You are on page 1of 11

COURSE OUTLINE IN

CONFLICT OF LAWS
nd
2 Semester, AY 2017-2018

A. Classroom Rules:
1. Attendance will be checked at the beginning of every meeting.
2. Recitation will be conducted every meeting. Students are expected, therefore,
to come to class prepared and to have read the materials scheduled to be
covered during the meeting. When a student is reciting, the rest of the class is
expected to listen to him. Students are encouraged to participate in the
discussion by asking questions.
3. A student who is called to recite is expected to close his book during his
recitation.
4. Electronic gadgets are not prohibited during class hours. A student is
expected, however, to turn off his mobile phone or to put it on silent mode as
soon as he steps into the classroom. If the student expects a call during the
meeting, he can take the call by discretely leaving the classroom. Laptops,
tablets, and other similar electronic devices, are not, likewise, prohibited but
the students who are called to recite should close these electronic devices for
the duration of their recitation. The same rule applies to mobile phones that
serve as data storage.
5. Any student may discretely leave the classroom if and when absolutely
necessary. When a student is not in the classroom when called for recitation,
he will be given a grade of 5.0 or its equivalent.

B. Grading System:
Recitation - 15
Quiz - 15
Mid-Term Exam - 30
Final Exam - 40

C. Reference/s:

Conflict of Laws, First Edition 2004, Ruben E. Agpalo

OUTLINE PROPER

I. INTRODUCTION

a. Definition of Conflict of Laws


b. Application of Conflict of Laws in the Philippines

 Brownel v. San Life Assurance of Canada, 95 Phil 228 (1954)


 Guerrerro’s Transport Services v. Blayblock Transp. Services 71 SCRA 621
(1976)
 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, 297 SCRA 469 (1998)
 Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
 King Mau Wu v. Sycip, L-5887, April 23, 1954
 Hongkong v. Sheman, 176 SCRA 331 (1989)
 International School Alliance v. Quisombing, 333 SCRA 13 (2000)
 Gregorio v. Rodas, 81 Phil 506 (1948)
 Salvacion v. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)

II. Choice of Law

a. Generally
i. Agreement by parties
ii. Applicable foreign law
i. Substance v. procedural
ii. renvoi doctrine
iii. center of gravity
iv. lex fori
v. grouping of contacts
vi. place of most significant relations

iii. Conflict between foreign law and local law


iv. Exceptions

 Sison v. board of Accountancy, 85 Phil 276 (1949)


 Cadalin v. POEA, 238 SCRA 721 (1994)
 Oh Hek How v. Republic, 29 SCRA 94
 Nazareno v. CA, 343 SCRA 637 (2000)
 Limjoco v. Estate of Fragante, 80 Phil 776 (1948)
 Manila Gas Corp. v Collector, 62 Phil 895
 Bellis v. Bellis, 20 SCRA 358 (1967)
 Gibbs v. Government, 59 Phil 293 (1993)
 Government v. Frank, 13 Phil 236 (1909)
 Grey v. Insular Lumber Co., 67 Phil 139 (1939)
 Sy Kiong v. Sarmiento, 90 Phil 434 (1951)
 Bank of America v. American, 321 SCRA 659 (1999)
 Pakistan International Airlines v. Ople, 190 SCRA 90 (1990)
 Hongkong v. Sheman, 176 SCRA 331 (1989)
 Fabian v. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470
 Wildvalley Shipping v. CA, 342 SCRA 213 (2000)
 Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23
 Phil Commercial v. Escolin, 56 SCRA 266 (1974)
 Pardo vs Republic, 85 Phil 326 ( 1950)
 Norse Management v. National Seamen Board, 117 SCRA 486 (1982)
 Santos v. Norwest, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
 Aznar v. Garcia, 7 SCRA 95 (1963)
 Manufacturer’s v. Guerrero, GR NO. 136804, February 19, 2003
 Phil Trust v. Bohanam, 106 Phil 997 (1960)

III. CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE

a. Citizenship

i. Definition
ii. Kinds

 Aznar v. Garcia, 7 SCRA 95 (1963)


