VALMONTE vs. CA, G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996 PHILSEC INVESMENT CORP. vs. CA G.R. No.

ESMENT CORP. vs. CA G.R. No. 103493; June 19, 1997

Ventura Ducat obtained separate loans in the sum of 2.5m dollars from AYALA and
Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a foreign resident. Petitioners Lourdes and Alfredo PHILSEC secured by shares of stocks of Ducat with a market value of P14m . To pay
are husband and wife both residents of 90222 Carkeek Drive South Seattle, the loan, another respondent, 1488, INC. thru its president Daic assumed Ducats
Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the Philippine obligation whereby it sold to ATHONA, Inc. a parcel of land in Harris County, Texas for
bar, however, practices his profession in the Philippines, commuting for this purpose 2.8m dollars while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a loan to ATHONA worth 2.5m
between his residence in the state of Washington and Manila, where he holds office at dollars as initial payment of the purchase price. ATHONA executed a promissory note
S-304 Gedisco Centre, 1564 A. Mabini, Ermita, Manila. in favor of 1488, Inc. for the balance of 300K dollars (2.8-2.5= 300k). So now, 1488,
Inc. has 2.5M to pay PHILSEC and AYALA (t/n: gi-assume ni 1488, Inc. ang liability
ni Ducat.). Thereafter, Ducat was released from his indebtedness to PHILSEC and
Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner, filed an action for AYALA and the SHARES of Ducat (security) was delivered into the possession of
partition against former and her husband. She alleged that, the plaintiff is of legal age, 1488, Inc. Libog no? KBYE.
a widow and is at present a resident of 14823 Conway Road, Chesterfield, Missouri,
U.S.A., while the defendants are spouses but, for purposes of this complaint may be ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance which made the entire amount due
served with summons at Gedisco Center, Unit 304, 1564 A. Mabini St., Ermita, Manila and demandable. 1488 Inc. sued PHILSEC, AYALA and ATHONA in the US for the
where defendant Alfredo D. Valmonte as defendant Lourdes Arreola Valmonte’s payment of the balance of U$ 307, 209.20 and for damages for breach of contract
spouse holds office and where he can be found. He husband was also her counsel, and for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners in misrepresenting the marketability
who has a law office in the Philippines. The summons was served on her husband. of the shares delivered to it. ATHONA filed an answer with counterclaim, impleading
private respondents herein as counter defendants, for allegedly conspiring in selling
the property at a price over its market value.
Petitioner in a letter referred private respondent’s counsel to her husband as the party
to whom all communications intended for her should be sent. Service of summons
While the Civil Case was pending in the United States, petitioners filed a complaint
was then made upon petitioner Alfredo at his office in Manila. Alfredo D. Valmonte
“For Sum of Money with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment” against
accepted his summons, but not the one for Lourdes, on the ground that he was not
private respondents in the RTC Makati. The complaint reiterated the allegation of
authorized to accept the process on her behalf. Accordingly the process server left
petitioners in their respective counterclaims in the Civil Action in the United States
without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for petitioner Lourdes A.
District Court of Southern Texas that private respondents committed fraud by selling
Valmonte.
the property at a price 400 percent more than its true value of US$800,000.00. (Ang
land ang gipertain diri na overpriced). Petitioners claimed that, as a result of private
Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte thereafter filed his Answer with Counterclaim. respondents (1488, Ducat,etc.) fraudulent misrepresentations, ATHONA, PHILSEC,
Petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, however, did not file her Answer. For this reason and AYALA were induced to enter into the Agreement and to purchase the Houston
private respondent moved to declare her in default. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte property (land). Petitioners prayed that private respondents be ordered to return to
entered a special appearance in behalf of his wife and opposed the private ATHONA the excess payment of US$1,700,000.00 and to pay damages.
respondent’s motion. RTC denied the MR of respondents. CA declared petitioner
Lourdes in default. Said decision was received by Alfredo hence this petition. Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-
