Compilation of conflicts of law (Personal Law) Digest

8/21/2019 Compilation of conflicts of law (Personal Law) Digest

1/98

Page 1of 98

Claro M. Recto vs. Esperanza P. HardenG.R. No. L-6897, Nove!er "9, 19#6

Concepc$on, %.&

'(C)*& Esperanza Harden contracted the legal services of Atty. Claro M. Recto as embodied in theContract of Professional Services entered into between them. t is in connection with the action which she

intended to !le against her h"sband #red M. Harden for the p"rpose of sec"ring an increase in the amo"ntof s"pport being received by her from the con$"gal partnership of her and said #red M. Harden% and for thep"rpose li&ewise of protecting and preserving her rights in the properties of the said con$"gal partnership%in contemplation of the divorce s"it which she intent to !le against him in the competent Co"rt ofCalifornia and of the li'"idation of the con$"gal partnership between them.

(o compensate Atty. Recto for the services% Esperanza bo"nd herself in lie" of retainer)s fee% to paythe former d"ring the pendency of the litigation and "ntil the termination of the same% twenty*!ve +,-/per cent of the total increase in allowance or pension which may be awarded to her by the co"rt over andabove the amo"nt of P0%-11.11 which she now receive monthly from #red M. Harden o"t of the f"nds ofthe con$"gal partnership and that if the case is terminated or an amicable settlement thereof be arrived atby the parties before the e2piration of two years from the date of the !ling of the complaint% she shallcontin"e to pay the said twenty*!ve +,-/ per cent "p to the end of the period. Moreover% as f"ll and

complete satisfaction of the fees of Attorney Claro M. Recto in connection with the case and said casebeing for the p"rposes aforestated% Esperanza also bo"nd herself to pay Atty. Recto twenty +,1/ per centof the val"e of the share and participation which may receive in the f"nds and properties of the saidcon$"gal partnership of her and #red M. Harden% as a res"lt of the li'"idation thereof either by deathdivorce% $"dicial separation% compromise or by any means or method by virt"e of which said partnership isor may be li'"idated.

P"rs"ant to the agreement% Atty. Recto commenced a civil action against #red Harden in the C# ofManila. As prayed for in the complaint% the co"rt iss"ed the writ of preliminary in$"nction against #redrestraining him from disposing the assets of the con$"gal partnership in fra"d of Esperanza. S"bse'"ently%

3apanese forces invaded the Philippines and placed the latter "nder military occ"pation. 4"ring theliberation% the records of the case were destroyed b"t the same were reconstit"ted at the instance of Atty.Recto. (hereafter% the C# rendered a decision in favor of Esperanza to which #red appealed.

4"ring the pendency of the appeal% Atty. Recto !led a manifestation and a motion where he statedthat Mrs. Harden had instr"cted him% by letter% to 5discontin"e all proceedings relative to6 said case%5vacate all orders and $"dgments rendered therein% and abandon and n"llify all her claims to the con$"galpartnership e2isting between her and Mr. Harden6% in accordance with several instr"ments e2ec"tedwitho"t the &nowledge% advise and consent of him% as co"nsel for Mrs. Harden% whereby7 +0/ Mr. and Mrs.Harden had p"rportedly agreed to settle their di8erences in consideration of the s"m of 9-%111 paid by MrHarden to Mrs. Harden% and a monthly pension of P-11 to be paid by him to her: +,/ Mr. Harden hadcreated a tr"st f"nd of 9,1%111 from which said monthly pension of 9-11 wo"ld be ta&en: and +;/ Mr. andMrs. Harden had m"t"ally released and forever discharged each other from all actions% debts% d"ties%acco"nts% demands and claims to the con$"gal partnership% in consideration of the s"m of 90. t was f"rtherasserted% in the manifestation that the p"rpose of the said instr"ments% e2ec"ted by Mr. and Mrs. Harden%was to defeat the claim of the former for attorney)s fees% for which reason% he prayed% in hisaforementioned motion the contin"ance of the receive to hold the properties in '"estion and for thereception of the evidence by a commissioner ofthe Civil Code of the Philippines.

+**E& hether or not the Contract of Professional Services +CPS/ is void.


2/98

Page "of 98

HEL& Bo. (he contention that the contract is in violation of Articles 0;1-% 0;-, and 0?1> of the CiviCode of the Philippines is not tenable. t is not borne o"t% either by the lang"age of the contract betweenthem% or by the intent of the parties thereto. ts p"rpose was not to sec"re a divorce% or to facilitate orpromote the proc"rement of a divorce. t merely so"ght to protect the interest of Mrs. Harden in thecon$"gal partnership% d"ring the pendency of a divorce s"it she intended to !le in the nited States. hatis more% inasm"ch as Mr. and Mrs. Harden are admittedly citizens of the nited States% their stat"s and the

dissol"tion thereof are governed D p"rs"ant to Article > of the Civil Code of Spain +which was in force inthe Philippines at the time of the e2ec"tion of the contract in '"estion/ and Article 0- of the Civil Code ofthe Philippines D by the laws of the nited States% which sanction divorce. n short% the contract ofservices% between Mrs. Harden and Atty. Recto is not contrary to law% morals% good c"stoms% p"blic order orp"blic policy.

N)E*& @n the iss"e that the CPS is void since it binds the con$"gal partnership witho"t h"sband)sconsent. (he contract in disp"te does not see& to bind the con$"gal partnership. y virt"e of saidcontract% Mrs. Harden merely bo"nd herself D or ass"med the personal obligation D to pay% by way ofcontingent fees% ,1 of her share in said partnership. (he contract neither gives% nor p"rports to give% toAtty. Recto any right whatsoever% personal or real% in and to her aforesaid share. (he amo"nt thereof issimply a basis for the comp"tation of said fees.

@n the iss"e that the CPS is void being violative of Article 0?>0 of the Civil Code prohibitingcontingent fees. Aside from the r"ling in the previo"s iss"e% it has already been held that contingent feesare not prohibited in the Philippines and are impliedly sanctioned by o"r Cannons +Bo. 0;/ of ProfessionalEthics.

@n the iss"e that CPS is harsh% ine'"itable% and oppressive. t is based "pon principles of e'"ityb"t% p"rs"ant thereto% one who see&s e'"ity m"st come with clean hands and Atty. Recto have not doneso% for the circ"mstances s"rro"nding the case show% to o"r satisfaction% that their aforementionedagreements% ostensibly for the settlement of the di8erences between h"sband and wife% were made for thep"rpose of circ"mventing or defeating the rights of Atty. Recto "nder his above*'"oted contract of serviceswith Mrs. Harden. ndeed% having sec"red a $"dgment in her favor% ac&nowledging her rights to the assetsof the con$"gal partnership% which t"rned o"t to be worth almost P?%111%111 in addition to litis e2pensae inthe s"m of P0F-%111% it is inconceivable that Mrs. Harden wo"ld have waived s"ch rights% as well as the

bene!ts of all orders and $"dgments in her favor% in consideration of the paltry s"m of 9-%111 allegedlypaid to her by Mr. Harden and the additional s"m of 9,1%111 to be paid by him in installments% at the rateof 9-11 a month. n fact% no e2planation has been given for this most "n"s"al avowed settlement betweenMr. and Mrs. Harden. @ne cannot even consider the possibility of a reconciliation between the spo"ses% thesame being inconsistent with the monetary consideration for said alleged settlement. hat is more% therecords show that the relations between said spo"ses D which were bad indeed% not only in 3"ly% 0>?0when Mrs. Harden engaged the services of Atty. Recto% b"t% even% before% for Mr. and Mrs. Harden wereseparated since 0>;G D had worsened considerably thereafter% as evidence by an action for divorce !ledby Mr. Harden in Bew 3ersey% in 3"ly 0>?G% "pon the gro"nd of repeated acts of in!delity allegedlycommitted by Mrs. Harden in 0>?1 and 0>?0.

@n the contention that the legal services are already paid by immediate e2ec"tion pending appealof the decision. (his line of arg"ment overloo&s the fact that said contract of services was madeprincipally% in contemplation of a s"it for divorce that% according to Mrs. Harden% she intended to !le beforea competent co"rt in California% 5and of the li'"idation of the con$"gal partnership between6 her and Mr.Harden. Had she !led said action for divorce and sec"red a decree of divorce% said con$"gal partnershipwo"ld have been dissolved and then li'"idated% and the share of Mrs. Harden therein wo"ld have been!2ed. However% this cannot ta&e place% either now% or in the foreseeable f"t"re% owing to theaforementioned agreements between Mr. and Mrs. Harden% which were made for the evident p"rpose ofdefeating Atty. Recto)s claim for attorney)s fees. n other words% the occ"rrence% within the timecontemplated by the parties D bearing in mind the nat"re of% and the circ"mstances "nder which theyentered into% said contract of services D of the event "pon which the amo"nt of said fees depended% wasrendered impossible by Mrs. Harden. Hence% whether s"ch event be regarded as a condition or as a period%she may not insist "pon its occ"rrence% prior to the enforcement of the rights of Atty. Recto% for 5thecondition shall be deemed f"l!lled when the obligor vol"ntarily prevents its f"l!llment6 +Art. 00G=% Civil


3/98

Page /of 98

Code/ and 5the debtor shall lose every right to ma&e "se of the period6 when he 5violates any "nderta&ingin consideration of which the creditor agreed to the period.6 +Art. 00>G% Civil Code./

G.R. No. L-7087 ece!er "9, 191/

CN*)(N( 2(3E E 4(RNE5,plainti8 and appellant% vs. G(4R+EL '*)ER,defendant andappellant.