 Frivaldo v. Comelec, 275 SCRA 727, (1996)
 Valles vs. Comelec, 337 SCRA 543 ( 2000)
 Vicente D. Ching, 316 SCRA 1 (1999)
 Bengson v. HRET, 357 SCRA 545 (2001)
 Co. vs. Electoral Tribunal, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)
 Board of Immigration v. go, 25 SCRA 890 (1968)
 Mercado v Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 (1999)
 Labo vs. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1( 1989)
 Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 ( 1999)
 Dyumantan v. Domingo, 240 SCRA 746 (1995)

b. Domicile

i. Definition
ii. Kinds
 Ong v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966 (1967)
 Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300
 Simon v. Commission on Human Rights, 229 SCRA 17 (1994)
 Alcantara v. Secretary of Interior, 61 Phil 460
 Romualdez v RTC, 226 SCRA 408
 Macalintal v. Comelec, GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003
 Domino v. Comelec, 310 SCRA 546 (1999)
 Jao v. CA, 382 SCRA 407 (2002)

IV. NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE OF CORPORATION

a. Citizenship of juridical entity


b. Tests to determine Filipino corporation
c. Domicile of juridical person

 Davis Winshop v. Phil Trust, 90 Phil 744


 Crisostomo v. SEC, 179 SCRA 146 (1989)
 Clavecila Radio System v. Antillon, 19 SCRA 379
 Sy v. Tyson, 119 SCRA 367 (1982)
 Norwest Airlines v. CA, 241 SCRA 192 (1995
 Clude Neon v. Phil Advertising 57 Phil 607
 State Investment Bank v. Citibank, 203 SCRA 9 (1991)
 CIR v. Japan Airlines, 202 SCRA 450 (1991)

V. CONTRACT

a. Lex Loci Contractus


b. Choice of law by the parties in a contract
c. Air transportation under the Warsaw Convention

 United Airlines v. CA, 357 SCRA 99 (2001)


 Boman Environmental v. CA, 167 SCRA 540 (1988)
 Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994)
 General Milling v. Torres, 196 SCRA 215 (1991)
 Ang Yu v. CA, 238 SCRA 602 (1994)
 KK. Shell v. CA, 188 sCRA 145 (1990)
 Bagong Filipinas Overseas v. NLRC, 135 SCRA 278 (1985)
 Triple Eight v. NLRC, 299 SCRA 608 (1998)
 Santos III v. Northwest Orient, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
 American Airlines v. CA, 327 SCRA 482 (2000)
 Sabena Belgian v. CA, 255 SCRA 38 (1996)
 Alitalia v. IAC, 192 SCRA 9
 British Airways v. CA, 285 SCRA 450 (1998)
 JAL v. CA, 294 SCRA 19 (1998)
 United Airlines v. Uy, 318 SCRA 576 (1999)
 Zalamea v. CA, 228 SCRA 23 (1993)
 Unites Airlines v. CA 357 SCRA 99 (2001)

VI. WILLS AND SUCCESSIONS

a. Generally
b. Extrinsic validity of wills
c. Probate of Wills

 Caniza v. CA, 268 SCRA 640 (1997)


 Caneda v. CA, 222 SCRA 781 (1993)
 Ozaeta v. Cuartero, L-5597, May 31, 1955
 Molo v. Molo, L-2538, September 21, 1951
 Maloles II v. Philips, 324 SCRA 172 (2000)
 Maninang v. CA, 114 SCRA 478 (1982)
 Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 SCRA 676 (1978)
 Dalton v. Giberson, 91 Phil 524 (1952)
 Tayag v. Benguet, 26 SCRA 242 (1968)
 Vd. De Perez v. Tolete, 232 SCRA 722 (1994)
 Re Estate of Suntay, 95 Phil 500
 Testate of Bellis v. Bellis, 20 SCRA 358 (1967)
 Testate of Estate of Bohanan v. Bohanan, 106 Phil 997 (1960)
 Miciano v. Brimo, 50 Phil 867

VII. PROPERTY

a. Lex Loci Rei Sitae


b. Exception to rule prohibiting alien from owning land
c. Conflict of laws in real property situated in another country

 Laurel v. Garcia 187 SCRA 797 (1990)


