I.A.

Article IV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of
the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

The 1987 Constitution, Section 1 Paragraph 3 provides:

Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority.

I.B.

No. In the Philippines, marrying someone of another race or country may allow a divorce. Divorce can take place
if the spouse from another country seeks it in their own home country. The foreigner’s country must accept the divorce for
it to be valid. In the Family Code of the Philippines, paragraph 2 of Article 26 explains that legal marriages between a
Filipino national and a non-native are genuinely recognized. A divorce must be accurately attained overseas by the non-
native spouse which is the only way to allow remarriage.

In order for a Filipino to remarry, he or she must have been in a marriage that is recognized by Filipino law,
involve a marriage between a Filipino and a non-native, and the non-native must have obtained a legally binding divorce
while overseas. In order for the divorce to be legally binding, it must be filed in court and accepted there. If this process is
followed, both parties are free to remarry.

II.A.

No. A person’s ability to act with legal effects is governed by his personal law. One’s personal law is viewed as
best qualified to decide what restrictions should be imposed on the individual. Rules on capacity of an individual to bind
him apply.

II.B.

No. Because although the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in this country, being a treaty
commitment assumed by the Philippine government, said convention does not operate as an exclusive enumeration of the
instances for declaring a carrier liable for breach of contract of carriage or as an absolute limit of the extent of that liability.
The Warsaw Convention declares the carrier liable for damages in the enumerated cases and under certain limitations.
However, it must not be construed to preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. It does not
regulate, much less exempt, the carrier from liability for damages for violating the rights of its passengers under the
contract of carriage, 12 especially if willful misconduct on the part of the carrier's employees is found or established, which
is clearly the case before Us. For, the Warsaw Convention itself provides in Art. 25 that —

(1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this convention which exclude or limit his
liability, if the damage is caused by his willful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the
law of the court to which the case is submitted, is considered to be equivalent to willful misconduct.

(2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused under the
same circumstances by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment.

When petitioner airline misplaced respondent's luggage and failed to deliver it to its passenger at the appointed
place and time, some special species of injury must have been caused to him. For sure, the latter underwent profound
distress and anxiety, and the fear of losing the opportunity to fulfill the purpose of his trip. In fact, for want of appropriate
clothings for the occasion brought about by the delay of the arrival of his luggage, to his embarrassment and
consternation respondent Alcantara had to seek postponement of his pre-arranged conference with the Director General
of Trade of the host country.

In one case, 13 this Court observed that a traveller would naturally suffer mental anguish, anxiety and shock when
he finds that his luggage did not travel with him and he finds himself in a foreign land without any article of clothing other
than what he has on.

Thus, respondent is entitled to moral and exemplary damages.

III.A.

The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam means that movable follow the law of the person.
 III.B.

V.A.

Doctrine of Processual Presumption means that the foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the
proponent thereof, otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of the forum.

V.B.