Assignment

Read conflict of law concept

Differences between private and public int. law

Doctrine of incorporation

Definition and elements of COL

Foreign element

Int. law

- Rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and int. org. ad wit htheir
relations itner se as weill as with some of their relations with persons whether natural or juridical.

It relates to questions concerning the rights of persons within the territory and dominion of on nation by
acts private or public done with within the dominions of another nation.

Public int law

- International subjects are concerned. Relations among states.

Priate

INDIVUDALS, Domestic laws, local events, questions of applcaible domestic law.

Private will be covered.

Public int laws – Rome convention

Private Int. Law – individual or business relationships

Public is international in character while private int. law is municipal in character

Doctrine of incorporation Art. 2 Sec. 2.

What is the doctrine of incorporation? Rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no
legislative action is required for them to be applicable in the country. Generally-accepted principles of
international law only.

- Rule of int law form part of the law of the land and no legis action is required to make them applicable
in a country. Tanada V Angara

Doctrine of Incorp Basis is Sec. 2 Art II 1987 Const.

If conflict, harmonize first and see. If can’t be harmonized, uphold the municipal law
Which has primacy, int. law or domestic law?

Sec. of justice V Lantion - The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals
(or local courts) are confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a
rule of international law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts
should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be presumed
that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of
international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation Clause in the above-cited
constitutional provision (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed., p. 55). In a situation, however,
where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of international
law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal courts (Ichong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 [1957]; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9
SCRA 230 [1963]; In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 [1961]) for the reason that such courts are organs
of municipal law and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances (Salonga & Yap, op. cit., p.
13). The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to
or imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere.
The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of
international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national
legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a
treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the
constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes
and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution (Ibid.).

- lol It’s what you’ve been looking at this whole time.

Public – sovereign states parties involved and private is private individuals

Transaction in public is those affecting public interest/sovereign state interest while private is
private interests between private individuals.

Soruces of public is int convention, custom, general principles of laws recognized by civilized
nations. Private is domestic laws statutes etc.

Definition or concept of private int. law.- Part of the municipal law of the state directing its courts
and admin. agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element,
whether or not they should apply a foreign law or foreign laws.

1. Part of the municipal law of the state. Then, is it part of international law? This is domestic
law, not international law. Only given the affiliation of private international law due to its
foreign element.

CASE READING ASSIGN. STARTS HERE

Gemperle V Schenker

 Paul Schenker-hereinafter referred to as Schenker — acting through his

wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen Schenker — herein-after referred to as
Mrs. Schenker — filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, a complaint
— which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-2796 thereof — against herein
plaintiff William F. Gemperle, for the enforcement of Schenker's allegedly
initial subscription to the shares of stock of the Philippines-Swiss Trading
Co., Inc. and the exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to the then
unissued original capital stock of said corporation and the increase thereof,
as well as for an accounting and damages

CFI rizal dismissed the case for

lack of jurisdiction over the person of defendant
Paul Schenker and for want of cause of action against his wife and co-
defendant, Helen Schenker said Paul Schenker "being in no position to be
joined with her as party defendant, because he is beyond the reach of the
magistracy of the Philippine courts."

 A reconsiderating thereof having been denied, Gemperle interposed the

present appeal.

The first question for determination therein is whether or not the lower court
had acquired jurisdiction over the person of Schenker.

Admittedly, he, a Swiss citizen, residing in Zurich, Switzerland, has not

been actually served with summons in the Philippines, although the
summons address to him and Mrs. Schenker had been served personally
upon her in the Philippines.

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, not including her husband.

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 aforementioned civil case No. Q-2796, which
apparently was filed at her behest, in her aforementioned representative
capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had authority to sue, and had
actually sued on behalf of her husband, so that she was, also, empowered
to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a case, like the of
the one at bar, which is consequence of the action brought by her on his
behalf.

Micronesia vs Joseph basso

Petitioner Continental Micronesia, Inc. (CMI) is a foreign

corporation organized and existing under the laws of and
domiciled in the United States of America (US). It is licensed to
do business in the Philippines. 5 Basso, a US citizen, resided in the
Philippines prior to his death.

Mr. Keith R. Braden (Mr. Braden), Managing Director-Asia of

Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental), offered Basso the
position of General Manager of the Philippine Branch of
Continental. Basso accepted the offer.

It was not until much later that Mr. Braden, who had since
returned to the US, sent Basso the employment which Mr.
Braden had already signed. Basso then signed the employment
contract and returned it to Mr. Braden as instructed.

On November 7, 1992, CMI took over the Philippine operations

of Continental, with Basso retaining his position as General
Manager.
Respondent received a letter from Mr. Schulz, who was
then CMI’s Vice President of Marketing and Sales,
informing him that he has agreed to work in CMI as a
consultant on an “as needed basis.” Respondent wrote a
counter-proposal that was rejected by CMI.

Respondent then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

against the petitioner corporation. Alleging the presence
of foreign elements, CMI filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of CMI and
the subject matter of the controversy. (They’re under the
laws of the US)

The Labor Arbiter granted the Motion to Dismiss. Applying the

doctrine of lex loci contractus, the Labor Arbiter held that the
terms and provisions of the employment contract show that the
parties did not intend to apply our Labor Code (Presidential
Decree No. 442). The Labor Arbiter also held that no employer-
employee relationship existed between Basso and the branch
office of CMI in the Philippines, but between Basso and the
foreign corporation itself.

On appeal, the NLRC remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter

for the determination of certain facts to settle the issue on
jurisdiction. NLRC ruled that the issue on whether the principle
of lex loci contractus or lex loci celebrationis should apply has
to be further threshed out.17

Then, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit and
jurisdiction.

The Labor Arbiter agreed with CMI that the employment

contract was xecuted in the US "since the letter-offer was
under the Texas letterhead and the acceptance of Complainant
was returned there."19 Thus, applying the doctrine of lex loci
celebrationis, US laws apply. Also, applying lex loci contractus,
the Labor Arbiter ruled that the parties did not intend to apply
Philippine laws

The Labor Arbiter also ruled that Basso was terminated for a
valid cause based on the allegations of CMI that Basso
committed a series of acts that constitute breach of trust and
loss of confidence.21
The Labor Arbiter, however, found CMI to have voluntarily
submitted to his office's jurisdiction. CMI participated in the
proceedings, submitted evidence on the merits of the case, and
sought affirmative relief through a motion to dismiss.

The NLRC reversed the decision and ordered respondent CMI to

pay complainant for failure to comply with due notice
requirement.

The NLRC did not agree with the pronouncement of the Labor
Arbiter that his office has no jurisdiction over the controversy.
It ruled that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction over the
case when CMI voluntarily submitted to his office's jurisdiction
by presenting evidence, advancing arguments in support of the
legality of its acts, and praying for reliefs on the merits of the
case.
Basso and CMI filed a petition for certiorari.

Basso imputed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the

NLRC in ruling that he was validiy dismissed.

The CMI alleged that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion
when it assumed jurisdiction over the person of CMI and the
subject matter of the case.

The Court of Appeals promulgated the now assailed Decision

dismissing Continental’s petition and granting Basso’s.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and over
the parties. The Court of Appeals explained that jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the action is determined by the
allegations of the complaint and the law. Since the case filed by
Basso is a termination dispute that is "undoubtedly cognizable
by the labor tribunals", the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had
jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case.

On the issue of jurisdiction over he person of the parties, who

are foreigners, the Court of Appeals ruled that jurisdiction over
the person of Basso was acquired when he filed the complaint
for illegal dismissal, while jurisdiction over the person of CMI
was acquired through coercive process of service of summons
to its agent in the Philippines. The Court of Appeals also agreed
that the active participation of CMI in the case rendered moot
the issue on jurisdiction.

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING

THAT THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC HAD JURISDICTION
TO HEAR AND TRY THE ILLEGAL DISMISSAL CASE.

CMI maintains that there is a conflict-of-laws issue that must

be settled to determine proper jurisdiction over the parties and
the subject matter of the case. It also alleges that the
existence of foreign elements calls or the application of US laws
and the doctrines of lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place
of the ceremony), lex loci contractus (law of the place where a
contract is executed), and lex loci intentionis (the intention of
the parties as to the law that should govern their agreement).
CMI also invokes the application of the rule of forum non
conveniens to determine the propriety of the assumption of
jurisdiction by the labor tribunals.

We agree with CMI that there is a conflict-of-laws issue that

needs to be resolved first. Where the facts establish the
existence of foreign elements, the case presents a conflict-of-
laws issue.
In Hasegawa v. Kitamura,40 we stated that in the judicial
resolution of conflict-of-laws problems, three consecutive
phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition
and enforcement of judgments. In resolving the conflicts
problem, courts should ask the following questions:

1. "Under the law, do I have jurisdiction over the subject

matter and the parties to this case?

2. "If the answer is yes, is this a convenient forum to the

parties, in light of the facts?

3. "If the answer is yes, what is the conflicts rule for this
particular problem?

4. "If the conflicts rule points to a foreign law, has said

law been properly pleaded and proved by the one
invoking it?

5. "If so, is the application or enforcement of the foreign

law in the forum one of the basic exceptions to the
application of foreign law? In short, is there any strong
policy or vital interest of the forum that is at stake in
this case and which should preclude the application of
foreign law?41

As regards jurisdiction over the parties, we agree with the

Court of Appeals that the Labor Arbiter acquired jurisdiction
over the person of Basso, notwithstanding his citizenship, when
he filed his complaint against CMI.

On the other hand, jurisdiction over the person of CMI was

acquired through the coercive process of service of summons.
We note that CMI never denied that it was served with
summons. CMI has, in fact, voluntarily appeared and
participated in the proceedings before the courts. Though a
foreign corporation, CMI is licensed to do business in the
Philippines and has a local business address here. The
purpose of the law in requiring that foreign corporations
doing business in the country be licensed to do so, is to
subject the foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of our
courts.44

Considering that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case,
these tribunals may proceed to try the case even if the
rules of conflict-of-laws or the convenience of the
parties point to a foreign forum, this being an exercise of
sovereign prerogative of the country where the case is
filed.45

The next question is whether the local forum is the convenient

forum in light of the facts of the case. CMI contends that a
Philippine court is an inconvenient forum.

We disagree.

Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court

in a conflict-of-laws case may assume jurisdiction 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

(3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to

enforce its decision.46 
All these requisites are present here.

Basso may conveniently resort to our labor tribunals as he and

CMI lad physical presence in the Philippines during the duration
of the trial. CMI has a Philippine branch, while Basso, before his
death, was residing here. Thus, it could be reasonably expected
that no extraordinary measures were needed for the parties to
make arrangements in advocating their respective cases.

The choice-of-law issue in a conflict-of-laws case seeks to

answer the following important questions:

(1) What legal system should control a given situation

where some of the significant facts occurred in two or
more states; and

(2) to what extent should the chosen legal system

regulate the situation.47 

These questions are entirely different from the question of

jurisdiction that only seeks to answer whether the courts of a
state where the case is initiated have jurisdiction to enter a
judgment.48 As such, the power to exercise jurisdiction does not
automatically give a state constitutional authority to apply
forum law.49

CMI asserts that the US law on labor relations particularly, the

US Railway Labor Act sanctions termination-at-will provisions in
an employment contract. Thus, CMI concludes that if such laws
were applied, there would have been no illegal dismissal to
speak of because the termination-at-will provision in Basso's
employment contract would have been perfectly valid.

