CONFLICT OF LAWS

Atty. Nick Gumabun

Pedro, a Filipino, intends to marry Bea, an American. They decided to celebrate their marriage in China.
Here, it involves several issues and concerns to be resolved. Among others, they need to resolve what
will be the governing law, in so far as the marriage of Pedro and Bea. Would the Philippine law apply?
US law? China law?

Based on the facts, there is a concurrent operation of two opposing laws. It may also involve the laws of
China on marriage. Should we subscribe to the rule of nationality, in so far as Philippine law? Or the
applicable law in so far as Bea, under the US law? Or should we apply the concept of lex celebrationis
(place of solemnization).

Thus, there is a concurrent operation of several conflicting laws on a particular set of facts.

It is said that conflict of laws is sometimes referred to private international law, others refer it as the law
of foreigners, others refer it as law of strangers while others refer it as extra territorial application of
law.

Why is it more applicable to refer it as CONFLICT OF LAWS?

It is a municipal law. – the inclusion of the word “international” is only to emphasize the
presence of a foreign element; there can never be conflict of laws without the presence of a
foreign element.

Definition under the Civil Code

- A department of national law which arises from the fact that there are different territorial
jurisdiction possessing different municipal laws.

Definition under the Black’s Law Dictionary

- It signifies laws of different countries on the subject matter to be decided are in opposition of
each other, or that certain laws of the same country are contradictory.
- Thus, conflict of laws is not limited to different states, there could also be conflict of laws within
the territorial jurisdiction if it consists of several sub-political divisions.
Ex. US is one territorial jurisdiction but has several states. Here, there could be a possibility that
a law on that certain subject matter is different from Texas and that of Alabama.

Definition of Paras

- A part of municipal laws of a state which direct its courts and administrative agencies when
confronted with a legal problem involving foreign element whether they should apply foreign
law/s.

4 elements:

1. Conflict of laws is part of municipal law – each state has domestic or local law; it follows that
each state has its own conflict of laws.
 2. There is a directive to courts and other administrative agencies to decide on conflicting claims
– courts and administrative agencies are mandated to resolve or decide upon conflicting claims
submitted by the parties.
3. A conflict of laws always involves foreign element – conflict of laws is not proper without the
existence of a foreign element.
4. There is either an application or non-application of a foreign law.

Why do we need to study?

1. For us to adjust conflicting rights in international mercantile and corporate transaction and
resolution of conflicting claims in international mercantile and corporate transaction.
e.g., A, Filipino, and B, Chinese entered into a commercial transaction. They entered a particular
agreement that will be executed in Japan. If there will be a problem, which law should govern?
2. To solve personal, family, property, successional, contractual problems possessed of facts or
elements operating in two or more states.

NOTE: The main reason for conflict problems is variation in laws. It is a variation in the
municipal laws of the countries involved. There is multiplicity of government which separates
legal systems. It may also arise when a single state, having territorial subdivision, each of which
has its own internal or local legislation.

Functions of Conflict of Laws:

1. There must be determination of jurisdiction. It is a determination of which country has

jurisdiction. WHERE CAN THE LITIGATION BE INITIATED?
2. It’s a determination or the applicability to a particular case of either local or foreign law.
(QUESTION OF CHOICE OF LAW)
3. A determination of the force, validity and effectiveness of foreign judgment. (APPLICABILITY
OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT) – Normally, a foreign judgment is determined by the location of the
party against whom execution is to be performed.

Sources of Conflict of Laws

- May be classified into direct or indirect sources.

- Constitution (e.g. Article 4, Constitution), Civil Code, special laws, treaties and conventions (e.g.
Geneva Convention, Arbitration, Arbitral Award), Judicial decisions, International customs,
international principles (e.g. lex situs, lex loci celebrationis, lex nationalii, lex domicilii), the work
of writers and natural and moral law.

READ CASES:

1. KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA and NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CO., LTD. vs. MINORU
KITAMURA, GR No 149177, November 2007

FACTS:
Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines was contracted by
Hasegawa and Nippon Engineering Consultants to work as project manager for the Southern
 Tagalog Access Road (STAR) Project in the Philippines, following Nippon's consultancy contract
with the Philippine Government for a year starting April 1, 1999. When the STAR Project was
nearly completed, the DPWH engaged the services of Nippon for Bongabon-Baler Road
Improvement (BBRI) Project. Kitamura was named as the Project Manager.

However, Hasegawa as General Manager for Nippon, informed Kitamura that the company has
no intention of renewing his Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA). After several failed
negotiations to be reinstated as the Project Manager for BBRI Project and threatened with
unemployment, Kitamura filed before RTC of Lipa City an action for specific performance and
damages.

Petitioner, Hasegawa, contended that the ICA had been perfected and executed in Japan and
between Japanese nationals, thus, petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. They asserted that pre-termination of Kitamura’s ICA could only be heard and
ventilated in the proper courts of Japan following the principles of lex loci celebrationis and lex
contractus.

The RTC denied the motion to dismiss invoking matters connected with the performance of
contracts are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance and subsequently
denied their Motion for Reconsideration.

The CA first dismissed their appeal due to procedural grounds and accepted their second
petition by submitting the proper papers. The CA ruled that the principle of lex loci celebrationis
was not applicable to the case, because nowhere in the pleadings was the validity of the written
agreement put in issue and affirmed RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether RTC was proper in assuming jurisdiction of the case although petitioners assailed
principles in conflict of laws.

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

In the instant case, petitioners, in their motion to dismiss, do not claim that the trial court is not
properly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear the subject controversy for, indeed, Civil Case
No. 00-0264 for specific performance and damages is one not capable of pecuniary estimation
and is properly cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.