%HN*N,J.:

'(C)*7 @n #ebr"ary 1F% 0GF-% abriel #"ster and Constanza IaJez were $oined in a Catholic or canonicalmarriage in the city of Malaga% Spain. n #ebr"ary of 0G>,% abriel #"ster came to the Philippine slands%settled% and ac'"ired real and personal property. (oward the middle of 0G>=% Constanza IaJez came toManila% where her h"sband was residing% and here lived with him in con$"gal relations. @n April 1?% 0G>>they made an agreement% in a p"blic doc"ment% by which they Kresolved to separate and live apart% bothconsenting to s"ch separation% and by virt"e thereof the h"sband a"thorized the wife to move to Spain%there to reside in s"ch place as the said lady pleases.K n the same doc"ment% the h"sband "ndertoo& tosend his wife the s"m of ;11pesetasmonthly for her s"pport% payable in Madrid% Spain% from the month of

3"ne 0G>>. (he h"sband complied with this obligation "ntil A"g"st% 0G>>% after which time he ceased toma&e f"rther payments.

n the beginning of March% 0>1>% the wife ret"rned to the Philippines% b"t the h"sband had absentedhimself therefrom in the early days of #ebr"ary of the same year. (he wife commenced divorceproceedings against her h"sband% alleging as ca"se of action the ad"ltery committed by him in or abo"tthe year 0G>> with a certain woman that she named in the complaint and with whom he had lived andcohabited and by whom he had had two children. She prayed that she be granted a decree of divorce: thatthe co"rt order the separation of the properties of the plainti8 and the defendant% to date from the date ofthe said decree: that the con$"gal society be therefore li'"idated% and after the amo"nt of the con$"galproperty had been determined% that one*half thereof be ad$"dicated to her: f"rthermore% as to the amo"ntof pension owing for her s"pport b"t not paid to her% that the defendant be ordered to pay her the s"m of;=%111 Spanishpesetas% that is% F%,,1 Spanish dollars% which% red"ced to Philippine c"rrency at the rate ofe2change on the date of the complaint% amo"nted to P0,%>->.>1.

(he defendant denied that either he or his wife was a resident of the city of Manila% as they hadtheir domicile in arcelona% Spain% and he alleged that both of them were natives and s"b$ects of Spain. Headmitted that he was married to Constanza IaJez: he also admitted having e2ec"ted the doc"ment% inwhich he had "nderta&en to ma&e an allowance for the s"pport of his wife in Madrid% b"t he denied theother paragraphs of the complaint. As a special defense with regard to the allowance% he alleged7 K(hat inor abo"t the month of May% 0>11% he wrote to his wife% the plainti8% instr"cting her to ret"rn to Manila% witha view of $oining her h"sband and being maintained by him in his own ho"se: that the comm"nication wasignored by the plainti8% who against the will of the defendant% contin"ed to live separately from him thatfrom the year 0>10% the defendant did not &now her address: that since 0>11% the plainti8 has lived incomfort and has &nown where her h"sband resided: that the plainti8% d"ring all of the time referred to% inaddition to disposing of val"able property belonging to her h"sband% possessed and still possessesproperty of her own% ac'"ired by her% in greater amo"nt than that owned by her h"sband: and that in anycase the action has prescribed by operation of law.K As to the divorce% he admits that he had by the


4/98

Page 0of 98

plainti8 two children that have died. He e2pressly denied the charge of ad"ltery and also those concerningthe possession of real and personal property of the con$"gal partnership% the statement of their amo"nt%and their '"ali!cation as being all con$"gal property. As a special defense% he alleged that prior to the year0G>> he conferred powers of attorney "pon the plainti8 to administer and collect property and creditspertaining to him to the val"e of abo"t ,11%111 pesos: that the plainti8 accepted and e2ercised the saidpower of attorney% attached the property and collected the credits witho"t ever having rendered anyacco"nt of them. As a special preferred defense% he alleged that neither the trial co"rt nor any other co"rt

in the Philippine slands has $"risdiction over the s"b$ect matter of the complaint% beca"se% as to theallowance for s"pport% since neither the plainti8 nor the defendant are residents of Manila% or of any otherplace in the Philippine slands% the agreement "pon the s"b$ect was neither celebrated% nor was it to bef"l!lled% in the Philippine slands: and as to the divorce% beca"se the action therefore o"ght to be tried bythe ecclesiastical co"rts. n concl"sion% he prayed that the co"rt !nd7 (hat the co"rt was witho"t

$"risdiction over the two ca"ses of action: that even if it had $"risdiction% it co"ld not order the payment ofthe s"m claimed as arrears of alimony: that% after all% the action with regard to this ca"se of action hasprescribed: and as to the prayer for a decree of divorce% the defendant sho"ld be ac'"itted% while on theother hand the plainti8 sho"ld be re'"ired to render to the defendant an acco"nting% s"pported by proofs%of her operations as his attorney and administratri2 of his property in Spain.

n deciding the case% the C# of Manila held itself to have $"risdiction% decreed the s"spension of lifein common between the plainti8 and defendant% ordered the latter to pay the former% directed that the

comm"nal property be divided between the parties% with costs against the defendant% and in event thatthe parties co"ld not agree to the division% it was to be e8ected by commissioners according to law.

oth parties appealed% b"t notwithstanding the appeal% the partition of the property% by means ofcommissioners% was proceeded with. (hese latter% after vario"s vicissit"des% rendered their report andacco"nt of the partition to the co"rt% who then rendered !nal $"dgment% from which% also% both partiesappealed.

+**E7 @B there is lac& of $"risdiction of the trial co"rt and of all other co"rts of the slands to try thecase% either with regard to the f"l!llment of the contract to f"rnish alimony% or to decree a divorce ors"spension of life in common between the spo"ses7 lac& of $"risdiction over the s"b$ect matter of thelitigation: and over the persons of the contending parties% beca"se neither of the spo"ses was a resident ofthe Philippines on the date of the complaint.

RL+NG& n the present action for divorce the C# of Manila did not lac& $"risdiction over the persons of thelitigants% for% altho"gh Spanish Catholic s"b$ects% they were residents of this city and had their domicileherein.

(he C# of the Philippine slands have the power and $"risdiction to try actions for divorce. (hat ofthe city of Manila did not lac& $"risdiction by reason of the s"b$ect matter of the litigation.

(he defendant had not proved that he had elsewhere a legal domicile other than that which hemanifestly had in the Philippines d"ring the seventeen years preceding the date of the complaint. @n thecontrary% it plainly appears% witho"t proof to the contrary% that d"ring this not inconsiderable period%e2tending from the year 0G>, "ntil a month prior to the arrival of his wife in the Philippines in March% 0>1>%

he had constantly resided in the said slands% had &ept open ho"se% and had ac'"ired in the city of Manila'"ite a little real property which is now the ob$ect of the division of the con$"gal society. t is also plainlyshown% witho"t proof to the contrary% that his wife resided in this city of Manila from the middle of 0G>="ntil April% 0G>>% at which time she was permitted by him to change her residence. t is aLrmed by thedefendant that in May% 0>11% he sent a letter instructingthe plainti8 to ret"rn to Manila to live withherh"sband and to be s"pported by him in his house% b"t that the plainti8% against the will of the defendant%contin"ed to live part from him. t is also aLrmed in the said answer% that d"ring all of the time referred toin the complaint% and especially since 0>11% the plainti8 &new where her h"sband resided. t is also veryevident that the contract% by virt"e of which he a"thorized his wife to moveto Spain and reside there ins"ch place as was agreeable to her% was e2ec"ted in these slands% Kin the city of Manila on April ?% 0GG>%Kas is to be seen in the heading of the doc"ment. #inally% in his brief% he says that the record shows him tobe a Spanish s"b$ect% inscribed in the cons"late of his nation% and cities article ,= of the Civil Code% the

(reaty of Paris and the Philippine ill.


5/98

Page #of 98

ranting these facts% there can be no do"bt that the defendant% altho"gh a Spanish s"b$ect% was aresident of these slands. Article ,= of the Civil Code that he cites itself provides that KSpaniards whochange their domicile to a foreign co"ntry% where they may be considered as natives witho"t otherconditions than that of residents therein% shall be re'"ired% in order to preserve the Spanish nationality% tostate that s"ch is their wish before the Spanish diplomatic or cons"lar agent% who m"st record them in theregistry of Spanish residents% as well as their spo"ses% sho"ld they be married% and any children they mayhave.K #rom this provision% which is the e2cl"sive and irref"table law governing the defendant% we are to

concl"de that the domicile of the defendant and the plainti8 is f"lly proven% irrespective of the (reaty ofParis. itho"t this s"pposition of having ac'"ired his domicile and residence in these slands% he co"ld nothave re'"ired his wife to ret"rn to live with him therein beca"se this re'"irement co"ld only be based onarticles -G of the Civil Code of Spain% according to which the wife is obliged to follow her h"sband whereverhe wishes to establish his residence% or on article ?G of chapter - of the Marriage aw in force in thePhilippines% which imposes "pon the wife the d"ty of obeying her h"sband% living in his company% or offollowing him to wherever he transfers his domicile or residence. And $"st beca"se he was absent for amonth before his wife ret"rned to the Philippines% he cannot be "nderstood to have s"rrendered hishabit"al domicile of more than seventeen years% witho"t having established any other afterwards% andwitho"t ma&ing any declaration in legal form% before he absented himself% of it being his intention tochange his domicile% while at the same time he retains here his ho"se% real property and all manner ofmeans of s"bsistence. Section ;FF of the Code of Civil Proced"re leaves to the election of the plainti8 thebringing of a personal action li&e the one at bar either in the place where the defendant may reside or be

fo"nd% or in that where the plainti8 resides.

(he litigating spo"ses have gained not only domicile +domicilio/ b"t also residence +vecindad/ inManila. n this litigation the defendant claims that% born as he says in Mallorca% in the alearic slands% he isnot s"b$ect% in his marriage% to the r"les governing con$"gal property% that are in force in the territories ofSpain that are governed by the common law of Castillo% beca"se they are opposed to the #oral aw in forcein the said slands and which is respected by the Civil Code. Even if this defense co"ld be s"stained herein%paragraph , of article 0- of the said Civil Code wo"ld be applicable. t provides7 K#or the p"rposes of thisarticle% residence +vecindad/ will be ac'"ired7 y residence of ten years in common law provinces orterritories% "nless before the termination of that time he manifests his will to the contrary: or by aresidence of two years% if the interested person declares this to be his will . . . n any case% the wife willfollow the condition of her h"sband. . . .K @n no occasion had the defendant manifested his will to thecontrary% not even as he was leaving% after a residence of seventeen years% a month before the ret"rn of

his wife to these slands. @n the contrary% when he inscribed himself in the Spanish cons"late% he declaredhis intention of contin"ing to reside in the slands as a Spaniard and not as a Mallor'"in% s"b$ect as s"ch tothe common law of Spain.

