CONFLICT OF LAWS

Course Outline
Thursday (5:30-7:30)
By: Atty. Ryan J. Domino

I. Introduction

A. Definition of Conflict of laws/ Private international law

CONFLICTS OF LAWS; Definition:

 That part of the law of each state or nation which determines whether, in dealing with
a legal situation, the law or some other state or nation will be recognized, given
effect, or applied (16 Am Jur, 2d, Conflict of Laws, §1).

 That part of municipal law of a state which directs its courts and administrative
agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether
or not they should apply a foreign law/s (Paras).

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

 That part of the law of each State or nation which determines whether, in dealing with
a legal situation, the law or some other State or nation will be recognized, given
effect, or applied (16 Am Jur, 2d, Conflict of Laws, §1).

 That part of municipal law of a State which directs its courts and administrative
agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether
or not they should apply a foreign law/s (Paras).

NOTE: A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by diverse laws of
two or more States is said to contain a foreign element.

B. Conflict of Laws as a Municipal Law

 That part of municipal law of a state which directs its courts and administrative
agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign element, whether
or not they should apply a foreign law/s (Paras).

FUNCTIONS OF CONFLICT OF LAW RULES

1. To proscribe the conditions under which a court or agency is competent to

entertain a suit or proceeding involving facts containing a foreign element;
2. To determine the extent, validity and enforceability of foreign judgment;
3. To determine for each class of cases the particular system if law by reference to
which the rights of the parties must be ascertained

C. Functions of Private International Law

 Private international law regulates the rules on jurisdiction (the courts of which
country or countries can resolve the case), the applicable law to govern cross-
border situations and whether a judgment of a court in one country will be
recognised and enforced in another country.
1
 D. Conflict of Law vs. Public International Law

DISTINGUISHED FROM PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

BASIS CONFLICT OF LAW LAW OF NATIONS

1 Nature Municipal in character International in character

Dealt with by private

individuals; governs
individuals in their Sovereign states and other entities
private transactions possessing international personality,
Persons which involve a foreign e.g., UN; governs states in their
2 involved element relationships amongst themselves

Private transactions Generally affected by public interest;

Transactions between private those in general are of interest only to
3 involved individuals sovereign states

May be peaceful or forcible

Peaceful: includes diplomatic
negotiation, tender & exercise of good
offices, mediation, inquiry &
conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement by ICJ, reference to
regional agencies
Forcible: includes severance of
diplomatic relations, retorsions,
reprisals, embargo, boycott, non-
Remedies intercourse, pacific blockades,
and Resort to municipal collective measures under the UN
4 Sanctions tribunals Charter, and war.

 As to nature or character
 As to persons involved
 As to transactions involved
 As to remedies applied
E. Sources of Conflict of laws (Direct and Indirect)
Direct:
1. Constitutions
2. Codifications
Special Laws
o Treaties and Conventions
o Judicial Decisions
o International Customs
2
 Indirect:
1. Natural moral law
o Work of writers
 Family Code: Articles 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96, 184, and 187
 Civil Code: Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 815, 816, 817,818, 819, 829,
1039, 1319, and 1753
 Penal Code: Article 2
 Corporation Code: Section 150 – Doing Business Without License
 Constitution: Article IV and Article V, Section 1
 Rules of Court: Rule 14; Rule 39, Section 48; Rule 131, Section 3(n);
and Rule 132, Section 25
Sources of Conflict of Laws
A. Codes and Statutes
Conflict of Laws (CL) originated in continental Europe was most laws were codified. Primary
sources of law are found in the civil codes of different countries:
1. Roman code codified principles of ius gentium.
2. Code of Napoleon contained specific rule on personal law of individual, this was followed
by several codes (Netherlands, Romania, Italy, Portugal, Spain)
3. The German civil Code contained many provisions on Conflict of Laws.
4. Switzerland also enacted Laws on cases involving foreign elements.
5. Greece enacted a Civil Code with CL rules which became a model in other countries
6. The Code of Bustamante (in South America) was patterned after the Code of Napoleon
Conflict Laws of the Philippines Spanish Civil Code was enforced in the Philippines on
December 7, 1889 until the Philippine Civil Code’s effectivity on August 30, 1950 which
contained the provisions on conflict of laws of the earlier code.
Spain’s Code of Commerce, having some provisions on foreign transactions, were also
enforced in the Philippines on Dec 1, 1888. One basic source of law is the 1987 Constitution
which contains principles on nationality and comity.
Special statutes were also enacted to govern cases with foreign elements, to wit:
1. Corporation Code
2. General Banking Act
3. Foreign Currency System Act
4. Phil Foreign Law Guarantee Corp
5. Retail Business Regulation Act
6. Anti-Dummy Law
7. Nationalization of Rice and Corn Industry Act
8. Insurance Code
9. IP Code
10. Patent Law
11. Trademark Law
12. COGSA
13. Salvage Law
14. Public Service Act
15. Civil Aeronautics Act
3
 16. Phil Overseas Shipping Act
17. Investment Incentives Act
18. Export Incentives Act
19. RA 7722