We disagree.
In Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals,51 we emphasized
that an essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a
"test" or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-
law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as
property right, contract claim) and a connecting fact or point of
contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration,
the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. Pursuant
to Saudi Arabian Airlines, we hold that the "test factors,"
"points of contact" or "connecting factors" in this case are the
following:

(1) The nationality, domicile or residence of Basso; ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(2) The seat of CMI; ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(3) The place where the employment contract has been

made, the locus actus; ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(4) The place where the act is intended to come into

effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual
duties;ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

(5) The intention of the contracting parties as to the law

that should govern their agreement, the lex loci
intentionis; and

(6) The place where judicial or administrative

proceedings are instituted or done.52

Applying the foregoing in this case, we conclude that Philippine

law the applicable law. Basso, though a US citizen, was a
resident here from the time he was hired by CMI until his
death during the pendency of the case. CMI, while a
foreign corporation, has a license to do business in the
Philippines and maintains a branch here, where Basso
was hired to work. The contract of employment was
negotiated in the Philippines. A purely consensual
contract, it was also perfected in the Philippines when
Basso accepted the terms and conditions of his
employment as offered by CMI. The place of performance
relative to Biasso's contractual duties was in the
Philippines. The alleged prohibited acts of Basso that
warranted his dismissal were committed in the
Philippines.

Clearly, the Philippines is the state with the most significant

relationship to the problem. Thus, we hold that CMI and Basso
intended Philippine law to govern, notwithstanding some
references made to US laws and the fact that this intention was
not expressly stated in the contract.

We cautioned, however, that while Philippine courts would do

well to adopt the first and most basic rule in most legal
systems, namely, to allow the parties to select the law
applicable to their contract, the selection is subject to the
limitation that it is not against the law, morals, or public policy
of the forum.55

Dilweg V Phillips

1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; PERSONAL ACTION BY

NONRESIDENT ALIEN NOT WITHIN PHILIPPINE TERRITORY. —
Nonresident aliens may maintain personal actions
against Philippine resident in Philippine courts even if
said plaintiffs are not within Philippine territory.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST NONRESIDENT
PLAINTIFF. — The fact that there are counter claims
against a nonresident plaintiff does not alter the
situation.

- the defendant was in Washington dc and wanted to sue

all flip defendants due to the latter’s libelous statements
against him.

"This action is one for damages by reason of alleged libelous

statements uttered in the Philippines by the defendants against
the plaintiff. In other words, it is an action based on a tort or
act, which under the law of the Philippines, is defined as a
criminal offense. At the time the said libelous statements were
uttered, the plaintiff was in Washington, D.C. where he was
and has always been a resident. There is no allegation in the
complaint that plaintiff has ever been in the Philippines or has
resided at anytime therein.

"The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires

jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff by the filing of his
complaint. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 26 Phil.
523). In King Mau Wu v. Sycip, 94 Phil., 784, 50 O.G. page
5366, April 23, 1954, it was contended that as the plaintiff
therein has never been a resident of the Philippines, the courts
of this country have not acquired jurisdiction to take
cognizance of his action based on a contract which was
executed in the State of New York, U.S.A. The Supreme Court
held that a non-resident may sue a resident on the courts of
his country for the collection of money arising from a contract
notwithstanding the fact that said contract was executed
outside the country. In Western Equipment and Supply Co. v.
Reyes, 51 Phil. 116 it was held that a foreign corporation which
has never done any business in the Philippines and which is
unlicensed and unregistered to do business here, may sue in
the courts of the Philippines for the purpose of restraining
certain resident and inhabitants of the Philippines from
organizing a corporation in this country bearing the same name
as that of the plaintiff because the action involves the use of a
tradename and hence, it is one in rem.

The sole issue posed in the present appeal is whether or not

our Philippine courts can rightfully refuse to assume
jurisdiction over a personal act on instituted by a
nonresident alien who is not within the territorial
jurisdiction of our courts.

In refusing to assume jurisdiction over this case, the court

below upheld defendants’ contention that in a personal action it
can only acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff if
he resides within our territorial jurisdiction. We believe and
hold that the trial court is in error in this point. In fact,
this Court only recently has upheld the right of nonresidents to
maintain personal actions against our residents in Philippine
courts (Sharruf v. Bubla, G.R. No. L-17029, September 30,
1964).

In an American case with facts similar to those obtaining in the

case at bar, and in which the same identical issue was raised,
the Court of Appeals of New York held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is no objection to the maintenance of the action in our

courts in the fact that the plaintiff was an English subject, or
that he was a nonresident. As a personal action, sounding
in tort, it was transitory in its nature, following the
person of the defendant. Our courts were open to the
plaintiff for redress of any personal injury suffered by reason of
defendants’ acts. Story’s Conflict of Laws. Sec. 625; Wharton’s
Conflict of Laws, Secs. 478, 707, 743; Gardner v. Thomas, 14
Johns. 134, 7 Am. Dec. 445; De Witt v. Buchanan, 54 Barb.
31." (Crashley v. Press Pub. Co., 71 N. E. 258, 259).
It is thus evident that, contrary to the conclusion reached by
the court below, it is not indispensable for a foreigner to
establish a residence, nor need he be physically present
in a state of which he is not a resident or citizen in order
that he may initiate or maintain a personal action
against a resident or citizen of that other state for rights
of action arising in, or for violations of laws committed
within, the territorial jurisdiction of that other state. In
this jurisdiction, no general law has come to our knowledge or
notice which restricts the right of nonresident aliens to sue in
our courts. It is not disputed that plaintiff’s causes of action
arose in, and that the defendants are within, our territorial
jurisdiction. It is conceded by both parties that the law under
which the instant case falls is silent on the matter of the right
of an alien to sue in our courts.

Tldr a nonresident alien can sue flips within flip courts.

JURISDICTION STARTS HERE

Review the subject jurisdiction (civil) and its requisites

- remember: mtc if assessed value is 400k (Real properties). for demands for money, the amount
involved is 2m. above 400k real property and 2m personal property/money claim goes to RTC
under bp 129 as amended by 11576

- it was once 400k now it’s 2m under ra 11576

MTC MTCC MCTC CIVIL CASE JURISDICTION Under Sec. 33 of bp 129 amended by ra 11576

- MTC Lower court covers BP 22 violations aka bouncing checks.

(1) Jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate and intestate,
including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the value of the
personal property, estate, or amount of the demand DOES NOT EXCEED Two million
pesos (P2,000,000.00), PERSONAL PROPERTY OR MONEY CLAIMS.

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the
property or any interest therein DOES NOT EXCEED Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00)

RTC UNDER SEC 19 OF SAME LAW

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value EXCEEDS Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), REAL PROPERTY.

“(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of the
property in controversy EXCEEDS Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).”

TLDR: Jurisdiction goes to MTC if the assessed value of the real property is 400k. For money
claims, it must be less than 2m for it to go to MTC. If it’s above 400k real property and 2m personal
property/money claim, party goes to RTC under bp 129 as amended by 11576.

- Test on how jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined:

Ultimate objective test; if title says this is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation but what actually
the goal is to return back a property, the ultimate objective then is for reconveyance and thus, it is s real
action. The jurisdiction will be based on the amount of the assessed value.

- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It can’t be granted upon by the agreement of
both parties. Even if the court consented, it’s still void. Only exception to this which rarely happens is
when estoppel sets it as in the case of tijam V sibonghanoy (Already digested go check it out).

- remember: jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint AND the character of the
relief sought after.

Additional: Malabanan V Rep.

The basic rule is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter is
determined from

the allegations in the complaint,20 

the law in force at the time the complaint is filed,

and the character of the relief sought, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is
entitled to all or some of the claims averred.

Bp 129 AS AMENDED BY 11576 sec. 19

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (AS AMENDED BY RA 11576)
 (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;

- incapable of P.E. means actions involving issues not quantifiable in terms of

money

EX. when you’re urged to repair the house under a contract and you failed.
Plaintiff goes to court. This is incapable of P.E. because the subject matter of the
action is to compel b to do his action under the contract.

- real action is diff from action I.P.E.

- real action involves the issue on title to certain property. Basis of jurisdiction is
the assessed value of the property.

“(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;

“(3) In all actions in admiralty and maritime jurisdiction where the demand or claims
exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);

“(4) In all matters of probate, both estate and intestate, where the gross value of the
estate exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)’

(5) In all actions involving the contract of marriage and marital

relations;

(6) In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal, person or body exercising jurisdiction or any court, tribunal,
person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;

(7) In all civil actions and special proceedings falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of a Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court and of the Courts of Agrarian Relations as now provided by
law; and
 “(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs or the value of
the property in controversy exceeds Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).”

Section 33 AMENDED BY 11576. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in civil cases. –
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts shall exercise:
“(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions and probate proceedings, testate
and intestate, including the grant of provisional remedies in proper cases, where the
value of the personal property, estate, or amount of the demand does not exceed
Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00), exclusive of interest, damages of whatever
kind, attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs, the amount of which must be
specifically alleged: Provided, That interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses, and costs shall be included in the determination of the filing
fees: Provided, further, That where there are several claims or causes of actions
between the same or different parties, embodied in the same complaint, the amount
of the demand shall be totality of the claims in all the causes of action, irrespective of
whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions;

(2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and

unlawful detainer: Provided, That when, in such cases, the defendant
raises the question of ownership in his pleadings and the question of
possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of
ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine
the issue of possession.
“(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value
of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney’s
fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for
taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed
value of the adjacent lots.

“(4) Exclusive original jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime actions where the
demand or claim does not exceed Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).”

- remember: jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint AND the character of the
relief sought after.

Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and decide the case. It is the power of the court over
certain cases. That is basically jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is thus BP.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law on jurisdiction. This law is BP 129 otherwise
known as the judiciary reorganization act of 1980. It’s called BP because during that time, it’s still called
BP. It was still ruled by the 1973 Const.

Jurisdiction is distinct from venue. The former is the auth. To hear and decide cases while venue is the
case where the case is to be brought.

Remember the two types of ejectment cases: unlawful detainer is when lawful stay but he violated a
contract so it became unlawful. Forcible entry is the stay is already illegal in the first place Force
intimidation strategy stealth. Where do you file this? MTC under BP 129.

- look at rule 4 of rules of court.

RULE 4
VENUE OF ACTIONS

Section 1. Venue of real actions. - Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest
therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the
real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated.

Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the
municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. (1)

- If you’re filing a real action and recovering real property, the jurisdiction of the court will depend on the
assessed value of the property. Jurisdiction of the mtc on real property is 20k and 50k on manila. it’s
changed now under 11576. If less than 400k, mtc. If more than 400k, rtc.

- remember: mtc if assessed value is 400k. for demands for money, the amount involved is 2m.
above 400k and 2m goes to RTC.