(o demonstrate the lac& of $"risdiction of the co"rts of these slands over the s"b$ect matter of thecomplaint that is to try an action for divorce between two Catholic Spaniards% he alleges in his appeal7 (hatboth litigants are Spanish s"b$ects and that they contracted a Catholic marriage: that in accordance witharticle > of the Civil Code of Spain +the same as that of these slands/ the laws relating to family rights andd"ties% or to the stat"s% condition and legal capacity of persons% govern Spaniards altho"gh they reside in aforeign co"ntry: that% in conse'"ence% Kall '"estions of a civil nat"re% s"ch as those dealing with thevalidity or n"llity of the matrimonial bond% the domicile of the h"sband and wife% their s"pport% as betweenthem% the separation of their properties% the r"les governing property% marital a"thority% division ofcon$"gal property% the classi!cation of their property% legal ca"ses for divorce% the e2tent of the latter% the

A(H@R(I to decree it% and% in general% the civil e8ects of marriage and divorce "pon the person andproperties of the spo"ses% are '"estions that are governed e2cl"sively by the national law of the h"sbandand wife% and% in o"r case% by the Spanish law by virt"e of article > as above set o"t.K (he appellant anddefendant contin"es his arg"ment% saying7 (hat by the e2press provision of article G1 of the Civil Code ofSpain% K$"risdiction in actions for divorce and n"lli!cation of canonical marriages lies with ecclesiasticalco"rts%K while that of civil trib"nals is limited to civil marriages: that this being so% the action for divorcebro"ght by the plainti8 in the ca"se does not fall within the $"risdiction of the civil co"rts% according to hisown law of persons% beca"se these co"rts o"ght to apply the Spanish law in accordance with the saidarticle > of the Civil Cod of Spain% and this Spanish law grants the $"risdiction over the present ca"se to theecclesiastical co"rts% in the place of which no trib"nal of these slands can s"brogate itself. Says thisappellant7 Kf a law of a foreign co"ntry were of rigoro"s application in a given case% a Borth Americantrib"nal wo"ld have no $"risdiction "pon an ecclesiastical co"rt and therefore the Borth American trib"nalin applying it wo"ld have to e2ercise a fac"lty which that law reserved to the ecclesiastical co"rt.K


6/98

Page 6of 98

(he a"thority of $"risdictional power of co"rts to decree a divorce is not comprised within thepersonal stat"s of the h"sband and wife% simply beca"se the whole theory of the stat"tes and of the rightswhich belong to everyone does not go beyond the sphere of private law% and the a"thority and $"risdictionof the co"rts are not a matter of the private law of persons% b"t of the p"blic or political law of the nation.K(he $"risdiction of co"rts and other '"estions relating to proced"re are considered to be of a p"blic nat"reand conse'"ently are generally s"bmitted to the territorial principle. . . . All persons that have to demand

$"stice in a case in which foreigners intervene% since they can gain nothing by a simple declaration% sho"ld

endeavor to apply to the trib"nals of the state which have coercive means +property sit"ated in theterritory/ to enforce any decision they may render. @therwise% one wo"ld e2pose himself in the s"it toma&ing "seless e2pendit"res which% altho"gh he won his case% wo"ld not contrib"te to sec"re his rightsbeca"se of the co"rtNs lac& of means to enforce them.K +(orres Campos% KElementos de 4erechonternational Privado%K/ K3"stice%K says the same professor% Kis a principle s"perior to that of nations% and itsho"ld therefore be administered witho"t ta&ing into any acco"nt whatsoever the state to which thelitigants belong. . . . n order to foster their relations and develop their commerce% all civilized nations areinterested in doing $"stice% not alone to their own people% b"t to those foreigners who contract within theco"ntry or o"tside of it $"ridical ties which in some manner e8ect their sovereignty. Might its co"rts% insome cases% in s"its between foreigners residing in its territory% apply the personal law of the parties% b"tabdicate their $"risdiction% refrain from administering $"stice beca"se the personal law of the foreignergave the $"risdiction of the given case to some co"rt that is not the territorial one of the nationO (his hasnever yet been claimed in any of the theories regarding the conict of laws arising o"t of '"estions of

nationality and domicile: it wo"ld be e'"ivalent to recognizing e2traterritorial law in favor of privatepersons. (he provisions of article G1 of the Civil aw of Spain is only binding within the dominions of Spain.t does not accompany the persons of the Spanish s"b$ect wherever he may go. He co"ld not s"ccessf"llyinvo&e it if he resided in 3apan% in China% in Hong&ong or in any other territory not s"b$ect to the dominionof Spain. #oreign Catholics domiciled in Spain% s"b$ect to the ecclesiastical co"rts in actions for divorceaccording to the said article G1 of the Civil Code% co"ld not allege lac& of $"risdiction by invo&ing% as thelaw of their personal stat"te% a law of their nation which gives $"risdiction in s"ch a case to territorialco"rts% or to a certain co"rt within or witho"t the territory of their nation.

Bote7 @n the iss"e of ad"ltery. (he second assignment of error is directed against the !nding of the co"rtthat the defendant had committed ad"ltery with a certain woman in this city from the year 0G>> "ntil0>1>: the third was against the !nding that the ad"ltery was accompanied by p"blic scandal and in$"redthe dignity of his wife: and the fo"rth for having decreed the divorce% s"spension of the married life% and

the separation of the properties of the parties. (he evidence relating to the foregoing not being sent "p onappeal% we are "nable to review it% so we accept the !ndings of the trial co"rt.

(here is a point of law regarding the claim that the ad"ltery% even tho"gh it were proven wo"ld notbe a ca"se for divorce% beca"se no p"blic scandal res"lted therefrom nor was there contempt displayed forthe wife. (he facts m"st be accepted by this trib"nal as they were fo"nd by the trial co"rt% since theevidence cannot be reviewed: moreover% the appellee aLrms the contrary and maintains that it is a provenfact% p"blic and notorio"s% an assertion that the trial co"rt m"st have fo"nd to be proven. n law% it is notnecessary that ad"ltery% to be a ca"se for divorce% sho"ld be accompanied by p"blic scandal and contemptfor the wife. (here is no law that re'"ires this. aw ,% title >% of the #o"rth Partida does not re'"ire it.

Bote7 @n the iss"e that there e2ists con$"gal property +proof of foreign law/. (he appellant aLrms that heis a native of Mallorca in the alearic slands and that is also the condition of his wife% the plainti8. aw7

(hat altho"gh the r"le of the Civil Code is that which legally governs con$"gal property% yet at the sametime it admits% as an e2ception% the laws% "sages% and c"stoms of the #oral aw% according to which% asapplied in the alearic slands% the law of the family is that of the division of property and that of con$"galproperty is not &nown: so that the property pertains e2cl"sively to the spo"se who% by whatever title% hasac'"ired it. n s"pport of the facts% appellant cites pages ,F to ;F and ;> to ?0 in the bill of e2ceptions:and of the law% the doctrinal a"thority of Manresa% "tierrez% and Alc"billa.

(he citation from pages ;> to ?0 of the bill of e2ceptions% the only pertinent one% is b"t an aLdavit!led by the defendant in which% "nder oath% he himself testi!es as to the #oral aw in the alearic slands.

(he adverse party says with regard to this7 K(his aLdavit was never presented in proof% was neverreceived by the trial $"dge% and cannot serio"sly be considered as an e8ort to establish the law of a foreign

$"risdiction. Sections ;11% ;10 and ;1, of the Code of Civil Proced"re% now in force in these islands%


7/98

Page 7of 98

indicate the method by which the law of a foreign co"ntry may be proved. e maintain that the aLdavit ofa person not versed in the law% which was never s"bmitted as proof% never received by the trial co"rt% andwhich has never been s"b$ected to any cross*e2amination% is not a means of proving a foreign law onwhich the defendant relies.K

#"rthermore% on the s"pposition that the defendant co"ld invo&e the #oral aw as the law of hispersonal stat"s in the matter of the regimen of his marriage% and that to allege this he be considered as

a"thorized by article 0- of the Civil Code% we have said before% in dealing with his law of domicile% thatparagraph , of this article 0- of the Civil Code wo"ld be entirely adverse to his claim% and if it be advancedthat there is a similar #oral aw in the Philippines by virt"e of paragraph 0 of the said article 0-% it might besaid% tho"gh there is not at present any need to say it% that it is not in force. (he two !ndings attac&ed arein perfect accord with the law. All the property of the marriage% says article 0?1F of the Civil Code% shall beconsidered as con$"gal property "ntil it is proven that it belongs e2cl"sively to the h"sband or to the wife.Bo proof has been s"bmitted to this e8ect.

Bote7 on prescription. (he co"rt below ordered the defendant to pay to the plainti8 P-=%101.0F Philippinec"rrency. (he defendant alleged that whereas the plainti8 had made no demand in her complaint withrespect to this s"m: that no arrears of payment are owing for alimony% even tho"gh payments had beenstip"lated in the contract% "nless they are claimed by the person who had f"rnished the act"al s"pport%and that alimony is d"e only when it is necessary: so that% as the plainti8 has had no need of it for ten

years% nor has she stated who has f"rnished it% there is no reason for awarding her the amo"nt of thearrears for all that time: that as she has allowed ten years to elapse before claiming it% her actionprescribed in 0>1?% that is to say% after !ve years.

(he plainti8 ac&nowledges that there is no petition or prayer in her complaint as to this ca"se ofaction% b"t she considers that in e'"ity s"ch an omission can be s"pplied.

Paragraph ; of section G> +>1/ of the Code of Civil Proced"re determines one of the re'"isites of thecomplaint7 KA demand for the relief which the plainti8 claims.K (he section goes on to say7 Kf the recoveryof money or damages is demanded% the amo"nt demanded m"st be stated. f special relief% s"ch as anorder for the special restit"tion of property% etc.% the gro"nd of demanding s"ch relief m"st be stated andthe special relief prayed for. "t there may be added to the statement of the speci!c relief demanded ageneral prayer for s"ch f"rther or other relief as shall be deemed e'"itable.K

n the complaint of the case at bar the provisions of paragraph , of the said section G> Q>1 arecomplied with by setting forth in its paragraphs ? and - the relation of the ca"se of action% that is% thecontract of the ?th of April% 0G>>% by which the defendant obligated himself to send to the plainti8 in Spaina certain amo"nt of money monthly% for her s"pport% and the fail"re to comply with this obligation after themonth of A"g"st% 0G>>. Paragraph =% as a conse'"ence of the promise established in ? and -% says asfollows7 K(hat the defendant abriel #"ster y #"ster act"ally owes the plainti8 the s"m of ;=%011 Spanish

pesetas% that is% F%,,1 dollars% which% red"ced at the present rate of e2change% amo"nts to the s"m ofP0,%>->.>1% Philippine c"rrency.K n the case of defa"lt on the part of the defendant Kthe co"rt shallproceed to hear the plainti8 and his witnesses and assess the damages or determine the other relief towhich the plainti8 may be entitled% incl"ding the costs of the action% and render !nal $"dgment for theplainti8 to recover such sum or to receive s"ch other relief as the pleadings and the facts warrant.K (hepleadings% not the prayer of the complaint.