a-vis Civil Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S., (2)forum
non conveniens, and (3) failure of petitioners PHILSEC and BPI-IFL to state a cause
ISSUE: The petitioner, Lourdes A. Valmonte, was served a summon through her of action. Ducat contended that the alleged overpricing of the property prejudiced only
husband and counsel Alfredo D. Valmonte and whether such summon was validly petitioner ATHONA, as buyer, but not PHILSEC and BPI-IFL which were not parties to
served to Mrs. Valmonte is the issue in this petition. the sale and whose only participation was to extend financial accommodation to
ATHONA under a separate loan agreement. The trial court granted Ducats motion to
DECISION: There was no valid service of summons on Lourdes. The action herein is dismiss, stating that the evidentiary requirements of the controversy may be more
in the nature of an action quasi in rem. Such an action is essentially for the purpose of suitably tried before the forum of the litis pendentia in the U.S., under the principle in
affecting the defendant’s interest in a specific property and not to render a judgment private international law of forum non conveniens, even as it noted that Ducat was not
against him. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a nonresident who is not found in a party in the U.S. case. CA also dismissed the case on same grounds.
the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in accordance with Rule 14, § 17.
Such service, to be effective outside the Philippines, must be made either (1) by Issue: WON the dismissal of the case was proper on the grounds of LITIS
personal service; (2) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such PENDENTIA and FORUM NON CONVENIENS.
places and for such time as the court may order, in which case a copy of the
summons and order of the court should be sent by registered mail to the last known Held: No.
address of the defendant; or (3) in any other manner which the court may deem
(1) On Litis Pendentia
sufficient.
While this Court has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in several
In the case at bar, the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was
cases, it was after the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample
not done by means of any of the first two modes. This mode of service, like the first
opportunity to repel them on grounds allowed under the law. This is because in this
two, must be made outside the Philippines, such as through the Philippine Embassy
jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in
in the foreign country where the defendant resides. The service of summons on
rem, a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness
petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not made upon the order of the court as required
of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary. Rule 39,
by Rule 14, § 17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient by the court which in
§50 provides:
fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare petitioner
Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer. Sec. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. — The effect of a judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country,
having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows:
Secondly, the service in the attempted manner on petitioner was not made upon prior
leave of the trial court as required also in Rule 14, § 17. As provided in § 19, such (a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing;
leave must be applied for by motion in writing, supported by affidavit of the plaintiff or
some person on his behalf and setting forth the grounds for the application. (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a
Finally, and most importantly, because there was no order granting such leave, subsequent title; but the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of
petitioner Lourdes was not given ample time to file her Answer which, according to the jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
rules, shall be not less than sixty (60) days after notice.
In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the
opportunity to challenge the judgment of the U.S. court as basis for declaring it
res judicata or conclusive of the rights of private respondents. The proceedings
in the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court was
even furnished copies of the pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence
presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being
litigated in the U.S. court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the
judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata.

