Lex loci contractus is the Latin term for "law of the place where the contract is made”

Lex loci celebrationis is a Latin term for a legal principle in English common law, roughly translated as
"the law of the land (lex loci) where the marriage was celebrated".

The lex loci delicti commissi is the Latin term for "law of the place where the delict [tort] was
committed"

The lex loci solutionis is the Latin term for "law of the place where relevant performance occurs"

Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where another
court, or forum, is much better suited to hear the case

A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more
states is said to contain a "foreign element".

As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important
questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts
occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the
situation.

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of
facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is
the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts
rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of
contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right,
contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of
celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.

These “test factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting factors” could be any of the following:

(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the
lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly
important in contracts and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual
duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci
intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori — the law
of the forum — is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of “procedure” not
going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies
whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given
case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship
and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of
affreightment.

"State of the most significant relationship" rule

(a) the place where the injury occurred;
(b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
(c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
(d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.

"state of the most significant relationship rule," or forum non conveniens.

#### Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA - Case Digest

Facts:
Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA) hired Morada as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta, Morada went to a disco with fellow crew members
Thamer & Allah, both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their
hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of Thamer. In which Allah left on some
pretext. Thamer attempted to rape Morada but she was rescued by hotel personnel when they heard her
cries for help. Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah, the latter as an accomplice.

Through the intercession of Saudi Arabian government, Thamer and Allah were deported and,
eventually, again put in service by SAUDIA. But Morada was transferred to Manila.

One year and a half year later, Morada was brought to a Saudi court. She was escorted by SAUDIA’s
legal officer to court, the judge rendered a decision against her sentencing her to five months
imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Apparently, she was tried by the court which found her guilty of (1)
adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3)
socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

Morada sought help from Philippine Embassy during the appeal. Prince of Makkah dismissed the case
against her. SAUDIA fired her without notice.

Morada filed a complaint for damages against SAUDIA, with the RTC of QC. SAUDIA filed Motion
to Dismiss which raised the ground that the court has no jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether RTC of QC has jurisdiction to hear and try the case

HELD: Yes. Firstly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over Saudia Airlines when the latter filed a
motion to dismiss with petition for other reliefs. The asking for other reliefs effectively asked the court
to make a determination of Saudia Airlines’s rights hence a submission to the court’s jurisdiction.

Secondly, the RTC has acquired jurisdiction over the case because Morada is bringing the suit for
damages under the provisions of our Civil Law and not of the Arabian Law. Under the Rules of Court,
a plaintiff may elect whether to file an action in personam (case at bar) in the place where she resides or
where the defendant resides.
Thirdly, one important test factor to determine where to file a case, if there is a foreign element
involved, is the so called “locus actus” or where an act has been done. In the case at bar, Morada was
already working in Manila when she was summoned by her superior to go to Saudi Arabia to meet with
a Saudia Airlines officer. She was not informed that she was going to appear in a court trial. Clearly,
she was defrauded into appearing before a court trial which led to her wrongful conviction. The act of
defrauding, which is tortuous, was committed in Manila. The situs of the tort is in the Philippines.

#### Hasegawa vs Kitamura

Facts:
1. The petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co. is a Japanese consultancy firm which provides
technical and management support in the infrastructure project of foreign governments. It entered into a
Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently
residing in the Philippines. Under the ICA, the respondent will extend professional services to the
petitioner for a year.

2. Subsequently Kitamura was assigned as project manager of STAR project in 1999. In 2000, he was
informed by the petitioner that it will no longer renew the ICA and that he will be retained until its
expiration. Kitamura filed a civil casefor specific performance before the RTC of Lipa and damages.

3. The lower court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the dispute and denied the petitioner's motion to
dismiss since accordingly, it is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by
Kitamura. The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case

HELD:

In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not claim that the trial court is not
properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy. What they rather raise as
grounds to question subject matter jurisdiction are the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex
contractus, and the "state of the most significant relationship rule" which are aptly questions on choice
of law.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign authority w/c
establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner prescribed by law. It is
further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to
all or some of the claims asserted therein. To succeed in its motion for the dismissal of an action for
lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim, the movant must show that the court or tribunal
cannot act on the matter submitted to it because no law grants it the power to adjudicate the claims.