(his co"rt has recently decided that the pleadings% not the prayer% e2actly% are the essential part ofa complaint.

t is not a '"estion of alimony for the present% nor for the f"t"re% which constit"tes the !rst ca"se ofaction% b"t of certain s"ms stip"lated in a contract. (his contract is a law for the contracting parties% a lawwhich rises s"perior to those general laws which reg"late the nat"re of the s"b$ect matter of the contract+in the present case an entirely vol"ntary one/ and which govern $"dicial action.

An action arising o"t of a contract of this nat"re does not prescribe li&e all personal ones% b"t% bythe provisions of article 0>=? of the Civil Code% after !fteen years. "t even tho"gh the provisions of article


8/98

Page 8of 98

0>== were applicable% by which an action to compel the f"l!llment of an agreement to pay alimonyprescribes in !ve years% yet by section -1 of the Code of Civil Proced"re% Kwhen payment has been made"pon any demand fo"nded "pon contract . . . an action may be bro"ght . . . after s"ch payment. . . .K Andthe parties admit that on the 0Gth of A"g"st% 0>1G% the plainti8 sec"red the payment of =%;=-.=Gpesetasby virt"e of the contract of April ?% 0G>>. So that from A"g"st% 0>1G% "ntil March% 0>1>% the date of thecomplaint% the said period of !ve years had not elapsed.

Bote7 in the matter of plainti8)s appeal. (he plainti8 contends that !ndings of the lower co"rt areerroneo"s in that% !rstly% the parties had admitted that thepesetas referred to in the contract wereSpanish% and in view of this admission the co"rt was not empowered to de!ne them as being di8erent fromthe &ind admitted by the parties: secondly% if he were so empowered% his interpretation sho"ld begoverned by the terms of the law.

(he co"rt has not inc"rred error% beca"se it does not appear that the defendant in his answeraccepted the fact in the manner alleged in the complaint. (he defendant said that he admitted havingmade the agreement referred to in paragraph ? of the complaint% and that he stood upon its contents. (hecontents of the doc"ment to which he refers is of the following tenor7 KMr. #"ster binds and obligateshimself to pay to his said wife the s"m of ;11pesetas% monthly% payable de su cuentain the city andcapital of Madrid% for her s"pport. . . .K He did not therefore admit the matter of the Spanish pesetas: thatdoes not appear in the contents of the doc"ment D the only thing he admitted in his answer.

As to the second error% the co"rt did not commit it in applying the r"le contained in article 0,GF ofthe Civil Code. K(he "sages or c"stoms of the co"ntry shall be ta&en into consideration in interpretingambig"ity in contracts. . . .K f in the contract the word Kpesetas%K not being speci!c% was ambig"o"s% thenit was in harmony with this precept to interpret it as being the peseta then in useor c"rrent when andwhere the agreement was made% Me2ican being then the "s"al and c"rrent money in the Philippines.#"rthermore% the phrase de su cuentaclearly means that it was not KSpanishpesetasK that the contractingparties had in mind% beca"se if the agreement had been a speci!c one to pay ;11 SpanishpesetasinMadrid% everyone wo"ld of co"rse "nderstand that the e2pense of following the "ct"ations of change andof the di8erences in val"e between the money c"rrent in the co"ntry% and the Spanishpesetas% wo"ldhave to be defrayed by the obligated party: whereas% if nothing more thanpesetaswas mentioned% it wasnecessary to decide which party sho"ld pay for the di8erence in val"e so that the ;11pesetasstip"latedhere sho"ld be ;11 Spanishpesetaspaid in Madrid. Against the reasons of the co"rt below for his decision

this co"rt can o8er no legal gro"nds. (he r"le of interpretation cited is the one applicable and it s"pportsthe reasoning of the decision appealed from.

(he appellant also alleges as error that the co"rt did not ad$"dicate to her the ;1%111 Spanishdollars which the commissioners proposed in their report. #irst she characterizes this s"m of ;1%111 dollarsas the dowry of the wife delivered to the h"sband% then% later% as paraphernal property bro"ght to themarriage.

According to the last instr"ctions of the co"rt to the commissioners% this amo"nt of ;1%111 dollarsco"ld not enter into the partition% and with reason. f% as was claimed% it was inherited by the plainti8 fromher "ncle% it really constit"tes paraphernal property "nder article 0;G0. KParaphernal property is that whichthe wife brings to the marriage witho"t being incl"ded in the dowry and that she may ac'"ire after thecreation of the same witho"t being added thereto.K "t it is a provision of article 0;G? that K(he wife shallhave the management of the paraphernal property "nless she has delivered the same to her h"sband%before a notary% in order that he may administer said property. n s"ch case the h"sband is obliged tocreate a mortgage for the val"e of the personal property he may receive% or to sec"re said property% in themanner established for the dowry property.K Bot even was there o8ered in evidence the p"blic deed ofdelivery% nor the e'"ally p"blic mortgage deed that is re'"ired by law. So that% therefore% the necessaryproof of the obligation to ret"rn paraphernal property as here demanded does not e2ist.

(he partition of property decreed in the $"dgment appealed from of the >th of September% 0>00%sho"ld be and is hereby con!rmed. (he two $"dgments appealed from are hereby aLrmed% witho"t specialprono"ncement of costs in this instance.

Governent o te P$l$pp$ne +slands vs. Geore +. 'ran


9/98

Page 9of 98

G.R. No. L-"9/#, Marc "/, 19:9

%onson, %.&

'(C)*& @n or abo"t the 0Fth day of April 0>1;% in the city of Chicago% in the state of llinois% in the nitedStates% eorge . #ran&% thro"gh a representative of the ns"lar overnment of the Philippine slands +P/entered into a contract for a period of two years with the P% by which #ran& was to receive a salary of

0%,11 dollars per year as a stenographer in the service of the P% and in addition thereto was to be paid inadvance the e2penses inc"rred in traveling from the said city of Chicago to Manila% and one*half salaryd"ring said period of travel. Said contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its terms onthe part of #ran&% he sho"ld become liable to P for the amo"nt e2pended by the overnment by way ofe2penses inc"rred in traveling from Chicago to Manila and one*half salary paid d"ring s"ch period. Also% itwas e2pressly agreed between the parties to said contract that aws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? sho"ld constit"tea part of said contract. #ran& entered "pon the performance of his contract "pon the ;1th day of April0>1;% and was paid half*salary from that date "ntil 3"ne ?% 0>1;% the date of his arrival in the Philippineslands. @n the 00th day of #ebr"ary 0>1?% #ran& left the service of P and ref"sed to ma&e f"rthercompliance with the terms of the contract.

As a res"lt% on the ;rd day of 4ecember% 0>1?% P commenced an action in the Co"rt of #irstnstance of the city of Manila to recover from #ran& the s"m of ,=>.,; dollars% which amo"nt the P

claimed had been paid to #ran& as e2penses inc"rred in traveling from Chicago to Manila% and as halfsalary for the period cons"med in travel. n the said complaint% #ran& !led a general denial and a speciadefense% alleging in his special defense that P had amended aws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? and had therebymaterially altered the said contract% and also that he was a minor at the time the contract was entered intoand was therefore not responsible "nder the law. P !led a dem"rrer on the special defense which wass"stained by the co"rt. pon the iss"e th"s presented% and after hearing the evidence add"ced d"ring thetrial of the ca"se% the lower co"rt rendered a $"dgment against #ran& and in favor of P for the s"m of,=-.>1 dollars. (he lower co"rt fo"nd that at the time #ran& '"it the service of P there was d"e him fromthe P the s"m of ;.;; dollars% leaving a balance d"e the P in the s"m of ,=-.>1 dollars. #ran&appealed and one of his contentions is that% he was minor% hence% the contract cannot be enforced againsthim.

+**E& hether or not #ran&)s contention is correct.

HEL& Bo. (he record discloses that% at the time the contract was entered into in the State of llinois% hewas an ad"lt "nder the laws of that State and had f"ll a"thority to contract. #ran& claims that% by reason ofthe fact that% "nder the laws of the Philippine slands at the time the contract was made% male persons insaid slands did not reach their ma$ority "ntil they had attained the age of ,; years% he was not liable"nder said contract% contending that the laws of the Philippine slands governed. t is not disp"ted D "ponthe contrary the fact is admitted D that at the time and place of the ma&ing of the contract in '"estion#ran& had f"ll capacity to ma&e the same. Bo r"le is better settled in law than that matters bearing "ponthe e2ec"tion% interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where thecontract is made. Matters connected with its performance are reg"lated by the law prevailing at the placeof performance. Matters respecting a remedy% s"ch as the bringing of s"it% admissibility of evidence% andstat"tes of limitations% depend "pon the law of the place where the s"it is bro"ght. #ran&Ns claim that hewas an ad"lt when he left Chicago b"t was a minor when he arrived at Manila: that he was an ad"lt at thetime he made the contract b"t was a minor at the time P attempted to enforce the contract% more than ayear later% is not tenable.

N)E*& @n the iss"e that P had amended aws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,?% hence% the contract is materiallyaltered. t may be said that the mere fact that the legislative department of the overnment of thePhilippine slands had amended said Acts Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? by the Acts Bo. =?; and Bo. 01?1 did nothave the e8ect of changing the terms of the contract made between the plainti8 and the defendant. (helegislative department of the overnment is e2pressly prohibited by section - of the Act of Congress of0>1, from altering or changing the terms of the contract. (he right which the defendant had ac'"ired byvirt"e of Acts Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? had not been changed in any respect by the fact that said laws had beenamended. (hese acts% constit"ting the terms of the contract% still constit"ted a part of said contract andwere enforceable in favor of the defendant.


