As a rule, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law.

The exceptions are the following:

1. Where there are exceptional circumstances when the foreign laws are already
within the actual knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and
generally known or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases before it
and none of the parties concerned claimed otherwise. (PCIB vs. ESCOLIN)

2. Where the courts are familiar with the specific foreign laws such as the
Spanish civil law, common law doctrines, and the rules from which Philippine
laws are derived. (Pardo vs. Republic)

3. Where a foreign law, such as that of the Nevada law, was proved in accordance
with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and introduced as
evidence in the probate of the will of a citizen of Nevada, such circumstances
justified the Court to take judicial notice of said foreign law in another case
involving the partition of hte estate of the decedent, even though the provisions
of said law were not presented in the form and manner provided by the Rules of
Court, where the adverse party did not dispute the quoted provisions of said law
of Nevada.

4. Specialized quasi-judicial agencies may take judicial notice of foreign law, even
if the foreign law has not been alleged and proved because the general rule
applies only to cases filed in courts and not to cases before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies which, by reason of their mandated functions, have become
familiar with the applicable foreign laws. (Norse Management Co. vs. National
Seamen Board)

SCRA VOL. 1-20 (4) [check the file uploaded by Rose]

CIR v. Fisher (1 SCRA 93) - contains the exception to the 'foreign judgment
rule'

Sa Fisher may namatay. Proving foreign law in court.

GR: Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction, nor are courts
authorized to take judicial cognizance of them. Like any other fact, they must be
alleged and proved in court.

EXC: In another case, the Court considered the testimony of an attorney at law
of California who quoted verbatim a section of the California Civil Code and who
stated that the same was in force at the time the obligations were contracted.
This testimony was considered as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of
said law.


Tenchavez vs. Escano (1965 AND 1966)

EscaNO divorce obtained abroad by pinoys.

A divorce obtained abroad by both or either of the Filipino spouses is not valid in
the Philippines.


Lim Siok Huey vs. Lapiz (1958)

Authorization claro pa sa lapis.

In case of foreign plaintiffs, the authorization given to the counsel must be clear,
specific, and unequivocal.


FEI vs. Nankai Kogyo (1962) - 2011 EXAM ALERT

Nankai KogYOU WAIVE jurisdiction.

Even though the defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the court, if at the same
time he alleges any non-jurisdictional ground for dismissing the action and asks
the court to act upon any question, the court acquires jurisdiction over him.


Atlantic Mutual Ins. vs. Continental Cebu Stevedoring (1966)

Atlantic Mutual (Lice)Ins

If a corporation is doing business in the Philippines, they msut be duly licensed
to bring suit. If they are not engaged and if the transaction is singular and
isolated, no such license is required.


Lam Yin vs. Commissioner of Immig (1966)

LAMYINang madedeport sya, kaya pwede idetain.

As an incident of the right to deport, the government, through the Commissioner
of immigration has the right to detain an alien to be deported pending the
deportation.


Lao Chay vs. Emilio Galang (1964) (my case)

Igalang ni wife ang citizenship ni husband.

Effect of naturalization of wife and any woman who is now or may here-after by
married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized, shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines if the husband
possesses no disqualification.


Macmillan vs. Valderrama (1964)

Lex Loci Contractus.

Where a contract was entered into and was to be performed in foreign state, the
law of that foreign state will govern the contract with respect tp its nature,
validity, pbligation, and interpretation.


Testate Estate of Bellis (1967)

MaBELLIS mavoid pag d national law ang will.

A provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law is
illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters.


Aznar v Galang

Philippine law should apply. Art. 16 of the Phil. Civil Code provide that the
national law of the decedent governs the validity of his testamentary
dispositions. Such national law means the law on conflict of laws of the California
code, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the
testators domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California precisely refers back
the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his
domicile (the Philippines in the CAB). The Phil. court must apply its own law as
directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent.


Raerae v. Chae Kyung Lee (1966)

As far as marriage status is concerned, the nationality principle is controlling NOT lex loci
celebr

Dilweg vs. Philips (1964)

HinDILWEG kelangan

Not indispensable for a foreigner to establish residence nor need he be
physically present in a state of which he is not a resident or citizen in order that
he may initiate or maintain a personal action against a resident or citizen of that
other state for rights of action arising in, or for violation of laws committee
within, the territorial jurisdiction of that other state.

In Re: Adoption of Child Baptized Under the Name of Rose (1963)

Di maadopt si Rose kase foreigner sila.

Jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is determined by the latters
nationality. The Philippine Court has jurisdiction over the person of Baby Rose,
being a Philippine citizen, but not over petitioners, who are foreign citizens.


Lim vs. Brownell, Jr. (1960)

Immunity of the state from suit cannot be invoked where the action, as in the
present case, is instituted by a person who is neither an enemy or ally of an
enemy for the purpose of establishing his right, title or interest in vested
property, and of recovering his ownership and possession. Congressional
consent to such suit has expressly been given by the United States.




PHIL REPORTS, VOL. 1-15 (1) [1901-1910]
Germann & Co. V. Donaldson, Sim & Co. (1901)

Rafael Enriquez V. Francisco Enriquez (1907)

Dampfschieffs Rhederei Union V. La Compaia Transatlantica (1907)

For purposes of filing an action arising from the collision on Philippine waters, it is not
necessary that a foreign vessel comply with the record requirements under the Code of
Commerce.


SCRA 130-140 (1)
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. V. Hon. Oscar C. Fernandez (1984) (case yata ito na
kasama sa report ni Nat)

Van Dorm v. Romillo (1985) [also asked in the samplex!!]

Only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorce the same being
considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality.

Top Weld Mfg. Corp v. ECEED (1985)

There is no general rule or governing principle laid down as to what constitutes doing or
engaging in or transacting business in the Philippines. Each case must be judged in the
light of its peculiar circumstances.


United States Of America V. Ruiz (1985)

SCRA 190-200 (1)

De Villa v. CA (195 SCRA 722) *

General Milling Co. v. Torres (1991)

Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople [1990]
K.K. Shell Sekiyu Osaka Hatsubaisho v. CA [1990]

SCRA 220-280 (3)
Salvacion v. Central Bank (278 SCRA 27) *

Cadalin v. POEAs Administrator [1994] [got a special mention during class
because of the "borrowing statute" doctrine that will come out daw]

As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum.
Prescription is Sui Generis, sometimes may be procedural, sometimes substsntive.

Borrowing statute refers to a statute stating that an action or claim which
is being barred by a foreign limitation statute will also be barred in the
forum. The applicable foreign limitation is typically that of the place
where the cause of action arises. Thus, under the statute, the forum
borrows the foreign limitation. The purpose of borrowing statutes is to
prevent plaintiffs from engaging in forum shopping in order to find the
longest available statute of limitations

The Holy See v. Rosario [1994]

Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA [1993]

Paderanga v. Buisan [1993]

Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance [1994]

Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA [1994]

Domingo v. CA [1993]

Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA [1996]

Tuason v. CA [1996]

Perez v. CA [1996]

Santos v. CA [1995]

Republic v. CA [1997]

268 SCRA 198

Communication Materials and Design v. CA[1996]

Avon v. CA [1996]

Litton Mills v. CA [1996]

New York Marine Managers v. CA [1995]

Columbia Pictures [1996]

Eriks Pte. Ltd. v. CA [1997]

SCRA 310-350 (2)
United Airlines v. Uy [1999]

Hernandez v. CA [1999]