#### Ratheon vs Rouzie

Facts:
Sometime in 1990, BMSI, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Connecticut, USA, and respondent Rouzie, an American, entered into a contract whereby BMSI hired
respondent as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government projects in the
Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. On 11 March 1992, respondent
secured a service contract with the Philippines on behalf of BMSI for dredging of rivers affect by Mt.
Pinatubo.
On 16 July 1994, respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a suit against BMSI and
RUST for illegal termination and breach of employment contract.

Petitioner also referred to the NLRC decision which disclosed that per the written agreement between
respondent and BMSI and RUST, denominated as “Special Sales Representative Agreement,” the
rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut.
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and
forum non conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory counterclaim.

Petitioner asserts that the written contract between respondent and BMSI included a valid choice of law
clause, that is, that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also
mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute that renders our local courts inconvenient
forums.

Issue:
wON the Phil court has jurisdiction notwithstanding the stipulation that the same shall be governed by
foreign law.

Held:
That THE SUBJECT CONTRACT INCLUDED A STIPULATION THAT THE SAME SHALL BE
GOVERNED BYTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT
THE PHILIPPINE COURTS, OR ANY OTHER FOREIGN TRIBUNAL FOR THAT MATTER, ARE
PRECLUDED FROM HEARING THE CIVIL ACTION.

JURISDICTION & CHOICE OF LAW ARE 2 DISTINCT CONCEPTS. Jurisdiction considers

whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question
whether the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both
parties. The choice of law stipulation will be come relevant only when the substantive issues of the
instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court.

#### HSBC vs Sherman

Facts:
Sometime in 1981, Eastern Book Supply PTE, Ltd. (Company), a company incorporated in Singapore,
applied with and was granted by the Singapore Branch of HSBC an overdraft facility. To secure the
overdraft facility, private respondents who were directors of the Company executed a Joint and Several
Guarantee in favour of HSBC, which provides that:

“This guarantee and all rights, 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. We
hereby agree that the Courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this
guarantee….”

However, when the Company failed to pay its obligation, HSBC filed this action with the Philippine
courts. In a Motion to Dismiss, the private respondents raised the abovementioned provision of the
Joint and Several Guarantee. The trial court affirmed the plaintiffs but CA reversed, citing said
provision as basis.
Issue:
Whether or not Phil cours have jurisdiction over the suit

Held:
Yes.
A stipulation as to venue does not preclude the filing of suits in the residence of plaintiff or defendant
under Sec 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Rules of Court, in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words in the
agreement which indicate that the place named is the only venue agreed upon by the parties.

The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, to the exclusion of all the rest,
have jurisdiction. Neither did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction.

In International Law, jurisdiction is often defined as the right of a state to exercise authority over
persons and things within its boundaries subject to certain exceptions. This authority, which finds its
source in the concept of sovereignty, is exclusive within and throughout the domain of the state. A state
is competent to take hold of any judicial matter it sees fit by making its courts and agencies assume
jurisdiction over all kinds of cases brought before them.

### Aznar vs Garcia

Facts:
Edward E Christensen was born in New York but he migrated to California where he resided for 9
years. In 1913, he came to the Philippines where he became a domiciliary until the time of his death. In
his will, he instituted an acknowledged natural daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir, but
left a legacy sum of money in favor of Helen Christensen Garcia. Counsel for the acknowledged
natural daughter Helen claims that under Article 16, par. 2 of the Civil Code, California law should be
should be applied; that under California law, the matter is referred back to the law of the domicile. On
the other hand, the counsel for Maria Lucy contends that the national law of the deceased must apply,
illegitimate children not being entitled to anything under California law.

Issue:
Whether or not the national law of the deceased should be applied in determining the successional
rights oh his heirs.

