is inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS,
297 SCRA 469 1998
FACTS: Herein private respondent Milagros P. Morada is a
flight attendant for petitioner SAUDIA airlines, where the
former was tried to be raped by Thamer and Allah AlGazzawi,
both Sauidi nationals and fellow crew member, after a night
of dancing in their hotel while in Jakarta, Indonesia. She
was rescued. After two weeks of detention the accused were
both deported to Saudi and they were reinstated by Saudia.
She was pressured by police officers to make a statement and
to drop the case against the accused; in return she will then
be allowed to return to Manila and retrieved her passport.
For the second time, she was asked by her superiors to again
appear before the Saudi court. Without her knowledge, she
was already tried by Saudi court together with the accused
and was sentenced to five months imprisonment and to 286
lashes in connection with Jakarta rape incident. The court
found her guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing
and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3)
socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic
tradition.
ISSUE/S: WHETHER OR NOT the QC Regional Trial
Court has jurisdiction to hear and try the civil case based on
Article 21 of the New Civil Code or the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia court though there is the existence of foreign element.
RULING: The forms in which a foreign element may appear
are many, such as the fact that one party is a resident
Philippine national, and that the other is a resident foreign
corporation. The forms in which this foreign element may
appear are many. The foreign element may simply consist in
the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has
a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one
State involves properties situated in another State. In other
cases, the foreign element may assume a complex form. In
the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that
private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national,
and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the
petitioner SAUDIA as a flight stewardess, events did transpire
during her many occasions of travel across national borders,
particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts” situation to
arise.
The forms in which a foreign element may appear are many,
such as the fact that one party is a resident Philippine
national, and that the other is a resident foreign corporation.
The forms in which this foreign element may appear are
many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that
one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign
domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State
involves properties situated in another State. In other cases,
the foreign element may assume a complex form. In the
instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that
private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national,
and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the
petitioner SAUDIA as a flight stewardess, events did transpire
during her many occasions of travel across national borders,
particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts” situation to
arise.
Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the
existence of a foreign element, the problem could present a
“conflicts” case. Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily
establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with
petitioner that the problem herein could present a “conflicts”
case. A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and
is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said to
contain a “foreign element.” The presence of a foreign element
and associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits
of their birth or conception.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. CA,
G.R. No. 122191. October 8, 1998
Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the
existence of a foreign element, the problem herein could
present a “conflicts” case.
FOREIGN ELEMENT: A factual situation that cuts across
territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or
more states is said to contain a “foreign element”. The
presence of a foreign element is inevitable since social and
economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely
confined to the geographic limits of their birth or conception.
The forms in which this foreign element may appear are
many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that
one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign
domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State
involves properties situated in another State. In other cases,
the foreign element may assume a complex form.
In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact
that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine
national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign
corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada
with the petitioner Saudia as a flight stewardess, events did
transpire during her many occasions of travel across national
borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts”
situation to arise.
Although Article 19 merely declares a principle of law, Article
21 gives flesh to its provisions. Thus, we agree with private
respondent’s assertion that violations of Articles 19 and 21
are actionable, with judicially enforceable remedies in the
municipal forum. Based on the allegations in the Amended
Complaint, read in the light of the Rules of Court on
jurisdiction we find that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the suit. Its authority to try and hear the case is provided for
under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 7691.
Pragmatic considerations, including the convenience of the
parties, also weigh heavily in favor of the RTC Quezon City
assuming jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest of
the litigant. Enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained is
quite obvious. Relative advantages and obstacles to a fair
trial are equally important. Plaintiff may not, by choice of an
inconvenient forum, ‘vex’, ‘harass’, or ‘oppress’ the
defendant, e.g. by inflicting upon him needless expense or
disturbance. But unless the balance is strongly in favor of
the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be
disturbed.
Forcing a party to seek remedial action in a place where she
no longer maintains substantial connections would cause a
fundamental unfairness to her.
Similarly, the trial court also possesses jurisdiction over the
persons of the parties herein. By filing her Complaint and
Amended Complaint with the trial court, private respondent
has voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
court.
