CHOICE OF

LAW
TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased, PEOPLE'S
BANK
& TRUST COMPANY, executor, MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS
and MIRIAM
PALMA BELLIS, oppositors-appellants, vs. EDWARD A.
BELLIS, ET AL.,
heirs-appellees
 RENVOI DOCTRINE

is usually pertinent where the decedent is a national of one country, and a

domicile of another.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent was both a national
of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. So that even
assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule providing that the domiciliary
system (law of the domicile) should govern, the same would not result in a
reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would still refer to Texas law.
Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflict of law rule adopting the situs theory (lex
rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where the
properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved
are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the
conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours.
 Article 16, par. 2, and Article 1039 of the Civil Code,
render
applicable the national law of the decedent, in intestate
or testamentary successions, with regard to four items:
(a) the order of succession;
(b)the amount of successional rights;
(c) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will; and
(d)the capacity to succeed.
TESTATE ESTATE OF IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, deceased.
RENATO D. TAYAG, ancillary administrator-appellee, vs.
BENGUETCONSOLIDATED, INC., oppositor-appellant.
"general rule universally recognized" that administration,
whether principal or ancillary, certainly "extends to the
assets of a decedent found within the state or country
where it was granted," the corollary being "that an
administrator appointed in one state or country has no
power over property in another state or country." (Justice
Tuason)
 "It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. When a
person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in
a foreign country, administration is had in both countries.

That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last domicile is termed the
principal administration, while any other administration is termed the ancillary
administration.

The reason for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio
vigore have any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted.
Hence, an administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the
[Philippines]. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies,
leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be
administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual
debts or to be distributed among his heirs."
 PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs.
HON. BLAS F. OPLE, in his capacity as Minister of Labor;
HON.
VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity as Deputy
Minister;
ETHELYNNE B. FARRALES and MARIA MOONYEEN
MAMASIG,
respondents.
 [A provision in an] employment agreement which specifies, firstly, the law of [a foreign
country] as the applicable law of the agreement and, secondly lays the venue [in]
courts of [another foreign country] cannot be invoked to prevent the application of
Philippine labor laws and regulations.
[The Court] has already pointed out that the employer-employee relationship is much
affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and
regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to
govern their relationship.
Neither may a provision be invoked that only the [Foreign] courts as the sole venue for
the settlement of disputes between the contracting parties as when multiple and
substantive contacts between Philippine law and Philippine courts, on the one hand, and
the relationship between the parties, upon the other:
1.)the contract was not only executed in the Philippines, it was also performed here,
at least partially;
2.)private respondents are Philippine citizens and residents, while petitioner,
although a foreign corporation, is licensed to do business (and actually doing business)
and hence, a resident of the Philippines;
3.)lastly, private respondents were based in the Philippines in between their
assigned flights to the Middle East and Europe.
 All the above contacts point to the Philippine courts and
administrative agencies as a proper forum for the
resolution of contractual disputes between the parties.
Under these circumstances, [the provisions] of the
employment agreement cannot be given effect so as to
oust Philippine agencies and courts of the jurisdiction
vested upon them by Philippine law.

Finally, failure to plead and prove the contents of [a

foreign law] on has for its effect the presumption that
the applicable provisions of the foreign law are the
same as the applicable provisions of Philippine law.
CADALIN V. POEA
 As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be
applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of
process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal,
and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is
true even if the action is based upon a foreign substantive
law (Restatement of the Conflict of Laws, Sec. 685;
Salonga, Private International Law 131 [1979]).

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of

Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as
procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given such a law.
 However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive
law becomes irrelevant when the country of the forum has a "borrowing
statute." Said statute has the practical effect of treating the foreign statute
of limitation as one of substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153
[1938]).
A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign
statute of limitations to the pending claims based on a foreign law (Siegel,
Conflicts 183 [1975]).
While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides
that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be
enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it
(Goodrich and Scoles, Conflict of Laws 152-153 [1938]).
The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the
forum's public policy (Canadian Northern Railway Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S.
553, 40 S. Ct.402, 64 L. ed. 713 [1920]).
 The parties to a contract may select the law by which it is to be
governed
(Cheshire, Private International Law, 187 [7th ed]).
In such a case, the foreign law is adopted as a "system" to regulate
the relations of the parties, including questions of their capacity to
enter into the contract, the formalities to be observed by them,
matters of performance, and so forth (16 Am Jur 2d, 150-161).
Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign law, the parties
may just agree that specific provisions of a foreign statute shall be
deemed incorporated into their contract "as a set of terms." By such
reference to the provisions of the foreign law, the contract does not
become a foreign contract to be governed by the foreign law.
The said law does not operate as a statute but as a set of
contractual terms deemed written in the contract.
 SPOUSES CESAR & SUTHIRA ZALAMEA AND LIANA
ZALAMEA,
petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND
TRANSWORLD
AIRLINES, INC., respondents.
 lex loci contractus which requires that the law of the place where the airline
ticket was issued should be applied by the court where the passengers are
residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is issued in such State by
the defendant airline. Since the tickets were sold and issued in the Philippines,
the applicable law in this case would be Philippine law.

when an airline issues a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a particular flight,

on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has every
right to expect that he would fly on that flight and on that date. If he does not,
then the carrier opens itself to a suit for breach of contract of carriage.

