Conflicts Atty. Suarez TSN 1 PDF

Conflicts of Law – First Exam
From the lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez
NOVEMBER 13, 2013 courts automatically use our laws on transportation?

Under art 1753, the law of destination. Our courts
So it is not something you are unfamiliar with. Other than have to look the Russian law on transportation. So it is
that, cases most of them you have already encountered. telling the courts what law to use.
Civil Procedure, Persons, and other Civil Law subjects. I
have high expectation from you. Normally nobody fails in 3. A legal problem involving a foreign element. If there is
this class. Maybe two years ago, one or two. no foreign element, then there is no conflict of law to
speak of.
What is conflict of laws all about? When you talk about 4. Application or non-application of a foreign law.
conflict of laws this is not the same as public international Perhaps our municipal law will tell us that our
law where we discuss different foreign laws or foreign domestic law will apply or the foreign law will apply.
treaties. But when we talk about this subject, there is
always a foreign element. When we talk about foreign
element, it could be a foreign law. But we will not go into
the substance of the foreign law. Or a foreigner, one of the So this is what we talked about in the beginning, the scope
parties is a foreigner. The contract is entered in a foreign and function of the subject, the determination of which
country. Particular event which is the subject of the case country has jurisdiction. The determination in the
happened in a foreign country. That is why we are going to applicable case of either the local or the foreign law and
discuss the basic topics: the determination of the force, validity and effectiveness
of the foreign judgment. These are the main topics.
1. Jurisdiction;
2. Choice of law; Let us distinguish. Private international law from public
3. What are we going to do with the foreign judgment if international law.
the foreign judgment is brought in the Philippines.
Private Public International
International Law Law
NATURE, DEFINITION AND SCOPE

Municipal in International in
Character character
The definition of conflict of laws or private international
law is that part of the municipal law of the state which
directs its courts and administrative agencies when Involves Private Involves Sovereign
confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign Individuals or States and other
element whether or not they should apply a foreign law. Persons, Natural or Entities possessed
This definition is more related to choice of law. What law Juridical with international
will apply? This case has a foreign element, what law will personality
apply? Will it be the foreign law or our law?
So the elements of the definition.
So when we talk about the issue in China, the refusal to

1. Conflict of laws is a part of the municipal law of the apologize. Is that an issue involving public or private
state. Meaning what will govern the situation when international law? Those comfort women. There is a case
there is a foreign element? Our laws. We do not look before the SC involving comfort women asking for
other laws. remuneration for the suffering they experienced during
the Japanese occupation. Japan refused to acknowledge. Is
2. Here, it directs the courts and administrative agencies. that private or public? Both mentioned are under public
You remember Article 1753 that we discussed international law.
yesterday? The law of the country of destination will
govern the loss, destruction or deterioration of the
goods. So it is directed to the courts, telling the courts
what law to apply. Let us say we have a flight from
Manila to Russia. Goods are sent to Russia. Goods are
lost. Then a case is filed in the Philippines. Can our
Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 1 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Hao, Lauban, Layog, Leguin, Kahulugan
Private Public International So insofar as we are concerned in conflict of laws we look

International Law Law at three types of jurisdiction. Let us go to an example John,
an American, married Maria, a Filipina. After 3 months,
she discovered that John is homosexual, left the
Between Persons Of interest only to Philippines after such discovery. Maria filed an action for
states annulment and damages with the RTC here in the
Philippines. Since John was already out of the country,
summon by publication was made. You know that under
When you want to You do not go to the
Rule 15 section 15 under extraterritorial service of
file an action, go to courts.
summons.
the courts.
st
Now 1 question, is summon by publication allowed? Yes
because it is action in rem and further involves the
personal status of the plaintiff. That is jurisdiction over the
SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS: person. When is jurisdiction acquired? Upon proper
service of summons. So if it is summon by publication,
1. Civil Code; jurisdiction is acquired over the person of the foreign
2. Code of Commerce; defendant.
3. Special laws- Foreign Investment Act, Corporation
Code, General Banking Act, Intellectual Property Code. Does the RTC have the jurisdiction to annul the marriage?
COGSA is a US Law. Warsaw Convention is a treaty. Yes. Because it has jurisdiction over the res, the annulment
4. Multinational treaties and international conventions itself.
such as Warsaw Convention and Geneva Convention,
bilateral treaties; Does the RTC have jurisdiction to award damages? No.
5. Law of Nations- lex rei sitae or lex situs, or formalities even if the marriage has been annulled because an award
of contracts as where the contract is executed; for damages is a judgment in personam.
6. Jurisprudence- local or foreign;
7. Constitution.
What if John has property in the Philippines, can the court
satisfy John’s liability for damages of such property? No.
John never incurred personal liability therefore his
So jurisdiction in international law is the right of the state properties cannot be held liable unless the court has
to exercise authority over persons within its boundaries. previously acquired jurisdiction over such property by
So we are not talking about jurisdiction of the RTC, MTC. attachment or any other proceeding in rem.
But jurisdiction of the state. Where do you file? What state
has jurisdiction? Remember Warsaw Convention under
article 28? In any action involving international Now with respect to the subject matter, does the RTC has
transportation, there are 4 places where we can file the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case filed by
action- the place of the domicile of the carrier, the place Maria against John? Yes. This is an action for the
where the contract was entered into, the principal place of declaration of nullity of marriage or annulment. RTC has
business, the place of destination. jurisdiction over annulment. RTC has jurisdiction over the
subject matter.
So we are talking about the state. Not the court which has
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over the person is proper service of summons.
Jurisdiction over the res by proper attachment of property
here in the Philippines.
So the state does not assume jurisdiction over
ambassadors, diplomats, or other states under public
international law. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the authority of the
court to hear and determine cases of a general class to
which the proceedings in question belong. It is conferred
So we have to distinguish between judicial jurisdiction by law. It is the law itself which tells us what are the
which is the authority of the state to take hold of any subject matter to which the particular court has
judicial matters it seems fit by making its courts and jurisdiction. Cannot conferred by consent of the parties or
agencies assume jurisdiction over cases before them. voluntary submission. So in relation to that we have the
Legislative jurisdiction which is the power of the state to case of Saudi Arabian Airlines. In this case, this woman
exercise control through rules on law, interest of person, Milagros Morada worked as a flight attendant for Saudia.
thing, event or situation. In April 1990, during lay-over in Jakarta, Milagros went to
disco with Thamer and Allah. When they were in the hotel,

they agreed to have breakfast in the room of Thamer. Does the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the parties? Did the
Allah left on some pretext. Shortly after, Thamer RTC acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff Milagros
attempted to rape Milagros. Fortunately a roomboy and Morada? Yes. How? Upon filing of the complaint. Did the
some security personnel heard her cries for help and RTC acquire jurisdiction over Saudia? Yes. It filed a motion
rescued her. The Indonesian police arrested Thamer and to dismiss and an answer. Andiyan na iyong answer with
Allah. Morada learned that through the intercession of affirmative defenses. It was also properly served with
Saudia Arabian government, the Indonesian government summons, etc.
agreed to deport Thamer and Allah after 2 weeks of
detention in Jakarta. Eventually they were put in service by We will go back to this case when we reach choice of law.
Saudia. As if nothing happened. They were not punished at
all by the airline. 5 months later, in September, in 1990,
Morada was transferred unilaterally by airline to Manila. Jurisdiction over the person is the competence of the
She has to work as a ground staff in Manila. So she worked court to render a decision that will bind the parties to a
as a ground staff in Manila and thought that the Jakarta suit. If a court has no jurisdiction over the person then he
incident was behind her. Suddenly, she was ordered to see is not bound by the judgment. Just like the example we
the chief legal officer of Saudia in Jeddah. When she was look at earlier. John was already in the US. Is the RTC
there, she was brought to the police station where the competent to annul the marriage between John and
police took her passport and questioned her about the Maria? Definitely. Is the RTC competent to award
Jakarta incident which happened to her two years ago. damages? No. How can the court force John to pay
Chief Legal Officer of Saudia simply stood beside her when damages eh wala naman si John dito. The best way is to
the police put pressure on her to drop the case against convert the case into one that is quasi in rem. So if John
Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so that the has properties in the Philippines, that can be attached to
police returned her passport and allowed her to catch the answer for the damages sought by Maria.
afternoon flight out of Jeddah. 1 year and a half light,
Saudia summoned her to report to Jeddah again for In relation to conflict of laws, a state has the power to
further investigation. In Jeddah, a Saudian judge exercise judicial jurisdiction over an individual on one or
interrogated her about the Jakarta incident. After 1 hour more of the following bases:
of interrogation they let her go. So she was already in the
airport to return to Manila. But just her plane was about to 1. Proper service of summons if he is here. If the foreign
take off, Saudia officer told her that airline forbade her to defendant is here. That is presence;
take the flight. They took her passport and told her to 2. Domicile. If he is domiciled here. If he is a resident;
remain in Jeddah. After a few days, she was escorted to 3. If he is a national of this country or a citizen. It could
the same court where the judge to her astonishment and be that the plaintiff is a foreigner and the defendant is
shock rendered a decision sentencing her to 5 months a national;
imprisonment and 286 lashes. Only then did she realize 4. Consent. If the person allows the state to acquire
that the Saudi court tried her as to what happened in jurisdiction. This is not jurisdiction over the subject
Jakarta. She was found guilty of adultery, going to disco, matter. This is jurisdiction over the person. The
dancing and listening to music, socializing with male crew consent of the person is significant.
in contravention of Islamic traditions. Facing conviction, 5. Appearance in the action;
she sought help of Saudia. But she was denied assistance. 6. Doing business in the state;
The Prince of Makkah helped her and she was allowed to 7. Act done in the state;
return. When she returned to Manila, she was terminated 8. Causing an effect to the state by an act done
by Saudia without her being informed of the cause. She elsewhere;
filed a case before the RTC for damages based on Article 9. Ownership, possession or use of the thing in the state;
21 of the Civil Code. Saudia filed a motion to dismiss that 10. Other relationships to the state which made the
the RTC has no jurisdiction because the case involves a exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.
conflict problem. There is a foreign element.
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired the
The issue is whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over moment he institutes the proceeding.
the subject matter. Definitely. Article 19 and 21 are
actionable with enforceable remedies. Based on the
Jurisdiction over the defendant is voluntary appearance or
allegations in the complaint, RTC possesses jurisdiction
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Going back to
over the subject matter. You can sue here based on Article
Rule 14, unless he makes clear that the purpose in the
19 and 21. Pragmatic considerations include the
appearance is to question the court’s jurisdiction over his
convenience of the parties also weighed heavily in favor of
person. Under rule 14 section 20. But if he files a motion
the RTC assuming jurisdiction.
or an answer without questioning the jurisdiction of the
court over his person, then that is tantamount to

voluntary submission. Simple manifestation and jurisdiction over divorce cases? Absolutely not.
appearance in person by an attorney is also tantamount to Dismiss. When we talk about jurisdiction we talk about
submission. jurisdiction over subject matter.
Even if our courts have jurisdiction, they can refuse to
Proper service of summons. Take note of the word assume jurisdiction. The courts can say “no, we will
“proper.” If the service of summons is improper, and not not try the case.” This is again to dismiss the case
in compliance with Rule 14 then there is no acquisition of because it refuses to assume jurisdiction.
jurisdiction over the person.
2. Assume jurisdiction. Once the court realizes that it has
jurisdiction, it can assume jurisdiction and apply the
3 ways of service of summons: law of the forum, our laws, or apply the law of some
other state. It is only when the court assumes
1. Personal- Rule 14 section 6 jurisdiction that it will determine what law to apply.
2. Substituted- section 7 What is the applicable law, our law or the law of
3. Extraterritorial service on a non-resident defendant another state?
and not found in the Philippines- Rule 14 section 15
4. Service of summons on foreign corporation- Rule 14 This is the general procedure that the court or
section 12 administrative body must take when the case with a
5. Rule 14 section 14 and 16 foreign element is brought before it.
So let’s go to this issue. Can a non-resident defendant not If the court possesses jurisdiction, it may refuse to assume
found in the Philippines be sued? Well the general rule, no jurisdiction or assume jurisdiction. It may either apply the
because the local courts cannot acquire jurisdiction over internal law (law of the forum or lex fori) or the proper
him. foreign law (lex causae). Ano iyan bentot2? No it is not
that simple. We will have to go through the rules.
Exceptions. Courts can acquire jurisdiction over his person
if: Let us go back to John and Maria. In 1995, John married
Maria in Tokyo. They established their home in San
1. Under section 15 of rule 14 if the action affects his Francisco. They have 2 children. In 2003, John abandoned
personal status. Personal status of the plaintiff. Adoption, Maria and obtained a divorce in Reno Nevada. 2004, Maria
recognition as an illegitimate child, annulment, returned to the Philippines with 2 children. 2005, John
declaration of nullity of marriage. goes to Philippines and engages in business in the country.
2. Affects his properties in the Philippines. The properties of Andito siya. 2005, Maria sued John for support before the
the defendant. RTC. John invoked the Nevada divorce.
3. Action is quasi in rem.
May foreign element. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over
So we will no longer look at the distinction between in rem the case for support? Yes. Should it assume jurisdiction or
and quasi in rem. not? If it assumes jurisdiction, what law should it apply in
determining:
There are other cases I assigned under acquisition of
jurisdiction. These are cases under jurisdiction involving a 1. Validity of the marriage of John and Maria in
foreign element. Rule 14 section 15, section 12, section 16 Tokyo. Philippine law, Japanese law or California
in relation to section 6 and 7. law?
2. Validity of the divorce. Philippine law, California
WHAT THE COURT OF THE FORUM MUST DO law, Nevada law? Philippine law is the nationality
of Maria. California law is the domicile. Nevada
law is where the divorce filed.
Meaning if an action is filed before our courts, the forum is
here. Our country, the forum. What must the court do if a
conflict case is brought before it? Meaning a case with a These are the issues. When the court assumes jurisdiction,
foreign element is filed before our courts. what law, what are the issues? Is Maria entitled to
support? Whether the marriage is valid in Tokyo? Are they
really divorced or not? Where are they divorced? Nevada.
The court has 2 actions:
So those are the questions that the court will have to ask.
1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Somebody

We have a situation where the court has jurisdiction. In
filed an action for divorce. Do our courts have
our example, the RTC has jurisdiction over the support

case, over the subject matter. Can the court acquire is an action for support. Definitely our courts can make
jurisdiction over John? Yes. He is here in the Philippines an intelligent decision. It likely has the power to make
doing business so there will be proper service of summons. an intelligent decision. In our example it is clearly
Now this refusal to assume jurisdiction is an exercise of stated that John is doing business here. The court can
sovereign right. The reason for refusal to assume enforce its decision because he is doing business here.
jurisdiction is that to do so would prove inconvenient for
the forum. In other words, forum non conveniens. PRINCIPLE OF EFFECTIVENESS
Can the court unilaterally and arbitrarily refuse to assume This is one of the reasons why the forum is inconvenient.
jurisdiction? No. There must be a reason. This is the The judge has no right to render judgment if it cannot
acceptable reason: an inconvenient forum. enforce its decision within its territory. Meaning what if it
is convenient? The parties are here. The court can make an
What are the factors that would make the forum intelligent decision but if it cannot enforce here at all,
inconvenient? what is the point in acquiring jurisdiction, trying the case
and pronouncing judgment. The best case here is RP vs.
1. Main aspects of the case transpired in the foreign Marcos.
jurisdiction or the material witnesses have their
residents there; This is the background of RP vs. Marcos. The former shah
2. The relief that the non-resident plaintiffs sought the of Iran and his wife misappropriated funds and embezzled
forum merely to secure procedural advantages or to and converted billions of dollars belonging to the national
harass the defendant; treasury of Iran. Iranian government filed a case before
3. The unwillingness to extend judicial facilities to non- the US court and asked that a constructive trust be
resident aliens (di na masabtan si maam) imposed on the assets of the Shah throughout the world.
US court dismissed the case on the ground of forum non
If the case involves two foreigners. The contract is entered conveniens because the litigation has no relation to the
in a foreign country and the witnesses are all in the foreign state of New York other than the presence of the Shah and
country. The court may say “why are you filing the case his wife in the States. Constructive trust sought by the
here?” Iranian Government involves the assets of the Shah in
Europe, in the Middle East. Property in the States, let us
say, they have one condo there. That’s all. Iyong iba
4. Inadequacy of the local judicial machinery for andoon na all over the world. Sabi ng US Court forum non
effectuating the right sought to be obtained; conveniens. We will not assume jurisdiction. You file the
5. Forum has no particular interest in the case; case somewhere else. If you want the court to impose a
6. The case may be better tried in other court; constructive trust, file it where the properties are. Even if
7. The difficulty of ascertaining foreign law. they render a judgment placing a constructive trust, what
if the other states will not agree. This is the basis of RP vs.
The court can assume jurisdiction but the applicable law is Marcos.
the foreign law. Ang hirap naman hanapin ng law na iyan.
You know very well under Rule 132 section section 24 and Here the US SC of New York granted the petition for
25 that a foreign law must be pleaded and proven. Under preliminary injunction filed by the Philippine government
section 25, you must get the foreign law from the officer prohibiting the sale of 5 New York properties of the
having the custody of the official document. Kung mahirap Marcoses. Marcos alleged that the District Court of New
masiyado, these are the factors that make the forum York should have dismissed the case on the ground of
inconvenient. forum non conveniens or should have refused to assume
jurisdiction citing the case of Islamic vs. Palawi. Bakit doon
So what are the factors that have to be taken into account sa Islamic the New York court refused to assume
in considering the most convenient forum for a conflict jurisdiction? How come here the New York court granted
problem? the petition of the Philippine government for injunction.
Was the New York court correct in not dismissing the case
1. Whether or not the forum is one which the parties on the ground of forum non conveniens? Yes. This case
may conveniently resort. In the case of John and involves the ownership of specific properties in New York
Maria, is it convenient for them to file the case here? and only such properties. The Philippines seeks to impose
Yes because they are both here. Alangan naman ifile a constructive trust only on assets in New York. New York
nila sa Tokyo, Nevada ang support. is not an inconvenient forum. New York court has the
2. Whether or not the forum is in the position to make an power to enforce the trust on those properties that are in
intelligent decision as to the law and the fact. Well this New York. There is also no showing that an alternative
forum is available. Meaning saan pala ifile ng Philippine

government iyong petition to impose a constructive trust? As regards this subject, when we talk about a state there’s
Sa Europe? Sa Iran? No sa New York. no need to go through the laborious process of defining
the elements of statehood. So eventhough Taiwan is not
SC said the complaint only seeks the US recognition of a considered a state in political law, Taiwan can be
Philippine decree and that the district court would not be considered a state (in conflicts law).
asked to try the basic issues accusing Marcos of unlawful
taking. Whether or not the properties are ill-gotten What law will apply the law of Taiwan or the law of the
wealth. That is not the issue brought before the New York Philippines? It’s not about that. There will be no argument
court. With respect to constructive trust, not inconvenient that we cannot apply the law of Taiwan because it is not a
for the New York court. state. If the laws of Taiwan are applicable then you apply
the laws of Taiwan. That argument does not exist in
This is just the overview of jurisdiction. private international law. If the law of Taiwan is applicable
then you apply the law of Taiwan whether or not it is
considered a state under political law. Those that are not
considered states in PIL can be considered states in
November 19, 2013 conflict of laws as long as a distinction can be made from
one and the other. O, yun lang ang kailangan. Let’s say
Let’s see if you actually read your textbook. Sulu and the Philippines. The laws of sulu are the same as
the law of the Philippines. But when we talk about brunei..
Why is there such a subject as international law?
According to your author because this world is composed We define private international law as that part of the
of many states governed by different sets of laws and municipal law of a state which directs its courts and
rules. The most blatant is the topic of divorce. Foreigners administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal
from countries that allow divorce marry Filipinas. problem involving a foreign element, whether or not they
Therefore it says here, states cannot help but interrelate should apply foreign law.
with one another. That’s why we need this subject.
There is conflict of laws basically when there is a foreign
To decide what country has jurisdiction to decide the case. element and what law will apply to the problem the
Can jurisdiction be acquired over this particular foreign situation or the issue being brought before the court. So if
defendant. the laws are different, like in the Us where divorce is
recognized but here in our country it is not so it is up to
Why is it important? The technological advances in the the court whether to recognize the foreign judgement . Eh
field of communication and transportation, the frequency yung mga bigamy. There are two marriages but the
of transactions that cut across national and territorial accused is claiming I am divorced. How can there be
boundaries, the diversity of laws prevailing the world. bigamy? So the issue is is WON the divorce is valid. Should
our courts apply the law of the country that granted the
divorce. Like that. So the elements we already took a look
Examples of issues. State to state
at that.
States in the US have different grounds in granting divorce.

Elements:
Nevada is one of the easiest places to obtain divorce. Ohio
is quite conservative in the grounds. If a divorce is granted
for some flimsy reason in Nevada it might not apply in 1. Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a state.
Ohio.
When we talk about law or what law to apply we look at
Contracts signed in Arkansas may be considered void in our laws. I’ll give you an example Article 1753 of the Civil
the rule of New York. This is only within the US. What Code
more if we go to states under the definition of political law
The law of the country to which the goods are to be
Do we follow the same definition in private international transported shall govern the liability of the common
law as political law? (4 elements) What is a state in carrier in case of loss, destruction or deterioration.
relation to conflict of laws? Example, I do not know if this
is still true but when I was taking up political law Taiwan
was not considered a state. Can Taiwan be considered a
state under private international law?
That particular provision does not say whether liable or
not liable. No, it just tells us what state law shall apply.

This article 1753 is part of municipal law, part of our civil So that’s the sources. Let’s go to jurisdiction
code.
The cases that you’re going to discuss on jurisdiction is
2. There is a directive to courts and administrative already a review so I expect the report to be substantial
agencies and no more discussing of issues not related to the topic.
3. There is a legal problem involving a foreign element So, in the case of Saudia as already discussed last time.
Does the RTC have jurisdiction despite this foreign
So there is an issue if one party is an alien or a resident of defendant? Article 19, 20, 21 of the civil code after what
a foreign country under the domiciliary theory or the issue saudia did to her. The SC said definitely jurisdiction on the
is a contract. And the contract was celebrated or subject matter. Based on the allegations in the complaint
performed or perfected abroad. What if it involves we find that RTC possesses jurisdiction over the subject
property located abroad? Then there’s a foreign element. matter. Section 19 of BP 129 provides, “ RTC shall exercise
jurisdiction: xxx (b)In all other cases in which demand
exceeds P300,000. Another consideration is the
4. There is either an application or a non-application of a convenience of the parties in favour of the RTc assuming
foreign law or foreign laws jurisdiction. Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the
parties? Yes, because Saudia is a foreign corporation doing
There’s a discussion here, eventhough there’s a foreign business in the Philippines it is very easy to serve
element, it is not always necessary to look at the conflict summons.
rules. Just read that part. But normally an issue will always
arise as to what law will apply, what jurisdiction whether Did the RTc acquire jurisdiction over the person of saudia?
to allow the foreign judgement, may be enforced or Yes, because saudia voluntarily appeared before the RTC
reconized here in our country. by filing a motion to dismiss.
How is conflict of laws observed? Dacasin vs Dacasin February 15, 2005
We observe conflict of laws under private international Herald dacasin, an American, and Sharon married in
law if we faithfully comply with our conflict rules. So, 1753 manila in 1994. They had one daughter, Stephanie born in
says that is is the law of the country of destination that will 1995. Obviously since herald is an American sharon
govern. One should not insist, ‘no no no we have this acquired American citizenship as well and they lived in the
principle of sovereignty’. Of course we look at the rules US. But 5 years later in 1999, Sharon sought in the Illinois
what law will apply. We really should comply. We do try to court a divorce decree against Herald. So, the foreign court
harmonize the rules with equity, legislation and granted the divorce of herald and Sharon who are now bot
jurisprudence. Private individuals can also observe conflict the americans. The court awarded to Sharon sole custody
of laws by complying with the judicial decisions on the of Stephanie and retained jurisdiction over the case for
subject. So if a court says that the Filipino spouse can enforcement purposes. So Sharon went back to manila
marry again so the relatives of the ex-husband cannot file and so did herald.
a case of bigamy against her if she marries again. And by
not trying to evade the laws of this country by the simple
expedient by resorting to a foreign forum. This is In 2002, they executed a contract for joint custody over
international forum shopping. If the laws of one country Stephanie in Manila. In this agreement, they made the
will not appeal to him, he may go to another country Philippine court the exclusive forum adjudicating disputes
where the laws appeal to him. This is not proper. Using the arising from the agreement. So Sharon sought from the
different countries for one’s own welfare or modus. Illinois court an order relinquishing jurisdiction to the
Philippine court. In 2004, Herald sued Sharon in the RTC of
Makati because she violated the agreement by exercising
We already discussed distinctions and the sources. sole authority over their daughter. Sharon sought to
dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Because
Now, I just found the first case Saudi Arabian Airlines vs remember the Illinois court retained jurisdiction to enforce
CA. The issue is WON there is a conflict problem. The SC the divorce decree. The RTc therefore dismissed the case
said yes because the events occurred in two states the for lack of jurisdiction. RTC held that it is precluded to take
Philippines and Saudi Arabia. Saudia as well is a foreign cognizance over the suit considering the retention of the
corp. doing business in the Philippines. And therefore Illinois court’s retention of jurisdiction of enforcement of
there is definitely a foreign element. This is a conflict the divorce decree including its own award of sole custody
problem. This case is not purely domestic. A question of to Sharon.
jurisdiction confronts the court.

ISSUE: WON the RTC may take cognizance of Herald’s suit The issue here that I want to focus on is to determine if
jurisdiction was acquired by Japanese court what is the
The SC said yes. The subject matter of jurisdiction is rule to be followed? How is jurisdiction acquired? By
conferred by law. At the time when this suit was filed in proper service of summons or voluntary appearance. So
the RTC, statutory law vests on the RTC exclusive sharp in so far as Tokyo court is concerned is a foreign
jurisdiction of a suit incapable of pecuniary estimation. So corporation. What is the Rule? Rule 14 Section 14 which
there was an agreement and he just wanted to enforce the says in the event a foreign corp doing business in the
agreement. An acrion for specific performance as herald’s Philippines (JAPAN). How do you serve summons?
suit to enforce an agreement belongs to the species of
action thus jurisdiction is vested in the right court. 1. Resident agent designated in accordance with the law
for that purpose
Indeed, the trial court’s refusal to entertain petitioner’s 2. If there’s no resident agent public officer designated
suit was grounded not on its lack of power to do so but on by law
its thinking that the Illinois court’s divorce decree stripped 3. or any officer or agent within the Philippines
it of jurisdiction. This conclusion is unfounded. What the
Illinois court retained was “jurisdiction x x x for the So how was service of summons served by the Tokyo court
purpose of enforcing all and sundry the various provisions upon sharp? Did it follow any of the means provided by
of [its] Judgment for Dissolution.” Petitioner’s suit seeks Section 14 Rule 14? Summons was served in the head
the enforcement not of the “various provisions” of the office in the Philippines. The court processes were served
divorce decree but of the post-divorce Agreement on joint in the dept. of foreign affairs in the phils and then to the
child custody. Therefore it has nothing to do with the executive judge of the RTc of manila.
Illinois court.
What was the procedure followed? No.2 if sharp does not
Another issue, can the RTC enforce the agreement? The have a resident agent in japan, on the government officer
answer is No. why because the SC says the agreement is designated by the law to that effect. Here the Sc
void. The discussion on thevalidity of the agreement we considered the delivery to DFA who actually facilitated the
will discuss under another topic. service of summons to sharp in manila as substantial
compliance with the provision.
We have different topics here. The easiest of course is
procedural. Valmonte vs CA
Northwest vs CA The spouse alfredo and Lourdes valmonte are residents of

Washington, USA. Alfredo, who is a member of the
In this case what happened Northwest and Sharp entered Philippine bar, practices his profession. Rosita Dimalanta,
into an agreement. NW sued Sharp for collection of lourdes’ sister, filed an action for partition and accounting
money. Btw, the contract was entered into in japan and of rentals against the spouses. lourdes sent a letter to her
NW sued sharp in Japan. Summons was issued in its office sister that all communication should be sent to her
in Japan. Service was unsuccessful and even the person husband in the Philippines. Summons was served to
authorized to receive court processes did not receive the Alfredo. However, alfredo only accepted the summons
summons because he was not an employee. Sharp pertaining to him and refused to ccept it for his wife. He
received the summons thru a deputee but sharp failed to said that we wasn’t authorized to accept. Alfredo filed an
appear in the hearing. The Tokyo court proceeded to hear answer but the wife did not. She was declared in default
the case and rendered the decision in favour of Northwest. by the RTC.
A suit was filed in the RTC of Manila for enforcement of
judgement. ISSUE: WON RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of
Lourdes who is a foreign defendant
The defense of sharp is that the judgement is not valid
because the Tokyo court did not acquire jurisdiction over The applicable provision is Rule 14 Section 15 on
the person of sharp. According to northwest, how do you extraterritorial service of summons. Based on this, the
know that japan did not acquire jurisdiction. They have service of summons must be served either personally or
their own laws. So they had to find out first if under publishing in a newspaper of general circulation in such
Japanese law jurisdiction was acquired over sharp. But the places or such time as the court may order or any manner
thing is Japanese law was not pleaded and proven here the court may deem sufficient. It did not comply with any
our courts had to apply our laws on acquisition of of the 3 methods. There was no prior leave of court.
jurisdiction. This is really involves other topics. According to the SC the service of summons made on
Alfredo was not a mode allowed with prior leave. What is

the heading of Section 15? Extra territorial service. What Banco du Brazil vs CA.
do you mean by extraterritorial service? Service in the
foreign the country. So any other manner deemed This case started when this vessel MV Star Ace which
sufficient by the court should also be served outside the encountered engine trouble. This engine asked permission
Phils. What happened here was the summons meant for to dock at the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) Compound.
Lourdes was served to her husband here. It did comply Customs believed that this was a vessel hijacked so they
with Section 15. You have to comply with Section 15 seized the vessel. During this time Poro Point Shipping
because Lourdes is a defendant who is not found and not Services entered into a salvage contract after the vessel
residing in the Philippines. Why is Section 15 allowed? was destroyed by a typhoon. The vessel was later
Because it is an action quasi in rem. Why? Because it forfeited in favour of the govt.
involve property in the Philippines.
Was he able to recover the vessel? Yes. Dura Proof, the
Romualdez vs Licaros salvager, wanted to enforce the salvager’s lien. What’s
that? It’s a fee if you salvage an abandoned vessel. So it
Abelardo and Margarita were married. Then, margarita filed with RTC a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
left for the US where she sought a decree of divorce in the mandamus. It impleaded banca du brasil. Apparently
court of California. In august of 1990 she acquired a banco du brasil has an interest over the cargo. Banco du
decree of divorce. Abelardo filed a complaint for brasil and other entities were served summons thru
declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological publication.
incapacity of margarita of the family code. As margarita
was residing in California, abelardo moved that the Issue: won the trial court acquired jurisdiction over baco
summons be served thru the international courier service. du brasil
The denied that motion instead it ordered that summons
be served thru publication in a newspaper of general
circulation for 3 consecutive as well as furnishing the What did it involve? Money, bayad. Was this a valid mode
defendant the summons as well as the copy of the order of service? According to Sc this was not a valid service
and a copy of the petition at the given address in the USA. because what duraproof wants here is damages, an action
in personam. Extraterritorial service may only be applied in
4 instances: (1) when the action affects the personal status
Margarita received a letter from atty. Valencia informing of the plaintiffs; (2) when the action relates to, or the
her that she no longer has the right to use the family name subject of which is property, within the Philippines, in
licaros since her marriage to abelardo has been which the defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or
provisionally dissolved by the RTC of Makati. So she did contingent; (3) when the relief demanded in such action
not appear in the case filed by her husband. consists, wholly or in part, in excluding the defendant from
any interest in property located in the Philippines; and (4)
Won margarita was validly served summons when the defendant non-resident’s property has been
attached within the Philippines.
Yes, under Section 15 of rule 14 extraterritorial service of
summons may be affected through 3 modes. (1) by At the start of the case what duraproof wanted was to
personal service out of the country, with leave of court; (2) exclude banco du brasil over the res. Later it became an
by publication and sending a copy of the summons and action in personam. This extraterritorial service was not
order of the court by registered mail to the defendant’s valid. Therefore jurisdiction was not acquired over baco du
last known address, also with leave of court; or (3) by any brasil.
other means the judge may consider sufficient.
rd
SC said that the service of summons complies with the 3 November 20, 2013
nd
mode. Why didn’t it comply with the 2 mode, there was
nd
publication? Because in the 2 mode it must be mailed to … Jurisdiction in a case where there is a foreign element.
the last known address. Here what happened was the (way microphone diri)
summons was served to DFA. Why was this allowed?
Because it was the court that ordered it to be done this
way. This is an example of by any other means the judge So how to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign defendant?
may consider sufficient. We already know under our rules that the voluntary
appearance even though their service of summons was
improper… but how is a proper service of summons
Why is Section 15 applicable? what kind of action is this? made… or follow the provisions under Rule 14.
It affects the personal status of the plaintiff.

Service in person by handing a copy of the summons to the St. Aviation vs Grand Air, did I assign that? (Queenie’s
defendant in person or if he refuses to receive and sign for recitation) Yes. Take note that in this case the SC did not
it, by tendering it to him. This is what happened to the apply Section 15 on extraterritorial service. Remember
case of Sharp and Northwest (Northwest vs CA and Sharp) what kind of action is this, this is an action for sum of
because apparently they (demanded?) in Japan and there money. This is an action in personam. But because the
was an attempt to serve summons in person. The court case was filed in Singapore, we will learn later under
messenger went there to the office of Sharp in Japan when Choice of law, matters of procedure governed by the law
the person there refused to receive because he said he of the forum of the lex fori. So service of summons is
was no longer connected to Sharp. So it was done this remedial, procedural in nature. And according to
way, the other way of serving summons properly is Singaporean Law, whatever service is allowed by our laws
substituted service. But do not forget, in your CivPro, that and the court. And if Singapore says that this is a proper
this can only be availed of… if for justifiable causes the method of serving summons, then that is good enough.
defendant cannot be served through personal service. You Meaning that their law on acquisition of jurisdiction or
already encountered cases in your CivPro wherein the SC their rules on acquisition of jurisdiction are not the same
laid down the guidelines. It is not enough to go there once as ours. That is why the choice of law is very significant in
or twice, Ok? our subject. So here is an illustration wherein it is the
Singaporean law on the service of summons that applies.
And how is it done? In person is mismo from that person And under their laws, the procedure of sending the
who is the defendant. Substituted service, it is made at the summons.. (how was it served? On the sheriff?)
residence of that person with some person of suitable age Substituted service, that was allowed under their rules. So
and discretion then residing inside that house or in an our rules are quite strict, but their rules are more liberal.
office, a regular place of business with the secretary.
Next. Let’s go to Pioneer vs Guadiz. (Bea’s recitation) Yes.
And in the case of Valmonte vs CA and Romualdez vs So the applicable rule is Section 12, because we are talking
Licaros on Extraterritorial Service on the defendant who is about a foreign corporation doing business in the
not a resident not found in the Philippines. This is the most Philippines whether or not registered. In this case it is not
common way of serving on a foreign defendant. So registered with the SEC. So number 2 is not applicable.
personal, publication of the summons and the copy of the There is no resident agent designated in accordance with
summons and the complaint and the annexes will be law for the purpose receiving summons. Meaning that
mailed, noh, sent through registered mail to the last person assigned to receive summons wala rin. So it has to
known address of the defendant and any other manner be number 3. Number 3 says officers or agents. A
which the court may deem sufficient as discussed in the secretary is not considered an officer or agent according to
two cases yesterday. the SC. So there was no proper service and therefore the
court did not acquire jurisdiction over such foreign
corporation. Very good.
So also in Banco du Brazil vs CA we discussed that if the
action is in personam, extraterritorial service is not
possible. So Extraterritorial service under section 15 is only Regner vs Logarta, there are three sisters here. We will
possible in an action in rem or quasi-in rem or it involves only talk about Cynthia. OK. (Blanche’s recitation) and the
persons that is of the plaintiff as in the case of Romualdez SC said, to reiterate what was declared in Balmonte, the
rd st
vs Licaros. 3 mode like the 1 2 must be made outside the
Philippines such as through the Philippines embassy of the
foreign country where Cynthia resides. So very easy. No
So Asiavest vs CA, it has issues of jurisdiction just like need to expound.
Northwest, we did not understand, we do not take up the
other topics like choice of law, etc. So we will leave that
for the next discussion. Now.. I don’t think I assigned this to you but this was
discussed in your criminal procedure, the case of Perkin-
Elmer Singapore vs Dakila, August 14, 2007. Dakila filed a
How about Gomez vs CA? (Mcoy’s recitation) yes. complaint against Perkin..Singapore, this is a Singaporean
Definitely we already also know that if the defendant is corporation for collection of sum of money in the RTC. So
not here in the Philippines and service Extraterritorial and obviously this is an action in personam. Dakila filed a
if the action is in personam then it is not possible for the motion for the issuance of summons with leave of court to
court to acquire jurisdiction because extraterritorial deputize Dakila’s general manager to serve summons
service is not allowed. OK. Any other? (The substituted outside the Philippines, meaning service in person. Dakila’s
service to the other.. uh..) well there is not foreign general manager went to Singapore to serve summons on
element there, so that is under CivPro. We just want to that foreign corporation. Now Perkin ember Singapore
look at the aspects with the foreign elements. filed with the RTC a special appearance and motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that the RTC did not

acquire jurisdiction its person. ISSUE: whether there was but of course this can also apply to foreigners who are out
proper service of summons over the person of Perkins- of the country. SC said that the sheriff does not have to go
Elmer Singapore. And the SC said, no. Because this is an back and forth, back and forth to prove that earnest
action in personam. So even if indeed somebody goes efforts were made to serve it in person. Obviously she is
there, even though that person is authorized by the court not here. So substituted service is allowed and therefore it
and that person personally serves the summons on the, is incumbent upon the person who received the summons
maybe the President of that foreign corporation, the SC to contact that person who is outside the country. And
said, this kind of mode of extraterritorial service cannot be take note, what does the provision say? In the case of this
availed of in actions in personam. Now if the Perkin-elmer Palma, the SC said, does not apply only to in rem and quasi
Singapore may be able to file appearance by filing an in rem actions, it applies to any action. So it can be
answer with counter-claim, the SC said no, because it has resorted to even if the action is in personam. OK? So just
been consistent with in all its pleadings in assailing the take note of this case Palma vs Judge Valdez.
service of summons upon it and the jurisdiction of the RTC
over its person. So what else? There are cases there on foreign
corporations. The issues are mainly whether or not the
Remember under your CivPro, even if there are other corporation is doing business here. If it is proven that the
defenses raised in a motion to dismiss based mainly on the corporation is doing business in the Philippines whether or
lack of jurisdiction on the person, the existence of other not it is registered, the proper way of serving summons is
grounds will not make the court acquire jurisdiction. This is section 12. Just like what happened in Hahn vs CA and
not tantamount to voluntary submission. SC said PES BMW but there is a very ____ presumption as to whether
cannot be considered in estoppels when it filed its answer or not it is doing business here and that is under your
ad cautelam, with caution, with compulsory counter-claim corpo. We have no business as to that issue but the SC said
because it was in a situation wherein it had no other that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over that BMW
choice but to file an answer, otherwise the RTC may distributor here because of the proper service under
already declare that it will waive its right to file a section 12 of Rule 14. So we will not discuss anymore
responsive pleading. Neither that the compulsory counter- whether or not the corporation is doing business. OK? That
claim be considered as voluntary appearance. PES is up to you. What’s important is that we will know
recovered damages and attorney’s fees as a consequence jurisdiction is acquired over such corporation.
of the unfounded suit filed against it.
Now let us go to the next type of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction
So it just want you to remember that this section 15 over the RES. This is jurisdiction over a particular subject
cannot apply whatever mode 1, 2 or 3 if the action is in matter in controversy regardless of the persons who may
personam. And by the way, if we talk about publication, be interested in them.
the case is not here but we discussed this in remedial law
that the publication which will be made here in a So going back to our example that we already presented.
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. No John and Maria. The first question is does the RTC have
need for publication in that foreign country. That was the jurisdiction over the subject matter which is what, the
ruling in one case that we discussed in CivPro. action for annulment on the ground of homosexuality.
Definitely yes. We have annulment under Rule 45 of the
Now one last point is this, what if the defendant is Family Code. So subject matter ang problem. So does the
temporarily out of the Philippines. What if he’s a foreigner RTC have jurisdiction to annul the marriage? Yes. Because
and he is a resident in the Philippines but he temporarily it has jurisdiction over the res, the annulment case.
went into vacation and an action is filed against him. What
are the ways of serving summons upon such kind of Can the court acquire jurisdiction on the person of John?
defendant? Under rule 14, section 16, Extraterritorial Yes. Through extraterritorial service of summons because
service under section 15, personal under section 6 and the action involves a personal status of the plaintiff Maria.
substituted under section 7. Can you read Rule 14 Section Does the RTC have the jurisdiction to award damages?
16? (Gil) “When any action is commenced against a Answer is NO. Because it is an action in personam (claim
defendat who ordinarily resides within the Philippines, but for damages). So the extraterritorial service of summons is
who is temporarily out of it, service may, by leave of court only valid for that in rem proceeding. But if there is an in
be also effected out of the Philippines, as under the personam portion aspect of the case, there is no
preceding section.” Ok so “may”. So pwede ang section 15 jurisdiction. RTC has no jurisdiction to award damages
according to section 16 but in the case of Palma vs Judge because technically jurisdiction over the person had not
Valdez, the SC said Section 15 is only one of the ways. been acquired. Remember under our discussion in CivPro
Pwede rin ang section 6 and section 7. What was availed that extraterritorial service especially publication mode is
of here? Section 7, substituted service because she was a only to comply with the due process requirement. Not
____, although she is a Filipina, there is no foreign element really to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the

defendant. That is why it is only allowed if the proceeding NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the
is in rem or quasi-in rem. OK? employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a
corporation incorporated under the laws of China and was
What if ____ property in the Philippines, can the court not even served summons. Jurisdiction over its person was
_______ liability for damages? No, because Janet occurred not acquired.
personal liability. Unless the court has previously acquired
jurisdiction over such property by attachment, unless the So what are we talking about here? If the court possess
action is converted to quasi-in rem. jurisdiction, what kind of jurisdiction are we talking about?
Jurisdiction over the subject matter. How will the court
OK. So I think we already reviewed. Remedial law review. know if you can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
But now let’s now go to this issue on what the court must defendant? That will come later upon assumption of
do. We already talked about this. If it is without jurisdiction. So it has jurisdiction over the subject matter,
jurisdiction, dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. Take note of yun lang ang importante. And then it will decide whether
the term. If the court has no jurisdiction, it must dismiss or not to assume or refuse on the ground of forum non
the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. If the court conveniens.
has jurisdiction, it may either assume jurisdiction or
refuse. Not dismiss, refuse to assume jurisdiction on the Aside from the other reasons why this is an inconvenient
ground of forum non conveniens. This is the basis for the forum, the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
refusal to assume jurisdiction. person of Palace Hotel. It could have acquired jurisdiction
over the Manila Hotel International which is also a foreign
Right now there is this proposal to amend the Rules on company but they are separate entities from that
Civil Procedure. It was very loud.(?) talk about that. When I employer who is Palace Hotel. Now according to the SC,
looked at the proposed rule, I really went crazy. And one this is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have
of the proposal is to make forum non conveniens a ground no power to solve controversies involving foreign
for dismissal. But right now the SC said in Pioneer vs employers. Neither are we saying that we do not have
Guadiz that forum non conveniens is not a ground for power over an employment contract executed in a foreign
dismissal, it is a basis for refusal to assume jurisdiction. country. The problem with Santos was that he was an
Meaning this can be invoked only when the court has overseas worker in Oman. He transferred from Oman to
jurisdiction and does not want to assume it. Beijing, China without going through the POEA. He entered
into a personal contract with Palace Hotel and therefore it
is not under the protection of the Labor Department. So if
We already went through the Marcos case. Let’s now go to Santos were an “overseas contract worker” a Philippine
cases on forum non conveniens. Communication forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect
Materials vs CA, is that on the list? Wala sa list? OK. him. He is not an “overseas contract worker” a fact which
Anyway can you go to Manila Hotel vs NLRC, (Iris’ he admits with conviction. And therefore sorry na lang
recitation) Yes. The NLRC is an inconvenient forum. Take siya.
note that definitely NLRC has jurisdiction over illegal
dismissal cases, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is
an inconvenient forum, the SC said, because all the We have time for more case? Puyat vs Zabarte. (Andrea’s
incidents of the case from the time of recruitment, to recitation) Zabarte filed a case against Puyat for sum of
employment, dismissal, occurred outside of the money in California. The California court orders Puyat to
Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact pay a certain amount. And the ruling now with the
that the proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL California Court. According to Puyat the RTC was an
are not a nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they inconvenient forum because it was caught to a certain
doing business in the Philippines. Likewise the main applicable law in California, whatever transaction they
witnesses are non-residents of the Philippines. The court had, and pangungutang niya happened in California. And
may have no power to determine applicable laws neither Zabarte, the plaintiff is not even a Filipino according to
can an intelligent decision be made as to the law Puyat. So what is the issue? W/n the RTC is an
governing the employment contract as such was perfected inconvenient forum. The SC is saying here, sure the court
in foreign soil. There was also no power to determine the in which the case with a foreign element is filed even if it
facts. NLRC cannot determine the facts surrounding the has jurisdiction may refuse to assume jurisdiction if it is an
alleged illegal dismissal as all acts complained of took inconvenient forum. But if it is a not an inconvenient
place in Beijing. The NLRC was not in a position to forum it cannot use that basis forum non conveniens to
determine whether the Tiannamen Square incident refuse to assume jurisdiction. The SC said it is not an
adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel to justify inconvenient forum. None of the above. Why? it’s quite
respondent Santos’ retrenchment. What else? Principle of difficult to explain now because we have not reached
effectiveness, no power to execute decision. Even enforcement. But to make the long story short, there is no
assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the need for presentation of evidence yet. There is just

enforcement of the judgment of the foreign court. No to ITEC’s own, ITEC filed a case in RTC Makati. A motion to
more witnesses, no more things like that. So the present dismiss the suit was filed by ASPAC on the ground that
action lodged in the RTC was for the enforcement of a plaintiff engaged in forum shopping which justifies
foreign judgment, there was no need to ascertain the application against it of the principle of forum non
rights and the obligations of the parties based on foreign conveniens was denied by the RTC.
laws or contracts. There was no need to look at the foreign
law on the contract, whether or not the contract was valid, ISSUE: w/n RTC was an inconvenient forum?
no need to do that anymore. So it is not really
inconvenient. OK?
HELD: No. The Makati court has acquired jurisdiction over
ITEC by the filing of the original complaint. Thus, having
So there are two new cases on forum non conveniens that acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the court, based on the
I was not able to assign. I’ll give it to Marco. So we will just facts of the case, whether to give due course to the suit or
continue on Tuesday next week. And we will proceed to dismiss it, on the principle of forum non conveniens.
choice of law… (ESTRELLA,J.) Hence, the Phil Courts may refuse to assume jurisdiction in
spite of having acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court
may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do
November 26, 2013 so; provided the following requisites are met. 1. That the
Phil court is one which the parties may conveniently resort
We have distinguished Private International Law and to. 2. The Phil court is in the position to make an intelligent
Public IL. decision as to the law and the facts; and 3. The Phil court
has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision. All
requisites have been met in this case.
According to 2 schools of Thoughts:
1. Dualist – the majority opinion; the 2 subjects are

worlds apart
2. Monist – the 2 subjects are in essence identical for As we have already observed, petitioner are not at
both of them manifest a single concept of law, liberty to question plaintiff’s standing to sue, having
ultimately addressed to the same individual already acceded to the same by virtue of its entry into the
Representative Agreement referred to earlier.
Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the

Philippine Court, based on the facts of the case, whether
Q: according to Paras why is this use as the title of this to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on the principle
book? [47]
of forum non conveniens. Hence, the Philippine Court
may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its having
A: because this is the title or name given by DEPED/CHED acquired jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume
and the Supreme Court use this as far as the bar jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided,
examination is concern. Conflict of Laws is the term that the following requisites are met: 1) That the
officially used in the BAR and in this particular subject. Philippine Court is one to which the parties may
conveniently resort to; 2) That the Philippine Court is in a
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
the facts; and, 3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely
to have power to enforce its decision.
Cases on Jurisdiction.
-there is no other reason that the court has no jurisdiction

Forum Non Convenience
over the person of ITECH and the subject matter
Communication Materials vs. CA

-the subject matter is the injunction case, court has
jurisdiction. Refuse or assume jurisdiction
FACTS: ASPAC which is a domestic corp entered into a
contract with ITEC, a corporation existing under the laws
-jurisdicition over the person is resolved after court has
of Alabama, USA where the latter engaged ASPAC as its
refused or assume jurisdiction. But subject is first resolved
exclusive representative to sell electronic products
exported by ITEC to its sole customer PLDT. Because of
ASPAC was allegedly using its knowledge of ITEC’s product -RTC is a convenient forum. ITECH come to the Phils to sue
specifications to develop its own line of equipment similar ASPAC, besides, the plaintiff here is the Foreign

Corporation so no problem on the jurisdiction over the vs Guadiz that SC that requires truthfulness in the
person. allegations of the complaint, if in the allegations of the
complaint that any of the factors exists like 1 or 2 or 3
factors are present then perhaps the forum is
inconvenient. But it is not a ground for dismissal. SC said
that the discretion of the court to abstain in assuming on
PHILSEC VS CA this ground it must only do so when the facts and the
special circumstances require desistance.
FACTS: Ducat obtained separate loan from AYALA and
Philsec secured by shares of stocks which he owned. To Fortunately, I will not require to recite the case of Navida.
facilitate payment, 1488 Inc assumed Ducat’s obli the Kasi walang masyadong issue on forum non conveniens.
agreement whereby 1488 sold to petitioner ATHONA a It’s just that it’s a Davao case under Judge Carpio. He really
parcel of land in Texas while Philsec and Ayala extended a looked for grounds for dismissal. It involves the case of
loan to ATHONA as initial payment of the purchase price. aerial spraying. They tried to dismiss the case like forum
The balance was to be paid by means of Promissory note non-conveniens. SC Said that court has jurisdiction. One of
executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, upon receipt of the lawyers made a manifestation as to the fact that one
initial payment from 1488, Philsec and Ayala released to of the lawyers in the case is the brother of Judge Carpio.
DUCAT from his indebtedness and delivered to 1488 all
shares of stock belonging to Ducat.
As Athona failed to pay the interest on the loan, 1488 Inc.

sued Philsec, Ayala and Athona in Texas. While suit is Hasegawa vs Kitamura
pending, Philsec filed a complaint for sum of money and
damages in Makati, reiterating allegations in their counter FACTS: Kitamura initiated the action for specific
claim in Texas. Makati RTC and CA dismissed suit on the performance and damages against NIPPON with the RTC.
ground of forum non conveniens, while Texas court N contended that the ICA had been perfected in Japan and
rendered in favor of 1488 Inc, which judgment became executed by and between japenese nationals, moved to
final. dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Asserting
that RTC is an inconvenient forum, N questions its
ISSUE: may RTC summarily grant a motion to dismiss on jurisdiction to hear and resolve the case. N alleged that the
forum non conveniens? contract subject of the litigation was entered in Japan, by
Japanese nationals and written wholly in Japanese
language. RTC has no significant relationship to the parties
HELD: No. The trial court’s refusal to take cognizance of following the most significant relationship rule in Private
the case justifiable under the principle of forum non IL.
conveniens. First, a motion to dismiss is limited to the
grounds under Rule 16, §1, which does not include forum
non conveniens. 16 The propriety of dismissing a case ISSUE: w/n the jurisdictions of RTC involving contracts
based on this principle requires a factual determination, executed outside RP by foreign nationals may be assailed
hence, it is more properly considered a matter of defense. on the principle of forum non conveniens.
Second, while it is within the discretion of the trial court to
abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it HELD: No. First, it is not a proper basis for a motion to
should do so only after "vital facts are established, to dismiss because Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court
77
determine whether special circumstances" require the does not include it as a ground. Second, whether a suit
court’s desistance should be entertained or dismissed on the basis of the said
doctrine depends largely upon the facts of the particular
The court will only refuse to assume jurisdiction if due to case and is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
78
inconvenient forum and what makes it inconvenient if any court. In this case, the RTC decided to assume
of these factors is/are present. If factors are present, then jurisdiction. Third, the propriety of dismissing a case based
it is a convenient forum. To refuse to assume jurisdiction on this principle requires a factual determination; hence,
on the ground of inconvenient forum is not warranted by this conflicts principle is more properly considered a
79
circumstance. matter of defense.
Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power

to entertain and hear the civil case filed by respondent and
the grounds raised by petitioners to assail that jurisdiction
In Puyat vs Zabarte, the forum non conveniens is not s are inappropriate, the trial and appellate courts correctly
ground for motion to dismiss, it was reiterated in Pioneer denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss.

