GUz5GSW6BSr9TUY6TUWlBSM5Td==

Form

Comment

PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE - PHILIPPINES

SYLLABUS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (2025-2026)

SYLLABUS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (2025-2026)
Posted by:PJP
0
Republic of the Philippines
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY - COLLEGE OF LAW
Cauayan City, Isabela

-oOo-

SYLLABUS IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (2025-2026; FIRST SEMESTER)

MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA, JD, ESQ
Subject Professor

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

  1. Grading system: 20% recitation and attendance; 40% midterm examinations; 40% final examinations.
  2. Textbook requirement: Pe Benito on Conflict of Laws
  3. Suggested readings: Agpalo on Conflict of Laws and Albano on Conflict of Laws
  4. Teaching and learning style: Lecture and Socratic method
  5. Passing grade: 75%
  6. Recitation grading style: 55 = no answer; 65 = wrong answer; 75 = good answer; 85 = very good answer; and 95 = exceptional answer.
  7. Grade in case of absence = Zero (0)
  8. Punitive power of the professor = Zero (0) recitation grade of misbehavior, etc.

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

  1. Definition of private international law
  2. “Conflict of laws” as a misnomer”
  3. Technological advancements giving rise to conflicts cases
  4. Definition of public international law
  5. The “private” aspect of conflict of laws
  6. The “international” aspect of conflict of laws
  7. “Choice of law” as a better subject name
  8. Difficulties in the study of private international law
  9. Scarcity of conflict-of-laws jurisprudence
  10. The case of Vinuya v. Romulo (2010)[1]

CHAPTER 2: FOREIGN ELEMENT AND THE TRIAL OF A CONFLICTS CASE

  1. Definition of foreign element
  2. Importance of a foreign element
  3. Foreign element as a question of fact
  4. Definition of municipal law
  5. Reasons for municipal law’s reference to foreign law
  6. Three inquiries involved in a conflicts case
  7. Foreign factual matters that are not foreign elements
  8. The case of People v. Montenegro (1939)[2]
  9. The case of Karen Salvacion v. Central Bank (1997)[3]
  10. The case of Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals (1998)[4]
  11. The case of Hasegawa v. Kitamura (2007)[5]
  12. Whether private international law rules are substantive or procedural
  13. Law of the forum
  14. Pleading stage
  15. Acquisition of jurisdiction stage
  16. Joining of issues stage
  17. Judgment stage
  18. Post-judgment stage
  19. Execution and satisfaction stage

CHAPTER 3: JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. Meaning of venue
  2. Venue of real actions
  3. Venue of personal actions
  4. Venue stipulations
  5. The case of Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben (2007)[6]
  6. The case of De Joya v. Judge Marquez (2014)[7]
  7. The case of Frias v. Alcayde (2018)[8]
  8. The case of Feria v. Court of Appeals (2000)[9]
  9. The case of Denila v. Republic (2020)[10]
  10. Meaning of jurisdiction
  11. Aspects of jurisdiction
  12. Doctrine of competence-competence[11]
  13. Effect of lack of jurisdiction
  14. Venue and jurisdiction
  15. Determination of jurisdiction
  16. Jurisdiction over agrarian disputes
  17. Batas Pambansa No. 129
  18. Due process of law
  19. Service of summons
  20. In personam actions and those in rem or quasi in rem
  21. Long-arm statute
  22. The case of Pennoyer v. Neff (1878)[12]
  23. The case of El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca (1918)[13]
  24. The case of Perkins v. Dizon (1939)[14]
  25. The case of Milliken v. Meyer (1940)[15]
  26. The case of International Shoe v. Washington (1945)[16]
  27. The case of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950)[17]
  28. The case of Jaranilla v. Gonzales (1954)[18]
  29. The case of Gemperle v. Schenker (1967)[19]
  30. The case of Kagan v. United Vacuum Appliance Corp. (1970)[20]
  31. The case of Brown v. Brown (1978)[21]
  32. The case of Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft Schlunk (1988)[22]
  33. The case of Valmonte v. Court of Appeals (1996)[23]
  34. The case of Shaffer v. Heitner (1997)[24]
  35. The case of Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals (1998)[25]
  36. The case of Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros (2003)[26]
  37. The case of Gomez v. Court of Appeals (2004)[27]
  38. The case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (2006)[28]
  39. The case of Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank (2007)[29]
  40. The case of Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals (2008)[30]
  41. The case of Palma v. Judge Galvez (2010)[31]
  42. The case of Rapid City Realty v. Villa (2010)[32]
  43. The case of Macasaet v. Co (2013)[33]
  44. The case of De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation (2014)[34]
  45. The case of Belo v. Marcantonio (2020)[35]
  46. The case of Global Gaming Philippines v. Razon (2023)[36]
  47. Meaning of res
  48. Acquisition of over-res jurisdiction
  49. Difference between “in rem” and “res”
  50. The case of Mabanag v. Gallemore (1938)[37]
  51. The case of Rayray v. Kyung Lee (1966)[38]
  52. The case of Ceruila v. Delantar (2005)[39]
  53. The case of Roberts v. Locke (2013)[40]
  54. Political controversies
  55. Justiciable controversies
  56. Jurisdiction over the issues
  57. Jurisdiction over the remedies

CHAPTER 4: THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION

  1. Text of the Hague Service Convention (1965)[41]
  2. Administrative Order (AO) No. 251-2020[42]
  3. Administrative Order (AO) No. 101-2024

CHAPTER 5: FORUM SHOPPING AND FORUM NON CONVENIENS

  1. Forum shopping as an international concept
  2. Effect of forum shopping
  3. Splitting causes of action
  4. International litis pendentia and res judicata
  5. Forum non conveniens as an offshoot of forum shopping
  6. Coexistence between foreign elements and jurisdiction
  7. Refusal to exercise jurisdiction
  8. Archiving a case suffering from forum non conveniens
  9. Forum non conveniens as an affirmative defense
  10. Participation of nonresidents or aliens as parties
  11. The case of Heine v. New York Life Ins (1930)[43]
  12. The case of Bachrach Motor v. Icarangal (1939)[44]
  13. The case of Perkins v. Roxas (1941)[45]
  14. The case of Lauritzen v. Larsen (1953)[46]
  15. The case of Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi (1984)[47]
  16. The case of In Re Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal (1987)[48]
  17. The case of FPIC v. Court of Appeals (1996)[49]
  18. The case of Manila Hotel v. NLRC (2000)[50]
  19. Summary of forum non conveniens rules
  20. The case of Bank of America v. Court of Appeals (2003)[51]
  21. The case of Small v. United States (2005)[52]
  22. The case of Raytheon International v. Rouzie (2008)[53]
  23. The case of Coca-Cola Bottlers v. Social Security Commission (2008)[54]
  24. The case of Saudia v. Rebesencio (2015)[55]
  25. The case of Zamora v. Quinan, Jr. (2017)[56]
  26. The case of Strickland v. Ernst & Young (2018)[57]
  27. The case of Heirs of Mampo v. Morada (2020)[58]
  28. The case of Asset Pool A v. Spouses Berris (2021)[59]
  29. Requirement of existence of an available alternative alien forum
  30. Requirement of prior resort to an available alternative alien forum

CHAPTER 6: CHARACTERIZATION

  1. Meaning of characterization
  2. An initial step in the resolution of a conflicts case
  3. An internal thought process
  4. Importance of characterization
  5. Forum’s options in characterization
  6. Characterization into substantive or procedural law

CHAPTER 7: PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW AND FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

  1. The main concern of the forum
  2. Territorial nature of state’s laws
  3. International comity and reciprocity
  4. Doctrine of comitas gentium
  5. Public policy considerations
  6. Effect of foreign laws and judgments within the Philippines
  7. Effect of foreign customs within the Philippines
  8. Effect of foreign arbitral awards within the Philippines
  9. Doctrine of judicial notice
  10. Burden to prove foreign law
  11. Pleading foreign law or foreign judgment
  12. Stipulating foreign law
  13. Proof of written or unwritten foreign law
  14. Testimonial proof of foreign law
  15. Sections 19 and 24 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
  16. Section 25 and Section 33 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
  17. Old Section 45 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
  18. The Apostille Convention[60]
  19. The Hague Evidence Convention[61]
  20. OCA Circular No. 157-2022
  21. Failure to prove foreign law
  22. Doctrine of processual presumption
  23. The case of Willamette Iron v. Muzzal (1935)[62]
  24. The case of CIR v. Fisher (1961)[63]
  25. The case of Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales (1988)[64]
  26. The case of Northwest Orient Airlines v. Court of Appeals (1995)[65]
  27. The case of Manufacturers Hanover Trust v. Guerrero (2003)[66]
  28. The case of ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin (2010)[67]
  29. The case of Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford (2012)[68]
  30. The case of Racho v. Tanaka (2018)[69]
  31. The case of Moraña v. Republic (2019)[70]
  32. The case of Kucskar v. Sekito, Jr. (2020)[71]
  33. The case of Anido v. People (2024)[72]

