COL Finals Notes - Transcript

Conflict of Laws Lecture Series
The discussions of Atty. Torregosa
Nota bene: I included nalang the midterm discussions on marriage since related ra gihapon sa starting topic sa final exam coverage nga
Divorce/Legal separation, although according to Cherry, Wills rad aw ang apil from midterm. Just confirm the final finals coverage from
Cherry. J
WILLS AND SUCCESSION

EXTRINSIC VALIDITY Art. 17 of NCC
Law of the laws of the place where they are executed.
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY: LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS
INTRINSIC VALIDITY ART. 16, par 2
Order of succession (who gets to inherit first)
Amount of successional rights (how much)
Validity of the testamentary provisions in a will
NATIONALITY THEORY APPLIES
National law of the decedent. Not the national law of the heir.
These 3 aspects of the will of intrinsic validity are governed by national

law of the decedent.
Other than these, there is also 1 aspect which is intrinsic which is
CAPACITY OF THE HEIR TO INHERIT is governed by NATIONAL

LAW OF THE DECEDENT Under 1039 of the NCC.
Q: what about the capacity of the testator to make a will? Or execute a

will?
Take note that as distinguished from ordinary contracts where capacity
of parties is governed by nationality, in wills and succession the
capacity of the testator to make a will is under the EXTRINSIC PART.
Part of formality. Thus by Art. 17, capacity to make a will which is
extrinsic is governed by LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS.
Note Art. 15.
FOR PURPOSES OF VALIDITY OF WILL: look at 2 components:

EXTRINSIC governed by Art 17
INTRINSIC: governed by Art 16 par2 and 1039.
Art. 17 lex loci celebrationis should be construed in relation to other

provisions found in BOOK 3 of the civil code on wills and succession 815
816 817 – are provisions dealing on COL rules on succession –
EXTRINSIC aspect of a will.
Taking all these provisions together, the extrinsic validity of the will is
governed by these laws.
***not discussed***
* 2 THEORIES OR SYSTEMS IN 1. Unitary or Single System
DETERMINING THE PROPER
LAW FOR THE TRANSMISSION 2. Split or Scission system
OF SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS
*UNITARY SYSTEM Only one law determines the transmission of real and personal
property.
Nationality Theory: for countries following such (e.g. PH) – nationality

of the deceased governs the transmission of both real and personal
property.
Domiciliary Theory: for countries following such (e.g. common law

countries) – the law of the domicile of the deceased that usually
governs.
*SPLIT SYSTEM (e.g. England and USA)
COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 1

Succession to real property is governed by LEX SITUS
Succession to personal property is governed by the law of the domicile
of the deceased at the time of his death.
PH COL RULES on
EXTRINSIC
VALIDITY OF WILLS
(Art. 17, 815, 816, 817 NCC)
Depends on 4 situations – where the will was executed, and who executed.
If FILIPINO makes a will abroad Allowed, approved and recognized in PH if executed in accordance with
Art. 17.
LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS (17)

Law of the place where he was at the time of execution of the will.
Take note: that by specific provisions of law, only 1 law that allows the
will to be valid on PH. There is no other law that allows Filipino to make
a will abroad.
So Filipino making a will abroad, may not follow PH laws in making the
law extrinsically because no such provision allows him to do so.
But
according to Tolentino, to disallow a Filipino would make a Pinoy in
disadvantage position because under 816 an alien is allowed to execute
a will based on PH law. So this is unfair to PH citizen. To correct this
absurdity, he suggested that Pinoy can make will abroad using PH law.
Meaning -à Formalities of PH law (Lex Nationalii).
AttyT: the solution to this unfairness is legislation. Because for a court

to rule that a Pinoy may make a will abroad is without legal basis. But
you may cite Tolentino’s opinion. But can the opinion of a writer be a
source of Positive law?
If ALIEN makes a will abroad This may be probated and recognized in PH.
This will may be probated and allowed, recognized in PH if executed in
accordance with the following laws:
Formalities of his lex nationalii: NATIONAL LAW OF TESTATOR (816)

(law of country where he is a citizen)
OR
Lex Domicilii (816)
(law of his domicile)
[note: he may citizen of 1 state, but domiciled in another, and executed
in another state]
OR
PH LAWS (816)
So 816 of the NCC expressly allows a foreigner to execute a will abroad,
if that will executed in accordance with these 3 in 816.
OR
Lex Loci Celebrationis (ART 17) law of the place where it was executed.
(law of the country where he was at the time of the execution of the
will)
“OR”: so as long as valid under any of these, it can be allowed in PH

even if void as to other laws.
If ALIEN makes a will in PH Lex Nationalii
Lex Loci celebrationis à PH LAW
FILIPINO makes will in PH PH Law
*Holographic will Subject to NO OTHER FORM and may be made in or out of PH and need
à must be entirely written, not be witnessed.
dated, and signed by the hand
of the testator himself
REVOCATION of wills
3 situations:
SITUATION 1: Valid if done according to:
Revocation done outside PH by 1. the law of the place where the will was made (lex loci
a person not domiciled in PH celebrationis) {not the law of the place of revocation}
2. the law of his domicile at the time of revocation (lex domicilii)
- reckoning point of domicile is at the time of revocation.
SITUATION 2: VALID if made in accordance with Art. 829 NCC

Revocation done in PH
SITUATION 3: VALID if made in accordance with our (PH) law (lex domicilii)
Revocation done outside PH by OR
a person who is domiciled in PH Place where the revocation is made (Lex actus of the revocation)
{note law of the place of revocation, not execution of will}
VALIDITY OF EXTRINSIC Determined by the law at the time of execution.

ASPECT OF A WILL
So if time of making, will is valid.
But time of death, the law in force makes it void, the will is still valid.
Rationale: because the testator can only observe forms and solemnities
in force at the time of execution.
VALIDITY OF INTRINSIC Reckoning point is at the time of death.

ASPECT OF A WILL Law in force at the time of death.
Succession takes place upon death. Upon death that substantive aspect
of will comes into operation.
REPROBATE OF WILLS IN PH Note that for this purpose you don’t need to prove all over again the
extrinsic aspect of the will.
If the will was already approved abroad and reprobated in PH because

some properties located in PH, no need to prove again the extrinsic
validity of will. So here in PH, Summary nalang.
No need to relitigate.
Just present an authenticated copy of the will + authenticated copy of

the decision of the court approving the will.
This is enough.
No need to bring in witnesses to PH to reprobate.
***not discussed***
INTERPRETATION OF WILLS
GENERAL RULE According to the will of the testator
Exceptions: 1. If the testator’s intention cannot be ascertained: interpret in
accordance with the law which was most probably in the mind
of the testator when he used those words and with which he is
presumed to be most familiar.
2. If the will admits of different interpretations: that which will make

the diposition operative shall be preferred
----- ------

PROBATE OF WILLS
General Rule Follow the law of the forum because it is PROCEDURAL.
No prescription period
Wills proved and allowed in May be allowed, filed and recorded by the proper PH court.
Foreign Country
According to the laws of each Although a foreign will has already been probated in a foreign country,
country it still has to be REPROBATED in the PH in accordance with our
procedural law. It is sufficient to ask for the enforcement here of the
foreign judgment of the probate abroad.
EVIDENCE NECESSARY FOR 1. the due execution of the will in accordance with foreign law
PROBATE of wills which have 2. testator had his domicile in the foreign country where the will
been PROBATED OUSTIDE PH was probated
3. will had been admitted to probate in said country
4. foreign tribunal is a foreign court
5. laws of the foreign country on procedure and allowance of wills
were followed.
COL RULES ON Like probate, admin is procedural in nature so lex fori governs, not the
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE law that determines how the estate of the deceased to be distributed.
OF DECEASED PERSON
The rights, powers, and duties of the executor or admin is coextensive
with the territorial juris of the court that qualified or appointed him.
Thus an executor or admin qualified or appointed by a PH court has
juris only over the properties of the deceased located on PH.
PRINCIPAL DOMICILIARY Administration granted in the country of the deceased’s last domicile.
ADMINISTRATION
ANCILLARY ADMINISTRATION Administration in other countries where the deceased also left
properties.
CADUCIARY RIGHTS If the deceased had properties but left no heirs and no will, in the PH
we follow that the state is the last heir of a deceased person. Hence the
state succeeds to the properties left by said deceased as an heir.
Another theory: used in England and US states: bona vacantia –

OWNERLESS. Hence they should revert to the State where they are
situated by escheat.
In cases where foreign element is concerned: a citizen of one state
leaves properties in other states. How can those other states claim for
themselves the properties left by the deceased?
Even if the deceased was an alien, the Philippines can, however claim
said properties and business interests, by adopting the theory of
“caduciary rights” of the State. This is in consonance with the
proposition that in a situation such as thus, “rules of conflict of laws are
largely abandoned and each country appears to work on the principle of
seizing all property of the deceased lying with its borders.” i.e. the PH
should regard said properties as ownerless or bona vacantia. In short,
the properties pass to the PH as an incident of sovereignty, not as an
heir.
PH COL RULES ON JOINT WILLS
Filipinos cannot make joint wills ANYWHERE!
Joint wills made by Considered valid in PH if valid according to their lex nationalii or lex
ALIENS ABROAD domicile or lex loci celebrationis.
Joint wills made by VOID even if valid under their lex nationalii or lex domicilii because of
ALIENS IN PH PH public policy against joint wills.
Joint wills executed by VALID as to the alien (if allowed by the laws stated in the immediately
ALIEN & FILIPINO ABROAD preceding paragraph.
VOID as to the Filipino
COL RULES ON In countries that follow NATIONALITY THEORY (PH):

INTRINSIC VALIDITY Determined by lex nationalii of the deceased.
Of wills
IN Countries that follow DOMICILIARY THEORY:
Determined by the domicile of the deceased at the time of his death
*in case of conflict between Nationality Theory and Domiciliary Theory,
we can treat the case as one of RENVOI as in the Christensen case so
that we can still apply PH law even if the deceased was a citizen of
another country.
COL RULES PH: national law of the deceased applies.
If the person dies US and Great Britain: lex domicilii (for personal property); lex situs
INTESTATE (real property)
***end of not discussed parts***
MARRIAGE
COL RULES ON MARRIAGE IN ART 26 NCC
PH
GENERAL RULE GENERAL RULE:

All marriages solemnized abroad in accordance with the law of the place
where it was solemnized and valid there as such should be valid in PH.
Art. 26 contemplates 5 situations.
SITUATION 1: Parties are both aliens marriage solemnized abroad. VALID.

