Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
A. Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Conflicts of Law Recitations Reviewer
Based on G. Pe Benito
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL
LAW
International Law
- branch of law that deals with the relationship of states as well as
the relationship of individuals of different states.
- public character when international subjects are involved
- private character when individuals, domestic laws, or local
events internmingle with each other necessitating a determination of
the applicable law
Abdullahi v. Pfizer
Facts
- Pfizer had an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, which it
administered to young patients in Nigeria without getting the
informed consent of the children nor their guardians. Said drug had
adverse side effects which cause some patients to die, become
blind, deaf, paralyzed or brain-damaged.
Issues
- W/N Pfizer violated international law on nonconsensual medical
experimentation? Yes.
- W/N Nigeria offers adequate forum for the adjudication of
plaintiff’s claims? No.
Ruling
In sum, it was inappropriate for the district court to forego a more
extensive examination of whether treaties, international
agreements, or State practice have ripened the prohibition of
nonconsensual medical experimentation on human subjects into a
customary international law norm that is sufficiently:
1. Universal and obligatory
2. Specific and definable
3. Of mutual concern to permit courts to infer a cause of action
Forum non conveniens – defendant bears the burden of establishing
that a presenty available and adequate alternative forum exists.
Foreign Element
- most important element of a conflicts of law problem
- anything which is not domestic and has a foreign component
- a factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected
by the diverse laws of two or more states (Saudi Arabian Airlines v.
CA)
Phases in Conflicts Resolution
1. Jurisdiction – authority of a court of law to take cognizance of a
case
2. Choice of law – applicable law to the problem
3. Recognition and enforcement – enforcement of foreign laws and
judgments in another jurisdiction
A defense in one is not a defense in another.
Hasegawa v. Kitamura
Facts
- Nippon entered into an agreement with Kitamura, a Japanese
national permanently residing in the Philippines, for his professional
services for a year. He was assigned to work as project manager in
various projects in the Philippines.
- Soon after, Nippon’s manager, Hasegawa, informed Kitamura that
his services would no longer be needed as his contract expired.
- Kitamura sued for specific performance and damages in the RTC of
Lipa. Petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex
contractus.
Issue
Can jurisdiction be assailed on these grounds?
Ruling:
- No, they are improper grounds. These three principles make
reference to the law applicable to a dispute. They are proper for the
second phase, the choice of law. As the only issue in this case is
jurisdiction, choice of law rules are not only inapplicable but also not
yet called for.
- Neither can forum non conveniens be raised to deprive the court
of jurisdiction. The propriety of dismissing a case based on this
principle requires a factual determination, hence this conflicts
principle is more properly considered a matter of defense.
Steps in Determining Applicable Law
Characterization
- identification of the issue
- pinpointing the branch of law
- determine the presence of a foreign elements
Connecting factors
- which jurisdiction or fora has the most connection
Choice of Applicable Law
- parties to a contract are free to stipulate the applicable law
Extraterritoriality
- laws are generally territorial in application; the mind of the
lawmaker is limited to the territorial boundaries of his country
- can be extraterritorial when so provided by the legislature
- depends on legislative intent
- ex. Art. 15 and 16 of the Civil Code
Small v. United States
Facts
- Small was convicted in Japan for smuggling. After serving
sentence, he returned to the US and purchased a gun. He was
charged for unlawful gun possession under a statute that made it
unlawful for any person convicted in a court to possess any firearm.
Issue
Whether the statute had extraterritorial application
Ruling
- No. Only domestic convictions are covered by the statute.
- There is a legal presumption that Congress ordinarily intends its
statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial, application.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
Facts
- Kiobel et. al. were Nigerian nationals who sued foreign
corporations under the Alien Tort Statute. They claimed that the
corporations enlisted, supported, and aided the Nigerian
Government in attacking villages and beating, raping, killing, and
arresting residents.
- The district court dismissed. On appeal, it was also dismised.
Issue
Whether the ATS is applicable
Ruling
- No. The ATS has no extraterritorial application.
- There is a presumption against extraterritorial application. When a
statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it
has none.
Forum Non Conveniens
- the forum is not convenient
Puyat v. Zabarte; instances where court may desist from excercising
jurisdiction:
1. Matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere;
2. Forum shopping;
3. Overcrowded docket;
4. Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery;
5. Difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, et. al.
Facts
- Respondents were flight attendants for Saudia. They were
terminated because they became pregnant, according to Saudia’s
employment contract.
- They filed a complaint with the NLRC. Saudia challenged on the
ground of forum non conveniens. The LA dismissed the complaint.
On appeal to the NLRC, the dismissal was reversed.
Issue
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Whether Philippine courts or tribunals offer a convenient and
adequate forum for the adjudication of their complaint
Ruling:
- Yes. There is no preponderance of linkages that favor a foreign
jurisdiction: Saudia is doing business in the Philippines, the
respondents are Filipino citizens and residents.
- The records also do not show that the case was filed in an effort to
engage in forum shopping.
- There is no indication of unwillingness to extend local judicial
facilities to non-residents or aliens.
- It cannot be said that the local judicial machinery is inadequate for
effectuating the right sought to be maintained.
CHAPTER II: CHOICE OF LAW
Choice of Law Principles
Section 6 of the US Restatement (Second) of Laws:
1) Follow the statutory directive of its own state.
2) When there is no such directive:
a) needs of the interstate and international systems
b) relevant policies of the forum
c) relevant policies of ohter interested states and the relative
interest of those states in the determination of the particular issue
d) the protection of justified expectations
e) basic policies underlying the particular field of law
f) certainty, unpredictability and uniformity of result
g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be
applied
Principle 1: Local law
Art. 15 – national law governs family rights, duties, status, and
condition of Filipinos, even if abroad.
Art. 16 – application of lex rei sitae or the law of the place where the
property is situated for real or personal property. Intestate and
testamentary succession is governed by the national law of the
deceased.
The problem of renvoi
- a local law requires the forum court to apply a foreign law, but the
foreign law directs the application of the laws of the forum court.
There is a reference back to the local laws.
- to end renvoi, follow the directive of the foreign state and apply
the law of the forum.
Aznar v. Garcia
Facts
- Christensen, a US citizen, died in the Philippines while domiciled
therein. He left a will where he bequeathed a sum of money to
Helen, his illegitimate child, and the rest to Mary Lucy.
- According to Philippine law, Helen should receive more that what
was left to her as a matter of legitime.
Issue
Whether California law or Philippine law governs
Ruling:
- Philippine law. Californiia law provides that personal property is
deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the
law of his domicile.
- At the time, he was domiliciled in the Philippines. Thus, Philippine
law should apply.
- The court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case
back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of
determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed
back and forth between two states.
Bellis v. Bellis
Facts
Bellis was a US citizen from Texas. He had multiple legitimate and
illegitimate children. In his will, he left PHP 120,000 for his
illegitimate children. They opposed the partition on the ground that
they were deprived of legitime.
Issues:
1. Does renvoi apply in this case?
2. Is the application of Texas law violative of public policy?
Ruling:
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
1. No. In the absence of proof as to the conflict rule of Texas, it
should not be presumed different from ours. Appellants’ position
therefore is not rested on the doctrine of renvoi, as they never
invoked or mentioned it in their arguments.
2. No. Whatever public policy or good customs may be involved in
our system of legitimes, Congress has not intended to extend the
same to the succession of foreign nationals. For it has specifically
chosen to leave, inter alia, the amount of successional rights to the
decedent’s national law.
Principle 2: Needs of the interstate and international systems
- technological advances and free trade have brought about
numerous international commercial transactions spawning disputes
that cut across national borders
- courts must forumate principles and reconcile multistate laws to
encourage international trade
Principle 3: Relevant policies of the forum
- e.g. protection of labor, strengthening the family as a social unit
Cadalin et. al. v. POEA Administrator
Facts
- Petitioners were recruited by AIBC and BRII to work in several
countries. Some of them were deployed in Bahrain. They were
prematurely terminated. When they returned to the Philippines, they
sued AIBC and BRII for illegal dismissal and monetary claims.
- Bahrain has a law governing the prescription of actions: one year
from the date of expiry of the contract (Amiri Decree)
Issue
Can the Amiri Decree be applied in this case?
Ruling:
- No. It is contrary to our public policy on the protection of labor.
Bank of America NT & Asia v. American Realty Corporation
Facts
BANTSA granted loans to several borrowers who were unable to
pay. They entered into restructuring agreements secured by real
estate mortgages executed by ARC. The borrowers failed to pay.
The creditor filed collection suits on England and Hong Kong. It also
filed an extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate in Bulacan.
Issue
Whether the filing of a collection suit before foreign courts
constituted a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure
Ruling:
- Yes. The mere act of filing an ordinary action for collection
operates as a waiver of the mortgage-creditor’s remedy to foreclose.
When the foreign law is contrary to a soud and established public
policy of the forum, the foreign law shall not be applied. The public
policy sought to be protected in this case is the principle prosribing
the splitting up of a single cause of action.
Dacasin v. Dacasin
Facts
Harold, an American, and Susan, a Filipino were married in Manila.
They had a daughter named Stephanie. Harold and Susan were
divorced in the US, and executed in Manila an agreement for the
joint custody of Stephanie.
Issue
Whether the agreement is valid and enforceable in the Philippines
Ruling:
- No. It contravenes public policsy that no child under seven years
of age shall be separated from the mother.
Principle 4: Relevant policies of other interested states
- governmental interest analysis
- apply the law of the state whose interest is more impaired
Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney
Facts
The petitioners filed claims for malfeasance, fraud, and breach of
fiduciary responsibilities. During the hearing of their claims, they
learned that SSB employees recorded their telephone conversation
2
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
without their consent. Under Georgia law, recordlings may be made
with one party’s consent, unlike California law.
Issue
Which law should apply?
Ruling:
- California law. The failure to apply the same in the present context
would result in a significant impairment of California’s interests.
- Many companies who do business in California are national or
international firms that have headquarters, administrative offices or
at least telephone oeprators located outside of California. If business
could maintain a regular practice of secretly recording all
conversations with their California clients or customers, that practice
would represent a significant inroad into the privacy interest that
California laws intend to protect.
Butler v. Adoption Media LLC
Facts
The Butlers were registered domestic partners in California. They
applied to have their profile posted on an internet adoption website
operated by Adoption Media. Their application was denied on the
groud that the service was not available to same-sex partners.
Issue
Whether California law or Arizona law governs
Ruling:
- California law. California’s Unruh Act unambiguously prohibits
discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and marital
status. California has as strong interest in enforcing its anti-
discrimination laws. Furthermore, defendants can comply with
California law while doing business in California without violating any
provision of Arizona law.
Steps in governmental interest analysis
1. Determine whether the relevant law of the affected jurisdictions
with regard to the issue are the same or different.
2. If different, determine whether a true conflict exists.
3. If a true conflict exists, determine which state’s interest would be
more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the
other state.
Criticism of Governmental Interest Analysis Approach
- tends to favor the laws and interest of the forum court; inherent bias
- “home advantage”
Principle 5: Protection of justified expectations
- when the parties specify a particular law to govern their legal
relations, courts must enforce the same unless it is contrary to a
statutory directive or to public policy.
Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT
Facts
Francisco, a Philippine national, was employed aboard the M/T Stolt
Achievement, a vessel. He was injured while working and sued the
company in a Louisiana court. Stolt moved to dismiss on the ground
that Francisco signed an employment contract with a stipulation to
enter into arbitration in the Philippines in case of dispute.
Issue
Whether Francisco was compelled to arbitrate
Ruling:
- Yes, per his employment contract.
- Courts must look at justified expectations in adjudicating a case.
Parties have reasons why they choose a particular law as their
choice of law:
a)Convenience, fairness, and justice.
b) Justice is easier to get in countries with democratic systems or
where judges are free from corruption and pressure.
c) A party may have more rights in his home county than in
another
Principle 6: Basic policies underlying the particular field of law
- reason and objectives of the laws in question should be given
consideration
- courts should look into the type of law involved: if contracts law,
what are the rights to be protected? If torts law, what damages are
available?
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
Principle 7: Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result
- stability in judicial decisions
- res judicata and stare decisis
Principle 8: Ease in the determination and application of the
law to be applied
- simplicity is always a virtue
- if courts bound by a particular doctrine such as stare decisis, it is
usually simpler for the court to apply the same doctrine in future cases
Other Principles Affecting Choice of Law
Proof of foreign law and processual presumption
- foreign laws have to be properly proved
- processual presumption – presumes that foreign law is the same as
local law when there is a failure to prove the former
How is a foreign law proved?
1. Official publication; or
2. A copy
- attested by the officer having legal custody (shall state that the
copy is a correct copy of the original and must contain the official
seal)
- accompanied by a certificate that such officeer has the custody
(if kept in a foreign country)
Chapter III: CONTRACTS
Conflict of Laws in Contractual Relations
How does a contractual relation induce a conflict of laws
scenario?
- The contract must involve a foreign element. i.e.
o Alien individual becoming a party to the contract
o Parties choosing a foreign law as choice of law
o Places of execution and performance are different
from each other
What is the default law that should govern a contract?
- In the absence of stipulation between the parties, it shall be
governed by lex loci contractus or the place where the
contract was executed.
What is meant by primacy of contractual relations?
 That the contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient,
provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy. (art. 1306)
Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corp v. NLRC
Facts
- Pancho entered into a shipboard employment contract with
Hong Kong based firm BFOC
- He suffered cerebral stroke at work and had to be
repatriated to Ph where he eventually died
- National Seamen Board awarded his widow with P20,000
compensation
- Upon appeal, NLRC awarded $621 x 35 months by applying
HK law
Issue
- What governs the award of benefits? HK law or the
shipboard employment contract?
Ruling
- The contract governs which expressly provides that the
beneficiaries of the seaman are entitled to P20,000 over and
above the benefits for which the Ph gov’t is liable under the
law
Atienza v. Philimare Shipping
Facts
- Atienza was a seaman whose employment contract provided
that it insurance benefits “as per NSB Standard Format”
- Atienza died while working on the vessel in India
- His father claims death benefits of $30,600 computed
pursuant to the Workmen’s compensation of Singapore
Issue
- Whether Atienza’s death benefits should be computed based
on SG or PH law.
Ruling
3
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- Computed based on PH law
- Norse case not applicable because in that case the Crew
Agreement provides that Ph law or Workman’s Insurance
Law of the registry of the vessel, whichever is greater
- The parties in this case did not provide for such higher
benefits
- It was plainly provided in the contract at bar that the
insurance benefits would be determined accdg to the NSB
Format then in force. Thus, he cannot claim a higher award
than the compensation provided in the contract
Pakistan International Airlines v. Blas Ople
Facts
- PIA entered into two separate contracts with Farrales and
Mamasis stipulating that
o The agreement is for a period of 3 years but can
be extended by mutual agreement of parties
o PIA reserves the right to terminate the agreement
anytime
o Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
Pakistan and only Karachi, Pakistan courts shall
have jurisdiction
- 1 years and 4 mos remaining in the contract, they were
terminated
- F and M filed illegal dismissal with claims at with the MOLE
Issues
1. Whether the principle of party autonomy in contracts is
absolute - NO
2. Whether Pakistani law is applicable – NO
Ruling
- The terms and conditions of every contract is subject to
public policy considerations. Pakistani law cannot be applied
because it violates the the labor laws of the Ph
- The contract set a term of 3 years but the same contract
provided for PIA’s right to terminate the emp agreement –
making it an employment at will that escapes the thrust of
articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code
- PIA argues that a contract freely entered into must be
respected. However, counter-balancing the principle of
autonomy of contracting parties is the equally general rule
that the provisions of applicable law especially those relating
to matters affected with public policy are deemed written
into the contract.
- The otherwise applicable Philippine Laws and regulations
cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon
some other law to govern their relationship.
- The contract was not only executed in the Ph, it was also
partially performed here
- PIA is a foreign corp licensed to do business and hence a
resident of the Ph
- Ph courts and admin agencies are a proper forum for the
resolution of the disputes.
Choice of Law Stipulations
What is the principle of autonomy of contracts?
- It allows the parties to stipulate the law that shall govern
their contractual relations
- Parties may also provide that two or more foreign laws
govern their relationship
What is the parties do not specify the extent of the
applicability of their chosen law?
