The three cases discuss issues related to personal law, nationality, and domicile under Philippine law. In Templeton v. Government, the court found that the deceased intended to establish legal domicile in California based on her acts and declarations. In Vellila v. Posadas, the court held that Arthur Moody was domiciled in the Philippines as he had no intention to establish a new domicile elsewhere when he left. In Gallego v. Vera, the court affirmed that Gallego remained domiciled in Abuyog despite residing elsewhere, as he never intended to abandon his original domicile.
The three cases discuss issues related to personal law, nationality, and domicile under Philippine law. In Templeton v. Government, the court found that the deceased intended to establish legal domicile in California based on her acts and declarations. In Vellila v. Posadas, the court held that Arthur Moody was domiciled in the Philippines as he had no intention to establish a new domicile elsewhere when he left. In Gallego v. Vera, the court affirmed that Gallego remained domiciled in Abuyog despite residing elsewhere, as he never intended to abandon his original domicile.
The three cases discuss issues related to personal law, nationality, and domicile under Philippine law. In Templeton v. Government, the court found that the deceased intended to establish legal domicile in California based on her acts and declarations. In Vellila v. Posadas, the court held that Arthur Moody was domiciled in the Philippines as he had no intention to establish a new domicile elsewhere when he left. In Gallego v. Vera, the court affirmed that Gallego remained domiciled in Abuyog despite residing elsewhere, as he never intended to abandon his original domicile.
This case involves a proposal to lease to purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical a japanese corporation one of the four person, but the citizens; it is intended for the properties the Phippine acquired from common and public welfare and cannot be the Japan under the object of appropriation Reparations Agreement, namely the Laurel v. Roppongi Property. Garcia, G.R. The issues are not concerned with validity of No. 92013 (25 WoN the Roppongi and its related ownership or title. There is no question that the July 1990) properties can be sold by the Executive - property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the NO authority of the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State. And the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
Holy See is immune from suit because the act of
The petition is about a parcel of land in selling the lot of concern is non-propriety in nature. Paranaque, which was registered to Holy The lot was acquired through a donation from the See and was donated to the Papal Archdiocese of Manila, not for a commercial Holy See v. Nuncio for his residence. The lots were purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct the Rosario, G.R. sold to Ramon Licup who assigned his official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio No. G.R. No. rights to Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. thereof. The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire 101949 WoN Holy See can invoke sovereign property, real or personal, in a receiving state, (December 1, immunity – YES necessary for the creation and maintenance of its 1994) diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Greg Bartelli, an American tourist,
detained and raped 12-year-oldKaren Salvacion. . The civil case for preliminary In fine, the application of the law depends on the attachment was granted, so the sheriff extent of its justice. Eventually, if the Court rules that Salvacion v. served a Notice of Garnishment on China the questioned provision is applicable to a foreign Central Bank, Banking Corporation. transient, injustice would result specially to a citizen G.R. No. aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg 94723 (21 WoN Greg’s dollar deposits are exempt Bartelli. When the statute is silent or ambiguous, it August 1997) from attachment or garnishment due to must be presumed that the lawmaking body CB Circular No. 960 - NO intended justice to prevail.
PERSONAL LAW, NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE
Mali ata name when I searched it online By looking at the records of the case, the court Gibbs v Government lumabas pero notes the intention of the deceased to establish linagay ko yung sa pamana legal domicile in California. Templeton v. This was a petition by Beatrice to admit It is a recognized rule that the intention with which Government, into probate the holographic will of her removal is made from a particular state determines 59 Phil. 293 mom. The will disposed of all her whether or not the domicile is abandoned; and (1933) properties to Beatrice and her children. intention is revealed only in the acts and declaration of the person concerned WoN the deceased established legal domicile in California? YES Alcantara v. This is a petition for the issuance of a writ The petitioners are not permitted to return to their Secretary of of mandamus to compel respondents to home to vote and even if they have an intention to Interior, 61 register the petitioners as qualified return therein, a mere intention to return to their Phil. 459 electors to vote in the plebiscite for the former homes, not realized and which may never be (1935) approval or rejection of the 1935 realized should not prevent them from acquiring Constitution. residence for voting purposes Three rules though are well established: WoN the petitioners are residents of A man must have a residence or domicile somewhere Where once established, it remains until a Culion? SC held YES. new one is acquired A man can have but one domicile at a time
This was a case wherein the
administrator of the estate of Moody was assessed an inheritance and income tax The deceased had no deliberate intention to of the estate and paid such under protest. Vellila v. establish a new domicile elsewhere when he The administrator was claiming no law Posadas, 62 surreptitiously left the Philippines. allowed the BIR to collect inheritance Phil. 624 Our Civil Code defines domicile as the “place of taxes from a person not domiciled in the (1935) their usual residence” Philippines
WoN Arthur Moody was domiciled in the
Philippines? YES Despite him being a registered voter and actually This was a petition for review by Gallego, voted and had a resident certificate in Malaybalay, a winning mayoralty candidate of the Bukidnon, he never had the intention to abandon his 1940 elections, against the RTC and CA domicile in Abuyog, Leyte Gallego v. decision voiding his win due to his alleged In order to acquire domicile by choice: Vera, 73 Phil. lack of residency requirement. Residence or bodily presence in the new 450 (1941) locality WoN Gallego had been a resident of An intention to remain there Abuyog for at least one year prior to his election? The YES An intention to abandon the old domicile
Delfin Co, a minor, was born of Chinese
father Co Suy and mother Florentina Villahermosa. Delfin left for China after Mere birth in the Philippines of a Chinese father and Villhermosa v. his father died. Due to financial Filipino mother does not ipso facto confer Philippine Commissione difficulties, he took steps to return to the citizenship and that jus sanguinis instead off jus soli r of Philippines. In doing so, he led in is the predominating factor on questions of Immigration, smuggling a group of Chinese men into citizenship. G.R. No. L- the country Reacquisition of Filipino citizenship cannot be used 1663 (21 to evade liability for violating immigration laws. March 1948) WoN Delfin Co reacquired Filipino citizenship and therefore cannot be deported? NO
Robert Cu filed a petition for
naturalization. He testified that he was born in Bulacan; that his mother was a In naturalization petitions, the Courts are peculiarly In re: Robert Filipino citizen as believed his parents at the mercy of the witnesses offered by the Cu, G.R. No. were not legally married; that he failed to candidate. The Courts cannot be expected to L-3018 (18 elect Philippine citizenship; hence, he is possess acquaintance with the candidates with the July 1951) filing for naturalization. presenting themselves for naturalization. A witness who is incompetent renders an application void. WoN Robert Cu is qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizen? - NO