CHAPTER 8: CHOICE OF LAW

  1. Effective of variance between municipal law and foreign law
  2. Stability and predictability as primary considerations
  3. Preference for traditional approaches
  4. The nationality principle
  5. The domiciliary principle
  6. The location of property
  7. The place of celebration
  8. The place of execution of contract
  9. The place of performance of contract
  10. The law intended by the contracting parties
  11. The law chosen by the contracting parties
  12. Voidness in the place of performance, in the place of perfection
  13. The place of commission
  14. The law of the forum
  15. The case of United States v. Garlinghouse (1870)[73]
  16. The case of Cameron v. Vandergriff (1890)[74]
  17. The case of Hager v. National German-American Bank (1898)[75]
  18. The case of Union National Bank v. Chapman (1902)[76]
  19. The case of Kerr v. Tagliavia (1917)[77]
  20. The case of Asiatic Petroleum v. Quico (1940)[78]
  21. The case of Har-Shefi v. Har-Shefi (1953)[79]
  22. The case of Grant v. McAuliffe (1953)[80]
  23. The writings of Graveson[81]
  24. The case of Babcock v. Jackson (1963)[82]
  25. Dissenting Opinion of Justice Van Voorhis in Babcock (1963)
  26. The writings of William E. Shinn, Jr. (1964)[83]
  27. The case of Wilcox v. Wilcox (1965)[84]
  28. The writings of Bill Atkin (1977)[85]
  29. The writings of Nicholas Rafferty (1977)[86]
  30. The case of Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan (1993)[87]
  31. The case of Mapa v. Court of Appeals (1997)[88]
  32. The case of Asiavest Merchant v. Court of Appeals (2001)[89]
  33. The case of Philippine Export v. V.P. Eusebio Construction (2004)[90]
  34. The case of Crescent Petroleum v. M/V Lok Maheshwari (2005)[91]
  35. The case of case of Orion Savings Bank v. Suzuki (2014)[92]
  36. The case of case of Continental Micronesia v. Basso (2015)[93]
  37. The case of IPAMS v. Arriola (2016)[94]
  38. The case of Ambrose v. Suque-Ambrose (2021)[95]
  39. The case of case of Alcala v. Alcañeses (2021)[96]
  40. The case of Colmenares v. Duterte (2022)[97]
  41. The case of case of Bankruptcy Estate of Mitich v. Mercantile Insurance Company (2022)[98]
  42. The case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Philippine Investment Two (2023)[99]
  43. The case of Bison Management v. AAA and Pernito (2024)[100]
  44. Preference for modern approaches
  45. The center of gravity doctrine
  46. The doctrine of the state with the most significant relationship
  47. The multiple-contacts test
  48. Dépeçage
  49. Interest-analysis approach
  50. Caver’s principle of preference or the single-jurisdiction approach
  51. True-or-false conflict analysis by Brainerd Currie
  52. The vinculum juris approach
  53. The Kilberg doctrine
  54. The elective concurrence approach in torts cases
  55. The theory of statute by Bartolus De Sassoferrato
  56. Re-characterization
  57. The case of Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co. (1959)[101]

CHAPTER 9: RENVOI SITUATION

  1. Renvoi as a situation
  2. Remissions and transmissions
  3. Theory of renvoi as a solution
  4. Absence of applicable foreign law
  5. Mutual disclaimer doctrine by Von Bar and Westlake
  6. The opinion of Professor Lorenzen (1918)[102]
  7. The case of In Re Annesley (Annesley v. Annesley, 1926)[103]
  8. The case of case of Bellis v. Bellis (1967)[104]
  9. Double renvoi
  10. The forum’s proper reading of forum law
  11. Five parts of a renvoi situation

CHAPTER 10: EXECUTION AND SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS

  1. Meaning of execution and satisfaction
  2. Procedure for execution and satisfaction of judgments
  3. Execution of judgments for sum of money
  4. Execution of judgments for specific acts
  5. Execution of special judgments
  6. Property exempt from execution

CHAPTER 11: RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

  1. Effect of foreign judgments
  2. Section 48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
  3. The case of Philsec Invest v. Court of Appeals (1997)[105]
  4. The case of Mijares v. Ranada (2005)[106]
  5. The case of BPI v. Guevara (2015)[107]
  6. The Hague Judgments Convention[108]

CHAPTER 12: EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

  1. Application of foreign laws
  2. The foreign legal system as a whole
  3. Foreign law less jurisprudence
  4. Foreign law less conflict-of-laws rules
  5. Objections to the application of foreign law
  6. Forum’s public order, public policy, morals and good customs
  7. Forum’s fundamental law
  8. Forum’s procedural laws
  9. Foreign laws affected extraterritorial property
  10. Foreign laws penal in nature
  11. Foreign laws working injustice to forum’s citizens
  12. Foreign laws endangering forum state’s interest
  13. Whether a norm a policy
  14. Validity of a foreign law
  15. Effectivity of a foreign law
  16. Ignorance of foreign law
  17. Retroactivity of foreign law
  18. Mandatory and prohibitory foreign law
  19. Waiver of rights under foreign law
  20. Repeal of foreign law
  21. Jurisprudence interpreting foreign law
  22. Forum’s duty despite silence of foreign law
  23. Equity jurisdiction of the forum
  24. Generality of foreign law
  25. Borrowing statutes
  26. The case of LWV Construction v. Dupo (2009)[109]
  27. The case of Bakery Barn, Inc. v. A.E. Nielsen Maskinfabrik APS (2013)[110]
  28. The case of Anaban v. Anaban-Alfiler (2021)[111]

CHAPTER 13: BIRTH, STATUS, CAPACITY, ETC.

  1. Birth and its effects
  2. Personality
  3. Age of majority
  4. Capacity to act
  5. Juridical capacity
  6. Condition
  7. Capacity to succeed
  8. Capacity to execute joint wills
  9. Capacity to acquire lands in the Philippines
  10. Capacity to acquire Philippine lands outside its territory
  11. The case of Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (1947)[112]
  12. The case of De Castro v. Tan (1984)[113]
  13. The case of Cheesman v. IAC (1991)[114]
  14. The case of Buenaventura v. Muller (2006)[115]
  15. The case of Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc. (2008)[116]
  16. The case of Matthews v. Taylor (2009)[117]
  17. The case of Beumer v. Amores (2012)[118]
  18. The case of Encarnacion v. Johnson (2018)[119]
  19. The case of Laurel v. Garcia (1990)[120]
  20. Capacity to engage in nationalized businesses

CHAPTER 14: CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE

  1. Meaning of citizenship
  2. Effects of citizenship
  3. Kinds of citizenship
  4. Philippine citizenship
  5. Natural-born citizenship
  6. Naturalization
  7. Adoption and citizenship
  8. Dual citizenship
  9. Dual allegiance
  10. Effective nationality principle
  11. Use of foreign passport
  12. Loss of citizenship
  13. Commonwealth Act No. 63[121]
  14. Republic Act No. 8171, July 03, 1995[122]
  15. Reacquisition of citizenship
  16. Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 [Republic Act No. 9225, August 29, 2003]
  17. Retroactivity of reacquisition of citizenship
  18. Variable nature of citizenship
  19. The status of statelessness
  20. Meaning of suffrage
  21. The case of Roa v. Insular Collector (1912)[123]
  22. The case of People v. Corral (1936)[124]
  23. The case of Ngo Burca v. Republic (1967)[125]
  24. The case of Vivo v. Cloribel (1968)[126]
  25. The case of Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration (1971)[127]
  26. The case of In Re Habeas Corpus of Yu (Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 1989)[128]
  27. The case of Caasi v. Court of Appeals (1990)[129]
  28. The case of Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa (1991)[130]
  29. The case of Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1996)[131]
  30. The case of Mercado v. Manzano (1999)[132]
  31. The case of Tecson v. COMELEC (2004)[133]
  32. The case of Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013)[134]
  33. The case of Arnado v. COMELEC (2015)[135]
  34. Chief Justice Sereno’s Concurring Opinion in Arnado v. COMELEC (2015)[136]
  35. The case of Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (2016)[137]
  36. The case of David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal (2016)[138]
  37. The case of Tan v. Crisologo (2017)[139]

CHAPTER 15: DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE

  1. Meaning of residence
  2. Meaning of domicile
  3. Residence of venue purposes
  4. Residence of summons purposes
  5. Residence for naturalization purposes
  6. Residence for family purposes
  7. Residence for elective office purposes
  8. Residence of corporations
  9. Residence for election purposes
  10. Change of residence
  11. Change of domicile
  12. The right to travel back to one’s country
  13. The case of Evangelista v. Santos (1950)[140]
  14. The case of Ujano v. Republic (1966)[141]
  15. The case of case of Marcos v. Manglapus (September 1989)[142]
  16. The case of case of Marcos v. Manglapus (October 1989)[143]
  17. The case of Co v. Electoral Tribunal (1991)[144]
  18. The case of Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC (1995)[145]
  19. The case of Domino v. COMELEC (1999)[146]
  20. The case of Saludo v. American Express (2006)[147]
  21. The case of Limbona v. COMELEC (2008)[148]
  22. The case of Pundaodaya v. COMELEC (2009)[149]
  23. The case of Fernandez v. HRET (2009)[150]
  24. The case of Sabili v. COMELEC (2012)[151]
  25. The case of Dano v. COMELEC (2016)
  26. The Concurring Opinion of Justice Brion in Dano v. COMELEC (2016)[152]

CHAPTER 16: REGISTRATION OF NAMES, SEX, ETC.

