Overview and Introduction to Conflict of Laws
A. Definition

Conflict of Laws is that part of the law of each state which determines whether in dealing
with a factual situation involving a foreign element, the law or the judgment of some
other state will be recognized or applied in the forum.
The primary function of this department of law is to determind whether the rules of law or
judgments of some other state or states, and if so, to what extent, should be recognized
or applied in the forum.

B. Function and Object of Conflict of Laws
1. To prescribe the conditions under which a court or agency is competent to entertain a
suit or proceeding involving facts containing a foreign element
2. To specify the circumstances in which a foreign judgment will be recognized as valid and
binding in the forum
3. To determine each for each class of cases the particular system of law by reference to
which the rights of the parties must be ascertained - fundamental problem of choice of
C. Distinguished from Public International Law




Municipal in character

International in character

Persons Involved

Dealt with by private individuals;
governs individuals in their private
transactions which involve a
foreign element

Sovereign states and other
entities possessing international
personality, e.g., UN; governs
states in their relationships
amongst themselves

Transactions Involved

Private transactions between Generally affected by public
private individuals
interest; those in general are of
interest only to sovereign states

Remedies and Sanctions

Resort to municipal tribunals

May be peaceful or forcible
Peaceful: includes diplomatic
negotiation, tender & exercise of
good offices, mediation, inquiry &
conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement by ICJ, reference to
regional agencies
Forcible:  includes severance of
diplomatic relations, retorsions,
reprisals, embargo, boycott, nonintercourse, pacific blockades,
collective measures under the UN
Charter, and war.


Page !1 of 67


D. Sources of Private International Law
1. Constitution
2. Codifications
• Old Civil Code of the Philippines
• Code of Commerce and Insurance Code
3. Special Legislation
• Foreign Investment Act of 1991
• Corporation Code
• General Banking Act
• Trade Marks and Trade Names Law
• Patent Law
• Carriage of Goods Sea Act
• Investments Incentive
• Export Incentives Act
E. Foreign Elements

Consisting of the following as subject matter:
a. nationality or citizenship
b. personal status
c. property

Points of contacts include:
a. place of contracting
b. place of negotiation of contract
c. place of performance
d. location of subject matter of the contract
e. domicile, residence, place of incorporation, nationality and place of
business of parties.
f. If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in
the same state, the local law of this state shall apply.

F. Ways of Disposing of Conflict of Law Case
1. Dismiss the case, either for lack of jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction
2. Assume jurisdiction and apply the internal law of the forum
3. Assume jurisdiction and take into account or apply the law of the State or some othe


Page !2 of 67


Hilton vs. Guyot
In a prior action, Guyot (plaintiff),
a French citizen, sued Hilton
(defendant), a United States
citizen, in a French court. The
French court entered judgment in
favor of Guyot. Thereafter, Guyot
brought this action against Hilton
upon the French judgment in a
circuit court of the United States
in New York. The circuit court
entered judgment for Guyot
without examining the merits of
the case. Hilton appealed, arguing
that the circuit court should have
examined the merits.
Issue: Whether or not a judgment
of a foreign nation’s court entitled
to full credit and has a conclusive
effect when sued to other nation



No law has any effect, of its own
force, beyond the limits of the
sovereignty from which its
authority is derived. The extent to
which the law of one nation, as
put in force within its territory,
whether by executive order, by
legislative act, or by judicial
decree, shall be allowed to
operate within the dominion of
another nation, depends upon
what our greatest jurists have
been content to call 'the comity of
nations.' Although the phrase has
been often criticised, no
satisfactory substitute has been

A foreign judgment is not entitled
to full faith and credit when sued
upon another nation, but is a
prima facie evidence only of the

‘Comity,’ in the legal sense, is
neither a matter of absolute
obligation, on the one hand, nor of
mere courtesy and good will,
upon the other. But it is the
recognition which one nation
allows within its territory to the
legislative, executive or judicial
acts of another nation, having due
regard both to international duty
and convenience, and to the
rights of its own citizens, or of
other persons who are under the
protection of its laws.

No sovereign is bound, unless by
special compact, to execute within
his dominions a judgment
rendered by the tribunals of
another state, and if execution be
sought by suit upon the judgment
or otherwise, the tribunal in which
the suit is brought, or from which
execution is sought, is on
principle at liberty to examine into
the merits of such judgment, and
to give effect to it or not, as may
be found just and equitable. The
g e n e r a l c o m i t y, u t i l i t y, a n d
convenience of nations have,
however, established a usage
among most civilized states by
which the final judgments of
foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are reciprocally carried
into execution, under certain
regulations and restrictions, which
differ in different countries.

II. Jurisdiction
A. Definition

Jurisdiction is the right of the State (due to sovereignty) to exercise authority over
persons and things within its boundaries, subject to certain exceptions

Juridical Jurisdiction - legal authority of a State to exercise authority, through its courts or
agencies, to hear and adjudicate cases upon which its decision is sought

Legislative Jurisdiction - the power of the State to regulate or control, through rules of
law, interests or persons in a thing, event or situation

B. Types of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction of the Person of the Plaintiff - acquired from the moment he invokes the aid
of the court and voluntary submits himself by institution of the suit through proper
2. Jurisdiction of the Person of the Defendant - acquired by virtue of any of the following:
a. Voluntary appearance in court


Page !3 of 67

Leaving copies of the summons in the dwelling or other residence with someone of suitable age and discretion then residing . It may sit en banc or in its discretion. (3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. as long as it has jurisdiction over the thing even though it may not have personal jurisdiction over the persons whose interests are affected • Quasi in Rem . not to affect the interests of all persons in a thing but to affect the interests of particular persons in a thing C. instructions. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. /wncverder Page !4 of 67 ! . (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices.Action in rem .DIWATA NOTES b. the case shall be decided en banc: Provided. and in no case. that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. or seven Members. SECTION 5. Article VIII. quo warranto. the State may render through its courts a valid judgment. or operation of presidential decrees. prohibition. regardless of the person who may be interested therein • Action in Rem . Sections 4 and 5: SECTION 4. and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc. Related Laws and Provisions • 1987 Constitution. Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter .Action quasi in rem . Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof. Summons by Publication . five. Enters his appearance as defendant unless he makes it clear that the purpose of his appearance is to question the jurisdiction of the court over his person c. and other regulations. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc. ordinances. orders. and over petitions for certiorari.purpose of the suit is to affect the interests of all persons in a thing. mandamus. proclamations. Personal service. including those involving the constitutionality.Leaving copies in the defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge e. and habeas corpus. in divisions of three. the tendering of summons d. Jurisdiction over the Property (Res) . application.jurisdiction over the particular subject matter in controversy. and if he refuses. Substituted service of summons by: . The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors.the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong and is conferred by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and defines its powers 4. or law.purpose is to neither impose a personal liability or obligation upon anyone. When the required number is not obtained. other public ministers and consuls. international or executive agreement. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty.Involves the personal status of the plaintiff 3. without the concurrence of at least three of such Members.

at the instance of some person claiming to be owner. or modify substantive rights. ordinance. El Banco was the highest bidder in the public auction. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. The action to foreclose a mortgage is said to be a proceeding quasi in rem. as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. international or executive agreement. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. DOCTRINE Jurisdiction. RULING Yes. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. the Integrated Bar. pleading. practice. without taking actual physical control over the property assumes. to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world. and shall not diminish. presidential decree. Issue: Whether jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter were acquired /wncverder Page !5 of 67 ! . (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. How Acquired: Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal process. impost. a motion was filed by the administrator saying that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. AND ISSUE(S) 1. or regulation is in question.DIWATA NOTES (2) Review. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax. or toll. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the judge concerned.Filipino vs. law. instruction. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. Palanca Engracio Palanca mortgaged various parcels of real property in Manila to El Banco Español. El Banco Espanol . whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law. under special provisions of law. Seven years after the confirmation of the sale. El Banco then instituted a foreclosure proceeding. or affirm on appeal or certiorari. or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. revise. proclamation. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. and procedure in all courts. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. modify. Afterwards. Here the court. FACTS. Engracio returned to China and there he died and was not able to pay the mortgage. The court foreclosed the property upon publication in the Philippines but it was not sure if service of summons to China was made by the Clerk of Court. order. increase. reverse. the admission to the practice of law. or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein. the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. • • BP 129 on Jurisdiction of MTC and RTC Rules on Service of Summons under the Rules of Court CASE TITLE. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. by which is expressed the idea that while it is not strictly speaking an action in rem yet it partakes of that nature and is substantially such. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. assessment.

t h e c a s e w a s reconstituted and parties were informed of its reconstitution. This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the respondent judge. Casual presence of corporate agent or even his conduct of single or isolated items of activities in a state in the corporation’s behalf are not enough to subject it to suit on causes of action unconnected with the activities there. The defendant received Due process only requires only the benefits and protection of the t h a t i n o r d e r t o s u b j e c t a laws of the State and is subject to defendant to a judgment in jurisdiction there. Pecson No. FACTS. It employed 11-13 salesmen for three years who resided in Washington. Although the court exercises an abstract jurisdiction over civil cases involving disputes in real property. Issue: Did International Shoe’s activities in Washington make it subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington courts? /wncverder Yes. The terms of the orders of the shoes are established in Missouri. Page !6 of 67 ! . 3. International Shoe vs. It had no offices in Washington and made no contracts of sale there. Issue: Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction to declare the petitioners in contempt. Jurisdiction: His presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the The activities carried on by the Court was a prerequisite to its d e f e n d a n t c o r p o r a t i o n i n rendition of a judgment personally Washington were systematic and binding him. The State of Washington brought suit against International Shoe in Wa s h i n g t o n S t a t e C o u r t t o recover unpaid contributions to the unemployment compensation fund. DOCTRINE Though a court has acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter and the particular case has been submitted properly to it for hearing and decision. he R e g u l a r a n d s y s t e m a t i c should have certain minimum s o l i c i t a t i o n o f o r d e r s b y contacts with it such that the a p p e l l a n t ’ s s a l e s m e n w a s maintenance of the suit doesn’t sufficient to constitute doing offend traditional notions of fair business in the state and hence play and substantial justice.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. who declared petitioners guilty of contempt of court for not complying to an order requiring the petitioners to execute a deed of sale in favor of plaintiff over 1/2 of the land within ten days from the receipt of the resolution. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 2. Washington International Shoe is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Missouri. T h e r e a f t e r. it will overstep its jurisdiction if it renders a judgment which it has no power under the law to render. personam. continuous rather than irregular or casual. Caluag vs. The Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to declare petitioners in contempt because no charge has been filed. if he be not present in the territory of the forum. The case has been considered final and executory as MR and appeals were denied. amenable suit in its courts. it cannot exercise such jurisdiction unless a proper complaint be filed in court. Angel Mojica.




4. Pennoyer vs. Neff


In 1866, Mitchell (Neff’s attorney)
sued Neff, a non-resident, in OR
state court to recover unpaid legal
fees.  Mitchell sued Neff for land
that had not yet been seized by
the court. 
Mitchell published
notice of the commencement of
the action in an OR newspaper, in
accordance with state statute
about giving notice to out of state
defendants. Neff was not
personally served. Neff did not
appear and Mitchell obtained a
default judgment against him. 
Land was sold to Pennoyer at
auction and proceeds awarded to
Mitchell.  Neff sued Pennoyer to
recover the land.

A court cannot enter a judgment
against a non-resident unless that
person is personally served while
within the state or that person has
attached land at the time of suit.

Issue: Can the state exercise
personal jurisdiction on a nonresident who has not been
personally served and whose land
was not attached prior to the law


In this case the property was
moved against to satisfy a
personal judgment against a nonresident. Pre-trial seizure of the
l a n d w o u l d h a v e s a t i s fi e d
notification of a property judgment
(in rem), because it is assumed
that property is attached to the
However, to satisfy a
personal judgment (which was
case between Mitchell and Neff),
seizure is not a sufficient method
of notification, nor is public
Neff was not
personally notified nor was his
land attached at the time of

If, without personal service,
judgments in personam, obtained
ex parte against non-residents
and absent parties, upon mere
publication of process, which, in
the great majority of cases, would
never be seen by the parties
interested, could be upheld and
enforced, they would be the
constant instruments of fraud and
Judgments in rem for nonresidents must be given due
process, which involves a
personal appearance by the
Defendant or personal service of
notification or attachment of land.

Page !7 of 67




5. Philsec Investment vs. CA


Ventura Ducat obtained separate
loans from Ayala International
Finance Limited (“AYALA”) and
Philsec Investment Corp.
(“PHILSEC”) in the sum of $ 2.5
M secured by shares of stock
owned by Ducat. 1488, Inc.
assumed Ducat’s obligation. 1488
sold to Athona Holdings a parcel
of land in Harris County, Texas
while Philsec and Ayala extended
a loan to Athona to finance
payment of the purchase price.
Thus, Ducat was released from
the obligation.

The case was arbitrarily
dismissed. While this court has
given the effect of res judicata to
foreign judgments in several
cases, it was after the parties
opposed to the judgment had
been given ample opportunity to
repel them on grounds allowed
under Rule 39.

As Athona failed to pay the
balance of the purchase price, the
entire debt became due and
demandable. 1488 sued Philsec,
Ayala and Athona in the US for
payment of the balance plus
damages. While the civil case
was pending, Philsec filed a
complaint and Writ of Preliminary
Attachment against Ducat, et al.
in the Regional Trial Court of
Makati alleging that private
respondent Ducat committed
fraud by selling the property at a
price 400% more than its true
value. RTC of Makati issued a writ
of preliminary attachment against
the real and personal property of
Ducat. Ducat filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of litis
pendentia and forum non
conveniens and lack of cause of
action for PHILSEC as PHILSEC
is not a party to the sale. 1488,
Inc. also filed a Motion to Dismiss
contending that the action being
in personem, extraterritorial
service of summons by
publication was ineffectual and did
not vest the court with jurisdiction
over 1488, Inc., which is a nonresident foreign corporation.

In this case, neither the trial court
nor the appellate court was even
furnished copies of the pleadings
in the US Court or apprised of the
evidence presented thereat, to
assure a proper determination of
whether the issues then being
litigated in the US court were
exactly the issues raised in this
case such that the judgment that
might be rendered would
constitute res judicata. The trial
court arbitrarily dismissed the
case even after finding that Ducat
was not a party in the U.S. case.

It is not necessary for this purpose
to initiate a separate action or
proceeding for enforcement of the
foreign judgment. What is
essential is that there is
opportunity to challenge the
foreign judgment, in order for the
court to properly determine its
efficacy. This is because in this
jurisdiction, with respect to actions
in personam, as distinguished
from actions in rem, a foreign
judgment merely constitutes prima
facie evidence of the justness of
the claim of a party and, as such,
is subject to proof to the contrary.

Issue: Is the dismissal of the case


Page !8 of 67


6. Davao Light and Power Co.
vs. Court of Appeals
The Davao Light and Power Co.,
Inc.  ("Davao Light") filed a
collection suit against Queensland
Hotel ("Queensland") and
Teodorico Adarna ("Adarna") with
an ex parte  application for a writ
of preliminary attachment. On 3
May 1989, the trial court issued
an Order of Attachment, and the
corresponding Writ of Attachment
on 11 May 1989. On 12 May
1989, the summons, a copy of the
complaint, and the writ of
attachment was served upon
Queensland and Adarna.
Queensland and Adarna filed a
motion to discharge the
attachment on the ground that at
the time the Order of Attachment
and Writ of Attachment were
issued, the trial court has yet to
acquire jurisdiction over the cause
of action and over the persons of
the defendants.

A writ of preliminary attachment
may be issued before the court
acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant.
The court may validly issue a writ
of preliminary injunction prior to
the acquisition of  jurisdiction  over
the person of the defendant. 
There is an appreciable period of
time between the commencement
of the action (takes place upon
the filing of an initiatory pleading)
and the service of summons to
the defendant. In the meanwhile,
there are a number of actions
which the plaintiff or the court may
validly take, including the
application for and grant of the
provisional remedy of preliminary
attachment. There is nothing in
the law which prohibits the court
from granting the remedy prior to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.

A preliminary attachment may be
discharged with the same ease as
obtaining it. In any case, the ease
of availing the provisional remedy
of preliminary attachment is
matched by the ease with which it
can be remedied by either the
posting of a counterbond, or by a
showing of its improper or
irregular issuance. The second
means of defeating a preliminary
attachement, however, may not
be availed of if the writ was issued
upon a ground which is at the
same time the applicant's cause
of action
Preliminary attachment not
binding until jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is
acquired. The writ of preliminary
a t t a c h m e n t , h o w e v e r, e v e n
though validly issued, is not
binding upon the defendant until
jurisdiction over his person is first

Issue: Whether or not the writ of
preliminary attachment was Notice and hearing are not
validly issued.
prerequisites to the issuance of a
writ of preliminary attachment.


Page !9 of 67

This authority. Eastern Book Supply Service PTE. Sherman Yes. both private respondents and a certain Lowe. FACTS. obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore. inter alia. to the exclusion of all the rest. … DOCTRINE The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore. which finds its source in the concept of sovereignty. We hereby agree that the Courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this guarantee. HSBC filed A complaint for collection of a sum of money against private respondents Sherman and Reloj before RTC of Quezon City. whether the proceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in personam. o n amounts due under said overdraft facility. that: traditional notions of fair play and This guarantee and all rights.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. p a y a b l e m o n t h l y. the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum The Joint and Several Guarantee contacts that will not offend provides. Thus. a State does not assume jurisdiction over travelling sovereigns. jurisdiction is often defined as the light of a State to exercise authority over persons and things within its boundaries subject to certain exceptions. Thus. To be reasonable. As a security for the repayment by the COMPANY of sums advanced by HSBC to it through the aforesaid overdraft facility.000 with interest at 3% over HSBC prime r a t e . a company incorporated in Singapore applied with and was granted by HSBC Singapore branch an overdraft facility in the maximum amount of Singapore dollars 200. The COMPANY failed to pay its obligation. Issue: Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the suit? /wncverder Page !10 of !67 . executed a Joint and Several Guarantee in favor of HSBC whereby private respondents and Lowe agreed to pay. HSBC demanded payment and inasmuch as the private respondents still failed to pay. and foreign military units stationed in or marching through State territory with the permission of the latter's authorities. jointly and severally. has jurisdiction. obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore. One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it. In International Law. HSBC vs. While it is true that "the transaction took place in Singaporean setting" and that the Joint and Several Guarantee contains a choice-of-forum clause. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 7. Ltd. We hereby agree that the Courts in Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this guarantee" be liberally construed. ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of other States. in 1982. is exclusive within and throughout the domain of the State. substantial justice. Neither did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction. all of whom were directors of the COMPANY at such time. In 1981. the very essence of due process dictates that the stipulation that "[t]his guarantee and all rights. on demand all sums owed by the COMPANY to petitioner BANK under the aforestated overdraft facility.

