through control of the res.
7. NEGLIGENCE.
Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil., 768, at p. 780.
This case turns on the rule here which is Spanish and not Anglo-American that the
master is not liable for negligence of his servant, if he has been prudent in
selecting his servant, and the situation is not ex-contractu. However, when the
court considers what is negligence and contributory negligence, it adopts the
rule of an American authority.
Picart vs. Smith, 37 Phil., 809.
This case is interesting as it cites only Philippine cases. The question was whether
or not the facts in the case constituted negligence and contributory negligence.
The court (on page 813) says: "The law here in effect adopts the standard
supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of a discreet patter familias of
the Roman law," and then the court discusses this rule in the language of the
well-known common law doctrine of the "reasonably prudent man."
Carlos vs. Manila Electric Railroad & Light Co., 34 Phil., 55, at p. 58.
Question of negligence. — The court quotes from the general provisions of the
Civil Code providing damage when there is "fault or negligence" but not when
"events could not be foreseen." The court refers freely to American cases in
analyzing whether or not there was negligence under the facts.
Mestres vs. Manila Electric R. & Light Co., 32 Phil., 496.
With reference to the rules regarding the rights of way of street cars and the
responsibility of pedestrians, as bearing on the ascertaining of what is
negligence and contributory negligence. The court cites voluminously from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 American cases.
U. S. vs. Barias, 23 Phil., 434.
The court had before it the question of "reckless negligence." On page 437 et
seq., the court cites American cases and authors, including Cooley on Torts for
definitions of negligence and reckless negligence. It also quotes from Spanish
authors defining the same terms, but no Spanish cases are cited.
Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Co., 7 Phil., 359.
This is one of the leading cases in this jurisdiction on the question of negligence.
Action is for injuries to workmen, but was before Employers' Liability Act, so
general principles governed. The court considers the various provisions of the
Spanish Code, quotes from Spanish authors, and observes (page 366): "Spanish
jurisprudence, prior to the Working Men's Accident Law of January 30, 1900,
throws uncertain light upon the relation between master and workmen . . .." The
court follows the rule of liability ex contractu, and then undertakes consideration
of the effect of contributory negligence, and, not finding any satisfactory
authority, rather seems to adopt a rule of its own which is not clearly deducible
from any particular source: "Whatever may prove to be the doctrine finally
adopted in Spain or in other countries under the stress and counter-stress of
novel schemes of legislation, we find the theory of damages laid down in this
judgment the most consistent with the history and the principles of our law in
these Islands and with its logical development." ( Page 374. )
This was an early case. The later cases show that the court has come to rely more
and more on Anglo-American authorities for the definition of negligence and
contributory negligence and the relative effect thereof.
8. DAMAGES.
This subject is also covered in the cases dealing with contracts and torts
elsewhere referred to. The Anglo-American theories dominate. It will be well,
however, to note a few additional cases.
Compagnie Franco-Indochinoise vs. Deutsch-Australische Dampschiffs
Gesellschaft, 39 Phil., 474.
Measure; market value; penalty clauses . — Action against vessel for damages to
cargo. The court declares the measure of damages after a review of American
cases and Sedgwick on Damages. No reference is made to the Civil Code nor to
Spanish authorities. In passing upon the penalty clause in the charter party, the
court observes, on page 493, that the law in force in these Islands is more
favorable to penalties than the land of England and the United States, but that:
"This charter party is not to be construed exclusively by the law of the Philippine
Islands, nor even by the local law of the country in which it was executed. It
must be considered as governed by the general maritime law," citing with
approval, English and American cases which make the same observations.
Daywalt vs. Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil., 587, at p. 602.
Question of damages in connection with the breach of contract of sale of real
estate; without referring to the Civil Code, the court develops the rule by citation
from American and English cases, including Hadley vs. Baxendale, and also
SedgvJick on Damages.
Cerrano vs. Tan Chuco, 38 Phil., 392, at p, 398
Mitigation of damages. — Breach of contract of bailment. The court cites American
cases for the rule that the damages shall be mitigated by so much as could have
been avoided by a reasonably prudent plaintiff; and also cites Sedgwick on the
rule that burden of proof rests upon the defendant to show that the plaintiff
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 might have reduced the damages. The Civil Code does not furnish any definite
basis for these Anglo-American refinements of the rule of damages.
Sun Life Insurance Co. of Canada vs. Rueda Hermanos & Co. and Delgado, 37
Phil., 844.
Speculative profits. — The court, on page 849, cites American cases for the
proposition that "Speculative profits are too remote to be included in an
accurate estimate of damages."
Hicks vs. Manila Hotel Co., 28 Phil., 325, ab pp. 338, 342, and 344.
Loss of profits; anticipatory action. — Lost profits are allowable by the Civil Code,
but the court cites American cases on question of what are allowable lost profits.
