Conflict of Laws Introduction

Conflict of Laws –
 that part of law which comes into play when the issue before the court affects some fact,
event or transaction that is so clearly connected with a foreign system of law as to necessitate
recourse to that system – embraces those universal principles of right and justice which govern
the courts of one state having before them cases involving the operation and effect of the laws of
another state or country – that part of the municipal law of a state which directs its courts and
administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element,
whether or not they should apply a foreign law or foreign laws.
Conflict of Laws Case –
 any case which involves facts occurring in more than one state or nation, so that in
deciding the case, it is necessary to make a choice between the laws of different states or
countries.
State in Conflict of Laws –
 includes not only foreign sovereign countries or states but also political subdivisions of
states or countries which have their own legal systems, such as the different states constituting the
United States of America, the federal states of Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Germany
etc.
The Conflict of Laws is more important in recent times than in the past – with the fast advance of modern
technology in the means of communication between and among states, the rapid growth and expansions of
international trade and commerce, the influx of tourists and foreign traders to our country as well as the
massive migration of our countrymen to work and live in foreign shores, the great increase of business
transactions of foreign corporations in the Philippines, all these bring about many and varied problems in
Conflict of Laws.
Conflict of Laws is not a part of International Law – although it is sometimes thought of as part of International
Law because of the presence of a foreign element in a given problem, it is not international in character but is
part of the municipal law of each state – by municipal law, conflict of laws is meant the internal or local law of
each state, since every state has its own internal or local system of law, so each state also has its own conflict of
laws.
There is diversity of conflicts rules among the different states of the world because each group of people have a
huge language, culture, mores and customs religion, ideals and beliefs, peculiar to such group, which are
reflected or expressed in their laws and legal systems – while the great majority of the countries of the world
allow absolute divorce, our country still has not legalized absolute divorce – while some countries are very
verbal in granting divorces, others are not so liberal.
Public International Law v Conflict of Laws
Public International Law Conflict of Law

governs sovereign states and entities
that are internationally recognized or
possessed of international
As to persons involved personality such as the United governs private individuals or
Nations Organizations corporations
As to nature international in character municipal in character
applies only to transactions in which

only sovereign states or entities with
deals with transactions strictly
international personality are
private in nature, in which the
As to transactions involved concerned and which generally
country as such has generally no
affect public interest
interest
the concerned states may, in a

dispute between sovereign states or
international entities or in case of a
violation of international law, first
resort to peaceful remedies like
diplomatic negotiations, mediation,
inquiry and conciliation, arbitration,
or judicial settlement by
international tribunals like United
Nations – if these remedies fail, the recourse is had to judicial or
states concerned may resort to administrative tribunals in
As to remedies applied
forcible remedies like severance of accordance with the rules of
diplomatic relations, retorsions, procedure of the country where they
reprisals, embargo, boycott, non – sit
intercourse, pacific blockades,
collective measures under the
United Nations Charter and finally,
war
Sources of Conflict of Laws:
1) Direct Sources; and bilateral and multilateral treaties and international conventions, constitutions,
codifications and statutes, judicial decisions, and international customs
2) Indirect Sources. the same as other branches of law, among others, the natural moral law, and the
writings and treaties of thinkers and famous writers and jurists on the subject
INTRODUCTION
International law –
 It is defined as the rules and principles of general application dealing with the
conduct of states and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as
well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.
 It includes not only questions of right between nations but also questions
concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one nation, by
reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominions of another nation.
 It is the branch of law that deals with the relationship of states as well as the
relationship of individuals of different states.
Branches of International law:

1) Public International Law; and
- It governs the relationship of states and international entities.
- When two or more countries have territorial disputes that are governed by international treaties and
convention.
2) Private International Law or Conflict of Laws.

- It deals with conflict of laws among the laws of two or more states and necessitates a determination of
which municipal law applies to a case.
- It comes into play when the laws of State A are different with the laws of State B or when there is an
invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Conflict of laws –
 Private international law, or conflict of laws, is that which regulates the comity of
states in giving effect in one to the municipal laws of another relating to private persons,
or concerns the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of one state or nations,
by reason of acts, private or public, done within the dominion of another, and which is
based on the broad general principle that one country will respect and give effect to the
laws of another so far as can be done consistently with its own interests.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

CONFLICT OF LAWS
PUBLIC CONFLICT OF LAWS

INTERNATIONAL
LAW
International conventions; Domestic and municipal laws, which

international custom; general includes the Constitution and statutes
principles of law recognized adopted by individual countries
As to Source by civilized nations; judicial
decisions; and teachings of the
most highly qualified
publicists of the various
nations
States and international Individuals and corporations

As to Subjects organizations
International in character Municipal in character

As to nature

CONFLICT OF LAWS
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS

LAW
Transactions which only sovereign

As to states or entities with international Transactions strictly private in nature,
transactions personality are concerned and in which country as such has
involved which generally affect public generally no interest
interest

CONFLICT OF LAWS
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS

LAW
Concerned states may first resort

to peaceful remedies like
diplomatic negotiations,
mediation, inquiry or conciliation,
arbitration or judicial settlement
by international tribunals like the
UN; if these remedies fail, the Judicial or administrative tribunals in
states concerned may resort to accordance with the rules of
As to remedies forcible remedies like severance of procedure of the country where they
applied diplomatic relations, boycott, sit
pacific blockades, collective
measures under UN Charter and
finally, war.
Transformation to customary international law – international law is neither static nor

stillborn. There may be conduct which was formerly not considered as a norm of
international law but through practice and acceptance by states, have been transformed
into a norm of customary international law. For this transformation to happen, the norm
must be universal in character, must be of mutual concern to states, and must be of
specific character that is definite in content. If all three elements converge, a norm may
be considered to have become customary international law.
ABDULLAHI v PFIZER
Pfizer had an experimental antibiotic (Trovan) which it administered to young patients in Nigeria without consent of the
children nor their guardians. Petitioner sued Pfizer under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) for violating international law for non
– consensual medical experimentation. The case, however, was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the plaintiffs failed
to identify a source of international law that provides a proper predicate for jurisdiction under the ATS and due to forum non
conveniens – Pfizer violated international law on non – consensual medical experimentation.
UNIVERSALITY:
The history illustrates that from its origins with the trial of the Nazi Doctors at Nuremburg through its evolution in
international conventions, agreements, declarations, and domestic laws and regulations, the norm prohibiting nonconsensual
medical experimentation on human subjects has become firmly embedded and has secured universal acceptance in the
community of nations.
MUTUAL CONCERN:
States throughout the world have entered into two express and binding and international agreements prohibiting non –
consensual medical experimentation: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (IPCCR) and the Convention
on Human Rights and Biomedicine.
In other words, acting out of sense if mutual concern, the nations of the world have made it their business, both though
international accords and unilateral action, to demonstrate their intention to eliminate conduct of the type alleged in the
complaints.
SPECIFICITY:
The Nuremberg Code, Art. 7 of the ICCPR, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,
the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, the 2001 Clinical Trial Directive, and the domestic laws of at least
84 States all uniformly and unmistakably prohibit medical experiments on human beings without their consent, thereby
providing concrete content for the norm.
History of Conflict of Laws – The first instances of conflict of laws can be traced to
Roman law, where parties from foreign countries would go before a praetor peregrinus in
Rome to plead their case. The praetor peregrinus would often choose to apply the law
native to the foreign parties rather than Roman law. The birth of the modern conflict of
laws is generally considered to have occurred at Northern Italy of the late Middle Ages
and, in particular, at trading cities such as Genoa, Pisa, and Venice. The need to
adjudicate issues involving commercial transactions between traders belonging to
different cities led to the development of the theory of statuta, whereby certain city laws
would be considered as statuta personalia "following" the person to wherever the action
took place, and other city laws would be considered as statuta realia, resulting in
application of the law of the city where the action under dispute was located.
Scope – Any case which involves facts occurring in more than one state or nation, so that
in deciding the case, it is necessary to make a choice between the laws of different states
or countries is a Conflict of Laws case.
Functions:
1) To provide rules in deciding cases where either the parties, events or transactions
are linked to more than one state jurisdiction; and
2) To promote stability and uniformity of remedies or solutions regardless of place
of suit.
Importance:
1) To adjust conflicting rights in international, mercantile and corporate transactions;
and
2) To solve personal, family, property, and successional, contractual problems,
possessed of facts or elements operating in two or more states.
Sources:
1) Direct Sources –
o Constitutions
o Codifications (e.g., Civil Code, Code of Commerce)
o Special Laws
o Treaties and Conventions
o Judicial Decisions
o International Customs (e.g., Lex Situs, Lex Loci Celebrationis, Lex
Nationalii, Principle of Territoriality)
2) Indirect Sources –
o Natural Moral Law – rule of human conduct implanted by God in our
nature and conscience
o Works of Writers (e.g., writings of legal scholars which influenced judicial
decisions)
Principles in Conflict of Laws:

1) Lex Situs; The law of the place where the property is situated
2) Lex Fori; The law of the forum, where the case is filed
3) Lex Loci Actus; The law of the place where the act was done
4) Lex Loci Celebrationis; The law of the place where a contract is entered into
5) Lex Loci Contractus; The law of the place where the contract was made or law of the place where the
contract is to be governed (place of performance) which may or may not be the same as that of the place where
it was made
6) Lex Loci Delictus; The law of the place where the offense or wrong took place
7) Lex Loci Domicilii; The law of the place of domicile of a person
8) Lex Loci Solutionis; The law of the place of solution or the law of the place where payment or
performance of a contract is to be made
9) Kilberg Doctrine; It is a rule to the effect that the forum is not bound by the law of the place of injury
or death as to the limitation on damages for wrongful act because such rule is procedural and hence, the law of
the forum governs on this issue
10) Center of Gravity Doctrine; and It provides that the choice of law problems is resolved by the
application of the law of the jurisdiction which has the most significant relationship to or contact with event
and parties to the litigation and the issue therein (Most Significant Relationship Theory)
11) Comity. Defined as the recognition which one state allows within its territory to the legislative, executive,
or judicial acts of another state, having due regard both to international duty and convenience and to the
rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws
Forum Non Conveniens –

 It simply means that the forum is inconvenient. It may be that the chosen forum,
or the place where the suit is filed, has no substantial connection to the parties or to the
dispute that it becomes very inconvenient to litigate the suit in the chosen venue.
 It may happen that the parties to the case are not residents of the forum, or that the
witnesses are located somewhere else, in a jurisdiction which offers a more convenient
forum to litigate the case.
Forum non conveniens literally translates to “the forum is inconvenient.” It is a
concept in private international law and was devised to combat the less honorable reasons
and excuses that litigants use to secure procedural advantages, annoy and harass
defendants, avoid overcrowded dockets, and select a “friendlier” venue. Thus, the
doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses the same rationale that the rule against forum
shopping does, albeit on a multijurisdictional scale (Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio, et al.)
The defense of forum non conveniens is usually interposed by way of motion to dismiss.
The following instances where a court may desist from exercising jurisdiction:
1) The belief that the matter can be better tried and decided elsewhere, either
because the main aspects of the case transpired in a foreign jurisdiction or the
material witnesses have their residence there;
2) The belief that the non-resident plaintiff sought the forum, a practice known as
forum shopping, merely to secure procedural advantages or to convey or harass
the defendant;
3) The unwillingness to extend local judicial facilities to non-residents or aliens
when the docket may already be overcrowded;
4) The inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for effectuating the right sought to
be maintained; and
5) The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law.
Elements of Forum Non Conveniens:

1) Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a state; Since every state has its own
municipal law, it follows that each state has also its own conflict of laws. Hence, the conflict of laws of one country is different
from another – As part of the municipal law, conflict of laws directs its courts and administrative agencies, when confronted
with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law or laws
2) There is a directive to courts and administrative agencies; It is the judicial tribunals of a

country that ultimately are called upon to decide or resolve conflicts problems – Various administrative agencies of the state,
such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Bureau of Immigration, the Securities and Exchange of Commission, and the
like also decide preliminarily a given controversy involving a foreign factor
3) There is a legal problem involving a foreign element; and the presence of foreign element in a
case determines the existence of a conflict of laws situation. When there is no foreign element, no conflict of laws exists –
FOREIGN ELEMENT is the most important component of a conflicts of law problem. It is anything which is not domestic
and has a foreign component to it
4) There is either an application or non-application of a foreign law or foreign laws.