Nature of action filed – complaint for specific performance with damages before the RTC of Lipa
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; there are foreign
elements (1. parties are Japanese national and 2. the contract has been perfected in Japan)
- Procedural issue: 2 petitions for certiorari may be filled as long as the dismissal is without
prejudice
- Substantive issue: In relation to conflict of laws, the Supreme Court mentioned the three phases
in the resolution of conflict of laws problems (jurisdiction, choice of law and the applicability of
the judgment).

The problem in the case is the difference between jurisdiction and choice of law. We cannot
push through with the choice of law unless jurisdiction has been established. There is no law
to apply without knowing that a certain court has jurisdiction.

“Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair
to cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether the
application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to both
parties.”

Choice of law has no application in the case not unless a full-blown trial will be held. The RTC of
Lipa has jurisdiction

2. RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs. STOCKTON W. ROUZIE, JR., GR No. 162894, February
2008
Facts:

Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a corporation duly organized & existing under the laws of
Connecticut, & Respondent Stockton Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered into a contract.

BMSI hired Rouzie as its representative to negotiate the sale of services in several government
projects in the Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross receipts. Rouzie
secured a service contract with the Republic of the Philippines on behalf of BMSI for the
dredging of rivers affected by the Mt.Pinatubo eruption and mudflows.

Rouzie filed before the NLRC a suit against BMSI and Rust International (Rust) for alleged
nonpayment of commissions, illegal termination, & breach of employment contract. The Labor
Arbiter rendered judgment ordering BMSI and RUST to pay respondent’s money claims. Upon
appeal by BMSI, the NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed respondent’s
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Rouzie filed an action for damages before the RTC of La Union (where he was a resident) against
Raytheon International. He reiterated that he was not paid the commissions due him from the
Pinatubo dredging project w/c he secured on behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred that
BMSI, RUST and Raytheon had combined & functioned as 1 company.

Raytheon sought the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of failure to state a cause of
action & forum non conveniens & prayed for damages by way of compulsory counterclaim. The
RTC denied Raytheon’s motion. The CA affirmed.

ISSUES:
a. Whether the RTC has jurisdiction – YES
b. Whether the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens – NO
 RULING:
a. YES. On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflict-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a
Philippine court and where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties
and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws or the
convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign
prerogative of the country where the case is filed.

Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred by the Constitution
and the law & by the material allegations in the complaint, irrespective of w/n the plaintiff is
entitled to recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. The case filed was an
action for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. Undoubtedly, the nature of
the action and the amount of damages prayed are w/in the jurisdiction of the RTC. As
regards to jurisdiction over the parties, the RTC acquired jurisdiction over Rouzi upon the
filing of the complaint. On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of Raytheon was
acquired by its voluntary appearance in court.

Jurisdiction & choice of law are 2 distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers whether it is fair to
cause a defendant to travel to this state; choice of law asks the further question whether
the application of a substantive law which will determine the merits of the case is fair to
both parties. The choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive
issues of the instant case develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the
trial court.
b. No. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in conflict-of-laws cases, may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available
forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Raytheon’s
averments of the foreign elements are not sufficient to oust the RTC of its jurisdiction over
the case and the parties involved.

Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the principle of forum non
conveniens requires a factual determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a
matter of defense.

While it is w/c the discretion of the trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this
ground, it should do so only after vital facts are established, to determine whether special
circumstances require the court’s desistance.

3. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and

HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, GR No. 122191, October 1998

FACTS:
On January 21, 1988, SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES or SAUDIA (foreign airlines corporation doing
business in the Philippines) hired MORADA as a Flight Attendant for its airlines based in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. On April 27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, Morada went to a
disco dance with fellow crewmembers Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi
nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to
have breakfast together at the room of Thamer. After Allah left, Thamer attempted to rape
Morada. A roomboy and several security personnel heard Morada’s cries for help and rescued
her. The Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an
accomplice.

In September 1990, defendant SAUDIA transferred Morada to Manila. On January 14, 1992, her
superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia. When she saw him, he brought her to the police station. The police put pressure on her
to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. She agreed so the police
returned her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.

On June 16, 1993, Morada was ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah. When she did, a certain
Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a
document written in Arabic purportedly to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned
out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Morada then
returned to Manila.

On June 28, 1993, a Saudi judge interrogated Morada for 1 hour through an interpreter about
the Jakarta incident. At the airport, the airline had forbidden her to take flight, her passport was
taken away and told her to remain in Jeddah.

On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court where the
judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision sentencing her to five months
imprisonment and to 286 lashes. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a
disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the
male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition. Because she was wrongfully convicted, the
Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly
before her return to Manila, she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being
informed of the cause.

On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-
Balawi ("Al-Balawi"), its country manager. SAUDIA filed an Omnibus Motion To Dismiss, which
was denied, by the trial court. Consequently, SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition xxx. The Court of Appeals ruled that the Philippines is an appropriate forum
considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of damages is Article 21 of the Civil
Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court.

SAUDIA claimed: that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and try based on Article 21 of the
New Civil Code since the proper law applicable is the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
inasmuch as this case involves what is known in private international law as a "conflicts
problem". Otherwise, the Republic of the Philippines will sit in judgment of the acts done by
another sovereign state, which is abhorred. That this is a conflict of laws, which must be settled
at the outset. That Morada’s claim for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. The existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for the application of the
law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the problem herein presents a “conflicts” case. Yes
2. Whether the Philippine law should govern in this case. Yes
RULING:
1. YES. Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign
element, the problem herein could present a "conflicts" case. A factual situation that cuts
across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws of two or more states is said to
contain a "foreign element".