You have to separate jurisdiction and choice of law. We established, to determine whether special circumstances
35
are still looking at jurisdiction. Jurisdiction considers require the court's desistance.
whether it is fair to cause a defendant to travel to this
state; choice of law asks the further question whether the NOTE: The principle of FNC is only applicable if the court
application of a substantive law which will determine the has jurisdiction. No point of refusing to assume jurisdiction
merits of the case is fair to both parties. Jurisdiction of if the court has no jurisdiction in the first place. It is
subject matter is conferred by law. discretionary to the court to refuse to assume jurisdiction
and based on factors not because ayaw lang ng court kasi
inconvenient. Court has basis to assume even if it’s quite
inconvenient. As long as the factors are present. It can
Raytheon vs Rouzie assume jurisdiction.
FACTS: Sometime in 1990, Brand Marine Services, Inc. We are done with jurisdiction. We will start with Choice of
(BMSI), a corporation duly organized and existing under law. What will the court do if it assume jurisdiction? what
the laws of the State of Connecticut, United States of law shall apply?
America, and respondent Stockton W. Rouzie, Jr., an
American citizen, entered into a contract whereby BMSI
hired respondent as its representative to negotiate the November 27, 2013
sale of services in several government projects in the
Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10% of the gross Choice of Law
receipts.
So we are now in a situation where the court has decided
On 8 January 1999, respondent, then a resident of La to assume jurisdiction and the question is, what law
Union, instituted an action for damages before the should it apply?
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. The
7
Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 1192-BG, named as
defendants herein petitioner Raytheon International, Inc. The easiest law to apply is the local law, the internal or
as well as BMSI and RUST, the two corporations impleaded domestic law which is the lex fori.
in the earlier labor case.
What are the 3 instances where the local court can apply
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint on the lex fori or our local laws?
grounds of failure to state a cause of action and forum non
conveniens and prayed for damages by way of compulsory 1. The first instance where the court can apply the local
counterclaim. law is when the law of the forum expressly provides
in its conflict rules. So we have rules and we already
ISSUE: is the averment in the defendant’s answer that the cited an example which is Article 1753 of the New Civil
case involves foreign elements sufficient ground for the Code.
trial court to refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground
of forum non conveniens? Article 1753. The law of the country to which the goods
are to be transported shall govern the liability of the
HELD: No. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
court, in conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on
its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or 2. The next instance: when the proper foreign law has
available forum and the parties are not precluded from not been properly pleaded and proven. That means
34
seeking remedies elsewhere. Petitioner's averments of that the applicable law according to our conflicts rules
the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient is the foreign law, not the local law, BUT it is not up to
to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over Civil Case No. the court to look for the foreign law. It is up to the
No. 1192-BG and the parties involved. party who wants to have the foreign law applied, to
plead and prove it.
Moreover, the propriety of dismissing a case based on the
principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual 3. When the case involves any of the exceptions to the
determination; hence, it is more properly considered as a application of the proper foreign law. This is also a
matter of defense. While it is within the discretion of the situation where the applicable law is the foreign law,
trial court to abstain from assuming jurisdiction on this according to our conflicts rules, BUT because of certain
ground, it should do so only after vital facts are conditions or certain exceptions to comity then the
court must apply the local law.

Let’s go the first instance. Even if the foreign law or the lex causae is applicable,
when shall our courts apply the lex fori or the internal or
The first thing that the court must do when a case with a local or domestic or Philippine law? When the applicable
foreign element is brought before it and it decides to foreign law has NOT been properly pleaded and proven.
assume jurisdiction is to look at the conflict rule on the
matter. Is there a conflict rule on the matter? We know on the Rules of Court and as reiterated in this
case of Singapore Airlines v CA, Philippine courts will not
What is a conflict rule? It is a provision of law which tells take judicial notice of the laws of the foreign country.
the court which laws to apply when faced with a conflict
problem. Therefore, it must be proven by the party who alleges the
applicability of the foreign law. So the party who claims
As an example, we have Article 15 of the New Civil Code. the applicability of Singapore laws has the burden of
Maybe when you were taking this up in Persons it meant proof. Here Singapore Airlines is claiming that Singapore
something to you but under this subject, it has a different law applies. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the
perspective. person who wishes to have the foreign law applied.
With respect to judicial notice, the exception is provided

Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or the
by Rule 129, Section 1 which states:
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Judicial notice is given to the law of nations or customary
international law.. because it is truly the law of the forum.
So anything that has to do with family rights, duties,
status, condition and legal capacity of persons, meaning
Filipino citizens, even though abroad, Philippine law will Section 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court
apply. Binding upon citizens. So we have to apply shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
Philippine law. evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is courts of the world and their seals, the political
subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts
of legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and
with respect to the order of succession and to the amount the geographical divisions. (1a)
of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
So treaty law, insofar as it becomes law for us, which
law of the person whose succession is under
requires Senate concurrence, receives the same treatment
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the
as our own domestic law, just like the Warsaw Convention.
property and regardless of the country wherein said
It could also be the Hague Convention, Vienna Convention,
property may be found. (10a)
the Paris Convention and all those other treaties and
conventions to which the Philippines has adhered to.
So if the subject matter of the action is property located in
Hong Kong, then the proper applicable law is the Hong
HOWEVER, in the case of Dumez Company v NRLC, the SC
Kong law on the matter. Whether or not it is real property
said: since the administrative bodies are not strictly bound
or its sale is valid.
by the rules of evidence, they may take judicial notice of
foreign law. So it is up to the administrative body
We will take up Article 17 later. concerned. The rule on judicial notice applies only to
courts.
So that is the first thing that the court must do. But is it
that simple? When the court determines that Philippine In PCIB v Escolin, the SC said: foreign laws may not be
law applies? EASY. The court can just conduct its business. taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any
other fact in dispute between the parties in any
The second instance. proceeding, with the rare exception in instances when the
said laws are already within the actual knowledge of the
court, such as (a) when they are well and generally known
What if it is the foreign law that applies? Then the court
or (b) they have been actually ruled upon in other cases
must have to make sure that before it applies the foreign
law, it is properly pleaded and proven.

before it and (c) none of the parties concerned do not procedure undertaken therein, including the applicable
claim otherwise. foreign law, must be shown.
Therefore, for a foreign law to be applied in the forum in a FACTS: Jose Suntay, a Filipino citizen and resident of the
conflict case, it must be pleaded and proven. So even if it Philippines, died in the city of Amoy, Fookien province,
is applicable but is not properly pleaded and proven, then Republic of China, leaving real and personal properties in
it cannot be applied. the Philippines and a house in Amoy to his children by his
first marriage and children with his second marriage.
Let’s go the rules on HOW TO PLEAD AND PROVE A
nd
FOREIGN LAW. Intestate proceedings were instituted in the CFI. His 2
wife filed a petition in the CFI for the probate of a last will
A. How to plead? Of course you already know that. Aver and testament claimed to have been executed and signed
the substance of such law in the pleading, especially in the Philippines on November 1929 by the decedent. This
the initiatory pleading. petition was denied because of the loss of said will and of
the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of
the said will.
If you are the defendant and you want the court to apply
the foreign law, plead it, aver the substance of such law.
State what law or what country’s law it is, the provision Silvino Suntay, a son, claiming that he had found among
number, what it is all about and why it is applicable to the the files, records and documents of his late father a will
case at bar. and testament in Chinese characters executed and signed
by the deceased on 4 January 1931 and that the same was
filed, recorded and probated in the Amoy district court,
There are many kinds of law. Not really many, but two Province of Fookien, China, filed a petition in the intestate
types: written and unwritten. proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in
the Philippines or of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien,
In the Philippines, our laws are written. But there are China.
countries that have unwritten laws.
Witnesses were presented to prove the existence of the
B. How to prove? There are 2 ways to prove a foreign will allegedly left by Jose Suntay.
law:
Held
1. By oral testimony of an expert witness; and
2. By printed and published books of reports of the
courts of the country involved. The will cannot be probated by the CFI in this case. The
law on the point in Rule 78. Section 1 of the Rule provides:
Even if the law is unwritten, it may be cited in a decision
rendered by the court of the foreign country if pleaded Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to
and properly proven in such courts. the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed, and
recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the
Philippines.
In the case of In re: Estate of Suntay.
Granting that there was a will duly executed by Jose B.

IN RE: TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JOSE B. Suntay, and that it was in existence at the time of, and
SUNTAY. SILVINO SUNTAY VS IN RE: INTESTATE ESTATE note revoked before his death, the testimonies of the
1
(G.R. Nos. L-3087 and L-3088 July 31, 1954) witnesses presented fall falls short of the legal
requirement that the provisions of the lost will must be
Doctrine: Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, "clearly and distinctly proved by at least two credible
according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, witnesses." Credible witnesses mean competent witnesses
filed, and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in and those who testify to facts from or upon hearsay are
the Philippines. But proof of such probate, the jurisdiction neither competent nor credible witnesses.
of the court over such probate proceedings, and the
The fact that the municipal district court of Amoy, China,
is a probate court must be proved. The law of China on
1 procedure in the probate or allowance of wills must also
be proved. The legal requirements for the execution of a
xa.yimg.com/kq/.../Conflict+of+Laws+Digests+FINAL valid will in China in 1931 should also be established by
+(1951-1960).doc

competent evidence. However, there was no evidence marriage. The testimonies of Yao and Gan Ching cannot be
presented to prove this point. considered as proof of China's law or custom on marriage
not only because they are self-serving evidence, but more
The unverified answers to the questions propounded by importantly, there is no showing that they are competent
counsel for the appellant to the Consul General of the to testify on the subject matter.
Republic of China, objected to by counsel for the appellee,
are inadmissible, because apart from the fact that the Custom is defined as "a rule of conduct formed by
office of Consul General does not qualify and make the repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a
person who holds it an expert on the Chinese law on social rule, legally binding and obligatory." The law
procedure in probate matters, if the same be admitted, requires that "a custom must be proved as a fact,
the adverse party would be deprived of his right to according to the rules of evidence." On this score the
confront and cross-examine the witness. Consuls are Court had occasion to state that "a local custom as a
appointed to attend to trade matters. source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice
unless such custom is properly established by competent
evidence like any other fact." The same evidence, if not
To make the long story short, what they wanted to prove
one of a higher degree, should be required of a foreign
here was that there was a proper probate of the will
custom.
conducted in China. But what law will apply as to whether
the probate in China is valid is Chinese law. But it is an
unwritten law. So, who discussed the essence or the There were 2 things here that the SC said:
contents of the law? The Consul General of China.
First: the evidence, the testimony of the brother and the
Is this a proper way of proving a foreign unwritten law? other woman, are sufficient to prove that they got
married. No problem, we believe you because that is not
The SC ruled no. The Consul General is not an expert hearsay. This proves that the marriage ceremony took
witness on the matter. place BUT that is not enough to prove that the marriage
was validly celebrated in accordance with Chinese laws.
Take note that it has to be an expert witness. And you
know very well under your Rules on Evidence that before a If you cannot show the law, cannot prove the Chinese
person can be considered an expert witness, you have to unwritten law on marriage, then you cannot prove that
what? (Qualify the witness as an expert on the matter.) the marriage is valid.
This case involves the testimony of an expert witness. In this case, the SC said that the testimonies of the brother
and the woman are not sufficient to prove the validity of
the marriage because they are not expert witnesses. And
Let’s go to Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales. they did not present pertinent published rules or reports
of decisions of the courts of China with respect to the laws
2
YAO KEE V. SY-GONZALES (167 SCRA 737) relative to the formalities and validity of the marriage
there.
Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died in 1977, leaving behind
substantial real and personal properties here in the That’s it for unwritten laws.
Philippines. Petition for letters of administration filed by
his natural children, was opposed on the ground that Sy What about written laws?
Kiat was legally married to Yao Kee, in Fookien, China
according to the laws and customs of China and that the
This is under Rule 132, Section 24. Very easy way.
oppositors are his legitimate children.
HELD: For failure to prove the foreign law or custom, and Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public
consequently, the validity of the marriage in accordance documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19
w/ said law or custom, the marriage between Yao Kee and [written official acts, or records of the official acts of the
Sy Kiat cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. In the case sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and
at bar, petitioners did not present any competent public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
evidence relative to the law and customs of China on country], when admissible for any purpose, may be
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy
attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
2 record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is
http://casedigests.blogspot.com/2010/11/case-
digest-of-yao-kee-v-sy-gonzales.html

not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such However, in the old case of Williamette v. A.H. Muzzal,
officer has the custody. the SC said: Rule 132, Sec. 24 does not exclude the
presentation of OTHER competent evidence to prove the
If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign existence of the foreign law.
country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or Williamette v. A.H. Muzzal
consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of
the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which
This case involves the liability of A.H. Muzzal. Muzzal is
the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
stockholder of a Californian corporation. Under Californian
office. (25a)
law, stockholders of a corporation are personally and
individually liable for the obligations contracted by
Ask for an official publication thereof. Here in the corporations. At the time the obligations were contracted,
Philippines, what do you have to show if you are asked for A.H. Muzzal was a stockholder. Under the Californian law,
an official publication of the law? The Official Gazette. creditors may institute actions solidarily against
stockholders in proportion to their share holding. The
If you have a copy of the Official Gazette, it is already creditors filed an action against A.H. Muzzal as a
considered a sufficient publication of a law. stockholder for the corporation’s obligation from
Williamette. To prove the law, Arthur Bolton’s testimony
was offered in evidence. He was an attorney at law in
We don’t know what consists of an official publication in California since 1918. He quoted verbatim Sec. 322 of the
another country but if it is proven that that particular Civil Code of California. He also testified that the provision
piece of paper is the official publication of a foreign law, was the governing provision when the obligations were
then that is sufficient. contracted by the Californian corporation. The trial court
ruled in favor of Williamette.
But most of the time you don’t really get a copy. Most of
the time, you get an official copy in the internet. Issue
Download the foreign law.
Whether the foreign law, which was the Californian law,

Is it very easy to prove because you just present the was properly pleaded and proven.
downloaded copy of the law before the court? No way.
Absolutely no way will the court accept that as proof of
the written law. Held
You can present a copy but it must be attested by the The SC held that the testimony may be allowed as proof of
foreign official having the legal custody of the law. Who is foreign law because our Rules do not exclude other forms
that? It depends from country to country. of proof to prove foreign law. So it was allowed.
Not only that. After you get the attestation of such foreign Aside from the testimony of Attorney Bolton Ragland's
official, go to the Philippine Embassy or consulate in the Annotated Civil Code of California was presented as
foreign country and ask for a certification. The certification evidence.
of the consular diplomatic officials, what does that
certification say? So they had copies of the law and this lawyer testified on
this law which says that stockholders are solidarily liable
That the official who attested is the official who has with the corporation and are personally liable as well. We
custody of the law. don’t have that here in the Philippines. Our laws require
the piercing of the corporate fiction first.
How do we know that particular official has the one with
the custody of the law? This is will answered by the The SC here said that you don’t have to follow through the
certification issued by the consular diplomatic official. letter the requirements of Rule 132 Sec. 24. There are
other ways of proving a foreign law.
And of course we have the seal of the embassy. And there
is that red ribbon that comes along with it. CIR v Fisher
So that is the procedure for proving a written foreign law. This case has the same ruling as Williamette. This case
involves the proof of the Californian tax law on

inheritance. A lawyer testified as to such law. Such proof This was not allowed in the case of Estate of Suntay but
was considered as sufficient by the SC. this was allowed here in Yap v Sol Gen because this was a
naturalization case, and according to the Rules, the Rules
Held of Court do not apply to naturalization proceeding.
To prove the pertinent California law, Attorney Allison Benedicto v CA

Gibbs, counsel for herein respondents, testified that as an
active member of the California Bar since 1931, he is With respect to the banking laws of Switzerland cited by
familiar with the revenue and taxation laws of the State of petitioners, the rule is that Philippine courts cannot take
California. When asked by the lower court to state the judicial notice of foreign laws. Laws of foreign jurisdictions
pertinent California law as regards exemption of intangible must be alleged and proved. Petitioners failed to prove the
personal properties, the witness cited article 4, section Swiss law relied upon, either by: (1) an official publication
13851 (a) and (b) of the California Internal and Revenue thereof; or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the
Code as published in Derring's California Code, a legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
publication of the Bancroft-Whitney Company inc. And as accompanied by a certification from the secretary of the
part of his testimony, a full quotation of the cited section Philippine embassy or legation in such country or by the
was offered in evidence. Philippine consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent stationed in such country, or by any other
It is well-settled that foreign laws do not prove themselves authorized officer in the Philippine foreign service
in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to assigned to said country that such officer has custody.
take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must Absent such evidence, this Court cannot take judicial
6 cognizance of the foreign law invoked by Benedicto and
be alleged and proved.
Rivera.
Section 41, Rule 123 of our Rules of Court prescribes the
manner of proving foreign laws before our tribunals. Take note that this is a newer case, 2001. The SC was quite
However, although we believe it desirable that these laws strict on how a foreign law must be proven. Here the SC
be proved in accordance with said rule, we held in the case will no longer accept affidavits, testimonies of foreign
of Willamette Iron and Steel Works v. Muzzal, 61 Phil. 471, lawyers. The foreign law must be proved under the
that "a reading of sections 300 and 301 of our Code of Civil requirements given by Sec. 25 of Rule 132, official
Procedure (now section 41, Rule 123) will convince one publication and a copy and certification.
that these sections do not exclude the presentation of
other competent evidence to prove the existence of a Here, what happened was an affidavit of a foreign
foreign law." attorney that purportedly proved the laws of his country
was rejected. Why? The statement was made ex parte and
In that case, we considered the testimony of an attorney- he never testified in the Philippines.
at-law of San Francisco, California who quoted verbatim a
section of California Civil Code and who stated that the In the cases of CIR v Fisher and Willamette v Muzzal, the
same was in force at the time the obligations were lawyers came here and testified. That’s why the SC
contracted, as sufficient evidence to establish the allowed it.
existence of said law. In line with this view, we find no
error, therefore, on the part of the Tax Court in
Next case.
considering the pertinent California law as proved by
respondents' witness.
3
Wildvalley v. CA [G.R. No. 119602, October 6, 2000]
In this old case, it seems like the SC considered the lawyer
as an expert witness on pertinent taxation laws of In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships
California. Such testimony is sufficient to prove California passing through it must be piloted by pilots familiar to the
law. river. Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of
Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President
Lines, Inc. (PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a
In Yap v Solicitor General, the SC said that in a
duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the
naturalization case, mere authentication of Chinese
Orinoco River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran
naturalization law by the Chinese Consul General in Manila
was held to be sufficient proof of such law.
3
http://www.uberdigests.info/2013/02/wild-valley-
shipping-co-ltd-vs-court-of-appeals/

aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by There is a certain pilotage law in Venezuela which they
Vasquez. wanted to apply to the case as to who should be liable.
As a result, the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One Who is liable, the captain of the vessel or the pilot who
such vessel was owned Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. took over the ship while navigating the Orinoco River?
(WSC). The blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC Wildvalley wanted to apply the Venezuelan law but it only
as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, showed a photocopy of the law. The SC said it is not
WSC sued PPL in the RTC of Manila. enough. You have to prove it following Rule 132, Sec. 25.
It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under

the laws of Venezuela, to wit: Reglamento General de la December 3, 2013
Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje
o
N 1 del Orinoco. These two laws provide that the master If there’s no proper rule of the written and proper law, the
and owner of the ship are liable for the negligence of the court has no choice but to apply our law of the forum.
pilot of the ship. Vasquez was proven to be negligent when
he failed to check on certain vibrations that the ship was
experiencing while traversing the river. Before we go to the principle of processual presumption,
let’s look at the rule on evidence. What do you mean by
the original of a law or the original of a foreign judgement?
ISSUE Will a printout of the official webpage which contains the
law constitute as acceptable proof? The answer is yes. The
Whether Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the evidence is in accordance in _____ or document. That is
said Venezuelan laws. under the electronic evidence rule. That is why the
document must be printout of the official website or
HELD webpages. That is what I normally use in my cases. I
handle quite a few conflict cases wherein I was able to
prove the fact of foreign marriage just by downloading the
No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact marriage contract from the Reno State – Nevada State
before the court. Only mere photocopies of the laws were website and it was accepted not as a copy wherein you
presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public have to attach the certification and authentication but as
document to be admissible, the following requisites are an official document, the original document. So that is
mandatory: under the electronic evidence rule.
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody What if a party wants to or is insisting that it is the foreign
of the records or by his deputy; and law that is applicable? After looking at the conflict rule of
the matter, it is the foreign law that applies. But that party
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary who invokes the foreign law fails to plead or prove. The
of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice court has two options. Dismiss the case on the theory that
consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and the plaintiff who relies on the foreign law ____. The
with the seal of his office. argument of the plaintiff is based on the foreign law. If the
foreign law is not pleaded or proven, then the plaintiff has
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony no enough evidence to win, so just dismiss. Or the court
of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and also has the option not to dismiss but hold that the foreign
published books of reports of decisions of the courts of the law was not properly pleaded and proven the presumption
country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in of identity arises. It will be presumed. The court will
such courts. presume that the foreign law is the same as our own laws
on the matter involved. So that is the principle of
processual presumption. The definition of the principle of
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual
processual presumption is the recourse of the forum
presumption where the foreign law is deemed to be the
which is not properly appraised of the foreign law is urged
same as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor
to apply the law it is most familiar with, the law of the
Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of
forum.
Vasquez. PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in
selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is
competent and was a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in In relation to that, let’s go to the cases on processual
good standing when he was engaged. presumption.
Northwest Airlines vs CA

First issue was w/n the Japanese court was able to acquire person believed to be authorized to receive court processes was
jurisdiction over the person of sharp by applying our own in Manila and would be back on April 24, 1980.
laws.
On April 24, 1980, bailiff returned to the defendant’s office to
MS: For the foreign court to acquire jurisdiction over the serve the summons. Mr. Dinozo refused to accept the same
person of Sharp, the Filipino corporation, it must have claiming that he was no longer an employee of the defendant.
acquired jurisdiction through the proper procedure. What
is there proper procedure? We don’t know. But it has to After the two attempts of service were unsuccessful, the judge
be their laws on the procedure that should apply. of the Tokyo District Court decided to have the complaint and
However… the writs of summons served at the head office of the defendant
in Manila. On July 11, 1980, the Director of the Tokyo District
J: the court has failed to present or plead the procedural Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan to serve the
laws of Japan, so the SC said because it was not properly summons through diplomatic channels upon the defendant’s
pleaded and proven then it is presumed that the head office in Manila.
procedural laws of the Philippines shall apply, applying the
principle of processual presumption, it shall be the On August 28, 1980, defendant received from Deputy Sheriff
procedural laws of the Philippines on service of summons Rolando Balingit the writ of summons (p. 276, Records). Despite
that should apply. receipt of the same, defendant failed to appear at the scheduled
hearing. Thus, the Tokyo Court proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s
MS: Whether or not there was a valid service of summons complaint and on [January 29, 1981], rendered judgment
on Sharp made by the Japanese courts. Japanese law was ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of
not properly pleaded and proven. So the court has applied 83,158,195 Yen and damages for delay at the rate of 6% per
the principle of processual presumption. And applied our annum from August 28, 1980 up to and until payment is
own laws on service of summons on foreign jurisdiction completed (pp. 12-14, Records).
under Rule 14 Section 1-12.
On March 24, 1981, defendant received from Deputy Sheriff
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES, INC. vs. CA and C.F. SHARP & Balingit copy of the judgment. Defendant not having appealed
COMPANY INC. the judgment, the same became final and executory.
G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995 Plaintiff was unable to execute the decision in Japan, hence, on
May 20, 1983, a suit for enforcement of the judgment was filed
by plaintiff before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 54.
FACTS: Petitioner Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. (NORTHWEST),
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, U.S.A., sought to enforce in the RTC- Manila, a Defendant filed its answer averring that the judgment of the
judgment rendered in its favor by a Japanese court against Japanese Court: (1) the foreign judgment sought to be enforced
private respondent C.F. Sharp & Company, Inc., (SHARP), a is null and void for want of jurisdiction and (2) the said judgment
corporation incorporated under Philippine laws. is contrary to Philippine law and public policy and rendered
without due process of law.
Factual and procedural antecedents of this controversy:
In its decision, the Court of Appeals sustained the trial court. It
agreed with the latter in its reliance upon Boudard vs. Tait
On May 9, 1974, Northwest Airlines and Sharp, through its Japan
wherein it was held that “the process of the court has no
branch, entered into an International Passenger Sales Agency
extraterritorial effect and no jurisdiction is acquired over the
Agreement, whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its
person of the defendant by serving him beyond the boundaries
air transportation tickets. Unable to remit the proceeds of the
of the state.” To support its position, the Court of Appeals
ticket sales made by defendant on behalf of the plaintiff under
further stated:
the said agreement, plaintiff on March 25, 1980 sued defendant
in Tokyo, Japan, for collection of the unremitted proceeds of the
ticket sales, with claim for damages. In an action strictly in personam, such as the instant case,
personal service of summons within the forum is required for
the court to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant (Magdalena
On April 11, 1980, a writ of summons was issued by the 36th
Estate Inc. vs. Nieto, 125 SCRA 230). To confer jurisdiction on the
Civil Department, Tokyo District Court of Japan against
court, personal or substituted service of summons on the
defendant at its office at the Taiheiyo Building, 3rd floor, 132,
defendant not extraterritorial service is necessary.
Yamashita-cho, Naka-ku, Yokohoma, Kanagawa Prefecture. The
attempt to serve the summons was unsuccessful because the
bailiff was advised by a person in the office that Mr. Dinozo, the

ISSUE: whether a Japanese court can acquire jurisdiction over a company; (b) the Superintendent of Banks, in the case of a
Philippine corporation doing business in Japan by serving foreign banking corporation; and (c) the Securities and Exchange
summons through diplomatic channels on the Philippine Commission, in the case of other foreign corporations duly
corporation at its principal office in Manila after prior attempts licensed to do business in the Philippines.
to serve summons in Japan had failed.
Nowhere in its pleadings did SHARP profess to having had a
resident agent authorized to receive court processes in Japan.
HELD: YES While it may be true that service could have been made upon
any of the officers or agents of SHARP at its three other
branches in Japan, the availability of such a recourse would not
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
preclude service upon the proper government official, as stated
country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is
above.
also proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings and
the giving of due notice therein. 6
The judgment may, however, be assailed by evidence of want of As found by the respondent court, two attempts at service were
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear made at SHARP’s Yokohama branch. Both were unsuccessful.
mistake of law or fact.(See Sec. 50, R 39)
The Tokyo District Court requested the Supreme Court of Japan
Being the party challenging the judgment rendered by the to cause the delivery of the summons and other legal documents
Japanese court, SHARP had the duty to demonstrate the to the Philippines. Acting on that request, the Supreme Court of
invalidity of such judgment. Japan sent the summons together with the other legal
documents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan which, in
turn, forwarded the same to the Japanese Embassy in Manila .
It is settled that matters of remedy and procedure such as those
Thereafter, the court processes were delivered to the Ministry
relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed
(now Department) of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, then to
by the lex fori or the internal law of the forum. 8 In this case, it is
the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional
the procedural law of Japan where the judgment was rendered
Trial Court) of Manila, who forthwith ordered Deputy Sheriff
that determines the validity of the extraterritorial service of
Rolando Balingit to serve the same on SHARP at its principal
process on SHARP. As to what this law is is a question of fact, not
office in Manila. This service is equivalent to service on the
of law.
proper government official under Section 14, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court, in relation to Section 128 of the Corporation
It was then incumbent upon SHARP to present evidence as to Code. Hence, SHARP’s contention that such manner of service is
what that Japanese procedural law is and to show that under it, not valid under Philippine laws holds no water.
the assailed extraterritorial service is invalid. It did not.
Accordingly, the presumption of validity and regularity of the
service of summons and the decision thereafter rendered by the
Japanese court must stand.
Saudi Arabian Airlines vs CA
Alternatively in the light of the absence of proof regarding
Japanese law, the presumption of identity or similarity or the so- Note: discussion is not under processual presumption but
called processual presumption may be invoked. Applying it, the under the general discussion on choice of law.
Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with the
Philippine law on service of summons on a private foreign K: Morada was dismissed by SaudiA without informing her
corporation doing business in the Philippines. of the cause of her dismissal so she filed a case for
damages based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if the SaudiA said that the applicable law is not the Philippine
defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the Law but Saudi Arabian Law. In this case, the SC held that
Philippines, service may be made: (1) on its resident agent the applicable law is the Philippine law and not Saudi
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, (2) if Arabian law because first, in the choice of the applicable
there is no such resident agent, on the government official law, there are certain questions that must answered first.
designated by law to that effect; or (3) on any of its officers or
agents within the Philippines. 1. What legal system should apply in a given situation
where the significant facts occurred in two or more
Where the corporation has no such agent, service shall be made state
on the government official designated by law, to wit: (a) the 2. To what extent should the foreign legal system
Insurance Commissioner in the case of a foreign insurance regulate the situation.

Before the choice can be made, there is that process called Who shall have the burden of proving if the foreign law is
characterization which is the process of deciding whether applicable?
or not …
K: the burden of proving the foreign law is the party
MS: What is the cause of action under Art 19 and 21? invoking that foreign law. In this case, it is SaudiA which
invoked the foreign law or the Saudi law. So it should be
K: it’s a tort. SaudiA who should prove the foreign law. However, in this
case, SaudiA was not able to prove as to what applicable
law in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is proper for this case.
MS: there is this traditional rule that in torts, the
applicable rule is lex loci delicti comisii or the law of the
place where the tort was committed. So the question here MS: The plaintiff has never alleged that Saudi law should
is where was the tort committed? govern. If indeed SaudiA wants to apply the foreign law,
then it has the burden of proving the Saudi law.
K: the tort was committed against Morada in the
Philippines because it is in the Philippines where Morada SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
was deceived by SaudiA. It was here where she was asked MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his
to go to Saudi in order to drop the charges. Little did she capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, RTC of Quezon City
know that the purpose of her going there was to sign a G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998
notice so she could appear before the Saudi court where
she was eventually sentenced to adultery and other FACTS: Petitioner SAUDIA hired private respondent MORADA as
Islamic violations she committed. a flight attendant in 1988, based in Jeddah. On 1990, while on a
lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, she went to party with 2 male
MS: But you cannot also deny that it was not only one attendants, and on the following morning in their hotel, one of
violation but several violations. They also committed a tort the male attendants attempted to rape her. She was rescued by
in Saudi. How then can the court determine what is the lex hotel attendants who heard her cry for help. The Indonesian
loci delicti comisii? What is that place where the tort was police arrested the 2.
committed?
MORADA returned to Jeddah, but was asked by the company to
K: the SC applied the State of the most significant go back to Jakarta and help arrange the release of the 2 male
relationship rule. Under this rule there are points of attendants. MORADA did not cooperate when she got to Jakarta.
contact that need to be considered such as the place
where the injury occurred, place where conduct causing What followed was a series of interrogations from the Saudi
the injury occurred, the domicile or the place of business Courts which she did not understand as this was in their
of the parties and the place where the relationship of the language. In 1993, she was surprised, upon being ordered by
parties was centered. SAUDIA to go to the Saudi court, that she was being convicted of
(1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the
The place of the injury occurred in the Philippines because music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the
she was dismissed here. male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition, sentencing her
to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did
she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with the
The domicile – Morada is a Filipino citizen residing and
2, for what happened in Jakarta.
working in the Philippines. SaudiA is a resident foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines.
SAUDIA denied her the assistance she requested, But because
she was wrongfully convicted, Prince of Makkah dismissed the
The SC considered such factors when it held that the place
case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly
of injury occurred in the Philippines. Also the SC the
before her return to Manila, she was terminated from the
totality of the injury caused to Morada the injury caused to
service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.
her reputation __ and her rights occurred here in the
Philippines.
On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages
against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi (“Al-Balawi”), its country
MS: in other words, the SC had jurisdiction over the
manager.
subject matter because what was filed was a tort under
Art 19 and 21 and Philippine court can actually apply
Philippine law under the principle of the most significant SAUDIA ALLEGES: Private respondent’s claim for alleged abuse
relationship if it cannot determine where the tort really of rights occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It alleges that
happened because there are several torts committed. the existence of a foreign element qualifies the instant case for

the application of the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by (P200,000.00). (Emphasis ours)
virtue of the lex loci delicti commissi rule. xxx xxx xxx
MORADA ALLEGES: Since her Amended Complaint is based on Section 2 (b), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court — the venue,
Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, then the instant case is Quezon City, is appropriate:
properly a matter of domestic law. Sec. 2 Venue in Courts of First Instance. — [Now Regional Trial
Court]
(a) xxx xxx xxx
ISSUE: WON the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try the (b) Personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced
case and tried where the defendant or any of the defendants resides
or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiff
resides, at the election of the plaintiff.
Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo

HELD: YES. found it best to hear the case in the Philippines. Had it refused
to take cognizance of the case, it would be forcing plaintiff
On the presence of a “Foreign Element” in the case: A factual (private respondent now) to seek remedial action elsewhere, i.e.
situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no longer maintains
diverse laws of two or more states is said to contain a “foreign substantial connections. That would have caused a fundamental
element”. The presence of a foreign element is inevitable since unfairness to her.
social and economic affairs of individuals and associations are Moreover, by hearing the case in the Philippines no unnecessary
rarely confined to the geographic limits of their birth or difficulties and inconvenience have been shown by either of the
conception. The forms in which this foreign element may appear parties. The choice of forum of the plaintiff (now private
are many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact respondent) should be upheld.
that one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign
domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State The trial court also acquired jurisdiction over the parties.
involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the MORADA through her act of filing, and SAUDIA by praying for
foreign element may assume a complex form. the dismissal of the Amended Complaint on grounds other than
lack of jurisdiction.
In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the fact that
private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law
that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation. Also, by problems seek to answer two important questions:
virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner Saudia (1) What legal system should control a given situation where
as a flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and
occasions of travel across national borders, particularly from
Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and vice versa, that
caused a “conflicts” situation to arise. (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the
situation.
COURT disagrees with MORADA that his is purely a domestic
case. However, the court finds that the RTC of Quezon City Considering that the complaint in the court a quo is one
possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. Its involving torts, the “connecting factor” or “point of contact”
authority to try and hear the case is provided for under Section 1 could be the place or places where the tortious conduct or lex
of Republic Act No. 7691, to wit: loci actus occurred. And applying the torts principle in a conflicts
case, we find that the Philippines could be said as a situs of the
tort (the place where the alleged tortious conduct took place).
BP129 Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. — Regional Trial Courts This is because it is in the Philippines where petitioner allegedly
shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction: deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working
here. According to her, she had honestly believed that petitioner
xxx xxx xxx would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its
duties, “act with justice, give her due and observe honesty and
(8) In all other cases in which demand, exclusive of interest, good faith.” Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she
damages of whatever kind, attorney`y’s fees, litigation expenses, claimed. That certain acts or parts of the injury allegedly
and cots or the value of the property in controversy exceeds One occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or, in such other cases in what is important here is the place where the over-all harm or
Metro Manila, where the demand, exclusive of the above- the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social
mentioned items exceeds Two hundred Thousand pesos standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged,

according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All instituted or done. The lex fori — the law of the forum — is
told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters
of the alleged tort. of “procedure” not going to the substance of the claim involved
are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever
In applying “State of the most significant relationship” rule, to the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded
determine the State which has the most significant relationship, from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under
the following contacts are to be taken into account and one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to
the particular issue: (a) the place where the injury occurred; (b) (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of
the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or
domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships
of business of the parties, and (d) the place where the particularly contracts of affreightment.
relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all

injury occurred and lodged in the Philippines. There is likewise
Philippine Export vs Eusebio
no question that private respondent is a resident Filipina
national, working with petitioner, a resident foreign corporation
engaged here in the business of international air carriage. Thus, Note: Read the facts in the digest below
the “relationship” between the parties was centered here,
although it should be stressed that this suit is not based on mere Issue: What law shall be applicable in determining whether
labor law violations. From the record, the claim that the 3-Plex has defaulted in its obligation?
Philippines has the most significant contact with the matter in
this dispute, raised by private respondent as plaintiff below Held: since it deals with the essential and intrinsic validity
against defendant (herein petitioner), in our view, has been of contracts, the SC held that ___ expressly provided in our
properly established. laws in the intrinsic validity of contracts. So in that matter,
it is the proper law of the contract or the law voluntarily
agreed by the parties or the law intended by the parties. In
the Philippines, the parties are allowed to choose what law
NOTE: should govern. Since there was no express choice of law in
the contract between the Iraqi government and VP
Eusebio, they can choose the law of the law of the State
These “test factors” or “points of contact” or “connecting
with the most significant relationship or the law of the
factors” could be any of the following:
place of the performance of the __. In this case, since the
law of Iraq bears the substantial connection of the
(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his contract and one of the parties is the Iraqi government
place of sojourn, or his origin; and the place of performance of the contract is in Iraq, so
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; the applicable foreign law -- the law of Iraq. But since it
was not properly pleaded and proven, the doctrine of
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is processual presumption applies.
deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex
MS: there is no conflicts rule on the essential validity of
situs is decisive when real rights are involved; contracts. There are instances where there is no conflict
rule on the matter. This is known when it comes to
contracts. Why? The provisions of the contract will govern.
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such
What is applied when it comes to essential and intrinsic
as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage
validity is the lex loci voluntatis (law voluntarily agreed
celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is
upon by the parties) or the lex loci intentionis (law
particularly important in contracts and torts;
intended by them either expressly or implicitly).
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g.,
When a contract is entered into with the foreign
the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place
government or corporation, it is always best to agree what
where a power of attorney is to be exercised;
law should govern the contract in case of breach. So that
will be the applicable law. But if there is no express choice
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that of law, then apply the most significant relation rule. And it
should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis; would seem that Iraq has more significant relationship to
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are

the contract than the Philippines. Here the proper law is SOB protesting the telex since the Iraqi government lacks foreign
the foreign law but nobody bothered to prove to foreign exchange to pay VPECI and the non-compliance with the 75%
law. So under the principle of processual presumption, billings in US dollars.
the court can apply the Philippine law.
9. Philguarantee received another telex from Al Ahli stating that
Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation v it already paid to Rafidain Bank. The Central Bank authorized the
V.P. Eusebio Construction Inc. remittance to Al Ahli Bank representing the full payment of the
performance counter-guarantee for VPECI's project in Iraq.
Facts:
1. The State Organization of Buildings (SOB), Ministry of Housing 10. Philguarantee sent letters to respondents demanding the full
and Construction, Baghdad, Iraq awarded the construction of payment of the surety bond. Respondents failed to pay so
the Institute of Physical Therapy-Medical Rehabilitation Center petitioner filed a civil case for collection of sum of money.
in Iraq to Ayjal Trading and Contracting Company for a total
contract price of about $18M. 11. Trial Court ruling: Dismissed. Philguarantee had no valid
cause of action against the respondents. The joint venture
2. Spouses Santos, in behalf of 3-Plex International, Inc., a local incurred no delay in the execution of the project considering
contractor engaged in construction business, entered into a joint that SOB's violations of the contract rendered impossible the
venture agreement with Ayjal wherein the former undertook the performance of its undertaking.
execution of the entire a project, while the latter would be
entitled to a commission of 4%.
Issue:
3. 3-Plex not accredited by the Philippine Overseas Construction What law should be applied in determining whether or not
Board (POCB) assigned and transferred all its rights and interests contractor (joint venture) has defaulted?
to VPECI.
Held:
The question of whether there is a breach of the agreement
4. The SOB required the contractors to submit a performance
which includes default pertains to the INTRINSIC validity of the
bond representing 5% of the total contract price, an advance
contract.
payment bond representing 10% of the advance payment to be
released upon signing of the contract. To comply with these
requirements 3-Plex and VPECI applied for a guarantee with No conflicts rule on essential validity of contracts is expressly
Philguarantee, a government financial institution empowered to provided for in our laws. The rule followed by most legal systems
issue guarantees for qualified Filipino contractors. is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by lex
contractus (proper law of the contract). This may be the law
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties (lex loci voluntatis) or the
5. But what SOB required was a guarantee from the Rafidain
law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (lex loci
Bank of Baghdad so Rafidain Bank issued a performance bond in
intentionis). The law selected may be implied from factors such
favor of SOB on the condition that another foreign bank (not Phil
as substantial connection with the transaction, or the nationality
Guarantee) would issue the counter-guarantee. Hence, Al Ahli
or domicile of the parties. Philippine courts adopt this: to allow
Bank of Kuwait was chosen to provide the counter guarantee.
the parties to select the law applicable to their contract,
6.Afterwards, SOB and the joint venture of VPECI and Ayjal
SUBJECT to the limitation that it is not against the law, morals,
executed the service contract. Under the contract, the joint
public policy of the forum and that the chosen law must bear a
venture would supply manpower and materials, SOB would
substantive relationship to the transaction.
refund 25% of the project cost in Iraqi Dinar and 75% in US
dollars at an exchange rate of 1 Dinar to $3.37.
In the case, the service contract between SOB and VPECI
contains no express choice of law. The laws of Iraq bear
7.The project was not completed. Upon seeing the impossibility
substantial connection to the transaction and one of the parties
of meeting the deadline, the joint venture worked for the
is the Iraqi government. The place of performance is also in Iraq.
renewal or extension (12x) of the performance bond up to
Hence, the issue of whether VPECI defaulted may be determined
December 1986.
by the laws of Iraq.
8. In October 1986, Al Ahli Bank sent a telex call demanding full BUT! Since foreign law was not properly pleaded or proved,
payment of its performance bond counter-guarantee. Upon processual presumption will apply.
receipt, VPECI requested Iraq Trade and Economic Development
Minister Fadhi Hussein to recall the telex for being in According to Art 1169 of the Civil Code: In reciprocal obligations,
contravention of its mutual agreement that the penalty will be neither party incurs in delay if the other party does not comply
held in abeyance until completion of the project. It also wrote or is not ready to comply in a proper manner what is incumbent

upon him. the ACAD system which is required in his line of work; that he
failed to enrich his knowledge during his 5 month stay to prove
As found by the lower courts: the delay or non-completion of his competence; that he is disobedient because he failed to
the project was caused by factors not imputable to the Joint submit the required daily reports to OAB. Gran then signed a
Venture, it was rather due to the persistent violations of SOB, quitclaim whereby he declared that he is releasing OAB from any
particularly it's failure to pay 75% of the accomplished work in liability in exchange of 2,948.00 Riyal.
US dollars. Hence, the joint venture does not incur in delay if the
other party(SOB) fails to perform the obligation incumbent upon When Gran returned, he filed a labor case for illegal dismissal
him. against EDI and OAB. EDI in its defense averred that the
dismissal is valid because when Gran and OAB signed the
employment contract, both parties agreed that Saudi labor laws
shall govern all matters relating to the termination of Gran’s
employment; that under Saudi labor laws, Gran’s termination
EDI-StaffBuilders vs NLRC
due to incompetence and insubordination is valid; that Gran’s
insubordination and incompetence is outlined in the termination
Issue: what law shall govern with regard to the letter Gran received. The labor arbiter dismissed the labor case
termination or dismissal of Gran. but on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
reversed the decision of the arbiter. The Court of Appeals
Held: in cases of __ what should govern under the local likewise affirmed the NLRC.
employment. The employment contract signed by Gran
here provides that in matters not provided for in the
contract, the Saudi law shall govern. The Saudi law shall
govern the termination of Gran. In international law, the
ISSUE: Whether or not the Saudi labor laws should be applied.
party or person who wants to apply a foreign law have the
burden of proving it. In this case, our courts or the labor
arbiter cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law,
because we are only presumed to know our domestic law.
Unfortunately in this case, EDI-Staff Builders failed to HELD: No. The specific Saudi labor laws were not proven in
prove the existence of the foreign law. According to the court. EDI did not present proof as to the existence and the
doctrine of presumed identity approach or processual specific provisions of such foreign law. Hence, processual
presumption, a foreign law is treated as a question of fact. presumption applies and Philippine labor laws shall be used.
Even if it is proven, it must be __ in our jursidiction. Since Under our laws, an employee like Gran shall only be terminated
it was not proven, the law that should govern in the upon just cause. The allegations against him, at worst, shall only
termination of Gran is the law of the Philippines. merit a suspension not a dismissal. His incompetence is not
proven because prior to being sent to Saudi Arabia, he
MS: take note in this case, it was stated in the contract of underwent the required trade test to prove his competence. The
employment that Saudi law will apply. So the court need presumption therefore is that he is competent and that it is
not go to the __. Its already there, the lex loci intentionis. upon OAB and EDI to prove otherwise. No proof of his
But unfortunately, the applicable foreign law was not incompetence was ever adduced in court. His alleged
pleaded and proven, so again the principle of processual insubordination is likewise not proven. It was not proven that
presumption shall apply. the submission of daily track records is part of his job as a
computer specialist. There was also a lack of due process. Under
our laws, Gran is entitled to the two notice rule whereby prior to
EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. vs National Labor Relations
termination he should receive two notices. In the case at bar, he
Commission
only received one and he was immediately terminated on the
same day he received the notice.
537 SCRA 409 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
Proof of Foreign Law Lastly, the quitclaim may not also release OAB from liability.
Philippine laws is again applied here sans proof of Saudi laws.
In 1993, EDI-Staffbuilders, Inc. (EDI), upon request of Omar Under Philippine Laws, a quitclaim is generally frowned upon
Ahmed Ali Bin Bechr Est. (OAB), a company in Saudi Arabia, sent and are strictly examined. In this case, based on the
to OAB resumes from which OAB can choose a computer circumstances, Gran at that time has no option but to sign the
specialist. Eleazar Gran was selected. It was agreed that his quitclaim. The quitclaim is also void because his separation pay
monthly salary shall be $850.00. But five months into his service was merely 2,948 Riyal which is lower than the $850.00 monthly
in Saudi Arabia, Gran received a termination letter and right salary (3,190 Riyal).
there and then was removed from his post. The termination
letter states that he was incompetent because he does not know