 Times v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)
 Roman Catholic v. LRC, 102 Phil 596
 ROD v. Ung Sin Temple, 97 Phil 58 (1955)
 Cheesman v. IAC, 193 SCRA 93
 Republic v. CA, 235 SCRA 562 (1994)
 Rellosa v. Gaw Chee, 94 Phil 827 (1953)
 Phil Banking Corp. v. Lui She, 21 SCRA 52 (1967)
 Sarsosa v. Cuenco, 113 SCRA 547 (1982)
 Vasquez v. Giap, 96 Phil 447 (1955)
 The Holy See v. Rosario, Jr. 238 SCRA 524
 Llanto v. co Ling Change, 188 SCRA 592 (1990)

VIII. TORTS AND DAMAGES

a. Law on damages and torts; generally


b. Applicable Law
i. OFW
ii. Damages arising from COGSA
iii. Law of the country of registry vessel
iv. Limited liability clause

 Albenson Enterprise v. CA, 217 SCRA 16 (1993)


 Wildvalley Shipping v. CA, 342 SCRA 213 (2000)
 Suzara v. Benipayo, 176 SCRA 465 (1989)
 Atienza v. Philimare Shipping, 176 SCRA 325 (1989)
 Sengull Maritime v. Balatongan, 170 SCRA 813 (1989)
 Eastern Shipping v. POEA, 170 SCRA 54 (1989)
 Mitsui v. CA, 287 SCRA 366(1998)
 People v. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729(1922)
 US v. Bull, 15 Phil 7 (1910)
 People v. Tulin, 364 SCRA 10 (2001)
 National Dev. v. CA, 164 SCRA 593 (1988)
 Everett Steamship v. CA, 297 SCRA 496 (1998)

IX. MARRIAGE

a. Definition
b. Validity of Marriage
c. Consequences of Marriage
d. Marriage Settlements
e. Foreign Marriage

 Rayray v. Chae Kyung Lee, 18 SCRA 450 (1996)


 Wong Woo Uy v. Vivo, 13 SCRA 552 (1965)
 Joaquin v. Galang, 33 SCRA 362 (1970)
 CIR v. Fisher, 1 SCRA 93 (1961)
 Philsec Investment v. CA, 247 SCRA 102 (1997)
 Garcia v. Recio, GR No. 138322, Oct 2, 2001
 Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 736 (1988)

X. ADOPTION

a. Definition
b. Foreign Adoption
c. Jurisdiction of the court
d. Laws on adoption
e. Effects of adoption
f. Domestic Adoption RA.

 Lazatin v. Campos, 92 SCRA 250 (1979)


 Teotico v. Del Vat, 13 SCRA 406 (1965)
 Republic v. CA, 209 SCRA 189 (1992)
 Prasnik v. Republic, 98 Phil 665 (1956)
 Ramirez v. Aglubay, 21 SCRA 1033 (1962)
 Ng Hian v. Collector of Customs, 34 Phil 248
 Cang v. CA, 296 SCRA 128 (1998)
 Republic v. Miller, 306 SCRA 183
 Republic v. CA, 205 SCRA 356
 Cang v. CA, 296 SCRA 128(1998)
 Santos v. Aranzano, 16 SCRA 344(1966)
 Ellis v. Republic, 7 SCRA 962 (1966)
 Republic v. Vergara, 270 SCRA 206 (1997)
 Republic v. CA, 205 SCRA 356 (1992)
 Republic v. Hernandez, 253 SCRA 509 (1966)
 Therkelsen v. Republic, 12 SCRA 400 (1964)

XI. DIVORCE, DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE,


ANNULMENT OF VOIDABLE MARRIAGE AND LEGAL SEPARATION

a. Divorce

i. Divorce legally obtained abroad by foreign spouse


ii. Divorce between foreign spouses
iii. Partial Divorce
iv. Law governing divorce

 Domingo v. CA, 226 SCRA 572 (1993)


 Carino v. Carino, 351 SCRA 127 (2001)
 Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 SCRA 355
 Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 SCRA 139 (1985)
 Quita v. CA, 300 SCRA 406 (1998)
 Pilapi v. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA 653 (1989)
 Recto v. Harden, 100 Phil 427 (1956)
 Llorente v. CA, 345 SCRA 532 (2000)
 Querubin v. Querubin, 87 Phil 124 (1950)
 Roehr v. rodriguez, GR No. 142820, June 20, 2003

b. Declaration of nullity of marriage

i. Jurisdiction
ii. Rule on annulment of marriage
iii. Void marriages
iv. Psychological incapacity