(2) On Forum Non Conveniens

The Lower Courts refusal to take cognizance of the case on the said ground is
unjustifiable. First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1,
which does not include forum non conveniens.The propriety of dismissing a case
based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more properly
considered a matter of defense. Second, 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
courts desistance.

In this case, the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of
the pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It
failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a domestic corporation and
one of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment
of the latters debt which was the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial BANK OF AMERICA NT VS CA
court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the
U.S. case. Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. and Aurelio J. Litonjua (Litonjuas) were engaged in the
shipping business owning 2 vessels: Don Aurelio and El Champion
PUYAT VS. ZABARTE 352 SCRA 738
Because their business where doing well, Bank of America (BA) offered them to take
Doctrine of Forum Non-Conveniens is inapplicable in this case a loan for them to increase their ships.

FACTS: On Jan. 24, 1994, respondent Zabarte commenced an action to enforce the BA acquired through them as borrowers four more ships: (a) El Carrier; (b) El
money judgment against petitioner Puyat rendered by the Superior Court for the State General; (c) El Challenger; and (d) El Conqueror. The registration, operation, income,
of California, Country of Contra Costa, USA. funds, possession of the vessel belonged to the corporation.

Puyat filed his Answer with the special and affirmative defenses such that the May 10, 1993: Litonjuas filed a complaint to the RTC Pasig claming that during its
Superior Court for the State of California did not properly acquire jurisdiction over the operations and the foreclosure sale, BA as trutees failed to fully render an account of
subject matter of and over the persons involved in, thus the judgment on stipulation the income. They lost all their 6 vessels and 10% of their personal funds and they still
for entry in judgment is null and void and unenforceable in the Philippines; and that have an unpaid balance of their loans.
respondent has no capacity to sue in the Philippines.
BA NT&SA, and BA international filed a Motion to Dismiss on grounds of forum non
On Aug. 1, 1994, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 34 conveniens and lack of cause of action against them
(ROC) alleging that the Answer filed by petitioner failed to tender any genuine issue
as to the material facts. Petitioner begs to disagree; in support hereof, he alleged that RTC and CA: Dismissed
the Judgment on Stipulations for Entry in Judgment is null and void, fraudulent, illegal
and unenforceable, the same having been obtained by means of fraud, collusion, ISSUE:
undue influence and/or clear mistake of fact and law. He also maintained that said 1.W/N there is grounds of forum non conveniens
Judgment was obtained without the assistance of counsel for petitioner and without 2. W/N there is litis pendentia
sufficient notice to him and therefore, was rendered in violation of his constitutional
rights to substantial and procedural due process. HELD: Denied

The RTC granted respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Petitioner filed a 1. NO.
Motion for Reconsideration and thereafter a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and forum non conveniens.  The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally meaning 'the forum is
inconvenient', emerged in private international law to deter the practice of
The RTC rendered its judgment and ordered petitioner to pay respondent. CA global forum shopping
affirmed and ruled that summary judgment was proper, because petitioner had failed
to tender any genuine issue of fact and was merely maneuvering to delay the full  Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse
effects of the judgment. The CA also rejected petitioner’s argument that the RTC
impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or
should have dismissed the action for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, on the available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies
ground of forum non conveniens. It reasoned out that the recognition of the foreign
elsewhere.
judgment was based on comity, reciprocity and res judicata.

ISSUE: Whether the principle of forum non conveniens is applicable in this case.  Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
HELD: NO. Since the present action lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.
a foreign judgment, there was no need to ascertain the rights and the obligations of
the parties based on foreign laws or contracts. The parties needed only to perform  Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do
their obligations under the Compromise Agreement they had entered into. Also, under so; provided, that the following requisites are met:
Sec. 5 (n) of Rule 131, a court – whether in the Philippines or elsewhere – enjoys the
presumption that it is acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction, and that it is regularly  (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
performing its official duty.
conveniently resort to; - present
The petitioner claims that the trial court had no jurisdiction, because the case involved
partnership interest, and there was difficulty in ascertaining the applicable law in  (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to make an
California. All the aspects of the transaction took place in a foreign country, and intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, - present
respondent is not even a Filipino.
 (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to
The Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that in the absence of proof of enforce its decision - present
California law on the jurisdiction of courts, it is presumed that such law, if any,
is similar to Philippine law. This conclusion is based on the presumption of  This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the trial court
identity or similarity, also known as processual presumption.
to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only
The grounds relied upon by the petitioner are contradictory. On the one hand, he after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
insists that the RTC take jurisdiction over the enforcement case in order to invalidate circumstances require the court's desistance; and that the propriety of
the foreign judgment; yet, he avers that the trial court should not exercise jurisdiction dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens
over the same case on the basis of forum non conveniens. Not only these defenses requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly considered a
weaken each other, but they bolster the finding of the lower courts that he was merely matter of defense
maneuvering to avoid or delay payment of his obligation.
2. NO.
Under the principle of forum non conveniens, even if the exercise of
jurisdiction is authorized by law, courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for  litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal of an action there must be:
any of the following practical reasons:
 (a) identity of the parties or at least such as to represent the
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either same interest in both actions -present
because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the
material witnesses have their residence there;
 (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum[,] a practice known being founded on the same acts - not shown
as forum shopping[,] merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass
the defendant;  (c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the
judgment which may be rendered in one would, regardless of
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens when which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the other -
the docket may already be overcrowded; not shown

4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to  It merely mentioned that civil cases were filed in Hongkong and England
be maintained; and

5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.