MARRIAGE B/W FOREIGNERS EXCEPT:
ABROAD If marriage is universally recognized INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE.
Incestuous:
Parent-child
Bro-sister
So even if valid abroad, if incestuous, never valid in PH.
Exceptions stated in Art. 26 par.1

So many exceptions.
Why are we saying that incest is the only exception? Because all those
do not apply to aliens. As they pertain to status and capacity of parties
which according to article 15 is governed by national law. So foreigners
man.
SITUATION 2: Valid in Place of execution, valid in PH.
FILIPINOS ABROAD Exceptions:

1. Art. 35
- par1: below 18
- par4: bigamy,polygamy
- 5, 6: marriage declared void under Art 52. Marriage
subsequently entered into after the 1st but requirements for
distribution, partition, are not complied with. The 2nd marriage
is deemed void under Art. 52.
2. Art.36: Psychological incapacity

3. Marriages declared void under 37: incest
4. 38: void by public policy
just read the family code. There are so many of them.
SITUATION 3: Valid if solemnized in accordance with PH law. But the capacity of the
parties should be determined by their national law pursuant to Art. 21
BOTH ALIENS MARRIED IN PH of the NCC. – they need to submit an authenticated certificate of legal
capacity to contract marriage issued by their respective consular
offices.
This is enough for the LCR to issue marriage license.
So don’t be surprised if 2 15 y/o man and woman get married in PH. If

that is allowed in their country and they have that certificate.
SITUATION 4: Mixed marriage done in PH.
Valid if done in accordance with PH law.
FILIPINO AND ALIEN MARRIED Capacity of alien is determined by his own national law (Art. 21).
IN PH ART.21 requires the alien to submit a certificate of capacity to contract
marriage.
What if alien is STATELESS INDIVIDUAL?

Art. 21 says that stateless applying for marriage license in PH has to
submit affidavit stating forth the circ of his legal capacity to contract
marriage. Problem is legal capacoty is determined by law. What law
gOverns when this statelss applicant has no country of his own. You
cannot apply nationality theory because no country of his own. So how
do you determine his legal capacity?
What if the stateless is domiciled in the high seas? How to determine
his capacity?
Basic principle in PIL that’s it’s possible to have a person to have no

country but not possible to have no domicile. But what about high seas?
This is somewhere.
If no permanent domicile, he has temporary domicile. Its possible that

he is not domiciled permanently in one country like one in high seas.
NO PERSON HAS NO TEMPORARY DOMICILE.
TANAN NAA GYUD TEMPORARY DOMICILE.
TEMPORARY DOMICILE – place where he applies for marriage license.
(PH). When he steps in PH soil, PH becomes his temporary domicile.
So if you are LCR (Local Civil Registrar) take note of this.
SITUATION 5: VALID THERE, VALID HERE. Art. 26.

But what happens if marriage is valid there as law of alien, but void for
MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED the Filipino due to Art. 26.
ABROAD BETWEEN AN ALIEN Filipino is under 18 in Pakistan where 15 is the majority age and the
AND FILIPINO husband there is 16. Filipono wife is 17.
(MIXED MARRIAGE Under the Family Code: VOID. When either of parties is below 18.
SOLEMNIZED ABROAD) Insofar as Filipino spouse, void marriage, for alien spouse, valid
marriage. Or marriage between 1st cousins. Valid there, but void in PH
by reason of public policy.
This is hybrid marriage. But there is no such thing.
How to resolve?
If you look at the family code or NCC, not a single provision that
addresses this problem.
According to PARAS, when a marriage is vaild insofar for alien and void
for Pinoy spouse, the better policy is to consider the marriage valid.
Why?
PH policy is to favor marriage. Any doubt is resolved in favor of validity
of marriage.
SO OUR COURTS SHOULD CONSIDER THIS VALID in accordance with
PH policy.
[but there is no really settled answer to this question, only Paras
opinion]
If mixed marriage of alien and Pinoy solemnized validly but divorce was
obtained by foreign spouse.
Art. 26, par.2

When foreign spouse obtain valid divorce decree abroad, Pinoy spouse
is deemed to have capacity to marry.
This is the only provision where the PH recognize a valid effect of a
divorce decree obtained abroad.
Before this law was made, divorce decree was not recognized in PH.
Van Dorn and Pilapil Cases
- where only the divorce as to alien was recognized.

But with this law, it has become official that effect of divorce decree
abroad is recognized in PH also for Pinoy spouse.
Rationale: to correct the obvious unfairness or inequity or absurdity
where Pinoy remains to be married to a spouse who is no longer the
spouse.
HOWEVER, this may appear as CONSUELO DE BOBO for Filipino spouse,

bec the right to remarry does not come automatically. Why?
IN the case of
Orbecido
- when Alien spouse gets divorce abroad, it capacitates Pinoy to
remarry, the Pinoy needs to go to court and ask for a ruling
capacitating him to remarry.
- What the SC wants the Pinoy spouse to do is to engage a
lawyer, pay, go to trial, face the risk of denial, before there can
be marriage again. So 2nd marriage comes with a high price.
So what do you do? After divorce, you fall in love, try again.
Hire a lawyer, file a PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Rule 63).
SC imposes stringent requirements!
REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION Need to prove some essential facts:

FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1. Filipino spouse must establish the fact that there was divorce
decree abroad
- present the duly authenticated divorce decree – authentication

by consular office of PH where divorce was obtained
2. prove that the divorce was validly obtained in accordance with

the law allowing it
- the Filipino spouse has to prove the law of the country where
the divorce decree was obtained. Because it’s the law that
allows it.
- Prove the foreign law. (depends if written/unwritten – see
related discussion)
3. prove that the divorce obtained abroad capacitates the alien

spouse to remarry. Because not all divorces abroad capacitates
the alien to remarry.
- absolute divorce: alien can remarry

- relative divorce: does not allow remarriage
4. Pursuant to ruling of Recio vs Recio, prove that the divorce

decree is valid in accordance with national law of alien spouse.
- Rationale: one’s status as a divorced, is status, therefore

governed by national law.
So there are 4 fundamental facts that the Filipino spouse must prove.
BURDEN OF PROOF DOES NOT Is the burden of proving / filing a petition for declaratory relief
APPLY TO ALIENS applicable to the foreign spouse who comes back to PH and wishes to
remarry?
IOW, does the Foreign spouse who obtained the divorce abroad, have
to file the same petition abroad, have to file the same petition for
declaratory relief in order to remarry?
- The law does not appear that way.
- The Orbecido ruling clearly applies only to the Filipino spouse.
PROCEDURE IF ALIEN SPOUSE WISHES TO REMARRY IN PH AFTER

GETTING DIVORCE ABROAD?
No law or juris that makes him file a case.
Only requirement is Art. 21 of Family code – certificate of legal capacity
to contract marriage.
Case: Recio vs Recio

- for an alien after getting divorce abroad, wants to marry again
in PH, needs only the certificate to contract marriage and this is
enough.
This alien does not have to prove the existence of divorce, national law,
etc… only the certificate is enough for the issuance of marriage license.
This is the situation where the alien is better off than the Filipino.
So while it is easy to contract marriage in PH, it is difficult to get out,

much more difficult to remarry. Keep your marriage. Make it work.
*note that: divorce decree was OBTAINED à so after the judgment was
rendered.
One problem from 2nd par of Art 26 is on the matter of bigamy.

Is the Filipino spouse liable for bigamy if he contracts subsequent
marriage without going through declaratory relief?
This is a very good topic for discussion.
If DivDecree abroad is recognized in PH as valid insofar as Pinoy is
concerned, then it legally produces the effect of dissolving the
marriage. So Q is at what precise point is the marriage declared
severed?
Upon finality of the judgment for declaratory relief? Or the judgment of
divorce?
Because for declaratory relief is only for 2nd marriage nothing in
Orbecido that says the effect of divorce takes place only in the petition
for declaratory relief.
Otherwise there would be a hiatus, and Q as to what is the status of the
Filipino?
Like Art 40 of the Family code, where marriage is void and you get
married without declaration of it being void judicial declaration for the
void 1st marriage.
So when 1st marriage is void, no 1st marriage void so no marriage no
bigamy. But the SC decisions are flip-flopping.
If foreigner spouse got divorce, but Pinoy declaratory relief denied, so

Pinoy got married in foreign country and valid there. So you apply the
execution in 26. What is the effect of the denial? If the denial means
that he is not capacitated to remarry, then that 2nd marriage is
bigamous. Valid there but his capacity to marry there is determined by
our national law.
There has to be a declaration by the court that the Filipino is
capacitated to remarry. So the Q is what does capacity to remarry
mean?
Does it mean that the Filipino spouse remains to be married, or no
longer married but cannot remarry.
The court can take the position the purpose of the decl relief is for
remarriage. So you are not married but cannot remarry. If this is the
line of reasoning then it follows that there is no bigamy.
This is because it is possible that the petition for declaratory relief is
denied.
Read Orbecido case.

