[G.R. No. 122191.

October 8, 1998]

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ILAGROS P. ORADA !"# $ON. RODOLFO A. ORTI%, &" '&( c!)!c&t* !( Pre(&#&"+ ,-#+e o. Br!"c' 89, Re+&o"!/ Tr&!/ Co-rt o. 0-e1o" C&t*, respondents. DECISION
0UISU BING, J.2

This petition for certiorari pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set aside the Resolution dated September 27, 1995 and the e!ision dated "pril 1#, 199$ of the Court of "ppeals in C"&'(R( S) *o( %$5%%, and the +rders dated "u,ust 29, 1994 and -ebruar. 2, 1995 that /ere issued b. the trial !ourt in Ci0il Case *o( 1&9%&12%94(
[1] [2] [%] [4] [5] [$] [7] [2]

The pertinent ante!edent fa!ts /hi!h ,a0e rise to the instant petition, as stated in the 3uestioned e!ision , are as follo/s4
[9]

5+n 6anuar. 21, 1922 defendant S"7 8" hired plaintiff as a -li,ht "ttendant for its airlines based in 6eddah, Saudi "rabia( 9 9 9 +n "pril 27, 199#, /hile on a la.&o0er in 6akarta, 8ndonesia, plaintiff /ent to a dis!o dan!e /ith fello/ !re/ members Thamer "l&'a::a/i and "llah "l&'a::a/i, both Saudi nationals( ;e!ause it /as almost mornin, /hen the. returned to their hotels, the. a,reed to ha0e breakfast to,ether at the room of Thamer( <hen the. /ere in te =si!> room, "llah left on some prete9t( Shortl. after he did, Thamer attempted to rape plaintiff( -ortunatel., a roombo. and se0eral se!urit. personnel heard her !ries for help and res!ued her( ?ater, the 8ndonesian poli!e !ame and arrested Thamer and "llah "l&'a::a/i, the latter as an a!!ompli!e( <hen plaintiff returned to 6eddah a fe/ da.s later, se0eral S"7 8" offi!ials interro,ated her about the 6akarta in!ident( The. then re3uested her to ,o ba!k to 6akarta to help arran,e the release of Thamer and "llah( 8n 6akarta, S"7 8" ?e,al +ffi!er Sirah "kkad and base mana,er ;aharini ne,otiated /ith the poli!e for the immediate release of the detained !re/ members but did not su!!eed be!ause plaintiff refused to !ooperate( She /as afraid that she mi,ht be tri!ked

into somethin, she did not /ant be!ause of her inabilit. to understand the lo!al diale!t( She also de!lined to si,n a blank paper and a do!ument /ritten in the lo!al diale!t( @0entuall., S"7 8" allo/ed plaintiff to return to 6eddah but barred her from the 6akarta fli,hts( )laintiff learned that, throu,h the inter!ession of the Saudi "rabian ,o0ernment, the 8ndonesian authorities a,reed to deport Thamer and "llah after t/o /eeks of detention( @0entuall., the. /ere a,ain put in ser0i!e b. defendant S"7 8 =si!>( 8n September 199#, defendant S"7 8" transferred plaintiff to Aanila( +n 6anuar. 14, 1992, Bust /hen plaintiff thou,ht that the 6akarta in!ident /as alread. behind her, her superiors re3uested her to see Ar( "li Aenie/., Chief ?e,al +ffi!er of S"7 8", in 6eddah, Saudi "rabia( <hen she sa/ him, he brou,ht her to the poli!e station /here the poli!e took her passport and 3uestioned her about the 6akarta in!ident( Ainie/. simpl. stood b. as the poli!e put pressure on her to make a statement droppin, the !ase a,ainst Thamer and "llah( *ot until she a,reed to do so did the poli!e return her passport and allo/ed her to !at!h the afternoon fli,ht out of 6eddah( +ne .ear and a half later or on 6une 1$, 199%, in Ri.adh, Saudi "rabia, a fe/ minutes before the departure of her fli,ht to Aanila, plaintiff /as not allo/ed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later fli,ht to 6eddah to see Ar( Ainie/., the Chief ?e,al +ffi!er of S"7 8"( <hen she did, a !ertain Chalid of the S"7 8" offi!e brou,ht her to a Saudi !ourt /here she /as asked to si,n a do!ument /ritten in "rabi!( The. told her that this /as ne!essar. to !lose the !ase a,ainst Thamer and "llah( "s it turned out, plaintiff si,ned a noti!e to her to appear before the !ourt on 6une 27, 199%( )laintiff then returned to Aanila( Shortl. after/ards, defendant S"7 8" summoned plaintiff to report to 6eddah on!e a,ain and see Ainie/. on 6une 27, 199% for further in0esti,ation( )laintiff did so after re!ei0in, assuran!e from S"7 8"Ds Aanila mana,er, "slam Saleemi, that the in0esti,ation /as routinar. and that it posed no dan,er to her( 8n 6eddah, a S"7 8" le,al offi!er brou,ht plaintiff to the same Saudi !ourt on 6une 27, 199%( *othin, happened then but on 6une 22, 199%, a Saudi Bud,e interro,ated plaintiff throu,h an interpreter about the 6akarta in!ident( "fter one hour of interro,ation, the. let her ,o( "t the airport, ho/e0er, Bust as her plane /as about to take off, a S"7 8" offi!er told her that the airline had forbidden her to take fli,ht( "t the

8nfli,ht Ser0i!e +ffi!e /here she /as told to ,o, the se!retar. of Ar( Eah.a Saddi!k took a/a. her passport and told her to remain in 6eddah, at the !re/ 3uarters, until further orders( +n 6ul. %, 199% a S"7 8" le,al offi!er a,ain es!orted plaintiff to the same !ourt /here the Bud,e, to her astonishment and sho!k, rendered a de!ision, translated to her in @n,lish, senten!in, her to fi0e months imprisonment and to 22$ lashes( +nl. then did she reali:e that the Saudi !ourt had tried her, to,ether /ith Thamer and "llah, for /hat happened in 6akarta( The !ourt found plaintiff ,uilt. of =1> adulter.F =2> ,oin, to a dis!o, dan!in, and listenin, to the musi! in 0iolation of 8slami! la/sF and =%> so!iali:in, /ith the male !re/, in !ontra0ention of 8slami! tradition(G
[1#]

-a!in, !on0i!tion, pri0ate respondent sou,ht the help of her emplo.er, petitioner S"7 8"( 7nfortunatel., she /as denied an. assistan!e( She then asked the )hilippine @mbass. in 6eddah to help her /hile her !ase is on appeal( Aean/hile, to pa. for her upkeep, she /orked on the domesti! fli,ht of S"7 8", /hile Thamer and "llah !ontinued to ser0e in the international fli,hts(
[11]

;e!ause she /as /ron,full. !on0i!ted, the )rin!e of Aakkah dismissed the !ase a,ainst her and allo/ed her to lea0e Saudi "rabia( Shortl. before her return to Aanila, she /as terminated from the ser0i!e b. S"7 8", /ithout her bein, informed of the !ause(
[12]

+n *o0ember 2%, 199%, Aorada filed a Complaint for dama,es a,ainst S"7 8", and Chaled "l&;ala/i =5"l& ;ala/iG>, its !ountr. mana,er(
[1%]

+n 6anuar. 19, 1994, S"7 8" filed an +mnibus Aotion To ismiss /hi!h raised the follo/in, ,rounds, to /it4 =1> that the Complaint states no !ause of a!tion a,ainst SaudiaF =2> that defendant "l&;ala/i is not a real part. in interestF =%> that the !laim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been /ai0ed, abandoned or other/ise e9tin,uishedF and =4> that the trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to tr. the !ase(
[14]

+n -ebruar. 1#, 1994, Aorada filed her +pposition =To Aotion to filed a repl. thereto on Aar!h %, 1994(
[1$] [17]

ismiss> Saudia
[15]