10/98

Page 1:of 98

;$te v. )ennant.

;0 .a. F>1S"preme Co"rt of Appeals of est irginia.S"bmitted 3"ne ,=% 0GGG.4ecided 4ecember 0% 0GGG.

0. 4omicile Change of Residence ntent.

here a person entirely abandons his former residence in one State with no intention of res"ming itand goes with his family to another residence% which he has rented in another State% with the intention ofma&ing the latter his residence for an inde!nite time% the latter State is his domicile notwithstanding thefact% that% after he and his family arrive at the new residence% which is only abo"t a half a mile from theState line% they go on the same day on a visit to spend the night with a neighbor in the former Stateintending to ret"rn in the morning of the ne2t day% b"t he is detained there by sic&ness% "ntil he dies% andnever does in fact ret"rn to his new home.

,. 4omicile Conict of aws 4istrib"tion of Property.

(he laws of the State% in which the domicile of a decedent is at the time of his death% control andgovern the distrib"tion of his personal estate% altho"gh he may die in another State.

*n


11/98

Page 11of 98

Abo"t the same time he moved an organ and some grain to the old homestead% "ntil he co"ld getpossession of the Pennsylvania ho"se.

@n the morning of April ,% 0GG-% he !nally left the 4ayNs r"n ho"se with the remainder of his goodsand his wife% he having no children% with the declared intent and p"rpose of ma&ing the Pennsylvaniaho"se his home that evening. He with his team% wife and goods and live*stoc& passed into the State ofPennsylvania several miles before he reached said ho"se and contin"ed in said State thence to said

Pennsylvania ho"se% where they arrived that evening abo"t s"ndown% and then and there "nloaded theirgoods and p"t them in the ho"se% setting "p one bed and t"rning the fowls and other live*stoc& loose atthe ho"se.

(he said ho"se had been vacated for several days. t was a damp% cool day% and the ho"se wasfo"nd to be damp and "ncomfortable. (he wife was complaining of feeling "nwell% and in conse'"ence ofthat fact and the "ncomfortable condition of the ho"se% on the invitation of her brother*in*law and others ofthe family who then resided at the mansion*ho"se% b"t a short distance therefrom% the said Michael and hiswife went to the mansion*ho"se in est irginia to stay all night and ret"rn in the morning. efore leavingthe Pennsylvania ho"se the wife had gotten o"t of the b"ggy at the ho"se% and the said Michael afterp"tting into it his ho"sehold*goods loc&ed the door and too& the &ey with him. @n the following morning%the wife still feeling "nwell% and the brother who was to ret"rn the team% which they had "sed in movingtheir goods% having ta&en sic&% the wife after going to the Pennsylvania ho"se to mil& ret"rned to the

mansion*ho"se% and Michael too& the team hac& to 4ayNs r"n.

@n the ret"rn of Michael from this trip he fo"nd his wife so sic& with typhoid fever% that it wasimpossible to move her% in conse'"ence of which both he and she remained at the mansion*ho"se% shebeca"se she was "nable to get away% and he to wait on her% b"t he went daily over to the Pennsylvaniaho"se to loo& after it% and to feed his stoc& there% calling it his K home.K n ten or !fteen days% and beforethe wife had s"Lciently recovered to leave her bed% Michael was attac&ed with typhoid fever% and abo"tten days thereafter died intestate in the same ho"se. (he wife recovered% and the defendant% Emrod

(ennant% her father% administered on the estate of Michael% ta&ing o"t letters of administration inMonongalia co"nty% . Ia. (he administrator settled his acco"nts before a commissioner of said co"nty%and distrib"ted the estate according to the laws of est irginia: that is% by paying over to the widow thewhole personal estate remaining after the payment of the debts of the decedent. t is admitted% that% if thedistrib"tion had been according to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania% the wife wo"ld have been entitled

to the one half only of said estate% and the plainti8s wo"ld have been entitled to the other half.

+**E7 @B at the time of hite)s death% he had his legal domicile in this State or in the State ofPennsylvania.

RL+NG7 t is admitted to be the settled law% that the law of the State% in which the decedent had hisdomicile at the time of his death% will control the s"ccession and distrib"tion of his personal estate.

4r. harton says7K N 4omicile N is a residence ac'"ired as a !nal abode. (o constit"te it there m"stbe +0/ residence% act"al or inchoate: +,/ the non*e2istence of any intention to ma&e a domicile elsewhere.Khart. Conn. aw T,0. KN4omicileN is that place or co"ntry% either +0/ in which a person in fact resides withan intention of residence% animus manendi; or +,/ in which% having so resided% he contin"es act"ally to

reside% tho"gh no longer retaining the intention of residence% animus manendi; or +;/ with regard to which%having so resided there% he retains the intention of residence%*animus manendi, tho"gh he in fact no longerresides there.K 4icey 4om. ??. (wo things m"st conc"r to establish domicile% the fact of residence% and theintention of remaining. (hese two m"st e2ist% or m"st have e2isted% in combination. (here m"st have beenan act"al residence. (he character of the residence is of no importance: and% if domicile has once e2isted%mere temporary absence will not destroy it% however long contin"ed. Munro v. Munro. (he original domicilecontin"es "ntil it is fairly changed for another. t is a legal ma2im that every person m"st have a domicilesomewhere: and he can have b"t one at a time for the same p"rpose. #rom this it follows that one can notbe lost or e2ting"ished "ntil another is ac'"ired. Baird v. Byrne. hen one domicile is de!nitely abandonedand a new one selected and entered "pon% length of time is not important: one day will be s"Lcient%provided the animus e2ists. Even when the point of destination is not reached% domicile may shift initinere, if the abandonment of the old domicile and the setting o"t for the new are plainly shown. Munroe vDouglass. (h"s a constr=ct$ve res$denceseems to be s"Lcient to give domicile% tho"gh an act"al


12/98

Page 1"of 98

residence may not have beg"n. hart. Conn. aw% T -G. A change of domicile does not depend so m"ch"pon the intention to remain in the new place for a de!nite or inde!nite period as "pon its being witho"tan intention to ret"rn. An intention to ret"rn however at a remote or inde!nite period to the former placeof act"al residence will not control% if the other facts% which constit"te domicile% all give the new residencethe character of a permanent home or place of abode. (he intention and act"al fact of residence m"stconc"r% where s"ch residence is not in its nat"re temporary. Hallet v. Bassett: Long v. Ryan. n Bradley v.Lowery% it is held% that K change of domicile is cons"mmated when one leaves the State where he has

hitherto resided% avowing his intention not to ret"rn% and enters another State intending to permanentlysettle there.K A domicile once ac'"ired remains "ntil a new one is ac'"ired elsewhere% facto et animo.Story Conn. aw% T ?F: art v. Lindsey, 0F B. . ,;-. here a person removes from one State to anotherand establishes a !2ed residence in the latter% it will become his domicile% altho"gh there may be a oatingintention to ret"rn to his former place of abode at some f"t"re period. Ringgold v. Barley.K f a manintending to remove with his family visits the place of removal beforehand% to ma&e arrangements% or evensleeps there occasionally for convenience and then transfers his family% the change of domicile ta&es e8ectfrom the time of removing with the family: b"t if he has de!nitely changed his residence and ta&en "p hisabode permanently in a new place% the fact% that his family remains behind% "ntil he can remove themconveniently% and that he visits them occasionally% will not prevent the new place being his domicile.Kuier v. @NDaniel, Amer. ead: !ambridge v. !harlestown.

According to the a"thorities hereinbefore cited% if it is shown% that a person has entirely abandoned

his former domicile in one State with the intention of ma&ing his home at a !2ed place in another Statewith no intention of ret"rning to his former domicile and then establishes a residence in the new place forany period of time% however brief% that will be in law a change of domicile% and the latter will remain hisdomicile "ntil changed in li&e manner.

(he facts in this case concl"sively prove% that Michael hite% the decedent% abandoned hisresidence in est irginia with the intention and p"rpose not only of not ret"rning to it% b"t for thee2pressed p"rpose of ma&ing a !2ed place in the State of Pennsylvania his home for an inde!nite time.

(his fact is shown by all the circ"mstances as well as by his declarations and acts. He had sold hisresidence in est irginia and s"rrendered its possession to the p"rchaser% and thereby made it impossiblefor him to ret"rn to it and ma&e it his home. He rented a dwelling in Pennsylvania% for which he had no "see2cept to live in and ma&e it his home. n addition to all this% he had moved a part of his ho"sehold goodsinto this ho"se% and then% on April 1,% 0GG-% he with his family and the remainder of his goods and stoc&

!nally left his former home and the State of est irginia% and moved into the State of Pennsylvania to hisho"se n that State% and there p"t his goods in the ho"se% and t"rned his stoc& loose on the premises. Atthe time he left his former home on that morning% and while he was on the way to his new home% hisdeclared p"rpose and intention were to ma&e that his home from that very day% and to occ"py it thatnight. He arrived in Pennsylvania and at his new home with that intention: and it was only after he arrivedthere and for reasons not before &nown% which had no e8ect to change his p"rpose of ma&ing that hisf"t"re home% that he failed to remain there from that time. (here was no change in his p"rpose% e2ceptthat after he arrived at his new home and "nloaded and left his property there% he concl"ded on acco"nt ofthe condition of the ho"se and the illness of his wife% that it wo"ld be better to go with his wife to remainone night with his relatives and ret"rn the ne2t morning.

hen he left his former home witho"t any intention of ret"rning and in p"rs"ance of that intentiondid in fact move with his family and e8ects to his new home with the intention of ma&ing it his residence

for an inde!nite time% it is my opinion% that% when he and his wife arrived at his new home% it became eoinstanti his domicile% and that his leaving there "nder the circ"mstances with the intention of ret"rning thene2t day did not change the fact. (he conc"rrence of his intention to ma&e the Pennsylvania ho"se hispermanent residence with the fact% that he had act"ally abandoned his former residence and moved to andp"t his goods in the new one% made the latter his domicile. According to the a"thorities hereinbeforereferred to he m"st of necessity have had a domicile somewhere. f he did not have one in Pennsylvania%where did he have oneO (he fact% that he left the Pennsylvania ho"se% after he had moved to it with hisfamily and goods% to spend the night% did not revive his domicile at his former residence on 4ayNs r"n%beca"se he had sold that% and left it witho"t any p"rpose of ret"rning there. y going from his new hometo the ho"se of his relatives to spend the night he certainly did not ma&e the ho"se th"s visited hisdomicile: therefore% "nless the Pennsylvania ho"se was on the evening of April ,% 0GG-% his domicile% hewas in the anomalo"s position of being witho"t a domicile anywhere% which% as we have seen% is a legal


13/98

Page 1/of 98

impossibility: and% that ho"se having become his domicile% there is nothing in this case to show% that heever did in fact change or intend to change it or to establish a domicile elsewhere.

t follows% therefore% that that ho"se remained his domicile "p to and at the time of his death: and%that ho"se being in the State of Pennsylvania% the laws of that State m"st control the distrib"tion of hispersonal estate notwithstanding the fact% that he died in State of est irginia.

