PRIL: JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER 3.

That Idonah and George be declared to have no claim on the

stocks
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER 4. That Eugene be awarded costs of sutit
(competence) >>>Eugene's action is for ADJUDICATION OF TITLE TO
-conferred by law or consti CERTAIN SHARES OF STOCKS OF BCMC AND THE GRANTING
-based on the nature of the controversy OF AFFIRMATIVE RELIEFS = w/n CFI's jurisdiction
-it is necessary that said power to try be properly invoked…by Idonah's prayer:
filing a petition For recogition of NY judgment + issue execution = also w/n
-cannot be conferred by consent of parties: decision is void CFI's jurisdiction
if court exceeds its jurisdiction and power in rendering it On fear of Idonah that NY judgment be annuled…
IDONAH PERKINS V. ROXAS COURT: it is a question that goes to the merits of the
FACTS: controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as
CFI case: between each other, and NOT TO THE JURISDICTION OR
Original Action: Eugene Perkins vs. Benguet Consolidated POWER OF THE COURT
Mining Co. (BCMC) for recovery of dividends payable to him, *TEST OF JURISDICTION: WON the tribunal has the power
which was withheld by company to enter upon the inquiry, NOT Whether its conclusion in the
BCMC (answer?): they withheld the payment because of course of it is right or wrong
adverse claims by Idonah Perkins (yes, his wife) and George 1. WAYS OF DEALING WITH CONFLICTS PROBLEM
Engelhard. 1. DISMISS CASE
Amended Complaint: impleaded Idonah and George (both Doctrine of Forum non conveniens
nonresidents) -courts may decline to try the case on the ground that the
Service: summons by publication controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere
Idonah's ANSWER w/ cross complaint: NY judgment -literal interpretation: forum is inconvenient
adjudged her the sole owner of said shares claimed by *Usual grounds when this was used by the court:
Eugene >When plaintiff made the choice of the forum primarily to
-alleged that NY Judgment is res judicata on all questions harass defendant by inflicting upon him unnecessary expense
constituting the subject matter of the case and hardship in pursuing the remedy
ISSUE: WON CFI had jurisdiction over the subject matter of >Where non-resident plaintiff chose the forum because he
case felt that the jury verdicts were larger than in other for a
HELD: YES. CFI had jurisdiction to determine if NY Judgment >When such would be burdensome on the court or taxpayers
is indeed res judicata >When the parties are non-residents and there was a severe
JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER: backlog of cases when it perceived that jury duty, when
the nature of the cause of action compulsory, should not be foisted on a community with no
and of the relief sought, link with or interest in the litigation
conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the >when the court's local machinery was inadequate to
court, effectuate a right, such as when it had no way of securing
and is to be sought for in evidence and the attendance of willing witnesses
general nature of its powers, Union Carbide Case (short summary, as mentioned)
or in authority specially conferred -thousands of residents of Bhopal, India filed suit for
Here: damages in NY as a result of a large scale accident in a Union
Eugene's prayes is for Carbide Bhopal's chemical plant.
2. BCMC to recognize him as the owner of the shares of stocks
H: US Court dismissed case based on forum non conveniens
doctrine
English and Scottish courts
-applied forum non conveniens when there was another
available and ore appropriate forum, in which the ends of
justice would be better served, by eliminating the vexatious
or oppressive character of the pending proceedings and by
removing any unfairness to either party which would result
from trial in the forum seized of the case
*Avoid global forum shopping: filing of repetitious suits in
courts of different jurisdiction over a case
-would result to different decisions by different courts
First Philippine International Bank vs. Court of Appeals(short
summary, as mentioned)
-forum-shopping originated from PRIL, where non-resident
litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place
wherein to bring the suit
-why:
*to secure procedural advantages
*to annoy and harass defendant
*to avoid overcrowded dockets
*select a more friendly venue
Wing On Company v. Syyap
-plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed "unless
the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant"
HEINE V. NY INSURANCE COMPANY
Facts
New York Insurance Company
-incorporated in NY
-has statutory agents in Oregon, upon whom summons were
made
-issued some 240 life insurance policies IN GERMANY, in
German Marks, for GERMAN CITIZENS
-as a condition to do business in Germany, they were
compelled to
(1) accede to the supervision and control of German
insurance officials
(2) invest the proceeds arising from German policies in
German securities
(3) establish an office in Germany w/ an agent upon whom
service can be made.
