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.