Brownell vs.

Sun Life Assurance

This is a petition instituted in the CFI under the provisions of Philippines Property Act of the US against
the Sun Life Assurance company of Canada to compel the latter to comply with the demand of the former
to pay him the money which ½ of the proceeds of an endowment policy payable to Aihara, Japanese
national.

The defenses of Sun Life Assurance are that immunities in Trading with the Enemy Act of US is doubtful
application in the Philippines and defendant is a trustee of the fund and under legal obligation to see to it
that it is paid to the person entitled.

CFI granted the petition. Hence, appeal was filed with the SC contending that CFI erred in holding that the
law is binding upon the inhabitants of the Philippines.

The issue is WON the Trading with the Enemy Act apply to Philippines Govt.

Yes, A foreign law may have extraterritorial effect in a country other than the country of origin provided
the former in which itsought ti be made operative gives its consent. The consent need not be expres it is
enough to be implied from its conduct or from that of its authorized officers.

In this case, the said act was conformed by President Roxas in a joint statement signed by him and by
Commissioner McNutt. Ambassador Romulo also formally expressed the conformity of the Government of
the Philippines to the approval of said act to the American Senate. It is well settled in the US that its laws
have no extraterritorial effect. The application of said law in the Philippines is based concurrently on
Philippines Property Act of 1946 and on the tacit consent and conduct of the Government of the
Philippines in receiving the benefits of its provisions.

International School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisimbing

Private respondent (School) pursuant to PD 732 is a domestic educational institution established primarily
for pdependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. The School hires both
foreign and local teachers as members of its faculty classifying its as foreign and local-hires.

The School grants foreign- hires certain benefits not accorded to local-hires. Uring the negotiations for a
new CBA, petitioner Intl. School Alliance of Educators, legitimate labor uniin and collective bargaining
representative of all faculty members contested the difference in salary ratesbetween foreign-hires and
local-hires.

Petitioner filed a notice of strike hence DOLE Acting Seretaty Trajano resolved the issues in favor of the
School. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by DOLE Secretary Quisimbing.

The issue is WON the point-of-hire classification employed by the School is discriminatory.

Yes, If an empoyer accords employeesn the same postition and rank, the presumption is that these
employees perform equal work. In this case, the employer has hailed to dicharge this burden hence there
is no evidence that foreign-hires perform 25% more efficiently than local-hires. Salaries should not be
used as an enticement to the prejudice of local-hires. Section 18 of Art 2 and Section 3 of Art 13 of the
Constitution, these relations are not merely contractual but areso impressed with public interest that labor
contracts, CBA must yield to the common good.
Laurel vs. Garcia

Two petitions for prohibitions seeking to enjoin respondents, their representatives and agents from
proceeding with the bidding for the sale of 3,179 square meters of land. The Roponggi properties in thise
ase is on of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by the Philippine government under Reparation
Agreement. The properties are considered part of the indemnification to the Filipino people for their losses
in life and property during WW II.

A proposal was presented to President Cory Aquino by former Phil. Ambassador to japan, Carlos valdez
to make the properties the subject of a lease agreement with Kajima Corporation with agreement at the
end of lease period all 3 leased buildings shall be occupied and used by the Phil. Govt.

However the govt. has not acted to the proposal instead Pres. Aquino created a committee study the
utilization of Phil. Govt. properties in Tokyo and Kobe Japan through Admin Order 3. Hence, Pres. issued
EO 296 entitling non-Filipino citizens to avail of reparation’s capital goods and services in the event of
sale .Various sectors opposed the selling of the reparation properties.

The issues are: 1) Can the Roponggi prop be alienated by the RP? and 2) Does Pres have the authority
to sell the said prop?

1) No, Roponggi prop is of public dominion hence it is outside the commercie of man and cannot be
alienated. Roponggi is classified under par. 2 Art. 420 of NCC as property belonging to State and
intended for some public service. A property continues to be part of the public dominion, not available for
private appropriation until there is a formal decalaration on the part of the govy. to withdraw it from being
such.

In this case, the fact that the Roponggi site has not been used for a long time for actual embassy service
does not automatically convert it to the patrimonial properties. Furthermore, mere transfer of Phil
embassy to Nampeidaiin 1976 is not relinquishment of properties original purpose.

2) No, CARP law does not authorize the Executive Department to sell the Roponggi prop. The proceeds
of the disposition does not withdraw the properties from being clasified as one public dominion.

There is no conflict of law. It arises only when; 1) there is a dispute over title or ownership of an
immovable and 2) foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a
domestic law on the same matter. In this case, there is no question that the properties belongs to the
Philippines the issues is the quthority of respondent to dispose the properties belonging to the State and
the validityof the procedures adopted to effect it which is govenred by Philippine law. The rule on lex situs
doies not apply.