2.

Modern Approaches Case 1: Auten vs Auten

Place of the Most Significant Relationship

 Rejected the single connecting factor of the place where the “last act”
occurred an adopted an approach identifying a plurality of factors that
must be considered in the light of the choice-of-law principles
 These choice of law principles are:
(1) The needs of the interstate and international system
(2) Relevant policies of the concerned state
(3) Policies of the other interested states and the relative interst of
those in the determination of the particular issue
(4) The protection of justified expectations of the parties
(5) Basic policies underlying the particular field of law
(6) Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of the result
(7) Ease in the determination and the application of the law to be
applied
 What then determines the contact which has the most significant
relationship?
o It depends in each area of substantive law. they are evaluated
based on thei relative importance and relevance to the issue at
hand.
o Hence, in torts: (a)the place where the injury occurred; (b) the
place where the negligent conduct occurred; (c) the place of
the negotiation of the contract; (d) the domicile, residence, or
nationality of the parties; and (e) the place where the
relationship between the parties is entered
 In contract law: (a)the law chosen by the parties and
the absence thereof; (b) the place of the contracting;
(c) the place of the negotiation of the contract; (d)
place of performance; (e) domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation, and place of
business of both parties

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 1

 Comparison between Auten and Haag:
Case 2. Haag vs Barnes  Both cases did away with automatically applying the established rule of
the application of the law where the agreement was executed.
 However, faced with the same facts, the court held in the former that
the center of gravity of the case is the home of the wife; whereas in the
latter, the home of the father.

This is precisely the criticism of the theory of most significant contact,

that it could be used to support virtually any result and is this bound to hamper
the sound development of common law by saving the court the difficult but
necessary effort of articulating those true motivations which are of course the
very elements of growing rules
 That easily, by manipulating the contacts, a preconceived a result may
be achieved

The Interest Analysis

 The case of Haag and Auten failed to establish the test or standard in
determining which contacts are the most significant and the evaluation
of the relative imporatance of each group of contacts
 Hence, the interest analysis approach. It urges the resolution of the
problem by looking at the policy behind the laws of the states and the
interest each state had in applying its own law
o Not only the factual contacts but also the reflection of the state
policy must be taken into consideration

Criticisms of the interest analysis:

 Conflicts is concerned with private rights and not governmental interests
 That it is unworkable ecause it will require the court to decide in an ad
hoc basis since the court is required in every case to ascertain the
purpose of each potentially applicable law rules in order to determine
which law to apply
 There is great difficulty, furthermore, in determining such policy of the
law because some legislative bodies do not publish reports explaining
the policy of the law

Hence, the Comparative Impairment Analysis

 Subordination of th state objective which would be least impaired
 Requires the courts to weigh and look behind the apparent conflict as to
the interests of the state

Functional Analysis

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 2

  Looks into the general policies of the atate beyong those reflected in
their substantive laws and to policies and values relating to effective
and harmonious intercourse between the states and these include:
a. Reciprocity
b. Advancement of multistate activity
c. Protecting justifiable expectations
d. Evenhandedness with dealing with the similar cases
e. Effectiveness

Better Law Rule: what are the considerations in making the choice of
law

1. Predictability of the results

2. The maintenance of interstate and international order
3. Simplification of the judicial task
4. Application of the better rules of law
5. Advancement of the forum’s government interests

 Courts should make decision that make good socioeconomic sense for
the time the court speaks and are sound in view of the present
conditions

CASE 3: Babcock vs Jackson

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 3

B. Characterization of the Cause of Action When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials
of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established
What is characterization? by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
 Process by which a court assigns a disputed question to an area in
substantive law 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
Single Aspect Method Multi- aspect method rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
Concentrated on one aspect or Factors that are both territorial or non- conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
element of a situation in order to territorial are analyzed and thereby
connect the case to a particular legal giving consideration to the policies of CASE 1: GIBBS VS GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE
community the law, the needs of the interstate REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA
and international community
To foster simplicity, convenience, and
uniformity

PH follows the single aspect method. Hence, the NCC Arts. 15 to 17 provisions.

Two types of Characterization:

1. Subject- Matter Characterization- classification by the court of a

factual situation into a legal category

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad. (9a)

Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is stipulated.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order
of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
(10a)

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 4

 CASE 3: CADALIN VS POEA ADMINISTRATOR
2. Substance- Procedure Dichotomy- directs the court to the extent it
will apply the foreign law. if the issue is substantive, the court may
apply foreign law but if its procedural, it is supposed to follow the law of
the forum

CASE 2: GRANT VS MACAULIFFE

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 5

2. DEPECAGE

 Phenomenon where different aspects of a case involving a foreign

element may be governed by different systems of law
 Allows the other relevant interests of the parties to be addressed. The
effect is to permit the courts to arrive at a functionally sound result
without rejecting the methodology of the traditional approach.

CASE 1: HAUMSHCHILD VS CONTINENTAL CASUALTY

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 6

C. Renvoi CASE 2: ANNESLEY VS ANNESLEY
 A procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by the conflict
of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state, the conflict of laws rules of
which, in turn refers the matter to the law of the forum or a third state

Ways of dealing with Renvoi

1. if the conflict of laws rules of the forum court refer the case to the law
of another state, it is deemed to mean only the “internal law of the
state” and not to the conflicts rules of the said state; or
2. the court may accept the renvoi and refer not just to another state’s
internal law but to the whole law which includes choice of law rules in
multi-state cases; or
3. by desistance or mutual disclaimer of jurisdiction. The forum court upon
reference to another state’s law sees that such law is limited in
application to its own national and has not provision for application a
non-national
4. foreign court theory- it would be as of the forum would act as
though it is the foreign forum

CASE 1: AZNAR VS GARCIA

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 7

CASE 3: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO VS DATER CASE 4: BELLIS VS BELLIS

Session 4: Conflict of Laws; Araneta; Atty. Ron Salo 8