The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties to a contract is an
alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves
properties situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a
complex form.

In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that private respondent
Morada is a resident Philippine national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign
corporation. Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia as a
flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across national
borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that
caused a "conflicts" situation to arise.

2. YES. In applying the State of the most significant relationship rule to determine the State,
which has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into
account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular
issue: the place where the injury occurred; the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred; the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business
of the parties, and the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all injury occurred and lodged in
the Philippines. Also, Morada is a resident Filipina national, working with SAUDIA, a resident
foreign corporation engaged here in the business of international air carriage. Thus, the
"relationship" between the parties was centered here, although it should be stressed that
this suit is not based on mere labor law violations.

Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the
resolution of the legal issues arising out of this case. Further, the Regional Trial Court has
jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the complaint; the appropriate venue
is in Quezon City, which could properly apply Philippine law.

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

Doctrine of qualification - It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to
the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." 55 The purpose of "characterization"
is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Choice of law would come into play upon the determination of certain facts. These facts
would establish the choice of law.
e.g. where was the contract perfected?
 Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a
certain set of facts or rules fall.

Choice of law is dependent on the controlling facts of a case

Jurisdiction
The power and authority of the courts to hear and decide a case.

Judicial Jurisdiction – in practice, civil cases involving questions of jurisdiction are generally resolved
under private international law whereas questions of jurisdiction involving criminal cases are usually
resolved using public international law

- In conflicts problem, it entails as a rule, civil issues

Aspects of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the person
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
3. Jurisdiction over the res
4. Jurisdiction over the issues of the case

A. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT

- not a ground for the dismissal of a case but may be raised as an affirmative defense

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff?
- It is acquired by the filing of the proper pleading (complaint or petition)

How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant?
- By voluntary appearance and submitting to the court’s authority (not an appearance to
question the court’s jurisdiction)
- By valid service of summons (Sec. 14, ROC)

MODES OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

a. Personal
 Handing a copy of the summons to the defendant in person and return should be
signed by the defendant
 If the defendant does not want to receive the summons, the sheriff will tender the
summons (leave the copy of the summons within the view of the defendant) Sec 5,
Rule 14
b. Substituted Sec 6, Rule 14
 This mode is resorted to if personal service is not feasible
 There must be at least three (3) attempts to serve the summons in person on two
(2) different dates

a) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's residence to a person at

least eighteen (18) years of age and of sufficient discretion residing therein;
b) By leaving copies of the summons at the defendant's office or regular place of
business with some competent person in charge thereof. A competent person
includes, but not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences for
the defendant;
 c) By leaving copies of the summons, if refused entry upon making his or her
authority and purpose known, with any of the officers of the homeowners'
association or condominium corporation, or its chief security officer in charge of
the community or the building where the defendant may be found; and
d) By sending an electronic mail to the defendant's electronic mail address, if
allowed by the court.

c. Publication
 Service of summons upon an entity without juridical personality (e.g., corporation
by estoppel) Sec 7, Rule 14
o Service may be effected upon all the defendants by serving upon any one of
them, or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business
maintained in such name.
 Service upon foreign private juridical entities Sec 14, Rule 14
1. Foreign juridical entity which is duly registered to conduct or transact business in
the Philippines
o It is required that such entity appoints a resident agent(condition sine qua
non)
o Summons will be served to the appointed resident agent for it is one of his
roles
o Or to a government official designated by law

2. Foreign juridical entity which is not registered to conduct or transact business in

the Philippines
o Serve the summons in the principal place of business of the defendant
(foreign country) --- Extra-territorial service

a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate court in the

foreign country with the assistance of the department of foreign
affairs;
b) By publication once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
country where the defendant may be found and by serving a copy of
the summons and the court order by registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant;
c) By facsimile;
d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of service; or
e) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may direct. 

 Sec 16, Rule 14, ROC. – Service upon a defendant whose identity or whereabouts
are unknown
o The only way to effect the service of summons is through publication
 Sec 17, Rule 14, ROC. – Extra-territorial
o Two natures of action that need to be considered:
a. An action that affects the status of the plaintiff
b. An action that involves property wherein the defendant has a claim,
whether actual or contingent
 Effect the service of summons through:
  Personal service (with leave of court)
 Publication
 Any other manner the court may deem sufficient
 Sec 18, Rule 14, ROC. – Defendant who is a Philippine resident but temporarily out
of the Philippines
o Refer to Sec 17
B. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
- This is premised on the existence of a law
- It calls for the interpretation of an appropriate law

How to determine if the complaint fits with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case?
- Allegations in the complaint (nature of the case)

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE ISSUES

- Determined by the allegations in the pleadings of the parties
- Determined by the admissions of the parties (pre trial)

D. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES

How would the court acquire jurisdiction over the res?
- When the property subject matter of the case is in custodia legis (actual seizure or
confiscation by the court)
- Through a provision of law
e.g. Land registration proceedings

Different Kinds of Actions

a. Action in Personam – action that is directed against a specific person (e.g. damages)
b. Action in Rem – no specific defendant (e.g. registration proceedings); barring any and all
persons indifferently
c. Action Quasi in Rem

Cases:
1. Valmonte v CA
FACTS:
Petitioners Lourdes A. Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte are husband and wife and are both
residents of Washington, U.S.A. Petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, who is a member of the
Philippine bar, however, practices his profession in the Philippines.

Private respondent Rosita Dimalanta, who is the sister of petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte, filed a
complaint for partition of real property and accounting of rentals against petitioners Lourdes A.
Valmonte and Alfredo D. Valmonte.