AND ISSUE(S) RULING 8. and thus. the action nevertheless became an in personam one when Urbino asked for damages in the said amount.000. only a personal service of summons would have vested the court jurisdiction over BDB. In 1989. the other summons which were made through publication is not applicable to BDB as it alleged that the action against them is in personam. When the defendant is a nonresident. Cesar Urbino. however. BDB assailed the said decision as it argued that there was no valid service of summons because the summons was issued to the ambassador of Brazil. BDB however failed to appear multiple times. Eventually. one brought against a person on the basis of his personal liability. a foreign corporation not engaged in business in the Philippines nor does it have any office here or any agent. BDB was impleaded simply because it has a claim over the sunken ship. This cannot be done. Brasil vs. jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. Although the suit is originally in rem as it was BDB’s claim on the sunken ship which was used as the basis for it being impleaded. Further. FACTS. Sr. personal service of summons within the state is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person. Court of Appeals No. a judgment was rendered and BDB was adjudged to pay $300.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. if the defendant is not physically present in the country. Issue: Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over Banco Do Brasil. Banco Do Brasil is correct. the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try and decide the case against him. As such. DOCTRINE Where the action is in personam.00 in damages in favor of Urbino for BDB being a nuisance defendant. Urbino impleaded Banco Do Brasil (BDB). /wncverder Page !11 of !67 . sued Poro Point Shipping Services for damages the former incurred when one of the latter’s ship ran aground causing losses to Urbino.

is Issue: Whether or not the RTC is deemed to have voluntarily considered to have committed submitted to the jurisdiction of g r a v e a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n said court.   It is a suit in which the plaintiff seeks to be freed from its obligations to the defendant under a contract and to hold said defendant pecuniarily liable to the plaintiff for entering into such contract. specific reliefs with the Court of Appeals. and t h e a c t i o n i n v o l v e d i s  i n personam. should be held to have voluntarily appeared before the trial court On April 3. petitioner sought when it prayed for. and other vigorously argues that petitioner grounds. the trial court authorized respondent’s counsel to personally bring the summons and Complaint to the Philippine Consulate General in Sydney. petitioner filed a Special Appearance With Rothschild/Investec. 2006. 2005. and was redress via a Petition for Certiorari actually afforded. Philippine courts cannot try any case against him because of the impossibility of acquiring jurisdiction over his person unless he voluntarily appears in court Upon respondent’s motion. petitioner since the defendant. .DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. respondent does not have any I n t h i s r e g a r d . extraterritorial service of summons applies only where the action is in rem or quasi in rem. while an action  quasi in rem  names a person as defendant.    On the other hand. FACTS. NM Rothschild vs. but not if an action is  in personam. in which case the action will be converted to onequasi in rem. that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in The Court therefore rule that denying its Motion to Dismiss. Since the action involved in the case at bar is  in personam  and On October 20.    It is therefore an action  in personam. alleging from the trial court.   A party cannot invoke amounting to lack or excess of the jurisdiction of a court to jurisdiction in the denial of the secure affirmative relief against Motion to Dismiss on account of his opponent and after obtaining its failure to acquire jurisdiction or failing to obtain such relief. when the defendant or respondent does not reside and is not found in the Philippines. r e s p o n d e n t against petitioner. does not Motion to Dismiss praying for the reside and is not found in the dismissal of the Complaint on the Philippines. unless and until the plaintiff attaches a property within the Philippines belonging to the defendant. by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court. repudiate or question that same jurisdiction /wncverder It is likewise settled that an action  in personam  is lodged against a person based on personal liability. the Complaint failed to appears in court state a cause of action. Undoubtedly. RULING DOCTRINE The Complaint in the case at bar is an  action to declare the loan and Hedging Contracts between the parties void with a prayer for damages.   petitioner. Lepanto Lepanto filed with the RTC of Makati a complaint against NM Rothschild praying for a judgment declaring the loan and hedging contracts between the parties void for being contrary to Article 2018 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and for damages. the Philippine courts grounds that the court has not cannot try any case against it acquired jurisdiction over the because of the impossibility of person of petitioner due to the acquiring jurisdiction over its defective and improper service of person unless it voluntarily summons. Australia for the latter o f fi c e t o e f f e c t s e r v i c e o f summons on petitioner. over the person of the defendant. AND ISSUE(S) 9. Page !12 of !67 . but its object is to subject that person’s interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation. an action  in rem  is directed against the thing itself instead of the person.

NLRC Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. he was recruited by Palace Hotel in Beijing. Issue: Whether or not NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter. Dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens 2. AND ISSUE(S) 1. /wncverder Page !13 of !67 . 5. MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the Philippines. the Palace Hotel and t o w h i c h t h e p a r t i e s m a y MHIL are foreign corporations – conveniently resort to. it has no direct business in decision as to the law and the the affairs of the Palace Hotel. facts. The employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without the intervention of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). FACTS. The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum non The NLRC is a very inconvenient conveniens. In February 1990. (1) that the Philippine court is one 2. It is imperative that the Court should have jurisdiction over the case prior to exercising the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In September 1989. This dismissal does not prevent a plaintiff from refiling his or her case in the more appropriate forum. Ltd. 4. The Palace Hotel was impleaded but no summons were served upon it. In August 1989. Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens • • • Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where another court. T h e o n l y l i n k t h a t t h e chooses to do so provided: Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino. However. In June 1988. is much better suited to hear the case. It owns 50% of MHIL. or forum. a Philippine court forum for the following reasons: or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it 1 . Palace Hotel notified Santos that he will be laid off due to business reverses. RULING DOCTRINE No. MHC is a government owned and controlled corporation. its decision. and
 3. and not on the basis of forum non conveniens.
 MHC cannot be held liable (2) that the Philippine court is in a because it merely owns 50% of position to make an intelligent MHIL. China. he was officially terminated. a foreign corporation (Hong Kong).DIWATA NOTES D. The labor arbiter who handled the case ruled in favor of Santos. Manila Hotel vs. Assume jurisdiction and apply either forum law or foreign law CASE TITLE. It cannot determine which law is applicable. If the Court has no jurisdiction over a case involving foreign elements. their agents/ 
 officers are not residents of the Philippines. Santos’ contract was entered into without the intervention of the None of the above conditions are POEA apparent in the case at bar. Ways of Dealing with a Conflict Problem 1. then the case should be dismissed on the ground of LACK OF JURISDICTION. Santos’ contract with the (3) that the Philippine court has or Palace Hotel was not entered into is likely to have power to enforce in the Philippines. Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and Manila Hotel International. the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts pertaining to the case. MHIL manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. It is not competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of happened outside our jurisdiction. (MHIL). 
 Due to the foregoing.

e. responsible for fixing southbound cargoes with revenues sufficient Four corporations namely NSS to cover ordinary expenses. argued by invoking his right as maritime lienholder under PD No. i. it must be established that the credit was extended to the vessel itself. Atlantic. However.. There is no basis supplied MV Estella with diesel oil for the CA to state that KK Shell and other materials. The best recourse would have been to allow the trial court to proceed with the case and consider whatever defenses may be raised by private respondents after they have filed their answer and evidence to support their conflicting claims has been presented. Neither is the court ready to rule on the private respondents' invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. non conveniens may be invoked The CA was erroneously referring to another case involving another ship in another court. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 2. p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e (Panama Corporati on). in order to invoke this. by KK Shell merely alleges it Fu Hing. and choice-of-forum clause. KK Shell. Keihin Corporation. a P h i l i p p i n e agreement. thus. a l l e g i n g t h a t request of NSS who was acting Crestamonte also owes them sum for and as duly appointed agent of of money because they also Crestamonte. Shipping (Japanese appointee of the complaint in intervention filed Crestamonte). the Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978. considering the dearth of evidence due to the fact that the private respondents have yet to file their answer in the proceeding below and trial on the merits is still to be conducted. and KK Shell filed their provided and supplied !v Estella m o t i o n s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n with marine diesel oil upon s e p a r a t e l y . Due to the fact of clearly states are NSS' principal nonpayment by Crestamonte of duties. as the exact nature of the relationship of the parties is still to be established. KK Shell vs. to subb a r e b o a t c h a r t e r e d b y agents is made in the text of the C r e s t a m o n t e . Also. which is owned by Atlantic a g r e e m e n t .DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. FACTS. In other words. Page !14 of !67 . whether or not petitioner are indeed maritime lienholder and as such may enforce the lien against the MVEstella are matters that still have to be established. that it shall provide for amounts due to Kumagai. Court of Appeals 1. No express reference to the contracting of sub-agents or the Kumagai supplied oil to MV applicability of the term of the Estella. in turn. admitted in its intervention that it was appointed as local agent/subIssue: Whether or not KK Shell agent or representatives by NSS should be allowed to intervene b y v i r t u e o f s a i d A g e n c y and whether the doctrine of forum Agreement. and MV Japanese ports and shall be Estella. What the contract corporation. 1521. /wncverder DOCTRINE Atlantic and MV Estella are invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens to be a valid ground for the dismissal of KK Shell's complaint in intervention. the the necessary services required latter filed a case of collection of f o r t h e h u s b a n d i n g o f s u m o f m o n e y a g a i n s t Crestamonte's vessels in Crestamonte. additional evidence must be given to establish such allegation.

hence there was no Court did not lay down any v a l i d c o n t r a c t o f s a l e . Subsequently. s o u g h t t h e Both cases aim to have the bank repudiation of the agreement as it e s c a p e l i a b i l i t y f r o m t h e alleged that Rivera was not agreement it entered into with authorized to enter into such an Demetria et al. et al. To avoid or minimize this unethical practice of subverting justice. plaintiff. Henry Co. Bank vs. First Philippine International Yes. The Bank filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. Bank had an agreement with which involves the same property. The Supreme agreement. The trial court denied the motion since the trial has been concluded already and the case is now pending appeal. Meanwhile. FACTS. where nonresident litigants are given the option to choose the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for various reasons or excuses. There is identity parcels of land for a purchase of parties even though the first price of P5. the principle of forum non conveniens was developed whereby a court. 
 Demetria et al. Demetria et al argued that the second case constitutes forum shopping. promulgated Circular 28-91. the Court had proscribed it in the Interim Rules and Guidelines issued on January 11.. The warned that a repetition will be regional trial court ruled in favor of dealt with more severely. as a reprehensible manipulation of court processes and proceeding. The case is in the name of the bank as said agreement was made by defendant. who holds 80% shares of stocks with the said Bank. The sought to have the agreement. There is still forum Later however. L e o n i d a essentially represents the bank. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 3. assisted by ACCRA law office. filed a separate civil case against Demetria and Janolo seeking to have the purported contract of sale be declared unenforceable against the Bank. through shopping here because Henry Co i t s c o n s e r v a t o r . and the second case Demetria and Janolo with the is in the name of Henry Co as Bank’s manager. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. vs. Narvasa (now Chief Justice) in Minister of Natural Resources. Court of Appeals There is forum shopping because Producers Bank (now called First there is identity of interest and Philippine International Bank).DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. Mercurio Rivera.5 million pesos. to avoid overcrowded dockets. What therefore originally started both in conflicts of laws and in our domestic law as a legitimate device for solving problems has been abused and misused to assure scheming litigants of dubious reliefs. Demetria and ACCRA lawyers but they were Janolo sued Producers Bank. 1983 and had struck down in several cases the inveterate use of this insidious malpractice. Page !15 of !67 . forum-shopping originated as a concept in private international law. including to secure procedural advantages. to annoy and harass the defendant. Forum-shopping as the filing of repetitious suits in different courts has been condemned by Justice Andres R. Demetrio Demetria and Jose be declared unenforceable as Janolo for the two to purchase the against the Bank. There is identity conservatorship since 1984. et al. Heirs of Orval Hughes. To combat these less than honorable excuses. parties between the first case and w h i c h h a s b e e n u n d e r the second case. the Supreme Court. Issue: Is there forum shopping /wncverder DOCTRINE To begin with. as already mentioned. filed a motion for intervention with the trial court. disciplinary action against the Subsequently. or to select a more friendly venue. And even before that. the Bank. E n c a r n a c i o n . in conflicts of law cases. is the of interest because both cases owner of 6 parcels of land. Co.

FACTS. The assumption of jurisdiction over a case the cause of action of which arose from another jurisdiction and wherein both parties are nonIssue: Whether or not the US residents is discretionary upon the courts may dismiss the case on court. payable in German currency. where they are governed by the laws of the country to which the parties belong. The courts in both jurisdictions are competent to try the case and summons may be served upon the insurance companies in both jurisdictions. the ground of forum non conveniens. to the detriment of other litigants. or international comity. from motives of convenience. and to establish a local agency to whom summons may be served. Moreover. and there is no difficulty in a resort to its courts. or where they have agreed to resort to no other tribunals * * * not on the ground that it has not jurisdiction. New York Life Insurance Company RULING Yes. USA. they were made to agree to be supervised by German authorities. but that. as. AND ISSUE(S) 4. The insurance companies were later sued before courts in both the US and Germany for the recovery on some 240 life insurance policies issued in Germany to German nationals. Page !16 of !67 . trying the case in the US additionally burden the courts in that jurisdiction.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. /wncverder DOCTRINE Circumstances often exist which render it inexpedient for the court to take jurisdiction of controversies between foreigners in cases not arising in the country of the forum. including the possibility of having to bring documentary evidence all the way from their office in Germany. it will use its discretion whether to exercise jurisdiction or not. Requiring the insurance companies to defend their interests in the US would subject them to great and unnecessary inconvenience and expenses. As conditions to be allowed to conduct business in Germany. to invest the proceeds of policies in German securities. Heine vs. The New York Life Insurance Company and the Guardian Insurance Company were corporations created in New York.

Further. In Re: Union Carbide Corp.530 were paid and Sy plaintiff. 6. tried where the defendant resides The order amounted to $22. Yap Although the agreement was Wing On is a foreign partnership done in New York. at the election of the but only $3. the goods were based in New York. The disaster resulted to at least 2. Yap failed to settle debt. Union of India. the Indian Government made by the Court of Appeals) enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act. Sy Yes.000 serious Indian Courts and waive injuries. Consideration of inadequacy to enforce the judgment 
 Issue: Does the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the case /wncverder Page !17 of !67 . I n materials with a verbal agreement connection with the transaction in that Sy Yap would pay Wing On question and considering that the the value of the clothing material. The district court loses all further jurisdiction over the cases when it dismisses on the grounds of forum non conveniens. which lawyers in the US on behalf of comport with the minimal thousands of Indians. With this. It contracted delivered and received in the with Sy Yap through its agent in Philippines. Carbide has consented to Indian jurisdiction. the language of the district court's condition. the j u r i s d i c t i o n b e c a u s e U n i o n Government of India filed a Carbide has its principal place of motion to dismiss all cases filed in business in the United States is the US. hence the former filed a case in the Philippines. FACTS. The dismissal of the consolidated Gas Plant cases filed in the United States is proper. Plaintiffs' assertion that the most probative evidence on negligence and causation is located in the United States is not supported by the record. 1984 the most tragic industrial The district court granted the MTD disaster in history occurred in the on the condition that UCC: city of Bhopal. of Civil Procedure (SC discounted this condition In 1985. On the night of December 2-3. the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 5. the first 2. Wing On may New York for purchase of clothing s u e i n t h e P h i l i p p i n e s . Wing On Company vs. since Union such motion. The principal witnesses and documents are located almost entirely in India. The US Courts granted not persuasive.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. the profits case may be commenced and would be divided between them. Consent to the jurisdiction of deaths and 200. action is a personal action. the and after the sale. requirements of due process 144 additional actions have been 3. defenses based on the statute of limitations On December 7. which requires that the judgment "comport with minimal requirements of due process. Be subject to modes of commenced in federal courts in discovery under Federal Rules the US. When court would decline jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens: Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant. 1984.100 1. Since then.246 or plaintiff." may be misconstrued as providing for a lesser standard than American courts would otherwise require. which deals with the Plaintiffs' contention that the processing of claims of victims of d i s t r i c t c o u r t s h o u l d r e t a i n the tragedy. Any denial of due process by the Indian courts can be raised as a defense to any attempts to enforce an Indian judgment in United States courts. Hence. Agree to satisfy the Indian lawsuit was filed by American Court judgment.

FACTS. a court. h e n c e . proved: 1. Kitamura. or is likely to have the power On 8 January 1999. in conflictsof-laws cases. respondent. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That the Philippine Court is in alleged nonpayment of a position to make an commissions. Thus.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. Brand Marine Services Inc. t h e p r o p r i e t y o f before the Regional Trial Court of dismissing a case based on the Bauang. Rouzie R e c e n t l y i n H a s e g a w a v. i t i s m o r e p r o p e r l y Inc. discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction Petitioner sought the dismissal of on this ground. DOCTRINE On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. the parties and the res. The contract stated that adequate to resolve controversies the rights and obligations shall be with a foreign element. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 7. may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. The Complaint principle of forum non conveniens named as defendants herein requires a factual determination. whereby BMSI hired l a w s p r o b l e m s . While it is within the the earlier labor case. That the Philippine Court has contract. jurisdiction over the person of petitioner (as party defendant) was acquired by its voluntary appearance in court. the trial court acquired jurisdiction over herein respondent (as party plaintiff) upon the filing of the complaint. Raytheon International vs. it should do so the complaint on grounds of o n l y a f t e r v i t a l f a c t s a r e failure to state a cause of action established. an American judicial resolution of conflicts-ofcitizen. n a m e l y : respondent as its representative jurisdiction. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is filed. it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflictof-laws or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. and to negotiate the sale of services in recognition and enforcement of several government projects in judgments. a suit against BMSI for 2. That the Philippine Court is On 16 July 1994. to determine whether and forum non conveniens and special circumstances require the prayed for damages by way of court’s desistance. to enforce its decision. choice of law. in the instances the Philippines for an agreed where the Court held that the remuneration of 10% of the gross local judicial machinery was receipts. Yes. respondent filed one to which the parties may before the Arbitration Branch of conveniently resort. illegal termination intelligent decision as to the and breach of employment law and the facts.            compulsory counterclaim. the NLRC. As regards jurisdiction over the parties. as well as BMSI and RUST. La Union. instituted an action for damages M o r e o v e r. then a resident of La Union. On the other hand. petitioner Raytheon International. the Court outlined 3 entered into an agreement with consecutive phases involved in Stockton Rouzie. the g o v e r n e d b y t h e l a w s o f following requisites had to be Connecticut. Issue: Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens /wncverder Page !18 of !67 . and 3. c o n s i d e r e d a s a m a t t e r o f the two corporations impleaded in defense.