When our courts are confronted with a “conflicts” problem over which they may have jurisdiction, the solution will have to be
found in the application of either the LOCAL law or FOREIGN law
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 presence of foreign element
is inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are rarely
confined to the geographic limits of their birth or conception. The forms in which this
foreign element may appear are many. 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 complex form (SAUDI ARABIAN
AIRLINES v Court of Appeals)
PHASES IN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION

There are three phases in the resolution of conflicts of law problems:
A. JURISDICTION
– concerns the authority of a court of law to take cognizance of a case.
B. CHOICE OF LAW
– refers to the applicable law to the problem.
C. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS
– concerns the enforcement of foreign laws and judgments in another jurisdiction.
PHASES IN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION

 The three phases are separate from each other and a defense in one phase is not a
defense in other phases.
 For example, the doctrines of lex loci celebrationis and lex loci contractus are not
grounds to question the jurisdiction of the court. In like manner, the defense of
non conveniens cannot be used as a defense to choice of law disputes.
 Thus, it is very important to analyze the real issues in a conflicts problem for the
purpose of utilizing the appropriate approach to a contractual dispute. Otherwise,
the use of certain theories in a conflict situation may be deemed improper.
WAYS OF DISPOSING CONFLICTS CASES

It should be noted that when a conflicts case, one involving a foreign element, is
brought before a court or administrative agency, there are three alternatives open
to the latter in disposing of it: (1) dismiss the case, either because of lack of
jurisdiction or refusal to assume jurisdiction over the case; (2) assume
jurisdiction over the case and apply thee internal law of the forum; or (3)
assume jurisdiction over the case and take into account or apply the law of
some other State or States. (Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, GR No. 149177)
STEPS IN DETERMINING APPLICABLE LAW

A. CHARACTERIZATION
1. Identification of issues;
2. Pinpointing the branch of law implicated by the problem;
3. Determining the existence of conflicts of law problem by the presence of a
foreign element; and
4. If there is a foreign element, employ the applicable conflict of law
doctrines. If none, the rule, law or jurisprudence in the forum.
B. CONNECTING FACTORS
1. An analysis is made with respect to which jurisdiction or fora has the most
connection to the case.
2. The nationality of the parties, the location of the act or event, the terms of
the agreement or contract, and other matters are looked into to determine
what legal system between two or more legal system is applicable.
CHOICE OF APPLICABLE LAW

 Parties to a contract are free to stipulate the applicable law that will govern their
contractual relations (Article 1306 of the Civil Code). Once chosen, the chosen
law shall be applied to govern the duties and responsibilities of the parties to each
other.
 It is not necessary that the chosen law be local law, so long as the choice of law
does not violate the public policy or the laws of the forum.
EXTRATERRITORIALITY
 Laws are generally territorial in application. The reason for this is that the mind of
the lawmaker is limited to the territorial boundaries of his country when he enacts
laws. It is unnatural that he will draft a law and provide therein that it will apply
within the borders of another independent state.
 Laws, however, can be extraterritorial when so provided by the legislature. The
question of whether a law is extraterritorial depends on legislative intent. It is
within the right of the legislature of a country to provide that its laws apply
outside the territorial boundaries of the state. This is recognized under
international law, except when this intrudes with the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of another country.
CONFLICT OF LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

 The Philippines has few conflict-of-laws rules (Articles 15, 16 and 17 of the Civil
Code, Article 26 of the Family Code, etc.), but even in the absence applicable
conflict of laws rules to peculiar facts of a case, will not excuse the court from
rendering judgment, either dismissing the case or deciding it on the merits. As
Art. 9 of the Civil Code provides that "No judge or court shall decline to render
judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws."
 Philippine courts apply Philippine laws or jurisprudence; they do not
automatically apply foreign laws and if they do, it is because Philippine laws,
treaty obligations, and comity prescribe their application, when they are not
contrary to prohibitive laws or public policies and when such foreign laws are
properly pleaded and proved. Foreign laws are independent of, and are not
superior than, Philippine laws, and they cannot be forced upon Philippine courts,
except by consent, express or implied.
 Foreign judgments or those rendered in a foreign country may be sought
recognition and enforcement in our country, by an appropriate petition filed
before Philippine courts, either because the losing party is a citizen or national of,
or is domiciled in our country, or the latter has property in the Philippines against
which the foreign judgment may be executed. Recognition or enforcement of
foreign judgment is actually an extra-territorial application in our country of the
foreign law upon which the foreign judgment is based, to which Philippine courts
may consent, except when such law contravenes Philippine law or the public
policy of the country.
 Moreover, by filing the petition for enforcement of the foreign judgment, the
prevailing party voluntarily submits itself to the jurisdiction of Philippine courts
and to the power or authority of the latter to review the foreign judgment.

 Where the question involves the rights of a citizen and a foreigner which the latter
has violated, in a case where the applicable law favors the foreigner, Philippine
courts will defer to the rights of the citizen in order to subserve the ends of justice.
 The national law as well as international law which forms part of the national law
should be equally applied to prevent discrimination in favor of the rights of
foreigners as against those of the citizens of the host country, for the law of the
forum, in case of doubt, should tilt the balance in favor of its citizens or its
interests as a nation. (International School Alliance of Educators vs.
Quisumbing)
JURISPRUDENCE
LAUREL vs. GARCIA
LAUREL VS. GARCIA

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.
LAUREL VS. GARCIA
RULING:
It is governed by Philippine law.
It is exceedingly strange why our top government, of all people, should be the
ones to insist that in the sale of extremely valuable government property, Japanese
law and not Philippine law should prevail. The Japanese law – its coverage and
effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its provisions – is not presented to the
Court. It is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese law should apply
without stating what the law provides. It is asserted on faith that Japanese law
would allow the sale.
LAUREL VS. GARCIA
Conflict of laws assumes that there is a conflict between a local law and a foreign
law involving a foreign element or elements, which requires a determination of
which law should apply. We see no reason why a conflict of law rule should apply
when no conflict of law situation exists.
A conflict of law situation arises only when: (1) 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 (2) a foreign law on land ownership and its conveyance is
asserted to conflict with a domestic law on the same matters. Hence, the need
to determine which law should apply.
LAUREL VS. GARCIA
In the instant case, none of the enumerated elements exists.
The issues are not concerned with validity of ownership or title. There is no
question that the property belongs to the Philippines. The issue is the authority of
the respondent officials to validly dispose of property belonging to the State and
the validity of the procedures adopted to effect its sale.
This is governed by Philippine law. The rule of lex situs does not apply.
SMALL vs.
UNITED STATES
SMALL VS. UNITED STATES
FACTS:
Small was convicted in Japan for smuggling and was sentenced by a Japanese
court to five years imprisonment. After serving his one year sentence in Japan,
Small returned to the US and purchased a gun. He was then charged for “unlawful
gun possession” under a statute that it shall be “unlawful for any person who has
been convicted in any court, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year...to…possess…any firearm.”
Small pleaded guilty then challenged the conviction on the ground that his earlier
conviction in Japan, being a foreign conviction, fell outside the scope of the
unlawful gun possession statue.
ISSUE:
Whether the “unlawful gun possession” statute had extraterritorial application
such that foreign convictions are covered in its scope.
RULING:
No, only domestic convictions are covered by statute.

In determining the scope of the statutory phrase we find help in the “common
sense notion that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.”
This notion has led the Court to adopt the legal presumption that Congress
ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not extraterritorial, application.
The statute’s language does not suggest any intent to reach beyond domestic
convictions. Neither does it mention foreign convictions nor is its subject matter
special, say, immigration or terrorism, where one could argue that foreign
convictions would seem especially relevant. To the contrary, if read to include
foreign convictions, the statute’s language creates anomalies.
KIOBEL vs.
ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO.
KIOBEL VS. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM
FACTS:
Petitioners were Nigerian nationals who sued Dutch, British, and Nigerian
corporations under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in federal court for violation of
the law of the nations. Petitioners claimed that the respondent corporations
committed atrocities in suppressing the demonstrations directed towards the
operation of the resident corporations. They claimed that respondents enlisted,
supported, and aided the Nigerian Government in attacking villages and beating,
raping, killing, and arresting residents and destroying or looting property.
The district court dismissed and allowed some of the claims but the case went on
interlocutory appeal before the Second Circuit, the latter dismissed the entire
complaint, on the ground that the law of nations did not recognize corporate
liability. Petitioners then went to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether and under what circumstances the ATS allows courts to recognize a
cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory
of a sovereign other than the United States.
RULING:
None, because the ATS has no extraterritorial application.
The question here is not whether petitioners have stated a proper claim under the
ATS, but whether a claim may reach conduct occurring in the territory of a
foreign sovereign. Respondents contend that claims under the ATS do not, relying
primarily on a canon of statutory interpretation known as the presumption against
extraterritorial application. That canon provides that “when a statute gives no
clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none,” and it reflects the
“presumption that United States law governs domestically and does not rule the
world.”
There is no indication that the ATS was passed to make United States a uniquely
hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms.
Nor does the historical background against which the ATS was enacted overcome
the presumption against application to conduct in the territory of another
sovereign.
We therefore conclude that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to
claims under the ATS, and that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption.
“There is no clear indication of extraterritoriality here,” and petitioners’ case
seeking relief for violations of the law of nations occurring outside the United
States is barred.
On these facts, all the relevant conduct took place outside the US. And even
where the claims touch and concern the territory of the US, they must do so with
sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.
Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say
that mere corporate presence suffices. If Congress were to determine otherwise, a
statute more specific than the ATS would be required.
THE MANILA HOTEL CORP., ET AL. VS. NLRC

FACTS:
Respondent Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker employed as a printer at the
Mazoon Printing Press in Oman when he was offered the same position but with a
higher salary and increased benefits by General Manager Mr. Gerhard Schmidt of
the Palace Hotel in Beijing, China. A few months later, Santos signified his
acceptance of the offer through a letter. Thereafter, the Palace Hotel Manager Mr.
Hans Henk mailed Santos a ready to sign employment contract.
Santos eventually resigned from the Mazoon under the pretext that he was needed
at home to help with the family's piggery and poultry business. The employment
contract stated that his employment shall be for a period of 2 years. About a year
later, Santos was informed that his employment at the Palace Hotel print shop
would be terminated due to business reverses brought about by the political
upheaval in China.
Santos was then terminated and was paid all the benefits due him, including his
plane fare to the Philippines. After arriving in Manila, Santos wrote Mr. Schmidt
a letter demanding full compensation pursuant to the employment agreement to
which the latter replied that his service with the Palace Hotel, Beijing was not
abruptly terminated but that they followed the one-month notice clause and
Santos received all benefits due him.
Santos then filed a case of illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch, NCR,
NLRC. The Palace Hotel and Mr. Schmidt were not served with summons and
neither participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. The LA
eventually decided the case in favor of Santos.

Petitioners Manila Hotel Corp. and Manila Hotel Intl. Ltd., by virtue of a management
agreement with the Palace Hotel, then appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the POEA, not
the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case.
The NLRC annulled the decision and enjoined Santos to file the case with the POEA
instead. Upon Santos’ MR with the contention that the POEA has no jurisdiction because
he was not an overseas contract worker, the NLRC reversed itself and referred the case to
the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Santos was indeed illegally dismissed and recommended
that he be paid actual damages equivalent to his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
contract. The NLRC having denied its MR, petitioners filed this instant petition, seeking
for the Court to annul the NLRC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the NLRC is an inconvenient forum.
RULING:
Yes, the NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. The main aspects of the case
transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The
only link that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino
citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases involving
our citizens can be tried here.
Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through
correspondence sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then
employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized
recruitment agency of the government.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the Philippine court is
one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is
in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that
the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. These
conditions are unavailing in this case.
We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of the
case — from the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants, the
Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they "doing
business in the Philippines." Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are
non-residents of the Philippines.
HSBC vs. SHERMAN

HSBC vs. SHERMAN
FACTS:
Easter Book Supply (Eastern), a corporation incorporated in Singapore, obtained a loan
from HSBC–Singapore Branch guaranteed by two directors of the corporation. The Joint
and Several Guarantee executed by the directors provides that: “This guarantee and all
rights, obligations and liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined
under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore. We
hereby agree that the Courts of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising
this guarantee..”
Eastern failed to pay its obligation and HSBC filed a collection case before the RTC of
Quezon City against private respondents (directors of Eastern). The director-guarantors
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The RTC denied the
motion but was subsequently reversed by the CA which held that Singapore was the
proper forum for the collection case.
HSBC vs. SHERMAN

ISSUE:
Whether Philippine courts have jurisdiction to entertain the collection suit.
RULING:
Yes, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to entertain the collection suit.
While it is true that "the transaction took place in Singaporean setting" and that the Joint
and Several Guarantee contains a choice-of-forum clause, the very essence of due process
dictates that the stipulation that "this guarantee and all rights, obligations and liabilities
arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in
accordance with the laws of the Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts
in Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this guarantee" be
liberally construed. One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International
Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for
exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in personam.
HSBC vs. SHERMAN
To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Indeed, as pointed-out by
HSBC at the outset, the instant case presents a very odd situation. In the ordinary habits
of life, anyone would be disinclined to litigate before a foreign tribunal, with more reason
as a defendant. However, in this case, private respondents are Philippine residents (a fact
which was not disputed by them) who would rather face a complaint against them before
a foreign court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to mention
inconvenience, than to have a Philippine court try and resolve the case. Private
respondents' stance is hardly comprehensible, unless their ultimate intent is to evade, or at
least delay, the payment of a just obligation.
HSBC vs. SHERMAN
The defense of private respondents that the complaint should have been filed in
Singapore is based merely on technicality. They did not even claim, much less prove, that
the filing of the action here will cause them any unnecessary trouble, damage, or expense.
On the other hand, there is no showing that petitioner BANK filed the action here just to
harass private respondents.
The parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of Singapore, to the exclusion of
all the rest, has jurisdiction. Neither did the clause in question operate to divest Philippine
courts of jurisdiction. In International Law, jurisdiction is often defined as the light of a
State to exercise authority over persons and things within its boundaries subject to certain
exceptions.
HSBC vs. SHERMAN

Thus, a State does not assume jurisdiction over travelling sovereigns, ambassadors and
diplomatic representatives of other States, and foreign military units stationed in or
marching through State territory with the permission of the latter's authorities. This
authority, which finds its source in the concept of sovereignty, is exclusive within and
throughout the domain of the State. A State is competent to take hold of any judicial
matter it sees fit by making its courts and agencies assume jurisdiction over all kinds of
cases brought before them.
END OF PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU.
REPORTER: HARLENE JOY S. BALDOSTAMON
JURISDICTION
Conflict of Laws
JURISDICTION
- right of a State to exercise authority over persons and things within its
boundaries.
- power of the court of the forum to render a decision that will create legal
rights and interests which other states will recognize and enforce
Jurisdiction
1. Determine if whether the court has jurisdiction over the case.
2. If it has jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed.
3 Kinds of Jurisdiction
1. Jurisdiction over the subject matter
2. Jurisdiction over the person
3. Jurisdiction over the res
Jurisdiction Over the Person