In regard to the partition of the property in question, Lourdes referred private respondent's
counsel to her husband as the party to whom all communications intended for her should be
sent.

Service of summons was received by Alfredo but refused to accept the summons for his wife on
the ground that he was not authorized to accept the process on her behalf.
Accordingly, the process server left without leaving a copy of the summons and complaint for
Lourdes. Because of such, Lourdes failed to file her answer and so private respondent moved to
declare her in default.

ISSUE:
Whether there was valid service of summons to Lourdes in order for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over her person.
RULING:
No, there was no valid service of summons to Lourdes.

To provide perspective, it will be helpful to determine first the nature of the action filed against
petitioners, whether it is an action in personam, in rem or quasi in rem.

In an action in personam, personal service of summons or, if this is not possible and he cannot
be personally served, substituted service, as provided in Rule 14 is essential for the acquisition
by the court of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant who does not voluntarily submit
himself to the authority of the court.

If defendant cannot be served with summons because he is temporarily abroad, but otherwise
he is a Philippine resident, service of summons may, by leave of court, be made by publication.

In all of these cases, it should be noted, defendant must be a resident of the Philippines,
otherwise an action in personam cannot be brought because jurisdiction over his person is
essential to make a binding decision.

On the other hand, if the action is in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not essential for giving the court jurisdiction so long as the court acquires
jurisdiction over the res.

If the defendant is a nonresident and he is not found in the country, summons may be served
exterritorialy. In such cases, what gives the court jurisdiction in an action in rem or quasi in rem
is that it has jurisdiction over the res, i.e. the personal status of the plaintiff who is domiciled in
the Philippines or the property litigated or attached.

Applying the foregoing rules to the case at bar, the action, which is for partition and accounting
under Rule 69, is in the nature of an action quasi in rem. As petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte is a
nonresident who is not found in the Philippines, service of summons on her must be in
accordance with Rule 14, §17.

Since in the case at bar, the service of summons upon petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte was not
done by means of any of the first two modes, the question is whether the service on her
attorney, petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte, can be justified under the third mode, namely, "in
any . . . manner the court may deem sufficient."

We hold it cannot. This mode of service, like the first two, must be made outside the Philippines,
such as through the Philippine Embassy in the foreign country where the defendant resides. In
the first place, service of summons on petitioner Alfredo D. Valmonte was not made upon the
order of the court as required by Rule 14, §17 and certainly was not a mode deemed sufficient
 by the court which in fact refused to consider the service to be valid and on that basis declare
petitioner Lourdes A. Valmonte in default for her failure to file an answer.

2. Avon Insurance v CA
FACTS:
Yupangco Cotton Mills engaged to secure with Worldwide Security and Insurance Co. Inc.,
several of its properties totaling P200 Million.
These contracts were covered by reinsurance treaties between Worldwide Surety and
Insurance, and several foreign reinsurance companies including the petitioners through CJ
Boatwright acting as agent of Worldwide Surety and Insurance.

A Fire then razed the properties insured on December 16, 1979 and May 2, 1981 giving rise to
the obligation of the insurer to indemnify Yupangco Cotton Mills. Partial payments were made
by Worldwide Surety and some of the reinsurance companies.

A Deed of Assignment made by Worldwide Surety and Insurance acknowledged a remaining

balance of P19,444,447.75 still due and assigned to Yupangco all reinsurance proceeds still
collectible from all the foreign reinsurance companies.

Yupangco then filed a collection suit on the above petitioners.

The service of summons was made through the office of the Insurance Commissioner but since
the international reinsurers question the jurisdiction of the trial court, the case has not
proceeded to trial on the merits.

The reinsurer is questioning also the service of summons through extraterritorial service under
Sec. 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court or through the Insurance Commissioner under Sec 14.

Yupangco also contends that since the reinsurers question the jurisdiction of the court they are
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court.

ISSUE:
Whether the Philippine court has jurisdiction over these international reinsurers who are not
doing business in the Philippines.

RULING: NO, the Philippine court has not acquired jurisdiction over international reinsurers for
they are not “doing business in the Philippines.”

The reinsurance treaties between the petitioners and Worldwide Surety and Insurance were
made through an international insurance broker and NOT through any entity or means remotely
connected with the Philippines.

Reinsurance company is not doing business in a certain state even if the property or lives which
are insured by the original insurer company are located in that state.

Reinsurance Contract is generally separate and distinct arrangement from the original contract
of insurance.
 Doing business in the Philippines – must be judged in the light of its peculiar circumstances upon
its peculiar facts and upon the language of the statute applicable.

True test: whether the foreign corporation is continuing the body or substance of the business
or enterprise for which it was organized

If there exist a domestic agent of the foreign corporation it can be served with summons
through that agent without proving that such corporation is doing business in the Philippines or
not.

NO allegation or demonstration of the existence of petitioners’ domestic agent but avers simply
that they are doing business not only abroad but in the Philippines.

Petitioners had not performed any act which would give the general public the impression that
it had been engaging or intends to engage in its ordinary and usual business undertaking in the
country.

The purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations doing business in the country be
licensed to do so, is to subject the foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines to the
jurisdiction of the courts, otherwise, a foreign corporation illegally doing business here because
of its refusal or neglect to obtain the required license and authority to do business may
successfully though unfairly plead such neglect or illegal act so as to avoid service and thereby
impugn the jurisdiction of the local courts.

Voluntary appearance before the lower court to question the jurisdiction is not equivalent to
submission to jurisdiction

The SC disposed the case in favor of the international insurers (petitioners’) declaring that the
lower court has not acquired and cannot acquire jurisdiction over them and was ordered to
desist from maintaining further proceeding against them.