- The chosen law will normally apply to the following concerns
1. Interpretation
2. Rights and obli arising from the contract
3. Performance and consequences of non-performance
and assessment of damages
4. Various ways of extinguishing obligations, prescription
and limitation periods
5. Validity/invalidity of contracts
6. Burden of proof/ legal presumptions
7. Pre-contractual obligations
Can the parties waive the application of renvoi?
- Yes. It simply means that rules of private int’l law will find no
application once a foreign law is chosen by the parties.
What are the approaches to contractual conflicts of law?
There are 3 principles
1. LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS
o law of the place where the contract is executed.
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
o Law of the place of execution is the default law if
the parties did not stipulate a choice of law
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Heffernan II
Facts
- 2 minors were passengers in a car driven by another minor
- Accident in Delaware when the driver fell asleep and collided
with a tractor-trailer
- All died
- Parents of the minor Heffernan sued Erie in Maryland
Issue
- What law governs the claim? Maryland or Delaware?
Ruling
- Delaware law applies
- The policies provide that Erie will pay damages “that the law
entitles to you”
- In a CoL situation, a court must determine if it relates to a
torts, contracts, property, or some other field or to a matter
of substance or procedure
- Maryland law is clear that in a CoL situation, we apply the
law of the State where the injury- the last even required to
constitute occurred. This principle is lex loci delici
Government v. Frank
Facts
- Frank entered into a contract with Ph to work as
stenographer.
- Contract was executed in Illinois, USA
- Before the expiration of the contract, Frank left the service
and refused further compliance with the contract. Plaintiff
sued for damages.
Issue
- Whether Frank can put up the defense of minority as against
plaintiff’s claim for damages (that he was a minor under Ph
law at the time the contract was entered into) - NO
Ruling
- He was an adult under Illinois law when he entered into the
contract
- No rule is better settled in law law that matters bearing upon
the execution, interpretation, and validity of a contract are
determined by the law of the place where the contract is
entered.
2. LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS
o Law of the place where the contract is performed
or celebrated
o Reason behind this principle: since the contract is
to performed in a particular place or state, it is but
proper that the law of that state govern the
relationship of the parties
3. STATE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP RULE
o Law of the place with the most connection to the
dispute
o A matter of convenience and practicality as it
seeks to apply the law of the place that has the
most connecting factors to the contract
o This approach is embodied in sec. 188 of
Restatement (second) of Conflict of Laws
 The rights and duties of parties xx
determined by the local law of the state
which, with respect to that issue has the
most significant relationship to the
transaction
 In the absence of choice, the contacts
to be taken into account in applying the
principles of par. 6 to determine the law
applicable to an issue include:
1. Place of contracting
2. Place of negotiation of contract
3. Place of performance
4. Location of the subject matter of
contract
5. Domicil, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation and place of
business of parties
* the drawback to this approach is its complexity and tendency to
create confusion.
In re KMH
Facts
4
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- SH, Kansas resident, unmarried female lawyer wanted to
become a parent through artificial insemination
- Sperm donor was DH, also Kansas resident
- They did not enter into a written contract re the
insemination. The insemination was performed in Missouri.
- When the twins were born, DH wanted to claim parental
rights.
Issue
- What law governs the CINC and paternity disputes? Kansas
or Missouri?
Ruling
- Kansas law applies
- As long as Kansas has “significant contact or a significant
aggregation of contracts.. to ensure that the choice of law is
not arbitrary or unfair, constitutional limits are not violated.
- Parties are Kansas residents, whatever agreement that
existed between them was arrived at in Kansas, the twins
were born in Kansas.
- The only fact tying the parties to Missouri is the location of
the clinic where the insemination was performed.
- Neither party would have been justified in expecting Missouri
to have a controlling interest as to any dispute between
them
DEPECAGE
- A process whereby different issues in a single case arising
out of a single set of facts may be decided according to the
laws of different states
- Process when procedural matters were held to be governed
by forum law and substantive questions by some other law
- An example of depecage was in the case of Erie Insurance v.
Heffernan, where the Court looked at Maryland law in
interpreting the policy’s contractual provisions, but applied
Delaware law in determining tort liability.
Ph follows Lex Loxi Contractus
- If a contract is executed in the Ph, and the contract specifies
no choice of law, the governing law will be Ph law
Triple Eight Integrated Services In, v. NLRC
Facts
- Osdana recruited by Triple 8 to work with its principal GCC in
Riyadh
- She was made to perform janitorial work and other tasks
unrelated to her job description as waitress
- She developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, underwent
two surgical operations. She was subsequently dismissed
and filed a complaint with POEA when she arrived at the Ph
Issue
- What law governs?
Ruling
- Ph law applies.
- Triple 8 argues good faith for repatriating Osdana back into
the Ph.
- Court said that these were bare allegation and Triple 8 did
not even present a medical certificate to support its claims
- Triple 8 contends that since Osdana was working in Saudi
Arabia, her employment was subject to the laws of SA.
- Lex loci contractus must apply. The contract was perfected
here in the Ph. The Labor Code must apply.
Defenses to Jurisdiction and Choice of Law
Review: 3 phases of CoL: (1) jurisdiction, (2) choice of law, (3)
recognition and enforcement of judgment. The doctrines of lex loci
celegrationis and lex loci contractus are not grounds to question the
jurisdiction of the court.
Hasegawa v. Kitamaura
(same case w/ chapter 1)
Issue:
- Whether the subject matter jurisdiction of the Ph courts in
civil cases may be assailed on the principles of lex loci
celebrationis, lex loci contractus, state of the most significant
relationship rule, or forum non conveniens.
Ruling:
- No. They are improper grounds for questioning the
jurisdiction of Ph courts.
- Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts.
- Jurisdiction: considers whether it is fair to cause a defendant
to travel to this state
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- Choice of law: asks the further question whther the
application of a substantive law which will determine the
merits of the case is fair to both parties
- In this case, only the first phase is at issue.
- In their MTD, petitioners do claim that the trial court is not
properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject
controversy.
- The RTC is vested with jurisdiction to hear the civil case filed
by the respondent.
Chapter IV: TORTS AND DAMAGES
What are torts?
- AKA quasi-delicts, these are sources of obligation under the
civil code. (art. 2176)
What are the elements of quasi-delicts? [DFCN]
1. Damages suffered by plaintiff
2. Fault or negligence of the defendant
3. Connection of cause and effect between the fault or
negligence and the damages incurred
4. No pre-existing contractual relation between the parties
Concept of negligence
- Negligence consists in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of persons, of the time, of the place
When is a conduct considered negligent?
- When a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor would
have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing conduct or
guarding against the consequences
When is there a conflict of laws in torts?
- Problems as to the applicable law in torts cases arise when a
foreign element is involved.
- Examples:
o When the plaintiff is a resident of one state, the
defendant of another
o Both parties resident of one state and the place of
injury in another state
o Cross-border torts: when the act or conduct
causing the injury happens in one state while the
resulting injury is felt in another state
What are the approaches to conflicts torts?
1. LEX LOCI DELICTI or the vested rights doctrine
o the traditional rule that employs the law of the
place of injury
o based on the vested rights theory since the rights
of the parties vested in the place of injury and
nowhere else
o where the damage or injury is sustained has as
much interest in redressing the wrongs committed
within its jurisdiction
Dowis et. al. v. Mud Slingers, Inc. et. al.
Facts
- Dowis, Tennessee resident, hired by Mud Slingers, a Missouri
based Corp, fell four stories from a forklift and suffered
injuries
- Dowis filed his claim and received benefits under Mud
Slingers compensation insurance in Missouri
- He later filed a tort action in Georgia
- The Court held that lex loci delicti and the application of
Georgia’s exclusive remedy provision precluded Dowis from
maintaining his tort action in Georgia
Issue
- Whether Georgia should abandon its adherence to lex loci
delicti. NO
Ruling
- Georgia will not abandon its adherence to LLD
- The appellants are urging that Georgia join the group of
states that adopt the “most significant relationship” test of
the Restatement (second) of CoL and allow them under
Missouri law to proceed with their Georgia lawsuit against
Mud Slingers
- The court retained its long-held CoL rule of lex loci delicti not
out of blind adherence but rather out of candid recognition
that the subsequently developed theories have significant
problems.
5
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Melton v. Stephens
Facts
- Motor vehicle collision involving Indiana residents occurred
in Illinois
- Stephens sued Melton in a court in Indiana
Issue
- What law governs the collision in Illinois between two
Indiana residents? Indiana or Illinois?
Ruling
- Illinois law applies
- Where the place of the tort bears little connection to the
legal action, the SC allows the consideration of factors that
may be more relevant such as
1. The place where the conduct causing the
injury occurred
2. The residence or place of business of the
parties
3. The place where the relationship is centered
- In this case, the driver’s conduct in operating the vehicle
prior to the collision will be the focus of attention to
determine liability, and that conduct is governed by the rules
of the road in the state in which an accident occurred, the
presumption of lex loci delicti remains significant
- Conduct must be governed by Illinois Rules of the Road
- The relationship of the parties only came into existence
through the accident in Illinois
2. GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST ANALYSIS APPROACH
o A 3-tiered approach
o Involves examination of (1) whether there is a
difference in the law of the jurisdictions involved,
(2) whether there is a true conflict of law, (3) if a
true conflict exists, the court will apply the law of
the state whose interests is more impaired
3. CHOICE-INFLUENCING CONSIDERATIONS APPROACH
o Requires examination of five factors to determine
the applicable law:
1. Predictability of result
2. Maintenance of the interstate and
international order
3. Simplification of the judicial task
4. Advancement of the forum
5. Application of the better rule of law
4. LEX FORI
o Where the rights and liabilities of the parties are
governed by the law of the forum
5. MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP APPROACH
o Answers what state has the most connection to a
case?
o The state which has the most connection to a case
o The points of contact as enumerated in
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of laws are:
1. Place where injury occurred
2. Place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred
3. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation, & place of business of parties
4. Place where the relationship, if any, between
the parties is centered
* States adhering to the most significant relationship approach allocate
so much importance to the place where the injury occurred since such
place has the greatest interest in striking a reasonable balance among
safety, cost, and other factors xx.
Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA
Facts:
- SAA hired Morada as flight attendant.
- While in Jakarta, Morada went to disco with her crew
members who then attempted to rape her
- Two years later in Saudi, she was brought to a police
station, questioned and her passport confiscated
- She was made to sign a document written in Arabic which
turned out to be a notice to appear before the court. When
she appeared, she was sentenced to imprisonment and
lashes
- The prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her for
wrongful conviction
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- She sued for damages in the Ph
Issue
- Whether Ph law governs the suit for damages. YES
Ruling
- This suit is not based on mere labor law violations
- The foreign element in this case was that Morada was a
resident Ph national, and SAA is a resident foreign corp.
- Had Ph Court refused to take cognizance of her case, it
would force her to litigate elsewhere, i.e. in SA where she no
longer maintains substantial connections
- Since it involves torts, the connecting factor or the point of
contact could be the place where the tortious conduct or lex
loci actus occurred
- The relationship between the parties was centered in the Ph
- Ph could be said as a situs of the tort because it is in the Ph
where SAA allegedly deceived Morada. She honestly believed
that SAA, in the exercise of their rights and in the
performance ..xx
First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek
Facts
- Guardian of the children of Carol Rostek sued John Rostek
for wrongful death.
- Both parties were Colorado residents
- J. Rostek’s negligent operation of the aircraft caused the
death of Carol Rostek. The accident occurred in Sourth
Dakota.
Issue
- Whether South Dakota or Colorado law applied
Ruling
- Colorado law applied
- Stare decisis does not compel the court to apply the rule of
lex loci delicti without regard to the facts and circumstances
of this case.
- Lex loci delicti was favored for uniformity of application and
predictability of results
- However, because of the industrial revolution causing the
mobility of the citizenry, interstate journey is no longer a
rare occurrence and applying LLD to every multistate
controversy yielded harsh and unjust results such as in the
case at bar
- Both Carol and John Rostek were Colorado residents. The
airplane was registered in Colorado.
- Emphasis is applied on expectations of parties and interests
of different jurisdictions.
- Colorado will adopt the general rule of applying the law of
the state with the “most significant relationship” with the
occurrence and the parties
- South Dakota, including its airplane guest statute, is not the
appropriate law to apply under the new rule.
Kamelgard v. Macura
Facts
- Kamelgard, a bariatric surgeon in New Jersey, previously
testified against a fellow bariatric surgeon, defendant
Macura, in a malpractice suit in New York. Defendant
subsequently mailed a defamatory letter against plaintiff to
the American College of Surgeons in Chicago. At the same
time, defendant also sent an identical letter to the American
Society of Bariatric Surgeons in Florida. Plaintiff
subsequently sued defendant in federal court in Chicago for
defamation.
Issue
- Whether NY or New Jersey law applies
Held
- New Jersey law applies.
1. The old rule (lex loci delicti) is not applicable because it
seems too rigid, mainly because of such anomalies as suits
between citizens of the same state when it was not the state
where the accident had occurred. The rule now has been
reduced to a presumption, in Illinois as in other states, it
nowadays applies the law of the state that has the “most
significant relationship” to the claim, and it is usually the
place where the delict is done.
2. However, defamation is a tort that the old rule very often
doesn’t fit, because the defamatory statement is
communicated in more than one statement.
3. When the defamatory statement is communicated in many
different states, it makes sense to apply the law of the
plaintiff’s domicile. That is where the principal injury from a
defamation will occur because it is where the victim works
and lives and where most of the people are found with
6
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra

whom he has personal or commercial transactions which 4. To complete this analysis, we must “consider which
might be impaired by defamation. contracts are most significant” in addition to finding out
4. The plaintiff’s argument that he is injured whenever where they are found. The record is insufficient to permit us
someone reads or hears about the statement, if thought a to engage in this inquiry, and so we leave it open.
basis for resolving choice of law issues would lead to
ridiculous forum-shopping. Lex loci delicti v Most Significant Relationship
5. But only New Jersey, where the plaintiff has his practice and
reputation built up has a substantial interest in protecting In terms Lex Loci Delicti Most Significant
him from defamation. Relationship

Lankenau v Boles Jurisdiction Simplicity, ease of Favors its

Facts which it employs application, stability, responsiveness to
- Lankenau, a resident in NY was a passenger in a vehicle and predictability modern times and
which collided with a tractor-trailer operated by Boles, an litigation, flexibility,
employee of co-defendant M and S Leasing Co., LLC, both fairness, and
resident of New Jersey. The accident happened judiciousness
Pennsylvania, USA. Lankenau sued Boles and M & S in the
SC of NY, defendants presented the affirmative defendese Focus Apply the law of the It is fine-tuned to
that plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not wearing a place of injury with no modern litigation
seatbelt. Under Pennsylvania Law, the non-use of seatbelt
need for contracts- where it is difficult to
may not be presented as a defense in the case, in NY the
same is allowed to be presented as a defense in assessing counting pinpoint the place of
damages and the plaintiff’s mitigation thereof. SC denied the injury or where the
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ defense. place of injury could
Issue be in several states. It
- Whether NY or Pennsylvania law applies? has its tendency to
Held ignore stare decisis,
- New York law applies. making judicial
1. Where the conflicting laws serve only to allocate losses decisions
between the parties, such as vicarious liability or
unpredictable.
comparative negligence rules, the jurisdiction where the tort
occurred has only a minimal interest in applying its own law.
2. Pennsylvania has at best a minimal interest in applying its
Chapter 5: CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY
own law in this case. Lankenau and Boles’ parents are
resident of NY, where the seat belt defense is available. The
other defendants are domiciled in NJ. Which also permits the What is citizenship?
seat belt defense. None of the parties is domiciled in Penny - It is a person’s membership in a particular state.
and, the situs of the tort notwithstanding, we perceive no - Brings with it duties of loyalty and allegiance that’s why
basis for applying Penny law to deny a potential affirmative multiple citizenships are frowned upon.
defense. - Many states frown upon dual or multiple citizenships
because they implicate loyalty and diplomatic concerns,
Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. especially during times of war.
Facts
- Baldwin sued Novartis before the US District Court of How is citizenship acquired?
