PROBLEM OF RENVOI
owner and is governed by the law of his domicile.
1. By the conflict of law rules of the Forum
Court, the applicable law is foreign law.
2. But, by the conflict of law rules of that foreign
law, the matter is:
a. Referred back to the forum law
(Remission)
b. Referred to a third state (Transmission)
Griswold’s 4 Possible Ways of Dealing with Renvoi:
1. Reject the Renvoi
a. When the applicable law is foreign law,
Court applies the internal law of that
foreign law.
b. Internal Law – law as applied to a
domestic case; NOT the conflict of law
rules of that foreign law.
2. Accept the Renvoi
a. Apply whole of the foreign law –
internal law and conflict-of-law rules.
AZNAR v GARCIA
 Edward Christensen executed a will.
o Devise of P3600 (paid) to Maria Helen
o Residue of the estate to Maria Lucy
 Opposition by Maria Helen in the final
account and project partition:
o Deprived her of her legitime as
acknowledged natural child.
o Because PH law is applicable
 LC: Since citizen of California, law of
California applies.
HELD: PHILIPPINE LAW APPLIES.
Philippine Law: Article 16 of the Civil Code –
successional rights including validity of
testamentary provisions are governed by the
national law of the decedent.
But what is national law?
 Domestic law on succession of the State
where the decedent is a national
California Law: Testator has the right to dispose of
his property as he desires; absolute dominion.
 Or does it include the conflict of law rules of
the State where the decedent is a national?
Art. 946, California Civil Code: If there is no law
to the contrary in the place where the property is
situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its
Forum Court Philippines
Conflict of Law Rules Nationality Law
of Forum Court
Foreign Law California
Conflict of Law Rules Domicillary Law
of Foreign Law
Renvoi Remission back to
the forum law.
Enforce jointly:
 Domestic law on succession should apply to
citizens living in California; but Art. 946
should apply to its citizens not domiciled in
California but in other jurisdictions.
 General principle of American law:
Domicillary law should govern for matters
which follow the person of the owner.
 The court of the domicile should not return
the case back to the US, otherwise back and
forth like tossing a football.
Since the California law does not recognize legitime
but PH law recognizes right of acknowledged
natural children, apply PH law. (Justice to the
natural children).
Griswold’s 4 Possible Ways of Dealing with Renvoi:
3. Desistance or Mutual Disclaimer of
Jurisdiction
a. Forum Court looks and refers to
foreign law
b. But sees that the foreign law only has
provisions for its own nationals and
none for its non-nationals.
c. Same result as accepting the renvoi but
in terms of process, forum court
chooses not to apply the foreign law.
d. Aznar would still use PH law. Court
would opt to desist from applying
California law on succession that gives
testator absolute dominion.
4. Foreign Court Theory
a. Forum court assumes the same
position that the court of the foreign law
would take if the case were litigated
there, in the court of that foreign law.
b. If foreign court would apply its own law,
the forum judge should do the same.
 c. If the foreign court would apply the forum
court’s law, the forum judge should do
the same.
d. DISADVANTAGE: If both courts would
follow the same theory (would decide by
assuming what the other would do), then
no end to litigation—revolving doors,
game of lawn tennis, logical cabinet of
mirrors, circulus inextricabilis.
ANNESLEY DAVIDSON v ANNESLEY
 Testatrix is a British subject who died in
France. Executed a will and codicil:
o Clause 6: Residue of estate is given
to daughter
o Clause 8: No intention to abandon
my domicile of origin; I intend to
remain a British subject.
What is her domicile at the time of death?
HELD: FRENCH LAW APPLIES.
1. French Municipal Law: For foreigners not
domiciled in France, national law applies.
a. British law should apply because
testatrix is a British subject.
2. But under British Law: Law of the
domicile should apply.
a. Thus, foreign law referred the
question back to forum law. French
law should apply.