  1. Name as a right and a status
  2. Article 364 of the New Civil Code
  3. Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC
  4. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9048, March 22, 2001
  5. Use and change of names
  6. A person’s sex and change thereof
  7. The case of In Re Ong Huan Tin (1967)[153]
  8. The case of Yasin v. Honorable Judge Shari’a (1995)[154]
  9. The case of In Re Adoption of Astorga Garcia (2005)[155]
  10. The case of case of Silverio v. Republic (2007)[156]
  11. The case of Republic v. Cagandahan (2008)[157]
  12. The case of Republic v. Mercadera (2010)[158]
  13. The case of Republic v. Olaybar (2014)[159]
  14. The case of Republic v. Gallo (2018)[160]
  15. The case of case of Falcis III v. Civil Registrar General (2019)[161]
  16. The case of Republic v. Felix (2020)[162]
  17. The case of Alanis III v. Court of Appeals (2020)[163]
  18. The case of Republic v. Felix (2020)[164]

CHAPTER 17: MARRIAGE AND ITS INCIDENTS

  1. Marriage as a contract
  2. Formal requisites of marriage
  3. Ceremonial nature of Philippine marriage
  4. Essential requisites of marriage
  5. Effect of marriage on children
  6. Property relations in marriage
  7. Immutability of matrimonial property
  8. The case of Lieng v. Encarnacion (1910)[165]
  9. The case of De Barnuevo v. Fuster (1913)[166]
  10. The case of In Re Estate of May (In the Matter of May, 1953)[167]
  11. The case of case of Marigo v. People (2004)[168]
  12. The case of Ado-An-Morito v. Morimoto (2021)[169]
  13. Mixed marriages
  14. Dissolution of marriages
  15. Non-judicial separation
  16. Recognition and enforcement of foreign divorce decrees
  17. The case of Adong v. Cheong Seng Gee (1922)[170]
  18. The case of Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985)[171]
  19. The case of Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (1989)[172]
  20. The case of Niñal v. Bayadog (2000)[173]
  21. The case of Garcia v. Recio (2001)[174]
  22. The case of Republic v. Iyoy (2005)[175]
  23. The case of Republic v. Orbecido III (2005)[176]
  24. The case of Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas (2010)[177]
  25. The case of Dacasin v. Dacasin (2010)[178]
  26. The case of Fujiki v. Marinay (2013)[179]
  27. The case of Republic v. Manalo (2018)[180]
  28. The case of Nullada v. Civil Registrar of Manila (2019)[181]
  29. The case of Ordaneza v. Republic (2021)[182]
  30. The case of Rivera v. Woo Namsun (2021)[183]
  31. The case of Republic v. Bayog-Saito (2022)[184]
  32. The case of Republic v. Cuevas Ng (2024)[185]

CHAPTER 18: SUPPORT

  1. Meaning of support
  2. Obligation to support
  3. Support as a family right and duty
  4. Economic violence
  5. The case of Haag v. Barnes (1961)[186]
  6. The case of Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem (2014)[187]

CHAPTER 19: ADOPTION

  1. Meaning of adoption
  2. Effects of adoption
  3. Adoption as a “status-creating” process
  4. Adoption of a Filipino child by Filipino adopters
  5. Adoption of a Filipino child by non-Filipino adopters
  6. Adoption of a foreign child by Filipino adopters
  7. Adoption of a foreign child by non-Filipino adopters
  8. Evolution of adoption laws
  9. Adoption under the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (Old Civil Code)
  10. Adoption under the New Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, August 30, 1950
  11. Adoption under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603
  12. Adoption under the Inter-Country Adoption Act (Republic Act No. 8043, June 07, 1995
  13. Adoption under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, August 3, 1988
  14. Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8552, February 25, 1998
  15. Foster Care Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10165, June 11, 2012
  16. Domestic Administrative Adoption and Alternative Child Care Act (Republic Act No. 11642, January 06, 2022
  17. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption[188]
  18. The case of Leng v. Galang (1958)[189]
  19. The case of In Re Adoption of Rose (Ellis v. Republic, 1963)[190]
  20. The case of In Re Adoption of Maghanoy Bulayo (2021)[191]

CHAPTER 20: PROPERTY

  1. Meaning of property
  2. Real property v. personal property
  3. Other categories of property
  4. Attributes of ownership
  5. Location of property
  6. Property follows the owner
  7. Ownership of Philippine lands
  8. The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)[192]
  9. The case of MR Holdings v. Bajar (2012)[193]

CHAPTER 21: FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES

  1. Article 17 of the New Civil Code
  2. The case of In Re Testate Estate of Carlos Gil (1951)[194]
  3. The case of Azuela v. Court of Appeals[195]
  4. The case of De Munari v. Asprec (2005)[196]

CHAPTER 22: CONTRACTS

  1. Meaning of obligation
  2. Sources of obligations
  3. Meaning of contract
  4. The lifetime of a contract
  5. Extrinsic validity of a contract
  6. Intrinsic validity of a contract
  7. Contracts with foreign elements
  8. Core doctrines relative to contracts
  9. Lex causae on contracts
  10. Doctrine of reasonable expectation of parties
  11. Contractual choice of law
  12. Partial contractual choice of law
  13. Total contractual choice of law
  14. Currency involved in the contract
  15. Contractual interests and penalties imposed
  16. Minimum factors and significant factors
  17. Fundamental fairness test
  18. Center of gravity doctrine
  19. The Hague Choice of Law Principles[197]
  20. The Hague Protocol on Maintenance of Obligations[198]
  21. The case of case of Government v. Frank (1909)[199]
  22. The case of Rural Bank of Caloocan, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (1981)[200]

CHAPTER 23: THE WARSAW CONVENTION

  1. Text of the Warsaw Convention
  2. The domiciliary doctrine and the Warsaw Convention
  3. The case of Santos III v. Northtwest Orient Airlines (1992)[201]
  4. The case of Lhuillier v. British Airways (2010)[202]

CHAPTER 24: EMPLOYMENT

  1. Employment as a contract
  2. Public policy and employment contracts
  3. Employment of aliens in the Philippines
  4. Employment of Filipinos abroad
  5. Employment at will
  6. The case of Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople (1990)[203]
  7. The case of General Milling Corp. v. Torres (1991)[204]
  8. The case of EDI-Staffbuilders v. NLRC (2007)[205]
  9. The case of Gopio v. Bautista (2018)[206]
  10. The case of Augustin International v. Bartolome (2019)[207]

CHAPTER 25: TORTS, CRIMES AND DAMAGES

  1. Meaning of torts
  2. Meaning of crimes
  3. Territoriality of torts and crimes
  4. The national territory of the Philippines
  5. French rule v. English rule on ships and airships
  6. Abuse of rights
  7. General torts laws and quasi-delict
  8. Widespread criticism of the lex loci delicti commissi rule
  9. Doctrine of the state with the most significant relationship
  10. Elements of tort spread across state lines
  11. The theory of transitory nature of obligations v. the theory of place of wrong
  12. Citizenship or domicile of parties in a tort
  13. Interspousal suits
  14. Robert L. Felix,Interspousal Immunity in the Conflict of Laws Automobile Accident Claims, 53CornellL.Rev. 406 (1968)Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol53/iss3/2; https://core.ac.uk/reader/216745690
  15. The case of Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. v. Carroll (1892)[208]
  16. The case of US v. Sweet (1902)[209]
  17. The case of People v. Wong Cheng (1922)[210]
  18. The case of case of Gray v. Gray (1934)[211]
  19. The opinion of Max Rheinstein, "Place of Wrong: A Study in the Method of Case Law," 19 Tulane Law Review 165 (1944). Accessible at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=13193&context=journal_articles
  20. The case of Emery v. Emery (1955)[212]
  21. The case of Baker v. Gaffney (1956)[213]
  22. The case of Air France v. Carrascoso (1966)[214]
  23. The case of Sweeney v. Sweeney (1978)[215]
  24. The case of Asahi Metal v. Superior Court (1987)[216]
  25. The opinion of James A. McLaughlin, Conflict of Laws: The Choice of Law Lex Loci Doctrine, the Beguiling Appeal of a Dead Tradition, Part One, 93 W. Va. L. Rev. (1991). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol93/iss4/8; https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1979&context=wvlr
  26. The case of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague (1981)[217]
  27. The case of Calleja v. Executive Secretary (2021)[218]

CHAPTER 26: EXTRADITION

  1. Meaning of extradition
  2. Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law)
  3. Extradition process and the role of the justice secretary
  4. Extraditee’s right to due process
  5. Extraditee’s right to bail
  6. Treaty limitations on extradition
  7. Extraditable offenses
  8. Extraterritorial offenses
  9. Political offense exception
  10. Death penalty exception
  11. Retroactivity
  12. Rule on specialty
  13. Double or dual criminality
  14. Similar language rule
  15. Lapse of time
  16. The case of United States v. Hecht (1927)[219]
  17. The case of Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion (2000)[220]
  18. The case of Government of Hong Kong v. Judge Olalia, Jr. (2007)[221]

