ASIAVEST Limited vs.

CA
In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay US$1.8 million or its
equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd. Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain
loan in Hong Kong and the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor,
Asiavest, ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even during
trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he returned to the Philippines. So
when in 1987, when Asiavest filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the
foreign judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received any
summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He also claimed that he
never received a copy of the foreign judgment. Asiavest however contends that
Heras was actually given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one Dionisio Lopez who
was Heras son in law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced against Heras in the
Philippines.
RULING: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly authenticated (Asiavest was
able to adduce evidence in support thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome
the validity of it, it cannot be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines because
Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far as Philippine law is
concerned, the Hong Kong court has never acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This
means then that Philippine courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign judgment.
The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as Hong Kong is
concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non resident because prior to the
judgment, he already abandoned Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of
summons in in personam cases against non residents was never presented in court
hence processual presumption is applied where it is now presumed that Hong Kong
law in as far as this case is concerned is the same as Philippine laws. And under our
laws, in an action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who does
not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court, personal service of
summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over her
person. This method of service is possible if such defendant is physically present in
the country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his
person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. Without a
personal service of summons, the Hong Kong court never acquired jurisdiction.
Needless to say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid service because
the same does not satisfy the requirement of personal service.
EDI-Staffbuilders vs. NLRC
Petitioner EDI is a corporation engaged in recruitment and placement of Overseas
Filipino Workers (OFWs). ESI is another recruitment agency which collaborated with
EDI to process the documentation and deployment of private respondent to Saudi
Arabia.

Private respondent Gran was an OFW recruited by EDI, and deployed by ESI to work
for OAB, in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
It appears that OAB asked EDI through its October 3, 1993 letter for curricula vitae
of qualified applicants for the position of Computer Specialist. In a facsimile
transmission dated November 29, 1993, OAB informed EDI that, from the
applicants curricula vitae submitted to it for evaluation, it selected Gran for the
position of Computer Specialist. The faxed letter also stated that if Gran agrees to
the terms and conditions of employment contained in it, one of which was a
monthly salary of SR (Saudi Riyal) 2,250.00 (USD 600.00), EDI may arrange for
Grans immediate dispatch.
After accepting OABs offer of employment, Gran signed an employment contract
that granted him a monthly salary of USD 850.00 for a period of two years. Gran
was then deployed to Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on February 7, 1994.
Upon arrival in Riyadh, Gran questioned the discrepancy in his monthly salaryhis
employment contract stated USD 850.00; while his Philippine Overseas Employment
Agency (POEA) Information Sheet indicated USD 600.00 only. However, through the
assistance of the EDI office in Riyadh, OAB agreed to pay Gran USD 850.00 a month.
After Gran had been working for about five months for OAB, his employment was
terminated through OABs July 9, 1994 letter,11 on the following grounds:

Non-compliance to contract requirements by the recruitment agency

primarily on your salary and contract duration.
Non-compliance to pre-qualification requirements by the recruitment agency,
vide OAB letter ref. F-5751-93, dated October 3, 1993.12
Insubordination or disobedience to Top Management Order and/or instructions
(non-submittal of daily activity reports despite several instructions).

On July 11, 1994, Gran received from OAB the total amount of SR 2,948.00
representing his final pay, and on the same day, he executed a Declaration
releasing OAB from any financial obligation or otherwise, towards him.
After his arrival in the Philippines, Gran instituted a complaint, on July 21, 1994,
against ESI/EDI, OAB, Country Bankers Insurance Corporation, and Western
Guaranty Corporation with the NLRC, National Capital Region, Quezon City, which
was docketed as POEA ADJ (L) 94-06-2194 for underpayment of wages/salaries and
illegal dismissal.
LWV Construction vs. DUPO
Petitioner, a domestic corporation which recruits Filipino workers, hired respondent
as Civil Structural Superintendent to work in Saudi Arabia for its principal,
Mohammad Al-Mojil Group/Establishment (MMG). On February 26, 1992, respondent
signed his first overseas employment contract, renewable after one year. It was
renewed five times on the following dates: May 10, 1993, November 16, 1994,
January 22, 1996, April 14, 1997, and March 26, 1998. All were fixed-period
contracts for one year. The sixth and last contract stated that respondent's
employment starts upon reporting to work and ends when he leaves the work site.

