Bar Q and A #2

1.) Juan is a Filipino citizen residing in Tokyo, Japan. State what laws govern: 1. His capacity to contract marriage in Japan. 2. His successional rights as regards his deceased Filipino father’s property in Texas, USA 3. The extrinsic validity of the last will and testament which Juan executed while sojourning in Switzerland. 4. The intrinsic validity of said will.

Juan’s capacity to contract marriage is governed by Philippine law – e. the Family Code – pursuant to Art. 15, Civil Code, which provides that our laws relating to, among others, legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.
By way of exception to the general rule of lex rei sitae prescribed by the first paragraph of 16, Civil Code, a person’s successional rights are governed by the national law of the decedent. (2ndpar., Art.16) Since Juan’s deceased father was a Filipino citizen, Philippine law governs Juan’s successional rights.

The extrinsic validity of Juan’s will is governed by (a) Swiss law, it being the law where the will was made (17, 1stpar. Civil Code), or (b) Philippine law, by implication from the provisions of Art. 816, Civil Code, which allows even an alien who is abroad to make a will in conformity with our Civil Code.
The intrinsic validity of his will is governed by Philippine law, it being his national (Art. 16, Civil Code)

2.) Francis Albert, a citizen and resident of New Jersey, USA, under whose law he was still a minor, being only 20 years of age, was hired by ABC Corporation of Manila to serve for two years as its chief computer programmer. But after serving for only four months, he resigned to join XYZ Corporation, which enticed him by offering more advantageous terms. His first employer sues him in Manila for damages arising from the breach of his contract of employment. He sets up his minority as a defense and asks for annulment of the contract on that ground. The plaintiff disputes this by alleging that since the contract was executed in the Philippines under whose law the age of majority is 18 years, he was no longer a minor at the time of perfection of the contract. Will the suit prosper?

The suit will not prosper under Art. 15, Civil Code, New Jersey law governs Francis Albert’s capacity to act, being his personal law from the standpoint of both his nationality and his domicile. He was, therefore, a minor at the time he entered into the contract.

3.) Alex was born a Filipino but was a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of his death on December 25, 1998. He left behind a last will and testament in which he bequeathed all his properties, real and personal, in the Philippines to his acknowledged illegitimate Filipina daughter and nothing to his two legitimate Filipino sons. The sons sought the annulment of the last will and testament on the ground that it deprived them of their legitimes but the daughter was able to prove that there were no compulsory heirs or legitimes under Canadian law. Who should prevail? Why?

The daughter should prevail because Art. 16 of the New Civil Code provides that intestate and testamentary succession shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.

4.) Felipe and Felisa, both Filipino citizens, were married in Malolos, Bulacan on June 1, 1950. In 1960, Felipe went to the United States, becoming a US citizen in 1975. In 1980, he obtained a divorce from Felisa, who was duly notified of the proceedings. The divorce decree became final under California law. Coming back to the Philippines in 1982, Felipe married Segundina, a Filipino citizen. In 2001, Felipe, then domiciled in Los Angeles, California, died, leaving one child by Felisa, and another one by Segundina. He left a will which was executed in Manila under which he left his estate to Segundina and his two children and nothing to Felisa. Segundina files a petition for the probate of Felipe’s will. Felisa questions the intrinsic validity of the will, arguing that her marriage to Felipe subsisted despite the divorce obtained by Felipe because said divorce is not recognized in the Philippines. For this reason, she claims that the properties left by Felipe are their conjugal properties and that Segundina has no successional rights. A. Is the divorce secured by Felipe in California recognizable and valid in the Philippines? How does it affect Felipe’s marriage to Felisa? Explain. B. What law governs the formalities of the will? Explain. C. Will Philippine law govern the intrinsic validity of the will? Explain.

A. (1) The divorce secured by Felipe in California is recognizable and valid in the Philippines because he was no longer a Filipino at the time he secured it. Aliens may obtain divorces abroad which may be recognized in the Philippines provided that they are valid according to their national law. (Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 [1985]; Quita v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 406 [1998]; Llorente v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 592 [2002])

(2) The divorce decree obtained capacitated
both Felipe and Felisa to remarry. In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, the Court held that an action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage.

In the same case, the Court also initially clarified that Article 26 (2) applies not only to cases where a foreigner was the one who procured a divorce of his/her marriage to a Filipino spouse, but also to instances where, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them acquired foreign citizenship by naturalization, initiated a divorce proceeding, and obtained a favorable decree. (Luzviminda dela Cruz v. Ryoji Morisono, G.R. No. 226013, July 02, 2018)

B. The foreigner who executes his will in the Philippine may observe the formalities prescribed in:
1) The law of the country of which he is a citizen under Art. 817 of the NCC, or
2) The law of the Philippines being the law of the place of execution under Art. 17 of the NCC.

