Article 17|1st Case

Germann and Co. v. Donaldson, Sim and Co. 1 Phil. 63

G.R. No. L-22595 November 1, 1927

FACTS:

A power of attorney was executed in Germany giving the recipient authority to bring an action in the
Philippines. Said power of attorney was not authenticated by a notary public. In Germany, no such
authentication was needed, contrary to Philippine rules.

Max Leonard Tornow, a German citizen who reside in Berlin and the sole owner of Germann & Co., it is a
German company which has as office in Berlin which has a business operations in Germany and Manila. On 5
February 5. 1900, Tornow executed an instrument conferring several powers of attorney in favor of Fernando
Kammarzell, a German citizen who resides in Manila. On October, 27 1900, Tornow executed a general power
for suits to substitute for the first instrument conferring power to Kammarzell. Under this instrument,
Kammarzell sued Donaldson, Sim & Co. for recovery of a sum of money. Donaldson, Sim & Co claimed that the
original power cannot be construed as conferring to Kammarzell the authority to institute a suit since under Art
1713 of the Civil Code an agency stated in general terms only includes acts of administration and that in order to
alienate, mortgage or execute any other act of strict ownership an express commission is required.

Issue: Whether or not the Kammarzell has the power/authority to institute an acton on behalf ofGermann & Co.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the power of attorney properly made insofar as form was concerned?

HELD:

Yes, because it was executed in Germany. There is no reason why the lex loci celebrationis should not apply.

LawPhil source: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1901/nov1901/gr_l-439_1901.html

Article 17|2nd Case

Insular Government vs. Frank 13 Phil 236,

G.R.No.2935. March23, 1909.
FACTS:

In 1903 in the state of Illinois, Mr. Frank, a US citizen and representative of the Insular Government of the
Philippines entered into a contract whereby the former shall serve as stenographer in the Philippines for a period
of 2 years. The contract contained a provision that in case of violation of its terms, Mr. Frank shall be liable for the
amount incurred by the Philippine Government for his travel from Chicago to Manila and one-half salary paid
during such period. After serving for 6 months, defendant left the service and refused to make further compliance
with the terms of the contract, therefore the Government sued him to recover the amount of $269.23 plus
damages. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, hence the defendant appealed presenting minority as his
special defence. By reason of the fact that under the laws of the Philippines, contracts made by person who not
reach majority aged of 23 are unenforceable. Defendant claim that he is an adult when he left Chicago but was a
minor when he arrived in Manila and at the time the plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contract is valid.

HELD:

Mr. Frank being fully qualified to enter into a contract at the place and time the contract was made, he cannot
therefore plead infancy as a defence at the place where the contract is being enforced. Although Mr. Frank was
still a minor under Philippine laws, he was nevertheless considered an adult under the laws of the state of Illinois,
the place where the contract was made. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the
execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is
made. Matters connected to its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of its performance.
Although generally, capacity of the parties to enter into a contract is governed by national law. This is one case
not involving real property which was decided by our Supreme Court, where instead of national law, what should
determine capacity to enter into a contract is the lex loci celebrations. Frank’s capacity should be judged by his
national law and not by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. In the instant case whether it
is the place where the contract was made or Frank’s nationality, the result would be the same. However, as
suggested by the mentioned author, forthe conflicts rule in capacity in general, national law of the parties is
controlling
Matters respecting a remedy, such as bringing of asuit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations,
depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.

LawPhil source: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/mar1909/gr_l-2935_1909.html

Article 17|3rd Case

BARRETO GONZALES vs GONZALES

G.R. No. L-37048 March 7, 1933
FACTS:

The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the Philippines, married & lived together from January 1919 until
spring of 1926. After which they voluntary separated & have not lived together as man & wife, they had 4 minor
children together. After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her &
her children’s support of P500 (five hundred pesos) monthly which to be increased in cases of necessity & illness,
and that the title of certain properties be put in her name. Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales
(defendant), went to Reno, Nevada & secured in that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion
dated November 28, 1927. On that same date he went through the forms of marriage with another Filipino citizen
as well & had 3 children with her. When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the amount he had agreed to
pay monthly for the support of Manuela Barreto & her children & has not made the payments fixed in the Reno
divorce as alimony. Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928 and shortly after, Barreto brought an
action at the CFI-Manila requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce issued by the courts of Nevada &
invoked sec 9 of Act 2710. Such is requested to be enforced, and deliver to the Guardian ad litem the equivalent
of what would have been due to their children as their legal portion from respective estates had their parents
died intestate on November 28, 1927, they also prayed that the marriage existing between Barreto & Gonzales
be declared dissolved & Gonzales be ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel fees of P5000 & all the
expenses incurred in educating the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also filed as intervenors in the
case . After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, but reduced
the attorney’s fees to P3000 instead & also granted the costs of the action against the defendant, Hence, this
appeal by Gonzales saying that the lower court erred in their decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this
jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands would
grant a divorce?

HELD:

NO. Securing the jurisdiction of the courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in Reno, Nevada cannot be
done according to the public policy in this jurisdiction on the question of divorce.

Articles 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of the Philippines does not allow such to be done the
effect of foreign divorce in the Philippines says that litigants cannot compel the courts to approve of their own
actions or permit the personal relations of the Citizens of the Philippines to be affected by decrees of divorce of
foreign courts in manner which out government believes is contrary to public order & good morals.
Article 9
Thereof reads as follows: The laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity or persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign country.
And article 11 (Article 16 in New Civil Code)
, the last part of which reads:. . . the prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts and their property, and those
intended to promote public order and good morals, shall nor be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or
judgments or by anything done or any agreements entered into a foreign country

LawPhil source: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1933/mar1933/gr_l-37048_1933.html