G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 SALVADOR H. LAUREL, petitione , !".

RA#ON GAR$%A, &" 'e&( o) t'e A""et * i!&ti+&tion , u"t, RAUL #ANGLA*US, &" Se- et& y o) .o ei/n A))&i ", &n( $A,AL%NO #A$ARA%G, &" E0e-uti!e Se- et& y, e"pon(ent". G.R. No. 92012 July 25, 1990 D%ON%S%O S. OJEDA, petitione , !". E3E$U,%VE SE$RE,AR4 #A$ARA%G, JR., ASSE,S *R%VA,%5A,%ON ,RUS, $HA%R#AN RA#ON ,. GAR$%A, A#6ASSADOR RA#ON DEL ROSAR%O, et &l., &" 7e78e " o) t'e *R%N$%*AL AND
Page | 1

6%DD%NG $O##%,,EES ON ,HE U,%L%5A,%ON9D%S*OS%,%ON *E,%,%ON O. *H%L%**%NE GOVERN#EN, *RO*ER,%ES %N JA*AN, e"pon(ent". Arturo M. Tolentino for petitioner in 92013. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: These are two petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from proceeding with the bidding for the sa e of the !,"#$ s%&are meters of and at !'( Roppongi, )*+home ,inato*k& Tok-o, Japan sched& ed on .ebr&ar/", "$$'. 0e granted the pra-er for a temporar- restraining order effective .ebr&ar- /', "$$'. 1ne of the petitioners 2in G.R. 3o. $/'4#5 ikewise
Page | 2

pra-es for a writ of mandam&s to compe the respondents to f& - disc ose to the p&b ic the basis of their decision to p&sh thro&gh with the sa e of the Roppongi propert- inspire of strong p&b ic opposition and to e6p ain the proceedings which effective - prevent the participation of .i ipino citi7ens and entities in the bidding process. The ora arg&ments in G.R. 3o. $/'"!, Laurel v. Garcia, et al. were heard b- the +o&rt on ,arch "!, "$$'. 8fter G.R. 3o. $/'4#, Ojeda v. ecretar! Macarai", et al. was fi ed, the respondents were re%&ired to fi e a comment b- the +o&rt9s reso &tion dated .ebr&ar- //, "$$'. The two petitions were conso idated on ,arch /#, "$$'
Page | 3

when the memoranda of the parties in the Laurel case were de iberated &pon. The +o&rt co& d not act on these cases immediate - beca&se the respondents fi ed a motion for an e6tension of thirt2!'5 da-s to fi e comment in G.R. 3o. $/'4#, fo owed b- a second motion for an e6tension of another thirt- 2!'5 da-s which we granted on ,a- :, "$$', a third motion for e6tension of time granted on ,a- /4, "$$' and a fo&rth motion for e6tension of time which we granted on J&ne ), "$$' b&t ca ing the attention of the respondents to the ength of time the petitions have been pending. 8fter the comment was fi ed, the petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'4# asked for thirt- 2!'5 da-s to fi e a rep -. 0e
Page | 4

noted his motion and reso ved to decide the two 2/5 cases. I The s&bject propert- in this case is one of the fo&r 245 properties in Japan ac%&ired b- the ;hi ippine government &nder the Reparations 8greement entered into with Japan on ,a- $, "$)(, the other ots being< 2"5 The 3ampeidai ;ropert- at ""*/4 3ampeidai*machi, =hib&-a*k&, Tok-o which has an area of appro6imate /,4:$.$( s%&are meters, and is at present the site of the ;hi ippine Embass- +hancer-> 2/5 The ?obe +ommercia ;ropert- at (! 3aniwa*cho, ?obe, with an area of aro&nd #(4.#/ s%&are meters and
Page | 5

categori7ed as a commercia ot now being &sed as a wareho&se and parking ot for the cons& ate staff> and 2!5 The ?obe Residentia ;ropert- at "* $:'*/ 1bano-ama*cho, =hinohara, 3ada*k&, ?obe, a residentia ot which is now vacant. The properties and the capita goods and services proc&red from the Japanese government for nationa deve opment projects are part of the indemnification to the .i ipino peop e for their osses in ife and propert- and their s&ffering d&ring 0or d 0ar II. The Reparations 8greement provides that reparations va &ed at @))' mi ion wo& d be pa-ab e in twent- 2/'5 -ears in accordance with ann&a sched& es of
Page | 6

proc&rements to be fi6ed b- the ;hi ippine and Japanese governments 28rtic e /, Reparations 8greement5. Rep. 8ct 3o. "#:$, the Reparations Aaw, prescribes the nationa po ic- on proc&rement and &ti i7ation of reparations and deve opment oans. The proc&rements are divided into those for &se b- the "overn#ent $ector and those for private partie$ in projects as the then 3ationa Economic +o&nci sha determine. Those intended for the private sector sha be made avai ab e b- sa e to .i ipino citi7ens or to one h&ndred 2"''B5 percent .i ipino*owned entities in nationa deve opment projects. The Roppongi propert- was ac%&ired from the Japanese government &nder
Page | 7

the =econd Cear =ched& e and isted &nder the heading DGovernment =ectorD, thro&gh Reparations +ontract 3o. !'' dated J&ne /#, "$):. The Roppongi propert- consists of the and and b&i ding Dfor the +hancer- of the ;hi ippine Embass-D 28nne6 ,*E to ,emorand&m for ;etitioner, p. )'!5. 8s intended, it became the site of the ;hi ippine Embass- &nti the atter was transferred to 3ampeidai on J& - //, "$#( when the Roppongi b&i ding needed major repairs. E&e to the fai &re of o&r government to provide necessarf&nds, the Roppongi propert- has remained &ndeve oped since that time. 8 proposa was presented to ;resident +ora7on +. 8%&ino b- former ;hi ippine 8mbassador to Japan, +ar os J. Fa de7,
Page | 8

to make the propert- the s&bject of a ease agreement with a Japanese firm * ?ajima +orporation G which sha constr&ct two 2/5 b&i dings in Roppongi and one 2"5 b&i ding in 3ampeidai and renovate the present ;hi ippine +hancerin 3ampeidai. The consideration of the constr&ction wo& d be the ease to the foreign corporation of one 2"5 of the b&i dings to be constr&cted in Roppongi and the two 2/5 b&i dings in 3ampeidai. The other b&i ding in Roppongi sha then be &sed as the ;hi ippine Embass- +hancer-. 8t the end of the ease period, a the three eased b&i dings sha be occ&pied and &sed b- the ;hi ippine government. 3o change of ownership or tit e sha occ&r. 2=ee 8nne6 DHD to Rep - to +omment5 The ;hi ippine government retains the
Page | 9

tit e a thro&gho&t the ease period and thereafter. Iowever, the government has not acted favorab - on this proposa which is pending approva and ratification between the parties. Instead, on 8&g&st "", "$:(, ;resident 8%&ino created a committee to st&d- the dispositionJ&ti i7ation of ;hi ippine government properties in Tok-o and ?obe, Japan thro&gh 8dministrative 1rder 3o. !, fo owed b- 8dministrative 1rders 3&mbered !*8, H, + and E. 1n J& - /), "$:#, the ;resident iss&ed E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( entit ing non* .i ipino citi7ens or entities to avai of separations9 capita goods and services in the event of sa e, ease or disposition. The fo&r properties in Japan inc &ding
Page | 10

the Roppongi were specifica mentioned in the first D0hereasD c a&se. 8midst opposition b- vario&s sectors, the E6ec&tive branch of the government has been p&shing, with great vigor, its decision to se the reparations properties starting with the Roppongi ot. The propert- has twice been set for bidding at a minim&m f oor price of @//) mi ion. The first bidding was a fai &re since on - one bidder %&a ified. The second one, after postponements, has not -et materia i7ed. The ast sched& ed bidding on .ebr&ar- /", "$$' was restrained b- his +o&rt. Aater, the r& es on bidding were changed s&ch that the @//) mi ion f oor price became mere - a s&ggested f oor price.
Page | 11

The +o&rt finds that each of the herein petitions raises distinct iss&es. The petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'"! objects to the a ienation of the Roppongi propertto an-one whi e the petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'4# adds as a principa objection the a eged &nj&stified bias of the ;hi ippine government in favor of se ing the propert- to non*.i ipino citi7ens and entities. These petitions have been conso idated and are reso ved at the same time for the objective is the same * to stop the sa e of the Roppongi propert-. The petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'"! raises the fo owing iss&es< 2"5 +an the Roppongi propert- and others of its kind be a ienated b- the ;hi ippine GovernmentK> and
Page | 12

2/5 Eoes the +hief E6ec&tive, her officers and agents, have the a&thoritand j&risdiction, to se the Roppongi propert-K ;etitioner Eionisio 1jeda in G.R. 3o. $/'4#, apart from %&estioning the a&thorit- of the government to a ienate the Roppongi propert- assai s the constit&tiona it- of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( in making the propert- avai ab e for sa e to non*.i ipino citi7ens and entities. Ie a so %&estions the bidding proced&res of the +ommittee on the Uti i7ation or Eisposition of ;hi ippine Government ;roperties in Japan for being discriminator- against .i ipino citi7ens and .i ipino*owned entities bden-ing them the right to be informed abo&t the bidding re%&irements.
Page | 13

II In G.%. &o. 92013, petitioner Aa&re asserts that the Roppongi propert- and the re ated ots were ac%&ired as part of the reparations from the Japanese government for dip omatic and cons& ar &se b- the ;hi ippine government. Fice* ;resident Aa&re states that the Roppongi propert- is c assified as one of p&b ic dominion, and not of private ownership &nder 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode 2=ee infra5. The petitioner s&bmits that the Roppongi propertcomes &nder Dpropert- intended for p&b ic serviceD in paragraph / of the above provision. Ie states that being one of p&b ic dominion, no ownership b- an- one can attach to it, not even b- the =tate. The Roppongi
Page | 14

and re ated properties were ac%&ired for Dsites for chancer-, dip omatic, and cons& ar %&arters, b&i dings and other improvementsD 2=econd Cear Reparations =ched& e5. The petitioner states that the- contin&e to be intended for a necessar- service. The- are he d b- the =tate in anticipation of an opport&ne &se. 2+iting ! ,anresa ()* ((5. Ience, it cannot be appropriated, is o&tside the commerce of man, or to p&t it in more simp e terms, it cannot be a ienated nor be the s&bject matter of contracts 2+iting ,&nicipa it- of +avite v. Rojas, !' ;hi . /' L"$")M5. 3oting the non*&se of the Roppongi propert- at the moment, the petitioner avers that the same remains propert- of p&b ic dominion so ong as the government has not &sed it for other p&rposes nor
Page | 15

adopted an- meas&re constit&ting a remova of its origina p&rpose or &se. The respondents, for their part, ref&te the petitioner9s contention b- sa-ing that the s&bject propert- is not governed bo&r +ivi +ode b&t b- the aws of Japan where the propert- is ocated. The- re &pon the r& e of le' $itu$ which is &sed in determining the app icab e aw regarding the ac%&isition, transfer and devo &tion of the tit e to a propert-. Thea so invoke 1pinion 3o. /", =eries of "$::, dated Jan&ar- /#, "$:: of the =ecretar- of J&stice which &sed the le' $itu$ in e6p aining the inapp icabi it- of ;hi ippine aw regarding a propertsit&ated in Japan. The respondents add that even ass&ming for the sake of arg&ment that
Page | 16

the +ivi +ode is app icab e, the Roppongi propert- has ceased to become propert- of p&b ic dominion. It has become patrimonia propertbeca&se it has not been &sed for p&b ic service or for dip omatic p&rposes for over thirteen 2"!5 -ears now 2+iting 8rtic e 4//, +ivi +ode5 and beca&se the intention bthe E6ec&tive Eepartment and the +ongress to convert it to private u$e has been manifested b- overt acts, s&ch as, among others< 2"5 the transfer of the ;hi ippine Embass- to 3ampeidai 2/5 the iss&ance of administrative orders for the possibi it- of a ienating the fo&r government properties in Japan> 2!5 the iss&ance of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(> 245 the enactment b- the +ongress of Rep. 8ct 3o. (()# Lthe +omprehensive
Page | 17

8grarian Reform AawM on J&ne "', "$:: which contains a provision stating that f&nds ma- be taken from the sa e of ;hi ippine properties in foreign co&ntries> 2)5 the ho ding of the p&b ic bidding of the Roppongi propert- b&t which fai ed> 2(5 the deferment b- the =enate in Reso &tion 3o. )) of the bidding to a f&t&re date> th&s an acknow edgment b- the =enate of the government9s intention to remove the Roppongi propert- from the p&b ic service p&rpose> and 2#5 the reso &tion of this +o&rt dismissing the petition in Ojeda v. (iddin" )o##ittee, et al., G.R. 3o. :#4#: which so&ght to enjoin the second bidding of the Roppongi propert- sched& ed on ,arch !', "$:$. III
Page | 18

In G.%. &o. 9*0*+, petitioner 1jeda once more asks this +o&rt to r& e on the constit&tiona it- of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(. Ie had ear ier fi ed a petition in G.R. 3o. :#4#: which the +o&rt dismissed on 8&g&st ", "$:$. Ie now avers that the e6ec&tive order contravenes the constit&tiona mandate to conserve and deve op the nationa patrimon- stated in the ;reamb e of the "$:# +onstit&tion. It a so a eged vio ates< 2"5 The reservation of the ownership and ac%&isition of a ienab e ands of the p&b ic domain to .i ipino citi7ens. 2=ections / and !, 8rtic e NII, +onstit&tion> =ections // and /! of +ommonwea th 8ct "4"5.i,t,c-a.$l
Page | 19

2/5 The preference for .i ipino citi7ens in the grant of rights, privi eges and concessions covering the nationa econom- and patrimon- 2=ection "', 8rtic e FI, +onstit&tion5> 2!5 The protection given to .i ipino enterprises against &nfair competition and trade practices> 245 The g&arantee of the right of the peop e to information on a matters of p&b ic concern 2=ection #, 8rtic e III, +onstit&tion5> 2)5 The prohibition against the sa e to non*.i ipino citi7ens or entities not who - owned b- .i ipino citi7ens of capita goods received bthe ;hi ippines &nder the Reparations 8ct
Page | 20

2=ections / and "/ of Rep. 8ct 3o. "#:$5> and 2(5 The dec aration of the state po ic- of f& p&b ic disc os&re of a transactions invo ving p&b ic interest 2=ection /:, 8rtic e III, +onstit&tion5. ;etitioner 1jeda warns that the &se of p&b ic f&nds in the e6ec&tion of an &nconstit&tiona e6ec&tive order is a misapp ication of p&b ic f&nds Ie states that since the detai s of the bidding for the Roppongi propert- were never pu/licl! di$clo$ed &nti .ebr&ar- "), "$$' 2or a few da-s before the sched& ed bidding5, the bidding g&ide ines are avai ab e on - in Tok-o, and the accomp ishment of re%&irements and the se ection of %&a ified bidders sho& d be done in
Page | 21

Tok-o, interested .i ipino citi7ens or entities owned b- them did not have the chance to comp - with ;&rchase 1ffer Re%&irements on the Roppongi. 0orse, the Roppongi sha be so d for a minim&m price of @//) mi ion from which price capita gains ta6 &nder Japanese aw of abo&t )' to #'B of the f oor price wo& d sti be ded&cted. IF The petitioners and respondents in both cases do not disp&te the fact that the Roppongi site and the three re ated properties were thro&gh reparations agreements, that these were assigned to the government sector and that the Roppongi propert- itse f was specifica designated &nder the Reparations
Page | 22

8greement to ho&se the ;hi ippine Embass-. The nat&re of the Roppongi ot as propert- for p&b ic service is e6press spe ed o&t. It is dictated b- the terms of the Reparations 8greement and the corresponding contract of proc&rement which bind both the ;hi ippine government and the Japanese government. There can be no do&bt that it is of p&b ic dominion &n ess it is convincing - shown that the properthas become patrimonia . This, the respondents have fai ed to do. 8s propert- of p&b ic dominion, the Roppongi ot is o&tside the commerce of man. It cannot be a ienated. Its
Page | 23

ownership is a specia co ective ownership for genera &se and enjo-ment, an app ication to the satisfaction of co ective needs, and resides in the socia gro&p. The p&rpose is not to serve the =tate as a j&ridica person, b&t the citi7ens> it is intended for the common and p&b ic we fare and cannot be the object of appropration. 2Taken from ! ,anresa, ((*($> cited in To entino, +ommentaries on the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, "$(! Edition, Fo . II, p. /(5. The app icab e provisions of the +ivi +ode are< 8RT. 4"$. ;ropert- is either of p&b ic dominion or of private ownership.
Page | 24

8RT. 4/'. The fo owing things are propert- of p&b ic dominion 2"5 Those intended for p&b ic &se, s&ch as roads, cana s, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constr&cted b- the =tate, banks shores roadsteads, and others of simi ar character> 2/5 Those which be ong to the =tate, witho&t being for p&b ic &se, and are intended for some p&b ic service or for the deve opment of the nationa wea th. 8RT. 4/". 8 other propert- of the =tate, which is not of the character stated in the preceding artic e, is patrimonia propert-.
Page | 25

The Roppongi propert- is correct c assified &nder paragraph / of 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode as propertbe onging to the =tate and intended for some p&b ic service. Ias the intention of the government regarding the &se of the propert- been changed beca&se the ot has been Id e for some -earsK Ias it become patrimonia K The fact that the Roppongi site has not been &sed for a ong time for act&a Embass- service does not a&tomatica convert it to patrimonia propert-. 8ns&ch conversion happens on - if the propert- is withdrawn from p&b ic &se 2+eb& 16-gen and 8cet- ene +o. v. Herci es, (( =+R8 4:" L"$#)M5. 8 propert- contin&es to be part of the
Page | 26

p&b ic domain, not avai ab e for private appropriation or ownership &nti there is a forma dec aration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being s&ch 2Ignacio v. Eirector of Aands, "': ;hi . !!) L"$('M5. The respondents en&merate vario&s prono&ncements b- concerned p&b ic officia s insin&ating a change of intention. 0e emphasi7e, however, that an abandonment of the intention to &se the Roppongi propert- for p&b ic service and to make it patrimonia propert&nder 8rtic e 4// of the +ivi +ode #u$t /e definite 8bandonment cannot be inferred from the non*&se a one specia - if the non*&se was attrib&tab e not to the government9s own de iberate and ind&bitab e wi b&t to a ack of
Page | 27

financia s&pport to repair and improve the propert- 2=ee Ieirs of .e ino =antiago v. Aa7aro, "(( =+R8 !(: L"$::M5. 8bandonment m&st be a certain and positive act based on correct ega premises. 8 mere transfer of the ;hi ippine Embass- to 3ampeidai in "$#( is not re in%&ishment of the Roppongi propert-9s origina p&rpose. Even the fai &re b- the government to repair the b&i ding in Roppongi is not abandonment since as ear ier stated, there simp - was a shortage of government f&nds. The recent 8dministrative 1rders a&thori7ing a st&d- of the stat&s and conditions of government properties in Japan were mere - directives for investigation b&t
Page | 28

did not in an- wa- signif- a c ear intention to dispose of the properties. E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(, tho&gh its tit e dec ares an Da&thorit- to se D, does not have a provision in its te6t e6press a&thori7ing the sa e of the fo&r properties proc&red from Japan for the government sector. The e6ec&tive order does not dec are that the properties ost their p&b ic character. It mere - intends to make the properties availa/le to foreigners and not to .i ipinos a one in ca$e of a $ale, ease or other disposition. It mere - e iminates the restriction &nder Rep. 8ct 3o. "#:$ that reparations goods ma- be so d on - to .i ipino citi7ens and one h&ndred 2"''B5 percent .i ipino*owned entities.
Page | 29

The te6t of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( provides< =ection ". The provisions of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. "#:$, as amended, and of other aws to the contrarnotwithstanding, the above*mentioned properties can be made avai ab e for sa e, ease or an- other manner of disposition to non*.i ipino citi7ens or to entities owned b- non*.i ipino citi7ens. E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( is based on the wrong premise or ass&mption that the Roppongi and the three other properties were ear ier converted into a ienab e rea properties. 8s ear ier stated, Rep. 8ct 3o. "#:$ differentiates the proc&rements for the government
Page | 30

sector and the private sector 2=ections / and "/, Rep. 8ct 3o. "#:$5. 1n - the private sector properties can be so d to end*&sers who m&st be .i ipinos or entities owned b- .i ipinos. It is this nationa itprovision which was amended b- E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(. =ection (! 2c5 of Rep. 8ct 3o. (()# 2the +8R; Aaw5 which provides as one of the so&rces of f&nds for its imp ementation, the proceeds of the disposition of the properties of the Government in foreign co&ntries, did not withdraw the Roppongi propert- from being c assified as one of p&b ic dominion when it mentions ;hi ippine properties abroad. =ection (! 2c5 refers to properties which are a ienab e and not to those reserved for p&b ic &se or
Page | 31

service. Rep 8ct 3o. (()#, therefore, does not a&thori7e the E6ec&tive Eepartment to se the Roppongi propert-. It mere - en&merates possib e so&rces of f&t&re f&nding to a&gment 2as and when needed5 the 8grarian Reform .&nd created &nder E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$$. 1bvio&s - an- propert- o&tside of the commerce of man cannot be tapped as a so&rce of f&nds. The respondents tr- to get aro&nd the p&b ic dominion character of the Roppongi propert- b- insisting that Japanese aw and not o&r +ivi +ode sho& d app -. It is e6ceeding - strange wh- o&r top government officia s, of a peop e, sho& d be the ones to insist that in the sa e of e6treme - va &ab e government
Page | 32

propert-, Japanese aw and not ;hi ippine aw sho& d prevai . The Japanese aw * its coverage and effects, when enacted, and e6ceptions to its provision G is not presented to the +o&rt It is simp - asserted that the le' loci rei $itae or Japanese aw sho& d app - witho&t stating what that aw provides. It is a ed on faith that Japanese aw wo& d a ow the sa e. 0e see no reason wh- a conf ict of aw r& e sho& d app - when no conf ict of aw sit&ation e6ists. 8 conf ict of aw sit&ation arises on - when< 2"5 There is a disp&te over the title or o0ner$1ip of an immovab e, s&ch that the capacit- to take and transfer immovab es, the forma ities of conve-ance, the essentia va idit- and effect of the transfer, or the
Page | 33

interpretation and effect of a conve-ance, are to be determined 2=ee =a onga, 2rivate 3nternational La0, "$:" ed., pp. !##*!:!5> and 2/5 8 foreign aw on and ownership and its conve-ance is asserted to conf ict with a domestic aw on the same matters. Ience, the need to determine which aw sho& d app -. In the instant case, none of the above e ements e6ists. The iss&es are not concerned with va idit- of ownership or tit e. There is no %&estion that the propert- be ongs to the ;hi ippines. The iss&e is the a&thorit- of the respondent officia s to va id dispose of propert- be onging to the =tate. 8nd the va idit- of the proced&res adopted to effect its sa e. This is
Page | 34

governed b- ;hi ippine Aaw. The r& e of le' $itu$ does not app -. The assertion that the opinion of the =ecretar- of J&stice sheds ight on the re evance of the le' $itu$r& e is misp aced. The opinion does not tack e the aliena/ilit! of the rea properties proc&red thro&gh reparations nor the e6istence in what bod- of the a&thoritto se them. In disc&ssing who are capab eof ac4uirin" the ots, the =ecretar- mere - e6p ains that it is the foreign aw which sho& d determine 01o can ac4uire t1e propertie$ so that the constit&tiona imitation on ac%&isition of ands of the p&b ic domain to .i ipino citi7ens and entities who - owned b.i ipinos is inapp icab e. 0e see no point in be aboring whether or not this
Page | 35

opinion is correct. 0h- sho& d we disc&ss who can ac%&ire the Roppongi ot when there is no showing that it can be so dK The s&bse%&ent approva on 1ctober 4, "$:: b- ;resident 8%&ino of the recommendation b- the investigating committee to se the Roppongi propertwas premat&re or, at the ver- east, conditioned on a va id change in the p&b ic character of the Roppongi propert-. ,oreover, the approva does not have the force and effect of aw since the ;resident a read- ost her egis ative powers. The +ongress had a read- convened for more than a -ear. 8ss&ming for the sake of arg&ment, however, that the Roppongi propert- is no onger of p&b ic dominion, there is
Page | 36

another obstac e to its sa e b- the respondents. T1ere i$ no conve!ance. la0 aut1ori5in" it$

=ection #$ 2f5 of the Revised 8dministrative +ode of "$"# provides =ection #$ 2f 5 )onve!ance$ and contract$ to 01ic1 t1e Govern#ent i$ a part!. 6 In cases in which the Government of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines is a part- to an- deed or other instr&ment conve-ing the tit e to rea estate or to an- other propert- the va &e of which is in e6cess of one h&ndred tho&sand pesos, the respective Eepartment =ecretar- sha prepare the necessar- papers which, together
Page | 37

with the proper recommendations, $1all /e $u/#itted to t1e )on"re$$ of t1e 21ilippine$ for approval /! t1e $a#e. =&ch deed, instr&ment, or contract sha be e6ec&ted and signed b- the ;resident of the ;hi ippines on beha f of the Government of the ;hi ippines &n ess the Government of the ;hi ippines &n ess the a&thorittherefor be e6press - vested baw in another officer. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 The re%&irement has been retained in =ection 4:, Hook I of the 8dministrative +ode of "$:# 2E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$/5.
Page | 38

=E+. 4:. Official Aut1ori5ed to )onve! %eal 2ropert!. G 0henever rea propert- of the Government is aut1ori5ed /! la0 to /e conve!ed, the deed of conve-ance sha be e6ec&ted in beha f of the government b- the fo owing< 2"5 .or propert- be onging to and tit ed in the name of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, b- the ;resident, &n ess the a&thorittherefor is e6press - vested b- aw in another officer. 2/5 .or propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines b&t tit ed in the name of an- po itica s&bdivision or of an- corporate agenc- or instr&menta it-, b- the
Page | 39

e6ec&tive head of the agenc- or instr&menta it-. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 It is not for the ;resident to conveva &ab e rea propert- of the government on his or her own so e wi . 8n- s&ch conve-ance m&st be a&thori7ed and approved b- a aw enacted b- the +ongress. It re%&ires e6ec&tive and egis ative conc&rrence. Reso &tion 3o. )) of the =enate dated J&ne :, "$:$, asking for the deferment of the sa e of the Roppongi propertdoes not withdraw the propert- from p&b ic domain m&ch ess a&thori7e its sa e. It is a mere reso &tion> it is not a forma dec aration abandoning the p&b ic character of the Roppongi propert-. In fact, the =enate +ommittee
Page | 40

on .oreign Re ations is cond&cting hearings on =enate Reso &tion 3o. #!4 which raises serio&s po icconsiderations and ca s for a fact* finding investigation of the circ&mstances behind the decision to se the ;hi ippine government properties in Japan. The reso &tion of this +o&rt in Ojeda v. (iddin" )o##ittee, et al., $upra, did not pass &pon the constit&tiona it- of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(. +ontrar- to respondents9 assertion, we did not &pho d the a&thorit- of the ;resident to se the Roppongi propert-. The +o&rt stated that the constit&tiona it- of the e6ec&tive order was not the rea iss&e and that reso ving the constit&tiona %&estion was Dneither necessar- nor
Page | 41

fina - determinative of the case.D The +o&rt noted that DL0Mhat petitioner & timate - %&estions is the &se of the proceeds of the disposition of the Roppongi propert-.D In emphasi7ing that Dthe decision of the E6ec&tive to dispose of the Roppongi propert- to finance the +8R; ... cannot be %&estionedD in view of =ection (! 2c5 of Rep. 8ct 3o. (()#, the +o&rt did not acknow edge the fact that the propert- became a ienab e nor did it indicate that the ;resident was a&thori7ed to dispose of the Roppongi propert-. The reso &tion sho& d be read to mean that in case the Roppongi propert- is re*c assified to be patrimonia and a ienab e b- a&thorit- of aw, the proceeds of a sa e ma- be &sed for nationa economic deve opment projects inc &ding the +8R;.
Page | 42

,oreover, the sa e in "$:$ did not materia i7e. The petitions before &s %&estion the proposed "$$' sa e of the Roppongi propert-. 0e are reso ving the iss&es raised in these petitions, not the iss&es raised in "$:$. Iaving dec ared a need for a aw or forma dec aration to withdraw the Roppongi propert- from p&b ic domain to make it a ienab e and a need for egis ative a&thorit- to a ow the sa e of the propert-, we see no compe ing reason to tack e the constit&tiona iss&es raised b- petitioner 1jeda. The +o&rt does not ordinari - pass &pon constit&tiona %&estions &n ess these %&estions are proper - raised in appropriate cases and their reso &tion is necessar- for the determination of the
Page | 43

case 2;eop e v. Fera, () ;hi . )( L"$!#M5. The +o&rt wi not pass &pon a constit&tiona %&estion a tho&gh proper presented b- the record if the case can be disposed of on some other gro&nd s&ch as the app ication of a stat&te or genera aw 2=i er v. Ao&isvi e and 3ashvi e R. +o., /"! U.=. "#), L"$'$M, Rai road +ommission v. ;& man +o., !"/ U.=. 4$( L"$4"M5. The petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'"! states wh- the Roppongi propert- sho& d not be so d< The Roppongi propert- is not j&st ike an- piece of propert-. It was given to the .i ipino peop e in reparation for the ives and b ood of .i ipinos who died and s&ffered d&ring the Japanese mi itarPage | 44

occ&pation, for the s&ffering of widows and orphans who ost their oved ones and kindred, for the homes and other properties ost bco&nt ess .i ipinos d&ring the war. The Tok-o properties are a mon&ment to the braver- and sacrifice of the .i ipino peop e in the face of an invader> ike the mon&ments of Ri7a , O&e7on, and other .i ipino heroes, we do not e6pect economic or financia benefits from them. H&t who wo& d think of se ing these mon&mentsK .i ipino honor and nationa dignitdictate that we keep o&r properties in Japan as memoria s to the co&nt ess .i ipinos who died and s&ffered. Even if we sho& d become pa&pers we sho& d not
Page | 45

think of se ing them. .or it wo& d be as if we so d the ives and b ood and tears of o&r co&ntr-men. 2Ro o* G.R. 3o. $/'"!, p."4#5 The petitioner in G.R. 3o. $/'4# a so states< Roppongi is no ordinar- propert-. It is one ceded b- the Japanese government in atonement for its past be igerence for the va iant sacrifice of ife and imb and for deaths, ph-sica dis ocation and economic devastation the who e .i ipino peop e end&red in 0or d 0ar II. It is for what it stands for, and for what it co& d never bring back to ife, that its significance todaPage | 46

remains &ndimmed, inspire of the apse of 4) -ears since the war ended, inspire of the passage of !/ -ears since the propert- passed on to the ;hi ippine government. Roppongi is a reminder that cannot G sho& d not G be dissipated ... 2Ro o*$/'4#, p. $5 It is indeed tr&e that the Roppongi propert- is va &ab e not so m&ch beca&se of the inf ated prices fetched brea propert- in Tok-o b&t more so beca&se of its s-mbo ic va &e to a .i ipinos G veterans and civi ians a ike. 0hether or not the Roppongi and re ated properties wi event&a - be so d is a po ic- determination where both the ;resident and +ongress m&st conc&r. +onsidering the properties9 importance
Page | 47

and va &e, the aws on conversion and disposition of propert- of p&b ic dominion m&st be faithf& - fo owed. 0IERE.1RE, I3 FIE0 1. TIE .1REG1I3G, the petitions are GR83TEE. 8 writ of prohibition is iss&ed enjoining the respondents from proceeding with the sa e of the Roppongi propert- in Tok-o, Japan. The .ebr&ar/', "$$' TemporarRestraining 1rder is made ;ER,83E3T. =1 1REEREE. Melencio-7errera, 2ara$, (idin, Gri8oA4uino and %e"alado, JJ., concur. =eparate 1pinions +RUZ, J., conc&rring<
Page | 48

I conc&r comp ete - with the e6ce ent ponencia of ,r. J&stice G&tierre7 and wi add the fo owing observations on for emphasis. It is c ear that the respondents have fai ed to show the ;resident9s ega a&thorit- to se the Roppongi propert-. 0hen asked to do so at the hearing on these petitions, the =o icitor Genera was at best ambig&o&s, a tho&gh I m&st add in fairness that this was not his fa& t. The fact is that there is *no s&ch a&thorit-. Aega e6pertise a one cannot conj&re that stat&tor- permission o&t of thin air. E6ec. 1rder 3o. /$(, which reads ike so m&ch egis ative, do&b e ta k, does not contain s&ch a&thorit-. 3either does Rep. 8ct 3o. (()#, which simp - a ows
Page | 49

the proceeds of the sa e of o&r properties abroad to be &sed for the comprehensive agrarian reform program. =enate Res. 3o. )) was a mere re%&est for the deferment of the sched& ed sa e of ti e Roppongi propert-, possib - to stop the transaction a together> and i an- case it is not a aw. The sa e of the said propert- mabe a&thori7ed on - b- +ongress thro&gh a d& - enacted stat&te, and there is no s&ch aw. 1nce again, we have affirmed the princip e that o&rs is a government of aws and not of men, where ever- p&b ic officia , from the owest to the highest, can act on - b- virt&e of a va id a&thori7ation. I am happ- to note that in the severa cases where this +o&rt has
Page | 50

r& ed against her, the ;resident of the ;hi ippines has s&bmitted to this princip e with becoming grace. ;8EIAA8, J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the decision penned b- ,r. J&stice G&tierre7, Jr., I on - wish to make a few observations which co& d he p in f&rther c arif-ing the iss&es. Under o&r tripartite s-stem of government ordained bthe +onstit&tion, it is +ongress that a-s down or determines po icies. The ;resident e6ec&tes s&ch po icies. The po icies determined b- +ongress are embodied in egis ative enactments that have to be approved b- the ;resident to become aw. The ;resident, of co&rse, recommends to +ongress the approva
Page | 51

of po icies b&t, in the fina ana -sis, it is +ongress that is the po ic- * determining branch of government. The j&diciar- interprets the aws and, in appropriate cases, determines whether the aws enacted b- +ongress and approved b- the ;resident, and presidentia acts imp ementing s&ch aws, are in accordance with the +onstit&tion. The Roppongi propert- was ac%&ired bthe ;hi ippine government p&rs&ant to the reparations agreement between the ;hi ippine and Japanese governments. Under s&ch agreement, this propertwas ac%&ired b- the ;hi ippine government for a specific p&rpose, name -, to serve as the site of the ;hi ippine Embass- in Tok-o, Japan.
Page | 52

+onse%&ent -, Roppongi is a propert- of p&b ic dominion and intended for p&b ic service, s%&are - fa ing within that c ass of propert- &nder 8rt. 4/' of the +ivi +ode, which provides< 8rt. 4/'. The fo owing things are propert- of p&b ic dominion < 2"5 ... 2/5 Those which be ong to the =tate, witho&t being for p&b ic &se, and are intended for some p&b ic service or for the deve opment of the nationa wea th. 2!!$a5 ;&b ic dominion propert- intended for p&b ic service cannot be a ienated &n ess the propert- is first transformed into private propert- of the state otherwise known as patrimonia propertPage | 53

of the state. "The transformation of p&b ic dominion propert- to state patrimonia propert- invo ves, to mmind, a polic! deci$ion. It is a po icdecision beca&se the treatment of the propert- varies according to its c assification. +onse%&ent -, it is +ongress which can decide and dec are the conversion of Roppongi from a p&b ic dominion propert- to a state patrimonia propert-. +ongress has made no s&ch decision or dec aration. ,oreover, the sa e of p&b ic propert2once converted from p&b ic dominion to state patrimonia propert-5 m&st be approved b- +ongress, for this again is a matter of po ic- 2i.e. to keep or dispose of the propert-5. =ec. 4:, Hook
Page | 54

" of the 8dministrative +ode of "$:# provides< =E+. 4:. Official Aut1ori5ed to )onve! %eal 2ropert!. G 0henever rea propert- of the Government is a&thori7ed b- aw to be conve-ed, the deed of conve-ance sha be e6ec&ted in beha f of the government b- the fo owing< 2"5 .or propert- be onging to and tit ed in the name of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, b- the ;resident, &n ess the a&thorit- therefor is e6press vested b- aw in another officer.

Page | 55

2/5 .or propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines b&t tit ed in the name of anpo itica s&bdivision or of ancorporate agencor instr&menta it-, bthe e6ec&tive head of the agencor instr&menta it-. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 H&t the record is bare of ancongressiona decision or approva to se Roppongi. The record is ikewise bare of an- congressiona a&thorite6tended to the ;resident to se Roppongi thr& p&b ic bidding or otherwise. It is therefore, c ear that the ;resident cannot se or order the sa e of
Page | 56

Roppongi thr& p&b ic bidding or otherwise witho&t a prior congressiona approva , first, converting Roppongi from a p&b ic dominion propert- to a state patrimonia propert-, and, second, a&thori7ing the ;resident to se the same. 8++1REI3GAC, m- vote is to GR83T the petition and to make ;ER,83E3T the temporar- restraining order ear ier iss&ed b- this +o&rt. =8R,IE3T1, J., conc&rring< The centra %&estion, as I see it, is whether or not the so*ca ed DRoppongi propert-9 has ost its nat&re as propertof p&b ic dominion, and hence, has become patrimonia propert- of the =tate. I &nderstand that the parties are
Page | 57

agreed that it was propert- intended for Dp&b ic serviceD within the contemp ation of paragraph 2/5, of 8rtic e 4!', of the +ivi +ode, and according -, and of =tate dominion, and be-ond h&man commerce. The one iss&e is, in the ight of s&pervening deve opments, that is non*&ser thereof b- the 3ationa Government 2for dip omatic p&rposes5 for the ast thirteen -ears> the iss&ance of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( making it avai ab e for sa e to an- interested b&-er> the prom& gation of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. (()#, the +omprehensive 8grarian Reform Aaw, making avai ab e for the program9s financing, =tate assets so d> the approva b- the ;resident of the recommendation of the investigating committee formed to st&d- the propert-9s &ti i7ation> and the iss&ance
Page | 58

of Reso &tion 3o. )) of the ;hi ippine =enate re%&esting for the deferment of its disposition it, DRoppongiD, is sti propert- of the p&b ic dominion, and if it is not, how it ost that character. 0hen and of the p&b ic dominion ceases to be one, or when the change takes p ace, is a %&estion o&r co&rts have debated ear -. In a "$'( decision, " it was he d that propert- of the p&b ic dominion, a p&b ic p a7a in this instance, becomes patrimonia &pon &se thereof for p&rposes other than a p a7a. In a ater case, /this r& ing was reiterated. Aikewise, it has been he d that and, origina - private propert-, has become of p&b ic dominion &pon its donation to the town and its conversion and &se as a p&b ic p a7a. ! It is notab e
Page | 59

that &nder these three cases, the character of the propert-, and anchange occ&rring therein, depends on the act&a &se to which it is dedicated. 4 ,&ch ater, however, the +o&rt he d that D&nti a forma dec aration on the part of the Government, thro&gh the e6ec&tive department or the Aegis ative, to the effect that the and . . . is no onger needed for Lp&b icM service* for p&b ic &se or for specia ind&stries, LitM contin&eLsM to be part of the p&b ic LdominionM, not avai ab e for private e6propriation or ownership.D ) =o a so, it was r& ed that a po itica s&bdivision 2the +it- of +eb& in this case5 a one madec are 2&nder its charter5 a cit- road abandoned and thereafter, to dispose of it. (
Page | 60

In ho ding that there is Da need for a aw or forma dec aration to withdraw the Roppongi propert- from p&b ic domain to make it a ienab e and a and for egis ative a&thorit- to a ow the sa e of the propert-D# the majorit- a-s stress to the fact that< 2"5 8n affirmative act G e6ec&tive or egis ative G is necessarto rec assif- propert- of the p&b ic dominion, and 2/5 a egis ative decree is re%&ired to make it a ienab e. It a so c ears the &ncertainties bro&ght abo&t b- ear ier interpretations that the nat&re of propert-*whether p&b ic or patrimonia is predicated on the manner it is act&a &sed, or not &sed, and in the same breath, rep&diates the Government9s position that the contin&o&s non*&se of DRoppongiD, among other arg&ments, for
Page | 61

Ddip omatic p&rposesD, has t&rned it into =tate patrimonia propert-. I fee that this view corresponds to e6isting prono&ncements of this +o&rt, among other things, that< 2"5 ;ropert- is pres&med to be =tate propert- in the absence of an- showing to the contrar-> : 2/5 0ith respect to forest ands, the same contin&e to be ands of the p&b ic dominion &n ess and &nti rec assified b- the E6ec&tive Hranch of the Government> $ and 2!5 8 nat&ra reso&rces, &nder the +onstit&tion, and s&bject to e6ceptiona cases, be ong to the =tate. "' I am e ated that the +o&rt has banished previo&s &ncertainties.

Page | 62

.EAI+I831, J., dissenting 0ith regret, I find m-se f &nab e to share the conc &sions reached b- ,r. J&stice I&go E. G&tierre7, Jr. .or p&rposes of this separate opinion, I ass&me that the piece of and ocated in !'( Roppongi, )*+home, ,inato*k& Tok-o, Japan 2hereinafter referred to as the DRoppongi propert-D5 ma- be characteri7ed as propert- of p&b ic dominion, within the meaning of 8rtic e 4/' 2/5 of the +ivi +ode< L;ropert-M which be ongLsM to the =tate, witho&t being for p&b ic &se, and are intended for some p&b ic service *. It might not be amiss however, to note that the appropriateness of tr-ing to
Page | 63

bring within the confines of the simp e threefo d c assification fo&nd in 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode 2Dpropert- for p&b ic &se propert- Dintended for some p&b ic serviceD and propert- intended Dfor the deve opment of the nationa wea thD5 all propert! owned b- the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines whether fo&nd within the territoria bo&ndaries of the Rep&b ic or ocated within the territor- of another sovereign =tate, is notse f*evident. The first item of the c assification propertintended for pu/lic u$e 6 can scarce - be proper - app ied to propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic b&t fo&nd within the territor- of another =tate. The third item of the c assification propert- intended for the deve opment of the nationa wea th is i &strated, in 8rtic e !!$ of the
Page | 64

=panish +ivi +ode of "::$, b- mines or minera properties. 8gain, minera ands owned b- a sovereign =tate are rare -, if ever, fo&nd within the territoria base of another sovereign =tate. The task of e6amining in detai the app icabi it- of the c assification set o&t in 8rtic e 4/' of o&r +ivi +ode to propert- that the ;hi ippines happens to own o&tside its own bo&ndaries m&st, however, be eft to academicians. .or present p&rposes, too, I agree that there is no %&estion of conf ict of aws that is, at t1e pre$ent ti#e, before this +o&rt. The iss&es before &s re ate essentia - to a&thorit- to se the Roppongi propert- $o far a$ 21ilippine la0 i$ concerned.
Page | 65

The majorit- opinion raises two 2/5 iss&es< 2a5 whether or not the Roppongi propert- has been converted into patrimonia propert- or propert- of the private domain of the =tate> and 2b5 ass&ming an affirmative answer to 2a5, whether or not there is ega a&thorit- to dispose of the Roppongi propert-. I 8ddressing the first iss&e of conversion of propert- of p&b ic dominion intended for some p&b ic service, into propert- of the private domain of the Rep&b ic, it sho& d be noted that the +ivi +ode does not address the %&estion of 01o has a&thorit- to effect s&ch conversion. 3either does the +ivi +ode set o&t or refer to an- procedure for s&ch conversion.
Page | 66

1&r case aw, however, contains some fair - e6p icit prono&ncements on this point, as J&stice =armiento has pointed o&t in his conc&rring opinion. In 3"nacio v. 9irector of Land$ 2"': ;hi s. !!) L"$('M5, petitioner Ignacio arg&ed that if the and in %&estion formed part of the p&b ic domain, the tria co&rt sho& d have dec ared the same no onger necessar- for p&b ic &se or p&b ic p&rposes and which wo& d, therefore, have become disposab e and avai ab e for private ownership. ,r. J&stice ,ontema-or, speaking for the +o&rt, said< 8rtic e 4 of the Aaw of 0aters of ":(( provides that when a portion of the shore is no onger washed b- the waters of the sea and is not
Page | 67

necessar- for p&rposes of p&b ic &ti it-, or for the estab ishment of specia ind&stries, or for coast* g&ard service, the government sha dec are it to be the propertof the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. 0e be ieve that onl! t1e e'ecutive and po$$i/l! t1e le"i$lative depart#ent$ 1ave t1e aut1orit! and t1e po0er to #a:e t1e declaration that an- and so gained b- the sea, is not necessar- for p&rposes of p&b ic &ti it-, or for the estab ishment of specia ind&stries, or for coast*g&ard service. 3f no $uc1 declaration 1a$ /een #ade /! $aid depart#ent$, t1e lot in 4ue$tion for#$ part of t1e pu/lic
Page | 68

do#ain. 23atividad v. Eirector of Aands, $upra.5 The reason for this prono&ncement, according to this Trib&na in the case of Ficente Joven - ,onteverde v. Eirector of Aands, $! ;hi ., "!4 2cited in Fe a-o9s Eigest, Fo . ", p. )/5. ... is &ndo&bted - that the co&rts are neither primari - ca ed &pon, nor indeed in a position to determine whether an- p&b ic and are to be &sed for the p&rposes specified in 8rtic e 4 of the Aaw of 0aters. +onse%&ent -, &nti a for#al declaration on t1e part of t1e Govern#ent, t1rou"1 t1e e'ecutive depart#ent or t1e Le"i$lature, to t1e effect t1at t1e
Page | 69

land in 4ue$tion i$ no lon"er needed for coa$t-"uard $ervice, for pu/lic u$e or for $pecial indu$trie$, t1e! continue to /e part of t1e pu/lic do#ain not availa/le for private appropriation or o0ner$1ip.2"': ;hi . at !!:*!!$> emphasis s&pp ied5 Th&s, &nder Ignacio, either the ;'ecutive 9epart#ent or t1e Le"i$lative 9epart#ent ma- convert propert- of the =tate of p&b ic dominion into patrimonia propert- of the =tate. 3o partic& ar form& a or proced&re of conversion is specified either in stat&te aw or in case aw. 8rtic e 4// of the +ivi +ode simp - states that< D;ropertof p&b ic dominion, 01en no lon"er intended for p&b ic &se or for pu/lic
Page | 70

$ervice, $1all for# part of the patrimonia propert- of the =tateD. I respectf& - s&bmit, therefore, that the on - re%&irement which is egitimate imposab e is that the intent to convert m&st be reasonab - c ear from a consideration of the acts or acts of the E6ec&tive Eepartment or of the Aegis ative Eepartment which are said to have effected s&ch conversion. The same ega sit&ation e6ists in respect of conversion of propert- of p&b ic dominion be onging to m&nicipa corporations, i.e., oca governmenta &nits, into patrimonia propert- of s&ch entities. In)e/u O'!"en Acet!lene v. (ercille$ 2(( =+R8 4:" L"$#)M5, the +it+o&nci of +eb& b- reso &tion dec ared a certain portion of an e6isting street as
Page | 71

an abandoned road, Dthe same not being inc &ded in the cit- deve opment p anD. =&bse%&ent -, banother reso &tion, the +it- +o&nci of +eb& a&thori7ed the acting +it- ,a-or to se the and thro&gh p&b ic bidding. Alt1ou"1 t1ere 0a$ no for#al and e'plicit declaration of conver$ion of propert! for pu/lic u$e into patri#onial propert!, the =&preme +o&rt said< 666 666 666 2/5 ince t1at portion of t1e cit! $treet $u/ject of petitioner<$ application for re"i$tration of title 0a$ 0it1dra0n fro# pu/lic u$e, it follo0$ t1at $uc1 0it1dra0n portion /eco#e$ patri#onial propert! 01ic1 can /e t1e o/ject of an ordinar! contract.
Page | 72

8rtic e 4// of the +ivi +ode e6press - provides that D;ropertof p&b ic dominion, when no onger intended for p&b ic &se of for p&b ic service, sha form part of the patrimonia propert- of the =tate.D Hesides, the Revised +harter of the +it- of +eb& heretofore %&oted, in ver- c ear and &ne%&ivoca terms, states that D;ropert- th&s withdrawn from p&b ic servit&de ma- be &sed or conve-ed for an- p&rpose for which other rea propertbe onging to the +it- ma- be awf& - &sed or conve-ed.D 8ccording -, t1e 0it1dra0al of t1e propert! in 4ue$tion fro# pu/lic u$e and it$ $u/$e4uent $ale to t1e
Page | 73

petitioner i$ valid. Ience, the petitioner has a registrab e tit e over the ot in %&estion. 2(( =+R8 at 4:4*> emphasis s&pp ied5 Th&s, again as pointed o&t b=armiento J., in his separate opinion, in the case of propert- owned b- m&nicipa corporations simp e non*&se or the act&a dedication of p&b ic propert- to some &se other than Dp&b ic &seD or some Dp&b ic serviceD, was s&fficient ega - to convert s&ch propert- into patrimonia propert- 2Municipalit! of Oa$ v. %oa, + 21il. 20 =190>?- Municipalit! of 7inun"anan v. 9irector of Land$ 2* 21il. 12* =1913?@ 2rovince of Aa#/oan"a del &orte v. )it! of Aa#/oan"a, // =+R8 "!!4 2"$(:5.
Page | 74

I wo& d a so add that s&ch was the case not on - in respect of9 propert- of m&nicipa corporations b&t a so in respect of propert- of the =tate itse f. ,anresa in commenting on 8rtic e !4" of the "::$ =panish +ivi +ode which has been carried over ver/ati# into o&r +ivi +ode b- 8rtic e 4// thereof, wrote< Aa dific& tad ma-or en todo esto estriba, nat&ra mente, en fijar e momento en %&e os bienes de dominio p&b ico dejan de ser o. =i a 8dministracion o a a&toridad competente egis ative rea i7an %&n acto en virt&d de c&a cesa e destino o &so p&b ico de os bienes de %&e se trata nat&ra mente a dific& tad %&eda desde e primer momento res&e ta. Ia- &n p&nto
Page | 75

de partida cierto para iniciar as re aciones j&ridicas a %&e p&diera haber &gar 2ero puede ocurrir 4ue no 1a!a taldeclaracion e'pre$a, le"i$lativa or ad#ini$trativa, !, $in e#/ar"o, ce$ar de 1ec1o el de$tino pu/lico de lo$ /iene$> ahora bien, en e$te ca$o, - para os efectos j&ridicos %&e res& tan de entrar a cosa en e comercio de os hombres,9 $e entedera 4ue $e 1a verificado la conver$ion de lo$ /iene$ patri#oniale$B E citado tratadista Ricci opina, respecto de antig&o +odigo ita iano, por a afirmativa, - por n&estra parte creemos %&e ta debe ser a so &ciion. E destino de
Page | 76

as cosas no depende tanto de &na dec aracion e6presa como de &so p&b ico de as mismas, - c&anda e &so p&b ico cese con respecto de determinados bienes, cesa tambien s& sit&acion en e dominio p&b ico. =i &na forta e7a en r&ina se abandona - no se repara, si &n tro7o de a via p&b ica se abandona tambien por constit&ir otro n&evo an mejores condiciones....ambos bienes cesan de estar +odigo, e-es especia es mas o memos administrativas. 2! ,anresa, +omentarios a +odigo +ivi Espano , p. "/: L#a ed.> "$)/5 2Emphasis s&pp ied5
Page | 77

The majorit- opinion sa-s that none of the e6ec&tive acts pointed to b- the Government p&rported, e6press - or definite -, to convert the Roppongi propert- into patrimonia propert- G of the Rep&b ic. 8ss&ming that to be the case, it is respectf& - s&bmitted that cu#ulative effect of the e6ec&tive acts here invo ved was to convert propert- origina - intended for and devoted to p&b ic service into patrimonia propert- of the =tate, that is, propert- s&sceptib e of disposition to and appropration b- private persons. These e6ec&tive acts, in t1eir totalit! if not each individ&a act, make cr-sta c ear the intent of the E6ec&tive Eepartment to effect s&ch conversion. These e6ec&tive acts inc &de<
Page | 78

2a5 8dministrative 1rder 3o. ! dated "" 8&g&st "$:), which created a +ommittee to st&dthe dispositionJ&ti i7ation of the Government9s propert- in Japan, The +ommittee was composed of officia s of the E6ec&tive Eepartment< the E6ec&tive =ecretar-> the ;hi ippine 8mbassador to Japan> and representatives of the Eepartment of .oreign 8ffairs and the 8sset ;rivati7ation Tr&st. 1n "$ =eptember "$::, the +ommittee recommended to the ;resident the sa e of one of the ots 2the ot specifica - in Roppongi5 thro&gh p&b ic bidding. 1n 4 1ctober "$::, the ;resident approved the recommendation of the +ommittee.
Page | 79

1n "4 Eecember "$::, the ;hi ippine Government bdip omatic note informed the Japanese ,inistr- of .oreign 8ffairs of the Rep&b ic9s intention to dispose of the propert- in Roppongi. The Japanese Government thro&gh its ,inistr- of .oreign 8ffairs rep ied that it interposed no objection to s&ch disposition b- the Rep&b ic. =&bse%&ent -, the ;resident and the +ommittee informed the eaders of the Io&se of Representatives and of the =enate of the ;hi ippines of the proposed disposition of the Roppongi propert-. 2b5 E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(, which was iss&ed b- the ;resident on /) J& "$:#. 8ss&ming that the majoritopinion is right in sa-ing that E6ec&tive
Page | 80

1rder 3o. /$( is ins&fficient to aut1ori5e t1e $ale of the Roppongi propert-, it is here s&bmitted with respect that E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( is more than s&fficient to indicate an intention to convert t1e propert! previo&s - devoted to p&b ic service into patrimonia propert- that is capab e of being so d or otherwise disposed of 2c5 3on*&se of the Roppongi ot for fo&rteen 2"45 -ears for dip omatic or for an- other p&b ic p&rposes. 8ss&ming 2b&t on - ar"uendo5 that non*&se does not, /! it$elf, a&tomatica - convert the propert- into patrimonia propert-. I respectf& - &rge that pro onged non* &se, conjoined 0it1 t1e ot1er factor$ 1ere li$ted, was ega - effective to convert the ot in Roppongi into
Page | 81

patrimonia propert- of the =tate. 8ct&a -, as a read- pointed o&t, case aw invo ving propert- of m&nicipa corporations is to the effect that simp e non*&se or the act&a dedication of p&b ic propert- to some &se other than p&b ic &se or p&b ic service, was s&fficient to convert s&ch propert- into patrimonia propert- of the oca governmenta entit- concerned. 8 so as pointed o&t above, ,anresa reached the same conc &sion in respect of conversion of propert- of the p&b ic domain of the =tate into propert- of the private domain of the =tate. The majorit- opinion states Dabandonment cannot be inferred the non*&se a one especia - if the &se was attrib&tab e not to that from non* the
Page | 82

Government9s own de iberate and ind&bitab e wi b&t to ack of financia s&pport to repair and improve the propert-D 2,ajorit- 1pinion, p. "!5. 0ith respect, it ma- be stressed that there is no abandonment invo ved here, certain - no abandonment of propert- or of propert- rights. 0hat is invo ved is the charge of the c assification of the propert- from propert- of the p&b ic domain into propert- of the private domain of the =tate. ,oreover, if for fo&rteen 2"45 -ears, the Government did not see fit to appropriate whatever f&nds were necessar- to maintain the propertin Roppongi in a condition s&itab e for dip omatic representation p&rposes, s&ch circ&mstance ma-, with e%&a ogic, be constr&ed as a manifestation of
Page | 83

the cr-sta i7ing intent to change the character of the propert-. 2d5 1n !' ,arch "$:$, a p&b ic bidding was in fact he d b- the E6ec&tive Eepartment for the sa e of the ot in Roppongi. The circ&mstance that this bidding was not s&ccessf& certain does not arg&e against an intent to convert the propert- invo ved into propert- that is disposab e b- bidding. The above set of events and circ&mstances makes no sense at a if it does not, a$ a 01ole, show at east the intent on the part of the E6ec&tive Eepartment 2with the know edge of the Aegis ative Eepartment5 to convert the propert- invo ved into patrimonia propert- that is s&sceptib e of being so d.
Page | 84

II Iaving reached an affirmative answer in respect of the first iss&e, it is necessarto address the second iss&e of whether or not there e6ists ega a&thorit- for the sa e or disposition of the Roppongi propert-. The majorit- opinion refers to =ection #$2f5 of the Revised 8dministrative +ode of "$"# which reads as fo ows< =E+. #$ 2f5. )onve!ance$ and contract$ to 01ic1 t1e Govern#ent i$ a part!. G In cases in which the Government of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines is a part- to an- deed or other instr&ment conve!in" t1e title to real e$tate or to an- other propert- t1e value of 01ic1 i$ in
Page | 85

e'ce$$ of one 1undred t1ou$and pe$o$, the respective Eepartment =ecretar- sha prepare the necessar- papers which, together with the proper recommendations, sha be$u/#itted to t1e )on"re$$ of t1e 21ilippine$ for approval /! t1e $a#e. =&ch deed, instr&ment, or contract sha be e6ec&ted and signed b- the ;resident of the ;hi ippines on beha f of the Government of the ;hi ippines &n ess the a&thorit- therefor be e6press - vested b- aw in another officer. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 The majorit- opinion then goes on to state that< C=T?1e re4uire#ent 1a$ /een retained in =ection 4, Hook I of the
Page | 86

8dministrative +ode of "$:# 2E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$/5D which reads< =E+. 4:. Official Aut1ori5ed to )onve! %eal 2ropert!. G 0henever rea propert- of the Government is aut1ori5ed /! la0 to /e conve!ed, the deed of conve-ance sha be e6ec&ted in beha f of the government b- the fo owing< 2"5 .or propert- be onging to and tit ed in the name of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, b- the ;resident, &n ess the a&thorittherefor is e6press - vested b- aw in another officer. 2/5 .or propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines b&t
Page | 87

tit ed in the name of an- po itica s&bdivision or of an- corporate agenc- or instr&menta it-, b- the e6ec&tive head of the agenc- or instr&menta it-. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 Two points need to be made in this connection. .irst -, t1e re4uire#ent of o/tainin" $pecific approval of +ongress 01en t1e price of t1e real propert! being disposed of i$ in e'ce$$ of One 7undred T1ou$and 2e$o$ D2100,000.00E &nder the Revised 8dministrative +ode of "$"#, has been deleted fro# ection *F of t1e 19F+ Ad#ini$trative )ode. 0hat =ection 4: of the present 8dministrative +ode refers to isaut1ori5ation /! la0 for the conve-ance. =ection 4: does not
Page | 88

p&rport to be itse f a so&rce of ega a&thorit- for conve-ance of rea propertof the Government. .or =ection 4: mere - specifies the officia a&thori7ed to e6ec&te and sign on beha f of the Government the deed of conve-ance in case of s&ch a conve-ance. =econd -, e6amination of o&r stat&te books shows that a&thori7ation b- aw for disposition of rea propert- of the private domain of the Government, has been granted b- +ongress both in the form of 2a5 a genera , standing a&thori7ation for disposition of patrimonia propert- of the Government> and 2b5 specific egis ation a&thori7ing the disposition of partic& ar pieces of the Government9s patrimonia propert-.
Page | 89

=tanding egis ative a&thorit- for the disposition of and of the private domain of the ;hi ippines is provided b- 8ct 3o. !'!:, entit ed D8n 8ct 8&thori7ing the =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces to =e or Aease Land of t1e 2rivate 9o#ain of t1e Govern#ent of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$ 2now Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines5D, enacted on $ ,arch "$//. The f& te6t of this stat&te is as fo ows< He it enacted b- the =enate and Io&se of Representatives of the ;hi ippines in Aegis at&re assemb ed and b- the a&thorit- of the same< =E+TI13 ". The =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces 2now =ecretar- of the Environment
Page | 90

and 3at&ra Reso&rces5 is hereba&thori7ed to se or ease and of the private domain of the Government of the ;hi ippine Is ands, or an- part thereof, to s&ch persons, corporations or associations as are, &nder the provisions of 8ct 3&mbered Twent-*eight h&ndred and sevent-*fo&r, 2now +ommonwea th 8ct 3o. "4", as amended5 known as the ;&b ic Aand 8ct, entit ed to app - for the p&rchase or ease or agric& t&ra p&b ic and. =E+TI13 /. T1e $ale of t1e land referred to in the preceding section $1all, if s&ch and is agric& t&ra , be made in the manner and s&bject to the
Page | 91

imitations prescribed in chapters five and si6, respective -, of said ;&b ic Aand 8ct, and if it /e cla$$ified differentl!, in confor#it! 0it1 t1e provi$ion$ of c1apter nine of $aid Act< ;rovided, however, That the and necessar- for the p&b ic service sha be e6empt from the provisions of this 8ct. =E+TI13 !. This 8ct sha effect on its approva . 8pproved, ,arch 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 $, take "$//.

Aest it be ass&med that 8ct 3o. !'!: refers on - to agric& t&ra ands of the private domain of the =tate, it m&st be noted that +hapter $ of the o d ;&b ic Aand 8ct 28ct 3o. /:#45 is now +hapter
Page | 92

$ of the present ;&b ic Aand 8ct 2+ommonwea th 8ct 3o. "4", as amended5 and that both stat&tes refer to< Dan- tract of and of the p&b ic domain which being neither timber nor minera and, is intended to be &sed for re$idential purpo$e$ or for co##ercial or indu$trial purpo$e$ other than agric& t&ra D 2Emphasis s&pp ied5.i,t,c-a.$l In other words, the stat&te covers the sa e or ease or residentia , commercia or ind&stria and of the private domain of the =tate. Imp ementing reg& ations have been iss&ed for the carr-ing o&t of the provisions of 8ct 3o. !'!:. 1n /" Eecember "$)4, the then =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces
Page | 93

prom& gated Aands 8dministrative 1rders 3os. #*( and #*# which were entit ed, respective -< D=&pp ementarReg& ations Governing the =a e of the Land$ of t1e 2rivate 9o#ain of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippinesD> and D=&pp ementar- Reg& ations Governing the Lea$e of Land$ of 2rivate 9o#ain of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippinesD 2te6t in )" 1.G. /:*/$ L"$))M5. It is perhaps we to add that 8ct 3o. !'!:, a tho&gh now si6t-*eight 2(:5 -ears o d, is sti in effect and has not been repea ed. " =pecific egis ative a&thori7ation for disposition of partic& ar patrimonia properties of the =tate is i &strated bcertain ear ier stat&tes. The first of these was 8ct 3o. ""/', enacted on /( 8pri
Page | 94

"$'4, which provided for the disposition of the friar ands, p&rchased b- the Government from the Roman +atho ic +h&rch, to /ona fide sett ers and occ&pants thereof or to other persons. In Jacinto v. 9irector of Land$ 24$ ;hi . :)! L"$/(M5, these friar ands were he d to be private and patrimonia properties of the =tate. 8ct 3o. /!(', enacted on */: .ebr&ar- "$"4, a&thori7ed the sa e of the an La5aro ;$tate ocated in the +it- of ,ani a, which had a so been p&rchased b- the Government from the Roman +atho ic +h&rch. In Jan&ar"$"(, 8ct 3o. /))) amended 8ct 3o. /!(' b- inc &ding therein a ands and b&i dings owned b- the Iospita and the .o&ndation of =an Aa7aro theretofor eased b- private persons, and which
Page | 95

were a so ac%&ired b- the ;hi ippine Government. 8fter the enactment in "$// of 8ct 3o. !'!:, there appears, to m- know edge, to be on - one stat&te a&thori7ing the ;resident to dispose of a specific piece of propert-. This stat&te is Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $'), enacted on /' J&ne "$)!, which a&thori7ed the ;resident to se an Identified parce of and of the private domain of the 3ationa Government to the 3ationa ;ress + &b of the ;hi ippines, and to other recogni7ed nationa associations of professiona s with academic standing, for the nomina price of ;".''. It appears re evant to note that Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $') was not an o&tright disposition in perpet&it- of the propertPage | 96

invo ved* it provided for reversion of the propert- to the 3ationa Government in case the 3ationa ;ress + &b stopped &sing it for its head%&arters. 0hat Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $') a&thori7ed was rea - a donation, and not a sa e. The basic s&bmission here made is that 8ct 3o. !'!: provides standing egis ative a&thori7ation for disposition of the Roppongi propert- which, in mview, has been converted into patrimonia propert- of the Rep&b ic. / To some, the s&bmission that 8ct 3o. !'!: app ies not on - to ands of the private domain of the =tate ocated in the ;hi ippines /ut al$o to patri#onial propert! found out$ide t1e 21ilippine$, ma- appear strange or &n&s&a . I respectf& - s&bmit that s&ch position is
Page | 97

not an- more &n&s&a or strange than the ass&mption that 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode app ies not on - to propert- of the Rep&b ic ocated within ;hi ippine territor- b&t a so to propert- fo&nd o&tside the bo&ndaries of the Rep&b ic. It remains to note that &nder the we * sett ed doctrine that heads of E6ec&tive Eepartments are alter e"o$ of the ;resident 2Gillena v. ecretar! of t1e 3nterior, (# ;hi . 4)" L"$!$M5, and in view of the constit&tiona power of contro e6ercised b- the ;resident over department heads 28rtic e FII, =ection "#,"$:# +onstit&tion5, the ;resident herse f ma- carr- o&t the f&nction or d&t- that is specifica - odged in the =ecretar- of the Eepartment of Environment and 3at&ra Reso&rces
Page | 98

2Araneta v. Gat#aitan "'" ;hi . !/: L"$)#M5. 8t the ver- east, the ;resident retains the power to approve or disapprove the e6ercise of that f&nction or d&t- when done b- the =ecretar- of Environment and 3at&ra Reso&rces. It is hard - necessar- to add that the foregoing ana -ses and s&bmissions re ate on - to the a&stere %&estion of e6istence of ega power or a&thorit-. The- have nothing to do with m&ch debated %&estions of wisdom or propriet- or re ative desirabi it- either of the proposed disposition itse f or of the proposed &ti i7ation of the anticipated proceeds of the propert- invo ved. These atter t-pes of considerations Ie within the sphere of responsibi it- of the po itica departments of government the
Page | 99

E6ec&tive a&thorities.

and

the

Aegis ative

.or a the foregoing, I vote to dismiss the ;etitions for ;rohibition in both G.R. 3os. $/'"! and $/'4#. Hernan, ).J., &arva$a, Ganca!co, )orte$ and Medialdea, JJ., concurrin". =eparate 1pinions +RUZ, J., conc&rring< I conc&r comp ete - with the e6ce ent ponencia of ,r. J&stice G&tierre7 and wi add the fo owing observations on for emphasis. It is c ear that the respondents have fai ed to show the ;resident9s ega a&thorit- to se the Roppongi propert-. 0hen asked to do so at the hearing on
Page | 100

these petitions, the =o icitor Genera was at best ambig&o&s, a tho&gh I m&st add in fairness that this was not his fa& t. The fact is that there is *no s&ch a&thorit-. Aega e6pertise a one cannot conj&re that stat&tor- permission o&t of thin air. E6ec. 1rder 3o. /$(, which reads ike so m&ch egis ative, do&b e ta k, does not contain s&ch a&thorit-. 3either does Rep. 8ct 3o. (()#, which simp - a ows the proceeds of the sa e of o&r properties abroad to be &sed for the comprehensive agrarian reform program. =enate Res. 3o. )) was a mere re%&est for the deferment of the sched& ed sa e of ti e Roppongi propert-, possib - to stop the transaction a together> and i an- case it is not a
Page | 101

aw. The sa e of the said propert- mabe a&thori7ed on - b- +ongress thro&gh a d& - enacted stat&te, and there is no s&ch aw. 1nce again, we have affirmed the princip e that o&rs is a government of aws and not of men, where ever- p&b ic officia , from the owest to the highest, can act on - b- virt&e of a va id a&thori7ation. I am happ- to note that in the severa cases where this +o&rt has r& ed against her, the ;resident of the ;hi ippines has s&bmitted to this princip e with becoming grace. ;8EIAA8, J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the decision penned b- ,r. J&stice G&tierre7, Jr., I on - wish to
Page | 102

make a few observations which co& d he p in f&rther c arif-ing the iss&es. Under o&r tripartite s-stem of government ordained bthe +onstit&tion, it is +ongress that a-s down or determines po icies. The ;resident e6ec&tes s&ch po icies. The po icies determined b- +ongress are embodied in egis ative enactments that have to be approved b- the ;resident to become aw. The ;resident, of co&rse, recommends to +ongress the approva of po icies b&t, in the fina ana -sis, it is +ongress that is the po ic- * determining branch of government. The j&diciar- interprets the aws and, in appropriate cases, determines whether the aws enacted b- +ongress and approved b- the ;resident, and
Page | 103

presidentia acts imp ementing s&ch aws, are in accordance with the +onstit&tion. The Roppongi propert- was ac%&ired bthe ;hi ippine government p&rs&ant to the reparations agreement between the ;hi ippine and Japanese governments. Under s&ch agreement, this propertwas ac%&ired b- the ;hi ippine government for a specific p&rpose, name -, to serve as the site of the ;hi ippine Embass- in Tok-o, Japan. +onse%&ent -, Roppongi is a propert- of p&b ic dominion and intended for p&b ic service, s%&are - fa ing within that c ass of propert- &nder 8rt. 4/' of the +ivi +ode, which provides< 8rt. 4/'. The fo owing things are propert- of p&b ic dominion <
Page | 104

2"5 ... 2/5 Those which be ong to the =tate, witho&t being for p&b ic &se, and are intended for some p&b ic service or for the deve opment of the nationa wea th. 2!!$a5 ;&b ic dominion propert- intended for p&b ic service cannot be a ienated &n ess the propert- is first transformed into private propert- of the state otherwise known as patrimonia propertof the state. "The transformation of p&b ic dominion propert- to state patrimonia propert- invo ves, to mmind, a polic! deci$ion. It is a po icdecision beca&se the treatment of the propert- varies according to its c assification. +onse%&ent -, it is +ongress which can decide and dec are
Page | 105

the conversion of Roppongi from a p&b ic dominion propert- to a state patrimonia propert-. +ongress has made no s&ch decision or dec aration. ,oreover, the sa e of p&b ic propert2once converted from p&b ic dominion to state patrimonia propert-5 m&st be approved b- +ongress, for this again is a matter of po ic- 2i.e. to keep or dispose of the propert-5. =ec. 4:, Hook " of the 8dministrative +ode of "$:# provides< =E+. 4:. Official Aut1ori5ed to )onve! %eal 2ropert!. G 0henever rea propert- of the Government is a&thori7ed b- aw to be conve-ed, the deed of conve-ance sha be e6ec&ted in
Page | 106

beha f of the government b- the fo owing< 2"5 .or propert- be onging to and tit ed in the name of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, b- the ;resident, &n ess the a&thorit- therefor is e6press vested b- aw in another officer. 2/5 .or propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines b&t tit ed in the name of anpo itica s&bdivision or of ancorporate agencor instr&menta it-, bthe e6ec&tive head of the agencor instr&menta it-. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5
Page | 107

H&t the record is bare of ancongressiona decision or approva to se Roppongi. The record is ikewise bare of an- congressiona a&thorite6tended to the ;resident to se Roppongi thr& p&b ic bidding or otherwise. It is therefore, c ear that the ;resident cannot se or order the sa e of Roppongi thr& p&b ic bidding or otherwise witho&t a prior congressiona approva , first, converting Roppongi from a p&b ic dominion propert- to a state patrimonia propert-, and, second, a&thori7ing the ;resident to se the same. 8++1REI3GAC, m- vote is to GR83T the petition and to make ;ER,83E3T
Page | 108

the temporar- restraining order ear ier iss&ed b- this +o&rt. =8R,IE3T1, J., conc&rring< The centra %&estion, as I see it, is whether or not the so*ca ed DRoppongi propert-9 has ost its nat&re as propertof p&b ic dominion, and hence, has become patrimonia propert- of the =tate. I &nderstand that the parties are agreed that it was propert- intended for Dp&b ic serviceD within the contemp ation of paragraph 2/5, of 8rtic e 4!', of the +ivi +ode, and according -, and of =tate dominion, and be-ond h&man commerce. The one iss&e is, in the ight of s&pervening deve opments, that is non*&ser thereof b- the 3ationa Government 2for dip omatic p&rposes5 for the ast thirteen -ears> the iss&ance
Page | 109

of E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( making it avai ab e for sa e to an- interested b&-er> the prom& gation of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. (()#, the +omprehensive 8grarian Reform Aaw, making avai ab e for the program9s financing, =tate assets so d> the approva b- the ;resident of the recommendation of the investigating committee formed to st&d- the propert-9s &ti i7ation> and the iss&ance of Reso &tion 3o. )) of the ;hi ippine =enate re%&esting for the deferment of its disposition it, DRoppongiD, is sti propert- of the p&b ic dominion, and if it is not, how it ost that character. 0hen and of the p&b ic dominion ceases to be one, or when the change takes p ace, is a %&estion o&r co&rts have debated ear -. In a "$'(
Page | 110

decision, " it was he d that propert- of the p&b ic dominion, a p&b ic p a7a in this instance, becomes patrimonia &pon &se thereof for p&rposes other than a p a7a. In a ater case, /this r& ing was reiterated. Aikewise, it has been he d that and, origina - private propert-, has become of p&b ic dominion &pon its donation to the town and its conversion and &se as a p&b ic p a7a. ! It is notab e that &nder these three cases, the character of the propert-, and anchange occ&rring therein, depends on the act&a &se to which it is dedicated. 4 ,&ch ater, however, the +o&rt he d that D&nti a forma dec aration on the part of the Government, thro&gh the e6ec&tive department or the Aegis ative, to the effect that the and . . . is no onger
Page | 111

needed for Lp&b icM service* for p&b ic &se or for specia ind&stries, LitM contin&eLsM to be part of the p&b ic LdominionM, not avai ab e for private e6propriation or ownership.D ) =o a so, it was r& ed that a po itica s&bdivision 2the +it- of +eb& in this case5 a one madec are 2&nder its charter5 a cit- road abandoned and thereafter, to dispose of it. ( In ho ding that there is Da need for a aw or forma dec aration to withdraw the Roppongi propert- from p&b ic domain to make it a ienab e and a and for egis ative a&thorit- to a ow the sa e of the propert-D# the majorit- a-s stress to the fact that< 2"5 8n affirmative act G e6ec&tive or egis ative G is necessarto rec assif- propert- of the p&b ic
Page | 112

dominion, and 2/5 a egis ative decree is re%&ired to make it a ienab e. It a so c ears the &ncertainties bro&ght abo&t b- ear ier interpretations that the nat&re of propert-*whether p&b ic or patrimonia is predicated on the manner it is act&a &sed, or not &sed, and in the same breath, rep&diates the Government9s position that the contin&o&s non*&se of DRoppongiD, among other arg&ments, for Ddip omatic p&rposesD, has t&rned it into =tate patrimonia propert-. I fee that this view corresponds to e6isting prono&ncements of this +o&rt, among other things, that< 2"5 ;ropert- is pres&med to be =tate propert- in the absence of an- showing to the contrar-> : 2/5 0ith respect to forest ands, the same contin&e to be ands of
Page | 113

the p&b ic dominion &n ess and &nti rec assified b- the E6ec&tive Hranch of the Government> $ and 2!5 8 nat&ra reso&rces, &nder the +onstit&tion, and s&bject to e6ceptiona cases, be ong to the =tate. "' I am e ated that the +o&rt has banished previo&s &ncertainties. .EAI+I831, J., dissenting 0ith regret, I find m-se f &nab e to share the conc &sions reached b- ,r. J&stice I&go E. G&tierre7, Jr. .or p&rposes of this separate opinion, I ass&me that the piece of and ocated in !'( Roppongi, )*+home, ,inato*k& Tok-o, Japan 2hereinafter referred to as the DRoppongi propert-D5 ma- be characteri7ed as propert- of p&b ic
Page | 114

dominion, within the meaning of 8rtic e 4/' 2/5 of the +ivi +ode< L;ropert-M which be ongLsM to the =tate, witho&t being for p&b ic &se, and are intended for some p&b ic service *. It might not be amiss however, to note that the appropriateness of tr-ing to bring within the confines of the simp e threefo d c assification fo&nd in 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode 2Dpropert- for p&b ic &se propert- Dintended for some p&b ic serviceD and propert- intended Dfor the deve opment of the nationa wea thD5 all propert! owned b- the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines whether fo&nd within the territoria bo&ndaries of the Rep&b ic or ocated within the territor- of another sovereign =tate,
Page | 115

is notse f*evident. The first item of the c assification propertintended for pu/lic u$e 6 can scarce - be proper - app ied to propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic b&t fo&nd within the territor- of another =tate. The third item of the c assification propert- intended for the deve opment of the nationa wea th is i &strated, in 8rtic e !!$ of the =panish +ivi +ode of "::$, b- mines or minera properties. 8gain, minera ands owned b- a sovereign =tate are rare -, if ever, fo&nd within the territoria base of another sovereign =tate. The task of e6amining in detai the app icabi it- of the c assification set o&t in 8rtic e 4/' of o&r +ivi +ode to propert- that the ;hi ippines happens to own o&tside its own bo&ndaries m&st, however, be eft to academicians.
Page | 116

.or present p&rposes, too, I agree that there is no %&estion of conf ict of aws that is, at t1e pre$ent ti#e, before this +o&rt. The iss&es before &s re ate essentia - to a&thorit- to se the Roppongi propert- $o far a$ 21ilippine la0 i$ concerned. The majorit- opinion raises two 2/5 iss&es< 2a5 whether or not the Roppongi propert- has been converted into patrimonia propert- or propert- of the private domain of the =tate> and 2b5 ass&ming an affirmative answer to 2a5, whether or not there is ega a&thorit- to dispose of the Roppongi propert-. I 8ddressing the first iss&e of conversion of propert- of p&b ic dominion intended
Page | 117

for some p&b ic service, into propert- of the private domain of the Rep&b ic, it sho& d be noted that the +ivi +ode does not address the %&estion of 01o has a&thorit- to effect s&ch conversion. 3either does the +ivi +ode set o&t or refer to an- procedure for s&ch conversion. 1&r case aw, however, contains some fair - e6p icit prono&ncements on this point, as J&stice =armiento has pointed o&t in his conc&rring opinion. In 3"nacio v. 9irector of Land$ 2"': ;hi s. !!) L"$('M5, petitioner Ignacio arg&ed that if the and in %&estion formed part of the p&b ic domain, the tria co&rt sho& d have dec ared the same no onger necessar- for p&b ic &se or p&b ic p&rposes and which wo& d, therefore,
Page | 118

have become disposab e and avai ab e for private ownership. ,r. J&stice ,ontema-or, speaking for the +o&rt, said< 8rtic e 4 of the Aaw of 0aters of ":(( provides that when a portion of the shore is no onger washed b- the waters of the sea and is not necessar- for p&rposes of p&b ic &ti it-, or for the estab ishment of specia ind&stries, or for coast* g&ard service, the government sha dec are it to be the propertof the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. 0e be ieve that onl! t1e e'ecutive and po$$i/l! t1e le"i$lative depart#ent$ 1ave t1e aut1orit!
Page | 119

and t1e po0er to #a:e t1e declaration that an- and so gained b- the sea, is not necessar- for p&rposes of p&b ic &ti it-, or for the estab ishment of specia ind&stries, or for coast*g&ard service. 3f no $uc1 declaration 1a$ /een #ade /! $aid depart#ent$, t1e lot in 4ue$tion for#$ part of t1e pu/lic do#ain. 23atividad v. Eirector of Aands, $upra.5 The reason for this prono&ncement, according to this Trib&na in the case of Ficente Joven - ,onteverde v. Eirector of Aands, $! ;hi ., "!4 2cited in Fe a-o9s Eigest, Fo . ", p. )/5. ... is &ndo&bted - that the co&rts are neither primari - ca ed &pon,
Page | 120

nor indeed in a position to determine whether an- p&b ic and are to be &sed for the p&rposes specified in 8rtic e 4 of the Aaw of 0aters. +onse%&ent -, &nti a for#al declaration on t1e part of t1e Govern#ent, t1rou"1 t1e e'ecutive depart#ent or t1e Le"i$lature, to t1e effect t1at t1e land in 4ue$tion i$ no lon"er needed for coa$t-"uard $ervice, for pu/lic u$e or for $pecial indu$trie$, t1e! continue to /e part of t1e pu/lic do#ain not availa/le for private appropriation or o0ner$1ip.2"': ;hi . at !!:*!!$> emphasis s&pp ied5 Th&s, &nder Ignacio, either the ;'ecutive 9epart#ent or t1e
Page | 121

Le"i$lative 9epart#ent ma- convert propert- of the =tate of p&b ic dominion into patrimonia propert- of the =tate. 3o partic& ar form& a or proced&re of conversion is specified either in stat&te aw or in case aw. 8rtic e 4// of the +ivi +ode simp - states that< D;ropertof p&b ic dominion, 01en no lon"er intended for p&b ic &se or for pu/lic $ervice, $1all for# part of the patrimonia propert- of the =tateD. I respectf& - s&bmit, therefore, that the on - re%&irement which is egitimate imposab e is that the intent to convert m&st be reasonab - c ear from a consideration of the acts or acts of the E6ec&tive Eepartment or of the Aegis ative Eepartment which are said to have effected s&ch conversion.
Page | 122

The same ega sit&ation e6ists in respect of conversion of propert- of p&b ic dominion be onging to m&nicipa corporations, i.e., oca governmenta &nits, into patrimonia propert- of s&ch entities. In)e/u O'!"en Acet!lene v. (ercille$ 2(( =+R8 4:" L"$#)M5, the +it+o&nci of +eb& b- reso &tion dec ared a certain portion of an e6isting street as an abandoned road, Dthe same not being inc &ded in the cit- deve opment p anD. =&bse%&ent -, banother reso &tion, the +it- +o&nci of +eb& a&thori7ed the acting +it- ,a-or to se the and thro&gh p&b ic bidding. Alt1ou"1 t1ere 0a$ no for#al and e'plicit declaration of conver$ion of propert! for pu/lic u$e into patri#onial propert!, the =&preme +o&rt said<
Page | 123

666 666 666 2/5 ince t1at portion of t1e cit! $treet $u/ject of petitioner<$ application for re"i$tration of title 0a$ 0it1dra0n fro# pu/lic u$e, it follo0$ t1at $uc1 0it1dra0n portion /eco#e$ patri#onial propert! 01ic1 can /e t1e o/ject of an ordinar! contract. 8rtic e 4// of the +ivi +ode e6press - provides that D;ropertof p&b ic dominion, when no onger intended for p&b ic &se of for p&b ic service, sha form part of the patrimonia propert- of the =tate.D Hesides, the Revised +harter of the +it- of +eb& heretofore %&oted, in ver- c ear and
Page | 124

&ne%&ivoca terms, states that D;ropert- th&s withdrawn from p&b ic servit&de ma- be &sed or conve-ed for an- p&rpose for which other rea propertbe onging to the +it- ma- be awf& - &sed or conve-ed.D 8ccording -, t1e 0it1dra0al of t1e propert! in 4ue$tion fro# pu/lic u$e and it$ $u/$e4uent $ale to t1e petitioner i$ valid. Ience, the petitioner has a registrab e tit e over the ot in %&estion. 2(( =+R8 at 4:4*> emphasis s&pp ied5 Th&s, again as pointed o&t b=armiento J., in his separate opinion, in the case of propert- owned b- m&nicipa corporations simp e non*&se or the act&a dedication of p&b ic propert- to
Page | 125

some &se other than Dp&b ic &seD or some Dp&b ic serviceD, was s&fficient ega - to convert s&ch propert- into patrimonia propert- 2Municipalit! of Oa$ v. %oa, + 21il. 20 =190>?- Municipalit! of 7inun"anan v. 9irector of Land$ 2* 21il. 12* =1913?@ 2rovince of Aa#/oan"a del &orte v. )it! of Aa#/oan"a, // =+R8 "!!4 2"$(:5. I wo& d a so add that s&ch was the case not on - in respect of9 propert- of m&nicipa corporations b&t a so in respect of propert- of the =tate itse f. ,anresa in commenting on 8rtic e !4" of the "::$ =panish +ivi +ode which has been carried over ver/ati# into o&r +ivi +ode b- 8rtic e 4// thereof, wrote< Aa dific& tad ma-or en todo esto estriba, nat&ra mente, en fijar e
Page | 126

momento en %&e os bienes de dominio p&b ico dejan de ser o. =i a 8dministracion o a a&toridad competente egis ative rea i7an %&n acto en virt&d de c&a cesa e destino o &so p&b ico de os bienes de %&e se trata nat&ra mente a dific& tad %&eda desde e primer momento res&e ta. Ia- &n p&nto de partida cierto para iniciar as re aciones j&ridicas a %&e p&diera haber &gar 2ero puede ocurrir 4ue no 1a!a taldeclaracion e'pre$a, le"i$lativa or ad#ini$trativa, !, $in e#/ar"o, ce$ar de 1ec1o el de$tino pu/lico de lo$ /iene$> ahora bien, en e$te ca$o, - para os efectos j&ridicos %&e res& tan de entrar a cosa en e comercio de os hombres,9 $e
Page | 127

entedera 4ue $e 1a verificado la conver$ion de lo$ /iene$ patri#oniale$B E citado tratadista Ricci opina, respecto de antig&o +odigo ita iano, por a afirmativa, - por n&estra parte creemos %&e ta debe ser a so &ciion. E destino de as cosas no depende tanto de &na dec aracion e6presa como de &so p&b ico de as mismas, - c&anda e &so p&b ico cese con respecto de determinados bienes, cesa tambien s& sit&acion en e dominio p&b ico. =i &na forta e7a en r&ina se abandona - no se repara, si &n tro7o de a via p&b ica se abandona tambien por constit&ir otro n&evo an mejores
Page | 128

condiciones....ambos bienes cesan de estar +odigo, e-es especia es mas o memos administrativas. 2! ,anresa, +omentarios a +odigo +ivi Espano , p. "/: L#a ed.> "$)/5 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 The majorit- opinion sa-s that none of the e6ec&tive acts pointed to b- the Government p&rported, e6press - or definite -, to convert the Roppongi propert- into patrimonia propert- G of the Rep&b ic. 8ss&ming that to be the case, it is respectf& - s&bmitted that cu#ulative effect of the e6ec&tive acts here invo ved was to convert propert- origina - intended for and devoted to p&b ic service into patrimonia propert- of the =tate, that is,
Page | 129

propert- s&sceptib e of disposition to and appropration b- private persons. These e6ec&tive acts, in t1eir totalit! if not each individ&a act, make cr-sta c ear the intent of the E6ec&tive Eepartment to effect s&ch conversion. These e6ec&tive acts inc &de< 2a5 8dministrative 1rder 3o. ! dated "" 8&g&st "$:), which created a +ommittee to st&dthe dispositionJ&ti i7ation of the Government9s propert- in Japan, The +ommittee was composed of officia s of the E6ec&tive Eepartment< the E6ec&tive =ecretar-> the ;hi ippine 8mbassador to Japan> and representatives of the Eepartment of .oreign 8ffairs and the 8sset ;rivati7ation Tr&st. 1n "$ =eptember
Page | 130

"$::, the +ommittee recommended to the ;resident the sa e of one of the ots 2the ot specifica - in Roppongi5 thro&gh p&b ic bidding. 1n 4 1ctober "$::, the ;resident approved the recommendation of the +ommittee. 1n "4 Eecember "$::, the ;hi ippine Government bdip omatic note informed the Japanese ,inistr- of .oreign 8ffairs of the Rep&b ic9s intention to dispose of the propert- in Roppongi. The Japanese Government thro&gh its ,inistr- of .oreign 8ffairs rep ied that it interposed no objection to s&ch disposition b- the Rep&b ic. =&bse%&ent -, the ;resident and the +ommittee informed the eaders of the Io&se of Representatives and of the =enate of the ;hi ippines of the
Page | 131

proposed disposition of the Roppongi propert-. 2b5 E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$(, which was iss&ed b- the ;resident on /) J& "$:#. 8ss&ming that the majoritopinion is right in sa-ing that E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( is ins&fficient to aut1ori5e t1e $ale of the Roppongi propert-, it is here s&bmitted with respect that E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$( is more than s&fficient to indicate an intention to convert t1e propert! previo&s - devoted to p&b ic service into patrimonia propert- that is capab e of being so d or otherwise disposed of 2c5 3on*&se of the Roppongi ot for fo&rteen 2"45 -ears for dip omatic or for an- other p&b ic p&rposes. 8ss&ming 2b&t on - ar"uendo5 that non*&se does
Page | 132

not, /! it$elf, a&tomatica - convert the propert- into patrimonia propert-. I respectf& - &rge that pro onged non* &se, conjoined 0it1 t1e ot1er factor$ 1ere li$ted, was ega - effective to convert the ot in Roppongi into patrimonia propert- of the =tate. 8ct&a -, as a read- pointed o&t, case aw invo ving propert- of m&nicipa corporations is to the effect that simp e non*&se or the act&a dedication of p&b ic propert- to some &se other than p&b ic &se or p&b ic service, was s&fficient to convert s&ch propert- into patrimonia propert- of the oca governmenta entit- concerned. 8 so as pointed o&t above, ,anresa reached the same conc &sion in respect of conversion of propert- of the p&b ic
Page | 133

domain of the =tate into propert- of the private domain of the =tate. The majorit- opinion states that Dabandonment cannot be inferred from the non*&se a one especia - if the non* &se was attrib&tab e not to the Government9s own de iberate and ind&bitab e wi b&t to ack of financia s&pport to repair and improve the propert-D 2,ajorit- 1pinion, p. "!5. 0ith respect, it ma- be stressed that there is no abandonment invo ved here, certain - no abandonment of propert- or of propert- rights. 0hat is invo ved is the charge of the c assification of the propert- from propert- of the p&b ic domain into propert- of the private domain of the =tate. ,oreover, if for fo&rteen 2"45 -ears, the Government did
Page | 134

not see fit to appropriate whatever f&nds were necessar- to maintain the propertin Roppongi in a condition s&itab e for dip omatic representation p&rposes, s&ch circ&mstance ma-, with e%&a ogic, be constr&ed as a manifestation of the cr-sta i7ing intent to change the character of the propert-. 2d5 1n !' ,arch "$:$, a p&b ic bidding was in fact he d b- the E6ec&tive Eepartment for the sa e of the ot in Roppongi. The circ&mstance that this bidding was not s&ccessf& certain does not arg&e against an intent to convert the propert- invo ved into propert- that is disposab e b- bidding. The above set of events and circ&mstances makes no sense at a if it does not, a$ a 01ole, show at east the
Page | 135

intent on the part of the E6ec&tive Eepartment 2with the know edge of the Aegis ative Eepartment5 to convert the propert- invo ved into patrimonia propert- that is s&sceptib e of being so d. II Iaving reached an affirmative answer in respect of the first iss&e, it is necessarto address the second iss&e of whether or not there e6ists ega a&thorit- for the sa e or disposition of the Roppongi propert-. The majorit- opinion refers to =ection #$2f5 of the Revised 8dministrative +ode of "$"# which reads as fo ows< =E+. #$ 2f5. )onve!ance$ and contract$ to 01ic1 t1e Govern#ent
Page | 136

i$ a part!. G In cases in which the Government of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines is a part- to an- deed or other instr&ment conve!in" t1e title to real e$tate or to an- other propert- t1e value of 01ic1 i$ in e'ce$$ of one 1undred t1ou$and pe$o$, the respective Eepartment =ecretar- sha prepare the necessar- papers which, together with the proper recommendations, sha be$u/#itted to t1e )on"re$$ of t1e 21ilippine$ for approval /! t1e $a#e. =&ch deed, instr&ment, or contract sha be e6ec&ted and signed b- the ;resident of the ;hi ippines on beha f of the Government of the ;hi ippines &n ess the a&thorit- therefor be
Page | 137

e6press - vested b- aw in another officer. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 The majorit- opinion then goes on to state that< C=T?1e re4uire#ent 1a$ /een retained in =ection 4, Hook I of the 8dministrative +ode of "$:# 2E6ec&tive 1rder 3o. /$/5D which reads< =E+. 4:. Official Aut1ori5ed to )onve! %eal 2ropert!. G 0henever rea propert- of the Government is aut1ori5ed /! la0 to /e conve!ed, the deed of conve-ance sha be e6ec&ted in beha f of the government b- the fo owing< 2"5 .or propert- be onging to and tit ed in the name of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, b- the
Page | 138

;resident, &n ess the a&thorittherefor is e6press - vested b- aw in another officer. 2/5 .or propert- be onging to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines b&t tit ed in the name of an- po itica s&bdivision or of an- corporate agenc- or instr&menta it-, b- the e6ec&tive head of the agenc- or instr&menta it-. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 Two points need to be made in this connection. .irst -, t1e re4uire#ent of o/tainin" $pecific approval of +ongress 01en t1e price of t1e real propert! being disposed of i$ in e'ce$$ of One 7undred T1ou$and 2e$o$ D2100,000.00E &nder the Revised 8dministrative +ode of "$"#, has
Page | 139

been deleted fro# ection *F of t1e 19F+ Ad#ini$trative )ode. 0hat =ection 4: of the present 8dministrative +ode refers to isaut1ori5ation /! la0 for the conve-ance. =ection 4: does not p&rport to be itse f a so&rce of ega a&thorit- for conve-ance of rea propertof the Government. .or =ection 4: mere - specifies the officia a&thori7ed to e6ec&te and sign on beha f of the Government the deed of conve-ance in case of s&ch a conve-ance. =econd -, e6amination of o&r stat&te books shows that a&thori7ation b- aw for disposition of rea propert- of the private domain of the Government, has been granted b- +ongress both in the form of 2a5 a genera , standing a&thori7ation for disposition of
Page | 140

patrimonia propert- of the Government> and 2b5 specific egis ation a&thori7ing the disposition of partic& ar pieces of the Government9s patrimonia propert-. =tanding egis ative a&thorit- for the disposition of and of the private domain of the ;hi ippines is provided b- 8ct 3o. !'!:, entit ed D8n 8ct 8&thori7ing the =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces to =e or Aease Land of t1e 2rivate 9o#ain of t1e Govern#ent of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$ 2now Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines5D, enacted on $ ,arch "$//. The f& te6t of this stat&te is as fo ows< He it enacted b- the =enate and Io&se of Representatives of the ;hi ippines in Aegis at&re
Page | 141

assemb ed and b- the a&thorit- of the same< =E+TI13 ". The =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces 2now =ecretar- of the Environment and 3at&ra Reso&rces5 is hereba&thori7ed to se or ease and of the private domain of the Government of the ;hi ippine Is ands, or an- part thereof, to s&ch persons, corporations or associations as are, &nder the provisions of 8ct 3&mbered Twent-*eight h&ndred and sevent-*fo&r, 2now +ommonwea th 8ct 3o. "4", as amended5 known as the ;&b ic Aand 8ct, entit ed to app - for the p&rchase or ease or agric& t&ra p&b ic and.
Page | 142

=E+TI13 /. T1e $ale of t1e land referred to in the preceding section $1all, if s&ch and is agric& t&ra , be made in the manner and s&bject to the imitations prescribed in chapters five and si6, respective -, of said ;&b ic Aand 8ct, and if it /e cla$$ified differentl!, in confor#it! 0it1 t1e provi$ion$ of c1apter nine of $aid Act< ;rovided, however, That the and necessar- for the p&b ic service sha be e6empt from the provisions of this 8ct. =E+TI13 !. This 8ct sha effect on its approva . 8pproved, ,arch 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 $, take "$//.

Page | 143

Aest it be ass&med that 8ct 3o. !'!: refers on - to agric& t&ra ands of the private domain of the =tate, it m&st be noted that +hapter $ of the o d ;&b ic Aand 8ct 28ct 3o. /:#45 is now +hapter $ of the present ;&b ic Aand 8ct 2+ommonwea th 8ct 3o. "4", as amended5 and that both stat&tes refer to< Dan- tract of and of the p&b ic domain which being neither timber nor minera and, is intended to be &sed for re$idential purpo$e$ or for co##ercial or indu$trial purpo$e$ other than agric& t&ra D 2Emphasis s&pp ied5. In other words, the stat&te covers the sa e or ease or residentia , commercia or ind&stria and of the private domain of the =tate.
Page | 144

Imp ementing reg& ations have been iss&ed for the carr-ing o&t of the provisions of 8ct 3o. !'!:. 1n /" Eecember "$)4, the then =ecretar- of 8gric& t&re and 3at&ra Reso&rces prom& gated Aands 8dministrative 1rders 3os. #*( and #*# which were entit ed, respective -< D=&pp ementarReg& ations Governing the =a e of the Land$ of t1e 2rivate 9o#ain of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippinesD> and D=&pp ementar- Reg& ations Governing the Lea$e of Land$ of 2rivate 9o#ain of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippinesD 2te6t in )" 1.G. /:*/$ L"$))M5. It is perhaps we to add that 8ct 3o. !'!:, a tho&gh now si6t-*eight 2(:5 -ears o d, is sti in effect and has not been repea ed. "
Page | 145

=pecific egis ative a&thori7ation for disposition of partic& ar patrimonia properties of the =tate is i &strated bcertain ear ier stat&tes. The first of these was 8ct 3o. ""/', enacted on /( 8pri "$'4, which provided for the disposition of the friar ands, p&rchased b- the Government from the Roman +atho ic +h&rch, to /ona fide sett ers and occ&pants thereof or to other persons. In Jacinto v. 9irector of Land$ 24$ ;hi . :)! L"$/(M5, these friar ands were he d to be private and patrimonia properties of the =tate. 8ct 3o. /!(', enacted on */: .ebr&ar- "$"4, a&thori7ed the sa e of the an La5aro ;$tate ocated in the +it- of ,ani a, which had a so been p&rchased b- the Government from the Roman +atho ic +h&rch. In Jan&ar"$"(, 8ct 3o. /))) amended 8ct 3o.
Page | 146

/!(' b- inc &ding therein a ands and b&i dings owned b- the Iospita and the .o&ndation of =an Aa7aro theretofor eased b- private persons, and which were a so ac%&ired b- the ;hi ippine Government. 8fter the enactment in "$// of 8ct 3o. !'!:, there appears, to m- know edge, to be on - one stat&te a&thori7ing the ;resident to dispose of a specific piece of propert-. This stat&te is Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $'), enacted on /' J&ne "$)!, which a&thori7ed the ;resident to se an Identified parce of and of the private domain of the 3ationa Government to the 3ationa ;ress + &b of the ;hi ippines, and to other recogni7ed nationa associations of professiona s with academic standing,
Page | 147

for the nomina price of ;".''. It appears re evant to note that Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $') was not an o&tright disposition in perpet&it- of the propertinvo ved* it provided for reversion of the propert- to the 3ationa Government in case the 3ationa ;ress + &b stopped &sing it for its head%&arters. 0hat Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. $') a&thori7ed was rea - a donation, and not a sa e. The basic s&bmission here made is that 8ct 3o. !'!: provides standing egis ative a&thori7ation for disposition of the Roppongi propert- which, in mview, has been converted into patrimonia propert- of the Rep&b ic. / To some, the s&bmission that 8ct 3o. !'!: app ies not on - to ands of the private domain of the =tate ocated in
Page | 148

the ;hi ippines /ut al$o to patri#onial propert! found out$ide t1e 21ilippine$, ma- appear strange or &n&s&a . I respectf& - s&bmit that s&ch position is not an- more &n&s&a or strange than the ass&mption that 8rtic e 4/' of the +ivi +ode app ies not on - to propert- of the Rep&b ic ocated within ;hi ippine territor- b&t a so to propert- fo&nd o&tside the bo&ndaries of the Rep&b ic. It remains to note that &nder the we * sett ed doctrine that heads of E6ec&tive Eepartments are alter e"o$ of the ;resident 2Gillena v. ecretar! of t1e 3nterior, (# ;hi . 4)" L"$!$M5, and in view of the constit&tiona power of contro e6ercised b- the ;resident over department heads 28rtic e FII, =ection "#,"$:# +onstit&tion5, the ;resident
Page | 149

herse f ma- carr- o&t the f&nction or d&t- that is specifica - odged in the =ecretar- of the Eepartment of Environment and 3at&ra Reso&rces 2Araneta v. Gat#aitan "'" ;hi . !/: L"$)#M5. 8t the ver- east, the ;resident retains the power to approve or disapprove the e6ercise of that f&nction or d&t- when done b- the =ecretar- of Environment and 3at&ra Reso&rces. It is hard - necessar- to add that the foregoing ana -ses and s&bmissions re ate on - to the a&stere %&estion of e6istence of ega power or a&thorit-. The- have nothing to do with m&ch debated %&estions of wisdom or propriet- or re ative desirabi it- either of the proposed disposition itse f or of the proposed &ti i7ation of the anticipated
Page | 150

proceeds of the propert- invo ved. These atter t-pes of considerations Ie within the sphere of responsibi it- of the po itica departments of government the E6ec&tive and the Aegis ative a&thorities. .or a the foregoing, I vote to dismiss the ;etitions for ;rohibition in both G.R. 3os. $/'"! and $/'4#. Hernan, ).J., &arva$a, Ganca!co, )orte$ and Medialdea, JJ., concurrin".

Page | 151

Page | 152

:G.R. No. 12;;15. June 1, 2000< %N,ERNA,%ONAL S$HOOL ALL%AN$E O. EDU$A,ORS =%SAE>, petitioner, vs. HON. LEONARDO A. ?U%SU#6%NG in 'i" -&p&-ity &" t'e Se- et& y o) L&8o &n( E7ploy7ent@ HON. $RESEN$%ANO 6. ,RAJANO in 'i" -&p&-ity &" t'e A-tin/ Se- et& y o) L&8o &n( E7ploy7ent@ DR. 6R%AN #A$$AULE4 in 'i" -&p&-ity &" t'e Supe inten(ent o) %nte n&tion&l S-'oolA#&nil&@ &n( %N,ERNA,%ONAL S$HOOL, %N$., respondents. EE+I=I13
Page | 153

?8;U383, J.< Receiving sa aries ess than their co&nterparts hired abroad, the oca * hires of private respondent =choo , most - .i ipinos, cr- discrimination. 0e agree. That the oca *hires are paid more than their co eag&es in other schoo s is, of co&rse, beside the point. The point is that emp o-ees sho& d be given e%&a pa- for work of e%&a va &e. That is a princip e ong honored in this j&risdiction. That is a princip e that rests on f&ndamenta notions of j&stice. That is the princip e we &pho d toda-. ;rivate respondent Internationa =choo , Inc. 2the =choo , for short5, p&rs&ant to ;residentia Eecree #!/, is a domestic ed&cationa instit&tion estab ished primari - for dependents of foreign
Page | 154

dip omatic personne and other temporar- residents.L"M To enab e the =choo to contin&e carr-ing o&t its ed&cationa program and improve its standard of instr&ction, =ection /2c5 of the same decree a&thori7es the =choo to emp o- its own teaching and management personne se ected b- it either oca - or abroad, from ;hi ippine or other nationa ities, s&ch personne being e6empt from otherwise app icab e aws and reg& ations attending their emp o-ment, e6cept aws that have been or wi be enacted for the protection of emp o-ees. 8ccording -, the =choo hires both foreign and oca teachers as members
Page | 155

of its fac& t-, c assif-ing the same into two< 2"5 foreign*hires and 2/5 oca *hires. The =choo emp o-s fo&r tests to determine whether a fac& t- member sho& d be c assified as a foreign*hire or a oca hire< a.....0hat is one9s domici eK b.....0here econom-K is one9s home

c.....To which co&ntr- does one owe economic a egianceK d.....0as the individ&a hired abroad specifica - to work in the =choo and was the =choo responsib e for bringing that individ&a to the ;hi ippinesKL/M =ho& d the answer to an- of these %&eries point to the ;hi ippines, the
Page | 156

fac& t- member is c assified as a oca hire> otherwise, he or she is deemed a foreign*hire. The =choo grants foreign*hires certain benefits not accorded oca *hires. These inc &de ho&sing, transportation, shipping costs, ta6es, and home eave trave a owance. .oreign*hires are a so paid a sa ar- rate twent-*five percent 2/)B5 more than oca *hires. The =choo j&stifies the difference on two Dsignificant economic disadvantagesD foreign*hires have to end&re, name -< 2a5 the Ddis ocation factorD and 2b5 imited ten&re. The =choo e6p ains< 8 foreign*hire wo& d necessari have to &proot himse f from his home co&ntr-, eave his fami - and friends, and take the risk of
Page | 157

deviating from a promising career path*a for the p&rpose of p&rs&ing his profession as an ed&cator, b&t this time in a foreign and. The new foreign hire is faced with economic rea ities< decent abode for onese f andJor for one9s fami -, effective means of transportation, a owance for the ed&cation of one9s chi dren, ade%&ate ins&rance against i ness and death, and of co&rse the primar- benefit of a basic sa ar-Jretirement compensation. Heca&se of a imited ten&re, the foreign hire is confronted again with the same economic rea itafter his term< that he wi event&a - and inevitab - ret&rn to his home co&ntr- where he wi
Page | 158

have to confront the &ncertaint- of obtaining s&itab e emp o-ment after a ong period in a foreign and. The compensation scheme is simp - the =choo 9s adaptive meas&re to remain competitive on an internationa eve in terms of attracting competent professiona s in the fie d of internationa ed&cation.L!M 0hen negotiations for a new co ective bargaining agreement were he d on J&ne "$$), petitioner Internationa =choo 8 iance of Ed&cators, Da egitimate abor &nion and the co ective bargaining representative of a fac& tmembersDL4M of the =choo , contested the difference in sa ar- rates between
Page | 159

foreign and oca *hires. This iss&e, as we as the %&estion of whether foreign* hires sho& d be inc &ded in the appropriate bargaining &nit, event&a ca&sed a dead ock between the parties. 1n =eptember #, "$$), petitioner fi ed a notice of strike. The fai &re of the 3ationa +onci iation and ,ediation Hoard to bring the parties to a compromise prompted the Eepartment of Aabor and Emp o-ment 2E1AE5 to ass&me j&risdiction over the disp&te. 1n J&ne "', "$$(, the E1AE 8cting =ecretar-, +rescenciano H. Trajano, iss&ed an 1rder reso ving the parit- and representation iss&es in favor of the =choo . Then E1AE =ecretar- Aeonardo 8. O&is&mbing s&bse%&ent - denied petitioner9s motion for reconsideration in
Page | 160

an 1rder dated ,arch "$, "$$#. ;etitioner now seeks re ief in this +o&rt. ;etitioner c aims that the point*of*hire c assification emp o-ed b- the =choo is discriminator- to .i ipinos and that the grant of higher sa aries to foreign*hires constit&tes racia discrimination. The =choo disp&tes these c aims and gives a breakdown of its fac& tmembers, n&mbering !: in a , with nationa ities other than .i ipino, who have been hired oca - and c assified as oca hires.L)MThe 8cting =ecretar- of Aabor fo&nd that these non*.i ipino oca *hires received the same benefits as the .i ipino oca *hires< The compensation package given to oca *hires has been shown to app - to
Page | 161

a , regard ess of race. Tr&th to te , there are foreigners who have been hired oca - and who are paid e%&a - as .i ipino oca hires.L(M The 8cting =ecretar- &phe d the point* of*hire c assification for the distinction in sa ar- rates< The princip e De%&a pa- for e%&a workD does not find app ication in the present case. The internationa character of the =choo re%&ires the hiring of foreign personne to dea with different nationa ities and different c& t&res, among the st&dent pop& ation. 0e a so take cogni7ance of the e6istence of a s-stem of sa aries and benefits accorded to foreign
Page | 162

hired personne which s-stem is &niversa - recogni7ed. 0e agree that certain amenities have to be provided to these peop e in order to entice them to render their services in the ;hi ippines and in the process remain competitive in the internationa market. .&rthermore, we took note of the fact that foreign hires have imited contract of emp o-ment &n ike the oca hires who enjo- sec&rit- of ten&re. To app - parit- therefore, in wages and other benefits wo& d a so re%&ire parit- in other terms and conditions of emp o-ment which inc &de the emp o-ment contract.
Page | 163

8 per&sa of the parties9 "$$/*"$$) +H8 points &s to the conditions and provisions for sa ar- and professiona compensation wherein the parties agree as fo ows< 8 members of the bargaining &nit sha be compensated on in accordance with 8ppendi6 + hereof provided that the =&perintendent of the =choo has the discretion to recr&it and hire e6patriate teachers from abroad, &nder terms and conditions that are consistent with accepted internationa practice.
Page | 164

8ppendi6 + of said +H8 f&rther provides< The new sa ar- sched& e is deemed at e%&it- with the 1verseas Recr&ited =taff 21=R=5 sa ar- sched& e. The /)B differentia is ref ective of the agreed va &e of s-stem disp acement and contracted stat&s of the 1=R= as differentiated from the ten&red stat&s of Aoca Recr&ited =taff 2AR=5. To o&r mind, these provisions demonstrate the parties9 recognition of the difference in the stat&s of two t-pes of emp o-ees, hence, the difference in their sa aries.
Page | 165

The Union cannot a so invoke the e%&a protection c a&se to j&stif- its c aim of parit-. It is an estab ished princip e of constit&tiona aw that the g&arantee of e%&a protection of the aws is not vio ated begis ation or private covenants based on reasonab e c assification. 8 c assification is reasonab e if it is based on s&bstantia distinctions and app - to a members of the same c ass. Feri -, there is a s&bstantia distinction between foreign hires and oca hires, the former enjo-ing on - a imited ten&re, having no amenities of their own in the ;hi ippines and have to be given a good compensation package in order to
Page | 166

attract them to join the teaching fac& t- of the =choo .L#M 0e cannot agree. That p&b ic po ic- abhors ine%&a it- and discrimination is be-ond contention. 1&r +onstit&tion and aws ref ect the po icagainst these evi s. The +onstit&tionL:M in the 8rtic e on =ocia J&stice and I&man Rights e6horts +ongress to Dgive highest priorit- to the enactment of meas&res that protect and enhance the right of a peop e to h&man dignit-, red&ce socia , economic, and po itica ine%&a ities.D The ver- broad 8rtic e "$ of the +ivi +ode re%&ires ever- person, Din the e6ercise of his rights and in the performance of his d&ties, LtoM act with j&stice, give ever-one his d&e, and observe honest- and good faith.D
Page | 167

Internationa aw, which springs from genera princip es of aw,L$M ikewise proscribes discrimination. Genera princip es of aw inc &de princip es of e%&it-,L"'M i.e., the genera princip es of fairness and j&stice, based on the test of what is reasonab e.L""M The Universa Eec aration of I&man Rights,L"/M the Internationa +ovenant on Economic, =ocia , and +& t&ra Rights,L"!M the Internationa +onvention on the E imination of 8 .orms of Racia Eiscrimination,L"4M the +onvention against Eiscrimination in Ed&cation, L")M the +onvention 23o. """5 +oncerning Eiscrimination in Respect of Emp o-ment and 1cc&pationL"(M * a embod- the genera princip e against discrimination, the ver- antithesis of fairness and j&stice. The ;hi ippines,
Page | 168

thro&gh its +onstit&tion, has incorporated this princip e as part of its nationa aws. In the workp ace, where the re ations between capita and abor are often skewed in favor of capita , ine%&a it- and discrimination b- the emp o-er are a the more reprehensib e. The +onstit&tionL"#M specifica - provides that abor is entit ed to Dh&mane conditions of work.D These conditions are not restricted to the ph-sica workp ace * the factor-, the office or the fie d * b&t inc &de as we the manner bwhich emp o-ers treat their emp o-ees. The +onstit&tionL":M a so directs the =tate to promote De%&a it- of emp o-ment opport&nities for a .D =imi ar -, the Aabor
Page | 169

+odeL"$M provides that the =tate sha Dens&re e%&a work opport&nities regard ess of se6, race or creed.D It wo& d be an affront to both the spirit and etter of these provisions if the =tate, in spite of its primordia ob igation to promote and ens&re e%&a emp o-ment opport&nities, c oses its e-es to &ne%&a and discriminator- terms and conditions of emp o-ment.L/'M Eiscrimination, partic& ar - in terms of wages, is frowned &pon b- the Aabor +ode. 8rtic e "!), for e6amp e, prohibits and pena i7esL/"M the pa-ment of esser compensation to a fema e emp o-ee as against a ma e emp o-ee for work of e%&a va &e. 8rtic e /4: dec ares it an &nfair abor practice for an emp o-er to discriminate in regard to wages in order
Page | 170

to enco&rage or disco&rage membership in an- abor organi7ation. 3otab -, the Internationa +ovenant on Economic, =ocia , and +& t&ra Rights, s&pra, in 8rtic e # thereof, provides< The =tates ;arties to the present +ovenant recogni7e the right of ever-one to the enjo-ment of j&st and favo&rab e conditions of work, which ens&re, in partic& ar< a.....Rem&neration which provides a workers, as a minim&m, with< i......air wages and e%&a rem&neration for work of e%&a va &e witho&t distinction of an- kind, in partic& ar women being g&aranteed conditions of
Page | 171

work not inferior to those enjo-ed b- men, with e%&a pa- for e%&a work> 6 6 6. The foregoing provisions impregnab instit&tiona i7e in this j&risdiction the ong honored ega tr&ism of De%&a pafor e%&a work.D ;ersons who work with s&bstantia - e%&a %&a ifications, ski , effort and responsibi it-, &nder simi ar conditions, sho& d be paid simi ar sa aries.L//M This r& e app ies to the =choo , its Dinternationa characterD notwithstanding. The =choo contends that petitioner has not add&ced evidence that oca *hires perform work e%&a to that of foreign* hires.L/!M The +o&rt finds this arg&ment a
Page | 172

itt e cava ier. If an emp o-er accords emp o-ees the same position and rank, the pres&mption is that these emp o-ees perform e%&a work. This pres&mption is borne b- ogic and h&man e6perience. If the emp o-er pa-s one emp o-ee ess than the rest, it is not for that emp o-ee to e6p ain wh- he receives ess or whthe others receive more. That wo& d be adding ins& t to inj&r-. The emp o-er has discriminated against that emp o-ee> it is for the emp o-er to e6p ain wh- the emp o-ee is treated &nfair -. The emp o-er in this case has fai ed to discharge this b&rden. There is no evidence here that foreign*hires perform /)B more efficient - or effective - than the oca *hires. Hoth gro&ps have simi ar f&nctions and responsibi ities, which
Page | 173

the- perform &nder simi ar working conditions. The =choo cannot invoke the need to entice foreign*hires to eave their domici e to rationa i7e the distinction in sa ar- rates witho&t vio ating the princip e of e%&a work for e%&a pa-. D=a ar-D is defined in H ack9s Aaw Eictionar- 2)th ed.5 as Da reward or recompense for services performed.D =imi ar -, the ;hi ippine Aega Enc-c opedia states that Dsa ar-D is the DLcMonsideration paid at reg& ar interva s for the rendering of services.D In on"co v. &ational La/or %elation$ )ommission,L/4M we said that< Dsa ar-D means a recompense or consideration made to a person for
Page | 174

his pains or ind&str- in another man9s b&siness. 0hether it be derived from Dsa ari&m,D or more fancif& - from Dsa ,D the pa- of the Roman so dier, it carries with it the f&ndamenta idea of compensation for services rendered. 2Emphasis s&pp ied.5 0hi e we recogni7e the need of the =choo to attract foreign*hires, sa aries sho& d not be &sed as an enticement to the prej&dice of oca *hires. The oca * hires perform the same services as foreign*hires and the- o&ght to be paid the same sa aries as the atter. .or the same reason, the Ddis ocation factorD and the foreign*hires9 imited ten&re a so cannot serve as va id bases for the distinction in sa ar- rates. The
Page | 175

dis ocation factor and imited ten&re affecting foreign*hires are ade%&ate compensated b- certain benefits accorded them which are not enjo-ed boca *hires, s&ch as ho&sing, transportation, shipping costs, ta6es and home eave trave a owances.The +onstit&tion enjoins the =tate to Dprotect the rights of workers and promote their we fare,DL/)M Dto afford abor f& protection.DL/(M The =tate, therefore, has the right and d&t- to reg& ate the re ations between abor and capita . L/#M These re ations are not mere contract&a b&t are so impressed with p&b ic interest that abor contracts, co ective bargaining agreements inc &ded, m&st -ie d to the common good.L/:M =ho& d s&ch contracts contain stip& ations that are contrar- to p&b ic
Page | 176

po ic-, co&rts wi not hesitate to strike down these stip& ations.In this case, we find the point*of*hire c assification emp o-ed b- respondent =choo to j&stif- the distinction in the sa ar- rates of foreign*hires and oca hires to be an inva id c assification. There is no reasonab e distinction between the services rendered b- foreign*hires and oca *hires. The practice of the =choo of according higher sa aries to foreign* hires contravenes p&b ic po ic- and, certain -, does not deserve the s-mpath- of this +o&rt.0e agree, however, that foreign*hires do not be ong to the same bargaining &nit as the oca *hires.8 /ar"ainin" unit is Da gro&p of emp o-ees of a given emp o-er, comprised of a or ess than a of the entire bod- of emp o-ees,
Page | 177

consistent with e%&it- to the emp o-er indicate to be the best s&ited to serve the reciproca rights and d&ties of the parties &nder the co ective bargaining provisions of the aw.DL/$M The factors in determining the appropriate co ective bargaining &nit are 2"5 the wi of the emp o-ees 2G obe Eoctrine5> 2/5 affinitand &nit- of the emp o-ees9 interest, s&ch as s&bstantia simi arit- of work and d&ties, or simi arit- of compensation and working conditions 2=&bstantia ,&t&a Interests R& e5> 2!5 prior co ective bargaining histor-> and 245 simi arit- of emp o-ment stat&s.L!'M The basic test of an asserted bargaining &nit9s acceptabi it- is whether or not it is f&ndamenta - the combination which wi best ass&re to a emp o-ees the e6ercise of their co ective bargaining
Page | 178

rights.L!"MIt does not appear that foreign* hires have indicated their intention to be gro&ped together with oca *hires for p&rposes of co ective bargaining. The co ective bargaining histor- in the =choo a so shows that these gro&ps were a wa-s treated separate -. .oreign*hires have imited ten&re> oca * hires enjo- sec&rit- of ten&re. 8 tho&gh foreign*hires perform simi ar f&nctions &nder the same working conditions as the oca *hires, foreign*hires are accorded certain benefits not granted to oca *hires. These benefits, s&ch as ho&sing, transportation, shipping costs, ta6es, and home eave trave a owance, are reasonab - re ated to their stat&s as foreign*hires, and j&stif- the e6c &sion of the former from the atter. To inc &de foreign*hires in a bargaining &nit with
Page | 179

oca *hires wo& d not ass&re either gro&p the e6ercise of their respective co ective bargaining rights. 0IERE.1RE, the petition is GIFE3 EUE +1UR=E. The petition is herebGR83TEE I3 ;8RT. The 1rders of the =ecretar- of Aabor and Emp o-ment dated J&ne "', "$$( and ,arch "$, "$$#, are hereb- REFER=EE and =ET 8=IEE insofar as the- &pho d the practice of respondent =choo of according foreign*hires higher sa aries than oca *hires. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 180

Page | 181

:G.R. No. 91223. Au/u"t 21, 1992< BAREN E. SALVA$%ON, 7ino , t' u .e(e i-o N. S&l!&-ion, J ., )&t'e &n( N&tu &l Gu& (i&n, &n( Spou"e" .EDER%$O N. SALVA$%ON, JR., &n( EVEL%NA E. SALVA$%ON, petitioners, vs. $EN,RAL 6ANB O. ,HE *H%L%**%NES, $H%NA 6ANB%NG $OR*ORA,%ON &n( GREG 6AR,ELL% y NOR,H$O,,, respondents.
Page | 182

EE+I=I13 T1RRE=, JR., J.< In o&r predisposition to discover the Porigina intentQ of a stat&te, co&rts become the &nfee ing pi ars of the $tatu$ 4uo. Aitt e do we rea i7e that stat&tes or even constit&tions are b&nd es of compromises thrown o&r wab- their framers. Un ess we e6ercise vigi ance, the stat&te ma- a read- be o&t of t&ne and irre evant to o&r da-. The petition is for dec arator- re ief. It pra-s for the fo owing re iefs< a.5 Immediate - &pon the fi ing of this petition, an 1rder be iss&ed restraining the respondents from app -ing and enforcing =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $('>
Page | 183

b.5 8fter hearing, j&dgment be rendered< ".5 Eec aring the respective rights and d&ties of petitioners and respondents> /.5 8dj&dging =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' as contrar- to the provision of the +onstit&tion, hence void> beca&se its provision that P.oreign c&rrenc- deposits sha be e6empt from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order to process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agenc- or an- administrative bod- whatsoeverQ i.5 has taken awa- the right of petitioners to have the bank
Page | 184

deposit of defendant Greg Harte i - 3orthcott garnished to satisf- the j&dgment rendered in petitionersR favor in vio ation of s&bstantive d&e process g&aranteed b- the +onstit&tion> ii.5 has given foreign c&rrencdepositors an &nd&e favor or a c ass privi ege in vio ation of the e%&a protection c a&se of the +onstit&tion> iii.5 has provided a safe haven for crimina s ike the herein respondent Greg Harte i 3orthcott since crimina s co& d escape civi iabi it- for their wrongf& acts bmere converting their mone- to a foreign c&rrenc- and depositing
Page | 185

it in a foreign c&rrenc- deposit acco&nt with an a&thori7ed bank. The antecedents facts< 1n .ebr&ar- 4, "$:$, Greg Harte i 3orthcott, an 8merican to&rist, coa6ed and &red petitioner ?aren =a vacion, then "/ -ears o d to go with him to his apartment. Therein, Greg Harte i detained ?aren =a vacion for fo&r da-s, or &p to .ebr&ar- #, "$:$ and was ab e to rape the chi d once on .ebr&ar- 4, and three times each da- on .ebr&ar), (, and #, "$:$. 1n .ebr&ar- #, "$:$, after po icemen and peop e iving nearb-, resc&ed ?aren, Greg Harte i was arrested and detained at the ,akati ,&nicipa Jai . The po icemen recovered from Harte i the fo owing
Page | 186

items< ".5 Eo ar +heck 3o. !(:, +ontro 3o. '/"'''(#:*""(("""!'!, U= !,$'!./'> /.5 +1+1H83? Hank Hook 3o. "'4*"':#):*: 2;eso 8cct.5> !.5 Eo ar 8cco&nt S +hina Hanking +orp., U= @J8T)4"')'/:* /> 4.5 IE*"//*!'*::##> ).5 ;hi ippine ,one- 2;/!4.''5 cash> (.5 Eoor ?e-s ( pieces> #.5 =t&ffed Eo 2Tedd- Hear5 &sed in sed&cing the comp ainant. 1n .ebr&ar- "(, "$:$, ,akati Investigating .isca Edwin G. +onda-a fi ed against Greg Harte i, +rimina +ase 3o. :'" for =erio&s I ega Eetention and +rimina +ases 3os. :'/, :'!, :'4, and :') for fo&r 245 co&nts of Rape. 1n the same da-, petitioners fi ed with the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4 for
Page | 187

damages with pre iminar- attachment against Greg Harte i. 1n .ebr&ar- /4, "$:$, the da- there was a sched& ed hearing for Harte iRs petition for bai the atter escaped from jai . 1n .ebr&ar- /:, "$:$, the co&rt granted the fisca Rs Urgent ;'2arte ,otion for the Iss&ance of 0arrant of 8rrest and Io d Eepart&re 1rder. ;ending the arrest of the acc&sed Greg Harte i - 3orthcott, the crimina cases were archived in an 1rder dated .ebr&ar- /:, "$:$. ,eanwhi e, in +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4, the J&dge iss&ed an 1rder dated .ebr&ar- //, "$:$ granting the app ication of herein petitioners, for the iss&ance of the writ of pre iminarattachment. 8fter petitioners gave Hond
Page | 188

3o. J+A 245 "$:" b- .GU Ins&rance +orporation in the amo&nt;"'','''.'', a 0rit of ;re iminar- 8ttachment was iss&ed b- the tria co&rt on .ebr&ar- /:, "$:$. 1n ,arch ", "$:$, the Eep&t- =heriff of ,akati served a 3otice of Garnishment on +hina Hanking +orporation. In a etter dated ,arch "!, "$:$ to the Eep&t- =heriff of ,akati, +hina Hanking +orporation invoked Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. "4') as its answer to the notice of garnishment served on it. 1n ,arch "), "$:$, Eep&t- =heriff of ,akati 8rmando de G&7man sent his rep - to +hina Hanking +orporation sa-ing that the garnishment did not vio ate the secrec- of bank deposits since the disc os&re is mere - incidenta
Page | 189

to a garnishment proper - and ega made b- virt&e of a co&rt order which has p aced the s&bject deposits in cu$todia le"i$. In answer to this etter of the Eep&t- =heriff of ,akati, +hina Hanking +orporation, in a etter dated ,arch /', "$:$, invoked =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' to the effect that the do ar deposits of defendant Greg Harte i are e6empt from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order or process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agenc- or anadministrative bod-, whatsoever. This prompted the co&nse for petitioners to make an in%&ir- with the +entra Hank in a etter dated 8pri /), "$:$ on whether =ection ""! of +H +irc& ar 3o. $(' has an- e6ception or
Page | 190

whether said section has been repea ed or amended since said section has rendered n&gator- the s&bstantive right of the p aintiff to have the c aim so&ght to be enforced b- the civi action sec&red b- wa- of the writ of pre iminarattachment as granted to the p aintiff &nder R& e )# of the Revised R& es of +o&rt. The +entra Hank responded as fo ows<

P,a- /(, "$:$ P,s. Er inda =. +aro ino "/ ;res. 1smeUa 8ven&e =o&th 8dmira Fi age ;arana%&e, ,etro ,ani a PEear ,s. +aro ino<
Page | 191

PThis is in rep - to -o&r etter dated 8pri /), "$:$ regarding -o&r in%&iron =ection ""!, +H +irc& ar 3o. $(' 2"$:!5. PThe cited provision is abso &te in app ication. It does not admit of ane6ception, nor has the same been repea ed nor amended. PThe p&rpose of the aw is to enco&rage do ar acco&nts within the co&ntr-Rs banking s-stem which wo& d he p in the deve opment of the econom-. There is no intention to render f&ti e the basic rights of a person as was s&ggested in -o&r s&bject etter. The aw ma- be harsh as some perceive it, b&t it is sti the aw. +omp iance is, therefore, enjoined.
Page | 192

PFertr& - -o&rs, 2=GE5 8G8;IT1 =. .8J8RE1 EirectorQL"M ,eanwhi e, on 8pri "', "$:$, the tria co&rt granted petitionersR motion for eave to serve s&mmons b- p&b ication in the +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4 entit ed P?aren =a vacion. et al. v$. Greg Harte i 3orthcott.Q =&mmons with the comp aint was p&b ished in the ,ani a Times once a week for three consec&tive weeks. Greg Harte i fai ed to fi e his answer to the comp aint and
Page | 193

was dec ared in defa& t on 8&g&st #, "$:$. 8fter hearing the case e'parte, the co&rt rendered j&dgment in favor of petitioners on ,arch /$, "$$', the dispositive portion of which reads< P0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is herebrendered in favor of p aintiffs and against defendant, ordering the atter< P". To pa- p aintiff ?aren E. =a vacion the amo&nt of ;)'','''.'' as mora damages> P/. To pa- her parents, p aintiffs spo&ses .ederico 3. =a vacion, Jr., and Eve ina E. =a vacion the amo&nt of ;")','''.'' each or a tota of ;!'','''.'' for both of them> P!. To pa- p aintiffs e6emp ardamages of ;"'','''.''> and
Page | 194

P4. To pa- attorne-Rs fees in an amo&nt e%&iva ent to /)B of the tota amo&nt of damages herein awarded> P). To paitigation e6penses of ;"','''.''> p &s P(. +osts of the s&it. P=1 1REEREE.Q The heino&s acts of respondents Greg Harte i which gave rise to the award were re ated in graphic detai b- the tria co&rt in its decision as fo ows< PThe defendant in this case was origina - detained in the m&nicipa jai of ,akati b&t was ab e to escape therefrom on .ebr&ar- /4, "$:$ as per report of the Jai 0arden of ,akati to the ;residing J&dge, Ionorab e ,an&e ,. +osico of the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati,
Page | 195

Hranch "!(, where he was charged with fo&r co&nts of Rape and =erio&s I ega Eetention 2+rim. +ases 3os. :'/ to :')5. 8ccording -, &pon motion of p aintiffs, thro&gh co&nse , s&mmons was served &pon defendant b- p&b ication in the ,ani a Times, a newspaper of genera circ& ation as attested b- the 8dvertising ,anager of the ,etro ,edia Times, Inc., the p&b isher of the said newspaper. Eefendant, however, fai ed to fi e his answer to the comp aint despite the apse of the period of si6t- 2('5 da-s from the ast p&b ication> hence, &pon motion of the p aintiffs thro&gh co&nse , defendant was dec ared in defa& t and p aintiffs were a&thori7ed to present their evidence e' parte.
Page | 196

PIn s&pport of the comp aint, p aintiffs presented as witness the minor ?aren E. =a vacion, her father, .ederico 3. =a acion, Jr., a certain Joseph 8g&i ar and a certain Aiberato ,and& io, who gave the fo owing testimon-< P?aren took her first -ear high schoo in =t. ,ar-Rs 8cadem- in ;asa- +it- b&t has recent - transferred to 8re ano Universit- for her second -ear. PIn the afternoon of .ebr&ar- 4, "$:$, ?aren was at the ; a7a .air ,akati +inema =%&are, with her friend Edna Tangi e whi ing awa- her free time. 8t abo&t !<!' p.m. whi e she was finishing her snack on a concrete bench in front of ; a7a .air, an 8merican approached her. =he was then a one beca&se Edna
Page | 197

Tangi e had a read- eft, and she was abo&t to go home. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, pp. / to )5 PThe 8merican asked her name and introd&ced himse f as Greg Harte i. Ie sat beside her when he ta ked to her. Ie said he was a ,ath teacher and to d her that he has a sister who is a n&rse in 3ew Cork. Iis sister a eged has a da&ghter who is abo&t ?arenRs age and who was with him in his ho&se a ong ?a a-aan 8ven&e. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, pp. 4*)5. PThe 8merican asked ?aren what was her favorite s&bject and she to d him itRs ;i ipino. Ie then invited her to go with him to his ho&se where she co& d teach ;i ipino to his niece. Ie even gave her
Page | 198

a st&ffed to- to pers&ade her to teach his niece. 23d., pp.)*(5 PThe- wa ked from ; a7a .air a ong ;asong Tamo, t&rning right to reach the defendantRs ho&se a ong ?a a-aan 8ven&e. 23d., p.(5 P0hen the- reached the apartment ho&se, ?aren notices that defendantRs a eged niece was not o&tside the ho&se b&t defendant to d her ma-be his niece was inside. 0hen ?aren did not see the a eged niece inside the ho&se, defendant to d her ma-be his niece was &pstairs, and invited ?aren to go &pstairs. 23d., p. #5 PUpon entering the bedroom defendant s&dden ocked the door. ?aren became nervo&s beca&se his niece was
Page | 199

not there. Eefendant got a piece of cotton cord and tied ?arenRs hands with it, and then he &ndressed her. ?aren cried for he p b&t defendant strang ed her. Ie took a packing tape and he covered her mo&th with it and he circ ed it aro&nd her head. 23d., p. #5 PThen, defendant s&dden - p&shed ?aren towards the bed which was j&st near the door. Ie tied her feet and hands spread apart to the bed posts. Ie kne t in front of her and inserted his finger in her se6 organ. =he fe t severe pain. =he tried to sho&t b&t no so&nd co& d come o&t beca&se there were tapes on her mo&th. 0hen defendant withdrew his finger it was f& of b ood and ?aren fe t more pain after the withdrawa of the finger. 23d., p.:5
Page | 200

PIe then got a Johnsons Hab- 1i and he app ied it to his se6 organ as we as to her se6 organ. 8fter that he forced his se6 organ into her b&t he was not ab e to do so. 0hi e he was doing it, ?aren fo&nd it diffic& t to breathe and she perspired a ot whi e fee ing severe pain. =he mere - pres&med that he was ab e to insert his se6 organ a itt e, beca&se she co& d not see. ?aren co& d not reca how ong the defendant was in that position. 23d., pp. :*$5 P8fter that, he stood &p and went to the bathroom to wash. Ie a so to d ?aren to take a shower and he &ntied her hands. ?aren co& d on - hear the so&nd of the water whi e the defendant, she pres&med, was in the bathroom washing his se6 organ. 0hen she took a shower
Page | 201

more b ood came o&t from her. In the meantime, defendant changed the mattress beca&se it was f& of b ood. 8fter the shower, ?aren was a owed b- defendant to s eep. =he fe as eep beca&se she got tired cr-ing. The incident happened at abo&t 4<'' p.m. ?aren had no wa- of determining the e6act time beca&se defendant removed her watch. Eefendant did not care to give her food before she went to s eep. ?aren woke &p at abo&t :<'' oRc ock the fo owing morning. 23d., pp. $*"'5 PThe fo owing da-, .ebr&ar- ), "$:$, a =&nda-, after breakfast of bisc&it and coke at abo&t :<!' to $<'' a.m. defendant raped ?aren whi e she was
Page | 202

sti b eeding. .or &nch, the- a so took bisc&it and coke. =he was raped for the second time at abo&t "/<'' to /<'' p.m. In the evening, the- had rice for dinner which defendant had stored downstairs> it was he who cooked the rice that is wh- it ooks ike P &gawQ. .or the third time, ?aren was raped again d&ring the night. E&ring those three times defendant s&cceeded in inserting his se6 organ b&t she co& d not sawhether the organ was inserted who -. P?aren did not see an- firearm or anb aded weapon. The defendant did not tie her hands and feet nor p&t a tape on her mo&th an-more b&t she did not crfor he p for fear that she might be ki ed> besides, a those windows and doors were c osed. 8nd even if she sho&ted
Page | 203

for he p, nobod- wo& d hear her. =he was so afraid that if somebod- wo& d hear her and wo& d be ab e to ca a po ice, it was sti possib e that as she was sti inside the ho&se, defendant might ki her. Hesides, the defendant did not eave that =&nda-, r& ing o&t her chance to ca for he p. 8t nighttime he s ept with her again. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, pp. "/*"45 P1n .ebr&ar- (, "$:$, ,onda-, ?aren was raped three times, once in the morning for thirt- min&tes after breakfast of bisc&its> again in the afternoon> and again in the evening. 8t first, ?aren did not know that there was a window beca&se ever-thing was covered b- a carpet, &nti defendant opened the window for aro&nd fifteen min&tes or
Page | 204

ess to et some air in, and she fo&nd that the window was covered bst-rofoam and p -wood. 8fter that, he again c osed the window with a hammer and he p&t the st-rofoam, p -wood, and carpet back. 23d., pp. "4*")5 PThat ,onda- evening, ?aren had a chance to ca for he p, a tho&gh defendant eft b&t kept the door c osed. =he went to the bathroom and saw a sma window covered bst-rofoam and she a so spotted a sma ho e. =he stepped on the bow and she cried for he p thro&gh the ho e. =he cried: IMaa0a na po :a!o $a a:in. Tulun"an nJ!o a:on" #a:ala/a$ dito. Kinidnap a:oLJ =omebod- heard her. It was a woman, probab - a neighbor, b&t she got angr- and said
Page | 205

she was Vi$tor/o.R ?aren p eaded for he p and the woman to d her to s eep and she wi ca the po ice. =he fina fe as eep b&t no po iceman came. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, pp. ")*"(5 P=he woke &p at (<'' oRc ock the fo owing morning, and she saw defendant in bed, this time s eeping. =he waited for him to wake &p. 0hen he woke &p, he again got some food b&t he a wa-s kept the door ocked. 8s &s&a , she was mere - fed with bisc&it and coke. 1n that da-, .ebr&ar- #, "$:$, she was again raped three times. The first at abo&t (<!' to #<'' a.m., the second at abo&t :<!' S $<'', and the third was after &nch at "/<'' noon. 8fter he had raped her for the second time he eft b&t on - for a
Page | 206

short whi e. Upon his ret&rn, he ca&ght her sho&ting for he p b&t he did not &nderstand what she was sho&ting abo&t. 8fter she was raped the third time, he eft the ho&se. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, pp. "(*"#5 =he again went to the bathroom and sho&ted for he p. 8fter sho&ting for abo&t five min&tes, she heard man- voices. The voices were asking for her name and she gave her name as ?aren =a vacion. 8fter a whi e, she heard a voice of a woman sa-ing the- wi j&st ca the po ice. Thewere a so te ing her to change her c othes. =he went from the bathroom to the room b&t she did not change her c othes being afraid that sho& d the neighbors ca the po ice and the defendant see her in different c othes, he might ki her. 8t that time she was
Page | 207

wearing a T*shirt of the 8merican baca&se the atter washed her dress. 23d., p. "(5 P8fterwards, defendant arrived and opened the door. Ie asked her if she had asked for he p beca&se there were man- po icemen o&tside and she denied it. Ie to d her to change her c othes, and she did change to the one she was wearing on =at&rda-. Ie instr&cted her to te the po ice that she eft home and wi ing -> then he went downstairs b&t he ocked the door. =he co& d hear peop e conversing b&t she co& d not &nderstand what the- were sa-ing. 23d., p. "$5 P0hen she heard the voices of manpeop e who were conversing downstairs, she knocked repeated - at
Page | 208

the door as hard as she co& d. =he heard somebod- going &pstairs and when the door was opened, she saw a po iceman. The po iceman asked her name and the reason wh- she was there. =he to d him she was kidnapped. Eownstairs, he saw abo&t five po icemen in &niform and the defendant was ta king to them. I&a:i:ipa"-are"lo po $a #"a puli$,J ?aren added. PThe po iceman to d him to j&st e6p ain at the precinct. 23d., p. /'5 PThe- went o&t of the ho&se and she saw some of her neighbors in front of the ho&se. The- rode the car of a certain person she ca ed ?&-a Hotogether with defendant, the po iceman, and two of her neighbors whom she
Page | 209

ca ed ?&-a Hong Aacson and one 8te 3ita. The- were bro&ght to =&b*=tation I and there she was investigated b- a po iceman. 8t abo&t /<'' a.m., her father arrived, fo owed b- her mother together with some of their neighbors. Then the- were bro&ght to the second f oor of the po ice head%&arters. D3d., p. /"5 P8t the head%&arters, she was asked severa %&estions bthe investigator. The written statement she gave to the po ice was marked E6hibit 8. Then the- proceeded to the 3ationa H&rea& of Investigation together with the investigator and her parents. 8t the 3HI, a doctor, a #edico-le"al officer, e6amined her private parts. It was a read- !<'' in ear - morning, of the
Page | 210

fo owing da- when the- reached the 3HI, 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, p. //5 The findings of the #edico-le"al officer has been marked as E6hibit H. P=he was st&d-ing at the =t. ,ar-Rs 8cadem- in ;asa- +it- at the time of the Incident b&t she s&bse%&ent transferred to 8po inario ,abini, 8re ano Universit-, sit&ated a ong Taft 8ven&e, beca&se she was ashamed to be the s&bject of conversation in the schoo . =he first app ied for transfer to Jose 8bad =antos, 8re ano Universita ong Taft 8ven&e near the Aight Rai Transit =tation b&t she was denied admission after she to d the schoo the tr&e reason for her transfer. The reason for their denia was that the- might be
Page | 211

imp icated in the case. 2T=3, 8&g. "), "$:$, p. 4(5 666 666 666 P8fter the incident, ?aren has changed a ot. =he does not p a- with her brother and sister an-more, and she is a wa-s in a state of shock> she has been absent*minded and is ashamed even to go o&t of the ho&se. 2T=3, =ept. "/, "$:$, p. "'5 =he appears to be rest ess or sad. 23d., p. ""5 The father pra-s for;)'','''.'' mora damages for ?aren for this shocking e6perience which probab -, she wo& d a wa-s reca &nti she reaches o d age, and he is not s&re if she co& d ever recover from this e6perience.Q 2T=3, =ept. /4, "$:$, pp. "'*""5
Page | 212

;&rs&ant to an 1rder granting eave to p&b ish notice of decision, said notice was p&b ished in the ,ani a H& etin once a week for three consec&tive weeks. 8fter the apse of fifteen 2")5 da-s from the date of the ast p&b ication of the notice of j&dgment and the decision of the tria co&rt had become fina , petitioners tried to e6ec&te on Harte iRs do ar deposit with +hina Hanking +orporation. Aikewise, the bank invoked =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $('. Th&s, petitioners decided to seek re ief from this +o&rt. The iss&es raised and the arg&ments artic& ated b- the parties boi down to two<
Page | 213

,a- this +o&rt entertain the instant petition despite the fact that origina j&risdiction in petitions for dec aratorre ief rests with the ower co&rtK =he =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' and =ection : of R.8. (4/(, as amended b- ;.E. "/4(, otherwise known as the .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposit 8ct be made app icab e to a foreign transientK ;etitioners aver as heretofore stated that =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' providing that P.oreign c&rrenc- deposits sha be e6empt from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order or process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agenc- or anadministrative bod- whatsoever.Q sho& d be adj&dged as &nconstit&tiona on the
Page | 214

gro&nds that< ".5 it has taken awa- the right of petitioners to have the bank deposit of defendant Greg Harte i 3orthcott garnished to satisf- the j&dgment rendered in petitionersR favor in vio ation of s&bstantive d&e process g&aranteed b- the +onstit&tion> /.5 it has given foreign c&rrenc- depositors an &nd&e favor or a c ass privi ege n vio ation of the e%&a protection c a&se of the +onstit&tion> !.5 it has provided a safe haven for crimina s ike the herein respondent Greg Harte i - 3orthcott since crimina co& d escape civi iabi itfor their wrongf& acts b- mere converting their mone- to a foreign c&rrenc- and depositing it in a foreign c&rrenc- deposit acco&nt with an a&thori7ed bank> and 4.5 The ,onetarHoard, in iss&ing =ection ""! of +entra
Page | 215

Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' has e6ceeded its de egated %&asi* egis ative power when it took awa-< a.5 the p aintiffRs s&bstantive right to have the c aim so&ght to be enforced b- the civi action sec&red b- wa- of the writ of pre iminarattachment as granted b- R& e )# of the Revised R& es of +o&rt> b.5 the p aintiffRs s&bstantive right to have the j&dgment credit satisfied b- wa- of the writ of e6ec&tion o&t of the bank deposit of the j&dgment debtor as granted to the j&dgment creditor b- R& e !$ of the Revised R& es of +o&rt, which is be-ond its power to do so. 1n the other hand, respondent +entra Hank, in its +omment a eges that the ,onetar- Hoard in iss&ing =ection ""! of +H +irc& ar 3o. $(' did not e6ceed
Page | 216

its power or a&thorit- beca&se the s&bject =ection is copied verbatim from a portion of R.8. 3o. (4/( as amended b- ;.E. "/4(. Ience, it was not the ,onetar- Hoard that grants e6emption from attachment or garnishment to foreign c&rrenc- deposits, b&t the aw 2R.8. (4/( as amended5 itse f> that it does not vio ate the s&bstantive d&e process g&aranteed b- the +onstit&tion beca&se a.5 it was based on a aw> b.5 the aw seems to be reasonab e> c.5 it is enforced according to reg& ar methods of proced&re> and d.5 it app ies to a members of a c ass. E6panding, the +entra Hank said> that one reason for e6empting the foreign c&rrenc- deposits from attachment,
Page | 217

garnishment or an- other order process of an- co&rt, is to ass&re the deve opment and speed- growth of the .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposit =-stem and the 1ffshore Hanking =-stem in the ;hi ippines> that another reason is to enco&rage the inf ow of foreign c&rrencdeposits into the banking instit&tions thereb- p acing s&ch instit&tions more in a position to proper - channe the same to oans and investments in the ;hi ippines, th&s direct - contrib&ting to the economic deve opment of the co&ntr-> that the s&bject section is being enforced according to the reg& ar methods of proced&re> and that it app ies to a c&rrenc- deposits made ban- person and therefore does not vio ate the e%&a protection c a&se of the +onstit&tion.
Page | 218

Respondent +entra Hank f&rther avers that the %&estioned provision is needed to promote the p&b ic interest and the genera we fare> that the =tate cannot j&st stand id - b- whi e a considerab e segment of the societs&ffers from economic distress> that the =tate had to take some meas&res to enco&rage economic deve opment> and that in so doing persons and propertma- be s&bjected to some kinds of restraints or b&rdens to sec&re the genera we fare or p&b ic interest. Respondent +entra Hank a so a eges that R& e !$ and R& e )# of the Revised R& es of +o&rt provide that some properties are e6empted from e6ec&tionJattachment especia provided b- aw and R.8. 3o. (4/( as amended is s&ch a aw, in that it
Page | 219

specifica - provides, among others, that foreign c&rrenc- deposits sha be e6empted from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order or process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agencor anadministrative bod- whatsoever. .or its part, respondent +hina Hanking +orporation, aside from giving reasons simi ar to that of respondent +entra Hank, a so stated that respondent +hina Hank is not &nmindf& of the inh&man s&fferings e6perienced b- the minor ?aren E. =a vacion from the beast hands of Greg Harte i> that it is not on too wi ing to re ease the do ar deposit of Harte i which ma- perhaps part mitigate the s&fferings petitioner has &ndergone> b&t it is restrained from
Page | 220

doing so in view of R.8. 3o. (4/( and =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $('> and that despite the harsh effect to these aws on petitioners, +H+ has no other a ternative b&t to fo ow the same. This co&rt finds the petition to be part meritorio&s. ;etitioner deserves to receive the damages awarded to her b- the co&rt. H&t this petition for dec aratorre ief can on - be entertained and treated as a petition for mandam&s to re%&ire respondents to honor and comp - with the writ of e6ec&tion in +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4. The +o&rt has no origina and e6c &sive j&risdiction over a petition for dec ator- re ief.L/M Iowever, e6ceptions
Page | 221

to this r& e have been recogni7ed. Th&s, where the petition has far*reaching imp ications and raises %&estions that sho& d be reso ved, it ma- be treated as one for mandam&s.L!M Iere is a chi d, a "/*-ear o d gir , who in her be ief that a 8mericans are good and in her gest&re of kindness bteaching his a eged niece the .i ipino ang&age as re%&ested b- the 8merican, tr&sting - went with said stranger to his apartment, and there she was raped bsaid 8merican to&rist Greg Harte i. 3ot once, b&t ten times. =he was detained therein for fo&r 245 da-s. This 8merican to&rist was ab e to escape from the jai and avoid p&nishment. 1n the other hand, the chi d, having received a favorab e j&dgment in the +ivi +ase for
Page | 222

damages in the amo&nt of more than ;",''','''.'', which amo&nt co& d a eviate the h&mi iation, an6iet-, and besmirched rep&tation she had s&ffered and ma- contin&e to s&ffer for a ong, ong time> and knowing that this person who had wronged her has the mone-, co& d not, however get the award of damages beca&se of this &nreasonab e aw. This %&estioned aw, therefore makes f&ti e the favorab e j&dgment and award of damages that she and her parents f& - deserve. 8s stated b- the tria co&rt in its decision, PIndeed, after hearing the testimonof ?aren, the +o&rt be ieves that it was indo&bted - a shocking and tra&matic e6perience she had &ndergone which co& d ha&nt her
Page | 223

mind for a ong, ong time, the mere reca of which co& d make her fee so h&mi iated, as in fact she had been act&a - h&mi iated once when she was ref&sed admission at the 8bad =antos Iigh =choo , 8re ano Universit-, where she so&ght to transfer from another schoo , simp beca&se the schoo a&thorities of the said Iigh =choo earned abo&t what happened to her and a eged - feared that the- might be imp icated in the case.The reason for imposing e6emp ar- or corrective damages is d&e to the wanton and bestia manner defendant had committed the acts of rape d&ring a period of serio&s i ega detention of his hap ess victim, the minor ?aren =a vacion whose on - fa& t was in her
Page | 224

being so naive and cred& o&s to be ieve easi - that defendant, an 8merican nationa , co& d not have s&ch a bestia desire on her nor capab e of committing s&ch heino&s crime. Heing on - "/ -ears o d when that &nfort&nate incident happened, she has never heard of an o d .i ipino adage that in ever- forest there is a snake, 666.QL4M If ?arenRs sad fate had happened to an-bod-Rs own kin, it wo& d be diffic& t for him to fathom how the incentive for foreign c&rrenc- deposit co& d be more important than his chi dRs right to said award of damages> in this case, the victimRs c aim for damages from this a ien who had the ga to wrong a chi d of tender -ears of a co&ntr- where he is
Page | 225

mere visitor. This f&rther i &strates the f aw in the %&estioned provisions.It is worth mentioning that R.8. 3o. (4/( was enacted in "$:! or at a time when the co&ntr-Rs econom- was in a shamb es> when foreign investments were minima and pres&mab -, this was the reason wh- said stat&te was enacted. H&t the rea ities of the present times show that the co&ntr- has recovered economica -> and even if not, the %&estioned aw sti denies those entit ed to d&e process of aw for being &nreasonab e and oppressive. The intention of the %&estioned aw ma- be good when enacted. The aw fai ed to anticipate the in%&ito&s effects prod&cing o&tright inj&stice and ine%&a it- s&ch as as the case before &s.It has th&s been said that*PH&t I a so
Page | 226

know,L)M that aws and instit&tions m&st go hand in hand with the progress of the h&man mind. 8s that becomes more deve oped, more en ightened, as new discoveries are made, new tr&ths are disc osed and manners and opinions change with the change of circ&mstances, instit&tions m&st advance a so, and keep pace with the timesW 0e might as we re%&ire a man to wear sti the coat which fitted him when a bo-, as civi i7ed societ- to remain ever &nder the regimen of their barbaro&s ancestors.Q In his comment, the =o icitor Genera correct - opined, th&s< DThe present petition has far*reaching imp ications on the right of a nationa to obtain redress for a wrong committed bPage | 227

an a ien who takes ref&ge &nder a aw and reg& ation prom& gated for a p&rpose which does not contemp ate the app ication thereof envisaged b- the a ien. ,ore specifica -, the petition raises the %&estion whether the protection against attachment, garnishment or other co&rt process accorded to foreign c&rrenc- deposits ;E 3o. "/4( and +H +irc& ar 3o. $(' app ies when the deposit does not come from a ender or investor b&t from a mere transient who is not e6pected to maintain the deposit in the bank for ong.PThe reso &tion of this %&estion is important for the protection of nationa s who are victimi7ed in the for&m bforeigners who are mere - passing thro&gh.
Page | 228

666 P666 Respondents +hina Hanking +orporation and +entra Hank of the ;hi ippines ref&sed to honor the writ of e6ec&tion iss&ed in +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4 on the strength of the fo owing provision of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $('< V=ec. ""! E6emption from attachment. S .oreign c&rrencdeposits sha be e6empt from attachment, garnishment, or another order or process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agencor anadministrative bodwhatsoever.R P+entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' was iss&ed p&rs&ant to =ection # of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. (4/(<
Page | 229

V=ec. #. R& es and Reg& ations. The ,onetar- Hoard of the +entra Hank sha prom& gate s&ch r& es and reg& ations as ma- be necessar- to carr- o&t the provisions of this 8ct which sha take effect after the p&b ication of s&ch r& es and reg& ations in the 1fficia Ga7ette and in a newspaper of nationa circ& ation for at east once a week for three consec&tive weeks. In case the +entra Hank prom& gates new r& es and reg& ations decreasing the rights of depositors, the r& es and reg& ations at the time the deposit was made sha govern.Q PThe aforecited =ection ""! was copied from =ection : of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. (4/(. 8s amended b- ;.E. "/4(, th&s<
Page | 230

V=ec. :. =ecrecof .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposits. ** 8 foreign c&rrenc- deposits a&thori7ed &nder this 8ct, as amended b;residentia Eecree 3o. "'!), as we as foreign c&rrenc- deposits a&thori7ed &nder ;residentia Eecree 3o. "'!4, are herebdec ared as and considered of an abso &te - confidentia nat&re and, e6cept &pon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance sha s&ch foreign c&rrenc- deposits be e6amined, in%&ired or ooked into ban- person, government officia , b&rea& or office whether j&dicia or administrative or egis ative or another entit- whether p&b ic or private< ;rovided, however, that said foreign c&rrenc- deposits sha be
Page | 231

e6empt from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order or process of an- co&rt, egis ative bod-, government agenc- or anadministrative bod- whatsoever.R PThe p&rpose of ;E "/4( in according protection against attachment, garnishment and other co&rt process to foreign c&rrencdeposits is stated in its whereases, vi5.< V0IERE8=, &nder Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. (4/(, as amended b- ;residentia Eecree 3o. "'!), certain ;hi ippine banking instit&tions and branches of foreign banks are a&thori7ed to accept deposits in foreign c&rrenc-> V0IERE8=, &nder provisions of ;residentia Eecree 3o. "'!4
Page | 232

a&thori7ing the estab ishment of an offshore banking s-stem in the ;hi ippines, offshore banking &nits are a so a&thori7ed to receive foreign c&rrenc- deposits in certain cases> V0IERE8=, in order to ass&re the deve opment and speed- growth of the .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposit =-stem and the 1ffshore Hanking =-stem in the ;hi ippines, certain incentives were provided for &nder the two =-stems s&ch as confidentia it- s&bject to certain e6ceptions and ta6 e6emptions on the interest income of depositors who are nonresidents and are not engaged in trade or b&siness in the ;hi ippines>
Page | 233

V0IERE8=, making abso &te the protective c oak of confidentia itover s&ch foreign c&rrenc- deposits, e6empting s&ch deposits from ta6, and g&aranteeing the vested right of depositors wo& d better enco&rage the inf ow of foreign c&rrencdeposits into the banking instit&tions a&thori7ed to accept s&ch deposits in the ;hi ippines thereb- p acing s&ch instit&tions more in a position to proper - channe the same to oans and investments in the ;hi ippines, th&s direct - contrib&ting to the economic deve opment of the co&ntr->R PTh&s, one of the principa p&rposes of the protection accorded to foreign c&rrenc- deposits is to ass&re the
Page | 234

deve opment and speed- growth of the .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposit s-stem and the 1ffshore Hanking in the ;hi ippinesR 2!rd 0hereas5.PThe 1ffshore Hanking =-stem was estab ished b- ;E 3o. "'!4. In t&rn, the p&rposes of ;E 3o. "'!4 are as fo ows< V0IERE8=, conditions cond&cive to the estab ishment of an offshore banking s-stem, s&ch as po itica stabi it-, a growing economand ade%&ate comm&nication faci ities, among others, e6ist in the ;hi ippines> V0IERE8=, it is in the interest of deve oping co&ntries to have as wide access as possib e to the
Page | 235

so&rces of capita f&nds for economic deve opment> V0IERE8=, an offshore banking s-stem based in the ;hi ippines wi be advantageo&s and beneficia to the co&ntr- bincreasing o&r inks with foreign enders, faci itating the f ow of desired investments into the ;hi ippines, creating emp o-ment opport&nities and e6pertise in internationa finance, and contrib&ting to the nationa deve opment effort. V0IERE8=, the geographica ocation, ph-sica and h&man reso&rces, and other positive factors provide the ;hi ippines with the c ear potentia to deve op
Page | 236

as another financia center in 8sia>R P1n the other hand, the .oreign +&rrenc- Eeposit s-stem was created b- ;E 3o. "'!). Its p&rpose are as fo ows< V0IERE8=, the estab ishment of an offshore banking s-stem in the ;hi ippines has been a&thori7ed &nder a separate decree> V0IERE8=, a n&mber of oca commercia banks, as depositorbank &nder the .oreign +&rrencEeposit 8ct 2R8 3o. (4/(5, have the reso&rces and manageria competence to more active engage in foreign e6change transactions and participate in the
Page | 237

grant of foreign c&rrenc- oans to resident corporations and firms> V0IERE8=, it is time - to e6pand the foreign c&rrenc- ending a&thorit- of the said depositorbanks &nder R8 (4/( and app to their transactions the same ta6es as wo& d be app icab e to transaction of the proposed offshore banking &nits>R PIt is evident from the above L0hereas c a&sesM that the 1ffshore Hanking =-stem and the .oreign +&rrencEeposit =-stem were designed to draw deposits from foreign enders and investors 2Fide second 0hereas of ;E 3o. "'!4> third 0hereas of ;E 3o. "'!)5. It is these depositors that are ind&ced b- the two
Page | 238

aws and given protection and incentives b- them.P1bvio&s -, the foreign c&rrenc- deposit made b- a transient or a to&rist is not the kind of deposit enco&rage b- ;E 3os. "'!4 and "'!) and given incentives and protection b- said aws beca&se s&ch depositor sta-s on - for a few da-s in the co&ntr- and, therefore, wi maintain his deposit in the bank on for a short time.PRespondent Greg Harte i, as stated, is j&st a to&rist or a transient. Ie deposited his do ars with respondent +hina Hanking +orporation on - for safekeeping d&ring his temporar- sta- in the ;hi ippines.P.or the reasons stated above, the =o icitor Genera th&s s&bmits that the do ar deposit of respondent Greg Harte i is not entit ed to the protection of =ection
Page | 239

""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' and ;E 3o. "/4( against attachment, garnishment or other co&rt processes.QL(M In fine, the app ication of the aw depends on the e6tent of its j&stice. Event&a -, if we r& e that the %&estioned =ection ""! of +entra Hank +irc& ar 3o. $(' which e6empts from attachment, garnishment, or an- other order or process of an- co&rt. Aegis ative bod-, government agenc- or an- administrative bod- whatsoever, is app icab e to a foreign transient, inj&stice wo& d res& t especia - to a citi7en aggrieved b- a foreign g&est ike acc&sed Greg Harte i. This wo& d negate 8rtic e "' of the 3ew +ivi +ode which provides that Pin case of do&bt in
Page | 240

the interpretation or app ication of aws, it is pres&med that the awmaking bodintended right and j&stice to prevai . M&in"uno non deue enri4uecer$e torti5er5#ente con da#o de otro.N =imp - stated, when the stat&te is si ent or ambig&o&s, this is one of those f&ndamenta so &tions that wo& d respond to the vehement &rge of conscience. 2;adi a v$. ;adi a, #4 ;hi . !##5It wo& d be &nthinkab e, that the %&estioned =ection ""! of +entra Hank 3o. $(' wo& d be &sed as a device bacc&sed Greg Harte i for wrongdoing, and in so doing, ac%&itting the g&i t- at the e6pense of the innocent. +a it what it ma- S b&t is there no conf ict of ega po ic- hereK Eo ar against ;esoK Upho ding the fina and
Page | 241

e6ec&tor- j&dgment of the ower co&rt against the +entra Hank +irc& ar protecting the foreign depositorK =hie ding or protecting the do ar deposit of a transient a ien depositor against inj&stice to a nationa and victim of a crimeK This sit&ation ca s for fairness ega t-rann-. 0e definite - cannot have both wa-s and rest in the be ief that we have served the ends of j&stice. I3 FIE0 0IERE1., the provisions of =ection ""! of +H +irc& ar 3o. $(' and ;E 3o. "/4(, insofar as it amends =ection : of R.8. (4/( are hereb- he d to be I38;;AI+8HAE to this case beca&se of its pec& iar circ&mstances. Respondents are hereb- REOUIREE to +1,;AC with the
Page | 242

writ of e6ec&tion iss&ed in +ivi +ase 3o. :$*!/"4, P?aren =a vacion, et al. v$. Greg Harte i - 3orthcott, b- Hranch +NAIF, RT+ ,akati and to REAE8=E to petitioners the do ar deposit of respondent Greg Harte i - 3orthcott in s&ch amo&nt as wo& d satisf- the j&dgment. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 243

Page | 244

G.R. No. LA10122C De-e78e 5, 1991 6%ENVEN%DO #. $ADAL%N, ROLANDO #. A#UL, DONA,O 6. EVANGEL%S,A, &n( t'e e"t o) 1,2C2 NA#EDA$O#*LA%NAN,S, t' u &n( 8y t'ei Atto neyAinA)&-t, Atty. GERARDO A. DEL #UNDO, petitione ", !". *H%L%**%NE OVERSEAS E#*LO4#EN, AD#%N%S,RA,%ONDS AD#%N%S,RA,OR, NA,%ONAL LA6OR RELA,%ONS $O##%SS%ON, 6ROEN F ROO, %N,ERNA,%ONAL, %N$. AND9OR AS%A %N,ERNA,%ONAL 6U%LDERS $OR*ORA,%ON, e"pon(ent". G.R. No". 101911A11 De-e78e 5, 1991
Page | 245

6%ENVEN%DO #. $ADAL%N, E, AL., petitione ", !". HON. NA,%ONAL LA6OR RELA,%ONS $O##%SS%ON, 6ROEN F ROO, %N,ERNA,%ONAL, %N$. &n(9o AS%A %N,ERNA,%ONAL 6U%LDERS $OR*ORA,%ON, e"pon(ent". G.R. No". 105029A32 De-e78e 5, 1991 AS%A %N,ERNA,%ONAL 6U%LDER $OR*ORA,%ON &n( 6ROEN F ROO, %N,ERNA,%ONAL, %N$., petitione ", !". NA,%ONAL LA6OR RELA,%ONS $O##%SS%ON,et.&l. OUI8=13, J.:
Page | 246

The petition in G.R. 3o. "'4##(, entit ed DHienvenido ,. +ada in, et. a . v. ;hi ippine 1verseas Emp o-ment 8dministration9s 8dministrator, et. a .,D was fi ed &nder R& e () of the Revised R& es of +o&rt< 2"5 to modif- the Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" of the 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission 23AR+5 in ;1E8 +ases 3os. A*:4*'(*))), A*:)*"'*###, A*:)* "'*##$ and A*:(*')*4('> 2/5 to render a new decision< 2i5 dec aring private respondents as in defa& t> 2ii5 dec aring the said abor cases as a c ass s&it> 2iii5 ordering 8sia Internationa H&i ders +orporation 28IH+5 and Hrown and Root Internationa Inc. 2HRII5 to pa- the
Page | 247

c aims of the ",#(# c aimants in said abor cases> 2iv5 dec aring 8tt-. . orante ,. de +astro g&i tof for&m*shopping> and 2v5 dismissing ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:(* ')*4('> and 2!5 to reverse the Reso &tion dated ,arch /4, "$$/ of 3AR+, den-ing the motion for reconsideration of its Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" 2%ollo, pp. :*/::5. The petition in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, entit ed DHienvenido ,. +ada in, et. a ., v. Ion. 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission, et. a .,D was fi ed &nder R& e () of the Revised R& es of +o&rt< 2"5 to reverse the Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" of 3AR+ in
Page | 248

;1E8 +ases 3os. A*:4*'(*))), A* :)*"'*###, A*:)*"'*#$$ and A*:(*')*4(' insofar as it< 2i5 app ied the three*-ear prescriptive period &nder the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines instead of the ten*-ear prescriptive period &nder the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines> and 2ii5 denied the Dthree*ho&r dai - averageD form& a in the comp&tation of petitioners9 overtime pa-> and 2/5 to reverse the Reso &tion dated ,arch /4, "$$/ of 3AR+, den-ing the motion for reconsideration of its Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" 2%ollo, pp. :*/)> /(*//'5. The petition in G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, entit ed D8sia Internationa H&i ders
Page | 249

+orporation, et. a ., v. 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission, et. a .D was fi ed &nder R& e () of the Revised R& es of +o&rt< 2"5 to reverse the Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" of 3AR+ in ;1E8 +ases 3os. A*:4*'(*))), A* :)*"'*###, A*:)*"'*##$ and A*:(*')*4(', insofar as it granted the c aims of "4$ c aimants> and 2/5 to reverse the Reso &tion dated ,arch /", "$$/ of 3AR+ insofar as it denied the motions for reconsideration of 8IH+ and HRII 2%ollo, pp. /*)$> ("*/!'5. The Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" of 3AR+, which modified the decision of ;1E8 in fo&r abor cases<
Page | 250

2"5 awarded monetar- benefits on - to "4$ c aimants and 2/5 directed Aabor 8rbiter .atima J. .ranco to cond&ct hearings and to receive evidence on the c aims dismissed b- the ;1E8 for ack of s&bstantia evidence or proof of emp o-ment. )on$olidation of )a$e$ G.R. 3os. "'4##( and "')'/$*!/ were origina - raff ed to the Third Eivision whi e G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 were raff ed to the =econd Eivision. In the Reso &tion dated J& - /(, "$$!, the =econd Eivision referred G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 to the Third Eivision 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, p. :$)5. In the Reso &tion dated =eptember /$, "$$!, the Third Eivision granted the
Page | 251

motion fi ed in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 for the conso idation of said cases with G.R. 3os. "'4##( and "')'/$*!/, which were assigned to the .irst Eivision 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. $:(*","'#> G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !', %ollo, pp. !($*!##, 4/(*4!/5. In the Reso &tion dated 1ctober /#, "$$!, the .irst Eivision granted the motion to conso idate G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 with G.R. 3o. "'4##( 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""* "4, %ollo, p. ""'$> G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !/, %ollo, p. ")(/5. I 1n J&ne (, "$:4, Hienvenido ,.. +ada in, Ro ando ,. 8m& and Eonato H. Evange ista, in their own beha f and on beha f of #/: other overseas contract workers 21+0s5 instit&ted a c ass s&it
Page | 252

b- fi ing an D8mended +omp aintD with the ;hi ippine 1verseas Emp o-ment 8dministration 2;1E85 for mone- c aims arising from their recr&itment b- 8IH+ and emp o-ment b- HRII 2;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(*)))5. The c aimants were represented b- 8tt-. Gerardo de ,&ndo. HRII is a foreign corporation with head%&arters in Io&ston, Te6as, and is engaged in constr&ction> whi e 8IH+ is a domestic corporation icensed as a service contractor to recr&it, mobi i7e and dep o- .i ipino workers for overseas emp o-ment on beha f of its foreign principa s. The amended comp aint principa so&ght the pa-ment of the &ne6pired portion of the emp o-ment contracts,
Page | 253

which was terminated premat&re -, and secondari -, the pa-ment of the interest of the earnings of the Trave and Reserved .&nd, interest on a the &npaid benefits> area wage and sa ardifferentia pa-> fringe benefits> ref&nd of === and premi&m not remitted to the ===> ref&nd of withho ding ta6 not remitted to the HIR> pena ties for committing prohibited practices> as we as the s&spension of the icense of 8IH+ and the accreditation of HRII 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "!*"45. 8t the hearing on J&ne /), "$:4, 8IH+ was f&rnished a cop- of the comp aint and was given, together with HRII, &p to J& - ), "$:4 to fi e its answer. 1n J& - !, "$:4, ;1E8 8dministrator, &pon motion of 8IH+ and HRII, ordered
Page | 254

the c aimants to fi e a bi of partic& ars within ten da-s from receipt of the order and the movants to fi e their answers within ten da-s from receipt of the bi of partic& ars. The ;1E8 8dministrator a so sched& ed a pre*tria conference on J& - /), "$:4. 1n J& - "!, "$:4, the c aimants s&bmitted their D+omp iance and ,anifestation.D 1n J& - /!, "$:4, 8IH+ fi ed a D,otion to =trike 1&t of the RecordsD, the D+omp aintD and the D+omp iance and ,anifestation.D 1n J& - /), "$:4, the c aimants fi ed their DRejoinder and +omments,D averring, among other matters, the fai &re of 8IH+ and HRII to fi e their answers and to attend the pre*tria conference on J& /), "$:4. The c aimants a eged that
Page | 255

8IH+ and HRII had waived their right to present evidence and had defa& ted bfai ing to fi e their answers and to attend the pre*tria conference. 1n 1ctober /, "$:4, the ;1E8 8dministrator denied the D,otion to =trike 1&t of the RecordsD fi ed b- 8IH+ b&t re%&ired the c aimants to correct the deficiencies in the comp aint pointed o&t in the order. 1n 1ctober "', "$:4, c aimants asked for time within which to comp - with the 1rder of 1ctober /, "$:4 and fi ed an DUrgent ,anifestation,D pra-ing that the ;1E8 8dministrator direct the parties to s&bmit sim& taneo&s - their position papers, after which the case sho& d be deemed s&bmitted for decision. 1n the same da-, 8tt-. . orante de +astro fi ed
Page | 256

another comp aint for the same monec aims and benefits in beha f of severa c aimants, some of whom were a so c aimants in ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(* ))) 2;1E8 +ase 3o. :)*"'*##$5. 1n 1ctober "$, "$:4, c aimants fi ed their D+omp ianceD with the 1rder dated 1ctober /, "$:4 and an DUrgent ,anifestation,D pra-ing that the ;1E8 direct the parties to s&bmit sim& taneo&s - their position papers after which the case wo& d be deemed s&bmitted for decision. 1n the same da-, 8IH+ asked for time to fi e its comment on the D+omp ianceD and DUrgent ,anifestationD of c aimants. 1n 3ovember (, "$:4, it fi ed a second motion for e6tension of time to fi e the comment.
Page | 257

1n 3ovember :, "$:4, the ;1E8 8dministrator informed 8IH+ that its motion for e6tension of time was granted. 1n 3ovember "4, "$:4, c aimants fi ed an opposition to the motions for e6tension of time and asked that 8IH+ and HRII be dec ared in defa& t for fai &re to fi e their answers. 1n 3ovember /', "$:4, 8IH+ and HRII fi ed a D+ommentD pra-ing, among other re iefs, that c aimants sho& d be ordered to amend their comp aint. 1n Eecember /#, "$:4, the ;1E8 8dministrator iss&ed an order directing 8IH+ and HRII to fi e their answers within ten da-s from receipt of the order.
Page | 258

1n .ebr&ar- /#, "$:), 8IH+ and HRII appea ed to 3AR+ seeking the reversa of the said order of the ;1E8 8dministrator. + aimants opposed the appea , c aiming that it was di ator- and pra-ing that 8IH+ and HRII be dec ared in defa& t. 1n 8pri /, "$:), the origina c aimants fi ed an D8mended +omp aint andJor ;osition ;aperD dated ,arch /4, "$:), adding new demands< name -, the pa-ment of overtime pa-, e6tra night work pa-, ann&a eave differentia pa-, eave indemnit- pa-, retirement and savings benefits and their share of forfeit&res 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "4*"(5. 1n 8pri "), "$:), the ;1E8 8dministrator directed 8IH+ to fi e its
Page | 259

answer to the amended comp aint 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, p. /'5. 1n ,a- /:, "$:), c aimants fi ed an DUrgent ,otion for =&mmar- J&dgment.D 1n the same da-, the ;1E8 iss&ed an order directing 8IH+ and HRII to fi e their answers to the D8mended +omp aint,D otherwise, the- wo& d be deemed to have waived their right to present evidence and the case wo& d be reso ved on the basis of comp ainant9s evidence. 1n J&ne ), "$:), 8IH+ co&ntered with a D,otion to Eismiss as Improper + ass =&it and ,otion for Hi of ;artic& ars Re< 8mended +omp aint dated ,arch /4, "$:).D + aimants opposed the motions.

Page | 260

1n =eptember 4, "$:), the ;1E8 8dministrator reiterated his directive to 8IH+ and HRII to fi e their answers in ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(*))). 1n =eptember ":, "$:), 8IH+ fi ed its second appea to the 3AR+, together with a petition for the iss&ance of a writ of inj&nction. 1n =eptember "$, "$:), 3AR+ enjoined the ;1E8 8dministrator from hearing the abor cases and s&spended the period for the fi ing of the answers of 8IH+ and HRII. 1n =eptember "$, "$:), c aimants asked the ;1E8 8dministrator to inc &de additiona c aimants in the case and to investigate a eged wrongdoings of HRII, 8IH+ and their respective aw-ers.
Page | 261

1n 1ctober "', "$:), Romeo ;atag and two co*c aimants fi ed a comp aint 2;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:)*"'*###5 against 8IH+ and HRII with the ;1E8, demanding monetar- c aims simi ar to those s&bject of ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4* '(*))). In the same month, =o omon Re-es a so fi ed his own comp aint 2;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:)*"'*##$5 against 8IH+ and HRII. 1n 1ctober "#, "$:), the aw firm of . orante ,. de +astro X 8ssociates asked for the s&bstit&tion of the origina co&nse of record and the cance ation of the specia powers of attorne- given the origina co&nse . 1n Eecember "/, "$:), 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo fi ed in 3AR+ a notice of the c aim to enforce attorne-9s ien.
Page | 262

1n ,a- /$, "$:(, 8tt-. Ee +astro fi ed a comp aint for mone- c aims 2;1E8 +ase 3o. :(*')*4('5 in beha f of "" c aimants inc &ding Hienvenido +ada in, a c aimant in ;1E8 +ase 3o. :4*'(* ))). 1n Eecember "/, "$:(, the 3AR+ dismissed the two appea s fi ed on .ebr&ar- /#, "$:) and =eptember ":, "$:) b- 8IH+ and HRII. In narrating the proceedings of the abor cases before the ;1E8 8dministrator, it is not amiss to mention that two cases were fi ed in the =&preme +o&rt b- the c aimants, name - G G.R. 3o. #/"!/ on =eptember /(, "$:) and 8dministrative +ase 3o. /:): on ,arch ":, "$:(. 1n ,a- "!, "$:#, the =&preme +o&rt iss&ed a reso &tion in 8dministrative
Page | 263

+ase 3o. /:): directing the ;1E8 8dministrator to reso ve the iss&es raised in the motions and oppositions fi ed in ;1E8 +ases 3os. A*:4*'(*))) and A*:(*')*4(' and to decide the abor cases with de iberate dispatch. 8IH+ a so fi ed a petition in the =&preme +o&rt 2G.R. 3o. #:4:$5, %&estioning the 1rder dated =eptember 4, "$:) of the ;1E8 8dministrator. =aid order re%&ired HRII and 8IH+ to answer the amended comp aint in ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(*))). In a reso &tion dated 3ovember $, "$:#, we dismissed the petition b- informing 8IH+ that a its technica objections ma- proper - be reso ved in the hearings before the ;1E8.
Page | 264

+omp aints were a so fi ed before the 1mb&dsman. The first was fi ed on =eptember //, "$:: b- c aimant Iermie 8rg&e es and ": co*c aimants against the ;1E8 8dministrator and severa 3AR+ +ommissioners. The 1mb&dsman mere - referred the comp aint to the =ecretar- of Aabor and Emp o-ment with a re%&est for the ear disposition of ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(* ))). The second was fi ed on 8pri /:, "$:$ b- c aimants Emigdio ;. Ha&tista and Ro ando R. Aobeta charging 8IH+ and HRII for vio ation of abor and socia egis ations. The third was fi ed b- Jose R. =antos, ,a6imino 3. Ta ibsao and 8mado H. Hr&ce deno&ncing 8IH+ and HRII of vio ations of abor aws.
Page | 265

1n Jan&ar- "!, "$:#, 8IH+ fi ed a motion for reconsideration of the 3AR+ Reso &tion dated Eecember "/, "$:(. 1n Jan&ar- "4, "$:#, 8IH+ reiterated before the ;1E8 8dministrator its motion for s&spension of the period for fi ing an answer or motion for e6tension of time to fi e the same &nti the reso &tion of its motion for reconsideration of the order of the 3AR+ dismissing the two appea s. 1n 8pri /:, "$:#, 3AR+ en /anc denied the motion for reconsideration. 8t the hearing on J&ne "$, "$:#, 8IH+ s&bmitted its answer to the comp aint. 8t the same hearing, the parties were given a period of ") da-s from said date within which to s&bmit their respective position papers. 1n J&ne /4, "$:#
Page | 266

c aimants fi ed their DUrgent ,otion to =trike 1&t 8nswer,D a eging that the answer was fi ed o&t of time. 1n J&ne /$, "$:#, c aimants fi ed their D=&pp ement to Urgent ,anifestationa ,otionD to comp - with the ;1E8 1rder of J&ne "$, "$:#. 1n .ebr&ar- /4, "$::, 8IH+ and HRII s&bmitted their position paper. 1n ,arch 4, "$::, c aimants fi ed their D;'-2arte ,otion to E6p&nge from the RecordsD the position paper of 8IH+ and HRII, c aiming that it was fi ed o&t of time. 1n =eptember ", "$::, the c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee +astro fi ed their memorand&m in ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:(*')*4('. 1n =eptember (, "$::, 8IH+ and HRII s&bmitted their =&pp ementa ,emorand&m. 1n
Page | 267

=eptember "/, "$::, HRII fi ed its DRep - to +omp ainant9s ,emorand&m.D 1n 1ctober /(, "$::, c aimants s&bmitted their D;'2arte ,anifestationa ,otion and +o&nter*=&pp ementa ,otion,D together with 44( individ&a contracts of emp o-ments and service records. 1n 1ctober /#, "$::, 8IH+ and HRII fi ed a D+onso idated Rep -.D 1n Jan&ar- !', "$:$, the ;1E8 8dministrator rendered his decision in ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4*'(*))) and the other conso idated cases, which awarded the amo&nt of @:/4,()/.44 in favor of on - !/4 comp ainants. 1n .ebr&ar- "', "$:$, c aimants s&bmitted their D8ppea ,emorand&m .or ;artia 8ppea D from the decision of
Page | 268

the ;1E8. 1n the same da-, 8IH+ a so fi ed its motion for reconsideration andJor appea in addition to the D3otice of 8ppea D fi ed ear ier on .ebr&ar- (, "$:$ b- another co&nse for 8IH+. 1n .ebr&ar- "#, "$:$, c aimants fi ed their D8nswer to 8ppea ,D pra-ing for the dismissa of the appea of 8IH+ and HRII. 1n ,arch "), "$:$, c aimants fi ed their D=&pp ement to +omp ainants9 8ppea ,emorand&m,D together with their Dnew - discovered evidenceD consisting of pa-ro records. 1n 8pri ), "$:$, 8IH+ and HRII s&bmitted to 3AR+ their D,anifestation,D stating among other matters that there were on - #/: named c aimants. 1n
Page | 269

8pri /', "$:$, the c aimants fi ed their D+o&nter*,anifestation,D a eging that there were ",#(# of them. 1n J& - /#, "$:$, c aimants fi ed their DUrgent ,otion for E6ec&tionD of the Eecision dated Jan&ar- !', "$:$ on the gro&nds that HRII had fai ed to appea on time and 8IH+ had not posted the s&persedeas bond in the amo&nt of @:/4,()/.44. 1n Eecember /!, "$:$, c aimants fi ed another motion to reso ve the abor cases. 1n 8&g&st /", "$$', c aimants fi ed their D,anifestationa ,otion,D pra-ing that a the ",#(# c aimants be awarded their monetar- c aims for fai &re of private respondents to fi e their answers
Page | 270

within the reg amentar- period re%&ired b- aw. 1n =eptember /, "$$", 3AR+ prom& gated its Reso &tion, disposing as fo ows< 0IERE.1RE, premises considered, the Eecision of the ;1E8 in these conso idated cases is modified to the e6tent and in accordance with the fo owing dispositions< ". The c aims of the $4 comp ainants identified and isted in 8nne6 D8D hereof are dismissed for having prescribed> /. Respondents 8IH+ and Hrown X Root are herebPage | 271

ordered, joint - and severa -, to pa- the "4$ comp ainants, identified and isted in 8nne6 DHD hereof, the peso e%&iva ent, at the time of pa-ment, of the tota amo&nt in U= do ars indicated opposite their respective names> !. The awards given b- the ;1E8 to the "$ comp ainants c assified and isted in 8nne6 D+D hereof, who appear to have worked e sewhere than in Hahrain are hereb- set aside. 4. 8 c aims other than those indicated in 8nne6 DHD, inc &ding those for overtime
Page | 272

work and favorab - granted b- the ;1E8, are herebdismissed for ack of s&bstantia evidence in s&pport thereof or are be-ond the competence of this +ommission to pass &pon. In addition, this +ommission, in the e6ercise of its powers and a&thorit- &nder 8rtic e /":2c5 of the Aabor +ode, as amended bR.8. (#"), hereb- directs Aabor 8rbiter .atima J. .ranco of this +ommission to s&mmon parties, cond&ct hearings and receive evidence, as e6peditio&s - as possib e, and thereafter s&bmit a written report to this +ommission 2.irst Eivision5 of the proceedings
Page | 273

taken, regarding the c aims of the fo owing< 2a5 comp ainants identified and isted in 8nne6 DED attached and made an integra part of this Reso &tion, whose c aims were dismissed b- the ;1E8 for ack of proof of emp o-ment in Hahrain 2these comp ainants n&mbering (:!, are isted in pages "! to /! of the decision of ;1E8, s&bject of the appea s5 and, 2b5 comp ainants identified and isted in 8nne6 DED attached and made an integra part of this
Page | 274

Reso &tion, whose awards decreed b- the ;1E8, to 1&r mind, are not s&pported bs&bstantia evidenceD 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(> %ollo, pp. ""!* "")> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, pp. :)*:#> G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !", pp. "/'*"//5. 1n 3ovember /#, "$$", c aimant 8mado =. To entino and "/ co*c aimants, who were former c ients of 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo, fi ed a petition for certiorari with the =&preme +o&rt 2G.R. 3os. "/'#4"*445. The petition was dismissed in a reso &tion dated Jan&ar/#, "$$/. Three motions for reconsideration of the =eptember /, "$$" Reso &tion of the 3AR+ were fi ed. The first, b- the
Page | 275

c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo> the second, b- the c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee +astro> and the third, b- 8IH+ and HRII. In its Reso &tion dated ,arch /4, "$$/, 3AR+ denied a the motions for reconsideration. Ience, these petitions fi ed b- the c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(5, the c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee +astro 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"45 and b- 8IH+ and HRII 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/5. II )o#pro#i$e A"ree#ent$ Hefore this +o&rt, the c aimants represented b- 8tt-. Ee +astro and 8IH+ and HRII have s&bmitted, from
Page | 276

time to time, compromise agreements for o&r approva and joint - moved for the dismissa of their respective petitions insofar as the c aimants*parties to the compromise agreements were concerned 2=ee 8nne6 8 for ist of c aimants who signed %&itc aims5. Th&s the fo owing manifestations that the parties had arrived at a compromise agreement and the corresponding motions for the approva of the agreements were fi ed b- the parties and approved b- the +o&rt< "5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Emigdio 8bar%&e7 and 4# co*c aimants dated =eptember /, "$$/ 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. /(!* 4'(> G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo,
Page | 277

pp. 4#'*(")5> /5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving petitioner Hienvenido +ada in and :/ co*petitioners dated =eptember !, "$$/ 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. !(4*)'#5> !5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Jose ,. 8ban and !( co*c aimants dated =eptember "#, "$$/ 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, pp. ("!* #//> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. )":*(/(> G.R. 3os. "'4$""* "4, %ollo, pp. 4'#*)"(5> 45 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant 8ntonio T. 8ng o and "# co*c aimants dated 1ctober
Page | 278

"4, "$$/ 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, pp. ##:*:4!> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. ()'* #"!> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. )!'*)$'5> )5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Eionisio Hobongo and ( co*c aimants dated Jan&ar- "), "$$! 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. :"!*:!(> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. (/$* ()/5> (5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Fa erio 8. Evange ista and 4 co*c aimants dated ,arch "', "$$! 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. #!"*#4(> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. ":")* ":/$5>
Page | 279

#5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimants ;a coneri Hanaag and ) co*c aimants dated ,arch "#, "$$! 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "()#*"#'!> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. ())*(#)5> :5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Henjamin 8mbrosio and ") other co* c aimants dated ,a- 4, "$$! 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, pp. $'(* $)(> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. (#$*#/$> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "##!*":"45> $5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving Fa erio Evange ista and ! co*c aimants dated ,a- "', "$$!
Page | 280

2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. ":")* ":/$5> "'5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving petitioner O&iterio R. 8g&do and !( co*c aimants dated J&ne "4, "$$! 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !/, %ollo, pp. $#4*""$'> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. #4:*:(4> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "'((* "":!5> ""5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant 8rna do J. 8 on7o and "$ co*c aimants dated J& //, "$$! 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. ""#!*"/!)> G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, pp. ""$!*"/)(> G.R. 3os. "'4$""* "4, %ollo, pp. :$(*$)$5>
Page | 281

"/5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Ricardo +. Ea-rit and / co*c aimants dated =eptember #, "$$! 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, pp. "/((*"/#:> G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "/4!* "/)4> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4,%ollo, pp. $#/*$:45> "!5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving c aimant Eante +. 8ceres and !# co*c aimants dated =eptember :, "$$! 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. "/)#*"!#)> G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. $:#*""')> G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !/, %ollo, pp. "/:'*"!$#5> "45 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving Fivencio F. 8be a and /# co*c aimants dated Jan&ar- "',
Page | 282

"$$4 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, %ollo, Fo . II5> ")5 Joint ,anifestation and ,otion invo ving Eomingo H. =o ano and si6 co*c aimants dated 8&g&st /), "$$4 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/> G.R. 3o. "'4##(> G.R. 3os. "'4$""* "45. III The facts as fo&nd b- the 3AR+ are as fo ows< 0e have taken painstaking efforts to sift over the more than fiftvo &mes now comprising the records of these cases. .rom the records, it appears that the comp ainants*appe ants a ege that the- were recr&ited bPage | 283

respondent*appe ant 8IH+ for its accredited foreign principa , Hrown X Root, on vario&s dates from "$#) to "$:!. The- were a dep o-ed at vario&s projects &ndertaken b- Hrown X Root in severa co&ntries in the ,idd e East, s&ch as =a&di 8rabia, Aib-a, United 8rab Emirates and Hahrain, as we as in =o&theast 8sia, in Indonesia and ,a a-sia. Iaving been officia - processed as overseas contract workers bthe ;hi ippine Government, a the individ&a comp ainants signed standard overseas emp o-ment contracts 2Records, Fo s. /)*!/. Iereafter, reference to the records wo& d be sparing made,
Page | 284

considering their chaotic arrangement5 with 8IH+ before their depart&re from the ;hi ippines. These overseas emp o-ment contracts invariab contained the fo owing re evant terms and conditions. ;8RT H G 2"5 Emp o-ment ;osition + assification <GGGGGGGGG 2+ode5 <GGGGGGGGG 2/5 +ompan- Emp o-ment =tat&s < GGGGGGGGG 2!5 Eate of Emp o-ment to +ommence on < GGGGGGGGG 245 Hasic 0orking Io&rs ;er 0eek <GGGGGGGGG
Page | 285

2)5 Hasic 0orking Io&rs ;er ,onth <GGGGGGGGG 2(5 Hasic Io&r Rate < GGGGGGGGG 2#5 1vertime Rate ;er Io&r < GGGGGGGGG 2:5 ;rojected ;eriod of =ervice 2=&bject to +2"5 of this LsicM5 < GGGGGGGGG ,onths andJor Job +omp etion 666 666 666 !. I1UR= 1. +1,;E3=8TI13 01R? 83E

a5 The Emp o-ee is emp o-ed at the ho&r - rate and overtime rate as set o&t in ;art H of this Eoc&ment.
Page | 286

b5 The ho&rs of work sha be those set forth b- the Emp o-er, and Emp o-er ma-, at his so e option, change or adj&st s&ch ho&rs as ma-be deemed necessar- from time to time. 4. TER,I38TI13 a5 3otwithstanding an- other terms and conditions of this agreement, the Emp o-er ma-, at his so e discretion, terminate emp o-ee9s service with ca&se, &nder this agreement at an- time. If the Emp o-er terminates the services of the Emp o-ee &nder this 8greement beca&se of the comp etion or termination, or s&spension of the work on which the Emp o-ee9s services were
Page | 287

being &ti i7ed, or beca&se of a red&ction in force d&e to a decrease in scope of s&ch work, or b- change in the t-pe of constr&ction of s&ch work. The Emp o-er wi be responsib e for his ret&rn transportation to his co&ntr- of origin. 3orma - on the most e6peditio&s air ro&te, econom- c ass accommodation. 666 666 666 "'. F8+8TI13J=I+? HE3E.IT= AE8FE

a5 8fter one 2"5 -ear of contin&o&s service andJor satisfactorcomp etion of contract, emp o-ee sha be entit ed to "/*da-s vacation eave with pa-. This sha
Page | 288

be comp&ted at the basic wage rate. .ractions of a -ear9s service wi be comp&ted on a prorata basis. b5 =ick eave of ")*da-s sha be granted to the emp o-ee for ever-ear of service for non*work connected inj&ries or i ness. If the emp o-ee fai ed to avai of s&ch eave benefits, the same sha be forfeited at the end of the -ear in which said sick eave is granted. "". H13U= 8 bon&s of /'B 2for offshore work5 of gross income wi be accr&ed and pa-ab e on - &pon satisfactorcomp etion of this contract. "/. 1..E8C ;8C
Page | 289

The seventh da- of the week sha be observed as a da- of rest with : ho&rs reg& ar pa-. If work is performed on this da-, a ho&rs work sha be paid at the premi&m rate. Iowever, this offda- paprovision is app icab e on - when the aws of the Iost +o&ntrre%&ire pa-ments for rest da-. In the =tate of Hahrain, where some of the individ&a comp ainants were dep o-ed, Iis ,ajest- Isa Hin =a man 8 ?aifa, 8mir of Hahrain, iss&ed his 8miri Eecree 3o. /! on J&ne "(, "$#(, otherwise known as the Aabo&r Aaw for the ;rivate =ector 2Records, Fo . ":5. This decree took effect on 8&g&st "(, "$#(.
Page | 290

=ome of the provisions of 8miri Eecree 3o. /! that are re evant to the c aims of the comp ainants* appe ants are as fo ows 2ita ics s&pp ied on - for emphasis5< 8rt. #$< . . . A 0or:er $1all receive pa!#ent for eac1 e'tra 1our e4uivalent to 1i$ 0a"e entitle#ent increa$ed b- a minim&m of twent-*five per centu# thereof for ho&rs worked d&ring the da-> and /! a #ini#u# of fift! per centu# t1ereof for 1our$ 0or:ed durin" t1e ni"1t which sha be deemed to being from seven o9c ock in
Page | 291

the evening &nti seven o9c ock in the morning. . . . 8rt. :'< .rida- sha be deemed to be a week - daof rest on f& pa-. . . . an e#plo!er #a! re4uire a 0or:er, with his consent, to 0or: on 1i$ 0ee:l! da! of re$t if circ&mstances so re%&ire and in re$pect of 01ic1 an additional $u# e4uivalent to 1O0P of 1i$ nor#al 0a"e $1all /e paid to 1i#. . . . 8rt. :"< . . . Q1en condition$ of 0or: re4uire t1e 0or:er to 0or: on an! official 1olida!, 1e $1all /e paid an additional
Page | 292

$u# e4uivalent to 1O0P of 1i$ nor#al 0a"e. 8rt. :4< ;ver! 0or:er 01o 1a$ co#pleted one !ear<$ continuou$ $ervice 0it1 1i$ e#plo!er $1all /e entitled to leave on full pa! for a period of not le$$ t1an 21 da!$ for eac1 !ear increa$ed to a period not le$$ t1an 2F da!$ after five continuou$ !ear$ of $ervice. 8 worker sha be entit ed to s&ch eave &pon a 4uantu# #eruit in respect of the proportion of his service in that -ear.

Page | 293

8rt. "'#< 8 contract of emp o-ment made for a period of indefinite d&ration ma- be terminated b- either part- thereto after giving the other part- thirt- da-s9 prior notice before s&ch termination, in 0ritin", in respect of month - paid workers and fifteen da-s9 notice in respect of other workers. T1e part! ter#inatin" a contract 0it1out "ivin" t1e re4uired notice $1all pa! to t1e ot1er part! co#pen$ation e4uivalent to t1e a#ount of 0a"e$ pa!a/le to t1e 0or:er for t1e period of $uc1 notice or t1e une'pired portion t1ereof.
Page | 294

8rt. """< . . . the emp o-er concerned sha pa- to s&ch worker, &pon termination of emp o-ment, a leavin" inde#nit! for t1e period of 1i$ e#plo!#ent calculated on t1e /a$i$ of fifteen da!$< 0a"e$ for eac1 !ear of t1e fir$t t1ree !ear$ of $ervice and of one #ont1<$ 0a"e$ for eac1 !ear of $ervice t1ereafter. =&ch worker sha be entit ed to pa-ment of eaving indemnit&pon a 4uantu# #eruit in proportion to the period of his service comp eted within a -ear.
Page | 295

8 the individ&a comp ainants*appe ants have a readbeen repatriated to the ;hi ippines at the time of the fi ing of these cases 2R.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. )$*()5. IF The iss&es raised before and reso ved b- the 3AR+ were< Hir$t< G 0hether or not comp ainants are entit ed to the benefits provided b- 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of Hahrain> 2a5 0hether or not the comp ainants who have worked in Hahrain are
Page | 296

entit ed to the mentioned benefits.

above*

2b5 0hether or not 8rt. 44 of the same Eecree 2a eged prescribing a more favorab e treatment of a ien emp o-ees5 bars comp ainants from enjo-ing its benefits. econd< G 8ss&ming that 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of Hahrain is app icab e in these cases, whether or not comp ainants9 c aim for the benefits provided therein have prescribed. T1ird< G 0hether or not the instant cases %&a if- as a c ass s&it.
Page | 297

Hourt1< G 0hether or not the proceedings cond&cted b- the ;1E8, as we as the decision that is the s&bject of these appea s, conformed with the re%&irements of d&e process> 2a5 0hether or not the respondent*appe ant was denied its right to d&e process> 2b5 0hether or not the admission of evidence b- the ;1E8 after these cases were s&bmitted for decision was va id> 2c5 0hether or not the ;1E8 ac%&ired j&risdiction over
Page | 298

Hrown X Root Internationa , Inc.> 2d5 0hether or not the j&dgment awards are s&pported b- s&bstantia evidence> 2e5 0hether or not the awards based on the averages and form& a presented bthe comp ainants*appe ants are s&pported b- s&bstantia evidence> 2f5 0hether or not the ;1E8 awarded s&ms be-ond what the comp ainants*appe ants pra-ed for> and, if so,
Page | 299

whether or not these awards are va id. Hift1< G 0hether or not the ;1E8 erred in ho ding respondents 8IH+ and Hrown X Root joint - are severa - iab e for the j&dgment awards despite the a eged finding that the former was the emp o-er of the comp ainants> 2a5 0hether or not the ;1E8 has ac%&ired j&risdiction over Hrown X Root> 2b5 0hether or not the &ndisp&ted fact that 8IH+ was a icensed constr&ction contractor prec &des a finding that Hrown X Root is iab e for comp ainants c aims.
Page | 300

i't1< G 0hether or not the ;1E8 8dministrator9s fai &re to ho d respondents in defa& t constit&tes a reversib e error. event1< G 0hether or not the ;1E8 8dministrator erred in dismissing the fo owing c aims< a. Une6pired contract> portion of

b. Interest earnings of Trave and Reserve .&nd> c. Retirement and =avings ; an benefits> d. 0ar Zone bon&s or premi&m pa- of at east "''B of basic pa-> e. 8rea Eifferentia ;a->
Page | 301

f. 8ccr&ed interests on a the &npaid benefits> g. =a ar- differentia pa-> h. 0age differentia pa-> i. Ref&nd of === premi&ms not remitted to ===> j. Ref&nd of withho ding ta6 not remitted to HIR> k. .ringe benefits &nder H X R9s D8 =&mmar- of Emp o-ee HenefitsD 28nne6 DOD of 8mended +omp aint5> . ,ora damages> and e6emp ar-

m. 8ttorne-9s fees of at east ten percent of the j&dgment award>

Page | 302

n. 1ther re iefs, ike s&spending andJor cance ing the icense to recr&it of 8IH+ and the accreditation of H X R iss&ed b- ;1E8> o. ;ena t- for vio ations of 8rtic e !4 2prohibited practices5, not e6c &ding reportoria re%&irements thereof. ;i"1t1< G 0hether or not the ;1E8 8dministrator erred in not dismissing ;1E8 +ase 3o. 2A5 :(* ()*4(' on the gro&nd of m& tip icitof s&its 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""* "4, %ollo, pp. /)*/$, )"*))5. 8nent the first iss&e, 3AR+ set aside =ection ", R& e "/$ of the "$:$ Revised
Page | 303

R& es on Evidence governing the p eading and proof of a foreign aw and admitted in evidence a simp e cop- of the Hahrain9s 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( 2Aabo&r Aaw for the ;rivate =ector5. 3AR+ invoked 8rtic e //" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, vesting on the +ommission amp e discretion to &se ever- and a reasonab e means to ascertain the facts in each case witho&t regard to the technica ities of aw or proced&re. 3AR+ agreed with the ;1E8 8dministrator that the 8miri Eecree 3o. /!, being more favorab e and beneficia to the workers, sho& d form part of the overseas emp o-ment contract of the comp ainants.
Page | 304

3AR+, however, he d that the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! app ied on - to the c aimants, who worked in Hahrain, and set aside awards of the ;1E8 8dministrator in favor of the c aimants, who worked e sewhere. 1n the second iss&e, 3AR+ r& ed that the prescriptive period for the fi ing of the c aims of the comp ainants was three -ears, as provided in 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, and not ten -ears as provided in 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines nor one -ear as provided in the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(. 1n the third iss&e, 3AR+ agreed with the ;1E8 8dministrator that the abor cases cannot be treated as a c ass s&it for the simp e reason that not a the
Page | 305

comp ainants worked in Hahrain and therefore, the s&bject matter of the action, the c aims arising from the Hahrain aw, is not of common or genera interest to a the comp ainants. 1n the fo&rth iss&e, 3AR+ fo&nd at east three infractions of the cardina r& es of administrative d&e process< name -, 2"5 the fai &re of the ;1E8 8dministrator to consider the evidence presented b- 8IH+ and HRII> 2/5 some findings of fact were not s&pported bs&bstantia evidence> and 2!5 some of the evidence &pon which the decision was based were not disc osed to 8IH+ and HRII d&ring the hearing. 1n the fifth iss&e, 3AR+ s&stained the r& ing of the ;1E8 8dministrator that HRII and 8IH+ are so idari - iab e for
Page | 306

the c aims of the comp ainants and he d that HRII was the act&a emp o-er of the comp ainants, or at the ver- east, the indirect emp o-er, with 8IH+ as the abor contractor. 3AR+ a so he d that j&risdiction over HRII was ac%&ired b- the ;1E8 8dministrator thro&gh the s&mmons served on 8IH+, its oca agent. 1n the si6th iss&e, 3AR+ he d that the ;1E8 8dministrator was correct in den-ing the ,otion to Eec are 8IH+ in defa& t. 1n the seventh iss&e, which invo ved other mone- c aims not based on the 8miri Eecree 3o. /!, 3AR+ r& ed< 2"5 that the ;1E8 8dministrator has no j&risdiction over the c aims
Page | 307

for ref&nd of the === premi&ms and ref&nd of withho ding ta6es and the c aimants sho& d fi e their c aims for said ref&nd with the appropriate government agencies> 2/5 the c aimants fai ed to estab ish that the- are entit ed to the c aims which are not based on the overseas emp o-ment contracts nor the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(> 2!5 that the ;1E8 8dministrator has no j&risdiction over c aims for mora and e6emp ar- damages and nonethe ess, the basis for granting said damages was not estab ished>

Page | 308

245 that the c aims for sa aries corresponding to the &ne6pired portion of their contract ma- be a owed if fi ed within the three* -ear prescriptive period> 2)5 that the a egation that comp ainants were premat&re repatriated prior to the e6piration of their overseas contract was not estab ished> and 2(5 that the ;1E8 8dministrator has no j&risdiction over the comp aint for the s&spension or cance ation of the 8IH+9s recr&itment icense and the cance ation of the accreditation of HRII.