3. Sandejas v Robles

FACTS:
This is an appeal from an order of CFI of Iloilo dismissing the plaintiff’s action upon motion of
defendant on the ground that it is barred from prior judgment.

The appellants contend that CA erred in upholding the validity of judgment of the CFI during the
Japanese occupation because:

The said court has no jurisdiction to try the case, much less to render the decision in question.

That granting for the sake of argument that the puppet CFI of Iloilo has no jurisdiction, yet such
decision was rendered after having deprived plaintiff of his day in court and is therefore in
violation of the due process clause of the Constitution.

This is in connection with the sale of the 3 parcels of land located in the Municipality of Passi,
province of Iloilo which was resolved by the CFI of Iloilo. The appellants submitted themselves
 to the jurisdiction of the CFI by filing their answers to the complaint. They were notified of the
date set for the hearing of the action, but when the case was called, their attorney asked and
obtained permission from the court to withdraw his appearance as attorney on the ground that
it was difficult to communicate with his clients. The hearing was postponed and set on the
afternoon of the same day, but appellants did not appear and judgment was rendered, declaring
the resolution of the contract between parties and ordering the appellees to return to the
appellants the sum of P5,723.60, receive by the former from the latter as payment on account
of the sum of P35,000 agreed upon as purchase price.

By then, the puppet Republic of the Philippines could no longer assert its authority over major
portions of the territory since it was already overrun by the Panay guerilla forces since the
middle of September 1944. The CFI of Iloilo has no jurisdiction over the res or the property
because the action was quasi in rem, and therefore the said judgment is null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether the action is an action in quasi in rem (action against the whole world).

RULING:
No. The action constituted by the appellant’s is in personam and not quasi in rem.

An action in personam has for its object a judgment against the person, as distinguished from a
judgment against the property, to determine its status. It is a proceeding to enforce personal
rights and obligations brought against the person and based on jurisdiction of the person,
although it may involve his right to, of the exercise of ownership of, specific property, or seek to
compel him to control or dispose of it in accordance with the mandate of the court.

The action quasi in rem differs from the true action in rem in the circumstances that in the
former, an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose of the proceeding is to subject his
interest therein to the obligation or lien burdening the property. All proceedings having for
their sole object the sale or other disposition of the property of the defendant, whether by
attachment, foreclosure, or other form of remedy, are in a general way thus designated. The
judgment entered in these proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.

The absence from trial of the appellants was due to their own fault. Appellants’ contention that
they were deprived of their day in court is untenable. The appeal was dismissed.

4. Del Socorro v CA
Nature:
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the ROC

Facts:
Norma, petitioner, was married with the respondent in Holland. They were blessed with a son,
Roderigo. A year after the birth of their son, a divorce decree was issued by an appropriate
court, severing the marital ties between them.

From then on, the petitioner demanded support from respondent for their child which was
promised by the respondent. However, the respondent never gave any support.
The plaintiff and her son went back to the Philippines.

Several years after, the respondent with his new wife lived and established a business in the
Philippines.

The petitioner again demanded for support, where it was still denied. Consequently, the
petitioner filed a criminal action for violation of RA 9262. Petitioner was arrested and
subsequently posted bail. Thereafter, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
(1) lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged; and (2) prescription of the crime charged.

The RTC of Cebu dismissed the criminal case. Since the accused is a foreign national, he is not
subject to our national law (the Family Code) with regard to a parent’s duty and obligation to
give support to his child. Thus, he cannot be charged of violating RA 9262 for his alleged failure
to support his child.

Petitioner filed her Motion for Reconsideration reiterating respondent’s obligation to give
support under Article 195 of the Family Code, thus, failure to do so makes him liable under RA
9262 which equally applies to all persons in the Philippines who are obliged to support their
minor children regardless of the obligor’s nationality.

The lower court denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration because he cannot be
charged of violating RA 9262 for his alleged failure to support his child unless it is conclusively
established that RA 9262 applies to a foreigner notwithstanding he is not bound by our domestic
law.

Issue:
Whether a foreign national can be held criminally liable under RA 9262 for his unjustified refusal
to support his child.

Held: Yes. The petitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the New Civil Code in demanding support
from respondent, who is a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the NCC stresses the principle of
nationality. By analogy, the same principle applies to Family Code on support, the same only
applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family
rights and duties.

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has
the burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, respondent hastily concludes that
being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of
and capacity to support. While respondent pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his
position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same.

It is incumbent upon respondent to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands
does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child (either before, during or
after the issuance of a divorce decree), because Llorente v. Court of Appeals, has already
enunciated that:

True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized
to takejudicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
 In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the
doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law
involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is
the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as
regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant
case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of
parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.

5. Manufacturers v Guerrero
FACTS:
On May 17, 1994, Guerrero filed a complaint for damages against Hanover and/or Chemical
Bank (Bank) with the RTC of Manila.

Guerrero sought payment of damages for (1) Illegally withheld taxes charged against interests
on his checking account with the Bank; (2) A returned check worth $18,000 due to signature
verification problems; and (3)Unauthorized conversion of his account.

The Bank answered that by stipulation, Guerrero’s account is governed by New York law, and
such law does not permit any of Guerrero’s claims except actual damages.

The Bank filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (PSJ), contending that the trial should be
limited to the issue of actual damages only.

The “Walden Affidavit” was presented by the Bank to support its Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

The RTC and CA denied the Bank’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, stating that the
Walden Affidavit does not serve as proof of the New York law and jurisprudence relied on by the
Bank to support its Motion.

