THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 187847, June 30, 2021
ESTHER VICTORIA ALCALA VDA. DE ALCAÑESES, Petitioner, v. JOSE S. ALCAÑESES, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, GRACIA SANGA, MARIA ROSARIO ALCAÑESES, ANTHONY ALCAÑESES, VERONICA ALCAÑESES-PANTIG, MARCIAL ALCAÑESES, AND DEBORA ALCAÑESES-OBIAS, ALICIA S. ALCAÑESES-TANGLAO, MERCEDES ROSARIO S. ALCAÑESES, LYDIA VICTORIA ALCAÑESES-DE VILLA, FELICIDAD S. ALCAÑESESLACANDOLA, DINAH L. ALCAÑESES-REYES, CECILIO L. ALCAÑESES, FE L. ALCAÑESES-JUMAWAN, AND ALFONSO PERCIVAL ALCAÑESES, ALL REPRESENTED BY FELICIDAD S. ALCAÑESES LACANDOLA AND CECILIO L. ALCAÑESES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
There is no specifically prescribed means to resolve a conflict of laws problem; choice of law varies depending on the circumstances. Courts may employ the "state with the most significant relationship" test in determining choice of law in tort liability.
For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 challenging the Decision2 and Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court Decision.4 The Regional Trial Court declared void Esther Victoria Alcala (Esther)'s Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and ordered the delivery of half of Kenya Air's award ofUS$430,000 to Efren Alcañeses (Efren)'s collateral relatives.
Efren was an Air Afrique pilot.5 On January 30, 2000, as a non-paying passenger, he boarded Kenya Air flight 431 bound for Nai robi, Kenya.6 The plane departed from Abidjan, Ivory Coast.7 While in transit over the Ivory Coast, the plane exploded mid-air, killing everyone on board.8
Esther is Efren's survi ving widow.9
Jose S. Alcañeses (Jose),10 Alicia S. Alcañeses -Tanglao (Alicia), Mercedes Rosario S. Alcañeses (Mercedes), Lydia Victoria Alcañeses -De Villa (Lydia), and Felicidad S. Alcañeses -Lacandola (Felicidad) were Efren's full blood siblings.11 While Benedicto A. Alcañeses (Benedicto), Alfonso Percival Alcañeses (Alfonso), and Patricia A. Alcañeses -Jumawan (Patricia) were his half siblings.12
Dinah L. Alcañeses -Reyes (Dinah), Cecilio L. Alcañeses (Cecilio), Fe L. Alcañeses (Fe) are the children of Efren's late full blood brother, Ignacio Alcañeses , who predeceased him.13
On July 17, 2000, Esther executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication as Efren's sole heir, adjudicating to herself two parcels of land and two motor vehicles.14
On November 15, 2001, Esther sought appointment as the legal representative of Efren 's estate, which the Regional Trial Court granted.15 She then filed a claim for damages with Kenya Air for "indemnity and compensation for the loss of her husband,"16 which Kenya Air amicably settled with her.17 She received an award of US$430,000.00, evidenced by a Receipt and Release.18
In 2002, Felicidad and Cecilio, representing their siblings and their nephews and nieces (Efren 's collateral relatives), filed a Complaint for Partition of Estate an d Declaration of Nullity of Affidavit of Selfadjudication and Damages with the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City.19
Felicidad and Cecilio argued that they have a rightful share in Efren's estate as his collateral relatives.20 They prayed that the tri al court: (1) nullify the Affidavit of Self-Adjudicati on which Esther executed; (2) require her to account; (3) order the delivery of their shares in Efren's estate; and (4) award them damages.21
Esther posited that Efren 's collateral relatives filed the compl aint solely to apportion the proceeds of the Kenya Air settlement, and not due to her alleged refusal to distribute their shares over the conjugal properties.22
Esther further countered that she claimed damages as Efren 's surviving widow and his sole dependent.23 She argued that the money Kenya Air paid her was exclusively hers, as indemnity for her husband 's death.24 She alleged that her husband died as a resu l t of a quasi-delict, considering he had no ticket when he rode the airplane.25 Thus, it is the Fatal Accidents Act of Kenya which is applicable, and it clearly defined who the dependents are: the spouse, descendants, and ascendants.26
In its May 9, 2005 Decision,27 the Regional Trial Court ruled in Felicidad and Cecilia's favor. It ordered the nullification of the affidavit of self-adjudication and the delivery of half of Kenya Air's award of US$430,000.00 to Efren's collateral relatives, thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In its January 30, 2009 Decision,29 the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court Decision. It ruled that Esther is entitled to three-fourths 'of Efren 's estate, while his collateral relatives are entitled to the remaining one-fourth.30 Further, it held that property which Efren exclusively acquired during the marriage must be equally divided between Esther and his coliateral relatives, pursuant to Article 1001 of the Civil Code.31