Page | 309

3AR+ passed $u/ $ilencio the ast iss&e, the c aim that ;1E8 +ase 3o. 2A5 :(*()*4(' sho& d have been dismissed on the gro&nd that the c aimants in said case were a so c aimants in ;1E8 +ase 3o. 2A5 :4*'(*))). Instead of dismissing ;1E8 +ase 3o. 2A5 :(*()*4(', the ;1E8 j&st reso ved the corresponding c aims in ;1E8 +ase 3o. 2A5 :4*'(* ))). In other words, the ;1E8 did not pass &pon the same c aims twice. F G.%. &o. 10*++> + aimants in G.R. 3o. "'4##( based their petition for certiorari on the fo owing gro&nds< 2"5 that the- were deprived b3AR+ and the ;1E8 of their right
Page | 310

to a speed- disposition of their cases as g&aranteed b- =ection "(, 8rtic e III of the "$:# +onstit&tion. The ;1E8 8dministrator a owed private respondents to fi e their answers in two -ears 2on J&ne "$, "$:#5 after the fi ing of the origina comp aint 2on 8pri /, "$:)5 and 3AR+, in tota disregard of its own r& es, affirmed the action of the ;1E8 8dministrator> 2/5 that 3AR+ and the ;1E8 8dministrator sho& d have dec ared 8IH+ and HRII in defa& t and sho& d have rendered s&mmar- j&dgment on the basis of the p eadings and evidence s&bmitted b- c aimants>
Page | 311

2!5 the 3AR+ and ;1E8 8dministrator erred in not ho ding that the abor cases fi ed b- 8IH+ and HRII cannot be considered a c ass s&it> 245 that the prescriptive period for the fi ing of the c aims is ten -ears> and 2)5 that 3AR+ and the ;1E8 8dministrator sho& d have dismissed ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:(* ')*4(', the case fi ed b- 8tt-. . orante de +astro 2%ollo, pp. !"* 4'5. 8IH+ and HRII, commenting on the petition in G.R. 3o. "'4##(, arg&ed< 2"5 that the- were not responsib e for the de a- in the disposition of
Page | 312

the abor cases, considering the great diffic& t- of getting a the records of the more than ",)'' c aimants, the piece*mea fi ing of the comp aints and the addition of h&ndreds of new c aimants bpetitioners> 2/5 that considering the n&mber of comp aints and c aimants, it was impossib e to prepare the answers within the ten*da- period provided in the 3AR+ R& es, that when the motion to dec are 8IH+ in defa& t was fi ed on J& - "$, "$:#, said part- had a read- fi ed its answer, and that considering the staggering amo&nt of the c aims 2more than U=@)',''','''.''5 and the comp icated iss&es raised
Page | 313

b- the parties, the ten*da- r& e to answer was not fair and reasonab e> 2!5 that the c aimants fai ed to ref&te 3AR+9s finding that there was no common or genera interest in the s&bject matter of the controvers- G which was the app icabi it- of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /!. Aikewise, the nat&re of the c aims varied, some being based on sa aries pertaining to the &ne6pired portion of the contracts whi e others being for p&re monec aims. Each c aimant demanded separate c aims pec& iar on - to himse f and depending &pon the partic& ar circ&mstances obtaining in his case>
Page | 314

245 that the prescriptive period for fi ing the c aims is that prescribed b- 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines 2three -ears5 and not the one prescribed b- 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines 2ten -ears5> and 2)5 that the- are not concerned with the iss&e of whether ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:(*')*4(' sho& d be dismissed, this being a private %&arre between the two abor aw-ers 2%ollo, pp. /$/*!')5. Attorne!<$ Lien 1n 3ovember "/, "$$/, 8tt-. Gerardo 8. de ,&ndo moved to strike o&t the joint manifestations and motions of 8IH+ and HRII dated =eptember / and
Page | 315

"", "$$/, c aiming that a the c aimants who entered into the compromise agreements s&bject of said manifestations and motions were his c ients and that 8tt-. . orante ,. de +astro had no right to represent them in said agreements. Ie a so c aimed that the c aimants were paid ess than the award given them b- 3AR+> that 8tt-. Ee +astro co ected additiona attorne-9s fees on top of the /)B which he was entit ed to receive> and that the consent of the c aimants to the compromise agreements and %&itc aims were proc&red bfra&d 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. :!:*:"'5. In the Reso &tion dated 3ovember /!, "$$/, the +o&rt denied the motion to strike o&t the Joint ,anifestations and ,otions
Page | 316

dated =eptember / and "", "$$/ 2G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, %ollo, pp. (':*('$5. 1n Eecember "4, "$$/, 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo fi ed a D3otice and + aim to Enforce 8ttorne-9s Aien,D a eging that the c aimants who entered into compromise agreements with 8IH+ and HRII with the assistance of 8tt-. Ee +astro, had a signed a retainer agreement with his aw firm 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. (/!*(/4> :!:*")!)5. )onte#pt of )ourt 1n .ebr&ar- ":, "$$!, an omnib&s motion was fi ed b- 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo to cite 8tt-. Ee +astro and 8tt-. ?at7 Tierra for contempt of co&rt and for vio ation of +anons ", ") and "( of the +ode of ;rofessiona Responsibi it-.
Page | 317

The said aw-ers a eged - mis ed this +o&rt, b- making it appear that the c aimants who entered into the compromise agreements were represented b- 8tt-. Ee +astro, when in fact the- were represented b- 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. ")('*"("45. 1n =eptember /!, "$$4, 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo reiterated his charges against 8tt-. Ee +astro for &nethica practices and moved for the voiding of the %&itc aims s&bmitted b- some of the c aimants. G.%. &o$. 10*911-1* The c aimants in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 based their petition for certiorari on the gro&nds that 3AR+ grave - ab&sed its
Page | 318

discretion when it< 2"5 app ied the three* -ear prescriptive period &nder the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines> and 2/5 it denied the c aimant9s form& a based on an average overtime pa- of three ho&rs a da- 2%ollo, pp. ":*//5. The c aimants arg&e that said method was proposed b- HRII itse f d&ring the negotiation for an amicab e sett ement of their mone- c aims in Hahrain as shown in the ,emorand&m dated 8pri "(, "$:! of the ,inistr- of Aabor of Hahrain 2%ollo, pp. /"*//5. HRII and 8IH+, in their +omment, reiterated their contention in G.R. 3o. "'4##( that the prescriptive period in the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, a specia aw, prevai s over that provided
Page | 319

in the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, a genera aw. 8s to the memorand&m of the ,inistrof Aabor of Hahrain on the method of comp&ting the overtime pa-, HRII and 8IH+ c aimed that the- were not bo&nd b- what appeared therein, beca&se s&ch memorand&m was proposed b- a s&bordinate Hahrain officia and there was no showing that it was approved bthe Hahrain ,inister of Aabor. Aikewise, the- c aimed that the averaging method was disc&ssed in the co&rse of the negotiation for the amicab e sett ement of the disp&te and an- offer made b- a part- therein co& d not be &sed as an admission b- him 2%ollo, pp. //:*/!(5. G.%. &o$. 10O029-32
Page | 320

In G.R. 3os. "')'/$*!/, HRII and 8IH+ c aim that 3AR+ grave - ab&sed its discretion when it< 2"5 enforced the provisions of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( and not the terms of the emp o-ment contracts> 2/5 granted c aims for ho ida-, overtime and eave indemnit- pa- and other benefits, on evidence admitted in contravention of petitioner9s constit&tiona right to d&e process> and 2!5 ordered the ;1E8 8dministrator to ho d new hearings for the (:! c aimants whose c aims had been dismissed for ack of proof b- the ;1E8 8dministrator or 3AR+ itse f. Aast -, the- a ege that ass&ming that the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( was app icab e, 3AR+ erred when it did not app - the one*-ear prescription provided in said aw 2%ollo, pp. /$*!'5.
Page | 321

FI G.%. &o. 10*++>@ G.%. &o$. 10*911-1*@ G.%. &o$. 10O029-32 8 the petitions raise the common iss&e of prescription a tho&gh the- disagreed as to the time that sho& d be embraced within the prescriptive period. To the ;1E8 8dministrator, the prescriptive period was ten -ears, app -ing 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines. 3AR+ be ieved otherwise, fi6ing the prescriptive period at three -ears as provided in 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines. The c aimants in G.R. 3o. "'4##( and G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, invoking different gro&nds, insisted that 3AR+ erred in r& ing that the prescriptive period
Page | 322

app icab e to the c aims was three -ears, instead of ten -ears, as fo&nd bthe ;1E8 8dministrator. The =o icitor Genera e6pressed his persona view that the prescriptive period was one -ear as prescribed bthe 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( b&t he deferred to the r& ing of 3AR+ that 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines was the operative aw. The ;1E8 8dministrator he d the view that< These mone- c aims 2&nder 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode5 refer to those arising from the emp o-er9s vio ation of the emp o-ee9s right as provided b- the Aabor +ode.
Page | 323

In the instant case, what the respondents vio ated are not the rights of the workers as provided b- the Aabor +ode, b&t the provisions of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! iss&ed in Hahrain, which ip$o factoamended the worker9s contracts of emp o-ment. Respondents conscio&s - fai ed to conform to these provisions which specifica - provide for the increase of the worker9s rate. It was on after J&ne !', "$:!, fo&r months after the brown b&i ders bro&ght a s&it against H X R in Hahrain for this same c aim, when respondent 8IH+9s contracts have &ndergone amendments in Hahrain for the new hiresJrenewa s 2Respondent9s E6hibit #5.
Page | 324

Ience, premises considered, the app icab e aw of prescription to this instant case is 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, which provides< 8rt. ""44. The fo owing actions ma- be bro&ght within ten -ears from the time the ca&se of action accr&es< 2"5 Upon a written contract> 2/5 Upon an created b- aw> ob igation

Th&s, herein mone- c aims of the comp ainants against the respondents sha prescribe in ten -ears from 8&g&st "(, "$#(. Inasm&ch as a c aims were fi ed within the ten*-ear prescriptive
Page | 325

period, no c aim s&ffered the infirmit- of being prescribed 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, :$*$'5. In overr& ing the ;1E8 8dministrator, and ho ding that the prescriptive period is three -ears as provided in 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, the 3AR+ arg&ed as fo ows< The Aabor +ode provides that Da monec aims arising from emp o-er*emp o-ee re ations . . . sha be fi ed within three -ears from the time the ca&se of action accr&ed> otherwise the- sha be forever barredD 28rt. /$", Aabor +ode, as amended5. This three* -ear prescriptive period sha be the one app ied here and which sho& d be reckoned from the date
Page | 326

of repatriation of each individ&a comp ainant, considering the fact that the case is having 2sic5 fi ed in this co&ntr-. 0e do not agree with the ;1E8 8dministrator that this three*-ear prescriptive period app ies on - to mone- c aims specifica - recoverab e &nder the ;hi ippine Aabor +ode. 8rtic e /$" gives no s&ch indication. Aikewise, 0e can not consider comp ainants9 ca&seJs of action to have accr&ed from a vio ation of their emp o-ment contracts. There was no vio ation> the c aims arise from the benefits of the aw of the co&ntr- where the- worked. 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. $'*$"5.
Page | 327

8nent the app icabi it- of the one*-ear prescriptive period as provided b- the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(, 3AR+ opined that the app icabi it- of said aw was one of characteri7ation, i.e., whether to characteri7e the foreign aw on prescription or stat&te of imitation as Ds&bstantiveD or Dproced&ra .D 3AR+ cited the decision in (ournia$ v. Atlantic Mariti#e )o#pan! 2//' .. /d. ")/, /d +ir. L"$))M, where the iss&e was the app icabi it- of the ;anama Aabor +ode in a case fi ed in the =tate of 3ew Cork for c aims arising from said +ode. In said case, the c aims wo& d have prescribed &nder the ;anamanian Aaw b&t not &nder the =tat&te of Aimitations of 3ew Cork. The U.=. +irc&it +o&rt of 8ppea s he d that the ;anamanian Aaw was proced&ra as it was not
Page | 328

Dspecifica - intended to be s&bstantive,D hence, the prescriptive period provided in the aw of the for&m sho& d app -. The +o&rt observed< . . . 8nd where, as here, we are dea ing with a stat&te of imitations of a foreign co&ntr-, and it is not c ear on the face of the stat&te that its p&rpose was to imit the enforceabi it-, o&tside as we as within the foreign co&ntrconcerned, of the s&bstantive rights to which the stat&te pertains, we think that as a -ardstick for determining whether that was the p&rpose this test is the most satisfactor- one. It does not ead 8merican co&rts into the necessitof e6amining into the &nfami iar
Page | 329

pec& iarities and refinements of different foreign ega s-stems. . . The co&rt f&rther noted< 666 666 666 8pp -ing that test here it appears to &s that the ibe ant is entit ed to s&cceed, for the respondents have fai ed to satisf- &s that the ;anamanian period of imitation in %&estion was specifica - aimed against the partic& ar rights which the ibe ant seeks to enforce. The ;anama Aabor +ode is a stat&te having broad objectives, vi7< DThe present +ode reg& ates the re ations between capita and abor, p acing them on a basis of socia j&stice, so that, witho&t
Page | 330

inj&ring an- of the parties, there ma- be g&aranteed for abor the necessar- conditions for a norma ife and to capita an e%&itab e ret&rn to its investment.D In p&rs&ance of these objectives the +ode gives aborers vario&s rights against their emp o-ers. 8rtic e (/! estab ishes the period of imitation for a s&ch rights, e6cept certain ones which are en&merated in 8rtic e (/". 8nd there is nothing in the record to indicate that the ;anamanian egis at&re gave specia consideration to the impact of 8rtic e (/! &pon the partic& ar rights so&ght to be enforced here, as disting&ished from the other rights to which that 8rtic e is a so
Page | 331

app icab e. 0ere we confronted with the %&estion of whether the imitation period of 8rtic e (/" 2which carves o&t partic& ar rights to be governed b- a shorter imitation period5 is to be regarded as Ds&bstantiveD or Dproced&ra D &nder the r& e of Dspecifit-D we might have a different case> b&t here on the s&rface of things we appear to be dea ing with a Dbroad,D and not a Dspecific,D stat&te of imitations 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. $/*$45. + aimants in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 are of the view that 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, which was app ied b- 3AR+, refers on - to c aims
Page | 332

Darising from the emp o-er9s vio ation of the emp o-ee9s right as provided b- the Aabor +ode.D The- assert that their c aims are based on the vio ation of their emp o-ment contracts, as amended bthe 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( and therefore the c aims ma- be bro&ght within ten -ears as provided b- 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines 2%ollo, G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4, pp. ":*/"5. To bo ster their contention, thecite 2AL;A v. 21ilippine Airline$, 3nc., #' =+R8 /44 2"$#(5. 8IH+ and HRII, insisting that the actions on the c aims have prescribed &nder the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(, arg&e that there is in force in the ;hi ippines a Dborrowing aw,D which is =ection 4: of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re and that
Page | 333

where s&ch kind of aw e6ists, it takes precedence over the common* aw conf icts r& e 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(,%ollo, pp. 4)*4(5. .irst to be determined is whether it is the Hahrain aw on prescription of action based on the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( or a ;hi ippine aw on prescription that sha be the governing aw. 8rtic e ")( of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( provides< 8 c aim arising o&t of a contract of emp o-ment sha not be actionab e after the apse of one -ear from the date of the e6pir- of the contract. 2G.R. 3os. "')'/$* !", %ollo, p. //(5.
Page | 334

8s a genera r& e, a foreign proced&ra aw wi not be app ied in the for&m. ;roced&ra matters, s&ch as service of process, joinder of actions, period and re%&isites for appea , and so forth, are governed b- the aws of the for&m. This is tr&e even if the action is based &pon a foreign s&bstantive aw 2Restatement of the +onf ict of Aaws, =ec. (:)> =a onga, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, "!" L"$#$M5. 8 aw on prescription of actions is $ui "eneri$ in +onf ict of Aaws in the sense that it ma- be viewed either as proced&ra or s&bstantive, depending on the characteri7ation given s&ch a aw. Th&s in (ournia$ v. Atlantic Mariti#e )o#pan!, $upra, the 8merican co&rt app ied the stat&te of imitations of 3ew Cork, instead of the ;anamanian aw,
Page | 335

after finding that there was no showing that the ;anamanian aw on prescription was intended to be s&bstantive. Heing considered mere - a proced&ra aw even in ;anama, it has to give wa- to the aw of the for&m on prescription of actions. Iowever, the characteri7ation of a stat&te into a proced&ra or s&bstantive aw becomes irre evant when the co&ntr- of the for&m has a Dborrowing stat&te.D =aid stat&te has the practica effect of treating the foreign stat&te of imitation as one of s&bstance 2Goodrich, +onf ict of Aaws ")/*")! L"$!:M5. 8 Dborrowing stat&teD directs the state of the for&m to app - the foreign stat&te of imitations to the pending c aims based on a foreign aw 2=iege ,
Page | 336

+onf icts, ":! L"$#)M5. 0hi e there are severa kinds of Dborrowing stat&tes,D one form provides that an action barred b- the aws of the p ace where it accr&ed, wi not be enforced in the for&m even tho&gh the oca stat&te has not r&n against it 2Goodrich and =co es, +onf ict of Aaws, ")/*")! L"$!:M5. =ection 4: of o&r +ode of +ivi ;roced&re is of this kind. =aid =ection provides< If b- the aws of the state or co&ntr- where the ca&se of action arose, the action is barred, it is a so barred in the ;hi ippines Is ands. =ection 4: has not been repea ed or amended b- the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines. 8rtic e //#' of said +ode
Page | 337

repea ed on - those provisions of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&res as to which were inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, which is inconsistent with or contradictor- to =ection 4: of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re 2;aras, ;hi ippine +onf ict of Aaws "'4 L#th ed.M5. In the ight of the "$:# +onstit&tion, however, =ection 4: cannot be enforced e' proprio vi"ore insofar as it ordains the app ication in this j&risdiction of =ection ")( of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(. The co&rts of the for&m wi not enforce an- foreign c aim obno6io&s to the for&m9s p&b ic po ic2+anadian 3orthern Rai wa- +o. v. Eggen, /)/ U.=. ))!, 4' =. +t. 4'/, (4 A. ed. #"!
Page | 338

L"$/'M5. To enforce the one*-ear prescriptive period of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( as regards the c aims in %&estion wo& d contravene the p&b ic po ic- on the protection to abor. In the Eec aration of ;rincip es and =tate ;o icies, the "$:# +onstit&tion emphasi7ed that< The state sha promote socia j&stice in a phases of nationa deve opment. 2=ec. "'5. The state affirms abor as a primar- socia economic force. It sha protect the rights of workers and promote their we fare 2=ec. ":5.

Page | 339

In artic e NIII on =ocia J&stice and I&man Rights, the "$:# +onstit&tion provides< =ec. !. The =tate sha afford f& protection to abor, oca and overseas, organi7ed and &norgani7ed, and promote f& emp o-ment and e%&a it- of emp o-ment opport&nities for a . Iaving determined that the app icab e aw on prescription is the ;hi ippine aw, the ne6t %&estion is whether the prescriptive period governing the fi ing of the c aims is three -ears, as provided bthe Aabor +ode or ten -ears, as provided b- the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines.

Page | 340

The c aimants are of the view that the app icab e provision is 8rtic e ""44 of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, which provides< The fo owing actions m&st be bro&ght within ten -ears from the time the right of action accr&es< 2"5 Upon a written contract> 2/5 Upon an ob igation created baw> 2!5 Upon a j&dgment. 3AR+, on the other hand, be ieves that the app icab e provision is 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, which in pertinent part provides< ,one- c aims*a mone- c aims arising from emp o-er*emp o-ee
Page | 341

re ations accr&ing d&ring the effectivit- of this +ode sha be fi ed within three 2!5 -ears from the time the ca&se of action accr&ed, otherwise the- sha be forever barred. 666 666 666 The case of 21ilippine Air Line$ ;#plo!ee$ A$$ociation v. 21ilippine Air Line$, 3nc., #' =+R8 /44 2"$#(5 invoked b- the c aimants in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 is inapp icab e to the cases at bench 2%ollo, p. /"5. The said case invo ved the correct comp&tation of overtime pa- as provided in the co ective bargaining agreements and not the Eight*Io&r Aabor Aaw.

Page | 342

8s noted b- the +o&rt< DThat is precise wh- petitioners did not make anreference as to the comp&tation for overtime work &nder the Eight*Io&r Aabor Aaw 2=ecs. ! and 4, +8 3o. 4$45 and instead insisted that work comp&tation provided in the co ective bargaining agreements between the parties be observed. =ince the c aim for pa- differentia s is primari - anchored on the written contracts between the itigants, the ten*-ear prescriptive period provided b- 8rt. ""442"5 of the 3ew +ivi +ode sho& d govern.D =ection #*a of the Eight*Io&r Aabor Aaw 2+8 3o. 444 as amended b- R.8. 3o. "$$!!5 provides< 8n- action to enforce an- ca&se of action &nder this 8ct sha be
Page | 343

commenced within three -ears after the ca&se of action accr&ed otherwise s&ch action sha be forever barred, . . . . The co&rt f&rther e6p ained< The three*-ear prescriptive period fi6ed in the Eight*Io&r Aabor Aaw 2+8 3o. 444 as amended5 wi app -, if the c aim for differentia s for overtime work is so e - based on said aw, and not on a co ective bargaining agreement or an- other contract. In the instant case, the c aim for overtime compensation is not so m&ch beca&se of +ommonwea th 8ct 3o. 444, as amended b&t beca&se the c aim is demandab e right of the emp o-ees, b- reason of the
Page | 344

above*mentioned bargaining agreement.

co ective

=ection #*a of the Eight*Io&r Aabor Aaw provides the prescriptive period for fi ing Dactions to enforce an- ca&se of action &nder said aw.D 1n the other hand, 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines provides the prescriptive period for fi ing Dmone- c aims arising from emp o-er*emp o-ee re ations.D The c aims in the cases at bench a arose from the emp o-er*emp o-ee re ations, which is broader in scope than c aims arising from a specific aw or from the co ective bargaining agreement. The contention of the ;1E8 8dministrator, that the three*-ear prescriptive period &nder 8rtic e /$" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines
Page | 345

app ies on - to mone- c aims specifica recoverab e &nder said +ode, does not find s&pport in the p ain ang&age of the provision. 3either is the contention of the c aimants in G.R. 3os. "'4$""*"4 that said 8rtic e refers on - to c aims Darising from the emp o-er9s vio ation of the emp o-ee9s right,D as provided b- the Aabor +ode s&pported b- the facia reading of the provision. FII G.%. &o. 10*++> 8. 8s to the first two gro&nds for the petition in G.R. 3o. "'4##(, c aimants aver< 2"5 that whi e their comp aints were fi ed on J&ne (, "$:4 with ;1E8, the case was decided on - on Jan&ar- !', "$:$, a c ear denia of their right to a
Page | 346

speed- disposition of the case> and 2/5 that 3AR+ and the ;1E8 8dministrator sho& d have dec ared 8IH+ and HRII in defa& t 2%ollo, pp. !"*!)5. + aimants invoke a new provision incorporated in the "$:# +onstit&tion, which provides< =ec. "(. 8 persons sha have the right to a speed- disposition of their cases before a j&dicia , %&asi*j&dicia , or administrative bodies. It is tr&e that the constit&tiona right to Da speed- disposition of casesD is not imited to the acc&sed in crimina proceedings b&t e6tends to a parties in a cases, inc &ding civi and
Page | 347

administrative cases, and in a proceedings, inc &ding j&dicia and %&asi*j&dicia hearings. Ience, &nder the +onstit&tion, an- part- to a case ma- demand e6peditio&s action on a officia s who are tasked with the administration of j&stice. Iowever, as he d in )a/allero v. Alfon$o, Jr., ")! =+R8 ")! 2"$:#5, Dspeed- disposition of casesD is a re ative term. J&st ike the constit&tiona g&arantee of Dspeed- tria D accorded to the acc&sed in a crimina proceedings, Dspeed- disposition of casesD is a f e6ib e concept. It is consistent with de a-s and depends &pon the circ&mstances of each case. 0hat the +onstit&tion prohibits are &nreasonab e,
Page | 348

arbitrar- and oppressive de a-s which render rights n&gator-. )a/allero aid down the factors that mabe taken into consideration in determining whether or not the right to a Dspeed- disposition of casesD has been vio ated, th&s< In the determination of whether or not the right to a Dspeed- tria D has been vio ated, certain factors mabe considered and ba anced against each other. These are ength of de a-, reason for the de a-, assertion of the right or fai &re to assert it, and prej&dice ca&sed b- the de a-. The same factors ma- a so be considered in answering j&dicia in%&ir- whether or not a person officia - charged
Page | 349

with the administration of j&stice has vio ated the speed- disposition of cases. Aikewise, in Gon5ale$ v. andi"an/a!an, "$$ =+R8 /$:, 2"$$"5, we he d< It m&st be here emphasi7ed that the right to a speed- disposition of a case, ike the right to speedtria , is deemed vio ated on - when the proceeding is attended bve6atio&s, capricio&s, and oppressive de a-s> or when &nj&stified postponements of the tria are asked for and sec&red, or when witho&t ca&se or j&stified motive a ong period of time is a owed to e apse witho&t the parthaving his case tried.
Page | 350

=ince J& - /), "$:4 or a month after 8IH+ and HRII were served with a copof the amended comp aint, c aimants had been asking that 8IH+ and HRII be dec ared in defa& t for fai &re to fi e their answers within the ten*da- period provided in =ection ", R& e III of Hook FI of the R& es and Reg& ations of the ;1E8. 8t that time, there was a pending motion of 8IH+ and HRII to strike o&t of the records the amended comp aint and the D+omp ianceD of c aimants to the order of the ;1E8, re%&iring them to s&bmit a bi of partic& ars. The cases at bench are not of the r&n* of*the*mi variet-, s&ch that their fina disposition in the administrative eve after seven -ears from their inception, cannot be said to be attended bPage | 351

&nreasonab e, arbitrar- and oppressive de a-s as to vio ate the constit&tiona rights to a speed- disposition of the cases of comp ainants. The amended comp aint fi ed on J&ne (, "$:4 invo ved a tota of ",#(# c aimants. =aid comp aint had &ndergone severa amendments, the first being on 8pri !, "$:). The c aimants were hired on vario&s dates from "$#) to "$:!. The- were dep o-ed in different areas, one gro&p in and the other gro&ps o&tside of, Hahrain. The monetar- c aims tota ing more than U=@() mi ion according to 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo, inc &ded< ". Une6pired portion of contract>
Page | 352

/. Interest earnings of Trave and .&nd> !. Retirement and =avings ; an benefit> 4. 0ar Zone bon&s or premi&m pa- of at east "''B of basic pa-> ). 8rea Eifferentia pa-> (. 8ccr&ed Interest of a &npaid benefits> #. =a ar- differentia pa-> :. 0age Eifferentia pa-> $. Ref&nd of === premi&ms not remitted to =ocia =ec&rit- =-stem> "'. Ref&nd of 0ithho ding Ta6 not remitted to H&rea& of Interna Reven&e 2H.I.R.5>
Page | 353

the

"". .ringe Henefits &nder Hrown X Root9s D8 =&mmar- of Emp o-ees Henefits consisting of 4! pages 28nne6 DOD of 8mended +omp aint5> "/. ,ora Eamages> and E6emp ar-

"!. 8ttorne-9s fees of at east ten percent of amo&nts> "4. 1ther re iefs, ike s&spending andJor cance ing the icense to recr&it of 8IH+ and iss&ed b- the ;1E8> and "). ;ena t- for vio ation of 8rtic e !4 2;rohibited practices5 not e6c &ding reportoria re%&irements thereof 23AR+ Reso &tion, =eptember /, "$$", pp. ":*"$>
Page | 354

G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. #!* #45. Inasm&ch as the comp aint did not a ege with s&fficient definiteness and c arit- of some facts, the c aimants were ordered to comp - with the motion of 8IH+ for a bi of partic& ars. 0hen c aimants fi ed their D+omp iance and ,anifestation,D 8IH+ moved to strike o&t the comp aint from the records for fai &re of c aimants to s&bmit a proper bi of partic& ars. 0hi e the ;1E8 8dministrator denied the motion to strike o&t the comp aint, he ordered the c aimants Dto correct the deficienciesD pointed o&t b- 8IH+. Hefore an inte igent answer co& d be fi ed in response to the comp aint, the records of emp o-ment of the more than
Page | 355

",#'' c aimants had to be retrieved from vario&s co&ntries in the ,idd e East. =ome of the records dated as far back as "$#). The hearings on the merits of the c aims before the ;1E8 8dministrator were interr&pted severa times b- the vario&s appea s, first to 3AR+ and then to the =&preme +o&rt. 8side from the inc &sion of additiona c aimants, two new cases were fi ed against 8IH+ and HRII on 1ctober "', "$:) 2;1E8 +ases 3os. A*:)*"'*### and A*:)*"'*##$5. 8nother comp aint was fi ed on ,a- /$, "$:( 2;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:(*')*4('5. 3AR+, in e6asperation, noted that the e6act n&mber of c aimants had never been comp ete - estab ished 2Reso &tion,
Page | 356

=ept. /, "$$", G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, p. )#5. 8 the three new cases were conso idated with ;1E8 +ase 3o. A*:4* '(*))). 3AR+ b amed the parties and their aw-ers for the de a- in terminating the proceedings, th&s< These cases co& d have been spared the ong and ard&o&s ro&te towards reso &tion had the parties and their co&nse been more interested in p&rs&ing the tr&th and the merits of the c aims rather than e6hibiting a fanatica re iance on technica ities. ;arties and co&nse have made these cases a itigation of emotion. The intransigence of parties and co&nse is remarkab e. 8s ate as ast month, this
Page | 357

+ommission made a ast and fina attempt to bring the co&nse of a the parties 2this +ommission iss&ed a specia order directing respondent Hrown X Root9s resident agentJs to appear5 to come to a more conci iatorstance. Even this fai ed 2%ollo, p. ):5. The s%&abb e between the aw-ers of c aimants added to the de a- in the disposition of the cases, to the ament of 3AR+, which comp ained< It is ver- evident from the records that the protagonists in these conso idated cases appear to be not on the individ&a comp ainants, on the one hand, and 8IH+ and Hrown X Root, on
Page | 358

the other hand. The two aw-ers for the comp ainants, 8tt-. Gerardo Ee ,&ndo and 8tt-. . orante Ee +astro, have -et to sett e the right of representation, each one persistent - c aiming to appear in beha f of most of the comp ainants. 8s a res& t, there are two appea s b- the comp ainants. 8ttempts bthis +ommission to reso ve co&nse s9 conf icting c aims of their respective a&thorit- to represent the comp ainants prove f&ti e. The bickerings b- these two co&nse s are ref ected in their p eadings. In the charges and co&ntercharges of fa sification of doc&ments and signat&res, and in the disbarment proceedings b- one against the other. 8 these have, to a arge
Page | 359

e6tent, abetted in confo&nding the iss&es raised in these cases, j&mb e the presentation of evidence, and even derai ed the prospects of an amicab e sett ement. It wo& d not be far* fetched to imagine that both co&nse , &nwitting -, perhaps, painted a rainbow for the comp ainants, with the proverbia pot of go d at its end containing more than U=@"'' mi ion, the aggregate of the c aims in these cases. It is, ikewise, not improbab e that their misp aced 7ea and e6&berance ca&sed them to throw a ca&tion to the wind in the matter of e ementar- r& es of proced&re and evidence 2%ollo, pp. ):*)$5.
Page | 360

8dding to the conf&sion in the proceedings before 3AR+, is the isting of some of the comp ainants in both petitions fi ed b- the two aw-ers. 8s noted b- 3AR+, Dthe prob em created bthis sit&ation is that if one of the two petitions is dismissed, then the parties and the p&b ic respondents wo& d not know which c aim of which petitioner was dismissed and which was not.D H. + aimants insist that a their c aims co& d proper - be conso idated in a Dc ass s&itD beca&se Da the named comp ainants have simi ar mone- c aims and simi ar rights so&ght irrespective of whether the- worked in Hahrain, United 8rab Emirates or in 8b& Ehabi, Aib-a or in an- part of the ,idd e EastD 2%ollo, pp. !)*!:5.
Page | 361

8 c ass s&it is proper where the s&bject matter of the controvers- is one of common or genera interest to man- and the parties are so n&mero&s that it is impracticab e to bring them a before the co&rt 2Revised R& es of +o&rt, R& e !, =ec. "/5. 0hi e a the c aims are for benefits granted &nder the Hahrain Aaw, man- of the c aimants worked o&tside Hahrain. =ome of the c aimants were dep o-ed in Indonesia and ,a a-sia &nder different terms and conditions of emp o-ment. 3AR+ and the ;1E8 8dministrator are correct in their stance that inasm&ch as the first re%&irement of a c ass s&it is not present 2common or genera interest based on the 8miri Eecree of the =tate of Hahrain5, it is on - ogica that on Page | 362

those who worked in Hahrain sha be entit ed to fi e their c aims in a c ass s&it. 0hi e there are common defendants 28IH+ and HRII5 and the nat&re of the c aims is the same 2for emp o-ee9s benefits5, there is no common %&estion of aw or fact. 0hi e some c aims are based on the 8miri Aaw of Hahrain, man- of the c aimants never worked in that co&ntr-, b&t were dep o-ed e sewhere. Th&s, each c aimant is interested on - in his own demand and not in the c aims of the other emp o-ees of defendants. The named c aimants have a specia or partic& ar interest in specific benefits comp ete - different from the benefits in which the other named c aimants and those inc &ded as members of a Dc assD are c aiming
Page | 363

2Herses v. Fi an&eva, /) ;hi . 4#! L"$"!M5. It appears that each c aimant is on - interested in co ecting his own c aims. 8 c aimants has no concern in protecting the interests of the other c aimants as shown b- the fact, that h&ndreds of them have abandoned their co*c aimants and have entered into separate compromise sett ements of their respective c aims. 8 princip e basic to the concept of Dc ass s&itD is that p aintiffs bro&ght on the record m&st fair - represent and protect the interests of the others 2Eima-&ga v. +o&rt of Ind&stria Re ations, "'" ;hi . )$' L"$)#M5. .or this matter, the c aimants who worked in Hahrain can not be a owed to s&e in a c ass s&it in a j&dicia proceeding. The most that can be accorded to them &nder the R& es of
Page | 364

+o&rt is to be a owed to join as p aintiffs in one comp aint 2Revised R& es of +o&rt, R& e !, =ec. (5. The +o&rt is e6tra*ca&tio&s in a owing c ass s&its beca&se the- are the e6ceptions to the condition $ine 4ua non, re%&iring the joinder of a indispensab e parties. In an improper - instit&ted c ass s&it, there wo& d be no prob em if the decision sec&red is favorab e to the p aintiffs. The prob em arises when the decision is adverse to them, in which case the others who were imp eaded btheir se f*appointed representatives, wo& d s&re - c aim denia of d&e process.

Page | 365

+. The c aimants in G.R. 3o. "'4##( a so &rged that the ;1E8 8dministrator and 3AR+ sho& d have dec ared 8tt-. . orante Ee +astro g&i t- of Dfor&m shopping, amb& ance chasing activities, fa sification, d&p icitand other &nprofessiona activitiesD and his appearances as co&nse for some of the c aimants as i ega 2%ollo, pp. !:*4'5. The 8nti*.or&m =hopping R& e 2Revised +irc& ar 3o. /:*$"5 is intended to p&t a stop to the practice of some parties of fi ing m& tip e petitions and comp aints invo ving the same iss&es, with the res& t that the co&rts or agencies have to reso ve the same iss&es. =aid R& e, however, app ies on to petitions fi ed with the =&preme +o&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s. It is entit ed
Page | 366

D8dditiona Re%&irements .or ;etitions .i ed with the =&preme +o&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s To ;revent .or&m =hopping or ,& tip e .i ing of ;etitioners and +omp ainants.D The first sentence of the circ& ar e6press - states that said circ& ar app ies to an governs the fi ing of petitions in the =&preme +o&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s. 0hi e 8dministrative +irc& ar 3o. '4*$4 e6tended the app ication of the anti* for&m shopping r& e to the ower co&rts and administrative agencies, said circ& ar took effect on - on 8pri ", "$$4. ;1E8 and 3AR+ co& d not have entertained the comp aint for &nethica cond&ct against 8tt-. Ee +astro beca&se 3AR+ and ;1E8 have no
Page | 367

j&risdiction to investigate charges of &nethica cond&ct of aw-ers. Attorne!<$ Lien The D3otice and + aim to Enforce 8ttorne-9s AienD dated Eecember "4, "$$/ was fi ed b- 8tt-. Gerardo 8. Ee ,&ndo to protect his c aim for attorne-9s fees for ega services rendered in favor of the c aimants 2G.R. 3o. "'4##(, %ollo, pp. :4"*:445. 8 statement of a c aim for a charging ien sha be fi ed with the co&rt or administrative agenc- which renders and e6ec&tes the mone- j&dgment sec&red b- the aw-er for his c ients. The aw-er sha ca&se written notice thereof to be de ivered to his c ients and to the adverse part- 2Revised R& es of
Page | 368

+o&rt, R& e "!:, =ec. !#5. The statement of the c aim for the charging ien of 8tt-. Ee ,&ndo sho& d have been fi ed with the administrative agenc- that rendered and e6ec&ted the j&dgment. )onte#pt of )ourt The comp aint of 8tt-. Gerardo 8. Ee ,&ndo to cite 8tt-. . orante Ee +astro and 8tt-. ?at7 Tierra for vio ation of the +ode of ;rofessiona Responsibi itsho& d be fi ed in a separate and appropriate proceeding. G.%. &o. 10*911-1* + aimants charge 3AR+ with grave ab&se of discretion in not accepting their form& a of DThree Io&rs 8verage Eai 1vertimeD in comp&ting the overtime
Page | 369

pa-ments. The- c aim that it was HRII itse f which proposed the form& a d&ring the negotiations for the sett ement of their c aims in Hahrain and therefore it is in estoppe to disc aim said offer 2%ollo, pp. /"*//5. + aimants presented a ,emorand&m of the ,inistr- of Aabor of Hahrain dated 8pri "(, "$:!, which in pertinent part states< 8fter the per&sa of the memorand&m of the Gice 2re$ident and t1e Area Mana"er, Middle ;a$t, of (ro0n R %oot )o. and the =&mmarof the compensation offered b- the +ompan- to the emp o-ees in respect of the difference of pa- of the wages of the overtime and the
Page | 370

difference of vacation eave and the per&sa of the doc&ments attached thereto i.e., min&tes of the meetings between the Representative of the emp o-ees and the management of the +ompan-, the comp aint fi ed bthe emp o-ees on "4J/J:! where the- have c aimed as hereinabove stated, samp e of the =ervice +ontract e6ec&ted between one of the emp o-ees and the companthro&gh it$ a"ent in 2sic521ilippine$, A$ia 3nternational (uilder$ )orporation where it has been provided for 4: ho&rs of work per week and an ann&a eave of "/ da-s and an overti#e 0a"e of 1 R 1S* of t1e nor#al 1ourl! 0a"e.
Page | 371

666 666 666 The +ompan- in its comp&tation reached the fo owing averages< 8. ". The average d&ration of the act&a service of the emp o-ee is !) months for the ;hi ippino 2sic5 emp o-ees . . . . /. The average wage per ho&r for the ;hi ippino 2sic5 emp o-ee is U=@/.($ . . . . !. T1e avera"e 1our$ for t1e overti#e i$ 3 1our$ plu$ in all pu/lic 1olida!$ and 0ee:end$. 4. 2a!#ent of T UF.+2 per #ont1$ D$icE of $ervice a$ co#pen$ation for t1e difference of t1e 0a"e$ of t1e overtime done for
Page | 372

each ;hi ippino 2sic5 emp o-ee . . . 2%ollo, p.//5. HRII and 8IH+ co&ntered< 2"5 that the ,emorand&m was not prepared bthem b&t b- a s&bordinate officia in the Hahrain Eepartment of Aabor> 2/5 that there was no showing that the Hahrain ,inister of Aabor had approved said memorand&m> and 2!5 that the offer was made in the co&rse of the negotiation for an amicab e sett ement of the c aims and therefore it was not admissib e in evidence to prove that an-thing is d&e to the c aimants. 0hi e said doc&ment was presented to the ;1E8 witho&t observing the r& e on presenting officia doc&ments of a foreign government as provided in =ection /4, R& e "!/ of the "$:$
Page | 373

Revised R& es on Evidence, it can be admitted in evidence in proceedings before an administrative bod-. The opposing parties have a cop- of the said memorand&m, and the- co& d easi verif- its a&thenticit- and acc&rac-. The admissibi it- of the offer of compromise made b- HRII as contained in the memorand&m is another matter. Under =ection /#, R& e "!' of the "$:$ Revised R& es on Evidence, an offer to sett e a c aim is not an admission that an-thing is d&e. =aid R& e provides< 1ffer of compromise not admissib e. G In civi cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of an- iabi it-, and is
Page | 374

not admissib e in evidence against the offeror. This R& e is not on - a r& e of proced&re to avoid the c &ttering of the record with &nwanted evidence b&t a statement of p&b ic po ic-. There is great p&b ic interest in having the protagonists sett e their differences amicab e before these ripen into itigation. Ever- effort m&st be taken to enco&rage them to arrive at a sett ement. The s&bmission of offers and co&nter*offers in the negotiation tab e is a step in the right direction. H&t to bind a part- to his offers, as what c aimants wo& d make this +o&rt do, wo& d defeat the sa &tar- p&rpose of the R& e. G.%. &o$. 10O029-32
Page | 375

8. 3AR+ app ied the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#(, which provides for greater benefits than those stip& ated in the overseas*emp o-ment contracts of the c aimants. It was of the be ief that Dwhere the aws of the host co&ntr- are more favorab e and beneficia to the workers, then the aws of the host co&ntr- sha form part of the overseas emp o-ment contract.D It %&oted with approva the observation of the ;1E8 8dministrator that D. . . in abor proceedings, a do&bts in the imp ementation of the provisions of the Aabor +ode and its imp ementing reg& ations sha be reso ved in favor of aborD 2%ollo, pp. $'*$45. 8IH+ and HRII c aim that 3AR+ acted capricio&s - and whimsica - when it
Page | 376

ref&sed to enforce the overseas* emp o-ment contracts, which became the aw of the parties. The- contend that the princip e that a aw is deemed to be a part of a contract app ies on - to provisions of ;hi ippine aw in re ation to contracts e6ec&ted in the ;hi ippines.The overseas*emp o-ment contracts, which were prepared b- 8IH+ and HRII themse ves, provided that the aws of the host co&ntr- became app icab e to said contracts if the- offer terms and conditions more favorab e that those stip& ated therein. It was stip& ated in said contracts that< The Emp o-ee agrees that whi e in the emp o- of the Emp o-er, he wi not engage in an- other b&siness or occ&pation, nor seek
Page | 377

emp o-ment with an-one other than the Emp o-er> that he sha devote his entire time and attention and his best energies, and abi ities to the performance of s&ch d&ties as ma- be assigned to him b- the Emp o-er> that he sha at a times be s&bject to the direction and contro of the Emp o-er> and that the benefits provided to Emp o-ee here&nder are s&bstit&ted for and in ie& of a other benefits provided b- an- app icab e aw, provided of cour$e, t1at total re#uneration and /enefit$ do not fall /elo0 t1at of t1e 1o$t countr! re"ulation or cu$to#, it /ein" under$tood t1at $1ould applica/le la0$ e$ta/li$1 t1at frin"e /enefit$, or ot1er $uc1 /enefit$ additional to t1e
Page | 378

co#pen$ation 1erein a"reed cannot /e 0aived, Emp o-ee agrees that s&ch compensation wi be adj&sted downward so that the tota compensation here&nder, p &s the non*waivab e benefits sha be e%&iva ent to the compensation herein agreed 2%ollo, pp. !)/*!)!5. The overseas*emp o-ment contracts co& d have been drafted more fe icito&s -. 0hi e a part thereof provides that the compensation to the emp o-ee ma- be Dadj&sted downward so that the tota comp&tation 2there&nder5 p &s the non*waivab e benefits sha be e%&iva ent to the compensationD therein agreed, another part of the same provision categorica - states Dthat tota
Page | 379

rem&neration and benefits do not fa be ow that of the host co&ntr- reg& ation and c&stom.D8n- ambig&it- in the overseas*emp o-ment contracts sho& d be interpreted against 8IH+ and HRII, the parties that drafted it 2Eastern =hipping Aines, Inc. v. ,argarine* Ferka&fs*Union, $! =+R8 /)# L"$#$M5. 8rtic e "!## of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines provides< The interpretation of obsc&re words or stip& ations in a contract sha not favor the part- who ca&sed the obsc&rit-. =aid r& e of interpretation is app icab e to contracts of adhesion where there is a read- a prepared form containing the stip& ations of the emp o-ment contract
Page | 380

and the emp o-ees mere - Dtake it or eave it.D The pres&mption is that there was an imposition b- one part- against the other and that the emp o-ees signed the contracts o&t of necessit- that red&ced their bargaining power 2.ie dmen9s Ins&rance +o., Inc. v. =ongco, /) =+R8 #' L"$(:M5.8pp -ing the said ega precepts, we read the overseas*emp o-ment contracts in %&estion as adopting the provisions of the 8miri Eecree 3o. /! of "$#( as part and parce thereof.The parties to a contract ma- se ect the aw b- which it is to be governed 2+heshire, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, ":# L#th ed.M5. In s&ch a case, the foreign aw is adopted as a Ds-stemD to reg& ate the re ations of the parties, inc &ding %&estions of their capacit- to enter into the contract, the
Page | 381

forma ities to be observed b- them, matters of performance, and so forth 2"( 8m J&r /d, ")'*"("5.Instead of adopting the entire mass of the foreign aw, the parties maj&st agree that specific provisions of a foreign stat&te sha be deemed incorporated into their contract Das a set of terms.D H- s&ch reference to the provisions of the foreign aw, the contract does not become a foreign contract to be governed b- the foreign aw. The said aw does not operate as a stat&te b&t as a set of contract&a terms deemed written in the contract 28nton, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, "$# L"$(#M> Eice- and ,orris, The +onf ict of Aaws, #'/*#'!, L:th ed.M5.
Page | 382

8 basic po ic- of contract is to protect the e6pectation of the parties 2Reese, +hoice of Aaw in Torts and +ontracts, "( +o &mbia Jo&rna of Transnationa Aaw ", /" L"$##M5. =&ch parte6pectation is protected b- giving effect to the parties9 own choice of the app icab e aw 2.ricke v. Isbrandtsen +o., Inc., ")" .. =&pp. 4(), 4(# L"$)#M5. The choice of aw m&st, however, bear some re ationship to the parties or their transaction 2=co es and Ia-es, +onf ict of Aaw (44*(4# L"$:/M5. There is no %&estion that the contracts so&ght to be enforced b- c aimants have a direct connection with the Hahrain aw beca&se the services were rendered in that co&ntr-.In &or$e Mana"e#ent )o. D2T;E v. &ational ea#en (oard, ""# =+R8 4:( 2"$:/5, the DEmp o-ment
Page | 383

8greement,D between 3orse ,anagement +o. and the ate h&sband of the private respondent, e6press provided that in the event of i ness or inj&r- to the emp o-ee arising o&t of and in the co&rse of his emp o-ment and not d&e to his own miscond&ct, Dcompensation sha be paid to emp o-ee in accordance with and s&bject to the imitation of the 0orkmen9s +ompensation 8ct of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines or the 0orker9s Ins&rance 8ct of registr- of the vesse , whichever is greater.D =ince the aws of =ingapore, the p ace of registrof the vesse in which the ate h&sband of private respondent served at the time of his death, granted a better compensation package, we app ied said foreign aw in preference to the terms of
Page | 384

the contract.The case of (a"on" Hilipina$ Over$ea$ )orporation v. &ational La/or %elation$ )o##i$$ion, "!) =+R8 /#: 2"$:)5, re ied &pon b8IH+ and HRII is inapposite to the facts of the cases at bench. The iss&e in that case was whether the amo&nt of the death compensation of a .i ipino seaman sho& d be determined &nder the shipboard emp o-ment contract e6ec&ted in the ;hi ippines or the Iongkong aw. Io ding that the shipboard emp o-ment contract was contro ing, the co&rt differentiated said case from 3orse ,anagement +o. in that in the atter case there was an e6press stip& ation in the emp o-ment contract that the foreign aw wo& d be app icab e if it afforded greater compensation.
Page | 385

H. 8IH+ and HRII c aim that the- were denied b- 3AR+ of their right to d&e process when said administrative agenc- granted .rida-*pa- differentia , ho ida-*pa- differentia , ann&a * eave differentia and eave indemnit- pa- to the c aimants isted in 8nne6 H of the Reso &tion. 8t first, 3AR+ reversed the reso &tion of the ;1E8 8dministrator granting these benefits on a finding that the ;1E8 8dministrator fai ed to consider the evidence presented b8IH+ and HRII, that some findings of fact of the ;1E8 8dministrator were not s&pported b- the evidence, and that some of the evidence were not disc osed to 8IH+ and HRII 2%ollo, pp. !)*!(> "'(*"'#5. H&t instead of remanding the case to the ;1E8 8dministrator for a new hearing, which
Page | 386

means f&rther de a- in the termination of the case, 3AR+ decided to pass &pon the va idit- of the c aims itse f. It is this proced&re that 8IH+ and HRII comp ain of as being irreg& ar and a Dreversib e error.DThe- pointed o&t that 3AR+ took into consideration evidence s&bmitted on appea , the same evidence which 3AR+ fo&nd to have been D&ni atera s&bmitted b- the c aimants and not disc osed to the adverse partiesD 2%ollo, pp. !#*!$5.3AR+ noted that so manpieces of evidentiar- matters were s&bmitted to the ;1E8 administrator bthe c aimants after the cases were deemed s&bmitted for reso &tion and which were taken cogni7ance of b- the ;1E8 8dministrator in reso ving the cases. 0hi e 8IH+ and HRII had no opport&nit- to ref&te said evidence of
Page | 387

the c aimants before the ;1E8 8dministrator, the- had a the opport&nit- to reb&t said evidence and to present their co&nter*evidence before 3AR+. 8s a matter of fact, 8IH+ and HRII themse ves were ab e to present before 3AR+ additiona evidence which thefai ed to present before the ;1E8 8dministrator. Under 8rtic e //" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, 3AR+ is enjoined to D&se ever- and a reasonab e means to ascertain the facts in each case speedi and objective - and witho&t regard to technica ities of aw or proced&re, a in the interest of d&e process.DIn deciding to reso ve the va idit- of certain c aims on the basis of the evidence of both
Page | 388

parties s&bmitted before the ;1E8 8dministrator and 3AR+, the atter considered that it was not e6pedient to remand the cases to the ;1E8 8dministrator for that wo& d on - pro ong the a readprotracted ega controversies.Even the =&preme +o&rt has decided appea ed cases on the merits instead of remanding them to the tria co&rt for the reception of evidence, where the same can be readi determined from the &ncontroverted facts on record 2Eeve opment Hank of the ;hi ippines v. Intermediate 8ppe ate +o&rt, "$' =+R8 ()! L"$$'M> ;agdonsa an v. 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission, "/# =+R8 4(! L"$:4M5.
Page | 389

+. 8IH+ and HRII charge 3AR+ with grave ab&se of discretion when it ordered the ;1E8 8dministrator to ho d new hearings for (:! c aimants isted in 8nne6 E of the Reso &tion dated =eptember /, "$$" whose c aims had been denied b- the ;1E8 8dministrator Dfor ack of proofD and for ($ c aimants isted in 8nne6 E of the same Reso &tion, whose c aims had been fo&nd b- 3AR+ itse f as not Ds&pported b- evidenceD 2%ollo, pp. 4"*4)5. 3AR+ based its r& ing on 8rtic e /":2c5 of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines, which empowers it DLtoM cond&ct investigation for the determination of a %&estion, matter or controvers-, within its j&risdiction, . . . .D
Page | 390

It is the post&re of 8IH+ and HRII that 3AR+ has no a&thorit- &nder 8rtic e /":2c5 to remand a case invo ving c aims which had a read- been dismissed beca&se s&ch provision contemp ates on - sit&ations where there is sti a %&estion or controvers- to be reso ved 2%ollo, pp. 4"*4/5.8 princip e we embedded in 8dministrative Aaw is that the technica r& es of proced&re and evidence do not app - to the proceedings cond&cted badministrative agencies 2.irst 8sian Transport X =hipping 8genc-, Inc. v. 1p e, "4/ =+R8 )4/ L"$:(M> 8siawor d ;&b ishing Io&se, Inc. v. 1p e, ")/ =+R8 /"$ L"$:#M5. This princip e is enshrined in 8rtic e //" of the Aabor +ode of the ;hi ippines and is now the bedrock of proceedings before
Page | 391

3AR+.3otwithstanding the non* app icabi it- of technica r& es of proced&re and evidence in administrative proceedings, there are cardina r& es which m&st be observed b- the hearing officers in order to comp with the d&e process re%&irements of the +onstit&tion. These cardina r& es are co ated in An" Ti/a! v. )ourt of 3ndu$trial %elation$, ($ ;hi . (!) 2"$4'5. FIII The three petitions were fi ed &nder R& e () of the Revised R& es of +o&rt on the gro&nds that 3AR+ had committed grave ab&se of discretion amo&nting to ack of j&risdiction in iss&ing the %&estioned orders. 0e find no s&ch ab&se of discretion.
Page | 392

0IERE.1RE, a are EI=,I==EE. =1 1REEREE.

the three petitions

G.R. No. 553;0 Septe78e 2C, 1991 %N REG *E,%,%ON .OR $ORRE$,%ON O. EN,R4 %N ,HE REG%S,ER O. DEA,HS O. ,HE $%V%L REG%S,R4 O. DAVAO $%,4, .RO# ,HE NA#E H.LAV%ANO $AS,RO 5A*AN,AH ,O H.LOREN$%O 6. 5A*AN,A,H GL%$ER%A S. 5A*AN,A, petitione ", !". ,HE LO$AL $%V%L REG%S,RAR O. ,HE $%,4 O. DAVAO AND ,HE
Page | 393

RE*U6L%$ O. ,HE *H%L%**%NES, e"pon(ent". 9ante ). andie"o for petitioner. FITUG, J.: The case at bench has been certified to &s b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s after its assessment that it mere - raises a p&re %&estion of aw. The case stemmed from the fi ing of a D;etition for +orrection of Entr- in the Register of Eeaths of the +ivi Registrof Eavao +it- from the name D. aviano +astro ZapantaD to D. orencio H. Zapanta,D b- G iceria =. Zapanta before the then +o&rt of .irst Instance 2now Regiona Tria +o&rt5 of Eavao 2docketed =p. 3o. "$"!5.
Page | 394

The narration of the case b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s is here&nder %&oted< The petition a eges that petitioner G iceria =. Zapanta is the widow of the ate D. orencio H. Zapanta>D that said deceased was born in =ta. Rita, ;ampanga, on /4 1ctober ":$$, as evidenced b- his certificate of baptism 2p. ), Record on 8ppea 5> that on ) 8&g&st "$(), the ate . orencio H. Zapanta was admitted and confined at the =an ;edro Iospita , Eavao +it-, and met his &ntime - demise on "" 8&g&st "$() 2p. (, Record on 8ppea 5> that after the traditiona ch&rch ceremonies at the =ta. 8na +h&rch, Eavao +it-, the remains of the deceased was entombed at the
Page | 395

m&nicipa cemeter- of Eavao +iton "/ 8&g&st "$()> that when petitioner re%&ested the Aoca +ivi Registrar of Eavao +it- for a certified tr&e cop- of the death certificate of her ate h&sband, she discovered, to her disma- and s&rprise, that the name indicated in said death certificate was D. aviano +astro Zapanta,D a beit the date of death and a other circ&mstances and information ref ected therein c ear - and conc &sive - revea ed that the person referred to therein was no other than her ate h&sband, . orencio H. Zapanta 2p. #, Record on 8ppea 5. Ience, petitioner pra-s that, after d&e notice and hearing, an order be iss&ed
Page | 396

directing the Aoca +ivi Registrar of Eavao +it- to correct the death certificate of her deceased h&sband b- changing his name from D. aviano +astro ZapantaD to D. orencio H. Zapanta.D 8fter d&e p&b ication of the notice of hearing, the 8ssistant +it.isca of Eavao +it- fi ed a motion to dismiss the petition, advancing inter-alia that petitioner seeks to correct not on - a c erica error, b&t indeed a s&bstantia one. In s&pport of the opposition, heavre iance has been made in the cases of c1ult5 v$. %epu/lic, A* "'')), "! =ept. "$):> (lac: v$. %epu/lic, A*"':($, "' 3ov. "$):> T! Kon" Tin v$. %epu/lic, )'
Page | 397

1.G. "'#:> An$aldo v$. %epu/lic, )) 1.G. ()4"> (alite v$. %epu/lic, A*"#!!/, /$ 3ov. "$("> Tan u v$. %epu/lic, A*"/"4', /$ 8pri "$)$, where a s&bstantia corrections in the civi registr- were denied beca&se on - innoc&o&s or c erica error co& d be corrected 2p. "', Record on 8ppea 5. =aid motion to dismiss was opposed bpetitioner. In dismissing the petition, in its !"st Jan&ar- "$#) 1rder, the co&rt a 4uo rationa i7ed that the correction of the name D. aviano +astro ZapantaD to D. orencio H. Zapanta,D was not mere c erica b&t s&bstantia in nat&re and that it thereb- did not have the power to grant the re ief pra-ed for.
Page | 398

The tria co&rt committed a reversib e error. 8rtic e 4'# of the +ivi +ode provides that D2a5cts, events and j&dicia decrees concerning the civi stat&s of persons sha be recorded in the +ivi Register.D The civi stat&s referred to pertains to one9s birth, marriage, death, ega separation, ann& ment of marriage, j&dgment dec aring the n& it- of marriage, egitimation, adoption, acknow edgement of nat&ra chi dren, nat&ra i7ation, oss or recover- of citi7enship, civi interdiction, j&dicia determination of fi iation, vo &ntaremancipation of a minor and change of name. " 8n- change or correction in a civi registr- record is not a owed witho&t a j&dicia order. /
Page | 399

The genera perception, fo owing T! Kon" Tin v$. %epu/lic ! and cases contemporar- and c ose - s&bse%&ent to it, 4was that the j&dicia proceeding &nder 8rt. 4"/ of the +ivi +ode, imp emented b- R& e "': ) of the R& es of +o&rt, co& d on - j&stif- the correction of innoc&o&s or c erica errors apparent on the face of the record and capab e of being corrected b- mere reference to it, ( s&ch as misspe ings and obvio&s mistakes. =tarting, however, with the case of %epu/lic v$. 7on. Macliin", # the +o&rt, thro&gh J&stice ,e encio*Ierrera, e6p ained< It is tr&e that the change from Esteban =- to =- ;iao wo& d necessari - affect the identit- of the father. In that sense, it can be
Page | 400

said to be s&bstantia . Iowever, we find ind&bitab e evidence to s&pport the correction pra-ed for. In the 8 ien +ertificate of Registration of the father, his name appears as D=- ;iao.D The same is tr&e in his Immigrant +ertificate of Residence. . . . The schoo records of 1scar =- both in high schoo and at =t. Ao&is Universit- in Hag&io, recorded the name of his father as D=- ;iaoD . . . . In the case of T! Kon" Tin v$. %epu/lic, 9* 21il. 321 2"$)45, as we as s&bse%&ent cases predicated thereon, we forbade on - the entering of materia corrections in the record of birth bPage | 401

virt&e of a j&dgment in a $u##ar! action. The proceedings be ow, a tho&gh fi ed &nder R& e "': of the R& es of +o&rt, were not s&mmar-. Thereafter, in %epu/lic v$. Galencia, : the +o&rt, thro&gh J&stice G&tierre7, Jr., disc&ssed, rather at ength, the phrase Dappropriate proceedingD that co& d warrant the correction of even non*c erica errors. There, Aeonor Fa encia, for and in beha f of her minor chi dren, Hernardo Go and Jessica Go, fi ed with the then +o&rt of .irst Instance of +eb& a petition for the cance ation and correction of the entries of birth of Hernardo Go and Jessica Go in the +ivi Registr- of +eb& +it-. The =o icitor Genera opposed the
Page | 402

petition, a eging that the petition for correction of entr- in the +ivi Registrp&rs&ant to 8rtic e 4"/ of the +ivi +ode, in re ation to R& e "': of the Revised R& es of +o&rt, contemp ated a s&mmar- proceeding so e - to a ow innoc&o&s changes in registr- entries. The +o&rt r& ed< It is &ndo&bted - tr&e that if the s&bject matter of a petition is not for the correction of c erica errors of a harm ess and innoc&o&s nat&re, b&t one invo ving nationa it- or citi7enship, which is indisp&tab - s&bstantia as we as controverted, affirmative re ief cannot be granted in a proceeding s&mmar- in nat&re. Iowever, it is a so tr&e that a right in aw ma- be
Page | 403

enforced and a wrong ma- be remedied as ong as the appropriate remed- is &sed. This +o&rt adheres to the princip e that even s&bstantia errors in a civi registr- ma- be corrected and the tr&e facts estab ished provided the parties aggrieved b- the error avai themse ves of the appropriate adversar- proceeding. 8s a matter of fact, the opposition of the =o icitor Genera dated .ebr&ar/', "$#' whi e %&estioning the &se of 8rtic e 4"/ of the +ivi +ode in re ation to R& e "': of the Revised R& es of +o&rt admits Dthat the entries so&ght to be corrected sho& d be threshed o&t in an appropriate proceeding.D
Page | 404

0hat is meant b- Dappropriate adversar- proceedingKD H ack9s Aaw Eictionar- defines DadversarproceedingD as fo ows< 1ne having opposing parties> contested, as disting&ished from an e' parte app ication, one of which the partseeking re ief has given ega warning to the other part-, and afforded the atter an opport&nit- to contest it. . . . 666 666 666 ;rovided the tria co&rt has cond&cted proceedings where a re evant facts have been f& - and proper deve oped, where opposing co&nse have been given
Page | 405

opport&nit- to demo ish the opposite part-9s case, and where the evidence has been thoro&gh weighed and considered, the s&it or proceeding is Dappropriate.D The pertinent sections of R& e "': provide< . . . Th&s, the persons who m&st be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cance ation or correction of an entr- in the civi register are G 2"5 the civi registrar, and 2/5 a persons who have or c aim aninterest which wo& d be affected thereb-. Upon the fi ing of the petition, it becomes the d&t- of the co&rt to G 2"5 iss&e an order fi6ing the time and p ace for the hearing
Page | 406

of the petition, and 2/5 ca&se the order for hearing to be p&b ished once a week for three 2!5 consec&tive weeks in a newspaper of genera circ& ation in the province. The fo owing are ikewise entit ed to oppose the petition< G 2"5 the civi registrar, and 2/5 an- person having or c aiming an- interest &nder the entr- whose cance ation or correction is so&ght. If a these proced&ra re%&irements have been fo owed, a petition for correction andJor cance ation of entries in the record of birth even if fi ed and cond&cted &nder R& e "': of the Revised R& es of +o&rt can no onger be
Page | 407

described as Ds&mmar-.D There can be no do&bt that when an opposition to the petition is fi ed either b- the +ivi Registrar or anperson having or c aiming aninterest in the entries so&ght to be cance ed andJor corrected and the opposition is active - prosec&ted, the proceedings thereon become adversar- proceedings. 666 666 666 0e are of the opinion that the petition fi ed b- the respondent in the ower co&rt b- wa- of a specia proceeding for cance ation andJor correction of entries in the civi register with the re%&isite notice and p&b ication and the recorded proceedings that act&a - took
Page | 408

p ace thereafter co& d ver- we be regarded as that proper s&it or appropriate action. The doctrine was reiterated in )1iao (en Li# v. Ao$a $ and %epu/lic v. Hlojo. "' 8ccording -, the dismissa b- the tria co&rt of G iceria9s petition m&st now be reversed. The records show that the p&b ication re%&irement has a readbeen comp ied with. The ne6t step wo& d th&s be for the co&rt a 4uo to consider the petition before it to be, in s&bstance, an adversar- proceeding and to a ow petitioner and a adverse and interested parties their da- in co&rt. 0IERE.1RE, the %&estioned 1rder of the then +o&rt of .irst Instance 2now
Page | 409

Regiona Tria +o&rt5 of Eavao is hereb=ET 8=IEE and =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "$"! is ordered reinstated. 3o costs.

Page | 410

G.R. No. LA23C2;

June C, 19C2

,ES,A,E ES,A,E O. A#OS G. 6ELL%S, (e-e&"e(. *EO*LEDS 6ANB &n( ,RUS, $O#*AN4, e0e-uto . #AR%A $R%S,%NA 6ELL%S &n( #%R%A# *AL#A 6ELL%S, oppo"ito "A &ppell&nt", !". EDEARD A. 6ELL%S, E, AL., 'ei "A &ppellee". Gicente %. Maca$aet and Jo$e 9. Gillena for oppo$itor$ appellant$. 2arede$, 2o/lador, )ru5 and &a5areno for 1eir$-appellee$ ;. A. (elli$, et al. Vuijano and Arro!o for 1eir$-appellee$
Page | 411

Q. . (elli$, et al. J. %. (alon:ita for appellee 2eople<$ (an: R Tru$t )o#pan!. O5aeta, Gi//$ and O5aeta for appellee A. (. All$#an. HE3GZ13, J.;., J.: This is a direct appea to Us, &pon a %&estion p&re - of aw, from an order of the +o&rt of .irst Instance of ,ani a dated 8pri !', "$(4, approving the project of partition fi ed b- the e6ec&tor in +ivi +ase 3o. !#':$ therein.1W0p1X1.8Yt The facts of the case are as fo ows< 8mos G. He is, born in Te6as, was Da citi7en of the =tate of Te6as and of the United =tates.D H- his first wife, ,ar- E. ,a en, whom he divorced, he had five
Page | 412

egitimate chi dren< Edward 8. He is, George He is 2who pre*deceased him in infanc-5, Ienr- 8. He is, 8 e6ander He is and 8nna He is 8 sman> b- his second wife, Fio et ?enned-, who s&rvived him, he had three egitimate chi dren< Edwin G. He is, 0a ter =. He is and Eoroth- He is> and fina -, he had three i egitimate chi dren< 8mos He is, Jr., ,aria +ristina He is and ,iriam ;a ma He is.1n 8&g&st ), "$)/, 8mos G. He is e6ec&ted a wi in the ;hi ippines, in which he directed that after a ta6es, ob igations, and e6penses of administration are paid for, his distrib&tab e estate sho& d be divided, in tr&st, in the fo owing order and manner< 2a5 @/4','''.'' to his first wife, ,ar- E. ,a en> 2b5 ;"/','''.'' to his three i egitimate chi dren, 8mos
Page | 413

He is, Jr., ,aria +ristina He is, ,iriam ;a ma He is, or ;4','''.'' each and 2c5 after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder sha go to his seven s&rviving chi dren b- his first and second wives, name -< Edward 8. He is, Ienr- 8. He is, 8 e6ander He is and 8nna He is 8 sman, Edwin G. He is, 0a ter =. He is, and Eoroth- E. He is, in e%&a shares.1W0p1X1.8Yt=&bse%&ent -, or on J& - :, "$):, 8mos G. He is died a resident of =an 8ntonio, Te6as, U.=.8. Iis wi was admitted to probate in the +o&rt of .irst Instance of ,ani a on =eptember "), "$):.The ;eop e9s Hank and Tr&st +ompan-, as e6ec&tor of the wi , paid a the be%&ests therein inc &ding the amo&nt of @/4','''.'' in the form of shares of stock to ,ar- E.
Page | 414

,a en and to the three 2!5 i egitimate chi dren, 8mos He is, Jr., ,aria +ristina He is and ,iriam ;a ma He is, vario&s amo&nts tota ing ;4','''.'' each in satisfaction of their respective egacies, or a tota of ;"/','''.'', which it re eased from time to time according as the ower co&rt approved and a owed the vario&s motions or petitions fi ed bthe atter three re%&esting partia advances on acco&nt of their respective egacies.1n Jan&ar:, "$(4, preparator- to c osing its administration, the e6ec&tor s&bmitted and fi ed its DE6ec&tor9s .ina 8cco&nt, Report of 8dministration and ;roject of ;artitionD wherein it reported, inter alia, the satisfaction of the egac- of ,ar- E. ,a en b- the de iver- to her of shares of stock amo&nting to @/4','''.'', and
Page | 415

the egacies of 8mos He is, Jr., ,aria +ristina He is and ,iriam ;a ma He is in the amo&nt of ;4','''.'' each or a tota of ;"/','''.''. In the project of partition, the e6ec&tor G p&rs&ant to the DTwe fthD c a&se of the testator9s Aast 0i and Testament G divided the resid&ar- estate into seven e%&a portions for the benefit of the testator9s seven egitimate chi dren b- his first and second marriages.1n Jan&ar- "#, "$(4, ,aria +ristina He is and ,iriam ;a ma He is fi ed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the gro&nd that the- were deprived of their egitimes as i egitimate chi dren and, therefore, comp& sor- heirs of the deceased. 8mos He is, Jr. interposed no opposition despite notice to him, proof of
Page | 416

service of which is evidenced b- the registr- receipt s&bmitted on 8pri /#, "$(4 b- the e6ec&tor."8fter the parties fi ed their respective memoranda and other pertinent p eadings, the ower co&rt, on 8pri !', "$(4, iss&ed an order overr& ing the oppositions and approving the e6ec&tor9s fina acco&nt, report and administration and project of partition. Re -ing &pon 8rt. "( of the +ivi +ode, it app ied the nationa aw of the decedent, which in this case is Te6as aw, which did not provide for egitimes.Their respective motions for reconsideration having been denied bthe ower co&rt on J&ne "", "$(4, oppositors*appe ants appea ed to this +o&rt to raise the iss&e of which aw m&st app - G Te6as aw or ;hi ippine aw.In this regard, the parties do not
Page | 417

s&bmit the case on, nor even disc&ss, the doctrine of renvoi, app ied b- this +o&rt in A5nar v. )1ri$ten$en Garcia, A* "(#4$, Jan&ar- !", "$(!. =aid doctrine is &s&a - pertinent where the decedent is a nationa of one co&ntr-, and a domici e of another. In the present case, it is not disp&ted that the decedent was both a nationa of Te6as and a domici e thereof at the time of his death./ =o that even ass&ming Te6as has a conf ict of aw r& e providing that the domici iars-stem 2 aw of the domici e5 sho& d govern, the same wo& d not res& t in a reference back 2renvoi5 to ;hi ippine aw, b&t wo& d sti refer to Te6as aw. 3onethe ess, if Te6as has a conf icts r& e adopting the sit&s theor- 2 e6 rei sitae5 ca ing for the app ication of the aw of the p ace where the properties
Page | 418

are sit&ated, renvoi wo& d arise, since the properties here invo ved are fo&nd in the ;hi ippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conf ict of aw r& e of Te6as, it sho& d not be pres&med different from o&rs.!8ppe ants9 position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. 8s stated, the- never invoked nor even mentioned it in their arg&ments. Rather, the- arg&e that their case fa s &nder the circ&mstances mentioned in the third paragraph of 8rtic e "# in re ation to 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode. 8rtic e "(, par. /, and 8rt. "'!$ of the +ivi +ode, render app icab e the nationa aw of the decedent, in intestate or testamentar- s&ccessions, with regard to fo&r items< 2a5 the order of
Page | 419

s&ccession> 2b5 the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights> 2e5 the intrinsic va idit- of the provisions of the wi > and 2d5 the capacit- to s&cceed. Theprovide that G 8RT. "(. Rea propert- as we as persona propert- is s&bject to the aw of the co&ntr- where it is sit&ated. Iowever, intestate and testamentars&ccessions, both with respect to the order of s&ccession and to the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights and to the intrinsic va idit- of testamentarprovisions, sha be reg& ated b- the nationa aw of the person whose s&ccession is &nder consideration, whatever ma- he the nat&re of the propert- and regard ess of the
Page | 420

co&ntr- wherein said propert- ma- be fo&nd. 8RT. "'!$. +apacit- to s&cceed is governed b- the aw of the nation of the decedent. 8ppe ants wo& d however co&nter that 8rt. "#, paragraph three, of the +ivi +ode, stating that G ;rohibitive aws concerning persons, their acts or propert-, and those which have for their object p&b ic order, p&b ic po ic- and good c&stoms sha not be rendered ineffective baws or j&dgments prom& gated, or bdeterminations or conventions agreed &pon in a foreign co&ntr-. prevai s as the e6ception to 8rt. "(, par. / of the +ivi +ode afore*%&oted. This is
Page | 421

not correct. ;recise -, +ongressdeleted the phrase, Dnotwithstanding the provisions of this and the ne6t preceding artic eD when the- incorporated 8rt. "" of the o d +ivi +ode as 8rt. "# of the new +ivi +ode, whi e reprod&cing witho&t s&bstantia change the second paragraph of 8rt. "' of the o d +ivi +ode as 8rt. "( in the new. It m&st have been their p&rpose to make the second paragraph of 8rt. "( a specific provision in itse f which m&st be app ied in testate and intestate s&ccession. 8s f&rther indication of this egis ative intent, +ongress added a new provision, &nder 8rt. "'!$, which decrees that capacit- to s&cceed is to be governed b- the nationa aw of the decedent.It is therefore evident that whatever p&b ic po ic- or good c&stoms
Page | 422

ma- be invo ved in o&r =-stem of egitimes, +ongress has not intended to e6tend the same to the s&ccession of foreign nationa s. .or it has specifica chosen to eave, inter alia, the a#ount of s&ccessiona rights, to the decedent9s nationa aw. =pecific provisions m&st prevai over genera ones.8ppe ants wo& d a so point o&t that the decedent e6ec&ted two wi s G one to govern his Te6as estate and the other his ;hi ippine estate G arg&ing from this that he intended ;hi ippine aw to govern his ;hi ippine estate. 8ss&ming that s&ch was the decedent9s intention in e6ec&ting a separate ;hi ippine wi , it wo& d not a ter the aw, for as this +o&rt r& ed in Miciano v. (ri#o, )' ;hi . :(#, :#', a provision in a foreigner9s wi to the effect that his
Page | 423

properties sha be distrib&ted in accordance with ;hi ippine aw and not with his nationa aw, is i ega and void, for his nationa aw cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that 8rtic e "' G now 8rtic e "( G of the +ivi +ode states said nationa aw sho& d govern.The parties admit that the decedent, 8mos G. He is, was a citi7en of the =tate of Te6as, U.=.8., and that &nder the aws of Te6as, there are no forced heirs or egitimes. 8ccording -, since the intrinsic va idit- of the provision of the wi and the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights are to be determined &nder Te6as aw, the ;hi ippine aw on egitimes cannot be app ied to the testac- of 8mos G. He is.
Page | 424

0herefore, the order of the probate co&rt is hereb- affirmed in toto, with costs against appe ants. =o ordered.

G.R. No. 22191 Au/u"t 11, 19;9 HONGBONG AND SHANGHA% 6ANB%NG $OR*ORA,%ON, petitione , !". JA$B RO6ER, SHER#AN, DEODA,O RELOJ &n( ,HE %N,ER#ED%A,E A**ELLA,E $OUR,, e"pon(ent".
Page | 425

Vuia$on, Ma:alintal, (arot R Torre$ for petitioner. Alejandro, Aran5a$o R A$$ociate$ for private re$pondent$. ,EEI8AEE8, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate 8ppe ate +o&rt 2now +o&rt of 8ppea s5 dated 8&g&st /, "$:), which reversed the order of the Regiona Tria +o&rt dated .ebr&ar- /:,"$:) den-ing the ,otion to Eismiss fi ed b- private respondents Jack Robert =herman and Eeodato Re oj. 8 comp aint for co ection of a s&m of mone- 2pp. 4$*)/, %ollo5 was fi ed bpetitioner Iongkong and =hanghai Hanking +orporation 2hereinafter
Page | 426

referred to as petitioner H83?5 against private respondents Jack Robert =herman and Eeodato Re oj, docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. O*4/:)' before the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it-, Hranch :4. It appears that sometime in "$:", Eastern Hook =&pp - =ervice ;TE, Atd. 2hereinafter referred to as +1,;83C5, a compan- incorporated in =ingapore app ied with, and was granted b-, the =ingapore branch of petitioner H83? an overdraft faci it- in the ma6im&m amo&nt of =ingapore do ars /'','''.'' 2which amo&nt was s&bse%&ent - increased to =ingapore do ars !#),'''.''5 with interest at !B over petitioner H83? prime rate, pa-ab e month -, on amo&nts d&e &nder said overdraft
Page | 427

faci it-> as a sec&rit- for the repa-ment b- the +1,;83C of s&ms advanced bpetitioner H83? to it thro&gh the aforesaid overdraft faci it-, on 1ctober #, "$:/, both private respondents and a certain Robin de + ive Aowe, a of whom were directors of the +1,;83C at s&ch time, e6ec&ted a Joint and =evera G&arantee 2p. )!, %ollo5 in favor of petitioner H83? whereb- private respondents and Aowe agreed to pa-, joint - and severa -, on demand a s&ms owed b- the +1,;83C to petitioner H83? &nder the aforestated overdraft faci it-. The Joint and =evera provides, inter alia, that< G&arantee

This g&arantee and a rights, ob igations and iabi ities arising

Page | 428

here&nder sha be constr&ed and determined &nder and ma- be enforced in accordance with the aws of the Rep&b ic of =ingapore. 0e hereb- agree that the +o&rts of =ingapore sha have j&risdiction over a disp&tes arising &nder this g&arantee. ... 2p. !!*8, %ollo5. The +1,;83C fai ed to pa- its ob igation. Th&s, petitioner H83? demanded pa-ment of the ob igation from private respondents, conformab with the provisions of the Joint and =evera G&arantee. Inasm&ch as the private respondents sti fai ed to pa-, petitioner H83? fi ed the above* mentioned comp aint. 1n Eecember "4,"$:4, private respondents fi ed a motion to dismiss
Page | 429

2pp )4*)(, %ollo5 which was opposed bpetitioner H83? 2pp. ):*(/, %ollo5. 8cting on the motion, the tria co&rt iss&ed an order dated .ebr&ar- /:, "$:) 2pp, (4*(), %ollo5, which read as fo ows< In a ,otion to Eismiss fi ed on Eecember "4, "$:4, the defendants seek the dismissa of the comp aint on two gro&nds, name -< ". That the co&rt has no j&risdiction over the s&bject matter of the comp aint> and /. That the co&rt has no j&risdiction over the persons of the defendants.
Page | 430

In the ight of the 1pposition thereto fi ed b- p aintiff, the +o&rt finds no merit in the motion. D1n the first gro&nd, defendants c aim that b- virt&e of the provision in the G&arantee 2the actionab e doc&ment5 which reads G This g&arantee and a rights, ob igations and iabi ities arising here&nder sha be constr&ed and determined &nder and ma- be enforced in accordance with the aws of the Rep&b ic of =ingapore. 0e hereb- agree that the co&rts in =ingapore sha have j&risdiction over a disp&tes arising &nder this g&arantee,
Page | 431

the +o&rt has no j&risdiction over the s&bject matter of the case. The +o&rt finds and conc &des otherwise. There is nothing in the G&arantee which sa-s that the co&rts of =ingapore sha have j&risdiction to the e6c &sion of the co&rts of other co&ntries or nations. 8 so, it has ong been estab ished in aw and j&rispr&dence that j&risdiction of co&rts is fi6ed b- aw> it cannot be conferred b- the wi , s&bmission or consent of the parties. 1n the second gro&nd, it is asserted that defendant Robert9 , =herman is not a citi7en nor a resident of the ;hi ippines. This arg&ment ho ds no water.
Page | 432

J&risdiction over the persons of defendants is ac%&ired b- service of s&mmons and cop- of the comp aint on them. There has been a va id service of s&mmons on both defendants and in fact the same is admitted when said defendants fi ed a 9,otion for E6tension of Time to .i e Responsive ; eading on Eecember ), "$:4. 0IERE.1RE, the ,otion Eismiss is hereb- EE3IEE. =1 1REEREE. 8 motion for reconsideration of the said order was fi ed b- private respondents which was, however, denied 2p. ((,%ollo5.
Page | 433

to

;rivate respondents then fi ed before the respondent Intermediate 8ppe ate +o&rt 2now +o&rt of 8ppea s5 a petition for prohibition with pre iminar- inj&nction andJor pra-er for a restraining order 2pp. !$*4:, %ollo5. 1n 8&g&st /, "$:), the respondent +o&rt rendered a decision 2p. !#, %ollo5, the dispositive portion of which reads< 0IERE.1RE, the petition for prohibition with pre iminarinj&ction is hereb- GR83TEE. The respondent +o&rt is enjoined from taking f&rther cogni7ance of the case and to dismiss the same for fi ing with the proper co&rt of =ingapore which is the proper for&m. 3o costs. =1 1REEREE.
Page | 434

The motion for reconsideration was denied 2p. !:, %ollo5, hence, the present petition. The main iss&e is whether or not ;hi ippine co&rts have j&risdiction over the s&it. The controvers- stems from the interpretation of a provision in the Joint and =evera G&arantee, to wit< 2"45 This g&arantee and a rights, ob igations and iabi ites arising here&nder sha be constr&ed and determined &nder and ma- be enforced in accordance with the aws of the Rep&b ic of =ingapore. 0e hereb- agree that the +o&rts in =ingapore sha have j&risdiction
Page | 435

over a disp&tes arising &nder this g&arantee. ... 2p. )!*8, %ollo5 In rendering the decision in favor of private respondents, the +o&rt of 8ppea s made, the fo owing observations 2pp. !)*!(, %ollo5< There are significant aspects of the case to which o&r attention is invited. The oan was obtained bEastern Hook =ervice ;TE, Atd., a companincorporated in in"apore. The oan was granted b- the in"apore Hranch of Iongkong and =hanghai Hanking +orporation. The Joint and =evera G&arantee was a so conc &ded in in"apore. The oan was in =ingaporean do ars and the repa-ment thereof a so in the
Page | 436

same c&rrenc-. The transaction, to sa- the east, took p ace in =ingporean setting in which the aw of that co&ntr- is the meas&re b- which that re ationship of the parties wi be governed. 666 666 666 +ontrar- to the position taken brespondents, the g&arantee agreement comp iance that anitigation wi be before the co&rts of =ingapore and that the rights and ob igations of the parties sha be constr&ed and determined in accordance with the aws of the Rep&b ic of =ingapore. 8 c oser e6amination of paragraph "4 of the G&arantee 8greement &pon which the motion to dismiss is based,
Page | 437

emp o-s in c ear and &nmistakeab e 2sic5 terms the word 9sha 9 which &nder stat&torconstr&ction is mandator-. Th&s it was r& ed that< ... the word 9sha 9 is imperative, operating to impose a d&t- which ma- be enforced 2Ei7on vs. Encarnacion, $ =+R8 #"45.lZ0p1[1.8\t There is nothing more imperative and restrictive than what the agreement categorica commands that 9a rights, ob igations, and iabi ities arising here&nder $1all be constr&ed and determined &nder and ma- be enforced in accordance with
Page | 438

the la0$ of in"apore.9

t1e

%epu/lic

of

0hi e it is tr&e that Dthe transaction took p ace in =ingaporean settingD and that the Joint and =evera G&arantee contains a choice*of*for&m c a&se, the ver- essence of d&e process dictates that the stip& ation that DLtMhis g&arantee and a rights, ob igations and iabi ities arising here&nder sha be constr&ed and determined &nder and ma- be enforced in accordance with the aws of the Rep&b ic of =ingapore. 0e herebagree that the +o&rts in =ingapore sha have j&risdiction over a disp&tes arising &nder this g&aranteeD be ibera constr&ed. 1ne basic princip e &nder ies a r& es of j&risdiction in Internationa Aaw< a =tate does not have j&risdiction
Page | 439

in the absence of some reasonab e basis for e6ercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem 4ua$i in re# or in per$ona#. To be reasonab e, the j&risdiction m&st be based on some minim&m contacts that wi not offend traditiona notions of fair p a- and s&bstantia j&stice 2J. =a onga, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, "$:", p. 4(5. Indeed, as pointed*o&t b- petitioner H83? at the o&tset, the instant case presents a verodd sit&ation. In the ordinar- habits of ife, an-one wo& d be disinc ined to itigate before a foreign trib&na , with more reason as a defendant. Iowever, in this case, private respondents are ;hi ippine residents 2a fact which was not disp&ted b- them5 who wo& d rather face a comp aint against them before a foreign co&rt and in the process inc&r
Page | 440

considerab e e6penses, not to mention inconvenience, than to have a ;hi ippine co&rt tr- and reso ve the case. ;rivate respondents9 stance is hard comprehensib e, &n ess their & timate intent is to evade, or at east de a-, the pa-ment of a j&st ob igation. The defense of private respondents that the comp aint sho& d have been fi ed in =ingapore is based mere - on technica it-. The- did not even c aim, m&ch ess prove, that the fi ing of the action here wi ca&se them an&nnecessar- tro&b e, damage, or e6pense. 1n the other hand, there is no showing that petitioner H83? fi ed the action here j&st to harass private respondents.
Page | 441

In the case of 2ol!trade )orporation v$. (lanco, G.R. 3o. A*/#'!!, 1ctober !", "$($, !' =+R8 ":#, it was r& ed< ... 8n acc&rate reading, however, of the stip& ation, 9The parties agree to s&e and be s&ed in the +o&rts of ,ani a,9 does not prec &de the fi ing of s&its in the residence of p aintiff or defendant. The p ain meaning is that the parties mere - consented to be s&ed in ,ani a. O&a if-ing or restrictive words which wo& d indicate that ,ani a and ,ani a a one is the ven&e are tota absent therefrom. 0e cannot read into that c a&se that p aintiff and defendant bo&nd themse ves to fi e s&its with respect to the ast two
Page | 442

transactions in %&estion on - or e6c &sive - in ,ani a. .or, that agreement did not change or transfer ven&e. It simp - is permissive. The parties so e agreed to add the co&rts of ,ani a as trib&na s to which the- maresort. The- did not waive their right to p&rs&e remed- in the co&rts specifica - mentioned in =ection /2b5 of R& e 4. %enuntiatio non prae$u#itur. This r& ing was reiterated in the case of &eville ]. La#i$ ;nt$., et al. v. La"a#on, etc., et al., G.R. 3o. )#/)', 1ctober !', "$:", "': =+R8 #4', where the stip& ation was DLiMn case of itigation, j&risdiction sha be vested in the +o&rt of Eavao +it-.D 0e he d<
Page | 443

8nent the c aim that Eavao +ithad been stip& ated as the ven&e, s&ffice it to sa- that a stip& ation as to ven&e does not prec &de the fi ing of s&its in the residence of p aintiff or defendant &nder =ection / 2b5, R& e 4, R& es of +o&rt, in the absence of %&a if-ing or restrictive words in the agreement which wo& d indicate that the p ace named is the on - ven&e agreed &pon b- the parties. 8pp -ing the foregoing to the case at bar, the parties did not thereb- stip& ate that on - the co&rts of =ingapore, to the e6c &sion of a the rest, has j&risdiction. 3either did the c a&se in %&estion operate to divest ;hi ippine co&rts of j&risdiction. In Internationa Aaw,
Page | 444

j&risdiction is often defined as the ight of a =tate to e6ercise a&thorit- over persons and things within its bo&ndaries s&bject to certain e6ceptions. Th&s, a =tate does not ass&me j&risdiction over trave ing sovereigns, ambassadors and dip omatic representatives of other =tates, and foreign mi itar- &nits stationed in or marching thro&gh =tate territor- with the permission of the atter9s a&thorities. This a&thorit-, which finds its so&rce in the concept of sovereignt-, is e6c &sive within and thro&gho&t the domain of the =tate. 8 =tate is competent to take ho d of anj&dicia matter it sees fit b- making its co&rts and agencies ass&me j&risdiction over a kinds of cases bro&ght before them 2J. =a onga, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, "$:", pp. !#*!:5.lZ0p1[1.8\t
Page | 445

8s regards the iss&e on improper ven&e, petitioner H83? avers that the objection to improper ven&e has been waived. Iowever, 0e agree with the r& ing of the respondent +o&rt that< 0hi e in the main, the motion to dismiss fai s to categorica - &se with e6actit&de the words 9improper ven&e9 it can be perceived from the genera thr&st and conte6t of the motion that what is meant is improper ven&e, The &se of the word 9j&risdiction9 was mere - an attempt to cop-*cat the same word emp o-ed in the g&arantee agreement b&t conve-s the concept of ven&e. Hr&shing aside a technica ities, it wo& d appear that j&risdiction was &sed
Page | 446

oose - as to be s-non-mo&s with ven&e. It is in this spirit that this +o&rt m&st view the motion to dismiss. ... 2p. !), %ollo5. 8t an- rate, this iss&e is now of no moment beca&se 0e ho d that ven&e here was proper - aid for the same reasons disc&ssed above. The respondent +o&rt ikewise r& ed that 2pp. !(*!#, %ollo5< ... In a conf ict prob em, a co&rt wi simp - ref&se to entertain the case if it is not a&thori7ed b- aw to e6ercise j&risdiction. 8nd even if it is so a&thori7ed, it ma- sti ref&se to entertain the case b- app -ing the princip e of foru# non convenien$. ...
Page | 447

Iowever, whether a s&it sho& d be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the princip e of foru# non convenien$depends arge - &pon the facts of the partic& ar case and is addressed to the so&nd discretion of the tria co&rt 2J. =a onga, ;rivate Internationa Aaw, "$:", p. 4$5.lZ0p1[1.8\t Th&s, the respondent +o&rt sho& d not have re ied on s&ch princip e. 8 tho&gh the Joint and =evera G&arantee prepared b- petitioner H83? is a contract of adhesion and that conse%&ent -, it cannot be permitted to take a stand contrar- to the stip& ations of the contract, s&bstantia bases e6ist for petitioner Hank9s choice of for&m, as disc&ssed ear ier.
Page | 448

Aast -, private respondents a ege that neither the petitioner based at Iongkong nor its ;hi ippine branch is invo ved in the transaction s&ed &pon. This is a vain attempt on their part to f&rther thwart the proceedings be ow inasm&ch as we *known is the r& e that a defendant cannot p ead an- defense that has not been interposed in the co&rt be ow. 8++1REI3GAC, the decision of the respondent +o&rt is hereb- REFER=EE and the decision of the Regiona Tria +o&rt is REI3=T8TEE, with costs against private respondents. This decision is immediate - e6ec&tor-. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 449

G.R. No. LA1C219 19C3

J&nu& y 31,

%N ,HE #A,,ER O. ,HE ,ES,A,E ES,A,E O. EDEARD E. $HR%S,ENSEN, DE$EASED. ADOL.O $. A5NAR, E0e-uto &n( LU$4 $HR%S,ENSEN, Hei o) t'e (e-e&"e(, E0e-uto &n( Hei A &ppellee", !". HELEN $HR%S,ENSEN GAR$%A, oppo"ito A&ppell&nt.
Page | 450

A8HR8E1R, J.: This is an appea from a decision of the +o&rt of .irst Instance of Eavao, Ion. Ficente 3. +&si, Jr., presiding, in =pecia ;roceeding 3o. (// of said co&rt, dated =eptember "4, "$4$, approving among things the fina acco&nts of the e6ec&tor, directing the e6ec&tor to reimb&rse ,aria A&c+hristensen the amo&nt of ;!,('' paid b- her to Ie en +hristensen Garcia as her egac-, and dec aring ,aria A&c+hristensen entit ed to the resid&e of the propert- to be enjo-ed d&ring her ifetime, and in case of death witho&t iss&e, one*ha f of said resid&e to be pa-ab e to ,rs. +arrie Ao&ise +. Horton, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the wi of the testator Edward E.
Page | 451

+hristensen. The wi was e6ec&ted in ,ani a on ,arch ), "$)" and contains the fo owing provisions< !. I dec are ... that I have b&t 13E 2"5 chi d, named ,8RI8 AU+C +IRI=TE3=E3 2now ,rs. Hernard Eane-5, who was born in the ;hi ippines abo&t twent-*eight -ears ago, and who is now residing at 3o. (() Rodger Co&ng Fi age, Aos 8nge es, +a ifornia, U.=.8. 4. I f&rther dec are that I now have no iving ascendants, and no descendants e6cept m- above named da&ghter, ,8RI8 AU+C +IRI=TE3=E3 E83EC. 666 666 666
Page | 452

#. I give, devise and be%&eath &nto ,8RI8 IEAE3 +IRI=TE3=E3, now married to Ed&ardo Garcia, abo&t eighteen -ears of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that she was bapti7ed +hristensen, is not in anwa- re ated to me, nor has she been at an- time adopted b- me, and who, from a information I have now resides in Egpit, Eigos, Eavao, ;hi ippines, the s&m of TIREE TI1U=83E =IN IU3EREE ;E=1= 2;!,(''.''5, ;hi ippine +&rrenc- the same to be deposited in tr&st for the said ,aria Ie en +hristensen with the Eavao Hranch of the ;hi ippine 3ationa Hank, and paid to her at the rate of 1ne I&ndred ;esos 2;"''.''5, ;hi ippine +&rrenc- per month &nti the principa thereof as
Page | 453

we as an- interest which ma- have accr&ed thereon, is e6ha&sted.. 666 666 666 "/. I hereb- give, devise and be%&eath, &nto m- we *be oved da&ghter, the said ,8RI8 AU+C +IRI=TE3=E3 E83EC 2,rs. Hernard Eane-5, now residing as aforesaid at 3o. (() Rodger Co&ng Fi age, Aos 8nge es, +a ifornia, U.=.8., a the income from the rest, remainder, and resid&e of mpropert- and estate, rea , persona andJor mi6ed, of whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever sit&ated, of which I ma- be possessed at mdeath and which ma- have come to me from an- so&rce whatsoever, d&ring her ifetime< ....
Page | 454

It is in accordance with the above* %&oted provisions that the e6ec&tor in his fina acco&nt and project of partition ratified the pa-ment of on - ;!,('' to Ie en +hristensen Garcia and proposed that the resid&e of the estate be transferred to his da&ghter, ,aria A&c+hristensen. 1pposition to the approva of the project of partition was fi ed b- Ie en +hristensen Garcia, insofar as it deprives her 2Ie en5 of her egitime as an acknow edged nat&ra chi d, she having been dec ared b- Us in G.R. 3os. A*""4:!*:4 an acknow edged nat&ra chi d of the deceased Edward E. +hristensen. The ega gro&nds of opposition are 2a5 that the distrib&tion sho& d be governed b- the aws of the
Page | 455

;hi ippines, and 2b5 that said order of distrib&tion is contrar- thereto insofar as it denies to Ie en +hristensen, one of two acknow edged nat&ra chi dren, one* ha f of the estate in f& ownership. In amp ification of the above gro&nds it was a eged that the aw that sho& d govern the estate of the deceased +hristensen sho& d not be the interna aw of +a ifornia a one, b&t the entire aw thereof beca&se severa foreign e ements are invo ved, that the for&m is the ;hi ippines and even if the case were decided in +a ifornia, =ection $4( of the +a ifornia +ivi +ode, which re%&ires that the domici e of the decedent sho& d app -, sho& d be app icab e. It was a so a eged that ,aria Ie en +hristensen having been dec ared an acknow edged nat&ra chi d
Page | 456

of the decedent, she is deemed for a p&rposes egitimate from the time of her birth. The co&rt be ow r& ed that as Edward E. +hristensen was a citi7en of the United =tates and of the =tate of +a ifornia at the time of his death, the s&ccessiona rights and intrinsic va idit- of the provisions in his wi are to be governed b- the aw of +a ifornia, in accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his propert- in the wa- he desires, beca&se the right of abso &te dominion over his propert- is sacred and invio ab e 2In re ,cEanie 9s Estate, ## +a . 8pp . /d :##, "#( ;. /d $)/, and In re ?a&fman, ""# +a . /:(, 4$ ;ac. "$/, cited in page "#$, Record on 8ppea 5. 1ppositor ,aria Ie en
Page | 457

+hristensen, thro&gh co&nse , fi ed vario&s motions for reconsideration, b&t these were denied. Ience, this appea . The most important assignments of error are as fo ows< I TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 IG31RI3G TIE EE+I=I13 1. TIE I131R8HAE =U;RE,E +1URT TI8T IEAE3 I= TIE 8+?310AEEGEE 38TUR8A +IIAE 1. EE08RE E. +IRI=TE3=E3 83E, +13=EOUE3TAC, I3 EE;RIFI3G IER 1. IER JU=T =I8RE I3 TIE I3IERIT83+E. II TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 E3TIREAC IG31RI3G 83EJ1R
Page | 458

.8IAI3G T1 RE+1G3IZE TIE ENI=TE3+E 1. =EFER8A .8+T1R=, EAE,E3T= 83E +IR+U,=T83+E= +8AAI3G .1R TIE 8;;AI+8TI13 1. I3TER38A A80. III TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 .8IAI3G T1 RE+1G3IZE TI8T U3EER I3TER38TI138A A80, ;8RTI+UA8RAC U3EER TIE RE3F1I E1+TRI3E, TIE I3TRI3=I+ F8AIEITC 1. TIE TE=T8,E3T8RC EI=;1=ITI13 1. TIE EI=TRIHUTI13 1. TIE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE EE08RE E. +IRI=TE3=E3 =I1UAE HE G1FER3EE HC TIE A80= 1. TIE ;IIAI;;I3E=. IF
Page | 459

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 31T EE+A8RI3G TI8T TIE =+IEEUAE 1. EI=TRIHUTI13 =UH,ITTEE HC TIE ENE+UT1R I= +13TR8RC T1 TIE ;IIAI;;I3E A80=. F TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 31T EE+A8RI3G TI8T U3EER TIE ;IIAI;;I3E A80= IEAE3 +IRI=TE3=E3 G8R+I8 I= E3TITAEE T1 13E*I8A. 2"J/5 1. TIE E=T8TE I3 .UAA 103ER=II;. There is no %&estion that Edward E. +hristensen was a citi7en of the United =tates and of the =tate of +a ifornia at the time of his death. H&t there is a so no %&estion that at the time of his death he was domici ed in the ;hi ippines, as
Page | 460

witness the fo owing facts admitted bthe e6ec&tor himse f in appe ee9s brief< In the proceedings for admission of the wi to probate, the facts of record show that the deceased Edward E. +hristensen was born on 3ovember /$, ":#) in 3ew Cork +it-, 3.C., U.=.8.> his first arriva in the ;hi ippines, as an appointed schoo teacher, was on J& - ", "$'", on board the U.=. 8rm- Transport D=heridanD with ;ort of Embarkation as the +it- of =an .rancisco, in the =tate of +a ifornia, U.=.8. Ie sta-ed in the ;hi ippines &nti "$'4. In Eecember, "$'4, ,r. +hristensen ret&rned to the United =tates and sta-ed there for the fo owing nine -ears &nti "$"!, d&ring which time he
Page | 461

resided in, and was teaching schoo in =acramento, +a ifornia. ,r. +hristensen9s ne6t arriva in the ;hi ippines was in J& - of the -ear "$"!. Iowever, in "$/:, he again departed the ;hi ippines for the United =tates and came back here the fo owing -ear, "$/$. =ome nine -ears ater, in "$!:, he again ret&rned to his own co&ntr-, and came back to the ;hi ippines the fo owing -ear, "$!$. 0herefore, the parties respectf& pra- that the foregoing stip& ation of facts be admitted and approved bthis Ionorab e +o&rt, witho&t prej&dice to the parties add&cing other evidence to prove their case not
Page | 462

covered b- this facts. 1W0p1X1.8Yt

stip& ation

of

Heing an 8merican citi7en, ,r. +hristensen was interned b- the Japanese ,i itar- .orces in the ;hi ippines d&ring 0or d 0ar II. Upon iberation, in 8pri "$4), he eft for the United =tates b&t ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in Eecember, "$4). 8ppe ees +o ective E6hibits D(D, +.I Eavao, =p. ;roc. (//, as E6hibits D88D, DHHD and D++*Eane-D> E6hs. D,,D, D,,* D, D,,*/*Eane-D and p. 4#!, t.s.n., J& - /", "$)!.5 In 8pri , "$)", Edward E. +hristensen ret&rned once more to +a ifornia short - after the making of his ast wi and testament 2now in %&estion herein5 which he e6ec&ted at his
Page | 463

aw-ers9 offices in ,ani a on ,arch ), "$)". Ie died at the =t. A&ke9s Iospita in the +it- of ,ani a on 8pri !', "$)!. 2pp. /*!5 In arriving at the conc &sion that the domici e of the deceased is the ;hi ippines, we are pers&aded b- the fact that he was born in 3ew Cork, migrated to +a ifornia and resided there for nine -ears, and since he came to the ;hi ippines in "$"! he ret&rned to +a ifornia ver- rare - and on - for short visits 2perhaps to re atives5, and considering that he appears never to have owned or ac%&ired a home or properties in that state, which wo& d indicate that he wo& d & timate abandon the ;hi ippines and make home in the =tate of +a ifornia.
Page | 464

=ec. "(. Residence is a term &sed with man- shades of meaning from mere temporar- presence to the most permanent abode. Genera -, however, it is &sed to denote something more than mere ph-sica presence. 2Goodrich on +onf ict of Aaws, p. /$5 8s to his citi7enship, however, 0e find that the citi7enship that he ac%&ired in +a ifornia when he resided in =acramento, +a ifornia from "$'4 to "$"!, was never ost b- his sta- in the ;hi ippines, for the atter was a territorof the United =tates 2not a state5 &nti "$4( and the deceased appears to have considered himse f as a citi7en of +a ifornia b- the fact that when he e6ec&ted his wi in "$)" he dec ared
Page | 465

that he was a citi7en of that =tate> so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his +a ifornia citi7enship bac%&iring another. This conc &sion is in accordance with the fo owing princip e e6po&nded b- Goodrich in his +onf ict of Aaws. The terms D9residenceD and Ddomici eD might we be taken to mean the same thing, a p ace of permanent abode. H&t domici e, as has been shown, has ac%&ired a technica meaning. Th&s one ma- be domici ed in a p ace where he has never been. 8nd he ma- reside in a p ace where he has no domici e. The man with two homes, between which he divides his time, certain - resides in each one, whi e iving in it. H&t if he went on
Page | 466

b&siness which wo& d re%&ire his presence for severa weeks or months, he might proper - be said to have s&fficient connection with the p ace to be ca ed a resident. It is c ear, however, that, if he treated his sett ement as contin&ing on - for the partic& ar b&siness in hand, not giving &p his former Dhome,D he co& d not be a domici ed 3ew Corker. 8c%&isition of a domici e of choice re%&ires the e6ercise of intention as we as ph-sica presence. DResidence simp re%&ires bodi - presence of an inhabitant in a given p ace, whi e domici e re%&ires bodi - presence in that p ace and a so an intention to make it one9s domici e.D Residence, however, is a term &sed with manshades of meaning, from the merest
Page | 467

temporar- presence to the most permanent abode, and it is not safe to insist that an- one &se et the on proper one. 2Goodrich, p. /$5 The aw that governs the va idit- of his testamentar- dispositions is defined in 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, which is as fo ows< 8RT. "(. Rea propert- as we as persona propert- is s&bject to the aw of the co&ntr- where it is sit&ated. Iowever, intestate and testamentars&ccessions, both with respect to the order of s&ccession and to the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights and to the intrinsic va idit- of testamentarprovisions, sha be reg& ated b- the nationa aw of the person whose
Page | 468

s&ccession is &nder consideration, whatever ma- be the nat&re of the propert- and regard ess of the co&ntr- where said propert- ma- be fo&nd. The app ication of this artic e in the case at bar re%&ires the determination of the meaning of the term Cnational la0C is &sed therein. There is no sing e 8merican aw governing the va idit- of testamentarprovisions in the United =tates, each state of the Union having its own private aw app icab e to its citi7ens on - and in force on - within the state. The Dnationa awD indicated in 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode above %&oted can not, therefore, possib - mean or app - to an- genera 8merican aw. =o it can refer to no other
Page | 469

than the private aw of the =tate of +a ifornia. The ne6t %&estion is< 0hat is the aw in +a ifornia governing the disposition of persona propert-K The decision of the co&rt be ow, s&stains the contention of the e6ec&tor*appe ee that &nder the +a ifornia ;robate +ode, a testator madispose of his propert- b- wi in the form and manner he desires, citing the case of Estate of ,cEanie , ## +a . 8pp . /d :##, "#( ;. /d $)/. H&t appe ant invokes the provisions of 8rtic e $4( of the +ivi +ode of +a ifornia, which is as fo ows< If there is no aw to the contrar-, in the p ace where persona propert- is sit&ated, it is deemed to fo ow the
Page | 470

person of its owner, and is governed b- the aw of his domici e. The e6istence of this provision is a eged in appe ant9s opposition and is not denied. 0e have checked it in the +a ifornia +ivi +ode and it is there. 8ppe ee, on the other hand, re ies on the case cited in the decision and testified to b- a witness. 21n - the case of ?a&fman is correct - cited.5 It is arg&ed on e6ec&tor9s beha f that as the deceased +hristensen was a citi7en of the =tate of +a ifornia, the interna aw thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, sho& d govern the determination of the va idit- of the testamentar- provisions of +hristensen9s wi , s&ch aw being in force in the =tate of +a ifornia of which +hristensen was a
Page | 471

citi7en. 8ppe ant, on the other hand, insists that 8rtic e $4( sho& d be app icab e, and in accordance therewith and fo owing the doctrine of therenvoi, the %&estion of the va idit- of the testamentar- provision in %&estion sho& d be referred back to the aw of the decedent9s domici e, which is the ;hi ippines. The theor- of doctrine of renvoi has been defined b- vario&s a&thors, th&s< The prob em has been stated in this wa-< D0hen the +onf ict of Aaws r& e of the for&m refers a j&ra matter to a foreign aw for decision, is the reference to the p&re - interna r& es of aw of the foreign s-stem> i.e., to the tota it- of the foreign aw min&s its +onf ict of Aaws r& esKD
Page | 472

1n ogic, the so &tion is not an easone. The ,ichigan co&rt chose to accept the renvoi, that is, app ied the +onf ict of Aaws r& e of I inois which referred the matter back to ,ichigan aw. H&t once having determined the the +onf ict of Aaws princip e is the r& e ooked to, it is diffic& t to see whthe reference back sho& d not have been to ,ichigan +onf ict of Aaws. This wo& d have res& ted in the Dend ess chain of referencesD which has so often been critici7ed be ega writers. The opponents of the renvoi wo& d have ooked mere - to the interna aw of I inois, th&s rejecting the renvoi or the reference back. Cet there seems no compe ing ogica reason wh- the origina reference sho& d be the interna aw rather than
Page | 473

to the +onf ict of Aaws r& e. It is tr&e that s&ch a so &tion avoids going on a merr-*go*ro&nd, b&t those who have accepted the renvoi theor- avoid this ine'trica/ili$ circula$ b- getting off at the second reference and at that point app -ing interna aw. ;erhaps the opponents of the renvoi are a bit more consistent for the- ook a wa-s to interna aw as the r& e of reference. =trange eno&gh, both the advocates for and the objectors to the renvoi p ead that greater &niformit- wi res& t from adoption of their respective views. 8nd sti more strange is the fact that the on - wa- to achieve &niformit- in this choice*of* aw prob em is if in the disp&te the
Page | 474

two states whose aws form the ega basis of the itigation disagree as to whether the renvoi sho& d be accepted. If both reject, or both accept the doctrine, the res& t of the itigation wi var- with the choice of the for&m. In the case stated above, had the ,ichigan co&rt rejected the renvoi, j&dgment wo& d have been against the woman> if the s&it had been bro&ght in the I inois co&rts, and the- too rejected the renvoi, j&dgment wo& d be for the woman. The same res& t wo& d happen, tho&gh the co&rts wo& d switch with respect to which wo& d ho d iabi it-, if both co&rts accepted the renvoi.
Page | 475

The Restatement accepts the renvoi theor- in two instances< where the tit e to and is in %&estion, and where the va idit- of a decree of divorce is cha enged. In these cases the +onf ict of Aaws r& e of the sit&s of the and, or the domici e of the parties in the divorce case, is app ied b- the for&m, b&t an- f&rther reference goes on - to the interna aw. Th&s, a person9s tit e to and, recogni7ed b- the sit&s, wi be recogni7ed b- ever- co&rt> and everdivorce, va id b- the domici e of the parties, wi be va id ever-where. 2Goodrich, +onf ict of Aaws, =ec. #, pp. "!*"4.5 N, a citi7en of ,assach&setts, dies intestate, domici ed in .rance, eaving
Page | 476

movab e propert- in ,assach&setts, Eng and, and .rance. The %&estion arises as to how this propert- is to be distrib&ted among N9s ne6t of kin. 8ss&me 2"5 that this %&estion arises in a ,assach&setts co&rt. There the r& e of the conf ict of aws as to intestate s&ccession to movab es ca s for an app ication of the aw of the deceased9s ast domici e. =ince b- h-pothesis N9s ast domici e was .rance, the nat&ra thing for the ,assach&setts co&rt to do wo& d be to t&rn to .rench stat&te of distrib&tions, or whatever corresponds thereto in .rench aw, and decree a distrib&tion according -. 8n e6amination of .rench aw, however, wo& d show that if a .rench
Page | 477

co&rt were ca ed &pon to determine how this propert- sho& d be distrib&ted, it wo& d refer the distrib&tion to the nationa aw of the deceased, th&s app -ing the ,assach&setts stat&te of distrib&tions. =o on the s&rface of things the ,assach&setts co&rt has open to it a ternative co&rse of action< 2a5 either to app - the .rench aw is to intestate s&ccession, or 2b5 to reso ve itse f into a .rench co&rt and app the ,assach&setts stat&te of distrib&tions, on the ass&mption that this is what a .rench co&rt wo& d do. If it accepts the so* ca ed renvoidoctrine, it wi fo ow the atter co&rse, th&s app -ing its own aw.
Page | 478

This is one t-pe of renvoi. 8 j&ra matter is presented which the conf ict* of* aws r& e of the for&m refers to a foreign aw, the conf ict*of* aws r& e of which, in t&rn, refers the matter back again to the aw of the for&m. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The German term for this j&dicia process is 9R&ckverweis&ng.9D 2Iarvard Aaw Review, Fo . !", pp. )/!*)#".5 8fter a decision has been arrived at that a foreign aw is to be resorted to as governing a partic& ar case, the f&rther %&estion ma- arise< 8re the r& es as to the conf ict of aws contained in s&ch foreign aw a so to be resorted toK This is a %&estion which, whi e it has been considered b- the co&rts in b&t a few instances,
Page | 479

has been the s&bject of fre%&ent disc&ssion bte6twriters and essa-ists> and the doctrine invo ved has been descriptive - designated bthem as the DRenvo-erD to send back, or the DR&chversweis&ngD, or the D0eiterverweis&ngD, since an affirmative answer to the %&estion post& ated and the operation of the adoption of the foreign aw in toto wo& d in man- cases res& t in ret&rning the main controvers- to be decided according to the aw of the for&m. ... 2"( +.J.=. :#/.5 8nother theor-, known as the Ddoctrine of renvoiD, has been advanced. The theor- of the doctrine of renvoiis that the co&rt of the for&m, in determining the %&estion before it,
Page | 480

m&st take into acco&nt the who e aw of the other j&risdiction, b&t a so its r& es as to conf ict of aws, and then app - the aw to the act&a %&estion which the r& es of the other j&risdiction prescribe. This ma- be the aw of the for&m. The doctrine of therenvoi has genera been rep&diated bthe 8merican a&thorities. 2/ 8m. J&r. /$(5 The scope of the theor- of renvoi has a so been defined and the reasons for its app ication in a co&ntr- e6p ained b;rof. Aoren7en in an artic e in the Ca e Aaw Jo&rna , Fo . /#, "$"#*"$":, pp. )/$*)!". The pertinent parts of the artic e are %&oted herein be ow< The recognition of the renvoi theorimp ies that the r& es of the conf ict of
Page | 481

aws are to be &nderstood as incorporating not on - the ordinar- or interna aw of the foreign state or co&ntr-, b&t its r& es of the conf ict of aws as we . 8ccording to this theor9the aw of a co&ntr-9 means the who e of its aw. 666 666 666 Fon Har presented his views at the meeting of the Instit&te of Internationa Aaw, at 3e&chate , in "$'', in the form of the fo owing theses< 2"5 Ever- co&rt sha observe the aw of its co&ntr- as regards the app ication of foreign aws.

Page | 482

2/5 ;rovided that no e6press provision to the contrar- e6ists, the co&rt sha respect< 2a5 The provisions of a foreign aw which disc aims the right to bind its nationa s abroad as regards their persona stat&te, and desires that said persona stat&te sha be determined b- the aw of the domici e, or even b- the aw of the p ace where the act in %&estion occ&rred. 2b5 The decision of two or more foreign s-stems of aw, provided it be certain that one of them is necessari competent, which agree in attrib&ting the determination of a %&estion to the same s-stem of aw.
Page | 483

666

666

666

If, for e6amp e, the Eng ish aw directs its j&dge to distrib&te the persona estate of an Eng ishman who has died domici ed in He gi&m in accordance with the aw of his domici e, he m&st first in%&ire whether the aw of He gi&m wo& d distrib&te persona propert- &pon death in accordance with the aw of domici e, and if he finds that the He gian aw wo& d make the distrib&tion in accordance with the aw of nationa itG that is the Eng ish aw G he m&st accept this reference back to his own aw. 0e note that 8rtic e $4( of the +a ifornia +ivi +ode is its conf ict of aws r& e, whi e the r& e app ied in In re
Page | 484

?a&fman, upra, its interna aw. If the aw on s&ccession and the conf ict of aws r& es of +a ifornia are to be enforced joint -, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the princip e cited In re ?a&fman sho& d app - to citi7ens iving in the =tate, b&t 8rtic e $4( sho& d app - to s&ch of its citi7ens as are not domici ed in +a ifornia b&t in other j&risdictions. The r& e aid down of resorting to the aw of the domici e in the determination of matters with foreign e ement invo ved is in accord with the genera princip e of 8merican aw that the domici iar- aw sho& d govern in most matters or rights which fo ow the person of the owner. 0hen a man dies eaving persona propert- in one or more states, and
Page | 485

eaves a wi directing the manner of distrib&tion of the propert-, the aw of the state where he was domici ed at the time of his death wi be ooked to in deciding ega %&estions abo&t the wi , a most as comp ete - as the aw of sit&s is cons& ted in %&estions abo&t the devise of and. It is ogica that, since the domici iar- r& es contro devo &tion of the persona estate in case of intestate s&ccession, the same r& es sho& d determine the va idit- of an attempted testamentar- dispostion of the propert-. Iere, a so, it is not that the domici iar- has effect be-ond the borders of the domici iar- state. The r& es of the domici e are recogni7ed as contro ing b- the +onf ict of Aaws r& es at the sit&s propert-, and the
Page | 486

reason for the recognition as in the case of intestate s&ccession, is the genera convenience of the doctrine. The 3ew Cork co&rt has said on the point< 9The genera princip e that a dispostiton of a persona propert-, va id at the domici e of the owner, is va id an-where, is one of the &niversa app ication. It had its origin in that internationa comit- which was one of the first fr&its of civi i7ation, and it this age, when b&siness interco&rse and the process of acc&m& ating propert- take b&t itt e notice of bo&ndar- ines, the practica wisdom and j&stice of the r& e is more apparent than ever. 2Goodrich, +onf ict of Aaws, =ec. "(4, pp. 44/* 44!.5
Page | 487

8ppe ees arg&e that what 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines pointed o&t as the national la0 is the interna aw of +a ifornia. H&t as above e6p ained the aws of +a ifornia have prescribed two sets of aws for its citi7ens, one for residents therein and another for those domici ed in other j&risdictions. Reason demands that 0e sho& d enforce the +a ifornia interna aw prescribed for its citi7ens residing therein, and enforce the conf ict of aws r& es for the citi7ens domici ed abroad. If we m&st enforce the aw of +a ifornia as in comit- we are bo&nd to go, as so dec ared in 8rtic e "( of o&r +ivi +ode, then we m&st enforce the aw of +a ifornia in accordance with the e6press mandate thereof and as above e6p ained, i.e., app - the interna
Page | 488

aw for residents therein, and its conf ict* of* aws r& e for those domici ed abroad. It is arg&ed on appe ees9 beha f that the c a&se Dif there is no aw to the contrarin the p ace where the propert- is sit&atedD in =ec. $4( of the +a ifornia +ivi +ode refers to 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines and that the aw to the contrar- in the ;hi ippines is the provision in said 8rtic e "( that the national la0 of the deceased sho& d govern. This contention can not be s&stained. 8s e6p ained in the vario&s a&thorities cited above the nationa aw mentioned in 8rtic e "( of o&r +ivi +ode is the aw on conf ict of aws in the +a ifornia +ivi +ode, i.e., 8rtic e $4(, which a&thori7es the reference or ret&rn of the %&estion to the aw of the
Page | 489

testator9s domici e. The conf ict of aws r& e in +a ifornia, 8rtic e $4(, +ivi +ode, precise - refers back the case, when a decedent is not domici ed in +a ifornia, to the aw of his domici e, the ;hi ippines in the case at bar. The co&rt of the domici e can not and sho& d not refer the case back to +a ifornia> s&ch action wo& d eave the iss&e incapab e of determination beca&se the case wi then be ike a footba , tossed back and forth between the two states, between the co&ntr- of which the decedent was a citi7en and the co&ntr- of his domici e. The ;hi ippine co&rt m&st app - its own aw as directed in the conf ict of aws r& e of the state of the decedent, if the %&estion has to be decided, especia as the app ication of the interna aw of +a ifornia provides no egitime for
Page | 490

chi dren whi e the ;hi ippine aw, 8rts. ::#245 and :$4, +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, makes nat&ra chi dren ega - acknow edged forced heirs of the parent recogni7ing them. The ;hi ippine cases 2In re Estate of Johnson, !$ ;hi . ")(> Riera vs. ;a maro i, 4' ;hi . "')> ,iciano vs. Hrimo, )' ;hi . :(#> Habcock Temp eton vs. Rider Habcock, )/ ;hi . "!'> and Gibbs vs. Government, )$ ;hi . /$!.5 cited b- appe ees to s&pport the decision can not possib - app - in the case at bar, for two important reasons, i.e., the s&bject in each case does not appear to be a citi7en of a state in the United =tates b&t with domici e in the ;hi ippines, and it does not appear in each case that there e6ists in the state
Page | 491

of which the s&bject is a citi7en, a aw simi ar to or identica with 8rt. $4( of the +a ifornia +ivi +ode. 0e therefore find that as the domici e of the deceased +hristensen, a citi7en of +a ifornia, is the ;hi ippines, the va iditof the provisions of his wi depriving his acknow edged nat&ra chi d, the appe ant, sho& d be governed b- the ;hi ippine Aaw, the domici e, p&rs&ant to 8rt. $4( of the +ivi +ode of +a ifornia, not b- the interna aw of +a ifornia.. 0IERE.1RE, the decision appea ed from is hereb- reversed and the case ret&rned to the ower co&rt with instr&ctions that the partition be made as the ;hi ippine aw on s&ccession provides. J&dgment reversed, with costs against appe ees.
Page | 492

Page | 493

G.R. No. 13;;12. O-to8e 1;, 2000< NA,%V%DAD *. NA5ARENO, #A3%#%NO *. NA5ARENO, JR., petitioners, vs. $OUR, O. A**EALS, ES,A,E O. #A3%#%NO A. NA5ARENO, SR., RO#EO *. NA5ARENO &n( EL%5A NA5ARENO, respondents. EE+I=I13 ,E3E1Z8, J.<
Page | 494

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decisionL"M of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*GR +F 3o. !$44" dated ,a/$, "$$: affirming with modifications the decision of the Regiona Tria +o&rt, Hranch "'#, O&e7on +it-, in an action for ann& ment of sa e and damages. The facts are as fo ows< ,a6imino 3a7areno, =r. and 8&rea ;ob ete were h&sband and wife. 8&rea died on 8pri "), "$#', whi e ,a6imino, =r. died on Eecember ":, "$:'. Thehad five chi dren, name -, 3atividad, Romeo, Jose, ;acifico, and ,a6imino, Jr. 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. are the petitioners in this case, whi e the estate of ,a6imino, =r., Romeo, and his wife E i7a 3a7areno are the respondents.
Page | 495

E&ring their marriage, ,a6imino 3a7areno, =r. and 8&rea ;ob ete ac%&ired properties in O&e7on +it- and in the ;rovince of +avite. It is the ownership of some of these properties that is in %&estion in this case. It appears that after the death of ,a6imino, =r., Romeo fi ed an intestate case in the +o&rt of .irst Instance of +avite, Hranch NF, where the case was docketed as =p. ;roc. 3o. 3+*/:. Upon the reorgani7ation of the co&rts in "$:!, the case was transferred to the Regiona Tria +o&rt of 3aic, +avite. Romeo was appointed administrator of his fatherRs estate. In the co&rse of the intestate proceedings, Romeo discovered that his parents had e6ec&ted severa deeds of
Page | 496

sa e conve-ing a n&mber of rea properties in favor of his sister, 3atividad. 1ne of the deeds invo ved si6 ots in O&e7on +it- which were a eged so d b- ,a6imino, =r., with the consent of 8&rea, to 3atividad on Jan&ar- /$, "$#' for the tota amo&nt of ;4#,:''.''. The Eeed of 8bso &te =a e reads as fo ows< EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE ?310 8AA ;RE=E3T=< ,E3 HC TIE=E

I, ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, .i ipino, married to 8&rea ;ob ete*3a7areno, of ega age and a resident of the ,&n. of 3aic, ;rov. of +avite, ;hi ippines, *0IT3E==ETI*
Page | 497

That I am the abso &te registered owner of si6 2(5 parce s of and with the improvements thereon sit&ated in O&e7on +it-, ;hi ippines, which parce s of and are herewith described and bo&nded as fo ows, to wit< PTR83=. +ERT. 1. TITAE 31. "4'$4(Q P8 parce of and 2Aot !*H of the s&bdivision p an ;sd*4#4'4, being a portion of Aot !, H ock E*! described on p an Hsd*"'(4/, G.A.R.1. Record 3o.5 sit&ated in the O&irino Eistrict, O&e7on +it-. Ho&nded on the 3., a ong ine "*/ b- Aot "), H ock E*! of p an Hsd * "'(4/> a ong ine /*! b- Aot 4, H ock E* ! of p an Hsd*"'(4/> a ong ine !*4 b8&rora Ho& evard 2Road Aot*", Hsd* "'(4/5> and a ong ine 4*" b- Aot !*E of the s&bdivision p an. Heginning at a
Page | 498

point marked P"Q on p an, being =./$ deg. /(RE., "")(.// m. from H.A.A.,. $, O&e7on +it-, thence 3. #$ deg. )!RE., "/.)' m. to point /> thence =. "' deg. '#RE., 4'.'' m. to point !> thence =. #$ deg. )!R0., "/.)' m. to point 4> thence 3. "' deg. '#R0., 4'.'' m. to the point of beginning> containing an area of .IFE IU3EREE 2)''5 =OU8RE ,ETER=. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and are marked on the gro&nd as fo ows< points P"Q and P4Q b- ;.A.=. +- . +onc. ,ons. bearings tr&e> date of the origina s&rve-, 8pri :*
Page | 499

J& - "), "$/' and that of the s&bdivision s&rve-, ,arch /), "$)(.Q PTR83=. +ERT. 1. TITAE 31. "!/'"$Q P8 parce of and 2Aot !, H ock $! of the s&bdivision p an ;sd*)#$#' being a portion of Aot (, ;cs*4#:(, G.A.R.1. Rec. 3o. $"#5 sit&ated in O&irino Eistrict O&e7on +it-. Ho&nded on the 30., a ong ine "*/, b- Aot ", H ock $!> on the 3E., a ong ine /*!, b- Road Aot "'"> on the =E., a ong ine !*4, b- Road Aot "''> on the =0., a ong ine 4*", b- Aot 4, H ock $!> a of the s&bdivision p an. Heginning at point marked P"Q on p an, being =. () deg. 4'R !!!$.$/ m. from H.A.A.,. 3o. ", ,arikina, Ri7a > thence 3. /! deg. /: min. E., "".#' m. to point P/Q>
Page | 500

thence =. (( deg. !/ min. E., ":.'' m. to point P!Q> thence =. /! deg. /: min. 0., "".#' m. to point P4Q> thence 3. (( deg. !/. min. 0., ":.'' m. to the point of beginning> containing an area of T01 IU3EREE TE3 =OU8RE ,ETER= 83E =INTC =OU8RE EE+I,ETER= 2/"'.('5. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and are marked on the gro&nd b- H.A. +- . +onc. ,ons. ") 6 (' cm.> bearings tr&e> date of the origina s&rve-, 3ov. "', "$/' and Jan. !"*,arch !", "$/4 and that of the s&bdivision s&rve-, .ebr&ar- " to =eptember !', "$)4. Eate approved * ,arch $, "$(/.Q
Page | 501

PTR83=. +ERT. 1. TITAE 31. "":::)Q P8 parce of and 2Aot 3o. "', of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an ;cs* $::, being a portion of the conso idated Aot 3o. /(, H ock 3o. (, ;sd*"/#, and Aots 3os. /#*8 and /#*H, ;sd*"4$'", G.A.R.1. Record 3o. $"#5, sit&ated in the Eistrict of +&bao, O&e7on +it-, Is and of A&7on. Ho&nded on the 3E., bAot 3o. 4 of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =E., b- Aot 3o. "" of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =0., b- Aot 3o. ! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> and on the 30., b- Aot 3o. $ of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an. Heginning at a point marked P"Q on the p an, being =. # deg. /(R0., 4/($.$'
Page | 502

m. more or ess from H.A.A.,. 3o. ", ,p. of ,ari%&ina> thence =. /) deg. ''RE., "/.'' m. to point P/Q> thence =. (4 deg. )$R0., /$.$$ m. to point P!Q> thence 3. /) deg. ''R0., "/.'' m to point P4Q> thence 3. (4 deg. )$RE., /$.$$ m. to the point of beginning> containing an area of TIREE IU3EREE =INTC =OU8RE ,ETER= 2!('5, more or ess. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and on the gro&nd are marked b- ;.A.=. +onc. ,ons. ") 6 (' cm.> bearings tr&e> dec ination ' deg. )'RE., date of the origina s&rve-, 8pri : to J& - "), "$/',
Page | 503

and that of the conso idation and s&bdivision s&rve-, 8pri /4 to /(, "$4".Q PTR83=. +ERT. 1. TITAE 31. "":::(Q P8 parce of and 2Aot 3o. "", of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an ;cs* $::, being a portion of the conso idated Aot 3o. /(, H ock 3o. (, ;sd*"/#, and Aots 3os. /#*8 and /#*H, ;sd*"4$'", G.A.R.1. Record 3o. $"#5, sit&ated in the Eistrict of +&bao, O&e7on +it-, Is and of A&7on. Ho&nded on the 3E., bAot 3o. 4 of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =E., b- Aot 3o. "/ of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =0., b- Aot 3o. ! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the 30., b- Aot 3o. "' of the conso idation and s&bdivision
Page | 504

p an. Heginning at a point marked P"Q on p an, being =. #$ deg. '#R0., 4/(4.'' m. more or ess from H.A.A.,. 3o. ", ,p. of ,ari%&ina> thence =. (4 deg. )$R0., /$.$$ m. to point P/Q> thence 3. /) deg. ''R0., "/.'' m. to point P!Q> thence 3. (4 deg. )$RE., /$.$$ m. to point P4Q> thence =. /( deg. ''RE., "/.'' m. to the point of beginning> containing an area of TIREE IU3EREE =INTC =OU8RE ,ETER= 2!('5, more or ess. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and on the gro&nd, are marked b- ;.A.=. +onc. ,ons. ") 6 (' cm.> bearings tr&e>
Page | 505

dec ination ' deg. )'RE.> date of the origina s&rve-, 8pri : to J& - "), "$/', and that of the conso idation and s&bdivision s&rve-, 8pri /4 to /(, "$4".Q P8 parce of and 2Aot 3o. "! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an ;cs* $::, being a portion of the conso idated Aot 3o. /(, H ock 3o. (, ;sd*"/#, and Aots3os. /#*8 and /#*H, ;sd*"4$'", G.A.R.1. Record 3o. $"#5, sit&ated in the Eistrict of +&bao, O&e7on +it-, Is and of A&7on. Ho&nded on the 3E., bAot 3o. 4 of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =E., b- Aot 3o. "4, of the conso idation> and s&bdivision p an> on the =0., b- Aot 3o. ! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> and on the 30., b- Aot 3o. "/, of the
Page | 506

conso idation and s&bdivision p an. Heginning at the point marked P"Q on p an, being =.#: deg. 4:R0., 4/):./' m. more or ess from H.A.A.,. 3o. ", ,p. of ,ari%&ina> thence =. (4 deg. ):R0., !'.'' m. to point P/Q> thence 3. /) deg. ''R0., "/.'' m. to point P!Q> thence 3. (4 deg. )$RE., /$.$$ m. to point P4Q> thence =./) deg. ''RE., "/.'' m. to point of beginning> containing an area of TIREE IU3EREE =INTC =OU8RE ,ETER= 2!(', more or ess. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and on the gro&nd are marked b- ;.A.=. +onc.
Page | 507

,ons. ") 6 (' cm.> bearings tr&e> dec ination ' deg. )'RE., date of the origina s&rve-, 8pri : to J& - "), "$/', and that of the conso idation and s&bdivision s&rve-, 8pri /4 to /(, "$4".Q P8 parce of and 2Aot 3o. "4, of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an ;cs* $::, being a portion of the conso idated Aot 3o. /(, H ock 3o. (, ;sd*"/#, and Aots 3os. /#*8 and /#*H, ;sd*"4$'", G.A.R.1. Record 3o. $"#5, sit&ated in the Eistrict of +&bao, O&e7on +it-, Is and of A&7on. Ho&nded on the 3E., bAot 3o. 4 of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =E., b- Aot 3o. "), of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> on the =0., b- Aot 3o. ! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an> and
Page | 508

on the 30., b- Aot 3o. "! of the conso idation and s&bdivision p an. Heginning at the point marked P"Q on p an, being =.#: deg. 4:R0., 4/):./' m. more or ess from H.A.A.,. 3o. ", ,p. of ,ari%&ina> thence =. /) deg. ''RE., "/.'' m. to point P/Q> thence =. () deg. ''R0., !'.'' m. to point P!Q> thence =. () deg. ''R0., "/.'' m. to point P4Q> thence 3.(4 deg. ):RE., !'.'' m. to the point of beginning> containing an area of TIREE IU3EREE =INTC =OU8RE ,ETER= 2!('5, more or ess. 8 points referred to are indicated on the p an and on the
Page | 509

gro&nd are marked b- ;.A.=. +onc. ,ons. ") 6 (' cm.> bearings tr&e> dec ination ' deg. )'RE., date of the origina s&rve-, 8pri : to J& - "), "$/', and that of the conso idation and s&bdivision s&rve-, 8pri /4 to /(, "$4".Q That for and in consideration of the s&m of .1RTC TIREE TI1U=83E ;E=1= 2;4!,'''.''5 ;IIAI;;I3E +URRE3+C, to me in hand paid b- 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31, .i ipino, sing e, of ega age and a resident of the ,&n. of 3aic, ;rov. of +avite, ;hi ippines, the receipt whereof is acknow edged to m- entire satisfaction, I do hereb- +EEE, =EAA, TR83=.ER, +13FEC and 8==IG3 &nto the said 3atividad ;. 3a7areno, her heirs, administrators and assigns, a
Page | 510

mtit e, rights, interests and participations to the abovedescribed parce s of and with the improvements thereon, with the e6ception of A1T 31. "" +1FEREE HC T.+.T. 31. "":::(, free of an- and a iens and enc&mbrances> and That for and in consideration of the s&m of .1UR TI1U=83E EIGIT IU3EREE ;E=1= 2;4,:''.''5 ;IIAI;;I3E +URRE3+C, to me in hand paid b38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31, .i ipino, sing e, of ega age and a resident of the ,&n. of 3aic, ;rov. of +avite, ;hi ippines, the receipt whereof is acknow edged to m- entire satisfaction, I do hereb- +EEE, =EAA, TR83=.ER, +13FEC and 8==IG3 &nto the said 3atividad ;. 3a7areno,
Page | 511

her heirs, administrators and assigns, a mtit e, rights, interests and participations in and to Aot 3o. "" covered b- T.+.T. 3o. "":::( above* described, free of an- and a iens and enc&mbrances, with the &nderstanding that the tit e to be iss&ed in re ation hereto sha be separate and distinct from the tit e to be iss&ed in connection with Aots 3os. "! and "4, a tho&gh covered b- the same tit e. I3 0IT3E== 0IERE1., I have here&nto signed this deed of abso &te sa e in the +it- of ,ani a, ;hi ippines, this /$th da- of Jan&ar-, "$#'.L/M H- virt&e of this deed, transfer certificates of tit e were iss&ed to 3atividad, to wit< T+T 3o. "(/#!: 2Aot !*H5,L!M T+T 3o. "(/#!$ 2Aot !5,L4MT+T
Page | 512

3o. "(/#!) 2Aot "'5,L)M T+T 3o. "(/#!( 2Aot ""5,L(M and T+T 3o. "(/#!# 2Aots "! and "45,L#M a of the Register of Eeeds of O&e7on +it-. 8mong the ots covered b- the above Eeed of =a e is Aot !*H which is registered &nder T+T 3o. "4'$4(. This ot had been occ&pied b- Romeo, his wife E i7a, and b- ,a6imino, Jr. since "$($. Unknown to Romeo, 3atividad so d Aot !*H on J& - !", "$:/ to ,a6imino, Jr.,L:M for which reason the atter was iss&ed T+T 3o. /$!#'" bthe Register of Eeeds of O&e7on +it-.L$M 0hen Romeo fo&nd o&t abo&t the sa e to ,a6imino, Jr., he and his wife E i7a ocked ,a6imino, Jr. o&t of the ho&se. 1n 8&g&st 4, "$:!, ,a6imino, Jr. bro&ght an action
Page | 513

for recover- of possession and damages with pra-er for writs of pre iminar- inj&nction and mandatorinj&nction with the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it-. 1n Eecember "/, "$:(, the tria co&rt r& ed in favor of ,a6imino, Jr. In +8*G.R. +F 3o. "/$!/, the +o&rt of 8ppea s affirmed the decision of the tria co&rt.L"'M 1n J&ne "), "$::, Romeo in t&rn fi ed, on beha f of the estate of ,a6imino, =r., the present case for ann& ment of sa e with damages against 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. The case was fi ed in the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it-, where it was docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. ::*):.L""MRomeo so&ght the dec aration of n& it- of the sa e made on Jan&ar/$, "$#' to 3atividad and that made on
Page | 514

J& - !", "$:/ to ,a6imino, Jr. on the gro&nd that both sa es were void for ack of consideration. 1n ,arch ", "$$', 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. fi ed a third*partcomp aint against the spo&ses Romeo and E i7a.L"/M The- a eged that Aot !, which was inc &ded in the Eeed of 8bso &te =a e of Jan&ar- /$, "$#' to 3atividad, had been s&rreptitio&s appropriated b- Romeo b- sec&ring for himse f a new tit e 2T+T 3o. /##$(:5 in his name.L"!M The- a eged that Aot ! is being eased b- the spo&ses Romeo and E i7a to third persons. Thetherefore so&ght the ann& ment of the transfer to Romeo and the cance ation of his tit e, the eviction of Romeo and his wife E i7a and a persons c aiming rights
Page | 515

from Aot !, and the pa-ment of damages. The iss&es having been joined, the case was set for tria . Romeo presented evidence to show that ,a6imino and 8&rea 3a7areno never intended to se the si6 ots to 3atividad and that 3atividad was on - to ho d the said ots in tr&st for her sib ings. Ie presented the Eeed of ;artition and Eistrib&tion dated J&ne /:, "$(/ e6ec&ted b,a6imino =r. and 8&rea and d& signed b- a of their chi dren, e6cept Jose, who was then abroad and was represented b- their mother, 8&rea. Hvirt&e of this deed, the nine ots s&bject of this Eeed of ;artition were assigned b- raff e as fo ows< ". Romeo * Aot /)*A 2(4/ m/5
Page | 516

/. 3atividad * Aots /! 2!"/ m/5 and /4 2!#$ m/5 !. ,a6imino, Jr. * Aots ( 2!!: m/5 and # 2!!: m/5 4. ;acifico * Aots "! 2!(' m/5 and "4 2!(' m/5 ). Jose * Aots "' 2!(' m/5 and "" 2!(' m/5 Romeo received the tit e to Aot /)*A &nder his name,L"4M whi e ,a6imino, Jr. received Aots ( and # thro&gh a Eeed of =a e dated 8&g&st "(, "$(( for the amo&nt of ;$,)''.''.L")M ;acifico and JoseRs shares were a eged - given to 3atividad, who agreed to give Aots "' and "" to Jose, in the event the atter came back from abroad. 3atividadRs share, on the other hand, was so d to third personsL"(M beca&se she a eged Page | 517

did not ike the ocation of the two ots. H&t, Romeo said, the monerea i7ed from the sa e was given to 3atividad. Romeo a so testified that Aot !*H was bo&ght for him b- his father, whi e Aot ! was so d to him for ;#,'''.'' b- his parents on J& - 4, "$($.L"#M Iowever, he admitted that a doc&ment was e6ec&ted b- his parents transferring si6 properties in O&e7on +it-, i.e., Aots !, !*H, "', "", "!, and "4, to 3atividad. Romeo f&rther testified that, a tho&gh the deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- his parents in their favor stated that the sa e was for a consideration, the- never rea - paid an- amo&nt for the s&pposed sa e. The transfer was made in this manner in order to avoid the pa-ment of
Page | 518

inheritance ta6es.L":M Romeo denied stea ing Aot ! from his sister b&t instead c aimed that the tit e to said ot was given to him b- 3atividad in "$:" after their father died. 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. c aimed that the Eeed of ;artition and Eistrib&tion e6ec&ted in "$(/ was not rea - carried o&t. Instead, in Eecember of "$($, their parents offered to se to them the si6 ots in O&e7on +it-, i.e., Aots !, !*H, "', "", "! and "4. Iowever, it was on - 3atividad who bo&ght the si6 properties beca&se she was the on one financia - ab e to do so. 3atividad said she so d Aots "! and "4 to Ros* 8 va ,arketing +orp.L"$M and Aot !*H to ,a6imino, Jr. for ;"#),'''.''. L/'M 3atividad admitted that Romeo and
Page | 519

the atterRs wife were occ&p-ing Aot !*H at that time and that she did not te the atter abo&t the sa e she had made to ,a6imino, Jr. 3atividad said that she had the tit e to Aot ! b&t it somehow got ost. =he co& d not get an origina cop- of the said tit e beca&se the records of the Registrar of Eeeds had been destro-ed b- fire. =he c aimed she was s&rprised to earn that Romeo was ab e to obtain a tit e to Aot ! in his name. 3atividad insisted that she paid the amo&nt stated in the Eeed of 8bso &te =a e dated Jan&ar- /$, "$#'. =he a eged that their parents had so d these properties to their chi dren instead of mere - giving the same to them in order
Page | 520

to impose on them the va &e of hardwork. 3atividad acc&sed Romeo of fi ing this case to harass her after Romeo ost in the action for recover- of possession 2+ivi +ase 3o. O*!$'":5 which had been bro&ght against him b- ,a6imino, Jr. It appears that before the case fi ed b- Romeo co& d be decided, the +o&rt of 8ppea s rendered a decision in +8* GR +F 3o. "/$!/ affirming the tria co&rtRs decision in favor of ,a6imino, Jr. 1n 8&g&st "', "$$/, the tria co&rt rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which states< 0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is herebrendered dec aring the n& it- of the Eeed of =a e dated Jan&ar- /$, "$#'. E6cept as to Aots !, !*H, "! and
Page | 521

"4 which had passed on to third persons, the defendant 3atividad sha ho d the rest in tr&st for Jose 3a7areno to whom the same had been adj&dicated. The Register of Eeeds of O&e7on +it- is directed to annotate this j&dgment on Transfer +ertificate of Tit es 3os. "(/#!) and "(/#!( as a ien in the tit es of 3atividad ;. 3a7areno. The defendantsR co&nterc aim is dismissed. Aikewise, the third*partcomp aint is dismissed. The defendants are hereb- directed to pa- to the p aintiff joint - and severa the s&m of ;!',''' as and for attorne-Rs fees. Aikewise, the third*partp aintiff is directed to pa- the third*partdefendantRs attorne-Rs fees of ;/','''.
Page | 522

8 other c aims b- one part- against the other are dismissed. =1 1REEREE.L/"M 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. fi ed a motion for reconsideration. 8s a res& t, on 1ctober "4, "$$/ the tria co&rt modified its decision as fo ows< 0IERE.1RE, the p aintiffRs ;artia ,otion for Reconsideration is herebgranted. The j&dgment dated 8&g&st "', "$$/ is hereb- amended, s&ch that the first paragraph of its dispositive portion is corresponding - modified to read as fo ows< P0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is herebrendered dec aring the n& it- of the Eeeds of =a e dated Jan&ar- /$, "$#' and J& - !", "$:/.
Page | 523

PE6cept as to Aots !, "! and "4 which had passed on to third person, the defendant 3atividad sha ho d the rest 1. TIE ;R1;ERTIE= +1FEREE HC TIE EEEE 1. =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' 2A1T= "' and ""5 in tr&st for Jose 3a7areno to whom the same had been adj&dicated. PThe Register of Eeeds of O&e7on +itis directed to annotate this j&dgment on Transfer +ertificates of Tit e 3o. "(/#!) and "(/#!( as a ien on the tit es of 3atividad ;. 3a7areno. PAI?E0I=E, TIE =8IE REGI=TER 1. EEEE= I= EIRE+TEE T1 +83+EA T+T 31. /$!#'" 2former - "(/#')5 1FER A1T !*H 83E RE=T1RE T+T 31. "4'$4( I3 TIE 38,E 1.
Page | 524

,8NI,I31 38Z8RE31 8URE8 ;1HAETE.QL//M

=R.

83E

1n appea to the +o&rt of 8ppea s, the decision of the tria co&rt was modified in the sense that tit es to Aot ! 2in the name of Romeo 3a7areno5 and Aot !*H 2in the name of ,a6imino 3a7areno, Jr.5, as we as to Aots "' and "" were cance ed and ordered restored to the estate of ,a6imino 3a7areno, =r. The dispositive portion of the decision dated ,a- /$, "$$: reads< 0IERE.1RE, the appea is GR83TEE. The decision and the order in %&estion are modified as fo ows< ". The Eeed of 8bso &te =a e dated /$ Jan&ar- "$#' and the Eeed of 8bso &te
Page | 525

=a e dated !" J& - "$:/ are herebdec ared n& and void> /. E6cept as to Aots "! and "4 ownership of which has passed on to third persons, it is hereb- dec ared that Aots !, !*H, "' and "" sha form part of the estate of the deceased ,a6imino 3a7areno, =r.> !. The Register of Eeeds of O&e7on +it- is hereb- ordered to restore T+T 3o. "4'$4( 2covering Aot !*H5, T+T 3o. "!/'"$ 2covering Aot !5, T+T 3o. "":::) 2covering Aot "'5, and T+T 3o. "":::( 2covering Aot ""5.L/!M ;etitioners fi ed a motion for reconsideration b&t it was denied in a reso &tion dated ,a- /#, "$$$. Ience this petition.
Page | 526

;etitioners raise the fo owing iss&es< ". 0IETIER 1R 31T TIE U3+1RR1H1R8TEE TE=TI,13C 1. ;RIF8TE RE=;13EE3T R1,E1 ;. 38Z8RE31 +83 EE=TR1C TIE .UAA .8ITI 83E +REEIT 8++1REEE T1 31T8RIZEE E1+U,E3T= AI?E TIE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' 2ENI. "5 ENE+UTEE HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, =R. 83E 8URE8 ;1HAETE I3 .8F1R 1. ;ETITI13ER 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31. /. 0IETIER 1R 31T TIE RE=;13EE3T +1URT GR1==AC
Page | 527

,I=8;;RE+I8TEE TIE .8+T= 1. TIE +8=E 0ITI RE=;E+T T1 TIE F8AIEITC 1. TIE =8IE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' 2ENI. "5 I3 TIE AIGIT 1. TIE .1AA10I3G< 85 TIE E1+U,E3T8RC EFIEE3+E, 8AA 1. 0II+I 8RE 31T8RIZEE, ENE+UTEE HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= EURI3G TIEIR AI.ETI,E I3F1AFI3G =1,E 1. TIEIR +13JUG8A ;R1;ERTIE=. H5 TIE ENE+UTI13 1. 83 ENTR8*JUEI+I8A ;8RTITI13 0ITI 08IFER 1. RIGIT= 83E +13.IR,8TI13 1. =8AE E8TEE ,8C /4, "$#) 2ENI. "485
Page | 528

1. TIE E=T8TE 1. 8URE8 ;1HAETE HC TIE EE+E8=EE ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, =R. 83E TIEIR +IIAERE3 I3F1AFI3G TIE 13AC RE,8I3I3G E=T8TE 1. 8URE8 ;1HAETE TIU= I,;AIEEAC 8E,ITTI3G TIE F8AIEITC 1. ;REFI1U= EI=;1=ITI13= ,8EE HC =8IE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= 13 TIEIR +13JUG8A ;R1;ERTIE=, I8A. 1. 0II+I 01UAE I8FE HE+1,E 8 ;8RT 1. 8URE8 ;1HAETER= E=T8TE U;13 IER EE,I=E. +5 TIE 8E,I==I13 ,8EE HC ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, =R. I3 II= TE=TI,13C I3 1;E3 +1URT 13 8UGU=T "!, "$:'
Page | 529

EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E I3 +IFIA +8=E 31. 3+*#"/ 2ENI. :", :"H5 TI8T IE I8E =1AE +ERT8I3 ;R1;ERTIE= I3 .8F1R 1. 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31 TIU= HEACI3G TIE +A8I, 1. R1,E1 ;. 38Z8RE31 TI8T TIE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' I= 13E 8,13G TIE E1+U,E3T= ENE+UTEE HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= T1 HE 0ITI1UT +13=IEER8TI13. E5 TIE 8E,I==I13= ,8EE HC R1,E1 ;. 38Z8RE31 II,=EA. +13T8I3EE I3 8 .I38A EE+I=I13 1. TIE RE=;13EE3T +1URT I3 +8*GR +F 31. "/$!/ E8TEE 8UGU=T
Page | 530

!", "$$/ 83E 83 833EN 8;;E8RI3G I3 II= 83=0ER T1 TIE +1,;A8I3T I3 +IFIA +8=E 31. O*!$'": 2ENI. ""*H5 I3F1AFI3G A1T !H, 13E 1. TIE ;R1;ERTIE= I3 OUE=TI13 TI8T TIE =8IE ;R1;ERTC I= 103EE HC ;ETITI13ER 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31. E5 TIE ;8RTI8A ;R1JE+T 1. ;8RTITI13 E8TEE ,8C /4, "$$) 0II+I 08= 8;;R1FEE HC TIE I3TE=T8TE +1URT I3 =;. ;R1+. 31. 3+*/: 83E ENE+UTEE I3 8++1RE83+E 0ITI TIE A8TTER +1URTR= .I38A 1REER E8TEE JUAC $, "$$" EETER,I3I3G 0II+I
Page | 531

0ERE TIE RE,8I3I3G ;R1;ERTIE= 1. TIE E=T8TE. !. 0IETIER 1R 31T TIE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' ENE+UTEE HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, =R. 83E 8URE8 ;1HAETE EURI3G TIEIR AI.ETI,E I3F1AFI3G TIEIR +13JUG8A ;R1;ERTIE= I= 83 I3EIFI=IHAE +13TR8+TK 83E I. =1 0IETIER 1R 31T U;13 TIEIR EE8TI, TIE E=T8TE 1. ,8NI,I31 8. 38Z8RE31, =R. 8A13E +83 =EE? TIE 833UA,E3T 1. =8IE =8AEK 4. 0IETIER 1R 31T TIE =8AE 1. A1T ! U3EER TIE EEEE 1.
Page | 532

8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE J83U8RC /$, "$#' I3 .8F1R 1. ;ETITI13ER 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31, I= F8AIE +13=IEERI3G TI8T 8= ;ER TIE 1REER 1. TIE A10ER +1URT E8TEE 31FE,HER /", "$$'. R1,E1 38Z8RE31 8E,ITTEE TI8T IE EIE 31T ;8C TIE +13=IEER8TI13 =T8TEE I3 TIE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE E8TEE JUAC 4, "$($ ENE+UTEE HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E= I3 II= .8F1R 2ENI. ,*/5. ). 0IETIER 1R 31T 8= 8 +13=EOUE3+E, TIE TITAE I==UEE I3 TIE 38,E 1. R1,E1 ;. 38Z8RE31, T+T 31.
Page | 533

/##$(: 2ENI. ,5 =I1UAE HE +83+EAAEE 83E EE+A8REE 3UAA 83E F1IE 83E 8 3E0 13E I==UEE I3 .8F1R 1. 38TIFIE8E ;. 38Z8RE31 ;UR=U83T T1 TIE EEEE 1. 8H=1AUTE =8AE ENE+UTEE I3 TIE A8TTERR= .8F1R 13 J83U8RC /$, "$#' HC TIE EE+E8=EE =;1U=E=.L/4M 0e find the petition to be witho&t merit. .irst. ;etitioners arg&e that the one testimon- of Romeo is ins&fficient to overcome the pres&mption of va iditaccorded to a notari7ed doc&ment. To begin with, the findings of fact of the +o&rt of 8ppea s are conc &sive on the parties and carr- even more weight when these coincide with the fact&a
Page | 534

findings of the tria co&rt. This +o&rt wi not weigh the evidence a over again &n ess there is a showing that the findings of the ower co&rt are tota devoid of s&pport or are c ear erroneo&s so as to constit&te serio&s ab&se of discretion.L/)M The one testimon- of a witness, if credib e, is s&fficient. In this case, the testimon- of Romeo that no consideration was ever paid for the sa e of the si6 ots to 3atividad was fo&nd to be credib e both b- the tria co&rt and b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s and it has not been s&ccessf& - reb&tted b- petitioners. 0e, therefore, have no reason to overt&rn the findings b- the two co&rts giving credence to his testimon-.
Page | 535

The fact that the deed of sa e was notari7ed is not a g&arantee of the va idit- of its contents. 8s he d in =&ntav. +o&rt of 8ppea s<L/(M Tho&gh the notari7ation of the deed of sa e in %&estion vests in its favor the pres&mption of reg& arit-, it is not the intention nor the f&nction of the notarp&b ic to va idate and make binding an instr&ment never, in the first p ace, intended to have an- binding ega effect &pon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties sti and a wa-s is the primar- consideration in determining the tr&e nat&re of a contract. =econd. ;etitioners make capita of the fact that in +.8.*G.R. +F 3o. "/$!/, which was dec ared fina b- this +o&rt in G.R. 3o. "'#(:4, the +o&rt of 8ppea s
Page | 536

&phe d the right of ,a6imino, Jr. to recover possession of Aot !*H. In that case, the +o&rt of 8ppea s he d< 8s shown in the preceding dis%&isition, 3atividad ;. 3a7areno ac%&ired the propert- in disp&te b- p&rchase in "$#'. =he was iss&ed Transfer +ertificate of Tit e 3o. "(/#!: of the Registrof Eeeds of O&e7on +it-. 0hen her parents died, her mother 8&rea ;ob ete*3a7areno in "$#' and her father ,a6imino 8. 3a7areno, =r. in "$:', 3atividad ;. 3a7areno had ong been the e6c &sive owner of the propert- in %&estion. There was no watherefore that the aforesaid propertco& d be ong to the estate of the spo&ses ,a6imino 3a7areno, =r. and 8&rea ;ob ete. The mere fact that
Page | 537

Romeo ;. 3a7areno inc &ded the same propert- in an inventor- of the properties of the deceased ,a6imino 8. 3a7areno, =r. wi not adverse - affect the ownership of the said rea t-. 8ppe ant Romeo ;. 3a7arenoRs s&spicion that his parents had entr&sted a their assets &nder the care and in the name of 3atividad ;. 3a7areno, their e dest iving sister who was sti sing e, to be divided &pon their demise to a the comp& sor- heirs, has not progressed be-ond mere spec& ation. Iis barefaced a egation on the point not on - is witho&t an- corroboration b&t is even be ied b- doc&mentar- evidence. The deed of abso &te sa e 2E6hibit PHQ5, being a p&b ic doc&ment 2R& e "!/, =ecs. "$ and /!, Revised R& es on Evidence5, is entit ed to great weight> to
Page | 538

contradict the same, there m&st be evidence that is c ear, convincing and more than mere preponderant 2Ct&rra de vs. 8ganon, /: =+R8 4'#> .avor vs. +o&rt of 8ppea s, "$4 =+R8 !':5. Eefendants*appe antsR own cond&ct disproves their c aim of co* ownership over the propert- in %&estion. Heing themse ves the owner of a ten*&nit apartment b&i ding a ong =tanford =t., +&bao O&e7on +it-, defendants*appe ants, in a etter of demand to vacate addressed to their tenants 2E6hibits P;Q, P;*"Q and P;*/Q5 in said apartment, admitted that the ho&se and ot ocated at 3o. $#$ 8&rora H vd., O&e7on +it- where the- were residing did not be ong to them. 8 so, when theapp ied for a permit to repair the s&bject propert- in "$##, the- stated that the
Page | 539

propert- be onged to and was registered in the name of 3atividad ;. 3a7areno. 8mong the doc&ments s&bmitted to s&pport their app ication for a b&i ding permit was a cop- of T+T 3o. "(/#!: of the Registr- of Eeeds of O&e7on +it- in the name of 3atividad 3a7areno 2E6hibit P1Q and s&bmarkings> tsn ,arch "), "$:), pp. 4*)5.L/#M To be s&re, that case was for recoverof possession based on ownership of Aot !*H. The parties in that case were ,a6imino, Jr., as p aintiff, and the spo&ses Romeo and E i7a, as defendants. 1n the other hand, the parties in the present case for ann& ment of sa e are the estate of ,a6imino, =r., as p aintiff, and 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr., as defendants.
Page | 540

Romeo and E i7a were named third* part- defendants after a third*partcomp aint was fi ed b- 3atividad and ,a6imino, Jr. 8s a read- stated, however, this third*part- comp aint concerned Aot !, and not Aot !*H. The estate of a deceased person is a j&ridica entit- that has a persona it- of its own.L/:M Tho&gh Romeo represented at one time the estate of ,a6imino, =r., the atter has a separate and distinct persona it- from the former. Ience, the j&dgment in +8*GR +F 3o. "/$!/ regarding the ownership of ,a6imino, Jr. over Aot !*H binds Romeo and E i7a on -, and not the estate of ,a6imino, =r., which a so has a right to recover properties which were wrongf& disposed.
Page | 541

.&rthermore, 3atividadRs tit e was c ear - not an iss&e in the first case. In other words, the tit e to the other five ots s&bject of the present deed of sa e was not in iss&e in that case. If the first case reso ved an-thing, it was the ownership of ,a6imino, Jr. over Aot !*H a one. Third. ;etitioners a ege that, as shown b- severa deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b,a6imino, =r. and 8&rea d&ring their ifetime, the intention to dispose of their rea properties is c ear. +onse%&ent -, the- arg&e that the Eeed of =a e of Jan&ar- /$, "$#' sho& d a so be deemed va id. This is a non*se%&it&r. The fact that other properties had a eged - been so d b- the spo&ses ,a6imino, =r. and
Page | 542

8&rea does not necessari - show that the Eeed of =a e made on Jan&ar- /$, "$#' is va id. Romeo does not disp&te that their parents had e6ec&ted deeds of sa e. The %&estion, however, is whether these sa es were made for a consideration. The tria co&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s fo&nd that the 3a7areno spo&ses transferred their properties to their chi dren b- fictitio&s sa es in order to avoid the pa-ment of inheritance ta6es. Indeed, it was fo&nd both b- the tria co&rt and b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s that 3atividad had no means to pa- for the si6 ots s&bject of the Eeed of =a e. 8 these convince the +o&rt that 3atividad had no means to pa- for a
Page | 543

the ots she p&rported - p&rchased from her parents. 0hat is more, RomeoRs admission that he did not pa- for the transfer to him of ots ! and /)*A despite the considerations stated in the deed of sa e is a dec aration against interest and m&st ring with reso&nding tr&th. The %&estion is, wh- sho& d 3atividad be treated andifferent -, i.e., with consideration for the sa e to her, when she is admitted - the c osest to her parents and the one sta-ing with them and managing their affairsK It j&st seems witho&t reason. 8n-wa-, the +o&rt is convinced that the %&estioned Eeed of =a e dated Jan&ar- /$, "$#' 2E6h. P8Q or P"Q5 is sim& ated for ack of consideration, and therefore ineffective and void.L/$M
Page | 544

In affirming this r& ing, the +o&rt of 8ppea s said< .acts and circ&mstances indicate badges of a sim& ated sa e which make the Eeed of 8bso &te =a e dated /$ Jan&ar- "$#' void and of no effect. In the case of =&nta- vs. +o&rt of 8ppea s 2/)" =+R8 4!' L"$$)M5, the =&preme +o&rt he d that badges of sim& ation make a deed of sa e n& and void since parties thereto enter into a transaction to which the- did not intend to be ega bo&nd. It appears that it was the practice in the 3a7areno fami - to make sim& ated transfers of ownership of rea properties to their chi dren in order to avoid the pa-ment of inheritance ta6es. ;er the testimon- of Romeo, he ac%&ired Aot
Page | 545

/)*A from his parents thro&gh a fictitio&s or sim& ated sa e wherein no consideration was paid b- him.Ie even tr&thf& - admitted that the sa e of Aot ! to him on '4 J& - "$($ 2Eeed of 8bso &te =a e, Records, Fo . II, p. 4)!5 ikewise had no consideration. This doc&ment was signed b- the spo&ses ,a6, =r. and 8&rea as vendors whi e defendant*appe ant 3atividad signed as witness.L!'M .o&rth. ;etitioners arg&e f&rther< The Eeed of 8bso &te =a e dated Jan&ar- /$, "$#' is an indivisib e contract fo&nded on an indivisib e ob igation. 8s s&ch, it being indivisib e, it can not be ann& ed b- on - one of them. 8nd since this s&it was fi ed on b- the estate of ,a6imino 8. 3a7areno,
Page | 546

=r. witho&t inc &ding the estate of 8&rea ;ob ete, the present s&it m&st fai . The estate of ,a6imino 8. 3a7areno, =r. can not ca&se its ann& ment whi e its va iditis s&stained b- the estate of 8&rea ;ob ete.L!"M 8n ob igation is indivisib e when it cannot be va id - performed in parts, whatever ma- be the nat&re of the thing which is the object thereof.The indivisibi it- refers to the prestation and not to the object thereof.L!/M In the present case, the Eeed of =a e of Jan&ar- /$, "$#' s&pposed - conve-ed the si6 ots to 3atividad. The ob igation is c ear - indivisib e beca&se the performance of the contract cannot be done in parts, otherwise the va &e of what is transferred is
Page | 547

diminished. ;etitioners are therefore mistaken in basing the indivisibi it- of a contract on the n&mber of ob igors. In an- case, if petitionersR on - point is that the estate of ,a6imino, =r. a one cannot contest the va idit- of the Eeed of =a e beca&se the estate of 8&rea has not -et been sett ed, the arg&ment wo& d nonethe ess be witho&t merit. The va idit- of the contract can be %&estioned b- an-one affected b- it.L!!M 8 void contract is ine6istent from the beginning. Ience, even if the estate of ,a6imino, =r. a one contests the va iditof the sa e, the o&tcome of the s&it wi bind the estate of 8&rea as if no sa e took p ace at a . .ifth. 8s to the third*part- comp aint concerning Aot !, we find that this has
Page | 548

been passed &pon b- the tria co&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s. 8s Romeo admitted, no consideration was paid bhim to his parents for the Eeed of =a e. Therefore, the sa e was void for having been sim& ated.3atividad never ac%&ired ownership over the propertbeca&se the Eeed of =a e in her favor is a so void for being witho&t consideration and tit e to Aot ! cannot be iss&ed in her name. 3onethe ess, it cannot be denied that ,a6imino, =r. intended to give the si6 O&e7on +it- ots to 3atividad. 8s Romeo testified, their parents e6ec&ted the Eeed of =a e in favor of 3atividad beca&se the atter was the on - Pfema e and the on - &nmarried member of the fami -.QL!4M =he was th&s entr&sted with
Page | 549

the rea properties in beha f of her sib ings. 8s she herse f admitted, she intended to conve- Aots "' and "" to Jose in the event the atter ret&rned from abroad. There was th&s an imp ied tr&st constit&ted in her favor. 8rt. "44$ of the +ivi +ode states< There is a so an imp ied tr&st when a donation is made to a person b&t it appears that a tho&gh the ega estate is transmitted to the donee, he neverthe ess is either to have no beneficia interest or on - a part thereof. There being an imp ied tr&st, the ots in %&estion are therefore s&bject to co ation in accordance with 8rt. "'(" which states<

Page | 550

Ever- comp& sor- heir, who s&cceeds with other comp& sor- heirs, m&st bring into the mass of the estate an- propertor right which he ma- have received from the decedent, d&ring the ifetime of the atter, b- wa- of donation, or another grat&ito&s tit e, in order that it mabe comp&ted in the determination of the egitime of each heir, and in the acco&nt of the partition. 8s he d b- the tria co&rt, the sa e of Aots "! and "4 to Ros*8 va ,arketing, +orp. on 8pri /', "$#$L!)M wi have to be &phe d for Ros*8 va ,arketing is an innocent p&rchaser for va &e which re ied on the tit e of 3atividad. The r& e is sett ed that Pever- person dea ing with registered and ma- safe - re - on the correctness of the certificate of tit e
Page | 551

iss&ed therefor and the aw wi in no wa- ob ige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the propert-.QL!(M 0IERE.1RE, the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s is 8..IR,EE. =1 1REEREE.

G.R. No". LA22;C0 &n( LA22;9C #& -' 29, 1921

Page | 552

*H%L%**%NE $O##ER$%AL AND %NDUS,R%AL 6ANB, A(7ini"t &to o) t'e ,e"t&te E"t&te o) $'& le" NeIton Ho(/e" =Sp. * o-. No. 1C22 o) t'e $ou t o) .i "t %n"t&n-e o) %loilo>, petitione , !". ,HE HONORA6LE VEN%$%O ES$OL%N, * e"i(in/ Ju(/e o) t'e $ou t o) .i "t %n"t&n-e o) %loilo, 6 &n-' %%, &n( AVEL%NA A. #AGNO, e"pon(ent". G.R. No". LA2293C F LA22932 #& -' 29, 1921 ,ES,A,E ES,A,E O. ,HE LA,E L%NN%E JANE HODGES =Sp. * o-. No. 1302>. ,ES,A,E ES,A,E O. ,HE LA,E $HARLES NEE,ON HODGES =Sp. * o-. No. 1C22>. *H%L%**%NE
Page | 553

$O##ER$%AL AND %NDUS,R%AL 6ANB,&(7ini"t &to A&ppell&nt, !". LOREN5O $ARLES, JOSE *A6L%$O, AL.REDO $A,EDRAL, SALVADOR GU5#AN, 6EL$ESAR $AUS%NG, .LOREN%A 6ARR%DO, *UR%.%$A$%ON $ORONADO, GRA$%ANO LU$ERO, AR%,EO ,HO#AS JA#%R, #EL?U%ADES 6A,%SANAN, *E*%,O %4ULORES, ES*ER%D%ON *AR,%SALA, E%N%.REDO ES*ADA, ROSAR%O AL%NGASA, ADEL.A *RE#A4LON, SAN,%AGO *A$AONS%S, &n( AVEL%NA A. #AGNO, t'e l&"t &" A(7ini"t &t i0 in Sp. * o-. No. 1302, &ppellee", EES,ERN %NS,%,U,E O. ,E$HNOLOG4, %N$., 7o!&ntA &ppellee.
Page | 554

an Juan, Africa, Gon5ale$ and an A"u$tin for 21ilippine )o##ercial and 3ndu$trial (an:. Man"lapu$ La0 Office, Antonio La0 Office and %i5al %. Vui#po for private re$pondent$ and appellee$ Avelina A. Ma"no, etc., et al. H8RREE1, J.:p )ertiorari and prohibition with pre iminarinj&nction> certiorari to Ddec are a acts of the respondent co&rt in the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'# of the +o&rt of .irst Instance of I oi o5 s&bse%&ent to the order of Eecember "4, "$)# as n& and void for having been iss&ed witho&t j&risdictionD>
Page | 555

prohibition to enjoin the respondent co&rt from a owing, to erating, sanctioning, or abetting private respondent 8ve ina 8. ,agno to perform or do an- acts of administration, s&ch as those en&merated in the petition, and from e6ercising an- a&thorit- or power as Reg& ar 8dministratri6 of above* named Testate Estate, b- entertaining manifestations, motion and p eadings fi ed b- her and acting on them, and a so to enjoin said co&rt from a owing said private respondent to interfere, medd e or take part in an- manner in the administration of the Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "(#/ of the same co&rt and branch5> with pra-er for pre iminar- inj&nction, which was iss&ed b- this +o&rt on 8&g&st :, "$(# &pon a bond of ;),'''>
Page | 556

the petition being partic& ar - directed against the orders of the respondent co&rt of 1ctober "/, "$(( den-ing petitioner9s motion of 8pri //, "$(( and its order of J& - ":, "$(# den-ing the motion for reconsideration of said order. Re ated to and invo ving basica - the same main iss&e as the foregoing petition, thirt-*three 2!!5 appea s from different orders of the same respondent co&rt approving or otherwise sanctioning the acts of administration of the respondent ,agno on beha f of the testate Estate of ,rs. Iodges. T7; HA)T 1n ,a- /!, "$)#, Ainnie Jane Iodges died in I oi o +it- eaving a wi e6ec&ted
Page | 557

on 3ovember //, providing as fo ows<

"$)/

pertinent -

.IR=T< I direct that a m- j&st debts and f&nera e6penses be first paid o&t of m- estate. =E+13E< I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea , wherever sit&ated, or ocated, to m- be oved h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and to ho d &nto him, msaid h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetime. TIIRE< I desire, direct and provide that m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, sha have the right to manage, contro , &se and enjoPage | 558

said estate d&ring his ifetime, and he is hereb- given the right to make an- changes in the ph-sica properties of said estate, b- sa e or an- part thereof which he mathink best, and the p&rchase of another or additiona propert- as he ma- think best> to e6ec&te conve-ances with or witho&t genera or specia warrant-, conve-ing in fee simp e or for another term or time, an- propertwhich he ma- deem proper to dispose of> to ease an- of the rea propert- for oi , gas andJor other minera s, and a s&ch deeds or eases sha pass the abso &te fee simp e tit e to the interest so conve-ed in s&ch propert- as he ma- e ect to se . 8 rents,
Page | 559

emo &ments and income from said estate sha be ong to him, and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to &se anpart of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire. It is provided herein, however, that he sha not se or otherwise dispose of an- of the improved propertnow owned b- &s ocated at, in or near the +it- of A&bbock, Te6as, b&t he sha have the f& right to ease, manage and enjo- the same d&ring his ifetime, above provided. Ie sha have the right to s&bdivide an- farm and and se ots therein. and ma- se &nimproved town ots. .1URTI< 8t the death of m- said h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges,
Page | 560

I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a - divided among m- brothers and sisters, share and share a ike, name -< Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =addie Rascoe, Era Roman and 3imro- Iigdon. .I.TI< In case of the death of anof m- brothers andJor sisters named in item .o&rth, above, prior to the death of m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, then it is m- wi and be%&est that the heirs of s&ch deceased brother or sister sha take joint - the share which
Page | 561

wo& d have gone to s&ch brother or sister had she or he s&rvived. =INTI< I nominate and appoint msaid h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to be e6ec&tor of this, mast wi and testament, and direct that no bond or other sec&rit- be re%&ired of him as s&ch e6ec&tor. =EFE3TI< It is m- wi and be%&est that no action be had in the probate co&rt, in the administration of m- estate, other than that necessar- to prove and record this wi and to ret&rn an inventor- and appraisement of mestate and ist of c aims. 2;p. /*4, ;etition.5

Page | 562

This wi was s&bse%&ent - probated in aforementioned =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "!'# of respondent co&rt on J&ne /:, "$)#, with the widower +har es 3ewton Iodges being appointed as E6ec&tor, p&rs&ant to the provisions thereof. ;revio&s -, on ,a- /#, "$)#, the said widower 2hereafter to be referred to as Iodges5 had been appointed =pecia 8dministrator, in which capacit- he fi ed a motion on the same date as fo ows< T%G;&T ;^-2A%T; MOT3O& TO ALLOQ O% ATT7O%3A; 2;T3T3O&;% TO )O&T3&T; T7; (T 3&; 3& Q73)7 7; QA ;&GAG;9 A&9 TO 2;%HO%M A)T Q73)7 7; 7A9 (;;&
Page | 563

9O3&G Q73L; 9;);A ;9 QA L3G3&G +ome petitioner in the above*entit ed specia proceedings, thr& his &ndersigned attorne-s, to the Ion. +o&rt, most respectf& - states< ". G That Ainnie Jane Iodges died eaving her ast wi and testament, a cop- of which is attached to the petition for probate of the same. /. G That in said ast wi and testament herein petitioner +har es 3ewton Iodges is directed to have the right to manage, contro &se and enjo- the estate of deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, in the same wa-, a provision was p aced in
Page | 564

paragraph two, the fo owing< DI give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, to m- be oved h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and 2to5 ho d &nto him, m- said h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetime.D !. G That d&ring the ifetime of Ainnie Jane Iodges, herein petitioner was engaged in the b&siness of b&-ing and se ing persona and rea properties, and do s&ch acts which petitioner mathink best. 4. G That deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges died eaving no descendants or ascendants, e6cept brothers and sisters and
Page | 565

herein petitioner as e6ec&tor s&rviving spo&se, to inherit the properties of the decedent. ). G That the present motion is s&bmitted in order not to para -7e the b&siness of petitioner and the deceased, especia - in the p&rchase and sa e of properties. That proper acco&nting wi be had a so in a these transactions. 0IERE.1RE, it is most respectf& - pra-ed that, petitioner +. 3. Iodges 2+har es 3ewton Iodges5 be a owed or a&thori7ed to contin&e the b&siness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had been doing whi e deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges was iving.
Page | 566

+it- of I oi o, ,a- /#, "$)#. 28nne6 DED, ;etition.5 which the respondent co&rt immediate granted in the fo owing order< It appearing in the &rgent e'parte motion fi ed b- petitioner +. 3. Iodges, that the b&siness in which said petitioner and the deceased were engaged wi be para -7ed, &n ess and &nti the E6ec&tor is named and appointed b- the +o&rt, the said petitioner is a owed or a&thori7ed to contin&e the b&siness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had been doing whi e the deceased was iving. =1 1REEREE.
Page | 567

+it- of I oi o ,a- /#, "$)#. 28nne6 DED, ;etition.5 Under date of Eecember "", "$)#, Iodges fi ed as s&ch E6ec&tor another motion th&s< ,1TI13 T1 8;;R1FE 8AA =8AE=, +13FEC83+E=, AE8=E=, ,1RTG8GE= TI8T TIE ENE+UT1R I8E ,8EE .URTIER 83E =UH=EOUE3T TR83=8+TI13= 0II+I TIE ENE+UT1R ,8C E1 I3 8++1RE83+E 0ITI TIE A8=T 0I=I 1. TIE EE+E8=EE AI33IE J83E I1EGE=. +omes the E6ec&tor in the above* entit ed proceedings, thr& his
Page | 568

&ndersigned attorne-, to the Ion. +o&rt, most respectf& - states< ". G That according to the ast wi and testament of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, the e6ec&tor as the s&rviving spo&se and egatee named in the wi of the deceased> has the right to dispose of a the properties eft b- the deceased, portion of which is %&oted as fo ows< =econd< I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea , wherever sit&ated, or ocated, to m- be oved h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and to ho d &nto him, mPage | 569

said h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetime. Third< I desire, direct and provide that m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, sha have the right to manage, contro , &se and enjosaid estate d&ring his ifetime, and he is hereb- given the right to make an- changes in the ph-sica properties of said estate, /! $ale or an- part thereof which he mathink best, and the p&rchase of another or additiona propert- as he mathink best> to e'ecute conve!ance$ with or witho&t genera or specia warrant-, conve-ing in fee simp e or for another term or time, an- propertwhich he ma- deem proper to
Page | 570

dispose of> to ease an- of the rea propert- for oi , gas andJor other minera s, and a s&ch deeds or eases sha pass the abso &te fee simp e tit e to the interest so conve-ed in s&ch propert- as he ma- e ect to se . 8 rents, emo &ments and income from said estate $1all /elon" to 1i#, and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to &se anpart of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire. ... /. G That herein E6ec&tor, is not on - part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so, the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges. That d&ring the ifetime of herein E6ec&tor, as Aegatee has
Page | 571

the right to se , conve-, ease or dispose of the properties in the ;hi ippines. That inasm&ch as +.3. Iodges was and is engaged in the b&- and se of rea and persona properties, even before the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges, a motion to a&thori7e said +.3. Iodges was fi ed in +o&rt, to a ow him to contin&e in the b&siness of b&and se , which motion was favorab granted bthe Ionorab e +o&rt. !. G That since the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges, ,r. +.3. Iodges had been b&-ing and se ing rea and persona properties, in accordance with the wishes of the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges.
Page | 572

4. G That the Register of Eeeds for I oi o, had re%&ired of ate the herein E6ec&tor to have a the sa es, eases, conve-ances or mortgages made b- him, approved b- the Ion. +o&rt. ). G That it is respectf& re%&ested, a the sa es, conve-ances eases and mortgages e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor, be approved b- the Ion. +o&rt. and s&bse%&ent sa es conve-ances, eases and mortgages in comp iances with the wishes of the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges, and within the scope of the terms of the ast wi and testament, a so be approved>
Page | 573

(. G That the E6ec&tor is &nder ob igation to s&bmit his -ear acco&nts, and the properties conve-ed can a so be acco&nted for, especia the amo&nts received. 0IERE.1RE, it is most respectf& - pra-ed that, a the sa es, conve-ances, eases, and mortgages e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor, be approved b- the Ion. +o&rt, and a so the s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases, and mortgages in consonance with the wishes of the deceased contained in her ast wi and testament, be with a&thori7ation and approva of the Ion. +o&rt. +it- of I oi o, Eecember "", "$(#.
Page | 574

28nne6 DGD, ;etition.5 which again was prompt - granted bthe respondent co&rt on Eecember "4, "$)# as fo ows< O%9;% 8s pra-ed for b- 8ttorne- Ge ada, co&nse for the E6ec&tor for the reasons stated in his motion dated Eecember "", "$)#, which the +o&rt considers we taken a the sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of a properties eft bthe deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor +har es 3. Iodges are hereb8;;R1FEE. The said E6ec&tor is f&rther a&thori7ed to e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances,
Page | 575

eases and mortgages of the properties eft b- the said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in consonance with the wishes conve-ed in the ast wi and testament of the atter. =o ordered. I oi o +it-. Eecember "4, "$)#. 28nne6 DID, ;etition.5 1n 8pri "4, "$)$, in s&bmitting his first statement of acco&nt as E6ec&tor for approva , Iodges a eged< ;&rs&ant to the provisions of the R& es of +o&rt, herein e6ec&tor of the deceased, renders the fo owing acco&nt of his administration covering the period from Jan&ar- ", "$): to Eecember
Page | 576

!", "$):, which acco&nt ma- be fo&nd in detai in the individ&a income ta6 ret&rn fi ed for the estate of deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, to wit< That a certified p&b ic acco&ntant has e6amined the statement of net worth of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the assets and iabi ities, as we as the income and e6penses, cop- of which is hereto attached and made integra part of this statement of acco&nt as 8nne6 D8D. I3 FIE0 1. TIE .1REG1I3G, it is most respectf& - pra-ed that, the statement of net worth of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the assets and iabi ities, income and
Page | 577

e6penses as shown in the individ&a income ta6 ret&rn for the estate of the deceased and marked as 8nne6 D8D, be approved b- the Ionorab e +o&rt, as s&bstantia comp iance with the re%&irements of the R& es of +o&rt. That no person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nts be given notice, as herein e6ec&tor is the on - devisee or egatee of the deceased, in accordance with the ast wi and testament a readprobated b- the Ionorab e co&rt. +it- of I oi o 8pri "4, "$)$. 28nne6 DID, ;etition.5
Page | 578

The respondent co&rt approved this statement of acco&nt on 8pri /", "$)$ in its order worded th&s< Upon petition of 8tt-. Ge ada, in representation of the E6ec&tor, the statement of net worth of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, assets and iabi ities, income and e6penses as shown in the individ&a income ta6 ret&rn for the estate of the deceased and marked as 8nne6 D8D is approved. =1 1REEREE. +it- of I oi o 8pri /", "$)$. 28nne6 DJD, ;etition.5 Iis acco&nts for the periods Jan&ar- ", "$)$ to Eecember !", "$)$ and Jan&ar- ", "$(' to Eecember !", "$('
Page | 579

were s&bmitted ikewise accompanied ba egations identica #utati$ #utandi$ to those of 8pri "4, "$)$, %&oted above> and the respective orders approving the same, dated J& - !', "$(' and ,a- /, "$(", were s&bstantia - identica to the above* %&oted order of 8pri /", "$)$. In connection with the statements of acco&nt j&st mentioned, the fo owing assertions re ated thereto made brespondent*appe ee ,agno in her brief do not appear from a indications discernib e in the record to be disp&tab e< Under date of 8pri "4, "$)$, +.3. Iodges fi ed his first D8cco&nt bthe E6ec&torD of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the
Page | 580

D=tatement of 3etworth of ,r. +.3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$): anne6ed thereto, +.3. Iodges reported that the combined conj&ga estate earned a net income of ;!/:,4'/.(/, divided even - between him and the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a income ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$): on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the said estate as having earned income of ;"(4,/'".!", e6act - one*ha f of the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2p. $", 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5
Page | 581

666 666 666 Under date of J& - /", "$(', +.3. Iodges fi ed his second D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt b- the E6ec&torD of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the D=tatement of 3etworth of ,r. +.3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$)$ anne6ed thereto, +.3. Iodges reported that the combined conj&ga estate earned a net income of ;/#',(/!.!/, divided even between him and the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a income ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$)$ on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the
Page | 582

said estate as having earned income of ;"!),!"".((, e6act one*ha f of the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2pp. $"*$/. 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5 666 666 666 Under date of 8pri /', "$(", +.3. Iodges fi ed his third D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt b- the E6ec&tor for the Cear "$('D of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the D=tatement of 3et 0orth of ,r. +.3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$(' anne6ed thereto, +.3. Iodges reported that the combined conj&ga estate
Page | 583

earned a net income of ;!"4,:)#.$4, divided even between him and the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a income ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$(' on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the said estate as having earned income of ;")#,4/:.$#, e6act one*ha f of the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2;p. $/*$!, 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5 Aikewise the fo owing< In the petition for probate that he 2Iodges5 fi ed, he isted the seven brothers and sisters of Ainnie Jane
Page | 584

as her DheirsD 2see p. /, Green R185. The order of the co&rt admitting the wi to probate &nfort&nate - omitted one of the heirs, Ro- Iigdon 2see p. "4, Green R185. Immediate -, +.3. Iodges fi ed a verified motion to have Ro- Iigdon9s name inc &ded as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records Din order the heirs of deceased Ro- Iigdon ma- not think or be ieve the- were omitted, and that the- were rea and are interested in the estate of deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges. . 8s an e6ec&tor, he was bo&nd to fi e ta6 ret&rns for the estate he was administering &nder 8merican aw. Ie did fi e s&ch as estate ta6
Page | 585

ret&rn on 8&g&st :, "$):. In =ched& e D,D of s&ch ret&rn, he answered DCesD to the %&estion as to whether he was contemp ating Dreno&ncing the wi D. 1n the %&estion as to what propertinterests passed to him as the s&rviving spo&se, he answered< D3one, e6cept for p&rposes of administering the Estate, pa-ing debts, ta6es and other ega charges. It is the intention of the s&rviving h&sband of deceased to distrib&te the remaining propert- and interests of the deceased in their +omm&nitestate to the devisees and egatees named in the wi
Page | 586

when the debts, iabi ities, ta6es and e6penses of administration are fina determined and paid.D 8gain, on 8&g&st $, "$(/, bare fo&r months before his death, he e6ec&ted an DaffidavitD wherein he ratified and confirmed a that he stated in =ched& e D,D of his estate ta6 ret&rns as to his having reno&nced what was given him bhis wife9s wi . " 8s appointed e6ec&tor, +.3. Iodges fi ed an DInventor-D dated ,a- "/, "$):. Ie isted a the assets of his conj&ga partnership with Ainnie Jane Iodges on a separate ba ance sheet and then stated e6press - that her estate
Page | 587

which has come into his possession as e6ec&tor was Done* ha f of a the itemsD isted in said ba ance sheet. 2;p. :$*$', 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5 ;arenthetica -, it ma- be stated, at this j&nct&re, that 0e are taking pains to %&ote who - or at east, e6tensive from some of the p eadings and orders whenever 0e fee that it is necessar- to do so for a more comprehensive and c earer view of the important and decisive iss&es raised b- the parties and a more acc&rate appraisa of their respective positions in regard thereto. The records of these cases do not show that an-thing e se was done in the above*mentioned =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "!'# &nti Eecember /(, "$(/,
Page | 588

when on acco&nt of the death of Iodges the da- before, the same aw-er, 8tt-. Aeon ;. Ge ada, who had been previo&s - acting as co&nse for Iodges in his capacit- as E6ec&tor of his wife9s estate, and as s&ch had fi ed the afore%&oted motions and manifestations, fi ed the fo owing< URGE3T ;^-2A%T; ,1TI13 .1R TIE 8;;1I3T,E3T 1. 8 =;E+I8A 8E,I3I=TR8TRIN +1,E= the &ndersigned attornefor the E6ec&tor in the above* entit ed proceedings, to the Ionorab e +o&rt, most respectf& states< ". That in accordance with the Aast 0i and Testament of Ainnie Jane
Page | 589

Iodges 2deceased5, her h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges was to act as E6ec&tor, and in fact, in an order iss&ed b- this Ion. +o&rt dated J&ne /:, "$)#, the said +har es 3ewton Iodges was appointed E6ec&tor and had performed the d&ties as s&ch. /. That ast Eecember //, "$(/, the said +har es 3ewton Iodges was stricken i , and bro&ght to the I oi o ,ission Iospita for treatment, b&t &nfort&nate -, he died on Eecember /), "$(/, as shown b- a cop- of the death certificate hereto attached and marked as 8nne6 D8D. !. That in accordance with the provisions of the ast wi and
Page | 590

testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges, whatever rea and persona properties that ma- remain at the death of her h&sband +har es 3ewton Iodges, the said properties sha be e%&a - divided among their heirs. That there are rea and persona properties eft b+har es 3ewton Iodges, which need to be administered and taken care of. 4. That the estate of deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, as we as that of +har es 3ewton Iodges, have not as -et been determined or ascertained, and there is necessit- for the appointment of a genera administrator to i%&idate and distrib&te the resid&e of the
Page | 591

estate to the heirs and egatees of both spo&ses. That in accordance with the provisions of =ection / of R& e #) of the R& es of +o&rt, the conj&ga partnership of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +har es 3ewton Iodges sha be i%&idated in the testate proceedings of the wife. ). That the &ndersigned co&nse , has perfect persona know edge of the e6istence of the ast wi and testament of +har es 3ewton Iodges, with simi ar provisions as that contained in the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges. Iowever, said ast wi and testament of +har es 3ewton Iodges is kept inside the va& t or iron safe in his office, and wi be
Page | 592

presented in d&e time before this honorab e +o&rt. (. That in the meantime, it is imperative and indispensab e that, an 8dministratri6 be appointed for the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and a =pecia 8dministratri6 for the estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, to perform the d&ties re%&ired baw, to administer, co ect, and take charge of the goods, chatte s, rights, credits, and estate of both spo&ses, +har es 3ewton Iodges and Ainnie Jane Iodges, as provided for in =ection " and /, R& e :" of the R& es of +o&rt. #. That there is de a- in granting etters testamentaror of administration, beca&se the ast
Page | 593

wi and testament of deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, is sti kept in his safe or va& t, and in the meantime, &n ess an administratri6 2and,5 at the same time, a =pecia 8dministratri6 is appointed, the estate of both spo&ses are in danger of being ost, damaged or go to waste. :. That the most tr&sted emp o-ee of both spo&ses Ainnie Jane Iodges and +.3. Iodges, who had been emp o-ed for aro&nd thirt- 2!'5 -ears, in the person of ,iss 8ve ina ,agno, 2sho& d5 be appointed 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and at the same time =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate of
Page | 594

+har es 3ewton Iodges. That the said ,iss 8ve ina ,agno is of ega age, a resident of the ;hi ippines, the most fit, competent, tr&stworthand we *%&a ified person to serve the d&ties of 8dministratri6 and =pecia 8dministratri6 and is wi ing to act as s&ch. $. That ,iss 8ve ina ,agno is a so wi ing to fi e bond in s&ch s&m which the Ion. +o&rt be ieves reasonab e. 0IERE.1RE, in view of a the foregoing, it is most respectf& pra-ed that, ,iss 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31 be immediate - appointed 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate
Page | 595

of +har es 3ewton Iodges, with powers and d&ties provided for baw. That the Ionorab e +o&rt fi6 the reasonab e bond of ;",'''.'' to be fi ed b- 8ve ina 8. ,agno. 28nne6 D1D, ;etition.5 which respondent co&rt readi - acted on in its order of even date th&s< . .or the reasons a eged in the Urgent ;'-parte ,otion fi ed bco&nse for the E6ec&tor dated Eecember /), "$(/, which the +o&rt finds meritorio&s, ,iss 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, is herebappointed 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges,
Page | 596

in the atter case, beca&se the ast wi of said +har es 3ewton Iodges is sti kept in his va& t or iron safe and that the rea and persona properties of both spo&ses ma- be ost, damaged or go to waste, &n ess a =pecia 8dministratri6 is appointed. ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno is re%&ired to fi e bond in the s&m of .IFE TI1U=83E ;E=1= 2;),'''.''5, and after having done so, et etters of 8dministration be iss&ed to her.D 28nne6 D;D, ;etition.5 1n Eecember /$, "$(/, however, &pon &rgent e'-parte petition of respondent ,agno herse f, thr& 8tt-. Ge ada, Iaro d, R. Eavies, Da representative of the heirs of
Page | 597

deceased +har es 3ewton Iodges 2who had5 arrived from the United =tates of 8merica to he p in the administration of the estate of said deceasedD was appointed as +o* =pecia 8dministrator of the estate of Iodges, 2pp. /$*!!, Ce ow * Record on 8ppea 5 on - to be rep aced as s&ch co*specia administrator on Jan&ar- //, "$(! b- Joe Iodges, who, according to the motion of the same attorne-, is Dthe nephew of the deceased 2who had5 arrived from the United =tates with instr&ctions from the other heirs of the deceased to administer the properties or estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges in the ;hi ippines, 2;p. 4#*)', id.5
Page | 598

,eanwhi e, &nder date of Jan&ar- $, "$(!, the same 8tt-. Ge ada fi ed in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/ a petition for the probate of the wi of Iodges, / with a pra-er for the iss&ance of etters of administration to the same Joe Iodges, a beit the motion was fo owed on .ebr&ar- //, "$(! b- a separate one asking that 8tt-. .ernando ,iraso be appointed as his co*administrator. 1n the same date this atter motion was fi ed, the co&rt iss&ed the corresponding order of probate and etters of administration to Joe Iodges and 8tt-. ,iraso , as pra-ed for. 8t this j&nct&re, again, it ma- a so be e6p ained that j&st as, in her wi , ,rs. Iodges be%&eathed her who e estate to her h&sband Dto have and to ho d &nto
Page | 599

him, m- said h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetimeD, she, at the same time or in ike manner, provided that Dat the death of m- said h&sband G I give devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a - divided among mbrothers and sisters, share and share a ike GD. 8ccording -, it became inc&mbent &pon Iodges, as e6ec&tor of his wife9s wi , to d& - i%&idate the conj&ga partnership, ha f of which constit&ted her estate, in order that &pon the event&a it- of his death, Dthe rest, resid&e and remainderD thereof co& d be determined and corresponding distrib&ted or divided among her brothers and sisters. 8nd it was precise - beca&se no s&ch i%&idation
Page | 600

was done, f&rthermore, there is the iss&e of whether the distrib&tion of her estate sho& d be governed b- the aws of the ;hi ippines or those of Te6as, of which =tate she was a nationa , and, what is more, as a read- stated, Iodges made officia and sworn statements or manifestations indicating that as far as he was concerned no Dpropert- interests passed to him as s&rviving spo&se G De6cept for p&rposes of administering the estate, pa-ing debts, ta6es and other ega chargesD and it was the intention of the s&rviving h&sband of the deceased to distrib&te the remaining propert- and interests of the deceased in their +omm&nit- Estate to the devisees and egatees named in the wi when the debts, iabi ities, ta6es and e6penses of administration are fina Page | 601

determined and paidD, that the incidents and controversies now before Us for reso &tion arose. 8s ma- be observed, the sit&ation that ens&ed &pon the death of Iodges became rather &n&s&a and so, %&ite &nderstandab -, the ower co&rt9s act&ations present - &nder review are apparent - wanting in consistenc- and seeming - ack proper orientation. Th&s, 0e cannot discern c ear - from the record before Us the precise perspective from which the tria co&rt proceeded in iss&ing its %&estioned orders. 8nd, regretab -, none of the ength- briefs s&bmitted b- the parties is of va &ab e assistance in c earing &p the matter.
Page | 602

To begin with, 0e gather from the two records on appea fi ed b- petitioner, as appe ant in the appea ed cases, one with green cover and the other with a -e ow cover, that at the o&tset, a sort of mod&s operandi had been agreed &pon b- the parties &nder which the respective administrators of the two estates were s&pposed to act conjoint -, b&t since no cop- of the said agreement can be fo&nd in the record before Us, 0e have no wa- of knowing when e6act - s&ch agreement was entered into and &nder what specific terms. 8nd whi e reference is made to said #odu$ operandi in the order of =eptember "", "$(4, on pages /')*/'( of the Green Record on 8ppea , reading th&s<
Page | 603

The present incident is to hear the side of administratri6, ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno, in answer to the charges contained in the motion fi ed b- 8tt-. +esar Tiro on =eptember !, "$(4. In answer to the said charges, ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno, thro&gh her co&nse , 8tt-. Ri7a O&impo, fi ed a written manifestation. 8fter reading the manifestation here of 8tt-. O&impo, for and in beha f of the administratri6, ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno, the +o&rt finds that ever-thing that happened before =eptember !, "$(4, which was reso ved on =eptember :, "$(4, to the satisfaction of parties, was simp d&e to a
Page | 604

mis&nderstanding between the representative of the ;hi ippine +ommercia and Ind&stria Hank and ,iss ,agno and in order to restore the harmonio&s re ations between the parties, the +o&rt ordered the parties to remain in $tatu$ 4uo as to their mod&s operandi before =eptember ", "$(4, &nti after the +o&rt can have a meeting with a the parties and their co&nse s on 1ctober !, as former - agreed &pon between co&nse s, 8tt-s. 17aeta, Gibbs and 17aeta, 8tt-s. Tiro and Tiro and 8tt-. Ri7a O&impo. In the meantime, the pra-ers of 8tt-. O&impo as stated in his
Page | 605

manifestation sha not be reso ved b- this +o&rt &nti 1ctober !, "$(4. =1 1REEREE. there is nothing in the record indicating whatever happened to it afterwards, e6cept that again, reference thereto was made in the appea ed order of 1ctober /#, "$(), on pages /$/*/$) of the Green Record on 8ppea , as fo ows< 1n record is an &rgent motion to a ow ;+IH to open a doors and ocks in the Iodges 1ffice at /'(* /': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it-, to take immediate and e6c &sive possession thereof and to p ace its own ocks and ke-s for sec&ritp&rposes of the ;+IH dated 1ctober /#, "$() thr& 8tt-. +esar
Page | 606

Tiro . It is a eged in said &rgent motion that 8dministratri6 ,agno of the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges ref&sed to open the Iodges 1ffice at /'(*/': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- where ;+IH ho ds office and therefore ;+IH is s&ffering great mora damage and prej&dice as a res& t of said act. It is pra-ed that an order be iss&ed a&thori7ing it 2;+IH5 to open a doors and ocks in the said office, to take immediate and e6c &sive possession thereof and p ace thereon its own ocks and ke-s for sec&rit- p&rposes> instr&cting the c erk of co&rt or an- avai ab e dep&t- to witness and s&pervise the opening of a doors and ocks and taking possession of the ;+IH.
Page | 607

8 written opposition has been fi ed b- 8dministratri6 ,agno of even date 21ct. /#5 thr& co&nse Ri7a O&impo stating therein that she was compe ed to c ose the office for the reason that the ;+IH fai ed to comp - with the order of this +o&rt signed b- J&dge 8nac eto I. He osi o dated =eptember "", "$(4 to the effect that both estates sho& d remain in $tatu$ 4uo to their #odu$ operandi as of =eptember ", "$(4. To arrive at a happ- so &tion of the disp&te and in order not to interr&pt the operation of the office of both estates, the +o&rt aside from the reasons stated in the &rgent motion and opposition heard the
Page | 608

verba arg&ments of 8tt-. +esar Tiro for the ;+IH and 8tt-. Ri7a O&impo for 8dministrati6 ,agno. 8fter d&e consideration, the +o&rt hereb- orders ,agno to open a doors and ocks in the Iodges 1ffice at /'(*/': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- in the presence of the ;+IH or its d& - a&thori7ed representative and dep&t- c erk of co&rt 8 bis of this branch not ater than #<!' tomorrow morning 1ctober /:, "$() in order that the office of said estates co& d operate for b&siness. ;&rs&ant to the order of this +o&rt thr& J&dge He osi o dated =eptember "", "$(4, it is herebordered<
Page | 609

2a5 That a cash co ections sho& d be deposited in the joint acco&nt of the estates of Ainnie Jane Iodges and estates of +.3. Iodges> 2b5 That whatever cash co ections that had been deposited in the acco&nt of either of the estates sho& d be withdrawn and since then deposited in the joint acco&nt of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and the estate of +.3. Iodges> 2c5 That the ;+IH sho& d co&ntersign the check in the amo&nt of ;/)' in favor of 8dministratri6 8ve ina 8. ,agno as her compensation as administratri6 of the Ainnie Jane Iodges estate
Page | 610

chargeab e to the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on -> 2d5 That 8dministratri6 ,agno is hereb- directed to a ow the ;+IH to inspect whatever records, doc&ments and papers she mahave in her possession in the same manner that 8dministrator ;+IH is a so directed to a ow 8dministratri6 ,agno to inspect whatever records, doc&ments and papers it ma- have in its possession> 2e5 That the acco&ntant of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges sha have access to a records of the transactions of both estates for the protection of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> and in ike manner
Page | 611

the acco&ntant or an- a&thori7ed representative of the estate of +.3. Iodges sha have access to the records of transactions of the Ainnie Jane Iodges estate for the protection of the estate of +.3. Iodges. 1nce the estates9 office sha have been opened b- 8dministratri6 ,agno in the presence of the ;+IH or its d& a&thori7ed representative and dep&t- c erk 8 bis or his d& - a&thori7ed representative, both estates or anof the estates sho& d not c ose it witho&t previo&s consent and a&thorit- from this co&rt. =1 1REEREE.
Page | 612

8s ma- be noted, in this order, the respondent co&rt re%&ired that a co ections from the properties in the name of Iodges sho& d be deposited in a joint acco&nt of the two estates, which indicates that seeming - the so* ca ed#odu$ operandi was no onger operative, b&t again there is nothing to show when this sit&ation started. Aikewise, in paragraph ! of the petitioner9s motion of =eptember "4, "$(4, on pages "::*/'" of the Green Record on 8ppea , 2a so fo&nd on pp. :!*$" of the Ce ow Record on 8ppea 5 it is a eged that< !. 1n Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 virt&a - a of the heirs of +.3. Iodges, Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso acting as the two co*administrators
Page | 613

of the estate of +.3. Iodges, 8ve ina 8. ,agno acting as the administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and ,essrs. 0i iam Hrown and 8rde Co&ng acting for a of the Iigdon fami who c aim to be the so e beneficiaries of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and vario&s ega co&nse representing the aforementioned parties entered into an amicab e agreement, which was approved b- this Ionorab e +o&rt, wherein the parties thereto agreed that certain s&ms of monewere to be paid in sett ement of different c aims against the two estates and that the assets 2to the e6tent the- e6isted5 of both estates wo& d be administered joint - bPage | 614

the ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +.3. Iodges and 8ve ina 8. ,agno as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, s&bject, however, to the aforesaid 1ctober ), "$(! ,otion, name -, the ;+IH9s c aim to e6c &sive possession and ownership of one h&ndred percent 2"''B5 2or, in the a ternative, sevent-*five percent 2#)B5 of a assets owned b- +.3. Iodges or Ainnie Jane Iodges sit&ated in the ;hi ippines. 1n .ebr&ar- ", "$(4 2pp. $!4*$!), +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "(#/5 this Ionorab e +o&rt amended its order of Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 b&t in no wa- changed its recognition of the afore*described basic demand bthe ;+IH as administrator of the
Page | 615

estate of +.3. Iodges to one h&ndred percent 2"''B5 of the assets c aimed b- both estates. b&t no cop- of the mentioned agreement of joint administration of the two estates e6ists in the record, and so, 0e are not informed as to what e6act - are the terms of the same which co& d be re evant in the reso &tion of the iss&es herein. 1n the other hand, the appea ed order of 3ovember !, "$(), on pages !"!*!/' of the Green Record on 8ppea , a&thori7ed pa-ment b- respondent ,agno of, inter alia, her own fees as administratri6, the attorne-9s fees of her aw-ers, etc., as fo ows<

Page | 616

8dministratri6 ,agno thr& 8tt-s. Ra& =. ,ang ap&s and Ri7a . R. O&impo fi ed a ,anifestation and Urgent ,otion dated J&ne "', "$(4 asking for the approva of the 8greement dated J&ne (, "$(4 which 8greement is for the p&rpose of retaining their services to protect and defend the interest of the said 8dministratri6 in these proceedings and the same has been signed b- and bears the e6press conformit- of the attorne-* in*fact of the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges, ,r. James A. =& ivan. It is f&rther pra-ed that the 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges be directed to pa- the retai ers fee of said aw-ers, said fees made
Page | 617

chargeab e as e6penses for the administration of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2pp. "(4"* "(4/, Fo . F, =p. "!'#5. 8n opposition has been fi ed b- the 8dministrator ;+IH thr& 8tt-. Ierminio 17aeta dated J& - "", "$(4, on the gro&nd that pa-ment of the retainers fee of 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo as pra-ed for in said ,anifestation and Urgent ,otion is prej&dicia to the "''B c aim of the estate of +. 3. Iodges> emp o-ment of 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo is premat&re andJor &nnecessar-> 8tt-s. O&impo and ,ang ap&s are representing conf icting interests and the estate of Ainnie Jane
Page | 618

Iodges sho& d be c osed and terminated 2pp. "(#$*"(:4, Fo , F, =p. "!'#5. 8tt-. Aeon ;. Ge ada fi ed a memorand&m dated J& - /:, "$(4 asking that the ,anifestation and Urgent ,otion fi ed b- 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo be denied beca&se no evidence has been presented in s&pport thereof. 8tt-. ,ang ap&s fi ed a rep - to the opposition of co&nse for the 8dministrator of the +. 3. Iodges estate wherein it is c aimed that e6penses of administration inc &de reasonab e co&nse or attorne-9s fees for services to the e6ec&tor or administrator. 8s a matter of fact the fee agreement dated .ebr&arPage | 619

/#, "$(4 between the ;+IH and the aw firm of 17aeta, Gibbs X 17aeta as its co&nse 2;p. "/:'* "/:4, Fo . F, =p. "!'#5 which stip& ates the fees for said aw firm has been approved b- the +o&rt in its order dated ,arch !", "$(4. If pa-ment of the fees of the aw-ers for the administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges wi ca&se prej&dice to the estate of +. 3. Iodges, in ike manner the veragreement which provides for the pa-ment of attorne-9s fees to the co&nse for the ;+IH wi a so be prej&dicia to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2pp. ":'"*":"4, Fo . F, =p. "!'#5.
Page | 620

8tt-. Ierminio 17aeta fi ed a rejoinder dated 8&g&st "', "$(4 to the rep - to the opposition to the ,anifestation and Urgent ,otion a eging principa - that the estates of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges are not simi ar - sit&ated for the reason that +. 3. Iodges is an heir of Ainnie Jane Iodges whereas the atter is not an heir of the former for the reason that Ainnie Jane Iodges predeceased +. 3. Iodges 2pp. ":!$*":4:, Fo . F, =p. "!'#5> that 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo forma entered their appearance in beha f of 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on J&ne "', "$(4 2pp. "(!$*"(4', Fo . F, =p. "!'#5.
Page | 621

8tt-. ,ang ap&s fi ed a manifestation dated Eecember ":, "$(4 stating therein that J&dge He osi o iss&ed an order re%&iring the parties to s&bmit memorand&m in s&pport of their respective contentions. It is pra-ed in this manifestation that the ,anifestation and Urgent ,otion dated J&ne "', "$(4 be reso ved 2pp. (4!)*(4!$, Fo . FII, =p. "!'#5. 8tt-. Roman ,abanta, Jr. for the ;+IH fi ed a co&nter* manifestation dated Jan&ar- ), "$() asking that after the consideration b- the co&rt of a a egations and arg&ments and p eadings of the ;+IH in connection therewith 2"5 said
Page | 622

manifestation and &rgent motion of 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo be denied 2pp. (44/*(4)!, Fo . FII, =p. "!'#5. J&dge O&er&bin iss&ed an order dated Jan&ar- 4, "$() approving the motion dated J&ne "', "$(4 of the attorne-s for the administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and agreement anne6ed to said motion. The said order f&rther states< DThe 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is a&thori7ed to iss&e or sign whatever check or checks ma- be necessar- for the above p&rpose and the administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges is ordered to co&ntersign the same. 2pp. ()":* ()/!, Fo FII, =p. "!'#5.
Page | 623

8tt-. Roman ,abanta, Jr. for the ;+IH fi ed a manifestation and motion dated Jan&ar- "!, "$() asking that the order of Jan&ar- 4, "$() which was iss&ed b- J&dge O&er&bin be dec ared n& and void and to enjoin the c erk of co&rt and the administratri6 and administrator in these specia proceedings from a proceedings and action to enforce or comp with the provision of the aforesaid order of Jan&ar- 4, "$(). In s&pport of said manifestation and motion it is a eged that the order of Jan&ar- 4, "$() is n& and void beca&se the said order was never de ivered to the dep&t- c erk 8 bis of Hranch F 2the sa a of J&dge O&er&bin5 and the a eged order
Page | 624

was fo&nd in the drawer of the ate J&dge O&er&bin in his office when said drawer was opened on Jan&ar- "!, "$() after the death of J&dge O&er&bin b- ;erfecto O&er&bin, Jr., the son of the j&dge and in the presence of E6ec&tive J&dge Rovira and dep&t- c erk 8 bis 2=ec. ", R& e !(, 3ew +ivi +ode5 2;p. ((''*(('(, Fo . FIII, =p. "!'#5. 8tt-. Roman ,abanta, Jr. for the ;+IH fi ed a motion for reconsideration dated .ebr&ar- /!, "$() asking that the order dated Jan&ar- 4, "$(4 be reversed on the gro&nd that<

Page | 625

". 8ttorne-s retained m&st render services to the estate not to the persona heir> /. If services are rendered to both, fees sho& d be pro*rated between them> !. 8ttorne-s retained sho& d not represent conf icting interests> to the prej&dice of the other heirs not represented b- said attorne-s> 4. .ees m&st be commens&rate to the act&a services rendered to the estate> ). There m&st be assets in the estate to pa- for said fees 2;p. ((/)*((!(, Fo . FIII, =p. "!'#5. 8tt-. O&impo for 8dministratri6 ,agno of the estate of Ainnie Jane
Page | 626

Iodges fi ed a motion to s&bmit dated J& - "), "$() asking that the manifestation and &rgent motion dated J&ne "', "$(4 fi ed b- 8tt-s. ,ang ap&s and O&impo and other incidents direct - appertaining thereto be considered s&bmitted for consideration and approva 2pp. (#)$*(#(), Fo . FIII, =p. "!'#5. +onsidering the arg&ments and reasons in s&pport to the p eadings of both the 8dministratri6 and the ;+IH, and of 8tt-. Ge ada, hereinbefore mentioned, the +o&rt be ieves that the order of Jan&ar4, "$() is n& and void for the reason that the said order has not been fi ed with dep&t- c erk 8 bis of this co&rt 2Hranch F5 d&ring the
Page | 627

ifetime of J&dge O&er&bin who signed the said order. Iowever, the said manifestation and &rgent motion dated J&ne "', "$(4 is being treated and considered in this instant order. It is worth- to note that in the motion dated Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 2;p. ""4$* ""(!, Fo . F, =p. "!'#5 which has been fi ed b- 8tt-. Ge ada and his associates and 8tt-. Gibbs and other aw-ers in addition to the stip& ated fees for act&a services rendered. Iowever, the fee agreement dated .ebr&ar- /#, "$(4, between the 8dministrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges and 8tt-. Gibbs which provides for retainer fee of ;4,''' month - in addition to specific fees for act&a
Page | 628

appearances, reimb&rsement for e6pendit&res and contingent fees has a so been approved b- the +o&rt and said aw-ers have a read- been paid. 2pp. "/#!*"/#$, Fo . F, =p. ;roc. "!'# pp. "!#/* "!#!, Fo . F, =p. ;roc. "!'#5. 0IERE.1RE, the order dated Jan&ar- 4, "$() is herebdec ared n& and void. The manifestation and motion dated J&ne "', "$(4 which was fi ed b- the attorne-s for the administratri6 of the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is granted and the agreement anne6ed thereto is hereb- approved.

