a disturbance of the public order.
But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.
WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED IS IMMATERIAL; LAW OF THE FLAG GOVERNS National Development Company vs. CA, 164 SCRA 593 (1988)
FACTS:
NDC and MCP entered into an agreement by which NDC, as the first preferred mortagee of three ocean-going vessels including the one with the name “Dona Nati” appointed MCP as its agent to manage and operate said vessels in its behalf. E. Philipp Corp of New York loaded on board “Dona Nati” in San Francisco, CA, a total of 1,200 bales of American New Cotton consigned to Manila Banking Corp and the People’s Bank and Trust Co., acting for and in behalf of Pan Asiatic Commercial Co., Inc. who represents Riverside Mills Corp. The vessel figured in a collision at Ise Bay, Japan with a Japanese vessel, as a result of which the aforesaid cargo was lost and/or destroyed. Plaintiff Development and Insurance and Surety Corp, as insurer, paid to Riverside Mills Corp the amount of the damaged and lost cargo, the latter being the holder of the negotiable bills of lading duly indorsed. As a result of such payment, said insurer filed an action to recover the amount from NDC and MCP. MCP contended that it cannot be held solidarily liable with NDC because it is not a ship agent but a mere managing agent, and as such cannot be held liable if it did not exceed its authority. NDC likewise denied liability.
ISSUE: Whether or not NDC and MCP are solidarily liable with each other HELD:
NDC and MCP are solidarily liable. Where collision is imputable to the preserve of a vessel, the owner of the vessel at fault shall indemnify the losses and damages incurred after an expert appraisal. Moreover, if the collision is imputable to both vessels, each one shall bear its own damages and both shall be solidarily liable for the loss sustained by their cargoes.
The agreement between NDC and MCP shows that MCP is appointed as agent, a term broad enough to inherit the concept of shipagent in maritime law. In fact, MCP was even infused with all the powers of the owner of the vessel, including the power to contract in the name of NDC. Consequently, under the arrangements, MCP cannot escape liability. Both owner and agent should be declared jointly and severally liable since the obligation which is the subject of the action had its origin in a portion act and did not arise from contract. Consequently, the agent, even though he may not be the owner of the vessel, is liable to the shippers and miners of the cargoes transported by it.
(NOTA BENE: Although the collision occurred in foreign waters (Japan), the court applied Philippine law because the vessel was of Philippine registry. NDC and MCP are thus held to be common carriers who, by reason of public policy, are duty-bound to observe extraordinary diligence.)
4. Limited Liability Clause
The stipulation as to the amount of liability for damage to cargo is binding, unless the shipper declares a greater amount in their agreement.
DECLARATION MUST BE MADE A PART OF THE BILL OF LADING
Everett Steamship Corp. vs. CA, G.R. No. 122494, Oct. 8, 1998
FACTS:
Private respondent, Hernandez Trading Co., imported three crates of bus spare parts from its supplier, Maruman Trading Co., a foreign corporation based in Inazawa, Aichi, Japan. The crates were shipped to Manila on board a vessel owned by petitioner’s principal, Everett Orient Lines. Upon arrival in Manila, one of the crates went missing, prompting Hernandez Trading to file a formal claim in an amount equivalent to that stated in the invoice. But Everett offered to pay only the amount stipulated in the limited liability clause contained in the bill of lading, which amount is lower than that stated in the invoice.
ISSUE: Whether or not the limited liability clause in the bill of lading is valid
HELD:
SC held in the affirmative.
The questioned stipulation is reasonable and just. In the bill of lading, the carrier made it clear that its liability would only be up to Y100, 000. However, the shipper Maruman Trading had the option to declare a higher valuation if the value of its cargo was higher than the limited liability of the carrier. Considering that the shipper did not declare a higher valuation, it had itself to blame for not complying with the stipulation.
On the issue that the bill of lading is a contract of adhesion, SC ruled that such contract is not invalid per se. SC held that Maruma Trading, having been extensively engaged in trade, cannot be said to be ignorant. Everett, even if only a consignee and thus not a signatory to the contract, is bound by it. SC likened the contract of carriage to that of a contract entered in favour of a stranger (contract pour atrui). Moreover, by seeking recovery for the loss of the goods, Everett is necessarily trying to enforce the contract. So it cannot now reject the stipulation.
