UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE RECOLETOS

School of Law
School Year 2019-2020
1st Semester

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course Title: CONFLICT OF LAWS

No. of units: 2 units

Instructor:

Atty. Julius Christian Reyes

I. COURSE DESCRIPTION:

The study of Conflict of Laws has become relevant due to the growing inter-dependence of
many states in business and commercial activities. Most of these business transactions
involve individuals from different states that cut across territorial lines, which call for the
application of the different municipal laws. This subject will dwell on matters relating to
situations involving foreign elements with emphasis on the choice of law. The subject will
also study conflict of law situation involving jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgments.

Other topics include: Philippine Internal Laws governing conflict of law situations, involving
Citizenship and Domicile, Nationality and Domicile of Corporations, Contracts, Wills and
Succession; Property, Torts and Damages; Divorce, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage,
Annulment, Trademarks, Patents and Copyrights and Judicial Jurisdiction, Forum
Convenience, Venue and Summons.

At the end of the semester, the students are expected to learn the different rules on conflict
of laws and the students are expected to have gainful insights and understanding on Private
International Law. The students are expected to interpret properly the legal provisions of
the law and apply the said learnings in answering bar questions and other legal problems.

II. TEACHING METHODOLOGY

▪ Lecture-recitation
▪ Case Analysis
▪ Practical Class Analysis

III. INSTRUCTION

The students are instructed to read the chapter/s assigned per week/session. During the
class, the professor will conduct lecture and recitation. The students are expected to have
read and understand the topics assigned. Case analysis will be made simultaneously based
on the Supreme Court decided cases.
IV. COURSE OUTLINE

WEEK/SESSION TOPICS/SUBTOPICS
Preliminary Period A. Definition: Conflict of Laws
• Peculiar Terms to Conflict of
P Week 1 Laws
Chapters I and II B. Application of Conflict of Laws in the
Philippines
Introduction to Conflict of Laws C. Foreign Element
And Choice of Law • Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court
of Appeals 297 SCRA 469 (1998)
D. Ways of Dealing with Conflict of Laws
Cases:
• Jurisdiction
• Choice of Law
• Enforcement of Judgment
Cases:
Phases in Conflicts Resolution
• Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No.
149177, November 23, 2007
• Raytheon International, Inc. vs.
Rouzie, Jr. G.R. No. 162894,
February 26, 2008
• HSBC vs. Sherman 176 SCRA 331
P. Weeks 2-3 A. Characterization and Points of Contracts
• Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of
Continuation of Chapter II Appeals 297 SCRA 469 (1998)
Choice of Law B. Choice of Applicable Law
Cases:
• Aznar vs. Garcia, January 31, 1963
• Bellis vs. Bellis, June 6, 1967
• Cadalin et. Al. vs. POEA
Administrator, December, 5, 1994
• Bank of America NT & Asia vs.
American Realty Corp., December
29, 1999, 321 SCRA 659
• Dacasin vs. Dacasin, February 5,
2010
• Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No.
149177, November 23, 2007
• Zapanta vs. Local Civil Registrar of
Davao 237 SCRA 25
• Norma A. Del Socorro vs. Ernest
Johan Van Wilsen, December 10,
2014
B. Agreement of the Parties
• Cadalin vs. POEA 238 SCRA 721
• Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
 Corp. vs. Sherman 176 SCRA 331
C. Substance vs. Procedural Principle
D. Center of Gravity Doctrine
E. Renvoi
• Aznar vs. Garcia,
F. Lex Fori
• Oil & Natural Gas vs. CA, 293 SCRA
26
• St. Aviation Services Co. vs. Grand
International Airways, 565 SCRA
30
G. Applicability of Philippine Law and its
Exceptions
• Bank of America vs. American Realty
Corp. 321 SCRA 659
H. Proof and Authentication of Foreign Law
• Wildvalley Shipping vs. CA, October
6, 2000
• Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. vs.
Guerrero, February 19, 2003
• Edi-staff Builders International vs.
NLRC, October 26, 2007
• Exceptions: Norse Management Co.
vs. National Seamen Board,
September 30, 1982
I. The Hague Conference on Private
International Law
• Apostille Convention
J. Processual Presumption
• Asiavest Limited vs. CA, 296
SCRAV539
P Week 4 A. The Nationality Principle
B. Citizenship and Modes of Acquisition
Chapter III • Bengzon III vs. HRET, May 7, 2001
Citizenship and Domicle • Poe-Llamanzares vs. COMELEC,
March 8, 2016
• Djumantan vs. Domingo
C. Election of Citizenship
D. Dual Citizenship
E. Loss and Reacquisition of Filipino
Citizenship
• Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630
• Valles vs. COMELEC 337 SCRA 543
• Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA
363
• Board of Immigration Commissioner
vs. Go, 25 SCRA 890
F. Eligibility for Elective Office
• Ugdoracion, Jr. vs. COMELEC
• Tecson vs. COMELEC, March 3, 2004
 G. RA 9225: Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act
• Jacot vs. Dal, November 27, 2008
• Sobejana-Condon vs. COMELEC,
August 10, 2012
• Maquiling vs. COMELEC, April 16,
2013
• Arnado vs. COMELEC, August 18,
2015
• Reacquisition vs. Retention: David
vs. Agbay, March 18, 2015
H. Practice of Profession
• In re: Petition to re-acquire the
privilege to practice law in the
Philippines, July 24, 2012