Missouri after two pf her teeth were extracted and she Citizenship is acquired either at birth or by naturalization. According to
developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. She alleged that Section 1 of Art 4 of the 1987 Constitution, the following are citizens of
Norvatis negligently failed to provide adequate warnings for the Phil:
two drugs she took, Aredia and Zometa. Baldwin was a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
awarded $225,000 in compensatory damages after jury trial.
adoption of this Constitution;
Novartis appealed, questioning the application of the
Missouri law. b. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Issue Philippines;
- Whether Missouri law applies to the punitive damages claim. c. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
Held who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
- Yes. Missouri law applies to the punitive damages claim. majority; and those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
1. To settle choice of law questions, Washington uses the most
significant relationship test as articulated by Restatement Note: Citizenship through naturalization is also possible. Thus, one
(Second) of Conflict of Laws. becomes a citizen of a state by being born within the territory thereof,
2. 2 step analysis for the significant relationship inquiry,
or by applying for naturalization with the administrative or judicial
a. Courts will continue to evaluate the contracts with
each interested jurisdiction, it considers which authorities therein.
contracts are mores significant and to determine
where these contacts are found. Citizenship at Birth
b. Courts will continue to evaluate the interests and What are the two guiding principles respecting acquisition of
public policies of potentially concerned citizenship at birth?
jurisdictions. 1. Jus sanguinis, is acquired through blood relationship with
3. To determine the jurisdiction with the most significant
the parent. Example; Philippines
relationship to the dispute, we must consider;
a. The place where plaintiff acted in reliance on the 2. Jus soli, by being born within the territorial boundaries of a
representation; state. Example: USA
b. The place where the plaintiff received the
representations; What is multiple citizenships?
c. The place where the defendant made the - May be acquired by the simultaneous application of the
representations; doctrines of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
d. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of - Example; A person is born in USA and his parents are
incorporation, and place of business of the Filipinos, the person is not only a US citizen but also a
parties; Filipino citizen as well. This results in the person having
e. The place where a tangible thing, which is the dual citizenship.
subject of the transaction between the parties,
was situated at the time; and
What is a natural born citizenship?
f. The place where the plaintiff is to render
- According to Section 2, Article 4 of the 1987 Constitution,
performance under a contract that he has been
induced to enter by the false representations of natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the
the defendant.
7
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Philippines form birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
What is naturalization?
- It refers to the acquisition of citizenship by the performance
of some positive act, like applying with the appropriate
authorities to become a citizen of that state. In the Phil,
naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act. No. 473,
or the Revised Naturalization Law, and RA 530.
Bengson III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
Facts
- Private Respondent Toledo Cruz was born to Filipino parents
in Tarlac. In 1985, he joined US Marine Corps and took an
oath of allegiance, under the Com. Act. 63, rendering service
to or acceptance of a commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country, is an expatriating act.
- 1990, Cruz was naturalized as a citizen of US.
- 1994, Cruz reacquired his Filipino Citizenship through
repatriation under RA 2630.
- In 1995,congressional elections, Cruz ran and won as a
representative of second district of Pangasinan, beating
petitioner Antonio Bengson.
- Bengson filed a petition for Quo Warranto wit the HRET,
alleging Cruz did not possess the requisite natural-born
citizenship required. However, HRET dismissed the petition
and declared Cruz duly elected representative of the second
district of Pangasinan.
Issue
- Whether Cruz is a natural-born Citizen?
Held
- Yes, private respondent is a natural-born citizen.
1. There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: a. by birth
which correspond to a natural born citizen and b. by
naturalization which correspond a naturalized citizen.
2. Repatriation results in the recover of the original nationality.
Meaning, if a person is originally a natural born citizen after
repatriation, he will be restored to his original citizenship.
3. In the case at bar, Cruz lost his Filipino citizenship when he
rendered services in the Armed Forces of the US. However,
he subsequently reacquired Phil Citizenship through RA
2630.
4. As to persons, they would either be natural-born or
naturalized depending on the reasons for the loss of their
citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law
for the reacquisition thereof. In the case of Cruz, he was not
required by law to go through naturalization proceedings to
reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born
Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary
qualifications to be elected as member of the House of
Representatives.
Foundlings are Natural-Born Citizens
What is a foundling?
- Foundlings are those abandoned children wit no known
natural parents, are natural born citizens because they are
not an excluded class under the Constitution.
- In addition, international laws and domestic laws accord
them that status.
- So long as there is a HIGH PROBABILITY that the foundling’s
parents are Filipinos.
- It is also state policy as seen in adoption laws to accord
them the status of natural-born citizens.
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC
Facts
- (already familiar to you hehe)
Issue
- whether petitioner is a natural born citizen?
Held
- Yes.
1. The petitioner’s blood relationship with a Filipino citizen is
Demonstrable.
2. Foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the
1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings,
there is no restrictive language which would definitely
exclude foundlings either.
3. The 1935 Con Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration.
Note: There is a dissent to this by J Carpio, he stated that “ letter and
intent of the 1935 Constitution clearly excluded foundlings from being
considered natural-born citizens” since the framers voted to reject the
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
proposal to include foundlings as citizens of the Philippines. He added
that “there is no treaty, customary international law or a general
principle of international law granting automatically Philippine
citizenship to a foundling at birth.”
- The majority decision all the more support a growing
(international) state policy of diminishing the significance of
citizenship. The value of unitary citizenship has been greatly
diminished by state practice of allowing dual or multiple
citizenships. With the Poe decision, there is all the more
reason to believe that citizenship is no longer the valued
idea that one prodded our heroes and patriots to die for
country.
- The rules on citizenship have been so liberalized that the
element of exclusivity that citizenship once occupied is
already gone. Hence, we join a group of nations willing to
give multiple citizenships to their citizens and subjects.
Importance of Citizenship
Why is citizenship important?
- Citizenship is important because it is the source of
rights. It is the source of benefits as some rights are
only available to the citizens of a country.
- Citizenship is also the source of duties and obligations.
- Citizens owe full allegiance to their country and must
abide by the rules specified in their country’s laws and
constitution.
- Citizenship also defines voting rights and the right to
hold public office.
Djumantan v Domingo
Facts
- Djumantan is an Indonesian national, and Bernard Banez, a
Filipino working in Indonesia, got married in Islamic rites in
Indonesia. Banez and Djumantan arrived in Phil and
petitioner was admitted as a temporary visitor u der
Immigration Act 1940. Later it was changed to permanent
resident and was issued an alien certificate of registration.
- The petitioner became the “guest” of Banez’s Filipino wife
upon Banez’s representation that petitioner was a family
friend. Filipino wife later found out about their relationship
and her eldest son subsequently filed a complaint with the
Ombudsman which referred the complaint to the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Deportation
proceedings were initiated against Djumantan.
- CID found the second marriage irregular and not in
accordance to the Phil Law. It then revoked the visa
previously granted to Djumantan. Djumantan contends that
being the spouse of a Filipino citizen, she was entitled to be
admitted and granted permanent residency in the Phil.
Issue
- Whether the marriage between Djumantan and Banez
entitled her to be admitted and to permanent residency in
the Phil.
Held
- No, the marriage of petitioner to a Filipino citizen did not
automatically bestow upon her the privilege to enter and to
stay in the Phil.
1. There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino
citizens the right to be admitted, much less to be given
permanent residency, in the Phil.
2. The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not
withdraw her from the operation of the immigration laws
governing the admission and exclusion of aliens.
3. Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not
ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse
her from her failure to depart from the country upon the
expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.
Relation to Conflict of Laws
What is the relation of citizenship to conflict of laws?
- Citizenship is relevant to conflict of laws because certain
states require the application of a state’s law to certain
matters affecting its citizens.
- Also, the exercise of certain rights is accorded only to
citizens of the state.
Due allegiance
- Dual citizenship is the state of having two or more citizenships
wile dual allegiance is the state of having dual or multiple
allegiances to several states.
- There is basically not difference between dual citizenship and dual
allegiance since a person who has several citizenships will
necessarily owe allegiance to two or more states.
8
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
When is dual allegiance inimical?
- According to Sec 5 Art 4 of the Constitution, dual allegiance is
considered to be inimical to the national interest. This applies only
to a single specific instance, which is that where a naturalized
Filipino citizen continues to maintain his allegiance to his mother
country.
- The constitution prohibits dual allegiance and mandates that the
same shall be dealt with by the law. However, no specific law has
as yet been enacted to deal with this kind of problem, hence it
will still be our naturalization and expatriation laws that will deal
with problems of dual allegiance.
Mercado v. Manzano
Facts
- Eduardo “Edu” Manzano was born in US with Phil parents. Edu,
together with Mercado and Daza, were candidates for the position
of Vice Mayor in the City of Makati in the 1998 elections. Manzano
garnered the highest votes, next to him is Mercado. Despite
garnering the highest votes Manzano was not proclaimed the
winner because of a pending disqualification suit against him on
the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen.
- Second div COMELEC ordered the cancellation of Edu’s COC,
however COMELEC En banc decided otherwise.
Issue
- Whether Eduardo Manzano has dual citizenship?
Held
- No, Manzano has effectively renounced his US citizenship in the
COC he filed with the COMELEC.
1. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual’s volition.
2. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for office
Manzano elected Phil citizenship and in effect renounced his
American citizenship.
3. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or
immigrant of another country and blah blah he effectively
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he
may have said before as a dual citizen.
What is Expatration?
- Expatriation is the commission of an act that results in the loss of
citizenship. Under Com Act No. 63, a citizen may lose his
citizenship by the commission of any of the following acts;
1. By naturalization
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21
years of age or more; provided, however, that a Filipino
may not divest himself of Phil citizenship in any manner
while PH is at war with any country;
4. By rendering services to, or accepting commission in, the
armed forces of the foreign country: Provided, that the
rendering of service to, or the acceptance of such
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country, and
the taking of an oath of allegiance.
5. By cancelling of the certificates of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter
of the Phil armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently,
a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner if,
by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country, she
acquires his nationality. (Note: No longer expatriating unless
they categorically renounce their Phil Citizenship)
Board of Immigration Commissioners v Go Callano
Facts
- Private respondents several Go Callano were the Children of Go
Chiao Lin, Chinese citizen and Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen.
1946, private respondents with their parents went to China for a
vacation. Unfortunately, the father died in China. Their Mom
subsequently returned to PH, leaving the kids behind.
- 1961, private respondents aka the kids, returned to Pinas. At the
airport, the Immigration Inspector referred them to Board of
Special Inquiry NO. 2, which promulgated a decision finding the
private respondents to be the illegitimate children of Emilia
Callano and entitled to admission as Fil citizens. Immigration
Commissioners, exercising their power of review, issued an order
reversing the decision and ordered their exclusion as aliens not
properly documented for admission.
- Reasons:
o They stayed in China for 15 years and
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
o They have become citizens of China in accordance with
the Chinese Nationality law.
Issue
- whether prolonged stay from the Phil and recognition by an alien
father are expatriating acts?
Held
- NO, they are not expatriating acts.
RA 9225: Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act
- This law enables former Filipino citizens who have since
naturalized in a foreign country to reacquire their Filipino
citizenships without losing their present citizenships.
- This law allows former Filipino Citizens to repatriate themselves
by taking the oath of allegiance to the PH without, however,
renouncing their present citizenships.
- RA 9225 also makes it a state policy that those who naturalize in
other countries after the law’s effectivity are deemed to retain
their Filipino citizenships upon their taking the oath of allegiance
to the Republic.
- Filipinos who repatriate themselves via Ra 9225 are deemed to be
natural-born citizens of the Phil for the do not have to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Phil citizenship.
- This status retroacts to the day when they were born.
Jacot v Dal
Facts
- Jacot was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a
naturalized citizen of the US in 1989. He sought to reacquire his
Philippine citizenship under RA. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act). He filed a request for the administration of
his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines with the Philippine
Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles (LA).
- The LA PCG approved Jacot’s request in June 2006, and on the
same day, Jacot took his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines
before Vice Consul Yulo.
- The Bureau of Immigration issued Identification Certificate
recognizing petitioner as a citizen of the Philippines. Jacot filed his
COC for the Position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin.
Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification before the
COMELEC Provincial Office in Camiguin against petitioner, arguing
that the latter failed to renounce his US citizenship, as required
under Section 5(2) of RA 9225.
Issue
- Whether Jacot is disqualified from running as a candidate in the
May 2007 local elections for his failure to make a personal and
sworn renunciation of his US citizenship.
Held
- Jacot’s oath of allegiance to the Philippines made before the LA
PCG and his COC do not substantially comply with the
requirement of a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign
citizenship because these are distinct requirements to be
complied with for different purposes.
- Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, who are already naturalized citizens
of a foreign country, must take the oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines to reacquire or retain their Philippine
citizenship.
- By the oath, the Filipino swears allegiance to the Philippines, but
there is nothing therein on his renunciation of foreign
citizenship. Precisely, a situation might arise under Republic Act
No. 9225 wherein said Filipino has dual citizenship by also
reacquiring or retaining his Philippine citizenship, despite his
foreign citizenship.
- Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born
Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign
country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public
offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an
authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in
Philippine elections.
- The oath of allegiance is different from the renunciation of
foreign citizenship. The intent of the legislators was not only for
Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship
under RA 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign
citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the
Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections,
Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine
citizenship.
- By the same token, the oath of allegiance contained in the
Certificate of Candidacy, which is substantially similar to the one
9
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
contained in Section 3 of RA 9225, does not constitute the
personal and sworn renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of
the same Act. Said oath of allegiance is a general requirement
for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine
elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an
additional requisite only for those who have retained or
reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 and who seek
elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of
having more than one citizenship.
Sobejana-Condon v COMELEC
Facts
- Petitioner Sobejana-Condona, a natural-born Filipino citizen,
naturalized in Australia on December 13, 1984. On December 2,
2005, she filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship
before the Philippine Embassy in Canberra. The application was
approved and the petitioner took her oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005.
- The petitioner ran for the position of Vice Mayor of Caba La
Union in the 2010 elections and won. She took her oath of
office. Soon thereafter, private respondents all registered voters
of Caba, La Union, filed separate petitions for quo warranto
questioning the petitioner’s eligibility before the RTC. The
petitioner denied being a dual citizen and averred that since
September 27, 2006, she ceased to be an Australian citizen.
- The trial court held that the petitioner’s failure to comply with
Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 rendered her ineligible to run and
hold public office. As admitted by the petitioner herself during
trial, the personal declaration of renunciation she filed in
Australia was not under oath.
Issue
- For purposes of determining the petitioner’s eligibility to run for
public office, is the “sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship” in
Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 mere pro-forma requirement?
Held
- No. R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of
Filipino citizenship for natural-born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the
Republic. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall
retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
- The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores
one’s Filipino citizenship and all civil and political rights and
obligations concomitant therewith, subject to certain conditions
imposed in Section 5.
- The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public
office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those
who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized
to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of
the certificate of candidacy. Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act
No. 9225 compels natural- born Filipinos, who have been
naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired
or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of
allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for
those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to
additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer
prior or simultaneous to the filing of their certificates of
candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.
- The intent of the legislators was not only for Filipinos
reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their
foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the
Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections,
Filipinos must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine
citizenship.
- The foreign citizenship must be formally rejected through an
affidavit duly sworn before an officer authorized to administer
oath.
Maquiling v COMELEC
Facts
- Arnado was a natural born Filipino citizen, but lost his citizenship
upon naturalization as citizen of United States of America.
Sometime on 2008 and 2009, his repatriation was granted and
he subsequently executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of foreign
citizenship. On 2009, Arnando filed for a certificate of candidacy
and won the said election. But prior from his declaration as
winner, a pending action for disqualification was filed by Balua,
one of the contenders for the position. Balua alleged that
Arnando was not a citizen of the Philippines, with a certification
issued by the Bureau of Immigration that Arnando’s nationality
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
is USA-American and a certified true copy of computer-
generated travel record that he has been using his American
passport even after renunciation of American citizenship. A
division of the COMELEC ruled against Arnando but this decision
was reversed by the COMELEC en Banc stating that continued
use of foreign passport is not one of the grounds provided for
under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 through which
Philippine citizenship may be lost. Meanwhile, Maquiling petition
that should be declared winner as he gained the second highest
number of votes.
Issue
- Whether the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign
citizenship amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier made?
Held
- Yes. The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
position which makes him dual citizen.
- Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of
identity that comes with attendant civil and political rights
accorded by the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the
concomitant duty to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and
country.
- While those who acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded
the right of suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to
public office are required to renounce their foreign citizenship to
be deserving of the public trust. Holding public office demands
full and undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other.
- It is a continuing requirement that must be possessed not only
at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office
but during the officer's entire tenure. Once any of the required
qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably challenged.
