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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    PNCC Vs Asiavest

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    The Philippine National Construction Corporation and Asiavest Holdings entered into a construction contract that was not fulfilled, prompting payment demands from the State of Pahang against Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad's performance bonds. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad then filed a complaint against PNCC. The court ruled that the doctrine of processual presumption applies in this case because Asiavest invoked Malaysian law but failed to prove the relevant foreign law provisions. Philippine law does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, so they must be alleged and proven. Furthermore, the applicable prescription period is 10 years based on the Civil Code, not the 6 years claimed by Asiavest.

    Copyright:

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

    PNCC Vs Asiavest

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    83 views1 page
    The Philippine National Construction Corporation and Asiavest Holdings entered into a construction contract that was not fulfilled, prompting payment demands from the State of Pahang against Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad's performance bonds. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad then filed a complaint against PNCC. The court ruled that the doctrine of processual presumption applies in this case because Asiavest invoked Malaysian law but failed to prove the relevant foreign law provisions. Philippine law does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, so they must be alleged and proven. Furthermore, the applicable prescription period is 10 years based on the Civil Code, not the 6 years claimed by Asiavest.

    Original Title

    pncc vs asiavest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Philippine National Construction Corporation and Asiavest Holdings entered into a construction contract that was not fulfilled, prompting payment demands from the State of Pahang against Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad's performance bonds. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad then filed a complaint against PNCC. The court ruled that the doctrine of processual presumption applies in this case because Asiavest invoked Malaysian law but failed to prove the relevant foreign law provisions. Philippine law does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, so they must be alleged and proven. Furthermore, the applicable prescription period is 10 years based on the Civil Code, not the 6 years claimed by Asiavest.

    Copyright:

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

    PNCC Vs Asiavest

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    The Philippine National Construction Corporation and Asiavest Holdings entered into a construction contract that was not fulfilled, prompting payment demands from the State of Pahang against Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad's performance bonds. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad then filed a complaint against PNCC. The court ruled that the doctrine of processual presumption applies in this case because Asiavest invoked Malaysian law but failed to prove the relevant foreign law provisions. Philippine law does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, so they must be alleged and proven. Furthermore, the applicable prescription period is 10 years based on the Civil Code, not the 6 years claimed by Asiavest.

    Copyright:

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

    Philippine National Construction Corp.

    vs Asiavest Merchant Bankers


    Facts: Philippine National Construction Corporation and Asiavest Holdings entered into a
    construction contract. There was failure to perform the obligations under the construction
    contract, prompting the State of Pahang to demand payment against Asiavest Merchant Bankers
    Berhad's performance bonds. Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad filed a Complaint for recovery
    of sum of money against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. It based its action on
    Malaysian laws.
    Issue: Whether the doctrine of processual presumption applies in this case?
    Ruling: Yes.
    Petitioner invokes Malaysian laws on prescription, but it was not able to prove these foreign law
    provisions.
    The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not only
    be alleged; they must be proven. To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must
    present a copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised
    Rules of Court(Emphasis supplied)
    Our provisions on prescription are found in the Civil Code. Specifically, Article 1144(1) of the
    Civil Code states that actions upon a written contract must be brought within 10 years from the
    accrual of the right, and not six years.
    Even assuming that the six-year prescription applies, petitioner cannot conclude prescription
    from the allegations in the Complaint. The Complaint filed on April 12, 1994 states that Asiavest
    Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad reached settlement with the State of Pahang “in or about 1988”

    You might also like