Asiavest vs CA do anything about it. We don’t know. Under the principle

of processual presumption, we have to apply our laws on
Asiavest is a company based in Hong Kong. The case was service of summons, and under our laws extraterritorial
originally filed in Hong Kong. The HK court rendered service iyon -- HK court and serving on Heras in the
judgment ordering Heras to pay. Asiavest filed a complaint Philippines. Is extraterritorial service of summons allowed?
in the Philippines praying that the court __ rendred by the Yes, but the action must be in rem or quasi in rem. This is
HK court. In this case, Asiavest only presented an action in personam which does not allow
documentary proof as to the rendition of the judgment extraterritorial service. Therefore, the summons (in the HK
because in the pre-trial conference here in the Philippines, case) was not served properly on Herras.
there are certain facts submitted by Heras that Heras is
not doing business in the Philippines and the residence of This is another case that includes all topics, jurisdiction,
Heras is in ___. It was argued here, there was this choice of law and enforcement of judgement.
testimony of the witness of Heras ___ regarding the laws
of HK that Heras never received summons in HK. In fact, he
Asiavest Limited vs Court of Appeals
also testified that in the HK, it was not necessary that the
lawyer of the plaintiff will serve summons on the
defendant. 295 SCRA 469 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law –
Service of Summons to a Non Resident – Processual Presumption
Issue: Whether or not the HK law was properly pleaded
and proven. In 1984, a Hong Kong court ordered Antonio Heras to pay
US$1.8 million or its equivalent, with interest, to Asiavest Ltd.
Apparently, Heras guaranteed a certain loan in Hong Kong and
Asiavest never contested the standing of the witness as an
the debtor in said loan defaulted hence, the creditor, Asiavest,
expert of HK laws. However, there was nothing in the
ran after Heras. But before said judgment was issued and even
testimony of the witness presented by Heras which
during trial, Heras already left for good Hong Kong and he
touched on the specific matter with regard to service of
returned to the Philippines. So when in 1987, when Asiavest
summons in actions in rem or actions in personam. It
filed a complaint in court seeking to enforce the foreign
would seem that the doctrine of processual presumption
judgment against Heras, the latter claim that he never received
will come into play. The law applicable is the law of the
any summons, not in Hong Kong and not in the Philippines. He
Philippines. Since it was an action in personam, personal
also claimed that he never received a copy of the foreign
service of summons is necessary which can only be done if
judgment. Asiavest however contends that Heras was actually
the defendant is located in the state where the summons
given service of summons when a messenger from the Sycip
is served. It is important to note that during the entire
Salazar Law Firm served said summons by leaving a copy to one
preliminary conference, it was already submitted that
Dionisio Lopez who was Heras’ son in law.
Heras was a resident of ____ hence the HK court cannot
acquire jurisdiction over his person because it should have
been served on him in HK but it was served in the
Philippines. The extraterritorial service done here in the
Philippines could not have given the HK court jurisdiction ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign judgment can be enforced
over the person of Heras. As to the issue of proof, Heras against Heras in the Philippines.
only relied on the testimony of the witness. Under our
rules, the only way to prove a foreign law is by an official
document or certification.
HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly

MS: Asiavest filed an action against Herras. Herras is a authenticated (Asiavest was able to adduce evidence in support
Filipino resident. The case was filed in HK. In the HK case, thereto) and Heras was never able to overcome the validity of it,
the summons was served on him in the Philippines, not in it cannot be enforced against Heras here in the Philippines
HK. According to the alleged experts, under HK law, there because Heras was not properly served summons. Hence, as far
is no need to serve summons on Herras in HK. According as Philippine law is concerned, the Hong Kong court has never
to HK law, ok lang if the summons is served in the acquired jurisdiction over Heras. This means then that Philippine
Philippines applying the HK law. But where is the HK law courts cannot act to enforce the said foreign judgment.
stating that? It was only the allegation of the expert
witness. The was no official publication nor a copy that
was certified. It was only an alleged expert witness who The action against Heras is an action in personam and as far as
knows the laws of HK on service of summons. According to Hong Kong is concerned, Heras is a non resident. He is a non
the SC, there is no proper pleading and proving the HK law resident because prior to the judgment, he already abandoned
on service of summons so we cannot apply the HK law. So Hong Kong. The Hong Kong law on service of summons in in
W/N it is valid service of summons outside HK, we cannot personam cases against non residents was never presented in

court hence processual presumption is applied where it is now MS: Multiple contact test – another test which is applied
presumed that Hong Kong law in as far as this case is concerned when there is an issue as to what law shall apply. Look at
is the same as Philippine laws. And under our laws, in an all these factors. The law of country which has the most
action in personam wherein the defendant is a non-resident who factors will be applied.
does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court,
personal service of summons within the state is essential to the
CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., Petitioner, vs. M/V "LOK
acquisition of jurisdiction over her person. This method of
MAHESHWARI," THE SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA, and
service is possible if such defendant is physically present in the
PORTSERV LIMITED
country. If he is not found therein, the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over his person and therefore cannot validly try
and decide the case against him. Without a personal service of G.R. No. 155014 November 11, 2005
summons, the Hong Kong court never acquired jurisdiction.
Needless to say, the summons tendered to Lopez was an invalid FACTS:
service because the same does not satisfy the requirement of
personal service. Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing
vessel of Indian registry that is owned by respondent Shipping
Corporation of India (SCI), a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of India and principally owned by the
Crescent vs M/V Lok Maheswari Government of India. It was time-chartered by respondent SCI to
Halla Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean
company. Halla, in turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through a time
What was filed was __ of India, it was chartered by charter to Transmar Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further
another company which is a South Korean company which sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv Limited (Portserv). Both
was subchartered by Transmar and Portserv. The Portserv Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized and existing
had an agreement with Crescent Petroleum to deliver oil under the laws of Canada.
to a port in Canada. Now, despite repeated demands,
Portserve failed to pay for the transaction – for the oil.
When M/V Lok Maheshwari docked in the City of Cebu On or about November 1, 1995, Portserv requested petitioner
sometime in 1996, Crescent Petroleum filed an action for Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. (Crescent), a corporation organized
sum of money and a prayer for temporary restraining and existing under the laws of Canada that is engaged in the
order. The vessel was attached here in the Philippines. But business of selling petroleum and oil products for the use and
everything else is foreign. The vessel, the parties are all operation of oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils
foreign. (bunker fuels) to the Vessel. Petitioner Crescent granted and
confirmed the request through an advice via facsimile dated
November 2, 1995. As security for the payment of the bunker
Issue: If ever the court assumed jurisdiction, what is the fuels and related services, petitioner Crescent received two (2)
applicable law? checks in the amounts of US$100,000.00 and US$200,000.00.
Thus, petitioner Crescent contracted with its supplier, Marine
Held: the applicable law is the law of Canada. Under the Petrobulk Limited (Marine Petrobulk), another Canadian
multiple contact test, there are 7 factors to be considered corporation, for the physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the
in determining which law will be best used. Vessel.
7 factors: On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the

bunker fuels amounting to US$103,544 inclusive of barging and
1. The law of the place of the wrongful act - Canada demurrage charges to the Vessel at the port of Pioneer Grain,
2. The law of the flag – India Vancouver, Canada. The Chief Engineer Officer of the Vessel duly
3. Allegiance of the injured party – Canada acknowledged and received the delivery receipt. Marine
4. Place of allegiance or domicile of the defending ship Petrobulk issued an invoice to petitioner Crescent for the
owner – Canada (subcharterer) and India US$101,400.00 worth of the bunker fuels. Petitioner Crescent
5. Place of contract – Canada issued a check for the same amount in favor of Marine
6. Accessibility of the foreign law - N/A Petrobulk, which check was duly encashed.
7. Law of the forum - Philippines
Having paid Marine Petrobulk, petitioner Crescent issued a
Of the 7 factors, only one belongs in our jurisdiction so the revised invoice dated November 21, 1995 to "Portserv Limited,
best law to be applied is that of Canada notwithstanding and/or the Master, and/or Owners, and/or Operators, and/or
there is an agreement that the law of NY shall be Charterers of M/V ‘Lok Maheshwari’" in the amount of
applicable. Such agreement is not conclusive. US$103,544.00 with instruction to remit the amount on or
before December 1, 1995. The period lapsed and several

demands were made but no payment was received. Also, the The Court cannot sustain petitioner Crescent’s insistence on the
checks issued to petitioner Crescent as security for the payment application of P.D. No. 1521 or the Ship Mortgage Decree of
of the bunker fuels were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. 1978 and hold that a maritime lien exists. Out of the seven basic
As a consequence, petitioner Crescent incurred additional factors listed in the case of Lauritzen, Philippine law only falls
expenses of US$8,572.61 for interest, tracking fees, and legal under one – the law of the forum. All other elements are foreign
fees. – Canada is the place of the wrongful act, of the allegiance or
domicile of the injured and the place of contract; India is the law
On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the port of of the flag and the allegiance of the defendant shipowner.
Cebu City, petitioner Crescent instituted before the RTC of Cebu Applying P.D. No. 1521,a maritime lien exists would not promote
City an action "for a sum of money with prayer for temporary the public policy behind the enactment of the law to develop the
restraining order and writ of preliminary attachment" against domestic shipping industry. Opening up our courts to foreign
respondents Vessel and SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar. suppliers by granting them a maritime lien under our laws even
if they are not entitled to a maritime lien under their laws will
encourage forum shopping. In light of the interests of the
On May 3, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of attachment
various foreign elements involved, it is clear that Canada has the
against the Vessel with bond at P2,710,000.00. Petitioner
most significant interest in this dispute. The injured party is a
Crescent withdrew its prayer for a temporary restraining order
Canadian corporation, the sub-charterer which placed the
and posted the required bond.
orders for the supplies is also Canadian, the entity which
physically delivered the bunker fuels is in Canada, the place of
On May 18, 1996, summonses were served to respondents contracting and negotiation is in Canada, and the supplies were
Vessel and SCI, and Portserv and/or Transmar through the delivered in Canada.
Master of the Vessel. On May 28, 1996, respondents Vessel and
SCI, through Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation
(Pioneer), filed an urgent ex-parte motion to approve Pioneer’s
letter of undertaking, to consider it as counter-bond and to
discharge the attachment. On May 29, 1996, the trial court There are many tests that are applicable in the choice of
granted the motion; thus, the letter of undertaking was law because of the fact that we cannot have a conflicts
approved as counter-bond to discharge the attachment. rule on every particular issue that may be brought to the
court. So there are tests to be applied such the most
significant relationship test and the multiple contact test.
December 4, 2013
ISSUE:Whether the Philippine court has or will exercise
jurisdiction and entitled to maritime lien under our laws on
foreign vessel docked on Philippine port and supplies furnished Cases on processual presumption and in relation of choice
to a vessel in a foreign port? of law, this cases is in relation to our next topic. This case
of LWV Construction vs. Lupo.
Facts: LWV hired work to a company. After working for

RULING:In a suit to establish and enforce a maritime lien for more than 5 years, Lupo left Saudi and subsequently resign
supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port, whether such lien thereafter he filed a claim for a long service award but
exists, or whether the court has or will exercise jurisdiction, there is no response from LWV. So on December 11, 2000
depends on the law of the country where the supplies were he filed a money claim to the NLRC then LWV contended
furnished, which must be pleaded and proved. that action of Lupo has already prescribe since he left
Saudi in 1999 citing the Saudi Arabian Labor code, Art. 13
The Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis trilogy of cases, which replaced that the action for payment of service award must be filed
such single-factor methodologies as the law of the place of within one year from termination of contract and LWC said
supply. The multiple-contact test to determine, in the absence of it already prescribed.
a specific Congressional directive as to the statute’s reach, which
jurisdiction’s law should be applied. The following factors were
considered: (1) place of the wrongful act; (2) law of the flag; (3) Issue: what law should be applied.
allegiance or domicile of the injured; (4) allegiance of the
defendant shipowner; (5) place of contract; (6) inaccessibility of Held: the law of Saudi Arabia should not be appled.
foreign forum; and (7) law of the forum. This is applicable not Question: under our labor code has the action prescribed?
only to personal injury claims arising under the Jones Act but to
all matters arising under maritime law in general Answer: no.

The SC held that Art. 291 of the Labor Codeshould be talking about conventions then we apply article 27 of
applied because it should not apply only in the Philippine Vienna convention. So what do you mean by public policy?
but also overseas. The SC cited the case of Catalin vs. POEA According to the author, it is the manifest will of the state.
saying that money claims are not limited to be recoverable The public policy of the state is manifested in the
under Labor Code but also applies to overseas contract constitution. Now if we have dissimilarities between our
workers. As a general rule, foreign procedural laws will not law and law of foreign country, a mere dissimilarity does
applied in the forum. Procedural matters such as service of not render the enforcement of a foreign law normally
processes are govern by law of the forum. The court of the applicable. The public policy must strong or great
forum which is the Philippines do not enforce any forum importance. The phil. Law to be applied because of issue
claim which is obnoxious to the public policy and in this on public policy, the public policy must strong or great
case the application of foreign law which is Saudi law if importance. A foreign should be denied enforcement in
applied would be contravene to the public policy on the forum only when it violates fundamental principle of
protection of labor. Hence, the Sc said that the action of justice, conception of good morals. Now going back to the
Lupo has not prescribed. case of Lupo, we’re talking about prescriptive period, it has
nothing to do with the rights of Filipino worker then it just
mere dissimilarities. Here we are talking about public
Even if the foreign law is applicable, we have here the policy such as fundamental principle of justice and the
exceptions to comity. If you look at your book, it says here constitutional general principle. So public policy according
the application of foregn law, the first exception here is to the author, that is changing ideas, one maybe against
that when the foreign law is contrary to established public public policy yesterday may no longer against now. What
policy of the State. And this portion Article 17 paragraph 3 is an example? In ancient times.
is a conflict rule it says prohibitive laws concerning
persons, their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs Lets go the cases in relation to this, cadalin vs. POEA.
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed
upon in a foreign country. Facts: this is case filed by cadalin against his foreign
employer for unpaid benefits. So foreign employer argued
that the law should be govern by law of Bahrain which is
So if already established that the labor code is a incorporated in the overseas contract which is prescribe
compilation of law which have for their object public one year while the POEA administrator argued that the
policy and it should not be rendered ineffective because law applicable is the art. 1144 of the Civil code which
there is another law like the Saudi law on prescription provides that all claims in the written contract shall be
which says otherwise. prescribed within 10 years.
Lets go to Vienna Convention on the law of treaties article Issue: what law should be applied?
27. according to this provision, a state must not invoke of
its internal law as justification for failure to perform the
treaty. Held: the court held that as a general rule when there is
varies statute, the ___ of the forum shall apply with
foreign law but however this rule admit exceptions if the
Lets continue, this one noh.. article 17. 3. so what is this foreign law is contrary to the established public policy, the
mean? It means the Philippine law which is ____ for foreign should not be admitted and the law of the forum
certain acts within the country and other local laws cannot should be applied. In this case, if we apply the foreign law,
be displaced by foreign laws or judgment or determinance it is contrary to our public policy in the protection of labor.
or convention agreed upon. so here in the case of Lupo,
we are not talking about convention because there is
another law that in conflict of our labor code which has Lets go to the case of Pakistani airlines vs ople.
different prescriptive periods. However, if we are talking
about treaty to which the Philippine is a party. The GR is
that the phil. Is bound thereby and we cannot invoke Facts:
article 17 for failure to assume obligation under the treaty.
Here there is a contract of employment where it states
that the Pakistani will apply. We are talking about lex loci
What do you mean by public policy then? What are these celebrationis. The Sc held that despite that whatever you
laws have to do with public policy? Take note if it is the stated there is against public policy of the state in relation
law of another country will apply article 17 but we are to protection of labor and therefore cannot be applied.

generis. So far as conflict of law is concern it is sui generis.

So if it is procedural law then it will not be applied as a
The next case, I really don’t understand it, Bank of America rd
foreign law. that is with respect to 3 exception to the
vs. American realty
comity. Lets continue tomorrow.
The Sc held that principle under rule 2, sec. 4 splitting of

cause of action is a public policy of the state. I really don’t
December 11, 2013
know why.
Lets go to next exception which when the foreign law is Now, whenever the foreign judgment sought to be
contrary to universally considered principle of morality. By recognized or enforced, again, it must be proven in
the way, regarding public policy what is rule when we have accordance with the Rules (Rules or Court). And how do
conflict rule of the matter. When we have conflict rule on you prove a foreign judgment? You prove it the same way
the matter expression of public policy, therefore any you prove a foreign law. Now, there are some judgments
foreign law, judgment, contracts contravenes our ____ on that can be recognized but not enforced.
the matter is clearly against our public policy. An example
given is public policy against joint will as enunciated in art.
Examples of such judgment are:
818. because we have rule on the matter that is violative
in our public policy. But if we have conflict rule on the
matter does not necessarily follow that a foreign law 1. Declaratory judgments;
different from ours is contrary to public policy. So
therefore we have to discover our history of publice policy. 2. Judgments which give no affirmative relief such as
We have to look our constitution.. and in case of bank of judgment of dismissal of claim; and
America our rules of court.
3. Judgments which determine parties’ interest in a sale or
status like:
So this one, the second exception the foreign law even if
applicable if our conflict rule says that the foreign law is
applicable it cannot be applied if it is contrary to the a. a judgment declaring title to land,
universal principle of morality. Like the sale of human flesh
for pleasure. b. providing for adoption; or
c. divorce;
Next when the foreign law to be applied is procedural in
character
Jay, would you like to remind the class of the case
Northwest vs Sharp on the issue of enforcement. Who’s
reporting? Ahh, you (referring to Mr. Tay) (Na, dili jud
So normally as a general rule, when it comes to procedural
maklaro ang tingog ni Tay. Sorry. Pero I’ll try).
aspect we apply our rule. Like for example a case of
foreign element was filed here whether or not the
marriage between foreigner and Filipino is valid maybe Jonathan’s Report:
applied the foreign law but with respect of the procedure
it is the law of the forum will be applied. In our country FACTS: Sharp challenges the jurisdiction of Japan(?) saying
there is certain principle that would be procedural or that they cannot enforce the judgement in the Philippines
substantive. The procedure is determined by the law of because they have not acquired jurisdiction.
the forum regardless where the transaction occurred
which claimed transaction arose. Therefore foreign ISSUE: W/N a judgment in a Japanese court can be
procedural law generally not enforce or recognized in the enforced in the Phil.
forum. What are the examples of a procedural aspect?
Forms of proper actions, kind of pleading file.
HELD: The Supreme Court raised two points on why
enforcement of the judgment should be allowed. First,
enforcement should be allowed because there is this
However there is purely procedural but considered
concept of processual presumption. We apply the rules of
substantive in another forum and we go back to the case
procedure of the place where the judgment is rendered.
of cadalin vs. POEA. There is issue of prescription. What is
But since the rules of procedure of Japan were not pled,
prescription? It is substantive for us but if you read the
we use the concept of processual presumption. Now, using
entire case the SC said that the law on prescription is sui

this concept, we can say that there is valid service of But in any case, a foreign judgment is respected because
summons on sharp by the Japanese court. of comity. If any of the exceptions to comity is present,
then the foreign judgment may not be enforced or
Second, there is this presumption that foreign judgments recognized here. Just take note that the exceptions to
are valid. So, in this case, this presumption was not comity apply to foreign judgments and foreign laws.
rebutted by sharp.
Let’s go to the requisites.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the enforcement of
the judgment of the Japanese Court. For a judgment to be enforced here or be
recognized by our courts, it must be:
Ma’am Suarez:
1. a judgment in a judicial or quasi-judicial
So here, on service of summons in Japan, processual proceeding.
presumption was applied because the law on service of 2. Defendant must be given notice and reasonable
summons of japan was not proven. And therefore, we opportunity to be heard. So there must be due
apply our own laws. And it was shown in this case that process.
there was a valid service of summons. Thus, the court of 3. The judgment must be procedurally sound.
Japan acquired jurisdiction over the person of the 4. And the court need not be a judicial court. It may
defendant Sharp. be an administrative tribunal.
A foreign Judgment, when it is sought to be enforced here, Now, in your book, there is this case ____vs Tate
or recognized, it is not proper to bring up the merits of the 67Phil172
case. One can only repel the foreign judgment if any of
these are not present. In the case of Sharp, it was proven FACTS: Mrs. B and her Children sued Tate in the CFI,
that there was proper service of summons. Therefore, the Manila in the enforcement of a judgment rendered by the
judgment cannot be repelled on the ground of want of Hanoi Court in favor of B for payment of 56,000. Tate was
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further held that a foreign declared in default by the Hanoi court for failure to appear
judgment is presumed to be and binding in the country in trial. So the CFI of Manila dismissed the case for lack of
from which it comes until the contrary is shown. So that is jurisdiction because Tate was not a resident thereof.
Sharp vs Northwest.
ISSUE: W/N the CFI of Manila should enforce the judgment
Let us continue with the discussion before we go to the of the Hanoi Court.
requisites. In your book there is a discussion on why not all
foreign judgments can be recognized or enforced in the HELD: The Supreme Court said no. Here, it is an action in
Phil. personam. And therefore, the court of Hanoi did not
acquire jurisdiction over Tate. Therefore, a requisite is
1. The lack of the requisites – That the judgement is missing. The judgment cannot be enforced here.
invalid because of:
a. Lack of jurisdiction; Let’s just go to the requisites first before we go to the
b. Absence of notice; cases.
c. Fraud;
d. etc ;
2. A judgment is resting on a Government claim on a The second requisite is:
foreign Court. This is under Public International Law.
Otherwise, our courts will be putting themselves in the The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter. So,
service of the implementation of political decisions of penal judgments cannot be enforced here.
a foreign country;
The following judgments cannot be enforced in the
3. It was not proven according to our rules; Philippines as they fall in the exceptions to the application
of a foreign law:
4. If they contravene our public policy;
1. Exceptions to comity;
5. If the foreign judgment contradict one another;
2. Criminal cases;
3. Tax cases;
6. If the decisions are shockingly corrupt;
4. Strict administrative proceedings;

The third requisite: the third requisite is this. na-confuse Now, clear mistake of fact or law, there is only one
na ko sa iya discussion. Mao man gud ni ang time na wala example. The case of ________vs ______(wa jud ko
notes si ma’am. So, pasensya jud. Pero mao jud ni ang kadungog)
naka-record.
th
4 requisite, the judgment must not contravene a sound
and established public policy.
th
The best way to repel a foreign judgment is the best way 5 , the judgment must be res judicata in the state which
to look for a defect under the third requisite. So, for a rendered the decision. If you remember, in civil procedure,
judgment to be enforced here: Rule 39 Sec. 48, on what is the effect of a foreign
judgment, we will take that up when we discuss the cases.
1. The foreign court that rendered the decision must
have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the Before we discuss the cases, we will discuss the case of
parties. And the one who wants to repel the foreign Mijares vs_____, April 12, 2005? Did I assign it? I did not?
judgment must prove that there was want of notice. Okay.
Now, how do you know if there was proper notice to
the parties? You look at the procedural law. That is FACTS: In 1991, a complaint was filed in the US district
where what law will apply. court of Hawaii, against the Marcos estate. This was
2. Another ground is when there is collusion. When brought by Mijares et.al, Filipino citizens who experienced
parties conspire to obtain a desired judgment from the abuse in the hands of police or military forces during the
foreign court. Marcos regime. So, eventually the Hawaii court rendered
3. Fraud. judgment in favor of Mijares et.al ordering the Marcos
4. Mistake of fact or law. estate to pay 1.96Billion Dollars. It was appealed in the US
5. the judgment must not contravene a sound and court of Appeals and became final and executor. So, they
established public policy filed for enforcement of the judgment of the US court.
ISSUE: can the foreign judgment be enforced in the Phil.
So, let us talk about jurisdiction of the court. By whose HELD: Yes. The rules of comity, utility and convenience of
standard will the competency of jurisdiction over a case in nations has established a usage among civilized states
question be adjudged? The answer is the foreign court which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
which rendered judgment to be a court of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally respected.
jurisdiction in the international sense. It should be
competent not only within its own law but also according
to the law of the second state where the judgment is Therefore, under Sec 48 of Rule 39, Sec. 48. Effect of
sought to be enforced. So if somebody here comes to foreign judgments or final orders.
enforce a judgment of a witch doctor somewhere in Africa,
well that is not a foreign court of competent jurisdiction in The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a
the international sense. foreign country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment
or final order is as follows:
Now, let us go to fraud. The fraud that can be used to
repel a judgment must be extrinsic. You already know that. (a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific
Diba FAME in your civil procedure? Extrinsic fraud is that thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the
which deprives a party of the opportunity to make his full title to the thing; and
and complete defense or fraud in obtaining jurisdiction
over the defendant. Some examples are: a. bribery of (b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
judges; b. false promise of a compromise; c. suppression of person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
an essential document; or d. when the amount is evidence of a right as between the parties and their
misrepresented. successors in interest by a subsequent title.
But intrinsic fraud is not a ground to repel a foreign In either case, the judgment or final order may be
judgment. What are examples: a. perjury; b. repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
misrepresentation of evidence; notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law
or fact.

This is where the requisites come from. Therefore, a Plaintiff advised defendant that of the 850 bales scheduled
foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in our for shipment in July and August, the former was able to
courts on these grounds. ship only 310 bales owing to the alleged failure of the
Adamjee Jute Mills to supply the goods in due time. In a
Now, the next question is how do you do it? Do you have letter, defendant requested plaintiff to ship 100 bales of
to produce evidence as to the merits of the case? The the 540 bales defaulted from the July and August
answer is no. Although the procedure in an action for shipments. In this connection, it may also be mentioned
recognition or enforcement is not in our rules, therefore it that of the 425 bales scheduled for shipment in
will fall under the ordinary rules (I think ang gina mean ni September, 54 bales were likewise defaulted resulting in a
mam kay since no specific rule for it, the general rules will total of 154 bales which is now the object of the
apply). However, I think, in reality instead of an action, controversy.
instead of a complaint, it is a petition. So it might fall
under special proceedings. The Government of India then increased the export duty
of jute bags from 80 to 350 rupees per ton, and plaintiff
But the Supreme Court here distinguished an enforcement requested defendant to increase its letter of credit to
case from an ordinary civil action. Example, if the civil cover the enhanced rate of export duty imposed upon the
action is culpa aquiliana, what is the proper action? In goods that were to be shipped in October, reminding the
culpa aquiliana, to file an action in court, you must state a latter that under their agreement, any alteration in export
cause of action. But for enforcement of judgment, the duty was to be for the buyer's account.
cause of action is not derived from a tortious act. The
question is not whether or not Marcos committed those Hence, defendant, in compliance with plaintiff's request,
acts. But the cause of action is derived from the foreign increased the amount of its letter of credit by $10,986.25
judgment itself. Now in a civil case, the proof is the to cover the increase in export duty on 425 bales
tortious act committed by the defendant who is allowed to scheduled under the contract for the shipment in October,
rebut the allegation. In enforcement cases, the proof is the 1949. However, plaintiff wrote to defendant for a further
foreign judgment. You have to show the court a valid copy increase of $4,000.00 in its letter of credit to cover the
of the judgment. In ordinary civil cases, the defendant can shipment of 154 bales which under the contract should
rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. But in enforcement have been included in the July, August and September
cases, the presentation of evidence is restricted to a shipments.
review of the jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service
of notice, collusion, fraud or mistake of fact. Hence, the Defendant received notification from the Bengal Chamber
Supreme Court reminds us in Mijares vs Ranada that we of Commerce Tribunal of Arbitration in Calcutta, India,
have no business looking into the merits of the judgment. advising it that Plaintiff applied to said Tribunal for
That is already res judicata. arbitration regarding their claim. The Tribunal requested
the defendant to send them its version of the case. This,
Now we will just recite based on the case list for defendant did thru the then Government Corporate
enforcement. Counsel, former Justice Pompeyo Diaz.
st
1 case, katong kay ate suzette. I can’t hear anything…. So, The whole case revolved on the question of whether or
antos na lang ta aning akuang digest. Hehe.. not defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the payment of
increased export taxes imposed by the Indian Government
G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 on the shipments of jute sacks. Defendant contended that
if the jute sacks in question were delivered by plaintiff in
the months of July, August, and September, 1949,
SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL, plaintiff-appellee, pursuant to the terms of the contract, then there would
vs. have been no increased export taxes to pay because said
BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC., increased taxes became effective only on October 1, 1949,
defendant-appellant. while on the other hand, plaintiff argued that the contract
between the parties and all papers and documents made
FACTS: Under a Contract NAGARMULL(plaintiff), a foreign parts thereto should prevail, including defendant's letter
corporation with offices at No. 8 Dalhousie Square (East) of September 29, 1949;
Calcutta, India, agreed to sell to BINALBAGAN-ISABELA
SUGAR COMPANY(defendant), a domestic corporation, The Bengal Chamber of Commerce, Tribunal of Arbitration,
1,700,000 pieces of Hessian bags at $26.20 per 100 bags. refused to sustain defendant's contention and decided in
Shipment of these bags was to be made in equal favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay to the
installments of 425,000 pcs. or 425 bales. plaintiff the sum of 18,562 rupees and 8 annas. This award

was thereafter referred to the Calcutta High Court which To avoid its liability for the aforesaid increase in the export
issued a decree affirming the award; tax, appellee claims that appellant should be held liable
therefor on the strength of its letter of September 29,
Defendant refuses to pay plaintiff's claim because the 1949 asking appellee to ship the shortage. This argument
same has no foundation in law and in fact. Thereafter, no is unavailing because it is not only illogical but contrary to
communication was received by defendant from plaintiff known principles of fairness and justice. When appellant
or its lawyers regarding their claim until June, 1959, when demanded that appellee deliver the shortage of 154 bales
the present complaint was filed. it did nothing more than to demand that to which it was
entitled as a matter of right. The breach of contract
committed by appellee gave appellant, under the law and
As may be gathered from the pleadings and the facts even under general principles of fairness, the right to
stipulated, the action below was for the enforcement of a rescind the contract or to ask for its specific performance,
foreign judgment: the decision rendered by the Tribunal of in either case with right to demand damages. Part of the
Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce in damages appellant was clearly entitled to recover from
Calcutta, India, as affirmed by the High Court of Judicature appellee growing out of the latter's breach of the contract
of Calcutta. consists precisely of the amount of the increase decreed in
the export tax due on the shortage — which, because of
ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Tribunal of appellee's fault, had to be delivered after the effectivity of
Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, as the increased export tax.
affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta, is
enforceable in the Philippines. To the extent, therefore, that the decisions of the Tribunal
of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and of
HELD: No. We reverse the appealed decision upon the the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta fail to apply to the
ground that it is based upon a clear mistake of law and its facts of this case fundamental principles of contract, the
enforcement will give rise to a patent injustice. same may be impeached, as they have been sufficiently
impeached by appellant, on the ground of "clear mistake
It is true that under the provisions of Section 50 of Rule 39, of law".
Rules of Court, a judgment for a sum of money rendered
nd
by a foreign court "is presumptive evidence of a right as 2 case.. same thing, mabuang kog apas..
between the parties and their successors in interest by a
subsequent title", but when suit for its enforcement is [G.R. No. 103493. June 19, 1997]
brought in a Philippine court, said judgment "may be
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of PHILSEC INVESTMENT CORPORATION vs. CA
law or fact"
FACTS: Private respondent Ventura O. Ducat obtained
Upon the facts of record, We are constrained to hold that separate loans from petitioners Ayala International
the decision sought to be enforced was rendered upon a Finance Limited (hereafter called AYALA) and Philsec
"clear mistake of law" and because of that it makes Investment Corporation (hereafter called PHILSEC) in the
appellant — an innocent party — suffer the consequences sum of US$2,500,000.00, secured by shares of stock
of the default or breach of contract committed by owned by Ducat with a market value of P14,088,995.00. In
appellee. order to facilitate the payment of the loans, private
respondent 1488, Inc., through its president, private
respondent Drago Daic, assumed Ducat’s obligation under
There is no question at all that appellee was guilty of a an Agreement, , whereby 1488, Inc. executed a Warranty
breach of contract when it failed to deliver one-hundred Deed with Vendor’s Lien by which it sold to petitioner
fifty-four Hessian bales which, according to the contract Athona Holdings, N.V. (hereafter called ATHONA) a parcel
entered into with appellant, should have been delivered to of land in Harris County, Texas, U.S.A., for
the latter in the months of July, August and September, all US$2,807,209.02, while PHILSEC and AYALA extended a
of the year 1949. It is equally clear beyond doubt that had loan to ATHONA in the amount of US$2,500,000.00 as
these one-hundred fifty-four bales been delivered in initial payment of the purchase price. The balance of
accordance with the contract aforesaid, the increase in the US$307,209.02 was to be paid by means of a promissory
export tax due upon them would not have been imposed note executed by ATHONA in favor of 1488, Inc.
because said increased export tax became effective only Subsequently, upon their receipt of the US$2,500,000.00
on October 1, 1949. from 1488, Inc., PHILSEC and AYALA released Ducat from
his indebtedness and delivered to 1488, Inc. all the shares
of stock in their possession belonging to Ducat.

As ATHONA failed to pay the interest on the balance of (b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is
US$307,209.02, the entire amount covered by the note presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
became due and demandable. Accordingly, private and their successors in interest by a subsequent title; but
respondent 1488, Inc. sued petitioners PHILSEC, AYALA, the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of
and ATHONA in the United States for payment of the jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
balance of US$307,209.02 and for damages for breach of or clear mistake of law or fact.
contract and for fraud allegedly perpetrated by petitioners
in misrepresenting the marketability of the shares of stock In the case at bar, it cannot be said that petitioners were
delivered to 1488, Inc. under the Agreement. given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the
U.S. court as basis for declaring it res judicata or conclusive
While Civil Case No. H-86-440 was pending in the United of the rights of private respondents. The proceedings in
States, petitioners filed a complaint “For Sum of Money the trial court were summary. Neither the trial court nor
with Damages and Writ of Preliminary Attachment” the appellate court was even furnished copies of the
against private respondents in the Regional Trial Court of pleadings in the U.S. court or apprised of the evidence
Makati, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 16563. presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of
whether the issues then being litigated in the U.S. court
Private respondent Ducat moved to dismiss Civil Case No. were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the
16563 on the grounds of (1) litis pendentia, vis-a-vis Civil judgment that might be rendered would constitute res
Action No. H-86-440 filed by 1488, Inc. and Daic in the U.S. judicata.
ISSUE: the principal issue to be resolved in this case is It was error therefore for the Court of Appeals to
whether Civil Case No. 16536 in Makati is barred by the summarily rule that petitioners’ action is barred by the
judgment of the U.S. court. principle of res judicata. Petitioners in fact questioned the
jurisdiction of the U.S. court over their persons, but their
claim was brushed aside by both the trial court and the
HELD: Private respondents contend that for a foreign Court of Appeals.
judgment to be pleaded as res judicata, a judgment
admitting the foreign decision is not necessary. On the
other hand, petitioners argue that the foreign judgment
cannot be given the effect of res judicata without giving December 17, 2013
them an opportunity to impeach it on grounds stated in
Rule 39, §50 of the Rules of Court, to wit: “want of There’s a discussion there why or what are the reasons
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, why foreign judgments are recognized and enforced here
or clear mistake of law or fact.” in the Philippines same reasons why foreign laws are
applied here in the Philippines. And there’s this case of Oil
Petitioners’ contention is meritorious. While this Court and Natural Gas Commission vs. CA and PACIFIC CEMENT
has given the effect of res judicata to foreign judgments in COMPANY, the facts are as follows, Oil and Natural Gas
several cases, it was after the parties opposed to the Commission is a foreign corporation owned and controlled
judgment had been given ample opportunity to repel them by the Government of India while PCC s a private
on grounds allowed under the law. It is not necessary for corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
this purpose to initiate a separate action or proceeding for the Philippines. Oil and Nat Gas Comm and PCC entered
enforcement of the foreign judgment. What is essential is into an agreement whereby PCC would deliver oil well
that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign cement to the former. PCC failed to deliver the oil well
judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its cement. Negotiations ensued between the parties and
efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to they agreed that PCC will replace the oil well cement with
actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, Class “G” cement cost. However, upon inspection, the
a foreign judgment merely constitutes prima facie Class “G” cement did not conform to the Oil and Nat Gas
evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as Comm’s specifications. The latter then informed PCC that
such, is subject to proof to the contrary.i[9] Rule 39, §50 it was referring its claim to an arbitrator pursuant to
provides: Clause 16 of their contract. The venue for arbitration is at
India. The arbitrator resolved the dispute in ONGC’s favor.
To enable ONGC to execute the award in its favor, it filed a
SEC. 50. Effect of foreign judgments. - The effect of a Petition before the Court of India. The India Court adapted
judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having the decision of the arbitrator because of the failure of the
jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: PCC to pay its filing fees of its objections to the award.
Despite notice and several demands, PCC refused to pay
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the the amount adjudged by the India court. Accordingly, the
judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing; ONGC filed a complaint with the RTC of Surigao City for the

enforcement of the judgment of the foreign court. PCC jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is presumptive
moved to dismiss the complaint. PCC alleged that the evidence of a right as between the parties and their
judgment of the Indian Court cannot be enforced here successors in interest. How do you repel the judgment? By
bec. it is not a valid judgment in accordance with our rules evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
on judgments which is, a judgment must state the law and party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. So
the facts on which it was based. So the issue here is can here (Asiavest case) a Hong Kong court rendered judgment
the Phil. court enforce the judgment of the Indian Court against Herras, and this judgment is presumed to be valid.
which the PCC claims that it is not a valid judgment in
accordance with our rules. Yes. It can be enforced in the We have a new case, not really new, this case is more
Philippines, because procedural rules of the litigation is related to recognition case but it talks about the proof
determined by the internal law of the forum, hence, it required. What kind of proof do we need in order to
must be the procedure of India which should be applied enforce or recognize a foreign judgment. Corpus vs Sto.
and if the rules of India allows a judgment to be rendered Tomas. The facts of the case are as follows: Gerbert was a
as valid due to nonpayment of docket fees, then it is a former Filipino Citizen, who acquired Canadian citizenship
valid judgment which can be enforced. So, why did I ask through Naturalization on 2000. In 2005, he married a
you to recite this case in relation to what we’ve discussed, Filipina named Daisylyn. However, due to marital
in the beginning of the class? what did we discuss? The problems, Gerbert went to Canada and filed a petition for
reasons why foreign judgments are enforced and divorce. The Canada court granted the petition of Gerbert
recognized here (the same reasons why foreign laws are and issued a divorce decree in Dec. 2005. Two year after,
applied) and we looked at the theories on why the foreign Gerbert now wanted to marry another Filipina in the
laws are applied. The theory of Comity. Connect that to Philippines, so he went to Pasig Civil Registry Office to
this case. What is that one exception to the theory of register the Canadian divorce decree in the previous
comity? Apply the foreign law which is procedural in marriage certificate. It was registered in the Civil registry
character. In other words, what law determines whether but the NSO said that there must first a judicial recognition
or not the procedural matters are properly followed? The of such divorce decree. So, gerbert went to the RTC and
law of the forum. Here, we have a judgment rendered by filed a petition for the judicial recognition of the divorce
the Indian Court and therefore it is the Indian law on decree and/or declaration of the marriage as dissolved. So
procedure and if for the Indian law a memorandum the issue here is whether or not gerbert was able to
decision is valid, then so be it, we will not even question. properly provide the proof needed for the recognition of
So if a judgment is valid in India in accordance with their this foreign divorce. SC said that he failed to show proof.
rules, we will not question that, okay? That’s it. Sc said that the divorce decree granted to an alien can be
recognized in the Philippines if it is valid to the law of his
Of course the case of Northwest Orient is also connected nationality and that there must be an attached foreign
to that topic. What did the SC say in that case in relation to judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
that particular issue? SC said that a foreign judgment is under our rules of court., together with the copies of the
presumed to be valid and binding in the country from alien’s applicable national law to show the effect of the
which it comes until the contrary is shown. So like what we judgment on the alien himself or herself. Under Section
mentioned last time, how do you attack a foreign 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner must
judgment? You attack it by applying Rule 39, Section 48— show proof either by:
that it was rendered without jurisdiction, want of notice,
collision, extrinsic fraud, and mistake of law or fact. But (1) Official publications or
the form of the judgment, we have nothing to do with.
okay?
(2) Copies attested by the officer having legal custody
of the documents.
It is also proper to presume the legality of the proceedings
and the giving of due notice therein. Consequently, the
party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of If the copies of official records are not kept in the
overcoming the presumption of its validity. Meaning, the Philippines, these must be (a) accompanied by a certificate
party challenging the foreign judgment shall have the duty issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the
to demonstrate the invalidity of the foreign judgment. So, Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country
as long as you have proof of the judgment, that is already in which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the
a presumption that it is a valid judgment. So, in relation to seal of his office.
our first requisite on proof, we apply the discussion in
Northwest vs CA. In the case at bar, Gerbert attached to his petition a copy
of the divorce decree, as well as the required certificates
Also in the case of Asiavest, SC said that a foreign proving its authenticity, but failed to include a copy of the
judgment against a person rendered by court having

Canadian law (his national law) on divorce which would Now, as to this issue on jurisdiction, by whose standard
show the effect of such decree in his person or his status. will the competency of jurisdiction over the case in
question be adjudged? and the answer is the foreign court
Maam suarez: Yes. If a judgment is sought to be which rendered must be a court of competent jurisdiction
recognized here in our country like a judgment of divorce, in an international sense. we already discussed this pala.
it is not enough to show proof of the foreign judgment,
that would be very easy because definitely, gerbert has So there is this case, an old case, Boudard versus Tait 67
the official publication or the official judgment of the court Phils. 170, this is in relation to want of notice. Mrs.
itself, the original. So how would you know that the boudard sued Tait in Manila, CFI Manila, on the basis of a
country where the divorce decree was issued was based judgment rendered by the CFI of Hanoi, French Indo-China,
on the laws of such country?!? So you have to prove also in favor Mrs. B for payment of 56K. So this is an
that foreign law. So, in this case, Gerbert did not attach enforcement case. The Hanoi court rendered a judgment
the official publication of the Canadian law on divorce or in favor of Mrs. B because Tait was declared in default, he
the copies thereof attested and authenticated, and failed to appear during the trial. So, the CFI Manila, where
therefore, the SC said REMAND the case to the RTC, the enforcement case was filed, dismissed the case on the
wherein Gerbert would be allowed to present the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Hanoi
necessary proof of the foreign law and the opposing party Court because Tait was not a resident of French Indo-
may be given a chance to oppose the foreign judgment China at that time. Issue: Can the CFI Manila enforce the
and overcome Gerbert’s presumptive evidence (which is judgment of the Hanoi Court? SC said NO. Judicial
the judgment/decree) of a right by proving want of proceedings in a foreign country, regarding payment of
jurisdiction, want of notice, collision, fraud, clear mistake money, are only effective against a party if summons is
of law or fact. duly served on him within such foreign country before the
proceedings. This is an action in personam. Hence, the SC
And lastly, SC said that the recognition that the RTC may said there was lack of jurisdiction. THE Hnaoi Court did not
extend to the Canadian divorce decree does not, by itself, acquire jurisdiction over Tait and therefore, such judgment
authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. cannot be enforced here in the Philippines.
A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the
proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of And we have another case, Buchanan vs. Rucker, 9 East
Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry. 192 (1808), a british case, this is in Trinidad and Tobago. A
The petitioner has to file another petition under Rule 108 Tobago court issued a judgment in personam against
for the court to issue an order to the local registry to Rucker, who is a non-resident of Tobago. How was he
cancel that entry of marriage. It is a different proceeding, served a copy of the summons? He was served with
it has nothing to do with recognition. Okay? process by nailing a copy of the summons at the entrance
(door) of the courthouse, in accordance with the Tobago
But what is the effect of recognition? Why is it that law. Now, an action for recognition of the judgment of the
precaution must be taken to ensure conformity with our Tobago court was brought in England. It was proven that
laws before recognition is made? Because a foreign Rucker was absent from Tobago at the time of the
judgment, once recognized, will have the effect of res proceedings. Issue: Should the English court recognize the
judicata between the parties, as provided in Section 48, judgment of the Tobago Court. The SC of England said, NO.
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. A state may empower a court to pass judgment upon
absentees after substituting some form of notice for
personal service of a writ of such judgment though binding
The SC also said that In fact, more than the principle of in the country where pronounced has no international
comity that is served by the practice of reciprocal validity. Even assuming that Tobago law had expressly
recognition of foreign judgments between nations, the res enacted that the person who had never been present in
judicata effect of the foreign judgments of divorce serves Tobago should be bound by the form of service wherein
as the deeper basis for extending judicial recognition and the summons were nailed or served at the entrance of the
for considering the alien spouse bound by its terms. courthouse, the question was how can that be obligatory
upon the subjects (citizens) of other countries? Can
So that is the effect of recognition by the court. Tobago pass a law to bind the rights of the whole world?
Obviously not. So this is an example of different
Now, the next one is very easy. The following judgments jurisdictions and different ways of attacking a judgment.
cannot be enforced in the Philippines as they fall to the This is a British case and the British court said, how can
exceptions of the application of foreign law (exceptions to they impose it on us?. Well, that is their process there. So,
comity): Criminal cases, tax cases and strict administrative meaning, they have different rules from us. So their own
proceedings. conflict rules for them, the grounds for granting judgment
recognition in England are determined by English law.

