govt vs frank

Civil Laws (NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE) Gantuangco, Gilianne Kathryn L. The Government of the Philippines Islands vs George I. Frank G. R. No. 2935. March 23, 1909 ISSUE:

WON a contract entered into by a US citizen, when he was considered as an adult in his country (USA) yet a minor in the Philippines, at which time that he entered into the contract, is valid and enforceable under the Philippine laws. RULING:

YES. Mr. Frank being fully qualified to enter into a contract at the place and time the contract was made, he cannot therefore plead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is being enforced. Although Mr. Frank was still a minor under Philippine laws, he was nevertheless considered an adult under the laws of the state of Illinois,the place where the contract was made. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Matters connected to its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of its performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as bringing of a suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought. Although generally, capacity of the parties to enter into a contract is governed by national law. This is one case not involving real property which was decided by our Supreme Court, where instead of national law, what should determine capacity to enter into a contract is the lex loci celebrationis. According to Conflict of Laws writer Edgardo Paras, Frank’s  Frank’s  capacity should be judged by his national law and not by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. In the instant case whether it is the place where the contract was made or Frank’s nationality, the result  result  would be the same. However, as suggested by the mentioned author, for the conflicts rule in capacity in general, national law of the parties is

controlling.