Vda. De Chua vs.

CA Case Digest

Vda. De Chua vs. CA

G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998

Facts:
Roberto Chua was the common-law husband of Florita A. Vallejo and had two illegitimate
sons with her. On 28 May 1992, Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City. Upon the death of
Roberto, Vallejo filed with the Regional Trial Court ofCotabato City a petition for the guardianship
and administration over the persons and properties of the two minors. Herein petitioner filed for
its dismissal, claiming that she was the sole surviving heir of the decedent being his wife; and
that the decedent was a resident of Davao City and not Cotabato City, which means that the said
court was not the proper forum to settle said matters. The petitioner failed to submit the original
copy of the marriage contract and the evidences that she used were: a photocopy of said
marriage contract, Transfer Certificate of Title issued in the name of Roberto L. Chua married to
Antonietta Garcia, and a resident of Davao City; Residence Certificates from 1988 and 1989
issued at Davao City indicating that he was married and was born in Cotabato City; Income Tax
Returns for 1990 and 1991 filed in Davao City where the status of the decedent was stated as
married; passport of the decedent specifying that he was married and his residence was Davao
City. The trial court ruled that she failed to establish the validity of marriage, and even denied her
petition. This was latter appealed to the appellate court, but it decided in favor of herein
respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial and appellate court is correct on their ruling on the validity of
marriage of Antonietta Garcia to Roberto Chua.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the lower court and the appellate court are
correct in holding that petitioner herein failed to establish the truth of her allegation
that she was the lawful wife of the decedent. The best evidence is a valid marriage
contract which the petitioner failed to produce. Transfer Certificates of Title,
Residence Certificates, passports and other similar documents cannot prove
marriage especially so when the petitioner has submitted a certification from the
Local Civil Registrar concerned that the alleged marriage was not registered and a
letter from the judge alleged to have solemnized the marriage that he has not
solemnized said alleged marriage. The lower court correctly disregarded the
Photostat copy of the marriage certificate which she presented, this being a violation
of the best evidence rule, together with other worthless pieces of evidence. A valid,
original marriage contract would be the best evidence that the petitioner should have
presented. Failure to present it as evidence would make the marriage dubious
Tañada v. Angara G.R. No. 118295 | May 2, 1997
Petitioners: Wigberto Tanada, et al.
Respondents: Edgardo Angara, et al.

Summary: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines acceding to the World Trade Organization for
being violative of provisions which are supposed to give preference to Filipino workers and economy and on the
ground that it infringes legislative and judicial power. The WTO, through it provisions on “most favored nation”
and national treatment, require that nationals and other member countries are placed in the same footing in
terms of products and services. However, the Court brushed off these contentions and ruled that the WTO is
constitutional. Sections 10 and 12 of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) should be read in relation to
Sections 1 and 13 (promoting the general welfare). Also, Section 10 is self-executing only to “rights, privileges,
and concessions covering national economy and patrimony” but not every aspect of trade and commerce. There
are balancing provisions in the Constitution allowing the Senate to ratify the WTO agreement. Also, the
Constitution doesn’t rule out foreign competition. States waive certain amount of sovereignty when entering into
treaties.
Facts:
 This case questions the constitutionality of the Philippines being part of the World Trade Organization,
particularly when President Fidel Ramos signed the Instrument of Ratification and the Senate
concurring in the said treaty.
 Following World War 2, global financial leaders held a conference in Bretton Woods to discuss global
economy. This led to the establishment of three great institutions: International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (World Bank), International Monetary Fund and International Trade Organization.
 However, the ITO failed to materialized. Instead, there was the General Agreement on Trades and
Tariffs. It was on the Uruguay Round of the GATT that the WTO was then established.
 The WTO is an institution regulating trade among nations, including the reduction of tariff and barriers.
 Petitioners filed a case assailing the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution
to “develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos, to give
preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials
and locally produced goods.”
 It is petitioners’ position that the “national treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement
“place nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products,”
in contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of the Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the
phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.”

Issue 1: Does the petition present a justiciable controversy? YES!

In seeking to nullify the Senate’s act as being unconstitutional, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable
controversy. It becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute

Issue 2: Do the provisions of the WTO Agreement contravene Section 19, Article II and Section 10 & 12, Artilce
XII of the 1987 Constitution? NO!

Petitioners’ Contentions:
 Petitioners argue that the “letter, spirit and intent” of the Constitution mandating “economic nationalism”
are violated by the so-called “parity provisions” and “national treatment” clauses scattered in parts of
WTO Agreement
o This is in view of the most-favored nation clause (MFN) of the TRIMS (trade-related investment
measures), TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of intellectual property rights), Trade in Services,
and par. 4 of Article III of GATT 1994.
o “shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than that accorded to like products of national
origin”
 Sec. 19, Art II:The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively
controlled by Filipinos.
 Sec. 10, Art XII: Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of
enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
 Sec. 12, Art XII: The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and
locally produced goods, and adopt measures that help make them competitive.”

Ruling:
 These provisions are not self-executing
o Merely guides in the exercise of judicial review and in making laws.
 Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said
article, especially Sec. 1 and 13:
o A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
o A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
o An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life
 The issue here is not whether this paragraph of Sec. 10 of Art. XII is self-executing or not. Rather, the
issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing provisions in the Constitution to allow the
Senate to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And we hold that there are.
 WTO Recognizes Need to Protect Weak Economies
o Unlike in the UN where major states have permanent seats and veto powers in the Security
Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the basis of sovereign equality, with each
member’s vote equal in weight.
 Specific WTO Provisos Protect Developing Countries
o Tariff reduction – developed countries must reduce at rate of 36% in 6 years, developing 24%
in 10 years
o Domestic subsidy – developed countries must reduce 20% over six (6) years, developing
countries at 13% in 10 years
o Export subsidy – developed countries, 36% in 6 years; developing countries, 3/4ths of 36% in
10 years
 Constitution Does Not Rule Out Foreign Competition
 o Encourages industries that are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets
 The Court will not pass upon the advantages and disadvantages of trade liberalization as an economic
policy. It will only perform its constitutional duty of determining whether the Senate committed grave
abuse of discretion

Issue 3: Does the text of the WTO and its Annexes limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative power by
Congress? NO!
 A portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution.
 While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level,
it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or
impliedly, as a member of the family of nations.
 The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality be considered absolute. Certain
restrictions enter into the picture: limitations imposed by the nature of membership in the family of
nations & limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.