that his services would be engaged by the company only up to the substantial completion of the STAR Project. Kitamura requested a negotiation that he be transferred to BBRI project. Kitamaru then filed for specific performance & damages with the RTC of Lipa City. T h e C o u r t fi n d s t h e agreed upon by the parties or invocation of these grounds the law intended by them unsound. and refused to negotiate the renewal. in cases c l a u s e i n a n y a p p l i c a b l e involving property.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. the litigation. Jurisdiction. and validity of and lex contractus. The agreement provides that respondent was to extend professional services to N i p p o n f o r a y e a r. t h e m o s t plaintiff or the petitioner. claim that the trial court is not properly vested by law with • L e x l o c i c e l e b r a t i o n i s jurisdiction to hear the subject relates to the “law of the place controversy for a Civil Case for of the ceremony” or the law of s p e c i fi c p e r f o r m a n c e a n d the place where a contract is damages is one not capable of made. petitioners. petitioners posit that local courts have no substantial relationship to the parties following the [state of the] most significant relationship rule in Private International Law. Hasegawa vs Kitamura Hasegawa entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with respondent Minoru Kitamura. choice of law issue. What they rather raise the place where a contract is as grounds to question subject executed or to be performed. Nearing its completion. principles of lex loci celebrationis construction. over the significant factors are the parties’ defendant or the respondent. FACTS. Nippon’s contends that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and between Japanese nationals. Issue: /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE The question of whether the law • S t a t e o f t h e M o s t of a state can be applied to a Significant Relationship transaction is different from the Rule: question of whether the courts of that state have jurisdiction to The rights and liabilities of the enter a judgment. the dismissal of an action for lack of tort state. over the issues tort. Threatened by the impending unemployment. In order to determine the mostpetitioners are actually referring to significant relationship under a subject matter jurisdiction. and the “state the contract and it may of the most significant relationship pertain to the law voluntarily r u l e . but Nippon insisted that the repondent’s contract was for a fixed term that had already expired. and of other states that jurisdiction over the subject matter may have an interest by virtue of of the claim. most significant relationship to the however. Nippon Files a Motion to Dismiss. only the first phase is law of the state which has the at issue—jurisdiction. U n d e r t h e m o s t s i g n i fi c a n t it must have jurisdiction over the r e l a t i o n s h i p r u l e . a court to validly exercise its power to adjudicate a controversy. In assailing the trial c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n h e r e i n . parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local In this case. For occurrence and the parties. N i p p o n ’s G e n e r a l M a n a g e r informed Kitamura that they no longer intend to automatically renew his ICA. over domicile and the location of the the subject matter. N i p p o n assigned Hasegawa to the STAR Project.  A parties’ forum selection of the case and. Page !19 of !67 . choice In the instant case. has various aspects. do not enforcement of judgments. The doctrine of lex pecuniary estimation and is contractus or lex loci properly cognizable by the RTC of contractusmeans the “law of Lipa City. and recognition and their motion to dismiss. consideration is given to the policies and To succeed in its motion for the interests of the forum state. three the claims. AND ISSUE(S) 8. consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction.” matter jurisdiction are the It controls the nature. over the res or agreement is also a factor a court the thing which is the subject of will consider. either expressly or implicitly. in of law. Thus. the movant must the domicile of the parties or other show that the court or tribunal relevant factors cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law • In the judicial resolution of grants it the power to adjudicate conflicts problems.

either because the admissions on file show that there main aspects of the case are no genuine issues of fact to transpired in a foreign be tried. a civil court. resident plaintiff sought the since the facts are not in dispute. among others. Gil Miguel Puyat. Puyat was only able to pay $5k. Puyat also did not be maintained. He likewise averred that the trial court had no jurisdiction because the issue involved are partnership matters which are under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). the trial court properly presumed. court. or to convey or harass the defendant. The inadequacy of the local issue involved is the payment of judicial machinery for money upon promissory notes effectuating the right sought to with damages. As such. applying the principle of processual presumption. The belief that the nonsummary judgment. that the California court had no jurisdiction over the case. hence. The difficulty of ascertaining filed by Zabarte with the California foreign law. Zabarte No.] merely to case summarily by applying the secure procedural advantages law to the material facts. Gil Miguel Puyat vs. He however admitted that the 4. forum[. USA. In short. The trial court granted the motion and eventually gave a favorable judgment for Zabarte. Issue: Whether or not Puyat is correct /wncverder Under the principle of forum non conveniens. the foreign judgment is void.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. courts may nonetheless refuse to entertain a case for any of the following practical reasons: Page !20 of !67 . The California court ordered Puyat to pay the amount of $241k. In this case. hence. Puyat filed an Answer where he alleged. the Rules allow a party to jurisdiction or the material pierce the allegations in the witnesses have their pleadings and to obtain residence there. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. had no residents or aliens when the jurisdiction because the case docket may already be involved was a partnership issue.] a practice known as the court is allowed to decide the forum shopping[. immediate relief by way of 2. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 9. d e p o s i t i o n s a n d elsewhere. In this case. and attach a copy of the complaint 5. lost a collection suit filed against him by Ron Zabarte in a court in California. Puyat’s Answer 3. The belief that the matter can and useless delays. The unwillingness to extend merely alleged that the California local judicial facilities to noncourt. In January 1994. When be better tried and decided a f fi d a v i t s . there’s no longer a need to try the facts in this case. a foreigner. a summary judgment was in order. that the California law is the same as Philippine law – that cases involving collection of money is cognizable by civil courts. overcrowded. Zabarte filed an action to enforce the California judgment here in the Philippines against Puyat. Summary judgment is resorted to in order to avoid long drawn out litigations 1. even if the exercise of jurisdiction is authorized by law. Puyat’s Answer did not really tender an issue. And by applying the principle of processual presumption. FACTS. Zabarte then filed a motion for summary judgment as he argued that Puyat’s Answer tendered no issue. The allowance of summary judgment is proper.

m i x c o n c r e t e operations in the Philippines. to determine whether special circumstances require the court’s desistance. after which. PIL refused to comply with its undertaking to employ Todaro on a permanent basis. Instead of filing an answer. Pioneer vs. Issue: Whether the RTC should have dismissed the case on the basis of forum non conveniens due to a presence of a foreign element /wncverder Page !21 of !67 . In May 1996.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. PIL contracted Todaro and asked him if he was available to join them in connection with their intention to establish a ready-mix concrete plant and other related operations in the Philippines. Todaro informed PIL of his availability and interest to join them. Todaro No. However. Antonio Todaro filed with the RTC a complaint for sum of money and damages with preliminary attachment against Pioneer International Limited. hence. FACTS. DOCTRINE The doctrine of forum non conveniens should not be used as a ground for a motion to dismiss because Section 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules of Court does not include said doctrine as a ground. Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the doctrine depends largely upon the facts of a particular case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 10. Todaro came to an agreement wherein the former consented to engage the services of the latter as consultant for 2-3 months. the petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of no cause of action and no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Todaro alleged that PIL is a corporation duly organized under the laws of Australia and is principally engaged in the ready-mix concrete and concrete aggregate business. The Court further ruled that while it is within the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground. it is more properly considered as a matter of defense. and that the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual determination. it should do so only after vital facts are established. he will be employed as the manager of P I L’ s r e a d y . Subsequently.

acquired as community property This fundamental principle is of the conjugal partnership of stated in the first paragraph of Allison and his wife. FACTS. which requires Gibbs to present any document that succession tax has been paid. however. he is the sole owner of the properties left by the deceased hence should not be liable to pay the taxes. contracts. determines the governing law CASE TITLE. shall be deemed partnership property in the absence of proof that it belongs exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Gibbs vs. Gibbs died and that in accordance to the laws of California. 1929. by the law of the PH. During the existence of their marriage. and 28331. Page !22 of !67 . 28336. With this. The RD. such as torts. in the absence of an antenuptial contract. Allison Gibbs went to the Register of Deeds to cancel the old certificates of title and issue a TCT to his name. from the date of acquisition until her death. convenience. family law or property. 1. an issue determined as contractual is immediately referred to the place of contracting. A. are determined by the law of the place where the property is situated. the *** nature and extent of the title which vested in Mrs. Government Allison Gibbs and his wife Eva Johnson Gibbs are both citizens of California and domiciled therein since their marriage in July 1906. descent. she follows: "Personal property is was vested of a title equal to that subject to the laws of the nation of of her husband. the respective rights of husband and wife in such property. in the PH lands covered by Certificates of Title 20880. the properties left would be automatically be owned by the surviving husband. Gibbs at the It is principle firmly established time of the acquisition of the that to the law of the state in community lands here in question which the land is situated we must m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d i n look for the rules which govern its accordance with the lex rei sitae. Single Aspect Method • • • Choice-of-law theories have traditionally concentrated on one element of a situation in order to connect the case to a particular legal community. while that is tortious is assigned the law of place where the tort happened. /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE It results that the wife of the appellee was. Under this broad principle. alienation. real property to the laws of the country in which it All the property of the spouses is situated.DIWATA NOTES III. upon the death of the wife. In accord with the rule that real property is subject to the lex rei sitae. to which an issue is assigned. the spouses acquired lands in the Philippines as conjugal property. CHARACTERIZATION It is the process by which a court at the beginning of the choice-of-law process assigns a disputed question to an area in substantive law. of inheritance. For example. did not transfer the title to the name of Allison without first complying to the provisions of Section 1547 of Article XI of Chapter 40 of the Administrative Code. and transfer. The obvious goal of this method is to foster simplicity. vested a descendible interest. irrespective of the The descendable interest of Eva domicile of the parties or to the G i b b s i n t h e l a n d s w a s place where the marriage was transmitted to her heirs by virtue celebrated. AND ISSUE(S) 1. Subject Matter Characterization • classification by the court of a factual situation in a legal category. Under the article 10 of our Civil Code as law of the Philippine Islands. equal to that of her husband. and uniformity of results. the owner thereof. On November 28. It is admitted that the Philippine and for the effect and construction lands here in question were of wills and other conveyances. Mrs. Allison argued that based on the laws of California.

and discourage forum shopping. are analyzed and the applicable law is arrive at by rationally elaborating and applying the policies and purposes underlying the particular legal rules that come in question as well as the need of interstate or international intercourse. • If the issue is procedural. IV. Procedural Characterization • It directs the court to the extent it will apply the foreign law.DIWATA NOTES 2. a. Page !23 of !67 . • The forum refers to the law of the place of occurrence of the last act necessary to complete the cause of action. B. • If the issue is substantive. Its end is to reach a just resolution for the case at hand. Depecage is the process of applying rules of different states on the basis of the precise issue involved. the court may apply the foreign law. ✦ Statute of Limitations and Borrowing Statute . they were considered as procedural because they barred only the legal remedy without impairing the substantive right involved. • The right vests in the plaintiff and he carries it with him to be enforced in any forum he chooses to bring suit.by tradition. • The law od the state of the last act is considered the law applicable to all substantive issues of the case. However. CHOICE OF LAW A. Vested Rights Theory • An act done in a foreign jurisdiction gives rise to the existence of a right if the laws of that state provides so. enhance predictability. When Substantive • if they provide a shorter period for certain types of claims that falls within a wider classification covered by a general statute of limitations Specificity Test • a statute of limitations of a foreign country is treated as substantive when the limitation was “directed to the newly created liability so specifically as to warrant saying that it qualified the right”. • Examples: ✦ Statute of Frauds . 2. The doctrine of depecage involves the separation of issues and the application of a distinct choice-of-law analysis to each issue. Traditional Approach • Traditional learning is anchored on the principle that choice-of-law rules that are simple in form and capable of easy administration would promote uniformity of result. Multi-Aspect Method (Dépaçage) • • The phenomenon where different aspects of a case involving a foreign element may be governed by different systems of laws. Modern Approach • • /wncverder All important factors of the case. both territorial and non-territorial.considered as substantive if the words of the law relate to forbidding the creation of an obligation. it is suppose to follow the law of the forum. one that forbids the enforcement of the obligation is categorized as procedural. Substance vs. Approaches 1.

e. c. Choice-Influencing Considerations • • /wncverder This approach contrasted with interest analysis which apply a particular rule Five major choice-influencing considerations that would lead the courts to the choice of law decision in a given case: ✦ Predictability of results ✦ Maintenance of interstate and international order ✦ Simplification of the judicial task ✦ Application of the better rule of law ✦ Advancement of the forum’s governmental interests Page !24 of !67 . • The development of comparative impairment has pressured courts to look behind an apparent conflict to the precise issue and the precise interest of each state. Functional Analysis • The court should consider whether the law of a State reflects a emerging or regressing policy. d. • Factual contacts alone did not determine the outcome of a case unless they reflected a state policy which would be advanced by application of the substantive state law. Place of Most Significant Relationship/ Center of Gravity • Law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort or in contract b. Comparative Impairment • Called for the subordination of the state objective which would be least impaired.DIWATA NOTES a. • The Courts were asked to weigh conflicting interests and apply the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not followed. Interest Analysis • The resolution of choice-of-law problems by looking at the policy behind the laws of the involved states and the interest each state had in applying its own laws.

e s p e c i a l l y provisions relating to matters affected with public policy are deemed written into the contract. of our Civil Code is that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations as they may deem convenient. Saudi Arabia Pakistan International Airlines on 28 January 1982.’ Thus. needed for the work. 5 SCRA 175 (1962)]. Consequently. petitioner and OBALCO. concerning his qualifications and experience before starting to We had already ruled that work.00 with a duration of two the primacy of the labor laws of years from the date of his Saudi Arabia over Philippine labor departure for Saudi Arabia. NLRC PARTIES NOT AT LIBERTY TO CONTRACT AWAY PROVISIONS Complainant was hired as a OF LAW HEAVILY IMPRESSED Mechanical Engineer in Riyadh WITH PUBLIC INTEREST. public order or public policy. Consequently. FACTS. Petitioner questions the jurisdiction of the public respondent NLRC. [CIR v. morals. of course. reduced by 20% only but this was as PIA argues. he failed to meet the parties agreeing on some other qualifications and experiences laws to govern their relationship. 148 SCRA 11 (1987)] DOCTRINE The rule in Article 1306. he the law between the parties. Manila Resources vs. suffice it to say that in the his arrival in Riyadh. Upon laws. BES decided in favor of the complainant ordering the respondents to pay the complainant’s unexpired portion of his contract. proceedings continued in the NLRC.. Court. He reported (Pakistan International Airlines for duty at OBALCO and was Corporation v. Limits CASE TITLE. 190 SCRA g i v e n a fi n a l e x a m i n a t i o n 99. t h e governing principle is that parties may not contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions dealing with matters heavily impressed with public interest. The respondents claim that Philippine laws and regulations by his own verbal and written cannot be rendered illusory by the admission. Nevertheless. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 1.000. Intermediate Appellate February 1982.DIWATA NOTES B. P u t a l i t t l e d i ff e r e n t l y. since a contract is turned down. Ople. was repatriated to Manila on 14 [Henson v. however. counter-balancing the principle of autonomy of contracting parties is the equally general rule that provisions of a p p l i c a b l e l a w. private respondent The principle of party autonomy in filed a complaint with the Bureau contracts is not. United Lines Co. ‘provided they are not contrary to law. wherein the contract provided for a basic monthly pay of US As to petitioner’s argument over $1. /wncverder Page !25 of !67 . an of Employment Services against absolute principle. be respected. good customs. He pleaded "As We stated in said case: A that his salary be as provided in contract freely entered into his employment contract or should. 103) case.

one with subject matter of the case. presumed that the applicable provisions of the law of Pakistan Issue: WON the provision in the are the same as the applicable contract that the agreement shall provisions of Philippine law. contractual disputes between the advising them that their services parties.. Pakistan shall have business in the Phils.. The pertinent portions The ER-EE relationship between of the contract state that (1) the PIA and F&M is affected with agreement is for a period of 3 public interest and the applicable years. b y p a y i n g t h e courts on the one hand. and F&M the jurisdiction to consider any were based in the Phils. and only the Courts citizens and PIA is licensed to do of Karachi. Farrales and the other with Mamasig. (3) this on the other: contract was agreement shall be construed and executed and partially performed governed under and by the laws in the Phils. Pakistan International vs. The challenged portion of as flight stewardesses would be t h e e m p l o y m e n t a g r e e m e n t t e r m i n a t e d . F&M are Filipino of Pakistan. PIA govern their relationship. but can be extended by the Phil laws and regulations cannot mutual consent of the parties. may be given effect /wncverder Page !26 of !67 . it must therefore be personal effects. in matter arising out of or under this between their flights. PIA sent separate proper forum for the resolution of letters to Mamasig and Farrales. and the EMPLOYEE wages equivalent to relationship between the parties one month's salary. bonuses. The reserves the right to terminate this second clause cannot also be agreement at any time by giving i n v o k e d b e c a u s e t h e the EMPLOYEE notice in writing circumstances of the case shows in advance one month before the multiple substantive contacts (no intended termination or in lieu ‘r’) between Phil law and Phil t h e r e o f .DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. agreement. be governed by the laws of Pakistan (first clause) and that only the courts of Karachi. (2) be rendered illusory by the parties notwithstanding anything to agreeing upon some other law to contrary as herein provided. All the above contacts point to the 1 year and 4 months before the P h i l i p p i n e c o u r t s a n d expiration of the contracts of administrative agencies as a employment. Ople The first clause cannot be invoked Pakistan Intl Airlines (PIA) to prevent the application of Phil executed 2 separate contracts of labor laws and regulations to the employments in Manila. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 2. PIA contended that F & Finally. and in any event. Pakistan shall have jurisdiction over any controversy arising out of the agreement (second clause). F a r r a l e s a n d cannot be given effect so as to Mamasig filed a complaint for oust Philippine agencies and illegal dismissal and non-payment courts of the jurisdiction vested o f c o m p a n y b e n e fi t s a n d upon them by Philippine law. FACTS. PIA did M were habitual absentees and not undertake to plead and prove had the habit of bringing in from the contents of Pakistan law on abroad sizeable quantities of the matter. No.

Remission . /wncverder Page !27 of !67 . Renvoi • • • • ✦ A procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by the conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state.when reference is made back to the law of the forum Transmission . domestic relations.when reference is made to a third state Example: where the domiciliary and nationality laws are applied to the same individual in issues involving succession. in turn. 2. Reject the renvoi by applying internal law • If the conflicts rules of the forum court refer the case to the law of another state. C. refers the matter to the law of the forum or a third state. The internal law is that which would be applied to a domestic case that has no conflict-of-laws complications. Accept the renvoi • Accept the renvoi and refer no just to another state’s internal law but to the whole law which includes choice-of-law rules applicable in multi-state cases. the conflict of laws rules of which. Ways of Dealing with Problem of Renvoi 1.DIWATA NOTES • Cognovit Clause . it is deemed to mean only the “internal” law of the State. and real properties.A contractual provision whereby a party agrees to the entry of a judgment against him in a particular court or courts without any notice or opportunity to present a defense if he should default on his obligations or otherwise breach the contract.

