Synopsis of Cases on Choice-of-Law in Property

Llantino vs. Co Liong Chong (1990): Capacity of the person to transfer or acquire real property is governed by law of the place where property is located: Constitution allows an alien to use lands for residential purposes for a reasonable period (i.e. through lease); so is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is granted Philippine citizenship.

Asiatic Petroleum vs. Co Quico (1940): Mobilia sequuntur personam was used to consider general convenience and public policy; it cannot be applied if it would result in inescapable and patent injustice. Modern view is to make no distinction on rules on movables and immovables. All property within a State is subject to the jurisdiction of its courts, and they have the right to adjudicate title thereto, to enforce liens thereupon, and to subject it to the payment of the debts of its owners whether resident or not.

CIR vs. Anglo California National Bank (1960): (1) Shares of stocks are considered as intangible personal properties.  (2) Tax Code levies income taxes on foreign corporations only on income derived from sources within the Philippines and with respect to capital gains on the sale of personal properties. (3) Tax Code deems place of sale as place or source of capital gain.

Emerald Garment Mfg. Corp. vs. CA (1995): (1) Any foreign corporation which is a national/domiciliary of a country which is a party to a convention, treaty or agreement relating to intellectual property to which the Philippines is also a party or extends reciprocal rights to our nationals by law shall be entitled to benefits to the extent necessary to give effect to any provision of such convention. (2) A foreign corporation may have the capacity to sue for infringement but the question of whether they have an exclusive right over their trademark will depend on the actual use of the emblem in the local market. (3) For lack of adequate proof of actual proof of actual use of its trademark in the Philippines prior to local corporation’s use of its own mark and for failure to establish confusing similarity between said trademarks, foreign corporation’s action for infringement must necessarily fail.

Synopsis of Cases on Choice-of-Law in Family Relations

Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee (1922): (1) Marriages contracted outside the Philippines if valid in country where contracted is considered as valid in the Philippines. (2) Philippine marriage followed by many (Eg. 23, 40) years of uninterrupted marital life should not be impugned and discredited, after death of one spouse and administration of his estate, through an alleged prior marriage in a foreign country, save upon clear, strong and unequivocal proof as to produce a moral conviction of existence of such impediment. 

People vs. Mora Dumpo (1935): (1) Necessary requisites for validity of Muslim marriage must be proved as fact. (2) Consent of bride’s father/chief of tribe is indispensable requisite for validity of Muslim marriage. (3) Essential element of bigamy is that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requisites, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. No bigamy where second marriage lacks an essential requisite. 

Wong Woo Yu vs. Vivo (1965): (1) Marriage contracted outside Philippines which is valid under law of country where it was celebrated is also valid in the Philippines. (2) But said foreign country’s law on marriage must be proved as fact. (3) In the absence of such proof, it should be presumed that said foreign law is same as our own (Processual Presumption).

Tenchavez vs. Escano (1965): (1) Foreign divorce between Filipino citizens is not recognized as valid in this jurisdiction; neither is the marriage contracted with another by the divorced consort made after said divorce decree. (2) Remarriage of divorced wife and her cohabitation with a person other than lawful husband entitle the latter to a decree of legal separation. (3) Desertion and securing of invalid divorce decree by one consort entitles the other to recover damages.

Therkelsen vs. Republic (1964): Alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a foreigner from adopting a person under our law. Civil Code only disqualifies from being adopters those aliens that are either (1) non-residents or (2) residents but Philippines has broken diplomatic relations with their government.

Ng Hian vs. Collector of Customs (1916): (in citing US case Ex parte Fong Yim) Whether adoption is genuine is a question of fact, open to investigation. Adoption in China is substantially without legal formalities. No difference between legal status of adopted children and of legal children. An adopted child of a Filipina stepmother has a right to enter the Philippines.