CONFLICT OF LAWS

St. Dominic Savio College- School of Law

(2nd Semester, SY 2021-2022)
Atty. Karen B. Arafag

I. INTRODUCTION TO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

a. International Law ( Definition)

b. Branches of International Law
c. Distinctions between Public and Private International Law
Case: Nevsun Resources, Ltd. v. Araya (20 SSC 5)
d. Transformation to Customary International Law
Case: Abdullahi v. Pfizer (562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir 2009)
e. Foreign Element
f. Phases in Conflicts Resolution
Case: Hasegawa v. Kitamura (GR No. 149177, November 23, 2007)
g. Steps in Determining Applicable Law
h. Choice of Applicable Law
i. Extraterritoriality
Cases: Small v. United States (544 US 385 (2005)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013)
Del Rosario vs. Van Hilsem (December 10, 2014)
j. Corporate Liability for Human Rights Violation
Case: Jesner v. Arab Bank (138 S. Ct 1386 (2018))
Nevsum Resources, Ltd. v. Araya (2020 SCC 5)
k. Forum Non Conveniens
Cases: Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebesencio, et al. (GR No. 198587, January 14,
2015) ; Bangladesh Bank v, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, et al. (F Supp/
2d – (S.D.N.Y 2020)
l. Sources of Conflict of Laws
II. CHOICE OF LAW and JURISDICTION

a. Choice of Law Principles

b. Principle 1: Local Law
b.1 The problem of renvoi
Cases: Aznar v. Garcia (GR No. L-167449, January 31, 1963)
Bellis v. Bellis (GR No. L-23678, June 6, 1967)
Annesley, Davidson vs. Annesley (1926)
c. Principle 2: Needs of the Interstate and International System
d. Principle 3: Relevant Policies of the Forum
Case: Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company
Cadalin, et al. v. POEA Administrator (238 SCRA721, 1994)
Bank of America NT & Asia v. American Realty Corporation(1999)
Dacasin v. Dacasin (611 SCRA 657, 2010)
e. Principle 4: Relevant Policies of Other Interested States
Case: Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney
Butler v. Adoption Media, LLC

e.1 Steps in Governmental Interest Analysis Test

e.2 Criticism of Governmental Interest Analysis Approach
f. Principle 5: Protection of Justice Expectations

Case: Francisco v. Stolt Achievements MT

g. Principle 6: Basic Policies Underlying the Particular

g.1 Field of Law

Case: Hancock v. Watson

h. Principle 7: Certainty, Predictability, and Uniformity of Result

i. Principle 8: Ease in the Determination and Application of the Law to be Applied
j. Other Principles Affecting Choice of Law
k. Proof of Foreign Law and Processual Presumption

Cases: Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. Guerrero

Edi-staff Builders International v. NLRC
Wild Shipping v. Court of Appeals

m. Exceptions to Proof of Foreign Laws:

1) The foreign law is contrary to an important public policy of the forum

2) The foreign law is procedural in nature
 3) Issues are related to property (lex situs)
4) The issue involved in the enforcement of foreign claim is fiscal or administrative
5) Foreign law or judgment is contrary to Good Morals
6) The application of Foreign law will work Undeniable Injustice to the Citizens of the Forum
7) The Foreign law is Penal in Character
8) The application of the Foreign law might endanger the Vital Interests of the State

Case: Pakistan Intl Airlines v. Ople (1990)

III. CONTRACTS

a. Contract (meaning)
b. Contract involving foreign element
c. Extrinsic validity of contracts
d. Intrinsic validity of contracts
1. Lex Loci Contractus
2. Lex Loci Solutionis
3. Lex Loci Intentionis
e. Capacity to enter into contracts
f. Choice of law issues in conflicts of contract cases
Cases: Compagnie de Commerce vs. Hamburg Amerika (1917)
King Mau vs. Sycip (1954)
HSBC vs. Sherman (1980)

g. Contracts with Arbitration Clause

Case: Puromines vs. CA; The Bremenvs. Zapata (1972).