Thus. However. 946 contains a refer-back to Philippine laws (the law of the domicile). California Probate Code provides that a testator may dispose of his property in the form and manner he desires. 946 of the Civil Code of California. noted the California law provides 2 sets of laws for its citizens: One for residents therein as provided by the CA Probate Code and another for citizens domiciled in other countries as provided by Art. 16 (2) provides that the N AT I O N A L L A W O F T H E PERSON applies in intestate and testamentary successions and since Edward C. the national law of Edward is the laws of California. 946 is specific to non-residents. Counsel of Maria insists that Art. Issue: Should the Philippine laws be applied? S. Lower court ruled that CA law should be applied thus this petition for review. 946 of the California Civil Code (which provides that the law of the domicile applies). is a citizen of CA. Aznar vs. The reason is that In Re Kaufman applies only to residents while Art. then Maria Helen is entitled to her legitime. Counsel of Helen asserts that her claim must be increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under Phil. He executed in his will acknowledging his natural daughter Maria Lucy Christensen as sole heir but left a legacy of some money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia who is declared by the Supreme Court in its decision as acknowledged natural daughter of Edward C. /wncverder Page !28 of !67 . Garcia Edward Christensen is a citizen of the State of California and domiciled in the Philippines. 946. AND ISSUE(S) 1. 16 (2) providing that intestate and testamentary successions with respect to order of succession and amt. 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that if no law on the contrary. FACTS. since Art. which is the conflict of laws rule of California. RULING DOCTRINE The court refers to Art. SC held that the national law is Art.C.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. the place where the personal property is situated is deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the LAW OF HIS DOMICILE. These provisions are cases when the Doctrine of Renvoi may be applied where the question of validity of the testamentary provision in question is referred back to the decedent’s domicile – the Philippines. Art. In the present case. The intrinsic validity of wills is governed by the national law of the decedent. law. 946) authorize the return of question of law to the testator’s domicile. of successional right is regulated by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON. its law should be applied. there were two conflicting California laws regarding succession. The conflicts of law rule in CA (Art. One is enunciated in In Re Kaufman (which does not provide for legitimes) and another is Art.

Choice-of-law analysis is based on governmental interests. and a nonforum state’s choice-of-law rule does not relate to its substantive interests in a litigation. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 2. which contained no guest statute. which has nothing do with the interests of government. there was no conflict to resolve. P f a u ( P l a i n t i ff ) a n d Tr e n t (Defendant) were schoolmates at college in Iowa. for example. Issue: May the substantive law of the State be applied without also applying its choice-of-law rules? /wncverder Page !29 of !67 . Trent (Defendant) was involved in an automobile accident in Iowa. the court held Iowa law applicable. governmental interests in this litigation and should not be applied.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE.] Reversed and the order of the trial court reinstated. The substantive law of a state may be applied without also applying its choice-of-law rules. Defendant was a citizen of New Jersey and Plaintiff a citizen of Connecticut. (Defendant). and raised this defense. as such interests are likely to be incorporated into choice-of-law rules. Plaintiff was a passenger in the vehicle. Trent Aluminum Co. While driving a vehicle belonging to his father’s company. This debate has been largely theoretical. DOCTRINE Discussion: Some commentators have not taken the position apparently held here that choice-of.law rules are not relevant in a governmental interest analysis. Some have held. that choice-oflaw rules can illustrate precisely what a state’s governmental interests might be. Pfau vs. Plaintiff successfully moved to strike the defense with the court ruling Connecticut law to be applicable. Trent Yes. practically C o n s e q u e n t l y . The court of appeals reversed holding Connecticut’s choice-of-law rule also to apply. a forum state’s choiceConnecticut’s choice-of-law rule of-law rules are nearly always would not promote any of its used. This is particularly true when a state adheres to the lex loci rule. [The court went on to hold that since Connecticut and New Jersey had identical law on the guest statute issue. Since Connecticut applied the lex loci rule. a p p l y i n g speaking. Trent Aluminum (Defendant) argued that Iowa’s guest statute applied. FACTS.

the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives.00 to his three illegitimate children c) After foregoing the two items have been satisfied. and expenses of administration are paid for. filed their respective (d) the capacity to succeed oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they ART. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession. /wncverder Page !30 of !67 . law of the country to where it is therefore.16 Real property as well as were deprived of their legitimes as personal property is subject to the i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n a n d . in the following order and manner a) $240. obligations. testamentary successions. Bellis vs. compulsory heirs of the situated.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. He executed a will in the Philippines. his national law.However. Under Texas law.000.000. AND ISSUE(S) 3. RULING DOCTRINE The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes. intestate and deceased. in which he directed that after all taxes. his distributable estate should be divided. Article 16. Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines. in intestate and testamentary successions. whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. in trust.00 to his first wife Mary Mallen b) $120. both with respect to the order of Issue: Whether or not such successions and to the amount of illegitimate children of Bellis be successional rights and to the entitled to successional rights? intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. (b) the amount of successional rights. FACTS. and Palma Bellis. Bellis Amos Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. (c) t h e i n t r i n s i c v a l i d i t y o f Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam provisions of will. will govern the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by the Philippine law. there are no legitimes. Paragraph 2 of Civil code render applicable the national law of the decedent. still.

1973 + Filipino mothers + elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching age of majority Naturalized according to law NOTE: Nos. laws on succession. IMPORTANCE OF NATIONALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES • it is the nationality or citizenship of the individual that regulates his civil status. This law shall be recognized by other States insofar as it is consistent with international convention. and capacity to succeed IV. • 1987 Constitution: Who are Filipino Citizens? Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Constitution (ratification on Feb 2. 1-3 are considered NATURAL-BORN Citizens V. effective Feb 11) Fathers and mothers are Filipino citizens Born before January 17. MERITS AND DEMERITS OF NATIONALITY AS PERSONAL LAW • MERITS: • establish requisite link between individual and state because the laws of each state was presumed to be made for an ascertained population • individual's nationality easily verifiable from documents • DEMERITS • It does not solve the problems relating to statelessness individuals and individuals with multiple nationalities • Does not give decisive solution in states with diverse legal systems • Person's ties with a nation may be attenuated III. family rights and duties. 1987.DIWATA NOTES I. Jus Soli Principle • Looks to the law of the place of one's birth • You're a citizen of the place of your birth • Followed in common law countries 2. legitimacy. capacity. international customs. and the principles of law generally recognized w/ regard to nationality • Article 2: Questions as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular state "shall be determined in accordance with the law of that state. • • • IMPORTANCE OF PERSONAL LAW an individual's nationality or domicile serves as a permanent connection between the individual and a state personal law would allow courts to exercise jurisdiction or determine the governing choice-of-law rule on a specific situation or transaction involving him personal law follows an individual wherever he is and governs transactions which affect the individual most closely (marriage. condition. capacity to contract) II. divorce. Jus Saguinis Principle • Rule of descent or blood • Your citizenship depends on your parents • Followed in the Philippines /wncverder Page !31 of !67 . NATURAL BORN CITIZENS 1. DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY • It depends on the municipal law of each State • Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws • Article 1: It is for each state to determine who are its nationals.

Considered Section 1.DIWATA NOTES 1. • his mother is Filipina. The trial court granted the quo warranto petition. public school teacher. 
 The adoption of the jus sanguinis principle in the 1935 Constitution did not intend to exclude individuals who are already considered Filipino citizens at that time. acting municipal treasurer) • His mother was born a Filipino citizen but was only required to be a Chinese citizen by reason of his father's national laws. The petitioner alleges that Uy is not a Filipino citizen. filing clerk. Uy YES. a Chinese citizen. Upon death of his father. the wife reacquires previous nationality before marriage UNLESS conduct shows she elects otherwise Children should follow the citizenship of widow mother (being their guardian) unless they elect otherwise upon reaching age of majority Applied jus soli doctrine (principle of nationality by place of birth) Note that the 1935 Constitution is applicable in this case. Alejandro Uy was elected as • Municipal Mayor of Manticao. his mother reacquired her Filipino citizenship and he thus followed the nationality of his • mom. Upon the death of Uy's father (in 1917). Talaroc vs.AND BEFORE 1935 CONSTITUTION. 1951. Province of Lanao in 1912 (so at the time this case was filed he was around 40 y. 1935 Constitution: Citizen of the Philippines… if citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution . his mother reacquired her Filipino citizenship ROA DOCTRINE APPLIES He was already a Filipino • citizen by reason of his birth he was born in RP. and jus soli was followed at the time of his birth Though his father is Chinese. Jus soli principle applied. Misamis Oriental on Nov 13.o. which resulted • to the position being vacant.) • He has never been to China • He voted in previous elections a n d h e l d o f fi c e s i n t h e government (inspector of Bureau of Plant Industry. but instead. Uy appealed and contended that: • His father was a subject of China (Uy Piangco) but had a Filipino mother • He is born in Iligan. ISSUE: Is Uy a Filipino citizen? /wncverder Page !32 of !67 . One of the losing candidates (TALAROC) field a petition for quo warranto against • Uy. He already exercised rights of a Filipino citizen Upon the death of a foreigner husband.

Aznar his disavowal of Philippine citizenship. No. U. as represented by petitioner Jose B. On January 28. Renunciation may be made electoral process in this country since independently of naturalization 1963 up to the present. 63 does not necessarily Osmena vehemently denies having require that the express renunciation taken the oath of allegiance of the of Philippine citizenship be made in US. 1979. 87193. that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport issued on March 25. for short). 1988. Permit to Re-enter the Philippines dated November 21. On January 22.A. No. Aznar presented the following exhibits tending to show that Osmena is an American citizen: Application for Alien Registration of the Bureau of Immigration dated November 21. (2) by express renunciation of In the case of Frivaldo v. the modes provided for under C. August 1. Page !33 of !67 .1989. he failed to 1958 and in 1979? positively establish this fact. Immigration Certificate of Clearance dated January 3. a s s u m e d t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e "Express renunciation" is a separate foregoing. No.   Osmeña on the other hand. G. Osmeña naturalized citizen of the United did not lose his Philippine citizenship States in which he renounced all by any of the three mentioned allegiance to all other states. Commission on losing Philippine citizenship. filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmeña   on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen. 1989. renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be “express” its In the proceedings before the stands to reason that there can be no COMELEC. and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965. The question I think we does not concern Us here. C. 1988. Among others. 1988." Oath of Allegiance required by the which is another and different mode. COMELEC directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates. Comelec On November 19. 1980. both as a p r o c e e d i n g s . the petitioner not only took a In concluding that Osmena had been similar oath after his naturalization in naturalized as a citizen of the USA. alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. as in the case at bar. Commission citizenship. Osmeña. Sr. Aznar vs. 1979. Osmena is an American mode of losing Philippine citizenship and "being an American". the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council (Cebu-PDP Laban. /wncverder As to the issue whether Osmena is a W h e n w e c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e Filipino citizen? YES.S. A s l o n g a s t h e voter and as a candidate.DIWATA NOTES 2. these are: (1) DISSENTING: Isagani Cruz by naturalization in a foreign country. Aznar in his capacity as its incumbent Provincial Chairman.R. maintained that he is a Filipino citizen. Naturalization Laws. He is a holder of a valid and connection with the naturalization of subsisting Philippine passport and the erstwhile Filipino in a foreign has continuously participated in the country. June an oath of allegiance to support 23. Coming now to the case at bar. In the hereinabove or by any other mode of case of Labo v.A. 63.. and (3) by subscribing to on Elections. 1988 local elections. 1987. cannot be presumed. Osmena was proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu. From the evidence. On March 3. 1987. Having obtained the highest number of votes. It was and voluntarily registered as an incumbent upon Aznar to prove that alien with the Commission of Osmena had lost his Philippine Immigration and Deportation in citizenship however. Aznar failed to present such loss of Philippine citizenship direct proof that Osmena had lost when there is no renunciation. On June 11. Osmena and is not necessarily dependent on "must have taken and sworn to the "naturalization in a foreign country. Alien Certificate of Registration dated November 21. must answer is: Was there an express renunciation of Philippine By virtue of his being the son of a c i t i z e n s h i p b y t h e p r i v a t e Filipino father. Philippine citizenship is lost.R. private respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmeña filed his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the January 18. 1988. G. Elections. I note Philippine courts are only allowed to first of all that no naturalization is determine who are Filipino citizens i n v o l v e d h e r e a s t h e p r i v a t e and who are not. a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña. the COMELEC en banc resolved to order the Board to continue canvassing but to suspend the proclamation. his Filipino citizenship by any of express or implied. 86546. Emilio D. being a citizen of the United States of America. there was such renunciation the  Constitution  or laws of a foreign when the petitioner took an oath as a country. the presumption that respondent when he knowingly Osmena is a Filipino remains. Thus. 1979. of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the The fact that his naturalization was Philippines by the Commission on later revoked did not also invalidate Immigration and Deportation. that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months. repudiation is categorical enough and Osmena remains a Filipino and the the preference for the foreign state is loss of his Philippine citizenship unmistakable. COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having been timely filed and for lack of sufficient proof that Osmena is not a Filipino citizen. No. Whether or not a respondent claims to be a citizen both person is considered an American of the Philippines and of the United under the laws of the United States States. Australia but also executed other Aznar merely relied on the fact that documents in which he stated that he Osmena was issued alien certificate was not a Filipino. At the hearing before the COMELEC.

Co vs. Petitioners filed election protests before HRET. is a Filipino citizen? W H Y C O C O N S I D E R E D A YES. UPON REACHING AGE OF always considered himself a MAJORITY = natural-born Filipino Filipino citizens • voters (mass of voters who knew of his parentage) voted WON ELECTION OF to have him represented in CITIZENSHIP IS REQUIRED ON Congress. Jr.tama to if 1957) Jose Ong. considered him a Filipino Facts as to lineage of Ong. • born 1948 (1935 Consti • already in force) • 1984: married to Desiree Lim • registered voter of Laong. Jr. was proclaimed the winner for representative in the 2nd district of Northern Samar in the 1987 elections. Jr: 
 Grandpa: Ong Te • arrived in RP from China in 1895 • established residence in Samar • obtained a certificate of residence 
 Dad: Jose Ong Chuan • but was • born in China  brought to RP by grandpa in 1915 • resided in Samar • married a Filipina. Not a resident of 2nd district of Northern Samar 
 HRET: for Ong. 1955 (though mukhang 1957): was declared a Filipino Citizen (Ong. Samar in 1984 and 1986 elections • • /wncverder First. was only 9 years old at that time . Ong was a not a natural-born citizen 2.age of majority then) when he was already a citizen since 1957 (when his father was naturalized as a Filipino citizen) Election as Formal and informal process (In re: Florencio Mallare): exercise of right of suffrage + participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship filing of sworn statement/ formal declaration: for those who still have to elect citizenship: acts of deliberative choice: already Filipinos when the time to elect comes election presupposes that the person electing is an alien: Co was not deemed as such Theory of HRET: Section 15 of Revised Naturalization Act benefits a minor residing in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the alien parent = it was the law itself (Revised Naturalization Act) that had elected Philippine citizenship for Co by declaring him as such.DIWATA NOTES 3. FILIPINO CITIZEN: • he lived the life of a Filipino since birth • “For those in the peculiar situation of Uy who cannot be • f a t h e r a p p l i e d f o r expected to have elected naturalization when he was citizenship as they were still a small boy already citizens. Uy is already a Filipino as his mother is a natural born citizen and his father was naturalized when he was 9 years old. claiming: 1. • P a r t i c i p a t e d i n p o l i t i c a l 1973 + ELECT CITIZENSHIP exercises as a Filipino. Jr. Only 1973 & 1987 Consti required him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 (when he reached 21 . Agripina • Lao • April 28. MR denied so this petition Is Ong Jr. we apply the • he is Roman Catholic In re Mallare rule" (that • he worked for sensitive participation in election = government agency positive act of election of • h i s p r o f e s s i o n r e q u i r e s Philippine Citizenship) citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a • Art IV. Sec 2 of 1987 Consti: children born of Filipino license mothers before January 17. Electoral Tribunal Jose Ong Jr. and they THE PART OF UY? NO. Page !34 of !67 .

COC. that foundlings are • The 1987 constitutional provision automatically conferred with naturaltreating as natural-born Filipino On certiorari. and (2) those whose mothers the ground that she is in want of respect to foundlings. there is a high probability that • Allowing a presidential candidate May 24. however. the SC is later disqualified by this Court s h e r e n o u n c e d  h e r A m e r i c a n pronounced that foundlings are as (acting as PET) for not citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 a class. Grace Poe might be and is Process 2016 elections. as the norm.  That probability petitioner after the elections. and citizen in 2001.  While the 1935 among others.  The COMELEC either. First. Iloilo. Mary Grace Natividad Poe . despite petitioner she had reacquired her Filipino Section 4 of the Revised Rules on having already presented before citizenship under RA 9225. the and the evidence on which it is based only if petitioner wins the BI granted her petition declaring that are admissible under Rule 128.  Three justices. and that she committed the framers. elected Philippine citizenship upon material misrepresentations in her reaching the age of majority. and even afterwards. it adheres to the upon reaching the age of citizenship issue. that she cannot be Constitution’s enumeration is Who are Natural-Born Filipino considered a natural-born Filipino silent as to foundlings.  In 2010.W/N Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a CARPIO DISSENT: Llamanzares vs. she is based on the finding that the for the Office of the President – stopped using her American passport.  There is no majority of the Supreme that she is a natural-born citizen and For that. her citizenship status. The fact that she was Office of the President.  with uncertain citizenship status to the Philippines after deciding  to Her physical features are typical of to be potentially elected to the stay in the PH for good. more than 99% chance that a child • This ruling implies that the born in such province is a Filipino is majority of this Court wants to She immigrated to the US in 1991 also a circumstantial evidence of her resolve the citizenship status of and was naturalized as American parents’ nationality.  To assume otherwise is to the COMELEC all the evidence registered as a voter and obtained a accept the absurd.  She Evidence. elections. Second. natural-born citizens. will 1968.  Although the and alien fathers. she a b a n d o n e d a s a n i n f a n t i n a expressly reserved by the has been going to and fro between municipality where the population of Constitution exclusively for US and Philippines. the SC felt are Filipino citizens and were born c i t i z e n s h i p a n d r e s i d e n c e the need to examine the intent of before 17 January 1973 and who requirements. if not the virtually she wanted to present to prove new Philippine passport. and who Presidency. customary rule to presume foundlings majority. 1991) the foundling is found. COMELEC natural-born Filipino citizen A Mockery of National Election In her COC for presidency for the May Yes.  On July 18. candidacy on the ground particularly. she satisfies one of the Court that holds Grace Poe is a that her residence in the Philippines constitutional requirements that only natural-born Filipino citizen since  7 – up to the day before 9 May 2016 natural-born Filipinos may run for 5 justices voted that Grace Poe is a would be 10 years and 11 months presidency. and was legally adopted. the SC reversed the born citizenship is supported by citizens those born before 17 ruling and held (9-6 votes) that Poe is treaties and the general principles of January 1973 of Filipino mothers q u a l i fi e d a s a c a n d i d a t e f o r international law. • before assuming her post as an If petitioner wins the elections but appointed chairperson of the MTRCB. natural-born. there is no Citizens citizen since she cannot prove that restrictive language which would The following are deemed naturalher biological parents or either of definitely exclude foundlings born Filipino citizens: (1) those whose them were Filipinos. d e l i b e r a t i o n s o f t h e 1 9 3 4 that of being a natural-born Constitutional Convention show Filipino citizen – those who voted Petitions were filed before the t h a t t h e f r a m e r s i n t e n d e d for petitioner would have utterly COMELEC to deny or cancel her foundlings to be covered by the wasted their votes. 2006. found as newborn infant in Filipinos such that there would be lead to absurd results. by votes of 7-5.  Because of silence and fathers or mothers are Filipino en banc cancelled  her candidacy on ambiguity in the enumeration with citizens. an office however. 2005 was the day she came Grace Poe’s parents are Filipinos.  This possessing a basic qualification requirement .  From then on. /wncverder Page !35 of !67 . has a retroactive effect.  Before that Filipinos. as having born of the country in which (Co vs HRET. Grace Poe declared considerably a natural-born Filipino. while  the three others counted from 24 May 2005. Third.DIWATA NOTES 4. impossible. Philippines is not a signatory to some elected Philippine citizenship abstained to vote on the natural-born of these treaties.  She was born in the Philippines is overwhelmingly natural-born Filipino citizens. withheld their opinion. enumeration.