+n 6une 2%, 1994, Aorada filed an "mended Complaint /herein "l&;ala/i /as dropped as part. defendant( +n "u,ust 11, 1994, Saudia filed its Aanifestation and Aotion to ismiss "mended Complaint (
[12]

The trial !ourt issued an +rder dated "u,ust 29, 1994 den.in, the Aotion to ismiss "mended Complaint filed b. Saudia(
[19]

-rom the +rder of respondent 6ud,e den.in, the Aotion to ismiss, S"7 8" filed on September 2#, 1994, its Aotion for Re!onsideration of the +rder dated "u,ust 29, 1994( 8t alle,ed that the trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to hear and tr. the !ase on the basis of "rti!le 21 of the Ci0il Code, sin!e the proper la/ appli!able is the la/ of the
[2#] [21]

Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia( +n +!tober 14, 1994, Aorada filed her +pposition =To efendantDs Aotion for Re!onsideration>(
[22]

8n the Repl. filed /ith the trial !ourt on +!tober 24, 1994, S"7 8" alle,ed that sin!e its Aotion for Re!onsideration raised la!k of Burisdi!tion as its !ause of a!tion, the +mnibus Aotion Rule does not appl., e0en if that ,round is raised for the first time on appeal( "dditionall., S"7 8" alle,ed that the )hilippines does not ha0e an. substantial interest in the prose!ution of the instant !ase, and hen!e, /ithout Burisdi!tion to adBudi!ate the same(
[2%]

Respondent 6ud,e subse3uentl. issued another +rder dated -ebruar. 2, 1995, den.in, S"7 8"Ds Aotion for Re!onsideration( The pertinent portion of the assailed +rder reads as follo/s4
[24]

5"!tin, on the Aotion for Re!onsideration of defendant Saudi "rabian "irlines filed, thru !ounsel, on September 2#, 1994, and the +pposition thereto of the plaintiff filed, thru !ounsel, on +!tober 14, 1994, as /ell as the Repl. there/ith of defendant Saudi "rabian "irlines filed, thru !ounsel, on +!tober 24, 1994, !onsiderin, that a perusal of the plaintiffDs "mended Complaint, /hi!h is one for the re!o0er. of a!tual, moral and e9emplar. dama,es plus attorne.Ds fees, upon the basis of the appli!able )hilippine la/, "rti!le 21 of the *e/ Ci0il Code of the )hilippines, is, !learl., /ithin the Burisdi!tion of this Court as re,ards the subBe!t matter, and there bein, nothin, ne/ of substan!e /hi!h mi,ht !ause the re0ersal or modifi!ation of the order sou,ht to be re!onsidered, the motion for re!onsideration of the defendant, is @*8@ ( S+ +R @R@ (G
[25]

Conse3uentl., on -ebruar. 2#, 1995, S"7 8" filed its )etition for Certiorari and )rohibition /ith )ra.er for 8ssuan!e of <rit of )reliminar. 8nBun!tion andHor Temporar. Restrainin, +rder /ith the Court of "ppeals(
[2$]

Respondent Court of "ppeals promul,ated a Resolution /ith Temporar. Restrainin, +rder dated -ebruar. 2%, 1995, prohibitin, the respondent 6ud,e from further !ondu!tin, an. pro!eedin,, unless other/ise dire!ted, in the interim(
[27]

8n another Resolution promul,ated on September 27, 1995, no/ assailed, the appellate !ourt denied S"7 8"Ds )etition for the 8ssuan!e of a <rit of )reliminar. 8nBun!tion dated -ebruar. 12, 1995, to /it4
[22]

5The )etition for the 8ssuan!e of a <rit of )reliminar. 8nBun!tion is hereb. @*8@ , after !onsiderin, the "ns/er, /ith )ra.er to en. <rit of )reliminar. 8nBun!tion =Rollo, p( 1%5> the Repl. and ReBoinder, it appearin, that herein petitioner is not !learl. entitled thereto =7n!iano )aramedi!al Colle,e, et. Al., v. Court of "ppeals, et. Al., 1##%%5, "pril 7, 199%, Se!ond i0ision>(

S+ +R @R@ (G
+n +!tober 2#, 1995, S"7 8" filed /ith this Ionorable Court the instant )etition for Re0ie/ /ith )ra.er for Temporar. Restrainin, +rder dated +!tober 1%, 1995(
[29]

Io/e0er, durin, the penden!. of the instant )etition, respondent Court of "ppeals rendered the e!ision dated "pril 1#, 199$, no/ also assailed( 8t ruled that the )hilippines is an appropriate forum !onsiderin, that the "mended ComplaintDs basis for re!o0er. of dama,es is "rti!le 21 of the Ci0il Code, and thus, !learl. /ithin the Burisdi!tion of respondent Court( 8t further held that certiorari is not the proper remed. in a denial of a Aotion to ismiss, inasmu!h as the petitioner should ha0e pro!eeded to trial, and in !ase of an ad0erse rulin,, find re!ourse in an appeal(
[%#]

+n Aa. 7, 199$, S"7 8" filed its Supplemental )etition for Re0ie/ /ith )ra.er for Temporar. Restrainin, +rder dated "pril %#, 199$, ,i0en due !ourse b. this Court( "fter both parties submitted their Aemoranda, the instant !ase is no/ deemed submitted for de!ision(
[%1] [%2]

)etitioner S"7 8" raised the follo/in, issues4

3I

The trial !ourt has no Burisdi!tion to hear and tr. Ci0il Case *o( 1&9%&12%94 based on "rti!le 21 of the *e/ Ci0il Code sin!e the proper la/ appli!able is the la/ of the Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia inasmu!h as this !ase in0ol0es /hat is kno/n in pri0ate international la/ as a J!onfli!ts problemD( +ther/ise, the Republi! of the )hilippines /ill sit in Bud,ment of the a!ts done b. another so0erei,n state /hi!h is abhorred(
II.

?ea0e of !ourt before filin, a supplemental pleadin, is not a Burisdi!tional re3uirement( ;esides, the matter as to absen!e of lea0e of !ourt is no/ moot and a!ademi! /hen this Ionorable Court re3uired the respondents to !omment on petitionerDs "pril %#, 199$ Supplemental )etition -or Re0ie/ <ith )ra.er -or " Temporar. Restrainin, +rder <ithin Ten =1#> a.s -rom *oti!e Thereof( -urther, the Re0ised Rules of Court should be !onstrued /ith liberalit. pursuant to Se!tion 2, Rule 1 thereof(
III.

)etitioner re!ei0ed on "pril 22, 199$ the "pril 1#, 199$ de!ision in C"&'(R( S) *+( %$5%% entitled JSaudi "rabian "irlines v. Ion( Rodolfo "( +rti:, et al(D and filed its "pril %#, 199$ Supplemental )etition -or Re0ie/ <ith )ra.er -or " Temporar. Restrainin, +rder on Aa. 7, 199$ at 1#429 a(m( or /ithin the 15& da. re,lementar. period as pro0ided for under Se!tion 1, Rule 45 of the

Re0ised Rules of Court( Therefore, the de!ision in C"&'(R( S) *+( %$5%% has not .et be!ome final and e9e!utor. and this Ionorable Court !an take !o,ni:an!e of this !ase(G
[%%]

-rom the fore,oin, fa!tual and pro!edural ante!edents, the follo/in, issues emer,e for our resolution4
I.

<I@TI@R R@S)+* @*T "))@??"T@ C+7RT @RR@ 8* I+? 8*' TI"T TI@ R@'8+*"? TR8"? C+7RT +- 17@K+* C8TE I"S 67R8S 8CT8+* T+ I@"R "* TRE C8L8? C"S@ *+( 1&9%& 12%94 @*T8T?@ 5A8?"'R+S )( A+R" " L( S"7 8 "R";8"* "8R?8*@S(G
II.

