Philippine laws
-should be published…
>15 days after publication: effectivity
Civil Procedure - review
PCIB v. Escolin:
GR: Can't take JN of foreign law
X: * familiar with court
* Court already ruled using same law
*shows that Foreign law, even if it is really the law applicable, cannot be applied if not properly proved
In Re Estate of Johnson: how to prove foreign law
-but failure to prove - can't do anything about it
-here, only presented an annotation of the alleged applicable law and lower court took JN of it. However, the party failed to raise this as an error AND did not prove what foreign law contained, SC cannot invalidate the probate of the will
3 possible effects of failure to prove foreign law
1. dismiss: failed to establish COA
1. dismiss: failed to establish COA
2. apply law of the forum
3. processual presumption
- Failed to prove what foreign law is and you are using it as your source of claim. If fails to do so, no COA
Walton vs. Saudi Aramco
-dismissed case because failed to present laws of Saudi Arabia, which is not familiar with the US court, thus, which cannot be taken JN of US Courts
Problem: both parties are American citizens. Plus Saudi Aramco was more in the position to know what Saudi Arabian law is, Walton being a mere transient of the place
*Can't argue "rudimentary principles" because there would only be common sense if there's a shared experience
- Apply FORUM LAW (through Acquiescence)
In filing case before the forum, deemed to have been prepared to comply with forum law
Leary v. Gledhill
-Leary sued Gledhill but Gledhill averred that since transaction occurred in France, French law should apply. US Court said that even if French law was not proven, it can be assumed that the parties acquiesced to the application of forum law, and under forum law, Leary can recover.
Zalamea v. CA
-Zalameas were bumped off their flight back home. Upon coming home, they sued for Damages. Ca removed MD, taking JN of US law allowing overbooking. Court held that CA erred, the alleged Federal law applicable not being properly proved. But actually irrelevant because law of the place of transaction should have been applied, i.e. RP laws, wherein overbooking is deemed BF
-In US, it is a practice that overbooking is allowed because many often does not appear
- Processual presumption
Miciano v. Brimo
-Turkish national executed a will making RP laws apply to the disposition of his estate. Court held that Turkish law should be applied, thus making the provision in his will void. BUT since failed to prove Turkish law, presume that RP law same as Turkish law so in the end, applied RP laws in distributing the estate among the heirs
Suntay v. Suntay
-the 2nd will presented before the court was allegedly probated already in China. The GR is that if the will is duly admitted and probated in another country, it would be recognized in RP. However, should first prove that the said court is a probate court and also prove what Chinese Probate laws are. However, none given so presumed that probate proceedings in China same with RP probate procedures. In accordance with RP Probate proceedings, should send notices
After Fisher tumalon si ma'am sa exceptions to the application of foreign law
3 main categories
- Forum law expressly provides that forum law applies
- Foreign law is not proved
- Case falls under exceptions
- Foreign law is contrary to important public policy of the forum
-court would decline to rule upon a case when recognizing that would violate the forum's public policy
Pakistan International Airlines Corp v. OPLE: Court would not use foreign law if the said application would run counter to the Philippine state's policy of protecting labor
-in this case, the contract provides venue and choice of law:
In the Philippines, the law of the contract is the intent of the parties (lex loci contractus)
*Justice Feliciano is a PRIL person
*used here most significant relationship (choice of law), not minimum contact (on jurisidiction)
-here, if refer to RP law, should have looked at choice of law rules (therefore, look at the intended law to have been applicable by the parties - Pakistani law). But here, Justice Feliciano looked at the internal law of the Philippines
- Foreign law is procedural
-for the convenience of administration of justice
- Foreign law is penal
-the State is the aggrieved party
-laws of extradition remedies this limitation of application of foreign law
-if we use modern approach, would this remain an exception (interest analysis + Comparative impairment test): pede, if interest of foreign law (in applying its own penal law) is greater than the interest of the forum law (where no penal law was violated, he's just found there)
e.g. Polanski: had many sexual relationship with young women, and was found guilty of having sex w/14 years old. Escaped from the place where it happened, after several years, was extradited back.
- Issues related to Property
Reasoning:
- Land and everything attached to it are w/n the exclusive control of the state: only State officials can lawfully deal with them physically - their consent necessary
- Immovables are of greatest concern to state
- Demands of certainty and convenience\
-an exception!
e.g. Foreigner marries a Filipina. However, here, he's not allowed to own real property in RP. So still follow law of situs, i.e. Philippine law
- Foreign law is revenue/fiscal/administrative law
"taxes are the lifeblood of the state"
-mark of sovereignty
- Foreign law is contrary to good morals
- Foreign law's application would work injustice to the citizens of the forum
- Foreign law might endanger vital interests of the state
No comments:
Post a Comment