 Hernandez v. CA, 320 SCRA 76 (1999)


 Tuason v. CA, 245 SCRA 158 (1996)
 Solidad v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100
 Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20 (1995)
 Republic v. CA, 268 SCRA 198 (1997)
 Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, 266 SCRA 324 (1967)
 Republic v. Dagdag, 351 SCRA 425(2001)
 Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755(2000)

c. Legal separation

 Tenchavez v. Escano, 17 SCRA 674 (1966)

XII. TRADEMARKS, PATENTS and COPYRIGHT

a. Trademarks and Trade names

i. Membership in Paris Convention


ii. Importance
iii. How ownership acquired
iv. Registration
v. Rights of foreign nationals, generally (sec 3, RA
No. 8293)
vi. Reciprocity rights
vii. Rights under Paris Convention
viii. Registration of trademarks
ix. Right of priority
x. When application may be refused
xi. Right to assign trademark
xii. Right to protect trade names
xiii. Right to protect collective mark
xiv. Right to protect service mark
xv. Legal remedies
xvi. Infringement of trademark and trade name
xvii. Infringement of name and mark of ownership
stamped on containers
xviii. Unfair competition

b. Patents

i. Rights of foreigners
ii. Compulsory licensing

d. Copyright

i. definition
ii. term of protection
iii. remedy for infringement
iv. Berne convention
v. Reciprocity and international conventions

 La Chemise Lacoste v. Fernandez, 129 SCRA 373 (1984)


 Mirpuri v. CA, 318 SCRA 516 (1999)
 Sterling v. Farbenfabriken Bayer, 27 SCRA 1214 (1969)
 Kabushi Kaisa v. IAC, 2013 SCRA 583 (1991)
 Emerald Garments v. CA, 251 SCRA 600 (1995)
 Chung Te v. Ng Kian Giab, 18 SCRA 747
 Asari Yoko v. Kee Boc, 110 Phil 611
 Converse Rubber v. Universal Rubber, 147 SCRA 154 (1987)
 Bata Industries v. CA, 114 SCRA 318 (1982)
 U.S. v. Kyuburz, 28 Phil 475 (1914)
 Ed. A. Keller & Co. v. Kinkua Marijasu, 57 Phil 262
 Parke, Davis v. Kiu foo, 60 Phil 928 (1934)
 Marvex Commercial v. Petra Hawpia, 18 SCRA 1178 (1966)
 Unno Commercial v. General Milling, 120 SCRA 804 (1983)
 Thomas v. Pineda, 89 Phil 312(1951)
 Canon v. CA, 336 SCRA 266 (2000)
 Munoz v. Struckmann, 9 Phil 52 (1907)
 Bata Industries v. CA, 114 SCRA 318 (1982)
 Western Equipment v. Reyes, 51 Phil 115 (1927)
 Philips Export v. CA, 206 SCRA 457
 Puma vs. IAC, GR No. 75067, Feb 26, 1988
 General Garments v. Director of Patents, 41 SCRA 50 (1970)
 Esso Standard v. CA, 116 SCRA 336 (1982)
 Arco Steel v. SEC, 156 SCRA 822 (1987)
 Forbes v. Ang Santo, 40 Phil 272 (1919)
 E. Spinner v. Heuss, 54 Phil 224 ( 1930)
 Ogura v. Chua, 59 Phil 471 (1935)
 La Insular v. Jao Oge, 42 Phil 366 (1921)
 Co Tiong v. Director of Patents, 95 Phil 1 (1954)
 Smith Kline v. CA, 276 SCRA 224 (1997)

XIII. FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

a. Definition and Classification


b. Applicable Law in internal affairs and intra-corporate disputes
c. Jurisdiction over internal affairs
d. Merger or consolidation of foreign corporations
e. Doing business without license

i. Single-act transaction rule


ii. Exceptions
iii. Effect of lack of license on contracts
iv. Unlicensed corporations not doing business

f. Right to protect corporate name

 Home Insurance v. Eastern Shipping, 123 SCRA 424 (1983)