C. Philippine law will not govern the intrinsic validity of the will. Art. 16 of the New Civil Code provides that intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. California law will govern the intrinsic validity of the will.

5.) Felipe is a Filipino citizen. When he went to Sydney for vacation, he met a former business associate, who proposed to him a transaction which took him to Moscow. Felipe brokered a contract between Sydney Coals Corp. (Coals), an Australian firm, and Moscow Energy Corp. (Energy), a Russian firm, for Coals to supply coal to Energy on a monthly basis for three years. Both these firms were not doing, and still do not do, business in the Philippines. Felipe shuttled between Sydney and Moscow to close the contract. He also executed in Sydney a commission contract with Coals and in Moscow with Energy, under which contracts he was guaranteed commissions by both firms based on a percentage of deliveries for the three-year period, payable in Sydney and in Moscow, respectively, through deposits in accounts that he opened in the two cities. Both firms paid Felipe his commission for four months, after which they stopped paying him. Felipe learned from his contacts, who are residents of Sydney and Moscow, that the two firms talked to each other and decided to cut him off. He now files suit in Manila against both Coals and Energy for specific performance. A. Define or explain the principle of “lex loci contractus.” B. Define or explain the rule of “forum non conveniens.” C. Should the Philipine court assume jurisdiction over the case? Explain.

A. (1) It is the law of the place where contracts, wills, and other public instruments are executed and governs their “forms and solemnities,”, pursuant to the first paragraph,
Article 17 of the New Civil Code; or

(2) It is the proper law of the contract; i.e. the system of law intended to govern the entire contract, including its essential requisites, indicating the law of the place with which the contract has its closest connection or where the main elements of the contract converge, as illustrated by Zalamea v. Court of Appeals (228 SCRA 23 [1993]), it is the law of the place where the airline ticket was issued, where the passengers are nationals and residents of, and where the defendant airline company maintained its office.

B. Forum non conveniens means that a court has discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction over a cause of action when it is of the view that the action may be justly and effectively adjudicatedelsewhere.

C. No, the Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the case of Felipe. Firstly, under the rule of forum non conveniens, the Philippine court is not a convenient forum as all the incidents of the case occurred outside the Philippines. Neither are both Coals and Energy doing business inside the Philippines. Secondly, the contracts were not perfected in the Philippines. Under the principle of lex loci contractus, the law of the place where the contract is made shall apply. Lastly, the Philippine court has no power to determine the facts surrounding the execution of said contracts. And even if a proper decision could be reached, such would have no binding effect on Coals and Energy as the court was not able to acquire jurisdiction over the said corporations. (Manila Hotel Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120077, October 13, 2000)

6.) Gene and Jane, Filipinos, met and got married in England while both were taking up post graduate courses there. A few years after their graduation, they decided to annul their marriage. Jane filed an action to annul her marriage to Gene in England on the ground of the latter’s sterility, a ground for annulment of marriage in England. The English court decreed the marriage annulled. Returning to the Philippines, Gene asked you whether or not he would now be free to marry his former girlfriend. What would your legal advice be?

No, Gene is not free to marry his former girlfriend. His marriage to Jane if valid according to the forms and solemnities of British law, is valid here. (Art. 17, 1st par., NCC) However, since Gene and Jane are still Filipinos, although living in England, the dissolution of their marriage is still governed by Philippine law. (Art. 15, NCC) Since sterility is not one of the grounds for the annulment of a marriage under Art. 45 of the Family Code, the annulment of Gene’s marriage to Jane on that ground is not valid in the Philippines. (Art. 17, par., NCC)