- it was once 400k now it’s 2m.

- test on how jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined:

1. Ultimate objective test. If title says this is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation but what
actually the goal is to return back a property, the ultimate objective then is for reconveyance and thus, it
is s real action. The jurisdiction will be based on the amount of the assessed value.

26/8/22 Notes
Already discussed

Public v private int. law

Conflict of laws in priv int. law, although named as such, is not int. law in character
but domestic, local in haracter.

Definition of conflict of laws

- part of the municipal law of the state which directs its court and admin agencies
when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element whether or not
they should apply a foreign law/laws.

Which has primary int. or municip. Law?

Reconcile both int. and municip. Law first.

If irreconcilable, municipal law stands.

Domestic law.

Elements of COL.

1. Part of municipal law of the state. It’s not int. law.

2. There’s a direction to courts and administrative agencies

3. a legal problem involving a foreign element.

Juan and maria got wed by a flip priest on flip. They seek annulment due to
psychological incapacity under art. 36 of the family code. Is there a foreign
element? None.

Foreign element – anything which is not domestic and has a foreign component to it
(page 13). Without this, the case is only a domestic problem with no conflicts. Can
be a foreigner, foreign corporation, incident happening on a foreign
country, or a foreign law chosen by the parties.

Pedro and juan members of lgbt want to be married in the ph. They did but the
court nullified the same. Is there a foreign element? None..

A Japanese boy marries a Filipina in japan. The validity of marriage is questioned.

Is there a foreign element? Yes. Japanese marriage laws, the incident which is
marriage in japan, and the husband being the foreigner.

- tldr foreign element is anything that is not domestic and has a foreign air to it.

- It cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse laws o two or more
states.

4. application or non-application of a foreign law/s.

Ex. Two double citizen ph and aussie got wed to Australia land. The marriage was
contested here in ph. Will their marriage be valid considering they are foreigners?

Yes because of art. 26 of 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), 3637 and 38. (17a)

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. (As amended by
Executive Order 227)
Art. 15 of civil code also won’t apply to them because they’re foreigners.

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. (9a)
In applying foreign state law, does the sov. State recognize the superiority of
another state? No.

Each foreign state is supreme within its own limits and may exclude foreign laws
within its quarter. Hence, when effect is given to a foreign law, it’s only because the
municipal law only temporarily abdicates its supreme authority in favor of the
foreign law where at that case, for the time being, become municipal law.

If applying a foreign law, the applying state doesn’t recognize it as

superior but recognizes it as a municipal law. there’s a temporary
abdication of superiorty of the municipal law in favor of the foreign law.

Basic causes of problems

1. variance in the municipal laws of the countries involved

2. multiplicity of govt. with separate legal systems

3. municipal tribunals may give identical laws with varying interpretations

4. municipal legislation is diverse

Phases of conflict resolution

1. determine which country has jurisdiction (question of jurisdiction)

2. applicability to particular case of either the local or foreign law (choice of law)
3. determination of force validity and effectiveness of a foreign judgment
(applicability of a foreign judgment)

Continental V Basso:

In resolving the conflicts problem, courts should ask the

following questions:

1. "Under the law, do I have jurisdiction over the subject

matter and the parties to this case?

2. "If the answer is yes, is this a convenient forum to the

parties, in light of the facts?

3. "If the answer is yes, what is the conflicts rule for this
particular problem?

4. "If the conflicts rule points to a foreign law, has said law
been properly pleaded and proved by the one invoking it?

5. "If so, is the application or enforcement of the foreign law in

the forum one of the basic exceptions to the application of
foreign law? In short, is there any strong policy or vital interest
of the forum that is at stake in this case and which should
preclude the application of foreign law?41

Why COL is observed

1. state msut observe he subject because its part of their own municipal law

2. ppl must observe it to avoid municipal sanctions

Sources of COL

.1 ndirect sources – natural moral law and works of writers

2. direct sources –

a. const.

b. codifications
c. special laws

d. treaties and conventions

e. judicial descisions

f. international customs.

Jurisdiction – juris and dico or I speak of the law

The power and authority of a court to try hear and decide a case and to
carry judgments into effect.

JURISDICTION STARTS HERE (2)

Jurisdiction requisites

- remember: jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint AND the character of the
relief sought after.

1. jurisdiction over the persons of the parties

How do they acquire juris. over the parties?

- how to get juris. over the parties? In civil action there are two: plaintiff and defendant. How does the
court acquire juris. over the plaintiff? They acquire juris. over the person of the plaintiff from the
time the plaintiff files his complaint.

- acquiring juris. over the person of the defendant can be acquired by the court if you are served
summons. Summons are orders from the court.

It is a tool to affect the const. right of the defendant of due process. You’re being given a chance to
defend yourself in court if you’re given a summon. Otherwise, the court may enter judgment against you.

- if you’re served with summons as a defendant, you’re now under the jurisdiction of the court. The
person of the defendant is now under the juris. of the court.

- another way to get juris. over the defendant is when he appears in court voluntarily.

2. jurisdiction over the subject matter

How does the court acquire juris. over the subject matter?

- How is juris over the subject matter is determined? How will you know if a case goes to mtc or rtc? Just
read the allegations of the complaint.

The complaint appears to state “there’s a tenant that’s not paying. I wrote him a notice to pay and vacate.”
That fact will determine what case to be filed and thus will determine the jurisdiction of the court, the
subject matter is ejectment or accion publiciana. Unlawful detainer is to be filed 1 year from the demand.
If 1 year had passed, file it as accion publiciana and not unlawful detainer, which will now depend on the
assessed value of the property.

- remember: jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint AND the character of the
relief sought after.

- Test on how jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is determined:

Ultimate objective test; if title says this is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation but what
actually the goal is to return back a property, the ultimate objective then is for reconveyance and
thus, it is s real action. The jurisdiction will be based on the amount of the assessed value. It is capable
of pecuniary estimation hence It goes to the MTC under BP 129 Sec. 19

Conferred by law

Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall

exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: (AS AMENDED BY RA 11576)

(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable
of pecuniary estimation;

- incapable of P.E. means actions involving issues not quantifiable in terms of

money

“(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos
(P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts;

- Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. It can’t be granted upon by the agreement of
both parties. Even if the court consented, it’s still void. Only exception to this which rarely happens is
when estoppel sets it as in the case of tijam V sibonghanoy (Already digested go check it out).

3. jurisdiction over the res or the thing

How does the court acquire juris. over the res?

Jurisdiction over the thing or res is the power of the court over an object or thing
being litigated. The court may acquire jurisdiction over the thing by actually or
constructively seizing or placing it under the court's custody. Pedro V Romasan
- jurisdiction over the thing. Usually, this happens over action in rem cases. Actions are either personal,
real. Either action in personam or action in rem/quasi in rem. This means jurisdiction over the thing
happens over real property cases.

- In this, it’s not necessary for the court to acquire juris. over the person. It is necessary in action in rem
for the court to acquire juris over the res. For ex in foreclosure of real estate mortage, that is an action in
rem. In prelim. Attachment, the action there is quasi in rem. It is required for the court to acquire
jurisdiction over the property.

4. jurisdiction over the issues

How do they get juris. over the issues?

RESEARCH THOSE QUESTIONS.

Remember- COL is civil law.

23/9/22 lecture notes

Jurisdiction = juris and dico aka i speak of the law

- power and autho of a court to try, hear, decide, a case and to carry
judgments into effect.

Four req. for a valid exercise of juris

1. jurisdiction over the persons of the parties

2. jurisdiction over the subject matter

3. jurisdiction over the res

4. jurisdiction over the issues

Gemplerlie v schekner

- service of summons is enough if the defendant was abroad but the

attorney/representative of defendant is in the ph and was served summons.

Classification of actions

Summons – writ by which defendant is notified of the action brought against him
(only for defendant)

Purpose

1. actions in personam

a. to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil case

b. to give notice of the defendant that an action was done against him

2 actions in rem and quasi in rem

- not to acquire juris. but only to satisfy the const. req. of due process. Juris. over
the defendant not req. and the court acquires juris. over an action as long as it
aacquires juris. over the res.

Classifications of actions as to object

Action in personam

In rem

Quasi in rem

To which is it directed?

If action in personam, directed against a particular person. Jurisdiction over the

person of the defendant is required. It is an action imposing responsibility/liability
upon a person directly. If there be judgment, it’s binding only to the parties
impleaded and their successors in interest. It is mposing respolsibility or
liability upon a person.

Ex. action for damages.

Specific performance - An order for specific performance compels a party to

perform his positive contractual obligations, that is, to do what he promised to do.
The remedy of requiring exact performance of a contract in the specific form in
which it was made, or according to the precise terms agreed upon.

- enforcement of a specific obligation under a contract

- is it directed against a person? Is it acting a person to do something? If yes, it’s

action in personam.

Action in rem: directed against the thing itself. Jurisdiction over the defendant is
not required, and the judgment here is binding upon the whole world.

Annulment is directed against the status of the persons not a person and thus is an
action in rem.

- if jurisdiction is not required over the person of defendant, in rem.

Is service of summons necessary? Not necessary but still needed not to acquire
juris. but only to satisfy the const. req. of due process.

Action quasi in rem: defendant’s property seeking to put a lien on his

property.

Juris. over the person of the defendant is not required so long as jurisdiction over
the res is acquired. Judgment, the same on in personam, is binding only upon he
impleaded persons. Ex. action to foreclose real property.

- only the action in personam requires service of summons to acquire juris. over the
person of the defendant.

- end of October exam last week somewhere at 23-29. Two hours exam.

Read assigned cases. Discussed is other classification of actions as to cause and

modes of service of summons (At rules of court)

Dillweg v Philips

Perkins v dizon

Midterm exam oct. 28 2022

Dilweg V Phillips

1. COURTS; JURISDICTION; PERSONAL ACTION BY

NONRESIDENT ALIEN NOT WITHIN PHILIPPINE TERRITORY. —
Nonresident aliens may maintain personal actions
against Philippine resident in Philippine courts even if
said plaintiffs are not within Philippine territory.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST NONRESIDENT

PLAINTIFF. — The fact that there are counter claims
against a nonresident plaintiff does not alter the
situation.

"This action is one for damages by reason of alleged libelous

statements uttered in the Philippines by the defendants against
the plaintiff. In other words, it is an action based on a tort or
act, which under the law of the Philippines, is defined as a
criminal offense. At the time the said libelous statements were
uttered, the plaintiff was in Washington, D.C. where he was
and has always been a resident. There is no allegation in the
complaint that plaintiff has ever been in the Philippines or has
resided at anytime therein.

