Lim vs. CollectorAssuming arguendo that the Chinese Immigration Law has been properly pleaded and proved in this country and our court will recognize the existence of such law, still our court may refuse to apply such law on the ground that its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizen or resident of the forum that is , the mother will be separated from and deprived of her children and will not be able to provide the love and care that her children deserves. Adong vs. Cheong seng GeeOur courts will not just take judicial notice of a foreign law unless properly pleaded and proved especially when there exists a conflict between internal law and that of a foreign law. and even if the foreign law has been proved there is a need to show convincing evidence to prove a claim anchored on such foreign law. This is rightfully so because our court will decide conflicting claims and favor one against the other only on the basis of the evidence presented.Pantaleon vs. asuncionI think the doctrine enunciated in this case has already been superseded by the doctrine enunciated in the case of Santos vs. PNOC (Gr. No. 170943, september 23, 2008) wherein the Supreme Court held that the in rem/ in personam distinction was significant under the old rule because it was silent as to the kind of action to which the rule was applicable. Because of this silence the court limited the application of the orl rule to in rem actions only. This has been changed. The present rule expressly states that it applies to any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry. Thus, it now applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi - .in rem. In view of the doctrine enunciated in this case, summons by publication applies now to any action where the defendant is a resident of the philippines and his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry.Davao Light Power vs CAI concur with the decision of the SC. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not necessary for the issuance of the writ. It is only in the implementation of the writ that Jursidiction over the person of the defendant is significant. Midgely vs. FernandosExtraterritorial service is proper when the defendant does not reside and is not found in the Phil. and the action relates to property within the phil in which the defendant has a claim, a lien or interest , actual or contingent. The defendant has a claim to the property subject of the controversy because she is receiving income therefrom. Extraterritorial Service therefore is proper.Sequito vs. LetrondoThere was indeed no valid substituted service because the summons was served to a 12 year old girl. At this age , it is certainly impossible for her to know the importance of the summons.SuntayForeign law will definitely not be recognized in our courts unless properly pleaded and proved and in the absence of proof of the foreign law, it will be presumed that it is the same as that in our country. This is the doctrine of Processual presumption.