The records show that petitioner SAUDIA has filed several
motions praying for the dismissal of Morada’s Amended
Complaint. SAUDIA also filed an Answer In Ex Abundante
Cautelam dated February 20, 1995. What is very patent and
explicit from the motions filed, is that SAUDIA prayed for
other reliefs under the premises. Undeniably, petitioner
SAUDIA has effectively submitted to the trial court’s
jurisdiction by praying for the dismissal of the Amended
Complaint on grounds other than lack of
jurisdiction. Clearly, petitioner had submitted to the
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Thus,
we find that the trial court has jurisdiction over the case and There is likewise logical basis on record for the claim that the
that its exercise thereof, justified. “handing over” or “turning over” of the person of private
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law respondent to Jeddah officials, petitioner may have acted
problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What beyond its duties as employer.
legal system should control a given situation where some of
the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one
to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the involving torts, the “connecting factor” or “point of contact”
situation. could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex
loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a
Several theories have been propounded in order to identify conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a
the legal system that should ultimately control. Although situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct
ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance took place). This is because it is in the Philippines
both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always where petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a
do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she had
which of these two important values should be stressed. honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its
In applying said principle to determine the State which has rights and in the performance of its duties, “act with justice,
the most significant relationship, the following contacts are give her her due and observe honesty and good
to be taken into account and evaluated according to their faith.” Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed.
relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly occurred in
the place where the injury occurred; (b) the place where the another country is of no moment. For in our view what is
conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domicile, important here is the place where the over-all harm or the
residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of fatality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social
business of the parties, and (d) the place where the standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged,
relationship, if any, between the parties is centered. according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent).
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as
determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules the situs of the alleged tort.
fall. This process is known as “characterization”, or the
“doctrine of qualification”. It is the “process of deciding As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-
whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question all injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is
specified in a conflicts rule.” The purpose of likewise no question that private respondent is a resident
“characterization” is to enable the forum to select the proper Filipina national, working with petitioner, a resident foreign
law. Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, corporation engaged here in the business of international air
but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential carriage. Thus, the “relationship” between the parties was
element of conflict rules is the indication of a “test” or centered here, although it should be stressed that this suit is
“connecting factor” or “point of contact”. Choice-of-law rules not based on mere labor law violations. From the record, the
invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property claim that the Philippines has the most significant contact
right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of with the matter in this dispute, raised by private respondent
contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, as plaintiff below against defendant (herein petitioner), in our
the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. view, has been properly established.
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve
as the possible test for the determination of the applicable Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the
law. These “test factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting situs of the tort complaint of and the place “having the most
factors” could be any of the following: interest in the problem”, we find, by way of recapitulation,
that the Philippine law on tort liability should have
“(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, paramount application to and control in the resolution of the
his place of sojourn, or his origin; legal issues arising out of this case. Further, we hold that the
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a respondent Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the
corporation; parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or appropriate venue is in Quezon City, which could properly
is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is apply Philippine law. Moreover, we find untenable petitioner’s
decisive when real rights are involved; insistence that “[s]ince private respondent instituted this
(4) the place where an act has been done, thelocus actus, suit, she has the burden of pleading and proving the
such as the place where a contract has been made, a applicable Saudi law on the matter.” As aptly said by private
marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. respondent, she has “no obligation to plead and prove the law
The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since her cause of action is
torts; based on Articles 19 and 21” of the Civil Code of the
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., Philippines. In her Amended Complaint and subsequent
the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place pleadings she never alleged that Saudi law should govern this
where a power of attorney is to be exercised; case. And as correctly held by the respondent appellate court,
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that “considering that it was the petitioner who was invoking the
should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis; applicability of the law of Saudi Arabia, thus the burden was
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish what the law of
instituted or done. Thelex fori—the law of the forum—is Saudi Arabia is.
particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, IS FORUM NON-CONVENIENS APPLY? The Court has
matters of ‘procedure’ not going to the substance of the claim jurisdiction but still the court may dismiss if it appears that
involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies it is inconvenient to the parties. Here, it is convenient.
whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law
is excluded from application in a given case for the reason
that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of
foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of
practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master
or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING
particularly contracts of affreightment.” CONSULTANTS CO., LTD.,
vs MINORU KITAMURA
G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007 of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. To
FACTS: Nippon Engineering Consultants (Nippon), a succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action for lack
Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, the
management support in the infrastructure projects national movant must show that the court or tribunal cannot act on
permanently residing in the Philippines. The agreement the matter submitted to it because no lawgrants it the power
provides that Kitamaru was to extend professional services to adjudicate the claims.
to Nippon for a year. Nippon assigned Kitamaru to work as
the project manager of the Southern Tagalog Access Road In the instant case, Nippon, in its MTD, does not claim that
(STAR) project. When the STAR project was near completion, the RTC is not properly vested by law w/ jurisdiction to hear
DPWH engaged the consultancy services of Nippon, this time the subject controversy for a civil case for specific
for the detailed engineering & construction supervision of the performance & damages is one not capable of pecuniary
Bongabon-Baler Road Improvement (BBRI) Project. Kitamaru estimation & is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa
was named as the project manger in the contract. City.What they rather raise as grounds to question subject
matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci celebrationis
Hasegawa, Nippon’s general manager for its International and lex contractus, and the “state of the most significant
Division, informed Kitamaru that the company had no more relationship rule.” The Court finds the invocation of these
intention of automatically renewing his ICA. His services grounds unsound.
would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial
completion of the STAR Project. Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law of the place of the
ceremony” or the law of the place where a contract is made.
