Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1.
2.
enforced in the sense that the court may direct the doing of
an affirmative act.
2.
3.
00:24:01 00:36:00
Article 26 as a cause of action can only be availed of by the
Filipino spouse because that remedy for the benefit of this
provision is intended only for the benefit of the Filipino
spouse. While the Filipino spouse cause of action for the
enforcement or recognition of the divorce decree obtained
abroad is based on the Article 26, the alien spouse may not
avail of this remedy. But as a party affected by the divorce
decree he or she may seek the recognition or enforcement
of the foreign decree only that he cannot invoke as a cause
of action 2nd paragraph of Article 26.
What is therefore the cause of action of the alien
spouse obtained a divorce decree abroad and wishes
to remarry in the Philippines?
Take note that under the Family Code, when a foreigner who
was previously married is dissolve by divorce or nullity of
the previous marriage and wishes to remarry in the
Philippines, instead of requiring him to submit a copy of a
divorce decree, he is only required by law to submit a
certificate of legal capacity. And under the family code
this is enough for him to obtain a marriage license. This is so
because the capacity of the foreigner to marry in the
Philippines is governed by his national law in accordance
with the nationality theory, Article 15 of the Civil Code. So
what is required is only the certificate of legal capacity that
he is already capacitated to remarry because of the divorce
decree obtained earlier.
So obviously insofar as the
foreigner is concern there is no need for him to go to court
and have the previous divorce decree obtained by him
abroad recognized before he can apply for marriage license.
Such is not one of the requirements before a marriage
certificate is issued. There is no requirement that a divorce
decree should first go to court or judicial process for
recognition. But in the case of Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas,
apparently, this is no longer true because in this case the SC
is categorical in saying while we recognize foreign judgment
including foreign divorce decree, it is not automatic unless
the judgment is recognized in the competent court in the
Philippines that foreign divorce decree is not considered
effective in this country and therefore without complying
with the requirement that a judicial order recognizing the
divorce decree the foreigner in the eyes of Philippine law
remains incapacitated to remarry by reason of the fact that
he remains to be already married to another. So as it now, if
you happen to be a lawyer acting on behalf of the foreigner,
whose previous marriage with a Filipino is dissolve by reason
of a divorce decree, by virtue of the Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas
ruling, you cannot just apply for a marriage license, you
need first to go to court to have that divorce decree
recognize by the Philippine court. Because obviously the
office of the local civil registrar or the agency in charge of
the issuance of marriage license will require the applicant to
first comply with that requirement.
What is the specific remedy that the foreigner should
pursue in order to achieve the purpose of having this
divorce decree recognize in the Philippines? The
specific remedy is different from the remedy applicable to a
Filipino who invokes the 2 nd paragraph of Article 26, because
in this case of Corpuz, the SC said that the proper remedy
should either be a Petition for Recognition or
Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment, in this case foreign
divorce decree, and once the foreign divorce decree is
recognize by Philippine court, the petitioner may file for
Correction of Entry in the local Civil Registrar. Because
according to the SC, the action for enforcement or
recognition even if granted by the court is not enough to
effect the correction of the entries in the records available in
the local civil registrar particularly the marriage contract
between the foreigner and his previous Filipino spouse. So it
would appear that if the foreigner first file a petition for
recognition of the foreign divorce decree, and this is
granted, he needs to file another action which is Petition
DIVORCE
As a matter of policy divorce is against our policy, as a
general rule we do not recognize divorce. Except
ASIAVEST CASE
1.
Where the judgment was rendered by Malaysian court in
favor of a Malaysian entity when the prevailing party filed an
action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines the defendant a Philippine company invoke the
defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person because
allegedly the service of summons was not properly done
lack of authority of the lawyer representing them during the
trial and the fact that the decision rendered by the
Malaysian court did not specify and did not contain the facts
and the law to which it was based contrary to the
requirement of the provisions of the constitution.