- Therefore, the Court held Arnando disqualified for any local
elective position as provided by express disqualification under
Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code. Popular vote does
not cure this ineligibility of the candidate. Otherwise, substantive
requirements set by the Constitution are nugatory.
- Furthermore, there is no second-placer to speak of because as
reiterated in the case of Jalosjos v. COMELEC, when the
ineligibility was held to be void ab initio, no legal effect is
produced. Hence among the qualified candidates for position,
Maquiling who garnered the highest votes should be declared as
winner.
Arnado v COMELEC
Facts
 Arnado executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign
citizenship. On November 30, 2009, Arnado filed his
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the mayoralty post of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for the May 10, 2010 national
and local elect. Arnado garnered the highest number of
votes for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan. He was
proclaimed the winning candidate.
- The COMELEC Second Division promulgated a Resolution
disqualifying Arnado from running in the May 13, 2013 elections.
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the ruling of the COMELEC
Second Division.
Issue
- Whether Arnado complied with the requirement of personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships prior to or
at the time of filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Held
- No, Arnado failed to comply with the requirements of RA 9225
as his personal and sworn renunciation was submitted blatedly.
Under Section 4(d) of the Local Government Code, a person
with "dual citizenship" is disqualified from running for any
elective local position. The phrase "dual citizenship" in said
Section 4(d) must be understood as referring to "dual
allegiance.”
- Congress enacted RA 9225 allowing natural-born citizens of the
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine citizenship and
to enjoy full civil and political rights upon compliance with the
requirements of the law.
- They may now run for public office in the Philippines provided
that they: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and, (2)
make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an
oath prior to or at the time of filing of their COC.
- In the case at bar, Arnado failed to comply with the second
requisite of Section 5(2) of RA 9225 because his April 3, 2009
10
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Affidavit of Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when he used
his US passport after executing said affidavit. Consequently, at
the time he filed his COC on October 1, 2012 for purposes of the
May 13, 2013 elections, Arnado had yet to comply with said
second requirement. The COMELEC also noted that while
Arnado submitted an affidavit dated May 9, 2013, affirming his
April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation, the same would not
suffice for having been belatedly executed.
- The COMELEC En Banc did not err in upholding the Resolution
of the COMELEC Second Division disqualifying Arnado from
running for public office. It is worth noting that the reason for
Arnado's disqualification to run for public office during the 2010
elections – being a candidate without total and undivided
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines – still subsisted
when he filed his COC for the 2013 elections on October 1,
2012. The COMELEC En Banc merely adhered to the ruling of
this Court in Maquiling.
What are the two groups of Beneficiaries under RA NO.9225?
1. Group 1: naturalized in a foreign country before the
effectivity of RA No. 9225
- deemed to reacquire their Philippine citizenship
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic.
- become Filipino citizens once more upon taking
the oath of allegiance.
2. Group 2: naturalized in a foreign country after effectivity of
RA No. 9225
- deemed to retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the same oath of allegiance.
- considered Filipinos from the time they
naturalized in a foreign country to the time they
took the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
David v Agbay
Facts
- In 1974, petitioner became a Canadian citizen by naturalization.
Upon their retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the
Philippines. Sometime in 2000, they purchased a lot along the
beach in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindor. However, in the year
2004, they came to know that the portion where they built their
house is public land and part of the salvage zone.
- On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application (MLA) over the subject land with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Socorro.
In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino
citizen.
- Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a
Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a
criminal complaint for falsification of public documents under
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code against the petitioner.
Issue
- Whether petitioner is liable for falsification for claiming in the
MLA that he was Filipino.
Held
- Yes, petitioner is liable for falsification for at the time of filing
the MLA, petitioner has not yet reacquired his Philippine
citizenship. R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,” was signed into law
by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003.
- Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who have
become citizens of another country shall be deemed “not to
have lost their Philippine citizenship,” such is qualified by the
phrase “under the conditions of this Act.” Section 3 lays down
such conditions for two categories of natural-born Filipinos
referred to in the first and second paragraphs. Under the first
paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall re-
acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The second
paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who became
foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who shall retain their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The taking of
oath of allegiance is required for both categories of natural-born
Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country, but
the terminology used is different, “re-acquired” for the first
group, and “retain” for the second group.
- The law thus makes a distinction between those natural-born
Filipinos who became foreign citizens before (first group) and
after (second group) the effectivity of R.A. 9225. Although the
heading of Section 3 is “Retention of Philippine Citizenship”, the
authors of the law intentionally employed the terms “re-acquire”
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
and “retain” to describe the legal effect of taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident
from the title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention.
- In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country,
they shall be deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine
citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which
naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways by which
Philippine citizenship may be lost.
- In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A.
9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite
having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath
of allegiance under the new law.
- That the law distinguishes between re-acquisition and retention
of Philippine citizenship was made clear in the discussion of the
Bicameral Conference Committee.
- Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen
prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, he belongs to the first
category of natural-born Filipinos under the first paragraph of
Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a
foreign country.
- Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public
document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of
said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen. Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was
naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in a foreign
country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen
loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the falsification
was already a consummated act, the said law having no
retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is
concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable
cause for falsification of public document under Article 172,
paragraph 1.
What is the requirement for a foreigner to practice his
profession in the Philippines?
- The foreigner must seek a license or permit from
the appropriate government authority. This is
because Filipinos are preferred in the practice of
profession in our country such that foreigners
should not displace them if there is a sufficient
number of Filipinos who can fill the vacancy.
In Re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in
the Philippines
Facts
- Epifanio B. Muneses, a Filipino and member of the Philippine Bar
but lost the privilege because he became a citizen of the United
States of America on August 28, 1981. On September 15, 2006
reacquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to the "Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" (R.A. No. 9225). He
intends to retire in the Philippines & return to the practice of law
after compliance with the requirements of the Office of the Bar
Confidant, hence this petition.
Issue
- Whether Muneses is entitled to resume his practice of law in the
Philippines
Held
- Yes, he is entitled to resume the practice of law. Under RA No.
9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
Citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine
Citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. A
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and
later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225,
remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
What are the general principles in dealing with conflict of
nationality laws?
- Art.1 It is for each State to determine under its own law who are
its nationals.
- Art.2 Any question as to whether a person possesses the
nationality of a particular state shall be determined in accordance
with the law of that state.
- Art.3 A person having two or more nationalities may be regarded
as its nationals by each of the States whose nationality he
possesses.
- Art.4 A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its
nationals against a State whose nationality such person also
possesses.
- Art.5 A person having more than one nationality shall be treated
as he had only one.
- Art.6 Without prejudice to the liberty of a State to accord wider
rights to renounce its nationality, a person possessing two
11
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
nationalities acquired without any voluntary act on his part may
renounce one of them with the authorization of the State whose
nationality he desires to surrender.
Perez v Brownell
Facts
- Petitioner Perez was born in the United States and resided there
until 1919 when he moved with his parents to Mexico. In 1947,
he applied for admission to the United States as a citizen thereof.
In the hearing of the application, he stated that he voted in a
Mexican elections. The lower courts both found that he had given
up his U.S. citizenship by voting in a foreign election due to
Section 401(e) of the Nationality Act of 1940. This section states
that any U.S. citizen can lose citizenship by “voting in a political
election in a foreign state or participating in an election or
plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory.”
Petitioner Perez argues that his exclusion was wrong on the
ground that the law was beyond the power of Congress to enact.
Issue
- Whether Congress has the power to strip a person of his
citizenship?
Held
- On review, the United States Supreme Court found that by virtue
of his avoidance of military service and becoming involved in
foreign political affairs petitioner had relinquished his citizenship.
The Court reasoned that when a citizen of one country acted
politically in another country there was a danger of
embarrassment to the home country and was evidence of
allegiance to another country inconsistent with American
citizenship.
- The district court's order, that petitioner had lost his American
citizenship, was affirmed because petitioner became involved in
foreign political affairs and evidenced an allegiance to another
country inconsistent with American citizenship, thereby
abandoning his citizenship. The Court declined to determine
constitutionality of the statute, holding that denationalization was
an appropriate remedy to avoid embarrassment to the
government.
Afroyim v Rusk
Facts
- Afroyim was born in Poland in 1893, immigrated to the United
States in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926.
Afroyim went to Israel in 1950 and voluntarily voted in an Israeli
election in 1951. In 1960, Afroyim’s application to renew his U.S.
citizenship was denied. His denial was based on the Nationality
Act of 1940 (the Act), which states that a U.S. citizen shall lose
citizenship if he votes in a political election in a foreign state.
Afroyim filed a declaratory judgment action against Rusk
(defendant), the Secretary of State, in federal district court
alleging that the Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that
Congress does not have the power to revoke citizenship once
acquired, and the only way one can lose citizenship is by
voluntarily renouncing it. The court of appeals agreed with the
district court’s rejection of Afroyim’s arguments, holding that
under Congress’ implied power to regulate foreign affairs,
Congress has authority to revoke citizenship for voting in a
foreign country.
Issue
- Whether the state has no power to strip a person of his
citizenship
Held
- No, the state has no power to strip a person of his citizenship.The
court's majority now held that "Congress has no power under the
Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship
absent his voluntary renunciation thereof." Specifically repudiating
Perez, the majority of the justices rejected the claim that
Congress had any power to revoke citizenship and said that "no
such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of
sovereignty".
- Instead, quoting from the Citizenship Clause, Black wrote:All
persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of
the United States...." There is no indication in these words of a
fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject
to destruction by the Government at any time. Rather the
Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship
which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once
acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be
shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal
Government, the States, or any other governmental unit.
- The Court found support for its position in the history of the
unratified Titles of Nobility Amendment. The fact that this 1810
proposal had been framed as a constitutional amendment, rather
than an ordinary act of Congress, was seen by the majority as
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
showing that, even before the passage of the Fourteenth
Amendment, Congress did not believe that it had the power to
revoke anyone's citizenship.The Court further noted that a
proposed 1818 act of Congress would have provided a way for
citizens to voluntarily relinquish their citizenship, but opponents
had argued that Congress had no authority to provide for
expatriation.
- Afroyim's counsel had addressed only the foreign voting question
and had carefully avoided any direct challenge to the idea that
foreign naturalization might legitimately lead to loss of citizenship
(a concept which Warren had been willing to accept in his Perez
dissent). Nevertheless, the Court's Afroyim ruling went beyond
even Warren's earlier position—holding instead that "The very
nature of our government makes it completely incongruous to
have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in
office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship."
CHAPTER VI: DOMICILE
What is domicile?
- Domicile is the relation which the law creates between an
individual and a particular locality or country.
- The domicile of a person is the place where he has his true, fixed,
permanent home and principal establishment, and to which,
whenever his absent, he has the intention of returning and from
which he has no present intention of moving.
What are the kinds of domicile?
1. 1.Domicile of origin or birth - is the domicile of a person’s
parents, the head of his family or the person whom he is
legally dependent, at the time of his birth.
2. Domicile of choice - is the place chosen by a person to
replace his former domicile.
3. Domicile of operation of law - is the domicile assigned or
attributed by law to a person.
Discuss Domicile and Citizenship
- A citizen of one state usually has his domicile also in the same
state. However, there are instances when a person leaves his
state of citizenship and establishes his domicile or residence in
another state.
- In determining a person’s domicile, one must look beyond a
person’s citizenship to determine his domicile.
Discuss Loss and Retention of Domicile
- Domicile may be lost through the performance of certain acts
indicative of an intent to abandon domicile. These acts, however
may also indicate the intent to retain one’s domicile. Acts
indicative of domicile are a person’s residence, membership in
church, voting, holding office, paying taxes and ownership of
property.
- A person may abandon his domicile by choosing a new domicile,
actually residing therein and intending that place to be his
permanent residence.
Schill v Cincinatti Ins. Co.
Facts
- Miles Cobrun was killed after he was struck by a vehicle driven by
Robert Shill. Peggy Spaeth, Cobrun’s wife, filed a wrongful-death
action against Robert and his insurer. Robert sought additional
coverage under the liability policy of his parents issued by
Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC). CIC denied coverage.
Robert then filed this declaratory-judgment action seeking a
declaration that CIC owed him a duty of indemnification in the
wrongful-death case. The trial court consolidated the declaratory-
judgment and underlying wrongful-death actions. The trial court
granted summary judgment for CIC. The appellate court
reversed.
Issue
- Whether Robert was a “resident relative” of James at the time of
the accident
Held
- No, Robert was not a resident relative of James because Florida
was not James’ domicile.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in accordance with this
Court’s previous jurisprudence, the definition of domicile is where
a person resides, where he intends to remain, and where he
intends to return when away temporarily; and (2) under this
definition, Robert was not an insured “resident relative” under the
umbrella policy at issue.
Romualdez Marcos v COMELEC
12
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Facts
- Roy Montejo questioned Marcos’ candidacy as representative of
the 1st district of Leyte on the ground that she is not a resident
thereof as required by the Constitution. Montejo contended that
Tacloban was Marcos’ domicile of origin because she did not live
there until she was eight (8) years old. Moreover, Marcos resided
and used to be a registered voter in San Juan and in Manila.
Marcos won the elections but the COMELEC suspended her
proclamation.
Issue
- Whether Marcos possessed the one-year residency requirement
for the position of representative of Leyte?
Held
- Yes. Marcos is domiciled in Tacloban, hence she meets the
Constitutional requirement on residency. Residence and domicile
are synonymous in election law. Residence is used to indicate a
place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; domicile
denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent one
has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in
one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile,
but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for
an unlimited time. Mere absence of an individual from his/her
permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not
result in a loss or change of domicile.
- Imelda Marcos married the former President Marcos in 1954 and
kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a
domicilium necessarium. The Supreme Court held that even the
matter of a common residence between the husband and the wife
during the marriage is not an iron-clad principle. In cases
applying the Civil Code on the question of common matrimonial
residence, our jurisprudence has recognize certain situations
where the spouses could not be compelled to live with each other
such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence
different from that of her husband or, for obviously practical
reasons, revert to her original domicile (apart from being allowed
to opt for a new one).
Jalosjos v. Comelec
Facts
- Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City in 1973 and migrated
to Australia in 1981. In 2008, he returned to the Philippines and
stayed at his brother’s house in Quezon City. He subsequently
took the oath of allegiance to the Philippines and renounced his
Australian citizenship. Jalosjos then bought a residential property
in Quezon City and a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga
Sibugay.
- Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the Governor
in Zamboanga, Sibugay Province for May 2010 elections.
However, the Second Division of the COMELEC ruled that he did
not possess the residency requirement for a candidate as he did
not present ample proof of a “bona fide” intention to establish his
domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga, Sibugay. The COMELEC En Banc
affirmed the decision holding that “Jalosjos had been a mere
guest r transient visitor in his brother’s house and, for this reason,
he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile.
Issue
- Whether COMELEC was correct in holding that Jalosjos failed to
present ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish his
domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay.
Held
- No, Comelec was wrong.
- It is evident that Jalosjos came to the Philippines with the intent
to change his domicile for good. By his acts (renouncing
Australian citizenship, and taking an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of PH), Jalosjos forfeited his legal right to live in
Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his domicile there.
- Contrary to COMELEC’s conclusion that Jalosjos has not come to
settle his domicile in IPil since he has merely been staying at his
brother’s house, the Court held that a candidate is not required to
have a house in a community to establish his residence or
domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient that he should live
there even if it be in a rented house or in the house of a friend or
relative.
What is the process of Foreign Naturalization?
1. For people with non-immigrant visas (tourists and students)
who are already in the US, they usually file a petition for
adjustment of status from non-immigrant status to
permanent resident.
2. For people who are still in the Philippines, and who are
petitioned by their loved ones abroad, they have to wait for
the approval and release of their immigrant visas before
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
they can go abroad.
(Green Card is usually issued to applicants who are given the
privilege to stay in the US on a permanent basis)
Permanent residency overseas
- Those who become permanent residents of the United States are
deemed to make the US their own home. Hey could not be away
from the US too long, usually more than one year, without
endangering their status.
- As permanent resident, they must demonstrate concrete ties to
the US, and these ties are those that bind, otherwise, they will
not be granted an immigrant visa.
- Once a person complies with the conditions of his permanent
resident becomes eligible to apply for US citizenship (which is
more permanent status and is not lost even if the person later
moves to another country to establish his domicile there).
Caballero v. COMELEC
Facts
- Petitioner Caballero was a Canadian citizen who was a beneficiary
of RA No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act). He
took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his Canadian citizenship.