Kitamaru demanded that he be assigned to the BBRI project. The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractusmeans
Nippon insisted that Kitamaru’s contract was for a fixed term the “law of the place where a contract is executed or to be
that had expired. Kitamaru then filed for specific performed.” It controls the nature, construction, and validity
performance & damages w/ the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon filed of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily
a MTD. Nippon’s contention: The ICA had been perfected in agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either
Japan & executed by & between Japanese nationals. Thus, expressly or implicitly. Under the “state of the most
the RTC of Lipa City has no jurisdiction. The claim for significant relationship rule,” to ascertain what state law to
improper pre-termination of Kitamaru’s ICA could only be apply to a dispute, the court should determine which state
heard & ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and
principles of lex loci celebrationis & lex contractus. the parties. In a case involving a contract, the court should
consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. The CA ruled hat the to be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place
principle of lex loci celebrationis was not applicable to the of incorporation of the parties.This rule takes into account
case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of several contacts and evaluates them according to their
the written agreement put in issue. It held that the RTC was relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be
correct in applying the principle of lex loci solutionis. resolved.

ISSUE: Whether or not the subject matter jurisdiction of
Philippine courts in civil cases for specific performance &
damages involving contracts executed outside the country by
foreign nationals may be assailed on the principles of lex loci
celebrationis, lex contractus, “the state of the most
significant relationship rule,” or forum non conveniens.
HELD: NO. In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, 3
consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law,
and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Jurisdiction
& choice of law are 2 distinct concepts.Jurisdiction considers
whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state;
choice of law asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law w/c will determine the merits
of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise
jurisdiction does notautomatically give a state constitutional
authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the
choice of the lex foriwill often coincide, the “minimum
contacts” for one do not always provide the necessary
“significant contacts” for the other. The question of whether
the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different
from the question of whether the courts of that state have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment.
In this case, only the 1st phase is at issue—jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction, however, has various aspects. For a court to
validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy, it must
have jurisdiction over the plaintiff/petitioner, over the
defendant/respondent, over the subject matter, over the
issues of the case and, in cases involving property, over the
res or the thing w/c is the subject of the litigation.In assailing
the trial court's jurisdiction herein, Nippon is actually
referring to subject matter jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding
is conferred by the sovereign authority w/c establishes and
organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner
prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations
Since these 3 principles in conflict of laws make reference to
the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the
2nd phase, the choice of law. They determine which state's
law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a
conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the only issue in this case
is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only
inapplicable but also not yet called for.
Further, Nippon’s premature invocation of choice-of-law
rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed
out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Before
determining which law should apply, 1st there should exist
a conflict of laws situation requiring theapplication of the
conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country
is invoked to provide the proper rules for the solution of a
case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved.
It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a
foreign element, is brought before a court or administrative
agency, there are 3 alternatives open to the latter in disposing
of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of
jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case;
(2) assume jurisdiction over the case and apply the internal
law of the forum; or (3) assume jurisdiction over the case and
take into account or apply the law of some other State or
States. The court’s power to hear cases and controversies is
derived from the Constitution and the laws. While it may
choose to recognize laws of foreign nations, the court is not
limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other
formalagreements, even in matters regarding rights provided
by foreign sovereigns.
Neither can the other ground raised, forum non conveniens,
be used to deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction. 1st, it is not a
proper basis for a motion to dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16
of the Rules of Court does not include it as a ground. 2nd,
whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the
basis of the said doctrine depends largely upon the facts of
the particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion
of the RTC. In this case, the RTC decided to assume
jurisdiction. 3rd, the propriety of dismissing a case based on
this principle requires a factual determination; hence, this
conflicts principle is more properly considered a matter of
defense.
Hasegawa and Nippon Eng. v. Kitamura
G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007
Ponente: Justice Nachura
Facts:
1. The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is a
Japanese consultancy firm which provides technical and
management support in the infrastructure project of foreign
governments. It entered into a Independent Contractor
Agreement (ICA) with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese
national permanently residing in the Philippines. Under the
ICA, the respondent will extend professional services to the
petitioner for a year.
RAYTHEON SOUGHT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT
ON THE GROUNDS OF FAILURE TO STATE ACAUSE OF
ACTION & FORUM NON CONVENIENS & PRAYED FOR
DAMAGES BY WAY OF COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM.
THE RTC DENIED RAYTHEON’S MOTION. THE CA
AFFIRMED.