CHAPTER 27: DEATH AND SUCCESSION

  1. Death and its effects
  2. Absence and death
  3. Actual and constructive death
  4. Meaning of succession
  5. Intestate succession
  6. Testate succession
  7. Kinds of wills and their probate
  8. Domicile or citizenship of testator
  9. Formalities of a Filipino’s last will
  10. Formalities of a foreigner’s last will
  11. Intrinsic validity of a Filipino’s last will
  12. Intrinsic validity of a foreigner’s last will
  13. Nationality principle v. the lex situs rule
  14. Execution of joint wills
  15. Public policy on legitime
  16. Testamentary choice of law
  17. Administration of estate, principal or ancillary
  18. Revocation of wills and disinheritance
  19. The case of Harrison v. Nixon (1835)[222]
  20. The case of In Re Estate of Johnson (1918)[223]
  21. The case of Johannes v. Harvey (March 1922)[224]
  22. The case of Johannes v. Imperial (June 1922)[225]
  23. The case of Testate Estate of Brimo (Miciano v. Brimo, 1924)[226]
  24. The case of Templeton v. Babcock (1928)[227]
  25. The case of Fluemer v. Hix (1930)[228]
  26. The case of In Re Intestate of Eusebio (Eusebio v. Eusebio, 1956)[229]
  27. The case of Aznar v. Garcia (1963)[230]
  28. The case of Cayetano v. Leonidas (1984)[231]
  29. The case of Ajero v. Court of Appeals (1994)[232]
  30. The case of Teodoro Vda. De Perez v. Tolete (1994)[233]
  31. The case of Llorente v. Llorente (2000)[234]
  32. The case of Continental Steel v. Montaño (2009)[235]
  33. The case of In Re Will of Palaganas (Palaganas v. Palaganas, 2011)[236]
  34. The case of Republic v. Cantor (2013)[237]
  35. The case of Morales v. Olondriz (2016)[238]
  36. The case of In Re Will of Lipson (Gaspi v. Pacis-Trinidad, 2020)[239]

CHAPTER 28: TAXATION

  1. Meaning of taxation
  2. Tax on income
  3. Tax on real property
  4. Tax on tangible personal property
  5. Tax on intangible personal property
  6. Tax against resident aliens
  7. Tax against nonresident aliens
  8. Tax against foreign corporations
  9. Taxation and lex situs rule
  10. Double taxation
  11. The case of Gibbs v. Government (1933)[240]
  12. The case of Wells Fargo v. Collector (1940)[241]
  13. The case of Reagan v. CIR (1969)[242]
  14. The case of CIR v. Air India (1988)[243]

CHAPTER 29: CORPORATIONS

  1. Meaning of corporation
  2. Existence, powers and operations of a corporation
  3. Residence of corporations
  4. Domicile of corporations
  5. Nationality of corporations
  6. Corporations engaged in nationalized businesses
  7. Internal affairs rule’
  8. The case of Grey v. Insular Lumber (1939)[244]
  9. The case of Filipinas Compania De Seguros v. Christern (1951)[245]
  10. The case of Gamboa v. Teves (2011)[246]

CHAPTER 30: CONSULAR AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

  1. Meaning of consul and purpose
  2. Meaning of diplomat and purpose
  3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)
  4. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963)
  5. The case of Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983)[247]
  6. The case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals (1992)[248]
  7. The case of US v. Reyes (1993)[249]
  8. The case of Liang v. People (January 2000)[250]
  9. The case of Liang v. People (March 2001)[251]
  10. The opinion of Justice Puno in Liang v. People (March 2001)[252]
  11. The case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals (2003)[253]
  12. The case of Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon (2003)[254]

CHAPTER 31: STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

  1. Meaning of state immunity
  2. Royal prerogative of dishonesty
  3. Theory of qualified immunity
  4. Other kinds of government immunity
  5. Rationale for immunity
  6. Immunity of foreign states
  7. The case of Merritt v. Government (1916)[255]
  8. The case of Mayo v. Satan (1971)[256]
  9. The case of US v. Guinto (1990)[257]
  10. The case of Wylie v. Rarang (1992)[258]
  11. The case of DA v. NLRC (1993)[259]
  12. The case of Holy See v. Rosario (1994)[260]
  13. The case of EPG Construction v. Vigilar (2001)[261]
  14. The case of Heirs of Pidacan v. Air Transportation Office (2010)[262]
  15. The case of Vigilar v. Aquino (2011)[263]
  16. The case of Secretary of Heath v. Phil Pharmawealth (2013)[264]

 [NOTHING FOLLOWS, EXCEPT CITATIONS.]

[1] Vinuya v. Romulo, 633 Phil. 538 [ G.R. No. 162230. April 28, 2010 ].

[2] People v. Montenegro, 68 Phil. 659 [ G.R. No. 46728. September 30, 1939 ].

[3] 343 Phil. 539 [ G.R. No. 94723. August 21, 1997 ].

[4] Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 105 [ G.R. No. 122191, October 08, 1998 ].

[5] Hasegawa v. Kitamura, 563 Phil. 572 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]

[6] Auction in Malinta v. Luyaben, 544 Phil. 500 [ G.R. NO. 173979. February 12, 2007 ].

[7] 516 Phil. 717 [ G.R. NO. 162416. January 31, 2006 ].

[8] 826 Phil. 713 [ G.R. No. 194262. February 28, 2018 ].

[9] Feria v. Court of Appeals, 382 Phil. 412 [ G.R. No. 122954. February 15, 2000 ].

[10] Denila v. Republic, 877 Phil. 380 (2020) [Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division].

[11] Also known as the doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz.”

[12] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878).

[13] El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 [ G.R. No. L-11390. March 26, 1918 ].

[14] Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil. 186 [ G.R. No. 46631. November 16, 1939 ].

[15] Milliken V. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940).

[16] International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

[17] Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).

[18] Jaranilla v. Gonzales, 96 Phil. 3 [ G.R. No. L-5629, October 11, 1954 ].

[19] Gemperle v. Schenker, 125 Phil. 458 [ G.R. No. L-18164, January 23, 1967 ].

[20] 357 Mass. 680, 260 N.E.2d 208 (Mass. 1970).

[21] Brown v. Brown, 120 R.I. 340, 387 A.2d 1051 (R.I. 1978).

[22] 486 U.S. 694, 108 S. Ct. 2104 (1988).

[23] Valmonte v. Court of Appeals, 322 Phil. 96 (1996) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

[24] Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977).

[25] Asiavest Limited v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 536 [ G.R. No. 128803. September 25, 1998 ].

[26] Romualdez-Licaros v. Licaros, 449 Phil. 824 [ G.R. No. 150656. April 29, 2003 ].

[27] Gomez v. Court of Appeals, 469 Phil. 38 [ G.R. No. 127692. March 10, 2004 ].

[28] Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 530 Phil. 454 [ G.R. NO. 130974, August 16, 2006 ].

[29] Biaco v. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, 544 Phil. 45 [ G.R. NO. 161417. February 08, 2007 ].

[30] Marcos-Araneta v. Court of Appeals, 585 Phil. 38 (2008) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Second Division].

[31] Palma v. Judge Galvez, 629 Phil. 86 [ G.R. No. 165273. March 10, 2010 ].

[32] Rapid City Realty v. Villa, 626 Phil. 211 [ G.R. No. 184197. February 11, 2010 ].

[33] Macasaet v. Co, 710 Phil. 167 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

[34] De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, 748 Phil. 706 [ G.R. No. 194751. November 26, 2014 ].

[35] 882 Phil. 708 [ G.R. No. 243366. September 08, 2020 ] FELICITAS Z. BELO, PETITIONER, VS. CARLITA C. MARCANTONIO, RESPONDENT.

[36] Global Gaming Philippines v. Razon, 21 Civ. 2655 (LGS), Doc. 216 (September 12, 2023).

[37] Mabanag v. Gallemore, 81 Phil. 254 [ G.R. No. L-825. July 20, 1948 ].

[38] Rayray v. Kyung Lee, 124 Phil. 1043 (1966) [Per C.J. Concepcion, {xxx}].

[39] 513 Phil. 237 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].

[40] Roberts v. Locke, 304 P.3D 116 (WYO. 2013).

[41] The Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH 1965 Service Convention).

[42] Otherwise known as, the “Guidelines on the Implementation in the Philippines of the Hague Service Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters,” found at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/251-2020.pdf (last accessed: August 16, 2025).

[43] Heine v. New York Life Ins. Co., 45 F.2d 426 (D. Or. 1930).

[44] 68 Phil. 287 [ G.R. No. L-45350. May 29, 1939 ] BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ESTEBAN ICARANGAL AND ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL CO., INC., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

[45] 72 Phil. 514 [ G.R. No. 47517. June 27, 1941 ] IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, PETITIONER, VS. MAMERTO ROXAS ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[46] Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953).

[47] Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 (N.Y. 1984).

[48] 809 F. 2d. (2d. Cir.) or 809 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1987).

[49] 322 Phil. 280 [ G.R. No. 115849. January 24, 1996 ] FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (FORMERLY PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES) AND MERCURIO RIVERA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS EJERCITO, IN SUBSTITUTION OF DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, AND JOSE JANOLO, RESPONDENTS.

[50] 397 Phil. 1 [ G. R. No. 120077. October 13, 2000 ] THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD. PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ARBITER CEFERINA J. DIOSANA AND MARCELO G. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

[51] of Bank of America v. Court of Appeals, 448 Phil. 181 [ G.R. No. 120135. March 31, 2003 ].

[52] Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (2005).

[53] Raytheon International v. Rouzie, 570 Phil. 151 [ G.R. No. 162894. February 26, 2008 ].

[54] 582 Phil. 686 [ G.R. No. 159323. July 31, 2008 ] COCA-COLA BOTTLERS (PHILS.), INC. AND ERIC MONTINOLA, PETITIONERS, VS. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND DR. DEAN CLIMACO, RESPONDENTS.