Let’s go to the cases on fraud. We have Philippine lawyer colluded with FASGI; that he entered into the
Aluminum vs. FASGI. In this case, Philippine Aluminum compromise agreement without PAWI’s authority is belied
(PAWI), a Philippine corporation, had a distributorship by the fact that PAWI initially complied with the
agreement with FASGI, corporation organized and existing agreement. It did not disclaim the agreement. It sent two
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, installments (though belatedly) but failed to comply on the
USA, for the purchase, importation and distributorship in rest. It cannot now aver that the agreement is without its
the United States of aluminum wheels manufactured by authority. If PAWI were indeed hoodwinked by its lawyer
PAWI. When the latter delivered the aluminum wheels in who purportedly acted in collusion with FASGI, it should
the US, FASGI found the goods to be defective and in non- have aptly raised the issue before the forum which issued
compliance with stated requirements in the contract. Thus the judgment in line with the principle of international
FASGI filed an action for breach of contract and recovery comity that a court of another jurisdiction should refrain,
of damages against PAWI in US District Court of California. as a matter of propriety and fairness, from so assuming
During the pendency of the case, the parties entered into the power of passing judgment on the correctness of the
a settlement, entitled "Transaction", where it was application of law and the evaluation of the facts of the
stipulated that PAWI would accept the return of not less judgment issued by another tribunal.
than 8,100 wheels after restoring to FASGI the purchase
price via four (4) irrevocable letters of credit. However, Fraud, to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of
PAWI defaulted in its obligation prompting FASGI to a foreign judgment, must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on
pursue its complaint for damages against PAWI before the facts not controverted or resolved in the case where
California district court. In the interim, the parties, judgment is rendered, or that which would go to the
resolved to enter into another arrangement, this time jurisdiction of the court or would deprive the party against
entitled "Supplemental Settlement Agreement,". The whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action
agreement basically provides that PAWI shall return the to which he has a meritorious case or defense. In fine,
purchase price in installment and conversely, FASGI shall intrinsic fraud, that is, fraud which goes to the very
return the wheel in installment. Eventually, FASGI sought existence of the cause of action - such as fraud in
the enforcement of the agreement and it received a obtaining the consent to a contract - is deemed already
favorable judgment from the California court. PAWI is then adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate against the
ordered to pay an equivalent of P252k plus damages but recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment.
FASGI was not ordered to return the remaining wheels.
PAWI was not able to comply with the court order in the
US. So FASGI filed a complaint for the enforcement of a Maam Suarez: So in other words, the SC was saying that, if
foreign judgment with RTC-Makati. RTC ruled against you have questions regarding the judgment, you go first to
FASGI on the ground that the foreign judgment is tainted the court which rendered the judgment and question the
with fraud because FASGI was not ordered to return the judgment. Do not go to another court. Even though the
remaining wheels (unjust enrichment) and that PAWI’s foreign judgment is being repelled on the ground of
American lawyer entered into the agreements without the collision and fraud, the issue on collision should have been
consent of PAWI. Issue: Whether or not the foreign raised when the foreign court rendered the judgment,
judgment may be enforced here in the Philippines. SC said because perhaps, just like our courts, once a judgment is
YES. The judgment is valid. A valid judgment rendered by a rendered, the judgment can be questioned (by appeal),
foreign tribunal may be recognized insofar as the why was the judgment allowed to reach finality? Why did
immediate parties and the underlying cause of action are it not bring up that the parties colluded with each other
concerned so long as it is convincingly shown that there there in the California court? As to fraud, one can only
has been an opportunity for a full and fair hearing before a repel a foreign judgment if one was deprived from making
court of competent jurisdiction; that trial upon regular a full and complete defense or fraud in obtaining
proceedings has been conducted, following due citation or jurisdiction over the defendant.IN this case, the SC said
voluntary appearance of the defendant and under a that the alleged fraud committed was merely intrinsic and
system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial therefore, not a ground for repelling a foreign judgment.
administration of justice; and that there is nothing to These allegations (collision and fraud) must be proven.
indicate either a prejudice in court and in the system of Okay?
laws under which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the
judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and The next requisite for enforcement or recognition of a
binding in the country from which it comes, until a foreign judgment, it must not contradict a sound and
contrary showing, on the basis of a presumption of established public policy of the forum.
regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in
the foreign forum. And the case assigned here is Querubin vs. Querubin 87
Phil.124. We have here Sylvestre Querubin. I don’t
In this case, PAWI was very well represented in the understand how some people could be so mean.  he and
California court. PAWI’s insistence that its American his wife Margaret had a daughter. You guess the name of

the daughter. Querubina Querubin    (poor (b) Judgment or final order is against a person, the
daughter. :D ) Anyway, Sylvestre filed for divorce in LA. judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right
They’re both Filipinos but maybe he acquired US as between the parties and their successors in interest by
citizenship. and then he was granted the custody of the a subsequent title. (personam)
daughter Querubina by the LA court, because the mother,
Margaret, was living with another man already at the time And therefore in the case of Mijares vs. Ranada, the SC
the divorce was filed. After the divorce, Margaret married here discussed a lot of issues, from the beginning as to
her living partner and sought modification of the order of what is the cause of action in an enforcement case plus
the LA court in regard of the custody of Querubina. So the the docket fees. The payment of docket fees was also
LA court agreed that they will share custody. So, Sylvestre tackled here in a sense that, is the petitioner in the
and Querubina however, were already in the Philippines at petition for enforcement of judgment obliged to pay the
that time. So Margaret’s lawyer sought a writ of habeas docket fees in relation to the amount of the judgment
corpus in the local CFI on the strength of the order of the which was 1 Billion dollars? The SC here said, NO. The fee
LA court that Margaret and Sylvestre can now share of 410php is sufficient. That the complaint to enforce the
custody of Querubina. The CFI refused the writ. Issue: foreign judgment is one capable of pecuniary estimation
Should CFI have granted the writ. The SC said, NO. The SC but at the same time it is also an action based on
refused to overturn the CFI decision to not recognize the judgment against an estate thus placing it beyond the
foreign judgment (where the LA court changed its ruling, ambit of Section 7(a) Rule 141 which insists that the
allowing the sharing of custody) because giving custody of docket fees be based on the value of the whatever. What
a minor child to a mother who was the guilty party in the provision then governs the proper computation of filing
divorce proceeding is contrary to our public policy. So that fees for this particular case? It is Section 7 (b)(3) Rule 141,
was the reason for repelling that foreign judgment. A involving as it does other actions not involving property. It
minor child should not be given in custody to a mother does not involve a property, just an enforcement of a
who was the guilty party in a divorce proceeding. Again, foreign judgment. You don’t have to look at the value or at
this is a very old case. Okay. So that’s an example of the the judgment itself and the amount of the award given by
fourth requisite. the foreign court. And here, the SC also recognized that
with respect to the effect of the foreign judgment, this is a
Now. The fifth requisite: The foreign judgment must be res judgment against the person (the estate of the Marcoses).
judicata in the State that rendered it. So, you already know The SC said, the rules of comity, utility and convenience of
the requisites of res judicata—the judgment must be final; nations have established a usage among civilized states by
the court which rendered the judgment had the which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered
judgment must be on the merits; and there must be efficacious under certain conditions that may vary in
identity of the parties, subject matter and cause of action. different countries. Okay? So, this is an action in
Of course, the number 4 requisite, that is moot because if personam, and therefore the foreign judgment is
you are enforcing a foreign judgment, that involves the presumptive, and not conclusive, of a right as between the
same parties, the same cause of action, and same subject parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent
matter. Okay? except that, with reference to cause of title. So presumptive as to the right of the victims to
action, the real cause of action is now the recognition or collect from the estate of the Marcoses. How do you repel
enforcement of the foreign judgment. It’s just that it has this? How do you subject this judgment to impeachment?
the same issues, subject, etc. okay? So that is what it again go back to the third requisite. okay? so the
means noh, that the judgment must be res judicata, opportunity to challenge a foreign judgment is to attack it
meaning all of those requisites for application of res based on just that, noh. And of course, our other
judicata are present. And therefore, they overlap each exceptions to comity. Okay? so we are done with
other because when we talk about jurisdiction, definitely enforcement.
this is already contained here in the fourth requisite. okay?
December 18, 2013
So we go to the question, what is the degree of
conclusiveness of a foreign judgment that is entitled to
enforcement or recognition? In relation to that, we have
to go back to our Rule 39, Section 48 of the Rules of Court.
NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF CONFLICT RULES
(a) Judgment or final order is upon a specific thing, the

A conflict rule, according to Paras, is a provision found in
judgment or final order, is conclusive upon the title to the
conflicts of law found in a country’s own law which
thing, and (actions in rem or quasi in rem) eg. marriage
governs factual situations possessed of a foreign element.

So every state has conflict rules. It is part of the national So we are talking about formalities. What law shall
law of every state. govern? The law of the place where the contract, will or
the public instrument was executed. It does not solve the
Let us distinguish a purely internal rule from a conflict issue, it merely states what county’s law will apply.
rule.
There are two kinds of conflict rules.
It is a purely internal if it sets forth a right or exacts
obligations. Remember our discussion on causes of action 1. One-sided rule is one which indicates when Philippine
under Rule 2 - right, obligation, violation, damage. Rule on internal law will apply. Article 15 is an example.
adverse possession. Article 2176 on culpa aquiliana. That’s
a purely internal rule - every person who causes damage Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
to another shall be liable to another for the damage status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
caused. upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
A conflicts rule is one that anticipates a foreign element or So it specifically states that Philippine internal law will
determines the applicable law in a conflict situation. apply with respect to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons.
A purely internal law directly answers a given problem as
its legal effects are immediately indicated. Like article 2. All-sided rule is one which indicates when foreign law is
2180, an employer is directly and primarily responsible for to be applied. So, foreign law or whatever law, both sides
the act of the employee. of the story. Like Article 16.2 which talks about intestate
and testamentary successions.
A conflict rule, however merely indirectly responds by
indicating whether an internal or foreign law is applied. It Art. 16 par 2. However, intestate and testamentary
does not answer the problem. It does not solve the issue. successions, both with respect to the order of succession
and to the amount of successional rights and to the
A purely internal rule authorizes, commands or prohibits a intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
certain code of conduct. Just like the RPC. regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
A conflict rule decides only which law or jurisdiction who nature of the property and regardless of the country
will give the final solution to a problem. wherein said property may be found.
So the most popular conflict rule is Article 16. So, it can be Philippine law or it can be foreign law.
Depends on the nationality of the one who died.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Composition or Parts of Conflict Rule.
It does not answer the problem as to who owns the 1. the factual situation – the set of facts presenting a
property or who has the right to the property, dba? It just conflicts problem.
says that if there is an issue regarding the property and
there is foreign element, it is subject to the law of the 2. the point of contact or the connecting factor - part of
country where the property is situated. So it answers the the rule which states the law of the country with which the
question what law will apply. If the property is found in factual situation is most intimately connected.
the Philippines then obviously Article 16 says that
Philippine law that will apply. Example: Let us go back to Article 16.1
Another example is Article 17. Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and
other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of The factual situation is - real property as well as personal
the country in which they are executed. property.

The point of contact is - the law of the country where it is - w/n the will is valid
situated.
Anyway, let us go to the decisive points of contact na lang
Example: Article 1039. in the example given by Fr. Aquino.
Art. 1039. The capacity to succeed is governed by the law 1. his nationality is Filipino
of the nation of the decedent. 2. domiciled in US
3. place where the contract is made is France
The factual situation is - capacity to succeed. Who are 4. place where the property is situated is China
capacitated to be the heirs of the decedent.
So, a lot of conflict rules can apply.
The point of contact is - law of the nation of the decedent.
His national law, not the national law of one of the heirs. 1. place where the contract is made is France -
Article 17.1 with respect to formal validity of the
Now, if you read the book of Fr. Aquino, he actually has 3 will.
essential components of a conflict rule. 2. place where the property is situated is China –
Article 16.1
1. Subposition of fact – same as factual situation. This is a
the _ to certain situations or social relations that the law Now, in the case of Saudia vs CA, the SC enumerated the
considers significant. It is because that one conflict rule test factor or the points of contact.
can be applied to a multiplicity of situations, just like
Article 15. There are so many situations - family rights and So you see ha, according to Paras the point of contact is
duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity. the law of the country with which the factual situation is
most intimately connected. But, Aquino says point of
And even Article 16.2 – intestate and testamentary contact is the circumstance that establishes a connection
succession, successional rights, intrinsic validity. between a case at hand and the laws of a foreign
jurisdiction such as nationality, domicile or situs, which is
2. Point of contact – that circumstance which establishes a what we looked at here (example). Again, different
connection between a case at hand and the laws of a authors have different definitions of point of contact. The
foreign jurisdiction. Such as nationality, domicile, or situs SC is following, I guess, the Aquino definition of a point of
of the goods. contact, in the case of Saudia vs CA.
3. Juridical consequence - the application of the law, XXX These "test factors" or "points of contact" or
whether domestic or foreign. "connecting factors" could be any of the following:
So, if you notice the different authors have different ways (1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence,
of presenting this particular subject. This is not composed his place of sojourn, or his origin;
of hard and fast laws. We have a lot of theories and
opinions given by certain authors. (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a
corporation;
Let us go to this example.
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is,
We have here X, a Filipino national, domiciled in the US or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is
when he died. He left a will that he made in France. The decisive when real rights are involved;
will stated that he left property in China.
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus,
So obviously, this problem has a foreign element. How such as the place where a contract has been made, a
many factual situations are present? marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The
lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and
- Capacity of the testator torts;

(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, of the made by the SC in Saudia. Like (6) the intention of
e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the the contracting parties as to the law that should govern
place where a power of attorney is to be exercised; their agreement, the lex loci intentionis, so that is the
point of contact. It could also be a provision in a contract.
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law This would fall in lex loci intetionis.
that should govern their agreement, the lex loci
intentionis;
- END -
(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings
are instituted or done. The lex fori — the law of the forum
— is particularly important because, as we have seen
earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance
of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the
lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise
applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a
given case for the reason that it falls under one of the
exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of

practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its
master or owner as such. It also covers contractual
relationships particularly contracts of affreightment. XXX
(Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA)
So, in other words, when you look at point of contact,

rarely do we say Philippine law or rarely do we say the law
of France. You can say that is the point of contact if you
are talking about, let us say Article 1753.
Article 1753 which provides that the law of the country to

which the goods are to be transported shall govern the
liability of the common carrier in case of loss, destruction
or deterioration. The point of contact is the law of the
country of destination. The factual situation is the loss,
destruction or deterioration of goods while being
transported. So it is more on the law of the country-of-
what.
The only conflict rule which says Philippine law is Article

15. In article 15 the point of contact is the law of the
Philippines or the national law of the parties.
So that’s how we determine the point of contact -

nationality, domicile, law of country where the contract
was entered into which is lex loci celebrationis, lex loci
contractus, lex loci intentionis or the law of the intention
of the parties.
When it comes to the exam, as to this topic, you just have

to divide the conflict rule. What is the factual situation,
what is the point of contact. Just look at the enumeration

CONFLICT OF LAWS
Professor: Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Notes for the 2nd exam
January 8, 2014
By Daryl
And so previously we looked at the general discussions on this subject, conflict of

laws. Generally speaking, when a case with a foreign element is brought to
courts, that court will have to determine first whether it has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and whether it can acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant. Secondly, once jurisdiction is assumed, what law will apply. But it is
not that simple, it is not that easy, determination of jurisdiction and application of
law, because there are more specific steps to follow before even the question of
what law will apply will arise.
CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFLICT RULES
So we are now going to characterization. And the previous doctrine was the
“Nature of Conflict Rule”. We look at the two parts of a conflict rule, the factual
situation and the point of contact.
Now, we are going to characterize a conflict problem. How do we know kind of

problem is being brought before the court? We have to know that before we
can apply the proper conflict rule.
So let’s go to an example: A married B, they are both Filipinos. A donated a

house and lot to B during the subsistence of their marriage. What kind of a
problem is this? Is this a marriage issue or a property issue? Because as you
already know, when it comes to marriage, since A and B are both Filipinos, they
are covered by Philippine law under Art. 15 which is the conflict rule on the
problem. If the issue is marriage, Art. 15 is the conflict rule. But if it is a property
law issue, then we have the doctrine of lex situs or lex rae sitae, the law of the
place where the property is located will govern the situation. So that is an
example of the problem of characterization. It is not that easy sometimes to
determine what the factual situation is.
So, with respect to this, in characterizing this, the author said that, with respect to
this problem, the characterization given to the problem is a marriage issue
because they are both Filipinos. So the provision governing this situation is found
in the Family Code. Meaning, the provision governing the situation, not the
conflict rule but the law which governs that particular problem, that will solve the
problem, is found in the Family Code. It is characterized as a marriage issue and
therefore Art. 15 is the conflict rule on the matter.
Valles. Delfin. Tan, Andrea. Estrella. Nartatez. Galagar. Garcia. Ong-Abrantes. Rizada
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Now, let’s change the fact a little bit, what if one is not a Filipino? What if the
donor is not a Filipino? Is this a marriage issue or a property law issue? Well,
since the donor is a foreigner, the country of his nationality may treat this as a
property problem. What are their laws there? So there will be a problem of
determining whether the foreign property law or the foreign matrimonial property
law will apply. It depends on their laws. So before even looking at the conflict rule
on the matter, how does the law of his country treat this particular issue? Is it a
property issue or a marriage issue?
So what then is characterization? It is the process of deciding whether or not

the facts relate to the kind of question specified in the conflict rule. Otherwise
stated, characterization is otherwise called classification, it is the process of
assigning a disputed question to its correct legal category. Or it is simply the
process of determining under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. It is
the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of questions
specified in the conflicts rule. So because in a conflicts rule, there is a factual
situation, so the purpose of characterization then is to enable the forum to select
the proper law. So the court must first characterize the issue or the problem
brought before it before it can even determine what law to apply.
By the way, with respect to donation, there are different schools of thought. Is
donation a matter of contracts or a matter of property? There is lex loci
celebrationis, the law of the place where the contract was entered into. Or is it a
matter of property, the property donated, lex situs or lex rae sitae. There are two
schools of thought. Under the foreign law system, donations are a matter of
property, and therefore, as long as property is donated, then it is the law of the
place where the property is located that will apply. But under our Philippine civil
law, a donation is a contract. It’s a kind of contract. So, the question is, if we have
to apply foreign law in regard to a donation that is in issue before the Philippine
court, what court (court gyud and gisulti ni Ma’am pero basig law na dapat)
should apply? This is the answer. So there will now be a problem of determining
whether the foreign property law or the foreign matrimonial law will apply, or the
foreign law on contracts will apply.
So, what are the factors which give rise to the problem of characterization?
Why is it difficult sometimes to characterize a problem. It’s there in your book.
Different legal systems attach to the same legal term, different meanings.
So let’s say estoppel, maybe estoppel has the same meaning everywhere, but
there are some legal terms that have different meanings in legal systems. And
different legal systems have different terms for the same crime. Like for example,
in the US they have manslaughter, here, we have homicide. I don’t know if they
are the same but anyway, they are different terms.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Different legal systems may contain ideas or conceptions completely unknown to

one another.
Different legal systems apply different principles for the solution of problems
which in general terms are a common danger(??).
So these are problems encountered in characterization.
So, let’s go to the steps, the specific steps.

In the book of Salonga, there are only three steps:
(1) classification, meaning find out the factual situation;
(2) characterization of the point of contact; and
(3) application of the law. Simple.
But in Paras, there are seven steps. But only steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 concern
themselves characterization proper. (Sorry dili nako mabutang isa-isa ang steps
kay wala siya sa mga powerpoints na nahatag sa ako kay kani nga topic, salin pa
sa first exam dapat na coverage.)
First, find out whether there is a foreign element. Is this is conflict problem? If
it’s a conflict problem, then you characterize the factual situation.
Characterization of the factual situation, meaning, assigning of proven facts to
their particular category. What is it? Is it a question of contracts? Or a question of
property? Succession? Or Status? Sometimes it’s easy, sometimes, it is not.
Now, once the field if determined, let’s say it is a question of property, whose
classification or characterization of the factual situation shall apply? The
characterization here or the characterization in another country? Just like the
second problem that we looked at, A donated a parcel of land to B, A is a
foreigner. Here, perhaps our characterization is that it is a marriage problem,
because here, spouses cannot donate to each other. But in the country in which
the alien donor is a national, perhaps the characterization of the question is that it
is a matter of contract or a matter of property. So whose characterization do we
look at if there is a foreign element, especially if one party is a foreign element.
Another example, is the marriage between first cousins incestuous? Here, the
answer is yes, but in State X, it is not. So how do we go about it? If there is an
express conflict rule on the matter, such rule must be adhered to. If a conflict rule
would say that with respect to characterizing this particular question/problem, it is
the law of the foreign national will apply, then we have to follow it. But if there is
not express conflict rule on the matter, then the characterization of the forum
should be adhered to. Unless there would result a clear case of injustice.
Now, you think the courts will not look into the conflict rules of the other country?
Normally, what the court will do is just characterize the problem in accordance
with our laws. That is the easier thing to do.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
The case here is Gibbs vs. Gov’t, this is an old case (Recitation: Carell
Nartatez). If you look at the case of Gibbs, it is actually going against this one,
what you see on the board (uhm… wala ko kabalo unsay naa sa board.)
Because, no. 1 is the priority, we have express conflict rule on the matter of
characterization. Meaning, according to Gibbs, the husband, they’re both
Americans, at that time they had owned property in the Philippines. According to
our civil code, when it comes to personal issues and to the conjugal right of the
wife, this is governed by US law. Not only that, if succession is involved,
according to our conflict rule, this is governed by the national law of the person
whose succession is in question, the wife, the American wife. So the
characterization given by California law should apply because are conflict rule
says so. Here, the SC has its own characterization that it is a property issue. It is
not a succession issue, but it involves the payment of inheritance tax. So it’s
confusing. If it involves inheritance tax, then it must be related to succession. But,
since property is involved, SC said it’s a property issue and therefore we apply
the lex rae sitae, and therefore, he has to pay inheritance tax. Under their laws, it
is not inherited. Automatically, he becomes the sole and absolute owner of the
conjugal property. Dito kasi, when one of the spouse dies, the other spouse will
inherit the share.
So this is how complicated it becomes, the issue of characterization. And another

case, is the case of Saudi Arabia Airlines which we already took up. But we’ll just
read the discussion of the SC: “Before a choice of law can be made, it is
necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules
fall. This process is known as characterization or the Doctrine of Qualification. It
is the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of questions
specified in a conflict rule. The purpose of characterization is to enable the forum
to select the law. So, our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation but
a factual situation, event, or operative fact.” So, here the SC then continued to
discuss the parts of a conflict problem. And so, here, the characterization given
was that this is an issue of tort under Art. 19. She sued under Art. 19, it was
characterized as a tort. And therefore the applicable law is the locus delicti
commissi, the law of the place where the tortious act took place.
So, let’s go to the third step. So…very good ha Carell, you were able to discuss
very thoroughly this case, only the necessary facts, issues, and ruling. (Yihee!)
Let’s go to the third step. (mao na gyud ning tinuod na third step.) Once the
factual situation has been characterized, it’s already been set if it’s a property
issue or a conflict issue, then the conflict rule to be applied. Heto na naman, it
becomes complicated, what conflict rule shall be applied? Our conflict rule or the
conflict rule of the foreign country? Whose law may apply? So, the answer is
easy, we apply our own conflict rule. Even in the characterization process, we
look at our conflict rule first on the matter of the factual situation. So to determine
the conflict rule that will apply, we will only look at our conflict rules. This is
precisely the purpose of a conflict rule. Because we’re only looking at the law or
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
the rule that will tell us whose law will apply. We are not solving the problem yet,
we are still going to that part where will now determine what country’s law will
apply. So at this stage it has to be determined has the nearest or most intimate
connection with the particular facts. So we apply our conflict rule, very easy.
So of course we know our conflict rule, let’s say it’s a property issue, then the
conflict rule is Art. 16. Property, real or personal, is governed by the law of the
place where the property is situated. So the point of contact is the law of the
place where the property is situated. Very easy. But if we look at the question
here, whose classification or characterization of the point of contact shall apply?
Well, the answer is…first let’s go to an example in relation to that particular issue.
X, a Filipino nurse, became a US citizen. She later acquired dual citizenship. She
died intestate leaving properties in the Philippines. In her will she left all her
properties to Y, her sister (Weird kay sure gyud ko nga intestate iyang ingon pero
and sunod kay “in her will”, basig “in the States” to iyang pasabot. Anyway…)
Now, Z, her only child, questions the will on the ground that she has been
deprived of her legitime. So under 16.2, successional rights, yung issue ni Z are
governed by the national law, point of contact, of the testator. What is she? Dual!
So what was her nationality at the time of death? American or Filipino?
So that is a problem that may arise. So, how do we characterize the point of
contact?
General Rule: The characterization of the forum must prevail. So if the court
determines you to be a Filipino, then the point of contact, her national law, is
Philippine law.
Exception: If the problem deals with property. This you have to remember, the
hierarchy of conflict rules, this is the highest, the lex situs. The law of the country
where the property is situated. It will prevail over all other conflict rules. If the
forum is merely an incidental place of trial, then the characterization of the forum
must give way to any common characterization that may exist in the foreign
countries involved.
Let’s go to an example: A, a Japanese lived in Hong Kong, entered into a

contract with B, an American living in California. So A, filed a case against B here
in the Philippines for breach of contract. The contract entered into where? We
don’t know where the contract was perfected. So this is an issue, the factual
situation is contract, whether or not the contract was valid and whether or not an
action for breach of contract is possible. What is the point of contact? Assume
that in so far as the Japanese and American law are concerned, the contract was
perfected in Hong Kong. Assume that in so far Philippine law is concerned, the
contract was perfected either in Japan or California. So what is the point of
contact? It’s lex loci celebrationis, but what country? Hong Kong, which is the
characterization made by the Japanese and American law of the point of
contact? Or is it the Japan or California which is the Philippine characterization?
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Well, if you look at this, you will see that the forum is merely an incidental place
of trial. And so, it should cast aside its own characterization and consider Hong
Kong as the place of celebration of the contract because it is merely an incidental
place of trial.
So, nowadays, maraming questions sa akin with respect to internet purchases. I

don’t know that, ask your teacher on contracts. But as to what law will govern, in
cases contracts contracted by telephone, fax, or email, internet, whatever, we
have different characterizations here. Under 1319, the place of offer, the
manifestation theory. Under US jurisprudence, it’s the place of acceptance, the
expedition theory. Under the general jurisprudence, it’s the place of reception or
acceptance, the reception theory. So there are different characterizations for this
issue alone if the contract is entered into by phone, fax, or mail because we are
talking normally about where was the contract perfected.
Let’s go to this example: A and B, both Filipinos, were married in Italy, while on
vacation. After four years of living in the Philippines, B, left for the US to work as
nurse, she then became a US citizen. When she came back to the Philippines,
she filed a petition for annulment of their marriage with the RTC on the ground
that she was only 17 years old when they got married. So, how do you
characterize the problem? First, determine is there a foreign element? Definitely,
she is now an American. Determine the factual situation, was B capacitated to
marry A when she was 17? So it is the capacity of B to marry, it’s a question of
marriage. Point of contact, what is the connecting factor, this is a contract of
marriage, is it lex locus celebrationis or is it the national law of B? Kasi even
under our conflict rules, we have marriage under Art. 15, which is governed by
the national law, and we have contracts governed by the law of the place where
the contract was entered into. And what is marriage, it’s a contract. But does
marriage under Philippine characterization fall under the area of ordinary
contracts? The answer is no. Marriage falls under Art. 15. So those are the
issues that may come out.
So, once it’s determined what is the point of contact, which country’s law will
apply? So let’s say the court determines that it is the law of the US or the
California law (asa gikan ang California??) which should apply after determining
the factual situation, point of contact, after characterizing. What is this? What
does this involve? Does this involve substantive law or procedural law? What if
the law that is involved is procedural? Can we apply that here? Even though the
applicable is California law, but it is procedural, we know that it cannot be applied
here because when questions of procedure are concerned, we have to…ano ba
yan? What procedure? You cannot use the procedure of another country in trying
the case. But again, there are some matters which could be considered
procedural or substantive. Like the questions on evidence, definitely, here in our
country, evidence is under procedural law. And therefore, even if after
characterization, California law should apply, but after determination, the law
relates to evidence, then our laws should apply. However, on technical matters
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
such as admissibility, what is the procedure, matters of judicial notice, there are
matters which not all jurists are convinced should be considered as evidenciary,
such as which facts are to be proven, or what the facts and issues are. So there
are legal luminaries to say that those two aspects are not really procedural but
substantive. So again that’s a problem. So that’s for evidence.
Statute of frauds, what is that here? That is substantive law, we find that in the
civil code. So for example, it has something to do with statute of frauds, yung
issue or the foreign problem that is before the court. And after the process of
characterization, it is determined that the foreign law will apply. But, the matter
can also be treated as procedural for it is in fact a demand for written evidence.
So, Aquino, made some proposals, what to do if the foreign law that is to be
applied is not here nor there. Procedural? Substantive ba? It says here, if both
the lex fori and the lex _____ treat that matter as procedural, we will apply the lex
fori. If the lex _____ treats the matter as substantive, but the lex fori treats the
matter as procedural, what will we apply? The lex _____. For example, here
evidence is procedural, what if in the foreign country whose law is applicable, it is
substantive, then we apply their law. Of course, not really all matters of evidence,
but those that are kind of controversial. If both treat the matter substantive, then
apply the foreign law, no problem. But if the lex fori treats the matter as
substantive, and the lex ______ treats it as procedural, then we will apply our
law. Because we cannot apply their procedural law. Those are proposals.
We are just talking about the process of characterization, we have no hard and
fast rule. We use this, we use that, we use this, we use that. Even the legal
luminaries are saying we do this or that. What is the proposal of Paras? First, the
law of the country intended by the parties to govern the contract. We are talking
about statute of frauds. Second, proceed to apply that intended law in its totality,
including its periods of prescription, except when the subject matter governs
property in the Philippines, then we must apply Art. 16.1, the lext situs. So those
are options that can be part of the procedure of characterization.
So statute of limitations of prescription. What is prescription for us?

Substantive, we find that in the civil code. But remember the case of Calalin(?)
vs. POEA, wherein the SC said that the law on prescription of actions is sui
generis in conflict of laws. In that sense, it may be viewed as either procedural or
substantive, depending on the characterization.
Characterization of the statute becomes irrelevant…when do you not have

to characterize? When there is a borrowing statue. One that has the practical
effect of treating the foreign statute of limitations as one of substance. So a
foreign statute is treating the foreign law as substantive law. A borrowing statute
directs the State to apply the foreign statute of limitations to the pending case
based on a foreign law. What is an example of a borrowing statute? We have
Sec. 48 of Code of Civil Procedure, if by the law of the State where the cause of
the action arose, the action is barred it is also barred in the Philippines. So that’s
an example of a borrowing statute, it’s saying it should be applied here. If it says
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
that it is already barred there, then it’s barred here. It’s as good as saying that
they’re laws will apply, it doesn’t matter if it is considered procedural here.
So, what are the solutions then, what do we propose to the problem of
characterization? Ang dami talagang problema nito, because there are so
many solutions, but these are all theories, these are not hard and fast rules.
So we have the lex fori solution, meaning to make it easy, you characterize
according to your own law. Do not even bother upon the laws of the other country
when it comes to characterization, even to determine whether or not the law to be
applied is procedural or substantive. And then you apply the law, whether
resident or foreign, consequent upon its characterization. But there is a defect to
this lex fori solution, if our court characterizes according to our own laws, and
applies a foreign law as a consequence of its characterization, it will be possible
that the foreign law you apply to a case which was never meant to apply. That’s a
defent, that’s a possibility.
Next, the lex ______ solution, so the characterization depends upon the
governing law. So it’s reversed, you find out first the applicable laws and then you
characterize. If the applicable law is the foreign law, then it follows the
characterization of the foreign state which is the principal point of contact. What’s
the defect of this solution? There is a vicious cycle, the court will characterize to
determine the governing law, but the proposal is that it’s characterized according
to the governing law.
Next the analytic jurisprudence and comparative law solution. You think our
courts will actually go through the whole…characterization is only made after a
general, comparative analytical study of the jurisprudence of all the states
involved. So tedious, wag na lang, dismiss na lang, forum non conveniens para
walang problema. According to Paras, although this is the most scholarly, it’s
also the most difficult proposal.
Double characterization, solution of dual theory of lex fori and lex ______. Look
at the lex fori first, and then look at the lex ______, and then the court will
determine. Example, is the testamentary provision valid? Under this solution the
RTC must refer to the national of the testator first, and then the RTC must ask
whether under the US law the matter will be intrinsic or formal, and then the RTC
will proceed to use the applicable law.
So we have the totality theory. We have…that’s it.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
January 21, 2014

By Chamie
PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY
We will zero in on certain issues on status and capacity vis a vis the system on
personal law. So, we all know that the conflict rule with regards to status and
capacity is article 15. But what is status? How do we know that the issue is
covered by Article 15?
Status is the legal position of an individual in society. Suzette, what’s your

status? Married. Legally? Yes Generally speaking when you think about status its
either married or single, or widowed.
Extensively it’s the place where an individual in society and consists of personal
qualities and relationships more or less permanent, with which the state and
community are concerned.
So included in status is one’s personal qualities and relationships more or less

permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will. Like suzette, she
cannot just say ‘ay, tomorrow I don’t wanna be married anymore.’ Therefore I’m
single. It’s not that simple.
With which the state and community are concerned. --That’s why in your birth
certificate its stated there what your status is. So these are the examples either
your single, widowed or married, legitimate or illegitimate, whether you’re a minor
or you’ve reached the age of majority. And then we have the beginning and end
of personality. Has a person reached acquired the status of being born or is he
alive because his personality ended. Then absence is a status. We will go to
those later.
So, the CHARACTERISTICS OF STATUS insofar as our lesson is concerned

are:
1. Conferred by right by the state and not by the individuals- sometimes we
are born with ___ status in accordance with the definition of the state. That
is how it is, right? I was born legitimate because of the definition of the
state that you are a legitimate child. You cannot just say I am legitimate or
legitimated child.
2. It is with public or social interest
3. It is a concept of social order, which cannot easily be terminated at the
mere will or desire of the parties concerned.
4. It generally has universal character. So suzette, if you go to Africa you’ll
still be considered (I hope so) married because generally it has a universal
character.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Let’s go now to capacity
What is this capacity as covered by article 15? It is what governs (?) for a person
to exercise his rights. So, status is broader than capacity. It is the sum total of
one’s rights and obligations. (e.g . capacity to vote, capacity to enter school,
capacity to acquire your job, to board an airplane)
In relation to conflict of laws to ascertain what system of law to determine a

person’s capacity to enter into a legal transaction. Here we are talking about the
specific capacity to enter into contract (sale mortgage, to be appointed as
ambassador or consul) and do not forget the requirements of capacity. I’m sure
you’ve already mastered this since first year. Juridical capacity which is what
everyone has. It is the subject of legal relation that a baby can be a done and the
acceptance can be done by the parents. The baby can be a donee. It can be the
subject of legal relations but it does not have the capacity to act. Remember in
donation of real property the parents will have to sign the acceptance. Just a
reminder
How do you relate these topics to personal law? Now, personal law in conflict
of law is that which governs a person’s family relations, his status, his capacity
and the consequences of his actions.
So, going back to suzette she says she is married (nagdududa talaga si maam)
under Philippine law she is really married. We will go back to that later.
What is the personal law of a person? What is the law you will base your status,
your capacity? Alangan naman you use the laws of the US because I want to
divorce. The answer is it may either be his national law or the law of his domicile
depending upon the theory applied in the forum. So the personal law of an
individual (personal law is what governs his status, capacity and family relations)
depends on the theory adhered to by the forum. Where are you? Are you in
Timbuktu? The theory enforced in the forum.
So, let’s say you go to Timbuktu, suzette. You went on a holiday, are you married
in Timbuktu? What is your personal law? If the law of Timbuktu applies the
nationality theory it is the law of the country which you are a national, Philippines.
If you apply the law of your domicile, the same coz your domicile is here. But if
your domicile is, let’s say, France then that will apply. Depending upon the theory
enforced in Timbuktu.
Let’s go to this universal recognition of system of personal law—so basically,

generally all countries recognize this system of personal law. What is this system
of personal law? That the status, capacity and family relations are governed by
his personal law. So based on the common sense proposition that the legal
position of an individual is governed by the law of the state which he is deemed
to be connected in a permanent way.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So definitely you have the status of being married suzette, wherever you are. So,
that is why there is universality of personal law. Because if there is no personal
law if you go to another country you follow their laws of marriage, then you move
to another country they have other laws on marriage again, diba? So, if you have
a personal law you bring that with you wherever you go. Yun.
The divergent laws of the states in which he may happen to be physically

present, to act and engage in transaction. Like capacity to enter into a contract,
different countries have different ages of majority. If you have a personal law, you
are capacitated wherever you may go. Presumably under your system of
personal law you are capacitated to enter into contract even if the state has
different ages of majority.
So this, universal recognition of system of personal law has two parts.
A person is attributed certain legal characteristics of permanent character. And

these permanent characteristics ought to be governed by one law for all cases,
rather than on a case to case different laws. The example is simple. X cannot be
single n state 1 married in state 1, divorced in state 3.
Let’s go to the defects
If a forum understands personal law differently even if there is uniformity in the

concept in such a way that complex difficulties are caused by conflicting rules of
jurisdiction and serious conflict arises from the principle of domicile and
nationality. It results in the anomalous situation wherein the same individual is
subjected to different laws in different states. Like example a Filipino citizen who
is a green card holder. That was an issue in the past.
Let’s go to scope and coverage of personal law—

In most civil law countries such as the Philippines, personal law has an extensive
scope. Article 15, diba? Wherever a Filipino goes his status, capacity and family
relations are governed by his national law. In most common law countries such
as the US personal has a different scope. If the US citizen is not in the US they
really don’t care. They don’t really poke into the general activity of the US citizen.
So, when you talk about extensive, in civil law law countries this includes the
beginning and end of personality, the capacity to enter legal transactions,
matters involving family relations, testate and intestate succession. But in
common law countries there are some aspects they don’t really care about.
Under American law the capacity to enter into contact is not governed by the
federal law but by the law of the place where the contract was made. Wala silang
pakialam. Ditto kasi sa atin, you enter into a marriage contract in India with a 5
year old you get married. The Philippines will make pakialam Filipinos. Hindi
pwede.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
What connection must exist between a n individual and a state in order to subject
such individual to the personal law of the state. So in other words, the personal
law is not always the law of the country where he is a national. Personal law will
depend on the theory being applied to the forum where that person is at this
particular time. If the person is in Greece and they adhere to the domicialiary
theory. For the Greeks even if you are Filipino you are governed by the law of the
domicile, for them. But of course if there’s a foreigner here then you know what
applies, Article 15.
The two different laws or theories.

Common law countries- the test is whether the individual is domiciled in the
state.
Civil law counties- national law
So you can see noh that here in the Philippines and of course spain it’s the
national law. Common law countries they adhere to the domiciliary theory.
What are these theories?

1. Nationality theory- the status and capacity of an individual are governed
by the law of his nationality.
2. Domiciliary- governed by the law of the domicile
3. Situs or Eclectic theory- views the particular place or situs of an event or
transaction as the generally controlling law.
So we will not really concern ourselves about different fora, what theory they
adhere to. Here in the Philippines we adhere to the nationality theory. We’ll see
that in cases. I’ve sure you’e read most of the cases but you will see it in a
different perspective.
What are the reasons for the system of personal law?

Convenience-the legal position of a person will be unjust if it will be determined
by the situation
Expediency -in order to protect his interest a country is given sole jurisdiction
over the status by the state of the personal law
Why is there a system of personal law? Justification

It is based on the conception of man as a social being, so that those transactions
of his daily life which affect him most closely in a personal sense may be
governed universally by that system of law most adequate for the purpose.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
NATIONALITY THEORY
Nationality -refers to membership in a political community that is personal and
more or less permanent, not temporary.
Differences between nationality and citizenship

Nationality citizenship
Membership in an ethnic, social, racial, Membership in a political society
and cultural group
May be: One who is endowed with political and
1. A citizen, or civil rights in a body politic of a State
2. Not a citizen but owes permanent
allegiance to the State and is entitled to
its protection
But in international law national and citizenship are used interchangeably. A

national or citizen is a person who owes allegiance is entitled to protection from
the state.
Let’s go to this Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws. This is in
relation to determination of the nationality of a person. Who determines WON a
person is a national or citizen of that particular state. Of course, obviously without
even thinking, each state is free to determine the person whom it considers its
nationals. So under our constitution who is a Filipino? Countries have their own
ways to determine who is their national. Each state has that freedom.
Article 1 (Hague Convention)

“It is for the State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law
shall be recognized by other States insofar as it is consistent with international
conventions, international customs and the principles of law generally recognized
with regard to nationality.”
Art. 2
“Any question as to whether a person possesses nationality of a particular State
shall be determined in accordance with the law of that State.”
No other law except that of the phillipines WON a Filipino is a national. Philippine
law will determine the nationality of Filipino. Example si Blanche she goes to
Switzerland and meets a Swizz banker and he proposes and the she says yes.
What if under Swiss law you automatically become Swiss if you marry a Swiss
guy. Can the Swiss say,’you are now a swiss, blanche, you are no longer a
Filipino?” The answer is no. can the swiss say you lost your Filipino citizenship?
No, only the Philippines can say WON you are a Filipino, whether you lost it or
retained it.
In our courts, Can the RTC declare that under Philippine law, X, a Filipino
woman who marries Y, a Swiss national acquires Swiss nationality? Can the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
courts say Swiss ka na? answer: No. What the RTC can competently declare is
whether or not, X has lost her Filipino citizenship [by act of marriage]. It cannot
say you have acquired swiss nationality.
However, despite article 1 and 2 the authors are saying that the authority of the
state to determine who is its nationals is not absolute because of article 1 says if
you remember it must be consistent with international conventions etc.
There’s this illustration: the law of brazil had conferred Brazilian nationality to
aliens who resided in brazil on November 15, 1889. And such nationalization en
masse was not recognized by the French court. Sabi ng French court we will not
agree that those who lived there from this time to that have acquired Brazilian
citizenship. So there is this requirement/ condition, that what you use to
determine whoa re your nationals must be consistent with international
conventions, international customs and the principles of law, etc.
So, let’s go back to our Nationality Theory- this the theory by virtue of which the
status and capacity of an individual are generally governed by the law of his
nationality.
Now, there are defects of the nationality theory.

1. Change of nationality or citizenship may be difficult to effectuate- like
refugees. There are a lot oof refugees who come here from Vietnam, mga
boat people. Do you think they acquired nationality? It’s not that easy.
2. Some individuals, for varying reasons, are stateless- can statelessness
aries? What is the personal law then of a stateless person if the nationality
theory is applied? He has no nationality at all.
3. There are persons possessed of dual or multiple personalities- just like
stateless people we also have people who have dual or multiple
nationalities.
4. It is not always desirable to apply to aliens their national law- that is why
aliens go to other countries coz they don’t want to apply their national law.
How then is nationality or citizenship acquired in general? We’re not talking

about the Philippines only.
1. Birth- either the principle of jus sanguinis or jus soli. You know very well
that in the US they apply jus soli. That’s why a lot of people go there just to
give birth and the baby acquires American citizenship.
2. Naturalization- this is a procedure. Acquiring citizenship by naturalization
or by some kind of act which qualify one as a new national. So when you
talk about naturalization a person is originally is of a different nationality.
3. Repatriation- here we have an original Filipino losing his Filipino
citizenship and he wants to recover it. It is the recovery of original
nationality upon fulfillment of certain conditions
4. Subjugation or Cession—poliltical changes which result in the change of
the status of the inhabitants of the new soverign. This is no obsolete. But
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
before if belligerent monarch will raid a certain territory he subjugates it.

Then the people there acquire the nationality of the power. That’s why
there are a lot of French citizens in Vietnam. In Africa, a lot of Frenchies
there. In South America, there are a lot of Brits.
Now what are the Modes of Losing Nationality or Citizenship in General

1. Release- some states conquered by Germany ask for release from their
nationality.voluntary, states allow that.
2. Deprivation- some states like the Philippines deprive their citizens of their
nationality upon entering into the military service of a foreign power. You
are now a member of the Iraqi military, sorry, you are cno longer Filipino.
3. Expiration- the result of long stay in another land without indication or
desire to return.
4. Renunciation-- when a person repudiates his nationality in favor of
another country.
5. Substitution- the nationality is lost by naturalization abroad or marriage.
How will you know if Dual or Multiple Nationality may Arise

1. Concurrent application of jus soli and jus sanguinis at birth- Here in the
Philippines we adhere to the principle of and jus sanguinis. Even if born in
another country as long as born of a Filipino Fathe, Filipino mother. Who is
an example of a dual national? Edu Manzano. He was born of Filipino
parents but born in the USA. Therefore automatically acquiring dual
nationality by application of those 2 principles.
2. Denial by one State of the right of expatriation- for sometime under greek
law, naturalization in another state results in the loss of prior nationality
unless consent has been obtained from the state of prior nationality has
been obtained.
3. Marriage
4. Formal and voluntary act
5. Legislative acts of states which allow dual citizenship – RA 9225
6. A naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with certain legal requirements in
the country of origin
So, if a person has dual or multiple citizenship what is his personal law? Si edu
us adheres to the domiciliary theory and lets say he’s domiciled in HK. He is
Filipino and American. The Philippines adheres to nationality theory. What is his
personal law? The law of HK or the law of Philippines? This is answered by the
Hague convention under article 3.
Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws, Art. 3: “A person having two or

more nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the states whose
nationality he possesses.”
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So if a foreigner resides in a place where he is a citizen, fine. The Philippines

can consider him a Filipino so under the theory of national law his personal law is
Filipino.
But what if he is in another state like the example I gave you earlier. He is Filipino
American but lives in HK. It says here If the forum is a third state where he is
NOT a citizen –
Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws, Art. 5: “Within a 3rd State, a

person having 2 or more nationalities shall be treated as if he only had one.
Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status and of
any conventions in force, a 3rd state SHALL, of the nationalities which such
person possesses, RECOGNIZE exclusively in its territory the nationality of the
country:
a. in which he is habitually and principally a resident, or
b. with which the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected
[Theory of Effective Nationality]
So, if he is a domicialiary of HK and there is a case in Japanese. How will the

Japanese look at him? An American or Filipino. According to common practice it
is the domicialiary or the law of the domicile that is governs. But even if edu is a
domicialiary of HK, he is habitually or principally a resident of the Philippines and
he appears to be most closely connected to Filipinos (he is treated as a Filipino).
That is the theory of effective nationality.
So, statelessness how will it arise?