B. Treaties and International Conventions

The Philippines has entered into a number of treaties and international conventions which
deal with private international law since it became a Republic.
Some of these treaties/conventions are:
1. Convention on Intl Civil Aviation,
2. Warsaw Convention,
3. Convention on Offenses Committed on Board Aircraft
4. Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful
5. Acts against Civil Aviation
6. UN Convention COGSA
7. Convention on Consent to Marriage, etc
8. Convention on Traffic of Persons
9. Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women
10. Convention on Political Rights of Women
11. IC on the Suppression of Traffic of Women and Children
12. Convention on World Intellectual Property Organization
13. Berne Convention on Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
14. Paris Convention on Protection of Industrial Property. Although many Hague
Conventions on Private International Law were concluded since 1951, which dealt with
issues on:
 Personal status
 Patrimonial family status
 Patrimonial status such as agency and trusts

The Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on Recognition of Foreign Judgment on

Civil and Commercial Matters and has ratified the 1993 Convention in Respect of Inter-
Country Adoption only.
C. Treatises, Commentaries and Studies of Learned Societies
In interpreting statutes and codes involving CL, courts resort to works of distinguished jurists
and studies of learned societies. Distinguished writers in continental Europe include Huber
Manreas, Savigny (whose work was translated into English by Guthrie), and Weiss.
Distinguished American and English writers, on the other hand, include Beale, Cavers,
Cheatham, Currie, Ehrenzweig, Goodrich, Gussbaum, Story, Wharton, Cheshire, Graveson.
The American Law Institute published 2 studies on CL:
Restatement of the Conflict of Laws and a Second Restatement with William Reese as
Reporter.
D. Judicial decisions Decisions of courts are the most important source of CL rules
and form the main bulk of source of conflict rules.
According to Graveson: “This ranch of law is more completely judge-made than almost any
other. In its application, judges have to deal with “All Manner of People” more than any other
branch. The claim of justice for right as a basis for conflict of laws is supported not only by
the terms of the judicial oath but by judicial dicta in judgments”.
4
 F. Conflict of Law Case
- Elements
- Foreign Element
Consist of the following as subject matter:
a. nationality or citizenship
b. personal status
c. property

Points of contacts include:

a. place of contracting
b. place of negotiation of contract
c. place of performance
d. location of subject matter of the contract
e. domicile, residence, place of incorporation, nationality and place of business of
parties.
f. If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the
same state, the local law of this state shall apply.

Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals- GR No. 122191, Oct. 8, 1998

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A.
ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, respondents.

Facts:
Milagros Morada was hired as a flight attendant of SAUDIA and was based in
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. During a lay-over in Indonesia, Morada, together with
other crew members - Thamer and Allah went disco dancing. The three of
them returned to their hotels when it was almost morning and agreed to have
breakfast in the room of Thamer. However, Thamer attempted to rape
Morada. Hotel personnels rescued Morada while Thamer and Allah were
both arrested by the Indonesian police.

Upon Morada's return to Jeddah, she was interrogated by SAUDIA officials

regarding the incident. They even requested for her to help arrange the
release of the two in Indonesia - to which she refused to do so. Later, she
learned that after two weeks of imprisonment, Thamer and Allah were
allowed to deported through the help of the Saudi Arabian government.
Eventually, the two were again in service at SAUDI while Morada was
transferred to the Philippines. When Morada was requested by her superiors,
her passport was taken from her and was pressured to drop the case or her
passport will not be returned. She eventually agreed to such request just to
get her passport back.