7.) A. PH and LV are HK Chinese. Their parents are now Filipino citizens who live in Manila. While still students in MNS State, they got married although they are first cousins. It appears that both in HK and MNS State first cousins could marry legally. They plan to reside and set up business in the Philippines. But they have been informed, however, that the marriage of first cousins here is considered void from the beginning by reason of public policy. They are in a dilemma. They don’t want to break Philippine Law, much less their marriage vow. They seek your advice on whether their civil status will be adversely affected by Philippine domestic law? What is your advice? B. In a class suit for damages, plaintiffs claimed they suffered injuries from torture during martial law. The suit was filed upon President EM’s arrival on exile in HI, a U.S. state. The court in HI awarded plaintiffs the equivalent of P100 billion under the U.S. law on alien tort claims. On appeal, EM’s Estate raised the issue of prescription. It argued that since said U.S. law is silent on the matter, the court should apply: (1) HI’s law setting a two-year limitation on tort claims; or (2) the Philippine law which appears to require that claims for personal injury arising from martial law be brought within one year. Plaintiffs countered that provisions of the most analogous federal statute, the Torture Victims Protection Act, should be applied. It sets ten years as the period for prescription. Moreover, they argued that equity could toll the statute of limitations. For it appeared that EM had procured Constitutional amendments granting himself and those acting under his direction immunity from suit during his tenure. In this case, has prescription set in or not? Considering the differences in the cited laws, which prescriptive period should be applied: one year under Philippine law, two years under HI’s law, ten years under U.S. federal law, or none of the above? Explain.

A. The civil status of PH and LV will not be adversely affected by Philippine law because they are nationals of Hong Kong and not Filipino citizens.

Being foreigners, their status, conditions and legal capacity in the Philippines are governed by the law of Hong Kong, the country of which they are citizens. Since their marriage is valid under Hong Kong law, it shall be valid and respected in the Philippines.

B. The US Court should apply US law, the law of the forum, in determining the applicable prescriptive period. While US law is silent on this matter, the US Court will not apply Philippine law in determining the prescriptive period. It is generally affirmed as a principle in private international law that procedural law is one of the exceptions to the application of foreign law by the forum. Since prescription is a matter of procedural law even in Philippine jurisprudence (Codalin v. POEA/ JVLRC/Broum and Root International, G.R. No. L-104776, December 5, 1994), the US Court will apply either HI or Federal law in determining the applicable prescriptive period and not Philippine law. The Restatement of American law affirms this principle.

8.) A. A Filipino couple, Mr. And Mrs. BM Jr., decided to adopt YV, an orphan from St. Claire’s orphanage in New York City. They loved and treated her like a legitimate child for they have none of their very own. However, BM, Jr., died in an accident at sea, followed to the grave a year later by his sick father, BM, Sr. Each left a sizable estate consisting of bank deposits, lands and buildings in Manila. May the adopted child, YV, inherit from BM, Jr.? May she also inherit from BM, Sr.? Is there a difference? Why? Explain. B. Mr. XT and Mrs. YT have been married for 20 years. Suppose the wife, YT, died childless, survived only by her husband, XT. What would be the share of XT from her estate as inheritance? Why? Explain.

A. YV can inherit from BM, Jr.

The succession to the estate of BM, Jr. Is governed by Philippine law because he was a Filipino when he died. (Art. 16, Civil Code) Under Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, the capacity of the heir to succeed is governed by the national law of the decedent and not by the national law of the heir. Hence, whether or not YV can inherit from BM, Jr. is determined by Philippine law. Under Philippine law, the adopted inherits from the adopter as a legitimate child of the adopter.

YV, however, cannot inherit in his own right, from the father of the adopter, BM, Sr., because he is not a legal heir of BM, Sr. The legal fiction of adoption exists only between the adopted and the adopter. (Teotico v. Del Val, 13 SCRA 406, [1965]) Neither may he inherit from BM, Sr. by representing BM, Jr. Because in representation, the representative must be a legal heir not only of the person he is representing but also of the decedent from whom the represented was supposed to inherit. (Art. 973, CivilCode)

B. Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she gets the entire estate.

9.) A. Boni and Anne met while working overseas. They became sweethearts and got engaged to be married on New Year’s Eve aboard a cruise ship in the Caribbean. They took the proper license to marry in New York City, where there is a Filipino consulate. But as planned the wedding ceremony was officiated by the captain of the Norwegian- registered vessel in a private suite among selected friends. Back in Manila, Anne discovered that Boni had been married in Bacolod City 5 years earlier but divorced in Oslo only last year. His first wife was also a Filipina but now based in Sweden. Boni himself is a resident of Norway where he and Anne plan to live permanently. Anne retains your services to advise her on whether her marriage to Boni is valid under Philippine law? Is there anything else she should do under the circumstances? B. In his lifetime, a Pakistani citizen, ADIL, married three times under Pakistani law. When he died an old widower, he left behind six children, two sisters, three homes and an estate worth at least 30 million pesos in the Philippines. He was born in Lahore but last resided in Cebu City where he had a mansion and where two of his youngest children now live and work. Two of his oldest children are farmers in Sulu, while the two middle-aged children are employees in Zamboanga City. Finding that the deceased left no will, the youngest son wanted to file intestate proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. Two other siblings objected, arguing that it should be in Jolo before a Shari’a court since his lands are in Sulu. But Adil’s sisters in Pakistan want the proceedings held in Lahore before a Pakistani court. Which court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue for the intestate proceedings? The law of which country shall govern succession to his estate?