Respondent left Saudi Arabia on April 30, 1999 and arrived in the Philippines on May
1, 1999.
On May 28, 1999, respondent informed MMG, through the petitioner, that he needs
to extend his vacation because his son was hospitalized. He also sought a
promotion with salary adjustment. In reply, MMG informed respondent that his
promotion is subject to management's review; that his services are still needed;
that he was issued a plane ticket for his return flight to Saudi Arabia on May 31,
1999; and that his decision regarding his employment must be made within seven
days, otherwise, MMG "will be compelled to cancel [his] slot." On July 6, 1999,
respondent resigned.
Under the Law of Saudi Arabia, an employee who rendered at least five (5) years in
a company within the jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia, is entitled to the so-called long
service award which is known to others as longevity pay of at least one half month
pay for every year of service. In excess of five years an employee is entitled to one
month pay for every year of service. In both cases inclusive of all benefits and
allowances.

KAZUHIRO HAZEGAWA & NIPPON vs. KITAMURA

In March 1999, Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd, a Japanese firm, was
contracted by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to supervise
the construction of the Southern Tagalog Access Road. In April 1999, Nippon entered
into an independent contractor agreement (ICA) with Minoru Kitamura for the latter
to head the said project. The ICA was entered into in Japan and is effective for a
period of 1 year (so until April 2000). In January 2000, DPWH awarded the
Bongabon-Baler Road project to Nippon. Nippon subsequently assigned Kitamura to
head the road project. But in February 2000, Kazuhiro Hasegawa, the general
manager of Nippon informed Kitamura that they are pre-terminating his contract.
Kitamura sought Nippon to reconsider but Nippon refused to negotiate. Kitamura
then filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Nippon in the
RTC of Lipa.

Hasegawa filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was entered in
Japan hence, applying the principle of lex loci celebracionis, cases arising from the
contract should be cognizable only by Japanese courts. The trial court denied the
motion. Eventually, Nippon filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Hasegawa, on appeal significantly changed its theory, this time invoking forum non
conveniens; that the RTC is an inconvenient forum because the parties are Japanese
nationals who entered into a contract in Japan. Kitamura on the other hand invokes
the trial courts ruling which states that matters connected with the performance of
contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance, so since
the obligations in the ICA are executed in the Philippines, courts here have
jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint against Nippon should be dismissed.

Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co vs. Guerrero
On May 17, 1994, respondent Rafael Ma. Guerrero ("Guerrero" for brevity) filed a
complaint for damages against petitioner Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. and/or
Chemical Bank ("the Bank" for brevity) with the Regional Trial Court of Manila ("RTC"
for brevity). Guerrero sought payment of damages allegedly for

illegally withheld taxes charged against interests on his checking account

with the Bank;
a returned check worth US$18,000.00 due to signature verification problems;
and
unauthorized conversion of his account.

Guerrero amended his complaint on April 18, 1995.

On September 1, 1995, the Bank filed its Answer alleging, inter alia, that by
stipulation Guerreros account is governed by New York law and this law does not
permit any of Guerreros claims except actual damages. Subsequently, the Bank
filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of Guerreros
claims for consequential, nominal, temperate, moral and exemplary damages as
well as attorneys fees on the same ground alleged in its Answer. The Bank
contended that the trial should be limited to the issue of actual damages. Guerrero
opposed the motion.
The affidavit of Alyssa Walden, a New York attorney, supported the Banks Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment. Alyssa Waldens affidavit ("Walden affidavit" for
brevity) stated that Guerreros New York bank account stipulated that the governing
law is New York law and that this law bars all of Guerreros claims except actual
damages. The Philippine Consular Office in New York authenticated the Walden
affidavit.
Hence, the instant petition.
Catalan vs. Catalan-Lee
Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando on June 4, 1950 in
Mabini, Pangasinan. Thereafter, they migrated to the United States of America and
allegedly became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, Felicitas
and Orlando divorced in April 1988. Two months after the divorce, or on June 16,
1988, Orlando married respondent Merope in Calasiao, Pangasinan. Contending that
said marriage was bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with
Eusebio Bristol, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with
damages in the RTC of Dagupan City against Orlando and Merope. Respondents filed
a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was
allegedly not a real party-in-interest, but it was denied. Trial on the merits ensued.
On October 10, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the petitioner. A
motion for reconsideration was filed by the respondent before appellate court and
ruled in favor of her reversing the decision of the trial court. Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration but the same was dismissed by the appellate court. Petitioner