When the case is dismissed based on failure of evidence it is RES
JUDICATA, then cannot refile anymore.

If you get married with no Declaratory Relief…
Declaratory Relief is for capacity man. So cannot be. Just like Art. 40,
failure to obtain judicial declaration that the 1st marriage was void
results in your incapacity to contract the subsequent marriage that’s
why it is void.
But the complication is more complicated when we take it up in relation
to bigamy.
+end of midterm coverage+
LEGAL SEPARATION / DIVORCE
LEGAL SEPARATION
VS LEGAL SEPARATION DIVORCE
DIVORCE Actually relative divorce
No dissolution of the marriage Marriage is dissolved
Petitions for divorce/legal separation/annulment and nullity, there are only

2 questions that you need to address for purposes of COL rule.
2 QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE 2 questions that need to be addressed for COL:

ADDRESSED IN COL 1. What court has jurisdiction over the petition
2. What law determines the grounds for the divorce, legal separation,
annulment or nullity.
DIVORCE
PH COURTS HAVE NO PH courts has no jurisdiction over divorce. Even foreigners cannot come to
JURISDICTION OVER DIVORCE PH and file petition for divorce even if divorce is allowed in their home
BUT country. Because jurisdiction wise, there is no law that confers jurisdiction
over petitions for divorce over any of our courts.
PH RECOGNIZES DIVORCE So definitely, no petition for divorce can be entertained in PH.
But divorce may be recognized in PH in appropriate cases.

As a matter of fact, Article 26 of the Family code is one of the instance
where our laws specifically recognize the effects of divorce obtained
abroad BUT ONLY on that very limited purpose.
GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE: Should be determined by the law of the place where the divorce was
obtained and the national laws of the parties concerned.
à law of the place where divorce
was obtained The rule here is that when it is valid there [obtained abroad and in
+ accordance with the laws of the parties involved] so long as the divorce is
national law of the parties obtained by foreigners, it is recognized in PH.
FOREIGNERS ONLY! But no petition for divorce can be filed and granted by PH courts obviously
because of no jurisdiction.
Because jurisdiction is a matter of law and there is simply no law the
confers jurisdiction over divorce to PH courts.
LEGAL SEPARATION
LEGAL SEPARATION The issue is not on the legality of the marriage. So here the marriage
remains intact. There are only some rights which are separated.
Like:
The right to live together
Property rights
The right to demand consortium.
The marriage is still intact.
The parties are still together.
The parties cannot be capacitated to marry another person.
PH COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION

OVER PETITIONS FOR LEGAL
SEPARATION PHILIPPINE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION over petitions for legal
separation because there is a specific law that confers jurisdiction over
legal separation in our courts.
The authority of our courts to take cognizance of petitions for legal

separation covers all petitions regardless of the nationalities of the parties.
So even foreigners may come to PH and file a petition for legal separation
FOREIGNERS CAN FILE FOR even if the marriage was celebrated somewhere else. Regardless of their
LEGAL SEPARATION IN PH nationalities.
Because our courts have jurisdiction regardless of
where the marriage was celebrated
and regardless of the
nationalities of the parties concerned.
What is only important is jurisdiction may be acquired over the person of

the parties.
HOW JURISDICTION IS ACQUIRED

PETITIONER DEFENDANT
Jurisdiction is acquired when You follow the procedure in the
petitioner files a petition for legal acquisition of jurisdiction over
separation. defending parties.
Under the new rules on legal

separation, when the defendant
cannot be found in PH, no specific
address can be ascertained,
service of summons may be done
by PUBLICATION. And publication
is sufficient to vest jurisdiction
over the person of the defending
party.
We have jurisdiction.
COL RULE ON GROUNDS OF The law that governs the grounds for legal separation is the law of the
LEGAL SEPARATION country where the parties are citizens.
Take note: insofar as grounds for legal separation, what we have is the
NATIONALITY THEORY.
The grounds provided for under the laws of the country where the parties
are citizens.
This is because legal separation is a QUESTION OF STATUS and status
under Art. 15 of the Civil Code is governed by the nationality theory.
That is why all the grounds for legal separation should be determined by
the laws of the country of which the parties are citizens.
So that if the parties are of different nationalities, citizens of different

countries, any grounds provided under their laws respectively may be
used as a ground for legal separation. This is true even if the grounds took
place outside of the territory of the PH. It doesn’t matter, so long as that
ground is provided for under the laws of the countries of which the parties
are citizens.
The court in PH may validly grant petitions for legal separation even if the
parties are foreigners.
ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE
PH COURS HAVE JURISDICTION Like legal separation PH courts has jurisdiction over petitions for
annulment of marriage regardless of the citizenship of the parties
concerned and regardless of place where grounds occurred.
Jurisdiction-wise our courts have jurisdiction over petitions for annulment.

This is provided specifically by existing law.
You have to distinguish the grounds for annulment from the grounds for
legal separation.
LEGAL SEPARATION ANNULMENT OF

MARRIAGE
Grounds Based on NATIONALITY Based on LEX LOCI
THEORY CELEBRATIONIS.
Why?
Issue Validity of the marriage.
Annullable marriage is a
marriage which is valid
until annulled, as an
effect of a decree of
annulment, the marriage
is dissolved.
Dissolution of X Marriage is dissolved.

marriage
Therefore sine the COL
rule in PH on the validity
of marriage adheres to
LEX LOCI
CELEBRATIONIS, then
conversely, our COL rules
on annulment, which is
just the other side of the
same coin, logically
adheres also to lex loci
celebrationis.
So if the issue on the

validity of marriage is
governed by lex loci
celebrationis, then the
issue on whether the
marriage is annullable
should also be
determined by lex loci
celebrationis.
Because while the grounds for legal separation adhere to NATIONALITY

THEORY, grounds for annulment of marriage adhere to LEX LOCI
CELEBRATIONIS.
So whatever are the grounds provided for provided in the laws of the place
where the marriage took place, that ground may be used as a ground for
petition for annulment of marriage filed before our courts even if that
ground is not among those grounds provided for under our own laws.
So this may result in a very absurd situation where Filipinos who may
have their marriage solemnized abroad, they come here, they file
annulment, they cannot avail of the grounds provided for in the Family
Code because the marriage was solemnized abroad. Which is absurd but I
have searched in vain for at least an advocate who takes a different
position but all the writers I’ve consulted are one in saying that it should
be lex loci celebrationis. Personally I am not comfortable with this doctrine
but for purposes of the subject we just have to be faithful to the books.
If Filipinos get married abroad, then ground for nullity will be the grounds
in the place of marriage not necessarily the laws of PH. So this can lead to
absurd situation. But this is the law.
Even if nagconflict ang grounds sa laws sa different countries sa couple

foreigners, any of those grounds can still be invoked.
An opposite view is that the ground can only be invoked by the party to
whom it refers, example if the party filing the case is Chinese, he can only
invoke the grounds provided for by Chinese laws. But that would be
inconsistent with the literature that we have which says that any of those
grounds provided for under their respective laws. Therefore anyone can
invoke any of those grounds.
The civil marriage will govern, not the church marriage.

If you got married both in church and civil, official date of marriage is civil.
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
PH COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION More or less similar to annulment because nullity of marriage also dwells
on the validity of the marriage.
Governed by LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS -- where the marriage took place.
PH COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION to entertain and grant petitions for

nullity of marriage by express provision of existing laws.
GROUNDS GR: LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS

BUT
Slightly different from annulment in the following manner:
For purposes of nullity or marriage vs annulment, we have to distinguish
the parties involved.
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE ANNULMENT

Parties: Either party can file in PH.
Alien
marriage PH court has juris.
abroad
(all Grounds:
foreigners) LEX LOCIC CELEBRATIONIS
Grounds provided for in the place where

the marriage was solemnized may be used
as a ground in the petition for nullity of
marriage filed before PH courts, even if
this ground is not one of those provided
for under our own laws.
These grounds would necessarily already

include those universally recognized
Incestuous marriage and
Highly immoral marriage
Parties: PH court has juris
Filipinos
abroad Grounds that may be invoked if petition
(both for nullity of marriage is filed in PH court
Pinoys) when their marriage was solemnized
abroad:
Art. 26 FC
Grounds that may be invoked in case of a

petition for nullity of marriage:
1. Grounds provided for in the country

where the marriage was solemnized (LEX
LOCI)
2. Exceptions under Art. 26.

Note that under Art. 26 there are
exceptions there to the GR that if the
marriage is celebrated abroad and valid
there as such, it should also be valid here
in PH.
X: those marriages declared void under
Art. 35 par.1,4,5,6
36, 37, 38
because these are exceptions to the
principle that marriage solemnized
abroad, valid there valid here, it follows
that these grounds can be invoked as
basis for filing a petition for nullity of
marriage because precisely, any of these
marriages specified in Art. 26 are
specifically declared as void.
So insofar as Filipinos whose marriage was
solemnized abroad, they have more
grounds to invoke if the file a petition for
nullity of marriage in PH.

TORTS
TORTS Refers to any act that causes damage to another. It is a legal wrong
committed by one against another resulting to damage to another –
damage to either his person, property or rights.
Tortious act gives rise to tort actions, purpose is to compensate for

damage caused.
Torts constitute violation of private rights.