Page | 629

The administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is herebdirected to be needed to imp ement the approva of the agreement anne6ed to the motion and the administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges is directed to co&ntersign the said check or checks as the case ma- be. =1 1REEREE. thereb- imp -ing somehow that the co&rt ass&med the e6istence of independent b&t sim& taneo&s administrations. He that as it ma-, again, it appears that on 8&g&st (, "$(), the co&rt, acting on a motion of petitioner for the approva of deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- it as administrator of the estate of Iodges,
Page | 630

iss&ed the fo owing order, a so on appea herein< 8cting &pon the motion for approva of deeds of sa e for registered and of the ;+IH, 8dministrator of the Testate Estate of +. 3. Iodges in =p. ;roc. "(#/ 2Fo . FII, pp. //44*//4)5, dated J& - "(, "$(), fi ed b- 8tt-. +esar T. Tiro in representation of the aw firms of 17aeta, Gibbs and 17aeta and Tiro and Tiro and the opposition thereto of 8tt-. Ri7a R. O&impo 2Fo . FIII, pp. (:""*(:"!5 dated J& //, "$() and considering the a egations and reasons therein stated, the co&rt be ieves that the deeds of sa e sho& d be signed joint - b- the
Page | 631

;+IH, 8dministrator of the Testate Estate of +. 3. Iodges and 8ve ina 8. ,agno, 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and to this effect the ;+IH sho& d take the necessar- steps so that 8dministratri6 8ve ina 8. ,agno co& d sign the deeds of sa e. =1 1REEREE. 2p. /4:, Green Record on 8ppea .5 3otab - this order re%&ired that even the deeds e6ec&ted b- petitioner, as administrator of the Estate of Iodges, invo ving properties registered in his name, sho& d be co*signed brespondent ,agno. ! 8nd this was not an iso ated instance.
Page | 632

In her brief as appe ee, respondent ,agno states< 8fter the ower co&rt had a&thori7ed appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno to e6ec&te fina deeds of sa e p&rs&ant to contracts to se e6ec&ted b- +. 3. Iodges on .ebr&ar- /', "$(! 2pp. 4)*4(, Green R185, motions for the approva of fina deeds of sa e 2signed b- appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno and the administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, first Joe Iodges, then 8tt-. .ernando ,iraso and ater the appe ant5 were approved b- the ower co&rt &pon petition of appe ee ,agno9s co&nse , 8tt-. Aeon ;. Ge ada, on the basis of section : of R& e :$ of
Page | 633

the Revised R& es of +o&rt. =&bse%&ent -, the appe ant, after it had taken over the b& k of the assets of the two estates, started presenting these motions itse f. The first s&ch attempt was a D,otion for 8pprova of Eeeds of =a e for Registered Aand and +ance ations of ,ortgagesD dated J& - /", "$(4 fi ed b- 8tt-. +esar T. Tiro , co&nse for the appe ant, thereto anne6ing two 2/5 fina deeds of sa e and two 2/5 cance ations of mortgages signed b- appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno and E. R. ;a& ino, 8ssistant Fice* ;resident and ,anager of the appe ant 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, Fo . F, pp. "($4*"#'"5. This motion was approved b- the
Page | 634

ower co&rt on J& - /#, "$(4. It was fo owed b- another motion dated 8&g&st 4, "$(4 for the approva of one fina deed of sa e again signed b- appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno and E. R. ;a& ino 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#. Fo . F, pp. ":/)*":/:5, which was again approved b- the ower co&rt on 8&g&st #, "$(4. The gates having been opened, a f ood ens&ed< the appe ant s&bse%&ent - fi ed simi ar motions for the approva of a m& tit&de of deeds of sa es and cance ations of mortgages signed b- both the appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno and the appe ant.
Page | 635

8 random check of the records of =pecia ;roceeding 3o. "!'# a one wi show 8tt-. +esar T. Tiro as having presented for co&rt approva deeds of sa e of rea properties signed b- both appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno and E. R. ;a& ino in the fo owing n&mbers< 2a5 motion dated =eptember /", "$(4 G ( deeds of sa e> 2b5 motion dated 3ovember 4, "$(4 G " deed of sa e> 2c5 motion dated Eecember ", "$(4 G 4 deeds of sa e> 2d5 motion dated .ebr&ar- !, "$() G : deeds of sa e> 2f5 motion dated ,a- #, "$() G $ deeds of sa e. In view of the ver- e6tensive andho dings of the Iodges spo&ses and the man- motions fi ed concerning deeds of sa e of
Page | 636

rea properties e6ec&ted b- +. 3. Iodges the ower co&rt has had to constit&te specia separate e6pedientes in =pecia ;roceedings 3os. "!'# and "(#/ to inc &de mere motions for the approva of deeds of sa e of the conj&ga properties of the Iodges spo&ses. 8s an e6amp e, from among the ver- man-, &nder date of .ebr&ar!, "$(), 8tt-. +esar T. Tiro , as co&nse for the appe ant, fi ed D,otion for 8pprova of Eeeds of =a e for Registered Aand and +ance ations of ,ortgagesD 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, Fo . FIII, pp. ()#'*()$(5 the a egations of which read<
Page | 637

D". In his ifetime, the ate +. 3. Iodges e6ec&ted D+ontracts to =e D rea propert-, and the prospective b&-ers &nder said contracts have a read- paid the price and comp ied with the terms and conditions thereof> D/. In the co&rse of administration of both estates, mortgage debtors have a read- paid their debts sec&red b- chatte mortgages in favor of the ate +. 3. Iodges, and are now entit ed to re ease therefrom> D!. There are attached hereto doc&ments e6ec&ted joint - b- the 8dministratri6 in =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'# and the 8dministrator in =p.
Page | 638

;roc. 3o. "(#/, consisting of deeds of sa e in favor G .ernando +ano, Haco od +it-, 1cc. 3egros .e ,agban&a, I oi o +it;o icarpio ,. ;areno, Aa ;a7, I oi o +itRosario T. Aibre, Jaro, I oi o +it.ederico H. Torres, I oi o +itRe-na do T. Aata%&in, Aa ;a7, I oi o +it8nato io T. Fira-, I oi o +itHenjamin Ro ando, Jaro, I oi o +itand cance ations of mortgages in favor of G

Page | 639

;ab o ,an7ano, 1ton, I oi o Ricardo ,. Eiana, Eao, =an Jose, 8nti%&e =imp icio Tingson, I oi o +it8mado ,agban&a, ;ototan, I oi o Rose ia ,. Haes, Ho o, Ro6as +it0i iam Ha-ani, Ri7a Estan7&e a, I oi o +itE pidio Fi arete, ,o o, I oi o +it3orma T. R&i7, Jaro, I oi o +itD4. That the approva of the aforesaid doc&ments wi not red&ce the assets of the estates so as to prevent ancreditor from receiving his f&
Page | 640

debt or dividend.D

diminish

his

8nd the pra-er of this motion is indeed ver- revea ing< D0IERE.1RE, it is respectf& pra-ed that, &nder R& e :$, =ection : of the R& es of +o&rt, this honorab e co&rt approve the aforesaid deeds of sa e and cance ations of mortgages.D 2;p. ""!*""#, 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5 3one of these assertions is denied in ;etitioner9s rep - brief. .&rther indicating ack of concrete perspective or orientation on the part of the respondent co&rt and its hesitancto c ear &p matters prompt -, in its other appea ed order of 3ovember /!, "$(),
Page | 641

on pages !!4*!!) of the Green Record on 8ppea , said respondent co&rt a owed the movant Ricardo =a as, ;resident of appe ee 0estern Instit&te of Techno og- 2s&ccessor of ;anaEd&cationa Instit&tions, Inc.5, one of the parties with whom Iodges had contracts that are in %&estion in the appea s herein, to pa- petitioner, as 8dministrator of the estate of Iodges andJor respondent ,agno, as 8dministrator of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, th&s< +onsidering that in both cases there is as -et no j&dicia dec aration of heirs nor distrib&tion of properties to whomsoever are entit ed thereto, the +o&rt be ieves that pa-ment to both the
Page | 642

administrator of the testate estate of +. 3. Iodges and the administratri6 of the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges or to either one of the two estates is proper and ega . 0IERE.1RE, movant Ricardo T. =a as can pa- to both estates or either of them. =1 1REEREE. 2;p. !!4*!!), Green Record on 8ppea .5 1n the other hand, as stated ear ier, there were instances when respondent ,agno was given a&thorit- to act a one. .or instance, in the other appea ed order of Eecember "$, "$(4, on page //" of the Green Record on 8ppea , the
Page | 643

respondent co&rt approved pa-ments made b- her of overtime pa- to some emp o-ees of the co&rt who had he ped in gathering and preparing copies of parts of the records in both estates as fo ows< +onsidering that the e6penses s&bject of the motion to approve pa-ment of overtime pa- dated Eecember "', "$(4, are reasonab e and are be ieved bthis +o&rt to be a proper charge of administration chargeab e to the testate estate of the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges, the said e6penses are hereb- 8;;R1FEE and to be charged against the testate estate of the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges. The administrator of the testate
Page | 644

estate of the ate +har es 3ewton Iodges is hereb- ordered to co&ntersign the check or checks necessar- to pa- the said overtime pa- as shown b- the bi s marked 8nne6 D8D, DHD and D+D of the motion. =1 1REEREE. 2;p. //"*///, Green Record on 8ppea .5 Aikewise, the respondent co&rt approved deeds of sa e e6ec&ted brespondent ,agno a one, as 8dministratri6 of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, covering properties in the name of Iodges, p&rs&ant to Dcontracts to se D e6ec&ted bIodges, irrespective of whether the- were
Page | 645

e6ec&ted b- him before or after the death of his wife. The orders of this nat&re which are a so on appea herein are the fo owing< ". 1rder of ,arch !', "$((, on p. "!# of the Green Record on 8ppea , approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted brespondent ,agno in favor of appe ee Aoren7o +ar es on .ebr&ar- /4, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed bIodges on J&ne "#, "$):, after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner c aims was cance ed b- it for fai &re of +ar es to pa- the insta ments d&e on Jan&ar- #, "$(). /. 1rder of 8pri ), "$((, on pp. "!$* "4', id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee =a vador G&7man on
Page | 646

.ebr&ar- /:, "$(( p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on =eptember "!, "$(', after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner c aims it cance ed on ,arch !, "$() in view of fai &re of said appe ee to pa- the insta ments on time. !. 1rder of 8pri /', "$((, on pp. "(#* "(:, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee ;&rificacion +oronado on ,arch /:, "$(( p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on 8&g&st "4, "$(", after the death of his wife. 4. 1rder of 8pri /', "$((, on pp. "(:* "($, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee . orenia Harrido on ,arch /:, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D
Page | 647

signed b- Iodges on .ebr&ar- /", "$):, after the death of his wife. ). 1rder of J&ne #, "$((, on pp. ":4* ":), id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee He ce7ar +a&sing on ,a- /, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on .ebr&ar- "', "$)$, after the death of his wife. (. 1rder of J&ne /", "$((, on pp. /""* /"/, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee 8rtheo Thomas Jamir on J&ne !, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on ,a- /(, "$(", after the death of his wife. #. 1rder of J&ne /", "$((, on pp. /"/* /"!, id., approving the deed of sa e
Page | 648

e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ees Graciano A&cero and ,e %&iades Hatisanan on J&ne ( and J&ne !, "$((, respective -, p&rs&ant to Dcontracts to se D signed b- Iodges on J&ne $, "$)$ and 3ovember /#, "$(", respective -, after the death of his wife. :. 1rder of Eecember /, "$((, on pp. !'!*!'4, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ees Espiridion ;artisa a, 0inifredo Espada and Rosario 8 ingasa on =eptember (, "$((, 8&g&st "#, "$(( and 8&g&st !, "$((, respective -, p&rs&ant to Dcontracts to se D signed bIodges on 8pri /', "$(', 8pri ":, "$(' and 8&g&st /), "$):, respective -, that is, after the death of his wife.
Page | 649

$. 1rder of 8pri ), "$((, on pp. "!#* "!:, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee 8 fredo +atedra on ,arch /, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on ,a- /$, "$)4, before the death of his wife, which contract petitioner c aims it had cance ed on .ebr&ar- "(, "$(( for fai &re of appe ee +atedra to pa- the insta ments d&e on time. "'. 1rder of 8pri ), "$((, on pp. "!:* "!$, id., approving the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee Jose ;ab ico on ,arch #, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed b- Iodges on ,arch #, "$)', after the death of his wife, which contract petitioner c aims it had
Page | 650

cance ed on J&ne /$, "$(', for fai &re of appe ee ;ab ico to pa- the insta ments d&e on time. "". 1rder of Eecember /, "$((, on pp. !'!*!'4, id., insofar as it approved the deed of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno in favor of appe ee ;epito I-& ores on =eptember (, "$((, p&rs&ant to a Dcontract to se D signed bIodges on .ebr&ar- ), "$)", before the death of his wife. "/. 1rder of Jan&ar- !, "$(#, on pp. !!)*!!(, id., approving three deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno, one in favor of appe ees =antiago ;acaonsis and two in favor of appe ee 8de fa ;rema- on on Eecember ), "$(( and 3ovember !, "$((, respective -, p&rs&ant to separate Dpromises to se D
Page | 651

signed respective - b- Iodges on ,a/(, "$)) and Jan&ar- !', "$)4, before the death of his wife, and 1ctober !", "$)$, after her death. In ike manner, there were a so instances when respondent co&rt approved deeds of sa e e6ec&ted bpetitioner a one and witho&t the conc&rrence of respondent ,agno, and s&ch approva s have not been the s&bject of an- appea . 3o ess than petitioner points this o&t on pages "4$* ")' of its brief as appe ant th&s< The points of fact and aw pertaining to the two abovecited assignments of error have a readbeen disc&ssed previo&s -. In the first abovecited error, the order a &ded to was genera , and as
Page | 652

a read- e6p ained before, it was, as admitted b- the ower co&rt itse f, s&perseded b- the partic& ar orders approving specific fina deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- the appe ee, 8ve ina 8. ,agno, which are s&bject of this appea , as we as the partic& ar orders approving specific fina deeds of sa e e6ec&ted bthe appe ant, ;hi ippine +ommercia and Ind&stria Hank, which were never appea ed b- the appe ee, 8ve ina 8. ,agno, nor b- an- part- for that matter, and which are now therefore fina . 3ow, sim& taneo&s - with the foregoing incidents, others of more f&ndamenta and a embracing significance
Page | 653

deve oped. 1n 1ctober ), "$(!, over the signat&re of 8tt-. 8 ison J. Gibbs in representation of the aw firm of 17aeta, Gibbs X 17aeta, as co&nse for the co* administrators Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso , the fo owing se f* e6p anator- motion was fi ed< T%G;&T MOT3O& HO% A& A))OT&T3&G A&9 9;L3G;%] TO A9M3&3 T%AT3O& OH T7; ; TAT; OH ). &. 7O9G; OH ALL OH T7; A ;T OH T7; )O&JTGAL 2A%T&;% 732 OH T7; 9;);A ;9 L3&&3; JA&; 7O9G; A&9 ) &. 7O9G; ;^3 T3&G A OH MA] 23, 19O+ 2LT ALL
Page | 654

T7; %;&T , ;MOLTM;&T A&9 3&)OM; T7;%;H%OM. +1,E= 310 the co*administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, Joe Iodges, thro&gh his &ndersigned attorne-s in the above*entit ed proceedings, and to this Ionorab e +o&rt respectf& - a eges< 2"5 1n ,a- /!, "$)# Ainnie Jane Iodges died in I oi o +it-. 2/5 1n J&ne /:, "$)# this Ionorab e +o&rt admitted to probate the Aast 0i and Testament of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted 3ovember //, "$)/ and appointed +. 3. Iodges as E6ec&tor of the estate
Page | 655

of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2pp. /4*/), Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5. 2!5 1n J& - ", "$)# this Ionorab e +o&rt iss&ed Aetters Testamentarto +. 3. Iodges in the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2p. !', Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5. 245 1n Eecember "4, "$)# this Ionorab e +o&rt, on the basis of the fo owing a egations in a ,otion dated Eecember "", "$)# fi ed b- Aeon ;. Ge ada as attorne- for the e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges< DThat herein E6ec&tor, 2is5 not on - part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so,t1e $ucce$$or to all
Page | 656

t1e propertie$ left /! t1e decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$.D 2p. 44, Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#> emphasis s&pp ied.5 iss&ed the fo owing order< D8s pra-ed for b- 8ttorneGe ada, co&nse for the E6ec&tor-, for t1e rea$on$ $tated in 1i$ #otion dated 9ece#/er 11, 19O+ 01ic1 t1e court con$ider$ 0ell ta:en, a the sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of a properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges are hereb8;;R1FEE. The said
Page | 657

e6ec&tor is f&rther a&thori7ed to e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft b- the said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in con$onance 0it1 t1e 0i$1e$ contained in t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent of t1e latter.D 2p. 4(, Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#> emphasis s&pp ied.5 2)5 1n 8pri /", "$)$ this Ionorab e +o&rt approved the inventorand acco&nting s&bmitted b- +. 3. Iodges thro&gh his co&nse Aeon ;. Ge ada on 8pri "4, "$)$ wherein he a eged among other things
Page | 658

DThat no person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, be given notice, as 1erein e'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of t1e decea$ed, in accordance 0it1 t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent alread! pro/ated /! t1e 7onora/le )ourt.D 2pp. ##*#:, Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#> emphasis s&pp ied.5. 2(5 1n J& - !', "$(' this Ionorab e +o&rt approved the D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&ntD s&bmitted b- +. 3. Iodges thro&gh his co&nse Aeon ;. Ge ada on J& - /", "$(' wherein he a eged among other things<
Page | 659

DThat no person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, be given notice as 1erein e'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of t1e decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$, in accordance with the ast wi and testament of the deceased, a readprobated b- this Ionorab e +o&rt.D 2pp. :"*:/. Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#> emphasis s&pp ied.5 2#5 1n ,a- /, "$(" this Ionorab e co&rt approved the D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt H- The E6ec&tor for the Cear "$('D s&bmitted thro&gh Aeon ;. Ge ada
Page | 660

on 8pri a eged<

/', "$(" wherein he

That no person interested in the ;hi ippines be given notice, of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, as 1erein ;'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of t1e decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$, in accordance 0it1 t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent of t1e decea$ed, alread! pro/ated /! t1i$ 7onora/le )ourt. 2pp. $'*$". Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#> emphasis s&pp ied.5 2:5 1n Eecember /), "$(/, +.3. Iodges died.
Page | 661

2$5 1n Eecember /), "$(/, on the Urgent ;'-parte ,otion of Aeon ;. Ge ada fi ed on - in =pecia ;roceeding 3o. "!'#, this Ionorab e +o&rt appointed 8ve ina 8. ,agno D8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, in the atter case, beca&se the ast wi of said +har es 3ewton Iodges is sti kept in his va& t or iron safe and that the rea and persona properties of both spo&ses ma- be ost, damaged or go to waste, &n ess a =pecia 8dministratri6 is appointed.D 2p. "''. Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5
Page | 662

2"'5 1n Eecember /(, "$(/ Aetters of 8dministration were iss&ed to 8ve ina ,agno p&rs&ant to this Ionorab e +o&rt9s aforesaid 1rder of Eecember /), "$(/ D0ith f& a&thorit- to take possession of a the propertof said deceased in anprovince or provinces in which it ma- be sit&ated and to perform a other acts necessarfor the preservation of said propert-, said 8dministratri6 andJor =pecia 8dministratri6 having fi ed a bond satisfactor- to the +o&rt.D 2p. "'/, Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5
Page | 663

2""5 1n Jan&ar- //, "$(! this Ionorab e +o&rt on petition of Aeon ;. Ge ada of Jan&ar- /", "$(! iss&ed Aetters of 8dministration to< 2a5 8ve ina 8. ,agno as 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> 2b5 8ve ina 8. ,agno as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges> and 2c5 Joe Iodges as +o*=pecia 8dministrator of the Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges. 2p. 4!, Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5 2"/5 1n .ebr&ar- /', "$(! this Ionorab e +o&rt on the basis of a motion fi ed b- Aeon ;. Ge ada as
Page | 664

ega co&nse on .ebr&ar- "(, "$(! for 8ve ina 8. ,agno acting as 8dministratri6 of the Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges 2pp. ""4* ""(, =p. ;roc. "!'#5 iss&ed the fo owing order< D... se a&tori7a a a%&e a 28ve ina 8. ,agno5 a firmar escrit&ras de venta definitiva de propiedades c&biertas por contratos para vender, firmados, en vida, por e finado +har es 3ewton Iodges, cada ve7 %&e e precio estip& ado en cada contrato este tota mente pagado. =e a&tori7a ig&a mente a a misma a firmar escrit&ras de
Page | 665

cance acion de hipoteca tanto de bienes rea es como persona es cada ve7 %&e a consideracion de cada hipoteca este tota mente pagada. D+ada &na de dichas escrit&ras %&e se otorg&en debe ser sometida para a aprobacion de este J&7gado.D 2p. ""#, =p. ;roc. "!'#5. L;ar " 2c5, Rep - to ,otion .or Remova of Joe IodgesM 2"!5 1n =eptember (, "$(! Aeon ;. Ge ada, acting as attorne- for 8ve ina 8. ,agno as 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, a eges<
Page | 666

!. G That since Jan&ar-, "$(!, both estates of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +har es 3ewton Iodges have been receiving in f& , pa-ments for those Dcontracts to se D entered into b- +. 3. Iodges d&ring his ifetime, and the p&rchasers have been demanding the e6ec&tion of definite deeds of sa e in their favor. 4. G That hereto attached are thirteen 2"!5 copies deeds of sa e e6ec&ted bthe 8dministratri6 and b- the co*administrator 2.ernando ;. ,iraso 5 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and
Page | 667

+har es 3ewton Iodges respective -, in comp iance with the terms and conditions of the respective Dcontracts to se D e6ec&ted b- the parties thereto.D 2"45 The properties invo ved in the aforesaid motion of =eptember "(, "$(! are a registered in the name of the deceased +. 3. Iodges. 2")5 8ve ina 8. ,agno, it is a eged on information and be ief, has been advertising in the newspaper in I oi o th&s -< .or =a e Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +har es 3ewton Iodges.
Page | 668

8 Rea Estate or ;ersona ;ropert- wi be so d on .irst +ome .irst =erved Hasis. 8ve ina 8. ,agno 8dminis tratri6 2"(5 8ve ina 8. ,agno, it is a eged on information and be ief, has paid and sti is pa-ing s&ms of moneto s&ndr- persons. 2"#5 Joe Iodges thro&gh the &ndersigned attorne-s manifested d&ring the hearings before this Ionorab e +o&rt on =eptember ) and (, "$(! that the estate of +. 3. Iodges was c aiming a of the
Page | 669

assets be onging to the deceased spo&ses Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges sit&ated in ;hi ippines beca&se of the aforesaid e ection b- +. 3. Iodges wherein he c aimed and took possession as so e owner of a of said assets d&ring the administration of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on the gro&nd that he was the so e devisee and egatee &nder her Aast 0i and Testament. 2":5 8ve ina 8. ,agno has s&bmitted no inventor- and acco&nting of her administration as 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate of +. 3.
Page | 670

Iodges. Iowever, from manifestations made b- 8ve ina 8. ,agno and her ega co&nse , Aeon ;. Ge ada, there is no %&estion she wi c aim that at east fift- per cent 2)'B5 of the conj&ga assets of the deceased spo&ses and the rents, emo &ments and income therefrom be ong to the Iigdon fami - who are named in paragraphs .o&rth and .ifth of the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2p. ), Rec. =p. ;roc. "!'#5. 0IERE.1RE, premises considered, movant respectf& pra-s that this Ionorab e +o&rt, after d&e hearing, order< 2"5 8ve ina 8. ,agno to s&bmit an inventor- and acco&nting of a of
Page | 671

the f&nds, properties and assets of an- character be onging to the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges which have come into her possession, with f& detai s of what she has done with them> 2/5 8ve ina 8. ,agno to t&rn over and de iver to the 8dministrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges a of the f&nds, properties and assets of an- character remaining in her possession> 2!5 ;ending this Ionorab e +o&rt9s adj&dication of the aforesaid iss&es, 8ve ina 8. ,agno to stop, &n ess she first sec&res the conformit- of Joe Iodges 2or his d& - a&thori7ed representative,
Page | 672

s&ch as the &ndersigned attorne-s5 as the +o*administrator and attorne-*in*fact of a majorit- of the beneficiaries of the estate of +. 3. Iodges< 2a5 8dvertising the sa e and the sa e of the properties of the estates< 2b5 Emp o-ing personne and pa-ing them an- compensation. 245 =&ch other re ief as this Ionorab e +o&rt ma- deem j&st and e%&itab e in the premises. 28nne6 DTD, ;etition.5 8 most a -ear thereafter, or on =eptember "4, "$(4, after the co* administrators Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso were rep aced bPage | 673

herein petitioner ;hi ippine +ommercia and Ind&stria Hank as so e administrator, p&rs&ant to an agreement of a the heirs of Iodges approved bthe co&rt, and beca&se the above motion of 1ctober ), "$(! had not -et been heard d&e to the absence from the co&ntr- of 8tt-. Gibbs, petitioner fi ed the fo owing< MA&3H; TAT3O& A&9 MOT3O&, 3&)LT93&G MOT3O& TO ;T HO% 7;A%3&G A&9 %; OLG; CT%G;&T MOT3O& HO% A& A))OT&T3&G A&9 9;L3G;%] TO A9M3&3 T%ATO% OH T7; ; TAT; OH ). &. 7O9G; OH ALL T7; A ;T OH
Page | 674

T7; )O&JTGAL 2A%T&;% 732 OH T7; 9;);A ;9 L3&&3; JA&; 7O9G; A&9 ). &. 7O9G; ;^3 T3&G A OH MA] 23, 19O+ 2LT ALL OH T7; %;&T , ;MOLTM;&T A&9 3&)OM; T7;%;H%OM OH O)TO(;% O, 19>3. +1,E= 310 ;hi ippine +ommercia and Ind&stria Hank 2hereinafter referred to as ;+IH5, the administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, deceased, in =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "(#/, thro&gh its &ndersigned co&nse , and to this Ionorab e +o&rt respectf& - a eges that<
Page | 675

". 1n 1ctober ), "$(!, Joe Iodges acting as the co* administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges fi ed, thro&gh the &ndersigned attorne-s, an DUrgent ,otion .or 8n 8cco&nting and Ee iver- To 8dministrator of the Estate of +. 3. Iodges of a 1f The 8ssets 1f The +onj&ga ;artnership of The Eeceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges E6isting as 1f ,a-, /!, "$)# ; &s 8 1f The Rents, Emo &ments and Income TherefromD 2pp. )!(*)4/, +.I Rec. =. ;. 3o. "(#/5. /. 1n Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 this Ionorab e +o&rt, on the basis of an amicab e agreement entered
Page | 676

into on Jan&ar- /!, "$(4 b- the two co*administrators of the estate of +. 3. Iodges and virt&a - a of the heirs of +. 3. Iodges 2p. $"/, +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "(#/5, reso ved the disp&te over who sho& d act as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges bappointing the ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges 2pp. $')*$'(, +.I Rec. =. ;. 3o. "(#/5 and iss&ing etters of administration to the ;+IH. !. 1n Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 virt&a - a of the heirs of +. 3. Iodges, Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso acting as the two co*administrators of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, 8ve ina 8. ,agno acting as the
Page | 677

administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, and ,essrs. 0i iam Hrown and 8rde Co&ng 8cting for a of the Iigdon fami who c aim to be the so e beneficiaries of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and vario&s ega co&nse representing the aforenamed parties entered into an amicab e agreement, which was approved b- this Ionorab e +o&rt, wherein the parties thereto agreed that certain s&ms of mone- were to be paid in sett ement of different c aims against the two estates and t1at t1e a$$et$ Dto t1e e'tent t1e! e'i$tedEof /ot1 e$tate$ 0ould /e ad#ini$trated jointl! /! t1e 2)3( a$ ad#ini$trator of t1e e$tate of ). &. 7od"e$ and
Page | 678

Avelina A. Ma"no a$ ad#ini$tratri' of t1e e$tate of Linnie Jane 7od"e$, s&bject, however, to the aforesaid 1ctober ), "$(! ,otion, name -, the ;+IH9s c aim to e6c &sive possession and ownership of one*h&ndred percent 2"''"#,5 2or, in the a ternative, sevent-*five percent L#)BM of a assets owned b- +. 3. Iodges or Ainnie Jane Iodges sit&ated in the ;hi ippines. 1n .ebr&ar- ", "$(4 2pp. $!4*$!), +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "(#/5 this Ionorab e +o&rt amended its order of Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 b&t in no wa- changes its recognition of the aforedescribed basic demand b- the ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges to one h&ndred percent
Page | 679

2"''B5 of the assets c aimed bboth estates. 4. 1n .ebr&ar- "), "$(4 the ;+IH fi ed a D,otion to Reso veD the aforesaid ,otion of 1ctober ), "$(!. This Ionorab e +o&rt set for hearing on J&ne "", "$(4 the ,otion of 1ctober ), "$(!. ). 1n J&ne "", "$(4, beca&se the &ndersigned 8 ison J. Gibbs was absent in the United =tates, this Ionorab e +o&rt ordered the indefinite postponement of the hearing of the ,otion of 1ctober ), "$(!. (. =ince its appointment as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges the ;+IH has not been
Page | 680

ab e to proper - carr- o&t its d&ties and ob igations as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges beca&se of the fo owing acts, among others, of 8ve ina 8. ,agno and those who c aim to act for her as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges< 2a5 8ve ina 8. ,agno i ega acts as if she is in e6c &sive contro of a of the assets in the ;hi ippines of both estates inc &ding those c aimed b- the estate of +. 3. Iodges as evidenced in part b- her ocking the premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- on 8&g&st !", "$(4 and ref&sing to reopen same
Page | 681

&nti ordered to do so b- this Ionorab e +o&rt on =eptember #, "$(4. 2b5 8ve ina 8. ,agno i ega acts as tho&gh she a one ma- decide how the assets of the estate of +.3. Iodges sho& d be administered, who the ;+IH sha emp o- and how m&ch the- ma- be paid as evidenced in part- b- her ref&sa to sign checks iss&ed b- the ;+IH pa-ab e to the &ndersigned co&nse p&rs&ant to their fee agreement approved b- this Ionorab e +o&rt in its order dated ,arch !", "$(4.
Page | 682

2c5 8ve ina 8. ,agno i ega gives access to and t&rns over possession of the records and assets of the estate of +.3. Iodges to the attorne-*in*fact of the Iigdon .ami -, ,r. James A. =& ivan, as evidenced in part b- the cashing of his persona checks. 2d5 8ve ina 8. ,agno i ega ref&ses to e6ec&te checks prepared b- the ;+IH drawn to pa- e6penses of the estate of +. 3. Iodges as evidenced in part b- the check drawn to reimb&rse the ;+IH9s advance of ;4:,44).)' to pa- the "$(4
Page | 683

income ta6es reported d&e and pa-ab e b- the estate of +.3. Iodges. #. Under and p&rs&ant to the orders of this Ionorab e +o&rt, partic& ar - those of Jan&ar- /4 and .ebr&ar- ", "$(4, and the mandate contained in its Aetters of 8dministration iss&ed on Jan&ar/4, "$(4 to the ;+IH, it has Df& a&thorit- to take possession of a the propertof the deceased +. 3. Iodges Dand to perform a other acts necessarfor the preservation of said
Page | 684

propert-.D 2p. $"4, +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "(#/.5 :. 8s administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, the ;+IH c aims the right to the immediate e6c &sive possession and contro of a of the properties, acco&nts receivab es, co&rt cases, bank acco&nts and other assets, inc &ding the doc&mentar- records evidencing same, which e6isted in the ;hi ippines on the date of +. 3. Iodges9 death, Eecember /), "$(/, and were in his possession and registered in his name a one. The ;+IH knows of no assets in the ;hi ippines registered in the name of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, or,
Page | 685

+. 3. Iodges, E6ec&tor of the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/. 8 of the assets of which the ;+IH has know edge are either registered in the name of +. 3. Iodges, a one or were derived therefrom since his death on Eecember /), "$(/. $. The ;+IH as the c&rrent administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, deceased, s&cceeded to a of the rights of the previo&s d& - appointed administrators of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, to wit< 2a5 1n Eecember /), "$(/, date of +. 3. Iodges9 death, this Ionorab e +o&rt appointed ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno sim& taneo&s - as<
Page | 686

2i5 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2p. "'/, +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "!'#5 to rep ace the deceased +. 3. Iodges who on ,a- /:, "$)# was appointed =pecia 8dministrator 2p. "!. +.I Rec. =.;. 3o. "!'#5 and on J& - ", "$)# E6ec&tor of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2p. !', +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "!'#5. 2ii5 pecial Ad#ini$tratri' of t1e e$tate of ). &. 7od"e$ 2p. "'/, +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "!'#5. 2b5 1n Eecember /$, "$(/ this Ionorab e +o&rt
Page | 687

appointed Iaro d ?. Eavies as co*specia administrator of the estate of +.3. Iodges a ong with 8ve ina 8. ,agno 2pp. "':*""", +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "!'#5. 2c5 1n Jan&ar- //, "$(!, with the conformit- of 8ve ina 8. ,agno, Iaro d ?. Eavies resigned in favor of Joe Iodges 2pp. !)*!(, +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "(#/5 who there&pon was appointed on Jan&ar- //, "$(! b- this Ionorab e +o&rt as specia co*administrator of the estate of +.3. Iodges 2pp. !:*4' X 4!, +.I Rec. =.;. 3o. "(#/5 a ong with ,iss ,agno who
Page | 688

at that time was sti acting as specia co*administratri6 of the estate of +. 3. Iodges. 2d5 1n .ebr&ar- //, "$(!, witho&t objection on the part of 8ve ina 8. ,agno, this Ionorab e +o&rt appointed Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso as co*administrators of the estate of +.3. Iodges 2pp. #(*#:, :" X :), +.I Rec., =.;. 3o. "(#/5. "'. ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno, p&rs&ant to the orders of this Ionorab e +o&rt of Eecember /), "$(/, took possession of a ;hi ippine 8ssets now c aimed bthe two estates. Aega -, ,iss ,agno co& d take possession of
Page | 689

the assets registered in the name of +. 3. Iodges a one on - in her capacit- as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the Estate of +.3. Iodges. 0ith the appointment b- this Ionorab e +o&rt on .ebr&ar- //, "$(! of Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso as the co*administrators of the estate of +.3. Iodges, the- ega were entit ed to take over from ,iss ,agno the f& and e6c &sive possession of a of the assets of the estate of +.3. Iodges. 0ith the appointment on Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 of the ;+IH as the so e administrator of the estate of +.3. Iodges in s&bstit&tion of Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso , the ;+IH ega - became the on part- entit ed to the so e and
Page | 690

e6c &sive possession of a of the assets of the estate of +. 3. Iodges. "". The ;+IH9s predecessors s&bmitted their acco&nting and this Ionorab e +o&rt approved same, to wit< 2a5 The acco&nting of Iaro d ?. Eavies dated Jan&ar- ":, "$(! 2pp. "(*!!, +.I Rec. =.;. 3o. "(#/5> which shows or its face the< 2i5 +onformit- of 8ve ina 8. ,agno acting as D8dministratri6 of the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and =pecia 8dministratri6 of the Estate of +. 3. IodgesD>
Page | 691

2ii5 +onformit- of Aes ie Echo s, a Te6as aw-er acting for the heirs of +.3. Iodges> and 2iii5 +onformit- of 0i iam Hrown, a Te6as aw-er acting for the Iigdon fami - who c aim to be the on - heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2pp. ":, /)*!!, +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "(#/5. 3ote< This acco&nting was approved b- this Ionorab e +o&rt on Jan&ar- //, "$(! 2p. !4, +.I Rec., =. ;. 3o. "(#/5. 2b5 The acco&nting of Joe Iodges and .ernando ;. ,iraso as of Jan&ar- /!,
Page | 692

"$(4, fi ed .ebr&ar- /4, "$(4 2pp. $$'*"''', +.I Rec. =.;. 3o. "(#/ and pp. ":'(*":4:, +.I Rec. =.;. 3o. "!'#5. 3ote< This acco&nting was approved b- this Ionorab e +o&rt on ,arch !, "$(4. 2c5 The ;+IH and its &ndersigned aw-ers are aware of no report or acco&nting s&bmitted b8ve ina 8. ,agno of her acts as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges or specia administratri6 of the estate of +.3. Iodges, &n ess it is the acco&nting of Iaro d ?. Eavies as specia co*administrator of the estate
Page | 693

of +.3. Iodges dated Jan&ar- ":, "$(! to which ,iss ,agno manifested her conformit- 2$upra5. "/. In the aforesaid agreement of Jan&ar- /4, "$(4, ,iss 8ve ina 8. ,agno agreed to receive ;"','''.'' Dfor her services as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD and in addition she agreed to be emp o-ed, starting .ebr&ar- ", "$(4, at Da month - sa ar- of ;)''.'' for her services as an emp o-ee of both estates.D /4 ems.
Page | 694

"!. Under the aforesaid agreement of Jan&ar- /4, "$(4 and the orders of this Ionorab e +o&rt of same date, the ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges is entit ed to the e6c &sive possession of a records, properties and assets in the name of +. 3. Iodges as of the date of his death on Eecember /), "$(/ which were in the possession of the deceased +. 3. Iodges on that date and which then passed to the possession of ,iss ,agno in her capacit- as =pecia +o* 8dministratri6 of the estate of +. 3. Iodges or the possession of Joe Iodges or .ernando ;. ,iraso as co*administrators of the estate of +. 3. Iodges.
Page | 695

"4. Heca&se of ,iss ,agno9s ref&sa to comp - with the reasonab e re%&est of ;+IH concerning the assets of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, the ;+IH dismissed ,iss ,agno as an emp o-ee of the estate of +. 3. Iodges effective 8&g&st !", "$(4. 1n =eptember ", "$(4 ,iss ,agno ocked the premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet and denied the ;+IH access thereto. Upon the Urgent ,otion of the ;+IH dated =eptember !, "$(4, this Ionorab e +o&rt on =eptember #, "$(4 ordered ,iss ,agno to reopen the aforesaid premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet and permit the ;+IH access
Page | 696

thereto no ater than =eptember :, "$(4. "). The ;+IH p&rs&ant to the aforesaid orders of this Ionorab e +o&rt is again in ph-sica possession of a of the assets of the estate of +. 3. Iodges. Iowever, the ;+IH is not in e6c &sive contro of the aforesaid records, properties and assets beca&se ,iss ,agno contin&es to assert the c aims hereinabove o&t ined in paragraph (, contin&es to &se her own ocks to the doors of the aforesaid premises at /'(* /': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- and contin&es to den- the ;+IH its right to know the combinations to the doors of the va& t and safes
Page | 697

sit&ated within the premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet despite the fact that said combinations were known to on - +. 3. Iodges d&ring his ifetime. "(. The ;hi ippine estate and inheritance ta6es assessed the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges were assessed and paid on the basis that +. 3. Iodges is the so e beneficiar- of the assets of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges sit&ated in the ;hi ippines. 8ve ina 8. ,agno and her ega co&nse at no time have %&estioned the va iditof the aforesaid assessment and the pa-ment of the corresponding ;hi ippine death ta6es.
Page | 698

"#. 3othing f&rther remains to be done in the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges e6cept to reso ve the aforesaid ,otion of 1ctober ), "$(! and grant the ;+IH the e6c &sive possession and contro of a of the records, properties and assets of the estate of +. 3. Iodges. ":. =&ch assets as ma- have e6isted of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges were ordered b- this Ionorab e +o&rt in specia ;roceedings 3o. "!'# to be t&rned over and de ivered to +. 3. Iodges a one. Ie in fact took possession of them before his death and asserted and e6ercised the right of e6c &sive ownership
Page | 699

over the said assets as the so e beneficiar- of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 0IERE.1RE, premises considered, the ;+IH respectf& petitions that this Ionorab e co&rt< 2"5 =et the ,otion of 1ctober ), "$(! for hearing at the ear iest possib e date with notice to a interested parties> 2/5 1rder 8ve ina 8. ,agno to s&bmit an inventorand acco&nting as 8dministratri6 of the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +o*8dministratri6 of the Estate of +. 3. Iodges of a of the f&nds, properties and assets of ancharacter be onging to the
Page | 700

deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges which have come into her possession, with f& detai s of what she has done with them> 2!5 1rder 8ve ina 8. ,agno to t&rn over and de iver to the ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges a of the f&nds, properties and assets of an- character remaining in her possession> 245 ;ending this Ionorab e +o&rt9s adj&dication of the aforesaid iss&es, order 8ve ina 8. ,agno and her representatives to stop interferring with the administration of the estate of +. 3. Iodges bthe ;+IH and its d& - a&thori7ed representatives>
Page | 701

2)5 Enjoin 8ve ina 8. ,agno from working in the premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- as an emp o-ee of the estate of +. 3. Iodges and approve her dismissa as s&ch b- the ;+IH effective 8&g&st !", "$(4> 2(5 Enjoin James A. =& ivan, 8ttorne-s ,ang ap&s and O&impo and others a eged - representing ,iss ,agno from entering the premises at /'(*/': G&anco =treet, I oi o +it- or an- other properties of +. 3. Iodges witho&t the e6press permission of the ;+IH> 2#5 1rder s&ch other re ief as this Ionorab e +o&rt finds j&st and
Page | 702

e%&itab e in the premises. 28nne6 DUD ;etition.5 1n Jan&ar- :, "$(), petitioner a so fi ed a motion for D1fficia Eec aration of Ieirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges EstateD a eging< +1,E= 310 ;hi ippine +ommercia and Ind&stria Hank 2hereinafter referred to as ;+IH5, as administrator of the estate of the ate +. 3. Iodges, thro&gh the &ndersigned co&nse , and to this Ionorab e +o&rt respectf& - a eges that< ". E&ring their marriage, spo&ses +har es 3ewton Iodges and Ainnie Jane Iodges, 8merican citi7ens origina - from the =tate of Te6as, U.=.8., ac%&ired and
Page | 703

acc&m& ated considerab e assets and properties in the ;hi ippines and in the =tates of Te6as and 1k ahoma, United =tates of 8merica. 8 said properties constit&ted their conj&ga estate. /. 8 tho&gh Te6as was the domici e of origin of the Iodges spo&ses, this Ionorab e +o&rt, in its orders dated ,arch !" and Eecember "/, "$(4 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, pp. ****> =p. ;roc. 3o. "(#/, p. ****5, conc &sive fo&nd and categorica - r& ed that said spo&ses had ived and worked for more than )' -ears in I oi o +itand had, therefore, ac%&ired a domici e of choice in said cit-,
Page | 704

which the- retained &nti the time of their respective deaths. !. 1n 3ovember //, "$)/, Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted in the +itof I oi o her Aast 0i and Testament, a cop- of which is hereto attached as Anne' CAC. The be%&ests in said wi pertinent to the present iss&e are the $econd, t1ird, and fourt1 provisions, which we %&ote in f& here&nder. =E+13E< I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of mestate, both persona and rea , wherever sit&ated, or ocated, to m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and to ho d &nto him,
Page | 705

m- said h&sband d&ring his nat&ra ifetime. TIIRE< I desire, direct and provide that m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, sha have the right to manage, contro , &se and enjo- said estate d&ring his ifetime, and he is herebgiven the right to make anchanges in the ph-sica properties of said estate bsa e of an- part thereof which he think best, and the p&rchase of an- other or additiona propert- as he mathink best> to e6ec&te conve-ances with or witho&t genera or specia warrant-,
Page | 706

conve-ing in fee simp e or for an- other term or time, anpropert- which he ma- deem proper to dispose of> to ease an- of the rea propert- for oi , gas andJor other minera s, and a s&ch deeds or eases sha pass the abso &te fee simp e tit e to the interest so conve-ed in s&ch propert- as he ma- e ect to se . 8 rents, emo &ments and income from said estate sha be ong to him, and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to &se an- part of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire. It is provided herein, however, that he sha not se or otherwise dispose of an- of
Page | 707

the improved propert- now owned b- &s ocated at, in or near the +it- of A&bbock, Te6as, b&t he sha have the f& right to ease, manage and enjo- the same d&ring his ifetime, as above provided. Ie sha have the right to s&b*divide anfarm and and se ots therein, and ma- se &nimproved town ots. .1URTI< 8t the death of msaid h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate both rea and persona , wherever
Page | 708

sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a - divided among mbrothers and sisters, share and share a ike, name -< DEsta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Homan and 3imra- Iigdon.D 4. 1n 3ovember "4, "$)!, +. 3. Iodges e6ec&ted in the +it- of I oi o his Aast 0i and Testament, a cop- of which is hereto attached as Anne' C( C. In said 0i , +. 3. Iodges designated his wife, Ainnie Jane Iodges, as his beneficiar&sing the identica ang&age she &sed in the second and third provisos of her 0i , $upra.
Page | 709

). 1n ,a- /!, "$)# Ainnie Jane Iodges died in I oi o +it-, predeceasing her h&sband bmore than five 2)5 -ears. 8t the time of her death, she had no forced or comp& sor- heir, e6cept her h&sband, +. 3. Iodges. =he was s&rvived a so b- vario&s brothers and sisters mentioned in her 0i 2$upra5, which, for convenience, we sha refer to as the IIGE13=. (. 1n J&ne /:, "$)#, this Ionorab e +o&rt admitted to probate the Aast 0i and Testament of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges 28nne6 D8D5, and appointed +. 3. Iodges as e6ec&tor of her estate witho&t
Page | 710

bond. 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, pp. /4*/)5. 1n J& - ", "$)#, this Ionorab e +o&rt iss&ed etters testamentar- to +. 3. Iodges in the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, p. !'.5 #. The 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges, with respect to the order of s&ccession, the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights, and the intrinsic of its testamentarprovisions, sho& d be governed b;hi ippine aws beca&se< 2a5 The testatri6, Ainnie Jane Iodges, intended ;hi ippine aws to govern her 0i >

Page | 711

2b5 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode provides that Dthe nationa aw of the person whose s&ccession is &nder consideration, whatever mabe the nat&re of the propertand regard ess of the co&ntrwherein said propert- ma- be fo&ndD, sha prevai . Iowever, the +onf ict of Aaw of Te6as, which is the Dnationa awD of the testatri6, Ainnie Jane Iodges, provide that the domici iaraw 2;hi ippine aw G see paragraph /, $upra5 sho& d govern the testamentardispositions and s&ccessiona rights over movab es 2persona properties5, and the
Page | 712

aw of the sit&s of the propert- 2a so ;hi ippine aw as to properties ocated in the ;hi ippines5 with regards immovab e 2rea properties5. Th&s app -ing the DRenvoi EoctrineD, as approved and app ied b- o&r =&preme +o&rt in the case of DIn The ,atter 1f The Testate Estate of Ed&ard E. +hristensenD, G.R. 3o. A*"(#4$, prom& gated Jan&ar- !", "$(!, ;hi ippine aw sho& d app - to the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges and to the s&ccessiona rights to her estate insofar as her #ova/le andi##ova/le a ssets in the ;hi ippines are
Page | 713

concerned. 0e sha not, at this stage, disc&ss what aw sho& d govern the assets of Ainnie Jane Iodges ocated in 1k ahoma and Te6as, beca&se the on - assets in iss&e in this motion are those within the j&risdiction of this motion +o&rt in the two above*captioned =pecia ;roceedings. :. Under ;hi ippine and Te6as aw, the conj&ga or comm&nit- estate of spo&ses sha , &pon disso &tion, be divided e%&a - between them. Th&s, &pon the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges on ,a- /!, "$)#, one*ha f 2"J/5 of the entiret- of the assets of the Iodges spo&ses
Page | 714

constit&ting their conj&ga estate pertained a&tomatica - to +har es 3ewton Iodges, not /! 0a! of in1eritance, /ut in 1i$ o0n ri"1t a$ partner in t1e conju"al partner$1ip. The other one*ha f 2"J/5 portion of the conj&ga estate constit&ted the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. T1i$ i$ t1e onl! portion of t1e conju"al e$tate capa/le of in1eritance /! 1er 1eir$. $. This one*ha f 2"J/5 portion of the conj&ga assets pertaining to Ainnie Jane Iodges cannot, &nder a c ear and specific provision of her 0i , be enhanced or increased b- income, earnings, rents, or emo &ments accr&ing after her death on ,a- /!, "$)#. Ainnie
Page | 715

Jane Iodges9 0i provides that Dall rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#e fro# $aid e$tate $1all /elon" to 1i# D). &. 7od"e$E and 1e i$ furt1er aut1ori5ed to u$e an! part of t1e principal of $aid e$tate a$ 1e #a! need or de$ire.D 2;aragraph !, 8nne6 D8D.5 Th&s, b- specific provision of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 0i , Da rents, emo &ments and incomeD m&st be credited to the one*ha f 2"J/5 portion of the conj&ga estate pertaining to +. 3. Iodges. )learl!, t1erefore, t1e e$tate of Linnie Jane 7od"e$, capa/le of in1eritance /! 1er 1eir$, con$i$ted e'clu$ivel! of no #ore t1an one-1alf D1S2E of t1e conju"al e$tate, co#puted a$ of
Page | 716

t1e ti#e of 1er deat1 on Ma! 23, 19O+. "'. 8rtic es $'', $$) and "''" of the 3ew +ivi +ode provide that the s&rviving spo&se of a deceased eaving no ascendants or descendants is entit ed, as a matter of right and b- wa- of irrevocab e egitime, to at east one*ha f 2"J/5 of the estate of the deceased, and no testamentardisposition b- the deceased can ega - and va id - affect this right of the s&rviving spo&se. In fact, her h&sband is entit ed to said one*ha f 2"J/5 portion of her estate b- waof egitime. 28rtic e ::(, +ivi +ode.5 + ear -, therefore, immediate - &pon the death of
Page | 717

Ainnie Jane Iodges, +. 3. Iodges was the owner of at east three* fo&rths 2!J45 or sevent-*five 2#)B5 percent of a of the conj&ga assets of the spo&ses, 2"J/ or )'B b- wa- of conj&ga partnership share and "J4 or /)B b- wa- of inheritance and egitime5 p &s a Drents, emo &ments and incomeD accr&ing to said conj&ga estate from the moment of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death 2see paragraph $, $upra5. "". The ate Ainnie Jane Iodges designated her h&sband +.3. Iodges as her so e and e6c &sive heir with f& a&thorit- to do what he p eased, as e6c &sive heir and owner of a the assets constit&ting
Page | 718

her estate, e6cept on - with regards certain properties Downed b- &s, ocated at, in or near the +it- of A&bbock, Te6asD. Th&s, even witho&t re -ing on o&r aws of s&ccession and egitime, which we have cited above, ). &. 7od"e$, /! $pecific te$ta#entar! de$i"nation of 1i$ 0ife, 0a$ entitled to t1e entirel! to 1i$ 0ife<$ e$tate in t1e 21ilippine$. "/. 8rtic e ### of the 3ew +ivi +ode provides that Dthe rights of the s&ccessor are transmitted from the death of the decedentD. Th&s, tit e to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges was transmitted to +. 3. Iodges immediate - &pon her death on ,a- /!, "$)#. .or the
Page | 719

convenience of this Ionorab e +o&rt, we attached hereto as 8nne6 D+D a graph of how the conj&ga estate of the spo&ses Iodges sho& d be divided in accordance with ;hi ippine aw and the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges. "!. In his capacit- as so e heir and s&ccessor to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges as above*stated, +. 3. Iodges, short - after the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges, appropriated to himse f the entiretof her estate. Ie operated a the assets, engaged in b&siness and performed a acts in connection with the entiret- of the conj&ga estate, in 1i$ o0n na#e alone, j&st as he had been operating,
Page | 720

engaging and doing whi e the ate Ainnie Jane Iodges was sti a ive. Tpon 1i$ deat1 on 9ece#/er 2O, 19>2, t1erefore, all $aid conju"al a$$et$ 0ere in 1i$ $ole po$$e$$ion and control, and re"i$tered in 1i$ na#e alone, not a$ e'ecutor, /ut a$ e'clu$ive o0ner of all $aid a$$et$. "4. 8 these acts of +. 3. Iodges were a&thori7ed and sanctioned e6press - and imp ied - b- vario&s orders of this Ionorab e +o&rt, as fo ows< 2a5 In an "$)#, this that +. 3. a&thori7ed b&siness 1rder dated ,a- /#, Ionorab e +o&rt r& ed Iodges Dis a owed or to contin&e the in which he was
Page | 721

engaged, and to perform acts which he had been doing whi e the deceased was iving.D 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, p. "".5 2b5 1n Eecember "4, "$)#, this Ionorab e +o&rt, on the basis of the fo owing fact, a eged in the verified ,otion dated Eecember "", "$)# fi ed b- Aeon ;. Ge ada as attorne- for the e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges< That herein E6ec&tor, 2is5 not on part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so, the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges.9 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, p. 44> emphasis s&pp ied.5
Page | 722

iss&ed the fo owing order< D8s pra-ed for b- 8ttorneGe ada, co&nse for the E6ec&tor, for t1e rea$on$ $tated in 1i$ #otion dated 9ece#/er 11, 19O+, 01ic1 t1e )ourt con$ider$ 0ell ta:en, a the sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor, +har es 3ewton Iodges are hereb- 8;;R1FEE. The said E6ec&tor is f&rther a&thori7ed to e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft bthe said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in con$onance 0it1 t1e
Page | 723

0i$1e$ contained in t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent of t1e latter.D 2+.I Record. =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, p. 4(> emphasis s&pp ied.5 /4 ems 2c5 1n 8pri /", "$)$, this Ionorab e +o&rt approved the verified inventor- and acco&nting s&bmitted b- +. 3. Iodges thro&gh his co&nse Aeon ;. Ge ada on 8pri "4, "$)$ wherein he a eged among other things, DThat no person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, be given notice, a$ 1erein e'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of
Page | 724

t1e decea$ed, in accordance 0it1 t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent alread! pro/ated /! t1e 7onora/le )ourt.D 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, pp. ##*#:> emphasis s&pp ied.5 2d5 1n J& - /', "$(', this Ionorab e +o&rt approved the verified D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&ntD s&bmitted b- +. 3. Iodges thro&gh his co&nse Aeon ;. Ge ada on J& - /", "$(' wherein he a eged, among other things. DThat no person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, be given
Page | 725

notice a$ 1erein e'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of t1e decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$, in accordance with the ast wi and testament ofthe deceased, a readprobated b- this Ionorab e +o&rt.D 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, pp. :"*:/> emphasis s&pp ied.5 2e5 1n ,a- /, "$(", this Ionorab e +o&rt approved the verified D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt H- The E6ec&tor .or the Cear "$('D s&bmitted thro&gh Aeon ;. Ge ada on 8pri /', "$(" wherein he a eged< DThat no person interested in the ;hi ippines be given notice, ofthe
Page | 726

time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nt, as 1erein e'ecutor i$ t1e onl! devi$ee or le"atee of t1e decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$, in accordance 0it1 t1e la$t 0ill and te$ta#ent oft1e decea$ed, alread! pro/ated /! t1i$ 7onora/le )ourt.D 2+.I Record, =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, pp. $'*$"> emphasis s&pp ied.5 "). =ince +. 3. Iodges was the so e and e6c &sive heir of Ainnie Jane Iodges, not on - b- aw, b&t in accordance with the dispositions of her wi , there was, in fact, no need to i%&idate the conj&ga estate of the spo&ses. The entire of said conj&ga estate pertained to him e6c &sive -, therefore this Ionorab e +o&rt sanctioned and
Page | 727

a&thori7ed, as above*stated, +. 3. Iodges to manage, operate and contro a the conj&ga assets as owner. "(. H- e6press - a&thori7ing +. 3. Iodges to act as he did in connection with the estate of his wife, this Ionorab e +o&rt has 2"5 dec ared +. 3. Iodges as the so e heir of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, and 2/5 de ivered and distrib&ted her estate to +. 3. Iodges as so e heir in accordance with the terms and conditions of her 0i . Th&s, a tho&gh the Destate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD sti e6ists as a ega and j&ridica persona it-, it had no assets or properties ocated in the ;hi ippines
Page | 728

registered in its name whatsoever at the time of the death of +. 3. Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/. "#. The 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges 28nne6 D8D5, fo&rth paragraph, provides as fo ows< D8t the death of m- said h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of mestate both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a divided among m- brothers and sisters, share and share a ike, name -<

Page | 729

DEsta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Homan and 3imraIigdon.D Heca&se of the facts hereinabove set o&t there is no Drest, resid&e and remainderD, at east to the e6tent of the ;hi ippine assets, which remains to vest in the IIGE13=, ass&ming this proviso in Ainnie Jane Iodges9 0i is va id and binding against the estate of +. 3. Iodges. ":. 8n- c aims b- the IIGE13= &nder the above*%&oted provision of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 0i is witho&t merit beca&se said
Page | 730

provision is void and inva id at east as to the ;hi ippine assets. It sho& d not, in an-wa-, affect the rights of the estate of +. 3. Iodges or his heirs to the properties, which +. 3. Iodges ac%&ired b- wa- of inheritance from his wife Ainnie Jane Iodges &pon her death. 2a5 In spite of the above* mentioned provision in the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges, +. 3. Iodges ac%&ired, not mere - a &s&fr&ct&ar- right, b&t abso &te tit e and ownership to her estate. In a recent case invo ving a versimi ar testamentarprovision, the =&preme +o&rt
Page | 731

he d that the heir first designated ac%&ired f& ownership of the propertbe%&eathed b- the wi , not mere &s&fr&ct&ar- rights. 2+onso acion . orentino de +riso ogo, et a ., vs. ,an&e =ingson, G. R. 3o. A*"!:#(, .ebr&ar- /:, "$(/.5 2b5 8rtic e :(4, :#/ and ::( of the 3ew +ivi +ode c ear provide that no charge, condition or s&bstit&tion whatsoever &pon the egitime can be imposed b- a testator. Th&s, &nder the provisions of 8rtic es $'', $$) and "''" of the 3ew +ivi +ode, the egitime of a s&rviving spo&se
Page | 732

is "J/ of the estate of the deceased spo&se. +onse%&ent -, the above* mentioned provision in the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges is c ear - inva id insofar as the egitime of +. 3. Iodges was concerned, which consisted of "J/ of the "J/ portion of the conj&ga estate, or "J4 of the entire conj&ga estate of the deceased. 2c5 There are genera - on two kinds of s&bstit&tion provided for and a&thori7ed b- o&r +ivi +ode 28rtic es :)#*:#'5, name -, 2"5 $i#ple or co##on s&bstit&tion, sometimes referred to
Page | 733

as vul"ar s&bstit&tion 28rtic e :)$5, and 2/5 fideicommissars&bstit&tion 28rtic e :(!5. 8 other s&bstit&tions are mere variations of these. The s&bstit&tion provided for bparagraph fo&r of the 0i of Ainnie Jane Iodges is not fideicommissar- s&bstit&tion, beca&se there is c ear - no ob igation on the part of +. 3. Iodges as the first heir designated, to preserve the properties for the s&bstit&te heirs. 2+onso acion . orentino de +riso ogo et a . vs. ,an&e =ingson, G. R. 3o. A*"!:#(.5 8t most, it is a vul"ar or $i#ple s&bstit&tio
Page | 734

n. Iowever, in order that a vul"ar or$i#ple s&bstit&tion can be va id, three a ternative conditions m&st be present, name -, that the first designated heir 2"5 sho& d die before the testator> or 2/5 sho& d not wish to accept the inheritance> or 2!5 sho& d be incapacitated to do so. 3one of these conditions app - to +. 3. Iodges, and, therefore, the s&bstit&tion provided for bthe above*%&oted provision of the 0i is not a&thori7ed b- the +ode, and, therefore, it is void. ,anresa, commenting on these kisses of s&bstit&tion, meaningf& stated that< D... c&ando e
Page | 735

testador instit&-e&n primer heredero, - por fa ecimiento de este nombra otro & otros, ha de entenderse %&e estas seg&ndas designaciones so o han de egar a tener efectividad en e caso de %&e e primer instit&ido m&era antes %&e e testador, f&era o no esta s& verdadera intencion. ...D. 2( ,anresa, # a ed., pag. "#).5 In other words, 01en anot1er 1eir i$ de$i"nated to in1erit upon t1e deat1 of a fir$t 1eir, t1e $econd de$i"nation can 1ave effect onl! in ca$e t1e fir$t in$tituted 1eir die$ /efore t1e te$tator, 01et1er or not t1at 0a$ t1e true intention of $aid
Page | 736

te$tator. =ince +. 3. Iodges did not die before Ainnie Jane Iodges, the provision for s&bstit&tion contained in Ainnie Jane Iodges9 0i is void. 2d5 In view of the inva idit- of the provision for s&bstit&tion in the 0i , +. 3. Iodges9 inheritance to the entiret- of the Ainnie Jane Iodges estate is irrevocab e and fina . "$. He that as it ma-, at the time of +. 3. Iodges9 death, the entiret- of the conj&ga estate appeared and was registered in him e6c &sive as owner. Th&s, the pres&mption is
Page | 737

that a said assets constit&ted his estate. Therefore G 2a5 If the IIGE13= wish to enforce their d&bio&s rights as s&bstit&ted heirs to "J4 of the conj&ga estate 2the other "J4 is covered b- the egitime of +. 3. Iodges which can not be affected b- an- testamentar- disposition5, their remed-, if an-, is to fi e their c aim against the estate of +. 3. Iodges, which sho& d be entit ed at the present time to f& c&stodand contro of a the conj&ga estate of the spo&ses. 2b5 The present proceedings, in which two estates e6ist &nder separate administration, where the administratri6 of the Ainnie Jane
Page | 738

Iodges estate e6ercises an officio&s right to object and intervene in matters affecting e6c &sive - the +. 3. Iodges estate, is anoma o&s. 0IERE.1RE, it is most respectf& - pra-ed that after tria and reception of evidence, this Ionorab e +o&rt dec are< ". That the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges was and is composed e6c &sive - of one*ha f 2"J/5 share in the conj&ga estate of the spo&ses Iodges, comp&ted as of the date of her death on ,a- /!, "$)#> /. That the other ha f of the conj&ga estate pertained
Page | 739

e6c &sive - to +. 3. Iodges as his share as partner in the conj&ga partnership> !. That a Drents, emo &ments and incomeD of the conj&ga estate accr&ing after Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death pertains to +. 3. Iodges> 4. That +. 3. Iodges was the so e and e6c &sive heir of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> ). That, therefore, the entire conj&ga estate of the spo&ses ocated in the ;hi ippines, p &s a the Drents, emo &ments and incomeD above*mentioned, now constit&tes the estate of +. 3. Iodges, capab e of distrib&tion to
Page | 740

his heirs &pon termination =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "(#/>

of

(. That ;+IH, as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges, is entit ed to f& and e6c &sive c&stod-, contro and management of a said properties> and #. That 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, as we as the IIGE13=, has no right to intervene or participate in the administration of the +. 3. Iodges estate. ;+IH f&rther pra-s for s&ch and other re ief as ma- be deemed j&st and e%&itab e in the premises.D 2Record, pp. /()*/##5
Page | 741

Hefore a of these motions of petitioner co& d be reso ved, however, on Eecember /", "$(), private respondent ,agno fi ed her own D,otion for the 1fficia Eec aration of Ieirs of the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as fo ows< +1,E= 310 the 8dministratri6 of the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and, thro&gh &ndersigned co&nse , &nto this Ionorab e +o&rt most respectf& - states and manifests< ". That the spo&ses +har es 3ewton Iodges and Ainnie Jane Iodges were 8merican citi7ens who died at the +it- of I oi o after having amassed and acc&m& ated e6tensive properties in the ;hi ippines>
Page | 742

/. That on 3ovember //, "$)/, Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted a ast wi and testament 2the origina of this wi now forms part of the records of these proceedings as E6hibit D+D and appears as =p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, .o io I, pp. "#*":5> !. That on ,a- /!, "$)#, Ainnie Jane Iodges died at the +it- of I oi o at the time s&rvived b- her h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and severa re atives named in her ast wi and testament> 4. That on J&ne /:, "$)#, a petition therefor having been prior - fi ed and d& - heard, this Ionorab e +o&rt iss&ed an order admitting to probate the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane
Page | 743

Iodges 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, .o io I, pp. /4*/), /(*/:5> ). That the re%&ired notice to creditors and to a others who mahave an- c aims against the decedent, Ainnie Jane Iodges has a read- been printed, p&b ished and posted 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#, .o io I. pp. !4*4'5 and the reg amentar- period for fi ing s&ch c aims has ong ago apsed and e6pired witho&t an- c aims having been asserted against the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, approved b- the 8dministratorJ8dministratri6 of the said estate, nor ratified bthis Ionorab e +o&rt> (. That the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges a readPage | 744

admitted to probate contains an instit&tion of heirs in the fo owing words< D=E+13E< I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of mestate, both persona and rea , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to m- be oved h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges to have and to ho d &nto him, m- said h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetime. TIIRE< I desire, provide that m+har es 3ewton sha have the manage, contro , enjo- said estate direct and h&sband, Iodges, right to &se and d&ring his
Page | 745

ifetime, and, he is herebgiven the right to make anchanges in the ph-sica properties of said estate, bsa e of an- part thereof which he ma- think best, and the p&rchase of an- other or additiona propert- as he mathink best> to e6ec&te conve-ances with or witho&t genera or specia warrant-, conve-ing in fee simp e or for an- other term or time, anpropert- which he ma- deem proper to dispose of> to ease an- of the rea propert- for oi , gas andJor other minera s, and a s&ch deeds or eases sha pass the abso &te fee simp e tit e to the interest so
Page | 746

conve-ed in s&ch propert- as he e ect to se . 8 rents, emo &ments and income from said estate sha be ong to him, and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to &se an- part of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire. It is provided herein, however, that he sha not se or otherwise dispose of an- of the improved propert- now owned b- &s ocated at, in or near the +it- of A&bbock Te6as, b&t he sha have the f& right to ease, manage and enjo- the same d&ring his ifetime, above provided. Ie sha have the right to s&bdivide an- farm and and
Page | 747

se ots therein, and ma- se &nimproved town ots. .1URTI< 8t the death of msaid h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a - divided among mbrothers and sisters, share and share a ike, name -< Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Homan and 3imro- Iigdon.

Page | 748

.I.TI< In case of the death of an- of m- brothers andJor sisters named in item .o&rth, above, prior to the death of m- h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, then it is m- wi and be%&est that the heirs of s&ch deceased brother or sister sha take joint - the share which wo& d have gone to s&ch brother or sister had she or he s&rvived.D #. That &nder the provisions of the ast wi and testament a readabove*%&oted, Ainnie Jane Iodges gave a ife*estate or a &s&fr&ct over a her estate to her h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and a vested remainder*estate or the
Page | 749

naked tit e over the same estate to her re atives named therein> :. That after the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges and after the admission to probate of her ast wi and testament, b&t d&ring the ifetime of +har es 3ewton Iodges, the said +har es 3ewton Iodges with f& and comp ete know edge of the ife*estate or &s&fr&ct conferred &pon him b- the wi since he was then acting as 8dministrator of the estate and ater as E6ec&tor of the wi of Ainnie Jane Iodges, &ne%&ivocab - and c ear - thro&gh ora and written dec arations and sworn p&b ic statements, reno&nced, disc aimed and
Page | 750

rep&diated his ife*estate and &s&fr&ct over the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> $. That, according -, the on - heirs eft to receive the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges p&rs&ant to her ast wi and testament, are her named brothers and sisters, or their heirs, to wit< Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, 8 ine Iigdon and Eavid Iigdon, the atter two being the wife and son respective - of the deceased Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe Era Homan and 3imroIigdon, a of ega ages, 8merican citi7ens, with residence at the =tate of Te6as, United =tates of 8merica>
Page | 751

"'. That at the time of the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges on ,a- /!, "$)#, she was the co*owner 2together with her h&sband +har es 3ewton Iodges5 of an &ndivided one*ha f interest in their conj&ga properties e6isting as of that date, ,a- /!, "$)#, which properties are now being administered sometimes joint and sometimes separate - b- the 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges andJor the 8dministrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges b&t a of which are &nder the contro and s&pervision of this Ionorab e +o&rt> "". That beca&se there was no separation or segregation of the
Page | 752

interests of h&sband and wife in the combined conj&ga estate, as there has been no s&ch separation or segregation &p to the present, both interests have contin&a earned e6act - the same amo&nt of Drents, emo &ments and incomeD, the entire estate having been contin&a - devoted to the b&siness of the spo&ses as if thewere a ive> "/. That the one*ha f interest of Ainnie Jane Iodges in the combined conj&ga estate was earning Drents, emo &ments and incomeD &nti her death on ,a- /!, "$)#, when it ceased to be sadd ed with an- more charges or e6pendit&res which are p&re Page | 753

persona to her in nat&re, and her estate kept on earning s&ch Drents, emo &ments and incomeD b- virt&e of their having been e6press reno&nced, disc aimed and rep&diated b- +har es 3ewton Iodges to whom the- were be%&eathed for ife &nder the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges> "!. That, on the other hand, the one*ha f interest of +har es 3ewton Iodges in the combined conj&ga estate e6isting as of ,a/!, "$)#, whi e it ma- have earned e6act - the same amo&nt of Drents, emo &ments and incomeD as that of the share pertaining to Ainnie Jane Iodges, contin&ed to be
Page | 754

b&rdened bcharges, e6pendit&res, and other dispositions which are p&re persona to him in nat&re, &nti the death of +har es 3ewton Iodges himse f on Eecember /), "$(/> "4. That of a the assets of the combined conj&ga estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and +har es 3ewton Iodges as the- e6ist toda-, the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is c ear - entit ed to a portion more than fift- percent 2)'B5 as compared to the portion to which the estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges ma- be entit ed, which portions can be e6act - determined b- the fo owing manner<
Page | 755

a. 8n inventor- m&st be made of the assets of the combined conj&ga estate as the- e6isted on the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges on ,a/!, "$)# G one*ha f of these assets be ong to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> b. 8n acco&nting m&st be made of the Drents, emo &ments and incomeD of a these assets G again one* ha f of these be ong to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> c. 8dj&stments m&st be made, after making a ded&ction of charges, disb&rsements and other
Page | 756

dispositions made b- +har es 3ewton Iodges persona and for his own persona acco&nt from ,a- /!, "$)# &p to Eecember /), "$(/, as we as other charges, disb&rsements and other dispositions made for him and in his beha f since Eecember /), "$(/ &p to the present> "). That there remains no other matter for disposition now insofar as the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is concerned b&t to comp ete the i%&idation of her estate, segregate them from the conj&ga estate, and distrib&te
Page | 757

them to her heirs p&rs&ant to her ast wi and testament. 0IERE.1RE, premises considered, it is most respectf& moved and pra-ed that this Ionorab e +o&rt, after a hearing on the fact&a matters raised bthis motion, iss&e an order< a. Eec aring the fo owing persons, to wit< Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, 8 ine Iigdon, Eavid Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Homan and 3imro- Iigdon, as the so e heirs &nder the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges and as the on - persons entit ed to her estate>

Page | 758

b. Eetermining the e6act va &e of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges in accordance with the s-stem en&nciated in paragraph "4 of this motion> c. 8fter s&ch determination ordering its segregation from the combined conj&ga estate and its de iver- to the 8dministratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges for distrib&tion to the heirs to whom theproper be ong and appertain. 2Green Record on 8ppea , pp. !:/*!$"5 where&pon, instead of f&rther pressing on its motion of Jan&ar- :, "$() afore%&oted, as it had been doing
Page | 759

before, petitioner withdrew the said motion and in addition to opposing the above motion of respondent ,agno, fi ed a motion on 8pri //, "$(( a eging in part that< ". That it has received from the co&nse for the administratri6 of the s&pposed estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges a notice to set her D,otion for 1fficia Eec aration of Ieirs of the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD> /. That before the aforesaid motion co& d be heard, there are matters pending before this Ionorab e +o&rt, s&ch as< a. The e6amination a readordered b- this Ionorab e +o&rt of doc&ments re ating
Page | 760

to the a egation of 8ve ina ,agno that +har es 3ewton Iodges Dthro&gh ... written dec arations and sworn p&b ic statements, reno&nced, disc aimed and rep&diated ife*estate and &s&fr&ct over the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges9> b. That DUrgent ,otion for 8n 8cco&nting and Ee iver- to the Estate of +. 3. Iodges of 8 the 8ssets of the +onj&ga ;artnership of the Eeceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges E6isting as of ,a/!, "$)# ; &s 8 the Rents, Emo &ments and Income TherefromD>
Page | 761

c. Fario&s motions to reso ve the aforesaid motion> d. ,anifestation of =eptember "4, "$(4, detai ing acts of interference of 8ve ina ,agno &nder co or of tit e as administratri6 of the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> which are a prej&dicia , and which invo ve no iss&es of fact, a facts invo ved therein being matters of record, and therefore re%&ire on the reso &tion of %&estions of aw> !. That whatever c aims ana eged heirs or other persons mahave co& d be ver- easi - threshed
Page | 762

o&t in the Testate Estate +har es 3ewton Iodges>

of

4. That the maintenance of two separate estate proceedings and two administrators on - res& ts in conf&sion and is &nd& b&rdensome &pon the Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, partic& ar - beca&se the bond fi ed b- 8ve ina ,agno is gross ins&fficient to answer for the f&nds and propert- which she has inofficio&s - co ected and 1eld, as we as those which she contin&es to inofficio&s - co ect and 1old> ). That it is a matter of record that s&ch state of affairs affects and inconveniences not on - the estate
Page | 763

b&t a so third*parties dea ing with it>D 28nne6 DFD, ;etition.5 and then, after f&rther reminding the co&rt, b- %&oting them, of the re evant a egations of its ear ier motion of =eptember "4, "$(4, 8nne6 U, pra-ed that< ". Immediate - order 8ve ina ,agno to acco&nt for and de iver to the administrator of the Estate of +. 3. Iodges a the assets of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges, p &s a the rents, emo &ments and income therefrom> /. ;ending the consideration of this motion, immediate - order
Page | 764

8ve ina ,agno to t&rn over a her co ections to the administrator ;hi ippine +ommercia X Ind&stria Hank> !. Eec are the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5 c osed> 4. Eefer the hearing and consideration of the motion for dec aration of heirs in the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges &nti the matters hereinabove set forth are reso ved. 2;ra-er, 8nne6 DFD of ;etition.5 1n 1ctober "/, "$((, as a readindicated at the o&tset of this opinion, the respondent co&rt denied the foregoing motion, ho ding th&s<
Page | 765

1REER 1n record is a motion 2Fo . N, =p. "(#/, pp. 4!#$*4!$'5 dated 8pri //, "$(( of administrator ;+IH pra-ing that 2"5 Immediate - order 8ve ina ,agno to acco&nt for and de iver to the administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges a assets of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges, p &s a the rents, emo &ments and income therefrom> 2/5 ;ending the consideration of this motion, immediate - order 8ve ina ,agno to t&rn over a her co ections to the administrator ;+IH> 2!5 Eec are the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5
Page | 766

c osed> and 245 Eefer the hearing and consideration of the motion for dec aration of heirs in the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges &nti the matters hereinabove set forth are reso ved. This motion is predicated on the fact that there are matters pending before this co&rt s&ch as 2a5 the e6amination a read- ordered bthis Ionorab e +o&rt of doc&ments re ating to the a egation of 8ve ina ,agno that +har es 3ewton Iodges thr& written dec aration and sworn p&b ic statements reno&nced, disc aimed and rep&diated his ife*estate and &s&fr&ct over the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2b5 the &rgent motion
Page | 767

for acco&nting and de iver- to the estate of +. 3. Iodges of a the assets of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges e6isting as of ,a- /!, "$)# p &s a the rents, emo &ments and income therefrom> 2c5 vario&s motions to reso ve the aforesaid motion> and 2d5 manifestation of =eptember "4, "$(4, detai ing acts of interference of 8ve ina ,agno &nder co or of tit e as administratri6 of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. These matters, according to the instant motion, are a pre*j&dicia invo ving no iss&es of facts and on - re%&ire the reso &tion of %&estion of aw> that in the motion
Page | 768

of 1ctober ), "$(! it is a eged that in a motion dated Eecember "", "$)# fi ed b- 8tt-. Aeon Ge ada as attorne- for the e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges, the said e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges is not on - part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga b&t a so the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges. =aid motion of Eecember "", "$)# was approved b- the +o&rt in consonance with the wishes contained in the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges. That on 8pri /", "$)$ this +o&rt approved the inventor- and acco&nting s&bmitted b- +. 3. Iodges thr& co&nse 8tt-. Aeon
Page | 769

Ge ada in a motion fi ed on 8pri "4, "$)$ stating therein that e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges is the on devisee or egatee of Ainnie Jane Iodges in accordance with the ast wi and testament a readprobated b- the +o&rt. That on J& - "!, "$(' the +o&rt approved the ann&a statement of acco&nts s&bmitted bthe e6ec&tor +. 3. Iodges thr& his co&nse 8tt-. Ge ada on J& - /", "$(' wherein it is stated that the e6ec&tor, +. 3. Iodges is the on devisee or egatee of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges> that on ,a/, "$(" the +o&rt approved the ann&a statement of acco&nts s&bmitted b- e6ec&tor, +. 3.
Page | 770

Iodges for the -ear "$(' which was s&bmitted b- 8tt-. Ge ada on 8pri /', "$(" wherein it is stated that e6ec&tor Iodges is the on devisee or egatee of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges> That d&ring the hearing on =eptember ) and (, "$(! the estate of +. 3. Iodges c aimed a the assets be onging to the deceased spo&ses Ainnie Jane Iodges and +. 3. Iodges sit&ated in the ;hi ippines> that administratri6 ,agno has e6ec&ted i ega acts to the prej&dice of the testate estate of +. 3. Iodges. 8n opposition 2=p. "(#/, Fo . N, pp. 44")*44/"5 dated 8pri /#, "$(( of administratri6 ,agno has
Page | 771

been fi ed asking that the motion be denied for ack of merit and that the motion for the officia dec aration of heirs of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges be set for presentation and reception of evidence. It is a eged in the aforesaid opposition that the e6amination of doc&ments which are in the possession of administratri6 ,agno can be made prior to the hearing of the motion for the officia dec aration of heirs of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, d&ring said hearing. That the matters raised in the ;+IH9s motion of 1ctober ), "$(! 2as we as the other motion5 dated
Page | 772

=eptember "4, "$(4 have been conso idated for the p&rpose of presentation and reception of evidence with the hearing on the determination of the heirs of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. It is f&rther a eged in the opposition that the motion for the officia dec aration of heirs of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges is the one that constit&tes a prej&dicia %&estion to the motions dated 1ctober ) and =eptember "4, "$(4 beca&se if said motion is fo&nd meritorio&s and granted b- the +o&rt, the ;+IH9s motions of 1ctober ), "$(! and =eptember "4, "$(4 wi become moot and academic since the- are premised on the ass&mption and c aim that the on Page | 773

heir of Ainnie Jane Iodges was +. 3. Iodges. That the ;+IH and co&nse are estopped from f&rther %&estioning the determination of heirs in the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges at this stage since it was ;+IH as ear - as Jan&ar- :, "$() which fi ed a motion for officia dec aration of heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges that the c aim of an- heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges can be determined on in the administration proceedings over the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and not that of +. 3. Iodges, since the heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges are c aiming her estate and not the estate of +. 3. Iodges.
Page | 774

8 rep - 2=p. "(#/, Fo . N, pp. 44!(*44445 dated ,a- "", "$(( of the ;+IH has been fi ed a eging that the motion dated 8pri //, "$(( of the ;+IH is not to seek deferment of the hearing and consideration of the motion for officia dec aration of heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges b&t to dec are the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges c osed and for administratri6 ,agno to acco&nt for and de iver to the ;+IH a assets of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased spo&ses which has come to her possession p &s a rents and income. 8 rejoinder 2=p. "(#/, Fo . N, pp. 44):*44(/5 of administratri6
Page | 775

,agno dated ,a- "$, "$(( has been fi ed a eging that the motion dated Eecember "", "$)# on so&ght the approva of a conve-ances made b- +. 3. Iodges and re%&ested the +o&rt a&thorit- for a s&bse%&ent conve-ances that wi be e6ec&ted b- +. 3. Iodges> that the order dated Eecember "4, "$)# on approved the conve-ances made b- +. 3. Iodges> that +. 3. Iodges represented b- co&nse never made an- c aim in the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and never fi ed a motion to dec are himse f as the heir of the said Ainnie Jane Iodges despite the apse of more than five 2)5 -ears after the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges> that it is
Page | 776

f&rther a eged in the rejoinder that there can be no order of adj&dication of the estate &n ess there has been a prior e6press dec aration of heirs and so far no dec aration of heirs in the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges 2=p. "!'#5 has been made. +onsidering the a egations and arg&ments in the motion and of the ;+IH as we as those in the opposition and rejoinder of administratri6 ,agno, the +o&rt finds the opposition and rejoinder to be we taken for the reason that so far there has been no officia dec aration of heirs in the testate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and
Page | 777

therefore no disposition of her estate. 0IERE.1RE, the motion of the ;+IH dated 8pri //, "$(( is herebEE3IEE. 28nne6 D0D, ;etition5 In its motion dated 3ovember /4, "$(( for the reconsideration of this order, petitioner a eged inter alia that< It cannot be over*stressed that the motion of Eecember "", "$)# was based on the fact that< a. Under the ast wi and testament of the deceased, Ainnie Jane Iodges, the ate +har es 3ewton Iodges was the so e heir instit&ted insofar
Page | 778

as her properties in the ;hi ippines are concerned> b. =aid ast wi and testament vested &pon the said ate +har es 3ewton Iodges rights over said properties which, in s&m, spe ownership, abso &te and in fee simp e> c. =aid ate +har es 3ewton Iodges was, therefore, Dnot on - part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so, the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges.

Page | 779

Aikewise, it cannot be over* stressed that the aforesaid motion was granted b- this Ionorab e +o&rt Dfor the reasons statedD therein. 8gain, the motion of Eecember "", "$)# pra-ed that not on - Da the sa es, conve-ances, eases, and mortgages e6ec&ted b-D the ate +har es 3ewton Iodges, b&t a so a Dthe s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases, and mortgages ...D be approved and a&thori7ed. This Ionorab e +o&rt, in its order of Eecember "4, "$)#, Dfor the reasons statedD in the aforesaid motion, granted the same, and not on - approved a the sa es, conve-ances, eases
Page | 780

and mortgages of a properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted b- the ate +har es 3ewton Iodges, b&t a so a&thori7ed Da s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft bthe said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges. 28nne6 DND, ;etition5 and reiterated its f&ndamenta pose that the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges had a read- been fact&a -, a tho&gh not ega -, c osed with the virt&a dec aration of Iodges and adj&dication to him, as so e &niversa heir of a the properties of the estate of his wife, in the order of Eecember "4, "$)#, 8nne6 G. =ti &npers&aded, on J& - ":, "$(#, respondent co&rt denied
Page | 781

said motion for reconsideration and he d that Dthe co&rt be ieves that there is no j&stification wh- the order of 1ctober "/, "$(( sho& d be considered or modifiedD, and, on J& - "$, "$(#, the motion of respondent ,agno Dfor officia dec aration of heirs of the estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD, a read- referred to above, was set for hearing. In conse%&ence of a these deve opments, the present petition was fi ed on 8&g&st ", "$(# 2a beit petitioner had to pa- another docketing fee on 8&g&st $, "$(#, since the orders in %&estion were iss&ed in two separate testate estate proceedings, 3os. "!'# and "(#/, in the co&rt be ow5.

Page | 782

Together with s&ch petition, there are now pending before Us for reso &tion herein, appea s from the fo owing< ". The order of Eecember "$, "$(4 a&thori7ing pa-ment brespondent ,agno of overtime pa-, 2pp. //", Green Record on 8ppea 5 together with the s&bse%&ent orders of Jan&ar- $, "$(), 2pp. /!"*/!/, id.5 1ctober /#, "$(), 2pp. //#, id.5 and .ebr&ar- "), "$(( 2pp. 4))* 4)(, id.5 repeated den-ing motions for reconsideration thereof. /. The order of 8&g&st (, "$() 2pp. /4:, id.5 re%&iring that deeds e6ec&ted b- petitioner to be co* signed b- respondent ,agno, as
Page | 783

we as the order of 1ctober /#, "$() 2pp. /#(*/##5 den-ing reconsideration. !. The order of 1ctober /#, "$() 2pp. /$/*/$), id.5 enjoining the deposit of a co ections in a joint acco&nt and the same order of .ebr&ar- "), "$(( mentioned in 3o. " above which inc &ded the denia of the reconsideration of this order of 1ctober /#, "$(). 4. The order of 3ovember !, "$() 2pp. !"!*!/', id.5 directing the pa-ment of attorne-9s fees, fees of the respondent administratri6, etc. and the order of .ebr&ar- "(, "$(( den-ing reconsideration thereof.

Page | 784

). The order of 3ovember /!, "$() 2pp. !!4*!!), id.5 a owing appe ee 0estern Instit&te of Techno og- to make pa-ments to either one or both of the administrators of the two estates as we as the order of ,arch #, "$(( 2p. 4(/, id.5 den-ing reconsideration. (. The vario&s orders hereinabove ear ier en&merated approving deeds of sa e e6ec&ted brespondent ,agno in favor of appe ees +ar es, +atedra , ;ab ito, G&7man, +oronado, Harrido, +a&sing, Javier, A&cero and Hatisanan, 2see pp. !) to !# of this opinion5, together with the two separate orders both dated
Page | 785

Eecember /, "$(( 2pp. !'(*!':, and pp. !':*!'$, Ce ow Record on 8ppea 5 den-ing reconsideration of said approva . #. The order of Jan&ar- !, "$(#, on pp. !!)*!!(, Ce ow Record on 8ppea , approving simi ar deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- respondent ,agno, as those in 3o. (, in favor of appe ees ;acaonsis and ;rema- on, as to which no motion for reconsideration was fi ed. :. Aast -, the order of Eecember /, "$((, on pp. !')*!'(, Ce ow Record on 8ppea , directing petitioner to s&rrender to appe ees A&cero, Hatisanan, Javier, ;ab ito, Harrido, +atedra , +a&sing, G&7man, and +oronado, the
Page | 786

certificates of tit e covering the ands invo ved in the approved sa es, as to which no motion for reconsideration was fi ed either. =trict - speaking, and considering that the above orders dea with different matters, j&st as the- affect distinct different individ&a s or persons, as o&t ined b- petitioner in its brief as appe ant on pp. "/*/' thereof, there are, therefore, thirt-*three 2!!5 appea s before Us, for which reason, petitioner has to pa- a so thirt-*one 2!"5 more docket fees. It is as we perhaps to state here as e sewhere in this opinion that in connection with these appea s, petitioner has assigned a tota of sevent-*eight 2ANNFIII5 a eged errors,
Page | 787

the respective disc&ssions and arg&ments &nder a of them covering a so the f&ndamenta iss&es raised in respect to the petition for certiorari and prohibition, th&s making it feasib e and more practica for the +o&rt to dispose of a these cases together. 4 The assignments of error read th&s< I to IF TIE 1REER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, ;E;IT1 G. ICUA1RE=, E=;IRIEI13 ;8RTI=8A8, 0I3I.REE1 +. E=;8E8 83E R1=8RI1 8AI3G8=8, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31,
Page | 788

+1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. F to FIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, ;E;IT1 G. ICUA1RE=, E=;IRIEI13 ;8RTI=8A8, 0I3I.REE1 +. E=;8E8 83E R1=8RI1 8AI3G8=8, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E .1R 0II+I TIEC I8FE 3EFER ;8IE I3 .UAA I3 8++1RE83+E 0ITI
Page | 789

TIE 1RIGI38A +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA. IN to NII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EETER,I3I3G TIE RIGIT= 1. 103ER=II; 1FER RE8A ;R1;ERTC 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, ;E;IT1 G. ICUA1RE=, E=;IRIEI13 ;8RTI=8A8, 0I3I.REE1 +. E=;8E8 83E R1=8RI1 8AI3G8=8, 0IIAE 8+TI3G 8= 8 ;R1H8TE +1URT. NIII to NF TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE= 8EEA.8
Page | 790

;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'/5, =83TI8G1 ;8+813=I=, 83E 8EEA.8 ;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'45, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. NFI to NFIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE= 8EEA.8 ;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'/5, =83TI8G1 ;8+813=I=, 83E
Page | 791

8EEA.8 ;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'45 +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E .1R 0II+I TIEC I8FE 3EFER ;8IE I3 .UAA I3 8++1RE83+E 0ITI TIE 1RIGI38A +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA. NIN to NNI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EETER,I3I3G TIE RIGIT= 1. 103ER=II; 1FER RE8A ;R1;ERTC 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE= 8EEA.8 ;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'/5, =83TI8G1 ;8+813=I=, 83E 8EEA.8 ;RE,8CA13 2A1T 31. "'45 0IIAE 8+TI3G 8= 8 ;R1H8TE +1URT. NNII to NNF
Page | 792

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE= A1RE3Z1 +8RAE=, J1=E ;8HAI+1, 8A.REE1 +8TEER8A 83E =8AF8E1R =. GUZ,83, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. NNFI to NNIN TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE 1. =8AE ENE+UTEE I3 .8F1R
Page | 793

1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, A1RE3Z1 +8RAE=, J1=E ;8HAI+1, 8A.REE1 +8TEER8A 83E =8AF8E1R =. GUZ,83 ;UR=U83T T1 +13TR8+T= T1 =;EAA 0II+I 0ERE +83+EAAEE 83E RE=+I3EEE. NNN to NNNIF TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EETER,I3I3G TIE RIGIT= 1. 103ER=II; 1FER RE8A ;R1;ERTC 1. TIE A1RE3Z1 +8RAE=, J1=E ;8HAI+1, 8A.REE1 +8TEER8A 83E =8AF8E1R =. GUZ,83, 0IIAE 8+TI3G 8= 8 ;R1H8TE +1URT. NNNF to NNNFI
Page | 794

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, .A1RE3I8 H8RRIE1 83E ;URI.I+8+I13 +1R138E1, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. NNNFII to NNNFIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE
Page | 795

8;;EAAEE=, .A1RE3I8 H8RRIE1 83E ;URI.I+8+I13 +1R138E1, 8ATI1UGI TIEC 0ERE I3 8RRE8R= I3 TIE ;8C,E3T= 8GREEE U;13 I3 TIE 1RIGI38A +13TR8+T T1 =EAA 0II+I TIEC ENE+UTEE 0ITI TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, I3 TIE 8,1U3T 1. ;"',(:'.'' and ;4,4/:.$', RE=;E+TIFEAC. NNNIN to NA TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EE;RIFI3G TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 1. TIE +13TR8+TU8A RIGIT, ENER+I=EE TIR1UGI II= 8E,I3I=TR8T1R, TIE I3=T83T 8;;EAA83T, T1 +83+EA TIE
Page | 796

+13TR8+T= T1 =EAA 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, .A1RE3I8 H8RRIE1 83E ;URI.I+8+I13 +1R138E1. NAI to NAIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, GR8+I831 AU+ER1, 8RITE1 TI1,8= J8,IR 83E ,EAOUI8EE= H8TI=8383, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE
Page | 797

ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. NAIF to NAFI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, GR8+I831 AU+ER1, 8RITE1 TI1,8= J8,IR 83E ,EAOUI8EE= H8TI=8383, ;UR=U83T T1 +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA ENE+UTEE HC TIE, 0ITI TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, TIE TER,= 83E +13EITI13= 1. 0II+I TIEC I8FE 3EFER +1,;AIEE 0ITI. NAFII to NAIN
Page | 798

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EE;RIFI3G TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 1. II= RIGIT, ENER+I=EE TIR1UGI II= 8E,I3I=TR8TI13, TIE I3=T83T 8;;EAA83T, T1 +83+EA TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE=, GR8+I831 AU+ER1, 8RITE1 TI1,8= J8,IR 83E ,EAOUI8EE= H8TI=8383, 83E I3 EETER,I3I3G TIE RIGIT= 1. TIE =8IE 8;;EAAEE= 1FER RE8A ;R1;ERTC 0IIAE 8+TI3G 8= 8 ;R1H8TE +1URT. A TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE .I38A EEEE=
Page | 799

1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, HEA+E=8R +8U=I3G, ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, +1FERI3G ;8R+EA= 1. A83E 103EE HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 83E TIE +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA +1FERI3G 0II+I 0ERE ENE+UTEE HC II, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E. AI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE EEEE= 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, HEA+E=8R +8U=I3G, 8ATI1UGI IE 08= I3 8RRE8R= I3 TIE ;8C,E3T= 8GREEE U;13 I3 TIE
Page | 800

1RIGI38A +13TR8+T T1 =EAA 0II+I IE ENE+UTEE 0ITI TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, I3 TIE 8,1U3T 1. ;/,!!#.)'. AII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8;;R1FI3G TIE EEEE 1. =8AE I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, HEA+E=8R +8U=I3G, 8ATI1UGI TIE =8,E 08= 31T ENE+UTEE I3 8++1RE83+E 0ITI TIE RUAE= 1. +1URT. AIII to ANI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE 8;;EAA83T, ;IIAI;;I3E +1,,ER+I8A 83E
Page | 801

I3EU=TRI8A H83? T1 =URRE3EER TIE 103ER9= EU;AI+8TE +ERTI.I+8TE= 1. TITAE 1FER TIE RE=;E+TIFE A1T= +1FEREE HC TIE EEEE= 1. =8AE ENE+UTEE HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, I3 .8F1R 1. TIE 1TIER 8;;EAAEE=, J1=E ;8HAI+1, 8A.REE1 +8TEER8A, =8AF8E1R =. GUZ,83, .ARE3I8 H8RRIE1, ;URI.I+8+I13 +1R138E1, HEA+E=8R +8U=I3G, 8RITE1 TI1,8= J8,IR, ,8NI,8 H8TI=8383 83E GR8+I831 A. AU+ER1. ANII
Page | 802

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 RE=1AFI3G TIE ,1TI13 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC, E8TEE 31FE,HER !, "$(), 0ITI1UT 83C +1;C TIERE1. I8FI3G HEE3 =ERFEE U;13 TIE 8;;EAA83T, ;IIAI;;I3E +1,,ER+I8A X I3EU=TRI8A H83?. ANIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 IE8RI3G 83E +13=IEERI3G TIE ,1TI13 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC, E8TEE 31FE,HER !rd, "$(), 13 31FE,HER /!, "$(), 0IE3 TIE 31TI+E .1R TIE IE8RI3G
Page | 803

TIERE1. 08= 31FE,HER /', "$(). ANIF

.1R

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 GR83TI3G TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC 8 REAIE. 1TIER TI83 TI8T ;R8CEE .1R I3 IT= ,1TI13, E8TEE 31FE,HER !, "$(), I3 TIE 8H=E3+E 1. 8 ;R8CER .1R GE3ER8A REAIE. +13T8I3EE TIEREI3. ANF TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8AA10I3G TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC, T1 +13TI3UE ;8C,E3T= U;13 8 +13TR8+T
Page | 804

T1 =EAA TIE TER,= 83E +13EITI13= 1. 0II+I IT I8= .8IAEE T1 .UA.IAA. ANFI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 EETER,I3I3G TIE RIGIT= 1. TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC 1FER TIE RE8A ;R1;ERTC =UHJE+T ,8TTER 1. TIE +13TR8+T T1 =EAA IT ENE+UTEE 0ITI TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 0IIAE 8+TI3G 8= 8 ;R1H8TE +1URT. ANFII A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 8AA10I3G TIE +13TI3U8TI13
Page | 805

1. ;8C,E3T= HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 0E=TER3 I3=TITUTE 1. TE+I31A1GC, U;13 8 +13TR8+T T1 =EAA ENE+UTEE HC IT 83E TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, T1 8 ;ER=13 1TIER TI83 II= A80.UAAC 8;;1I3TEE 8E,I3I=TR8T1R. ANFIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;8C,E3T 1. RET8I3ER9= .EE= .R1, TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=, 0IE3 TIERE I= 3EITIER =U+I E=T8TE 31R 8==ET= TIERE1..
Page | 806

ANIN TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;8C,E3T 1. RET8I3ER9= .EE= 1. A80CER= 1. 8AAEGEE IEIR= T1 TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=. ANN TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 I,;AE,E3TI3G TIE 8AAEGEE 8GREE,E3T HET0EE3 TIE IEIR= 1. TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=, 83E TIEIR A80CER=. ANNI
Page | 807

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;RE,8TURE EI=TRIHUTI13 1. E=T8TE 8==ET= T1 8AAEGEE IEIR= 1R HE3E.I+I8RIE= TIERE1., HC 08C 1. RET8I3ER9= .EE=. ANNII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TI8T 8AA .I38A EEEE= 1. =8AE ENE+UTEE ;UR=U83T T1 +13TR8+T= T1 =EAA E3TEREE I3T1 HC TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, EURI3G II= AI.ETI,E, HE =IG3EE J1I3TAC HC TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, 83E TIE 8;;EAA83T, ;IIAI;;I3E +1,,ER+I8A 83E I3EU=TRI8A H83?, 83E 31T
Page | 808

HC TIE A8TTER 13AC 8= TIE A80.UAAC 8;;1I3TEE 8E,I3I=TR8T1R 1. II= E=T8TE. ANNIII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;8C,E3T 1. AEG8A EN;E3=E= .R1, TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=, 0IE3 TIERE I= 3EITIER =U+I E=T8TE 31R 8==ET= TIERE1.. ANNIF TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;8C,E3T 1. AEG8A EN;E3=E= 1. A80CER= 1. 8AAEGEE IEIR=
Page | 809

T1 TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=. ANNF TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;RE,8TURE EI=TRIHUTI13 1. E=T8TE 8==ET= T1 8AAEGEE IEIR= 1R HE3E.I+I8RIE= TIERE1., HC 08C 1. AEG8A EN;E3=E=. ANNFI TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TIE ;8C,E3T 1. +1,;E3=8TI13 T1 TIE ;UR;1RTEE 8E,I3I=TR8TRIN 1. TIE =U;;1=EE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, AI33IE J83E I1EGE=, TIE I3=T83T
Page | 810

8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, 0IE3 TIERE I= 3EITIER =U+I E=T8TE 31R 8==ET= TIERE1.. ANNFII TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TI8T TIE .U3E= 1. TIE TE=T8TE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, HE ;A8+EE I3 8 J1I3T 8++1U3T 1. TIE 8;;EAA83T, ;IIAI;;I3E +1,,ER+I8A 83E I3EU=TRI8A H83?, 83E TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, 0I1 I= 8 +1,;AETE =TR83GER T1 TIE 8.1RE=8IE E=T8TE. ANNFIII
Page | 811

TIE A10ER +1URT ERREE I3 1REERI3G TI8T TIE 8;;EAAEE, 8FEAI38 8. ,8G31, HE GIFE3 EOU8A 8++E== T1 TIE RE+1RE= 1. TIE TE=T8TE E=T8TE 1. TIE EE+E8=EE, +I8RAE= 3E0T13 I1EGE=, 0IE3 =IE I= 8 +1,;AETE =TR83GER T1 TIE 8.1RE=8IE E=T8TE. 2;p. #!*:!, 8ppe ant9s Hrief.5 To comp ete this rather e aborate, and &navoidab - e6tended narration of the fact&a setting of these cases, it maa so be mentioned that an attempt was made b- the heirs of ,rs. Iodges to have respondent ,agno removed as administratri6, with the proposed appointment of Henito J. Aope7 in her
Page | 812

p ace, and that respondent co&rt did act&a order s&ch proposed rep acement, b&t the +o&rt dec ared the said order of respondent co&rt vio ative of its inj&nction of 8&g&st :, "$(#, hence witho&t force and effect 2see Reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ and .ebr&ar- ", "$#!5. =&bse%&ent -, 8tt-. Efrain H. Trenas, one of the aw-ers of said heirs, appeared no onger for the proposed administrator Aope7 b&t for the heirs themse ves, and in a motion dated 1ctober /(, "$#/ informed the +o&rt that a motion had been fi ed with respondent co&rt for the remova of petitioner ;+IH as administrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, which remova motion a eged that //.$(:"4$B of the share of +. 3. Iodges had a read- been
Page | 813

ac%&ired b- the heirs of ,rs. Iodges from certain heirs of her h&sband. .&rther, in this connection, in the answer of ;+IH to the motion of respondent ,agno to have it dec ared in contempt for disregarding the +o&rt9s reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ modif-ing the inj&nction of 8&g&st :, "$(#, said petitioner anne6ed thereto a joint manifestation and motion, appearing to have been fi ed with respondent co&rt, informing said co&rt that in addition to the fact that //B of the share of +. 3. Iodges had a readbeen bo&ght b- the heirs of ,rs. Iodges, as a read- stated, certain other heirs of Iodges representing "#.!4!#)'B of his estate were joining ca&se with the heirs of ,rs. Iodges as against ;+IH, therebmaking
Page | 814

somewhat precario&s, if not possib &ntenab e, petitioners9 contin&ation as administrator of the Iodges estate. RE=1AUTI13 1. I==UE= TIE );%T3O%A%3 83E ;R1IIHITI13 +8=E= I A$ to t1e Alle"ed Tardine$$ of t1e 2re$ent Appeal$ The priorit- %&estion raised brespondent ,agno re ates to the a eged tardiness of a the aforementioned thirt-*three appea s of ;+IH. +onsidering, however, that these appea s revo ve aro&nd practica - the same main iss&es and that it is admitted that some of them have been time taken, and, moreover, their fina res& ts
Page | 815

I3

hereinbe ow to be stated and e6p ained make it of no conse%&ence whether or not the orders concerned have become fina b- the apsing of the respective periods to appea them, 0e do not deem it necessar- to pass &pon the time iness of an- of said appea s. II T1e 2ropriet! 7ere of )ertiorari and 2ro1i/ition in$tead of Appeal The other pre iminar- point of the same respondent is a eged impropriet- of the specia civi action of certiorariand prohibition in view of the e6istence of the remed- of appea which it c aims is proven b- the ver- appea s now before Us. =&ch contention fai s to take into acco&nt that there is a common thread
Page | 816

among the basic iss&es invo ved in a these thirt-*three appea s which, &n ess reso ved in one sing e proceeding, wi inevitab - ca&se the pro iferation of more or ess simi ar or c ose - re ated incidents and conse%&ent event&a appea s. If for this consideration a one, and witho&t taking acco&nt an-more of the &nnecessar- additiona effort, e6pense and time which wo& d be invo ved in as man- individ&a appea s as the n&mber of s&ch incidents, it is ogica and proper to ho d, as 0e do ho d, that the remed- of appea is not ade%&ate in the present cases. In determining whether or not a specia civi action of certiorari or prohibition ma- be resorted to in ie& of appea , in instances wherein ack or e6cess of j&risdiction or grave ab&se of discretion
Page | 817

is a eged, it is not eno&gh that the remed- of appea e6ists or is possib e. It is indispensab e that taking a the re evant circ&mstances of the given case, appea wo& d better serve the interests of j&stice. 1bvio&s -, the onger de a-, a&gmented e6pense and tro&b e and &nnecessar- repetition of the same work attendant to the present m& tip e appea s, which, after a , dea with practica - the same basic iss&es that can be more e6peditio&s - reso ved or determined in a sing e specia civi action, make the remedies of certiorari and prohibition, p&rs&ed bpetitioner, preferab e, for p&rposes of reso ving the common basic iss&es raised in a of them, despite the conceded avai abi itof appea . Hesides, the sett ing of s&ch common
Page | 818

f&ndamenta iss&es wo& d nat&ra minimi7e the areas of conf ict between the parties and render more simp e the determination of the secondar- iss&es in each of them. 8ccording -, respondent ,agno9s objection to the present remed- of certiorari and prohibition m&st be overr& ed. 0e come now to the errors assigned bpetitioner*appe ant, ;hi ippine +ommercia X Ind&stria Hank, 2;+IH, for short5 in the petition as we as in its main brief as appe ant. III On Q1et1er or &ot T1ere i$ till An! 2art of t1e Te$tate ;$tate Mr$. 7od"e$ t1at #a! /e Adjudicated to 1er /rot1er$
Page | 819

and $i$ter$ a$ 1er e$tate, of 01ic1 re$pondent Ma"no i$ t1e un4ue$tioned Ad#ini$tratri' in $pecial 2roceedin"$ 130+. In the petition, it is the position of ;+IH that the respondent co&rt e6ceeded its j&risdiction or grave - ab&sed its discretion in f&rther recogni7ing after Eecember "4, "$)# the e6istence of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and in sanctioning p&rported acts of administration therein of respondent ,agno. ,ain gro&nd for s&ch post&re is that b- the afore%&oted order of respondent co&rt of said date, Iodges was a read- a owed to assert and e6ercise a his rights as &niversa heir of his wife p&rs&ant to the provisions of her wi , %&oted ear ier, hence, nothing e se
Page | 820

remains to be done in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# e6cept to forma c ose it. In other words, the contention of ;+IH is that in view of said order, nothing more than a forma dec aration of Iodges as so e and e6c &sive heir of his wife and the conse%&ent forma &n%&a ified adj&dication to him of a her estate remain to be done to comp ete c ose =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, hence respondent ,agno sho& d be considered as having ceased to be 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of ,rs. Iodges since then. 8fter caref& - going over the record, 0e fee constrained to ho d that s&ch pose is patent - &ntenab e from whatever ang e it is e6amined.
Page | 821

To start with, 0e cannot find an-where in respondent 1rder of Eecember "4, "$)# the sense being read into it b;+IH. The tenor of said order bears no s&ggestion at a to s&ch effect. The dec aration of heirs and distrib&tion bthe probate co&rt of the estate of a decedent is its most important f&nction, and this +o&rt is not disposed to enco&rage j&dges of probate proceedings to be ess than definite, p ain and specific in making orders in s&ch regard, if for no other reason than that a parties concerned, ike the heirs, the creditors, and most of a the government, the devisees and egatees, sho& d know with certaint- what are and when their respective rights and ob igations ens&ing from the inheritance or in re ation thereto wo& d begin or
Page | 822

cease, as the case ma- be, therebavoiding precise the ega comp ications and conse%&ent itigations simi ar to those that have deve oped &nnecessari - in the present cases. 0hi e it is tr&e that in instances wherein a the parties interested in the estate of a deceased person have a readact&a - distrib&ted among themse ves their respective shares therein to the satisfaction of ever-one concerned and no rights of creditors or third parties are adverse - affected, it wo& d nat&ra - be a most ministeria for the co&rt to iss&e the fina order of dec aration and distrib&tion, sti it is inconceivab e that the specia proceeding instit&ted for the p&rpose ma- be considered terminated, the respective rights of a the parties concerned be deemed definite - sett ed,
Page | 823

and the e6ec&tor or administrator thereof be regarded as a&tomatica discharged and re ieved a read- of a f&nctions and responsibi ities witho&t the corresponding definite orders of the probate co&rt to s&ch effect. Indeed, the aw on the matter is specific, categorica and &ne%&ivoca . =ection " of R& e $' provides< =E+TI13 ". Q1en order for di$tri/ution of re$idue #ade. G 0hen the debts, f&nera charges, and e6penses of administration, the a owance to the widow and inheritance ta6, if an-, chargeab e to the estate in accordance with aw have been paid, the co&rt, on the app ication of the e6ec&tor or administrator, or of a person
Page | 824

interested in the estate, and after hearing &pon notice, sha assign the resid&e of the estate to the persons entit ed to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entit ed, and s&ch persons ma- demand and recover their respective shares from the e6ec&tor or administrator, or an- other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controvers- before the co&rt as to who are the awf& heirs of the deceased person or as to the distrib&tive shares to which each person is entit ed &nder the aw, the controvers- sha be heard and decided as in ordinar- cases.
Page | 825

3o distrib&tion sha be a owed &nti the pa-ment of the ob igations above mentioned has been made or provided for, &n ess the distrib&tees, or an- of them give a bond, in a s&m to be fi6ed b- the co&rt, conditioned for the pa-ment of said ob igations within s&ch time as the co&rt directs. These provisions cannot mean an-thing ess than that in order that a proceeding for the sett ement of the estate of a deceased ma- be deemed read- for fina c os&re, 2"5 there sho& d have been iss&ed a read- an order of distrib&tion or assignment of the estate of the decedent among or to those entit ed thereto b- wi or b- aw, b&t 2/5 s&ch order sha not be iss&ed &nti after it is
Page | 826

shown that the Ddebts, f&nera e6penses, e6penses of administration, a owances, ta6es, etc. chargeab e to the estateD have been paid, which is b&t ogica and proper. 2!5 Hesides, s&ch an order is &s&a - iss&ed &pon proper and specific app ication for the p&rpose of the interested part- or parties, and not of the co&rt. ... it is on - after, and not before, the pa-ment of a debts, f&nera charges, e6penses of administration, a owance to the widow, and inheritance ta6 sha have been effected that the co&rt sho& d make a dec aration of heirs or of s&ch persons as are entit ed b- aw to the resid&e. 2,oran, +omments on the R& es of +o&rt,
Page | 827

/nd ed., Fo . II, p. !$#, citing +apistrano vs. 3ad&rata, 4$ ;hi ., #/(> Aope7 vs. Aope7, !# 1ff. Ga7., !'$".5 2JI,1G8*13 v. HEA,13TE, :4 ;hi . )4), )4:5 2p. :(, 8ppe ee9s Hrief5 666 666 666 Under =ection #)! of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re, 2corresponding to =ection ", R& e $'5 what brings an intestate 2or testate5 proceeding to a c ose is the order of distrib&tion directing de iver- of the resid&e to the persons entit ed thereto after pa-ing the indebtedness, if an-, eft bthe deceased. 2=antiesteban vs. =antiesteban, (: ;hi . !(#, !#'.5
Page | 828

In the cases at bar, 0e cannot discern from the vo &mino&s and varied facts, p eadings and orders before Us that the above indispensab e prere%&isites for the dec aration of heirs and the adj&dication of the estate of ,rs. Iodges had a read- been comp ied with when the order of Eecember "4, "$)# was iss&ed. 8s a read- stated, 0e are not pers&aded that the proceedings eading to the iss&ance of said order, constit&ting bare - of the motion of ,a/#, "$)#, 8nne6 E of the petition, the order of even date, 8nne6 E, and the motion of Eecember "", "$)#, 8nne6 I, a afore%&oted, are what the aw contemp ates. 0e cannot see in the order of Eecember "4, "$)#, so m&ch re ied &pon b- the petitioner, an-thing more than an e6p icit approva of Da the
Page | 829

sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of a the properties eft bthe deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor +har es 3. IodgesD 2after the death of his wife and prior to the date of the motion5, p &s a genera advance a&thori7ation to enab e said DE6ec&tor G to e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft the said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in consonance with wishes conve-ed in the ast wi and testament of the atterD, which, certain -, cannot amo&nt to the order of adj&dication of the estate of the decedent to Iodges contemp ated in the aw. In fact, the motion of Eecember "", "$)# on which the co&rt predicated the order in %&estion did not pra- for ans&ch adj&dication at a . 0hat is more,
Page | 830

a tho&gh said motion did a ege that Dherein E6ec&tor 2Iodges5 is not on part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so, the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane IodgesD, it significant added that Dherein E6ec&tor, as Aegatee 2sic5, has the right to se , conve-, ease or dispose of the properties in the ;hi ippines G d&ring his ifetimeD, thereb- indicating that what said motion contemp ated was nothing more than either the enjo-ment b- Iodges of his rights &nder the partic& ar portion of the dispositions of his wife9s wi which were to be operative on - d&ring his ifetime or the &se of his own share of the conj&ga estate, pending the termination of the proceedings. In other words, the a&thorit- referred to in said motions and
Page | 831

orders is in the nat&re of that contemp ated either in =ection / of R& e "'$ which permits, in appropriate cases, advance or partia imp ementation of the terms of a d& - probated wi before fina adj&dication or distrib&tion when the rights of third parties wo& d not be adverse - affected thereb- or in the estab ished practice of a owing the s&rviving spo&se to dispose of his own share of he conj&ga estate, pending its fina i%&idation, when it appears that no creditors of the conj&ga partnership wo& d be prej&diced thereb-, 2see the Revised R& es of +o&rt b- .rancisco, Fo . F*H, "$#' ed. p. ::#5 a beit, from the tenor of said motions, 0e are more inc ined to be ieve that Iodges meant to refer to the former. In an- event, 0e are f& - pers&aded that the %&oted
Page | 832

a egations of said motions read together cannot be constr&ed as a rep&diation of the rights &ne%&ivoca estab ished in the wi in favor of ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters to whatever have not been disposed of bhim &p to his death. Indeed, nowhere in the record does it appear that the tria co&rt s&bse%&ent acted &pon the premise s&ggested bpetitioner. 1n the contrar-, on 3ovember /!, "$(), when the co&rt reso ved the motion of appe ee 0estern Instit&te of Techno og- b- its order 0e have %&oted ear ier, it categorica - he d that as of said date, 3ovember /!, "$(), Din both cases 2=pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/5 there is as -et no j&dicia dec aration of heirs nor
Page | 833

distrib&tion of properties to whomsoever are entit ed thereto.D In this connection, it ma- be stated f&rther against petitioner, b- wa- of some kind of estoppe , that in its own motion of Jan&ar- :, "$(), a read- %&oted in f& on pages )4*(# of this decision, it pra-ed inter alia that the co&rt dec are that D+. 3. Iodges was the so e and e6c &sive heir of the estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD, which it wo& d not have done if it were rea - convinced that the order of Eecember "4, "$)# was a read- the order of adj&dication and distrib&tion of her estate. That said motion was ater withdrawn when ,agno fi ed her own motion for determination and adj&dication of what sho& d correspond to the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges does not a ter the
Page | 834

ind&bitab e imp ication of the pra-er of the withdrawn motion. It m&st be borne in mind that whi e it is tr&e that ,rs. Iodges be%&eathed her who e estate to her h&sband and gave him what amo&nts to f& powers of dominion over the same d&ring his ifetime, she imposed at the same time the condition that whatever sho& d remain thereof &pon his death sho& d go to her brothers and sisters. In effect, therefore, what was abso &te - given to Iodges was on - so m&ch of his wife9s estate as he might possib - dispose of d&ring his ifetime> hence, even ass&ming that b- the a egations in his motion, he did intend to adj&dicate the who e estate to himse f, as s&ggested b- petitioner, s&ch &ni atera act co& d
Page | 835

not have affected or diminished in andegree or manner the right of his brothers and sisters*in* aw over what wo& d remain thereof &pon his death, for s&re -, no one can right - contend that the testamentar- provision in %&estion a owed him to so adj&dicate an- part of the estate to himse f as to prej&dice them. In other words, irrespective of whatever might have been Iodges9 intention in his motions, as E6ec&tor, of ,a- /#, "$)# and Eecember "", "$)#, the tria co&rt9s orders granting said motions, even in the terms in which thehave been worded, co& d not have had the effect of an abso &te and &nconditiona adj&dication &nto Iodges of the who e estate of his wife. 3one of them co& d have deprived his brothers and sisters*in* aw of their rights &nder
Page | 836

said wi . 8nd it ma- be added here that the fact that no one appeared to oppose the motions in %&estion ma- on - be attrib&ted, first -, to the fai &re of Iodges to send notices to an- of them, as admitted in the motion itse f, and, second -, to the fact that even if thehad been notified, the- co& d not have taken said motions to be for the fina distrib&tion and adj&dication of the estate, b&t mere - for him to be ab e, pending s&ch fina distrib&tion and adj&dication, to either e6ercise d&ring his ifetime rights of dominion over his wife9s estate in accordance with the be%&est in his favor, which, as a readobserved, ma- be a owed &nder the broad terms of =ection / of R& e "'$, or make &se of his own share of the conj&ga estate. In an- event, 0e do not
Page | 837

be ieve that the tria co&rt co& d have acted in the sense pretended bpetitioner, not on - beca&se of the c ear ang&age of the wi b&t a so beca&se none of the interested parties had been d& - notified of the motion and hearing thereof. =tated different -, if the orders of ,a- /#, "$)# and Eecember 4, "$)# were rea - intended to be read in the sense contended b- petitioner, 0e wo& d have no hesitanc- in dec aring them n& and void. ;etitioner cites the case of Au$tria v$. Gentenilla, G. R. 3o. A*"''":, =eptember "$, "$)(, 2&nreported b&t a partia digest thereof appears in $$ ;hi . "'($5 in s&pport of its insistence that with the orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)#, the c os&re of ,rs.
Page | 838

Iodges9 estate has become a mere forma it-, inasm&ch as said orders amo&nted to the order of adj&dication and distrib&tion ordained b- =ection " of R& e $'. H&t the para e attempted to be drawn between that case and the present one does not ho d. There the tria co&rt had in fact iss&ed a c ear, distinct and e6press order of adj&dication and distrib&tion more than twent- -ears before the other heirs of the deceased fi ed their motion asking that the administratri6 be removed, etc. 8s %&oted in that decision, the order of the ower co&rt in that respect read as fo ows< En orden a a mocion de administradora, e j&7gado enc&entra procedente bajo a a a

Page | 839

condicion de %&e no se hara entrega ni adj&dicacion de os bienes a os herederos antes de %&e estos presten a fian7a correspondiente - de ac&erdo con o prescrito en e 8rt. #)4 de +odigo de ;rocedimientos< p&es, en a&tos no aparece %&e ha-an sido nombrados comisionados de ava &o - rec amaciones. Eicha fian7a podra ser por &n va or ig&a a de os bienes %&e correspondan a cada heredero seg&n e testamento. +reo %&e no es obice para a terminacion de e6pediente e hecho de %&e a administradora no ha presentado hasta ahora e inventario de os bienes> p&es, seg&n a e-, estan e6entos de esta forma idad os administradores
Page | 840

%&e son egatarios de resid&o o remanente de os bienes - ha-an prestado fian7a para responder de as gestiones de s& cargo, aparece en e testamento %&e a administradora 8 ejandra 8&stria re&ne dicha condicion. ;1R T1E1 A1 EN;UE=T1, e j&7gado dec ara, ".o< no haber &gar a a mocion de Ramon Fenteni a - otros> /.o, dec ara asimismo %&e os &nicos herederos de finado 8ntonio Fenteni a son s& esposa 8 ejandra 8&stria, ,aria Fenteni a, hermana de testador, Ramon Fenteni a, ,aria Fenteni a, Ramon =oriano, E& a io =oriano, Jose =oriano, Gabrie a
Page | 841

Fenteni a, Aoren7o Fenteni a, .e icitas Fenteni a, E&genio Fenteni a - 8 ejandra Fenteni a, en representacion de os dif&ntos J&an, Tomas, +ata ino - .roi an, hermanos de testador, dec arando, ademas %&e a heredera 8 ejandra 8&stria tiene derecho a remanente de todos os bienes dejados por e finado, desp&es de ded&cir de e os a porcion %&e corresponde a cada &no de s&s coherederos, conforme esta mandado en as c a&s& as :.a, $.a, "'.a, "".a, "/.a - "!.a de testamento> !.o, se apr&eba e pago hecho por a administradora de os gastos de a & tima enfermedad - f&nera es de testador, de a donacion hecha por
Page | 842

e testador a favor de a Esc&e a a ;&b ica de ,&nicipio de ,angatarem, - de as misas en s&fragio de a ma de finado> 4.o, %&e &na ve7 prestada a fian7a mencionada a principio de este a&to, se haga a entrega adj&dicacion de os bienes, conforme se dispone en e testamento - se acaba de dec arar en este a&to> ).o, -, fina mente, %&e verificada a adj&dicacion, se dara por terminada a administracion, reve ando e toda responsabi idad a a administradora, - cance ando s& fian7a. 8=I =E 1REE38.
Page | 843

Undo&bted -, after the iss&ance of an order of s&ch tenor, the c os&re of anproceedings for the sett ement of the estate of a deceased person cannot be b&t perf&nctor-. In the case at bar, as a read- pointed o&t above, the two orders re ied &pon bpetitioner do not appear e'-facie to be of the same tenor and nat&re as the order j&st %&oted, and, what is more, the circ&mstances attendant to its iss&ance do not s&ggest that s&ch was the intention of the co&rt, for nothing co& d have been more vio ative of the wi of ,rs. Iodges. Indeed, to infer from Iodges9 said motions and from his statements of acco&nts for the -ears "$):, "$)$ and "$(', 8 8nne6es I, ? and ,,
Page | 844

respective -, wherein he repeated c aimed that Dherein e6ec&tor 2being5 the on - devisee or egatee of the deceased, in accordance with the ast wi and testament a read- probated,D there is Dno 2other5 person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining herein acco&nt to be given noticeD, an intent to adj&dicate &nto himse f the who e of his wife9s estate in an abso &te manner and witho&t regard to the contingent interests of her brothers and sisters, is to imp&te bad faith to him, an imp&tation which is not ega - permissib e, m&ch ess warranted b- the facts of record herein. Iodges knew or o&ght to have known that, ega - speaking, the terms of his wife9s wi did not give him s&ch a right. .act&a -, there are eno&gh
Page | 845

circ&mstances e6tant in the records of these cases indicating that he had no s&ch intention to ignore the rights of his co*heirs. In his ver- motions in %&estion, Iodges a eged, thr& co&nse , that the Ddeceased Ainnie Jane Iodges died eaving no descendants and ascendants, e'cept /rot1er$ and $i$ter$ and 1erein petitioner, a$ $urvivin" $pou$e, to in1erit t1e propertie$ of t1e decedentD, and even promised that Dproper acco&nting wi be had G in a these transactionsD which he had s&bmitted for approva and a&thori7ation b- the co&rt, thereb- imp -ing that he was aware of his responsibi ities vis*a* vis his co*heirs. 8s a eged brespondent ,agno in her brief as appe ee<
Page | 846

Under date of 8pri "4, "$)$, +. 3. Iodges fi ed his first D8cco&nt bthe E6ec&torD of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the D=tatement of 3etworth of ,r. +. 3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$): anne6ed thereto, +. 3. Iodges reported that the combined conj&ga estate earned a net income of ;!/:,4'/.(/, divided even - between him and the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a income ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$): on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the said estate as having earned income of ;"(4,/'".!", e6act - one*ha f of
Page | 847

the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2p. $", 8ppe ee9s Hrief.5 Under date of J& - /", "$(', +. 3. Iodges fi ed his second D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt b- the E6ec&torD of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the D=tatement of 3etworth of ,r. +. 3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$)$ anne6ed thereto, +. 3. Iodges reported that the combined conj&ga estate earned a net income of ;/#',(/!.!/, divided even between him and the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a income
Page | 848

ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$)$ on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the said estate as having earned income of ;"!),!"".((, e6act one*ha f of the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2pp. $"*$/, id.5 Under date of 8pri /', "$(", +. 3. Iodges fi ed his third D8nn&a =tatement of 8cco&nt b- the E6ec&tor for the -ear "$('D of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. In the D=tatement of 3et 0orth of ,r. +. 3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD as of Eecember !", "$(' anne6ed thereto, +. 3. Iodges reported
Page | 849

that the combined conj&ga estate earned a net income of ;!"4,:)#.$4, divided of Ainnie Jane Iodges. ;&rs&ant to this, he fi ed an Dindivid&a even - between him and the estate income ta6 ret&rnD for ca endar -ear "$(' on the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges reporting, &nder oath, the said estate as having earned income of ;")#,4/:.$#, e6act - one*ha f of the net income of his combined persona assets and that of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges. 2pp. $/*$!, id.5 In the petition for probate that he 2Iodges5 fi ed, he isted the seven brothers and sisters of Ainnie Jane as her DheirsD 2see p. /, Green
Page | 850

R185. The order of the co&rt admitting the wi to probate &nfort&nate - omitted one of the heirs, Ro- Iigdon 2see p. "4, Green R185. Immediate -, +. 3. Iodges fi ed a verified motion to have Ro- Iigdon9s name inc &ded as an heir, stating that he wanted to straighten the records Din order 2that5 the heirs of deceased RoIigdon ma- not think or be ieve the- were omitted, and that thewere rea - and are interested in the estate of deceased Ainnie Jane IodgesD. Th&s, he recogni7ed, if in his own wa-, the separate identit- of his wife9s estate from his own share of the conj&ga partnership &p to the time of his death,
Page | 851

more than five -ears after that of his wife. Ie never considered the who e estate as a sing e one be onging e6c &sive - to himse f. The on conc &sion one can gather from this is that he co& d have been preparing the basis for the event&a transmission of his wife9s estate, or, at east, so m&ch thereof as he wo& d not have been ab e to dispose of d&ring his ifetime, to her brothers and sisters in accordance with her e6pressed desire, as intimated in his ta6 ret&rn in the United =tates to be more e6tensive - referred to anon. 8nd ass&ming that he did pa- the corresponding estate and inheritance ta6es in the ;hi ippines on the basis of his being so e heir, s&ch pa-ment is not necessari inconsistent with his recognition of the rights of his co*heirs.
Page | 852

0itho&t p&rporting to r& e definite - on the matter in these proceedings, 0e might sa- here that 0e are inc ined to the view that &nder the pec& iar provisions of his wife9s wi , and for p&rposes of the app icab e inheritance ta6 aws, Iodges had to be considered as her so e heir, pending the act&a transmission of the remaining portion of her estate to her other heirs, &pon the event&a it- of his death, and whatever adj&stment might be warranted sho& d there be an- s&ch remainder then is a matter that co& d we be taken care of b- the interna reven&e a&thorities in d&e time. It is to be noted that the aw-er, 8tt-. Aeon ;. Ge ada, who signed the motions of ,a- /#, "$)# and Eecember
Page | 853

"", "$)# and the aforementioned statements of acco&nt was the versame one who a so s&bse%&ent signed and fi ed the motion of Eecember /(, "$(/ for the appointment of respondent ,agno as D8dministratri6 of the Estate of ,rs. Ainnie Jane IodgesD wherein it was a eged that Din accordance with the provisions of the ast wi and testament of Ainnie Jane Iodges, whatever rea properties that ma- remain at the death of her h&sband, +har es 3ewton Iodges, the said properties sha be e%&a - divided among their heirs.D 8nd it appearing that said attorne- was Iodges9 aw-er as E6ec&tor of the estate of his wife, it stands to reason that his &nderstanding of the sit&ation, imp icit in his a egations j&st %&oted, co& d somehow be
Page | 854

ref ective of Iodges9 own &nderstanding thereof. 8s a matter of fact, the a egations in the motion of the same 8tt-. Ge ada dated J& - ", "$)#, a DRe%&est for Inc &sion of the 3ame of Ro- Iigdon in the 1rder of the +o&rt dated J& - "$, "$)#, etc.D, reference to which is made in the above %&otation from respondent ,agno9s brief, are over the oath of Iodges himse f, who verified the motion. =aid a egations read< ". G That the Ion. +o&rt iss&ed orders dated J&ne /$, "$)#, ordering the probate of the wi . /. G That in said order of the Ion. +o&rt, the re atives of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges
Page | 855

were en&merated. Iowever, in the petition as we as in the testimonof E6ec&tor d&ring the hearing, the name Ro- Iigdon was mentioned, b&t deceased. It was &nintentiona - omitted the heirs of said Ro- Iigdon who are his wife 8 ine Iigdon and son Eavid Iigdon, a of age, and residents of O&in an, Te6as, U.=.8. !. G T1at to $trai"1ten t1e record$, and in order t1e 1eir$ of decea$ed %o! 7i"don #a! not t1in: or /elieve t1e! 0ere o#itted, and t1at t1e! 0ere reall! and are intere$ted in t1e e$tate of decea$ed Linnie Jane 7od"e$, it is re%&ested of the Ion. +o&rt to insert the names of 8 ine Iigdon
Page | 856

and Eavid Iigdon, wife and son of deceased Ro- Iigdon in the said order of the Ion. +o&rt dated J&ne /$, "$)#. 2pars. " to !, 8nne6 / of ,agno9s 8nswer G Record, p. /('5 8s can be seen, these ita ici7ed a egations indicate, more or ess, the rea attit&de of Iodges in regard to the testamentar- dispositions of his wife. In connection with this point of Iodges9 intent, 0e note that there are doc&ments, copies of which are anne6ed to respondent ,agno9s answer, which p&rported - contain Iodges9 own so emn dec arations recogni7ing the right of his co*heirs, s&ch as the a eged ta6 ret&rn he fi ed with the United =tates Ta6ation
Page | 857

a&thorities, identified as =ched& e ,, 28nne6 4 of her answer5 and his s&pposed affidavit of ren&nciation, 8nne6 ). In said =ched& e ,, Iodges appears to have answered the pertinent %&estion th&s< /a. Iad the s&rviving spo&se the right to dec are an e ection between 2"5 the provisions made in his or her favor b- the wi and 2""5 dower, c&rtes- or a stat&torinterestK 2N5 Ces 2 5 3o /d. Eoes the s&rviving spo&se contemp ate reno&ncing the wi and e ecting to take dower, c&rtes-, or a stat&tor- interestK 2N5 Ces 2 5 3o

Page | 858

!. 8ccording to the information and be ief of the person or persons fi ing the ret&rn, is an- action described &nder %&estion " designed or contemp atedK 2 5 Ces 2N5 3o 28nne6 4, 8nswer G Record, p. /(!5 and to have f&rther stated &nder the item, DEescription of propert- interests passing to s&rviving spo&seD the fo owing< 3one, e6cept for p&rposes of administering the Estate, pa-ing debts, ta6es and other ega charges. 3t i$ t1e intention of t1e $urvivin" 1u$/and of decea$ed to di$tri/ute t1e re#ainin" propert! and intere$t$ of t1e decea$ed in t1eir )o##unit! ;$tate to t1e
Page | 859

devi$ee$ and le"atee$ na#ed in t1e 0ill 01en t1e de/t$, lia/ilitie$, ta'e$ and e'pen$e$ of ad#ini$tration are finall! deter#ined and paid. 28nne6 4, 8nswer G Record, p. /(!5 In addition, in the s&pposed affidavit of Iodges, 8nne6 ), it is stated< I, +. 3. Iodges, being d& - sworn, on oath affirm that at the time the United =tates Estate Ta6 Ret&rn was fi ed in the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on 8&g&st :, "$):, I reno&nced and disc aimed an- and a right to receive the rents, emo &ments and income from said estate, as shown b- the statement contained in =ched& e , at page /$ of said ret&rn, a cop- of which
Page | 860

sched& e is attached to this affidavit and made a part hereof. T1e purpo$e of t1i$ affidavit i$ to ratif! and confir#, and 3 do 1ere/! ratif! and confir#, t1e declaration #ade in c1edule M of $aid return and hereb- forma - disc aim and reno&nce an- right on m- part to receive an- of the said rents, emo &ments and income from the estate of m- deceased wife, Ainnie Jane Iodges. This affidavit is made to abso ve me or m- estate from an- iabi it- for the pa-ment of income ta6es on income which has accr&ed to the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges since the death of the said Ainnie Jane Iodges on
Page | 861

,a- /!, "$)#. 28nne6 ), 8nswer G Record, p. /(45 8 tho&gh it appears that said doc&ments were not d& - presented as evidence in the co&rt be ow, and 0e cannot, therefore, re - on them for the p&rpose of the present proceedings, sti , 0e cannot c ose o&r e-es to their e6istence in the record nor fai to note that their tenor jibes with 1&r conc &sion disc&ssed above from the circ&mstances re ated to the orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)#. ) =omehow, these doc&ments, considering the- are s&pposed to be copies of their origina s fo&nd in the officia fi es of the governments of the United =tates and of the ;hi ippines, serve to essen anpossib e
Page | 862

apprehension that 1&r conc &sion from the other evidence of Iodges9 manifest intent vis*a*vis the rights of his co*heirs is witho&t basis in fact. Feri -, with s&ch e o%&ent manifestations of his good intentions towards the other heirs of his wife, 0e find it ver- hard to be ieve that Iodges did ask the co&rt and that the atter agreed that he be dec ared her so e heir and that her who e estate be adj&dicated to him witho&t so m&ch as j&st annotating the contingent interest of her brothers and sisters in what wo& d remain thereof &pon his demise. 1n the contrar-, it seems to &s more fact&a and fairer to ass&me that Iodges was we aware of his position as e6ec&tor of the wi of his wife and, as s&ch, had in
Page | 863

mind the fo owing admonition made bthe +o&rt in 2a#ittan v$. La$a#, et al., (' ;hi ., $':, at pp. $"!*$"4< Upon the death of Hernarda in =eptember, "$':, said ands contin&ed to be conj&ga propertin the hands of the defendant Aasam. It is provided in artic e "4": of the +ivi +ode that &pon the disso &tion of the conj&ga partnership, an inventor- sha immediate - be made and this co&rt in constr&ing this provision in connection with section (:) of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re 2prior to its amendment b- 8ct 3o. !"#( of 3ovember /4, "$/45 has repeated - he d that in the event of the death of the wife, the aw
Page | 864

imposes &pon the h&sband the d&t- of i%&idating the affairs of the partnership witho&t de a- 2desde &ego5 28 fonso vs. 3atividad, ( ;hi ., /4'> ;rado vs. Aagera, # ;hi ., !$)> Ee a Rama vs. Ee a Rama, # ;hi ., #4)> Enri%&e7 vs. Fictoria, "' ;hi ., "'> 8mancio vs. ;ardo, "! ;hi ., /$#> Rojas vs. =ingson Tongson, "# ;hi ., 4#(> =ocha-seng vs. Tr&ji o, !" ;hi ., ")!> ,o era vs. ,o era, 4' ;hi ., )((> 3ab e Jose vs. 3ab e Jose, 4" ;hi ., #"!.5 In the ast mentioned case this co&rt %&oted with approva the case of Leat1er0ood v$. Arnold 2(( Te6as, 4"4, 4"(, 4"#5, in which that co&rt disc&ssed the
Page | 865

powers of the s&rviving spo&se in the administration of the comm&nit- propert-. 8ttention was ca ed to the fact that the s&rviving h&sband, in the management of the conj&ga propert- after the death of the wife, was a tr&stee of &ni%&e character who is iab e for an- fra&d committed b- him with re ation to the propert- whi e he is charged with its administration. In the i%&idation of the conj&ga partnership, he had wide powers 2as the aw stood prior to 8ct 3o. !"#(5 and the high degree of tr&st reposed in him stands o&t more c ear - in view of the fact that he was the owner of a ha f interest in his own right of the conj&ga estate which he was charged to
Page | 866

administer. Ie co& d therefore no more ac%&ire a tit e b- prescription against those for whom he was administering the conj&ga estate than co& d a g&ardian against his ward or a j&dicia administrator against the heirs of estate. =ection !: of +hapter III of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re, with re ation to prescription, provides that Dthis chapter sha not app - ... in the case of a contin&ing and s&bsisting tr&st.D The s&rviving h&sband in the administration and i%&idation of the conj&ga estate occ&pies the position of a tr&stee of the highest order and is not permitted b- the aw to ho d that estate or anportion thereof adverse - to those for whose benefit the aw imposes
Page | 867

&pon him the d&t- of administration and i%&idation. 3o i%&idation was ever made b- Aasam G hence, the conj&ga propert- which came into his possession on the death of his wife in =eptember, "$':, sti remains conj&ga propert-, a contin&ing and s&bsisting tr&st. Ie sho& d have made a i%&idation immediate - 2desde &ego5. Ie cannot now be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. 1ne of the conditions of tit e bprescription 2section 4", +ode of +ivi ;roced&re5 is possession D&nder a c aim of tit e e6c &sive of an- other rightD. .or a tr&stee to make s&ch a c aim wo& d be a manifest fra&d.
Page | 868

8nd knowing th&s his responsibi ities in the premises, 0e are not convinced that Iodges arrogated ever-thing &nto himse f eaving nothing at a to be inherited b- his wife9s brothers and sisters. ;+IH insists, however, that to read the orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)#, not as adj&dicator-, b&t mere - as approving past and a&thori7ing f&t&re dispositions made b- Iodges in a who esa e and genera manner, wo& d necessari - render the said orders void for being vio ative of the provisions of R& e :$ governing the manner in which s&ch dispositions ma- be made and how the a&thorit- therefor and approva thereof b- the probate co&rt ma- be sec&red. If 0e s&stained s&ch a view,
Page | 869

the res& t wo& d on - be that the said orders sho& d be dec ared ineffective either wa- the- are &nderstood, considering 0e have a read- seen it is ega - impossib e to consider them as adj&dicator-. 8s a matter of fact, however, what s&rges immediate - to the s&rface, re ative to ;+IH9s observations based on R& e :$, is that from s&ch point of view, the s&pposed irreg& arit- wo& d invo ve no more than some non*j&risdictiona technica ities of proced&re, which have for their evident f&ndamenta p&rpose the protection of parties interested in the estate, s&ch as the heirs, its creditors, partic& ar - the government on acco&nt of the ta6es d&e it> and since it is apparent here that none of s&ch parties are objecting to said orders or wo& d be prej&diced bPage | 870

the &nobservance b- the tria co&rt of the proced&re pointed o&t b- ;+IH, 0e find no ega inconvenience in nor impediment to 1&r giving sanction to the b anket approva and a&thoritcontained in said orders. This so &tion is definite - preferab e in aw and in e%&it-, for to view said orders in the sense s&ggested b- ;+IH wo& d res& t in the deprivation of s&bstantive rights to the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges, whereas reading them the other wa- wi not ca&se an- prej&dice to an-one, and, witha , wi give peace of mind and stabi it- of rights to the innocent parties who re ied on them in good faith, in the ight of the pec& iar pertinent provisions of the wi of said decedent.
Page | 871

3ow, the inventor- s&bmitted b- Iodges on ,a- "/, "$): referred to the estate of his wife as consisting of D1ne*ha f of a the items designated in the ba ance sheet, cop- of which is hereto attached and marked as D8nne6 8D.D 8 tho&gh, regrettab -, no cop- of said 8nne6 8 appears in the records before Us, 0e take j&dicia notice, on the basis of the &ndisp&ted facts in these cases, that the same consists of considerab e rea and other persona kinds of properties. 8nd since, according to her wi , her h&sband was to be the so e owner thereof d&ring his ifetime, with f& power and a&thoritto dispose of an- of them, provided that sho& d there be an- remainder &pon his death, s&ch remainder wo& d go to her brothers and sisters, and f&rthermore, there is no pretension, m&ch ess anPage | 872

proof that Iodges had in fact disposed of a of them, and, on the contrar-, the indications are rather to the effect that he had kept them more or ess intact, it cannot tr&thf& - be said that, &pon the death of Iodges, there was no more estate of ,rs. Iodges to speak of. It is 1&r conc &sion, therefore, that properties do e6ist which constit&te s&ch estate, hence =pecia ;roceedings "!'# sho& d not -et be c osed. 3either is there basis for ho ding that respondent ,agno has ceased to be the 8dministratri6 in said proceeding. There is no showing that she has ever been ega - removed as s&ch, the attempt to rep ace her with ,r. Henito Aope7 witho&t a&thorit- from the +o&rt having been e6press - he d ineffective b- 1&r
Page | 873

reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/. ;arenthetica -, on this ast point, ;+IH itse f is ver- emphatic in stressing that it is not %&estioning said respondent9s stat&s as s&ch administratri6. Indeed, it is not c ear that ;+IH has an- standing to raise an- objection thereto, considering it is a comp ete stranger insofar as the estate of ,rs. Iodges is concerned. It is the contention of ;+IH, however, that as things act&a - stood at the time of Iodges9 death, their conj&ga partnership had not -et been i%&idated and, inasm&ch as the properties composing the same were th&s comming ed pro indiviso and, conse%&ent -, the properties pertaining to the estate of each of the spo&ses are
Page | 874

not -et identifiab e, it is ;+IH a one, as administrator of the estate of Iodges, who sho& d administer ever-thing, and a that respondent ,agno can do for the time being is to wait &nti the properties constit&ting the remaining estate of ,rs. Iodges have been d& - segregated and de ivered to her for her own administration. =eeming -, ;+IH wo& d iken the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges to a part- having a c aim of ownership to some properties inc &ded in the inventor- of an administrator of the estate of a decedent, 2here that of Iodges5 and who norma - has no right to take part in the proceedings pending the estab ishment of his right or tit e> for which as a r& e it is re%&ired that an ordinar- action sho& d be fi ed, since the probate co&rt is witho&t j&risdiction to
Page | 875

pass with fina it- on %&estions of tit e between the estate of the deceased, on the one hand, and a third part- or even an heir c aiming adverse - against the estate, on the other. 0e do not find s&ch contention s&fficient - pers&asive. 8s 0e see it, the sit&ation obtaining herein cannot be compared with the c aim of a third partthe basis of which is a ien to the pending probate proceedings. In the present cases what gave rise to the c aim of ;+IH of e6c &sive ownership b- the estate of Iodges over a the properties of the Iodges spo&ses, inc &ding the share of ,rs. Iodges in the comm&nitproperties, were the orders of the tria co&rt iss&ed in the co&rse of the versett ement proceedings themse ves,
Page | 876

more specifica -, the orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)# so often mentioned above. In other words, the root of the iss&e of tit e between the parties is something that the co&rt itse f has done in the e6ercise of its probate j&risdiction. 8nd since in the & timate ana -sis, the %&estion of whether or not a the properties herein invo ved pertain e6c &sive - to the estate of Iodges depends on the ega meaning and effect of said orders, the c aim that respondent co&rt has no j&risdiction to take cogni7ance of and decide the said iss&e is incorrect. If it was within the competence of the co&rt to iss&e the root orders, wh- sho& d it not be within its a&thorit- to dec are their tr&e significance and intent, to the end that the parties ma- know whether or not the
Page | 877

estate of ,rs. Iodges had a read- been adj&dicated b- the co&rt, &pon the initiative of Iodges, in his favor, to the e6c &sion of the other heirs of his wife instit&ted in her wi K 8t this point, it bears emphasis again that the main ca&se of a the present prob ems confronting the co&rts and the parties in these cases was the fai &re of Iodges to sec&re, as e6ec&tor of his wife9s estate, from ,a-, "$)# &p to the time of his death in Eecember, "$(/, a period of more than five -ears, the fina adj&dication of her estate and the c os&re of the proceedings. The record is bare of an- showing that he ever e6erted an- effort towards the ear sett ement of said estate. 0hi e, on the one hand, there are eno&gh indications,
Page | 878

as a read- disc&ss that he had intentions of eaving intact her share of the conj&ga properties so that it mapass who - to his co*heirs &pon his death, p&rs&ant to her wi , on the other hand, bnot terminating the proceedings, his interests in his own ha f of the conj&ga properties remained comming ed pro*indiviso with those of his co*heirs in the other ha f. 1bvio&s -, s&ch a sit&ation co& d not be cond&cive to read- ascertainment of the portion of the inheritance that sho& d appertain to his co*heirs &pon his death. Iaving these considerations in mind, it wo& d be giving a premi&m for s&ch procrastination and rather &nfair to his co*heirs, if the administrator of his estate were to be given e6c &sive administration of a the properties in
Page | 879

%&estion, which wo& d necessari inc &de the f&nction of prompt i%&idating the conj&ga partnership, thereb- identif-ing and segregating witho&t &nnecessar- oss of time which properties sho& d be considered as constit&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges, the remainder of which her brothers and sisters are s&pposed to inherit e%&a among themse ves. To be s&re, an administrator is not s&pposed to represent the interests of an- partic& ar part- and his acts are deemed to be objective - for the protection of the rights of ever-bodconcerned with the estate of the decedent, and from this point of view, it ma-be said that even if ;+IH were to act a one, there sho& d be no fear of
Page | 880

&nd&e disadvantage to an-one. 1n the other hand, however, it is evident imp icit in section ( of R& e #: fi6ing the priorit- among those to whom etters of administration sho& d be granted that the criterion in the se ection of the administrator is not his impartia it- a one b&t, more important -, the e6tent of his interest in the estate, so m&ch so that the one ass&med to have greater interest is preferred to another who has ess. Taking both of these considerations into acco&nt, inasm&ch as, according to Iodges9 own inventors&bmitted b- him as E6ec&tor of the estate of his wife, practica - a their properties were conj&ga which means that the spo&ses have e%&a shares therein, it is b&t ogica that both estates sho& d be administered joint - bPage | 881

representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. ;artic& ar - is s&ch an arrangement warranted beca&se the act&ations so far of ;+IH evince a determined, a beit gro&nd ess, intent to e6c &de the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges from their inheritance. Hesides, to a ow ;+IH, the administrator of his estate, to perform now what Iodges was d&t- bo&nd to do as e6ec&tor is to vio ate the spirit, if not the etter, of =ection / of R& e #: which e6press - provides that DThe e6ec&tor of an e6ec&tor sha not, as s&ch, administer the estate of the first testator.D It goes witho&t sa-ing that this provision refers a so to the administrator of an e6ec&tor ike ;+IH here.
Page | 882

0e are not &nmindf& of the fact that &nder =ection / of R& e #!, D0hen the marriage is disso ved b- the death of the h&sband or wife, the comm&nitpropertsha be inventoried, administered, and i%&idated, and the debts thereof paid, in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased spo&se. If both spo&ses have died, the conj&ga partnership sha be i%&idated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either.D Indeed, it is tr&e that the ast sentence of this provision a ows or permits the conj&ga partnership of spo&ses who are both deceased to be sett ed or i%&idated in the testate or intestate proceedings of either, b&t precise - beca&se said sentence a ows or permits that the i%&idation be made in either proceeding, it is a matter of
Page | 883

so&nd j&dicia discretion in which one it sho& d be made. 8fter a , the former r& e referring to the administrator of the h&sband9s estate in respect to s&ch i%&idation was done awa- with b- 8ct !"#(, the pertinent provisions of which are now embodied in the r& e j&st cited. Th&s, it can be seen that at the time of the death of Iodges, there was a readthe pending j&dicia sett ement proceeding of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, and, more important -, that the former was the e6ec&tor of the atter9s wi who had, as s&ch, fai ed for more than five -ears to see to it that the same was terminated ear iest, which was not diffic& t to do, since from o&ght that appears in the record, there were no serio&s obstac es on the wa-, the estate
Page | 884

not being indebted and there being no immediate heirs other than Iodges himse f. =&ch di ator- or indifferent attit&de co& d on - spe possib e prej&dice of his co*heirs, whose rights to inheritance depend entire - on the e6istence of an- remainder of ,rs. Iodges9 share in the comm&nitproperties, and who are now faced with the pose of ;+IH that there is no s&ch remainder. Iad Iodges sec&red as ear - as possib e the sett ement of his wife9s estate, this prob em wo& d not arisen. 8 things considered, 0e are f& - convinced that the interests of j&stice wi be better served b- not permitting or a owing ;+IH or anadministrator of the estate of Iodges e6c &sive administration of a the properties in %&estion. 0e are of the
Page | 885

considered opinion and so ho d that what wo& d be j&st and proper is for both administrators of the two estates to act conjoint - &nti after said estates have been segregated from each other. 8t this j&nct&re, it ma- be stated that we are not over ooking the fact that it is ;+IH9s contention that, viewed as a s&bstit&tion, the testamentardisposition in favor of ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters ma- not be given effect. To a certain e6tent, this contention is correct. Indeed, ega speaking, ,rs. Iodges9 wi provides neither for a simp e or v& gar s&bstit&tion &nder 8rtic e :)$ of the +ivi +ode nor for a fideicommissars&bstit&tion &nder 8rtic e :(! thereof. There is no v& gar s&bstit&tion therein
Page | 886

beca&se there is no provision for either 2"5 predecease of the testator b- the designated heir or 2/5 ref&sa or 2!5 incapacit- of the atter to accept the inheritance, as re%&ired b- 8rtic e :)$> and neither is there a fideicommissars&bstit&tion therein beca&se no ob igation is imposed thereb- &pon Iodges to preserve the estate or anpart thereof for an-one e se. H&t from these premises, it is not correct to j&mp to the conc &sion, as ;+IH does, that the testamentardispositions in %&estion are therefore inoperative and inva id. The error in ;+IH9s position ies simp in the fact that it views the said disposition e6c &sive - in the ight of s&bstit&tions covered b- the +ivi +ode
Page | 887

section on that s&bject, 2=ection !, +hapter /, Tit e IF, Hook III5 when it is obvio&s that s&bstit&tion occ&rs on when another heir is appointed in a wi Dso that he ma- enter into inheritance in defa& t of the heir origina - instit&ted,D 28rtic e :)#, id.5 and, in the present case, no s&ch possib e defa& t is contemp ated. The brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges are not s&bstit&tes for Iodges beca&se, &nder her wi , theare not to inherit what Iodges cannot, wo& d not or ma- not inherit, b&t what he wo& d not dispose of from his inheritance> rather, therefore, the- are a so heirs instit&ted sim& taneo&s - with Iodges, s&bject, however, to certain conditions, partia - reso &tor- insofar as Iodges was concerned and corresponding s&spensive with
Page | 888

reference to his brothers and sisters*in* aw. It is partia - reso &tor-, since it be%&eaths &nto Iodges the who e of her estate to be owned and enjo-ed bhim as &niversa and so e heir with abso &te dominion over them ( on d&ring his ifetime, which means that whi e he co& d comp ete - and abso &te - dispose of an- portion thereof inter vivo$ to an-one other than himse f, he was not free to do so #orti$ cau$a, and a his rights to what might remain &pon his death wo& d cease entire - &pon the occ&rrence of that contingenc-, inasm&ch as the right of his brothers and sisters*in* aw to the inheritance, a tho&gh vested a read&pon the death of ,rs. Iodges, wo& d a&tomatica - become operative &pon the occ&rrence of the death of Iodges
Page | 889

in the event of act&a e6istence of anremainder of her estate then. +ontrar- to the view of respondent ,agno, however, it was not the &s&fr&ct a one of her estate, as contemp ated in 8rtic e :($ of the +ivi +ode, that she be%&eathed to Iodges d&ring his ifetime, b&t the f& ownership thereof, a tho&gh the same was to ast a so d&ring his ifetime on -, even as there was no restriction whatsoever against his disposing or conve-ing the who e or an- portion thereof to an-bod- other than himse f. The +o&rt sees no ega impediment to this kind of instit&tion, in this j&risdiction or &nder ;hi ippine aw, e6cept that it cannot app - to the egitime of Iodges as the s&rviving spo&se, consisting of one*ha f of the
Page | 890

estate, considering that ,rs. Iodges had no s&rviving ascendants nor descendants. 28rts. :#/, $'', and $'4, 3ew +ivi +ode.5 H&t re ative precise - to the %&estion of how m&ch of ,rs. Iodges9 share of the conj&ga partnership properties ma- be considered as her estate, the parties are in disagreement as to how 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode # sho& d be app ied. 1n the one hand, petitioner c aims that inasm&ch as ,rs. Iodges was a resident of the ;hi ippines at the time of her death, &nder said 8rtic e "(, constr&ed in re ation to the pertinent aws of Te6as and the princip e of renvoi, what sho& d be app ied here sho& d be the r& es of s&ccession &nder the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, and,
Page | 891

therefore, her estate co& d consist of no more than one*fo&rth of the said conj&ga properties, the other fo&rth being, as a read- e6p ained, the egitime of her h&sband 28rt. $'', +ivi +ode5 which she co& d not have disposed of nor b&rdened with an- condition 28rt. :#/, +ivi +ode5. 1n the other hand, respondent ,agno denies that ,rs. Iodges died a resident of the ;hi ippines, since a eged - she never changed nor intended to change her origina residence of birth in Te6as, United =tates of 8merica, and contends that, an-wa-, regard ess of the %&estion of her residence, she being indisp&tab a citi7en of Te6as, &nder said 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode, the distrib&tion of her estate is s&bject to the aws of said =tate which, according to her, do not
Page | 892

provide for an- egitime, hence, the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges are entit ed to the remainder of the who e of her share of the conj&ga partnership properties consisting of one*ha f thereof. Respondent ,agno f&rther maintains that, in an- event, Iodges had reno&nced his rights &nder the wi in favor of his co*heirs, as a eged - proven b- the doc&ments to&ching on the point a readmentioned ear ier, the gen&ineness and ega significance of which petitioner seeming - %&estions. Hesides, the parties are disagreed as to what the pertinent aws of Te6as provide. In the interest of sett ing the estates herein invo ved soonest, it wo& d be best, indeed, if these conf icting c aims of the parties were determined in these proceedings. The +o&rt regrets,
Page | 893

however, that it cannot do so, for the simp e reason that neither the evidence s&bmitted b- the parties in the co&rt be ow nor their disc&ssion, in their respective briefs and memoranda before Us, of their respective contentions on the pertinent ega iss&es, of grave importance as the- are, appear to Us to be ade%&ate eno&gh to enab e Us to render an inte igent comprehensive and j&st reso &tion. .or one thing, there is no c ear and re iab e proof of what in fact the possib - app icab e aws of Te6as are. #Y Then a so, the gen&ineness of doc&ments re ied &pon b- respondent ,agno is disp&ted. 8nd there are a n&mber of sti other conceivab e re ated iss&es which the parties ma- wish to raise b&t which it is not proper to mention here. In J&stice, therefore, to a
Page | 894

the parties concerned, these and a other re evant matters sho& d first be threshed o&t f& - in the tria co&rt in the proceedings hereafter to be he d therein for the p&rpose of ascertaining and adj&dicating andJor distrib&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges to her heirs in accordance with her d& - probated wi . To be more e6p icit, a that 0e can and do decide in connection with the petition for certiorari and prohibition are< 2"5 that regard ess of which corresponding aws are app ied, whether of the ;hi ippines or of Te6as, and taking for granted either of the respective contentions of the parties as to provisions of the atter, : and regard ess a so of whether or not it can be proven b- competent evidence that Iodges reno&nced his
Page | 895

inheritance in an- degree, it is easi and definite - discernib e from the inventor- s&bmitted b- Iodges himse f, as E6ec&tor of his wife9s estate, that there are properties which sho& d constit&te the estate of ,rs. Iodges and o&ght to be disposed of or distrib&ted among her heirs p&rs&ant to her wi in said =pecia ;roceedings "!'#> 2/5 that, more specifica -, inasm&ch as the %&estion of what are the pertinent aws of Te6as app icab e to the sit&ation herein is basica - one of fact, and, considering that the so e difference in the positions of the parties as to the effect of said aws has reference to the s&pposed egitime of Iodges G it being the stand of ;+IH that Iodges had s&ch a egitime whereas ,agno c aims the negative * it is now be-ond controversPage | 896

for a f&t&re p&rposes of these proceedings that whatever be the provisions act&a - of the aws of Te6as app icab e hereto, the estate of ,rs. Iodges is at east, one*fo&rth of the conj&ga estate of the spo&ses> the e6istence and effects of foreign aws being %&estions of fact, and it being the position now of ;+IH that the estate of ,rs. Iodges, p&rs&ant to the aws of Te6as, sho& d on - be one*fo&rth of the conj&ga estate, s&ch contention constit&tes an admission of fact, and conse%&ent -, it wo& d be in estoppe in an- f&rther proceedings in these cases to c aim that said estate co& d be ess, irrespective of what might be proven ater to be act&a - the provisions of the app icab e aws of Te6as> 2!5 that =pecia ;roceedings "!'# for the
Page | 897

sett ement of the testate estate of ,rs. Iodges cannot be c osed at this stage and sho& d proceed to its ogica conc &sion, there having been no proper and ega adj&dication or distrib&tion -et of the estate therein invo ved> and 245 that respondent ,agno remains and contin&es to be the 8dministratri6 therein. Ience, nothing in the foregoing opinion is intended to reso ve the iss&es which, as a read- stated, are not proper - before the +o&rt now, name -, 2"5 whether or not Iodges had in fact and in aw waived or reno&nced his inheritance from ,rs. Iodges, in who e or in part, and 2/5 ass&ming there had been no s&ch waiver, whether or not, bthe app ication of 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode, and in the ight of what might be the app icab e aws of Te6as on the
Page | 898

matter, the estate of ,rs. Iodges is more than the one*fo&rth dec ared above. 8s a matter of fact, even o&r finding above abo&t the e6istence of properties constit&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges rests arge - on a genera appraisa of the si7e and e6tent of the conj&ga partnership gathered from reference made thereto b- both parties in their briefs as we as in their p eadings inc &ded in the records on appea , and it sho& d according - -ie d, as to which e6act - those properties are, to the more concrete and specific evidence which the parties are s&pposed to present in s&pport of their respective positions in regard to the foregoing main ega and fact&a iss&es. In the interest of j&stice, the parties sho& d be a owed to present s&ch
Page | 899

f&rther evidence in re ation to a these iss&es in a joint hearing of the two probate proceedings herein invo ved. 8fter a , the co&rt a 4uo has not -et passed s%&are - on these iss&es, and it is best for a concerned that it sho& d do so in the first instance. Re ative to 1&r ho ding above that the estate of ,rs. Iodges cannot be ess than the remainder of one*fo&rth of the conj&ga partnership properties, it mabe mentioned here that d&ring the de iberations, the point was raised as to whether or not said ho ding might be inconsistent with 1&r other r& ing here a so that, since there is no re iab e evidence as to what are the app icab e aws of Te6as, U.=.8. Dwith respect to the order of s&ccession and to the
Page | 900

amo&nt of s&ccessiona rightsD that mabe wi ed b- a testator which, &nder 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode, are contro ing in the instant cases, in view of the &ndisp&ted Te6an nationa it- of the deceased ,rs. Iodges, these cases sho& d be ret&rned to the co&rt a %&o, so that the parties ma- prove what said aw provides, it is premat&re for Us to make an- specific r& ing now on either the va idit- of the testamentardispositions herein invo ved or the amo&nt of inheritance to which the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges are entit ed. 8fter nat&re ref ection, 0e are of the considered view that, at this stage and in the state of the records before Us, the feared inconsistenc- is more apparent than rea . 0itha , it no onger ies in the ips of petitioner ;+IH to make
Page | 901

an- c aim that &nder the aws of Te6as, the estate of ,rs. Iodges co& d in anevent be ess than that 0e have fi6ed above. It sho& d be borne in mind that as above*indicated, the %&estion of what are the aws of Te6as governing the matters herein iss&e is, in the first instance, one of fact, not of aw. E ementar- is the r& e that foreign aws ma- not be taken j&dicia notice of and have to be proven ike an- other fact in disp&te between the parties in anproceeding, with the rare e6ception in instances when the said aws are a read- within the act&a know edge of the co&rt, s&ch as when the- are we and genera - known or the- have been act&a - r& ed &pon in other cases
Page | 902

before it and none of the parties concerned do not c aim otherwise. 2) ,oran, +omments on the R& es of +o&rt, p. 4", "$#' ed.5 In Hlue#er v$. 7i', )4 ;hi . ("', it was he d< It is the theor- of the petitioner that the a eged wi was e6ec&ted in E kins 0est Firginia, on 3ovember !, "$/), b- Ii6 who had his residence in that j&risdiction, and that the aws of 0est Firginia govern. To this end, there was s&bmitted a cop- of section !:(: of 8cts "::/, c. :4 as fo&nd in 0est Firginia +ode, 8nnotated, b- Iogg +har es E., vo . /, "$"4, p. "$(', and as certified to b- the Eirector of the 3ationa Aibrar-. H&t this was far from a comp iance with the aw. The aws of a foreign j&risdiction do not prove themse ves in
Page | 903

o&r co&rts. The co&rts of the ;hi ippine Is ands are not a&thori7ed to take j&dicia notice of the aws of the vario&s =tates of the 8merican Union. =&ch aws m&st be proved as facts. 2In re Estate of Johnson L"$":M, !$ ;hi ., ")(.5 Iere the re%&irements of the aw were not met. There was no showing that the book from which an e6tract was taken was printed or p&b ished &nder the a&thorit- of the =tate of 0est Firginia, as provided in section !'' of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re. 3or was the e6tract from the aw attested b- the certificate of the officer having charge of the origina , &nder the sea of the =tate of 0est Firginia, as provided in section !'" of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re. 3o evidence was introd&ced to show that the e6tract from the aws of 0est
Page | 904

Firginia was in force at the time the a eged wi was e6ec&ted.D 3o evidence of the nat&re th&s s&ggested b- the +o&rt ma- be fo&nd in the records of the cases at bar. O&ite to the contrar-, the parties herein have presented opposing versions in their respective p eadings and memoranda regarding the matter. 8nd even if 0e took into acco&nt that in A5nar v$. Garcia, the +o&rt did make reference to certain provisions regarding s&ccession in the aws of Te6as, the disparit- in the materia dates of that case and the present ones wo& d not permit Us to ind& ge in the ha7ardo&s conject&re that said provisions have not been amended or changed in the meantime.
Page | 905

1n the other hand, in In re Estate of Johnson, !$ ;hi . ")(, 0e he d< Upon the other point G as to whether the wi was e6ec&ted in conformit- with the stat&tes of the =tate of I inois G we note that it does not affirmative - appear from the transcription of the testimonadd&ced in the tria co&rt that anwitness was e6amined with reference to the aw of I inois on the s&bject of the e6ec&tion of wi . The tria j&dge no do&bt was satisfied that the wi was proper e6ec&ted b- e6amining section ":#4 of the Revised =tat&tes of I inois, as e6hibited in vo &me ! of =tarr X +&rtis9s 8nnotated I inois =tat&tes, /nd ed., p. 4/(> and he
Page | 906

ma- have ass&med that he co& d take j&dicia notice of the aws of I inois &nder section /#) of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re. If so, he was in o&r opinion mistaken. That section a&thori7es the co&rts here to take j&dicia notice, among other things, of the acts of the egis ative department of the United =tates. These words c ear have reference to 8cts of the +ongress of the United =tates> and we wo& d hesitate to ho d that o&r co&rts can, &nder this provision, take j&dicia notice of the m& tifario&s aws of the vario&s 8merican =tates. 3or do we think that ans&ch a&thorit- can be derived from the broader ang&age, &sed in the same section, where it is said that
Page | 907

o&r co&rts ma- take j&dicia notice of matters of p&b ic know edge Dsimi arD to those therein en&merated. The proper r& e we think is to re%&ire proof of the stat&tes of the =tates of the 8merican Union whenever their provisions are determinative of the iss&es in an- action itigated in the ;hi ippine co&rts. 3everthe ess, even s&pposing that the tria co&rt ma- have erred in taking j&dicia notice of the aw of I inois on the point in %&estion, s&ch error is not now avai ab e to the petitioner, first, beca&se the petition does not state an- fact from which it wo& d appear that the aw of I inois is different from what
Page | 908

the co&rt fo&nd, and, second -, beca&se the assignment of error and arg&ment for the appe ant in this co&rt raises no %&estion based on s&ch s&pposed error. Tho&gh the tria co&rt ma- have acted &pon p&re conject&re as to the aw prevai ing in the =tate of I inois, its j&dgment co& d not be set aside, even &pon app ication made within si6 months &nder section ""! of the +ode of +ivi ;roced&re, &n ess it sho& d be made to appear affirmative - that the conject&re was wrong. The petitioner, it is tr&e, states in genera terms that the wi in %&estion is inva id and inade%&ate to pass rea and persona propert- in the =tate of I inois, b&t this is mere - a
Page | 909

conc &sion of aw. The affidavits bwhich the petition is accompanied contain no reference to the s&bject, and we are cited to no a&thorit- in the appe ant9s brief which might tend to raise a do&bt as to the correctness of the conc &sion of the tria co&rt. It is ver- c ear, therefore, that this point cannot be &rged as of serio&s moment. It is imp icit in the above r& ing that when, with respect to certain aspects of the foreign aws concerned, the parties in a given case do not have ancontrovers- or are more or ess in agreement, the +o&rt ma- take it for granted for the p&rposes of the partic& ar case before it that the said
Page | 910

aws are as s&ch virt&a agreement indicates, witho&t the need of re%&iring the presentation of what otherwise wo& d be the competent evidence on the point. Th&s, in the instant cases wherein it res& ts from the respective contentions of both parties that even if the pertinent aws of Te6as were known and to be app ied, the amo&nt of the inheritance pertaining to the heirs of ,rs. Iodges is as 0e have fi6ed above, the absence of evidence to the effect that, act&a - and in fact, &nder said aws, it co& d be otherwise is of no onger of anconse%&ence, &n ess the p&rpose is to show that it co& d be more. In other words, since ;+IH, the petitioner* appe ant, concedes that &pon app ication of 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode and the pertinent aws of Te6as, the
Page | 911

amo&nt of the estate in controvers- is j&st as 0e have determined it to be, and respondent*appe ee is on - c aiming, on her part, that it co& d be more, ;+IH ma- not now or ater pretend different -. To be more concrete, on pages /'*/" of its petition herein, dated J& - !", "$(#, ;+IH states categorica -< Inasm&ch as 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode provides that Dintestate and testamentar- s&ccessions both with respect to the order of s&ccession and to the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights and to the intrinsic va idit- of testamentarprovisions, sha be reg& ated bthe nationa aw of the person whose s&ccession is &nder consideration, whatever ma- be
Page | 912

the nat&re of the propert- and regard ess of the co&ntr- wherein said propert- ma- be fo&ndD, whi e the aw of Te6as 2the Iodges spo&ses being nationa s of U.=.8., =tate of Te6as5, in its conf icts of aw r& es, provides that the domici iar- aw 2in this case ;hi ippine aw5 governs the testamentar- dispositions and s&ccessiona rights over movab es or persona properties, whi e the aw of the sit&s 2in this case a so ;hi ippine aw with respect to a Iodges properties ocated in the ;hi ippines5, governs with respect to immovab e properties, and app -ing therefore the 9renvoi doctrine9 as en&nciated and app ied b- this Ionorab e +o&rt in
Page | 913

the case of In re Estate of +hristensen 2G.R. 3o. A*"(#4$, Jan. !", "$(!5, there can be no %&estion that ;hi ippine aw governs the testamentardispositions contained in the Aast 0i and Testament of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, as we as the s&ccessiona rights to her estate, both with respect to movab es, as we as to immovab es sit&ated in the ;hi ippines. In its main brief dated .ebr&ar- /(, "$(:, ;+IH asserts< T1e la0 "overnin" $ucce$$ional ri"1t$.