 General Garment v. Director of Patents, 41 SCRA 50 (1971)
 Davis v. Phil Trust, 90 Phil 744 (1952)
 Communication Materials v. CA, 260 SCRA 673, (1996)
 Dee v. SEC, 199 SCRA 278 (1991)
 Grey v. Lumber, 67 Phil 139 (1939)
 CIR v. Fisher, 1 SCRA 93 (1961)
 Subic Bay v. Universal International, 340 SCRA 359 (2000)
 Mentholatum v. Mangaliman, 72 Phil 524 (1941)
 Bulakhidas v. Navarro, 142 SCRA 1 (1956)
 CIR v. British Overseas, 149 SCRA 395 (1987)
 CIR v. Japan Air Lines, 202 SCRA 450 (1991)
 Columbia v. CA, 161 SCRA 144 (1996)
 Eriks v. CA, 267 SCRA 567 (1997)
 Granger Associates c. Microwave, 189 SCRA 631 (1990)
 General Corp. v. Union, 87 Phil 313 (1960)
 Mfg. Life v. Meer, 89 Phil 351, (1950)
 Top-Weld v. ECEED, 138 SCRA 118 (1985)
 Facilities v. De La Rosa, 898 SCRA 311 (1979)
 Wang v. Mendoza, 166 SCRA 44 (1987)
 Georg v. Isnani, 235 SCRA 216 (1994)
 N.V. Reederij v. CIR, 162 SCRA 487 (1988)
 Universal Shipping v. IAC, 188 SCRA 170 (1990)
 Antam v. CA, 143 SCRA 288 (1986)
 Aetna v. Pacific Star, 80 SCRA 635 (1977)
 Avon v. CA, 278 SCRA 312 (1996)
 Columbia v. Ca, 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
 Far Eastern v. Nakai Kogyo, 6 SCRA 725 (1962)
 Litton v. CA, 256 SCRA 696 (1996)
 Marubeni v. Tensuan, 190 SCRA 105 (1990)
 Communication Materials v. CA, 260 SCRA 673 (1996)
 Merrill v. Cam, 211 SCRA 824 (1992)
 Time v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)
 Phil Columbia v. Lantin, 39 SCRA 376 (1971)
 Hang Lung v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 137 (1991)
 Dansfschieffs v. La Compania, 8 Phil 766 (1907)
 The Swedish v. Manila Port, 25 SCRA 633 (1968)
 Commissioner v. K.M.K. Gami, 182 SCRA 591 (1990)
 Facilities v. De la Osa, 89 SCRa 131 (1979)
 FBA Aircraft v. Zosa, 110 SCRA 1 (1981)
 Signetics v. CA, 225 SCRa 737 (1993)
 Philips Export v. CA, 206 SCRA 457 (1992)
 Lyceum v. CA, 219 SCRA 610, (1993)
 Universal Mills v. Universal Mills, 78 SCRA 62 (1977)
 Sta. Ana v. Malawi, 24 SCRA 1018, (1968)
 Western v. Reyes, 51 Phil 115 (1927)
 Armco v. SEC, 156 SCRA 822 (1987)
 Exxon v. Exxon, AC-G.R. CV No.02758, Jan 15, 1986
 Atlantic Mutual v. Cebu, 17 SCRA 1037 (1966)
 New York v. CA, 249 SCRA 416 (1995)

XIV. JUDICIAL JURISDICTION, FORUM NON CONVENIENS, VENUE,


AND SUMMONS

a. Jurisdiction

i. Jurisdiction
ii. jurisdiction over action under Warsaw Convention
iii. Assumption of jurisdiction
iv. Actions in rem and quasi in rem, where defendant is non-
resident

 Rayray v. Chae, 18 SCRA 450 (1966)


 Santos v. CA, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)
 Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil 186 (1930)

b. Forum Non Conveniens

i. Definition
ii. Discretion of trial court

 First Phil International v. CA, 252 SCRA 259 (1996)


 K.K. Shell v. CA, 188 SCRA 145 (1990)
 Hongkong v. Sheman, 176 SCRA 331 (1989)
 Philsec v. CA, 274 SCRA 102 (1997)
 Communication Materials v. CA, 260 SCRA 673 (1996)
 Manila Hotel v. NLRC, 343 SCRA 1 (2000)

c. Venue
i. Liber Suits
ii. Venue of actions against non-residents
iii. Choice of forum to file action

 Soriano v. IAC, 167 SCRA 222 (1998)


