Bellis vs Bellis

Amos Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas, and of the United States. By his first wife
whom he divorced he had five legitimate children, by his second wife, who survived him, he
had three legitimate children, and three illegitimate children. Before he died, he made two
wills, one disposing of his Texas properties and the other disposing his Philippine properties.
In both wills, his illegitimate children were not given anything. The illegitimate children
opposed the will on the ground that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they
should be entitled, if Philippine law were to be applied.
ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should determine the successional
rights of the illegitimate children.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the said children are not entitled to their legitimes under
the Texas Law, being the national law of the deceased, there are no legitimes.
Bellis vs. Bellis
FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his
second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.
6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two(2) wills, apportioning the remainder of his
estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to
the project of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they
were entitled according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his
Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.
ISSUE:Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the
illegitimate childrens successional rights
RULING:
Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void,
for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10 now Article 16
of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.

Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his
will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then
his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under
the texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.
Aznar vs. Garcia [7 SCRA 95]
Facts: Edward Christensens (citizen of the State of California) will was executed in
Manila where it provides that Helen Christensen Garcia receive a payment of P3,600 and
proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his daughter Maria Lucy Christensen.
Helen Christensen Garcia opposed the project of partition of Edwards estate claiming
that she was deprived of her legitime as acknowledged natural child under the Philippine law.
Issue: Whether or not the California law or the Philippine law should apply in the case at bar.
Held: Philippine law should be applied. The State of California prescribes two sets of laws for
its citizens residing therein and a conflict of law rules for its citizens domiciled in other
jurisdictions. Art. 946 of the California Civil Code states that 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. Edward, a citizen of the State of California, is
considered to have his domicile in the Philippines. The court of domicile cannot and should
not refer the case back to the California, as such action would leave the issue incapable of
determination, because the case would then be tossed back and forth between the
states(doctrine of renvoi). The validity of the provisions of Edwards will depriving his
acknowledged natural child of latters legacy, should be governed by the Philippine law.
The decision appealed from is reversed and the case returned to the lower court with
instruction that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides.
Aznar vs Garcia
Edward Christensen was born in New York but he migrated to California where he resided for
a period of 9 years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until
his death. In his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen
(legitimate), as his only heir, but left a legacy sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen
Garcia (illegitimate). Counsel for Helen claims that under Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil
Code, California law should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred back
to the law of the domicile. On the other hand, counsel for Maria, averred that the national law
of the deceased must apply, illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California
law.

1
CONFLICT CHOICE OF LAW

ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of the deceased should be applied in determining the
successional rights of his heirs.
HELD: The Supreme Court deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect
that there are two rules in California on the matter; the internal law which applies to
Californians domiciled in California and the conflict rule for Californians domiciled outside of
California. Christensen being domiciled in the Philippines, the law of his domicile must be
followed. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings the
determination of the successional rights under Philippine law only.
BANK OF AMERICA vs AMERICAN REALTY CO. 321 SCRA 659
In a conflict between a Philippine law and a foreign law, Philippine law prevails
The Bank of America granted a loan to a corporation secured by a real estate mortgage by the
respondent. Upon the loan maturity, the corporation debtor failed to pay and the petitioner
bank filed 4 collection cases in the foreign courts (England and Hong Kong) against the
corporation debtors. At the same time it also filed anextrajudicial foreclosure in the office of
the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines on the real estatemortgage and said was sold in
a public auction. The respondent files action for damages against petitioner due to the act of
foreclosing the real estate mortgage extrajudicially despite the pending civil suits before the
foreign courts to collect the principal loan. Petitioner contends that the respondent is not made
a party on the collection case before the foreign courts for being a third party mortgagor and
such actions were filed in foreign courts and thus decisions rendered on such courts are not
enforceable in the Philippines unless a separate action is filed in the Phils to enforce such
judgment and that under the English law which is the law governing in the principal
agreement, the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by filing a civil action for sum of
money. The court rendered judgment in favor of defendants declaring that the filing of civil suit
on collection of a sum of money in foreign courts constitutes a waiver on the security of the
mortgages.
ISSUE:WON the petitioners act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors before
foreign courts constitutes a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure.
RULING:
The court held that Section 4 Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides that if two
or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a
judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others.
A mortgagor creditor may pursue two remedies either to institute against the mortgage debtor
a personal action for collection of money or foreclosure of a mortgage but cannot avail of both

remedies. In Phil. jurisdiction these remedies are alternative and not cumulative. Thus,
choosing one remedy is a bar to avail of the other remedy. Plaintiff cannot split up a single
cause of action byfiling both remedies as expressly prohibited by the rules on civil procedure.
On the contention of the petitioner that the English law should apply to the principal
agreements that states that the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by
simply filing civil actions for sums of money, the court held that a foreign law must be properly
pleaded and proved as fact. If not pleaded, the court will presume that the foreign law is the
same as our local or domestic or internal law. This is the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION.
Granting however that the English law is applicable in the Phil. court, such law is contrary to
sound and established public policy of the forum which proscribes the splitting of a single
cause of action, thus still cannot be applied by the court in the case.
It is proper that Philippine law should be upheld since it is the country upon which the case is
filed. Therefore the filing of a collection case by the petitioner in foreign courts is a waiver for
the remedy of foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
WILD VALLEY SHIPPING CO. vs. CA 342 SCRA 213 October 6, 2000
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION DOCTRINE
The Philippine Roxas, a vessel owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc., private respondent
herein, arrived inPuerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore. Upon the completion of the
loading and when the vessel was ready to leave port, an official pilot of Venezuela, was
designated by the harbour authorities in Puerto Ordaz to navigate the Philippine Roxas
through the Orinoco River. The Philippine Roxas experienced some vibrations when it entered
the San Roque Channel. The vessel proceeded on its way, with the pilot assuring the watch
officer that the vibration was a result of the shallowness of the channel. The master
(captain) checked the position of the vessel and verified that it was in the centre of the
channel. The Philippine Roxas ran around in the OrinocoRiver, thus obstructing the ingress
and egress of vessels. As a result of the blockage, the Malandrinon, a vessel owned by herein
petitioner Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd., was unable to sail out of Puerto Ordaz on that
day. Subsequently, Wild valley Shipping Company, Ltd. filed a suit with the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch III against Philippine President Lines, Inc. and Pioneer Insurance
Company (the underwriter/insurer of Philippine Roxas) for damages in the form of unearned
profits, and interest thereon amounting to US $400,000.00plus attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses of litigation.
Issue: Whether or not Venezuelan law is applicable to the case at bar?