Jurisdiction over the person is the competence or power of a court to render a
judgment that will bind the parties involved: the plaintiff or petitioner, and the
defendant or respondent.
Jurisdiction over the plaintiff is acquired the moment he invokes the power
of the court by instituting the action by the proper pleading.
Jurisdiction Over the Person

Jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired when he enters his
appearance/voluntary appearance or by the coercive power of the legal
process by the court over him: by personal or substituted service of summons
on him
Jurisdiction Over the Res

Jurisdiction over the res is jurisdiction over the particular subject-matter in
controversy, regardless of the persons who may be interested therein.
-the presence of the property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum,
so as to affect the interests of all persons in a thing.
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and is defined as the
power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong.
Since jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law, it cannot be
conferred by consent of the parties or by their voluntary submission.
Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

In the Philippine Courts, jurisdiction is acquired through filing the proper
complaint or petition with the court. While in the Conflict of Laws, the
possible enforceability of its decision in foreign states subject to the rights of
said states.
Ways to Deal with Conflict of Laws Cases

1. Reject the renvoi
2. Accept the renvoi
3. Distance or mutual disclaimer of jurisdiction
4. Foreign Court Theory
1. Reject the renvoi

- Forum conflict rules is deemed to refer only to the internal law of that
state. Thus, the court will apply the foreign law.
- i.e. that which would apply to a domestic case with no conflict-of-laws
complications
2. Accept the renvoi

-If the conflict rules of the forum refer the case to the law of another
state, it is deemed to include the totality of the foreign law (internal law
and conflict of law rules). Thus the court will recognize the referral back
and apply the local law.
3. Desistance or Mutual Disclaimer of Jurisdiction Theory

i.e. the forum court, upon reference to foreign law, sees that such law only
applies to its own nationals and has no provision for application to a non-
national domiciled outside of the territory. Hence the local court will
apply the local law.
4. Foreign Court Theory

- the forum court would assume the same position that the foreign court
would take were the case litigated in the foreign court
Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction

Doctrine of Forum Coveniens
The refusal to assume jurisdiction because it would prove inconvenient
for the forum.
Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction

Reasons why a court will dismiss the case on the basis of forum non
conveniens
1. Evidence and witnesses may not be readily available in the forum;
2. Court dockets of the forum are already clogged that would hamper the
speedy administration of justice;
3. The matter can be better tried and decided in another forum;
4. To curb the evils of forum shopping;
5. The forum has no particular interest in the case, as when the parties
are not citizens of the forum or are residents elsewhere;
6. Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery in effectuating the right
sought to be enforced;
7. Difficulty in ascertaining the foreign law applicable
Assumption of Jurisdiction
Lex fori
-the prevailing municipal law would always be applied first
Lex causae
Latin for "law of the cause”, is the law chosen by the forum court from
the relevant legal systems when it judges an international or
interjurisdictional case.
It refers to the usage of particular local laws as the basis or "cause" for
the ruling, which would itself become part of referenced legal canon.
Renvoi
The word “Renvoi” comes from the French “send back” or “return
unopened”.
A procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by the conflict of
laws rules of the forum to a foreign state, the conflict of laws rule of which,
in turn, refers the matter to the law of the forum or third state.
- to avoid unjust results
Renvoi
Renvoi
Application
- applies when a court is faced with a conflict of law and must consider
the law of another state
- when considering foreign issues arising in succession planning and in
administering estates.
Renvoi
Problem: The process of renvoi is not applicable in instances where there
is a FALSE CONFLICT. There’s a false conflict when one of the states
does not have a real interest in applying its law in the controversy.
Examples:
• Competing states have the same substantive law and the third
concerned state has no interest in applying its law.
• The decedent was a domiciliary and national of only one state.
Renvoi
Double Renvoi vs. Transmission

Renvoi Transmission
Deals with 2 countries Deals with 3 or more

countries
Deals with “referring back” Deals with “referring

across” or “transmitting”
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, deceased,

MORA ADONG vs. CHEONG SENG GEE G.R. No. 18081 March 3,
1922
Facts:
Cheong Boo, a native of China, died intestate in Zamboanga, Philippine
Islands, on August 5, 1919. He left property worth nearly P100,000. The
estate of the deceased was claimed, on the one hand, by Cheong Seng Gee,
who alleged that he was a legitimate child by a marriage contracted by
Cheong Boo with Tan Dit in China in 1895. The estate was claimed, on
the other hand, by the Mora Adong who alleged that she had been
lawfully married to Cheong Boo in 1896 in Basilan, Philippine Islands,
and her daughters, Payang, married to Cheng Bian Chay, and Rosalia
Cheong Boo, unmarried.

1922
Facts:
RTC conclusion that the marriage between the Mora Adong and the
deceased had been adequately proved but that under the laws of the
Philippine Islands it could not be held to be a lawful marriage; hence,
that there should be a partition of the property of the deceased Cheong
Boo between the natural children, Cheong Seng Gee, Payang, and
Rosalia.

1922
Issue:
Whether or not Chinese marriage is acceptable in the Philippine courts
and jurisdiction.

1922
Ruling:
Section IV of the Marriage Law (General Order No. 68) provides that
"All marriages contracted without these Islands, which would be valid by
the laws of the country in which the same were contracted, are valid in
these Islands." To establish a valid foreign marriage pursuant to this
comity provision, it is first necessary to prove before the courts of the
Islands the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact, and it is then
necessary to prove the alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence.
CAYETANO LIM vs. THE

INSULAR COLLECTOR G.R. No. l-11759 March 16, 1917
Facts:
Insular Collector of Customs lawfully deny entry into the Philippine
Islands the two children aged 8 and 14 years, respectively, under and by
authority of the Chinese Immigration Laws, it appearing that the
children arrived at the Port of Manila accompanied by an in the custody
of their mother, a Filipino woman; that they were born in China, out of
lawful wedlock; and that their father was a Chinese person. It is
contended, on behalf of the Insular Collector of Customs, that these
children being Chinese persons are denied the right of entrance into the
Philippine Islands under the express terms of the Chinese immigration
laws.

Issue:
Whether or not children born out of wedlock in China had the right of
entrance in the Philippines with their Filipino mother, which it required
certificate as a wife/child of merchant, which they do not have.

Ruling:
It is contended, on behalf of the Insular Collector of Customs, that these
laws. On the other hand, it is urged on behalf of the children that they are
entitled to enter, regardless of the provisions of the Chinese immigration
laws, since the admitted facts, as it is said, disclose that they are citizens of
the Philippine Islands; and for the further reason, that their mother, who is
entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education,
is clearly entitled to take up her residence in the Philippine Islands and
should not be required, to that end, to abandon her minor children.

Ruling:
It was stated in the case of U. S. vs. Gue Lim, 176 U. S. 459, without
discussing or deciding any of the contentions of the parties as to the rights
of citizenship of these children, actual or inchoate, we are of opinion that
by analogous reasoning to that upon which the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the wives and minor children of Chinese
merchants domiciled in the United States may enter that country without
certificates, these children must be held to be entitled to enter the
Philippine Islands with their mother, for the purpose of taking up their
residence here with her, it appearing that she is natural guardian, entitled
to their custody and charged with their maintenance and education.
KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
vs. MINORU KITAMURA G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007

Facts:
In March 30, 1999, petitioner Nippon Engineering Consultants Co., Ltd.
(Nippon), a Japanese consultancy firm providing technical and
management support in the infrastructure projects of foreign
governments, entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA)
with respondent Minoru Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently
residing in the Philippines. The agreement provides that respondent was
to extend professional services to Nippon for a year starting on April 1,
1999.Nippon then assigned respondent to work as the project manager.
KAZUHIRO HASEGAWA NIPPON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
vs. MINORU KITAMURA G.R. No. 149177 November 23, 2007
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC of Lipa City has jurisdiction over a Japanese
contract made by Japanese parties.
WILDVALLEY SHIPPING vs. COURT OF APPEALS

GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Facts:
The Philippine Roxas was in Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela, to load iron ore.
When it was ready yo leave port, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez,
an official pilot of Venezuela, was assigned by harbor authorities to
navigate the vessel through Orinico River. Due to his negligence, the
Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River and obstructed the
ingress egress of vessels. One of these vessels was Malandrinon, a vessel
owned by Wildvalley Shipping Company Ltd. Subsequenty, Wildvalley
filed suit with the RTC of Manila agaisnt the Philippine President Lines,
Inc. ehich was the owner of the Philippine Roxas, for damages. Vildvalley
wanted Venezuela law to apply , since under Venezuela law, the owner of
the vessel is liable for the negligence of the compulsory pilot , which is not
so under Philippine law. WILDVALLEY SHIPPING vs. COURT OF

APPEALS
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Facts:
When it was ready yo leave port, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez,
so under Philippine law.
RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC., vs. STOCKTON W. ROUZIE,

JR. G.R. No. 162894 February 26, 2008
Facts:
laws. RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC., vs. STOCKTON W.

ROUZIE, JR. G.R. No. 162894 February 26, 2008
Facts:
laws. RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL, INC., vs. STOCKTON W.

ROUZIE, JR. G.R. No. 162894 February 26, 2008
Facts:
laws.

JR. G.R. No. 162894 February 26, 2008
Issue:
Whether or not the forum court can acquire jurisdiction over the case of
foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines but failed to
properly identify the cause of action.

JR. G.R. No. 162894 February 26, 2008
Ruling:
No, the forum court cannot take cognizance with its jurisdiction over
the case of foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines with a lack
of cause of action.
SC rendered that failure to state a cause of action refers to the
insufficiency of allegation in the pleading. As a general rule, the
elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the
complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded.
Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is conferred
by the Constitution and the law and by the material allegations in the
complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to
recover all or some of the claims or reliefs sought therein. Since the
petitioner corporation failed to qualify the same, it is right to dismissed
the case and affirm the CA’s decision.
THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et. al G.R. No.
120077 October 13, 2000
Facts:
The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the
following orders of the National Labor Relations Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "NLRC") for having been issued without or
with excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, futher which
grants Marcelo Santos the unpaid employment contract with the Manila
Hotel International Company, Limited(MHICL), as incorporator, located
in China by Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) located in the Philippines.
MHICL, being the incorporator of MHC, did the logistics and
communications in behalf of Santos for advance employment in MHICL.
Santos currely employed in Oman as printer invited by MHICL to have
employment with bigger salary in China. Persuaded by the benefits,
Santos resigned from his job. THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND
MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, et. al G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000
Facts:
The case before the Court is a petition for certiorari1 to annul the
following orders of the National Labor Relations Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "NLRC") for having been issued without or
with excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, futher which
grants Marcelo Santos the unpaid employment contract with the Manila
Hotel International Company, Limited(MHICL), as incorporator, located
in China by Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) located in the Philippines.
MHICL, being the incorporator of MHC, did the logistics and
communications in behalf of Santos for advance employment in MHICL.
Santos currely employed in Oman as printer invited by MHICL to have
employment with bigger salary in China. Persuaded by the benefits,
Santos resigned from his job.
120077 October 13, 2000
Facts:
Unfortunately, MHICL informed respondent Santos by letter signed
by the representative, Mr. Shmidt that his employment at the Palace
Hotel print shop would be terminated due to business reverses brought
about by the political upheaval in China, unfortunate happenings in
China to which business has been severely affected. Santos was
repatriated from China and seek for relief from NLRC. NLRC rendered
decision in favor to Santos. But MHICL filed a petition for Certiorari on
the ground that NLRC has no jurisdiction over the matter and the
Solicitor General supported through a comment.
120077 October 13, 2000
Issue:
Whether or not NLRC can apply non forum conveniens despite the fact
that the case involves Filipino citizen-aggrieved party against a Chinese
corporation.
120077 October 13, 2000
Ruling:
SC stated that the NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign
jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link
that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations.
Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract. — Respondent Santos was hired directly by
the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was
hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency
may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1)
that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine
court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.The conditions
are unavailing in the case at bar. THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. AND
MANILA HOTEL INTL. LTD., vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, et. al G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000
Ruling:
SC stated that the NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign
jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The only link
that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations.
Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract. — Respondent Santos was hired directly by
the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence sent to the
Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was
hired without the intervention of the POEA or any authorized
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency
may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1)
that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine
court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. The conditions
are unavailing in the case at bar.
120077 October 13, 2000
Ruling:
Not Convenient. — We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient
forum given that all the incidents of the case — from the time of
recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines.
The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants,
the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither
.are they "doing business in the Philippines." Likewise, the main
witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law. — Neither can an intelligent
decision be made as to the law governing the employment contract as
such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the
principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract
was made).38
The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines.
Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while he
was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in
the People's Republic of China.
120077 October 13, 2000
Ruling:
No power to determine the facts. — Neither can the NLRC determine
the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained
of took place in Beijing, People's Republic of China. The NLRC was not
in a position to determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident truly
adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent
Santos' retrenchment.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision. — Even
assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such
would not have any binding effect against the employer, the Palace Hotel.
The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the laws of China
and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was
not acquired.

GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Facts:
When it was ready to leave port, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez,
so under Philippine law. WILDVALLEY SHIPPING vs. COURT OF

APPEALS
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Facts:
When it was ready to leave port, Mr. Ezzar del Valle Solarzano Vasquez,
so under Philippine law.

GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Issue:
Whether Venzuela law is applicable to the a case at bar. WILDVALLEY
SHIPPING vs. COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Issue:
Whether Venzuela law is applicable to the a case at bar.

GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Ruling:
It is well-settled that 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. For a copy of
a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory: (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the
records or by his deputy; (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular
or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
The latter requirement 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. With respect to proof of written laws, parol proof is
objectionable, for the written law itself is the best evidence. According to
the weight of authority, when a foreign statute is involved, the best
evidence rule requires that it be proved by a duly authenticated copy of
the statute. At this juncture, we have to point out that the Venezuelan law
was not pleaded before the lower court. WILDVALLEY SHIPPING vs.
COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Ruling:
It is well-settled that 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. For a copy of
a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites are
mandatory: (1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the
records or by his deputy; (2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular
or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
The latter requirement 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. With respect to proof of written laws, parol proof is
objectionable, for the written law itself is the best evidence. According to
the weight of authority, when a foreign statute is involved, the best
evidence rule requires that it be proved by a duly authenticated copy of
the statute. At this juncture, we have to point out that the Venezuelan law
was not pleaded before the lower court.
GR No. 119602 October 6, 2000
Ruling:
A foreign law is considered to be pleaded if there is an allegation in the

pleading about the existence of the foreign law, its import and legal
consequence on the event or transaction in issue.
A review of the Complaint revealed that it was never alleged or invoked
despite the fact that the grounding of the M/V Philippine Roxas occurred
within the territorial jurisdiction of Venezuela. We reiterate that under
the rules of private international law, a foreign law must be properly
pleaded and proved as a fact. In the absence of pleading and proof, the
laws of a foreign country, or state, will be presumed to be the same as our
own local or domestic law and this is known as processual presumption.
PHILSEC INVESTMENT vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 103493 June 19, 1997
Ruling:
RTC cannot justify to refuse the case under non-forum conveniens
First, motion to dismiss is limited to the grounds under Rule 16, 1, which
does not include forum non conveniens. The propriety of dismissing a case
based on this principle requires a factual determination, hence, it is more
properly considered a matter of defense. Second, while it is within 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 courts desistance. In this case,
the trial court abstained from taking jurisdiction solely on the basis of the
pleadings filed by private respondents in connection with the motion to
dismiss. It failed to consider that one of the plaintiffs (PHILSEC) is a
domestic corporation and one of the defendants (Ventura Ducat) is a
Filipino, and that it was the extinguishment of the latters debt which was
the object of the transaction under litigation. The trial court arbitrarily
dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the
U.S. case.
PIONEER CONCRETE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO D. TODARO

G.R. No. 154830 June 8, 2007
Ruling:
The doctrine of forum non conveniens, literally meaning "the forum is
inconvenient", emerged in private international law to deter the practice
of global forum shopping, that is to prevent non-resident litigants from
choosing the forum or place wherein to bring their suit for malicious
reasons, such as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and harass
the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly
venue. Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law 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.
G.R. No. 154830 June 8, 2007
Ruling:
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the case
of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over
the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, ) that the
Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision."

G.R. No. 154830 June 8, 2007
Ruling:
Whether a suit should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of said
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular case and is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In the case
of Communication Materials and Design, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, this
Court held that "xxx [a] Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over
the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following requisites are
met: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, ) that the
Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision."
AUGUSTO BENEDICTO SANTOS III vs. NORTHWEST ORIENT
AIRLINES & COURT OF APPPEALS G.R. No. 1101538 June 23, 1992
Ruling:
The Warsaw Convention applies to all international transportation of
persons performed by aircraft for hire. Since the flight involved in the case at
bar is international, the same being from the United States to the Philippines
and back to the United States, it is subject to the provisions of the Warsaw
Convention, including Article 28(1), which enumerates the four places where
an action for damages may be brought.
Whether Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction or only to venue is a question
over which authorities are sharply divided. While the petitioner cites several
cases holding that Article 28(1) refers to venue rather than jurisdiction, there
are later cases cited by the private respondent supporting the conclusion that
the provision is jurisdictional. where the matter is governed by the Warsaw
Convention, jurisdiction takes on a dual concept. Jurisdiction in the
international sense must be established in accordance with Article 28(1) of
the Warsaw Convention, following which the jurisdiction of a particular
court must be established pursuant to the applicable domestic law. Only
after the question of which court has jurisdiction is determined will the issue
of venue be taken up. This second question shall be governed by the law of
the court to which the case is submitted.
NATIONAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL, LTD., v. SZUKHENT
375 US 310 January 6, 1964
Ruling:
The clause in the contract was inserted by the petitioner and agreed to
by the respondents in order to assure that any litigation under the lease
should be conducted in the State of New York. The contract specifically
provided that "This agreement shall be deemed to have been made in Nassau
County, New York, regardless of the order in which the signatures of the
parties shall be affixed hereto, and shall be interpreted, and the rights and
liabilities of the parties here determined, in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York." And it is settled, as the courts recognized, that parties to
a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given
court, to permit notice to be served by the opposing party, or even to waive
notice altogether.
INTERNATIONAL SHOE vs. STATE OF WASHINGTON

326 U.S. 310 (1945)
Ruling:
1. In view of 26 U.S.C. 1606(a) , providing that no person shall be
relieved from compliance with a state law requiring payments to an
unemployment fund on the ground that he is engaged in interstate
commerce, the fact that the corporation is engaged in interstate commerce
does not relieve it from liability for payments to the state unemployment
compensation fund.
2. The activities in behalf of the corporation render it amenable to suit in
courts of the State to recover payments due to the state unemployment
compensation fund.
PERKINS vs. CONSOLIDATED MINING CO., et. al.

342 US 437 March 3, 1952
Ruling:
It held that an Ohio state court could exercise general personal
jursidiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of that company's
"continuous and systematic" contacts with the state of Ohio. The defendant’s
company president's use of his office in Ohio to carry on continuous business
activities during this period allowed Ohio to properly assert general
jurisdiction over his company.
McGee vs. International Life Ins. Co.

355 U.S. 220 (December 16, 1957)
Ruling:
To satisfy due process, a contract suit must be based on a contract
that has a substantial connection with the forum for it to have personal
jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. It is sufficient for purposes of
due process that the suit was based on a contract which had substantial
connection with that State. The contract was delivered in California, the
premiums were mailed from there and the insured was a resident of that
State when he died. It cannot be denied that California has a manifest
interest in providing effective means of redress for its residents when their
insurers refuse to pay claims.
World-wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson 444 U.S. 286 (1980)

Ruling:
The Court found no circumstances justifying assertion by Oklahoma
courts of jurisdiction over defendants. The Court found that the defendants
(1) carried on no activity in Oklahoma, (2) closed no sales and performed no
services there, (3) availed themselves of none of the benefits of the state’s
laws, (4) solicited no business there either through salespersons or through
advertising reasonably calculated to reach the state, and (5) sold no cars to
Oklahoma residents or indirectly served or sought to serve the Oklahoma
market. Although it might have been foreseeable that the automobile would
travel to Oklahoma, foreseeability was held to be relevant only insofar as the
defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.
Calder vs. Jones, 465 U.S. 783

March 20, 1984
Ruling:
The Court held that it had jurisdiction over the defendants. Further,
it stated that a court within a state could assert personal jurisdiction over the
author and editor of a national magazine which published an
allegedly libelous article about a resident of that state, and where the magazine
had wide circulation in that state. The editor was aware that the magazine had
a significant circulation in California, that the plaintiff resided in California,
and that the allegations made in the article would harm her career there.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 March 20, 1984
Ruling:
Respondent's regular circulation of magazines in the forum State is
sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the
contents of the magazine. (a) New Hampshire jurisdiction over a complaint
based on this circulation of magazines satisfies the Due Process Clause's
requirement that a State's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a
nonresident defendant be predicated on "minimum contacts" between the
defendant and the State.
(b) In judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on "the
relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation." Thus, it is
relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry here that petitioner is seeking to recover
damages suffered in all States in one suit. The contacts between respondent
and the forum must be judged in light of that claim, rather than a claim only
for damages sustained in New Hampshire.
Asahi Metal Industry Co vs. Superior Court, 480, U.S 102 February 24, 1987
Ruling:
The defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
conducting business within a state for jurisdiction there to be found under a
minimum contacts analysis. Consumers cannot establish jurisdiction through
the unilateral action of bringing a product to the forum state. Asahi did not
have any commercial activities in the state or maintain offices in the state. It
was not involved with Cheng Shin's distribution networks, through which the
tire came to California.
Jurisdiction would violate notions of fair play and substantial justice
in this situation, but a manufacturer that participates in the stream of
commerce should be found to have purposefully engaged in activities in a
state if it is aware that its product is being marketed there.
Asahi Metal Industry Co vs. Superior Court, 480, U.S 102 February 24, 1987
Ruling:
Personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant should be
evaluated according to the following factors: the burden on the defendant, the
interests of the forum state, the interests of the plaintiff in choosing the forum,
efficiency concerns, and policy interests. Simply putting a product in the
stream of commerce and being aware that it would reach a certain state does
not by itself support jurisdiction in that state. Jurisdiction would violate
notions of fair play and substantial justice in this situation, but a
manufacturer that participates in the stream of commerce should be found to
have purposefully engaged in activities in a state if it is aware that its product
is being marketed there.
WILLIAM F. GEMPERLE v. HELEN SCHENKER

GR No. L-18164 June 23, 1967
Ruling:
It is urged by plaintiff that jurisdiction over the person of Schenker has
been secured through voluntary appearance on his part, he not having made a
special appearance to assail the jurisdiction over his person, and an answer
having been filed in this case, stating that "the defendants, by counsel,
answering the plaintiff's complaint, respectfully aver", which is allegedly a
general appearance amounting to a submission to the jurisdiction of the
court, confirmed, according to plaintiff, by a P225,000 counterclaim for
damages set up in said answer; but, this counterclaim was set up by Mrs.
Schenker alone. Moreover, said answer contained several affirmative
defenses, one of which was lack of jurisdiction over the person of Schenker,
thus negating the alleged waiver of this defense. Nevertheless, we hold that
the lower court had acquired jurisdiction over said defendant, through
service of the summons addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it appearing
from said answer that she is the representative and attorney-in-fact of her
husband, which apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned
representative capacity.
KLAUS LUECK vs. US COURT OF APPEALS

No. 99-15961 January 8, 2001
Ruling:
Plaintiffs appeal the district court's dismissal of their suit on the basis
of forum non conveniens. It held that a district court has discretion to decline
to exercise jurisdiction in a case where litigation in a foreign forum would be
more convenient for the parties. In dismissing an action on forum non
conveniens grounds the court must examine: (1) whether an adequate
alternative forum exists, and (2) whether the balance of private and public
interest factors favors dismissal. Asseted that a forum non conveniens
determination is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. The
district court's decision “may be reversed only when there has been a clear
abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all relevant public and
private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable,
its decision deserves substantial deference.”
Erie Railroad Co. vs. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188
(1938)
Ruling:
Delaware Law is applicable. Generally, in a conflict-of-laws situation,
a court must determine at the outset the nature of the problem presented to it
for solution, specifically, if it relates to torts, contracts, property, or some
other field, or to a matter of substance or procedure. Accordingly, it must be
first address the nature of an action by an insured against his own insurer
for uninsured motorist benefits. The action by the insured against the insurer
is a contract action. Recovery is based upon the element of tortious conduct,
in this case, the negligence of a third party.
The “Rainbow Joy”, 2005 SGCA 36, Court of Appeal

Civil Appeal No 116 of 2004, Singapore
Ruling:
As a general proposition, it is probably correct to say that the law of
the flag country should apply in relation to a tort committed on board a
vessel which is then on the high seas. However, where in the contract of
employment the parties have specified the governing law, the contract term
should prevail.
In the circumstances of this case, it was quite clear to us that the judge
was correct in holding that the Philippines would be the more appropriate
forum to determine the claim. Nothing material in the case linked it to
Singapore. The only link the appellant had with Singapore was the fact that
he joined the vessel in Singapore and that he returned to the Philippines via
Singapore. However, these circumstances were wholly irrelevant to the claim.
Neither was the fact that the writ was served on the vessel in Singapore of
any real relevance.
The “Rainbow Joy”, 2005 SGCA 36, Court of Appeal

Civil Appeal No 116 of 2004, Singapore
Ruling:
Moreover, no security was obtained in Singapore. What is more
material are these. First, the entire crew of the vessel, including the
appellant, are Filipino and presumably reside in that country. Second, the
medical witnesses will also be from the Philippines, other than the
ophthalmologist from Yangon, whose evidence may or may not even be
necessary. Third, the employment contract is governed by Philippine law.
The Philippines has specifically enacted laws to protect its citizens who are
serving on foreign vessels. Hong Kong law will only come into the picture if it
is shown to be more advantageous to the appellant and this has not been
shown as yet. Fourth, the hearing of the claim in the Philippines will also
avoid the need for having interpretation, especially for those lower rank
staff, if any, who may be able to speak only in Tagalog. Fifth, a performance
bond has been furnished by Cleene Maritime to the Filipino authorities.
Sixth, the respondent has also agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the
Philippines. To our mind, the case has overwhelming connection with the
Philippines. Thus the appeal had to be dismissed.
In re: Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster in Bhopal, India in

December 1984, U.S. Court of Appeals, 14 January 1986
Ruling:
Indians working from a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide India.
Lawsuits were filed in US courts. Pursuant to Indian Parliament, the Indian
Government joined litigation as coplaintiff in April 1985. Upon motion by
defendant by Union Carbide, the district court dismissed the consolidated case
on the ground of forum non conveniens that the Indian legal system is in a far
better position than the American courts to determine the cause of the tragic
event and thereby fix liability. In re: Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant
Disaster in Bhopal, India in December 1984, U.S. Court of Appeals, 14
January 1986
Ruling:
Indians working from a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide India.
Lawsuits were filed in US courts. Pursuant to Indian Parliament, the Indian
Government joined litigation as coplaintiff in April 1985. Upon motion by
defendant by Union Carbide, the district court dismissed the consolidated case
on the ground of forum non conveniens that the Indian legal system is in a far
better position than the American courts to determine the cause of the tragic
event and thereby fix liability.
Priscilla C. Mijares et al., vs. Hom. Santiago Javier Ranada, et al.,

