PRIL January 5 lecture

Review on Domicile
-domicile is permanent; different from residence
-establish Physical presence (may not be continuing) + intend to return/remain in such place
Kinds of Domicile:
1. DOMICILE of ORIGIN: domicile at birth (not place of birth)
Legitimate: father - but the father's domicile may not be the place of birth of the child - so domicile of origin is the domicile of the parent concerned at the time the child is born
Illegitimate: mother
2. DOMICILE of CHOICE: animo et facto
-person should be of sui juris (capacity to act)
*minor cannot make a domicile of choice because no capacity to act yet. But in adoption, if the parent giving up the child to be adopted is a minor, nothing stated that the minor parent is not capacitated SO LONG AS SHE/HE IS THE BIOLOGICAL PARENT!!!! (no requirement that the parent of the minor parent (therefore the grandparent) would sign first - this is a special law that qualifies the special law on the capacity of minors to contract as stated in the Civil code)
WON domicile of choice and domicile of origin is the same: no
(see table in own notes)
-domicile of origin is not easily shaken of. In case of doubt, domicile of origin is presumed to be the domicile of the person
-if made clear that they abandoned their old domicile, but nothing stated where they intend their new domicile be, what is the domicile of the person?
>>>>proposed solution: doctrine of REVERTER/ REVIVAL DOCTRINE (domicile of origin is considered revived when the present domicile is given up) - why? Rule that no person shall be w/o domicile
>>>criticism of REVIVAL DOCTRINE: violates fundamental principle of domicile: a person retains his old domicile until a new domicile of choice is secured and established upon concurrence of fact and intention
…the criticism stems from the principle that A PERSON DOES NOT LOSE ITS OLDER DOMICILE UNTIL A NEW ONE IS ESTABLISHED - so why revert to domicile of origin! 
VELILLA V. POSADAS
-Moody resided in RP for 25 years, established a business in RP, but had leprosy. Allegedly on the motive of evading confinement in the Leper Colony, he stayed in India and allegedly intended to stay in Paris (he actually stayed there for 3 months for treatment in the Pasteur Institute) and made a statement that he intended to not stay in the Philippines anymore. He died in India, giving all his shares of stocks to sister. Estate was being assessed inheritance tax. Sister argues that no inheritance tax should be levied, Moody not being a resident alien of the Philippines.
H: RP is his domicile. His 3 month stay in Paris and the fact that no evidence was shown that he intended to stay in Paris DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT HE INTENDED TO STAY IN PARIS AND INTENDED TO ABANDON RP AS HIS DOMICILE
-here, his alleged "motive" of not staying in RP was examined. However, motive is generally not made basis in determining the place of domicile. No wrong or right motive (court said that it would be a bad motive not to come back to RP because he was going to be confined in the leper colony, thus, he should not be allowed to use it to determine that he intends to leave RP). It's not for the court to decide this
-why not India? No evidence that he intended to stay there. Though it was the place where he wrote the letter where he said that he had no intention to stay in RP
-in short: no evidence to show that he intended to stay in either Paris or India + short time of stay in Paris (25 years in RP vs. 3 months in Paris) which is also a deviation in the general rule that the length of time is not an important factor in determining the place of domicile
-Court is conservative here, but then again, this is about taxes
*if Abandoned old domicile (indicator: selling home) + en route to new domicile = new domicile is deemed to be the new domicile of the person (US COURTS)
WHITE v. TENNANT
Facts: Mr and Mrs White lived in West Virginia but decided to transfer to Pennsylvania, even selling their farm in West Virginia, took all their properties and livestock, and transferred to Pennsylvania. However, upon coming their, Mrs White contracted typhoid fever so they went back to West Virginia. Mrs White stayed in West Virginia but Mr White tended to their livestock in Pennsylvania during the day. Mr. White later contracted typhoid fever, and died.

WV law	Pennsylvania
Wife gets all	1/2 to wife, 1/2 to siblings

-siblings wanted Pennsylvania law to apply?
WON the domicile of Mr. White is Pennsylvania, thus, its law would govern the administration of the decedent's estate? YES -even if they stayed there for a very short period of time, since there was ACT (of staying in Pennsylvania and even selling all their properties in WV) + INTENT to abandon old domicile and establish new domicile
*vs. Moody: the length of time is short so no intent to stay here
In US Courts: even if stayed for the time being, considered sufficient to consider it one's domicile
*in RP, we're not that mobile. People all want to live in the cities so domicile is not really a problem for them
3. CONSTRUCTIVE
-governs:
*minors
*mentally disabled persons
*married women
-law provides what their domicile is
*CHILDREN: domicile of parents (stems from Parental authority of parents)
*MARRIED WOMEN: what the?
"When you are single, you can think, but when you get married, you get stupid!"
-this was relaxed in other jurisdictions - deemed discriminating!!!
PEOPLE UNDER COMPULSION
*military personnel
*prisoners
*persons w/ disabilities confined in institutions
CARABALLO vs. REPUBLIC
-Caraballo was a staff sergeant of the US Air force temporarily assigned in Clark Airbase. During his stay, he petitioned for the adoption of a Filipino child, but was contested by the Provincial Fiscal, he being not a resident alien which the Civil Code requires.
H: Since he is a nonresident alien not qualified to adopt, he cannot adopt
-since he was temporarily staying in RP, his stay not from his own volition, he cannot be deemed to have established his domicile in Clark (RP)
-mam: the law does not provide that the adopter should be in his domicile of choice: as long as he has a domicile - the domicile which was assigned to him
In US CASES: more lenient - the person under compulsion could prove that even after compulsion, he intends to stay in the place where he is compelled to stay
MARRIED WOMEN
-in the Imelda case, court confused as regards residence and domicile
-married women are previously assumed to follow the domicile of the husband
-FC: both husband and wife decide on where FAMILY domicile should be.
GO CHEN v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
-Children of Chinese woman who was allowed to enter RP due to her being a wife of a Chinese merchant wanted to enter RP too.
H: Since Married Chinese was just allowed to enter RP as a wife of a Chinese merchant and not due to her own right to enter such, the children not allowed
-Mam: Court probably did not allow the children to enter because they were not minors anymore
-if this case be decided now, and the children are younger, they would follow the domicile of their mother - thus, RP
-sad. Woman considered appendage to husband. So what happens now if they get separated
DE LA VINA v. VILLAREAL
F:  Wife left Husband who was adulterous, established domicile far from the family domicile and filed divorce there. Husband said that she should have filed case in the place of family domicile.
H: Husband gave reason for the wife to establish her own domicile - adultery of the husband
-in US, no presumption that the wife and the husband are domiciled in the same place; dispense with any presumption that the wife's domicile is the same as her husband's as each party establishes his or her own domicile completely independent of each other.
(next meeting: before divorce and separation)