such presumption cannot prevail over our Constitution since customary international law has the status merely of municipal statutory law. F o u r t h . not a nationality at birth. and born.  Fifth. and the State’s obligations to avoid statelessness and to facilitate the naturalization of foundlings. 7. Any international law which contravenes the jus sanguinis principle in the Constitution must of course be rejected. Petitioner failed to prove that there is such a customary international law. 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. This means that customary international law is inferior to the Constitution. International Laws Applicable to Foundlings • There is no conventional or customary international law automatically conferring nationality to foundlings at birth • There are only two general principles of international law applicable to foundlings. 6. S e c o n d . 3. and must yield to the Constitution in case of conflict. 2. customary international law or a general principle of international law granting automatically Philippine citizenship to a foundling at birth. The Constitution adopts the jus sanguinis principle. Even if there were.   If they are not natural-born Filipino citizens. prove his or her status as a foundling.   Seventh. a foundling has to perform an act.   A foundling is merely considered to have a domicile at birth. they can acquire Philippine citizenship only under Article IV. then petitioner must prove that either her father or mother is a Filipino citizen for her to be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen. Sec 1 (5) of the 1935 Constitution but the Philippine citizenship thus granted is not that of a naturalborn citizen but that of a naturalized citizen. Sec 1 (5) of the 1935 Constitution which refers to Filipino citizens who are naturalized in accordance with law.  Sixth. Page !36 of !67 . This being so. the letter and intent of the 1935 Constitution clearly excluded foundlings from being considered natural-born Filipino citizens.DIWATA NOTES Grace Poe is NOT a Natural-born Filipino Citizen 1. t h e r e i s n o l e g a l presumption in favor of Philippine citizenship. 1. t h e r e i s n o t r e a t y. namely: the right of every human being to a nationality.  Petitioner failed to prove that either her father or mother is a Filipino citizen. a foundling is deemed born in the country where the foundling is found. whether natural-born or naturalized. Third. petitioner failed to discharge her burden to prove that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen. their citizenship is addressed by customary international law. even assuming that there is a customary international law presuming that a foundling is a citizen of the country where the foundling is found. Since there is no Philippine law specifically governing the citizenship of foundlings. /wncverder 5. or is born to parents possessing the nationality of that country. and citizenship at birth because of jus sanguinis. Being a foundling. in the country where the foundling is found. Since the Constitution adopts the jus sanguinis principle. are naturalborn Filipino citizens under the 1935. 4. which requires blood relation to a parent. Stated otherwise. Without credible and convincing evidence that petitioner’s biological father or mother is a Filipino citizen. she admitted that she does not know her biological parents. 2. to acquire Philippine citizenship. CONTINUATION OF DISSENT • Those whose fathers or mothers are neither Filipino citizens are not natural-born Filipino citizens. Second. At best. a foundling receives at birth a domicile of origin which is the country in which the foundling is found. there exists a presumption that a foundling is domiciled. The former may be granted to foundlings under Philippine statutory law pursuant to Art IV. Citizenship must be established as a matter of fact and any doubt is resolved against the person claiming Philippine citizenship. in the absence of proof to the contrary. and identifies natural-born Filipino citizens as only those whose fathers or mothers are Filipino citizens. that is. a foundling can only be deemed a naturalized Filipino citizen because the foundling has to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship. First is that a foundling is deemed domiciled in the country where the foundling is found. • There is a difference between citizenship at birth because of jus soli. and therefore she cannot trace blood relation to a Filipino father or mother. petitioner cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen. such a law would only result in the foundling being a naturalized Filipino citizen. There is no Philippine law automatically conferring Philippine citizenship to a foundling at birth. not a natural-born Filipino citizen.  These two general principles of international law have nothing to do with conferment of nationality. and identifies natural-born Filipino citizens as only those whose fathers or mothers are Filipino citizens.   Only those citizens at birth because of jus sanguinis.

which articulated the presumption on the place of birth of foundlings. which meant that Congress would decide whether to categorize as Filipinos ( 1) natural or illegitimate children of Filipino mothers and alien fathers who do not recognize them. but also signified the rejection by the delegates of the idea or proposition that foundlings are Filipino citizens at birth just like natural-born citizens. or generally accepted international law principle has the status of municipal statutory law. preventing them from being natural-born Filipino citizens. 1.DIWATA NOTES Intent of the Framers of 1935 Constitution There is no “silence of the Constitution” on foundlings because the majority of the delegates to the 1934 Constitutional Convention expressly rejected the proposed amendment of Delegate Rafols to classify children of unknown parentage as Filipino citizens. under the 1935 Constitution.   None of the framers of the 1935 Constitution mentioned the term “natural-born” in relation to the citizenship of foundlings. there was no prevailing customary international law at that time. –  The rejection of the Rafols amendment not only meant the noninclusion in the text of the Constitution of a provision that children with unknown parentage are Filipino citizens. –  Significantly. namely Delegates Buslon. –  If the framers intended that foundlings be considered natural-born Filipino citizens. Section 1 of Article IV of the 193 5 Constitution. Again. existed during the deliberations on the 1935 Constitution.   Only the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws.   Delegate Rafols’s amendment. 2.   Three delegates voiced their objections to Rafols’s amendment. /wncverder 3.   The framers of the 1935 Constitution could not have intended to create such an absurdity. foundlings were not and could not validly be considered as natural-born Filipino citizens as defined in the Constitution since Congress would then provide the enabling law for them to be regarded as Filipino citizens. and Roxas. c u s t o m a r y international law. As such. this would have created an absurd situation where a child with unknown parentage would be placed in a better position than a child whose mother is actually known to be a Filipino citizen.   While the framers discussed the matter of foundlings because of Delegate Rafols’s amendment. they not only rejected the Rafols proposal but also clearly manifested that foundlings could not be citizens of the Philippines at birth like children of Filipino fathers. –   If that were the case. 4. Delegate Teofilo Buslon suggested that the subject matter be left in the hands of the legislature. conferring automatically a nationality to foundlings at birth. Page !37 of !67 . A n y t r e a t y. only those whose fathers were Filipino citizens were considered natural-born Filipino citizens. –  Foundlings would be naturalized citizens since they acquire Filipino citizenship “in accordance with law” under paragraph (5). was clearly rejected by the majority of the delegates to the 1934 Constitutional Convention. it must conform to our Constitution in order to be valid in the Philippines. • when put to a vote. Montinola. petitioner and the Solicitor General. as there is still none today.   Those who were born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers were still required to elect Philippine citizenship. The 1930 Hague Convention does not guarantee a nationality to a foundling at birth. and (2) children of unknown parentage / foundlings.   conveniently left out Delegate Buslon’s opinion. Therefore.

Must own real estate property in the Philippines worth not less than P5. child no longer of school age not allowed if predominantly composed of children of a specific race /wncverder Page !38 of !67 . GOVERNMENT. AGE: Not less than 21 on date of HEARING the petition (so could file while 20 y. RESIDENCE: resided in RP + Continuously + not less than 10 years EXCEPTION TO 10 YRS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT (5 YRS NA LANG) • Honorably held office under the Government • Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in RP • Married to a Filipino woman • Engaged as a teacher (public or private . and CIVICS are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of the residence required of him (not less than 10 years) PRIOR TO HEARING of his PETITION for naturalization as citizen For the children to learn and imbibe customs and traditions and ideals of Filipinos to prepare them for a life of responsible and law abiding citizenship should be complied with and proven insufficient finances not an excuse for failing to comply with this requirement initial failure to comply with this requirement is a BAR TO SUBSEQUENT PETITION even if during 2nd petition.DIWATA NOTES VI. Believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in RP in his relations w/ the constituted government + community in which he is living 5.) 2.but not int'l school) for 2 years 3. Section 7 of 1987 Consti: "Save in cases of hereditary succession. CA No. unemployment or disability to work his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort. and consistently with the demands of human dignity. LANGUAGE: able to SPEAK & WRITE English/Spanish/any one of the principal Philippine languages 8. Good moral character Evidence of two (2) character witnesses 4. in accordance with the prevailing standard of living. NATURALIZED CITIZENS • It confers to an alien a nationality after birth by any of the means provided by the law. at this stage of our civilization regard w/ caution if family business 7. no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain” Aliens cannot own lands in the Philippines 6.o. Must have some lucrative trade/profession/lawful occupation substantial gainful employment or the obtaining of tangible receipts appreciable margin of income over expenses in order to provide for adequate support for himself and his family in the event of sickness.000 At odds with Article XII. • In the Philippines. CHILDREN & SCHOOL: enrolled minor children in any PUBLIC or PRIVATE SCHOOL recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools where PHILIPPINE HISTORY. 473 is the judicial method for naturalization • QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPLICANTS FOR NATURALIZATION 1.

Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines are at war. vileness. /wncverder File petition for naturalization Publication: in OG or newspaper of general publication Hear petition If approved: rehearing after 2 years after promulgation of judgment awarding naturalization Take oath of allegiance to support and defend Constitution and Philippine laws Page !39 of !67 . or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas. or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs. of the reasons advanced to support exemption claim. contrary to the accepted and customary law of right and duty between men or conduct contrary to honesty. e. c. f. e. f. and ideals of the Filipinos. especially those officers charged with notice of the application. File declaration of intention to become a citizen (unless exempted) • WHEN: 1 year prior to filing of petition • WHERE: w/ OSG • CONTENTS: it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen of RP • Exemptions: • Born in RP + received primary and secondary education in public schools/ private schools recognized by Government. traditions. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments. or depravity in the private and social life in general. c.FAILURE TO DO SO IS FATAL • RTC has exclusive jurisdiction. during the period of such war. • PROCEDURE FOR NATURALIZATION a. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases. RTC of the province of city where the petitioner resides at least one year preceding the filing of the petition b. Persons who. Who are disqualified. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. has burden of proof…weird to actually DISQUALIFIED: Crime involving moral turpitude: an act of baseness. during the period of their residence in the Philippines. Section 4.DIWATA NOTES • DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALIZATION GR: State that has the burden of proving disqualification of applicant for citizenship Exception: if applicant claims that he is Filipino. not limited to any race or nationality • Resided continuously in RP for min 30 years before filing their petition • Widow and minor children of an applicant for naturalization who died pending petition for naturalization • if exempted. have not mingled socially with the Filipinos. modesty or good morals. to prepare them to contest it . d. d. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy. still has to file a statement as to his exemption and the reasons therefor to apprise the public. h. g. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence. b. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. personal assault. .The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens: a.

Silvino Ong. in turn. Ancalan testified that petitioner character witnesses to support his prove that his witnesses had good had no psychiatric abnormality at allegations. Tordesillas.Tordesillas said that the medical examination showed that he’s normal. AND ISSUE(S) 1. Page !40 of !67 . traditions. reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. as a good warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner. Aside from his presentation of requirements. Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization. Dy Lam Go vs. But CA reversed an set aside the decision. In other words. Teresita Go. To the court. establish his or her possession of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications enumerated under the law and present at least 2 In the words of the CA. ISSUE: Should the petition be granted? /wncverder In one case. in his opinion. petitioner presented as witnesses. In fact. the Revised Naturalization Law. the SC listed the requirements of a character witness: Citizen of the PH • Credible • Personally know the petitioner • PH resident in a period provided • by law Personally know him to be a • person of good repute Personally know him to be • morally irreproachable That he has. DOCTRINE The records show that the joint affidavits executed by petitioner’s witnesses did not establish their own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization proceeding. Dr. Republic RULING NO. and ideals. all the • qualifications necessary to become a citizen of PH That he is not in any way • disqualified to be honest and upright. The RTC rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization ruling that the petitioner possessed the qualifications set forth by law. standing in the community.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. Furthermore. Dr. he did not Dr. this is a display of insincerity to embrace Filipino customs. background checks conducted on the petitioner yielded to negative results due to the uncooperative behavior of the members of the household. and that their word may be taken at face value. petitioner did not present evidence proving the the witnesses he presented were credible. the time of the test. and Juan Go. this petition. the petitioner himself disobliged when asked for an interview by BOI agents. the applicant must comply with the jurisdictional requirements. FACTS. Ancalan. The 3 others vouched on Go’s personality. known Petitioner filed a petition for naturalization under CA 473. Hence. Dr. 473. the application must show substantial and formal compliance with CA No.

with 5 children. P8. the latter interposed the present appeal. P7. but. Besides. which is obviously inadequate to be a "lucrative". without authority therefor. petitioner had offered the sum of P500 to said local official for the repeal of a given municipal ordinance. not only that he is not a beggar.800. are hereby ordered cancelled. The same conclusion has been reached as regards unmarried applicants with an annual income ranging from P2. It is not enough for all applicant for naturalization not to be a financial burden upon the community. He must. at this stage of our civilization. The motion having been granted despite the opposition thereto of the Government. or P5. or lawful occupation. also.400 to P3. have a "lucrative trade. that his financial condition must be such as to permit him and the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort.000 a year — presumably because of property allegedly inherited by his wife. a n d . alleged in his petition that he had an annual income of P1. and said oath." And this qualification has been construed to mean. if not their own parents. in which petitioner resides. What is more.600. in L-20718. FACTS.133. whose qualifications must be determined as of the time of the filing of his petition. the earnings of which belong to the conjugal partnership — this circumstance cannot be availed of by petitioner Roy Watt. court.24 or even P8. the decision of the lower their relatives.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. on July 5. RULING DOCTRINE SC: Petitioner. granting Roy Watt's application to be naturalized as citizen of the Philippines. one in high school and 3 in grade school. he filed. on June 28. testified that he had. one. Although he introduced evidence to the effect that subsequently to the filing of his application his annual income shot up to P8.067. as well as p e t i t i o n e r ' s c e r t i fi c a t e o f naturalization and the registration thereof in the local civil registry. in accordance with the prevailing standard of living. a motion praying that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance after the hearing and reception of the evidence required therefor.29. Republic (L-20718) Decision having been rendered. No less than the mayor of the municipality of Balabac.980. /wncverder Page !41 of !67 . and consistently with the demands of human dignity. 1960. there is substantial evidence to the effect that petitioner does not have a good moral character and has far from conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner.34. h e n c e . or P7. it has been repeatedly held that this qualification is lacking in the case of married men who have an annual income of: P9. also. a pauper or indigent. on several occasions. profession. with 11 children.50. . with 4 children. AND ISSUE(S) 2.000. 1960 is reversed and the petition therein dismissed. brought home blank forms of certificates of ownership of large cattle and filled them up. 1962. 4 of them in college.799. our jurisprudence has regarded with caution or skepticism and attaches very little weight to evidence concerning the income of applicants allegedly working in business enterprises operated by In L-20718.600. Accordingly. with costs against said petitioner-appellee.687. Watt vs. The order of said court allowing petitioner Roy Watt to take his oath of allegiance is set aside. or P5. dated June 28. Again. with 3 children. f a l s i fi e d t h e aforementioned documents. sometime in 1954.

petitioner's employer was not duty bound to give such allowances and There seem to be no question bonuses. bonuses are not given. although We i n c o m e i s o n l y P 1 5 0 . arguments of petitioner's counsel is a clear indication that as far as salary is Argument of Yu's counsel admits that concerned. complete with all requirement. of bonuses). AND ISSUE(S) 3. for purposes of yearly. In 1961 also. income of petitioner is P3. there has been a change in the status therefore. Republic Chinese citizen. that the figures appearing evidence is concerned. 0 0 . the same lucrative income. FACTS. from the time he presented was making profits.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. present additional documentary proof of his income (claimed that his income increased to P5200 in 1961) 
 CFI: affirm TC (for naturalization) 
 appeal by OSG /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE WON lucrative income has been The above-quoted portion of the proved? NO. the rest of P150. discuss later — the overriding issue which amount does not come up to would be. appellee herein. considering that the petitioner is now a married man.000. a n y entertain serious doubts regarding additional thereof being purely their veracity — a point which We will contingent. it becomes i n t h e d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e indisputable that petitioner's true submitted are correct. to the rendition of the no profits. It is not.00 Even granting. accidental or incidental. he only had a uniform living allowance was only receiving P150. Yu Kian Chie vs. Page !42 of !67 . the allowances and the Supplemental Decision. When there are his petition. 
 OSG opposed: failed to prove lucrative income 
 TC: granted Yu's petition 
 During appeal: 
 -Yu moved to reopen case. In other words. from single to married. and whatever additional being in the form of allowances and amount he might received depends bonuses which may or may not be on the profit of the company (in form given to appellee.00. but must spring from purely regarding the fact that there has been voluntary actuations. or more. the category of a lucrative income. but the economic requirements were problematic: he alleged that he had an average income (in 1957) of P3k from Republic Hardware. Insofar as the argument. conditioned to an increase in the income of the circumstance that the employer petitioner. his client. safe to consider that the of petitioner.

money and effort to Dwelling stay examine and verify WON every such • lawful residence: Since here. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 4. Naturalization proceeding: Ofc of Pres: New Secretary of QUALIFICATIONS.permanent residence here… father was naturalized immigrants" for 2 years no coterminous stay for • C Immigration (IC): refused to AS FOR CHUA (Mother) temporary visitors: authorized accept payment of extension • should first prove that she stay was only for a definite period fee possesses ALL (vs. not Sec of FA: authorized change alien really has a right to take up lawfully residing at the time their of category to "special non. the rest of her stay was illegal /wncverder Page !43 of !67 . FACTS. cannot be set at a Justice ruled that Sec of FA ruling D I S Q U A L I F I C AT I O N S f o r definite date) no longer have force and effect 
 naturalization -advised to leave country.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. filed • Here: she failed to qualify to be of petition for mandamus w/ "good moral character + injunction instead to implement conducted herself in a proper and ruling of Sec of FA irreproachable manner" TC: deny How: she misrepresented that • r e fi l e : d u e f o r e v e n t u a l she was only here for a conversion as Filipino citizens temporary visit when she IC: refused: Wife not qualified intended to stay permanently to be lawfully naturalized she delayed court processes to • prolong her stay also failed to comply with • residence requirements: only legally stayed from 16 October 1960 to 16 June 1962 (8 months). in the guise that they would Uy Pick Tuy. Vivo vs. later be deemed Filipino citizens with • failed to "dwell" in the Philippines applied for naturalization before the approval of husband/father's at the time of naturalization of CFI of Manila (subsequently naturalization? NO. Cloribel • • • • • • • • • WON CHUA and Children can stay AS FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN 
 longer. father granted) basis: if foreign-born minor • His wife (CHUA Pic Luan) and In general: should depart first from children: extended citizenship if kids (minors) were admitted to Islands then re-apply for permit to dwelling in the Philippines at the RP as temporary visitors for 3 enter islands for a longer period 
 time of the naturalization of months parent Chua and children petitioned for Ratio: would compel our government an indefinite extension of their to spend time. NONE OF uncertain. a Chinese citizen.