 Diaz v. Adiong, 219 SCRA 631 (1993)
 Time v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)
 Portillo v. Reyes, 3 SCRA 311 (1961)
 Evangelista v. Santos, 86 Phil 387 (1950)
 Young Auto v. Ca, 223 SCRA 670 (1993)
 Sy v. Tyson, 119 SCRA 367 (1982)
 MacDonald v. National, 99 Phil 156 (1956)
 Kawasaki v. Amores, 199 SCRA 230 (1991)
 Quasha v. Juan, 118 SCRA 505 (1982)

d. Summons

i. Definition
ii. Service of Summons
iii. How service of summons effected
iv. Personal service of summons in personal actions
v. Substituted service
vi. Service upon residents temporarily abroad
vii. Service upon prisoners, minors, incompetents
viii. Service upon unknown defendant
ix. Extraterritorial service
x. Summon in action for annulment of marriage
xi. Where action in rem becomes in personam
xii. Service by leave of court
xiii. Service upon non-juridical entity
xiv. Service upon domestic private entities or corporations
xv. Service upon persons other than any of those enumerated
invalid
xvi. Service upon foreign entities
xvii. Summons is procedural matter governed by law of the
forum
xviii. Agent upon whom service of summons may be made
xix. Service upon public corporations
xx. Voluntary appearance

 Lim Siok Huey v. Lapiz, 103 Phil 930 (1958)


 De Guerrero v. Hernandez, 68 SCRA 76 (1975)
 Ang Lam v. Rosillosa, 86 Phil 447 (1950)
 Gan Ock v. CA, 197 SCRA 223 (1991)
 Perkins v. Dizon, 69 Phil 168
 Boudard v. Tait, 67 Phil 170 (1939)
 Gemperle v. Schenker, 19 SCRA 45 (1967)
 Madrigal v. CA, 319 SCRA 331 (1999)
 Keister v. Navarro, 77 SCRA 209 (1977)
 Valmonte v. CA, 252 SCRA 92 (1996)
 Arcenas v. CA, 299 SCRA 733 (1998)
 Kawasaki v. Amores, 199 SCRA 230 (1991)
 Montalban v. Maximo, 22 SCRA 1070 (1968)
 Banco de Brazil v. CA, 333 SCRA 545 (2000)
 Cariaga v. Malaya, 143 SCRA 441 (1986)
 Maanag v. Gallermore, 81 Phil 254
 Villareal v. CA, 295 SCRA 511 (1998)
 FBA v. Zosa, 110 SCRA 1 (1981)
 Asiavest v. CA, 196 SCRA 539 (1998)
 Tenchavez v. Escano, 17 SCRA 674 (1996)
 Republic v. Ker, 18 SCRA 208 (1996)
 Delta Motors v. Mangosing, 70 SCRA 598
 Golden Country v. Sanwar, 214 SCRA 295 (1992)
 Far Corp. v. Francisco, 146 SCRA 197 (1986)
 R. Transport v. CA, 241 SCRA 77 (1995)
 E. B. Villarosa v. Benito, 312 SCRA 65(1999)
 H.B. Zachry v. CA, 232 SCRA 329 (1994)
 Northwest Orient v. Ca, 241 SCRA 192 (1995)
 Avon v. CA, 278 SCRA 312 (1997)
 Wang v. Mendoza, 156 SCRA 44 (1987)
 Republic v. Ker & Co., 18 SCRA 208 (1996)
 Longer v. CA, 125 SCRA 522 (1983)
 Royal Crown v. NLRC, 178 Phil 569 (1969)
 United Coconut v. Ongpin, 368 SCRA 464 (2001)

XV. ARBITRATION

a. Arbitration

i. Arbitrator’s award are not final nor non-


appealable
b. Foreign Arbitration
c. Enforcement of Arbitration
d. Challenge to submission to arbitrate or to award
e. Enforcement of foreign arbitration award
f. Arbitration of dispute arising from construction contract
g. Arbitration in international transportation of goods

 Chung Fu Industries v. CA, 206 SCRA 545 (1992)