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:cralawlawlibraryOn the defendant's counterclaim:
- 1. Nullifying the affidavit of self-adjudication identified as Doc. No. 2082, page No. 15, Book No. CVI, Series of 2000 of the Notarial Register of Atty. Emmanuel A. Garcia in so far as the hereditary share of the plaintiffs are concerned;
- Ordering the defendant to give and deliver to the plaintiffs their legal and rightful shares in the estate of Efren Alcaneses, more particularly one half (1/2) of U.S.$ 430,000.00 she received in trust for them from the Kenya Air; and
- Ordering the defendant to pay and reimburse the plaintiffs the sum of Php50.000.00, as their lawyer 's professional fees and court's filing fees in the sum of Php179,776.00.
- Ordering the plaintiffs to partition and give to the defendant her hereditary rights and shares over all the inherited real properties left by her husband Efren Alcaneses; but
- Denying and dismissing defendant's prayer for damages and attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED.28
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The 9 May 2005 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City (Branch 55) in Civil Case 2002-121 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:On February 23, 2009, Esther moved for reconsideration.41 However, her motion was denied in the Court of Appeals' May 11, 2009 Resolution.42
1. Defendant-appellant is directed to deliver to plaintiffs-appellants the latter's share in the inheritance of the decedent, particularly: a) the one-fourth (l/4) pro-indiviso portion of decedent's conjugal property; and 2) [sic] the respective one-tenth (1/10) share of plaintiffs-appellees in the U.S. $430,000.00;
2. Plaintiff-appellees are directed to deliver to defendant-appellant the latter's share in the inheritance of the decedent, particularly, the onehalf (1/2) pro-indiviso portion of all the parcels of land inherited by the decedent.
SO ORDERED.40 (Emphasis in the original)
The more jurisdictions having an interest in, or merely even a point of contact with, a transaction or relationship, the greater the number of potential fora for the resolution of disputes arising out of or related to that transaction or relationship. In a world of increased mobility, where business and personal transactions transcend national boundaries, the jurisdiction of a number of different fora may easily be invoked in a single or a set of related disputes.77The parties appear to confuse the concepts of jurisdiction and choice of law. Hasegawa v. Kitamura78 distinguished the two:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both parties. The power to exercise jurisdiction does not automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the choice of the lex fori will often coincide, the "minimum contacts" for one do not always provide the necessary "significant contacts" for the other. The question of whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to enter a judgment.79 (Citations omitted)Jurisdiction pertains to the court or tribunal's competence to rule on a matter before it. Choice of law deals with determining which law applies.
The Republic of the Philippines is a party to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, otherwise known as the Warsaw Convention. It took effect on February 13, 1933. The Convention was concurred in by the Senate, through its Resolution No. 19, on May 16, 1950. The Philippine instrument of accession was signed by President Elpidio Quirino on October 13, 1950, and was deposited with the Polish government on November 9, 1950. The Convention became applicable to the Philippines on February 9, 1951. On September 23, 1955, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 201, declaring our formal adherence thereto, to the end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith by the Republic of the Philippines and the citizens thereof.82 (Citation omitted)The Warsaw Convention governs international air carriage, and "seeks to accommodate or balance the interests of passengers seeking recovery for personal injuries and the interests of air carriers seeking to limit potential liability."83 It enumerates the most convenient fora where claims between an airline and its passengers may be litigated.84
(1) | What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and |
(2) | to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation[?]86 |
Pursuant to these guidelines and upon scrutiny of the records, this Court holds that the following "points of contact" are material: (1) the parties' nationality; (2) Kenya Air 's principal place of business; (3) the place where the tort was committed; and (4) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement.