Tort actions are intended to compensate laws or damage suffered by
private parties.
HOW COMMITTED PH concept of tort includes Spanish concept and American concept.
Spanish – quasi delict: which include torts committed by fault or
negligence Art. 2176 NCC
And the so-called
Intentional tort – Art.20 NCC
So that in PH jurisdiction, torts may be committed through either:

Fault or negligence under 2176, otherwise known as quasi-delict
Or
Through intentional acts under Art. 20
So whether fault or negligence or intentional act, so long as that act

causes damage to another, violating private rights, that act or acts
constitute tort.
How do you distinguish tort from crime?

Especially so that under Art. 20NCC tort can also be committed through
intentional acts.
So how do you distinguish crimes committed with intent and tort
committed through or with intent.
Is tort not crime?
TORT VS CRIME TORT CRIME

As opposed to tort that Constitutes a violation of the
involves private rights. rights of the state.
What is involved there is the
interest of the state.
Intended to vindicate private Purpose of crime is to protect and
rights thru award of damages, vindicate the interest of the state
restitution, compensation. that has been breached and to
punish the criminal or in some
cases reform the criminal
An act or omission may be both Given the distinct nature of crime and tort, it is possible that an act is
a crime and tort punished both as crime and tort.
So tort and crime does not exclude each other because its possible that
one and the same act or omission may constitute both crime and tort.
Example: QUASI-DELICT/criminal negligence – when one causes damage

to another through fault or negligence. This act or omission may be
penalized as a crime and then criminal negligence.
Like if you bump a pedestrian as a result of reckless driving.

This can be a crime under RPC – criminal negligence if the victim dies
offender may be prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries/homicide/damage to property.
This is a crime because it is specifically penalized under the RPC as a
crime.
At the same time this act of causing damage to another thru fault or
negligence may also be the basis for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 of the
NCC.
So
In instances when an act or omission is committed through fault or
negligence, it can be possible that both crime and tort.
Similarly possible that an intentional act causing damage to another gives

rise to criminal prosecution and at the same time an action for damages
arising from tort.
Example: Murder, estafa, physical injuries, defamation

If someone is killed, the offender may be prosecuted criminally for
homicide, parricide, murder. This is a criminal action. The act constitutes a
crime because it is so defined by the RPC.
But at the same time, this act of killing committed with intent also
constitutes tort under Art. 20 – intentional tort which also gives rise to an
action for damages under Art. 33 of the NCC, called independent civil
actions arising from fraud, physical injuries, defamation.
These actions essentially constitutes actions arising from tort because they
are committed through intentional acts falling under the all-encompassing
definition of Art. 20, and by express provision of Art.33, a civil action for
damages arising therefrom may be instituted separate and independently
from the criminal action arising from the same act or omission penalized
as a crime.
What sets a crime apart from tort is for crime there has to be a law that
defines it as a crime. So that even if causes damage to another either by
act, negligence or omission, if there is no law that defines and penalize it
as a crime it cannot be crime but definitely it is tort.
Operative fact for crimes: there has to be a specific law that defines the
act or omission as crime.
COL Rule in PH on torts In PH, we adhere to LEX LOCI DELICTI COMISI. à

Torts should be governed by the law of the place where the tortious act
was committed.
There would be no problem if the tortious act constitutes only a single act
or omission because if it constitutes only a single act or omission,
definitely if it is committed in one state, then it should be governed by the
laws existing in that state.
The problem arises when the tort arises from a series of acts and these
series of acts occurred in more than 1 state.
Like when the tort act began in 1 state, completed in 1 state and when the
damage resulted in another state.
How do you determine now the lex loci delicti?
The problem always come to the fore when there are various states
involved.
To solve this problem, there are various theories that determine the lex
loci delicti – place of commission.
3 THEORIES TO DETERMINE THE 1. CIVIL LAW THEORY – place of commission of tort is country where
LEX LOCI DELICTI the tortious act began. Regardless of where it ended.
1. Civil Law theory 2. COMMON LAW THEORY – place of commission of the tort is the
2. Common law theory state where the act produced its effect/The damage caused. So
3. State of the most when the injury was felt in the other state, the lex loci delicti
significant relationsip comisi is the law of the place where the injury was sustained
regardless of the state where the tort act began.
3. STATE of the MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP – followed by

PH. As ruled in the case of:
Saudi Arabian Airlines case

SC: for purposes of COL rule, lex loci delicti comis is PH, given the most
significant circumstances relating to the act or omission complained of.
Review Saudia case.
ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES So even if the tortious act was committed abroad, take note that action for
ARISING FROM TORT MAY BE tort, Action to recover damage arising from tort may be enforced
ENFORCED ANYWHERE. anywhere.
So if you were run over by a taxi in HK, the tort was committed in Hk, you
may file your action for damages arising from tort in PH.
So it may be enforced anywhere regardless of the place of commission.
You distinguish the place of commission, from the place of enforcement.
What is only required in the enforcement is jurisdiction is acquired over

the defending party. So Irrespective of the place where the defending
party may be found, an action for tort may be filed here even if it was
committed in another country.
So it is not uncommon that tort committed abroad but the actions to

recover damages arising from the tort is filed somewhere else, in another

country or in PH for that matter.
But the requirment of JURISDICTION has to be complied with.
SPECIFIC MATTERS GOVERNED FOR purposes of COL, LEX LOCI DELICTI COMISI which is the point of
BY LEX LOCI DELICTI COMISI contact, covers:
1. Prescription
2. Extent of damages to be 1. matters involving prescription.
recovered
3. Defenses that may be So the issue WON the action to recover damages arising from tort has
put up by the defendant already prescribed. This issue should be determined by the law of the
country where the tort act was committed.
This issue should be determined by the law of the country where the tort
was committed.
2. The kind and extent of damages may be recovered

- these matters should be determined by the law of the place where the
tort was committed, not the law of the place where the action for tort is
filed.
3. Defenses that defendant may put up to resist the action for tort
- what are these defenses
- how to avail of these defenses
- these are matters that are governed by the law of the place where tort
was committed.
So if a particular defense is available in law of country where tort is

committed but not in PH law, then that defense may be allowed because
this is governed by lex loci delicti comisi.
MATTERS GOVERNED BY THE The tortious act was committed in HK, but the action to recover damages
LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE arising from tort was filed in PH.
ACTION FOR TORT IS FILED
What are the matters that PH are to apply?
1. only matters pertaining to PROCEDURE
- because procedures are governed by lex fori. the substantive aspect of
the case (prescription, kind of damages, defenses) all these are governed
by lex loci delicti comisi.
Matters both substantive and procedural? You cannot find them in the
same plane. They are incompatible.
Some writers say that prescription may be substantive or procedural
depending on the characterization but in the book of Sempio-Dy, it would
appear that prescription as characterized as substantive being governed
by lex loci delicti comisi.
I suppose that you also came across a portion in the book that states
BORROWING STATUTE.
BORROWING STATUTE that on matters of prescription we respect the laws
of the country where the action was sustained/obtained. By the effect of
borrowing statute, we deem it incorporated in our law. If it already
prescribed in that country where the cause of action accrues, it cannot
prosper in PH on the ground of prescription.
For purposes of tort, this is governed by lex loci delicti comisi, and
therefore substantive.
Like the extent of damages recovered and defenses.
So defenses are considered as substantive (like payment).

CRIMES
What is the COL rule in PH regarding crimes?

The answer lies in Art.2 of the RPC.
We adhere to TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE as a general rule and
PROTECTIVE THEORY as an exception.
CRIME vs TORT CRIME TORT
Committed against the state Violates private rights
Prosecuted in the name of the Instituted by the injured person
State against the offender in against the wrongdoer in a civil
criminal actions case
The purpose of which are the The purpose of which is

protection and vindication of the indemnification for damages
interests of the public as a whole, suffered
the punishment of the offender,
the reformation of the offender, or
to deter others from committing
the same act.
Local. Transitory in character,
-- can be prosecuted only in the -- the tortfeasor can be made
places or states where the crime liable for his wrongful act in any
are committed. juris where he may be found.
HOW COURTS DETERMINE Depends on the CHARACTERIZATION of the act in the sate where the said
WRONGFUL ACT AS TORT OR act is committed.
CRIME
In PH, certain acts may be both torts and crimes.
NCC – 33
RPC – 365 - Criminal negligence cases: they may be prosecuted as crimes
by the State. on the other hand, the victims may file separate actions for
damages against the offenders based on torts.
THEORIES THAT DETERMINE 1. Territorial theory

WHETHER A STATE /LEGAL a. Subjective territorial principle
SYSTEM HAS JURIS TO TAKE b. Objective territorial principle
COGNIZANCE OF CRIMINAL
CASE 2. Nationality or personal theory
3. Protective theory
4. Real or eclectic theory
5. Cosmopolitan or universality theory
6. Passive personality or passive nationality theory
1. TERRITORIAL THEORY The state where the crime was committed has the juris to try the case,
and its penal code and the penalties prescribed therein will apply.
*FOLLOWED BY PH
Why?
The aggrieved state is duty bound to prosecute and punish the offender as
his crime affects directly and particularly the dignity, authority, and
sovereignty of the state where said crime is committed.
2 KINDS:
1. SUBJECTIVE TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE
2. OBJECTIVE TP
a. SUBJECTIVE TP State where the crime was begun may prosecute the offense even it was
completed in another state.
b. OBJECTIVE TP The state can prosecute crimes began but completed within its territory.
Country where the crime was completed, regardless of country where it

began.
2. NATIONALITY OR PERSONAL Country in which the criminal is a citizen or subject has jurisdiction to try
THEORY him for crimes allegedly committed by him, whether inside or outside its
territory, provided it is a crime under the said country’s penal law.
Jurisdiction to prosecute crimes in the country of which he is a citizen

regardless of place of commission.
3. PROTECTIVE THEORY Any state whose national interests may be jeopardized has jurisdiction
over criminal offenses, even if committed outside its territory, and in some
*FOLLOWED BY PH as an cases, even if committed by an alien.
exception to territoriality
4. REAL OR ECLECTIC THEORY Any state whose penal code has been transgressed upon has juris to bring
to justice the perpetrators of the crime,
whether the crime was committed inside or outside its own territory.
Crimes under this category include:

Piracy
Slavery
Drug trafficking
Immoral traffic in woman and children
So country whose penal laws are violated. Determining factor is the law
being violated. Any and all countries whose laws have been violated by
offender may take cognizance of the crime.
5. COSMOPOLITAN OR Any state where the criminal is found or which has obtained custody over
UNIVERSALITY THEORY him, can try him for the crime he has allegedly committed, unless
extradition applies.
Country where the criminal has been arrested or taken into custody. Place
where offender may be found has juris to prosecute.
6. PASSIVE PERSONALITY OR The state of which the victim is a citizen or subject has juris to prosecute
PASSIVE NATIONALITY THEORY the offense.
(reverse of nationality theory)
country of which the victim is a national.