#or these reasons the decree of the Circ"it Co"rt m"st be reversed% and the ca"se m"st beremanded to that co"rt to be there f"rther proceeded in according to the principles anno"nced in thisopinion and the r"les of co"rts of e'"ity.

La=reto (. )alaroc vs. (le>andro . 0,% set a precedent that was "niformly followed in n"mero"s cases. (his long line of decisions appliedthe principle of $"s soli "p to September 0=% 0>?F% when that principle was reno"nced in the cases of (anChong v. Secretary of abor and Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines cited in the appealeddecision.

(he (an and Swee Sang cases are not controlling in this case. Article +Citizenship/% Section 0% par0% of the Constit"tion provides one of the classes of #ilipino citizens i.e. 5(hose who are citizens of thePhilippine slands at the time of the adoption of this Constit"tion6. @n the strength of the Roa doctrine

Ale$andro 4. y "ndo"btedly was considered a f"ll*pledged Philippine citizen on the date of the adoption ofthe Constit"tion% when $"s soli had been the prevailing doctrine. Kith it%K as Mr. 3"stice a"rel said inRamon (orres Et. Al. v. (an Chin Kthe bench and the bar were familiar. (he members of the Constit"tionalConvention were also aware of this r"le% and in abrogating the doctrine laid down in the Roa case% byma&ing the $"s sang"inis the predominating principle in the determination of Philippine citizenship% theydid not intend to e2cl"de those who% in the sit"ation of (ran'"ilino Roa% were citizens of the Philippines by

$"dicial declaration at the time of the adoption of the Constit"tion.K K(his%K the Co"rt went on to say% Kisapparent from the proceedings of the Constit"tional Convention when Article of the Constit"tion wasdisc"ssed.

nli&e the (an Chong case% the herein appellant y had attained the age of ma$ority when theConstit"tion went into e8ect% and had been allowed to e2ercise the right of s"8rage% to hold p"blic oLcesand to ta&e the oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth overnment or Rep"blic of the Philippines. (he

(an Chong decision itself ma&es this e2press reservation7 KBeedless to say% this decision is not intended ordesigned to deprive% as it cannot divest% of their #ilipino citizenship% those who have been declared to be#ilipino citizens% or "pon whom s"ch citizenship had been conferred by the co"rts beca"se of the doctrineor principle of res ad$"dicata.K Certainly% it wo"ld neither be fair nor good policy to hold the respondent analien after he had e2ercised the privileges of citizenship and the overnment had con!rmed his Philippinecitizenship on the faith of legal principles that had the force of law. @n several occasions the Secretary of

3"stice had declared as #ilipino citizens persons similarly circ"mstanced as the herein Respondent.

C"t o"t of the same pattern and deserving of the same consideration is the proposition thatAle$andro 4. y became a Philippine citizen at least "pon his father)s death. t has been seen that%according to the r"le of the Roa case% a #ilipino woman married to Chinese ipso facto reac'"ired her#ilipino citizenship "pon her h"sband)s demise and that thereafter her minor children)s nationalitya"tomatically followed that of the mother)s. (his r"le was not changed by the adoption of the $"s sang"inisdoctrine% and was in force "ntil Commonwealth Act Bo. =; went into e8ect in 0>;=% by which thelegislat"re% for the !rst time% provided a method for regaining Philippine citizenship by #ilipino women ins"ch cases. t is to be noted that when Commonwealth Act Bo. =; was passed rs"la 4iabo had been awidow for 0> years and Ale$andro 4. y had been of age three years% and that the new law carries noprovision giving it retroactive e8ect.

Conc=rr$n p$n$on. Pad$lla, %.& wo"ld rest the $"dgment in this case on the "ndisp"ted factthat the respondent was born o"t of wedloc& in ligan% anao% on ,G 3an"ary 0>0, of a #ilipino mother and aChinese father who were married on ; March 0>0? and that his father died on 0F #ebr"ary 0>0F. He was a#ilipino citizen% became Chinese citizen when his father and mother were married% and reac'"ired hisoriginal citizenship on the death of his father% beca"se being "nder age he followed the citizenship of hismother who reac'"ired her #ilipino citizenship "pon the death of her h"sband and never remarried. donot agree to the proposition that persons born in this co"ntry of alien parentage or whose father is an alienm"st be deemed #ilipino citizens "nder and by virt"e of the doctrine laid down in the case of Roa v.


15/98

Page 1#of 98

Collector of C"stoms% ,; Phil.% ;0-. Precisely% the $"dgment in the cases of (an Chong v. (he Secretary ofabor and am Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines% ?- @8. az.% 0,=>% holds that as thedoctrine laid down in the case of Roa v. Collector of C"stoms% s"pra% is in conict with the law in force atthe time it m"st be abandoned. 3ose (an Chong invo&ed also the bene!t of the doctrine in the Roa v.Collector of C"stoms case. (here is only an e2ception to the r"le laid down in the cases of (an Chong v. (heSecretary of abor and am Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines.

N)E*& A glimpse on the Roa vs. Collector of C"stoms case. (he petitioner was born in lawf"wedloc& in the Philippines on 3"ly =% 0G>>% his father being a native of China and his mother a #ilipina. Hisfather was domiciled in this co"ntry "p to the year 0G>- when he went to China and never ret"rned% dyingthere abo"t 0>11. n May% 0>10% Roa% who was then a minor% was sent to China by his widowed mother forthe sole p"rpose of st"dying% and ret"rned in @ctober% 0>01% being then abo"t ,0 years and ; months ofage. He was denied admission by the board of special in'"iry% whose decision was aLrmed by the Co"rt of#irst nstance in habeas corpusproceedings.

4eliberation of the Constit"tional Convention when Article is crafted.

4elegate Ar"ego. D Mr. President% may $"st have one '"estionO May as& Mr. Ro2as if% "nder thisproposition that yo" have% all children born in the Philippines before the adoption of the Constit"tion wasincl"dedO

K4elegate Ro2as. D Bo% sir7 that is to say% if they are citizens in accordance with the present law% they willbe citizens.

K4elegate Ar"ego. D "t as have said they are citizens by $"dicial decisions.

K4elegate Ro2as. D f they are citizens now by $"dicial decisions% they will be citizens.

K4elegate Ar"ego. D sho"ld li&e to ma&e it clear that we are voting on the proposition so that it willincl"de all those born in the Philippines% regardless of their parentage% beca"se have heard someob$ections here to the incorporation in toto of the doctrine of $"s soli. (here are many who do not want toincl"de% as citizens% children of Chinese parents% b"t they are incl"ded in the proposition we are voting"pon . . . sho"ld li&e to !nd o"t from the gentleman from Capiz if that proposition wo"ld ma&e #ilipino

citizens of children of Chinese parents born last year or this year.

K4elegate Ro2as. D Bo% beca"se by the laws of the Philippine slands% they are not #ilipino citizens now.K

G.R. No. 1":"9# %=ne "8, 1996

%(N G. 'R+5(L, petitioner%vs.

CMM+**+N N ELEC)+N*, and R(L R. LEE, respondents.

G.R. No. 1"/7## %=ne "8, 1996

R(L R. LEE, petitioner%vs.CMM+**+N N ELEC)+N* and %(N G. 'R+5(L, respondents.

P(NG(N+4(N,J.:


16/98

Page 16of 98

(he "ltimate '"estion posed before this Co"rt in these twin cases is7 ho sho"ld be declared therightf"l governor of Sorsogon *

+i/ 3"an . #rivaldo% who "n'"estionably obtained the highest n"mber of votes in three s"ccessive electionsb"t who was twice declared by this Co"rt to be dis'"ali!ed to hold s"ch oLce d"e to his alien citizenship%and who now claims to have re*ass"med his lost Philippine citizenship thr" repatriation:

+ii/ Ra"l R. ee% who was the second placer in the canvass% b"t who claims that the votes cast in favor of#rivaldo sho"ld be considered void: that the electorate sho"ld be deemed to have intentionally thrownaway their ballots: and that legally% he sec"red the most n"mber of validvotes: or

+iii/ (he inc"mbent ice*overnor% @scar . 4eri% who obvio"sly was not voted directly to the position ofgovernor% b"t who according to prevailing $"rispr"dence sho"ld ta&e over the said post inasm"ch as% bythe ineligibility of #rivaldo% a Kpermanent vacancy in the contested oLce has occ"rredK

n r"ling for #rivaldo% the Co"rt lays down new doctrines on repatriation% clari!es>-and another Resol"tion of the Comelec en bancprom"lgated #ebr"ary ,;% 0>>=

denying petitionerNs motion for reconsideration.

G .R . No . 1":"9#

(his is a petition to ann"l three Resol"tions of the respondent Comelec% the !rst two of which arealso at iss"e in .R. Bo. 0,;F--% as follows7

0. Resol"tion of the Second 4ivision% prom"lgated on May 0% 0>>-% dis'"alifying #rivaldo from r"nning forgovernor of Sorsogon in the May G% 0>>- elections Kon the gro"nd that he is not a citizen of thePhilippinesK:

,. Resol"tion of the Comelec en banc% prom"lgated on May 00% 0>>-: and

;. Resol"tion of the Comelec en banc% prom"lgated also on May 00% 0>>- s"spending the proclamation of%among others% #rivaldo.