DOMICILE

I. Lex Domicilii Rule

J. Kinds of Domicile
K. Rules on Domicile and Residence
• Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC,
248 SCRA 300
• Jalosjos vs. COMELEC, April 24, 2012
• Caballero vs. COMELEC, September
22, 2015
• Caasi vs. CA, November 8, 1990
• Coquilla vs. COMELEC, July 31, 2002
L. RA 9189, as amended by RA 10590 “ An
act providing for a System of Overseas
Absentee Voting by Qualified Citizens of
the Philippines Abroad.
M. Venue in Estate Proceedings
• Jao vs. CA, May 29, 2002
• San Luis vs. San Luis, February 6,
2007
PRELIM EXAM
Midterm Corporation:

M Week 5 A. Conflict Problems on Corporation

CHAPTER V
B. Domestic and Foreign Corporation
• Joint Venture Agreements

Related Laws:
• Retail Trade Liberalization Act
• RA 7042, Foreign Investment Act of
1991
o E.O. 184 (Promulgating the 10 th
Regular Foreign Investment
Negative List
 Cases:
• Narra Nickel Mining & Dev. Corp. vs.
Redmont Capital Consolidated
Mining Corp. April 21, 2014, G.R. No.
195580
• DOJ Opinion 20 Series of 2015
• Roy III vs. Herbosa, Nov. 22, 2016
G.R. No. 207246

Contract

A. Law on Contract
B. Choice of Law by the Parties in a
Contract
• Korean Technologies Co., Ltd. Vs.
Lerma, G.R. No. 143581, January 7,
2008.
• Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corp. vs.
NLRC 135 SCRA 278
• Pakistan International Airlines vs.
Ople 190 SCRA 90 (1990)
• United Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 124110, April 20,
2001.
C. Exceptions to law chosen by the Parties
D. Decapage
• Buchanan vs. Doe, 431 S.E. 2d 289
E. No Agreement as to “Choice of Law”
F. Lex Loci Contractus or Place of
Performance
• Triple Eight Integrated Services vs.
NLRC, 299 SCRA 469
• Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, November
23, 2007
G. Warsaw Convention
• Santos III vs. Northwest Orient
Airlines 210 SCRA 256
• United Airlines vs. Uy 318 SCRA 576

M Week 6 Wills and Succession

A. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Wills
CHAPTER VI • Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete, 232 SCRA
722
• Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 PHIL 867
B. Probate of Wills
C. Law on Successional Rights
M Week 7 Property
A. Law of the Country where the Property
CHAPTER VII is Situated ( Lex Loci or Lex Loci Rei
Sitae)
B. Conflict of Laws in Real Property
 situated in another country
• Laurel vs. Garcia 187 SCRA 797
• The Holy See vs. Rosario
C. Personal Property
• Tayag vs. Benguet Consolidated,
November 29, 1968
D. Philippine Law on Ownership of Real
Property
• Sec. 7, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
• Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez, 111
SCRA 704
• Matthews vs. Taylor, June 22, 2009
• Cheesman vs. IAC, 193 SCRA 93
• Llantino vs. Co Liong Chong, 188
SCRA 592
E. Property Rights of Foreigners Living in
with Filipino Citizens
• Elena Buenaventura Muller vs.
Helmut Muller, G.R. No. 149615,
August 2006
• Borromeo vs. Descallar, February 24,
2009

MIDTERM EXAM
M Weeks 8-9 A. Law Governing Torts
CHAPTER VII • Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of
Appeals, 297 SCRA 469
TORTS AND DAMAGES a. Lex loci comisii
• Wildvalley Shipping Co., vs. CA
342 SCRA 213
b. State of the Most Significant Contract
Rule
• Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA,
supra.
• Bobcock vs. Jackson, 12 NY2d
473
c. Agreement of the Parties as to
Applicable Law
• Norse Management Co. vs. NSB,
117 SCRA 487
• Suzara vs. Benipayo 176 SCRA
465
B. Overseas Employment of Filipino
Workers
a) The Kilberg Doctrine
• Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA,
170 SCRA 54
b) Carriage of Good By Sea Act
• Mitsui O.S.K. Lines vs. CA, 287
SCRA 366