h. Adhesion Contracts

Case: PAL vs. CA (1996)

i. Special Contracts

Case: American Presidnet Lines vs. Klepper (1960); American Airlines vs. CA
(2003); Chiok vs. China Airlines.

j. The Applicable law in the absence of an Effective Choice

Notes: According to the 2nd Restatement, in the absence of an effective choice of law,
these factors will be considered in determining the state with which contract has its
most significant relationship
1. place of contracting
2. place of negotiating of the contract
3. place of performance
4. situs of the subject matter of the contract
5. domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business
6. place under whose local law the contract will be most effective
 Courts should localize the contract by examining the contacts it has with a state
relative to the cogency to the issue. Example: For contracts involving liability for
destruction of goods in transit, the state of the most significant relationship is the state
of destination.
In the absence of an effective choice of law, courts applying a policy-centered
approach will apply its own law when there are significant contacts with the
transaction. Once these exist, the forum has a real interest in applying its own law
and such would not be fundamentally unfair to the parties. The court should also
consider the legitimate expectations of the parties.

k. Limitations to Choice of Law

1) if the law selected has no connection at all with the transaction or the parties;
2) if it ousts the jurisdiction which the court has already acquired over the parties and
the subject matter;
3) if it affects a public policy or the matter is heavily impressed with public interest;
4) in case of confession-of-judgment clauses (waives the debtors right to receive
notice or authorizes entry of judgment).

IV. Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration of Estates

a. Extrinsic Validity of Wills

Notes: Filipino national making a will abroad may comply with: lex nationalii (no
express provision) or, lex loci celebrationis (Art 17, 815). Pertinent Conflict-of-law
rules: (referring to law of place where will was executed as law governing forms
& solemnities of will). Form and solemnities written in Phil. 804 & 795 CC ; Written
abroad: 815 and 816
Cases: In re Estate of Johnson (1918)
b. Extrinsic Validity of Joint Wills

Notes: Art 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.
Joint wills executed by Filipinos in a foreign country allowing joint wills are
expressly invalidated by law. (818 & 819);
Joint wills executed in the Philippines by aliens (whose laws do not prohibit it):
the law is silent.
It is suggested that such will should not be probated if it affects heirs in the
Philippines (in accordance with the expressed policy in Art 819).
Alien: Valid if Lex nationalii, Lex domicilii and lex loci celibrationis allows it
Filipino: not allowed; Alien in Philippines: void
c. Extrinsic Validity of Holographic Wills (Art 810)

Notes: a holographic will is one entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of
the testator himself. It is not subject to any other form, need not be witnessed and
may be made in or out of the Philippines. Art 816 & 817 are also applicable to
holographic wills.
Merits: simple; convenient; does not require notarization; guarantees absolute
secrecy.
Demerits: peculiarly dangerous; an invitation to forgery; short statements can
confuse handwriting experts
Case: Babcock Templeton vs. Rider Babcock (1928)

d. Intrinsic Validity of Wills - governed by lex nationalii

NOTES: Art 16: Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of
the country where it is stipulated. However, intestate and testamentary
successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall
be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found. (10a)
Case: Buhanan case; Miciano vs. Brimo: Cayetano vs. Leonidas (1984)
General Rule: the probate court can only rule on:
1) extrinsic validity
2) due execution
3) testamentary capacity
4) compliance with requisites/solemnities prescribed by law

e. Revocation

NOTES: 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)
Revocation: (i) lex loci celebrationis; (ii) lex domicilii; and (iii) according to our
Code
f. Probate
Cases: Suntay vs. Suntay (1954); Vda. De Perez vs. Tolete (1994)
g. Administration of Estates
Case: Tayag vs. Benguet Consolidated Inc. (1968)
V. TORTS AND DAMAGES