Page | 914

8s recited above, there is no %&estion that the deceased, Ainnie Jane Iodges, was an 8merican citi7en. There is a so no %&estion that she was a nationa of the =tate of Te6as, U.=.8. 8gain, there is ikewise no %&estion that she had her domici e of choice in the +it- of I oi o, ;hi ippines, as this has a read- been prono&nced bthe above*cited orders of the ower co&rt, prono&ncements which are b- now re$ adjudicata 2par. LaM, =ee. 4$, R& e !$, R& es of +o&rt> In re Estate of Johnson, !$ ;hi . ")(5. 8rtic e "( provides< of the +ivi +ode

Page | 915

DRea propert- as we as persona propert- is s&bject to the aw of the co&ntr- where it is sit&ated. Iowever, intestate and testamentar- s&ccessions, both with respect to the order of s&ccession and to the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights and to the intrinsic va idit- of testamentarprovisions, sha be reg& ated bthe nationa aw of the person whose s&ccession is &nder consideration, whatever ma- be the nat&re of the propert- and regard ess of the co&ntr- wherein said propert- ma- be fo&nd.D Th&s the aforecited provision of the +ivi +ode points towards the nationa aw of the deceased,
Page | 916

Ainnie Jane Iodges, which is the aw of Te6as, as governing s&ccession Dboth with respect to the order of s&ccession and to the amo&nt of s&ccessiona rights and to the intrinsic va iditof testamentar- provisions ...D. H&t the aw of Te6as, in its conf icts of aw r& es, provides that the domici iaraw governs the testamentar- dispositions and s&ccessiona rights over movab es or persona propert-, whi e the aw of the sit&s governs with respect to immovab e propert-. =&ch that with respect to both movab e propert-, as we as immovab e propert- sit&ated in the ;hi ippines, the aw of Te6as points to the aw of the ;hi ippines.
Page | 917

8pp -ing, therefore, the so*ca ed Drenvoi doctrineD, as en&nciated and app ied b- this Ionorab e +o&rt in the case of DIn re +hristensenD 2G.R. 3o. A*"(#4$, Jan. !", "$(!5, there can be no %&estion that ;hi ippine aw governs the testamentarprovisions in the Aast 0i and Testament of the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges, as we as the s&ccessiona rights to her estate, both with respect to movab es, as we as immovab es sit&ated in the ;hi ippines. The s&bject of s&ccessiona rights. Under ;hi ippine aw, as it is &nder the aw of Te6as, the conj&ga or comm&nitpropertof the
Page | 918

spo&ses, +har es 3ewton Iodges and Ainnie Jane Iodges, &pon the death of the atter, is to be divided into two, one*ha f pertaining to each of the spo&ses, as his or her own propert-. Th&s, &pon the death of Ainnie Jane Iodges, one* ha f of the conj&ga partnership propert- immediate - pertained to +har es 3ewton Iodges as his own share, and not b- virt&e of ans&ccessiona rights. There can be no %&estion abo&t this. 8gain, ;hi ippine aw, or more specifica -, 8rtic e $'' of the +ivi +ode provides< If the on - s&rvivor is the widow or widower, she or he sha be entit ed to one*ha f of
Page | 919

the hereditar- estate of the deceased spo&se, and the testator ma- free - dispose of the other ha f. If the marriage between the s&rviving spo&se and the testator was so emni7ed in articulo #orti$, and the testator died within three months from the time of the marriage, the egitime of the s&rviving spo&se as the so e heir sha be one*third of the hereditar- estate, e6cept when the- have been iving as h&sband and wife for more than five -ears. In the atter case, the egitime of the s&rviving spo&se sha be that
Page | 920

specified in the preceding paragraph. This egitime of the s&rviving spo&se cannot be b&rdened b- a fideicommisar- s&bstit&tion 28rt. :(4, +ivi code5, nor b- ancharge, condition, or s&bstit&tion 28rt, :#/, +ivi code5. It is c ear, therefore, that in addition to one* ha f of the conj&ga partnership propert- as his own conj&ga share, +har es 3ewton Iodges was a so immediate - entit ed to one*ha f of the ha f conj&ga share of the deceased, Ainnie Jane Iodges, or one*fo&rth of the entire conj&ga propert-, as his egitime. 1ne*fo&rth of the conj&ga properttherefore remains at iss&e.
Page | 921

In the s&mmar- of its arg&ments in its memorand&m dated 8pri !', "$(:, the fo owing appears< Hrief -, the position advanced bthe petitioner is< a. That the Iodges spo&ses were domici ed ega - in the ;hi ippines 2pp. "$*/', petition5. This is now a matter of res adj&dicata 2p. /', petition5. b. That &nder ;hi ippine aw, Te6as aw, and the renvoi doctrine, ;hi ippine aw governs the s&ccessiona rights over the properties eft b- the deceased, Ainnie Jane Iodges 2pp. /'*/", petition5.
Page | 922

c. That &nder ;hi ippine as we as Te6as aw, one*ha f of the Iodges properties pertains to the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges 2p. /", petition5. This is not %&estioned b- the respondents. d. That &nder ;hi ippine aw, the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, a&tomatica - inherited one*ha f of the remaining one*ha f of the Iodges properties as his egitime 2p. /", petition5. e. That the remaining /)B of the Iodges properties was inherited b- the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, &nder the wi of his deceased spo&se 2pp. //*/!, petition5. Upon the death of +har es 3ewton Iodges, the
Page | 923

s&bstit&tion 9provision of the wi of the deceased, Ainnie Jane Iodges, did not operate beca&se the same is void 2pp. /!*/), petition5. f. That the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, asserted his so e ownership of the Iodges properties and the probate co&rt sanctioned s&ch assertion 2pp. /)* /$, petition5. Ie in fact ass&med s&ch ownership and s&ch was the stat&s of the properties as of the time of his death 2pp. /$*!4, petition5. 1f simi ar tenor are the a egations of ;+IH in some of its p eadings %&oted in the ear ier part of this option.
Page | 924

1n her part, it is respondent*appe ee ,agno9s post&re that &nder the aws of Te6as, there is no s-stem of egitime, hence the estate of ,rs. Iodges sho& d be one*ha f of a the conj&ga properties. It is th&s &n%&estionab e that as far as ;+IH is concerned, the app ication to these cases of 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode in re ation to the corresponding aws of Te6as wo& d res& t in that the ;hi ippine aws on s&ccession sho& d contro . 1n that basis, as 0e have a read- e6p ained above, the estate of ,rs. Iodges is the remainder of one* fo&rth of the conj&ga partnership properties, considering that 0e have fo&nd that there is no ega impediment to the kind of disposition ordered bPage | 925

,rs. Iodges in her wi in favor of her brothers and sisters and, f&rther, that the contention of ;+IH that the same constit&tes an inoperative testamentars&bstit&tion is &ntenab e. 8s wi be reca ed, ;+IH9s position that there is no s&ch estate of ,rs. Iodges is predicated e6c &sive on two propositions, name -< 2"5 that the provision in %&estion in ,rs. Iodges9 testament vio ates the r& es on s&bstit&tion of heirs &nder the +ivi +ode and 2/5 that, in an- event, b- the orders of the tria co&rt of ,a- /#, and Eecember "4, "$)#, the tria co&rt had a readfina and irrevocab adj&dicated to her h&sband the who e free portion of her estate to the e6c &sion of her brothers and sisters, both of which poses, 0e have
Page | 926

overr& ed. 3owhere in its p eadings, briefs and memoranda does ;+IH maintain that the app ication of the aws of Te6as wo& d res& t in the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges not inheriting an-thing &nder her wi . 8nd since ;+IH9s representations in regard to the aws of Te6as virt&a - constit&te admissions of fact which the other parties and the +o&rt are being made to re - and act &pon, ;+IH is Dnot permitted to contradict them or s&bse%&ent - take a position contradictor- to or inconsistent with them.D 2) ,oran, id, p. (), citing +&nanan vs. 8mparo, :' ;hi . //#> =ta. 8na vs. ,a iwat, A*/!'/!, 8&g. !", "$(:, /4 =+R8 "'":5. 8ccording -, the on - %&estion that remains to be sett ed in the f&rther
Page | 927

proceedings hereb- ordered to be he d in the co&rt be ow is how m&ch more than as fi6ed above is the estate of ,rs. Iodges, and this wo& d depend on 2"5 whether or not the app icab e aws of Te6as do provide in effect for more, s&ch as, when there is no egitime provided therein, and 2/5 whether or not Iodges has va id - waived his who e inheritance from ,rs. Iodges. In the co&rse of the de iberations, it was bro&ght o&t b- some members of the +o&rt that to avoid or, at east, minimi7e f&rther protracted ega controversies between the respective heirs of the Iodges spo&ses, it is imperative to e &cidate on the possib e conse%&ences of dispositions made b- Iodges after the death of his wife from the mass of
Page | 928

the &npartitioned estates witho&t ane6press indication in the pertinent doc&ments as to whether his intention is to dispose of part of his inheritance from his wife or part of his own share of the conj&ga estate as we as of those made b- ;+IH after the death of Iodges. 8fter a ong disc&ssion, the consens&s arrived at was as fo ows< 2"5 ans&ch dispositions made "ratuitou$l! in favor of third parties, whether these be individ&a s, corporations or fo&ndations, sha be considered as intended to be of properties constit&ting part of Iodges9 inheritance from his wife, it appearing from the tenor of his motions of ,a- /# and Eecember "", "$)# that in asking for genera a&thorit- to make sa es or other disposa s of properties &nder the
Page | 929

j&risdiction of the co&rt, which inc &de his own share of the conj&ga estate, he was not invoking partic& ar - his right over his own share, b&t rather his right to dispose of an- part of his inheritance p&rs&ant to the wi of his wife> 2/5 as regards sa es, e6changes or other re#unerative transfers, the proceeds of s&ch sa es or the properties taken in b- virt&e of s&ch e6changes, sha be considered as mere - the prod&cts of Dph-sica changesD of the properties of her estate which the wi e6press - a&thori7es Iodges to make, provided that whatever of said prod&cts sho& d remain with the estate at the time of the death of Iodges sho& d go to her brothers and sisters> 2!5 the dispositions made b- ;+IH after the death of Iodges m&st nat&ra - be deemed as
Page | 930

covering on - the properties be onging to his estate considering that being on the administrator of the estate of Iodges, ;+IH co& d not have disposed of properties be onging to the estate of his wife. 3either co& d s&ch dispositions be considered as invo ving conj&ga properties, for the simp e reason that the conj&ga partnership a&tomatica ceased when ,rs. Iodges died, and bthe pec& iar provision of her wi , &nder disc&ssion, the remainder of her share descended a so a&tomatica - &pon the death of Iodges to her brothers and sisters, th&s o&tside of the scope of ;+IH9s administration. 8ccording -, these constr&ction of the wi of ,rs. Iodges sho& d be adhered to b- the tria co&rt in its fina order of adj&dication
Page | 931

and distrib&tion andJor partition of the two estates in %&estion. T7; A22;AL 8 c&rsor- e6amination of the sevent-* eight assignments of error in appe ant ;+IH9s brief wo& d readi - revea that a of them are predicated main - on the contention that inasm&ch as Iodges had a read- adj&dicated &nto himse f a the properties constit&ting his wife9s share of the conj&ga partnership, a eged - with the sanction of the tria co&rt per its order of Eecember "4, "$)#, there has been, since said date, no onger an- estate of ,rs. Iodges of which appe ee ,agno co& d be administratri6, hence the vario&s assai ed orders sanctioning her act&ations as s&ch are not in
Page | 932

accordance with aw. =&ch being the case, with the foregoing reso &tion ho ding s&ch post&re to be &ntenab e in fact and in aw and that it is in the best interest of j&stice that for the time being the two estates sho& d be administered conjoint bthe respective administrators of the two estates, it sho& d fo ow that said assignments of error have ost their f&ndamenta reasons for being. There are certain matters, however, re ating pec& iar - to the respective orders in %&estion, if common - among some of them, which need f&rther c arification. .or instance, some of them a&thori7ed respondent ,agno to act a one or witho&t conc&rrence of ;+IH. 8nd with respect to man- of said orders, ;+IH f&rther c aims that either the matters invo ved
Page | 933

were not proper - within the probate j&risdiction of the tria co&rt or that the proced&re fo owed was not in accordance with the r& es. Ience, the necessit- of dea ing separate - with the merits of each of the appea s. Indeed, inasm&ch as the said two estates have &nti now remained comming ed pro-indivi$o, d&e to the fai &re of Iodges and the ower co&rt to i%&idate the conj&ga partnership, to recogni7e appe ee ,agno as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of ,rs. Iodges which is sti &nsegregated from that of Iodges is not to sa-, witho&t an- %&a ification, that she was therefore a&thori7ed to do and perform a her acts comp ained of in these appea s, sanctioned tho&gh the- might
Page | 934

have been b- the tria co&rt. 8s a matter of fact, it is s&ch comming ing proindivi$oof the two estates that sho& d deprive appe ee of freedom to act independent from ;+IH, as administrator of the estate of Iodges, j&st as, for the same reason, the atter sho& d not have a&thorit- to act independent - from her. 8nd considering that the ower co&rt fai ed to adhere consistent - to this basic point of view, b- a owing the two administrators to act independent - of each other, in the vario&s instances a read- noted in the narration of facts above, the +o&rt has to ook into the attendant circ&mstances of each of the appea ed orders to be ab e to determine whether an- of them has to be set aside or the- ma- a be ega - maintained notwithstanding the
Page | 935

fai &re of the co&rt a 4uo to observe the pertinent proced&ra technica ities, to the end on - that graver inj&r- to the s&bstantive rights of the parties concerned and &nnecessar- and &ndesirab e pro iferation of incidents in the s&bject proceedings ma- be foresta ed. In other words, 0e have to determine, whether or not, in the ight of the &n&s&a circ&mstances e6tant in the record, there is need to be more pragmatic and to adopt a rather &northodo6 approach, so as to ca&se the east dist&rbance in rights a readbeing e6ercised b- n&mero&s innocent third parties, even if to do so ma- not appear to be strict - in accordance with the etter of the app icab e p&re adjective r& es.
Page | 936

Incidenta -, it ma- be mentioned, at this point, that it was principa - on acco&nt of the conf&sion that might res& t ater from ;+IH9s contin&ing to administer a the comm&nitproperties, notwithstanding the certaint- of the e6istence of the separate estate of ,rs. Iodges, and to enab e both estates to f&nction in the meantime with a re ative degree of reg& arit-, that the +o&rt ordered in the reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ the modification of the inj&nction iss&ed p&rs&ant to the reso &tions of 8&g&st :, 1ctober 4 and Eecember (, "$(#, b- virt&e of which respondent ,agno was comp ete - barred from anparticipation in the administration of the properties herein invo ved. In the =eptember : reso &tion, 0e ordered that, pending this decision, =pecia
Page | 937

;roceedings "!'# and "(#/ sho& d proceed joint - and that the respective administrators therein Dact conjoint - G none of them to act sing - and independent - of each other for anp&rpose.D Upon mat&re de iberation, 0e fe t that to a ow ;+IH to contin&e managing or administering a the said properties to the e6c &sion of the administratri6 of ,rs. Iodges9 estate might p ace the heirs of Iodges at an &nd& - advantageo&s position which co& d res& t in considerab e, if not irreparab e, damage or inj&r- to the other parties concerned. It is indeed to be regretted that apparent -, &p to this date, more than a -ear after said reso &tion, the same has not been given d&e regard, as ma- be g eaned from the fact that recent -, respondent ,agno
Page | 938

has fi ed in these proceedings a motion to dec are ;+IH in contempt for a eged fai &re to abide therewith, notwithstanding that its repeated motions for reconsideration thereof have a been denied soon after the- were fi ed. $ Going back to the appea s, it is perhaps best to begin first with what appears to 1&r mind to be the simp est, and then proceed to the more comp icated ones in that order, witho&t regard to the n&merica se%&ence of the assignments of error in appe ant9s brief or to the order of the disc&ssion thereof bco&nse . A$$i"n#ent$ of error nu#/er$ L^^33, L^^G33 and L^^G333.
Page | 939

These assignments of error re ate to 2"5 the order of the tria co&rt of 8&g&st (, "$() providing that Dthe deeds of sa e 2therein referred to invo ving properties in the name of Iodges5 sho& d be signed joint - b- the ;+IH, as 8dministrator of Testate Estate of +.3. Iodges, and 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, and to this effect, the ;+IH sho& d take the necessarsteps so that 8dministratri6 8ve ina 8. ,agno co& d sign the deeds of sa e,D 2p. /4:, Green Rec. on 8ppea 5 2/5 the order of 1ctober /#, "$() den-ing the motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order, 2pp. /#(*/##, id.5 2!5 the other order a so dated 1ctober /#, "$() enjoining inter alia, that D2a5 a cash co ections sho& d be deposited in
Page | 940

the joint acco&nt of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and estate of +. 3. Iodges, 2b5 that whatever cash co ections 2that5 had been deposited in the acco&nt of either of the estates sho& d be withdrawn and since then 2sic5 deposited in the joint acco&nt of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and the estate of +. 3. Iodges> ... 2d5 2that5 8dministratri6 ,agno G a ow the ;+IH to inspect whatever records, doc&ments and papers she ma- have in her possession, in the same manner that 8dministrator ;+IH is a so directed to a ow 8dministratri6 ,agno to inspect whatever records, doc&ments and papers it ma- have in its possessionD and D2e5 that the acco&ntant of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges sha have access to a records of the transactions
Page | 941

of both estates for the protection of the estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges> and in ike manner, the acco&ntant or ana&thori7ed representative of the estate of +. 3. Iodges sha have access to the records of transactions of the Ainnie Jane Iodges estate for the protection of the estate of +. 3. IodgesD, 2pp. /$/* /$), id.5 and 245 the order of .ebr&ar"), "$((, den-ing, among others, the motion for reconsideration of the order of 1ctober /#, "$() ast referred to. 2pp. 4))*4)(, id.5 8s ma- be readi - seen, the thr&st of a these fo&r imp&gned orders is in ine with the +o&rt9s above*mentioned reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ modif-ing the inj&nction previo&s iss&ed on 8&g&st :, "$(#, and, more
Page | 942

important -, with what 0e have said the tria co&rt sho& d have a wa-s done pending the i%&idation of the conj&ga partnership of the Iodges spo&ses. In fact, as a read- stated, that is the arrangement 0e are ordering, b- this decision, to be fo owed. =tated different -, since the %&estioned orders provide for joint action b- the two administrators, and that is precise what 0e are ho ding o&t to have been done and sho& d be done &nti the two estates are separated from each other, the said orders m&st be affirmed. 8ccording - the foregoing assignments of error m&st be, as the- are hereboverr& ed. A$$i"n#ent$ of error &u#/er$ L^G333 to L^^3 and L^^333 to L^^G3.
Page | 943

The orders comp ained of &nder these assignments of error common - dea with e6pendit&res made b- appe ee ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Estate of ,rs. Iodges, in connection with her administration thereof, a beit additiona -, assignments of error 3&mbers ANIN to ANNI p&t into %&estion the pa-ment of attorne-s fees provided for in the contract for the p&rpose, as constit&ting, in effect, premat&re advances to the heirs of ,rs. Iodges. ,ore specifica -, assignment 3&mber ANNIII refers to reimb&rsement of overtime pa- paid to si6 emp o-ees of the co&rt and three other persons for services in cop-ing the co&rt records to enab e the aw-ers of the administration to be f& - informed of a the incidents in
Page | 944

the proceedings. The reimb&rsement was approved as proper ega e6penses of administration per the order of Eecember "$, "$(4, 2pp. //"*///, id.5 and repeated motions for reconsideration thereof were denied bthe orders of Jan&ar- $, "$(), 2pp. /!"* /!/, id.5 1ctober /#, "$(), 2p. /##, id.5 and .ebr&ar- "), "$((. 2pp. 4))* 4)(, id.5 1n the other hand, 8ssignments 3&mbers ANFIII to ANNI, ANNIF and ANNF %&estion the tria co&rt9s order of 3ovember !, "$() approving the agreement of J&ne (, "$(4 between 8dministratri6 ,agno and James A. =& ivan, attorne-*in*fact of the heirs of ,rs. Iodges, as ;arties of the .irst ;art, and 8ttorne-s Ra& ,ang ap&s and Ri7a R. O&impo, as ;arties of the =econd ;art, regarding
Page | 945

attorne-s fees for said co&nse who had agreed Dto prosec&te and defend their interests 2of the ;arties of the .irst ;art5 in certain cases now pending itigation in the +o&rt of .irst Instance of I oi o G, more specifica - in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/ GD 2pp. "/(*"/$, id.5 and directing 8dministratri6 ,agno Dto iss&e and sign whatever check or checks ma-be needed to imp ement the approva of the agreement anne6ed to the motionD as we as the Dadministrator of the estate of +. 3. Iodges G to co&ntersign the said check or checks as the case ma-be.D 2pp. !"!*!/', id.5, reconsideration of which order of approva was denied in the order of .ebr&ar- "(, "$((, 2p. 4)(,id.5 8ssignment 3&mber ANNFI imp&tes error to the ower co&rt9s order of
Page | 946

1ctober /#, "$(), a read- referred to above, insofar as it orders that D;+IH sho& d co&nter sign the check in the amo&nt of ;/)' in favor of 8dministratri6 8ve ina 8. ,agno as her compensation as administratri6 of Ainnie Jane Iodges estate chargeab e to the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges on -.D 2p. /$4, id.5 ,ain contention again of appe ant ;+IH in regard to these eight assigned errors is that there is no s&ch estate as the estate of ,rs. Iodges for which the %&estioned e6pendit&res were made, hence what were a&thori7ed were in effect e6pendit&res from the estate of Iodges. 8s 0e have a readdemonstrated in 1&r reso &tion above of the petition for certiorari and prohibition,
Page | 947

this post&re is incorrect. Indeed, in whichever wa- the remaining iss&es between the parties in these cases are & timate - reso ved, "' the fina res& t wi s&re - be that there are properties constit&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges of which ,agno is the c&rrent administratri6. It fo ows, therefore, that said appe ee had the right, as s&ch administratri6, to hire the persons whom she paid overtime pa- and to be paid for her own services as administratri6. That she has not -et co ected and is not co ecting amo&nts as s&bstantia as that paid to or d&e appe ant ;+IH is to her credit. 1f co&rse, she is a so entit ed to the services of co&nse and to that end had the a&thorit- to enter into contracts for
Page | 948

attorne-9s fees in the manner she had done in the agreement of J&ne (, "$(4. 8nd as regards to the reasonab eness of the amo&nt therein stip& ated, 0e see no reason to dist&rb the discretion e6ercised b- the probate co&rt in determining the same. 0e have gone over the agreement, and considering the obvio&s si7e of the estate in %&estion and the nat&re of the iss&es between the parties as we as the professiona standing of co&nse , 0e cannot sa- that the fees agreed &pon re%&ire the e6ercise b- the +o&rt of its inherent power to red&ce it. ;+IH insists, however, that said agreement of J&ne (, "$(4 is not for ega services to the estate b&t to the heirs of ,rs. Iodges, or, at most, to
Page | 949

both of them, and s&ch being the case, an- pa-ment &nder it, insofar as co&nse s9 services wo& d redo&nd to the benefit of the heirs, wo& d be in the nat&re of advances to s&ch heirs and a premat&re distrib&tion of the estate. 8gain, 0e ho d that s&ch post&re cannot prevai . Upon the premise 0e have fo&nd p a&sib e that there is an e6isting estate of ,rs. Iodges, it res& ts that j&ridica and fact&a - the interests invo ved in her estate are distinct and different from those invo ved in her estate of Iodges and vice versa. Insofar as the matters re ated e6c &sive - to the estate of ,rs. Iodges, ;+IH, as administrator of the estate of Iodges, is a comp ete stranger and it is witho&t persona it- to %&estion
Page | 950

the act&ations of the administratri6 thereof regarding matters not affecting the estate of Iodges. 8ct&a -, considering the obvio&s - considerab e si7e of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, 0e see no possib e ca&se for apprehension that when the two estates are segregated from each other, the amo&nt of attorne-9s fees stip& ated in the agreement in %&estion wi prej&dice anportion that wo& d correspond to Iodges9 estate. 8nd as regards the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges who o&ght to be the ones who sho& d have a sa- on the attorne-9s fees and other e6penses of administration assai ed b- ;+IH, s&ffice it to sa- that the- appear to have been d& represented in the agreement itse f bPage | 951

their attorne-*in*fact, James A. =& ivan and have not otherwise interposed anobjection to an- of the e6penses inc&rred b- ,agno %&estioned b- ;+IH in these appea s. 8s a matter of fact, as ordered b- the tria co&rt, a the e6penses in %&estion, inc &ding the attorne-9s fees, ma- be paid witho&t awaiting the determination and segregation of the estate of ,rs. Iodges. 0itha , the weightiest consideration in connection with the point &nder disc&ssion is that at this stage of the controvers- among the parties herein, the vita iss&e refers to the e6istence or non*e6istence of the estate of ,rs. Iodges. In this respect, the interest of respondent ,agno, as the appointed
Page | 952

administratri6 of the said estate, is to maintain that it e6ists, which is nat&ra common and identica with and inseparab e from the interest of the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges. Th&s, it sho& d not be wondered whboth ,agno and these heirs have seeming - agreed to retain b&t one co&nse . In fact, s&ch an arrangement sho& d be more convenient and economica to both. The possibi it- of conf ict of interest between ,agno and the heirs of ,rs. Iodges wo& d be, at this stage, %&ite remote and, in anevent, rather ins&bstantia . Hesides, sho& d an- s&bstantia conf ict of interest between them arise in the f&t&re, the same wo& d be a matter that the probate co&rt can ver- we take care of in the co&rse of the independent proceedings
Page | 953

in +ase 3o. "!'# after the corresponding segregation of the two s&bject estates. 0e cannot perceive ancogent reason wh-, at this stage, the estate and the heirs of ,rs. Iodges cannot be represented b- a common co&nse . 3ow, as to whether or not the portion of the fees in %&estion that sho& d correspond to the heirs constit&tes premat&re partia distrib&tion of the estate of ,rs. Iodges is a so a matter in which neither ;+IH nor the heirs of Iodges have an- interest. In an- event, since, as far as the records show, the estate has no creditors and the corresponding estate and inheritance ta6es, e6cept those of the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges, have a readPage | 954

been paid, "" no prej&dice can ca&sed to an-one b- the comparative - sma amo&nt of attorne-9s fees in %&estion. 8nd in this connection, it ma- be added that, a tho&gh strict - speaking, the attorne-9s fees of the co&nse of an administrator is in the first instance his persona responsibi it-, reimb&rsab e ater on b- the estate, in the fina ana -sis, when, as in the sit&ation on hand, the attorne-*in*fact of the heirs has given his conformit- thereto, it wo& d be id e effort to in%&ire whether or not the sanction given to said fees bthe probate co&rt is proper. .or the foregoing reasons, 8ssignments of Error ANFIII to ANNI and ANNIII to ANNFI sho& d be as the- are hereboverr& ed.
Page | 955

A$$i"n#ent$ of error 3 to 3G, ^333 to ^G, ^^33 to ^^G, ^^^G to ^^^ G3, ^L3 to ^L333 and L. These assignments of error dea with the approva b- the tria co&rt of vario&s deeds of sa e of rea properties registered in the name of Iodges b&t e6ec&ted b- appe ee ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Estate of ,rs. Iodges, p&rported - in imp ementation of corresponding s&pposed written D+ontracts to =e D previo&s - e6ec&ted b- Iodges d&ring the interim between ,a- /!, "$)#, when his wife died, and Eecember /), "$(/, the da- he died. 8s stated on pp. "":*"/' of appe ant9s main brief, DThese are< the, contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee,
Page | 956

;epito G. I-& ores e6ec&ted on .ebr&ar), "$("> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ant Esperidion ;artisa a, e6ec&ted on 8pri /', "$('> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, 0inifredo +. Espada, e6ec&ted on 8pri ":, "$('> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, Rosario 8 ingasa, e6ec&ted on 8&g&st /), "$):> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, Aoren7o +ar es, e6ec&ted on J&ne "#, "$):> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, =a vador =. G&7man, e6ec&ted on =eptember "!, "$('> the contract to se between the
Page | 957

deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, . orenia Harrido, e6ec&ted on .ebr&ar- /", "$):> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, ;&rificacion +oronado, e6ec&ted on 8&g&st "4, "$("> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, Graciano A&cero, e6ec&ted on 3ovember /#, "$("> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, 8riteo Thomas Jamir, e6ec&ted on ,a- /(, "$("> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, ,e %&iades Hatisanan, e6ec&ted on J&ne $, "$)$> the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, He ce7ar
Page | 958

+a&sing, e6ec&ted on .ebr&ar- "', "$)$ and the contract to se between the deceased, +har es 3ewton Iodges, and the appe ee, 8de fa ;rema- on, e6ec&ted on 1ctober !", "$)$, re Tit e 3o. "!:").D Re ative to these sa es, it is the position of appe ant ;+IH that, inasm&ch as p&rs&ant to the wi of ,rs. Iodges, her h&sband was to have dominion over a her estate d&ring his ifetime, it was as abso &te owner of the properties respective - covered b- said sa es that he e6ec&ted the aforementioned contracts to se , and conse%&ent -, &pon his death, the imp ementation of said contracts ma- be &ndertaken on b- the administrator of his estate and not b- the administratri6 of the estate of
Page | 959

,rs. Iodges. Hasica -, the same theoris invoked with partic& ar reference to five other sa es, in which the respective Dcontracts to se D in favor of these appe ees were e6ec&ted b- Iodges before the death of his wife, name -, those in favor of appe ee =antiago ;acaonsis, 8 fredo +atedra , Jose ;ab ico, 0estern Instit&te of Techno ogand 8de fa ;rema- on. 8nent those deeds of sa e based on promises or contracts to se e6ec&ted b- Iodges after the death of his wife, those en&merated in the %&otation in the immediate - preceding paragraph, it is %&ite obvio&s that ;+IH9s contention cannot be s&stained. 8s a reade6p ained ear ier, " "Y a proceeds of rem&nerative transfers or dispositions
Page | 960

made b- Iodges after the death of his wife sho& d be deemed as contin&ing to be parts of her estate and, therefore, s&bject to the terms of her wi in favor of her brothers and sisters, in the sense that sho& d there be no showing that s&ch proceeds, whether in cash or propert- have been s&bse%&ent conve-ed or assigned s&bse%&ent - bIodges to an- third part- b- acts inter vivos with the res& t that the- co& d not thereb- be ong to him an-more at the time of his death, the- a&tomatica became part of the inheritance of said brothers and sisters. The deeds here in %&estion invo ve transactions which are e6act - of this nat&re. +onse%&ent -, the pa-ments made b- the appe ees sho& d be considered as pa-ments to the estate of ,rs. Iodges which is to be
Page | 961

distrib&ted and partitioned among her heirs specified in the wi . The five deeds of sa e predicated on contracts to se e6ec&ted Iodges d&ring the ifetime of his wife, present a different sit&ation. 8t first b &sh, it wo& d appear that as to them, ;+IH9s position has some degree of p a&sibi it-. +onsidering, however, that the adoption of ;+IH9s theor- wo& d necessari - have tremendo&s reperc&ssions and wo& d bring abo&t considerab e dist&rbance of propert- rights that have somehow accr&ed a read- in favor of innocent third parties, the five p&rchasers aforenamed, the +o&rt is inc ined to take a pragmatic and practica view of the ega sit&ation invo ving them bover ooking the possib e technica ities in
Page | 962

the wa-, the non*observance of which wo& d not, after a , detract materia from what sho& d s&bstantia correspond to each and a of the parties concerned. To start with, these contracts can hard be ignored. (ona fide third parties are invo ved> as m&ch as possib e, thesho& d not be made to s&ffer anprej&dice on acco&nt of j&dicia controversies not of their own making. 0hat is more, the transactions the- re on were s&bmitted b- them to the probate co&rt for approva , and from a read- known and recorded act&ations of said co&rt then, the- had reason to be ieve that it had a&thorit- to act on their motions, since appe ee ,agno had, from time to time prior to their
Page | 963

transactions with her, been a owed to act in her capacit- as administratri6 of one of the s&bject estates either a one or conjoint - with ;+IH. 8 the sa es in %&estion were e6ec&ted b- ,agno in "$(( a read-, b&t before that, the co&rt had previo&s - a&thori7ed or otherwise sanctioned e6press - man- of her act as administratri6 invo ving e6pendit&res from the estate made b- her either conjoint - with or independent - from ;+IH, as 8dministrator of the Estate of Iodges. Th&s, it ma- be said that said b&-ers*appe ees mere fo owed precedents in previo&s orders of the co&rt. 8ccording -, &n ess the imp&gned orders approving those sa es ind&bitab s&ffer from some c ear - fata infirmitthe +o&rt wo& d rather affirm them.
Page | 964

It is %&ite apparent from the record that the properties covered b- said sa es are e%&iva ent on - to a fraction of what sho& d constit&te the estate of ,rs. Iodges, even if it is ass&med that the same wo& d fina - be he d to be on one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties of the spo&ses as of the time of her death or, to be more e6act, one*ha f of her estate as per the inventor- s&bmitted bIodges as e6ec&tor, on ,a- "/, "$):. In none of its n&mero&s, varied and vo &mino&s p eadings, motions and manifestations has ;+IH c aimed anpossibi it- otherwise. =&ch being the case, to avoid an- conf ict with the heirs of Iodges, the said properties covered b- the %&estioned deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b- appe ee ,agno ma- be treated as among those corresponding
Page | 965

to the estate of ,rs. Iodges, which wo& d have been act&a - &nder her contro and administration had Iodges comp ied with his d&t- to i%&idate the conj&ga partnership. Fiewing the sit&ation in that manner, the on - ones who co& d stand to be prej&diced b- the appea ed orders referred to in the assignment of errors &nder disc&ssion and who co& d, therefore, have the re%&isite interest to %&estion them wo& d be on - the heirs of ,rs. Iodges, definite - not ;+IH. It is of no moment in what capacitIodges made the Dcontracts to se 9 after the death of his wife. Even if he had acted as e6ec&tor of the wi of his wife, he did not have to s&bmit those contracts to the co&rt nor fo ow the
Page | 966

provisions of the r& es, 2=ections /, 4, ), (, : and $ of R& e :$ %&oted bappe ant on pp. "/) to "/# of its brief5 for the simp e reason that b- the verorders, m&ch re ied &pon b- appe ant for other p&rposes, of ,a- /#, "$)# and Eecember "4, "$)#, Iodges was Da owed or a&thori7edD b- the tria co&rt Dto contin&e the b&siness in which he was engaged and to perform acts which he had been doing whi e the deceased was ivingD, 21rder of ,a- /#5 which according to the motion on which the co&rt acted was Dof b&-ing and se ing persona and rea propertiesD, and Dto e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft b- the said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in consonance with the wishes conve-ed in the ast wi and
Page | 967

testament of the atter.D 21rder of Eecember "45 In other words, if Iodges acted then as e6ec&tor, it can be said that he had a&thorit- to do so b- virt&e of these b anket orders, and ;+IH does not %&estion the ega it- of s&ch grant of a&thorit-> on the contrar-, it is re -ing on the terms of the order itse f for its main contention in these cases. 1n the other hand, if, as ;+IH contends, he acted as heir*adj&dicatee, the a&thorit- given to him b- the aforementioned orders wo& d sti s&ffice. 8s can be seen, therefore, it is of no moment whether the Dcontracts to se D &pon which the deeds in %&estion were based were e6ec&ted b- Iodges before or after the death of his wife. In a word, 0e ho d, for the reasons a read- stated,
Page | 968

that the properties covered b- the deeds being assai ed pertain or sho& d be deemed as pertaining to the estate of ,rs. Iodges> hence, an- s&pposed irreg& arit- attending the act&ations of the tria co&rt ma- be invoked on - bher heirs, not b- ;+IH, and since the said heirs are not objecting, and the defects pointed o&t not being strict j&risdictiona in nat&re, a things considered, partic& ar - the &nnecessardist&rbance of rights a read- created in favor of innocent third parties, it is best that the imp&gned orders are not dist&rbed. In view of these considerations, 0e do not find s&fficient merit in the assignments of error &nder disc&ssion.
Page | 969

A$$i"n#ent$ of error G to G333, ^G3 to ^G333, ^^G3 to ^^3^, ^^^G33 to ^^^G333, ^L3G to ^LG3 and L3. 8 these assignments of error common - dea with a eged non* f& fi ment b- the respective vendees, appe ees herein, of the terms and conditions embodied in the deeds of sa e referred to in the assignments of error j&st disc&ssed. It is c aimed that some of them never made f& pa-ments in accordance with the respective contracts to se , whi e in the cases of the others, ike Aoren7o +ar es, Jose ;ab ico, 8 fredo +atedra and =a vador =. G&7man, the contracts with them had a read- been &ni atera - cance ed b;+IH p&rs&ant to a&tomatic rescission c a&ses contained in them, in view of the
Page | 970

fai &re of said b&-ers to pa- arrearages ong overd&e. H&t ;+IH9s post&re is again premised on its ass&mption that the properties covered b- the deeds in %&estion co& d not pertain to the estate of ,rs. Iodges. 0e have a read- he d above that, it being evident that a considerab e portion of the conj&ga properties, m&ch more than the properties covered b- said deeds, wo& d inevitab - constit&te the estate of ,rs. Iodges, to avoid &nnecessar- ega comp ications, it can be ass&med that said properties form part of s&ch estate. .rom this point of view, it is apparent again that the %&estions, whether or not it was proper for appe ee ,agno to have disregarded the cance ations made b- ;+IH, thereb- reviving the rights of the respective b&-ers*
Page | 971

appe ees, and, whether or not the r& es governing new dispositions of properties of the estate were strict - fo owed, manot be raised b- ;+IH b&t on - b- the heirs of ,rs. Iodges as the persons designated to inherit the same, or perhaps the government beca&se of the sti &npaid inheritance ta6es. H&t, again, since there is no pretense that anobjections were raised b- said parties or that the- wo& d necessari - be prej&diced, the contentions of ;+IH &nder the instant assignments of error hard - merit an- consideration. A$$i"n#ent$ of error 3^ to ^33, ^3^ to ^^3, ^^^ to ^^3G, ^^^3^ to ^L, ^LG33 to ^L3^, L33 and L333 to L^3. ;+IH raises &nder these assignments of error two iss&es which according to it
Page | 972

are f&ndamenta , name -< 2"5 that in approving the deeds e6ec&ted b,agno p&rs&ant to contracts to se a read- cance ed b- it in the performance of its f&nctions as administrator of the estate of Iodges, the tria co&rt deprived the said estate of the right to invoke s&ch cance ations it 2;+IH5 had made and 2/5 that in so acting, the co&rt Darrogated &nto itse f, whi e acting as a probate co&rt, the power to determine the contending c aims of third parties against the estate of Iodges over rea propert-,D since it has in effect determined whether or not a the terms and conditions of the respective contracts to se e6ec&ted bIodges in favor of the b&-ers*appe ees concerned were comp ied with b- the atter. 0hat is worse, in the view of
Page | 973

;+IH, is that the co&rt has taken the word of the appe ee ,agno, Da tota stranger to his estate as determinative of the iss&eD. 8ct&a -, contrar- to the stand of ;+IH, it is this ast point regarding appe ee ,agno9s having agreed to ignore the cance ations made b- ;+IH and a owed the b&-ers*appe ees to cons&mmate the sa es in their favor that is decisive. =ince 0e have a read- he d that the properties covered b- the contracts in %&estion sho& d be deemed to be portions of the estate of ,rs. Iodges and not that of Iodges, it is ;+IH that is a comp ete stranger in these incidents. +onsidering, therefore, that the estate of ,rs. Iodges and her heirs who are the rea parties in interest
Page | 974

having the right to oppose the cons&mmation of the imp&gned sa es are not objecting, and that the- are the ones who are precise - &rging that said sa es be sanctioned, the assignments of error &nder disc&ssion have no basis and m&st according - be as the- are hereb- overr& ed. 0ith partic& ar reference to assignments AIII to ANI, assai ing the orders of the tria co&rt re%&iring ;+IH to s&rrender the respective owner9s d&p icate certificates of tit e over the properties covered b- the sa es in %&estion and otherwise directing the Register of Eeeds of I oi o to cance said certificates and to iss&e new transfer certificates of tit e in favor of the b&-ers*appe ees, s&ffice it to sa- that in the ight of the
Page | 975

above disc&ssion, the tria co&rt was within its rights to so re%&ire and direct, ;+IH having ref&sed to give wa-, bwithho ding said owners9 d&p icate certificates, of the corresponding registration of the transfers d& - and ega - approved b- the co&rt. A$$i"n#ent$ of error L^33 to L^G33 8 these assignments of error common - dea with the appea against orders favoring appe ee 0estern Instit&te of Techno og-. 8s wi be reca ed, said instit&te is one of the b&-ers of rea propert- covered b- a contract to se e6ec&ted b- Iodges prior to the death of his wife. 8s of 1ctober, "$(), it was in arrears in the tota amo&nt of ;$/,($".'' in the pa-ment of its insta ments on acco&nt
Page | 976

of its p&rchase, hence it received &nder date of 1ctober 4, "$() and 1ctober /', "$(), etters of co ection, separate and respective -, from ;+IH and appe ee ,agno, in their respective capacities as administrators of the distinct estates of the Iodges spo&ses, a beit, whi e in the case of ;+IH it made known that Dno other arrangement can be accepted e6cept b- pa-ing a -o&r past d&e acco&ntD, on the other hand, ,agno mere - said she wo& d Dappreciate ver- m&ch if -o& can make some remittance to bring this acco&nt &p*to*date and to red&ce the amo&nt of the ob igation.D 2=ee pp. /$)*!"", Green R. on 8.5 1n 3ovember !, "$(), the Instit&te fi ed a motion which, after a eging that it was read- and wi ing to pa- ;/',''' on acco&nt of its overd&e
Page | 977

insta ments b&t &ncertain whether it sho& d pa- ;+IH or ,agno, it pra-ed that it be Da owed to deposit the aforesaid amo&nt with the co&rt pending reso &tion of the conf icting c aims of the administrators.D 8cting on this motion, on 3ovember /!, "$(), the tria co&rt iss&ed an order, a read- %&oted in the narration of facts in this opinion, ho ding that pa-ment to both or either of the two administrators is Dproper and ega D, and so Dmovant G can pa- to both estates or either of themD, considering that Din both cases 2=pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/5 there is as -et no j&dicia dec aration of heirs nor distrib&tion of properties to whomsoever are entit ed thereto.D
Page | 978

The arg&ments &nder the instant assignments of error revo ve aro&nd said order. .rom the proced&ra standpoint, it is c aimed that ;+IH was not served with a cop- of the Instit&te9s motion, that said motion was heard, considered and reso ved on 3ovember /!, "$(), whereas the date set for its hearing was 3ovember /', "$(), and that what the order grants is different from what is pra-ed for in the motion. 8s to the s&bstantive aspect, it is contended that the matter treated in the motion is be-ond the j&risdiction of the probate co&rt and that the order a&thori7ed pa-ment to a person other than the administrator of the estate of Iodges with whom the Instit&te had contracted.
Page | 979

The proced&ra points &rged bappe ant deserve scant consideration. 0e m&st ass&me, absent an- c ear proof to the contrar-, that the ower co&rt had acted reg& ar - b- seeing to it that appe ant was d& - notified. 1n the other hand, there is nothing irreg& ar in the co&rt9s having reso ved the motion three da-s after the date set for hearing the same. ,oreover, the record revea s that appe ants9 motion for reconsideration wherein it raised the same points was denied b- the tria co&rt on ,arch #, "$(( 2p. 4(/, Green R. on 8.5 0itha , 0e are not convinced that the re ief granted is not within the genera intent of the Instit&te9s motion. Insofar as the s&bstantive iss&es are concerned, a that need be said at this
Page | 980

point is that the- are mere reiterations of contentions 0e have a read- reso ved above adverse - to appe ants9 position. Incidenta -, 0e ma- add, perhaps, to erase a do&bts as to the propriet- of not dist&rbing the ower co&rt9s orders sanctioning the sa es %&estioned in a these appea s b- ;+IH, that it is on when one of the parties to a contract to conve- propert- e6ec&ted b- a deceased person raises s&bstantia objections to its being imp emented bthe e6ec&tor or administrator of the decedent9s estate that =ection : of R& e :$ ma- not app - and, conse%&ent -, the matter has, to be taken &p in a separate action o&tside of the probate co&rt> b&t where, as in the cases of the sa es herein invo ved, the interested parties are in agreement that the conve-ance
Page | 981

be made, it is proper - within the j&risdiction of the probate co&rt to give its sanction thereto p&rs&ant to the provisions of the r& e j&st mentioned. 8nd with respect to the s&pposed a&tomatic rescission c a&ses contained in the contracts to se e6ec&ted bIodges in favor of herein appe ees, the effect of said c a&ses depend on the tr&e nat&re of the said contracts, despite the nomenc at&re appearing therein, which is not contro ing, for if theamo&nt to act&a contracts of sa e instead of being mere &ni atera accepted Dpromises to se D, 28rt. "4#$, +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, /nd paragraph5 thepactu# co##i$$oriu# or the a&tomatic rescission provision wo& d not operate, as a matter of p&b ic po ic-, &n ess there has been a previo&s
Page | 982

notaria or j&dicia demand b- the se er 2"' ,anresa /(!, /nd ed.5 neither of which have been shown to have been made in connection with the transactions herein invo ved. +onse%&ent -, 0e find no merit in the assignments of error 3&mber ANII to ANFII. TMMA%] +onsidering the fact that this decision is &n&s&a - e6tensive and that the iss&es herein taken &p and reso ved are rather n&mero&s and varied, what with appe ant making sevent-*eight assignments of error affecting no ess than thirt- separate orders of the co&rt a %&o, if on - to faci itate proper &nderstanding of the import and e6tent
Page | 983

of o&r r& ings herein contained, it is perhaps desirab e that a brief restatement of the who e sit&ation be made together with o&r conc &sions in regard to its vario&s fact&a and ega aspects. . The instant cases refer to the estate eft b- the ate +har es 3ewton Iodges as we as that of his wife, Ainnie Jane Iodges, who predeceased him b- abo&t five -ears and a ha f. In their respective wi s which were e6ec&ted on different occasions, each one of them provided m&t&a - as fo ows< DI give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder 2after f&nera and administration e6penses, ta6es and debts5 of m- estate, both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated,
Page | 984

to m- be oved 2spo&se5 to have and to ho d &nto 2himJher5 G d&ring 2hisJher5 nat&ra ifetimeD, s&bject to the condition that &pon the death of whoever of them s&rvived the other, the remainder of what he or she wo& d inherit from the other is Dgive2n5, devise2d5 and be%&eath2ed5D to the brothers and sisters of the atter. ,rs. Iodges died first, on ,a- /!, "$)#. .o&r da-s ater, on ,a- /#, Iodges was appointed specia administrator of her estate, and in a separate order of the same date, he was Da owed or a&thori7ed to contin&e the b&siness in which he was engaged, 2b&-ing and se ing persona and rea properties5 and to perform acts which he had been doing whi e the deceased was
Page | 985

iving.D =&bse%&ent -, on Eecember "4, "$)#, after ,rs. Iodges9 wi had been probated and Iodges had been appointed and had %&a ified as E6ec&tor thereof, &pon his motion in which he asserted that he was Dnot on - part owner of the properties eft as conj&ga , b&t a so, the s&ccessor to a the properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane IodgesD, the tria co&rt ordered that Dfor the reasons stated in his motion dated Eecember "", "$)#, which the +o&rt considers we taken, ... a the sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgages of a properties eft b- the deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges e6ec&ted b- the E6ec&tor, +har es 3ewton Iodges are hereb- 8;;R1FEE. The said E6ec&tor is f&rther a&thori7ed to e6ec&te s&bse%&ent sa es,
Page | 986

conve-ances, eases and mortgages of the properties eft b- the said deceased Ainnie Jane Iodges in consonance with the wishes contained in the ast wi and testament of the atter.D 8nn&a - thereafter, Iodges s&bmitted to the co&rt the corresponding statements of acco&nt of his administration, with the partic& arit- that in a his motions, he a wa-s made it point to &rge the that Dno person interested in the ;hi ippines of the time and p ace of e6amining the herein acco&nts be given notice as herein e6ec&tor is the on - devisee or egatee of the deceased in accordance with the ast wi and testament a read- probated b- the Ionorab e +o&rt.D 8 said acco&nts approved as pra-ed for.
Page | 987

3othing e se appears to have been done either b- the co&rt a 4uo or Iodges &nti Eecember /), "$(/. Important - to be the provision in the wi of ,rs. Iodges that her share of the conj&ga partnership was to be inherited b- her h&sband Dto have and to ho d &nto him, m- said h&sband, d&ring his nat&ra ifetimeD and that Dat the death of m- said h&sband, I give, devise and be%&eath a the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both rea and persona , wherever sit&ated or ocated, to be e%&a - divided among mbrothers and sisters, share and share a ikeD, which provision nat&ra - made it imperative that the conj&ga partnership be prompt - i%&idated, in order that the Drest, resid&e and remainderD of his wife9s share thereof, as of the time of
Page | 988

Iodges9 own death, ma- be readi known and identified, no s&ch i%&idation was ever &ndertaken. The record gives no indication of the reason for s&ch omission, a tho&gh re ated -, it appears therein< ". That in his ann&a statement s&bmitted to the co&rt of the net worth of +. 3. Iodges and the Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, Iodges repeated and consistent - reported the combined income of the conj&ga partnership and then mere - divided the same e%&a - between himse f and the estate of the deceased wife, and, more important -, he a so, as consistent -, fi ed corresponding separate income ta6 ret&rns for
Page | 989

each ca endar -ear for each res& ting ha f of s&ch combined income, th&s reporting that the estate of ,rs. Iodges had its own income distinct from his own. /. That when the co&rt a 4uo happened to inadvertent omit in its order probating the wi of ,rs. Iodges, the name of one of her brothers, Ro- Iigdon then a read- deceased, Iodges ost no time in asking for the proper correction Din order that the heirs of deceased Ro- Iigdon ma- not think or be ieve the- were omitted, and that the- were rea - interested in the estate of the deceased Ainnie Jane IodgesD.
Page | 990

!. That in his aforementioned motion of Eecember "", "$)#, he e6press - stated that Ddeceased Ainnie Jane Iodges died eaving no descendants or ascendants e6cept brothers and sisters and herein petitioner as the s&rviving spo&se, to inherit the properties of the decedentD, thereb- indicating that he was not e6c &ding his wife9s brothers and sisters from the inheritance. 4. That Iodges a eged - made statements and manifestations to the United =tates inheritance ta6 a&thorities indicating that he had reno&nced his inheritance from his wife in favor of her other heirs, which attit&de he is s&pposed to
Page | 991

have reiterated or ratified in an a eged affidavit s&bscribed and sworn to here in the ;hi ippines and in which he even p&rported stated that his reason for so disc aiming and reno&ncing his rights &nder his wife9s wi was to Dabso ve 2him5 or 2his5 estate from an- iabi it- for the pa-ment of income ta6es on income which has accr&ed to the estate of Ainnie Jane IodgesD, his wife, since her death. 1n said date, Eecember /), "$(/, Iodges died. The ver- ne6t da-, &pon motion of herein respondent and appe ee, 8ve ina 8. ,agno, she was appointed b- the tria co&rt as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of
Page | 992

Ainnie Jane Iodges, in =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "!'# and as =pecia 8dministratri6 of the estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, Din the atter case, beca&se the ast wi of said +har es 3ewton Iodges is sti kept in his va& t or iron safe and that the rea and persona properties of both spo&ses ma- be ost, damaged or go to waste, &n ess =pecia 8dministratri6 is appointed,D 21rder of Eecember /(, "$(/, p. /#, Ce ow R. on 8.5 a tho&gh, soon eno&gh, on Eecember /$, "$(/, a certain Iaro d ?. Eavies was appointed as her +o*=pecia 8dministrator, and when =pecia ;roceedings 3o. "(#/, Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, was opened, Joe Iodges, as ne6t of kin of the deceased, was in d&e time appointed as +o*8dministrator of
Page | 993

said estate together with 8tt-. .ernando ;. ,iraso , to rep ace ,agno and Eavies, on - to be in t&rn rep aced event&a - b- petitioner ;+IH a one. 8t the o&tset, the two probate proceedings appear to have been proceeding joint -, with each administrator acting together with the other, &nder a sort of mod&s operandi. ;+IH &sed to sec&re at the beginning the conformit- to and signat&re of ,agno in transactions it wanted to enter into and s&bmitted the same to the co&rt for approva as their joint acts. =o did ,agno do ikewise. =omehow, however, differences seem to have arisen, for which reason, each of them began acting ater on separate - and independent - of each other, with
Page | 994

apparent sanction of the tria co&rt. Th&s, ;+IH had its own aw-ers whom it contracted and paid handsome -, cond&cted the b&siness of the estate independent - of ,agno and otherwise acted as if a the properties appearing in the name of +har es 3ewton Iodges be onged so e - and on - to his estate, to the e6c &sion of the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges, witho&t considering whether or not in fact an- of said properties corresponded to the portion of the conj&ga partnership pertaining to the estate of ,rs. Iodges. 1n the other hand, ,agno made her own e6pendit&res, hired her own aw-ers, on the premise that there is s&ch an estate of ,rs. Iodges, and dea th with some of the properties, appearing in the name of Iodges, on
Page | 995

the ass&mption that the- act&a correspond to the estate of ,rs. Iodges. 8 of these independent and separate act&ations of the two administrators were invariab - approved b- the tria co&rt &pon s&bmission. Event&a -, the differences reached a point wherein ,agno, who was more cogni7ant than an-one e se abo&t the ins and o&ts of the b&sinesses and properties of the deceased spo&ses beca&se of her ong and intimate association with them, made it diffic& t for ;+IH to perform norma - its f&nctions as administrator separate from her. Th&s, ega comp ications arose and the present j&dicia controversies came abo&t.
Page | 996

;redicating its position on the tenor of the orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)# as we as the approva b- the co&rt a 4uo of the ann&a statements of acco&nt of Iodges, ;+IH ho ds to the view that the estate of ,rs. Iodges has a read- been in effect c osed with the virt&a adj&dication in the mentioned orders of her who e estate to Iodges, and that, therefore, ,agno had a readceased since then to have an- estate to administer and the brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges have no interests whatsoever in the estate eft b- Iodges. ,ain - &pon s&ch theor-, ;+IH has come to this +o&rt with a petition for certiorari and prohibition pra-ing that the ower co&rt9s orders a owing respondent ,agno to contin&e acting as administratri6 of the estate of ,rs.
Page | 997

Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# in the manner she has been doing, as detai ed ear ier above, be set aside. 8dditiona -, ;+IH maintains that the provision in ,rs. Iodges9 wi instit&ting her brothers and sisters in the manner therein specified is in the nat&re of a testamentar- s&bstit&tion, b&t inasm&ch as the p&rported s&bstit&tion is not, in its view, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the +ivi +ode, it is ineffective and ma- not be enforced. It is f&rther contended that, in an- event, inasm&ch as the Iodges spo&ses were both residents of the ;hi ippines, fo owing the decision of this +o&rt in 87nar vs. Garcia, or the case of +hristensen, # =+R8 $), the estate eft b- ,rs. Iodges co& d not be more than one*ha f of her share of the conj&ga
Page | 998

partnership, notwithstanding the fact that she was citi7en of Te6as, U.=.8., in accordance with 8rtic e "( in re ation to 8rtic es $'' and :#/ of the +ivi +ode. Initia -, 0e iss&ed a pre iminarinj&nction against ,agno and a owed ;+IH to act a one. 8t the same time ;+IH has appea ed severa separate orders of the tria co&rt approving individ&a acts of appe ee ,agno in her capacit- as administratri6 of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, s&ch as, hiring of aw-ers for specified fees and inc&rring e6penses of administration for different p&rposes and e6ec&ting deeds of sa e in favor of her co*appe ees covering properties which are sti registered in the name of Iodges, p&rported - p&rs&ant to corresponding
Page | 999

Dcontracts to se D e6ec&ted b- Iodges. The said orders are being %&estioned on j&risdictiona and proced&ra gro&nds direct - or indirect - predicated on the principa theor- of appe ant that a the properties of the two estates be ong a read- to the estate of Iodges e6c &sive -. 1n the other hand, respondent*appe ee ,agno denies that the tria co&rt9s orders of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)# were meant to be fina adj&dicator- of the hereditar- rights of Iodges and contends that the- were no more than the co&rt9s genera sanction of past and f&t&re acts of Iodges as e6ec&tor of the wi of his wife in d&e co&rse of administration. 8s to the point regarding s&bstit&tion, her position is
Page | 1000

that what was given b- ,rs. Iodges to her h&sband &nder the provision in %&estion was a ifetime &s&fr&ct of her share of the conj&ga partnership, with the naked ownership passing direct - to her brothers and sisters. 8nent the app ication of 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode, she c aims that the app icab e aw to the wi of ,rs. Iodges is that of Te6as &nder which, she a eges, there is no s-stem of egitime, hence, the estate of ,rs. Iodges cannot be ess than her share or one*ha f of the conj&ga partnership properties. =he f&rther maintains that, in an- event, Iodges had as a matter of fact and of aw reno&nced his inheritance from his wife and, therefore, her who e estate passed direct - to her brothers and sisters
Page | 1001

effective at the atest &pon the death of Iodges. In this decision, for the reasons disc&ssed above, and &pon the iss&es j&st s&mmari7ed, 0e overr& e ;+IH9s contention that the orders of ,a- /#, "$)# and Eecember "4, "$)# amo&nt to an adj&dication to Iodges of the estate of his wife, and 0e recogni7e the present e6istence of the estate of ,rs. Iodges, as consisting of properties, which, whi e registered in that name of Iodges, do act&a - correspond to the remainder of the share of ,rs. Iodges in the conj&ga partnership, it appearing that p&rs&ant to the pertinent provisions of her wi , an- portion of said share sti e6isting and &ndisposed of b- her h&sband at the time of his death sho& d
Page | 1002

go to her brothers and sisters share and share a ike. .act&a -, 0e find that the proven circ&mstances re evant to the said orders do not warrant the conc &sion that the co&rt intended to make thereb- s&ch a eged fina adj&dication. Aega -, 0e ho d that the tenor of said orders f&rnish no basis for s&ch a conc &sion, and what is more, at the time said orders were iss&ed, the proceedings had not -et reached the point when a fina distrib&tion and adj&dication co& d be made. ,oreover, the interested parties were not d& notified that s&ch disposition of the estate wo& d be done. 8t best, therefore, said orders mere - a owed Iodges to dispose of portions of his inheritance in advance of fina adj&dication, which is imp icit - permitted
Page | 1003

&nder =ection / of R& e "'$, there being no possib e prej&dice to third parties, inasm&ch as ,rs. Iodges had no creditors and a pertinent ta6es have been paid. ,ore specifica -, 0e ho d that, on the basis of circ&mstances present - e6tant in the record, and on the ass&mption that Iodges9 p&rported ren&nciation sho& d not be &phe d, the estate of ,rs. Iodges inherited b- her brothers and sisters consists of one*fo&rth of the comm&nit- estate of the spo&ses at the time of her death, min&s whatever Iodges had grat&ito&s - disposed of therefrom d&ring the period from, ,a/!, "$)#, when she died, to Eecember /), "$(/, when he died provided, that with regard to rem&nerative dispositions
Page | 1004

made b- him d&ring the same period, the proceeds thereof, whether in cash or propert-, sho& d be deemed as contin&ing to be part of his wife9s estate, &n ess it can be shown that he had s&bse%&ent disposed of them "ratuitou$l!. 8t this j&nct&re, it ma- be reiterated that the %&estion of what are the pertinent aws of Te6as and what wo& d be the estate of ,rs. Iodges &nder them is basica - one of fact, and considering the respective positions of the parties in regard to said fact&a iss&e, it can a read- be deemed as sett ed for the p&rposes of these cases that, indeed, the free portion of said estate that co& d possib - descend to her brothers and sisters b- virt&e of her wi ma- not be
Page | 1005

ess than one*fo&rth of the conj&ga estate, it appearing that the difference in the stands of the parties has reference so e - to the egitime of Iodges, ;+IH being of the view that &nder the aws of Te6as, there is s&ch a egitime of one* fo&rth of said conj&ga estate and ,agno contending, on the other hand, that there is none. In other words, hereafter, whatever might & timate appear, at the s&bse%&ent proceedings, to be act&a - the aws of Te6as on the matter wo& d no onger be of anconse%&ence, since ;+IH wo& d an-wa- be in estoppe a read- to c aim that the estate of ,rs. Iodges sho& d be ess than as contended b- it now, for admissions b- a part- re ated to the effects of foreign aws, which have to be
Page | 1006

proven in o&r co&rts ike an- other controverted fact, create estoppe . In the process, 0e overr& e ;+IH9s contention that the provision in ,rs. Iodges9 wi in favor of her brothers and sisters constit&tes ineffective hereditars&bstit&tions. H&t neither are 0e s&staining, on the other hand, ,agno9s pose that it gave Iodges on - a ifetime &s&fr&ct. 0e ho d that b- said provision, ,rs. Iodges sim& taneo&s - instit&ted her brothers and sisters as co*heirs with her h&sband, with the condition, however, that the atter wo& d have comp ete rights of dominion over the who e estate d&ring his ifetime and what wo& d go to the former wo& d be on - the remainder thereof at the time of Iodges9 death. In other words, whereas
Page | 1007

the- are not to inherit on - in case of defa& t of Iodges, on the other hand, Iodges was not ob iged to preserve an-thing for them. + ear - then, the essentia e ements of testamentars&bstit&tion are absent> the provision in %&estion is a simp e case of conditiona sim& taneo&s instit&tion of heirs, whereb- the instit&tion of Iodges is s&bject to a partia reso &tor- condition the operative contingenc- of which is coincidenta with that of the s&spensive condition of the instit&tion of his brothers and sisters*in* aw, which manner of instit&tion is not prohibited b- aw. 0e a so ho d, however, that the estate of ,rs. Iodges inherited b- her brothers and sisters co& d be more than j&st stated, b&t this wo& d depend on 2"5
Page | 1008

whether &pon the proper app ication of the princip e of renvoi in re ation to 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode and the pertinent aws of Te6as, it wi appear that Iodges had no egitime as contended b- ,agno, and 2/5 whether or not it can be he d that Iodges had ega - and effective - reno&nced his inheritance from his wife. Under the circ&mstances present - obtaining and in the state of the record of these cases, as of now, the +o&rt is not in a position to make a fina r& ing, whether of fact or of aw, on an- of these two iss&es, and 0e, therefore, reserve said iss&es for f&rther proceedings and reso &tion in the first instance b- the co&rt a %&o, as hereinabove indicated. 0e reiterate, however, that pending s&ch f&rther proceedings, as matters stand at this
Page | 1009

stage, 1&r considered opinion is that it is be-ond cavi that since, &nder the terms of the wi of ,rs. Iodges, her h&sband co& d not have an-wa- ega adj&dicated or ca&sed to be adj&dicated to himse f her who e share of their conj&ga partnership, a beit he co& d have disposed an- part thereof d&ring his ifetime, the res& ting estate of ,rs. Iodges, of which ,agno is the &ncontested administratri6, cannot be ess than one*fo&rth of the conj&ga partnership properties, as of the time of her death, min&s what, as e6p ained ear ier, have been"ratuitou$l! disposed of therefrom, b- Iodges in favor of third persons since then, for even if it were ass&med that, as contended b- ;+IH, &nder 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode and app -ing renvoi the aws of the
Page | 1010

;hi ippines are the ones & timate app icab e, s&ch one*fo&rth share wo& d be her free disposab e portion, taking into acco&nt a read- the egitime of her h&sband &nder 8rtic e $'' of the +ivi +ode. The foregoing considerations eave the +o&rt with no a ternative than to conc &de that in predicating its orders on the ass&mption, a beit &ne6pressed therein, that there is an estate of ,rs. Iodges to be distrib&ted among her brothers and sisters and that respondent ,agno is the ega administratri6 thereof, the tria co&rt acted correct and within its j&risdiction. 8ccording -, the petition for certiorari and prohibition has to be denied. The +o&rt fee s however, that pending the i%&idation of
Page | 1011

the conj&ga partnership and the determination of the specific properties constit&ting her estate, the two administrators sho& d act conjoint - as ordered in the +o&rt9s reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ and as f&rther c arified in the dispositive portion of its decision. 8nent the appea s from the orders of the ower co&rt sanctioning pa-ment bappe ee ,agno, as administratri6, of e6penses of administration and attorne-9s fees, it is obvio&s that, with 1&r ho ding that there is s&ch an estate of ,rs. Iodges, and for the reasons stated in the bod- of this opinion, the said orders sho& d be affirmed. This 0e do on the ass&mption 0e find j&stified b- the evidence of record, and
Page | 1012

seeming - agreed to b- appe ant ;+IH, that the si7e and va &e of the properties that sho& d correspond to the estate of ,rs. Iodges far e6ceed the tota of the attorne-9s fees and administration e6penses in %&estion. 0ith respect to the appea s from the orders approving transactions made bappe ee ,agno, as administratri6, covering properties registered in the name of Iodges, the detai s of which are re ated ear ier above, a distinction m&st be made between those predicated on contracts to se e6ec&ted b- Iodges before the death of his wife, on the one hand, and those premised on contracts to se entered into b- him after her death. 8s regards the atter, 0e ho d that inasm&ch as the pa-ments
Page | 1013

made b- appe ees constit&te proceeds of sa es of properties be onging to the estate of ,rs. Iodges, as ma- be imp ied from the tenor of the motions of ,a- /# and Eecember "4, "$)#, said pa-ments contin&e to pertain to said estate, p&rs&ant to her intent obvio&s ref ected in the re evant provisions of her wi , on the ass&mption that the si7e and va &e of the properties to correspond to the estate of ,rs. Iodges wo& d e6ceed the tota va &e of a the properties covered b- the imp&gned deeds of sa e, for which reason, said properties ma- be deemed as pertaining to the estate of ,rs. Iodges. 8nd there being no showing that th&s viewing the sit&ation, there wo& d be prej&dice to an-one, inc &ding the government, the +o&rt a so ho ds that, disregarding
Page | 1014

proced&ra technica ities in favor of a pragmatic and practica approach as disc&ssed above, the assai ed orders sho& d be affirmed. Heing a stranger to the estate of ,rs. Iodges, ;+IH has no persona it- to raise the proced&ra and j&risdictiona iss&es raised b- it. 8nd inasm&ch as it does not appear that anof the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges or the government has objected to an- of the orders &nder appea , even as to these parties, there e6ists no reason for said orders to be set aside. 93 2O 3T3G; 2A%T I3 FIE0 1. 8AA TIE .1REG1I3G ;RE,I=E=, j&dgment is herebrendered EI=,I==I3G the petition in G. R. 3os. A*/#:(' and A*/#:$(, and 8..IR,I3G, in G. R. 3os. A*/#$!(*!#
Page | 1015

and the other thirt-*one n&mbers here&nder ordered to be added after pa-ment of the corresponding docket fees, a the orders of the tria co&rt &nder appea en&merated in detai on pages !) to !# and :' to :/ of this decision> the e6istence of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, with respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as administratri6 thereof is recogni7ed, and it is dec ared that, &nti fina j&dgment is & timate rendered regarding 2"5 the manner of app -ing 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines to the sit&ation obtaining in these cases and 2/5 the fact&a and ega iss&e of whether or not +har es 3ewton Iodges had effective - and ega - reno&nced his inheritance &nder the wi of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the said
Page | 1016

estate consists of one*fo&rth of the comm&nit- properties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of the death of the wife on ,a- /!, "$)#, min&s whatever the h&sband had a readgrat&ito&s - disposed of in favor of third persons from said date &nti his death, provided, first, that with respect to rem&nerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof sha contin&e to be part of the wife9s estate, &n ess s&bse%&ent disposed of grat&ito&s - to third parties b- the h&sband, and second, that sho& d the p&rported ren&nciation be dec ared ega - effective, no ded&ctions whatsoever are to be made from said estate> in conse%&ence, the pre iminarinj&nction of 8&g&st :, "$(#, as amended on 1ctober 4 and Eecember (, "$(#, is ifted, and the reso &tion of
Page | 1017

=eptember :, "$#/, directing that petitioner*appe ant ;+IH, as 8dministrator of the Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges, in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, and respondent* appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, sho& d act thenceforth a wa-s conjoint -, never independent - from each other, as s&ch administrators, is reiterated, and the same is made part of this j&dgment and sha contin&e in force, pending the i%&idation of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased spo&ses and the determination and segregation from each other of their respective estates, provided, that &pon the fina it- of this j&dgment, the tria co&rt sho& d
Page | 1018

immediate - proceed to the partition of the present - combined estates of the spo&ses, to the end that the one*ha f share thereof of ,rs. Iodges ma- be proper and c ear identified> thereafter, the tria co&rt sho& d forthwith segregate the remainder of the one* fo&rth herein adj&dged to be her estate and ca&se the same to be t&rned over or de ivered to respondent for her e6c &sive administration in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, whi e the other one* fo&rth sha remain &nder the joint administration of said respondent and petitioner &nder a joint proceedings in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, whereas the ha f &n%&estionab pertaining to Iodges sha be administered b- petitioner e6c &sive - in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, witho&t
Page | 1019

prej&dice to the reso &tion b- the tria co&rt of the pending motions for its remova as administrator "/> and this arrangement sha be maintained &nti the fina reso &tion of the two iss&es of renvoi and ren&nciation hereb- reserved for f&rther hearing and determination, and the corresponding comp ete segregation and partition of the two estates in the proportions that mares& t from the said reso &tion. Genera - and in a other respects, the parties and the co&rt a 4uo are directed to adhere henceforth, in a their act&ations in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, to the views passed and r& ed &pon b- the +o&rt in the foregoing opinion.
Page | 1020

8ppe ant ;+IH is ordered to pa-, within five 2)5 da-s from notice hereof, thirt-* one additiona appea docket fees, b&t this decision sha neverthe ess become fina as to each of the parties herein after fifteen 2")5 da-s from the respective notices to them hereof in accordance with the r& es. +osts against petitioner*appe ant ;+IH. Aaldivar, )a$tro, ;$"uerra Hernande5, JJ., concur. and

Ma:a$iar, Antonio, Mu8o5 2al#a and A4uino, JJ., concur in t1e re$ult.

=eparate 1pinions
Page | 1021

.ER383E1, J., conc&rring< I conc&r on the basis of the proced&ra prono&ncements in the opinion. TEEI83?EE, J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the res& t of dismissa of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in +ases A*/#:(' and A*/#:$( and with the affirmance of the appea ed orders of the probate co&rt in +ases A*/#$!(*!#. I a so conc&r with the portion of the dispositive part of the j&dgment penned b- ,r. J&stice Harredo decreeing theliftin" of the +o&rt9s writ of pre iminar- inj&nction of 8&g&st :, "$(# as amended on 1ctober 4, and Eecember (, "$(# " and ordering in ie& thereof that the +o&rt9s reso &tion of
Page | 1022

=eptember :, "$#/ / which directed that petitioner-appellant;+IH as administrator of +. 3. 2+har es 3ewton5 Iodges9 estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "(#/ and respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno as administratri6 of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5 sho& d act a wa-s conjointl! never independent from each other, as s&ch administrators, is reiterated and sha contin&e in force and made part of the j&dgment. It is manifest from the record that petitioner*appe ant ;+IH9s prima contention in the cases at bar be ated - filedb- it with this +o&rt on Au"u$t 1, 19>+ 2over ten 2"'5 -ears after Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death on Ma! 23, 19O+ and 2over five 2)5 -ears after her h&sband +.3. Iodges9 death
Page | 1023

on 9ece#/er 2O, 19>2 G d&ring which time both estates have been pendin" sett ement and distrib&tion to the decedents9 respective rightf& heirs a this time &p to now5 G that the probate co&rt per its order of Eecember "4, "$)# 2s&pp ementing an ear ier order of ,a- /), "$)#5 ! in granting +. 3. Iodges9 motion as E6ec&tor of his wife Ainnie9s estate to continue their D/u$ine$$ of b&-ing and se ing persona and rea propertiesD and approving Da sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgagesD made and to be made b- him as s&ch e6ec&tor &nder his ob igation to s&bmit his !earl! account$ in effect dec ared him as so e heir of his wife9s estate and nothing remains to be done e6cept to forma c ose her estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5 as
Page | 1024

her estate was thereb- merged with his own so that not1in" remains of it that ma- be adj&dicated to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs after him, 4 G is who - &ntenab e and deserves scant consideration. 8side from having been p&t forth as an obvio&s aftertho&ght m&ch too ate in the da-, this contention of ;+IH that there no onger e6ists an- separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges after the probate co&rt9s order of Eecember "4, "$)# goes against the ver- acts and j&dicia ad#i$$ion$ of +.3. Iodges as her e6ec&tor whereb- he consistent recogni7ed the $eparate e'i$tence and identit! of his wife9s estate apart from his own separate estate and from his own share of their conj&ga partnership and
Page | 1025

estate and Dnever considered the who e estate as a sing e one be onging e6c &sive - to himse fD d&ring the entire period that he s&rvived her for over five 2)5 -ears &p to the time of his own death on Eecember /), "$(/ ) and against the identica acts and j&dicia ad#i$$ion$ of ;+IH as administrator of +.3. Iodges9 estate &nti ;+IH so&ght in "$(( to take over /ot1 estates as pertaining to its so e administration. ;+IH is now barred and estopped from contradicting or taking a be ated position contradictor- to or inconsistent with its previo&s admissions ( 2as we as those of +.3. Iodges himse f in his ifetime and of whose estate ;+IH is mere - an administrator5 recogni7ing the e6istence and identitof Ainnie Jane
Page | 1026

Iodges9 $eparate estate and the ega rights and interests therein of her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs in her wi . ;+IH9s petition for certiorari and prohibition to dec are a acts of the probate co&rt in Ainnie Jane Iodges9 estate s&bse%&ent to its order of Eecember "4, "$)# as Dn& and void for having been iss&ed witho&t j&risdictionD m&st therefore be dismissed with the rejection of its be ated and &ntenab e contention that there is no onger anestate of ,rs. Iodges of which respondent 8ve ina ,agno is the d& appointed and acting administratri6. ;+IH9s appea # from the probate co&rt9s vario&s orders recogni7ing respondent ,agno as administratri6 of Ainnie9s
Page | 1027

estate 2=p. ;roc 3o. "!'#5 and sanctioning her acts of administration of said estate and approving the sa es contracts e6ec&ted b- her with the vario&s individ&a appe ees, which invo ve basica - the same prima iss&e raised in the petition as to whether there sti e6ists a separate estate of Ainnie of which respondent*appe ee ,agno macontin&e to be the administratri6, m&st necessari - fai G a res& t of the +o&rt9s main opinion at bar that there doe$ e6ist s&ch an estate and that the t0o estates 2h&sband9s and wife9s5 m&st be administered cojointl! btheir respective administrators 2;+IH and ,agno5. T1e di$po$itive portion of t1e #ain opinion
Page | 1028

The main opinion disposes that< I3 FIE0 1. 8AA TIE .1REG1I3G ;RE,I=E=, j&dgment is hereb- rendered EI=,I==I3G the petition in G. R. 3os. A*/#:(' and A*/#:$(, and 8..IR,I3G, in G. R. 3os. A* /#$!(*!# and the other thirt-*one n&mbers here&nder ordered to be added after pa-ment of the corresponding docket fees, a the orders of the tria co&rt &nder appea en&merated in detai on pages !) to !# and :' to :/ of this decision< The e'i$tence of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, with respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8.
Page | 1029

,agno, as administratri6 thereof is reco"ni5ed, and It is dec ared that, until fina j&dgment is & timate - rendered regarding 2"5 the manner of app -ing 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines to the sit&ation obtaining in these cases and 2/5 the fact&a and ega iss&es of whether or not +har es 3ewton Iodges has effective - and ega reno&nced his inheritance &nder the wi of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the said estate consists of one-fourt1of the comm&nit- properties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of the death of the wife on ,a- /!, "$)#, #inu$ whatever the h&sband had a read- "ratuitou$l! disposed
Page | 1030

of in favor of third persons from said date &nti his death, provided, first, that with respect to re#unerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof sha contin&e to be part of the 0ife<$ e$tate, &n ess s&bse%&ent disposed of "ratuitou$l! to third parties bthe h&sband, and second, that sho& d the p&rported renunciation be dec ared ega effective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate> In conse%&ence, the preli#inar! injunction of 8&g&st :, "$(#, as amended on 1ctober 4 and Eecember (, "$(#, is ifted and the re$olution of =eptember :,
Page | 1031

"$#/, directing that petitioner* appe ant ;+IH, as 8dministrator of the Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, and respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, sho& d act thenceforth a wa-s conjointl!, never independent - from each other, as s&ch administrators, is reiterated, and the same is #ade part of t1i$ jud"#ent and sha contin&e in force, pendin" the li4uidation of the conj&ga partnership of the deceased spo&ses and the deter#ination and $e"re"ation from each other of their respective
Page | 1032

estates> provided, that &pon the fina it- of this j&dgment, the tria co&rt sho& d immediate - proceed to the partition of the present combined estates of the spo&ses, to the end that the one-1alf share thereof of ,rs. Iodges ma- be proper - and c ear - identified> T1ereafter, the tria co&rt sho& d forthwith segregate the remainder of the one-fourt1 herein adj&dged to be her estate and ca&se the same to be t&rned over or de ivered to respondent for her e'clu$ive ad#ini$tration in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, whi e the ot1er one-fourt1 sha remain &nder the joint administrative of said respondent and petitioner
Page | 1033

&nder a joint proceedin"$ in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, whereas the 1alf &n%&estionab - pertaining to 7od"e$ sha be ad#ini$tered b-petitioner e'clu$ivel! in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, witho&t prej&dice to the reso &tion b- the tria co&rt of the pendin" motions for it$ re#oval as administrator> 8nd this arrangement sha be maintained until the final re$olution of the two iss&es of renvoi andrenunciation herebreserved for f&rther hearing and determination, and the corresponding co#pletesegregatio n and partition of the two estates in
Page | 1034

the proportions that ma- res& t from the said reso &tion. Genera - and in a other respects, the parties and the co&rt a 4uo are directed to adhere henceforth, in a their act&ations in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, to the views passed and r& ed &pon bthe +o&rt in the foregoing opinion. : Mini#u# e$ti#ate of Mr$. 7od"e$< e$tate: One-fourt1 of conju"al propertie$. The main opinion in dec aring the e6istence of a $eparate e$tate of Ainnie Jane Iodges which sha pass to her brothers and sisters with right of representation 2b- their heirs5 as her d& - designated heirs dec ares that her
Page | 1035

estate consists as a #ini#u# 2i.e. a$$u#in" 2"5 that &nder 8rtic e "( of the ;hi ippine +ivi +ode +. 3. Iodges as s&rviving h&sband was entit ed to one*ha f of her estate as le"iti#e and 2/5 that he had not effective and ega -renounced his inheritance &nder her wi 5 of Done-fourt1 of the comm&nitproperties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of the death of the wife on ,a- /!, "$)#, #inu$ whatever the h&sband had a read- "ratuitou$l! disposed of in favor of third persons from said date &nti his death,D with the proviso that proceeds of re#unerative dispositions or sa es for va &ab e consideration made b- +. 3. Iodges after his wife Ainnie9s death sha contin&e to be part of her estate unle$$ s&bse%&ent - disposed of
Page | 1036

b- him "ratuitou$l! to third parties s&bject to the condition, however, that if he is he d to have va id - and effective - renounced his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi , no deduction$ of an- dispositions made b- Iodges even if "ratuitou$l! are to be made from his wife Ainnie9s estate which sha passintact to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs ca ed in her wi to s&cceed to her estate &pon the death of her h&sband +. 3. Iodges. 9ifference$ 0it1 t1e #ain opinion I do not share the main opinion9s view that Ainnie Jane Iodges instit&ted her h&sband as her heir &nder her wi Dto have dominion over a her estate d&ring his ifetime ... as a/$olute o0ner of the properties ...D $ and that she be%&eathed
Page | 1037

Dthe who e of her estate to be owned and enjo-ed b- him as &niversa and so e heir with a/$olute do#inion over them on - d&ring his ifetime, which means that whi e he co& d comp ete and abso &te - dispose of an- portion thereof inter vivo$ to an-one other than himse f, he was not free to do so #orti$ cau$a, and a his rights to what might remain &pon his death wo& d cease entire - &pon the occ&rrence of that contingenc-, inasm&ch as the right of his brothers and sisters*in* aw to the inheritance, a tho&gh vested a read&pon the death of ,rs. Iodges, wo& d a&tomatica - become operative &pon the occ&rrence of the death of Iodges in the event of act&a e6istence of anremainder of her estate then.D "'
Page | 1038

8s wi be amp ified hereinafter, I do not s&bscribe to s&ch a view that Ainnie Jane Iodges wi ed Df& and abso &te ownershipD and Dabso &te dominionD over her estate to her h&sband, b&t rather that she named her h&sband +. 3. Iodges and her brothers and sisters as instit&ted heirs 0it1 a ter# &nder 8rtic e ::) of o&r +ivi +ode, to wit, Iodges as instit&ted heir with a re$olutor! term where&nder his right to the s&ccession cea$ed in die# &pon arriva of the re$olutor! term of his death on Eecember /), "$(/ and her brothers and sisters as instit&ted heirs with a$u$pen$ive term where&nder their right to the s&ccession co##enced e' die &pon arriva of the s&spensive term of the death of +. 3. Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/.
Page | 1039

Ience, whi e agreeing with the main opinion that the proceeds of a rem&nerative dispositions made b- +. 3. Iodges after his wife9s death remain an integra part of his wife9s estate which she wi ed to her brothers and sisters, I s&bmit that +. 3. Iodges co& d not va id make "ratuitou$ dispositions of an- part or a of his wife9s estate G Dcomp ete and abso &te - dispose of an- portion thereof inter vivo$ to an-one other than himse fD in the ang&age of the main opinion, $upra G and thereb- render ineffect&a and n&gator- her instit&tion of her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs to s&cceed to her 01ole estate Dat the death of 2her5 h&sband.D If according to the main opinion, Iodges co& d not make s&ch
Page | 1040

grat&ito&s Dcomp ete and abso &te dispositionsD of his wife Ainnie9s estate D#orti$ cau$a,D it wo& d seem that b- the same token and rationa e he was ikewise proscribed b- the wi from making s&ch dispositions of Ainnie9s estate inter vivo$. I be ieve that the two %&estions of renvoi and renunciation sho& d be reso ved preferentiall! and e'peditiou$l! b- the probate co&rt a1ead of the partition and segregation of the #ini#u# one*fo&rth of the conj&ga or comm&nit- properties constit&ting Ainnie Jane Iodges9 $eparate estate, which task considering that it is now seventeen 2"#5 -ears since Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death and her conj&ga estate with +. 3. Iodges has
Page | 1041

remained unli4uidated &p to now might take a simi ar n&mber of -ears to &nrave with the n&mero&s items, transactions and detai s of the si7ab e estates invo ved. =&ch partition of the minim&m one* fo&rth wo& d not be fina , since if the two prej&dicia %&estions of renvoi andrenunciation were reso ved favorab - to Ainnie9s estate meaning to sa- that if it sho& d be he d that +. 3. Iodges is not entit ed to an- egitime of her estate and at an- rate he had tota reno&nced his inheritance &nder the wi 5, then Ainnie9s estate wo& d consist not on - of the minim&m one*fo&rth b&t one-1alf of the conj&ga or comm&nit- properties of the Iodges spo&ses, which wo& d re%&ire again the
Page | 1042

partition and segregation of sti another one*fo&rth of said. properties to co#plete Ainnie9s $eparate estate. ,- differences with the main opinion invo ve f&rther the ega concepts, effects and conse%&ences of the testamentar- dispositions of Ainnie Jane Iodges in her wi and the %&estion of the best to reach a so &tion of the pressing %&estion of e6pediting the c osing of the estates which after a do not appear to invo ve an- o&tstanding debts nor an- disp&te between the heirs and sho& d therefore be prompt - sett ed now after a these -ears witho&t anf&rther &nd&e comp ications and de a-s and distrib&ted to the heirs for their f& enjo-ment and benefit. 8s no consens&s appears to have been
Page | 1043

reached thereon b- a majorit- of the +o&rt, I propose to state views as concise - as possib e with the so e end in view that the- ma- be of some assistance to the probate co&rt and the parties in reaching an e6peditio&s c osing and sett ement of the estates of the Iodges spo&ses. T0o A$$u#ption$ 8s indicated above, the dec aration of the #ini#u# of ,rs. Iodges9 estate as one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties is based on two ass&mptions most favorab e to +. 3. Iodges9 estate and his heirs, name - 2"5 that the probate co&rt m&st accept the renvoi or Dreference backD "" a eged - provided bthe aws of the =tate of Te6as 2of which state the Iodges spo&ses were citi7ens5
Page | 1044

whereb- the civi aws of the ;hi ippines as the do#icile of the Iodges spo&ses wo& d govern their s&ccession not0it1$tandin" the provisions of 8rtic e "( of o&r +ivi +ode 2which provides that the nationa aw of the decedents, in this case, of Te6as, sha govern their s&ccession5 with the res& t that her estate wo& d consist of no #orethan one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties since the le"iti#e of her h&sband 2the other one*fo&rth of said conj&ga properties or one*ha f of 1er estate, &nder 8rtic e $'' of o&r +ivi +ode5 co& d not then be disposed of nor b&rdened with an- condition bher and 2/5 that +.3. Iodges had not effective and ega - renounced his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi .
Page | 1045

These two ass&mptions are of co&rse f at - disp&ted b- respondent*appe ee ,agno as ,rs. Iodges9 administratri6, who avers that the aw of the =tate of Te6as governs her s&ccession and does not provide for and egitime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entit ed to s&cceed to the who e of her share of the conj&ga properties which is one-1alf thereof and that in an- event, Iodges had tota - renounced a his rights &nder the wi . The main opinion concedes that D2I5n the interest of sett ing the estates herein invo ved soonest, it wo& d be best, indeed, if these conf icting c aims of the parties were determined in these proceedings.D It observes however that this cannot be done d&e to the
Page | 1046

inade%&ac- of the evidence s&bmitted b- the parties in the probate co&rt and of the parties9 disc&ssion, vi5, Dthere is no c ear and re iab e proof of what the possib - app icab e aws of Te6as are. Then a so, the gen&ineness of the doc&ments re ied &pon b- respondent ,agno Lre Iodges9 ren&nciationM is disp&ted.D "/ Ience, the main opinion e6press reserves reso &tion and determination on these two conf icting c aims and iss&es which it deems Dare not proper before the +o&rt now,D "! and specifica - ho ds that D285ccording -, the onl! %&estion that remains to be sett ed in the f&rther proceedings hereb- ordered to be he d in the co&rt be ow is 1o0 #uc1
Page | 1047

#ore than as fi6ed above is the estate of ,rs. Iodges, and this wo& d depend on 2"5 whether or not the app icab e aws of Te6as do provide in effect for more, s&ch as, when there is nole"iti#e provided therein, and 2/5 whether or not Iodges has va id - 0aived his who e inheritance from ,rs. Iodges.D "4 u""e$ted "uideline$ +onsidering that the onl! &nreso ved iss&e has th&s been narrowed down and in consonance with the r& ing spirit of o&r probate aw ca ing for the prompt sett ement of the estates of deceased persons for the benefit of creditors and those entit ed to the resid&e b- wa- of inheritance G considering that the estates have been ong pending
Page | 1048

sett ement $ince 19O+ and 19>2, respective - G it was fe t that the +o&rt sho& d a- down specific g&ide ines for the g&idance of the probate co&rt towards the end that it ma- e6pedite the c osing of the protracted estates proceedings be ow to the m&t&a satisfaction of the heirs and witho&t need of a dissatisfied part- e evating its reso &tion of this onl! remaining iss&e once more to this +o&rt and dragging o&t indefinite - the proceedings. 8fter a , the onl! %&estion that remains depends for its determination on the reso &tion of the two %&estions ofrenvoi and renunciation, i.e. as to whether +. 3. Iodges can c aim a le"iti#e and 01et1er he had renounced the inheritance. H&t as
Page | 1049

a read- indicated above, the +o&rt witho&t reaching a consens&s which wo& d fina - reso ve the conf icting c aims here and now in this case opted that Dthese and other re evant matters sho& d first be threshed o&t f& - in the tria co&rt in the proceedings hereinafter to be he d for the p&rpose of ascertaining andJor distrib&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges to her heirs in accordance with her d& - probated wi .D ") The writer th&s fee s that a-ing down the premises and princip es governing the nat&re, effects and conse%&ences of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 testamentardispositions in re ation to her conj&ga partnership and co*ownership of properties with her h&sband +. 3.
Page | 1050

Iodges and Dthinking o&tD the end res& ts, depending on whether the evidence directed to be forma received b- the probate co&rt wo& d bear o&t that &nder renvoi +. 3. Iodges was or was not entit ed to c aim a egitime of one*ha f of his wife Ainnie9s estate andJor that he had or had not effective - and va id - renounced his inheritance sho& d he p c ear the decks, as it were, and assist the probate co&rt in reso ving the onl! remaining %&estion of 1o0 #uc1 #ore than the #ini#u# one*fo&rth of the comm&nit- properties of the Iodges spo&ses 1erein finall! deter#ined sho& d be awarded as the $eparate e$tate of Ainnie, partic& ar - since the views e6pressed in the main opinion have not gained a
Page | 1051

consens&s of the +o&rt. Ience, the fo owing s&ggested g&ide ines, which need ess to state, represent the per$onal opinion and views of the writer< ". To begin with, as pointed o&t in the main opinion, Daccording to Iodges9 own inventor- s&bmitted b- him as e6ec&tor of the estate of his wife, practica - all their properties were conju"al which means that the spo&ses havee4ual $1are$ therein.D "( /. Upon the death of ,rs. Iodges on Ma! 23, 19O+, and the disso &tion thereb- of the marriage, the aw imposed &pon Iodges as s&rviving h&sband the d&t- of inventor-ing, administering and i%&idating the conj&ga or comm&nitPage | 1052

propert-. "# Iodges fai ed to discharge this d&t- of li4uidatin" the conj&ga partnership and estate. 1n the contrar-, he so&ght and obtained a&thori7ation from the probate co&rt to continue the conju"al partnership9s / u$ine$$ of b&-ing and se ing rea and persona properties. In his annual account$ s&bmitted to the probate co&rt as e'ecutor of Mr$. 7od"e$< e$tate, Iodges th&scon$i$tentl! reported the considerab e co#/ined income 2in si6 fig&res5 of the conju"al partner$1ip or coo0ner$1ipand then divided the same e4uall! between himse f and ,rs. Iodges9 estate and as consistent fi ed $eparate inco#e ta' return$ and paid the income ta6es for eac1 res& ting
Page | 1053

ha f of s&ch co#/ined income corresponding to his own and to ,rs. Iodges9 estate. ": 2;arenthetica -, he co& d not in aw do this, had he adj&dicated Ainnie9s entire estate to himse f, th&s s&pporting the view advanced even in the main opinion that DIodges 0aived not on - his rights to the fr&its b&t to the properties themse ves.D "$ H- operation of the aw of tr&st /' as we as b- his own acknow edgment and acts, therefore, a transactions made bIodges after his wife9s death were deemed for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conju"al partnership and co##unit! estate and were so reported and treated b- him.
Page | 1054

!. 0ith this premise estab ished that a transactions of Iodges after his wife9s death were for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership and comm&nit- estate, share and share a ike, it sho& d be c ear that no"ratuitou$ dispositions, if an-, made b- +. 3. Iodges from his wife Ainnie9s estate sho& d be deducted from her$eparate estate as he d in the main opinion. 1n the contrar-, an- s&ch grat&ito&s dispositions sho& d be charged to his own share of the conj&ga estate since he had no a&thorit- or right to make an- "ratuitou$ dispositions of Ainnie9s properties to the prejudice of her brothers and sisters whom she ca ed to her s&ccession &pon his death, not to mention that the ver- a&thoritobtained b- him from the probate co&rt
Page | 1055

per its orders of ,a- /), and Eecember "4, "$)# was to continue the conj&ga partnership9s b&siness of b&-ing and se ing rea properties for the acco&nt of their &n i%&idated conj&ga estate and co*ownership, share and share a ike and not to make an-free dispositions of Ainnie9s estate. 4. 8 transactions as we after the death on 9ece#/er 2O, 19>2 of Iodges himse f appear perforce and necessari to have been cond&cted, on the same premise, for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conju"al partner$1ip andJor co*ownership, $1are and $1are ali:e G since the conj&ga partnership remained &n i%&idated G which is another wa- of sa-ing that s&ch transactions, p&rchases and sa es,
Page | 1056

most - the atter, m&st be deemed in effect to have been made for the respective estates of +. 3. Iodges and of his wife Ainnie Jane Iodges, as both estates contin&ed to have an e%&a stake and share in the conj&ga partnership which was not on eftunli4uidated /ut continued as a co* ownership or joint b&siness with the probate co&rt9s approva b- Iodges d&ring the five*-ear period that he s&rvived his wife. This e6p ains the probate co&rt9s action of re%&iring that deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b;+IH as Iodges9 estate9s administrator be D$i"ned jointl!D brespondent ,agno as ,rs. Iodges9 estate9s administratri6, as we as its order a&thori7ing pa-ment b- ot
Page | 1057

p&rchasers from the Iodges to eit1er estate, since Dthere is as -et no j&dicia dec aration of heirs nor distrib&tion of properties to whomsoever are entit ed thereto.D // 8nd this e%&a - f&rnishes the rationa e of the main opinion for contin&ed conjoint administration bthe administrators of the two estates of the deceased spo&ses, Cpendin" t1e li4uidation of t1e conju"al partner$1ip,C/! since Dit is b&t ogica that both estates sho& d be administered joint - b- the representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. ;artic& ar - ... beca&se the act&ations so far of ;+IH evince a determined, a beit gro&nd ess, intent to e6c &de the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges
Page | 1058

from their inheritance.D /4 ). 8nt - bthe representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. ;artic& ar - ... beca&se the act&ations so far of ;+IH evince a determined, a beit gro&nd ess, intent to e6c &de the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges from their inheritance.D /4 ). 8s stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the onl! &nreso ved iss&e of how m&ch more than the minim&m of one-fourt1 of the comm&nitor conj&ga properties of the Iodges spo&ses pertains to ,rs. Iodges9 estate depends on the twin %&estions of renunciation and renvoi. It directed conse%&ent - that Da joint hearing of the two probate proceedings herein invo vedD be he d b- the probate co&rt
Page | 1059

for the reception of Df&rther evidenceD in order to fina - reso ved these twin %&estions. /) 2a5 1n the %&estion of renunciation, it is be ieved that a that the probate co&rt has to do is to receive forma - in evidence the vario&s doc&ments anne6ed to respondent ,agno9s answer at bar, /( name -< +op- of the U.=. Estate Ta6 Ret&rn fi ed on 8&g&st :, "$): b- +. 3. Iodges for his wife Ainnie9s estate wherein he p&rported dec ared that he wasrenouncin" his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi in favor of 1er brothers and sisters as co*heirs designated with him and that it was his Dintention 2as5 s&rviving h&sband of the deceased to distrib&te the remaining propert- and interests of the deceased
Page | 1060

in their comm&nit- estate to the devi$ee and le"atee$ na#ed in t1e 0ill when the debts, iabi ities, ta6es and e6penses of administration are fina - determined and paid>D /# and The affidavit of ratification of s&ch renunciation 2which p aces him in e$toppel5 a eged - e6ec&ted on 8&g&st $, "$(/ b- +. 3. Iodges in I oi o +it- wherein he reaffirmed that D... on Au"u$t F, 19OF, I renounced and disc aimed an- and a right to receive the rents, emo &ments and income from said estateD and f&rther dec ared that D2T5he p&rpose of this affidavit is to ratif! and confir#, and I do herebratif- and confirm, the dec aration made in sched& e , of said ret&rn and herebforma - di$clai# and renounce an! ri"1t
Page | 1061

on #! part to receive an! of t1e $aid rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#e from the estate of m- deceased wife, Ainnie Jane Iodges. This affidavit is made to a/$olve #e or #! e$tate from aniabi it- for the pa-ment of inco#e ta6es on income which has accr&ed to the estate of Linnie Jane 7od"e$ since the death of the said Ainnie Jane Iodges on ,a- /!, "$)#.D /: 2b5 1n the %&estion of renvoi, a that remains for the probate co&rt to do is to forma - receive in evidence d& a&thenticated copies of the aws of the =tate of Te6as governing the s&ccession of Ainnie Jane Iodges and her h&sband +. 3. Iodges as citi7ens of said =tate at the time of their respective
Page | 1062

deaths on Ma! 23, 19O+ and9ece#/er 2O, 19>2. /$ (. The te6t and tenor of the dec arations b- +. 3. Iodges of renunciation of his inheritance from his wife in favor of her other named heirs in her wi 2her brothers and sisters and their respective heirs5 as ratified and reiteratede'pre$$l! in his affidavit of ren&nciation e6ec&ted fo&r -ears ater for the avowed p&rpose of not being he d iab e for pa-ment of income ta6es on income which has accr&ed to his wife9s estate since her death indicate a va id and effective ren&nciation. 1nce the evidence has been forma admitted and its gen&ineness and ega effectivit- estab ished b- the probate co&rt, the ren&nciation b- +. 3. Iodges
Page | 1063

m&st be given d&e effect with the res& t that +. 3. Iodges therefore ac%&ired no part of his wife9s one-1alf share of the comm&nit- properties since he removed himse f as an heir b- virt&e of his ren&nciation. H- simp e s&bstit&tion then &nder 8rtic es :)# and :)$ of o&r +ivi +ode !' and b- virt&e of the wi 9s instit&tion of heirs, since Dthe heir origina - instit&ted +. 3. Iodges5 does not become an heirD !" b- force of his ren&nciation, ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters whom she designated as her heirs &pon her h&sband9s death are ca ed immediate - to her s&ccession. +onse%&ent -, the said comm&nit- and conj&ga properties wo& d then pertain pro indivi$o $1are and $1are a ike to their respective estates,
Page | 1064

with each estate, however, sho& dering its own e6penses of administration, estate and inheritance ta6es, if anremain &npaid, attorne-s9 fees and other ike e6penses and the net remainder to be adj&dicated direct - to the decedents9 respective brothers and sisters 2and their heirs5 as the heirs d& - designated in their respective wi s. The %&estion of renvoi becomes immateria since most aws and o&r awsper#it s&ch renunciation of inheritance. #. If there were no renunciation 2or the same ma- somehow be dec ared to have not been va id and effective5 b- +. 3. Iodges of his inheritance from his wife, however, what wo& d be the conse%&enceK
Page | 1065

2a5 If the aws on s&ccession of the =tate of Te6as do provide for renvoi or Dreference backD to ;hi ippine aw as the domici iar- aw of the Iodges9 spo&ses governing their s&ccession, then petitioners9 view that ,rs. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist on - of the minim&m of Done-fourt1 of the comm&nit- properties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of 2her5 death on ,a- /!, "$)#D wo& d have to be s&stained and +. 3. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist of t1ree-fourt1$ of the comm&nit- properties, comprising his own one*ha f 2or two*fo&rths5 share and the other fo&rth of ,rs. Iodges9 estate as the egitime granted him as $urvivin" $pou$e b- 21ilippine la0 28rtic e $'' of the +ivi +ode5 which co& d not be
Page | 1066

disposed of nor b&rdened with ancondition b- ,rs. Iodges as testatri6. 2b5 If the aws on s&ccession of the =tate of Te6as do not provide for s&ch renvoi and respondent ,agno9s assertion is correct that the Te6as aw which wo& d then prevai , provides for no le"iti#e for +. 3. Iodges as the s&rviving spo&se, then respondent ,agno9s assertion that ,rs. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist of one*ha f of the comm&nit- properties 2with the other ha f pertaining to +. 3. Iodges5 wo& d have to be s&stained. The comm&nitand conj&ga properties wo& d then pertain $1are and $1are ali:e to their respective estates, with each estate sho& dering its own e6penses of administration in the same manner
Page | 1067

stated in the ast paragraph ( hereof. .

paragraph

of

:. 8s to the nat&re of the instit&tion of heirs made b- ,rs. Iodges in her wi , the main opinion ho ds that D2T5he brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges are not $u/$titute$ for Iodges> rather, theare a so heirs instit&ted$i#ultaneou$l! with Iodges,D b&t goes f&rther and ho ds that Dit was not the &s&fr&ct a one of her estate ... that she be%&eathed to Iodges durin" 1i$ lifeti#e, b&t the full o0ner$1ip thereof, alt1ou"1 t1e $a#e 0a$ to la$t al$o durin" 1i$ lifeti#e onl!, even as there was no re$triction against his disposing or conve-ing the who e or an- portion thereof an!/od! ot1er t1an 1i#$elfD and describes Iodges
Page | 1068

Das univer$al and $ole 1eir with a/$olute do#inion over ,rs. Iodges9 estate 2e6cept over their A&bbock, Te6as propert- 5, !/ adding that DIodges was not ob iged to preserve an-thing for themD 2referring to ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters as instit&ted co* heirs5. !! +ontrar- to this view of the main opinion, the writer s&bmits that the provisions of ,rs. Iodges9 wi did not grant to +.3. Iodges Df& ownershipD nor Dabso &te dominionD over her estate, s&ch that he co& d as D&niversa and so e heirD b- the mere e6pedient of "ratuitou$l! disposing to third persons her 01ole estate d&ring his ifetime nullif! her instit&tion of her brothers and sisters as his co*heirs to
Page | 1069

s&cceed to her 01ole estate Dat t1e deat1 of D1erE 1u$/and,D deprive them of an- inheritance and make his own brothers and sisters in effect $ole heirs not on - of his own estate b&t of his 0ife<$ estate as we . Th&s, whi e Ainnie Jane Iodges did not e6press - name her brothers and sisters as s&bstit&tes for Iodges beca&se she wi ed that the- wo& d enter into the s&ccession &pon his death, sti it cannot be gainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, Dthat theare a so 1eir$ instit&ted $i#ultaneou$l! with Iodges, s&bject however to certain conditions, partia - re$olutor! insofar as Iodges was concerned and corresponding - $u$pen$ive with
Page | 1070

reference to his brothers and sisters*in* aw.D !4 Ience, if Iodges is fo&nd to have va id - reno&nced his inheritance, there wo& d be a s&bstit&tion of heirs in fact and in aw since Ainnie9s brothers and sisters as the heirs Dsim& taneo&s instit&tedD with a $u$pen$ive term wo& d be ca ed i##ediatel! to her s&ccession instead of waiting for the arriva of $u$pen$ive term of Iodges9 death, since as the heir origina - instit&ted he does not become an heir b- force of his ren&nciation and therefore the- wo& d Denter into the inheritance in defa& t of the heir origina - instit&tedD 2Iodges5 &nder the provisions of 8rtic e :)# and :)$ of o&r +ivi +ode, $upra, !) th&s acce erating their s&ccession to her
Page | 1071

estate as a conse%&ence of Iodges9 ren&nciation. +onse%&ent -, Ainnie Jane Iodges wi ed that her h&sband +.3. Iodges wo& d Dd&ring his nat&ra ifetime ...#ana"e, control, u$e and enjo! said estateD and that on Da rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#eD alone sha be ong to him. =he f&rther wi ed that whi e he co& d $ell and purc1a$e properties of her estate, and Du$e an- part of the principa estate,D s&ch principa notwithstanding Dan- c1an"e$ in the p1!$ical propertie$ of said estateD2i.e. new properties ac%&ired or e6changed5 wo& d sti pertain to her estate, which at the time of 1i$
Page | 1072

deat1 wo& d pass in full do#inion to her brothers and sisters as the ulti#ate $ole and univer$al 1eir$ of her estate. !( The testatri6 Ainnie Jane Iodges in her wi th&s principa - provided that DI give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea ... to mbe oved 1u$/and, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and to ho d with him ... durin" 1i$ natural lifeti#e>D !# that D2he5 sha have the right to #ana"e, control, u$e and enjo! said estate durin" 1i$ lifeti#e, ... to make an- c1an"e$ in the p1!$ical propertie$ of said estate, b-$ale ... and the purc1a$e of an- other or additiona propert- as he ma- think best ... . All rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#efrom said
Page | 1073

estate sha /elon" to 1i# and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to u$e an- part of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire, ... he sha not se or otherwise dispose of an- of the improved propert- now owned b- &s, ocated at ... +it- of A&bbock, Te6as ... . Ie sha have the right to $u/divide an- far# and and se ots therein, and ma- se uni#proved to0n ots>D !: that DDAEt t1e deat1 of #! $aid 1u$/and, +har es 3ewton, I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea , ... to be e4uall! divided among mbrothers and sisters, $1are and $1are ali:e, name -< Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Roman and 3imro- Iigdon>D!$ and that
Page | 1074

DD3En ca$e of t1e deat1 of an! of mbrothers andJor sisters ... prior to t1e deat1 of m- h&sband ... the heirs of s&ch deceased /rot1er or $i$ter sha take jointl! the share which wo& d have gone to s&ch brother or sister had she or he s&rvived.D 4' =&ch provisions are who - consistent with the view a read- f& - e6po&nded above that a transactions and sa es made b- Iodges after his wife Ainnie9s death were b- operation of the aw of tru$t as we as b- 1i$ ownac:no0led"#ent and acts deemed for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership and comm&nit- estate, share and share a ike, with the e6press aut1ori5ation of the probate co&rt per its orders of ,aPage | 1075

/), and Eecember "4, "$)# granting Iodges9 motion to contin&e the conj&ga partnership b&siness of b&-ing and se ing rea estate even after her death. H- the same token, Iodges co& d not conceivab - be deemed to have had ana&thoritor right to dispose "ratuitou$l! of an- portion of her estate to whose s&ccession she had ca ed her brothers and sisters upon 1i$ deat1. $. =&ch instit&tions of heirs 0it1 a ter# are e6press - recogni7ed and permitted &nder Hook III, +hapter /, section 4 of o&r +ivi +ode dea ing with Dconditiona testamentar- dispositions and testamentar- dispositions 0it1 a ter#.D 4"
Page | 1076

Th&s, 8rtic e ::) of o&r +ivi +ode e6press - provides that< 8RT ::). The designation of the da- or time when the effects of the instit&tion of an heir sha co##ence or cease sha be valid. In both cases, the ega heir sha be considered as ca ed to the s&ccession &nti the arriva of the period or its e6piration. H&t in the first case he sha not enter into possession of the propert- &nti after having given s&fficient sec&rit-, with the intervention of the instit&ted heir. 8ccording -, &nder the terms of ,rs. Iodges9 wi , her h&sband9s right to the
Page | 1077

s&ccession as the instit&ted heir ceased in die#, i.e. &pon the arriva of the re$olutor! term of his deat1 on Eecember /), "$(/, whi e her brothers9 and sisters9 right to the s&ccession a so as instit&ted heirs commenced e' die, i.e. &pon the e6piration of the s&spensive term 2as far as the- were concerned5 of the deat1 of +. 3. Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/ . 4/ 8s stated in ;adi a9s treatise on the +ivi +ode, D8 term is a period whose arriva is certain a tho&gh the e6act date thereof ma- be &ncertain. 8 term mahave either a s&spensive or a reso &toreffect. The designation of the da- when the egac- Dsha commenceD is e' die, or a term with a s&spensive effect, fro# a certain da-. The
Page | 1078

designation of the da- when the egacDsha ceaseD is in die# or a term with a reso &tor- effect, &nti a certain da-.D Ie adds that D8 egac- based &pon a certain age or &pon the deat1 of a person is not a condition b&t ater#. If the arriva of the term wo& d commence the right of the heir, it is s&spensive. If the arriva of the term wo& d terminate his right, it is reso &tor-D and that D&pon the arriva of the period, in case of a s&spensive term, thein$tituted heir is entit ed to the s&ccession, and in case of a reso &tor- term, his right terminates.D 4! "'. The si7ab e estates herein invo ved have now been pending sett ement for a considerab - protracted period 2of seventeen -ears co&nted from Ainnie9s
Page | 1079

death in "$)#5, and a that is eft to be done is to reso ve the onl!remaining iss&e 2invo ving the two %&estions of renunciation and renvoi5 hereinabove disc&ssed in order to c ose &p the estates and fina - effect distrib&tion to the deceased spo&ses9 respective brothers and sisters and their heirs as the heirs d& - instit&ted in their wi s ong admitted to probate. Ience, it is advisab e for said instit&ted heirs and their heirs in t&rn 44 to come to terms for the adj&dication and distrib&tion to them pro*indiviso of the &p to now &n i%&idated comm&nit- properties of the estates of the Iodges spo&ses 2derived from their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership5 rather than to get bogged down with the formidab e task of p1!$icall!
Page | 1080

$e"re"atin" and partitionin" the two estates with the n&mero&s transactions, items and detai s and ph-sica changes of properties invo ved. The estates proceedings wo& d th&s be c osed and the- co& d then name their respective attorne-s*in*fact to work o&t the detai s of segregating, dividing or partitioning the unli4uidated comm&nit- properties or i%&idating them G which can be done then on their own witho&t f&rther need of intervention on the part of the probate co&rt as we as a ow them meanwhi e to enjo- and make &se of the income and cash and i%&id assets of the estates in s&ch manner as ma- be agreed &pon between them. =&ch a sett ement or #odu$ vivendi between the heirs of the
Page | 1081

&n i%&idated two estates for the m&t&a benefit of a of them sho& d not prove diffic& t, considering that it appears as stated in the main opinion that //.$(:"4$B of the share or &ndivided estate of +. 3. Iodges have a readbeen ac%&ired b- the heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges from certain heirs of her h&sband, whi e certain other heirs representing "#.!4!#)B of Iodges9 estate were joining ca&se with Ainnie9s heirs in their pending and &nreso ved motion for the remova of petitioner ;+IH as administrator of Iodges9 estate, 4) apparent - impatient with the sit&ation which has apparent degenerated into a r&nning batt e between the administrators of the two estates to the common prej&dice of all the heirs.
Page | 1082

"". 8s ear ier stated, the writer has taken the pain of s&ggesting these g&ide ines which ma- serve to g&ide the probate co&rt as we as the parties towards e6pediting the winding &p and c osing of the estates and the distrib&tion of the net estates to the instit&ted heirs and their s&ccessors d& - entit ed thereto. The probate co&rt sho& d e6ert a effort towards this desired objective p&rs&ant to the mandate of o&r probate aw, bearing in mind the +o&rt9s admonition in previo&s cases that Dco&rts of first instance sho& d e6ert themse ves to c ose &p estate within twe ve months from the time the- are presented, and t1e! #a! refu$e to allo0 an! co#pen$ation to e6ec&tors and administrators 01o do
Page | 1083

not activel! la/or to that end, and thema- even adopt 1ar$1er #ea$ure$.D4( Ti#eline$$ of appeal$ and i#po$ition of t1irt!-one D31E additional doc:et fee$ Two appea s were docketed with this +o&rt, as per the two records on appea s&bmitted 2one with a green cover and the other with a -e ow cover5. 8s stated at the o&tset, these appea s invo ve basica - the same prima iss&e raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether there sti e6ists a separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges which has to contin&e to be administered brespondent ,agno. +onsidering the main opinion9s r& ing in the affirmative and that her estate and that of her h&sband 2since thejoint comprise unli4uidated comm&nitPage | 1084

properties5 m&st be administered conjointl! btheir respective administrators 2;+IH and ,agno5, the said appea s 2invo ving thirt-*three different orders of the probate co&rt approving sa es contracts and other acts of administration e6ec&ted and performed b- respondent ,agno on beha f of Ainnie9s estate5 have been necessari - overr& ed b- the +o&rt9s decision at bar. 2a5 The Dpriorit- %&estionD raised brespondent ,agno as to the patent fai &re of the two records on appea to show on their face and state the materia data that the appea s were time - taken within the !'*dareg amentar- period as re%&ired b- R& e 4", section ( of the R& es of +o&rt, has
Page | 1085

been br&shed aside b- the main opinion with the statement that it is Dnot necessar- to pass &pon the time iness of an- of said appea sD since theDrevo ve aro&nd practica - the same main iss&es and ... it is admitted that some of them have been time taken.D 4# The main opinion th&s proceeded with the determination of the thirt-*three appea ed orders despite the grave defect of the appe ant ;+IH9s records on appea and their fai &re to state the re%&ired materia data showing the time iness of the appea s. =&ch disposition of the %&estion of time iness deemed as Dmandator- and j&risdictiona D in a n&mber of cases merits the writer9s conc&rrence in that the %&estion raised has been
Page | 1086

s&bordinated to the paramo&nt considerations of s&bstantia j&stice and a D ibera interpretation of the r& esD app ied so as not to derogate and detract from the primar- intent and p&rpose of the r& es, vi5 Dthe proper and j&st determination of a itigationD 4: G which ca s for Dadherence to a ibera constr&ction of the proced&ra r& es in order to attain their objective of s&bstantia j&stice and of avoiding denia s of s&bstantia j&stice d&e to proced&ra technica ities.D 4$ Th&s, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramo&nt considerations of s&bstantia j&stice has ikewise overr& ed respondents9 objection to petitioner9s taking the reco&rse of Dthe present remedof certiorari and
Page | 1087

prohibitionD G Ddespite the conceded avai abi it- of appea D G on the gro&nd that Dthere is a common thread among the basic iss&es invo ved in a these thirt-*three appea s G 2which5 dea with practica - the same basic iss&es that can be more e6peditio&s - reso ved or determined in a sing e specia civi action . . . D )' 2b5 =ince the basic iss&es have been in effect reso ved in the specia civi action at bar 2as above stated5 with the dismissa of the petition b- virt&e of the +o&rt9s j&dgment as to the contin&ed e6istence of a $eparate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and the affir#ance as a necessar- conse%&ence of the appea ed orders approving and sanctioning respondent ,agno9s sa es contracts and
Page | 1088

acts of administration, some do&bt wo& d arise as to the propriet- of the main opinion re%&iring the pa-ment b;+IH of thirt-*one 2!"5 additional appea docket fees. This do&bt is f&rther enhanced b- the %&estion of whether it wo& d make the cost of appea &nd& e6pensive or prohibitive b- re%&iring the pa-ment of a separate appea docket fee for each incidenta order %&estioned when the reso &tion of a s&ch incidenta %&estioned orders invo ve basica - one and the same main iss&e 2in this case, the e6istence of a separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges5 and can be more e6peditio&s - reso ved or determined in a $in"le specia civi actionD 2for which a $in"le docket fee is re%&ired5 as stated in the main opinion. )"+onsidering the importance of
Page | 1089

the basic iss&es and the magnit&de of the estates invo ved, however, the writer has pro 1ac vice given his conc&rrence to the assessment of the said thirt-*one 2!"5 additiona appea docket fees. ,8?8AI3T8A, ).J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the separate opinion of J&stice Teehankee, which in t&rn agrees with the dispositive portion of the main opinion of J&stice Harredo insofar as it dismisses the petition for certiorari and prohibition in +ases A*/#:(' and A* /#:$( and affirms the appea ed orders of the probate co&rt in cases A*/#$!(* !#. Iowever, I wish to make one brief observation for the sake of acc&rac-. Regard ess of whether or not +. 3.
Page | 1090

Iodges was entit ed to a egitime in his deceased wife9s estate G which %&estion, sti to be decided b- the said probate co&rt, ma- depend &pon what is the aw of Te6as and &pon its app icabi it- in the present case G the said estate consists of one*ha f, not one* fo&rth, of the conj&ga properties. There is neither a minim&m of one*fo&rth nor a ma6im&m be-ond that. It is important to bear this in mind beca&se the estate of Ainnie Iodges consists of her share in the conj&ga properties, is sti &nder administration and &nti now has not been distrib&ted b- order of the co&rt. The reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one*fo&rth portion of the conj&ga properties as Ainnie Iodges9 minim&m share is a
Page | 1091

misnomer and is evident - meant on - to indicate that if her h&sband sho& d event&a - be dec ared entit ed to a egitime, then the disposition made bAinnie Iodges in favor of her co atera re atives wo& d be va id on - as to one* ha f of her share, or one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties, since the remainder, which constit&tes s&ch egitime, wo& d necessari - go to her h&sband in abso &te ownership, &nb&rdened b- an- s&bstit&tion, term or condition, reso &tor- or otherwise. 8nd &nti the estate is fina - sett ed and adj&dicated to the heirs who ma- be fo&nd entit ed to it, the administration m&st contin&e to cover Ainnie9s entire conj&ga share.
Page | 1092

=eparate 1pinions .ER383E1, J., conc&rring< I conc&r on the basis of the proced&ra prono&ncements in the opinion. TEEI83?EE, J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the res& t of dismissa of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in +ases A*/#:(' and A*/#:$( and with the affirmance of the appea ed orders of the probate co&rt in +ases A*/#$!(*!#. I a so conc&r with the portion of the dispositive part of the j&dgment penned b- ,r. J&stice Harredo decreeing theliftin" of the +o&rt9s writ of pre iminar- inj&nction of 8&g&st :, "$(# as amended on 1ctober 4, and
Page | 1093

Eecember (, "$(# " and ordering in ie& thereof that the +o&rt9s reso &tion of =eptember :, "$#/ / which directed that petitioner-appellant;+IH as administrator of +. 3. 2+har es 3ewton5 Iodges9 estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "(#/ and respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno as administratri6 of Ainnie Jane Iodges9 estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5 sho& d act a wa-s conjointl! never independent from each other, as s&ch administrators, is reiterated and sha contin&e in force and made part of the j&dgment. It is manifest from the record that petitioner*appe ant ;+IH9s prima contention in the cases at bar be ated - filedb- it with this +o&rt on Au"u$t 1, 19>+ 2over ten 2"'5 -ears after Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death on Ma!
Page | 1094

23, 19O+ and 2over five 2)5 -ears after her h&sband +.3. Iodges9 death on 9ece#/er 2O, 19>2 G d&ring which time both estates have been pendin" sett ement and distrib&tion to the decedents9 respective rightf& heirs a this time &p to now5 G that the probate co&rt per its order of Eecember "4, "$)# 2s&pp ementing an ear ier order of ,a- /), "$)#5 ! in granting +. 3. Iodges9 motion as E6ec&tor of his wife Ainnie9s estate to continue their D/u$ine$$ of b&-ing and se ing persona and rea propertiesD and approving Da sa es, conve-ances, eases and mortgagesD made and to be made b- him as s&ch e6ec&tor &nder his ob igation to s&bmit his !earl! account$ in effect dec ared him as so e heir of his wife9s estate and nothing
Page | 1095

remains to be done e6cept to forma c ose her estate 2=p. ;roc. 3o. "!'#5 as her estate was thereb- merged with his own so that not1in" remains of it that ma- be adj&dicated to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs after him, 4 G is who - &ntenab e and deserves scant consideration. 8side from having been p&t forth as an obvio&s aftertho&ght m&ch too ate in the da-, this contention of ;+IH that there no onger e6ists an- separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges after the probate co&rt9s order of Eecember "4, "$)# goes against the ver- acts and j&dicia ad#i$$ion$ of +.3. Iodges as her e6ec&tor whereb- he consistent recogni7ed the $eparate e'i$tence and identit! of his wife9s estate apart from his
Page | 1096

own separate estate and from his own share of their conj&ga partnership and estate and Dnever considered the who e estate as a sing e one be onging e6c &sive - to himse fD d&ring the entire period that he s&rvived her for over five 2)5 -ears &p to the time of his own death on Eecember /), "$(/ ) and against the identica acts and j&dicia ad#i$$ion$ of ;+IH as administrator of +.3. Iodges9 estate &nti ;+IH so&ght in "$(( to take over /ot1 estates as pertaining to its so e administration. ;+IH is now barred and estopped from contradicting or taking a be ated position contradictor- to or inconsistent with its previo&s admissions ( 2as we as those of +.3. Iodges himse f in his ifetime and of whose estate ;+IH is mere - an
Page | 1097

administrator5 recogni7ing the e6istence and identitof Ainnie Jane Iodges9 $eparate estate and the ega rights and interests therein of her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs in her wi . ;+IH9s petition for certiorari and prohibition to dec are a acts of the probate co&rt in Ainnie Jane Iodges9 estate s&bse%&ent to its order of Eecember "4, "$)# as Dn& and void for having been iss&ed witho&t j&risdictionD m&st therefore be dismissed with the rejection of its be ated and &ntenab e contention that there is no onger anestate of ,rs. Iodges of which respondent 8ve ina ,agno is the d& appointed and acting administratri6.
Page | 1098

;+IH9s appea # from the probate co&rt9s vario&s orders recogni7ing respondent ,agno as administratri6 of Ainnie9s estate 2=p. ;roc 3o. "!'#5 and sanctioning her acts of administration of said estate and approving the sa es contracts e6ec&ted b- her with the vario&s individ&a appe ees, which invo ve basica - the same prima iss&e raised in the petition as to whether there sti e6ists a separate estate of Ainnie of which respondent*appe ee ,agno macontin&e to be the administratri6, m&st necessari - fai G a res& t of the +o&rt9s main opinion at bar that there doe$ e6ist s&ch an estate and that the t0o estates 2h&sband9s and wife9s5 m&st be administered cojointl! btheir respective administrators 2;+IH and ,agno5.
Page | 1099

T1e di$po$itive portion of t1e #ain opinion The main opinion disposes that< I3 FIE0 1. 8AA TIE .1REG1I3G ;RE,I=E=, j&dgment is hereb- rendered EI=,I==I3G the petition in G. R. 3os. A*/#:(' and A*/#:$(, and 8..IR,I3G, in G. R. 3os. A* /#$!(*!# and the other thirt-*one n&mbers here&nder ordered to be added after pa-ment of the corresponding docket fees, a the orders of the tria co&rt &nder appea en&merated in detai on pages !) to !# and :' to :/ of this decision<

Page | 1100

The e'i$tence of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges, with respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as administratri6 thereof is reco"ni5ed, and It is dec ared that, until fina j&dgment is & timate - rendered regarding 2"5 the manner of app -ing 8rtic e "( of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines to the sit&ation obtaining in these cases and 2/5 the fact&a and ega iss&es of whether or not +har es 3ewton Iodges has effective - and ega reno&nced his inheritance &nder the wi of Ainnie Jane Iodges, the said estate consists of one-fourt1of the comm&nit- properties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of the
Page | 1101

death of the wife on ,a- /!, "$)#, #inu$ whatever the h&sband had a read- "ratuitou$l! disposed of in favor of third persons from said date &nti his death, provided, first, that with respect to re#unerative dispositions, the proceeds thereof sha contin&e to be part of the 0ife<$ e$tate, &n ess s&bse%&ent disposed of "ratuitou$l! to third parties bthe h&sband, and second, that sho& d the p&rported renunciation be dec ared ega effective, no deduction whatsoever are to be made from said estate> In conse%&ence, the preli#inar! injunction of 8&g&st :, "$(#, as
Page | 1102

amended on 1ctober 4 and Eecember (, "$(#, is ifted and the re$olution of =eptember :, "$#/, directing that petitioner* appe ant ;+IH, as 8dministrator of the Testate Estate of +har es 3ewton Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, and respondent*appe ee 8ve ina 8. ,agno, as 8dministratri6 of the Testate Estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, sho& d act thenceforth a wa-s conjointl!, never independent - from each other, as s&ch administrators, is reiterated, and the same is #ade part of t1i$ jud"#ent and sha contin&e in force, pendin" the li4uidation of the conj&ga partnership of the
Page | 1103

deceased spo&ses and the deter#ination and $e"re"ation from each other of their respective estates> provided, that &pon the fina it- of this j&dgment, the tria co&rt sho& d immediate - proceed to the partition of the present combined estates of the spo&ses, to the end that the one-1alf share thereof of ,rs. Iodges ma- be proper - and c ear - identified> T1ereafter, the tria co&rt sho& d forthwith segregate the remainder of the one-fourt1 herein adj&dged to be her estate and ca&se the same to be t&rned over or de ivered to respondent for her e'clu$ive ad#ini$tration in =pecia ;roceedings "!'#, whi e
Page | 1104

the ot1er one-fourt1 sha remain &nder the joint administrative of said respondent and petitioner &nder a joint proceedin"$ in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, whereas the 1alf &n%&estionab - pertaining to 7od"e$ sha be ad#ini$tered b-petitioner e'clu$ivel! in =pecia ;roceedings "(#/, witho&t prej&dice to the reso &tion b- the tria co&rt of the pendin" motions for it$ re#oval as administrator> 8nd this arrangement sha be maintained until the final re$olution of the two iss&es of renvoi andrenunciation herebreserved for f&rther hearing and
Page | 1105

determination, and the corresponding co#pletesegregatio n and partition of the two estates in the proportions that ma- res& t from the said reso &tion. Genera - and in a other respects, the parties and the co&rt a 4uo are directed to adhere henceforth, in a their act&ations in =pecia ;roceedings "!'# and "(#/, to the views passed and r& ed &pon bthe +o&rt in the foregoing opinion. : Mini#u# e$ti#ate of Mr$. 7od"e$< e$tate: One-fourt1 of conju"al propertie$. The main opinion in dec aring the e6istence of a $eparate e$tate of Ainnie Jane Iodges which sha pass to her
Page | 1106

brothers and sisters with right of representation 2b- their heirs5 as her d& - designated heirs dec ares that her estate consists as a #ini#u# 2i.e. a$$u#in" 2"5 that &nder 8rtic e "( of the ;hi ippine +ivi +ode +. 3. Iodges as s&rviving h&sband was entit ed to one*ha f of her estate as le"iti#e and 2/5 that he had not effective and ega -renounced his inheritance &nder her wi 5 of Done-fourt1 of the comm&nitproperties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of the death of the wife on ,a- /!, "$)#, #inu$ whatever the h&sband had a read- "ratuitou$l! disposed of in favor of third persons from said date &nti his death,D with the proviso that proceeds of re#unerative dispositions or sa es for va &ab e consideration made b- +. 3.
Page | 1107

Iodges after his wife Ainnie9s death sha contin&e to be part of her estate unle$$ s&bse%&ent - disposed of b- him "ratuitou$l! to third parties s&bject to the condition, however, that if he is he d to have va id - and effective - renounced his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi , no deduction$ of an- dispositions made b- Iodges even if "ratuitou$l! are to be made from his wife Ainnie9s estate which sha passintact to her brothers and sisters as her designated heirs ca ed in her wi to s&cceed to her estate &pon the death of her h&sband +. 3. Iodges. 9ifference$ 0it1 t1e #ain opinion I do not share the main opinion9s view that Ainnie Jane Iodges instit&ted her h&sband as her heir &nder her wi Dto
Page | 1108

have dominion over a her estate d&ring his ifetime ... as a/$olute o0ner of the properties ...D $ and that she be%&eathed Dthe who e of her estate to be owned and enjo-ed b- him as &niversa and so e heir with a/$olute do#inion over them on - d&ring his ifetime, which means that whi e he co& d comp ete and abso &te - dispose of an- portion thereof inter vivo$ to an-one other than himse f, he was not free to do so #orti$ cau$a, and a his rights to what might remain &pon his death wo& d cease entire - &pon the occ&rrence of that contingenc-, inasm&ch as the right of his brothers and sisters*in* aw to the inheritance, a tho&gh vested a read&pon the death of ,rs. Iodges, wo& d a&tomatica - become operative &pon the occ&rrence of the death of Iodges
Page | 1109

in the event of act&a e6istence of anremainder of her estate then.D "' 8s wi be amp ified hereinafter, I do not s&bscribe to s&ch a view that Ainnie Jane Iodges wi ed Df& and abso &te ownershipD and Dabso &te dominionD over her estate to her h&sband, b&t rather that she named her h&sband +. 3. Iodges and her brothers and sisters as instit&ted heirs 0it1 a ter# &nder 8rtic e ::) of o&r +ivi +ode, to wit, Iodges as instit&ted heir with a re$olutor! term where&nder his right to the s&ccession cea$ed in die# &pon arriva of the re$olutor! term of his death on Eecember /), "$(/ and her brothers and sisters as instit&ted heirs with a$u$pen$ive term where&nder their right to the s&ccession co##enced e'
Page | 1110

die &pon arriva of the s&spensive term of the death of +. 3. Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/. Ience, whi e agreeing with the main opinion that the proceeds of a rem&nerative dispositions made b- +. 3. Iodges after his wife9s death remain an integra part of his wife9s estate which she wi ed to her brothers and sisters, I s&bmit that +. 3. Iodges co& d not va id make "ratuitou$ dispositions of an- part or a of his wife9s estate G Dcomp ete and abso &te - dispose of an- portion thereof inter vivo$ to an-one other than himse fD in the ang&age of the main opinion, $upra G and thereb- render ineffect&a and n&gator- her instit&tion of her brothers and sisters as her
Page | 1111

designated heirs to s&cceed to her 01ole estate Dat the death of 2her5 h&sband.D If according to the main opinion, Iodges co& d not make s&ch grat&ito&s Dcomp ete and abso &te dispositionsD of his wife Ainnie9s estate D#orti$ cau$a,D it wo& d seem that b- the same token and rationa e he was ikewise proscribed b- the wi from making s&ch dispositions of Ainnie9s estate inter vivo$. I be ieve that the two %&estions of renvoi and renunciation sho& d be reso ved preferentiall! and e'peditiou$l! b- the probate co&rt a1ead of the partition and segregation of the #ini#u# one*fo&rth of the conj&ga or comm&nit- properties constit&ting Ainnie Jane Iodges9 $eparate estate,
Page | 1112

which task considering that it is now seventeen 2"#5 -ears since Ainnie Jane Iodges9 death and her conj&ga estate with +. 3. Iodges has remained unli4uidated &p to now might take a simi ar n&mber of -ears to &nrave with the n&mero&s items, transactions and detai s of the si7ab e estates invo ved. =&ch partition of the minim&m one* fo&rth wo& d not be fina , since if the two prej&dicia %&estions of renvoi andrenunciation were reso ved favorab - to Ainnie9s estate meaning to sa- that if it sho& d be he d that +. 3. Iodges is not entit ed to an- egitime of her estate and at an- rate he had tota reno&nced his inheritance &nder the wi 5, then Ainnie9s estate wo& d consist
Page | 1113

not on - of the minim&m one*fo&rth b&t one-1alf of the conj&ga or comm&nit- properties of the Iodges spo&ses, which wo& d re%&ire again the partition and segregation of sti another one*fo&rth of said. properties to co#plete Ainnie9s $eparate estate. ,- differences with the main opinion invo ve f&rther the ega concepts, effects and conse%&ences of the testamentar- dispositions of Ainnie Jane Iodges in her wi and the %&estion of the best to reach a so &tion of the pressing %&estion of e6pediting the c osing of the estates which after a do not appear to invo ve an- o&tstanding debts nor an- disp&te between the heirs and sho& d therefore be prompt - sett ed now after a these -ears witho&t anPage | 1114

f&rther &nd&e comp ications and de a-s and distrib&ted to the heirs for their f& enjo-ment and benefit. 8s no consens&s appears to have been reached thereon b- a majorit- of the +o&rt, I propose to state views as concise - as possib e with the so e end in view that the- ma- be of some assistance to the probate co&rt and the parties in reaching an e6peditio&s c osing and sett ement of the estates of the Iodges spo&ses. T0o A$$u#ption$ 8s indicated above, the dec aration of the #ini#u# of ,rs. Iodges9 estate as one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties is based on two ass&mptions most favorab e to +. 3. Iodges9 estate and his heirs, name - 2"5 that the probate
Page | 1115

co&rt m&st accept the renvoi or Dreference backD "" a eged - provided bthe aws of the =tate of Te6as 2of which state the Iodges spo&ses were citi7ens5 whereb- the civi aws of the ;hi ippines as the do#icile of the Iodges spo&ses wo& d govern their s&ccession not0it1$tandin" the provisions of 8rtic e "( of o&r +ivi +ode 2which provides that the nationa aw of the decedents, in this case, of Te6as, sha govern their s&ccession5 with the res& t that her estate wo& d consist of no #orethan one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties since the le"iti#e of her h&sband 2the other one*fo&rth of said conj&ga properties or one*ha f of 1er estate, &nder 8rtic e $'' of o&r +ivi +ode5 co& d not then be disposed of nor b&rdened with an- condition bPage | 1116

her and 2/5 that +.3. Iodges had not effective and ega - renounced his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi . These two ass&mptions are of co&rse f at - disp&ted b- respondent*appe ee ,agno as ,rs. Iodges9 administratri6, who avers that the aw of the =tate of Te6as governs her s&ccession and does not provide for and egitime, hence, her brothers and sisters are entit ed to s&cceed to the who e of her share of the conj&ga properties which is one-1alf thereof and that in an- event, Iodges had tota - renounced a his rights &nder the wi . The main opinion concedes that D2I5n the interest of sett ing the estates herein invo ved soonest, it wo& d be best,
Page | 1117

indeed, if these conf icting c aims of the parties were determined in these proceedings.D It observes however that this cannot be done d&e to the inade%&ac- of the evidence s&bmitted b- the parties in the probate co&rt and of the parties9 disc&ssion, vi5, Dthere is no c ear and re iab e proof of what the possib - app icab e aws of Te6as are. Then a so, the gen&ineness of the doc&ments re ied &pon b- respondent ,agno Lre Iodges9 ren&nciationM is disp&ted.D "/ Ience, the main opinion e6press reserves reso &tion and determination on these two conf icting c aims and iss&es which it deems Dare not proper before the +o&rt now,D "! and specifica - ho ds that
Page | 1118

D285ccording -, the onl! %&estion that remains to be sett ed in the f&rther proceedings hereb- ordered to be he d in the co&rt be ow is 1o0 #uc1 #ore than as fi6ed above is the estate of ,rs. Iodges, and this wo& d depend on 2"5 whether or not the app icab e aws of Te6as do provide in effect for more, s&ch as, when there is nole"iti#e provided therein, and 2/5 whether or not Iodges has va id - 0aived his who e inheritance from ,rs. Iodges.D "4 u""e$ted "uideline$ +onsidering that the onl! &nreso ved iss&e has th&s been narrowed down and in consonance with the r& ing spirit of o&r probate aw ca ing for the prompt sett ement of the estates of deceased
Page | 1119

persons for the benefit of creditors and those entit ed to the resid&e b- wa- of inheritance G considering that the estates have been ong pending sett ement $ince 19O+ and 19>2, respective - G it was fe t that the +o&rt sho& d a- down specific g&ide ines for the g&idance of the probate co&rt towards the end that it ma- e6pedite the c osing of the protracted estates proceedings be ow to the m&t&a satisfaction of the heirs and witho&t need of a dissatisfied part- e evating its reso &tion of this onl! remaining iss&e once more to this +o&rt and dragging o&t indefinite - the proceedings. 8fter a , the onl! %&estion that remains depends for its determination on the reso &tion of the two %&estions
Page | 1120

ofrenvoi and renunciation, i.e. as to whether +. 3. Iodges can c aim a le"iti#e and 01et1er he had renounced the inheritance. H&t as a read- indicated above, the +o&rt witho&t reaching a consens&s which wo& d fina - reso ve the conf icting c aims here and now in this case opted that Dthese and other re evant matters sho& d first be threshed o&t f& - in the tria co&rt in the proceedings hereinafter to be he d for the p&rpose of ascertaining andJor distrib&ting the estate of ,rs. Iodges to her heirs in accordance with her d& - probated wi .D ") The writer th&s fee s that a-ing down the premises and princip es governing the nat&re, effects and conse%&ences of
Page | 1121

Ainnie Jane Iodges9 testamentardispositions in re ation to her conj&ga partnership and co*ownership of properties with her h&sband +. 3. Iodges and Dthinking o&tD the end res& ts, depending on whether the evidence directed to be forma received b- the probate co&rt wo& d bear o&t that &nder renvoi +. 3. Iodges was or was not entit ed to c aim a egitime of one*ha f of his wife Ainnie9s estate andJor that he had or had not effective - and va id - renounced his inheritance sho& d he p c ear the decks, as it were, and assist the probate co&rt in reso ving the onl! remaining %&estion of 1o0 #uc1 #ore than the #ini#u# one*fo&rth of the comm&nit- properties of the Iodges spo&ses 1erein finall!
Page | 1122

deter#ined sho& d be awarded as the $eparate e$tate of Ainnie, partic& ar - since the views e6pressed in the main opinion have not gained a consens&s of the +o&rt. Ience, the fo owing s&ggested g&ide ines, which need ess to state, represent the per$onal opinion and views of the writer< ". To begin with, as pointed o&t in the main opinion, Daccording to Iodges9 own inventor- s&bmitted b- him as e6ec&tor of the estate of his wife, practica - all their properties were conju"al which means that the spo&ses havee4ual $1are$ therein.D "( /. Upon the death of ,rs. Iodges on Ma! 23, 19O+, and the disso &tion thereb- of the marriage, the aw
Page | 1123

imposed &pon Iodges as s&rviving h&sband the d&t- of inventor-ing, administering and i%&idating the conj&ga or comm&nitpropert-. "# Iodges fai ed to discharge this d&t- of li4uidatin" the conj&ga partnership and estate. 1n the contrar-, he so&ght and obtained a&thori7ation from the probate co&rt to continue the conju"al partnership9s / u$ine$$ of b&-ing and se ing rea and persona properties. In his annual account$ s&bmitted to the probate co&rt as e'ecutor of Mr$. 7od"e$< e$tate, Iodges th&scon$i$tentl! reported the considerab e co#/ined income 2in si6 fig&res5 of the conju"al partner$1ip or coo0ner$1ipand then divided the
Page | 1124

same e4uall! between himse f and ,rs. Iodges9 estate and as consistent fi ed $eparate inco#e ta' return$ and paid the income ta6es for eac1 res& ting ha f of s&ch co#/ined income corresponding to his own and to ,rs. Iodges9 estate. ": 2;arenthetica -, he co& d not in aw do this, had he adj&dicated Ainnie9s entire estate to himse f, th&s s&pporting the view advanced even in the main opinion that DIodges 0aived not on - his rights to the fr&its b&t to the properties themse ves.D "$ H- operation of the aw of tr&st /' as we as b- his own acknow edgment and acts, therefore, a transactions made bIodges after his wife9s death were deemed for and on beha f of
Page | 1125

their unli4uidated conju"al partnership and co##unit! estate and were so reported and treated b- him. !. 0ith this premise estab ished that a transactions of Iodges after his wife9s death were for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership and comm&nit- estate, share and share a ike, it sho& d be c ear that no"ratuitou$ dispositions, if an-, made b- +. 3. Iodges from his wife Ainnie9s estate sho& d be deducted from her$eparate estate as he d in the main opinion. 1n the contrar-, an- s&ch grat&ito&s dispositions sho& d be charged to his own share of the conj&ga estate since he had no a&thorit- or right to make an- "ratuitou$ dispositions of Ainnie9s properties to the prejudice of
Page | 1126

her brothers and sisters whom she ca ed to her s&ccession &pon his death, not to mention that the ver- a&thoritobtained b- him from the probate co&rt per its orders of ,a- /), and Eecember "4, "$)# was to continue the conj&ga partnership9s b&siness of b&-ing and se ing rea properties for the acco&nt of their &n i%&idated conj&ga estate and co*ownership, share and share a ike and not to make an-free dispositions of Ainnie9s estate. 4. 8 transactions as we after the death on 9ece#/er 2O, 19>2 of Iodges himse f appear perforce and necessari to have been cond&cted, on the same premise, for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conju"al partner$1ip andJor co*ownership, $1are
Page | 1127

and $1are ali:e G since the conj&ga partnership remained &n i%&idated G which is another wa- of sa-ing that s&ch transactions, p&rchases and sa es, most - the atter, m&st be deemed in effect to have been made for the respective estates of +. 3. Iodges and of his wife Ainnie Jane Iodges, as both estates contin&ed to have an e%&a stake and share in the conj&ga partnership which was not on eftunli4uidated /ut continued as a co* ownership or joint b&siness with the probate co&rt9s approva b- Iodges d&ring the five*-ear period that he s&rvived his wife. This e6p ains the probate co&rt9s action of re%&iring that deeds of sa e e6ec&ted b;+IH as Iodges9 estate9s
Page | 1128

administrator be D$i"ned jointl!D brespondent ,agno as ,rs. Iodges9 estate9s administratri6, as we as its order a&thori7ing pa-ment b- ot p&rchasers from the Iodges to eit1er estate, since Dthere is as -et no j&dicia dec aration of heirs nor distrib&tion of properties to whomsoever are entit ed thereto.D // 8nd this e%&a - f&rnishes the rationa e of the main opinion for contin&ed conjoint administration bthe administrators of the two estates of the deceased spo&ses, Cpendin" t1e li4uidation of t1e conju"al partner$1ip,C/! since Dit is b&t ogica that both estates sho& d be administered joint - b- the representatives of both, pending their segregation from each
Page | 1129

other. ;artic& ar - ... beca&se the act&ations so far of ;+IH evince a determined, a beit gro&nd ess, intent to e6c &de the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges from their inheritance.D /4 ). 8nt - bthe representatives of both, pending their segregation from each other. ;artic& ar - ... beca&se the act&ations so far of ;+IH evince a determined, a beit gro&nd ess, intent to e6c &de the other heirs of ,rs. Iodges from their inheritance.D /4 ). 8s stressed in the main opinion, the determination of the onl! &nreso ved iss&e of how m&ch more than the minim&m of one-fourt1 of the comm&nitor conj&ga properties of the Iodges spo&ses pertains to ,rs. Iodges9 estate depends on the twin %&estions
Page | 1130

of renunciation and renvoi. It directed conse%&ent - that Da joint hearing of the two probate proceedings herein invo vedD be he d b- the probate co&rt for the reception of Df&rther evidenceD in order to fina - reso ved these twin %&estions. /) 2a5 1n the %&estion of renunciation, it is be ieved that a that the probate co&rt has to do is to receive forma - in evidence the vario&s doc&ments anne6ed to respondent ,agno9s answer at bar, /( name -< +op- of the U.=. Estate Ta6 Ret&rn fi ed on 8&g&st :, "$): b- +. 3. Iodges for his wife Ainnie9s estate wherein he p&rported dec ared that he wasrenouncin" his inheritance &nder his wife9s wi in favor of 1er brothers and sisters as co*heirs
Page | 1131

designated with him and that it was his Dintention 2as5 s&rviving h&sband of the deceased to distrib&te the remaining propert- and interests of the deceased in their comm&nit- estate to the devi$ee and le"atee$ na#ed in t1e 0ill when the debts, iabi ities, ta6es and e6penses of administration are fina - determined and paid>D /# and The affidavit of ratification of s&ch renunciation 2which p aces him in e$toppel5 a eged - e6ec&ted on 8&g&st $, "$(/ b- +. 3. Iodges in I oi o +it- wherein he reaffirmed that D... on Au"u$t F, 19OF, I renounced and disc aimed an- and a right to receive the rents, emo &ments and income from said estateD and f&rther dec ared that D2T5he p&rpose of this affidavit is
Page | 1132

to ratif! and confir#, and I do herebratif- and confirm, the dec aration made in sched& e , of said ret&rn and herebforma - di$clai# and renounce an! ri"1t on #! part to receive an! of t1e $aid rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#e from the estate of m- deceased wife, Ainnie Jane Iodges. This affidavit is made to a/$olve #e or #! e$tate from aniabi it- for the pa-ment of inco#e ta6es on income which has accr&ed to the estate of Linnie Jane 7od"e$ since the death of the said Ainnie Jane Iodges on ,a- /!, "$)#.D /: 2b5 1n the %&estion of renvoi, a that remains for the probate co&rt to do is to forma - receive in evidence d& a&thenticated copies of the aws of the =tate of Te6as governing the
Page | 1133

s&ccession of Ainnie Jane Iodges and her h&sband +. 3. Iodges as citi7ens of said =tate at the time of their respective deaths on Ma! 23, 19O+ and9ece#/er 2O, 19>2. /$ (. The te6t and tenor of the dec arations b- +. 3. Iodges of renunciation of his inheritance from his wife in favor of her other named heirs in her wi 2her brothers and sisters and their respective heirs5 as ratified and reiteratede'pre$$l! in his affidavit of ren&nciation e6ec&ted fo&r -ears ater for the avowed p&rpose of not being he d iab e for pa-ment of income ta6es on income which has accr&ed to his wife9s estate since her death indicate a va id and effective ren&nciation.
Page | 1134

1nce the evidence has been forma admitted and its gen&ineness and ega effectivit- estab ished b- the probate co&rt, the ren&nciation b- +. 3. Iodges m&st be given d&e effect with the res& t that +. 3. Iodges therefore ac%&ired no part of his wife9s one-1alf share of the comm&nit- properties since he removed himse f as an heir b- virt&e of his ren&nciation. H- simp e s&bstit&tion then &nder 8rtic es :)# and :)$ of o&r +ivi +ode !' and b- virt&e of the wi 9s instit&tion of heirs, since Dthe heir origina - instit&ted +. 3. Iodges5 does not become an heirD !" b- force of his ren&nciation, ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters whom she designated as her heirs &pon her h&sband9s death are ca ed immediate - to her s&ccession.
Page | 1135

+onse%&ent -, the said comm&nit- and conj&ga properties wo& d then pertain pro indivi$o $1are and $1are a ike to their respective estates, with each estate, however, sho& dering its own e6penses of administration, estate and inheritance ta6es, if anremain &npaid, attorne-s9 fees and other ike e6penses and the net remainder to be adj&dicated direct - to the decedents9 respective brothers and sisters 2and their heirs5 as the heirs d& - designated in their respective wi s. The %&estion of renvoi becomes immateria since most aws and o&r awsper#it s&ch renunciation of inheritance. #. If there were no renunciation 2or the same ma- somehow be dec ared to
Page | 1136

have not been va id and effective5 b- +. 3. Iodges of his inheritance from his wife, however, what wo& d be the conse%&enceK 2a5 If the aws on s&ccession of the =tate of Te6as do provide for renvoi or Dreference backD to ;hi ippine aw as the domici iar- aw of the Iodges9 spo&ses governing their s&ccession, then petitioners9 view that ,rs. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist on - of the minim&m of Done-fourt1 of the comm&nit- properties of the said spo&ses, as of the time of 2her5 death on ,a- /!, "$)#D wo& d have to be s&stained and +. 3. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist of t1ree-fourt1$ of the comm&nit- properties, comprising his own one*ha f 2or two*fo&rths5 share and
Page | 1137

the other fo&rth of ,rs. Iodges9 estate as the egitime granted him as $urvivin" $pou$e b- 21ilippine la0 28rtic e $'' of the +ivi +ode5 which co& d not be disposed of nor b&rdened with ancondition b- ,rs. Iodges as testatri6. 2b5 If the aws on s&ccession of the =tate of Te6as do not provide for s&ch renvoi and respondent ,agno9s assertion is correct that the Te6as aw which wo& d then prevai , provides for no le"iti#e for +. 3. Iodges as the s&rviving spo&se, then respondent ,agno9s assertion that ,rs. Iodges9 estate wo& d consist of one*ha f of the comm&nit- properties 2with the other ha f pertaining to +. 3. Iodges5 wo& d have to be s&stained. The comm&nitand conj&ga properties wo& d then
Page | 1138

pertain $1are and $1are ali:e to their respective estates, with each estate sho& dering its own e6penses of administration in the same manner stated in the ast paragraph of paragraph ( hereof. . :. 8s to the nat&re of the instit&tion of heirs made b- ,rs. Iodges in her wi , the main opinion ho ds that D2T5he brothers and sisters of ,rs. Iodges are not $u/$titute$ for Iodges> rather, theare a so heirs instit&ted$i#ultaneou$l! with Iodges,D b&t goes f&rther and ho ds that Dit was not the &s&fr&ct a one of her estate ... that she be%&eathed to Iodges durin" 1i$ lifeti#e, b&t the full o0ner$1ip thereof, alt1ou"1 t1e $a#e 0a$ to la$t al$o durin" 1i$ lifeti#e onl!,
Page | 1139

even as there was no re$triction against his disposing or conve-ing the who e or an- portion thereof an!/od! ot1er t1an 1i#$elfD and describes Iodges Das univer$al and $ole 1eir with a/$olute do#inion over ,rs. Iodges9 estate 2e6cept over their A&bbock, Te6as propert- 5, !/ adding that DIodges was not ob iged to preserve an-thing for themD 2referring to ,rs. Iodges9 brothers and sisters as instit&ted co* heirs5. !! +ontrar- to this view of the main opinion, the writer s&bmits that the provisions of ,rs. Iodges9 wi did not grant to +.3. Iodges Df& ownershipD nor Dabso &te dominionD over her estate, s&ch that he co& d as D&niversa and so e heirD b- the mere
Page | 1140

e6pedient of "ratuitou$l! disposing to third persons her 01ole estate d&ring his ifetime nullif! her instit&tion of her brothers and sisters as his co*heirs to s&cceed to her 01ole estate Dat t1e deat1 of D1erE 1u$/and,D deprive them of an- inheritance and make his own brothers and sisters in effect $ole heirs not on - of his own estate b&t of his 0ife<$ estate as we . Th&s, whi e Ainnie Jane Iodges did not e6press - name her brothers and sisters as s&bstit&tes for Iodges beca&se she wi ed that the- wo& d enter into the s&ccession &pon his death, sti it cannot be gainsaid, as the main opinion concedes, Dthat theare a so 1eir$ instit&ted $i#ultaneou$l! with Iodges, s&bject however to certain
Page | 1141

conditions, partia - re$olutor! insofar as Iodges was concerned and corresponding - $u$pen$ive with reference to his brothers and sisters*in* aw.D !4 Ience, if Iodges is fo&nd to have va id - reno&nced his inheritance, there wo& d be a s&bstit&tion of heirs in fact and in aw since Ainnie9s brothers and sisters as the heirs Dsim& taneo&s instit&tedD with a $u$pen$ive term wo& d be ca ed i##ediatel! to her s&ccession instead of waiting for the arriva of $u$pen$ive term of Iodges9 death, since as the heir origina - instit&ted he does not become an heir b- force of his ren&nciation and therefore the- wo& d Denter into the inheritance in defa& t of the heir origina - instit&tedD 2Iodges5
Page | 1142

&nder the provisions of 8rtic e :)# and :)$ of o&r +ivi +ode, $upra, !) th&s acce erating their s&ccession to her estate as a conse%&ence of Iodges9 ren&nciation. +onse%&ent -, Ainnie Jane Iodges wi ed that her h&sband +.3. Iodges wo& d Dd&ring his nat&ra ifetime ...#ana"e, control, u$e and enjo! said estateD and that on Da rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#eD alone sha be ong to him. =he f&rther wi ed that whi e he co& d $ell and purc1a$e properties of her estate, and Du$e an- part of the principa estate,D s&ch principa notwithstanding Dan- c1an"e$ in the p1!$ical propertie$ of said
Page | 1143

estateD2i.e. new properties ac%&ired or e6changed5 wo& d sti pertain to her estate, which at the time of 1i$ deat1 wo& d pass in full do#inion to her brothers and sisters as the ulti#ate $ole and univer$al 1eir$ of her estate. !( The testatri6 Ainnie Jane Iodges in her wi th&s principa - provided that DI give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea ... to mbe oved 1u$/and, +har es 3ewton Iodges, to have and to ho d with him ... durin" 1i$ natural lifeti#e>D !# that D2he5 sha have the right to #ana"e, control, u$e and enjo! said estate durin" 1i$ lifeti#e, ... to make an- c1an"e$ in the p1!$ical propertie$ of said estate, b-$ale ... and
Page | 1144

the purc1a$e of an- other or additiona propert- as he ma- think best ... . All rent$, e#olu#ent$ and inco#efrom said estate sha /elon" to 1i# and he is f&rther a&thori7ed to u$e an- part of the principa of said estate as he ma- need or desire, ... he sha not se or otherwise dispose of an- of the improved propert- now owned b- &s, ocated at ... +it- of A&bbock, Te6as ... . Ie sha have the right to $u/divide an- far# and and se ots therein, and ma- se uni#proved to0n ots>D !: that DDAEt t1e deat1 of #! $aid 1u$/and, +har es 3ewton, I give, devise and be%&eath a of the rest, resid&e and remainder of m- estate, both persona and rea , ... to be e4uall! divided among mbrothers and sisters, $1are and $1are ali:e, name -<
Page | 1145

Esta Iigdon, Emma Iowe , Aeonard Iigdon, Ro- Iigdon, =adie Rascoe, Era Roman and 3imro- Iigdon>D!$ and that DD3En ca$e of t1e deat1 of an! of mbrothers andJor sisters ... prior to t1e deat1 of m- h&sband ... the heirs of s&ch deceased /rot1er or $i$ter sha take jointl! the share which wo& d have gone to s&ch brother or sister had she or he s&rvived.D 4' =&ch provisions are who - consistent with the view a read- f& - e6po&nded above that a transactions and sa es made b- Iodges after his wife Ainnie9s death were b- operation of the aw of tru$t as we as b- 1i$ ownac:no0led"#ent and acts deemed for and on beha f of their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership
Page | 1146

and comm&nit- estate, share and share a ike, with the e6press aut1ori5ation of the probate co&rt per its orders of ,a/), and Eecember "4, "$)# granting Iodges9 motion to contin&e the conj&ga partnership b&siness of b&-ing and se ing rea estate even after her death. H- the same token, Iodges co& d not conceivab - be deemed to have had ana&thoritor right to dispose "ratuitou$l! of an- portion of her estate to whose s&ccession she had ca ed her brothers and sisters upon 1i$ deat1. $. =&ch instit&tions of heirs 0it1 a ter# are e6press - recogni7ed and permitted &nder Hook III, +hapter /, section 4 of o&r +ivi +ode dea ing with Dconditiona testamentar- dispositions
Page | 1147

and testamentar- dispositions 0it1 a ter#.D 4" Th&s, 8rtic e ::) of o&r +ivi +ode e6press - provides that< 8RT ::). The designation of the da- or time when the effects of the instit&tion of an heir sha co##ence or cease sha be valid. In both cases, the ega heir sha be considered as ca ed to the s&ccession &nti the arriva of the period or its e6piration. H&t in the first case he sha not enter into possession of the propert- &nti after having given s&fficient sec&rit-, with the intervention of the instit&ted heir.
Page | 1148

8ccording -, &nder the terms of ,rs. Iodges9 wi , her h&sband9s right to the s&ccession as the instit&ted heir ceased in die#, i.e. &pon the arriva of the re$olutor! term of his deat1 on Eecember /), "$(/, whi e her brothers9 and sisters9 right to the s&ccession a so as instit&ted heirs commenced e' die, i.e. &pon the e6piration of the s&spensive term 2as far as the- were concerned5 of the deat1 of +. 3. Iodges on Eecember /), "$(/ . 4/ 8s stated in ;adi a9s treatise on the +ivi +ode, D8 term is a period whose arriva is certain a tho&gh the e6act date thereof ma- be &ncertain. 8 term mahave either a s&spensive or a reso &toreffect. The designation of the da- when the egac- Dsha commenceD is e' die,
Page | 1149

or a term with a s&spensive effect, fro# a certain da-. The designation of the da- when the egacDsha ceaseD is in die# or a term with a reso &tor- effect, &nti a certain da-.D Ie adds that D8 egac- based &pon a certain age or &pon the deat1 of a person is not a condition b&t ater#. If the arriva of the term wo& d commence the right of the heir, it is s&spensive. If the arriva of the term wo& d terminate his right, it is reso &tor-D and that D&pon the arriva of the period, in case of a s&spensive term, thein$tituted heir is entit ed to the s&ccession, and in case of a reso &tor- term, his right terminates.D 4! "'. The si7ab e estates herein invo ved have now been pending sett ement for a
Page | 1150

considerab - protracted period 2of seventeen -ears co&nted from Ainnie9s death in "$)#5, and a that is eft to be done is to reso ve the onl!remaining iss&e 2invo ving the two %&estions of renunciation and renvoi5 hereinabove disc&ssed in order to c ose &p the estates and fina - effect distrib&tion to the deceased spo&ses9 respective brothers and sisters and their heirs as the heirs d& - instit&ted in their wi s ong admitted to probate. Ience, it is advisab e for said instit&ted heirs and their heirs in t&rn 44 to come to terms for the adj&dication and distrib&tion to them pro*indiviso of the &p to now &n i%&idated comm&nit- properties of the estates of the Iodges spo&ses 2derived from their unli4uidated conj&ga partnership5 rather than to get bogged
Page | 1151

down with the formidab e task of p1!$icall! $e"re"atin" and partitionin" the two estates with the n&mero&s transactions, items and detai s and ph-sica changes of properties invo ved. The estates proceedings wo& d th&s be c osed and the- co& d then name their respective attorne-s*in*fact to work o&t the detai s of segregating, dividing or partitioning the unli4uidated comm&nit- properties or i%&idating them G which can be done then on their own witho&t f&rther need of intervention on the part of the probate co&rt as we as a ow them meanwhi e to enjo- and make &se of the income and cash and i%&id assets of the estates in s&ch manner as ma- be agreed &pon between them.
Page | 1152

=&ch a sett ement or #odu$ vivendi between the heirs of the &n i%&idated two estates for the m&t&a benefit of a of them sho& d not prove diffic& t, considering that it appears as stated in the main opinion that //.$(:"4$B of the share or &ndivided estate of +. 3. Iodges have a readbeen ac%&ired b- the heirs of Ainnie Jane Iodges from certain heirs of her h&sband, whi e certain other heirs representing "#.!4!#)B of Iodges9 estate were joining ca&se with Ainnie9s heirs in their pending and &nreso ved motion for the remova of petitioner ;+IH as administrator of Iodges9 estate, 4) apparent - impatient with the sit&ation which has apparent degenerated into a r&nning batt e between the administrators of the two
Page | 1153

estates to the of all the heirs.

common

prej&dice

"". 8s ear ier stated, the writer has taken the pain of s&ggesting these g&ide ines which ma- serve to g&ide the probate co&rt as we as the parties towards e6pediting the winding &p and c osing of the estates and the distrib&tion of the net estates to the instit&ted heirs and their s&ccessors d& - entit ed thereto. The probate co&rt sho& d e6ert a effort towards this desired objective p&rs&ant to the mandate of o&r probate aw, bearing in mind the +o&rt9s admonition in previo&s cases that Dco&rts of first instance sho& d e6ert themse ves to c ose &p estate within twe ve months from the time the- are presented, and t1e! #a!
Page | 1154

refu$e to allo0 an! co#pen$ation to e6ec&tors and administrators 01o do not activel! la/or to that end, and thema- even adopt 1ar$1er #ea$ure$.D4( Ti#eline$$ of appeal$ and i#po$ition of t1irt!-one D31E additional doc:et fee$ Two appea s were docketed with this +o&rt, as per the two records on appea s&bmitted 2one with a green cover and the other with a -e ow cover5. 8s stated at the o&tset, these appea s invo ve basica - the same prima iss&e raised in the petition for certiorari as to whether there sti e6ists a separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges which has to contin&e to be administered brespondent ,agno. +onsidering the main opinion9s r& ing in the affirmative and that her estate and that of her
Page | 1155

h&sband 2since thejoint comprise unli4uidated comm&nitproperties5 m&st be administered conjointl! btheir respective administrators 2;+IH and ,agno5, the said appea s 2invo ving thirt-*three different orders of the probate co&rt approving sa es contracts and other acts of administration e6ec&ted and performed b- respondent ,agno on beha f of Ainnie9s estate5 have been necessari - overr& ed b- the +o&rt9s decision at bar. 2a5 The Dpriorit- %&estionD raised brespondent ,agno as to the patent fai &re of the two records on appea to show on their face and state the materia data that the appea s were time - taken within the !'*daPage | 1156

reg amentar- period as re%&ired b- R& e 4", section ( of the R& es of +o&rt, has been br&shed aside b- the main opinion with the statement that it is Dnot necessar- to pass &pon the time iness of an- of said appea sD since theDrevo ve aro&nd practica - the same main iss&es and ... it is admitted that some of them have been time taken.D 4# The main opinion th&s proceeded with the determination of the thirt-*three appea ed orders despite the grave defect of the appe ant ;+IH9s records on appea and their fai &re to state the re%&ired materia data showing the time iness of the appea s. =&ch disposition of the %&estion of time iness deemed as Dmandator- and j&risdictiona D in a n&mber of cases
Page | 1157

merits the writer9s conc&rrence in that the %&estion raised has been s&bordinated to the paramo&nt considerations of s&bstantia j&stice and a D ibera interpretation of the r& esD app ied so as not to derogate and detract from the primar- intent and p&rpose of the r& es, vi5 Dthe proper and j&st determination of a itigationD 4: G which ca s for Dadherence to a ibera constr&ction of the proced&ra r& es in order to attain their objective of s&bstantia j&stice and of avoiding denia s of s&bstantia j&stice d&e to proced&ra technica ities.D 4$ Th&s, the main opinion in consonance with the same paramo&nt considerations of s&bstantia j&stice has ikewise overr& ed respondents9 objection to
Page | 1158

petitioner9s taking the reco&rse of Dthe present remedof certiorari and prohibitionD G Ddespite the conceded avai abi it- of appea D G on the gro&nd that Dthere is a common thread among the basic iss&es invo ved in a these thirt-*three appea s G 2which5 dea with practica - the same basic iss&es that can be more e6peditio&s - reso ved or determined in a sing e specia civi action . . . D )' 2b5 =ince the basic iss&es have been in effect reso ved in the specia civi action at bar 2as above stated5 with the dismissa of the petition b- virt&e of the +o&rt9s j&dgment as to the contin&ed e6istence of a $eparate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges and the affir#ance as a necessar- conse%&ence of the appea ed
Page | 1159

orders approving and sanctioning respondent ,agno9s sa es contracts and acts of administration, some do&bt wo& d arise as to the propriet- of the main opinion re%&iring the pa-ment b;+IH of thirt-*one 2!"5 additional appea docket fees. This do&bt is f&rther enhanced b- the %&estion of whether it wo& d make the cost of appea &nd& e6pensive or prohibitive b- re%&iring the pa-ment of a separate appea docket fee for each incidenta order %&estioned when the reso &tion of a s&ch incidenta %&estioned orders invo ve basica - one and the same main iss&e 2in this case, the e6istence of a separate estate of Ainnie Jane Iodges5 and can be more e6peditio&s - reso ved or determined in a $in"le specia civi actionD 2for which a $in"le docket fee is
Page | 1160

re%&ired5 as stated in the main opinion. )"+onsidering the importance of the basic iss&es and the magnit&de of the estates invo ved, however, the writer has pro 1ac vice given his conc&rrence to the assessment of the said thirt-*one 2!"5 additiona appea docket fees. ,8?8AI3T8A, ).J., conc&rring< I conc&r in the separate opinion of J&stice Teehankee, which in t&rn agrees with the dispositive portion of the main opinion of J&stice Harredo insofar as it dismisses the petition for certiorari and prohibition in +ases A*/#:(' and A* /#:$( and affirms the appea ed orders of the probate co&rt in cases A*/#$!(* !#.

Page | 1161

Iowever, I wish to make one brief observation for the sake of acc&rac-. Regard ess of whether or not +. 3. Iodges was entit ed to a egitime in his deceased wife9s estate G which %&estion, sti to be decided b- the said probate co&rt, ma- depend &pon what is the aw of Te6as and &pon its app icabi it- in the present case G the said estate consists of one*ha f, not one* fo&rth, of the conj&ga properties. There is neither a minim&m of one*fo&rth nor a ma6im&m be-ond that. It is important to bear this in mind beca&se the estate of Ainnie Iodges consists of her share in the conj&ga properties, is sti &nder administration and &nti now has not been distrib&ted b- order of the co&rt.
Page | 1162

The reference in both the main and separate opinions to a one*fo&rth portion of the conj&ga properties as Ainnie Iodges9 minim&m share is a misnomer and is evident - meant on - to indicate that if her h&sband sho& d event&a - be dec ared entit ed to a egitime, then the disposition made bAinnie Iodges in favor of her co atera re atives wo& d be va id on - as to one* ha f of her share, or one*fo&rth of the conj&ga properties, since the remainder, which constit&tes s&ch egitime, wo& d necessari - go to her h&sband in abso &te ownership, &nb&rdened b- an- s&bstit&tion, term or condition, reso &tor- or otherwise. 8nd &nti the estate is fina - sett ed and adj&dicated to the heirs who ma- be fo&nd entit ed to it, the administration
Page | 1163

m&st contin&e to cover Ainnie9s entire conj&ga share.

:G. R. No. 120022. O-to8e 13, 2000< ,HE #AN%LA HO,EL $OR*. AND #AN%LA HO,EL %N,L. L,D. petitioners, vs. NA,%ONAL LA6OR RELA,%ONS $O##%SS%ON, AR6%,ER $E.ER%NA J. D%OSANA AND #AR$ELO G. SAN,OS, respondents. EE+I=I13 ;8RE1, J.< The case before the +o&rt is a petition for certiorariL"M to ann& the fo owing
Page | 1164

orders of the 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission 2hereinafter referred to as P3AR+Q5 for having been iss&ed witho&t or with e6cess j&risdiction and with grave ab&se of discretion<L/M 2"5 1rder of ,a- !", "$$!.L!M Reversing and setting aside its ear ier reso &tion of 8&g&st /:, "$$/.L4M The %&estioned order dec ared that the 3AR+, not the ;hi ippine 1verseas Emp o-ment 8dministration 2hereinafter referred to as P;1E8Q5, had j&risdiction over private respondentRs comp aint> 2/5 Eecision of Eecember "), "$$4. L)M Eirecting petitioners to joint - and severa - pa- private respondent twe ve tho&sand and si6 h&ndred do ars 2U=@"/,(''.''5 representing sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of his contract>
Page | 1165

three tho&sand si6 h&ndred do ars 2U=@!,(''.''5 as e6tra fo&r months sa ar- for the two 2/5 -ear period of his contract, three tho&sand si6 h&ndred do ars 2U=@!,(''.''5 as P"4th month pa-Q or a tota of nineteen tho&sand and eight h&ndred do ars 2U=@"$,:''.''5 or its peso e%&iva ent and attorne-Rs fees amo&nting to ten percent 2"'B5 of the tota award> and 2!5 1rder of ,arch !', "$$).L(M Een-ing the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners. In ,a-, "$::, private respondent ,arce o =antos 2hereinafter referred to as P=antosQ5 was an overseas worker emp o-ed as a printer at the ,a7oon ;rinting ;ress, =& tanate of 1man. =&bse%&ent -, in J&ne "$::, he
Page | 1166

was direct - hired b- the ;a ace Iote , Heijing, ;eop eRs Rep&b ic of +hina and ater terminated d&e to retrenchment. ;etitioners are the ,ani a Iote +orporation 2hereinafter referred to as P,I+Q5 and the ,ani a Iote Internationa +ompan-, Aimited 2hereinafter referred to as P,II+AQ5. 0hen the case was fi ed in "$$', ,I+ was sti a government*owned and contro ed corporation d& - organi7ed and e6isting &nder the aws of the ;hi ippines. ,II+A is a corporation d& - organi7ed and e6isting &nder the aws of Iong ?ong.L#M ,I+ is an PincorporatorQ of ,II+A, owning )'B of its capita stock.
L:M

Page | 1167

Hvirt&e of a Pmanagement agreementQL$M with the ;a ace Iote 20ang .& +ompanAimited5, ,II+AL"'M trained the personne and staff of the ;a ace Iote at Heijing, +hina. 3ow the facts. E&ring his emp o-ment with the ,a7oon ;rinting ;ress in the =& tanate of 1man, respondent =antos received a etter dated ,a- /, "$:: from ,r. Gerhard R. =hmidt, Genera ,anager, ;a ace Iote , Heijing, +hina. ,r. =chmidt informed respondent =antos that he was recommended b- one 3estor H&enio, a friend of his. ,r. =hmidt offered respondent =antos the same position as printer, b&t with a higher month - sa ar- and increased
Page | 1168

benefits. The position was s ated to open on 1ctober ", "$::.L""M 1n ,a- :, "$::, respondent =antos wrote to ,r. =hmidt and signified his acceptance of the offer. 1n ,a- "$, "$::, the ;a ace Iote ,anager, ,r. Ians J. Ienk mai ed a read- to sign emp o-ment contract to respondent =antos. ,r. Ienk advised respondent =antos that if the contract was acceptab e, to ret&rn the same to ,r. Ienk in ,ani a, together with his passport and two additiona pict&res for his visa to +hina. 1n ,a- !', "$::, respondent =antos resigned from the ,a7oon ;rinting ;ress, effective J&ne !', "$::, &nder the prete6t that he was needed at home
Page | 1169

to he p with the fami -Rs pigger- and po& tr- b&siness. 1n J&ne 4, "$::, respondent =antos wrote the ;a ace Iote and acknow edged ,r. IenkRs etter. Respondent =antos enc osed fo&r 245 signed copies of the emp o-ment contract 2dated J&ne 4, "$::5 and notified them that he was going to arrive in ,ani a d&ring the first week of J& "$::. The emp o-ment contract of J&ne 4, "$:: stated that his emp o-ment wo& d commence =eptember ", "$:: for a period of two -ears.L"/M It provided for a month - sa ar- of nine h&ndred do ars 2U=@$''.''5 net of ta6es, pa-ab e fo&rteen 2"45 times a -ear.L"!M
Page | 1170

1n J&ne !', "$::, respondent =antos was deemed resigned from the ,a7oon ;rinting ;ress. 1n J& - ", "$::, respondent =antos arrived in ,ani a. 1n 3ovember ), "$::, respondent =antos eft for Heijing, +hina. Ie started to work at the ;a ace Iote .L"4M =&bse%&ent -, respondent =antos signed an amended Pemp o-ment agreementQ with the ;a ace Iote , effective 3ovember ), "$::. In the contract, ,r. =hmidt represented the ;a ace Iote . The Fice ;resident 21perations and Eeve opment5 of petitioner ,II+A ,ig&e E. +erg&eda signed the emp o-ment agreement &nder the word PnotedQ.
Page | 1171

.rom J&ne : to /$, "$:$, respondent =antos was in the ;hi ippines on vacation eave. Ie ret&rned to +hina and reass&med his post on J& - "#, "$:$. 1n J& - //, "$:$, ,r. =hmidtRs E6ec&tive =ecretar-, a certain Joanna s&ggested in a handwritten note that respondent =antos be given one 2"5 month notice of his re ease from emp o-ment. 1n 8&g&st "', "$:$, the ;a ace Iote informed respondent =antos b- etter signed b- ,r. =hmidt that his emp o-ment at the ;a ace Iote print shop wo& d be terminated d&e to b&siness reverses bro&ght abo&t b- the po itica &pheava in +hina.L")M 0e %&ote the etter<L"(M
Page | 1172

P8fter the &nfort&nate happenings in +hina and especia - Heijing 2referring to Tiannamen =%&are incidents5, o&r b&siness has been severe - affected. To red&ce e6penses, we wi not openJoperate printshop for the time being. P0e sincere - regret that a decision ike this has to be made, b&t rest ass&red this does in no wa- ref ect -o&r past performance which we fo&nd &p to o&r e6pectations.Q P=ho& d a t&rnaro&nd in the b&siness happen, we wi contact -o& direct - and give -o& priorit- on f&t&re assignment.Q 1n =eptember ), "$:$, the ;a ace Iote terminated the emp o-ment of respondent =antos and paid a benefits
Page | 1173

d&e him, inc &ding his p ane fare back to the ;hi ippines. 1n 1ctober !, "$:$, respondent =antos was repatriated to the ;hi ippines. 1n 1ctober /4, "$:$, respondent =antos, thro&gh his aw-er, 8tt-. Ednave wrote ,r. =hmidt, demanding f& compensation p&rs&ant to the emp o-ment agreement. 1n 3ovember "", "$:$, ,r. =hmidt rep ied, to wit<L"#M PIis service with the ;a ace Iote , Heijing was not abr&pt - terminated b&t we fo owed the one*month notice c a&se and ,r. =antos received a benefits d&e him.
Page | 1174

P.or -o&r information, the ;rint =hop at the ;a ace Iote is sti not operationa and with a ow b&siness o&t ook, retrenchment in vario&s departments of the hote is going on which is a norma management practice to contro costs. P0hen going thro&gh the atest performance ratings, p ease a so be advised that his performance was be ow average and a +hinese 3ationa who is doing his job now shows a better approach. PIn c osing, when ,r. =antos received the etter of notice, he hard - showed &p for work b&t sti enjo-ed free accommodationJ a&ndr-Jmea s &p to the da- of his depart&re.Q

Page | 1175

1n .ebr&ar- /', "$$', respondent =antos fi ed a comp aint for i ega dismissa with the 8rbitration Hranch, 3ationa +apita Region, 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission 23AR+5. Ie pra-ed for an award of nineteen tho&sand nine h&ndred and twent- three do ars 2U=@"$,$/!.''5 as act&a damages, forttho&sand pesos 2;4','''.''5 as e6emp ar- damages and attorne-Rs fees e%&iva ent to /'B of the damages pra-ed for. The comp aint named ,I+, ,II+A, the ;a ace Iote and ,r. =hmidt as respondents. The ;a ace Iote and ,r. =hmidt were not served with s&mmons and neither participated in the proceedings before the Aabor 8rbiter.L":M
Page | 1176

1n J&ne /#, "$$", Aabor 8rbiter +eferina J. Eiosana, decided the case against petitioners, th&s<L"$M P0IERE.1RE, rendered< j&dgment is hereb-

P". directing a the respondents to pacomp ainant joint - and severa -> Pa5 @/',:/' U= do ars or its e%&iva ent in ;hi ippine c&rrenc- as &nearned sa aries> Pb5 ;)','''.'' as mora damages> Pc5 ;4','''.'' as e6emp ar- damages> and Pd5 Ten 2"'5 percent of the tota award as attorne-Rs fees. P=1 1REEREE.Q
Page | 1177

1n J& - /!, "$$", petitioners appea ed to the 3AR+, arg&ing that the ;1E8, not the 3AR+ had j&risdiction over the case. 1n 8&g&st /:, "$$/, the 3AR+ prom& gated a reso &tion, stating<L/'M P0IERE.1RE, et the appea ed Eecision be, as it is hereb-, dec ared n& and void for want of j&risdiction. +omp ainant is herebenjoined to fi e his comp aint with the ;1E8. P=1 1REEREE.Q 1n =eptember ":, "$$/, respondent =antos moved for reconsideration of the afore*%&oted reso &tion. Ie arg&ed that the case was not cogni7ab e b- the
Page | 1178

;1E8 as he was not an Poverseas contract worker.QL/"M 1n ,a- !", "$$!, the 3AR+ granted the motion and reversed itse f. The 3AR+ directed Aabor 8rbiter Emerson T&manon to hear the case on the %&estion of whether private respondent was retrenched or dismissed.L//M 1n Jan&ar- "!, "$$4, Aabor 8rbiter T&manon comp eted the proceedings based on the testimonia and doc&mentar- evidence presented to and heard b- him.L/!M =&bse%&ent -, Aabor 8rbiter T&manon was re*assigned as tria arbiter of the 3ationa +apita Region, 8rbitration Hranch, and the case was transferred to Aabor 8rbiter Jose G. de Fera.L/4M
Page | 1179

1n 3ovember /), "$$4, Aabor 8rbiter de Fera s&bmitted his report.L/)M Ie fo&nd that respondent =antos was i ega - dismissed from emp o-ment and recommended that he be paid act&a damages e%&iva ent to his sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of his contract.L/(M 1n Eecember "), "$$4, the 3AR+ r& ed in favor of private respondent, to wit<L/#M P0IERE.1RE, finding that the report and recommendations of 8rbiter de Fera are s&pported b- s&bstantia evidence, j&dgment is hereb- rendered, directing the respondents to joint - and severa - pa- comp ainant the fo owing comp&ted contract&a benefits< 2"5 U=@"/,(''.'' as sa aries for the &n* e6pired portion of the partiesR contract>
Page | 1180

2/5 U=@!,(''.'' as e6tra fo&r 245 months sa ar- for the two 2/5 -ears period 2$ic5 of the partiesR contract> 2!5 U=@!,(''.'' as P"4th month pa-Q for the aforesaid two 2/5 -ears contract stip& ated b- the parties or a tota of U=@"$,:''.'' or its peso e%&iva ent, p &s 245 attorne-Rs fees of "'B of comp ainantRs tota award. P=1 1REEREE.Q 1n .ebr&ar- /, "$$), petitioners fi ed a motion for reconsideration arg&ing that Aabor 8rbiter de FeraRs recommendation had no basis in aw and in fact.L/:M 1n ,arch !', "$$), the 3AR+ denied the motion for reconsideration.L/$M Ience, this petition.L!'M
Page | 1181

1n 1ctober $, "$$), petitioners fi ed with this +o&rt an &rgent motion for the iss&ance of a temporar- restraining order andJor writ of pre iminarinj&nction and a motion for the ann& ment of the entr- of j&dgment of the 3AR+ dated J& - !", "$$).L!"M 1n 3ovember /', "$$), the +o&rt denied petitionerRs &rgent motion. The +o&rt re%&ired respondents to fi e their respective comments, witho&t giving d&e co&rse to the petition.L!/M 1n ,arch :, "$$(, the =o icitor Genera fi ed a manifestation stating that after going over the petition and its anne6es, the- can not defend and s&stain the position taken b- the 3AR+ in its assai ed decision and orders. The =o icitor Genera pra-ed that he be
Page | 1182

e6c&sed from fi ing a comment on beha f of the 3AR+L!!M 1n 8pri !',"$$(, private respondent =antos fi ed his comment.L!4M 1n J&ne /(, "$$(, the +o&rt granted the manifestation of the =o icitor Genera and re%&ired the 3AR+ to fi e its own comment to the petition.L!)M 1n Jan&ar- #, "$$#, the 3AR+ fi ed its comment. The petition is meritorio&s. I. Horu# &on-)onvenien$ The 3AR+ was a serio&s inconvenient for&m. 0e note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign j&risdictions and the case invo ves p&re - foreign e ements. The on - ink
Page | 1183

that the ;hi ippines has with the case is that respondent =antos is a .i ipino citi7en. The ;a ace Iote and ,II+A are foreign corporations. 3ot a cases invo ving o&r citi7ens can be tried here. The emp o-ment contract.** Respondent =antos was hired direct - b- the ;a ace Iote , a foreign emp o-er, thro&gh correspondence sent to the =& tanate of 1man, where respondent =antos was then emp o-ed. Ie was hired witho&t the intervention of the ;1E8 or ana&thori7ed recr&itment agenc- of the government.L!(M Under the r& e of foru# non convenien$, a ;hi ippine co&rt or agenc- #a! ass&me j&risdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided<
Page | 1184

2"5 that the ;hi ippine co&rt is one to which the parties ma- convenient resort to> 2/5 that the ;hi ippine co&rt is in a position to make an inte igent decision as to the aw and the facts> and 2!5 that the ;hi ippine co&rt has or is ike - to have power to enforce its decision.L!#M The conditions are &navai ing in the case at bar. 3ot +onvenient.** 0e fai to see how the 3AR+ is a convenient for&m given that a the incidents of the case * from the time of recr&itment, to emp o-ment to dismissa occ&rred o&tside the ;hi ippines. The inconvenience is compo&nded b- the fact that the proper defendants, the ;a ace Iote and ,II+A are not nationa s of the ;hi ippines. 3either are the- Pdoing
Page | 1185

b&siness in the ;hi ippines.Q Aikewise, the main witnesses, ,r. =hmidt and ,r. Ienk are non*residents of the ;hi ippines. 3o power to determine app icab e aw.** 3either can an inte igent decision be made as to the aw governing the emp o-ment contract as s&ch was perfected in foreign soi . This ca s to fore the app ication of the princip e of le' loci contractu$ 2the aw of the p ace where the contract was made5.L!:M The emp o-ment contract was not perfected in the ;hi ippines. Respondent =antos signified his acceptance b- writing a etter whi e he was in the Rep&b ic of 1man. This etter was sent to the
Page | 1186

;a ace Iote in the ;eop eRs Rep&b ic of +hina. 3o power to determine the facts.** 3either can the 3AR+ determine the facts s&rro&nding the a eged i ega dismissa as a acts comp ained of took p ace in Heijing, ;eop eRs Rep&b ic of +hina. The 3AR+ was not in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen =%&are incident tr& - adverse - affected operations of the ;a ace Iote as to j&stif- respondent =antosR retrenchment. ;rincip e of effectiveness, no power to e6ec&te decision.** Even ass&ming that a proper decision co& d be reached bthe 3AR+, s&ch wo& d not have anbinding effect against the emp o-er, the ;a ace Iote . The ;a ace Iote is a corporation incorporated &nder the aws
Page | 1187

of +hina and was not even served with s&mmons. J&risdiction over its person was not ac%&ired. This is not to sa- that ;hi ippine co&rts and agencies have no power to so ve controversies invo ving foreign emp o-ers. 3either are we sa-ing that we do not have power over an emp o-ment contract e6ec&ted in a foreign co&ntr-. If =antos were an Poverseas contract workerQ, a ;hi ippine for&m, specifica - the ;1E8, not the 3AR+, wo& d protect him.L!$M Ie is not an Poverseas contract workerQ a fact which he admits with conviction.L4'M Even ass&ming that the 3AR+ was the proper for&m, even on the merits, the 3AR+Rs decision cannot be s&stained. II. ,I+ 3ot Aiab e
Page | 1188

Even if we ass&me two things< 2"5 that the 3AR+ had j&risdiction over the case, and 2/5 that ,II+A was iab e for =antosR retrenchment, sti ,I+, as a separate and distinct j&ridica entitcannot be he d iab e. Tr&e, ,I+ is an incorporator of ,II+A and owns fift- percent 2)'B5 of its capita stock. Iowever, this is not eno&gh to pierce the vei of corporate fiction between ,II+A and ,I+. ;iercing the vei of corporate entit- is an e%&itab e remed-. It is resorted to when the corporate fiction is &sed to defeat p&b ic convenience, j&stif- wrong, protect fra&d or defend a crime.L4"M It is done on - when a corporation is a mere a ter ego or b&siness cond&it of a person or another corporation.
Page | 1189

In Trader$ %o!al (an: v. )ourt of Appeal$,L4/M we he d that Pthe mere ownership b- a sing e stockho der or banother corporation of a or near - a of the capita stock of a corporation is not of itse f a s&fficient reason for disregarding the fiction of separate corporate persona ities.Q The tests in determining whether the corporate vei ma- be pierced are< .irst, the defendant m&st have contro or comp ete domination of the other corporationRs finances, po ic- and b&siness practices with regard to the transaction attacked. There m&st be proof that the other corporation had no separate mind, wi or e6istence with respect the act comp ained of. =econd, contro m&st be &sed b- the defendant
Page | 1190

to commit fra&d or wrong. Third, the aforesaid contro or breach of d&t- m&st be the pro6imate ca&se of the inj&r- or oss comp ained of. The absence of anof the e ements prevents the piercing of the corporate vei .L4!M It is basic that a corporation has a persona it- separate and distinct from those composing it as we as from that of an- other ega entit- to which it mabe re ated.L44M + ear and convincing evidence is needed to pierce the vei of corporate fiction.L4)M In this case, we find no evidence to show that ,II+A and ,I+ are one and the same entit-. III. ,II+A not Aiab e Respondent =antos predicates ,II+ARs iabi it- on the fact that ,II+A PsignedQ his emp o-ment contract with
Page | 1191

the ;a ace Iote . This fact fai s to pers&ade &s. .irst, we note that the Fice ;resident 21perations and Eeve opment5 of ,II+A, ,ig&e E. +erg&eda signed the emp o-ment contract as a mere witness. Ie mere - signed &nder the word PnotedQ. 0hen one PnotesQ a contract, one is not e6pressing his agreement or approva , as a partwo& d. L4(M In ic1an"co v. (oard of )o##i$$ioner$ of 3##i"ration,L4#M the +o&rt recogni7ed that the term PnotedQ means that the person so noting has mere - taken cogni7ance of the e6istence of an act or dec aration, witho&t e6ercising a j&dicio&s
Page | 1192

de iberation or rendering a decision on the matter. ,r. +erg&eda mere - signed the Pwitnessing partQ of the doc&ment. The Pwitnessing partQ of the doc&ment is that which, Pin a deed or other forma instr&ment is that part which comes after the recita s, or where there are no recita s, after the parties 2e#p1a$i$ our$5.QL4:M 8s opposed to a part- to a contract, a witness is simp - one who, Pbeing present, persona - sees or perceives a thing> a beho der, a spectator, or e-ewitness.QL4$M 1ne who PnotesQ something j&st makes a Pbrief written statementQL)'M a memorand&m or observation. =econd, and more important -, there was no e6isting emp o-er*emp o-ee
Page | 1193

re ationship between =antos and ,II+A. In determining the e6istence of an emp o-er*emp o-ee re ationship, the fo owing e ements are considered<L)"M P2"5 the se ection and engagement of the emp o-ee> P2/5 the pa-ment of wages> P2!5 the power to dismiss> and P245 the power to contro emp o-eeRs cond&ct.Q ,II+A did not have and did not e6ercise an- of the aforementioned powers. It did not se ect respondent =antos as an emp o-ee for the ;a ace Iote . Ie was referred to the ;a ace Iote bhis friend, 3estor H&enio. ,II+A did not engage respondent =antos to work. The terms
Page | 1194

of emp o-ment were negotiated and fina i7ed thro&gh correspondence between respondent =antos, ,r. =chmidt and ,r. Ienk, who were officers and representatives of the ;a ace Iote and not ,II+A. 3either did respondent =antos add&ce anproof that ,II+A had the power to contro his cond&ct. .ina -, it was the ;a ace Iote , thro&gh ,r. =chmidt and not ,II+A that terminated respondent =antosR services. 3either is there evidence to s&ggest that ,II+A was a P abor*on contractor.QL)/M There is no proof that ,II+A Ps&pp iedQ respondent =antos or even referred him for emp o-ment to the ;a ace Iote .
Page | 1195

Aikewise, there is no evidence to show that the ;a ace Iote and ,II+A are one and the same entit-. The fact that the ;a ace Iote is a member of the P,ani a Iote Gro&pQ is not eno&gh to pierce the corporate vei between ,II+A and the ;a ace Iote . IF. Grave 8b&se of Eiscretion +onsidering that the 3AR+ was foru# non-convenien$ and considering f&rther that no emp o-er*emp o-ee re ationship e6isted between ,II+A, ,I+ and respondent =antos, Aabor 8rbiter +eferina J. Eiosana c ear - had no j&risdiction over respondentRs c aim in 3AR+ 3+R +ase 3o. ''*'/*'"'):*$'. Aabor 8rbiters have e6c &sive and origina j&risdiction on - over the fo owing<L)!M
Page | 1196

P". Unfair abor practice cases> P/. Termination disp&tes> P!. If accompanied with a c aim for reinstatement, those cases that workers ma- fi e invo ving wages, rates of pa-, ho&rs of work and other terms and conditions of emp o-ment> P4. + aims for act&a , mora , e6emp arand other forms of damages arising from emp o-er*emp o-ee re ations> P). +ases arising from an- vio ation of 8rtic e /(4 of this +ode, inc &ding %&estions invo ving ega it- of strikes and ocko&ts> and P(. E6cept c aims for Emp o-ees +ompensation, =ocia =ec&rit-, ,edicare and maternit- benefits, a other c aims, arising from emp o-er*
Page | 1197

emp o-ee re ations, inc &ding those of persons in domestic or ho&seho d service, invo ving an amo&nt e6ceeding five tho&sand pesos 2;),'''.''5 regard ess of whether accompanied with a c aim for reinstatement.Q In a these cases, an emp o-er* emp o-ee re ationship is an indispensab e j&risdictiona re%&irement. The j&risdiction of abor arbiters and the 3AR+ &nder 8rtic e /"# of the Aabor +ode is imited to disp&tes arising from an emp o-er*emp o-ee re ationship which can be reso ved b- reference to the Aabor +ode, or other abor stat&tes, or their co ective bargaining agreements.L)4M
Page | 1198

PTo determine which bod- has j&risdiction over the present controvers-, we re - on the so&nd j&dicia princip e that j&risdiction over the s&bject matter is conferred b- aw and is determined bthe a egations of the comp aint irrespective of whether the p aintiff is entit ed to a or some of the c aims asserted therein.QL))M The ack of j&risdiction of the Aabor 8rbiter was obvio&s from the a egations of the comp aint. Iis fai &re to dismiss the case amo&nts to grave ab&se of discretion.L)(M F. The .a o 0IERE.1RE, the +o&rt herebGR83T= the petition for certiorari and 833UA= the orders and reso &tions of the 3ationa Aabor Re ations
Page | 1199

+ommission dated ,a- !", "$$!, Eecember "), "$$4 and ,arch !', "$$) in 3AR+ 3+R +8 3o. ''/"'"*$" 23AR+ 3+R +ase 3o. ''*'/*'"'):*$'5. 3o costs. =1 1REEREE.

:G.R. No. 103193. June 19, 1992< *H%LSE$ %NVES,#EN, $OR*ORA,%ON, 6*%A %N,ERNA,%ONAL .%NAN$E L%#%,ED, &n( A,HONA HOLD%NGS, N.V., petitioners, vs. ,HE HONORA6LE $OUR, O. A**EALS, 11;;, %N$., DRAGO DA%$, VEN,URA O. DU$A,,
Page | 1200

*RE$%OSO R. *ERLAS, &n( E%LL%A# H. $RA%G, respondents. EE+I=I13 ,E3E1Z8, J.< This case presents for determination the conc &siveness of a foreign j&dgment &pon the rights of the parties &nder the same ca&se of action asserted in a case in o&r oca co&rt. ;etitioners bro&ght this case in the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, Hranch )(, which, in view of the pendenc- at the time of the foreign action, dismissed +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! on the gro&nd of liti$ pendentia, in addition to foru# non convenien$. 1n appea , the +o&rt of 8ppea s affirmed. Ience this petition for review on certiorari.
Page | 1201

The facts are as fo ows< 1n Jan&ar- "), "$:!, private respondent Fent&ra 1. E&cat obtained separate oans from petitioners 8-a a Internationa .inance Aimited 2hereafter ca ed 8C8A85L"M and ;hi sec Investment +orporation 2hereafter ca ed ;IIA=E+5 in the s&m of U=@/,)'','''.'', sec&red b- shares of stock owned b- E&cat with a market va &e of ;"4,'::,$$).''. In order to faci itate the pa-ment of the oans, private respondent "4::, Inc., thro&gh its president, private respondent Erago Eaic, ass&med E&catRs ob igation &nder an 8greement, dated Jan&ar- /#, "$:!, whereb- "4::, Inc. e6ec&ted a 0arrant- Eeed with FendorRs Aien bwhich it so d to petitioner 8thona Io dings, 3.F. 2hereafter ca ed
Page | 1202

8TI1385 a parce of and in Iarris +o&nt-, Te6as, U.=.8., for U=@/,:'#,/'$.'/, whi e ;IIA=E+ and 8C8A8 e6tended a oan to 8TI138 in the amo&nt of U=@/,)'','''.'' as initia pa-ment of the p&rchase price. The ba ance of U=@!'#,/'$.'/ was to be paid b- means of a promissor- note e6ec&ted b- 8TI138 in favor of "4::, Inc. =&bse%&ent -, &pon their receipt of the U=@/,)'','''.'' from "4::, Inc., ;IIA=E+ and 8C8A8 re eased E&cat from his indebtedness and de ivered to "4::, Inc. a the shares of stock in their possession be onging to E&cat. 8s 8TI138 fai ed to pa- the interest on the ba ance of U=@!'#,/'$.'/, the entire amo&nt covered b- the note became d&e and
Page | 1203

demandab e. 8ccording -, on 1ctober "#, "$:), private respondent "4::, Inc. s&ed petitioners ;IIA=E+, 8C8A8, and 8TI138 in the United =tates for pa-ment of the ba ance of U=@!'#,/'$.'/ and for damages for breach of contract and for fra&d a eged - perpetrated b- petitioners in misrepresenting the marketabi it- of the shares of stock de ivered to "4::, Inc. &nder the 8greement. 1rigina instit&ted in the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt of Te6as, "()th J&dicia Eistrict, where it was docketed as +ase 3o. :)* )##4(, the ven&e of the action was ater transferred to the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt for the =o&thern Eistrict of Te6as, where "4::, Inc. fi ed an amended comp aint, reiterating its a egations in the origina comp aint. 8TI138 fi ed an
Page | 1204

answer with co&nterc aim, imp eading private respondents herein as co&nterdefendants, for a eged conspiring in se ing the propert- at a price over its market va &e. ;rivate respondent ;er as, who had a eged appraised the propert-, was ater dropped as co&nterdefendant. 8TI138 so&ght the recover- of damages and e6cess pa-ment a eged - made to "4::, Inc. and, in the a ternative, the rescission of sa e of the propert-. .or their part, ;IIA=E+ and 8C8A8 fi ed a motion to dismiss on the gro&nd of ack of j&risdiction over their person, b&t, as their motion was denied, the- ater fi ed a joint answer with co&nterc aim against private respondents and Edgardo F. G&evarra, ;IIA=E+Rs own former president, for the rescission of the sa e
Page | 1205

on the gro&nd that the propert- had been overva &ed. 1n ,arch "!, "$$', the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt for the =o&thern Eistrict of Te6as dismissed the co&nterc aim against Edgardo F. G&evarra on the gro&nd that it was Pfrivo o&s and LwasM bro&ght against him simp - to h&mi iate and embarrass him.Q .or this reason, the U.=. co&rt imposed so*ca ed R& e "" sanctions on ;IIA=E+ and 8C8A8 and ordered them to pa- damages to G&evarra. 1n 8pri "', "$:#, whi e +ivi +ase 3o. I*:(*44' was pending in the United =tates, petitioners fi ed a comp aint P.or =&m of ,one- with Eamages and 0rit of ;re iminar- 8ttachmentQ against private respondents in the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, where it was docketed
Page | 1206

as +ivi +ase 3o. "()(!. The comp aint reiterated the a egation of petitioners in their respective co&nterc aims in +ivi 8ction 3o. I*:(*44' of the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt of =o&thern Te6as that private respondents committed fra&d b- se ing the propertat a price 4'' percent more than its tr&e va &e of U=@:'','''.''. ;etitioners c aimed that, as a res& t of private respondentsR fra&d& ent misrepresentations, 8TI138, ;IIA=E+, and 8C8A8 were ind&ced to enter into the 8greement and to p&rchase the Io&ston propert-. ;etitioners pra-ed that private respondents be ordered to ret&rn to 8TI138 the e6cess pa-ment of U=@",#'','''.'' and to pa- damages. 1n 8pri /', "$:#, the tria co&rt iss&ed
Page | 1207

a writ of pre iminar- attachment against the rea and persona properties of private respondents.L/M ;rivate respondent E&cat moved to dismiss +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! on the gro&nds of 2"5 itis pendentia, vis*a*vis +ivi 8ction 3o. I*:(*44' fi ed b- "4::, Inc. and Eaic in the U.=., 2/5 foru# non convenien$, and 2!5 fai &re of petitioners ;IIA=E+ and H;I*I.A to state a ca&se of action. E&cat contended that the a eged overpricing of the propertprej&diced on - petitioner 8TI138, as b&-er, b&t not ;IIA=E+ and H;I*I.A which were not parties to the sa e and whose on - participation was to e6tend financia accommodation to 8TI138 &nder a separate oan agreement. 1n the other hand, private respondents
Page | 1208

"4::, Inc. and its president Eaic fi ed a joint P=pecia 8ppearance and O&a ified ,otion to Eismiss,Q contending that the action being in personam, e6traterritoria service of s&mmons b- p&b ication was ineffect&a and did not vest the co&rt with j&risdiction over "4::, Inc., which is a non*resident foreign corporation, and Eaic, who is a non*resident a ien. 1n Jan&ar- /(, "$::, the tria co&rt granted E&catRs motion to dismiss, stating that Pthe evidentiarre%&irements of the controvers- ma- be more s&itab - tried before the for&m of the liti$ pendentia in the U.=., &nder the princip e in private internationa aw of foru# non convenien$,Q even as it noted that E&cat was not a part- in the U.=. case.
Page | 1209

8 separate hearing was he d with regard to "4::, Inc. and EaicRs motion to dismiss. 1n ,arch $, "$::, the tria co&rtL!M granted the motion to dismiss fi ed b- "4::, Inc. and Eaic on the gro&nd of liti$ pendentia considering that the Pmain fact&a e ementQ of the ca&se of action in this case which is the va idit- of the sa e of rea propertin the United =tates between defendant "4:: and p aintiff 8TI138 is the s&bject matter of the pending case in the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt which, &nder the doctrine of for&m non conveniens, is the better 2if not e6c &sive5 for&m to itigate matters needed to determine the assessment andJor f &ct&ations of the fair market va &e of rea estate sit&ated in
Page | 1210

Io&ston, Te6as, U.=.8. from the date of the transaction in "$:! &p to the present and veri -, . . . 2emphasis btria co&rt5 The tria co&rt a so he d itse f witho&t j&risdiction over "4::, Inc. and Eaic beca&se the- were non*residents and the action was not an action in rem or 4ua$i in re#, so that e6traterritoria service of s&mmons was ineffective. The tria co&rt s&bse%&ent ifted the writ of attachment it had ear ier iss&ed against the shares of stocks of "4::, Inc. and Eaic. ;etitioners appea ed to the +o&rt of 8ppea s, arg&ing that the tria co&rt erred in app -ing the princip e of itis pendentia and foru# non convenien$ and in r& ing that it had no
Page | 1211

j&risdiction over the defendants, despite the previo&s attachment of shares of stocks be onging to "4::, Inc. and Eaic. 1n Jan&ar- (, "$$/, the +o&rt of 8ppea sL4M affirmed the dismissa of +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! against E&cat, "4::, Inc., and Eaic on the gro&nd of liti$ pendentia, th&s< The p aintiffs in the U.=. co&rt are "4:: Inc. andJor Erago Eaic, whi e the defendants are ;hi sec, the 8-a a Internationa .inance Atd. 2H;I*I.ARs former name5 and the 8thona Io dings, 3F. The case at bar invo ves the same parties. The transaction s&ed &pon bthe parties, in both cases is the 0arrant- Eeed e6ec&ted b- and between 8thona Io dings and "4:: Inc. In the U.=. case, breach of contract
Page | 1212

and the promissor- note are s&ed &pon b- "4:: Inc., which ikewise a eges fra&d emp o-ed b- herein appe ants, on the marketabi it- of E&catRs sec&rities given in e6change for the Te6as propert-. The recover- of a s&m of mone- and damages, for fra&d p&rported - committed b- appe ees, in overpricing the Te6as and, constit&te the action before the ;hi ippine co&rt, which ikewise stems from the same 0arrant- Eeed. The +o&rt of 8ppea s a so he d that +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! was an action in personam for the recover- of a s&m of mone- for a eged tortio&s acts, so that service of s&mmons b- p&b ication did not vest the tria co&rt with j&risdiction over "4::, Inc. and Erago Eaic. The
Page | 1213

dismissa of +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! on the gro&nd of foru# non convenien$ was ikewise affirmed b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s on the gro&nd that the case can be better tried and decided b- the U.=. co&rt< The U.=. case and the case at bar arose from on - one main transaction, and invo ve foreign e ements, to wit< "5 the propert- s&bject matter of the sa e is sit&ated in Te6as, U.=.8.> /5 the se er, "4:: Inc. is a non*resident foreign corporation> !5 a tho&gh the b&-er, 8thona Io dings, a foreign corporation which does not c aim to be doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, is who owned b- ;hi sec, a domestic corporation, 8thona Io dings is a so owned b- H;I*I.A, a so a foreign
Page | 1214

corporation> 45 the 0arrant- Eeed was e6ec&ted in Te6as, U.=.8. In their present appea , petitioners contend that< ". TIE E1+TRI3E 1. ;E3EE3+C 1. 831TIER 8+TI13 HET0EE3 TIE =8,E ;8RTIE= .1R TIE =8,E +8U=E 2AITI= ;E3EE3TI85 REAIEE U;13 HC TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= I3 8..IR,I3G TIE TRI8A +1URTR= EI=,I==8A 1. TIE +IFIA 8+TI13 I= 31T 8;;AI+8HAE. /. TIE ;RI3+I;AE 1. .1RU, 313 +13FE3IE3= 8A=1 REAIEE U;13 HC TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= I3 8..IR,I3G TIE EI=,I==8A HC TIE TRI8A
Page | 1215

+1URT 1. TIE +IFIA 8+TI13 I= AI?E0I=E 31T 8;;AI+8HAE. !. 8= 8 +1R1AA8RC T1 TIE .IR=T T01 GR1U3E=, TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= ERREE I3 31T I1AEI3G TI8T ;IIAI;;I3E ;UHAI+ ;1AI+C REOUIREE TIE 8==U,;TI13, 31T TIE REAI3OUI=I,E3T, HC TIE TRI8A +1URT 1. IT= RIGIT.UA JURI=EI+TI13 I3 TIE +IFIA 8+TI13 .1R TIERE I= EFERC RE8=13 T1 ;R1TE+T 83E FI3EI+8TE ;ETITI13ER=R RIGIT= .1R T1RTI1U= 1R 0R13G.UA 8+T= 1R +13EU+T ;RIF8TE RE=;13EE3T= 20I1 8RE ,1=TAC 313*RE=IEE3T
Page | 1216

8AIE3=5 I3.AI+TEE U;13 TIE, IERE I3 TIE ;IIAI;;I3E=. 0e wi dea with these contentions in the order in which the- are made. Hir$t. It is important to note in connection with the first point that whi e the present case was pending in the +o&rt of 8ppea s, the United =tates Eistrict +o&rt for the =o&thern Eistrict of Te6as rendered j&dgmentL)M in the case before it. The j&dgment, which was in favor of private respondents, was affirmed on appea b- the +irc&it +o&rt of 8ppea s.L(M Th&s, the principa iss&e to be reso ved in this case is whether +ivi +ase 3o. "()!( is barred b- the j&dgment of the U.=. co&rt. ;rivate respondents contend that for a foreign j&dgment to be p eaded as res
Page | 1217

j&dicata, a j&dgment admitting the foreign decision is not necessar-. 1n the other hand, petitioners arg&e that the foreign j&dgment cannot be given the effect of res j&dicata witho&t giving them an opport&nit- to impeach it on gro&nds stated in R& e !$, Z)' of the R& es of +o&rt, to wit< Pwant of j&risdiction, want of notice to the part-, co &sion, fra&d, or c ear mistake of aw or fact.Q ;etitionersR contention is meritorio&s. 0hi e this +o&rt has given the effect of re$ judicata to foreign j&dgments in severa cases,L#M it was after the parties opposed to the j&dgment had been given amp e opport&nit- to repe them on gro&nds a owed &nder the aw.L:M It is not
Page | 1218

necessar- for this p&rpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for enforcement of the foreign j&dgment. 0hat is essentia is that there is opport&nit- to cha enge the foreign j&dgment, in order for the co&rt to proper - determine its efficac-. This is beca&se in this j&risdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as disting&ished from actions in rem, a foreign j&dgment mere - constit&tes prima facie evidence of the j&stness of the c aim of a partand, as s&ch, is s&bject to proof to the contrar-.L$M R& e !$, Z)' provides< =E+. )'. ;ffect of forei"n jud"#ent$. * The effect of a j&dgment of a trib&na of a foreign co&ntr-, having j&risdiction to prono&nce the j&dgment is as fo ows<
Page | 1219

2a5 In case of a j&dgment &pon a specific thing, the j&dgment is conc &sive &pon the tit e to the thing> 2b5 In case of a j&dgment against a person, the j&dgment is pres&mptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their s&ccessors in interest b- a s&bse%&ent tit e> b&t the j&dgment ma- be repe ed b- evidence of a want of j&risdiction, want of notice to the part-, co &sion, fra&d, or c ear mistake of aw or fact. Th&s, in the case of General )orporation of t1e 21ilippine$ v. Tnion 3n$urance ociet! of )anton, Ltd., L"'M which private respondents invoke for c aiming conc &sive effect for the foreign j&dgment in their favor, the foreign j&dgment was considered re$
Page | 1220

judicata beca&se this +o&rt fo&nd Pfrom the evidence as we as from appe antRs own p eadingsQL""M that the foreign co&rt did not make a Pc ear mistake of aw or factQ or that its j&dgment was void for want of j&risdiction or beca&se of fra&d or co &sion b- the defendants. Tria had been previo&s - he d in the ower co&rt and on - afterward was a decision rendered, dec aring the j&dgment of the =&preme +o&rt of the =tate of 0ashington to have the effect of re$ judicata in the case before the ower co&rt. In the same vein, in 21ilippine 3nternational 1ippin" )orp. v. )ourt of Appeal$,L"/M this +o&rt he d that the foreign j&dgment was va id and enforceab e in the ;hi ippines there being no showing that it was vitiated bwant of notice to the part-, co &sion,
Page | 1221

fra&d or c ear mistake of aw or fact. The pri#a facie pres&mption &nder the R& e had not been reb&tted. In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were given the opport&nit- to cha enge the j&dgment of the U.=. co&rt as basis for dec aring it re$ judicata or conc &sive of the rights of private respondents. The proceedings in the tria co&rt were s&mmar-. 3either the tria co&rt nor the appe ate co&rt was even f&rnished copies of the p eadings in the U.=. co&rt or apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to ass&re a proper determination of whether the iss&es then being itigated in the U.=. co&rt were e6act - the iss&es raised in this case s&ch that the j&dgment that might
Page | 1222

be rendered wo& d constit&te re$ judicata. 8s the tria co&rt stated in its disp&ted order dated ,arch $, "$::< 1n the p aintiffRs c aim in its 1pposition that the ca&ses of action of this case and the pending case in the United =tates are not identica , precise - the 1rder of Jan&ar- /(, "$:: never fo&nd that the ca&ses of action of this case and the case pending before the U=8 +o&rt, were identica . 2emphasis added5 It was error therefore for the +o&rt of 8ppea s to s&mmari - r& e that petitionersR action is barred b- the princip e of re$ judicata. ;etitioners in fact %&estioned the j&risdiction of the U.=. co&rt over their persons, b&t their
Page | 1223

c aim was br&shed aside b- both the tria co&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s.L"!M ,oreover, the +o&rt notes that on 8pri //, "$$/, "4::, Inc. and Eaic fi ed a petition for the enforcement of j&dgment in the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, where it was docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. $/*"'#' and assigned to Hranch "!4, a tho&gh the proceedings were s&spended beca&se of the pendenc- of this case. To s&stain the appe ate co&rtRs r& ing that the foreign j&dgment constit&tes re$ judicata and is a bar to the c aim of petitioners wo& d effective prec &de petitioners from repe ing the j&dgment in the case for enforcement. 8n abs&rdit- co& d then arise< a foreign j&dgment is not s&bject to cha enge b- the p aintiff against
Page | 1224

whom it is invoked, if it is p eaded to resist a c aim as in this case, b&t it mabe opposed b- the defendant if the foreign j&dgment is so&ght to be enforced against him in a separate proceeding. This is p ain - &ntenab e. It has been he d therefore that< L8M foreign j&dgment ma- not be enforced if it is not recogni7ed in the j&risdiction where affirmative re ief is being so&ght. Ience, in the interest of j&stice, the comp aint sho& d be considered as a petition for the recognition of the Iongkong j&dgment &nder =ection )' 2b5, R& e !$ of the R& es of +o&rt in order that the defendant, private respondent herein, ma- present evidence of ack of j&risdiction, notice, co &sion, fra&d or
Page | 1225

c ear mistake of fact and app icab e.L"4M

aw,

if

8ccording -, to ins&re the order administration of j&stice, this case and +ivi +ase 3o. $/*"'#' sho& d be conso idated.L")M 8fter a , the two have been fi ed in the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, a beit in different sa as, this case being assigned to Hranch )( 2J&dge .ernando F. Gorospe5, whi e +ivi +ase 3o. $/*"'#' is pending in Hranch "!4 of J&dge Ignacio +ap& ong. In s&ch proceedings, petitioners sho& d have the b&rden of impeaching the foreign j&dgment and on - in the event thes&cceed in doing so ma- the- proceed with their action against private respondents.
Page | 1226

econd. 3or is the tria co&rtRs ref&sa to take cogni7ance of the case j&stifiab e &nder the princip e of foru# non convenien$. .irst, a motion to dismiss is imited to the gro&nds &nder R& e "(, Z", which does not inc &de foru# non convenien$.L"(M The proprietof dismissing a case based on this princip e re%&ires a fact&a determination, hence, it is more proper considered a matter of defense. =econd, whi e it is within the discretion of the tria co&rt to abstain from ass&ming j&risdiction on this gro&nd, it sho& d do so on - after Pvita facts are estab ished, to determine whether specia circ&mstancesQ re%&ire the co&rtRs desistance.L"#M
Page | 1227

In this case, the tria co&rt abstained from taking j&risdiction so e - on the basis of the p eadings fi ed b- private respondents in connection with the motion to dismiss. It fai ed to consider that one of the p aintiffs 2;IIA=E+5 is a domestic corporation and one of the defendants 2Fent&ra E&cat5 is a .i ipino, and that it was the e6ting&ishment of the atterRs debt which was the object of the transaction &nder itigation. The tria co&rt arbitrari - dismissed the case even after finding that E&cat was not a partin the U.=. case. T1ird. It was error we think for the +o&rt of 8ppea s and the tria co&rt to ho d that j&risdiction over "4::, Inc. and Eaic co& d not be obtained beca&se this is an action in per$ona# and s&mmons
Page | 1228

were served be6traterritoria service. R& e "4, Z"# on e6traterritoria service provides that service of s&mmons on a non*resident defendant ma- be effected o&t of the ;hi ippines b- eave of +o&rt where, among others, Pthe propert- of the defendant has been attached within the ;hi ippines.QL":M It is not disp&ted that the properties, rea and persona , of the private respondents had been attached prior to service of s&mmons &nder the 1rder of the tria co&rt dated 8pri /', "$:#.L"$M Hourt1. 8s for the temporarrestraining order iss&ed b- the +o&rt on J&ne /$, "$$4, to s&spend the proceedings in +ivi +ase 3o. $/*"44) fi ed b- Edgardo F. G&evarra to enforce so*ca ed R& e "" sanctions imposed on
Page | 1229

the petitioners b- the U.=. co&rt, the +o&rt finds that the j&dgment so&ght to be enforced is severab e from the main j&dgment &nder consideration in +ivi +ase 3o. "()(!. The separabi it- of G&evarraRs c aim is not on - admitted bpetitioners,L/'M it appears from the p eadings that petitioners on - be ated imp eaded G&evarra as defendant in +ivi +ase 3o. "()(!.L/"M Ience, the TR1 sho& d be ifted and +ivi +ase 3o. $/*"44) a owed to proceed. 0IERE.1RE, the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s is REFER=EE and +ivi +ase 3o. "()(! is RE,83EEE to the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati for conso idation with +ivi +ase 3o. $/* "'#' and for f&rther proceedings in accordance with this decision. The
Page | 1230

temporar- restraining order iss&ed on J&ne /$, "$$4 is hereb- AI.TEE. =1 1REEREE.

G.R. No. 12;;03 Septe78e 25, 199; AS%AVES, L%#%,ED, petitione , !". ,HE $OUR, O. A**EALS &n( AN,ON%O HERAS, e"pon(ent". E8FIEE, JR., J.: In iss&e is the enforceabi it- in the ;hi ippines of a foreign j&dgment. The antecedents are s&mmari7ed in the /4 8&g&st "$$' Eecision " of Hranch "'# of
Page | 1231

the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +itin +ivi +ase 3o. O*)/4)/> th&s< The p aintiff 8siavest Aimited fi ed a comp aint on Eecember !, "$:# against the defendant 8ntonio Ieras pra-ing that said defendant be ordered to pa- to the p aintiff the amo&nts awarded b- the Iong ?ong +o&rt J&dgment dated Eecember /:, "$:4 and amended on 8pri "!, "$:#, to wit< "5 U=@",:"',/().4' or its e%&iva ent in Iong ?ong c&rrenc- at the time of pa-ment with ega interest from Eecember /:, "$:4 &nti f& - paid>
Page | 1232

/5 interest on the s&m of U=@",)''.'' at $.:#)B per ann&m from 1ctober !", "$:4 to Eecember /:, "$:4> and !5 I?@$').'' at fi6ed cost in the action> and 45 at east @:','''.'' representing attorne-9s fees, itigation e6penses and cost, with interest thereon from the date of the j&dgment &nti f& paid. 1n ,arch !, "$::, the defendant fi ed a ,otion to Eismiss. Iowever, before the co&rt co& d
Page | 1233

reso ve the said motion, a fire which partia - ra7ed the O&e7on +it- Ia H&i ding on J&ne "", "$:: tota - destro-ed the office of this +o&rt, together with a its records, e%&ipment and properties. 1n J& /(, "$::, the p aintiff, thro&gh co&nse fi ed a ,otion for Reconstit&tion of +ase Records. The +o&rt, after a owing the defendant to react thereto, granted the said ,otion and admitted the anne6es attached thereto as the reconstit&ted records of this case per 1rder dated =eptember (, "$::. Thereafter, the ,otion to Eismiss, the reso &tion of which had been deferred> was denied bthe +o&rt in its 1rder of 1ctober 4, "$::.
Page | 1234

1n 1ctober "$, "$::, defendant fi ed his 8nswer. The case was then set for pre*tria conference. 8t the conference, the parties co& d not arrive at an- sett ement. Iowever, the- agreed on the fo owing stip& ations of facts< ". The defendant admits the e6istence of the j&dgment dated Eecember /:, "$:4 as we as its amendment dated 8pri "!, "$:#, b&t not necessari - the a&thenticit- or va iditthereof> /. The p aintiff is not doing b&siness and is not icensed to do
Page | 1235

b&siness ;hi ippines>

in

the

!. The residence of defendant, 8ntonio Ieras, is 3ew ,ani a, O&e7on +it-. The on - iss&e for this +o&rt to determine is, whether or not the j&dgment of the Iong ?ong +o&rt has been repe ed b- evidence of want of j&risdiction, want of notice to the part-, co &sion, fra&d or c ear mistake of aw or fact, s&ch as to overcome the pres&mption estab ished in =ection )', R& e !$ of the R& es of +o&rt in favor of foreign j&dgments.

Page | 1236

In view of the admission b- the defendant of the e6istence of the aforementioned j&dgment 2; s. =ee =tip& ations of .acts in the 1rder dated Jan&ar- ), "$:$ as amended b- the 1rder of Jan&ar":, "$:$5, as we as the ega pres&mption in favor of the p aintiff as provided for in paragraph 2b5> =ec. )', 23/id.5, the p aintiff presented on doc&mentarevidence to show rendition, e6istence, and a&thentication of s&ch j&dgment b- the proper officia s concerned 2; s. =ee E6hibits D8D thr& DHD, with their s&bmarkings5. In addition, the p aintiff presented testimonia and doc&mentar- evidence to show its
Page | 1237

entit ement to attorne-9s fees and other e6penses of itigation. . . . . 1n the other hand, the defendant presented two witnesses, name -. .ort&nata de a Fega and R&sse 0arren Ao&sich. The gist of ,s. de a Fega9s testimon- is to the effect that no writ of s&mmons or cop- of a statement of c aim of 8siavest Aimited was ever served in the office of the 3avegante =hipping 8genc- Aimited andJor for ,r. 8ntonio Ieras, and that no service of the writ of s&mmons was either served on the defendant at his residence in 3ew ,ani a, O&e7on +it-. Ier know edge is based on the fact that she was the persona
Page | 1238

secretar- of ,r. Ieras d&ring his JE Transit da-s &p to the atter part of "$#/ when he shifted or diversified to shipping b&siness in Iong ?ong> that she was in* charge of a his etters and correspondence, b&siness commitments, &ndertakings, conferences and appointments, &nti 1ctober "$:4 when ,r. Ieras eft Iong ?ong for good> that she was a so the 1fficer*in*+harge or 1ffice ,anager of 3avegante =hipping 8genc- ATE, a Iong ?ong registered and based compan- acting as ships agent, &p to and &nti the compan- c osed shop sometime in the first %&arter of "$:), when shipping b&siness co apsed wor dwide> that the said
Page | 1239

compan- he d office at !4*!) +onna&ght Road, +entra Iong ?ong and ater transferred to +arton Io&se at E&dde =treet, Iong ?ong, &nti the companc osed shop in "$:)> and that she was certain of s&ch facts beca&se she he d office at +a6ton Io&se &p to the first %&arter of "$:). ,r. Ao&sich was presented as an e6pert on the aws of Iong ?ong, and as a representative of the aw office of the defendant9s co&nse who made a verification of the record of the case fi ed b- the p aintiff in Iong ?ong against the defendant, as we as the proced&re in serving +o&rt processes in Iong ?ong.
Page | 1240

In his affidavit 2E6h. D/D5 which constit&tes his direct testimon-, the said witness stated that< The defendant was s&ed on the basis of his persona g&arantee of the ob igations of +ompania Iermanos de 3avegacion =.8. There is no record that a writ of s&mmons was served on the person of the defendant in Iong ?ong, or that an- s&ch attempt at service was made. Aikewise, there is no record that a copof the j&dgment of the Iigh +o&rt was f&rnished or served on the defendant> an-wa-, it is not a ega
Page | 1241

re%&irement to do so &nder Iong ?ong aws> a5 The writ of s&mmons or c aim can be served b- the so icitor 2 aw-er5 of the c aimant or p aintiff. In Iong ?ong there are no +o&rt personne who serve writs of s&mmons andJor most other processes. b5 If the writ of s&mmons or c aim 2or comp aint5 is not contested, the c aimant or the p aintiff is not re%&ired to present proof of his c aim or
Page | 1242

comp aint nor present evidence &nder oath of the c aim in order to obtain a J&dgment. c5 There is no ega re%&irement that s&ch a J&dgment or decision rendered b- the +o&rt in Iong ?ong LtoM make a recitation of the facts or the aw &pon which the c aim is based. d5 There is no necessitto f&rnish the defendant with a cop- of the J&dgment or decision rendered against him.