A. If Boni is still a Filipino citizen, his legal capacity is governed by Philippine Law. (Art. 15 Civil Code) Under Philippine law, his marriage to Anne is void because of a prior existing marriage which was not dissolved by the divorce decreed in Oslo. Divorce obtained abroad by Filipino is not recognized.

If Boni was no longer a Filipino citizen, the divorce is valid. Hence, his marriage to Anne is valid if celebrated in accordance with the law of the place where it was celebrated. Since the marriage was celebrated aboard a vessel of Norwegian registry, Norwegian law applies. If the Ship Captain has authority to solemnize the marriage aboard his ship, the marriage is valid and shall be recognized in the Philippines.

As to the second question, if Boni is still a Filipino, Anne can file an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage to him.

B. In so far as the properties of the decedent located in the Philippines are concerned, they are governed by Philippine law. (Art. 16, Civil Code) Under the Philippine law, the proper venue for the settlement of the estate is the domicile of the decedent at the time of his death. Since the decedent last resided in Cebu City, that is the proper venue for the intestate settlement of his estate. However, the successional rights to the estate of ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his national law, under Art. 16 of the Civil Code.

10.) In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines. In 1987, they separated, and Sonny went to Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada on January 1, 1988. They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after failing to hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the Philippines where he succumbed to heart attack. a) Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu in Canada. b) Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny and Auring.

a) The divorce obtained by Sonny in Canada was not valid because he and his wife were both Filipino citizens. Divorce between a Filipino couple is not valid under Philippine law even though they are living abroad.

b) Since the divorce obtained by Sonny was void, his marriage to Auring is necessarily void ab initio because of his subsisting marriage to Lulu. (Art. 41, Family Code)

Juan’s capacity to contract marriage is governed by Philippine law – e. the Family Code – pursuant to Art. 15, Civil Code, which provides that our laws relating to, among others, legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.

The intrinsic validity of his will is governed by Philippine law, it being his national (Art. 16, Civil Code)

The suit will not prosper under Art. 15, Civil Code, New Jersey law governs Francis Albert’s capacity to act, being his personal law from the standpoint of both his nationality and his domicile. He was, therefore, a minor at the time he entered into the contract.

The daughter should prevail because Art. 16 of the New Civil Code provides that intestate and testamentary succession shall be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration.

B. The foreigner who executes his will in the Philippine may observe the formalities prescribed in: 1) The law of the country of which he is a citizen under Art. 817 of the NCC, or 2) The law of the Philippines being the law of the place of execution under Art. 17 of the NCC.

A. (1) It is the law of the place where contracts, wills, and other public instruments are executed and governs their “forms and solemnities,”, pursuant to the first paragraph, Article 17 of the New Civil Code; or

B. Forum non conveniens means that a court has discretionary authority to decline jurisdiction over a cause of action when it is of the view that the action may be justly and effectively adjudicatedelsewhere.

A. The civil status of PH and LV will not be adversely affected by Philippine law because they are nationals of Hong Kong and not Filipino citizens.

Being foreigners, their status, conditions and legal capacity in the Philippines are governed by the law of Hong Kong, the country of which they are citizens. Since their marriage is valid under Hong Kong law, it shall be valid and respected in the Philippines.

A. YV can inherit from BM, Jr.

B. Under the Civil Code, the widow or widower is a legal and compulsory heir of the deceased spouse. If the widow is the only surviving heir, there being no legitimate ascendants, descendants, brothers, and sisters, nephews and nieces, she gets the entire estate.

As to the second question, if Boni is still a Filipino, Anne can file an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage to him.

a) The divorce obtained by Sonny in Canada was not valid because he and his wife were both Filipino citizens. Divorce between a Filipino couple is not valid under Philippine law even though they are living abroad.

b) Since the divorce obtained by Sonny was void, his marriage to Auring is necessarily void ab initio because of his subsisting marriage to Lulu. (Art. 41, Family Code)

B. The foreigner who executes his will in the Philippine may observe the formalities prescribed in:
1) The law of the country of which he is a citizen under Art. 817 of the NCC, or
2) The law of the Philippines being the law of the place of execution under Art. 17 of the NCC.

A. (1) It is the law of the place where contracts, wills, and other public instruments are executed and governs their “forms and solemnities,”, pursuant to the first paragraph,
Article 17 of the New Civil Code; or