Persons (07-11-17 2nd half)

34:15
Article 15 while it mentions literally Filipinos, the language there is Philippine law, but by authority of
RECTO vs HARDEN, the supreme court made a definitive finding, in Art. 15 while it literally refers to
Filipinos, it also applies to Foreigners as well, so that if the individual concerned is a Foreigner and the
issue revolves around that foreigners family rights, duties, status, legal capacity, his own national law
should apply in order to determine the issues of the capacity, condition of family rights and duties,

If a filipino goes to HK, entered into a contract in HK, in HK 15 is the age of majority, the filipino is just 16,
she is deemed without legal capacity to enter to that contract in HK because wherever a Filipino may be,
his legal capacity is governed by Philippine law, our age of majority is 18 yrs old.

If a dispute arises and a case is filed and the issue is the validity of the contract is put into question, the
basis of the age requirement, the court of the PH will have to rule that contract is not valid in so far as the
acting capacity of a filipino party is concerned, the filipino will be governed by Philippine law in so far as
the required legal capacity, it does not matter that contract was entered into in HK, but this principle of
nationality theory applies only to ordinary contract, contracts that do not involve property (ex: contract of
service). If the contract involves property, the legal capacity of the contracting parties is no longer
governed by Article 15, but this time it should be governed by article 16, which says that Real property is
governed by the law of the country where it is located.

Lex Rex Sitae, if a filipino citizen, 17 yrs old, enters into a contract of sale in Japan, involving a
condominium unit in Japan, and in Japan, 15 is the age of majority, a dispute arises, it is filed before our
court, the question involve is whether or not the contract is valid considering that the filipino is only 17
years old, normally, if we apply art. 15, the filipino is , being 17yrs old only, considering that the contract
was entered in Japan, being a filipino is governed by his national law, in so far as his status, legal capacity is
concerned. But since the contract now involves a property located in Japan, it is a contract of sale, his legal
capacity to enter in that contract is no longer governed by PH laws, because LEX REX SITAE, is the
applicable principle. IT SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAW OF THE COUNTRY WHERE THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACT IS LOCATED, and therefor the legal capacity of the Filipino citizen should be
determined by the Japanese laws.

Differentiate the situation where the contract involves a property in which case all issues relating to the
transaction is governed by LEX REX SITAE, including the intrinsic validity of the contract and the extrinsic
validity of the contract, all these aspects of the contract, involving property are governed by LEX REX
SITAE, including capacity of the contracting parties. If the contract is ordinary contract, like a contract of
service, the contract formed, massage, it does not involve property, we apply article 15, in so far as the
legal capacity of the contracting parties concerned, and so far as the extrinsic validity of that contract,we
apply Article 17, it should be governed by the law of the country where the contract was executed, it
different from the contract that involves property because form and solemnities of the contract, lex loci
celebracionis, does not govern. Instead, Lex rex sitae, is the appropriate principle.

1st exception: Contract involves property, legal capacity is determined by Lex risitae

2nd exception to the national theory of Article 15, is capacity of an heir to inherit, ex. The question is,
somebody dies, a german national, survived by a wife a japanese national, and a daughter a swiss
national. Under german law, an illegitimate child cannot inherit from an illegitimate father, so as between
the wife and the illegitimate daughter, it appears, if we apply german law, the japanese gets to be the heir,
the swiss daughter does not. Under the laws of Switzerland, if someone dies his wife cannot inherit, his
child can, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as between the wife and the child, the child can inherit, the
wife cannot. Which law applies? This is now an issue of legal capacity of an heir to inherit, in so far as the
swiss national is concerned, if we apply Art. 15, then this entitlement to the estate of his late father should
be judged by her, swiss law, applying Art. 15 because that’s legal capacity to inherit, capacity of an heir to
inherit, but this is not the case, because in this example article 15 is not the appropriate provision, in so far
as the capacity of an heir to inherit, the applicable provision is Article 1039, which says that capacity of an
heir to inherit, is governed by the national law of the decedent, in my example, the german law, ultimately
it’s the wife who gets to inherit from the deceased.

3rd exception: The capacity of the testator to make a will, supposed the testator executes a will is a german
national, under german law, a 15 yr old is not capacitated to execute a will, but he executes the will in
Afghanistan, while in Afghanistan, any person with the age of 5 upward can execute a will, if we have to
apply 15, it would appear that the german national has no legal capacity to execute a will. Article 15, is not
the appropriate provision in this example, in the laws on succession particularly in the execution of wills,
the capacity of a testator to make a will, is not governed by the national law principle under Art. 15, but
this is assumed in the context of LEX LOCI CELEBRACIONIS, the capacity of the testator to make a will is
determined by the laws of the country where the will was executed.

3 presumptions governing death:

1. Presumption of death (rule 131 RRC, sec. 3, par. W)
When the dead body cannot be found - A person may be considered dead when the presumption
applies:

Arises when:
- Someone disappeared without trace; his whereabouts unknown

Rule
 Disappearance under ordinary circumstance:

Presumption of death: 7yrs of absence

Succession: 10yrs (except: Father disappears after the age of 75 - absence of 5yrs olny)
Remarriage: 4yrs

 Disappearance under extraordinary circumstances when there is danger of death

Presumption of death: 4yrs

Remarriage: 2yrs

Applies only in the absence o evidence to prove the fact of death. Otherwise, when there is enough
preponderance of evidence, that the person who disappeared really died, the presumption does not apply.

2. Presumption of survivorship (Rule 131 Sec. 3 par JJ)

Survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes:

1. Under 15 and over 60 - the younger died later

2. Both under 15 - older died later
3. Over 60 - younger died later
4. Under 15 or over 60; between 15 and 60 - the latter died later
5. Over 15 and under 60; male died later; older died later (same sex)

3. Presumption of simultaneity in death (Art 43 NCC Rule 131 Sec. 3 Par KK)

Involves succession

When there is doubt as to who between two persons who are called to succeed each other died first, he
who alleges the death of the other shall prove the same. In the absence of proof, they are deemed to have
died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights.