*PRIL Lecture: January 7

Juridical capacity vs. Capacity to act
-see notes
In PRIL: WON a person who has acquired capacity to act in accordance with his personal law can bring the effects of this capacity in other places
RECTO v. HARDEN
F: Mrs. Harden sought Recto's services to protect her interest in the conjugal property in preparation for a divorce proceeding in US. She won but on appeal, the SPS mutually agreed to desist claiming from each other. Since Recto's AF's is 20% of Mrs. Harden's part in the conjugal property, he now contests the agreement. As a defense, the American sps. Claimed divorce is not valid in RP, thus, invalid object of contract, thus, cannot be enforced in RP
H: RECTO can still recover. Object valid (not really for divorce)
Cf: Barnuevo v. Fuster - both are ruled before RP became a republic so DIVORCE
BARNUEVO v. FUSTER
F: Spanish couple wanted divorce in RP. RP court initially granted but husband contests it.
H: Even if RP can't grant divorce, since properties and the parties are in RP, the CFI has jurisdiction over them, even if subject matter not w/n RP's power to grant
-shows LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION: laws of country with respect to the issue
Vs JUDICIAL JURISDICTION: what the laws of the country provide which court and what procedure should exercise jurisdiction
*Jurisdiction vs. Choice of law
*the court may have jurisdiction to hear the case but may apply another law (law of the parties - legislative jurisdiction)
BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY
BEGINNING: BIRTH
END: DEATH
*problem:
Beginning: depends on the personal law of the individual
E.g. if the transaction involves several international elements
-State A does not have conditional personality (requires actual birth for personality to attach). If a grandfather excited over the pregnancy of his daughter, and writes in his will that the conceived child be given 1M, grandfather child
GR (succession): heir should be born alive
If child RP citizen: pede provided follow conditions
If child not RP citizen, law provides that should first be born to be a person: cannot inherit
NAME
Conflicts problem: if a Filipino citizen wanted to change his name, did so in another country and that country granted (but he did not qualify under RP Law) - such change of name is not valid
Silverio case: had sex change in another country, became a woman, wanted that her passport reflect her new sex, TC allowed change - on appeal court did not grant it (not looking on Constitutional grounds)
-in US: it's rather easy to change one's name (for as long as not to evade legal obligation)
-issue: name given to Filipino Children - follow surname of father if legitimate, follow name of mother if illegitimate
--but this depends if you're born in RP (even if your parents are Filipinos)
-In German: no middle name, then follow the surname of the mother - in courts: Absence of middle name allowed. Ma'am's case: court followed foreign law but infused RP law…
AGE OF MAJORITY AND CAPACITY TO ACT
-age of majority removes the incapacity of minors to act
INSULAR GOVERNMENT V. FRANK
RP entered into contract w/ Frank when he was around 18-22 years old, which, if he breaches, would make him liable for refund of his airfare and 1/2 salary that is to be given to him upon arrival in RP. He breached it so RP sues him but he raises the defense that he is considered a minor in RP so he cannot be compelled to follow contract here. Court ruled otherwise, using lex loci contractus
Ung necklace ni ma'am merong ganun mommy ko. :)
Boo! Natawag so not so much notes….
Marriage…
-usually apply law of the forum: because marriage issues concern family and the law governing it shows the values of the society
Extrinsic and Intrinsic validity
-why necessary to determine: because the applicable law depends on it
ADONG v. CHEONG SEE GEE
-Chinese died, 2 parties claims:
1. Wife
2. Alleged legitimate child borne out of a marriage contracted in China (as proven by a letter)
HELD: Child not legitimate - failed to prove validity of the Chinese marriage
WONG WOO YU v. VIVO
-this is the marriage in China which was celebrated by a Chinese Village leader - but no law shown that there was Chinese law that authorizes such person to solemnize marriage
H: Marriage not sufficiently proven
P v. MORA DUMPO
-consent of father not acquired which was deemed an essential requisite of the validity of marriage
H: 2nd marriage not valid
If under FC - under formal requisites of marriage (extrinsic) - and under FC, if defects in formal requisite, marriage still valid
Addt'l case (for divorce and Separation):
Republic v. Obrecido III 472 SCRA 414 (2005)
San Luis v. San Luis  GR 133743 Jan 6, 2007