The focus is on the victim of the crime.
PHILIPPINE SETTING GR: territoriality theory
X: protective theory: country whose national interests are jeopardized
IOW, we cannot prosecute a crime committed abroad (like bigamy, rape,

murder) in the PH, because it is committed outside our territorial juris.
We also follow the rule of generality in criminal law;

i.e. all persons, whether Filipinos or aliens, are subject to our penal laws
and can be prosecuted for their violation. (Art 14 NCC)
Review the exceptions under Art 2 of RPC
Only those crimes committed by public officials in performance of their

official functions are governed by protective theory.
In Ph we both follow subjective and objective territorial principle.
SUBJECTIVE:
People vs Tulin
Sea-jacked vessel in Minadanao and brought to SG. In SG Singaporean
national joined and participated.
He was prosecuted in PH court and convicted.
He appealed arguing that his participation is beyond PH juris.
SC: subjective territorial principle.
While his involvement (foreigner) took place only in SG his involvement
was part of the entire criminal process.
So the SC was in effect saying that his involvement in SG cannot be
dissociated from the entire criminal act that started in PH.
Another justication:
The accused all of them were charged and convicted of piracy which is a
crime against laws of nation. So that under the protective theory, PH
courts have juris even if the crime was committed outside PH.
OBJECTIVE TP:

US VS BULL
Prosecution for violation of law penalizing discrimination/maltreatment of
animals.
The acts complained of started in Formosa.
Prosecuted in PH. Argued that the crime was committed outside PH.
SC held that while the act started in Formosa, it continued and terminated
in PH until they were prosecuted and arrested.
So the SC applied the objective TP.
In what cases do we follow the Art. 2 RPC
protective theory, such that even
if the crime was committed Example of crimes against the law of nations:
outside our territorial juris, the Airplane hijacking
crime is triable by our courts? Piracy or mutiny on the high seas
Drug trafficking
Discussion Crime committed on board a foreign vessel while docked in PH.

Does Ph court have juris?
PH JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES 2 theories:

COMMITTED ON BOARD A
FOREIGN VESSEL IF SAID 1. French Rule (flag) – nationality theory
VESSEL IS WITHIN OUR 2. English Rule (state) – territorial principle
TERRITORIAL WATERS
See page 190-191
FRENCH RULE the state whose flag is flown by the vessel has juris,
EXCEPT
If the crime affects the
Peace
Order
Security
Safety of the territory
ENGLISH RULE The territory where the crime was committed (PH has juris).
EXCEPT:
a. in matters relating to the internal order and discipline of the
vessel;
b. those which affect solely the ship and its occupants such as minor
or pretty criminal offenses committed by members of the crew.
(Petty crimes involving the crew of the vessel)
According to Paras: According to Paras, the distinction of the 2 laws is only academic because
Both the same these 2 are the same.
Because if we peer below the surface, these 2 are the same.

It’s just that one is the exception to the other. The net effect in the
application of these principles remains the same.
So that according to him, if the crime of murder is committed on board a
Foreign vessel while anchored PH waters, under English rule it is
cognizable by PH courts, under the French rule it is also cognizable under
PH court it being a crime affecting the peace, order, security and safety of
the territory.
English Rule:
People vs Wong Cheng
Involving prosecution for smoking opium in board foreign vessel while
anchored in manila bay.
Smoking opium affects the peace, order, safety, security of PH because of
the pernicious effects that opium has produced In the territory.
I don’t think that we recognize Double Jeopardy if the first prosecution

occurred in a different country.
It can also be argued that effect is the same because of the prosecution
there.
Territory is a matter of our constitution, even if disputed, for purposes of
prosecution, just determine it according to our laws. We don’t care how
other countries define our territory.
Just like citizenship, if an issue is raised WON this person is a Filipino, we
determine the citizenship on the basis of our laws, we don’t care how
other countries look at him as a citizen.
Insofar as these disputed areas are concerned, we have our own claim,
regardless of the opposite claims of other countries.
EFFECT OF UN CONVENTION ON Under said convention, PH courts do not acquire juris over crimes
THE LAW OF THE SEA committed on board a foreign vessel even if it is within our territorial
waters as long as the effect of such crime does not disturb our peace and
order.
Discussion Crime committed on board a foreign vessel while docked in PH.

Does Ph court have juris?

BUSINESS ENTITIES
CORPORATIONS
PERSONAL LAW OF A 2 kinds of persons:

CORPORATION FOR COL 1. Natural
PURPOSES 2. Juridical
Like natural persons, juridical persons like a corporation is also governed

by a personal law. The personal law is the law that governs issues
concerning corporations.
There are 3 theories which determine the personal law of the corporation.
3 THEORIES WHICH DETERMINE 1. THEORY OF THE PLACE OF INCORPORATION:
THE PERSONAL LAW OF THE
CORPORATION 2. THEORY OF THE PLACE OF CENTER OF MANAGEMENT
3. THEORY OF THE LAW OF EXPLOITATION
1. THEORY OF THE PLACE OF personal law of the corporation is the law under which a particular
INCORPORATION corporation is incorporated or organized.
So it’s possible that a corporation operates a business in one state but

incorporated under the laws of another state. so regardless of the state of
incorporation, issues regarding the corporation are to be determined by
their personal law – law of the place of incorporation.
2. THEORY OF THE PLACE OF the corporation being a corporate being acts through its BOD. Under this
CENTER OF MANAGEMENT theory the personal law of the corporation refers to the place where the
BOD of the corporation sits or performs its functions.
So BOD it is the soul of the corporation. regardless of the place of

incorporation or regardless of the place of operation, under this theory
personal law refers to the law of the place where its BOD sits.
3. THEORY OF THE LAW OF Issues pertaining corporations are determined by the laws of the place
EXPLOITATION where the corporation conducts its business
Regardless of the law of the place of incorporation
Regardless of where the BOD performs its functions.
CRITICISMS ON THE 3 Each theory has its own merits or demerits.
THEORIES
LAW OF LAW OF LAW OF COUNTRY
INCORPORATION MANAGEMENT OF EXPLOITATION
The common critique The most common Same criticism
or downside is that it criticism is that it is directed against the
is possible for a also possible that the third theory, its
corporation to evade BOD of the possible that a
some legit obligations corporation sits in corporation conducts
by just incorporating various states from its business in various
under the laws of one time to time the BOD states. So issues
state but conducts its may change the seat relating to the
business in another. of the Board. And in corporations intra-
the process renders corporate issues
So under this theory stability in the manner (relating to internal
the likelihood that the issues regarding the matters of the corp)
corporation will corporation are are to be determined
circumvent laws and governed depending by the laws of the
avoid liabilities is on the laws of the place where business
highly possible place where the BOD is being conducted
because a corporation chooses to hold its and this may involve
may choose what base of operation. various states in the
country under whose process more conflict
laws it may be of laws is likely to
incorporated but occur.
actually for purposes
of operating its
business chooses its
another state as the
base of operation. Any
issues pertaining to it
are governed by its
personal law which is
the law of the place of
incorporation.
Theory followed by PH: LAW OF INCORPORATION

Law of the Incorporation Insofar as PH jurisdiction is concerned, the personal law of the corporation
is the law of the place where the corporation was incorporated.
Law of the place under which the corporation is organized and existing.
PERSONAL LAW LIMITED ONLY Take note that personal law of a corporation covers only matters which
TO INTRA-CORPORATE ISSUES are INTERNAL to the affairs of the corporation. particularly,
Relationship between the SH and the other SH
b/w the SH and the corp itself
so intra-corporate issues are being determined by the personal law of the

corporation.
if the issue involved has nothing to do with intra-corporate matters, this is

not supposed to be governed by the personal law of the corporation but
something else.
Specific matters which are only covered by the personal law of the
corporation or the so-called intra-corporate matters?
Common matters:
• Number of SH or BOD
• By-laws
• Legality of by-laws
• Kind and amounts of certificates of stocks, stockholdings
• Dividends amount of dividends, validity of issuance
• Rights and obligations of SH
• All other matters relating to the internal affairs of the corporation
These are the only matters governed by their personal law.