contends that the bigamous marriage of the respondents, which brought

embarrassment to her and her children, confers upon her an interest to seek judicial
remedy to address her grievances and to protect her family from further
embarrassment and humiliation. She claims that the Court of Appeals committed
reversible error in not declaring the marriage void despite overwhelming evidence
and the state policy discouraging illegal and immoral marriages.
San Luis vs. San Luis
During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis (Rodolfo San Luiss dad) contracted three
marriages. His first marriage was with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which
were born six children. On August 11, 1963, Virginia predeceased Felicisimo.
Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry Lee Corwin, with whom
he had a son, Tobias. However, on October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American
citizen, filed a Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding
Child Custody on December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married
Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no children with Felicidad but
lived with her for 18 years from the time of their marriage up to his death on
December 18, 1992. Upon death of his dad, Rodolfo sought the dissolution of their
Felicisimos conjugal partnership assets and the settlement of Felicisimos estate.
On December 17, 1993, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of administration before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Rodolfo claimed that Felicidad has no legal
personality to file the petition because she was only a mistress of Felicisimo since
the latter, at the time of his death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. Felicidad
presented the decree of ute divorce issued by the Family Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii to prove that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already
been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the legal capacity to marry
her by virtue of paragraph 2 Article 26 of the Family Code.
Rodolfo asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family Code cannot be given
retroactive effect to validate Felicidads bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because
this would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256.
Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria
Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage
did not sit well with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to
Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the
first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008
in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay
allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to
contact Fujiki.

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship.
In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: Judicial Recognition of
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).
Bank of America vs. American Realty Corp.
Petitioner granted loans to 3 foreign corporations. As security, the latter mortgaged
a property located in the Philippines owned by herein respondent ARC. ARC is a third
party mortgagor who pledged its own property in favor of the 3 debtor-foreign
corporations.
The debtors failed to pay. Thus, petitioner filed collection suits in foreign courts to
enforce the loan. Subsequently, it filed a petition in the Sheriff to extra-judicially
foreclose the said mortgage, which was granted.
On 12 February 1993, private respondent filed before the Pasig RTC, Branch 159, an
action for damages against the petitioner, for the latters act of foreclosing extrajudicially the real estate mortgages despite the pendency of civil suits before
foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan.
Yao Kee, et al. vs. Aida Sy-Gonzales
Sy Kiat is a Chinese national who died on January 17, 1977 in Caloocan City where
he was then residing, leaving behind real and personal properties here in the
Philippines worth about P300,000. Aida Sy-Gonzales et al filed a petition for the
grant of letters of administration and alleged that
they are the children of the deceased with Asuncion Gillego;
to their knowledge Sy Mat died intestate;
they do not recognize Sy Kiat's marriage to Yao Kee nor the filiation of her
children to him.
The petition was opposed by Yao Kee et al who alleged that she is the lawful wife of
Sy Kiat whom he married on January 19, 1931 in China and the other oppositors are
the legitimate children of the deceased with Yao Kee. Probate court ruled that Sy
Kiat was legally married to Yao Kee and the other oppositors were legitimate
children of Sy Mat. On appeal, CA simply modified probate courts judgment and
stated that Aida Sy-Gonzales et al are natural children of Sy Mat. They filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat is valid in accordance
with Philippine laws.