THE HOLY SEE VS. HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, G.R. NO. 101949, 1 DECEMBER 1994   TOPIC/DOCTRINE Situs of certain properties   FACTS Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business. This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters (Lot 5-A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440) located in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner. Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D which are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 271108 and 265388 respectively and registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as agent of the sellers. Later, Licup ...

IMELDA M. PILAPIL V. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA G.R. NO. 80116, JUNE 30, 1989   TOPIC/DOCTRINE The status of the complainant vis-a-vis the accused must be determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.   FACTS On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths at Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. Thereafter, marital discord set in, with mutual recriminations between the spouses, followed by a separation de facto between them. On January 15, 1986, Division 20 of the Schoneberg Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses...

HUNTINGTON V. ATTRILL 146 U.S. 657 (1892)   TOPIC/DOCTRINE The question whether a statute of one state is a penal law, in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another state, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act.   FACTS Huntington, a resident of New York, recovered, in the supreme court of the state of New York, in an action brought by him against Attrill, a judgment for the sum of $100,240, which had not been paid, secured, or satisfied. The controversy started when Attrill signed and made oath to, and caused to be recorded, as required under Section 21 of the statute of New York of 1875 , a certificate, stating that the whole of the capital stock of Rockaway Beach Improvement Company, of which he was an incorporator and a director, had been paid, when in truth no part had been paid. By...

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. PAHLAVI, 62 NY 2D. 474, 5 JULY 1984   TOPIC/DOCTRINE Act of state doctrine and jurisdiction over the subject matter. Forum non conveniens is court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its  jurisdiction  where another court may more conveniently hear a case.   FACTS Plaintiff, the Islamic Republic of Iran, brings this action against Iran's former ruler, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, and his wife, Empress Farah Diba Pahlavi. It alleges in its complaint that defendants accepted bribes and misappropriated, embezzled or converted 35 billion dollars in Iranian funds in breach of their fiduciary duty to the Iranian people and it seeks to recover those funds and 20 billion dollars in exemplary damages. It asks the court to impress a constructive trust on defendants' assets  located throughout the world,  for an accounting of all moneys and property received by the defendants from the government of Iran, and for othe...

SCHMIDT V. DRISCOLL HOTEL, INC., 249 MINN. 376, 377 (MINN. 1957) TOPIC/DOCTRINE Holding that the law of the place of negligence controls   FACTS Decided by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in 1957. The defendant, the operator of a bar in St. Paul, Minnesota, illegally sold intoxicating liquor to one Sorrensen who at the time was already intoxicated. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff was injured in Wisconsin while riding with Sorrensen in his automobile. He sued in Minnesota under the "Minnesota Dram Shop Act", which, if applicable, would impose responsibility on the defendant. On April 28, 1956, the trial court made its order granting defendant's motion. In the order granting the same, the trial court determined that "No penalty by way of collecting damages arose under M.S.A. 340.95 [Civil Damage Act], unless the injury was inflicted in the state. No civil action to collect the penalty arose unless the illegal sale in the state was followed by an injury ...

AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III vs. NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES G.R. No. 101538 June 23, 1992   TOPIC/DOCTRINE It is the passenger’s “ultimate destination,” not “an agreed stopping place” that determines the country where suit against international carrier is to be filed. Right to court access applies only where court has jurisdiction.   FACTS This case involves the proper interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, reading as follows: Art. 28. (1) An action for damage must be brought at the option of the plaintiff, in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, either before the court of the domicile of the carrier or of his principal place of business, or where he has a place of business through which the contract has been made, or before the court at the place of destination. The petitioner is a minor and a resident of the Philippines. Private respondent Nortwest Orient Airlines (NOA) is a foreign corporation with principal office in M...