EXTRA-CORPORATE MATTERS If the matter is beyond the internal affairs of the corporation, like an issue
Governed by on the validity of a contract entered into by a corporation with a 3rd party,
LAW OF THE INCORPORATION or a transaction entered into by the corporation with a general party, this
+ only concerns matters not anymore internal but outside, so which law
LAW OF PERFORMANCE governs? Not personal law. LAW OF INCORPORATION AND LAW OF
PERFORMANCE (where the transaction took place).
Must be valid under both!!! Take note it should be valid under both.
If the transaction is valid under the law of incorporation but void under the
law of performance, the whole transaction is void.
The requirement for its validity is that it should be valid under both the
law of performance and the law of incorporation.
COL RULE ON SUABILITY AND CAPACITY OF A CORPORATION TO SUE AND BE SUED IN PH

One of the important issues relating to corporation in COL is the issue on
the suability of a corporation or the right of a corporation to sue in PH
courts and its capacity of being sued as defendant before PH courts.
That issue has always been WON a foreign corporation may sue or be sued
in PH?
The rule on suability and capacity of a corporation to be sued in PH
depends on WON the corporation is doing business in PH or whether the
corporation is not doing business in PH.
RULE ON SUABILITY OF A CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN PH
OR its susceptibility of being sued in PH when a corporation is DOING BUSINESS in PH.
1.Foreign corporation doing 1. Foreign corporation doing business in PH + LICENSED to do

business in PH + LICENSED to do business in PH: it can always sue and be sued.
business in PH
In case this corporation got sued in the PH, it may be served with
summons under the rules of court.
How does the domestic court acquire jurisdiction over a foreign

corporation doing business in PH and is licensed to do business in PH?
The RoC are explicit: service of summons may be effected to the
corporation’s
RESIDENT AGENT
In the absence of a resident agent,
Service of summons may be to the APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL designated by law:
Depends on the nature of the business of the corp.
Banking Superintendent of banks /

BSP governor
Insurance Commissioner of the insurance commission
All others SEC
3rd mode of serving summons on a corporation doing business and

licensed to do business in PH is through ANY OF ITS OFFICER OR
AGENT.
Take note that that in the 1st mode, service of summons may be made
upon its resident agent. In this 3rd mode, the rule also mentions of an
agent.
How do you distinguish this agent under the 3rd mode?
RESIDENT AGENT OFFICER OR AGENT

(1st mode) (3rd mode)
REFERS to the specific Refers to an agent in the GENERAL SENSE.
person designated by Somebody who acts for or in behalf of the
the corporation as corporation.
recorded in the Not necessarily the one designated in the
documents submitted documents submitted to the SEC as their
to the SEC as their resident agent.
designated agent.
This agent is an agent in the context of
Specific person agency-principal relationship.
designated for this
purpose as submitted This could refer to an agent for purposes of
to the docus in the commercial dealings or transactions.
SEC.
So anyone who acts for or in behalf of the
corporation.
This may include:

Exclusive distributors appointed by the
foreign corp in PH. This may be considered as
agent.
So these are the 3 modes of service of summons upon corporation doing

business in PH + with license to do so. They can sue and be sued.
2. FOREIGN CORPORATION IT CAN ALWAYS BE SUED, impleaded as defendant before PH courts.
DOING BSUINESS IN PH BUT IT CANNOT SUE. It cannot be a claimant. It cannot seek relief from the
WITHOUT LICENSE court.
CAN BE SUED Reason: being engaged in business it’s supposed to comply with the
CANNOT SUE requirements and the law requires him to secure the necessary license. So
for failure to secure the necessary license the foreign corp violates PH
laws, and having violated the existing PH laws, he does not deserve the
protection of our laws. The principle of estoppel comes in.
It fails to comply therefore it cannot seek protection.
3. FOREIGN CORPORATION NOT IT CAN SUE AND BE SUED on ISOLATED TRANSACTIONS.
DOING BUSINESS IN PH
The problem here is how to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign corporation
not doing business in PH? This is the common problem.
Because normally they have no properties in PH, no offices, not doing
business in PH, no resident/agent in PH, nobody.
Before in the RoC, there is no specific provision.

But NOW there is.
There are cases where the SC provided solutions.
Royal Crown vs NLRC

Labor case for illegal dismissal filed by OCW employed through local
employment agency. When his services were terminated, the Pinoy filed a
case against foreign employer and local employment agency.
Court adjudged both solidarily liable, but the local employment agency,
argued against solidarity because no jurisdiction was acquired upon the
foreign ER. Alleging lack of service of summons because foreign ER was
there abroad. It turned out that the summons intended on the foreign ER
was actually served in the local Employment agency.
SC: WON foreign corp is doing business in PH [take note whether its doing
business or not], it can always be served with summons through its
AGENT (note: note resident agent) in PH – the agent is the the one who
acts in behalf of the principal.
The local employment agency, which facilitated and recruited the
complainant, is actually an agent of foreign ER, so that for purposes of
summons/juris, the summons for the foreign ER, may be validly effected
through agent in PH – the local employment agency.
AttyT: this ruling of the SC has no legal basis. But this ruling is now a legal

basis.
If confronted with the problem, you can always invoke the ruling of the SC
in that case.
----ANOTHER WAY OF SERVING SUMMONS ON A FOREIGN CORPORATION

NOT DOING BUSINESS IN PH.
Linear vs Fisher
Defendant not doing business in Ph but dealt with local corporations.
Plaintiff is a local domestic corp, defendant is foreign corp not doing
business in PH.
Issue: WON there has been valid jurisdiction acquired over the foreign
corp?
SC: when a local plaintiff and foreign corp agree that their dispute, or any
dispute that may arise out of their transaction or contract, is to be
cognizable by PH courts, the parties are deemed to have stipulated on the
specific venue and therefore service of summons may be served through
publication. Under the principle of liberality of the interpretation of the
rules. So to solve the problem SC: summons by publication applies in this
case.
Take note that before this ruling there was no ruling that allowed service
of summons to foreign corp not doing business.
So all these problems have been overtaken by recent amendment of the

rules.
Inspired by this legal chaos.
So the RoC was amended on the service of summons nor registered in PH
or without resident agents/not doing business in PH.
Effective March 15, 2011.
How is the jurisdiction over them acquired by PH courts? The amendment

now provides that there are 4 modes.
NEW RULES: EFFECTIVE MARCH 1. Personally
15, 2011. 2. Publication
3. Faximile or any electronic mode capable of generating proof of
Jurisdiction over corporations not service
doing business in PH, not 4. Any other means as may be directed by the court
registered, without agents.
1. PERSONALLY PERSONAL SERVICE OF SUMMONS in the country where the defending
foreign corporation is found with assistance of DFA.
This was the offshoot of Northwest Airlines vs Yap case.
How?
The rule now is thru diplomatic channels.
Seeks assistance from DFA.
2. PUBLICATION Once in a newspaper of General circulation.

What newspaper?
Circulating in the country where the defendant may be found. Not the
local newspaper.
+
Copy of summons
+
Copy of order of court allowing summons by publication shall also be sent
thru registered mail to last known address of defendant foreign
corporation involved.
Because summons by publication must be done with leave of court.

All these orders shall be sent to defendant’s last know address thru
registered mail.
3. FAXIMILE OR ANY

ELECTRONIC MODE
CAPABLE OF
GENERATING PROOF OF
SERVICE
4. ANY OTHER MEANS AS
MAY BE DIRECTED BY
THE COURT
So there are 4 modes.
Not registered in PH or without resident agent or not doing business in PH
DOING BUSINESS IN PH Take note of the concept of doing business in PH
VS Distinguish this from the concept of isolated transactions.
ISOLATED TRANSACTION I suppose you know better than me on this matter because of Corporation
law of AttyE.
I will not dare educate you, you educate me.

A question or 2 will come out on this.
How do you enforce judgment?

Defendant has nothing to loose in PH.
You cannot enforce it here. You have an empty judgment. Empty victory.
You cannot enforce it here because no properties here.
So you can resort to enforcement of foreign judgment. This is the usual
and common problem in PH.
If defendant is doing business in PH, then ask for enforcement in Africa.
If contract with corp was executed / consummated outside PH:

If issue is about formality – lex loci
If on substance – responsibilities of parties: lex voluntatis, etc. The law on
contracts.

RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGEMENT
THE common concept of law is that it is coterminous with the authority
with which it operates.
Similarly, a judgment is coterminous with the authority that renders the
judgement.
If law is enacted in PH, then effective only in PH.
Judgment of PH court, enforceable only in PH.
GR: law is not supposed to have extraterritorial application.

Y: every state is superior on its own borders. By allowing a foreign
law/judgment to take effect in its own territory, then it is derogation of its
sovereignty.
This is the same principle that applies to foreign judgment. normally
foreign judgment is not supposed to apply in other countries, but no man
is an island, we are a community of countries, so there are theories which
justify recognition of a foreign judgment in another state. we discussed
this already.
But no man is an island. We are a community of countries/states.

Theories that justify enforcement of judgment in another stae.
THEORIES THAT JUSTIFY 1. Comity
recognition foreign laws can 2. Justice
apply in a local country 3. reciprocity
ENFORCEMENT; RECOGNITION
2 FORMS OF JUDGEMENTS: Every judgment (incl. foreign judgment) may take either of the following
forms:
1. Judgment which involves granting of affirmative relief – such as
directing defendant to do positive act.
OR
2. Judgment that does not involve the doing of an act (does not
involve affirmative relief), but simply lays down the rights and
obligations of the contending parties. (simply adjudicates the
rights of the parties involved).
All these may be implemented in the other country.