5
Years later, Morada was once again summoned by SAUDIA to Jeddah for
further investigation. Morada agreed when she received assurance from
SAUDIA's Manila Manager, Aslam Saleemi, that the investigation was
routinary and that it posed no danger to her. She was once again
interrogated by the judge about the incident.
When she was about to board her flight back to the Philippines, she was
forbidden by the authorities, was escorted back to court, interrogated and
was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 286 lashes due to violation of
Islamic laws on dancing and socializing with men.
She sought help from the Philippine Embassy in Jeddah. To earn her
upkeep, she worked on domestic flights of SAUDIA while Thamer and Allah
continued to serve in international flights.
Since Morada was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the
case and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. However, shortly before her
return to Manila, her services were terminated by SAUDIA, without being
informed of the cause.
Thus, Morada filed a case for damages against SAUDIA and its country
manager.
SAUDIA field a motion to dismiss contending that:
(1) that the Complaint states no cause of action against Saudia;
(2) that the claim or demand set forth in the Complaint has been waived,
abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and
(3) that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case.
Issues:
(1) Whether the case involves conflict of laws - YES
(2) Whether the trial court has jurisdiction over the case - YES.

Ruling:
Conflict of Laws
There is a foreign element in this case, hence, it involves a conflict of laws
question.
Foreign elements may appear in different forms. It may simply consist of the
fact that one of the parties to the contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile
or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties situated
in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a complex
form.
Here, the foreign element comes from the fact that the plaintiff, Morada was
a resident Philippine National while SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
Moreover, through Morada's employment as a flight stewardess of SAUDIA,
the occurrences surrounding the case transpired while she was on her

6
travels which was across national borders. This caused a "conflicts" situation
to arise.
Jurisdiction
Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court found it best to hear the
case in the Philippines. If it refused to take cognizance of the case, it would
be forcing Morada to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains substantial connections. That
would have caused a fundamental unfairness to her.
Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary difficulties
and inconvenience have been shown by either of the parties. The choice of
forum of the Morada should be upheld.
Similarly, the trial court has also acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the
parties in this case. By filing her Complaint and Amended Complaint with the
trial court, Morada has voluntary submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the
court. Similarly, SAUDIA has filed several motions asking the court for relief.
This indicates that SAUDIA indeed has submitted to the jurisdiction of the
trial court.
Discussion as to what applicable law in case of conflict of laws; Choice-of-
laws
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek
to answer two important questions:
(1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the
significant facts occurred in two or more states; and
(2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal system
that should ultimately control. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories
should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and predictability, they do
not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding which
of these two important values should be stressed.
Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what
category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as
"characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of
deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a
conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to
select the proper law.
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual
situation, event, or operative fact. 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 factor or point of contact, such as the situs
of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of
wrongdoing.
The relevant point of contact in this case is Lex Loci Actus.
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place
where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a
7
tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and
torts.
Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one involving torts, the
"connecting factor" or "point of contact" could be the place or places where
the tortious conduct or lex loci actus occurred. And applying the torts
principle in a conflicts case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a
situs of the tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).
This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly deceived
private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here.
According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the
exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, "act with justice,
give her due and observe honesty and good faith." Instead, petitioner failed
to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly
occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is
important here is the place where the over-all harm or the totality of the
alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of
complainant, had lodged, according to the plaintiff below (herein private
respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the
situs of the alleged tort.
Other point of contacts:
(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of
sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be
situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place
where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a
tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and
torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of
performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is
to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern
their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. The lex forithe law of the forumis particularly important because, as we
have seen earlier, matters of procedure not going to the substance of the
claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever
the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from
application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the
exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal
relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers
contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment

8
Phases of Conflict Case Resolution
Hasegawa v. Kitamura GR No. 14177, November 23, 2007
Doctrine:
Jurisdiction over the subject matter in a judicial proceeding is conferred by the sovereign
authority which establishes and organizes the court. It is given only by law and in the manner
prescribed by law. It is further determined by the allegations of the complaint irrespective of
whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the claims asserted therein. In the judicial
resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice
of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Corresponding to these phases are
the following questions:

Where can or should litigation be initiated? (Jurisdiction)

Which law will the court apply? (Choice of Law?
Where can the resulting judgment be enforced? (Enforcement)
Summary:
Petitioner Nippon entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement (ICA) with respondent
Kitamura, a Japanese national permanently residing in the Philippines, wherein respondent
was to
extend professional services to Nippon for a year and he was assigned as project manager
of the STAR Project of the PH Government. Nearly a year later, Hasegawa, the general
manager of
Nippon, informed respondent that his ICA will no longer be renewed. After failed
negotiations, he filed this complaint. The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction, contending that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and executed by and
between Japanese nationals. The RTC denied the MTD, and affirmed by the CA.