a. Torts as a Sources of Obligation

b. Concept of Negligence
c. Conflict of Law in Torts
d. Approaches to Conflicts` Torts
Cases:
(i) Dowis, et al. v. Mud Slingers, Inc., et al.; 279 Ga. 808 (2005)
(ii) Melton v. Stephens, 13 n.e.3d 533 (2014)
(iii) Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals (297 SCRA 469, 1998)
(iv) First National Bank in Fort Collins v. Rostek (1973)
(v) Kamelgard v. Makura (2009)
(vi) Lankenau v. Boles (2014)
(vii) Winter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2014)
(viii) Future Select Portfolio Management, Inc. v. Tremont Group Holdings (2014)

e. Lex Loci Delicti v. Most Significant Relationship

f. Philippines’ Preference for Most Significant Relationship
g. Abandonment of State Decisis

VI. CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY

a. How Acquired
b. Citizenship at Birth
c. Multiple Citizenship
Case: Bengson III v. House of Representative Electoral Tribubal (357 SCRA 545, 2001)
d. Foundlings Are Natural-Born Citizen

Case: Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (March 8, 2016)

e. Importance of Citizenship
Case: Djumantan v. Domingo (1995) 240 SCRA 746
f. Relation to Conflict of Laws
g. Dual Allegiance
Case: Mercado v. Manzano (1999) 379 SCRA 630
h. Expatriation
Case: Board of Immigration Commissioners v. Go Callano (1968) 25 SCRA 890
i. Republic Act No. 9225: Citizenship
j. Retention and Re-acquisition Act
 Cases: Jacot v. Dal (2008) 572 SCRA 295
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC (2012) 678 SCRA 267
Maquiling v. COMELEC (2013) 696 SCRA 420
Arnado v. COMELEC (2015) GR No. 210164
k. Reacquisition v. Retention
David v. Agbay (2015) GR No. 199113
l. Practice of Profession
m. In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines
n. General Principles in Dealing with Conflict of
o. National Laws
p. Citizenship under U.S. Laws
Case: Perez v. Brownell (1958)
Afroyim v. Rusk (1968)
q. Republic Act No. 9225 and U.S. Citizenship
r. Assisted Reproductive Technology Children and Citizenship

VII. DOMICILE
a. Kinds
b. Domicile and Citizenship
c. Loss and Retention
Case: Schill v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. (2014)
Romualdez Marcos v. COMELEC (2015)
Jalosjos v. COMELEC (April 24, 2012)
d. Permanent Residency Overseas and the Process of Foreign Naturalization
Cases: Caballero v. COMELEC (September 22, 2015)
Caasi v. Court of Appeals (1990)
Coquilla v. COMELEC (2002)
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (March 8, 2016)
e. Republic Act No. 10590
f. Venue in Estate Proceedings
Case: Jao v. Court of Appeals ( 2002)
San Luis v. San Luis (2007) 514 SCRA 294

VIII. CHOICE OF LAW IN PROPERTY

a. Controlling law when Conflict Arises

 Case: Laurel v. Garcia (1990) 187 SCRA 797

b. Rule as to Real and Personal Property

Case: Roberts v. Locke (2013)
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated (1968)
c. Specific Rules as to Ownership of Real Property
Case: Ramirez v. Vda. De Ramirez (1982)
d. Condominium Act of the Philippines

IX. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

a. Marriage Conflict of Laws

Notes: Man & woman may decide to marry in a country other than that of their nationality
& come home. Issue of validity of marriage & legal consequences may be raised (Legal
consequences such as personal & property relations, status & rights of children, use of
surname & right to inherit). Family law is an area of substantive law which reflects strong
policies of state often based on values highly held by society. Family relations give rise to
grave individual & societal concerns.

b. Validity of Marriages in Consulates

Case: In re Marriage of Antonia R. Medina, 2019 WL 7212282 (2019)

c. Importance of Marriage
d. Marriages Not Subject of Recognition

Case: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

e. Civil Unions
Case: Langan v. St. Vincent’s Hosp. of N.Y. (2005)

f. Divorce and Public Policy

Case: Tenchavez v. Escano (1965) 15 SCRA 355

g. Limited Recognition of Divorce

Cases: Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985)