(1) The nationality of a person, his [or her] domicile, his [or her] residence , his [or her] place of sojourn, or his [or her] origin; (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved; (4) the place ·where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts; (5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised; (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis,· (7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori -the law of the forum is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of 'procedure' not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law, and (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.89 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
3. Whenever the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would (if death had not ensued) have enti tled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then and in every such case the person who would have been liabl e, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages notwithstanding the de[97]
4. Every action brought by virtue of the provision of this Act shall be for the benefit of t he wife , husband, parent, and child of the person whose death was so caused, and shall, subject to the provisions of section 7, be brought by and in the name of the executor or administrator of the person deceased, and in every such action the coun may award such damages as it may think proportioned to the injury resulting from the death to the- persons respectively for whom and for whose benefit the action is brought; and the t mong so recovered, after deducting the costs not recovered from the defendant, shall be divided among persons in such shares as the court, by its judgment, shall find and direct[.]98 (Emphasis supplied)
(1) The Claimant agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Releasees from and against any and all claims, demands, cause, or causes or right of action, which may be made vr brought against them or against any one or more of them by other alleged legal heirs, namely:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThese averments did not, in any way, indicate that respondents are likewise entitled to the indemnity. The stipulation merely declared that petitioner released Kenya Air from any liability, akin to a quitclaim in our jurisdiction. However, as we have hammered the point, respondents are not entitled to the settlement.Full Blood Collateralor if a case has been filed , to instruct and authorize the Releasees' counsel to dismiss all actions in respect of the said death of the Deceased, and loss or damages suffered by the Claimant, and Claimant hereby revokes, annuls and makes void any special power of attorney or such document or instrument and/or authority given or granted to any third person , further, this instrument may be pleaded as an absolute and final bar to suit or suits or legal proceedings that may hereafter be prosecuted by Claimant, or anyone claiming by, through or under her, against any persons or things released herein for any matter or things referred to herein.
1. Jose S. Alcañeses
2. Alicia S. Alcañeses-Tanglao
3. Ignacio S. Alcañeses (deceased) Represented by:
a. Dinah Alcañeses -Reyes
b. Cecilio Alcaf.eses
c. Fe Alcañeses
4. Mercedes Rosario S. Alcañeses
5. Lydia VictoriaS. Alcañeses -De Villa
6. Felicidad S. Alcañeses -Lacandola
Half Blood Collateral
1. Benedicto' Alcañeses
2. Patricia Alcañeses -Jumawan
3. Alfonso Percival Alcañeses
(2) The Claimant warrants that she is the only legal heir under Kenyan law and that there is no other heirs of the Deceased and that she has not abandoned, assigned or otherwise disposed of her right to the estate of the D ceased.100
Endnotes:
*
Des i gn ated additi on a l M e mber per Speci al Order No. 2833.
1Rollo, pp. 3-23.
2 Id. at 24-37. The January 30, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 85919 was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonza les-Sison a nd concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Isaias P. Dicdican of the Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 38-39. The May 11, 2009 Resolution in CA-G.R. CY No. 85919 was penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina G ueva ra-Sa longa and Isaias P. Dicdican of the Former Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id. at 61-72. The May 9, 2005 Decision in Civil Case 2002-121 was penned by Presiding Judge Bienvenido A. Mapaye of the Regional Tria l Court of Lucena City, Branch 55.
5 Id. at 26.
6 Id. at 6.
7 Id. a t 26.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Jose was l ater su bstituted by his heirs, Gracia Sanga, Maria Rosario Alcañeses, Anthony Alcañeses, Veronica Alcañeses-Panti g, Marcial Alcañeses, and Debora Alcañeses -Obias.