-the German citizens insured who are in US and Germany
sued NY Insurance Company in US Court
-they are arguing that since the court has jurisdiction of the
subject matter + parties, it HAS NO DISCRETION but should
proceed w/ case…
regardless where the COA arose
…or law by which it is controlled
…or difficulty the court would encounter in attempting to
interpret and enforce a foreign contract
…or interference w/ other business of the court
ISSUE: WON US courts are compelled to take
cognizance of the dispute?
HELD: NO.
-both US and German are open and functioning and
competent to take jurisdiction of the controversies
-service can be made upon the defendants in either of such
jurisdictions
BUT
*to require NY Insurance Company to defend the actions in
this district would impose upon them great and unnecessary
inconvenience and expense
>produce in US numerous records, books, and papers, all of
which are in daily use by it in taking care of current business
(in GERMANY)
*It would also cause inconveniences in US Courts
>consume months of time of court to try and dispose of it
>disarrange calendar, resulting in delay, inconvenience, and
expense to other litigants
*Forum non conveniens
-The court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction. The courts
have repeatedly refused, in their discretion, to entertain
jurisdiction in COA arising in a foreign jurisdiction, WHERE
BOTH PARTIES ARE NONRESIDENTS OF THE FORUM
-The courts of this country are established and maintained
primarily to determine controversies between its own citizens
and those having business there, and manifestly the court
may protect itself against a flood of litigation over contracts
made and to be performed in a foreign country…
IN RE: UNION CARBIDE
FACTS -December 23, 1984, lethal gas known as METHYL
ISOCYANATE was released from Union Carbide India Ltd in
 Bhopal, India. This killed over 2k persons, and injured over
200k.
-four days after, some 145 class actions in federal district
courts in US were commenced on behalf of victims. The
Judicial Panel assigned the actions to the Southern District of
NY, and were consolidated
-India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Process of
Claims) Act which granted the Indian Government (Union of
India or UOI) the exclusive right to represent the victims of
India or elsewhere. Pursuant to this, UOI filed a separate
case before the Southern District Court of NY (different from
the class actions earlier consolidated)
-UCC moved to dismiss the complaints:
(1) forum non conveniens
(2) lack of standing to bring the actions to represent the
victims
DC: grant MTD, with the following conditions
(1) UCC must consent to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts
and waive defenses based on the Statute of Limitations
(2) agree to satisfy the Indian Court judgment, which
comport with the minimal requirements of due process
(3) be subject to discover, under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure in US
-UOI filed complaint in India vs. UCC and UCIL; the plaintiffs
in the civil case (or rather, the prosecutors) still appealed
from the DC judgment, arguing:
(1) UCC has domicile in US so US courts can exercise
personal jurisdiction over the defendant
(2) most crucial and probative evidence is located in US
HELD:
1. Dismissal forum non conveniens valid
>Indian Citizen-Plaintiffs have revoked their authorizations
of American counsels to represent them and substituted UOI.