[55] 750 Phil. 791 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

[56] Zamora v. Quinan, Jr., 821 Phil. 1009 [ G.R. No. 216139. November 29, 2017 ].

[57] 838 Phil. 25 [ G.R. No. 193782. August 01, 2018 ] DALE STRICKLAND, PETITIONER, VS. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, RESPONDENT.

[58] 888 Phil. 583 [ G.R. No. 214526. November 03, 2020 ] THE HEIRS OF INOCENTES MAMPO AND RAYMUNDO A. MAMPO, REPRESENTED BY AZUCENA C. MAMPO, JRA., PETITIONERS, VS. JOSEFINA MORADA, RESPONDENT.

[59] [ G.R. No. 203194. April 26, 2021 ] ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES BUENAFRIDO AND FELISA BERRIS, RESPONDENTS.

[60] The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention)

[61] The Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention).

[62] 61 Phil. 471 [ G.R. No. 42538. May 21, 1935 ] WILLAMETTE IRON & STEEL WORKS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. A. H. MUZZAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[63] 110 Phil. 686 [ G.R. Nos. L-11622 and L-11668. January 28, 1961 ].

[64] 249 Phil. 681 [ G.R. No. 55960. November 24, 1988 ] YAO KEE, SZE SOOK WAH, SZE LAI CHO, AND SY CHUN YEN, PETITIONERS, VS. AIDA SY-GONZALES, MANUEL SY, TERESITA SY-BERNABE, RODOLFO SY, AND HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

[65] 311 Phil. 203 [ G.R. No. 112573. February 09, 1995 ].

[66] 445 Phil. 770 [ G.R. No. 136804. February 19, 2003 ] MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST CO. AND/OR CHEMICAL BANK, PETITIONERS, VS. RAFAEL MA. GUERRERO, RESPONDENT.

[67] 647 Phil. 43 [ G.R. No. 178551. October 11, 2010 ] ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL AND MINISTRY OF PUBLIC HEALTH-KUWAIT PETITIONERS, VS. MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, RESPONDENT.

[68] Tuna Processing v. Philippine Kingford, 683 Phil. 276 [ G.R. No. 185582. February 29, 2012 ].

[69] 834 Phil. 21; 115 OG No. 6, 1197 (February 11, 2019) [ G.R. No. 199515. June 25, 2018 ].

[70] 867 Phil. 578 [ G.R. No. 227605. December 05, 2019 ] IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF DIVORCE BETWEEN MINURO* TAKAHASHI AND JULIET RENDORA MORAÑA, JULIET RENDORA MORAÑA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[71] 891 Phil. 398 [ G.R. No. 237449. December 02, 2020 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF AIDA A. BAMBAO, LINDA A. KUCSKAR, PETITIONER, VS. COSME B. SEKITO, JR., RESPONDENT.

[72] G.R. No. 253527, October 21, 2024.

[73] 4 Ben. 194:1 11 Int. Rev. Rec. 11; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 131. 139. May, 1870.

[74] 53 Ark. 381, 13 S.W. 1092 (1890).

[75] 105 Ga. 116 (1898).

[76] 169 N.Y. 538 (N.Y. 1902),

[77] 101 Misc. 614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1917).

[78] 69 Phil. 433 [ G.R. No. 46529. January 23, 1940 ] THE ASIATIC PETROLEUM (P. I.), LTD., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CO QUICO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

[79] Har-Shefi v. Har-Shefi [1953] 2 W.L.R. 690; 1 All E.R. 783.

[80] Grant v. McAuliffe, 41 Cal.2d 859 (Cal. 1953); or, 255 P.2d 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).

[81] Graveson, R. H. (1954). Reform of the Law of Domicile. LQ Rev., 70, 492.

[82] Babcock v. Jackson, 191 N.E.2d 279, 12 N.Y.2d 473 (N.Y. 1963).

[83] Shinn, W. E. (1963). Conflict of Laws--Most Significant Relationship Rule. NCL Rev., 42, 419.

[84] Wilcox v. Wilcox, 26 Wis. 2d 617, 133 N.W.2d 408 (Wis. 1965).

[85] Atkin, Bill, The Domicile Act 1976 (April 1977). (1977) 7 NZULR 286., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2573497.

[86] Rafferty, Domicile, Torionhe Need for Reform, Man. L.J. 203 (1977).

[87] Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 297 Phil. 348 (1993) [Per J. Melo, En Banc].

[88] Mapa v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 281 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division].

[89] Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. Court of Appeals, 414 Phil. 13 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr, Second Division].

[90] Philippine Export v. V.P. Eusebio Construction, 478 Phil. 269 [G.R. No. 140047. July 13, 2004].

[91] 511 Phil. 248 [ G.R. No. 155014. November 11, 2005 ] CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., PETITIONER, VS. M/V "LOK MAHESHWARI," THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA, AND PORTSERV LIMITED AND/OR TRANSMAR SHIPPING, INC., RESPONDENTS.

[92] Orion Savings Bank v. Suzuki, 746 Phil. 971 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

[93] 770 Phil. 201 [ G.R. Nos. 178382-83. September 23, 2015 ] CONTINENTAL MICRONESIA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JOSEPH BASSO, RESPONDENT.

[94] 782 Phil. 230 [ G.R. No. 205703. March 07, 2016 ] INDUSTRIAL PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B. ARRIOLA, RESPONDENTS.

[95] [ G.R. No. 206761. June 23, 2021 ] PAUL AMBROSE, PETITIONER, VS. LOUELLA SUQUE-AMBROSE, RESPONDENT.

[96] [ G.R. No. 187847. June 30, 2021 ] ESTHER VICTORIA ALCALA VDA. DE ALCAÑESES, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE S. ALCAÑESES, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, GRACIA SANGA, MARIA ROSARIO ALCAÑESES, ANTHONY ALCAÑESES, VERONICA ALCAÑESES-PANTIG, MARCIAL ALCAÑESES, AND DEBORA ALCAÑESES-OBIAS, ALICIA S. ALCAÑESES-TANGLAO, MERCEDES ROSARIO S. ALCAÑESES, LYDIA VICTORIA ALCAÑESES-DE VILLA, FELICIDAD S. ALCAÑESES­LACANDOLA, DINAH L. ALCAÑESES-REYES, CECILIO L. ALCAÑESES, FE L. ALCAÑESES-JUMAWAN, AND ALFONSO PERCIVAL ALCAÑESES, ALL REPRESENTED BY FELICIDAD S. ALCAÑESES­ LACANDOLA AND CECILIO L. ALCAÑESES, RESPONDENTS.

[97] [ G.R. No. 245981. August 09, 2022 ] NERI J. COLMENARES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[98] [ G.R. No. 238041. February 15, 2022 ] BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CHARLES B. MITICH a.k.a. CHARLIE MITICH AND JAMES L. KENNEDY, TRUSTEE OF THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF CHARLES B. MITICH a.k.a. CHARLIE MITICH, PETITIONERS, VS. MERCANTILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

[99] [ G.R. Nos. 216608 & 216625. April 26, 2023 ] STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, PHILIPPINE BRANCH, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT TWO (SPV-AMC), INC., PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT ONE (SPV-AMC), INC., AND MRM ASSET HOLDINGS 2, INC., RESPONDENTS.

[100] [ G.R. No. 256540, February 14, 2024 ].

[101] Haumschild v. Continental Casualty Co. [7 Wis. 2d 130 (Wis. 1959)].

[102] Yale Law Journal, Vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. 509-531.

[103] ANNESLEY V. ANNESLEY, CH. 692 (1926).

[104] 126 Phil. 726; 64 OG 12859 (December, 1968) [ G.R. No. L-23678. June 06, 1967 ] TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, DECEASED PEOPLE'S BANK & TRUST COMPANY, EXECUTOR MARIA CRISTINA BELLIS AND MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS, VS. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., HEIRS-APPELLEES.

[105] [ G.R. No. 103493. June 19, 1997 ] PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, BPI-INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED, AND ATHONA HOLDINGS, N.V., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, 1488, INC., DRAGO DAIC, VENTURA O. DUCAT, PRECIOSO R. PERLAS, AND WILLIAM H. CRAIG, RESPONDENTS.

[106] 495 Phil. 372 [ G.R. NO. 139325. April 12, 2005 ] PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SANTIAGO JAVIER RANADA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[107] 755 Phil. 434 [ G.R. No. 167052. March 11, 2015 ] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA, RESPONDENT.

[108] The Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (HCCH a Judgments Convention).

[109] 610 Phil. 164 [ G.R. No. 172342. July 13, 2009 ].

[110] Civil Action No. 12-75 (W.D. Pa. May. 21, 2013).

[111] [ G.R. No. 249011. March 15, 2021 ].

[112] 79 Phil. 461 [ G.R. No. L-630. November 15, 1947 ] ALEXANDER A. KRIVENKO, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

[113] 214 Phil. 68 [ G.R. No. L-31956. April 30, 1984 ] FILOMENA GERONA DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. JOAQUIN TENG QUEEN TAN, TAN TENG BIO, DOLORES TAN, ROSARIO TAN HUA ING, AND TO O. HIAP, RESPONDENTS.

[114] 271 Phil. 89 [ G.R. No. 74833. January 21, 1991 ] THOMAS C. CHEESMAN, PETITIONER, VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND ESTELITA PADILLA, RESPONDENTS.