San Luis v. San Luis (2007) 514 SCRA 294
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (1989) 174 SCRA 653
Roehr v. Rodriguez (2003)

h. Right to Re-marry after Divorce

 Case: Republic v. Orbecido (2005) 472 SCRA 114

i. Recognition of Foreign Divorce and Correction of Entry

Case: Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas (2010) 628 SCRA 266

j. Continuing Liberalization of Divorce

Case: Republic v. Manalo (April 24, 2018)

k. Nature of Recognition of Foreign Divorce Proceedings

Case: Fujiki v. Marinay (2013) 700 SCRA 69

X. ADOPTION

a. Applicable Law at Time of Adoption

Case: Republic v. Miller
b. Resident or Non-resident Aliens May Adopt
Case: Spouses Park v. Liwanag
c. Domestic and Inter-Country Adoption
Cases: Republic of the Philippines vs. CA (1993)
Uggi Lindamand Therkelsen vs. Republic (1964)
Ng Hian vs. Collector of Customs (1916)

XI. CORPORATIONS
Notes:A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right
of succession and the powers, attributes and properties expressly authorized by law
or incident to its existence.

Foreign corporation – formed under the laws of a state other than the Phils; such laws
allowing Filipino citizens and corporations to do business there. It shall have a right
to do business here only after obtaining a license and a certificate of authority from
the appropriate government agency.
a. Conflicts Problems on Corporations
b. Domestic and Foreign Corporations
Cases: Cargill, Inc. v. Intra Strata Assurance Corporation, 615 SCRA 304 (2010)
Steelcase v. Design International Selections, Inc., 670 SCRA 64 (2012)
Residence of Corporations State Investment House, Inc. v. Citibank., GR
No. 79926-27, October 17, 1991
c. The “Internal Affairs” Rule
 Cases: Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. (1933)
Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Sobieski (Civ. No. 24018. Second Dist., Div.
Two. Apr. 20, 1961.)
Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Johnson (1959)
d. State of Incorporation
e. Domicile of Corporations
Case: Hyatt Elevators v. Goldstar Elevators , GR No. 161026
Clavecilla Radio System v. Antillon, GR No. L-22238
Tayag v. Benguet Consolidated,
f. Nationality of Corporation
g. Tests of Corporate Nationality: Control Test
h. Tests of Corporate Nationality: Grandfather Rule
Case: Narra Nickel Mining and Development Corporation v. Redmont
Consolidated Mines Corporation (GR 195580, April 21, 2014)
i. Controlling Doctrine: Control Test
j. Capital Refers to Common Shares
Cases: Gamboa v. Teves
k. SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013
l. Validity of SEC Memorandum Circular No. 8, s. of 2013
Case: Roy v. Herbosa, 810 SCRA 1 (2016)

XII. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

a. Conflict in Intellectual Property rights
b. Intellectual Property Code and International Conventions

Cases: Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel of Law (1999)

Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co.(1994)
Allarcom Pay Television v. General Instrument Corp.(1995)
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. (1998)
Sarl Louis Feraud Intern. v. ViewFinder, Inc. (2007)

XIII. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS

a. Effect of Foreign Judgments
b. Res Judicata Effect of Foreign Judgment
Case: Fujiki v. Marinay
c. When Foreign Judgment May Be Repelled
 Case: Roehr v. Rodriguez (2003)
St. Aviation Services v. Grand International Airways (2006)
Tropic Leisure Corp. v. Hailey (2017)
d. Wrong Interpretation of Law
Case: Guimaraes v. Brann (2018)
e. Local Courts Not a Refuge for Failed Business Dealings
f. Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. FASGI Enterprises
g. Proof of Foreign Law
h. The Apostille Convention