G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005
Ruling:
It is clearly based on a judgment, the Final Judgment of the US District Court.
The provision does not make any distinction between a local judgment and a
foreign judgment, and where the law does not distinguish, we shall not
distinguish. The party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend
against the enforcement of such decision in the local forum. It is essential that
there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order
for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.
Consequently, the party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of
overcoming the presumption of its validity. There is no obligatory rule
derived from treaties or conventions that requires the Philippines to
recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement
thereof. However, generally accepted principles of international law, by
virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws
of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
Pennoyer vs. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878)
Ruling:
When service cannot be thus made, and the defendant, after due
diligence, cannot be found within the State, and
"that fact appears, by affidavit, to the satisfaction of the court or judge
thereof, and it, in like manner, appears that a cause of action exists against
the defendant, or that he is a proper party to an action relating to real
property in the State, such court or judge may grant an order that the
service be made by publication of summons. When the defendant is not a
resident of the State, but has property therein, and the court has jurisdiction of
the subject of the action. Hence, the plaintiff has a cause of action of action
against defendant. The order to designate a newspaper of the county where
the action is commenced in which the publication shall be made -- and that
proof of such publication shall be "the affidavit of the printer, or his
foreman, or his principal clerk.
French vs. Banco National de Cuba, 295 NY 2d, 422-423 (1968) (Saba Hino)
Ruling:
US court held that the Act of State doctrine was applicable and, thus, a
dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action against the Cuban National Bank
was required. Act of State Doctrine settled by the Supreme Court that the
courts in the United States will not inquire into the validity of the acts of a
foreign government done within its own territory. Further, it stated also that
in e]very sovereign State is bound to respect the independence of every other
sovereign State, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the
acts of the government of another done within its own territory. Redress of
grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open
to be availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves."
Hassan El-Fadl vs. Central Bank of Jordan, et. al. (February 6, 1996, No. 94-
7212)
Ruling:

In this case, PIBC and Petra Bank could not prove on the present
record that Jordan was an adequate alternative forum. In deciding a forum
non conveniens motion, the district court must first establish that there is an
adequate alternative forum: At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry,
the court must determine whether there exists an alternative forum. Ordinarily,
this requirement will be satisfied when the defendant is “amenable to
process” in the other jurisdiction. In rare circumstances, however, where the
remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsatisfactory, the other forum
may not be an adequate alternative, and the initial requirement may not be
satisfied. Thus, for example, dismissal would not be appropriate where the
alternative forum does not permit litigation of the subject matter of the
dispute. “Availability of adequate alternative fora is a threshold test, in the
sense that a forum non conveniens motion cannot be granted unless the test is
fulfilled.” The defendant bears the burden of proving that there is an
adequate alternative forum.
Pennhurst State School and Hospital. v. Halderman, 465, U.S. 89 (1984)
Ruling:
The Eleventh Amendment prohibited the District Court from ordering state
officials to conform their conduct to state law.
(a) The principle of sovereign immunity is a constitutional limitation on the
federal judicial power established in Art. III of the Constitution. The
Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against state officials when the State is the
real, substantial party in interest, regardless of whether the suit seeks
damages or injunctive relief. The Court in Ex parte Young, supra,
recognized an important exception to this general rule: a suit challenging the
federal constitutionality of a state official's action is not one against the State.
Ruling:
Ruling:
Lord Day & Lord v. Socialist Republic of Vietnam 134 F. Supp.2d 549
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)
Ruling:
Defendant Vietnam's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in its entirety. The
Cross-Complaint of Defendants Swiss Reinsurance Company, Assurance
Generales de France, and Groupe des Mutuelles Alsaciennes is hereby
DISMISSED. As a matter of law, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is the
exclusive and rightful owner of the funds and is entitled to relief.
"A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Rule 12(b) (1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional
power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. U.S., 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000).
"In resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b) (1), a district court ... may refer to evidence outside the
pleadings." Id. (citing Kamen v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 791 F.2d 1006, 1011
(2d Cir.1986)). Further, a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, taking as
true the allegations pleaded in the complaint and making all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff, "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief."
Saratoga Country Chamber of Commerce, In. v. Pataki 798 N.E. 2d 1047

(N.Y. 2003)
Ruling:
The Tribe is a necessary party whose sovereign immunity prevents
joinder, the statutory factors in CPLR 1001(b) must be weighed to determine
whether the litigation should continue without the Tribe. The second factor
(the prejudice to the Tribe if the claims proceed in its absence) and the third
factor (whether and by whom this prejudice might have been or may be
avoided in the future) are related and, in our view, dispositive. After all, the
Appellate Division acknowledged that the Tribe would have a viable claim
for dismissal on the basis of laches if it were a party.
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS vs. MAMERTO ROXAS, et. al.

G.R. No. 47517 June 27, 1941
Ruling:
Idonah Slade Perkins in her cross-complaint brought suit against
Eugene Arthur Perkins and the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company
upon the alleged judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
and asked the court below to render judgment enforcing that New York
judgment which gives her the right of the shares of stock with his husband
Eugene Perkins, and to issue execution thereon. This is a form of action
recognized by section 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47,
Rule 39, Rules of Court) and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate, settled and determine. SC
denied her motion since CFI has jurisdiction on the subject matter.
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS vs. MAMERTO ROXAS, et. al.

Section 47. Effect of judgments or final orders. — The effect of a
judgment or final order rendered by a court of the Philippines, having
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or final order, may be as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order against a specific thing, or in respect
to the probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased
person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a
particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or final order
is conclusive upon the title to the thing, the will or administration or the
condition, status or relationship of the person, however, the probate of a will
or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of
the death of the testator or intestate;
(b) In other cases, the judgment or final order is, with respect to the matter
directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been missed in
relation thereto, conclusive between the parties and their successors in
interest, by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special
proceeding, litigating for the same thing and under the same title and in the
same capacity; and
(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in
interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment or
final order which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which
was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.
VICENTE CALUAG, et. al v. POTENCIANO PECSON, et. al

G.R. No. L-1403. October 29, 1948
Ruling:
A Court of First Instance has an abstract jurisdiction or power to try
and decide criminal cases for homicide committed within its territorial
jurisdiction; but it has no power to try and decide a criminal case against a
person for homicide committed within its territory, unless a complaint or
information against him be filed with the said court. And it has also power to
try civil cases involving title to real estate situated within its district; but it
has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a dispute or controversy between
two persons over title of real property located in his province, unless a
proper complaint be filed with its court. So, although the Court of First
Instance of Bulacan has power conferred by law to punish as guilty of
indirect contempt a party who disobeys its order or judgment, it did not have
or acquire jurisdiction of the particular case under consideration to declare
the petitioners guilty of indirect contempt, and order their confinement until
they have executed the deed of conveyance in question, because neither a
charge has been filed against them nor a hearing thereof held as required by
law.
FAR EAST INTERNATIONAL IMPORT, et. al v. NANKAI KOGYO, et. al.

G.R. No. L-13525 November 30, 1962
Ruling:
Not only did appellant allege non-jurisdictional grounds in its
pleadings to have the complaint dismissed, but it also went into trial on the
merits and presented evidence destined to resist appellee's claim. Verily,
there could not be a better situation of acquired jurisdiction based on
consent. Consequently, the provision of the contract wherein it was agreed
that disputes should be submitted to a Board of Arbitration which may be
formed in Japan (in the supposition that it can apply to the matter in dispute
- payment of the scrap), seems to have been waived with appellant's
voluntary submission. Apart from the fact that the clause employs the word
"may". Not only did appellant allege non-jurisdictional grounds in its
pleadings to have the complaint dismissed, but it also went into trial on the
merits and presented evidence destined to resist appellee's claim. Verily,
there could not be a better situation of acquired jurisdiction based on
consent. Consequently, the provision of the contract wherein it was agreed
that disputes should be submitted to a Board of Arbitration which may be
formed in Japan (in the supposition that it can apply to the matter in dispute
- payment of the scrap), seems to have been waived with appellant's
voluntary submission. Apart from the fact that the clause employs the word
"may".
.
Conflict of laws
CHOICE OF LAW
REPORTER : SHEENA P. BAWE
Outline:
 Choice of law principles
 Theories on the application of foreign law
 Determination of Applicable Law
 Characterization of Conflicts Rules/ Connecting Factors
 Exception to the Application of Foreign Laws
 Cases
1. Choice of Law Principles1. Choice of Law Principles

U.S. Restatement (Second) of Laws, Section 6:
(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of its
own state on choice of law.
(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable
rule of law include:
XxxxX...
a. Principle 1: Local Lawa. Principle 1: Local Law
A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive of
its own state on choice of law.
This is the general rule that governs the relationship of the parties to a dispute.
Examples:
Article 15 of the New Civil Code:
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad.
Article 16 of the New Civil Code:
Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
a1. Problem of Renvoia1. Problem of Renvoi
RENVOI DOCTRINE -
A doctrine whereby a jural matter is presented which the conflict of laws rules
of the forum refer to a foreign law which in turn, refers the matter back to the
law of the forum or a third State. When reference is made back to the law of
the forum, this is said to be remission, while reference to a third State is called
transmission
a1. Problem of Renvoi
A local law requires the forum court to apply a foreign law to the case in dispute. The
foreign law, in turn, directs the application of the laws of the forum court to the case
under consideration. Thus, there is a reference back to the local laws of the forum court.
Problem : This may result in an endless reference to two laws, breeding a situation where
the reference never stops.
How to solve the problem of renvoi?
Ans: The local court must, after looking at the conflicts-of-law rules of the foreign
state, apply the directive of the latter's laws.
Aznar vs. Garcia
G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 3, 196Aznar vs. Garcia
G.R. No. L-16749, Jan. 3, 196v
FACTS:
Edward Christensen, who at his death was a US citizen but domiciled in the Philippines,
left a will, devising unto Maria Helen a certain amount of money and giving the rest of
his estate to Maria Lucy. Helen opposed the partition on the ground that she is deprived
of her legitime. Her contention is that the law of California directs that the law of the
domicile (Philippines) should govern the will.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the national law or the domiciliary law should apply .
RULING:
The intrinsic validity of wills is governed by the national law of the decedent. In the
present case, the national law of Edward is the laws of California. However, there were
two conflicting California laws regarding succession. One is enunciated in In Re
Kaufman (which does not provide for legitimes) and another is Art. 946 of the California
Civil Code (which provides that the law of the domicile applies). SC held that the
national law is Art. 946, which is the conflict of laws rule of California. The reason is that
In Re Kaufman applies only to residents while Art. 946 is specific to non-residents. Thus,
since Art. 946 contains a refer-back to Philippine laws (the law of the domicile), then
Maria Helen is entitled to her legitime.
Principle 2: Needs of the Interstate and International Systems

Courts must consider the needs of the interstate and international systems in
determining the applicable law.
Courts must formulate principles and reconcile multistate laws with the end in
view of encouraging international trade among people.
c. Principle 3: Relevant policies of the forum
 Policies of the forum take primordial consideration when considering the

applicable law to a case.
PUBLIC POLICY. Policies are fundamental public policies when -
a. they cannot be contractually waived;
b. they protect against otherwise inequitable results; and
c. they promote the public interest
Bellis vs. Bellis

G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 196
FACTS:
Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of Texas. He left two wills -- one
devising a certain amount of money to his first wife and three illegitimate children
and another, leaving the rest of his estate to his seven legitimate children. Before
partition, the illegitimate children who are Filipinos opposed on the ground that
they are deprived of their legitimes.
ISSUE:
Whether the applicable law is Texas law or Philippine laws
RULING:
Applying the nationality rule, the law of Texas should govern the intrinsic validity
of the will and therefore answer the question on entitlement to legitimes. But
since the law of Texas was never proven, the doctrine of processual presumption
was applied. Hence, SC assumed that Texas law is the same as Philippine laws,
which upholds the nationality rule.
Renvoi doctrine is not applicable because there is no conflict as to the nationality
and domicile of Bellis. He is both a citizen and a resident of Texas. So even if
assuming the law of Texas applies the domiciliary rule, it is still Texas law that
governs because his domicile is Texas.
Cadalin vs. POEA

G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994
ON THE DOCTRINE OF BORROWING STATUTE

FACTS:
Cadalin et al. are OCWs deployed to various Middle Eastern countries, including
Bahrain. Under the contracts, the choice of applicable law is Bahrain law in case
of contractual disputes. The contracts were later pre-terminated so Cadalin et al.
filed with RTC a case for recovery of unpaid wages, etc. Under Bahrain law, the
action has already prescribed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bahrain law should be applied on the question of prescription of
action
RULING:
Statute of limitations is sui generis -- it may be procedural or substantive,
depending on the characterization given such a law. This distinction, however,
becomes irrelevant when there is a borrowing statute, as in the case of our Rules
of Court, which provides that any action barred under the law of the country
where the cause of action arose is also barred in the Philippines. But, in this case,
SC did not apply our Rules of Court on the ground that doing so would
contravene the constitutional provision on protecting the rights of labor. The
courts of the forum will not enforce an foreign claims obnoxious to the forum’s
public policy.
Bank of America, NT vs. American Realty Corporation