<I@TI@R R@S)+* @*T "))@??"T@ C+7RT @RR@ 8* R7?8*' TI"T 8* TI@ C"S@ )I8?8))8*@ ?"< SI+7? '+L@R*(
)etitioner S"7 8" !laims that before us is a !onfli!t of la/s that must be settled at the outset( 8t maintains that pri0ate respondentDs !laim for alle,ed abuse of ri,hts o!!urred in the Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia( 8t alle,es that the e9isten!e of a forei,n element 3ualifies the instant !ase for the appli!ation of the la/ of the Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia, b. 0irtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule(
[%4]

+n the other hand, pri0ate respondent !ontends that sin!e her "mended Complaint is based on "rti!les 19 and 21 of the Ci0il Code, then the instant !ase is properl. a matter of domesti! la/(
[%5] [%$] [%7]

7nder the fa!tual ante!edents obtainin, in this !ase, there is no dispute that the interpla. of e0ents o!!urred in t/o states, the )hilippines and Saudi "rabia( "s stated b. pri0ate respondent in her "mended Complaint dated 6une 2%, 19944
[%2]

52( efendant S"7 8 "R";8"* "8R?8*@S or S"7 8" is a forei,n airlines !orporation doin, business in the )hilippines( 8t ma. be ser0ed /ith summons and other !ourt pro!esses at Tra0el <ide "sso!iated Sales =)hils(>, 8n!(, %rd -loor, Cou,ar ;uildin,, 114 Lalero St(, Sal!edo Lilla,e, Aakati, Aetro Aanila(
999 999 999

$( )laintiff learned that, throu,h the inter!ession of the Saudi "rabian ,o0ernment, the 8ndonesian authorities a,reed to deport Thamer and "llah after t/o /eeks of detention( @0entuall., the. /ere a,ain put in ser0i!e b. defendant S"7 8"( 8n September 199#, defendant S"7 8" transferred plaintiff to Aanila(

7( +n 6anuar. 14, 1992, Bust /hen plaintiff thou,ht that the 6akarta in!ident /as alread. behind her, her superiors re3uested her to see AR( "li Aenie/., Chief ?e,al +ffi!er of S"7 8", in 6eddah, Saudi "rabia( <hen she sa/ him, he brou,ht her to the poli!e station /here the poli!e took her passport and 3uestioned her about the 6akarta in!ident( Ainie/. simpl. stood b. as the poli!e put pressure on her to make a statement droppin, the !ase a,ainst Thamer and "llah( *ot until she a,reed to do so did the poli!e return her passport and allo/ed her to !at!h the afternoon fli,ht out of 6eddah( 2( +ne .ear and a half later or on 6une 1$, 199%, in Ri.adh, Saudi "rabia, a fe/ minutes before the departure of her fli,ht to Aanila, plaintiff /as not allo/ed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later fli,ht to 6eddah to see Ar( Aenie/., the Chief ?e,al +ffi!er of S"7 8"( <hen she did, a !ertain Chalid of the S"7 8" offi!e brou,ht her to a Saudi !ourt /here she /as asked to si,n a do!ument /ritten in "rabi!( The. told her that this /as ne!essar. to !lose the !ase a,ainst Thamer and "llah( "s it turned out, plaintiff si,ned a noti!e to her to appear before the !ourt on 6une 27, 199%( )laintiff then returned to Aanila( 9( Shortl. after/ards, defendant S"7 8" summoned plaintiff to report to 6eddah on!e a,ain and see Ainie/. on 6une 27, 199% for further in0esti,ation( )laintiff did so after re!ei0in, assuran!e from S"7 8"Ds Aanila mana,er, "slam Saleemi, that the in0esti,ation /as routinar. and that it posed no dan,er to her( 1#( 8n 6eddah, a S"7 8" le,al offi!er brou,ht plaintiff to the same Saudi !ourt on 6une 27, 199%( *othin, happened then but on 6une 22, 199%, a Saudi Bud,e interro,ated plaintiff throu,h an interpreter about the 6akarta in!ident( "fter one hour of interro,ation, the. let her ,o( "t the airport, ho/e0er, Bust as her plane /as about to take off, a S"7 8" offi!er told her that the airline had forbidden her to take that fli,ht( "t the 8nfli,ht Ser0i!e +ffi!e /here she /as told to ,o, the se!retar. of Ar( Eah.a Saddi!k took a/a. her passport and told her to remain in 6eddah, at the !re/ 3uarters, until further orders( 11( +n 6ul. %, 199% a S"7 8" le,al offi!er a,ain es!orted plaintiff to the same !ourt /here the Bud,e, to her astonishment and sho!k, rendered a de!ision, translated to her in @n,lish, senten!in, her to fi0e months imprisonment and to 22$ lashes( +nl. then did she reali:e that the Saudi !ourt had tried her, to,ether /ith Thamer and "llah, for /hat happened in 6akarta( The !ourt found plaintiff ,uilt. of =1>

adulter.F =2> ,oin, to a dis!o, dan!in,, and listenin, to the musi! in 0iolation of 8slami! la/sF =%> so!iali:in, /ith the male !re/, in !ontra0ention of 8slami! tradition( 12( ;e!ause S"7 8" refused to lend her a hand in the !ase, plaintiff sou,ht the help of the )hilippine @mbass. in 6eddah( The latter helped her pursue an appeal from the de!ision of the !ourt( To pa. for her upkeep, she /orked on the domesti! fli,hts of defendant S"7 8" /hile, ironi!all., Thamer and "llah freel. ser0ed the international fli,hts(G
[%9]

<here the fa!tual ante!edents satisfa!toril. establish the e9isten!e of a forei,n element, /e a,ree /ith petitioner that the problem herein !ould present a 5!onfli!tsG !ase( " fa!tual situation that !uts a!ross territorial lines and is affe!ted b. the di0erse la/s of t/o or more states is said to !ontain a 5forei,n elementG( The presen!e of a forei,n element is ine0itable sin!e so!ial and e!onomi! affairs of indi0iduals and asso!iations are rarel. !onfined to the ,eo,raphi! limits of their birth or !on!eption(
[4#]

The forms in /hi!h this forei,n element ma. appear are man.( The forei,n element ma. simpl. !onsist in the fa!t that one of the parties to a !ontra!t is an alien or has a forei,n domi!ile, or that a !ontra!t bet/een nationals of one State in0ol0es properties situated in another State( 8n other !ases, the forei,n element ma. assume a !omple9 form(
[41] [42]

8n the instant !ase, the forei,n element !onsisted in the fa!t that pri0ate respondent Aorada is a resident )hilippine national, and that petitioner S"7 8" is a resident forei,n !orporation( "lso, b. 0irtue of the emplo.ment of Aorada /ith the petitioner Saudia as a fli,ht ste/ardess, e0ents did transpire durin, her man. o!!asions of tra0el a!ross national borders, parti!ularl. from Aanila, )hilippines to 6eddah, Saudi "rabia, and 0i!e 0ersa, that !aused a 5!onfli!tsG situation to arise( <e thus find pri0ate respondentDs assertion that the !ase is purel. domesti!, impre!ise( " conflicts problem presents itself here, and the 3uestion of Burisdi!tion !onfronts the !ourt a quo(
[4%]

"fter a !areful stud. of the pri0ate respondentDs "mended Complaint, and the Comment thereon, /e note that she aptl. predi!ated her !ause of a!tion on "rti!les 19 and 21 of the *e/ Ci0il Code(
[44]

+n one hand, "rti!le 19 of the *e/ Ci0il Code pro0idesF

5"rt( 19( @0er. person must, in the e9er!ise of his ri,hts and in the performan!e of his duties, a!t /ith Busti!e ,i0e e0er.one his due and obser0e honest. and ,ood faith(G
+n the other hand, "rti!le 21 of the *e/ Ci0il Code pro0ides4

5"rt( 21( "n. person /ho /illfull. !auses loss or inBur. to another in a manner that is !ontrar. to morals, ,ood !ustoms or publi! poli!. shall !ompensate the latter for dama,es(G
Thus, in Philippine National Bank (PNB) vs. Court of Appeals , this Court held that4
[45]