3. French Court would ACCEPT THE
REFERENCE BACK AND WILL APPLY
FRENCH MUNCIPAL LAW.
4. French Law becomes the law of domicile.
Because factum of residence and animus
manendi, regardless of non-compliance
with the Article 13 on the formalities to
acquire French domicile.
5. French municipal law: Testatrix could only
dispose of 1/3 of her entire personal
property.
a. Thus, cannot give effect to Clause 5.
Forum Court England
Conflict of Law Rules Law of Domicile
of Forum Court
Single Renvoi: Accept the Renvoi
- Looking at the whole law of the foreign law:
since Article 13 formalities were not complied
with, no acquisition of French domicile. English
law should apply.
Double Renvoi: Foreign Court Theory.
- But, British court decided as a French court
would have decided in accordance with its own
domestic law.
Domestic Law of Can dispose only 1/3
Foreign Law not entire estate.
Usefulness of Renvoi: AVOID UNJUST RESULTS
In accordance with the policy-centered approaches,
Renvoi can be applied to make sure that when there
is a disinterested forum, the law advancing the
policies of the interested states will be applied.
Basta not mechanical application of traditional
territorial approach.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO v DATER
 Negotiations for security on property (REM),
the trust deed and promissory notes were
done in Chicago.
 But, the documents were signed in
Michigan.
 However, documents were recorded in
Chicago. The notes stated that they were
payable in Chicago also.
 The loan was actually paid and the money
encashed in Chicago.
o George & Nellie Dater and John &
Clara Price (Debtors)
o Trustee: Chicago Title and Trust
Company (Creditor)
 John Price died. His half became Clara’s
 Foreclosure proceedings in Chicago.
 Suit filed in Michigan.
o George Dater liable
o But no cause of action against Clara
Price.
Issue is NOT the construction, force and effect,
performance of the signed instruments but the
capacity of Clara Price to enter into such an
obligation.
HELD: Functionally sound decision.
CLARA HAS NO CAPACITY TO ENTER INTO THE 1. Michigan protected the interest of a
OBLIGATION SO SHE IS NOT LIABLE. Michigan wife since Chicago disclaimed any
desire to apply its own law (Burr case)
Burr v Beckler: 2. Promoted uniformity of results
 Wife is a resident of Chicago 3. Dependent on substantive law and not on
 Husband had a debt in Chicago the incidental law of the forum.
 Wife executed the note and trust deed to
pay for the overdraft in Florida and then
mailed them to trustee in Chicago. Objections to Renvoi:
 Court held that since delivery of note and 1. Perpetually-enclosed circle
deed by the wife is completed in Florida, 2. Workable only if one of the states rejects it
Florida law governed her capacity to 3. There is harmony only if states do not agree
contract. on applying it the same way.
 Since under Florida law, married woman are 4. UNCERTAINTY AND DEMORALIZING
incompetent to contract, the documents she EFFECTS
executed are void. 5. Courts are UNNECESSARILY BURDENED
with the task of identifying the choice of law
Burr Case Applies. rules of another state, when determining
 Manual delivery of the documents another state’s substantive law is hard
perfected the agreement since the enough.
mortgagee designated that such be made
to the bank for that purpose. Counter-argument of Griswold: (Lol renvoi
 Since the documents were signed and apologist)
manually delivered (executed) in Michigan, 1. As long as remission (reference back) is to
then Michigan law governs Clara Price’s the state’s internal law alone, there will be a
capacity to contract. stop to the endless chain of reference.
2. Helpful in exceptional circumstances,
Michigan Law: Married woman has no capacity to necessity and expediency.
contract. She cannot bind her separate estate for
the benefit of others. Thus, no personal liability. Inapplicability of Renvoi
Renvoi does not apply when there is a false conflict.