no automatic acquisition of citizenship) 
 NO JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP TAN YU CHIN V. native born or • spouses (uuuy…sweet) naturalized. Republic 
 Burca  vs.Lau lacked the a citizen of the Philippines required length of residence • Alien marrying aliens later in RP naturalized: follow nationality of husband. M o y Y a L i m Y a o v s .other than the judgment of a competent court of justice… certifying or declaring that an alien wife of a Filipino citizen = filipino citizen is null and void 
 (in short. REPUBLIC (ratio why no judicial declaration): Courts of justice exist for the settlement of judicial controversies. provided she WON Lau already a Filipino does not suffer from any of Citizen because of marriage to an the disqualifications under alleged Filipino citizen? YES. which imply a given right. Lau stay in RP marrried Moy Ya Lim Yao • Under Section 15. legally demandable and enforceable. Any action by any other office…. for said breach of right. 
 Our laws do not allow judicial action or proceeding for declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Republic (1973): 
 -Burca petitioned SC for affirmation of TC's judgment declaring her a Filipino citizen. an act or omission violative of said right. Immigration Act: Commissioner depart first for extension thru reapplication • Lau Yuen Yeung (Chinese) • The said section DOES NOT applied for Philippine visa in APPLY TO ALIENS WHO 1961 to visit her great grand LEGITIMATELY BECOME uncle FILIPINO CITIZENS pending • permitted to stay for 1 month. becomes ipso petition for injunction to factor a Filipina PROVIDED  restrain deportation of Lau she is not disqualified to be • CFI: for COI . an (Edilberto Lim). they have right to • January 25. still needs to apply for naturalization. Section 4… DOCTRINE Moy Ya Lim reversed by Burca v. Alien woman married to a Filipino must first apply by filing a petition for citizenship reciting that she possesses all the qualifications + none of the disqualifications 
 2. granted or sanctioned by law. 1962 Citizens. 
 1. their temporary stay subsequently extended until • since they become Filipino February 13. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 5 . FACTS.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. and a remedy. allegedly a alien woman marrying a Filipino citizen Filipino. Said petition must be filed in CFI where alien resided at least 1 year immediately preceding the filing of petition 
 3. /wncverder Page !44 of !67 . Section 9(g). CA 473. 1962.

who chose Filipino citizenship at the age of majority. he should submit NSO-authenticated copy of his birth certificate. LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP • CA 63. If the applicant was born abroad and acquired foreign citizenship by territory (jus soli). These are: a. Express renunciation of citizenship 3. While his Filipino citizenship is derived from the principle of jus sanguinis or right of blood. WOMAN: marriage to a foreigner (if laws of her husband makes her their national) 7.   the original copy of the Birth Certificate issued by the Registry Office or equivalent government office in the country of citizenship. Having declared by competent authority a DESERTER of AFP in time of war.A. the enactment of R. Upon reaching 21 years or more. A child born in the United States of America (USA) of Filipino parents is an American citizen under the American Law. DEFINED. subject to exceptions 4. Naturalization in foreign countries 2. DUAL OR MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP
 Prior to the making of R. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. Minor children failed to graduate in a school required by law through fault of parents 6. and entitles him to exercise his rights as a Filipino /wncverder Page !45 of !67 . The child however. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or prefect their Filipino citizenship. Invalid declaration of intention 5. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines at the time of birth. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization • GROUNDS OF CANCELLATION OF CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION 1. 9225.DIWATA NOTES VII. Naturalized person returns to his native country/some other foreign country w/n 5 years following issuance of naturalization certificate 3. Rendering service/accepting commission in armed forces of a foreign country 5. Naturalization certificate obtained through fraud/illegally 2. does not fully exercise his rights as a dual citizen in either country. he should submit a copy of the Report of Birth or Birth Registration issued by the Philippine Embassy or Consulate and. Consequently. subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country. the opportunity to retain or re-acquire their Filipino citizenship. Staying 1 year in native country/2 years in other country = prima facie intention of establishing permanent residence there 4. The child’s American citizenship is derived from the principle of jus soli or right of place. unless plenary pardon or amnesty granted 6. and. is a Filipino citizen under the Philippine law. some Filipinos obtained dual citizenship through the Nationality Laws of the Philippines and other foreign countries. Those born before 17 January 1973 of Filipino mothers. PROOF OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP If the applicant was born in the Philippines and acquired foreign citizenship through naturalization. if necessary.A. is a law that grants natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country. amended by RA 106: ways through which a Filipino may lose his citizenship: 1. b. Naturalized citizen allowed himself to be used as a dummy • REPATRIATION (CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT) Republic Act No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003. and. 9225 gives the child the right to obtain his parent’s citizenship or regain his ancestral citizenship.

/wncverder Page !46 of !67 . it can be revoked by any legal authority if obtained through fraudulence. under the provisions of this Act. a child of a Filipino citizen (at the time of birth) and of a foreign citizen (e. and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. possible for Filipinos to hold dual citizenship by birth. Australian) whose country adheres to the jus sanguinis principle. However.g. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE The Oath of Allegiance is the final act that grants Filipino citizenship. British) born in Britain. born in a foreign country (e.g. It reads as follows: “I. is a dual citizen and is allowed to acquire both Filipino and British passports. USA) who adheres to the jus soli principle can acquire Filipino. misrepresentation or deception. solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and local orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines. a child of a Filipino citizen (at the time of birth) and of a foreign citizen (e.DIWATA NOTES citizen without losing his foreign citizenship. It is.”
 REASON FOR CANCELLATION The granting of Filipino citizenship under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of this Act is not subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of Justice. As interpreted. Nevertheless. thus. who adheres to the jus sanguinis principle.g. EFFECT OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP
 A natural-born Filipino who obtained foreign citizenship through naturalization will not lose his current citizenship upon re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship. Australian and American passports.________________. and I hereby declare that I recognise and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto.

such forfeiture didn't resort to automatic restoration of his Philippine Citizenship 
 (b) he cannot be repatriated since the Special Committee provided under LOI 270 was not yet constituted 
 SC: should have waited! Should re-affirm allegiance to RP by either act of Congress or naturalization. The returning renegade must show. that the candidate was qualified. the renewal of his loyalty and love. /wncverder If he really wanted to disavow US Citizenship. Not filed late: Qualifications for public office (which includes citizenship) should be possessed not only at the time of election but during the officer's entire It is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the naturaltenure 4. Page !47 of !67 . 3. for all its difficulties and limitations. it is not quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. SCRA 245) PART 1 . as in this case. The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. FACTS. he could have RE-ACQUIRED it by: direct act of Congress naturalization repatriation DOCTRINE This Court will not permit the anomaly of a person sitting as provincial governor in this country while owing exclusive allegiance to another country. But once it is surrendered and renounced. this rule requires strict application when t h e d e fi c i e n c y i s l a c k o f citizenship.1989 Frivaldo was proclaimed gov-elect of Sorsogon but the League of Municipalities contested the proclamation on the ground that 2. born citizen is favored by the Constitution and our laws. merely forced upon himself as a means fo survival against the unrelenting persecution by Marcos' agents abroad Frivaldo only invoked repatriation. This country of ours. as in this case. especially if they mistakenly believed. is like a jealous and p o s s e s s i v e m o t h e r.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. O n c e rejected. abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other state. he must owe his total loyalty to this country only. COMELEC (174 1. Frivaldo vs. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 1. the gift is gone and cannot be lightly restored. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility. his active participation in the RP elections automatically forfeited his US Citizenship based on US Laws 
 SC: even if he did lose his US Citizenship. The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased by the electorate alone. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines. that the candidate was qualified. especially if they mistakenly believe. by an express and unequivocal act. filing his certificate of candidacy is not enough WON Frivaldo is not a Filipino citizen. Frivaldo was a naturalized US Citizen in 1983 
 Frivaldo contended that: • just sought US citizenship to protect himself from Marcos • naturalization was not impressed with voluntariness. which is all the more reason why it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. thus not qualified to win his seat? YES. Obviously. The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility.

 AFTER FILING HIS C E RT I F I C AT E O F Being a former Filipino who has CANDIDACY (took oath of served the people repeatedly. 725. Frivaldo vs.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE.1996 particular date or time when the candidate must possess • Frivaldo. then it should not have explicitly provided otherwise. 725 are: (1) filing the application. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon. got the citizenship (vs. 1995) interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever defects there were WON FRIVALDO A RP CITIZEN in his nationality should not be IF HE REPATRIATED AFTER d e e m e d m o o t e d b y h i s FILING OF COC? YES. again. (2) action by the committee. June 30. Page !48 of !67 . COMELEC (257 L a w d o e s n o t s p e c i f y a n y SCRA 272) PART 2 . It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. allegiance under PD 752 at Frivaldo deserves a liberal 2p. If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact to the date of the filing of the application. his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his application to run for governor. repatriation. The steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by repatriation under Presidential Decree No. and (3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved. FACTS. /wncverder DOCTRINE The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature of Presidential Decree No. residence and highest number of votes age) 
 • He was 2x declared to be disqualified because he was a F r i v a l d o ' s r e p a t r i a t i o n US Citizen RETROACTED TO THE DATE • h e n o w c l a i m s t o h a v e OF ILING OF HIS APPLICATION repatriated BUT HE DID SO ON AUGUST 17. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 2.

This may not be the office itself is deemed forfeited. 63 as amended by CITIZEN. Mayor of Baguio? NO. he has repatriation. taking the I m m i g r a n t C e r t i fi c a t e o f The petitioner is not now. He does not point ground of ineligibility because citizenship to any judicial decree of • S u b s c r i b i n g t o o a t o f naturalization as to any statute of citizenship allegiance to support Consti directly conferring Philippine COMELEC decision: Labo is a and laws of a foreign country citizenship upon him. thus. vs. • he has an Australian passport technicality" that should not frustrate • he voluntarily made sworn the will of the electorate of Baguio *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** statements where he said City. 270.” he's an Australian citizen Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be The probability that many of those who voted for the petitioner may have e a s i l y r e c o v e r e d a f t e r i t s done so in the belief that he was renunciation. Labo. Neither has Citizen of RP he shown that he has complied Commission of Immigration The annulment of his marriage with PD No. and. status from immigrant to returning the said modes. a Philippines. The petitioner was disqualified from running as mayor and. nor was necessary oath of allegiance Residence 
 he on the day of the local to the Republic of the 
 elections on January 18.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. In accomplished by election to public the case at bar. The Commission Citizen because of his alienage. FACTS. In fact. 725. may be reacquired by direct act of he was naturalized as an Congress. that he has reacquired Baguio • A petition for quo warranto country Philippine citizenship by any of filed by Lardizabal on the • E x p r e s s r e n u n c i a t i o n o f these methods. is not now qualified to serve as such. It may be restored q u a l i fi e d o n l y s t r e n g t h e n s t h e only after the returning renegade conclusion that the results of the m a k e s a f o r m a l a c t o f r e e l e c t i o n c a n n o t n u l l i f y t h e dedication to the country he has qualifications for the office now held abjured and he solemnly affirms by him. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 3. who elected him by a "resonant and thunderous majority. nor does the petitioner • Naturalization to a foreign claim. qualified to run for PD No. 725. the citizenship and office. if their applications are former Philippine Citizen -granted  approved. shall be deemed to have he's an Australian Citizen: he was not even a qualified voter reacquired Philippine • naturalized as Australian under the Constitution itself citizenship. It does not appear in • He was elected mayor of lost his Philippine citizenship: the record. once any of loyalty to the Republic of the them is lost during incumbency. Philippine citizenship • Labo married an Australian. by naturalization. providing that: and Deportation: Labo was not a (bigamous) to an Australian • (2) natural-born Filipinos who citizen. voting requirements were not subsequently lost but were not possessed at all in the first place on the day of the election. These qualifications are once again his total and exclusive continuing requirements. 1988. on Immigration and • official statement of Australian Deportation shall thereupon Government saying he's an The petitioner argues that his alleged cancel their certificate of lack of citizenship is a "futile Australian citizen registration. although elected. he Naturalization created by Defense: asked for change of did not complied with any one of Letter of Instruction No. or by Australian citizen In accordance w/ CA 63. Jr. COMELEC W O N L A B O i s a F I L I P I N O Under CA No. /wncverder Page !49 of !67 . after which they So acts which would say that citizen of the Philippines. title to Philippines. Australian Government c i t i z e n DID NOT have lost their Philippine (through consul) said in official AUTOMATICALLY RESOTRE citizenship may reacquire statement that LABO IS AN HIS PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP Philippine citizenship through AUSRALIAN citizen + has repatriation by applying with Australian passport With the 3 modes of reacquiring the Special Committee on 
 Philippine citizenship available.

IV. the statement in the 1987 Constitution that "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law"(Art. Indeed. AND ISSUE(S) 4. possessed as he is. none was proven to exist) ON the alleged certification: merely assumed that Osmena is an American because of clearance to enter by CID. 5) has no retroactive effect. No express renunciation of citizenship • /wncverder No substantial and convincing evidence to rule otherwise (among the grounds for losing citizenship. Our country had already frowned upon the concept of dual citizenship or allegiance. No express renunciation of Philippine Citizenship . COMELEC • • RULING • Lito Osmena filed candidacy for Provincial Governor of Cebu in the 1988 local • elections. it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine 'citizenship when there is no renunciation either "'express" or “implied". of both nationalities or citizenship. Sec. H o l d e r o f a v a l i d a n d • subsisting RP Passport 3. truth to tell. Page !50 of !67 . Said law has not yet been enacted. IV. Continuously residing in RP since birth. presumed that he is a Filipino. Osmena expressly renounced RP Citizenship): Non sequitur. there is even no implied renunciation of s a i d c i t i z e n s h i p . Court not concerned here if he is an American based on US laws . Registered voter of RP since 1965 WON Osmena is a Filipino Citizen? YES. burden of proof on the person assailing citizenship to show that he is not a Filipino.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE.US laws does not concern RP courts Presumption that Filipino: if s o n o f F i l i p i n o f a t h e r.5 of 1987 Consti (policy against dual citizenship): no retroactive effect on Osmena DOCTRINE EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American. W h e n We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be "express". And while it is true that even before the 1987 Constitution. On Padilla dissent (by obtaining Certificates of Alien Registration in 1958 and 1979. the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. the effect of such dual citizenship or allegiance shall be dealt with by a future law. The Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. the fact is it actually existed. On Art. Aznar vs. sec. there is no express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship. Parenthetically. FACTS. Legitimate child of a Filipino 2. A z n a r fi l e d p e t i t i o n f o r disqualification on the ground that Osmena allegedly is a citizen of US 
 Proof: Certificate by Deportation Commissioner certifying that Osmena is an American and a • holder of Alien Certificate of Registration 
 Defense: 1. Be it noted further that under the aforecited proviso. not gone out of country for more than 6 months 4.

an individual is considered a citizen of both states Article IV. there o u t b r e a k o f W o r l d Wa r I I . He however with the general aim of forging a applied for Liechtenstein (P) genuine bond between it and its citizenship a month after the national aim.DIWATA NOTES VIII. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 1. His Liechtenstein citizenship was not honored. the change of nationality was r e m a i n i n G u a t e m a l a . /wncverder DOCTRINE GENUINE PRINCIPALITY LINK OF Naturalization was lacking in genuineness. Nottebohn (P). This is the general rule. approved by Liechtenstein and Guatemala (D) was not forced to impliedly waived its three-year. Under this circumstance. Guatemala Must nationality be disregarded AKA Nottebohm Case by other states where it is clear that it was a mere device since A month after the start of World the nationality conferred on a War II. the right of Liechtenstein (P) to bring the action and alleged its belief that Nottebohm (P) remained a German national. granted w/o regard to the concept of nationality adopted in international relations.other than fiscal … Page !51 of !67 . PROBLEMS IN APPLYING THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE DUAL OR MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP • • • • Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws: each state determines who its own nationals are It is possible that in accordance with the internal laws of 2 states. In this case. Liechtenstein vs. FACTS. was no relationship between Nottebohm (P) had no ties with Liechtenstein (P) and Nottebohm Liechtenstein but intended to (P). Nottebohm (P) travelled to Liechtenstein and upon his return to Guatemala (D). solely the concern of the granting nation. Section 5: Discourage dual or multiple nationalities: dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law "Effective Nationality": test to determine rights of an individual who may claim multiple nationality in a third state CASE TITLE. Guatemala (D) for 34 years. After this approval. interests. retaining his German the conferring state’s designation c i t i z e n s h i p a n d f a m i l y a n d unless it has acted in conformity business ties with it. its way of life or of assuming the obligation . Nottebohm erely acquired naturalization to substitute for his status as a national of a belligerent State that of a national of a neutral state w/ sole aim of coming w/n protection of Liechtenstein but not of becoming wedded to its traditions.  Liechtenstein (P) thereby filed a suit before the International Court to compel Guatemala (D) to recognize him as one of its national. Dismissed. applied for Liechtenstein (P) Issues relating to citizenship are citizenship. Guatemala (D) challenged the validity of Nottebohm’s (P) citizenship. T h e merely a subterfuge mandated by naturalization application was the war. he was refused entry because he was deemed to be a German citizen. Notteboh (P). a German by birth. a German party is normally the concerns of c i t i z e n w h o h a d l i v e d i n that nation? NO. recognize it. But it does not mean that other lived in Guatemala (D) for 34 states will automatically accept years.

identity papers or any form of identification normally granted by their government 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees: basic rights of stateless persons 1954 UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: enumerates conditions under w/c an individual would not lose his nationality upon the risk of becoming stateless: marriage divorce adoption naturalization expatriation • • • /wncverder prohibits deprivation of identity as punishment or as discriminatory instrument for political. parent born in that country) Page !52 of !67 . DE JURE Statelessness • Individual stripped of his nationality by his own former government w/o having an opportunity to acquire another 2. refugees) • escaped from their countries w/o any travel documents.e. DE FACTO Statelessness • Individual possessed a nationality but whose country does not give them protection outside own territory (i.DIWATA NOTES STATELESSNESS (2 Senses) 1.e. religious or ethnic reasons jus sanguinis country should grant nationality to those born in their countries jus soli country should consider its national stateless persons when one of the latter's parents is a national of their country (i.