5The afore!ited pro0isions on human relations /ere intended to e9pand the !on!ept of torts in this Burisdi!tion b. ,rantin, ade3uate le,al remed. for the untold number of moral /ron,s /hi!h is impossible for human foresi,ht to spe!ifi!all. pro0ide in the statutes(G
"lthou,h "rti!le 19 merel. de!lares a prin!iple of la/, "rti!le 21 ,i0es flesh to its pro0isions( Thus, /e a,ree /ith pri0ate respondentDs assertion that 0iolations of "rti!les 19 and 21 are a!tionable, /ith Budi!iall. enfor!eable remedies in the muni!ipal forum( ;ased on the alle,ations in the "mended Complaint, read in the li,ht of the Rules of Court on Burisdi!tion /e find that the Re,ional Trial Court =RTC> of 1ue:on Cit. possesses Burisdi!tion o0er the subBe!t matter of the suit( 8ts authorit. to tr. and hear the !ase is pro0ided for under Se!tion 1 of Republi! "!t *o( 7$91, to /it4
[4$] [47] [42]

5Se!tion 1( Se!tion 19 of ;atas )ambansa ;l,( 129, other/ise kno/n as the 56udi!iar. Reor,ani:ation "!t of 192#G, is hereb. amended to read as follo/s4 S@C( 19( 6urisdi!tion in Ci0il Cases( M Re,ional Trial Courts shall e9er!ise e9!lusi0e Burisdi!tion4
999 999 999

=2> 8n all other !ases in /hi!h demand, e9!lusi0e of interest, dama,es of /hate0er kind, attorne.Ds fees, liti,ation e9penses, and !osts or the 0alue of the propert. in !ontro0ers. e9!eeds +ne hundred thousand pesos =)1##,###(##> or, in su!h other !ases in Aetro Aanila, /here the demand, e9!lusi0e of the abo0e&mentioned items e9!eeds T/o hundred Thousand pesos =)2##,###(##>( =@mphasis ours>
999 999 999

"nd follo/in, Se!tion 2 =b>, Rule 4 of the Re0ised Rules of CourtNthe 0enue, 1ue:on Cit., is appropriate4

5S@C( 2 Lenue in Courts of -irst 8nstan!e( M[*o/ Re,ional Trial Court] =a> 9 9 9 999 999

=b> )ersonal a!tions( M "ll other a!tions ma. be !ommen!ed and tried /here the defendant or an. of the defendants resides or ma. be

found, or /here the plaintiff or an. of the plaintiff resides, at the ele!tion of the plaintiff(G
)ra,mati! !onsiderations, in!ludin, the !on0enien!e of the parties, also /ei,h hea0il. in fa0or of the RTC 1ue:on Cit. assumin, Burisdi!tion( )aramount is the pri0ate interest of the liti,ant( @nfor!eabilit. of a Bud,ment if one is obtained is 3uite ob0ious( Relati0e ad0anta,es and obsta!les to a fair trial are e3uall. important( )laintiff ma. not, b. !hoi!e of an in!on0enient forum, J0e9D, JharassD, or JoppressD the defendant, e(,( b. infli!tin, upon him needless e9pense or disturban!e( ;ut unless the balan!e is stron,l. in fa0or of the defendant, the plaintiffDs !hoi!e of forum should rarel. be disturbed(
[49]

<ei,hin, the relati0e !laims of the parties, the !ourt a quo found it best to hear the !ase in the )hilippines( Iad it refused to take !o,ni:an!e of the !ase, it /ould be for!in, plaintiff =pri0ate respondent no/> to seek remedial a!tion else/here, i(e( in the Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia /here she no lon,er maintains substantial !onne!tions( That /ould ha0e !aused a fundamental unfairness to her( Aoreo0er, b. hearin, the !ase in the )hilippines no unne!essar. diffi!ulties and in!on0enien!e ha0e been sho/n b. either of the parties( The !hoi!e of forum of the plaintiff =no/ pri0ate respondent> should be upheld( Similarl., the trial !ourt also possesses Burisdi!tion o0er the persons of the parties herein( ;. filin, her Complaint and "mended Complaint /ith the trial !ourt, pri0ate respondent has 0oluntar. submitted herself to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt( The re!ords sho/ that petitioner S"7 8" has filed se0eral motions pra.in, for the dismissal of AoradaDs "mended Complaint( S"7 8" also filed an "ns/er 8n x A!undante Cautelam dated -ebruar. 2#, 1995( <hat is 0er. patent and e9pli!it from the motions filed, is that S"7 8" pra.ed for other reliefs under the premises( 7ndeniabl., petitioner S"7 8" has effe!ti0el. submitted to the trial !ourtDs Burisdi!tion b. pra.in, for the dismissal of the "mended Complaint on ,rounds other than la!k of Burisdi!tion(
[5#]

"s held b. this Court in Repu!lic vs. "er and Compan#, $td.4

[51]

5<e obser0e that the motion to dismiss filed on "pril 14, 19$2, aside from disputin, the lo/er !ourtDs Burisdi!tion o0er defendantDs person, pra.ed for dismissal of the !omplaint on the ,round that plaintiffDs !ause of a!tion has pres!ribed( ;. interposin, su!h se!ond ,round in its motion to dismiss, Cer and Co(, ?td( a0ailed of an affirmati0e defense on the basis of /hi!h it pra.ed the !ourt to resol0e !ontro0ers. in its fa0or( -or the !ourt to 0alidl. de!ide the said plea of defendant Cer O Co(, ?td(, it ne!essaril. had to a!3uire Burisdi!tion upon the latterDs person, /ho, bein, the proponent of the affirmati0e defense, should be deemed to ha0e abandoned its spe!ial appearan!e and 0oluntaril. submitted itself to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt(G

Similarl., the !ase of %e &id'el# vs. (erandos, held that4

5<hen the appearan!e is b. motion for the purpose of obBe!tin, to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt o0er the person, it must be for the sole and separate purpose of obBe!tin, to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt( 8f his motion is for an. other purpose than to obBe!t to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt o0er his person, he thereb. submits himself to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt( " spe!ial appearan!e b. motion made for the purpose of obBe!tin, to the Burisdi!tion of the !ourt o0er the person /ill be held to be a ,eneral appearan!e, if the part. in said motion should, for e9ample, ask for a dismissal of the a!tion upon the further ,round that the !ourt had no Burisdi!tion o0er the subBe!t matter(G
[52]

Clearl., petitioner had submitted to the Burisdi!tion of the Re,ional Trial Court of 1ue:on Cit.( Thus, /e find that the trial !ourt has Burisdi!tion o0er the !ase and that its e9er!ise thereof, Bustified( "s to the !hoi!e of appli!able la/, /e note that !hoi!e&of&la/ problems seek to ans/er t/o important 3uestions4 =1> <hat le,al s.stem should !ontrol a ,i0en situation /here some of the si,nifi!ant fa!ts o!!urred in t/o or more statesF and =2> to /hat e9tent should the !hosen le,al s.stem re,ulate the situation(
[5%]

Se0eral theories ha0e been propounded in order to identif. the le,al s.stem that should ultimatel. !ontrol( "lthou,h ideall., all !hoi!e&of&la/ theories should intrinsi!all. ad0an!e both notions of Busti!e and predi!tabilit., the. do not al/a.s do so( The forum is then fa!ed /ith the problem of de!idin, /hi!h of these t/o important 0alues should be stressed(
[54]

;efore a !hoi!e !an be made, it is ne!essar. for us to determine under /hat !ate,or. a !ertain set of fa!ts or rules fall( This pro!ess is kno/n as 5!hara!teri:ationG, or the 5do!trine of 3ualifi!ationG( 8t is the 5pro!ess of de!idin, /hether or not the fa!ts relate to the kind of 3uestion spe!ified in a !onfli!ts rule(G The purpose of 5!hara!teri:ationG is to enable the forum to sele!t the proper la/(
[55] [5$]