11Rollo. p. 26.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 6.
14 Id. at 26.
15 Id.
16 Id. at 65.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 63.
19 Id. at 25.
20 Id. at 64.
21 Id. at 65.
22 Id. at 66.
23 Id. at 65
24 Id.
25 Id. at 65.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 61-72.
28 Id. at 72.
29 Id. at 24-37.
30 Id. at 30.
31 Id. at 31.
32 Id. at 32.
33 Id. at 32-33.
34 Id. at 33.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 34.
37 Ignacio'share was divided among his children in representation of their father.
38Rollo, p. 24.
39 Id. at 35.
40 Id. at 36
41 Id. at 38.
42 Id at 38-39.
43 Id. at 3-23.
44 Id. at 50.
45 Id.
46 Id. at 52-60
47 Id. at 74.
48 Id. at 77.
49 Id.
50 Id. at 78-82.
51 Id. at 84.
52 Id.
53 Id. at 85-104.
54 Id. at 106.
55 Id.
56 Id. at 109.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 110-111.
59 Id. at 115-122.
60 Id. at 122-136.
61 Id. at 137-138.
62 Id. at 93.
63 Id.
64 Warsaw Convention for the Uni fication of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air ( 1929), art. 28, par. 1 provides:
An action for damages must be brought. at the option of the plaintiff, i n 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 place of buiness through which the contract has been made or before the court at the place of destination.
65Rollo, p. 95.
66 341 Phil. 281 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division].
67Rollo, p 95.
68 Id. at 99.
69 Id. at 95.
70 Id. at 96.
71 Id. at 98.
72 Id. at 102.
73 Id. at 130.
74 Id. at 132.
75 CIVIL CODE, art. 776.
76 CIVIL CODE, art. 774.
77Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, 750 Phil. 791 , 820 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing GEORGE A. BERMANN, TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION IN A NUTSHELL 86 (2003).
78 563 Phil. 572 (2007) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
79 Id. at 585.
80Luna v. Court of Appeals, 290 Phil. 542, 548 (1992) [Per J. Bellos illo, First Division] citing Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, 285 Phil. 734 (1992) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
81 285 Phil. 734 ( 1992) [Per J. Cruz, E n Banc].
82 Id. at 742.
83Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, 579 Phil. 344, 351 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
84Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, 285 Phil. 734, 743 (1992) [Per J. Cruz, En Banc].
85 United Airlines v. Uy, 376 Phil. 688 (1999) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division], Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd v. Court of Appeals, 292 Phil. 517 (1993) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division], Luna v. Court of Appeals, 290 Phil. 542 (1992) [Per J. Bellosillo, First Division].
86Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 105, 1 23 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division] citing COQUIA AND PANGALANGAN, CONFLICT OF LAWS 65 (1995 ed.) further citing Von Mehren, Recent Trends in Choice-of Law Methodology, 60 CORNELL L. REV. 927 (1975).
87 Id. at 123-124.
88 358 Phil. 105 (1998) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
89 Id. at 123-1 25. See also Continental Micronesia, Inc. v. Basso, 770 Phil. 201 (2015) [Per J. Jarde1eza, Third Division].
90 Id. at 127.
91 Id.
92Rollo, p. 4.
93 Id. at 5.
94 Id. at 49.
95 Id. at 40-46.
96 Id at 42.
97 Id.
98 Id. at 43.
99 CIVIL CODE, art. 2206 provides:
ARTICLE 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a crime or quasi-deiict shall be at least three thousand pesos, even though there may have bee n mitigating circumstances. In addition.
(1) The defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter such indemniry shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the tim e of his death;
(2) If the deceased was obliged to give support according to the provisions of article 291, the recipient who is not an hetr called to the decedent's inheritance by the law of testate or intestate succession, ma y demand support from the person causing the death , for a period not exceeding five years, the exact duration to be filed by the court;
(3) The spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased.
101Rollo, pp. 17-48.cralawredlibrary