[115] 531 Phil. 460 [ G.R. NO. 149615. August 29, 2006 ] IN RE: PETITION FOR SEPARATION OF PROPERTY ELENA BUENAVENTURA MULLER, PETITIONER, VS. HELMUT MULLER, RESPONDENT.

[116] 588 Phil. 23 [ G.R. No. 156364. September 25, 2008 ] JACOBUS BERNHARD HULST, PETITIONER, VS. PR BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENT.

[117] 608 Phil. 193 [ G.R. No. 164584. June 22, 2009 ] PHILIP MATTHEWS, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN A. TAYLOR AND JOSELYN C. TAYLOR, RESPONDENTS.

[118] 700 Phil. 90 [ G.R. No. 195670. December 03, 2012 ] WILLEM BEUMER, PETITIONER, VS. AVELINA AMORES, RESPONDENT.

[119] 836 Phil. 76 [ G.R. No. 192285. July 11, 2018 ] MATEO ENCARNACION (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: ELSA DEPLIAN-ENCARNACION, KRIZZA MARIE D. ENCARNACION, LORETA ENCARNACION, CARMELITA E. STADERMAN, CORAZON S. ENCARNACION, RIZALINA ENCARNACION-PARONG, VICTORIA ENCARNACION-DULA, MARIA HELEN ENCARNACION-DAY, TERESITA ENCARNACION-MANALANG, GEORGE ENCARNACION, MARY MITCHIE E. EDWARDSON, ERNESTO ENCARNACION, MATEO ENCARNACION, JR., AND GRACE WAGNER, PETITIONERS, V. THOMAS JOHNSON, RESPONDENT.

[120] 265 Phil. 827 [ G.R. No. 92013. July 25, 1990 ] SALVADOR H. LAUREL, PETITIONER, VS. RAMON GARCIA, AS HEAD OF THE ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, RAUL MANGLAPUS, AS SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AND CATALINO MACARAIG, AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENTS.

[121] "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED."

[122] “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REPATRIATION OF FILIPINO WOMEN WHO HAVE LOST THEIR PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE TO ALIENS AND OF NATURAL-BORN FILIPINOS.”

[123] [G.R. No. L-7011, October 30, 1912] TRANQUILINO ROA, petitioner-appellant, vs. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

[124] 62 Phil. 945 [ G. R. No. 42300. January 31, 1936 ] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND AP- PELLEE, VS. AMADEO CORRAL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[125] 125 Phil. 600 [ G.R. No. L-24252. January 30, 1967 ] IN RE PETITION TO DECLARE ZITA NGO TO POSSESS ALL QUALIFICATIONS AND NONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALIZATION UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT 473 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANCELLING HER ALIEN REGISTRY WITH THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, ZITA NGO BURCA, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

[126] 134 Phil. 609 [ G.R. No. L-25411. October 26, 1968 ] HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, AS (ACTING) COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, BRANCH VI, CHUA PIC LUAN, UY KOC SIONG AND UY TIAN SIONG, RESPONDENTS.

[127] 148-B Phil. 773 [ G.R. No. L-21289. October 04, 1971 ] MOY YA LIM YAO ALIAS EDILBERTO AGUINALDO LIM AND LAU YUEN YEUNG, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

[128] 251 Phil. 346 [ G.R. No. 83882. January 24, 1989 ] IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU, WILLIE YU, PETITIONER, VS. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, BIENVENIDO P. ALANO, JR., MAJOR PABALAN, DELEO HERNANDEZ, BLODDY HERNANDEZ, BENNY REYES AND JUN ESPIRITU SANTO, RESPONDENTS.

[129] 269 Phil. 237 [ G.R. No. 88831. November 08, 1990 ] MATEO CAASI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND MERITO C. MIGUEL, RESPONDENTS.

[130] 274 Phil. 1156 [ G.R. Nos. 95122. May 31, 1991 ] BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION), BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, COMMISSIONER ANDREA D. DOMINGO, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JORGE V. SARMIENTO, ACTING ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER REGINO R. SANTIAGO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY, ESTANISLAO CANTA, LEO MAGAHOM AND BENJAMIN KALAW, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC MANILA, BRANCH 29, WILLIAM T. GATCHALIAN, RESPONDENTS.

[131] 327 Phil. 521 [ G.R. No. 120295. June 28, 1996 ] JUAN G. FRIVALDO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND RAUL R. LEE, RESPONDENTS.

[132] 367 Phil. 132 [ G.R. No. 135083. May 26, 1999 ].

[133] 468 Phil. 421 (2003) [J. Vitug, En Banc].

[134] 709 Phil. 408 [ G.R. No. 195649. April 16, 2013 ] CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO Y CAGOCO, LINOG G. BALUA, RESPONDENTS.

[135] 767 Phil. 51 [ G.R. No. 210164. August 18, 2015 ] ROMMEL C. ARNADO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, RESPONDENTS.

[136] 767 Phil. 51 [ G.R. No. 210164. August 18, 2015 ] ROMMEL C. ARNADO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, RESPONDENTS.

[137] 782 Phil. 292 (2016) [Per J. Perez, En Banc].

[138] 795 Phil. 529 [ G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016 ] RIZALITO Y. DAVID, PETITIONER, VS. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES, RESPONDENTS.

[139] 820 Phil. 611 [ G.R. Nos. 193993. November 08, 2017 ] VIVENNE K. TAN, PETITIONER, VS. VINCENT "BINGBONG" CRISOLOGO, RESPONDENT.

[140] 86 Phil. 387 [ G.R. No. L-1721. May 19, 1950 ].

[141] 123 Phil. 1017 [ G.R. No. L-22041. May 19, 1966 ].

[142] 258 Phil. 479 [ G.R. No. 88211. September 15, 1989 ] FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[143] 258-A Phil. 547 [ G.R. No. 88211. October 27, 1989 ] FERDINAND E. MARCOS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE RAUL MANGLAPUS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[144] 276 Phil. 758 [ G.R. Nos. 92191-92. July 30, 1991 ] ANTONIO Y. CO, PETITIONER, VS. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR., RESPONDENTS.

[145] 318 Phil. 329 [ G.R. No. 119976. September 18, 1995 ] IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND CIRILO ROY MONTEJO, RESPONDENTS.

[146] 369 Phil. 798 [ G.R. No. 134015. July 19, 1999 ] JUAN DOMINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NARCISO RA. GRAFILO, JR., EDDY B. JAVA, JUAN P. BAYONITO, JR., ROSARIO SAMSON AND DIONISIO P. LIM, SR., RESPONDENTS. LUCILLE CHIONGBIAN-SOLON, INTERVENOR.

[147] 521 Phil. 585 [ G.R. NO. 159507. April 19, 2006 ] ANICETO G. SALUDO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND/OR IAN T. FISH AND DOMINIC MASCRINAS, RESPONDENTS.

[148] 578 Phil. 364 [ G.R. No. 181097. June 25, 2008 ] NORLAINIE MITMUG LIMBONA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MALIK "BOBBY" T. ALINGAN, RESPONDENTS.

[149] 616 Phil. 167 [ G.R. No. 179313. September 17, 2009 ] MAKIL U. PUNDAODAYA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARSENIO DENSING NOBLE, RESPONDENTS.

[150] 623 Phil. 628 [ G.R. No. 187478. December 21, 2009 ] REPRESENTATIVE DANILO RAMON S. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND JESUS L. VICENTE, RESPONDENTS.

[151] 686 Phil. 649 [ G.R. No. 193261. April 24, 2012 ] MEYNARDO SABILI, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND FLORENCIO LIBREA, RESPONDENTS.

[152] 794 Phil. 573 [ G.R. No. 210200. September 13, 2016 ] JULIET B. DANO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND MARIE KAREN JOY B. DIGAL, RESPONDENTS.

[153] In Re Ong Huan Tin, 126 Phil. 201 [G.R. No. L-20997. April 27, 1967].

[154] Yasin v. Honorable Judge Shari’a, 311 Phil. 696 [G.R. No. 94986. February 23, 1995].

[155] 494 Phil. 515 [ G.R. NO. 148311. March 31, 2005 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA HONORATO B. CATINDIG, PETITIONER.

[156] 562 Phil. 953 [ G.R. NO. 174689. October 19, 2007 ] ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[157] 586 Phil. 637 [ G.R. No. 166676. September 12, 2008 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, RESPONDENT.

[158] 652 Phil. 195 [ G.R. No. 186027. December 08, 2010 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MERLYN MERCADERA THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, EVELYN M. OGA, RESPONDENT.

[159] 726 Phil. 378 [ G.R. No. 189538. February 10, 2014 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, RESPONDENT.

[160] 823 Phil. 1090 [ G.R. No. 207074. January 17, 2018 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. MICHELLE SORIANO GALLO, RESPONDENT.

[161] 861 Phil. 388 [ G.R. No. 217910. September 03, 2019 ] JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III, PETITIONER, VS. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, RESPONDENT.

[162] 875 Phil. 665 [ G.R. No. 203371. June 30, 2020 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CHARLIE MINTAS FELIX, A.K.A. SHIRLEY MINTAS FELIX, RESPONDENT.