2.
dont have the legal authority what we have are only these
2 conflicting ruling/principles or decisions)
LEGAL SEPARATION
The recent one but there are many other cases in the same
tenor. We recognize divorce as valid so long as it is valid in
accordance with the parties national law. Take note the
validity of divorce in so far as our jurisprudence is
concerned, as a general rule is determined by the national
law od the party concerned. So divorce is valid provided it is
valid with the parties national law.
1.
10
CRIME
Nay ni question di ma sabtana ang audio
Student:__-------------
11
What
we
have
are
ruling/principles/decisions.
these
two
conflicting
Legal Separation
There are always two basic questions that may arise.
1.
2.
12
13
Treason
Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason
Misprision of Treason
Espionage
Inciting to war or Giving Motives for Reprisals
Violation of Neutrality
Correspondence with Hostile Country
Flight to Enemy Country
This involves a crime of piracy where a vessel was seajacked at the territorial waters somewhere in Mindoro. The
pirates seized the vessel and the crew and forced the crew
to sail the vessel towards the territorial waters of Singapore.
In Singapore the cargoes, the petroleum products were
unloaded, sold by the pirates to a ready buyer in Singapore.
One of whom was an employee of the buyer who supervised
the transfer of the cargoes from the seized vessel to the
other vessel. This fellow who supervised the transfer of the
cargoes was prosecuted along with the pirates because all
of them were eventually caught when they returned to the
Philippines. So thats what you get when you violate the
fundamental rule of a thief: Never go back to the crime
scene! They returned to the Philippines so they got caught,
prosecuted. One of whom, this guy, a certain Hiong, not
Cokaliong but Hiong, was convicted as accomplice. So when
he appealed the conviction to the SC, he argued on the
main that the decision convicting him as accomplice to the
crime of piracy is void for lack of jurisdiction because his
proven participation in the crime took place in Singapore,
beyond the territory of the Philippines. So invoking the
principle of territoriality he argued that Philippine court has
no jurisdiction to try him for the crime.
But the SC saw it the other way. While it is true that his
individual participation took place only in the territorial
waters of Singapore, it is also established that the crime of
piracy started in the Philippines! And it continued to be
committed and consummated while the vessel was in the
territorial waters of Singapore. So the SC was in effect
saying that Philippine court has jurisdiction because
the crime BEGAN in the Philippines. And his
involvement was part and parcel of the entire stages
of the criminal process.
Secondly the Supreme court said even then, Piracy is a
crime classified under Title 1 of Book 2 of RPC which
is a crime against National Security or Law of Nation.
So this falls under the exception pursuant to the Protective
Theory in Criminal Law.
People vs. Bull
In the case of People vs. Bull, the reverse was the situation.
In Bull, the accused was prosecuted for violation of special
law that prohibits INHUMAN TREATMENT OF ANIMALS! If you
treat animals inhumanly, thats a crime. So Bull, a Captain
(master man ghud) of a vessel, the vessel has its cargoes
some cows or cattles. The cattles were transported
originally from Formosa, now Taiwan and loaded on the
vessel sailed towards Philippine waters where they were
caught and prosecuted for violation of that special law:
inhuman treatment of animals. It was argued by Bull that
the Philippine court has no jurisdiction to try and prosecute
and punish him for the alleged crime because the crime was
committed in Formosa when they loaded the animals and
maltreated them. SC said that while it may be true that
the maltreatment of animals started in Formosa, but
such maltreatment continued until the vessel
reached Philippine waters. So Philippine court has
jurisdiction. This is consistent with objective
territoriality principle which says that the country or
the state may prosecute crime against the offender
for crimes that began outside but completed within
its territory. It is the reverse of the subjective
territoriality principle.
16. conflict 3-22-14 || 02:45:01 02:54:00|| [Fiona]
Let us go to Tort. When is the act or omission classified as
tort? What is its point of contact?
14
2.
15
not
registered
in
the
2.
3.
or
2.
16
3.
4.
Question Portion
17
exceptions on the 2nd and the 3rd, but not with intrinsic. The
2nd and 3rd exceptions are consistent with Lex Rei Sitae. So if
80 recognizes some superiority enjoyed by 16, then why
does it not recognize the same superiority with respect to
the intrinsic aspect?
18