WILD VALLEY SHIPPING CO. vs. CA 342 SCRA 213 October 6, 2000

“PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION DOCTRINE”

Facts:

The Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc., private respondent herein, arrived in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore. Upon the completion of the loading and when the vessel was ready to leave port, an official pilot of Venezuela, was designated by the harbour authorities in Puerto Ordaz to navigate the Philippine Roxas through the Orinoco River. The Philippine Roxas experienced some vibrations when it entered the San Roque Channel. The vessel proceeded on its way, with the pilot assuring the watch officer that the vibration was a result of the shallowness of the channel. The master (captain) checked the position of the vessel and verified that it was in the centre of the channel. The Philippine Roxas ran around in the Orinoco River, thus obstructing the ingress and egress of vessels. As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by herein petitioner Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd., was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that day. Subsequently, Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd. filed a suit with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch III against Philippine President Lines, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance Company (the underwriter/insurer of Philippine Roxas) for damages in the form of unearned profits, and interest thereon amounting to US $400,000.00plus attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of litigation.

BELLIS vs BELLIS 20 SCRA 358 G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967

FACTS:

Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of Texas. He left two wills -- one devising a certain amount of money to his first wife and three illegitimate children and another, leaving the rest of his estate to his seven legitimate children. Before partition, the illegitimate children who are Filipinos opposed on the ground that they are deprived of their legitimes.

ISSUE:

Whether the applicable law is Texas law or Philippine laws

OH HEK HOW vs REPUBLIC 29 SCRA 94

Facts:

Petitioner Oh Hek How having been granted naturalization through his petition filed a motion alleging that he had complied with the requirements of Republic Act No. 530 and praying that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as such citizen and issued the corresponding certificate of naturalization. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte issued forthwith an order authorizing the taking of said oath. On that same date, petitioner took it and the certificate of naturalization was issued to him. The Government seasonably gave notice of its intention to appeal from said order of February9, 1966 and filed its record on appeal among the grounds that the oath was taken prior to judgment having been final and executory.

Issue:

- Is the oath valid

- Whether or not a permission to renounce citizenship is necessary from the Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China.

CONFLICT OF LAWS NOTES

CONFLICT OF LAWS NOTES

By: Evelyn De Matias

PRINCIPLES AND DOCTRINES

Extraterritoriality

-         General rule: Philippine laws have no extraterritorial effects in another country.

Reason: One sovereign country is independent of another.

-         Exceptions:

• When our law provides respect to other countries with respect to its citizens and nationals

• When our country enters into a treaty with another country.

• Congressional legislations adopting foreign law to municipal law of the land.

-         Extraterritorial application of a foreign law allowed when the country gives consent (implied or expressed).

Exception: When the foreign law is against public policy and order.

Foreign Elements

-         consist of the following as subject matter:

a.       nationality or citizenship

b.      personal status

c.       property

-         points of contacts include:

a.       place of contracting

b.      place of negotiation of contract

c.       place of performance

d.      location of subject matter of the contract

e.       domicile, residence, place of incorporation, nationality and place of business of parties.

f.        If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state, the local law of this state shall apply.

AZNAR vs GARCIA 7 SCRA 95

Facts:

                Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled in the Philippines. He executed in his will acknowledging his natural daughter Maria Lucy Christensen as sole heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared by the Supreme Court in its decision as acknowledged natural daughter of Edward C. Counsel of Helen asserts that her claim must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Phil. law. Counsel of Maria insists that Art. 16 (2) provides that the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON applies in intestate and testamentary successions and since Edward C. is a citizen of CA, its law should be applied. Lower court ruled that CA law should be applied thus this petition for review.

CADALIN vs POEA ADMINISTRATOR 238 SCRA 721

“Borrowing Statute” –

Ex: Sec. 48, Rule on Civil Procedure – “if by the laws of the State or country where the cause of action arose the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines.”

Facts:

Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Int’l Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment corporation, for employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Int’l Inc. (BRII) which is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Texas. Plaintiff instituted a class suit with the POEA for money claims arising from the unexpired portion of their employment contract which was prematurely terminated. They worked in Bahrain for BRII and they filed the suit after 1 yr. from the termination of their employment contract.

As provided by Art. 156 of the Amiri Decree aka as the Labor Law of the Private Sector of Bahrain: “a claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of 1 year from the date of the expiry of the contract,” it appears that their suit has prescribed.

HSBC vs SHERMAN 176 SCRA 331 (1989)

Facts: Eastern Book & Supply Service (Singapore) was granted by HSBC Singapore an overdraft facility. Sherman, et. al. and directors of Eastern Book executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favor of HSBC. Eastern Book defaulted. Hence, HSBC filed a suit for collection against them before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Sherman filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the complaint and persons of the defendants. The guarantee provides:  “This guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore.”