"The general rule in this jurisdiction is that a court acquires

jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff by the filing of his
complaint. (Manila Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 26 Phil.
523). In King Mau Wu v. Sycip, 94 Phil., 784, 50 O.G. page
5366, April 23, 1954, it was contended that as the plaintiff
therein has never been a resident of the Philippines, the courts
of this country have not acquired jurisdiction to take
cognizance of his action based on a contract which was
executed in the State of New York, U.S.A. The Supreme Court
held that a non-resident may sue a resident on the courts of
his country for the collection of money arising from a contract
notwithstanding the fact that said contract was executed
outside the country. In Western Equipment and Supply Co. v.
Reyes, 51 Phil. 116 it was held that a foreign corporation which
has never done any business in the Philippines and which is
unlicensed and unregistered to do business here, may sue in
the courts of the Philippines for the purpose of restraining
certain resident and inhabitants of the Philippines from
organizing a corporation in this country bearing the same name
as that of the plaintiff because the action involves the use of a
tradename and hence, it is one in rem.

The sole issue posed in the present appeal is whether or not

our Philippine courts can rightfully refuse to assume
jurisdiction over a personal act on instituted by a
nonresident alien who is not within the territorial
jurisdiction of our courts.

In refusing to assume jurisdiction over this case, the court

below upheld defendants’ contention that in a personal action it
can only acquire jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff if
he resides within our territorial jurisdiction. We believe and
hold that the trial court is in error in this point. In fact,
this Court only recently has upheld the right of nonresidents to
maintain personal actions against our residents in Philippine
courts (Sharruf v. Bubla, G.R. No. L-17029, September 30,
1964).

In an American case with facts similar to those obtaining in the

case at bar, and in which the same identical issue was raised,
the Court of Appeals of New York held: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"There is no objection to the maintenance of the action in our

courts in the fact that the plaintiff was an English subject, or
that he was a nonresident. As a personal action, sounding
in tort, it was transitory in its nature, following the
person of the defendant. Our courts were open to the
plaintiff for redress of any personal injury suffered by reason of
defendants’ acts. Story’s Conflict of Laws. Sec. 625; Wharton’s
Conflict of Laws, Secs. 478, 707, 743; Gardner v. Thomas, 14
Johns. 134, 7 Am. Dec. 445; De Witt v. Buchanan, 54 Barb.
31." (Crashley v. Press Pub. Co., 71 N. E. 258, 259).
It is thus evident that, contrary to the conclusion reached by
the court below, it is not indispensable for a foreigner to
establish a residence, nor need he be physically present in a
state of which he is not a resident or citizen in order that he
may initiate or maintain a personal action against a resident or
citizen of that other state for rights of action arising in, or for
violations of laws committed within, the territorial jurisdiction
of that other state. In this jurisdiction, no general law has come
to our knowledge or notice which restricts the right of
nonresident aliens to sue in our courts. It is not disputed that
plaintiff’s causes of action arose in, and that the defendants are
within, our territorial jurisdiction. It is conceded by both parties
that the law under which the instant case falls is silent on the
matter of the right of an alien to sue in our courts.
Perkins V Dizon

Eugene Arthur Perkins, instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against
the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company for dividends registered in his name, payment
of which was being withheld by the company; and, for the recognition of his right to the
control and disposal of said shares, to the exclusion of all others. 

o the complaint, the company filed its answer alleging, by way of defense, that the
withholding of such dividends and the non-recognition of plaintiff's right to the
disposal and control of the shares were due to certain demands made with respect to
said shares by the petitioner herein, Idonah Slade Perkins, and by one George H.
Engelhard. The answer prays that the adverse claimants be made parties to the
action and served with notice thereof by publication, and that thereafter all such
parties be required to interplead and settle the rights among themselves.

Tldr what you’re claiming is also being claimed by perkins and engelhard

The trial court ordered respondent Eugene Arthur Perkins to include in his complaint as
parties defendant petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, and George H. Engelhard. The
complaint was accordingly amended and in addition to the relief prayed for in the original
complaint, respondent Perkins prayed that petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins and George
Engelhard be adjudged without interest in the shares of stock in question and excluded from
any claim they assert thereon.
Thereafter, summons by publication were served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah
Slade Perkins and George H. Engelhard, pursuant to the order of the trial court. On
December 9, 1938, Engelhard filed his answer to the amended complaint, and on
December 10, 1938, petitioner Idonah Slade Perkins, through counsel, filed her pleading
entitled "objection to venue, motion to quash, and demurrer to jurisdiction" wherein she
challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court over her person. Petitioner's objection, motion
and demurrer having been overruled as well as her motion for reconsideration of the order
of denial, she now brought the present petition for certiorari, praying that the summons by
publication issued against her be declared null and void, and that, with respect to her,
respondent Judge be permanently prohibited from taking any action on the case.

The controlling issue here involved is whether or not the Court of First Instance of
Manila has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the present petitioner as a non-
resident defendant, or, notwithstanding the want of such jurisdiction, whether or not
said court may validly try the case.

Yes.

TLDR: Where the action is in rem or quasi in rem in connection with property located
in the Philippines, the court acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction
over the person of the non-resident is non-essential. In order that the court may
exercise power over the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual
custody of the property, potential custody thereof being sufficient.

Action involved here is that the action involved is action quasi in rem. In action quasi
in rem, juris. over the defendant is not required. It’s okay for him to just be informed
and through publication is okay.

A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought against persons seeking to subject the
property of such persons to the discharge of the claims assailed.

- in an action in personam, how to serve summons to a defendant nonresident alien

and not found in the ph?

Section 398 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident defendant
is sued in the Philippine courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that
the action relates to real or personal property within the Philippines in which said
defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from any interest
therein, service of summons maybe made by publication.

We have fully explained the meaning of this provision in El Banco Español Filipino vs.
Palanca, 37 Phil., 921, wherein we laid down the following rules:
(1) In order that the court may validly try a case, it must have jurisdiction over
the subject-matter and over the persons of the parties. Jurisdiction over the
subject-matter is acquired by concession of the sovereign authority which
organizes a court and determines the nature and extent of its powers in
general and thus fixes its jurisdiction with reference to actions which it may entertain
and the relief it may grant. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties is acquired by
their voluntary appearance in court and their submission to its authority, or by the
coercive power of legal process exerted over their persons.

(2) When the defendant is a non-resident and refuses to appear voluntary, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person even if the summons be
served by publication, for he is beyond the reach of judicial process. No tribunal
established by one State can extend its process beyond its territory so as to subject
to its decisions either persons or property located in another State. "There are many
expressions in the American reports from which it might be inferred that the court
acquires personal jurisdiction over the person of the defendant by publication and
notice; but such is not the case. In truth, the proposition that jurisdiction over the
person of a non-resident cannot be acquired by publication and notice was never
clearly understood even in the American courts until after the decision had been
rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the leading case of Pennoyer
v. Neff (95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565). In the light of that decisions which have
subsequently been rendered in that and other courts, the proposition that jurisdiction
over the person cannot be thus acquired by publication and notice is no longer open
to question; and it is now fully established that a personal judgment upon
constructive or substituted service against a non-resident who does not
appear is wholly invalid. This doctrine applies to all kinds of constructive or
substituted process, including service by publication and personal service outside of
the jurisdiction in which the judgment is rendered; and the only exception seems to
be found in the case where the non-resident defendant has expressly or
impliedly consented to the mode of service. (Note to Raher vs. Raher, 35 L. R. A.
[N. S.], 292; see also L.R.A. 585; 35 L.R.A. [N.S.], 312.)

(3) The general rule, therefore, is that a suit against a non-resident cannot be
entertained by a Philippine court. Where, however, the action is in rem or quasi
in rem in connection with property located in the Philippines, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the res, and its jurisdiction over the person of the
non-resident is non-essential. In order that the court may exercise power over
the res, it is not necessary that the court should take actual custody of the
property, potential custody thereof being sufficient. There is potential custody
when, from the nature of the action brought, the power of the court over the property
is impliedly recognized by law. "An illustration of what we term potential
jurisdiction over the res, is found in the proceeding to register the title of land
under our system for the registration of land. Here the court, without taking actual
physical control over the property , assumes, at the instance of some person
claiming to be owner, to exercise a jurisdiction in rem over the property and to
adjudicate the title in favor of the petitioner against all the world."
 (4) As before stated, in an action in rem or quasi in rem against a non-resident
defendant, jurisdiction over his person is non-essential, and if the law requires
in such case that the summons upon the defendant be served by publication,
it is merely to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process. If any be
said, in this connection, that "may reported cases can be cited in which it is assumed
that the question of the sufficiency of publication or notice in the case of this kind is a
question affecting the jurisdiction of the court, and the court is sometimes said to
acquire jurisdiction by virtue of the publication. This phraseology was undoubtedly
originally adopted by the court because of the analogy between service by
publication and personal service of process upon the defendant; and, as has already
been suggested, prior to the decision of Pennoyer v. Neff (supra), the difference
between the legal effects of the two forms of service was obscure. It is accordingly
not surprising that the modes of expression which had already been moulded into
legal tradition before that case was decided have been brought down to the present
day. But it is clear that the legal principle here involved is not affected by the peculiar
languages in which the courts have expounded their ideas." lawphi1.net

The reason for the rule that Philippine courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over the
person of a non-resident, as laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States
in Pennoyer v. Neff, supra, may be found in a recognized principle of public law to the
effect that "no State can exercise direct jurisdiction and authority over persons or
property without its territory. Story, Confl. L., ch. 2; Wheat, Int. L., pt. 2, ch. 2. The
several States are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the
exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by jurists, as an elementary
principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far
as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal established by it can extend its process beyond
that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions. "Any exertion of
authority of this sort beyond this limit," says Story, "is a mere nullity, and incapable of
binding such persons or property in any other tribunals." Story, Confl. L., sec. 539."
(Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S., 714; 24 Law. ed., 565, 568-569.).

When, however, the action relates to property located in the Philippines, the
Philippine courts may validly try the case, upon the principle that a "State, through
its tribunals, may subject property situated within its limits owned by non-residents
to the payment of the demand of its own citizens against them; and the exercise of
this jurisdiction in no respect infringes upon the sovereignty of the State where the
owners are domiciled. Every State owes protection to its citizens; and, when non-
residents deal with them, it is a legitimate and just exercise of authority to hold and
appropriate any property owned by such non-residents to satisfy the claims of its citizens. It
is in virtue of the State's jurisdiction over the property of the non-resident situated within its
limits that its tribunals can inquire into the non-resident's obligations to its own citizens, and
the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the
property. If the non-resident has no property in the State, there is nothing upon which the
tribunals can adjudicate." (Pennoyer v. Neff, supra.)
In the instant case, there can be no question that the action brought by Eugene Arthur
Perkins in his amended complaint against the petitioner, Idonah Slade Perkins, seeks to
exclude her from any interest in a property located in the Philippines. That property consists
in certain shares of stocks of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company, a sociedad
anonima, organized in the Philippines under the provisions of the Spanish Code of
Commerce, with its principal office in the City of Manila and which conducts its mining
activities therein. The situs of the shares is in the jurisdiction where the corporation is
created, whether the certificated evidencing the ownership of those shares are within or
without that jurisdiction. (Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Permanent ed. Vol. 11, p. 95).
Under these circumstances, we hold that the action thus brought is quasi in rem, for
while the judgement that may be rendered therein is not strictly a judgment in rem, "it
fixes and settles the title to the property in controversy and to that extent partakes of
the nature of the judgment in rem." (50 C.J., p 503). As held by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Pennoyer v. Neff (supra);

The action being in quasi in rem, The Court of First Instance of Manila has
jurisdiction over the person of the non-resident. In order to satisfy the constitutional
requirement of due process, summons has been served upon her by publication.
There is no question as to the adequacy of publication made nor as to the mailing of the
order of publication to the petitioner's last known place of residence in the United States.
But, of course, the action being quasi in rem and notice having be made by
publication, the relief that may be granted by the Philippine court must be confined to
the res, it having no jurisdiction to render a personal judgment against the non-
resident. In the amended complaint filed by Eugene Arthur Perkins, no money judgment or
other relief in personam is prayed for against the petitioner. The only relief sought therein is
that she be declared to be without any interest in the shares in controversy and that she be
excluded from any claim thereto.