Raytheon’s contention: The written contract between Rouzie
& BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the
contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign
elements in the dispute, namely that the parties & witnesses
involved are American corporations & citizens & the evidence
to be presented is located outside the Philippines, that
renders our local courts inconvenient forums. The foreign
elements of the dispute necessitate the immediate
application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
ISSUES(a) W/N the RTC had jurisdiction.(b) W/N the
complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non
conveniens.

2. Subsequently Kitamura was assigned as project manager RULING (a) YES. On the matter of jurisdiction over a
of STAR project in 1999. In 2000, he was informed by the conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a
petitioner that it will no longer renew the ICA and that he will Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the
be retained until its expiration. Kitamura filed a civil casefor subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed
specific performance before the RTC of Lipa and damages. to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the
convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an
3. The lower court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the
dispute and denied the petitioner's motion to dismiss since case is filed. Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter
accordingly, it is vested by law with the power to entertain of an action is conferred by the Constitution and the law &
and hear the civil case filed by Kitamura. The Court of by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of
Appeals upheld the lower court's decision. w/n the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims
or reliefs sought therein. The case file was an action for
Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case damages arising from an alleged breach of contract.
Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the amount of
HELD: YES damages prayed are w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC. As
regards jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired
1. The only issue is the jurisdiction, hence, choice-of-law jurisdiction over Rouzi upon the filing of the complaint. On
rules as raised by the petitioner is inapplicable and not yet the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of Raytheon was
called for (reference to lex loci, lex contractus, or state of most acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.
significant rule). The petitioner prematurelyinvoked the said
rules before pointing out any conflict between the laws of That THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION
Japan and the Philippines. THAT THE SAME SHALL BE GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT
2. The doctrine on forum non conveniens cannot be invoked THE PHILIPPINE COURTS, OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN
to deprive the RTC of its jurisdiction. Dismissing the case on TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE PRECLUDED FROM
this ground requires a factual determination hence the HEARING THE CIVIL ACTION.
principle is considered to be more a matter of defense.
JURISDICTION & CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 DISTINCT
Raytheon International vs Rouzie gr 162894 CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause
a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the
FACTS Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation further question whether the application of a substantive law
duly organized & existing under the laws of Connecticut, which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both
&Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a parties. The choice of law stipulation will be come relevant
contract. BMSI hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop,
the sale of services in several government projects in that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial
thePhilippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the court.
gross receipts. Rouzie secured a service contract w/ the Rep.
of Phil. on behalf of BMSI for the dredging of rivers affected (b) NO. UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON
by the Mt.Pinatubo eruption & mudflows. Rouzie filed before CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN CONFLICTS-OF-LAWS CASES,
the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International (Rust) MAY REFUSE IMPOSITIONS ON ITS JURISDICTION WHERE
for alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, IT IS NOT THE MOST “CONVENIENT” OR AVAILABLE
& breach of employment contract. The Labor Arbiter order FORUM AND THE PARTIES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM
ed BMSI & Rust to pay Rouzie’s money claims. Upon appeal, SEEKING REMEDIES ELSEWHERE.
the NLRC reversed & dismissed Rouzie’s complaint on the Raytheon’s averments of the foreign elements are not
ground of lack of jurisdiction. sufficient to oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over the case and
the parties involved.
Rouzie filed an action for damages before the RTC of La Union
(where he was a resident) against Raytheon International. He Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the
reiterated that he was not paid the commissions due him principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
from the Pinatubo dredging project w/c hesecured on behalf determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
of BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI, RUST and matter of defense. While it is w/c the discretion of the trial
Raytheon had combined & functioned as 1 company. court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground,
it should do so only after vital facts are established, to
determine whether special circumstances require the court’s instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits
desistance. proceeds before the trial court.

RAYTHEON V. ROUZIE (2008) Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court,
[ G.R. No. 162894, February 26, 2008 ] in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available
FACTS: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc., a forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the remedies elsewhere. Petitioner’s averments of the foreign
State of Connecticut, United States of America, and elements in the instant case are not sufficient to oust the trial
respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. No. 1192-BG and
entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent as the parties involved.
its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several
government projects in the Philippines for an agreed Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on
remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. On 11 March the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
1992, respondent secured a service contract with the determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
Republic of the Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the dredging matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the trial
of rivers affected by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and mudflows. court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground,
it should do so only after vital facts are established, to
On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the determine whether special circumstances require the court’s
Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations desistance.