2
CONFLICT CHOICE OF LAW

Ruling:
It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts
are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proved. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; (2) It
must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of
his office.
The latter requirement is not a mere technicality but is intended to justify the giving of full faith
and credit to the genuineness of a document in a foreign country. With respect to proof of
written laws, parol proof is objectionable, for the written law itself is the best
evidence. According to the weight of authority, when a foreign statute is involved, the best
evidence rule requires that it be proved by a duly authenticated copy of the statute. At this
juncture, we have to point out that the Venezuelan law was not pleaded before the lower
court.
A foreign law is considered to be pleaded if there is an allegation in the pleading about the
existence of the foreign law, its import and legal consequence on the event or transaction in
issue.
A review of the Complaint revealed that it was never alleged or invoked despite the fact that
the grounding of the M/V Philippine Roxas occurred within the territorial jurisdiction
of Venezuela. We reiterate that under the rules of private international law, a foreign law must
be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the laws of a
foreign country, or state, will be presumed to be the same as our own local or domestic law
and this is known as processual presumption.
Wildvalley vs CA
In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by
pilots familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine
Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar
Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River.
Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by
Vasquez. As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC as
its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC sued PPL in the RTC of Manila.

It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to
wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje andReglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1
del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the
negligence of the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to
check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing the river.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan
laws.
HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only
mere photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public
document to be admissible, the following requisites are mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of
his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as
are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned
if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law is
deemed to be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon
cannot be held liable for the negligence of Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence
in selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot
in Venezuela in good standing when he was engaged.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. v. GUERRERO
The petition alleged the following:
On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero fled before the Regional TrialCourt of
Mania against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or Chemical Bank
-Guerrero sought payment of damages allegedly for (1) illegally withheld taxed charged
against interests on his checking account with the Bank, (2) a returned check worth
$18,000.00 due to signature verification problems; and (3)unauthorized conversion of his
account.

3
CONFLICT CHOICE OF LAW

-The bank filed its Answer alleging that Guerreros account is governed by New York law
which does not permit any Guerreros claims except actual damages.

respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Ministry of Labor but same decision. Hence, this
petition.

-Seeking the dismissal of Guerreros claims, the Bank filed a Motion

Issue: Whether or not the law of Singapore ought to be applied in this case.

for PartialSummary Judgment, supported by an affidavit of New York attorney Alyssa

Walden.
-The RTC denied the Banks Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
-The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition for certiorari and prohibition assailing the
RTC Orders
ISSUE: Whether the Walden affidavit does serve as proof of the New York law
and jurisprudence
HELD: The Walden affidavit stated conclusions from the affiants personal interpretation and
opinion of the facts of the case vis--vis, the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any
laws in particular. While the attached copies of some US court decisions do not comply with
Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or decisions of foreign courts. Thus, the
Walden affidavit did not prove the current state of New York law and jurisprudence.

Held: The SC denied the petition. It has always been the policy of this Board, as enunciated in
a long line of cases, that in cases of valid claims for benefits on account of injury or death
while in the course of employment, the law of the country in which the vessel is registered
shall be considered. In Section 5(B) of the Employment Agreement between petitioner and
respondents husband states that In the event of illness or injury to Employee arising out of
and in the course of his employment and not due to his own willful misconduct, EMPLOYER
will provide employee with free medical attention. If such illness or injury incapacitates the
EMPLOYEE to the extent the EMPLOYEE's services must be terminated as determined by a
qualified physician designated by the EMPLOYER and provided such illness or injury was not
due in part or whole to his willful act, neglect or misconduct compensation shall be paid to
employee in accordance with and subject to the limitations of the Workmen's Compensation
Act of the Republic of the Philippines or the Workmen's Insurance Law of registry of the
vessel whichever is greater. Finally, Article IV of the Labor Code provides that "all doubts in
the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this code, including its implementing
rules and resolved in favor of labor.

Hence, the petition is denied for lack of merit and Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.

NORSE MANAGEMENT CO. (PTE) and PACIFIC SEAMEN SERVICES, INC., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, HON. CRESCENCIO M. SIDDAYAO, OSCAR M. TORRES,
REBENE C. CARRERA and RESTITUTA C. ABORDO, respondents.
Napoleon B. Abordo, the deceased husband of private respondent Restituta C. Abordo, was
the Second Engineer of M.T. "Cherry Earl" when he died from an apoplectic stroke in the
course of his employment with petitioner NORSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTE). The
M.T. "Cherry Earl" is a vessel of Singaporean Registry. In her complaint for compensation
benefits filed before the National Seamen Board, private respondent alleged that the amount
of compensation due her from petitioners should be based on the law where the vessel is
registered. Petitioners contend that the law of Singapore should not be applied in this case
because the National Seamen Board cannot take judicial notice of the Workmen's Insurance
Law of Singapore instead must be based on Boards Memeorandum Circular No. 25. Ministry
of Labor and Employment ordered the petitioner to pay jointly and severally the private

4
CONFLICT CHOICE OF LAW