NXT MTG contracts

- art. 17par1, 1306, 1356 = ALL CIVIL CODE

- insular life v franc, zalamea v CA, pakistan airlines v ople
=> note concept of the proper law of contract is specified as the product of the
freedom of the contracting parties to separate the conditions of their contract
=> proper law of the contract = law selected by the contracting parties to govern
their contract; the SC, however, defined the requirements that the contracting
parties law governing subject to the circumstances of the parties and the contract
that are relevant to the stipulations of the contract; choice of governing law is
not unlimited
- re: art. 17, clarify: whether there is contracdition btw 17(par1) AND art. 1356
CC; look for what is the law governing the form of the contract = complicated by
art. 16(par1 on property) in re: to art. 17(par1 on contracts)
- take note of the commentaries = that is the principles of art. 16 that will
prevail over art. 17; if the ontract has real property as a subject, it is the
place where the prop is situated shall govern and not the law where the contract
was executed
- form may be affected by 16(par1), 17(par1 in relation to 1356CC)
--------

***proxy marriage
2 3 4 FC = internal laws
26(1) = conflict rule

***same-sex marriage
- judge kennedy (134 US SJ, 35 84, 2015) Obergefell v Hodges
- validity under Art. 26 FC

- parties to the marriage as Filipino citizens, entered into marriage in either

PH/or abroad because we follow the national law = not valid, one of the essential
requisites = btw man and woman

is not art. 1 fc public policy? - it defines marriage

why should art. 26 fc be exempted from art. 1 fc's definition?
- conflict rule, valid outside, valid inside
- but aren't you going around the prohibition in art. 17(par 3)

status of same-sex marriage with different nationalities?

***consular marriage
- what if mixed marriage in saudi arabia? etc etc facts
> valid under art. 26 fc, conflict law (lex loci celebriciones)
- is it arguable that it is a lex loci celebriciones marriage? and therefore valid
in art. 26 fc? no difference btw art. 26 and consular marriage? distinction btw lex
loci celebri v consular marriage

lex loci - takes note of foreign law

consular marriage - contemplated under PH law
- does it cease to be a consular marriage if PH and foreigner married? - no, still
within purview of consul

diff consular marriage celebrated by PH consul v art. 26 fc marriage?

NOTE: pril is a subj of methodology, not substantive principles

- under art. 26 - take note of the nationalities of the parties to the marriage; if
PH kasi, national law applies
> art. 26(par2) right to remarry = note: right to remarry, cannot be defeated by
any form of evidence with respect to the absolue divorce taken by the foreign
spouse; right to remarry does not require that the judicial decree of divorce shall
be enforced; it is sufficient is that the requirement that the foreign divorce be
recognized = note diff. btw enforcement v recognition, provided by art. 39.48 ROC,
with respect of the defenses in which the enforcement of foreign judgment can be
defeated
> i.e. lack of jurisdiction, fraud, mistake of fact/law, etc.
> enought that the foreign spouse entitled to remarry, that she or he himself
may declare the recognition of the judicial divorce and take note if enforcement is
required, the right to remarry may be defeated