H e throughout the world a large r e f u s e d t o j o i n t h e number of stateless refugees or Bolshevik regime so fled to displaced persons. grew up as a Kookooritchkin is Stateless: citizen of the now defunct Empire of Russia ceased to exist Imperial Russian Government and he disclaims allegiance or under the Czars connection with the Soviet • During WW1. he was part of Government now existing in Russia's military service Russia • When the 1917 Russian revolution broke out. a school duly recognized by the D o n ' t n e e d t o r e q u i r e Government Kookooritchkin to present • He is a shop superintendent evidence that he is stateless and and receives an annual salary had no allegiance to Russian of P13. and it is only Sur since 1925 natural that the not so fortunate • He was a guerilla officer ones who were able to escape to during the war foreign countries should feel the • Married a Filipino named loss of all bonds of attachment to Concepcion Segovia. H e fi l e d 1 9 4 1 p e t i t i o n f o r naturalization • CFI: granted it • OSG appealed: 
 (1) Russian: he failed to show that he has lost Russian citizenship and that Russia grants to Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens 
 (2) failed to establish that he was not disqualified /wncverder Page !53 of !67 . he showed he is not feel any bond of attachment to qualified and has none of the the Soviet dictatorship. disqualifications) • Disclaims allegiance to the present Communist Government of Russia DOCTRINE A S L O N G A S S TAT E L E S S PERSONS POSSESS ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS. K O O K O O R I T C H K I N V. and had the hells which were formerly their a son Ronald. The tyrannical way to Manila (arrived under intolerance of said dictatorships the group of Admiral Stark in toward all opposition induced 1923) them to resort to beastly • He established permanent oppression.200 republic: He was at war with the • Can speak and write English s a i d r u l e . who is studying fatherland’s. Camarines and blood purges. he joined It is a "well-known fact that the the White Russian Army. THEY CAN B E N AT U R A L I Z E D A S PHILIPPINE CITIZENS W/O THE REQUIREMENT OF RECIPROCITY. AND ISSUE(S) RULING 1. Agnes Academy.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. WON Kookooritchkin should be SOLGEN (1943) granted Cert of Naturalization? YES. • Ermes Kookooritchkin was born in Russia. but r u t h l e s s n e s s o f m o d e r n the latter was overwhelmed dictatorships had scattered b y t h e B o l s h e v i k s . p l u s a c t s o f and Bicol dialect… 
 Kookooritchkin show that he does (basta. concentration camps residence in Iriga. at St. w/o country Shanghai and found his and w/o flag. FACTS.

that he goes home time and again to oversee their properties' harvests as he is the oldest. because he was born and he grew up there. but he may have numerous places of residence. he and his family intends to return to his hometown of San Nicolas.. His place of residence generally is his place of domicile. There is a difference between domicile and residence. fixed permanent home and principal establishment. CASE TITLE. DOCTRINE DOMICILE. it is because his wife is a government employee as staff nurse in the Philippine General Hospital. that he could be considered a legal resident domiciled at San Nicolas. 1974. and thereby holding that venue of the action before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte was proper. one has the intention of returning. Coloma are registered voters in the Greater Manila Area. private respondent (Jose Coloma) filed a Complaint for damages against the herein petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. either because his home is there or because that place is assigned to him by law. 57 K-6th Street. Quezon City. but the same was returned unserved by the Bureau of Posts for the reason that he (Coloma) was unknown in the said address of San Nicolas. whenever he is absent. DOMICILE A. that both private respondent Coloma and his wife Crisanta A.DIWATA NOTES IX. petitioner filed a Manifestation before the lower court apprising it that the copy of the Motion To Dismiss sent to private respondent (counsel for private respondent did not specify any address in the Complaint other than his alleged address in San Nicolas. 1974. 1974. domicile is determined by the law creating or recognizing it. Page !54 of !67 . and after her retirement. Ilocos Norte. Ilocos Norte) was returned unserved by the Bureau of Post for the reason that he was unknown in the said address. Ilocos Norte. and to which. The only issue raised before Us is whether or not respondent Appellate Court erred and thus committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner before it. petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the said Complaint on the grounds that the same fails to state a sufficient cause of action and that venue has been improperly laid. this distinction is very well emphasized in those cases where the Domiciliary Theory must necessarily supplant the Nationality Theory in cases involving stateless persons. Coloma is a resident of San Nicolas. that his parents and his brothers and sisters still live there. but domicile is residence coupled with intention to remain for an unlimited time. but is not by any means. Court of Appeals On February 21. petitioner contends that on May 8. although he admitted that he is presently residing at No. • For juridical persons. On the other hand. it was for the purpose of pursuing a college carrer. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. On April 8. 1974. A man can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time. AND ISSUE(S) 1. Ilocos Norte. Ilocos Norte. the term domicile is not exactly synonymous in legal contemplation with the term residence. Kho vs. Kamias. Residence is not domicile. he has the intention of returning. domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent. that if he is staying in Quezon City now. Residence is used to indicate a place of abode. FACTS. in holding that private respondent Jose P. the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence. • In Conflict of Laws definition: It is the place with which a person has settled connection for certain legal purposes. On May 8. In fact. he filed a Manifestation before the lower court apprising it that the copy of the motion to dismiss was sent to private respondent Coloma n his alleged address of San Nicolas. for it is a established principle in Conflict of Laws that domicile refers to the relatively more permanent abode of a person while residence applies to a temporary stay of a person in a given place. necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile. whether permanent or temporary. • Justice Story: his true. and establish his permanent home there. that if ever he came to Manila. Definition • Article 50 of the Civil Code: For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfilment of civil obligations. /wncverder RULING Private respondent Coloma convinced the trial court. that he studied in Ilocos Norte up to his graduation in the Ilocos Norte High School. and in finding that the complaint of private respondent Coloma in the trial court recites a sufficient cause of action. DEFINED. that their ancestral home and lands are situated there.

1950. Forthwith. Immediately after the filing of his application — and — notwithstanding the explicit promise therein made him. Thus. 1951. accordingly. when absent.  /wncverder RULING While. He went to the United States. existing all the while. or for almost five (5) years. over three years and a half of which preceded the filing of the application. it may be said that he resided — as distinguished from domiciled — in the United States at that time and for over a year subsequently thereto. continuously. where he also finished his primary and secondary education. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. but did not return to the Philippines until October 13. notwithstanding the fact that petitioner left the Philippines immediately after the filing of his petition and did not return until several months after the first date set for the hearing thereof. but domicile is residence coupled with intention to remain for an unlimited time. constitutes domicile while an e s t a b l i s h e d a b o d e . his present application for naturalization was filed. which. whether permanent or temporary’ ’domicile’ denotes a fixed permanent residence to which. In short. and with the aforementioned promise made by him in his application. being. FACTS. Then. 1951. to be exact. In April of the same year he returned to the Philippines for four (4) months vacation. and the lower court held. on July 15. 1927.  There is a difference between domicile and residence. to the effect that he would reside continuously in the Philippines "from the date of the filing of his petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship" — he returned to the United States. his counsel had to move for opportunity needed by the Government to observe petitioner herein was enhanced by the fact that. domicile and residence mean one and the same thing. and. under oath. For this first time. having been born in the Philippines. His place of residence generally is his place of domicile. where. AND ISSUE(S) 2. in chemical engineering.’ ’Residence is not domicile. once acquired. he was enrolled in the Leland Stanford Junior University. a declaration of intention prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization. since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile DOCTRINE CONTINUATION OF RULING: In the case at bar. is synonymous with domicile. where he stayed. the Government has not had any chance whatsoever to thus keep a watchful eye on petitioner herein. petitioner his not have to file. from 1946 to 1951. 1951.  Petitioner contends.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. from early 1947 to late in 1951. to return to the true domicile. is not lost by physical absence. merely to study therein. and that. we are of the opinion that petitioner herein has not complied with the requirements of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. A man can have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time. fi x e d permanently for a time for business or other purposes. in California. to a judgment in his favor. 473. Uytengsu vs. generally speaking. and hence a resident of the Philippines. at that time. Page !55 of !67 . but is not by any means necessarily so. Republic Petitioner-appellee was born. the Government had no previous notice of his intention to apply for naturalization until the filing of his petition and could not make the requisite investigation prior thereto. one has the intention of returning. though there may be an intent. where he finished his primary and secondary education. Negros Oriental on October 6. his purpose in staying in the United States. from 1947 to 1950. considering that petitioner had stayed in the United States. practically without interruption. in the present proceedings. in Dumaguete. he returned to the United States and took a postgraduate course. that the word “residence”. ’Residence’ is used to indicate the place of abode.  ISSUE: Whether or not the application for naturalization may be granted. but he may have numerous places of residence. on July 12. residence combined with intention to remain. until October 13. of Chinese parents. He finished this course in July 1951. he continued to be domiciled in. is not entitled. as used in the aforesaid provision of the Naturalization Law. constitutes a residence. until another domicile is obtained. Moreover. in another educational institution. and did not file.

despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. One’s domicile is not ascertainable without first resorting to the courts to establish whether or not there is animo manendi b. the burden of proving a change of domicile is upon whoever alleges that a change has been secured. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. then it may create the same problem of attenuated connection we saw in the use of nationality as personal law. CA Private respondent Merito Miguel was elected as municipal mayor of Bolinao. Caasi vs. 1988. FACTS. Second.  Miguel admitted that he is a green card holder but denied that he was a permanent resident of the US. COMELEC dismissed the petitions as possession of green card did not sufficiently establish Miguel’s abandonment of his PH residence. 3. 2. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local election on January 18. Hence. (Section 68. the Court’s conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office. The law has reserved that privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with out country “without mental reservations or purpose of evasion”. his election thereto was null and void. First. RULING DOCTRINE The Supreme Court held that Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U. The notion of domicile differs widely with some states distinguishing between residence and domicile or attributing different meanings of domicile for different purposes c. H i s d i s q u a l i fi c a t i o n .S. a permanent resident of the United States of America. and that he is a permanent resident of Pangasinan and voted there in all previous elections. Third. 1 9 8 8 . Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U. Miguel did not p o s s e s s s u c h q u a l i fi c a t i o n because he was a permanent resident of the US and resided in Bolinao for a period of only three months after his return to the PH and before he ran in 1988. however. Pangasinan during the local elections of January 18. AND ISSUE(S) 3. not of Bolinao. He also alleged that he obtained the green card merely for convenience in order that he may freely enter the US for his periodic medical examination and to visit his children there. OEC) The OEC has laid down a clear policy of excluding from the right to hold elective public office those PH citizens who possess dual loyalties and allegiance. hence. Fourth.S. /wncverder Page !56 of !67 . no person shall be without domicile. 4. MERITS OF DOMICILE • It is the primary connection between a person and a state because it satisfies the very purpose of having a personal law DEMERITS OF DOMICILE a. this petition for review.S. it establishes a connection between a person and a particular territory. Without such prior waiver. a person cannot have two simultaneous domicile since the very purpose for identifying one’s domicile is to establish a connection between the person and a definite legal system.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. on the ground that under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code private respondent was not qualified because he is a green card holder. If the law of he domicile of origin is given overriding significance. he was disqualified to run for any elective office. was sought by herein petitioner. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing of his candidacy for elective office in this country. Mateo Caasi. Reason for Section 68: Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least one year at the time of filing his COC is one of the qualifications that a candidate for elective public office must possess. GENERAL RULES ON DOMICILE 1. hence.

as her domicile of choice. married late President Ferdinand Leyte. which and that "she has always maintained supports the domiciliary intention Tacloban City as her domicile or clearly manifested. th e y l i ve d i n In the absence and concurrence of all opinion adopts to overcome the Malacanang Palace and registered as these. Leyte for the 1995 Elections. YES. about 1938. the husband’s domicile because the jurisprudence.   Assuming that Imelda gained a Note that what is revived is not Cancellation and Disqualification" with new domicile after her marriage and her domicile of origin but her the Commission on Elections alleging acquired right to choose a new one that petitioner did not meet the only after the death of Pres. an act.  court are in favor of a conclusion domicile by operation of law upon She then pursued her college degree. COMELEC Whether petitioner has satisfied the DISTINCTION OF CIVIL CODE 1year residency requirement to be CONCEPTS OF DOMICILE AND eligible in running as representative of RESIDENCE Imelda. supporting petitoner’s claim of legal marriage cannot be inferred from education.  She even kept residence. celebrating her birthdays she became a resident of the and other important milestones.  A wife does not automatically gain Manila during 1978. Municipality of Tolosa in said months. and acts of origin upon the death of her as a voter. R o m u a l d e z . But assuming that 1952 to work with her cousin. residency. power to acquire her own c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t f o r her actions upon returning to the domicile. was registered there as a voter. her domicile of seven months under residency.   A minor follows domicile of her Mr. she when her father brought them to marriage was actual residence. is served as member of the Batasang unsupported by law and by Pambansa and Governor of Metro 3.  The settled doctrine is that after r u n n i n g f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f When Imelda married late President the husband's death the wife has Representative of the First District of Marcos in 1954. which origin.  To she sought to rectify by adding the add.  Subsequently. wrote chose Tacloban. a bona fide intention of T h e t h e o r y o f a u t o m a t i c Senator in 1959.  She arrived at the seven close ties by establishing residences months residency due to the fact that in Tacloban. Marcos was elected as domicile.  Cirilo of origin and merely gained a new but she retains the last domicile of R o y M o n t e j o . a little over 8 years old. Rizal where she registered establishing a new one. established her domicile The presumption that the wife in Tacloban. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE 1. the late 1. in St. petitioner even obtained her words "since childhood" in her residence certificate in 1992 in Amended/Corrected Certificate of Tacloban.  In 1965. Leyte where she studied Residence is used synonymously with automatically gains the husband's and graduated high school in the Holy domicile for election purposes.  Domicile of origin is only lost when origin. in or the First District of Leyte. Leyte and also a candidate for the same position.  She did not lose her domicile of Marcos when he was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte and 2.   marriage on her domicile. /wncverder Page !57 of !67 . she kept her domicile a right to elect her own domicile. term “residence” in Civil Law does not Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was mean the same thing in Political Law. FACTS. 1995 brother ’s house. which the majority wo n p residency.M a r c o s v s . Marcos. when Marcos which correspond with the purpose.  She went to manila during well delineated. she taught declaration of 7 months residency in because the Civil Code is one in Leyte Chinese School still in the district for the following reasons: area where the two concepts are Tacloban. Paul’s College now residence or domicile in the First the use of the term "residence" in Divine Word University also in District of Leyte despite her own Article 110 of the Civil Code Tacloban. they lived together in abandoning the former residence and restoration of a woman's domicile San Juan.   actual change. o f fi c e i n t h e H o u s e o f domicile of origin by operation of law what petitioner gained upon Representatives.  The Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949.  husband. Leyte while living in her Candidacy filed on March 29. filed a “Petition for 4. Marcos had fixed any of these speaker Daniel Romualdez in his parents.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE.  In 1954.  She deemed to continue.  The petitioner.  Tacloban became Imelda’s places as the conjugal residence.  there is actual removal or change of When Pres. t h e i n c u m b e n t h o m e a n d n o t d o m i c i l i u m her husband until she makes an Representative of the First District of necessarium. domicile of origin should be legal effect of the petitioner's a voter in San Miguel Manila. in an country clearly indicated that she honest misrepresentation.

473. he has not c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e s p e c i fi c requirement of law regarding six months residence before filing his present petition. the court a quo rendered decision denying the petition on the ground that petitioner did not have the residence required by law six months before he filed his petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. He has no record of conviction and it is his intention to renounce his allegiance to the U. 1960 to which he was admitted merely for a temporary stay. Ilocos Sur worth not less than P5." The word "residence" used therein imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. or for s p e c i a l d i s q u a l i fi c a t i o n s reasons of health. a status he has maintained at the time of the filing of the present petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and which continues up to the present. In the present case. even animus manendi. AND ISSUE(S) 2. was admitted into this country as a temporary visitor. made the following comment: "One of the qualifications for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is that the applicant 'shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization We find it to be a correct interpretation [Section 3 (1) of Commonwealth Act No. who is presently a citizen of the United States of America. 63] which requires that before a person may reacquire his Philippine citizenship he "shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization. who is now of legal age.S. FACTS. that term cannot refer to domicile.000. Such being the case. the domicile is characterized by Revised Naturalization Law.00. In other words Commonwealth Act No. In other permanently.00 from the Social Security Administration of the United States of America. no matter how long." Page !58 of !67 . in denying the petition. is connotation as that used in his domicile. Hence the present appeal. Ujano with whom he has one son. After hearing. He is married to Maxima O.A. the presence in this country of a person who has been admitted A place in a country or state only on the strength of a permit w h e r e h e l i v e s a n d s t a y s for temporary residence. Prospero. either for foregoing the qualifications and business or pleasure. He receives a monthly pension of $115. He returned to the Philippines on November 10.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. if in approving the law permitting the reacquisition of Philippine So an alien who has been citizenship our Congress has admitted into this country as a liberalized its requirement by temporary visitor. petitioner. He owns an agricultural land and a residential house situated in Magsingal. Petitioner was born 66 years ago of Filipino parents in Magsingal Ilocos Sur. the term residence used in intends to return after a temporary said Act should have the same absence.. present in this country cannot be said to have established his domicile here because the period of his stay is only temporary in nature and must leave when the purpose of his coming is accomplished. has already been interpreted to mean the actual or constructive permanent home otherwise known as legal residence or Indeed. Republic (1966) Petitioner seeks to reacquire his Philippine citizenship in a petition filed before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. though actually prescribed therein. and to which he words. /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE The court a quo. This 'residence' requirement in cases of naturalization. He left the Philippines for the United States of America in 1927 where after a residence of more than 20 years he acquired American citizenship by naturalization. Ujano vs.

• Traditionally. To acquire a domicile of choice. /wncverder Page !59 of !67 . • Similarly. a legitimate child’s domicile of origin is that of his father and an illegitimate child’s is that of his mother. DOMICILE OF ORIGIN DOMICILE OF CHOICE Enjoys the staunchest presumption in favor of its Its character is more enduring. a new domicile is created. • • • Domicile of Choice Also called a Voluntary Domicile It is the place freely chosen by a person sui juris. there must be concurrence of physical presence in the new place and unqualified intention to make that place one’s home. 2. the length of time spent by a person has actually lived in a new domicile is irrelevant after it is established that a new domicile has been selected and entered upon.DIWATA NOTES KINDS OF DOMICILE 1. • Likewise. Constructive Domicile NOTE: • As long as there is no intention to return to the old domicile. its holds stronger continuance and less easily shaken off It is not lost by mere abandonment and remains until It is extinguished by the removal of intent even prior replaced by a domicile of choice to the acquisition of new domicile 3. or for the time being at least. the motive that prompted the person to change his domicile is immaterial in determining whether or not the new domicile has been acquired. or for an indefinite period. whether the intention to remain is for the rest of one’s life. Domicile of Origin • Refers to a person’s domicile at birth.