The Court of Appeals clarified that the Walden affidavit is not the supporting affidavit referred
to in Section 2, Rule 34 that would prove the lack of genuine issue between the parties. The
Court of Appeals concluded that even if the Walden affidavit is used for purposes of summary
judgment, the Bank must still comply with the procedure prescribed by the Rules to prove the
foreign law.

ISSUE:
Whether the Walden Affidavit was sufficient proof of the New York law and jurisprudence relied
upon by the Bank in its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

HELD:
NO. The Walden Affidavit failed to prove New York law and jurisprudence. The SC denied the
Bank’s petition for lack of merit.

The CA considered the New York law and jurisprudence as public documents defined in Rule 132
Sec 19 and 24 of the Rules of Evidence, which should be followed in proving foreign law.
SEC. 19. Classes of Documents. – For the purpose of their presentation in evidence, documents
are either public or private.

Public documents are:

The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies
and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

SEC. 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication
thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his
deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such
officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, the
certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in
the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office.

The Walden Affidavit Failed to Prove New York Law and Jurisprudence.

The Bank’s motion for Partial Summary Judgment as supported by the Walden Affidavit does not
demonstrate that Guerrero’s claims are sham, fictitious or contrived. On the contrary, the
Walden affidavit shows that the facts and material allegations as pleaded by the parties are
disputed and there are substantial triable issues necessitating a formal trial.

Foreign laws are not a matter of judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proven. Certainly, the conflicting allegations as to whether New York law or Philippine law
applies to Guerrero’s claims present a clear dispute on material allegations which can be
resolved only by a trial on the merits.

The Bank, however, cannot rely on Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal or Collector of
Internal Revenue v. Fisher to support its cause. These cases involved attorneys testifying in open
court during the trial in the Philippines and quoting the particular foreign laws sought to be
established. On the other hand, the Walden Affidavit was taken abroad ex parte and the affiant
never testified in open court. The Walden Affidavit cannot be considered as proof of New York
law on damages not only because it is self-serving but also because it does not state the specific
New York law on damages.

The Walden Affidavit states conclusions from the affiant’s personal interpretation and opinion of
the facts of the case vis a vis the alleged laws and jurisprudence without citing any law in
particular. The citations in the Walden Affidavit of various U.S. court decisions do not constitute
proof of the official records or decisions of the U.S. courts.

While the Bank attached copies of some of the U.S. court decisions cited in the Walden affidavit,
these copies do not comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on proof of official records or decisions
of foreign courts.

The Bank failed to comply with Section 24 of Rule 132 on how to prove a foreign law and
decisions of foreign courts. The Walden Affidavit did not prove the current state of New York
 law and jurisprudence. Thus, the Bank has only alleged, but has not proved, what New York law
and jurisprudence are on the matters at issue.

It Was Not Mandatory for Guerrero to Submit an Opposing Affidavit to the Walden Affidavit.

Next, the Bank makes much of Guerrero’s failure to submit an opposing affidavit to the Walden
Affidavit. However, the pertinent provision of Rule 35 Sec 3 of the old Rules of Court did not
make the submission of an opposing affidavit mandatory. Guerrero need not file an opposing
affidavit to the Walden affidavit because his complaint itself controverts the matters set forth in
the Bank’s motion and the Walden affidavit. A party should not be made to deny matters
already averred in his complaint.

There being substantial triable issues between the parties, the courts a quo correctly denied the
Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment. There is a need to determine by presentation of
evidence in a regular trial if the Bank is guilty of any wrongdoing and if it is liable for damages
under the applicable laws.

6. ATCI Overseas Corporation v Echin

FACTS: Respondent Echin was hired by petitioner ATCI in behalf of its principal co-petitioner,
Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait, for the position of medical technologist under a two-year
contract.

Within a year. Respondent was terminated for not passing the probationary period which was
under the Memorandum of Agreement. The Ministry denied respondent's request for
reconsideration, she was prompted to return to the Philippines shouldering her own fare.

Respondent filed with the NLRC a complaint against ATCI for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter
rendered judgment in favor of respondent and ordered ATCI to pay her salary for the three
months unexpired portion of the contract.

ATCI appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision, however, NLRC affirmed the latter's decision and
denied petitioner ATCI's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner appealed to the Court Appeals contending that their principal being a foreign
government agency is immune from suit, and as such, immunity extended to them.

The Appellate Court affirmed NLRC's decision. It noted that under the law, a private
employment agency shall assume all responsibilities for the implementation of the contract of
employment of an overseas worker, hence, it can be sued jointly and severally with the foreign
principal for any violation of the recruitment agreement of contract of employment Petitioner's
motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this present petition.

ISSUE: Whether the Memorandum of Agreement which provided for the Kuwait’s Civil Service
Board Employment Contract has a binding effect.

HELD: No. The petitioners' contention that Philippine labor laws, on probationary employment,
are not applicable since it was expressly provided in respondents employment contract for not
substantiated.
 It is a hornbook principle, that the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the burden
of proving the law, under the doctrine of processual presumption which, in this case, petitioners
failed to discharge.

It was held in EDI-Staffbuilders Intl., v. NLRC that, in international law, the party who wants to
have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. The
foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or
labor arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic
or forum law. The Philippines does not take judicial notice of foreign laws, hence, they must not
only be alleged; they must be proven.

To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with
Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petitioners submit documents
that whether taken singly or as a whole, do not sufficiently prove that respondent was validly
terminated as a probationary employee under Kuwait civil service laws.

For it to have a binding effect, the petitioners should prove and present the pertinent Kuwait
labor laws duly authenticated and translated by Embassy officials.

7. Ancheta v Guersay

FACTS:
Spouses Audrey O'Neill (Audrey) and W. Richard Guersey (Richard) were American citizens who
have resided in the Philippines for 30 years. The spouses have an adopted daughter named Kyle.