30/9/22

1. Jurisdiction over the persons of the parties

Plaintiff – jurisdiction is acquired when filing the complaint before the court

Defendant – coercive means (or through summons) or voluntary appearance by him filing
responsive pleading/answers to the petition.

2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter BP 129

3. Jurisdiction over the res

4. over the issues

Summons – writ where the defendant is notified of the action brought against him

Purpose
1. action in personam

a. to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant in a civil case

b to give notice to thedefendant that an action was commenced against him

on actions in personam, juris. over the person is required

actions in personam, breach of contract, damages,

action to recover real property is also an action in personam. As to object because you have
your action directed against a particular person

action in personam, action in rem, action quasi in rem

action in rem – probate, cadastral proceeding, subject here is the determination of the
subject/thing and binding to the whole world

action in personam – binding only to impleaded people

action quasi in rem – directed against tee interest of a named defendant over a property to
subject it to lien. Ex. is action to partition, action to foreclose real estate mortgage.

In rem and quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the defendant is not required because the action is
against the property, not against the defendant.

If you handle a case later on and it’s of partition and summons weren’t served to the
defendant and the lawyer of the defendant wants the case dismissed due to lack of
summons and the requirement for juris. wasn’t completed. This is wrong because juris. over
the person of defendant is not required in an action quasi in rem.

Still take not that summons to the persons involved is still important to satisfy the req. of due
process and const. whether or not it’s required for court to acquire juris. over defendant over
quasi in rem cases, no.

Importance of classification – you’ll distinguish the cases where juris. over the defendant will
be required and that’s only required on actions in personam

Classifications of actions as to cause:

1. Real action – if it involves ownership or possession of real property like action

reivindicatoria, publiciana etc.

2. Personal action – all actions that are not real actions

3. Mixed action – mixed real and personal. Ex. is to recover a piece of land. Can still be a
real action though.
As to object

1. action in personam

2. action in rem

3. action quasi in rem

Mode of service of summons

A summons is a notice from court that an action or a complaint was filed against
the defendant

Two ways

1. Personally handing the copy to the defendant

2. If he refuses to receive it, tender it to him by leaving it within the view in the
presence of the defendant

3. Publication – usually only made if the action is in rem or quasi in rem or the
defendant’s location/identity is unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent
inquiry, and there must be leave of court

Nonservice or irregular service of summons renders null and void all subsequent
proceedings and issuances in the action from the order of default up to and
including the judgment by default and the order of execution

SUMMARY
A Court acquires juris over resident defendant by his

Voluntary appearance

Or service of summons to him either by personal or substituted serv

If nonresident defendant

- should be no summons by publication.

Exception: defendant whose place is name is not known

AND served upon someone who ordinarily resides and currently outside ph. Needs
leave of court setting forth the grounds.

Nonresident serving of summns

1. voluntary appearance

2. valid service of summons within the PH.

NO SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION. NO EXCEPTIONS IF INPERSONAM ACTION.

- Extraterritorial service not available in case of nonresidents.

Extraterritorial service req.

1. nonresident

2. found in the ph

3. action is in rem or quasi in rem

If action in personam and person is nonresident, no publication

How

1. service in person affected out of the ph (only in rem and quasi in rem)

2. publication – copy of the summons and order of court sent by registered mail at
the last known address

3. any other manner sufficient.

In an in personam action how can ph court acquire uris over the person of a
nonresident defendant who is not physically present here and no voluntary
appearance?

A way is to convert the action in personam to in rem so juris. over the person of the
defendnat won’t be needed anymore.
Answer: The court cannot acquire jurisdiction over that defendant in
because there’s simply no way to serve him summons. Only way to file is
to convert the action in rem or quasi in rem.

Midterm on 28, not 12.

Jurisdiction continuation

As to the object of the action,

Action in personam

In rem

Quasi inrem

As to cause

Personal

Real action

Action in personam – action is directed against a particular person or

party. Ex: action for damages or action for specific performance, ejectment
case, recovery of property,

In rem – directed against the status or thing. Ex. annulment for marriage,
judgment in in rem cases is binding upon the whole world. Jurisdiction
here as opposed to action in personam is required but in in rem, It’s not
required.

Serving of summons is done to the other party to satisfy the requirement

of due notice

Ex. cadastral, probate proceedings. Summons served are heirs:

compulsory, voluntary, legatee/devisee

Cadastral pertains to land

Action quasi in rem – against the interest of a named defendant on a

property to impose a lien to it.

Jurisdiction over the person is not required.

Acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant not in the ph, not a
resident, and who did not voluntarily submit

Erlinda velayo-fong v spouses velayo

Where the action is in personam, that is, one brought against a person on the
basis of her personal liability, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. When the defendant
is a non-resident, personal service of summons within the state is essential to
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person.30 Summons on the defendant
must be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in person, or, if he
refuses to receive it, by tendering it to him.31 This cannot be done, however,
if the defendant is not physically present in the country, and thus, the
court cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot
validly try and decide the case against him.

Jurisdiction over the subject matter

-conferred by law nd defined as the authority of a court to hear and decid cases of
the general class to which the proceedings in question belong

Ex. bp 129

It’s a matter of substantive law. the rest is procedural law like res or issues

Way of disposing conflicts problems

1. When the cour is without jurisdiction, it has no alternative but to dismiss the
case

2. when the court possesses jurisdiction, it may

a. refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens or

b. assume jurisdiction, in which case it may either

I. apply the internal law of the forum

II. apply the proper foreign law

When the court assumes jurisdiction

1. apply the internal or domestic law

2. apply the proper foreign law

When the ccourt applies the internal law

1. when the law of the forum expressly so provides in its conflicts rules

2. when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved

3. when the case involves any of the exceptions to the application of the proper
foreign law (Exceptions to comity)
When the court assumes jurisdiction because the law of the forum expressly so
provides in the application of the internal law

1. new civil code of the PH is an example of this law. art. 17

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

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the
Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution.

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 judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country. (11a)

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

1. intestate and testamentary successions,

2. both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional
rights

3. and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,

shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found. (10a)

Lex recitae

Lex lotis

Art. 15, 16, and 17 are very good examples of local/internal laws which may be
used/invoked by the court when it decide cases involving foreign elements because these
specific provisions/conflicts rules/local rules/local conflict rules expressly provides that the
intenral law should be applied

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. (9a)

Nationality principle is art. 15.

Problem: what governs the capacity of a Turkish child who inherits from his filipino father?
Art. 16 is the applicable provision. 15 is also correct but if you apply 15, you’ll go to 16. Par.
2. It will be the national law of the person whose successional rights is in consideration.

Intestate provision – no will

Who will inherit

How much will be inherited

Intrinsic validity of the provisions (what the will says)

The capacity of the Turkish child to inherit from the flip is governed by PH law

Next problem: Brimo, a Turkish national, executed a will providing that his property shall be
disposed of in accordance to PH law. is the stipulation valid?

Not valid. Art. 16. The law of the nationality of the testator must be followed.

Bohanan v bohanan 106 ph 997

Bohanan was a citizen of the US Nevada at the time of his death. In his will, he
gave his estate to his son, brother, sister. 6k pesos each and left nothing to their
their mother. The former wife opposed the project of partition

In he estate of Nevada, a testator may dispose his property according to his will. At
his will, he stated that majority of his estate goes to his grandson, brother and
sister. He gave something to his son and gave nothing to his ex-wife. In Nevada, a
testator may dispose all of his properties according to his will. You can’t do that in
PH because the preterition can’t be done (impairment of legitime)

Is the former wife and two children entitled to their legitime?

No. Apply art. 16 par. 2. We cannot apply our rule. In applying our local law, we
should apply national law.

MEMORIZE ART. 15. AND 16

Art 16 par. 2: the applicable law would be the national law of the
person whose succession is under consideration.

Go back to the examples of the internal conflict rules

Art. 17 civil code.

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

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the
Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution.

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 judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country.

Art. 815 of the new civil code

Article 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of

the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be
probated in the Philippines. (n)

Article 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the Philippines if made
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or according to
the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this Code
prescribes. (n)

Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent (the
one who died aka usually the parent)

Article 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a person who does not have his
domicile in this country, is valid when it is done according to the law of the place where the
will was made, or according to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at
the time; and if the revocation takes place in this country, when it is in accordance with the
provisions of this Code. (n)

Article 817. A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another country, which
is executed in accordance with the law of the country of which he is a citizen or subject, and
which might be proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have the same
effect as if executed according to the laws of the Philippines. (n)

Article 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly, or in the same instrument,
either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit of a third person. (669)

Article 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article, executed by Filipinos in a foreign

country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the
country where they may have been executed. (733a)

Michano v brimo 50 ph 867

A Turkish national executed a will providing that his porpoerty will be disposed of in
accordance to the PH law. Is this valid?
No because the disposition should be in accordance to his local law because he’s the
descedent (par. 2 art. 16 civil code)

Bohanan v bohanan you already read this art. 16 par. 2.

Assumption of jurisdiction when the proper foreign law has not been properly
proven and proved

Doctrine of processual presumption – if the ofreign law involved is not proved, ph

law assumes that our local law is the same as foreign law.

What do you have to do to prove a foreign law as afact?

Plead It and prove it as a fact by presenting evidence (documentary, object

or testimonial evidence)

Foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved. No judicial notice of any
foreign law. if not properly pleaded and proved, our court will assume that foreign
law is the same as our foreign law.

How to prove a record of public document:

Sec. 24 of rule 132 revised rules

Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in

paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.

If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting
party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered
a public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of
Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by
such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.

For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to
a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may
be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his or her office.

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in

evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this formality. (24a)

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in

evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this formality. (24a)

How to prove the divorse law? sec. 24: official publication of that law

Recently, there are certain laws where the local courts can now take judicial notice .
before that, you have to prove of the divorce law first.

Another thing to prove is the divorce decree itself.

SO, how to prove official record? Cite sec. 24 AND DO NOT MAKE A SHORTCUT.
WHAT’S WRITTEN THERE SHOULD BE STATED.