None of the aforementioned reasons barred the RTC from exercising its jurisdiction.
In the case at bar, there was no more need for material witnesses, no forum shopping
or harassment of petitioner, no inadequacy in the local machinery to enforce the
foreign judgment, and no question raised as to the application of any foreign law.

Authorities agree that the issue of whether a suit should be entertained or

dismissed on the basis of the above-mentioned principle depends largely upon
the facts of each case and on the sound discretion of the trial court. The petiton
is DENIED.
 PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES v. TODARO 254 SCRA 153 June 8, 2007 Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized & existing under the
laws of Connecticut, &Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a
Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed with the RTC of Makati City, a complaint for Sum of contract
Money and Damages with Preliminary Attachment against Pioneer International
Limited (PIL), Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI), Pioneer Philippines BMSI hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several
Holdings, Inc. (PPHI), John G. McDonald (McDonald) and Philip J. Klepzig (Klepzig). government projects in thePhilippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross
receipts.
Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
Australia and is principally engaged in the ready-mix concrete and concrete Rouzie secured a service contract w/ the Rep. of Phil. on behalf of BMSI for the
aggregates business; PPHI is the company established by PIL to own and hold the dredging of rivers affected by the Mt.Pinatubo eruption & mudflows.
stocks of its operating company in the Philippines; PCPI is the company established
by PIL to undertake its business of ready-mix concrete, concrete aggregates and Rouzie filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International (Rust) for
quarrying operations in the Philippines; McDonald is the Chief Executive of the alleged nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, & breach of employment
Hongkong office of PIL; and, Klepzig is the President and Managing Director of PPHI contract.
and PCPI; Todaro has been the managing director of Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc.
(Betonval), a company engaged in pre-mixed concrete and concrete aggregate The Labor Arbiter ordered BMSI & Rust to pay Rouzie’s money claims.
production; he resigned from Betonval in February 1996; in May 1996, PIL contacted
Todaro and asked him if he was available to join them in connection with their Upon appeal, the NLRC reversed & dismissed Rouzie’s complaint on the ground of
intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other related operations in the lack of jurisdiction.
Philippines; Todaro informed PIL of his availability and interest to join them;
subsequently, PIL and Todaro came to an agreement wherein the former consented to Rouzie filed an action for damages before the RTC of La Union (where he was a
engage the services of the latter as a consultant for two to three months, after which, resident) against Raytheon International. He reiterated that he was not paid the
he would be employed as the manager of PIL's ready-mix concrete operations should commissions due him from the Pinatubo dredging project w/c hesecured on behalf of
the company decide to invest in the Philippines; subsequently, PIL started its BMSI. The complaint also averred that BMSI, RUST and Raytheon had combined &
operations in the Philippines; however, it refused to comply with its undertaking to functioned as 1 company.
employ Todaro on a permanent basis. Instead of filing an Answer, PPHI, PCPI and
RAYTHEON SOUGHT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUNDS
Klepzig separately moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the complaint
OF FAILURE TO STATE ACAUSE OF ACTION & FORUM NON CONVENIENS &
states no cause of action, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
PRAYED FOR DAMAGES BY WAY OF COMPULSORY
the complaint, as the same is within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, and that the
complaint should be dismissed on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. COUNTERCLAIM. THE RTC DENIED RAYTHEON’S MOTION. THE CA AFFIRMED.
RTC dismissed the MTD which was affirmed by the CA.
Raytheon’s contention: The written contract between Rouzie & BMSI included a valid
ISSUE choice of law clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute,
W/N the RTC should have dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens
namely that the parties & witnesses involved are American corporations & citizens &
due to a presence of a foreign element
the evidence to be presented is located outside the Philippines, that renders our local
RULING NO. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said courts inconvenient forums. The foreign elements of the dispute necessitate the
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is addressed to the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
sound discretion of the trial court. In the case of Communication Materials and
ISSUES (a) W/N the RTC had jurisdiction.(b) W/N the complaint should be dismissed
Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may
on the ground of forum non conveniens.
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following
requisites are met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may RULING (a) YES.
conveniently resort to; (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 On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in
or is likely to have power to enforce its decision." a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the
parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-
The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise
dismiss because Sec. 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed.
as a ground. This Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the trial
court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should do so only after Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the
vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require the Constitution and the law & by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of
court’s desistance; and that the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle w/n the plaintiff is entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein.
of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination, hence it is more properly The case file was an action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract.
considered a matter of defense. Undoubtedly, the nature of the action and the amount of damages prayed are w/in the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Note: the case was also being dismissed on the ground that there was no cause of
action but SC held that there was cause of action, to sustain a motion to dismiss for As regards jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over
lack of cause of action, the complaint must show that the claim for relief does not Rouzi upon the filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person
exist, rather than that a claim has been defectively stated, or is ambiguous, indefinite of Raytheon was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.
or uncertain. And it was also argued in this case that jurisdiction is with the NLRC and
not with the RTC. SC held it was with RTC, SC has consistently held that where no That THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION THAT THE SAME
employer-employee relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved SHALL BE GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES
which may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any NOT SUGGEST THAT THE PHILIPPINE COURTS,
collective bargaining agreement, it is the RTC that has jurisdiction. OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE PRECLUDED FR
OM HEARING THE CIVIL ACTION.