Audrey died, leaving a will where she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was also
designated as executor. The will was admitted to probate before the Orphan's Court of
Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A, which named James N. Phillips as executor due to Richard's
renunciation of his appointment. The court also named Atty. Alonzo Q. Ancheta (petitioner) of
the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices as ancillary administrator.

In 1981, Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent) with whom he has two
children, namely, Kimberly and Kevin.

On October 12, 1982, Audrey's will was also admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance
of Rizal. As administrator of Audrey's estate in the Philippines, petitioner filed an inventory and
appraisal of the following properties: (1) Audrey's conjugal share in real estate with
improvements located at 28 Pili Avenue, Forbes Park, Makati, Metro Manila, valued at
P764,865.00 (Makati property); (2) Audrey's current account of P12,417.97; and (3) 64,444
shares of stock in A/G Interiors, Inc. worth P64,444.00.

Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, save for his
rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was also
admitted to probate by the Orphan's Court of Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James N.
Phillips was likewise appointed as executor, who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha or any
member of the Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices, as ancillary administrator.
Richard's will was then submitted for probate before the RTC of Makati. Atty. Quasha was
appointed as ancillary administrator.

As administrator, petitioner filed a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey and a
project of partition of Audrey's estate, with Richard being apportioned the 3/4 and Kyle, the
1/4. This was granted and proper actions were done.

Subsequently, petitioner also filed a project of partition wherein 2/5 of Richard's 3/4 undivided
interest in the Makati property was allocated to respondent, while 3/5 thereof were allocated to
Richard's three children. This was opposed by respondent on the ground that under the law of
the State of Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the
property subject of the legacy." Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent, except for his
rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire 3/4 undivided interest in
the Makati property should be given to respondent. This was granted but she subsequently filed
an amended complaint where she argued that since Audrey devised her entire estate to Richard,
then the Makati property should be wholly adjudicated to him, and not merely 3/4 thereof, and
since Richard left his entire estate, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc.,
to respondent, then the entire Makati property should now pertain to respondent.

Petitioner alleged that he was not aware of the relevant laws of the State of Maryland and
believed that it is to the "best interests of the surviving children that Philippine law be applied as
they would receive their just shares."

ISSUE: WON the entire estate of Audrey should go to Richard then respondent except for the
A/G shares

RULING: It is undisputed that Audrey Guersey was an American citizen domiciled in Maryland,
U.S.A. During the reprobate of her will, it was shown, among others, that at the time of Audrey's
death, she was residing in the Philippines but is domiciled in Maryland, U.S.A.; her Last Will and
Testament was executed and probated before the Orphan's Court in Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A., which was duly authenticated and certified by the Register of Wills of Baltimore City and
attested by the Chief Judge of said court; the will was admitted by the Orphan's Court of
Baltimore City on September 7, 1979; and the will was authenticated by the Secretary of State of
Maryland and the Vice Consul of the Philippine Embassy.

Being a foreign national, the intrinsic validity of Audrey's will, especially with regard as to who
are her heirs, is governed by her national law, i.e., the law of the State of Maryland, as provided
in Article 16 of the Civil Code, to wit:

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

However, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession
and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said
property may be found.
 Article 1039 of the Civil Code further provides that "capacity to succeed is governed by the law
of the nation of the decedent." As a corollary rule, Section 4, Rule 77 of the Rules of Court on
Allowance of Will Proved Outside the Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder,
states:

SEC. 4. Estate, how administered. — When a will is thus allowed, the court shall grant letters
testamentary, or letters of administration with the will annexed, and such letters testamentary
or of administration, shall extend to all the estate of the testator in the Philippines. Such estate,
after the payment of just debts and expenses of administration, shall be disposed of according
to such will, so far as such will may operate upon it; and the residue, if any, shall be disposed of
as is provided by law in cases of estates in the Philippines belonging to persons who are
inhabitants of another state or country.

Petitioner invokes the principle which presumes the law of the forum to be the same as the
foreign law in the absence of evidence adduced to prove the latter law. In defending his actions
in the light of the foregoing principle, however, it appears that the defendant lost sight of the
fact that his primary responsibility as ancillary administrator was to distribute the subject estate
in accordance with the will of Audrey O'Neill Guersey. Considering the principle established
under Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as the citizenship and the avowed
domicile of the decedent, it goes without saying that the defendant was also duty-bound to
prove the pertinent laws of Maryland on the matter.

While foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized
to take judicial notice of them; however, in this case, given that the pertinent law of the State of
Maryland has been brought to record before the CA, and the trial court in Special Proceeding
No. M-888 appropriately took note of the same in disapproving the proposed project of
partition of Richard's estate, not to mention that petitioner or any other interested person for
that matter, does not dispute the existence or validity of said law, then Audrey's and Richard's
estate should be distributed according to their respective wills, and not according to the project
of partition submitted by petitioner. Consequently, the entire Makati property belongs to
respondent.

Petitioner's failure to proficiently manage the distribution of Audrey's estate according to the
terms of her will and as dictated by the applicable law amounted to extrinsic fraud. Hence
Petitioner is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as an official
of the court.

Feb. 23
There are 3 problems that must be addressed in the resolution of a conflict problem.
In the existence of a foreign element, these issues must be resolved:
1. The question of Jurisdiction – the possible action of the court is to assume jurisdiction if it has
jurisdiction over the controversy. The court may also differ any resolution of judgment, or it may just
refuse jurisdiction and refer it to another jurisdiction, but the referral is not automatic on the part of the
court, it must first dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
In case of resolution of conflicts problem, the court will take into consideration the applicable law.

