Asiavest Limited vs CA and Heras

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.
HELD: 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.

Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. vs Court of Appeals

In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must
be piloted by pilots familiar to the river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon,
master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc.
(PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in
Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine
Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a
result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned
Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of
losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC
sued PPL in the RTC of Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it
incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de
Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje N o 1 del Orinoco. These two
laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of
the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when he failed to
check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing the
river.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said
Venezuelan laws.
HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the
court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were presented as evidence. For a
copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory:

(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by
his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or consular agent or foreign
service officer, and with the seal of his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is
admissible, as are printed and published books of reports of decisions of the
courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such
courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where
the foreign law is deemed to be the same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine
laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of
Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot
the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela
in good standing when he was engaged.

G.R. No. L-35694

December 23, 1933
ALLISON G. GIBBS vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA
Facts: Gibbs and his wife were American nationals, domiciled in California.
They acquired lands in the Philippines. The wife died in California. Gibbs was
appointed administrator of the intestate proceedings instituted in Manila. Gibbs
asked the court to adjudicate to him lands acquired in the Philippines not under
our laws on succession but because in accordance with the law of California,
the community property of spouses who are citizens of California, upon the
death of the wife previous to that of the husband, belongs absolutely to the
surviving husband without administration. CFI granted such to Gibbs upon proof
of California law. The register of deeds refused to transfer such properties on
the ground of non-payment of inheritance tax. Gibbs argued that the conjugal
right of a California wife in a community property is a personal right and even if
this was a case of succession, California law would still apply.
Issue: is Gibbs exempt from inheritance tax?

Held: NO. The court held that it is principle firmly established that to the law of
the state in which the land is situated we must look for the rules which govern
its descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills
and other conveyances. This fundamental principle is stated in the first
paragraph of article 10 of our Civil Code as follows: "Personal property is
subject to the laws of the nation of the owner thereof; real property to the laws
of the country in which it is situated.
Under the provisions of the Civil Code and the jurisprudence prevailing here,
the wife, upon the acquisition of any conjugal property, becomes immediately
vested with an interest and title therein equal to that of her husband, subject to
the power of management and disposition which the law vests in the husband.
It results that the wife of the appellee was, by the law of the Philippine Islands,
vested of a descendible interest, equal to that of her husband and the
descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the lands aforesaid was
transmitted to her heirs by virtue of inheritance and this transmission plainly
falls within the language of section 1536 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the
Administrative Code which levies a tax on inheritances.

TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN vs. HELEN

CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, G.R. No. L-16749 January 31, 1963
FACTS:
Edward E. Christensen, though born in New York, migrated to California, where
he resided and consequently was considered a California citizen. In 1913, he
came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until his death.
However, during the entire period of his residence in this country he had always
considered himself a citizen of California. In his will executed on March 5, 1951,
he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his
only heir, but left a legacy of sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia
who was rendered to have been declared acknowledged natural daughter.
Counsel for appellant claims that California law should be applied; that under
California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile; that
therefore Philippine law is ultimately applicable; that finally, the share of Helen
must be increased in view of the success ional rights of illegitimate children
under Philippine law. On the other hand, counsel for the heir of Christensen
contends that inasmuch as it is clear that under Article 16 of our Civil Code, the
national law of the deceased must apply, our courts must immediately apply the
internal law of California on the matter; that under California law there are no
compulsory heirs and consequently a testator could dispose of any property
possessed by him in absolute dominion and that finally, illegitimate children not
being
entitled
to
anything
and
his
will
remain
undisturbed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Philippine law should prevail in administering the estate of
Christensen?
RULING:
The court in deciding to grant more successional rights to Helen said in effect
that there are two rules in California on the matter: the internal law which should
apply to Californians domiciled in California; and the conflict rule which should
apply to Californians domiciled outside of California. The California conflict rule
says: If there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is
situated, is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law
of his domicile. Christensen being domiciled outside California, the law of his
domicile, the Philippines, ought to be followed. Where it is referred back to
California, it will form a circular pattern referring to both country back and forth.

Bellis vs Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678 June 6, 1967

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased, PEOPLES BANK &
TRUST
COMPANY,
executor, MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, oppositorsappellants,
VS.
EDWARD
A.
BELLIS,
ET.
AL.,
heir-appellees
G.R.
No.
L-23678
June
6,
1967
FACTS:
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United
States. He had 5 legitimate children with his wife, Mary Mallen, whom he had
divorced, 3 legitimate children with his 2nd wife, Violet Kennedy and finally, 3
illegitimate
children.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the Philippines in which his
distributable estate should be divided in trust in the following order and manner:
a.
$240,000
to
his
1st
wife
Mary
Mallen;
b. P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000 each;
c. The remainder shall go to his surviving children by his 1st and 2nd wives, in
equal
shares.
Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, USA. His will
was admitted to probate in the Philippines. The Peoples Bank and Trust
Company, an executor of the will, paid the entire bequest therein.
Preparatory to closing its administration, the executor submitted and filed its
Executors Final Account, Report of Administration and Project of Partition
where it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the legacy of Mary Mallen by the
shares of stock amounting to $240,000 delivered to her, and the legacies of the
3 illegitimate children in the amount of P40,000 each or a total of P120,000. In
the project partition, the executor divided the residuary estate into 7 equal
portions
for the benefit of the testators 7 legitimate children by his 1st and 2nd
marriages.
Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and Miriam Palma Bellis filed
their respective opposition to the project partition on the ground that they were
deprived
of
their
legitimates
as
illegitimate
children.
The lower court denied their respective motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE:
Whether

Texan

Law

of

Philippine

Law

must

apply.

RULING:
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile
thereof at the time of his death. So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of
law rule providing that the same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to
Philippine
Law,
but
would
still
refer
to
Texas
Law.
Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rule adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae)
calling for the application of the law of the place where the properties are

situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved are found in the
Philippines. In the absence, however of proofs as to the conflict of law rule of
Texas, it should not be presumed different from our appellants, position is
therefore
not
rested
on
the
doctrine
of
renvoi.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, USA and that under the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights has to be determined under Texas Law, the
Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.