Ruling:
The Court denied the petition, ruling that the issue in this case is jurisdiction over subject-
matter, but the grounds asserted by the petitioners lex loci celebrationis, lex contractus and
state of the most significant relationship rule are make reference to the law applicable to a
dispute, and are rules proper for the second phase, the choice of law. Furthermore, they
have not yet pointed out any conflict between the laws of Japan and ours. Accordingly, the
RTC is vested by law with the power to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent
and the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate.
G. Concerns and Basic Premises of Private International Law

 Phil. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., v. V.P. Eusebio

Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 140047, July 13, 2004

Article 1169, last paragraph, of the Civil Code, provides: “In reciprocal obligations, neither
party incurs in delay if the other party does not comply or is not ready to comply in a
proper manner with what is incumbent upon him.”

9
The delay or the non-completion of the Project was caused by factors not imputable to the
respondent contractor. It was rather due mainly to the persistent violations by SOB of the
terms and conditions of the contract. Where one of the parties to a contract does not
perform in a proper manner the prestation which he is bound to perform under the
contract, he is not entitled to demand the performance of the other party. A party does not
incur in delay if the other party fails to perform the obligation incumbent upon him. SOB
cannot yet demand complete performance from VPECI because it has not yet itself
performed its obligation in a proper manner. The VPECI cannot yet be said to have
incurred in delay.

FACTS:
State Organization of Buildings (SOB) of Iraq awarded the construction of the Institute of
physical Therapy-Medical Rehabilitation Center in Iraq to Ayjal Trading and Contracting
Company. 3-Plex International, Inc., a local contractor engaged in the construction
business, entered into a joint
venture agreement with Ayjal where the former would undertook the execution of the
entire project, while Ayjal would be entitled to 4% commission. Since 3-Plex was not
accredited by the Phil. Overseas Construction Board (POCB), it assigned and transferred
all its rights to V.P. Eusebio Const. Inc (VPECI). The SOB then required the submission of
a performance bond. To comply with this requirement, 3-Plex and VPECI applied for a
guarantee with Philguarantee, a government financial institution empowered to issue
guarantee for qualified Filipino contractors.

VPECI and the Ayjal Trading and Contracting Co. (joint venture) entered into a service
contract with the SOB for the construction of the Institute of Physical Therapy Medical
Center Phase 2 to be completed within a period of 18 months. Under the contract, the
joint venture would supply manpower and materials, and SOB would refund to the former
25% of the project cost in Iraqi Dinar and the 75% in US dollars at the exchange rate of 1
Dinar to 3.37777 US Dollars.

The construction delayed in commencing due to some setbacks and difficulties. Upon
foreseeing the impossibility of meeting the deadline, the joint venture contractor worked
for the renewal of the Performance Bond up to December 1986. As of March 1986, the
status of the Project was 51% accomplished, meaning the structures were already
finished. The remaining 47% consisted in electro-mechanical works and the 2%, sanitary
works, which both required importation of equipment and materials.

On October 1986, Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait Sent a telex to Philguarantee demanding full
payment of its performance counter-guarantee. Upon receipt, VPECI requested Iraqi
government to recall the telex for being in contravention of its mutual agreement that the
penalty will be held in abeyance until completion of the project. It also wrote a protest to
the SOB since the Iraqi government lacks foreign exchange to pay VPECI and the non-
compliance with the 75% billings in US dollars.

Philguarantee received another telex from Al Ahli stating that it already paid to Rafidian
Bank. The Central Bank then authorized the remittance to Al Ahli Bank representing the
full payment of the performance counter-guarantee for VPECI’s project. Philguarantee
then sent letters to VPECI demanding the full payment of the amount it paid pursuant to
Al Ahli pursuant to their joint and solidary obligation under the deed of undertaking and
surety bond. VPECI failed to pay prompting Philguarantee to file the case.

The RTC ruled against Philguarantee and held that it had no valid cause of action against
VPECI. Also, the joint venture contractor incurred no delay in the execution of the Project.
Considering the Project owner’s violations of the contract which rendered impossible the
joint venture contractor’s performance of its undertaking, no valid call on the guarantee
could be made. Furthermore, the trial court held that no valid notice was first made by the
10
Project owner SOB to the joint venture contractor before the call on the guarantee. The
CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not VPECI defaulted in its obligation that would justify resort to guaranty.