M Week 10
Marriage, Divorce Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, Annulment of Voidable Marriage
and Legal Separation
Week 11
TRADEMARKS, PATENTS AND COPYRIGHTS
c) Law of Country of Registry of Vessel
• People vs. Wong Cheng, 46
PHIL. 729
• National Dev. Co. vs. CA 164
SCRA 593
d) Criminal Jurisdiction
• AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448,
Jan. 11, 2018
e) Limited Liability Clause
• Everett Steamship Corp. vs. CA
297 SCRA 593
f) Lex Loci Delicti vs. Most Significant
Relationship
• Babcock vs. Jackson, 12 N.Y. 2d
473, 1963
A. Foreign Marriages of Filipino
B. Foreign Divorces obtained by Filipinos
abroad
• Republic vs. Marelyn Manalo, April
24, 2018
C. Foreign Divorces obtained by foreigners
married to Filipinos
• Van Dorn vs. Romillo, 139 SCRA 159
• Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, 174 SCRA
653
D. Foreign Divorces obtained by Filipinos
who had been naturalized in other
countries and who had divorced their
Filipino wives thereafter.
• Republic vs. Iyoy, September 21,
2005
• Llorente vs. CA and Llorente
November 23, 2000
• Republic vs. Orbecido, October 5,
2005
• Roehr vs. Rodgriguez, June 20, 2003
• Corpuz vs.Tirol-Sto. Tomas, August
11, 2010.
• Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013
A. Rights of Foreign Nationals
B. Legal Remedies of Foreign Nationals
C. Infringement of Trademarks
D. Infringement of Trade Name
E. Unfair Competition
F. Well-Known Trademarks
• Fredco Manufacturing vs. Harvard
University, G.R. No. 185917, June 1,
2011
G. Patents
H. Copyrights
Week 12
Judicial Jurisdiction, Forum Non
Convenience, Venue, Summons
F Week 13
International Legal Signification of
Doctrines as Applied1
Week 14
Inter-Country Relations and Specialized
1Aguilar, Narciso M. Conflict of Laws, 2013 ed. Central Bookstore, Quezon City,
Philippines. 2013.
Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Judgment
A. Jurisdiction
a. Actions in personam or in rem
• Bancodo Brasil vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 121576, June
16, 2000
b. Forum Non Conveniens
• Bank of America NT and SA vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120135, March 31, 2003.
• Pioneer Concrete Philippines,
Inc. vs. Todaro, G.R. No. 154830,
June 08, 2007.
B. Foreign Judgment and Res Judicata
• Perkins vs. Benguet
Consolidated Mining 93 Phil.
1034
• Perkins vs. Roxas 72 Phil. 514
C. Effect of Foreign Judgment and
Requirements
• Mijares vs. Ranada, G.R. No.
139235, April 12, 2005
• Oil and Natural Gas
Commission vs. CA, G.R. No.
114323, July 23, 1998
• BPI Securities Corp. vs.
Guevarra, 752 SCRA 342
• Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs.
CA, 361 SCRA 489
• Philsec Investment vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, June
19, 1997.
D. Repelling a Foreign Judgment
A. Law of the Case
• Marcos Jr. vs. Rep. of the Philippines,
671 SCRA 280
B. Lex Fori
• Northwest Airlines, Inc. vs. CA, 241
SCRA 192
C. Forum Shopping
D. Sui Generis
E. International Law, part of the National
Laws
A. Extradition
• Wright vs. CA 235 SCRA 341
Agencies • Government of the US vs. Purganan,
Sept. 24, 2002
• Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, 343
SCRA 377
B. Immunity from Suit
C. Immunity of Specialized Agencies and
their Officials
• International Catholic Migration
Commission vs. Calleja, 190 SCRA
130
FINAL EXAM

III. REFERENCES AND MATERIALS

• Agpalo, Ruben E. Conflict of Laws (Private International Law). Manila, Philippines

Rex Bookstore, 2004 ed.
• Benito, Galahad R.A. Conflict of Laws. Manila, Philippines, Rex Bookstore, 2016.
• Aguilar, Narciso M. Conflict of Laws. Quezon City, Philippines, Central Bookstore,
2013 ed.
• Please note that the professor reserves the right to amend and provide additional
cases and other reading materials.

IV. CRITERIA FOR GRADING

Students will be assessed through series of examinations and class activities, which are
divided into two (2) components, such as: Major Examinations and Class Standing Activities.
Major Examinations include Prelim, Midterm and Final Examinations. Class standing
activities include the following: quizzes, graded recitation, attendance and case digest. Final
Grade is computed as follows:

Major Examination (70%)

Activity Row Score (sample only) Equivalent Grade

Prelim 100/100 1.0
Midterm 100/100 1.0
Finals 100/100 1.0
Average

Class Standing (30%)

Activity Score Equivalent Remarks

Attendance 10
Quizzes 40 Quizzes are divided
into Prelim, Midterm
and Finals
Graded Oral Examination 20
Case Digest 30 10 points per term
Total 100/100 1.0
Computation of the Final Grade:

Final Grade: = Average Equivalent Grade for Major Exam * 70% (A)
= Equivalent Grade for Class Standing * 30% (B)

Final Grade = A + B;

Temporary Midterm Grade is based on the average equivalent grade for Prelim and
Midterm Major Examinations only.

V. COURSE POLICY

• University and School of Law policies are fully implemented in the class;