JURISDICTION & CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 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 be come relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case develop,
that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court.

(b) NO.

UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS, A COURT, IN

CONFLICTS-OF-LAWS CASES, MAY REFUSE IMPOSITIONS ON ITS
JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS NOT THE MOST “CONVENIENT” OR AVAILABLE
FORUM AND THE PARTIES ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM SEEKING REMEDIES
ELSEWHERE.

Raytheon’s averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its
jurisdiction over the case and the parties involved.

Moreover, 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 w/c 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

MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION VS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL VS ROUZIE GR 162894 COMMISSION
In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. In June 1988, he Petitioner that the alleged will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia by Hix who had
was recruited by Palace Hotel in Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of West Verginia Code
Santos agreed to the hotel’s job offer and so he started working there in November
1988. The employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without ISSUE: W/N the will executed by Hix may be admitted to probate.
the intervention of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). In
August 1989, Palace Hotel notified Santos that he will be laid off due to business HELD: NO.
reverses. In September 1989, he was officially terminated.
1. no proof as to the law of foreign jurisdiction was presented in the CFI
In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel
Corporation (MHC) and Manila Hotel International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel was a. no printed or published authority of the State of West Virginia
impleaded but no summons were served upon it. MHC is a government owned and
controlled corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL, a foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL b. no extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer
manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter who handled the case ruled having charge of the original, under the sale of the State of
in favor of Santos. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the West Virginia
labor arbiter.
c. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. laws of West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will
was executed
HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for the following reasons:
2. the due execution of the will was not established.
1. The only link that the Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a
Filipino; a. There was nothing to indicate that the will was acknowledged
by the testator in the presence of two competent witnesses, of
2. However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are foreign corporations – MHC cannot be that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of the
held liable because it merely owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems to
affairs of the Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction can’t be pierced because it require
was not shown that MHC is directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are
separate entities. 3. Petitioner failed to prove that the testator had his domicile in West Virginia
and not establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the CATHY will and
3. Santos’ contract with the Palace Hotel was not entered into in the Philippines; the testimony of the petitioner.

4. Santos’ contract was entered into without the intervention of the POEA (had 4. the application for the probate of the will in the Philippines was filed on
POEA intervened, NLRC still does not have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia appear to have
which will hear the case); been initiated on June 8, 1929.

5. MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the Philippines; their a. These facts are strongly indicative of an intention to make the
agents/officers are not residents of the Philippines; Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the
ancillary administration.
Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts
pertaining to the case. It is not competent to determine the facts because the acts b. However this may be, no attempt has been made to comply
complained of happened outside our jurisdiction. It cannot determine which law is with Civil Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the
applicable. And in case a judgment is rendered, it cannot be enforced against the allowance of a will said to have been proved and allowed in
Palace Hotel (in the first place, it was not served any summons). West Virginia has been requested. There is no showing that
the deceased left any property at any place other than the
The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine Islands and no contention that he left any in West
Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do Virginia.
so provided:

(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;

(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 power to enforce its decision.

None of the above conditions are apparent in the case at bar.

In the matter Estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. A.W. TESTATE ESTATE OF C.O. BOHANAN, ET AL. VS. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN,
FLUEMER, petitioner-appellant, vs. ANNIE COUSHING HIX, oppositor-appellee. ET AL. G.R. No. L-12105, January 30, 1960
C. O. Bohanan, a citizen the United States and of the State of Nevada executed a last
will and testament in accordance with the laws of the state of Nevada on April 23,
1944 in Manila. The testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were married on January
30, 1909. He secured a divorce which was granted to him on May 20, 1922.
Sometime in 1925, Magdalena C. Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was
subsisting at the time of the death of the testator in 1944.

On April 24, 1950, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo,
presiding, admitted to probate the last will and testament of C. O. Bohanan. The
Philippine Trust Company was named as the executor of the will.

The executor filed a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, making, in
accordance with the provisions of the will, the following adjudications:

(1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the Farmers and Merchants National Bank of
Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for the benefit of testator’s grandson
Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several mining companies;

(2) the other half of the residuary estate to the testator’s brother, F.L. Bohanan, and
his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This consist in the same
amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to those given to testator’s
grandson;

(3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohana, and his
daughter, Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments;

(4) legacies to Clara Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward,

P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000.

Claiming having been deprived of the legitime, the respondents, the wife Magadalena
C. Bohanan and her two children questioned the validity of the testamentary
provisions disposing of the estate in the manner that:

out of the total estate (after deducting administration expenses) of P211,639.33 in

cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half of all shares of stock of
several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amount. To his
children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.

ISSUE 1? Is the wife entitled to a legitime?

No. The laws of Nevada, of which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of
all of his properties without requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife.
Section 9905 of Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides:

Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will, dispose
of all his or her estate, real and personal, the same being chargeable with the
payment of the testator’s debts.

Moreover, in an order dated June 19, 1955 – the court found that there existed no
community property owned by the decedent and his former wife at the time the
decree of divorce was issued. This order was already final and executory and she had
not appealed therefrom.

ISSUE 2: Are the testator’s children entitled to a legitime in accordance with the laws
of the forum?

No. In accordance with Par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which is the same as par. 2 Art.
16, New Civil Code legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of
succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity
of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and the country
in which it is found. It is therefore the Law of Nevada which will govern the disposition
of the properties of the testator but this foreign law must first be proved as our courts
do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. However, the laws of Nevada were not
introduced in evidence by the executor’s at the hearing of the project of partition. It is
Magdalena C. Bohanan, upon her motion for withdrawal of P20,000 as her share,
who introduced in evidence the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled
Nevada Laws. Said laws presented by the counsel for the executor was admitted by
the Court. Also the children of the testator, did not dispute the above-quoted provision
of the laws of the State of Nevada.

Under these circumstances, the Court held that the pertinent law of Nevada,
especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial
notice by the court, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the
project of partition.

The order of the court approving the project of partition was affirmed.

NOTES:

How are foreign laws proved?

Foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by
our Rules, which are as follows:

SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. — An official record or an entry therein,
when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof
or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody of he record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate
that such officer has the custody. . . . (Rule 123).