Page !60 of !67 . FACTS. To effect the abandonment of one’s domicile. namely. was in Manila where he had lived and toiled for more than a quarter of a century. The plaintiff-appellant’s cause of action is that there is no valid law or regulation by virtue of which any inheritance tax may be levied or assessed. with a declared or provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent place of abode. and died in Calcutta. who came to the PH in 1902. THE PROPERTY IN THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR MOODY AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH AND HAD ITS SITUS WITHIN THE PH ISLANDS. There is no evidence that he acquired any property in Paris or engaged in any settled business on his own account there. oral or written. 1. one’s home. The evidence in the record indicates clearly that Moody’s continued absence from his legal domicile in the Philippines was due to and reasonably accounted for by the same motive that caused his surreptitious departure. the estate of the late Moody paid under protest a sum of P90k. Posadas Arthur Moody. by death and succession. BECAUSE HIS LEGAL DOMICILE UP TO THE TIME OF HIS DEATH WAS WITHIN THE PH ISLANDS. On July 1931. engaged in business here. 1929. there must be a deliberate and provable choice of a new domicile. in the record that he Plaintiff-appellant AL Velilla is the had adopted a new domicile while administrator of the estate of he was absent from Manila. rather than in any foreign country he visited during his wanderings up to the date of his death in Calcutta. Moody executed a will bequeathing bonds and shares of stocks to his sister. His short stay of three months in Paris is entirely consistent with the view that he was a transient in Paris for the purpose of receiving treatments at the Pasteur Institute. covering the assessment and inheritance tax and income tax against the estate. The negative evidence that he told Cooley that he did not intend to return to Manila does not prove that he had established a domicile in Paris. who was a citizen and resident of NY. Velilla vs. Much less plausible. The record contains no writing whatever of Moody from Paris. India in 1931. When Palmer had been declared to be the sole and only heiress of the decedent. AND SECOND. Ida Palmer. whom appellant describes as a "fugitive" and "outcast". but such protest was overruled by the Collector of BIR. 40) defines the domicile of natural persons as "the place of their usual residence. AND ISSUE(S) RULING There is no statement of Moody. ISSUE: Was Moody domiciled in the PH at the time of his death? YES. an American citizen. the BIR prepared for the estate of Moody an inheritance tax return. coupled with actual residence in the place chosen. USA. to evade confinement in the Culion Leper Colony. as he might do in foreign parts DOCTRINE Our Civil Code (art. There is a complete dearth of evidence in the record that Moody ever established a new domicile in a foreign country. of a person not domiciled in the PH." The record before us leaves no doubt in our minds that the "usual residence" of this unfortunate man. There is no evidence of any affirmative factors that prove the establishment of a legal domicile there. /wncverder Though he was physically present for some months in Calcutta prior to the date of his death there. is the claim that he established a legal domicile in Paris in February. There is no evidence as to where in Paris he had any fixed abode that he intended to be his permanent home. it seems to us. because his affliction became graver while he was absent than it was on the day of his precipitous departure and he could not conceal himself in the Philippines where he was well known.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. the appellant does not claim that Moody had a domicile there although it was precisely from Calcutta that he wrote and cabled that he wished to sell his business in Manila and that he had no intention to live there again. for he doubtless knew that on his return he would be immediately confined.

bring up and educate the child. being a non-resident alien. A place in a country or state where he lives and stays (1) Those who have legitimate. Page !61 of !67 . (4) Non-resident aliens. be deemed a resident of that (3) A married person. is legal fiction. is may be removed from the country disqualified to adopt a child in the by the adopter. that he never has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. Republic Ricardo R. Republic of the intent to remain there indefinitely. permanently and to which he legitimated. when the penalty property is being conducted or run i m p o s e d w a s s i x m o n t h s ' by his manager but does not imprisonment or more. person in a place. acknowledged natural children. Caraballo live. Philippines. AND ISSUE(S) 2. who is not a Philippines. state to look after his business or (6) Any person who has been property or to check up the convicted of a crime involving manner or way his business or moral turpitude. not of his free municipality of Angeles. before the final approval a place of his free choice cannot of his accounts. where he and his wife Graciela G. t h e resident of such country. Looking after the the United States Air Force — his welfare of a minor to be adopted stay in the Philippines then the law has surrounded him with being temporary — is a non. although he may later Civil Code is clear as to the on change his mind and live people who cannot adopt. intend to remain in the country indefinitely cannot be deemed a R i c a r d o R . or natural children by absence. resident of the Philippines. his domicile. FACTS. Caraballo. pursuant to such welfare. The Provincial and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga moved for the dismissal of the petition for adoption on the ground that it states no cause of action and that the petitioner. alleges that he and his wife have no legitimate. It cannot be clause 4 of the above quoted gainsaid that an adopted minor article of the Civil Code. an American citizen enlisted in the United States Air Force as staff sergeant detailed in Clark Field.safeguards to achieve and insure resident alien who. consent of the other spouse. acknowledged natural intends to return after a temporary children. that financially and morally he is able to support. of a place in a country or state where he has his abode and Although he has the financial and lives there permanently. no matter how long. Caraballo vs. and placed beyond the reach and protection of the country of his birth. Article 335 of the voluntarily. legitimated. Actual or petitioner. C a r a b a l l o . to wit: elsewhere. Caber begotten by an unknown father. without the place. with respect to tourist though actually present at the ward. is not qualified to adopt. who gave her consent to the adoption in a sworn statement. natural children by legal fiction or any other descendant. that since the day following her birth Norma Lee Caber has been reared and cared for by him and his wife who have developed love and affection for her. A foreigner who has a business or (5) Resident aliens with whose interest therein or property government the Republic of the located in a country or state and Philippines has broken diplomatic goes and stays in that country or relations.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. A sojourn such as a (2) The guardian. It is a emotional means to take care and place chosen by him freely and rear the child. /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE Is the petitioner qualified to A person is deemed a resident adopt? NO. a five-day old natural daughter of Mercedes J. that with his wife's written consent he desires to adopt as his child Norma Lee Caber. province and voluntary choice and without of Pampanga. because of his does not make him a resident of assignment as staff sergeant in the place. Angeles. an American citizen physical presence or stay of a who now lives in Clark Field. Pampanga.

Go Tuan died in China eleven years ago. but by virtue of the right of the husband and father. and where she has been residing for the past eight years. A Chinaman's Chinese wife and here minor children. with costs against the appellees. then. unless the Chinese wife belongs to the privileged class. where she was admitted as the wife of a Chinese merchant. Being a resident merchant. Chinese widow who was admitted to an acquired a residence in the PH as the wife of a Chinese merchant. but by virtue of her second husband's right. has no right to bring in her minor children by the first husband. whom he had been helping in his store in that municipality. named Go Soon. Two years later. Tan Bon at her home and went to Talisayan. do not enter the Philippine Islands through their own right. and the rights of the minor children from that of their father. who never had a legal residence in this country. not being children of their mother's second husband. she ordered her two sons. The Chinese woman Tan Bon. and took up their abode with their mother. Susana II. The petitioner remained in China under a paternal uncle. Collector of Customs Cebu The petitioners and appellees. arrived in the Philippines on board the S. AND ISSUE(S) 3. her second husband. who is living in Cebu with his mother. that a man's domicile is also the domicile of his wife and minor children. Tan Bon. Wherefore we are of opinion and so hold. So ordered. then aged 20 and 18. FACTS. RULING DOCTRINE Therefore the ground of the wife's right of entry into the territory of the United States and hence. and the writ of habeas corpus denied. Go Chien and Go Lek vs. then the petitioners and appellees.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. the petitioners herein. Tan Bon (Go Tuan’s widow) married another Chinaman. support. and that he is in duty bound to protect. and shortly thereafter came to the Philippine Islands with her second husband. and keep them in his company. is the principle of Private International Law and of Civil Law. the petitioners and appellees. at the invitation of a friend of his named Go Tian Ho. did not enter the Philippine Islands by her own right. are not entitled to enter. As the Chinese woman aforesaid. together with their three brothers and one sister. she is not entitled to bring in her minor children by another Chinaman who never had a legal residence in the The issue raised was whether a Archipelago. Go Lek and Go Chen. If the wife's right to enter is derived from her husband's. The mere fact of their being children of Tan Bon confers on them no right of entry. into the Philippine Islands. to join her in these Islands. On October 20. are minor children of Go Tuan and Tan Bon. Go Chen and Go Lek. that a Chinese woman entering these Islands not on her own right but by virtue of the right of her second husband. Misamis Province. the judgment appealed from is reversed. inasmuch as she herself did not enter of her own right. S. 1930. who seeks to bring in her minor children. did not enter through her own but through that of her second husband. also single 21 years of age. and they cannot base their right on hers. Tan Bon is at present engaged in the furniture business in Cebu. respectively. The petitioners and appellees are both single and have another brother. was entitled to bring in her minor children by her first marriage. the petitioners herein. /wncverder Page !62 of !67 . By virtue whereof. a Chinaman.

AND ISSUE(S) 4. A material fact refers to a candidate's qualification for elective office such as one's citizenship and residence. contending that Ugdoracion's declaration of eligibility for mayor constituted material misrepresentation because he is actually a green card holder or a permanent resident of USA. it is only when there is actual removal or change of domicile. It appears that Ugdoracion became a permanent resident in USA on September 26. Domicile is the place where one actually or constructively has his permanent home. Residence. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. Ugdoracion vs. In Caasi vs Court of Appeals that a Filipino citizen's acquisition of a permanent resident status abroad constitutes an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. It is the deliberate attempt to mislead.acquired upon abandonment of the domicile of origin • Domicile by operation of law which the law attributes to a person independently of his residence or intention.acquired by every person at birth • Domicile of choice . COMELEC • • • • • Ugdoracion and Tungol were rival mayoralty candidates in the municipality of Albuquerque province of Bohol. or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. once established. Domicile is classified into • Domicile of origin . Three basic rules • A man must have a residence or domicile somewhere • Domicile. Tungol filed a petition to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Ugdoracion. 2001. is synonymous to domicile. Nona dude intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one. and any false representation therein of a material fact shall be a ground for cancellation thereof. in relation to section 78 of the omnibus election code.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. It consists not only in the intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place.material representation ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in cancelling Ugdoracion's COC for material representation. NO. /wncverder RULING DOCTRINE Section 74. and acts which correspond with such purpose. requires that the facts stated In the COC must be true. COMELEC cancelled Ugdoracion's COC . eventually intends to return (animus revertendi ) and remain (animus manendi). He stated in his COC that he resided in Albuquerque for forty one years before May 14. Ugdoracion alleged that he retained his domicile of origin notwithstanding his ostensible acquisition of permanent residency in the USA. where he. The general rule is that domicile of origin is not easily lost. 2007 and he is not a permanent resident or an immigrant to a foreign country. FACTS. Page !63 of !67 . A green card status in the USA is a renunciation of one's status as a resident of the Philippines. In contemplation of election laws. remains until a new one is validly acquired • A man can have but one residence or domicile at any given time. In the instant case however Ugdoracion's acquisition of lawful permanent resident status in the USA amounted to an abandonment and renunciation of his status as a resident of the Philippines. no matter where he may be found at any given time. misinform.

particularly the relations between husband and wife. legitimation and emancipation. NOTE: The Court may refer to the national law of the alien if they belong to a country following the nationality principle or the law of their domicile if they follow the domiciliary principle. lost only through death CAPACITY TO ACT . family relations. Article 15: Laws relating to family rights and duties.DIWATA NOTES X.the power to do acts with juridical effect. and finally succession both testate and intestate. /wncverder Page !64 of !67 . adoption. it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. Art. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. protection of personal interests. even though living abroad. especially marriage. separation. divorce. For civil purposes. 41. PERSONALITY (BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY) • Article 40 and 41 of the New Civil Code gives the INTERNAL RULES ON THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN PERSONALITY Art. However. Birth determines personality. • • • STATUS . guardian and ward. XI.no exact meaning and its concept considered nebulous since modern law does not recognize absolute legal characteristics inherent in every person CAPACITY . if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months. the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. capacity to have rights in general.the fitness of a man to be the subject of legal relations. it is acquired and may be lost IN THE DETERMINATION OF STATUS AND CAPACITY OF A PERSON. but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it. parent and child. capacity to engage in legal transactions. PRINCIPLES OF PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY • Personal status is the general term that includes both condition and capacity. Article 15 of the Civil Code follows the Nationality Principle. also transactions of family law. and more specifically embraces such matters as the beginning and end of human personality. or to the status. 40. provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article.

De Jesus vs.  contemplated in subsection 1 of article 135 of the Civil Code must be After giving birth. but only that it shall to attend at the birth and hospital sufficiency of acknowledgment is not be of an intermittent character arrangements at St.  He of legal rights and capable of being This situation continued for about a got acquainted with Antonio and had dealt with as a living person. and until Antonia became an amorous relationship. becomes a bearer they lived together with the defendant. and the pregnancy. the acknowledgment thus shown is It is undeniable that from the birth of defendant. "continuous" in subsection 2 of article to Antonia reminding her to eat on 135 of the Civil Code does not mean time for her and “junior’s” sake. with the child then being carried by Antonia L. more than one document. Only the means and to evince the father's resolution to wrote a letter to a rev father resources of identification are concede the status. as a consequence. and that be indubitable. Syquia brought made in a single document or may be Antonia and his child at a House in made in more than one document. In w h o w a s i n c h a r g e o f t h e the case before us the admission arrangement of the ceremony caused of paternity is contained in the note the name Ismael Loanco to be given to the padre and the other letters instead of Cesar Syquia Jr. The law fixes no 1931. Upon this point Antonia showed signs of second we are of the opinion that the pregnancy. of Camarines Street Manila where they indubitable authenticity.    The It seems to us that the only legal that the concession of status shall defendant ask his friend Dr. Joseph Hospital w h e t h e r t h e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t while it continues.  Cesar Syquia. Father acknowledging the child the trial court erred in holding that Antonia Loanco. haircut in the said barber shop. defendant was a constant of a child already born and bearing a period in this case was long enough visitor. The circumstance confirming that the child is his and he different. de Jesus. FACTS. 23 years of age and an sufficient. supplementing the admission It should be noted that during the made in one letter by an admission christening of the child. The problem here presented abandoning her. Even a bequest to a living that he abandoned the mother and wanted his name to be given to the child requires oral evidence to child shortly before this action was child. in which in Manila was accustomed to have his being conceived. uninterrupted possession of the status or any particular individual. upon home for it and the mother. Talavera question that can here arise as to the continue forever. he even specific name. the defendant or admissions made in another. SC ruled: Ismael Loanco had been in the girl 20 years of age was a cashier in a uninterrupted possession of the status b a r b e r s h o p o w n e d b y t h e Upon this point we have no of a natural child. justified by the merely required that the writing shall conduct of the father himself. There is no Whether trial court erred in holding requirement in the law that the that Ismael Loanco had been in the writing shall be addressed to one.  When recognizing father. the defendant in this case should be compelled to acknowledge the said Ismael Loanco. the SC ruled: defendant’s brother in law Vicente hesitancy in holding that the Mendoza.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. Antonia got pregnant impediment to the acquisition of idea entered the defendant's head of and a baby boy was born on June 17. that was suffice to connect that admission first planned. in Manila. a likely unmarried as his. The year.  of the recognition of unborn child is period during which a child must be in really not different from that presented the continuous possession of the In the early months of Antonia’s in the ordinary case of the recognition status of a natural child.  Though he was out of the connect the particular individual started is unimportant. Syquia /wncverder Page !65 of !67 .    As a fact that it is yet unborn is no enciente a second time. he continuously wrote letters intended with the name used. It is a universal rule of this child the defendant supplied a unmarried scion of a prominent family jurisprudence that a child. The word country. written by the lived together for about a year. when the consequence. It is of a natural child. AND ISSUE(S) RULING DOCTRINE As to the letter given by Syquia to the As to the second issue as to whether Rev. defendant suddenly recognition can be made out by departed and he was married with putting together the admissions of another woman at this time. 1. rights.  On February 1931.

it is easy to see that if no action for damages could be instituted on behalf of the unborn child on account of injuries it received. the same was extinguished by its prenatal death. essential that birth should occur later. she again became pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter’s daughter Lucida at Geluz’ clinic at Carriedo and P. In the present case.  After two years. she decided to have it aborted by Geluz. However. on February 21.  Nita became pregnant some time in 1950 before she and Oscar were legally married. even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child. the petitioner and physician. such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them. This personality is called presumptive personality.000 for the death of a person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality which trial court and Court of Appeals predicated.  Oscar at this time was in the province of Cagayan campaigning for his election to the provincial board. It is. AND ISSUE(S) 2. FACTS. Geluz vs. /wncverder Page !66 of !67 . In fact. no such right of action could derivatively accrue to its parents or heirs. Gomez Street. who voluntarily procured her abortion. otherwise the fetus will be considered as never having possessed legal personality. CA Nita Villanueva.DIWATA NOTES CASE TITLE. came to know Antonio Geluz. respondent. It is no answer to invoke the presumptive personality of a conceived child under Article 40 of the Civil Code because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive. Whether husband of a woman. could recover damages from the physician who caused the same. the child was dead when separated from its mother’s womb. 1955. as distinguished from injury or violation of the rights of the deceased child.  He doesn’t have any idea nor given his consent on the abortion.  She had her pregnancy aborted again on October 1953 since she found it inconvenient as she was employed at COMELEC. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of injury or death pertains primarily to the one injured. This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to damages. through her aunt Paula Yambot. Personality begins at conception. the wife of Oscar lazo.  As advised by her aunt and to conceal it from her parents. since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality. RULING DOCTRINE The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3. of course.

who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane. 390. an absence of five years shall be sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. An adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter.DIWATA NOTES XII. 165 (FC). it being unknown whether or not the absentee still lives. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community. XIV. 367. CHANGE OF NAME OR SURNAME SPEC PRO: • Rule: No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority • RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed: SECTION 4. 391. The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession till after an absence of ten years. including the division of the estate among the heirs: • • • A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage. 364. After an absence of seven years. 4. A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war. or 3. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous. XIII. Sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase sign of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life /wncverder Page !67 of !67 . AGE OF MAJORITY (RA 6809) • lowered the age of majority to 18 years old from 21 years old. or an aeroplane which is missing. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes. The change will avoid confusion. he shall be presumed dead for all purposes. 365. Art. 366. it expressly stated that parental consent for contracting marriage is required until the age of 21. If he disappeared after the age of seventy-five years. Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. Natural children by legal fiction shall principally employ the surname of the father. 41 of the Family Code: • The spouse present must first institute a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee spouse. a natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent. ABSENCE PRESUMPTION OF DEATH Art. Right to new name is a consequence of a change in status 5. Art. Art. tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce. without which the subsequent marriage is void ab initio • For purposes of remarriage. 2. Art. Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate. the period in Articles 390 and 391 are reduced to four and two years. except for those of succession. and has been missing for four years. Art. A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and his existence has not been known for four years. Art. NAME Art. which would enable the absentee spouse to make known his whereabouts sooner. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of the father. The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases: 1. unless otherwise provided in this Code. respectively. considering more modern means of communications. If recognized by only one of the parents.