Commission, a suit against BMSI and Rust International,
Inc., Rodney C. Gilbert and Walter G. Browning for alleged HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination and breach (HSBC) vs. SHERMAN et al
of employment contract. G.R. No. 72494 August 11, 1989
On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La
Union, instituted an action for damages before the Regional FACTS: It appears that sometime in 1981, Eastern Book
Trial Court of Bauang, La Union. The Complaint named as Supply Service PTE, Ltd. (COMPANY), a company
defendants herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. as incorporated in Singapore applied with and was granted by
well as BMSI and RUST, the two corporations impleaded in HSBC Singapore branch an overdraft facility in the maximum
the earlier labor case. amount of Singapore dollars 200,000 with interest at 3% over
Petitioner also referred to the NLRC decision which HSBC prime rate, payable monthly, on amounts due under
disclosed that per the written agreement between respondent said overdraft facility.As a security for the repayment by the
and BMSI and RUST, denominated as “Special Sales COMPANY of sums advanced by HSBC to it through the
Representative Agreement,” the rights and obligations of the aforesaid overdraft facility, in 1982, both private respondents
parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of and a certain Lowe, all of whom were directors of the
Connecticut. Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint COMPANY at such time, executed a Joint and Several
on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum Guarantee in favor of HSBC whereby private respondents
non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of and Lowe agreed to pay, jointly and severally, on demand all
compulsory counterclaim. sums owed by the COMPANY to petitioner BANK under the
Petitioner asserts that the written contract between aforestated overdraft facility.
respondent and BMSI included a valid choice of law clause,
that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the The Joint and Several Guarantee provides, inter alia, that:
State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign This guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities
elements in the dispute – namely, the parties and witnesses arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under
involved are American corporations and citizens and the and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the
evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines – Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts of
that renders our local courts inconvenient forums. Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising
under this guarantee. …
ISSUE:WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED
ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS? The COMPANY failed to pay its obligation. Thus, HSBC
RULING: demanded payment and inasmuch as the private
On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws respondents still failed to pay, HSBC filed A complaint for
problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and collection of a sum of money against private respondents
where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Sherman and Reloj before RTC of Quezon City.
parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even Private respondents filed an MTD on the ground of lack of
if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the jurisdiction over the subject matter. The trial court denied
parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of the motion. They then filed before the respondent IAC a
sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or
prayer for a restraining order. The IAC rendered a decision
As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the trial court enjoining the RTC Quezon City from taking further
acquired jurisdiction over herein respondent (as party cognizance of the case and to dismiss the same for filing with
plaintiff) upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, the proper court of Singapore which is the proper forum. MR
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner (as party defendant) denied, hence this petition.
was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court. ISSUE: Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the suit,
That the subject contract included a stipulation that vis-a-vis the Guarantee stipulation regarding jurisdiction?
the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Connecticut does not suggest that the Philippine courts, or HELD: YES. One basic principle underlies all rules of
any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have
hearing the civil action. Jurisdiction and choice of law are jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for
two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem quasi in rem
fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law or in personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be
asks the further question whether the application of a based on some minimum contacts that will not offend
substantive law which will determine the merits of the case traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
is fair to both parties.The choice of law stipulation will The defense of private respondents that the complaint should
become relevant only when the substantive issues of the have been filed in Singapore is based merely on technicality.
They did not even claim, much less prove, that the filing of
the action here will cause them any unnecessary trouble,
damage, or expense. On the other hand, there is no showing
that petitioner BANK filed the action here just to harass
private respondents.
In the case of Neville Y. Lamis Ents., et al. v. Lagamon, etc.,
where the stipulation was “[i]n case of litigation, jurisdiction
shall be vested in the Court of Davao City.” We held:
Anent the claim that Davao City had been stipulated as the
venue, suffice it to say that a stipulation as to venue does not
preclude the filing of suits in the residence of plaintiff or
defendant under Section 2 (b), Rule 4, ROC, in the absence
of qualifying or restrictive words in the agreement which
would indicate that the place named is the only venue agreed
upon by the parties.
Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, the parties did not
thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, to the
exclusion of all the rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the
clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of
jurisdiction. In International Law, jurisdiction is often
defined as the light of a State to exercise authority over
persons and things within its boundaries subject to certain
exceptions. Thus, a State does not assume jurisdiction over
travelling sovereigns, ambassadors and diplomatic
representatives of other States, and foreign military units
stationed in or marching through State territory with the
permission of the latter’s authorities. This authority, which
finds its source in the concept of sovereignty, is exclusive
within and throughout the domain of the State. A State is
competent to take hold of any judicial matter it sees fit by
making its courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over all
kinds of cases brought before them
NOTES: The respondent IAC likewise ruled that:
… In a conflict problem, a court will simply refuse to entertain
the case if it is not authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction.
And even if it is so authorized, it may still refuse to entertain
the case by applying the principle of forum non conveniens.
… testamentary provisions of Christensen’s will, such law being
However, whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed
on the basis of the principle of forum non conveniens
depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Thus, the
IAC should not have relied on such principle.