Respondent sought to disqualify petitioner by filing a petition to
deny due course to or cancellation of petitioner’s COC on the
ground that the latter made a false representation by declaring
that he was eligible to run for mayor despite being a Canadian
citizen and not being a resident therein.
- The COMELEC First Division granted respondent’s petition on the
ground that petitioner lacked the one-year residency requirement
under the Section 39 of the Local Government Code. COMELEC
En Banc upheld the decision.
- Petitioner claimed that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile
because he merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue greener
pastures for his family overseas and that he also regularly
returned to his hometown
Issue
- Whether petitioner had abandoned his domicile in Uyugan,
Batanes
Held
- Yes, petitioner has abandoned his domicile in Uyugan, Batangas.
- The term “residence” is to be understood not in its common
acceptation but rather to “domicile” or legal residence, that is,
“the place where a party actually or constructively has his
permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at
any given time, eventually intends to return and remain (animus
manendi).”
- A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is
usually the place where the child’s parents reside and continues
until the same is abandoned by acquisition of a new domicile
(domicile of choice). It consists not only in the intention to reside
in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled
with conduct indicative of such intention.
- Petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the
Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His
frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation from work
in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such abandonment.
- Petitioner’s retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No.
9225 did not automatically make him regain his residence in
Uyugan, Batanes.
- COMELEC found that the petitioner failed to present competent
evidence to prove that he was able to re-establish his residence in
Uyugan within a period of one year immediately preceding the
May 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after reacquiring
his Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA 9225 that petitioner can
rightfully claim that he reestablished his domicile there.
Caasi v. Court of Appeals
Facts
- Merito Miguel is a green card holder of the United States. He,
however, contends that he applied for a green card only for
convenience so he can go to the US for medical consultation and
to visit his children. He maintained that he is a permanent
resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan and that he voted there in twin
elections or 1987.
- Miguel was elected as mayor of Bolinao in the January 18, 1988
elections. His qualification was challenged on the ground that he
was a permanent resident of US and not Bolina
Issues
1. Whether Miguel abandoned his domicile in the Philiipines. -
YES
2. Whether Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November
1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for mayor of
13
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
Bolinao in the 1988 local elections, waive his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of the US. NO
Held
Issue 1
- Miguel’s immigration to the US constituted an abandonment of his
domicile and residence in the Philippines. He entered the US with
the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his
application for an immigrant’s (not a visitor’s or tourist’s) visa.
- Immigration is the removing into one place from another; the act
of immigrating is the entering into a country with the intention of
residing in it. An immigrant is a person who removes into a
country for the purpose of permanent residence.
Issue 2
- To be “qualified to run for elective office” in the Philippines, the
law requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must
have “waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of
a foreign country.” Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of
candidacy for elective office in the Philippines did not itself
constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of the US.
- Respondent Miguel admits that he holds a green card, which
proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant of the US,
but the records of this case are starkly bare of proof that he had
waived his status as such before he ran for election as municipal
mayor of Bolinao. We therefore, hold that he was disqualified to
become a candidate for that office.
- Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent
residence in the US and his possession of a green card attesting
to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent
resident of the US despite his occasional visits to the Philippines.
Coquilla v. COMELEC
Facts
- Coquilla was born and resided in Oras, Eastern Samar until he
joined the US Navy in 1965. He subsequently naturalized as a
citizen of the United States. He returned to the Philippines in
1998 and applied for repatriation, which was approved. He took
his oath as a citizen in 2000. He then applied for registration as a
voter and his application was approved in 2001. He subsequently
filed his COC, claiming therein that he had been a resident of
Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years. However, a petition for
cancellation of his COC was sought on the ground of
misrepresentation.
- Petitioner obtained the highest number of votes in election and
was proclaimed mayor. However, the COMELEC’s Second Division
found merit in the petition and granted the cancellation Coquilla’s
COC. He filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied by
the COMELEC En Banc
Issue
- Whether petitioner had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar
for at least one year prior to the May 14, 2001 elections. NO
Held
- No, he lacks the requisites residency requirement.
- Petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US
citizen after enlisting in the US Navy in 1965. From then on and
until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine
citizenship, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in
the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have allowed
him to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien.
- In any event, the fact is that, by having been neutralized abroad,
he lost his Philippine citizenship and with it his residence in the
Philipppines.
- The statement in petitioner’s COC that he had been a resident of
Oras, Eastern Samar for two years at the time he filed such
certificate is not true. Petitioner made a false representation of a
material fact is his certificate of candidacy, rendering such
certificate liable to cancellation.
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC
Facts
- When Grace Poe-Llamanzares was an infant, her natural parents
abandoned her at the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo. She was found
by Edgardo Militar and was given to the custody and care of
Emiliano Militar and his wife. She was subsequently adopted by
Fernando Poe Jr. and Susan Roces.
(Read further on the facts, Page 225)
Issue
- Whether petitioner’s domicile is the Philippines. YES
Held
- Petitioner’s claim that she will have been a resident for ten years
and eleven months on the day before the 2016 elections is true.
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- Petitioner presented voluminous evidence showing that she and
her family abandoned their U.S. domicile and relocated to the
Philippines for good. (Read further on the ruling, Page 227)
What does the residency requirement (on Suffrage under the
Constitution) entail?
- The residency requirement must conform with the doctrine of
domicile so that persons who have the intention of returning to
their domicile may be allowed to vote despite being thereat for a
considerable time.
What is purpose of absentee voting (Sec 2, Art. V
Constitution)?
- Enacted mainly for qualified overseas Filipino workers (OFW), the
provision grants citizens who are abroad and who may not
otherwise be able to cast their votes on election day in the
Philippine precincts to vote in the Philippine consulates and
authorized foreign stations. However, even if they lack actual
residency, they must still demonstrate that the Philippines is their
domicile and that they have intention of returning before they can
be allowed to vote.
Macalintal v. COMELEC
Facts
- In taxpayer’s suit filed before the Supreme Court, petitioner
Romulo Macalintal questions the constitutionality of Act No. 9189,
otherwise known as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.
Macalintal contends that this section violates Section 1, Article V
of the 1987 Constitution which requires that the “voter must be a
resident in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding an election.”
Issue
- Whether RA No. 9189 violate Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
NO
Held
- Section 5(d) of RA No. 9189 does not violate Section 1, Article V
of the 1987 Constitution
- RA No. 9189 was enacted in obeisance to the mandate of the first
paragraph of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution that the
Congress shall provide a system for voting by qualified FILipinos
abroad.
- It must be stressed that Section 2 does not provide for the
parameters of the exercise of legislative authority in enacting said
law. Hence, in absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed to
have duly exercised its function as defined in Article VI of the
Constitution.
Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC
- Nicolas-Lewis et al. were able to reacquire their Philippine
citizenships by virtue of RA No. 9225. Soon thereafter, they
applied for registration and certification as “overseas absentee
voter” only to be told by the Philippine Embassy that per
COMELEC advice, they have yet no right to vote in 2004 elections
owing to their lack of the one-year residence requirement
prescribed by the Constitution
Issue
- Whether petitioners and others who have reacquired their
Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA No. 9225 may vote as
absentee voters under RA No. 9189
Held
- Yes, they are entitled to vote as absentee voters.
- Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and RA 9189
and the expansion of the scope of that law with the passage of
RA 9225, the irresistible conclusion is that “duals” may now
exercise the right of suffrage thru absentee voting scheme and as
overseas absentee voters.
What is Republic Act No. 10590? (Page 241)
- Known as “The Overseas Voting Act of 2013,” RA 10590 was
enacted by Congress on July 23, 2013 and signed into law by
President Benigno S. Aquino on May 27, 2013.
- It deleted the requirement under Section 5 (d) of RA No. 9189 for
immigrant or permanent residents to execute an affidavit before
they are allowed to exercise their right to vote. The affidavit is a
declaration that they “shall resume actual physical permanent
residence in the Philippines not later than three years from
approval of their registration” and that “they have not applied for
registration in another country.”
Venue in Estate Proceedings
- The residence of a person is significant in determining the venue
of estate proceedings and ordinary civil actions. Residence, for
14
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
venue purposes, usually refers only to actual residence of place of
abode, and not to a person’s domicile.
Jao v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 128314, May 29, 2002
Facts
- Spouses Ignavio Jao Tayag and Andrea v. Jao died intestate in
1988 and 989, respectively. One of their children, Perico, filed a
petition for issuance if letters of administration before the RTC of
Quezon.
- His brother Rodolfo moved for the dismissal of the petition on the
ground of improper venue, alleging that their parents did not
reside in Quezon City during their lifetime or at the time of their
deaths. He alleged that their parents were actual residents of
Angeles City, Pampanga.
- But Perico opposed, stating that their parents resided with
Rodolfo (in Quezon City) at the time of their death. He presented
the deceased death certificates showing QC to their last
residence. The Court held that Quezon City was the last place of
residence of decedents. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower
court.
Issue
- Whether the venue for estate proceedings refers to ordinary
residence or domicile.
Held
- Venue refers only to ordinary residence and not domicile.
- The documents presented by petitioner pertained not to
residence at the time of death, as required by the Rules of Court,
but to permanent residence or domicile.
- Petitioner insists that venue for the settlement of estates can only
refer to permanent residence or domicile because it is the place
where the records of the properties are kept and where most of
the decedent’s properties are located. Petitioner’s argument fails
to persuade.
- As defined, “residence” in the context of venue provisions, means
nothing more than a person’s actual residence or place of abode,
provided he resides therein with continuity and consistency.
CHAPTER VII: PROPERTY
When does conflict arise in property law?
- Conflict of law arises in the area of property law when a foreign
element is involved in the case (example: foreigner owning
property in another country or there is a foreign law on land
ownership that conflicts with domestic law.
- When a foreign element is involved, there is a need to determine
the applicable law governing the problem. Otherwise, the problem
has only domestic character where Philippine law applies.
Laurel v. Garcia
187 SCRA 797 (1990)
Facts
- The Philippine Government owned several properties located in
Japan which properties were part of the Reparations Agreement
with Japan. One of these properties is the Roppongi property
which the Philippine Government wanted to sell or dispose of to
non-Filipino citizens and entities. The first bidding resulted in a
failure while the second bidding was restrained by the Court. The
Secretary of Justice asserted that Japanese law should apply in
determining who can acquire the properties from the
Government.
Issue
- Whether the Roppongi property is governed by Japanese law or
Philippine law
Held
- It is governed by Philippine law.
- We see no rule why conflict of law rule should apply when no
conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of law situation arises
only when: (a) there is a dispute over the title or ownership of an
immovable, such that the capacity to take and transfer
immovables, the formalities of conveyance, the essential validity
and effect of the transfer, or the interpretation and effect of a
conveyance, are to be determined; and (b) a foreign law on land
ownership and its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a
domestic law on the same matters. In the instant case, none of
the above elements exists.
Rule as to Real and Personal Property
- The Philippine adheres to the rule of lex rei sitae or the law of the
place where the property is situated. This is provided under Art.
16 of the Civil Code: “real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.”
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- It must be noted that BOTH real properties as well as personal
properties are governed by the lex rei sitae.
Roberts v. Locke
Facts
- Roberts and Locke - American citizens from Wyoming.
- They have a beachfront property in Costa Rica which appreciated
in value over the years.
- They filed for divorce before the district court. They sought
equitable distribution of their assets and liabilities including the
Costa Rican property.
Locke wanted to sell the Costa Rican prop then apply proceeds to
their debts and divide the remainder equally to them.
- Roberts wanted the Costa Rican prop and Locke pay the debts.
- District court favored Locke but Roberts refused to sell Costa
Rican prop and instead leased it to third parties. She was then
cited for contempt.
Issue
- Did the district court have authority to order the sale of Costa
Rican prop?
Ruling
- Yes. A court of equity having personal jurisdiction may indirectly
upon that person’s extraterritorial real estate by ordering him or
her to act or to cease to act in some way over the prop.
- Otherwise, there would be ancillary divorce proceedings in every
state or foreign country where parties to a divorce owned
property. This would be inconvenient.
- Locke also failed to overcome the doctrine of processual
presumption in arguing Código Procedal Civil of Costa Rica.
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated
Facts
- Perkins - American who died in New York.
- She had shares of stock in Benguet Consolidated. County Trust
was appointed domiciliary administrator of her estate. Tayag was
ancillary administrator in the PH.
- CFI Manila ordered County Trust to produce Perkins’ stock
certificates but the company did not obey.
- CFI issued an order and considered the stock certs as lost,
cancelled, and issued new stock certs to Tayag.
Issue
- W Ph courts have authority over shares of stock held by a
domiciliary admin.
Facts
- Yes. Administration, whether principal or ancillary, extends to the
assets of the decedent found within the state or country where it
was granted.
- An admin appointed in one state has no power over the prop in
another state.
- Since the actual situs of the shares of stock is in the PH, the
corpo being domiciled here, the probate court has authority.
- Appellant Benguet is a PH corpo owing full allegiance and subject
to unrestricted jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock are
not immune. It cannot choose which court to follow.
Section 7, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
- Prohibits transfer of private lands to individuals, corpos, or assocs
who are disqualified to hold lands of public domain.
- Aims to prevent Filipinos from transferring landholdings to
foreigners.
- Allows transfer to qualified individuals thru hereditary intestate
succession.
- Allows leases of private lands to foreigners except when it is one
of sale or conveyance
Ramirez v. Vda de Ramirez
Facts
- Ramirez - Pinoy who died but left a will granting usufruct over
real prop in favor of an alien Wanda Wrobleski
Issue
- Wasas the testamentary dispositions valid?
Ruling
- No. The consti prov which enables aliens to acquire private lands
do not extend to testamentary succession.
Matthews v. Taylor
Facts
- Benjamin Taylor - British
- Joselyn Taylor - Aim High Pinay! #afamgoals
15
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- They married and purchased land in Boracay and converted it into
resort
- They broke up (ala Brangelina)
- Joselyn leased land to Matthews
- Benjamin filed pet for nullity of lease on the ground that his funds
were used for the acquisition
- RTC and CA: Favored Benjamin
Issue
- Does Benjamin has the right to nullify the lease agreement?
Ruling
- No. Prop was never conjugal and legal to begin with.
- Joselyn acquired sole ownership over the land
- No implied trust in his favor; no reimbursement can be had; no
declaration of prop as conjugal
Cheesman v. IAC
- Thomas Cheesman - American
- Criselda - Aim High Pinay!
- They got married but then separated (wtf?)
- Criselda bought land from Altares w/o objection from Thomas.
Criselda then sold prop to Estelita w/o Thomas’ consent
- Thomas later on challenged the sale on the ground that he did
not have knowledge or consent thereof
Issue
- Can Thomas question the sale between Criselda and Estelita?
Ruling
- No. Thomas has no legal personality to question the sale. He is
charged with knowledge of the constitutional prov against alien
ownership over PH lands.
- To allow his prerogative as a husband with respect to conjugal
prop is to indirectly controvert the consti prov
Llantino v. Co Liong Chong
Facts
- Llantino spouses (Pinoy) leased commercial residential land to
Chong (Chinese)
- They disagreed bec Llantino claimed the lease to be only for 13
yrs while Chong claimed it to be for 60 yrs
- Llantino sps filed action for quieting of title
Issue
- is the 60-year lease valid?
Ruling
- Yes. Even if Chong was still Chinese during execution of contract,
the lease is still valid bec there was no indication in the ccontract
that the Llantinos virtually transferred prop to Chong
- It was just a lease contract not an option to buy that is contrary
to consti
- But even if it contained option to buy, the lease is still valid if the
alien will be granted PH citizenship
Section 8, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
- Allows former natural-born citizens of the PH to be transferees of
private lands
- BP 185: max 1000 sqm for urban / one hectare for rural (used for
residential purposes)
- Amended by RA 8179 (FIA): max 5000 sqm for urban / three
hectares for rural (used for business or other purposes)
Does not apply to former natural-born citizens who reacquired
citizenship under RA 9225
Condominium Act
 Allows foreigners to own condo units
 Foreigners - up to 40% ownership only
 Filipinos - at least 60% ownership
CHAPTER VIII: MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE
What are the conflict of laws pertaining to marriage?
 Marriage celebrated abroad
 Marriage bet two citizens from different states and their
capacity to contract is governed by their national laws
What do we mean by full faith and credit?