[163] 890 Phil. 74 [ G.R. No. 216425. November 11, 2020 ] ANACLETO BALLAHO ALANIS III, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND HON. GREGORIO V. DE LA PEÑA III, PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 12, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

[164] Republic v. Felix, 875 Phil. 665 [ G.R. No. 203371, June 30, 2020 ].

[165] 16 Phil. 137 [ G.R. No. 4718. March 19, 1910 ] SY JOC LIENG, SY YOC CHAY, SY JUI NIU AND SY CHUA NIU, PLAINTIFFS, APPELLEES AND APPELLANTS, VS. PETRONILA ENCARNACION, GKEGORIO SY QUIA, PEDRO SY QUIA, JUAN SY QUIA AND GENEROSO MENDOZA SY QUIA, DEFENDANTS, APPELLANTS AND APPELLEES.

[166] 29 Phil. 606 [ G.R.No. 7487. December 29, 1913 ] CONSTANZA YAFLEZ DE BARNUEVO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GABRIEL FUSTER, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[167] In the Matter of The Estate of Fannie May, Deceased. Alice M. Greenberg et al., Appellants; Sam May et al., Respondents, 305 N.Y. 486 (1953).

[168] 466 Phil. 1013 [ G.R. No. 145226. February 06, 2004 ] LUCIO MORIGO Y CACHO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[169] [ G.R. No. 247576. March 15, 2021 ] ROSARIO D. ADO-AN-MORIMOTO, PETITIONER, VS. YOSHIO MORIMOTO AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES RESPONDENTS.

[170] 43 Phil.43 [ G. R. No. 18081. March 03, 1922 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, DECEASED. MORA ADONG, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. CHEONG SENG GEE, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

[171] 223 Phil. 357 [ G.R. No. 68470. October 08, 1985 ] ALICE REYES VAN DORN, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH CX, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION PASAY CITY, AND RICHARD UPTON, RESPONDENTS.

[172] 256 Phil. 407 [ G.R. No. 80116. June 30, 1989 ] IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH XXVI; HON. LUIS C. VICTOR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA; AND ERICH EKKEHARD GEILING, RESPONDENTS.

[173] 384 Phil. 661 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000 ] ENGRACE NIÑAL FOR HERSELF AND AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINORS BABYLINE NIÑAL, INGRID NIÑAL, ARCHIE NIÑAL & PEPITO NIÑAL, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. NORMA BAYADOG, RESPONDENT.

[174] 418 Phil. 723 [ G.R. No. 138322. October 02, 2001 ] GRACE J. GARCIA, A.K.A. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, PETITIONER,VS. REDERICK A. RECIO, RESPONDENT.

[175] 507 Phil. 485 [ G.R. NO. 152577. September 21, 2005 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CRASUS L. IYOY, RESPONDENT.

[176] 509 Phil. 108 [ G.R. NO. 154380. October 05, 2005 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III, RESPONDENT.

[177] 642 Phil. 420 [ G.R. No. 186571. August 11, 2010 ] GERBERT R. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. DAISYLYN TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, RESPONDENTS.

[178] 625 Phil. 494 [ G.R. No. 168785. February 05, 2010 ] HERALD BLACK DACASIN, PETITIONER, VS. SHARON DEL MUNDO DACASIN, RESPONDENT.

[179] 712 Phil. 524 [ G.R. No. 196049. June 26, 2013 ] MINORU FUJIKI, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.

[180] 831 Phil. 33 [ G.R. No. 221029. April 24, 2018 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. MARELYN TANEDO MANALO, RESPONDENT.

[181] 846 Phil. 96 [ G.R. No. 224548. January 23, 2019 ] MARLYN MONTON NULLADA, PETITIONER, V. THE HON. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, AKIRA ITO, SHIN ITO AND ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR CLAIM ANY INTEREST, RESPONDENTS.

[182] [ G.R. No. 254484. November 24, 2021 ] IN RE: PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITH PRAYER TO CHANGE CIVIL STATUS OF JANEVIC ORTEZA ORDANEZA FROM MARRIED TO SINGLE, JANEVIC ORTEZA ORDANEZA, REPRESENTED BY: RICKY O. ORDANEZA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[183] [ G.R. No. 248355. November 23, 2021 ] MARICEL L. RIVERA, PETITIONER, VS. WOO NAMSUN* AND/OR OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

[184] [ G.R. No. 247297. August 17, 2022 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HELEN BAYOG-SAITO, THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY OF PASAY CITY AND THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE,* RESPONDENTS.

[185] G.R. No. 249238, February 27, 2024.

[186] 9 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1961).

[187] 749 PHIL. 823 [ G.R. No. 193707. December 10, 2014 ].

[188] The Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (HCCH 1993 Adoption Convention).

[189] [ G.R. No. L-11931. October 22, 1958 ] CHING LENG ALIAS CHING BAN LEE AND SO BUAN TY, PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. HON. EMILIO L. GALANG, AS COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT - APPELLEE.

[190] 117 Phil. 976 [ G. R. No. L-16922. April 30, 1963 ] IN RE: ADOPTION OF CHILD BAPTIZED UNDER THE NAME OF ROSE. MARVIN G. ELLIS AND GLORIA C. ELLIS, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

[191] 864 Phil. 59; 117 OG No. 5, 920 (February 1, 2021) [ G.R. No. 205752. October 01, 2019 ] IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF JAN AUREL MAGHANOY BULAYO WITH APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF ADOPTEE FROM "JAN AUREL MAGHANOY BULAYO" TO "JAN AUREL BULAYO KIMURA," SPOUSES MARY JANE B. KIMURA AND YUICHIRO KIMURA, PETITIONERS.

[192] 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

[193] 697 Phil. 10 [ G.R. No. 153478. October 10, 2012 ] MR HOLDINGS, LTD., PETITIONER, VS. SHERIFF CARLOS P. BAJAR, SHERIFF IV, RTC OF MANILA, BRANCH 26, CITADEL HOLDINGS, INC., VERCINGETORIX CORPORATION, MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AND MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

[194] 88 Phil. 260 (1951) [Per J. Jugo, {xxx}].

[195] 521 Phil. 263 (2006) [Per J. Tinga, Third Division].

[196] G.R. No. 262831, April 07, 2025 (Unreported as of August 17, 2025; found at < https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/262831.pdf>).

[197] The Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts (2015 Choice of Law Principles).

[198] Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations.

[199] 13 Phil. 236 [ G.R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909 ] THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. GEORGE I. FRANK, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[200] 191 Phil. 479 [ G.R. No. L-32116. April 21, 1981 ] RURAL BANK OF CALOOCAN, INC. AND JOSE O. DESIDERIO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAXIMA CASTRO, RESPONDENTS , quoted and cited in Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 211153, February 28, 2018.

[201] 285 PHIL. 734 EN BANC [ G.R. No. 101538. June 23, 1992 ] AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN, AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

[202] 629 Phil. 365 [ G.R. No. 171092. March 15, 2010 ] EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, PETITIONER, VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS, RESPONDENT.

[203] 268 Phil. 92 [ G.R. No. 61594. September 28, 1990 ] PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF LABOR; HON. VICENTE LEO­GRADO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY MINISTER; ETHELYNNE B. FARRALES AND MARIA MOONYEEN MAMASIG, RESPONDENTS.

[204] 273 Phil. 434 [ G.R. No. 93666. April 22, 1991 ] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION AND EARL TIMOTHY CONE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, HON. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, AND BASKETBALL COACHES ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

[205] 563 Phil. 1 [ G.R. No. 145587. October 26, 2007 ] EDI-STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ELEAZAR S. GRAN, RESPONDENTS.

[206] 832 Phil. 411 [ G.R. No. 205953. June 06, 2018 ] DIONELLA A. GOPIO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE, JOB ASIA MANAGEMENT SERVICES, PETITIONER, VS. SALVADOR B. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENTS.

[207] 846 Phil. 159 [ G.R. No. 226578. January 28, 2019 ] AUGUSTIN INTERNATIONAL CENTER, INC., PETITIONER, V. ELFRENITO B. BARTOLOME AND RUMBY L. YAMAT, RESPONDENTS.

[208] ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R.R. CO. V. CARROLL, 97 ALA. 126, 11 SO. 803 (1892).

[209] [ G.R. No. 448. September 20, 1902 ] THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. PHILIP K. SWEET, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[210] 46 Phil. 729 [ G.R. No. 18924. October 19, 1922 ] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. WONG CHENG (ALIAS WONG CHUN), DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

[211] Gray v. Gray, 87 N.H. 82, 174 A. 508 (N.H. 1934).

[212] Emery v. Emery, 45 Cal.2d 421, 289 P.2d 218 (Cal. 1955).

[213] Baker v. Gaffney, 141 F. Supp. 602 (D.D.C. 1956).

[214] [ G.R. No. L-21438. August 28, 1966 ] AIR FRANCE, PETITIONER, VS. RAFAEL CARRASCOSO AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

[215] 402 Mich. 234 (1978).

[216] ASAHI METAL INDUSTRY CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT, 480 U.S. 102, DECIDED ON FEBRUARY 24, 1987.

[217] 449 U.S. 302 (1981).