G.R No. 133876, Dec. 29, 1999
FACTS:
Bank of America, duly licensed to do business in the Philippines and existing
under the laws of California, USA, granted US Dollar loans to certain foreign
corporate borrowers. These loans were secured by two real estate mortgages by
American Realty, a domestic corporation. When the borrowers defaulted, Bank of
America sued them before English courts. While these cases were pending, Bank
of America likewise judicially foreclosed the real estate mortgages in the
Philippines. Thus, American Realty sued for damages against Bank of America.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bank of America can judicially foreclose the real estate mortgages
despite pendency of the civil suits before English courts
RULING:
English law purportedly allows the filing of judicial foreclosure of mortgage
despite pendency of civil suit for collection. But English law was never properly
impleaded and proven. Thus, the doctrine of processual presumption applies.
SC further held that even assuming arguendo that English laws were proven, said
foreign law would still no find applicability. When the foreign law, judgment or
contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said
foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.
Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and
those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs
shall not be rendered ineffective b laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. The public policy
sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our
jurisdiction proscribing the splitting of a single cause of action.
Moreover, the foreign law should not be applied when its application would work
undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum.
Dacasin vs. Dacasin
FACTS:
Herald (American) and Sharon (Filipino) were married in Manila. They have one
daughter, Stephanie. They obtained a divorce decree in 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake
County, Illinois. In its ruling, the Illinois court dissolved the marriage of
petitioner and respondent, awarded to respondent sole custody of Stephanie and
retained jurisdiction over the case for enforcement purposes. Petitioner and
respondent executed a contract (Agreement) for the joint custody of Stephanie.
The parties chose Philippine courts as exclusive forum to adjudicate disputes
arising from the Agreement. Petitioner sued respondent for alleged violation of
Agreement. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of
jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of petitioner’s
suit and enforce the Agreement on the joint custody of the parties’ child.
RULING:
The trial court cannot enforce the Agreement which is contrary to law.
In this jurisdiction, parties to a contract are free to stipulate the terms of
agreement subject to the minimum ban on stipulations contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order, or public policy. Otherwise, the contract is denied
legal existence, deemed "inexistent and void from the beginning."13 For lack of
relevant stipulation in the Agreement, these and other ancillary Philippine
substantive law serve as default parameters to test the validity of the Agreement’s
joint child custody stipulations.
The Agreement is not only void ab initio for being contrary to law, it has also
been repudiated by the mother when she refused to allow joint custody by the
father. The Agreement would be valid if the spouses have not divorced or
separated because the law provides for joint parental authority when spouses live
together.21 However, upon separation of the spouses, the mother takes sole
custody under the law if the child is below seven years old and any agreement to
the contrary is void. Thus, the law suspends the joint custody regime for (1)
children under seven of (2) separated or divorced spouses.
d. Principle 4: Relevant Policies of Other Interested States

 In 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.
Kearney vs. Salomon Smith Barney
Once a preliminary analysis has identified a true conflict of the governmental

interests involved as applied to the parties under the particular circumstances of a
case, the comparative impairment approach to the resolution of such conflict
seeks to determine which state's interest would be more impaired if its policy
were subordinated to the policy of the other state. This analysis proceeds on the
principle that true conflicts should be resolved by applying the law of the state
whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not applied. Exponents of
this process of analysis emphasize that it is very different from a weighing
process. The court does not weigh the conflicting governmental interests in the
sense of determining which conflicting law manifested the better or the worthier
social policy on the specific issue. The process can accurately be described as
accommodation of conflicting state policies, as a problem of allocating domains
of law-making power in multi-state contexts -- limitations on the reach of state
policies -- as distinguished from evaluating the wisdom of those policies.
Emphasis is placed on the appropriate scope of conflicting state policies rather
than on the quality of those policies.
d. Principle 5. Protection of Justified Expectations

 When parties specify a particular law to govern their legal relations, courts must
enforce this choice of law, unless it is contrary to the statutory directive of the
forum court, or contravenes public policy.
f. Principle 6: Basic Policies Underlying the Particular Field of Law

 The reasons and objectives of the laws in question should be given consideration.
g. Principle 7: Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result
RES JUDICATA -
Res judicata refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a
court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their
privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.
STARE DECISIS -
commands that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should
be deemed settled and closed to further argument.
h. Principle 8: Ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied
LEX LOCI DELICTI -

Law of place where the crime took place.
THEORIES IN THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW
a. Theory of Comity
Foreign law is applied because of its convenience and because we

want to give protection to our citizens, residents, & transients in our
laws.
b. Theory of Vested Right

Here we seek to enforce not the foreign law itself but the rights that have been
vested under such foreign law.
c. Theory of Local Law

We apply foreign law not because it is foreign but because our own laws, by
applying similar rules, require us to do so.
d. Theory of Harmony of Laws

We have to apply foreign law so that whenever a case is decided, that is,
irrespective of the forum, the solution should be approximately the same; thus
identical or similar solutions anywhere and everywhere.
e. Theory of Justice
The purpose of all laws is the dispensing of justice; if this can be attained in
many cases by applying the proper foreign law, we must do.
DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE LAW
a. Center of Gravity Doctrine/ Connecting Factors
Choice of law problems in conflict of law are resolved by the application

of the law of the jurisdiction which has the most significant relationship to
or contact with event and parties to litigation and the issue therein.
b. Caver's Principle
Where there is no conflict of law rules, in the forum, the court applies
general principles to arrive at just solutions by accommodating conflicting
policies and affording fair treatment of the parties caught in the conflict
between state policies. The absence of conflict of laws rule in the forum
does not justify the court from declining to render judgment.
c. The State-Interest Analysis
The court takes into account the interest of the state in issue, not only as a
sovereign in a set of facts or any entity but as a repository of justice.
Test
1. The court determines whether the relevant law of the affected

jurisdictions with regard to the issue in question is the same or
different
2. If there is a difference, the court examines each jurisdiction's interest in

the application of its own law to determine whether a true conflict exists;
and
3. If the court finds that there is a true conflict, it carefully evaluates and
compares the nature and strength of the interest of each jurisdiction to
determine which state's interest would be more impaired if its policy were
subordinated to the policy of the other state.
d. German Rule of Elective Concurrence

Under this theory, the place of tort is whenever an essential part of the tort
has been committed. And the injured person may choose to sue in either of
the places, which to him is most advantageous to his claim.
CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFLICT RULES/CONNECTING

FACTORS
a. Definition
It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind
of question specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of
"characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
b. Theories of Characterization
1. The lex fori theory — this is the most common theory: here, the
forum merely considers its own concepts its own characterization,
otherwise, according to the adherents of this theory (Bartin and Kahn)
there will be ’A virtual surrender of sovereignty right in the forum’s
own home.
c. Theories of Characterization
2. The lex causae theory — This is the exact opposite of the lex situs
theory: here, we are supposed to follow the characterization of the
foreign state which is the principal point of contact.
d. Theories of Characterization
3. The universal analytical theory (also called the comparative

approach theory) — Here, common factors both in the lex fori and the
lex causae are taken into consideration in order to avoid unjust results;
stated differently, characterization comes only after a general
comparative analytical study of the jurisprudence of all the states
involved.
b. Theories of Characterization
4. The dual theory of lex fori and lex causae — This is similar to the
comparative approach theory except that instead of considering
worldwide conceptions, only two concepts enter into the picture the
characterization of the lex fori and that of the lex fori and that of the
lex causae.
b.Theories of Characterization
5. The autonomous theory — This theory sponsored by Dr. Martin
Wolff wants the forum to consider the characterization of the country
referred to in the conflicts rule of the lex causae
b.Theories of Characterization
6. The totality theory — This is a very simple theory: get the

characterization intended by the parties; or to put it more
elaborately, get the law intended by the parties to apply, and then
proceed to apply the characterization given by that intended law.
b. Sources of Problem of Characterization
1. Different legal systems may contain ideas or conceptions completely unkDifferent

legal systems attach to the same legal term with different meanings, that is, an
identity of name covers a difference of nature or content of a legal idea.
2. nown to one another.
3. Different legal systems apply different principles for the solution of problems
which, in general terms, are of a common nature.”
c. Steps in Characterization
(1) Characterization of the questions;

(2) Selection of the proper law; and
(3) Application of the proper law.
d. Steps in Characterization
(1) The determination of the facts involved;

(2) The characterization of the factual situation;
(3) The determination of the conflicts rule which is to be applied;
(4) The characterization of the point of contact or the connecting factor;
(5) The characterization of the problem as procedural or substantive;
(6) The pleading and proving of the proper foreign law; and
(7) The application of the proper foreign law to the problem.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW

GENERAL RULE :
A foreign law may be given territorial effect and application in the resolution of a
case involving foreign elements, filed in the country, because:
1. Local law directs that it be applied in a given case;
2. The parties have stipulated that a specific foreign law be applied to govern
in case of dispute arising from their contract;
3. A treaty or convention to which the country has adhered requires that a
foreign law be applied; or
4. The rules of conflict of laws point to the application of a foreign law.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAWS
1. A foreign law will not be applied if it contravenes prohibitive law or public policy
of the forum.
2. The agreement stipulating the specific law as the applicable law may not be
enforced when the relationship of the contracting parties affects public interest in
the country of one of the parties, or the substantial contacts arising therefrom
point to the law of another country as applicable law, or such agreement
contravenes the prohibitive law or the public policy of the forum.

3. The situs of the real property is fixed and irremovable, which is the place where it
is situated. On the other hand, personal property may be transferred or removed
from one country to another by its owner, except certain personal property which
the law considers it as having a fixed situs.

4. Where a foreign law, foreign judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and
established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or contract
shall not be applied.
5. Even when a foreign law is the applicable law in a given conflict of law case, its
application is limited only to substantive law which is the basis of the cause of
action, and does not extend to procedural law.

4. Where a foreign law, foreign judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and
established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or contract
shall not be applied.
5. Even when a foreign law is the applicable law in a given conflict of law case, its
application is limited only to substantive law which is the basis of the cause of
action, and does not extend to procedural law.
6. Foreign penal laws have no extraterritorial application in the Philippines.
RELEVANT CASES
Tayag Renato vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
G.R. No. 23145, (November 29, 1968)
FACTS:
Idonah Slade Perkins, an American citizen who died in New York City, left
among others, two stock certificates issued by Benguet Consolidated, a
corporation domiciled in the Philippines. As ancillary administrator of Perkins’
estate in the Philippines, Tayag now wants to take possession of these stock
certificates but County Trust Company of New York, the domiciliary
administrator, refused to part with them. Thus, the probate court of the Philippines
was forced to issue an order declaring the stock certificates as lost and ordering
Benguet Consolidated to issue new stock certificates representing Perkins’ shares.
Benguet Consolidated appealed the order, arguing that the stock certificates are
not lost as they are in existence and currently in the possession of County Trust
Company of New York.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the order of the lower court is proper
RULING:
The appeal lacks merit. Tayag, as ancillary administrator, has the power to gain
control and possession of all assets of the decedent within the jurisdiction of the
Philippines. There can be more than one administration of an estate. When a
person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as well as in a
foreign country, administration is had in both countries. That which is granted in
the jurisdiction of decedent’s last domicile is termed the principal administration,
while any other administration is termed the ancillary administration. The reason
for the latter is because a grant of administration does not ex proprio vigore have
any effect beyond the limits of the country in which it is granted. Hence, an
administrator appointed in a foreign state has no authority in the [Philippines].
The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a
country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in the
nature of assets of the deceased liable for his individual debts or to be distributed
among his heirs.
United Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 124110, (April 20, 2001)
FACTS:
Willie Uy is a passenger of United Airlines, bound for San Francisco to Manila.
While in San Francisco, it was found that one piece of his luggage was over the
maximum weight limit, for which a United Airlines personnel rebuked him and in
a loud voice, in front of the milling crowd, ordered him to repack his things. But
even after repacking, his luggage was still overweight, forcing Willie to pay for
the excess with the use of his Miscellaneous Charge Order (MCO). United
Airlines, however, refused to honor it on account of some discrepancies in the
figures, so Willie had to use his American Express credit card instead. Upon
arrival in Manila, he discovered that one of his bags had been slashed and its
contents stolen. Willie sent a letter of demand to United Airlines, which only
offered to pay him the value of US$9.70 per pound (the limit). Willie, however,
rejected the offer and sent two more demand letters, which were ignored, thus
prompting him to file a complaint for damages with the Philippine courts based
on tort and the loss of his luggage. United Airlines moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that it was filed beyond the two-year prescriptive period
under the Warsaw Convention.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the action for damages is barred by prescription
HELD:
SC held that although the two-year prescriptive period under the Warsaw
Convention had already lapsed by the time Willie filed the complaint for
damages, this did not preclude the application of pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code. Thus, the action for damages could still be filed based on tort which can be
filed within 4 years from the time cause of action accrued. As for the action
pertaining to the loss of the contents of the luggage, while it was well within the
bounds of the Warsaw Convention, SC found that there was an exception the
applicability of the 2-year prescriptive period – that is when the airline employed
delaying tactics and gave the passenger the run-around.
Pakistan International Airlines vs. Ople

G.R. No. 61594,(September 28, 1990) 190 SCRA 1990
FACTS:
Pakistan International, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the
Philippines, executed two contracts of employment with private respondents for
their services as flight stewardess. The contract had a term of three years but also
with the stipulation that, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the
employer reserves the right to pre-terminate it at any time. Before the expiration
of the three-year term, Pakistan International sent notices of dismissal to private
respondents, prompting them to file this case for illegal dismissal and recovery of
wages and other benefits.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the stipulation in the contract as to the right of the employer to
terminate employees at any time should be respected
RULING:
SC held in the negative.
A contract freely entered into should be respected, since a contract is the law
between the parties. The principle of party autonomy in contracts is not, however,
an absolute principle. The rule in Article 1306, NCC, is that the contracting
parties may establish such stipulations as they may deem convenient, “provided
they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public
policy.” Thus, counterbalancing the principle of autonomy of contracting parties
is the equally general rule that provisions of applicable law, especially provisions
relating to matters affected with public policy, are deemed written into the
contract. Put a little differently, the governing principle is that parties may not
contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions
dealing with matters heavily impressed with public interest. The law relating to
labor and employment is clearly such an area and the parties are not at liberty to
insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and
regulations by simply contracting with each other.
Huntington vs. Attrill