+ur startin, point of anal.sis here is not a le,al relation, but a fa!tual situation, e0ent, or operati0e fa!t( "n essential element of !onfli!t rules is the indi!ation of a 5testG or 5!onne!tin, fa!torG or 5point of !onta!tG( Choi!e&of&la/ rules in0ariabl. !onsist of a fa!tual relationship =su!h as propert. ri,ht, !ontra!t !laim> and a !onne!tin, fa!tor or point of !onta!t, su!h as the situs of the res, the pla!e of !elebration, the pla!e of performan!e, or the pla!e of /ron,doin,(
[57] [52]

*ote that one or more !ir!umstan!es ma. be present to ser0e as the possible test for the determination of the appli!able la/( These 5test fa!torsG or 5points of !onta!tG or 5!onne!tin, fa!torsG !ould be an. of the follo/in,4
[59]

5=1> The nationalit. of a person, his domi!ile, his residen!e, his pla!e of soBourn, or his ori,inF =2> the seat of a le,al or Buridi!al person, su!h as a !orporationF

=%> the situs of a thin,, that is, the pla!e /here a thin, is, or is deemed to be situated( 8n parti!ular, the lex situs is de!isi0e /hen real ri,hts are in0ol0edF =4> t'e )/!ce 4'ere !" !ct '!( bee" #o"e, t'e locus actus, (-c' !( t'e )/!ce 4'ere ! co"tr!ct '!( bee" 5!#e, ! 5!rr&!+e ce/ebr!te#, ! 4&// (&+"e# or ! tort co55&tte#. T'e lex loci actus &( )!rt&c-/!r/* &5)ort!"t &" co"tr!ct( !"# tort(6 =5> the pla!e /here an a!t is intended to !ome into effe!t, e(,(, the pla!e of performan!e of !ontra!tual duties, or the pla!e /here a po/er of attorne. is to be e9er!isedF =$> the intention of the !ontra!tin, parties as to the la/ that should ,o0ern their a,reement, the lex loci intentionisF =7> the pla!e /here Budi!ial or administrati0e pro!eedin,s are instituted or done( The lex foriNthe la/ of the forumNis parti!ularl. important be!ause, as /e ha0e seen earlier, matters of Jpro!edureD not ,oin, to the substan!e of the !laim in0ol0ed are ,o0erned b. itF and be!ause the lex fori applies /hene0er the !ontent of the other/ise appli!able forei,n la/ is e9!luded from appli!ation in a ,i0en !ase for the reason that it falls under one of the e9!eptions to the appli!ations of forei,n la/F and
=2> the fla, of a ship, /hi!h in man. !ases is de!isi0e of pra!ti!all. all le,al relationships of the ship and of its master or o/ner as su!h( 8t also !o0ers !ontra!tual relationships parti!ularl. !ontra!ts of affrei,htment(G =7nders!orin, ours(>
[$#]

"fter a !areful stud. of the pleadin,s on re!ord, in!ludin, alle,ations in the "mended Complaint deemed submitted for purposes of the motion to dismiss, /e are !on0in!ed that there is reasonable basis for pri0ate respondentDs assertion that althou,h she /as alread. /orkin, in Aanila, petitioner brou,ht her to 6eddah on the pretense that she /ould merel. testif. in an in0esti,ation of the !har,es she made a,ainst the t/o S"7 8" !re/ members for the atta!k on her person /hile the. /ere in 6akarta( "s it turned out, she /as the one made to fa!e trial for 0er. serious !har,es, in!ludin, adulter. and 0iolation of 8slami! la/s and tradition( There is like/ise lo,i!al basis on re!ord for the !laim that the 5handin, o0erG or 5turnin, o0erG of the person of pri0ate respondent to 6eddah offi!ials, petitioner ma. ha0e a!ted be.ond its duties as emplo.er( )etitionerDs purported a!t !ontributed to and amplified or e0en pro9imatel. !aused additional humiliation, miser. and sufferin, of pri0ate respondent( )etitioner thereb. alle,edl. fa!ilitated the arrest, detention and prose!ution of pri0ate respondent under the ,uise of petitionerDs authorit. as emplo.er, takin, ad0anta,e of the trust, !onfiden!e and faith she reposed upon it( "s purportedl. found b. the )rin!e of Aakkah, the alle,ed !on0i!tion and imprisonment of pri0ate

respondent /as /ron,ful( ;ut these !apped the inBur. or harm alle,edl. infli!ted upon her person and reputation, for /hi!h petitioner !ould be liable as !laimed, to pro0ide !ompensation or redress for the /ron,s done, on!e dul. pro0en( Considerin, that the !omplaint in the !ourt a quo is one in0ol0in, torts, the 5!onne!tin, fa!torG or 5point of !onta!tG !ould be the pla!e or pla!es /here the tortious !ondu!t or lex loci actus o!!urred( "nd appl.in, the torts prin!iple in a !onfli!ts !ase, /e find that the )hilippines !ould be said as a situs of the tort =the pla!e /here the alle,ed tortious !ondu!t took pla!e>( This is be!ause it is in the )hilippines /here petitioner alle,edl. de!ei0ed pri0ate respondent, a -ilipina residin, and /orkin, here( "!!ordin, to her, she had honestl. belie0ed that petitioner /ould, in the e9er!ise of its ri,hts and in the performan!e of its duties, 5a!t /ith Busti!e, ,i0e her her due and obser0e honest. and ,ood faith(G 8nstead, petitioner failed to prote!t her, she !laimed( That !ertain a!ts or parts of the inBur. alle,edl. o!!urred in another !ountr. is of no moment( -or in our 0ie/ /hat is important here is the pla!e /here the o0er&all harm or the fatalit. of the alle,ed inBur. to the person, reputation, so!ial standin, and human ri,hts of !omplainant, had lod,ed, a!!ordin, to the plaintiff belo/ =herein pri0ate respondent>( "ll told, it is not /ithout basis to identif. the )hilippines as the situs of the alle,ed tort( Aoreo0er, /ith the /idespread !riti!ism of the traditional rule of lex loci delicti commissi, modern theories and rules on tort liabilit. ha0e been ad0an!ed to offer fresh Budi!ial approa!hes to arri0e at Bust results( 8n keepin, abreast /ith the modern theories on tort liabilit., /e find here an o!!asion to appl. the 5State of the most si,nifi!ant relationshipG rule, /hi!h in our 0ie/ should be appropriate to appl. no/, ,i0en the fa!tual !onte9t of this !ase(
[$1]

8n appl.in, said prin!iple to determine the State /hi!h has the most si,nifi!ant relationship, the follo/in, !onta!ts are to be taken into a!!ount and e0aluated a!!ordin, to their relati0e importan!e /ith respe!t to the parti!ular issue4 =a> the pla!e /here the inBur. o!!urredF =b> the pla!e /here the !ondu!t !ausin, the inBur. o!!urredF =!> the domi!ile, residen!e, nationalit., pla!e of in!orporation and pla!e of business of the parties, and =d> the pla!e /here the relationship, if an., bet/een the parties is !entered(
[$2]

"s alread. dis!ussed, there is basis for the !laim that o0er&all inBur. o!!urred and lod,ed in the )hilippines( There is like/ise no 3uestion that pri0ate respondent is a resident -ilipina national, /orkin, /ith petitioner, a resident forei,n !orporation en,a,ed here in the business of international air !arria,e( Thus, the 5relationshipG bet/een the parties /as !entered here, althou,h it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere labor la/ 0iolations( -rom the re!ord, the !laim that the )hilippines has the most si,nifi!ant !onta!t /ith the matter in this dispute, raised b. pri0ate respondent as plaintiff belo/ a,ainst defendant =herein petitioner>, in our 0ie/, has been properl. established(
[$%]