1. From the concurrent application of jus soli and jus sanguinis at birth in the
reverse-
2. Tumultuous political events in some countries have rendered stateless
numberless individuals- did you see the movie of Tom Hanks where he
lived in the airport because of the political events in his country.
Kookooritchkin vs. Sol Gen,

L-1812, Aug. 27, 1948
Facts:
Eremes Kookooritchkin applied for Philippine citizenship by naturalization under
CA 473, as amended by Act 535. He has been residing in the Phils for 25 years.
Although a Russian by birth he is not a citizen of Soviet Russia as he disclaims
allegiance to the present Communist Government of Russia. Thus, the TC
declared him a stateless refugee in this country, belonging to no State. This was
opposed by the Solgen stating that he failed to allege that the laws of Russia
allow Filipinos to be naturalized in Russia.
Held:
He was considered stateless. The SC took judicial notice of the history, nature
and character of the Soviet dictatorship. SC held that it would be fastidious to
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
require further evidence of petitioner’s claim that he is stateless than his

testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian Community government
because he has been at war with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in
the Phils. Source: net
This did not only involve Kookooritchkin but also other Russians who refused to
join the Bolsheviks citizens of the Soviet union under the communists. And so,
they became stateless. It’s easier to apply for naturalization if your steles. You
don’t have to prove reciprocity. Unlike if you are considered a national of another
state ang daming achecheboreche. So here, he was steles and he was allowed
to apply for Filipino citizenship plus he married a Filipina. He lived in camarines
and had a son rudy who eventually became an actor. He had a daughter who
was also in showbiz.
3. Diverse legislations respecting the status of married women-

4. A formal and voluntary act
5. Deprivation of citizenship for any cause such as commission of a crime- if
a state can determine who citizens are it can also remove citizenship.
6. Renunciation by certain acts, express or implied
If you have a stateless person what is his personal law? It shall be determined by
the law of the country of domicile because he has no nationality or country of
residence if he has no country of domicile.
January 22, 2014

By Andrea Tan
So we are already discussing Nationality Theory.
Let’s go to Ellis vs. RP
Ellis vs. RP
(30 Apr 1963)
In this connection, it should be noted that this is a proceedings in rem, which no

court may entertain unless it has jurisdiction, not only over the subject matter of
the case and over the parties, but also over the res, which is the personal status
of Baby Rose as well as that of petitioners herein. Our Civil Code (Art. 15)
adheres to the theory that jurisdiction over the status of a natural person is
determined by the latters' nationality. Pursuant to this theory, we have jurisdiction
over the status of Baby Rose, she being a citizen of the Philippines, but not over
the status of the petitioners, who are foreigners. Under our political law, which is
patterned after the Anglo-American legal system, we have, likewise, adopted the
latter's view to the effect that personal status, in general, is determined by and/or
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
subject to the jurisdiction of the domiciliary law (Restatement of the Law of

Conflict of Laws, p. 86; The Conflict of Laws by Beale, Vol. I, p. 305, Vol. II, pp.
713-714). This, perhaps, is the reason why our Civil Code does not permit
adoption by non-resident aliens, and we have consistently refused to recognize
the validity of foreign decrees of divorce — regardless of the grounds upon which
the same are based — involving citizens of the Philippines who are not bona
fide residents of the forum, even when our laws authorized absolute divorce in
the Philippines
Inasmuch as petitioners herein are not domiciled in the Philippines — and,

hence, non-resident aliens - we cannot assume and exercise jurisdiction over the
status, under either the nationality theory or the domiciliary theory. In any event,
whether the above — quoted provision of said Art. 335 is predicated upon lack of
jurisdiction over theres or merely affects the cause of action, we have no
authority to grant the relief prayed for by petitioners herein, and it has been so
held in Caraballo v. Republic, L-15080 (April 25, 1962) and Katansik v. Republic
L-15472 (June 30, 1962).
Take note that this is an old case. The discussion here is kind of mixed up in the
sense that when you talk about Art 15, we don’t talk about jurisdiction but choice
of law. With respect to status, you said that the court has no jurisdiction over the
status of the would-be adopter? The SC said under our political law, personal
status is determined by the subject to the jurisdiction of the domiciliary law. But
anyway, what the SC is saying here is that yes, with respect to the status, a
Filipino baby is governed by Philippine law. In as much as the Ellis spouses (the
foreigners who wanted to adopt the Filipino baby), they are not domiciled in the
Philippines. When you talk about personal law regarding what law governs the
status of a person, it’s either the national law, the law of the domicile or the law of
the situs, where the contract was entered into.
According to the SC, since the Ellis spouses are not domiciled here, and they’re
not Filipinos, the court CANNOT assume and exercise jurisdiction over their
status. Meaning, our SC cannot make a determination as to whether they can be
adopters or not. It’s not a question of whether the court has jurisdiction but
whether or not the court can exercise jurisdiction over their status and declare
them to be adopters because it will depend on their laws because they are not
domiciled here.
Anyway, this is an OLD case. Just for illustration purposes.
Let’s go to Board of Immigration v. Callano.
Board of Immigration v. Callano

(31 Oct 1968)
The question, whether petitioners who are admittedly Filipino citizens at birth
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
subsequently acquired Chinese citizenship under the Chinese Law of Nationality

by reason of recognition or a prolonged stay in China, is a fit subject for the
Chinese law and the Chinese court to determine, which cannot be resolved by a
Philippine court without encroaching on the legal system of China. For, the
settled rule of international law, affirmed by the Hague Convention on Conflict of
Nationality Laws of April 12, 1930 and by the International Court of Justice, is that
"Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular
state should be determined in accordance with laws of that state ." (quoted in
Salonga, Private International Law, 1957 Ed., p. 112.)
There was no necessity of deciding that question because so far as concerns the
petitioners' status, the only question in this proceeding is: Did the
petitioners lose their Philippine citizenship upon the performance of certain acts
or the happening of certain events in China?
In deciding this question no foreign law can be applied. The petitioners are
admittedly Filipino citizens at birth, and their status must be governed by
Philippine law wherever they may be, in conformity with Article 15 (formerly
Article 9) of the Civil Code which provides as follows: "Laws relating to family
rights and duties, or to the status, conditions and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Under Article
IV, Section 2, of the Philippine Constitution, "Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law," which implies that the question of
whether a Filipino has lost his Philippine citizenship shall be determined by no
other than the Philippine law.
So, simply stated, they were originally Filipinos. They were born here in the
Philippines with Filipino mother. They were brought to Hongkong and China and
lived there for so many years. Did they lose their Filipino nationality? That is to be
determined by our laws. But whether or not they came to acquire Chinese
nationality (while they were in China), that is not for us to decide. That is an
illustration of the Hague Convention Art. 1.
Now, we’re going to the ways of acquiring Filipino citizenship. You already know
these things. This is just a review. We will just look at the general discussion.
Who are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Natural born (1987 Constitution)
2. Naturalized ( 1987 Constitution)
3. Citizens by election – as decided in the case of Chiongbian vs. De Leon
(Jan. 31, 1949). Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who,
before adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to a public
office in the Philippines.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
What about those who recovered? Depende no. If they’re natural –born, then
they’re natural-born. Those who were naturalized, when they recover it, then
naturalized.
So, natural-born. Let’s go to the case of Tecson vs. COMELEC
Tecson vs. COMELEC

(3 Mar 2004)
Petitioner wanted to cancel candidacy of Fernando Poe Jr., stating that he is not
a Filipino citizen. His father is Spanish. His mother is American.
Issue: wn Fernando Poe is natural-born citizen?
SC:
It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a
natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not the father of
respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the
affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him
from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion on
the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou (FPJ’s grandfather) could only be drawn
from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would
have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under
Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his
death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his
place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited
from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine Bill had effected in
1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his
son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which
regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate.
That’s very easy no. You took that up in your Consti.
According to the case of Co vs. HRET, those who elected Filipino citizenship
before 1987 are considered natural-born. In citizens by election, this is with
respect to the 1935, before 1935 Constitution, but in Kho, this is in relation to the
1987 Constitution being given retroactive effect. So those who elected Filipino
citizenship (these are the one who have Filipino mothers) are considered natural-
born as long as the election was done before the 1987 Constitution.
Co vs. HRET
(July 30,1991)
Article IV Section 2 of 1987 constitution defines natural-born citizens as “those
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship,”[2] as well as “those born before 17
January 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority.[3]
Section 1(3) of the 1987 Constitution was interpreted by the Court as

applying to those who elected Filipino citizenship not only after 2 February 1987
but also to those who elected citizenship before that date. It was intended to
correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien
mother was automatically granted the status of natural-born citizen while one
born of Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect Philippine
citizenship, whereby under earlier laws, he was not a natural-born citizen.[4]
The Court’s based its resolution of the issue by tracing Jose Ong, Jr.
citizenship to his mother who was a natural-born Filipina. What is material to the
case is whether he elected Filipino citizenship when he reached the age of
majority as provided for by Section 1 (4) Article IV of the 1935 Constitution which
was the operative law when he was born. Under the 1987 Constitution, natural-
born status can only be accorded to individuals who elected citizenship upon
reaching majority. In the opinion of the Court it is not necessary for Ong, Jr. to
formally or in writing elect citizenship when he came of age as he was already a
citizen since he was nine by virtue of his mother being a natural-born citizen and
his father a naturalized Filipino.
In Bengzon vs. HRET, X was a natural-born citizen. He later renounced his

Filipino citizenship to become an American and was later repatriated. He
recovered his Filipino citizenship. What is his status, natural-born or naturalized?
SC: if the method of recovering once citizenship is through repatriation, then he

reverts back to his natural-born status. If he undergoes the process of
naturalization because he is not qualified to be repatriated, then he cannot revert
back to his natural-born status. His status will now be naturalized. He cannot run
for President. Kasi ang president is supposed to be natural-born. That’s the
difference. How you recover if it is repatriation? You go back to natural-born. You
undergo the process of naturalization, you are naturalized.
NATURALIZATION
Let’s go to naturalization.
This is the process of acquiring the citizenship of another country. There are
actually 2 modes, plus 1 which is number 2. Only added once(?). The modes that
you are familiar with are:
1. Judicial proceeding under CA 473.
2. Administrative proceeding under RA 9139.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Let’s just compare the procedure. You know very well the acronym ARCPEL.
Qualifications for Naturalization.
JUDICIAL [CA 473] ADMINISTRATIVE [RA

9139]
AGE Not less than 21 [now 18 Not less than 18 years of

under RA 6809] years of age at the TIME of FILING
age at the DATE of of the petition
HEARING of the petition
RESIDENCY Continuous residence in Born in RP and residing in

RP of not less than 10 RP since birth
years
CHARACTER 1. Good moral character 1. Good moral character

2. Believes in the 2. 2. Believes in the
principles of the principle of the
Constitution Constitution
PROPERTY OR 1. Must own real estate in 1. Must have a known

PROFESSION RP worth P5,000.00 or trade, business,
2. Must have some profession or lawful
lucrative trade, occupation from which
profession or lawful he derives income
occupation sufficient to support his
family
2. Exempted – college
degree holders who
are unable to practice
their profession
because they are
disqualified by reason
of their citizenship
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
EDUCATION His children must be Must have received his

enrolled in a school where primary and secondary
RP history, civics and education from DECS
government are taught and recognized school where
prescribed as part of the RP history, civics and
curriculum . Hindi pde ung government are taught and
International School. prescribed as part of the
Ateneo, UP pde. curriculum and his minor
children must be enrolled in
similar schools
LANGUAGE Must be able to speak and Must be able to read, write
write: and speak:
1. English or Spanish, 1. Filipino, or
and 2. Any RP dialect
2. Any principal RP
language
OTHERS Must have mingled with
Filipinos and evinced desire
to learn and embrace
customs and traditions of
Filipinos
Under the Judicial proceedings, the residency requirement is 10 continuous

years. But there is a special 5 year residency requirement:
Under CA 473 - 10 Year Residency is Reduced to 5 Years when the

Applicant:
1. Has honorably held office under the government;
2. Has established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the RP;
3. Has married a Filipino woman;
4. Has been engaged as a teacher in a school not established for the
exclusive instruction of children of a particular nationality or race for a
period of not less than 2 years. So hindi pde International School; or
5. Was born in the RP.
Let’s just go to the abbreviated steps.
Steps in Administrative Naturalization Proceedings

1. File a DECLARATION of INTENTION. Then,
2. FILING of PETITION for naturalization. Iba yan ha.
3. PUBLICATION in Official Gazette
4. HEARING of Petition
5. Promulgation of judgment awarding naturalization. This is not judicial ha
so this is only in the – I don’t know, BI? You find out na lang.
6. REHEARING of Petition
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
7. Taking an OATH of allegiance. That’s it for administrative proceeding.
Those who are exempted from filing a Declaration of Intention are those:
1. Born in the RP and received primary and secondary education in schools
recognized by the DECS; or
2. Those who have resided in the RP for 30 years before filing the
application, or
3. The widow and minor children of alien who has declared his intention to
become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually
naturalized.
So no need to file a Declaration of Intention. You can go straight to the filing of

the petition. Now, the filing of the petition is not – you declare your intention and
tomorrow you can file a petition? No. It is done after the lapse of 1 year. You
must declare your intention if you are not exempted. You wait 1 year before you
can file your petition. It must be supported by affidavits of 2 credible persons.
What is this publication? This is for 3 weeks, once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks and there are jurisdictional requirements. Full texts of the petition must be
published. Hindi lang ung cover page.
Then the hearing then promulgation of judgment awarding naturalization.
The rehearing under no. 6 takes place after 2 years from promulgation. So in
other words, may trial. Trial. Naturalization. Then a rehearing.
What should the applicant do within the 2 year period from promulgation of the
hearing? He must not leave the Philippines except on government mission, or if
he is kidnapped or forcibly removed from the Philippines or if he undergoes an
operation abroad.
What else? He must dedicate himself to a lawful calling or profession. He must
not have been convicted of any offense and he must not have committed any act
prejudicial to the nation.
If he passes the rehearing, then that is the time he can take his oath of
allegiance.
Who cannot apply for naturalization?

The following are Disqualified from Applying for Naturalization under CA
473
1. Citizens or subjects or nations with whom the the RP is at war, during the
period of such war
2. Those:
a. Opposed to organized government, or
b. Affiliated with any association or group of persons who upload and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
3. Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence and

personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their
ideas
4. Those who are:
a. Polygamists, or
b. Believers in the practice of polygamy
5. Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude
6. Those suffering from:
a. Mental alienation, or
b. Incurable contagious diseases;
7. Those who, during the period of their residence in the RP:
a. Have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or
b. Have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and idea
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose law do not grant Filipinos
the right to be naturalized citizens or subject thereof (Reciprocity)
C Kookooritchkin was insisting that he was stateless because presumably Soviet

Union at that time does not reciprocate. So, these are the disqualifications to
apply for naturalization.
Let’s say the applicant was already naturalized. So hindi cya disqualified. But can
his naturalization be cancelled? Yes. These are the grounds.
Grounds for Cancellation of Filipino Citizenship Acquired through
Naturalization
1. Certificate of naturalization was obtained fraudulently or illegally
2. He established his permanent residence abroad within five [5] years after
his naturalization
3. The petition was based on an invalid declaration of intention
4. His minor children failed to comply with the educational requirements
through his fault or neglect
5. He allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of our
naturalization laws
Imagine ha, after he becomes naturalized, he has to stay here, at least

permanently. If he goes abroad, obviously visit lang. Or law school. Because if he
establishes permanent residence abroad within 5 years after his naturalization,
that would be a ground for cancellation. After 5 years, pde na cyang
magpermanent. Pde cyang mag-green card.
Okay. So you have to be able to distinguish between the grounds for

disqualification and the grounds for cancellation of Filipino citizenship acquired
through naturalization.
That’s the other thing about being naturalized. Pde mong bawiin. But if you are
natural-born, that cannot be taken away. But you can lose your natural-born
status if you do something…
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Let’s go to Oh Hek How v. Republic
Oh Hek How v. Republic (1969)
Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 provides, however, that before the
naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner shall "solemnly swear," inter alia,
that he renounces "absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate" and particularly to the state "of which" he is "a subject or
citizen."
The obvious purpose of this requirement is to divest him of his former nationality,
before acquiring Philippine citizenship, because, otherwise, he would have two
nationalities and owe allegiance to two (2) distinct sovereignties, which our laws
do not permit, except that, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2639, "the acquisition of
citizenship by a natural-born Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any
friendly democratic Ibero-American countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture
of his Philippine citizenship, if the law of that country grants the same privilege to
its citizens and such had been agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines
and the foreign country from which citizenship is acquired."
The question of how a Chinese citizen may strip himself of that status is
necessarily governed — pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of our Civil Code — by
the laws of China, not by those of the Philippines. 9 As a consequence, a Chinese
national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines, unless he has
complied with the laws of Nationalist China requiring previous permission of its
Minister of the Interior for the renunciation of nationality.
Take note that even though expressly provided there in the list, to be qualified for
naturalization, you must belong to a friendly foreign country who reciprocates
with the Philippines regarding naturalization or you must turn yourself into a
stateless person. Because if you belong to a hostile country, that particular time
in the 1960s, China was not friendly. Here, the grounds for not granting
naturalization to Mr. Oh is: 1. His income is not a lucrative one; 2. He has not
secured from the Minister of Interior of China the permission required by the laws
thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese citizenship. So he did not prove
that he renounced his Chinese citizenship. Therefore, his naturalization
application failed.
So, at this time, was the Chinese forbidden from complying? No. The SC just
said, “a Chinese national cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines,
unless he has complied with the laws of Nationalist China requiring previous
permission of its Minister of the Interior for the renunciation of nationality.”
He renounce first. Then apply. Do not apply then renounce later.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Let’s go to RP vs. Sayo
RP vs. Sayo
(20 Aug 1990)
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the
correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving
nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as
controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in
nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a, wrong
may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This Court adheres
to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected
and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.
What is meant by 'appropriate adversary proceeding?' Blacks Law Dictionary

defines 'adversary proceeding' as follows:
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an exparte
application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to
the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes
an adoption proceeding. (Platt v. Magagnini, 187 p. 716, 718, 110 Was. 39).
xxx xxx xxx 5
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for
correction and /or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and
conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be
described as 'summary'. There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the
petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming
any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the
opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary
proceedings. 6
The proceedings taken in the instant case appear to us to be appropriate

adversary proceedings. The Assistant Provincial Fiscal did not file any opposition
to the petition. It must be assumed that the Assistant Provincial Fiscal did not do
so because he saw no need to file such an opposition. We do not believe that his
failure to file an opposition changed the adversarial character of the proceedings.
It certainly was not private respondent's fault that neither the Assistant Provincial
Fiscal nor anyone else saw fit to oppose the petition for correction.
Was he disqualified? No. This was more on the correction of entries, on whether
or not he was a Filipino. The proceedings can appear to be the appropriate
adversarial proceeding. What’s to be done is, you want to correct the entry in
your birth certificate if previously it is stated that your nationality is foreigner. You
want to convert to Filipino, you have to prove that you are really a Filipino. So this
is not acquisition of Filipino citizenship but just to make sure that the records
show that you’re Filipino. It’s not that easy. You have to prove it. Here, he filed
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
the appropriate adversarial proceedings. There was a hearing. Publication. He

showed all the evidence: voter’s id of his father, decision of the BI, etc.
Let’s go to another topic, which is: Does an alien woman who marries a Filipino
acquire Filipino citizenship?
We looked at the ways of acquiring Filipino citizenship. We have: birth,

naturalization, repatriation and Subjugation or cession.
Chronology of Rules:
1. Under Sec. 15 of the Naturalization Law [CA 473] provides: “Any woman
married to a citizen of the RP, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized,
is deemed a citizen of the Philippines” - up to the late 1950’s this was
construed to generally mean that if an alien woman married to a Filipino
national did not suffer from any of the disqualifications under Sec. 4 of CA
473, she was to be considered a Filipino citizen by the mere fact of
marriage. This is the shortcut. No need to go through any procedure. The
important thing is, she does not have to be qualified. Only that she does not
suffer from any of the disqualifications.
2. In the 1960’s - the SC, in a line of cases, held that it was not enough that
the alien wife did not have any disqualifications; she should also have all the
qualifications required by CA 473 to become a Filipino citizen by
naturalization [ARCPEL]. So all qualifications for naturalization, she must
have those. She must also not be disqualified. But she does not have to go
through the naturalization proceedings. She just have to have all the
qualifications.
3. In Burca v. RP [30 Jan 1967] - the SC held that not only must the alien
woman possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications under
CA 473, she must also file a petition for naturalization in the CFI of the place
where she had resided at least one year before the filing of the petition. This
meant that:
a. alien men married to Filipinas are given better treatment because
only 5 years residency is required. Ang mangyari, the woman has to
go through the entire proceeding with the 10 year qualification.
b. alien women who marry Filipinos are placed on the same footing as
any other alien without any marital tie to a Filipino national.
Let’s go to the Burca case.
Burca vs. RP (30 Jan 1967)
We note that the petition avers that petitioner was born in Gigaquit, Surigao that
her former residence was Surigao, Surigao, and that presently she is residing at
Regal St., Ormoc City. In court, however, she testified that she also resided in
Junquera St., Cebu, where she took up a course in home economics, for one
year. Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
should state petitioner's "present and former places of residence".
Residence encompasses all places where petitioner actually and physically

resided. 13 Cebu, where she studied for one year, perforce comes within the term
residence. The reason for exacting recital in the petition of present and former
places of residence is that "information regarding petitioner and objection to his
application are apt to be provided by people in his actual, physical surrounding".
Viewed from another direction, we find one other flaw in petitioner's petition. Said
petition is not supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, "stating
that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a
resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person
of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their
opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and
is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act".
So kawawa naman si Zita. She has to go through the naturalization proceedings.

Mali pa ung petition kasi kulang ng address. This is a very strict case because
previously all you have to show is this and that but in the Burca case, the SC
said, NO, you have to go through the entire proceeding just like anybody else.
However, we have another case, Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner.
Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner (04 Oct 1971)
We now hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating otherwise

notwithstanding, that under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien
woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a
Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under
Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is
subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband
the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not
suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.
4. In Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner [41 SCRA 292 (1971)] – the SC

reversed the Burca decision and held that under Sec. 15 of CA 473, there
is no such proceeding [other than a tedious naturalization proceeding] that
can be resorted to, so a procedure was suggested. Marriage to a Filipino
citizen makes her ipso facto a Filipino citizen because of Sec. 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Law. She does not have to go through tedious
judicial proceedings.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
January 28, 2014

By Carell
We discussed the case of Burca, and we have seen the Supreme Court
decisions regarding nationality law.
So, after the case of Moya where the Supreme Court ruled that:
MOY YA LIM YAO vs. CIR

MOY YA LIM YAO alias EDILBERTO AGUINALDO LIM and LAU YUEN YEUNG,
vs. THE CIR, G.R. No. L-21289 October 4, 1971
Foreigner female married to filipino husband
FACTS.
LAU YUEN YEUNG applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-
immigrant or temporary visitor.
In the interrogation relating to her application, she stated that she was a Chinese
residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to
the Philippines to visit her great (grand) uncle.
She was permitted to come into the Philippines, and was permitted to stay for a
period of one month.
After repeated extensions, petitioner LAU YUEN YEUNG was allowed to stay in
the Philippines up to February 13, 1962.
On January 25, 1962, she contracted marriage with MOY YA LIM YAO, an
alleged Filipino citizen.
The Commissioner ordered for LAU's arrest and immediate deportation after the
expiration of her authorized stay.
LAU brought an action for injunction with preliminary injunction against the
Commissioner before the SUpreme Court.
Arguments of the Solicitor General:
1. Pursuant to Sec, 9 of the Immigration Act, LAU, having been admitted as a

temporary alien visitor on the strength of a deliberate and voluntary
representation that she will enter and stay only for a period of one month
and thereby secured a visa, cannot go back on her representation to stay
permanently without first departing from the Philippines as she had
promised.
2. The mere marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien does not automatically
confer on the latter Philippine citizenship. The alien wife must possess all
the qualifications required by law to become a Filipino citizen by
naturalization and none of the disqualifications.
Law involved: CA 473
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
SEC. 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. Any woman, who is
now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might
herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
ISSUES:
1. WON LAU has to depart from the Philippines before she can be declared a
filipino citizen.
2. WON LAU ipso facto became a Filipino Citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen or WON there is a neccessity to show proof that LAU possess all the
qualififications.
RULING.
1. No. LAU doesn't have to leave. Sec. 9 of the IMmigration act does not apply in
the case at bar. It does not apply to aliens who after coming into the Philippines
as temporary visitors, legitimately become Filipino citizens.
Such change of nationality naturally bestows upon them the right to stay in the
Philippines permanently or not, as they may choose, and if they elect to reside
here, the immigration authorities may neither deport them nor confiscate their
bonds.
The SC cannot see any reason why an alien who has been here as a temporary
visitor but who has in the meanwhile become a Filipino should be required to still
leave the Philippines for a foreign country, only to apply thereat for a re-entry
here and undergo the process of showing that he is entitled to come back, when
after all, such right has become incontestible as a necessary concomitant of his
assumption of our nationality by whatever legal means this has been conferred
upon him.
It is indubitable that they become ipso facto citizens of the Philippines.
In other words, the applicable statute itself more than implies that the
naturalization of an alien visitor as a Philippine citizen logically produces the
effect of conferring upon him ipso facto all the rights of citizenship including that
of being entitled to permanently stay in the Philippines outside the orbit of
authority of the Commissioner of Immigration vis-a-vis aliens, if only because by
its very nature and express provisions, the Immigration Law is a law only for
aliens and is inapplicable to citizens of the Philippines.
2.in the opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion in the first Ly Giok Ha, it was quite
clear that for an alien woman who marries a Filipino to become herself a Filipino
citizen, there is no need for any naturalization proceeding because she becomes
a Filipina ipso facto from the time of such marriage, provided she does not suffer
any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473,
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
with no mention being made of whether or not the qualifications enumerated in

Section 2 thereof need be shown.
It was only in Lee Suan Ay in 1959 that the possession of qualifications were
specifically required, but it was not until 1963, in Lo San Tuang, that Justice
Regala reasoned out why the possession of the qualifications provided by the law
should also be shown to be possessed by the alien wife of a Filipino, for her to
become a Filipina by marriage.
If Section 15 of the, Revised Naturalization Law were to be interpreted, as this

Court did, in such a way as to require that the alien wife must prove the
qualifications prescribed in Section 2, the privilege granted to alien wives would
become illusory. It is submitted that such a construction, being contrary to the
manifested object of the statute must be rejected.
- THus, LAU need not show proof that she possess all the qualifications.
Now, what substitute is there for naturalization proceedings to enable the alien
wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and
established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she
has to perform an act or enter in to a transaction or business or exercise a right
reserved only to Filipinos?
- The ready answer to such question is that as the laws of our country, there is no
such procedure, but such paucity is no proof that the citizenship under discussion
is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of
citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the same situation objections
even as to native-born Filipinos.
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or

administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority
decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res
adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may
demand.
Regarding the steps that should be taken by an alien woman married to a Filipino
citizen in order to acquire Philippine citizenship, the procedure followed in the
Bureau of Immigration is as follows:
a. The alien woman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien
certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married
to a Filipino, citizen and that she is not disqualified from acquiring her
husband's citizenship pursuant to section 4 of Commonwealth Act No.
473, as amended.
b. Upon the filing of said petition, which should be accompanied or supported

by the joint affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino husband to the effect
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
that the petitioner does not belong to any of the groups disqualified by the
cited section from becoming naturalized Filipino citizen, the Bureau of
Immigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order
or decision granting or denying the petition.
The SC permanently enjoin the Commissioner from causing the arrest and
deportation of LAU who is declared to have become a Filipino Citizen from and
by virtue of her marriage to MO YA.
Guys: I am confused if LAU ipso facto became a filipino citizen by marriage.. kasi
in a latter case, hindi ipso facto but here it is.. Besides, this case was decided in
1971. The case where it is not ipso facto, it was decided in 1995.
Lee vs Commissioner
In Lim Yao, the proceeding is very easy. But, in this case of Lee vs
Commissioner, the SC became strict. So the proceedings became complicated.
The latest case that I have found is the case of Djumantan vs Domingo.
DJUMANTON vs. DOMINGO

DJUMANTON vs. HON. ANDREA DOMINGO, COMMISSIONER OF BOARD OF
IMMIGRATION, HON. REGINO SANTIAGO and HON. JORGE SARMIENTO,
COMMISSIONERS BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION.
FACTS:
1. Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a

contract worker. On April 3, 1974, he was converted to Islam and
subsequently, married to petitioner herein in accordance with Islamic rites. He
returned to the Philippines in January 1979. On January 13, 1979, petitioner
and her two children with Banez arrived in Manila, making it appear that they
were the guests of Banez and was merely repaying the hospitality extended
to Banez during his stay in Indonesia. He excuted an Affidavit of Guaranty
and Support for his guests. Petitioner and her guests were admitted to the
Philippines as temporary visitors under Sec. 9(a) of the Immigration Act of
1940.
2. In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and
petitioner. She filed a complaint for concubinage, which was dismissed for
lack of merit. On March 25, 1982, the immigration status of petitioner was
changed from temporary to permanent resident and was then issued an alien
certificate of registration.
3. As such, Banez’ eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint and on the
basis thereof, petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell. Thereafter,
she moved for the dismissal of the deportation case on the ground that she
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
was validly married to a Filipino citizen. The CID rendered a decision finding
the second marriage irregular and not in accordance with Philippine laws.
4. Petitioner claims that her marriage to Banez was valid under the Muslim
Code, which recognized the practice of polyandry by Muslim males. When
asked to comment, the Solicitor General took the position that the CID could
not order petitioner’s deportation because its power to do so had prescribed
under Section 37(b) of the Immigration Act.
ISSUES:
 Whether or not the admission into the country and the change of status
from temporary to permanent of petitioner is legal.
 Whether or not the power to deport has prescribed.
HELD:
1. NO. The marriage of petitioner to Banez was not disclosed to the authorities in
her applications for temporary and permanent residency. The civil status of an
alien applicant for admission as a temporary is a matter that could influence the
exercise of discretion on the part of the immigration authorities. The authorities
would be less inclined to allow the entry of a woman who claims to have entered
into a marriage with a Filipino citizen, who is married to another woman.
Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is
deemed inimical to the public interest is as absolute as unqualified as the right to
prohibit and prevent their entry into the country. There is no law guaranteeing
aliens married to Filipinos the right to be admitted, much less to be given
permanent residency in the Philippines.
The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not withdraw her from the
operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and exclusion of
aliens. Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not ipso
facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to
depart from the country upon the expiration of her extended stay here as
an alien (Joaquin vs. Galang).
The entry of aliens into the country and their admission as immigrants is not a
matter of right, even if they are legally married to Filipinos.
2. YES. The right of public respondents to deport petitioner has prescribed.
Under clause 1 of Section 37(a), an “alien who enters the Philippines after the
effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements or without
inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of
entry or at any place other than at a designated port of entry” is subject to
deportation.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
The deportation of alien under said has a prescriptive period and “shall not be
effected xxx unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five
years after the cause for deportation arises.”
Petitioner was admitted and allowed entry on January 13, 1979 on the basis of
false and misleading statements in her application and in the other supporting
documents. Leonard Banez first complained with the CID on November 19, 1980
about the manner petitioner was admitted into the country and asked for her
deportation.
Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19, 1980, more than five years had
elapsed before the issuance of the order of her deportation on September 27,
1990. Thus, the petition is granted.
The SC here strictly applied Section 15. In this case, again, there is no definite
answer. She has to go through administrative proceedings under RA 9139. This
one only applies to those who were born in the Philippines. So, this is a very
controversial issue. But, if you will read Section 15, anyone married to a Filipino
citizen, can lawfully become a naturalized citizen. Meaning, they can be Filipino.
For naturalization, no disqualification is deemed. In 1960s, the cases at that time
were more truthful to section 15. But, the rulings keep on changing.
What happens when a Filipino marries an alien?
If she acquires the nationality of her husband, she is no longer a Filipina, if not,
she remains to be a Filipina.
What Happens to Filipino Citizenship of Filipina when she Marries an Alien

1. Prior to the 1973 Constitution:
a. If she acquires the nationality of her husband - she loses it
b. If she does not acquire the nationality of her husband - she retains it
2. Under the 1973 and 1987Constitution - she retains it, unless by her act or
omission she is deemed, under the law to have renounced it [Art. III, Sec. 2, 1973
Constitution Art. IV, Sec. 4, 1987 Constitution]
And you know already the ways to renounce a citizenship. Under your
constitutional law, taking an oath of allegiance to the flag of another country, that
is tantamount to renunciation. So, simply marrying a foreigner and acquiring
automatic citizenship of the foreigner will not remove the Filipino citizenship that
the woman possesses.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Ways of Losing Filipino Citizenship
1. By naturalization in a foreign country
I am not familiar with the Dual Citizenship Act. But, can one be made a Filipino if
she is naturalized in another country, no. Like in America, they follow jus
sanguinis or jus solis.
2. By express renunciation
G.R. No. L-83882 January 24, 1989

IN RE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILLIE YU, petitioner,
vs.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, BIENVENIDO P. ALANO, JR., MAJOR
PABALAN, DELEO HERNANDEZ, BLODDY HERNANDEZ, BENNY REYES
and JUN ESPIRITU SANTO, respondent.
Petitioner's own compliance reveals that he was originally issued a Portuguese

passport in 1971, 17 valid for five (5) years and renewed for the same period upon
presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer. Despite his
naturalization as a Philippine citizen on 10 February 1978, on 21 July 1981,
petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport No. 35/81 serial N.
1517410 by the Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said
Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986. 18
While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced, upon his naturalization,
"absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state or sovereignty" and pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines," 19 he declared his nationality as Portuguese in
commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies registry of Tai
Shun Estate Ltd. 20 filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an
express renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through
naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioners us, Go Gallano, 21
express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known
distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full
knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship
upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen 22 resumed or reacquired his prior
status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport
23
and represented himself as such in official documents even after he had
become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of
Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine
citizenship.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be

displayed when required and suppressed when convenient.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution

or laws of a foreign country upon attaining the age of 21 years
[G.R. No. 151914. July 31, 2002]

TEODULO M. COQUILLA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS and MR. NEIL M. ALVAREZ, respondents.
Requirements of naturalization .¾ Residence

(a) No person, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, shall be
naturalized unless such applicant, (1) immediately preceding the date of filing his
application for naturalization has resided continuously, after being lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, within the United States for at least five years
and during the five years immediately preceding the date of filing his petition has
been physically present therein for periods totaling at least half of that time, and
who has resided within the State or within the district of the Service in the United
States in which the applicant filed the application for at least three months, (2)
has resided continuously within the United States from the date of the application
up to the time of admission to citizenship, and (3) during all the period referred to
in this subsection has been and still is a person of good moral character,
attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well
disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. (Emphasis
added)
In Caasi v. Court of Appeals,i[25] this Court ruled that immigration to the United
States by virtue of a “greencard,” which entitles one to reside permanently in that
country, constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. With more
reason then does naturalization in a foreign country result in an abandonment of
domicile in the Philippines.
Nor can petitioner contend that he was “compelled to adopt American citizenship”
only by reason of his service in the U.S. armed forces.ii[26] It is noteworthy that
petitioner was repatriated not under R.A. No. 2630, which applies to the
repatriation of those who lost their Philippine citizenship by accepting commission
in the Armed Forces of the United States, but under R.A. No. 8171, which, as
earlier mentioned, provides for the repatriation of, among others, natural-born
Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity.
In any event, the fact is that, by having been naturalized abroad, he lost his
Philippine citizenship and with it his residence in the Philippines. Until his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship on November 10, 2000, petitioner did not
reacquire his legal residence in this country.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Second, it is not true, as petitioner contends, that he reestablished residence in

this country in 1998 when he came back to prepare for the mayoralty elections of
Oras by securing a Community Tax Certificate in that year and by “constantly
declaring” to his townmates of his intention to seek repatriation and run for mayor
in the May 14, 2001 elections.iii[27] The status of being an alien and a non-
resident can be waived either separately, when one acquires the status of a
resident alien before acquiring Philippine citizenship, or at the same time when
one acquires Philippine citizenship. As an alien, an individual may obtain an
immigrant visa under §13iv[28] of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1948 and an
Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR)v[29] and thus waive his status as a
non-resident. On the other hand, he may acquire Philippine citizenship by
naturalization under C.A. No. 473, as amended, or, if he is a former Philippine
national, he may reacquire Philippine citizenship by repatriation or by an act of
Congress,vi[30] in which case he waives not only his status as an alien but also
his status as a non-resident alien.
In the case at bar, the only evidence of petitioner’s status when he entered the
country on October 15, 1998, December 20, 1998, October 16, 1999, and June
23, 2000 is the statement “Philippine Immigration [–] Balikbayan” in his 1998-
2008 U.S. passport. As for his entry on August 5, 2000, the stamp bore the
added inscription “good for one year stay.”vii[31] Under §2 of R.A. No. 6768 (An
Act Instituting a Balikbayan Program), the term balikbayan includes a former
Filipino citizen who had been naturalized in a foreign country and comes or
returns to the Philippines and, if so, he is entitled, among others, to a “visa-free
entry to the Philippines for a period of one (1) year” (§3(c)). It would appear then
that when petitioner entered the country on the dates in question, he did so as a
visa-free balikbayan visitor whose stay as such was valid for one year only.
Hence, petitioner can only be held to have waived his status as an alien and as a
non-resident only on November 10, 2000 upon taking his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines under R.A. No. 8171. viii[32] He lacked the requisite residency to
qualify him for the mayorship of Oras, Eastern, Samar.
Petitioner invokes the ruling in Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections ix[33] in

support of his contention that the residency requirement in §39(a) of the Local
Government Code includes the residency of one who is not a citizen of the
Philippines. Residency, however, was not an issue in that case and this Court
did not make any ruling on the issue now at bar. The question in Frivaldo was
whether petitioner, who took his oath of repatriation on the same day that his
term as governor of Sorsogon began on June 30, 1995, complied with the
citizenship requirement under §39(a). It was held that he had, because
citizenship may be possessed even on the day the candidate assumes office. But
in the case of residency, as already noted, §39(a) of the Local Government Code
requires that the candidate must have been a resident of the municipality “for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election.”
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Nor can petitioner invoke this Court’s ruling in Bengzon III v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal.x[34] What the Court held in that case was
that, upon repatriation, a former natural-born Filipino is deemed to have
recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen.
Third, petitioner nonetheless says that his registration as a voter of Butnga,

Oras, Eastern Samar in January 2001 is conclusive of his residency as a
candidate because §117 of the Omnibus Election Code requires that a voter
must have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the city or
municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately
preceding the election. As held in Nuval v. Guray,xi[35] however, registration as
a voter does not bar the filing of a subsequent case questioning a candidate’s
lack of residency.
So, if you stay here as an alien, that does not count insofar as the residency
requirement insofar as running in an election is concerned. Unless, you have
reacquired your Filipino citizenship. In the US, iba yung residency and
citizenship. That was what the SC said in the case of Coquilla.
4. By rendering service to, or accepting commission, in the armed

forces of a foreign country without the consent of the Republic.
When you join the US navy.
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
Grounds for cancellation of naturalized citizen
6. By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the

AFP in time of war, unless, subsequently, a plenary pardon or
amnesty has been granted
Desert the AFP in favor of another country.
7. By marrying an alien [if a woman], if by her act or omission, she is

deemed to have renounced her Philippine citizenship
She must have performed an act or omission.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
REACQUISITION OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP

How Filipino Citizenship May be Reacquired
It can be judicial or not.
1. By naturalization – can be resorted to, not only by aliens, but also by

Filipinos who cannot be repatriated
2. By repatriation
3. By direct act of Congress
REPATRIATION
A mode of reacquiring Filipino citizenship which is only applicable to former
Filipinos
Who May be Repatriated:

1. Deserters in the armed forces in times of war [international]
2. Filipino women who lost their citizenship by marriage to an alien [RA 8171]
3. Natural born Filipinos who lost their citizenship because of economic
necessity [RA 8171]
4. Natural born Filipinos who lost their citizenship because of political necessity
[RA 8171]
5. Those who rendered service in the US armed forces without the consent of
the government
6. Any natural born citizen who lost his Filipino citizenship under RA 725
Frivaldo Case
For one to be repatriated, they must undergo the proper process. So, is he
qualified to be repatriated? He is qualified, but it is not automatic under PD 725.
G.R. No. 87193 June 23, 1989

JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES,
SORSOGON CHAPTER, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SALVADOR NEE ESTUYE, respondents.
HELD: If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire

Philippine citizenship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the
laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD No.
725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by
naturalization, or by repatriation.
While Frivaldo does not invoke either of the first two methods, he nevertheless
claims he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of a valid repatriation.
He claims that by actively participating in the elections in this country, he
automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United States.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Such laws do not concern us here. The alleged forfeiture is between him and the
United States as his adopted country. It should be obvious that even if he did
lose his naturalized American citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could not
have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he
had earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as a result of the loss
of his naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual.
G.R. No. 104654 June 6, 1994

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, MANILA and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents.
HELD: Private respondent, having opted to reacquire Philippine citizenship thru

naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty bound to follow the
procedure prescribed by the said law. It is not for an applicant to decide for
himself and to select the requirements which he believes, even sincerely, are
applicable to his case and discard those which he believes are inconvenient or
merely of nuisance value. The law does not distinguish between an applicant
who was formerly a Filipino citizen and one who was never such a citizen. It does
not provide a special procedure for the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by
former Filipino citizens akin to the repatriation of a woman who had lost her
Philippine citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien.
The trial court never acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition for naturalization of
private respondent. The proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the
oath of allegiance taken therein, are null and void for failure to comply with the
publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law.
Under Section 9 of the said law, both the petition for naturalization and the order
setting it for hearing must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks
in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation. Compliance
therewith is jurisdictional (Po Yi Bo v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 [1992]).
Moreover, the publication and posting of the petition and the order must be in its
full test for the court to acquire jurisdiction (Sy v. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 [1974]).
The petition for naturalization lacks several allegations required by Sections 2

and 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, particularly: (1) that the petitioner is of
good moral character; (2) that he resided continuously in the Philippines for at
least ten years; (3) that he is able to speak and write English and any one of the
principal dialects; (4) that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the
date of the filing of the petition until his admission to Philippine citizenship; and
(5) that he has filed a declaration of intention or if he is excused from said filing,
the justification therefor.
The absence of such allegations is fatal to the petition.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
DOMICILIARY THEORY
The theory that in general, the:
1. status
2. condition
3. rights
4. obligations, and
5. capacity of a person should be governed by the law of his DOMICILE
So, we do not adhere to this, because we adhere to the nationality theory. In

some ways, this domiciliary theory is also used.
Domiciliary Theory vs. Public International Law
Public International does not deal with the domiciliary theory except in
deportation proceedings, where residency is an issue.
REFOUNDER
Pertains to the refugees running for their lives. In this case, domiciliary theory is
applied.
Defects of the Domiciliary Theory

1. Various countries have varying concepts as to the real meaning of domicile;
2. Domicile is comparatively easier to change than nationality [thus an individual
dissatisfied with the law of his particular domicile may simply effectuate a change
of domicile as to have a different personal law;
3. For ulterior motives, persons may pretend to be domiciliaries of one state
when in truth their domicile may be elsewhere
Q: Under what law should a forum define the elements constituting

domicile?
X an English national, who divides his time between London and Manila files a
case in the RTC of Manila.
Q: What concept of domicile shall apply? The concept of domicile under RP

law, or the concept of domicile under English law?
The general rule is that we apply lex fori in determining the domiciliary theory.
In the book of Salonga, he cited the first restatement, which provides that a
person has a certain connection which has legal purposes.
Sec. 13 of the Second Restatement

The forum’s rules are applied when domicile is a fact necessary:
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
1. to the judicial jurisdiction of the State of the forum to apply its local law or to
create or affect legal interests, or
2. to the power of one of its courts or officials to act.
Sec. 13 of the Second Restatement

In the field of choice of law, where the particular interest is governed by the local
law of the person’s domicile, the forum likewise applies its own rules of domicile
to identify the State of the applicable law.
Example
X dies intestate in Paris, leaving movable properties in England, California, New

York and France. A proceeding to determine how the chattels located in New
York are to be distributed, is brought in a New York court. Under New York
conflict rules, this question is governed by the law of the last domicile of X. To
identify which state is the last domicile of X, the New York court will apply its own
domestic rules of domicile. Unless it does so, the New York court will have no
means of knowing whether the solution of the question is to be found in the
internal law of England, California, New York or France.
Q: What is the negative consequence of this solution [using the law of the forum
to determine domicile?
A: The New York state, by using its own rules to determine the domicile of X may
find that the last domicile of X was in France. What if, under the laws of France, X
does not qualify as it’s domiciliary?
January 29, 2014

By Jeziel
Lets just continue our discussion on the Domiciliary Theory.
So do not forget that our discussion has something to do with the personal law.
Why do you have to know what country or what state is the domicile of this
English-national. To determine if ever that state, if ever the applicable.. that the
issue has something to do with status etc., is the state where the case is filed
adheres to the domiciliary theory. If his country or nationality adheres to the
domiciliary theory. Like, if he is an Englishman, then we have to determine what
his domicile is in order to determine his personal law.
So let’s go to this Second Restatement Sec. 13.
Now the forum is the place where the action is filed, the action that has a foreign
element. When do you apply the rules of the forum? As to what state is the
domicile law of the person involved. It says here:
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
The forum’s rules are applied when domicile is a fact necessary:

1. To the judicial jurisdiction of the State of the forum to apply its local law
or to create or affect legal interests, or
2. To the power of one of its courts or officials to act.
In the field of choice of law, where the particular interest is governed by

the local law of the person’s domicile, the forum likewise applies its own
rules of domicile to identify the State of the applicable law.
So going back to this example, you have this English-national who divides his
time between London and Manila. So what is the court or what is the forum? RTC
of Manila. RTC of Manila will first determine what state is he a domiciliary of? Is
he a domiciliary of England or of Manila?
If we apply our rules on domicile, perhaps he may not be considered a

domiciliary of Manila. And therefore, he will be considered a domiciliary of
England. And therefore, if England adheres to the domiciliary theory then the law
of England will apply in determining whatever issue he brings before the RTC of
Manila.
Let’s go to another example. X dies intestate in Paris, leaving movable properties

in England, California, New York and France. A proceeding to determine how the
chattels located in New York are to be distributed is brought in a New York court.
So the forum is New York. What to do with his movable property in New York.
Under New York conflict rules, this question is governed by the law of the last
domicile of X. To identify which state is the last domicile of X, the New York court
will apply its own domestic rules of domicile. Because he died intestate in Paris,
and could have lived somewhere else before that, and depends on the New York
court what his last domicile is. Unless it does so, the New York court will have no
means of knowing whether the solution of the question is to be found in the
internal law of England, California, New York or France.
Q: So what is the negative consequence of this solution (using the law of

the forum to determine domicile of the person involved in the case)?
A: The New York state, by using its own rules to determine the domicile of X may
find that the last domicile of X was in France. What if, under the laws of France, X
does not qualify as it’s domiciliary?
So that is the negative consequence of allowing the forum to determine the

domiciliary of the person based on its own laws.
Criticism against Characterization of the Law of the Forum

Domicile, like nationality, establishes a social and political link between an
individual and a particular state; therefore, that link should be construed under
the law of that State.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So what is the solution that was proposed with respect to this problem?
The 1st step – the courts in each country determine under its own domestic
legislation whether or not an individual is domiciled therein.
2nd step – where two or more foreign laws conflict in respect of domicile, that
concept prevailing in the place of actual residence should be preferred.
Here, under the domiciliary theory it is more complicated. Unlike in the Nationality
theory if the national law of the person will apply, it’s very easy to determine
one’s nationality. It is the state in which he is a national that would determine. It’s
very clear whether or not he is a national. But here under the domiciliary theory, it
is not the state of his domicile that will determine whether or not he is a
domiciliary. It is the court of the forum.
What if the forum is not the state of his domicile? That is why there are many
solutions proposed by different conventions, treaties, etc. What do we do about
this problem?
The best solution according to our author: Break down the meaning of domicile in
accordance with the concrete issues involved such as capacity to enter into
contract, succession upon death, or validity of divorce decrees in order to
ascertain which kind of domicile is a desirable connecting factor for each of these
separate matters. Look at the issue involved
We already discussed this yesterday, what is the definition of domicile in

conflict of laws.
So what is the importance then of domicile in Philippine Conflict of Laws?