Page | 1243

e5 In an action based on a g&arantee, there is no estab ished ega re%&irement or ob igation &nder Iong ?ong aws that the creditor m&st first bring proceedings against the principa debtor. The creditor can immediate - go against the g&arantor. 1n cross e6amination, ,r. Ao&sich stated that before he was commissioned b- the aw firm of the defendant9s co&nse as an e6pert witness and to verif- the records of the Iong ?ong case, he had been acting as co&nse for the
Page | 1244

defendant in a n&mber of commercia matters> that there was an app ication for service of s&mmons &pon the defendant o&tside the j&risdiction of Iong ?ong> that there was an order of the +o&rt a&thori7ing service &pon Ieras o&tside of Iong ?ong, partic& ar - in ,ani a or an- other p ace in the ;hi ippines 2p. $, T=3, /J"4J$'5> that there m&st be ade%&ate proof of service of s&mmons, otherwise the Iong ?ong +o&rt wi ref&se to render j&dgment 2p. "', i/id5> that the mere fact that the Iong ?ong +o&rt rendered j&dgment, it can be pres&med that there was service of s&mmons> that in this case, it is not j&st a pres&mption beca&se there
Page | 1245

was an affidavit stating that service was effected in L$icM a partic& ar man here in ,ani a> that s&ch affidavit was fi ed b- one Jose R. .ernande7 of the firm =-cip =a a7ar on the /"st of Eecember "$:4, and stated in essence that Don .rida-, the /!rd of 3ovember "$:4 he served the 4th defendant at 3o. ( .irst =treet, O&e7on +itb- eaving it at that address with ,r. Eionisio Aope7, the son*in* aw of the 4th defendant the cop- of the writ and ,r. Aope7 informed me and I bare - be ieved that he wo& d bring the said writ to the attention of the 4th defendantD 2pp. ""*"/, i/id.5> that &pon fi ing of that affidavit, the +o&rt was asked and granted j&dgment against the 4th
Page | 1246

defendant> and that if the s&mmons or c aim is not contested, the c aimant of the p aintiff is not re%&ired to present proof of his c aim or comp aint or present evidence &nder oath of the c aim in order to obtain j&dgment> and that s&ch j&dgment can be enforced in the same manner as a j&dgment rendered after f& hearing. The tria co&rt he d that since the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment had been d& proved, it is a pres&mptive evidence of a right as between the parties> hence, the part- imp&gning it had the b&rden to prove want of j&risdiction over his person. IER8= fai ed to discharge that b&rden. Ie did not testif- to state
Page | 1247

categorica - and &nder oath that he never received s&mmons. Even his own witness Ao&sich admitted that IER8= was served with s&mmons in his O&e7on +it- residence. 8s to Ee a Fega9s testimon- regarding non*service of s&mmons, the same was hearsa- and had no probative va &e. 8s to IER8=9 contention that the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment vio ated the +onstit&tion and the proced&ra aws of the ;hi ippines beca&se it contained no statements of the facts and the aw on which it was based, the tria co&rt r& ed that since the iss&e re ate to proced&ra matters, the aw of the for&m, i.e., Iong ?ong aws, sho& d govern. 8s testified b- the e6pert witness Ao&sich, s&ch ega ities were not re%&ired &nder Iong
Page | 1248

?ong aws. The tria +o&rt a so deb&nked IER8=9 contention that the princip e of e6c&ssion &nder 8rtic e /'): of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines was vio ated. It dec ared that matters of s&bstance are s&bject to the aw of the p ace where the transaction occ&rred> in this case, Iong ?ong aws m&st govern. The tria co&rt conc &ded that the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment sho& d be recogni7ed and given effect in this j&risdiction for fai &re of IER8= to overcome the ega pres&mption in favor of the foreign j&dgment. It then decreed> th&s< 0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is herebrendered ordering defendant to pa- to the p aintiff the fo owing s&ms or their e%&iva ents in
Page | 1249

;hi ippine c&rrenc- at the time of pa-ment< U=@",:"',/().4' p &s interest on the s&m of U=@",)'','''.'' at $.:#)B per ann&m from 1ctober !", "$:4 to Eecember /:, "$:4, and I?@$') as fi6ed cost, with ega interests on the aggregate amo&nt from Eecember /:, "$:4, and to paattorne-9s fees in the s&m of ;:','''.''. 8=I8FE=T moved for the reconsideration of the decision. It so&ght an award of j&dicia costs and an increase in attorne-9s fees in the amo&nt of U=@"$,!4(.4) with interest &nti f& pa-ment of the said ob igations. 1n the other hand, IER8= no onger opposed the motion and instead appea ed the
Page | 1250

decision to the +o&rt of 8ppea s, which docketed the appea as +8*G.R. +F 3o. /$)"!. In its order / of / 3ovember "$$', the tria co&rt granted 8=I8FE=T9s motion for reconsideration b- increasing the award of attorne-9s fees to DU=@"$,!4).() 1R IT= EOUIF8AE3T I3 ;IIAI;;I3E +URRE3+C, 83E T1 ;8C TIE +1=T= 1. TII= =UIT,D provided that 8=I8FE=T wo& d pa- the corresponding fi ing fees for the increase. 8=I8FE=T appea ed the order re%&iring prior pa-ment of fi ing fees. Iowever, it ater withdrew its appea and paid the additiona fi ing fees. 1n ! 8pri "$$#, the +o&rt of 8ppea s rendered its decision ! reversing the decision of the tria co&rt and dismissing
Page | 1251

8=I8FE=T9s comp aint witho&t prej&dice. It &nderscored the fact that a foreign j&dgment does not of itse f have an- e6traterritoria app ication. .or it to be given effect, the foreign trib&na sho& d have ac%&ired j&risdiction over the person and the s&bject matter. If s&ch trib&na has not ac%&ired j&risdiction, its j&dgment is void. The +o&rt of 8ppea s agreed with the tria co&rt that matters of remed- and proced&re, s&ch as those re ating to service of s&mmons &pon the defendant are governed b- the le' fori, which was, in this case, the aw of Iong ?ong. Re ative thereto, it gave weight to Ao&sich9s testimon- that &nder the Iong ?ong aw, the s&bstit&ted service of s&mmons &pon IER8= effected in the
Page | 1252

;hi ippines b- the c erk of =-cip =a a7ar Iernande7 X Gatmaitan firm wo& d be va id provided that it was done in accordance with ;hi ippine aws. It then stressed that where the action is in per$ona# and the defendant is in the ;hi ippines, the s&mmons sho& d be persona - served on the defendant p&rs&ant to =ection #, R& e "4 of the R& es of +o&rt. 4 =&bstit&ted service ma- on - be avai ed of where the defendant cannot be prompt - served in person, the fact of impossibi it- of persona service sho& d be e6p ained in the proof of se "rvice. It a so fo&nd as pers&asive IER8=9 arg&ment that instead of direct - &sing the c erk of the =-cip =a a7ar Iernande7 X Gatmaitan aw office, who was not a&thori7ed bthe j&dge of the co&rt iss&ing the
Page | 1253

s&mmons, 8=I8FE=T sho& d have asked for eave of the oca co&rts to have the foreign s&mmons served bthe sheriff or other co&rt officer of the p ace where service was to be made, or for specia reasons b- an- person a&thori7ed b- the j&dge. The +o&rt of 8ppea s agreed with IER8= that Dnotice sent o&tside the state to a non-re$ident i$ unavailin" to "ive juri$diction in an action against him persona for monerecover-.D =&mmons sho& d have been persona served on IER8= in Iong ?ong, for, as c aimed b- 8=I8FE=T, IER8= was ph-sica - present in Iong ?ong for near - "4 -ears. =ince there was not even an attempt to serve s&mmons on IER8= in Iong ?ong, the Iong ?ong
Page | 1254

=&preme +o&rt did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over IER8=. 3onethe ess it did not tota - forec ose the c aim of 8=I8FE=T> th&s< 0hi e 0e are not f& - convinced that LIER8=M has a meritorio&s defense against L8=I8FE=T9sM c aims or that LIER8=M o&ght to be abso ved of aniabi it-, neverthe ess, in view of the foregoing disc&ssion, there is a need to deviate front the findings of the ower co&rt in the interest of j&stice and fair p a-. This, however, is witho&t prej&dice to whatever action L8=I8FE=TM might deem proper in order to enforce its c aims against LIER8=M.
Page | 1255

.ina -, the +o&rt of 8ppea s a so agreed with IER8= that it was necessar- that evidence s&pporting the va idit- of the foreign j&dgment be s&bmitted, and that o&r co&rts are not bo&nd to give effect to foreign j&dgments which contravene o&r aws and the princip e of so&nd mora it- and p&b ic po ic-. 8=I8FE=T forthwith fi ed the instant petition a eging that the +o&rt of 8ppea s erred in r& ing that I. . . . IT 08= 3E+E==8RC .1R L8=I8FE=TM T1 ;RE=E3T EFIEE3+E D=U;;1RTI3G TIE F8AIEITC 1. TIE JUEG,E3TD> II.
Page | 1256

. . . TIE =ERFI+E 1. =U,,13= 13 LIER8=M 08= EE.E+TIFE U3EER ;IIAI;;I3E= A80> III. . . . =U,,13= =I1UAE I8FE HEE3 ;ER=138AAC =ERFEE 13 IER8= I3 I13G ?13G> IF. . . . TIE I13G ?13G =U,,13= =I1UAE I8FE HEE3 =ERFEE 0ITI AE8FE 1. ;IIAI;;I3E +1URT=> F. . . . TIE .1REIG3 JUEG,E3T D+13TR8FE3E= ;IIAI;;I3E A80=, TIE ;RI3+I;AE= 1. =1U3E ,1R8AITC, 83E TIE
Page | 1257

;UHAI+ ;1AI+C ;IIAI;;I3E=.

1.

TIE

Heing interre ated, we sha together the assigned errors.

take &p

Under paragraph 2b5 of =ection )', R& e !$ of the R& es of +o&rt, ) which was the governing aw at the time this case was decided b- the tria co&rt and respondent +o&rt of 8ppea s, a foreign j&dgment against a person rendered ba co&rt having j&risdiction to prono&nce the j&dgment is pres&mptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their s&ccessors in interest bthe s&bse%&ent tit e. Iowever, the j&dgment ma- be repe ed b- evidence of want of j&risdiction, want of notice to the part-, co &sion, fra&d, or c ear mistake of aw or fact.
Page | 1258

8 so, =ection !2n5 of R& e "!" of the 3ew R& es of Evidence provides that in the absence of proof to the contrar-, a co&rt, or j&dge acting as s&ch, whether in the ;hi ippines or e sewhere, is pres&med to have acted in the awf& e6ercise of j&risdiction. Ience, once the a&thenticit- of the foreign j&dgment is proved, the b&rden to repe it on gro&nds provided for in paragraph 2b5 of =ection )', R& e !$ of the R& es of +o&rt is on the partcha enging the foreign j&dgment G IER8= in this case. 8t the pre*tria conference, IER8= admitted the e6istence of the Iong ?ong j&dgment. 1n the other hand, 8=I8FE=T presented evidence to prove rendition, e6istence, and a&thentication
Page | 1259

of the j&dgment b- the proper officia s. The j&dgment is th&s pres&med to be va id and binding in the co&ntr- from which it comes, &nti the contrar- is shown. ( +onse%&ent -, the first gro&nd re ied &pon b- 8=I8FE=T has merit. The pres&mption of va idit- accorded foreign j&dgment wo& d be rendered meaning ess were the part- seeking to enforce it be re%&ired to first estab ish its va idit-. The main arg&ment raised against the Iong ?ong j&dgment is that the Iong ?ong =&preme +o&rt did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over the person of IER8=. This invo ves the iss&e of whether s&mmons was proper - and va id served on IER8=. It is sett ed that matters of remed- and proced&re s&ch
Page | 1260

as those re ating to the service of process &pon the defendant are governed b- the le' fori or the aw of the for&m, # i.e., the aw of Iong ?ong in this case. IER8= insisted that according to his witness ,r. Ao&sich, who was presented as an e6pert on Iong ?ong aws, there was no va id service of s&mmons on him. In his co&nter*affidavit, : which served as his direct testimon- per agreement of the parties, $ Ao&sich dec ared that the record of the Iong ?ong case fai ed to show that a writ of s&mmons was served &pon IER8= in Iong ?ong or that an- s&ch attempt was made. 3either did the record show that a copof the j&dgment of the co&rt was served on IER8=. Ie stated f&rther that &nder
Page | 1261

Iong ?ong aws 2a5 a writ of s&mmons co& d be served b- the so icitor of the c aimant or p aintiff> and 2b5 where the said writ or c aim was not contested, the c aimant or p aintiff was not re%&ired to present proof &nder oath in order to obtain j&dgment. 1n cross*e6amination b- co&nse for 8=I8FE=T, Ao&sich9 testified that the Iong ?ong co&rt a&thori7ed service of s&mmons on IER8= o&tside of its j&risdiction, partic& ar in the ;hi ippines. Ie admitted a so the e6istence of an affidavit of one Jose R. .ernande7 of the =-cip =a a7ar Iernande7 X Gatmaitan aw firm stating that he 2.ernande75 served s&mmons on IER8= on "! 3ovember "$:4 at 3o. (, "st =t., O&e7on +it-, b- eaving a
Page | 1262

cop- with IER8=9s son*in* aw Eionisio Aope7. "' 1n redirect e6amination, Ao&sich dec ared that s&ch service of s&mmons wo& d be va id &nder Iong ?ong aws provided that it was in accordance with ;hi ippine aws. "" 0e note that there was no objection on the part of 8=I8FE=T on the %&a ification of ,r. Ao&sich as an e6pert on the Iong ?ong aw. Under =ections /4 and /), R& e "!/ of the 3ew R& es of Evidence, the record of p&b ic doc&ments of a sovereign a&thorit-, trib&na , officia bod-, or p&b ic officer ma- be proved b- 2"5 an officia p&b ication thereof or 2/5 a cop- attested b- the officer having the ega c&stodthereof, which m&st be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the ;hi ippines,
Page | 1263

with a certificate that s&ch officer has the c&stod-. The certificate ma- be iss&ed b- a secretar- of the embass- or egation, cons& genera , cons& , vice cons& , or cons& ar agent, or an- officer in the foreign service of the ;hi ippines stationed in the foreign co&ntr- in which the record is kept, and a&thenticated bthe sea of his office. The attestation m&st state, in s&bstance, that the copis a correct cop- of the origina , or a specific part thereof, as the case mabe, and m&st be &nder the officia sea of the attesting officer. 3everthe ess, the testimon- of an e6pert witness ma- be a owed to prove a foreign aw. 8n a&thorit- "/ on private internationa aw th&s noted<
Page | 1264

8 tho&gh it is desirab e that foreign aw be proved in accordance with the above r& e, however, the =&preme +o&rt he d in the case of Qilla#ette 3ron and teel Qor:$ v. Mu55al, "! that =ection 4", R& e "/! 2=ection /), R& e "!/ of the Revised R& es of +o&rt5 does not e6c &de the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the e6istence of a foreign aw. In that case, the =&preme +o&rt considered the testimon- &nder oath of an attorne-*at* aw of =an .rancisco, +a ifornia, who %&oted verbatim a section of +a ifornia +ivi +ode and who stated that the same was in force at the time the ob igations were contracted, as s&fficient evidence to estab ish the
Page | 1265

e6istence of said aw. 8ccording -, in ine with this view, the =&preme +o&rt in the )ollector of 3nternal %evenue v. Hi$1er et al., "4 &phe d the Ta6 +o&rt in considering the pertinent aw of +a ifornia as proved b- the respondents9 witness. In that case, the co&nse for respondent Dtestified that as an active member of the +a ifornia Har since "$)", he is fami iar with the reven&e and ta6ation aws of the =tate of +a ifornia. 0hen asked b- the ower co&rt to state the pertinent +a ifornia aw as regards e6emption of intangib e persona properties, the witness cited 8rtic e 4, =ec. "!:)" 2a5 X 2b5 of the +a ifornia Interna and Reven&e +ode as p&b ished in
Page | 1266

Eerring9s +a ifornia +ode, a p&b ication of Hancroft*0hitne+o., Inc. 8nd as part of his testimon-, a f& %&otation of the cited section was offered in evidence brespondents.D Aikewise, in severa nat&ra i7ation cases, it was he d b- the +o&rt that evidence of the aw of a foreign co&ntr- on reciprocit- regarding the ac%&isition of citi7enship, a tho&gh not meeting the prescribed r& e of practice, ma- be a owed and &sed as basis for favorab e action, if, in the ight of a the circ&mstances, the +o&rt is Dsatisfied of the a&thenticit- of the written proof offered.D ") Th&s, in, a n&mber of decisions, mere a&thentication of the +hinese
Page | 1267

3at&ra i7ation Aaw b- the +hinese +ons& ate Genera of ,ani a was he d to be competent proof of that aw. "( There is, however, nothing in the testimon- of ,r. Ao&sich that to&ched on the specific aw of Iong ?ong in respect of service of s&mmons either in actions in re# or in per$ona#, and where the defendant is either a resident or nonresident of Iong ?ong. In view of the absence of proof of the Iong ?ong aw on this partic& ar iss&e, the pres&mption of identit- or simi arit- or the so*ca ed process&a pres&mption sha come into p a-. It wi th&s be pres&med that the Iong ?ong aw on the matter is simi ar to the ;hi ippine aw. "#
Page | 1268

8s stated in Gal#onte v$. )ourt of Appeal$, ": it wi be he pf& to determine first whether the action is in per$ona#, in re#, or 4ua$i in re# beca&se the r& es on service of s&mmons &nder R& e "4 of the R& es of +o&rt of the ;hi ippines app - according to the nat&re of the action. 8n action in per$ona# is an action against a person on the basis of his persona iabi it-. 8n action in re# is an action against the thing itse f instead of against the person. "$ 8n action 4ua$i in re# is one wherein an individ&a is named as defendant and the p&rpose of the proceeding is to s&bject his interest therein to the ob igation or ien b&rdening the propert-. /'
Page | 1269

In an action in per$ona#, j&risdiction over the person of the defendant is necessar- for the co&rt to va id - tr- and decide the case. J&risdiction over the person of a re$ident defendant who does not vo &ntari - appear in co&rt can be ac%&ired b- persona service of s&mmons as provided &nder =ection #, R& e "4 of the R& es of +o&rt. If he cannot be persona - served with s&mmons within a reasonab e time, s&bstit&ted service ma- be made in accordance with =ection : of said R& e. If he is temporari - o&t of the co&ntr-, an- of the fo owing modes of service ma- be resorted to< 2"5 s&bstit&ted service set forth in =ection :> /" 2/5 persona service o&tside the co&ntr-, with eave of co&rt> 2!5 service bp&b ication, a so with eave of co&rt>// or
Page | 1270

245 an- other manner the co&rt madeem s&fficient. /! Iowever, in an action in per$ona# wherein the defendant is a non-re$ident who does not vo &ntari s&bmit himse f to the a&thorit- of the co&rt, persona service of s&mmons within the state is essentia to the ac%&isition of j&risdiction over her person. /4 This method of service is possib e if s&ch defendant is ph-sica present in the co&ntr-. If he is not fo&nd therein, the co&rt cannot ac%&ire j&risdiction over his person and therefore cannot va id - tr- and decide the case against him. /) 8n e6ception was aid down in Ge#perle v. c1en:er /( wherein a non*resident was served with s&mmons thro&gh his wife,
Page | 1271

who was a resident of the ;hi ippines and who was his representatives and attorne-*in*fact in a prior civi case fi ed b- him> moreover, the second case was a mere offshoot of the first case. 1n the other hand, in a proceeding in re# or 4ua$i in re#, j&risdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prere%&isite to confer j&risdiction on the co&rt provided that the co&rt ac%&ires j&risdiction over the re$. 3onethe ess s&mmons m&st be served &pon the defendant not for the p&rpose of vesting the co&rt with j&risdiction b&t mere - for satisf-ing the d&e process re%&irements. /# Th&s, where the defendant is a non*resident who is not fo&nd in the ;hi ippines and 2"5 the action affects the persona stat&s of the
Page | 1272

p aintiff> 2/5 the action re ates to, or the s&bject matter of which is propert- in the ;hi ippines in which the defendant has or c aims a ien or interest> 2!5 the action seeks the e6c &sion of the defendant from an- interest in the propert- ocated in the ;hi ippines> or 245 the propert- of the defendant has been attached in the ;hi ippines G service of s&mmons mabe effected b- 2a5 persona service o&t of the co&ntr-, with eave of co&rt> 2b5 p&b ication, a so with eave of co&rt, or 2c5 an- other manner the co&rt madeem s&fficient. /: In the case at bar, the action fi ed in Iong ?ong against IER8= was in per$ona#, since it was based on his persona g&arantee of the ob igation of the principa debtor. Hefore we can
Page | 1273

app - the foregoing r& es, we m&st determine first whether IER8= was a resident of Iong ?ong. .ort&nata de a Fega, IER8=9s persona secretar- in Iong ?ong since "$#/ &nti "$:), /$ testified that IER8= was the ;resident and part owner of a shipping compan- in Iong ?ong d&ring a those times that she served as his secretar-. Ie had in his emp o- a staff of twe ve. !' Ie had Db&siness commitments, &ndertakings, conferences, and appointments &nti 1ctober "$:4 when LheM eft Iong ?ong for good,D !" IER8=9s other witness, R&sse 0arren Ao&sich, testified that he had acted as co&nse for IER8= Dfor a n&mber of commercia matters.D !/ 8=I8FE=T then infers that
Page | 1274

IER8= was a resident of Iong ?ong beca&se he maintained a b&siness there. It m&st be noted that in his ,otion to Eismiss, !! as we as in his 8nswer !4 to 8=I8FE=T9s comp aint for the enforcement of the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment, IER8= maintained that the Iong ?ong co&rt did not have j&risdiction over him beca&se the f&ndamenta r& e is that j&risdiction in per$ona# over non-re$ident defendants , so as to s&stain a mone- j&dgment, m&st be based &pon persona service of s&mmons within the state which renders the j&dgment. !) .or its part, 8=I8FE=T, in its 1pposition to the ,otion to Eismiss !( contended< DThe %&estion of Iong ?ong co&rt9s
Page | 1275

9want of j&risdiction9 is therefore a triab e iss&e if it is to be p eaded b- the defendant to 9repe 9 the foreign j&dgment. .acts showing j&risdictiona ack 2e.". that the Iong ?ong s&it was in per$ona#, that defendant 0a$ not a re$ident of 7on" Kon" when the s&it was fi ed or that he did not vo &ntari s&bmit to the Iong ?ong co&rt9s j&risdiction5 sho& d be a eged and proved b- the defendant.D !# In his Rep - 2to the 1pposition to ,otion to Eismiss5, !: IER8= arg&ed that the ack of j&risdiction over his person was corroborated b- 8=I8FE=T9s a egation in the comp aint that he Dhas his residence at 3o. (, "st =t., 3ew ,ani a, O&e7on +it-, ;hi ippines.D Ie then conc &ded that s&ch j&dicia admission
Page | 1276

amo&nted to evidence that he was and is not a resident of Iong ?ong. =ignificant -, in the pre*tria conference, the parties came &p with stip& ations of facts, among which was that Dthe residence of defendant, 8ntonio Ieras, is 3ew ,ani a, O&e7on +it-.D !$ 0e note that the residence of IER8= insofar as the action for the enforcement of the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment is concerned, was never in iss&e. Ie never cha enged the service of s&mmons on him thro&gh a sec&ritg&ard in his O&e7on +it- residence and thro&gh a aw-er in his office in that cit-. In his ,otion to Eismiss, he did not %&estion the j&risdiction of the ;hi ippine co&rt over his person on the gro&nd of inva id service of s&mmons. 0hat was
Page | 1277

in iss&e was his residence as far as the Iong ?ong s&it was concerned. 0e therefore conc &de that the stip& ated fact that IER8= Dis a resident of 3ew ,ani a, O&e7on +it-, ;hi ippinesD refers to his residence at the time j&risdiction over his person was being so&ght b- the Iong ?ong co&rt. 0ith that stip& ation of fact, 8=I8FE=T cannot now c aim that IER8= was a resident of Iong ?ong at the time. 8ccording -, since IER8= was not a resident of Iong ?ong and the action against him was, indisp&tab -, one in per$ona#, s&mmons sho& d have been persona - served on him in Iong ?ong. The e6traterritoria service in the ;hi ippines was therefore inva id and did not confer on the Iong ?ong co&rt
Page | 1278

j&risdiction over his person. It fo ows that the Iong ?ong co&rt j&dgment cannot be given force and effect here in the ;hi ippines for having been rendered witho&t j&risdiction. Even ass&ming that IER8= was former - a resident of Iong ?ong, he was no onger so in 3ovember "$:4 when the e6traterritoria service of s&mmons was attempted to be made on him. 8s dec ared b- his secretar-, which statement was not disp&ted b8=I8FE=T, IER8= eft Iong ?ong in 1ctober "$:4 Dfor good.D 4' Iis absence in Iong ?ong m&st have been the reason wh- s&mmons was not served on him therein> th&s, 8=I8FE=T was constrained to app - for eave to effect service in the ;hi ippines, and &pon
Page | 1279

obtaining a favorab e action on the matter, it commissioned the =-cip =a a7ar Iernande7 X Gatmaitan aw firm to serve the s&mmons here in the ;hi ippines. In (ro0n v. (ro0n, 4" the defendant was previo&s - a resident of the ;hi ippines. =evera da-s after a crimina action for conc&binage was fi ed against him, he abandoned the ;hi ippines. Aater, a proceeding 4ua$i in re# was instit&ted against him. =&mmons in the atter case was served on the defendant9s attorne-* in*fact at the atter9s address. The +o&rt he d that &nder the facts of the case, it co& d not be said that the defendant was Dsti a resident of the ;hi ippines beca&se he haLdM escaped to his co&ntrand LwasM therefore an absentee in the
Page | 1280

;hi ippines.D 8s s&ch, he sho& d have been Ds&mmoned in the same manner as one who does not reside and is not fo&nd in the ;hi ippines.D =imi ar -, IER8=, who was a so an absentee, sho& d have been served with s&mmons in the same manner as a non* resident not fo&nd in Iong ?ong. =ection "#, R& e "4 of the R& es of +o&rt providing for e6traterritoria service wi not app - beca&se the s&it against him was in per$ona#. 3either can we app - =ection ":, which a ows e6traterritoria service on a resident defendant who is temporari - absent from the co&ntr-, beca&se even if IER8= be considered as a resident of Iong ?ong, the &ndisp&ted fact remains
Page | 1281

that he eft Iong ?ong not on Dtemporari -D b&t Dfor good.D I3 FIE0 1. 8AA TIE .1REG1I3G, j&dgment is hereb- rendered EE3CI3G the petition in this case and 8..IR,I3G the assai ed j&dgment of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. +F 3o. /$)"!. 3o costs.=1 1REEREE.

Page | 1282

:G.R. No. 13C;01. .e8 u& y 19, 2003< #ANU.A$,URERS HANOVER ,RUS, $O. &n(9o $HE#%$AL 6ANB, petitioners, vs. RA.AEL #A. GUERRERO, respondent. EE+I=I13 +8R;I1, J.<
Page | 1283

The +ase This is a petition for review &nder R& e 4) of the R& es of +o&rt to set aside the +o&rt of 8ppea sRL"M Eecision of 8&g&st /4, "$$: and Reso &tion of Eecember "4, "$$: in +8*G.R. =; 3o. 4/!"'L/M affirming the tria co&rtRs denia of petitionersR motion for partia s&mmar- j&dgment. The 8ntecedents 1n ,a- "#, "$$4, respondent Rafae ,a. G&errero 2PG&erreroQ for brevit-5 fi ed a comp aint for damages against petitioner ,an&fact&rers Ianover Tr&st +o. andJor +hemica Hank 2Pthe HankQ for brevit-5 with the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,ani a 2PRT+Q for brevit-5. G&errero so&ght pa-ment of damages a eged Page | 1284

for 2"5 i ega - withhe d ta6es charged against interests on his checking acco&nt with the Hank> 2/5 a ret&rned check worth U=@":,'''.'' d&e to signat&re verification prob ems> and 2!5 &na&thori7ed conversion of his acco&nt. G&errero amended his comp aint on 8pri ":, "$$). 1n =eptember ", "$$), the Hank fi ed its 8nswer a eging, inter alia, that bstip& ation G&erreroRs acco&nt is governed b- 3ew Cork aw and this aw does not permit an- of G&erreroRs c aims e6cept act&a damages. =&bse%&ent -, the Hank fi ed a ,otion for ;artia =&mmar- J&dgment seeking the dismissa of G&erreroRs c aims for conse%&entia , nomina , temperate, mora and e6emp arPage | 1285

damages as we as attorne-Rs fees on the same gro&nd a eged in its 8nswer. The Hank contended that the tria sho& d be imited to the iss&e of act&a damages. G&errero opposed the motion. The affidavit of 8 -ssa 0a den, a 3ew Cork attorne-, s&pported the HankRs ,otion for ;artia =&mmarJ&dgment. 8 -ssa 0a denRs affidavit 2P0a den affidavitQ for brevit-5 stated that G&erreroRs 3ew Cork bank acco&nt stip& ated that the governing aw is 3ew Cork aw and that this aw bars a of G&erreroRs c aims e6cept act&a damages. The ;hi ippine +ons& ar 1ffice in 3ew Cork a&thenticated the 0a den affidavit.
Page | 1286

The RT+ denied the HankRs ,otion for ;artia =&mmar- J&dgment and its motion for reconsideration on ,arch (, "$$( and J& "#, "$$(, respective -. The Hank fi ed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the +o&rt of 8ppea s assai ing the RT+ 1rders. In its Eecision dated 8&g&st /4, "$$:, the +o&rt of 8ppea s dismissed the petition. 1n Eecember "4, "$$:, the +o&rt of 8ppea s denied the HankRs motion for reconsideration. Ience, the instant petition. The R& ing of the +o&rt of 8ppea s The +o&rt of 8ppea s s&stained the RT+ orders den-ing the motion for partia s&mmar- j&dgment. The +o&rt of 8ppea s r& ed that the 0a den affidavit
Page | 1287

does not serve as proof of the 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence re ied on b- the Hank to s&pport its motion. The +o&rt of 8ppea s considered the 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence as p&b ic doc&ments defined in =ection "$, R& e "!/ of the R& es on Evidence, as fo ows< P=E+. "$. )la$$e$ of 9ocu#ent$. S .or the p&rpose of their presentation in evidence, doc&ments are either p&b ic or private. ;&b ic doc&ments are< 2a5 The written officia acts, or records of the officia acts of the sovereign a&thorit-, officia bodies and trib&na s, and p&b ic officers, whether of the ;hi ippines, or of a foreign co&ntr->
Page | 1288

6 6 6.Q The +o&rt of 8ppea s opined that the fo owing proced&re o&t ined in =ection /4, R& e "!/ sho& d be fo owed in proving foreign aw< P=E+. /4. 2roof of official record. S The record of p&b ic doc&ments referred to in paragraph 2a5 of =ection "$, when admissib e for an- p&rpose, ma- be evidenced b- an officia p&b ication thereof or b- a cop- attested b- the officer having the ega c&stod- of the record, or b- his dep&t-, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the ;hi ippines, with a certificate that s&ch officer has the c&stod-. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign co&ntr-, the certificate ma- be made b- a secretar- of the embass- or
Page | 1289

egation, cons& genera , cons& , vice cons& , or cons& ar agent or b- anofficer in the foreign service of the ;hi ippines stationed in the foreign co&ntr- in which the record is kept, and a&thenticated b- the sea of his office.Q The +o&rt of 8ppea s ikewise rejected the HankRs arg&ment that =ection /, R& e !4 of the o d R& es of +o&rt a ows the Hank to move with the s&pporting 0a den affidavit for partia s&mmarj&dgment in its favor. The +o&rt of 8ppea s c arified that the 0a den affidavit is not the s&pporting affidavit referred to in =ection /, R& e !4 that wo& d prove the ack of gen&ine iss&e between the parties. The +o&rt of 8ppea s conc &ded that even if the 0a den affidavit is &sed for p&rposes of
Page | 1290

s&mmar- j&dgment, the Hank m&st sti comp - with the proced&re prescribed bthe R& es to prove the foreign aw. The Iss&es The Hank contends that the +o&rt of 8ppea s committed reversib e error in * P6 6 6 I1AEI3G TI8T LTIE H83?R=M ;R11. 1. .8+T= T1 =U;;1RT IT= ,1TI13 .1R =U,,8RC JUEG,E3T ,8C 31T HE GIFE3 HC 8..IE8FIT> 6 6 6 I1AEI3G TI8T LTIE H83?R=M 8..IE8FIT, 0II+I ;R1FE= .1REIG3 A80 8= 8 .8+T, I= PIE8R=8CQ 83E TIEREHC V+8331T =ERFE 8= ;R11. 1. TIE 3E0 C1R? A80 REAIEE U;13 HC
Page | 1291

;ETITI13ER= I3 TIEIR ,1TI13 .1R =U,,8RC JUEG,E3T 6 6 6R.QL!M .irst, the Hank arg&es that in moving for partia s&mmar- j&dgment, it was entit ed to &se the 0a den affidavit to prove that the stip& ated foreign aw bars the c aims for conse%&entia , mora , temperate, nomina and e6emp ardamages and attorne-Rs fees. +onse%&ent -, o&tright dismissa b- s&mmar- j&dgment of these c aims is warranted. =econd, the Hank c aims that the +o&rt of 8ppea s mi6ed &p the re%&irements of R& e !) on s&mmarj&dgments and those of a tria on the merits in considering the 0a den affidavit as Phearsa-.Q The Hank points o&t that the 0a den affidavit is not
Page | 1292

hearsa- since R& e !) e6press - permits the &se of affidavits. Aast -, the Hank arg&es that since G&errero did not s&bmit an- opposing affidavit to ref&te the facts contained in the 0a den affidavit, he fai ed to show the need for a tria on his c aims for damages other than act&a . The +o&rtRs R& ing The petition is devoid of merit. The Hank fi ed its motion for partia s&mmar- j&dgment p&rs&ant to =ection /, R& e !4 of the o d R& es of +o&rt which reads< P=ection /. u##ar! jud"#ent for defendin" part!. S 8 part- against whom a c aim, co&nterc aim, or cross*
Page | 1293

c aim is asserted or a dec arator- re ief is so&ght ma-, at an- time, move with s&pporting affidavits for a s&mmarj&dgment in his favor as to a or anpart thereof.Q 8 co&rt ma- grant a s&mmarj&dgment to sett e e6peditio&s - a case if, on motion of either part-, there appears from the p eadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits that no important iss&es of fact are invo ved, e6cept the amo&nt of damages. In s&ch event, the moving part- is entit ed to a j&dgment as a matter of aw.L4M In a motion for s&mmar- j&dgment, the cr&cia %&estion is< are the iss&es raised in the p eadings "enuine, $1a# or fictitiou$, as
Page | 1294

shown b- affidavits, depositions or admissions accompan-ing the motionKL)M 8 gen&ine iss&e means an iss&e of fact which ca s for the presentation of evidence as disting&ished from an iss&e which is fictitiou$ orcontrived so as not to constit&te a gen&ine iss&e for tria .L(M 8 per&sa of the partiesR respective p eadings wo& d show that there are gen&ine iss&es of fact that necessitate forma tria . G&erreroRs comp aint before the RT+ contains a statement of the & timate facts on which he re ies for his c aim for damages. Ie is seeking damages for what he asserts as Pi ega - withhe d ta6es charged against interests on his checking acco&nt with the Hank, a ret&rned check worth U=@":,'''.'' d&e to signat&re
Page | 1295

verification prob ems, and &na&thori7ed conversion of his acco&nt.Q In its 8nswer, the Hank set &p its defense that the agreed foreign aw to govern their contract&a re ation bars the recover- of damages other than act&a . 8pparent -, facts are asserted in G&erreroRs comp aint whi e specific denia s and affirmative defenses are set o&t in the HankRs answer. Tr&e, the co&rt can determine whether there are gen&ine iss&es in a case based mere - on the affidavits or co&nter*affidavits s&bmitted b- the parties to the co&rt. Iowever, as correct - r& ed b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s, the HankRs motion for partia s&mmarj&dgment as s&pported b- the 0a den affidavit does not demonstrate that
Page | 1296

G&erreroRs c aims are sham, fictitio&s or contrived. 1n the contrar-, the 0a den affidavit shows that the facts and materia a egations as p eaded b- the parties are disp&ted and there are s&bstantia triab e iss&es necessitating a forma tria . There can be no s&mmar- j&dgment where %&estions of fact are in iss&e or where materia a egations of the p eadings are in disp&te.L#M The reso &tion of whether a foreign aw a ows on - the recover- of act&a damages is a %&estion of fact as far as the tria co&rt is concerned since foreign aws do not prove themse ves in o&r co&rts.L:M .oreign aws are not a matter of j&dicia notice.L$M Aike an- other fact, them&st be a eged and
Page | 1297

proven. +ertain -, the conf icting a egations as to whether 3ew Cork aw or ;hi ippine aw app ies to G&erreroRs c aims present a c ear disp&te on materia a egations which can be reso ved on - b- a tria on the merits. Under =ection /4 of R& e "!/, the record of p&b ic doc&ments of a sovereign a&thorit- or trib&na ma- be proved b2"5 an official pu/lication thereof or 2/5 a cop! atte$ted /! t1e officer 1avin" t1e le"al cu$tod! t1ereof. =&ch officia p&b ication or copm&st be accompanied, if the record is not kept in the ;hi ippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the ega c&stodthereof. The certificate ma- be iss&ed b- an- of the a&thori7ed ;hi ippine embass- or
Page | 1298

cons& ar officia s stationed in the foreign co&ntr- in which the record is kept, and a&thenticated b- the sea of his office. The attestation m&st state, in s&bstance, that the cop- is a correct cop- of the origina , or a specific part thereof, as the case ma- be, and m&st be &nder the officia sea of the attesting officer. +ertain e6ceptions to this r& e were recogni7ed in A$iave$t Li#ited v. )ourt of Appeal$L"'M which he d that< P6 6 6< 8 tho&gh it is desirab e that foreign aw be proved in accordance with the above r& e, however, the =&preme +o&rt he d in the case of Qilla#ette 3ron and teel Qor:$ v. Mu55al, that =ection 4", R& e "/! 2=ection /), R& e "!/ of the
Page | 1299

Revised R& es of +o&rt5 does not e6c &de the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the e6istence of a foreign aw. In that case, the =&preme +o&rt considered the testimon- &nder oath of an attorne-*at* aw of =an .rancisco, +a ifornia, who %&oted verbatim a section of +a ifornia +ivi +ode and who stated that the same was in force at the time the ob igations were contracted, as s&fficient evidence to estab ish the e6istence of said aw. 8ccording -, in ine with this view, the =&preme +o&rt in the )ollector of 3nternal %evenue v. Hi$1er et al., &phe d the Ta6 +o&rt in considering the pertinent aw of +a ifornia as proved bthe respondentsR witness. In that case, the co&nse for respondent Ptestified that as an active member of
Page | 1300

the +a ifornia Har since "$)", he is fami iar with the reven&e and ta6ation aws of the =tate of +a ifornia. 0hen asked b- the ower co&rt to state the pertinent +a ifornia aw as regards e6emption of intangib e persona properties, the witness cited 8rtic e 4, =ec. "!:)" 2a5 X 2b5 of the +a ifornia Interna and Reven&e +ode as p&b ished in EerringRs +a ifornia +ode, a p&b ication of Hancroft*0hitne- +o., Inc. 8nd as part of his testimon-, a f& %&otation of the cited section was offered in evidence brespondents.Q Aikewise, in severa nat&ra i7ation cases, it was he d b- the +o&rt that evidence of the aw of a foreign co&ntr- on reciprocit- regarding the ac%&isition of citi7enship, a tho&gh not meeting the prescribed r& e of
Page | 1301

practice, ma- be a owed and &sed as basis for favorab e action, if, in the ight of a the circ&mstances, the +o&rt is Psatisfied of the a&thenticit- of the written proof offered.Q Th&s, in a n&mber of decisions, mere a&thentication of the +hinese 3at&ra i7ation Aaw b- the +hinese +ons& ate Genera of ,ani a was he d to be competent proof of that aw.Q 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 The Hank, however, cannot re on Qilla#ette 3ron and teel Qor:$ v. Mu55al or )ollector of 3nternal %evenue v. Hi$1er to s&pport its ca&se. These cases invo ved attorne-s testif-ing in open co&rt d&ring the tria in the ;hi ippines and %&oting the partic& ar foreign aws so&ght to be
Page | 1302

estab ished. 1n the other hand, the 0a den affidavit was taken abroad e' parte and the affiant never testified in open co&rt. The 0a den affidavit cannot be considered as proof of 3ew Cork aw on damages not on - beca&se it is se f* serving b&t a so beca&se it does not state the specific 3ew Cork aw on damages. 0e reprod&ce portions of the 0a den affidavit as fo ows< P!. In 3ew Cork, PLnMomina damages are damages in name on -, trivia s&ms s&ch as si6 cents or @". =&ch damages are awarded both in tort and contract cases when the p aintiff estab ishes a ca&se of action against the defendant, b&t is &nab e to proveQ act&a damages. Eobbs, Aaw of Remedies, Z !.!/ at /$4 2"$$!5. =ince G&errero is
Page | 1303

c aiming for act&a damages, he cannot ask for nomina damages. 4. There is no concept of temperate damages in 3ew Cork aw. I have reviewed Eobbs, a we *respected treatise, which does not &se the phrase Ptemperate damagesQ in its inde6. I have a so done a comp&teri7ed search for the phrase in a p&b ished 3ew Cork cases, and have fo&nd no cases that &se it. I have never heard the phrase &sed in 8merican aw. ). The Uniform +ommercia +ode 2PU++Q5 governs man- aspects of a HankRs re ationship with its depositors. In this case, it governs G&erreroRs c aim arising o&t of the non* pa-ment of the @":,''' check. G&errero c aims that this was a
Page | 1304

wrongf& dishonor. Iowever, the U++ states that Pj&stifiab e ref&sa to pa- or acceptQ as opposed to dishonor, occ&rs when a bank ref&ses to pa- a check for reasons s&ch as a missing indorsement, a missing or i egib e signat&re or a forger-, Z !*)"', 1fficia +omment /. W.. to the +omp aint, ,IT ret&rned the check beca&se it had no signat&re card on W. and co& d not verifG&erreroRs signat&re. In m- opinion, consistent with the U++, that is a egitimate and j&stifiab e reason not to pa-. (. +onse%&entia damages are not avai ab e in the ordinar- case of a j&stifiab e ref&sa to pa-. U++ "*"'( provides that Pneither conse%&entia or specia or p&nitive damages ma- be had
Page | 1305

e6cept as specifica - provided in the 8ct or b- other r& e of awQ. U++ 4*"'! f&rther provides that conse%&entia damages can be recovered on - where there is bad faith. This is more restrictive than the 3ew Cork common aw, which ma- a ow conse%&entia damages in a breach of contract case 2as does the U++ where there is a wrongf& dishonor5. #. Under 3ew Cork aw, re%&ests for ost profits, damage to rep&tation and menta distress are considered conse%&entia damages. ?enford +o., Inc. v. +o&ntrof Erie, #! 3.C./d !"/, !"$, )4' 3.C.=./d ", 4*) 2"$:$5 2 ost profits5> ,otif +onstr&ction +orp. v. H&ffa o =avings Hank, )' 8.E./d #":, !#4 3.C.=../d :(:, :($*#' 24th EepRt
Page | 1306

"$#)5 damage to rep&tation5> Eobbs, Aaw of Remedies Z"/.42"5 at (! 2emotiona distress5. :. 8s a matter of 3ew Cork aw, a c aim for emotiona distress cannot be recovered for a breach of contract. Ge er v. 3ationa 0estminster Hank U.=.8., ##' .. =&pp. /"', /") 2=.E.3.C. "$$"5> ;itchere o v. ,oraIomes, Atd., ")' 8.E./d :(',)4' 3.C.=./d !:#, !$' 2!d EepRt "$:$5 ,artin v. Eona d ;ark 8cres, )4 8.E./d $#), !:$ 3.C.=../d !", !/ 2/nd EepRt "$#(5. Eamage to rep&tation is a so not recoverab e for a contract. ,otif +onstr&ction +orp. v. H&ffa o =avings Hank, !#4 3.C.=./d at :($*#'.
Page | 1307

$. In cases where the iss&e is the breach of a contract to p&rchase stock, 3ew Cork co&rts wi not take into consideration the performance of the stock after the breach. Rather, damages wi be based on the va &e of the stock at the time of the breach, 8roneck v. 8tkin, $' 8.E./d $((, 4)( 3.C.=./d )):, ))$ 24th EepRt "$:/5, app. den. )$ 3.C./d ('", 44$ 3.E./d "/#(, 4(! 3.C.=./d "'/! 2"$:!5. "'. Under 3ew Cork aw, a part- can on - get conse%&entia damages if thewere the t-pe that wo& d nat&ra - arise from the breach and if the- were Pbro&ght within the contemp ation of parties as the probab e res& t of the breach at the time of or prior to
Page | 1308

contracting.Q ?enford +o., Inc. v. +o&ntr- of Erie, #! 3.C./d !"/, !"$, )4' 3.C.=./d ", ! 2"$:$5, 2%&oting +hapman v. .argo, //! 3.C. !/, !( 2"$":5. "". Under 3ew Cork aw, a p aintiff is not entit ed to attorne-sR fees &n ess the- are provided b- contract or stat&te. E.g., Ge er v. 3ationa 0estminster Hank, ##' .. =&pp. /"', /"! 2=.E.3.C. "$$"5> +amatron =ewing ,ach, Inc. v. ..,. Ring 8ssocs., Inc., "#$ 8.E./d "(), ):/ 3.C.=./d !$( 2"st EepRt "$$/5> =tanisic v. =oho Aandmark 8ssocs., #! 8.E./d /(:, )## 3.C.=./d /:', /:" 2"st EepRt "$$"5. There is no stat&te that permits attorne-Rs fees in a case of this t-pe.
Page | 1309

"/. E6emp ar-, or p&nitive damages are not a owed for a breach of contract, even where the p aintiff c aims the defendant acted with ma ice. Ge er v. 3ationa 0estminster Hank, ##' ..=&pp. /"', /") 2=.E.3.C. "$$"5> +ata og&e =ervice of W chesterL""M[v. Ins&rance +o. of 3orth 8merica, #4 8.E./d :!#, :!:, 4/) 3.C.=./d (!), (!# 2/d EepRt "$:'5> =enior v. ,an&fact&rers Ianover Tr&st +o., ""' 8.E./d :!!, 4:: 3.C.=./d /4", /4/ 2/d EepRt "$:)5. "!. E6emp ar- or p&nitive damages mabe recovered on - where it is a eged and proven that the wrong s&pposed committed b- defendant amo&nts to a fra&d aimed at the p&b ic genera - and invo ves a high mora
Page | 1310

c& pabi it-. 0a ker v. =he don, "' 3.C./d 4'", "#$ 3.E./d 4$#, //! 3.C.=./d 4:: 2"$("5. "4. .&rthermore, it has been consistent - he d &nder 3ew Cork aw that e6emp ar- damages are not avai ab e for a mere breach of contract for in s&ch a case, as a matter of aw, on - a private wrong and not a p&b ic right is invo ved. Tha er v. The 3orth Ins&rance +ompan-, (! 8.E./d $/", 4'( 3.C.=./d (( 2"st EepRt "$#:5.QL"/M The 0a den affidavit states conc &sions from the affiantRs persona interpretation and opinion of the facts of the case vi$ a vi$ the a eged aws and j&rispr&dence witho&t citing an- aw in partic& ar. The citations in the 0a den affidavit of vario&s U.=. co&rt decisions
Page | 1311

do not constit&te proof of the officia records or decisions of the U.=. co&rts. 0hi e the Hank attached copies of some of the U.=. co&rt decisions cited in the 0a den affidavit, these copies do not comp - with =ection /4 of R& e "!/ on proof of officia records or decisions of foreign co&rts.The HankRs intention in presenting the 0a den affidavit is to prove 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence. Iowever, beca&se of the fai &re to comp - with =ection /4 of R& e "!/ on how to prove a foreign aw and decisions of foreign co&rts, the 0a den affidavit did not prove the c&rrent state of 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence. Th&s, the Hank has on a eged, b&t has not proved, what 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence are on the matters at iss&e.3e6t, the Hank makes
Page | 1312

m&ch of G&erreroRs fai &re to s&bmit an opposing affidavit to the 0a den affidavit. Iowever, the pertinent provision of =ection !, R& e !) of the o d R& es of +o&rt did not make the s&bmission of an opposing affidavit mandator-, th&s< P=E+. !. Motion and proceedin"$ t1ereon. S The motion sha be served at east ten 2"'5 da-s before the time specified for the hearing. The adverse part- prior to the da- of hearing maserve opposing affidavits. 8fter the hearing, the j&dgment so&ght sha be rendered forthwith if the p eadings, depositions and admissions on fi e, together with the affidavits, show that, e6cept as to the amo&nt of damages, there is no gen&ine iss&e as to anPage | 1313

materia fact and that the moving partis entit ed to a j&dgment as a matter of aw.Q 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 It is a6iomatic that the term Pma-Q as &sed in remedia aw, is on - permissive and not mandator-.L"!MG&errero cannot be said to have admitted the averments in the HankRs motion for partia s&mmarj&dgment and the 0a den affidavit j&st beca&se he fai ed to fi e an opposing affidavit. G&errero opposed the motion for partia s&mmar- j&dgment, a tho&gh he did not present an opposing affidavit. G&errero ma- not have presented an opposing affidavit, as there was no need for one, beca&se the 0a den affidavit did not estab ish what the Hank intended to prove. +ertain -, G&errero did not admit, e6press - or
Page | 1314

imp ied -, the veracit- of the statements in the 0a den affidavit. The Hank sti had the b&rden of proving 3ew Cork aw and j&rispr&dence even if G&errero did not present an opposing affidavit. 8s the part- moving for s&mmar- j&dgment, the Hank has the b&rden of c ear demonstrating the absence of angen&ine iss&e of fact and that an- do&bt as to the e6istence of s&ch iss&e is reso ved against the movant.L"4M ,oreover, it wo& d have been red&ndant and point ess for G&errero to s&bmit an opposing affidavit considering that what the Hank seeks to be opposed is the ver- s&bject matter of the comp aint. G&errero need not fi e an opposing affidavit to the 0a den affidavit beca&se his comp aint itse f controverts
Page | 1315

the matters set forth in the HankRs motion and the 0a den affidavit. 8 partsho& d not be made to den- matters a read- averred in his comp aint. There being s&bstantia triab e iss&es between the parties, the co&rts a 4uo correct - denied the HankRs motion for partia s&mmar- j&dgment. There is a need to determine b- presentation of evidence in a reg& ar tria if the Hank is g&i t- of an- wrongdoing and if it is iab e for damages &nder the app icab e aws. This case has been de a-ed ong eno&gh b- the HankRs resort to a motion for partia s&mmarj&dgment. Ironica -, the Hank has s&ccessf& - defeated the ver- p&rpose for which s&mmar- j&dgments were devised in o&r r& es, which is, to aid
Page | 1316

parties in avoiding the e6pense and oss of time invo ved in a tria . 0IERE.1RE, the petition is EE3IEE for ack of merit. The Eecision dated 8&g&st /4, "$$: and the Reso &tion dated Eecember "4, "$$: of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. =; 3o. 4/!"' is 8..IR,EE.=1 1REEREE. :G.R. No. 119C02. O-to8e C, 2000< E%LDVALLE4 SH%**%NG $O., L,D. petitioner, vs. $OUR, O. A**EALS &n( *H%L%**%NE *RES%DEN, L%NES %N$., respondents. EE+I=I13 HUE38, J.<
Page | 1317

This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s which reversed the decision of the ower co&rt in +8*G.R. +F 3o. !(:/", entit ed D0i dva e- =hipping +o., Atd., p aintiff* appe ant, vers&s ;hi ippine ;resident Aines, Inc., defendant*appe ant.D The antecedent facts of the case are as fo ows< =ometime in .ebr&ar- "$::, the ;hi ippine Ro6as, a vesse owned b;hi ippine ;resident Aines, Inc., private respondent herein, arrived in ;&erto 1rda7, Fene7&e a, to oad iron ore. Upon the comp etion of the oading and when the vesse was read- to eave port, ,r. E77ar de Fa e =o ar7ano Fas%&e7, an officia pi ot of Fene7&e a,
Page | 1318

was designated b- the harbo&r a&thorities in ;&erto 1rda7 to navigate the ;hi ippine Ro6as thro&gh the 1rinoco River.L"M Ie was asked to pi ot the said vesse on .ebr&ar- "", "$::L/M boarding it that night at ""<'' p.m.L!M The master 2captain5 of the ;hi ippine Ro6as, +aptain 3icandro +o on, was at the bridge together with the pi ot 2Fas%&e75, the vesse 9s third mate 2then the officer on watch5, and a he msman when the vesse eft the portL4M at "<4' a.m. on .ebr&ar- "/, "$::.L)M +aptain +o on eft the bridge when the vesse was &nder wa-.L(M The ;hi ippine Ro6as e6perienced some vibrations when it entered the =an Ro%&e +hanne at mi e "#/.L#M The
Page | 1319

vesse proceeded on its wa-, with the pi ot ass&ring the watch officer that the vibration was a res& t of the sha owness of the channe .L:M Hetween mi e "): and ")#, the vesse again e6perienced some vibrations. L$M These occ&rred at 4<"/ a.m.L"'M It was then that the watch officer ca ed the master to the bridge.L""M The master 2captain5 checked the position of the vesse L"/M and verified that it was in the centre of the channe .L"!M Ie then went to confirm, or set down, the position of the vesse on the chart.L"4M Ie ordered =imp icio 8. ,onis, +hief 1fficer of the ;resident Ro6as, to check a the do&b e bottom tanks.L")M 8t aro&nd 4<!) a.m., the ;hi ippine Ro6as ran agro&nd in the 1rinoco River,
Page | 1320

L"(M

th&s obstr&cting the ingress and egress of vesse s. 8s a res& t of the b ockage, the ,a andrinon, a vesse owned b- herein petitioner 0i dva e- =hipping +ompan-, Atd., was &nab e to sai o&t of ;&erto 1rda7 on that da-. =&bse%&ent -, 0i dva e- =hipping +ompan-, Atd. fi ed a s&it with the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,ani a, Hranch III against ;hi ippine ;resident Aines, Inc. and ;ioneer Ins&rance +ompan2the &nderwriterJins&rer of ;hi ippine Ro6as5 for damages in the form of &nearned profits, and interest thereon amo&nting to U= @4'','''.'' p &s attorne-9s fees, costs, and e6penses of itigation. The comp aint against ;ioneer
Page | 1321

Ins&rance +ompan- was dismissed in an 1rder dated 3ovember #, "$::.L"#M 8t the pre*tria conference, the parties agreed on the fo owing facts< D". The j&risdictiona facts, as specified in their respective p eadings> D/. That defendant ;;A was the owner of the vesse ;hi ippine Ro6as at the time of the incident> D!. That defendant ;ioneer Ins&rance was the ins&rance &nderwriter for defendant ;;A> D4. That p aintiff 0i dva e- =hipping +o., Inc. is the owner of the vesse ,a andrinon, whose passage was obstr&cted b- the vesse ;hi ippine Ro6as at ;&erto 1rda7, Fene7&e a, as
Page | 1322

specified in par. 4, page / of the comp aint> D). That on .ebr&ar- "/, "$::, whi e the ;hi ippine Ro6as was navigating the channe at ;&erto 1rda7, the said vesse gro&nded and as a res& t, obstr&cted navigation at the channe > D(. That the 1rinoco River in ;&erto 1rda7 is a comp& sor- pi otage channe > D#. That at the time of the incident, the vesse , ;hi ippine Ro6as, was &nder the command of the pi ot E77ar =o ar7ano, assigned b- the government thereat, b&t p aintiff c aims that it is &nder the command of the master> D:. The p aintiff fi ed a case in ,idd eb&rg, Io and which is re ated to the present case>
Page | 1323

D$. The p aintiff ca&sed the arrest of the ;hi ippine +o ier, a vesse owned b- the defendant ;;A> D"'. The 1rinoco River is ")' mi es ong and it takes appro6imate - "/ ho&rs to navigate o&t of the said river> D"". That no sec&rit- for the p aintiff9s c aim was given &nti after the ;hi ippine +o ier was arrested> and D"/. That a etter of g&arantee, dated "/*,a-*:: was iss&ed bthe =teamship ,&t&a Underwriters Atd.DL":M The tria co&rt rendered its decision on 1ctober "(, "$$" in favor of the petitioner, 0i dva e- =hipping +o., Atd. The dispositive portion thereof reads as fo ows<
Page | 1324

D0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is rendered for the p aintiff, ordering defendant ;hi ippine ;resident Aines, Inc. to pa- to the p aintiff the s&m of U.=. @/)$,/4!.4!, as act&a and compensator- damages, and U.=. @"(/,'!".)!, as e6penses inc&rred abroad for its foreign aw-ers, p &s additiona s&m of U.=. @//,'''.'', as and for attorne-9s fees of p aintiff9s oca aw-er, and to pa- the cost of this s&it. DEefendant9s co&nterc aim is dismissed for ack of merit. D=1 1REEREE.DL"$M Hoth parties appea ed< the petitioner appea ing the non*award of interest with the private respondent %&estioning the decision on the merits of the case.
Page | 1325

8fter the re%&isite p eadings had been fi ed, the +o&rt of 8ppea s came o&t with its %&estioned decision dated J&ne "4, "$$4,L/'M the dispositive portion of which reads as fo ows< D0IERE.1RE, finding defendant* appe ant9s appea to be meritorio&s, j&dgment is hereb- rendered reversing the Eecision of the ower co&rt. ; aintiff* appe ant9s +omp aint is dismissed and it is ordered to pa- defendant*appe ant the amo&nt of Three I&ndred Twent-* three Tho&sand, .ort-*two ;esos and .ift-*three +entavos 2;!/!,'4/.)!5 as and for attorne-9s fees p &s cost of s&it. ; aintiff*appe ant9s appea is EI=,I==EE. D=1 1REEREE.DL/"M
Page | 1326

;etitioner fi ed a motion for reconsiderationL//M b&t the same was denied for ack of merit in the reso &tion dated ,arch /$, "$$).L/!M Ience, this petition. The petitioner assigns the fo owing errors to the co&rt a 4uo< ". RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 .I3EI3G TI8T U3EER ;IIAI;;I3E A80 31 .8UAT 1R 3EGAIGE3+E +83 HE 8TTRIHUTEE T1 TIE ,8=TER 31R TIE 103ER 1. TIE D;IIAI;;I3E R1N8=D .1R TIE GR1U3EI3G 1. =8IE FE==EA RE=UATI3G I3 TIE HA1+?8GE 1. TIE RI1 1RI31+1>
Page | 1327

/. RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 REFER=I3G TIE .I3EI3G= 1. .8+T= 1. TIE TRI8A +1URT +13TR8RC T1 EFIEE3+E> !. RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 .I3EI3G TI8T TIE D;IIAI;;I3E R1N8=D I= =E801RTIC> 4. RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 EI=REG8REI3G FE3EZUEA83 A80 EE=;ITE TIE .8+T TI8T TIE =8,E I8= HEE3 =UH=T83TI8AAC ;R1FEE I3 TIE TRI8A +1URT 0ITI1UT 83C 1HJE+TI13 .R1, ;RIF8TE RE=;13EE3T, 83E 0I1=E
Page | 1328

1HJE+TI13 08= I3TER;1=EE HEA8TEEAC 13 8;;E8A> ). RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 808REI3G 8TT1R3EC9= .EE= 83E +1=T= T1 ;RIF8TE RE=;13EE3T 0ITI1UT 83C .8IR 1R RE8=138HAE H8=I= 0I8T=1EFER> (. RE=;13EE3T +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= =ERI1U=AC ERREE I3 31T .I3EI3G TI8T ;ETITI13ER9= +8U=E I= ,ERIT1RI1U= IE3+E, ;ETITI13ER =I1UAE HE E3TITAEE T1 8TT1R3EC9= .EE=, +1=T= 83E I3TERE=T. The petition is witho&t merit.
Page | 1329

The primar- iss&e to be determined is whether or not Fene7&e an aw is app icab e to the case at bar. It is we *sett ed that foreign aws do not prove themse ves in o&r j&risdiction and o&r co&rts are not a&thori7ed to take j&dicia notice of them.Aike another fact, the- m&st be a eged and proved.L/4M 8 distinction is to be made as to the manner of proving a written and an &nwritten aw. The former fa s &nder =ection /4, R& e "!/ of the R& es of +o&rt, as amended, the entire provision of which is %&oted here&nder. 0here the foreign aw so&ght to be proved is D&nwritten,D the ora testimon- of e6pert witnesses is admissib e, as are printed and p&b ished books of reports of
Page | 1330

decisions of the co&rts of the co&ntrconcerned if proved to be common admitted in s&ch co&rts.L/)M =ection /4 of R& e "!/ of the R& es of +o&rt, as amended, provides< D=ec. /4. ;roof of officia record. ** The record of p&b ic doc&ments referred to in paragraph 2a5 of =ection "$, when admissib e for an- p&rpose, ma- be evidenced b- an officia p&b ication thereof or b- a cop- attested b- the officer having the ega c&stod- of the record, or b- his dep&t-, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the ;hi ippines, with a certificate that s&ch officer has the c&stod-. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign co&ntr-, the certificate ma- be made ba secretar- of the embass- or egation,
Page | 1331

cons& genera , cons& , vice cons& , or cons& ar agent or b- an- officer in the foreign service of the ;hi ippines stationed in the foreign co&ntr- in which the record is kept, and a&thenticated bthe sea of his office.D 2Underscoring s&pp ied5 The co&rt has interpreted =ection /) 2now =ection /45 to inc &de competent evidence ike the testimon- of a witness to prove the e6istence of a written foreign aw.L/(M In the noted case of Qilla#ette 3ron R teel Qor:$ v$. Mu55al,L/#M it was he d that< DW ,r. 8rth&r 0. Ho ton, an attorne-*at* aw of =an .rancisco, +a ifornia, since the -ear "$": &nder oath, %&oted verbatim section !// of the +a ifornia
Page | 1332

+ivi +ode and stated that said section was in force at the time the ob igations of defendant to the p aintiff were inc&rred, i.e. on 3ovember ), "$/: and Eecember //, "$/:. This evidence s&fficient - estab ished the fact that the section in %&estion was the aw of the =tate of +a ifornia on the above dates. 8 reading of sections !'' and !'" of o&r +ode of +ivi ;roced&re wi convince one that these sections do not e6c &de the presentation of other competent evidence to prove the e6istence of a foreign aw. D\The foreign aw is a matter of fact W Co& ask the witness what the aw is> he ma-, from his reco ection, or on prod&cing and referring to books, sawhat it is.9 2Aord +ampbe conc&rring in
Page | 1333

an opinion of Aord +hief J&stice Eenman in a we *known Eng ish case where a witness was ca ed &pon to prove the Roman aws of marriage and was permitted to testif-, tho&gh he referred to a book containing the decrees of the +o&nci of Trent as contro ing, Jones on Evidence, =econd Edition, Fo &me 4, pages !"4:*!")/.5 6 6 6.Q 0e do not disp&te the competenc- of +apt. 1scar Aeon ,on7on, the 8ssistant Iarbor ,aster and +hief of ;i ots at ;&erto 1rda7, Fene7&e a,L/:M to testif- on the e6istence of the %e"la#ento General de la Le! de 2ilotaje 2pi otage aw of Fene7&e a5L/$M and the %e"la#ento 2ara la Aona de 2ilotaje &o 1 del Orinoco 2r& es
Page | 1334

governing the navigation of the 1rinoco River5. +aptain ,on7on has he d the aforementioned posts for eight -ears. L!'M 8s s&ch he is in charge of designating the pi ots for mane&vering and navigating the 1rinoco River. Ie is a so in charge of the doc&ments that come into the office of the harbo&r masters.L!"M 3everthe ess, we take note that these written aws were not proven in the manner provided b- =ection /4 of R& e "!/ of the R& es of +o&rt. The %e"la#ento General de la Le! de 2ilotaje was p&b ished in the Gaceta OficialL!/Mof the Rep&b ic of Fene7&e a. 8 photocop- of theGaceta Oficial was presented in evidence as an officia
Page | 1335

p&b ication of the Rep&b ic of Fene7&e a. The %e"la#ento 2ara la Aona de 2ilotaje &o 1 del Orinoco is p&b ished in a book iss&ed b- the Mini$terio de )o#unicacione$ of Fene7&e a.L!!M 1n - a photocop- of the said r& es was ikewise presented as evidence. Hoth of these doc&ments are considered in ;hi ippine j&rispr&dence to be p&b ic doc&ments for the- are the written officia acts, or records of the officia acts of the sovereign a&thorit-, officia bodies and trib&na s, and p&b ic officers of Fene7&e a.L!4M .or a cop- of a foreign p&b ic doc&ment to be admissib e, the fo owing re%&isites are mandator-< 2"5 It m&st be attested b- the officer having
Page | 1336

ega c&stod- of the records or b- his dep&t-> and 2/5 It m&st be accompanied b- a certificate b- a secretar- of the embass- or egation, cons& genera , cons& , vice cons& ar or cons& ar agent or foreign service officer, and with the sea of his office.L!)M The atter re%&irement is not a mere technica itb&t is intended to j&stif- the giving of f& faith and credit to the gen&ineness of a doc&ment in a foreign co&ntr-.L!(M It is not eno&gh that the Gaceta Oficial, or a book p&b ished bthe Mini$terio de )o#unicacione$ of Fene7&e a, was presented as evidence with +aptain ,on7on attesting it. It is a so re%&ired b- =ection /4 of R& e "!/ of the R& es of +o&rt that a certificate that +aptain ,on7on, who attested the
Page | 1337

doc&ments, is the officer who had ega c&stod- of those records made b- a secretar- of the embass- or egation, cons& genera , cons& , vice cons& or cons& ar agent or b- an- officer in the foreign service of the ;hi ippines stationed in Fene7&e a, and a&thenticated b- the sea of his office accompan-ing the cop- of the p&b ic doc&ment. 3o s&ch certificate co& d be fo&nd in the records of the case. 0ith respect to proof of written aws, paro proof is objectionab e, for the written aw itse f is the best evidence. 8ccording to the weight of a&thorit-, when a foreign stat&te is invo ved, the best evidence r& e re%&ires that it be proved b- a d& - a&thenticated cop- of the stat&te.L!#M
Page | 1338

8t this j&nct&re, we have to point o&t that the Fene7&e an aw was not p eaded before the ower co&rt. 8 foreign aw is considered to be p eaded if there is an a egation in the p eading abo&t the e6istence of the foreign aw, its import and ega conse%&ence on the event or transaction in iss&e.L!:M 8 review of the +omp aintL!$M revea ed that it was never a eged or invoked despite the fact that the gro&nding of the ,JF ;hi ippine Ro6as occ&rred within the territoria j&risdiction of Fene7&e a. 0e reiterate that &nder the r& es of private internationa aw, a foreign aw m&st be proper - p eaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of p eading and proof, the aws of a foreign co&ntr-, or
Page | 1339

state, wi be pres&med to be the same as o&r own oca or domestic aw and this is known as process&a pres&mption.L4'M Iaving c eared this point, we now proceed to a thoro&gh st&d- of the errors assigned b- the petitioner. ;etitioner a eges that there was neg igence on the part of the private respondent that wo& d warrant the award of damages. There being no contract&a ob igation, the private respondent is ob iged to give on - the di igence re%&ired of a good father of a fami - in accordance with the provisions of 8rtic e ""#! of the 3ew +ivi +ode, th&s< P8rt. ""#!. The fa& t or neg igence of the ob igor consists in the omission of that
Page | 1340

di igence which is re%&ired b- the nat&re of the ob igation and corresponds with the circ&mstances of the persons, of the time and of the p ace. 0hen neg igence shows bad faith, the provisions of artic es ""#" and //'", paragraph /, sha app -. PIf the aw or contract does not state the di igence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is e6pected of a good father of a fami - sha be re%&ired.Q The di igence of a good father of a fami - re%&ires on - that di igence which an ordinar- pr&dent man wo& d e6ercise with regard to his own propert-. This we have fo&nd private respondent to have e6ercised when the vesse sai ed on after the Dmain engine, machineries, and
Page | 1341

other a&6i iariesD were checked and fo&nd to be in good r&nning condition> L4"M when the master eft a competent officer, the officer on watch on the bridge with a pi ot who is e6perienced in navigating the 1rinoco River> when the master ordered the inspection of the vesse 9s do&b e bottom tanks when the vibrations occ&rred anew.L4/M The ;hi ippine r& es on pi otage, embodied in ;hi ippine ;orts 8&thorit8dministrative 1rder 3o. '!*:), otherwise known as the R& es and Reg& ations Governing ;i otage =ervices, the +ond&ct of ;i ots and ;i otage .ees in ;hi ippine ;orts en&nciate the d&ties and responsibi ities of a master of a vesse and its pi ot, among other things.
Page | 1342

The pertinent provisions of the said administrative order governing these persons are %&oted here&nder< P=ec. "". +ontro of Fesse s and Aiabi itfor Eamage. ** 1n comp& sor- pi otage gro&nds, the Iarbor ;i ot providing the service to a vesse sha be responsib e for the damage ca&sed to a vesse or to ife and propert- at ports d&e to his neg igence or fa& t. Ie can be abso ved from iabi it- if the accident is ca&sed bforce maje&re or nat&ra ca amities provided he has e6ercised pr&dence and e6tra di igence to prevent or minimi7e the damage. PThe ,aster sha retain overa command of the vesse even on pi otage gro&nds whereb- he can co&ntermand or overr& e the order or command of the
Page | 1343

Iarbor ;i ot on board. In s&ch event, an- damage ca&sed to a vesse or to ife and propert- at ports b- reason of the fa& t or neg igence of the ,aster sha be the responsibi it- and iabi it- of the registered owner of the vesse concerned witho&t prej&dice to reco&rse against said ,aster. P=&ch iabi it- of the owner or ,aster of the vesse or its pi ots sha be determined b- competent a&thorit- in appropriate proceedings in the ight of the facts and circ&mstances of each partic& ar case. P6 6 6 P=ec. !/. E&ties and Responsibi ities of the ;i ots or ;i otsR 8ssociation. ** The
Page | 1344

d&ties and responsibi ities of the Iarbor ;i ot sha be as fo ows< P6 6 6 Pf5 8 pi ot sha be he d responsib e for the direction of a vesse from the time he ass&mes his work as a pi ot thereof &nti he eaves it anchored or berthed safe -> ;rovided, however, that his responsibi it- sha cease at the moment the ,aster neg ects or ref&ses to carro&t his order.D The +ode of +ommerce ikewise provides for the ob igations e6pected of a captain of a vesse , to wit< P8rt. ("/. The fo owing ob igations sha be inherent in the office of captain< P6 6 6
Page | 1345

D#. To be on deck on reaching and and to take command on entering and eaving ports, cana s, roadsteads, and rivers, &n ess there is a pi ot on board discharging his d&ties. 6 6 6.Q The aw is ver- e6p icit. The master remains the overa commander of the vesse even when there is a pi ot on board. Ie remains in contro of the ship as he can sti perform the d&ties conferred &pon him b- awL4!M despite the presence of a pi ot who is temporari - in charge of the vesse . It is not re%&ired of him to be on the bridge whi e the vesse is being navigated b- a pi ot. Iowever, =ection : of ;;8 8dministrative 1rder 3o. '!*:), provides<
Page | 1346

P=ec. :. )o#pul$or! 2ilota"e ervice * .or entering a harbor and anchoring thereat, or passing thro&gh rivers or straits within a pi otage district, as we as docking and &ndocking at anpierJwharf, or shifting from one berth or another, ever- vesse engaged in coastwise and foreign trade sha be &nder comp& sor- pi otage. P666.Q The 1rinoco River being a comp& sorpi otage channe necessitated the engaging of a pi ot who was pres&med to be know edgeab e of ever- shoa , bank, deep and sha ow ends of the river. In his deposition, pi ot E77ar =o ar7ano Fas%&e7 testified that he is an officia pi ot in the Iarbo&r at ;ort 1rda7, Fene7&e a,L44M and that he had
Page | 1347

been a pi ot for twe ve 2"/5 -ears.L4)M Ie a so had e6perience in navigating the waters of the 1rinoco River.L4(M The aw does provide that the master can co&ntermand or overr& e the order or command of the harbor pi ot on board. The master of the ;hi ippine Ro6as deemed it best not to order him 2the pi ot5 to stop the vesse ,L4#M ma-hap, beca&se the atter had ass&red him that the- were navigating norma - before the gro&nding of the vesse . L4:M ,oreover, the pi ot had admitted that on acco&nt of his e6perience he was ver- fami iar with the config&ration of the river as we as the co&rse headings, and that he does not even refer to river charts when navigating the 1rinoco River.L4$M
Page | 1348

Hased on these dec arations, it comes as no s&rprise to &s that the master chose not to regain contro of the ship. 8dmitting his imited know edge of the 1rinoco River, +aptain +o on re ied on the know edge and e6perience of pi ot Fas%&e7 to g&ide the vesse safe -. PAicensed pi ots, enjo-ing the emo &ments of comp& sor- pi otage, are in a different c ass from ordinaremp o-ees, for the- ass&me to have a ski and a know edge of navigation in the partic& ar waters over which their icenses e6tend s&perior to that of the master> pi ots are bo&nd to &se d&e di igence and reasonab e care and ski . 8 pi ot9s ordinar- ski is in proportion to the pi ot9s responsibi ities, and imp ies a know edge and
Page | 1349

observance of the &s&a r& es of navigation, ac%&aintance with the waters pi oted in their ordinar- condition, and na&tica ski in avoiding a known obstr&ctions. The character of the ski and know edge re%&ired of a pi ot in charge of a vesse on the rivers of a co&ntr- is ver- different from that which enab es a navigator to carr- a vesse safe - in the ocean. 1n the ocean, a know edge of the r& es of navigation, with charts that disc ose the p aces of hidden rocks, dangero&s shores, or other dangers of the wa-, are the main e ements of a pi ot9s know edge and ski . H&t the pi ot of a river vesse , ike the harbor pi ot, is se ected for the individ&a 9s persona know edge of the topograph- thro&gh which the vesse is steered.DL)'M
Page | 1350

0e find that the gro&nding of the vesse is attrib&tab e to the pi ot. 0hen the vibrations were first fe t the watch officer asked him what was going on, and pi ot Fas%&e7 rep ied that D2the-5 were in the midd e of the channe and that the vibration was as 2sic5 a res& t of the sha owness of the channe .DL)"M ;i ot E77ar =o ar7ano Fas%&e7 was assigned to pi ot the vesse ;hi ippine Ro6as as we as other vesse s on the 1rinoco River d&e to his know edge of the same. In his e6perience as a pi ot, he sho& d have been aware of the portions which are sha ow and which are not. Iis fai &re to determine the depth of the said river and his decision to p od on his set co&rse, in a probabi it-, ca&sed damage to the
Page | 1351

vesse . Th&s, we ho d him as neg igent and iab e for its gro&nding. In the case of 7o#er %a#$dell Tran$portation )o#pan! v$. La )o#pa"nie Generale Tran$atlanti4ue, ":/ U.=. 4'(, it was he d that< P6 6 6 The master of a ship, and the owner a so, is iab e for an- inj&r- done b- the neg igence of the crew emp o-ed in the ship. The same doctrine wi app to the case of a pi ot emp o-ed b- the master or owner, b- whose neg igence an- inj&r- happens to a third person or his propert-< as, for e6amp e, b- a co ision with another ship, occasioned b- his neg igence. 8nd it wi make no difference in the case that the pi ot, if an- is emp o-ed, is re%&ired to be a icensed pi ot> provided the master is at
Page | 1352

ibert- to take a pi ot, or not, at his p eas&re, for in s&ch a case the master acts vo &ntari -, a tho&gh he is necessari - re%&ired to se ect from a partic& ar c ass. 1n the other hand, if it is comp& sive &pon the master to take a pi ot, and, a fortiori, if he is bo&nd to do so &nder pena t-, then, and in s&ch case, neither he nor the owner wi be iab e for inj&ries occasioned b- the neg igence of the pi ot> for in s&ch a case the pi ot cannot be deemed proper - the servant of the master or the owner, b&t is forced &pon them, and the ma6im Vui facit per aliu# facit per $e does not app -.D 2Underscoring s&pp ied5 8nent the river passage p an, we find that, whi e there was none,L)/M the
Page | 1353

vo-age has been s&fficient - p anned and monitored as shown b- the fo owing actions &ndertaken b- the pi ot, E77ar =o ar7ano Fas%&e7, to wit< contacting the radio marina via FI. for information regarding the channe , river traffic,L)!M so&ndings of the river, depth of the river, b& etin on the b&o-s. L)4M The officer on watch a so monitored the vo-age.L))M 0e, therefore, do not find the absence of a river passage p an to be the ca&se for the gro&nding of the vesse . The doctrine of re$ ip$a lo4uitur does not app - to the case at bar beca&se the circ&mstances s&rro&nding the inj&r- do not c ear - indicate neg igence on the part of the private respondent. .or the said doctrine to app -, the fo owing
Page | 1354

conditions m&st be met< 2"5 the accident was of s&ch character as to warrant an inference that it wo& d not have happened e6cept for defendant9s neg igence> 2/5 the accident m&st have been ca&sed b- an agenc- or instr&menta it- within the e6c &sive management or contro of the person charged with the neg igence comp ained of> and 2!5 the accident m&st not have been d&e to an- vo &ntar- action or contrib&tion on the part of the person inj&red.L)(M 8s has a read- been he d above, there was a temporar- shift of contro over the ship from the master of the vesse to the pi ot on a comp& sor- pi otage channe . Th&s, two of the re%&isites necessar- for the doctrine to app -, i.e.,
Page | 1355

neg igence and contro , to render the respondent iab e, are absent. 8s to the c aim that the ship was &nseaworth-, we ho d that it is not. The A o-dRs Register of =hipping confirmed the vesse Rs seaworthiness in a +onfirmation of + ass iss&ed on .ebr&ar- "(, "$:: b- finding that Dthe above named ship 2;hi ippine Ro6as5 maintained the c ass D]"''8" =trengthened for 1re +argoes, 3os. / and : Io ds ma- be empt- 2++5 and ]A,+D from !"J"/J:# &p &nti the time of cas&a t- on or abo&t "/J/J::.DL)#M The same wo& d not have been iss&ed had not the vesse been b&i t according to the standards set b- A o-d9s.

Page | 1356

=am&e Aim, a marine s&rve-or, at A o-d9s Register of =hipping testified th&s< DO 3ow, in -o&r opinion, as a s&rve-or, did top side tank have an- bearing at a to the seaworthiness of the vesse K D8 0e , j&dging on this partic& ar vesse , and a so basing on the c ass record of the vesse , wherein recommendations were made on the top side tank, and it was given s&fficient time to be repaired, it means that the vesse is fit to trave even with those defects on the ship. D+1URT 0hat do -o& mean b- thatK Co& e6p ain. The vesse is fit to trave
Page | 1357

even with defectsK Is that what -o& meanK E6p ain. D0IT3E== D8 Ces, -o&r Ionor. Heca&se the c ass societ- which register 2sic5 is the third part- ooking into the condition of the vesse and as far as their record states, the vesse was c ass or maintained, and she is fit to trave d&ring that vo-age.D P6 6 6 D8TTC. ,I=8 Hefore we proceed to other matter, wi -o& kind - te &s what is 2sic5 the 9c ass ]"''8" =trengthened for 1re +argoes9, meanK D0IT3E==
Page | 1358

D8 ; &s "''8" means that the vesse was b&i t according to A o-d9s r& es and she is capab e of carr-ing ore b& k cargoes, b&t she is partic& ar capab e of carr-ing 1re +argoes with 3o. / and 3o. : ho ds empt-. P6 6 6 D+1URT The vesse is c assed, meaningK D8 ,eaning she is fit to trave , -o&r Ionor, or seaworth-.DL):M It is not re%&ired that the vesse m&st be perfect. To be seaworth-, a ship m&st be reasonab - fit to perform the services, and to enco&nter the ordinarperi s of the vo-age, contemp ated bthe parties to the po ic-.L)$M
Page | 1359

8s f&rther evidence that the vesse was seaworth-, we %&ote the deposition of pi ot Fas%&e7< DO 0as there an- instance when -o&r orders or directions were not comp ied with beca&se of the inabi itof the vesse to do soK D8 3o. DO. 0as the vesse ab e to respond to a -o&r commands and ordersK D8. The vesse was navigating norma -.QL('M Ed&ardo ;. ,ata, =econd Engineer of the ;hi ippine Ro6as s&bmitted an accident report wherein he stated that on .ebr&ar- "", "$::, he checked and prepared the main engine, machineries and a other a&6i iaries and fo&nd them a to be in good r&nning condition and
Page | 1360

read- for mane&vering. That same dathe main engine, bridge and engine te egraph and steering gear motor were a so tested.L("M Engineer ,ata a so prepared the f&e for cons&mption for mane&vering and checked the engine generators.L(/M .ina -, we find the award of attorne-Rs fee j&stified. 8rtic e //': of the 3ew +ivi +ode provides that< D8rt. //':. In the absence of stip& ation, attorne-9s fees and e6penses of itigation, other than j&dicia costs, cannot be recovered, e6cept< P6 6 6 D2""5 In an- other case where the co&rt deems it j&st and e%&itab e that
Page | 1361

attorne-9s fees and e6penses itigation sho& d be recovered.

of

P6 6 6Q E&e to the &nfo&nded fi ing of this case, the private respondent was &nj&stifiab - forced to itigate, th&s the award of attorne-Rs fees was proper. 0IERE.1RE, I3 FIE0 1. TIE .1REG1I3G, the petition is EE3IEE and the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8 G.R. +F 3o. !(:/" is 8..IR,EE. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 1362

:G.R. No. 112;10. #&y 2, 2001<

Page | 1363

AN,ON%O 6ENGSON %%%, petitioner, vs. HOUSE O. RE*RESEN,A,%VES ELE$,ORAL ,R%6UNAL &n( ,EODORO $. $RU5, respondents. EE+I=I13 ?8;U383, J.< The citi7enship of respondent Teodoro +. +r&7 is at iss&e in this case, in view of the constit&tiona re%&irement that Dno person sha be a ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives &n ess he is a nat&ra *born citi7en.DL"M Respondent +r&7 was a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines. Ie was born in =an + emente, Tar ac, on 8pri /#, "$(', of .i ipino parents. The
Page | 1364

f&ndamenta aw then app icab e was the "$!) +onstit&tion.L/M 1n 3ovember ), "$:), however, respondent +r&7 en isted in the United =tates ,arine +orps and, witho&t the consent of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, took an oath of a egiance to the United =tates. 8s a conse%&ence, he ost his .i ipino citi7enship for &nder +ommonwea th 8ct 3o. (!, =ection "245, a .i ipino citi7en ma- ose his citi7enship b-, among others, Drendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign co&ntr-.D =aid provision of aw reads< =ection ". 7o0 citi5en$1ip #a! /e lo$t. ** 8 .i ipino citi7en ma- ose his citi7enship in an- of the fo owing wa-s andJor events<
Page | 1365

666 245 H- rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign co&ntr-< 2rovided, That the rendering of service to, or the acceptance of s&ch commission in, the armed forces of a foreign co&ntr-, and the taking of an oath of a egiance incident thereto, with the consent of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, sha not divest a .i ipino of his ;hi ippine citi7enship if either of the fo owing circ&mstances is present< 2a5 The Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines has a defensive andJor offensive pact of a iance with said foreign co&ntr-> or 2b5 The said foreign co&ntr- maintains armed forces on ;hi ippine territor- with
Page | 1366

the consent of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines< 2rovided, That the .i ipino citi7en concerned, at the time of rendering said service, or acceptance of said commission, and taking the oath of a egiance incident thereto, states that he does so on - in connection with his service to said foreign co&ntr-> And provided, finall!, That an- .i ipino citi7en who is rendering service to, or is commissioned in, the armed forces of a foreign co&ntr- &nder an- of the circ&mstances mentioned in paragraph 2a5 or 2b5, sha not be permitted to participate nor vote in an- e ection of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines d&ring the period of his service to, or commission in, the armed forces of said co&ntr-. Upon his discharge from the service of the said foreign co&ntr-, he
Page | 1367

sha be a&tomatica - entit ed to the f& enjo-ment of his civi and po itica rights as a .i ipino citi7en 6 6 6. 0hatever do&bt that remained regarding his oss of ;hi ippine citi7enship was erased bhis nat&ra i7ation as a U.=. citi7en on J&ne ), "$$', in connection with his service in the U.=. ,arine +orps. 1n ,arch "#, "$$4, respondent +r&7 reac%&ired his ;hi ippine citi7enship thro&gh repatriation &nder Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. /(!'.L!M Ie ran for and was e ected as the Representative of the =econd Eistrict of ;angasinan in the ,a- "", "$$: e ections. Ie won b- a convincing margin of /(,(#" votes over petitioner 8ntonio Hengson III, who was then r&nning for ree ection.
Page | 1368

=&bse%&ent -, petitioner fi ed a case for Vuo Qarranto Ad )autela# with respondent Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na 2IRET5 c aiming that respondent +r&7 was not %&a ified to become a member of the Io&se of Representatives since he is not a nat&ra *born citi7en as re%&ired &nder 8rtic e FI, =ection ( of the +onstit&tion.L4M 1n ,arch /, /''', the IRET rendered its decisionL)M dismissing the petition for 4uo 0arranto and dec aring respondent +r&7 the d& - e ected Representative of the =econd Eistrict of ;angasinan in the ,a"$$: e ections. The IRET ikewise denied petitioner9s motion for reconsideration of the decision in its reso &tion dated 8pri /#, /'''.L(M
Page | 1369

;etitioner th&s fi ed the present petition for certiorari assai ing the IRET9s decision on the fo owing gro&nds< ". The IRET committed serio&s errors and grave ab&se of discretion, amo&nting to e6cess of j&risdiction, when it r& ed that private respondent is a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines despite the fact that he had ceased being s&ch in view of the oss and ren&nciation of s&ch citi7enship on his part. /. The IRET committed serio&s errors and grave ab&se of discretion, amo&nting to e6cess of j&risdiction, when it considered private respondent as a citi7en of the ;hi ippines despite
Page | 1370

the fact that he did not va id - ac%&ire his ;hi ippine citi7enship. !. 8ss&ming that private respondent9s ac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship was inva id, the IRET committed serio&s errors and grave ab&se of discretion, amo&nting to e6cess of j&risdiction, when it dismissed the petition despite the fact that s&ch reac%&isition co& d not ega - and constit&tiona - restore his nat&ra *born stat&s.L#M The iss&e now before &s is whether respondent +r&7, a nat&ra *born .i ipino who became an 8merican citi7en, can sti be considered a nat&ra *born .i ipino &pon his reac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship. ;etitioner asserts that respondent +r&7 ma- no onger be considered a
Page | 1371

nat&ra *born .i ipino since he ost his ;hi ippine citi7enship when he swore a egiance to the United =tates in "$$), and had to reac%&ire the same brepatriation. Ie insists that 8rtic e IF, =ection / of the +onstit&tion e6press states that nat&ra *born citi7ens are those who are citi7ens from birth witho&t having to perform an- act to ac%&ire or perfect s&ch citi7enship. Respondent on the other hand contends that he reac%&ired his stat&s as a nat&ra *born citi7en when he was repatriated since the phrase Dfrom birthD in 8rtic e IF, =ection / refers to the innate, inherent and inborn characteristic of being a nat&ra *born citi7en. The petition is witho&t merit.
Page | 1372

The "$:# +onstit&tion en&merates who are .i ipino citi7ens as fo ows< 2"5 Those who are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines at the time of the adoption of this +onstit&tion> 2/5 Those whose fathers or mothers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines> 2!5 Those born before Jan&ar- "#, "$#! of .i ipino mothers, who e ect ;hi ippine citi7enship &pon reaching the age of majorit-, and 245 Those who are nat&ra i7ed in accordance with aw.L:M There are two wa-s of ac%&iring citi7enship< 2"5 b- birth, and 2/5 bnat&ra i7ation. These wa-s of ac%&iring citi7enship correspond to the two kinds of citi7ens< the nat&ra *born citi7en, and the nat&ra i7ed citi7en. 8 person who at
Page | 1373

the time of his birth is a citi7en of a partic& ar co&ntr-, is a nat&ra *born citi7en thereof.L$M 8s defined in the same +onstit&tion, nat&ra *born citi7ens Dare those citi7ens of the ;hi ippines from birth witho&t having to perform an- act to ac%&ire or perfect his ;hi ippine citi7enship.DL"'M 1n the other hand, nat&ra i7ed citi7ens are those who have become .i ipino citi7ens thro&gh nat&ra i7ation, genera &nder +ommonwea th 8ct 3o. 4#!, otherwise known as the Revised 3at&ra i7ation Aaw, which repea ed the former 3at&ra i7ation Aaw 28ct 3o. /$/#5, and b- Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. )!'. L""M To be nat&ra i7ed, an app icant has to prove that he possesses a the %&a ificationsL"/M and none of the
Page | 1374

dis%&a ificationsL"!M provided b- aw to become a .i ipino citi7en. The decision granting ;hi ippine citi7enship becomes e6ec&tor- on - after two 2/5 -ears from its prom& gation when the co&rt is satisfied that d&ring the intervening period, the app icant has 2"5 not eft the ;hi ippines> 2/5 has dedicated himse f to a awf& ca ing or profession> 2!5 has not been convicted of an- offense or vio ation of Government prom& gated r& es> or 245 committed an- act prej&dicia to the interest of the nation or contrar- to an- Government anno&nced po icies.L"4M .i ipino citi7ens who have ost their citi7enship ma- however reac%&ire the same in the manner provided b- aw. +ommonwea th 8ct. 3o. (! 2+.8. 3o.
Page | 1375

(!5, en&merates the three modes bwhich ;hi ippine citi7enship ma- be reac%&ired b- a former citi7en< 2"5 bnat&ra i7ation, 2/5 b- repatriation, and 2!5 b- direct act of +ongress.L")M 3at&ra i7ation is a mode for both ac%&isition and reac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship. 8s a mode of initia - ac%&iring ;hi ippine citi7enship, nat&ra i7ation is governed b+ommonwea th 8ct 3o. 4#!, as amended. 1n the other hand, nat&ra i7ation as a mode for reac%&iring ;hi ippine citi7enship is governed b+ommonwea th 8ct 3o. (!.L"(M Under this aw, a former .i ipino citi7en who wishes to reac%&ire ;hi ippine citi7enship m&st possess certain %&a ificationsL"#M and none of the dis%&a ifications mentioned
Page | 1376

in =ection 4 of +.8. 4#!.L":MRepatriation, on the other hand, ma- be had &nder vario&s stat&tes b- those who ost their citi7enship d&e to< 2"5 desertion of the armed forces>L"$M 2/5 service in the armed forces of the a ied forces in 0or d 0ar II>L/'M 2!5 service in the 8rmed .orces of the United =tates at an- other time> L/"M 245 marriage of a .i ipino woman to an a ien>L//M and 2)5 po itica and economic necessit-.L/!M 8s disting&ished from the engthprocess of nat&ra i7ation, repatriation simp - consists of the taking of an oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines and registering said oath in the Aoca +ivi Registr- of the p ace where the person concerned resides or ast resided.In An"at v. %epu/lic,L/4M we
Page | 1377

he d<666. ;arenthetica -, &nder these stat&tes Lreferring to R8 3os. $() and /(!'M, the person desiring to reac%&ire ;hi ippine citi7enship wo& d not even be re%&ired to fi e a petition in co&rt, and a that he had to do was to take an oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines and to register that fact with the civi registr- in the p ace of his residence or where he had ast resided in the ;hi ippines. LIta ics in the origina .M L/)M ,oreover, repatriation res& ts in the recover- of the origina nationa it-. L/(M This means that a nat&ra i7ed .i ipino who ost his citi7enship wi be restored to his prior stat&s as a nat&ra i7ed .i ipino citi7en. 1n the other hand, if he was origina - a nat&ra *born citi7en before he ost his ;hi ippine citi7enship,
Page | 1378

he wi be restored to his former stat&s as a nat&ra *born .i ipino. In respondent +r&79s case, he ost his .i ipino citi7enship when he rendered service in the 8rmed .orces of the United =tates. Iowever, he s&bse%&ent reac%&ired ;hi ippine citi7enship &nder R.8. 3o. /(!', which provides< =ection ". 8n- person who had ost his ;hi ippine citi7enship b- rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the 8rmed .orces of the United =tates, or after separation from the 8rmed .orces of the United =tates, ac%&ired United =tates citi7enship, ma- reac%&ire ;hi ippine citi7enship b- taking an oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines and registering the same
Page | 1379

with Aoca +ivi Registr- in the p ace where he resides or ast resided in the ;hi ippines. The said oath of a egiance sha contain a ren&nciation of an- other citi7enship. Iaving th&s taken the re%&ired oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic and having registered the same in the +ivi Registrof ,agantarem, ;angasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent +r&7 is deemed to have recovered his origina stat&s as a nat&ra *born citi7en, a stat&s which he ac%&ired at birth as the son of a .i ipino father.L/#M It bears stressing that the act of repatriation a ows him to recover, or ret&rn to, his origina stat&s before he ost his ;hi ippine citi7enship. ;etitioner9s contention that
Page | 1380

respondent +r&7 is no onger a nat&ra * born citi7en since he had to perform an act to regain his citi7enship is &ntenab e. 8s correct - e6p ained bthe IRET in its decision, the term Dnat&ra *born citi7enD was first defined in 8rtic e III, =ection 4 of the "$#! +onstit&tion as fo ows< =ec. 4. 8 nat&ra *born citi7en is one who is a citi7en of the ;hi ippines from birth witho&t having to perform an- act to ac%&ire or perfect his ;hi ippine citi7enship. Two re%&isites m&st conc&r for a person to be considered as s&ch< 2"5 a person m&st be a .i ipino citi7en from birth and 2/5 he does not have to perform an- act to obtain or perfect his ;hi ippine citi7enship.Under the "$#! +onstit&tion
Page | 1381

definition, there were two categories of .i ipino citi7ens which were not considered nat&ra *born< 2"5 those who were nat&ra i7ed and 2/5 those born before Jan&ar- "#, "$#!,L/:M of .i ipino mothers who, &pon reaching the age of majorit-, e ected ;hi ippine citi7enship. Those Dnat&ra i7ed citi7ensD were not considered nat&ra *born obvio&s - beca&se the- were not .i ipinos at birth and had to perform an act to ac%&ire ;hi ippine citi7enship. Those born of .i ipino mothers before the effectivit- of the "$#! +onstit&tion were ikewise not considered nat&ra * born beca&se the- a so had to perform an act to perfect their ;hi ippine citi7enship.The present +onstit&tion, however, now considers those born of .i ipino mothers before the effectivit- of
Page | 1382

the "$#! +onstit&tion and who e ected ;hi ippine citi7enship &pon reaching the majorit- age as nat&ra *born. 8fter defining who are nat&ra *born citi7ens, =ection / of 8rtic e IF adds a sentence< DThose who e ect ;hi ippine citi7enship in accordance with paragraph 2!5, =ection " hereof sha be deemed nat&ra *born citi7ens.D +onse%&ent -, on - nat&ra i7ed .i ipinos are considered not nat&ra *born citi7ens. It is apparent from the en&meration of who are citi7ens &nder the present +onstit&tion that there are on - two c asses of citi7ens< 2"5 those who are nat&ra *born and 2/5 those who are nat&ra i7ed in accordance with aw. 8 citi7en who is not a nat&ra i7ed .i ipino, i.e., did not have to &ndergo the process of nat&ra i7ation to obtain
Page | 1383

;hi ippine citi7enship, necessari - is a nat&ra *born .i ipino. 3oteworth- is the absence in said en&meration of a separate categor- for persons who, after osing ;hi ippine citi7enship, s&bse%&ent - reac%&ire it. The reason therefor is c ear< as to s&ch persons, the- wo& d either be nat&ra *born or nat&ra i7ed depending on the reasons for the oss of their citi7enship and the mode prescribed b- the app icab e aw for the reac%&isition thereof. 8s respondent +r&7 was not re%&ired baw to go thro&gh nat&ra i7ation proceedings in order to reac%&ire his citi7enship, he is perforce a nat&ra *born .i ipino. 8s s&ch, he possessed a the necessar- %&a ifications to be e ected as member of the Io&se of Representatives.
Page | 1384

8 fina point. The IRET has been empowered b- the +onstit&tion to be the Dso e j&dgeD of a contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns, and %&a ifications of the members of the Io&se.L/$M The +o&rt9s j&risdiction over the IRET is mere - to check Dwhether or not there has been a grave ab&se of discretion amo&nting to ack or e6cess of j&risdictionD on the part of the atter.L!'M In the absence thereof, there is no occasion for the +o&rt to e6ercise its corrective power and ann& the decision of the IRET nor to s&bstit&te the +o&rt9s j&dgment for that of the atter for the simp e reason that it is not the office of a petition for certiorari to in%&ire into the correctness of the assai ed decision. L!"M There is no s&ch showing of grave ab&se of discretion in this case.
Page | 1385

0IERE.1RE, the hereb- EI=,I==EE.

petition

is

Page | 1386

:G.R. No. 1C1131. #& -' 3, 2001< #AR%A JEANE,,E $. ,E$SON &n( .EL%3 6. DES%DER%O, JR., petitioners, vs. ,'e $O##%SS%ON ON ELE$,%ONS, RONALD ALLAN BELL4 *OE =&.J.&. .ERNANDO *OE, JR.> &n(
Page | 1387

V%$,OR%NO 3. .ORN%ER,respondents. :G.R. No. 1C1C31. #& -' 3, 2001< 5O%LO AN,ON%O VELE5, petitioner, vs. RONALD ALLAN BELLE4 *OE, a.k.a. .ERNANDO *OE, JR.,respondent. :G. R. No. 1C1;21. #& -' 3, 2001< V%$,OR%NO 3. .ORN%ER, petitioner, vs. HON. $O##%SS%ON ON ELE$,%ONS &n( RONALD ALLAN BELLE4 *OE, ALSO BNOEN AS .ERNANDO *OE JR., respondents.
Page | 1388

EE+I=I13 FITUG, J.< +iti7enship is a treas&red right conferred on those whom the state be ieves are deserving of the privi ege. It is a Pprecio&s heritage, as we as an inestimab e ac%&isition,QL"M that cannot be taken ight - b- an-one * either b- those who enjo- it or b- those who disp&te it. Hefore the +o&rt are three conso idated cases, a of which raise a sing e %&estion of profo&nd importance to the nation. The iss&e of citi7enship is bro&ght &p to cha enge the %&a ifications of a presidentia candidate to ho d the highest office of the and. 1&r peop e are waiting for the j&dgment of the +o&rt with bated
Page | 1389

breath. Is .ernando ;oe, Jr., the hero of si ver screen, and now one of the main contenders for the presidenc-, a nat&ra *born .i ipino or is he notK The moment of introspection takes &s face to face with =panish and 8merican co onia roots and reminds &s of the rich heritage of civi aw and common aw traditions, the f&sion res& ting in a h-brid of aws and j&rispr&dence that co& d be no ess than distinct - .i ipino. 8ntecedent +ase =ettings 1n !" Eecember /''!, respondent Rona d 8 an ?e - ;oe, a so known as .ernando ;oe, Jr. 2hereinafter D.;JD5, fi ed his certificate of candidac- for the position of ;resident of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines &nder the ?oa is-on ng
Page | 1390

3agkakaisang ;i ipino 2?3;5 ;art-, in the forthcoming nationa e ections. In his certificate of candidac-, .;J, representing himse f to be a nat&ra * born citi7en of the ;hi ippines, stated his name to be D.ernando Jr.,D or DRona d 8 anD ;oe, his date of birth to be /' 8&g&st "$!$ and his p ace of birth to be ,ani a. Fictorino N. .ornier, petitioner in G.R. 3o. "(":/4, entit ed DFictorino N. .ornier, ;etitioner, vers&s Ion. +ommission on E ections and Rona d 8 an ?e e- ;oe, a so known as .ernando ;oe, Jr., Respondents,D initiated, on '$ Jan&ar- /''4, a petition docketed =;8 3o. '4*''! before the +ommission on E ections 2D+1,EAE+D5 to dis%&a if- .;J and to den- d&e
Page | 1391

co&rse or to cance his certificate of candidac- &pon the thesis that .;J made a materia misrepresentation in his certificate of candidac- b- c aiming to be a nat&ra *born .i ipino citi7en when in tr&th, according to .ornier, his parents were foreigners> his mother, Hessie ?e e- ;oe, was an 8merican, and his father, 8 an ;oe, was a =panish nationa , being the son of Aoren7o ;o&, a =panish s&bject. Granting, petitioner asseverated, that 8 an .. ;oe was a .i ipino citi7en, he co& d not have transmitted his .i ipino citi7enship to .;J, the atter being an i egitimate chi d of an a ien mother. ;etitioner based the a egation of the i egitimate birth of respondent on two assertions * fir$t, 8 an .. ;oe contracted a prior marriage to a certain ;a& ita Gome7 before his
Page | 1392

marriage to Hessie ?e e- and, $econd, even if no s&ch prior marriage had e6isted, 8 an .. ;oe, married Hessie ?e - on - a -ear after the birth of respondent. In the hearing before the Third Eivision of the +1,EAE+ on "$ Jan&ar- /''4, petitioner, in s&pport of his c aim, presented severa doc&mentar- e6hibits * "5 a cop- of the certificate of birth of .;J, /5 a certified photocop- of an affidavit e6ec&ted in =panish b- ;a& ita ;oe - Gome7 attesting to her having fi ed a case for bigam- and conc&binage against the father of respondent, 8 an .. ;oe, after discovering his bigamo&s re ationship with Hessie ?e e-, !5 an Eng ish trans ation of the affidavit aforesaid, 45 a certified photocop- of the
Page | 1393

certificate of birth of 8 an .. ;oe, )5 a certification iss&ed b- the Eirector of the Records ,anagement and 8rchives 1ffice, attesting to the fact that there was no record in the 3ationa 8rchives that a Aoren7o ;oe or Aoren7o ;o& resided or entered the ;hi ippines before "$'#, and (5 a certification from the 1fficer*In*+harge of the 8rchives Eivision of the 3ationa 8rchives to the effect that no avai ab e information co& d be fo&nd in the fi es of the 3ationa 8rchives regarding the birth of 8 an .. ;oe. 1n his part, respondent, presented twent-*two doc&mentar- pieces of evidence, the more significant ones being * a5 a certification iss&ed bEstre a ,. Eomingo of the 8rchives
Page | 1394

Eivision of the 3ationa 8rchives that there appeared to be no avai ab e information regarding the birth of 8 an .. ;oe in the registr- of births for =an +ar os, ;angasinan, b5 a certification iss&ed b- the 1fficer*In*+harge of the 8rchives Eivision of the 3ationa 8rchives that no avai ab e information abo&t the marriage of 8 an .. ;oe and ;a& ita Gome7 co& d be fo&nd, c5 a certificate of birth of Rona d 8 an ;oe, d5 1rigina +ertificate of Tit e 3o. ;* //4# of the Registr- of Eeeds for the ;rovince of ;angasinan, in the name of Aoren7o ;o&, e5 copies of Ta6 Eec aration 3o. /':44, 3o. /'(4!, 3o. /!4## and 3o. /!4#: in the name of Aoren7o ;o&, f5 a cop- of the certificate of death of Aoren7o ;o&, g5 a cop- of the p&rported marriage contract
Page | 1395

between .ernando ;o& and Hessie ?e e-, and h5 a certification iss&ed bthe +it- +ivi Registrar of =an +ar os +it-, ;angasinan, stating that the records of birth in the said office d&ring the period of from "$'' &nti ,a- "$4( were tota - destro-ed d&ring 0or d 0ar II. 1n /! Jan&ar- /''4, the +1,EAE+ dismissed =;8 3o. '4*''! for ack of merit. Three da-s ater, or on /( Jan&ar- /''4, .ornier fi ed his motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied on '( .ebr&ar- /''4 b- the +1,EAE+ en /anc. 1n "' .ebr&ar/''4, petitioner assai ed the decision of the +1,EAE+ before this +o&rt conformab - with R& e (4, in re ation to R& e (), of the Revised R& es of +ivi
Page | 1396

;roced&re. The petition, docketed G. R. 3o. "(":/4, ikewise pra-ed for a temporar- restraining order, a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction or an- other reso &tion that wo& d sta- the fina itandJor e6ec&tion of the +1,EAE+ reso &tions. The other petitions, ater conso idated with G. R. 3o. "(":/4, wo& d inc &de G. R. 3o. "("4!4, entit ed D,aria Jeanette +. Tecson, and .e i6 H. Eesiderio, Jr., vs. The +ommission on E ections, Rona d 8 an ?e e;oe 2a.:.a. V.ernando ;oe, Jr.R5, and Fictorino N. .ornier,D and the other, docketed G. R. 3o. "("(!4, entit ed DZoi o 8ntonio G. Fe e7, vs. Rona d 8 an ?e e- ;oe, a.:.a. .ernando ;oe, Jr.,D both cha enging the j&risdiction of
Page | 1397

the +1,EAE+ and asserting that, &nder 8rtic e FII, =ection 4, paragraph #, of the "$:# +onstit&tion, on - the =&preme +o&rt had origina and e6c &sive j&risdiction to reso ve the basic iss&e on the case. J&risdiction of the +o&rt In G. R. 3o. "(":/4 In seeking the dis%&a ification of the candidac- of .;J and to have the +1,EAE+ den- d&e co&rse to or cance .;JRs certificate of candidac- for a eged misrepresentation of a materia fact 2i.e., that .;J was a nat&ra *born citi7en5 before the +1,EAE+, petitioner .ornier invoked =ection #: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode S
Page | 1398

P=ection #:. 2etition to den! due cour$e to or cancel a certificate of candidac!. *** 8 verified petition seeking to den- d&e co&rse or to cance a certificate of candidac- ma- be fi ed ban- person e6c &sive - on the gro&nd that anmateria representation contained therein as re%&ired &nder =ection #4 hereof is fa seQ S in consonance with the genera powers of +1,EAE+ e6pressed in =ection )/ of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode * P=ection )/. ;owers and f&nctions of the +ommission on E ections. In addition to the powers and f&nctions conferred &pon it b- the +onstit&tion, the +ommission sha have e6c &sive charge of the enforcement and administration of a aws re ative to the
Page | 1399

cond&ct of e ections for the p&rpose of ens&ring free, order - and honest e ectionsQ * and in re ation to 8rtic e ($ of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode which wo& d a&thori7e Dan- interested part-D to fi e a verified petition to den- or cance the certificate of candidac- of an- n&isance candidate. Eecisions of the +1,EAE+ on dis%&a ification cases ma- be reviewed b- the =&preme +o&rt per R& e (4L/M in an action for certiorari &nder R& e ()L!M of the Revised R& es of +ivi ;roced&re. =ection #, 8rtic e IN, of the "$:# +onstit&tion a so reads S DEach +ommission sha decide b- a majorit- vote of a its ,embers ancase or matter bro&ght before it within
Page | 1400

si6t- da-s from the date of its s&bmission for decision or reso &tion. 8 case or matter is deemed s&bmitted for decision or reso &tion &pon the fi ing of the ast p eading, brief, or memorand&m, re%&ired b- the r& es of the +ommission or b- the +ommission itse f. Un ess otherwise provided b- this +onstit&tion or b- aw, an- decision, order, or r& ing of each +ommission ma- be bro&ght to the =&preme +o&rt on certiorari b- the aggrieved part- within thirt- da-s from receipt of a cop- thereof.D 8dditiona -, =ection ", 8rtic e FIII, of the same +onstit&tion provides that j&dicia power is vested in one =&preme +o&rt and in s&ch ower co&rts as mabe estab ished b- aw which power Pinc &des the d&t- of the co&rts of j&stice
Page | 1401

to sett e act&a controversies invo ving rights which are ega - demandab e and enforceab e, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave ab&se of discretion amo&nting to ack or e6cess of j&risdiction on the part of an- branch or instr&menta it- of the Government.Q It is s&fficient - c ear that the petition bro&ght &p in G. R. 3o. "(":/4 was apt - e evated to, and co& d we be taken cogni7ance of b-, this +o&rt. 8 contrar- view co& d be a gross denia to o&r peop e of their f&ndamenta right to be f& - informed, and to make a proper choice, on who co& d or sho& d be e ected to occ&pthe highest government post in the and. In G. R. 3o. "("4!4 and G. R. 3o. "("(!4
Page | 1402

;etitioners Tecson, et a ., in G. R. 3o. "("4!4, and Fe e7, in G. R. 3o. "("(!4, invoke the provisions of 8rtic e FII, =ection 4, paragraph #, of the "$:# +onstit&tion in assai ing the j&risdiction of the +1,EAE+ when it took cogni7ance of =;8 3o. '4*''! and in &rging the =&preme +o&rt to instead take on the petitions the- direct instit&ted before it. The +onstit&tiona provision cited reads< DThe =&preme +o&rt, sitting en /anc, sha be the so e j&dge of a contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns, and %&a ifications of the ;resident or Fice* ;resident, and ma- prom& gate its r& es for the p&rpose.D The provision is an innovation of the "$:# +onstit&tion. The omission in the
Page | 1403

"$!) and the "$#! +onstit&tion to designate an- trib&na to be the so e j&dge of presidentia and vice* presidentia contests, has constrained this +o&rt to dec are, in Aope5 v$. %o'a$,L4M as Pnot 2being5 j&sticiab eQ controversies or disp&tes invo ving contests on the e ections, ret&rns and %&a ifications of the ;resident or Fice* ;resident. The constit&tiona apse prompted +ongress, on /" J&ne "$)#, to enact Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. "#$!, CAn Act )on$titutin" an 3ndependent 2re$idential ;lectoral Tri/unal to Tr!, 7ear and 9ecide 2rote$t$ )onte$tin" t1e ;lection of t1e 2re$ident-;lect and t1e Gice-2re$ident-;lect of t1e 21ilippine$ and 2rovidin" for t1e Manner of 7earin" t1e a#e.C Rep&b ic 8ct "#$! designated the +hief J&stice
Page | 1404

and the 8ssociate J&stices of the =&preme +o&rt to be the members of the trib&na . 8 tho&gh the s&bse%&ent adoption of the par iamentar- form of government &nder the "$#! +onstit&tion might have imp icit - affected Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. "#$!, the stat&tor- set*&p, nonethe ess, wo& d now be deemed revived &nder the present =ection 4, paragraph #, of the "$:# +onstit&tion. 1rdinar- &sage wo& d characteri7e a DcontestD in reference to a post* e ection $cenario. E ection contests consist of either an e ection protest or a 4uo 0arranto which, a tho&gh two distinct remedies, wo& d have one objective in view, i.e., to dis odge the winning candidate from office. 8 per&sa of the phraseo og- in R& e "/,
Page | 1405

R& e "!, and R& e "4 of the C%ule$ of t1e 2re$idential ;lectoral Tri/unal,D prom& gated b- the =&preme +o&rt en /anc on ": 8pri "$$/, wo& d s&pport this premise * PR& e "/. Juri$diction. * The Trib&na sha be the so e j&dge of a contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns, and %&a ifications of the ;resident or Fice* ;resident of the ;hi ippines. PR& e "!. 7o0 3nitiated. * 8n e ection contest is initiated b- the fi ing of an e ection protest or a petition for %&o warranto against the ;resident or Fice* ;resident. 8n e ection protest sha not inc &de a petition for 4uo 0arranto. 8 petition for 4uo 0arranto sha not inc &de an e ection protest.
Page | 1406

PR& e "4. ;lection 2rote$t. * 1n - the registered candidate for ;resident or for Fice*;resident of the ;hi ippines who received the second or third highest n&mber of votes ma- contest the e ection of the ;resident or the Fice* ;resident, as the case ma- be, b- fi ing a verified petition with the + erk of the ;residentia E ectora Trib&na within thirt- 2!'5 da-s after the proc amation of the winner.Q The r& es categorica - speak of the j&risdiction of the trib&na over contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns and %&a ifications of the D;residentD or DFice* ;residentD, of the ;hi ippines, and not of DcandidatesD for ;resident or Fice* ;resident. 8 4uo 0arranto proceeding is genera - defined as being an action
Page | 1407

against a person who &s&rps, intr&des into, or &n awf& - ho ds or e6ercises a p&b ic office.L)M In s&ch conte6t, the e ection contest can on - contemp ate a post*e ection $cenario. In R& e "4, on a registered candidate who wo& d have received either the second or third highest n&mber of votes co& d fi e an e ection protest. This r& e again pres&pposes a post*e ection $cenario. It is fair to conc &de that the j&risdiction of the =&preme +o&rt, defined b=ection 4, paragraph #, of the "$:# +onstit&tion, wo& d not inc &de cases direct - bro&ght before it, %&estioning the %&a ifications of a candidate for the presidenc- or vice*presidenc- before the e ections are he d.
Page | 1408

8ccording -, G. R. 3o. "("4!4, entit ed D,aria Jeanette +. Tecson, et a ., vs. +ommission on E ections et a .,D and G. R. 3o. "("(!4, entit ed DZoi o 8ntonio Fe e7 vs. Rona d 8 an ?e e;oe a.:.a. .ernando ;oe, Jr.D wo& d have to be dismissed for want of j&risdiction. The +iti7enship Iss&e 3ow, to the basic iss&e> it sho& d be he pf& to first give a brief historica backgro&nd on the concept of citi7enship. ;erhaps, the ear iest &nderstanding of citi7enship was that given b- 8ristot e, who, sometime in !:4 to !// H.+., described the Dciti7enD to refer to a man who shared in the administration of j&stice and in the ho ding of an office.
Page | 1409

L(M

8ristot e saw its significance if on - to determine the constit&enc- of the D=tate,D which he described as being composed of s&ch persons who wo& d be ade%&ate in n&mber to achieve a se f*s&fficient e6istence.L#M The concept grew to inc &de one who wo& d both govern and be governed, for which %&a ifications ike a&tonom-, j&dgment and o-a tco& d be e6pected. +iti7enship was seen to dea with rights and entit ements, on the one hand, and with concomitant ob igations, on the other.L:M In its idea setting, a citi7en was active in p&b ic ife and f&ndamenta - wi ing to s&bmit his private interests to the genera interest of societ-.
Page | 1410

The concept of citi7enship had &ndergone changes over the cent&ries. In the ":th cent&r-, the concept was imited, b- and arge, to civil citi5en$1ip, which estab ished the rights necessar- for individ&a freedom, s&ch as rights to propert-, persona ibertand j&stice.L$M Its meaning e6panded d&ring the "$th cent&r- to inc &de political citi5en$1ip, which encompassed the right to participate in the e6ercise of po itica power.L"'MThe /'th cent&r- saw the ne6t stage of the deve opment of $ocial citi5en$1ip, which aid emphasis on the right of the citi7en to economic we *being and socia sec&rit-.L""M The idea of citi7enship has gained e6pression in the modern we fare state as it so deve oped in 0estern E&rope. 8n ongoing and fina
Page | 1411

stage of deve opment, in keeping with the rapid - shrinking g oba vi age, might we be the internationali5ation of citi5en$1ip.L"/M The Aoca =etting * from =panish Times to the ;resent There was no s&ch term as D;hi ippine citi7ensD d&ring the =panish regime b&t Ds&bjects of =painD or D=panish s&bjects.DL"!M In ch&rch records, the natives were ca ed <indio$<, denoting a ow regard for the inhabitants of the archipe ago. =panish aws on citi7enship became high - codified d&ring the "$th cent&r- b&t their sheer n&mber made it diffic& t to point to one comprehensive aw. 3ot a of these citi7enship aws of =pain however, were
Page | 1412

made to app - to the ;hi ippine Is ands e6cept for those e6p icit - e6tended bRo-a Eecrees.L"4M =panish aws on citi7enship were traced back to the &ovi$i#a %ecopilacion, prom& gated in =pain on "( J& - ":') b&t as to whether the aw was e6tended to the ;hi ippines remained to be the s&bject of differing views among e6perts>L")M however, three ro-a decrees were &ndisp&tab - made app icab e to =paniards in the ;hi ippines * the Order de la %e"encia of "4 8&g&st ":4", L"(M the %o!al 9ecree of /! 8&g&st ":(: specifica - defining the po itica stat&s of chi dren born in the ;hi ippine Is ands, L"#M and fina -, the Le! ;'tranjera de Tltra#ar of '4 J& - ":#', which was
Page | 1413

e6press - made app icab e to the ;hi ippines b- the Ro-a Eecree of "! J& - ":#'.L":M The =panish +onstit&tion of ":#( was never e6tended to the ;hi ippine Is ands beca&se of the e6press mandate of its 8rtic e :$, according to which the provisions of the Tltra#ar among which this co&ntr- was inc &ded, wo& d be governed b- specia aws.L"$M It was on - the +ivi +ode of =pain, made effective in this j&risdiction on ": Eecember "::$, which came o&t with the first categorica en&meration of who were =panish citi7ens. * P2a5 ;ersons territor-, born in =panish

Page | 1414

P2b5 +hi dren of a =panish father or mother, even if the- were born o&tside of =pain, P2c5 .oreigners who have obtained nat&ra i7ation papers, P2d5 Those who, witho&t s&ch papers, mahave become domici ed inhabitants of an- town of the ,onarch-.QL/'M The -ear ":$: was another t&rning point in ;hi ippine histor-. 8 read- in the state of dec ine as a s&perpower, =pain was forced to so cede her so e co on- in the East to an &pcoming wor d power, the United =tates. 8n accepted princip e of internationa aw dictated that a change in sovereignt-, whi e res& ting in an abrogation of a po itica
Page | 1415

aws then in force, wo& d have no effect on civi aws, which wo& d remain virt&a - intact. The Treat- of ;aris was entered into on "' Eecember ":$: between =pain and the United =tates.L/"M Under 8rtic e IN of the treat-, the civi rights and po itica stat&s of the native inhabitants of the territories ceded to the United =tates wo& d be determined b- its +ongress * D=panish s&bjects, natives of the ;enins& a, residing in the territor- over which =pain b- the present treatre in%&ishes or cedes her sovereigntma- remain in s&ch territor- or maremove therefrom, retaining in either event a their rights of propert-, inc &ding the right to se or dispose of
Page | 1416

s&ch propert- or of its proceeds> and the- sha a so have the right to carr- on their ind&str-, commerce, and professions, being s&bject in respect thereof to s&ch aws as are app icab e to foreigners. In case the- remain in the territor- the- ma- preserve their a egiance to the +rown of =pain bmaking, before a co&rt of record, within a -ear from the date of the e6change of ratifications of this treat-, a dec aration of their decision to preserve s&ch a egiance> in defa& t of which dec aration the- sha be he d to have reno&nced it and to have adopted the nationa it- of the territor- in which thereside. Th&s S
Page | 1417

DThe civi rights and po itica stat&s of the native inhabitants of the territories hereb- ceded to the United =tates sha be determined b- the +ongress.DL//M Upon the ratification of the treat-, and pending egis ation b- the United =tates +ongress on the s&bject, the native inhabitants of the ;hi ippines ceased to be =panish s&bjects. 8 tho&gh the- did not become 8merican citi7ens, the-, however, a so ceased to be Da iensD &nder 8merican aws and were th&s iss&ed passports describing them to be citi7ens of the ;hi ippines entit ed to the protection of the United =tates. The term Dciti7ens of the ;hi ippine Is andsD appeared for the first time in the ;hi ippine Hi of "$'/, a so common referred to as the ;hi ippine 1rganic 8ct
Page | 1418

of "$'/, the first comprehensive egis ation of the +ongress of the United =tates on the ;hi ippines * D.... t1at all in1a/itant$ of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$ continuin" to re$ide t1erein, 01o 0ere pani$1 $u/ject$ on t1e 11t1 da! of April, 1F91, and t1en re$ided in $aid 3$land$, and t1eir c1ildren /orn $u/$e4uent t1ereto, $1all /e dee#ed and 1eld to /e citi5en$ of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$ and as s&ch entit ed to the protection of the United =tates, e6cept s&ch as sha have e ected to preserve their a egiance to the +rown of =pain in accordance with the provisions of the treat- of peace between the United =tates and =pain, signed at ;aris, Eecember tenth eighteen h&ndred and ninet- eight.DL/!M
Page | 1419

Under the organic act, a Pciti7en of the ;hi ippinesQ was one who was an inhabitant of the ;hi ippines, and a =panish s&bject on the ""th da- of 8pri ":$$. The term PinhabitantQ was taken to inc &de "5 a native*born inhabitant, /5 an inhabitant who was a native of ;enins& ar =pain, and !5 an inhabitant who obtained =panish papers on or before "" 8pri ":$$.L/4M +ontrovers- arose on to the stat&s of chi dren born in the ;hi ippines from "" 8pri ":$$ to '" J& - "$'/, d&ring which period no citi7enship aw was e6tant in the ;hi ippines. 0eight was given to the view, artic& ated in j&rispr&dentia writing at the time, that the common aw princip e ofju$ $oli, otherwise a so known as the princip e of territoria it-,
Page | 1420

operative in the United =tates and Eng and, governed those born in the ;hi ippine 8rchipe ago within that period.L/)M ,ore abo&t this ater. In /! ,arch "$"/, the +ongress of the United =tates made the fo owing amendment to the ;hi ippine Hi of "$'/ * D;rovided, That the ;hi ippine Aegis at&re is hereb- a&thori7ed to provide b- aw for the ac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship b- those natives of the ;hi ippine Is ands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of other ins& ar possession of the United =tates, and s&ch other persons residing in the ;hi ippine Is ands who wo& d become citi7ens of
Page | 1421

the United =tates, &nder the aws of the United =tates, if residing therein.DL/(M 0ith the adoption of the ;hi ippine Hi of "$'/, the concept of D;hi ippine citi7ensD had for the first time cr-sta i7ed. The word D.i ipinoD was &sed b- 0i iam I. Taft, the first +ivi Governor Genera in the ;hi ippines when he initia - made mention of it in his s ogan, DThe ;hi ippines for the .i ipinos.D In "$"(, the ;hi ippine 8&tonom- 8ct, a so known as the Jones Aaw restated virt&a - the provisions of the ;hi ippine Hi of "$'/, as so amended b- the 8ct of +ongress in "$"/ * PThat all in1a/itant$ of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$ 01o 0ere pani$1 $u/ject$ on t1e elevent1 da! of April, ei"1teen
Page | 1422

1undred and ninet!-nine, and t1en re$ided in $aid 3$land$, and t1eir c1ildren /orn $u/$e4uentl! t1ereto, $1all /e dee#ed and 1eld to /e citi5en$ of t1e 21ilippine 3$land$, e6cept s&ch as sha have e ected to preserve their a egiance to the +rown of =pain in accordance with the provisions of the treat- of peace between the United =tates and =pain, signed at ;aris Eecember tenth, eighteen h&ndred and ninet-*eight and e6cept s&ch others as have since become citi7ens of some other co&ntr-> ;rovided, That the ;hi ippine Aegis at&re, herein provided for, is hereb- a&thori7ed to provide for the ac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship b- those natives of the ;hi ippine Is ands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the
Page | 1423

ins& ar possessions of the United =tates, and s&ch other persons residing in the ;hi ippine Is ands who are citi7ens of the United =tates, or who co& d become citi7ens of the United =tates &nder the aws of the United =tates, if residing therein.D Under the Jones Aaw, a native*born inhabitant of the ;hi ippines was deemed to be a citi7en of the ;hi ippines as of "" 8pri ":$$ if he was "5 a s&bject of =pain on "" 8pri ":$$, /5 residing in the ;hi ippines on said date, and, !5 since that date, not a citi7en of some other co&ntr-. 0hi e there was, at one brief time, divergent views on whether or not ju$ $oli was a mode of ac%&iring citi7enship, the "$!) +onstit&tion bro&ght to an end
Page | 1424

to an- s&ch ink with common aw, badopting, once and for a , ju$ $an"uini$ or b ood re ationship as being the basis of .i ipino citi7enship * P=ection ", 8rtic e III, "$!) +onstit&tion. The fo owing are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines * P2"5 Those who are citi7ens of the ;hi ippine Is ands at the time of the adoption of this +onstit&tion P2/5 Those born in the ;hi ippines Is ands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this +onstit&tion, had been e ected to p&b ic office in the ;hi ippine Is ands. P2!5 Those whose fathers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines.
Page | 1425

P245 Those whose mothers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines and &pon reaching the age of majorit-, e ect ;hi ippine citi7enship. P2)5 Those who are nat&ra i7ed in accordance with aw.Q =&bsection 245, 8rtic e III, of the "$!) +onstit&tion, taken together with e6isting civi aw provisions at the time, which provided that women wo& d a&tomatica ose their .i ipino citi7enship and ac%&ire that of their foreign h&sbands, res& ted in discriminator- sit&ations that effective incapacitated the women from transmitting their .i ipino citi7enship to their egitimate chi dren and re%&ired i egitimate chi dren of .i ipino mothers to sti e ect .i ipino citi7enship &pon
Page | 1426

reaching the age of majorit-. =eeking to correct this anoma -, as we as f& cogni7ant of the new - fo&nd stat&s of .i ipino women as e%&a s to men, the framers of the "$#! +onstit&tion crafted the provisions of the new +onstit&tion on citi7enship to ref ect s&ch concerns * P=ection ", 8rtic e III, "$#! +onstit&tion * The fo owing are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines< P2"5 Those who are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines at the time of the adoption of this +onstit&tion. P2/5 Those whose fathers or mothers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines. P2!5 Those who e ect ;hi ippine citi7enship p&rs&ant to the provisions of
Page | 1427

the +onstit&tion of nineteen h&ndred and thirt-*five. P245 Those who are nat&ra i7ed in accordance with aw.Q .or good meas&re, =ection / of the same artic e a so f&rther provided that S D8 fema e citi7en of the ;hi ippines who marries an a ien retains her ;hi ippine citi7enship, &n ess b- her act or omission she is deemed, &nder the aw to have reno&nced her citi7enship.D The "$:# +onstit&tion genera adopted the provisions of the "$#! +onstit&tion, e6cept for s&bsection 2!5 thereof that aimed to correct the irreg& ar sit&ation generated b- the %&estionab e provi$o in the "$!) +onstit&tion.
Page | 1428

=ection I, 8rtic e IF, "$:# +onstit&tion now provides< PThe fo owing ;hi ippines< are citi7ens of the

P2"5 Those who are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines at the time of the adoption of this +onstit&tion. P2/5 Those whose fathers or mothers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines. P2!5 Those born before Jan&ar- "#, "$#! of .i ipino mothers, who e ect ;hi ippine citi7enship &pon reaching the age of majorit-> and P245 Those who are nat&ra i7ed in accordance with aw.Q The +ase 1f .;J
Page | 1429

=ection /, 8rtic e FII, of the "$:# +onstit&tion e6presses< D3o person ma- be e ected ;resident &n ess he is a natural-/orn citi5en of t1e 21ilippine$, a registered voter, ab e to read and write, at east fort- -ears of age on the da- of the e ection, and a resident of the ;hi ippines for at east ten -ears immediate - preceding s&ch e ection.D The term Dnat&ra *born citi7ens,D is defined to inc &de Dthose who are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines from birth witho&t having to perform an- act to ac%&ire or perfect their ;hi ippine citi7enship.DL/#M The date, month and -ear of birth of .;J appeared to be /' 8&g&st "$!$ d&ring the regime of the "$!)
Page | 1430

+onstit&tion. Thro&gh its histor-, fo&r modes of ac%&iring citi7enship * nat&ra i7ation, ju$ $oli, re$ judicata and ju$ $an"uini$L/:M S had been in vog&e. 1n - two, i.e., ju$ $oli andju$ $an"uini$, co& d %&a if- a person to being a Pnat&ra *bornQ citi7en of the ;hi ippines. Ju$ $oli, per %oa v$. )ollector of )u$to#$L/$M 2"$"/5, did not ast ong. 0ith the adoption of the "$!) +onstit&tion and the reversa of %oa in Tan )1on" v$. ecretar! of La/orL!'M 2"$4#5, ju$ $an"uini$ or b ood re ationship wo& d now become the primar- basis of citi7enship b- birth. Eoc&mentar- evidence add&ced bpetitioner wo& d tend to indicate that the ear iest estab ished direct ascendant of .;J was his paterna grandfather
Page | 1431

Aoren7o ;o&, married to ,arta Re-es, the father of 8 an .. ;oe. 0hi e the record of birth of Aoren7o ;o& had not been presented in evidence, his death certificate, however, identified him to be a .i ipino, a resident of =an +ar os, ;angasinan, and :4 -ears o d at the time of his death on "" =eptember "$)4. The certificate of birth of the father of .;J, 8 an .. ;oe, showed that he was born on "# ,a- "$") to an EspaUo father, Aoren7o ;o&, and a mesti7a EspaUo mother, ,arta Re-es. Introd&ced b- petitioner was an P&ncertifiedQ cop- of a s&pposed certificate of the a eged marriage of 8 an .. ;oe and ;a& ita Gome7 on ') J& - "$!(. The marriage certificate of 8 an .. ;oe and Hessie ?e e- ref ected the date of their marriage to be on "(
Page | 1432

=eptember "$4'. In the same certificate, 8 an .. ;oe was stated to be twent-*five -ears o d, &nmarried, and a .i ipino citi7en, and Hessie ?e e- to be twent-*two -ears o d, &nmarried, and an 8merican citi7en. The birth certificate of .;J, wo& d disc ose that he was born on /' 8&g&st "$!$ to 8 an .. ;oe, a .i ipino, twent-*fo&r -ears o d, married to Hessie ?e -, an 8merican citi7en, twent-*one -ears o d and married. +onsidering the reservations made bthe parties on the veracit- of some of the entries on the birth certificate of respondent and the marriage certificate of his parents, the on - conc &sions that co& d be drawn with some degree of certaint- from the doc&ments wo& d be that *
Page | 1433

". /. !.

The parents of .;J were 8 an .. ;oe and Hessie ?e e-> .;J was born to them on /' 8&g&st "$!$> 8 an .. ;oe and Hessie ?e ewere married to each other on "( =eptember, "$4'> The father of 8 an .. ;oe was Aoren7o ;oe> and 8t the time of his death on "" =eptember "$)4, Aoren7o ;oe was :4 -ears o d.

4. ).

0o& d the above facts be s&fficient or ins&fficient to estab ish the fact that .;J is a nat&ra *born .i ipino citi7enK The marriage certificate of 8 an .. ;oe and Hessie ?e e-, the birth certificate of .;J, and the death certificate of
Page | 1434

Aoren7o ;o& are doc&ments of p&b ic record in the c&stod- of a p&b ic officer. The doc&ments have been s&bmitted in evidence b- both contending parties d&ring the proceedings before the +1,EAE+. The birth certificate of .;J was marked E6hibit D8D for petitioner and E6hibit D!D for respondent. The marriage certificate of 8 an .. ;oe to Hessie ?e e- was s&bmitted as E6hibit D/"D for respondent. The death certificate of Aoren7o ;o& was s&bmitted b- respondent as his E6hibit D).D 0hi e the ast two doc&ments were s&bmitted in evidence for respondent, the admissibi it- thereof, partic& ar - in reference to the facts which thep&rported to show, i.e., the marriage
Page | 1435

certificate in re ation to the date of marriage of 8 an .. ;oe to Hessie ?e e- and the death certificate re ative to the death of Aoren7o ;o& on "" =eptember "$)4 in =an +ar os, ;angasinan, were a admitted bpetitioner, who had &ti i7ed those materia statements in his arg&ment. 8 three doc&ments were certified tr&e copies of the origina s. =ection !, R& e "!', R& es of +o&rt states that * P1rigina doc&ment m&st be prod&ced> e6ceptions. * 0hen the s&bject of in%&ir- is the contents of a doc&ment, no evidence sha be admissib e other than the origina doc&ment itse f, e6cept in the fo owing cases<
Page | 1436

P6 6

6 666

P2d5 0hen the origina is a p&b ic record in the c&stod- of a p&b ic office or is recorded in a p&b ic office.Q Heing p&b ic doc&ments, the death certificate of Aoren7o ;o&, the marriage certificate of 8 an .. ;oe and Hessie ?e -, and the birth certificate of .;J, constit&te pri#a facie proof of their contents. =ection 44, R& e "!', of the R& es of +o&rt provides< M;ntrie$ in official record$. Entries in officia records made in the performance of his d&t- b- a p&b ic officer of the ;hi ippines, or b- a person in the performance of a d&t- specia - enjoined
Page | 1437

b- aw, are pri#a facie evidence of the facts therein stated.Q The tr&stworthiness of p&b ic doc&ments and the va &e given to the entries made therein co& d be gro&nded on "5 the sense of officia d&t- in the preparation of the statement made, /5 the pena t- which is &s&a - affi6ed to a breach of that d&t-, !5 the ro&tine and disinterested origin of most s&ch statements, and 45 the p&b icit- of record which makes more ike - the prior e6pos&re of s&ch errors as might have occ&rred.L!"M The death certificate of Aoren7o ;o& wo& d indicate that he died on "" =eptember "$)4, at the age of :4 -ears, in =an +ar os, ;angasinan. It co& d th&s be ass&med that Aoren7o ;o& was born
Page | 1438

sometime in the -ear ":#' when the ;hi ippines was sti a co on- of =pain. ;etitioner wo& d arg&e that Aoren7o ;o& was not in the ;hi ippines d&ring the cr&cia period of from ":$: to "$'/ considering that there was no e6isting record abo&t s&ch fact in the Records ,anagement and 8rchives 1ffice. ;etitioner, however, ikewise fai ed to show that Aoren7o ;o& was at an- other p ace d&ring the same period. In his death certificate, the residence of Aoren7o ;o& was stated to be =an +ar os, ;angasinan. In the absence of an- evidence to the contrar-, it sho& d be so&nd to conc &de, or at east to pres&me, that the p ace of residence of a person at the time of his death was a so his residence before death. It wo& d be e6treme - do&btf& if
Page | 1439

the Records ,anagement and 8rchives 1ffice wo& d have had comp ete records of a residents of the ;hi ippines from ":$: to "$'/. ;roof of ;aternit- and .i iation Under +ivi Aaw. ;etitioner s&bmits, in an- case, that in estab ishing fi iation 2re ationship or civi stat&s of the chi d to the father Lor motherM5 or paternit- 2re ationship or civi stat&s of the father to the chi d5 of an i egitimate chi d, .;J evident - being an i egitimate son according to petitioner, the mandator- r& es &nder civi aw m&st be &sed. Under the +ivi +ode of =pain, which was in force in the ;hi ippines from ': Eecember "::$ &p &nti the da- prior to
Page | 1440

!' 8&g&st "$)' when the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines took effect, acknow edgment was re%&ired to estab ish fi iation or paternit-. 8cknow edgment was either j&dicia 2comp& sor-5 or vo &ntar-. J&dicia or comp& soracknow edgment was possib e on - if done d&ring the ifetime of the p&tative parent> vo &ntar- acknow edgment co& d on - be had in a record of birth, a wi , or a p&b ic doc&ment.L!/M +omp ementar- to the new code was 8ct 3o. !#)! or the +ivi Registr- Aaw e6pressing in =ection ) thereof, that * PIn case of an i egitimate chi d, the birth certificate sha be $i"ned and $0orn to jointl! b- the parents of the infant or on b- the mother if the father ref&ses. In
Page | 1441

the atter case, it sha not be permissib e to state or revea in the doc&ment the name of the father who ref&ses to acknow edge the chi d, or to give therein an- information b- which s&ch father co& d be identified.Q In order that the birth certificate co& d then be &ti i7ed to prove vo &ntaracknow edgment of fi iation or paternit-, the certificate was re%&ired to be signed or sworn to b- the father. The fai &re of s&ch re%&irement rendered the same &se ess as being an a&thoritative doc&ment of recognition.L!!M In Mendo5a v$. Mella,L!4M the +o&rt r& ed * D=ince Rodo fo was born in "$!), after the registr- aw was enacted, the %&estion here rea - is whether or not his birth certificate 2E6hibit "5, which is
Page | 1442

mere - a certified cop- of the registrrecord, ma- be re ied &pon as s&fficient proof of his having been vo &ntari recogni7ed. 3o s&ch re iance, in o&r j&dgment, ma- be p aced &pon it. 0hi e it contains the names of both parents, there is no showing that the- signed the origina , et a one swore to its contents as re%&ired in =ection ) of 8ct 3o. !#)!. .or a that might have happened, it was not even the- or either of them who f&rnished the data to be entered in the civi register. ;etitioners sa- that in an- event the birth certificate is in the nat&re of a p&b ic doc&ment wherein vo &ntar- recognition of a nat&ra chi d ma- a so be made, according to the same 8rtic e "!". Tr&e eno&gh, b&t in s&ch a case, there m&st be a c ear statement in the doc&ment that the
Page | 1443

parent recogni7es the chi d as his or her own.D In the birth certificate of respondent .;J, presented b- both parties, nowhere in the doc&ment was the signat&re of 8 an .. ;oe fo&nd. There being no wi apparent - e6ec&ted, or at east shown to have been e6ec&ted, bdecedent 8 an .. ;oe, the on - other proof of vo &ntar- recognition remained to be Dsome other p&b ic doc&ment.D In 2areja v$. 2areja,L!)M this +o&rt defined what co& d constit&te s&ch a doc&ment as proof of vo &ntaracknow edgment< DUnder the =panish two c asses of those e'ecuted /! 01ic1 #u$t /e +ivi +ode there are p&b ic doc&ments, private individual$ aut1enticated /!
Page | 1444

notarie$, and those iss&ed b- competent p&b ic officia s b- reason of their office. The p&b ic doc&ment pointed o&t in 8rtic e "!" as one of the means bwhich recognition ma- be made be ongs to the first c ass.D Aet &s eave it at that for the moment. The "$)' +ivi +ode categori7ed the acknow edgment or recognition of i egitimate chi dren into vo &ntar-, ega or comp& sor-. Fo &ntar- recognition was re%&ired to be e6pressed - made in a record of birth, a wi , a statement before a co&rt of record or in ana&thentic writing. Aega acknow edgment took p ace in favor of f& b ood brothers and sisters of an i egitimate chi d who was recogni7ed or j&dicia dec ared as
Page | 1445

nat&ra . +omp& sor- acknow edgment co& d be demanded genera - in cases when the chi d had in his favor anevidence to prove fi iation. Un ike an action to c aim egitimac- which wo& d ast d&ring the ifetime of the chi d, and might pass e6ceptiona - to the heirs of the chi d, an action to c aim acknow edgment, however, co& d on be bro&ght d&ring the ifetime of the pres&med parent. A#icu$ )uriae R&ben .. Ha ane defined, d&ring the ora arg&ment, Da&thentic writing,D so as to be an a&thentic writing for p&rposes of vo &ntar- recognition, simp - as being a gen&ine or ind&bitab e writing of the father. The term wo& d inc &de a p&b ic instr&ment 2one d& - acknow edged
Page | 1446

before a notar- p&b ic or competent officia 5 or a private admitted b- the father to be his. The .ami - +ode has ibera i7ed the r& es> 8rtic e "#/, "#!, and 8rtic e "#) provide<

other writing f&rther 8rtic e

P8rt. "#/. The fi iation of egitimate chi dren is estab ished b- an- of the fo owing< P2"5 The record of birth appearing in the civi register or a fina j&dgment> or P2/5 8n admission of egitimate fi iation in a p&b ic doc&ment or a private handwritten instr&ment and signed bthe parent concerned. PIn the absence of the foregoing evidence, the egitimate fi iation sha be proved b-<
Page | 1447

P2"5 The open and contin&o&s possession of the stat&s of a egitimate chi d> or P2/5 8n- other means a owed b- the R& es of +o&rt and specia aws. P8rt. "#!. The action to c aim egitimac- ma- be bro&ght b- the chi d d&ring his or her ifetime and sha be transmitted to the heirs sho& d the chi d die d&ring minorit- or in a state of insanit-. In these cases, the heirs sha have a period of five -ears within which to instit&te the action. PThe action a read- commenced b- the chi d sha s&rvive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties. P6 6 6 666 6 6 6.
Page | 1448

P8rt. "#). I egitimate chi dren maestab ish their i egitimate fi iation in the same wa- and on the same, evidence as egitimate chi dren. PThe action m&st be bro&ght within the same period specified in 8rtic e "#!, e6cept when the action is based on the second paragraph of 8rtic e "#/, in which case the action ma- be bro&ght d&ring the ifetime of the a eged parent.Q The provisions of the .ami - +ode are retroactive - app ied> 8rtic e /)( of the code reads< D8rt. /)(. This +ode sha have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prej&dice or impair vested or ac%&ired rights in accordance with the +ivi +ode or other aws.Q
Page | 1449

Th&s, in Fda. de =-*O&ia vs. +o&rt of 8ppea s,L!(M the +o&rt has r& ed< D0e ho d that whether Jose was a vo &ntari - recogni7ed nat&ra chi d sho& d be decided &nder 8rtic e /#: of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines. 8rtic e //(' of that +ode provides that 9the vo &ntar- recognition of a nat&ra chi d sha take p ace according to this +ode, even if the chi d was born before the effectivit- of this bod- of aws9 or before 8&g&st !', "$)'. Ience, 8rtic e /#: ma- be given retroactive effect.D It sho& d be apparent that the growing trend to ibera i7e the acknow edgment or recognition of i egitimate chi dren is an attempt to break awa- from the traditiona idea of keeping we apart egitimate and non* egitimate
Page | 1450

re ationships within the fami - in favor of the greater interest and we fare of the chi d. The provisions are intended to mere - govern the private and persona affairs of the fami -. There is itt e, if an-, to indicate that the egitimate or i egitimate civi stat&s of the individ&a wo& d a so affect his po itica rights or, in genera , his re ationship to the =tate. 0hi e, indeed, provisions on Dciti7enshipD co& d be fo&nd in the +ivi +ode, s&ch provisions m&st be taken in the conte6t of private re ations, the domain of civi aw> partic& ar - * D+ivi Aaw is that branch of aw which has for its do&b e p&rpose the organi7ation of the fami - and the reg& ation of propert-. It has th&s LbeenM defined as the mass of precepts which
Page | 1451

determine and reg& ate the re ations of assistance, a&thorit- and obedience among members of a fami -, and those which e6ist among members of a societ- for the protection of private interests.DL!#M In ]a8e5 de (arnuevo v$. Hu$ter, L!:M the +o&rt has he d< DIn accordance with 8rtic e $ of the +ivi +ode of =pain, 6 6 6 the aws re ating to fami - rights and d&ties, or to the stat&s, condition and ega capacit- of persons, govern =paniards a tho&gh the- reside in a foreign co&ntr-> that, in conse%&ence, 9a %&estions of a civi nat&re, s&ch as those dea ing with the va idit- or n& it- of the matrimonia bond, the domici e of the h&sband and wife, their s&pport, as between them,
Page | 1452

the separation of their properties, the r& es governing propert-, marita a&thorit-, division of conj&ga propert-, the c assification of their propert-, ega ca&ses for divorce, the e6tent of the atter, the a&thorit- to decree it, and, in genera , the civi effects of marriage and divorce &pon the persons and properties of the spo&ses, are %&estions that are governed e6c &sive - b- the nationa aw of the h&sband and wife.D The re evance of Dciti7enshipD or Dnationa it-D to +ivi Aaw is best e6emp ified in 8rtic e ") of the +ivi +ode, stating that * DAaws re ating to fami - rights and d&ties, or to the stat&s, condition and ega capacit- of persons are binding
Page | 1453

&pon citi5en$ of t1e 21ilippine$, even tho&gh iving abroadD * that e6p ains the need to incorporate in the code a reiteration of the +onstit&tiona provisions on citi7enship. =imi ar -, citi7enship is significant in civi re ationships fo&nd in different parts of the +ivi +ode,L!$M s&ch as on s&ccessiona rights and fami re ations.L4'M In adoption, for instance, an adopted chi d wo& d be considered the chi d of his adoptive parents and accorded the same rights as their egitimate chi d b&t s&ch ega fiction e6tended on - to define his rights &nder civi awL4"M and not his po itica stat&s. +ivi aw provisions point to an obvio&s bias against i egitimac-. This discriminator- attit&de ma- be traced to
Page | 1454

the =panish fami - and propert- aws, which, whi e defining proprietar- and s&ccessiona rights of members of the fami -, provided distinctions in the rights of egitimate and i egitimate chi dren. In the monarchia set*&p of o d =pain, the distrib&tion and inheritance of tit es and wea th were strict - according to b ood ines and the concern to keep these b ood ines &ncontaminated bforeign b ood was paramo&nt. These distinctions between egitimacand i egitimac- were codified in the =panish +ivi +ode, and the invidio&s discrimination s&rvived when the =panish +ivi +ode became the primarso&rce of o&r own +ivi +ode. =&ch distinction, however, remains and sho& d remain on - in the sphere of civi
Page | 1455

aw and not &nd& - impede or impinge on the domain of po itica aw. The proof of fi iation or paternit- for p&rposes of determining his citi7enship stat&s sho& d th&s be deemed independent from and not ine6tricab tied &p with that prescribed for civi aw p&rposes. The +ivi +ode or .ami +ode provisions on proof of fi iation or paternit-, a tho&gh good aw, do not have prec &sive effects on matters a ien to persona and fami - re ations. The ordinar- r& es on evidence co& d we and sho& d govern. .or instance, the matter abo&t pedigree is not necessari prec &ded from being app icab e b- the +ivi +ode or .ami - +ode provisions. =ection !$, R& e "!', of the R& es of +o&rt provides *
Page | 1456

MAct or 9eclaration a/out pedi"ree. The act or dec aration of a person deceased, or &nab e to testif-, in respect to the pedigree of another person re ated to him b- birth or marriage, ma- be received in evidence where it occ&rred before the controvers-, and the re ationship between the two persons is shown b- evidence other than s&ch act or dec aration. The word \pedigreeR inc &des re ationship, fami - genea og-, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and the p aces where these facts occ&rred, and the names of the re atives. It embraces a so facts of fami - histor- intimate - connected with pedigree.Q .or the above r& e to app -, it wo& d be necessar- that 2a5 the dec arant is
Page | 1457

a read- dead or &nab e to testif-, 2b5 the pedigree of a person m&st be at iss&e, 2c5 the dec arant m&st be a re ative of the person whose pedigree is in %&estion, 2d5 dec aration m&st be made before the controvers- has occ&rred, and 2e5 the re ationship between the dec arant and the person whose pedigree is in %&estion m&st be shown b- evidence other than s&ch act or dec aration. Th&s, the d& - notari7ed dec aration made b- R&b- ?e e- ,angahas, sister of Hessie ?e e- ;oe s&bmitted as E6hibit /' before the +1,EAE+, might be accepted to prove the acts of 8 an .. ;oe, recogni7ing his own paterna re ationship with .;J, i.e, iving together with Hessie ?e e- and his chi dren
Page | 1458

2inc &ding respondent .;J5 ho&se, and as one fami - *

in

one

DI, R&b- ?e e- ,angahas, of ega age and so&nd mind, present - residing in =tockton, +a ifornia, U.=.8., after being sworn in accordance with aw do herebdec are that< P". I am the sister of the Hessie ?e e- ;oe. ate

P/. Hessie ?e e- ;oe was the wife of .ernando ;oe, =r. P!. .ernando and Hessie ;oe had a son b- the name of Rona d 8 an ;oe, more pop& ar - known in the ;hi ippines as \.ernando ;oe, Jr.,R or \.;JR. P4. Rona d 8 an ;oe \.;JR was born on 8&g&st /', "$!$ at =t.
Page | 1459

A&ke9s Iospita , ,agda ena =treet, ,ani a. P6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

P#. .ernando ;oe =r., and msister Hessie, met and became engaged whi e the- were st&dents at the Universit- of the ;hi ippines in "$!(. I was a so introd&ced to .ernando ;oe, =r., b- m- sister that same -ear. P:. .ernando ;oe, =r., and msister Hessie had their first chi d in "$!:. P$. .ernando ;oe, =r., m- sister Hessie and their first three chi dren, E i7abeth, Rona d, 8 an and .ernando II, and m-se f ived
Page | 1460

together with o&r mother at o&r fami -9s ho&se on Eakota =t. 2now Jorge Hocobo =t.5, ,a ate &nti the iberation of ,ani a in "$4), e6cept for some months between "$4!* "$44. P"'. .ernando ;oe, =r., and msister, Hessie, were b essed with fo&r 245 more chi dren after Rona d 8 an ;oe. P6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

P":. I am e6ec&ting this Eec aration to attest to the fact that mnephew, Rona d 8 an ;oe is a nat&ra born .i ipino, and that he is the egitimate chi d of .ernando ;oe, =r.
Page | 1461

PEone in +it- of =tockton, +a ifornia, U.=.8., this "/th da- of Jan&ar/''4. R&b- ?e e- ,angahas Eec arant E38 Testing In case proof of fi iation or paternitwo& d be &n ike - to satisfactori estab ish or wo& d be diffic& t to obtain, E38 testing, which e6amines genetic codes obtained from bod- ce s of the i egitimate chi d and an- ph-sica resid&e of the ong dead parent co& d be resorted to. 8 positive match wo& d c ear &p fi iation or paternit-. In Tijin" v$. )ourt of Appeal$,L4/M this +o&rt has
Page | 1462

acknow edged the strong weight of E38 testing * D;arentage wi sti be reso ved &sing conventiona methods &n ess we adopt the modern and scientific wa-s avai ab e. .ort&nate -, we have now the faci it- and e6pertise in &sing E38 test for identification and parentage testing. The Universitof the ;hi ippines 3at&ra =cience Research Instit&te 2U;*3=RI5 E38 8na -sis Aaborator- has now the capabi it- to cond&ct E38 t-ping &sing short tandem repeat 2=TR5 ana -sis. The ana -sis is based on the fact that the E38 of a chi dJperson has two 2/5 copies, one cop- from the mother and the other from the father. The E38 from the mother, the a eged father and the chi d are
Page | 1463

ana -7ed to estab ish parentage. 1f co&rse, being a nove scientific techni%&e, the &se of E38 test as evidence is sti open to cha enge. Event&a -, as the appropriate case comes, co&rts sho& d not hesitate to r& e on the admissibi itof E38 evidence. .or it was said, that co&rts sho& d app - the res& ts of science when competent - obtained in aid of sit&ations presented, since to reject said res& t is to den- progress.D ;etitionerRs 8rg&ment .or J&rispr&dentia +onc &siveness ;etitioner wo& d have it that even if 8 an .. ;oe were a .i ipino citi7en, he co& d not have transmitted his citi7enship to respondent .;J, the atter
Page | 1464

being an i egitimate chi d. 8ccording to petitioner, prior to his marriage to Hessie ?e e-, 8 an .. ;oe, on J& - ), "$!(, contracted marriage with a certain ;a& ita Gome7, making his s&bse%&ent marriage to Hessie ?e e- bigamo&s and respondent .;J an i egitimate chi d. The veracit- of the s&pposed certificate of marriage between 8 an .. ;oe and ;a& ita Gome7 co& d be most do&btf& at best. H&t the doc&mentarevidence introd&ced b- no ess than respondent himse f, consisting of a birth certificate of respondent and a marriage certificate of his parents showed that .;J was born on /' 8&g&st "$!$ to a .i ipino father and an 8merican mother who were married to each other a -ear ater, or on "( =eptember "$4'. Hirth to &nmarried parents wo& d make .;J an
Page | 1465

i egitimate chi d. ;etitioner contended that as an i egitimate chi d, .;J so fo owed the citi7enship of his mother, Hessie ?e e-, an 8merican citi7en, basing his stand on the r& ing of this +o&rt in Morano v$. Givo, L4!M citing )1ion"/ian v$. de LeonL44M and erra v$. %epu/lic.L4)M 1n the above score, the dis%&isition made b- a#icu$ curiae Joa%&in G. Hernas, =J, is most convincing> he states * D0e m&st ana -7e these cases and ask what the li$ #ota was in each of them. If the prono&ncement of the +o&rt on ju$ $an"uini$ was on the li$ #ota, the prono&ncement wo& d be a decision constit&ting doctrine &nder the r& e of $tare deci$i$. H&t if the
Page | 1466

prono&ncement was irre evant to the li$ #ota, the prono&ncement wo& d not be a decision b&t a mere o/iter dictu# which did not estab ish doctrine. I therefore invite the +o&rt to ook c ose - into these cases. P.irst, Morano v$. Givo. The case was not abo&t an i egitimate chi d of a .i ipino father. It was abo&t a stepson of a .i ipino, a stepson who was the chi d of a +hinese mother and a +hinese father. The iss&e was whether the stepson fo owed the nat&ra i7ation of the stepfather. 3othing abo&t ju$ $an"uini$ there. The stepson did not have the b ood of the nat&ra i7ed stepfather. P=econd, )1ion"/ian v$. de Leon. This case was not abo&t the i egitimate son
Page | 1467

of a .i ipino father. It was abo&t a egitimate son of a father who had become .i ipino b- e ection to p&b ic office before the "$!) +onstit&tion p&rs&ant to 8rtic e IF, =ection "2/5 of the "$!) +onstit&tion. 3o one was i egitimate here. PThird, erra v$. %epu/lic. The case was not abo&t the i egitimate son of a .i ipino father. =erra was an i egitimate chi d of a +hinese father and a .i ipino mother. The iss&e was whether one who was a read- a .i ipino beca&se of his mother who sti needed to be nat&ra i7ed. There is nothing there abo&t invidio&s ju$ $an"uini$. P.ina -, 2aa v$. )1an.L4(M This is a more comp icated case. The case was abo&t the citi7enship of O&intin +han who was
Page | 1468

the son of Aeoncio +han. O&intin +han c aimed that his father, Aeoncio, was the i egitimate son of a +hinese father and a .i ipino mother. O&intin therefore arg&ed that he got his citi7enship from Aeoncio, his father. H&t the =&preme +o&rt said that there was no va id proof that Aeoncio was in fact the son of a .i ipina mother. The +o&rt therefore conc &ded that Aeoncio was not .i ipino. If Aeoncio was not .i ipino, neither was his son O&intin. O&intin therefore was not on - not a nat&ra * born .i ipino b&t was not even a .i ipino. PThe +o&rt sho& d have stopped there. H&t instead it fo owed with an o/iter dictu#. The +o&rt said o/iter that even if Aeoncio, O&intin9s father, were .i ipino, O&intin wo& d not
Page | 1469

be .i ipino beca&se O&intin was i egitimate. This statement abo&t O&intin, based on a contrar- to fact ass&mption, was abso &te &nnecessar- for the case. 6 6 6 It was o/iter dictu#, p&re and simp e, simp - repeating the obiter dict&m in Morano v$. Givo. P6 6 6 666 666 D8side from the fact that s&ch a prono&ncement wo& d have no te6t&a fo&ndation in the +onstit&tion, it wo& d a so vio ate the e%&a protection c a&se of the +onstit&tion not once b&t twice. .irst, it wo& d make an i egitimate distinction between a egitimate chi d and an i egitimate chi d, and second, it wo& d make an i egitimate distinction between the
Page | 1470

i egitimate chi d of a .i ipino father and the i egitimate chi d of a .i ipino mother. PThe doctrine on constit&tiona a owab e distinctions was estab ished ong ago b- ;eop e vs. +a-at.L4#M I wo& d grant that the distinction between egitimate chi dren and i egitimate chi dren rests on rea differences. 6 6 6 H&t rea differences a one do not j&stifinvidio&s distinction. Rea differences ma- j&stif- distinction for one p&rpose b&t not for another p&rpose. P6 6 6 0hat is the re evance of egitimac- or i egitimac- to e ective p&b ic serviceK 0hat possib e state interest can there be for dis%&a if-ing an i egitimate chi d from becoming a p&b ic officer. It was not the fa& t of the chi d
Page | 1471

that his parents had i icit iaison. 0hdeprive the chi d of the f& ness of po itica rights for no fa& t of his ownK To dis%&a if- an i egitimate chi d from ho ding an important p&b ic office is to p&nish him for the indiscretion of his parents. There is neither j&stice nor rationa it- in that. 8nd if there is neither j&stice nor rationa it- in the distinction, then the distinction transgresses the e%&a protection c a&se and m&st be reprobated.Q The other a#ici curiae, ,r. J&stice Ficente ,endo7a 2a former member of this +o&rt5, ;rofessor R&ben Ha ane and Eean ,artin ,aga ona, at bottom, have e6pressed simi ar views. The thesis of petitioner, &nfort&nate - hinging
Page | 1472

so e - on p&re o/iter dicta, sho& d indeed fai . 0here j&rispr&dence regarded an i egitimate chi d as taking after the citi7enship of its mother, it did so for the benefit the chi d. It was to ens&re a .i ipino nationa it- for the i egitimate chi d of an a ien father in ine with the ass&mption that the mother had c&stod-, wo& d e6ercise parenta a&thorit- and had the d&t- to s&pport her i egitimate chi d. It was to he p the chi d, not to prej&dice or discriminate against him. The fact of the matter S perhaps the most significant consideration S is that the "$!) +onstit&tion, the f&ndamenta aw prevai ing on the da-, month and -ear of birth of respondent .;J, can
Page | 1473

never be more e6p icit than it is. ;roviding neither conditions nor distinctions, the +onstit&tion states that among the citi7ens of the ;hi ippines are Pthose whose fathers are citi7ens of the ;hi ippines.Q There &tter - is no cogent j&stification to prescribe conditions or distinctions where there c ear - are none provided. In =&m S 2"5 The +o&rt, in the e6ercise of its power of j&dicia review, possesses j&risdiction over the petition in G. R. 3o. "(":/4, fi ed &nder R& e (4, in re ation to R& e (), of the Revised R& es of +ivi ;roced&re. G.R. 3o. "(":/4 assai s the reso &tion of the +1,EAE+ for a eged grave ab&se of discretion in dismissing,
Page | 1474

for ack of merit, the petition in =;8 3o. '4*''! which has pra-ed for the dis%&a ification of respondent .;J from r&nning for the position of ;resident in the "'th ,a- /''4 nationa e ections on the contention that .;J has committed materia representation in his certificate of candidac- b- representing himse f to be a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines. 2/5 The +o&rt m&st dismiss, for ack of j&risdiction and premat&rit-, the petitions in G. R. 3o. "("4!4 and 3o. "("(!4 both having been direct e evated to this +o&rt in the atterRs capacit- as the on - trib&na to reso ve a presidentia and vice*presidentia e ection contest &nder the +onstit&tion. Evident -, the primarPage | 1475

j&risdiction of the +o&rt can direct - be invoked on - after, not before, the e ections are he d. 2!5 In ascertaining, in G.R. 3o. "(":/4, whether grave ab&se of discretion has been committed b- the +1,EAE+, it is necessar- to take on the matter of whether or not respondent .;J is a nat&ra *born citi7en, which, in t&rn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, 8 an .. ;oe, wo& d have himse f been a .i ipino citi7en and, in the affirmative, whether or not the a eged i egitimacof respondent prevents him from taking after the .i ipino citi7enship of his p&tative father. 8n- conc &sion on the .i ipino citi7enship of Aoren7o ;o& co& d on - be drawn from the pres&mption that
Page | 1476

having died in "$)4 at :4 -ears o d, Aoren7o wo& d have been born sometime in the -ear ":#', when the ;hi ippines was &nder =panish r& e, and that =an +ar os, ;angasinan, his p ace of residence &pon his death in "$)4, in the absence of an- other evidence, co& d have we been his p ace of residence before death, s&ch that Aoren7o ;o& wo& d have benefited from the Pen #a$$e .i ipini7ationQ that the ;hi ippine Hi had effected in "$'/. That citi7enship 2of Aoren7o ;o&5, if ac%&ired, wo& d thereb- e6tend to his son, 8 an .. ;oe, father of respondent .;J. The "$!) +onstit&tion, d&ring which regime respondent .;J has seen first ight, confers citi7enship to a persons whose fathers are .i ipino
Page | 1477

citi7ens regard ess of whether s&ch chi dren are egitimate or i egitimate. 245 H&t whi e the tota it- of the evidence ma- not estab ish conc &sive that respondent .;J is a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines, the evidence on hand sti wo& d preponderate in his favor eno&gh to ho d that he cannot be he d g&i t- of having made a materia misrepresentation in his certificate of candidac- in vio ation of =ection #:, in re ation to =ection #4, of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode. ;etitioner has &tter fai ed to s&bstantiate his case before the +o&rt, notwithstanding the amp e opport&nit- given to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not there has been materia misrepresentation, which, as so
Page | 1478

r& ed in %o#ualde5-Marco$ v$. )OM;L;),L4:M m&st not on - be materia , b&t a so de iberate and wi f& . 0IERE.1RE, the +o&rt RE=1AFE= to EI=,I== S ". G. R. 3o. "("4!4, entit ed D,aria Jeanette +. Tecson and .e i6 H. Eesiderio, Jr., ;etitioners, ver$u$ +ommission on E ections, Rona d 8 an ?e e- ;oe 2a.:.a. D.ernando ;oe, Jr.,5 and Fictorino N. .ornier, Respondents,D and G. R. 3o. "("(!4, entit ed DZoi o 8ntonio Fe e7, ;etitioner, ver$u$ Rona d 8 an ?e e- ;oe, a.:.a. .ernando ;oe, Jr., Respondent,D for want of j&risdiction. /. G. R. 3o. "(":/4, entit ed PFictorino N. .ornier, ;etitioner, ver$u$ Ion. +ommission on
Page | 1479

E ections and Rona d 8 an ?e e- ;oe, a so known as .ernando ;oe, Jr.,Q for fai &re to show grave ab&se of discretion on the part of respondent +ommission on E ections in dismissing the petition in =;8 3o. '4*''!. 3o +osts. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 1480

Page | 1481

G.R. No. ;C5C1 Au/u"t 1, 19;9 RA#ON L. LA6O, JR., petitione , !". ,HE $O##%SS%ON ON ELE$,%ONS =$O#ELE$> EN 6AN$ AND LU%S L. LARD%5A6AL, e"pon(ent" ;$telito 2. Mendo5a for petitioner. %illera and re$pondent. +RUZ, J.: The petitioner asks this +o&rt to restrain the +ommission on E ections from ooking into the %&estion of his citi7enship as a %&a ification for his office as ,a-or of Hag&io +it-. The a egation that he is a foreigner, he sa-s,
Page | 1482

Vuintana

for

private

is not the iss&e. The iss&e is whether or not the p&b ic respondent has j&risdiction to cond&ct an- in%&ir- into this matter, considering that the petition for 4uo 0arranto against him was not fi ed on time. It is noteworth- that this arg&ment is based on the a eged tardiness not of the petition itse f b&t of the pa-ment of the fi ing fee, which the petitioner contends was an indispensab e re%&irement. The fee is, c&rio&s eno&gh, a of ;!''.'' on -. This brings to mind the pop& ar verse that for want of a horse the kingdom was ost. =ti , if it is shown that the petition was indeed fi ed be-ond the reg ementar- period, there is no %&estion that this petition
Page | 1483

m&st be granted and the cha enge abated. The petitioner9s position is simp e. Ie was proc aimed ma-or*e ect of Hag&io +it-, on Jan&ar- /', "$::. The petition for 4uo 0arranto was fi ed b- the private respondent on Jan&ar- /(, "$::, b&t no fi ing fee was paid on that date. This fee was fina - paid on .ebr&ar- "', "$::, or twent-*one da-s after his proc amation. 8s the petition b- itse f a one was ineffect&a witho&t the fi ing fee, it sho& d be deemed fi ed on - when the fee was paid. This was done be-ond the reg ementar- period provided for &nder =ection /)! of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode reading as fo ows< =E+. /)!. ;etition for 4uo 0arranto. 6 8n- voter contesting
Page | 1484

the e ection of a ,ember of the Hatasang ;ambansa, regiona , provincia , or cit- officer on the gro&nd of ine igibi it- or of dis o-a t- to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines sha fi e a sworn petition for 4uo 0arranto with the +ommission within ten da-s after the proc amation of the res& t of the e ection. The petitioner adds that the pa-ment of the fi ing fee is re%&ired &nder R& e !(, =ection ), of the ;roced&ra R& es of the +1,EAE+ providing that G =ec. ). 3o petition for 4uo 0arranto sha be given d&e co&rse witho&t the pa-ment of a fi ing fee in the amo&nt of Three I&ndred
Page | 1485

;esos 2;!''.''5 and the ega research fee as re%&ired b- aw. and stresses that there is ab&ndant j&rispr&dence ho ding that the pa-ment of the fi ing fee is essentia to the time iness of the fi ing of the petition itse f. Ie cites man- r& ings of the +o&rt to this effect, specifica - Manc1e$ter v. )ourt of Appeal$. " .or his part, the private respondent denies that the fi ing fee was paid o&t of time. In fact he sa-s, it was f ieda1ead of time. Iis point is that when he fi ed his D;etition for O&o 0arranto with ;ra-er for Immediate 8nn& ment of ;roc amation and Restraining 1rder or Inj&nctionD on Jan&ar- /(, "$::, the +1,EAE+ treated it as a pre* proc amation controvers- and docketed
Page | 1486

it as =;+ +ase 3o. ::*/::. 3o docket fee was co ected a tho&gh it was offered. It was on - on .ebr&ar- :, "$::, that the +1,EAE+ decided to treat his petition as so e - for 4uo 0arranto and re*docketed it as E;+ +ase 3o. ::*"$, serving him notice on .ebr&ar- "', "$::. Ie immediate - paid the fi ing fee on that date. The private respondent arg&es f&rther that d&ring the period when the +1,EAE+ regarded his petition as a pre*proc amation controvers-, the time for fi ing an e ection protest or 4uo 0arranto proceeding was deemed s&spended &nder =ection /4: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode. / 8t an- rate, he sa-s, R& e !(, =ection ), of the +1,EAE+ R& es of ;roced&re cited bPage | 1487

the petitioner, became effective on - on 3ovember "), "$::, seven da-s after p&b ication of the said R& es in the 1fficia Ga7ette p&rs&ant to =ection 4, R& e 44 thereof. ! These r& es co& d not retroact to Jan&ar- /(,"$::, when he fi ed his petition with the +1,EAE+. In his Rep -, the petitioner arg&es that even if the 1mnib&s E ection +ode did not re%&ire it, the pa-ment of fi ing fees was sti necessar- &nder Res. 3o. "$$( and, before that, Res. 3o. "4)' of the respondent +1,EAE+, prom& gated on Jan&ar- "/, "$::, and .ebr&ar- /(, "$:', respective -. To this, the private respondent co&nters that the atter reso &tion was intended for the oca e ections he d on Jan&ar- !', "$:', and did not app - to the "$:: oca e ections,
Page | 1488

which were s&pposed to be governed bthe first*mentioned reso &tion. Iowever, Res. 3o. "$$( took effect on - on ,arch !, "$::, fo owing the apse of seven da-s after its p&b ication as re%&ired bR8 3o. ((4(, otherwise known as the E ectora Reform Aaw of "$:#, which became effective on Jan&ar- ), "$::. Its =ection !' provides in part< =ec. !'. ;ffectivit! of %e"ulation$ and Order$ of t1e )o##i$$ion. G The r& es and reg& ations prom& gated b- the +ommission sha take effect on the seventh da- after their p&b ication in the 1fficia Ga7ette or in at east 2/5 dai - newspapers of genera circ& ation in the ;hi ippines.
Page | 1489

The +o&rt has considered the arg&ments of the parties and ho ds that the petition for 4uo 0arranto was fi ed on time. 0e agree with the respondents that the fee was paid d&ring the ten*daperiod as e6tended b- the pendenc- of the petition when it was treated b- the +1,EAE+ as a pre*proc amation proceeding which did not re%&ire the pa-ment of a fi ing fee. 8t that, we reach this conc &sion on - on the ass&mption that the re%&irement for the pa-ment of the fees in 4uo 0arranto proceedings was a read- effective. There is no record that Res. 3o. "4)' was even p&b ished> and as for Res. 3o. "$$(, this took effect on - on ,arch !, "$::, seven da-s after its p&b ication in the .ebr&ar- /), "$:: iss&es of the ,ani a
Page | 1490

+hronic e and the ;hi ippine Eai In%&irer, or after the petition was fi ed. The petitioner forgets Ta8@ada v. Tuvera 4 when he arg&es that the reso &tions became effective Dimmediate - &pon approva D simp beca&se it was so provided therein. 0e he d in that case that p&b ication was sti necessar- &nder the d&e process c a&se despite s&ch effectivit- c a&se. In an- event, what is important is that the fi ing fee was paid, and whatever de a- there ma- have been is not imp&tab e to the private respondent9s fa& t or neg ect. It is tr&e that in the Manc1e$ter +ase, we re%&ired the time - pa-ment of the fi ing fee as a precondition for the time iness of the fi ing of the case itse f. In un 3n$urance
Page | 1491

Office, Ltd. v. A$uncion, ) however this +o&rt, taking into acco&nt the specia circ&mstances of that case, dec ared< This +o&rt reiterates the r& e that the tria co&rt ac%&ires j&risdiction over a case on - &pon the pa-ment of the prescribed fi ing fee. Iowever, the co&rt ma- a ow the pa-ment of the said fee within a reasonab e time. In the event of non*comp iance therewith, the case sha be dismissed. The same idea is e6pressed in R& e 4/, =ection ":, of the +1,EAE+ R& es of ;roced&re adopted on J&ne /', "$::, th&s< =ec. ":. &on-pa!#ent of pre$cri/ed fee$. G If the fees
Page | 1492

above prescribed are not paid, the)o##i$$ion #a! refu$e to ta:e action t1ereon until t1e! are paid and #a! di$#i$$ t1e action or t1e proceedin". 2Emphasis s&pp ied.5 The +o&rt notes that whi e arg&ing the technica point that the petition for 4uo 0arranto sho& d be dismissed for fai &re to pa- the fi ing fee on time, the petitioner wo& d at the same time minimi7e his a eged ack of citi7enship as Da f&ti e technica it-,D It is regrettab e, to sa- the east, that the re%&irement of citi7enship as a %&a ification for p&b ic office can be so demeaned. 0hat is worse is that it is regarded as an even ess important consideration than the reg ementar- period the petitioner insists &pon.
Page | 1493

This matter sho& d norma - end here as the so e iss&e origina - raised b- the petitioner is the time iness of the4uo 0arranto proceedings against him. Iowever, as his citi7enship is the s&bject of that proceeding, and considering the necessit- for an ear reso &tion of that more important %&estion c ear - and &rgent - affecting the p&b ic interest, we sha direct address it now in this same action. The +o&rt has simi ar - acted in a notab e n&mber of cases, th&s< .rom the foregoing brief statement of the nat&re of the instant case, it wo& d appear that o&r so e f&nction in this proceeding sho& d be to reso ve the sing e iss&e of whether or not the +o&rt of 8ppea s erred
Page | 1494

in r& ing that the motion for new tria of the G=I= in %&estion sho& d indeed be deemedpro for#a. H&t going over the e6tended p eadings of both parties, the +o&rt is immediate impressed that s&bstantia j&stice ma- not be time - achieved, if we sho& d decide this case &pon s&ch a technica gro&nd a one. 0e have caref& - read a the a egations and arg&ments of the parties, verab and comprehensive e6po&nded bevident know edgeab e and &n&s&a competent co&nse , and we fee we can better serve the interests of j&stice b- broadening the scope of o&r in%&ir-, for as the record before &s stands, we see that
Page | 1495

there is eno&gh basis for &s to end the basic controvers- between the parties here and now, dispensing, however, with proced&ra steps which wo& d not an-wa- affect s&bstantia - the merits of their respective c aims. ( 666 0hi e it is the fa& t of the petitioner for appea ing to the wrong co&rt and thereb- a owing the period for appea to apse, the more correct proced&re was for the respondent co&rt to forward the case to the proper co&rt which was the +o&rt of 8ppea s for appropriate action. +onsidering, however, the ength of time that this case has been pending, we app - the r& e in the
Page | 1496

case of Ee +asti o v. Ja-ma in, 2""/ =+R8 (/$5 and fo ow the princip e en&nciated in 8 ger E ectric, Inc. v. +o&rt of 8ppea s, 2"!) =+R8 !#5 which states< ... it is a cherished r& e of proced&re for this +o&rt to a wa-s strive to sett e the entire controvers- in a sing e proceeding eaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of f&t&re itigation. 3o &sef& p&rpose wi be served if this case is remanded to the tria co&rt on - to have its decision raised again to the Intermediate 8ppe ate +o&rt and from there to this +o&rt. 2p. 4!5
Page | 1497

1n - recent - in the case of (eautifont, 3nc., et al. v. )ourt of Appeal$, et al. 2G.R. 3o. )'"4", Jan&ar- /$, "$::5, we stated that< ... H&t a those re evant facts are now before this +o&rt. 8nd those facts dictate the rendition of a verdict in the petitioner9s favor. There is therefore no point in referring the case back to the +o&rt of 8ppea s. The facts and the ega propositions invo ved wi not change, nor sho& d the & timate j&dgment. +onsiderab e time has a read- e apsed and, to serve the ends of j&stice, it is time that the controvers- is fina - aid to rest. 2=ee =otto v. =amson, ) =+R8 #!!> Rep&b ic v. ;aredes,
Page | 1498

"': ;hi . )#> Aianga A&mber +o. v. Aianga Timber +o., Inc., #( =+R8 "$#> Erico v. Ieirs of +higas, $: =+R8 )#)> .rancisco v. +it- of Eavao, "/ =+R8 (/:> Fa encia v. ,abi angan, "') ;hi . "(/5.lZ0p1[1.8\t =o&nd practice seeks to accommodate the theorwhich avoids waste of time, effort and e6pense, both to the parties and the government, not to speak of de a- in the disposa of the case 2cf. .ernande7 v. Garcia, $/ ;hi . )$/, )$#5. 8 marked characteristic of o&r j&dicia set*&p is that where the dictates of j&stice so demand ... the =&preme +o&rt sho& d act, and act with fina it-.9 DAi =i& Aiat v. Rep&b ic, /" =+R8 "'!$, "'4(, citing =ama v. +8, $$
Page | 1499

;hi . /!' and U.=. v. Gimene7, !4 ;hi . #45. In this case, the dictates of j&stice do demand that this +o&rt act, and act with fina it-. # 666 Remand of the case to the ower co&rt for f&rther reception of evidence is not necessar- where the co&rt is in a position to reso ve the disp&te based on the records before it. 1n man- occasions, the +o&rt, in the p&b ic interest and the e6peditio&s administration of j&stice, has reso ved actions on the merits instead of remanding them to the tria co&rt for f&rther proceedings, s&ch as where the ends of j&stice wo& d not be s&bserved b- the remand of the
Page | 1500

case or when p&b ic interest demands an ear - disposition of the case or where the tria co&rt had a read- received a the evidence of the parties. : This co&rse of action becomes a the more j&stified in the present case where, to repeat for stress, it is c aimed that a foreigner is ho ding a p&b ic office. 0e a so note in his Rep -, the petitioner sa-s< In adopting private respondent9s comment, respondent +1,EAE+ imp icit - adopted as Dits ownD private respondent9s repeated assertion that petitioner is no onger a .i ipino citi7en. In so doing, has not respondent
Page | 1501

+1,EAE+ effective - dis%&a ified itse f, b- reason of prej&dgment, from reso ving the petition for %&o warranto fi ed bprivate respondent sti pending before itK $ This is sti another reason wh- the +o&rt has seen fit to r& e direct - on the merits of this case. Going over the record, we find that there are two administrative decisions on the %&estion of the petitioner9s citi7enship. The first was rendered b- the +ommission on E ections on ,a- "/, "$:/, and fo&nd the petitioner to be a citi7en of the ;hi ippines. "' The second was rendered b- the +ommission on Immigration and Eeportation on =eptember "!, "$::, and he d that the
Page | 1502

petitioner was not a citi7en of the ;hi ippines. "" The first decision was penned b- then +1,EAE+ +higas, Ficente =antiago, Jr., with +ommissioners ;aba ate =ave ano and 1pinion conc&rring in f& and +ommissioner Hac&ngan conc&rring in the dismissa of the petition Dwitho&t prej&dice to the iss&e of the respondent9s citi7enship being raised anew in a proper case.D +ommissioner =agadraca reserved his vote, whi e +ommissioner .e ipe was for deferring decision &nti representations sha have been made with the 8&stra ian Embassfor officia verification of the petitioner9s a eged nat&ra i7ation as an 8&stra ian.
Page | 1503

The second decision was &nanimo&s rendered b- +hairman ,iriam Eefensor* =antiago and +ommissioners 8 ano and Gera de7 of the +ommission on Immigration and Eeportation. It is important to observe that in the proceeding before the +1,EAE+, there was no direct proof that the herein petitioner had been forma - nat&ra i7ed as a citi7en of 8&stra ia. This conject&re, which was event&a - rejected, was mere - inferred from the fact that he had married an 8&stra ian citi7en, obtained an 8&stra ian passport, and registered as an a ien with the +IE &pon his ret&rn to this co&ntr- in "$:'. 1n the other hand, the decision of the +IE took into acco&nt the officia statement of the 8&stra ian Government
Page | 1504

dated 8&g&st "/, "$:4, thro&gh its +ons& in the ;hi ippines, that the petitioner was sti an 8&stra ian citi7en as of that date b- reason of his nat&ra i7ation in "$#(. That statement "/ is reprod&ced in f& as fo ows< I, GR8I8, +1AI3 0E=T, +ons& of 8&stra ia in the ;hi ippines, b- virt&e of a certificate of appointment signed and sea ed b- the 8&stra ian ,inister of =tate for .oreign 8ffairs on "$ 1ctober "$:!, and recogni7ed as s&ch b- Aetter of ;atent signed and sea ed b- the ;hi ippines 8cting ,inister of .oreign 8ffairs on /! 3ovember "$:!, do hereb- provide the fo owing statement in response to the s&bpoena Testificand&m dated $ 8pri "$:4 in
Page | 1505

regard to the ;etition for dis%&a ification against R8,13 A8H1, JR. C A1Z831 2=;+ 3o. :4*#!5, and do hereb- certifthat the statement is tr&e and correct. =T8TE,E3T 85 R8,13 A8H1, JR. C A1Z831, date of birth /! Eecember "$!4, was married in the ;hi ippines to an 8&stra ian citi7en. 8s the spo&se of an 8&stra ian citi7en, he was not re%&ired to meet norma re%&irements for the grant of citi7enship and was granted 8&stra ian citi5en$1ip /! !dne! on /: J& - "$#(. H5 8n- person over the age of "( -ears who is granted 8&stra ian
Page | 1506

citi7enship #u$t ta:e an oat1 of alle"iance or #a:e an affir#ation of alle"iance. The wording of the oath of affirmation is< DI ..., reno&ncing a other a egiance ...D etc. This need not necessari have an- effect on his former nationa it- as this wo& d depend on the citi7enship aws of his former co&ntr-. +5 The marriage was dec ared void in the 8&stra ian .edera +o&rt in =-dne- on /# J&ne "$:' on the gro&nd that the marriage had been bigamo&s. E5 Accordin" to our record$ LA(O i$ $till an Au$tralian citi5en.

Page | 1507

E5 =ho& d he ret&rn to 8&stra ia, A8H1 ma- face co&rt action in respect of =ection )' of 8&stra ian +iti7enship 8ct "$4: which re ates to the giving of fa se or mis eading information of a materia nat&re in respect of an app ication for 8&stra ian citi7enship. If s&ch a prosec&tion was s&ccessf& , he co& d be deprived of 8&stra ian citi7enship &nder =ection /" of the 8ct. .5 There are two f&rther wa-s in which A8H1 co& d divest himse f of 8&stra ian citi7enship< 2i5 Ie co& d make a dec aration of Ren&nciation of 8&stra ian citi7enship &nder =ection ": of the 8&stra ian +iti7enship 8ct, or
Page | 1508

2ii5 If he ac%&ired another nationa it-, 2for e6amp e, .i ipino5 b- a forma and vo &ntar- act other than marriage, then he wo& d a&tomatica - ose as 8&stra ian citi7enship &nder =ection "# of the 8ct. I3 0IT3E== 0IERE1., I I8FE IEREU3T1 =ET ,8C I83E 83E =E8A 1. TIE 8U=TR8AI83 E,H8==C, ,83IA8, TII= "/th E8C 1. 8;RIA "$:4. E13E 8T ,83IA8 I3 TIE ;IIAI;;I3E=. 2=igned5 GR8I8, +. 0E=T +ons& This was affirmed ater b- the etter of .ebr&ar- ", "$::, addressed to the private respondent b- the
Page | 1509

Eepartment of .oreign reading as fo ows< "! =ir<

8ffairs

0ith reference to -o&r etter dated " .ebr&ar- "$::, I wish to inform -o& that in%&ir- made with the 8&stra ian Government thro&gh the Embass- of the ;hi ippines in +anberra has e icited the fo owing information< "5 That ,r. Ramon A. Aabo, Jr. ac%&ired 8&stra ian citi7enship on /: J& - "$#(. /5 T1at prior to 1+ Jul! 19F>, a candidate for Au$tralian citi5en$1ip 1ad to eit1er $0ear an oat1 of alle"iance or #a:e an affir#ation of alle"iance 01ic1 carrie$ a
Page | 1510

renunciation alle"iance.

of

Call

ot1er

Fer- tr& - -o&rs, .or the =ecretarof .oreign 8ffairs< 2=GE5 R1E1A.1 =EFERI31, JR. 8ssistant =ecretarThe decision a so noted the oath of a egiance taken b- ever- nat&ra i7ed 8&stra ian reading as fo ows< 18TI 1. 8AAEGI83+E I, 8.H., renouncin" all ot1er alle"iance, swear b- 8 might- God that I wi be faithf& and bear tr&e a egiance to Ier ,ajestE i7abeth the =econd, O&een of 8&stra ia, Ier heirs and s&ccessors according to aw, and that I wi faithf& - observe the
Page | 1511

aws of 8&stra ia and f& fi md&ties as an 8&stra ian citi7en. "4 and the 8ffirmation of 8 egiance, which dec ares< 8..IR,8TI13 1. 8AAEGI83+E I, 8.H., renouncin" all ot1er alle"iance, so emn - and sincere promise and dec are that I wi be faithf& and bear tr&e a egiance to Ier ,ajest- E i7abeth the =econd, O&een of 8&stra ia, Ier heirs and s&ccessors according to aw, and that I wi faithf& - observe the Aaws of 8&stra ia and f& fi md&ties as an 8&stra ian citi7en. ") The petitioner does not %&estion the a&thenticit- of the above evidence. 3either does he den- that he obtained
Page | 1512

8&stra ian ;assport 3o. #)4#'), which he &sed in coming back to the ;hi ippines in "$:', when he dec ared before the immigration a&thorities that he was an a ien and registered as s&ch &nder 8 ien +ertificate of Registration 3o. H*!/!$:). "( Ie ater asked for the change of his stat&s from immigrant to a ret&rning former ;hi ippine citi7en and was granted Immigrant +ertificate of Residence 3o. //!:'$. "# Ie a so categorica - dec ared that he was a citi7en of 8&stra ia in a n&mber of sworn statements vo &ntari - made b- him and. even so&ght to avoid the j&risdiction of the baranga- co&rt on the gro&nd that he was a foreigner. ": The decision of the +1,EAE+ in "$:/ %&aint - dismisses a these acts as
Page | 1513

DmistakesD that did not divest the petitioner of his citi7enship, a tho&gh, as ear ier noted, not a the members joined in this finding. 0e reject this r& ing as tota - base ess. The petitioner is not an &n ettered person who was not aware of the conse%&ences of his acts, et a one the fact that he was assisted b- co&nse when he performed these acts. The private respondent %&estions the motives of the +1,EAE+ at that time and stresses Aabo9s po itica affi iation with the part- in power then, b&t we need not go into that now. There is a so the c aim that the decision can no onger be reversed beca&se of the doctrine of re$ judicata, b&t this too m&st be dismissed. This doctrine does not app - to %&estions of citi7enship, as
Page | 1514

the +o&rt has r& ed in severa cases. "$ ,oreover, it does not appear that it was proper - and seasonab p eaded, in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, having been invoked on - when the petitioner fi ed his rep - /' to the private respondent9s comment. Hesides, one of the re%&isites of re$ judicata, to wit, identit- of parties, is not present in this case. The petitioner9s contention that his marriage to an 8&stra ian nationa in "$#( did not a&tomatica - divest him of ;hi ippine citi7enship is irre evant. There is no c aim or finding that he a&tomatica - ceased to be a .i ipino beca&se of that marriage. Ie became a citi7en of 8&stra ia beca&se he was nat&ra i7ed as s&ch thro&gh a forma
Page | 1515

and positive process, simp ified in his case beca&se he was married to an 8&stra ian citi7en. 8s a condition for s&ch nat&ra i7ation, he forma - took the 1ath of 8 egiance andJor made the 8ffirmation of 8 egiance, both %&oted above. Reno&ncing a other a egiance, he swore Dto be faithf& and bear tr&e a egiance to Ier ,ajest- E i7abeth the =econd, O&een of 8&stra ia ...D and to f& fi his d&ties Das an 8&stra ian citi7en.D The petitioner now c aims that his nat&ra i7ation in 8&stra ia made him at worst on - a d&a nationa and did not divest him of his ;hi ippine citi7enship. =&ch a specio&s arg&ment cannot stand against the c ear provisions of +8 3o. (!, which en&merates the modes bPage | 1516

which ;hi ippine citi7enship ma- be ost. 8mong these are< 2"5 nat&ra i7ation in a foreign co&ntr-> 2/5 e6press ren&nciation of citi7enship> and 2!5 s&bscribing to an oath of a egiance to s&pport the +onstit&tion or aws of a foreign co&ntr-, a of which are app icab e to the petitioner. It is a so worth mentioning in this connection that &nder 8rtic e IF, =ection ), of the present +onstit&tion, DE&a a egiance of citi7ens is inimica to the nationa interest and sha be dea t with b- aw.D Even if it be ass&med that, as the petitioner asserts, his nat&ra i7ation in 8&stra ia was ann& ed after it was fo&nd that his marriage to the 8&stra ian citi7en was bigamo&s, that circ&mstance a one did not a&tomatica - restore his
Page | 1517

;hi ippine citi7enship. Iis divestit&re of 8&stra ian citi7enship does not concern &s here. That is a matter between him and his adopted co&ntr-. 0hat we m&st consider is the fact that he vo &ntari and free - rejected ;hi ippine citi7enship and wi ing - and knowing - embraced the citi7enship of a foreign co&ntr-. The possibi it- that he ma- have been s&bse%&ent - rejected b- 8&stra ia, as he c aims, does not mean that he has been a&tomatica - reinstated as a citi7en of the ;hi ippines. Under +8 3o. (! as amended b- ;E 3o. #/), ;hi ippine citi7enship ma- be reac%&ired b- direct act of +ongress, bnat&ra i7ation, or b- repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner c aim, that he has reac%&ired
Page | 1518

;hi ippine citi7enship b- an- of these methods. Ie does not point to anj&dicia decree of nat&ra i7ation as to an- stat&te direct - conferring ;hi ippine citi7enship &pon him. 3either has he shown that he has comp ied with ;E 3o. #/), providing that< ... 2/5 nat&ra *born .i ipinos who have ost their ;hi ippine citi7enship mareac%&ire ;hi ippine citi7enship thro&gh repatriation b- app -ing with the =pecia +ommittee on 3at&ra i7ation created b- Aetter of Instr&ction 3o. /#', and, if t1eir application$ are approved, taking the necessar- oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, after which the- sha be deemed
Page | 1519

to have reac%&ired ;hi ippine citi7enship. The +ommission on Immigration and Eeportation sha there&pon cance their certificate of registration. 2Emphasis s&pp ied.5 That is wh- the +ommission on Immigration and Eeportation rejected his app ication for the cance ation of his a ien certificate of registration. 8nd that is a so the reason we m&st den- his present c aim for recognition as a citi7en of the ;hi ippines. The petitioner is not now, nor was he on the da- of the oca e ections on Jan&ar":, "$::, a citi7en of the ;hi ippines. In fact, he was not even a %&a ified voter &nder the +onstit&tion itse f beca&se of his a ienage. /" Ie was therefore ine igib e as a candidate for ma-or of
Page | 1520

Hag&io +it-, &nder =ection 4/ of the Aoca Government +ode providing in materia part as fo ows< =ec. 4/. Vualification$. G 8n e ective oca officia m&st be a citi7en of the ;hi ippines, at east twent-*three -ears of age on e ection da-, a %&a ified voter registered as s&ch in the baranga-, m&nicipa it-, cit- or province where he proposes to be e ected, a resident therein for at east one -ear at the time of the fi ing of his certificate of candidac-, and ab e to read and write Eng ish, .i ipino, or an- other oca ang&age or dia ect. The petitioner arg&es that his a eged ack of citi7enship is a Df&ti e technica it-D
Page | 1521

that sho& d not fr&strate the wi of the e ectorate of Hag&io +it-, who e ected him b- a Dresonant and th&ndero&s majorit-.D To be acc&rate, it was not as o&d as a that, for his ead over the second*p acer was on - abo&t /,"'' votes. In an- event, the peop e of that oca itco& d not have, even &nanimo&s -, changed the re%&irements of the Aoca Government +ode and the +onstit&tion. The e ectorate had no power to permit a foreigner owing his tota a egiance to the O&een of 8&stra ia, or at east a state ess individ&a owing no a egiance to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, to preside over them as ma-or of their cit-. 1n citi7ens of the ;hi ippines have that privi ege over their co&ntr-men.
Page | 1522

The probabi it- that man- of those who voted for the petitioner ma- have done so in the be ief that he was %&a ified on strengthens the conc &sion that the res& ts of the e ection cannot n& if- the %&a ifications for the office now he d bhim. These %&a ifications are contin&ing re%&irements> once an- of them is ost d&ring inc&mbenc-, tit e to the office itse f is deemed forfeited. In the case at bar, the citi7enship and voting re%&irements were not s&bse%&ent - ost b&t were not possessed at a in the first p ace on the da- of the e ection. The petitioner was dis%&a ified from r&nning as ma-or and, a tho&gh e ected, is not now %&a ified to serve as s&ch. .ina -, there is the %&estion of whether or not the private respondent, who fi ed
Page | 1523

the 4uo 0arranto petition, can rep ace the petitioner as ma-or. Ie cannot. The simp e reason is that as he obtained on - the second highest n&mber of votes in the e ection, he was obvio&s - not the choice of the peop e of Hag&io cit-. The atest r& ing of the +o&rt on this iss&e is anto$ v. )o##i$$ion on ;lection$ // decided in "$:). In that case, the candidate who p aced second was proc aimed e ected after the votes for his winning riva , who was dis%&a ified as a t&rncoat and considered a non*candidate, were a disregarded as stra-. In effect, the second p acer won b- defa& t. That decision was s&pported b- eight members of the +o&rt then /! with three
Page | 1524

dissenting /4 and another two reserving their vote. /) 1ne was on officia eave. /( Re*e6amining that decision, the +o&rt finds, and so ho ds, that it sho& d be reversed in favor of the ear ier case ofGeroni#o v. %a#o$, /# 0hich represents the more ogica and democratic r& e. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first anno&nced in "$"/ in Topacio v$. 2arede$ /: was s&pported b- ten members of the +o&rt /$ witho&t an- dissent, a tho&gh one reserved his vote, !' another took no part !" and two others were on eave. !/ There the +o&rt he d< ... it wo& d be e6treme - rep&gnant to the basic concept of the constit&tiona - g&aranteed right to s&ffrage if a candidate who has not
Page | 1525

ac%&ired the majorit- or p &ra it- of votes is proc aimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constit&enc-, the majorit- of which have positive - dec ared thro&gh their ba ots that the- do not choose him. =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed b- those who have received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is a f&ndamenta Idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majoritor p &ra it- of the ega votes cast
Page | 1526

in the e ection. 2/' +orp&s J&ris /nd, = /4!, p. (#(.5 The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest n&mber of votes is ater dec ared to be dis%&a ified or not e igib e for the office to which he was e ected does not necessari - entit e the candidate who obtained the second highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared the winner of the e ective office. The votes cast for a dead, dis%&a ified, or non*e igib e person ma- not be va id to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. Iowever, in the absence of a stat&te which c ear - asserts a contrar- po itica and egis ative po ic- on the matter, if the votes
Page | 1527

were cast in the sincere be ief that the candidate was a ive, %&a ified, or e igib e, the- sho& d not be treated as stra-, void or meaning ess. It remains to stress that the citi7en of the ;hi ippines m&st take pride in his stat&s as s&ch and cherish this price ess gift that, o&t of more than a h&ndred other nationa ities, God has seen fit to grant him. Iaving been so endowed, he m&st not ight - -ie d this precio&s advantage, rejecting it for another and that maoffer him materia and other attractions that he ma- not find in his own co&ntr-. To be s&re, he has the right to reno&nce the ;hi ippines if he sees fit and transfer his a egiance to a state with more a &rements for him. !! H&t having done
Page | 1528

so, he cannot e6pect to be we comed back with open arms once his taste for his adopted co&ntr- t&rns so&r or he is himse f disowned b- it as an &ndesirab e a ien. ;hi ippine citi7enship is not a cheap commodit- that can be easi - recovered after its ren&nciation. It ma- be restored on - after the ret&rning renegade makes a forma act of re*dedication to the co&ntr- he has abj&red and he so emn affirms once again his tota and e6c &sive o-a t- to the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines. This manot be accomp ished b- e ection to p&b ic office. 0IERE.1RE, petitioner Ramon J. Aabo, Jr. is hereb- dec ared 31T a citi7en of the ;hi ippines and therefore
Page | 1529

EI=OU8AI.IEE from contin&ing to serve as ,a-or of Hag&io +it-. Ie is ordered to F8+8TE his office and s&rrender the same to the Fice*,a-or of Hag&io +it-, once this decision becomes fina and e6ec&tor-. The temporar- restraining order dated Jan&ar- !", "$:$, is AI.TEE. Hernan, D).J.E, &arva$a, Melencio7errera, 2ara$, Heliciano, Ganca!co, 2adilla, (idin, ar#iento, )orte$, Gri8@o-A4uino Medialdea and %e"alado, JJ., concur. =eparate 1pinions GUTTIERREZ, J%., J.,conc&rring<
Page | 1530

8s in the case of Hrivaldo v. )o##i$$ion on ;lection$ 2G. R. 3o. :#"$!, J&ne /!, "$:$5 and inspire of what wo& d otherwise be ins&perab e proced&ra obstac es, I am constrained to conc&r in the +o&rt9s decision so forcef& - and fe icito&s - written b- ,r. J&stice Isagani 8. +r&7. I do so beca&se I cannot see how the +o&rt can co&ntenance a citi7en of a foreign co&ntr- or one who has reno&nced .i ipino citi7enship sitting as the ma-or of one of the most important cities in the ;hi ippines. 0hat was raised to the +o&rt was on the iss&e of the +1,EAE+9s j&risdiction to in%&ire into the citi7enship of the petitioner. 1rdinari -, we wo& d have imited o&rse ves to s&staining the
Page | 1531

j&risdiction of the +1,EAE+ and remanding the case for f&rther proceedings and the rendition of a decision. Under =ection #, 8rtic e IN8 of the +onstit&tion, a decision, order, or r& ing of the +1,EAE+ ma- be bro&ght to the =&preme +o&rt on certiorari bthe aggrieved part- within thirt- dafrom receipt of a cop- thereof. 3o decision on the petitioner9s citi7enship has been rendered and no decision can, as -et, be e evated to &s for review. I, therefore, reiterate m- statement inHrivaldo that m- conc&rrence is imited on - to cases invo ving citi7enship and dis o-a t- b&t not to an- of the manother gro&nds for dis%&a ification cited in m- conc&rring opinion.
Page | 1532

1&r decision to dis%&a if- the petitioner is partic& ar - distressing to me beca&se I am impressed b- the sing& ar achievements in the bea&tification of Hag&io +it-, in the peace and order sit&ation, and in the res&rgence of civic pride so visib e to an-one who has gone &p to Hag&io since ,r. Aabo ass&med the ma-orship. Iowever, I see no other wa- this case can be reso ved e6cept badopting a pragmatic approach. It is be-ond disp&te that a non*citi7en cannot be the ma-or of Hag&io +it-. I join the rest of the +o&rt. Hernan, ).J., &arva$a, Melencio7errera, 2ara$, Heliciano, Ganca!co, 2adilla, (idin, ar#iento, )orte$, Gri8@o-A4uino Medialdea and %e"alado, JJ., concur.
Page | 1533

=eparate 1pinions GUTTIERREZ, J%., J.,conc&rring< 8s in the case of Hrivaldo v. )o##i$$ion on ;lection$ 2G. R. 3o. :#"$!, J&ne /!, "$:$5 and inspire of what wo& d otherwise be ins&perab e proced&ra obstac es, I am constrained to conc&r in the +o&rt9s decision so forcef& - and fe icito&s - written b- ,r. J&stice Isagani 8. +r&7. I do so beca&se I cannot see how the +o&rt can co&ntenance a citi7en of a foreign co&ntr- or one who has reno&nced .i ipino citi7enship sitting as the ma-or of one of the most important cities in the ;hi ippines.0hat was raised to the +o&rt was on - the iss&e of the +1,EAE+9s j&risdiction to in%&ire into the citi7enship of the petitioner.
Page | 1534

1rdinari -, we wo& d have imited o&rse ves to s&staining the j&risdiction of the +1,EAE+ and remanding the case for f&rther proceedings and the rendition of a decision. Under =ection #, 8rtic e IN8 of the +onstit&tion, a decision, order, or r& ing of the +1,EAE+ mabe bro&ght to the =&preme +o&rt on certiorari b- the aggrieved part- within thirt- da- from receipt of a cop- thereof. 3o decision on the petitioner9s citi7enship has been rendered and no decision can, as -et, be e evated to &s for review. I, therefore, reiterate mstatement inHrivaldo that mconc&rrence is imited on - to cases invo ving citi7enship and dis o-a t- b&t not to an- of the man- other gro&nds for dis%&a ification cited in m- conc&rring opinion.1&r decision to dis%&a if- the
Page | 1535

petitioner is partic& ar - distressing to me beca&se I am impressed b- the sing& ar achievements in the bea&tification of Hag&io +it-, in the peace and order sit&ation, and in the res&rgence of civic pride so visib e to an-one who has gone &p to Hag&io since ,r. Aabo ass&med the ma-orship. Iowever, I see no other wa- this case can be reso ved e6cept b- adopting a pragmatic approach. It is be-ond disp&te that a non*citi7en cannot be the ma-or of Hag&io +it-. I join the rest of the +o&rt.