)res!indin, from this premise that the )hilippines is the situs of the tort !omplaint of and the pla!e 5ha0in, the most interest in the problemG, /e find, b. /a. of re!apitulation, that the )hilippine la/ on tort liabilit. should ha0e paramount appli!ation to and !ontrol in the resolution of the le,al issues arisin, out of this !ase( -urther, /e

hold that the respondent Re,ional Trial Court has Burisdi!tion o0er the parties and the subBe!t matter of the !omplaintF the appropriate 0enue is in 1ue:on Cit., /hi!h !ould properl. appl. )hilippine la/( Aoreo0er, /e find untenable petitionerDs insisten!e that 5[s]in!e pri0ate respondent instituted this suit, she has the burden of pleadin, and pro0in, the appli!able Saudi la/ on the matter(G "s aptl. said b. pri0ate respondent, she has 5no obli,ation to plead and pro0e the la/ of the Cin,dom of Saudi "rabia sin!e her !ause of a!tion is based on "rti!les 19 and 21G of the Ci0il Code of the )hilippines( 8n her "mended Complaint and subse3uent pleadin,s she ne0er alle,ed that Saudi la/ should ,o0ern this !ase( "nd as !orre!tl. held b. the respondent appellate !ourt, 5!onsiderin, that it /as the petitioner /ho /as in0okin, the appli!abilit. of the la/ of Saudi "rabia, thus the burden /as on it [petitioner] to plead and to establish /hat the la/ of Saudi "rabia isG(
[$4] [$5] [$$]

?astl., no error !ould be imputed to the respondent appellate !ourt in upholdin, the trial !ourtDs denial of defendantDs =herein petitionerDs> motion to dismiss the !ase( *ot onl. /as Burisdi!tion in order and 0enue properl. laid, but appeal after trial /as ob0iousl. a0ailable, and the e9peditious trial itself indi!ated b. the nature of the !ase at hand( 8ndubitabl., the )hilippines is the state intimatel. !on!erned /ith the ultimate out!ome of the !ase belo/ not Bust for the benefit of all the liti,ants, but also for the 0indi!ation of the !ountr.Ds s.stem of la/ and Busti!e in a transnational settin,( <ith these ,uidelines in mind, the trial !ourt must pro!eed to tr. and adBud,e the !ase in the li,ht of rele0ant )hilippine la/, /ith due !onsideration of the forei,n element or elements in0ol0ed( *othin, said herein, of !ourse, should be !onstrued as preBud,in, the results of the !ase in an. manner /hatsoe0er( 7$EREFORE, the instant petition for !ertiorari is hereb. 8SA8SS@ ( Ci0il Case *o( 1&9%&12%94 entitled 5Aila,ros )( Aorada vs( Saudi "rabia "irlinesG is hereb. R@A"* @ to Re,ional Trial Court of 1ue:on Cit., ;ran!h 29 for further pro!eedin,s( SO ORDERED.
Republi! of the )hilippines SUPRE E COURT Aanila FIRST DI8ISION [G.R. No. 129:;1. No<e5ber 2:, 2===] PAULA T. LLORENTE, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS !"# ALICIA F. LLORENTE, Respondents. DECISION PARDO, J.2 The Case The !ase raises a !onfli!t of la/s issue( <hat is before us is an appeal from the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals[1] modif.in, that of the Re,ional Trial Court, Camarines Sur, ;ran!h %5, 8ri,a Cit.de!larin, respondent "li!ia -( ?lorente =herinafter referred to as "li!ia>, as !o&o/ners of /hate0er propert. she and the de!eased ?oren:o *( ?lorente

=hereinafter referred to as ?oren:o> ma. ha0e a!3uired durin, the t/ent.&fi0e =25> .ears that the. li0ed to,ether as husband and /ife( The -a!ts The de!eased ?oren:o *( ?lorente /as an enlisted ser0i!eman of the 7nited States *a0. from Aar!h 1#, 1927 to September %#, 1957( +n -ebruar. 22, 19%7, ?oren:o and petitioner )aula ?lorente =hereinafter referred to as )aula> /ere married before a parish priest, Roman Catholi! Chur!h, in *abua, Camarines Sur( ;efore the outbreak of the )a!ifi! <ar, ?oren:o departed for the 7nited States and )aula sta.ed in the !onBu,al home in barrio "ntipolo, *abua, Camarines Sur( +n *o0ember %#, 194%, ?oren:o /as admitted to 7nited States !iti:enship and Certifi!ate of *aturali:ation *o( 557921$ /as issued in his fa0or b. the 7nited States of *e/ Eork( 7pon the liberation of the )hilippines b. the "meri!an -or!es in 1945, ?oren:o /as ,ranted an a!!rued lea0e b. the 7( S( *a0., to 0isit his /ife and he 0isited the )hilippines([7] Ie dis!o0ered that his /ife )aula /as pre,nant and /as li0in, in and ha0in, an adulterous relationship /ith his brother, Ceferino ?lorente( +n e!ember 4, 1945, )aula ,a0e birth to a bo. re,istered in the +ffi!e of the Re,istrar of *abua as istri!t Court, Southern istri!t

Crisolo,o ?lorente, /ith the !ertifi!ate statin, that the !hild /as not le,itimate and the line for the fatherDs name /as left blank( ?oren:o refused to for,i0e )aula and li0e /ith her( 8n fa!t, on -ebruar. 2, 194$, the !ouple dre/ a /ritten a,reement to the effe!t that =1> all the famil. allo/an!es allotted b. the 7nited States *a0. as part of ?oren:os salar. and all other obli,ations for )aulas dail. maintenan!e and support /ould be suspendedF =2> the. /ould dissol0e their marital union in a!!ordan!e /ith Budi!ial pro!eedin,sF =%> the. /ould make a separate a,reement re,ardin, their !onBu,al propert. a!3uired durin, their marital lifeF and =4> ?oren:o /ould not prose!ute )aula for her adulterous a!t sin!e she 0oluntaril. admitted her fault and a,reed to separate from ?oren:o pea!efull.( The a,reement /as si,ned b. both ?oren:o and )aula and /as /itnessed b. )aulas father and stepmother( The a,reement /as notari:ed b. *otar. )ubli! )edro +sabel( ?oren:o returned to the 7nited States and on *o0ember 1$, 1951 filed for di0or!e /ith the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the Count. of San State of California, for the Count. of San interlo!utor. Bud,ment of di0or!e( ie,o( )aula /as represented b. !ounsel, 6ohn Rile., and a!ti0el. parti!ipated in the pro!eedin,s( +n *o0ember 27, 1951, the Superior Court of the ie,o found all fa!tual alle,ations to be true and issued an