RULING:

No, VPECI is not in default of its obligation that would justify resort to guaranty.

Article 1169, last paragraph, of the Civil Code, provides: “In reciprocal obligations, neither
party incurs in delay if the other party does not comply or is not ready to comply in a
proper manner with what is incumbent upon him.” Default or mora on the part of the
debtor is the delay in the fulfillment of the prestation by reason of a cause imputable to
the former. It is the non-fulfillment of an obligation with respect to time.

It is undisputed that only 51.7% of the total work had been accomplished. The 48.3%
unfinished portion consisted in the purchase and installation of electro-mechanical
equipment and materials, which were available from foreign suppliers, thus requiring US
Dollars for their importation.

As found by lower courts, the delay or the non-completion of the Project was caused by
factors not imputable to the respondent contractor. It was rather due mainly to the
persistent violations by SOB of the terms and conditions of the contract, particularly its
failure to pay 75% of the
accomplished work in US Dollars.

Indeed, where one of the parties to a contract does not perform in a proper manner the
prestation which he is bound to perform under the contract, he is not entitled to demand
the performance of the other party. A party does not incur in delay if the other party fails
to perform the obligation incumbent upon him.

SOB cannot yet demand complete performance from VPECI because it has not yet itself
performed its obligation in a proper manner, particularly the payment of the 75% of the
cost of the Project in US Dollars. The VPECI cannot yet be said to have incurred in delay.
Even assuming that there was delay and that the delay was attributable to VPECI, still the
effects of that delay ceased upon the renunciation by the creditor, SOB, which could be
implied when the latter granted several extensions of time to the former. Besides, no
demand has yet been made by SOB against the respondent contractor. Demand is
generally necessary even if a period has been fixed in the obligation. And default
generally begins from the moment the creditor demands judicially or extra-judicially the
performance of the obligation. Without such demand, the effects of default will not arise.

 Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 112573, February 9, 1995

FACTS: Northwest Airlines and Sharp, through its Japan branch, entered into an
International Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, whereby the former authorized the latter
to sell its air transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales made by
defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under the said agreement, plaintiff sued defendant in
Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the ticket sales, with claim for
damages.

After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the judge of the Tokyo District Court
decided to have the complaint and the writs of summons served at the head office of the
defendant in Manila. The Director of the Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court

11
of Japan to serve the summons through diplomatic channels upon the defendant’s head
office in Manila.

On August 28, 1980, defendant received from Deputy Balingit the writ of summons. Despite
receipt of the same, defendant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. Thus, the Tokyo
Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s complaint and, rendered judgment ordering the
defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay.
Defendant received from Deputy Sheriff Balingit copy of the judgment. Defendant not having
appealed the judgment, the same became final and executory.

Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in Japan, hence, a suit for enforcement of the
judgment was filed by plaintiff before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 54.

Defendant filed its answer averring that the judgment of the Japanese Court: (1) the foreign
judgment sought to be enforced is null and void for want of jurisdiction and (2) the said
judgment is contrary to Philippine law and public policy and rendered without due process of
law.

ISSUE: Whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a Philippine Corporation
doing business in Japan by serving summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine
corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts to serve summons in Japan
had failed.

HELD: YES

A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes,
until the contrary is shown. It is also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
the giving of due notice therein. 6

The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP had the
duty to demonstrate the invalidity of such judgment. It was then incumbent upon SHARP to
present evidence as to what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, the
assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not. Accordingly, the presumption of validity
and regularity of the service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the
Japanese court must stand.

Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant is a foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if there is no such resident agent,
on the government official designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines.

Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made on the government official
designated by law, to wit: (a) the Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance
company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a foreign banking corporation; and
(c) the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly
licensed to do business in the Philippines.

Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a resident agent authorized to
receive court processes in Japan.

 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

12
  Bienvenido M. Cadalin v. POEA, G.R. No. 104776, December 5, 1994

G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994

o GENERAL RULE: A foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum.
o EXCEPTION: When the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute," the country of the
forum will apply the foreign statute of limitations.
o EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The court of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum's public policy.