1. FOREIGN JUDGMENT What happens if this is implemented in a foreign country?
INVOLVES AFFIRMATIVE
RELIEF This foreign judgment will require a domestic court to order precisely the
à ENFORCEMENT implementation of that particular affirmative relief.
It cannot be implemented by itself in the other state.
It requires involvement of domestic court – issue order directing
implementation of that foreign judgment in its own territory.
THIS IS ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
Because the domestic court now ill issue a judgment or an order directing
the performance of the act as contained in the foreign judgment itself.
So if a foreign judgment directs defendant to pay $1M, in order for that

foreign judgment to be implemented in that other state, the domestic
court will have to issue and order specifically directing the implementation
of the foreign judgment and therefore specifically ordering the defendant
to pay. this is the PROCESS OF ENFORCEMENT.
What do you do in case involving a foreign judgment involving a foreign

judgment is implemented in PH?
Procedure in PH: winning party file an action before PH court for the
enforcement of the foreign judgment.
Filed in RTC!
Action for enforcement of foreign judgment is akin to SPECIFIC

PERFORMANCE which is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation so
always within jurisdiction of RTC.
So even if it involves payment of sums of money, the amount of money

does not matter insofar as jurisdiction of PH court over the action for
enforcement. Because juris is determined by the nature of the action
which is incapable of pecuniary estimation. So it’s ALWAYS WITH RTC!
2. FOREIGN JUDGMENT If this is implemented in PH:

DOES NOT INVOLVE No order of PH court required.
GRANT OF AFFIRMATIVE Because that judgment does not contain an order/affirmative relief
RELIEF directing the doing of an affirmative act.
à RECOGNITION
Typical example: judgment decreeing divorce.
When the court decrees divorce it simply declares the marriage dissolved.
It does not direct the parties to perform some specific acts unlike a
judgment declaring payment of sums of money where the court will direct
the defendant to pay. Payment there is the affirmative relief.
If that kind of judgment, which does not involve affirmative relief is

implemented in PH, you call it not enforcement, but simply RECOGNITION.
You are merely asking PH court to recognize the effect of the foreign
judgment without the courts in PH having to issue an order directing the
performance of a particular act.
So when defendant is sued for bigamy in PH for marrying twice, but in his
defense he argued that he cannot be sued for bigamy because his first
marriage was already dissolved when he contracted the 2nd marriage, the
accused in that case may introduce in evidence the divorce decree
obtained abroad and ask the court to recognize it. In that case the court
has to recognize that decree and acquit the accused.
No affirmative relief is involved. Simply recognition of the effect of that
foreign judgment.

ARE FOREIGN Is foreign judgment res judicata insofar as PH courts are concerned?
JUDGMENTS RES Are foreign judgment conclusive and binding upon PH courts?
JUDICATA? Yes and NO.
CONCLUSIVE AND NO in the sense that foreign judgments are not absolute res judicata as
BINDING IN PH far as PH courts are concerned.
COURTS? What is absolute res judicata?
ABSOLUTE RES JUDICATA: complete and total recognition of judgment
without re-litigating the case in PH courts. So just implementation here.
No questions asked. Parties cannot re-litigate.
This is not the case in the Philippines.
What we have in the PH is QUALIFIED RES JUDICATA.
QUALIFIED RES JUDICATA Under Sec.48 of Rule 39, the rules allow recognition and enforcement of
foreign judgment here in PH, but this foreign judgment are always subject
to repel before PH courts.
What does that mean?

A foreign judgment may only serve the effect of res judicata insofar as Ph
courts are concerned after the defending party has been given the
opportunity to REPEL the foreign judgment and after due proceedings
before domestic PH courts, the domestic PH courts find that the foreign
judgment is not vitiated by:
• lack of jurisdiction,
• lack of notice,
• collusion,
• mistake of fact,
• fraud,
• mistake of fact or law.
These are the grounds specified under the rules for purposes of repelling a
foreign judgment.
Refuse its enforcement.
These are the only recognized and allowed grounds to refuse a foreign
judgment in PH.
What happens under qualified res judicata principle?

As distinguished from absolute res judicata, in qualified res judicata, re-
litigating the case is allowed. IOW, the parties are allowed to re-litigate
the case.
But re-litigation does not mean that the case will have to be opened
totally. It refers to the proceedings where the defending party is allowed
to repel the foreign judgment by the grounds enumerated above.
So the parties can re-litigate and in the process the parties are allowed to
present evidence for purposes of proving the grounds for repel.
And after the proceedings, where the defendant is given the opportunity
to repel but the court finds that the foreign judgment is not vitiated by
any of those grounds, the court will affirm that foreign judgment. this time
that foreign judgment becomes an absolute res judicata. Cannot anymore
be questioned by the defending party.
Q: what law determines the existence of the grounds for repelling a

foreign judgment?
When a foreign judgment is repelled on the grounds above, which law
should serve as the yardstick for determining whether these grounds
exist?
The law of the place where the judgment was obtained? Or
The law of the of PH where judgment is sought to be enforced?
This is the never ending issue. To this day, this has never been settled
with finality.

If we look at jurisprudence, we can at least intelligent position on the
matter based on jurisprudence.
WHAT LAW GOVERNS REPEL? As it is now, grounds which refer to remedy or procedure are governed by
LEX FORI
Meaning law of the place where judgment was obtained.
Example: lack of juris over the defending party. because of defective

service of summons. This ground being procedural is Governed by law of
the place where judgment was obtained.
So that if the service of summons is valid insofar as foreign law is

concerned it should be recognized as valid in PH even if it is not in
accordance with PH law.
This is the consistent rulings with NW vs Sharp and Asiawest vs Berhad.
Sharp
Action for breach of contract. Filed by local airline filed against sharp for
failing to comply with its obligation to remit the proceeds of airline tickets.
Airline filed case against sharp in Japanese court.
2 attempts at serving summons at its representatives in Japan failed, and
so the
3rd time summons was served through diplomatic channels on the alleged
agent of Sharp based in PH. So it was extra-territorial service of
summons. So it was effected OUTSIDE OF JAPAN, in PH.
Issue: WON juris over sharp was validly acquired considering that it is an
action in personam and therefore under existing laws, action in personam
allows only service of summons in the territory of the court where the
action is filed, never beyond its territory.
SC:
1. Service of summons is a matter of procedure thus it should be

governed by Japanese laws. Problem is that the Japanese laws on
service of summons were properly alleged and proved in that
case. So applying the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION,
SC said it should be presumed that the law in Japan is the same
as the law in PH. Proceeding form this premise, the SC said that
the service of summons on defendant’s agent in PH is valid, take
note that the service was effected through diplomatic channels. At
that time service of summons through diplomatic channels was
not recognized in our laws.
The SC ruled that service of summons through diplomatic channels is

equivalent to service of summons to appropriate government official which
is allowed under RoC.
So diplomatic officers fall under appropriate government officers
designated by law.
The point here is:

For purposes of determining lack of jurisdiction over person of defendant,
the yardstick is the law in force at the place where judgment sought to be
enforced was obtained.
Asiawest Bankers vs Berhad

Case filed by foreign bank against PH corp for recovery of indemnity bond
arising from contract.
The case was filed before the court in Malaysia, after due proceedings
there, the plaintiff obtained favorable judgment, but the judgment there
was not successfully enforced or implemented in Malaysia, so prevailing
party tried to enforce the judgment in PH court where the defendant is
found.
In repelling the action for enforcement of a foreign judgment, the
defending party argued that the foreign judgment sought to be enforced

in PH because:
1. there was no proper service of summons
2. there was fraud, collution
3. judgment violates existing laws, particularly the law in PH which
requires that decisions of courts should state clearly the facts and
law upon which it is based. That’s in the consti.
In rejecting the argument of the defending party, the SC said that these
issues on lack of service of summons, improper service, validity of the
form of the decisions, these are matters concerning remedy of procedure,
and therefore should be governed by the law of the place where the
judgment sought to be enforced was obtained. So consistent with the
ruling in Sharp. But the problem here is that instead of applying the
doctrine of processual presumption, the SC strangely applied the principle
that all judgments including foreign judgments are presumed to be regular
and valid and it is incumbent upon the party trying to repel the foreign
judgment to prove otherwise that it is irregular, that it is invalid. And for
failure of the defendant to prove otherwise, that foreign judgment sought
to be enforced in PH should be upheld as valid.
Had the SC applied doctrine of processual presumption, chances are that

decision rendered by the Malaysian court could have been declared as
unconstitutional for failing to clearly and distinctly state the facts and the
law upon which it is based.
The point here is that for purposes of determining grounds pertaining to

prior remedy or procedure, lex fori applies.
GROUDS OF REPEL WHICH GOES Conversely, grounds for REPEL which goes into the substance or merits of
INTO THE SUBSTANCE/ MERITS the decision like mistake of fact, mistake of law, collusion, fraud, should
OF THE DECISION, be determined by the laws in PH.
DETERMINED BY PH LAWS.
Nagarmull vs Isabela
Action for sums of money arising from contract where Indian company
undertook to deliver some goods to a PH corporation. installment delivery.
During the months of July, August, September, October.
But due to fault attributable to the foreign party, the goods were not
delivered on time but eventually the goods were delivered late.
When the goods were delivered late by October, the state of India,
imposed a higher import tax on the subject goods. So there was new law
that increased the rate of export tax on the goods which was subject of
the contract between the Indian company and PH company. Under the
contract, any tax liability, particularly export tax shall be shouldered by
the Philippine corporation. so the Indian company sought collection of
these amounts representing the increase in the export tax.
While the PH corp agreed to pay the export/excess(?) tax corresponding
to the goods, schedule to be delivered on October in accordance with the
contract, the PH company refused to pay the increase export tax on the
goods which were delivered late on October but which were supposed to
be delivered under the contract on July, August, September.
The PH corporation argued that under the ordinary principle of contracts --
- Fairness --- the PH corporation should not be burdened to pay the
excess tax because it was due to the fault of the Indian company for
delaying the delivery of the goods.
Had the Indian company delivered the goods on time as originally
scheduled, no export tax could have been imposed on these goods. So
ordinary fairness and the principle 1191 on reciprocal obligations ---
where a party aggrieved by the failure of the other to comply with his
obligation, the right of the aggrieved party to either seek enforcement of

the contract or rescission of the contract with damages in either case.
So in this case the SC used as yardstick the PH law on contracts as basis
for determining WON the Indian court committed errors of law in its
decision which was sought to be enforced in PH.
You realize that in repelling that foreign judgment, the defending party
(PH corp) invoked the ground that the foreign judgment is vitiated with
errors or mistake of law, because the Indian court held the PH court liable
to pay the increase estate tax even if it was the Indian company who was
at fault at delaying the delivery of the goods.
This case illustrates the principle that insofar as the substantive grounds
for repel, you apply PH law.
PH COURS AITHORIZED TO Are PH courts authorized to review the factual findings of a foreign court
REVIEW FACTUAL FINDINGS OF in an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment? YES!
FOREIGN COURT Our courts where an action for enforcement of foreign judgment is filed,
may review the factual findings of the foreign court for purposes of
determining whether that foreign judgment may be enforced here in PH.
The basis here is one of the grounds for repel is MISTAKE OF FACTS.
And obviously, for the domestic court to determine if the foreign judgment
is laden with mistake of facts, logically the domestic court is allowed to
review the foreign court’s findings of facts which made the basis for
arriving at the decision sought to be enforced in PH.
SO it is allowed.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT IN PH