We already know that we adhere to the nationality theory in so far as personal
law is concerned. Remember personal law only deals with status, condition, etc.
Property wala na yang kasali. So don’t forget what is covered by personal law.
So what is the importance?

1. Our own law makes in some cases the law of domicile as the
controlling factor in the solution of conflicts problems rather than the
national law of the person involved.
The Nationality Theory is only applicable to status, condition and all those
other… The theory by virtue of which the status and capacity of an individual are
generally governed by the law of his nationality. So what about succession,
property or contracts? They are not governed by the national law.
2. In some codal provisions, both domiciliary and nationality theories are

used.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
3. The domiciliary theory often runs to the rescue of the nationality theory
in solving conflicts problems posed by stateless individuals, (di ba
remember? As stateless individuals has no nationality so we have to
apply the domiciliary theory) and by those possessed by dual or
multiple citizenship. (di ba? You have a dual citizen, you will be
considered a national of the place of his domicile)
4. Many domiciliary rules prevalent when we were under the control and
jurisdiction of the US, were engrafted into our jurisprudence.
5. Some very important nations of the world have adopted almost

invariably the domiciliary theory. (yes. Some very important nations of
the world like the greatest nation of earth according to its president
when he made his state of the nation address. But it’s true. It is the
greatest nation on earth and it adheres to the domiciliary theory.)
So what a long discussion on how to determine the domicile of a person in order

to apply to domiciliary theory. But let’s look at the distinctions of citizenship and
domicile.
Citizenship Domicile
Indicates ties of allegiance and Speaks of one’s permanent abode

loyalty
One may be a citizen of a state One may be a domicile of a state without
without being a domiciliary thereof being a citizen thereof
More or less temporary More or less permanent
Used to indicate a place of abode, Denotes a fixed residence to which, when

whether permanent or temporary absent, one has the intention of returning
Residence is not domicile Domicile is residence coupled with

intention to remain for an unlimited time
One may have numerous places of One can only have one domicile for one
residence and the same purpose at any time
So again here in our country we have a specific definition which I don’t

remember. I don’t have to. But you have to if you’re taking the bar. So we will not
go into that.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
The purpose of running for office, you can have only one domicile. But you can
have so many residences.
So let’s go to this one. If you think domicile is complicated already, ano pa ito?
And dami pa ano? This is important because there are rules. What will apply? So
let’s go to the distinctions first.
Domicile of CONSTRUCTIVE Domicile Domicile of CHOICE

ORIGIN
The domicile of The domicile established by law The domicile which is
one’s parents at after birth in the case of voluntarily chosen by a
the time of his persons under legal disability, sui juris, as his more or
birth regardless of their intention or less permanent home to
voluntary act. (Meaning the which, whenever he is
person cannot choose. It is absent, he intends to
given to him because he is return. (So in other words
disabled.) there is a definite
definition of domicile
here in the Philippines
but it is up to the person
to choose that place if he
has the right to choose.
Established at the Assigned or given after birth. Chosen after birth. (It
moment of birth. (So the domicile of origin can could be the same as
(When you’re be the constructive domicile as domicile of origin if that
born, you cannot well. One is assigned to be person chooses it upon
do anything about there.) reaching the age of
it. You’re born in majority.)
that place that is
your domicile of
origin.)
Applies only to Assigned to all those who lack Applies to all persons
infants capacity to choose their own who are not legally
domicile since legal disabilities disabled to make a
prevent them from making a choice
choice. (Like a convict who is
convicted to spend his entire
life in DAPICOL. Even if he is
from Manila, doon siya na
sentence sa DAPICOL, wala
siyang choice that is his
constructive domicile.)
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Never changes. May change from time to time May change from time to
(If you’re born in a time
certain place, that
is definitely it.)
Less easily More easily abandoned Result of voluntary will &
abandoned action of person
concerned
Let’s go to the Rules now. It’s in your book. So it is easier for the court.
Subject (If the His Domicile of Origin is: His Constructive
subject of the case Domicile is:
before the court is
a..):
Legitimate Child The domicile of CHOICE of The domicile of choice of:
his FATHER at the moment of 1. Either parent, or
BIRTH of the child 2. The surviving parent
[Art. 212 FC], or
3. The parent who died
last [Art. 212, FC]
(Remember we are
talking about a child. He
cannot make a choice yet.
That is why we are only
talking about origin and
constructive)
Posthumus The domicile of CHOICE of The domicile of CHOICE
Legitimate child. his MOTHER of his MOTHER
So this is the
domicile of a child
who died.)
Illegitimate child The domicile of CHOICE of The domicile of CHOICE
his MOTHER at the moment of his MOTHER
of birth of the child
Legitimated child The domicile of his FATHER
at the time of the BIRTH
[because legitimation has a
retroactive effect]
Adopted child The domicile of the real The domicile of CHOICE
parents or parent by of his ADOPTER. (So if
CONSANGUINITY his adopter is a foreign
national and he is brought
to another country, that is
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
his constructive domicile.)
Foundling (That is The country where it was

the child you find found
in the streets or
maybe the doors
of the church. His
identity is
unknown.)
Ward The domicile of his parents. The domicile of CHOICE
(Definitely anyone who is of guardian
born has parents. You cannot
say that, ah! Wala siyang
domicile of origin kasi wala
parent. Meron talaga yan.
So we’re done with children. Now under our laws, apparently married women
have certain restrictions with respect to domicile. Married women are under the
constructive domicile category.
Marriage Her Constructive Domicile is:

Valid The domicile of CHOICE of both the husband and the wife [husband
makes the choice but in case of disagreement, the courts will decide]
(Art. 69, Family Code)
Voidable 1. Prior to annulment – the domicile of both the husband and wife
[unless the wife is permitted to select her own domicile of choice]
2. After annulment – she no longer has any constructive domicile,
she can take a domicile of her own choice. (So that is the advantage
of being single in our country because under Art. 69, a married
woman must honor the domicile of her husband. So naging
constructive.)
Void No constructive domicile, she can take a domicile of her own choice
Ok. So those are the rules regarding married women.
Even if in cases of a valid marriage, when is woman allowed to have her own
domicile?
1. If the husband lives abroad, (as an OFW and the wife is here, of course
she cannot follow the domicile of her husband) or there are other valid
and compelling reasons for the exemption (Art. 69, Family Code)
2. If they are legally separated (Art. 63[1], Family Code)
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
3. If the husband forcibly ejects the wife from the conjugal homes so that he
may have illicit relations with another.
4. If there is a separation de facto of the spouses. (So it is okay do separated
in fact to be legally separated. One can choose ones domicile as a
married woman.
Apparently men, no problem. Unless…

If the Idiot, Lunatic or What is his Constructive Domicile?
Insane Person is:
BELOW the age of Apply the rules for infants

majority
ABOVE the age of 1. If he has a guardian over his person – domicile of
majority the guardian
2. If he has NO guardian over his person – domicile of
his choice shortly before he became insane
time of choice he was in his lucid interval. That is up to the doctors to determine.
What if the husband is insane or otherwise incapacitated? So if it is the husband,

but what about the wife? Does she have to follow the constructive domicile of the
insane husband? No. The wife is free from all disabilities so far as domicile is
concerned, she can now have her domicile of choice. So if the domiciliary theory
is applicable then her domicile is her domicile of choice.
Domicile of Choice
The place voluntarily chosen by a sui juris, as his more or less permanent home
that to which whenever he is absent, he intends to return.
Art. 50, Civil Code – “For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations, the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual
residence”.
And of course, let’s look at this. Let’s review this..
Requisites to Acquire A Domicile of Choice

1. Capacity
2. Freedom of Choice
3. Residence or sometimes a mere physical presence in the plane where
domicile is alleged to have been acquired
4. Intention to make that place home.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So let’s go to Principles governing domicile of choice.
1. No natural person must ever be without a domicile, but may be

stateless [every person must have a domicile].
Obviously. Because we occupy space on this planet. So even if one is a beggar

na palabuylabuy pero nandito siya sa Davao City, he keeps on coming back, so
dito siya. Even though he is a stateless person. Let’s say he is somebody from a
country that no longer exist. He may be stateless but he is here. He chooses to
stay here. He has the capacity in a sense that he is not tied to anyone. He is not
insane.
2. No person can have two[2] or more domiciles at the same time [but
may have dual nationality], except for certain purposes, and from
different legal viewpoints.
So you can only have domicile for a particular purpose. For another purpose,
maybe yes, but for this particular purpose, isa lang.
3. Every natural person, as long as he is free and sui juris may have
and change his domicile at pleasure.
No need to go through a certain process, naturalization.. no need. You just have

to fulfill the requirements of that state where you are in to be considered to be a
domiciliary thereof.
4. The burden of proof is on the one who alleges that a change of

domicile has taken place.
This is important if the domiciliary theory is applicable and the law of the subject
domicile does not agree with the adverse party. So the adverse party, this law of
this other country. So he has the burden of proving that the person subject of that
case changed his domicile.
5. Domicile, once acquired, is retained unless a new one is obtained by

capacitated persons with:
a. freedom of choice
b. actual physical presence in the place chosen, and
c. a provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent
abode; there should be:
* animus manendi – intent to remain
* animus non-revertendi – intent not return to the original abode.
Okay it’s not that easy. I want to move to Manila and l will get an apartment there.
Is it that easy to change ones domicile? No. You have to comply with certain
requirements. Although you don’t have to go through a legal process.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So I don’t want to discuss Romualdez vs Comelec (and other cases etc..) You
took this up in political law. And besides usually it’s not the domiciliary theory
but… so I don’t want to take that up anymore. I’ll leave those cases up to you.
Now the next chapter, I didn’t prepare any presentation. It’s very short and it’s
very simple.
Is the situs or eclectic theory… this is a kind of theory like the nationality theory,
domiciliary theory. Under the situs or eclectic theory, the capacity or legal
condition or status of an individual shall be governed by the law of the place
where an important element of the problem occurs or is situated.
So according to our author there are two kinds of participation of the

individual concerned, the subject of the case.
1. If his participation is active, is a voluntary act, the governing law of the
actual situs, where the transaction took place, is applicable.
2. But if the participation is passive, the governing law or the law of the legal
situs or his domicile. Legal situs, that is his legal location, his domicile.
(check book. Wala ko book eh. Sori.)
So the example here is, both X and Y, both Filipino nurses domiciled in England
got married in France. X is a man and Y is a woman. What law governs the
validity of the marriage? Since the act of the marriage is voluntary, meaning they
both participated actively in the marriage, then the law of France which is the
actual situs governs its validity, whether or not the marriage is valid.
What law governs the marital obligations of the husband and wife? They are both
Filipinos. Their obligations to each other ba. Whether or not the husband will
support the wife, whether or not the wife should respect the husband, whether or
not they should live together, what law will govern that? Since such is fixed by
law, the participation has nothing to do with them. How should they treat each
other legally, then the law of England, their legal situs, meaning their domiciliaries
of England will govern under this theory. If we apply this theory then these are
the answers. But we apply the nationality theory here in the Philippines.
So based on the same problem, X and Y both Filipino, domiciled on England and
married in France. Under our laws, what law governs the validity of the marriage?
We’re not looking anymore at the situs or eclectic theory. If the marriage is valid
in France then it is also valid in the Philippines. The same as the situs theory,
except if it is polygamous, bigamous, incestuous, we apply Philippine law which
is also an application of the Nationality theory because both are Filipinos.
What law governs the marital obligations of husband and wife? Their personal
marital obligations are governed by Philippine law under Art. 15 and, we will take
this up later, property relation by their conjugal partnership of gains, absolute
community are governed by Art. 80 FC.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So you see. If you apply different theory, you will have different answers. That is
why these are various theories. We have nothing definite because this is conflict
of laws. Just like China can do what it wants with respect to that, what’s that
place? Oh yun. They’re not governed by Philippine law. Besides we are just ants
compared to China. They know that! Kahit sabihin natin, it’s ours! It’s ours
according to the law. International law or whatever pakialam nila jan.
Anyway so those are different theories.
RENVOI DOCTRINE
Let’s go to the next topic which is Renvoi.
I find this topic very problematic. This is a major topic in conflict of laws.
What is Renvoi? Well obviously this is not an english word. It is a french word
that means refer back or return. It is a method of disposing conflict problems that
is why we use it. Also adopted by American courts.
How did the problem of Renvoi arise? Why is there a problem of Renvoi?
What is the title of the book? The problem of Renvoi. See? The problem. The fact
that it exists is a problem. You’ll see later. In case you did not read in advance.
So why do we have this problem of Renvoi? Precisely because our laws consist
of two parts: the internal and domestic law. Which is what? What is the law that is
applied to solve a problem? The issue is, is the marriage valid? Is the marriage of
X and Y valid? What would you apply? Our internal law, our family code. Except
we have conflict of laws or applied to private international law, applied in cases
involving a foreign element.
Conflict of laws, private international law or conflict rule does not solve a problem.
What does it do? It tells us what law or country will apply.
The Renvoi problem arises when there is doubt as to whether a reference to

foreign law is reference to that internal law or the whole of the foreign law or
including its conflict rules. Or to simplify, does the foreign law apply to internal
law which will directly solve the problem or the conflict rule there.
But if you were to ask me, my humble personal opinion, why do I have to bother
to look at the conflict rule. Sinabi na nga ng conflict rule natin na ang law nila ang
mag-apply, why do we have to look at the conflict rule? Di ba? So I don’t know
why they made this problem so big because it is so simple if you just apply the
internal law to the problem pending in your court. Anyway that is why the problem
arose. The problem of Renvoi.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So let’s go to an illustration. An English man, Mr. X domiciled in Manila dies

intestate. A question arises in the English court as to the distribution of the
movable property which he leaves in England. What law will apply? To whom will
the properties go to? So we have Y and Z, both relatives of X. They are both
claiming to be heirs. Y bases his claim on Philippine inheritance law. I’m an heir
because I’m a compulsory heir. So since he died intestate I’m entitled. That is
under Philippine law. Z bases his claim on an English administration of estate
act.
So they have different bases to claim the properties of Mr. X who is an English
man who died intestate maybe in Manila. So the English court now has to
determine what law I’ll apply to determine whether or not that properties should
be given to Y or to Z.
So under English conflict of laws, the personal property of X is distributed

according to the law of his country of domicile. So if you follow the English
conflict of laws, the English court will say, ‘ah doon sa Philippines.The Philippine
law will apply because the X was a domiciliary of the Philippines when he died.’
Should I apply their laws in order to solve the problem? Or should I look at their
conflict rule? Because under the Philippine conflict rule the order of successional
rights regulated by the National law of the person whose succession is under
consideration. He is an English man, so under our own conflict rule, the law of
England will apply.
The problem now of the English court is what to apply. The internal law and
solve the problem? The internal law of the Philippines which will solve the
problem and finish the case? Or the conflict rule?
If the English court will apply the internal law of the Philippines, tapos na. Our
laws on succession be pleaded and proven and then we will apply that law and
then the English court will distribute the properties in accordance with our laws.
So who will get the property? Si Y. Because he is… well it doesn’t matter.
However if the English court decides to apply our conflict rule, then our conflict
rule says apply the national law of X which is the English law on succession. So
ibig sabihin niyan, if the English court will apply our internal law, it is said to have
rejected the Renvoi. It is finishing the case. It will just decide to apply our own
laws. But if it applies our conflict rule, then it is said to have accepted the Renvoi,
balik na naman doon sa English court.
So that is why there is a problem with Renvoi. And that is why it’s problematic if
the applicable law is the conflict rule and not the internal law.
So what is now the next question of the English court? Ano mag apply? Our own
internal law to finish the case? Or will I apply our conflict rule?
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So if the English court, pagbalik dun sa kanya, we’re not referring to the
Philippine court but what will the English court do? Since according to our conflict
rule since it an English law? What will I apply? Our conflict law or our internal
rule?
Pag internal rule and ginamit ng English court, finish na. It will solve the case. But
if the English court again will apply its conflict rule which says the law of the
domicile will apply. Ayan na naman, Philippine law na naman. So it will result to
an international merry-go-round. We are not saying that you will have to go to the
Philippines. It is within the court.
Now obviously this problem cannot exist if X is a national and at the same time a
domiciliary of one state. No problem because pareho if the national law will apply.
If the domiciliary theory will apply, same state.
So if X or both are nationals of England, there would be no problem on Renvoi.

IIIIIIIITTTTT’SSSSS TIIIIIIMMMEEE!!! Shibby
February 4, 2014
By Butch
We already discussed the problem of Renvoi. Let’s just look at the cases.
Let’s look at the thing called Transmission.
Transmission - is the process of applying the law of the foreign state through the
law of the third foreign state.
Technically, it is not through renvoi that is it referring back. Sometimes reference

could be of a third state. Example: if X German domicile in Phil, the Renvoi would
be the application of German internal inheritance law. In our example last week
the deceased was a British national, with only 2 states involved. Now, it is
possible that there are 3 states involved. We are talking about transmission.
Aznar Vs. Garcia.

Facts: This was an appeal from the decision of the CFI Davao, approving among
other things, the final account of the executor and directing the distribution of the
property in accordance with the provisions of the will of the testator Christensen.
This will was executed in Manila. Helen Garcia opposed the approval of the
projected partition insofar as it deprives her of her legitime as an acknowledged
natural child of the deceased. According to her, the distribution is contrary thereof
insofar as it denies to Helen, one half of the estate in full ownership.
It was alleged that the law that should govern the estate of the deceased
Christensen should not be the internal law of California alone, but the entire law
thereof because several foreign elements are involved, that the forum is the
Philippines and even if the case were decided in California, Section 946 of the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
California Civil Code, which requires that the domicile of the decedent should
apply, should be applicable
Issue: what is the law of California governing disposition of property?
Held: Article 946 of Civil Code of California is as follows:
“If there is no law to the contrary in the place where personal property is situated.
It deemed to follow the person of its owner and is governed by the law of his
domicile”
We note that Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule,
while the rule applied in In re Kaufman, Supra, its internal law. If the law on
succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly,
each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited In re
Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply
to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions.
The rule laid down of resorting to the law of the domicile in the determination of
matters with foreign element involved is in accord with the general principle of
American law that the domiciliary law should govern in most matters or rights
which follow the person of the owner.
Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed
out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as above explained
the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for
residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason
demands that we should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its
citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens
domiciled abroad. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are
bound to go, as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce
the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as
above explained, i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-
of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad.
Hence, the national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on
conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the
reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The
conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the
case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile,
the Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile cannot and should
not refer the case back to California; such action would leave the issue incapable
of determination because the case will then be like a football, tossed back and
forth between the two states, between the country of which the decedent was a
citizen and the country of his domicile. The Philippine court must apply its own
law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the
question has to be decided, especially as the application of the internal law of
California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4)
and 894, Civil Code of the Philippines, makes natural children legally
acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.
Maam: so it will not refer it back.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Bellis vs Bellis.
FACTS: Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and
of the United States. He executed 2 wills, one govern his estate in Texas and the
other in the Philippines. In the wills, his illegitimate children were given only a
certain sum of money. The 2 children filed an opposition to the petition on the
ground that they have been deprived of their legitime as illegitimate children and
thus, compulsory heirs of the decedent under Phil. Laws
Held: In this regard, the parties do not submit the case on, nor even discuss, the
doctrine of renvoi, Said doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is a
national of one country, and a domicile of another. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the decedent was both a national of Texas and a domicile thereof at
the time of his death.2 So that even assuming Texas has a conflict of law rule
providing that the domiciliary system (law of the domicile) should govern, the
same would not result in a reference back (renvoi) to Philippine law, but would
still refer to Texas law. Nonetheless, if Texas has a conflicts rule adopting the
situs theory (lex rei sitae) calling for the application of the law of the place where
the properties are situated, renvoi would arise, since the properties here involved
are found in the Philippines. In the absence, however, of proof as to the conflict
of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed different from ours. Appellants'
position is therefore not rested on the doctrine of renvoi. As stated, they never
invoked nor even mentioned it in their arguments.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of
Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the
Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
Maam: the difference with the first case is that Christensen is a domicile of the
Philippines. In Bellis, he is both a national and domicile of Texas. We will skip
PCIB vs. Escolin.
Miciano vs Brimo
FACTS: Deceased Joseph G. Brimo is a Turkish National. He made a will and
stated that Phil laws will govern the distribution and disposition of his properties.
He stated further that his legatees must respect such; otherwise, he will cancel
whatever disposition made in his will against the oppositor.
HELD: The brother did not prove that said testamentary dispositions are not in
accordance with the Turkish laws, inasmuch as he did not present any evidence
showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter, and in the absence of evidence
on such laws, they are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines
The institution of legatees in this will is conditional, and the condition is that the
instituted legatees must respect the testator's will to distribute his property, not in
accordance with the laws of his nationality, but in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines. And said condition is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the
testator's national law when, according to article 10 of the civil Code above
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
quoted, such national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary
dispositions.
Maam: is there issue about Renvoi? No maam, it applied Processual

Presumption? So ok we will proceed to the next topic.
PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY

We know that under Article 15,
Art. 15, Civil Code: “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of
the Philippines even though living abroad.”.
What are included under umbrella of status and capacity?

Is article 15 a one sided conflict rule? Yes. On the surface it is. A one sided
conflict rule is one which tells us that the Philippine law will apply or one
particular law will apply. If you look at it from limited perspective it seems to be
one sided. But in case of Aliens in the Philippines, their personal status will be
governed by their national law. It is up to their law to decide. It is the decision of
the SC in the case of Gibbs vs Government and Recto vs. Harden.
We go to article 1of the Treaty of Montevideo on International Law

“No incapacity of a penal character, nor for reasons or religion, race,
nationality or opinion will be recognized”
Other way stated, foreign laws regulating, status, and capacity are to be
disregarded where they have political, religious or penal character. Let’s say a
person who is under civil interdiction here, what’s that? Is it civil or penal? You
find out.
A decree which prevents a person from entering a contract for political reasons is
generally denied effect outside state of enactment
A is an Italian, he is divorced and under civil interdiction. If he comes to the Phils,

what is he considered? He is considered divorce. But he cannot be considered to
be under civil interdiction. What is he prevented from doing if he is under civil
interdiction? Cannot enter a contract of sale. Let’s say he can’t buy car in Italy but
of course as long as he has money he can buy here in the Phils.
What are the distinctions of Judicial and Legislative Jurisdiction?

In the case of Ibanez vs Foster.
Ibanez vs. Foster obtained a divorced. The validity was assailed in the Philippine
court. Foster contended that under the Conflict of Laws rules, personal law that
regulates personal status and capacity of Spaniards are governed by the law of
Spain, So there are 2 Spaniards residing here. Therefore, he said Phil courts
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
have no jurisdiction of 2 Catholic Spaniards. What is the problem? The issue

whether what law will govern them, as they are 2 Spaniards. This is an old case.
May the Phil Court take cognizance given that we have article 15. There is a
difference between choice of law and jurisdiction. The SC said jurisdiction of
court to acquire jurisdiction is not comprised of the status of the husband and
wife simply because the status does not go beyond the sphere of private law. To
afford jurisdiction is not a matter of private law but a matter of public law of the
nation. So Foster confused the 2 aspects of jurisdictions. Jurisdiction of the court,
we are talking about judicial jurisdiction. The correct allegation would be is that
our courts have no jurisdiction to hear divorce since we do not have divorce in
our laws. Spanish are governed by Spanish law
Judicial Jurisdiction Legislative Jurisdiction

The authority of the courts to hear and The authority of the state [of one’s
determined the cause of action, nationality or domicile] to promulgate
whatever be the governing law that laws affecting one’s status
governs status and capacity
The authority to hear and determine a The competence of a person’s national
legal controversy law to govern his status
Governed by the Law of the Forum Status is governed by one’s own
national law tried by our own courts
Aliens could be sue and be sued here but we may apply here national law.
Beginning of Personality.
This is also a status. If you have the read the weird cases in this topic, then you
will know. But we will not take those cases anymore. We have to relate this topic
with the problem on foreign element.
Example
A Japanese couple resides in the Philippines. There is an unborn child in the
womb of the Japanese wife.
Q: Can a donation be made to the unborn child?
A. In the Philippines we know that an unborn child has legal capacity to be a
done. What law will apply? Ours or Japanese law? We are talking about
status. This is governed by the national law of the Parents which is Japan.
But remember we have article 40 and 41 in our civil law on beginning of
personality.
Age of Majority
Philippine Internal Laws Governing Age of Majority (Art. 234 of the Civil Code
amended by RA 6809). Emancipation takes place by the attainment of majority.
Unless otherwise provided, majority commences at the age of 18 years.
Example:
X, a 17-year old American, enters into a contract with a Filipino corporation in the
Philippines.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Q: Is he capacitated to enter into such contract? Yes, because the national

law of X will determine if he has capacity or not. In the US lex situs celebrationis
governs.
ABSENCE
When is one declared absent?
Philippine Internal Law Governing Age of Majority (Art. 384 of the Civil Code)
A person’s absence may be declared:
1. 2 years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since
the receipt of the last news, and
2. 5 years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the
administration of his property
F [Filipina] married J [Japanese man] in the Philippines. J disappeared while

living in the Philippines. After 4 years, F tried to have J judicially declared absent.
Under Japanese law, however, one can only be declared absent after 5 years.
Q: Can the Philippine court declare J absent after 4 years?

A. No. The status of absence is governed by his national law. Nationality
Theory
END OF PERSONALITY
Q: When does personality end?
A: Many legal systems believe that the personality of a human being is
extinguished by death
The dead body plus death certificate is the best evidence. If no dead body and no
death certificate, then we apply presumption of death.
Kind of Absence Presumed Dead for ALL Presumed Dead for

Purposes EXCEPT Purposes of Remarriage
Succession (Art. 40 Family Code)
(Art. 390-391 Civil Code)
Ordinary 7 years 4 years
Extraordinary 4 years 2 years
If a person has been absent for more than 4, 7, or 10 years as the case maybe,
can he be declared dead by the court? No. The court cannot declare a person
dead. Such declaration is useless, since death is found in the law itself. No court
declaration can be made since it can never be final since he may appear to be
alive.
F [Filipina] is married to B, [British man]. B disappeared. F wants B to be

declared dead because F wants to remarry.
Q: What law shall apply to have B declared presumptively dead for purposes
of remarriage?
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
A. The law of the forum. Declaration of presumptive death for purposes of

remarriage, because when a person is absent, this is a status. But
presumptive death is merely a presumption. Absence is governed by
article 15, presumptive death is governed by procedural laws.
Absence = national law
Presumptive death = law of the forum
Absence Presumptive Death
Is a Status Is a Presumption
Therefore it is governed by Art. Therefore it is governed by

15 Procedural Law
Which is the National Law Which is the law of the Forum
Factual Situation Point of Contact
BEGINNING of PERSONALITY National Law of the child

of natural persons
Ways and effects of National Law
EMANCIPATION
AGE of MAJORITY National Law
Use of NAMES and National Law

SURNAMES
Use of TITLES of NOBILITY National Law
ABSENCE National Law of the absent

person
Presumption of DEATH and Law of the FORUM [Lex Fori]
SURVIVORSHIP
In our country, we must have first name and family name. We have no title of
nobility since we are democratic.
Just read Recto vs Harden.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
MARRIAGE
We are going to look at it at different perspective.
Marriage is contract. It is also a relationship and a status. It is a res. Is also an
institution and a legal relation intimately related to the public policy of the state. It
has certain effects. Like 2 people got marriage and had a child. It confers a status
of legitimacy. It gives rise to relation of affinity and consanguinity.
Age of majority to enter into contact is governed by article 6809 for ordinary
contract. Under FC, there is an age which required consent.
Ordinary Contract Marriage

Can be terminated in many ways. Terminated thru death, annulment and
other legal grounds
Intrinsic validity is governed by the law Validity is verified by lex loci
intended by the parties. celebrationis.
Extrinsic Validity – in case of contract of sale, Deed of Sale, notarized (Form)

Intrinsic – consent, object is valid (what is inside)
In marriage:
Formal Validity – extrinsic
Substantive – intrinsic.
In marriage it is not that simple. We have to consider the law. Article 3 of Family
Code
In other words, if all are these are present. Then marriage is extrinsically valid.
Theories:
1. Compulsory Imperative rule – it is imperative for the parties to follow the

formalities of the place of celebration of marriage.
A and B Filipinos get married in India, so they will be governed by law of
India for the formalities. Under article 17, formalities are governed by the
law of the country where they are executed. If in India a marriage can be
celebrated by a 5 year old boy, if valid in India it is also valid here, we
honor their formalities.
2. Optional Rule – parties may follow either lex loci celebrationis or their
national law
3. Ecclesiastes Rule – the religious formalities of both lex loci celebrationis
and the national law must be complied.
This is very difficult to comply. What else will tell us that the law of country
of the place of celebration of marriage will govern the extrinsic validity?
Article 26 par 1.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Summary of Rule
Formal – if valid in the place of marriage then also valid here.
Yaokee vs Gonzales
The SC laid down 2 matters which must be proven for the validity of
marriage under foreign law in issue.
1. The fact of foreign marriage by convincing evidence.
How do you prove this fact? You take pictures,
2. Existence of a foreign law
The law will tell that this and that can validly perform a marriage
ceremony and these are the kinds of ceremonies. Present the law of all
elements, marriage license, ceremony and solemnizing officers
In this case, there was testimony of a brother that the marriage took
place. What was proven was the Fact of Foreign Marriage but not the
existence of the foreign law.
We will continue tomorrow.
February 5, 2014
By Gil
MARRIAGE AS A CONTRACT
Under Article 15 we talked about marriage as a status. It should fall under Article
15. It should be governed by the national law.
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
even though living abroad.
But in our Family Code that with respect to formal or extrinsic validity of marriage,
it is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated.
What about proxy marriages? Are proxy marriages allowed here in the
Philippines?
NO. You know that in the FC.
Is this part of extrinsic validity or intrinsic validity?

We are talking about the ceremony itself. We’re not talking about the parties but
the actual ceremony. So, it is still covered by lex loci celebracionis. Of course if it
is performed here, then, as the place of the celebration of marriage where proxy
marriages are not allowed, then that proxy marriage is void.
But if it is performed abroad and it is valid in that place of celebration, it does not
matter if those who got married are Filipinos or foreigners. If it is valid there, it is
valid here. Honor it as if it was valid here.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Meaning, when there is an issue as to the extrinsic validity of the marriage, it

could not be nullified or the extrinsic validity cannot be attacked just because it is
a marriage by proxy, as long as it is valid in the place where the marriage was
celebrated.
Just take note of the 3 aspects of formal validity.
Let’s go to the aspects of substantive or intrinsic validity.

1. Legal capacity. Take note, capacity. Legal capacity of the parties to enter
into a contract for marriage contracts is governed not by the lex loci
celebracionis but by the NATIONAL law.
2. Consent between the contracting parties;
3. Absence of any legal impediment between the contracting parties.
There are the 3 aspects of intrinsic validity.

With respect to those 3 aspects, we must have to make a distinction between
marriages contracted abroad and those contracted in the Philippines by aliens.
Let’s go first to marriages contracted abroad.

Why is it that these are the only two issues (1. marriages contracted abroad
between Filipinos and 2. marriages celebrated abroad between foreigners)?
Because, with respect to marriages contracted in the Philippines by Filipinos, it
has nothing to do with conflict of laws.
Remember, there must be a foreign element.
So here is first issue: marriages contracted abroad between Filipinos as a

general rule is, if it is valid in that country, it is valid here. The principle of lex loci
celebracionis also applies in its intrinsic validity provided that it is not in violation
of our laws.
Talking about intrinsic validity, we have legal capacity of the contracting parties;
consent between the contracting parties, because they have to both consent to
the marriage and the last one is impediments.
These are the impediments. These will affect the intrinsic validity of the marriage:
1. Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the
consent of parents or guardians.
It has something to do with the legal capacity. So two 14 year old Filipinos go to
India to get married. Let’s say in India, 6 years old, pwede na. Is it valid here?
The marriage may be valid THERE but it is not considered valid here because
there is no legal capacity.
2. Bigamous or polygamous marriages.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
For marriages contract abroad by Filipinos, if it is bigamous or polygamous it will

not be honored here in the Philippines. It will not be considered valid. But we also
need to make a distinction between recognizing the marriage and the crime of
bigamy.
Because for bigamy to be committed, the 2 nd marriage must be celebrated here.
You commit a crime entering into a bigamous marriage under the principle of
territoriality to be considered a crime.
But if you both enter into a bigamous or polygamous marriage abroad, even if
Filipinos, you cannot be prosecuted for bigamy, but that marriage may not be
recognized here because it is not valid here even if valid abroad.
3. Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the

identity of the other.
Why is that? If there is mistake of identity, then that means there is no consent.
Ay, I thought I married A, yun pala si B yung napangasawa ko. The consent was
marriage as to A not to B. No consent.
4. Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
This is considered an impediment. What is Article 53? Those who have

undergone nullity of marriage under the law and are ordered by the court to settle
their properties.
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the
partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of the
children's presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry
and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons.
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the
requirements of the immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent
marriage shall be null and void.
Remember that this is between Filipinos. They are bound by our national laws
regarding the intrinsic validity.
5. Then we have Article 36.
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only
after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)
Even if a marriage celebrated abroad is valid, it could be nullified here on the

ground of psychological incapacity of one of the parties
6. Incestuous marriages.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Definitely, this is not allowed here. This is an impediment. And of course, Article
38. Those void from the beginning for reason of public policy. There are 9 here
under Article 38.
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of
public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the
fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that
other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse.
In other words, again the GR is, with respect to intrinsic validity, it is still governed
by lex loci celebracionis, but we have exceptions here under our national law.
That is between Filipinos who get married abroad and the issue of intrinsic
validity is brought before a court in the Philippines.
Let’s go to marriage celebrated abroad between foreigners.

If two aliens were married abroad and the intrinsic validity of their marriage is
brought before Philippine courts, the general rule again is lex loci celebracionis.
What marriages will our court not consider as valid? Only 2 kinds:
1. Highly immoral such as bigamous or polygamous marriage. But
sometimes noh, we even accept the Shari’a law on polygamous
marriages;
2. Marriages that are universally considered incestuous. Definitely. Yucky.
How else could you describe it?
So let’s go the example.

X and Y are first cousins of Swedish nationality. They got married in Switzerland.
Let’s presume that under Swiss law first cousins may marry. Now they are here
in the Philippines. Can their marriage be considered valid?
Yes because they are both foreigners. They got married abroad.
What are the impediments as to foreigners?
Polygamous, bigamous and incestuous. Yun lang. This is under Article 38.
We don’t really care about the other grounds if it involves foreigners.
But if they are Filipinos, then that is a different story. Their marriage will not be
honored if it violates Art. 38 because under Art. 38, these marriages are VOID
from the beginning by reason of public policy.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
What about marriages celebrated abroad between a foreigner and a

Filipino?
If they come here and there is an issue brought before our courts regarding the
validity of the marriage, how will the court rule?
1. If it is validly celebrated abroad, and valid under our law and the national
law of the foreign spouse, no problem.
2. Valid under our law even if not valid under the national law of the foreign
spouse, no problem, Valid naman under our law.
3. Valid under the national law even if not valid under our law, again no
problem, because of the principle that upholds the validity of a marriage.
4. But if the marriage is not valid here intrinsically and not valid under the
personal law of the foreigner, whether his country follows the domiciliary or
the nationality theory, then our courts will not honor that marriage as
intrinsically valid.
X is a Swiss national, Y is his Filipina first cousin. They got married in Hong Kong
under whose law marriages between first cousins are valid. They established
their domicile in the Philippines. Can their marriage be considered valid in the
Philippines?
Yes. Because it’s valid in the place of celebration and it is valid under the
personal law of the foreign husband. The only hitch is that it is void under Art. 38
but they are not BOTH Filipinos. One is a foreigner.
What about foreigners coming here to get married?

Let’s not forget Article 21 of the Family Code.
Art. 21. When either or both of the contracting parties are citizens of a foreign
country, it shall be necessary for them before a marriage license can be
obtained, to submit a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by
their respective diplomatic or consular officials.
Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in lieu of the certificate
of legal capacity herein required, submit an affidavit stating the circumstances
showing such capacity to contract marriage.
Anyone who wants to get married, if he is a foreigner, must present a certificate

of legal capacity.
Meaning, his capacity to marry is governed by his personal law; either the law of
his nationality or his domiciliary. That’s the only important thing if the foreigner
wants to get married here.
So the logical implication is that the alien who decides to marry in the Philippines
must have the capacity to marry under his national law. Let’s just put it at
NATIONAL law, not personal because this is an application of Art. 15. If we want
to allow a foreigner to marry here, then he must show that in his country, he is
capacitated to marry.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Let’s say we an Indian girl wanting to marry a Filipino. The Filipino is 20 and the
Indian is 12. Since she is a foreigner, she got a certificate of legal capacity from
the alien embassy here in the Philippines, then that’s fine because she is not
governed by our laws, under Art. 15 because she is not a Filipino.
Aside from the certificate of legal capacity, there are marriages that cannot be
considered valid.
Valid in the Philippines if valid under their national law, if we have two foreigners.
Both foreigners wanting to marry here must show certificates of legal capacity
from their respective embassies and consulates.
But if they are here and they are brother and sister, even if they are capacitated
to marry because of the certificate, they cannot be considered married here. And
if they are, father and daughter and, not allowed since it is highly immoral. Just
like bigamous and polygamous marriages.
SYNOPSIS ON THE RULES.

Factual situation: marriages celebrated abroad between Filipinos.
Point of contact is lex loci celebracionis. Meaning, if it is valid there where it is
celebrated, it is valid here. Unless, it violates under Art. 35 1,4,5,6; Art. 36; Art.
37 and Art. 38.
Between foreigners, and the marriage was celebrated abroad, it will be

considered valid here UNLESS highly immoral and universally considered
incestuous.
If it between a Filipino and a foreigners, lex loci celebracionis again. Apply the
rule between foreigners to uphold the validity of the marriage. So if it is valid in
one spouse’s country, even if it is not valid here, it’s fine.
Between foreigners, celebrated in the Philippines, the national law of the

foreigner is the point of contact. UNLESS it is highly immoral and universally
considered incestuous.
Between a Filipino and foreigner, national law of the Filipino if celebrated here.
Iba itong celebrated abroad, this is between a Filipino and a foreigner celebrated
abroad. But if it is between a Filipino and a foreigner celebrated here, then we
follow the national law of the Filipino plus the certificate of legal capacity by the
embassy or consulate of the foreigner.
Let’s look at the cases.

People v Schneckenburger
Schneckenburger was married to complainant Elena Cartagena.
Schneckenburger then secured a decree of divorce from the civil court of
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Chihuahua, Mexico. Later, he contracted another marriage with one Julia Medel.
However, the divorce decree was nullified by the Mexican court. Thus,
complainant herein charged him with bigamy and concubinage. He was
convicted of bigamy and he now appeals his conviction of concubinage.
Held
His conviction of bigamy was affirmed. But he was acquitted on the charge of
concubinage. This was because they executed a certain document foregoing
each other’s affairs, which under the law is considered illegal, but was
nevertheless considered by the court to be a valid consent to the act of
concubinage within the meaning of A. 344 of the Revised Penal Code. There can
be no doubt that by such agreement, each party clearly intended to forego to illicit
acts of the other.
Did our Philippine court acknowledge the divorce? Yes. But that decree of
divorce was nullified by the Mexican court.
In other words, he actually filed for divorce in Mexico but it was nullified and
therefore, he was not allowed to marry again.
Tenchavez v Escaño
Vicenta Escaño, married Pastor Tenchavez, on February 24, 1948. However, the
two were unable to live together after the marriage and later became estranged.
Vicenta left for the US and acquired a decree of divorce in Nevada, USA.
Whether the divorce sought by Vicenta is valid and binding upon courts of the
Philippines.
No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent and
undissolved under the Philippine Law. Escaño’s divorce and second marriage
cannot be deemed valid under the Philippine Law to which Escaño was bound
since in the time the divorce decree was issued, Escaño, like her husband,
was still a Filipino citizen.
MARRIAGE AS A STATUS
Aside from being a contract, marriage is also a status.
When one gets married, it involves personal relations. How do you treat your
husband or wife? Are you allowed to sleep around? Are you allowed to sleep
anywhere, things like that.
What happens when two people get married? It gives rise to a set of rights and
obligations.
In other words, first, with respect to personal relations and second, with respect
to property relations.
Scope of Personal Relations between Husband and Wife

1. Mutual Fidelity;
2. Cohabitation and respect;
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
3. Reciprocal support or assistance;

4. The right of the wife to bear the husband’s surname; and
5. Duty of the wife to follow the husband to his residence or domicile. That’s
wife only has a constructive domicile.
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love,
respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.
What law will apply if there is a foreign element?

In jurisdictions adopting nationality as the test of status in general such as our
country, the personal relations between husband and wife are traditionally
controlled by the law of the state where the HUSBAND is a citizen.
This is normal. Filipina married to a foreigner, that is the general rule. So many
kinds of nationalities now married to Filipinas.
When it comes to mutual respect, fidelity, that is governed by the national law of
the husband, as a general rule.
But there are exceptions.

When can the national law of the husband be disregarded?
1. When the national law of the husband will violate the public policy of the
forum.
Let’s say that the husband is from Timbuktu, and there they are allowed to torture
their wives. And so the husband married to a Filipina keeps on torturing his wife.
That will be disregarded here.
2. When the national law of the wife is the lex fori, especially in matters of
procedure.
So if they are fighting over personal relations, and the case is filed here in the
Philippines and we are talking about procedural matters, then we will disregard
the national law of the husband.
3. In the interest of trade and to protect domestic creditors.
The forum may disregard the incapacity imposed by the national law of the
husband where third persons deemed in good faith contracting with the spouses
without the knowledge of the spouses’ incapacity.
Siguro it has something to do with support.
Synopsis
Factual situation: personal rights and obligations between the husband and wife.
Point of contact: National law of the husband.
But take note of the exceptions that we talked about earlier.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
What happens if the husband changes his nationality? If he applies for a

naturalization in another country? What will govern? His old national law or his
new national law when it comes to personal relations?
1. If both husband and wife have a common nationality, the new national law
will govern their personal relations.
2. If only one would change his/her nationality, the last common nationality
will still govern their personal relations.
3. If there was never a common nationality, the national law of the husband
at the time of the marriage was entered into will govern their personal
relations.
Those are the rules.
PROPERTY RELATIONS
If personal relations are governed by Art. 68 of the Family Code, the property
relations of husband a wife are governed by another provision.
What are the regimes here in the Philippines?
1. Absolute community;
2. Conjugal partnership of gains; and
3. Complete separation.
What does Art. 80 say?

Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the
property relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine laws,
regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence.
This rule shall not apply:
(1) Where both spouses are aliens;
(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not situated
in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property is located; and
(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the Philippines
but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws require different
formalities for its extrinsic validity.
So, what is this saying? The marriage settlement will govern. What the parties
agreed to as to their property relations will be. Like Sharon Cuneta and Kiko
Pangilinan, they under the regime of complete separation of property.
You don’t have to read further if there is a marriage settlement.
But we have cases of mixed marriages here in the Philippines. I have a client, a
European guy and a Filipina woman who both entered into a marriage
settlement, complete separation.
What if there is NO marriage settlement?

It says, the property relations of the spouses shall be governed by Philippine
laws, regardless of the place of the celebration of the marriage and their
residence.
What does that mean?
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
If you are here, you file a case here involving property relations and there is no
marriage settlement, whether or not you are married here but you bring your case
before the Philippine court, then the court will apply our laws on property
relations.
But when does the rule not apply? When is the court not obliged to apply
Philippine law?
1. So, if one is a Filipino and one is an alien, still covered by Philippine law.
2. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property not

situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where the property
is located.
Formalities of a contract, whether it is a contract of sale, a donation. If it involves

property that is abroad and the contract is executed in that country where that
property is located, the extrinsic validity of that contract is governed by the law of
the place where the property is.
Example: A German man and a Filipino woman went to Australia to buy property
there. They don’t have any marriage settlement. So they come back to the
Philippines and are now fighting over the property. What law will apply to
determine if that property is conjugal, etc.? That is governed by Philippine law.
BUT if you are talking about the CONTRACT of sale there in Australia, as to
whether the contract of sale is valid, we use Australian law.
3. With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts entered into in the

Philippines but affecting property situated in a foreign country whose laws
require different formalities for its extrinsic validity.
The property is in Australia, they are both here and entered into a contract here.
As to the ownership and property relations, Philippine law. As to the validity of the
contract, Australian law because the property is there.
Those are the rules on property relations.
You have to be able to determine what the factual is.
Like that example that I gave you, there are 2 factual situations:
1. Who owns the property? That has something to do with property relations.
2. But 2. the validity of the contract is another factual situation with a different
point of contact.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
To outline, as a general rule, property relations are governed by Philippine law

when both parties are Filipinos or one of them is a foreigner. Whether their
marriage was celebrated here or abroad, whether they reside here or abroad or
whether the properties are located here or abroad, it doesn’t matter. If you bring
the case before the Philippine courts, our laws on property relations will apply.
Exceptions. Philippine law will not apply if:
X Swiss married Y a Filipino in Manila. They did not enter into a particular
property relations. They established a domicile here. They had a son Z. Under
Swiss laws, the complete separation of property regime governs, therefore, X
under Swiss can freely dispose of his properties without restriction. Unlike here
where you need the consent of the other spouse.
While living in the Philippines, X bought shares of stock in SMC with his salary in
the Philippines. When he died, he left all his shares of stock to his brother B na
Swiss.
Y, the wife and Z their son, opposed the same on the ground of preterition.
What law governs the property relations of X and Y?
Under Art. 80, Philippine law, particularly the Family Code because Y is a Filipina
and they brought the case before Philippine courts.
Therefore, the shares of stock that X bought with his sweldo are co-owned by the
husband and wife.
Because they did not have a marriage settlement so they are governed by the
absolute community under A. 80.
Can X by will give ALL of the shares of stock to B? How much does he own, diba
50% lang? So can he do it?
NO. He only owns 50% because they are governed by the absolute community.
Can he give his entire 50% to B?
YES. Iba na ang factual situation. This has something to do with testamentary
provisions. And under Art. 16 par. 2:
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,
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found.
Can he give all his 50% shares of stock in SMC to his brother? YES. This is
another factual situation. This has nothing to do anymore with property regime.
Property regime touches on the issue of how they own the property, 50-50 ba,
etc.
What is the effect of the change of nationality?

There is no effect with respect to property regime under the doctrine of
immutability of the matrimonial property regime. However, change in nationality
or status is different from change in legislation. If the law changes, then follow the
new law.
With respect to property regime, what law governs the regime? It will not change
if the parties change their nationalities.
A Filipina and an American get married here, no marriage settlement, then they
are governed by absolute community with respect to their property.
Let’s say the Filipina becomes an American and they filed a case in the court
here as to whether or not the properties are co-owned by them or not, then we
will still follow Philippine law.
But if the law of their nationality changes, the property relationship has to change
accordingly.
February 11, 2014

By Raymund Christian
So lets just proceed to the next topic
ANNULMENT
So we are going to look at annulment from a different perspective.