 PAL v. NLRC, 189 SCRA 555 (1990)
 BF Corporation v. CA, 288 SCRA 267 (1998)
 Eastboard v. Juan Ysmael, 102 Phil 1 (1957)
 Luzon Dev v. Association of Luzon, 249 SCRA 162 (1995)
 Metro Construction v. Chatham, 365 SCRA 697 (2001)
 National Union v. Stolt-Nielsen, 184 SCRA 682 (1990)
 BF Corporation v. CA, 288 SCRA 267 (1998)
 Del Monte v. CA, 351 SCRA 375 (2001)
 Equitable v. Rural Insurance, 4 SCRA 343 (1962)
 Compagnie v. Hamburg, 36 Phil 590 (1917)
 Coquia v. Fieldmen’s, 26 SCRA 178 (1968)
 Oil and Natural Gas v. CA and pacific Cement, 315 SCRA 296
 National Irrigation v. CA, 318 SCRA 255 (1999)
 Basa v. Federacion Obrera, 61 SCRA 93 (1974)
 Gen. Milling v. Torres, 196 SCRA 215 (1991)
 Philrock v. Construction Industry arbitration, 359 SCRA 632 (2001)
 Santos III v. Northwest, 210 SCRA 256 (1992)

XVI. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT

a. Generally

i. Reasons for recognition of foreign judgments


ii. Theories on recognition of foreign judgment
iii. Recognition and Enforcement distinguished

b. Is foreign judgment res judicata?


c. Effects of foreign judgment
i. Requirements for giving effect to foreign judgment

d. Grounds to repel foreign judgment


e. Foreign judgment to conform with constitutional requirements

 Phil. Aluminum wheels v. GASGI, 324SCRA 722 (2000)


 Bank of America v. American Realty, 321 SCRA 659 (1999)
 Benguet Consolidated v. Pineda, 98 Phil 1711 (1956)
 Ayog v. Cusi, 118 SCRA 492 (1982)
 Perkins v. Benguet, 93 Phil 1034 (1954)
 Hang Lung v. Saulog, 201 SCRA 137 (1991)
 Perkins v. Roxas, 72 Phil 514 (1941)
 Philsec v. CA, 274 SCRA 102 (1997)
 Times v. Reyes, 39 SCRA 303 (1971)
 Laurel v. Garcia, 187 SCRA 797 (1990)
 American Inter-Fashion v. Office of the President, 197 SCRA 409 (1991)
 Boudard v. Tait, 67 Phil 170 (1939)
 Northwest v. CA, 241 SCRA 192 (1995)
 Pelejo v. CA, 116 SCRA 406 (1982)
 Racoma v. Camarines, 368 SCRA 447 (2001)
 Querubin v. Querubin, 87 Phil 124 (1950)
 Tenchavez v. Escano, 17 SCRA 674 (1966)
 Ingenohl v. Walter, 47 Phil 189
 Nagarmull v. Binalbagan-Isabela, 33 SCRA 46 (1970)
 Strait Times v. CA, 294 SCRA 714 (1998)
 Viloria v. Administration of Veterans Affair, 101 Phil 762 (1957)
 Nicos Industrial v. CA, 201 SCRA 127 (1992)
 Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155 (1966)
 Yao v. CA, 344 SCRA 202 (2000)
 Oil Natural Gas v. CA, 293 SCRA 26 (1998)
 Francisco v. Permskul, 173 SCRa 324 (1989)
 Asiawest v. CA, 361 SCRA 489 (2001)

XVII. INTER-COUNTRY RELATION AND SPECIALIZED AGENCIES


AFFECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

a. Generally

i. Extradition
ii. Money Laudnering
iii. Secrecy of Bank Deposits
iv. Immunity of state from suit
v. Immunity of specialized agencies and their officials

 Wright v. CA, 235 SCRA 341 (1994)


 Cuevas v. Munoz, 348 SCRA 542 (2000)
 Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377 (2000)
 Banco Filipino v. Purisima, 161 SCRA 576 (1988)
 China Bank v. Ortega, 49 SCRA 355 (1973)
 Salvacion v. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)
 The Holy See v. Rosario, Jr. 238 SCRA 524 (1994)
 Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon, GR No. 154705, June 26, 2003
 Minucher v. CA, GR No. 142396, February 11, 2003
 Southeast Asian v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580 (1995)
 Larkins v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598 (1995)
 International v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990)
 Liang v. People, 355 SCRA 125 (2001)