Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    Tax2 - 2. Corre v. Corre

    Uploaded by

    Carla Louise Bulacan Bayquen
    This case discusses the definition of residence under Philippine law and whether venue was proper. The plaintiff filed for legal separation from his wife in Manila. However, the plaintiff resided in Las Vegas, Nevada while the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. The court held that venue was not proper in Manila, as residence under the rules refers to one's permanent domicile, not a temporary residence for purposes of filing a case. As the parties resided in different countries, the only proper venue was where the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. Temporary residence in Manila did not satisfy the venue rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tax2 - 2. Corre v. Corre

    Uploaded by

    Carla Louise Bulacan Bayquen
    63 views1 page
    This case discusses the definition of residence under Philippine law and whether venue was proper. The plaintiff filed for legal separation from his wife in Manila. However, the plaintiff resided in Las Vegas, Nevada while the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. The court held that venue was not proper in Manila, as residence under the rules refers to one's permanent domicile, not a temporary residence for purposes of filing a case. As the parties resided in different countries, the only proper venue was where the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. Temporary residence in Manila did not satisfy the venue rules.

    Original Description:

    Taxation

    Original Title

    Tax2_2. Corre v. Corre

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the definition of residence under Philippine law and whether venue was proper. The plaintiff filed for legal separation from his wife in Manila. However, the plaintiff resided in Las Vegas, Nevada while the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. The court held that venue was not proper in Manila, as residence under the rules refers to one's permanent domicile, not a temporary residence for purposes of filing a case. As the parties resided in different countries, the only proper venue was where the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. Temporary residence in Manila did not satisfy the venue rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views1 page

    Tax2 - 2. Corre v. Corre

    Uploaded by

    Carla Louise Bulacan Bayquen
    This case discusses the definition of residence under Philippine law and whether venue was proper. The plaintiff filed for legal separation from his wife in Manila. However, the plaintiff resided in Las Vegas, Nevada while the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. The court held that venue was not proper in Manila, as residence under the rules refers to one's permanent domicile, not a temporary residence for purposes of filing a case. As the parties resided in different countries, the only proper venue was where the defendant resided in Catbalogan, Samar. Temporary residence in Manila did not satisfy the venue rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TAXATION II CASE SUMMARIES | 3-MANRESA [SECTION B] 2018-2019 1

    CORRE v. CORRE place to which, whenever absent for business or pleasure,


    No. L-10128. November 13, 1956 one intends to return, and depends on facts and
    circumstances, in the sense that they disclose intent.
    Digest by Carla Louise Bayquen

    Definition of Residence: The permanent home, the place to


    which, whenever absent for business or pleasure, one intends
    to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the
    sense that they disclose intent.

    Case: Plaintiff brought this action in the Court of First


    Instance
    of Manila seeking his legal separation from defendant, his
    wife, and the placing of their minor children under the care
    and custody of a reputable women’s dormitory or institution
    as the court may recommend.

    Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that


    the venue is improperly laid. She claims that since it appears
    in the complaint that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is
    a resident of the City of Manila the court where the action was
    filed is not the proper court to take cognizance of the case.

    Facts: That plaintiff is an American citizen, 44 years of age,


    resident of 114 North Ist Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, United
    States of America, master sergeant in the U.S. Army with
    military service address of Ro-6739431, Army Section,
    Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Formosa, APO 63,
    San Francisco, California, and for the purpose of filing and
    maintaining this suit, temporarily resides at 576 Paltoc, Santa
    Mesa, Manila;

    That defendant is a Filipino, 40 years of age and resident of


    the municipality of Catbalogan, province of Samar,
    Philippines, where summons may be served.

    Issue: Whether or not there is a proper venue– NO.

    PLEADING AND PRACTICE; VENUE OF ACTION


    WHERE PARTIES RESIDE IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.
    Section 1, Rule 5, of the Rules of Court provides that:
    Civil actions in Courts of First Instance may be commenced
    and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants
    resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the
    plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff.

    From this rule it may be inferred that plaintiff can elect to file
    the action in the court he may choose if both the plaintiff and
    the defendant have their residence in the Philippines.

    Otherwise, the action can only be brought in the place where


    either one resides. In the present case, plaintiff is a resident
    of Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. A. while the defendant is a
    resident of the municipality of Catbalogan, province of Samar.
    Such being the case, plaintiff has no choice other than to
    file the action in the court of first instance of the latter
    province.

    The allegation that the plaintiff for the purpose of filing and
    maintaining this suit, temporarily resides at 576 Paltoc, Santa
    Mesa, Manila cannot serve as basis for the purpose of
    determining the venue for that is not the residence
    contemplated by the rule. If that were allowed, we would
    create a situation where a person may have his residence in
    one province and, to suit his convenience, or to harass the
    defendant, may bring the action in the court of any other
    province. That cannot be the intendment of the rule.

    Indeed, residence as used in said rule is synonymous


    with domicile. This is define as the permanent home, the

    BASED ON THE SYLLABUS OF ATTY. KRISKA MARNA A. BUENA, CPA

    You might also like