Page | 1536

Page | 1537

G.R. No. 9935; J&nu& y 30, 1995 DJU#AN,AN, petitione , !". HON. ANDREA D. DO#%NGO, $O##%SS%ONER O. ,HE 6OARD O. %##%GRA,%ON, HON. REG%NO R. SAN,%AGO &n( HON. JORGE V. SAR#%EN,O, $O##%SS%ONERS 6UREAU O. %##%GRA,%ON AND DE*OR,A,%ON, e"pon(ent". OUI8=13, J.: This is a petition for certiorari &nder R& e () of the Revised R& es of +o&rt with pre iminar- inj&nction, to reverse and set aside the Eecision dated =eptember /#, "$$' of the +ommission
Page | 1538

on Immigration and Eeportation 2+IE5, ordering the deportation of petitioner and its Reso &tion dated Jan&ar- /$, "$$", den-ing the motion for reconsideration. I Hernard Hane7, the h&sband of ,arina +abae , went to Indonesia as a contract worker. 1n 8pri !, "$#4, he embraced and was converted to Is am. 1n ,a- "#, "$#4, he married petitioner in accordance with Is amic rites. Ie ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in Jan&ar- "$#$. 1n Jan&ar- "!, "$#$, petitioner and her two chi dren with Hane7, 2two*-ear o d ,arina and nine*month o d 3ik& as5 arrived in ,ani a as the Dg&estsD of
Page | 1539

Hane7. The atter made it appear that he was j&st a friend of the fami - of petitioner and was mere - repa-ing the hospitabi it- e6tended to him d&ring his sta- in Indonesia. 0hen petitioner and her two chi dren arrived at the 3ino- 8%&ino Internationa 8irport on Jan&ar- "!, "$#$, Hane7, together with ,arina +abae , met them. Hane7 e6ec&ted an D8ffidavit of G&arant- and =&pport,D for his Dg&ests,D stating inter alia, that< That I am the g&arantor for the entr- into the ;hi ippines of ,rs. Ej&mantan, 4/ -ears o d, and her two minor chi dren, ,8RI38, / -ears o d, and 3I?UA8=, $ months
Page | 1540

o d, a Indonesian citi7ens, who are coming as temporar- visitors. That I am wi ing to g&arant- them o&t of gratit&de to their fami - for the hospita it- the- have accorded me d&ring the few -ears that I have sta-ed in Indonesia in connection with m- emp o-ment thereat. That I g&arant- the- are aw abiding citi7ens and I g&aranttheir behavior whi e the- are in the ;hi ippines> I a so g&arant- their s&pport and that the- wi not become a p&b ic charge. That I g&arant- their vo &ntardepart&re &pon the termination of
Page | 1541

the a&thori7ed sta- granted them b- the Government 2%ollo, p. 4"5. 8s Dg&ests,D petitioner and her two chi dren ived in the ho&se of Hane7. ;etitioner and her chi dren were admitted to the ;hi ippines as temporarvisitors &nder =ection $2a5 of the Immigration 8ct of "$4'. In "$:", ,arina +abae discovered the tr&e re ationship of her h&sband and petitioner. =he fi ed a comp aint for Dconc&binageD with the ,&nicipa Tria +o&rt of Urdaneta, ;angasinan against the two. This case was, however, dismissed for ack of merit. 1n ,arch /), "$:/, the immigration stat&s of petitioner was changed from temporar- visitor to that of permanent
Page | 1542

resident &nder =ection "!2a5 of the same aw. 1n 8pri "4, "$:/, petitioner was iss&ed an a ien certificate of registration. 3ot accepting the set*back, Hane79 e dest son, Aeonardo, fi ed a etter comp aint with the 1mb&dsman, who s&bse%&ent - referred the etter to the +IE. 1n the basis of the said etter, petitioner was detained at the +IE detention ce . =he ater re eased pending the deportation proceedings 2EE; +ase 3o. $'*4''5 after posting a cash bond 2%ollo, pp. ")*"(5. Thereafter, she manifested to the +IE that she be a owed to depart vo &ntari from the ;hi ippines and asked for time to p&rchase her air ine ticket 2%ollo, p. "'5. Iowever, she a change of heart
Page | 1543

and moved for the dismissa of the deportation case on the gro&nd that she was va id - married to a .i ipino citi7en 2%ollo, pp. ""*"/5. In the Eecision dated =eptember /#, "$$', the +IE, thro&gh p&b ic respondents, disposed as fo ows< 0IERE.1RE, I3 FIE0 1. TIE .1REG1I3G, the Hoard of +ommissioners finds the second marriage of Hernardo Hanes to respondent Ej&mantan irreg& ar and not in accordance with the aws of the ;hi ippines. 0e revoke the =ection "!2a5 visa previo&s granted to her 2%ollo, p. /!5. ;&b ic respondents denied petitioner9s motion for reconsideration in their
Page | 1544

Reso &tion dated Jan&ar- /$, "$$" 2%ollo, pp. !"*!!5. Ience, this petition. 0e iss&ed a temporar- restraining order, directing p&b ic respondents to cease and desist from e6ec&ting or imp ementing the Eecision dated =eptember /#, "$$' and the Reso &tion dated Jan&ar- /$, "$$" 2%ollo, pp. !4* !(5. 1n =eptember /', "$$4, Aeonardo +. Hane7 manifested that his father died on 8&g&st "4, "$$4 and that he and his mother were withdrawing their objection to the granting of a permanent resident visa to petitioner 2%ollo, pp. "#!*"#)5. II
Page | 1545

;etitioner c aims that her marriage to Hane7 was va id &nder 8rtic e /# of ;.E. 3o. "':), the ,&s im +ode, which recogni7es the practice of po -andr- b,&s im ma es. .rom that premise, she arg&es that &nder 8rtic es "'$ of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, 8rtic e (: of the .ami - +ode and 8rtic e !4 of the ,&s im +ode, the h&sband and wife are ob iged to ive together and &nder 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, the h&sband is given the right to fi6 the conj&ga residence. =he c aims that p&b ic respondents have no right to order the co&p e to ive separate 2%ollo, pp. )*#5. 0hen asked to comment on the petition, the =o icitor Genera took the position that the +IE co& d not order petitioner9s
Page | 1546

deportation beca&se its power to do so had prescribed &nder =ection !# 2b5 of the Immigration 8ct of "$4' 2%ollo, pp. )#*#45. III 0e need not reso ve the va idit- of petitioner9s marriage to Hane7, if &nder the aw the +IE can va id - deport petitioner as an D&ndesirab e a ienD regard ess of her marriage to a .i ipino citi7en. Therefore, to be first reso ved is the %&estion on petitioner9s immigration stat&s, partic& ar - the ega it- of her admission into the co&ntr- and the change of her stat&s from temporarvisitor to permanent resident. Upon a finding that she was not awf& admitted into the co&ntr- and she did not awf& ac%&ire permanent
Page | 1547

residenc-, the ne6t %&estion is whether the power to deport her has prescribed. There was a b atant ab&se of o&r immigration aws in effecting petitioner9s entr- into the co&ntr- and the change of her immigration stat&s from temporarvisitor to permanent resident. 8 s&ch privi eges were obtained thro&gh misinterpretation. 3ever was the marriage of petitioner to Hane7 disc osed to the immigration a&thorities in her app ications for temporar- visitor9s visa and for permanent residenc-. The civi stat&s of an a ien app icant for admission as a temporar- visitor is a matter that co& d inf &ence the e6ercise of discretion on the part of the
Page | 1548

immigration a&thorities. The immigration a&thorities wo& d be ess inc ined to a ow the entr- of a woman who c aims to have entered into a marriage with a .i ipino citi7en, who is married to another woman 2)f. =hi& =hin ,an v. Ga ang, ! =+R8 :#" L"$("M5. Genera -, the right of the ;resident to e6pe or deport a iens whose presence is deemed inimica to the p&b ic interest is as abso &te and &n%&a ified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrinto the co&ntr- 28nnotations, : 8AR "/:(5. this right is based on the fact that since the a iens are not part of the nation, their admission into the territoris a matter of p&re permission and simp e to erance which creates no ob igation on the part of the government
Page | 1549

to permit them to sta- 2! 8m. J&r. /d. #/5. The interest, which an a ien has in being admitted into or a owed to contin&e to reside in the co&ntr-, is protected on so far as +ongress ma- choose to protect it 2United =tates e6 re . ?a o&dis v. =ha&hness- ":' .. /d. 4:$5. There is no aw g&aranteeing a iens married to .i ipino citi7ens the right to be admitted, m&ch ess to be given permanent residenc-, in the ;hi ippines. The fact of marriage b- an a ien to a citi7en does not withdraw her from the operation of the immigration aws governing the admission and e6c &sion of a iens 2United =tates e6 re . ?na&ff v. =ha&hness-, !!: U= )!# $4 A. Ed. !"#,
Page | 1550

#' =. +t. !'$ L"$)'M> Aow 0ah =&e- v. Hack&s, //) U= 4(' )( A. Ed. ""(), !/ =. +t. #!4 L"$"/M> 8nnotations, #" 8AR "/"!5. ,arriage of an a ien woman to a .i ipino h&sband does not ip$o facto make her a .i ipino citi7en and does not e6c&se her from her fai &re to depart from the co&ntr- &pon the e6piration of her e6tended sta- here as an a ien 2Joa%&in v. Ga ang, !! =+R8 !(/ L"$#'M5. Under =ection $ of the Immigration 8ct of "$4', it is not mandator- for the +IE to admit an- a ien who app ies for a visitor9s visa. 1nce admitted into the co&ntr-, the a ien has no right to an indefinite sta-. Under =ection "! of the aw, an a ien a owed to sta- temporari ma- app - for a change of stat&s and
Page | 1551

Dma- be admittedD as a permanent resident. 8mong those considered %&a ified to app - for permanent residenc- if the wife or h&sband of a ;hi ippine citi7en 2Immigration 8ct of "$4', =ec. "!LaM5. The entr- of a iens into the co&ntr- and their admission as immigrants is not a matter of right, even if the- are ega - married to .i ipino citi7ens. IF 0e now address the iss&e raised b- the =o icitor Genera that the right of p&b ic respondents to deport petitioner has prescribed, citing =ection !#2b5 of the Immigration 8ct of "$4'. =aid =ection !#2b5 provides<
Page | 1552

Eeportation ma- be effected &nder c a&ses /, #, :, "" and "/ of paragraph 2a5 of this section at antime after entr-, b&t sha not be effected &nder an- c a&se &n ess the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five -ears after the ca&se for deportation arises. Eeportation &nder c a&ses ! and 4 sha not be effected if the co&rt, or j&dge thereof, when sentencing the a ien, sha recommend to the +ommissioner of Immigration that the a ien be not deported 28s amended b- Rep. 8ct 3o. )'!5. =ection !#2a5 of the said aw mentioned in =ection !#2b5 thereof provides<
Page | 1553

The fo owing a iens sha be arrested &pon the warrant of the +ommissioner of Immigration or of an- other officer designated b- him for the p&rpose and deported &pon the warrant of the +ommissioner of Immigration after a determination b- the Hoard of +ommissioners of the e6istence of the gro&nd for deportation as charged against the a ien< "5 8n- a ien who enters the ;hi ippines after the effective date of this 8ct b- means of fa se and mis eading statements or witho&t inspection and admission b- the immigration a&thorities at a designating port of entr- or at anPage | 1554

p ace other than at a designated port of entr-. /5 8n- a ien who enters the ;hi ippines after the effective date of this 8ct, who was not awf& admissib e at the time of entr-> !5 8n- a ien who, after the effective date of this 8ct, is convicted in the ;hi ippines and sentenced for a term of one -ear or more for a crime invo ving mora t&rpit&de committed within five -ears after his entr-, is so convicted and sentenced more than once> 45 8n- a ien who is convicted and sentenced for a vio ation of the aw governing prohibited dr&gs>
Page | 1555

)5 8n- a ien who practices prostit&tion or is an inmate of a ho&se of prostit&tion or is connected with the management of a ho&se of prostit&tion, or is a proc&rer> (5 8n- a ien who becomes a p&b ic charge within five -ears after entrfrom ca&ses not affirmative shown to have arisen s&bse%&ent to entr-> #5 8n- a ien who remains in the ;hi ippines in vio ation of animitation or condition &nder which he was admitted a non*immigrant> :5 8n- a ien who be ieves in, advises, advocates or teaches the overthrow b- force and vio ence of
Page | 1556

the Government of the ;hi ippines, or of constit&ted aw and a&thorit-, or who disbe ieves in or is opposed to organi7ed government, or who advises, advocates, or teaches the assa& t or assassination of p&b ic officia s beca&se of their office, or who advises, advocates, or teaches the &n awf& destr&ction of propert-, or who is a member of or affi iated with an- organi7ation entertaining, advocating or teaching s&ch doctrines, or who on an- manner whatsoever ends assistance, financia or otherwise, to the dissemination of s&ch doctrines> $5 8n- a ien who commits an- of the acts described in =ections
Page | 1557

fort-*five and fort-*si6 of this 8ct, independent of crimina action which ma- be bro&ght against him< 2rovided, That in the case of an a ien who, for an- reason, is convicted and sentenced to s&ffer both imprisonment and deportation, said a ien sha first serve the entire period of his imprisonment before he is act&a deported<2rovided, 1o0ever, That the imprisonment ma- be waived bthe +ommissioner of Immigration with the consent of the Eepartment Iead, and &pon pa-ment b- the a ien concerned of s&ch amo&nt as the +ommissioner ma- fi6 and approved b- the Eepartment Iead, and &pon pa-ment b- the a ien concerned of
Page | 1558

s&ch amo&nt as the +ommissioner ma- fi6 and approved b- the Eepartment Iead 2as amended bR.8. 3o. "445> "'5 8n- a ien who, at an- time within five -ears after entr-, sha have been convicted of vio ating the provisions of the ;hi ippine +ommonwea th 8ct 3&mbered =i6 h&ndred and fift-*three, otherwise known as the ;hi ippine 8 ien Registration 8ct of "$4" 2now Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. )(/5, or who, at an- time after entr-, sha have been convicted more than once of vio ating the provisions of the same 8ct> ""5 8n- a ien who engages in profiteering, hoarding, or b ack*
Page | 1559

marketing, independent of ancrimina action which ma- be bro&ght against him> "/5 8n- a ien who is convicted of an- offense pena i7ed &nder +ommonwea th 8ct 3&mbered .o&r h&ndred and sevent-*three, otherwise known as the Revised 3at&ra i7ation Aaws of the ;hi ippines, or an- aw re ating to ac%&isition of ;hi ippine citi7enship> "!5 8n- a ien who defra&ds his creditor babsconding or a ienating properties, to prevent them from being attached or e6ec&ted.

Page | 1560

Under c a&se " of =ection !#2a5, an Da ien who enters the ;hi ippines after the effective date of this 8ct b- means of fa se and mis eading statements or witho&t inspection and admission b- the immigration a&thorities at a designated port of entr- or at an- p ace other than at a designated port of entr-D is s&bject to deportation. The deportation of an a ien &nder said c a&se of =ection !#2a5 has a prescriptive period and Dsha not be effected ... &n ess the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five -ears after the ca&se for deportation arisesD 2Immigration 8ct of "$4', =ec. !#LbM5. +ongress ma- impose a imitation of time for the deportation of a ien from the
Page | 1561

co&ntr- 2+ostan7o v. Ti inghast, /:# U= !4" ## A. Ed. !)', )! =. +t. ")/ L"$!/M> G&ine- v. Honham L+8 $M /(" .. ):/, : 8AR "/:/5. In (oard of )o##i$$ioner$ D)39E v. 9ela %o$a, "$# =+R8 :)! 2"$$"5, we he d that &nder =ection !#2b5 of the Immigration 8ct of "$4', the deportation of an a ien ma- be barred after the apse of five -ears after the ca&se of deportation arises. J&stice .e iciano, in his dissenting opinion, %&a ified the broad statement of the aw as fo ows< E6amination of the above %&oted =ection !# 2b5 shows that the five 2)5 -ear imitation is app icab e on where deportation is so&ght to be effected &nder c a&ses of =ection !# 2a5 other than c a&ses /, #, :,
Page | 1562

"" and "/> that where deportation or e6c &sion is so&ght to be effected &nder c a&ses of =ection !#2a5, no period of imitation is app icab e> and that to the contrar-, deportation or e6c &sion ma- be effected Dat an- time after entr-.D J&stice Eavide, in his dissenting opinion, c arified< 3ote that the five*-ear period app ies on - to c a&ses other than /, #, :, "" and "/ of paragraph 2a5 of the =ection. In respect to c a&ses /, #, :, "", and "/, the imitation does not app -. In La# 1ee v. (en"5on, $! ;hi . "'() 2"$)!5, the a ien admitted that she had
Page | 1563

gained entrance into the ;hi ippines fra&d& ent - b- making &se of the name of a +hinese resident*merchant other than that of her awf& h&sband. The +o&rt, however, he d that she co& d no onger be deported Dfor the simp e reason that more than ) -ears had e apsed from the date of her admission.D The right of p&b ic respondents to deport petitioner has prescribed. ;etitioner was admitted and a owed entr- into the ;hi ippines on Jan&ar- "!, "$#$ on the basis of fa se and mis eading statements in her app ication and in the other s&pporting doc&ments s&bmitted to the immigration a&thorities. Aeonardo +. Hane7 first comp ained with the +IE on 3ovember "$, "$:' abo&t the manner petitioner was admitted into
Page | 1564

the co&ntr- and asked for her deportation 2%ollo, pp. ##*#:5. 8fter the EE=8 Revo &tion, he sent a fo ow*&p etter to the +IE re%&esting action on his "$:' etter*comp aint 2%ollo, p. #:5. To ing the prescriptive period from 3ovember "$, "$:', when Aeonardo +. Hane7 informed the +IE of the i ega entr- of petitioner into the co&ntr-, more than five -ears had e apsed before the iss&ance of the order of her deportation on =eptember /#, "$$'. In their +omment, p&b ic respondents &rged that what is barred &nder =ection !#2b5 is the deportation of an a ien and c aimed that what the- ordered was not the deportation of petitioner b&t mere the revocation of =ection "!2a5 which
Page | 1565

refers to the visa previo&s - granted her 2%ollo, p. "'/5. The DarrestD contemp ated b- =ection !#2b5 refers to the arrest for the p&rpose of carr-ing o&t an order for deportation and not the arrest prior to proceedings to determine the right of the a ien to stain the co&ntr-. 0hen p&b ic respondents revoked the permanent residence visa iss&ed to petitioner, the-, in effect, ordered her arrest and deportation as an oversta-ing a ien. 0IERE.1RE, the petition is GR83TEE and the temporarrestraining order iss&ed on J&ne 4, "$$" is ,8EE ;ER,83E3T. The Eecision of the Hoard of +ommissioners dated =eptember /#,
Page | 1566

"$$' revoking the iss&ance of the permanent resident visa to petitioner and the Reso &tion dated Jan&ar- /$, "$$" are REFER=EE. =1 1REEREE.

G.R. No. 11992C Septe78e 1;, 1995 %#ELDA RO#UALDE5A #AR$OS, petitione , !".
Page | 1567

$O##%SS%ON ON ELE$,%ONS &n( $%R%LO RO4 #ON,EJO, e"pon(ent". ?8;U383, J.: 8 constit&tiona provision sho& d be constr&ed as to give it effective operation and s&ppress the mischief at which it is aimed. " The "$:# +onstit&tion mandates that an aspirant for e ection to the Io&se of Representatives be Da registered voter in the district in which he sha be e ected, and a resident thereof for a period of not ess than one -ear immediate preceding the e ection.D / The mischief which this provision G reprod&ced verbatim from the "$#! +onstit&tion G seeks to
Page | 1568

prevent is the possibi it- of a Dstranger or newcomer &nac%&ainted with the conditions and needs of a comm&nitand not identified with the atter, from an e ective office to serve that comm&nit-.D ! ;etitioner Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos fi ed her +ertificate of +andidac- for the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te with the ;rovincia E ection =&pervisor on ,arch :, "$$), providing the fo owing information in item no. :< 4 RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C 0IERE I =EE? T1 HE EAE+TEE I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G TIE EAE+TI13< [[[[[[[[[[ Cears and $even ,onths.
Page | 1569

1n ,arch /!, "$$), private respondent +iri o Ro- ,ontejo, the inc&mbent Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te and a candidate for the same position, fi ed a D;etition for +ance ation and Eis%&a ificationD ) with the +ommission on E ections a eging that petitioner did not meet the constit&tiona re%&irement for residenc-. In his petition, private respondent contended that ,rs. ,arcos acked the +onstit&tion9s one -ear residencre%&irement for candidates for the Io&se of Representatives on the evidence of dec arations made b- her in Foter Registration Record $4*3o. !!4$##/ (and in her +ertificate of +andidac-. Ie pra-ed that Dan order be iss&ed dec aring 2petitioner5 dis%&a ified
Page | 1570

and cance ing candidac-.D #

the

certificate

of

1n ,arch /$, "$$), petitioner fi ed an 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac-, changing the entr- DsevenD months to Dsince chi dhoodD in item no. : of the amended certificate. : 1n the same da-, the ;rovincia E ection =&pervisor of Ae-te informed petitioner that< LTMhis office cannot receive or accept the aforementioned +ertificate of +andidac- on the gro&nd that it is fi ed o&t of time, the dead ine for the fi ing of the same having a read- apsed on ,arch /', "$$). The +orrectedJ8mended +ertificate of +andidac- sho& d have been fi ed
Page | 1571

on or before the ,arch /', "$$) dead ine. $ +onse%&ent -, petitioner fi ed the 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac- with the +1,EAE+9s Iead 1ffice in Intram&ros, ,ani a on ,arch !", "$$). Ier 8nswer to private respondent9s petition in =;8 3o. $)*''$ was ikewise fi ed with the head office on the same da-. In said 8nswer, petitioner averred that the entr- of the word DsevenD in her origina +ertificate of +andidac- was the res& t of an Dhonest misinterpretationD "' which she so&ght to rectif- b- adding the words Dsince chi dhoodD in her 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac- and that Dshe has a wa-s maintained Tac oban +it- as her domici e or residence. "" Imp&gning
Page | 1572

respondent9s motive in fi ing the petition seeking her dis%&a ification, she noted that< 0hen respondent 2petitioner herein5 anno&nced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tac oban +it- and r&n for +ongress in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, petitioner immediate opposed her intended registration b- writing a etter stating that Dshe is not a resident of said cit- b&t of Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 8fter respondent had registered as a voter in To osa fo owing comp etion of her si6 month act&a residence therein, petitioner fi ed a petition with the +1,EAE+ to transfer the town of To osa from
Page | 1573

the .irst Eistrict to the =econd Eistrict and p&rs&ed s&ch a move &p to the =&preme +o&rt, his p&rpose being to remove respondent as petitioner9s opponent in the congressiona e ection in the .irst Eistrict. Ie a so fi ed a bi , a ong with other Ae-te +ongressmen, seeking the creation of another egis ative district to remove the town of To osa o&t of the .irst Eistrict, to achieve his p&rpose. Iowever, s&ch bi did not pass the =enate. Iaving fai ed on s&ch moves, petitioner now fi ed the instant petition for the same objective, as it is obvio&s that he is afraid to s&bmit a ong with respondent for the j&dgment and verdict of the
Page | 1574

e ectorate of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te in an honest, order -, peacef& , free and c ean e ections on ,a- :, "$$). "/ 1n 8pri /4, "$$), the =econd Eivision of the +ommission on E ections 2+1,EAE+5, b- a vote of / to ", "! came &p with a Reso &tion "5 finding private respondent9s ;etition for Eis%&a ification in =;8 $)*''$ meritorio&s> /5 striking off petitioner9s +orrectedJ8mended +ertificate of +andidac- of ,arch !", "$$)> and !5 cance ing her origina +ertificate of +andidac-. "4 Eea ing with two primariss&es, name -, the va idit- of amending the origina +ertificate of +andidacafter the apse of the dead ine for fi ing certificates of candidac-, and petitioner9s
Page | 1575

comp iance with the one -ear residencre%&irement, the =econd Eivision he d< Respondent raised the affirmative defense in her 8nswer that the printed word D=evenD 2months5 was a res& t of an Dhonest misinterpretation or honest mistakeD on her part and, therefore, an amendment sho& d s&bse%&ent - be a owed. =he averred that she tho&ght that what was asked was her Dact&a and ph-sica D presence in To osa and not residence of origin or domici e in the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict, to which she co& d have responded Dsince chi dhood.D In an accompan-ing affidavit, she stated that her domici e is Tac oban +it-,
Page | 1576

a component of the .irst Eistrict, to which she a wa-s intended to ret&rn whenever absent and which she has never abandoned. .&rthermore, in her memorand&m, she tried to discredit petitioner9s theor- of dis%&a ification ba eging that she has been a resident of the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-te since chi dhood, a tho&gh she on - became a resident of the ,&nicipa it- of To osa for seven months. =he asserts that she has a wa-s been a resident of Tac oban +it-, a component of the .irst Eistrict, before coming to the ,&nicipa itof To osa.
Page | 1577

8 ong this point, it is interesting to note that prior to her registration in To osa, respondent anno&nced that she wo& d be registering in Tac oban +it- so that she can be a candidate for the Eistrict. Iowever, this intention was reb&ffed when petitioner wrote the E ection 1fficer of Tac oban not to a ow respondent since she is a resident of To osa and not Tac oban. =he never disp&ted this c aim and instead imp icit - acceded to it bregistering in To osa. This incident be ies respondent9s c aim of Dhonest misinterpretation or honest mistake.D Hesides, the +ertificate of +andidac- on - asks for RE=IEE3+E. =ince on the
Page | 1578

basis of her 8nswer, she was %&ite aware of Dresidence of originD which she interprets to be Tac oban +it-, it is c&rio&s whshe did not cite Tac oban +it- in her +ertificate of +andidac-. Ier e6p anation that she tho&ght what was asked was her act&a and ph-sica presence in To osa is not eas- to be ieve beca&se there is none in the %&estion that insin&ates abo&t To osa. In fact, item no. : in the +ertificate of +andidac- speaks c ear - of DResidenc- in t1e )O& T3TT;&)] where I seek to be e ected immediate - preceding the e ection.D Th&s, the e6p anation of respondent fai s to be pers&asive.
Page | 1579

.rom the foregoing, respondent9s defense of an honest mistake or misinterpretation, therefore, is devoid of merit. To f&rther b&ttress respondent9s contention that an amendment ma- be made, she cited the case ofAlial! v. )OM;L;) 2/ =+R8 $)#5. The re iance of respondent on the case of 8 ia - is misp aced. The case on - app ies to the Dinconse%&entia deviations which cannot affect the res& t of the e ection, or deviations from provisions intended primari - to sec&re time - and order - cond&ct of e ections.D The =&preme +o&rt in that case considered the amendment on - as a matter of
Page | 1580

form. H&t in the instant case, the amendment cannot be considered as a matter of form or an inconse%&entia deviation. The change in the n&mber of -ears of residence in the p ace where respondent seeks to be e ected is a s&bstantia matter which determines her %&a ification as a candidac-, specia those intended to s&ppress, acc&rate materia representation in the origina certificate which adverse affects the fi er. To admit the amended certificate is to condone the evi s bro&ght b- the shifting minds of manip& ating candidate, of the detriment of the integrit- of the e ection.
Page | 1581

,oreover, to a ow respondent to change the seven 2#5 month period of her residenc- in order to pro ong it b- c aiming it was Dsince chi dhoodD is to a ow an &ntr&thf& ness to be committed before this +ommission. The arithmetica acc&rac- of the # months residenc- the respondent indicated in her certificate of candidac- can be g eaned from her entrin her Foter9s Registration Record accomp ished on Jan&ar- /:, "$$) which ref ects that she is a resident of Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te for ( months at the time of the said registration 28nne6 8, ;etition5. =aid acc&rac- is f&rther b&ttressed b- her etter to the e ection officer of =an J&an,
Page | 1582

,etro ,ani a, dated 8&g&st /4, "$$4, re%&esting for the cance ation of her registration in the ;ermanent Aist of Foters thereat so that she can be re* registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. The dates of these three 2!5 different doc&ments show the respondent9s consistent conviction that she has transferred her residence to 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te from ,etro ,ani a on - for s&ch imited period of time, starting in the ast week of 8&g&st "$$4 which on ,arch :, "$$) wi on s&m &p to # months. The +ommission, therefore, cannot be pers&aded to be ieve in the respondent9s contention that it was an error.
Page | 1583

666 666 666 Hased on these reasons the 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac- cannot be admitted bthis +ommission. 666 666 666 8nent the second iss&e, and based on the foregoing disc&ssion, it is c ear that respondent has not comp ied with the one -ear residenc- re%&irement of the +onstit&tion. In e ection cases, the term DresidenceD has a wa-s been considered as s-non-mo&s with Ddomici eD which imports not on the intention to reside in a fi6ed p ace b&t a so persona presence
Page | 1584

in*that p ace, co&p ed with cond&ct indicative of s&ch intention. Eomici e denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which when absent for b&siness or p eas&re, or for ike reasons, one intends to ret&rn. 2;erfecto .a-pon vs. E iseo O&irino, $( ;hi /$4> Rom&a de7 vs. RT+*Tac oban, //( =+R8 4':5. In respondent9s case, when she ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in "$$", the residence she chose was not Tac oban b&t =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. Th&s, her ani#u$ revertendi is pointed to ,etro ,ani a and not Tac oban. This Eivision is aware that her c aim that she has been a resident of the .irst Eistrict since chi dhood
Page | 1585

is nothing more than to give her a co or of %&a ification where she is otherwise constit&tiona dis%&a ified. It cannot ho d gro&nd in the face of the facts admitted bthe respondent in her affidavit. E6cept for the time that she st&died and worked for some -ears after grad&ation in Tac oban +it-, she contin&o&s - ived in ,ani a. In "$)$, after her h&sband was e ected =enator, she ived and resided in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a where she was a registered voter. In "$(), she ived in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a where she was again a registered voter. In "$#:, she served as member of the Hatasang ;ambansa as the representative of the +it- of ,ani a and ater on
Page | 1586

served as the Governor of ,etro ,ani a. =he co& d not have served these positions if she had not been a resident of the +it- of ,ani a. .&rthermore, when she fi ed her certificate of candidac- for the office of the ;resident in "$$/, she c aimed to be a resident of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. 8s a matter of fact on 8&g&st /4, "$$4, respondent wrote a etter with the e ection officer of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a re%&esting for the cance ation of her registration in the permanent ist of voters that she ma- be re*registered or transferred to Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. These facts manifest that she co& d not have been a resident of Tac oban +itPage | 1587

since chi dhood &p to the time she fi ed her certificate of candidacbeca&se she became a resident of man- p aces, inc &ding ,etro ,ani a. This deb&nks her c aim that prior to her residence in To osa, Ae-te, she was a resident of the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-te since chi dhood. In this case, respondent9s cond&ct revea s her ack of intention to make Tac oban her domici e. =he registered as a voter in different p aces and on severa occasions dec ared that she was a resident of ,ani a. 8 tho&gh she spent her schoo da-s in Tac oban, she is considered to have abandoned s&ch p ace when she chose to staPage | 1588

and reside in other different p aces. In the case of %o#ualde5 v$. %T)2//( =+R8 4':5 the +o&rt e6p ained how one ac%&ires a new domici e b- choice. There m&st conc&r< 2"5 residence or bodi presence in the new oca it-> 2/5 intention to remain there> and 2!5 intention to abandon the o d domici e. In other words there m&st basica be ani#u$ #anendi with ani#u$ non revertendi. 0hen respondent chose to sta- in I ocos and ater on in ,ani a, co&p ed with her intention to sta- there bregistering as a voter there and e6press - dec aring that she is a resident of that p ace, she is deemed to have abandoned
Page | 1589

Tac oban +it-, where she spent her chi dhood and schoo da-s, as her p ace of domici e. ;&re intention to reside in that p ace is not s&fficient, there m&st ikewise be cond&ct indicative of s&ch intention. Respondent9s statements to the effect that she has a wa-s intended to ret&rn to Tac oban, witho&t the accompan-ing cond&ct to prove that intention, is not conc &sive of her choice of residence. Respondent has not presented anevidence to show that her cond&ct, one -ear prior the e ection, showed intention to reside in Tac oban. 0orse, what was evident was that
Page | 1590

prior to her residence in To osa, she had been a resident of ,ani a. It is evident from these circ&mstances that she was not a resident of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te Dsince chi dhood.D To f&rther s&pport the assertion that she co& d have not been a resident of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te for more than one -ear, petitioner correct - pointed o&t that on Jan&ar- /:, "$$) respondent registered as a voter at precinct 3o. ":*8 of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. In doing so, she p aced in her Foter Registration Record that she resided in the m&nicipa it- of To osa for a period of si6 months. This ma- be inconse%&entia as
Page | 1591

arg&ed b- the respondent since it refers on - to her residence in To osa, Ae-te. H&t her fai &re to prove that she was a resident of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te prior to her residence in To osa eaves nothing b&t a convincing proof that she had been a resident of the district for si6 months on -. ") In a Reso &tion prom& gated a dabefore the ,a- :, "$$) e ections, the +1,EAE+ en /anc denied petitioner9s ,otion for Reconsideration "( of the 8pri /4, "$$) Reso &tion dec aring her not %&a ified to r&n for the position of ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives for the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-te. "# The Reso &tion terse - stated<
Page | 1592

8fter de iberating on the ,otion for Reconsideration, the +ommission RE=1AFEE to EE3C it, no new s&bstantia matters having been raised therein to warrant re* e6amination of the reso &tion granting the petition for dis%&a ification. ": 1n ,a- "", "$$), the +1,EAE+ iss&ed a Reso &tion a owing petitioner9s proc amation sho& d the res& ts of the canvass show that she obtained the highest n&mber of votes in the congressiona e ections in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. 1n the same da-, however, the +1,EAE+ reversed itse f and iss&ed a second Reso &tion directing that the proc amation of petitioner be s&spended in the event
Page | 1593

that she obtains the highest n&mber of votes. "$ In a =&pp ementa ;etition dated /) ,a- "$$), petitioner averred that she was the overwhe ming winner of the e ections for the congressiona seat in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te he d ,a- :, "$$) based on the canvass comp eted b- the ;rovincia Hoard of +anvassers on ,a- "4, "$$). ;etitioner a eged that the canvass showed that she obtained a tota of #',4#" votes compared to the !(,:!! votes received b- Respondent ,ontejo. 8 cop- of said +ertificate of +anvass was anne6ed to the =&pp ementa ;etition. 1n acco&nt of the Reso &tions dis%&a if-ing petitioner from r&nning for the congressiona seat of the .irst
Page | 1594

Eistrict of Ae-te and the p&b ic respondent9s Reso &tion s&spending her proc amation, petitioner comes to this co&rt for re ief. ;etitioner raises severa iss&es in her 1rigina and =&pp ementa ;etitions. The principa iss&es ma- be c assified into two genera areas< 3. T1e i$$ue 4ualification$ of 2etitioner<$ a of a of

0hether or not petitioner was resident, for e ection p&rposes, the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te for period of one -ear at the time the ,a- $, "$$) e ections. 33. T1e Juri$dictional 3$$ue a5 ;rior to the e ections

Page | 1595

0hether or not the +1,EAE+ proper - e6ercised its j&risdiction in dis%&a if-ing petitioner o&tside the period mandated b- the 1mnib&s E ection +ode for dis%&a ification cases &nder 8rtic e #: of the said +ode. b5 8fter the E ections 0hether or not the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na ass&med e6c &sive j&risdiction over the %&estion of petitioner9s %&a ifications after the ,a- :, "$$) e ections. 3. 2etitioner<$ 4ualification 8 per&sa of the Reso &tion of the +1,EAE+9s =econd Eivision revea s a start ing conf&sion in the app ication of
Page | 1596

sett ed concepts of DEomici eD and DResidenceD in e ection aw. 0hi e the +1,EAE+ seems to be in agreement with the genera proposition that for the p&rposes of e ection aw, residence is s-non-mo&s with domici e, the Reso &tion revea s a tendenc- to s&bstit&te or mistake the concept of domici e for act&a residence, a conception not intended for the p&rpose of determining a candidate9s %&a ifications for e ection to the Io&se of Representatives as re%&ired b- the "$:# +onstit&tion. 8s it were, residence, for the p&rpose of meeting the %&a ification for an e ective position, has a sett ed meaning in o&r j&risdiction. 8rtic e )' of the +ivi +ode decrees that DLfMor the e6ercise of civi rights and the
Page | 1597

f& fi ment of civi ob igations, the domici e of nat&ra persons is their p ace of habit&a residence.D In On" v$. %epu/lic /' this co&rt took the concept of domici e to mean an individ&a 9s Dpermanent homeD, Da p ace to which, whenever absent for b&siness or for p eas&re, one intends to ret&rn, and depends on facts and circ&mstances in the sense that thedisc ose intent.D /" Hased on the foregoing, domici e inc &des the twin e ements of Dthe fact of residing or ph-sica presence in a fi6ed p aceD and ani#u$ #anendi, or the intention of ret&rning there permanent -. Residence, in its ordinar- conception, imp ies the fact&a re ationship of an individ&a to a certain p ace. It is the
Page | 1598

ph-sica presence of a person in a given area, comm&nit- or co&ntr-. The essentia distinction between residence and domici e in aw is that residence invo ves the intent to eave when the p&rpose for which the resident has taken &p his abode ends. 1ne ma- seek a p ace for p&rposes s&ch as p eas&re, b&siness, or hea th. If a person9s intent be to remain, it becomes his domici e> if his intent is to eave as soon as his p&rpose is estab ished it is residence.// It is th&s, %&ite perfect norma for an individ&a to have different residences in vario&s p aces. Iowever, a person can on - have a sing e domici e, &n ess, for vario&s reasons, he s&ccessf& - abandons his domici e in favor of another domici e of choice.
Page | 1599

In T!ten"$u v$. %epu/lic, /! we aid this distinction %&ite c ear -< There is a difference between domici e and residence. DResidenceD is &sed to indicate a p ace of abode, whether permanent or temporar-> Ddomici eD denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of ret&rning. 8 man ma- have a residence in one p ace and a domici e in another. Residence is not domici e, b&t domici e is residence co&p ed with the intention to remain for an &n imited time. 8 man can have b&t one domici e for the same p&rpose at an- time, b&t he ma- have
Page | 1600

n&mero&s p aces of residence. Iis p ace of residence is genera - his p ace of domici e, b&t it is not ban- means necessari - so since no ength of residence witho&t intention of remaining wi constit&te domici e. .or po itica p&rposes the concepts of residence and domici e are dictated bthe pec& iar criteria of po itica aws. 8s these concepts have evo ved in o&r e ection aw, what has c ear - and &ne%&ivoca - emerged is the fact that residence for e ection p&rposes is &sed s-non-mo&s - with domici e. In &uval v$. Gura!, /4 the +o&rt he d that Dthe term residence. . . is s-non-mo&s with domici e which imports not on intention to reside in a fi6ed p ace, b&t
Page | 1601

a so persona presence in that p ace, co&p ed with cond&ct indicative of s&ch intention.D /) Larena v$. Teve$ /( reiterated the same doctrine in a case invo ving the %&a ifications of the respondent therein to the post of ,&nicipa ;resident of E&mag&ete, 3egros 1rienta . Ha!pon v$. Vuirino, /# he d that the absence from residence to p&rs&e st&dies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the p ace where one is e ected does not constit&te oss of residence. /: =o sett ed is the concept 2of domici e5 in o&r e ection aw that in these and other e ection aw cases, this +o&rt has stated that the mere absence of an individ&a from his permanent residence witho&t the intention to
Page | 1602

abandon it does not res& t in a oss or change of domici e. The de iberations of the "$:# +onstit&tion on the residence %&a ification for certain e ective positions have p aced be-ond do&bt the princip e that when the +onstit&tion speaks of DresidenceD in e ection aw, it act&a means on - Ddomici eD to wit< ,r. 3o edo< 0ith respect to =ection ), I remember that in the "$#" +onstit&tiona +onvention, there was an attempt to re%&ire residence in the p ace not ess than one -ear immediate preceding the da- of the e ections. =o m- %&estion is< 0hat is the +ommittee9s concept of residence of a candidate for the egis at&reK
Page | 1603

Is it act&a residence or is it the concept of domici e or constr&ctive residenceK ,r. Eavide< ,adame ;resident, insofar as the reg& ar members of the 3ationa 8ssemb are concerned, the proposed section mere - provides, among others, Dand a resident thereofD, that is, in the district for a period of not ess than one -ear preceding the da- of the e ection. This was in effect ifted from the "$#! +onstit&tion, the interpretation given to it was domici e. /$ 666 666 666 ,rs. Rosario Hraid< The ne6t %&estion is on =ection #, page /. I
Page | 1604

think +ommissioner 3o edo has raised the same point that DresidentD has been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than act&a residence. ,r. Ee os Re-es< Eomici e. ,s. Rosario Hraid< Ces, =o, wo& d the gent eman consider at the proper time to go back to act&a residence rather than mere intention to resideK ,r. Ee os Re-es< H&t we might enco&nter some diffic& tespecia - considering that a provision in the +onstit&tion in the 8rtic e on =&ffrage sa-s that .i ipinos iving abroad ma- vote as enacted b- aw. =o, we have to
Page | 1605

stick to the origina concept that it sho& d be b- domici e and not ph-sica residence.!' In )o v$. ;lectoral Tri/unal of t1e 7ou$e of %epre$entative$, !" this +o&rt conc &ded that the framers of the "$:# +onstit&tion obvio&s - adhered to the definition given to the term residence in e ection aw, regarding it as having the same meaning as domici e. !/ In the ight of the princip es j&st disc&ssed, has petitioner Ime da Rom&a de7 ,arcos satisfied the residenc- re%&irement mandated b8rtic e FI, =ec. ( of the "$:# +onstit&tionK 1f what significance is the %&estioned entrin petitioner9s +ertificate of +andidac- stating her
Page | 1606

residence in the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-te as seven 2#5 monthsK It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacwhich o&ght to be decisive in determining whether or not and individ&a has satisfied the constit&tion9s residenc- %&a ification re%&irement. The said statement becomes materia on when there is or appears to be a de iberate attempt to mis ead, misinform, or hide a fact which wo& d otherwise render a candidate ine igib e. It wo& d be p ain - ridic& o&s for a candidate to de iberate - and knowing make a statement in a certificate of candidac- which wo& d ead to his or her dis%&a ification.
Page | 1607

It stands to reason therefore, that petitioner mere - committed an honest mistake in jotting the word DsevenD in the space provided for the residenc%&a ification re%&irement. The circ&mstances eading to her fi ing the %&estioned entr- obvio&s - res& ted in the s&bse%&ent conf&sion which prompted petitioner to write down the period of her act&a sta- in To osa, Ae-te instead of her period of residence in the .irst district, which was Dsince chi dhoodD in the space provided. These circ&mstances and events are amp detai ed in the +1,EAE+9s =econd Eivision9s %&estioned reso &tion, a beit with a different interpretation. .or instance, when herein petitioner anno&nced that she wo& d be registering in Tac oban +it- to make her
Page | 1608

e igib e to r&n in the .irst Eistrict, private respondent ,ontejo opposed the same, c aiming that petitioner was a resident of To osa, not Tac oban +it-. ;etitioner then registered in her p ace of act&a residence in the .irst Eistrict, which is To osa, Ae-te, a fact which she s&bse%&ent - noted down in her +ertificate of +andidac-. 8 c ose ook at said certificate wo& d revea the possib e so&rce of the conf&sion< the entr- for residence 2Item 3o. #5 is fo owed immediate - b- the entr- for residence in the constit&enc- where a candidate seeks e ection th&s< #. RE=IEE3+E 2comp ete 8ddress5< (r"!. Olot, Tolo$a, Le!te
Page | 1609

;1=T 1..I+E 8EERE== .1R EAE+TI13 ;UR;1=E=< (r"!. Olot, Tolo$a, Le!te :. RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C 0IERE I =EE? T1 HE EAE+TEE I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G TIE EAE+TI13<[[[[[[[[[ Cears and even ,onths. Iaving been forced b- private respondent to register in her p ace of act&a residence in Ae-te instead of petitioner9s c aimed domici e, it appears that petitioner had jotted down her period of sta- in her ega residence or domici e. The j&6taposition of entries in Item # and Item : G the first re%&iring act&a residence and the second
Page | 1610

re%&iring domici e G co&p ed with the circ&mstances s&rro&nding petitioner9s registration as a voter in To osa obvio&s - ed to her writing down an &nintended entr- for which she co& d be dis%&a ified. This honest mistake sho& d not, however, be a owed to negate the fact of residence in the .irst Eistrict if s&ch fact were estab ished b- means more convincing than a mere entr- on a piece of paper. 0e now proceed to the matter of petitioner9s domici e. In s&pport of its asseveration that petitioner9s domici e co& d not possib be in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, the =econd Eivision of the +1,EAE+, in its assai ed Reso &tion of 8pri /4,"$$) maintains that De6cept for the time when
Page | 1611

2petitioner5 st&died and worked for some -ears after grad&ation in Tac oban +it-, she contin&o&s - ived in ,ani a.D The Reso &tion additiona - cites certain facts as indicative of the fact that petitioner9s domici e o&ght to be anp ace where she ived in the ast few decades e6cept Tac oban, Ae-te. .irst, according to the Reso &tion, petitioner, in "$)$, resided in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a where she was a so registered voter. Then, in "$(), fo owing the e ection of her h&sband to the ;hi ippine presidenc-, she ived in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a where she as a voter. In "$#: and thereafter, she served as a member of the Hatasang ;ambansa and Governor of ,etro ,ani a. D=he co& d not, have served these positions if she had not been a resident of ,etro
Page | 1612

,ani a,D the +1,EAE+ stressed. Iere is where the conf&sion ies. 0e have stated, man- times in the past, that an individ&a does not ose his domici e even if he has ived and maintained residences in different p aces. Residence, it bears repeating, imp ies a fact&a re ationship to a given p ace for vario&s p&rposes. The absence from ega residence or domici e to p&rs&e a profession, to st&dor to do other things of a temporar- or semi*permanent nat&re does not constit&te oss of residence. Th&s, the assertion b- the +1,EAE+ that Dshe co& d not have been a resident of Tac oban +it- since chi dhood &p to the time she fi ed her certificate of candidac- beca&se she became a
Page | 1613

resident of man- p acesD f ies in the face of sett ed j&rispr&dence in which this +o&rt caref& - made distinctions between 2act&a 5 residence and domici e for e ection aw p&rposes. In Larena v$. Teve$, !! $upra, we stressed< LTMhis co&rt is of the opinion and so ho ds that a person who has his own ho&se wherein he ives with his fami - in a m&nicipa it- witho&t having ever had the intention of abandoning it, and witho&t having ived either a one or with his fami in another m&nicipa it-, has his residence in the former m&nicipa it-, notwithstanding his having registered as an e ector in the other m&nicipa it- in %&estion and having been a candidate for
Page | 1614

vario&s ins& ar and provincia positions, stating ever- time that he is a resident of the atter m&nicipa it-. ,ore significant -, in Ha!pon v$. Vuirino, !4 0e e6p ained that< 8 citi7en ma- eave the p ace of his birth to ook for Dgreener past&res,D as the sa-ing goes, to improve his ot, and that, of co&rse inc &des st&d- in other p aces, practice of his avocation, or engaging in b&siness. 0hen an e ection is to be he d, the citi7en who eft his birthp ace to improve his ot ma- desire to ret&rn to his native town to cast his ba ot b&t for professiona or b&siness reasons, or for an- other reason,
Page | 1615

he ma- not absent himse f from his professiona or b&siness activities> so there he registers himse f as voter as he has the %&a ifications to be one and is not wi ing to give &p or ose the opport&nit- to choose the officia s who are to r&n the government especia - in nationa e ections. Eespite s&ch registration, the ani#u$ revertendi to his home, to his domici e or residence of origin has not forsaken him. This ma- be the e6p anation wh- the registration of a voter in a p ace other than his residence of origin has not been deemed s&fficient to constit&te abandonment or oss of s&ch residence. It finds j&stification in the nat&ra desire and onging of
Page | 1616

ever- person to ret&rn to his p ace of birth. This strong fee ing of attachment to the p ace of one9s birth m&st be overcome b- positive proof of abandonment for another. .rom the foregoing, it can be conc &ded that in its above*cited statements s&pporting its proposition that petitioner was ine igib e to r&n for the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, the +1,EAE+ was obvio&s referring to petitioner9s vario&s p aces of 2act&a 5 residence, not her domici e. In doing so, it not on - ignored sett ed j&rispr&dence on residence in e ection aw and the de iberations of the constit&tiona commission b&t a so the provisions of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode 2H.;. ::"5. !)
Page | 1617

0hat is &ndeniab e, however, are the fo owing set of facts which estab ish the fact of petitioner9s domici e, which we ift verbatim from the +1,EAE+9s =econd Eivision9s assai ed Reso &tion< !( In or abo&t "$!: when respondent was a itt e over : -ears o d, she estab ished her domici e in Tac oban, Ae-te 2Tac oban +it-5. =he st&died in the Io - Infant 8cadem- in Tac oban from "$!: to "$4$ when she grad&ated from high schoo . =he p&rs&ed her co ege st&dies in =t. ;a& 9s +o ege, now Eivine 0ord Universit- in Tac oban, where she earned her degree in Ed&cation. Thereafter, she ta&ght in the Ae-te +hinese =choo , sti in Tac oban
Page | 1618

+it-. In "$)/ she went to ,ani a to work with her co&sin, the ate speaker Eanie Z. Rom&a de7 in his office in the Io&se of Representatives. In "$)4, she married e6*;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos when he was sti a congressman of I ocos 3orte and registered there as a voter. 0hen her h&sband was e ected =enator of the Rep&b ic in "$)$, she and her h&sband ived together in =an J&an, Ri7a where she registered as a voter. In "$(), when her h&sband was e ected ;resident of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, she ived with him in ,a acanang ;a ace and registered as a voter in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a.
Page | 1619

LIMn .ebr&ar- "$:( 2she c aimed that5 she and her fami - were abd&cted and kidnapped to Iono & &, Iawaii. In 3ovember "$$", she came home to ,ani a. In "$$/, respondent ran for e ection as ;resident of the ;hi ippines and fi ed her +ertificate of +andidacwherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. 8pp -ing the princip es disc&ssed to the facts fo&nd b- +1,EAE+, what is inescapab e is that petitioner he d vario&s residences for different p&rposes d&ring the ast fo&r decades. 3one of these p&rposes &ne%&ivoca point to an intention to abandon her
Page | 1620

domici e of origin in Tac oban, Ae-te. ,oreover, whi e petitioner was born in ,ani a, as a minor she nat&ra fo owed the domici e of her parents. =he grew &p in Tac oban, reached her ad& thood there and event&a estab ished residence in different parts of the co&ntr- for vario&s reasons. Even d&ring her h&sband9s presidenc-, at the height of the ,arcos Regime9s powers, petitioner kept her c ose ties to her domici e of origin b- estab ishing residences in Tac oban, ce ebrating her birthda-s and other important persona mi estones in her home province, instit&ting we *p&b ici7ed projects for the benefit of her province and hometown, and estab ishing a po itica power base where her sib ings and c ose re atives he d positions of power either thro&gh
Page | 1621

the ba ot or b- appointment, a wa-s with either her inf &ence or consent. These we *p&b ici7ed ties to her domici e of origin are part of the historand ore of the %&arter cent&r- of ,arcos power in o&r co&ntr-. Either thewere entire ignored in the +1,EAE+9= Reso &tions, or the majorit- of the +1,EAE+ did not know what the rest of the co&ntr- a wa-s knew< the fact of petitioner9s domici e in Tac oban, Ae-te. ;rivate respondent in his +omment, contends that Tac oban was not petitioner9s domici e of origin beca&se she did not ive there &nti she was eight -ears o d. Ie avers that after eaving the p ace in "$)/, she Dabandoned her residenc- 2$ic5 therein for man- -ears
Page | 1622

and . . . 2co& d not5 re*estab ish her domici e in said p ace b- mere e6pressing her intention to ive there again.D 0e do not agree. .irst, minor fo ows the domici e of his parents. 8s domici e, once ac%&ired is retained &nti a new one is gained, it fo ows that in spite of the fact of petitioner9s being born in ,ani a, Tac oban, Ae-te was her domici e of origin b- operation of aw. This domici e was not estab ished on - when her father bro&ght his fami - back to Ae-te contrarto private respondent9s averments. =econd, domici e of origin is not easi ost. To s&ccessf& - effect a change of domici e, one m&st demonstrate< !#
Page | 1623

". 8n act&a remova or an act&a change of domici e> /. 8 /ona fide intention of abandoning the former p ace of residence and estab ishing a new one> and !. 8cts which correspond with the p&rpose. In the absence of c ear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of origin sho& d be deemed to contin&e. 1n - with evidence showing conc&rrence of a three re%&irements can the pres&mption of contin&it- or residence be reb&tted, for a change of residence re%&ires an act&a and de iberate abandonment, and one cannot have two ega residences at the
Page | 1624

same time. !: In the case at bench, the evidence add&ced bprivate respondent p ain - acks the degree of pers&asiveness re%&ired to convince this co&rt that an abandonment of domici e of origin in favor of a domici e of choice indeed occ&rred. To effect an abandonment re%&ires the vo &ntar- act of re in%&ishing petitioner9s former domici e with an intent to s&pp ant the former domici e with one of her own choosing 2do#iciliu# voluntariu#5. In this connection, it cannot be correct arg&ed that petitioner ost her domici e of origin b- operation of aw as a res& t of her marriage to the ate ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos in "$)/. .or there is a c ear - estab ished distinction between the +ivi +ode concepts of
Page | 1625

Ddomici eD and Dresidence.D !$ The pres&mption that the wife a&tomatica gains the h&sband9s domici e boperation of aw &pon marriage cannot be inferred from the &se of the term DresidenceD in 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode beca&se the +ivi +ode is one area where the two concepts are we de ineated. Er. 8rt&ro To entino, writing on this specific area e6p ains< In the +ivi +ode, there is an obvio&s difference between domici e and residence. Hoth terms imp - re ations between a person and a p ace> b&t in residence, the re ation is one of fact whi e in domici e it is ega or j&ridica , independent of the necessit- of ph-sica presence. 4'
Page | 1626

8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode provides< 8rt. ""'. G The h&sband sha fi6 the residence of the fami -. H&t the co&rt ma- e6empt the wife from iving with the h&sband if he sho& d ive abroad &n ess in the service of the Rep&b ic. 8 s&rve- of j&rispr&dence re ating to 8rtic e ""' or to the concepts of domici e or residence as the- affect the fema e spo&se &pon marriage -ie ds nothing which wo& d s&ggest that the fema e spo&se a&tomatica - oses her domici e of origin in favor of the h&sband9s choice of residence &pon marriage.

Page | 1627

8rtic e ""' is a virt&a restatement of 8rtic e ): of the =panish +ivi +ode of "::$ which states< Aa m&jer esta ob igada a seg&ir a s& marido donde %&iera %&e fije s& residencia. Aos Trib&na es, sin embargo, podran con j&sta ca&sa e6imir a de esta ob igacion c&ando e marido transende s& residencia a & tramar o9 a pais e6tranjero. 3ote the &se of the phrase Ddonde 4uiera $u fije de re$idenciaD in the afore%&oted artic e, which means wherever 2the h&sband5 0i$1e$ to e$ta/li$1 re$idence. This part of the artic e c ear - contemp ates on - act&a residence beca&se it refers to a positive act of fi6ing a fami - home or residence. ,oreover, this interpretation is f&rther
Page | 1628

strengthened b- the phrase Dcuando el #arido tran$lade $u re$idenciaD in the same provision which means, Dwhen the h&sband $1all tran$fer his residence,D referring to another positive act of re ocating the fami - to another home or p ace of act&a residence. The artic e obvio&s - cannot be &nderstood to refer to domici e which is a fi6ed, fair -*permanent concept when it p ain connotes the possibi it- of transferring from one p ace to another not on - once, b&t as often as the h&sband ma- deem fit to move his fami -, a circ&mstance more consistent with the concept of act&a residence. The right of the h&sband to fi6 the act&a residence is in harmon- with the intention of the aw to strengthen and
Page | 1629

&nif- the fami -, recogni7ing the fact that the h&sband and the wife bring into the marriage different domici es 2of origin5. This difference co& d, for the sake of fami - &nit-, be reconci ed on - ba owing the h&sband to fi6 a sing e p ace of act&a residence. Fer- significant -, 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode is fo&nd &nder Tit e F &nder the heading< RIGIT= 83E 1HAIG8TI13= HET0EE3 IU=H83E 83E 0I.E. Immediate - preceding 8rtic e ""' is 8rtic e "'$ which ob iges the h&sband and wife to ive together, th&s< 8rt. "'$. G The h&sband and wife are ob igated to ive together, observe m&t&a respect and fide itand render m&t&a he p and s&pport.
Page | 1630

The d&t- to ive together can on - be f& fi ed if the h&sband and wife are ph-sica - together. This takes into acco&nt the sit&ations where the co&p e has man- residences 2as in the case of the petitioner5. If the h&sband has to sta- in or transfer to an- one of their residences, the wife sho& d necessari be with him in order that the- ma- D ive together.D Ience, it is i ogica to conc &de that 8rt. ""' refers to Ddomici eD and not to Dresidence.D 1therwise, we sha be faced with a sit&ation where the wife is eft in the domici e whi e the h&sband, for professiona or other reasons, sta-s in one of their 2vario&s5 residences. 8s Er. To entino f&rther e6p ains<
Page | 1631

Residence and Eomici e G 0hether the word DresidenceD as &sed with reference to partic& ar matters is s-non-mo&s with Ddomici eD is a %&estion of some diffic& t-, and the & timate decision m&st be made from a consideration of the p&rpose and intent with which the word is &sed. =ometimes theare &sed s-non-mo&s -, at other times theare disting&ished from one another. 666 666 666 Residence in the civi aw is a materia fact, referring to the ph-sica presence of a person in a p ace. 8 person can have two or more residences, s&ch as a
Page | 1632

co&ntr- residence and a citresidence. Residence is ac%&ired b- iving in p ace> on the other hand, domici e can e6ist witho&t act&a - iving in the p ace. The important thing for domici e is that, once residence has been estab ished in one p ace, there be an intention to sta- there permanent -, even if residence is a so estab ished in some other p ace. 4" In fact, even the matter of a common residence between the h&sband and the wife d&ring the marriage is not an iron* c ad princip e> In cases app -ing the +ivi +ode on the %&estion of a common matrimonia residence, o&r j&rispr&dence has recogni7ed certain
Page | 1633

sit&ations 4/ where the spo&ses co& d not be compe ed to ive with each other s&ch that the wife is either a owed to maintain a residence different from that of her h&sband or, for obvio&s practica reasons, revert to her origina domici e 2apart from being a owed to opt for a new one5. In 9e la Gina v$. Gillareal 4! this +o&rt he d that DLaM married woman ma- ac%&ire a residence or domici e separate from that of her h&sband d&ring the e6istence of the marriage where the h&sband has given ca&se for divorce.D 44 3ote that the +o&rt a owed the wife either to obtain new residence or to choose a new domici e in s&ch an event. In instances where the wife act&a - opts, .&nder the +ivi +ode, to ive separate - from her h&sband either b- taking new residence
Page | 1634

or reverting to her domici e of origin, the +o&rt has he d that the wife co& d not be compe ed to ive with her h&sband on pain of contempt. In Arro!o v$. Ga$4ue$ de Arro!o 4) the +o&rt he d that< Upon e6amination of the a&thorities, we are convinced that it is not within the province of the co&rts of this co&ntr- to attempt to compe one of the spo&ses to cohabit with, and render conj&ga rights to, the other. 1f co&rse where the propert- rights of one of the pair are invaded, an action for restit&tion of s&ch rights can be maintained. H&t we are disinc ined to sanction the doctrine that an order, enforcib e 2$ic5 b- process of contempt, ma- be entered to
Page | 1635

compe the restit&tion of the p&re persona right of consorti&m. 8t best s&ch an order can be effective for no other p&rpose than to compe the spo&ses to ive &nder the same roof> and he e6perience of those co&ntries where the co&rts of j&stice have ass&med to compe the cohabitation of married peop e shows that the po ic- of the practice is e6treme - %&estionab e. Th&s in Eng and, former - the Ecc esiastica +o&rt entertained s&its for the restit&tion of conj&ga rights at the instance of either h&sband or wife> and if the facts were fo&nd to warrant it, that co&rt wo& d make a mandator- decree, enforceab e bprocess of contempt in case of disobedience,
Page | 1636

re%&iring the de in%&ent part- to ive with the other and render conj&ga rights. Cet this practice was sometimes critici7ed even bthe j&dges who fe t bo&nd to enforce s&ch orders, and in Qeldon v. Qeldon 2$ ;.E. )/5, decided in "::!, =ir James Iannen, ;resident in the ;robate, Eivorce and 8dmira t- Eivision of the Iigh +o&rt of J&stice, e6pressed his regret that the Eng ish aw on the s&bject was not the same as that which prevai ed in =cot and, where a decree of adherence, e%&iva ent to the decree for the restit&tion of conj&ga rights in Eng and, co& d be obtained b- the inj&red spo&se, b&t co& d not be enforced bPage | 1637

imprisonment. 8ccording -, in obedience to the growing sentiment against the practice, the ,atrimonia +a&ses 8ct 2"::45 abo ished the remedof imprisonment> tho&gh a decree for the restit&tion of conj&ga rights can sti be proc&red, and in case of disobedience ma- serve in appropriate cases as the basis of an order for the periodica pa-ment of a stipend in the character of a imon-. In the vo &mino&s j&rispr&dence of the United =tates, on - one co&rt, so far as we can discover, has ever attempted to make a preemptor- order re%&iring one of the spo&ses to ive with the other>
Page | 1638

and that was in a case where a wife was ordered to fo ow and ive with her h&sband, who had changed his domici e to the +it- of 3ew 1r eans. The decision referred to 2Hahn v. Earb-, !( Aa. 8nn., #'5 was based on a provision of the +ivi +ode of Ao&isiana simi ar to artic e )( of the =panish +ivi +ode. It was decided man- -ears ago, and the doctrine evident - has not been fr&itf& even in the =tate of Ao&isiana. In other states of the 8merican Union the idea of enforcing cohabitation b- process of contempt is rejected. 2/" +-c., ""4:5.
Page | 1639

In a decision of Jan&ar- /, "$'$, the =&preme +o&rt of =pain appears to have affirmed an order of the 8&diencia Territoria de Fa ado id re%&iring a wife to ret&rn to the marita domici e, and in the a ternative, &pon her fai &re to do so, to make a partic& ar disposition of certain mone- and effects then in her possession and to de iver to her h&sband, as administrator of the ganancia propert-, a income, rents, and interest which might accr&e to her from the propertwhich she had bro&ght to the marriage. 2""! J&r. +iv., pp. ", ""5 H&t it does not appear that this order for the ret&rn of the wife to the marita domici e was sanctioned b- an- other pena tPage | 1640

than the conse%&ences that wo& d be visited &pon her in respect to the &se and contro of her propert-> and it does not appear that her disobedience to that order wo& d necessari - have been fo owed bimprisonment for contempt. ;arenthetica - when ;etitioner was married to then +ongressman ,arcos, in "$)4, petitioner was ob iged G bvirt&e of 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode G to fo ow her h&sband9s act&a p ace of residence fi6ed b- him. The prob em here is that at that time, ,r. ,arcos had severa p aces of residence, among which were =an J&an, Ri7a and Hatac, I ocos 3orte. There is no showing which of these p aces ,r. ,arcos did fi6 as his fami -9s residence. H&t ass&ming that
Page | 1641

,r. ,arcos had fi6ed an- of these p aces as the conj&ga residence, what petitioner gained &pon marriage was act&a residence. =he did not ose her domici e of origin. 1n the other hand, the common aw concept of Dmatrimonia domici eD appears to have been incorporated, as a res& t of o&r j&rispr&dentia e6periences after the drafting of the +ivi +ode of "$)', into the 3ew .ami - +ode. To &nderscore the difference between the intentions of the +ivi +ode and the .ami - +ode drafters, the term residence has been s&pp anted b- the term domici e in an entire - new provision 28rt. ($5 distinct - different in meaning and spirit from that fo&nd in 8rtic e ""'. The provision recogni7es
Page | 1642

revo &tionar- changes in the concept of women9s rights in the intervening -ears b- making the choice of domici e a prod&ct of m&t&a agreement between the spo&ses. 4( 0itho&t as m&ch be aboring the point, the term residence ma- mean one thing in civi aw 2or &nder the +ivi +ode5 and %&ite another thing in po itica aw. 0hat stands c ear is that insofar as the +ivi +ode is concerned*affecting the rights and ob igations of h&sband and wife G the term residence sho& d on - be interpreted to mean Dact&a residence.D The inescapab e conc &sion derived from this &nambig&o&s civi aw de ineation therefore, is that when petitioner married the former ;resident in "$)4, she kept her domici e of origin
Page | 1643

and mere - gained a new home, not a do#iciliu# nece$$ariu#. Even ass&ming for the sake of arg&ment that petitioner gained a new Ddomici eD after her marriage and on - ac%&ired a right to choose a new one after her h&sband died, petitioner9s acts fo owing her ret&rn to the co&ntr- c ear - indicate that she not on - imp ied - b&t e6press chose her domici e of origin 2ass&ming this was ost b- operation of aw5 as her domici e. This DchoiceD was &ne%&ivoca - e6pressed in her etters to the +hairman of the ;+GG when petitioner so&ght the ;+GG9s permission to Drehabi itate 2o&r5 ancestra ho&se in Tac oban and .arm in 1 ot, Ae-te. . . to make them ivab e for the ,arcos fami - to have a home in
Page | 1644

o&r home and.D 4# .&rthermore, petitioner obtained her residence certificate in "$$/ in Tac oban, Ae-te, whi e iving in her brother9s ho&se, an act which s&pports the domici iarintention c ear - manifested in her etters to the ;+GG +hairman. =he co& d not have gone straight to her home in =an J&an, as it was in a state of disrepair, having been previo&s - ooted bvanda s. Ier DhomesD and DresidencesD fo owing her arriva in vario&s parts of ,etro ,ani a mere - %&a ified as temporar- or Dact&a residences,D not domici e. ,oreover, and proceeding from o&r disc&ssion pointing o&t specific sit&ations where the fema e spo&se either reverts to her domici e of origin or chooses a new one d&ring the s&bsistence of the marriage, it wo& d be
Page | 1645

high - i ogica for &s to ass&me that she cannot regain her origina domici e &pon the death of her h&sband absent a positive act of se ecting a new one where sit&ations e6ist within the s&bsistence of the marriage itse f where the wife gains a domici e different from her h&sband. In the ight of a the princip es re ating to residence and domici e en&nciated bthis co&rt &p to this point, we are pers&aded that the facts estab ished bthe parties weigh heavi - in favor of a conc &sion s&pporting petitioner9s c aim of ega residence or domici e in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. II. T1e juri$dictional i$$ue

Page | 1646

;etitioner a eges that the j&risdiction of the +1,EAE+ had a read- apsed considering that the assai ed reso &tions were rendered on 8pri /4, "$$), fo&rteen 2"45 da-s before the e ection in vio ation of =ection #: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode. 4: ,oreover, petitioner contends that it is the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na and not the +1,EAE+ which has j&risdiction over the e ection of members of the Io&se of Representatives in accordance with 8rtic e FI =ec. "# of the +onstit&tion. This is &ntenab e. It is a sett ed doctrine that a stat&te re%&iring rendition of j&dgment within a specified time is genera - constr&ed to be mere - director-, 4$ Dso that non* comp iance with them does not
Page | 1647

inva idate the j&dgment on the theorthat if the stat&te had intended s&ch res& t it wo& d have c ear - indicated it.D )' The difference between a mandator- and a director- provision is often made on gro&nds of necessit-. 8dopting the same view he d b- severa 8merican a&thorities, this co&rt in Marcelino v$. )ru5 he d that< )" The difference between a mandator- and director- provision is often determined on gro&nds of e6pedienc-, the reason being that ess inj&r- res& ts to the genera p&b ic b- disregarding than enforcing the etter of the aw. In Trapp v. Mc )or#ic:, a case ca ing for the interpretation of a stat&te containing a imitation of
Page | 1648

thirt- 2!'5 da-s within which a decree ma- be entered witho&t the consent of co&nse , it was he d that Dthe stat&tor- provisions which ma- be th&s departed from with imp&nit-, witho&t affecting the va idit- of stat&tor- proceedings, are &s&a - those which re ate to the mode or time of doing that which is essentia to effect the aim and p&rpose of the Aegis at&re or some incident of the essentia act.D Th&s, in said case, the stat&te &nder e6amination was constr&ed mere - to be director-. The mischief in petitioner9s contending that the +1,EAE+ sho& d have abstained from rendering a decision after the period stated in the 1mnib&s
Page | 1649

E ection +ode beca&se it acked j&risdiction, ies in the fact that o&r co&rts and other %&asi*j&dicia bodies wo& d then ref&se to render j&dgments mere - on the gro&nd of having fai ed to reach a decision within a given or prescribed period. In an- event, with the enactment of =ections ( and # of R.8. ((4( in re ation to =ection #: of H.;. ::", )/ it is evident that the respondent +ommission does not ose j&risdiction to hear and decide a pending dis%&a ification case &nder =ection #: of H.;. ::" even after the e ections. 8s to the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na 9s s&pposed ass&mption of j&risdiction over the iss&e of petitioner9s %&a ifications after the
Page | 1650

,a- :, "$$) e ections, s&ffice it to sathat IRET9s j&risdiction as the so e j&dge of a contests re ating to the e ections, ret&rns and %&a ifications of members of +ongress begins on - after a candidate has become a member of the Io&se of Representatives. )! ;etitioner not being a member of the Io&se of Representatives, it is obvio&s that the IRET at this point has no j&risdiction over the %&estion. It wo& d be an abdication of man- of the idea s enshrined in the "$:# +onstit&tion for &s to either to ignore or de iberate - make distinctions in aw so e - on the basis of the persona it- of a petitioner in a case. 1bvio&s - a distinction was made on s&ch a gro&nd
Page | 1651

here. =&re -, manestab ished princip es of aw, even of e ection aws were f o&ted for the sake perpet&ating power d&ring the pre*EE=8 regime. 0e renege on these sacred idea s, inc &ding the meaning and spirit of EE=8 o&rse ves bending estab ished princip es of princip es of aw to den- an individ&a what he or she j&st - deserves in aw. ,oreover, in doing so, we condemn o&rse ves to repeat the mistakes of the past. 0IERE.1RE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessarresidence %&a ifications to r&n for a seat in the Io&se of Representatives in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, the +1,EAE+9s %&estioned Reso &tions dated 8pri /4, ,a- #, ,a- "", and ,a- /), "$$) are
Page | 1652

hereb- =ET 8=IEE. Respondent +1,EAE+ is hereb- directed to order the ;rovincia Hoard of +anvassers to proc aim petitioner as the d& - e ected Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. =1 1REEREE. Heliciano, J., i$ on leave. =eparate 1pinions ;U31, J., conc&rring< It was 8ristot e who ta&ght mankind that things that are a ike sho& d be treated a ike, whi e things that are &na ike sho& d be treated &na ike in proportion to their &na ikeness. " Aike other candidates, petitioner has c ear - met
Page | 1653

the residence re%&irement provided b=ection (, 8rtic e FI of the +onstit&tion. / 0e cannot dis%&a if- her and treat her &na ike, for the +onstit&tion g&arantees e%&a protection of the aw. I proceed from the fo owing fact&a and ega propositions< .irst. There is no %&estion that petitioner9s origina domici e is in Tac oban, Ae-te. Ier parents were domici ed in Tac oban. Their ancestra ho&se is in Tac oban. The- have vast rea estate in the p ace. ;etitioner went to schoo and thereafter worked there. I consider Tac oban as her initia domici e, both her domici e of origin and her domici e of choice. Ier domici e of origin as it was the domici e of her parents when she was a minor> and her
Page | 1654

domici e of choice, as she contin&ed iving there even after reaching the age of majorit-. =econd. There is a so no %&estion that in ,a-, "$)4, petitioner married the ate ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos. Hcontracting marriage, her domici e became s&bject to change b- aw, and the right to change it was given b8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode provides< 8rt. ""'. T1e 1u$/and $1all fi' t1e re$idence of t1e fa#il!. H&t the co&rt ma- e6empt the wife from iving with the h&sband if he sho& d ive abroad &n ess in the service of the Rep&b ic. ! 2Emphasis s&pp ied5

Page | 1655

In 9e la Gi8a v. Gillareal and Geopano, 4 this +o&rt e6p ained whthe domici e of the wife o&ght to fo ow that of the h&sband. 0e he d< DThe reason is fo&nded &pon the t1eoretic identit! of person and interest between the h&sband and the wife, and the pres&mption that, from the nat&re of the re ation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is intended to promote, strengthen, and sec&re their interests in this re ation, as it ordinari - e6ists, where &nion and harmon- prevai .D ) In accord with this objective, 8rtic e "'$ of the +ivi +ode a so ob igated the h&sband and wife Dto ive together.D Third. The diffic& t iss&es start as we determine whether
Page | 1656

petitioner9s #arria"e to former ;resident ,arcos ip$o facto res& ted in the oss of her Tac oban domici e. I respectf& s&bmit that her marriage /! it$elf alone did not ca&se her to ose her Tac oban domici e. 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode mere - gave the h&sband the right to fi6 the domici e of the fami -. In the e6ercise of the right, the h&sband ma- e'plicitl! choose the prior domici e of his wife, in which case, the wife9s domici e remains &nchanged. The h&sband can a so i#plicitl! ac%&iesce to his wife9s prior domici e even if it is different. =o we he d in de la Gi8a, ( . . . . 0hen married women as we as chi dren s&bject to parenta a&thoritive, 0it1 t1e ac4uie$cence of t1eir 1u$/and$ or
Page | 1657

fathers, in a p ace distinct from where the atter ive, the- have their ownindependent do#icile. . . . It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage b&t the de iberate choice of a different domici e b- the h&sband that wi change the domici e of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domici iar- decision made b- the h&sband in the e6ercise of the right conferred b- 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode binds the wife. 8nand a acts of a wife d&ring her covert&re contrar- to the domici iarchoice of the h&sband cannot change in an- wa- the domici e ega - fi6ed b- the h&sband. These acts are void not on - beca&se the wife acks the capacit- to choose her domici e b&t
Page | 1658

a so beca&se the- are contrar- to aw and p&b ic po ic-. In the case at bench, it is not disp&ted that former ;resident ,arcos e6ercised his right to fi6 the fami - domici e and estab ished it in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, where he was then the congressman. At t1at particular point of ti#e and t1rou"1out t1eir #arried life, petitioner lo$t 1er do#icile in Taclo/an, Le!te . =ince petitioner9s Hatac domici e has been fi6ed b- operation of aw, it was not affected in "$)$ when her h&sband was e ected as =enator, when the- ived in =an J&an, Ri7a and where she registered as a voter. It was not a so affected in "$() when her h&sband was e ected ;resident, when the- ived in ,a acaUang ;a ace, and when she
Page | 1659

registered as a voter in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. 3or was it affected when she served as a member of the (ata$an" 2a#/an$a, ,inister of I&man =ett ements and Governor of ,etro ,ani a d&ring the inc&mbenc- of her h&sband as ;resident of the nation. Under 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, it was on - her h&sband who co& d change the fami - domici e in Hatac and the evidence shows he did not effect an- s&ch change. To a arge degree, this fo ows the common aw that Da woman on her marriage oses her own domici e and b- operation of aw, ac%&ires that of her h&sband, no #atter 01ere t1e 0ife actuall! live$ or 01at $1e /elieve$ or intend$.D #
Page | 1660

.o&rth. The more diffic& t task is how to interpret the effect of the deat1 on =eptember /:, "$:$ of former ;resident ,arcos on petitioner9s Hatac domici e. The iss&e is of fir$t i#pre$$ion in o&r j&risdiction and two 2/5 schoo s of tho&ght contend for acceptance. 1ne is espo&sed bo&r disting&ished co eag&e, ,r. J&stice Eavide, Jr., heavi re -ing on 8merican a&thorities. : Ie echoes the theor- t1at after t1e 1u$/and<$ deat1, t1e 0ife retain$ t1e la$t do#icile of 1er 1u$/and until $1e #a:e$ an actual c1an"e. I do not s&bscribe to this s&bmission. The 8merican case aw that the wife sti retains her dead h&sband9s domici e is based on ancient co##on la0 01ic1 0e can no lon"er appl! in t1e 21ilippine
Page | 1661

$ettin" toda!. The common aw identified the domici e of a wife as that of the h&sband and denied to her the power of ac%&iring a domici e of her own separate and apart from him. $ Aega scho ars agree that two 2/5 reasons s&pport this common aw doctrine. The fir$t rea$on as pinpointed b- the egendar- H ackstone is derived from the view that Dthe ver- being or ega e6istence of the woman is s&spended d&ring the marriage, or at east is incorporated and conso idated into that of the h&sband.D "' The $econd rea$on ies in Dthe desirabi it- of having the interests of each member of the fami - &nit governed bthe same aw.D "" The pre$u#ption that the wife retains the domici e of her deceased
Page | 1662

h&sband is an e'ten$ion of this common aw concept. T1e concept and it$ e'ten$ion 1ave provided $o#e of t1e #o$t ini4uitou$ juri$prudence a"ain$t 0o#en. It was &nder common aw that the ":#! 8merican case of (rad0ell v. 3llinoi$ "/ was decided where women were denied the right to practice aw. It was &nb &shing - r& ed that Dthe nat&ra and proper timidit- and de icac- which be ongs to the fema e se6 evident &nfits it for man- of the occ&pations of civi ife . . . This is the aw of the +reator.D Indeed, the r& ings re ied &pon b- ,r. J&stice Eavide in +J= "!and 8, JUR /d "4 are 8merican state co&rt decisions handed down between the -ears "$"# ") and "$!:, "( or /efore t1e ti#e 01en 0o#en 0ere accorded e4ualit! of ri"1t$ 0it1 #en. Undeniab -,
Page | 1663

the women9s iberation movement res& ted in far*ranging state egis ations in the United =tates to e iminate gender ine%&a it-. "# =tarting in the decade of the seventies, the co&rts ikewise ibera i7ed their r& ings as the- started inva idating aws infected with gender* bias. It was in "$#" when the U= =&preme +o&rt in %eed v. %eed, ": str&ck a big b ow for women e%&a itwhen it dec ared as &nconstit&tiona an Idaho aw that re%&ired probate co&rts to choose ma e fami - members over fema es as estate administrators. It he d that mere administrative inconvenience cannot j&stif- a se6*based distinction. T1e$e $i"nificant c1an"e$ /ot1 in la0 and in ca$e la0 on t1e $tatu$ of 0o#en virtuall! o/literated t1e ini4uitou$
Page | 1664

co##on la0 $urrenderin" t1e ri"1t$ of #arried 0o#en to t1eir 1u$/and$ /a$ed on t1e du/iou$ t1eor! of t1e partie$< t1eoretic onene$$. The )orpu$ Juri$ ecundu# editors did not miss the re evance of this revo &tion on women9s right as the- observed< DIowever, it has been dec ared that &nder #odern $tatute$ changing the stat&s of married women and departing from the common aw theor- of marriage, t1ere i$ no rea$on 01! a 0ife #a! not ac4uire a $eparate do#icile for ever! purpo$e :no0n to t1e la0.D "$ In p&b ishing in "$($ the%e$tate#ent of t1e La0, econd D)onflict of La0$ 2dE, the rep&tab e 8merican Aaw Instit&te a so categorica - stated that the view of H ackstone D. . . i$ no lon"er 1eld. A$ t1e re$ult of $tatute$ and court
Page | 1665

deci$ion$, a 0ife no0 po$$e$$e$ practicall! t1e $a#e ri"1t$ and po0er$ a$ 1er un#arried $i$ter.D /' In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we sho& d contin&e c inging to the anac1roni$tic co##on la0 that demeans women, especia - married women. I s&bmit that the +o&rt has no choice e6cept to break awa- from this common aw r& e, the root of the mandegradations of .i ipino women. Hefore "$::, o&r aws partic& ar - the +ivi +ode, were f& of gender discriminations against women. 1&r esteemed co eag&e, ,adam J&stice . erida R&th Romero, cited a few of them as fo ows< /" 666 666 666
Page | 1666

Le"al 9i$a/ilitie$ Qive$

uffered

/!

3ot genera - known is the fact that &nder the +ivi +ode, wives s&ffer &nder certain restrictions or disabi ities. .or instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regard ess of the se6 of the giver or the va &e of the gift, other than from her ver- c ose re atives, witho&t her h&sband9s consent. =he ma- accept on - from, sa-, her parents, parents*in* aw, brothers, sisters and the re atives within the so*ca ed fo&rth civi degree. =he ma- not e6ercise her profession or occ&pation or engage in b&siness if her h&sband objects on serio&s gro&nds or if his
Page | 1667

income is s&fficient to s&pport their fami - in accordance with their socia standing. 8s to what constit&tes Dserio&s gro&ndsD for objecting, this is within the discretion of the h&sband. 666 666 666 Heca&se of the present ine%&itab e sit&ation, the amendments to the +ivi Aaw being proposed b- the Universit- of the ;hi ippines Aaw +enter wo& d a ow abso &te divorce which severes the matrimonia ties, s&ch that the divorced spo&ses are free to get married a -ear after the divorce is decreed b- the co&rts. Iowever, in order to p ace the h&sband and wife on an e%&a footing insofar as
Page | 1668

the bases for divorce are concerned, the fo owing are specified as the gro&nds for abso &te divorce< 2"5 ad& ter- or having a paramo&r committed bthe respondent in an- of the wa-s specified in the Revised ;ena +ode or 2/5 an attempt b- the respondent against the ife of the petitioner which amo&nts to attempted parricide &nder the Revised ;ena +ode> 2!5 abandonment of the petitioner bthe respondent witho&t j&st ca&se for a period of three consec&tive -ears> or 245 habit&a ma treatment. 0ith respect to propert- re ations, the h&sband is a&tomatica - the administrator of the conj&ga
Page | 1669

propert- owned in common b- the married co&p e even if the wife ma- be the more ast&te or enterprising partner. The aw does not eave it to the spo&ses to decide who sha act as s&ch administrator. +onse%&ent -, the h&sband is a&thori7ed to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficia to the conj&ga partnership. The wife, however, cannot simi ar bind the partnership witho&t the h&sband9s consent. 8nd whi e both e6ercise joint parenta a&thorit- over their chi dren, it is the father whom the aw designates as the ega administrator of the propertPage | 1670

pertaining to the &nemancipated chi d. Taking the ead in 8sia, o&r government e6erted efforts, principa - thro&gh egis ations, to e iminate ine%&a it- between men and women in o&r and. T1e 0ater$1ed ca#e on Au"u$t 3, 19FF 01en our Ha#il! )ode too: effect 01ic1, a#on" ot1er$, ter#inated t1e une4ual treat#ent of 1u$/and and 0ife a$ to t1eir ri"1t$ and re$pon$i/ilitie$. // The .ami - +ode attained this e &sive objective b- giving new rights to married women and b- abo ishing se6*based privi eges of h&sbands. 8mong others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the fami - propert-,
Page | 1671

whether in the abso &te comm&nits-stem or in the s-stem of conj&ga partnership> /! joint parenta a&thoritover their minor chi dren, both over their persons as we as their properties> /4 joint responsibi it- for the s&pport of the fami -> /) the right to joint manage the ho&seho d> /( and, the right to object to their h&sband9s e6ercise of profession, occ&pation, b&siness or activit-. /# Of particular relevance to t1e ca$e at /enc1 i$ Article >9 of t1e Ha#il! )ode 01ic1 too: a0a! t1e e'clu$ive ri"1t of t1e 1u$/and to fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile and "ave it jointl! to t1e 1u$/and and t1e 0ife, t1u$< 8rt. ($. T1e 1u$/and and 0ife $1all fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile. In
Page | 1672

case of disagreement, the co&rt sha decide. The co&rt ma- e6empt one spo&se from iving with the other if the atter sho& d ive abroad or there are other va id and compe ing reasons for the e6emption. Iowever, s&ch e6emption sha not app - if the same is not compatib e with the so idarit- of the fami -. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 Article >9 repealed Article 110 of t1e )ivil )ode. +ommenting on the d&tof the h&sband and wife to ive together, former ,adam J&stice 8 ice =empio*Ei- of the +o&rt of 8ppea s specified the instances when a 0ife #a! no0 refu$e to live 0it1 1er 1u$/and, th&s< /:
Page | 1673

2/5 The wife has the d&t- to ive with her h&sband, b&t she maref&se to do so in certain cases ike< 2a5 If the p ace chosen b- the h&sband as fami - residence is dangero&s to her Aife> 2b5 If the h&sband s&bjects her to ma treatment or ab&sive cond&ct or ins& ts, making common ife impossib e> 2c5 If the h&sband compe s her to ive with his parents, b&t she cannot get a ong with her mother*in* aw and thehave constant %&arre s 2Ee
Page | 1674

Rosario v. Ee Rosario, +8, 4( 1G ("//5> 2d5 0here the h&sband has contin&o&s - carried i icit re ations for "' -ears with different women and treated his wife ro&gh - and witho&t consideration. 2Eadivas v. Fi an&eva, )4 ;hi . $/5> 2e5 0here the h&sband spent his time in gamb ing, giving no mone- to his fami - for food and necessities, and at the same time ins& ting his wife and a-ing hands on her. 2;an&ncio v. =& a, +8, !4 1G "/$5>

Page | 1675

2f5 If the h&sband has no fi6ed residence and ives a vagabond ife as a tramp 2" ,anresa !/$5> 2g5 If the h&sband is carr-ing on a shamef& b&siness at home 2Gahn v. Earb-, !: Aa. 8nn. #'5. T1e ine$capa/le conclu$ion i$ t1at our Ha#il! )ode 1a$ co#pletel! e#ancipated t1e 0ife fro# t1e control of t1e 1u$/and, th&s abandoning the parties9 theoretic identit- of interest. 3o ess than the ate revered ,r. J&stice J.H.A. Re-es who chaired the +ivi +ode Revision +ommittee of the U; Aaw +enter gave this insightf& view in one of his rare ect&res after retirement< /$
Page | 1676

666 666 666 The .ami - +ode is primari intended to reform the fami - aw so as to emancipate the wife from the e6c &sive contro of the h&sband and to p ace her at paritwith him insofar as the fami - is concerned.T1e 0ife and t1e 1u$/and are no0 placed on e4ual $tandin" /! t1e )ode. The- are now joint administrators of the fami - properties and e6ercise joint a&thorit- over the persons and properties of their chi dren. This means a d&a a&thorit- in the fami -. T1e 1u$/and 0ill no lon"er prevail over t1e 0ife b&t she has to agree on a matters concerning the fami -. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5
Page | 1677

In ight of the .ami - +ode which abrogated the ine%&a it- between h&sband and wife as started and perpet&ated bthe common aw, t1ere i$ no rea$on in e$pou$in" t1e ano#alou$ rule t1at t1e 0ife $till retain$ t1e do#icile of 1er dead 1u$/and. 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode which provides the stat&tor- s&pport for this stance has been repea ed b8rtic e ($ of the .ami - +ode. H- its repea , it becomes a dead* etter aw, and we are not free to res&rrect it bgiving it f&rther effect in an- wa- or manner s&ch as b- r& ing that the petitioner is sti bo&nd b- the domici iar- determination of her dead h&sband.
Page | 1678

8side from reckoning with the .ami +ode, we have to consider o&r +onstit&tion and its firm g&arantees of d&e process and e%&a protection of aw. !' 3t can 1ardl! /e dou/ted t1at t1e co##on la0 i#po$ition on a #arried 0o#an of 1er dead 1u$/and<$ do#icile even /e!ond 1i$ "rave i$ patentl! di$cri#inator! to 0o#en. It is a gender* based discrimination and is not rationa - re ated to the objective of promoting fami - so idarit-. It cannot s&rvive a constit&tiona cha enge. Indeed, compared with o&r previo&s f&ndamenta aws, t1e 19F+ )on$titution i$ #ore concerned 0it1 e4ualit! /et0een $e'e$ a$ it e'plicitl! co##and$ t1at t1e tate D. . . $1all en$ure funda#ental e4ualit! /efore t1e la0 of 0o#en and #en.D To be e6act,
Page | 1679

section "4, 8rtic e II provides< DThe =tate recogni7es the ro e of women in nation b&i ding, and sha ens&re f&ndamenta e%&a it- before the aw of women and men. 0e sha be transgressing the sense and essence of this constit&tiona mandate if we insist on giving o&r women the caveman9s treatment. ;rescinding from these premises, I respectf& - s&bmit that t1e /etter $tance i$ to rule t1at petitioner reac4uired 1er Taclo/an do#icile upon t1e deat1 of 1er 1u$/and in 19F9. This is the necessar- conse%&ence of the view that petitioner9s Hatac dictated domici e did not contin&e after her h&sband9s death> otherwise, she wo& d have no domici e and that wi vio ate the
Page | 1680

&niversa r& e that no person can be witho&t a domici e at an- point of time. This stance a so restores the right of petitioner to choose her domici e before it was taken awa- b- 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, a right now recogni7ed bthe .ami - +ode and protected b- the +onstit&tion. Aikewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common aw re%&iring petitioner to choose again her Tac oban domici e before she co& d be re eased from her Hatac domici e. =he ost her Tac oban domici e not thro&gh her act b&t thro&gh the act of her deceased h&sband when he fi6ed their domici e in Hatac. Ier h&sband is dead and he cannot r& e her be-ond the grave. The aw disab ing her to choose her own domici e has been repea ed. +onsidering a these, common aw
Page | 1681

sho& d not p&t the b&rden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead h&sband9s domici e. There is neither rh-me nor reason for this gender*based b&rden. (ut even a$$u#in" ar"uendo t1at t1ere i$ need for convincin" proof t1at petitioner c1o$e to reac4uire 1er Taclo/an do#icile, $till, t1e record$ reveal a#ple evidence to t1i$ effect. In her affidavit s&bmitted to the respondent +1,EAE+, petitioner averred< 666 666 666 !(. In 3ovember, "$$", I came home to o&r be oved co&ntr-, after severa re%&ests for m- ret&rn were denied b- ;resident +ora7on +. 8%&ino, and after I fi ed s&its for
Page | 1682

o&r Government to iss&e me mpassport. !#. H&t I came home witho&t the morta remains of m- be oved h&sband, ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos, which the Government considered a threat to the nationa sec&rit- and we fare. !:. Upon m- ret&rn to the co&ntr-, I wanted to immediate - ive and reside in Tac oban +it- or in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, even if mresidences there were not ivab e as the- had been destro-ed and canniba i7ed. The ;+GG, however, did not permit and a ow me.

Page | 1683

!$. 8s a conse%&ence, I had to ive at vario&s times in the 0estin ;hi ippine ; a7a in ;asa- +it-, a friend9s apartment on 8-a a 8ven&e, a ho&se in =o&th .orbes ;ark which m- da&ghter rented, and ;acific ; a7a, a in ,akati. 4'. 8fter the "$$/ ;residentia E ections, I ived and resided in the residence of m- brother in =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, and p&rs&ed m- negotiations with ;+GG to recover mse%&estered residences in Tac oban +it- and Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 4'." In preparation for mobservance of 8 =aints9 Eaand 8 =o& s9 Ea- that -ear, I renovated m- parents9 b&ria
Page | 1684

gro&nds and entombed their bones which had been e6ca vated, &nearthed and scattered. 4". 1n 3ovember /$, "$$!, I forma - wrote ;+GG +hairman ,agtanggo G&nig&ndo for permissions to G . . . rehabi itate . . . 2o5&r ancestra ho&se in Tac oban and farmho&se in 1 ot, Ae-te . . . to make them ivab e for &s the ,arcos fami - to have a home in o&r own mother and. 666 666 666 4/. It was on - on '( J&ne "$$4, however, when ;+GG +hairman
Page | 1685

G&nig&ndo, in his etter to +o . =imeon ?empis, Jr., ;+GG Region : Representative, a owed me to repair and renovate mAe-te residences. I %&ote part of his etter< Eear +o . ?empis, Upon representation b- ,rs. Ime da R. ,arcos to this +ommission, that she intends to visit o&r se%&estered properties in Ae-te, p ease a ow her access thereto. =he ma- a so ca&se repairs and renovation of the se%&estered properties, in which event, it sha be &nderstood that her &ndertaking said repairs is
Page | 1686

not a&thori7ation for her to take over said properties, and that a e6penses sha be for her acco&nt and not reimb&rsab e. ; ease e6tend the necessar- co&rtes- to her. 666 666 666 4!. I was not permitted, however, to ive and sta- in the =to. 3iUo =hrine residence in Tac oban +itwhere I wanted to sta- and reside, after repairs and renovations were comp eted. In 8&g&st "$$4, I transferred from =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, to m- residence in Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, when ;+GG permitted me to staand ive there.
Page | 1687

3t i$ t1en clear t1at in 1992 petitioner ree$ta/li$1ed 1er do#icile in t1e Hir$t 9i$trict of Le!te. It is not disp&ted that in "$$/, she first ived at the ho&se of her brother in =an Jose, Tac oban +it- and ater, in 8&g&st "$$4, she transferred her residence in Haranga1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. Hoth Tac oban +it- and the m&nicipa it- of 1 ot are within the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. =ince petitioner reestab ished her o d domici e in "$$/ in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, she more than comp ied with the constit&tiona re%&irement of residence D. . . for a period of not ess than one -ear immediate - preceding the daof the e ection,D i.e., the ,a- :, "$$) e ections.
Page | 1688

T1e evidence pre$ented /! t1e private re$pondent to ne"ate t1e Taclo/an do#icile of petitioner i$ nil. Ie presented petitioner9s Foter9s Registration Record fi ed with the Hoard of E ection Inspectors of ;recinct "'*8 of Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te wherein she stated that her period of residence in said baranga- was si6 2(5 months as of the date of her fi ing of said Foter9s Registration Record on Jan&ar- /:, "$$). !" This statement in petitioner9s Foter9s Registration Record is a nonprejudicial ad#i$$ion. The +onstit&tion re%&ires at east one 2"5 -ear residence in thedi$trict in which the candidate sha be e ected. In the case at bench, the reference is the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. ;etitioner9s statement proved that she resided in 1 ot si6 2(5 months before
Page | 1689

Jan&ar/:, "$$) /ut did not di$prove that she has a so resided in Tac oban +it- starting "$$/. 8s aforestated, 1 ot and Tac oban +it- are both within the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, hence, her si6 2(5 months residence in 1 ot sho& d be co&nted not against, b&t in her favor. ;rivate respondent a so presented petitioner9s +ertificate of +andidacfi ed on ,arch :, "$$) !/ where she p aced seven 2#5 months after Item 3o. : which ca ed for information regarding Dresidence in the constit&enc- where I seek to be e ected immediate - preceding the e ection.D 8gain, this origina certificate of candidac- has no evidentiar- va &e beca&se an ,arch ", "$$) it was corrected bpetitioner. In her 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of
Page | 1690

+andidac-, !! petitioner wrote Dsince chi dhoodD after Item 3o. :. The amendment of a certificate of candidacto correct a /ona fide mistake has been a owed b- this +o&rt as a matter of co&rse and as a matter of right. 8s we he d in Alial! v. )OM;L;), !4 vi5.< 666 666 666 The absence of the signat&re of the =ecretar- of the oca chapter 3.; in the origina certificate of candidac- presented before the dead ine =eptember "", "$)$, did not render the certificate inva id.T1e a#end#ent of t1e certificate, alt1ou"1 at a date after t1e deadline, /ut /efore t1e election, 0a$ $u/$tantial
Page | 1691

co#pliance 0it1 t1e la0, and t1e defect 0a$ cured. It goes witho&t sa-ing that petitioner9s erroneo&s +ertificate of +andidacfi ed on ,arch :, "$$) cannot be &sed as evidence against her. ;rivate respondent9s petition for the dis%&a ification of petitioner rested a one on these two 2/5 britt e pieces of doc&mentarevidence G petitioner9s Foter9s Registration Record and her origina +ertificate of +andidac-. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her cease ess contacts with Tac oban, private respondent9s two 2/5 pieces of evidence are too ins&fficient to dis%&a if- petitioner, more so, to den- her the right to
Page | 1692

represent the peop e of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te who have overwhe ming - voted for her. .ifth. =ection "', 8rtic e IN*+ of the +onstit&tion mandates that D/ona fide candidates for an- p&b ic office sha be free from an- form of harassment and discrimination.D !) 8 detached reading of the records of the case at bench wi show that a forms of ega and e6tra* ega obstac es have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her from r&nning as the peop e9s representative in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. In petitioner9s 8nswer to the petition to dis%&a if- her, she averred< !( 666 666 666

Page | 1693

"'. ;etitioner9s 2herein private respondent ,ontejo5 motive in fi ing the instant petition is devio&s. 0hen respondent 2petitioner herein5 anno&nced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tac oban +it- and r&n for +ongress in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, petitioner 2,ontejo5 immediate - opposed her intended registration b- writing a etter stating that Dshe is not a resident of said cit- b&t of Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te.D 28nne6 D/D of respondent9s affidavit, 8nne6 D/D5. 8fter respondent 2petitioner herein5 had registered as a voter in To osa fo owing comp etion of her si6* month act&a residence therein, petitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed a petition
Page | 1694

with the +1,EAE+ to transfer the town of To osa from the .irst Eistrict to the =econd Eistrict and p&rs&ed s&ch move &p to the =&preme +o&rt in G.R. 3o. "":#'/, his p&rpose being to remove respondent 2petitioner herein5 as petitioner9s 2,ontejo9s5 opponent in the congressiona e ection in the .irst Eistrict. Ie a so fi ed a bi , a ong with other Ae-te +ongressmen, seeking to create another egis ative district, to remove the town of To osa o&t of the .irst Eistrict and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his p&rpose. Iowever, s&ch bi did not pass the =enate. Iaving, fai ed on s&ch moves, petitioner now fi ed the instant petition, for the
Page | 1695

same objective, as it is obvio&s that he is afraid to s&bmit himse f a ong with respondent 2petitioner herein5 for the j&dgment and verdict of the e ectorate of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te in an honest, order -, peacef& , free and c ean e ections on ,a- :, "$$). These a egations which private respondent did not cha enge were not ost to the perceptive e-e of +ommissioner ,aambong who in his Eissenting 1pinion, !# he d< 666 666 666 ;rior to the registration date G Jan&ar- /:, "$$) the petitioner 2herein private respondent
Page | 1696

,ontejo5 wrote the E ection 1fficer of Tac oban +it- not to a ow respondent 2petitioner herein5 to register thereat since she is a resident of To osa and not Tac oban +it-. The p&rpose of this move of the petitioner 2,ontejo5 is not ost to 2$ic5 the +ommission. In U3E 3o. $)*''" 23n t1e #atter of t1e Le"i$lative 9i$trict$ of t1e 2rovince$ of Le!te, 3loilo, and out1 )ota/ato, Out of Q1ic1 t1e &e0 2rovince$ of (iliran, Gui#ara$ and aran""ani Qere %e$pectivel! )reated5, . . . Ion. +iri o RoG. ,ontejo, Representative, .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, wanted the ,&nicipa it- of To osa, in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, transferred to the =econd
Page | 1697

Eistrict of Ae-te. The Ion. =ergio 8... 8posto , Representative of the =econd Eistrict of Ae-te, opposed the move of the petitioner 2,ontejo5. Under +ome ec Reso &tion 3o. /#!( 2Eecember /$, "$$45, the +ommission on E ections ref&sed to make the proposed transfer. ;etitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed DMotion for %econ$ideration of %e$olution &o. 2+3>D which the +ommission denied in a Reso &tion prom& gated on .ebr&ar- ", "$$). ;etitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed a petition for certiorari before the Ionorab e =&preme +o&rt 2+iri o Ro- G. ,ontejo vs. +ommission on E ections, G.R. 3o. "":#'/5 %&estioning the reso &tion of the
Page | 1698

+ommission. He ieving that he co& d get a favorab e r& ing from the =&preme +o&rt, petitioner 2,ontejo5 tried to make s&re that the respondent 2petitioner herein5 wi register as a voter in To osa so that she wi be forced to r&n as Representative not in the .irst b&t in the =econd Eistrict. It did not happen. 1n ,arch "(, "$$), the Ionorab e =&preme +o&rt &nanimo&s - prom& gated a D9eci$ion,D penned b- 8ssociate J&stice Re-nato =. ;&no, the dispositive portion of which reads< I3 FIE0 0IERE1., =ection " of Reso &tion 3o. /#!( insofar as it transferred the m&nicipa it- of +apoocan of
Page | 1699

the =econd Eistrict and the m&nicipa it- of ;a ompon of the .o&rth Eistrict to the Third Eistrict of the province of Ae-te, is ann& ed and set aside. 0e a so den- the ;etition pra-ing for the transfer of the m&nicipa it- of To osa from the .irst Eistrict to the =econd Eistrict of the province of Ae-te. 3o costs. ;etitioner9s 2,ontejo9s5 p an did not work. H&t the respondent 2petitioner herein5 was constrained to register in the ,&nicipa it- of To osa where her ho&se is instead of Tac oban +it-, her domici e. In an- case, both Tac oban +it- and
Page | 1700

To osa are in the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict. 8 these attempts to mis&se o&r aws and ega processes are forms of rank harassments and invidio&s discriminations against petitioner to den- her e%&a access to a p&b ic office. 0e cannot commit anhermene&tic vio ence to the +onstit&tion b- tort&ring the meaning of e%&a it-, the end res& t of which wi a ow the harassment and discrimination of petitioner who has ived a controversia ife, a past of a ternating ight and shadow. There is b&t one +onstit&tion for a .i ipinos. ;etitioner cannot be adj&dged b- a DdifferentD +onstit&tion, and the worst wa- to interpret the +onstit&tion is to
Page | 1701

inject in its interpretation, bi e and bitterness. =i6th. In Galle"o v. Gera, !: we e6p ained that the reason for this residence re%&irement is Dto e6c &de a stranger or newcomer, &nac%&ainted, with the conditions and needs of a comm&nitand not identified with the atter, from an e ective office to serve that comm&nit- . . . .D ;etitioner9s ifetime contacts with the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te cannot be contested. 3obod- can c aim that she is not ac%&ainted with its prob ems beca&se she is a stranger to the p ace. 3one can arg&e she cannot satisf- the intent of the +onstit&tion. =eventh. In reso ving e ection cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effect&ate the wi of the e ectorate. The
Page | 1702

e ection res& ts show that petitioner received =event- Tho&sand .o&r I&ndred =event-*one 2#',4#"5 votes, whi e private respondent got on - Thirt-* =i6 Tho&sand Eight I&ndred Thirt-* Three 2!(,:!!5 votes. ;etitioner is c ear - the overwhe ming choice of the e ectorate of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te and this is not a s eight of statistics. 0e cannot fr&strate this sovereign wi on high arg&ab e technica considerations. In case of do&bt, we sho& d ean towards a r& e that wi give ife to the peop e9s po itica j&dgment. A final point. The case at bench provides the +o&rt with the rare opport&nit- to rectif- the ine%&a it- of stat&s between women and men brejecting the ini%&ito&s common aw
Page | 1703

precedents on the domici e of married women and b- redefining domici e in accord with o&r own c& t&re, aw, and +onstit&tion. To r& e that a married woman is eterna - tethered to the domici e dictated b- her dead h&sband is to preserve the anachronistic and anoma o&s ba ance of advantage of a h&sband over his wife. 0e sho& d not a ow the dead to govern the iving even if the g ories of -ester-ears sed&ce &s to sho&t ong ive the dead^ The .ami +ode b&ried this gender*based discrimination against married women and we sho& d not e6cavate what has been entombed. ,ore important -, the +onstit&tion forbids it. I vote to grant the petition. (ello$illo and Melo, JJ., concur.
Page | 1704

.R83+I=+1, J., conc&rring< I conc&r with ,r. J&stice ?ap&nan9s ponencia finding petitioner %&a ified for the position of Representative of the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. I wish, however, to e6press a few comments on the iss&e of petitioner9s domici e. Eomici e has been defined as that p ace in which a person9s habitation is fi6ed, witho&t an- present intention of removing therefrom, and that p ace is proper - the domici e of a person in which he has vo &ntari - fi6ed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere specia or temporar- p&rpose, b&t with a present intention of making it his permanent home 2/: +.J.=. Z"5. It denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which when
Page | 1705

absent for b&siness, or p eas&re, or for ike reasons one intends to ret&rn, and depends on facts and circ&mstances, in the sense that the- disc ose intent. 21ng I&an Tin v. Rep&b ic, "$ =+R8 $((, $($5 Eomici e is c assified into domici e of origin and domici e of choice. The aw attrib&tes to ever- individ&a a domici e of origin, which is the domici e of his parents, or of the head of his fami -, or of the person on whom he is ega dependent at the time of his birth. 0hi e the domici e of origin is genera - the p ace where one is born or reared, it ma-be e sewhere 2/: +.J.=. Z)5. Eomici e of choice, on the other hand, is the p ace which the person has e ected and chosen for himse f to disp ace his
Page | 1706

previo&s domici e> it has for its tr&e basis or fo&ndation the intention of the person 2/: +.J.=. Z(5. In order to ho d that a person has abandoned his domici e and ac%&ired a new one ca ed domici e of choice, the fo owing re%&isites m&st conc&r, name -, 2a5 residence or bodi - presence in the new oca it-, 2b5 intention to remain there or ani#u$ #anendi, and 2c5 an intention to abandon the o d domici e orani#u$ non revertendi 2Rom&a de7 v. RT+, Hr. #, Tac oban +it-, //( =+R8 4':, 4")5. 8 third c assification is domici e boperation of aw which attrib&tes to a person a domici e independent of his own intention or act&a residence, ordinari - res& ting from ega domestic re ations, as that of the wife arising from
Page | 1707

marriage, or the re ation of a parent and a chi d 2/: +.J.=. Z#5. In e ection aw, when o&r +onstit&tion speaks of residence for e ection p&rposes it means domici e 2+o v. E ectora Trib&na of the Io&se of Representatives, "$$ =+R8 ($/, #"!> 3&va v. G&ra-, )/ ;hi . (4), ()"5. To mmind, p&b ic respondent +ommission on E ections misapp ied this concept, of domici e which ed to petitioner9s dis%&a ification b- r& ing that petitioner fai ed to comp - with the constit&tiona mandated one*-ear residence re%&irement. 8pparent -, p&b ic respondent +ommission deemed as conc &sive petitioner9s sta- and registration as voter in man- p aces as cond&ct disc osing her intent to abandon
Page | 1708

her estab ished domici e of origin in Tac oban, Ae-te. In severa decisions, tho&gh, the +o&rt has aid down the r& e that registration of a voter in a p ace other than his p ace of origin is not s&fficient to constit&te abandonment or oss of s&ch residence 2.a-pon v. O&irino, $( ;hi . /$4, !''5. Respondent +ommission offered no cogent reason to depart from this r& e e6cept to s&rmise petitioner9s intent of abandoning her domici e of origin. It has been s&ggested that petitioner9s domici e of origin was s&pp anted b- a new domici e d&e to her marriage, a domici e b- operation of aw. The proposition is that &pon the death of her h&sband in "$:$ she retains her h&sband9s domici e, i.e., Hatac, I ocos
Page | 1709

3orte, &nti she makes an act&a change thereof. I find this proposition %&ite &ntenab e. Tac oban, Ae-te, is petitioner9s domici e of origin which was invo &ntari s&pp anted with another, i.e., Hatac, I ocos 3orte, &pon her marriage in "$)4 with then +ongressman ,arcos. Hega fiction she fo owed the domici e of her h&sband. In m- view, the reason for the aw is for the spo&ses to f& - and effective - perform their marita d&ties and ob igations to one another. " The %&estion of domici e, however, is not affected b- the fact that it was the ega or mora d&t- of the individ&a to reside in a given p ace 2/: +.J.=. Z""5. Th&s, whi e the wife retains her marita domici e so ong as the marriage
Page | 1710

s&bsists, she a&tomatica - oses it &pon the atter9s termination, for the reason behind the aw then ceases. 1therwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended b- the death of her h&sband, wo& d be p aced in a %&ite abs&rd and &nfair sit&ation of having been freed from a wife - ob igations -et made to ho d on to one which no onger serves anmeaningf& p&rpose. It is m- view therefore that petitioner reverted to her origina domici e of Tac oban, Ae-te &pon her h&sband9s death witho&t even signif-ing her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effective - abandoned Tac oban, Ae-te for Hatac, I ocos 3orte or for some other
Page | 1711

p aceJs. The c ear r& e is that it is the part- 2herein private respondent5 c aiming that a person has abandoned or ost his residence of origin who m&st show and prove preponderant - s&ch abandonment or oss 2.a-pon v. O&irino, $upra at /$:> /: +.J.=. Z"(5, beca&se the pres&mption is strong - in favor of an origina or former domici e, as against an ac%&ired one 2/: +.J.=. Z"(5. ;rivate respondent &nfort&nate fai ed to discharge this b&rden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that petitioner has ac%&ired whether vo &ntari - or invo &ntari -, a new domici e to rep ace her domici e of origin. The records, on the contrar-, c ear show that petitioner has comp ied with
Page | 1712

the constit&tiona one*-ear residence re%&irement. 8fter her e6i e abroad, she ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in "$$" to reside in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, b&t the ;residentia +ommission on Good Government which se%&estered her residentia ho&se and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient sta- in vario&s p aces in ,ani a 28ffidavit p.(, attached as 8nne6 I of the ;etition5. In "$$/, she ran for the position of president writing in her certificate of candidac- her residence as =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. 8fter her oss therein, she went back to Tac oban +it-, ac%&ired her residence certificate / and resided with her brother in =an Jose. =he resided in =an Jose, Tac oban +it&nti 8&g&st of "$$4 when she was a owed b- the ;+GG to move and
Page | 1713

reside in her se%&estered residentia ho&se in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te 28nne6 I, p. (5. ! It was in the same month of 8&g&st when she app ied for the cance ation of her previo&s registration in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a in order to register anew as voter of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, which she did on Jan&ar- /:, "$$). .rom this se%&ence of events, I find it %&ite improper to &se as the reckoning period of the one*-ear residence re%&irement the date when she app ied for the cance ation of her previo&s registration in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the "$$/ presidentia e ection from =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a to =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, and resided therein &nti 8&g&st of
Page | 1714

"$$4. =he ater transferred to 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te 28nne6 I, p. #5. It appearing that both Tac oban +it- and To osa, Ae-te are within the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te, it ind&bitab - stands that she had more than a -ear of residence in the constit&enc- she so&ght to be e ected. ;etitioner, therefore, has satisfactori comp ied with the one*-ear %&a ification re%&ired b- the "$:# +onstit&tion. I vote to grant the petition. R1,ER1, J., separate opinion< ;etitioner has appea ed to this +o&rt for re ief after the +1,EAE+ r& ed that she was dis%&a ified from r&nning for Representative of her Eistrict and that, in the event that she sho& d,
Page | 1715

neverthe ess, m&ster a majorit- vote, her proc amation sho& d be s&spended. 3ot b- a straightforward r& ing did the +1,EAE+ prono&nce its decision as has been its &nvar-ing practice in the past, b&t b- a start ing s&ccession of Dreverse somersa& ts.D Indicative of its shifting stance vi$-a-vi$ petitioner9s certificate of candidac- were first, the action of its =econd Eivision dis%&a if-ing her and cance ing her origina +ertificate of +andidac- b- a vote of /*" on 8pri /4, "$$)> then the denia b- the +1,EAE+ en /anc of her ,otion for Reconsideration on ,a- #, "$$), a da- before the e ection> then beca&se she persisted in r&nning, its decision on ,a- "", "$$) or three da-s after the e ection, a owing her proc amation in
Page | 1716

the event that the res& ts of the canvass sho& d show that she obtained the highest n&mber of votes 2obvio&s noting that petitioner had won overwhe ming - over her opponent5, b&t a most sim& taneo&s - reversing itse f bdirecting that even if she wins, her proc amation sho& d nonethe ess be s&spended. +r&cia to the reso &tion of the dis%&a ification iss&e presented b- the case at bench is the interpretation to be given to the one*-ear residencre%&irement imposed b- the +onstit&tion on aspirants for a +ongressiona seat. " Hearing in mind that the term DresidentD has been he d to be s-non-mo&s with Ddomici eD for e ection p&rposes, it is important to determine whether
Page | 1717

petitioner9s domici e was in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te and if so, whether she had resided there for at east a period of one -ear. Undisp&ted is her domici e of origin, Tac oban, where her parents ived at the time of her birth. Eepending on what theor- one adopts, the same ma- have been changed when she married .erdinand E. ,arcos, then domici ed in Hatac, b- operation of aw. 8ss&ming it did, his death certain re eased her from the ob igation to ive with him at the residence fi6ed b- him d&ring his ifetime. 0hat ma- conf&se the a-man at this point is the fact that the term Ddomici eD ma- refer to Ddomici e of origin,D Ddomici e of choice,D or Ddomici e b- operation of aw,D which s&bject we sha not be abor since it has been amp disc&ssed bPage | 1718

theponente and in the other separate opinions. In an- case, what ass&mes re evance is the divergence of ega opinion as to the effect of the h&sband9s death on the domici e of the widow. =ome scho ars opine that the widow9s domici e remains &nchanged> that the deceased h&sband9s wishes perforce sti bind the wife he has eft behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot possib - go far eno&gh to sever the domici iar- tie imposed b- her h&sband. It is bad eno&gh to interpret the aw as empowering the h&sband &ni atera - to fi6 the residence or domici e of the fami -, as aid down in the +ivi +ode, / b&t to contin&e giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationa e
Page | 1719

&nder -ing the m&t&a d&t- of the spo&ses to ive together has ceased, is to c ose one9s e-es to the stark rea ities of the present. 8t the other e6treme is the position that the widow a&tomatica - reverts to her domici e of origin &pon the demise of her h&sband. Eoes the aw so abhor a vac&&m that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domici eK To answer this %&estion which is far from rhetorica , one wi have to keep in mind the basic princip es of domici e. Ever-one m&st have a domici e. Then one m&st have on - a sing e domici e for the same p&rpose at an- given time. 1nce estab ished, a domici e remains &nti a new one is ac%&ired, for no
Page | 1720

person ives who has no domici e, as defined b- the aw be is s&bject to. 8t this j&nct&re, we are confronted with an &ne6p ored ega terrain in this j&risdiction, rendered more m&rk- b- the conf icting opinions of foreign ega a&thorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opport&ne to i &mine the darkness with the beacon ight of tr&th, as dictated b- e6perience and the necessit- of according petitioner her right to choose her domici e in keeping with the en ightened g oba trend to recogni7e and protect the h&man rights of women, no ess than men. 8dmitted -, the notion of p acing women at par with men, insofar as civi , po itica and socia rights are concerned, is a
Page | 1721

re ative - recent phenomenon that took seed on - in the midd e of this cent&r-. It is a historica fact that for over three cent&ries, the ;hi ippines had been co oni7ed b- =pain, a conservative, +atho ic co&ntr- which transp anted to o&r shores the 1 d 0or d c& t&res, mores and attit&des and va &es. Thro&gh the imposition on o&r government of the =panish +ivi +ode in "::$, the peop e, both men and women, had no choice b&t to accept s&ch concepts as the h&sband9s being the head of the fami - and the wife9s s&bordination to his a&thorit-. In s&ch ro e, his was the right to make vita decisions for the fami -. ,an- instances come to mind, foremost being what is re ated to the iss&e before &s, name -, that Dthe h&sband sha fi6 the residence
Page | 1722

of the fami -.D ! Heca&se he is made responsib e for the s&pport of the wife and the rest of the fami -, 4 he is a so empowered to be the administrator of the conj&ga propert-, with a few e6ceptions ) and ma-, therefore, dispose of the conj&ga partnership propert- for the p&rposes specified &nder the aw> ( whereas, as a genera r& e, the wife cannot bind the conj&ga partnership witho&t the h&sband9s consent. # 8s regards the propertpertaining to the chi dren &nder parenta a&thorit-, the father is the ega administrator and on - in his absence mathe mother ass&me his powers. : Eemeaning to the wife9s dignit- are certain strict&res on her persona freedoms, practica - re egating her to the position of minors and
Page | 1723

disab ed persons. To i &strate a few< The wife cannot, witho&t the h&sband9s consent, ac%&ire an- grat&ito&s tit e, e6cept from her ascendants, descendants, parents*in* aw, and co atera re atives within the fo&rth degree. $ 0ith respect to her emp o-ment, the h&sband wie ds a veto power in the case the wife e6ercises her profession or occ&pation or engages in b&siness, provided his income is s&fficient for the fami -, according to its socia standing and his opposition is fo&nded on serio&s and va id gro&nds. "' ,ost offensive, if not rep& sive, to the ibera *minded is the effective prohibition &pon a widow to get married ti after three h&ndred da-s fo owing the death of her h&sband, &n ess in the meantime, she has given
Page | 1724

birth to a chi d. "" The mother who contracts a s&bse%&ent marriage oses the parenta a&thorit- over her chi dren, &n ess the deceased h&sband, father of the atter, has e6press - provided in his wi that his widow might marr- again, and has ordered that in s&ch case she sho& d keep and e6ercise parenta a&thorit- over their chi dren. "/ 8gain, an instance of a h&sband9s overarching inf &ence from be-ond the grave. 8 these indignities and disabi ities s&ffered b- .i ipino wives for h&ndreds of -ears evoked no protest from them &nti the concept of h&man rights and e%&a it- between and among nations and individ&a s fo&nd hospitab e odgment in the United 3ations +harter of which the ;hi ippines was one of the
Page | 1725

origina signatories. H- then, the =panish Dcon%&istadoresD had been overthrown b- the 8merican forces at the t&rn of the cent&r-. The bedrock of the U.3. +harter was firm - anchored on this credo< Dto reaffirm faith in the f&ndamenta h&man rights, in the dignitand worth of the h&man person, in t1e e4ual ri"1t$ of #en and 0o#en.D 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 It took over thirt- -ears before these ega itarian doctrines bore fr&it, owing arge - to the b&rgeoning of the feminist movement. 0hat ma- be regarded as the internationa bi of rights for women was imp anted in the +onvention on the E imination of 8 .orms of Eiscrimination 8gainst 0omen 2+EE805 adopted b- the
Page | 1726

U.3. Genera 8ssemb - which entered into force as an internationa treat- on =eptember !, "$:". In ratif-ing the instr&ment, the ;hi ippines bo&nd itse f to imp ement its iberating spirit and etter, for its +onstit&tion, no ess, dec ared that DThe ;hi ippines. . . adopts the genera - accepted princip es of internationa aw as part of the aw of the and and adheres to the po ic- of peace, e%&a it-, j&stice, freedom, cooperation, and amit- with a nations.D "! 1ne s&ch princip e embodied in the +EE80 is granting to men and women Dthe same rights with regard to the aw re ating to the movement of persons and the freedo# to c1oo$e t1eir
Page | 1727

re$idence and do#icile.D"4 2Emphasis s&pp ied5. +EE809s pro*women orientation which was not ost on .i ipino women was ref ected in the "$:# +onstit&tion of the ;hi ippines and ater, in the .ami +ode, ") both of which were speedi approved b- the first ad- ;resident of the co&ntr-, +ora7on +. 8%&ino. 3otab e for its emphasis on the h&man rights of a individ&a s and its bias for e%&a itbetween the se6es are the fo owing provisions< DThe =tate va &es the dignitof ever- h&man person and g&arantees f& respect for h&man rightsD "( and DThe =tate recogni7es the ro e of women in nation*b&i ding, and sha ens&re the f&ndamenta e%&a it- before the aw of women and men.D "#
Page | 1728

8 major accomp ishment of women in their %&est for e%&a it- with men and the e imination of discriminator- provisions of aw was the de etion in the .ami +ode of a most a of the &nreasonab e strict&res on wives and the grant to them of persona rights e%&a to that of their h&sbands. =pecifica -, the h&sband and wife are now givent1e ri"1t jointl! to fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile> ": concomitant to the spo&ses9 being joint - responsib e for the s&pport of the fami - is the right and d&t- of both spo&ses to manage the ho&seho d> "$ the administration and the enjo-ment of the comm&nit- propertsha be ong to both spo&ses joint -> /' the father and mother sha now joint - e6ercise ega g&ardianship over
Page | 1729

the propert- of their &nemancipated common chi d /" and severa others. 8ware of the hiat&s and contin&ing gaps in the aw, insofar as women9s rights are concerned, +ongress passed a aw pop& ar - known as D0omen in Eeve opment and 3ation H&i ding 8ctD // 8mong the rights given to married women evidencing their capacit- to act in contracts e%&a to that of men are< 2"5 0omen sha have the capacit- to borrow and obtain oans and e6ec&te sec&rit- and credit arrangements &nder the same conditions as men> 2/5 0omen sha have e%&a access to a government and private sector programs granting agric& t&ra credit, oans and non materia reso&rces and
Page | 1730

sha enjo- e%&a treatment in agrarian reform and and resett ement programs> 2!5 0omen sha have e%&a rights to act as incorporators and enter into ins&rance contracts> and 245 ,arried women sha have rights e%&a to those of married men in app -ing for passports, sec&re visas and other trave doc&ments, witho&t need to sec&re the consent of their spo&ses. 8s the wor d draws the c&rtain on the .o&rth 0or d +onference of 0omen in Heijing, et this +o&rt now be the first to respond to its c arion ca that D0omen9s Rights are I&man RightsD and that D8 obstac es to women9s f& participation in decision*making at a eve s, inc &ding the fami -D sho& d be removed. Iaving
Page | 1731

been herse f a ,ember of the ;hi ippine Ee egation to the Internationa 0omen9s Cear +onference in ,e6ico in "$#), this writer is on - too keen - aware of the &nremitting str&gg e being waged bwomen the wor d over, .i ipino women not e6c &ded, to be accepted as e%&a s of men and to tear down the wa s of discrimination that ho d them back from their proper p aces &nder the s&n. In ight of the ine6orab e sweep of events, oca and g oba , egis ative, e6ec&tive and j&dicia , according more rights to women hitherto denied them and e iminating whatever pockets of discrimination sti e6ist in their civi , po itica and socia ife, can it sti be insisted that widows are not at ibert- to choose their domici e &pon the death of
Page | 1732

their h&sbands b&t m&st retain the same, regard essK I s&bmit that a widow, ike the petitioner and others simi ar - sit&ated, can no onger be bo&nd b- the domici e of the departed h&sband, if at a she was before. 3either does she a&tomatica revert to her domici e of origin, b&t e6ercising free wi , she ma- opt to reestab ish her domici e of origin. In ret&rning to Tac oban and s&bse%&ent -, to Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, both of which are ocated in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, petitioner amp - demonstrated b- overt acts, her e ection of a domici e of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domici e of origin. 8dded together, the time when she set &p her domici e in the two p aces s&fficed to meet the one*-ear
Page | 1733

re%&irement to r&n as Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. In view of the foregoing e6patiation, I vote to GR83T the petition. FITUG, J., separate opinion< The case at bench dea s with e6p icit +onstit&tiona mandates. The +onstit&tion is not a p iab e instr&ment. It is a bedrock in o&r ega s-stem that sets &p idea s and directions and render stead- o&r strides hence. It on - ooks back so as to ens&re that mistakes in the past are not repeated. 8 comp iant transience of a constit&tion be itt es its basic f&nction and weakens its goa s. 8 constit&tion ma- we become o&tdated b- the rea ities of time. 0hen it does, it m&st
Page | 1734

be changed b&t whi e it remains, we owe it respect and a egiance. 8narch-, open or s&bt e, has never been, nor m&st it ever be, the answer to perceived transitor- needs, et a one societa attit&des, or the +onstit&tion might ose its ver- essence. +onstit&tiona provisions m&st be taken to be mandator- in character &n ess, either b- e6press statement or bnecessar- imp ication, a different intention is manifest 2see ,arce ino vs. +r&7, "/" =+R8 )"5. The two provisions initia - bro&ght to foc&s are =ection ( and =ection "# of 8rtic e FI of the f&ndamenta aw. These provisions read<

Page | 1735

=ec. (. 3o person sha be a ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives &n ess he is a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines and, on the da- of the e ection, is at east twent-*five -ears of age, ab e to read and write, and, e6cept the part-* ist representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he sha be e ected, and a resident thereof for a period of not ess than one -ear immediate - preceding the da- of the e ection. =ec. "#. The =enate and the Io&se of Representatives sha each have an E ectora Trib&na which sha be the so e j&dge of a contests re ating to the e ection,
Page | 1736

ret&rns, and %&a ifications of their respective ,embers. Each E ectora Trib&na sha be composed of nine ,embers, three of whom sha be J&stices of the =&preme +o&rt to be designated b- the +hief J&stice, and the remaining si6 sha be ,embers of the =enate or the Io&se of Representatives, as the case mabe, who sha be chosen on the basis of proportiona representation from the po itica parties and the parties or organi7ations registered &nder the part-* ist s-stem represented therein. The senior J&stice in the E ectora Trib&na sha be its +hairman.
Page | 1737

The +ommission on E ection 2the D+1,EAE+D5 is constit&tiona - bo&nd to enforce and administer Da aws and reg& ations re ative to the cond&ct of e ection . . .D 28rt. IN, +, =ec. /, +onstit&tion5 that, there being nothing said to the contrar-, sho& d inc &de its a&thorit- to pass &pon the %&a ification and dis%&a ification prescribed b- aw ofcandidate$ to an e ective office. Indeed, pre*proc amation controversies are e6press - p aced &nder the +1,EAE+9s j&risdiction to hear and reso ve 28rt. IN, +, =ec. !, +onstit&tion5. The matter before &s specifica - ca s for the observance of the constit&tiona one*-ear residenc- re%&irement. The iss&e 2whether or not there is here s&ch comp iance5, to m- mind, is basica - a
Page | 1738

%&estion of fact or at east ine6tricab inked to s&ch determination. The findings and j&dgment of the +1,EAE+, in accordance with the ong estab ished r& e and s&bject on - to a n&mber of e6ceptions &nder the basic heading of Dgrave ab&se of discretion,D are not reviewab e b- this +o&rt. I do not find m&ch need to do a comp e6 e6ercise on what seems to me to be a p ain matter. Genera -, the term DresidenceD has a broader connotation that mamean per#anent 2domici e5, official 2p a ce where one9s officia d&ties mare%&ire him to sta-5 or te#porar! 2the p ace where he sojo&rns d&ring a considerab e ength of time5. .or civi aw p&rposes, i.e., as regards the
Page | 1739

e6ercise of civi rights and the f& fi ment of civi ob igations, the domici e of a nat&ra person is the p ace of his 1a/itual residence 2see 8rtic e )', +ivi +ode5. In e ection cases, the contro ing r& e is that heretofore anno&nced b- this +o&rt in %o#ualde5 v$. %e"ional Trial )ourt, Hranch #, Tac oban +it- 2//( =+R8 4':, 4'$5> th&s< In e ection cases, the +o&rt treats domici e and residence as s-non-mo&s terms, th&s< D2t5he term DresidenceD as &sed in the e ection aw is s-non-mo&s with Ddomici e,D which imports not on an intention to reside in a fi6ed p ace b&t a so persona presence in that p ace, co&p ed with cond&ct
Page | 1740

indicative of s&ch intention.D DEomici eD denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which when absent for b&siness or p eas&re, or for ike reasons, one intends to ret&rn. . . . . Residence th&s ac%&ired, however, ma- be ost b- adopting another choice of domici e. In order, in t&rn, to ac%&ire a new domici e b- choice, there m&st conc&r 2"5 residence or bodi - presence in the new oca it-, 2/5 an intention to remain there, and 2!5 an intention to abandon the o d domici e. In other words, there m&st basica be ani#u$ #anendi co&p ed with ani#u$ non revertendi. The p&rpose to remain in or at the domici e of choice m&st be for an indefinite period of time>
Page | 1741

the change of residence m&st be vo &ntar-> and the residence at the p ace chosen for the new domici e m&st be act&a . Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the +1,EAE+ with having committed grave ab&se of discretion in its assai ed reso &tion. The +1,EAE+9s j&risdiction, in the case of congressiona e ections, ends when the j&risdiction of the E ectora Trib&na concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee m&st have theretofore been d& - proc aimed and has since become a DmemberD of the =enate or the Io&se of Representatives. The %&estion can be asked on whether or not the proc amation of a candidate is
Page | 1742

j&st a ministeria f&nction of the +ommission on E ections dictated so e on the n&mber of votes cast in an e ection e6ercise. I be ieve, it is not. 8 ministeria d&t- is an ob igation the performance of which, being ade%&ate defined, does not a ow the &se of f&rther j&dgment or discretion. The +1,EAE+, in its partic& ar case, is tasked with the f& responsibi it- of ascertaining a the facts and conditions s&ch as ma- be re%&ired b- aw before a proc amation is proper - done. The +o&rt, on its part, sho& d, in mview at east, refrain from an- &nd&e encroachment on the & timate e6ercise of a&thorit- b- the E ectora Trib&na s on matters which, b- no ess than a constit&tiona fiat, are e6p icit - within
Page | 1743

their e6c &sive domain. The nagging %&estion, if it were otherwise, wo& d be the effect of the +o&rt9s peremptorprono&ncement on the abi it- of the E ectora Trib&na to ater come &p with its own j&dgment in a contest Dre ating to the e ection, ret&rns and %&a ificationD of its members. ;rescinding from a the foregoing, I sho& d ike to ne6t to&ch base on the app icabi it- to this case of =ection ( of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. ((4(, in re ation to =ection #/ of (ata$ 2a#/an$a (l". ::", each providing th&s -< RE;UHAI+ 8+T 31. ((4( 666 666 666 =ec. (. ;ffect of 9i$4ualification )a$e. G 8n- candidate who has
Page | 1744

been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. If for an- reason a candidate is not dec ared b- fina j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified and he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and, &pon motion of the comp ainant or anintervenor, mad&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate whenever the evidence of his g&i t is strong. H8T8= ;8,H83=8 HAG. ::"
Page | 1745

666 666 666 =ec. #/. ;ffect$ of di$4ualification ca$e$ and priorit!. 6 The +ommission and the co&rts sha give prioritto cases of dis%&a ification b- reason of vio ation of this 8ct to the end that a fina decision sha be rendered not ater than seven da-s before the e ection in which the dis%&a ification is so&ght. 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. 3everthe ess, if for an- reason, a candidate is not dec ared b- fina , j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified, and
Page | 1746

he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, his vio ation of the provisions of the preceding sections sha not prevent his proc amation and ass&mption to office. I rea i7e that in considering the significance of the aw, it ma- be preferab e to ook for not so m&ch the specific instances the- ostensib - wo& d cover as the princip e the- c ear conve-. Th&s, I wi not scoff at the arg&ment that it sho& d be so&nd to sathat votes cast in favor of the dis%&a ified candidate, whenever & timate - dec ared as s&ch, sho& d not be co&nted in his or her favor and m&st according - be considered to be straPage | 1747

votes. The arg&ment, neverthe ess, is far o&tweighed b- the rationa e of the now prevai ing doctrine first en&nciated in the case of Topacio v$. 2arede$ 2/! ;hi . /!: L"$"/M5 which, a tho&gh ater abandoned in Tic5on v$. )o#elec 2"'! =+R8 (:# L"$:"M5, and anto$ v$. )OM;L;) 2"!# =+R8 #4' L"$:)M5, was restored, a ong with the interim case of Geroni#o v$. %a#o$ 2"!( =+R8 4!) L"$:)M5, b- the La/o 2"#( =+R8 " 2"$:$M5, A/ella 2/'" =+R8 /)! L"$$"M5, La/o 2/"" =+R8 /$# L"$$/M5 and, most recent -, (enito 2/!) =+R8 4!( L"$$4M5 r& ings. (enito v$.)o#elec was a &nanimo&s decision penned b- J&stice ?ap&nan and conc&rred in b- +hief J&stice 3arvasa, J&stices .e iciano, ;adi a, Hidin, Rega ado, Eavide, Romero, ,e o,
Page | 1748

O&iason, ;&no, Fit&g and ,endo7a 2J&stices +r&7 and He osi o were on officia eave5. .or eas- reference, et me %&ote from the first La/o decision< .ina -, there is the %&estion of whether or not the private respondent, who fi ed the 4uo 0arrantopetition, can rep ace the petitioner as ma-or. Ie cannot. The simp e reason is that as he obtained on - the second highest n&mber of votes in the e ection, he was obvio&s - not the choice of the peop e of Hag&io +it-. The atest r& ing of the +o&rt on this iss&e is =antos v. +ommission on E ections, 2"!# =+R8 #4'5 decided in "$:). In that case, the candidate who p aced second was
Page | 1749

proc aimed e ected after the votes for his winning riva , who was dis%&a ified as a t&rncoat and considered a non*candidate, were a disregard as stra-. In effect, the second p acer won b- defa& t. That decision was s&pported b- eight members of the +o&rt then, 2+&evas, J., ponente, with ,akasiar, +oncepcion, Jr., Esco in, Re ova, Ee a .&ente, 8 ampaand 8%&ino, JJ., conc&rring.5 with three dissenting 2Teehankee, 8cting ).J., 8bad =antos and ,e encio*Ierrera, JJ.5 and another two reserving their vote. 2; ana and G&tierre7, Jr., JJ.5 1ne was on officia eave. 2.ernando, ).J.5
Page | 1750

Re*e6amining that decision, the +o&rt finds, and so ho ds, that it sho& d be reversed in favor of the ear ier case of Geroni#o v. %a#o$, 2"!( =+R8 4!)5 which represents the more ogica and democratic r& e. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first anno&nced in "$"/ in Topacio v.2arede$, 2/! ;hi . /!:5 was s&pported b- ten members of the +o&rt, 2G&tierre7, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, 8bad =antos, ,e encio*Ierrera, ; ana, Esco in, Re ova, Ee a .&ente, +&evas and 8 ampa-, JJ., conc&rring5 witho&t an- dissent, a tho&gh one reserved his vote, 2,akasiar, J.5 another took no part, 28%&ino, J.5 and two others were on eave.
Page | 1751

2.ernando, ).J. and +oncepcion, Jr., J.5 There the +o&rt he d< . . . it wo& d be e6treme rep&gnant to the basic concept of the constit&tiona g&aranteed right to s&ffrage if a candidate who has not ac%&ired the majorit- or p &ra itof votes is proc aimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constit&enc-, the majorit- of which have positive dec ared thro&gh their ba ots that the- do not choose him. =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed b- those who have
Page | 1752

received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is a f&ndamenta idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majoritor p &ra it- of the ega votes cast in the e ection. 2/' +orp&s J&ris /nd, = /4!, p. (#(.5 The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest n&mber of votes is ater dec ared to be dis%&a ified or not e igib e for the office to which he was e ected
Page | 1753

does not necessari - entit e the candidate who obtained the second highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared the winner of the e ective office. The votes cast for a dead, dis%&a ified, or non*e igib e person ma- not be va id to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. Iowever, in the absence of a stat&te which c ear - asserts a contrar- po itica and egis ative po ic- on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere be ief that the candidate was a ive, %&a ified, or e igib e, the- sho& d not be treated as stra-, void or meaning ess. 2at pp. /'*/"5

Page | 1754

+onsidering a the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissa of the petition. ,E3E1Z8, J., separate opinion< In m- view the iss&e in this case is whether the +ommission on E ections has the power to dis%&a if- candidates on the gro&nd that the- ack e igibi it- for the office to which the- seek to be e ected. I think that it has none and that the %&a ifications of candidates ma- be %&estioned on - in the event the- are e ected, b- fi ing a petition for 4uo 0arranto or an e ection protest in the appropriate for&m, not necessari - in the +1,EAE+ b&t, as in this case, in the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na . That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the
Page | 1755

+1,EAE+ is of no moment. =&ch proceedings were &na&thori7ed and were not rendered va id b- their agreement to s&bmit their disp&te to that bod-. The vario&s e ection aws wi be searched in vain for a&thori7ed proceedings for determining a candidate9s %&a ifications for an office before his e ection. There are none in the 1mnib&s E ection +ode 2H.;. H g. ::"5, in the E ectora Reforms Aaw of "$:# 2R.8. 3o. ((4(5, or in the aw providing for s-nchroni7ed e ections 2R.8. 3o. #"((5. There are, in other words, no provisions for pre* proc amation contests b&t on - e ection protests or 4uo 0arrantoproceedings against winning candidates.
Page | 1756

To be s&re, there are provisions denominated for Ddis%&a ification,D b&t the- are not concerned with a dec aration of the ine igibi it- of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacit- 2d&e to insanit-, incompetence or conviction of an offense5 of a person either to /e a candidate or to continue a$ a candidate for p&b ic office. There is a so a provision for the denia or cance ation of certificates of candidac-, b&t it app ies on to cases invo ving fa se representations as to certain matters re%&ired b- aw to be stated in the certificates. These provisions are fo&nd in the fo owing parts of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode<
Page | 1757

Z "/. 9i$4ualification$. G 8nperson who has been dec ared bcompetent a&thorit- insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced b- fina j&dgment for s&bversion, ins&rrection, rebe ion or for an- offense for which he has been sentenced to a pena t- of more than eighteen months or for a crime invo ving mora t&rpit&de, sha be dis%&a ified to /e a candidate and to ho d an- office, &n ess he has been given p enarpardon or granted amnest-. The dis%&a ifications to be a candidate herein provided sha be deemed removed &pon the dec aration b- competent a&thoritthat said insanit- or incompetence
Page | 1758

had been removed or after the e6piration of a period of five -ears from his service of sentence, &n ess within the same period he again becomes dis%&a ified. 2Emphasis added5 Z (:. 9i$4ualification$. G 8ncandidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a part- is dec ared b- fina decision of a competent co&rt g&i t- of, or fo&nd b- the +ommission of having 2a5 given mone- or other materia consideration to inf &ence, ind&ce or corr&pt the voters or p&b ic officia s performing e ectora f&nctions> 2b5 committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidac-> 2c5 spent in his e ection
Page | 1759

campaign an amo&nt in e6cess of that a owed b- this +ode> 2d5 so icited, received or made ancontrib&tion prohibited &nder =ections :$, $), $(, $# and "'4> or 2e5 vio ated an- of =ections :', :!, :), :( and /(", paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, s&b*paragraph (, sha be dis%&a ified fro# continuin" a$ a candidate, or if he has been e ected, from ho ding the office. 8n- person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign co&ntr- sha not be %&a ified to r&n for an- e ective office &nder this +ode, &n ess said person has waived his stat&s as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign co&ntr- in accordance with the residence re%&irement
Page | 1760

provided for in the e ection aws. 2Emphasis added5 Z #:. 2etition to den! due cour$e to or cancel a certificate of candidac!. G 8 verified petition seeking to den- d&e co&rse or to cance a certificate of candidacmabe fi ed banperson e'clu$ivel! on t1e "round t1at an! #aterial repre$entation contained t1erein a$ re4uired under ection +* 1ereof i$ fal$e. The petition ma- be fi ed at an- time not ater than twent-*five da-s from the time of the fi ing of the certificate of candidac- and sha be decided, after d&e notice and hearing, not ater than fifteen
Page | 1761

da-s before the 2Emphasis added5

e ection.

the E ectora Reforms Aaw of "$:# 2R.8. 3o. ((4(5< Z (. ;ffect of 9i$4ualification )a$e. G 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified $1all not /e voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. 3f for an! rea$on a candidate i$ not declared /! final jud"#ent /efore an election to /e di$4ualified and 1e i$ voted for and receive$ t1e 0innin" nu#/er of vote$ in $uc1 election, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and> &pon motion for the comp ainant or anPage | 1762

intervenor, mad&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate 01enever t1e evidence of 1i$ "uilt i$ $tron". 2Emphasis added5. Z #. 2etition to 9en! 9ue )our$e to or )ancel a )ertificate of )andidac!. G The proced&re hereinabove provided sha app to petitions to den- d&e co&rse to or cance a certificate of candidacas provided in =ection #: of Hatas ;ambansa H g. ::". and the Aoca Government +ode of "$$" 2R.8. 3o. #"('5< Z 4'. 9i$4ualification$. G The fo owing persons are dis%&a ified
Page | 1763

from r&nning for an- e ective oca position< 2a5 Those sentenced b- fina j&dgment for an offense invo ving mora t&rpit&de or for an offense p&nishab e b- one 2"5 -ear or more of imprisonment, within two 2/5 -ears after serving sentence> 2b5 Those removed from office as a res& t of on administrative case> 2c5 Those convicted b- fina j&dgment for vio ating the oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic> 2d5 Those with d&a citi7enship> 2e5 .&gitive from j&stice in crimina or nonpo itica cases here or abroad>
Page | 1764

2f5 ;ermanent residents in a foreign co&ntr- or those who have ac%&ired the right to reside abroad and contin&e to avai of the same right after the effectivit- of this +ode> and 2g5 The insane or feeb e*minded. The petition fi ed b- private respondent +iri o Ro- ,ontejo in the +1,EAE+, whi e entit ed D.or +ance ation and Eis%&a ification,D contained no a egation that private respondent Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos made materia representations in her certificate of candidac- which were fa se, it so&ght her dis%&a ification on the gro&nd that Don the basis of her Foter Registration Record and +ertificate of +andidac-, LsheM is dis%&a ified from r&nning for the
Page | 1765

position of Representative, considering that on e ection da-, ,a- :, "$$), LsheM wo& d have resided ess than ten 2"'5 months in the district where she is seeking to be e ected.D .or its part, the +1,EAE+9s =econd Eivision, in its reso &tion of 8pri /4, "$$), cance ed her certificate of candidac- and corrected certificate of candidac- on the basis of its finding that petitioner is Dnot %&a ified to r&n for the position of ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives for the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-teD and not beca&se of anfinding that she had made fa se representations as to materia matters in her certificate of candidac-. ,ontejo9s petition before the +1,EAE+ was therefore not a petition for
Page | 1766

cance ation of certificate of candidac&nder Z #: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, b&t essentia - a petition to dec are private respondent ine igib e. It is important to note this, beca&se, as wi present - be e6p ained, proceedings &nder Z #: have for their p&rpose to dis%&a if- a person from being a candidate, whereas 4uo 0arranto proceedings have for their p&rpose to dis%&a if- a person from ho ding pu/lic office. J&risdiction over 4uo 0arranto proceedings invo ving members of the Io&se of Representatives is vested in the E ectora Trib&na of that bod-. Indeed, in the on - cases in which this +o&rt dea t with petitions for the cance ation of certificates of candidac-,
Page | 1767

the a egations were that the respondent candidates had made fal$e repre$entation$ in their certificates of candidacwith regard to their citi5en$1ip, " a"e, / or re$idence. ! H &t in the genera it- of cases in which this +o&rt passed &pon the %&a ifications of respondents for office, this +o&rt did so in the conte6t of e ection protests 4 or 4uo 0arranto proceedings )fi ed after t1e procla#ation of t1e re$pondent$ or prote$tee$ a$ 0inner$. Three reasons ma- be cited to e6p ain the absence of an a&thori7ed proceeding for determining /efore electionthe %&a ifications of a candidate. .irst is the fact that &n ess a candidate wins and is proc aimed e ected, there is
Page | 1768

no necessit- for determining his e igibi it- for the office. In contrast, whether an individ&a sho& d be dis%&a ified as a candidate for acts constit&ting e ection offenses 2e.g., vote b&-ing, over spending, commission of prohibited acts5 is a prej&dicia %&estion which sho& d be determined est he wins beca&se of the ver- acts for which his dis%&a ification is being so&ght. That is wh- it is provided that if the gro&nds for dis%&a ification are estab ished, a candidate wi not be voted for> if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor wi not be co&nted> and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he wi not be proc aimed or his proc amation wi be set aside. (
Page | 1769

=econd is the fact that the determination of a candidate9s e igibi it-, e.g., his citi7enship or, as in this case, his domici e, ma- take a ong time to make, e6tending be-ond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amp demonstrated in the companion case 2G.R. 3o. "/'/(), 8gapito 8. 8%&ino v. +1,EAE+5 where the determination of 8%&ino9s residence was sti pending in the +1,EAE+ even after the e ections of ,a- :, "$$). This is contrar- to the s&mmar- character of proceedings re ating to certificates of candidac-. That is wh- the aw makes the receipt of certificates of candidac- a ministeria d&t- of the +1,EAE+ and its officers. # The aw is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidac- that the- are e igib e for the
Page | 1770

position which the- seek to fi , eaving the determination of their %&a ifications to be made after the e ection and on - in the event the- are e ected. 1n - in cases invo ving charges of fa se representations made in certificates of candidac- is the +1,EAE+ given j&risdiction. Third is the po ic- &nder -ing the prohibition against pre*proc amation cases in e ections for ;resident, Fice ;resident, =enators and members of the Io&se of Representatives. 2R.8. 3o. #"((, Z ")5 The p&rpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na and the other Trib&na s as Dso e j&dgesD &nder the +onstit&tion of the election, return$ and 4ualification$ of
Page | 1771

members of +ongress or of the ;resident and Fice ;resident, as the case ma- be. H- providing in Z /)! for the remedof 4uo 0arranto for determining an e ected officia 9s %&a ifications after the res& ts of e ections are proc aimed, whi e being conspic&o&s - si ent abo&t a pre*proc amation remed- based on the same gro&nd, the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, or 1E+, b- its si ence &nderscores the po ic- of not a&thori7ing an- in%&ir- into the %&a ifications of candidates &n ess the- have been e ected. 8pparent - rea i7ing the ack of an a&thori7ed proceeding for dec aring the ine igibi it- of candidates, the +1,EAE+ amended its r& es on .ebr&ar- "), "$$!
Page | 1772

so as to provide in R& e /), Z " the fo owing< Ground$ for di$4ualification. G 8n- candidate who does not possess a the %&a ifications of a candidate as provided for b- the +onstit&tion or b- e6isting aw or who commits an- act dec ared baw to be gro&nds for dis%&a ification ma- be dis%&a ified from contin&ing as a candidate. The ack of provision for dec aring the ine igibi it- of candidates, however, cannot be s&pp ied b- a mere r& e. =&ch an act is e%&iva ent to the creation of a ca&se of action which is a s&bstantive matter which the +1,EAE+, in the e6ercise of its r& emaking power &nder 8rt. IN, 8, Z ( of the +onstit&tion, cannot
Page | 1773

do. It is noteworth- that the +onstit&tion withho ds from the +1,EAE+ even the power to decide cases invo ving the right to vote, which essentia - invo ves an in%&irinto 4ualification$ based on a"e, re$idence and citi5en$1ip of voters. 28rt. IN, +, Z /2!55 The assimi ation in R& e /) of the +1,EAE+ r& es of gro&nds for ine igibi itinto gro&nds for dis%&a ification is contrar- to the evident intention of the aw. .or not on - in their gro&nds b&t a so in their conse%&ences are proceedings for Ddis%&a ificationD different from those for a dec aration of Dine igibi it-.D DEis%&a ificationD proceedings, as a read- stated, are based on gro&nds specified in ZZ "/ and (: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode
Page | 1774

and in Z 4' of the Aoca Government +ode and are for the p&rpose of barring an individ&a from /eco#in" a candidate or fro# continuin" a$ a candidate for p&b ic office. In a word, their p&rpose is to eli#inate a candidate fro# t1e race either from the start or d&ring its progress. DIne igibi it-,D on the other hand, refers to the ack of the %&a ifications prescribed in the +onstit&tion or the stat&tes for ho ding pu/lic office and the p&rpose of the proceedings for dec aration of ine igibi it- is to re#ove t1e incu#/ent fro# office. +onse%&ent -, that an individ&a possesses the %&a ifications for a p&b ic office does not imp - that he is not dis%&a ified from becoming a candidate
Page | 1775

or contin&ing as a candidate for a p&b ic office and vice versa. 0e have this sort of dichotom- in o&r 3at&ra i7ation Aaw. 2+.8. 3o. 4#!5 That an a ien has the %&a ifications prescribed in Z / of the aw does not imp - that he does not s&ffer from an- of dis%&a ifications provided in Z 4. Indeed, provisions for dis%&a ifications on the gro&nd that the candidate is g&i t- of prohibited e ection practices or offenses, ike other pre*proc amation remedies, are aimed at the detestab e practice of Dgrabbing the proc amation and pro onging the e ection protest,D : thro&gh the &se of Dman&fact&redD e ection ret&rns or resort to other tricker- for the p&rpose of a tering the res& ts of the e ection. This
Page | 1776

rationa e does not app - to cases for determining a candidate9s %&a ifications for office before the e ection. To the contrar-, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for dis%&a ification is bro&ght who co& d be prej&diced beca&se he co& d be prevented from ass&ming office even tho&gh in end he prevai s. To s&mmari7e, the dec aration of ine igibi it- of a candidate ma- on - be so&ght in an e ection protest or action for4uo 0arranto fi ed p&rs&ant to Z /)! of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode within "' da-s after his proc amation. 0ith respect to e ective oca officia s 2e.g., Governor, Fice Governor, members of the =angg&niang ;an a awigan, etc.5 s&ch petition m&st be fi ed either with
Page | 1777

the +1,EAE+, the Regiona Tria +o&rts, or ,&nicipa Tria +o&rts, as provided in 8rt. IN, +, Z /2/5 of the +onstit&tion. In the case of the ;resident and Fice ;resident, the petition m&st be fi ed with the ;residentia E ectora Trib&na 28rt. FII, Z 4, ast paragraph5, and in the case of the =enators, with the =enate E ectora Trib&na , and in the case of +ongressmen, with the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na . 28rt. FI, Z "#5 There is greater reason for not a owing before the e ection the fi ing of dis%&a ification proceedings based on a eged ine igibi it- in the case of candidates for ;resident, Fice ;resident, =enators and members of the Io&se of Representatives, beca&se of the same po ic- prohibiting the fi ing of
Page | 1778

pre*proc amation cases against s&ch candidates. .or these reasons, I am of the opinion that the +1,EAE+ had no j&risdiction over =;8 3o. $)*''$> that its proceedings in that case, inc &ding its %&estioned orders, are void> and that the e igibi itof petitioner Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos for the office of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te ma- on - be in%&ired into b- the IRET. 8ccording -, I vote to grant the petition and to ann& the proceedings of the +ommission on E ections in =;8 3o. $)*''$, inc &ding its %&estioned orders doted 8pri /4, "$$), ,a- #, "$$), ,a"", "$$) and ,a- /), "$$), dec aring petitioner Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos
Page | 1779

ine igib e and ordering her proc amation as Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te s&spended. To the e6tent that R& e /) of the +1,EAE+ R& es of ;roced&re a&thori7es proceedings for the dis%&a ification of candidates on the gro&nd of ine igibi it- for the office, it sho& d considered void. The provincia board of canvassers sho& d now proceed with the proc amation of petitioner. &arva$a, ).J., concur$. ;8EIAA8, J., dissenting< I regret that I cannot join the majoritopinion as e6pressed in the we *written ponencia of ,r. J&stice ?ap&nan. 8s in an- controvers- arising o&t of a +onstit&tiona provision, the in%&ir- m&st
Page | 1780

begin and end with the provision itse f. The controvers- sho& d not be b &rred b- what, to me, are academic dis%&isitions. In this partic& ar controvers-, the +onstit&tiona provision on point states that G Dno person sha be a member of the Io&se of Representatives &n ess he is a nat&ra * born citi7en of the ;hi ippines, and on the da- of the e ection, is at east twent-*five 2/)5 -ears of age, ab e to read and write, and e6cept the part- ist representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he sha be e ected, and a re$ident t1ereof for a period of not le$$ t1an one !ear i##ediatel! precedin" t1e da! of t1e election.D 28rtic e FI, section (5
Page | 1781

It has been arg&ed that for p&rposes of o&r e ection aws, the term re$idence has been &nderstood as s-non-mo&s with do#icile. This arg&ment has been va idated b- no ess than the +o&rt in n&mero&s cases " where significant - the factual circu#$tance$ c ear - and convincing proved that a person does not effective - ose his domici e of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his per$onal pre$ence in the p ace, coupled 0it1 conduct indicative of $uc1 intention. 0ith this basic thesis in mind, it wo& d not be diffic& t to conceive of different moda ities within which the phrase Da resident thereof 2meaning, the
Page | 1782

egis ative district5 for a period of not ess than one -earD wo& d fit. The first instance is where a person9s residence and domici e coincide in which case a person on - has to prove that he has been domici ed in a permanent ocation for not ess than a -ear before the e ection. 8 second sit&ation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domici e in which case he wo& d have the &6&r- of district shopping, provided of co&rse, he satisfies the one*-ear residence period in the district as the minim&m period for e igibi it- to the position of congressiona representative for the district.

Page | 1783

In either case, one wo& d not be constit&tiona dis%&a ified for abandoning his residence in order to ret&rn to his domici e of origin, or better sti , domici e of choice> neither wo& d one be dis%&a ified for abandoning a together his domici e in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate. The most e6treme circ&mstance wo& d be a sit&ation wherein a person maintains severa residences in different districts. =ince his domici e of origin contin&es as an option as ong as there is no effective abandonment 2ani#u$ non revertendi5, he can practica choose the district most advantageo&s for him.
Page | 1784

8 these theoretica scenarios, however, are tempered b- the &nambig&o&s imitation that Cfor a period of not le$$ t1an one !ear i##ediatel! precedin" t1e da! of t1e electionC, he m&st be a resident in the district where he desires to be e ected. To m- mind, the one -ear residence period is cr&cia regard ess of whether or not the term DresidenceD is to be s-non-mo&s with Ddomici e.D In other words, the candidate9s intent and act&a presence in one district m&st in allsit&ations satisf- the ength of time prescribed b- the f&ndamenta aw. 8nd this, beca&se of a definite +onstit&tiona p&rpose. Ie m&st be fami iar with the environment and prob ems of a district he intends to represent in +ongress and
Page | 1785

the one*-ear residence in said district wo& d be the minim&m period to ac%&ire s&ch fami iarit-, if not versati it-. In the case of petitioner Ime da R. ,arcos, the operative facts are distinct set o&t in the now assai ed decision of the +ome ec /nd Eivision dated /4 8pri "$$) 2as affirmed b- the +ome ec en /anc5 G In or abo&t "$!: when respondent was a itt e over : -ears o d, she estab ished her domici e in Tac oban, Ae-te 2Tac oban +it-5. =he st&died in the Io - Infant 8cadem- in Tac oban from "$!: to "$4: when she grad&ated from high schoo . =he p&rs&ed her co ege st&dies in =t. ;a& 9s +o ege, now Eivine 0ord
Page | 1786

Universit- of Tac oban, where she earned her degree in Ed&cation. Thereafter, she ta&ght in the Ae-te +hinese Iigh =choo , sti in Tac oban +it-. In "$)/ she went to ,ani a to work with her co&sin, the ate =peaker Eanie Z. Rom&a de7 in his office in the Io&se of Representatives. In "$)4, she married e6*president .erdinand ,arcos when he was sti a congressman of I ocos 3orte. =he ived with him in Hatac, I ocos 3orte and registered there as a voter. 0hen her h&sband was e ected =enator of the Rep&b ic in "$)$, she and her h&sband ived together in =an J&an, Ri7a where she registered as a voter. In "$() when her h&sband was e ected
Page | 1787

;resident of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, she ived with him in ,a acanang ;a ace and registered as a voter in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. E&ring the ,arcos presidenc-, respondent served as a ,ember of the Hatasang ;ambansa, ,inister of I&man =ett ements and Governor of ,etro ,ani a. =he c aimed that in .ebr&ar- "$:(, she and her fami - were abd&cted and kidnapped to Iono & &, Iawaii. In 3ovember "$$", she came home to ,ani a. In "$$/ respondent ran for e ection as ;resident of the ;hi ippines and fi ed her +ertificate of +andidacwherein she indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of =an J&an,
Page | 1788

,etro ,ani a. 1n 8&g&st /4, "$$4, respondent fi ed a etter with the e ection officer of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, re%&esting for cance ation of her registration in the ;ermanent Aist of Foters in ;recinct 3o. ")# of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, in order that she ma- be re*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 28nne6 /*H, 8nswer5. 1n 8&g&st !", "$$4, respondent fi ed her =worn 8pp ication for +ance ation of Foter9s ;revio&s Registration 28nne6 /*+, 8nswer5 stating that she is a d& - registered voter in ")#*8, Hrg-. ,a-t&nas, =an J&an, ,etro that she intends to register at Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te.
Page | 1789

1n Jan&ar- /:, "$$) respondent registered as a voter at ;recinct 3o. ":*8 of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. =he fi ed with the Hoard of E ection Inspectors +E .orm 3o. ", Foter Registration Record 3o. $4* !!4$##/, wherein she a eged that she has resided in the m&nicipa itof To osa for a period of ( months 28nne6 8, ;etition5. 1n ,arch :, "$$), respondent fi ed with the 1ffice of the ;rovincia E ection =&pervisor, Ae-te, a +ertificate of +andidacfor the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te wherein she a so a eged that she has been a resident in the constit&enc- where she seeks to
Page | 1790

be e ected for a period of # months. The pertinent entries therein are as fo ows< #. ;R1.E==I13 1R 1++U;8TI13< Io&se* wifeJ TeacherJ =ocia 0orker :. RE=IEE3+E 2comp ete address5< Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te ;ost 1ffice 8ddress for e ection p&rposes< Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te $. RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C 0IEREI3 I =EE? T1 HE EAE+TEE
Page | 1791

I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G EAE+TI13< [[[[[[[[ Cears even ,onths "'. I 8, 31T 8 ;ER,83E3T RE=IEE3T 1., 1R I,,IGR83T T1, 8 .1REIG3 +1U3TRC. TI8T I 8, EAIGIHAE for said office> That I wi s&pport and defend the +onstit&tion of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines and wi maintain tr&e faith and a egiance thereto> That I wi obe- the aws, ega orders and decrees prom& gated bthe d& -* constit&ted a&thorities> That the ob igation imposed b- m- oath is
Page | 1792

ass&med vo &ntari -, witho&t menta reservation or p&rpose of evasion> and That the facts stated herein are tr&e to the best of mknow edge. 2=gd.5 Ime da Rom&a de7* ,arcos 2=ignat&re of +andidate5 / ;etitioner9s aforestated certificate of candidac- fi ed on : ,arch "$$) contains the decisive component or seed of her dis%&a ification. It is contained in her answer &nder oath of D$even #ont1$D to the %&er- of Dresidence in the constit&enc- wherein I
Page | 1793

seek to be e ected preceding the e ection.D

immediate -

It fo ows from a the above that the +ome ec committed no grave ab&se of discretion in ho ding that petitioner is dis%&a ified from the position of representative for the "st congressiona district of Ae-te in the e ections of : ,a- "$$), for fai &re to meet the Dnot ess than one*-ear residence in the constit&enc2"st district, Ae-te5 immediate - preceding the da- of e ection 2: ,a- "$$)5.D Iaving arrived at petitioner9s dis%&a ification to be a representative of the first district of Ae-te, the ne6t important iss&e to reso ve is whether or not the +ome ec can order the Hoard of
Page | 1794

+anvassers to deter#ine and proclai# t1e 0inner o&t of the re#ainin" 4ualified candidates for representative in said district. I am not &naware of the prono&ncement made b- this +o&rt in the case of La/o v$. )o#elec, G.R. :()(4, 8&g&st ", "$:$, "#( =+R8 " which gave the rationa e as aid down in the ear - "$"/ case of Topacio v$. 2arede$, /! ;hi . /!: that< . . . . =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed bthose who have received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is a f&ndamenta idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no
Page | 1795

meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majoritor p &ra it- of the ega votes cast in the e ection. 2/' +orp&s J&ris /nd, = /4!, p. (#(5 The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest n&mber of votes is ater dec ared to be dis%&a ified or not e igib e for the office to which he was e ected does not necessari - entit e the candidate who obtained the second highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared the winner of the e ective office. The votes cast for a dead, dis%&a ified, or non*e igib e person ma- not be va id to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. Iowever, in t1e a/$ence of
Page | 1796

a $tatute which c ear - asserts a contrar- po itica and egis ative po ic- on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere be ief that the candidate was a ive, %&a ified, or e igib e, the- sho& d not be treated as stra-, void or meaning ess. Under =ec. ( R8 ((4(, 28n 8ct Introd&cing 8dditiona Reforms in the E ectora =-stem and for other p&rposes5 2:4 1.G. $'), // .ebr&ar"$::5 it is provided that< . . . G 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. If for an- reason a candidate is not dec ared b- fina
Page | 1797

j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified and he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and, &pon motion of the comp ainant or anintervenor, ma-, d&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate whenever the evidence of his g&i t is strong. There is no need to ind& ge in ega hermene&tics to sense the p ain and &nambig&o&s meaning of the provision %&oted above. 8s the aw now stands, the egis ative po ic- does not imit its concern with the effect of a fina
Page | 1798

j&dgement of dis%&a ification on - /efore the e ection, b&t even d&ring or after the e ection. The aw is c ear that in a sit&ations, the votes cast for a dis%&a ified candidate =I8AA 31T HE +1U3TEE. The aw has a so va idated the j&risdiction of the +o&rt or +ommission on E ection to contin&e hearing the petition for dis%&a ification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest n&mber of votes, if for an! rea$on, 1e i$ not declared /! final jud"#ent /efore an election to /e di$4ualified. =ince the present case is an after e ection scenario, the power to s&spend proc amation 2when evidence of his g&i t is strong5 is a so e6p icit &nder the aw. 0hat happens then when after the
Page | 1799

e ections are over, one is dec ared dis%&a ifiedK Then, votes cast for him Dsha not be co&ntedD and in ega contemp ation, he no onger received the highest n&mber of votes. It stands to reason that =ection ( of R8 ((4( does not make the second p acer the winner simp - beca&se a Dwinning candidate is dis%&a ified,D b&t that the aw considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest n&mber of votes as a res& t of the votes cast for the dis%&a ified candidate not being co&nted or considered. 8s this aw c ear - ref ects the egis ative po ic- on the matter, then there is no reason wh- this +o&rt sho& d not re* e6amine and conse%&ent - abandon the doctrine in the J&n Aabo case. It has
Page | 1800

been stated that Dthe %&a ifications prescribed for e ective office cannot be erased b- the e ectorate a one. The wi of the peop e as e6pressed thro&gh the ba ot cannot c&re the vice of ine igibi it-D most especia - when it is mandated bno ess than the +onstit&tion. 8++1REI3GAC, I vote to EI=,I== the petition and to order the ;rovincia Hoard of +anvassers of Ae-te to proc aim the candidate receiving the highest n&mber of votes, from among the %&a ified candidates, as the d& e ected representative of the "st district of Ae-te. 7er#o$i$i#a, Jr. J., di$$ent. REG8A8E1, J., dissenting<
Page | 1801

0hi e I agree with same of the fact&a bases of the majorit- opinion, I cannot arrive conjoint - at the same conc &sion drawn therefrom Ience, this dissent which ass&red - is not form& ated Don the basis of the persona it- of a petitioner in a case.D I go a ong with the majorit- in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simp ified as fo ows< ". ;etitioner, a tho&gh born in ,ani a, resided d&ring her chi dhood in the present Tac oban +it-, she being a egitimate da&ghter of parents who appear to have taken &p permanent residence therein. =he a so went to schoo there and, for a time,
Page | 1802

ta&ght in one of the schoo s in that cit-. /. 0hen she married then Rep. .erdinand E. ,arcos who was then domici ed in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, b- operation of aw she ac%&ired a new domici e in that p ace in "$)4. !. In the s&ccessive -ears and d&ring the events that happened thereafter, her h&sband having been e ected as a =enator and then as ;resident, she ived with him and their fami - in =an J&an, Ri7a and then in ,a acanang ;a ace in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. 4. 1ver those -ears, she registered as a voter and act&a Page | 1803

voted in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, then in =an J&an, Ri7a , and a so in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, a these mere - in the e6ercise of the right of s&ffrage. ). It does not appear that her h&sband, even after he had ass&med those oft- positions s&ccessive -, ever abandoned his domici e of origin in Hatac, I ocos 3orte where he maintained his residence and invariab - voted in a e ections. (. 8fter the o&ster of her h&sband from the presidenc- in "$:( and the sojo&rn of the ,arcos fami - in Iono & &, Iawaii, U.=.8., she event&a ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in "$$" and resided in
Page | 1804

different p aces which she c aimed to have been mere - temporarresidences. #. In "$$/, petitioner ran for e ection as ;resident of the ;hi ippines and in her certificate of candidac- she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. :. 1n 8&g&st /4, "$$4, she fi ed a etter for the cance ation of her registration in the ;ermanent Aist of Foters in ;recinct 3o. ")# of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a in order that she ma- Dbe re*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te.D 1n 8&g&st !", "$$4, she fo owed this &p with her =worn
Page | 1805

8pp ication for +ance ation of Foter9s ;revio&s Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in ;recinct 3o. ")#*8, Hrg-. ,a-t&nas, =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a and that she intended to register in Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. $. 1n Jan&ar- /:, "$$), petitioner registered as a voter at ;recinct 3o. ":*8 of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, for which p&rpose she fi ed with the therein Hoard of E ection Inspectors a voter9s registration record form a eging that she had resided in that m&nicipa it- for si6 months. "'. 1n ,arch :, "$$), petitioner fi ed her certificate of candidac- for
Page | 1806

the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te wherein she a eged that she had been a resident for D even ,onthsD of the constit&enc- where she so&ght to be e ected. "". 1n ,arch /$, "$$), she fi ed an D8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac-D wherein her answer in the origina certificate of candidac- to item D:. RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C 0IERE I =EE?, T1 HE EAE+TEE I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G TIE EAE+TI13<D was changed or rep aced with a new entr- reading D=I3+E +IIAEI11E.D The so e iss&e for reso &tion is whether, for p&rposes of her candidac-, petitioner
Page | 1807

had comp ied with the residencre%&irement of one -ear as mandated b- no ess than =ection (, 8rtic e FI of the "$:# +onstit&tion. I do not intend to impose &pon the time of m- co eag&es with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domici e. 0e have had eno&gh of that and I &nderstand that for p&rposes of po itica aw and, for that matter of internationa aw, residence is &nderstood to be s-non-mo&s with domici e. That is so &nderstood in o&r j&rispr&dence and in 8merican Aaw, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for p&rposes of civi , commercia and proced&ra aws whenever an iss&e thereon is re evant or contro ing.
Page | 1808

+onse%&ent -, since in the present case the %&estion of petitioner9s residence is integrated in and inseparab e from her domici e, I am addressing the iss&e from the standpoint of the concept of the atter term, specifica - its perm&tations into the domici e of origin, domici e of choice and domici e b- operation of aw, as &nderstood in 8merican aw from which for this case we have taken o&r j&rispr&dentia bearings. ,- readings inform me that the domici e of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the Ddomici e of origin,D constit&tes the domici e of an infant &nti abandoned, or &nti the ac%&isition of a new domici e in a different p ace. " In the instant case, we ma- grant that petitioner9s domici e of origin, / at east
Page | 1809

as of "$!:, was what is now Tac oban +it-. 3ow, as I have observed ear ier, domici e is said to be of three kinds, that is, domici e b- birth, domici e b- choice, and domici e b- operation of aw. The first is the common case of the p ace of birth or do#iciliu# ori"ini$, the second is that which is vo &ntari - ac%&ired b- a part- or do#iciliu# propio #otu> the ast which is conse%&entia , as that of a wife arising from marriage, ! is sometimes ca ed do#iciliu# nece$ariu#. There is no debate that the domici e of origin can be ost or rep aced b- a domici e of choice or a domici e b- operation of aw s&bse%&ent - ac%&ired b- the part-. 0hen petitioner contracted marriage in "$)4 with then Rep. ,arcos, bPage | 1810

operation of aw, not on - internationa or 8merican b&t of o&r own enactment, 4 she ac%&ired her h&sband9s domici e of origin in Hatac, I ocos 3orte and corresponding - ost her own domici e of origin in Tac oban +it-. Ier s&bse%&ent changes of residence G to =an J&an, Ri7a , then to =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, thereafter to Iono & &, Iawaii, and back to now =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a G do not appear to have res& ted in her thereb- ac%&iring new domici es of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those p aces was b- reason of the fort&nes or misfort&nes of her h&sband and his peregrinations in the ass&mption of new officia positions or the oss of them. Ier
Page | 1811

residence in Iono & & and, of co&rse, those after her ret&rn to the ;hi ippines were, as she c aimed, against her wi or on - for transient p&rposes which co& d not have invested them with the stat&s of domici es of choice. ) 8fter petitioner9s ret&rn to the ;hi ippines in "$$" and &p to the present imbrog io over her re%&isite residenc- in Tac oban +it- or 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, there is no showing that she ever attempted to ac%&ire an- other domici e of choice which co& d have res& ted in the abandonment of her ega domici e in Hatac, I ocos 3orte. 1n that score, we note the majorit-9s own s&bmission ( that, to s&ccessf& - effect a change of domici e, one m&st demonstrate 2a5 an act&a remova or an
Page | 1812

act&a change of domici e, 2b5 a /ona fide intention of abandoning the former p ace of residence and estab ishing a new one, and 2c5 acts which correspond with the p&rpose. 0e conse%&ent - have to a so note that these re%&irements for the ac%&isition of a domici e of choice app - whether what is so&ght to be changed or s&bstit&ted is a domici e of origin 2do#iciliu# ori"ini$5 or a domici e b- operation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5. =ince petitioner had ost her do#iciliu# ori"ini$ which had been rep aced bher do#iciliu# nece$ariu#, it is therefore her contin&ing domici e in Hatac, I ocos 3orte which, if at a , can be the object of ega change &nder the contingencies of the case at bar.
Page | 1813

To get o&t of this %&andar-, the majoritdecision echoes the dissenting opinion of +ommissioner Rega ado E. ,aambong in =;8 $)*''$ of the +ommission on E ections, # and advances this nove proposition. It ma- be said that petitioner ost her domici e of origin b- operation of aw as a res& t of her marriage to the ate ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos in "$)/ 2$ic, "$)45. Hoperation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5, her ega domici e at the time of her marriage became Hatac, I ocos 3orte alt1ou"1 t1ere 0ere no indication$ of an intention on 1er part to a/andon 1er do#icile of ori"in. Heca&se of her h&sband9s s&bse%&ent death and
Page | 1814

thro&gh the operation of the provisions of the 3ew .ami - +ode a read- in force at the time, however, 1er le"al do#icile auto#aticall! reverted to 1er do#icile of ori"in. . . . 2Emphasis s&pp ied5. .irst -, I am p&77 ed wh- a tho&gh it is conceded that petitioner had ac%&ired a do#iciliu# nece$ariu# in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, the majorit- insists on making a %&a ification that she did not intend to a/andon her domici e of origin. I find this bewi dering since, in this sit&ation, it is the aw that dec ares where petitioner9s domici e is at angiven time, and not her se f*serving or p&tative intent to ho d on to her former domici e. 1therwise, contrar- to their
Page | 1815

own admission that one cannot have more than one domici e at a time, : the majorit- wo& d be s&ggesting that petitioner retained Tac oban +it- as 2for ack of a term in aw since it does not e6ist therein5 the e%&iva ent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potentia , or resid&a domici e. =econd -, domici e once ost in accordance with aw can on - be recovered ikewise in accordance with aw. Iowever, we are here being titi ated with the possibi it- of an a&tomatic reversion to or reac%&isition of a domici e of origin after the termination of the ca&se for its oss boperation of aw. The majorit- agrees that since petitioner ost her domici e of origin b- her marriage, the termination
Page | 1816

of the marriage a so terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed b- the ingenio&sness of this theor- which proves that, indeed, necessit- is the mother of inventions. Regretf& -, I find some diffic& t- in accepting either the ogic or the va idit- of this arg&ment. If a part- oses his domici e of origin bobtaining a new domici e of choice, he thereb- voluntaril! a/andon$ the former in favor of the atter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domici e, he does not per $e recover his origina domici e &n ess, b- s&bse%&ent acts ega indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to estab ish the same as his new domici e, which is precise - what petitioner be ated - and, evident - j&st
Page | 1817

for p&rposes of her &ns&ccessf& - tried to do.

candidac-,

1ne9s s&bse%&ent abandonment of his domici e of choice cannot a&tomatica restore his domici e of origin, not on beca&se there is no ega a&thorittherefor b&t beca&se it wo& d be abs&rd ;&rs&ed to its ogica conse%&ence, that theor- of ip$o jure reversion wo& d r& e o&t the fact that said part- co& d a readver- we have obtained another domici e, either of choice or b- operation of aw, other than his domici e of origin. =ignificant - and obvio&s - for this reason, the .ami - +ode, which the majorit- ine6p icab - invokes, advised does not reg& ate this contingenc- since it wo& d impinge on one9s freedom of choice.
Page | 1818

3ow, in the instant case, petitioner not on - voluntaril! a/andoned her domici e of choice 2&n ess we ass&me that she entered into the marita state against her wi 5 b&t, on top of that, s&ch abandonment was f&rther affirmed thro&gh her ac%&isition of a new domici e b- operation of la0. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntar! andle"al abandonment of a domici e of origin. 0ith m&ch more reason, therefore, sho& d we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in "$:$, petitioner had s&pposed - per $e and ip$o facto reac%&ired her domici e of origin which she ost in "$)4. 1therwise, this wo& d be tantamo&nt to sa-ing that d&ring the period of marita covert&re, she was sim& taneo&s - in possession
Page | 1819

and enjo-ment of a domici e of origin which was on - in a state of s&spended animation. Th&s, the 8merican r& e is ikewise to the effect that whi e after the h&sband9s death the wife has the right to e ect her own domici e, $ she neverthe ess retains the ast domici e of her deceased h&sband &nti she makes an act&a change."' In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrar-, the pres&mption is that a wife9s domici e or ega residence fo ows that of her h&sband and wi contin&e after his death. "" I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in s&pport of the majorit-9s theor- based on 8rtic es (: and ($ of the .ami - +ode. 8 that is of anPage | 1820

re evance therein is that &nder this new code, the right and power to fi6 the fami - domici e is now shared b- the spo&ses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first p ace was never e6ercised b- the spo&ses, co& d affect the domici e fi6ed b- the aw for petitioner in "$)4 and, for her h&sband, ong prior thereto. It is tr&e that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conju"al or fa#il! domici e, b&t that has no bearing on this case. 0ith the death of her h&sband, and each of her chi dren having gotten married and estab ished their own respective domici es, the e6ercise of that joint power was and is no onger ca ed for or materia in the present fact&a setting of this controvers-. Instead, what is of
Page | 1821

concern in petitioner9s case was the matter of her having ac%&ired or not her own domici e of choice. I agree with the majorit-9s disco&rse on the virt&es of the growing and e6panded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with e%&a rights and recognition b- +onstit&tion and stat&torconferment. Iowever, I have searched in vain for a specific aw or j&dicia prono&ncement which either e6press or b- necessar- imp ication s&pports the majorit-9s desired theor- of a&tomatic reac%&isition of or reversion to the do#iciliu# ori"ini$ of petitioner. Eefinite -, as between the $ettled and de$ira/le ega norms that sho& d govern this iss&e, there is a wor d of difference> and, &n%&estionab -,
Page | 1822

this sho& d be reso ved b- egis ative artic& ation b&t not b- the e o%&ence of the we *t&rned phrase. In s&m, petitioner having ost Tac oban +it- as her domici e of origin since "$)4 and not having a&tomatica - reac%&ired an- domici e therein, she cannot ega c aim that her residenc- in the po itica constit&enc- of which it is a part contin&ed since her birth &p to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amendedJcorrected certificate of candidac-, and in ho ding her to her admission in the origina certificate that she had act&a - resided in that constit&enc- for on - seven months prior to the e ection. These considerations
Page | 1823

render it &nnecessar- to f&rther pass &pon the proced&ra iss&es raised bpetitioner. 13 TIE .1REG1I3G ;RE,I=E=, I vote to EI=,I== the petition for ack of merit. E8FIEE, JR., J., dissenting< I respectf& - dissent from the opinion of the majorit- written b- ,r. J&stice =antiago ,. ?ap&nan, more partic& ar on the iss&e of the petitioner9s %&a ification. Under =ection #, =&bdivision 8, 8rtic e IN of the +onstit&tion, decisions, orders, or r& ings of the +1,EAE+ ma- be bro&ght to this +o&rt on - b- the specia civi action for certiorari &nder R& e () of the R& es of +o&rt 28rat&c vs.
Page | 1824

+1,EAE+, :: =+R8 /)" L"$#$M> Eario vs. ,ison, "#( =+R8 :4 L"$:$M5. 8ccording -, a writ of certiorari ma- be granted on - if the +1,EAE+ has acted witho&t or in e6cess of j&risdiction or with grave ab&se of discretion 2=ection ", R& e (), R& es of +o&rt5. =ince the +1,EAE+ has, &ndo&bted -, j&risdiction over the private respondent9s petition, the on - iss&e eft is whether it acted with grave ab&se of discretion in dis%&a if-ing the petitioner. ,- caref& and metic& o&s per&sa of the cha enged reso &tion of /4 8pri "$$) of the +1,EAE+ =econd Eivision and the ;n (anc reso &tion of # ,a- "$$) disc oses tota absence of ab&se of discretion, m&ch ess grave ab&se thereof. The reso &tion of the =econd
Page | 1825

Eivision dispassionate - and objective disc&ssed in min&te detai s the facts which estab ished be-ond cavi that herein petitioner was dis%&a ified as a candidate on the gro&nd of ack of residence in the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. It has not misapp ied, miscomprehended, or mis&nderstood facts or circ&mstances of s&bstance pertinent to the iss&e of her residence. The majoritopinion, however, overt&rned the +1,EAE+9s findings of fact for ack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned To osa as her domici e of origin, which is a eged - within the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. I respectf& - s&bmit that the petitioner herse f has provided the +1,EAE+, either b- admission or b- doc&mentarPage | 1826

evidence, overwhe ming proof of the oss or abandonment of her domici e of origin, which is Tac oban +it- and not To osa, Ae-te. 8ss&ming that she decided to ive again in her domici e of origin, that became her second domici e of choice, where her sta-, &nfort&nate -, was for on - seven months before the da- of the e ection. =he was then dis%&a ified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. 8 ho ding to the contrar- wo& d be arbitrar-. It ma- indeed be conceded that the petitioner9s domici e of choice was either Tac oban +it- or To osa, Ae-te. 3everthe ess, she lo$t it /! operation of la0 $o#eti#e in Ma! 19O* upon 1er
Page | 1827

#arria"e to the then +ongressman 2 ater, ;resident5 .erdinand E. ,arcos. 8 domici e b- operation of aw is that domici e which the aw attrib&tes to a person, independent - of his own intention or act&a residence, as res& ts from ega domestic re ations as that of the wife arising from marriage 2/: +.J.=. Eomici e Z #, ""5. Under the governing aw then, 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, her new domici e or her domici e of choice was the domici e of her h&sband, which was Hatac, I ocos 3orte. =aid 8rtic e reads as fo ows< 8rt. ""'. The h&sband sha fi6 the residence of the fami -. H&t the co&rt ma- e6empt the wife from iving with the h&sband if he sho& d
Page | 1828

ive abroad &n ess in the service of the Rep&b ic. +ommenting thereon, civi ist 8rt&ro ,. To entino states< 8 tho&gh the d&t- of the spo&ses to ive together is m&t&a , the h&sband has a predominant right beca&se he is empowered b- aw to fi6 the fami - residence. This right even predominates over some rights recogni7ed b- aw in the wife. .or instance, &nder artic e ""# the wife ma- engage in b&siness or practice a profession or occ&pation. H&t beca&se of the power of the h&sband to fi6 the fa#il! do#icile he ma- fi6 it at s&ch a p ace as wo& d make it impossib e for the wife to contin&e
Page | 1829

in b&siness or in her profession. .or j&stifiab e reasons, however, the wife ma- be e6empted from iving in the residence chosen bthe h&sband. The h&sband cannot va id - a ege desertion b- the wife who ref&ses to fo ow him to a new p ace of residence, when it appears that the- have ived for -ears in a s&itab e home be onging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. 2+ommentaries and J&rispr&dence on the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, vo . ", "$:) ed., !!$5. Under common aw, a woman &pon her marriage oses her own domici e and, boperation of aw, ac%&ires that of her
Page | 1830

h&sband, no matter where the wife act&a - ives or what she be ieves or intends. Ier domici e is fi6ed in the sense that it is dec ared to be the same as his, and s&bject to certain imitations, he can change her domici e b- changing his own 2/) 8m J&r /d Eomici e Z 4:, !#5. It m&st, however, be pointed o&t that &nder 8rtic e ($ of the .ami - +ode, the fi6ing of the fami - domici e is no onger the so e prerogative of the h&sband, b&t is now a joint decision of the spo&ses, and in case of disagreement the co&rt sha decide. The said artic e &ses the term Dfami - domici e,D and not fami residence, as Dthe spo&ses ma- have m& tip e residences, and the wife mae ect to remain in one of s&ch
Page | 1831

residences, which ma- destro- the d&tof the spo&ses to ive together and its corresponding benefitsD 28AI+I8 F. =E,;I1*EIC, Iandbook on the .ami +ode of the ;hi ippines, L"$::M, "'/5. The theor- of a&tomatic restoration of a woman9s domici e of origin &pon the death of her h&sband, which the majorit- opinion adopts to overcome the ega effect of the petitioner9s marriage on her domici e, is &ns&pported b- aw and b- j&rispr&dence. The sett ed doctrine is that after the h&sband9s death the wife has a right to e ect her own domici e, b&t she retains the ast domici e of her h&sband &nti she makes an act&a change 2/: +.J.=. Eomici e Z "/, /#5. 1r, on the death of the h&sband, the power of the wife to
Page | 1832

ac%&ire her own domici e is revived, b&t &nti she e6ercises the power her domici e remains that of the h&sband at the time of his death 2/) 8m J&r /d Eomici e Z (/, 4)5. 3ote that what is revived is not her domici e of origin b&t 1er po0er to ac4uire 1er o0n do#icile. + ear -, even after the death of her h&sband, the petitioner9s domici e was that of her h&sband at the time of his death G which was Hatac, I ocos 3orte, since their residences in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, and =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, were their residences for convenience to enab e her h&sband to effective perform his officia d&ties. Their residence in =an J&an was a conj&ga home, and it was there to which she
Page | 1833

ret&rned in "$$" when she was a reada widow. In her sworn certificate of candidac- for the 1ffice of the ;resident in the s-nchroni7ed e ections of ,a"$$/, she indicated therein that she was a resident of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. =he a so voted in the said e ections in that p ace. 1n the basis of her evidence, it was on on 2* Au"u$t 199* when she e6ercised her right as a widow to ac%&ire her own domici e in To osa, Ae-te, thro&gh her sworn statement re%&esting the E ection 1fficer of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, to cance her registration in the permanent ist of voters in ;recinct ")# thereat and pra-ing that she be Dre*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, the p ace of LherM birth and permanent
Page | 1834

residenceD 2photocop- of E6hibit DH,D attached as 8nne6 D/D of private respondent ,ontejo9s +omment5. 3otab -, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her p ace of birth when, in her Foter9s 8ffidavit sworn to on ") ,arch "$$/ 2photocop- of E6hibit D+,D attached as 8nne6 D!,D 3d.5, her Foter Registration Record sworn to on /: Jan&ar- "$$) 2photocop- of E6hibit DE,D attached as 8nne6 D),D 3d.5, and her +ertificate of +andidac- sworn to on : ,arch "$$) 2photocop- of E6hibit D8,D attached as 8nne6 D",D 3d.5, she so emn - dec ared that she was born in ,ani a. The petitioner is even &ncertain as to her domici e of origin. Is it Tac oban +itor To osa, Ae-teK In the affidavit
Page | 1835

attached to her 8nswer to the petition for dis%&a ification 28nne6 DID of ;etition5, she dec ared &nder oath that her Ddomici e or residence is Tac oban +it-.D If she did intend to ret&rn to s&ch domici e or residence of origin wh- did she inform the E ection 1fficer of =an J&an that she wo& d transfer to 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, and indicate in her Foter9s Registration Record and in her certificate of candidac- that her residence is 1 ot, To osa, Ae-teK 0hi e this &ncertaint- is not important insofar as residence in the congressiona district is concerned, it neverthe ess proves that fort-*one -ears had a readapsed since she had ost or abandoned her domici e of origin b- virt&e of marriage and that s&ch ength of time
Page | 1836

diminished her power of reco ection or b &rred her memor-. I find to be misp aced the re iance b- the majoritopinion on Ha!pon v$. Vuirino 2$( ;hi . /$4 L"$)4M5, and the s&bse%&ent cases which estab ished the princip e that absence from origina residence or domici e of origin to p&rs&e st&dies, practice one9s profession, or engage in b&siness in other states does not constit&te oss of s&ch residence or domici e. =o is the re iance on =ection ""# of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode which provides that transfer of residence to an- other p ace b- reason of one9s Docc&pation> profession> emp o-ment in private and p&b ic service> ed&cationa activities> work in mi itar- or nava reservations> service in the arm-, navPage | 1837

or air force, the constab& ar- or nationa po ice force> or confinement or detention in government instit&tions in accordance with awD is not deemed as oss of origina residence. Those cases and ega provision do not inc &de marriage of a woman. The reason for the e6c &sion is, of co&rse, 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. If it were the intention of this +o&rt or of the egis at&re to consider the marriage of a woman as a circ&mstance which wo& d not operate as an abandonment of domici e 2of origin or of choice5, then s&ch cases and ega provision sho& d have e6press mentioned the same. This +o&rt sho& d not accept as gospe tr&th the se f*serving c aim of the petitioner in her affidavit 28nne6 D8D of
Page | 1838

her 8nswer in +1,EAE+ =;8 3o. $)* ''$> 8nne6 DID of ;etition5 that her Ddomici e or residence of origin is Tac oban +it-,D and that she Dnever intended to abandon this domici e or residence of origin to which LsheM a wa-s intended to ret&rn whenever absent.D =&ch a c aim of intention cannot prevai over the effect of 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. Hesides, the facts and circ&mstances or the vicissit&des of the petitioner9s ife after her marriage in "$)4 conc &sive - estab ish that she had indeed abandoned her domici e of origin and had ac%&ired a new oneani#o et facto 2?1==UTI ?E3T ?E3383, 8 Treatise on Residence and Eomici e, L"$!4M, /"4, !/(5.
Page | 1839

3either sho& d this +o&rt p ace comp ete tr&st on the petitioner9s c aim that she Dmere - committed an honest mistakeD in writing down the word DsevenD in the space provided for the residenc- %&a ification re%&irement in the certificate of candidac-. =&ch a c aim is se f*serving and, in the ight of the foregoing dis%&isitions, wo& d be a so&nd and f&r- signif-ing nothing. To me, she did not commit an- mistake, honest or otherwise> what she stated was the tr&th. The majorit- opinion a so disregards a basic r& e in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an iss&e has the b&rden of proving it 2Imperia Fictor- =hipping 8genc- vs. 3AR+, /'' =+R8 "#: L"$$"M> ;.T.
Page | 1840

+erna +orp. vs. +o&rt of 8ppea s, //" =+R8 "$ L"$$!M5. Iaving admitted marriage to the then +ongressman ,arcos, the petitioner co& d not denthe ega conse%&ence thereof on the change of her domici e to that of her h&sband. The majorit- opinion r& es or at east conc &des that DLbM- operation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5, her ega domici e at the time of her marriage a&tomatica - became Hatac, I ocos 3orte.D That conc &sion is consistent with 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. =ince she is pres&med to retain her deceased h&sband9s domici e &nti she e6ercises her revived power to ac%&ire her own domici e, the b&rden is &pon her to prove that she has e6ercised her right to ac%&ire her own domici e. =he miserab fai ed to discharge that b&rden.
Page | 1841

I vote to den- the petition. =eparate 1pinions ;U31, J., conc&rring< It was 8ristot e who ta&ght mankind that things that are a ike sho& d be treated a ike, whi e things that are &na ike sho& d be treated &na ike in proportion to their &na ikeness. " Aike other candidates, petitioner has c ear - met the residence re%&irement provided b=ection (, 8rtic e FI of the +onstit&tion. / 0e cannot dis%&a if- her and treat her &na ike, for the +onstit&tion g&arantees e%&a protection of the aw. I proceed from the fo owing fact&a and ega propositions< .irst. There is no %&estion that petitioner9s origina domici e is in
Page | 1842

Tac oban, Ae-te. Ier parents were domici ed in Tac oban. Their ancestra ho&se is in Tac oban. The- have vast rea estate in the p ace. ;etitioner went to schoo and thereafter worked there. I consider Tac oban as her initia domici e, both her domici e of origin and her domici e of choice. Ier domici e of origin as it was the domici e of her parents when she was a minor> and her domici e of choice, as she contin&ed iving there even after reaching the age of majorit-. =econd. There is a so no %&estion that in ,a-, "$)4, petitioner married the ate ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos. Hcontracting marriage, her domici e became s&bject to change b- aw, and
Page | 1843

the right to change it was given b8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode provides< 8rt. ""'. T1e 1u$/and $1all fi' t1e re$idence of t1e fa#il!. H&t the co&rt ma- e6empt the wife from iving with the h&sband if he sho& d ive abroad &n ess in the service of the Rep&b ic. ! 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 In 9e la Gi8a v. Gillareal and Geopano, 4 this +o&rt e6p ained whthe domici e of the wife o&ght to fo ow that of the h&sband. 0e he d< DThe reason is fo&nded &pon the t1eoretic identit! of person and interest between the h&sband and the wife, and the pres&mption that, from the nat&re of the re ation, the home of one is the home of the other. It is
Page | 1844

intended to promote, strengthen, and sec&re their interests in this re ation, as it ordinari - e6ists, where &nion and harmon- prevai .D ) In accord with this objective, 8rtic e "'$ of the +ivi +ode a so ob igated the h&sband and wife Dto ive together.D Third. The diffic& t iss&es start as we determine whether petitioner9s #arria"e to former ;resident ,arcos ip$o facto res& ted in the oss of her Tac oban domici e. I respectf& s&bmit that her marriage /! it$elf alone did not ca&se her to ose her Tac oban domici e. 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode mere - gave the h&sband the right to fi6 the domici e of the fami -. In the e6ercise of the right, the h&sband ma- e'plicitl! choose the prior domici e
Page | 1845

of his wife, in which case, the wife9s domici e remains &nchanged. The h&sband can a so i#plicitl! ac%&iesce to his wife9s prior domici e even if it is different. =o we he d in de la Gi8a, ( . . . . 0hen married women as we as chi dren s&bject to parenta a&thoritive, 0it1 t1e ac4uie$cence of t1eir 1u$/and$ or fathers, in a p ace distinct from where the atter ive, the- have their ownindependent do#icile. . . . It is not, therefore, the mere fact of marriage b&t the de iberate choice of a different domici e b- the h&sband that wi change the domici e of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. The domici iar- decision made b- the h&sband in the e6ercise
Page | 1846

of the right conferred b- 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode binds the wife. 8nand a acts of a wife d&ring her covert&re contrar- to the domici iarchoice of the h&sband cannot change in an- wa- the domici e ega - fi6ed b- the h&sband. These acts are void not on - beca&se the wife acks the capacit- to choose her domici e b&t a so beca&se the- are contrar- to aw and p&b ic po ic-. In the case at bench, it is not disp&ted that former ;resident ,arcos e6ercised his right to fi6 the fami - domici e and estab ished it in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, where he was then the congressman. At t1at particular point of ti#e and t1rou"1out t1eir #arried life, petitioner lo$t 1er do#icile in Taclo/an, Le!te .
Page | 1847

=ince petitioner9s Hatac domici e has been fi6ed b- operation of aw, it was not affected in "$)$ when her h&sband was e ected as =enator, when the- ived in =an J&an, Ri7a and where she registered as a voter. It was not a so affected in "$() when her h&sband was e ected ;resident, when the- ived in ,a acaUang ;a ace, and when she registered as a voter in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. 3or was it affected when she served as a member of the (ata$an" 2a#/an$a, ,inister of I&man =ett ements and Governor of ,etro ,ani a d&ring the inc&mbenc- of her h&sband as ;resident of the nation. Under 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, it was on - her h&sband who co& d change the fami - domici e in Hatac and the evidence shows he did not effect
Page | 1848

an- s&ch change. To a arge degree, this fo ows the common aw that Da woman on her marriage oses her own domici e and b- operation of aw, ac%&ires that of her h&sband, no #atter 01ere t1e 0ife actuall! live$ or 01at $1e /elieve$ or intend$.D # .o&rth. The more diffic& t task is how to interpret the effect of the deat1 on =eptember /:, "$:$ of former ;resident ,arcos on petitioner9s Hatac domici e. The iss&e is of fir$t i#pre$$ion in o&r j&risdiction and two 2/5 schoo s of tho&ght contend for acceptance. 1ne is espo&sed bo&r disting&ished co eag&e, ,r. J&stice Eavide, Jr., heavi re -ing on 8merican a&thorities. : Ie echoes the theor- t1at after t1e 1u$/and<$ deat1, t1e 0ife
Page | 1849

retain$ t1e la$t do#icile of 1er 1u$/and until $1e #a:e$ an actual c1an"e. I do not s&bscribe to this s&bmission. The 8merican case aw that the wife sti retains her dead h&sband9s domici e is based on ancient co##on la0 01ic1 0e can no lon"er appl! in t1e 21ilippine $ettin" toda!. The common aw identified the domici e of a wife as that of the h&sband and denied to her the power of ac%&iring a domici e of her own separate and apart from him. $ Aega scho ars agree that two 2/5 reasons s&pport this common aw doctrine. The fir$t rea$on as pinpointed b- the egendar- H ackstone is derived from the view that Dthe ver- being or ega e6istence of the woman is s&spended d&ring
Page | 1850

the marriage, or at east is incorporated and conso idated into that of the h&sband.D "' The $econd rea$on ies in Dthe desirabi it- of having the interests of each member of the fami - &nit governed bthe same aw.D "" The pre$u#ption that the wife retains the domici e of her deceased h&sband is an e'ten$ion of this common aw concept. T1e concept and it$ e'ten$ion 1ave provided $o#e of t1e #o$t ini4uitou$ juri$prudence a"ain$t 0o#en. It was &nder common aw that the ":#! 8merican case of (rad0ell v. 3llinoi$ "/ was decided where women were denied the right to practice aw. It was &nb &shing - r& ed that Dthe nat&ra and proper timidit- and de icac- which be ongs to the fema e se6 evident &nfits it for man- of the occ&pations of
Page | 1851

civi ife . . . This is the aw of the +reator.D Indeed, the r& ings re ied &pon b- ,r. J&stice Eavide in +J= "!and 8, JUR /d "4 are 8merican state co&rt decisions handed down between the -ears "$"# ") and "$!:, "( or /efore t1e ti#e 01en 0o#en 0ere accorded e4ualit! of ri"1t$ 0it1 #en. Undeniab -, the women9s iberation movement res& ted in far*ranging state egis ations in the United =tates to e iminate gender ine%&a it-. "# =tarting in the decade of the seventies, the co&rts ikewise ibera i7ed their r& ings as the- started inva idating aws infected with gender* bias. It was in "$#" when the U= =&preme +o&rt in %eed v. %eed, ": str&ck a big b ow for women e%&a itwhen it dec ared as &nconstit&tiona an Idaho aw that
Page | 1852

re%&ired probate co&rts to choose ma e fami - members over fema es as estate administrators. It he d that mere administrative inconvenience cannot j&stif- a se6*based distinction. T1e$e $i"nificant c1an"e$ /ot1 in la0 and in ca$e la0 on t1e $tatu$ of 0o#en virtuall! o/literated t1e ini4uitou$ co##on la0 $urrenderin" t1e ri"1t$ of #arried 0o#en to t1eir 1u$/and$ /a$ed on t1e du/iou$ t1eor! of t1e partie$< t1eoretic onene$$. The )orpu$ Juri$ ecundu# editors did not miss the re evance of this revo &tion on women9s right as the- observed< DIowever, it has been dec ared that &nder #odern $tatute$ changing the stat&s of married women and departing from the common aw theor- of marriage, t1ere i$ no rea$on 01! a 0ife #a! not ac4uire a
Page | 1853

$eparate do#icile for ever! purpo$e :no0n to t1e la0.D "$ In p&b ishing in "$($ the%e$tate#ent of t1e La0, econd D)onflict of La0$ 2dE, the rep&tab e 8merican Aaw Instit&te a so categorica - stated that the view of H ackstone D. . . i$ no lon"er 1eld. A$ t1e re$ult of $tatute$ and court deci$ion$, a 0ife no0 po$$e$$e$ practicall! t1e $a#e ri"1t$ and po0er$ a$ 1er un#arried $i$ter.D /' In the case at bench, we have to decide whether we sho& d contin&e c inging to the anac1roni$tic co##on la0 that demeans women, especia - married women. I s&bmit that the +o&rt has no choice e6cept to break awa- from this common aw r& e, the root of the mandegradations of .i ipino women. Hefore
Page | 1854

"$::, o&r aws partic& ar - the +ivi +ode, were f& of gender discriminations against women. 1&r esteemed co eag&e, ,adam J&stice . erida R&th Romero, cited a few of them as fo ows< /" 666 666 666 Le"al 9i$a/ilitie$ Qive$ uffered /!