JURISDICTION IS EXAM COVERAGE

Internal law will be applied (the law of the forum) if you failed to prove the foreign
law being invoked due to doctrine of processual presumption

1. when the law of the forum expressly so provides in its conflicts rules

2. when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved.
3. when the case nvolves any of the excpetions to the application of the proper
foreign law

“- you failed to prove the foreign law so we apply our foreign law” asshole jurists”

Wildvalley v CA

PH Roxas was in Puerto ordaz where it was to load iron ore. When ready to leave
court, Vasquez, the inofficial pilot of venezuala, was ordered to maneuver the
vessel. Due to his negligence, the PH roxas, ran around a vassel owned by
wildvalley shipping limited. Petitioner sued the owner of ph roxas before the RTC

Wildvalley says apply Venezuela law because the law says the owner of the vessel
is laible even if the one negligent is the pilot. PH law says that the owner is not
bound to the pilot’s

Issue

Whether Venezuela law is applicable here.

Held

No. venenzuela law is not applicable here because Venezuela law is not applicable
here. Only photocopies of the law is presented in the case. The lawyer didn’t read
sec. 24 rule 132 of the revised rules of court. it was pleaded but not proven
because only photocopies of the published law was presented.

With respect to other evidednce, photocopies can now be presened b y the way if
the opposing parties deny its genuiness, they show document proving that it’s false.

REMEMBER RULE 132 SEC. 24, SEC. 15 16 17

Manufacturer hanover trust v Guerrero (important)

Action in personam is damages. Nature of action as to cause is personal action (just

a refresher)

RTC for manila for damages arising from illegally held damages return text etc.
petitioner alleged that guerrrero’s account is governed by new York law not allowing
his claims. Affidavit of attorney says that they’re so. is the law proven?

No.

Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a

sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official
publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be accompanied, if
the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the
attesting officer has the legal custody thereof. The certificate may be
issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. The attestation must state, in
substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be, and must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer.

Te bank only alleged but not proved the foreign law.

Edi-staff builders international v NLRC

EVEN IF YOU GOT SPOONFED, STIL LREAD THE CASES

Gran, a flip, was recruited by EDI to work. Processual presumption. The foreign law
of sandniggers were not proven so the court presumed that their law is the same as
ours so local labor laws were applied.

How to prove foreign law ended up to midterm. Exam is up to 28 and coverage is

up to

Philtrust Co V Bohanan

Appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Ramon San Jose,
presiding, dismissing the objections filed by Magdalena C. Bohanan, Mary Bohanan and
Edward Bohanan to the project of partition submitted by the executor and approving the
said project.

On April 24, 195 0, the Court of First Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo, presiding,
admitted to probate a last will and testament of C. O. Bohanan, executed by him on April
23, 1944 in Manila. In the said order, the court made the following findings:

According to the evidence of the opponents the testator was born in Nebraska and
therefore a citizen of that state, or at least a citizen of California where some of his
properties are located. This contention in untenable. Notwithstanding the long
residence of the decedent in the Philippines, his stay here was merely
temporary, and he continued and remained to be a citizen of the United States
and of the state of his pertinent residence to spend the rest of his days in that
state. His permanent residence or domicile in the United States depended upon his
personal intent or desire, and he selected Nevada as his homicide and therefore at
the time of his death, he was a citizen of that state. Nobody can choose his domicile
or permanent residence for him. That is his exclusive personal right.

Wherefore, the court finds that the testator C. O. Bohanan was at the time of his
death a citizen of the United States and of the State of Nevada and declares that his
will and testament, Exhibit A, is fully in accordance with the laws of the state of
 Nevada and admits the same to probate. Accordingly, the Philippine Trust Company,
named as the executor of the will, is hereby appointed to such executor and upon
the filing of a bond in the sum of P10,000.00, let letters testamentary be issued and
after taking the prescribed oath, it may enter upon the execution and performance of
its trust. (pp. 26-27, R.O.A.).

It does not appear that the order granting probate was ever questions on appeal. The
executor filed a project of partition dated January 24, 1956, making, in accordance with the
provisions of the will, the following adjudications: (1) one-half of the residuary estate, to the
Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles, California, U.S.A. in trust only for
the benefit of testator's grandson Edward George Bohanan, which consists of several
mining companies; (2) the other half of the residuary estate to the testator's brother, F.L.
Bohanan, and his sister, Mrs. M. B. Galbraith, share and share alike. This consist in the
same amount of cash and of shares of mining stock similar to those given to testator's
grandson; (3) legacies of P6,000 each to his (testator) son, Edward Gilbert Bohana, and his
daughter, Mary Lydia Bohanan, to be paid in three yearly installments; (4) legacies to Clara
Daen, in the amount of P10,000.00; Katherine Woodward, P2,000; Beulah Fox, P4,000; and
Elizabeth Hastings, P2,000;

It will be seen from the above that out of the total estate (after deducting administration
expenses) of P211,639.33 in cash, the testator gave his grandson P90,819.67 and one-half
of all shares of stock of several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same
amount. To his children he gave a legacy of only P6,000 each, or a total of P12,000.

The wife Magadalena C. Bohanan and her two children question the validity of the
testamentary provisions disposing of the estate in the manner above indicated,
claiming that they have been deprived of the legitimate that the laws of the form
concede to them.

The first question refers to the share that the wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan,
should be entitled to received. The will has not given her any share in the estate left by the
testator. It is argued that it was error for the trial court to have recognized the Reno divorce
secured by the testator from his Filipino wife Magdalena C. Bohanan, and that said divorce
should be declared a nullity in this jurisdiction, citing the case of Querubin vs. Querubin, 87
Phil., 124, 47 Off. Gaz., (Sup, 12) 315, Cousins Hiz vs. Fluemer, 55 Phil., 852,
Ramirez vs. Gmur, 42 Phil., 855 and Gorayeb vs. Hashim, 50 Phil., 22. The court below
refused to recognize the claim of the widow on the ground that the laws of Nevada, of
which the deceased was a citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties
without requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife. Section 9905 of
Nevada Compiled Laws of 1925 provides:

Every person over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, may, by last will,
dispose of all his or her estate, real and personal, the same being chargeable with
the payment of the testator's debts.

Besides, the right of the former wife of the testator, Magdalena C. Bohanan, to a share in
the testator's estafa had already been passed upon adversely against her in an order dated
June 19, 1955, (pp. 155-159, Vol II Records, Court of First Instance), which had become
final, as Magdalena C. Bohanan does not appear to have appealed therefrom to question its
validity. On December 16, 1953, the said former wife filed a motion to withdraw the sum of
P20,000 from the funds of the estate, chargeable against her share in the conjugal property,
(See pp. 294-297, Vol. I, Record, Court of First Instance), and the court in its said error
found that there exists no community property owned by the decedent and his former wife
at the time the decree of divorce was issued. As already and Magdalena C. Bohanan may
no longer question the fact contained therein, i.e. that there was no community property
acquired by the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan during their converture.

Moreover, the court below had found that the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were
married on January 30, 1909, and that divorce was granted to him on May 20, 1922; that
sometime in 1925, Magdalena C. Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this marriage was
subsisting at the time of the death of the testator. Since no right to share in the inheritance
in favor of a divorced wife exists in the State of Nevada and since the court below had
already found that there was no conjugal property between the testator and Magdalena C.
Bohanan, the latter can now have no longer claim to pay portion of the estate left by the
testator.

The most important issue is the claim of the testator's children, Edward and Mary Lydia,
who had received legacies in the amount of P6,000 each only, and, therefore, have not
been given their shares in the estate which, in accordance with the laws of the forum (aka
law of the PH), should be two-thirds of the estate left by the testator. Is the failure old the
testator to give his children two-thirds of the estate left by him at the time of his death, in
accordance with the laws of the forum valid?

The old Civil Code, which is applicable to this case because the testator died in 1944,
expressly provides that successional rights to personal property are to be earned by
the national law of the person whose succession is in question. Says the law on this
point:

Nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of

succession as well as to the extent of the successional rights and the intrinsic
validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property and
the country in which it is found. (par. 2, Art. 10, old Civil Code, which is the same as
par. 2 Art. 16, new Civil Code.)

In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was found out and it was decided that the
testator was a citizen of the State of Nevada because he had selected this as his domicile
and his permanent residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950, supra). So the question
at issue is whether the estementary dispositions, especially hose for the children which are
short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is not
disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec.
9905, Complied Nevada Laws of 1925, supra). It does not appear that at time of the hearing
of the project of partition, the above-quoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was
the executor's duly to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in
our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules, which are as follows:
 SEC. 41. Proof of public or official record. — An official record or an entry
therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy tested by the officer having the legal custody
of he record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in
the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. . . . (Rule
123).

We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found
that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 of the motion of Magdalena C. Bohanan for
withdrawal of P20,000 as her share, the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled
Nevada Laws. was introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as Exhibits "2"
(See pp. 77-79, VOL. II, and t.s.n. pp. 24-44, Records, Court of First Instance). Again said
laws presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B"
during the hearing of the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo (se
Records, Court of First Instance, Vol. 1).

In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-
quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above
circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada,
especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial
notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the
project of partition.

As in accordance with Article 10 of the old Civil Code, the validity of testamentary
dispositions are to be governed by the national law of the testator, and as it has been
decided and it is not disputed that the national law of the testator is that of the State of
Nevada, already indicated above, which allows a testator to dispose of all his property
according to his will, as in the case at bar, the order of the court approving the project of
partition made in accordance with the testamentary provisions, must be, as it is hereby
affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Fluemer V Hix

The special administrator of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix appeals from a decision of
Judge of First Instance Tuason denying the probate of the document alleged to by the last
will and testament of the deceased. Appellee is not authorized to carry on this appeal. We
think, however, that the appellant, who appears to have been the moving party in these
proceedings, was a "person interested in the allowance or disallowance of a will by a Court
of First Instance," and so should be permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court from the
disallowance of the will (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 781, as amended; Villanueva vs. De
Leon [1925], 42 Phil., 780).

It is theory of the petitioner that the alleged will was executed in Elkins, West Virginia, on
November 3, 1925, by Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the laws of
West Verginia Code, Annotated, by Hogg, Charles E., vol. 2, 1914, p. 1690, and as certified
to by the Director of the National Library. But this was far from a compliance with the law.
The laws of a foreign jurisdiction do not prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the
Philippine Islands are not authorized to take American Union. Such laws must be proved as
facts. (In re Estate of Johnson [1918], 39 Phil., 156.) Here the requirements of the law
were not met. There was no was printed or published under the authority of the State of
West Virginia, as provided in section 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nor was the
extract from the law attested by the certificate of the officer having charge of the original,
under the sale of the State of West Virginia, as provided in section 301 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. No evidence was introduced to show that the extract from the laws of
West Virginia was in force at the time the alleged will was executed.

In addition, the due execution of the will was not established. The only evidence on
this point is to be found in the testimony of the petitioner. Aside from this, there was
nothing to indicate that the will was acknowledged by the testator in the presence of
two competent witnesses, of that these witnesses subscribed the will in the presence of
the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia seems to require. On the
supposition that the witnesses to the will reside without the Philippine Islands, it would then
the duty of the petitioner to prove execution by some other means (Code of Civil Procedure,
sec. 633.)