FACTS:

Cadalin et al. are overseas contract workers recruited by respondent-appellant AIBC for its
accredited foreign principal, Brown & Root, on various dates from 1975 to 1983. As such,
they were all deployed at various projects in several countries in the Middle East as well as
in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia and Malaysia. The case arose when their overseas
employment contracts were terminated even before their expiration. Under Bahrain law,
where some of the complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period for claims arising out
of a contract of employment is one year.

ISSUE:

o Whether it is the Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of
1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the governing law

HELD:

As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural
matters, such as service of process, joinder of actions, period and requisites for appeal, and
so forth, are governed by teh laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based upon
a foreign substantive law.

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be
viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the characterization given such a
law.

However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes

irrelevant when the country of the forum has a “borrowing statute.” Said statute has the
practical effect of treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of substance. A “borrowing
statute” directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending
claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of “borrowing statutes,” one
form provides that an action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be
enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run against it. Section 48 of our
Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides:

“If by the laws of the state or country where the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it
is also barred in the Philippine Islands.”

In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however, Section 48 cannot be enforced ex propio
13
vigore insofar as it ordains the application in this jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri
Decree No. 23 of 1976.

The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claims obnoxious to the forum’s public
policy. To enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as
regards the claims in question would contravene the public policy on the protection to labor.

14
II. Choice of Forum

 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. vs. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) Decided: April 17, 1991
 Burger King Corp. vs. Rudzewicz, 471, U.S. 462 (1985), Decided: May 20, 1985
 Sweet Lines, Inc. vs. Teves, et al., G.R. No. L-37750, Decided: 19 May 1978
 HSBC vs. Jack Robert Sherman, et al., G.R. No. 72494, 11 August 1989

III. Jurisdiction
A. Definitions and review of general principles in jurisdiction
 Glynna Foronda-Crystal Vs Aniana Lawas Son G.R. No. 221815
November29, 2017
 Banco Espanol Filipina v. Palanca 37 Phil. 921
 Andaya v. Abadia 228 SCRA 705, 717
 PERKINS, vs. DIZON G.R. No. 46631 November 16, 1939
 BILAG v. AY-AY G.R. No. 189950 April 24, 2017

B. Jurisdiction over the person

- Acquiring jurisdiction over the plaintiff
- Acquiring jurisdiction over the defendant

 Paula T. Llorente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000
 Imelda Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995
 Philsec Investment et al vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, June 19,
1997
 Keeton vs. Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al, 465 U.S. 770, March 20, 1984
 World-wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
 Rush vs. Sauchuk, 444 US 320 (1980)
 Compuserve Inc. vs. Richard Patterson, No. 95-3452, July 22, 1996

C. Forum Non-Conveniens
FORUM NON-CONVENIENS
 Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 101538, June 23, 1992
 Communications Materials and Design v. CA, G.R. No. 102223, August 22,
1996
 First Philippine International Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 115849, January 24, 1996
 Manila Hotel Corp and Manila Hotel Int’l Ltd. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 120077, 13
October 2000
 Communications Materials and Design vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
102223, 22 August 1996
 Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY 2d. 474 (1984)
 Piper Aircraft Co. vs. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981)

D. Jurisdiction Over the Res

C. JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
 Gulf Oil vs. Gilbert, 330 US 501 (1947)
 World-wide Volkswagen Corp. vs. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
 Travelers Health Assn. vs. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643; Decided: June 5, 1950
 Schmidt vs. Driscol, 249 Minn 376 82, NW 2d 365 (1957)
15
 E. Act of State Doctrine/Jurisdiction over the subject matter
 Hassan El-fadl, Appellant v. Central Bank of Jordan, et al., Appellees, 75
F.3d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
 Republic of the Philippines, et al v Pimentel et al, Supreme Court of the
United States No. 06-1204, 464 F. 3d 885, Argued: March 17, 2008 Decided:
June 12, 2008
 Helen Liu v The Republic of China, No. 87-2976, United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 892 F.2d 1419 (1989)
 In Re: Philippine National Bank v. United States District Court for the District
of Hawaii, No. 04-71843, D.C. No. MDL-00840-MLR
 Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY 2d. 474 (1984)
 Lord Day & Lord v. Socialist Republic of Vietnam 134 F. Supp.2d 549
(S.D.N.Y. 2001)
 Kirkpatrick Inc. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., Int’l., 493 U.S.
 400, 107 L.Ed. 2d 816 (1990)
 Credit Suisse v. U.S.D.C., 130 F.3d at 1342 (9th Cir. 1997)

IV. Choice of Law

A. Definition of the following:

 Lex fori
 Lex domicilii
 Lex fori
 Lex loci
 Lex loci contractus
 Lex loci rei sitae
 Lex situs
 Lex loci actus
 Lex loci celebrationis
 Lex loci solutionis
 Lex loci delicti commissi
 Lex mereatoria
 Lex non scripta
 Lex patriae

B. Nature, Composition and Characterization of Conflict Rules

C. Doctrine of processual presumption

 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Vs Hon. Blas F.