You know very well that under the Family Code, there is annulment here in the
Philippines.
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was
eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having
substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to
reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with
the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to
be serious and appears to be incurable. (85a)
What are the questions that the conflicts of law are concerned with in
reference to annulment?
1. What court has jurisdiction to declare if the marriage is annulled?
2. What law will apply?
So we go back to jurisdiction and choice of law.

Let’s go to an example:
X and Y are married in Japan. If they are married in Japan, the RTC can have
jurisdiction over the case because we have annulment here. But the law that will
be applied will be the Japanese law to determine whether or not at the time of
celebration, there is a formal or substantive impediment in the marriage.
So, the jurisdiction of the court to annul marriage here in the Philippines is under
the Family Code. But can the local courts annul the marriage of two foreigners
who did not get married here?
If the question is whether or not, the Philippine court has jurisdiction, definitely it
has. The next question here is what law will apply?
For foreigners, what court normally has jurisdiction to annul a marriage entered
into by two foreigners?
Many countries today have regularly competent court that has jurisdiction to
annul a marriage. These courts are those of the domicile of the parties.
Reason: It is the state of the domicile that has the greatest interest in the
domestic relations of the parties. The practical justification for allowing courts of
the domicile is that aliens may bring their actions in their courts instead of
compelling them to travel and sue in their respective countries.
So what are the courts with jurisdiction to annul a marriage?

 The court of the state where both parties are nationals.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
 The court of the state where at least one party is a national.

 The court of the state where the wife is a national prior to her marriage.
 The court of the domicile of the parties.
So those are the courts that can annul a marriage when there is a marriage
celebrated by foreigners abroad.
So let’s go to the choice of law.

In other words, if you look at the list, can two tourists come here and file for
annulment?
The answer is No.
So what law will apply?
The law that governs the formal and substantive validity of the contract of
marriage also governs the question of whether or not there is a valid cause for
annulment.
We look at the governing laws whether the marriage is extrinsically or

intrinsically valid.
Lex Loci Celebrationis: If valid in the place where it is celebrated, it is valid here
except with respect to intrinsic validity, there are prohibitions under our family
code.
Now, so if an action for annulment is sought here then with respect to formalities,
these are governed by the law of the place where the marriage was performed
(lex loci celebrationis)
This law also determines the consequences of any defect pertaining to form. So
ok if you want to attack the formalities of the marriage celebrated abroad. You
look at the laws abroad. If there is a formal defect then you can annul the
marriage based on those laws.
Therefore, the grounds of annulment are provided by the law where the marriage
was celebrated.
So what if X and Y got married in Japan and filed for annulment here. They are
both domiciliaries of the Philippines. Maybe one is a Swiss and the other one is
German, what law will apply with respect to the formal validity thereof?
The law of Japan on Marriage. Not our laws here.
For marriages performed abroad. The lex loci celebrationis should determine
whether or not there is a defect in substance which will render the marriage valid.
Because the General rule is lex loci celebrationis whether formal or substantive
defect.
Choice of law means the law of the place where the marriage took place.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
So that is the summary.

If the marriage is between foreigners, then lex loci celebrationis will apply.
If between Filipinos, then obviously we look at our laws.
So the chart is talking about marriages involving foreigners who got married here
and filing for annulment here.
Now when you talk about annulment in conflict of laws, this includes declaration
of nullity. So that can also be a ground for annulment.
So that is annulment,
Let’s go to the next. Absolute divorce.
ABSOLUTE DIVORCE
So how do you distinguish between divorce and annulment?
DIVORCE ANNULMENT
Divorce presupposes a validly pre- In annulment, the marriage never
existing marriage, you sever the ties of happened because it is defective from
a validly existing marriage. the beginning.
Divorce is granted subsequent to the Annulment is granted for a cause which

marriage ceremony. exists at the very time the marriage is
entered into.
In the cases that I assigned to you, in the case of Garcia vs. Recio:
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,

provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.
However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse
who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice
of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce
decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to
our law on evidence.
How do you distinguish absolute divorce from legal separation?
DIVORCE LEGAL SEPARATION

In absolute divorce, the marital ties are In legal separation, are not allowed to
dissolved. Therefore, the parties are remarry.
allowed to remarry.
In Divorce, reconciliation will not revive In legal separation, if you reconcile no

a marriage already dissolved by the need to do anything because the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
grant of absolute divorce(Ex. Elizabeth marriage still exist.

Taylor)
Rules on Absolute Divorce

Do we have Absolute Divorce? Can our courts try and decide a case involving
absolute divorce? The answer is No. If we have two Filipinos and they file for
divorce here, it will not prosper.
Two foreigners file for divorce here, again No.

Now, if two Filipinos file for divorce in foreign court, the foreign court may grant a
decree of divorce depending on its laws but it will not be recognized here on any
ground. So if the Filipino files an action for recognition of a foreign judgment, it
will not definitely be granted if both parties are Filipinos.
Now if both parties are foreigners, they file for divorce in a foreign country, will
that divorce be recognized here? It will be recognized as valid only if 2 conditions
occur:
1. Foreign court must have jurisdiction to grant divorce.
2. Divorce must be recognized by the national law. Because of the nationality
theory.
Now, if there is one Filipino and one Foreigner and they file for divorce in another
country.
General Rule: Deny but we have Art. 26 provided, it is the foreign spouse who
obtain the divorce and the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry. Then the
Filipino spouse may file an action here to recognize the divorce issued in another
country.
Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the
laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such,
shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1),
(4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated
and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order 227)
So otherwise stated, the General Rule is Absolute Divorce is not allowed. It is not
recognized here in the Philippines.
Exception: Absolute divorce may be recognized if obtained by aliens in a foreign
country under Article 26 or when obtained my Muslims under the Muslim code.
What are the requisites for divorce to be recognized under Article 26

1. Marriage must be mixed. 1 Filipino and 1 foreigner.
2. Absolute divorce is obtained by the alien spouse
3. The divorce capacitates the alien spouse to remarry
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
According to justice Sempio-Dy (DOJ Opinion), the marriage must be mixed at

the time of celebration, meaning, originally at the time of marriage. One is
Filipino, one is a foreigner. But nowadays, it’s ok to be originally Filipinos, then
subsequently, one Filipino acquires foreign citizenship and files for divorce.
That’s the governing rule now.
In case of the change of citizenship, it is the citizenship at the time of divorce that
will control, not at the time of marriage. So it’s a mixed marriage at the time of
divorce.
So lets go to the chart

Factual Situation Point of Contact
Absolute divorce Divorce sought in the lex fori except for Muslim
Philippines by Filipinos or divorce
abroad
Divorce obtained abroad The national law is the

between Filipinos point of contact
Between foreigners The national law.
Mixed marriages We apply national law

without prejudice to
Article 26 paragraph 2.
legal separation 2 foreigners, one is Swiss The grounds given by

one is German and they both nationalities may be
file for legal separation considered proper
here. grounds.
In our law we have

Article 55
LEGAL SEPARATION
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following
grounds:
(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner;
(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change
religious or political affiliation;
(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or
a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such
corruption or inducement;
(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six
years, even if pardoned;
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;

(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether
in the Philippines or abroad;
(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;
(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more
than one year.
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or by
adoption. (9a)
What if under the German law there are 20 and the under the Swiss law, there
are 30 so 50 grounds are available.
So with respect to our topic, legal separation is governed by the national law. For
annulment of marriage including declaration of nullity, we follow the lex loci
celebrationis subject to certain exceptions which we already discussed.
Take note:
Legal separation – No residency requirement meaning 2 tourists can actually file
for legal separation here in the Philippines.
So jurisdiction for petition for legal separation is anywhere for as long as it is
allowed under the national law of the petitioners.
So can 2 foreigners file for legal separation here? Yes, as long as in their
country, they have such a thing as legal separation.
What is the applicable law? The foreign law not our laws.
What are the defenses available in our country?
If the other party does not want the petition to prosper, they may also get their
defences from their national laws.
So that is the summary as to jurisdiction.
Why is the difference in the choice of law?
Why is it in annulment, lex fori and in legal separation, national law. It is because
in annulment, the defect existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage. It
is the law of the place where the marriage was made that was violated but in
legal separation the grounds arose only after the marriage took place. The law of
the place where the marriage was celebrated was not violated.
So that’s the summary for legal separation. Okay so let’s go to some of the
cases. The old cases we already know.
Corpuz vs Sto Tomas Case

Corpuz acquired Canadian Citizenship. He married Daisy Santo Tomas in the
Philippines. When he came back, he found out that she was having an affair with
another man and so he divorced her in Canada. Then he came back here, he
asked to register the divorce in the marriage certificate between him and Daisy
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Lyn. And so he filed a petition for recognition of judgment because he wanted to

marry another Filipina.
So the issue here is in relation to our topic can a foreign spouse file an action for
recognition of judgment under Article 26?
No. If you want to use Article 26, you must be the Filipino spouse because it
benefits the Filipino spouse. The foreigner is already capacitated by his own
divorce decree and therefore, he cannot file for recognition under Article 26 in
order to capacitate him to marry. All he need is a certificate of legal capacity from
his embassy. Now can he file an action for recognition? sure but not under Article
26 but it’s not really necessary because he is capacitated to marry.
Another issue: regarding the registration of the divorce in the marriage certificate.
Is it enough to show the decree to the register? No. a separate proceeding under
Rule 108 has to be filed by the party who wants to change an entry in a public
document like a marriage certificate. So he cannot just go there and show his
divorce decree. He has to undergo a proceeding for correction of entry before the
local civil registrar to change his status from married to whatever.
Bayot vs Bayot
Facts:
Vicente and Rebecca were married on April 20, 1979 in Sanctuario de San
Jose, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. On November 27, 1982 in San Francisco,
California, Rebecca gave birth to Marie Josephine Alexandra or Alix. From then
on, Vicente and Rebecca's marital relationship seemed to have soured as the
latter, sometime in 1996, initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican
Republic.
Before the Court of the First Instance of the Judicial District of Santo
Domingo, Rebecca personally appeared, while Vicente was duly represented by
counsel. On February 22, 1996, the Dominican court issued Civil Decree No.
362/96. On March 21, 2001, Rebecca filed another petition, this time before the
Muntinlupa City RTC, for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on the ground
of Vicente's alleged psychological incapacity. On June 8, 2001, Vicente filed a
Motion to Dismiss. To the motion to dismiss, Rebecca interposed an opposition,
insisting on her Filipino citizenship, as affirmed by the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce to speak of. RTC ruled
against Vicente. CA ruled in favor of Rebecca stating that the marriage between
the spouses was already dissolved upon the grant of divorce since Rebecca was
an American citizen when she applied for such decree.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce decree obtained by Rebecca in Guam was

sufficient to dissolve the marriage bond between them.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Thus, the application for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the
RTC was no longer needed.
Supreme Court Ruling:
There can be no serious dispute that Rebecca, at the time she applied for
and obtained her divorce from Vicente, was an American citizen and remains to
be one, absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citizenship. The following
are compelling circumstances indicative of her American citizenship: (1) she was
born in Agaña, Guam, USA; (2) the principle of jus soli is followed in this
American territory granting American citizenship to those who are born there; and
(3) she was, and may still be, a holder of an American passport.
And as aptly found by the CA, Rebecca had consistently professed,

asserted, and represented herself as an American citizen, particularly: (1) during
her marriage as shown in the marriage certificate; (2) in the birth certificate of
Alix; and (3) when she secured the divorce from the Dominican Republic.
First, at the time of the divorce, as above elucidated, Rebecca was still to
be recognized, assuming for argument that she was in fact later recognized, as a
Filipino citizen, but represented herself in public documents as an American
citizen. At the very least, she chose, before, during, and shortly after her divorce,
her American citizenship to govern her marital relationship.
Second, she secured personally said divorce as an American citizen, as is

evident in the text of the Civil Decrees.
Third, being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws
of the United States of America, a country which allows divorce.
Fourth, the property relations of Vicente and Rebecca were properly

adjudicated through their Agreement executed on December 14, 1996 after Civil
Decree No. 362/96 was rendered on February 22, 1996, and duly affirmed by
Civil Decree No. 406/97 issued on March 4, 1997. Veritably, the foreign divorce
secured by Rebecca was valid.
It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign

judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its
efficacy. In this jurisdiction, our Rules of Court clearly provide that with respect to
actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign judgment
merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party
and, as such, is subject to proof to the contrary.
As the records show, Rebecca, assisted by counsel, personally secured

the foreign divorce while Vicente was duly represented by his counsel, a certain
Dr. Alejandro Torrens, in said proceedings. As things stand, the foreign divorce
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
decrees rendered and issued by the Dominican Republic court are valid and,
consequently, bind both Rebecca and Vicente.
Finally, the fact that Rebecca may have been duly recognized as a Filipino
citizen by force of the June 8, 2000 affirmation by Secretary of Justice Tuquero of
the October 6, 1995 Bureau Order of Recognition will not, standing alone, work to
nullify or invalidate the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca as an American
citizen on February 22, 1996. For as we stressed at the outset, in determining
whether or not a divorce secured abroad would come within the pale of the
country's policy against absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citizenship of
the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.
Legal Effects of the Valid Divorce

Given the validity and efficacy of divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be
given a res judicata effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce
decree obtained, the marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente is
considered severed; they are both freed from the bond of matrimony. In plain
language, Vicente and Rebecca are no longer husband and wife to each other.
As the divorce court formally pronounced: “[T]hat the marriage between MARIA
REBECCA M. BAYOT and VICENTE MADRIGAL BAYOT is hereby dissolved x x
x leaving them free to remarry after completing the legal requirements.”
Quita vs CA
Facts:
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in
the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They got divorce in San Francisco on July 23,
1954. Both of them remarried another person. Arturo remarried Bladina Dandan,
the respondent herewith. They were blessed with six children. On April 16, 1972,
when Arturo died, the trial court was set to declared as to who will be the
intestate heirs. The trial court invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held that the
divorce acquired by the petitioner is not recognized in our country. Private
respondent stressed that the citizenship of petitioner was relevant in the light of
the ruling in Van Dorn v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who obtain divorce abroad are
recognized in the Philippines provided they are valid according to their national
law. The petitioner herself answered that she was an American citizen since
1954. Through the hearing she also stated that Arturo was a Filipino at the time
she obtained the divorce. Implying the she was no longer a Filipino citizen. The
Trial court disregarded the respondent’s statement. The net hereditary estate
was ordered in favor the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother of Arturo. Blandina
and the Padlan children moved for reconsideration. On February 15, 1988 partial
reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children, with the exception of
Alexis, entitled to one- half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and
the other half to Fe Quita. Private respondent was not declared an heir for her
marriage to Arturo was declared void since it was celebrated during the existence
of his previous marriage to petitioner. Blandina and her children appeal to the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Court of Appeals that the case was decided without a hearing in violation of the
Rules of Court.
Issue:
Whether or not Blandina’s marriage to Arturo void ab initio.
Held:
No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo is not void. The citizenship of Fe D.
Quita at the time of their divorce is relevant to this case. The divorce is valid here
since she was already an alien at the time she obtained divorce, and such is valid
in their country’s national law.
FEBRUARY 12, 2014

By Resci Angelli
LEGAL SEPARATION
 GROUNDS--You already know that as the grounds for legal separation is
the ground that can be taken from both foreign countries and when we
have 2 foreign nationals filing for legal separation here.
 DEFENSES—shall also be from the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PARTIES
even if the marriage was celebrated in the Philippines.
 PRESCRIPTION--WON action has prescribed. This is also governed by
the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PARTIES.…so our laws on prescription will
not apply in legal separation cases.
 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT—If you read the book of Paras on article
99 of the Civil code, there is a residency requirement but is already
repealed by article 254 on provisions that are inconsistent with the
provisions of Family code. So that has already been repealed and if you
look at the chapter on Legal separation, there is NO LONGER any
residency requirement. So even a tourist can file for a petition for legal
separation.
PATERINITY, FILIATION, ADOPTION,

GUARDIANSHIP AND FUNERALS
PATERNITY AND FILIATION

- this is of course still related to your family code. And at the time of Family
code, with respect to children who is supposed to respect their parents
and the latter is supposed to support their children
PATERNITY
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
- This is the civil status of the father with respect to the child regarded by
him
- When it comes to the mother? MATERNITY
FILIATION
- Status of the child in relation to the parent and __affection and filial
affection
What else is included under the topic Paternity and filiation?

1. parental authority
2. reciprocal support
3. recognition and right and obligations of parent and children
Very important topic with respect to Paternity and filiation is the STATUS OF THE
CHILD. Whether he is legitimate or illegitimate.
What is LEGITIMACY?
- Status acquired by a person who is born of lawful wedlock of parents who
is married at the time of his birth.
- I am not so sure of the Family code. If it is ‘upon conception’. Anyway, this
is the general understanding.
- Why is it important to determine? Because based from all the systems of
the world, legitimate children are treated differently from illegitimate
children especially when it comes to inheritance.
So now, we have to look at LEGITIMACY under Philippine law.
What law will determine WON child is legitimate?

- Under article 15, when it comes to status –Filipinos are governed by our
NATIONAL LAW or Philippine law.
So considering the rule that matters of procedure are commonly governed by our
Internal law, WHEN ARE PRESUMPTIONS OF LEGITIMACY GOVERNED BY
THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE FATHER or rather THEN BY THE LEX FORI?
(remember our discussion on presumption of death. Since it is a matter of
procedure, the presumption of death is not to be governed by the national
law of the person but by the Lex Fori)
answer: in conflict of laws, presumptions of legitimacy are not merely rules

of evidence. They are actually SUBSTANTIVE.
So WHAT THEN IS THE QUESTION IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OR

IN CONFLICT OF LAWS?
The question is not WON the person is born of lawful wedlock but which system
of municipal law is the test of legitimacy. Here in our country, we have a specific
definition of legitimacy—when is a child considered legitimate? Or illegitimate? Is
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
that the same definition that they have in France? Germany? We do not know.
So our issue in conflict of laws, what system of law will decide WON the person is
born legitimate? When there is an issue on maternity or filiation, we have to
determine first whether the person is legitimate or not. What law will we apply to
determine child’s legitimacy,. That is our question!
So we characterize then.
Whenever there is an issue brought before our courts, involving a foreign

element and factual situation is PATERNITY/FILIATION—we have to determine
whether child is legitimate. To determine that, we have to determine what law ill
apply to determine the legitimacy of child. And then determine the law that will
govern the relationship of the parent and the child. That is the main issue! On
WON child should be treated this way or WON child will support the parent.
We have to use Conflict of laws twice:

1. what law determines legitimacy of child
2. what law will be applied to resolve whatever factual situation is brought
before the court
LEGITIMATION
Legitimation is a remedy by means of which those who in fact were not born in
wedlock and should, therefore, be considered illegitimate, are, by fiction,
considered legitimate, it being supposed that they were born when their parents
were already validly married.
For us, what will determine whether the child will be legitimate or not? It is the
NATIONAL LAW OF THE FATHER. So if the father I s a foreigner and there is an
issue brought before our court regarding support, WON father is supposed to
support the child—FIRST, we have to determine WON the child is legitimate and
SECOND, WON he is entitled to support.
So what law determines whether the child is legitimate? THE NATIONAL LAW
OF THE FATHER. So if they are not too strict, as to what child is legitimate or
not, then it is easy. You will have that status of being legitimate while case is
being tried and therefore, his rights to be supported, inherit from father, will be
based on his legitimacy under the national law of the father.
So when there is a particular status given, let’s say here in the Philippines, X is
born legitimate. Can his status change? According to the DOCTRINE OF
IMMUTABILITY, a status of legitimacy was created under the personal law of the
parent, either by birth of child or legitimation is a permanent status. therefore, one
cannot be converted to an illegitimate child
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Ya ung problema ni Kris Aquino kay Bimby because their marriage was declared
null and void. Magiging illegitimate ba si Bimby because of that? What was the
decision?
ANYWAY, what about those marriages declared as null void under article 36?
EXCEPT ART. 36. (just take note of that!)
But this one is related to a change in the nationality of the parent. For example, X
was born legitimate because his father is an American and under US law he is
considered legitimate. but nagpa-convert xa to be naturalized as Filipino, un pala,
kulang ang requirements nya. Will X now become illegitimate? NO. That is based
on the doctrine of immutability of status. Even if there is a change of the
nationality of the father, the status of legitimacy will not be taken away from the
child.
However, despite the doctrine of immutability, the rights and duties flowing as
incidents of the status of legitimacy may be modified by a change of the personal
law deemed to be decisive of the child’s status. in short, the child’s legitimacy is
immutable but the incidents of the status are not.
SUMMARY
EFFECT OF CHANGE IN NATIONALITY in relation to doctrine of immutability

- Property relations--no change
- Personal relations—it changes
- Status of the child—no change
- Relationship of parents and children—changes
SYNOPSIS
FACTUAL SITUATION: Paternity/Filiation—we are now talking about the issue

of paternity and filiation.
- Once the child is declared to be legitimate after characterization, then the
POINT OF CONTACT in paternity/filiation issues is the NATIONAL LAW
OF THE FATHER.
- If he is illegitimate and is recognized by the father—national law of the
father
- Illegitimate and is not recognized by the father—national lawf o the
MOTHER.
This is the point of contact with respect to the main issue. Tapos na tayo sa
legitimacy. But the same point of contact noh—National law of the father.
ADOPTION
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
This is the process of making a child, whether related or not, to adopt her
and making her possess in general the rights in general, accorded to a legitimate
child.
(I just received an email from Australia where he would want to adopt a

niece—daughter of the Filipina wife’s brother. Adoption can be made on
Domestic adoption act.. but okay lang ba for ‘orphan relative visa’? blah blah.
Foreigners find our procedure very tedious)
ISSUES in Conflict of Laws WITH RESPECT TO ADOTPION:

1. Particular court with jurisdiction to grant adoption
2. Capacity of aliens to adopt
3. Effect consequences of adoption in the forum and in other states.
Did you take up the rules or the rules on adoption diba? There is a procedure you
have to file a petition..if you are a foreigner, you have to secure a certification
from your country, etc
EXAMPLE: Roger, American businessman marries Maria, Filipina. They got

married in California. After 3 years of marriage, they took a long vacation in phils.
They decided to adopt Andy, 7-year old son of Maria. They filed petition for
adoption in RTC Makati. Does it have jurisdiction to grant the adoption? YES. We
have the domestic adoption act.
What law will apply? We apply the LEX FORI because this is a procedural
matter--Our domestic adoption act.
This is the proceeding itself.
PROCEEDING. We follow the rules on adoption. However, whether or not the

adopter is capacitated to adopt, that is not according to us. It is according to the
NATIONAL LAW of the adopter. Meaning, he must not be disqualified to adopt in
his own country. His own country’s law must say that he is qualified to adopt and
is not disqualified. He must show. But it does not necessarily follow that when he
is qualified to adopt in his own country, he is also qualified to adopt in the
Philippines. It does not follow. In other words, if he applies, he must first show
his capacity to adopt. Then we look at our laws, and determine if he is really
capacitated to adopt under our laws. But he has to first show his capacity to
adopt under his own country.
The status created by adoption –definitely, our courts has jurisdiction in adoption
proceeding and our court can declare that yes, the petition for adoption is
granted. But what is the status of the child? Under our laws, he becomes
legitimate. When he is an adopted child, he has all the rights and obligations of a
legitimate child. Will he also become a legitimate child in Australia? NO. the
Australian law should be the one to determine the status of the adopted child
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
there. If one is considered adopted here, in the country of the adopter, he is

considered …
Adoption does not confer Filipino citizenship

This is a situation where a Filipino adopts a foreigner. Does the adopted child
automatically become a Filipino? NO. so the adopted Filipino child is brought to
Australia, will he automatically become Australian? That depends on Australian
law.
Say we have a foreigner who comes here in the Philippines and he has with him
a certificate to adopt issued by the embassy or whatever govt office in his
country—can he adopt in the Philippines?
As a general rule—NO. kahit na wagaywayin nya ung capacity to adopt, as a
general rule, any foreigner cannot adopt a Filipino in the Philippines.
but there are exceptions.
- former Filipino who wants to adopt a relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the 4th civil degree. This is ‘former Filipino’—woman
becomes a nurse. Becomes an American and she wants to adopt her
pamangkin
- one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse—
we are talking of an alien who is married to a Filipino. And this Filipino was
formerly married because she has a legitimate child. Since the mother is
already the mother of the child, the husband foreigner can adopt her
legitimate child so he can be considered the father.
- is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his
spouse a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity
of the Filipino spouse. —this is the most common. This is shown by the
example I gave earlier on the Australian who wants ot adopt the niece of
the Filipino spouse.
1—former Filipino
2—foreigner married to a Filipino
3.—foreigner and a Filipino—jointly adopt
There’s a new one under the new law, which is not found in the family code—
even if the alien has no relatives in eh Philippines, he may adopt provided:
“Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for Filipino
nationals: Provided, That his country has diplomatic relations with the
Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the Philippines for at
least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for
adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is
entered, that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or
any appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in
his country, and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his
country as his adopted child. Provided, further, That the requirements on
residency and certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
country may be waived for the following:

(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth
(4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly
with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.”
This is the 4th kind of alien who can adopt under RA 8552.
RA 8552 is less restrictive. As long as he is married to a Filipino, even if you are
not going to adopt a relative, you can still stay here for 3 years and you may
adopt.
These are the only aliens who can adopt in the Philippines..
Note:
ARTICLE 185—husband and wife must jointly adopt
Exception: for 1 spouse seeks to adopt his own legitimate child or the legitimate
child of the other
Art. 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following
cases:
(1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or
(2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
Take note of the first one—on the former Filipino. This can be a single because
she wants to adopt a relative by consanguinity/affinity. But if she is married, she
and her husband must jointly adopt unless one spouse seeks to adopt his own
legitimate child or the illegitimate child of the other spouse which is number 2
(one who seeks to adopt the legit child of his Filipino spouse)
That’s the rule on article 185
Can a Filipino adopt an alien in the Philippines?
Under ARTICLE 187 of family code:

Art. 187. The following may not be adopted:
(1) A person of legal age, unless he or she is a child by nature of the
adopter or his or her spouse, or, prior to the adoption, said person has
been consistently considered and treated by the adopter as his or her own
child during minority.
(2) An alien with whose government the Republic of the Philippines has no
diplomatic relations; and
(3) A person who has already been adopted unless such adoption has
been previously revoked or rescinded.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
HOWEVER, RA 8552 removed the disqualification under the family code.

Therefore, aliens may be adopted by a Filipino provided the adoptee is:
- Below eighteen (18) years of age who has been administratively or
judicially declared available for adoption OR
- A person of legal age if, prior to the adoption, said person has been
consistently considered and treated by the adopter(s) as his/her own child
since minority;
Child must go to the DSWD.
In the Philippines, adoption does not confer citizenship ( we already know that)
This one of course: INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION.

THIS IS only availed of if it is difficult or next to impossible to adopt under the
domestic adoption act. Here, you cannot choose your child to be adopted. So it is
more on the Board who chooses the child, there is supervised child custody, etc.
SYNOPSIS
ADOPTION
Factual situation Point of contact

ADOPTION—including the creation of National law of the ADOPTER but we
the status of adoption, also have our own requirements.
rights/obligations of adopter and
adopted child
Our own requirements.. We have restrictions under our domestic adoption act.
So even if adopter or would be adopter is qualified, then he has to be qualified
under the domestic adoption a. but with respect to the rights/obligations of
adopter and adopted, we have nothing to do with that anymore. Let’s say in the
country of the adopter, adopted child is brought there and like in the US, parents
are only obligated to send them to high school. Ditto sa Pilipinas hindi. Pati sa
law school. Pero pag dilnala xa sa US, may pakialam pa ba tayo dun? Wala na.
that is governed by the national law fo the adopter.
CASES
REPUBLIC V. TOLEDANO
- Alvin A. Clouse is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
He married Evelyn, a Filipino on June 4, 1981 at Olongapo City. On
August 19, 1988, Evelyn became a naturalized citizen of the United States
of America in Guam. They are physically, mentally, morally, and financially
capable of adopting Solomon, a twelve (12) year old minor.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
- Since 1981 to 1984, then from November 2, 1989 up to the present,

Solomon Joseph Alcala was and has been under the care and custody of
private respondents. Solomon gave his consent to the adoption. His
mother, Nery Alcala, a widow, likewise consented to the adoption due to
poverty and inability to support and educate her son.
- ISSUE: sole issue for determination concerns the right of private
respondents spouses Alvin A. Clouse and Evelyn A. Clouse who are
aliens to adopt under Philippine Law.
- HELD:
- Under Articles 184 and 185 of "The Family Code of the Philippines",
spouses Clouse are clearly barred from adopting Solomon Joseph Alcala.
- Article 184, enumerates the persons who are not qualified to adopt, viz.:
- (3) An alien, except:
- (a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by
consanguinity;
- (b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his or her Filipino
spouse; or
- (c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with
his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the latter.
- Aliens not included in the foregoing exceptions may adopt Filipino children
in accordance with the rules on inter-country adoption as may be provided
by law.
- There can be no question that private respondent Alvin A. Clouse is not
qualified to adopt Solomon Joseph Alcala under any of the exceptional
cases in the aforequoted provision. In the first place, he is not a former
Filipino citizen but a natural born citizen of the United States of America. In
the second place, Solomon Joseph Alcala is neither his relative by
consanguinity nor the legitimate child of his spouse. In the third place,
when private respondents spouses Clouse jointly filed the petition to adopt
Solomon Joseph Alcala on February 21, 1990, private respondent Evelyn
A. Clouse was no longer a Filipino citizen. She lost her Filipino citizenship
when she was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1988.
- Private respondent Evelyn A. Clouse, on the other hand, may appear to
qualify pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of Article 184 of E.O. 209. She was a
former Filipino citizen. She sought to adopt her younger brother.
Unfortunately, the petition for adoption cannot be granted in her favor
alone without violating Article 185 which mandates a joint adoption by the
husband and wife. It reads:
- Article 185. Husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following
cases:
- (1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child; or
- (2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other.
- Article 185 requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife, a condition
that must be read along together with Article 184. 3
- We are not unaware that the modern trend is to encourage adoption and
every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote that
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
objective. 11 Adoption is geared more towards the promotion of the welfare

of the child and enhancement of his opportunities for a useful and happy
life. 12 It is not the bureaucratic technicalities but the interest of the child
that should be the principal criterion in adoption cases. 13 Executive Order
209 likewise upholds that the interest and welfare of the child to be
adopted should be the paramount consideration.
- These considerations notwithstanding, the records of the case do not
evince any fact as would justify us in allowing the adoption of the minor,
Solomon Joseph Alcala, by private respondents who are aliens.
ATTY: so if they jointly adopt, the husband must be qualified as well under the
law. What if we apply RA 8552, can they adopt in this case? (since this is a 1994
case where FC pa that applies). What if we apply RA 8552, can they can adopt?
YES. So here, they are very strict noh. The 1st 3: former Filipino, he is not. Is he
adopting the legitimate child of spouse? No coz he’s the brother. Can they jointly
adopt? No because the wife is no longer a Filipino. He is not qualified under
article 185 (1-3)
But here under RA 8552, if he lives here for 3 years, then he can adopt.
However, in this residency thing, can he choose to adopt the brother of the wife?
I dunno. But I think it’s the DSWD who will tell you who is the child available for
adoption. That’s why a lot of people do not adopt anymore and then they
simulate birth. That’s what people do. So here, we are not sure if he can adopt
the brother of the wife.
GUARDIANSHIP
You know what a guardian is.

Pertinent applicable laws.
If we have a situation wherein the issue before our court is guardianship over the
person of the ward, first of all, what court can apply a guardian? What country’s
court? Let’s say we have a child here in the Philippines and she is a foreigner but
her parents were able to acquire property in the Philippines and her parents died
here and she was left her and nowhere to go. What court can appoint a guardian
for her? She’s here so it is the COURT OF DOMICILE. Court can appoint a
guardian for that foreign child
Powers of the guardian

What laws applies? Co-extensive with those of the appointing court.
So our laws on guardianship will apply as to what kind of powers the guardian will
have over the ward.
What about the property?

Again we have this foreign child who was orphaned. They have a car and
condominium. Say she is from Germany. Meron din properties duon. Over the
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
property of this child, what court can appoint a guardian? The court where the
property is found. The Philippine court can appoint a guardian over her properties
here. What about properties in Germany? German court. Because it says here
that the powers of the guardian is co-extensive with those of the appointing court.
No extraterritorial application. The guardian only has powers over the properties
here. For properties sa Germany, German court is the one to appoint. The
powers of the guardian there is accordance with the German law.
Guardianship over the person or property—it’s the same. CORUT OF THE

DOMICLE OF THE WARD. Because sometimes the guardian is not only over the
person but also over the properties o the ward. So it is the court of domicile.
FUNERALS
The parents of the German child who died here—WON what kind of funeral or
process should be made with respect to the burying of the bodies—governed by
our laws--where the body is buried.
But if it is an urn cremated?
I do not know
It is governed by the law of the place where the body will be buried.
POINTS ON ADOPTION
- WON the status of adoption is created depends on the national law of the
adopter
- If the adoption takes place in the Philippines, our country’s requisites must
be complied with in accordance with lex fori
- Rights/obligations of the adopter and adopted depends on the national law
of the adopter
In re: Guardianship of Roy Lelina

- what is the nationality of Roy Lelina?
- That US veterans administrator is acting as a guardian of the property of
this boy—Roy Lelina. And therefore, one has to go to court WON this
decision not to give the benefits to the boy is proper or not. Here we have
guardianship over the property of the ward which is governed by the court
where the property is found. Where is the case filed? Philippines but what
is applied? American law. That is where the property is situated.
- So this will illustrate jurisdiction. Can our court actually decide this case as
to WON child is entitled to the benefits of the father? YES
- What law will apply? Their law in the US because the property is found in
the US.
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Contributors
CONFLICT OF LAWS—Final Exam Coverage
Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez
CONFLICT OF LAWS Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and

Final Exam Coverage to endorse such annotation to the Office of
the Administrator and Civil Registrar General
February 18, 2014 in the National Statistics Office (NSO).
By Julie Merriam Buca
What did the RTC do? A few days after filing
Before we start with our new topic, I would the petition, the RTC dismissed it. It based its
like to discuss a new case related to our 2nd order on the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
exam and our 1st exam. This is a recognition Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
case. It is related to our topic on marriage. Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC).
FUJIKI V MARINAY, JUNE 26, 2013 Sec. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese nullity of void marriages. –
national who married respondent Maria Paz (a) Who may file. – A petition for
Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the declaration of absolute nullity of void
Philippines2 on 23 January 2004. The marriage may be filed solely by the
marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s husband or the wife.
parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife
to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they In this case, according the RTC, the petition of
lost contact with each other. Fujiki was in gross violation of Sec. 2 of that
AM Circular: only either or Maekara can file
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, the petition to declare their marriage void
Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first and Fujiki is not allowed. And under the
marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which
Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in provides that "[f]ailure to comply with any of
Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara brought the preceding requirements may be a ground
Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly for immediate dismissal of the petition.
suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She
left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.3 WON AM Circular 02-11-10 is applicable to
recognition of foreign judgment?
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they
were able to reestablish their relationship. In According to Fujiki, NO. This administrative
2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a circular is only applicable to void marriages
judgment from a family court in Japan which under Article 36 of the Family Code on the
declared the marriage between Marinay and ground of psychological incapacity. To apply
Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. Section 2(a) to bigamous marriages will be
absurd because the guilty parties will be
On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in permitted to sue. And it is not difficult to
the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of realize that the party interested in having a
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute bigamous marriage declared a nullity would
Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) be the husband in the prior, pre-existing
the Japanese Family Court judgment be marriage. And so, this Section 2 does not
recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage apply to his petition for recognition of foreign
between Marinay and Maekara be declared judgment because a recognition case is a
void ab initiounder Articles 35(4) and 41 of special proceeding which seeks to establish a
the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) status, a right or a particular fact and not a
for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar civil action. Fujiki also insists that he has a
of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese material interest and therefore the
Family Court judgment on the Certificate of personality to nullify a bigamous marriage.
MONTAÑEZ. BUCA. BANZON. PAZ. ONTAL. LEGUIN. HAO. LAYOG

1
What did the SC say? anew. It would defeat the purpose of
What do you think Benedict? recognizing foreign judgment which is to limit
Benedict: No according to the rules. repetitive litigation on claims and issues.
Hence, the interpretation of the RTC is
Do you remember the case of Juliano-Llave v tantamount to relitigating the case on the
RP, who reported on that? We did not take it merit.
up here? We took it up in Civil Procedure.
Do you remember the case of Mijares v.
In Juliano-Llave v RP, do you know Adel Ranada? The case filed by the Marcos human
Tamano? The gwapo lawyer. His father is rights victims amounting to billions of pesos
former Senator Mamintal Tamano. This and they filed an action for recognition of
Senator Tamano was married to the mother judgment of the Hawaian court in relation to
of Adel. And apparently, he married another docket fees, they were asked to pay docket
woman, Estrellita Juliano-Llave a few weeks fees in the tune of millions. The SC said this is
before he died. When he died, she was litigating anew. SC said if every judgment of a
gallivanting around as his legal wife when foreign court were reviewable on the merits,
actually he had a wife and children. So the the plaintiff forced back on his/her original
first wife and children filed an action for cause of action, rendering immaterial the
declaration of nullity of marriage of Senator previously concluded litigation.
Tamano and Juliano-Llave. And according to
this woman, they do not have the personality A foreign judgment relating to the status of a
to have the marriage declared null and void marriage affects the civil status, condition and
on the ground of bigamy. But the SC said they legal capacity of its parties. However, the
do. effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic.
To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in
So, to answer the first question, does Fujiki the Philippines, Philippine courts must
have the legal personality to file this petition determine if the foreign judgment is
for recognition of foreign judgment declaring consistent with domestic public policy and
the second marriage of Paz null and void on other mandatory laws by Article 15. This is
the ground of bigamy? YES. the rule on nationality or nationality theory in
private international law. Thus, the Philippine
According the SC, the ruling in Juliano-Llave v courts may require, for effectivity in the
RP that only the husband or wife can file a Philippines, recognition by Philippine courts
declaration of nullity or annulment does not of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen,
apply if the reason behind the petition is over whom it exercises personal jurisdiction
bigamy. That is the first basis for saying that relating to the status, condition and legal
Fujiki has the personality. capacity of such citizen.
The second, AM Circular does not apply to a A petition to recognize a foreign judgment
petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require
relating to a status of a marriage where one of relitigation under a Philippine court.
the parties is a citizen of foreign country. Philippine courts cannot presume to know
the foreign laws under which the foreign
Why? To hold that this circular applies to the judgment was rendered. They cannot
petition would mean that the RTC and the substitute their judgment on the status,
parties should follow its provision including condition and legal capacity of the foreign
form and contents of the petition, service of citizen who is under the jurisdiction of
summons, investigation of public prosecutor, another state.
pre-trial, trial and judgment. This is absurd.
The SC said because it would litigate the case

2
How is this related to our topic on marriage Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas where the SC said the
or annulment? Remember, can our Philippine recognition of the foreign divorce decree may
court annul or declare null and void the be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as
marriage of let’s say a foreigner and a Filipino the object of special proceedings is precisely
that was celebrated in another country? to establish the status or right of a party or a
Pwede ba? YES! particular fact. Remember in Corpuz v. Sto.
Tomas, SC foreign spouse or the alien spouse
Where do we look for the grounds? We look cannot file an action or petition on
for the grounds in the place where the recognition under Article 26(2) because that
marriage was celebrated. Now, if you turn it only applies to a Filipino spouse.
around, can Japanese Family Court declare Can the foreign or alien spouse file an action
null and void the marriage of Paz and for recognition? Sure but not based on Article
Maekara which was celebrated here in the 26(2). Does he have to file an action for
Philippines on the ground of bigamy? YES recognition if all he wants to do is to have his
Because the ground is taken from our laws. It status as a divorced alien recognized? NO
is very clear in the petition of Fujiki that the NEED because he is already legally
ground for nullifying the marriage is Article capacitated in his country. But for the special
35(4) which is bigamous marriage. That is purpose of amending an entry or a correction
correct. The basis, the grounds for annulment of entry in a public document, then he will file
was taken from our laws on annulment or a petition under Rule 108 and combine it with
nullifying a marriage just like our courts your recognition case.
would do if a marriage celebrated in a foreign
country was brought here for annulment or Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to
declaration of nullity. recognize the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between
In other words, Fujiki has the personality and Paz and Maekara on the ground of bigamy
the Japanese court has the jurisdiction to because the judgment concerns his civil
nullify a marriage celebrated here because status as married to Paz. And SC cited again
one of the parties is a Japanese, a national of Juliano-Llave regarding the prior spouse
that country. where the prior spouse is clearly the
aggrieved party as the bigamous marriage not
What must Fujiki show to the court so that only threatens the financial and property
petition for recognition will prosper? You ownership aspect of the prior marriage but
already know this, a copy of the foreign most of all, it causes an emotional burden to
judgment maybe admitted in evidence and the prior spouse.
proven as a fact under Rule 132. Sec. 24 and
25. Now, what about the issue while an action for
recognition or petition for cancellation of
WON the RTC can recognize the foreign entry under Rule 108 is a collateral attack on
judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or the validity of the marriage? It was held in the
correction of entries under Rule 108? Does case Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of
Fujiki have to file a separate action for Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental that the
recognition or can it be just a petition for trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify
correction of entry with a prayer for marriages" in a special proceeding for
recognition of the foreign judgment or using cancellation or correction of entry under Rule
that particular foreign judgment as your 108 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the validity of
ground for the correction of the entry? marriage can be questioned only in a direct
action" to nullify the marriage. So that was
According the SC, yes. And this was already one of the basis of the RTC in immediately
answered in the case that we discussed

3
dismissing the petition of Fujiki saying that it any alleging party was able to prove an
was a collateral attack on the marriage. intrinsic ground to repel a foreign judgment.
What are those grounds? We already took
But SC said, that this ruling in Braza is not that up. If there is neither inconsistency with
applicable. Braza does not involve a public policy nor adequate proof to repel the
recognition of a foreign judgment nullifying a judgment, Philippine courts should, by
bigamous marriage where one of the party is default, recognize the foreign judgment.
a citizen of a foreign country. A direct action,
according to Braza, is necessary to prevent The last point, if you’re really existing
circumvention of the substantive and according to the SC that it is the spouse who
procedural safeguards of marriage under the should file an action to nullify, who is the
Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other spouse? According the SC, the spouse is in
related laws. A direct action is also necessary truth and in fact Fujiki because the marriage
to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction between Paz and Maekara is void from the
of Family Courts as a Petition for cancellation beginning for being bigamous.
of entry may be filed in RTC. If you want to
file a marriage related case, you have to go to Okay so, that’s just the summary I just read
the Family Court but this is RTC. So in other this case because this might come out in the
words, according to the SC in Braza, Filipino bar. This a new issue.
citizens cannot dissolve his marriage by the
mere expedient of changing his entry of (end of 1st part)
marriage in the civil registry
Part 2 of February 18 Lecture
So, di pwede kung Pinoy. You have to really by: Blanche-Marie G. Montañez.
go through the whole process. However, this
does not apply in a petition for correction or Now, what about this issue. There was an
cancellation of a civil registry entry based on issue brought up that filing an action for
the recognition of a foreign judgment recognition or petition for cancellation under
annulling a marriage where one of the parties Rule 108 is a collateral attack on the validity
is a citizen of the foreign country. There is of marriage. It was held in the case of Braza
neither circumvention of the substantive and vs CCR, that the trial court has no jurisdiction
procedural safeguards of marriage under to nullify marriages in a special proceeding
Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of for cancellation or correction of entry. The
Family Courts because a recognition of a validity on marriage can only be questioned
foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a on a direct attack or direct action to nullify
marriage. the marriage. So that was the basis of the RTC
in immediately dismissing the petition of
The last point that I would like to bring up is Fujiki saying that it was a collateral attack on
this. the marriage. BUT the SC said, this ruling in
Braza is not applicable. Why? Because the
In recognizing a foreign judgment relating to case of BRAZA does not involve a recognition
the status of marriage involving a citizen of a of a foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous
foreign country, Philippine courts only decide marriage where one of the parties are citizens
whether to extend its effect to the Filipino of a foreign country. A direct action is
party under the nationality theory under the necessary to prevent circumvention of the
Article 15 of the Civil Code. So, for this substantive and procedural safeguards of
purpose, the Philippine courts will only marriage under the Family Code. A direct
determine whether or not the foreign action for declaration of nullity or annulment
judgment is inconsistent with the overriding of marriage is also necessary to prevent
public policy in the Philippines and whether circumvention of the jurisdiction of the

4
Family Courts under the Family Courts as a Mikara is void from the beginning being a
petition for cancellation or correction of bigamous one.
entries in the civil registry may be filed in the
Regional Trial Court where the corresponding So, that’s the summary. I SUGGEST you read
civil registry is located. In other words,in this case  G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
BRAZA, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve MINORU FUJIKI, Petitioner, v. MARIA PAZ
his marriage by the mere expedient of GALELA MARINAY
changing his entry of marriage in the civil
registry. So, NOT pwede if Pinoy. You have to We will start our topic for the final exam.
go through the whole process. However, this
does not apply in a petition for correction or A. REAL PROPERTY
cancellation of a civil registry entry based on
the recognition of a foreign judgment In our previous discussions, we already
annulling a marriage where one of the parties learned the principle of lex situs or lex rei
is a citizen of the foreign country. There is sitae. What is that? Property is governed by
neither circumvention of the substantive and the law where it is located. Very simple. Very
procedural safeguards of marriage under basic. Lets go to the conflicts rule.
Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of
Family Courts. A recognition of a foreign The general rule: Issue governing properties
judgment is not an action to nullify a should be governed by the law where it is
marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts located.
to recognize the effectivity of a foreign Exceptions: We have exceptions for that:
judgment, which presupposes a case which 1. Under Article 16.2 which is very clear
was already tried and decided under foreign that when it comes to order of
law. successional rights, it is the National
Law of the decedent. Even if what is
Last point that I want to bring up: Now, in inherited is real property but as to
recognizing a foreign judgment relating to the who will inherit that will governed by
status of marriage involving a citizen of a the National Law of the Decedent.
foreign country, our courts will decide 2. Capacity to Succeed. Whether or not
whether to extend its effect to the Filipino the heir is capacitated to succeed.
party under the Nationality Theory Article 15 Governed by the National Law of the
of CC. Philippine courts will only determine Decedent. Under Article 1039.
(1) whether the foreign judgment is 3. Take Note: In CONTRACTS involving
inconsistent with an overriding public policy real property which do not deal with
in the Philippines; and (2) whether any title thereto, it is NOT lex situs but
alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic LEX LOCI VOLUNTATIS. This is very
ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. common in the contract. Always in the
want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the end, in case of breach, you can file
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law blah blah blah- that’s jurisdiction. But
or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with you can also add there that the parties
public policy nor adequate proof to repel the agree that the law of the place where
judgment, Philippine courts should, by the contract was executed will apply
default, recognize the foreign judgment as EVEN IF it is locates somewhere else.
part of the comity of nations. Or if there is no provisions in the
contract, go to the implied, the LEX
Now, last point: If you really insist that it is LOCI INTENTIONIS – the law of the
the spouse who should file, then who is the place intended by the parties.
spouse? SC said, the spouse is really Fujiki.
Why? Because the marriage between Paz and

