Conflict of laws

This is a case involving a conflict of laws or regarding the applicable law to a particular case which happened in another country but involving a Filipino citizen. This is the case of the couple, Frank and Vicky.

Frank is a pilot of an African airline. After one of his visits to Vicky in the Philippines he boarded an African Airlines as a non-paying passenger on the way back to his place of work. Unfortunately, the plane exploded in mid-air, killing everyone on board while in transit over an African coast. Frank was survived by his wife Vicky, his full-blood siblings: Bert, Lily, Rose, Naty and Dina, his half-blood siblings: Benny, Perry and Patsy, as well as the children of his other full-blood brother Andy, who predeceased him, namely Lina, Rolly and Fely.

Six months after Frank’s death, Vicky executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication as Frank’s sole heir, adjudicating to herself two parcels of land and two motor vehicles. Then, she also sought appointment from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as the legal representative of Frank’s estate, which was granted. So she filed a claim for damages against African Air Lines for indemnity and compensation for the death of her husband Frank, which the airline company amicably settled by awarding her US$430,000.00.

So Dina and Rolly, representing their siblings, nephews and nieces, filed before the RTC a complaint against Vicky for Partition of Estate and Declaration of Nullity of the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, the delivery of their shares in Frank’s estate and for damages.

After hearing on the merits, the RTC ruled in favor of Dina and Rolly, ordering Vicky to give Frank’s siblings and collateral representatives one-half of $430,000,00 plus P50,000.00 for attorney’s fees and P179,776.00 for cost of suit. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) with modification that Vicky is entitled to three-fourths of the disputed amount of money, while his collateral relatives are entitled to one-fourth. The CA also ruled that the property exclusively acquired by Frank during the marriage must be equally divided between Vicky and his collateral relatives. But as to the $430,000.00 grant from the African airline company, the CA ruled that the applicable law is the Civil Code and not the law of the African country where the relatives of Frank are entitled only to one-tenth each. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said that the CA is not correct. In choosing which law is applicable, on tort liability, the “state of the most significant relationship” rule should be applied. In this case, a perusal of the records show that the country of the African Airlines has the most significant relationship. While the parties to this case are Filipinos, the African airline company is a foreign corporation with principal place of business in an African country. The tort was committed aboard one of its planes and it granted the disputed amount of money to Vicky as settlement.

Moreover, the Release and Receipt signed by Vicky stipulated that “it shall be subject to the laws of the African country and that it was signed in the Philippines as a matter of convenience.” Under said law of the African country, it is clear that the wife is entitled to the totality of the $430,000.00 paid to her by the Airline Company as settlement. Under said law also, a decedent’s heirs are only the surviving spouse and direct descendants or ascendants. Nowhere does it mention the collateral relatives of a deceased person. So the order of the CA directing Vicky to deliver to her collateral relatives their 1/10 share of the $430,000.00 is reversed and set aside. (Alcala vda. De Alcaneses et.al vs Hairs of Jose Alcaneses, G.R. 187847, June 30, 2021).