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF What is the EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT IN PH?
FOREIGN JUDGMENT IN PH
IT DEPENDS.
If a foreign judgment insofar as it affects a particular thing, that foreign
judgment is conclusive upon that thing.
If a judgment is upon a specific person, the foreign judgment is a

presumptive evidence of the rights of the parties and their successors in
interest by subsequent title.
What is contemplated under the first?
1. If a foreign judgment insofar The action contemplated here is REAL ACTION.

as it affects a particular thing, An action rooted on real property. Not action in rem but real action. That’s
that foreign judgment is why it contemplates of thing. It’s a real action, an action rooted on
conclusive upon that thing. property.
So this refers to cases that involve issues on ownership and possession of

piece of land.
If the foreign judgment affects a specific property, like if it adjudicates

issues of ownership/possession of a particular property/land, that
judgment is conclusive upon that property.
Why?
It is conclusive because this judgment involve as it does a real property, a
piece of land, which is located outside the territory of the PH.
This is governed by LEX RAE SITAE and therefore beyond the jurisdiction
of our own courts.
So any judgment rendered by a foreign court in the place where that

property is situated CANNOT BE REVERSED OR SET ASIDE by the PH court
because this is conclusive.
So if the foreign court declares in that foreign judgment that X is the

owner of the property, our domestic court cannot declare otherwise
because it has no juris because the property is governed by lex rae sitae,
by virtue of our own COL rule – Art. 16.
But while the domestic court cannot override the judgment of the foreign
court insofar as that affecting the property, the domestic court may refuse
enforcement of that foreign judgment on the basis of the grounds for
repel.
These grounds for repel take note has nothing to do with the merits of the
case, like the adjudication of the rights of the parties, ownership for
example. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
So while the judgment affecting the property is conclusive, our domestic

court may nonetheless refuse to recognize it because it is vitiated by any
or some or all of the grounds for repel under Sec. 48 of Rule 39.
--the same holds true in number 2:

2. If a judgment is upon a It is presumptive evidence of the rights and obligations of the parties
specific person, the foreign when the judgment involves personal action.
judgment is a presumptive
evidence of the rights of the • Actions rooted on recovery of personal property
parties and their successors in • Actions arising from contracts
interest by subsequent title. • or actions for recovery of damages
these are the kinds of actions that are classified as personal actions.
So if there is a judgment involving recovery of personal property, breach

of contract, recovery of damages, this foreign judgment is presumptive
evidence of the rights of the parties and their successors in interest by
subsequent title.
But just the same, this may be enforced recognition or may be enforced
enforcement on the ground that it is vitiated by:
• lack of juris,
• lack of notice,
• fraud,
• collusion,
• mistake of fact or law.
There is no specific rule in our Rules of court that deals with enforcement
of a foreign judgment. What we have is Sec. 39 Rule 48 but it does not
provide the specific procedure.
Since this is akin to an action for specific performance, then you can just
follow the regular procedure. Just caption it enforcement of a foreign
judgment and follow the ordinary procedure.
What is the remedy if the domestic court will refuse to implement the
foreign judgment on the grounds of repel? RTC. The judgment of the RTC
on an action for enforcement is just like any other case, it’s always subject
to the remedy of appeal. If grave abuse of discretion – certiorari. Because
it’s like an ordinary domestic case, only that the subject is enforcement of
a foreign judgment.
Suppose a person seeking to repel a foreign judgment, suppose it appears

in the foreign judgment that that person seeking to repel has appeared in
that case while litigated in the foreign land and the same grounds were
presented and the court didn’t (?) recognize those 5 grounds like lack of
juris, lack of notice, fraud, and mistake of fact/law. These were all
presented in the litigation in the foreign court, may the person seeking

repel present it again in PH court?
Maybe lack of juris possible, but I don’t think the grounds on mistake of
fact/law is physically possible because that will only come in after the
judgment is rendered.
Q: Yeah, let’s say there was appeal in that foreign court and in the end,
seeking to repel it here, presenting the same grounds.
AttyT: it may be raised again because this is now a different forum. It is
not nullifying the merits because these grounds have nothing to do with
the merits. They can. There is no prohibition. Specially so that its possible
which were raised there, specially those substantive grounds are to be
determined now this time by PH laws. And these grounds when presented
in foreign court could not have been determined by PH laws obviously
these grounds when raised before their own courts were decided on the
basis of their own law.
This time when it is raised in PH court, specially the substantive grounds,
as ruled by jurisprudence, these grounds are to be determined by PH law.
Q: may a ground on mistake of fact allow a full blown re-litigation in our

country?
AttyT: depends on the extent of mistake alleged. It’s allowed. If the only
way to do it is to bring all the witness all the way here, then why not.
There are other remedies like deposition taking – simpler, convenient,
less expensive. Deposition abroad.
Q: Jurisdiction in corporations regarding external affairs like validity of the

transaction, the law that governs is the law of the place of incorporation
and law of the place of performance. So this transaction’s validity include
the law on contracts?
The law of performance and this law may refer to the entire body of laws
including the COL. So you will again refer to COL. You will always
voluntatis, etc.

FINALS COVERAGE Wills, Legal Sep à Enforcement of Foreign judgment + all cases.

“I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength.”
-‐ Phil. 4:13

COL Finals Notes - Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COL Finals Notes - Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict of Laws Lecture Series

The discussions of Atty. Torregosa

WILLS AND SUCCESSION

These 3 aspects of the will of intrinsic validity are governed by national

Other than these, there is also 1 aspect which is intrinsic which is

CAPACITY OF THE HEIR TO INHERIT is governed by NATIONAL

Q: what about the capacity of the testator to make a will? Or execute a

FOR PURPOSES OF VALIDITY OF WILL: look at 2 components:

Art. 17 lex loci celebrationis should be construed in relation to other

Nationality Theory: for countries following such (e.g. PH) – nationality

Domiciliary Theory: for countries following such (e.g. common law

COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 1

LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS (17)

AttyT: the solution to this unfairness is legislation. Because for a court

Formalities of his lex nationalii: NATIONAL LAW OF TESTATOR (816)

“OR”: so as long as valid under any of these, it can be allowed in PH

SITUATION 2: VALID if made in accordance with Art. 829 NCC

VALIDITY OF EXTRINSIC Determined by the law at the time of execution.

VALIDITY OF INTRINSIC Reckoning point is at the time of death.

If the will was already approved abroad and reprobated in PH because

Just present an authenticated copy of the will + authenticated copy of

2. If the will admits of different interpretations: that which will make

COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 3

Another theory: used in England and US states: bona vacantia –

COL RULES ON In countries that follow NATIONALITY THEORY (PH):

***end of not discussed parts***

GENERAL RULE GENERAL RULE:

Art. 26 contemplates 5 situations.

SITUATION 1: Parties are both aliens marriage solemnized abroad. VALID.

So even if valid abroad, if incestuous, never valid in PH.

Exceptions stated in Art. 26 par.1

FILIPINOS ABROAD Exceptions:

2. Art.36: Psychological incapacity

just read the family code. There are so many of them.

So don’t be surprised if 2 15 y/o man and woman get married in PH. If

What if alien is STATELESS INDIVIDUAL?

Basic principle in PIL that’s it’s possible to have a person to have no

If no permanent domicile, he has temporary domicile. Its possible that

SITUATION 5: VALID THERE, VALID HERE. Art. 26.

Art. 26, par.2

COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 6

HOWEVER, this may appear as CONSUELO DE BOBO for Filipino spouse,

REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION Need to prove some essential facts:

- present the duly authenticated divorce decree – authentication

2. prove that the divorce was validly obtained in accordance with

3. prove that the divorce obtained abroad capacitates the alien

- absolute divorce: alien can remarry

4. Pursuant to ruling of Recio vs Recio, prove that the divorce

- Rationale: one’s status as a divorced, is status, therefore

COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 7

Case: Recio vs Recio

So while it is easy to contract marriage in PH, it is difficult to get out,

One problem from 2nd par of Art 26 is on the matter of bigamy.

If foreigner spouse got divorce, but Pinoy declaratory relief denied, so

Read Orbecido case.

COL Lecture Series || NJ Notes. 8

+end of midterm coverage+

LEGAL SEPARATION / DIVORCE

Petitions for divorce/legal separation/annulment and nullity, there are only

2 QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE 2 questions that need to be addressed for COL:

But divorce may be recognized in PH in appropriate cases.

PH COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION

end of not discussed parts