AZNAR vs. GARCIA
G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963
FACTS: EDWARD Christensen died testate. The estate was
distributed by Executioner Aznar according to the will, which
provides that: Php 3,600 be given to HELEN Christensen as
her legacy, and the rest of his estate to his daughter LUCY
Christensen, as pronounced by CFI Davao.
Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed
by Helen, insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as an
acknowledged natural child, she having been declared by Us
an acknowledged natural child of the deceased Edward in an
earlier case.
As to his citizenship, we find that the citizenship that he
acquired in California when he resided in Sacramento from
1904 to 1913, was never lost by his stay in the Philippines,
and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a
citizen of California by the fact that when he executed his will
he declared that he was a citizen of that State; so that he
appears never to have intended to abandon his California
citizenship by acquiring another. But at the time of his death,
he was domiciled in the Philippines.
ISSUE: what law on succession should apply, the Philippine
law or the California law?
HELD: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
reversed and the case returned to the lower court with
instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law
on succession provides.
The law that governs the validity of his testamentary
dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which is as follows:
ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject
to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of
the country where said property may be found.
The application of this article in the case at bar requires the
determination of the meaning of the term “national law” is
used therein.
The next question is: What is the law in California governing
the disposition of personal property?
The decision of CFI Davao, sustains the contention of the
executor-appellee that under the California Probate Code, a
testator may dispose of his property by will in the form and
manner he desires. But HELEN invokes the provisions of
Article 946 of the Civil Code of California, which is as follows:
If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal
property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its
owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.
It is argued on executor’s behalf that as the deceased
Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the
internal law thereof, which is that given in the Kaufman case,
should govern the determination of the validity of the
in force in the State of California of which Christensen was a
citizen. Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946
should be applicable, and in accordance therewith and
following the doctrine of the renvoi, the question of the
validity of the testamentary provision in question should be
referred back to the law of the decedent’s domicile, which is
the Philippines.
We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its
conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in In re Kaufman,
its internal law. If the law on succ ession and the conflict of
laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its
own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In
re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but
Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not
domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The rule
laid down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the
determination of matters with foreign element involved is in
accord with the general principle of American law that the
domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights
which follow the person of the owner.
Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal law
of California. But as above explained the laws of California
have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for
residents therein and another for those domiciled in other
jurisdictions.
It is argued on appellees’ (Aznar and LUCY) behalf that the
clause “if there is no law to the contrary in the place where
the property is situated” in Sec. 946 of the California Civil
Code refers to Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
and that the law to the contrary in the Philippines is the
provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the
deceased should govern. This contention can not be The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not
sustained. entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is the
national law of the deceased.
As explained in the various authorities cited above, the
national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the N.B. To see why the Renvoi doctrine was not applied in this
law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article case, click HERE for the explanation.
946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question
to the law of the testator’s domicile. The conflict of laws rule The Renvoi Doctrine is a judicial precept whereby the Conflict
in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the of Laws Rule in the place of the forum refer a matter to the
case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the Conflict of Laws Rule in another, and the latter refers the
law of his domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar. The matter back to the forum (remission) or to a third state
court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case (transmission). Thus, owing to its french translation: “to send
back to California; such action would leave the issue back” or “to refer back unopened”.
incapable of determination because the case will then be like
a football, tossed back and forth between the two states, It becomes relevant in cases where the individual involved is
between the country of which the decedent was a citizen and a national of one country and a domiciliary of another; or
the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply with respect to property, the property is located in one
its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state country and the law of another is being invoked relative to
of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially the issues concerning the property. So much so that where
as the application of the internal law of California provides an individual (a decedent) is a national and a domiciliary of
no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) one country (say, Texas U.S.), there can be no Renvoi as to
and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural the issue concerning the validity of his disposition by virtue
children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent of the will here in the Philippines since it is the law of the
recognizing them. nationality which is to be applied and there was no instance
of the matter being referred back (Bellis vs. Bellis; Note that
We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased in the case, the Doctrine of Processual Presumption was
Edward, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity applied).
of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged
natural child, the appellant HELEN, should be governed by An example where the Renvoi Doctrine was applied was in
the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the the case of Aznar vs. Garcia. The Decedent was a national of
Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California.. California and a domiciliary of the Philippines. The
acknowledged natural child claimed her right to her legitime
NOTES: There is no single American law governing the pursuant to Philippine law. This was opposed by the
validity of testamentary provisions in the United States, each decedent’s executor contending that the will, not mentioning
state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its her legitimes, was valid pursuant to Californian law. The
citizens only and in force only within the state. The “national Court in the Philippines ruled in favor of the child. The
law” indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code above quoted reason: while the Philippine laws hold that it is the law of the
can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general country of nationality of the decedent which should govern,
American law. So it can refer to no other than the private law where the law of the latter refers back the matter to the forum
of the State of California. or domiciliary, there is Renvoi. Thus the Philippine Court will
take cognizance of the issue and apply the law of the
Testate of Amos Bellis vs. Edward A. Bellis, et al Philippines. The law of the state of California provides for the
G.R. No. L-23678 (June 6, 1967) applicability of the law of the domicile, by reason of which the
Court validly ruled in favor of the acknowledged natural
FACTS:Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and child.
of the United States. He had five legitimate children with his
first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with CADALIN VS POEA
his second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994
illegitimate children.