 Marriage celebrated abroad is given full faith and credit
 So long as they do not violate our public policy or
contravene our prohibitive laws
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
 Why? Bec as a matter of comity with other nations, since all
societies value marriage as a social institution
 Societies would disintegrate if marriages were only valid in
the place of execution
US v. Jarvison
Facts
- Esther and Ben Jarvison - Navajo tribe and married accdg to
Navajo rites in 1953
- Ben was accused for sexual molestation of their granddaughter
- US Govt compels Esther to testify against Ben
- Esther refused and invoked spousal testimonial privilege
Issue
- W the Jarvisons’ marriage in traditional Navajo ceremony was
valid and that full faith and credit be accorded to such
Ruling
- Yes. Navajo Nation retains sovereign authority to regulate regular
domestic relations law then Navajo law is dispositive as to validity
of marriage in the case at bar
- Jarvisons’ failure to license or validate their 1953 trad marriage is
not fatal
- Navajo Nation Code does not require marriage license for validity
Cook v. Cook
- Alan and Peggy - first cousins who married each other in Virginia
(legal didto)
- They moved to Arizona - at that time, marriages bet first cousins
are void except if marriage is valid in the place of celebration then
it is also valid in Arizona (legal pa ila marriage)
- Arizona code was amended - marriages valid in place of execution
is also valid in Arizona except if they are void and prohibited by
Arizona laws (na-illegal na nuon)
Issue
- W the Cooks’ marriage is legal under Arizona law. YES
Ruling
- Follow Virginia law = valid marriage
- Follow Arizona law = confronted with consti issues
- Under conflict-of-law analysis, even if Virginia has the most
significant relationship to the parties at the time of marriage, we
still follow Arizona law to provide alternate construction that
would avoid consti difficulty
- Since the Cooks’ marriage prior to the 1996 amendment of
Arizona code was still valid, it was already a vested right that the
law recognized at that time
- The amendment cannot retroact and impair their vested right.
Legislature has to expressly nullify existing marriages (like this
one) but they did not
What are marriages not subject of recognition?
1. Incestuous Marriages under Art 37, Chap 3, Title 1 of Family
Code
a. Between ascendants and descendants of any
degree
b. Between brothers and sisters, whether full or half
blood
2. Void Marriages by reason of public policy under Art 38, Chap
3, Title 1 of Family Code
a. Between collateral blood relatives whether
legitimate or illegitimate up to the fourth civil
degree
b. Between step-parents and step-children
c. Between adopting parent and adopted child
d. Between surviving spouse of adopting parent and
the adopted child
e. Between surviving spouse of adopted child and
the adopter
f. Between adopted child and legitimate child of
adopter
g. Between adopted children of same adopter
h. Between parties where one, with intention to
marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse,
or his or her own spouse
3. Polygamous or Bigamous Marriages under Art 35, Chap 3,
Title 1 of Family Code
4. Same-sex marriages (in violation of the requisite that one
male and one female under Art 2, Chap 1, Title 1 of Family
Code)
Obergefell v. Hodges
Facts
16
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- Same-sex couples in the US filed suit in their district courts
against state officials responsible for enforcing state laws that
define marriage between one man and one woman in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
- They argue that such laws deny them of their right to marry or to
have their marriages, lawfully performed in another state, and
given full recognition.
- Theoretical Issue charot: #lovewins?
Issue
1. W 14th Amendment requires a state to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex. YES
2. W 14th Amendment requires a state to recognize a same sex
marriage licensed and performed in a state which grants
that right. YES
Ruling
1. Yes. Same sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded
to opposite sex couples and are barred from exercising a
fundamental right.
2. There is no lawful basis for a state to refuse recognition of a
lawful same sex marriage performed in another state.
What about civil unions?
 These unions are created by statute where rights and
obligations of parties are governed by law creating the
relationship.
 It is different from a traditional marriage relationship.
 Same sex couples cannot rely on the rights of married
couples if they governed by a civil union
Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hospital of New York
Facts
- Conrad and Langan - same sex couples in a civil union
- Conrad died and Langan sued hospital for wrongful death
- St Vincent Hosp sought to dismiss complaint on the ground that
Langan had no standing as a surviving spouse to institute present
action
Issue
- Does Langan have standing as surviving spouse to sue? NO
Ruling
- An action alleging wrongful death requires strict adherence to the
law which created it
- Special law requires that it must be a “decedent who is survived
by distributees” who may maintain an action to recover damages
for a wrongful act
- The theory of full faith and credit is inapplicable
- Obergefell case did not even invalidate this early case because it
involves different relationships (same sex unions vis-a-vis same
sex marriages)
How about divorce and public policy?
 PH values sanctity of marriage more than anything else
 Our courts are not mandated to recognize foreign judgments
that run counter to our public policy
 Phil citizens = under obligation to follow Art 15 of Civil Code
even if abroad (i.e prohibitive laws)
Tenchavez v. Escano
Facts
- Tenchaves and Escano - Pinoy and married in Cebu
- Escano went to Nevada and filed for divorce which was granted
- Escano married Moran - American
- Escano became an American herself (pak na pak)
- Tenchavez filed for legal separation and damages against Escano
in CFI Cebu
- Escano showed decree of divorce by Nevada court
Issue
- Can the divorce decree by Nevada court be recognized in PH? NO
Ruling
- Tenchavez and Escano foreva!
- Their marriage remains subsisting and undissolved under Phil law
- At the time Escano obtained divorce, she was still Filipino
- Escano can be liable for damages for refusal to perform her wifely
duties, denial of consortium, and desertion of her husband
Van Dorn v. Romillo
- Van Dorn and Upton - married in Hong Kong and divorced in
Nevada
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
Upton filed for accounting of Van Dorn’s business alleging it to be
conjugal property
- Van Dorn moved to dismiss on the ground that divorce
proceedings in Nevada bars the present case by previous
judgment
- RTC denied MTD on the ground that divorce is not recognized
here
Issue
- W divorce decree should be recognized in our jurisdiction. YES
- The Nevada divorce was arrived on the ground of incompatibility
in the understanding that there was neither comm prop nor
comm obli
- A divorced American husband may not go against the Filipina wife
for accounting of conjugal prop once the divorce decree is issued
- In view of nationality principle: they are divorced
San Luis v. San Luis
Facts
- Ex-Gov of Laguna Felicisimo San Luis died and left heirs:
 Children from first wife Virginia
 Children from second wife Merry Lee (obtained divorce
in Hawaii)
 Third wife Felicidad
- Third wife filed for letters of admin in RTC Makati.
- Children of first wife opposed on the ground that Laguna is the
place of residence at the time of death of Gov San Luis and that
Felicidad was just a mistress, kerida, kerengkeng since Gov San
Luis was still legally married to Merry Lee at that time
Issue
- W divorce obtained by Merry Lee in Hawaii can be recognized
here. YES
Ruling
- In view of the ruling in Van Dorn, the Filipino spouse should not
be discriminated against his/her own country if the ends of justice
are to be served
- Divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee absolutely
allowed Gov San Luis to remarry and thus Felicidad is vested with
legal personality to file present petition as the surviving spouse
- However, case is remanded to trial court to prove validity of
divorce decree obtained in Hawaii
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
- Pilapil - Aim High Pinay!
- Geiling - German
- Married in Germany and obtained divorce in Germany
- Geiling filed for adultery against Pilapil in RTC Manila
Issue
- Can divorced husband file for adultery against his divorced wife?
NO
Ruling
- Art 344 of RPC provides that adultery cannot be prosecuted
except upon a sworn written complaint filed by offended spouse
- Geiling is no longer an offended spouse by virtue of divorce
decree in Germany that is recognized in PH in view of nationality
principle
Roehr v. Rodriguez
Facts
- Roehr - German
- Rodriguez - Aim High Pinay!
- Married in Germany but Rodriguez filed pet for declaration of
nullity of marriage before RTC Makati
- Roehr filed MTD but was denied
- Roehr obtained divorce decree in CFI Hamburg-Blankanese which
included award of custody of children to Roehr
- Roehr filed another MTD on the ground that trial court no longer
has jurisdiction bec he already obtained divorce and the marriage
was already dissolved
- Rodriguez then moved for the case to proceed on determining
issues of custody and distribution of prop
- Roehr opposed on the ground that the divorce decree already
adjudicated on the custody matter
Issue
- W the case was correctly reopened to litigate the issues of
custody and distribution of assets despite divorce. YES
Ruling
17
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- Gen rule: Divorce decree obtained abroad by foreigners are
recognized here
- Xpn: Legal effects thereof (e.g custody, care and support of
children) must still be determined by our courts
- Rodriguez was not given opportunity to challenge German decree
which was done summarily
- Rodriguez was not represented by counsel in Germany
- Therefore, German judgment was not res judicata with regard to
custody rights
What does the law say about the right to re-marry after
divorce?
 Phil citizens whose foreign spouses have obtained divorce
abroad are capacitated to remarry under Phil laws
 Important: Divorce be (1) judicially recognized first in Phil
courts and (2) annotated in the local civil registry before Phil
national can rely on the effects of divorce
Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry
- To give effect- file a petition for correction of entry in the civil
registry
- Special proceeding under Rule 108
- Recognition of divorce and correction of entry
CORPUZ V. STO TOMAS (2010)
Facts
- Gerbert Corpuz, Canadian citizen married Daisylyn T. Sto. Tomas,
Filipina in Pasig City. He discovered that Daisylyn was having an
affair. He returned to Canada and obtained a decree of divorce
there. He filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce
decree (FDD) as dissolved with the RTC. RTC denied the petition :
“only a Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy provided by the
Article 26(2) of the FC”.
Issue
- Whether a foreigner may invoke the benefit of Aritcle(2) of the
FC. NO
Held
- Alien spouse’s status and legal capacity are generally governed by
his national law. However, the said provision does not
necessarily strip Gerbert of legal interest to petition the RTC for
recognition of his FDD. The FDD itself, after its authenticity and
conformity with the alien’s national law have been duly proven
according to our rules of evidence, serves as a presumptive
evidence of right in favor of Gerbert. In this case, copy of the
FDD was attached but failed to include copy of Canadian law on
divorce. Case remanded to RTC for further determination of
records.
Nature of Recognition of Foreign Divorce Proceedings
- proof of the appropriate laws as well as the authenticity of the
documents obtained from foreign courts and offices.
- Phil. Courts are not allowed to relitigate the issues already settled
by a foreign court (res judicata principle). Exception : patently
violate public policy or prohibitive laws.
FUJIKI V. MARINAY (2013)
Facts
- Fujiki, Japanase married Marinay, Filipina. They separated.
Marinay met another Japanese, Maekara. She suffered physical
abuse from Maekara. Marinay would like to get back to Fujiki. She
obtained a judgment from Japanese court declaring her marriage
with Maekara as void on the ground that it was a bigamous
marriage.
- Fujiki, the ex, filed a PFROFJ with RTC. RTC dismissed the
petition : only the husband or wife can file the said petition under
A.M. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages.
Issues
1. Whether A.M. 02-11-10-SC is applicable to a foreign
judgment of nullity. NO
2. Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a
PFROFJ nullifying the subsequent marriage between his/her
spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy. YES
3. Whether the RTC can recognize the FJ in a proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry
under Rule 108 of the ROC. YES
Ruling #1
- It does not apply where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign
country. Moreover, it does not also apply if the reason behind the
petition is bigamy.
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- A petition to recognize a FJ declaring a marriage void does not
require relitigation under a Phil. Court if the case as if it were a
new petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
- Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese FC judgment
in accordance with Rule 132 Secs. 24 and 25 in relation to Rule
39 Sec48(b) of the ROC.
Ruling #2
- Prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining
the integrity of the marriage he contracted and then property
relations arising from it (Substantive right).
- Bigamy, under our law, is a public crime. Thus, anyone can
initiate prosecution.
Ruling #3
- Since the recognition of a FJ only requires proof of fact of the
judgment.
- A recognition of FJ is not an action to nullify a marriage.
- Art. 26 of the FC confers jurisdiction on Phil. Courts to extend the
effect of a FDD to a Fil. Spouse w/o undergoing trial to determine
the validity of the dissolution of the marriage.
- Philippine courts will only determine (1) W the FJ is inconsistent
with an overriding public policy in the Phil. And () W any alleging
party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the FJ i.e. want
of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.
CHAPTER IX: WILLS AND SUCCESSION
Conflict of Law in Succession
- Occur especially when there is a foreign element involved.
Extrinsic Validity of Wills.
- Article 17 of the CC
- Article 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 829 of the CC
Allowance of Will Proved Outside of the Philippines
- RULE 77 OF THE ROC
- A will duly probated in a foreign country, may also be allowed in
the Philippines by the filing of a petition for its allowance.
- authenticated copy of the decree of allowance from the foreign
court be duly attached to the petition
- The will may then be enforced by the issuance of letters of
testamentary by the court.
DALTON V. GIBERSON (1952)
Facts
- Lela Dalton filed for the probate of the holographic will of William
Giberson which was executed in San Francisco, CA. William’s son,
Spring opposed on the ground that it was not executed according
to Philippine law. Lower court ruled in favor of Spring.
Issue
- Whether a probated foreign will may be reprobated in the Phil.
YES
Ruling
- The foreign will may be reprobated in the Phil. Wills proved and
allowed in a foreign country may be allowed, filed and record by
the proper court in the Philippines.
Intrinsic Validity of Will
 Intrinsic validity refers to the validity of the dispositions
made by the decedent.
 Example: certain jurisdiction provide for legitimes of
compulsory heirs. Hence , a testator is not entirely free in
disposing of his properties, as certain properties have
already been reserved under the law for compulsory heirs.
 Article 17(2)
MICIANO V. BRIMO (1927)
Facts
- Brimo, Turkish, executed a will providing that his properties shall
be disposed of in accordance with Philippine law.
Issue
- Is this stipulation valid? NO
Held
- No, because the disposition should be in accordance with national
law. (Legal basis: Article 792 and Articile 10 of the CC).
BOHANAN V. BOHANAN (1960)
Facts
18
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- Bohanan was a citizen of the US (Nevada) at the time of his
death. He distributed majority of his estate to his grandson,
brother and sister. He gave his two children only 6,000 each and
nothing to his divorced wife.
Issue
- Is the former wife and her two children entitled to their legitime?
NO
Held
- Magdalena Bohanan and testator were already divorced.
Magdalena married certain Carl Aaron and this marriage was
subsisting at the time of the death of the testator.
- No right to share in the inheritance in favor of a divorced wife
exists in the State of Nevada
- Old CC (governing law): successional rights to personal property
are to be governed by the national law of the person whose
succession is in question.
CHAPTER X: ADOPTION
- Governed by the law of the place where the adoption is made.
- Adoptions made in one jurisdiction are usually recognized in other
jurisdictions.
RAMIREZ MARCAIDA V. AGLUBAT
Facts
- Maria Garreau adopted Marcaida in Madrid Spain. The court
approved the application. The document was attempted to be
registered w/ the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, which, however,
refused to register the document.
Issue
- Is the adoption document registrable in the Philippines? YES
Held
- Private international law offers no obstacle to recognition of
foreign adoption.
- Status of adoption, once created under the proper foreign law,
will be recognized in this country, except where public policy or
the interests of its inhabitants forbid its enforcement and demand
the substitution of the lex fori (law of the place where the action
is brought).
Applicable Law at Time of Adoption
 CYWC : alien had the right to adopt
 Family Code : Aliens were not allowed to adopt in out
country. Prior to Aug.3, 1988 – considered valid. Processed
under the Child and Youth Welfare Code.
· doing business in the Philippines w/o a license to do so, hence
REPUBLIC V, MILLER (1999)
Facts
- On July 29, 1988, spouses Miller, both US citizens, adopted
Michael Madayag by filing a petition with RTC Angeles which
subsequently was granted. Solicitor General opposed.
Issue
- Are the spouses Miller entitled to adopt in the Philippines? YES
Held
- Prior to Aug.3, 1988 – considered valid. Processed under the
Child and Youth Welfare Code.
Resident or Non-resident Aliens May Adopt
- Aliens, whether resident or non-residents, are now permitted to
adopt in our jurisdiction.
Domestic and Inter-Country Adoption
Two adoption laws in the Philippines
1. RA 8552 – Domestic ADOPTION Act of 1998 (domestic)
 Allows aliens to adopt only if he/she had been living in
the Phil for 3 years.