Lastly, the higher valuation in the invoice is irrelevant. For the shipper to recover a higher valuation, the declaration must be in writing and inserted in the bill of lading. Thus, the higher valuation in the invoice is of no moment since the same was not made a part of the bill of lading.
VII. MARRIAGE AND DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE
A. Lex Loci Celebrationis
GENERAL RULE: All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Philippines.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of his parents or guardians;
2. Those bigamous and polygamous marriages not falling under Art. 41;
3. Those contracted through mistake of one of the contracting party as to the identity of the other; 4. Those subsequent void marriages under Art. 53
5. Psychological incapacity; and
6. Marriages void by reasons of public policy:
• Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood;
• Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
• Between step-parents and step-children; • Between parents-in-law and children-in-law; • Between adopting parent and adopted child;
• Between surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child; • Between surviving spouse of the adopted child and adopting parent; • Between adopted child and legitimate child of the adopter;
• Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
• Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse
**Lex loci celebrationis applies only to the extrinsic validity of the marriage, intrinsic validity being governed by the national law of the parties. The exceptions to the general rule apply only to Filipino citizens, not to aliens.
B. Consequences of Marriage
THESE ARE:
1. Rights and obligations between husband and wife 2. Property relations between husband and wife 3. Family
4. Paternity and filiation 5. Adoption
6. Support
7. Parental authority
8. Emancipation and age of majority
9. Summary judicial proceedings in family law
GENERAL RULE: Philippine laws govern all incidents of a marriage celebrated in the Philippines.
EXCEPTION: In mixed marriages, the national law of the husband governs with regards to property relations.
C. Marriage Settlement
WHAT GOVERNS PROPERTY REGIME (In order): 1. Marriage settlement
2. Civil Code (absolute community presumed under FC) 3. Local customs
GENERAL RULE: Marriage settlement governs property regime.
EXCEPTION: Where there is no marriage settlement existing or effective, Philippine laws apply.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCEPTION: 1. Where both spouses are aliens
2. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located
3. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different formalities for its intrinsic validity
D. Foreign Marriage
PROVE:
1. Existence of the foreign law on marriage as a question of fact 2. Alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence
**Procedure is the same as proving a foreign public document. Once proven, the same acquires prima facie weight as evidence.
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE
E. Divorce
DIVORCE OBTAINED BY FILIPINO CITIZEN ABROAD NOT RECOGNIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES
Tenchavez vs. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, Nov. 29, 1965
FACTS:
Vicenta Escano, 27, and Pastor Tenchavez, 32, without knowledge of Vicenta’s parents, contracted a marriage solemnized by a Catholic chaplain. Once the parents found out, it was decided that the marriage should be re-celebrated since, according to Fr. Reynes, said marriage was invalid for lack of authority of the solemnizing chaplain from the Archbishop or the parish priest. The marriage never pushed through and Vicenta and Tenchavez continued to live separately from each other. Years later, Vicenta went to the US where she obtained a divorce and then married an American. She subsequently acquired American citizenship, but in the meantime, Tenchavez initiated legal separation proceedings in the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage between Vicenta and Tenchavez still exists
HELD:
SC held that the marriage was valid and existing. The alleged lack of authority of the chaplain from the Archbishop is irrelevant in civil law, not only because of separation of Church and State but also because of the law in force at the time the marriage was celebrated.
On the divorce obtained by Vicenta, the same is not recognized in the Philippines. When the divorce decree was issued, she was still Filipina, subject to Philippine laws. Under the Civil Code, absolute divorce is not allowed, only legal separation. SC held that legal separation is proper in this case since Vicenta’s marriage to the American is technically “intercourse with a person not her husband” (or adultery, and a ground for legal separation) from the standpoint of Philippine law.
DIVORCE OBTAINED BY ALIEN IS RECOGNIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES
Van Dorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, Oct. 8, 1985
FACTS:
Alice Reyes, Filipina, married Richard Upton, American, in Hong Kong and then established their residence in the Philippines. Later, Richard obtained a divorce in Nevada, USA. The divorce decree stated that there was no conjugal property. Alice then married Van Dorn. However, Richard, contending that he is still Alice’s husband in the eyes of Philippine law (divorce not being recognized here), claimed that Alice’s business (Galleon Shop) in the Philippines is conjugal property, entitling him to its management.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce decree can have an effect on property belonging to one
spouse