GENERAL RULE: A foreign procedural law will not be applied
6 years prior Amos Bellis’ death, he executed two(2) wills, in the forum.
apportioning the remainder of his estate and properties to his EXCEPTION: When the country of the forum has a
seven surviving children. The appellants filed their "borrowing statute," the country of the forum will apply the
oppositions to the project of partition claiming that they have foreign statute of limitations.
been deprived of their legitimes to which they were entitled EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The court of the forum will
according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public
deceased wanted his Philippine estate to be governed by the policy.
Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills. FACTS: Cadalin et al. are overseas contract workers recruited
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the by respondent-appellant AIBC for its accredited foreign
case in the determination of the illegitimate children’s principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975 to 1983.
successional rights As such, they were all deployed at various projects in several
countries in the Middle East as well as in Southeast Asia, in
RULING: Court ruled that provision in a foreigner’s will to the Indonesia and Malaysia. The case arose when their overseas
effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance employment contracts were terminated even before their
with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal expiration. Under Bahrain law, where some of the
and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period for
those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil claims arising out of a contract of employment is one year.
Code states said national law should govern.
ISSUE: Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a
Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law
his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes,
then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the HELD: As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be
legitimes, is valid. applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of
process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made. In
and so forth, are governed by teh laws of the forum. This is the case at bar, petitioner only has one cause of action which
true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive is non-payment of the debt. Nevertheless, alternative
law. A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict remedies are available for its enjoyment and exercise.
of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as Petitioner then may opt to exercise only one of two remedies
procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization so as not to violate the rule against splitting a cause of action.
given such a law. Accordingly, applying the foregoing rules, we hold that
petitioner, by the expediency of filing four civil suits before
However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural foreign courts, necessarily abandoned the remedy to
or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over the
the forum has a “borrowing statute.” Said statute has the properties of third-party mortgagor and herein private
practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as respondent ARC. Moreover, by filing the four civil actions and
one of substance. A “borrowing statute” directs the state of by eventually foreclosing extra-judicially the mortgages,
the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the petitioner in effect transgressed the rules against splitting a
pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are cause of action well-enshrined in jurisprudence and our
several kinds of “borrowing statutes,” one form provides that statute books.
an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued,
will not be enforced in the forum even though the local 2. Conflicts of Law
statute has not run against it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Incidentally, petitioner alleges that under English Law, which
Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: according to petitioner is the governing law with regard to the
principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its
“If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of
action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the money.
Philippine Islands.”
We rule in the negative. In a long line of decisions, this Court
In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that
cannot be enforced ex propio vigore insofar as it ordains the there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law
application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the
Decree No. 23 of 1976. The courts of the forum will not foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our
enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the forum’s public courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our
policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the local or domestic or internal
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual
would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor. presumption. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that
the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and
Bank of America vs American Realty Corporation proved in said foreign law would still not find applicability.
GR 133876 December 29, 1999
Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary
Facts: Petitioner granted loans to 3 foreign corporations. As to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the
security, the latter mortgaged a property located in the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.
Philippines owned by herein respondent ARC. ARC is a third Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts
party mortgagor who pledged its own property in favor of the or property, and those which have for their object public
3 debtor-foreign corporations. The debtors failed to pay. order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
Thus, petitioner filed collection suits in foreign courts to ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
enforce the loan. Subsequently, it filed a petition in the determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
Sheriff to extra-judicially foreclose the said mortgage, which country. The public policy sought to be protected in the
was granted. On 12 February 1993, private respondent filed instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction
before the Pasig RTC, Branch 159, an action for damages proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action.
against the petitioner, for the latter’s act of foreclosing extra-
judicially the real estate mortgages despite the pendency of Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its
civil suits before foreign courts for the collection of the application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens
principal loan. or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most
important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or
Issue: WON petitioner’s act of filing a collection suit against contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental
the principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before principles of Conflict of Laws.
foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of Clearly then, English Law is not applicable.
foreclosure.