Ople G.R. No. 61594 September 28, 1990
 Norma A. Del Socorro, Vs. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van
Wilsem, GR. No. 193707 December 10, 20144

D. Renvoi

 In The Matter Of The Testate Estate Of Edward E.

Christensen, Deceased. Adolfo C. Aznar, Executor And
Lucy Christensen, Vs. Helen Christensen Garcia G.R. No.
L- 16749 January 31, 1963

Other Cases:
 Llorente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371. November 23, 2000.
 Aznar v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-16749. January 31, 1963.
 PCI Bank v. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 & L-27896. March 29, 1974.
16
  Obergefell vs. Hodges, 14-556 (June 26, 2015), 576 US
5

 Tayag Renato vs. Benguet Consolidated, Inc., G.R. No. 23145, November
29, 1968
 United Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124110, 20 April 2001
 Pakistan International Airlines vs. Ople, 190 SCRA 1990, G.R. No. 61594,
September 28, 1990
 Testate Estate of Amos G. Bellis et al. vs. Edward Bellis, L-23678, June 6,
1967
 Asiavest Merchant Bankers vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110263, 20
July 200
 Garcia vs. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, 02 October 2001
 Sps. Zalamea vs. Court of Appeals and Transworld Airlines, Inc. G.R.
No. 104235, 18 November 1993

E. Personal Law
1. Nationality
2. Domicile
3. Principles on Personal Status and Capacity

F. Choice of Law in Family Relations

1. Marriage
2. Divorce and Separation
3. Annulment and Declaration of Nullity
4. Parental Relations
5. Adoption
E. Choice of Law in Property
1. The Controlling Law
2. Capacity to Transfer or Acquire Property
3. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Conveyance
4. Exceptions to Lex Situs Rule
5. Situs of Certain Properties
6. Patents, Trademarks, Trade Name and Copyright
F. Choice of Law in Contracts
1. Contracts Involving a Foreign Element
2. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Contracts
3. Capacity to Enter into Contracts
4. Choice of Law Issues in Conflicts Contracts Cases
5. Limitations to Choice of Law
G. Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration of Estates
1. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Wills
2. Probate
3. Administration of Estates
4. Interpretation of Wills
5. Revocations
5. Administration of Estates
H. Choice of Law in Torts and Crimes
1. Policies Behind Conflicts Tort Law
2. Lex Loci Delicti Commissi
3. Modern Theories on Foreign Tort Liability
4. Foreign Tort Claims
5. Lex Loci Delicti
I. Choice in Crimes
1. lex Loci Delicti
2. Exceptions
17
V. Enforcement of Judgements
 Asiavest Merchant Bankers v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001
 Philsec Investment Corp., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103493, June 19, 1997
 Phil. Aluminum Wheels v. FASGI Enterprises, G.R. No. 137378, Oct. 12, 2000
 Gil Miguel Puyat v. Ron Zabarte, G.R. No. 141536, February 26, 2001
 Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. CA, G.R. No. 114323, September 28, 1999
 Mijares v. Hon. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325. April 12, 2005
 Quasha et al., v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182013. December 4, 2009
 Borthwick vs. Castro Bartolome, 152 SCRA 229, 1987
 Klaxon Co. vs. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.313 U.S. 487 (1941)
 Siedler v. Jacobson, 383 N.Y. S.2d 833 (NY Sup.Ct.App.1976)
 Bridgeway Corp. V. Citibank, 201 F. 3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000)

VI. Internet Cases

 Bensuan Restaurant Corporation vs. Richard B. King, Docket No. 96-9344;
September 10, 1997
 America Online, Inc., v. Superior Court (Mendoza)
 (2001) 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1
 Panavision International vs. Dennis Toeppen, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-
55467, 17 April 1998 (Jurisdiction)
 Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328 (E.D. Mo. 1996),
 CompuServe vs. Patterson, 89 F. 3d 1257 No. 95-3452, Decided: July 22, 1996

18