146 U.S. 657 (1892)
As a rule, laws have no force of themselves beyond the jurisdiction of the state
which enacts them, and can have extraterritorial effect only by the comity of other
states.
‘The rule that the courts of no country execute the penal laws of another applies,
not only to prosecutions and sentences for crimes and misdemeanors, but to all
suits in favor of the state for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for any violation
of statutes for the protection of its revenue, or other municipal laws, and to all
judgments for such penalties.’ Crimes and offenses against the laws of any state
can only be defined, prosecuted, and pardoned by the sovereign authority of that
state; and the authorities, legislative, executive, or judicial, of other states take no
action with regard to them, except by way of extradition, to surrender offenders to
the state whose laws they have violated, and whose peace they have broken.
The provision of the statute of New York now in question, making the officers of
a corporation, who sign and record a false certificate of the amount of its capital
stock, liable for all its debts, is in no sense a criminal or quasi criminal law. The
statute, while it enables persons complying with its provisions to do business as a
corporation, without being subject to the liability of general partners, takes pains
to secure and maintain a proper corporate fund for the payment of the corporate
debts. With this aim, it makes the stockholders individually liable for the debts of
the corporation until the capital stock is paid in, and a certificate of the payment
made by the officers, and makes the officers liable for any false and material
representation in that certificate.
Penal laws, strictly and properly, are those imposing punishment for an offense
committed against the state, and which, by the English and American
constitutions, the executive of the state has the power to pardon. Statutes giving a
private action against the wrongdoer are sometimes spoken of as penal in their
nature, but in such cases it has been pointed out that neither the liability imposed
nor the remedy given is strictly penal. Penal laws, strictly and properly, are those
imposing punishment for an offense committed against the state, and which, by
the English and American constitutions, the executive of the state has the power
to pardon. Statutes giving a private action against the wrongdoer are sometimes
spoken of as penal in their nature, but in such cases it has been pointed out that
neither the liability imposed nor the remedy given is strictly penal.
It has been held in many instances that, where a statute gives accumulative
damages to the party grieved, it is not a penal action. The test whether a law is
penal, in the strict and primary sense, is whether the wrong sought to be redressed
is a wrong to the public or a wrong to the individual.
The question whether a statute of one state, which in some aspects may be called
penal, is a penal law, in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the
courts of another state, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish
an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a
person injured by the wrongful act
Sps. Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals and Transworld Airlines, Inc.

G.R. No. 104235, November 18, 1993
FACTS:
The Zalamea spouses and their daughter purchased 3 airline tickets from the
Manila agent of respondent TransWorld Airlines (TWA) for a flight to New York
to Los Angeles. The tickets of the spouses were purchased at a discount of 75%
while that of their daughter was a full-fare ticket. All three tickets represented
confirmed reservations. Once in New York, however, they found that their flight
back to Manila was overbooked, as a result of which they had to be wait-listed.
Out of those waitlisted, the ones with full-fare tickets were preferred. Thus, only
the Zalamea husband, who was holding his daughter’s ticket, was able to get on
board while his wife and daughter had to wait for the next flight. However, it
turned out this next flight was likewise overbooked, forcing the Zalameas to
purchase tickets from another airlines. Later, they sued TWA for breach of
contract in the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether or not TWA is liable for breach of contract
RULING:
SC held in the affirmative. Overbooking of flight amounts to fraud or bad faith,
entitling plaintiff to an award of moral damages because of bad faith attending the
breach of contract. The holding that overbooking was allowed under US Federal
regulations was found erroneous because: (1) this regulation was not proved and
our courts cannot judicial notice of it, and (2) even if such regulation was proven,
the rule of lex loci contractus negated its application. According to this rule, the
law of the place where the airline ticket was issued should be applied by the court
where the passengers are residents and nationals of the forum and the ticket is
issued in such State by the defendant airline. Since tickets were sold and issued in
the Philippines, the applicable law in this case would be Philippine law. Under
our jurisprudence, overbooking of flight is bad faith. Moreover, the hierarchy of
tickets practiced by TWA was evidence of its self-interest over that of its
passengers, which SC held to be improper considering the public interest involved
in a contract of carriage.
Garcia vs. Recio

G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an
authentic one issued by an Australian family court. However, appearance is not
sufficient; compliance with the established rules on evidence must be
demonstrated.
Fortunately for respondent's cause, when the divorce decree of May 18, 1989 was
submitted in evidence, counsel for petitioner objected, not to its admissibility, but
only to the fact that it had not been registered in the Local Civil Registry of
Cabanatuan City. The trial court ruled that it was admissible, subject to
petitioner's qualification. Hence, it was admitted in evidence and accorded weight
by the judge. Indeed, petitioner's failure to object properly rendered the divorce
decree admissible as a written act of the Family Court of Sydney, Australia.
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of the Family Code is not
necessary; respondent was no longer bound by Philippine personal laws after he
acquired Australian citizenship in 1992. Naturalization is the legal act of adopting
an alien and clothing him with the political and civil rights belonging to a citizen.
Naturalized citizens, freed from the protective cloak of their former states, don the
attires of their adoptive countries. By becoming an Australian, respondent severed
his allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had tied him to
Philippine personal laws.
Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001
The Supreme Court notes, to assail a foreign judgment the party must present
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact. Otherwise, the judgment enjoys the presumption of
validity so long as it was duly certified and authenticated. In this case, PNCC
failed to present the required evidence.
Intercontinental Hotels vs. Golden 254 NYS 2d 527, NY 1964

"The prevailing view seems to be to regard statutes declaring gambling contracts
and transactions illegal or void, as embodying a distinctive public policy, which
requires the court of the state or country in which they are enacted to refuse to
recognize or enforce any contract or transaction in violation of their terms, even
though such contract or transaction may have had its situs outside the forum, and
therefore does not come within the direct operation of the statutes."
We hold that the clear public policy of this State will not permit suit in our courts
to recover on a gambling debt which arose in a professional gambling house even
though the gambling was legal where the debt allegedly arose.
END. THANK YOU!
General Theories in Status and

Capacity
 Definition of Status and Capacity

 Kinds of Capacity
 Characteristics of Status
Status
The place of an individual in society, and consists of personal qualities and
relationships, more or less permanent, with which the state and the
community are concerned.
Capacity
It is merely a part of status, and may be defined as the sum total of his
rights and obligations
Kinds of Capacity (Art. 37, CC)

1. Capacity to act – (active capacity) – power to do acts with legal
effects.
2. Juridical capacity – (passive capacity) – the fitness to be the subject
of legal relations.
Characteristics of Status
1. Conferred principally by the State not by the individual
2. A matter of public or social interest
3. A concept of social order, hence, cannot be easily terminated at the mere will
or desire of the parties concerned
4. Universal in character.
Definition of Personal Law

The law that attaches to an individual, wherever he may go.
A law that generally governs his status, his capacity, his family relations, and the
consequences of his actuations.
This “personal law” may be his “national law” or his “domiciliary law” or the “law
of the situs.”
Different theories on how the personal law of an individual is determined

1. Nationality Theory
Personal theory
The status and capacity of a person are determined by the law of his
nationality or his national law.
2. Domiciliary Theory
By virtue of which the status and capacity of a person is determined by the
law of his domicile
Territorial theory
3. Situs or Eclectic Theory
Views the law of a particular place or situs of an event or transaction as
generally the controlling law.
Law which governs P E R S O N A L L A W of P E R S O N S

(Art. 37, CC)
R U L E : Family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are governed by their National Law
(L E X N A T I O N A L I)
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. FRANK

13 Phil 236 [1909]
FACTS:
In 1903 in the state of Illinois, the defendant, Frank, a US citizen and a
representative of the Insular Government of the Philippines entered into a contract
whereby the former shall serve as stenographer in the Philippines for a period of 2
year.
The contract contained a provision that in case of violation of its terms, Frank shall
be liable for the amount incurred by the Philippine Government for his travel from
Chicago to Manila and ½ salary paid during such period.
After serving for 6 months, Frank left the service and refused to make further
compliance with the terms of the contract, therefore the Government sued him to
recover the amount plus damages.
The lower court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, hence defendant appealed
presenting minority as his special defense. He claimed that he was an adult when he
left Chicago but was a minor when he arrived at Manila; that he was an adult at the
time he made the contract but was a minor at the time the plaintiff attempted to
enforce the contract.
I S S U E: Whether or not the contract is valid.
R U L I N G:
No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution,
interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place
where the contract is made. Matters connected with its performance are regulated
by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy,
such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations,
depends upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.
In this case, Frank’s claim that he was an adult when he left Chicago but was a
minor when he arrived at Manila; that he was an adult at the time he made the
contract but was a minor at the time the Plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract,
more than a year, is not tenable. At the time of the making of the contract in
question, Frank had full capacity to make the same, since the contract was executed
in Illinois, then such laws should govern the validity of the contract.
RECTO v. HARDED
100 Phil 427 [1959]
Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines follows the nationality principle,
which applies to Filipino nationals. However, in the case of aliens, the court may
refer to their national law if they belong to a country following the nationality
principle or the law of their domicile if they follow the domiciliary principle.
ARTICLE 15 CIVIL CODE
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the status, conditions and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
A R T I C L E 1 6 (2) C I V I L C O D E
Intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession
and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is
under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of
the country wherein said property may be found.
A R T I C L E 1 7 (3) C I V I L C O D E
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have,
for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgements promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country
Lex Loci Celebracionis

Article 17 (1) Civil Code
The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be
governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
Nationality
Membership in an ethnic, social, racial, and cultural group.
The term national includes all those owing allegiance to a particular
state, like subject s, or the inhabitants of colonies.
Citizenship
Membership in a political society.
Determination ( Who are Citizens of the Philippines)
 A natural person who, under the Constitution, is considered a Filipino citizen

 A juridical person at least 60% of whose capital is owned by Filipino natural
persons.
Two theories on whether place or ancestry determines Citizenship
 Jus soli
If both in a country, a person is a citizen of the same.
 Jus sanguinis
One follows the citizenship of his parents; this is citizenship by blood
VALLES v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000
FACTS:
Rosalinda Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father
and an Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of 15, she left for Australia and came
to settle in the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then
participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well.
In the May 1988 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a petition for her
disqualification on the ground that she is an Australian.
ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalinda is an Australian or a Filipino
RULING:
The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sainguinis.
Therefore, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of
the place of his/her birth. As opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determine
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
The herein respondent, Rosalinda, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a
Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her
losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at
most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her
possession of dual citizenship. The fact that she holds an Australian passport and
alien registration certificate is an assertion of her Australian citizenship but not a
renunciation of her Philippine citizenship. Moreover, by filing her certificate of
candidacy, she has effectively renounced her Australian citizenship.
A r t i c l e I V of the
1987 Constitution
Section 1. The following are citizen of the Philippines.

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of the Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or person their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3)
of Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or required in the manner provided by
law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship
unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under their law, to have renounced
it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law
Classification of Citizens in the Philippines

 Natural-born Citizens
Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act, to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
 Naturalized Citizens
Citizens who are not natural-born citizens; those who become such through
judicial proceedings. (see Com. Act No. 473)
 Citizens by Election
Citizens who by virtue of certain legal provisions, become such by choosing
(or electing) Philippine citizenship at the age of twenty-one (21) or within a
reasonable time thereafter
CHIONGBIAN v. DE LEON
G.R. No. L-2007, Jan. 31, 1949
F A C T S:
An alien married couple had a son Victoriano Chiongbian, who had been born in
the Philippines. Victoriano, although a foreigner, was elected to the postion of
municipal councillor in 1925. Victoriano himself had his own sone, William
Chiongbian, who was still a minot at the time of the adoption of the Philippine
Constitution. William was able to register certain vessels in his own name when he
became of age. Customs officials, however, wanted to cancel the registration on the
theory that while Victoriano may be considered a Filipino (by virtue of his election
to a public office prior to the adoption of the Constitution), still William should not
be considered, for the grant in this provision is strictly personal, that is, it should
not benefit Victoriano’s descendants.
ISSUE: Shoul William be also considered a Filipino citizen.
R U L I N G : YES, William is a Filipino.
The parents of Victoriano are certainly not Filipinos; but Victorano himself was a
Filipino because he was born in the Philippines of foreign parents, and before the
adoption of the Philippine Constitution, he had been elected to public office in the
Philippines. Therefore, William, who was then a minor, also became a Filipino
citizen, his father, being a Filipino.
Multiple Citizenships
Acquired through the simultaneous application of the doctrines of jus

soli and jus sanguinis.
Dual Citizenship
The status of a person who is a citizen of two or more countries at the
same time.
It arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws
of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said
states.
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which
follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the
laws of their father’s country such children are citizens of that country; and
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are
considered citizens., unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship.
THEORY
OF E F F E C T I V E
N A T I O N A L I T Y
A third state shall recognize exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the
country of which one is habitually and principally a resident, or the nationality of
the country with which in the circumstances one appears to be in act most closely
connected. (Hague Convention on Conflict Nationality Laws, Art. 5)
PROCEDURE OF NATURALIZATION
By Judicial Process
in accordance with CA No. 475, as amended by RA 530
By Legislative Process
Philippine citizenship is conferred by the direct and special act of Congress
on deserving aliens
By Administrative Process
Under RA 9139 or the “Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000”.
By Derivative Naturalization
This is when Philippine citizenship is conferred on the:
a. Wife of a naturalized husband
b. Minor Children of a naturalized father
c. Alien wife of a natural-born or naturalized citizen, in the latter
case, the marriage having taken place after the husband’s naturalization
LOST OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
CA 64, as amended by RA 106
A Filipino may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country;
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 and more;
4. By rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a
foreign country;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of Philippine Naturalization;
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserted of the
Philippine Armed Forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon
or amnesty has been granted; and
7. In 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.
R E A C Q U I S I T I O N of C I T I Z E N S H I P
C.A. 63,
1. By naturalization, provided the applicant possesses non of the
disqualifications
2. By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy, or Air Corps. Provided, that
a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may
be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the
termination of the marital status.
3. By direct act of Congress
BENGSON III v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
FACTS:
On April 27, 1960, private respondent Teodoro Cruz was born to Filipino parents in
Tarlac. In 1885, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps, and took an oath of allegiance to
the United States. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, the rendering of service to, or
the acceptance of a commission in the armed forces of a foreign country, is an
expatriating act. Subsequently, Cruz naturalized as a citizen of the United States on
June 5, 1990.
On March 17, 1994, Cruz subsequently reacquired his Filipino his Filipino
citizenship through repatriation under RA No. 2630.
Cruz then ran and won as Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan, beating
petitioner Antonio Bengson.
Bengson filed a Petition for Quo Warranto with the HRET, alleging that Cruz did
not possess the requisite natural-born citizenship required by Sec. 6, Art. VI of the
Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines.
R U L I N G : Yes, private respondent is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Having, thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having
registered the same in the Civil Registry in accordance with Sec. 1 of RA No. 2630,
respondent is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen,
a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father.
It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.
R.A. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