Herald Black Dacasin, petitioner
Held: Yes. vs.nSharon Del Mundo Dacasin , respondent
G.R. no. 168785 February 05, 2010
1. Loan; Mortgage; remedies:
In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage FACTS: On April 1994, petitioner and respondent got married
creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a here in the Philippines. The following year, respondent got
personal action or debt or a real action to foreclose the pregnant and gave birth to a baby girl whom they named
mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either of the two Stephanie. In June of 1999respondent sought and obtained
remedies, but not both. By such election, his cause of action from the Illinois Court a divorce decree against petitioner. In
can by no means be impaired, for each of the two remedies is its ruling, the Illinois court dissolved the marriage and
complete in itself. In our jurisdiction, the remedies available awarded to the respondent sole custody of Stephanie and
to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes.
cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a On 28th of January 2002, petitioner and respondent
waiver of the other. For this purpose, a remedy is deemed executed in Manila a contract (Agreement) for the joint
chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the custody of Stephanie. Two years after, petitioner sued
filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of respondent in the Regional TrialCourt of Makati City.
mortgage. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is Petitioner claimed that respondent exercised sole custody
deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the over Stephanie. Respondent sought the dismissal of the
petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of
complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, since Illinois Court hold party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party,
the jurisdiction in enforcing the divorce decree. and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it...”
Thus, provided the trial court has conducted proceedings
ISSUE: The question is whether the trial court has where all relevant facts have been fully and properly
jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s suit and enforce developed, where opposing counsel has been given
the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child. opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where
the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered,
RULING: The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit or proceeding is “appropriate.”
petitioner’s suit but not to enforce the Agreement which is
void. However, factual and equity considerations militate NORMA DEL SOCORRO V. WILSEM
against the dismissal of petitioner’s suit and call for the G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014
remand of the case to settle the question of Stephanie’s
custody. FACTS: Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem
contracted marriage in Holland. They were blessed with a son
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by law. At the time named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their
petitioner filed his suit in the trial court, statutory law vests marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by
on Regional Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her
civil actions incapable of pecuniary estimation. An action for son came home to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst
specific performance, such as petitioner’s suit to enforce the made a promise to provide monthly support to their son.
Agreement on joint child custody, belongs to this species of However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the
actions. Thus, jurisdiction-wise, petitioner went to the right Philippines, Ernst never gave support to Roderigo.
court. Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again the
Stephanie is now nearly 15 years old, thus removing the case Philippines particulary in Cebu where the petitioner also
outside of the ambit of the mandatory maternal custody resides. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation
regime under Article 213 and bringing it within coverage of of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his
the default standard on child custody proceedings – the best minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the
interest of the child. As the question of custody is already complaint since the facts charged in the information do not
before the trial court and the child’s parents, by executing constitute an offense with respect to the accused, he being
the Agreement, initially showed inclination to share custody, an alien
it is in the interest of swift and efficient rendition of justice
to allow the parties to take advantage of the court’s ISSUES: 1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to
jurisdiction, submit evidence on the custodial arrangement support his minor child under the Philippine law?
best serving Stephanie’s interest, and let the trial court 2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally
render judgment. This disposition is consistent with the liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to
settled doctrine that in child custody proceedings, equity may support his minor child.
be invoked to serve the child’s best interest.
RULING: 1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a
Zapanta vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Davao, citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC
G.R. No. 55380, Sept. 26, 1994 that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine
law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child,
FACTS: Petitioner Gliceria Zapanta is the widow of Florencio as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does
B. Zapanta. When Florencio died, the local civil registrar of not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to support
Davao City issued a death certificate. However, she found Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who
that the name appearing therein was “Flaviano Castro wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
Zapanta” albeit the date of death and all other circumstances the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case,
and information reflected therein clearly and conclusively Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the
revealed that the person referred to therein was no other than Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of
her late husband, Florencio. Gliceria, therefore filed a provision of and capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the
petition for correction of entry in the register of death. The laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position that he is
trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. It
correction of the name “Flaviano Castro Zapanta” to is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national
“Florencio B. Zapanta” was not merely clerical but law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the
substantial in nature. obligation to support their child. Foreign laws do not prove
themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court committed reversible authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact,
error they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law
HELD: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. should not be applied when its application would work
The general perception was that the judicial proceeding undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
under Art. 412 of the Civil Code, implemented by Rule 108 of To give justice is the most important function of law; hence,
the Rules of Court, could only justify the correction of a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust
innocuous or clerical errors apparent on the face of the negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.
record and capable of being corrected by mere reference to it, Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands
such as misspellings and obvious mistakes. neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor
penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is
However, in later cases, the Court has held that it adheres to still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be
the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support
may be corrected and the true facts established provided when the latter is entitled thereto.
the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceeding. Adversary Proceeding, 2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262)
defined because the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and
committed the offense here.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “adversary proceeding” as
follows: One having opposing parties; contested, as PRINTED
distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the