Where an airline had deliberately overbooked, it took the risk of having to

deprive some passengers of their seats in case all of them would show up for
check in. For the indignity and inconvenience of being refused a confirmed seat
on the last minute, said passenger is entitled to an award of moral damages.
 Foreign laws do not prove themselves nor can the courts
take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must
be alleged and proved.
Written law may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied
with a certificate that such officer has custody.
The certificate may be made by a secretary of an embassy
or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular agent or by
any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed
in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.
 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ANICETO FONTANILLA
in his personal capacity and in behalf of his
minor son MYCHAL ANDREW FONTANILLA,
respondents.
 Although, the contract of carriage was to be performed in the
United States, the tickets were purchased through petitioner's
agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were "rewritten" in
Washington, D.C. However, such fact did not change the nature
of the original contract of carriage entered into by the parties in
Manila.

RE; OVERBOOKING OF FLIGHTS

What this Court considers as bad faith is the willful and deliberate
overbooking on the part of the airline carrier. The law clearly states that
when the overbooking does not exceed ten percent (10%), it is not
considered as deliberate and therefore does not amount to bad faith.
GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO,
petitioner, vs.
REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent
 Before a foreign judgment is given presumptive evidentiary value, the
document must first be presented and admitted in evidence.
A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself. Indeed the
best evidence of a judgment is the judgment itself. The decree purports to be a
written act or record of an act of an official body or tribunal of a foreign country.
Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or
document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by
either:
(1) an official publication; or,
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the
document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:
(a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular
officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept; and,
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office
The legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by
the national
law of the party concerned. The certificate mentioned in
Article 21 of the Family Code would have been sufficient
to establish the legal capacity of respondent, had he duly
presented it in court. A duly authenticated and admitted
certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to
marry on the part of the alien applicant for a marriage
license.
GERBERT R. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS
and The SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents.
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance
with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and
valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those
prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly

celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
 The alien spouse can claim no right under the second
paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive right it
establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse.
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.
No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar
declaration for the alien spouse, whose status and legal
capacity are generally governed by his national law.
 Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the jurisdictional and procedural
requirements that must be complied with before a judgment,
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the
civil registry. It also requires, among others, that the:
1. verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located;
2. that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that the time and
place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule
108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a
party or a particular fact.
Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding by which the applicability of the foreign judgment
can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD, petitioner,
vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, respondents.
 In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign
tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate
parties and the underlying cause of action are concerned
so long as it is convincingly shown that there has been an
opportunity for:
a.) a full and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction;
b.) that the trial upon regular proceedings has been conducted;
c.) such was followed by due citation or voluntary appearance of
the defendant and under a system of jurisprudence likely to
secure an impartial administration of justice; and,
d.) that there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and
in the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in
procuring the judgment.
 a judgment, against a person, of a tribunal of a foreign
country having jurisdiction to pronounce the same is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title.
the recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not
necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the
courts of the country in which such judgment was
rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in
which the judgment is relied on. Ultimately, matters of
remedy and procedure such as those relating to the
service of summons or court process upon the defendant,
the authority of counsel to appear and represent a
defendant and the formal requirements in a decision are
governed by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum.
 The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of
want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
or clear mistake of law or fact.

Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within the jurisdiction

of a foreign judgment, must be extrinsic.

Intrinsic fraud is one which goes to the very existence of

the cause of action is deemed already adjudged, and it,
therefore, cannot militate against the recognition or
enforcement of the foreign judgment.
RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, vs.
STOCKTON W.
ROUZIE, JR., respondent
 FORUM NON CONVENIENS
For Philippine Courts or local judicial machinery to be considered adequate to
resolve controversies with a foreign elements, the following requisites must be
proved:
(1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort;
(2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law and the facts; and
(3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the power to enforce its
decision.
The propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly
considered as a matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the
trial 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 desistance.
 Jurisdiction and choice of law are two 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 which will determine the merits of the
case is fair to both parties.

The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only

when the substantive issues of the instant case
develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds
before the trial court.