UOI already filed with Indian court
>Indian courts provide reasonably adequate alternative
forum
>though evidence in US: basic design programs,
Most of the evidence in INDiA: *principal witnesses
*documents bearing on the development and construction of
the plant
*detailed designs
*implementation of plans
*operation and regulation of the plant
*safety precautions
*facts w/ respect to the accident itself
*deaths and injuries attributable to the accident
2. Conditions imposed not all sound
1ST CONDITION: UCC must consent to the jurisdiction
of the Indian courts and waive defenses based on the
Statute of Limitations
-not unusual and has been imposed in numerous cases (to
enable foreign court to provide adequate alternative)
2ND CONDITION: agree to satisfy the Indian Court
judgment, which comport with the minimal
requirements of due process
-proceeded on the erroneous assumption that absent such
requirement, the plaintiffs might not be able to enforce a
favorable judgment vs. UCC in US
NY Law, however, provides that it would render a "conclusive
judgment" as final, conclusive and enforeceable, unless
(1) there's a violation of due process, partial tribunals
(2) no personal jurisdiction over defendant
-the NY DC cannot exercise authority over Indian courts (UCC
alleged that there might be violation of its right to due
process by Indian courts so US DC should retain authority to
monitor the Indian court proceedings and be available on call
to rectify in some undefined way any abuses of UCC's right
to due process):
"ONCE IT DISMISSES THOSE PROCEEDINGS ON THE
GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, IT CEASES TO HAVE
ANY FURTHER JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER UNLESS
AND UNTIL A PROCEEDING MAY SOME DAY BE BROUGHT TO
ENFORCE HERE A FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE INDIAN MONEY
JUDGMENT"
3RD CONDITION: be subject to discover, under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in US
-unfair: should afford both parties (defendant UCC and
plaintiff UOI) equal access to both evidence, treat both sides
equally
WING ON COMPANY V. SYYAP
-Wing On Company incorporated in NY
-Syyap Co., Inc. incorporated in RP
-contract entered in NY:
for the purchase of clothing material, w/ verbal agreement
that Syyap would pay Wing On the value of the clothing
material, then after the sale, the profits would be divided
between them
-clothing materials worth $22,246.04 shipped from NY to
RP
-only $3,530.04 paid. Syyap failed to settle debt and account
for profits.
-Wing On Company sued Syyap in RP.
TC: for Wing On
Arguments of Syyap:
(1) no jurisdiction: Wing On is not licensed to do business in
RP, no legal capacity to sue
(2) should have declined jurisdiction: forum non conveniens
HELD
Affirm!
On Forum non Conveniens
WHEN COURT WOULD DECLINE JURISDICTION BASED
ON FOUM NON CONVENIENS
-Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the
plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
-Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment
HERE: Defendant in the Philippines. So for the court to
assume jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, RP
Court is the convenient forum.
-the present suit is a PERSONAL ACTION, the case may be
commenced and tried where the defendant resides or may
be found, or where the plaintiff resides, at the election of
the plaintiff.
Summary: should consider both public and private interests
Private interests:
*relative ease of access to source of proof
*Availability of compulsory process for attendance of
unwilling witnesses
*cost of obtaining and attendance off willing witnesses
*possibility of viewing the premises if appropriate
*all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
expeditious, and inexpensive
Public Interest
*administrative difficulties encountered when courts are
congested
*jury duty: burden on community
*appropriateness of having the trial in a court that is familiar
with the applicable state law rather than getting another
forum enmeshed in a complicated conflict-of-laws problem
WHEN CAN'T REFUSE TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
*when the forum is the only state where jurisdiction over
defendant can be obtained
*when the forum provides procedural remedies not available
in another state
2. ASSUME JURISDICTION
GR: apply law of the forum
1. A specific law of the forum decrees that internal law
should apply
Civil Code
Article 16: makes real and personal proerty subject to the
law of the country where they are situated
Intestate and testamentary succession: governed by lex
nationale of the person whose succession is under
consideration
Article 829: makes revocation done outside the Philippines
valid according to the law of the place where the will was
made or lex domicilli
Article 819: prohibits Filipinos from making joint wills even
if valid in the country where they were executed
2. The proper foreign law was not properly pleaded and
proved
-no Judicial notice of foreign law
Relevant rules of evidence:
 To prove written foreign law: follow requirements in Sec 24-
25, Rule 132
 May be subject of judicial admission
 Processual presumption - no proof nor admission, foreign law
presumed to be the same as that in the Philippines
Rule 132
Section 19 - CLASSES OF DOCUMENTS
For the purpose of their presentation evidence,
documents are either public or private.
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS are:
a. The written official acts, or records of the official
acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the
Philippines, or of a foreign country;
 b. Documents acknowledge before a notary public
except last wills and testaments; and
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private
documents required by law to the entered
therein.
All other writings are PRIVATE.