[218] [ G.R. No. 252578. December 07, 2021 ] ATTY. HOWARD M. CALLEJA, ATTY. JOSEPH PETER J. CALLEJA, ATTY. CHRISTOPHER JOHN P. LAO, DE LA SALLE BROTHERS INC., AS REPRESENTED BY BR. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, FSC, DR. REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, NAPOLEON L. SIONGCO, AND RAEYAN M. REPOSAR, PETITIONERS, VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, SECRETARY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL (AMLC), RESPONDENTS.

[219] United States v. Hecht, 16 F.2d 955 (2d Cir. 1927).

[220] 397 Phil. 423 EN BANC [ G.R. No. 139465. October 17, 2000 ] SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RALPH C. LANTION, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 25, AND MARK B. JIMENEZ, RESPONDENTS.

[221] 550 Phil. 63 [ G.R. NO. 153675. April 19, 2007 ] GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. AND JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, RESPONDENTS.

[222] Harrison v. Nixon, 34 U.S. 483 (1835).

[223] 39 Phil. 156 [ G.R. No. 12767. November 16, 1918 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EMIL H. JOHNSON, EBBA INGEBORG JOHNSON, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT.

[224] 43 Phil. 175 (1922) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].

[225] 43 Phil. 597 (1922) [Per Curiam, {xxx}].

[226] 50 Phil. 867 [ G.R. No. 22595. November 01, 1924 ] TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSEPH G. BRIMO. JUAN MICIANO, ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. ANDRE BRIMO, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

[227] 52 Phil. 130 [ G.R. No. 28328. October 02, 1928 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF JENNIE RIDER BABCOCK. BEATRICE BABCOCK TEMPLETON, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. WILLIAM RIDER BABCOCK, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

[228] 54 Phil. 610 [ G. R. No. L-32636. March 17, 1930 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD RANDOLPH HIX, DECEASED. A. W. FLUEMER, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. ANNIE COUSINS HIX, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

[229] 100 Phil. 593 [ G.R. No. L-8409. December 28, 1956 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE OF THE DECEASED ANDRES EUSEBIO. EUGENIO EUSEBIO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. AMANDA EUSEBIO, VIRGINIA EUSEBIO, JUAN EUSEBIO, DELPIN EUSEBIO, VICENTE EUSEBIO, AND CARLOS EUSEBIO, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

[230] 117 Phil. 96 [ G. R. No. L-16749. January 31, 1963 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, DECEASED. ADOLFO C. AZNAR, EXECUTOR AND LUCY CHRISTENSEN, HEIR OF THE DECEASED, EXECUTOR AND HEIR-APPELLEES, VS. HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

[231] 214 Phil. 460 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. L-54919. May 30, 1984 ] POLLY CAYETANO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRE­SIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH XXXVIII; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA AND NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA, RESPONDENTS.

[232] 306 Phil. 500 [ G.R. No. 106720. September 15, 1994 ] SPOUSES ROBERTO AND THELMA AJERO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND CLEMENTE SAND, RESPONDENTS.

[233] 302 Phil. 764 [ G.R. No. 76714. June 02, 1994 ] SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ZOTICO A. TOLETE IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 18, RTC, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

[234] 399 Phil. 342 [ G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000 ] PAULA T. LLORENTE, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALICIA F. LLORENTE, RESPONDENTS.

[235] 618 Phil. 634 [ G.R. No. 182836. October 13, 2009 ] CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO AND NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION-SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER), RESPONDENTS.

[236] 655 Phil. 535 [ G.R. No. 169144. January 26, 2011 ] IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF RUPERTA PALAGANAS WITH PRAYER FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR, MANUEL MIGUEL PALAGANAS AND BENJAMIN GREGORIO PALAGANAS, PETITIONERS, VS. ERNESTO PALAGANAS, RESPONDENT.

[237] 723 Phil. 114 [ G.R. No. 184621. December 10, 2013 ] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA FE ESPINOSA CANTOR, RESPONDENT.

[238] 780 Phil. 317 [ G.R. No. 198994. February 03, 2016 ] IRIS MORALES, PETITIONER, VS. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ, ALFONSO JUAN OLONDRIZ, JR., ALEJANDRO MORENO OLONDRIZ, ISABEL ROSA OLONDRIZ AND FRANCISCO JAVIER MARIA OLONDRIZ, RESPONDENTS.

[239] 890 Phil. 819 [ G.R. No. 229010. November 23, 2020 ] IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO APPROVE THE WILL OF LUZ GASPE LIPSON AND ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY, ROEL P. GASPI, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE MARIA CLARISSA L. PACIS-TRINIDAD, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, IRIGA CITY,* RESPONDENT.

[240] 59 Phil. 293 [ G.R. No. 35694. December 23, 1933 ] ALLISON D. GIBBS, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

[241] 70 Phil. 325 [ G.R. No. 46720. June 28, 1940 ] WELLS FARGO' BANK & UNION TRUST COMPANY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

[242] 141 Phil. 621 [ G.R. No. L-26379. December 27, 1969 ] WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ETC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

[243] 241 Phil. 689 [ G.R. No. 72443. January 29, 1988 ] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. AIR INDIA AND THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

[244] 67 Phil. 139 [ G.R. No. 45144. April 03, 1939 ] M. E. GREY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

[245] 89 Phil. 54 [ G. R. No. L-2294. May 25, 1951 ] FILIPINAS COMPAniA DE SEGUROS, PETITIONER, VS. CHRISTERN, HUENEFEID & CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

[246] 668 Phil. 1 [ G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011 ] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[247] [ G.R. No. 65366. November 09, 1983 ] JOSE B.L. REYES, IN BEHALF OF THE ANTI-BASES COALITION (ABC), PETITIONER, VS. RAMON BAGATSING, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

[248] 288 Phil. 1028 THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 97765. September 24, 1992 ] KHOSROW MINUCHER, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND ARTHUR W. SCALZO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

[249] 292 Phil. 200 [ G.R. No. 79253. March 01, 1993 ] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND MAXINE BRADFORD, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. LUIS R. REYES, AS PRE­SIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 22, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAVITE, AND NELIA T. MONTOYA, RESPONDENTS.

[250] 380 Phil. 673 [ G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000 ] JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[251] 407 Phil. 414 [ G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001 ] JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[252] 407 Phil. 414 [ G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001 ] JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

[253] 445 Phil. 250 [ G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003 ] KHOSROW MINUCHER, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ARTHUR SCALZO, RESPONDENTS.

[254] 452 Phil. 1100 [ G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003 ] THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, AND MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, PETITIONERS, VS. JAMES VINZON, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, RESPONDENT.

[255] 34 Phil. 311 [ G.R. No. 11154. March 21, 1916 ] E. MERRITT, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

[256] United States ex rel. Mayo v. Satan and his Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (W.D. Pa. 1971).

[257] 261 Phil. 777 [ G.R. No. 76607. February 26, 1990 ] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FREDERICK M. SMOUSE AND YVONNE REEVES, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH LVII, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANGELES CITY, ROBERTO T. VALENCIA, EMERENCIANA C. TANGLAO, AND PABLO C. DEL PILAR, RESPONDENTS.

[258] 284-A PHIL. 842 [ G.R. No. 74135. May 28, 1992 ] M. H. WYLIE AND CAPT. JAMES WILLIAMS, PETITIONERS, VS. AURORA I. RARANG AND THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, RESPONDENTS.

[259] 298 Phil. 491 [ G.R. No. 104269. November 11, 1993 ] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PETITIONER, VS. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

[260] 308 Phil. 547 [ G.R. No. 101949. December 01, 1994 ] THE HOLY SEE, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI, BRANCH 61 AND STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

[261] 407 Phil. 53 [ G.R. No. 131544. March 16, 2001 ] EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., CIPER ELECTRICAL & ENGINEERING, SEPTA CONSTRUCTION CO., PHIL. PLUMBING CO., HOME CONSTRUCTION INC., WORLD BUILDERS CO., GLASS WORLD INC., PERFORMANCE BUILDERS DEV'T. CO., DE LEON-ARANETA CONST. CO., J.D. MACAPAGAL CONST. CO., ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTY. IN FACT, MARCELO D, FORONDA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, RESPONDENT.

[262] 643 Phil. 657 [ G.R. No. 186192. August 25, 2010 ] THE HEIRS OF MATEO PIDACAN AND ROMANA BIGO, NAMELY: PACITA PIDACAN VDA. DE ZUBIRI AND ADELA PIDACAN VDA. DE ROBLES, PETITIONERS, VS. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING DIRECTOR BIENVENIDO MANGA, RESPONDENT.

[263] 654 Phil. 755 [ G.R. No. 180388. January 18, 2011 ] GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), DPWH UNDERSECRETARIES TEODORO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO E. ENCARNACION AND EDMUNDO V. MIR, DPWH ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOEL L. ALTEA, DPWH REGIONAL DIRECTOR VICENTE B. LOPEZ, DPWH DISTRICT ENGINEER ANGELITO M. TWAÑO, FELIX A. DESIERTO OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP VALIDATION AND AUDITING TEAM, AND LEONARDO ALVARO, ROMEO N. SUPAN, VICTORINO C. SANTOS OF THE DPWH PAMPANGA 2ND ENGINEERING DISTRICT, PETITIONERS, VS. ARNULFO D. AQUINO, RESPONDENT.

[264] 704 Phil. 432 [ G.R. No. 182358. February 20, 2013 ] THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, AND MA. MARGARITA M. GALON, PETITIONERS, VS. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH, INC., RESPONDENT.

Related Posts