'acts&

@n March ,1% 0>>-% private respondent 3"an . #rivaldo !led his Certi!cate of Candidacy for theoLce of overnor of Sorsogon in the May G% 0>>- elections. @n March ,;% 0>>-% petitioner Ra"l R. ee%another candidate% !led a petition with the Comelec praying that #rivaldo Kbe dis'"ali!ed from see&ing orholding any p"blic oLce or position by reason of not yet being a citizen of the PhilippinesK% and that hisCerti!cate of Candidacy be cancelled. @n May 0% 0>>-% the Second 4ivision of the Comelecgranted thepetition and declared that respondent is 4SUA#E4 to r"n for the @Lce of overnor of Sorsogon on thegro"nd that he is B@( a citizen of the Philippines. Accordingly% respondentNs certi!cate of candidacy iscancelled.


17/98

Page 17of 98

(he Motion for Reconsideration !led by #rivaldo remained "nacted "pon "ntil after the May G% 0>>-elections. So% his candidacy contin"ed and he was voted for d"ring the elections held on said date. @n May00% 0>>-% the Comelec en bancaLrmed the aforementioned Resol"tion of the Second 4ivision.

(he Provincial oard of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election ret"rns and a Certi!cateof otesdated May ,F% 0>>- was iss"ed showing the following votes obtained by the candidates for theposition of overnor of Sorsogon7

Antonio H. Esc"dero% 3r. -0%1=1

3"an . #rivaldo F;%??1

Ra"l R. ee -;%;1?

sagani P. @campo 0%>,-

ee !led a s"pplemental petitionpraying for his proclamation as the d"ly*elected overnor ofSorsogon. n an orderdated 3"ne ,0% 0>>-% b"t prom"lgated according to the petition Konly on 3"ne ,>%0>>-%K the Comelec en bancdirected Kthe Provincial oard of Canvassers of Sorsogon to reconvene for the

p"rpose of proclaiming candidate Ra"l ee as the winning g"bernatorial candidate in the province ofSorsogon on 3"ne ,>% 0>>- . . .K Accordingly% at G7;1 in the evening of 3"ne ;1% 0>>-% ee was proclaimedgovernor of Sorsogon.

@n 3"ly =% 0>>-% #rivaldo !led with the Comelec a new petition% praying for the ann"lment of the3"ne ;1% 0>>- proclamation of ee and for his own proclamation. He alleged that on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-% at ,711in the afternoon% he too& his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after Khis petition forrepatriation "nder P.4. F,- which he !led with the Special Committee on Bat"ralization in September 0>>?had been grantedK. As s"ch% when Kthe said order was released and received by #rivaldo on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-at -7;1 oNcloc& in the evening% there was no more legal impediment to the proclamation of #rivaldo asgovernor . . .K n the alternative% he averred that p"rs"ant to the two cases of Labo vs. !omelec% the ice*overnor * not ee * sho"ld occ"py said position of governor.

@n 4ecember 0>% 0>>-% the Comelec #irst 4ivision prom"lgated the herein assailed Resol"tionholding that ee% Knot having garnered the highest n"mber of votes%K was not legally entitled to beproclaimed as d"ly*elected governor: the proclamation of ee sho"ld be ann"lled: and that #rivaldo%Khaving garnered the highest n"mber of votes% and having reac'"ired his #ilipino citizenship byrepatriation on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- "nder the provisions of Presidential 4ecree Bo. F,- is '"ali!ed to hold theoLce of governor of SorsogonK

@n 4ecember ,=% 0>>-% ee !led a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Comelec enbanc. @n #ebr"ary ,=% 0>>=% the present petition was !led. Acting on the prayer for a (R@% this Co"rtiss"ed on #ebr"ary ,F% 0>>= a Resol"tion which inter alia directed the parties Kto maintain the status "uoprevailing prior to the !ling of this petition.K

ee assailsthat7

#irst** (he initiatory petition below was so far ins"Lcient in form and s"bstance to warrant the e2ercise bythe C@MEEC of its $"risdiction with the res"lt that% in e8ect% the C@MEEC acted witho"t $"risdiction inta&ing cognizance of and deciding said petition:

Second $$(he $"dicially declared dis'"ali!cation of respondent was a contin"ing condition and renderedhim ineligible to r"n for% to be elected to and to hold the @Lce of overnor:

%hird $$(he alleged repatriation of respondent was neither valid nor is the e8ect thereof retroactive as toc"re his ineligibility and '"alify him to hold the @Lce of overnor: and


18/98

Page 18of 98

#ourth** (he abo 4octrine f"lly s"pports the validity of petitionerNs proclamation as d"ly elected overnorof Sorsogon.

#rivaldo assails the above*mentioned resol"tions on a di8erent gro"nd7 that "nder Section FG of the@mnib"s Election Code7

Sec. FG. &etition to deny due course or to cancel a certi'cate of candidacy. ** A veri!ed

petition see&ing to deny d"e co"rse or to cancel a certi!cate of candidacy may be !led byany person e2cl"sively on the gro"nd that any material representation contained therein asre'"ired "nder Section F? hereof is false. (he petition may be !led at any time not laterthan twenty*!ve days from the time of the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy and shall bedecided% after notice and hearing% not later than 'fteen days before the election. +Emphasiss"pplied./

the Comelec had no $"risdiction to iss"e said Resol"tions beca"se they were not rendered Kwithin theperiod allowed by lawK i.e.% Knot later than !fteen days before the election.K

@therwise stated% #rivaldo contends that the fail"re of the Comelec to act on the petition fordis'"ali!cation within the period of !fteen days prior to the election as provided by law is a $"risdictionaldefect which renders the said Resol"tions n"ll and void.

+ss=es&

0. as the repatriation of #rivaldo valid and legalO f so% did it seasonably c"re his lac& of citizenship as to'"alify him to be proclaimed and to hold the @Lce of overnorO f not% may it be given retroactive e8ectOf so% from whenO

,. s #rivaldoNs K$"dicially declaredK dis'"ali!cation for lac& of #ilipino citizenship a contin"ing bar to hiseligibility to r"n for% be elected to or hold the governorship of SorsogonO

;. 4id the respondent Comelec have $"risdiction over the initiatory petition in SPC Bo. >-*;0F consideringthat said petition is not Ka pre*proclamation case% an election protest or a "uo warranto caseKO

?. as the proclamation of ee% a r"nner*"p in the election% valid and legal in light of e2isting$"rispr"denceO

-. 4id the respondent C@MEEC e2ceed its $"risdiction in prom"lgating the assailed Resol"tions% all ofwhich prevented #rivaldo from ass"ming the governorship of Sorsogon% considering that they were notrendered within the period referred to in Section FG of the @mnib"s Election Code% vi(.% Knot later than!fteen days before the electionsKO

RL+NG&

)e '$rst +ss=e & 'r$valdo?s Repatr$at$on

(he validity and e8ectivity of #rivaldoNs repatriation is the lis mota% the threshold legal iss"e in thiscase. All the other matters raised are secondary to this.

(he ocal overnment Code of 0>>0 e2pressly re'"ires Philippine citizenship as a '"ali!cation forelective local oLcials% incl"ding that of provincial governor% th"s7

Sec. ;>. )uali'cations. ** +a/ An elective local oLcial m"st be a citizen of the Philippines: aregistered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province or% in the case of a memberof the sangg"niang panlalawigan% sangg"niang panl"ngsod% or sangg"niang bayan% thedistrict where he intends to be elected: a resident therein for at least one +0/ year


19/98

Page 19of 98

immediately preceding the day of the election: and able to read and write #ilipino or anyother local lang"age or dialect.

+b/ Candidates for the position of governor% vice governor or member of thesangg"niang panlalawigan% or mayor% vice mayor or member of thesangg"niang panl"ngsod of highly "rbanized cities m"st be at least twenty*three +,;/ years of age on election day.

nasm"ch as #rivaldo had been declared by this Co"rt as a non*citizen% it is therefore inc"mbent"pon him to show that he has reac'"ired citizenship: in !ne% that he possesses the '"ali!cationsprescribed "nder the said stat"te +R.A. F0=1/.

nder Philippine law% citizenship may be reac'"ired by direct act of Congress% by nat"ralization orby repatriation. #rivaldo told this Co"rt in .R. Bo. 01?=-? and d"ring the oral arg"ment in this case thathe tried to res"me his citizenship by direct act of !ongress% b"t that the bill allowing him to do so Kfailed tomaterialize% notwithstanding the endorsement of several members of the Ho"se of RepresentativesK d"e%according to him% to the Kmane"vers of his political rivals.K n the same case% his attempt at naturali(ationwas re$ected by this Co"rt beca"se of $"risdictional% s"bstantial and proced"ral defects.

4espite his lac& of Philippine citizenship% #rivaldo was overwhelmingly elected governor by theelectorate of Sorsogon% with a margin of ,F%111 votes in the 0>GG elections% -F%111 in 0>>,% and ,1%111 in0>>- over the same opponent Ra"l ee. (wice% he was $"dicially declared a non*#ilipino and th"s twicedis'"ali!ed from holding and discharging his pop"lar mandate. Bow% he comes to "s a third time% with afresh vote from the people of Sorsogon and a favorable decision from the C@MEEC to boot. Moreover% henow boasts of having s"ccessf"lly passed thro"gh the third and last mode of reac'"iring citizenship7 byrepatriation "nder P.4. Bo. F,-% with no less than the Solicitor eneral himself% who was the primeopposing co"nsel in the previo"s cases he lost% this time% as co"nsel for co*respondent Comelec% arg"ingthe validity of his ca"se +in addition to his able private co"nsel Si2to S. rillantes% 3r./. (hat he too& his oathof allegiance "nder the provisions of said 4ecree at ,711 p.m. on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- is not disp"ted. Hence% heinsists that he ** not ee ** sho"ld have been proclaimed as the d"ly*elected governor of Sorsogon whenthe Provincial oard of Canvassers met at G7;1 p.m. on the said date since% clearly and "n'"estionably% hegarnered the highest n"mber of votes in the elections and since at that time% he already reac'"ired hiscitizenship.

*n contrario% ee arg"es that #rivaldoNs repatriation is tainted with serio"s defects% which we shallnow disc"ss in seriatim.