Section 24 - PROOF OF OFFICIAL RECORD
The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19,
when admissible for any purpose,
may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the
Philippines,
with a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign
country,
the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is
kept,
and authenticated by the seal of his office.
Section 25 - WHAT ATTESTATION OF COPY MUST
STATE
Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested
for the purpose of evidence,
the attestation must state, in substance,
that the copy is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the case may be.
The attestation must be
under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there
be any, or
if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the
seal of such court.
… R132.24-25)
To prove unwritten foreign law – Sec 46, Rule 130
Section 46 - LEARNED TREATISES
A published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on a
subject of history, law, science, or art is admissible as
tending to prove the truth of a matter stated therein if
the court takes judicial notice, or a witness expert in
the subject testifies, that the writer of the statement
in the treatise, periodical or pamphlet is recognized in
his profession or calling as expert in the subject.
 Requisites:
1. The court takes judicial notice thereof
2. The same is testified to by a witness expert in the
subject
 CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values[1]
Legal treatises also included
FLEUMER V. HIX
FACTS:
-Fleumer, the special administrator of Hix, presented the
latter's will for probate in the Philippines
-the will did not show the following:
*acknowledgment by Hix in the presence of 2 competent
witnesses
*W subscribed to will in presence of testator, and of each
other
-Fleumer wanted to present the said will, executed in West
Virginia by Hix who was residing at the time there, in RP
(not sure): Fleumer alleges that under W. Virginia law, will is
duly executed
TO PROVE W. Virginia law: submitted a copy of Section
3868 of Act 1882 as found in West Virginia Code + Certified
by the Director of our National Library
HELD: Should prove foreign law first before courts of
RP take cognizance
-no judicial notice, foreign laws must be proved as facts
HERE:
-no showing that the book from which an extract was taken
was printed or published under the authority of the State of
West Virginia
-No attestation by the certificate of the officer having charge
of the original, under the seal of the State of West Virginia
(Section 301, Code of Civil Procedure back then? Now
-no evidence to show that the extract from the laws of West
Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed
+
Due execution of the will was not established: only showed >Children and widow did not dispute the provisions of the
testimony of the petitioner laws of State of Nevada
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHANAN >>>SO HERE, court decided to take judicial notice of the
FACTS Nevada law, as presented in the earlier stages of the case
-C.O. Bohanan, citizen of Nevada, died with a Will.  The case falls under any of the exceptions to the
-Philippine Trust Co. was named executer of the will application of foreign law:
-Will gave to *a grandson: P90,819.67 of the P211,639 + ...when foreign law is
1/2 of all shares of stock of several mining companies (1) contrary to an important public policy of the forum
*brother and sister: 1/2 of all shares of stock of several (2) penal in nature
mining companies (3) procedural in nature
*Only P6k was left to each of his children (4) purely fiscal/administrative in nature
-widow and 2 children of C.O. Bohanan questioned the (5) (will) work undeniable injustice to the citizens of the
validity of the will in the hearing for the project of partition forum
(will already admitted) (6) case involves real/personal property situated in theforum
HELD: Even if Nevada law not proved in this stage of the (7) application of foreign law might endanger vital interest of
proceeding, it was taken judicial notice of because Philippine the state (forum)
Trust Co. already produced Section 9905 of the Compiled (8) contrary to good morals
Nevada laws twice before the courts below. As Nevada law
does not impose compulsory heirs, project partition valid
Discussion
-Old Civil Law applicable: died 1944 while NCC applied 1945
Old civil code provides that the ff would be governed by the
national law of the person whose succession is in order:
*order of succession
*extent of successional rights
*intrinsic validity of provisions of the will
-Here, CO Bohanan was a NEVADAn citizen.
-Nevada laws allow a testator to dispose of all his properties
by will.
-to prove foreign law:
Section 41: an official record/entry…may be evidenced by
*official publication
*copy attested by the officer having legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy + (if not kept in RP) certificate that
such officer has custody
-HOW NEVADA LAW recognized
>During the October 1954 hearing of the Motion of
Magdalena Bohanan for withdrawal of ther P20k share,
Nevada Law was introduced as Exhibit 2
>During the January 1950 hearing, law was presented as
Exhibit B