It was also necessary for the petitioner to prove that the testator had his domicile in West
Virginia and not establish this fact consisted of the recitals in the CATHY will and the
testimony of the petitioner. Also in beginning administration proceedings orginally in the
Philippine Islands, the petitioner violated his own theory by attempting to have the principal
administration in the Philippine Islands.

While the appeal pending submission in this court, the attorney for the appellant presented
an unverified petition asking the court to accept as part of the evidence the documents
attached to the petition. One of these documents discloses that a paper writing purporting to
be the was presented for probate on June 8, 1929, to the clerk of Randolph Country, State
of West Virginia, in vacation, and was duly proven by the oaths of Dana Wamsley and
Joseph L. MAdden, the subscribing witnesses thereto , and ordered to be recorded and
filed. It was shown by another document that, in vacation, on June 8, 1929, the clerk of
court of Randolph Country, West Virginia, appointed Claude W. Maxwell as
administrator, cum testamento annexo, of the estate of Edward Randolph Hix, deceased. In
this connection, it is to be noted that the application for the probate of the will in the
Philippines was filed on February 20, 1929, while the proceedings in West Virginia appear
to have been initiated on June 8, 1929. These facts are strongly indicative of an intention to
make the Philippines the principal administration and West Virginia the ancillary
administration. However this may be, no attempt has been made to comply with Civil
Procedure, for no hearing on the question of the allowance of a will said to have been
proved and allowed in West Virginia has been requested. There is no showing that the
deceased left any property at any place other than the Philippine Islands and no contention
that he left any in West Virginia.

Reference has been made by the parties to a divorce purported to have been awarded
Edward Randolph Hix from Annie Cousins Hix on October 8, 1925, in the State of West
specific pronouncements on the validity or validity of this alleged divorce.

For all of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant.
Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Processual presumption - If foreign law is not proven, it’s assumed that our law is the same
with the foreign law.

Midterm exam is oct. 30 9-11 am

- when confronted with a conflicts problem, may have or may be with or without
juris, may or may not possess juris over the subject matter

Ways of disposing conflict problems

1. when without juris, court dismisses the case

2. when with juris:

a. it may refuse to assume juris on the ground of forum non conveniens or

b. assume juris in which case it may either

I. apply then internal law of the forum

II. apply the foreign law

Assumption of juris when the court applies the internal forum

1. when the law of the forum expressly so provides in its conflicting rules

- ex. 15 16 17 815 civil code, provisions on wills, art 1039 civil code (apply the law
of the nationality of the decedent, not the location of the property.)

2. when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved

- how to prove foreign law? How to prove a record of public document:

Sec. 24 of rule 132 revised rules

Section 24. Proof of official record. - The record of public documents referred to in

paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not
kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody.

If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country, which is a contracting
party to a treaty or convention to which the Philippines is also a party, or considered
a public document under such treaty or convention pursuant to paragraph (c) of
Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by
such treaty or convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is not a contracting party to
a treaty or convention referred to in the next preceding sentence, the certificate may
be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the
seal of his or her office.

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in

evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this formality. (24a)

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its equivalent may be presented in

evidence without further proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie evidence of
the due execution and genuineness of the document involved. The certificate shall not be
required when a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the Philippines has
abolished the requirement, or has exempted the document itself from this formality. (24a)

- foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. The ocurt will
not take judicial notice of any foreign law.

Ex. of judicial notice without evidence needed (sec. 1 rule 129)

Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction
of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government
and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their
seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
divisions. (1a)

Section 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. — A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges
because of their judicial functions. (1a)

Section 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. — During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or
on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties
to be heard thereon.

After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a
party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is
decisive of a material issue in the case. (n)

Foreign laws must be pleaded (allege them in the pleading/petition) and proven

The SC reiterated that in petition for foreign divorce and judicial recognition, one
must prove not only the fact of divorce but also the law allowing the divorce.

Ruling to be recognized in the ph.

1. prove the divorce

2. prove the law allowing the divorce.

Ex. divorce in Egypt. Show the decree annulling the marriage in Egypt AND then
prove the national law of Egypt allowing the divorce.

Proof of foreign law (in ROC)

Written law

1. an official publication thereof;

2. by a copy

- attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the
custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent
or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (Rule 132 sec. 24)

- must be complete. Must be proven under rule 132 sec. 24 otherwise, foreign law
will not be considered proven.

Proof of foreign law

Unwritten law

Proved by

a. oral testimony of expert witness

b. by printed and published books

- foreign law is considered 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.

Assumption of juris when the case involves exception/s to comity –

Btw comity is courtesy or accommodation/recognition which one nation allows

within its territory legis judic or exec. act of other nations

Exceptions to comity or exceptions to application of foreign law (When we do not

apply the proper foreign law and apply our own law)

1. contrary to sound and established public policy of the forum

- public policy is the manifest will of the state that it desires in its own concept of
morals, traditions, justice for the common will

2. when the foreign law judgment or contract is contrary to almost universally

conceded principles of morality (conra bonos mores)

3. when the foreign law provides procedural matters (it’s because we have our own
and doing so would be too bureaucratic)

4. when foreign law is penal in character

5. when the case involves purely fiscal or administrative matters (same reasoning
as no. 3)

6. when the law will cause injustice to the people of the forum

7. when the law would endanger the security of ph

8. If the case involves real/immovable properties located in the ph

- When our conflict rules say so, apply the law of the forum

- When the proper foreign law is not pleaded and proved, apply the law of the
forum

- if it is one of the exceptions to comity, apply the law of the forum

- theory of comity: why the foreign law will be given effect? Giving effect out of
respect
- theory of vested rights – already vested rights are being inforced, not the int. law

- theory of the local law – by applying the foreign law, it’s like temporarily being
made as part of our local law

- theory of harmony of laws – two laws should be given effect to the point that both
of them will give the same result

- theory of justice - ???

Nature and proof of foreign judgments

Nature

- foreign judgment does not of itself have extraterritorial application. It has to be

proved if to be made effective in another territory or jurisdiction.

How to prove it? rule 132 sec. 24 of ROC.

Recognition v enforcement

- in both cases, proof of the foreign judgment msut be presented

Recognition and req. before foreign judgment be recognized and enforced in the ph

1. there must be proof of the foreign judgment (sec. 24 rule 132)

2. judgment must be civil or commercial (not penal)

3. no lack of juris no want of notice no collusion, no fraud no clear mistake of law or
fact

4. the judgment must not contravene a sound and established policy

5. judgment must be res judicata in the state that rendered it

Question:

Pedro is convicted of estafa in the PH. Pedro managed to leave the ph and is in the
US. How will his imprisonment and conviction be enforced in the US?

US can’t impose so extradition

May divorce in the us be recognized in the ph? Depends on the nationality of the
couple.

- if both are ph citizens and divorced in the us, can’t recognize.

TESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN vs. HELEN CHRISTENSEN

GARCIA

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Hon. Vicente
N. Cusi, Jr., presiding, in Special Proceeding No. 622 of said court, dated September
14, 1949, approving among things the final accounts of the executor, directing the
executor to reimburse Maria Lucy Christensen the amount of P3,600 paid by her
to Helen Christensen Garcia as her legacy, and declaring Maria Lucy Christensen
entitled to the residue of the property to be enjoyed during her lifetime, and in
case of death without issue, one-half of said residue to be payable to Mrs. Carrie Louise
C. Borton, etc., in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator Edward E.
Christensen.

 The will was executed in Manila on March 5, 1951 and contains the following
provisions:

3. I declare ... that I have but ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN (now
Mrs. Bernard Daney), who was born in the Philippines about twenty-eight years ago,
and who is now residing at No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. I further declare that I now have no living ascendants, and no descendants except
my above named daughter, MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY.

xxx     xxx     xxx chanrobles virtual law library

7. I give, devise and bequeath unto MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, now married to
Eduardo Garcia, about eighteen years of age and who, notwithstanding the fact that
she was baptized Christensen, is not in any way related to me, nor has she been at any
time adopted by me, and who, from all information I have now resides in Egpit, Digos,
Davao, Philippines, the sum of THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P3,600.00),
Philippine Currency the same to be deposited in trust for the said Maria Helen
Christensen with the Davao Branch of the Philippine National Bank, and paid to her at
the rate of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), Philippine Currency per month until the
principal thereof as well as any interest which may have accrued thereon, is
exhausted..

xxx     xxx     xxx chanrobles virtual law library

12. I hereby give, devise and bequeath, unto my well-beloved daughter, the said
MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DANEY (Mrs. Bernard Daney), now residing as aforesaid at
No. 665 Rodger Young Village, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A., all the income from the
rest, remainder, and residue of my property and estate, real, personal and/or mixed, of
whatsoever kind or character, and wheresoever situated, of which I may be possessed
at my death and which may have come to me from any source whatsoever, during her
lifetime: ....

It is in accordance with the above-quoted provisions that the executor in his final
account and project of partition ratified the payment of only P3,600 to Helen
Christensen Garcia and proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his
daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen.

Opposition to the approval of the project of partition was filed by Helen Christensen
Garcia, insofar as it deprives her (Helen) of her legitime as an acknowledged natural
child, she having been declared by Us in G.R. Nos. L-11483-84 an acknowledged
natural child of the deceased Edward E. Christensen. The legal grounds of opposition
are (a) that the distribution should be governed by the laws of the Philippines, and (b)
that said order of distribution is contrary thereto insofar as it denies to Helen
Christensen, one of two acknowledged natural children, one-half of the estate in full
ownership.

In amplification of the above grounds it was alleged that the law that should govern the
estate of the deceased Christensen should not be the internal law of California alone,
but the entire law thereof because several foreign elements are involved, that the
forum is the Philippines and even if the case were decided in California, Section 946 of
the California Civil Code, which requires that the domicile of the decedent should apply,
should be applicable. It was also alleged that Maria Helen Christensen having been
declared an acknowledged natural child of the decedent, she is deemed for all purposes
legitimate from the time of her birth.

The court below ruled that as Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States
and of the State of California at the time of his death, the successional rights and
intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of California,
in accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way
he desires, because the right of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and
inviolable (In re McDaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952, and In re
Kaufman, 117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, cited in page 179, Record on Appeal).

The most important assignments of error are as follows:

I
chanrobles virtual law library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE

SUPREME COURT THAT HELEN IS THE ACKNOWLEDGED NATURAL CHILD OF EDWARD
E. CHRISTENSEN AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN DEPRIVING HER OF HER JUST SHARE IN
THE INHERITANCE.

II chanrobles virtual law library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ENTIRELY IGNORING AND/OR FAILING TO RECOGNIZE

THE EXISTENCE OF SEVERAL FACTORS, ELEMENTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CALLING
FOR THE APPLICATION OF INTERNAL LAW.

III chanrobles virtual law library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RECOGNIZE THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL

LAW, PARTICULARLY UNDER THE RENVOI DOCTRINE, THE INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF THE
TESTAMENTARY DISPOSITION OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE OF THE
DECEASED EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN SHOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF THE
PHILIPPINES.

IV chanrobles virtual law library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE SCHEDULE OF

DISTRIBUTION SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE PHILIPPINE
LAWS.