3ot genera - known is the fact that &nder the +ivi +ode, wives s&ffer &nder certain restrictions or disabi ities. .or instance, the wife cannot accept gifts from others, regard ess of the se6 of the giver or the va &e of the gift, other than from her ver- c ose re atives, witho&t her h&sband9s consent.
Page | 1855

=he ma- accept on - from, sa-, her parents, parents*in* aw, brothers, sisters and the re atives within the so*ca ed fo&rth civi degree. =he ma- not e6ercise her profession or occ&pation or engage in b&siness if her h&sband objects on serio&s gro&nds or if his income is s&fficient to s&pport their fami - in accordance with their socia standing. 8s to what constit&tes Dserio&s gro&ndsD for objecting, this is within the discretion of the h&sband. 666 666 666 Heca&se of the present ine%&itab e sit&ation, the amendments to the +ivi Aaw being proposed b- the Universit- of the ;hi ippines Aaw
Page | 1856

+enter wo& d a ow abso &te divorce which severes the matrimonia ties, s&ch that the divorced spo&ses are free to get married a -ear after the divorce is decreed b- the co&rts. Iowever, in order to p ace the h&sband and wife on an e%&a footing insofar as the bases for divorce are concerned, the fo owing are specified as the gro&nds for abso &te divorce< 2"5 ad& ter- or having a paramo&r committed bthe respondent in an- of the wa-s specified in the Revised ;ena +ode or 2/5 an attempt b- the respondent against the ife of the petitioner which amo&nts to attempted parricide &nder the Revised ;ena +ode> 2!5
Page | 1857

abandonment of the petitioner bthe respondent witho&t j&st ca&se for a period of three consec&tive -ears> or 245 habit&a ma treatment. 0ith respect to propert- re ations, the h&sband is a&tomatica - the administrator of the conj&ga propert- owned in common b- the married co&p e even if the wife ma- be the more ast&te or enterprising partner. The aw does not eave it to the spo&ses to decide who sha act as s&ch administrator. +onse%&ent -, the h&sband is a&thori7ed to engage in acts and enter into transactions beneficia to the conj&ga partnership. The wife, however, cannot simi ar bind the
Page | 1858

partnership witho&t the h&sband9s consent. 8nd whi e both e6ercise joint parenta a&thorit- over their chi dren, it is the father whom the aw designates as the ega administrator of the propertpertaining to the &nemancipated chi d. Taking the ead in 8sia, o&r government e6erted efforts, principa - thro&gh egis ations, to e iminate ine%&a it- between men and women in o&r and. T1e 0ater$1ed ca#e on Au"u$t 3, 19FF 01en our Ha#il! )ode too: effect 01ic1, a#on" ot1er$, ter#inated t1e une4ual treat#ent of 1u$/and and
Page | 1859

0ife a$ to t1eir re$pon$i/ilitie$. //

ri"1t$

and

The .ami - +ode attained this e &sive objective b- giving new rights to married women and b- abo ishing se6*based privi eges of h&sbands. 8mong others, married women are now given the joint right to administer the fami - propert-, whether in the abso &te comm&nits-stem or in the s-stem of conj&ga partnership> /! joint parenta a&thoritover their minor chi dren, both over their persons as we as their properties> /4 joint responsibi it- for the s&pport of the fami -> /) the right to joint manage the ho&seho d> /( and, the right to object to their h&sband9s e6ercise of profession, occ&pation, b&siness or activit-. /# Of particular relevance to t1e
Page | 1860

ca$e at /enc1 i$ Article >9 of t1e Ha#il! )ode 01ic1 too: a0a! t1e e'clu$ive ri"1t of t1e 1u$/and to fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile and "ave it jointl! to t1e 1u$/and and t1e 0ife, t1u$< 8rt. ($. T1e 1u$/and and 0ife $1all fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile. In case of disagreement, the co&rt sha decide. The co&rt ma- e6empt one spo&se from iving with the other if the atter sho& d ive abroad or there are other va id and compe ing reasons for the e6emption. Iowever, s&ch e6emption sha not app - if the same is not compatib e with the so idarit- of the fami -. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5
Page | 1861

Article >9 repealed Article 110 of t1e )ivil )ode. +ommenting on the d&tof the h&sband and wife to ive together, former ,adam J&stice 8 ice =empio*Ei- of the +o&rt of 8ppea s specified the instances when a 0ife #a! no0 refu$e to live 0it1 1er 1u$/and, th&s< /: 2/5 The wife has the d&t- to ive with her h&sband, b&t she maref&se to do so in certain cases ike< 2a5 If the p ace chosen b- the h&sband as fami - residence is dangero&s to her Aife> 2b5 If the h&sband s&bjects her to ma treatment or ab&sive cond&ct or ins& ts,
Page | 1862

making common impossib e>

ife

2c5 If the h&sband compe s her to ive with his parents, b&t she cannot get a ong with her mother*in* aw and thehave constant %&arre s 2Ee Rosario v. Ee Rosario, +8, 4( 1G ("//5> 2d5 0here the h&sband has contin&o&s - carried i icit re ations for "' -ears with different women and treated his wife ro&gh - and witho&t consideration. 2Eadivas v. Fi an&eva, )4 ;hi . $/5> 2e5 0here the h&sband spent his time in gamb ing, giving
Page | 1863

no mone- to his fami - for food and necessities, and at the same time ins& ting his wife and a-ing hands on her. 2;an&ncio v. =& a, +8, !4 1G "/$5> 2f5 If the h&sband has no fi6ed residence and ives a vagabond ife as a tramp 2" ,anresa !/$5> 2g5 If the h&sband is carr-ing on a shamef& b&siness at home 2Gahn v. Earb-, !: Aa. 8nn. #'5. T1e ine$capa/le conclu$ion i$ t1at our Ha#il! )ode 1a$ co#pletel! e#ancipated t1e 0ife fro# t1e control of t1e 1u$/and, th&s abandoning the
Page | 1864

parties9 theoretic identit- of interest. 3o ess than the ate revered ,r. J&stice J.H.A. Re-es who chaired the +ivi +ode Revision +ommittee of the U; Aaw +enter gave this insightf& view in one of his rare ect&res after retirement< /$ 666 666 666 The .ami - +ode is primari intended to reform the fami - aw so as to emancipate the wife from the e6c &sive contro of the h&sband and to p ace her at paritwith him insofar as the fami - is concerned.T1e 0ife and t1e 1u$/and are no0 placed on e4ual $tandin" /! t1e )ode. The- are now joint administrators of the fami - properties and e6ercise joint
Page | 1865

a&thorit- over the persons and properties of their chi dren. This means a d&a a&thorit- in the fami -. T1e 1u$/and 0ill no lon"er prevail over t1e 0ife b&t she has to agree on a matters concerning the fami -. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 In ight of the .ami - +ode which abrogated the ine%&a it- between h&sband and wife as started and perpet&ated bthe common aw, t1ere i$ no rea$on in e$pou$in" t1e ano#alou$ rule t1at t1e 0ife $till retain$ t1e do#icile of 1er dead 1u$/and. 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode which provides the stat&tor- s&pport for this stance has been repea ed b8rtic e ($ of the .ami - +ode. H- its repea , it becomes a dead* etter aw,
Page | 1866

and we are not free to res&rrect it bgiving it f&rther effect in an- wa- or manner s&ch as b- r& ing that the petitioner is sti bo&nd b- the domici iar- determination of her dead h&sband. 8side from reckoning with the .ami +ode, we have to consider o&r +onstit&tion and its firm g&arantees of d&e process and e%&a protection of aw. !' 3t can 1ardl! /e dou/ted t1at t1e co##on la0 i#po$ition on a #arried 0o#an of 1er dead 1u$/and<$ do#icile even /e!ond 1i$ "rave i$ patentl! di$cri#inator! to 0o#en. It is a gender* based discrimination and is not rationa - re ated to the objective of promoting fami - so idarit-. It cannot s&rvive a constit&tiona cha enge.
Page | 1867

Indeed, compared with o&r previo&s f&ndamenta aws, t1e 19F+ )on$titution i$ #ore concerned 0it1 e4ualit! /et0een $e'e$ a$ it e'plicitl! co##and$ t1at t1e tate D. . . $1all en$ure funda#ental e4ualit! /efore t1e la0 of 0o#en and #en.D To be e6act, section "4, 8rtic e II provides< DThe =tate recogni7es the ro e of women in nation b&i ding, and sha ens&re f&ndamenta e%&a it- before the aw of women and men. 0e sha be transgressing the sense and essence of this constit&tiona mandate if we insist on giving o&r women the caveman9s treatment. ;rescinding from these premises, I respectf& - s&bmit that t1e /etter $tance i$ to rule t1at petitioner
Page | 1868

reac4uired 1er Taclo/an do#icile upon t1e deat1 of 1er 1u$/and in 19F9. This is the necessar- conse%&ence of the view that petitioner9s Hatac dictated domici e did not contin&e after her h&sband9s death> otherwise, she wo& d have no domici e and that wi vio ate the &niversa r& e that no person can be witho&t a domici e at an- point of time. This stance a so restores the right of petitioner to choose her domici e before it was taken awa- b- 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, a right now recogni7ed bthe .ami - +ode and protected b- the +onstit&tion. Aikewise, I cannot see the fairness of the common aw re%&iring petitioner to choose again her Tac oban domici e before she co& d be re eased from her Hatac domici e. =he ost her Tac oban domici e not thro&gh her act
Page | 1869

b&t thro&gh the act of her deceased h&sband when he fi6ed their domici e in Hatac. Ier h&sband is dead and he cannot r& e her be-ond the grave. The aw disab ing her to choose her own domici e has been repea ed. +onsidering a these, common aw sho& d not p&t the b&rden on petitioner to prove she has abandoned her dead h&sband9s domici e. There is neither rh-me nor reason for this gender*based b&rden. (ut even a$$u#in" ar"uendo t1at t1ere i$ need for convincin" proof t1at petitioner c1o$e to reac4uire 1er Taclo/an do#icile, $till, t1e record$ reveal a#ple evidence to t1i$ effect. In her affidavit s&bmitted to the respondent +1,EAE+, petitioner averred<
Page | 1870

666 666 666 !(. In 3ovember, "$$", I came home to o&r be oved co&ntr-, after severa re%&ests for m- ret&rn were denied b- ;resident +ora7on +. 8%&ino, and after I fi ed s&its for o&r Government to iss&e me mpassport. !#. H&t I came home witho&t the morta remains of m- be oved h&sband, ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos, which the Government considered a threat to the nationa sec&rit- and we fare. !:. Upon m- ret&rn to the co&ntr-, I wanted to immediate - ive and reside in Tac oban +it- or in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, even if mPage | 1871

residences there were not ivab e as the- had been destro-ed and canniba i7ed. The ;+GG, however, did not permit and a ow me. !$. 8s a conse%&ence, I had to ive at vario&s times in the 0estin ;hi ippine ; a7a in ;asa- +it-, a friend9s apartment on 8-a a 8ven&e, a ho&se in =o&th .orbes ;ark which m- da&ghter rented, and ;acific ; a7a, a in ,akati. 4'. 8fter the "$$/ ;residentia E ections, I ived and resided in the residence of m- brother in =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, and p&rs&ed m- negotiations with ;+GG to recover mse%&estered
Page | 1872

residences in Tac oban +it- and Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 4'." In preparation for mobservance of 8 =aints9 Eaand 8 =o& s9 Ea- that -ear, I renovated m- parents9 b&ria gro&nds and entombed their bones which had been e6ca vated, &nearthed and scattered. 4". 1n 3ovember /$, "$$!, I forma - wrote ;+GG +hairman ,agtanggo G&nig&ndo for permissions to G . . . rehabi itate . . . 2o5&r ancestra ho&se in Tac oban and farmho&se in 1 ot, Ae-te . . . to make them
Page | 1873

ivab e for &s the ,arcos fami - to have a home in o&r own mother and. 666 666 666 4/. It was on - on '( J&ne "$$4, however, when ;+GG +hairman G&nig&ndo, in his etter to +o . =imeon ?empis, Jr., ;+GG Region : Representative, a owed me to repair and renovate mAe-te residences. I %&ote part of his etter< Eear +o . ?empis, Upon representation b- ,rs. Ime da R. ,arcos to this +ommission, that she intends to visit o&r se%&estered properties in Ae-te, p ease
Page | 1874

a ow her access thereto. =he ma- a so ca&se repairs and renovation of the se%&estered properties, in which event, it sha be &nderstood that her &ndertaking said repairs is not a&thori7ation for her to take over said properties, and that a e6penses sha be for her acco&nt and not reimb&rsab e. ; ease e6tend the necessar- co&rtes- to her. 666 666 666 4!. I was not permitted, however, to ive and sta- in the =to. 3iUo =hrine residence in Tac oban +itwhere I wanted to sta- and reside,
Page | 1875

after repairs and renovations were comp eted. In 8&g&st "$$4, I transferred from =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, to m- residence in Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, when ;+GG permitted me to staand ive there. 3t i$ t1en clear t1at in 1992 petitioner ree$ta/li$1ed 1er do#icile in t1e Hir$t 9i$trict of Le!te. It is not disp&ted that in "$$/, she first ived at the ho&se of her brother in =an Jose, Tac oban +it- and ater, in 8&g&st "$$4, she transferred her residence in Haranga1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. Hoth Tac oban +it- and the m&nicipa it- of 1 ot are within the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. =ince petitioner reestab ished her o d domici e in "$$/ in the .irst Eistrict of
Page | 1876

Ae-te, she more than comp ied with the constit&tiona re%&irement of residence D. . . for a period of not ess than one -ear immediate - preceding the daof the e ection,D i.e., the ,a- :, "$$) e ections. T1e evidence pre$ented /! t1e private re$pondent to ne"ate t1e Taclo/an do#icile of petitioner i$ nil. Ie presented petitioner9s Foter9s Registration Record fi ed with the Hoard of E ection Inspectors of ;recinct "'*8 of Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te wherein she stated that her period of residence in said baranga- was si6 2(5 months as of the date of her fi ing of said Foter9s Registration Record on Jan&ar- /:, "$$). !" This statement in petitioner9s
Page | 1877

Foter9s Registration Record is a nonprejudicial ad#i$$ion. The +onstit&tion re%&ires at east one 2"5 -ear residence in thedi$trict in which the candidate sha be e ected. In the case at bench, the reference is the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. ;etitioner9s statement proved that she resided in 1 ot si6 2(5 months before Jan&ar/:, "$$) /ut did not di$prove that she has a so resided in Tac oban +it- starting "$$/. 8s aforestated, 1 ot and Tac oban +it- are both within the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, hence, her si6 2(5 months residence in 1 ot sho& d be co&nted not against, b&t in her favor. ;rivate respondent a so presented petitioner9s +ertificate of +andidacfi ed on ,arch :, "$$) !/ where she p aced seven 2#5 months after Item 3o. : which ca ed for
Page | 1878

information regarding Dresidence in the constit&enc- where I seek to be e ected immediate - preceding the e ection.D 8gain, this origina certificate of candidac- has no evidentiar- va &e beca&se an ,arch ", "$$) it was corrected bpetitioner. In her 8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac-, !! petitioner wrote Dsince chi dhoodD after Item 3o. :. The amendment of a certificate of candidacto correct a /ona fide mistake has been a owed b- this +o&rt as a matter of co&rse and as a matter of right. 8s we he d in Alial! v. )OM;L;), !4 vi5.< 666 666 666 The absence of the signat&re of the =ecretar- of the oca chapter 3.; in the origina certificate of
Page | 1879

candidac- presented before the dead ine =eptember "", "$)$, did not render the certificate inva id.T1e a#end#ent of t1e certificate, alt1ou"1 at a date after t1e deadline, /ut /efore t1e election, 0a$ $u/$tantial co#pliance 0it1 t1e la0, and t1e defect 0a$ cured. It goes witho&t sa-ing that petitioner9s erroneo&s +ertificate of +andidacfi ed on ,arch :, "$$) cannot be &sed as evidence against her. ;rivate respondent9s petition for the dis%&a ification of petitioner rested a one on these two 2/5 britt e pieces of doc&mentarevidence G petitioner9s Foter9s Registration Record and her origina +ertificate of
Page | 1880

+andidac-. Ranged against the evidence of the petitioner showing her cease ess contacts with Tac oban, private respondent9s two 2/5 pieces of evidence are too ins&fficient to dis%&a if- petitioner, more so, to den- her the right to represent the peop e of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te who have overwhe ming - voted for her. .ifth. =ection "', 8rtic e IN*+ of the +onstit&tion mandates that D/ona fide candidates for an- p&b ic office sha be free from an- form of harassment and discrimination.D !) 8 detached reading of the records of the case at bench wi show that a forms of ega and e6tra* ega obstac es have been thrown against petitioner to prevent her
Page | 1881

from r&nning as the peop e9s representative in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. In petitioner9s 8nswer to the petition to dis%&a if- her, she averred< !( 666 666 666 "'. ;etitioner9s 2herein private respondent ,ontejo5 motive in fi ing the instant petition is devio&s. 0hen respondent 2petitioner herein5 anno&nced that she was intending to register as a voter in Tac oban +it- and r&n for +ongress in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, petitioner 2,ontejo5 immediate - opposed her intended registration b- writing a etter stating that Dshe is not a resident of said cit- b&t of Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te.D 28nne6 D/D of
Page | 1882

respondent9s affidavit, 8nne6 D/D5. 8fter respondent 2petitioner herein5 had registered as a voter in To osa fo owing comp etion of her si6* month act&a residence therein, petitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed a petition with the +1,EAE+ to transfer the town of To osa from the .irst Eistrict to the =econd Eistrict and p&rs&ed s&ch move &p to the =&preme +o&rt in G.R. 3o. "":#'/, his p&rpose being to remove respondent 2petitioner herein5 as petitioner9s 2,ontejo9s5 opponent in the congressiona e ection in the .irst Eistrict. Ie a so fi ed a bi , a ong with other Ae-te +ongressmen, seeking to create another egis ative district, to remove the town of To osa o&t
Page | 1883

of the .irst Eistrict and to make it a part of the new district, to achieve his p&rpose. Iowever, s&ch bi did not pass the =enate. Iaving, fai ed on s&ch moves, petitioner now fi ed the instant petition, for the same objective, as it is obvio&s that he is afraid to s&bmit himse f a ong with respondent 2petitioner herein5 for the j&dgment and verdict of the e ectorate of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te in an honest, order -, peacef& , free and c ean e ections on ,a- :, "$$). These a egations which private respondent did not cha enge were not ost to the perceptive e-e of
Page | 1884

+ommissioner ,aambong who in his Eissenting 1pinion, !# he d< 666 666 666 ;rior to the registration date G Jan&ar- /:, "$$) the petitioner 2herein private respondent ,ontejo5 wrote the E ection 1fficer of Tac oban +it- not to a ow respondent 2petitioner herein5 to register thereat since she is a resident of To osa and not Tac oban +it-. The p&rpose of this move of the petitioner 2,ontejo5 is not ost to 2$ic5 the +ommission. In U3E 3o. $)*''" 23n t1e #atter of t1e Le"i$lative 9i$trict$ of t1e 2rovince$ of Le!te, 3loilo, and out1 )ota/ato, Out of Q1ic1 t1e &e0 2rovince$ of (iliran,
Page | 1885

Gui#ara$ and aran""ani Qere %e$pectivel! )reated5, . . . Ion. +iri o RoG. ,ontejo, Representative, .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, wanted the ,&nicipa it- of To osa, in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, transferred to the =econd Eistrict of Ae-te. The Ion. =ergio 8... 8posto , Representative of the =econd Eistrict of Ae-te, opposed the move of the petitioner 2,ontejo5. Under +ome ec Reso &tion 3o. /#!( 2Eecember /$, "$$45, the +ommission on E ections ref&sed to make the proposed transfer. ;etitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed DMotion for %econ$ideration of %e$olution &o. 2+3>D which the +ommission denied in a Reso &tion
Page | 1886

prom& gated on .ebr&ar- ", "$$). ;etitioner 2,ontejo5 fi ed a petition for certiorari before the Ionorab e =&preme +o&rt 2+iri o Ro- G. ,ontejo vs. +ommission on E ections, G.R. 3o. "":#'/5 %&estioning the reso &tion of the +ommission. He ieving that he co& d get a favorab e r& ing from the =&preme +o&rt, petitioner 2,ontejo5 tried to make s&re that the respondent 2petitioner herein5 wi register as a voter in To osa so that she wi be forced to r&n as Representative not in the .irst b&t in the =econd Eistrict. It did not happen. 1n ,arch "(, "$$), the Ionorab e =&preme +o&rt &nanimo&s - prom& gated a
Page | 1887

D9eci$ion,D penned b- 8ssociate J&stice Re-nato =. ;&no, the dispositive portion of which reads< I3 FIE0 0IERE1., =ection " of Reso &tion 3o. /#!( insofar as it transferred the m&nicipa it- of +apoocan of the =econd Eistrict and the m&nicipa it- of ;a ompon of the .o&rth Eistrict to the Third Eistrict of the province of Ae-te, is ann& ed and set aside. 0e a so den- the ;etition pra-ing for the transfer of the m&nicipa it- of To osa from the .irst Eistrict to the =econd Eistrict of the province of Ae-te. 3o costs.
Page | 1888

;etitioner9s 2,ontejo9s5 p an did not work. H&t the respondent 2petitioner herein5 was constrained to register in the ,&nicipa it- of To osa where her ho&se is instead of Tac oban +it-, her domici e. In an- case, both Tac oban +it- and To osa are in the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict. 8 these attempts to mis&se o&r aws and ega processes are forms of rank harassments and invidio&s discriminations against petitioner to den- her e%&a access to a p&b ic office. 0e cannot commit anhermene&tic vio ence to the +onstit&tion b- tort&ring the meaning of e%&a it-, the end res& t of which wi a ow the harassment and
Page | 1889

discrimination of petitioner who has ived a controversia ife, a past of a ternating ight and shadow. There is b&t one +onstit&tion for a .i ipinos. ;etitioner cannot be adj&dged b- a DdifferentD +onstit&tion, and the worst wa- to interpret the +onstit&tion is to inject in its interpretation, bi e and bitterness. =i6th. In Galle"o v. Gera, !: we e6p ained that the reason for this residence re%&irement is Dto e6c &de a stranger or newcomer, &nac%&ainted, with the conditions and needs of a comm&nitand not identified with the atter, from an e ective office to serve that comm&nit- . . . .D ;etitioner9s ifetime contacts with the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te cannot be contested. 3obod- can c aim
Page | 1890

that she is not ac%&ainted with its prob ems beca&se she is a stranger to the p ace. 3one can arg&e she cannot satisf- the intent of the +onstit&tion. =eventh. In reso ving e ection cases, a dominant consideration is the need to effect&ate the wi of the e ectorate. The e ection res& ts show that petitioner received =event- Tho&sand .o&r I&ndred =event-*one 2#',4#"5 votes, whi e private respondent got on - Thirt-* =i6 Tho&sand Eight I&ndred Thirt-* Three 2!(,:!!5 votes. ;etitioner is c ear - the overwhe ming choice of the e ectorate of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te and this is not a s eight of statistics. 0e cannot fr&strate this sovereign wi on high arg&ab e technica considerations. In case of do&bt, we
Page | 1891

sho& d ean towards a r& e that wi give ife to the peop e9s po itica j&dgment. A final point. The case at bench provides the +o&rt with the rare opport&nit- to rectif- the ine%&a it- of stat&s between women and men brejecting the ini%&ito&s common aw precedents on the domici e of married women and b- redefining domici e in accord with o&r own c& t&re, aw, and +onstit&tion. To r& e that a married woman is eterna - tethered to the domici e dictated b- her dead h&sband is to preserve the anachronistic and anoma o&s ba ance of advantage of a h&sband over his wife. 0e sho& d not a ow the dead to govern the iving even if the g ories of -ester-ears sed&ce &s to sho&t ong ive the dead^ The .ami Page | 1892

+ode b&ried this gender*based discrimination against married women and we sho& d not e6cavate what has been entombed. ,ore important -, the +onstit&tion forbids it. I vote to grant the petition. (ello$illo and Melo, JJ., concur. .R83+I=+1, J., conc&rring< I conc&r with ,r. J&stice ?ap&nan9s ponencia finding petitioner %&a ified for the position of Representative of the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. I wish, however, to e6press a few comments on the iss&e of petitioner9s domici e. Eomici e has been defined as that p ace in which a person9s habitation is fi6ed, witho&t an- present intention of
Page | 1893

removing therefrom, and that p ace is proper - the domici e of a person in which he has vo &ntari - fi6ed his abode, or habitation, not for a mere specia or temporar- p&rpose, b&t with a present intention of making it his permanent home 2/: +.J.=. Z"5. It denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which when absent for b&siness, or p eas&re, or for ike reasons one intends to ret&rn, and depends on facts and circ&mstances, in the sense that the- disc ose intent. 21ng I&an Tin v. Rep&b ic, "$ =+R8 $((, $($5 Eomici e is c assified into domici e of origin and domici e of choice. The aw attrib&tes to ever- individ&a a domici e of origin, which is the domici e of his parents, or of the head of his fami -, or
Page | 1894

of the person on whom he is ega dependent at the time of his birth. 0hi e the domici e of origin is genera - the p ace where one is born or reared, it ma-be e sewhere 2/: +.J.=. Z)5. Eomici e of choice, on the other hand, is the p ace which the person has e ected and chosen for himse f to disp ace his previo&s domici e> it has for its tr&e basis or fo&ndation the intention of the person 2/: +.J.=. Z(5. In order to ho d that a person has abandoned his domici e and ac%&ired a new one ca ed domici e of choice, the fo owing re%&isites m&st conc&r, name -, 2a5 residence or bodi - presence in the new oca it-, 2b5 intention to remain there or ani#u$ #anendi, and 2c5 an intention to abandon the o d domici e orani#u$ non revertendi 2Rom&a de7 v. RT+, Hr.
Page | 1895

#, Tac oban +it-, //( =+R8 4':, 4")5. 8 third c assification is domici e boperation of aw which attrib&tes to a person a domici e independent of his own intention or act&a residence, ordinari - res& ting from ega domestic re ations, as that of the wife arising from marriage, or the re ation of a parent and a chi d 2/: +.J.=. Z#5. In e ection aw, when o&r +onstit&tion speaks of residence for e ection p&rposes it means domici e 2+o v. E ectora Trib&na of the Io&se of Representatives, "$$ =+R8 ($/, #"!> 3&va v. G&ra-, )/ ;hi . (4), ()"5. To mmind, p&b ic respondent +ommission on E ections misapp ied this concept, of domici e which ed to petitioner9s dis%&a ification b- r& ing that
Page | 1896

petitioner fai ed to comp - with the constit&tiona mandated one*-ear residence re%&irement. 8pparent -, p&b ic respondent +ommission deemed as conc &sive petitioner9s sta- and registration as voter in man- p aces as cond&ct disc osing her intent to abandon her estab ished domici e of origin in Tac oban, Ae-te. In severa decisions, tho&gh, the +o&rt has aid down the r& e that registration of a voter in a p ace other than his p ace of origin is not s&fficient to constit&te abandonment or oss of s&ch residence 2.a-pon v. O&irino, $( ;hi . /$4, !''5. Respondent +ommission offered no cogent reason to depart from this r& e e6cept to s&rmise petitioner9s intent of abandoning her domici e of origin.
Page | 1897

It has been s&ggested that petitioner9s domici e of origin was s&pp anted b- a new domici e d&e to her marriage, a domici e b- operation of aw. The proposition is that &pon the death of her h&sband in "$:$ she retains her h&sband9s domici e, i.e., Hatac, I ocos 3orte, &nti she makes an act&a change thereof. I find this proposition %&ite &ntenab e. Tac oban, Ae-te, is petitioner9s domici e of origin which was invo &ntari s&pp anted with another, i.e., Hatac, I ocos 3orte, &pon her marriage in "$)4 with then +ongressman ,arcos. Hega fiction she fo owed the domici e of her h&sband. In m- view, the reason for the aw is for the spo&ses to f& - and effective - perform their marita d&ties
Page | 1898

and ob igations to one another. " The %&estion of domici e, however, is not affected b- the fact that it was the ega or mora d&t- of the individ&a to reside in a given p ace 2/: +.J.=. Z""5. Th&s, whi e the wife retains her marita domici e so ong as the marriage s&bsists, she a&tomatica - oses it &pon the atter9s termination, for the reason behind the aw then ceases. 1therwise, petitioner, after her marriage was ended b- the death of her h&sband, wo& d be p aced in a %&ite abs&rd and &nfair sit&ation of having been freed from a wife - ob igations -et made to ho d on to one which no onger serves anmeaningf& p&rpose. It is m- view therefore that petitioner reverted to her origina domici e of
Page | 1899

Tac oban, Ae-te &pon her h&sband9s death witho&t even signif-ing her intention to that effect. It is for the private respondent to prove, not for petitioner to disprove, that petitioner has effective - abandoned Tac oban, Ae-te for Hatac, I ocos 3orte or for some other p aceJs. The c ear r& e is that it is the part- 2herein private respondent5 c aiming that a person has abandoned or ost his residence of origin who m&st show and prove preponderant - s&ch abandonment or oss 2.a-pon v. O&irino, $upra at /$:> /: +.J.=. Z"(5, beca&se the pres&mption is strong - in favor of an origina or former domici e, as against an ac%&ired one 2/: +.J.=. Z"(5. ;rivate respondent &nfort&nate fai ed to discharge this b&rden as the record is devoid of convincing proof that
Page | 1900

petitioner has ac%&ired whether vo &ntari - or invo &ntari -, a new domici e to rep ace her domici e of origin. The records, on the contrar-, c ear show that petitioner has comp ied with the constit&tiona one*-ear residence re%&irement. 8fter her e6i e abroad, she ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in "$$" to reside in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, b&t the ;residentia +ommission on Good Government which se%&estered her residentia ho&se and other properties forbade her necessitating her transient sta- in vario&s p aces in ,ani a 28ffidavit p.(, attached as 8nne6 I of the ;etition5. In "$$/, she ran for the position of president writing in her certificate of candidac- her residence as
Page | 1901

=an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. 8fter her oss therein, she went back to Tac oban +it-, ac%&ired her residence certificate / and resided with her brother in =an Jose. =he resided in =an Jose, Tac oban +it&nti 8&g&st of "$$4 when she was a owed b- the ;+GG to move and reside in her se%&estered residentia ho&se in 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te 28nne6 I, p. (5. ! It was in the same month of 8&g&st when she app ied for the cance ation of her previo&s registration in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a in order to register anew as voter of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, which she did on Jan&ar- /:, "$$). .rom this se%&ence of events, I find it %&ite improper to &se as the reckoning period of the one*-ear residence re%&irement the date when she app ied for the cance ation of her previo&s registration
Page | 1902

in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. The fact which private respondent never bothered to disprove is that petitioner transferred her residence after the "$$/ presidentia e ection from =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a to =an Jose, Tac oban +it-, and resided therein &nti 8&g&st of "$$4. =he ater transferred to 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te 28nne6 I, p. #5. It appearing that both Tac oban +it- and To osa, Ae-te are within the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te, it ind&bitab - stands that she had more than a -ear of residence in the constit&enc- she so&ght to be e ected. ;etitioner, therefore, has satisfactori comp ied with the one*-ear %&a ification re%&ired b- the "$:# +onstit&tion. I vote to grant the petition.
Page | 1903

R1,ER1, J., separate opinion< ;etitioner has appea ed to this +o&rt for re ief after the +1,EAE+ r& ed that she was dis%&a ified from r&nning for Representative of her Eistrict and that, in the event that she sho& d, neverthe ess, m&ster a majorit- vote, her proc amation sho& d be s&spended. 3ot b- a straightforward r& ing did the +1,EAE+ prono&nce its decision as has been its &nvar-ing practice in the past, b&t b- a start ing s&ccession of Dreverse somersa& ts.D Indicative of its shifting stance vi$-a-vi$ petitioner9s certificate of candidac- were first, the action of its =econd Eivision dis%&a if-ing her and cance ing her origina +ertificate of +andidac- b- a vote of /*" on 8pri /4, "$$)> then the
Page | 1904

denia b- the +1,EAE+ en /anc of her ,otion for Reconsideration on ,a- #, "$$), a da- before the e ection> then beca&se she persisted in r&nning, its decision on ,a- "", "$$) or three da-s after the e ection, a owing her proc amation in the event that the res& ts of the canvass sho& d show that she obtained the highest n&mber of votes 2obvio&s noting that petitioner had won overwhe ming - over her opponent5, b&t a most sim& taneo&s - reversing itse f bdirecting that even if she wins, her proc amation sho& d nonethe ess be s&spended. +r&cia to the reso &tion of the dis%&a ification iss&e presented b- the case at bench is the interpretation to be
Page | 1905

given to the one*-ear residencre%&irement imposed b- the +onstit&tion on aspirants for a +ongressiona seat. " Hearing in mind that the term DresidentD has been he d to be s-non-mo&s with Ddomici eD for e ection p&rposes, it is important to determine whether petitioner9s domici e was in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te and if so, whether she had resided there for at east a period of one -ear. Undisp&ted is her domici e of origin, Tac oban, where her parents ived at the time of her birth. Eepending on what theor- one adopts, the same ma- have been changed when she married .erdinand E. ,arcos, then domici ed in Hatac, b- operation of aw. 8ss&ming it did, his death certain re eased her from the ob igation to ive
Page | 1906

with him at the residence fi6ed b- him d&ring his ifetime. 0hat ma- conf&se the a-man at this point is the fact that the term Ddomici eD ma- refer to Ddomici e of origin,D Ddomici e of choice,D or Ddomici e b- operation of aw,D which s&bject we sha not be abor since it has been amp disc&ssed btheponente and in the other separate opinions. In an- case, what ass&mes re evance is the divergence of ega opinion as to the effect of the h&sband9s death on the domici e of the widow. =ome scho ars opine that the widow9s domici e remains &nchanged> that the deceased h&sband9s wishes perforce sti bind the wife he has eft behind. Given this interpretation, the widow cannot
Page | 1907

possib - go far eno&gh to sever the domici iar- tie imposed b- her h&sband. It is bad eno&gh to interpret the aw as empowering the h&sband &ni atera - to fi6 the residence or domici e of the fami -, as aid down in the +ivi +ode, / b&t to contin&e giving obeisance to his wishes even after the rationa e &nder -ing the m&t&a d&t- of the spo&ses to ive together has ceased, is to c ose one9s e-es to the stark rea ities of the present. 8t the other e6treme is the position that the widow a&tomatica - reverts to her domici e of origin &pon the demise of her h&sband. Eoes the aw so abhor a vac&&m that the widow has to be endowed somehow with a domici eK To answer this %&estion which is far from
Page | 1908

rhetorica , one wi have to keep in mind the basic princip es of domici e. Ever-one m&st have a domici e. Then one m&st have on - a sing e domici e for the same p&rpose at an- given time. 1nce estab ished, a domici e remains &nti a new one is ac%&ired, for no person ives who has no domici e, as defined b- the aw be is s&bject to. 8t this j&nct&re, we are confronted with an &ne6p ored ega terrain in this j&risdiction, rendered more m&rk- b- the conf icting opinions of foreign ega a&thorities. This being the state of things, it is imperative as it is opport&ne to i &mine the darkness with the beacon ight of tr&th, as dictated b- e6perience and the necessit- of according petitioner her right to choose her domici e in
Page | 1909

keeping with the en ightened g oba trend to recogni7e and protect the h&man rights of women, no ess than men. 8dmitted -, the notion of p acing women at par with men, insofar as civi , po itica and socia rights are concerned, is a re ative - recent phenomenon that took seed on - in the midd e of this cent&r-. It is a historica fact that for over three cent&ries, the ;hi ippines had been co oni7ed b- =pain, a conservative, +atho ic co&ntr- which transp anted to o&r shores the 1 d 0or d c& t&res, mores and attit&des and va &es. Thro&gh the imposition on o&r government of the =panish +ivi +ode in "::$, the peop e, both men and women, had no choice b&t to accept s&ch
Page | 1910

concepts as the h&sband9s being the head of the fami - and the wife9s s&bordination to his a&thorit-. In s&ch ro e, his was the right to make vita decisions for the fami -. ,an- instances come to mind, foremost being what is re ated to the iss&e before &s, name -, that Dthe h&sband sha fi6 the residence of the fami -.D ! Heca&se he is made responsib e for the s&pport of the wife and the rest of the fami -, 4 he is a so empowered to be the administrator of the conj&ga propert-, with a few e6ceptions ) and ma-, therefore, dispose of the conj&ga partnership propert- for the p&rposes specified &nder the aw> ( whereas, as a genera r& e, the wife cannot bind the conj&ga partnership witho&t the h&sband9s consent. # 8s regards the propertPage | 1911

pertaining to the chi dren &nder parenta a&thorit-, the father is the ega administrator and on - in his absence mathe mother ass&me his powers. : Eemeaning to the wife9s dignit- are certain strict&res on her persona freedoms, practica - re egating her to the position of minors and disab ed persons. To i &strate a few< The wife cannot, witho&t the h&sband9s consent, ac%&ire an- grat&ito&s tit e, e6cept from her ascendants, descendants, parents*in* aw, and co atera re atives within the fo&rth degree. $ 0ith respect to her emp o-ment, the h&sband wie ds a veto power in the case the wife e6ercises her profession or occ&pation or engages in b&siness, provided his income is s&fficient for the fami -, according to its
Page | 1912

socia standing and his opposition is fo&nded on serio&s and va id gro&nds. "' ,ost offensive, if not rep& sive, to the ibera *minded is the effective prohibition &pon a widow to get married ti after three h&ndred da-s fo owing the death of her h&sband, &n ess in the meantime, she has given birth to a chi d. "" The mother who contracts a s&bse%&ent marriage oses the parenta a&thorit- over her chi dren, &n ess the deceased h&sband, father of the atter, has e6press - provided in his wi that his widow might marr- again, and has ordered that in s&ch case she sho& d keep and e6ercise parenta a&thorit- over their chi dren. "/ 8gain, an instance of a h&sband9s overarching inf &ence from be-ond the grave.
Page | 1913

8 these indignities and disabi ities s&ffered b- .i ipino wives for h&ndreds of -ears evoked no protest from them &nti the concept of h&man rights and e%&a it- between and among nations and individ&a s fo&nd hospitab e odgment in the United 3ations +harter of which the ;hi ippines was one of the origina signatories. H- then, the =panish Dcon%&istadoresD had been overthrown b- the 8merican forces at the t&rn of the cent&r-. The bedrock of the U.3. +harter was firm - anchored on this credo< Dto reaffirm faith in the f&ndamenta h&man rights, in the dignitand worth of the h&man person, in t1e e4ual ri"1t$ of #en and 0o#en.D 2Emphasis s&pp ied5
Page | 1914

It took over thirt- -ears before these ega itarian doctrines bore fr&it, owing arge - to the b&rgeoning of the feminist movement. 0hat ma- be regarded as the internationa bi of rights for women was imp anted in the +onvention on the E imination of 8 .orms of Eiscrimination 8gainst 0omen 2+EE805 adopted b- the U.3. Genera 8ssemb - which entered into force as an internationa treat- on =eptember !, "$:". In ratif-ing the instr&ment, the ;hi ippines bo&nd itse f to imp ement its iberating spirit and etter, for its +onstit&tion, no ess, dec ared that DThe ;hi ippines. . . adopts the genera - accepted princip es of internationa aw as part of the aw of the and and adheres to the po ic- of
Page | 1915

peace, e%&a it-, j&stice, freedom, cooperation, and amit- with a nations.D "! 1ne s&ch princip e embodied in the +EE80 is granting to men and women Dthe same rights with regard to the aw re ating to the movement of persons and the freedo# to c1oo$e t1eir re$idence and do#icile.D"4 2Emphasis s&pp ied5. +EE809s pro*women orientation which was not ost on .i ipino women was ref ected in the "$:# +onstit&tion of the ;hi ippines and ater, in the .ami +ode, ") both of which were speedi approved b- the first ad- ;resident of the co&ntr-, +ora7on +. 8%&ino. 3otab e for its emphasis on the h&man rights of a individ&a s and its bias for e%&a itPage | 1916

between the se6es are the fo owing provisions< DThe =tate va &es the dignitof ever- h&man person and g&arantees f& respect for h&man rightsD "( and DThe =tate recogni7es the ro e of women in nation*b&i ding, and sha ens&re the f&ndamenta e%&a it- before the aw of women and men.D "# 8 major accomp ishment of women in their %&est for e%&a it- with men and the e imination of discriminator- provisions of aw was the de etion in the .ami +ode of a most a of the &nreasonab e strict&res on wives and the grant to them of persona rights e%&a to that of their h&sbands. =pecifica -, the h&sband and wife are now givent1e ri"1t jointl! to fi' t1e fa#il! do#icile> ": concomitant to the spo&ses9
Page | 1917

being joint - responsib e for the s&pport of the fami - is the right and d&t- of both spo&ses to manage the ho&seho d> "$ the administration and the enjo-ment of the comm&nit- propertsha be ong to both spo&ses joint -> /' the father and mother sha now joint - e6ercise ega g&ardianship over the propert- of their &nemancipated common chi d /" and severa others. 8ware of the hiat&s and contin&ing gaps in the aw, insofar as women9s rights are concerned, +ongress passed a aw pop& ar - known as D0omen in Eeve opment and 3ation H&i ding 8ctD // 8mong the rights given to married women evidencing their capacit- to act in contracts e%&a to that of men are<
Page | 1918

2"5 0omen sha have the capacit- to borrow and obtain oans and e6ec&te sec&rit- and credit arrangements &nder the same conditions as men> 2/5 0omen sha have e%&a access to a government and private sector programs granting agric& t&ra credit, oans and non materia reso&rces and sha enjo- e%&a treatment in agrarian reform and and resett ement programs> 2!5 0omen sha have e%&a rights to act as incorporators and enter into ins&rance contracts> and 245 ,arried women sha have rights e%&a to those of married men in app -ing for passports, sec&re visas and other trave doc&ments, witho&t need to sec&re the consent of their spo&ses.
Page | 1919

8s the wor d draws the c&rtain on the .o&rth 0or d +onference of 0omen in Heijing, et this +o&rt now be the first to respond to its c arion ca that D0omen9s Rights are I&man RightsD and that D8 obstac es to women9s f& participation in decision*making at a eve s, inc &ding the fami -D sho& d be removed. Iaving been herse f a ,ember of the ;hi ippine Ee egation to the Internationa 0omen9s Cear +onference in ,e6ico in "$#), this writer is on - too keen - aware of the &nremitting str&gg e being waged bwomen the wor d over, .i ipino women not e6c &ded, to be accepted as e%&a s of men and to tear down the wa s of discrimination that ho d them back from their proper p aces &nder the s&n.
Page | 1920

In ight of the ine6orab e sweep of events, oca and g oba , egis ative, e6ec&tive and j&dicia , according more rights to women hitherto denied them and e iminating whatever pockets of discrimination sti e6ist in their civi , po itica and socia ife, can it sti be insisted that widows are not at ibert- to choose their domici e &pon the death of their h&sbands b&t m&st retain the same, regard essK I s&bmit that a widow, ike the petitioner and others simi ar - sit&ated, can no onger be bo&nd b- the domici e of the departed h&sband, if at a she was before. 3either does she a&tomatica revert to her domici e of origin, b&t e6ercising free wi , she ma- opt to reestab ish her domici e of origin. In
Page | 1921

ret&rning to Tac oban and s&bse%&ent -, to Haranga- 1 ot, To osa, both of which are ocated in the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te, petitioner amp - demonstrated b- overt acts, her e ection of a domici e of choice, in this case, a reversion to her domici e of origin. 8dded together, the time when she set &p her domici e in the two p aces s&fficed to meet the one*-ear re%&irement to r&n as Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te. In view of the foregoing e6patiation, I vote to GR83T the petition. FITUG, J., separate opinion< The case at bench dea s with e6p icit +onstit&tiona mandates. The +onstit&tion is not a p iab e instr&ment. It is a bedrock in o&r ega
Page | 1922

s-stem that sets &p idea s and directions and render stead- o&r strides hence. It on - ooks back so as to ens&re that mistakes in the past are not repeated. 8 comp iant transience of a constit&tion be itt es its basic f&nction and weakens its goa s. 8 constit&tion ma- we become o&tdated b- the rea ities of time. 0hen it does, it m&st be changed b&t whi e it remains, we owe it respect and a egiance. 8narch-, open or s&bt e, has never been, nor m&st it ever be, the answer to perceived transitor- needs, et a one societa attit&des, or the +onstit&tion might ose its ver- essence. +onstit&tiona provisions m&st be taken to be mandator- in character &n ess, either b- e6press statement or bPage | 1923

necessar- imp ication, a different intention is manifest 2see ,arce ino vs. +r&7, "/" =+R8 )"5. The two provisions initia - bro&ght to foc&s are =ection ( and =ection "# of 8rtic e FI of the f&ndamenta aw. These provisions read< =ec. (. 3o person sha be a ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives &n ess he is a nat&ra *born citi7en of the ;hi ippines and, on the da- of the e ection, is at east twent-*five -ears of age, ab e to read and write, and, e6cept the part-* ist representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he sha be e ected, and a resident thereof for a period of not ess than one -ear
Page | 1924

immediate - preceding the da- of the e ection. =ec. "#. The =enate and the Io&se of Representatives sha each have an E ectora Trib&na which sha be the so e j&dge of a contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns, and %&a ifications of their respective ,embers. Each E ectora Trib&na sha be composed of nine ,embers, three of whom sha be J&stices of the =&preme +o&rt to be designated b- the +hief J&stice, and the remaining si6 sha be ,embers of the =enate or the Io&se of Representatives, as the case mabe, who sha be chosen on the basis of proportiona
Page | 1925

representation from the po itica parties and the parties or organi7ations registered &nder the part-* ist s-stem represented therein. The senior J&stice in the E ectora Trib&na sha be its +hairman. The +ommission on E ection 2the D+1,EAE+D5 is constit&tiona - bo&nd to enforce and administer Da aws and reg& ations re ative to the cond&ct of e ection . . .D 28rt. IN, +, =ec. /, +onstit&tion5 that, there being nothing said to the contrar-, sho& d inc &de its a&thorit- to pass &pon the %&a ification and dis%&a ification prescribed b- aw ofcandidate$ to an e ective office. Indeed, pre*proc amation controversies are e6press - p aced &nder the
Page | 1926

+1,EAE+9s j&risdiction to hear and reso ve 28rt. IN, +, =ec. !, +onstit&tion5. The matter before &s specifica - ca s for the observance of the constit&tiona one*-ear residenc- re%&irement. The iss&e 2whether or not there is here s&ch comp iance5, to m- mind, is basica - a %&estion of fact or at east ine6tricab inked to s&ch determination. The findings and j&dgment of the +1,EAE+, in accordance with the ong estab ished r& e and s&bject on - to a n&mber of e6ceptions &nder the basic heading of Dgrave ab&se of discretion,D are not reviewab e b- this +o&rt. I do not find m&ch need to do a comp e6 e6ercise on what seems to me to be a p ain matter. Genera -, the term DresidenceD has a broader connotation
Page | 1927

that mamean per#anent 2domici e5, official 2p a ce where one9s officia d&ties mare%&ire him to sta-5 or te#porar! 2the p ace where he sojo&rns d&ring a considerab e ength of time5. .or civi aw p&rposes, i.e., as regards the e6ercise of civi rights and the f& fi ment of civi ob igations, the domici e of a nat&ra person is the p ace of his 1a/itual residence 2see 8rtic e )', +ivi +ode5. In e ection cases, the contro ing r& e is that heretofore anno&nced b- this +o&rt in %o#ualde5 v$. %e"ional Trial )ourt, Hranch #, Tac oban +it- 2//( =+R8 4':, 4'$5> th&s< In e ection cases, the +o&rt treats domici e and residence as
Page | 1928

s-non-mo&s terms, th&s< D2t5he term DresidenceD as &sed in the e ection aw is s-non-mo&s with Ddomici e,D which imports not on an intention to reside in a fi6ed p ace b&t a so persona presence in that p ace, co&p ed with cond&ct indicative of s&ch intention.D DEomici eD denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which when absent for b&siness or p eas&re, or for ike reasons, one intends to ret&rn. . . . . Residence th&s ac%&ired, however, ma- be ost b- adopting another choice of domici e. In order, in t&rn, to ac%&ire a new domici e b- choice, there m&st conc&r 2"5 residence or bodi - presence in the new oca it-, 2/5 an intention to remain there,
Page | 1929

and 2!5 an intention to abandon the o d domici e. In other words, there m&st basica be ani#u$ #anendi co&p ed with ani#u$ non revertendi. The p&rpose to remain in or at the domici e of choice m&st be for an indefinite period of time> the change of residence m&st be vo &ntar-> and the residence at the p ace chosen for the new domici e m&st be act&a . Using the above tests, I am not convinced that we can charge the +1,EAE+ with having committed grave ab&se of discretion in its assai ed reso &tion. The +1,EAE+9s j&risdiction, in the case of congressiona e ections, ends when the j&risdiction of the E ectora
Page | 1930

Trib&na concerned begins. It signifies that the protestee m&st have theretofore been d& - proc aimed and has since become a DmemberD of the =enate or the Io&se of Representatives. The %&estion can be asked on whether or not the proc amation of a candidate is j&st a ministeria f&nction of the +ommission on E ections dictated so e on the n&mber of votes cast in an e ection e6ercise. I be ieve, it is not. 8 ministeria d&t- is an ob igation the performance of which, being ade%&ate defined, does not a ow the &se of f&rther j&dgment or discretion. The +1,EAE+, in its partic& ar case, is tasked with the f& responsibi it- of ascertaining a the facts and conditions s&ch as ma- be re%&ired b- aw before a proc amation is proper - done.
Page | 1931

The +o&rt, on its part, sho& d, in mview at east, refrain from an- &nd&e encroachment on the & timate e6ercise of a&thorit- b- the E ectora Trib&na s on matters which, b- no ess than a constit&tiona fiat, are e6p icit - within their e6c &sive domain. The nagging %&estion, if it were otherwise, wo& d be the effect of the +o&rt9s peremptorprono&ncement on the abi it- of the E ectora Trib&na to ater come &p with its own j&dgment in a contest Dre ating to the e ection, ret&rns and %&a ificationD of its members. ;rescinding from a the foregoing, I sho& d ike to ne6t to&ch base on the app icabi it- to this case of =ection ( of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. ((4(, in re ation to
Page | 1932

=ection #/ of (ata$ 2a#/an$a (l". ::", each providing th&s -< RE;UHAI+ 8+T 31. ((4( 666 666 666 =ec. (. ;ffect of 9i$4ualification )a$e. G 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. If for an- reason a candidate is not dec ared b- fina j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified and he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and, &pon motion
Page | 1933

of the comp ainant or anintervenor, mad&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate whenever the evidence of his g&i t is strong. H8T8= ;8,H83=8 HAG. ::" 666 666 666 =ec. #/. ;ffect$ of di$4ualification ca$e$ and priorit!. 6 The +ommission and the co&rts sha give prioritto cases of dis%&a ification b- reason of vio ation of this 8ct to the end that a fina decision sha be rendered not ater than seven da-s before the e ection in which the dis%&a ification is so&ght.
Page | 1934

8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. 3everthe ess, if for an- reason, a candidate is not dec ared b- fina , j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified, and he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, his vio ation of the provisions of the preceding sections sha not prevent his proc amation and ass&mption to office. I rea i7e that in considering the significance of the aw, it ma- be preferab e to ook for not so m&ch the specific instances the- ostensib - wo& d
Page | 1935

cover as the princip e the- c ear conve-. Th&s, I wi not scoff at the arg&ment that it sho& d be so&nd to sathat votes cast in favor of the dis%&a ified candidate, whenever & timate - dec ared as s&ch, sho& d not be co&nted in his or her favor and m&st according - be considered to be stravotes. The arg&ment, neverthe ess, is far o&tweighed b- the rationa e of the now prevai ing doctrine first en&nciated in the case of Topacio v$. 2arede$ 2/! ;hi . /!: L"$"/M5 which, a tho&gh ater abandoned in Tic5on v$. )o#elec 2"'! =+R8 (:# L"$:"M5, and anto$ v$. )OM;L;) 2"!# =+R8 #4' L"$:)M5, was restored, a ong with the interim case of Geroni#o v$. %a#o$ 2"!( =+R8 4!) L"$:)M5, b- the La/o 2"#( =+R8 " 2"$:$M5, A/ella 2/'" =+R8 /)!
Page | 1936

L"$$"M5, La/o 2/"" =+R8 /$# L"$$/M5 and, most recent -, (enito 2/!) =+R8 4!( L"$$4M5 r& ings. (enito v$.)o#elec was a &nanimo&s decision penned b- J&stice ?ap&nan and conc&rred in b- +hief J&stice 3arvasa, J&stices .e iciano, ;adi a, Hidin, Rega ado, Eavide, Romero, ,e o, O&iason, ;&no, Fit&g and ,endo7a 2J&stices +r&7 and He osi o were on officia eave5. .or eas- reference, et me %&ote from the first La/o decision< .ina -, there is the %&estion of whether or not the private respondent, who fi ed the 4uo 0arrantopetition, can rep ace the petitioner as ma-or. Ie cannot. The simp e reason is that as he obtained on - the second highest
Page | 1937

n&mber of votes in the e ection, he was obvio&s - not the choice of the peop e of Hag&io +it-. The atest r& ing of the +o&rt on this iss&e is =antos v. +ommission on E ections, 2"!# =+R8 #4'5 decided in "$:). In that case, the candidate who p aced second was proc aimed e ected after the votes for his winning riva , who was dis%&a ified as a t&rncoat and considered a non*candidate, were a disregard as stra-. In effect, the second p acer won b- defa& t. That decision was s&pported b- eight members of the +o&rt then, 2+&evas, J., ponente, with ,akasiar, +oncepcion, Jr., Esco in, Re ova, Ee a .&ente,
Page | 1938

8 ampaand 8%&ino, JJ., conc&rring.5 with three dissenting 2Teehankee, 8cting ).J., 8bad =antos and ,e encio*Ierrera, JJ.5 and another two reserving their vote. 2; ana and G&tierre7, Jr., JJ.5 1ne was on officia eave. 2.ernando, ).J.5 Re*e6amining that decision, the +o&rt finds, and so ho ds, that it sho& d be reversed in favor of the ear ier case of Geroni#o v. %a#o$, 2"!( =+R8 4!)5 which represents the more ogica and democratic r& e. That case, which reiterated the doctrine first anno&nced in "$"/ in Topacio v.2arede$, 2/! ;hi . /!:5 was s&pported b- ten members of the
Page | 1939

+o&rt, 2G&tierre7, Jr., ponente, with Teehankee, 8bad =antos, ,e encio*Ierrera, ; ana, Esco in, Re ova, Ee a .&ente, +&evas and 8 ampa-, JJ., conc&rring5 witho&t an- dissent, a tho&gh one reserved his vote, 2,akasiar, J.5 another took no part, 28%&ino, J.5 and two others were on eave. 2.ernando, ).J. and +oncepcion, Jr., J.5 There the +o&rt he d< . . . it wo& d be e6treme rep&gnant to the basic concept of the constit&tiona g&aranteed right to s&ffrage if a candidate who has not ac%&ired the majorit- or p &ra itof votes is proc aimed a winner and
Page | 1940

imposed as the representative of a constit&enc-, the majorit- of which have positive dec ared thro&gh their ba ots that the- do not choose him. =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed b- those who have received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is a f&ndamenta idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majoritor
Page | 1941

p &ra it- of the ega votes cast in the e ection. 2/' +orp&s J&ris /nd, = /4!, p. (#(.5 The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest n&mber of votes is ater dec ared to be dis%&a ified or not e igib e for the office to which he was e ected does not necessari - entit e the candidate who obtained the second highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared the winner of the e ective office. The votes cast for a dead, dis%&a ified, or non*e igib e person ma- not be va id to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. Iowever, in the absence of a stat&te which c ear - asserts a
Page | 1942

contrar- po itica and egis ative po ic- on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere be ief that the candidate was a ive, %&a ified, or e igib e, the- sho& d not be treated as stra-, void or meaning ess. 2at pp. /'*/"5 +onsidering a the foregoing, I am constrained to vote for the dismissa of the petition. ,E3E1Z8, J., separate opinion< In m- view the iss&e in this case is whether the +ommission on E ections has the power to dis%&a if- candidates on the gro&nd that the- ack e igibi it- for the office to which the- seek to be e ected. I think that it has none and that the %&a ifications of candidates ma- be
Page | 1943

%&estioned on - in the event the- are e ected, b- fi ing a petition for 4uo 0arranto or an e ection protest in the appropriate for&m, not necessari - in the +1,EAE+ b&t, as in this case, in the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na . That the parties in this case took part in the proceedings in the +1,EAE+ is of no moment. =&ch proceedings were &na&thori7ed and were not rendered va id b- their agreement to s&bmit their disp&te to that bod-. The vario&s e ection aws wi be searched in vain for a&thori7ed proceedings for determining a candidate9s %&a ifications for an office before his e ection. There are none in the 1mnib&s E ection +ode 2H.;. H g.
Page | 1944

::"5, in the E ectora Reforms Aaw of "$:# 2R.8. 3o. ((4(5, or in the aw providing for s-nchroni7ed e ections 2R.8. 3o. #"((5. There are, in other words, no provisions for pre* proc amation contests b&t on - e ection protests or 4uo 0arrantoproceedings against winning candidates. To be s&re, there are provisions denominated for Ddis%&a ification,D b&t the- are not concerned with a dec aration of the ine igibi it- of a candidate. These provisions are concerned with the incapacit- 2d&e to insanit-, incompetence or conviction of an offense5 of a person either to /e a candidate or to continue a$ a candidate for p&b ic office. There is a so a provision for the denia or cance ation
Page | 1945

of certificates of candidac-, b&t it app ies on to cases invo ving fa se representations as to certain matters re%&ired b- aw to be stated in the certificates. These provisions are fo&nd in the fo owing parts of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode< Z "/. 9i$4ualification$. G 8nperson who has been dec ared bcompetent a&thorit- insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced b- fina j&dgment for s&bversion, ins&rrection, rebe ion or for an- offense for which he has been sentenced to a pena t- of more than eighteen months or for a crime invo ving mora t&rpit&de, sha be dis%&a ified to /e a
Page | 1946

candidate and to ho d an- office, &n ess he has been given p enarpardon or granted amnest-. The dis%&a ifications to be a candidate herein provided sha be deemed removed &pon the dec aration b- competent a&thoritthat said insanit- or incompetence had been removed or after the e6piration of a period of five -ears from his service of sentence, &n ess within the same period he again becomes dis%&a ified. 2Emphasis added5 Z (:. 9i$4ualification$. G 8ncandidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a part- is dec ared b- fina decision of a competent co&rt g&i t- of, or fo&nd
Page | 1947

b- the +ommission of having 2a5 given mone- or other materia consideration to inf &ence, ind&ce or corr&pt the voters or p&b ic officia s performing e ectora f&nctions> 2b5 committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidac-> 2c5 spent in his e ection campaign an amo&nt in e6cess of that a owed b- this +ode> 2d5 so icited, received or made ancontrib&tion prohibited &nder =ections :$, $), $(, $# and "'4> or 2e5 vio ated an- of =ections :', :!, :), :( and /(", paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, s&b*paragraph (, sha be dis%&a ified fro# continuin" a$ a candidate, or if he has been e ected, from ho ding the office. 8n- person who is a permanent
Page | 1948

resident of or an immigrant to a foreign co&ntr- sha not be %&a ified to r&n for an- e ective office &nder this +ode, &n ess said person has waived his stat&s as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign co&ntr- in accordance with the residence re%&irement provided for in the e ection aws. 2Emphasis added5 Z #:. 2etition to den! due cour$e to or cancel a certificate of candidac!. G 8 verified petition seeking to den- d&e co&rse or to cance a certificate of candidacmabe fi ed banperson e'clu$ivel! on t1e "round t1at an! #aterial repre$entation contained t1erein a$ re4uired
Page | 1949

under ection +* 1ereof i$ fal$e. The petition ma- be fi ed at an- time not ater than twent-*five da-s from the time of the fi ing of the certificate of candidac- and sha be decided, after d&e notice and hearing, not ater than fifteen da-s before the e ection. 2Emphasis added5 the E ectora Reforms Aaw of "$:# 2R.8. 3o. ((4(5< Z (. ;ffect of 9i$4ualification )a$e. G 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified $1all not /e voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. 3f for an! rea$on a candidate i$ not declared /! final jud"#ent /efore an election to /e
Page | 1950

di$4ualified and 1e i$ voted for and receive$ t1e 0innin" nu#/er of vote$ in $uc1 election, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and> &pon motion for the comp ainant or anintervenor, mad&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate 01enever t1e evidence of 1i$ "uilt i$ $tron". 2Emphasis added5. Z #. 2etition to 9en! 9ue )our$e to or )ancel a )ertificate of )andidac!. G The proced&re hereinabove provided sha app to petitions to den- d&e co&rse to or cance a certificate of candidacPage | 1951

as provided in =ection #: of Hatas ;ambansa H g. ::". and the Aoca Government +ode of "$$" 2R.8. 3o. #"('5< Z 4'. 9i$4ualification$. G The fo owing persons are dis%&a ified from r&nning for an- e ective oca position< 2a5 Those sentenced b- fina j&dgment for an offense invo ving mora t&rpit&de or for an offense p&nishab e b- one 2"5 -ear or more of imprisonment, within two 2/5 -ears after serving sentence> 2b5 Those removed from office as a res& t of on administrative case>

Page | 1952

2c5 Those convicted b- fina j&dgment for vio ating the oath of a egiance to the Rep&b ic> 2d5 Those with d&a citi7enship> 2e5 .&gitive from j&stice in crimina or nonpo itica cases here or abroad> 2f5 ;ermanent residents in a foreign co&ntr- or those who have ac%&ired the right to reside abroad and contin&e to avai of the same right after the effectivit- of this +ode> and 2g5 The insane or feeb e*minded. The petition fi ed b- private respondent +iri o Ro- ,ontejo in the +1,EAE+, whi e entit ed D.or +ance ation and Eis%&a ification,D contained no a egation
Page | 1953

that private respondent Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos made materia representations in her certificate of candidac- which were fa se, it so&ght her dis%&a ification on the gro&nd that Don the basis of her Foter Registration Record and +ertificate of +andidac-, LsheM is dis%&a ified from r&nning for the position of Representative, considering that on e ection da-, ,a- :, "$$), LsheM wo& d have resided ess than ten 2"'5 months in the district where she is seeking to be e ected.D .or its part, the +1,EAE+9s =econd Eivision, in its reso &tion of 8pri /4, "$$), cance ed her certificate of candidac- and corrected certificate of candidac- on the basis of its finding that petitioner is Dnot %&a ified to r&n for the position of ,ember of the Io&se of
Page | 1954

Representatives for the .irst Aegis ative Eistrict of Ae-teD and not beca&se of anfinding that she had made fa se representations as to materia matters in her certificate of candidac-. ,ontejo9s petition before the +1,EAE+ was therefore not a petition for cance ation of certificate of candidac&nder Z #: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, b&t essentia - a petition to dec are private respondent ine igib e. It is important to note this, beca&se, as wi present - be e6p ained, proceedings &nder Z #: have for their p&rpose to dis%&a if- a person from being a candidate, whereas 4uo 0arranto proceedings have for their p&rpose to dis%&a if- a person from ho ding pu/lic office. J&risdiction
Page | 1955

over 4uo 0arranto proceedings invo ving members of the Io&se of Representatives is vested in the E ectora Trib&na of that bod-. Indeed, in the on - cases in which this +o&rt dea t with petitions for the cance ation of certificates of candidac-, the a egations were that the respondent candidates had made fal$e repre$entation$ in their certificates of candidacwith regard to their citi5en$1ip, " a"e, / or re$idence. ! H &t in the genera it- of cases in which this +o&rt passed &pon the %&a ifications of respondents for office, this +o&rt did so in the conte6t of e ection protests 4 or 4uo 0arranto proceedings )fi ed after t1e
Page | 1956

procla#ation of t1e re$pondent$ or prote$tee$ a$ 0inner$. Three reasons ma- be cited to e6p ain the absence of an a&thori7ed proceeding for determining /efore electionthe %&a ifications of a candidate. .irst is the fact that &n ess a candidate wins and is proc aimed e ected, there is no necessit- for determining his e igibi it- for the office. In contrast, whether an individ&a sho& d be dis%&a ified as a candidate for acts constit&ting e ection offenses 2e.g., vote b&-ing, over spending, commission of prohibited acts5 is a prej&dicia %&estion which sho& d be determined est he wins beca&se of the ver- acts for which his dis%&a ification is being so&ght. That is wh- it is provided that if the gro&nds for
Page | 1957

dis%&a ification are estab ished, a candidate wi not be voted for> if he has been voted for, the votes in his favor wi not be co&nted> and if for some reason he has been voted for and he has won, either he wi not be proc aimed or his proc amation wi be set aside. ( =econd is the fact that the determination of a candidate9s e igibi it-, e.g., his citi7enship or, as in this case, his domici e, ma- take a ong time to make, e6tending be-ond the beginning of the term of the office. This is amp demonstrated in the companion case 2G.R. 3o. "/'/(), 8gapito 8. 8%&ino v. +1,EAE+5 where the determination of 8%&ino9s residence was sti pending in the +1,EAE+ even after the e ections of ,a- :, "$$). This is contrar- to the
Page | 1958

s&mmar- character of proceedings re ating to certificates of candidac-. That is wh- the aw makes the receipt of certificates of candidac- a ministeria d&t- of the +1,EAE+ and its officers. # The aw is satisfied if candidates state in their certificates of candidac- that the- are e igib e for the position which the- seek to fi , eaving the determination of their %&a ifications to be made after the e ection and on - in the event the- are e ected. 1n - in cases invo ving charges of fa se representations made in certificates of candidac- is the +1,EAE+ given j&risdiction. Third is the po ic- &nder -ing the prohibition against pre*proc amation cases in e ections for ;resident, Fice
Page | 1959

;resident, =enators and members of the Io&se of Representatives. 2R.8. 3o. #"((, Z ")5 The p&rpose is to preserve the prerogatives of the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na and the other Trib&na s as Dso e j&dgesD &nder the +onstit&tion of the election, return$ and 4ualification$ of members of +ongress or of the ;resident and Fice ;resident, as the case ma- be. H- providing in Z /)! for the remedof 4uo 0arranto for determining an e ected officia 9s %&a ifications after the res& ts of e ections are proc aimed, whi e being conspic&o&s - si ent abo&t a pre*proc amation remed- based on the same gro&nd, the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, or 1E+, b- its si ence
Page | 1960

&nderscores the po ic- of not a&thori7ing an- in%&ir- into the %&a ifications of candidates &n ess the- have been e ected. 8pparent - rea i7ing the ack of an a&thori7ed proceeding for dec aring the ine igibi it- of candidates, the +1,EAE+ amended its r& es on .ebr&ar- "), "$$! so as to provide in R& e /), Z " the fo owing< Ground$ for di$4ualification. G 8n- candidate who does not possess a the %&a ifications of a candidate as provided for b- the +onstit&tion or b- e6isting aw or who commits an- act dec ared baw to be gro&nds for dis%&a ification ma- be dis%&a ified from contin&ing as a candidate.
Page | 1961

The ack of provision for dec aring the ine igibi it- of candidates, however, cannot be s&pp ied b- a mere r& e. =&ch an act is e%&iva ent to the creation of a ca&se of action which is a s&bstantive matter which the +1,EAE+, in the e6ercise of its r& emaking power &nder 8rt. IN, 8, Z ( of the +onstit&tion, cannot do. It is noteworth- that the +onstit&tion withho ds from the +1,EAE+ even the power to decide cases invo ving the right to vote, which essentia - invo ves an in%&irinto 4ualification$ based on a"e, re$idence and citi5en$1ip of voters. 28rt. IN, +, Z /2!55 The assimi ation in R& e /) of the +1,EAE+ r& es of gro&nds for ine igibi itinto gro&nds for dis%&a ification is contrar- to the evident
Page | 1962

intention of the aw. .or not on - in their gro&nds b&t a so in their conse%&ences are proceedings for Ddis%&a ificationD different from those for a dec aration of Dine igibi it-.D DEis%&a ificationD proceedings, as a read- stated, are based on gro&nds specified in ZZ "/ and (: of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode and in Z 4' of the Aoca Government +ode and are for the p&rpose of barring an individ&a from /eco#in" a candidate or fro# continuin" a$ a candidate for p&b ic office. In a word, their p&rpose is to eli#inate a candidate fro# t1e race either from the start or d&ring its progress. DIne igibi it-,D on the other hand, refers to the ack of the %&a ifications prescribed in the +onstit&tion or the stat&tes for ho ding pu/lic office and the p&rpose of
Page | 1963

the proceedings for dec aration of ine igibi it- is to re#ove t1e incu#/ent fro# office. +onse%&ent -, that an individ&a possesses the %&a ifications for a p&b ic office does not imp - that he is not dis%&a ified from becoming a candidate or contin&ing as a candidate for a p&b ic office and vice versa. 0e have this sort of dichotom- in o&r 3at&ra i7ation Aaw. 2+.8. 3o. 4#!5 That an a ien has the %&a ifications prescribed in Z / of the aw does not imp - that he does not s&ffer from an- of dis%&a ifications provided in Z 4. Indeed, provisions for dis%&a ifications on the gro&nd that the candidate is g&i t- of prohibited e ection practices or offenses, ike other pre*proc amation
Page | 1964

remedies, are aimed at the detestab e practice of Dgrabbing the proc amation and pro onging the e ection protest,D : thro&gh the &se of Dman&fact&redD e ection ret&rns or resort to other tricker- for the p&rpose of a tering the res& ts of the e ection. This rationa e does not app - to cases for determining a candidate9s %&a ifications for office before the e ection. To the contrar-, it is the candidate against whom a proceeding for dis%&a ification is bro&ght who co& d be prej&diced beca&se he co& d be prevented from ass&ming office even tho&gh in end he prevai s. To s&mmari7e, the dec aration of ine igibi it- of a candidate ma- on - be so&ght in an e ection protest or action
Page | 1965

for4uo 0arranto fi ed p&rs&ant to Z /)! of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode within "' da-s after his proc amation. 0ith respect to e ective oca officia s 2e.g., Governor, Fice Governor, members of the =angg&niang ;an a awigan, etc.5 s&ch petition m&st be fi ed either with the +1,EAE+, the Regiona Tria +o&rts, or ,&nicipa Tria +o&rts, as provided in 8rt. IN, +, Z /2/5 of the +onstit&tion. In the case of the ;resident and Fice ;resident, the petition m&st be fi ed with the ;residentia E ectora Trib&na 28rt. FII, Z 4, ast paragraph5, and in the case of the =enators, with the =enate E ectora Trib&na , and in the case of +ongressmen, with the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na . 28rt. FI, Z "#5 There is greater reason for not
Page | 1966

a owing before the e ection the fi ing of dis%&a ification proceedings based on a eged ine igibi it- in the case of candidates for ;resident, Fice ;resident, =enators and members of the Io&se of Representatives, beca&se of the same po ic- prohibiting the fi ing of pre*proc amation cases against s&ch candidates. .or these reasons, I am of the opinion that the +1,EAE+ had no j&risdiction over =;8 3o. $)*''$> that its proceedings in that case, inc &ding its %&estioned orders, are void> and that the e igibi itof petitioner Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos for the office of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te ma- on - be in%&ired into b- the IRET.
Page | 1967

8ccording -, I vote to grant the petition and to ann& the proceedings of the +ommission on E ections in =;8 3o. $)*''$, inc &ding its %&estioned orders doted 8pri /4, "$$), ,a- #, "$$), ,a"", "$$) and ,a- /), "$$), dec aring petitioner Ime da Rom&a de7*,arcos ine igib e and ordering her proc amation as Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te s&spended. To the e6tent that R& e /) of the +1,EAE+ R& es of ;roced&re a&thori7es proceedings for the dis%&a ification of candidates on the gro&nd of ine igibi it- for the office, it sho& d considered void. The provincia board of canvassers sho& d now proceed with the proc amation of petitioner. &arva$a, ).J., concur$.
Page | 1968

;8EIAA8, J., dissenting< I regret that I cannot join the majoritopinion as e6pressed in the we *written ponencia of ,r. J&stice ?ap&nan. 8s in an- controvers- arising o&t of a +onstit&tiona provision, the in%&ir- m&st begin and end with the provision itse f. The controvers- sho& d not be b &rred b- what, to me, are academic dis%&isitions. In this partic& ar controvers-, the +onstit&tiona provision on point states that G Dno person sha be a member of the Io&se of Representatives &n ess he is a nat&ra * born citi7en of the ;hi ippines, and on the da- of the e ection, is at east twent-*five 2/)5 -ears of age, ab e to read and write, and e6cept the part- ist representatives, a registered voter in the
Page | 1969

district in which he sha be e ected, and a re$ident t1ereof for a period of not le$$ t1an one !ear i##ediatel! precedin" t1e da! of t1e election.D 28rtic e FI, section (5 It has been arg&ed that for p&rposes of o&r e ection aws, the term re$idence has been &nderstood as s-non-mo&s with do#icile. This arg&ment has been va idated b- no ess than the +o&rt in n&mero&s cases " where significant - the factual circu#$tance$ c ear - and convincing proved that a person does not effective - ose his domici e of origin if the intention to reside therein is manifest with his per$onal pre$ence in the p ace, coupled 0it1 conduct indicative of $uc1 intention.
Page | 1970

0ith this basic thesis in mind, it wo& d not be diffic& t to conceive of different moda ities within which the phrase Da resident thereof 2meaning, the egis ative district5 for a period of not ess than one -earD wo& d fit. The first instance is where a person9s residence and domici e coincide in which case a person on - has to prove that he has been domici ed in a permanent ocation for not ess than a -ear before the e ection. 8 second sit&ation is where a person maintains a residence apart from his domici e in which case he wo& d have the &6&r- of district shopping, provided of co&rse, he satisfies the one*-ear residence period in the district as the minim&m period for e igibi it- to the
Page | 1971

position of congressiona representative for the district. In either case, one wo& d not be constit&tiona dis%&a ified for abandoning his residence in order to ret&rn to his domici e of origin, or better sti , domici e of choice> neither wo& d one be dis%&a ified for abandoning a together his domici e in favor of his residence in the district where he desires to be a candidate. The most e6treme circ&mstance wo& d be a sit&ation wherein a person maintains severa residences in different districts. =ince his domici e of origin contin&es as an option as ong as there is no effective abandonment 2ani#u$ non revertendi5, he can practica Page | 1972

choose the district most advantageo&s for him. 8 these theoretica scenarios, however, are tempered b- the &nambig&o&s imitation that Cfor a period of not le$$ t1an one !ear i##ediatel! precedin" t1e da! of t1e electionC, he m&st be a resident in the district where he desires to be e ected. To m- mind, the one -ear residence period is cr&cia regard ess of whether or not the term DresidenceD is to be s-non-mo&s with Ddomici e.D In other words, the candidate9s intent and act&a presence in one district m&st in allsit&ations satisf- the ength of time prescribed b- the f&ndamenta aw. 8nd this, beca&se of a definite +onstit&tiona p&rpose. Ie m&st be fami iar with the
Page | 1973

environment and prob ems of a district he intends to represent in +ongress and the one*-ear residence in said district wo& d be the minim&m period to ac%&ire s&ch fami iarit-, if not versati it-. In the case of petitioner Ime da R. ,arcos, the operative facts are distinct set o&t in the now assai ed decision of the +ome ec /nd Eivision dated /4 8pri "$$) 2as affirmed b- the +ome ec en /anc5 G In or abo&t "$!: when respondent was a itt e over : -ears o d, she estab ished her domici e in Tac oban, Ae-te 2Tac oban +it-5. =he st&died in the Io - Infant 8cadem- in Tac oban from "$!: to "$4: when she grad&ated from high schoo . =he p&rs&ed her
Page | 1974

co ege st&dies in =t. ;a& 9s +o ege, now Eivine 0ord Universit- of Tac oban, where she earned her degree in Ed&cation. Thereafter, she ta&ght in the Ae-te +hinese Iigh =choo , sti in Tac oban +it-. In "$)/ she went to ,ani a to work with her co&sin, the ate =peaker Eanie Z. Rom&a de7 in his office in the Io&se of Representatives. In "$)4, she married e6*president .erdinand ,arcos when he was sti a congressman of I ocos 3orte. =he ived with him in Hatac, I ocos 3orte and registered there as a voter. 0hen her h&sband was e ected =enator of the Rep&b ic in "$)$, she and her h&sband ived together in =an J&an, Ri7a where
Page | 1975

she registered as a voter. In "$() when her h&sband was e ected ;resident of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines, she ived with him in ,a acanang ;a ace and registered as a voter in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. E&ring the ,arcos presidenc-, respondent served as a ,ember of the Hatasang ;ambansa, ,inister of I&man =ett ements and Governor of ,etro ,ani a. =he c aimed that in .ebr&ar- "$:(, she and her fami - were abd&cted and kidnapped to Iono & &, Iawaii. In 3ovember "$$", she came home to ,ani a. In "$$/ respondent ran for e ection as ;resident of the ;hi ippines and fi ed her +ertificate of +andidacwherein she
Page | 1976

indicated that she is a resident and registered voter of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. 1n 8&g&st /4, "$$4, respondent fi ed a etter with the e ection officer of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, re%&esting for cance ation of her registration in the ;ermanent Aist of Foters in ;recinct 3o. ")# of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, in order that she ma- be re*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 28nne6 /*H, 8nswer5. 1n 8&g&st !", "$$4, respondent fi ed her =worn 8pp ication for +ance ation of Foter9s ;revio&s Registration 28nne6 /*+, 8nswer5 stating that she is a d& - registered voter in ")#*8, Hrg-. ,a-t&nas, =an J&an,
Page | 1977

,etro that she intends to register at Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. 1n Jan&ar- /:, "$$) respondent registered as a voter at ;recinct 3o. ":*8 of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. =he fi ed with the Hoard of E ection Inspectors +E .orm 3o. ", Foter Registration Record 3o. $4* !!4$##/, wherein she a eged that she has resided in the m&nicipa itof To osa for a period of ( months 28nne6 8, ;etition5. 1n ,arch :, "$$), respondent fi ed with the 1ffice of the ;rovincia E ection =&pervisor, Ae-te, a +ertificate of +andidacfor the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te wherein she a so a eged that she
Page | 1978

has been a resident in the constit&enc- where she seeks to be e ected for a period of # months. The pertinent entries therein are as fo ows< #. ;R1.E==I13 1R 1++U;8TI13< Io&se* wifeJ TeacherJ =ocia 0orker :. RE=IEE3+E 2comp ete address5< Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te ;ost 1ffice 8ddress for e ection p&rposes< Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te $. RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C
Page | 1979

0IEREI3 I =EE? T1 HE EAE+TEE I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G EAE+TI13< [[[[[[[[ Cears even ,onths "'. I 8, 31T 8 ;ER,83E3T RE=IEE3T 1., 1R I,,IGR83T T1, 8 .1REIG3 +1U3TRC. TI8T I 8, EAIGIHAE for said office> That I wi s&pport and defend the +onstit&tion of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines and wi maintain tr&e faith and a egiance thereto> That I wi obe- the aws, ega orders and decrees prom& gated bthe d& -*
Page | 1980

constit&ted a&thorities> That the ob igation imposed b- m- oath is ass&med vo &ntari -, witho&t menta reservation or p&rpose of evasion> and That the facts stated herein are tr&e to the best of mknow edge. 2=gd.5 Ime da Rom&a de7* ,arcos 2=ignat&re of +andidate5 / ;etitioner9s aforestated certificate of candidac- fi ed on : ,arch "$$) contains the decisive component or seed of her dis%&a ification. It is contained in her answer &nder oath of D$even #ont1$D to the %&er- of
Page | 1981

Dresidence in the constit&enc- wherein I seek to be e ected immediate preceding the e ection.D It fo ows from a the above that the +ome ec committed no grave ab&se of discretion in ho ding that petitioner is dis%&a ified from the position of representative for the "st congressiona district of Ae-te in the e ections of : ,a"$$), for fai &re to meet the Dnot ess than one*-ear residence in the constit&enc2"st district, Ae-te5 immediate - preceding the da- of e ection 2: ,a- "$$)5.D Iaving arrived at petitioner9s dis%&a ification to be a representative of the first district of Ae-te, the ne6t important iss&e to reso ve is whether or not the +ome ec can order the Hoard of
Page | 1982

+anvassers to deter#ine and proclai# t1e 0inner o&t of the re#ainin" 4ualified candidates for representative in said district. I am not &naware of the prono&ncement made b- this +o&rt in the case of La/o v$. )o#elec, G.R. :()(4, 8&g&st ", "$:$, "#( =+R8 " which gave the rationa e as aid down in the ear - "$"/ case of Topacio v$. 2arede$, /! ;hi . /!: that< . . . . =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed bthose who have received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is a f&ndamenta idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no
Page | 1983

meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majoritor p &ra it- of the ega votes cast in the e ection. 2/' +orp&s J&ris /nd, = /4!, p. (#(5 The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest n&mber of votes is ater dec ared to be dis%&a ified or not e igib e for the office to which he was e ected does not necessari - entit e the candidate who obtained the second highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared the winner of the e ective office. The votes cast for a dead, dis%&a ified, or non*e igib e person ma- not be va id to vote the winner into office or maintain him there. Iowever, in t1e a/$ence of
Page | 1984

a $tatute which c ear - asserts a contrar- po itica and egis ative po ic- on the matter, if the votes were cast in the sincere be ief that the candidate was a ive, %&a ified, or e igib e, the- sho& d not be treated as stra-, void or meaning ess. Under =ec. ( R8 ((4(, 28n 8ct Introd&cing 8dditiona Reforms in the E ectora =-stem and for other p&rposes5 2:4 1.G. $'), // .ebr&ar"$::5 it is provided that< . . . G 8n- candidate who has been dec ared b- fina j&dgment to be dis%&a ified sha not be voted for, and the votes cast for him sha not be co&nted. If for an- reason a candidate is not dec ared b- fina
Page | 1985

j&dgment before an e ection to be dis%&a ified and he is voted for and receives the winning n&mber of votes in s&ch e ection, the +o&rt or +ommission sha contin&e with the tria and hearing of the action, in%&ir- or protest and, &pon motion of the comp ainant or anintervenor, ma-, d&ring the pendenc- thereof order the s&spension of the proc amation of s&ch candidate whenever the evidence of his g&i t is strong. There is no need to ind& ge in ega hermene&tics to sense the p ain and &nambig&o&s meaning of the provision %&oted above. 8s the aw now stands, the egis ative po ic- does not imit its concern with the effect of a fina
Page | 1986

j&dgement of dis%&a ification on - /efore the e ection, b&t even d&ring or after the e ection. The aw is c ear that in a sit&ations, the votes cast for a dis%&a ified candidate =I8AA 31T HE +1U3TEE. The aw has a so va idated the j&risdiction of the +o&rt or +ommission on E ection to contin&e hearing the petition for dis%&a ification in case a candidate is voted for and receives the highest n&mber of votes, if for an! rea$on, 1e i$ not declared /! final jud"#ent /efore an election to /e di$4ualified. =ince the present case is an after e ection scenario, the power to s&spend proc amation 2when evidence of his g&i t is strong5 is a so e6p icit &nder the aw. 0hat happens then when after the
Page | 1987

e ections are over, one is dec ared dis%&a ifiedK Then, votes cast for him Dsha not be co&ntedD and in ega contemp ation, he no onger received the highest n&mber of votes. It stands to reason that =ection ( of R8 ((4( does not make the second p acer the winner simp - beca&se a Dwinning candidate is dis%&a ified,D b&t that the aw considers him as the candidate who had obtained the highest n&mber of votes as a res& t of the votes cast for the dis%&a ified candidate not being co&nted or considered. 8s this aw c ear - ref ects the egis ative po ic- on the matter, then there is no reason wh- this +o&rt sho& d not re* e6amine and conse%&ent - abandon the doctrine in the J&n Aabo case. It has
Page | 1988

been stated that Dthe %&a ifications prescribed for e ective office cannot be erased b- the e ectorate a one. The wi of the peop e as e6pressed thro&gh the ba ot cannot c&re the vice of ine igibi it-D most especia - when it is mandated bno ess than the +onstit&tion. 8++1REI3GAC, I vote to EI=,I== the petition and to order the ;rovincia Hoard of +anvassers of Ae-te to proc aim the candidate receiving the highest n&mber of votes, from among the %&a ified candidates, as the d& e ected representative of the "st district of Ae-te. 7er#o$i$i#a, Jr. J., di$$ent. REG8A8E1, J., dissenting<
Page | 1989

0hi e I agree with same of the fact&a bases of the majorit- opinion, I cannot arrive conjoint - at the same conc &sion drawn therefrom Ience, this dissent which ass&red - is not form& ated Don the basis of the persona it- of a petitioner in a case.D I go a ong with the majorit- in their narration of antecedent facts, insofar as the same are pertinent to this case, and which I have simp ified as fo ows< ". ;etitioner, a tho&gh born in ,ani a, resided d&ring her chi dhood in the present Tac oban +it-, she being a egitimate da&ghter of parents who appear to have taken &p permanent residence therein. =he a so went to schoo there and, for a time,
Page | 1990

ta&ght in one of the schoo s in that cit-. /. 0hen she married then Rep. .erdinand E. ,arcos who was then domici ed in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, b- operation of aw she ac%&ired a new domici e in that p ace in "$)4. !. In the s&ccessive -ears and d&ring the events that happened thereafter, her h&sband having been e ected as a =enator and then as ;resident, she ived with him and their fami - in =an J&an, Ri7a and then in ,a acanang ;a ace in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a. 4. 1ver those -ears, she registered as a voter and act&a Page | 1991

voted in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, then in =an J&an, Ri7a , and a so in =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, a these mere - in the e6ercise of the right of s&ffrage. ). It does not appear that her h&sband, even after he had ass&med those oft- positions s&ccessive -, ever abandoned his domici e of origin in Hatac, I ocos 3orte where he maintained his residence and invariab - voted in a e ections. (. 8fter the o&ster of her h&sband from the presidenc- in "$:( and the sojo&rn of the ,arcos fami - in Iono & &, Iawaii, U.=.8., she event&a ret&rned to the ;hi ippines in "$$" and resided in
Page | 1992

different p aces which she c aimed to have been mere - temporarresidences. #. In "$$/, petitioner ran for e ection as ;resident of the ;hi ippines and in her certificate of candidac- she indicated that she was then a registered voter and resident of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. :. 1n 8&g&st /4, "$$4, she fi ed a etter for the cance ation of her registration in the ;ermanent Aist of Foters in ;recinct 3o. ")# of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a in order that she ma- Dbe re*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te.D 1n 8&g&st !", "$$4, she fo owed this &p with her =worn
Page | 1993

8pp ication for +ance ation of Foter9s ;revio&s Registration wherein she stated that she was a registered voter in ;recinct 3o. ")#*8, Hrg-. ,a-t&nas, =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a and that she intended to register in Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te. $. 1n Jan&ar- /:, "$$), petitioner registered as a voter at ;recinct 3o. ":*8 of 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, for which p&rpose she fi ed with the therein Hoard of E ection Inspectors a voter9s registration record form a eging that she had resided in that m&nicipa it- for si6 months. "'. 1n ,arch :, "$$), petitioner fi ed her certificate of candidac- for
Page | 1994

the position of Representative of the .irst Eistrict of Ae-te wherein she a eged that she had been a resident for D even ,onthsD of the constit&enc- where she so&ght to be e ected. "". 1n ,arch /$, "$$), she fi ed an D8mendedJ+orrected +ertificate of +andidac-D wherein her answer in the origina certificate of candidac- to item D:. RE=IEE3+E I3 TIE +13=TITUE3+C 0IERE I =EE?, T1 HE EAE+TEE I,,EEI8TEAC ;RE+EEI3G TIE EAE+TI13<D was changed or rep aced with a new entr- reading D=I3+E +IIAEI11E.D The so e iss&e for reso &tion is whether, for p&rposes of her candidac-, petitioner
Page | 1995

had comp ied with the residencre%&irement of one -ear as mandated b- no ess than =ection (, 8rtic e FI of the "$:# +onstit&tion. I do not intend to impose &pon the time of m- co eag&es with a dissertation on the difference between residence and domici e. 0e have had eno&gh of that and I &nderstand that for p&rposes of po itica aw and, for that matter of internationa aw, residence is &nderstood to be s-non-mo&s with domici e. That is so &nderstood in o&r j&rispr&dence and in 8merican Aaw, in contradistinction to the concept of residence for p&rposes of civi , commercia and proced&ra aws whenever an iss&e thereon is re evant or contro ing.
Page | 1996

+onse%&ent -, since in the present case the %&estion of petitioner9s residence is integrated in and inseparab e from her domici e, I am addressing the iss&e from the standpoint of the concept of the atter term, specifica - its perm&tations into the domici e of origin, domici e of choice and domici e b- operation of aw, as &nderstood in 8merican aw from which for this case we have taken o&r j&rispr&dentia bearings. ,- readings inform me that the domici e of the parents at the time of birth, or what is termed the Ddomici e of origin,D constit&tes the domici e of an infant &nti abandoned, or &nti the ac%&isition of a new domici e in a different p ace. " In the instant case, we ma- grant that petitioner9s domici e of origin, / at east
Page | 1997

as of "$!:, was what is now Tac oban +it-. 3ow, as I have observed ear ier, domici e is said to be of three kinds, that is, domici e b- birth, domici e b- choice, and domici e b- operation of aw. The first is the common case of the p ace of birth or do#iciliu# ori"ini$, the second is that which is vo &ntari - ac%&ired b- a part- or do#iciliu# propio #otu> the ast which is conse%&entia , as that of a wife arising from marriage, ! is sometimes ca ed do#iciliu# nece$ariu#. There is no debate that the domici e of origin can be ost or rep aced b- a domici e of choice or a domici e b- operation of aw s&bse%&ent - ac%&ired b- the part-. 0hen petitioner contracted marriage in "$)4 with then Rep. ,arcos, bPage | 1998

operation of aw, not on - internationa or 8merican b&t of o&r own enactment, 4 she ac%&ired her h&sband9s domici e of origin in Hatac, I ocos 3orte and corresponding - ost her own domici e of origin in Tac oban +it-. Ier s&bse%&ent changes of residence G to =an J&an, Ri7a , then to =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, thereafter to Iono & &, Iawaii, and back to now =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a G do not appear to have res& ted in her thereb- ac%&iring new domici es of choice. In fact, it appears that her having resided in those p aces was b- reason of the fort&nes or misfort&nes of her h&sband and his peregrinations in the ass&mption of new officia positions or the oss of them. Ier
Page | 1999

residence in Iono & & and, of co&rse, those after her ret&rn to the ;hi ippines were, as she c aimed, against her wi or on - for transient p&rposes which co& d not have invested them with the stat&s of domici es of choice. ) 8fter petitioner9s ret&rn to the ;hi ippines in "$$" and &p to the present imbrog io over her re%&isite residenc- in Tac oban +it- or 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, there is no showing that she ever attempted to ac%&ire an- other domici e of choice which co& d have res& ted in the abandonment of her ega domici e in Hatac, I ocos 3orte. 1n that score, we note the majorit-9s own s&bmission ( that, to s&ccessf& - effect a change of domici e, one m&st demonstrate 2a5 an act&a remova or an
Page | 2000

act&a change of domici e, 2b5 a /ona fide intention of abandoning the former p ace of residence and estab ishing a new one, and 2c5 acts which correspond with the p&rpose. 0e conse%&ent - have to a so note that these re%&irements for the ac%&isition of a domici e of choice app - whether what is so&ght to be changed or s&bstit&ted is a domici e of origin 2do#iciliu# ori"ini$5 or a domici e b- operation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5. =ince petitioner had ost her do#iciliu# ori"ini$ which had been rep aced bher do#iciliu# nece$ariu#, it is therefore her contin&ing domici e in Hatac, I ocos 3orte which, if at a , can be the object of ega change &nder the contingencies of the case at bar.
Page | 2001

To get o&t of this %&andar-, the majoritdecision echoes the dissenting opinion of +ommissioner Rega ado E. ,aambong in =;8 $)*''$ of the +ommission on E ections, # and advances this nove proposition. It ma- be said that petitioner ost her domici e of origin b- operation of aw as a res& t of her marriage to the ate ;resident .erdinand E. ,arcos in "$)/ 2$ic, "$)45. Hoperation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5, her ega domici e at the time of her marriage became Hatac, I ocos 3orte alt1ou"1 t1ere 0ere no indication$ of an intention on 1er part to a/andon 1er do#icile of ori"in. Heca&se of her h&sband9s s&bse%&ent death and
Page | 2002

thro&gh the operation of the provisions of the 3ew .ami - +ode a read- in force at the time, however, 1er le"al do#icile auto#aticall! reverted to 1er do#icile of ori"in. . . . 2Emphasis s&pp ied5. .irst -, I am p&77 ed wh- a tho&gh it is conceded that petitioner had ac%&ired a do#iciliu# nece$ariu# in Hatac, I ocos 3orte, the majorit- insists on making a %&a ification that she did not intend to a/andon her domici e of origin. I find this bewi dering since, in this sit&ation, it is the aw that dec ares where petitioner9s domici e is at angiven time, and not her se f*serving or p&tative intent to ho d on to her former domici e. 1therwise, contrar- to their
Page | 2003

own admission that one cannot have more than one domici e at a time, : the majorit- wo& d be s&ggesting that petitioner retained Tac oban +it- as 2for ack of a term in aw since it does not e6ist therein5 the e%&iva ent of what is fancied as a reserved, dormant, potentia , or resid&a domici e. =econd -, domici e once ost in accordance with aw can on - be recovered ikewise in accordance with aw. Iowever, we are here being titi ated with the possibi it- of an a&tomatic reversion to or reac%&isition of a domici e of origin after the termination of the ca&se for its oss boperation of aw. The majorit- agrees that since petitioner ost her domici e of origin b- her marriage, the termination
Page | 2004

of the marriage a so terminates that effect thereof. I am impressed b- the ingenio&sness of this theor- which proves that, indeed, necessit- is the mother of inventions. Regretf& -, I find some diffic& t- in accepting either the ogic or the va idit- of this arg&ment. If a part- oses his domici e of origin bobtaining a new domici e of choice, he thereb- voluntaril! a/andon$ the former in favor of the atter. If, thereafter, he abandons that chosen domici e, he does not per $e recover his origina domici e &n ess, b- s&bse%&ent acts ega indicative thereof, he evinces his intent and desire to estab ish the same as his new domici e, which is precise - what petitioner be ated - and, evident - j&st
Page | 2005

for p&rposes of her &ns&ccessf& - tried to do.

candidac-,

1ne9s s&bse%&ent abandonment of his domici e of choice cannot a&tomatica restore his domici e of origin, not on beca&se there is no ega a&thorittherefor b&t beca&se it wo& d be abs&rd ;&rs&ed to its ogica conse%&ence, that theor- of ip$o jure reversion wo& d r& e o&t the fact that said part- co& d a readver- we have obtained another domici e, either of choice or b- operation of aw, other than his domici e of origin. =ignificant - and obvio&s - for this reason, the .ami - +ode, which the majorit- ine6p icab - invokes, advised does not reg& ate this contingenc- since it wo& d impinge on one9s freedom of choice.
Page | 2006

3ow, in the instant case, petitioner not on - voluntaril! a/andoned her domici e of choice 2&n ess we ass&me that she entered into the marita state against her wi 5 b&t, on top of that, s&ch abandonment was f&rther affirmed thro&gh her ac%&isition of a new domici e b- operation of la0. In fact, this is even a case of both voluntar! andle"al abandonment of a domici e of origin. 0ith m&ch more reason, therefore, sho& d we reject the proposition that with the termination of her marriage in "$:$, petitioner had s&pposed - per $e and ip$o facto reac%&ired her domici e of origin which she ost in "$)4. 1therwise, this wo& d be tantamo&nt to sa-ing that d&ring the period of marita covert&re, she was sim& taneo&s - in possession
Page | 2007

and enjo-ment of a domici e of origin which was on - in a state of s&spended animation. Th&s, the 8merican r& e is ikewise to the effect that whi e after the h&sband9s death the wife has the right to e ect her own domici e, $ she neverthe ess retains the ast domici e of her deceased h&sband &nti she makes an act&a change."' In the absence of affirmative evidence, to the contrar-, the pres&mption is that a wife9s domici e or ega residence fo ows that of her h&sband and wi contin&e after his death. "" I cannot appreciate the premises advanced in s&pport of the majorit-9s theor- based on 8rtic es (: and ($ of the .ami - +ode. 8 that is of anPage | 2008

re evance therein is that &nder this new code, the right and power to fi6 the fami - domici e is now shared b- the spo&ses. I cannot perceive how that joint right, which in the first p ace was never e6ercised b- the spo&ses, co& d affect the domici e fi6ed b- the aw for petitioner in "$)4 and, for her h&sband, ong prior thereto. It is tr&e that a wife now has the coordinate power to determine the conju"al or fa#il! domici e, b&t that has no bearing on this case. 0ith the death of her h&sband, and each of her chi dren having gotten married and estab ished their own respective domici es, the e6ercise of that joint power was and is no onger ca ed for or materia in the present fact&a setting of this controvers-. Instead, what is of
Page | 2009

concern in petitioner9s case was the matter of her having ac%&ired or not her own domici e of choice. I agree with the majorit-9s disco&rse on the virt&es of the growing and e6panded participation of women in the affairs of the nation, with e%&a rights and recognition b- +onstit&tion and stat&torconferment. Iowever, I have searched in vain for a specific aw or j&dicia prono&ncement which either e6press or b- necessar- imp ication s&pports the majorit-9s desired theor- of a&tomatic reac%&isition of or reversion to the do#iciliu# ori"ini$ of petitioner. Eefinite -, as between the $ettled and de$ira/le ega norms that sho& d govern this iss&e, there is a wor d of difference> and, &n%&estionab -,
Page | 2010

this sho& d be reso ved b- egis ative artic& ation b&t not b- the e o%&ence of the we *t&rned phrase. In s&m, petitioner having ost Tac oban +it- as her domici e of origin since "$)4 and not having a&tomatica - reac%&ired an- domici e therein, she cannot ega c aim that her residenc- in the po itica constit&enc- of which it is a part contin&ed since her birth &p to the present. Respondent commission was, therefore, correct in rejecting her pretension to that effect in her amendedJcorrected certificate of candidac-, and in ho ding her to her admission in the origina certificate that she had act&a - resided in that constit&enc- for on - seven months prior to the e ection. These considerations
Page | 2011

render it &nnecessar- to f&rther pass &pon the proced&ra iss&es raised bpetitioner. 13 TIE .1REG1I3G ;RE,I=E=, I vote to EI=,I== the petition for ack of merit. E8FIEE, JR., J., dissenting< I respectf& - dissent from the opinion of the majorit- written b- ,r. J&stice =antiago ,. ?ap&nan, more partic& ar on the iss&e of the petitioner9s %&a ification. Under =ection #, =&bdivision 8, 8rtic e IN of the +onstit&tion, decisions, orders, or r& ings of the +1,EAE+ ma- be bro&ght to this +o&rt on - b- the specia civi action for certiorari &nder R& e () of the R& es of +o&rt 28rat&c vs.
Page | 2012

+1,EAE+, :: =+R8 /)" L"$#$M> Eario vs. ,ison, "#( =+R8 :4 L"$:$M5. 8ccording -, a writ of certiorari ma- be granted on - if the +1,EAE+ has acted witho&t or in e6cess of j&risdiction or with grave ab&se of discretion 2=ection ", R& e (), R& es of +o&rt5. =ince the +1,EAE+ has, &ndo&bted -, j&risdiction over the private respondent9s petition, the on - iss&e eft is whether it acted with grave ab&se of discretion in dis%&a if-ing the petitioner. ,- caref& and metic& o&s per&sa of the cha enged reso &tion of /4 8pri "$$) of the +1,EAE+ =econd Eivision and the ;n (anc reso &tion of # ,a- "$$) disc oses tota absence of ab&se of discretion, m&ch ess grave ab&se thereof. The reso &tion of the =econd
Page | 2013

Eivision dispassionate - and objective disc&ssed in min&te detai s the facts which estab ished be-ond cavi that herein petitioner was dis%&a ified as a candidate on the gro&nd of ack of residence in the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. It has not misapp ied, miscomprehended, or mis&nderstood facts or circ&mstances of s&bstance pertinent to the iss&e of her residence. The majoritopinion, however, overt&rned the +1,EAE+9s findings of fact for ack of proof that the petitioner has abandoned To osa as her domici e of origin, which is a eged - within the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. I respectf& - s&bmit that the petitioner herse f has provided the +1,EAE+, either b- admission or b- doc&mentarPage | 2014

evidence, overwhe ming proof of the oss or abandonment of her domici e of origin, which is Tac oban +it- and not To osa, Ae-te. 8ss&ming that she decided to ive again in her domici e of origin, that became her second domici e of choice, where her sta-, &nfort&nate -, was for on - seven months before the da- of the e ection. =he was then dis%&a ified to be a candidate for the position of Representative of the .irst +ongressiona Eistrict of Ae-te. 8 ho ding to the contrar- wo& d be arbitrar-. It ma- indeed be conceded that the petitioner9s domici e of choice was either Tac oban +it- or To osa, Ae-te. 3everthe ess, she lo$t it /! operation of la0 $o#eti#e in Ma! 19O* upon 1er
Page | 2015

#arria"e to the then +ongressman 2 ater, ;resident5 .erdinand E. ,arcos. 8 domici e b- operation of aw is that domici e which the aw attrib&tes to a person, independent - of his own intention or act&a residence, as res& ts from ega domestic re ations as that of the wife arising from marriage 2/: +.J.=. Eomici e Z #, ""5. Under the governing aw then, 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode, her new domici e or her domici e of choice was the domici e of her h&sband, which was Hatac, I ocos 3orte. =aid 8rtic e reads as fo ows< 8rt. ""'. The h&sband sha fi6 the residence of the fami -. H&t the co&rt ma- e6empt the wife from iving with the h&sband if he sho& d
Page | 2016

ive abroad &n ess in the service of the Rep&b ic. +ommenting thereon, civi ist 8rt&ro ,. To entino states< 8 tho&gh the d&t- of the spo&ses to ive together is m&t&a , the h&sband has a predominant right beca&se he is empowered b- aw to fi6 the fami - residence. This right even predominates over some rights recogni7ed b- aw in the wife. .or instance, &nder artic e ""# the wife ma- engage in b&siness or practice a profession or occ&pation. H&t beca&se of the power of the h&sband to fi6 the fa#il! do#icile he ma- fi6 it at s&ch a p ace as wo& d make it impossib e for the wife to contin&e
Page | 2017

in b&siness or in her profession. .or j&stifiab e reasons, however, the wife ma- be e6empted from iving in the residence chosen bthe h&sband. The h&sband cannot va id - a ege desertion b- the wife who ref&ses to fo ow him to a new p ace of residence, when it appears that the- have ived for -ears in a s&itab e home be onging to the wife, and that his choice of a different home is not made in good faith. 2+ommentaries and J&rispr&dence on the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines, vo . ", "$:) ed., !!$5. Under common aw, a woman &pon her marriage oses her own domici e and, boperation of aw, ac%&ires that of her
Page | 2018

h&sband, no matter where the wife act&a - ives or what she be ieves or intends. Ier domici e is fi6ed in the sense that it is dec ared to be the same as his, and s&bject to certain imitations, he can change her domici e b- changing his own 2/) 8m J&r /d Eomici e Z 4:, !#5. It m&st, however, be pointed o&t that &nder 8rtic e ($ of the .ami - +ode, the fi6ing of the fami - domici e is no onger the so e prerogative of the h&sband, b&t is now a joint decision of the spo&ses, and in case of disagreement the co&rt sha decide. The said artic e &ses the term Dfami - domici e,D and not fami residence, as Dthe spo&ses ma- have m& tip e residences, and the wife mae ect to remain in one of s&ch
Page | 2019

residences, which ma- destro- the d&tof the spo&ses to ive together and its corresponding benefitsD 28AI+I8 F. =E,;I1*EIC, Iandbook on the .ami +ode of the ;hi ippines, L"$::M, "'/5.The theor- of a&tomatic restoration of a woman9s domici e of origin &pon the death of her h&sband, which the majorit- opinion adopts to overcome the ega effect of the petitioner9s marriage on her domici e, is &ns&pported b- aw and b- j&rispr&dence. The sett ed doctrine is that after the h&sband9s death the wife has a right to e ect her own domici e, b&t she retains the ast domici e of her h&sband &nti she makes an act&a change 2/: +.J.=. Eomici e Z "/, /#5. 1r, on the death of the h&sband, the power of the wife to ac%&ire her own domici e is revived, b&t
Page | 2020

&nti she e6ercises the power her domici e remains that of the h&sband at the time of his death 2/) 8m J&r /d Eomici e Z (/, 4)5. 3ote that what is revived is not her domici e of origin b&t 1er po0er to ac4uire 1er o0n do#icile.+ ear -, even after the death of her h&sband, the petitioner9s domici e was that of her h&sband at the time of his death G which was Hatac, I ocos 3orte, since their residences in =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, and =an ,ig&e , ,ani a, were their residences for convenience to enab e her h&sband to effective - perform his officia d&ties. Their residence in =an J&an was a conj&ga home, and it was there to which she ret&rned in "$$" when she was a read- a widow. In her sworn certificate of candidac- for the 1ffice of
Page | 2021

the ;resident in the s-nchroni7ed e ections of ,a- "$$/, she indicated therein that she was a resident of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a. =he a so voted in the said e ections in that p ace. 1n the basis of her evidence, it was on on 2* Au"u$t 199* when she e6ercised her right as a widow to ac%&ire her own domici e in To osa, Ae-te, thro&gh her sworn statement re%&esting the E ection 1fficer of =an J&an, ,etro ,ani a, to cance her registration in the permanent ist of voters in ;recinct ")# thereat and pra-ing that she be Dre*registered or transferred to Hrg-. 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, the p ace of LherM birth and permanent residenceD 2photocop- of E6hibit DH,D attached as 8nne6 D/D of private respondent ,ontejo9s +omment5.
Page | 2022

3otab -, she contradicted this sworn statement regarding her p ace of birth when, in her Foter9s 8ffidavit sworn to on ") ,arch "$$/ 2photocop- of E6hibit D+,D attached as 8nne6 D!,D 3d.5, her Foter Registration Record sworn to on /: Jan&ar- "$$) 2photocop- of E6hibit DE,D attached as 8nne6 D),D 3d.5, and her +ertificate of +andidac- sworn to on : ,arch "$$) 2photocop- of E6hibit D8,D attached as 8nne6 D",D 3d.5, she so emn - dec ared that she was born in ,ani a.The petitioner is even &ncertain as to her domici e of origin. Is it Tac oban +it- or To osa, Ae-teK In the affidavit attached to her 8nswer to the petition for dis%&a ification 28nne6 DID of ;etition5, she dec ared &nder oath that her Ddomici e or residence is Tac oban +it-.D If she did intend to ret&rn to s&ch
Page | 2023

domici e or residence of origin wh- did she inform the E ection 1fficer of =an J&an that she wo& d transfer to 1 ot, To osa, Ae-te, and indicate in her Foter9s Registration Record and in her certificate of candidac- that her residence is 1 ot, To osa, Ae-teK 0hi e this &ncertaint- is not important insofar as residence in the congressiona district is concerned, it neverthe ess proves that fort-*one -ears had a readapsed since she had ost or abandoned her domici e of origin b- virt&e of marriage and that s&ch ength of time diminished her power of reco ection or b &rred her memor-. I find to be misp aced the re iance b- the majoritopinion on Ha!pon v$. Vuirino 2$( ;hi . /$4 L"$)4M5, and the
Page | 2024

s&bse%&ent cases which estab ished the princip e that absence from origina residence or domici e of origin to p&rs&e st&dies, practice one9s profession, or engage in b&siness in other states does not constit&te oss of s&ch residence or domici e. =o is the re iance on =ection ""# of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode which provides that transfer of residence to an- other p ace b- reason of one9s Docc&pation> profession> emp o-ment in private and p&b ic service> ed&cationa activities> work in mi itar- or nava reservations> service in the arm-, navor air force, the constab& ar- or nationa po ice force> or confinement or detention in government instit&tions in accordance with awD is not deemed as oss of origina residence. Those cases and ega provision do not inc &de marriage
Page | 2025

of a woman. The reason for the e6c &sion is, of co&rse, 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. If it were the intention of this +o&rt or of the egis at&re to consider the marriage of a woman as a circ&mstance which wo& d not operate as an abandonment of domici e 2of origin or of choice5, then s&ch cases and ega provision sho& d have e6press mentioned the same.This +o&rt sho& d not accept as gospe tr&th the se f* serving c aim of the petitioner in her affidavit 28nne6 D8D of her 8nswer in +1,EAE+ =;8 3o. $)*''$> 8nne6 DID of ;etition5 that her Ddomici e or residence of origin is Tac oban +it-,D and that she Dnever intended to abandon this domici e or residence of origin to which LsheM a wa-s intended to ret&rn whenever absent.D =&ch a c aim
Page | 2026

of intention cannot prevai over the effect of 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. Hesides, the facts and circ&mstances or the vicissit&des of the petitioner9s ife after her marriage in "$)4 conc &sive estab ish that she had indeed abandoned her domici e of origin and had ac%&ired a new oneani#o et facto 2?1==UTI ?E3T ?E3383, 8 Treatise on Residence and Eomici e, L"$!4M, /"4, !/(5.3either sho& d this +o&rt p ace comp ete tr&st on the petitioner9s c aim that she Dmere committed an honest mistakeD in writing down the word DsevenD in the space provided for the residenc- %&a ification re%&irement in the certificate of candidac-. =&ch a c aim is se f*serving and, in the ight of the foregoing dis%&isitions, wo& d be a so&nd and
Page | 2027

f&r- signif-ing nothing. To me, she did not commit an- mistake, honest or otherwise> what she stated was the tr&th.The majoritopinion a so disregards a basic r& e in evidence that he who asserts a fact or the affirmative of an iss&e has the b&rden of proving it 2Imperia Fictor- =hipping 8genc- vs. 3AR+, /'' =+R8 "#: L"$$"M> ;.T. +erna +orp. vs. +o&rt of 8ppea s, //" =+R8 "$ L"$$!M5. Iaving admitted marriage to the then +ongressman ,arcos, the petitioner co& d not denthe ega conse%&ence thereof on the change of her domici e to that of her h&sband. The majorit- opinion r& es or at east conc &des that DLbM- operation of aw 2do#iciliu# nece$ariu#5, her ega domici e at the time of her marriage a&tomatica - became Hatac, I ocos
Page | 2028

3orte.D That conc &sion is consistent with 8rtic e ""' of the +ivi +ode. =ince she is pres&med to retain her deceased h&sband9s domici e &nti she e6ercises her revived power to ac%&ire her own domici e, the b&rden is &pon her to prove that she has e6ercised her right to ac%&ire her own domici e. =he miserab fai ed to discharge that b&rden. I vote to den- the petition.

Page | 2029

:G.R. No. 131015. July 19, 1999< JUAN DO#%NO, petitioner, vs. $O##%SS% ON ON ELE$,%ONS, NAR$%SO R&. GRA.%LO, JR., EDD4 6. JAVA, JUAN *. 6A4ON%,O, JR., ROSAR%O SA#SON &n( D%ON%S%O *. L%#, SR., respondents. LU$%LLE $H%ONG6%ANA SOLON, intervenor. EE+I=I13 E8FIEE, JR., ).J.<

Page | 2030

+ha enged in this case for certiorari with a pra-er for pre iminarinj&nction are the Reso &tion of ( ,a"$$:L"M of the =econd Eivision of the +ommission on E ections 2hereafter +1,EAE+5, dec aring petitioner J&an Eomino 2hereafter E1,I315 dis%&a ified as candidate for representative of the Aone Aegis ative Eistrict of the ;rovince of =arangani in the "" ,a- "$$: e ections, and the Eecision of /$ ,a- "$$:L/M of the +1,EAE+ en /anc den-ing E1,I31Rs motion for reconsideration. The antecedents are not disp&ted. 1n /) ,arch "$$:, E1,I31 fi ed his certificate of candidac- for the position of Representative of the Aone Aegis ative Eistrict of the ;rovince of
Page | 2031

=arangani indicating in item nine 2$5 of his certificate that he had resided in the constit&enc- where he seeks to be e ected for one 2"5 -ear and two 2/5 months immediate - preceding the e ection.L!M 1n !' ,arch "$$:, private respondents 3arciso Ra. Grafi o, Jr., Edd- H. Java, J&an ;. Ha-onito, Jr., Rosario =amson and Eionisio ;. Aim, =r., fi ed with the +1,EAE+ a 2etition to 9en! 9ue )our$e to or )ancel )ertificate of )andidac!, which was docketed as =;8 3o. $:*'// and assigned to the =econd Eivision of the +1,EAE+. ;rivate respondents a eged that E1,I31, contrar- to his dec aration in the certificate of candidac-, is not a resident, m&ch ess
Page | 2032

a registered voter, of the province of =arangani where he seeks e ection. To s&bstantiate their a egations, private respondents presented the fo owing evidence< ". 8nne6 P8Q S the +ertificate of +andidac- of respondent for the position of +ongressman of the Aone Eistrict of the ;rovince of =arangani fi ed with the 1ffice of the ;rovincia E ection =&pervisor of =arangani on ,arch /), "$$:, where in item 4 thereof he wrote his date of birth as Eecember ), "$)!> in item $, he c aims he have resided in the constit&enc- where he seeks e ection for one 2"5 -ear and two 2/5 months> and, in item "', that he is registered voter of ;recinct 3o.
Page | 2033

"48*", Haranga- ;ob acion, 8 abe , =arangani> /. 8nne6 PHQ S FoterRs Registration Record with =3 !"!/()'4 dated J&ne //, "$$# indicating respondentRs registration at ;recinct 3o. 44''*8, 1 d Ha ara, O&e7on +it-> !. 8nne6 P+Q S RespondentRs +omm&nit- Ta6 +ertificate 3o. """!//"4+ dated Jan&ar- "), "$$#> 4. 8nne6 PEQ S +ertified tr&e cop- of the etter of Ierson E. Eema*a a, Eep&t- ;rovincia X ,&nicipa Treas&rer of 8 abe , =arangani, dated .ebr&ar/(, "$$:, addressed to ,r. +onrado G. H&ti , which reads<
Page | 2034

PIn connection with -o&r etter of even date, we are f&rnishing -o& herewith certified 6ero6 cop- of the trip icate copof +1,,U3ITC T8N +ERTI.I+8TE 31. """!//"4+ in the name of J&an Eomino. .&rthermore, +omm&nit- Ta6 +ertificate 3o. """!//"/+ of the same st&b was iss&ed to +ar ito Engcong on =eptember ), "$$#, whi e +ertificate 3o. """!//"!+ was a so iss&ed to ,r. J&an Eomino b&t was cance ed and seria no. """!//")+ was iss&ed in the name of ,arianita Aetigio on =eptember :, "$$#.Q ). 8nne6 PEQ S The trip icate cop- of the +omm&nit- Ta6 +ertificate 3o. """!//"4+ in the name of J&an Eomino dated =eptember ), "$$#>
Page | 2035

(. 8nne6 P.Q S +op- of the etter of ;rovincia Treas&rer Ao&rdes ;. Riego dated ,arch /, "$$: addressed to ,r. Ierson E. Eema* a a, Eep&t- ;rovincia Treas&rer and ,&nicipa Treas&rer of 8 abe , =arangani, which states< P.or eas- reference, kind - t&rn*over to the &ndersigned for safekeeping, the st&b of +omm&nit- Ta6 +ertificate containing 3os. """!//'"+*"""!//)'+ iss&ed to -o& on J&ne "!, "$$# and paid &nder 1fficia Receipt 3o. #:)4#44. Upon re%&est of +ongressman James A. +hiongbian.Q #. 8nne6 PGQ S +ertificate of +andidac- of respondent for the
Page | 2036

position of +ongressman in the !rd Eistrict of O&e7on +it- for the "$$) e ections fi ed with the 1ffice of the Regiona E ection Eirector, 3ationa +apita Region, on ,arch "#, "$$), where, in item 4 thereof, he wrote his birth date as Eecember //, "$)!> in item : thereof his Pre$idence in t1e con$tituenc! 01ere 3 $ee: to /e elected i##ediatel! precedin" t1e electionQ as ! -ears and )months> and, in item $, that he is a registered voter of ;recinct 3o. ":/, HarangaHa ara, O&e7on +it-> :. 8nne6 PIQ S a cop- of the 8;;AI+8TI13 .1R TR83=.ER 1. REGI=TR8TI13 RE+1RE= EUE T1 +I83GE 1.
Page | 2037

RE=IEE3+E of respondent dated 8&g&st !', "$$# addressed to and received b- E ection 1fficer ,anti 8 im, 8 abe , =arangani, on =eptember //, "$$#, stating among others, that PLTMhe &ndersignedRs previo&s residence is at /4 Honifacio =treet, 8-a a Ieights, O&e7on +it-, III Eistrict, O&e7on +it-> wherein he is a registered voterQ and Pthat for b&siness and residence p&rposes, the &ndersigned has transferred and cond&cts his b&siness and reside at Haranga;ob acion, 8 abe , ;rovince of =arangani prior to this app ication>Q $. 8nne6 PIQ S +op- of the =01R3 8;;AI+8TI13 .1R
Page | 2038

+83+EAA8TI13 1. F1TERR= LTR83=.ER 1.M ;REFI1U= REGI=TR8TI13 of respondent s&bscribed and sworn to on // 1ctober "$$# before E ection 1fficer ,anti 8 im at 8 abe , =arangani.L4M .or his defense, E1,I31 maintains that he had comp ied with the one*-ear residence re%&irement and that he has been residing in =arangani since Jan&ar- "$$#. In s&pport of the said contention, E1,I31 presented before the +1,EAE+ the fo owing e6hibits, to wit< ". 8nne6 P"Q * +op- of the +ontract of Aease between 3ora Eaca daca as Aessor and 8dministrator of the properties of deceased spo&ses
Page | 2039

,a6imo and Remedios Eaca daca and respondent as Aessee e6ec&ted on Jan&ar- "), "$$#, s&bscribed and sworn to before 3otar- ;&b ic Johnn- ;. Aandero> /. 8nne6 P/Q * +op- of the E6tra* J&dicia =ett ement of Estate with 8bso &te Eeed of sa e e6ec&ted band between the heirs of deceased spo&ses ,a6imo and Remedios Eaca daca , name -< ,aria Ao&rdes, J&piter and Heber ie and the respondent on 3ovember 4, "$$#, s&bscribed and sworn to before 3otar- ;&b ic Jose 8. 8 egario> !. 8nne6 P!Q * Tr&e +arbon Nero6 cop- of the Eecision dated Jan&ar"$, "$$:, of the ,etropo itan Tria +o&rt of ,etro ,ani a, Hranch !),
Page | 2040

O&e7on +it-, in E ection +ase 31. #/) captioned as P3n t1e Matter of t1e 2etition for t1e ;'clu$ion fro# t1e Li$t of voter$ of 2recinct &o. **00-A (r"!. Old (alara, Vue5on )it!, pou$e$ Juan and Aora!da 9o#ino, 2etitioner$, -ver$u$- ;l#er M. Ka!anan, ;lection Officer, Vue5on )it!, 9i$trict 333, and t1e (oard of ;lection 3n$pector$ of 2recinct &o. **00-A, Old (alara, Vue5on )it!, %e$pondent$.Q The dispositive portion of which reads< ". Eec aring the registration of petitioners as voters of ;recinct 3o. 44''*8, Haranga- 1 d Ha ara, in Eistrict III O&e7on +it- as comp ete - erroneo&s as petitioners were no onger residents of O&e7on +it- b&t of 8 abe , =arangani
Page | 2041

where the- have been residing since Eecember "$$(> /. Eec aring this erroneo&s registration of petitioners in O&e7on +itas done in good faith d&e to an honest mistake ca&sed b- circ&mstances be-ond their contro and witho&t anfa& t of petitioners> !. 8pproving the transfer of registration of voters of petitioners from ;recinct 3o. 44''*8 of Haranga- 1 d Ha ara, O&e7on +it- to ;recinct 3o. "48" of Haranga- ;ob acion of 8 abe , =arangani> and 4. 1rdering the respondents to immediate - transfer and forward a the e ectionJvoterRs registration records of the petitioners in O&e7on +it- to the
Page | 2042

E ection 1fficer, the E ection Registration Hoard and other +ome ec 1ffices of 8 abe , =arangani where the petitioners are obvio&s - %&a ified to e6ercise their respective rights of s&ffrage. 4. 8nne6 P4Q * +opof the Application for Tran$fer of %e"i$tration %ecord$ due to )1an"e of %e$idence addressed to ,anti 8 im, +1,EAE+ Registrar, 8 abe , =arangani, dated 8&g&st !', "$$#. ). 8nne6 P)Q * +ertified Tr&e +op- of the 3otice of 8pprova of 8pp ication, the roster of app ications for registration approved bthe E ection Registration Hoard on 1ctober /',
Page | 2043

"$$#, showing the spo&ses J&an and Zora-da Hai on Eomino isted as n&mbers """ and ""/ both &nder ;recinct 3o. "48", the ast two names in the s ate indicated as transferees witho&t FRR n&mbers and their app ication dated 8&g&st !', "$$# and =eptember !', "$$#, respective -. (. 8nne6 P(Q * same as 8nne6 P)Q #. 8nne6 P(*aQ * +op- of the 0orn Application for )ancellation of GoterR$ 2reviou$ %e"i$tration 28nne6 PIQ, ;etition5> :. 8nne6 P#Q * +op- of c aim card in the name of respondent showing his FRR 3o. !"!/()'4 dated 1ctober /', "$$# as a registered voter of
Page | 2044

;recinct 3o. "48", Haranga;ob acion, 8 abe , =arangani> $. 8nne6 P#*aQ * +ertification dated 8pri "(, "$$:, iss&ed b- 8tt-. E mer ,. ?a-anan, E ection 1fficer IF, Eistrict III, O&e7on +it-, which reads< PThis is to certif- that the spo&ses JU83 and Z1R8CE8 E1,I31 are no onger registered voters of Eistrict III, O&e7on +it-. Their registration records 2FRR5 were transferred and are now in the possession of the E ection 1fficer of 8 abe , =arangani. This certification is being iss&ed &pon the re%&est of ,r. JU83 E1,I31. "'. 8nne6 P:Q * 8ffidavit of 3ora Eaca daca and ,aria Ao&rdes
Page | 2045

Eaca daca stating the circ&mstances and incidents detai ing their a eged ac%&aintance with respondent. "". 8nne6es P:*aQ, P:*bQ, P:*cQ and P:*dQ * +opies of the &niform affidavits of witness ,-rna Ea ag&it, Ii ario .&entes, +oraminda Aomibao and E ena F. ;iodos s&bscribed and sworn to before 3otar- ;&b ic Honifacio .. Eoria, Jr., on 8pri ":, "$$:, embod-ing their a eged persona know edge of respondentRs residenc- in 8 abe , =arangani> "/. 8nne6 P:*eQ * 8 certification dated 8pri /', "$$:, s&bscribed and sworn to before 3otar- ;&b ic Honifacio, containing
Page | 2046

a isting of the names of fift-*five2))5 residents of 8 abe , =arangani, dec aring and certif-ing &nder oath that the- persona - know the respondent as a permanent resident of 8 abe , =arangani since Jan&ar"$$# &p to present> "!. 8nne6es P$Q, P$*aQ and P$* bQ* +opies of Individ&a Income Ta6 Ret&rn for the -ear "$$#, HIR form /!"( and 0*/, respective -, of respondent> and, "4. 8nne6 P"'Q * The affidavit of respondent reciting the chrono ogof events and circ&mstances eading to his re ocation to the ,&nicipa it- of 8 abe , =arangani, appending 8nne6es P8Q, PHQ, P+Q, PEQ, PE*"Q,
Page | 2047

PEQ, P.Q, PGQ with s&b*markings PG* "Q and PG*/Q and PIQ his +T+ 3o. """\!//"4+ dated =eptember ), "$$#, which are the same as 8nne6es P"Q, P/Q, P4Q, P)Q, P(*aQ, P!Q, P#Q, P$Q with s&b*markings P$*aQ and P$*bQ e6cept 8nne6 PI.QL)M 1n ( ,a- "$$:, the +1,EAE+ /nd Eivision prom& gated a reso &tion dec aring E1,I31 dis%&a ified as candidate for the position of representative of the one district of =arangani for ack of the one*-ear residence re%&irement and ikewise ordered the cance ation of his certificate of candidac-, on the basis of the fo owing findings< 0hat mi itates against respondentRs c aim that he has met the residencPage | 2048

re%&irement for the position so&ght is his own FoterRs Registration Record 3o. !"!/()'4 dated J&ne //, "$$# L8nne6 PHQ, ;etitionM and his address indicated as /4 Honifacio =t., 8-a a Ieights, 1 d Ha ara, O&e7on +it-. This evidence, standing a one, negates a his protestations that he estab ished residence at Haranga- ;ob acion, 8 abe , =arangani, as ear - as Jan&ar"$$#. It is high - improbab e, naincredib e, for respondent who previo&s - ran for the same position in the !rd Aegis ative Eistrict of O&e7on +it- d&ring the e ections of "$$) to &nwitting forget the residencre%&irement for the office so&ght. +o&nting, therefore, from the daafter June 22, 199+ when respondent
Page | 2049

registered at ;recinct 3o. 44''*8, &p to and &nti the da- of the e ections on ,a"", "$$:, respondent c ear - acks the one 2"5 -ear residenc- re%&irement provided for candidates for ,ember of the Io&se of Representatives &nder =ection (, 8rtic e FI of the +onstit&tion. 8 to d, petitionerRs evidence conspire to attest to respondentRs ack of residence in the constit&enc- where he seeks e ection and whi e it ma- be conceded that he is a registered voter as contemp ated &nder =ection "/ of R.8. :":$, he acks the %&a ification to r&n for the position of +ongressman for the Aone Eistrict of the ;rovince of =arangani.L(M 1n "" ,a- "$$:, the da- of the e ection, the +1,EAE+ iss&ed
Page | 2050

=&pp ementa 1mnib&s Reso &tion 3o. !'4(, ordering that the votes cast for E1,I31 be co&nted b&t to s&spend the proc amation if winning, considering that the Reso &tion dis%&a if-ing him as candidate had not -et become fina and e6ec&tor-.L#M The res& t of the e ection, per =tatement of Fotes certified b- the +hairman of the ;rovincia Hoard of +anvassers,L:M shows that E1,I31 garnered the highest n&mber of votes over his opponents for the position of +ongressman of the ;rovince of =arangani. 1n ") ,a- "$$:, E1,I31 fi ed a motion for reconsideration of the Reso &tion dated ( ,a- "$$:, which was denied b- the +1,EAE+ en
Page | 2051

/anc in its decision dated /$ ,a"$$:. Ience, the present ;etition for )ertiorari with pra-er for ;re iminar,andator- Inj&nction a eging, in the main, that the +1,EAE+ committed grave ab&se of discretion amo&nting to e6cess or ack of j&risdiction when it r& ed that he did not meet the one*-ear residence re%&irement. 1n "4 J& - "$$:, acting on E1,I31Rs Motion for 3$$uance of Te#porar! %e$trainin" Order, the +o&rt directed the parties to maintain the $tatu$ 4uoprevai ing at the time of the fi ing of the instant petition.L$M 1n ") =eptember "$$:, A&ci e A. +hiongbian*=o on, 2hereafter I3TERFE31R5, the candidate receiving
Page | 2052

the second highest n&mber of votes, was a owed b- the +o&rt to Intervene.L"'M I3TERFE31R in her Motion for Leave to 3ntervene and in her )o##ent in 3nterventionL""M is asking the +o&rt to &pho d the dis%&a ification of petitioner J&an Eomino and to proc aim her as the d& - e ected representative of =arangani in the "" ,a- "$$: e ections. Hefore &s E1,I31 raised the fo owing iss&es for reso &tion, to wit< a. 0hether or not the j&dgment of the ,etropo itan Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it- dec aring petitioner as resident of =arangani and not of O&e7on +it- is fina , conc &sive and binding &pon the who e wor d, inc &ding the +ommission on E ections.
Page | 2053

b. 0hether or not petitioner herein has resided in the s&bject congressiona district for at east one 2"5 -ear immediate - preceding the ,a- "", "$$: e ections> and c. 0hether or not respondent +1,EAE+ has j&risdiction over the petition a 4uo for the dis%&a ification of petitioner.L"/M The first iss&e. The contention of E1,I31 that the decision of the ,etropo itan Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it- in the e6c &sion proceedings dec aring him a resident of the ;rovince of =arangani and not of O&e7on +it- is fina and conc &sive &pon the +1,EAE+ cannot be s&stained.
Page | 2054

The +1,EAE+ has j&risdiction as provided in =ec. #:, 8rt. IN of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, over a petition to den- d&e co&rse to or cance certificate of candidac-. In the e6ercise of the said j&risdiction, it is within the competence of the +1,EAE+ to determine whether fa se representation as to materia facts was made in the certificate of candidac-, that wi inc &de, among others, the residence of the candidate. The determination of the ,etropo itan Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it- in the e6c &sion proceedings as to the right of E1,I31 to be inc &ded or e6c &ded from the ist of voters in the precinct within its territoria j&risdiction, does not prec &de the +1,EAE+, in the
Page | 2055

determination of E1,I31Rs %&a ification as a candidate, to pass &pon the iss&e of comp iance with the residencre%&irement. The proceedings for the e6c &sion or inc &sion of voters in the ist of voters are s&mmar- in character. Th&s, the fact&a findings of the tria co&rt and its res& tant conc &sions in the e6c &sion proceedings on matters other than the right to vote in the precinct within its territoria j&risdiction are not conc &sive &pon the +1,EAE+. 8 tho&gh the co&rt in inc &sion or e6c &sion proceedings ma- pass &pon an%&estion necessar- to decide the iss&e raised inc &ding the %&estions of citi7enship and residence of the cha enged voter, the a&thorit- to order
Page | 2056

the inc &sion in or e6c &sion from the ist of voters necessari - caries with it the power to in%&ire into and sett e a matters essentia to the e6ercise of said a&thorit-. Iowever, e6cept for the right to remain in the ist of voters or for being e6c &ded therefrom for the partic& ar e ection in re ation to which the proceedings had been he d, a decision in an e6c &sion or inc &sion proceeding, even if fina and &nappea ab e, does not ac%&ire the nat&re of re$ judicata.L"!M In this sense, it does not operate as a bar to an- f&t&re action that a part- matake concerning the s&bject passed &pon in the proceeding.L"4M Th&s, a decision in an e6c &sion proceeding wo& d neither be conc &sive on the voterRs po itica stat&s, nor bar s&bse%&ent proceedings on his right to
Page | 2057

be registered as a voter in an- other e ection.L")M Th&s, in Tan )o1on v. ;lection %e"i$trarL"(M we r& ed that< 666 It is made c ear that even as it is here he d that the order of the +it- +o&rt in %&estion has become fina , the same does not constit&te re$ adjudicata as to an- of the matters therein contained. It is ridic& o&s to s&ppose that s&ch an important and intricate matter of citi7enship ma- be passed &pon and determined with fina it- in s&ch a s&mmar- and peremptor- proceeding as that of inc &sion and e6c &sion of persons in the registrist of voters. Even if the +it- +o&rt had granted appe antRs petition for inc &sion in the permanent ist of voters on the
Page | 2058

a egation that she is a .i ipino citi7en %&a ified to vote, her a eged .i ipino citi7enship wo& d sti have been eft open to %&estion. ,oreover, the ,etropo itan Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it- in its ": Jan&ardecision e6ceeded its j&risdiction when it dec ared E1,I31 a resident of the ;rovince of =arangani, approved and ordered the transfer of his voterRs registration from ;recinct 3o. 44''*8 of Haranga- 1 d Ha ara, O&e7on +it- to precinct "48" of Haranga- ;ob acion, 8 abe , =arangani. It is not within the competence of the tria co&rt, in an e6c &sion proceedings, to dec are the cha enged voter a resident of another m&nicipa it-. The j&risdiction of the ower co&rt over e6c &sion cases is
Page | 2059

imited on - to determining the right of voter to remain in the ist of voters or to dec are that the cha enged voter is not %&a ified to vote in the precinct in which he is registered, specif-ing the gro&nd of the voterRs dis%&a ification. The tria co&rt has no power to order the change or transfer of registration from one p ace of residence to another for it is the f&nction of the e ection Registration Hoard as provided &nder =ection "/ of R.8. 3o. :":$.L"#M The on - effect of the decision of the ower co&rt e6c &ding the cha enged voter from the ist of voters, is for the E ection Registration Hoard, &pon receipt of the fina decision, to remove the voterRs registration record from the corresponding book of voters, enter the order of e6c &sion therein, and
Page | 2060

thereafter p ace the record in the inactive fi e.L":M .ina -, the app ication of the r& e on re$ judicata is &navai ing. Identit- of parties, s&bject matter and ca&se of action are indispensab e re%&irements for the app ication of said doctrine. 3either herein ;rivate Respondents nor I3TERFE31R, is a partin the e6c &sion proceedings. The 2etition for ;'clu$ion was fi ed b- E1,I31 himse f and his wife, pra-ing that he and his wife be e6c &ded from the FoterRs Aist on the gro&nd of erroneo&s registration whi e the 2etition to 9en! 9ue )our$e to or )ancel )ertificate of )andidac! was fi ed bprivate respondents against E1,I31 for
Page | 2061

a eged fa se representation in his certificate of candidac-. .or the decision to be a basis for the dismissa b- reason of re$ judicata, it is essentia that there m&st be between the first and the second action identit- of parties, identit- of s&bject matter and identit- of ca&ses of action.L"$M In the present case, the aforesaid essentia re%&isites are not present. In the case of &uval v. Gura!, et al.,L/'M the =&preme +o&rt in reso ving a simi ar iss&e r& ed that< The %&estion to be so ved &nder the first assignment of error is whether or not the j&dgment rendered in the case of the petition for the e6c &sion of 3orberto G&ra-Rs name from the e ection ist of A&na, is re$ judicata, so as to prevent the instit&tion and prosec&tion of an
Page | 2062

action in %&o warranto, which is now before &s. The proced&re prescribed b- section 4!# of the 8dministrative +ode, as amended b- 8ct 3o. !!:#, is of a s&mmar- character and the j&dgment rendered therein is not appea ab e e6cept when the petition is tried before the j&stice of the peace of the capita or the circ&it j&dge, in which case it ma- be appea ed to the j&dge of first instance, with whom said two ower j&dges have conc&rrent j&risdiction. The petition for e6c &sion was presented b- Gregorio 3&va in his d&a capacitas %&a ified voter of the m&nicipa it- of A&na, and as a d& - registered candidate for the office of president of said m&nicipa it-, against 3orberto
Page | 2063

G&ra- as a registered voter in the e ection ist of said m&nicipa it-. The present proceeding of 4uo 0arranto was interposed b- Gregorio 3&va in his capacit- as a registered candidate voted for the office of m&nicipa president of A&na, against 3orberto G&ra-, as an e ected candidate for the same office. Therefore, there is no identit- of parties in the two cases, since it is not eno&gh that there be an identit- of persons, b&t there m&st be an identit- of capacities in which said persons itigate. 2 8rt. "/)$ of the +ivi +ode> How er vs. Estate of 8 vare7, /! ;hi ., )("> !4 +orp&s J&ris, p. #)(, par. ""()5 In said case of the petition for the e6c &sion, the object of the itigation, or the itigio&s matter was the e6c &sion of
Page | 2064

3orberto G&ra- as a voter from the e ection ist of the m&nicipa it- of A&na, whi e in the present %&o warranto proceeding, the object of the itigation, or the itigio&s matter is his e6c &sion or e6p& sion from the office to which he has been e ected. 3either does there e6ist, then, an- identit- in the object of the itigation, or the itigio&s matter. In said case of the petition for e6c &sion, the ca&se of action was that 3orberto G&ra- had not the si6 monthsR ega residence in the m&nicipa it- of A&na to be a %&a ified voter thereof, whi e in the present proceeding of %&o warranto, the ca&se of action is that 3orberto G&rahas not the one -earRs ega residence re%&ired for e igibi it- to the office of m&nicipa president of A&na. 3either
Page | 2065

does there e6ist therefore, identit- of ca&ses of action. In order that re$ judicata ma- e6ist the fo owing are necessar-< 2a5 identit- of parties> 2b5 identit- of things> and 2c5 identit- of iss&es 28%&ino vs. Eirector of Aands, !$ ;hi . :)'5. 8nd as in the case of the petition for e6c &sion and in the present 4uo 0arranto proceeding, as there is no identit- of parties, or of things or itigio&s matter, or of iss&es or ca&ses of action, there is no re$ judicata.
The =econd Iss&e.

0as E1,I31 a resident of the ;rovince of =arangani for at east one -ear immediate - preceding the "" ,aPage | 2066

"$$: e ection as stated in his certificate of candidac-K 0e ho d in the negative. It is doctrina - sett ed that the term Presidence,Q as &sed in the aw prescribing the %&a ifications for s&ffrage and for e ective office, means the same thing as Pdomici e,Q which imports not on - an intention to reside in a fi6ed p ace b&t a so persona presence in that p ace, co&p ed with cond&ct indicative of s&ch intention.L/"MPEomici eQ denotes a fi6ed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for b&siness, p eas&re, or some other reasons, one intends to ret&rn.L//M PEomici eQ is a %&estion of intention and circ&mstances. In the consideration of circ&mstances, three r& es m&st be borne in mind, name -< 2"5
Page | 2067

that a man m&st have a residence or domici e somewhere> 2/5 when once estab ished it remains &nti a new one is ac%&ired> and 2!5 a man can have b&t one residence or domici e at a time.L/!M Records show that petitionerRs domici e of origin was +andon, I ocos =&rL/4M and that sometime in "$$", he ac%&ired a new domici e of choice at /4 Honifacio =t. 8-a a Ieights, 1 d Ha ara, O&e7on +it-, as shown b- his certificate of candidac- for the position of representative of the !rd Eistrict of O&e7on +it- in the ,a- "$$) e ection. ;etitioner is now c aiming that he had effective - abandoned his PresidenceQ in O&e7on +it- and has estab ished a new Pdomici eQ of choice at the ;rovince of =arangani.8 personRs
Page | 2068

Pdomici eQ once estab ished is considered to contin&e and wi not be deemed ost &nti a new one is estab ished.L/)M To s&ccessf& - effect a change of domici e one m&st demonstrate an act&a remova or an act&a change of domici e> a /ona fide intention of abandoning the former p ace of residence and estab ishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the p&rpose.L/(M In other words, there m&st basica - be ani#u$ #anendi co&p ed with ani#u$ non revertendi. The p&rpose to remain in or at the domici e of choice m&st be for an indefinite period of time> the change of residence m&st be vo &ntar-> and the residence at the p ace chosen for the new domici e m&st be act&a .L/#MIt is the contention of petitioner that his act&a
Page | 2069

ph-sica presence in 8 abe , =arangani since Eecember "$$( was s&fficient estab ished b- the ease of a ho&se and ot ocated therein in Jan&ar- "$$# and b- the affidavits and certifications &nder oath of the residents of that p ace that the- have seen petitioner and his fami residing in their oca it-.0hi e this mabe so, act&a and ph-sica is not in itse f s&fficient to show that from said date he had transferred his residence in that p ace. To estab ish a new domici e of choice, persona presence in the p ace m&st be co&p ed with cond&ct indicative of that intention. 0hi e PresidenceQ simp - re%&ires bodi - presence in a given p ace, Pdomici eQ re%&ires not on s&ch bodi - presence in that p ace b&t a so a dec ared and probab e intent to make it oneRs fi6ed and permanent p ace
Page | 2070

of abode, oneRs home.L/:M8s a genera r& e, the principa e ements of domici e, ph-sica presence in the oca itinvo ved and intention to adopt it as a domici e, m&st conc&r in order to estab ish a new domici e. 3o change of domici e wi res& t if either of these e ements is absent. Intention to ac%&ire a domici e witho&t act&a residence in the oca it- does not res& t in ac%&isition of domici e, nor does the fact of ph-sica presence witho&t intention.L/$MThe ease contract entered into sometime in Jan&ar- "$$#, does not ade%&ate s&pport a change of domici e. The ease contract ma- be indicative of E1,I31Rs intention to reside in =arangani b&t it does not engender the kind of permanenc- re%&ired to prove abandonment of oneRs origina
Page | 2071

domici e. The mere absence of individ&a from his permanent residence, no matter how ong, witho&t the intention to abandon it does not res& t in oss or change of domici e.L!'M Th&s the date of the contract of ease of a ho&se and ot ocated in the province of =arangani, i.e., ") Jan&ar- "$$#, cannot be &sed, in the absence of other circ&mstances, as the reckoning period of the one*-ear residence re%&irement. .&rther, EominoRs ack of intention to abandon his residence in O&e7on +it- is f&rther strengthened b- his act of registering as voter in one of the precincts in O&e7on +it-. 0hi e voting is not conc &sive of residence, it does give rise to a strong pres&mption of residence especia - in this case where
Page | 2072

E1,I31 registered in his former baranga-. E6ercising the right of e ection franchise is a de iberate p&b ic assertion of the fact of residence, and is said to have decided preponderance is a do&btf& case &pon the p ace the e ector c aims as, or be ieves to be, his residence.L!"M The fact that a partcontin&o&s - voted in a partic& ar oca itis a strong factor in assisting to determine the stat&s of his domici e. L!/M Iis c aim that his registration in O&e7on +it- was erroneo&s and was ca&sed b- events over which he had no contro cannot be s&stained. The genera registration of voters for p&rposes of the ,a- "$$: e ections was sched& ed for two 2/5 consec&tive weekends, vi5.< J&ne "4, "), /", and //. L!!M 0hi e, EominoRs intention to estab ish
Page | 2073

residence in =arangani can be g eaned from the fact that be bo&ght the ho&se he was renting on 3ovember 4, "$$#, that he so&ght cance ation of his previo&s registration in O&e7on +it- on // 1ctober "$$#,L!4M and that he app ied for transfer of registration from O&e7on +it- to =arangani b- reason of change of residence on !' 8&g&st "$$#, L!)M E1,I31 sti fa s short of the one -ear residenc- re%&irement &nder the +onstit&tion.In showing comp iance with the residenc- re%&irement, both intent and act&a presence in the district one intends to represent m&st satisf- the ength of time prescribed b- the f&ndamenta aw.L!(M EominoRs fai &re to do so rendered him ine igib e and his e ection to office n& and void.L!#M
Page | 2074

The Third Iss&e.

E1,I31Rs contention that the +1,EAE+ has no j&risdiction in the present petition is bereft of merit. 8s previo&s mentioned, the +1,EAE+, &nder =ec. #:, 8rt. IN of the 1mnib&s E ection +ode, has j&risdiction over a petition to den- d&e co&rse to or cance certificate of candidac-. =&ch j&risdiction contin&es even after e ection, if for an- reason no fina j&dgment of dis%&a ification is rendered before the e ection, and the candidate facing dis%&a ification is voted for and receives the highest n&mber of votesL!:M and provided f&rther that the winning candidate has not been proc aimed or has taken his oath of office.L!$MIt has been repeated - he d in a
Page | 2075

n&mber of cases, that the Io&se of Representatives E ectora Trib&na Rs so e and e6c &sive j&risdiction over a contests re ating to the e ection, ret&rns and %&a ifications of members of +ongress as provided &nder =ection "# of 8rtic e FI of the +onstit&tion begins on - after a candidate has become a member of the Io&se of Representatives.L4'MThe fact of obtaining the highest n&mber of votes in an e ection does not a&tomatica - vest the position in the winning candidate.L4"M 8 candidate m&st be proc aimed and m&st have taken his oath of office before he can be considered a member of the Io&se of Representatives.In the instant case, E1,I31 was not proc aimed as +ongressman*e ect of the Aone +ongressiona Eistrict of the ;rovince of
Page | 2076

=arangani b- reason of a =&pp ementa 1mnib&s Reso &tion iss&ed b- the +1,EAE+ on the da- of the e ection ordering the s&spension of E1,I31Rs proc amation sho& d he obtain the winning n&mber of votes. This reso &tion was iss&ed b- the +1,EAE+ in view of the non*fina it- of its ( ,a"$$: reso &tion dis%&a if-ing E1,I31 as candidate for the position.+onsidering that E1,I31 has not been proc aimed as +ongressman* e ect in the Aone +ongressiona Eistrict of the ;rovince of =arangani he cannot be deemed a member of the Io&se of Representative. Ience, it is the +1,EAE+ and not the E ectora Trib&na which has j&risdiction over the iss&e of his ine igibi it- as a candidate.L4/M
Page | 2077

Iss&e raised b- I3TERFE31R.

8fter finding that E1,I31 is dis%&a ified as candidate for the position of representative of the province of =arangani, ma- I3TERFE31R, as the candidate who received the ne6t highest n&mber of votes, be proc aimed as the winning candidateK It is now sett ed doctrine that the candidate who obtains the second highest n&mber of votes ma- not be proc aimed winner in case the winning candidate is dis%&a ified.L4!M In ever- e ection, the peop eRs choice is the paramo&nt consideration and their e6pressed wi m&st, at a times, be given effect. 0hen the majorit- speaks and e ects into office a candidate bgiving the highest n&mber of votes cast
Page | 2078

in the e ection for that office, no one can be dec ared e ected in his p ace.L44MIt wo& d be e6treme - rep&gnant to the basic concept of the constit&tiona g&aranteed right to s&ffrage if a candidate who has not ac%&ired the majorit- or p &ra it- of votes is proc aimed a winner and imposed as the representative of a constit&enc-, the majorit- of which have positive dec ared thro&gh their ba ots that thedo not choose him.L4)M To simp istica ass&me that the second p acer wo& d have received the other votes wo& d be to s&bstit&te o&r j&dgment for the mind of the voters. Ie co& d not be considered the first among %&a ified candidates beca&se in a fie d which e6c &des the %&a ified candidate, the
Page | 2079

conditions wo& d have s&bstantia changed.L4(M =o&nd po ic- dictates that p&b ic e ective offices are fi ed b- those who have received the highest n&mber of votes cast in the e ection for that office, and it is f&ndamenta idea in a rep&b ican forms of government that no one can be dec ared e ected and no meas&re can be dec ared carried &n ess he or it receives a majorit- or p &ra it- of the ega votes cast in the e ection.L4#MThe effect of a decision dec aring a person ine igib e to ho d an office is on - that the e ection fai s entire -, that the wreath of victor- cannot be transferredL4:Mfrom the dis%&a ified winner to the rep&diated oser beca&se the aw then as now on a&thori7es a dec aration of e ection in
Page | 2080

favor of the person who ha= obtained a p &ra it- of votesL4$M and does not entit e the candidate receiving the ne6t highest n&mber of votes to be dec ared e ected. In s&ch case, the e ectors have fai ed to make a choice and the e ection is a n& it-.L)'M To a ow the defeated and rep&diated candidate to take over the e ective position despite his rejection bthe e ectorate is to disenfranchise the e ectorate witho&t an- fa& t on their part and to &ndermine the importance and meaning of democrac- and the peop eRs right to e ect officia s of their choice.L)"M I3TERFE31RRs p ea that the votes cast in favor of E1,I31 be considered stravotes cannot be s&stained. I3TERFE31RRs re iance on the opinion made in
Page | 2081

the La/o, Jr. caseL)/M to wit< if the e ectorate, f& - aware in fact and in aw of a candidateRs dis%&a ification so as to bring s&ch awareness within the rea m of notoriet-, wo& d neverthe ess cast their votes in favor of the ine igib e candidate, the e ectorate ma- be said to have waived the va idit- and efficac- of their votes b- notorio&s - misapp -ing their franchise or throwing awa- their votes, in which case, the e igib e candidate obtaining the ne6t higher n&mber of votes ma- be deemed e ected, is misp aced. +ontrarto the c aim of I3TERFE31R, petitioner was not notorio&s - known b- the p&b ic as an ine igib e candidate. 8 tho&gh the reso &tion dec aring him ine igib e as
Page | 2082

candidate was rendered before the e ection, however, the same is not -et fina and e6ec&tor-. In fact, it was no ess than the +1,EAE+ in its =&pp ementa 1mnib&s Reso &tion 3o. !'4( that a owed E1,I31 to be voted for the office and ordered that the votes cast for him be co&nted as the Reso &tion dec aring him ine igib e has not -et attained fina it-. Th&s the votes cast for E1,I31 are pres&med to have been cast in the sincere be ief that he was a %&a ified candidate, witho&t anintention to misapp their franchise. Th&s, said votes can not be treated as stra-, void, or meaning ess.L)!M 0IERE.1RE, the instant petition is EI=,I==EE. The reso &tion dated ( ,a- "$$: of the +1,EAE+ /nd
Page | 2083

Eivision and the decision dated /$ ,a"$$: of the +1,EAE+ ;n (anc, are hereb- 8..IR,EE. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 2084

:G.R. No. 12;311. #&y 29, 2002< RODOL.O V. JAO, petitioner, vs. $OUR, O. A**EALS &n( *ER%$O V. JAO, respondents. EE+I=I13 C38RE=*=83TI8G1, J.< Rodo fo and ;erico Jao were the on sons of the spo&ses Ignacio Jao Ta-ag and 8ndrea F. Jao, who died intestate in
Page | 2085

"$:: and "$:$, respective -. The decedents eft rea estate, cash, shares of stock and other persona properties. 1n 8pri "#, "$$", ;erico instit&ted a petition for iss&ance of etters of administration before the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it-, Hranch $$, over the estate of his parents, docketed as =pecia ;roceedings 3o. O*$"*:)'#. L"M ;ending the appointment of a reg& ar administrator, ;erico moved that he be appointed as specia administrator. Ie a eged that his brother, Rodo fo, was grad&a - dissipating the assets of the estate. ,ore partic& ar -, Rodo fo was receiving renta s from rea properties witho&t rendering an- acco&nting, and forcib - opening va& ts be onging to their
Page | 2086

deceased parents and disposing of the cash and va &ab es therein. Rodo fo moved for the dismissa of the petition on the gro&nd of improper ven&e.L/M Ie arg&ed that the deceased spo&ses did not reside in O&e7on +iteither d&ring their ifetime or at the time of their deaths. The decedentRs act&a residence was in 8nge es +it-, ;ampanga, where his ate mother &sed to r&n and operate a baker-. 8s the hea th of his parents deteriorated d&e to o d age, the- sta-ed in Rodo foRs residence at (" =co&t Gandia =treet, O&e7on +it-, so e - for the p&rpose of obtaining medica treatment and hospita i7ation. Rodo fo s&bmitted doc&mentarevidence previo&s e6ec&ted b- the decedents, consisting
Page | 2087

of income ta6 ret&rns, voterRs affidavits, statements of assets and iabi ities, rea estate ta6 pa-ments, motor vehic e registration and passports, a indicating that their permanent residence was in 8nge es +it-, ;ampanga. In his opposition,L!M ;erico co&ntered that their deceased parents act&a resided in Rodo foRs ho&se in O&e7on +it- at the time of their deaths. 8s a matter of fact, it was conc &sive dec ared in their death certificates that their ast residence before the- died was at (" =co&t Gandia =treet, O&e7on +it-. L4M Rodo fo himse f even s&pp ied the entr- appearing on the death certificate of their mother, 8ndrea, and affi6ed his own signat&re on the said doc&ment.
Page | 2088

Rodo fo fi ed a rejoinder, stating that he gave the information regarding the decedentsR residence on the death certificates in good faith and thro&gh honest mistake. Ie gave his residence on - as reference, considering that their parents were treated in their ate -ears at the ,edica +it- Genera Iospita in ,anda &-ong, ,etro ,ani a. Their stain his ho&se was mere - transitor-, in the same wa- that the- were taken at different times for the same p&rpose to ;ericoRs residence at Aegaspi Towers in Ro6as Ho& evard. The death certificates co& d not, therefore, be deemed conc &sive evidence of the decedentsR residence in ight of the other doc&ments showing otherwise.L)M
Page | 2089

The co&rt re%&ired the parties to s&bmit their respective nominees for the position.L(M Hoth fai ed to comp -, where&pon the tria co&rt ordered that the petition be archived.L#M =&bse%&ent -, ;erico moved that the intestate proceedings be revived.L:M 8fter the parties s&bmitted the names of their respective nominees, the tria co&rt designated J&stice +ar os A. =&ndiam as specia administrator of the estate of Ignacio Jao Ta-ag and 8ndrea Jao.L$M 1n 8pri (, "$$4, the motion to dismiss fi ed b- petitioner Rodo fo was denied, to wit< 8 mere per&sa of the death certificates of the spo&ses iss&ed separate - in "$:: and "$:$, respective -, confirm the fact that O&e7on +it- was the ast
Page | 2090

p ace of residence of the decedents. =&rprising -, the entries appearing on the death certificate of 8ndrea F. Jao were s&pp ied b- movant, Rodo fo F. Jao, whose signat&re appears in said doc&ment. ,ovant, therefore, cannot disown his own representation b- taking an inconsistent position other than his own admission. 666 666 666. 0IERE.1RE, in view of the foregoing consideration, this co&rt EE3IE= for ack of merit movantRs motion to dismiss. =1 1REEREE.L"'M Rodo fo fi ed a petition for certiorari with the +o&rt of 8ppea s, which was docketed as +8*G.R. =; 3o. !)$':. 1n Eecember "", "$$(, the
Page | 2091

+o&rt of 8ppea s rendered the assai ed decision, the dispositive portion of which reads< 0IERE.1RE, no error, m&ch ess angrave ab&se of discretion of the co&rt a %&o having been shown, the petition for certiorari is hereb- EI=,I==EE. The %&estioned order of the respondent J&dge is affirmed in toto. =1 1REEREE.L""M Rodo foRs motion for reconsideration was denied b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s in the assai ed reso &tion dated .ebr&ar"#, "$$#.L"/M Ience, this petition for review, anchored on the fo owing gro&nds< I
Page | 2092

RE=;13EE3T +1URT I8E EE+IEEE 8 OUE=TI13 1. =UH=T83+E I3 8 08C 31T I3 8++1RE 0ITI TIE A80 83E I= EIRE+TAC +13TR8EI+T1RC T1 TIE 8;;AI+8HAE EE+I=I13 8ARE8EC RE3EEREE HC TII= I131R8HAE +1URT. II RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 EI=REG8REI3G TIE RUAI3G 1. TII= I131R8HAE +1URT I3 TIE +8=E 1. EU=EHI1 F=. EU=EHI1, "'' ;IIA=. )$!, 0II+I +AE8RAC I3TER;RETEE 0I8T I= ,E83T HC RE=IEE3+E I3 =E+. " 1. RUAE #! 1. TIE RUAE= 1. +1URT. III
Page | 2093

RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 I1AEI3G TI8T ;IC=I+8A ;RE=E3+E I3 8 ;A8+E 8T TIE TI,E 1. EE8TI I= EETER,I38TIFE 1. EE+EEE3TR= RE=IEE3+E R8TIER TI83 TIE I3TE3TI13 1. TIE EE+EEE3T= T1 E=T8HAI=I TIEIR ;ER,83E3T RE=IEE3+E I3 831TIER ;A8+E. IF RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 8;;ACI3G HC 838A1GC TIE RE=IEE3+E +13TE,;A8TEE I3 =E+. / 1. RUAE 4 .1R TIE ;UR;1=E 1. =ERFI3G =U,,13= T1 8 EE.E3E83T I3 8 ;ER=138A 8+TI13 T1 TIE RE=IEE3+E +13TE,;A8TEE I3 =E+. " 1. RUAE #! .1R TIE ;UR;1=E 1.
Page | 2094

EETER,I3I3G FE3UE I3 TIE =ETTAE,E3T 1. TIE E=T8TE 1. 8 EE+E8=EE. F RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 GIFI3G ,1RE 0EIGIT T1 TIE E3TRC 1. ;ETITI13ER 83E ;RIF8TE RE=;13EE3T I3 TIE RE=;E+TIFE EE8TI +ERTI.I+8TE= 1. TIE EE+EEE3T= R8TIER TI83 TIE 1FER0IEA,I3G EFIEE3+E =I10I3G TIE +AE8R I3TE3TI13 1. TIE EE+EEE3T= T1 E=T8HAI=I TIEIR ;ER,83E3T RE=IEE3+E I3 83GEAE= +ITC. FI RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 8;;ACI3G TIE ;RI3+I;AE 1.
Page | 2095

E=T1;;EA 8= 8G8I3=T ;ETITI13ER 0II+I +83 31T HE ,1RE ;ER=U8=IFE TI83 TIE +AE8R I3TE3TI13 1. TIE EE+EEE3T= TIE,=EAFE= T1 E=T8HAI=I ;ER,83E3T RE=IEE3+E I3 83GEAE= +ITC. FII RE=;13EE3T +1URT ERREE I3 EI=,I==I3G TIE ;ETITI13 .1R +ERTI1R8RI EE=;ITE TIE +AE8R 8HU=E 1. EI=+RETI13 13 TIE ;8RT 1. TIE TRI8A +1URT I3 I3=I=TI3G T1 T8?E +1G3IZ83+E 1. =;. ;R1+EEEI3G 31. O*$"*:)'#.
L"!M

The main iss&e before &s is< where sho& d the sett ement proceedings be
Page | 2096

had *** in ;ampanga, where the decedents had their permanent residence, or in O&e7on +it-, where the- act&a - sta-ed before their demiseK R& e #!, =ection " of the R& es of +o&rt states< Q1ere e$tate of decea$ed per$on$ /e $ettled. S If the decedent is an inhabitant of the ;hi ippines at the time of his death, whether a citi7en or an a ien, his wi sha be proved, or etters of administration granted, and his estate sett ed, in the +o&rt of .irst Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign co&ntr-, the +o&rt of .irst Instance of an- province in which he had estate. The co&rt first
Page | 2097

taking cogni7ance of the sett ement of the estate of a decedent sha e6ercise j&risdiction to the e6c &sion of a other co&rts. The j&risdiction ass&med b- a co&rt, so far as it depends on the p ace of residence of the decedent, or of the ocation of his estate, sha not be contested in a s&it or proceeding, e6cept in an appea from that co&rt, in the origina case, or when the want of j&risdiction appears on the record. 2&nderscoring o&rs5 + ear -, the estate of an inhabitant of the ;hi ippines sha be sett ed or etters of administration granted in the proper co&rt ocated in the province where the decedent re$ide$ at t1e ti#e of 1i$ deat1.
Page | 2098

;etitioner Rodo fo invokes o&r r& ing in the case of ;u$e/io v. ;u$e/io, et al., L"4M where we he d that the $itu$ of sett ement proceedings sha be the p ace where the decedent had his permanent residence or domici e at the time of death. In determining residence at the time of death, the fo owing factors m&st be considered, name -, the decedent had< 2a5 capacit- to choose and freedom of choice> 2b5 ph-sica presence at the p ace chosen> and 2c5 intention to sta- therein permanent -. L")M 0hi e it appears that the decedents in this case chose to be ph-sica - present in O&e7on +it- for medica convenience, petitioner avers that the- never adopted O&e7on +it- as their permanent residence.
Page | 2099

The contention acks merit. The facts in ;u$e/io were different from those in the case at bar. The decedent therein, 8ndres E&sebio, passed awa- whi e in the process of transferring his persona be ongings to a ho&se in O&e7on +it-. Ie was then s&ffering from a heart ai ment and was advised b- his doctorJson to p&rchase a O&e7on +it- residence, which was nearer to his doctor. 0hi e he was ab e to ac%&ire a ho&se in O&e7on +it-, E&sebio died even before he co& d move therein. In said case, we r& ed that E&sebio retained his domici e *** and hence, residence *** in =an .ernando, ;ampanga. It cannot be said that E&sebio changed his residence beca&se, strict - speaking, his ph-sica
Page | 2100

presence in O&e7on +it- was j&st temporar-. In the case at bar, there is s&bstantia proof that the decedents have transferred to petitionerRs O&e7on +itresidence. ;etitioner fai ed to s&fficient - ref&te respondentRs assertion that their e der - parents sta-ed in his ho&se for some three to fo&r -ears before the- died in the ate "$:'s. .&rthermore, the decedentsR respective death certificates state that the- were both residents of O&e7on +itat the time of their demise. =ignificant -, it was petitioner himse f who fi ed &p his ate motherRs death certificate. To o&r mind, this &n%&a ified - shows that at that time, at east, petitioner recogni7ed his deceased motherRs residence to be
Page | 2101

O&e7on +it-. ,oreover, petitioner fai ed to contest the entr- in IgnacioRs death certificate, accomp ished a -ear ear ier b- respondent. The recita s in the death certificates, which are admissib e in evidence, were th&s proper - considered and pres&med to be correct b- the co&rt a 4uo. 0e agree with the appe ate co&rtRs observation that since the death certificates were accomp ished even before petitioner and respondent %&arre ed over their inheritance, thema- be re ied &pon to ref ect the tr&e sit&ation at the time of their parentsR death. The death certificates th&s prevai ed as proofs of the decedentsR residence at the time of death, over the n&mero&s
Page | 2102

doc&mentar- evidence presented bpetitioner. To be s&re, the doc&ments presented b- petitioner pertained not to residence at the time of death, as re%&ired b- the R& es of +o&rt, b&t topermanent residence or domici e. In Garcia-Hule v. )ourt of Appeal$,L"(M we he d< 666 666 666 the term PresidesQ connotes e' vi ter#ini Pact&a residenceQ as disting&ished from P ega residence or domici e.Q This term PresidesQ, ike the terms PresidingQ and PresidenceQ, is e astic and sho& d be interpreted in the ight of the object or p&rpose of the stat&te or rule in which it is emp o-ed. In the app ication of ven&e stat&tes and r& es S =ection ", R& e #! of the Revised R& es of +o&rt is of s&ch
Page | 2103

nat&re S residence rat1er t1an domici e is the significant factor. Even where the stat&te &ses the word Pdomici eQ sti it is constr&ed as meaning residence and not domici e in the technica sense. =ome cases make a distinction between the terms PresidenceQ and Pdomici eQ b&t as genera - &sed in stat&tes fi6ing ven&e, the terms are s-non-mo&s, and conve- the same meaning as the term Pinhabitant.Q In other words, PresidesQ sho& d be viewed or &nderstood in its pop& ar sense, meaning, the persona , act&a or ph-sica habitation of a person, act&a residence or p ace of abode. It signifies ph-sica presence in a p ace and act&a sta- thereat. In this pop& ar sense, the term means mere - residence, that is, persona residence, not ega residence
Page | 2104

or domici e. Residence simp - re%&ires bodi - presence as an inhabitant in a given p ace, whi e domici e re%&ires bodi - presence in that p ace and a so an intention to make it oneRs domici e. 3o partic& ar ength of time of residence is re%&ired tho&gh> however, the residence m&st be more than temporar-.L"#M Hoth the sett ement co&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s fo&nd that the decedents have been iving with petitioner at the time of their deaths and for some time prior thereto. 0e find this conc &sion to be s&bstantiated b- the evidence on record. 8 c ose per&sa of the cha enged decision shows that, contrar- to petitionerRs assertion, the co&rt be ow considered not on - the
Page | 2105

decedentsR ph-sica presence in O&e7on +it-, b&t a so other factors indicating that the decedentsR sta- therein was more than temporar-. In the absence of an- s&bstantia showing that the ower co&rtsR fact&a findings stemmed from an erroneo&s apprehension of the evidence presented, the same m&st be he d to be conc &sive and binding &pon this +o&rt. ;etitioner strains to differentiate between the ven&e provisions fo&nd in R& e 4, =ection /,L":M on ordinar- civi actions, and R& e #!, =ection ", which app ies specifica to sett ement proceedings. Ie arg&es that whi e ven&e in the former &nderstandab refers to act&a ph-sica residence for the p&rpose of serving s&mmons, it is
Page | 2106

the permanent residence of the decedent which is significant in R& e #!, =ection ". ;etitioner insists that ven&e for the sett ement of estates can on refer to permanent residence or domici e beca&se it is the p ace where the records of the properties are kept and where most of the decedentsR properties are ocated. ;etitionerRs arg&ment fai s to pers&ade. It does not necessari - fo ow that the records of a personRs properties are kept in the p ace where he permanent resides. 3either can it be pres&med that a personRs properties can be fo&nd most - in the p ace where he estab ishes his domici e. It ma- be that he has his domici e in a p ace different from that
Page | 2107

where he keeps his records, or where he maintains e6tensive persona and b&siness interests. 3o genera i7ations can th&s be form& ated on the matter, as the %&estion of where to keep records or retain properties is entire - dependent &pon an individ&a Rs choice and pec& iarities. 8t an- rate, petitioner is obvio&s sp itting straws when he differentiates between ven&e in ordinar- civi actions and ven&e in specia proceedings. In %a!#ond v. )ourt of Appeal$L"$M and (ejer v. )ourt of Appeal$,L/'M we r& ed that ven&e for ordinar- civi actions and that for specia proceedings have one and the same meaning. 8s th&s defined, PresidenceQ, in the conte6t of ven&e provisions,
Page | 2108

means nothing more than a personRs act&a residence or p ace of abode, provided he resides therein with contin&it- and consistenc-.L/"M 8 to d, the ower co&rt and the +o&rt of 8ppea s correct - he d that ven&e for the sett ement of the decedentsR intestate estate was proper - aid in the O&e7on +it- co&rt. 0IERE.1RE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is EE3IEE, and the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. =; 3o. !)$': is 8..IR,EE. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 2109

:G.R. No. 1222C;. No!e78e 19, 1999< UN%,ED A%RL%NES, petitioner, vs. E%LL%E J. U4, respondent. EE+I=I13 HEAA1=IAA1, J.< U3ITEE 8IRAI3E= assai s in this petition for review on certiorari &nder R& e 4) the /$ 8&g&st "$$) Eecision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. +F 3o. !$#(" which reversed the # 8&g&st
Page | 2110

"$$/ order iss&ed b- the tria co&rt in +ivi +ase 3o. O*$/*"/4"'L"M granting petitioner9s motion to dismiss based on prescription of ca&se of action. The iss&es so&ght to be reso ved are whether the notice of appea to the appe ate co&rt was time - fi ed, and whether 8rt. /$ of the 0arsaw +onventionL/M sho& d app - to the case at bar. 1n "! 1ctober "$:$ respondent 0i ie J. U-, a reven&e passenger on United 8ir ines . ight 3o. :"$ for the =an .rancisco * ,ani a ro&te, checked in together with his &ggage one piece of which was fo&nd to be overweight at the air ine co&nter. To his &tter h&mi iation, an emp o-ee of petitioner reb&ked him sa-ing that he sho& d have known the
Page | 2111

ma6im&m weight a owance to be #' kgs. per bag and that he sho& d have packed his things according -. Then, in a o&d voice in front of the mi ing crowd, she to d respondent to repack his things and transfer some of them from the overweight &ggage to the ighter ones. 3ot wishing to create f&rther scene, respondent acceded on - to find his &ggage sti overweight. The air ine then bi ed him overweight charges which he offered to pa- with a misce aneo&s charge order 2,+15 or an air ine pre*paid credit. Iowever, the air ineRs emp o-ee, and ater its airport s&pervisor, adamant - ref&sed to honor the ,+1 pointing o&t that there were conf icting fig&res isted on it. Eespite the e6p anation from respondent that the ast fig&re written on the ,+1
Page | 2112

represented his ba ance, petitionerRs emp o-ees did not accommodate him. .aced with the prospect of eaving witho&t his &ggage, respondent paid the overweight charges with his 8merican E6press credit card. RespondentRs tro&b es did not end there. Upon arriva in ,ani a, he discovered that one of his bags had been s ashed and its contents sto en. Ie partic& ari7ed his osses to be aro&nd U= @),!"'.''. In a etter dated "( 1ctober "$:$ respondent bewai ed the ins& t, embarrassment and h&mi iating treatment he s&ffered in the hands of United 8ir ines emp o-ees, notified petitioner of his oss and re%&ested reimb&rsement thereof. ;etitioner United 8ir ines,
Page | 2113

thro&gh +entra Haggage =pecia ist Joan ?ro , did not ref&te an- of respondentRs a egations and mai ed a check representing the pa-ment of his oss based on the ma6im&m iabi it- of U= @$.#' per po&nd. Respondent, thinking the amo&nt to be gross inade%&ate to compensate him for his osses, as we as for the indignities he was s&bjected to, sent two 2/5 more etters to petitioner air ine, one dated 4 Jan&ar- "$$' thro&gh a certain 8tt-. ;esigan, and another dated /: 1ctober "$$" thro&gh 8tt-. Ramon U. 8mpi demanding an o&t*of*co&rt sett ement of ;",''','''.''. ;etitioner United 8ir ines did not accede to his demands. +onse%&ent -, on $ J&ne "$$/ respondent fi ed a comp aint for
Page | 2114

damages against United 8ir ines a eging that he was a person of good station, sitting in the board of directors of severa top )'' corporations and ho ding senior e6ec&tive positions for s&ch simi ar firms>L!M that petitioner air ine accorded him i and shabb- treatment to his e6treme embarrassment and h&mi iation> and, as s&ch he sho& d be paid mora damages of at east ;",''','''.'', e6emp ardamages of at east;)'','''.'', p &s attorne-9s fees of at east ;)','''.''. =imi ar -, he a eged that the damage to his &ggage and its sto en contents amo&nted to aro&nd @),!"'.'', and re%&ested reimb&rsement therefor.
Page | 2115

United 8ir ines moved to dismiss the comp aint on the gro&nd that respondentRs ca&se of action had prescribed, invoking 8rt. /$ of the 0arsaw +onvention which provides * 8rt. /$ 2"5 The right to damages sha be e6ting&ished if an action is not bro&ght within two 2/5 -ears, reckoned from the date of arriva at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft o&ght to have arrived, or from the date on which the transportation stopped. 2/5 The method of ca c& ating the period of imitation sha be determined b- the aw of the co&rt to which the case is s&bmitted. Respondent co&ntered that par. 2"5 of 8rt. /$ of the 0arsaw +onvention m&st
Page | 2116

be reconci ed with par. 2/5 thereof which states that Dthe method of ca c& ating the period of imitation sha be determined b- the aw of the co&rt to which the case is s&bmitted.D Interpreting th&s, respondent noted that according to ;hi ippine aws the prescription of actions is interr&pted Dwhen the- are fi ed before the co&rt, when there is a written e6traj&dicia demand b- the creditors, and when there is an- written acknow edgment of the debt b- the debtor.DL4M =ince he made severa demands &pon United 8ir ines< fir$t, thro&gh his persona etter dated "( 1ctober "$:$> $econd, thro&gh a etter dated 4 Jan&ar- "$$' from 8tt-. ;esigan> and, finall!, thro&gh a etter dated /: 1ctober "$$" written for him
Page | 2117

b- 8tt-. 8mpi , the two 2/5*-ear period of imitation had not -et been e6ha&sted. 1n / 8&g&st "$$/ the tria co&rt ordered the dismissa of the action ho ding that the ang&age of 8rt. /$ is c ear that the action m&st be bro&ght within two 2/5 -ears from the date of arriva at the destination. It he d that a tho&gh the second paragraph of 8rt. /$ speaks of deference to the aw of the oca co&rt in Dca c& ating the period of imitation,D the same does not refer to the oca for&mRs r& es in interr&pting the prescriptive period b&t on - to the r& es of determining the time in which the action ma- be deemed commenced, and within o&r j&risdiction the action sha be deemed Dbro&ghtD or commenced b- the fi ing of a
Page | 2118

comp aint. Ience, the tria co&rt conc &ded that 8rt. /$ e6c &des the app ication of o&r interr&ption r& es. Respondent received a cop- of the dismissa order on "# 8&g&st "$$/. 1n !" 8&g&st "$$/, or fo&rteen 2"45 da-s ater, he moved for the reconsideration of the tria co&rtRs order. The tria co&rt denied the motion and respondent received cop- of the denia order on /: =eptember "$$/. Two 2/5 da-s ater, on " 1ctober "$$/ respondent fi ed his notice of appea . United 8ir ines once again moved for the dismissa of the case this time pointing o&t that respondentRs fifteen 2")5*da- period to appea had a reade apsed. ;etitioner arg&ed that having &sed fo&rteen 2"45 da-s of the
Page | 2119

reg ementarperiod for appea , respondent U- had on - one 2"5 daremaining to perfect his appea , and since he fi ed his notice of appea two 2/5 da-s ater, he fai ed to meet the dead ine. In its %&estioned Eecision dated /$ 8&g&st "$$)L)M the appe ate co&rt gave d&e co&rse to the appea ho ding that respondentRs de a- of two 2/5 da-s in fi ing his notice of appea did not hinder it from reviewing the appea ed order of dismissa since j&rispr&dence dictates that an appea ma- be entertained despite proced&ra apses anchored on e%&it- and j&stice. 1n the app icabi it- of the 0arsaw +onvention, the appe ate co&rt r& ed that the 0arsaw +onvention did not
Page | 2120

prec &de the operation of the +ivi +ode and other pertinent aws. RespondentRs fai &re to fi e his comp aint within the two 2/5*-ear imitation provided in the 0arsaw +onvention did not bar his action since he co& d sti ho d petitioner iab e for breach of other provisions of the +ivi +ode which prescribe a different period or proced&re for instit&ting an action. .&rther, &nder ;hi ippine aws, prescription of actions is interr&pted where, among others, there is a written e6traj&dicia demand b- the creditors, and since respondent U- sent severa demand etters to petitioner United 8ir ines, the r&nning of the two 2/5*-ear prescriptive period was in effect s&spended. Ience, the appe ate co&rt r& ed that respondentRs ca&se of action had not -et prescribed and ordered the
Page | 2121

records remanded to the O&e7on +ittria co&rt for f&rther proceedings. ;etitioner now contends that the appe ate co&rt erred in ass&ming j&risdiction over respondent9s appea since it is c ear that the notice of appea was fi ed o&t of time. It arg&es that the co&rts re a6 the stringent r& e on perfection of appea s on - when there are e6traordinar- circ&mstances, e.g., when the Rep&b ic stands to ose h&ndreds of hectares of and a readtit ed and &sed for ed&cationa p&rposes> when the co&nse of record was a read- dead> and wherein appe ant was the owner of the trademark for more than thirt- 2!'5 -ears, and the circ&mstances of the
Page | 2122

present case do not compare to the above e6ceptiona cases.L(M =ection " of R& e 4) of the 199+ %ule$ of )ivil 2rocedure provides that Da partma- appea b- certiorari, from a j&dgment of the +o&rt of 8ppea s, bfi ing with the =&preme +o&rt a petition for certiorari, within fifteen 2")5 da-s from notice of j&dgment or of the denia of his motion for reconsideration fi ed in d&e time 6 6 6 6D This R& e however sho& d not be interpreted as Dto sacrifice the s&bstantia right of the appe ant in the sophisticated a tar of technica ities with impairment of the sacred princip es of j&stice.DL#M It sho& d be borne in mind that the rea p&rpose behind the imitation of the period of appea is to foresta or avoid an &nreasonab e de aPage | 2123

in the administration of j&stice. Th&s, we have r& ed that de a- in the fi ing of a notice of appea does not j&stif- the dismissa of the appea where the circ&mstances of the case show that there is no intent to de a- the administration of j&stice on the part of appe ant9s co&nse ,L:M or when there are no s&bstantia rights affected,L$M or when appe ant9s co&nse committed a mistake in the comp&tation of the period of appea , an error not attrib&tab e to neg igence or bad faith.L"'M In the instant case, respondent fi ed his notice of appea two 2/5 da-s ater than the prescribed period. 8 tho&gh his co&nse fai ed to give the reason for the de a-, we are inc ined to give d&e co&rse to his appea d&e to the &ni%&e
Page | 2124

and pec& iar facts of the case and the serio&s %&estion of aw it poses. In the now a most trite b&t sti good princip e, technica it-, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to j&stice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enem-, deserves scant consideration.L""M ;etitioner ikewise contends that the appe ate co&rt erred in r& ing that respondent9s ca&se of action has not prescribed since de egates to the 0arsaw +onvention c ear - intended the two 2/5*-ear imitation incorporated in 8rt. /$ as an abso &te bar to s&it and not to be made s&bject to the vario&s to ing provisions of the aws of the for&m. ;etitioner arg&es that in constr&ing the second paragraph of 8rt. /$ private respondent cannot read into it
Page | 2125

;hi ippine r& es on interr&ption of prescriptive periods and state that his e6traj&dicia demand has interr&pted the period of prescription.L"/M 8merican j&rispr&dence has dec ared that D8rt. /$ 2/5 was not intended to permit for&ms to consider oca imitation to ing provisions b&t on - to et oca aw determine whether an action had been commenced within the two*-ear period, since the method of commencing a s&it varies from co&ntr- to co&ntr-.DL"!M 0ithin o&r j&risdiction we have he d that the 0arsaw +onvention can be app ied, or ignored, depending on the pec& iar facts presented b- each case. L"4M Th&s, we have r& ed that the +onvention9s provisions do not reg& ate or e6c &de iabi it- for other breaches of
Page | 2126

contract b- the carrier or miscond&ct of its officers and emp o-ees, or for some partic& ar or e6ceptiona t-pe of damage.L")M 3either ma- the +onvention be invoked to j&stif- the disregard of some e6traordinar- sort of damage res& ting to a passenger and prec &de recover- therefor be-ond the imits set b- said +onvention.L"(M Aikewise, we have he d that the +onvention does not prec &de the operation of the +ivi +ode and other pertinent aws.L"#M It does not reg& ate, m&ch ess e6empt, the carrier from iabi it- for damages for vio ating the rights of its passengers &nder the contract of carriage, especia - if wi f& miscond&ct on the part of the carrier9s emp o-ees is fo&nd or estab ished.L":M
Page | 2127

Respondent9s comp aint revea s that he is s&ing on two 2/5 ca&ses of action< 2a5 the shabb- and h&mi iating treatment he received from petitioner9s emp o-ees at the =an .rancisco 8irport which ca&sed him e6treme embarrassment and socia h&mi iation> and, 2b5 the s ashing of his &ggage and the oss of his persona effects amo&nting to U= @),!"'.''. 0hi e his second ca&se of action * an action for damages arising from theft or damage to propert- or goods * is we within the bo&nds of the 0arsaw +onvention, his first ca&se of action *an action for damages arising from the miscond&ct of the air ine emp o-ees and the vio ation of respondent9s rights as passenger * c ear - is not.
Page | 2128

+onse%&ent -, insofar as the first ca&se of action is concerned, respondent9s fai &re to fi e his comp aint within the two 2/5*-ear imitation of the 0arsaw +onvention does not bar his action since petitioner air ine ma- sti be he d iab e for breach of other provisions of the +ivi +ode which prescribe a different period or proced&re for instit&ting the action, specifica -, 8rt. ""4( thereof which prescribes fo&r 245 -ears for fi ing an action based on torts.8s for respondent9s second ca&se of action, indeed the travau' preparatorie$ of the 0arsaw +onvention revea that the de egates thereto intended the two 2/5*-ear imitation incorporated in 8rt. /$ as an abso &te bar to s&it and not to be made s&bject to the vario&s to ing provisions of the aws
Page | 2129

of the for&m. This therefore forec oses the app ication of o&r own r& es on interr&ption of prescriptive periods. 8rtic e /$, par. 2/5, was intended on - to et oca aws determine whether an action had been commenced within the two 2/5*-ear period, and within o&r j&risdiction an action sha be deemed commenced &pon the fi ing of a comp aint. =ince it is indisp&tab e that respondent fi ed the present action be-ond the two 2/5*-ear time frame his second ca&se of action m&st be barred. 3onethe ess, it cannot be do&bted that respondent e6erted efforts to immediate - conve- his oss to petitioner, even emp o-ed the services of two 2/5 aw-ers to fo ow &p his c aims, and that the fi ing of the action itse f was de a-ed beca&se of
Page | 2130

petitioner9s evasion.In this regard, 21ilippine Airline$, 3nc. v. )ourt of Appeal$L"$M is instr&ctive. In this case of 2AL, private respondent fi ed an action for damages against petitioner air ine for the breakage of the front g ass of the microwave oven which she shipped &nder ;8A 8ir 0a-bi 3o. '*#$* "'"!'':*!. ;etitioner averred that, the action having been fi ed seven 2#5 months after her arriva at her port of destination, she fai ed to comp - with par. "/, s&bpar. 2a5 2"5, of the 8ir 0a-bi which e6press - provided that the person entit ed to de iver- m&st make a comp aint to the carrier in writing in case of visib e damage to the goods, immediate - after discover- of the damage and at the atest within "4 da-s from receipt of the goods. Eespite non*
Page | 2131

comp iance therewith the +o&rt he d that b- private respondent9s immediate s&bmission of a forma c aim to petitioner, which however was not immediate - entertained as it was referred from one emp o-ee to another, she was deemed to have s&bstantia comp ied with the re%&irement. The +o&rt noted that with private respondent9s own 7ea o&s efforts in p&rs&ing her c aim it was c ear - not her fa& t that the etter of demand for damages co& d on - be fi ed, after months of e6asperating fo ow*&p of the c aim, on "! 8&g&st "$$', and that if there was an- fai &re at a to fi e the forma c aim within the prescriptive period contemp ated in the 8ir 0a-bi , this was arge - beca&se of the carrier9s own doing, the conse%&ences of which
Page | 2132

co& d not in a fairness be attrib&ted to private respondent. In the same vein m&st we r& e &pon the circ&mstances bro&ght before &s. Feri -, respondent fi ed his comp aint more than two 2/5 -ears ater, be-ond the period of imitation prescribed b- the 0arsaw +onvention for fi ing a c aim for damages. Iowever, it is obvio&s that respondent was foresta ed from immediate - fi ing an action beca&se petitioner air ine gave him the r&naro&nd, answering his etters b&t not giving in to his demands. Tr&e, respondent sho& d have a read- fi ed an action at the first instance when his c aims were denied b- petitioner b&t the same co& d on - be d&e to his desire to make an o&t*of*co&rt sett ement for
Page | 2133

which he cannot be fa& ted. Ience, despite the e6press mandate of 8rt. /$ of the 0arsaw +onvention that an action for damages sho& d be fi ed within two 2/5 -ears from the arriva at the p ace of destination, s&ch r& e sha not be app ied in the instant case beca&se of the de a-ing tactics emp o-ed bpetitioner air ine itse f. Th&s, private respondent9s second ca&se of action cannot be considered as time*barred &nder 8rt. /$ of the 0arsaw +onvention. 0IERE.1RE, the assai ed Eecision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s reversing and setting aside the appea ed order of the tria co&rt granting the motion to dismiss the comp aint, as we as its Reso &tion den-ing reconsideration, is
Page | 2134

8..IR,EE. Aet the records of the case be remanded to the co&rt of origin for f&rther proceedings taking its bearings from this dis%&isition.=1 1REEREE.