2. RA 8043 – Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 (foreign)
 No requirement as to residency, but adoption is subject
to substantive and procedural requirements.
 ·Definition – socio-legal process of adopting a Filipino
child by a foreigner or a Filipino citizen permanently
residing abroad where the petition is filed, the
supervised trial custody is undertaken, and the decree
of adoption is issued outside the Philippines.
 Should be the last resort; domestic adoption is still
preferred.
 Salient provisions: Sections 9€, 9(g), 9(i),10, 14 and
15.
CHAPTER XI: CORPORATIONS
Conflicts Problems on Corporations
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
- Deals with law governing their administration, incorporation,
nationality and domicile.
Domestic and Foreign Corporations
o Foreign corporations – must licensed with SEC.
o Application must be accompanied with :
o Copy of its articles of incorporation and by-laws, certified in
accordance with law and their translation to an official language
in the Phil.
o Authorized resident agent
Pseudo-foreign corporations
- corporations incorporated in one state and operate in another
state. (AKA foreign corporations licensed to do business in our
jurisdiction)
CARGILL INC. V. INSTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORP. (2010)
Facts
- Cargill (foreign corporation) contracted with Northern Mindanao
Corp for the sale of molasses with insurer Intra Strata. NMC was
unable to complete delivery. RTC rendered judgment against
Intra Strata. CA reversed on the ground that Cargill did not have
the capacity to file since it is a foreign corp. doing business
without license.
Issue
- W Cargill has capacity to sue in the Philippines. YES
Held
- The rule that an unlicensed foreign corp. doing business in the
Philippines do not have the capacity to sue before the local courts
is well-established (see Sec 133 of the Corporation Code).
 Petitioner does not have an office in the Philippines;
 Petitioner imports products from the Phil through its
non-exclusive local broker; (3) Local broker is an
independent contractor and not an agent of petitioner.
- A foreign company that merely imports goods from a Philippine
exporter, without opening an office or appointing an agent in the
Philippines, is not doing business in the Philippines.
STEELCASE V. DESIGN INT. SELECTIONS INC. (2012).
Facts
- Petitioner – foreign corp. Respondent – Phil. Corp. Orally entered
into a dealership agreement. Agreement was breached and
Steelcase filed a complaint for sum of money against DISI. Lower
court dismissed the complaint on the ground that Steelcase was
cannot maintain a suit in our courts.
Issue
- W Steelcase is doing business in the Philippines. NO
Held
- The rule that an unlicensed foreign corp. doing business in the
Philippines do not have the capacity to sue before the local courts
is well-established (see Sec 133 of the Corporation Code)
- See definition of “doing business – Sec3(d) RA 7042
- Following acts shall not be deemed “doing business” (3)
Appointing a rep or distributor domiciled in the Phil. Which
transacts business in the representative’s or distributor’s own
name and account.
- DISI was an independent contractor
- By acknowledging the corporate entity of Steelcase and entering
into a dealership agreement with it and even benefiting from it,
DISI is estopped from questioning Steelcase’s existence and
capacity sue.
Residence of Corporations
- May only have one domicile but it can be a resident of several
states.
- Domicile – state of its incorporation
- Resident foreign corporation – a foreign corporation not engaged
in trade or business within the Philippines (NIRC)
State Investment House, Inc. v. Citibank
Facts
- Consolidated Mines Inc. (CMI) obtained loans from Bank of
America, Citibank, and HSBC. The three banks filed a petition for
voluntary insolvency against CMI in CFI Rizal after the latter failed
to pay. CMI was earlier sued by State Investment for collection of
money, where a writ of preliminary attachment was over CMI’s
properties was issued. After learning of the new case against
CMI, State Investment opposed on the ground that the three
banks were not resident creditors under the Insolvency Law. CFI
granted. CA reversed.
Issue
19
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
- Whether the three are residents of the Philippines. YES
Ruling
- What effectively makes such a foreign corporation a resident in
the Philippines is its actually being in the Philippines and licitly
doing business here, “locality of existence” being the necessary
element in the signification of the term resident corporation.
Offshore Banking Law
- branches, subsidiaries, affiliation, extension offices or any other
units of corporation or juridical person organized under the laws
of any foreign country operating in the Philippines shall be
considered residents of the Philippines.
The “Internal Affairs” Rule
- In most jurisdictions, “internal affairs” of the corporation should
be governed by the laws of the state of incorporation. Other
jurisdictions, however, allow their courts to apply the law of the
forum (Philippines applies this)
Sec. 129 of the Corporation Code: Philippine laws shall apply to foreign
corporations EXCEPT:
1. matters relating to the creation, formation, organization, or
dissolution of corporations; or
2. those which fix the relations, liabilities, responsibilities, or
duties of stockholders, members, or officers of corporations
to each other or to the corporation.
Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co.
Facts
- Rogers owns stocks of the American Tobacco Company (ATC).
ATC is organized under the laws of New Jersey, and maintains its
principal office and registered office there. It is also authorized by
the laws of New York and other states to do and carry on
business.
- The board of ATC adopted resolutions which reduced the par
value of shares and doubled the number thereof, as well and the
issue and sale of stocks to employees. Rogers filed suit before a
New York district court questioning the same.
- ATC moved to dismiss because it is an attempt to regulate the
internal affairs of a corporation foreign to New York.
Issue
- Whether New Jersey or New York law should apply
Ruling
- New Jersey. By acquisition of stock, shareholders implicitly agree
that, in respect of its internal affairs, the company is governed by
the laws of the state in which it was organized. It has long been
settled that a court sitting in one states will, as a general rule,
decline to interfere with the management of a corporation
organized under the laws of another state.
- There is no definite rule of general application to determine when
a court will assume jurisdiction over the internal affairs of foreign
corporations, but jurisdiction will be declined whenever
considerations of convenience, efficiency, and justice point to the
courts of the state of the domicile as appropriate tribunals in a
particular case.
Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Sobieski
Facts
- Western is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in California. Its board wanted to eliminate cumulative
voting for directors, and began proceedings to amend the
certificate of incorporation in compliance with Delaware laws. The
Commissioner of Corporations of California advised them that the
amendment would constitute a “sale” of securities, so they should
get a permit to engage in the solicitation of proxies pursuant to
California law. Western applied for a permit but was denied by
the Commissioner because “the fiction of Delaware residence
should yield to the totality of California contracts”.
Issue
- Whether California or Delaware law should apply to the sale of
securities
Ruling
- California law. Western complains that the commissioner has
created a new class of foreign corporation called a “pseudo-
foreign corporation”, but he merely named a class which has, in
effect, existed for many years. It is one with its technical domicile
outside of this state, but which exercises most of its corporate
vitality within this state. Considering the complexity of present-
day corporate structure and the far-flung area of corporate
activities, the commissioner has the discretion to appraise the
fairness of corporate structures of foreign corporations within
reasonable limits. To hold otherwise would enable a foreign
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
corporation to destroy the rights which the State of California has
deemed worthy of protection.
Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Johnson
Facts
- The court previously held that a growing minority of jurisdictions
recognize the existence of fiduciary relationships inuring from the
officers or directors or majority stockholders to the individual or
minority stockholders, particularly concerning the purchase of
stock from a shareholder.
Issue
- What law should determine this relationship, the law of
incorporation or the law of domicile?
Ruling
- The law of domicile. A number of cases have held that the
conflict-of-laws rules of the forum require the court to refer to the
state of incorporation to determine the extent and nature of
relationship between corporation and stockholder, while the law
of the place of the wrong determines the quantum of the breach
of duty.
- However, these decisions are inapplicable where the only contact
point with the incorporating state is the naked fact of
incorporation, and all other contact points (residence of parties,
place of principal business, situs of property, etc.) are found in
another jurisdiction. Thus, when the situation is such as here,
where neither the charter nor the laws of the incorporating state
are applicable, and all other contact points are in the forum, the
laws of the forum should govern.
State of Incorporation
- By incorporating in a particular state, a corporation agrees that
the laws of that state shall govern the internal affairs of the
corporation.
- Internal affairs generally refers to matters relating to the
governance of the corporation, as well as rights and
responsibilities of officers and stockholders. The law of the state
of incorporation applies in case there is an intra-corporate dispute
among stockholders, even if the corporation operates in another
state or foreign countries.
Benefits: lower cost of incorporation, simpler incorporation
procedure, favorable tax rate
Domicile of Corporations
- Corporations have the domicile of juridical persons.
Art. 51 CC: “when the law creating or recognizing them, or any
other provision does not fix the domicile of legal persons, the
same shall be understood to be the place where their legal
representation is established or where they exercise their
principal functions”.
- The domicile of corporations is the place where they have their
principal place of business as stated in the articles of
incorporation. Once fixed in the articles, it becomes the
determining factor for the venue for personal actions. Even if the
corporation has several places of business, it can only have one
principal place of business, which is that stated in the articles of
incorporation.
Hyatt Elevators v. Goldstar Elevators
Facts
- The parties are domestic corporations engaged in the installation,
sale, and distribution of escalators and elevators. Hyatt filed a
complaint for unfair trade practices and damages against LG in
the RTC of Mandaluyong, and impleaded Goldstar. Goldstar
moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue (neither Hyatt
nor the defendants reside in Mandaluyong). RTC denied. CA
reversed and dismissed the case for improper venue.
Issue
- Whether venue was properly laid in Mandaluyong. NO
Ruling
- Sec. 2, Rule 4 of the RoC states that the venue of personal
actions is the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the
defendant resides, or in the case of a non-resident where he may
be found, at the election of the plaintiff. It has been definitively
settled that for purposes of venue, “residence” is synonymous
with “domicile”. The principal place of business of a corporation
determines its residence or domicile, thus the place indicated in
the articles of incorporation is controlling in determining the
venue.
- The requirement to state the principal place of business is not a
meaningless requirement. That proviso would be rendered
nugatory if corporations were allowed to simply disregard what is
expressly stated in the articles of incorporation. The bare
allegations of Hyatt that it closed its Makati office and relocated
20
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
to Mandaluyong is inconclusive, as the fact remains that, in law,
its residence is still the place indicated in the articles of
incorporation. The principle of choosing venue is not left to a
plaintiff’ s caprice; it is regulated by the Rules of Court. To allow
Hyatt’s position would be to create confusion and untold
inconveniences to party litigants.
Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon
Facts
- New Cagayan Grocery (Necagro) sent a telegram through
Clavecilla Radio System with the following message: “REURTEL
WASHED NOT AVAILABLE”
- However, when the message was sent, the word “not” was
omitted, which completely changed the meaning. Necagro filed a
complaint against Clavecilla with the MTC of Cagayan de Oro City.
Clavecilla moved to dismiss on the ground of improper venue,
MTC denied. Clavecilla filed a motion for prohibition in the CFI,
but this was also dismissed.
Issue
- Whether venue was properly laid in CDO. NO
Ruling
- the proper venue is Manila. Settled is the principle in corporation
law that the residence of a corporation is the place where its
principal office is established. Necagro maintains that venue is
also properly laid in CDO on the principle that Clavecilla may be
served with summons in that city where it maintains a branch
office.
- But as any other corporation, Clavecilla maintains a residence in
Manila in this case, and a person can only have one residence at
a time. That fact that it maintains branch offices does not mean
that it can be sued in those places. To allow an action to be
instituted in any place where a corporate entity has its branch
offices would create confusion and work untold inconvenience to
the corporation.
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated
Facts
- Idonah Slade Perkins died in New York and left stock certificates
evidencing 33,002 shares in Benguet Consolidated. County Trust
(New York) was appointed the domiciliary administrator of the
estate, while Tayag was designated the ancillary administrator in
the Philippines.
- The CFI ordered Country Trust to produce the stock certificates,
but it did not obey the order. Upon petition by Tayag, the CFI
issued an order considering as lost the stock certificates,
canceling the same, and directing the issuance of new stock
certificates and their delivery to Tayag.
Issue
- Whether Philippine courts have power and authority over shares
of stock held by a domiciliary administrator. YES
Ruling
- It is a general rule that administration, whether principal or
ancillary, certainly extends to the assets of a decedent found
within the state or country where it was granted, the corollary
being that an administrator appointed in one state or country has
no power over property in another state or country.
- It would follow that the authority of the probate court to require
that Tayag’s right to the stock certificates be respected is equally
without question. For Benguet Corporation is a Philippine
corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted
jurisdiction of local courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be
considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders. A
corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law. It
owes its life to the state, its birth being purely dependent on its
will.
- To assert that it can choose which court order to follow and
which to disregard is to confer upon it not autonomy which it may
be conceded, but license which cannot be tolerated. It is to argue
that it may, when so minded, overrule the state, the source of its
very existence; it is to contend that what any of its governmental
organs may lawfully require could be ignored at will. So
extravagant a claim cannot possible merit approval.
Nationality of Corporations
- The nationality is relevant in determining compliance with laws
prescribing minimum ownership requirements by Filipinos. The
Constitution limits ownership of certain business and industries to
protect the national economy and patrimony. These industries
and business are usually referred to as “nationalized industries”.
Tests of Corporate Nationality
2 approaches in determining the nationality: the control test and the
grandfather rule.
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
1. The control test – when shares belonging to corporations or
partnerships at least 60% of the capital of which is owned
by Filipino citizens, the corporation shall be considered of
Philippine nationality. It is the more widely-used approach.
The fact of the matter is that the grandfather rule is only
used when the entity involved is engaged in a nationalized
activity, or an activity prescribed by the Consti with a certain
percentage of the ownership belonging to Filipinos.
2. Grandfather rule – if the percentage of Filipino ownership in
the corporation or partnership is less than 60%, only the
number of shares corresponding to such percentage shall be
counted as of Philippine nationality.
Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. Redmont
Consolidated Mines Corporation
Facts
- Redmond was interested in mining activities in Palawan. It found
suitable areas, but these were already the subject of applications
for MPSA by Narra, Tesoro Mining, and McArthur Mining.
Redmond filed petitions for the denial of the same, on the ground
that the applicants are disqualified from engaging in mining since
their capital stocks were mostly owned by MBMI, a 100% foreign-
owned company.
Issue
- Whether the grandfather rule is the correct approach in
determining the nationality of Narra et. al. YES
Ruling
- Under the grandfather rule, they are considered foreign
corporations. It is the intention of the framers of the Constitution
to apply the grandfather rule in cases where corporate layering is
present. Based on SEC Rules and DOJ Opinions, the Grandfather
Rule applies only when the 60-40 Filipino-foreign equity
ownership is in doubt.
- Stated differently, where the same is not in doubt, the
Grandfather Rule will not apply. In this case, doubt is present as
the common investor in Narra et. al., the 100% foreign owned
MBMI, funded them. In ending, the control test is still the
prevailing mode of determination. But when in the mind of the
court there is doubt based on attendant facts and circumstances,
then it may apply the grandfather rule.
Controlling Doctrine: Control Test
- The general rule is to apply the control test. The grandfather rule
has not been totally abandoned, but only applies when there is
doubt as to the 60-40 equity ownership.
Capital Refers to Common Shares
- Only these shares have voting power. Since they dictate and
control the direction of the corporation, only they should be
counted in arriving at the controlling interest of Filipinos and
foreigners for purposes of complying with the nationality
requirements of the Constitution.
GAMBOA V. TEVES
Facts
- Wilson Gamboa contends that the sale by the government of
46.125% of PTIC shares to First Pacific increased the latter’s
holdings in PLDT from 30.7% to 37%, thus increasing the
common shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to 81.47%. He
contends that this violates the Constitutional limitation of foreign
ownership in a public utility.
Issues
1. Whether the sale violated the foreign ownership limit and
whether the term “capital” refers only to total common
shares
Ruling
- Yes to both. The term “capital” refers only to shares of stock that
can vote in the election of directors. It refers to a controlling
interest. The 60-40 requirement is not complied with unless the
corporation “satisfies the criterion of beneficial ownership” and
that in applying the same “the primordial consideration is situs of
control.”
- The Foreign Investments Act clearly and unequivocally defines a
Philippine national as a Philippine citizen, or a domestic
corporation at least 60% of the capital stock outstanding and
entitled to vote is owned by Philippine citizens. For stocks to be
deemed owned and held by Philippine citizens, mere legal title is
not enough. Full beneficial ownership of stocks, coupled with
appropriate voting rights, is essential.
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013
- This was issued after the Gamboa decision attained finality. The
guideline provided by the SEC in determining corporate
21
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
nationality is that the required percentage of Filipino ownership
shall be applied to BOTH:
(1) total number of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote;
AND
(2) total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not
entitled to vote.