V chanrobles virtual law library

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT UNDER THE PHILIPPINE LAWS
HELEN CHRISTENSEN GARCIA IS ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE ESTATE IN
FULL OWNERSHIP.

There is no question that Edward E. Christensen was a citizen of the United States and
of the State of California at the time of his death. But there is also no question that at
the time of his death he was domiciled in the Philippines.

In arriving at the conclusion that the domicile of the deceased is the Philippines, we are
persuaded by the fact that he was born in New York, migrated to California and resided
there for nine years, and since he came to the Philippines in 1913 he returned to
California very rarely and only for short visits (perhaps to relatives), and considering
that he appears never to have owned or acquired a home or properties in that state,
which would indicate that he would ultimately abandon the Philippines and make home
in the State of California.
As to his citizenship, however, We find that the citizenship that he acquired in California
when he resided in Sacramento, California from 1904 to 1913, was never lost by his
stay in the Philippines, for the latter was a territory of the United States (not a state)
until 1946 and the deceased appears to have considered himself as a citizen of
California by the fact that when he executed his will in 1951 he declared that he was a
citizen of that State; so that he appears never to have intended to abandon his
California citizenship by acquiring another. This conclusion is in accordance with the
following principle expounded by Goodrich in his Conflict of Laws.

Basically, the facts show that he’s still a citizen of California and that his domicile is the
Philippines.

The terms "'residence" and "domicile" might well be taken to mean the same thing, a
place of permanent abode. But domicile, as has been shown, has acquired a technical
meaning. Thus one may be domiciled in a place where he has never been. And he may
reside in a place where he has no domicile. The man with two homes, between which
he divides his time, certainly resides in each one, while living in it. But if he went on
business which would require his presence for several weeks or months, he might
properly be said to have sufficient connection with the place to be called a resident. It is
clear, however, that, if he treated his settlement as continuing only for the particular
business in hand, not giving up his former "home," he could not be a domiciled New
Yorker. Acquisition of a domicile of choice requires the exercise of intention as well as
physical presence. "Residence simply requires bodily presence of an inhabitant in a
given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention
to make it one's domicile." Residence, however, is a term used with many shades of
meaning, from the merest temporary presence to the most permanent abode, and it is
not safe to insist that any one use et the only proper one. (Goodrich, p. 29)

The law that governs the validity of his testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as follows:

ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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 where said property may be found.

The application of this article in the case at bar requires the determination of the
meaning of the term "national law" is used therein. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the
United States, each state of the Union having its own private law applicable to its
citizens only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated in Article 16
of the Civil Code above quoted can not, therefore, possibly mean or apply to any
general American law. So it can refer to no other than the private law of the State of
California.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The next question is: What is the law in California governing the disposition of personal
property? The decision of the court below, sustains the contention of the executor-
appellee that under the California Probate Code, a testator may dispose of his property
by will in the form and manner he desires, citing the case of Estate of McDaniel, 77 Cal.
Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952. But appellant invokes the provisions of Article 946 of the
Civil Code of California, which is as follows:

If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is
deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.

The existence of this provision is alleged in appellant's opposition and is not denied. We
have checked it in the California Civil Code and it is there.

Appellee, on the other hand, relies on the case cited in the decision and testified to by a
witness. (Only the case of Kaufman is correctly cited.) It is argued on executor's behalf
that as the deceased Christensen was a citizen of the State of California, the
internal law thereof, which is that given in the abovecited case, should govern
the determination of the validity of the testamentary provisions of
Christensen's will, such law being in force in the State of California of which
Christensen was a citizen.

Appellant, on the other hand, insists that Article 946 should be applicable, and in
accordance therewith and following the doctrine of the renvoi, the question of
the validity of the testamentary provision in question should be referred back
to the law of the decedent's domicile, which is the Philippines. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The theory of doctrine of renvoi has been defined by various authors, thus:

The problem has been stated in this way: "When the Conflict of Laws rule of the forum
refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal
rules of law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law minus its
Conflict of Laws rules?"chanrobles virtual law library

The Restatement accepts the renvoi theory in two instances: where the title to land is
in question, and where the validity of a decree of divorce is challenged. In these cases
the Conflict of Laws rule of the situs of the land, or the domicile of the parties in the
divorce case, is applied by the forum, but any further reference goes only to the
internal law. Thus, a person's title to land, recognized by the situs, will be recognized
by every court; and every divorce, valid by the domicile of the parties, will be valid
everywhere. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 7, pp. 13-14.) chanrobles virtual law library

X, a citizen of Massachusetts, dies intestate, domiciled in France, leaving movable

property in Massachusetts, England, and France. The question arises as to how this
property is to be distributed among X's next of kin. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Assume (1) that this question arises in a Massachusetts court. There the rule of the
conflict of laws as to intestate succession to movables calls for an application of the law
of the deceased's last domicile. Since by hypothesis X's last domicile was France, the
natural thing for the Massachusetts court to do would be to turn to French statute of
distributions, or whatever corresponds thereto in French law, and decree a distribution
accordingly. An examination of French law, however, would show that if a French court
were called upon to determine how this property should be distributed, it would refer
the distribution to the national law of the deceased, thus applying the Massachusetts
statute of distributions. So on the surface of things the Massachusetts court has open to
it alternative course of action: (a) either to apply the French law is to intestate
succession, or (b) to resolve itself into a French court and apply the Massachusetts
statute of distributions, on the assumption that this is what a French court would do. If
it accepts the so-called renvoi doctrine, it will follow the latter course, thus applying its
own law. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

This is one type of renvoi. A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of
the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of which, in turn, refers the
matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The
German term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.'" (Harvard Law Review, Vol.
31, pp. 523-571.) chanrobles virtual law library

BTW DCOTRINE OF RENVOI

The Renvoi Doctrine is a legal doctrine which applies when a court is

faced with a conflict of law and must consider the law of another
state, referred to as private international law rules. This can apply
when considering foreign issues arising in succession planning and in
administering estates.

“In this case, the Supreme Court found that as the domicile of the
deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the
validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged
natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine
Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California,
not by the internal law of California.”
For example, where a testator, who was a French national, was habitually resident in
England but domiciled in Spain, dies leaving moveable property in Spain, the court may
need to consider which legislative forum will apply to deal with the property under
succession laws.

In this case, Spain being the law of the forum, i.e. where the property is situate, applies the
law of the deceased’s nationality, namely France and applies French law. French law
observes the law of the deceased’s habitual residence which is England. England however
examines the domicile of the deceased, which is Spain.
As two transfers took place, (from Spain to France and from France to England),
Spain, operating the Single Renvoi system, will not accept it back. Accordingly, the
Spanish court being the law of the forum, will apply the law where it was last left in
the chain of referral i.e. with the law of England and Wales.

Another theory, known as the "doctrine of renvoi", has been advanced. The theory of
the doctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determining the question before
it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to
conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the
other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum. The doctrine of
the renvoi has generally been repudiated by the American authorities. (2 Am. Jur. 296)

The scope of the theory of renvoi has also been defined and the reasons for its
application in a country explained by Prof. Lorenzen in an article in the Yale Law
Journal, Vol. 27, 1917-1918, pp. 529-531. The pertinent parts of the article are quoted
herein below:

The recognition of the renvoi theory implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to
be understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign state
or country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According to this theory 'the law
of a country' means the whole of its law.

Von Bar presented his views at the meeting of the Institute of International Law, at
Neuchatel, in 1900, in the form of the following theses: chanrobles virtual law library

(1) Every court shall observe the law of its country as regards the application of foreign
laws.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(2) Provided that no express provision to the contrary exists, the court shall respect:

(a) The provisions of a foreign law which disclaims the right to bind its nationals abroad
as regards their personal statute, and desires that said personal statute shall be
determined by the law of the domicile, or even by the law of the place where the act in
question occurred. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(b) The decision of two or more foreign systems of law, provided it be certain that one
of them is necessarily competent, which agree in attributing the determination of a
question to the same system of law.

xxx     xxx     xxx chanrobles virtual law library

If, for example, the English law directs its judge to distribute the personal estate of an
Englishman who has died domiciled in Belgium in accordance with the law of his
domicile, he must first inquire whether the law of Belgium would distribute personal
property upon death in accordance with the law of domicile, and if he finds that the
Belgian law would make the distribution in accordance with the law of nationality - that
is the English law - he must accept this reference back to his own law.

We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the
rule applied in In re Kaufman, Supra, its internal law.

If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be
enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the
principle cited In re Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but
Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in
California but in other jurisdictions. The rule laid down of resorting to the law of the
domicile in the determination of matters with foreign element involved is in accord with
the general principle of American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most
matters or rights which follow the person of the owner.

Btw: Sec. 946 of CCC requires that the law of the domicile of the decedent should apply

When a man dies leaving personal property in one or more states, and leaves a will
directing the manner of distribution of the property, the law of the state where he
was domiciled at the time of his death will be looked to in deciding legal
questions about the will, almost as completely as the law of situs is consulted in
questions about the devise of land. It is logical that, since the domiciliary rules control
devolution of the personal estate in case of intestate succession, the same rules should
determine the validity of an attempted testamentary dispostion of the property. Here,
also, it is not that the domiciliary has effect beyond the borders of the domiciliary state.
The rules of the domicile are recognized as controlling by the Conflict of Laws rules at
the situs property, and the reason for the recognition as in the case of intestate
succession, is the general convenience of the doctrine. The New York court has said on
the point: 'The general principle that a dispostiton of a personal property, valid at the
domicile of the owner, is valid anywhere, is one of the universal application. It had its
origin in that international comity which was one of the first fruits of civilization, and it
this age, when business intercourse and the process of accumulating property take but
little notice of boundary lines, the practical wisdom and justice of the rule is more
apparent than ever. (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 164, pp. 442-443.)

Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as
the national law is the internal law of California. But as above explained the laws of
California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and
another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. 

Reason demands that we should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its
citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled
abroad. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so
declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in
accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e., apply the
internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those
domiciled abroad. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
It is argued on appellees' behalf that the clause "if there is no law to the contrary in the
place where the property is situated" in Sec. 946 of the California Civil Code refers to
Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and that the law to the contrary in the
Philippines is the provision in said Article 16 that the national law of the deceased
should govern. This contention can not be sustained. As explained in the various
authorities cited above the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the
law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the
reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of
laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the Philippines in the
case at bar. The court of the domicile can not and should not refer the case
back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable of
determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and
forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was
a citizen and the country of his domicile.

The Philippine court must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the
state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the application of
the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law,
Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally
acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Philippine cases (In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; Riera vs. Palmaroli, 40 Phil.
105; Miciano vs. Brimo, 50 Phil. 867; Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock, 52 Phil.
130; and Gibbs vs. Government, 59 Phil. 293.) cited by appellees to support the
decision can not possibly apply in the case at bar, for two important reasons, i.e., the
subject in each case does not appear to be a citizen of a state in the United States but
with domicile in the Philippines, and it does not appear in each case that there exists in
the state of which the subject is a citizen, a law similar to or identical with Art. 946 of
the California Civil Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of

California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving
his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the
Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of
California, not by the internal law of California.. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law libra