+n e!ember 4, 1952, the di0or!e de!ree be!ame final( 8n the meantime, ?oren:o returned to the )hilippines( +n 6anuar. 1$, 1952, ?oren:o married "li!ia -( ?lorente in Aanila( "pparentl., "li!ia had no kno/led,e of the first marria,e e0en if the. resided in the same to/n as )aula, /ho did not oppose the marria,e or !ohabitation( -rom 1952 to 1925, ?oren:o and "li!ia li0ed to,ether as husband and /ife([15] Their t/ent.&fi0e =25> .ear union produ!ed three !hildren, Raul, ?u: and ;e0erl., all surnamed ?lorente( +n Aar!h 1%, 1921, ?oren:o e9e!uted a ?ast <ill and Testament( The /ill /as notari:ed b. *otar. )ubli! Sal0ador A( +!!iano, dul. si,ned b. ?oren:o /ith attestin, /itnesses -ran!is!o Iu,o, -ran!is!o *eibres and Tito TraBano( 8n the /ill, ?oren:o be3ueathed all his propert. to "li!ia and their three !hildren, to /it4 =1> 8 ,i0e and be3ueath to m. /ife "?8C8" R( -+RT7*+ e9!lusi0el. m. residential house and lot, lo!ated at San -ran!is!o, *abua, Camarines Sur, )hilippines, in!ludin, "?? the personal properties and other mo0ables or belon,in,s that ma. be found or e9istin, thereinF =2> 8 ,i0e and be3ueath e9!lusi0el. to m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortuno and to m. !hildren, Raul -( ?lorente, ?u: -( ?lorente and ;e0erl. -( ?lorente, in e3ual shares, all m. real properties /hatsoe0er and /heresoe0er lo!ated, spe!ifi!all. m. real properties lo!ated at ;aran,a. "ro&"ldao, *abua, Camarines SurF ;aran,a. )alo.on, *abua, Camarines SurF ;aran,a. ;aras, Sitio )u,a, *abua, Camarines SurF and ;aran,a. )alo.on, Sitio *alilidon,, *abua, Camarines SurF =%> 8 like/ise ,i0e and be3ueath e9!lusi0el. unto m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortuno and unto m. !hildren, Raul -( ?lorente, ?u: -( ?lorente and ;e0erl. -( ?lorente, in e3ual shares, m. real properties lo!ated in 1ue:on Cit. )hilippines, and !o0ered b. Transfer Certifi!ate of Title *o( 122$52F and m. lands in "ntipolo, Ri:al, )hilippines, !o0ered b. Transfer Certifi!ate of Title *os( 12419$ and 1$5122, both of the Re,istr. of eeds of the pro0in!e of Ri:al, )hilippinesF =4> That their respe!ti0e shares in the abo0e&mentioned properties, /hether real or personal properties, shall not be disposed of, !eded, sold and !on0e.ed to an. other persons, but !ould onl. be sold, !eded, !on0e.ed and disposed of b. and amon, themsel0esF =5> 8 desi,nate m. /ife "?8C8" R( -+RT7*+ to be the sole e9e!utor of this m. ?ast <ill and Testament, and in her default or in!apa!it. of the latter to a!t, an. of m. !hildren in the order of a,e, if of a,eF =$> 8 hereb. dire!t that the e9e!utor named herein or her la/ful substitute should ser0ed = sic> /ithout bondF =7> 8 hereb. re0oke an. and all m. other /ills, !odi!ils, or testamentar. dispositions heretofore e9e!uted, si,ned, or published, b. meF

=2> 8t is m. final /ish and desire that if 8 die, no relati0es of mine in an. de,ree in the ?lorentes Side should e0er bother and disturb in an. manner /hatsoe0er m. /ife "li!ia R( -ortunato and m. !hildren /ith respe!t to an. real or personal properties 8 ,a0e and be3ueathed respe!ti0el. to ea!h one of them b. 0irtue of this ?ast <ill and Testament +n e!ember 14, 192%, ?oren:o filed /ith the Re,ional Trial Court, 8ri,a, Camarines Sur, a petition for

the probate and allo/an!e of his last /ill and testament /herein ?oren:o mo0ed that "li!ia be appointed Spe!ial "dministratri9 of his estate( +n 6anuar. 12, 1924, the trial !ourt denied the motion for the reason that the testator ?oren:o /as still ali0e( +n 6anuar. 24, 1924, findin, that the /ill /as dul. e9e!uted, the trial !ourt admitted the /ill to probate( +n 6une 11, 1925, before the pro!eedin,s !ould be terminated, ?oren:o died( +n September 4, 1925, )aula filed /ith the same !ourt a petition[22] for letters of administration o0er ?oren:os estate in her fa0or( )aula !ontended =1> that she /as ?oren:os sur0i0in, spouse, =2> that the 0arious propert. /ere a!3uired durin, their marria,e, =%> that ?oren:os /ill disposed of all his propert. in fa0or of "li!ia and her !hildren, en!roa!hin, on her le,itime and 1H2 share in the !onBu,al propert.( +n e!ember 1%, 1925, "li!ia filed in the testate pro!eedin, =Sp( )ro!( *o( 8R&755>, a petition for the

issuan!e of letters testamentar.( +n +!tober 14, 1925, /ithout terminatin, the testate pro!eedin,s, the trial !ourt ,a0e due !ourse to )aulas petition in Sp( )ro!( *o( 8R&222( +n *o0ember $, 1% and 2#, 1925, the order /as published in the ne/spaper ;i!ol Star( +n Aa. 12, 1927, the Re,ional Trial Court issued a Boint de!ision, thus4 <herefore, !onsiderin, that this !ourt has so found that the di0or!e de!ree ,ranted to the late ?oren:o ?lorente is 0oid and inappli!able in the )hilippines, therefore the marria,e he !ontra!ted /ith "li!ia -ortunato on 6anuar. 1$, 1952 at Aanila is like/ise 0oid( This bein, so the petition of "li!ia -( ?lorente for the issuan!e of letters testamentar. is denied( ?ike/ise, she is not entitled to re!ei0e an. share from the estate e0en if the /ill espe!iall. said so her relationship /ith ?oren:o ha0in, ,ained the status of paramour /hi!h is under "rt( 7%9 =1>( +n the other hand, the !ourt finds the petition of )aula Titular ?lorente, meritorious, and so de!lares the intrinsi! disposition of the /ill of ?oren:o ?lorente dated Aar!h 1%, 1921 as 0oid and de!lares her entitled as !onBu,al partner and entitled to one&half of their !onBu,al properties, and as primar. !ompulsor. heir, )aula T( ?lorente is also entitled to one&third of the estate and then one&third should ,o to the ille,itimate

!hildren, Raul, ?u: and ;e0erl., all surname = sic> ?lorente, for them to partition in e3ual shares and also entitled to the remainin, free portion in e3ual shares( )etitioner, )aula ?lorente is appointed le,al administrator of the estate of the de!eased, ?oren:o ?lorente( "s su!h let the !orrespondin, letters of administration issue in her fa0or upon her filin, a bond in the amount =sic> of )1##,###(## !onditioned for her to make a return to the !ourt /ithin three =%> months a true and !omplete in0entor. of all ,oods, !hattels, ri,hts, and !redits, and estate /hi!h shall at an. time !ome to her possession or to the possession of an. other person for her, and from the pro!eeds to pa. and dis!har,e all debts, le,a!ies and !har,es on the same, or su!h di0idends thereon as shall be de!reed or re3uired b. this !ourtF to render a true and Bust a!!ount of her administration to the !ourt /ithin one =1> .ear, and at an. other time /hen re3uired b. the !ourt and to perform all orders of this !ourt b. her to be performed( +n the other matters pra.ed for in respe!ti0e petitions for /ant of e0iden!e !ould not be ,ranted( S+ +R @R@ ( 8n time, "li!ia filed /ith the trial !ourt a motion for re!onsideration of the afore3uoted de!ision( +n September 14, 1927, the trial !ourt denied "li!ias motion for re!onsideration but modified its earlier de!ision, statin, that Raul and ?u: ?lorente are not !hildren le,itimate or other/ise of ?oren:o sin!e the. /ere not le,all. adopted b. him( "mendin, its de!ision of Aa. 12, 1927, the trial !ourt de!lared ;e0erl. ?lorente as the onl. ille,itimate !hild of ?oren:o, entitlin, her to one&third =1H%> of the estate and one&third =1H%> of the free portion of the estate( +n September 22, 1927, respondent appealed to the Court of "ppeals([%1] +n 6ul. %1, 1995, the Court of "ppeals promul,ated its de!ision, affirmin, /ith modifi!ation the de!ision of the trial !ourt in this /ise4 <I@R@-+R@, the de!ision appealed from is hereb. "--8RA@ fi0e =25> .ears of !ohabitation( S+ +R @R@ ( +n "u,ust 25, 1995, petitioner filed /ith the Court of "ppeals a motion for re!onsideration of the de!ision( +n Aar!h 21, 199$, the Court of "ppeals, denied the motion for la!k of merit( Ien!e, this petition( The 8ssue /ith the A+ 8-8C"T8+* that "li!ia is

de!lared as !o&o/ner of /hate0er properties she and the de!eased ma. ha0e a!3uired durin, the t/ent.&