#irst% ee tells "s that P.4. Bo. F,- had Kbeen e8ectively repealedK% asserting that Kthen PresidentCorazon A'"ino e2ercising legislative powers "nder the (ransitory Provisions of the 0>GF Constit"tion%forbade the grant of citizenship by Presidential 4ecree or E2ec"tive ss"ances as the same poses a serio"sand contentio"s iss"e of policy which the present government% in the e2ercise of pr"dence and so"nddiscretion% sho"ld best leave to the $"dgment of the !rst Congress "nder the 0>GF Constit"tionK% addingthat in her memorand"m dated March ,F% 0>GF to the members of the Special Committee onBat"ralization constit"ted for p"rposes of P.4. F,-% President A'"ino directed them Kto cease and desistfrom "nderta&ing any and all proceedings within yo"r f"nctional area of responsibility as de!ned "nder

etter of nstr"ctions +@/ Bo. ,F1 dated April 00% 0>F-% as amended.K

(his memorand"m dated March ,F% 0>GFcannot by any stretch of legal hermene"tics be constr"edas a law sanctioning or a"thorizing a repeal of P.4. Bo. F,-. aws are repealed only by s"bse'"ent onesand a repeal may be e2press or implied. t is obvio"s that no e+press repeal was made beca"se thenPresident A'"ino in her memorand"m ** based on the copy f"rnished "s by ee ** did not categoricallyand


20/98

Page ":of 98

(he memorand"m of then President A'"ino cannot even be regarded as a legislative enactment% fornot every prono"ncement of the Chief E2ec"tive even "nder the (ransitory Provisions of the 0>GFConstit"tion can nor sho"ld be regarded as an e2ercise of her law*ma&ing powers. At best% it co"ld betreated as an e2ec"tive policy addressed to the Special Committee to halt the acceptance and processingof applications for repatriation pending whatever K$"dgment the !rst Congress "nder the 0>GFConstit"tionK might ma&e. n other words% the former President did not repeal P.4. F,- b"t left it to the !rstCongress ** once created ** to deal with the matter. f she had intended to repeal s"ch law% she sho"ld have

"ne'"ivocally said so instead of referring the matter to Congress. (he fact is she caref"lly co"ched herpresidential iss"ance in terms that clearly indicated the intention of Kthe present government% in thee2ercise of pr"dence and so"nd discretionK to leave the matter of repeal to the new Congress. Any otherinterpretation of the said Presidential Memorand"m% s"ch as is now being pro8ered to the Co"rt by ee%wo"ld visit "nmitigated violence not only "pon stat"tory constr"ction b"t on common sense as well.

Second% ee also arg"es that Kserio"s congenital irreg"larities awed the repatriation proceedings%Kasserting that #rivaldoNs application therefor was K!led on 3"ne ,>% 0>>- and was approved in $"st one dayor on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- K% which Kprevented a $"dicio"s review and eval"ation of the merits thereof.K #rivaldoco"nters that he !led his application for repatriation with the @Lce of the President in MalacaJang Palaceon A"g"st 0F% 0>>?. (his is con!rmed by the Solicitor eneral. However% the Special Committee wasreactivated only on 3"ne G% 0>>-% when pres"mably the said Committee started processing his application.@n 3"ne ,>% 0>>-% he !lled "p and re*s"bmitted the #@RM that the Committee re'"ired. nder these

circ"mstances% it co"ld not be said that there was Kindecent hasteK in the processing of his application.

Anent eeNs charge that the Ks"dden reconstit"tion of the Special Committee on Bat"ralization wasintended solely for the personal interest of respondent%K the Solicitor eneral e2plained d"ring the oralarg"ment on March 0>% 0>>= that s"ch allegation is simply baseless as there were many others whoapplied and were considered for repatriation% a list of whom was s"bmitted by him to this Co"rt% thro"gh aManifestation !led on April ;% 0>>=.

@n the basis of the partiesN s"bmissions% we are convinced that the pres"mption of reg"larity in theperformance of oLcial d"ty and the pres"mption of legality in the repatriation of #rivaldo have not beens"ccessf"lly reb"tted by ee. (he mere fact that the proceedings were speeded "p is by itself not a gro"ndto concl"de that s"ch proceedings were necessarily tainted. After all% the re'"irements of repatriation"nder P.4. Bo. F,- are not diLc"lt to comply with% nor are they tedio"s and c"mbersome. n fact% P.4. F,-

itself re'"ires very little of an applicant% and even the r"les and reg"lations to implement the said decreewere left to the Special Committee to prom"lgate. (his is not "n"s"al since% "nli&e in nat"ralization wherean alien covets a 'rst$time entry into Philippine political life% in repatriation the applicant is a formernat"ral*born #ilipino who is merely see&ing to reac'"ire his previo"s citizenship. n the case of #rivaldo% hewas "ndo"btedly a nat"ral*born citizen who openly and faithf"lly served his co"ntry and his province priorto his nat"ralization in the nited States ** a nat"ralization he insists was made necessary only to escapethe iron cl"tches of a dictatorship he abhorred and co"ld not in conscience embrace ** and who% after thefall of the dictator and the re*establishment of democratic space% wasted no time in ret"rning to hisco"ntry of birth to o8er once more his talent and services to his people.

So too% the fact that ten other persons% as certi!ed to by the Solicitor eneral% were grantedrepatriation arg"es convincingly and concl"sively against the e2istence of favoritism vehemently positedby Ra"l ee. At any rate% any contest on the legality of #rivaldoNs repatriation sho"ld have been p"rs"ed

before the Committee itself% and% failing there% in the @Lce of the President% p"rs"ant to the doctrine ofe2ha"stion of administrative remedies.

%hird% ee f"rther contends that ass"ming the assailed repatriation to be valid% nevertheless it co"ldonly be e8ective as at ,711 p.m. of 3"ne ;1% 0>>- whereas the citizenship '"ali!cation prescribed by theocal overnment Code Km"st e2ist on the date of his election% if not when the certi!cate of candidacy is!led%K citing o"r decision in .R. 01?=-? which held that Kboth the ocal overnment Code and theConstit"tion re'"ire that only Philippine citizens can run and be elected to public oce.K @bvio"sly%however% this was a mere obiteras the only iss"e in said case was whether #rivaldoNs nat"ralization wasvalid or not ** and B@( the e8ective date thereof. Since the Co"rt held his nat"ralization to be invalid% thenthe iss"e of when an aspirant for p"blic oLce sho"ld be a citizen was B@( resolved at all by the Co"rt.hich '"estion we shall now directly r"le on.


21/98

Page "1of 98

nder Sec. ;> of the ocal overnment Code% K+a/n elective local oLcial m"st be7

V a citizen of the Philippines:

V a registered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province . . . where he intends tobe elected:

V a resident therein for at least one +0/ year immediately preceding the day of the election:

V able to read and write #ilipino or any other local lang"age or dialect.

V n addition% Kcandidates for the position of governor . . . m"st be at least twenty*three +,;/years of age on election day.

#rom the above% it will be noted that the law does not specify any partic"lar date or time when thecandidate m"st possess citizenship% "nli&e that for residence +which m"st consist of at least one year-sresidency immediately preceding the day of election/ and age +at least twenty three years of age onelection day/.

Philippine citizenship is an indispensable re'"irement for holding an elective p"blic oLce% and thep"rpose of the citizenship '"ali!cation is none other than to ens"re that no alien% i.e.% no person owingallegiance to another nation% shall govern o"r people and o"r co"ntry or a "nit of territory thereof. Bow% anoLcial begins to govern or to discharge his f"nctions only "pon his proclamation and on the day the lawmandates his term of oLce to begin. Since #rivaldo re*ass"med his citizenship on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- ** the veryday the term of oLce of governor +and other elective oLcials/ began ** he was therefore already '"ali!edto be proclaimed% to hold s"ch oLce and to discharge the f"nctions and responsibilities thereof as of saiddate. n short% at that time% he was already '"ali!ed to govern his native Sorsogon. (his is the liberalinterpretation that sho"ld give spirit% life and meaning to o"r law on '"ali!cations consistent with thep"rpose for which s"ch law was enacted. So too% even from a literal +as disting"ished from liberal/constr"ction% it sho"ld be noted that Section ;> of the ocal overnment Code spea&s of K)uali'cationsK ofKEEC(E @##CASK% not of candidates. hy then sho"ld s"ch '"ali!cation be re'"ired at the time ofelection or at the time of the !ling of the certi!cates of candidacies% as ee insistsO iterally% s"ch

'"ali!cations ** "nless otherwise e2pressly conditioned% as in the case of age and residence ** sho"ld th"sbe possessed when the Kelective Qor elected oLcialK begins to govern% i.e.% at the time he is proclaimedand at the start of his term ** in this case% on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-. Paraphrasing this Co"rtNs r"ling in as"ue( vs./iap and Li Seng /iap 0 Sons% if the p"rpose of the citizenship re'"irement is to ens"re that o"r peopleand co"ntry do not end "p being governed by aliens% i.e.% persons owing allegiance to another nation% thataim or p"rpose wo"ld not be thwarted but instead achieved by constr"ing the citizenship '"ali!cation asapplying to the time of proclamation of the elected oLcial and at the start of his term.

"t perhaps the more diLc"lt ob$ection was the one raised d"ring the oral arg"mentto the e8ectthat the citizenship '"ali!cation sho"ld be possessed at the time the candidate +or for that matter theelected oLcial/ registered as a voter. After all% Section ;>% apart from re'"iring the oLcial to be a citizen%also speci!es as another item of '"ali!cation% that he be a Kregistered voterK. And% "nder the law a KvoterKm"st be a citizen of the Philippines. So therefore% #rivaldo co"ld not have been a voter ** m"ch less a

validly registered one ** if he was not a citizen at the time of s"ch registration.

(he answer to this problem again lies in discerning the p"rpose of the re'"irement. f the lawintended the citi(enship '"ali!cation to be possessed prior to election consistent with the re'"irement ofbeing a registered voter% then it wo"ld not have made citizenship a SEPARA(E '"ali!cation. (he law abhorsa red"ndancy. t therefore stands to reason that the law intended C(WEBSHP to be a '"ali!cation distinctfrom being a @(ER% even if being a voter pres"mes being a citizen !rst. t also stands to reason that thevoter re'"irement was incl"ded as another '"ali!cation +aside from KcitizenshipK/% n

Compilation of conflicts of law (Personal Law) Digest

Documents

Transcript of Compilation of conflicts of law (Personal Law) Digest