Title Civ-Canonical-Doctrines.pdf ✅

U.P LAW BOC abon3298 CIVIL LAW Page 2 of 24 abon3298 Exceptions to the publication requirement: 1. Interpretative regulations and those which are internal in nature 2. Letters of instructions by administrative superiors to subordinates 3. Minister of Social welfare on petitions for adoption Conflict of Laws CASE SUMMARY HELD DOCTRINE Hasegawa v. Kitamura G.R. No. 149177 | November 23, 2007 Petitioner Nippon entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines, wherein respondent was to extend professional services to Nippon for a year and he was assigned as project manager of the STAR Project of the PH Government. Nearly a year later, Hasegawa, the general manager of Nippon, informed respondent that his ICA will no longer be renewed. After failed negotiations, he filed this complaint. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals. The RTC denied the MTD, and affirmed by the CA. The Court denied the petition, ruling that the issue in this case is jurisdiction over subject- matter, but the grounds asserted by the petitioners lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus and state of the most significant relationship rule are make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, and are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. Furthermore, they have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Accordingly, the RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate. Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are the following questions: 1. Where can or should litigation be initiated? (Jurisdiction) 2. Which law will the court apply? (Choice of Law? 3. Where can the resulting judgment be enforced? (Enforcement) Raytheon International, Inc. v. BMSI and respondent Rouzie entered into a contract where BMSI hired The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case. On Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflicts-of-laws cases
U.P LAW BOC abon3298 CIVIL LAW Page 3 of 24 abon3298 Stockton Rouzie, Jr. G.R. No. 120721 | February 23, 2005 respondent. Respondent filed a suit against BMSI and RUST which was dismissed by the NLRC. Thus he instituted another action for damages before the RTC against the same parties including petitioner Raytheon. Pettioner averred that since the contract executed had a valid choice of law clause stipulating that the laws of Connecticut shall govern the contract and that there are foreign elements in the dispute, the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is warranted. jurisdiction over a conflicts- of-laws problem where the case is filed in PH and the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, parties, and res, it may proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict- of-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Recto v. Harden G.R. No. L- 6897 | November 29, 1956 Esperanza Harden hired the late Claro M. Recto as her counsel in the suit she was contemplating to file against her husband. The suit was to secure an increase in the amount of support she was receiving and preserve her rights in the conjugal partnership, in contemplation of the divorce suit which she also intended to file against him. Mrs. Harden agreed to pay Recto 20% of the value of her share in the conjugal property after liquidation. Thus, Recto instituted a civil case against Mr. Harden. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Mrs. Harden but this was appealed. However, pending appeal, the Hardens mutually released each other from all actions, debts and claims to the conjugal partnership. Mrs. Harden instructed Recto to discontinue the proceedings. Recto filed a motion in the Supreme Court to establish his attorney's charging lien. The Hardens opposed the motion on the ground that the contract between Recto and Mrs. Harden The Court ruled in favor of Recto, holding that the purpose of the contract was not to secure a divorce decree but merely to protect Mrs. Harden’s interest in the properties of the conjugal partnership. Besides, divorce is sanctioned by the personal laws of the Harden spouses. Thus, the contract is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. In this case, the Court applied Article 15 of the Civil Code in favor of foreign nationals: in that, foreigners' personal laws follow the Nationality Theory, in the same way that Art. 15 provides that Philippine laws govern a Filipino's family rights and duties, status, condition, and legal capacity, whether in the Philippines or abroad.