Strippin, the petition of its le,alese and sortin, throu,h the 0arious ar,uments raised,[%$] the issue is simple( <ho are entitled to inherit from the late ?oren:o *( ?lorenteP <e do not a,ree /ith the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals( <e remand the !ase to the trial !ourt for rulin, on the intrinsi! 0alidit. of the /ill of the de!eased( The "ppli!able ?a/ The fa!t that the late ?oren:o *( ?lorente be!ame an "meri!an !iti:en lon, before and at the time of4 =1> his di0or!e from )aulaF =2> marria,e to "li!iaF =%> e9e!ution of his /illF and =4> death, is dul. established, admitted and undisputed( Thus, as a rule, issues arisin, from these in!idents are ne!essaril. ,o0erned b. forei,n la/( The Ci0il Code !learl. pro0ides4 "rt( 15( ?a/s relatin, to famil. ri,hts and duties, or to the status, !ondition and le,al !apa!it. of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, e0en thou,h li0in, abroad( "rt( 1$( Real propert. as /ell as personal propert. is subBe!t to the la/ of the !ountr. /here it is situated( Io/e0er, intestate and testamentar. su!!ession, both /ith respe!t to the order of su!!ession and to the amount of su!!essional ri,hts and to the intrinsi! 0alidit. of testamentar. pro0isions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration , /hate0er ma. be the nature of the propert. and re,ardless of the !ountr. /herein said propert. ma. be found( = emphasis ours> True, forei,n la/s do not pro0e themsel0es in our Burisdi!tion and our !ourts are not authori:ed to take Budi!ial noti!e of them( ?ike an. other fa!t, the. must be alle,ed and pro0ed( <hile the substan!e of the forei,n la/ /as pleaded, the Court of "ppeals did not admit the forei,n la/( The Court of "ppeals and the trial !ourt !alled to the fore the renvoi do!trine, /here the !ase /as referred ba!k to the la/ of the de!edents domi!ile, in this !ase, )hilippine la/( <e note that /hile the trial !ourt stated that the la/ of *e/ Eork /as not suffi!ientl. pro0en, in the same breath it made the !ate,ori!al, albeit e3uall. unpro0en statement that "meri!an la/ follo/s the domi!iliar. theor. hen!e, )hilippine la/ applies /hen determinin, the 0alidit. of ?oren:os /ill([%2] F&r(t, there is no su!h thin, as one "meri!an la/( The 5national la/G indi!ated in "rti!le 1$ of the Ci0il Code !annot possibl. appl. to ,eneral "meri!an la/( There is no su!h la/ ,o0ernin, the 0alidit. of testamentar. pro0isions in the 7nited States( @a!h State of the union has its o/n la/ appli!able to its !iti:ens and in for!e onl. /ithin the State( 8t !an therefore refer to no other than the la/ of the State of /hi!h the de!edent /as a resident([%9] Seco"#, there is no sho/in, that the appli!ation of the renvoi do!trine is !alled for or re3uired b. *e/ Eork State la/( The trial !ourt held that the /ill /as intrinsi!all. in0alid sin!e it !ontained dispositions in fa0or of "li!e, /ho in the trial !ourts opinion /as a mere paramour( The trial !ourt thre/ the /ill out, lea0in, "li!e, and her t/o !hildren, Raul and ?u:, /ith nothin,(

The Court of "ppeals also disre,arded the /ill( 8t de!lared "li!e entitled to one half =1H2> of /hate0er propert. she and ?oren:o a!3uired durin, their !ohabitation, appl.in, "rti!le 144 of the Ci0il Code of the )hilippines( The hast. appli!ation of )hilippine la/ and the !omplete disre,ard of the /ill, alread. probated as dul. e9e!uted in a!!ordan!e /ith the formalities of )hilippine la/, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining( Lalidit. of the -orei,n i0or!e

8n )an %orn v. Romillo, *r([4#] /e held that o/in, to the nationalit. prin!iple embodied in "rti!le 15 of the Ci0il Code, onl. )hilippine nationals are !o0ered b. the poli!. a,ainst absolute di0or!es, the same bein, !onsidered !ontrar. to our !on!ept of publi! poli!. and moralit.( 8n the same !ase, the Court ruled that aliens ma. obtain di0or!es abroad, pro0ided the. are 0alid a!!ordin, to their national la/( Citin, this landmark !ase, the Court held in +uita v. Court of Appeals ,[41] that on!e pro0en that respondent /as no lon,er a -ilipino !iti:en /hen he obtained the di0or!e from petitioner, the rulin, in )an %orn /ould be!ome appli!able and petitioner !ould 0er. /ell lose her ri,ht to inherit from him( 8n Pilapil v. ,!a#-.omera,[42] /e re!o,ni:ed the di0or!e obtained b. the respondent in his !ountr., the -ederal Republi! of 'erman.( There, /e stated that di0or!e and its le,al effe!ts ma. be re!o,ni:ed in the )hilippines insofar as respondent is !on!erned in 0ie/ of the nationalit. prin!iple in our !i0il la/ on the status of persons( -or failin, to appl. these do!trines, the de!ision of the Court of "ppeals must be re0ersed([4%] <e hold that the di0or!e obtained b. ?oren:o I( ?lorente from his first /ife )aula /as 0alid and re!o,ni:ed in this Burisdi!tion as a matter of !omit.( *o/, the effe!ts of this di0or!e =as to the su!!ession to the estate of the de!edent> are matters best left to the determination of the trial !ourt( Lalidit. of the <ill The Ci0il Code pro0ides4 "rt( 17( The forms and solemnities of !ontra!ts, /ills, and other publi! instruments shall be ,o0erned b. the la/s of the country in which they are executed <hen the a!ts referred to are e9e!uted before the diplomati! or !onsular offi!ials of the Republi! of the )hilippines in a forei,n !ountr., the solemnities established b. )hilippine la/s shall be obser0ed in their e9e!ution( =underscorin' ours> The !lear intent of ?oren:o to be3ueath his propert. to his se!ond /ife and !hildren b. her is ,larin,l. sho/n in the /ill he e9e!uted( <e do not /ish to frustrate his /ishes, sin!e he /as a forei,ner, not !o0ered b. our la/s on famil. ri,hts and duties, status, !ondition and le,al !apa!it.( <hether the /ill is intrinsi!all. 0alid and /ho shall inherit from ?oren:o are issues best pro0ed b. forei,n la/ /hi!h must be pleaded and pro0ed( <hether the /ill /as e9e!uted in a!!ordan!e /ith the formalities re3uired is ans/ered b. referrin, to )hilippine la/( 8n fa!t, the /ill /as dul. probated(

"s a ,uide ho/e0er, the trial !ourt should note that /hate0er publi! poli!. or ,ood !ustoms ma. be in0ol0ed in our s.stem of le,itimes, Con,ress did not intend to e9tend the same to the su!!ession of forei,n nationals( Con,ress spe!ifi!all. left the amount of su!!essional ri,hts to the de!edentDs national la/([45] Ia0in, thus ruled, /e find it unne!essar. to pass upon the other issues raised( The -allo 7$EREFORE, the petition is 'R"*T@ ( The de!ision of the Court of "ppeals in C"&'( R( S) *o( 1744$ promul,ated on 6ul. %1, 1995 is S@T "S8 @( 8n lieu thereof, the Court R@L@RS@S the de!ision of the Re,ional Trial Court and R@C+'*8K@S as L"?8 the de!ree of di0or!e ,ranted in fa0or of the de!eased ?oren:o *( ?lorente b. the Superior Court ie,o, made final on e!ember 4, 1952( of the State of California in and for the Count. of San

-urther, the Court R@A"* S the !ases to the !ourt of ori,in for determination of the intrinsi! 0alidit. of ?oren:o *( ?lorentes /ill and determination of the parties su!!essional ri,hts allo/in, proof of forei,n la/ /ith instru!tions that the trial !ourt shall pro!eed /ith all deliberate dispat!h to settle the estate of the de!eased /ithin the frame/ork of the Rules of Court( *o !osts( S+ +R @R@ ( Davide, Jr., C.J., Chairman!, Puno, "apunan, !"# >"!re(?S!"t&!+o, ,,., co"c-r.