It also relies exclusively on American cases for the rule that full damages may
be recovered in an anticipatory action; and for the rule that mitigation under
earning power of plaintiff must be proved by defendant.
9. AGENCY.
Jimenez vs. Rabot, 38 Phil., 378.
Agency to sell realty. — Question of sufficiency of power of-attorney contained in
letter. The court considers collateral requirements of Civil Code and of Code of
Civil Procedure, and holds the power in this case sufficient under American
cases, although such would seem to be questionable under the indefinite
language of the Civil Code.
Behn, Meyer & Co., Ltd., vs. Nolting & Garcia, 35 Phil., 274.
Broker. — The court, in connection with taxability under the Revenue Laws,
considered what constitutes a "Real estate broker" and cites American cases,
Story on Agency, and the Civil Code.
10. WILLS.
In re Will of Riosa, 39 Phil., 23, at p. 26.
Validity of execution . — Question of the effect of the new statute regulating
execution upon a will executed prior to its enactment and testator dying
afterwards. The court relies upon American and English cases for the proposition
that the validity of the execution must be tested by the statute in force at the
time of its execution. No Spanish cases referred to.
11. CARRIERS.
G. Martini, Ltd., vs. Macondray & Co., 39 Phil., 934.
Bill of loading. — The court, in passing upon the liability of steamship company for
damage to cargo shipped "deck load," cites American and English cases
exclusively. Neither the Civil Code nor any Spanish cases are referred to.
Compagnie de Commerce, etc., vs. Hamburg Amerika, etc., 36 Phil., 690.
Rights and obligations under charter parties; effect of war; Maritime Law. — The
court, in a lengthy opinion, considers the effect of war upon obligations of
carriers, refers to American and English authors with reference to the rules of
International Law which are applicable, and, on page 625 et seq., cites
exclusively American and English cases and authors, including, principally,
Carver on "Carriers," for the obligations under charter party generally.
12. MASTER AND SERVANT.
Yamada vs. Manila Railroad Co. and Bachrach Garage & Taxicab Co., 33 Phil., 8.
Question whether plaintiff was barred from recovery on the theory that negligence
of a driver of a rented automobile was imputable to him. The court rejects this
theory as not consonant with the weight of authority, and cites American cases.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 As to the main point of the case, the liability of the owner of the hired car for
negligence the court relies upon interpretation of the Civil Code rules.
13. PUBLIC POLICY.
Ollendorff vs. Abrahamson, 38 Phil., 585, at p. 590.
Under the Civil Code, prohibition of agreements contrary to "law, morals, or public
order." The court interprets this to mean — the term "public policy" as used in
the United States, and cites American cases for a definition thereof.
Hibberd vs. Rohde and McMillian, 32 Phil., 476, at pp. 482-486.
The court cites exclusively American authority for the rules relating to public
policy and invalidity in regard to agreements for concealing public offenses.
14. SALVAGE.
Fernandez vs. Thompson & Co., 38 Phil., 683.
The court, in defining the rule in reference to salvage, relies exclusively upon
American, English, and Philippine authorities.
See also —
Manila Railroad Co. vs. Macondray Co., 37 Phil., 850, and Erlanger & Galinger vs.
Swedish East-Asiatic Co., Ltd., 34 Phil., 178.
15. SALES.
Ocejo Perez & Co. vs. International Banking Corporation, 37 Phil., 631, 637.
Villa vs. Santiago, 38 Phil., 157.
The court cites American cases freely in passing upon whether or not a particular
transaction was a sale or mortgage.
16. ASSIGNMENTS.
Sison and Sison vs. Yap Tico and Avanceña, 37 Phil., 584.
Effect of recording. — The court relies upon American authorities for the rule that,
if a document is not required by law to be recorded, the recording thereof is not
constructive notice. In support of the Civil Code it cites American authorities for
the rule that payment to original creditor, before notice of assignment, is good.
17. EMINENT DOMAIN.
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil., 349.
For the rule that courts may pass upon whether or not a particular expropriation is
within the right of eminent domain, in the absence of specific legislative
direction, the court cites American authorities exclusively and also, in citing and
quoting from American cases, discusses the theory and scope of the right of
eminent domain.
Municipality of Antipolo vs. Domingo, 37 Phil., 13.
For the rule that the courts have power to amend the findings of commissioners in
expropriation proceeding the court relies upon American authorities.
De Ynchausti vs. Manila Electric R. & Light Co., 36 Phil., 908.
The court, in considering the right of the land owners under expropriation
proceedings which is covered by the Civil Code, except as in this case amended
by the charter of the railroad company, relies upon American cases for the rule
that a land owner is entitled only to compensation for the damages under
condemnation proceedings where land has been occupied without opposition
and before expropriation proceedings.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com