Forum Court Michigan
Foreign Law Chicago If the foreign law’s choice-of-law rules, refer the
matter back to the forum law, the Court should
Conflict of Law Rules Burr v Beckler
determine if:
of Foreign Law
1. Both states have an interest in having their
Law applicable on
laws applied
Capacity of a
2. There is merely a false conflict (only one
Woman to Contract
state is interested in applying its own law)
= Law of the place
Examples of False Conflict:
where the contract
1. PFAU Case: 2 states have identical
was executed/note
substantive laws and the third state has no
was manually
interest in applying its own law
delivered.
2. BELLIS Case: Only 1 law applicable where
domicile and nationality is the same state.
ACCEPTED RENVOI Since Michigan is
(Accept remission place where contract
back) made, then remission
back to forum court
and application of
forum law.
Since forum law says
no capacity to contract,
then no liability.
 PFAU v TRENT ALUMINIUM BELLIS v BELLIS
 Steven Pfau  Amos Bellis was a Texas citizen
o Connecticut domicillary o First Wife
 Bruce Trent o Second Wife
o New Jersey domicillary o 7 Legitimate Children and 3
 Both are students of Parsons College Illegitimate Children
o Located in Iowa  Will in the Philippines
 Trent agreed to drive Pfau to Missouri, but o USS40K-To his first wife
o P120K-To his 3 illegitimate children
while still in Iowa, they entered into a
o The rest- To his 7 legitimate children
collision where Pfau was injured.
 Died a resident of Texas
Connecticut New Jersey Iowa  Will probated in the Philippines where
the illegitimate children filed an
Repealed its Strong policy Has a guest
opposition:
guest statute of the state to statute; Bars
o They are deprived of their legitimes
allow guest- recovery by
since PH court applied the national
Guests can passengers to guest-
law of decedent pursuant to Art. 16,
sue their sue their passengers.
so Texas law.
host-drivers host-drivers
o PH law should apply.
for ordinary and be
negligence. compensated.
HELD: TEXAN LAW APPLIES.
No need to discuss the doctrine of renvoi in Aznar
Argument of Trent
because doctrine applies when:
 If Connecticut substantive law would be
1. Decedent is a national of one state
applied, its choice of law/conflict of law rules
2. Decedent is a domicillary of another state.
should be applied also.
 LEX LOCI DELICT: Law of where the tort In this case, BOTH A NATIONAL AND
was committed. DOMICILLARY OF TEXAS.
 Thus, Iowa law should apply.
 Thus, since the law where the accident If Texas (foreign law) had a conflict of law rule
occurred and the choice of law rule where requiring that the law of domicile be applied, there
the victim is domiciled bar recovery, Pfau will be no need to reference back (renvoi) to
should not be entitled to compensation. Philippine law because the domicile would still be
Texan law.
HELD: PFAU ENTITLED TO RECOVER.
CONNECTICUT AND NEW JERSEY But if Texas (foreign law) had a conflict of law rule
SUBSTANTIVE LAWS APPLY. requiring that lex rei sitae be applied, then there will
be a problem of renvoi (return back) to Philippine
Connecticut’s choice of law rule should not be law because the properties are located in the
applied. Philippines.
 To do so would frustrate the goals of  However, such was never invoked nor
government-interest analysis because mentioned in the arguments. There was no
the choice of the law rule, DOES NOT proof as to the conflict of law rules of Texas.
identify the State’s interest on the matter.
o Lex loci delicti is just to achieve Since Texan law does not provide for legitimes,
uniformity and simplicity. Bellis’ testamentary provisions are valid.
 It is the substantive law of Connecticut that
reflects the State’s interest. Re: Art 17 as exception to Art 16, par. 2
Whatever public policy or good customs involved in
Since Iowa has no interest in this litigation, and our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to
Connecticut and New Jersey have the same extend them to the succession of foreign nationals.
substantive law, there is a false conflict. (No need
to apply renvoi doctrine) Re: Intention for PH law to govern PH estate and
 Comity Texan law to govern Texan estate.
 Equal Protection Provision in foreigner’s will that distribution be not in
accordance with his national law is void.