2. Choice of Law - its controversy or determination of the applicable law as agreed upon by the parties in
the resolution of their controversies.
The Choice of law could be upon agreement of the parties, because the parties may stipulate simply on
the governing law as regards the relationship consummated or entered into by them. But even if there is
prior agreement as regards the governing law, a problem may still rise (e.g. Hasegawa Case, SAUDIA
Case).

Hasegawa – The court said that, the 3 issues in conflict must be taken consecutively. The court would
first establish the existence of jurisdiction, that it will not proceed to the resolution of the applicable law
or choice of law issue, without resolving the jurisdictional issue.

SAUDIA – The court coined the term “Doctrine of Characterization/Qualifications” which provides that a
choice of law is not simply a consideration of the governing laws or the conflicting laws of two or more
states, rather, it must be factual in nature. Before establishing Choice of Law, facts must be established.

The SC said that the choice of law seeks to answer two important questions:
(1) What legal system should control? Considering that significant factors happened in two or more
states.
(2) Up to what extent should that legal system regulate the situation (relationship of the parties)?

Note: Choice of Law problems seeks to establish facts that would determine the governing law as
regards the relationship of these parties.

Doctrine of Characterization/Qualification is the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to
the kind of questions specified in a conflicts rule. The purpose of Characterization/Qualification is to
enable the forum or for a to select the proper law.

SAUDIA Case: Enumerated factors to establish choice of law:

(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (e.g. principal place of business, office in
case of a corporation)
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the
lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly
important in contracts and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual
duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci
intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori - the law of
the forum - is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going
to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the
content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the
reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and
of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of
affreightment.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption – in conflicts problems, if one intends to introduce a public
document coming from another jurisdiction, then the same must be alleged, established, and proved.
The public document issued by a foreign jurisdiction, or another state should be alleged and proved, if
not proved, it is presume that the law in that country is the same as that in the Phiippines. The failure to
prove the foreign law, will affect the proceeding will result in following the effect. The Philippine law
assumes that it is the same as that of the foreign law.

Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsem

FACTS: Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They were blessed
with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their marriage bond ended by virtue of a
Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came home
to the Philippines. According to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to their son.
However, since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support to
Roderigo. Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines particulary in Cebu
where the petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for
the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the
complaint since the facts charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the
accused, he being an alien.

ISSUES:
1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the Philippine law?
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified
failure to support his minor child.

RULING:
1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with
the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to
give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however,
mean that Ernst is not obliged to support Norma’s son altogether. In international law, the party who
wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign law. In
the present case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of the Netherlands, he is governed by
such laws on the matter of provision of and capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the
Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the
same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not
impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in
our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact,
they must be alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application
would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most
important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the
fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands
neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith,
such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the
child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner is living here in the
Philippines and committed the offense here.
How to Prove Official Acts of another Territorial Jurisdiction:
- Official Publication
Rule 132, Rules on Evidence
Section 19. Classes of Documents. — For the purpose of their presentation evidence, documents are
either public or private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country;

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of
Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office
in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the
foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office.

Feb. 26
Saudi Arabian Airlines Case
- The SC said that, to establish conflict of laws, we need to adhere to the Doctrine of
Qualification/Characterization, because, essentially, choice of law involves factual matters.

- SC enumerated the different points of contacts or tests that would be asked in determining the
theories of law.

- Domicile/Citizenship (Residence) will determine choice of law. The existence of a foreign resident or
national would necessarily bring the foreign element, which is a requisite in a conflict resolution.

Citizenship is a membership in one state, it confers advantages or benefits in favor of the citizen. It
likewise imposes obligations, duties and responsibilities.

Advantages of membership in a particular state will give some social benefits which are denied to non-
citizens of the particular state. Exercise of some political rights (e.g. right to suffrage).

Duties/Responsibilities – Sec. 4, Declaration of Principle, 1987 Constitution, To defend the State in times
of war. The duty to render military service in times of war, observe fidelity to the commands of the
State.

CITIZENS: Sec. 1, Art. 4, 1987 Constitution

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
- May either be a citizen by birth or a citizen pursuant to naturalization laws.
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
- Citizenship was acquired by birth.
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
- Citizenship by birth.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
- Commonwealth Act No. 73 or the Revised Naturalization Law and Republic Act No.530.

Note: From the enumeration of Sec. 1, Art. 4, 1987 Constitution, it appears to be that there are only two
classes of citizenship: (1) those who are citizens by birth; and (2) those who are naturalized by law.

Citizen by Birth
– It may either be a Jus Soli or Jus Sanguinis.
Jus Sanguinis - the principle adhered to by the Philippine State. It is a form of a derivative citizenship in
the sense that you acquire the citizenship of wither your mother or father. It’s a blood relationship.

Jus Soli – become a citizen of particular state by reason of the place of your birth. This principle is
observed in the US.

Conflict of Laws in Citizenship - having multiple allegiances in the concept of the 1987 Constitution.

Dual Citizenship – involuntary in the sense that, you become a citizen of a particular state without doing
anything.
Example: Mercado vs. Manzano Case
A child whose parents are Filipino citizens but unfortunately born in a state which follows the principle
of Jus soli.
Citizenship is involuntary in nature, you become a citizen of two or more states due to Unavoidable
Circumstances.
Citizenship is acceptable because it is involuntary, without any positive act of the part of the citizen, one
becomes a citizen.

Dual Allegiance – Frowned upon by law. It involves a positive act by the citizen.
Example: A chinese national became a naturalized Filipino citizen, but despite being a Filipino citizen, he
still owes allegiance to China.
Allegiance is an obedience or fidelity to two masters.