Page | 2135

G.R. No. 101235 No!e78e 1;, 1993

Page | 2136

S*OUSES $ESAR F SU,H%RA 5ALA#EA &n( L%ANA 5ALA#EA, petitione ", !". HONORA6LE $OUR, O. A**EALS &n( ,RANSEORLD A%RL%NES, %N$., e"pon(ent". !cip, ala5ar, 7ernande5, Gat#aitan for petitioner$. Vui$u#/in", Torre$ R ;van"eli$ta for private-re$pondent. 31+13, J.: Eisgr&nt ed over Trans0or d 8ir ines, Inc.9s ref&sa to accommodate them in T08 . ight ''# departing from 3ew Cork to Aos 8nge es on J&ne (, "$:4 despite possession of confirmed tickets,
Page | 2137

petitioners fi ed an action for damages before the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, ,etro ,ani a, Hranch "4). 8dvocating petitioner9s position, the tria co&rt categorica - r& ed that respondent Trans0or d 8ir ines 2T085 breached its contract of carriage with petitioners and that said breach was Dcharacteri7ed bbad faith.D 1n appea , however, the appe ate co&rt fo&nd that whi e there was a breach of contract on respondent T089s part, there was neither fra&d nor bad faith beca&se &nder the +ode of .edera Reg& ations b- the +ivi 8erona&tics Hoard of the United =tates of 8merica it is a owed to overbook f ights. The fact&a backdrop of the case is as fo ows<
Page | 2138

;etitioners*spo&ses +esar +. Za amea and =&thira Za amea, and their da&ghter, Aiana Za amea, p&rchased three 2!5 air ine tickets from the ,ani a agent of respondent Trans0or d 8ir ines, Inc. for a f ight to 3ew Cork to Aos 8nge es on J&ne (, "$:4. The tickets of petitioners*spo&ses were p&rchased at a disco&nt of #)B whi e that of their da&ghter was a f& fare ticket. 8 three tickets represented confirmed reservations. 0hi e in 3ew Cork, on J&ne 4, "$:4, petitioners received notice of the reconfirmation of their reservations for said f ight. 1n the appointed date, however, petitioners checked in at "'<'' a.m., an ho&r ear ier than the sched& ed f ight at ""<'' a.m. b&t were p aced on
Page | 2139

the wait* ist beca&se the n&mber of passengers who had checked in before them had a read- taken a the seats avai ab e on the f ight. Aiana Za amea appeared as the 3o. "! on the wait* ist whi e the two other Za ameas were isted as D3o. !4, showing a part- of two.D 1&t of the 4/ names on the wait ist, the first // names were event&a a owed to board the f ight to Aos 8nge es, inc &ding petitioner +esar Za amea. The two others, on the other hand, at 3o. !4, being ranked ower than //, were not ab e to f -. 8s it were, those ho ding f& *fare tickets were given first priorit- among the wait* isted passengers. ,r. Za amea, who was ho ding the f& *fare ticket of his da&ghter, was a owed to board the p ane> whi e his wife and da&ghter, who
Page | 2140

presented the disco&nted tickets were denied boarding. 8ccording to ,r. Za amea, it was on - ater when he discovered the he was ho ding his da&ghter9s f& *fare ticket. Even in the ne6t T08 f ight to Aos 8nge es ,rs. Za amea and her da&ghter, co& d not be accommodated beca&se it was a so f& - booked. Th&s, the- were constrained to book in another f ight and p&rchased two tickets from 8merican 8ir ines at a cost of 3ine I&ndred Eighteen 2@$":.''5 Eo ars. Upon their arriva in the ;hi ippines, petitioners fi ed an action for damages based on breach of contract of air carriage before the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,akati, ,etro ,ani a, Hranch "4). 8s aforesaid, the ower co&rt r& ed in favor
Page | 2141

of petitioners in its decision " dated Jan&ar- $, "$:$ the dispositive portion of which states as fo ows< 0IERE.1RE, j&dgment is herebrendered ordering the defendant to pap aintiffs the fo owing amo&nts< 2"5 U= @$":.'', or its peso e%&iva ent at the time of pa-ment representing the price of the tickets bo&ght b- =&thira and Aiana Za amea from 8merican 8ir ines, to enab e them to f - to Aos 8nge es from 3ew Cork +it-> 2/5 U= @")$.4$, or its peso e%&iva ent at the time of pa-ment, representing the price of =&thira
Page | 2142

Za amea9s ticket for T08 . ight ''#> 2!5 Eight Tho&sand 3ine I&ndred Thirt-*.o&r ;esos and .ift+entavos 2;:,$!4.)', ;hi ippine +&rrenc-, representing the price of Aiana Za amea9s ticket for T08 . ight ''#, 245 Two I&ndred .ift- Tho&sand ;esos 2;/)','''.''5, ;hi ippine +&rrenc-, as mora damages for a the p aintiffs9 2)5 1ne I&ndred Tho&sand ;esos 2;"'','''.''5, ;hi ippine +&rrenc-, as and for attorne-9s fees> and 2(5 The costs of s&it. =1 1REEREE. /
Page | 2143

1n appea , the respondent +o&rt of 8ppea s he d that mora damages are recoverab e in a damage s&it predicated &pon a breach of contract of carriage onl! where there is fra&d or bad faith. =ince it is a matter of record that overbooking of f ights is a common and accepted practice of air ines in the United =tates and is specifica - a owed &nder the +ode of .edera Reg& ations b- the +ivi 8erona&tics Hoard, no fra&d nor bad faith co& d be imp&ted on respondent Trans0or d 8ir ines. ,oreover, whi e respondent T08 was remiss in not informing petitioners that the f ight was overbooked and that even a person with a confirmed reservation ma- be denied accommodation on an overbooked f ight, neverthe ess it r& ed
Page | 2144

that s&ch omission or neg igence cannot &nder the circ&mstances be considered to be so gross as to amo&nt to bad faith. .ina -, it a so he d that there was no bad faith in p acing petitioners in the wait* ist a ong with fort-*eight 24:5 other passengers where f& *fare first c ass tickets were given priorit- over disco&nted tickets. The dispositive portion of the decision of respondent +o&rt of 8ppea s ! dated 1ctober /), "$$" states as fo ows< 0IERE.1RE, in view of a the foregoing, the decision &nder review is hereb- ,1EI.IEE in that the award of mora and e6emp ardamages to the p aintiffs is e iminated, and the defendant*
Page | 2145

appe ant is hereb- ordered to pathe p aintiff the fo owing amo&nts< 2"5 U=@")$.4$, or its peso e%&iva ent at the time of the pa-ment, representing the price of =&thira Za amea9s ticket for T08 . ight ''#> 2/5 U=@")$.4$, or its peso e%&iva ent at the time of the pa-ment, representing the price of +esar Za amea9s ticket for T08 . ight ''#> 2!5 ;)','''.'' attorne-9s fees. =1 1REEREE. 4
Page | 2146

as

and

for

245 The costs of s&it.

3ot satisfied with the decision, petitioners raised the case on petition for review on certiorari and a eged the fo owing errors committed b- the respondent +o&rt of 8ppea s, to wit< I. . . . I3 I1AEI3G TI8T TIERE 08= 31 .R8UE 1R H8E .8ITI 13 TIE ;8RT 1. RE=;13EE3T T08 HE+8U=E IT I8= 8 RIGIT T1 1FERH11? .AIGIT=. II. . . . I3 EAI,I38TI3G TIE 808RE 1. ENE,;A8RC E8,8GE=. III.
Page | 2147

. . . I3 31T 1REERI3G TIE RE.U3E 1. AI838 Z8A8,E89= T08 TI+?ET 83E ;8C,E3T .1R TIE 8,ERI+83 8IRAI3E= TI+?ET=. ) That there was fra&d or bad faith on the part of respondent air ine when it did not a ow petitioners to board their f ight for Aos 8nge es in spite of confirmed tickets cannot be disp&ted. The U.=. aw or reg& ation a eged a&thori7ing overbooking has never been proved. .oreign aws do not prove themse ves nor can the co&rts take j&dicia notice of them. Aike an- other fact, the- m&st be a eged and proved. ( 0ritten aw mabe evidenced b- an officia p&b ication thereof or b- a cop- attested b- the officer having the ega c&stod- of the
Page | 2148

record, or b- his dep&t-, and accompanied with a certificate that s&ch officer has c&stod-. The certificate mabe made b- a secretar- of an embassor egation, cons& genera , cons& , vice* cons& , or cons& ar agent or b- anofficer in the foreign service of the ;hi ippines stationed in the foreign co&ntr- in which the record is kept, and a&thenticated b- the sea of his office. Respondent T08 re ied so e - on the statement of ,s. Gwendo -n Aather, its c&stomer service agent, in her deposition dated Jan&ar- /#, "$:( that the +ode of .edera Reg& ations of the +ivi 8erona&tics Hoard a ows overbooking. 8side from said statement, no officia p&b ication of said code was presented as evidence. Th&s, respondent co&rt9s finding that
Page | 2149

overbooking is specifica - a owed bthe U= +ode of .edera Reg& ations has no basis in fact.Even if the c aimed U.=. +ode of .edera Reg& ations does e6ist, the same is not app icab e to the case at bar in accordance with the princip e of le' loci contractu$ which re%&ire that the aw of the p ace where the air ine ticket was iss&ed sho& d be app ied bthe co&rt where the passengers are residents and nationa s of the for&m and the ticket is iss&ed in s&ch =tate b- the defendant air ine. : =ince the tickets were so d and iss&ed in the ;hi ippines, the app icab e aw in this case wo& d be ;hi ippine aw.E6isting j&rispr&dence e6p icit - states that overbooking amo&nts to bad faith, entit ing the passengers concerned to an award of mora damages. In Alitalia Air0a!$ v.
Page | 2150

)ourt of Appeal$, $ where passengers with confirmed bookings were ref&sed carriage on the ast min&te, this +o&rt he d that when an air ine iss&es a ticket to a passenger confirmed on a partic& ar f ight, on a certain date, a contract of carriage arises, and the passenger has ever- right to e6pect that he wo& d f - on that f ight and on that date. If he does not, then the carrier opens itse f to a s&it for breach of contract of carriage. 0here an air ine had de iberate - overbooked, it took the risk of having to deprive some passengers of their seats in case a of them wo& d show &p for the check in. .or the indignit- and inconvenience of being ref&sed a confirmed seat on the ast min&te, said passenger is entit ed to an award of mora damages.=imi ar -, in Korean Airline$ )o., Ltd. v. )ourt of
Page | 2151

Appeal$, "' where private respondent was not a owed to board the p ane beca&se her seat had a read- been given to another passenger even before the a owab e period for passengers to check in had apsed despite the fact that she had a confirmed ticket and she had arrived on time, this +o&rt he d that petitioner air ine acted in bad faith in vio ating private respondent9s rights &nder their contract of carriage and is therefore iab e for the inj&ries she has s&stained as a res& t.In fact, e6isting j&rispr&dence abo&nds with r& ings where the breach of contract of carriage amo&nts to bad faith. In 2an A#erican Qorld Air0a!$, 3nc. v. 3nter#ediate Appellate )ourt, "" where a wo& d*be passenger had the necessar- ticket, baggage c aim and c earance from
Page | 2152

immigration a c ear - and &nmistakab showing that she was, in fact, inc &ded in the passenger manifest of said f ight, and -et was denied accommodation in said f ight, this +o&rt did not hesitate to affirm the ower co&rt9s finding awarding her damages.8 contract to transport passengers is %&ite different in kind and degree from an- other contract&a re ation. =o r& ed this +o&rt in Aulueta v. 2an A#erican Qorld Air0a!$, 3nc. "/ This is so, for a contract of carriage generates a re ation attended with p&b ic d&t- G a d&t- to provide p&b ic service and convenience to its passengers which m&st be paramo&nt to se f*interest or enrichment. Th&s, it was a so he d that the switch of p anes from Aockheed "'"" to a sma er Hoeing #'# beca&se there were on - "!:
Page | 2153

confirmed econom- c ass passengers who co& d ver- we be accommodated in the sma er p anes, thereb- sacrificing the comfort of its first c ass passengers for the sake of econom-, amo&nts to bad faith. =&ch inattention and ack of care for the interest of its passengers who are entit ed to its &tmost consideration entit es the passenger to an award of mora damages. "! Even on the ass&mption that overbooking is a owed, respondent T08 is sti g&i t- of bad faith in not informing its passengers beforehand that it co& d breach the contract of carriage even if the- have confirmed tickets if there was overbooking. Respondent T08 sho& d have incorporated stip& ations on overbooking
Page | 2154

on the tickets iss&ed or to proper inform its passengers abo&t these po icies so that the atter wo& d be prepared for s&ch event&a it- or wo& d have the choice to ride with another air ine. Respondent T08 contends that E6hibit I, the detached f ight co&pon &pon which were written the name of the passenger and the points of origin and destination, contained s&ch a notice. 8n e6amination of E6hibit I does not bear this o&t. 8t anrate, said e6hibit was not offered for the p&rpose of showing the e6istence of a notice of overbooking b&t to show that E6hibit I was &sed for f ight ''# in first c ass of J&ne "", "$:4 from 3ew Cork to Aos 8nge es.
Page | 2155

,oreover, respondent T08 was a so g&i t- of not informing its passengers of its a eged po ic- of giving ess priorit- to disco&nted tickets. 0hi e the petitioners had checked in at the same time, and he d confirmed tickets, -et, on - one of them was a owed to board the p ane ten min&tes before depart&re time beca&se the f& *fare ticket he was ho ding was given priorit- over disco&nted tickets. The other two petitioners were eft behind. It is respondent T089s position that the practice of overbooking and the air ine s-stem of boarding priorities are reasonab e po icies, which when imp emented do not amo&nt to bad faith. H&t the iss&e raised in this case is not the reasonab eness of said po icies b&t
Page | 2156

whether or not said po icies were incorporated or deemed written on petitioners9 contracts of carriage. Respondent T08 fai ed to show that there are provisions to that effect. 3either did it present an- arg&ment of s&bstance to show that petitioners were d& - apprised of the overbooked condition of the f ight or that there is a hierarch- of boarding priorities in booking passengers. It is evident that petitioners had the right to re - &pon the ass&rance of respondent T08, thr& its agent in ,ani a, then in 3ew Cork, that their tickets represented confirmed seats witho&t an- %&a ification. The fai &re of respondent T08 to so inform them when it co& d easi - have done so thereb- enab ing respondent to ho d on to them as passengers &p to the ast
Page | 2157

min&te amo&nts to bad faith. Evident -, respondent T08 p aced its se f*interest over the rights of petitioners &nder their contracts of carriage. =&ch conscio&s disregard of petitioners9 rights makes respondent T08 iab e for mora damages. To deter breach of contracts b- respondent T08 in simi ar fashion in the f&t&re, we adj&dge respondent T08 iab e for e6emp ar- damages, as we .;etitioners a so assai the respondent co&rt9s decision not to re%&ire the ref&nd of Aiana Za amea9s ticket beca&se the ticket was &sed bher father. 1n this score, we &pho d the respondent co&rt. ;etitioners had not shown with certaint- that the act of respondent T08 in a owing ,r. Za amea to &se the ticket of her da&ghter was d&e to inadvertence or
Page | 2158

de iberate act. ;etitioners had a so fai ed to estab ish that the- did not accede to said agreement. The ogica conc &sion, therefore, is that both petitioners and respondent T08 agreed, a beit imp ied -, to the co&rse of action taken.The respondent co&rt erred, however, in not ordering the ref&nd of the 8merican 8ir ines tickets p&rchased and &sed b- petitioners =&thira and Aiana. The evidence shows that petitioners =&thira and Aiana were constrained to take the 8merican 8ir ines f ight to Aos 8nge es not beca&se the- Dopted not to &se their T08 tickets on another T08 f ightD b&t beca&se respondent T08 co& d not accommodate them either on the ne6t T08 f ight which was a so f& booked. "4 The p&rchase of the
Page | 2159

8merican 8ir ines tickets b- petitioners =&thira and Aiana was the conse%&ence of respondent T089s &nj&stifiab e breach of its contracts of carriage with petitioners. In accordance with 8rtic e //'", 3ew +ivi +ode, respondent T08 sho& d, therefore, be responsib e for a damages which ma- be reasonab attrib&ted to the non*performance of its ob igation. In the previo&s - cited case of Alitalia Air0a!$ v. )ourt of Appeal$, ") this +o&rt e6p icit - he d that a passenger is entit ed to be reimb&rsed for the cost of the tickets he had to b&for a f ight to another air ine. Th&s, instead of simp - being ref&nded for the cost of the &n&sed T08 tickets, petitioners sho& d be awarded the act&a cost of their f ight from 3ew Cork to Aos 8nge es. 1n this score, we differ from
Page | 2160

the tria co&rt9s r& ing which ordered not on - the reimb&rsement of the 8merican 8ir ines tickets b&t a so the ref&nd of the &n&sed T08 tickets. To re%&ire both prestations wo& d have enab ed petitioners to f - from 3ew Cork to Aos 8nge es witho&t an- fare being paid.The award to petitioners of attorne-9s fees is a so j&stified &nder 8rtic e //':2/5 of the +ivi +ode which a ows recover- when the defendant9s act or omission has compe ed p aintiff to itigate or to inc&r e6penses to protect his interest. Iowever, the award for mora damages and e6emp ar- damages b- the tria co&rt is e6cessive in the ight of the fact that on - =&thira and Aiana Za amea were act&a - Db&mped off.D 8n award of ;)','''.'' mora damages and another ;)','''.'' e6emp ar- damages wo& d
Page | 2161

s&ffice &nder the circ&mstances obtaining in the instant case. 0IERE.1RE, the petition is herebGR83TEE and the decision of the respondent +o&rt of 8ppea s is hereb,1EI.IEE to the e6tent of adj&dging respondent Trans0or d 8ir ines to padamages to petitioners in the fo owing amo&nts, to wit< 2"5 U=@$":.'' or its peso e%&iva ent at the time of pa-ment representing the price of the tickets bo&ght b- =&thira and Aiana Za amea from 8merican 8ir ines, to enab e them to f - to Aos 8nge es from 3ew Cork +it-> 2/5 ;)','''.'' as mora damages> 2!5 ;)','''.'' as e6emp ar- damages> 245 ;)','''.'' as attorne-9s fees> and
Page | 2162

2)5 +osts of s&it. :G.R. No. 11C011A15. #& -' 9, 2000< A#ER%$AN A%RL%NES, petitioner, vs. $OUR, O. A**EALS, HON. 6ERNARDO LL. SALAS &n( DE#O$R%,O #ENDO5A, respondents. Ol(7i"K o EE+I=I13 G13Z8G8[RECE=, J.< Hefore &s is a petition for review of the decision dated Eecember /4, "$$! rendered b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s in the conso idated cases docketed as +8* G.R. =; nos. !'$4( and !"4)/ entit ed 8merican 8ir ines vs. The ;residing J&dge Hranch : of the Regiona Tria
Page | 2163

+o&rt of +eb& and Eemocrito ,endo7a, petitions for certiorari and prohibition. In =; no. !'$4(, the petitioner assai s the tria co&rtRs order den-ing the petitionerRs motion to dismiss the action for damages fi ed b- the private respondent for ack of j&risdiction &nder section /: 2"5 of the 0arsaw +onvention> and in =; 3o. !"4)/ the petitioner cha enges the va idit- of the tria co&rtRs order striking off the record the deposition of the petitionerRs sec&ritofficer taken in Geneva, =wit7er and for fai &re of the said sec&rit- officer to answer the cross interrogatories propo&nded bthe private respondent. 3cm_ The so e iss&e raised in =; 3o. !'$4( is the %&estioned j&risdiction of the
Page | 2164

Regiona Tria +o&rt of +eb& to take cogni7ance of the action for damages fi ed b- the private respondent against herein petitioner in view of 8rt /: 2"5 of the 0arsaw +onvention.L"M It is &ndisp&ted that the private respondent p&rchased from =ingapore 8ir ines in ,ani a conj&nction tickets for ,ani a * =ingapore * 8thens * Aarnaca * Rome * T&rin * Z&rich * Geneva * +openhagen * 3ew Cork. The petitioner was not a participating air ine in an- of the segments in the itinerar- &nder the said conj&nction tickets. In Geneva the petitioner decided to forego his trip to +openhagen and to go straight to 3ew Cork and in the absence of a direct f ight &nder his conj&nction tickets from Geneva to 3ew Cork, the private respondent on J&ne #, "$:$ e6changed
Page | 2165

the &n&sed portion of the conj&nction ticket for a one*wa- ticket from Geneva to 3ew Cork from the petitioner air ine. ;etitioner iss&ed its own ticket to the private respondent in Geneva and c aimed the va &e of the &n&sed portion of the conj&nction ticket from the I8T8L/M c earing ho&se in Geneva. 3cmmis` In =eptember "$:$, private respondent fi ed an action for damages before the regiona tria co&rt of +eb& for the a eged embarassment and menta ang&ish he s&ffered at the Geneva 8irport when the petitionerRs sec&ritofficers prevented him from boarding the p ane, detained him for abo&t an ho&r and a owed him to board the p ane on after a the other passengers have
Page | 2166

boarded. The petitioner fi ed a motion to dismiss for ack of j&risdiction of ;hi ippine co&rts to entertain the said proceedings &nder 8rt. /: 2"5 of the 0arsaw +onvention. The tria co&rt denied the motion. The order of denia was e evated to the +o&rt of 8ppea s which affirmed the r& ing of the tria co&rt. Hoth the tria and that appe ate co&rts he d that the s&it ma- be bro&ght in the ;hi ippines &nder the poo partnership agreement among the I8T8 members, which inc &de =ingapore 8ir ines and 8merican 8ir ines, wherein the members act as agents of each other in the iss&ance of tickets to those who ma- need their services. The contract of carriage perfected in ,ani a between the private respondent and =ingapore 8ir ines binds the petitioner
Page | 2167

as an agent of =ingapore 8ir ines and considering that the petitioner has a p ace of b&siness in ,ani a, the third option of the p aintiff &nder the 0arsaw +onvention i.e. the action ma- be bro&ght in the p ace where the contract was perfected and where the air ine has a p ace of b&siness, is app icab e. Ience this petition assai ing the order &pho ding the j&risdiction of ;hi ippine co&rts over the instant action. =cnca m Hoth parties fi ed sim& taneo&s memoranda p&rs&ant to the reso &tion of this +o&rt giving d&e co&rse to the petition. The petitionerRs theor- is as fo ows< Under 8rt /: 2"5 of the 0arsaw convention an action for damages m&st be bro&ght at the option of the p aintiff
Page | 2168

either before the co&rt of the "5 domici e of the carrier> /5 the carrierRs principa p ace of b&siness> !5 the p ace where the carrier has a p ace of b&siness thro&gh which the contract was made> 45 the p ace of destination. The petitioner asserts that the ;hi ippines is neither the domici e nor the principa p ace of b&siness of the defendant air ine> nor is it the p ace of destination. 8s regards the third option of the p aintiff, the petitioner contends that since the ;hi ippines is not the p ace where the contract of carriage was made between the parties herein, ;hi ippine co&rts do not have j&risdiction over this action for damages. The iss&ance of petitionerRs own ticket in Geneva in e6change for the conj&nction ticket iss&ed b- =ingapore 8ir ines for
Page | 2169

the fina eg of the private respondentRs trip gave rise to a separate and distinct contract of carriage from that entered into b- the private respondent with =ingapore 8ir ines in ,ani a. ;etitioner a-s stress on the fact that the p ane ticket for a direct f ight from Geneva to 3ew Cork was p&rchased b- the private respondent from the petitioner bDe6change and cashD which signifies that the contract of carriage with =ingapore 8ir ines was terminated and a second contract was perfected. ,oreover, the second contract of carriage cannot be deemed to have been an e6tension of the first as the petitioner air ine is not a participating air ine in an- of the destinations &nder the first contract. The petitioner c aims that the private respondentRs arg&ment
Page | 2170

that the petitioner is bo&nd &nder the I8T8 R& es as agent of the principa air ine is irre evant and the a eged bad faith of the air ine does not remove the case from the app icabi it- of the 0arsaw +onvention. .&rther, the I8T8 R& e cited b- the private respondent which is admitted - printed on the ticket iss&ed b- the petitioner to him which states, D8n air carrier iss&ing a ticket for carriage over the ines of another carrier does so on - as its agentD does not app - herein, as neither =ingapore 8ir ines nor the petitioner iss&ed a ticket to the private respondent covering the ro&te of the other. =ince the conj&nction tickets iss&ed b- =ingapore 8ir ines do not inc &de the ro&te covered b- the ticket iss&ed b- the petitioner, the petitioner air ine s&bmits that it did not
Page | 2171

act as an agent 8ir ines. =daa` miso

of

=ingapore

;rivate respondent controverts the app icabi it- of the 0arsaw +onvention in this case. Ie posits that &nder 8rtic e "# of the 0arsaw +onventionL!M a carrier ma- be he d iab e for damages if the DaccidentD occ&rred on board the air ine or in the co&rse of Dembarking or disembarkingD from the carrier and that &nder 8rtic e /) 2"5L4M thereof the provisions of the convention wi not app - if the damage is ca&sed b- the Dwi f& miscond&ctD of the carrier. Ie arg&es that his ca&se of action is based on the incident at the pre*depart&re area of the Geneva airport and not d&ring the process of embarking nor disembarking from the carrier and that sec&rit- officers
Page | 2172

of the petitioner air ine acted in bad faith. 8ccording -, this case is re eased from the terms of the +onvention. ;rivate respondent arg&es that ass&ming that the convention app ies, his trip to nine cities in different co&ntries performed b- different carriers &nder the conj&nction tickets iss&ed in ,ani a b- =ingapore 8ir ines is regarded as a sing e transaction> as s&ch the fina eg of his trip from Geneva to 3ew Cork with the petitioner air ine is part and parce of the origina contract of carriage perfected in ,ani a. Th&s, the third option of the p aintiff &nder 8rt. /: 2"5 e.g., where the carrier has a p ace of b&siness thro&gh which the contract of carriage was made, app ies herein and the case was proper - fi ed in the ;hi ippines. The private respondent
Page | 2173

seeks affirmance of the r& ing of the ower co&rts that the petitioner acted as an agent of =ingapore 8ir ines &nder the I8T8 R& es and as an agent of the principa carrier the petitioner ma- be he d iab e &nder the contract of carriage perfected in ,ani a, citing the j&dicia admission made b- the petitioner that it c aimed the va &e of the &n&sed portion of the private respondentRs conj&nction tickets from the I8T8 + earing Io&se in Geneva where the acco&nts of both air ines are respective - credited and debited. 8ccording -, the petitioner cannot now den- the contract of agencwith =ingapore 8ir ines after it honored the conj&nction tickets iss&ed b- the atter. =daad The petition is witho&t merit.
Page | 2174

The 0arsaw +onvention to which the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines is a partand which has the force and effect of aw in this co&ntr- app ies to a internationa transportation of persons, baggage or goods performed b- an aircraft grat&ito&s - or for hire.L)M 8s en&merated in the ;reamb e of the +onvention, one of the objectives is Dto reg& ate in a &niform manner the conditions of internationa transportation b- airD.L(M The contract of carriage entered into b- the private respondent with =ingapore 8ir ines, and s&bse%&ent - with the petitioner, to transport him to nine cities in different co&ntries with 3ew Cork as the fina destination is a contract of internationa transportation and the provisions of the +onvention a&tomatica - app - and
Page | 2175

e6c &sive - govern the rights and iabi ities of the air ine and its passengers.L#M This inc &des section /: 2"5 which en&merates the fo&r p aces where an action for damages ma- be bro&ght. =csa daadThe thresho d iss&e of j&risdiction of ;hi ippine co&rts &nder 8rt /: 2"5 m&st first be reso ved before an- prono&ncements ma- be made on the iabi it- of the carrier there&nder. L:M The objections raised b- the private respondent that this case is re eased from the terms of the +onvention beca&se the incident on which this action is predicated did not occ&r in the process of embarking and disembarking from the carrier &nder 8rt "#L$M and that the emp o-ees of the petitioner air ine acted with ma ice and bad faith &nder 8rt /) 2"5L"'M pertain to the merits of the
Page | 2176

case which ma- be e6amined on - if the action has first been proper commenced &nder the r& es on j&risdiction set forth in 8rt. /: 2"5. 8rt 2/:5 2"5 of the 0arsaw +onvention states< =&p` rema 8rt /: 2"5 8n action for damages m&st be bro&ght at the option of the p aintiff, in the territor- of one of the Iigh +ontracting ;arties, either before the co&rt of the domici e of the carrier or of his principa p ace of b&siness or where he has a p ace of b&siness thro&gh which the contract has been made, or before the co&rt at the p ace of destination.

Page | 2177

There is no disp&te that petitioner iss&ed the ticket in Geneva which was neither the domici e nor the principa p ace of b&siness of petitioner nor the respondentRs p ace of destination.The %&estion is whether the contract of transportation between the petitioner and the private respondent wo& d be considered as a sing e operation and part of the contract of transportation entered into b- the atter with =ingapore 8ir ines in ,ani a.;etitioner disp&tes the r& ing of the ower co&rt that it is. ;etitionerRs main arg&ment is that the iss&ance of a new ticket in Geneva created a contract of carriage separate and distinct from that entered b- the private respondent in ,ani a.
Page | 2178

0e find the petitionerRs witho&t merit. J&risa

arg&ment

8rt "2!5 of the 0arsaw +onvention which states< DTransportation to be performed bsevera s&ccessive carriers sha be deemed, for the p&rposes of this convention, to be one &ndivided transportation, if it has been regarded b- the parties as a sing e operation, whether it has been agreed &pon &nder the form of a sing e contract or a series of contracts, and it sha not ose its internationa character mere beca&se one contract or series of contracts is to be performed entire - within the territor- s&bject of the sovereignt-, s&7eraint-,
Page | 2179

mandate or a&thorit- of the same Iigh contracting ;art-.D =ca j&ris The contract of carriage between the private respondent and =ingapore 8ir ines a tho&gh performed b- different carriers &nder a series of air ine tickets, inc &ding that iss&ed b- petitioner, constit&tes a sing e operation. ,embers of the I8T8 are &nder a genera poo partnership agreement wherein the- act as agent of each other in the iss&ance of ticketsL""M to contracted passengers to boost ticket sa es wor dwide and at the same time provide passengers easaccess to air ines which are otherwise inaccessib e in some parts of the wor d. Hooking and reservation among air ine members are a owed even bte ephone and it has become an
Page | 2180

accepted practice among them.L"/M 8 member air ine which enters into a contract of carriage consisting of a series of trips to be performed bdifferent carriers is a&thori7ed to receive the fare for the who e trip and thro&gh the re%&ired process of inter ine sett ement of acco&nts b- wa- of the I8T8 c earing ho&se an air ine is d& compensated for the segment of the trip serviced.L"!M Th&s, when the petitioner accepted the &n&sed portion of the conj&nction tickets, entered it in the I8T8 c earing ho&se and &ndertook to transport the private respondent over the ro&te covered b- the &n&sed portion of the conj&nction tickets, i.e., Geneva to 3ew Cork, the petitioner tacit recogni7ed its commitment &nder the I8T8 poo arrangement to act as agent
Page | 2181

of the principa contracting air ine, =ingapore 8ir ines, as to the segment of the trip the petitioner agreed to &ndertake. 8s s&ch, the petitioner thereb- ass&med the ob igation to take the p ace of the carrier origina designated in the origina conj&nction ticket. The petitionerRs arg&ment that it is not a designated carrier in the origina conj&nction tickets and that it iss&ed its own ticket is not decisive of its iabi it-. The new ticket was simp - a rep acement for the &n&sed portion of the conj&nction ticket, both tickets being for the same amo&nt of U=@ /,#(' and having the same points of depart&re and destination.L"4M H- constit&ting itse f as an agent of the principa carrier the petitionerRs &ndertaking sho& d be taken as part of a sing e operation &nder the
Page | 2182

contract of carriage e6ec&ted b- the private respondent and =ingapore 8ir ines in ,ani a. The %&oted provisions of the 0arsaw +onvention 8rt. "2!5 c ear - states that a contract of air transportation is taken as a sing e operation whether it is fo&nded on a sing e contract or a series of contracts. The n&mber of tickets iss&ed does not detract from the oneness of the contract of carriage as ong as the parties regard the contract as a sing e operation. The evident p&rpose &nder -ing this 8rtic e is to promote internationa air trave b- faci itating the proc&rement of a series of contracts for air transportation thro&gh a sing e principa and ob igating different air ines to be bo&nd b- one contract of
Page | 2183

transportation. ;etitionerRs ac%&iescence to take the p ace of the origina designated carrier binds it &nder the contract of carriage entered into bthe private respondent and =ingapore 8ir ines in ,ani a. J&risa scThe third option of the p aintiff &nder 8rt /: 2"5 of the 0arsaw +onvention e."., to s&e in the p ace of b&siness of the carrier wherein the contract was made, is therefore, ,ani a, and ;hi ippine co&rts are c othed with j&risdiction over this case. 0e note that whi e this case was fi ed in +eb& and not in ,ani a the iss&e of ven&e is no onger an iss&e as the petitioner is deemed to have waived it when it presented evidence before the tria co&rt.The iss&e raised in =; 3o. !"4)/ which is whether or not the tria co&rt committed grave ab&se of
Page | 2184

discretion in ordering the deposition of the petitionerRs sec&rit- officer taken in Geneva to be stricken off the record for fai &re of the said sec&rit- officer to appear before the ;hi ippine cons& in Geneva to answer the cross* interrogatories fi ed b- the private respondent does not have to be reso ved. The s&bse%&ent appearance of the said sec&rit- officer before the ;hi ippine cons& in Geneva on =eptember "$, "$$4 and the answer to the cross*interrogatories propo&nded bthe private respondent was transmitted to the tria co&rt b- the ;hi ippine cons& in Geneva on =eptember /!, "$$4L")M sho& d be deemed as f& comp iance with the re%&isites of the right of the private respondent to cross* e6amine the petitionerRs witness. The
Page | 2185

deposition fi ed b- the petitioner sho& d be reinstated as part of the evidence and considered together with the answer to the cross*interrogatories. 0IERE.1RE, the j&dgment of the appe ate co&rt in +8*G.R. =; 3o. !'$4( is affirmed. The case is ordered remanded to the co&rt of origin for f&rther proceedings. The decision of the appe ate co&rt in +8*G.R. =;. 3o. !"4)/ is set aside. The deposition of the petitionerRs sec&rit- officer is reinstated as part of the evidence. ,isj` &ris =1 1REEREE. G.R. No. C1591 Septe78e 2;, 1990 *AB%S,AN %N,ERNA,%ONAL A%RL%NES
Page | 2186

$OR*ORA,%ON, petitione , !" HON. 6LAS .. O*LE, in 'i" -&p&-ity &" #ini"te o) L&8o @ HON. V%$EN,E LEOGARDO, JR., in 'i" -&p&-ity &" Deputy #ini"te @ E,HEL4NNE 6. .ARRALES &n( #AR%A #OON4EEN #A#AS%G, e"pon(ent". %o#ulo, Ma/anta, (uenaventura, a!oc R 9e lo$ An"ele$ for petitioner. Lede$#a, aludo R A$$ociate$ for private re$pondent$. .EAI+I831, J.: 1n / Eecember "$#:, petitioner ;akistan Internationa 8ir ines +orporation 2D;I8D5, a foreign corporation icensed to do b&siness in
Page | 2187

the ;hi ippines, e6ec&ted in ,ani a two 2/5 separate contracts of emp o-ment, one with private respondent Ethe -nne H. .arra es and the other with private respondent ,a. ,.+. ,amasig. " The contracts, which became effective on $ Jan&ar- "$#$, provided in pertinent portion as fo ows< ). 9T%AT3O& OH ;M2LO]M;&T A&9 2;&ALT] This agreement is for a period of three 2!5 -ears, b&t can be e6tended b- the m&t&a consent of the parties. 666 666 666 (. T;%M3&AT3O& 666 666 666
Page | 2188

3otwithstanding an-thing to contrar- as herein provided, ;I8 reserves the right to terminate this agreement at an- time b- giving the E,;A1CEE notice in writing in advance one month before the intended termination or in ie& thereof, b- pa-ing the E,;A1CEE wages e%&iva ent to one month9s sa ar-. 666 666 666 "'. 8;;AI+8HAE A80< This agreement sha be constr&ed and governed &nder and b- the aws of ;akistan, and on - the +o&rts of ?arachi, ;akistan sha have the j&risdiction to consider
Page | 2189

an- matter arising o&t of or &nder this agreement. Respondents then commenced training in ;akistan. 8fter their training period, the- began discharging their job f&nctions as f ight attendants, with base station in ,ani a and f -ing assignments to different parts of the ,idd e East and E&rope. 1n / 8&g&st "$:', ro&gh - one 2"5 -ear and fo&r 245 months prior to the e6piration of the contracts of emp o-ment, ;I8 thro&gh ,r. 1scar Henares, co&nse for and officia of the oca branch of ;I8, sent separate etters both dated " 8&g&st "$:' to private respondents .arra es and ,amasig advising both that their services as f ight stewardesses wo& d
Page | 2190

be terminated Deffective " =eptember "$:', conformab - to c a&se ( 2b5 of the emp o-ment agreement Lthe- had5 e6ec&ted with L;I8M.D / 1n $ =eptember "$:', private respondents .arra es and ,amasig joint - instit&ted a comp aint, docketed as 3+R*=T.*$)")"*:', for i ega dismissa and non*pa-ment of companbenefits and bon&ses, against ;I8 with the then ,inistr- of Aabor and Emp o-ment 2D,1AED5. 8fter severa &nfr&itf& attempts at conci iation, the ,1AE hearing officer 8tt-. Jose ,. ;asc&a ordered the parties to s&bmit their position papers and evidence s&pporting their respective positions. The ;I8 s&bmitted its position paper, ! b&t no evidence, and there
Page | 2191

c aimed that both private respondents were habit&a absentees> that both were in the habit of bringing in from abroad si7eab e %&antities of Dpersona effectsD> and that ;I8 personne at the ,ani a Internationa 8irport had been discreet warned b- c&stoms officia s to advise private respondents to discontin&e that practice. ;I8 f&rther c aimed that the services of both private respondents were terminated p&rs&ant to the provisions of the emp o-ment contract. In his 1rder dated // Jan&ar- "$:", Regiona Eirector .rancisco A. Estre a ordered the reinstatement of private respondents with f& backwages or, in the a ternative, the pa-ment to them of the amo&nts e%&iva ent to their sa aries for the remainder of the fi6ed three*-ear
Page | 2192

period of their emp o-ment contracts> the pa-ment to private respondent ,amasig of an amo&nt e%&iva ent to the va &e of a ro&nd trip ticket ,ani a*U=8 ,ani a> and pa-ment of a bon&s to each of the private respondents e%&iva ent to their one*month sa ar-. 4 The 1rder stated that private respondents had attained the stat&s of reg& ar emp o-ees after the- had rendered more than a -ear of contin&ed service> that the stip& ation imiting the period of the emp o-ment contract to three 2!5 -ears was n& and void as vio ative of the provisions of the Aabor +ode and its imp ementing r& es and reg& ations on reg& ar and cas&a emp o-ment> and that the dismissa , having been carried o&t witho&t the re%&isite c earance from the ,1AE, was i ega and entit ed
Page | 2193

private respondents to reinstatement with f& backwages. 1n appea , in an 1rder dated "/ 8&g&st "$:/, Ion. Ficente Aeogardo, Jr., Eep&t- ,inister, ,1AE, adopted the findings of fact and conc &sions of the Regiona Eirector and affirmed the atter9s award save for the portion thereof giving ;I8 the option, in ie& of reinstatement, Dto pa- each of the comp ainants Lprivate respondentsM their sa aries corresponding to the &ne6pired portion of the contractLsM Lof emp o-mentM . . .D. ) In the instant ;etition for )ertiorari, petitioner ;I8 assai s the award of the Regiona Eirector and the 1rder of the Eep&t- ,inister as having been rendered witho&t j&risdiction> for having
Page | 2194

been rendered witho&t s&pport in the evidence of record since, a eged -, no hearing was cond&cted b- the hearing officer, 8tt-. Jose ,. ;asc&a > and for having been iss&ed in disregard and in vio ation of petitioner9s rights &nder the emp o-ment contracts with private respondents. ". ;etitioner9s first contention is that the Regiona Eirector, ,1AE, had no j&risdiction over the s&bject matter of the comp aint initiated bprivate respondents for i ega dismissa , j&risdiction over the same being odged in the 8rbitration Hranch of the 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission 2D3AR+D5 It appears to &s be-ond disp&te, however, that both at the time the comp aint was initiated in =eptember "$:' and at the
Page | 2195

time the 1rders assai ed were rendered on Jan&ar- "$:" 2b- Regiona Eirector .rancisco A. Estre a5 and 8&g&st "$:/ 2b- Eep&t- ,inister Ficente Aeogardo, Jr.5, the Regiona Eirector had j&risdiction over termination cases. 8rt. /#: of the Aabor +ode, as it then e6isted, forbade the termination of the services of emp o-ees with at east one 2"5 -ear of service witho&t prior c earance from the Eepartment of Aabor and Emp o-ment< 8rt. /#:. Mi$cellaneou$ 2rovi$ion$ 6... 2b5 0ith or witho&t a co ective agreement, no emp o-er ma- sh&t down his estab ishment or dismiss or terminate the emp o-ment of
Page | 2196

emp o-ees with at east one -ear of service d&ring the ast two 2/5 -ears, whether s&ch service is contin&o&s or broken, witho&t prior written a&thoritiss&ed in accordance with s&ch r& es and reg& ations as the =ecretar- maprom& gate . . . 2emphasis s&pp ied5 R& e NIF, Hook 3o. ) of the R& es and Reg& ations Imp ementing the Aabor +ode, made c ear that in case of a termination witho&t the necessar- c earance, the Regiona Eirector was a&thori7ed to order the reinstatement of the emp o-ee concerned and the pa-ment of backwages> necessari -, therefore, the Regiona Eirector m&st have been
Page | 2197

given j&risdiction termination cases<

over

s&ch

=ec. /. 1utdo0n or di$#i$$al 0it1out clearance. G 8nsh&tdown or dismissa witho&t prior c earance sha be conc &sive pres&med to be termination of emp o-ment witho&t a j&st ca&se. The Regiona Eirector sha , in s&ch case order the immediate reinstatement of the emp o-ee and the pa-ment of his wages from the time of the sh&tdown or dismissa &nti the time of reinstatement. 2emphasis s&pp ied5 ;o ic- Instr&ction 3o. "4 iss&ed bthe =ecretar- of Aabor, dated /! 8pri "$#(, was simi ar - ver- e6p icit abo&t the j&risdiction of the Regiona
Page | 2198

Eirector over termination emp o-ment cases<

of

Under ;E :)', termination cases G with or witho&t +H8 G are now p aced &nder the origina j&risdiction of the Regiona Eirector. ;reventive s&spension cases, now made cogni7ab e for the first time, are a so p aced &nder the Regiona Eirector. Hefore ;E :)', termination cases where there was a +H8 were &nder the j&risdiction of the grievance machiner- and vo &ntararbitration, whi e termination cases where there was no +H8 were &nder the j&risdiction of the +onci iation =ection.
Page | 2199

In more detai s, the major innovations introd&ced b- ;E :)' and its imp ementing r& es and reg& ations with respect to termination and preventive s&spension cases are< ". The Regiona Eirector is now re%&ired to r& e on everapp ication for c earance, whether there is opposition or not, within ten da-s from receipt thereof. 666 666 666 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 /. The second contention of petitioner ;I8 is that, even if the Regiona Eirector had j&risdiction, sti his order was n& and void beca&se it had been iss&ed in vio ation of petitioner9s right to
Page | 2200

proced&ra d&e process . ( This c aim, however, cannot be given serio&s consideration. ;etitioner was ordered bthe Regiona Eirector to s&bmit not on its position paper b&t a so s&ch evidence in its favor as it might have. ;etitioner opted to re - so e - &pon its position paper> we m&st ass&me it had no evidence to s&stain its assertions. Th&s, even if no forma or ora hearing was cond&cted, petitioner had amp e opport&nit- to e6p ain its side. ,oreover, petitioner ;I8 was ab e to appea his case to the ,inistr- of Aabor and Emp o-ment. # There is another reason wh- petitioner9s c aim of denia of d&e process m&st be rejected. 8t the time the comp aint was fi ed b- private respondents on /"
Page | 2201

=eptember "$:' and at the time the Regiona Eirector iss&ed his %&estioned order on // Jan&ar- "$:", app icab e reg& ation, as noted above, specified that a Ddismissa witho&t prior c earance sha be conc &sive - pre$u#ed to /e ter#ination of emp o-ment 0it1out a cau$eD, and the Regiona Eirector was re%&ired in s&ch case toD order the immediate reinstatement of the emp o-ee and the pa-ment of his wages from the time of the sh&tdown or dismiss &nti . . . reinstatement.D In other words, &nder the then app icab e r& e, the Regiona Eirector did not even have to re%&ire s&bmission of position papers bthe parties in view of the conc &sive Djuri$ et de jure5 character of the pres&mption created b- s&ch app icab e aw and reg& ation. In )e/u
Page | 2202

3n$titute of Tec1nolo"! v. Mini$ter of La/or and ;#plo!#ent, : the +o&rt pointed o&t that D&nder R& e "4, =ection /, of the Imp ementing R& es and Reg& ations, the termination of Lan emp o-eeM which was witho&t previo&s c earance from the ,inistr- of Aabor is conc &sive - pres&med to be witho&t Lj&stM ca&se . . . La pres&mption whichM cannot be overt&rned b- an- contrarproof however strong.D !. In its third contention, petitioner ;I8 invokes paragraphs ) and ( of its contract of emp o-ment with private respondents .arra es and ,amasig, arg&ing that its re ationship with them was governed b- the provisions of its contract rather than b- the genera provisions of the Aabor +ode. $
Page | 2203

;aragraph ) of that contract set a term of three 2!5 -ears for that re ationship, e6tendib e b- agreement between the parties> whi e paragraph ( provided that, notwithstanding an- other provision in the +ontract, ;I8 had the right to terminate the emp o-ment agreement at an- time b- giving one*month9s notice to the emp o-ee or, in ie& of s&ch notice, one*months sa ar-. 8 contract free - entered into sho& d, of co&rse, be respected, as ;I8 arg&es, since a contract is the aw between the parties. "' The princip e of parta&tonom- in contracts is not, however, an abso &te princip e. The r& e in 8rtic e "!'(, of o&r +ivi +ode is that the contracting parties ma- estab ish s&ch stip& ations as the- ma- deem
Page | 2204

convenient, Cprovided theare not contrar- to aw, mora s, good c&stoms, p&b ic order or p&b ic po ic-.D Th&s, co&nter*ba ancing the princip e of a&tonom- of contracting parties is the e%&a - genera r& e that provisions of app icab e aw, especia - provisions re ating to matters affected with p&b ic po ic-, are deemed written into the contract. "" ;&t a itt e different -, the governing princip e is that parties manot contract awa- app icab e provisions of aw especia - peremptor- provisions dea ing with matters heavi - impressed with p&b ic interest. The aw re ating to abor and emp o-ment is c ear - s&ch an area and parties are not at ibert- to ins& ate themse ves and their re ationships from the impact of abor aws and reg& ations b- simp Page | 2205

contracting with each other. It is th&s necessar- to appraise the contract&a provisions invoked b- petitioner ;I8 in terms of their consistenc- with app icab e ;hi ippine aw and reg& ations. 8s noted ear ier, both the Aabor 8rbiter and the Eep&t- ,inister, ,1AE, in effect he d that paragraph ) of that emp o-ment contract was inconsistent with 8rtic es /:' and /:" of the Aabor +ode as the- e6isted at the time the contract of emp o-ment was entered into, and hence ref&sed to give effect to said paragraph ). These 8rtic es read as fo ows< 8rt. /:'. ecurit! of Tenure. G In cases of reg& ar emp o-ment, the emp o-er sha not terminate the
Page | 2206

services of an emp o-ee e6cept for a j&st ca&se or when a&thori7ed bthis Tit e 8n emp o-ee who is &nj&st - dismissed from work sha be entit ed to reinstatement witho&t oss of seniorit- rights and to his backwages comp&ted from the time his compensation was withhe d from him &p to the time his reinstatement. 8rt. /:". %e"ular and )a$ual ;#plo!#ent. The provisions of written agreement to the contrarnotwithstanding and regard ess of the ora agreements of the parties, an emp o-ment sha be deemed to be reg& ar where the emp o-ee has been engaged to perform activities which are &s&a Page | 2207

necessar- or desirab e in the &s&a b&siness or trade of the emp o-er, e6cept where the emp o-ment has been fi6ed for a specific project or &ndertaking the comp etion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the emp o-ee or where the work or services to be performed is seasona in nat&re and the emp o-ment is for the d&ration of the season. 8n emp o-ment sha be deemed to be cas&a if it is not covered bthe preceding paragraph< provided, that, an! e#plo!ee 01o 1a$ rendered at lea$t one !ear of $ervice, 01et1er $uc1 $ervice i$ continuou$ or /ro:en, $1all /e
Page | 2208

con$idered a$ re"ular e#plo!ee with respect to the activit- in which he is emp o-ed and his emp o-ment sha contin&e whi e s&ch act&a e6ists. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 In (rent c1ool, 3nc., et al. v. %onaldo Aa#ora, etc., et al., "/ the +o&rt had occasion to e6amine in detai the %&estion of whether emp o-ment for a fi6ed term has been o&t awed &nder the above %&oted provisions of the Aabor +ode. 8fter an e6tensive e6amination of the histor- and deve opment of 8rtic es /:' and /:", the +o&rt reached the conc &sion that a contract providing for emp o-ment with a fi6ed period was not necessari - &n awf& <
Page | 2209

There can of co&rse be no %&arre with the proposition that 01ere fro# t1e circu#$tance$ it i$ apparent t1at period$ 1ave /een i#po$ed to preclude ac4ui$ition of tenurial $ecurit! /! t1e e#plo!ee, t1e! $1ould /e $truc: do0n or di$re"arded a$ contrar! to pu/lic polic!, #oral$, etc. H&t where no s&ch intent to circ&mvent the aw is shown, or stated otherwise, where the reason for the aw does not e6ist e.g. where it is indeed the emp o-ee himse f who insists &pon a period or where the nat&re of the engagement is s&ch that, witho&t being seasona or for a specific project, a definite date of termination is a $ine 4ua non wo& d an agreement fi6ing a
Page | 2210

period be essentia - evi or i icit, therefore anathema 0o& d s&ch an agreement come within the scope of 8rtic e /:' which admitted - was enacted Dto prevent the circ&mvention of the right of the emp o-ee to be sec&red in . . . 2his5 emp o-mentKD 8s it is evident from even on - the three e6amp es a read- given that Article 2F0 of t1e La/or )ode, under a narro0 and literal interpretation, not onl! fail$ to e'1au$t t1e "a#ut of e#plo!#ent contract$ to 01ic1 t1e lac: of a fi'ed period 0ould /e an ano#al!, /ut 0ould al$o appear to re$trict, 0it1out rea$ona/le di$tinction$, t1e ri"1t of an e#plo!ee to freel!
Page | 2211

$tipulate 0it1 1i$ e#plo!er t1e duration of 1i$ en"a"e#ent, it lo"icall! follo0$ t1at $uc1 a literal interpretation $1ould /e e$c1e0ed or avoided. The aw m&st be given reasonab e interpretation, to prec &de abs&rditin its app ication. 1&t awing the who e concept of term emp o-ment and s&bverting to boot the princip e of freedom of contract to remed- the evi of emp o-ersD &sing it as a means to prevent their emp o-ees from obtaining sec&rit- of ten&re is ike c&tting off the nose to spite the face or, more re evant -, c&ring a headache b- opping off the head. 666 666 666
Page | 2212

8ccording -, and since the entire p&rpose behind the deve opment of egis ation c& minating in the present 8rtic e /:' of the Aabor +ode c ear - appears to have been, as a read- observed, to prevent circ&mvention of the emp o-ee9s right to be sec&re in his ten&re, the c a&se in said artic e indiscriminate and comp ete - r& ing o&t a written or ora agreements conf icting with the concept of reg& ar emp o-ment as defined therein sho& d be constr&ed to refer to the s&bstantive evi that the +ode itse f has sing ed o&t< agreements entered into precise to circ&mvent sec&rit- of ten&re. It sho& d have no app ication to
Page | 2213

instances where a fi6ed period of emp o-ment was agreed &pon knowing - and vo &ntari - b- the parties, witho&t an- force, d&ress or improper press&re being bro&ght to bear &pon the emp o-ee and absent another circ&mstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactori appears that the emp o-er and emp o-ee dea t with each other on more or ess e%&a terms with no mora dominance whatever being e6ercised b- the former over the atter. Tnle$$ t1u$ li#ited in it$ purvie0, t1e la0 0ould /e #ade to appl! to purpo$e$ ot1er t1an t1o$e e'plicitl! $tated /! it$ fra#er$@ it t1u$ /eco#e$ pointle$$ and ar/itrar!, unju$t in it$ effect$ and
Page | 2214

apt to lead to a/$urd and unintended con$e4uence$. 2emphasis s&pp ied5 It is apparent from (rent c1ool that the critica consideration is the presence or absence of a s&bstantia indication that the period specified in an emp o-ment agreement was designed to circ&mvent the sec&rit- of ten&re of reg& ar emp o-ees which is provided for in 8rtic es /:' and /:" of the Aabor +ode. This indication m&st ordinari - rest &pon some aspect of the agreement other than the mere specification of a fi6ed term of the ernp o-ment agreement, or &pon evidence aliunde of the intent to evade.
Page | 2215

E6amining the provisions of paragraphs ) and ( of the emp o-ment agreement between petitioner ;I8 and private respondents, we consider that those provisions m&st be read together and when so read, the fi6ed period of three 2!5 -ears specified in paragraph ) wi be seen to have been effective ne&tra i7ed b- the provisions of paragraph ( of that agreement. ;aragraph ( in effect took back from the emp o-ee the fi6ed three 2!5*-ear period ostensib - granted b- paragraph ) brendering s&ch period in effect a fac& tative one at the option of the emp o-er ;I8. .or petitioner ;I8 c aims to be a&thori7ed to shorten that term, at an- time and for an- ca&se satisfactorto itse f, to a one*month period, or even ess b- simp - pa-ing the emp o-ee a
Page | 2216

month9s sa ar-. Heca&se the net effect of paragraphs ) and ( of the agreement here invo ved is to render the emp o-ment of private respondents .arra es and ,amasig basica emp o-ment at the p eas&re of petitioner ;I8, the +o&rt considers that paragraphs ) and ( were intended to prevent an- sec&rit- of ten&re from accr&ing in favor of private respondents even durin" t1e li#ited period of t1ree D3E !ear$, "! and th&s to escape comp ete - the thr&st of 8rtic es /:' and /:" of the Aabor +ode.;etitioner ;I8 cannot take ref&ge in paragraph "' of its emp o-ment agreement which specifies, first -, the aw of ;akistan as the app icab e aw of the agreement and, second -, a-s the ven&e for sett ement of an- disp&te
Page | 2217

arising o&t of or in connection with the agreement Donl! LinM co&rts of ?arachi ;akistanD. The first c a&se of paragraph "' cannot be invoked to prevent the app ication of ;hi ippine abor aws and reg& ations to the s&bject matter of this case, i.e., the emp o-er*emp o-ee re ationship between petitioner ;I8 and private respondents. 0e have a readpointed o&t that the re ationship is m&ch affected with p&b ic interest and that the otherwise app icab e ;hi ippine aws and reg& ations cannot be rendered i &sorb- the parties agreeing &pon some other aw to govern their re ationship. 3either ma- petitioner invoke the second c a&se of paragraph "', specif-ing the ?arachi co&rts as the so e ven&e for the sett ement of disp&te> between the contracting parties. Even a c&rsorPage | 2218

scr&tin- of the re evant circ&mstances of this case wi show the m& tip e and s&bstantive contacts between ;hi ippine aw and ;hi ippine co&rts, on the one hand, and the re ationship between the parties, &pon the other< the contract was not on - e6ec&ted in the ;hi ippines, it was a so performed here, at east partia -> private respondents are ;hi ippine citi7ens and respondents, whi e petitioner, a tho&gh a foreign corporation, is icensed to do b&siness 2and act&a - doing b&siness5 and hence resident in the ;hi ippines> ast -, private respondents were based in the ;hi ippines in between their assigned f ights to the ,idd e East and E&rope. 8 the above contacts point to the ;hi ippine co&rts and administrative agencies as a proper for&m for the
Page | 2219

reso &tion of contract&a disp&tes between the parties. Under these circ&mstances, paragraph "' of the emp o-ment agreement cannot be given effect so as to o&st ;hi ippine agencies and co&rts of the j&risdiction vested &pon them b- ;hi ippine aw. .ina -, and in an- event, the petitioner ;I8 did not &ndertake to p ead and prove the contents of ;akistan aw on the matter> it m&st therefore be pres&med that the app icab e provisions of the aw of ;akistan are the same as the app icab e provisions of ;hi ippine aw. "4 0e conc &de that private respondents .arra es and ,amasig were i ega dismissed and that p&b ic respondent Eep&t- ,inister, ,1AE, had not committed an- grave ab&se of discretion
Page | 2220

nor an- act witho&t or in e6cess of j&risdiction in ordering their reinstatement with backwages. ;rivate respondents are entit ed to three 2!5 -ears backwages witho&t %&a ification or ded&ction. =ho& d their reinstatement to their former or other s&bstantia e%&iva ent positions not be feasib e in view of the ength of time which has gone b- since their services were &n awf& - terminated, petitioner sho& d be re%&ired to pa- separation pa- to private respondents amo&nting to one 2"5 month9s sa ar- for ever- -ear of service rendered b- them, inc &ding the three 2!5 -ears service p&tative rendered.8++1REI3GAC, the ;etition for certiorari is hereb- EI=,I==EE for ack of merit, and the 1rder dated "/ 8&g&st "$:/ of p&b ic respondent is
Page | 2221

hereb- 8..IR,EE, e6cept that 2"5 private respondents are entit ed to three 2!5 -ears backwages, witho&t ded&ction or %&a ification> and 2/5 sho& d reinstatement of private respondents to their former positions or to s&bstantia e%&iva ent positions not be feasib e, then petitioner sha , in ie& thereof, pato private respondents separation paamo&nting to one 2"5*month9s sa ar- for ever- -ear of service act&a - rendered b- them and for the three 2!5 -ears p&tative service b- private respondents. The Temporar- Restraining 1rder iss&ed on "! =eptember "$:/ is herebAI.TEE. +osts against petitioner.=1 1REEREE. :G.R. No. 1295;1. De-e78e 3, 199;<
Page | 2222

,R%*LE E%GH, %N,EGRA,ED SERV%$ES, %N$., petitioner, vs. NA,%ONAL LA6OR RELA,%ONS $O##%SS%ON, HON. LA6OR AR6%,ER *O,EN$%ANO S. $AN%5ARES, JR. &n( ERL%NDA R. OSDANA, respondents. EE+I=I13 R1,ER1, J.< In this petition for certiorari now before &s, petitioner Trip e Eight Integrated =ervices Inc. seeks to ann& the decisionL"M of p&b ic respondent 3ationa Aabor Re ations +ommission 2.irst Eivision, O&e7on +it-5 dated ,arch "", "$$# affirming the 8&g&st /', "$$( decisionL/M of Aabor 8rbiter ;otenciano +ani7ares. ;etitioner was ordered to
Page | 2223

pa- private respondent Er inda 1sdana her sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of her emp o-ment contract, &npaid sa aries, sa ar- differentia , mora and e6emp ar- damages, as we as attorne-Rs fees. 1n 8pri /:, "$$#, the 3AR+ denied petitionerRs motion for reconsideration.L!M The antecedent facts fo ow. =ometime in 8&g&st "$$/, private respondent 1sdana was recr&ited bpetitioner for emp o-ment with the atterRs principa , G& f +atering +ompan2G++5, a firm based in the ?ingdom of =a&di 8rabia. Under the origina emp o-ment contract, 1sdana was engaged to work as P.ood =erverQ for a period of thirt-*si6 2!(5 months with a
Page | 2224

sa ar- of five h&ndred fift- =a&di ria s 2=R))'5. 1sdana c aims she was re%&ired bpetitioner to pa- a tota of e even tho&sand nine h&ndred fift- pesos 2;"",$)'.''5 in p acement fees and other charges, for which no receipt was iss&ed. =he was ikewise asked to &ndergo a medica e6amination cond&cted b- the ;hi ippine ,edica Tests =-stem, a d& - accredited c inic for overseas workers, which fo&nd her to be P.it of Emp o-ment.Q =&bse%&ent -, petitioner asked 1sdana to sign another P+ontractor* Emp o-ee 8greementQL4M which provided that she wo& d be emp o-ed as a waitress for twe ve 2"/5 months with a sa ar- of two h&ndred eight- U= do ars
Page | 2225

2@/:'5. It was this emp o-ment agreement which was approved b- the ;hi ippine 1verseas Emp o-ment 8dministration 2;1E85. 1n =eptember "(, "$$/, 1sdana eft for Ri-adh, =a&di 8rabia, and commenced working for G++. =he was assigned to the +o ege of ;&b ic 8dministration of the 1 e-sha Universitand, contrar- to the terms and conditions of the emp o-ment contract, was made to wash dishes, cooking pots, and &tensi s, perform janitoria work and other tasks which were &nre ated to her job designation as waitress. ,aking matters worse was the fact that she was made to work a gr&e ing twe ve*ho&r shift, from si6 oRc ock in the morning to
Page | 2226

si6 oRc ock in the evening, witho&t overtime pa-. Heca&se of the ong ho&rs and the stren&o&s nat&re of her work, 1sdana s&ffered from n&mbness and pain in her arms. The pain was s&ch that she had to be confined at the Aadies Fi a, a ho&sing faci it- of G++, from J&ne ": to 8&g&st //, "$$!, d&ring which period, she was not paid her sa aries. 8fter said confinement, 1sdana was a owed to res&me work, this time as .ood =erver and +ook at the Iota Hani Tameem Iospita , where she worked seven da-s a week from 8&g&st // to 1ctober ), "$$!. 8gain, she was not compensated. Then, from 1ctober ( to 1ctober /!, "$$!, 1sdana was again confined at the
Page | 2227

Aadies Fi a for no apparent reason. E&ring this period, she was sti not paid her sa ar-. 1n 1ctober /4, "$$!, she was re* assigned to the 1 e-sha Universit- to wash dishes and do other menia tasks. 8s with her previo&s assignment at the said Universit-, 1sdana worked ong ho&rs and &nder harsh conditions. Heca&se of this, she was diagnosed as having Hi atera +arpa T&nne =-ndrome, a condition precipitated b- activities re%&iring Prepeated f e6ion, pronation, and s&pination of the wrist and characteri7ed b- e6cr&ciating pain and n&mbness in the arms.QL)M 8s the pain became &nbearab e, 1sdana had to be hospita i7ed. =he
Page | 2228

&nderwent two s&rgica operations, one in Jan&ar- "$$4, another on 8pri /!, "$$4. Hetween these operations, she was not given an- work assignments even if she was wi ing and ab e to do ight work in accordance with her doctorRs advice. 8gain, 1sdana was not paid an- compensat ion for the period between .ebr&ar- to 8pri //, "$$4. 8fter her second operation, 1sdana was discharged from the hospita on 8pri /), "$$4. The medica report stated that Pshe had ver- good improvement of the s-mptoms and she was discharged on the second da- of the operation.QL(M .o&r da-s ater, however, she was dismissed from work, a eged - on the
Page | 2229

gro&nd of i ness. =he was not given anseparation pa- nor was she paid her sa aries for the periods when she was not a owed to work. Upon her ret&rn to the ;hi ippines, 1sdana so&ght the he p of petitioner, b&t to no avai . =he was th&s constrained to fi e a comp aint before the ;1E8 against petitioner, pra-ing for &npaid and &nderpaid sa aries, sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the emp o-ment contract, mora and e6emp ar- damages and attorne-Rs fees, as we as the revocation, cance ation, s&spension andJor imposition of administrative sanctions against petitioner. ;&rs&ant to Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. :'4/, otherwise known as the ,igrant
Page | 2230

0orkers and 1verseas .i ipinos 8ct of "$$), the case was transferred to the arbitration branch of the 3AR+ and assigned to Aabor 8rbiter +ani7ares. In a decision dated 8&g&st /', "$$(, the abor arbiter r& ed in favor of 1sdana. The dispositive portion of the decision fo ows< P0herefore, the respondent is herebordered to pa- the comp ainant U=@/,4$$.'' as sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the contract, and U=@",'#(.'' as &npaid sa ar- and sa ar- differentia , or its e%&iva ent in ;hi ippine ;eso. The respondent is ikewise ordered to pa- the comp ainant ;)',''' mora damages, and ;/',''' e6emp ardamages.
Page | 2231

The respondent is f&rther ordered to pathe comp ainant "'B of the monetaraward as attorne-Rs fee. 1ther c aims are hereb- dismissed for ack of s&fficient evidence. =1 1REEREE.Q 8ggrieved b- the abor arbiterRs decision, petitioner appea ed to the 3AR+, which affirmed the decision in %&estion on ,arch "", "$$#. ;etitionerRs motion for reconsideration was ikewise denied bthe 3AR+ in its order dated 8pri /:, "$$#. Ience, this petition for certiorari. ;etitioner a eges grave ab&se of discretion on the part of the p&b ic respondents for the fo owing reasons<
Page | 2232

2a5 r& ing in favor of 1sdana even if there was no fact&a or ega basis for the award and, 2b5 ho ding petitioner so e - iab e for her c aims despite the fact that its iabi it- is joint and severa with its principa , G++. 8t the o&tset, petitioner arg&es that Pp&b ic respondent Aabor 8rbiter grave ab&sed his discretion when he rendered the %&estioned decision dated 8&g&st /', "$$( witho&t stating the facts and the aw where he derived his conc &sions.QL#M In s&pport of this arg&ment, petitioner cites the first paragraph of 8rtic e FIII, =ection "4 of the +onstit&tion< P3o decision sha be rendered b- an- co&rt witho&t e6pressing therein c ear - and distinct Page | 2233

the facts and the aw on which it is based.Q 1n this point, it is eno&gh to note that the decisions of both the abor arbiter and the 3AR+ were based main - on the facts and a egations in 1sdanaRs position paper and s&pporting doc&ments. 0e find these s&fficient to constit&te s&bstantia evidence to s&pport the %&estioned decisions. Genera -, findings of facts of %&asi*j&dicia agencies ike the 3AR+ are accorded great respect and, at times, even fina it- if s&pported bs&bstantia evidence. P=&bstantia evidenceQ is s&ch amo&nt of re evant evidence which a reasonab e mind might accept as ade%&ate to j&stif- a conc &sion.L:M
Page | 2234

,oreover, we *sett ed is the r& e that if do&bts e6ist between the evidence presented b- the emp o-er and the emp o-ee, the sca es of j&stice m&st be ti ted in favor of the atter. Th&s, in controversies between a worker and her emp o-er, do&bts reasonab - arising from the evidence or in the interpretation of agreements sho& d be reso ved in favor of the former. ;etitioner, for its part, was given the same opport&nit- to fi e its own position paper b&t instead, it opted to fi e a two* page 8nswer 0ith =pecia 8nd 8ffirmative Eefenses, den-ing genera the a egations of the comp aint.L$M 8s observed b- the abor arbiter, PThe record shows the comp ainant fi ed comp aint 2sic5, position paper, and
Page | 2235

s&pporting doc&ments, and prosec&ted her case di igent -> whi e the respondent mere - tried to sett e the case amicab -, fai ing even to fi e its position paper.QL"'M The present case being one for i ega dismissa , it was inc&mbent &pon petitioner emp o-er to show bs&bstantia evidence that the termination was va id - made. In termination cases, the b&rden of proof rests on the emp o-er to show that the dismissa is for a j&st ca&se.L""M Iaving fai ed to fi e its position paper and to s&pport its denia s and affirmative defenses in its answer, petitioner cannot now fa& t the abor arbiter and the 3AR+ for re -ing on the facts as aid down b- 1sdana in her position paper and s&pported bother doc&ments. The essence of d&e process is that a part- be afforded
Page | 2236

reasonab e opport&nit- to be heard and to s&bmit an- evidence he ma- have in s&pport of his defense,L"/M and this is e6act - what petitioner was accorded, a tho&gh it chose not to f& - avai thereof. This +o&rt, therefore, &pho ds the finding of herein p&b ic respondents that the facts and the evidence on record add&ced b- 1sdana and taken in re ation to the answer of petitioner show that indeed there was breach of the emp o-ment contract and i ega dismissa committed b- petitionerRs principa . ;etitioner c aims that p&b ic respondents committed grave ab&se of discretion when the- r& ed that 1sdana had been i ega - dismissed b- G++. It
Page | 2237

maintains that the award for sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the contract was improper beca&se 1sdana was va id - dismissed on the gro&nd of i ness. The arg&ment m&st fai . In its 8nswer, ,emorand&m of 8ppea , L"!M ;etition for )ertiorari,L"4M and +onso idated Rep -,L")M petitioner consistent - asserted that 1sdana was va id - repatriated for medica reasons, b&t it fai ed to s&bstantiate its c aim that s&ch repatriation was j&stified and done in accordance with aw. 8rtic e /:4 of the Aabor +ode is c ear on the matter of termination b- reason of disease or i ness, vi7< P8rt. /:4. Eisease as a gro&nd for termination S 8n emp o-er maPage | 2238

terminate the services of an emp o-ee who has been fo&nd to be s&ffering from an- disease and whose contin&ed emp o-ment is prohibited b- aw or prej&dicia to his hea th as we as the hea th of his co*emp o-ees< 6 6 6.Q =pecifica -, =ection :, R& e ", Hook FI of the 1mnib&s R& es Imp ementing the Aabor +ode provides< P=ec. :. Eisease as a gro&nd for dismissa S 0here the emp o-ee s&ffers from a disease and his contin&ed emp o-ment is prohibited b- aw or prej&dicia to his hea th or to the hea th of his co*emp o-ees, the emp o-er sha not terminate his emp o-ment &n ess there is a certification bcompetent p&b ic a&thorit- that the disease is of s&ch
Page | 2239

nat&re or at s&ch a stage that it cannot be c&red within a period of si6 2(5 months with proper medica treatment. If the disease or ai ment can be c&red within the period, the emp o-er sha not terminate the emp o-ee b&t sha ask the emp o-ee to take a eave. The emp o-er sha reinstate s&ch emp o-ee to his former position immediate - &pon the restoration of his norma hea th.Q 2Underscoring s&pp ied5 Fiewed in the ight of the foregoing provisions, the manner b- which 1sdana was terminated was c ear - in vio ation of the Aabor +ode and its imp ementing r& es and reg& ations. In the first p ace, 1sdanaRs contin&ed emp o-ment despite her i ness was not prohibited b- aw nor was it
Page | 2240

prej&dicia to her hea th, as we as that of her co*emp o-ees. In fact, the medica report iss&ed after her second operation stated that Pshe had ver- good improvement of the s-mptoms.Q Hesides, P+arpa T&nne =-ndromeQ is not a contagio&s disease. ;etitioner attrib&tes good faith on the part of its principa , c aiming that PIt was the concern for the we fare and ph-sica we being 2sic5 of private respondent that drove her emp o-er to take the painf& decision of terminating her from the service and having her repatriated to the ;hi ippines at its e6pense. The emp o-er did not want to risk the aggravation of the i ness of private respondent which co& d have been the ogica conse%&ence were private
Page | 2241

respondent a owed to contin&e with her job.QL"(M The +o&rt notes, however, that aside from these bare a egations, petitioner has not presented an- medica certificate or simi ar doc&ment from a competent p&b ic hea th a&thorit- in s&pport of its c aims. 1n the medica certificate re%&irement, petitioner erroneo&s - arg&es that Pprivate respondent was emp o-ed in =a&di 8rabia and not here in the ;hi ippines. Ience, there was a ph-sica impossibi it- to sec&re from a ;hi ippine p&b ic hea th a&thorit- the a &ded medica certificate that p&b ic respondentRs i ness wi not be c&red within a period of si6 months.QL"#M
Page | 2242

;etitioner entire - misses the point, as co&nse for private respondent states in the +omment.L":M The r& e simp prescribes a Pcertification b- a competent p&b ic hea th a&thorit-Q and not a P;hi ippine p&b ic hea th a&thorit-.Q If, indeed, 1sdana was ph-sica - &nfit to contin&e her emp o-ment, her emp o-er co& d have easi - obtained a certification to that effect from a competent p&b ic hea th a&thorit- in =a&di 8rabia, thereb- heading off ancomp aint for i ega dismissa . The re%&irement for a medica certificate &nder 8rtic e /:4 of the Aabor +ode cannot be dispensed with> otherwise, it wo& d sanction the &ni atera and arbitrar- determination bthe emp o-er of the gravit- or e6tent of
Page | 2243

the emp o-eeRs i ness and th&s defeat the p&b ic po ic- on the protection of abor. 8s the +o&rt observed in ;rieto v. 3AR+,L"$M PThe +o&rt is not &naware of the man- ab&ses s&ffered b- o&r overseas workers in the foreign and where the- have vent&red, &s&a - with heav- hearts, in p&rs&it of a more f& fi ing f&t&re. Hreach of contract, ma treatment, rape, ins&fficient no&rishment, s&b*h&man odgings, ins& ts and other forms of debasement, are on - a few of the inh&mane acts to which the- are s&bjected b- their foreign emp o-ers, who probab - fee the- can do as the- p ease in their co&ntr-. 0hi e these workers ma- indeed have re ative itt e defense against e6p oitation whi e the- are abroad, that disadvantage m&st not contin&e to
Page | 2244

b&rden them when the- ret&rn to their own territor- to voice their m&ted comp aint. There is no reason wh-, in their own and, the protection of o&r own aws cannot be e6tended to them in f& meas&re for the redress of their grievances.Q ;etitioner ikewise attempts to sidestep the medica certificate re%&irement bcontending that since 1sdana was working in =a&di 8rabia, her emp o-ment was s&bject to the aws of the host co&ntr-. 8pparent -, petitioner hopes to make it appear that the abor aws of =a&di 8rabia do not re%&ire ancertification b- a competent p&b ic hea th a&thorit- in the dismissa of emp o-ees d&e to i ness.
Page | 2245

8gain, petitionerRs arg&ment is witho&t merit. .irst, estab ished is the r& e that le' loci contractu$ 2the aw of the p ace where the contract is made5 governs in this j&risdiction. There is no %&estion that the contract of emp o-ment in this case was perfected here in the ;hi ippines. Therefore, the Aabor +ode, its imp ementing r& es and reg& ations, and other aws affecting abor app - in this case. .&rthermore, sett ed is the r& e that the co&rts of the for&m wi not enforce an- foreign c aim obno6io&s to the for&mRs p&b ic po ic-.L/'M Iere in the ;hi ippines, emp o-ment agreements are more than contract&a in nat&re. The +onstit&tion itse f, in 8rtic e
Page | 2246

NIII =ection !, g&arantees the specia protection of workers, to wit< PThe =tate sha afford f& protection to abor, oca and overseas, organi7ed and &norgani7ed, and promote f& emp o-ment and e%&a it- of emp o-ment opport&nities for a . It sha g&arantee the rights of a workers to se f*organi7ation, co ective bargaining and negotiations, and peacef& concerted activities, inc &ding the right to strike in accordance with aw. The- sha be entit ed to sec&rit- of ten&re, h&mane conditions of work, and a iving wage. The- sha a so participate in po ic- and decision*making processes affecting their rights and benefits as ma- be provided b- aw.
Page | 2247

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.Q This p&b ic po ic- sho& d be borne in mind in this case beca&se to a ow foreign emp o-ers to determine for and b- themse ves whether an overseas contract worker ma- be dismissed on the gro&nd of i ness wo& d enco&rage i ega or arbitrar- pre*termination of emp o-ment contracts. 8s regards the monetar- award of sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the emp o-ment contract, &npaid sa aries and sa ar- differentia granted b- p&b ic respondents to 1sdana, petitioner assai s the same for being contrar- to aw, evidence and e6isting j&rispr&dence, a of which therefore constit&tes grave ab&se of discretion.
Page | 2248

8 tho&gh this contention is witho&t merit, the award for sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the contract m&st, however, be red&ced. ;aragraph ), =ection "' of R.8. 3o. :'4/, app ies in this case, th&s< PIn case of termination of overseas emp o-ment witho&t j&st, va id or a&thori7ed ca&se as defined b- aw or contract, the worker sha be entit ed to the f& reimb&rsement of his p acement fee with interest at twe ve percent 2"/B5 per ann&m, p &s his sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of his emp o-ment contract or for three 2!5 months for ever-ear of the &ne6pired term, whichever is ess.Q In the case at bar, whi e it wo& d appear that the emp o-ment contract
Page | 2249

approved b- the ;1E8 was on - for a period of twe ve months, 1sdanaRs act&a stint with the foreign principa asted for one -ear and seven*and*a* ha f months. It ma- be inferred, therefore, that the emp o-er renewed her emp o-ment contract for another -ear. Th&s, the award for the &ne6pired portion of the contract sho& d have been U=@",/(' 2U=@/:' 6 4 b months5 or its e%&iva ent in ;hi ippine pesos, not U=@/,4$$ as adj&dged b- the abor arbiter and affirmed b- the 3AR+. 8s for the award for &npaid sa aries and differentia amo&nting to U=@",'#( representing seven monthsR &npaid sa aries and one month &nderpaid sa ar-, the same is proper beca&se, as correct - pointed o&t b- 1sdana, the Pno
Page | 2250

work, no pa-Q r& e re ied &pon bpetitioner does not app - in this case. In the first p ace, the fact that she had not worked from J&ne ": to 8&g&st //, "$$! and then from Jan&ar- /4 to 8pri /$, "$$4, was d&e to her i ness which was c ear - work*re ated. =econd, from 8&g&st /! to 1ctober ), "$$!, 1sdana act&a - worked as food server and cook for seven da-s a week at the Iota Hani Tameem Iospita , b&t was not paid ansa ar- for the said period. .ina -, from 1ctober ( to 1ctober /!, "$$!, she was confined to %&arters and was not given an- work for no reason at a . 3ow, with respect to the award of mora and e6emp ar- damages, the same is ikewise proper b&t sho& d be red&ced. 0orth reiterating is the r& e
Page | 2251

that mora damages are recoverab e where the dismissa of the emp o-ee was attended b- bad faith or fra&d or constit&ted an act oppressive to abor, or was done in a manner contrar- to mora s, good c&stoms, or p&b ic po ic-. L/"M Aikewise, e6emp ar- damages mabe awarded if the dismissa was effected in a wanton, oppressive or ma evo ent manner.L//M 8ccording to the facts of the case as stated b- p&b ic respondent, 1sdana was made to perform s&ch menia chores, as dishwashing and janitoria work, among others, contrar- to her job designation as waitress. =he was a so made to work ong ho&rs witho&t overtime pa-. Heca&se of s&ch ard&o&s working conditions, she deve oped
Page | 2252

+arpa T&nne =-ndrome. Ier i ness was s&ch that she had to &ndergo s&rger- twice. =ince her emp o-er determined for itse f that she was no onger fit to contin&e working, the- sent her home posthaste witho&t as m&ch as separation pa- or compensation for the months when she was &nab e to work beca&se of her i ness. =ince the emp o-er is deemed to have acted in bad faith, the award for attorne-Rs fees is ikewise &phe d. .ina -, petitioner a eges grave ab&se of discretion on the part of p&b ic respondents for ho ding it so e - iab e for the c aims of 1sdana despite the fact that its iabi it- with the principa is joint and severa .
Page | 2253

;etitioner mis&nderstands the decision in %&estion. It sho& d be noted that contrar- to petitionerRs interpretation, the decision of the abor arbiter which was affirmed b- the 3AR+ did not rea abso ve the foreign principa . ;etitioner was the on - one he d iab e for 1sdanaRs monetar- c aims beca&se it was the on - respondent named in the comp aint and it does not appear that petitioner took steps to have its principa inc &ded as co*respondent. Th&s, the ;1E8, and ater the abor arbiter, did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over the foreign principa . This is not to sa-, however, that G++ ma- not be he d iab e at a . ;etitioner can sti c aim reimb&rsement or contrib&tion from it for the amo&nts
Page | 2254

awarded to the i ega -*dismissed emp o-ee. 0IERE.1RE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is EI=,I==EE. 8ccording -, the decisions of the abor arbiter dated 8&g&st /', "$$(, and of the 3AR+ dated ,arch "", "$$#, are 8..IR,EE with the ,1EI.I+8TI13 that the award to private respondent 1sdana sho& d be one tho&sand two h&ndred si6t- U= do ars 2U=@",/('5, or its e%&iva ent in ;hi ippine pesos, as sa aries for the &ne6pired portion of the emp o-ment contract, and one tho&sand sevent- si6 U= do ars 2U=@",'#(5, or its e%&iva ent in ;hi ippine pesos, representing &npaid sa aries for seven 2#5 months and
Page | 2255

&nderpaid sa ar- for one 2"5 month, p &s interest. ;etitioner is ikewise ordered to paprivate respondent ;!','''.'' in mora damages, ;"','''.'' in e6emp ardamages and "'B attorne-Rs fees. This decision is witho&t prej&dice to an- remed- or c aim for reimb&rsement or contrib&tion petitioner ma- instit&te against its foreign principa , G& f +atering +ompan-. 3o prono&ncement as to costs. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 2256

:G.R. No. 13;101. Ap il 11, 2002< #R HOLD%NGS, L,D., petitioner, vs. SHER%.. $ARLOS *. 6AJAR, SHER%.. .ERD%NAND #. JANDUSA4, SOL%D6ANB $OR*ORA,%ON, AND #AR$O**ER #%N%NG $OR*ORA,%ON, respondents. EE+I=I13 =83E1F8A*GUTIERREZ, J.< In the present ;etition for Review on )ertiorari, petitioner ,R Io dings, Atd. assai s the a5 EecisionL"M dated Jan&ar- :, "$$$ of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. =; 3o. 4$//( finding no grave ab&se of discretion on the part of
Page | 2257

J&dge Aeonardo ;. 8nsa do of the Regiona Tria +o&rt 2RT+5, Hranch $4, Hoac, ,arind&%&e, in den-ing petitionerRs app ication for a writ of pre iminarinj&nction> L/M and b5 Reso &tionL!M dated ,arch /$, "$$$ den-ing petitionerRs motion for reconsideration. The facts of the case are as fo ows< Under a P;rincipa Aoan 8greementQL4M and P+omp ementar- Aoan 8greement,QL)M both dated 3ovember 4, "$$/, 8sian Eeve opment Hank 28EH5, a m& ti atera deve opment finance instit&tion, agreed to e6tend to ,arcopper ,ining +orporation 2,arcopper5 a oan in the aggregate amo&nt of U=@4',''','''.'' to finance the atterRs mining project at =ta. +r&7,
Page | 2258

,arind&%&e. The principa oan of U=@ "),''','''.'' was so&rced from 8EHRs ordinar- capita reso&rces, whi e the comp ementaroan of U=@ /),''','''.'' was f&nded b- the Hank of 3ova =cotia, a participating finance instit&tion. 1n even date, 8EH and ; acer Eome, Inc., 2; acer Eome5, a foreign corporation which owns 4'B of ,arcopper, e6ec&ted a P=&pport and =tandb- +redit 8greementQ whereb- the atter agreed to provide ,arcopper with cash f ow s&pport for the pa-ment of its ob igations to 8EH. To sec&re the oan, ,arcopper e6ec&ted in favor of 8EH a PEeed of Rea Estate and +hatte ,ortgageQL(M dated 3ovember "", "$$/,
Page | 2259

covering s&bstantia - a of its 2,arcopperRs5 properties and assets in ,arind&%&e. It was registered with the Register of Eeeds on 3ovember "/, "$$/. 0hen ,arcopper defa& ted in the pa-ment of its oan ob igation, ; acer Eome, in f& fi ment of its &ndertaking &nder the P=&pport and =tandb- +redit 8greement,Q and pres&mab to preserve its internationa credit standing, agreed to have its s&bsidiarcorporation, petitioner ,R Io ding, Atd., ass&med ,arcopperRs ob igation to 8EH in the amo&nt of U=@ ":,4)!,4)'.'/. +onse%&ent -, in an P8ssignment 8greementQL#M dated ,arch /', "$$#, 8EH assigned to petitioner a its rights, interests and ob igations &nder
Page | 2260

the principa and comp ementar- oan agreements, 2PEeed of Rea Estate and +hatte ,ortgage,Q and P=&pport and =tandb+redit 8greementQ5. 1n Eecember :, "$$#, ,arcopper ikewise e6ec&ted a PEeed of 8ssignmentQL:M in favor of petitioner. Under its provisions, ,arcopper assigns, transfers, cedes and conve-s to petitioner, its assigns andJor s&ccessors*in*interest a of its 2,arcopperRs5 properties, mining e%&ipment and faci ities, to wit< Aand and ,ining Rights H&i ding and 1ther =tr&ct&res 1ther Aand Improvements ,achineries X E%&ipment, 0areho&se Inventor,ineJ,obi e E%&ipment
Page | 2261

and

Transportation E%&ipment and .&rnit&re X .i6t&res ,eanwhi e, it appeared that on ,a- #, "$$#, =o idbank +orporation 2=o idbank5 obtained a ;artia J&dgmentL$M against ,arcopper from the RT+, Hranch /(, ,ani a, in +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':! entit ed P olid/an: )orporation v$. Marcopper Minin" )orporation, Jo1n ;. Lone!, Jo$e ;. %e!e$ and Teodulo ). Ga/or, Jr.,Q the decreta portion of which reads< P0IERE.1RE, ;RE,I=E= +13=IEEREE, partia j&dgment is hereb- rendered ordering defendant ,arcopper ,ining +orporation, as fo ows<

Page | 2262

". To pa- p aintiff =o idbank the s&m of .ift- Two ,i ion 3ine I&ndred =event- Tho&sand ;esos =even I&ndred .ift- =i6 and :$J"'' on 2;I; )/,$#',#)(.:$5, p &s interest and charges &nti f& - paid> /. To pa- an amo&nt e%&iva ent to Ten ;ercent 2"'B5 of above* stated amo&nt as attorne-Rs fees> and !. To pa- the costs of s&it. D=1 1REEREE.Q Upon =o idbankRs motion, the RT+ of ,ani a iss&ed a writ of e6ec&tion pending appea directing +ar os ;. Hajar, respondent sheriff, to re%&ire ,arcopper Pto pa- the s&ms of monePage | 2263

to satisfthe ;artia J&dgment.QL"'M Thereafter, respondent Hajar iss&ed two notices of ev- on ,arcopperRs persona and rea properties, and over a its stocks of scrap iron and &nserviceab e mining e%&ipment.L""M Together with sheriff .erdinand ,. Jand&sa- 2a so a respondent5 of the RT+, Hranch $4, Hoac, ,arind&%&e, respondent Hajar iss&ed two notices setting the p&b ic a&ction sa e of the evied properties on 8&g&st /#, "$$: at the ,arcopper mine site.L"/M Iaving earned of the sched& ed a&ction sa e, petitioner served an P8ffidavit of Third*;art- + aimQL"!M &pon respondent sheriffs on 8&g&st /(, "$$:, asserting its ownership over a
Page | 2264

,arcopperRs mining properties, e%&ipment and faci ities b- virt&e of the PEeed of 8ssignment.Q Upon the denia of its P8ffidavit of ThirdS;art- + aimQ b- the RT+ of ,ani a,L"4M petitioner commenced with the RT+ of Hoac, ,arind&%&e, presided b- J&dge Aeonardo ;. 8nsa do, a comp aint for reivindication of properties, etc., with pra-er for pre iminarinj&nction and temporar- restraining order against respondents =o idbank, ,arcopper, and sheriffs Hajar and Jand&sa-.L")M The case was docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. $:*"!. In an 1rderL"(Mdated 1ctober (, "$$:, J&dge 8nsa do denied petitionerRs app ication for a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction on the
Page | 2265

gro&nd that a5 petitioner has no ega capacit- to s&e, it being a foreign corporation doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t icense> b5 an inj&nction wi amo&nt Pto sta-ing the e6ec&tion of a fina j&dgment b- a co&rt of co*e%&a and conc&rrent j&risdiction>Q and c5 the va idit- of the P8ssignment 8greementQ and the PEeed of 8ssignmentQ has been Pp&t into serio&s %&estion b- the timing of their e6ec&tion and registration.Q Unsatisfied, petitioner e evated the matter to the +o&rt of 8ppea s on a ;etition for +ertiorari, ;rohibition and ,andam&s, docketed therein as +8* G.R. =; 3o. 4$//(. 1n Jan&ar- :, "$$$, the +o&rt of 8ppea s rendered a Eecision ho ding that J&dge 8nsa do did
Page | 2266

not commit grave ab&se of discretion in den-ing petitionerRs pra-er for a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction, ratiocinating as fo ows< P;etitioner contends that it has the ega capacit- to s&e and seek redress from ;hi ippine co&rts as it is a non*resident foreign corporation not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines and s&ing on iso ated transactions. 666 666 P0e agree with the finding of the respondent co&rt that petitioner is not s&ing on an iso ated transaction as it c aims to be, as it is ver- obvio&s from the deed of assignment and its re ationships with ,arcopper and ; acer Eome, Inc. that its &nmistakab e
Page | 2267

intention is to contin&e the operations of ,arcopper and shie d its propertiesJassets from the reach of egitimate creditors, even those ho ding va id and e6ec&tor- co&rt j&dgments against it. There is no other wa- for petitioner to recover its h&ge financia investments which it po&red into ,arcopperRs rehabi itation and the oca sit&s where the Eeeds of 8ssignment were e6ec&ted, witho&t petitioner contin&ing to do b&siness in the co&ntr-. 666 666 P0hi e petitioner ma- j&st be an assignee to the Eeeds of 8ssignment, it ma- sti fa within the meaning of Pdoing b&sinessQ in ight of the =&preme +o&rt r& ing in the case of Har ;a$t 3nternational 3#port and ;'port
Page | 2268

)orporation v$. &an:ai Ko"!o )o., ( =+R8 #/), that< V0here a sing e act or transaction however is not mere - incidenta or cas&a b&t indicates the foreign corporationRs intention to do other b&siness in the ;hi ippines, said sing e act or transaction constit&tes doing or engaging in or transacting b&siness in the ;hi ippines.R P.&rthermore, the co&rt went f&rther bdec aring that even a sing e act maconstit&te doing b&siness if it is intended to be the beginning of a series of transactions. 2Har ;a$t 3nternational 3#port and ;'port )orporation v$. &an:ai Ko"!o )o. $upra5.

Page | 2269

P1n the iss&e of whether petitioner is the bona fide owner of a the mining faci ities and e%&ipment of ,arcopper, petitioner re ies heavi - on the 8ssignment 8greement a eged e6ec&ted on ,arch /', "$$# wherein a the rights and interest of 8sian Eeve opment Hank 28EH5 in a p&rported Aoan 8greement were ceded and transferred in favor of the petitioner as assignee, in addition to a s&bse%&ent Eeed of 8ssignment dated Eecember /:, "$$# conve-ing abso &te - a the properties, mining e%&ipment and faci ities of ,arcopper in favor of petitioner. PThe Eeeds of 8ssignment e6ec&ted in favor of petitioner cannot be binding on the j&dgment creditor, private
Page | 2270

respondent =o idbank, &nder the genera ega princip e that contracts can on - bind the parties who had entered into it, and it cannot favor or prej&dice a third person 2Vuano v$. )ourt of Appeal$, /"" =+R8 4'5. ,oreover, be6press stip& ation, the said deeds sha be governed, interpreted and constr&ed in accordance with aws of 3ew Cork. PThe Eeeds of 8ssignment e6ec&ted b,arcopper, thro&gh its ;resident, 8tt-. Teod& o +. Gabor, Jr., were c ear made in bad faith and in fra&d of creditors, partic& ar - private respondent =o idbank. The first 8ssignment 8greement p&rported - e6ec&ted on ,arch /', "$$# was entered into after =o idbank had fi ed on =eptember "$, "$$( a case against ,arcopper for
Page | 2271

co ection of s&m of mone- before Hranch /( of the Regiona Tria +o&rt docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':!. The second Eeed of 8ssignment p&rported - e6ec&ted on Eecember /:, "$$# was entered into b- ;resident Gabor after =o idbank had fi ed its ,otion for ;artia =&mmar- J&dgment, after the rendition b- Hranch /( of the Regiona Tria +o&rt of ,ani a of a ;artia =&mmar- J&dgment and after the said tria co&rt had iss&ed a writ of e6ec&tion, and which j&dgment was ater affirmed b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s. 0hi e the assignments 2which were not registered with the Registr- of ;ropertas re%&ired b- 8rtic e "(/) of the new +ivi +ode5 ma- be va id between the parties thereof, it prod&ces no effect as against third parties. The p&rported
Page | 2272

e6ec&tion of the Eeeds of 8ssignment in favor of petitioner was in vio ation of 8rtic e "!:# of the 3ew +ivi +ode 6 6 6. Q 2Emphasis =&pp ied5 Ience, the present ;etition for Review on )ertiorari b- ,R Io dings, Atd. moored on the fo owing gro&nds< P8. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 +1,;AETEAC EI=REG8REI3G 8= 8 ,8TERI8A .8+T 1. TIE +8=E TIE ENI=TE3+E 1. TIE ;RI1R, REGI=TEREE "$$/ EEEE 1. RE8A E=T8TE 83E +I8TTEA ,1RTG8GE +RE8TI3G 8 AIE3 1FER TIE AEFIEE ;R1;ERTIE=, =UHJE+T 1. TIE 8==IG3,E3T 8GREE,E3T E8TEE ,8R+I /',
Page | 2273

"$$#, TIU=, ,8TERI8AAC +13TRIHUTI3G T1 TIE =8IE +1URTR= ,I=;ER+E;TI13 83E ,I=8;;RE+I8TI13 1. TIE ,ERIT= 1. ;ETITI13ERR= +8=E. H. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 ,8?I3G 8 .8+TU8A .I3EI3G TI8T TIE =8IE 8==IG3,E3T 8GREE,E3T I= 31T REGI=TEREE, TIE =8,E HEI3G +13TR8RC T1 TIE .8+T= 13 RE+1RE, TIU=, ,8TERI8AAC +13TRIHUTI3G T1 TIE =8IE +1URTR= ,I=;ER+E;TI13 83E ,I=8;;RE+I8TI13 1. TIE ,ERIT= 1. ;ETITI13ERR= +8=E.
Page | 2274

+. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 ,8?I3G 8 .8+TU8A .I3EI3G 13 TIE ENI=TE3+E 1. 83 8TT8+I,E3T 13 TIE ;R1;ERTIE= =UHJE+T 1. I3=T83T +8=E, TIE =8,E HEI3G +13TR8RC T1 TIE .8+T= 13 RE+1RE, TIU=, ,8TERI8AAC +13TRIHUTI3G T1 TIE =8IE +1URTR= ,I=;ER+E;TI13 83E ,I=8;;RE+I8TI13 1. TIE ,ERIT= 1. ;ETITI13ERR= +8=E. E. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 I1AEI3G TI8T TIE =8IE 8==IG3,E3T 8GREE,E3T 83E TIE EEEE 1.
Page | 2275

8==IG3,E3T 8RE 31T HI3EI3G 13 RE=;13EE3T =1AIEH83? 0I1 I= 31T 8 ;8RTC TIERET1, TIE =8,E HEI3G +13TR8RC T1 A80 83E E=T8HAI=IEE JURI=;RUEE3+E 13 ;RI1R REGI=TEREE ,1RTG8GE AIE3= 83E 13 ;RE.ERE3+E 1. +REEIT=. E. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 .I3EI3G TI8T TIE 8.1RE,E3TI13EE 8==IG3,E3T 8GREE,E3T 83E EEEE 1. 8==IG3,E3T 8RE =I8,, =I,UA8TEE, 1. EUHI1U= +I8R8+TER, 83E 0ERE ,8EE I3 H8E .8ITI 83E I3 .R8UE 1. +REEIT1R=, ;8RTI+UA8RAC
Page | 2276

RE=;13EE3T =1AIEH83?, TIE =8,E HEI3G I3 +1,;AETE EI=REG8RE 1., FIZ< 2"5 TIE A80 83E E=T8HAI=IEE JURI=;RUEE3+E 13 ;RI1R, REGI=TEREE ,1RTG8GE AIE3= 83E 13 ;RE.ERE3+E 1. +REEIT=, HC RE8=13 1. 0II+I TIERE ENI=T= 31 +8U=8A +133E+TI13 HET0EE3 TIE =8IE +13TR8+T= 83E TIE ;R1+EEEI3G= I3 +IFIA +8=E 31. $(*:'':!> 2/5 TI8T TIE 8=I83 EEFEA1;,E3T H83? 0IAA 31T 1R +1UAE 31T I8FE 8GREEE T1 8 =I8,> =I,UA8TEE, EUHI1U= 83E .R8UEUAE3T TR83=8+TI13> 83E 2!5 TI8T RE=;13EE3T =1AIEH83?R= HIGGE=T
Page | 2277

=T1+?I1AEER, TIE H83? 1. 31F8 =+1TI8, 08= 8 ,8J1R HE3E.I+I8RC 1. TIE 8==IG3,E3T 8GREE,E3T I3 OUE=TI13. .. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 I1AEI3G TI8T ;ETITI13ER I= 0ITI1UT AEG8A +8;8+ITC T1 =UE 83E =EE? REERE== .R1, ;IIAI;;I3E +1URT=, IT HEI3G TIE +8=E TI8T =E+TI13 "!! 1. TIE +1R;1R8TI13 +1EE I= 0ITI1UT 8;;AI+8TI13 T1 ;ETITI13ER, 83E IT HEI3G TIE +8=E TI8T TIE =8IE +1URT ,EREAC REAIEE 13 =UR,I=E= 83E +13JE+TURE= I3 1;I3I3G
Page | 2278

TI8T ;ETITI13ER I3TE3E= T1 E1 HU=I3E== I3 TIE ;IIAI;;I3E=. G. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 I1AEI3G TI8T RE=;13EE3T ,8R+1;;ER, ;A8+ER E1,E, I3+., 83E ;ETITI13ER 8RE 13E 83E TIE =8,E E3TITC, TIE =8,E HEI3G 0ITI1UT .8+TU8A 1R AEG8A H8=I=. I. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 I1AEI3G ;ETITI13ER GUIATC 1. .1RU, =I1;;I3G, IT HEI3G +AE8R TI8T 3EITIER L3T3 2;&9;&T3A 31R %;
Page | 2279

JT93)ATA ,8C H8R TIE I3=T83T REIFI3EI+8T1RC 8+TI13, 83E IT HEI3G +AE8R TI8T 8= TIIRE*;8RTC +A8I,83T, TIE A80 8..1RE= ;ETITI13ER TIE RIGIT T1 .IAE =U+I REIFI3EI+8T1RC 8+TI13. I. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 RE3EERI3G 8 EE+I=I13 0II+I I3 E..E+T =ERFE= 8= JUEG,E3T 13 TIE ,ERIT= 1. TIE +8=E. J. TIE =IERI..R= AEFC 83E =8AE, TIE =IERI..R= +ERTI.I+8TE 1. =8AE E8TEE 1+T1HER "/, "$$:, TIE RT+* ,83IA8 1REER E8TEE
Page | 2280

.EHRU8RC "/, "$$$, 83E TIE RT+*H18+ 1REER E8TEE 31FE,HER /), "$$: 8RE 3UAA 83E F1IE. ?. TIE I131R8HAE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,IT= 8 REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 8..IR,I3G TIE EE3I8A HC TIE RT+*H18+ 1. ;ETITI13ERR= 8;;AI+8TI13 .1R ;REAI,I38RC I3JU3+TI13, TIE =8,E HEI3G I3 T1T8A EI=REG8RE 1. ;ETITI13ERR= RIGIT 8= 8==IG3EE 1. 8 ;RI1R, REGI=TEREE ,1RTG8GE AIE3, 83E I3 EI=REG8RE 1. TIE A80 83E JURI=;RUEE3+E 13 ;RE.ERE3+E 1. +REEIT.D
Page | 2281

In its petition, petitioner a eges that it is not Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines and characteri7es its participation in the assignment contracts 2whereb,arcopperRs assets where transferred to it5 as mere iso ated acts that cannot forec ose its right to s&e in oca co&rts. ;etitioner ikewise maintains that the two assignment contracts, a tho&gh e6ec&ted d&ring the pendenc- of +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':! in the RT+ of ,ani a, are not fra&d& ent conve-ances as the- were s&pported b- va &ab e considerations. ,oreover, the- were e6ec&ted in connection with prior transactions that took p ace as ear - as "$$/ which invo ved 8EH, a rep&tab e financia instit&tion. ;etitioner f&rther c aims that when it paid ,arcopperRs ob igation to 8EH, it stepped into the
Page | 2282

atterRs shoes and ac%&ired its 28EHR=5 rights, tit es, and interests &nder the PEeed of Rea Estate and +hatte ,ortgage.Q Aast -, petitioner asserts its e6istence as a corporation, separate and distinct from ; acer Eome and ,arcopper. In its comment, =o idbank avers that< a5 petitioner is Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines and this is evidenced bthe Ph&ge investmentQ it po&red into the assignment contracts> b5 granting that petitioner is not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, the nat&re of its transaction revea s an Pintention to do b&sinessQ or Pto begin a series of transactionQ in the co&ntr-> c5 petitioner, ,arcopper and ; acer Eome are one and the same entit-, petitioner being then a who -*
Page | 2283

owned s&bsidiarof ; acer Eome, which, in t&rn, owns 4'B of ,arcopper> d5 the timing &nder which the assignments contracts were e6ec&ted shows that petitionerRs p&rpose was to defeat an- j&dgment favorab e to it 2=o idbank5> and e5 petitioner vio ated the r& e on for&m shopping since the object of +ivi +ase 3o. $:*"! 2at RT+, Hoac, ,arind&%&e5 is simi ar to the other cases fi ed b- ,arcopper in order to foresta the sa e of the evied properties. ,arcopper, in a separate comment, states that it is mere - a nomina part- to the present case and that its principa concerns are being venti ated in another case. The petition is impressed with merit.
Page | 2284

+r&cia to the o&tcome of this case is o&r reso &tion of the fo owing iss&es< "5 Eoes petitioner have the ega capacit- to s&eK /5 0as the Eeed of 8ssignment between ,arcopper and petitioner e6ec&ted in fra&d of creditorsK !5 8re petitioner ,R Io dings, Atd., ; acer Eome, and ,arcopper one and the same entit-K and45 Is petitioner g&i t- of for&m shoppingK 0e sha reso ve the iss&es in $eriati#. I The +o&rt of 8ppea s r& ed that petitioner has no ega capacit- to s&e in the ;hi ippine co&rts beca&se it is a foreign corporation doing b&siness here witho&t icense. 8 review of this r& ing
Page | 2285

does not pose m&ch comp e6it- as the princip es governing a foreign corporationRs right to s&e in oca co&rts have ong been sett ed b- o&r +orporation Aaw.L"#M These princip es ma- be condensed in three statements, to wit< a5 if a foreign corporation does b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t a icense, it cannot s&e before the ;hi ippine co&rts>L":M b5 if a foreign corporation is not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, it needs no icense to s&e before ;hi ippine co&rts on an iso ated transactionL"$Mor on a ca&se of action entire - independent of anb&siness transaction>L/'M and c5 if a foreign corporation does b&siness in the ;hi ippines with the re%&ired icense, it can s&e before ;hi ippine co&rts on an- transaction. 8pparent -, it is not
Page | 2286

the absence of the prescribed icense b&t the Pdoing 2of5 b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines witho&t s&ch icense which debars the foreign corporation from access to o&r co&rts.L/"M The task at hand re%&ires &s to weigh the facts vi$-_-vi$ the estab ished princip es. The %&estion whether or not a foreign corporation is doing b&siness is dependent principa - &pon the facts and circ&mstances of each partic& ar case, considered in the ight of the p&rposes and ang&age of the pertinent stat&te or stat&tes invo ved and of the genera princip es governing the j&risdictiona a&thorit- of the state over s&ch corporations.L//M Hatas ;ambansa H g. (:, otherwise known as PThe +orporation +ode of the
Page | 2287

;hi ippines,Q is si ent as to what constit&tes doingQ or PtransactingQ b&siness in the ;hi ippines. .ort&nate -, j&rispr&dence has s&pp ied the deficienc- and has he d that the term Pimp ies a contin&it- of commercia dea ings and arrangements, and contemp ates, to that e6tent, the performance of acts or works or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in progressive prosec&tion of, the p&rpose and object for which the corporation was organi7ed.QL/!M In Ment1olatu# )o. 3nc., v$. Man"ali#an,L/4M this +o&rt aid down the test to determine whether a foreign compan- is Pdoing b&siness,Q th&s< P 6 6 6 The tr&e test, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is
Page | 2288

contin&ing the bod- or s&bstance of the b&siness or enterprise for which it was organi7ed or whether it has s&bstantia retired from it and t&rned it over to another. 2Traction )o$. v$. )ollector$ of 3nt. %evenueL+.+.8., 1hioM, //! .. $:4,$:#.5 6 6 6.Q The traditiona case aw definition has metamorphosed into a stat&tordefinition, having been adopted with some %&a ifications in vario&s pieces of egis ation in o&r j&risdiction. .or instance, Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. #'4/, otherwise known as the P.oreign Investment 8ct of "$$",Q defines Pdoing b&sinessQ as fo ows< Pd5 The phrase Vdoing b&sinessR sha inc &de so iciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether
Page | 2289

ca ed V iaisonR offices or branches> appointing representatives or distrib&tors domici ed in the ;hi ippines or who in an- ca endar -ear sta- in the co&ntr- for a period or periods tota ing one h&ndred eight2-5 2":'5 da-s or more> participating in the management, s&pervision or contro of andomestic b&siness, firm, entit-, or corporation in the ;hi ippines>and an- other act or acts that imp - a contin&it- of commercia dea ings or arrangements, and contemp ate to that e6tent the performance of acts or works> or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in progressive prosec&tion of, commercia gain or of the p&rpose and object of the b&siness
Page | 2290

organi7ation> 2rovided, 1o0ever, That the phrase Vdoing b&sinessR sha not be deemed to inc &de mere investment as a shareho der b- a foreign entit- in domestic corporations d& registered to do b&siness, andJor the e6ercise of rights as s&ch investor, nor having a nominee director or officer to represent its interests in s&ch corporation, nor appointing a representative or distrib&tor domici ed in the ;hi ippines which transacts b&siness in its own name and for its own acco&nt.Q 2Emphasis s&pp ied5L/)M Aikewise, =ection " of Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. )4)),L/(M provides that<
Page | 2291

P=E+TI13. ". 9efinition and $cope of t1i$ Act. * 2"5 6 6 6 the phrase Vdoing b&sinessR sha inc &de so iciting orders, p&rchases, service contracts, opening offices, whether ca ed V iaisonR offices or branches> appointing representatives or distrib&tors who are domici ed in the ;hi ippines or who in an- ca endar -ear sta- in the ;hi ippines for a period or periods tota ing one h&ndred eightda-s or more> participating in the management, s&pervision or contro of an- domestic b&siness firm, entit- or corporation in the ;hi ippines> and another act or acts that imp - a contin&itof commercia dea ings or arrangements, and contemp ate to that e6tent the performance of acts or works, or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in progressive
Page | 2292

prosec&tion of, commercia gain or of the p&rpose and object of the b&siness organi7ation.Q There are other stat&tesL/#M defining the term Pdoing b&sinessQ in the same tenor as those above*%&oted, and as ma- be observed, one common denominator among them a is the concept of Pcontin&it-.Q In the case at bar, the +o&rt of 8ppea s categori7ed as Pdoing b&sinessQ petitionerRs participation &nder the P8ssignment 8greementQ and the PEeed of 8ssignment.Q This is simp &ntenab e. The e6pression Pdoing b&sinessQ sho& d not be given s&ch a strict and itera constr&ction as to make it app to ancorporate dea ing whatever.L/:M 8t this ear - stage
Page | 2293

and with petitionerRs acts or transactions imited to the assignment contracts, it cannot be said that it had performed acts intended to contin&e the b&siness for which it was organi7ed. It ma- not be amiss to point o&t that the p&rpose or b&siness for whi ch petitioner was organi7ed is not discernib e in the records. 3o effort was e6erted b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s to estab ish the ne6&s between petitionerRs b&siness and the acts s&pposed to constit&te Pdoing b&siness.Q Th&s, whether the assignment contracts were incidenta to petitionerRs b&siness or were contin&ation thereof is be-ond determination. 0e cannot app - the case cited b- the +o&rt of 8ppea s, Har ;a$t 3ntJl 3#port and ;'port )orp. v$. &an:ai Ko"!o )o., Ltd.,L/$M which he d
Page | 2294

that a sing e act ma- sti constit&te Pdoing b&sinessQ if Pit is not mere incidenta or cas&a , b&t is of s&ch character as distinct - to indicate a p&rpose on the part of the foreign corporation to do other b&siness in the state.Q In said case, there was an e6press admission from an officia of the foreign corporation that he was sent to the ;hi ippines to ook into the operation of mines, thereb- revea ing the foreign corporationRs desire to contin&e engaging in b&siness here. H&t in the case at bar, there is no evidence of simi ar desire or intent. Unarg&ab -, petitioner ma-, as the +o&rt of 8ppea s s&ggested, decide to operate ,arcopperRs mining b&siness, b&t, of co&rse, at this stage, that is a mere spec& ation. 1r it ma- decide to se
Page | 2295

the credit sec&red b- the mining properties to an offshore investor, in which case the acts wi sti be iso ated transactions. To see thro&gh the present facts an intention on the part of petitioner to start a series of b&siness transaction is to rest on ass&mptions or probabi ities fa ing short of act&a proof. +o&rts sho& d never base its j&dgments on a state of facts so inade%&ate - deve oped that it cannot be determined where inference ends and conject&re begins. Indeed, the +o&rt of 8ppea sR ho ding that petitioner was determined to be Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines is based main - on conject&res and spec& ation. In conc &ding that the Pun#i$ta:a/le intentionQ of petitioner is
Page | 2296

to contin&e ,arcopperRs b&siness, the +o&rt of 8ppea s hangs on the wobb premise that Pthere is no other wa- for petitioner to recover its h&ge financia investments which it po&red into ,arcopperRs rehabi itation witho&t it 2petitioner5 contin&ing ,arcopperRs b&siness in the co&ntr-.QL!'M This is a mere pres&mption. 8bsent overt acts of petitioner from which we ma- direct infer its intention to contin&e ,arcopperRs b&siness, we cannot give o&r conc&rrence. =ignificant -, a view s&bscribed &pon b- man- a&thorities is that the mere ownership b- a foreign corporation of a propert- in a certain state, &naccompanied b- its active &se in f&rtherance of the b&siness for which it was formed, is ins&fficient in itse f to constit&te doing b&siness.L!"M In )1itti#
Page | 2297

v$. (elle Hourc1e (entonite 2roduct$ )o.,L!/M it was he d that even if a foreign corporation p&rchased and took conve-ances of a mining c aim, did some assessment work thereon, and endeavored to se it, its acts wi not constit&te the doing of b&siness so as to s&bject the corporation to the stat&torre%&irements for the transacting of b&siness. 1n the same vein, petitioner, a foreign corporation, which becomes the assignee of mining properties, faci ities and e%&ipment cannot be a&tomatica - considered as doing b&siness, nor pres&med to have the intention of engaging in mining b&siness.
Page | 2298

1ne important point. Aong before petitioner ass&med ,arcopperRs debt to 8EH and became their assignee &nder the two assignment contracts, there a read- e6isted a P=&pport and =tandb+redit 8greementQ between 8EH and ; acer Eome whereb- the atter bo&nd itse f to provide cash f ow s&pport for ,arcopperRs pa-ment of its ob igations to 8EH. ; ain -, petitionerRs pa-ment of U=@ ":,4)!, 4)'."/ to 8EH was more of a f& fi ment of an ob igation &nder the P=&pport and =tandb+redit 8greementQ rather than an investment. That petitioner had to step into the shoes of 8EH as ,arcopperRs creditor was j&st a necessar- ega conse%&ence of the transactions that transpired. 8 so, we m&st hasten to add that the P=&pport and =tandb- +redit
Page | 2299

8greementQ was e6ec&ted fo&r 245 -ears prior to ,arcopperRs insovenc-, hence, the a eged Pintention of petitioner to continue MarcopperJ$ /u$ine$$Q co& d have no basis for at that time, ,arcopperRs fate cannot -et be determined. In the fina ana -sis, we are convinced that petitioner was engaged on - in iso ated acts or transactions. =ing e or iso ated acts, contracts, or transactions of foreign corporations are not regarded as a doing or carr-ing on of b&siness. T-pica e6amp es of these are the making of a sing e contract, sa e, sa e with the taking of a note and mortgage in the state to sec&re pa-ment therefor, p&rchase, or note, or the mere commission of a tort.L!!M In these
Page | 2300

instances, there is no p&rpose to do another b&siness within the co&ntr-. II =o idbank contends that from the chrono og- and timing of events, it is evident that there e6isted a pre*set pattern of response on the part of ,arcopper to defeat whatever co&rt r& ing that ma- be rendered in favor of =o idbank. 0e are not convinced. 0hi e it ma- appear, at initia g ance, that the assignment contracts are in the nat&re of fra&d& ent conve-ances, however, a c oser ook at the events that transpired prior to the e6ec&tion of those contracts gives rise to a different conc &sion. The obvio&s f aw in the
Page | 2301

+o&rt of 8ppea sR Eecision ies in its constricted view of the facts obtaining in the case. In its fact&a narration, the +o&rt of 8ppea s definite - eft o&t some events. 0e sha see ater the significance of those events. 8rtic e "!:# of the +ivi +ode of the ;hi ippines provides< P8rt. "!:#. 8 contracts b- virt&e of which the debtor a ienates propert- bgrat&ito&s tit e are pres&med to have been entered into in fra&d of creditors, when the donor did not reserve s&fficient propert- to pa- a debts contracted before the donation. 8 ienations b- onero&s tit e are a so pres&med fra&d& ent when made bpersons against whom some j&dgment has been rendered in an- instance or
Page | 2302

some writ of attachment has been iss&ed. The decision or attachment need not refer to the propert- a ienated, and need not have been obtained b- the part- seeking rescission. In addition to these pres&mptions, the design to defra&d creditors ma- be proved in an- other manner recogni7ed b- aw and of evidence. This artic e pres&mes the e6istence of fra&d made b- a debtor. Th&s, in the absence of satisfactor- evidence to the contrar-, an a ienation of a propert- wi be he d fra&d& ent if it is made after a j&dgment has been rendered against the debtor making the a ienation.L!4M This pres&mption of fra&d is not conc &sive and ma- be reb&tted b- satisfactor- and convincing evidence. 8 that is
Page | 2303

necessar- is to estab ish affirmative that the conve-ance is made in good faith and for a s&fficient and va &ab e consideration.L!)M The P8ssignment 8greementQ and the PEeed of 8ssignmentQ were e6ec&ted for va &ab e considerations. ;atent from the P8ssignment 8greementQ is the fact that petitioner ass&med the pa-ment of U=@ ":,4)!,4)'."/ to 8EH in satisfaction of ,arcopperRs remaining debt as of ,arch /', "$$#.L!(M =o idbank cannot den- this fact considering that a s&bstantia portion of the said pa-ment, in the s&m of U=@ "!,::(,#$".'(, was remitted in favor of the Hank of 3ova =cotia, its major stockho der.L!#M The facts of the case so far show that the assignment contracts were e6ec&ted
Page | 2304

in good faith. The e6ec&tion of the P8ssignment 8greementQ on ,acrh /', "$$# and the PEeed of 8ssignmentQ on Eecember :,"$$# is not the alp1a of this case. 0hi e the e6ec&tion of these assignment contracts a most coincided with the rendition on ,a- #, "$$# of the ;artia J&dgment in +ivi +ase 3o. $(* :'':! b- the ,ani a RT+, however, there was no intention on the part of petitioner to defeat =o idbankRs c aim. It bears reiterating that as ear - as 3ovember 4, "$$/, ; acer Eome had a read- bo&nd itse f &nder a P=&pport and =tandb- +redit 8greementQ to provide ,arcopper with cash f ow s&pport for the pa-ment to 8EH of its ob igations. 0hen ,arcopper ceased operations on acco&nt of disastro&s mine tai ings spi into the Hoac River
Page | 2305

and 8EH pressed for pa-ment of the oan, ; acer Eome agreed to have its s&bsidiar-, herein petitioner, paid 8EH the amo&nt of U= @":,4)!,4)'."/. There&pon, 8EH and ,arcopper e6ec&ted, respective -, in favor of petitioner an P8ssignment 8greementQ and a PEeed of 8ssignment.Q 1bvio&s -, the assignment contracts were connected with transactions that happened ong before the rendition in "$$# of the ;artia J&dgment in +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':! bthe ,ani a RT+. Those contracts cannot be viewed in iso ation. If we maadd, it is high - inconceivab e that 8EH, a rep&tab e internationa financia organi7ation, wi connive with ,arcopper to feign or sim& ate a contract in "$$/ j&st to defra&d
Page | 2306

=o idbank for its c aim fo&r -ears thereafter. 8nd it is e%&a - incredib e for petitioner to be pa-ing the h&ge s&m of U= @ ":, 4)!, 4)'."/ to 8EH on - for the p&rpose of defra&ding =o idbank of the s&m of ;)/,$#'.#)(.:$. It is said that the test as to whether or not a conve-ance is fra&d& ent is ** does it prej&dice the rights of creditorsKL!:M 0e cannot see how =o idbankRs right was prej&diced b- the assignment contracts considering that s&bstantia - a of ,arcopperRs properties were a readcovered b- the registered PEeed of Rea Estate and +hatte ,ortgageQ e6ec&ted b- ,arcopper in favor of 8EH as ear as 3ovember "", "$$/. 8s s&ch, =o idbank cannot assert a better right than 8EH, the atter being a preferred
Page | 2307

creditor. It is basic that mortgaged properties answer primari - for the mortgaged credit, not for the j&dgment credit of the mortgagorRs &nsec&red creditor. +onsidering that petitioner ass&med ,arcopperRs debt to 8EH, it fo ows that =o idbankRs right as j&dgment creditor over the s&bject properties m&st give wa- to that of the former. III The record is acking in circ&mstances that wo& d s&ggest that petitioner corporation, ; acer Eome and ,arcopper are one and the same entit-. 0hi e admitted -, petitioner is a who -* owned s&bsidiar- of ; acer Eome, which in t&rn, which, in t&rn, was then a
Page | 2308

minoritstockho der of ,arcopper, however, the mere fact that a corporation owns a of the stocks of another corporation, taken a one is not s&fficient to j&stif- their being treated as one entit-. If &sed to perform egitimate f&nctions, a s&bsidiar-Rs separate e6istence sha be respected, and the iabi it- of the parent corporation as we as the s&bsidiar- wi be confined to those arising in their respective b&siness.L!$M The recent case of 21ilippine &ational (an: v$. %itratto Group 3nc.,L4'M o&t ines the circ&mstances which are &sef& in the determination of whether a s&bsidiar- is b&t a mere instr&menta itof the parent*corporation, to wit<
Page | 2309

2a5 The parent corporation owns a or most of the capita stock of the s&bsidiar-. 2b5 The parent and s&bsidiarcorporations have common directors or officers. 2c5 The parent corporation finances the s&bsidiar-. 2d5 The parent corporation s&bscribes to a the capita stock of the s&bsidiar- or otherwise ca&ses its incorporation. 2e5 The s&bsidiar- has gross inade%&ate capita . 2f5 The parent corporation pa-s the sa aries and other e6penses or osses of the s&bsidiar-.
Page | 2310

2g5 The s&bsidiarhas s&bstantia - no b&siness e6cept with the parent corporation or no assets e6cept those conve-ed to or b- the parent corporation. 2h5 In the papers of the parent corporation or in the statements of its officers, the s&bsidiar- is described as a department or division of the parent corporation, or its b&siness or financia responsibi it- is referred to as the parent corporationRs own. 2i5 The parent corporation &ses the propert- of the s&bsidiar- as its own. 2j5 The directors or e6ec&tives of the s&bsidiar- do not act independent in the interest of the s&bsidiar-, b&t
Page | 2311

take their orders from the parent corporation. 2k5 The forma ega re%&irements of the s&bsidiar- are not observed. In this catena of circ&mstances, what is on - e6tant in the records is the matter of stock ownership. There are no other factors indicative that petitioner is a mere instr&menta it- of ,arcopper or ; acer Eome. The mere fact that ; acer Eome agreed, &nder the terms of the P=&pport and =tandb+redit 8greementQ to provide ,arcopper with cash f ow s&pport in pa-ing its ob igations to 8EH, does not mean that its persona it- has merged with that of ,arcopper. This sing& ar &ndertaking, performed b- ; acer Eome with its own
Page | 2312

stockho ders in +anada and e sewhere, is not a s&fficient gro&nd to merge its corporate persona it- with ,arcopper which has its own set of shareho ders, dominated most - b- .i ipino citi7ens. The same view app ies to petitionerRs pa-ment of ,arcopperRs remaining debt to 8EH. 0ith the foregoing considerations and the absence of fra&d in the transaction of the three foreign corporations, we find it improper to pierce the vei of corporate fiction S that e%&itab e doctrine deve oped to address sit&ations where the corporate persona itof a corporation is ab&sed or &sed for wrongf& p&rposes. IF
Page | 2313

1n the iss&e of for&m shopping, there co& d have been a vio ation of the r& es thereon if petitioner and ,arcopper were indeed one and the same entit-. H&t since petitioner has a separate persona it-, it has the right to p&rs&e its third*part- c aim b- fi ing the independent reivindicator- action with the RT+ of Hoac, ,arind&%&e, p&rs&ant to R& e !$, =ection "( of the "$$# R& es of +ivi ;roced&res. This remed- has been recogni7ed in a ong ine of cases decided b- this +o&rt.L4"M In %odri"ue5 v$. )ourt of Appeal$,L4/M we he d< P. . . It has ong been sett ed in this j&risdiction that the c aim of ownership of a third part- over properties evied for e6ec&tion of a j&dgment presents no
Page | 2314

iss&e for determination b- the co&rt iss&ing the writ of e6ec&tion. . . .Th&s, when a propert- evied &pon b- the sheriff p&rs&ant to a writ of e6ec&tion is c aimed b- third person in a sworn statement of ownership thereof, as prescribed b- the r& es, an entire different matter ca ing for a new adj&dication arises. 8nd dea ing as it does with the a important %&estion of tit e, it is reasonab e to re%&ire the fi ing of proper p eadings and the ho ding of a tria on the matter in view of the re%&irements of d&e process. . . . In other words, constr&ing =ection "# of R& e !$ of the Revised R& es of +o&rt 2now =ection "( of the "$$# R& es of +ivi ;roced&re5, the rights of third*part- c aimants over certain
Page | 2315

properties evied &pon b- the sheriff to satisf- the j&dgment ma- not be taken &p in the case where s&ch c aims are presented b&t in a separate and independent action instit&ted b- the c aimants.Q 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 This Preivindicator- actionQ has for its object the recover- of ownership or possession of the propert- sei7ed b- the sheriff, despite the third part- c aim, as we as damages res& ting therefrom, and it ma- be bro&ght against the sheriff and s&ch other parties as ma- be a eged to have connived with him in the s&pposed wrongf& e6ec&tion proceedings, s&ch as the j&dgment creditor himse f. =&ch action is an entire - separate and distinct action from that in which e6ec&tion has been
Page | 2316

iss&ed. Th&s, there being no identit- of parties and ca&se of action between +ivi +ase 3o. $:*"! 2RT+, Hoac5 and those cases fi ed b- ,arcopper, inc &ding +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':! 2RT+, ,ani a5 as to give rise to re$ judicata or liti$ pendentia, =o idbankRs a egation of for&m*shopping cannot prosper.L4!M 8 considered, we find petitioner to be entit ed to the iss&ance of a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction. =ection !, R& e ): of the "$$# R& es of +ivi ;roced&re provides< P=E+. ! Ground$ for i$$uance of preli#inar! injunction. S 8 pre iminarinj&nction ma- be granted when it is estab ished<
Page | 2317

2a5 That the app icant is entit ed to the re ief demanded, and the who e or part of s&ch re ief consists in restraining the commission or contin&ance of the act or acts comp ained of, or in re%&iring the performance of an act or acts, either for a imited period or perpet&a -> 2b5 That the commission, contin&ance or non*performance of the acts or acts comp ained of d&ring the itigation wo& d probab work inj&stice to the app icant> or 2c5 That a part-, co&rt, agenc- or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is proc&ring or s&ffering to be done, some act or acts probab - in vio ation of the
Page | 2318

rights of the app icant respecting the s&bject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the j&dgment ineffect&a .Q ;etitionerRs right to stop the f&rther e6ec&tion of the properties covered bthe assignment contracts is c ear &nder the facts so far estab ished. 8n e6ec&tion can be iss&ed on - against a part- and not against one who did not have his da- in co&rt.L44M The d&t- of the sheriff is to ev- the propert- of the j&dgment debtor not that of a third person. .or, as the sa-ing goes, one manRs goods sha not be so d for another man9s debts.L4)M To a ow the e6ec&tion of petitionerRs properties wo& d s&re - work inj&stice to it and render the j&dgment on the
Page | 2319

reivindicator- action, sho& d it be favorab e, ineffect&a . In Ara/a!, 3nc., v$. alvador,L4(M this +o&rt he d that an inj&nction is a proper remed- to prevent a sheriff from se ing the propert- of one person for the p&rpose of pa-ing the debts of another> and that whi e the genera r& e is that no co&rt has a&thorit- to interfere b- inj&nction with the j&dgments or decrees of another co&rt of e%&a or conc&rrent or coordinate j&risdiction, however, it is not so when a third*part- c aimant is invo ved. 0e %&ote the instr&ctive words of J&stice O&er&be +. ,aka inta in A/iera v$. )ourt of Appeal$,L4#Mth&s< PThe rationa e of the decision in the Iera d ;&b ishing +ompan- caseL4:M is pec& iar - app icab e to the one before
Page | 2320

Us, and removes it from the genera doctrine en&nciated in the decisions cited b- the respondents and %&oted ear ier herein. ". Under =ection "# of R& e !$ a third person who c aims propert- evied &pon on e6ec&tion ma- vindicate s&ch c aim b- action. 1bvio&s - a j&dgment rendered in his favor, that is, dec aring him to be the owner of the propert-, wo& d not constit&te interference with the powers or processes of the co&rt which rendered the j&dgment to enforce which the e6ec&tion was evied. If that be so S and it is so beca&se the propert-, being that of a stranger, is not s&bject to ev- S then an inter oc&tororder s&ch as inj&nction, &pon a c aim and prima facie showing of ownership
Page | 2321

b- the c aimant, cannot be considered as s&ch interference either.Q 0IERE.1RE, the petition is GR83TEE. The assai ed Eecision dated Jan&ar- :, "$$$ and the Reso &tion dated ,arch /$, "$$$ of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8 G.R. 3o. 4$//( are set aside. Upon fi ing of a bond of ;",''','''.'', respondent sheriffs are restrained from f&rther imp ementing the writ of e6ec&tion iss&ed in +ivi +ase 3o. $(*:'':! b- the RT+, Hranch /(, ,ani a, &nti f&rther orders from this +o&rt. The RT+, Hranch $4, Hoac, ,arind&%&e, is directed to dispose of +ivi +ase 3o. $:*"! with dispatch. =1 1REEREE.
Page | 2322

Page | 2323

:G.R. No. 113021. J&nu& y 22, 1992< AL.RED HAHN, petitioner, vs. $OUR, O. A**EALS &n( 6A4ER%S$HE #O,OREN EERBE AB,%ENGESELLS$HA., =6#E>, respondents. EE+I=I13 ,E3E1Z8, J.< This is a petition for review of the decisionL"M of the +o&rt of 8ppea s dismissing a comp aint for specific performance which petitioner had fi ed against private respondent on the gro&nd that the Regiona Tria +o&rt of O&e7on +it- did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over private respondent, a nonresident
Page | 2324

foreign corporation, and of the appe ate co&rt9s order den-ing petitioner9s motion for reconsideration. The fo owing are the facts< ;etitioner 8 fred Iahn is a .i ipino citi7en doing b&siness &nder the name and st- e DIahn*,ani a.D 1n the other hand, private respondent Ha-erische ,otoren 0erke 8ktiengese schaft 2H,05 is a nonresident foreign corporation e6isting &nder the aws of the former .edera Rep&b ic of German-, with principa office at ,&nich, German-. 1n ,arch #, "$(#, petitioner e6ec&ted in favor of private respondent a DEeed of 8ssignment with =pecia ;ower of 8ttorne-,D which reads in f& as fo ows<
Page | 2325

0IERE8=, the 8==IG31R is the present owner and ho der of the H,0 trademark and device in the ;hi ippines which 8==IG31R &ses and has been &sing on the prod&cts man&fact&red b8==IG3EE, and for which 8==IG31R is the a&thori7ed e6c &sive Eea er of the 8==IG3EE in the ;hi ippines, the same being evidenced b- certificate of registration iss&ed b- the Eirector of ;atents on "/ Eecember "$(! and is referred to as Trademark 3o. "'(/)> 0IERE8=, the 8==IG31R has agreed to transfer and conse%&ent - record said transfer of the said H,0 trademark and device in favor of the 8==IG3EE herein with the ;hi ippines ;atent 1ffice> 310 TIERE.1RE, in view of the foregoing and in consideration of the
Page | 2326

stip& ations here&nder stated, the 8==IG31R hereb- affirms the said assignment and transfer in favor of the 8==IG3EE &nder the fo owing terms and conditions< ". The 8==IG3EE sha take appropriate steps against an- &ser other than 8==IG31R or infringer of the H,0 trademark in the ;hi ippines, for s&ch p&rpose, the 8==IG31R sha inform the 8==IG3EE immediate - of an- s&ch &se or infringement of the said trademark which comes to his know edge and &pon s&ch information the 8==IG31R sha a&tomatica - act as 8ttorne-*In*.act of the 8==IG3EE for s&ch case, with f& power, a&thoritand responsibi itto prosec&te &ni atera or in concert with
Page | 2327

8==IG3EE, an- s&ch infringer of the s&bject mark and for p&rposes hereof the 8==IG31R is hereb- named and constit&ted as 8==IG3EE9s 8ttorne-*In* .act, b&t an- s&ch s&it witho&t 8==IG3EE9s consent wi e6c &sive - be the responsibi it- and for the acco&nt of the 8==IG31R, /. That the 8==IG31R and the 8==IG3EE sha contin&e b&siness re ations as has been &s&a in the past witho&t a forma contract, and for that p&rpose, the dea ership of 8==IG31R sha cover the 8==IG3EE9s comp ete prod&ction program with the on imitation that, for the present, in view of 8==IG3EE9s imited prod&ction, the atter sha not be ab e to s&pp a&tomobi es to 8==IG31R.
Page | 2328

;er the agreement, the parties Dcontin&eLdM b&siness re ations as has been &s&a in the past witho&t a forma contract.D H&t on .ebr&ar- "(, "$$!, in a meeting with a H,0 representative and the president of +o &mbia ,otors +orporation 2+,+5, Jose 8 vare7, petitioner was informed that H,0 was arranging to grant the e6c &sive dea ership of H,0 cars and prod&cts to +,+, which had e6pressed interest in ac%&iring the same. 1n .ebr&ar- /4, "$$!, petitioner received confirmation of the information from H,0 which, in a etter, e6pressed dissatisfaction with vario&s aspects of petitioner9s b&siness, mentioning among other things, dec ine in sa es, deteriorating services, and inade%&ate showroom and wareho&se faci ities, and petitioner9s a eged fai &re
Page | 2329

to comp - with the standards for an e6c &sive H,0 dea er.L/M 3onethe ess, H,0 e6pressed wi ingness to contin&e b&siness re ations with the petitioner on the basis of a Dstandard H,0 importerD contract, otherwise, it said, if this was not acceptab e to petitioner, H,0 wo& d have no a ternative b&t to terminate petitioner9s e6c &sive dea ership effective J&ne !', "$$!. ;etitioner protested, c aiming that the termination of his e6c &sive dea ership wo& d be a breach of the Eeed of 8ssignment.L!M Iahn insisted that as ong as the assignment of its trademark and device s&bsisted, he remained H,09s e6c &sive dea er in the ;hi ippines beca&se the assignment was made in consideration of the e6c &sive
Page | 2330

dea ership. In the same etter petitioner e6p ained that the dec ine in sa es was d&e to ower prices offered for H,0 cars in the United =tates and the fact that few c&stomers ret&rned for repairs and servicing beca&se of the d&rabi itof H,0 parts and the efficienc- of petitioner9s service. Heca&se of Iahn9s insistence on the former b&siness re ation, H,0 withdrew on ,arch /(, "$$! its offer of a Dstandard importer contractD and terminated the e6c &sive dea er re ationship effective J&ne !', "$$!.L4M 8t a conference of H,0 Regiona Importers he d on 8pri /(, "$$! in =ingapore, Iahn was s&rprised to find 8 vare7 among those invited from the 8sian region. 1n 8pri /$, "$$!, H,0
Page | 2331

proposed that Iahn and +,+ joint import and distrib&te H,0 cars and parts. Iahn fo&nd the proposa &nacceptab e. 1n ,a- "4, "$$!, he fi ed a comp aint for specific performance and damages against H,0 to compe it to contin&e the e6c &sive dea ership. Aater he fi ed an amended comp aint to inc &de an app ication for temporarrestraining order and for writs of pre iminar-, mandator- and prohibitorinj&nction to enjoin H,0 from terminating his e6c &sive dea ership. Iahn9s amended comp aint a eged in pertinent parts< /. Eefendant LH,0M is a foreign corporation doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines with principa offices at
Page | 2332

,&nich, German-. It ma- be served with s&mmons and other co&rt processes thro&gh the =ecretar- of the Eepartment of Trade and Ind&str- of the ;hi ippines. . . . .... ). 1n ,arch #, "$(#, ; aintiff e6ec&ted in favor of defendant H,0 a Eeed of 8ssignment with =pecia ;ower of 8ttorne- covering the trademark and in consideration thereof, &nder its first whereas c a&se, ; aintiff was d& acknow edged as the De6c &sive Eea er of the 8ssignee in the ;hi ippinesD . . . . .... :. .rom the time the trademark DH,0 X EEFI+ED was first &sed b- the ; aintiff in the ;hi ippines &p to the present,
Page | 2333

; aintiff, thro&gh its firm name DI8I3 ,83IA8D and witho&t an- monetarcontrib&tion from defendant H,0, estab ished H,09s goodwi and market presence in the ;hi ippines. ;&rs&ant thereto, ; aintiff has invested a ot of mone- and reso&rces in order to sing e* handed compete against other motorc-c e and car companies .... ,oreover, ; aintiff has b&i t b&i dings and other infrastr&ct&res s&ch as service centers and showrooms to maintain and promote the car and prod&cts of defendant H,0. .... "'. In a etter dated .ebr&ar- /4, "$$!, defendant H,0 advised ; aintiff that it was wi ing to maintain with ; aintiff a re ationship b&t on - Don the basis of a
Page | 2334

standard H,0 importer contract as adj&sted to ref ect the partic& ar sit&ation in the ;hi ippinesD s&bject to certain conditions, otherwise, defendant H,0 wo& d terminate ; aintiff9s e6c &sive dea ership and an- re ationship for ca&se effective J&ne !', "$$!. . . . .... "). The act&ations of defendant H,0 are in breach of the assignment agreement between itse f and p aintiff since the consideration for the assignment of the H,0 trademark is the contin&ance of the e6c &sive dea ership agreement. It th&s, fo ows that the e6c &sive dea ership sho& d contin&e for so ong as defendant H,0 enjo-s the &se and ownership of the trademark assigned to it b- ; aintiff.
Page | 2335

The case was docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. O*$!*")$!! and raff ed to Hranch "'4 of the O&e7on +it- Regiona Tria +o&rt, which on J&ne "4, "$$! iss&ed a temporar- restraining order. =&mmons and copies of the comp aint and amended comp aint were thereafter served on the private respondent thro&gh the Eepartment of Trade and Ind&str-, p&rs&ant to R& e "4, Z "4 of the R& es of +o&rt. The order, s&mmons and copies of the comp aint and amended comp aint were ater sent bthe ETI to H,0 via registered mai on J&ne "), "$$!L)M and received b- the atter on J&ne /4, "$$!. 1n J&ne "#, "$$!, witho&t proof of service on H,0, the hearing on the app ication for the writ of pre iminarPage | 2336

inj&nction proceeded e' parte,with petitioner Iahn testif-ing. 1n J&ne !', "$$!, the tria co&rt iss&ed an order granting the writ of pre iminar- inj&nction &pon the fi ing of a bond of ;"'','''.''. 1n J& - "!, "$$!, fo owing the posting of the re%&ired bond, a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction was iss&ed. 1n J& - ", "$$!, H,0 moved to dismiss the case, contending that the tria co&rt did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over it thro&gh the service of s&mmons on the Eepartment of Trade and Ind&str-, beca&se it 2H,05 was a foreign corporation and it was not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. It contended that the e6ec&tion of the Eeed of 8ssignment was an iso ated transaction>
Page | 2337

that Iahn was not its agent beca&se the atter &ndertook to assemb e and se H,0 cars and prod&cts witho&t the participation of H,0 and so d other prod&cts> and that Iahn was an indentor or midd eman transacting b&siness in his own name and for his own acco&nt. ;etitioner 8 fred Iahn opposed the motion. Ie arg&ed that H,0 was doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines thro&gh him as its agent, as shown b- the fact that H,0 invoices and order forms were &sed to doc&ment his transactions> that he gave warranties as e6c &sive H,0 dea er> that H,0 officia s periodica inspected standards of service rendered b- him> and that he was described in service book ets and internationa
Page | 2338

p&b ications of H,0 as a DH,0 ImporterD or DH,0 Trading +ompan-D in the ;hi ippines. The tria co&rtL(M deferred reso &tion of the ,otion to dismiss &nti after tria on the merits for the reason that the gro&nds advanced b- H,0 in its motion did not seem to be ind&bitab e. 0itho&t seeking reconsideration of the aforementioned order, H,0 fi ed a petition for certiorari with the +o&rt of 8ppea s a eging that< I. TIE RE=;13EE3T JUEGE 8+TEE 0ITI U3EUE I8=TE 1R 1TIER0I=E I3JUEI+I1U=AC I3 ;R1+EEEI3G= AE8EI3G T108RE TIE I==U83+E 1. TIE 0RIT 1. ;REAI,I38RC I3JU3+TI13, 83E
Page | 2339

I3 ;RE=+RIHI3G TIE TER,= .1R TIE I==U83+E TIERE1.. II. TIE RE=;13EE3T JUEGE ;8TE3TAC ERREE I3 EE.ERRI3G RE=1AUTI13 1. TIE ,1TI13 T1 EI=,I== 13 TIE GR1U3E 1. A8+? 1. JURI=EI+TI13, 83E TIEREHC .8IAI3G T1 I,,EEI8TEAC EI=,I== TIE +8=E A VTO. H,0 asked for the immediate iss&ance of a temporar- restraining order and, after hearing, for a writ of pre iminarinj&nction, to enjoin the tria co&rt from proceeding f&rther in +ivi +ase 3o. O* $!*")$!!. ;rivate respondent pointed o&t that, &n ess the tria co&rt9s order was set aside, it wo& d be forced to s&bmit to the j&risdiction of the co&rt bPage | 2340

fi ing its answer or to accept j&dgment in defa& t, when the ver- %&estion was whether the co&rt had j&risdiction over it. The +o&rt of 8ppea s enjoined the tria co&rt from hearing petitioner9s comp aint. 1n Eecember /', "$$!, it rendered j&dgment finding the tria co&rt g&i t- of grave ab&se of discretion in deferring reso &tion of the motion to dismiss. It stated< Going b- the p eadings a read- fi ed with the respondent co&rt before it came o&t with its %&estioned order of J& - /(, "$$!, we r& e and so ho d that petitioner9s 2H,05 motion to dismiss co& d be reso ved then and there, and that the respondent j&dge9s deferment of his action thereon &nti after tria on the
Page | 2341

merit constit&tes, to o&r mind, grave ab&se of discretion. .... . . . LTMhere is not m&ch appreciab e disagreement as regards the fact&a matters re ating, to the motion to dismiss. 0hat tr& - divide 2sic5 the parties and to which the- great - differ is the ega conc &sions the- respective draw from s&ch facts, 2sic5 with Iahn maintaining that on the basis thereof, H,0 is doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines whi e the atter asserts that it is not. Then, after stating that an- r& ing which the tria co&rt might make on the motion to dismiss wo& d an-wa- be e evated to it on appea , the +o&rt of
Page | 2342

8ppea s itse f reso ved the motion. It r& ed that H,0 was not doing b&siness in the co&ntr- and, therefore, j&risdiction over it co& d not be ac%&ired thro&gh service of s&mmons on the ETI p&rs&ant to R& e "4, =ection "4. The co&rt &phe d private respondent9s contention that Iahn acted in his own name and for his own acco&nt and independent - of H,0, based on 8 fred Iahn9s a egations that he had invested his own mone- and reso&rces in estab ishing H,09s goodwi in the ;hi ippines and on H,09s c aim that Iahn so d prod&cts other than those of H,0. It he d that petitioner was a mere indentor or broker and not an agent thro&gh whom private respondent H,0 transacted b&siness in the ;hi ippines. +onse%&ent -, the +o&rt of 8ppea s
Page | 2343

dismissed petitioner9s comp aint against H,0. Ience, this appea . ;etitioner contends that the +o&rt of 8ppea s erred 2"5 in finding that the tria co&rt grave - ab&sed its discretion in deferring action on the motion to dismiss and 2/5 in finding that private respondent H,0 is not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines and, for this reason, dismissing petitioner9s case. ;etitioner9s appea is we taken. R& e "4, Z "4 provides< Z"4. ervice upon forei"n corporation$. G If the defendant is a foreign corporation, or a nonresident joint stock companor association, doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, service ma- be made on its
Page | 2344

resident agent designated in accordance with aw for that p&rpose, or, if there be no s&ch agent, on the government officia designated b- aw to that effect, or on an- of its officers or agents within the ;hi ippines. 2Emphasis added5 0hat acts are considered Ddoing b&siness in the ;hi ippinesD are en&merated in Z!2d5 of the .oreign Investments 8ct of "$$" 2R.8. 3o. #'4/5 as fo ows<L#M d5 the phrase Ddoing b&sinessD sha inc &de so iciting orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether ca ed D iaisonD offices or branches, appointing representatives or distrib&tors domici ed in the ;hi ippines or who in an- ca endar
Page | 2345

-ear sta- in the co&ntr- for a period or periods tota ing one h&ndred eight2":'5 da-s or more> participating in the management, s&pervision or contro of an- domestic b&siness, firm, entit- or corporation in the ;hi ippines> and another act or acts that imp - a contin&itof commercia dea ings or arrangements and contemp ate to that e6tent the performance of acts or works, or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in progressive prosec&tion of, commercia gain or of the p&rpose and object of the b&siness organi7ation< ;rovided, however, That the phrase Ddoing b&sinessD sha not be deemed to inc &de mere investment as a shareho der b- a foreign entit- in domestic corporations d& - registered
Page | 2346

to do b&siness, andJor the e6ercise of rights as s&ch investor> nor having, a nominee director or officer to represent its interests in s&ch corporation> nor appointing a representative or distrib&tor domici ed in the ;hi ippines whichtransacts b&siness in its own name and for its own acco&nt. 2Emphasis s&pp ied5 Th&s, the phrase inc &des Dappointing representatives or distrib&tors in the ;hi ippinesD b&t not when the representative or distrib&tor Dtransacts b&siness in its name and for its own acco&nt.D In addition, =ection "2f52"5 of the R& es and Reg& ations imp ementing 2IRR5 the 1mnib&s Investment +ode of "$:# 2E.1. 3o. //(5 provided<
Page | 2347

2f5 DEoing b&sinessD sha be an- act or combination of acts, en&merated in 8rtic e 44 of the +ode. In partic& ar, Ddoing b&sinessD inc &des< 2"5.... 8 foreign firm which does b&siness thro&gh midd emen acting in their own names, s&ch as indentors, commercia brokers or commission merchants, sha not be deemed doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. H&t s&ch indentors, commercia brokers or commission merchants sha be the ones deemed to be doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. The %&estion is whether petitioner 8 fred Iahn is the agent or distrib&tor in the ;hi ippines of private respondent H,0. If he is, H,0 ma- be considered doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines and
Page | 2348

the tria co&rt ac%&ired j&risdiction over it 2H,05 b- virt&e of the service of s&mmons on the Eepartment of Trade and Ind&str-. 1therwise, if Iahn is not the agent of H,0 b&t an independent dea er, a beit of H,0 cars and prod&cts, H,0, a foreign corporation, is not considered doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines within the meaning of the .oreign Investments 8ct of "$$" and the IRR, and the tria co&rt did not ac%&ire j&risdiction over it 2H,05. The +o&rt of 8ppea s he d that petitioner 8 fred Iahn acted in his own name and for his own acco&nt and not as agent or distrib&tor in the ;hi ippines of H,0 on the gro&nd that Dhe a one had contacts with individ&a s or entities interested in ac%&iring H,0 vehic es.
Page | 2349

Independence characteri7es Iahn9s &ndertakings, for which reason he is to be considered, &nder governing stat&tes, as doing b&siness.D 2p. "!5 In s&pport of this conc &sion, the appe ate co&rt cited the fo owing a egations in Iahn9s amended comp aint< :. .rom the time the trademark DH,0 X EEFI+ED was first &sed b- the ; aintiff in the ;hi ippines &p to the present, ; aintiff, thro&gh its firm name DI8I3 ,83IA8D and witho&t an- monetarcontrib&tions from defendant H,0> estab ished H,09s goodwi and market presence in the ;hi ippines. ;&rs&ant thereto, ; aintiff invested a ot of moneand reso&rces in order to sing e* handed compete against other motorc-c e and car companies....
Page | 2350

,oreover, ; aintiff has b&i t b&i dings and other infrastr&ct&res s&ch as service centers and showrooms to maintain and promote the car and prod&cts of defendant H,0. 8s the above %&oted a egations of the amended comp aint show, however, there is nothing to s&pport the appe ate co&rt9s finding that Iahn so icited orders a one and for his own acco&nt and witho&t Dinterference from, et a one direction of, H,0.D 2p. "!5 To the contrar-, Iahn c aimed he took orders for H,0 cars and transmitted them to H,0. Upon receipt of the orders, H,0 fi6ed the down pa-ment and pricing charges, notified Iahn of the sched& ed prod&ction month for the orders, and reconfirmed the orders b- signing and
Page | 2351

ret&rning to Iahn the acceptance sheets. ;a-ment was made b- the b&-er direct - to H,0. Tit e to cars p&rchased passed direct - to the b&-er and Iahn never paid for the p&rchase price of H,0 cars so d in the ;hi ippines. Iahn was credited with a commission e%&a to "4B of the p&rchase price &pon the invoicing of a vehic e order bH,0. Upon confirmation in writing that the vehic es had been registered in the ;hi ippines and serviced b- him, Iahn received an additiona !B of the f& p&rchase price. Iahn performed after*sa e services, inc &ding, warrant- services, for which he received reimb&rsement from H,0. 8 orders were on invoices and forms of H,0.L:M
Page | 2352

These a egations were s&bstantia admitted b- H,0 which, in its petition for certiorari before the +o&rt of 8ppea s, stated<L$M $.4. 8s soon as the vehic es are f& man&fact&red and f& pa-ment of the p&rchase prices are made, the vehic es are shipped to the ;hi ippines. 2The pa-ments ma- be made b- the p&rchasers or third*persons or even bIahn.5 The bi s of ading are made &p in the name of the p&rchasers, b&t Iahn*,ani a is therein indicated as the person to be notified. $.). It is Iahn who picks &p the vehic es from the ;hi ippine ports, for p&rposes of cond&cting pre*de iver- inspections. Thereafter, he de ivers the vehic es to the p&rchasers.
Page | 2353

$.(. 8s soon as H,0 invoices the vehic e ordered, Iahn is credited with a commission of fo&rteen percent 2"4B5 of the f& p&rchase price thereof, and as soon as he confirms in writing, that the vehic es have been registered in the ;hi ippines and have been serviced bhim, he wi receive an additiona three percent 2!B5 of the f& p&rchase prices as commission. +ontrar- to the appe ate co&rt9s conc &sion, this arrangement shows an agenc-. 8n agent receives a commission &pon the s&ccessf& conc &sion of a sa e. 1n the other hand, a broker earns his pa- mere - bbringing the b&-er and the se er together, even if no sa e is event&a made.
Page | 2354

8s to the service centers and showrooms which he said he had p&t &p at his own e6pense, Iahn said that he had to fo ow H,0 specifications as e6c &sive dea er of H,0 in the ;hi ippines. 8ccording to Iahn, H,0 periodica - inspected the service centers to see to it that H,0 standards were maintained. Indeed, it wo& d seem from H,09s etter to Iahn that it was for Iahn9s a eged fai &re to maintain H,0 standards that H,0 was terminating Iahn9s dea ership. The fact that Iahn invested his own mone- to p&t &p these service centers and showrooms does not necessari prove that he is not an agent of H,0. .or as a read- noted, there are facts in the record which s&ggest that H,0
Page | 2355

e6ercised contro over Iahn9s activities as a dea er and made reg& ar inspections of Iahn9s premises to enforce comp iance with H,0 standards and specifications.L"'M .or e6amp e, in its etter to Iahn dated .ebr&ar- /!, "$$(, H,0 stated< In the ast -ears we have pointed o&t to -o& in severa disc&ssions and etters that we have to tack e the ;hi ippine market more professiona and that we are thro&gh -o&r present activities not ade%&ate - prepared to cope with the forthcoming cha enges.
L""M

In effect, H,0 was ho ding Iahn acco&ntab e to it &nder the "$(# 8greement.
Page | 2356

This case fits into the mo& d of )o##unication$ Material$, 3nc. v. )ourt of Appeal$,L"/M in which the foreign corporation entered into a DRepresentative 8greementD and a DAicensing 8greementD with a domestic corporation, b- virt&e of which the atter was appointed De6c &sive representativeD in the ;hi ippines for a stip& ated commission. ;&rs&ant to these contracts, the domestic corporation so d prod&cts e6ported bthe foreign corporation and p&t &p a service center for the prod&cts so d oca -. This +o&rt he d that these acts constit&ted doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. The arrangement showed that the foreign corporation9s p&rpose was to penetrate the ;hi ippine market
Page | 2357

and estab ish its presence in the ;hi ippines. In addition, H,0 he d o&t private respondent Iahn as its e6c &sive distrib&tor in the ;hi ippines, even as it anno&nced in the 8sian region that Iahn was the Dofficia H,0 agentD in the ;hi ippines.L"!M The +o&rt of 8ppea s a so fo&nd that petitioner 8 fred Iahn dea t in other prod&cts, and not e6c &sive - in H,0 prod&cts, and, on this basis, r& ed that Iahn was not an agent of H,0. 2p. "45 This finding is based entire - on a egations of H,0 in its motion to dismiss fi ed in the tria co&rt and in its petition for certiorari before the +o&rt of 8ppea s.L"4M H&t this a egation was denied b- IahnL")M and therefore the
Page | 2358

+o&rt of 8ppea s sho& d not have cited it as if it were the fact. Indeed this is not the on - fact&a iss&e raised, which sho& d have indicated to the +o&rt of 8ppea s the necessit- of affirming the tria co&rt9s order deferring reso &tion of H,09s motion to dismiss. ;etitioner a eged that whether or not he is considered an agent of H,0, the fact is that H,0 did b&siness in the ;hi ippines beca&se it so d cars direct to ;hi ippine b&-ers. L"(M This was denied b- H,0, which c aimed that Iahn was not its agent and that, whi e it was tr&e that it had so d cars to ;hi ippine b&-ers, this was done witho&t so icitation on its part.L"#M It is not tr&e then that the %&estion whether H,0 is doing b&siness co& d
Page | 2359

have been reso ved simp - bconsidering the parties9 p eadings. There are gen&ine iss&es of facts which can on - be determined on the basis of evidence d& - presented. H,0 cannot short circ&it the process on the p ea that to compe it to go to tria wo& d be to den- its right not to s&bmit to the j&risdiction of the tria co&rt which precise - it denies. R& e "(, Z! a&thori7es co&rts to defer the reso &tion of a motion to dismiss &nti after the tria if the gro&nd on which the motion is based does not appear to be ind&bitab e. Iere the record of the case brist es with fact&a iss&es and it is not at a c ear whether some a egations correspond to the proof.
Page | 2360

8n-wa-, private respondent need not apprehend that b- responding to the s&mmons it wo& d be waiving its objection to the tria co&rt9s j&risdiction. It is now sett ed that. for p&rposes of having s&mmons served on a foreign corporation in accordance with R& e "4, Z"4, it is s&fficient that it be a eged in the comp aint that the foreign corporation is doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. The co&rt need not go be-ond the a egations of the comp aint in order to determine whether it has j&risdiction.L":M 8 determination that the foreign corporation is doing b&siness is on - tentative and is made on - for the p&rpose of enab ing the oca co&rt to ac%&ire j&risdiction over the foreign corporation thro&gh service of s&mmons p&rs&ant to R& e "4, Z"4. =&ch
Page | 2361

determination does not forec ose a contrar- finding sho& d evidence ater show that it is not transacting b&siness in the co&ntr-. 8s this +o&rt has e6p ained< This is not to sa-, however, that the petitioner9s right to %&estion the j&risdiction of the co&rt over its person is now to be deemed a forec osed matter. If it is tr&e, as =ignetics c aims, that its on - invo vement in the ;hi ippines was thro&gh a passive investment in =igfi , which it even ater disposed of, and that TE8, ;acific is not its agent, then it cannot rea - be said to be doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. It is a defense, however, that re%&ires the contravention of the a egations of the comp aint, as we as a f& venti ation, in
Page | 2362

effect, of the main merits of the case, which sho& d not th&s be within the province of a mere motion to dismiss. =o, a so, the iss&e posed b- the petitioner as to whether a foreign corporation which has done b&siness in the co&ntr-, b&t which has ceased to do b&siness at the time of the fi ing, of a comp aint, can sti be made to answer for a ca&se of action which accr&ed whi e it was doing, b&siness, is another matter that wo& d -et have to await the reception and admission of evidence. =ince these points have seasonab been raised b- the petitioner, there sho& d be no rea ca&se for what ma&nderstandab - be its apprehension, i.e., that b- its participation d&ring the tria on the merits, it ma-, absent an invocation of separate or independent
Page | 2363

re iefs of its own, be considered to have vo &ntari - s&bmitted itse f to the co&rt9s j&risdiction.L"$M .ar from committing an ab&se of discretion, the tria co&rt proper deferred reso &tion of the motion to dismiss and th&s avoided premat&re deciding a %&estion which re%&ires a fact&a basis, with the same res& t if it had denied the motion and conditiona ass&med j&risdiction. It is the +o&rt of 8ppea s which, b- r& ing that H,0 is not doing b&siness on the basis mere of &ncertain a egations in the p eadings, disposed of the who e case with fina itand thereb- deprived petitioner of his right to be heard on his ca&se of action. 3or was there j&stification for n& if-ing the writ of pre iminar- inj&nction iss&ed
Page | 2364

b- the tria co&rt. 8 tho&gh the inj&nction was iss&ed e' parte, the fact is that H,0 was s&bse%&ent - heard on its defense b- fi ing a motion to dismiss. 0IERE.1RE, the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s is REFER=EE and the case is RE,83EEE to the tria co&rt for f&rther proceedings. =1 1REEREE.

:G.R. No. 1595;C. July 2C, 2001< EURO*EAN RESOUR$ES AND ,E$HNOLOG%ES, %N$. &n( DEL.%N J. EEN$ESLAO, petitioners, vs.
Page | 2365

%NGEN%EU6URO 6%RBHAHN L NOL,E, %n/eniu /e"ell"-'&)t 78' &n( HEERS F 6RO$BS,ED, G#6H F $O., respondents. EE+I=I13 C38RE=*=83TI8G1, J.< 8ssai ed in this ;etition for Review &nder R& e 4) of the R& es of +o&rt is the EecisionL"M of the +o&rt of 8ppea s dated ,a- "), /''!, which s&stained the 1rder of the Regiona Tria +o&rt of 8nge es +it-, Hranch (", dated J&ne /:, /''", and its s&bse%&ent Reso &tion dated 8&g&st !, /''! den-ing petitionerRs motion for reconsideration. E&ropean Reso&rces and Techno ogies Inc. 2hereinafter PERTIQ5, a corporation organi7ed and e6isting
Page | 2366

&nder the aws of the Rep&b ic of the;hi ippines, is joined b- Ee fin J. 0ences ao as petitioner in this case. Ingenie&b&ro Hirkhan ] 3o te Ingi&rgese schaft mbh and Ieers X Hrockstedt Gmbh X +o. are German corporations who are respondents in this case and sha be co ective referred to as the PGerman +onsorti&mQ. The German +onsorti&m tendered and s&bmitted its bid to the + ark Eeve opment +orporation 2P+E+Q5 to constr&ct, operate and manage the Integrated 0aste ,anagement +ent er at the + ark =pecia Economic Zone 2P+=EZQ5. +E+ accepted the German +onsorti&mRs bid and awarded the contract to it. 1n 1ctober (, "$$$, +E+ and the German +onsorti&m e6ec&ted
Page | 2367

the +ontract for =ervicesL/M which embodies the terms and conditions of their agreement. The +ontract for =ervices provides that the German +onsorti&m sha be empowered to enter into a contract or agreement for the &se of the integrated waste management center bcorporations, oca government &nits, entities, and persons not on - within the +=EZ b&t a so o&tside. .or waste co ected within the +=EZ, the German +onsorti&m ma- impose a Ptipping feeQ per ton of waste co ected from ocators and residents of the +=EZ, which fees sha be s&bject to the sched& e agreed &pon b- the parties and specified in the +ontract for =ervices. .or its operations o&tside of the +=EZ, the German
Page | 2368

+onsorti&m sha pa- +E+ U=@".)' per ton of non*ha7ardo&s so id waste co ected.L!M The +E+ sha g&arantee that nineteen tho&sand eighteen h&ndred 2"$,:''5 tons per -ear of so id waste vo &me sha be co ected from inside and o&tside the +=EZ.L4M The contract has a term of twent-*five 2/)5 -ears,L)M d&ring which time the German +onsorti&m sha operate the waste management center on a da-*to*dabasis.L(M 8rtic e FIII, =ection # of the +ontract for =ervices provides that the German +onsorti&m sha &ndertake to organi7e a oca corporation as its representative for this project. 1n 8pri ":, /''', the German +onsorti&m entered into a Joint Fent&re with E.,. 0ences ao and
Page | 2369

8ssociates, Inc. 2PE,08IQ5 and ,a. E ena H. Fi arama 2doing b&siness as AHF and 8ssociates5, embodied in a ,emorand&m of UnderstandingL#M 2P,1UQ5 signed b- the parties. Under the ,1U, the parties agreed to joint - form a oca corporation to which the German +onsorti&m sha assign its rights &nder the +ontract for =ervices. ;&rs&ant to this agreement, petitioner E&ropean Reso&rces and Techno ogies, Inc. was incorporated. The parties ikewise agreed to prepare and fina i7e a =hareho dersR 8greement within one 2"5 month from the e6ec&tion of the ,1U, which sha provide that the German +onsorti&m sha own fifteen percent 2")B5 of the e%&it- in the joint vent&re corporation, E,08I sha own seventPage | 2370

percent 2#'B5 and AHFX8 sha own fifteen percent 2")B5. In the event that the parties fai to e6ec&te the =hareho dersR 8greement, the ,1U sha be considered n& and void.L:M 1n 8&g&st ", /''', witho&t the =hareho dersR 8greement having been e6ec&ted, the German +onsorti&m and petitioner ERTI entered into a ,emorand&m of 8greement 2,185 L$M whereb- the German +onsorti&m ceded its rights and ob igations &nder the +ontract for =ervices in favor of ERTI and assigned &nto ERTI, among others, Pits icense from +E+ to engage in the b&siness of providing environmenta services needed in the +=EZ in connection with the waste management within the +=EZ and other
Page | 2371

areas.QL"'M Aikewise, the parties agreed that sho& d there be a disagreement between or among them re ative to the interpretation or imp ementation of the ,18 and the co atera doc&ments inc &ding b&t not imited to the +ontract for =ervices between the German +onsorti&m and +E+, the disp&te sha be referred to a pane of arbitrators.L""M 1n Eecember "", /''', ERTI received a etter from H3 +ons& tants ;hi ippines, Inc., signed b- ,r. Io ger Io st for and on beha f of the German +onsorti&m,L"/M stating that the German +onsorti&mRs contract with E,08I, AHFX8 and ERTI has been terminated or e6ting&ished on the fo owing gro&nds< 2a5 the +E+ did not give its approva to the +onsorti&mRs re%&est for
Page | 2372

the approva of the assignment or transfer b- the German +onsorti&m in favor of ERTI of its rights and interests &nder the +ontract for =ervices> 2b5 the parties fai ed to prepare and fina i7e the =hareho dersR 8greement p&rs&ant to the provision of the ,1U> 2c5 there is no more fact&a or ega basis for the joint vent&re to contin&e> and 2d5 with the termination of the ,1U, the ,18 is a so deemed terminated or e6ting&ished. 8ttached to the etter was a cop- of the etter of the +E+,L"!M stating that the German +onsorti&mRs assignment of an eight-*five percent 2:)B5 majoritinterest to another part- vio ated its representation to &ndertake both the financia and technica aspects of the project. The di &tion of the +onsorti&mRs
Page | 2373

interest in ERTI is a s&bstantia modification of the +onsorti&mRs representations which were &sed as bases for the award of the project to it. 1n .ebr&ar- /', /''", petitioner ERTI, thro&gh co&nse , sent a etter to +E+ re%&esting for the reconsideration of its disapprova of the agreement between ERTI and the German +onsorti&m. Hefore +E+ co& d act &pon petitioner ERTIRs etter, the German +onsorti&m fi ed a comp aint for inj&nction against herein petitioners before the Regiona Tria +o&rt of 8nge es +it-, Hranch (", docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. "''4$. The German +onsorti&m c aimed that petitioner ERTIRs contin&ed misrepresentation as to their right to
Page | 2374

accept so id wastes from third parties for processing at the waste management center wi ca&se irreparab e damage to the +onsorti&m and its e6c &sive right to operate the waste management center at the +=EZ. ,oreover, petitioner ERTIRs acts destro- the +onsorti&mRs credibi it- and &ndermine c&stomer confidence in it. Ience, the German +onsorti&m pra-ed that a writ of temporar- restraining order be iss&ed against petitioner ERTI and, after hearing, a writ of pre iminar- inj&nction be ikewise iss&ed ordering petitioner ERTI to cease and desist from misrepresenting to third parties or the p&b ic that it has an- right or interest in the waste management center at +=EZ.
L"4M
Page | 2375

;etitioners fi ed their 1pposition to the app ication for pre iminar- inj&nction on .ebr&ar- #, /''". The fo owing da-, .ebr&ar- :, /''", petitioners sent respondents, thro&gh ,r. Io ger Io st, a etter demanding that the parties proceed to arbitration in accordance with =ection "# of the ,18. 8t the hearings on the app ication for inj&nction, petitioners objected to the presentation of evidence on the gro&nd that the tria co&rt had no j&risdiction over the case since the German +onsorti&m was composed of foreign corporations doing b&siness in the co&ntr- witho&t a icense. ,oreover, the ,18 between the parties provides that the disp&te sho& d be referred to arbitration.
Page | 2376

The tria co&rt overr& ed the objection and proceeded with the hearing. 1n J&ne /:, /''", the tria co&rt iss&ed an 1rder granting the writ of pre iminar- inj&nction.L")M ;etitioners fi ed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Reso &tion dated 3ovember /", /''". 1n Jan&ar- "#, /''/, petitioners fi ed a petition for certiorari and prohibition &nder R& e () of the R& es of +o&rt before the +o&rt of 8ppea s, assai ing the tria co&rtRs 1rders dated J&ne /:, /''" and 3ovember /", /''". ,eanwhi e, on .ebr&ar- "", /''/, the temporar- restraining order iss&ed was ifted in view of respondentsR fai &re to fi e s&fficient bond.L"(M 1n =eptember (, /''/, a proceedings in +ivi +ase 3o.
Page | 2377

"''4$ were s&spended &nti the petition for certiorari pending before the +o&rt of 8ppea s sha have been reso ved.L"#M 1n ,a- "), /''!, the +o&rt of 8ppea s dismissed the petition for certiorari. ;etitionersR ,otion for Reconsideration was denied in a Reso &tion dated 8&g&st /), /''!. Ience, this petition arg&ing that the +o&rt of 8ppea s committed reversib e error in< 2a5 R& ing that petitioners are estopped from assai ing the capacit- of the respondents to instit&te the s&it for inj&nction 2b5 R& ing that respondents are entit ed to an inj&nctive writ.
Page | 2378

2c5

3ot ho ding that the disp&te is covered b- the arbitration c a&se in the memorand&m of agreement.

2d5 Iss&ing the writ of pre iminarinj&nction that is tantamo&nt to a decision of the case on the merits.
L":M

The petition is part - meritorio&s. There is no genera r& e or governing princip e aid down as to what constit&tes PdoingQ or Pengaging inQ or PtransactingQ b&siness in the;hi ippines. Th&s, it has often been he d that a sing e act or transaction mabe considered as Pdoing b&sinessQ when a corporation performs acts for which it was created or e6ercises some of the f&nctions for which it was organi7ed. L"$M 0e have he d that the act of
Page | 2379

participating in a bidding process constit&tes Pdoing b&sinessQ beca&se it shows the foreign corporationRs intention to engage in b&siness in the ;hi ippines. In this regard, it is the performance b- a foreign corporation of the acts for which it was created, regard ess of vo &me of b&siness, that determines whether a foreign corporation needs a icense or not.L/'M +onse%&ent -, the German +onsorti&m is doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t the appropriate icense as re%&ired b- o&r aws. Hparticipating in the bidding cond&cted bthe +E+ for the operation of the waste management center, the German +onsorti&m e6hibited its intent to transact b&siness in
Page | 2380

the ;hi ippines. 8 tho&gh the +ontract for =ervices provided for the estab ishment of a oca corporation to serve as respondentsR representative, it is c ear from the other provisions of the +ontract for =ervices as we as the etter b- the +E+ containing the disapprova that it wi be the German +onsorti&m which sha manage and cond&ct the operations of the waste management center for at east twent-* five -ears. ,oreover, the German +onsorti&m was a owed to transact with other entities o&tside the +=EZ for so id waste co ection. Th&s, it is c ear that the oca corporation to be estab ished wi mere - act as a cond&it or e6tension of the German +onsorti&m.
Page | 2381

8s a genera r& e, &n icensed foreign non*resident corporations cannot fi e s&its in the ;hi ippines. =ection "!! of the +orporation +ode specifica provides< =E+TI13 "!!. 3o foreign corporation transacting b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t a icense, or its s&ccessors or assigns, sha be permitted to maintain or intervene in anaction, s&it or proceeding in an- co&rt or administrative agenc- of the ;hi ippines, b&t s&ch corporation ma- be s&ed or proceeded against before ;hi ippine co&rts or administrative trib&na s on anva id ca&se of action recogni7ed &nder ;hi ippine aws. 8 corporation has ega stat&s on within the state or territor- in which it
Page | 2382

was organi7ed. .or this reason, a corporation organi7ed in another co&ntrhas no persona it- to fi e s&its in the ;hi ippines. In order to s&bject a foreign corporation doing b&siness in the co&ntr- to the j&risdiction of o&r co&rts, it m&st ac%&ire a icense from the =ec&rities and E6change +ommission 2=E+5 and appoint an agent for service of process. 0itho&t s&ch icense, it cannot instit&te a s&it in the ;hi ippines.
L/"M

Iowever, there are e6ceptions to this r& e. In a n&mber of cases,L//M we have dec ared a part- estopped from cha enging or %&estioning the capacitof an &n icensed foreign corporation from initiating a s&it in o&r co&rts. In the case of )o##unication Material$ and
Page | 2383

9e$i"n, 3nc. v. )ourt of Appeal$,L/!M a foreign corporation instit&ted an action before o&r co&rts seeking to enjoin a oca corporation, with whom it had a PRepresentative 8greementQ, from &sing its corporate name, etter heads, enve opes, sign boards and b&siness dea ings as we as the foreign corporationRs trademark. The case arose when the foreign corporation discovered that the oca corporation has vio ated certain contract&a commitments as stip& ated in their agreement. In said case, we he d that a foreign corporation doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t icense ma- s&e in ;hi ippine +o&rts a ;hi ippine citi7en or entit- that had contracted with and benefited from it.
Page | 2384

Ience, the part- is estopped from %&estioning the capacit- of a foreign corporation to instit&te an action in o&r co&rts where it had obtained benefits from its dea ings with s&ch foreign corporation and thereafter committed a breach of or so&ght to renege on its ob igations. The r& e re ating to estoppe is deep - rooted in the a6iom of co##odu# e' injuria $ua non 1a/ere de/etGno person o&ght to derive anadvantage from his own wrong. In the case at bar, petitioners have c ear - not received an- benefit from its transactions with the German +onsorti&m. In fact, there is no %&estion that petitioners were the ones who have e6pended a considerab e amo&nt of mone- and effort preparator- to the
Page | 2385

imp ementation of the ,18. 3either do petitioners seek to back o&t from their ob igations &nder both the ,1U and the ,18 b- cha enging respondentsR capacit- to s&e. The reverse co& d not be an- more acc&rate. ;etitioners are insisting on the f& va idit- and imp ementation of their agreements with the German +onsorti&m. To r& e that the German +onsorti&m has the capacit- to instit&te an action against petitioners even when the atter have not committed an- breach of its ob igation wo& d be tantamo&nt to an &n icensed foreign corporation gaining access to o&r co&rts for protection and redress. 0e cannot a ow this witho&t vio ating the ver- rationa e for the aw prohibiting a foreign corporation not
Page | 2386

icensed to do b&siness in the ;hi ippinesfrom s&ing or maintaining an action in ;hi ippine co&rts. The object of re%&iring a icense is not to prevent the foreign corporation from performing sing e acts, b&t to prevent it from ac%&iring domici e for the p&rpose of b&siness witho&t taking the steps necessar- to render it amenab e to s&its in the oca co&rts.L/4M In other words, the foreign corporation is mere - prevented from being in a position where it takes the good witho&t accepting the bad. 1n the iss&e of whether the respondents were entit ed to the inj&nctive writ, the petitioners c aim that respondentsR right is not in e$$e b&t is rather a f&t&re right which is contingent &pon a j&dicia dec aration that the ,18
Page | 2387

has been va id - rescinded. The +o&rt of 8ppea s, in its decision, he d that the ,18 sho& d be deemed s&bject to a s&spensive condition, that is, that +E+Rs prior written consent m&st be obtained for the va idit- of the assignment. This iss&e m&st be reso ved in a separate proceeding. It m&st be noted that the hearing cond&cted in the tria co&rt was mere - a pre iminar- hearing re ating to the iss&ance of the inj&nctive writ. In order to f& - appreciate the facts of this case and the s&rro&nding circ&mstances re ating to the agreements and contract invo ved, f&rther proof sho& d be presented for consideration of the co&rt. Aikewise, coro ar- matters, s&ch as whether either of the parties is iab e for
Page | 2388

damages and to what e6tent, cannot be reso ved with abso &te certaint-, th&s rendering an- decision we might make incomp ete as to f& - dispose of this case. ,ore important -, it is evident that +E+ m&st be made a proper part- in an- case which seeks to reso ve the effectivitor ineffectivitof its disapprova of the assignment made between petitioners and respondent German +onsorti&m. 0here, as in the instant case, +E+ is not imp eaded as a part-, an- decision of the co&rt which wi inevitab - affect or invo ve +E+ cannot be deemed binding on it. .or the same reason, petitionersR assertion that the instant case sho& d be
Page | 2389

referred to arbitration p&rs&ant to the provision of the ,18 is &ntenab e. 0e have r& ed in severa cases that arbitration agreements are va id, binding, enforceab e and not contrar- to p&b ic po ic- s&ch that when there obtains a written provision for arbitration which is not comp ied with, the tria co&rt sho& d s&spend the proceedings and order the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of their agreement.L/)M In the case at bar, the ,18 between petitioner ERTI and respondent German +onsorti&m provided< "#. =ho& d there be a disagreement between or among the ;arties re ative to the interpretation or imp ementation of this 8greement and the co atera
Page | 2390

doc&ments inc &ding b&t not imited to the +ontract for =ervices between GER,83 +13=1RTIU, and +E+ and the ;arties cannot reso ve the same bthemse ves, the same sha be endorsed to a pane of arbitrators which sha be convened in accordance with the process ordained &nder the 8rbitration Aaw of the Rep&b ic of the ;hi ippines.L/(M Indeed, to br&sh aside a contract&a agreement ca ing for arbitration in case of disagreement between parties wo& d be a step backward.L/#MH&t there are e6ceptions to this r& e. Even if there is an arbitration c a&se, there are instances when referra to arbitration does not appear to be the most pr&dent action. The object of arbitration is to a ow the e6peditio&s determination of a
Page | 2391

disp&te. + ear -, the iss&e before &s co& d not be speedi - and efficient reso ved in its entiret- if we a ow sim& taneo&s arbitration proceedings and tria , or s&spension of tria pending arbitration.L/:M 8s disc&ssed ear ier, the disp&te between respondent German +onsorti&m and petitioners invo ves the disapprova b- the +E+ of the assignment b- the German +onsorti&m of its rights &nder the +ontract for =ervices to petitioner ERTI. 8dmitted -, the arbitration c a&se is contained in the ,18 to which on - the German +onsorti&m and petitioner ERTI were parties. Even if the case is bro&ght before an arbitration pane , the decision wi not be binding &pon +E+ who is a
Page | 2392

non*partto the arbitration agreement. 0hat is more, the arbitration pane wi not be ab e to comp ete - dispose of a the iss&es of this case witho&t inc &ding +E+ in its proceedings. 8ccording -, the interest of j&stice wo& d on - be served if the tria co&rt hears and adj&dicates the case in a sing e and comp ete proceeding. Aast -, petitioners %&estion the propriet- of the iss&ance of writ of pre iminar- inj&nction c aiming that s&ch is a read- tantamo&nt to granting the main pra-er of respondentsR comp aint witho&t the benefit of a tria . ;etitioners point o&t that the p&rpose of a pre iminar- inj&nction is to prevent threatened or contin&o&s irremediab e inj&r- to some of the parties before their
Page | 2393

c aims can be thoro&gh - st&died and decided. It cannot be &sed to rai road the main case and seek a j&dgment witho&t a f& *b own tria as in the instant case. The +o&rt of 8ppea s r& ed that since petitioners did not raise this iss&e d&ring the hearing on the app ication for pre iminar- inj&nction before the tria co&rt, the same cannot be raised for the first time on appea and even in specia civi actions for certiorari as in this case. 8t the o&tset, it m&st be noted that with the finding that the German +onsorti&m is witho&t an- persona it- to fi e the petition with the tria co&rt, the propriet- of the inj&nction writ iss&ed is a read- moot and academic. Even ass&ming for the sake of arg&ment that
Page | 2394

respondents have the capacit- to fi e the petition, we find merit in the iss&e raised b- petitioners against the inj&nction writ iss&ed. Hefore an inj&nctive writ can be iss&ed, it is essentia that the fo owing re%&isites are present< 2"5 there m&st be a right in e$$e or the e6istence of a right to be protected> and 2/5 the act against which inj&nction to be directed is a vio ation of s&ch right.L/$M The onu$ pro/andi is on movant to show that there e6ists a right to be protected, which is direct - threatened b- the act so&ght to be enjoined. .&rther, there m&st be a showing that the invasion of the right is materia and s&bstantia and that there is an &rgent and paramo&nt
Page | 2395

necessit- for the writ to prevent a serio&s damage.L!'M Th&s, it is c ear that for the iss&ance of the writ of pre iminar- inj&nction to be proper, it m&st be shown that the invasion of the right so&ght to be protected is materia and s&bstantia , that the right of comp ainant is c ear and &nmistakab e and that there is an &rgent and paramo&nt necessit- for the writ to prevent serio&s damage.L!"M 8t the time of its app ication for an inj&nctive writ, respondentsR right to operate and manage the waste management center, to the e6c &sion of or witho&t anparticipation b- petitioner ERTI, cannot be said to be c ear and &nmistakab e. The ,18 e6ec&ted between respondents and petitioner
Page | 2396

ERTI has not -et been j&dicia dec ared as rescinded when the comp aint was odged in co&rt.L!/M Ience, a c o&d of do&bt e6ists over respondent German +onsorti&mRs e6c &sive right re ating to the waste management center. 0IERE.1RE, the decision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. =; 3o. (:$/! dated ,a- "), /''! is REFER=EE and =ET 8=IEE. The 1rders of the tria co&rt dated J&ne /:, /''" and 3ovember /", /''" are 833UAAEE and =ET 8=IEE and +ivi +ase 3o. "''4$ is EI=,I==EE for ack of ega capacit- of respondents to instit&te the action. +osts against respondents.=1 1REEREE.
Page | 2397

Page | 2398

:G.R. No. 151C1;. Ap il 11, 2001< AG%LEN, ,E$HNOLOG%ES S%NGA*ORE =*,E> L,D., petitioner, vs. %N,EGRA,ED S%L%$ON ,E$HNOLOG4 *H%L%**%NES $OR*ORA,%ON, ,EOH B%ANG HONG, ,EOH B%ANG SENG, AN,HON4 $HOO, JOANNE BA,E #. DELA $RU5, JEAN BA4 #. DELA $RU5 &n( ROLANDO ,. NA$%LLA, respondents. EE+I=I13 C38RE=*=83TI8G1, J.<
Page | 2399

This petition for review assai s the Eecision dated 8&g&st "/, /''/ of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8*G.R. =; 3o. (()#4, which dismissed +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+ and ann& ed and set aside the 1rder dated =eptember 4, /''" iss&ed b- the Regiona Tria +o&rt of +a amba, Aag&na, Hranch $/. ;etitioner 8gi ent Techno ogies =ingapore 2;te.5, Atd. 2P8gi entQ5 is a foreign corporation, which, b- its own admission, is not icensed to do b&siness in the ;hi ippines. L"M Respondent Integrated =i icon Techno og- ;hi ippines +orporation 2PIntegrated =i iconQ5 is a private domestic corporation, "''B foreign owned, which is engaged in the b&siness of man&fact&ring and
Page | 2400

assemb ing e ectronics components. L/M RespondentsTeoh ?iang Iong, Teoh ?iang =eng and 8nthon- +hoo, ,a a-sian nationa s, are c&rrent members of Integrated =i iconRs board of directors, whi e Joanne ?ate ,. de a +r&7, Jean ?a- ,. de a +r&7, and Ro ando T. 3aci a are its former members.L!M The j&ridica re ation among the vario&s parties in this case can be traced to a )*-ear Fa &e 8dded 8ssemb =ervices 8greement 2PF88=8Q5, entered into on 8pri /, "$$( between Integrated =i icon and the Iew ett*;ackard =ingapore 2;te.5 Atd., =ingapore +omponents 1peration 2PI;*=ingaporeQ5.L4M Under the terms of the F88=8, Integrated =i icon was to
Page | 2401

oca - man&fact&re and assemb e fiber optics for e6port to I;*=ingapore. I;* =ingapore, for its part, was to consign raw materia s to Integrated =i icon> transport machiner- to the p ant of Integrated =i icon> and pa- Integrated =i icon the p&rchase price of the finished prod&cts.L)M The F88=8 had a five*-ear term, beginning on 8pri /, "$$(, with a provision for ann&a renewa b- m&t&a written consent.L(M 1n =eptember "$, "$$$, with the consent of Integrated =i icon,L#M I;*=ingapore assigned a its rights and ob igations in the F88=8 to 8gi ent.L:M 1n ,a- /), /''", Integrated =i icon fi ed a comp aint for P=pecific ;erformance and EamagesQ against 8gi ent and its officers
Page | 2402

Tan Hian Ee, Aim +hin Iong, Te- Hoon Teck and .rancis ?hor, docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*'"* +. It a eged that 8gi ent breached the partiesR ora agreement to e6tend the F88=8. Integrated =i icon th&s pra-ed that defendant be ordered to e6ec&te a written e6tension of the F88=8 for a period of five -ears as ear ier ass&red and promised> to comp with the e6tended F88=8> and to paact&a , mora , e6emp ar- damages and attorne-Rs fees.L$M 1n J&ne ", /''", s&mmons and a cop- of the comp aint were served on 8tt-. Ramon O&is&mbing, who ret&rned these processes on the c aim that he was not the registered agent of 8gi ent. Aater, he entered a specia
Page | 2403

appearance to assai the co&rtRs j&risdiction over the person of8gi ent. 1n J& - /, /''", 8gi ent fi ed a separate comp aint against Integrated =i icon, Teoh ?ang =eng, Teoh ?iang Gong, 8nthon- +hoo, Joanne ?ate ,. de a +r&7, Jean ?a- ,. de a +r&7 and Ro ando T. 3aci a,L"'M for P=pecific ;erformance, Recover- of ;ossession, and =&m of ,one- with Rep evin, ;re iminar- ,andator- Inj&nction, and EamagesQ, before the Regiona Tria +o&rt, +a amba, Aag&na, Hranch $/, docketed as +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"* +. 8gi ent pra-ed that a writ of rep evin or, in the a ternative, a writ of pre iminar- mandator- inj&nction, be iss&ed ordering defendants to immediate - ret&rn and de iver to p aintiff
Page | 2404

its e%&ipment, machineries and the materia s to be &sed for fiber*optic components which were eft in the p ant of Integrated =i icon. It f&rther pra-ed that defendants be ordered to pa- act&a and e6emp ar- damages and attorne-Rs fees.L""M Respondents fi ed a ,otion to Eismiss in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+,L"/M on the gro&nds of ack of 8gi entRs ega capacitto s&e>L"!M liti$pendentia> L"4M for&m shopping>L")M and fai &re to state a ca&se of action.L"(M 1n =eptember 4, /''", the tria co&rt denied the ,otion to Eismiss and granted petitioner 8gi entRs app ication for a writ of rep evin.L"#M 0itho&t fi ing a motion for reconsideration, respondents fi ed a
Page | 2405

petition for certiorari with the +o&rt of 8ppea s.L":M In the meantime, &pon motion fi ed brespondents, J&dge 8ntonio =. ;o7as of Hranch $/ vo &ntari - inhibited himse f in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+. The case was re*raff ed and assigned to Hranch !), the same branch where +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*/''"*+ is pending. 1n 8&g&st "/, /''/, the +o&rt of 8ppea s granted respondentsR petition for certiorari, set aside the assai ed 1rder of the tria co&rt dated=eptember 4, /''", and ordered the dismissa of +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+. Ience, the instant petition raising the fo owing errors< I.
Page | 2406

TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,ITTEE REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 31T EI=,I==I3G RE=;13EE3T=R ;ETITI13 .1R +ERTI1R8RI .1R RE=;13EE3T=R .8IAURE T1 .IAE 8 ,1TI13 .1R RE+13=IEER8TI13 HE.1RE RE=1RTI3G T1 TIE RE,EEC 1. +ERTI1R8RI. II. TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,ITTEE REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 833UAAI3G 83E =ETTI3G 8=IEE TIE TRI8A +1URTR= 1REER E8TEE 4 =E;TE,HER /''" 83E 1REERI3G TIE EI=,I==8A 1. +IFIA +8=E 31. !"/!*/''"*+ HEA10 13 TIE GR1U3E 1. L3T3 2;&9;&T3A, 13 8++1U3T 1. TIE ;E3EE3+C 1. +IFIA +8=E 31. !""'*/''"*+.
Page | 2407

III. TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,ITTEE REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 833UAAI3G 83E =ETTI3G 8=IEE TIE TRI8A +1URTR= 1REER E8TEE 4 =E;TE,HER /''" 83E 1REERI3G TIE EI=,I==8A 1. +IFIA +8=E 31. !"/!*/''"*+ HEA10 13 TIE GR1U3E 1. .1RU, =I1;;I3G, 13 8++1U3T 1. TIE ;E3EE3+C 1. +IFIA +8=E 31. !""'* /''"*+. IF. TIE +1URT 1. 8;;E8A= +1,,ITTEE REFER=IHAE ERR1R I3 1REERI3G TIE EI=,I==8A 1. +IFIA +8=E 31. !/!*/''"*+ HEA10 I3=TE8E 1. 1REERI3G IT
Page | 2408

+13=1AIE8TEE 0ITI +IFIA +8=E 31. !""'*/''"*+.L"$M The two primar- iss&es raised in this petition< 2"5 whether or not the +o&rt of 8ppea s committed reversib e error in giving d&e co&rse to respondentsR petition, notwithstanding the fai &re to fi e a ,otion for Reconsideration of the =eptember 4, /''" 1rder> and 2/5 whether or not the +o&rt of 8ppea s committed reversib e error in dismissing +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+. 0e find merit in the petition. The +o&rt of 8ppea s, citing the case of Mala!an" Man""a"a0a $a ; O v. ; O tandard ;a$tern, 3nc.,L/'M he d that the ower co&rt had no j&risdiction over +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+ beca&se of the pendenc- of +ivi +ase
Page | 2409

3o. !""'*/''"*+ and, therefore, a motion for reconsideration was not necessar- before resort to a petition for certiorari. This was error. J&risdiction is fi6ed baw. Hatas ;ambansa H g. "/$ vests j&risdiction over the s&bject matter of +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+ in the RT+.
L/"M

The +o&rt of 8ppea sR r& ing that the assai ed 1rder iss&ed b- the RT+ of +a amba, Hranch $/, was a n& it- for ack of j&risdiction d&e to liti$pendentia and for&m shopping, has no ega basis. The pendenc- of another action does not strip a co&rt of the j&risdiction granted b- aw. The +o&rt of 8ppea s f&rther r& ed that a ,otion for Reconsideration was not
Page | 2410

necessar- in view of the &rgent necessit- in this case. 0e are not convinced. In the case of (ac1e and )o. D21il$.E, 3nc. v. %ui5,L//M re ied on bthe +o&rt of 8ppea s, it was he d that Ptime is of the essence in view of the ta6 assessments so&ght to be enforced b- respondent officers of the H&rea& of Interna Reven&e against petitioner corporation, on acco&nt of which immediate and more direct action becomes necessar-.Q Ta6 assessments in that case were based on doc&ments sei7ed b- virt&e of an i ega search, and the deprivation of the right to d&e process tainted the entire proceedings with i ega it-. Ience, the &rgent necessit- of preventing the enforcement of the ta6 assessments was patent. Respondents, on the other
Page | 2411

hand, cite the case of Geroni#o v. )o##i$$ion on ;lection$,L/!M where the &rgent necessit- of reso ving a dis%&a ification case for a position in oca government warranted the e6peditio&s resort to certiorari. In the case at bar, there is no ana ogo&s &rgent circ&mstance which wo& d necessitate the re a6ation of the r& e on a ,otion for Reconsideration. Indeed, none of the e6ceptions for dispensing with a ,otion for Reconsideration is present here. 3one of the fo owing cases cited brespondents serves as ade%&ate basis for their proced&ra apse. In Gi"an ;lectric Li"1t )o., 3nc. v. 2u/lic ervice )o##i$$ion,L/4M the %&estioned order was n& and void for
Page | 2412

fai &re of respondent trib&na to comp with d&e process re%&irements> in Matan"ui1an v. Ten"co,L/)M the %&estioned order was a patent n& it- for fai &re to ac%&ire j&risdiction over the defendants, which fact the records p ain - disc osed> and in &ational ;lectrification Ad#ini$tration v. )ourt of Appeal$,L/(M the %&estioned orders were void for vag&eness. 3o s&ch patent n& it- is evident in the 1rder iss&ed bthe tria co&rt in this case. .ina -, whi e &rgenc- ma- be a gro&nd for dispensing with a ,otion for Reconsideration, in the case of Givo v. )lori/el,L/#M cited brespondents, the s ow progress of the case wo& d have rendered the iss&es moot had a motion for reconsideration been avai ed of. 0e find no s&ch &rgent circ&mstance in the case at bar.
Page | 2413

Respondents, therefore, avai ed of a premat&re remedwhen theimmediate - raised the matter to the +o&rt of 8ppea s on certiorari> and the appe ate co&rt committed reversib e error when it took cogni7ance of respondentsR petition instead of dismissing the same o&tright. 0e come now to the s&bstantive iss&es of the petition. Liti$ pendentia is a Aatin term which itera - means Pa pending s&it.Q It is vario&s - referred to in some decisions as li$ penden$ and auteraction pendant. 0hi e it is norma - connected with the contro which the co&rt has on a propert- invo ved in a s&it d&ring the contin&ance proceedings, it is more
Page | 2414

interposed as a gro&nd for the dismissa of a civi action pending in co&rt. Liti$ pendentia as a gro&nd for the dismissa of a civi action refers to that sit&ation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for the same ca&se of action, s&ch that the second action becomes &nnecessarand ve6atio&s. .or liti$ pendentia to be invoked, the conc&rrence of the fo owing re%&isites is necessar-< 2a5 identit- of parties or at east s&ch as represent the same interest in both actions> 2b5 identit- of rights asserted and re iefs pra-ed for, the re iefs being fo&nded on the same facts> and
Page | 2415

2c5 the identit- in the two cases sho& d be s&ch that the j&dgment that ma- be rendered in one wo& d, regard ess of which partis s&ccessf& , amo&nt to re$ judicata in the other.L/:M The +o&rt of 8ppea s correct appreciated the identit- of parties in +ivi +ases 3o. !"/!*/''"*+ and !""'* /''"*+. 0e *sett ed is the r& e that li$ penden$ re%&ires on - s&bstantia , and not abso &te, identit- of parties.L/$M There is s&bstantia identit- of parties when there is a comm&nit- of interest between a part- in the first case and a part- in the second case, even if the atter was not imp eaded in the first case.L!'MThe parties in these cases are v-ing over the
Page | 2416

interests of the two opposing corporations> the individ&a s are on incidenta - imp eaded, being the nat&ra persons p&rported - acc&sed of vio ating these corporationsR rights. Aikewise, the fact that the positions of the parties are reversed, i.e., the p aintiffs in the first case are the defendants in the second case or vice versa, does not negate the identit- of parties for p&rposes of determining whether the case is dismissib e on the gro&nd of liti$ pendentia.L!"M The identitof parties notwithstanding, liti$ pendentia does not obtain in this case beca&se of the absence of the second and third re%&isites. The rights asserted in each of the cases invo ved are separate and
Page | 2417

distinct> there are two s&bjects of controvers- presented for adj&dication> and two ca&ses of action are c ear invo ved. The fact that respondents instit&ted a prior action for P=pecific ;erformance and EamagesQ is not a gro&nd for defeating the petitionersR action for P=pecific ;erformance, Recover- of ;ossession, and =&m of ,onewithRep evin, ;re iminar,andator- Inj&nction, and Eamages.Q In +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*/''"*+ fi ed brespondents, the iss&e is whether or not there was a breach of an ora promise to renew of theF88=8. The iss&e in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+, fi ed bpetitioner, is whether petitioner has the right to take possession of the s&bject properties. ;etitionerRs right of
Page | 2418

possession is fo&nded on the ownership of the s&bject goods, which ownership is not disp&ted and is not contingent on the e6tension or non*e6tension of the F88=8. Ience, the rep evin s&it can va id - be tried even whi e the prior s&it is being itigated in the Regiona Tria +o&rt. ;ossession of the s&bject properties is not an iss&e in +ivi +ase 3o. !""'* /''"*+. The re iefs so&ght brespondent Integrated =i icon therein are as fo ows< 2"5 e6ec&tion of a written e6tension or renewa of the F88=8> 2/5 comp iance with the e6tended F88=8> and 2!5 pa-ment of overd&e acco&nts, damages, and attorne-Rs fees. The re iefs so&ght bpetitioner 8gi ent in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*
Page | 2419

/''"*+, on the other hand, are as fo ows< 2"5 iss&ance of a 0rit of Rep evin or 0rit of ;re iminar,andator- Inj&nction> 2/5 recover- of possession of the s&bject properties> 2!5 damages and attorne-Rs fees. +onceded -, some items or pieces of evidence ma- be admissib e in both actions. It cannot be said, however, that e6act - the same evidence wi s&pport the decisions in both, since the ega - significant and contro ing facts in each case are entire - different. 8 tho&gh theF88=8 fig&res prominent in both s&its, +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*/''"* + is premised on a p&rported breach of an ora ob igation to e6tend theF88=8, and damages arising o&t of 8gi entRs a eged fai &re to comp Page | 2420

with s&ch p&rported e6tension. +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+, on the other hand, is premised on a breach of the F88=8 itse f, and damages arising to 8gi ent o&t of that p&rported breach. It necessari - fo ows that the third re%&isite for liti$ pendentia is a so absent. The fo owing are the e ements of re$ judicata< 2a5 The former j&dgment m&st be fina > 2b5 The co&rt which rendered j&dgment m&st have j&risdiction over the parties and the s&bject matter> 2c5 It m&st be a j&dgment on the merits> and 2d5 There m&st be between the first and second actions identitPage | 2421

of parties, s&bject matter, and ca&se of action.L!/M In this case, an- j&dgment rendered in one of the actions wi not amo&nt to re$ judicata in the other action. There being different ca&ses of action, the decision in one case wi not constit&te re$ judicata as to the other. 1f co&rse, a decision in one case ma-, to a certain e6tent, affect the other case. This, however, is not the test to determine the identit- of the ca&ses of action. 0hatever diffic& ties or inconvenience ma- be entai ed if both ca&ses of action are p&rs&ed on separate remedies, the proper so &tion is not the dismissa order of the +o&rt of 8ppea s. The possib e conso idation of said cases, as we as stip& ations and
Page | 2422

appropriate modes of discover-, mawe be considered b- the co&rt be ow to s&bserve not on proced&ra e6pedience b&t, more important, the ends of j&stice.L!!M 0e now proceed to the iss&e of for&m shopping. The test for determining whether a part- vio ated the r& e against for&m* shopping was aid down in the case of (uan v. Lope5.L!4M .or&m shopping e6ists where the e ements of liti$ pendentia are present, or where a fina j&dgment in one case wi amo&nt to re$ judicata in the fina other. There being no liti$ pendentia in this case, a j&dgment in the said case wi not amo&nt to re$ judicata in +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*/''"*+, and respondentsR
Page | 2423

contention on for&m shopping m&st ikewise fai . 0e are not &nmindf& of the aff ictive conse%&ences that ma- be s&ffered bboth petitioner and respondents if rep evin is granted b- the tria co&rt in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+. If respondent Integrated =i icon event&a wins +ivi +ase 3o. !""'*/''"*+, and the F88=8Rs terms are e6tended, petitioner corporation wi have to comp - with its ob igations there&nder, which wo& d inc &de the consignment of properties simi ar to those it marecover b- wa- of rep evin in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+. Iowever, petitioner wi a so s&ffer an inj&stice if denied the remed- ofrep evin, resort to which is not on - a owed b&t enco&raged b- aw.
Page | 2424

Respondents arg&e that since 8gi ent is an &n icensed foreign corporation doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, it acks the ega capacit- to fi e s&it.L!)M The assai ed acts of petitioner 8gi ent, p&rported - in the nat&re of Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines, are the fo owing< 2"5 mere entering into the F88=8, which is a Pservice contractQ>L!(M 2/5 appointment of a f& *time representative in Integrated =i icon, to Poversee and s&pervise the prod&ctionQ of 8gi entRs prod&cts>L!#M 2!5 the appointment b- 8gi ent of si6 f& * time staff members, who were permanent - stationed at Integrated =i iconRs faci ities in order to inspect the finished goods for 8gi ent>L!:M and 245 8gi entRs participation in the management, s&pervision and contro of
Page | 2425

Integrated =i icon,L!$M inc &ding instr&cting Integrated =i icon to hire more emp o-ees to meet 8gi entRs increasing prod&ction needs,L4'M reg& ar - performing %&a ita&dit, eva &ation and s&pervision of Integrated =i iconRs emp o-ees, L4"M reg& ar - performing inventor- a&dit of raw materia s to be &sed bIntegrated =i icon, which was a so re%&ired to provide week - inventor&pdates to 8gi ent,L4/M and providing and dictating Integrated =i icon on the dai prod&ction sched& e, vo &me and mode s of the prod&cts to man&fact&re and ship for8gi ent.L4!M 8 foreign corporation witho&t a icense is not ip$o facto incapacitated from bringing an action in ;hi ippine
Page | 2426

co&rts. 8 icense is necessar- on - if a foreign corporation is PtransactingQ or Pdoing b&sinessQ in the co&ntr-. The +orporation +ode provides< =ec. "!!. 9oin" /u$ine$$ 0it1out a licen$e. G 3o foreign corporation transacting b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t a icense, or its s&ccessors or assigns, sha be permitted to maintain or intervene in an- action, s&it or proceeding in anco&rt or administrative agenc- of the ;hi ippines> b&t s&ch corporation ma- be s&ed or proceeded against before ;hi ippine co&rts or administrative trib&na s on anva id ca&se of action recogni7ed &nder ;hi ippine aws. The aforementioned provision prevents an &n icensed foreign
Page | 2427

corporation Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines from accessing o&r co&rts. In a n&mber of cases, however, we have he d that an &n icensed foreign corporation doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines mabring s&it in ;hi ippine co&rts against a ;hi ippine citi7en or entit- who had contracted with and benefited from said corporation. L44M =&ch a s&it is premised on the doctrine of estoppe . 8 partis estopped from cha enging the persona it- of a corporation after having acknow edged the same b- entering into a contract with it. This doctrine of estoppe to den- corporate e6istence and capacit- app ies to foreign as we as domestic corporations.L4)M The
Page | 2428

app ication of this princip e prevents a person contracting with a foreign corporation from ater taking advantage of its noncomp iance with the stat&tes chief - in cases where s&ch person has received the benefits of the contract.L4(M The princip es regarding the right of a foreign corporation to bring s&it in ;hi ippine co&rts math&s be condensed in fo&r statements< 2"5 if a foreign corporation does b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t a icense, it cannot s&e before the ;hi ippine co&rts>L4#M 2/5 if a foreign corporation isnot doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, it needs no icense to s&e before ;hi ippine co&rts on an iso ated transaction or on a ca&se of action entire - independent of anb&siness transactionL4:M> 2!5 if a foreign
Page | 2429

corporation does b&siness in the ;hi ippines witho&t a icense, a ;hi ippine citi7en or entit- which has contracted with said corporation mabe estopped from cha enging the foreign corporationRs corporate persona it- in a s&it bro&ght before ;hi ippine co&rts>L4$M and 245 if a foreign corporation does b&siness in the ;hi ippines with the re%&ired icense, it can s&e before ;hi ippine co&rts on antransaction. The cha enge to 8gi entRs ega capacit- to fi e s&it hinges on whether or not it is doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. Iowever, there is no definitive r& e on what constit&tes PdoingQ, Pengaging inQ, or PtransactingQ b&siness in the ;hi ippines, as this +o&rt
Page | 2430

observed in the case ofMent1olatu# v. Man"ali#an.L)'M The +orporation +ode itse f is si ent as to what acts constit&te doing or transacting b&siness in the ;hi ippines. J&rispr&dence has it, however, that the term Pimp ies a contin&it- of commercia dea ings and arrangements, and contemp ates, to that e6tent, the performance of acts or works or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to or in progressive prosec&tion of the p&rpose and s&bject of its organi7ation.QL)"M In Ment1olatu#,L)/M this +o&rt disco&rsed on the two genera tests to determine whether or not a foreign corporation can be considered as Pdoing
Page | 2431

b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines. The first of these is the s&bstance test, th&s<L)!M The tr&e test Lfor doing b&sinessM, however, seems to be whether the foreign corporation is contin&ing the bod- of the b&siness or enterprise for which it was organi7ed or whether it has s&bstantia - retired from it and t&rned it over to another. The second test is the contin&it- test, e6pressed th&s<L)4M The term Ldoing b&sinessM imp ies a contin&it- of commercia dea ings and arrangements, and contemp ates, to that e6tent, the performance of acts or works or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in the
Page | 2432

progressive prosec&tion of, the p&rpose and object of its organi7ation. 8 tho&gh each case m&st be j&dged in ight of its attendant circ&mstances, j&rispr&dence has evo ved severa g&iding princip es for the app ication of these tests. .or instance, considering that it transacted with its ;hi ippine co&nterpart for seven -ears, engaging in f&t&res contracts, this +o&rt conc &ded that the foreign corporation in Merrill L!nc1 Huture$, 3nc. v. )ourt of Appeal$ and pou$e$ Lara,L))M was doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines. In )o##i$$ioner of 3nternal %evenue v. Japan Airline$ DMJALNE,L)(M the +o&rt he d that J8A was doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, i.e., its commercia dea ings in the co&ntr- were contin&o&s S despite
Page | 2433

the fact that no J8A aircraft anded in the co&ntr- S as it so d tickets in the ;hi ippines thro&gh a genera sa es agent, and opened a promotions office here as we . In General )orp. of t1e 21il$. v. Tnion 3n$urance ociet! of )anton and Hire#anJ$ Hund 3n$urance,L)#M a foreign ins&rance corporation was he d to be doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, as it appointed a sett ing agent here, and iss&ed "/ marine ins&rance po icies. 0e he d that these transactions were not iso ated or cas&a , b&t manifested the contin&it- of the foreign corporationRs cond&ct and its intent to estab ish a contin&o&s b&siness in the co&ntr-. In ;ri:$ 2T; Ltd. v. )ourt of Appeal$ and ;nri4ue5,L):M the
Page | 2434

foreign corporation so d its prod&cts to a .i ipino b&-er who ordered the goods "( times within an eight*month period. 8ccording -, this +o&rt r& ed that the corporation was doing b&siness in the;hi ippines, as there was a c ear intention on its part to contin&e the bodof its b&siness here, despite the re ative short span of time invo ved. )o##unication Material$ and 9e$i"n, 3nc., et al. v. )ourt of Appeal$, 3T;), et al.L)$M and Top-Qeld Manufacturin" v. ;);9, 3%T3, et al. L('M both invo ved the Aicense and Technica 8greement and Eistrib&tor 8greement of foreign corporations with their respective oca co&nterparts that were the primar- bases for the +o&rtRs r& ing that the foreign corporations were doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines.L("M In
Page | 2435

partic& ar, the +o&rt cited the high restrictive nat&re of certain provisions in the agreements invo ved, s&ch that, as stated in )o##unication Material$, the ;hi ippine entit- is red&ced to a mere e6tension or instr&ment of the foreign corporation. .or e6amp e, in )o##unication Material$, the +o&rt deemed the P3o +ompeting ;rod&ctQ provision of the Representative 8greement therein restrictive.L(/MThe case aw definition has evo ved into a stat&tordefinition, having been adopted with some %&a ifications in vario&s pieces of egis ation. The .oreign Investments 8ct of "$$" 2the P.I8Q> Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. #'4/, as amended5, defines Pdoing b&sinessQ as fo ows<=ec. !, par. 2d5. The phrase Pdoing b&sinessQ sha inc &de so iciting
Page | 2436

orders, service contracts, opening offices, whether ca ed P iaisonQ offices or branches> appointing representatives or distrib&tors domici ed in the ;hi ippines or who in an- ca endar -ear sta- in the co&ntr- for a period or periods tota ing one h&ndred eight2":'5 da-s or more> participating in the management, s&pervision or contro of an- domestic b&siness, firm, entit-, or corporation in the ;hi ippines> and another act or acts that imp - a contin&itof commercia dea ings or arrangements, and contemp ate to that e6tent the performance of acts or works, or the e6ercise of some of the f&nctions norma - incident to, and in the progressive prosec&tion of, commercia gain or of the p&rpose and object of the b&siness organi7ation.
Page | 2437

8n ana -sis of the re evant case aw, in conj&nction with =ection " of the Imp ementing R& es and Reg& ations of the .I8 2as amended b- Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. :"#$5, wo& d demonstrate that the acts en&merated in the F88=8 do not constit&te Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines. =ection " of the Imp ementing R& es and Reg& ations of the .I8 2as amended b- Rep&b ic 8ct 3o. :"#$5 provides that the fo owing sha notbe deemed Pdoing b&sinessQ< 2"5 ,ere investment as a shareho der b- a foreign entit- in domestic corporations d& registered to do b&siness, andJor the e6ercise of rights as s&ch investor>
Page | 2438

2/5 Iaving a nominee director or officer to represent its interest in s&ch corporation> 2!5 8ppointing a representative or distrib&tor domici ed in the ;hi ippines which transacts b&siness in the representativeRs or distrib&torRs own name and acco&nt> 245 The p&b ication of a genera advertisement thro&gh anprint or broadcast media> 2)5 ,aintaining a stock of goods in the ;hi ippines so e - for the p&rpose of having the same processed b- another entit- in the ;hi ippines> 2(5 +onsignment b- a foreign entit- of e%&ipment with a oca
Page | 2439

compan- to be &sed in the processing of prod&cts for e6port> 2#5 +o ecting information in the ;hi ippines> and 2:5 ;erforming services a&6i iar- to an e6isting iso ated contract of sa e which are not on a contin&ing basis, s&ch as insta ing in the ;hi ippines machiner- it has man&fact&red or e6ported to the ;hi ippines, servicing the same, training domestic workers to operate it, and simi ar incidenta services. H- and arge, to constit&te Pdoing b&sinessQ, the activit- to be &ndertaken in the ;hi ippines is one that is for profit* making.L(!MH- the c ear terms of the F88=8, 8gi entRs activities in the
Page | 2440

;hi ippines were confined to 2"5 maintaining a stock of goods in the ;hi ippines so e - for the p&rpose of having the same processed bIntegrated =i icon> and 2/5 consignment of e%&ipment with Integrated =i icon to be &sed in the processing of prod&cts for e6port. 8s s&ch, we ho d that, based on the evidence presented th&s far, 8gi ent cannot be deemed to be Pdoing b&sinessQ in the ;hi ippines. RespondentsR contention that 8gi ent acks the ega capacit- to fi e s&it is therefore devoid of merit. 8s a foreign corporation not doing b&siness in the ;hi ippines, it needed no icense before it can s&e before o&r co&rts..ina -, as to 8gi entRs p&rported fai &re to state a ca&se of action against the individ&a
Page | 2441

respondents, we ikewise r& e in favor of petitioner. 8 ,otion to Eismiss h-pothetica - admits a the a egations in the +omp aint, which p ain - a eges that these individ&a respondents had committed or permitted the commission of acts prej&dicia to 8gi ent. 0hether or not these individ&a s had divested themse ves of their interests in Integrated =i icon, or are no onger members of Integrated =i iconRs Hoard of Eirectors, is a matter of defense best threshed o&t d&ring tria . 0IERE.1RE, ;RE,I=E= +13=IEE REE, the petition is GR83TEE. The Eecision of the +o&rt of 8ppea s in +8* G.R. =; 3o. (()#4 dated 8&g&st "/, /''/, which dismissed +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+, is REFER=EE and =ET
Page | 2442

8=IEE. The 1rder dated =eptember 4, /''"iss&ed b- the Regiona Tria +o&rt of +a amba, Aag&na, Hranch $/, in +ivi +ase 3o. !"/!*/''"*+, is REI3=T8TEE. 8gi entRs app ication for a 0rit of Rep evin is GR83TEE. 3o prono&ncement as to costs. =1 1REEREE.

Page | 2443