Held:
The Supreme Court grants more successional rights to Helen. It said in effect that there are two rules in
California on the matter: the internal law which applies to California’s domiciled in California, and the
conflict rule for Californian’s domiciled out of California. Christensen, being domiciled in the
Philippines, the law of his domicile must be followed. For the determination of the successional rights
under Philippine Law, the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

#### Bellis vs Bellis

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.
By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children: Edward A.
Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna
Bellis Allsman
 By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate children: Edwin G.
Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate children: Amos Bellis,
Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines dividing his estate as follows:

1. $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen

2. P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam
Palma Bellis
3. remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives

July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A

September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on
People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will did as the will directed
Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on the ground that
they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children
Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the decedent,
which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.

ISSUE: W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of the will

HELD:
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas, USA and that
under the Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimates. Accordingly, since the intrinsic
validity of the provision of the will and the amount of successional rights has to be determined under
Texas Law, the Philippine Law on legitimates can not be applied to the testate of Amos Bellis.

In the absence of proofs as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from
our appellants.

#### Cadalin vs POEA

Facts:
Cadalin et al. are Filipino workers recruited by Asia Int’l Builders Co. (AIBC), a domestic recruitment
corporation, for employment in Bahrain to work for Brown & Root Int’l Inc. (BRII) which is a foreign
corporation with headquarters in Texas. Plaintiff instituted a class suit with the POEA for money
claims arising from the unexpired portion of their employment contract which was prematurely
terminated. They worked in Bahrain for BRII and they filed the suit after 1 yr. from the termination of
their employment contract.

As provided by Art. 156 of the Amiri Decree aka as the Labor Law of the Private Sector of Bahrain: “a
claim arising out of a contract of employment shall not be actionable after the lapse of 1 year from the
date of the expiry of the contract,” it appears that their suit has prescribed.

Plaintiff contends that the prescription period should be 10 years as provided by Art. 1144 of the Civil
Code as their claim arise from a violation of a contract.

The POEA Administrator holds that the 10 year period of prescription should be applied but the NLRC
provides a different view asserting that Art 291 of the Labor Code of the Phils with a 3 years
prescription period should be applied. The Solicitor General expressed his personal point of view that
the 1 yr period provided by the Amiri Decree should be applied.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that as a general rule a foreign procedural law will not be applied in our
country as we must adopt our own procedural laws.

EXCEPTION:

Philippines may adopt foreign procedural law under the Borrowing Statute such as Sec. 48 of the Civil
Procedure Rule stating “if by the laws of the State or country where the cause of action arose the action
is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines.” Thus, Bahrain law must be applied. However, the court
contends that Bahrain’s law on prescription cannot be applied because the court will not enforce any
foreign claim that is obnoxious to the forum’s public policy and the 1 yr. rule on prescription is against
public policy on labor as enshrined in the Phils. Constitution.

The court ruled that the prescription period applicable to the case should be Art 291 of the Labor Code
of the Phils with a 3 years prescription period since the claim arose from labor employment.

##### Bank of America vs American Realty

Bank of America, NT vs. American Realty Corporation, .G.R No. 133876, Dec. 29, 1999

FACTS:

Bank of America, duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and existing under the laws of
California, USA, granted US Dollar loans to certain foreign corporate borrowers. These loans were
secured by two real estate mortgages by American Realty, a domestic corporation. When the borrowers
defaulted, Bank of America sued them before English courts. While these cases were pending, Bank of
America likewise judicially foreclosed the real estate mortgages in the Philippines. Thus, American
Realty sued for damages against Bank of America.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bank of America can judicially foreclose the real estate mortgages despite
pendency of the civil suits before English courts

HELD:

English law purportedly allows the filing of judicial foreclosure of mortgage despite pendency of civil
suit for collection. But English law was never properly impleaded and proven. Thus, the doctrine of
processual presumption applies.

SC further held that even assuming arguendo that English laws were proven, said foreign law would
still no find applicability. When the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and
establishedpublic policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective b laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. The
public policysought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction
proscribing the splitting of a single cause of action.
Moreover, the foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice
to the citizens or residents of the forum.

http://jerloyd-suello-usjrlaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/conflicts-of-law.html
http://scire-licet.blogspot.com/2009/11/introduction-to-conflict-of-laws.html
https://aninolex.blogspot.com/2017/01/rulingssyllabus-in-conflict-of-law.html