Natural born Filipino citizens who had been naturalized in foreign countries are
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
the Philippine Constitution and laws. Those who become naturalized in foreign
countries after the effectivity of the Act retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the same oath.
P R O B L E M in the A P P L I C A T I O N of
NATIONALITY THEORY
1. Hard to effectuate;
2. Some individuals are Stateless;
3. Persons possessing Dual or Multiple nationalities
4. It is not always desirable to apply to aliens their national law.
N A T I O N A L I T Y of J U R I D I C A L P E R S O N
The nationality of a private corporation is determined by the character or
citizenship of its controlling stockholders
Test to determine Filipino Corporations

Grandfather Test
At least 60% thereof must be owned by natural persons who are citizens of the
Philippines
Control Test
Shares belonging to corporations or partnerships at least 60% of the capital stock of
which is owned by Filipino citizens shall be considered as of Philippine nationality
DOMILIARY THEORY
The status, condition, rights, obligations and capacity of an individual is governed
by the law of his domicile
Definition of D O M I C I L E
It 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 he is absent, he has the
intention of returning, and from which he has no present intention of moving.
Elements:
- The fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place
- animus manendi – the intention of returning there permanently.
Kinds of D O M I C I L E
Domicile of Origin or Birth
The domicile of a person’s parents, the head of his family, or the person on
whom he is legally dependent, at the time of his birth.
Domicile of Choice
The place chosen by a person to replace his former domicile.
Domicile by Operation of Law
the domicile assigned or attributed by law to a person.
Rules regarding D O M I C I L E
1. A man has only one domicile somewhere;
2. A domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired;
3. A man can have but only one domicile at a time.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS v. COMELEC
248 SCRA 300 [1995]
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.
D O M I C I L E of J U R I D I C A L P E R S O N
The place where their legal representation is established or where they exercise their
principal function.
The articles of incorporation indicate its principal place of business or office, and it
is where its residence is.
The law governing the incorporation of a foreign corporation is the law of the state
or country of its incorporation or registration.
Conflict of Laws
FAMILY RELATIONS
Marriage
- Divorce
Marriage
Legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.
• Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law
and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this
Code.
– Article 1 of the Family Code
Philippine Policy on Marriage

 Section 2 Article XV of the Philippine Constitution
SECTION 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
family and shall be protected by the State.
 Article 220 of the Old Civil Code*
Art. 220. In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family. Thus,
every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the
indissolubility of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of
property during marriage, the authority of parents over their children, and the
validity of defense for any member of the family in case of unlawful aggression.
* While this provision of the Civil Code may have been omitted in the Family Code,
the principles they contain are valid norms in family relations and in cases involving
family members. They are even already embodied in jurisprudence. (G.R. No.
123450. August 31, 2005, CONCEPCION vs. COURT OF APPEALS)
Extrinsic Validity of Marriage

External conduct required of the parties or third persons especially of public
officers, necessary to the formation of a legally valid marriage
 Lex loci celebrationis (law of the place of celebration)
 Article 2, Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity
of Marriages
 Art. 2. The formal requirements for marriages shall be governed by
the law of the State of celebration.
 Formal Requirement of Marriage
 Article 3, Family Code
 Requirement on the Authority of the solemnizing officer
 Requirement on Valid marriage license
 Requirement on marriage ceremony
 Article 26, Family Code
 Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37
and 38.
Conflict of Laws in Marriages

While PH gives full faith and credit to conventions and contracts performed abroad,
the same is true only when the acts and contracts do not violate public policy or
prohibitive laws.
Marriages Not Subject of Recognition
a. Incestuous Marriages under Article 37 of the FC
b. Void marriages by reason of public policy under Article 38 of the FC
c. Polygamous or Bigamous marriages under Article 35
d. Same-sex marriages
Intrinsic Validity of Marriage

Capacity or general ability of a person to marry, for instances defined by
requirements of age and parental consent, but it does not refer clearly to an
individual’s being permitted to marry a specific person or a person of determinate
class.
 Intrinsic validity of the marriage on one hand is governed by the
national laws of the parties.
 For Filipinos, Article 2 of the Family Code
• Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential
requisites are present:
1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female; and
2. Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing
officer.
to illustrate (from Book)..

In Re: Marriage of Antonia R. Media (foreign case)
Gil and Virginia, both Filipinos, had a marriage officiated by Consul Villapondo at
PH consulate in Saipan.
Virginia returned to PH and years later, Gil married Antonia, an foreign citizen.
Gil committed suicide.
Virginia now tried to claim the body of Gil, so Antonia filed for declaratory relief.
Issue: Whether the marriage of Gil and Virginia was valid and enforceable?
The marriage was not valid because it did not comply with the statutory
requirement. The validity of marriages performed in by foreign consuls depends on
local laws.
Under the Local laws, a duly authorized individual who may grant a marriage
license is either the Governor or Mayor.
Under the Vienna Convention, to which PH and US are signatories, A marriage that
does not conform to the laws of the state in which it was performed are generally
voidable and may be declared void by an appropriate authority.
In this case, Gil and Virginia failed to comply with both license and registration
requirements of the local law and there failure to do so created an invalid marriage.
Effects of Marriage
Property relations of spouses
 Internal law designated by the spouses before the marriage or in absence
thereof the internal law of the state in which both spouses fix their first
habitual residence is the governing law on matrimonial property regimes
 Article 80, Family Code
– Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage
settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by
Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the
marriage and their residence.
– This rule shall not apply:
1. Where both spouses are aliens;
2. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting
property not situated in the Philippines and executed in the
country where the property is located; and
3. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into
in the Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign
country whose laws require different formalities for its
extrinsic validity.
 Lex rei sitae; the law where the property is situated
Divorce
The legal separation of a man and wife, effected by the judgment or decree of court,
and either totally dissolving the marriage relation, or suspending its effects so far as
concerns the cohabitation of the parties
Divorce
• Legally dissolves a valid marriage;
• After the decree, law no longer binds the parties;
• Free to marry or enter domestic relationships;
• grounds may be subsequent to the marriage.
• PH has no divorce law
• The Hague Convention Relating to Divorce and Separation of 1902 provides
that “the granting of divorce or separation must comply with the national
law of the spouses and the law of the place where the application for divorce
is made”
Effects of Divorce
• No divorce in Philippines (regardless of the parties)
• Divorce obtained abroad
 both parties are Filipinos
o Not valid, divorce obtained abroad
o Nationality theory – Article 15 of the Civil Code
• Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad.
• Divorce obtained abroad
 Mixed marriage
o Obtained by alien spouse
 Filipino spouse is capacitated to marry
 Article 26 (par. 2), Family Code
 Republic vs Orbecido, GR 154380 (2005)
 Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted
to include cases involving parties who, at the
time of the celebration of the marriage were
Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them
becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and
obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the
other party were a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage.
 (Art. 26 par. 2)…Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner
is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Republic VS Orbecido
Cipriano Orbecido married Lady Myros in the Philippines.
Later, Lady Myros migrated to US where she naturalized as a US citizen.
She then obtained a divorce from US court for her marriage with Cipriano.
Cipriano then filed a petition to remarry but the OSG opposed.
Issue: Whether a Filipino husband can remarry considering that the Filipino wife
became a foreign citizen and obtained a divorce decree?
Yes, the Filipino spouse can remarry.
Taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we
hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but
later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce
decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other
party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule
otherwise would be to sanction absurdity and injustice.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration
of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
 Mixed marriage
o Obtained by Filipino spouse
 Divorce is recognized in the Philippines
 Republic vs Manalo, GR 221029 (2018)
 (Art. 26 par. 2)…Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner
is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Republic VS Manalo
Marelyn Manalo married a Japanese national.
She, however, obtained a divorce decree from a Japanese court.
Marelyn petitioned before the RTC for cancellation of entry of marriage.
Issue: Whether a divorce filed by a Filipino spouse against her foreign husband may
be recognized in the Philippines?
Yes, the divorce obtained by a Filipino against a foreign spouse may be recognized
in the Philippines.
According to Judge Alicia Sempio-Diy, a member of the Committee, the idea of the
amendment is to avoid the absurd situation of a Filipino as still being married to his
or her alien spouse, although the latter is no longer married to the former because
he or she had obtained a divorce abroad that is recognized by his or national law.
The letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one who
initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. It does not
distinguish whether the Filipino spouse is the petitioner or the respondent in the
foreign divorce proceeding.
To reiterate, the purpose of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd
situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after a
foreign divorce decree that is effective in the country where it was rendered, is no
longer married to the Filipino spouse. The provision is a corrective measure to
address an anomaly where the Filipino spouse is tied to the marriage while the
foreign spouse is free to marry under the laws of his or her country.
Whether the Filipino spouse initiated the foreign divorce proceeding or not, a
favorable decree dissolving the marriage bond and capacitating his or her alien
spouse to remarry will have the same result: the Filipino spouse will effectively be
without a husband or wife.
case note: mixed marriage, divorce obtained abroad, divorce sought by Filipino
spouse
Recognition of Divorce Proceedings

Recognition of foreign divorce are proceedings to prove the validity of the foreign
judgment
The party applying for the recognition must present proof of the appropriate
foreign laws as well as the authenticity of the documents obtained from foreign
courts and offices.
These are not proceedings to review the judgement of the foreign court.
The decision of the foreign tribunal is already res judicata to the case.
So long as the foreign judgment does not patently violate public policy or
prohibitive laws, a local court cannot substitute its judgment to that of the foreign
court.
The Philippine courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact according to
the rules of evidence.
Annulment
• dissolves a marriage which though considered valid in the interim,
nonetheless, is defective;
• After the annulment, law no longer binds the parties;
• After annulment parties are free to marry or enter domestic relationships;
• grounds must be existing at the time of marriage.
Legal Separation
• Does not end a marriage;
• Merely separation of spouses from be and board;
• While it permits the aprtial suspension of marital relations, the marriage
bond still exists;
• After legal separation judgment, parties are not free to marry not enter
domestic relationships;
• grounds may subsequent to the celebration of marriage;

Conflict of Laws Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of Laws Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of Laws –

Conflict of Laws Case –

State in Conflict of Laws –

Public International Law v Conflict of Laws

Public International Law Conflict of Law

As to nature international in character municipal in character

applies only to transactions in which

the concerned states may, in a

Sources of Conflict of Laws:

Branches of International law:

2) Private International Law or Conflict of Laws.

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

PUBLIC CONFLICT OF LAWS

International conventions; Domestic and municipal laws, which

States and international Individuals and corporations

International in character Municipal in character

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS

Transactions which only sovereign

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT OF LAWS

Concerned states may first resort

Transformation to customary international law – international law is neither static nor

Principles in Conflict of Laws:

Forum Non Conveniens –

Elements of Forum Non Conveniens:

2) There is a directive to courts and administrative agencies; It is the judicial tribunals of a

4) There is either an application or non-application of a foreign law or foreign laws.

PHASES IN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION

PHASES IN CONFLICTS RESOLUTION

WAYS OF DISPOSING CONFLICTS CASES

STEPS IN DETERMINING APPLICABLE LAW

CHOICE OF APPLICABLE LAW

CONFLICT OF LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

CONFLICT OF LAWS IN THE PHILIPPINES

LAUREL VS. GARCIA

SMALL VS. UNITED STATES

KIOBEL VS. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM

THE MANILA HOTEL CORP., ET AL. VS. NLRC

THE MANILA HOTEL CORP., ET AL. VS. NLRC

THE MANILA HOTEL CORP., ET AL. VS. NLRC

HSBC vs. SHERMAN

HSBC vs. SHERMAN

HSBC vs. SHERMAN

Jurisdiction Over the Person

Jurisdiction Over the Person

Jurisdiction Over the Res

Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

Ways to Deal with Conflict of Laws Cases

1. Reject the renvoi

2. Accept the renvoi

3. Desistance or Mutual Disclaimer of Jurisdiction Theory

4. Foreign Court Theory

Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction

Refusal to Assume Jurisdiction

Double Renvoi vs. Transmission

Deals with 2 countries Deals with 3 or more

Deals with “referring back” Deals with “referring

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, deceased,

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, deceased,

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHEONG BOO, deceased,