Did SEC violate Gamboa, which was pretty clear that only
common shares should be included in the computation?
- The circular was probably based on an obiter in the Gamboa
case: “in short, the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of
Filipino citizens must apply separately to each class of shares,
whether common, preferred non-voting, preferred voting, or any
other class of shares.”
- In terms of substance and objective, the circular appears to be
stricter since it provides for two layers of examination: common
shares only and outstanding capital stock (composed of both
common and preferred shares). Whether the SEC is correct or
wrong will only be known after the Supreme Court decides on the
validity of the circular. In the meantime, it should still be the law
on the matter.
CHAPTER XII: TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION
The Problem of Pollution
- cuts across national boundaries; may originate in one place and
travel to the territorial boundaries of another state
- e.g. haze in one country in SEA could travel to adjoining
countries; thus it will require a joint or concerted effort among
affected countries
- could also provide a private cause of action for affected people
and entities, necessitating the need for determining applicable
lawfully
Climate Change
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCC): climate change is a change of climate that is attributed
directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition
of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): climate
change is any change in climate over time, whether due to
natural variability or human activity.
- From a conflict of laws perspective, climate change litigation is a
very difficult problem to resolve. For conflicts involving the
citizens of different countries, private international law comes into
play (e.g. a citizen of a country devastated by a storm sues an oil
company in another country).
- Environmental laws are entitled to a more liberal interpretation
for them to work.
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.
Facts
- The State of Georgia sued Tennessee Copper et. al.. to enjoin
them from discharging noxious gases to its territory. George
alleged that the discharge damaged the vegetation in its territory
Issue
- Whether Georgia is entitled to injunction? YES.
Ruling
- It is a fair and reasonable demand on the part of a sovereign that
the air over its territory should not be polluted on a great scale by
sulfurous acid gas, that the forests on its mountains should not
be further destroyed or threatened by the act of persons beyond
its control.
Approaches to Transboundary Pollution
1. Governmental interest analysis – courts compare the
laws and interests of two states, determine if there is a real
conflict, and if a real conflict exists, apply the law of the
state whose interest is more impaired.
2. Lex loci delicti – application of the law of the place where
the damage is suffered or inflicted. Pakootas case: so long
as there is a domestic connection with the act that was
performed or being performed, the same is no longer an
extraterritorial application of domestic law; there is now a
link that allows domestic law to regulate a polluting activity
which is coming from outside the border.
3. Most significant relationship approach – examination is
made as to the state which has the most connection to a
case. Points of contact are:
a. where the injury occurred;
b. where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
c. domicile, residence, nationality, etc. of the parties;
and
d. where the relationship, if any, between the parties
is centered.
Nnadili v. Chevron USA
Facts
- Plaintiffs are the current owners/residents of a Riggs Park
neighborhood in Washington DC. They sued Chevron for having
operated a gasoline station in Maryland, near the border of
Washington DC. The gas station’s operation contaminated the air,
soil, and groundwater.
Issue
- Whether Maryland law or District of Columbia applies
Ruling
- District of Columbia law. Federal courts apply the choice-of-law
rules of the jurisdiction in which they sit. DC adopted the
“substantial interest” approach. DC has a greater interest in the
outcome of litigation, as all of the contamination occurred in DC,
all the injuries were sustained in DC, and the overwhelming
majority of plaintiffs reside in DC.
CHAPTER XIII: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Conflict in Intellectual Property Rights
- problem arises when foreign laws differ from domestic laws on
intellectual property (e.g. registrability inn patents law varies from
one country to another).
Intellectual Property Code and International Conventions
- Sec. 3 of Intellectual Property Code speaks of the national
treatment. Nationality treatment is the grant of reciprocal rights
to citizens of states who are signatories to international
conventions. This treatment bars the extraterritorial application of
foreign copyright laws for it mandates the application of local
laws for the equal treatment of the rights of foreigners. This
concept, however, does not resolve conflict of law issues. It
simply mandates that the same treatment be given to nationals of
contracting parties to international conventions.
Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp
Facts
- Bridgman sued Corel for an infringement of its copyright over
certain photographic transparencies of well-known works of art.
Issue
- Whether the Copyright Act or the Berne Convention is the source
of plaintiff’s claim to copyrightability of its works
Ruling
- Copyright Act is the source. In most circumstances, choice of law
issues do not arise under the Berne and Universal Copyright
Conventions. Each adopts a rule of national treatment. Although
the Supreme Court has not yet decided the point, it seems quite
clear that the Berne Convention is not self-executing. Thus, while
the Copyright Act, as amended by the convention, extends certain
protection to the holders of copyright in Berne Convention works
as there defined, the Copyright Act is the exclusive source of that
protection.
Approaches to IP Conflicts of Law
1. Territorial approach – laws have no extraterritorial
application.
2. Most significant relationship – laws of the state which
has the most connection
3. Lex loci delicti – law of the place of injury
4. Public Policy Exception – when the application of a
foreign law conflicts with an established policy of the forum,
the foreign law may not be applied as being anathema to
public policy.
CHAPTER XIV:
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
Effect of Foreign Judgments
- recognized and allowed in our jurisdiction as a matter of comity
- full faith and credit so long as not contrary to public policy or
prohibitive laws
Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the RoC governs:
“Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having
jurisdiction to render the judgment or final order is as follows:
22
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
a. In case of a judgment or final order upon a
specific thing, the judgment or final order, is
conclusive upon the title to the thing, and
b. In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and
their successors in interest by a subsequent title.
- In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.”
Res Judicata Effect of Foreign Judgment
- Generally, a foreign judgment is entitled to respect and
recognition by our courts.
Fujiki v. Marinay
Facts
- Fujiki, a Japanese national, married Philippine national Marinay.
- They eventually separated. Marinay met another Japanese
national, Maekara, and married him. She was abused by him, so
she re-established her relationship with Fujiki. Marinay later
obtained judgment from a Japanese court declaring her marriage
with Maekara void for being bigamous
- Fujiki then filed a petition for recognition of foreign judgment in
the RTC. RTC dismissed on the ground that only the husband or
wife can file a petition for recognition
Issues
1. Is a Philippine court authorized to relitigate the issues
already decided by a foreign court? NO
2. Whether a foreign decree of absolute nullity of marriage is
against Philippine public policy? NO
Ruling #1
- For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to
the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a
foreign country, the petitioner needs only to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court. To litigate anew will
defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is to
limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues.
Ruling #2
- While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family
Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as
bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning. In the
recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts will only
determine whether the judgment is inconsistent with an
overriding public policy in the Philippines, and whether any
alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the
foreign judgment (e.g. want of jurisdiction, collusion, etc.). If
there is neither, Philippine courts should by default recognize the
foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations.
When Foreign Judgment May Be Repelled
Sec. 48, Rule 39 RoC:
(1) want of jurisdiction;
(2) want of notice to the party;
(3) collusion;
(4) fraud; or
(5) clear mistake of law or fact.
Roehr v. Rodriguez
Facts
- Wolfgang Roehr, a German, married Carmen Rodriguez, a
Filipina. Thereafter, Carmen filed a petition for nullity of marriage
in the RTC. Wolfgang moved to dismiss, but was denied. In the
meantime, he managed to obtain a divorce decree from the CFI
of Hamburg-Blankenese. The decree included the award of
custody of their children to him. He again moved to dismiss the
case in the RTC, and this time it was granted
- Carmen moved to reconsider, and Wolfgang opposed on the
ground that there is nothing to be done anymore as the marriage
had been dissolved by the decree of divorce. RTC granted partial
motion for reconsideration
Issue
- Whether the RTC was correct in reopening the case to litigate the
issues of custody and distribution of assets despite the divorce.
YES
Ruling
- As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects
thereof, e.g. custody, care, and support of the children, must still
be determined by our courts. It is essential that there should be
an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
court to properly determine its efficacy. The RoC provides that
with respect to actions in personam, a foreign judgment is merely
prima facie evidence, and is subject to proof to the contrary. In
this case, it cannot be said that Carmen was given the
opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so
there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with
regard to parental custody. The decree did not touch on the issue
as to who the offending spouse was.
St. Aviation Services v. Grand International Airways
Facts
- St. Aviation entered into maintenance agreements with Grand
International. Grand International failed to pay, so a suit was filed
in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore for collection.
- The Singaporean court issued a writ of summons to be served
extraterritorially in the Philippines. The sheriff effected service,
but no answer to the complaint was given.
- Thus, the Singapore court rendered a judgment in default. Then,
the judgment was sought to be enforced in the Philippines. Grand
International sought to dismiss on the grounds that the Singapore
court had no jurisdiction over its person and that the foreign
judgment violated its right to due process.
Issues
1. Whether the Singapore court acquired jurisdiction by the
service of summons. YES
2. whether the judgment by default is enforceable. YES
Ruling
- Generally, matters of remedy and procedure such as those
relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed
by the internal law of the forum, which in this case is the law of
Singapore.
- The service was in accordance with Singapore law, which
provides that service may be served by a method of service
authorized by the law of the foreign country.
- In this case, summons was served by the sheriff upon Grand
International at its office, and the records show that it was
received by the Secretary of the General Manager. Considering
that the writ was served upon it in accordance with our Rules,
jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore High Court.
Local Courts Not a Refuge for Failed Business Dealings
- so long as a party was given an opportunity to be heard, the
foreign court’s judgment may be enforced in our jurisdiction
- the acts of a party freely and voluntarily undertaken in a foreign
jurisdiction will have the same effect as estoppel
- local courts are not a venue for sour-graping of those who failed
to comply with their undertakings in other jurisdictions
Philippine Aluminum Wheels Inc. v. FASGI Enterprises
Facts
- FASGI, a California corporation, entered into an agreement with
PAWI, a Philippine corporation for the importation and
distributorship of aluminum wheels. PAWI shipped wheels worth
USD 216,444.30, and FASGI promptly paid.
- However, some items were later discovered to be defective.
- Thus, FASGI sued PAWI for breach of contract in the US district
court. They entered into a settlement agreement, but this was
violated by PAWI. FASGI filed again in US courts to enforce their
claim, and another settlement was entered into, with Counsel
Thomas Ready representing PAWI.
- PAWI again violated the agreement, and finality of judgment was
issued. FASGI then filed a petition for enforcement of judgment in
the RTC Makati. It was dismissed on the grounds of collusion,
fraud, and clear mistake of law and fact
Issue
- Whether the decision of the California court may be enforced in
the Philippines. YES
Ruling
- In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment rendered by a foreign
tribunal may be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and
the underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a full
and fair hearing before a court of competent jurisdiction.
- PAWI claims that its legal counsel, Mr. Ready, acted without its
authority. But the record shows that PAWI in fact sent a letter to
FASGI more than a year after the execution of the agreement
confirming the terms thereof. It is an accepted rule that when a
client, upon becoming aware of the compromise and the
judgment thereon, fails to promptly repudiate the action of his
attorney, he will not afterward be heard to complain about it.
- PAWI cannot, by this petition for review, seek refuge over a
business dealing and decision gone awry.
Proof of Foreign Law
23
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra

- local courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and

laws
- they must be properly proved; without such, processual
presumption takes place

Foreign laws and public documents may be proved by either:

1. Official publication; or
2. Copy of the public document attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record. If the record is kept
overseas, the copy must include a certificate that the officer
has the custody and the certificate must be properly
authenticated by the seal of the office of the certifying
officer. (usually issued by consul or vice consul of the
Philippine Embassy stationed overseas).

The attestation by the officer having legal custody basically states

“that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be.”

24
Reviewer for Conflicts of Law Recitations
Awing, J. Dela Cerna, N. Galarrita, N. Gaid, J. Lanzaderas, A. Maandig, S. Munder-Gandamra
RECITATION QUESTIONS
FIRST MEETING
1. Why do we study Conflicts of Law? Is it still relevant?
Because of technology, the world is getting smaller.
2. What is the relevance of foreign element?
3. Which branch of government, aside from the
judiciary, applies private international law? The
executive has quasi-judicial agencies.
4. What is the objective of private international law? To
harmonize conflicting rules, determine which law should be
applied, resolve a dispute
5. Differentiate public international law and private
international law.
6. When does a case qualify as a conflicts problem?
When there is a foreign element.
7. What are the other elements of conflicts of law? (See
Salonga)
8. What are the phases in a conflicts of law problem?
Jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement.
9. Hasegawa v. Kitamura
10. Which legal system should be applied in determining
jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is conferred by law; law of forum
applies.
11. May a defense under choice of law be used as a
defense in jurisdiction?
12. Is it automatic that a court with jurisdiction is an
adequate forum?
13. Can a court be compelled by mandamus to assert
jurisdiction over case?
14. What is the important process that a court follows
after assuming jurisdiction? Characterization, or defining
the legal category.
JULY 2, 2018
1. What are the steps in characterization?
2. What is a conflicts rule?
3. What are instances where the court may desist(?)
4. Discuss forum non conveniens.
5. Abdullah v. Pfizer
6. Differentiate single and multiple parallel jurisdiction.
In single, both are in the Philippines. In multiple, one is in
the Philippines while the other is in a foreign country.
7. What is the legal basis for raising forum non
conveniens? Jurisprudence, comity, judicial efficiency
(recognition that another forum can be better), avoiding
possibly awkward situation
8. When shall forum non conveniens be raised? At the
earliest possible time.
9. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio et. al.
JULY 16, 2018
1. Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio et. al. No basis
that more convenient elsewhere; no indication that
complaint was filed to vex, inconvenience, or engage in
forum shopping; no indication of unwillingness to extend
local judicial facilities; cannot be said that local judicial
machinery is inadequate.
2. Manila Hotel Corp. v. NLRC Case transpired in 2 foreign
jurisdictions; involved purely foreign elements. NLRC was in
no position to determine the laws, determine the facts, or
enforce the judgment.
3. Are laws generally territorial? Yes. There is a
presumption against extraterritoriality.
4. What is meant by ex-territoriality(?) of the law?
5. When can there be extraterritorial application? When
it is expressly provided, or where there is legislative intent
for extraterritorial application.
6. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. ATS only applies to
human rights violations committed by aliens within the
United States.
7. What are the principles governing choice of law? See
Section 6 of the US Restatement (Second) of Laws (p. 34)
8. What is the problem of renvoi? Accept directive of
foreign law to end renvoi.
9. Aznar v. Garcia
Xavier University College of Law (2018-2019)
10. In what particular circumstances does renvoi arise?
Lex rei sitae(?), party is national of one country but
domiciled in another.
11. Bellis v. Bellis
12. What are the needs of the interstate and
international systems?
13. Cadalin et. al. v. POEA
14. Bank of America NT &Asia v. American Realty
Corporation
15. Dacasin v. Dacasin
16. What is government interest analysis?
17. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney
JULY 23, 2018
1. Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC
2. Does government interest analysis apply in the
Philippine setting?
3. What is the principle of protection of justified
expectations?
4. Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT
5. What is the three step process in Hancock v. Watson?
6. If the conflicting rules are procedural, what will the
court do?
7. Why do we need to classify the substantive area of
law?
8. Under which principle are stare decisis and res
judicata relevant?
9. Differentiate Principle 7 and Principle 8.
10. Can we take judicial notice of a foreign law?
11. What is processual presumption? How is it applied in
Wildvalley Shipping v. CA?
12. How do you prove a foreign law?
13. What is the purpose of the formalities behind Sec. 24
and Sec. 25? It is not a mere technicality, but is intended
to justify the giving of full faith and credit to the
genuineness of a document in a foreign country. (Wildvalley
case)
14. How is a foreign law pleaded? If there is an allegation in
the pleading about the existence of the foreign law, its
import and legal consequences on the event or transaction
in issue. (Wildvalley case)
15. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Guerrero
16. Edi-staff Builders International v. NLRC
17. When is there a waiver of the requirement that a
foreign law must be proved? When there is no objection
when the foreign law is presented. (court MAY admit, but it
should still be properly proved)
18. What are exceptions to proof of foreign laws?
19. How do you prove that it is the official website?
20. Norse Management Co. v. National Seamen Board
21. What is Scrivener’s Error? What will the court do?
22. HSBC v. Sherman et. al.
23. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
24. What are exceptions to the application of foreign
law? See Paras (p. 42)
25. What is the legal basis for the public policy
exception? Article 17, NCC (MEMORIZE)
25