5
4. Contracts were real property is given acquired from the Japanese government
as security. So we have a loan with through Reparations Contract No. 300. It
mortgage. The principal contract of consists of the land and building for the
loan (principal contract) is NOT Chancery of the Philippine Embassy. As
governed by Lex Rei Sitae. Since it intended, it became the site of the Philippine
doesn’t involve title of the property. Embassy until the latter was transferred to
So it is LEX LOCI VOLUNTATIS or Nampeidai when the Roppongi building
LOCI INTENTIONIS. But the accessory needed major repairs. President Aquino
contract (mortgage) is governed is created a committee to study the
governed by the LEX REI SITAE. disposition/utilization of Philippine
government properties in Tokyo and Kobe,
So what are the issues governed by the LEX Japan. The President issued EO 296 entitling
REI SITAE? Enumeration is in the book. Is it non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of
there? NONE. Okai, these are the issues separations' capital goods and services in the
governed by LEX REI SITAE. event of sale, lease or disposition.
1. Extrinsic Validity of Alienations
2. Intrinsic Validity of Alienations Issues: Whether or not the Chief Executive,
3. Transfers (including sale, barter, her officers and agents, have the authority
exchange) and jurisdiction, to sell the Roppongi
4. Mortgage property.
5. Capacity of the Parties
6. Interpretation of Documents Ruling: It is not for the President to convey
7. Effects of Ownership valuable real property of the government on
8. Co-ownership his or her own sole will. Any such conveyance
9. Possession (including adverse) must be authorized and approved by a law
10. Accession enacted by the Congress. It requires executive
11. Usufruct and legislative concurrence. It is indeed true
12. Lease that the Roppongi property is valuable not so
13. Easement much because of the inflated prices fetched
14. Police Power by real property in Tokyo but more so
15. Eminent Domain because of its symbolic value to all Filipinos,
16. Taxation veterans and civilians alike. Whether or not
17. Quieting of Tile the Roppongi and related properties will
18. Registration eventually be sold is a policy determination
19. Prescription where both the President and Congress must
concur. Considering the properties'
Now, before we go to movables. I would like importance and value, the laws on conversion
to discuss a case which you have taken up but and disposition of property of public
from the different perspective LAUREL vs dominion must be faithfully followed.
GARCIA. July 25, 1992.
Issue: What Law governs?
LAUREL vs GARCIA.
G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990 Held: The issue involved is NOT governed by
lex situs but by the Civil Code.
Facts: The subject property in this case is one
of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by the Japanese law and not Philippine law should
Philippine government under the Reparations prevail. The Japanese law — its coverage and
Agreement entered into with Japan, the effects, when enacted, and exceptions to its
Roppongi property. The said property was provisions — is not presented to the Court. It

6
is simply asserted that the lex loci rei sitae or and entities wholly owned by Filipinos is
Japanese law should apply without stating inapplicable. We see no point in belaboring
what that law provides. It is assumed on faith whether or not this opinion is correct. Why
that Japanese law would allow the sale. should we discuss who can acquire the
Roppongi lot when there is no showing that it
We see no reason why a conflict of law can be sold?
rule should apply when no conflict of law
situation exists. A conflict of law situation This case shows that LEX SITUS can only be
arises only when: applicable if:
(1) There is a dispute over the title or a. the issue concerns TITLE or
ownership of an immovable, such that the OWNERSHIP of real property.
capacity to take and transfer immovables, the b. And if the foreign law on land
formalities of conveyance, the essential ownership and conveyance is in
validity and effect of the transfer, or the conflict with domestic law.
interpretation and effect of a conveyance, are Who has the capacity to transfer interest or
to be determined ; and convey property? LEX SITUS. Government is
(2) A foreign law on land ownership and its the Owner. But in Laurel Case, as what body
conveyance is asserted to conflict with a of the government can actually cause the
domestic law on the same matters. transfer? That is internal. That has nothing to
do with the law of the place where the
Hence, the need to determine which law property is located.
should apply.In the instant case, none of the Its almost time, we will go to movables
above elements exists. tomorrow 
The issues are not concerned with validity of February 19, 2014
ownership or title. There is no question that
the property belongs to the Philippines. The So yesterday we looked at the case of Laurel
issue is the authority of the respondent vs. Garcia. The SC stated there that there are
officials to validly dispose of property two elements or issues if it is considered as a
belonging to the State. And the validity of conflict problem involving property. When
the procedures adopted to effect its sale. faced with the conflict problem involving
This is governed by Philippine Law. The property, this was discussed in the book of
rule of lex situs does not apply. Salonga. When you took up property under
me, the 2nd provision that we discussed was
What about the DOJ opinion? Art. 415 on immovable property.
The assertion that the opinion of the Art. 415. The following are immovable
Secretary of Justice sheds light on the property:
relevance of the lex situs rule is misplaced. (1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions
The opinion does not tackle the alienability of of all kinds adhered to the soil;
the real properties procured through
reparations nor the existence in what body of (2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while
the authority to sell them. In discussing who they are attached to the land or form an
are capable of acquiring the lots, the integral part of an immovable;
Secretary merely explains that it is the
foreign law which should determine who can (3) Everything attached to an immovable in a
acquire the properties so that the fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
constitutional limitation on acquisition of separated therefrom without breaking the
lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens material or deterioration of the object;

7
law the thing is considered as movable
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects whereas in California internal law the thing is
for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings considered as immovable? There is a conflict
or on lands by the owner of the immovable in again between two laws as to what property
such a manner that it reveals the intention to is involved. The authorities in the subject
attach them permanently to the tenements; agree that it is the characterization of the LEX
SITUS. So if the thing is in California even if
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or the case is filed in the Philippines, we still
implements intended by the owner of the apply the law of the place where the property
tenement for an industry or works which may is located as to whether or not it is
be carried on in a building or on a piece of immovable. So virtually all legal systems
land, and which tend directly to meet the adopt the lex situs is the governing law for all
needs of the said industry or works; questions involving ownership of an
immovable. What is that provision in our Civil
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, Code? That is Article 16.
fish ponds or breeding places of similar
nature, in case their owner has placed them Art. 16. Real property as well as personal
or preserves them with the intention to have property is subject to the law of the country
them permanently attached to the land, and where it is situated.
forming a permanent part of it; the animals in
these places are included; So here in our list we have the general rule
and the exception. What are governed by the
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land; lex situs or lex rei sitae? we have here the
enumeration.
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and 1. Extrinsic Validity of Alienations
waters either running or stagnant; 2. Intrinsic Validity of Alienations
3. Transfers [including sale, barter, exchange]
(9) Docks and structures which, though 4. Mortgage
floating, are intended by their nature and 5. Capacity of Parties
object to remain at a fixed place on a river, 6. Interpretation of Documents
lake, or coast; 7. Effects of Ownership
8. Co – Ownership
(10) Contracts for public works, and 9. Possession [including adverse]
servitudes and other real rights over 10. Accession
immovable property. 11. Usufruct
12. Lease
According to Salonga, the enumeration under 13. Easement
Art. 415 was binding and designed for 14. Police Power
properties located in the Philippines. Meaning 15. Eminent Domain
the enumeration of immovable properties is 16. Taxation
only applicable here. Other countries may 17. Quieting of Title
have different enumerations on what is 18. Registration
movable or immovable. Art. 415 cannot 19. Prescription
possibly bind properties located abroad.
Supposing in a suit before a Philippine court In the book of Salonga he has a few items not
involving a thing situated in California a as much as this. He explains why it is
question comes up as to whether a thing is governed by the lex rei sitae.
immovable or not. Whose characterization
will prevail assuming that under Philippine

8
Look at number 5. Capacity of parties. obligation if sanctioned by the proper law of
Normally capacity in marriage is intrinsic. the contract [HK]
According to Salonga, the capacity to transfer
and take immovable is governed by the lex rei Let us go to an old case. Swank vs Hafnugle
sitae. Not governed by the lex loci an Indiana case. This is an action to foreclose
celebrationis where the contract is entered mortgage. We have D, owning properties in
into. When you say capacity of parties it is Indiana. So she executed a mortgage on land
capacity to enter in a contract of sale, in favor of P. They signed the contract of REM
mortgage. So unless a person has the capacity in Ohio. P brought the action to foreclose the
to acquire immovable (we are talking about mortgage in Indiana. Under the law prevailing
immovables) by the law of the place where in Indiana at that time, the mortgage executed
they are situated he will be excluded from by a woman as surety on land owned by her
ownership. Capacity not only to sell but to in Indiana is void. In Ohio where the contract
buy. Like here in the Philippines whether or was made, mortgages made by married
not that foreigner is capacitated to buy land women were considered valid. Issue is
here in the Philippines is governed by not the whether or not D has the capacity to enter the
law of the country where the contract is mortgage in question. The SC of Indiana said
entered into but the law of the place where No. The validity of mortgage of real property
the property is situated. Under our is determined by the law of the place where
constitution, aliens are not allowed to buy the property is situated. Law of the place
land or own land here in the country. where the contract was made governs the
question of instrument. It does not govern the
Issues that may be determined by the lex capacity of the parties. Lex loci celebrationis
situs: governs the instrument itself. Whether or not
1. Who may own real property? it is notarized, enough witnesses. But it does
2. Under what conditions may the land be not govern the capacity of the parties.
held?
3. Under what uses may the land be put? In The next discussion is the formalities of the
the Philippines this rule assumes importance conveyance. Formalities are governed by the
in line of Constitutional provisions. lex loci celebrationis. According to Salonga,
4.Who has the capacity to transfer interest in formalities examples are those of the written
or to convey property? Governed by lex situs instrument, the seal of witnesses, that of
and not the law of the place where the acknowledgment. The formal validity of
contract was made. instrument that creates or transfers interest
in the land is governed by the law of the situs.
Example. Maria, a FILIPINO married woman,
executes a promissory note in Hongkong, Let us look at the general rule here: Issues
giving as security for it a mortgage on land in concerning real property shall be governed
the RP. by the law of the place where the property is
Under RP law Maria has no power to make situated [lex rei sitae]. Exceptions:
the conveyance without the consent of her
husband. In the Philippines whenever there is 1. ORDER OF SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS –
alienation owned by spouses, they both have NATIONAL LAW of the DECEDENT
to sign. Can the mortgage be enforced in the [Art. 16(2) Civil Code]
RP? No, although she may have the capacity 2. CAPACITY to SUCCEED in inheritance
to execute the PN in HK. Because this issue is cases – NATIONAL LAW of the
governed by the lex rei sitae. However: DECEDENT [Art. 1039 Civil Code]
Although the mortgage is unenforceable in 3. Contracts involving REAL property
the RP, the PN may be a valid personal but which do NOT deal with the TITLE

9
thereto - the proper law of the California court (the law of the place where
contract which is either the: the property is situated) whether or not the
a. Lex loci voluntatis – the law of the contract is entered into in Manila.
place voluntarily agreed upon.
b. Lex loci intentionis – the law of So as to the exceptions.
the place intended by the parties. 1. Article 16 paragraph 2.
4. Contracts where the REAL property is However, intestate and testamentary

given as SECURITY [such as loan with successions, both with respect to the order of
mortgage] succession and to the amount of
a. The principal contract [loan] – the successional rights and to the intrinsic
proper law of the contract [lex loci validity of testamentary provisions, shall be
voluntatis or lexl loci intentionis], regulated by the national law of the person
and whose succession is under consideration,
b. The accessory contract whatever may be the nature of the
[mortgage] – lex rei sitae. property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found.
It is not in the exceptions, the formalities.
Therefore it is governed by the law of situs. 2. Capacity to succeed
Hence when it is stated that the lex situs
governs the formalities of conveyance, the 3. When the question at issue is not the
reference is the whole of situs including any effect of the transaction upon the title
choice of law reference. Not only the conflict to the land but the rights and
rules. A foreign court will apply whatever law liabilities of the parties between
we apply in the situs to resolve the themselves. As a matter of contractual
controversy. We look at this in details when obligation though the subject matter
we reach contracts. of the contract is the land, the
governing law is the law that
Lex situs or law of the place where land is regulates the contract as a whole. Lex
located: loci intentionis or lex loci
1. Ito pa rin noh extrinsic validity is lex voluntatis.
situs;
2. Intrinsic or essential validity; 4. Although the lex rei sitae determines
3. effect of transfer still lex situs; the validity and the effect of mortgage
4. Interpretation or effect of and other lien on the land, the validity
conveyance; and effect of the obligation which the
5. Validity and effect of mortgages and encumbrance secures as determined
other encumbrances; by principles applicable to contracts
6. Marital interest in land. generally. Even though the accessory
mortgage which is the REM applies
Equitable interest in land. Example, Juan dela the lex situs, principal contract is
Cruz enters in a contract in Manila to sell to governed by law of the contract. Lex
John Smith for $100,000 his land in California. loci intentionis or lex loci voluntatis.
In the USA anybody can buy land. No
problem. A month later the same Juan dela Example if the proper law of
Cruz sold the same parcel of land to Pedro promissory note is the law of state 1
Martinez who had prior knowledge of Juan’s and the land subject of the mortgage
contract with Smith. Price of the land was is in state 2 the validity and effect of
$120,000. Whether Smith had an equitable the mortgage is decided by state 2 but
interest in the land will be decided by the

10
the validity and effect of the loan is is situated. But then going back to the
governed by state 1. discussion earlier, what kind of property is
that in the particular place? Movable or
5. The validity of transfer of land is immovable? As we all know under property,
governed by lex situs, the validity of the rights and obligations of parties, the
contract to transfer is determined by effects, the transfer is different when the
the proper law of the contract. property is movable vis-à-vis immovable.
Contract itself is determined by
proper law of contract. Movable Property is of two [2] kinds:
1. Choses in possession – usually identified
That is the discussion about immovables. Let with tangible objects [things that can be seen
us go to the synopsis. and touched]
2. Choses in action – are rights, legal titles or
Factual Situation Point of Contact claims to something [such as debts, patents,
General Rule - Lex Rei Sitae copyright, goodwill, trademarks and shares of
Anything involving stock], subdivided into choses in action:
real property a. that are mere rights – such as the
Exceptions: right to collect from a debtor, or
1. Successional National Law of b. choses in action represented by
Rights Decedent (Art. 16[1] document
Civil Code)
2. Capacity to National Law of Shares of stock are choses in action
Succeed Decedent (Art. 1039, represented by documents/stock certificate.
Civil Code) Goodwill is a chose in action that is a mere
3. Contracts The Proper right. No paper. Copyright in itself is a chose
involving real Law of the in action which no document represents it. It
property but Contract [lex exists the moment of its creation. Copyright of
do not deal loci the owner over his product or creation.
with title voluntatis or
thereto lex loci Chose: a thing, an article or property, a thing
intentionis] that can be seen and touched.
4. Contracts Principal Lex loci
where real Contract voluntati Rule with Respect to Choses in Possession
property is s or lex 1. General Rule - the law of the State in
given as loci which the property is located at the
security intentioni time of the transaction in question
s [lex rei sitae (Art. 16[1], Civil Code)]
Accessor Lex rei determines the creation and transfer
y sitae of interests in choses in possession
Contract [same as the rule in real property].
However it is movable, the situs can
When you talk about the lex loci voluntatis or change depending where the property
lex loci intentionis, this is the proper law of is. Especially if it is a car. Unlike if
the contract. This is different from lex loci land, it is permanently in one place.
celebrationis or the place where the contract
was entered into. 2. Exceptions – same as those for real
property except that in the example
Movable property is governed by Article 16 concerning the mortgage the same
paragraph 1. Law of the place where property must be changed to a pledge of
personal property.

11
looks toward future delivery and the location
Example of the chattel bears no significant relationship
General Rule – X [a Filipino] buys a watch to the transaction until delivery - this may call
while strolling along the streets of Geneva. for the application of “the proper law of the
transaction” which is “the law most
What law will govern the sale of the watch to significantly related to the issue presented”
X?
Can we apply this in internet sales? Where is
The sale of the watch will be subject to the the situs? If the buyer is here and the seller is
laws of Switzerland. The law of the place of there. Where? Inside the computer? You
Switzerland will govern the sale of the watch. cannot tell. This may call for the application
Effect: of the proper law of the transaction. Sabi ng
X [a Filipino] will have the rights conferred by seller at the time of the transaction the thing
Swiss law to the owner of movable property is still here in China so we will apply our laws.
pursuant to sale thereof to him. If you cannot determine the situs of the thing
at the time of transaction, so perhaps we may
apply the law of the transaction most
Let us say in Switzerland they have a significantly related to the issue presented.
warranty period of 6 months. So when a
Filipino came back to the Philippines, the We have an old case. Chang Hang vs.
watch stopped and so he sues the shop in Landers (1959 US Case). P in New
Switzerland here in the Philippines. He Hampshire agreed to buy a power French hoe
wanted to invoke warranty. Normally in the from S. The contract of conditional sale was
Philippines 1 year man dito ang warranty. executed in Massachusetts. So P was located
Just because the watch is in the Philippines in New Hampshire and they entered a
and the suit is in the Philippines does not contract in Massachusetts. The hoe was
mean that Philippine law will govern. It is still delivered to P in Vermont. He brought the hoe
the Swiss law because the transaction took in New Hampshire. Meanwhile the seller
place. What is the factual situation? We are assigned P’s contract and promissory to F, a
talking about the effects of the sale. Simple. financing company. But P failed to pay the
When you talk about movables in general. financing company so F, the financer,
repossessed the hoe in New Hampshire
Reason: Commerce depends on the protection because it was located there at that time. So
of the purchaser who must buy without how many transactions do we have? The sale
investigation of the applicable law, at least between P and S. And then we have the
not beyond where the goods are located, foreclosure of the hoe, assignment of contract
which is usually the place of transaction, as to F. What did F do? Took the hoe in
well. Massachusetts then resold the hoe to another
party, B.
So difficult to determine where the
transaction took place because of internet What is the situs here? Situs of the sale is
purchases. For example you purchased from Massachusetts. Under Massachusetts law,
China. Tapos pagdating dito sira-sira. There is the resale of the hoe is allowed. It was resold
no warranty. The transaction took place in to B. Under New Hampshire law where the
China but the buyer never left Davao. This hoe was at the time of foreclosure and resale,
must be addressed by Congress. Technology the resale was unlawful because notice of
in relation to our laws. resale must have been given to P. So what will
apply? Massachusetts law because it is the
Are there instances where the lex situs will law of the place where the the hoe was at the
not be applied? Yes, where the transaction time the sale was transacted.

12
So, just take note that the substantive issues
But the validity of the resale, the law of are governed by these laws. In this case
New Hampshire will govern. Not the law of (ma’am referring to the power point), the
Massachusetts. Not the law of the place where Warsaw Convention that the procedural
the hoe was. We are not talking about the matters pwede rin lex fori.
original sale. We are talking about the resale
of the hoe. Reasons: it is elected because of Okay let’s go to this issue, some authors say
the substantial connection with the that questions arising from transactions
transaction. It is where the buyer signed the involving movables in transit may be resolved
contract of resale. It is the place of business of by according to the law of any place having a
the buyer. It is the place where the hoe was substantial connection with the transaction
kept at the time of resale. We are talking which would uphold its validity. So the owner
about the validity of resale. The hoe was of the goods is permitted to choose between
there in New Hampshire and the place where several legal systems.
the alleged conversion took place in the
matter of conflict to that of state’s law. This is In our Civil Code under Article 1753. It is the
an exception to the general rule. law of the place of destination. There are
other countries that allow any law that the
What is another instance where the lex situs owner is allowed to choose.
may be disregarded? Where the goods are in
transit. There in your book you have a table This one (power point), just read those
when goods are in transit. things, administration of debts, negotiable
instruments, shares of stock, etc. We have a
FEBRUARY 26, 2014 case in shares of stock which we will discuss
By Ivy Rose Paz and for intellectual property, it says in the
absence of a treaty, they are protected only by
So we already started the Rules when it the state that granted them. Di ba we have the
comes to movables… Your book has a table so Intellectual property Code which is under
it would be redundant if we would have to Article 3 can be availed of by foreigners, who
look at the table together. wants to file infringement cases here but
there are requirements.
So anyway that’s the synopsis when it comes
to movables. So you have those in your book. There is no
point going to them one by one.
This one (ma’am referring to the power
point) talks about goods on board the sea Let’s just look at the case of CIR VS ANGLO-
going vessels and then we have Rules for CALIFORNIA BANK L-12476, JANUARY 29,
trains, motor crafts and aircrafts. 1960, in relation to shares of stock.
(Case digest is from the Conflict of Laws notes
Then we have goods in transitu, we know of Atty. Suarez)
under Article 1753, that it is the law of the
place of the destination that will apply. FACTS:
Calamba sugar Estate (CSE) represented by
The ___ and validity of seizure will be its trustee, the Anglo California National
governed by the law of the place where the Bank, is a foreign corporation organized and
goods were seized. Just look at the table. existing under the laws of the State of
California, USA, duly licensed to do business
Of course, you know your Rules on in the Philippines. It has consistently filed its
International Transportation; we do not have income tax returns here through its resident
to discuss that anymore. attorney-in-fact.

13
On May 14, 1956, the CIR notified CSE of an “Gains, profit, and income derived from
assessment of alleged deficiency income taxes the purchase of personal property within and
for the years 1953, 1954 and 1955 in the its sale without the Philippines or form the
respective amounts of P138,855, P131,759 purchase of personal property without and its
and P393,459, supposedly based upon capital sale within the Philippines, shall be treated as
gains derived from CSE’s sale to the Pasumil derived entirely from sources within the
Planters of P250,000 shares of the capital country in which sold.”
stock of the Pampanga Sugar Mills (a Construing the same provision of law, United
domestic corporation) and of the promissory States courts are in accord in disallowing the
note, dated Jan 1, 1950, executed by the PSM imposition of income taxes by its government
in the sum of $500,000. on capital gains where the sale takes place
outside its territorial jurisdiction. It is
The parties stipulated that: likewise the prevailing view that in
1. The negotiations leading to the ascertaining the place of sale, the
execution and conclusion of the determination of when and where title to the
agreement of sale, dated Jan 16,1953, goods passes from the seller to the buyer is
between CSE and Pasumil Planters, decisive.
took place in San Francisco,
California; In this case, it is admitted that the
2. The payments on account of the sale negotiation, perfection and consummation of
were made by PP in san Francisco; the contract of sale were all done in
and California, USA. It follows that title to the
3. The sale was made under and in shares of stock passed from the vendor to the
accordance with the laws of San vendee at said place, from which time the
Francisco incidents of ownership were vested on the
buyer.
ISSUE: W/N the capital gains obtained from
the sale constituted income from sources The Collector argues that the situs of shares
within the Philippines. of stock of a corporation is considered to be
at the domicile of the latter, as held in some
HELD: cases cited by him; but in the instant problem,
It was the opinion of the Tax Court that they we are not concerned with imposition of
were income derived from abroad, and not taxes upon the shares themselves, but on a
subject to income tax. sale effected abroad that resulted in capital
It is hardly disputable that although shares of gains, for which there is a specific provisions
stock of a corporation represent equities that of law (Sec 37 (e) NIRC)
may consist of real as well as personal
properties therein, they are considered under As stated by the Tax Court, there is a
applicable law and jurisprudence as distinction between the situs of personal
intangible personal properties (Art 417 (2), properties and the situs of the income
Civil Code; Sec 35, Act 1459). derived from the sale or exchange of such
properties.
Sec. 24 of the NIRC levies income taxes on
foreign corporations only on income derived Ma’am: What are the two kinds of situs
from sources within the Philippines; and with discussed here?
respect to capital gains on the sale of personal
properties, Sec. 37 (e) of the same Tax Code Okay just to simplify, we have 4 situations
deems the place of sale as also the place or there on the board, which among those
source of the capital gain: situations is applicable in the case you are
discussing?

14
What law will determine whether or not the 1. order of succession
sale of the domestic shares of stock is valid? 2. amount of successional rights
The law of the state of incorporation. 3. intrinsic validity of the provisions of
the will; and
So, the situs of the shares of stock will 4. capacity of the heirs to succeed
determine the validity of the sale itself.
However, when it comes to taxation, whether What about the capacity of the testator to
or not the seller will have to pay income tax make a will? It is not there!
or capital gains tax that is determined by the What about extrinsic? Okay we will look at
law of the place where the sale is the cases later.
consummated. In extrinsic validity or formal validity, what
are the issues? The formalities, how many
We will leave property. Our next topic is witnesses, signed in the presence of each
Wills. other, those things.
The age of the testator, pwede bang maging
WILLS AND SUCCESSION testator ang 16 years old? That is the issue
here.
This is quite long. We have to focus on this; it Number of witnesses. Capacity of the testator
is a bit complicated as well. to make a will is under extrinsic validity.
What governs? Or what is the point of
I’m sure you already know the provisions contract for extrinsic validity? Article 17 of
here because you have already taken up the Civil Code, the forms and solemnities of
Succession. wills, contracts, etc is governed by the lex loci
celebrationis. The law of the country where
What is the conflict rule? It is Art 16.2. With the will was executed.
respect to property, it is Article 16.1 but with
respect to Wills and Succession it is Article So, just remember, intrinsic is national law of
16.2. the decedent, extrinsic is lex loci
celebrationis. But you have to know what are
As to the intrinsic validity of a will it is the issues in intrinsic and those of extrinsic
governed by the law of the person whose validity.
succession is under consideration. It does not
matter where the property is located because Let us go to the conflict rules on extrinsic
we are talking about the order of Succession. validity.
Who is the first one, who is the priority
successor or heir? Also, the amount of If a Filipino makes a will abroad, according to
successional rights, how many percent, 50%, our Rules it produces effect in the Philippines
60%, whatever. That is governed by the if executed in accordance with the lex loci
national law of the decedent or the testator. celebrationis and also if executed under his
national law. So if you are a Filipino and you
Capacity to succeed under Article 1039 is also execute a will in the United States it can
governed by the national law of the decedent produce an effect if valid under lex loci and
or the testator. Meaning who are the heirs, valid under national law.
who are eligible to be heirs who are not. Who
are supposed to be heirs? Is there a legatine If extrinsically valid here, no problem,
or not, that is the national law of the because what will be tackled during probate
decedent. is the extrinsic validity. If passes the probate
under our laws here, no problem.
So what is covered by intrinsic validity?

15
Look at the conflict rule. When the Filipino is our law here in the Philippines? A will cannot
in the foreign country he is authorized to be allowed if it does not pass probate. So it
make a will in any of the forms established by must be probated first and that would be the
the law of the country wherever he may be, time that it can be allowed. The properties
which is the place where the will was made will be distributed in accordance with the
and of course our National Law, such will may will.
be probated in the Philippines.
Now, if the will is probated in a foreign
Let us go to the next situation. We have a will country we have Rule 77 Section 1. Will
made abroad by an alien. What has this probed and allowed in the foreign country in
something to do with us? He comes here noh accordance with the law of such country
with his will. Perhaps he has properties here where the will was executed may be allowed
like the Christensen guy. It produces effect in and recorded in the proper CFI of the
the Philippines if it is executed according to Philippines.
lex loci, lex nationalii, or lex domicilii.
The question here is Queenie (favorite
A will made in the Philippines by an alien. student ;) ), if the will is probated in the
What will apply? Obviously. What is the lex foreign country, does it have to be probated
loci celebrationis? Here. So we do not have to here?
talk about the lex loci celebrationis. If it is Answer: No. It says here may be allowed
executed in the law of the country in which he (referring to the ppt). If it is already probated
is a citizen or subject, yan national law nya and allowed in the foreign country according
and which may be proved and allowed by the to the laws of the foreign country, it may be
law of his country, it has the same effect as if allowed, filed and recorded. That is according
executed according to the law of the to Rule 77 Section 1, but we will see some
Philippines. cases that will make those provisions
complicated.
Those are the 3 rules on extrinsic validity.
What should be done? This is provided by
Now let us go to probate. What is proven Rule 77.2. Did you take this up in special
during probate? It says here it is the act of proceedings? What is the procedure for
proving before the competent tribunal that foreign probated wills?
the document is the valid last will and
testament of the deceased as well as the When the copy of such will and of the order
certification by the court that the will was or decree of the allowance thereof, this is a
executed by a competent testator in a manner foreign judgment diba? Both duly
prescribed by law. authenticated, you go through the procedure
that you took up, Rule 132 Section 25, you
So probate of will is conclusive as to its due get all those originals, copies or whatever, are
execution, testamentary capacity of the filed with a petition for allowance in the
testator, extrinsic noh. But does not affect the Philippines, by the executor or other person
intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will. interested, in the court having jurisdiction,
Since you already took succession twice you such court shall fix a time and place for the
know this. Diba?! Probate has nothing to do hearing, and cause notice thereof to be given
with intrinsic validity, whether the heir is as in case of an original will presented for
capacitated to succeed, it has nothing to do allowance.
with probate.
So this is just for allowance. Notice of hearing
How is it related to our topic? Well there are for allowance.
will probated in a foreign country. What is

16
Now let’s go to the third portion. will file a petition for allowance of will and
Rule 77 Section 3 then you will just insert your prayer that the
If it appears at the hearing, simple lang na judgment of the foreign probate court be
hearing noh, that the will should be allowed recognized.
in the Philippines, that’s the only thing that Therefore, the due execution of the will and
should be proven you bring all your the testamentary capacity of the testator need
documents with you, the court shall so allow not be proven anymore.
it and a certificate of its allowance, signed by This is what the Supreme Court said in Vda de
the judge, and attested by the seal of the Perez vs Tolete 232 SCRA 722.
court, to which shall be attached a copy of the The foreign law, first you have to prove the
will, shall be filed and recorded by the clerk, foreign law, the procedure on probate must
and the will shall have the same effect as if also be proven.
originally proved and allowed in such court. What evidence do you have to bring before
As if naprobate their in the RTC. the court?
1. The due execution of the will in
So that is the Rule under our Special accordance with the foreign law;
Proceedings. 2. The testator has his domicile in the
What are the documents that you have to foreign country and not in the
attach? Philippines;
1. Copy of the will 3. The will has been admitted to probate
2. Decree of probate thereof in such foreign country;
There will be a hearing for the allowance of 4. The fact that the foreign tribunal is a
wills. foreign court; and
What you file is petition for allowance of will. 5. The laws of the foreign country on the
That is the petition that you file. A special procedure and allowance of wills (Vda
proceeding. de Perez vs Tolete 232 SCRA 722)
When a will has been probate and allowed in The Supreme Court specified what else you
a foreign country according to the laws of the have to show the court when you want a will
foreign country, it may be allowed in the that has been probated in a foreign country
Philippines, citing those 3 provisions (Rule 77 be allowed.
Sections 1,2 and 3). The case to be filed is
petition for allowance. So, that is the procedure of a will that has
been probated in a foreign country. If no
Decree of the allowance, hearing as we probate then it must be probated here.
already discussed and if it appears during the
hearing that the will should be allowed, the What does it mean when a will id allowed?
court shall allow it. This just the breakdown It means personal or real property may be
of those 3 provisions (referring to the ppt). passed in accordance with the provisions
When a will executed abroad has not been thereof.
probated, so the person here concerned has a
raw will, it did not pass probate, it may be Now, let’s go to the next issue. How do you
admitted to regular probate proceedings in interpret a will? Is this an intrinsic or
the Philippines. extrinsic?
What has to be proven?
Ans. The extrinsic validity. The due execution It is the process of ascertaining the meaning
of the will, capacity of the testator. which the testator intended his words to
convey. So it depends, I think it is more on
This is according to the Rules noh, it is similar intrinsic because we have an example here:
to enforcement of a foreign judgment. You

17
EXAMPLE: Article 818 which says “either
X is a Swiss national married to a Filipina and for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit
domiciled in Boracay. He died in Boracay of a third person.” [Art. 818, Civil Code] Joint
leaving a will with provisions leaving his wills, executed by Filipinos in a
entire property to his heirs-in-law and his foreign country shall not be valid in the
next-of-kin. Meron ba tayo nyan heirs-in-law Philippines, even though authorized by the
and next-of-kin? Legally speaking wala. law of the country where they may have
been executed” [Art. 819]
But if it is valid under his national law,
Switzerland that he can leave properties to So, is this extrinsic or intrinsic? Well if we put
his heirs-in-law and next-of-kin, how do we it in extrinsic, lex loci celebrationis, if valid in
interpret those terms? the place of execution then valid here in the
How can our courts discover the real intent of Philippines, pero hindi eh, according to 819, it
the testator? shall not be valid here. Just follow the
provision.
Our courts must refer to the canons of
construction laid down by Swiss Internal law Let us go to Conflict Rule on joint will made
(the national law of the decedent). Because by Filipinos abroad, national law will govern.
that is governed by the national law of the Why because according to our law Article
decedent how to interpret the will shall also 819, you cannot
be governed by the national law of the
decedent. If it made by aliens abroad, valid, if it is valid
according to lex loci celebrations or where
What if all the available evidence of the alien is domiciled. We have here Article
the intention of X still leaves the 15.
issue unresolved? Pagdating sa Switzerland If it is made by aliens in the Philippines, no, it
under their laws of Construction, there is no is void, the will will not pass probate here.
such thing as heirs-in-law and next-of-kin, This is void by reasons of public policy.
ininbento pala ni X yung terms.
Now let us go to revocation of wills.
So we have Article 788 which says “If a Can a testator revoke? Under our rules on
testamentary disposition admits Successions, definitely, anytime, any day
of different interpretations, in case of pwede.
doubt, that interpretation by which the
disposition is to be operative shall be Automatically if a new will is executed, that
preferred”. old will is revoked.
A revocation done outside the Philippines, by
So lahat nang in-laws niya. Normally how a person who does NOT have his domicile in
many in-laws do you have? So anyway, make this country, is valid when it is done:
the provision valid, do not interpret it in such a. According to the law of the place where the
a way that there is no heir at all. will was made, or
b. According to the law of the place in which
Let’s go to this issue in joint wills. Are joint the testator had his domicile at the time;
wills valid in the Philippines? No, you know
that. Take note, when we talk about wills unlike
This is one executed in the same instrument here in revocation, hindi masyadong issue
by 2 or more testators. We do not allow that ang national law, it is more on the domicile.
here in the Philippines.
What is the provision? This is Article 829. If the revocation takes
place in this country - it is valid when it is

18
made in accordance with the provisions of POINT OF CONTACT – Philippine law, lex loci
this Code (law of the forum) [Art. 829, Civil actus, the law of the place where the act
Code] (revocation) was made
FACTUAL SITUATION – revocation done
There are defects according to out author in outside the Philippines by a non-domicialiary
Article 829, because there is a shift from POINT OF CONTACT – 1. law of domicile at
nationality to domiciliary as a point of the time of revocation
contact: 2. Law of the place where the will
1. The shift from nationality to domicile as a was made
point of contact is rather erratic FACTUAL SITUATION – revocation done
2. The phrase “domicile at the time” is not outside the Philippines by a domicilary- alien
clear is living here but he revoked his will outside
the Philippines
- if you look at Article 829, “At the POINT OF CONTACT – 1. Law of the domicile
Time”, at the time of what revocation (RP)
or at the time of execution? Siguro - Law of the place of revocation
revocation, siguro. -END-
3. When an alien makes a will abroad, there March 4, 2014 (1st 20 minutes)
are several points of contract to uphold the By Benedict Ontal
intention of testator - in case of revocation,
there only two [2] points of contact So we already discussed most of the
recognized, namely: issues under Wills and Succession. The last
a. The law of the place where the will was topic under this subject is this..
made, and
b. The law of the testator domicile EFFECT OF CHANGE OF NATIONALITY
- if you look at Art 829, it is not the law of the
place where the will was revoked, it is the law We already learned that with respect
of the place where the will was made. to the extrinsic validity of the will, it is the
national law of the decedent that will govern.
4. There is no apparent provision with So what happens if the decedent
reference to aliens domiciled in changes his nationality?
the RP who execute the act of revocation
abroad, BUT a will made EFFECT OF CHANGE OF NATIONALITY of
by an alien abroad wherever his domicile may TESTATOR
be, will be considered valid in the RP if
formally valid under: POINT OF
a. His national law FACTUAL SITUATION
CONTACT
b. The law of his domicile LEX LOCI
c. The law of the place where it is made CELEBRATIONIS
d. Philippine law AT THE TIME
THE WILL WAS
Okay, so these are just some comment from EXECUTED
the authors why there is a defect. 1 EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
[GOVERNING
LAW DOES NOT
So let us just go to the summary. CHANGE WITH
CHANGE OF
FACTUAL SITUATION – revocation done in NATIONALITY ]
the Philippines NATIONAL LAW
2 INTRINSIC VALIDITY
OF THE

19
TESTATOR AT the the appointing court? It’s the same with
THE TIME OF the administrator of an estate.
DEATH WILL Thus, an administrator appointed by a
GOVERN Philippine Court can have jurisdiction only
[GOVERNING over the properties of the deceased located in
LAW CHANGES the Philippines.
WITH CHANGE
OF So, we have 2 kinds of
NATIONALITY] Administrator:
In guardianship, we have guardianship over
So those are the discussions on Wills the person, and over the property.
and Succession. Lets go to Administration of For administration,
Estate. 1. Principal or domiciliary
Administrator
ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATE OF -the administrator in the estate
DECEASED where the testator was domiciled
at the moment of death.
This is very simple. How is it related 2. Ancilliary Administrator- the
to Conflict of Laws? We used to have administrator appointed in the state where
foreigners who land here in the Phils. And of the deceased did not die in as domiciliary but
course own condominium units and personal has properties therein.
properties like cars..etc..
Q: So if somebody dies, which court Q: What law governs the
has the power to appoint an administrator? administration of the estate of the deceased?
Or Declare the executor qualified? A: It is the lex fori- meaning, if he has
A: It depends properties here, then the lex fori or the lex
1. If the deceased was domiciled in rae sitae. ---up to the point of distribution
the RP at the time of his death – only. As to who deserves the property, you
the court of the state where the know very well..ha..what is it? National Law
deceased was domiciled. of the decedent. –Administration is not
2. If the deceased was NOT governed by the law which governs succession
domiciled in the RP at the time if but by the law of the country where the
his death – the court of the state administration takes place, and that is the law
where his properties are found. of the country from which the administrator
derives his authority. Ok so obviously, the law
So if he has properties here, then, of the place where the properties are located.
our courts can appoint an
administrator insofar as the (naa syay gi ingon na dili masabtan,
properties here are concerned just read that in the book of Paras daw)
even though he is not a So let’s go to the conflicts rules. Very
domiciliary or not a national. easy daw..Pabalik2 tayo.
So, the basic Rules on Administration

The rights, powers and obligations of Conflicts Rules on Administration
the executor or administrator are co-extensive
with the powers of the qualifying or appointing WHICH
court. COURT HAS
So we already learned in the FACTUAL SITUATION JURISDICTION
beginning that on guardianship noh, who is TO SETTLE
ESTATE IN

20
CONFLICTS has both properties in Singapore and Manila.
PROBLEMS When Carmen died intestate, Johannes
THE COURT OF applied for letters of administration which
DECEDENT/TESTATOR the court of Singapore granted. On the other
THE PLACE
1 WAS RESIDENT OF RP hand, Alfred, the brother of Carmen, also
WHERE HE
AND DIED IN RP applied for letters of administration here in
LAST RESIDED
THE COURT OF the Phils. The husband contended that there
DECEDENT/TESTATOR THE PLACE was no more need to do so because the court
2 WAS RESIDENT OF WHERE HIS of Singapore has already appointed him to be
FOREIGN COUNTRY PROPERTY IS the administrator of the estate of Carmen.
LOCATED
Maam S: What did the husband invoke?
Summary (iapil nalng nako ni kay medyo According to him, the British law (they are
bitin) british nationals), the property of the wife
1. An Administrator appointed in one will go entirely to the husband. So he said that
country has no power over the property in by appointing an administrator here in the
another country – since his authority is Phils., he is deprived of the prop. Because
derived only from that court that appointed accrdng to British law, everything belongs to
him. him (da wa katingog si butch! Kay gitubag na
2. Powers of the Administrator shall Aw hehe peace!).
be governed by the law of the place where he
was appointed, such powers include: Issue: w/n there could be 2 administrators
a.) w/n he can sue on behalf of for an estate?
the estate. Normally, payment of taxes,
debts… Held: yes. The appointment of an
b.) dispose the assets of the administrator cannot extend to the territory
estate to pay whatever (da lagi!). where the administration was granted. The
administration granted to him was only for
Q: What happens after the the Singapore estate but not the Manila
administration is completed? (taxes paid estate(in a nutshell ni).
etc..pagkatapos tnan ba ahw) The SC also discussed the 2 kinds of
A: Distribution of the remaining administration (Principal and ancilliary). In
assets. Intestate or testate. (So national law of this case, there is a need for ancilliary
the decedent na ang point of contact because administration because there are properties
this is already after the administration of outside the last domicile of the decedent. So,
property) the husband, was the principal administrator,
and Alfred was the Ancilliary administrator
Q: What are Caduciary rights? for the Manila estate. So there could be 2
A: If a person dies without issue, administrators specially if there are other
without heirs, then that is the right of the properties outside of the last domicile of the
state to claim through escheat proceedings to decedent.
claim such properties of the decedent.
Maam S: So did the appointment of the
Ok so recit na si Butch (favourite ni ancilliary administrator, the brother, deprive
mam! Ug ang hadlang sa among kaligayahan the husband of his rights over the prop?
ni Lab aw).
A: No. The administrator was only appointed
Johannes vs Harvey (recit ni butch) to administer the prop...to settle the
Carmen was married to Johannes. claims..the remit the surplus to the principal
They were residents of Singapore. Carmen administration/administrator.

21
So it’s not as complicated as going
Maam S: Can there be 3 or 4 administrators? through probate proceedings but we need to
Can we have multiple principal and ancilliary show all of these. So in this case, only
administrators? allegations were given and the SC said there
is not enough proof. What is the result? The
A: Sa prinicipal-NO! A person can only die in will has to undergo probate again in this
one place..but there can be multiple ancilliary country.
administrators. There can be 20 (if daghan
property sa lain jurisdiction because she’s Continuation..
rich like me..) but there can only be 1 By Queenie Leguin
principal administrator.
Cayetano vs Leonidas
Suntay vs Suntay (Louie Hao) (recit ni kris banzon, Cayetano vs. Leonidas)
Jose Suntay, a Filipino Citizen died in adjudicating upon himself the ownership of
China. An intestate proceeding was instituted the entire estate of Adoracion. and then her
by his heirs. Later on, his heirs found a will sister filed a petition for the reprobate of her
which was allegedly probated in China. So (Adoracion) will and her will was allegedly
they filed a petition for the allowance of said executed in accordance with Pennsylvania
will. laws. So Campos opposed the reprobate of
her will and said that the intrinsic provisions
Issue: w/n the will said to be probated in of the will should not be given effect because
China may be allowed here if it will be given effect, his legitime will be
impaired.
Held: Wills probated in other countries may
be allowed in our country provided that the Issue: WON the intrinsic provisions are valid.
foreign court is a probate court and the
probate laws of such foreign country is Held: YES. Because it was established at the
proved as well as the legal requirements for time of Adoracion’s death that she was a US
the execution of a valid will in such foreign citizen and a permanent resident of
country. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. and Under the
In this case, there was failure to prove Civil Code as regards the intrinsic provisions
that the court in China was a probate court of the will, the national law of the decedent
and also the procedure in probate must be applicable. and the Pennsylvania Law
proceedings was also not proved. So the SC does not provide for any legitime; in fact, the
denied the allowance of the will. testator or the decedent may dispose of
his/her property to a complete stranger.
So, I’m sure you’re very familiar with Anent Campos’ contention that if the
this already noh..the procedure, just like Pennsylvania laws will be applied, it will be
recognition of foreign judgment, proof of against the public policy of the Philippine
foreign law...a will already probated in laws as regards the system of legitime, the SC
another country, there’s a judgment of said that Congress did not intend to extend
probate...So, we already discussed. A will such policy to foreign nationals. Thus, the
does not have to got through probate provisions of the will of Adoracion are valid
twice. It can be allowed right away but the even if Campos will be deprived of his
fact of probate and the foreign law of the legitime as Adoracion’s only heir.
country must be proven. Of course, the
due execution in accordance with foreign So, did the RTC of Manila acquire jurisdiction
law (w/n it is intrinsically valid), and then over the petition filed by the sister? YES.
the testator is not a domiciliary here...and Because it is RTC of the province where the
that the foreign court is a probate court. testator has an estate which will have

22
jurisdiction over the petition when the ancillary administrator. On October 19, 1987,
testator is not an inhabitant of the petitioner filed in Special Proceeding No.9625
Philippines, otherwise, it is the RTC of the before the Makati RTC, a motion to declare
place where the testator has his/her Richard and Kyle as heirs of Aubrey and
residence. Since Adoracion was not an apportioned to them ¾ and ¼ of all the
inhabitant or was merely temporarily estate, respectively in accordance with the
residing in the Phils, then petition was Philippine law. This motion and project of
properly filed in the RTC Manila where partition was granted and approved by the
Adoracion has an estate. trial court in its Order dated February 12,
1988. This was opposed by respondent on the
Atty: Yes, the same as probate proceedings. ground that under the law of the State of
The court which has jurisdiction is the court Maryland, “a legacy passes to the legatee the
of the place where the property is located if entire interest of the testator in the property
the testator/decedent is not a domiciliary or a subject of the legacy.” Respondent argued
national of the Phils. that since Audrey devised her entire estate to
Richard, then it should be wholly adjudicated
Ancheta vs Dalaygon. to him and not merely ¾ thereof, and since
Spouses Audrey O’Neil and W. Richard Richard left his entire estate to the
Guersey were American Citizens with an respondent, except for the A/G Interior Inc.
adopted daughter named Kylie Guersey Hill, shares, then the entire property should now
and have lived in the Philippines for 30 years. pertain to respondent. Ancheta argued that
Audrey died leaving a will bequeathing her he was in good faith and that he had no
entire estate to Richard, who was also knowledge of the laws of the Maryland and
designated as executor. The will was that it is for the best interest of the child
admitted probate before the Orphan’s Court (Kyle) that the Philippine laws should be
of Baltimore, Mary Land, U.S.A. which named applied. Issue: WON the distribution made by
James N.Philips as executor due to Richard’s the ancillary administrator was correct. Held:
renunciation of his appointment. Atty. Alonzo NO. because the law that should be applied is
Q. Ancheta, herein petitioner, of the Quasha the national law or the laws of the Maryland
Asperilla Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law offices (national law of Audrey).
was likewise designated by the court as
ancillary administrator. In 1981 Richard How about the principle of processual
married herein respondent Candelaria presumption? since the administrator did not
Guersey-Dalaygon with whom he has two plead and prove the law of Maryland? The SC
children. Subsequently, Audrey’s will was did not apply said principle because the
admitted probate by then Court of First administrator cannot rely on his contention
Instance of Rizal. As administrator of that he had no knowledge of such laws
Audrey’s estate in the Philippines, petitioner because said laws are already mentioned in
filed an inventory and appraisal of Audrey’s the allowance of the first will (Audrey’s) in
properties. On July 20, 1984, Richard died, which he was appointed as administrator of
leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his such estate subject of the first will and of the
entire estate to respondent, save for his rights fact that the administrator belongs to a big
and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. law firm and thus he has all the resources and
shares, which he left to Kyle. The will was also access to know the laws of the Maryland.
admitted to probate by the Orphan’s Court of
Ann Arundel, Maryland, U.S.A, and James Atty: Yes. The SC said that you cannot do that.
N.Phillips was likewise appointed as executor, You cannot refuse to plead and prove the
who in turn, designated Atty. William Quasha applicable foreign law. It is already applicable
or any member of the Quasha Asperilla under Art. 16 of our Civil Code. and there is
Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices, as already a will that passed probate already, all

23
you have to do is present the foreign law 2. Capacity of the parties – unlike in
which will affirm whatever it is that the will is other topics, for contracts, capacity of the
saying. SC said that Atty. Ancheta lost sight of parties is an entirely different
the fact that his primary responsibility as an element. It has a different point of contact.
ancillary administrator is to distribute the This is the power of a party to bind
subject estate in accordance with the will of himself effectively.
Audrey. Considering the principle established 3. Essential or intrinsic validity –
under Art. 16, as well as the citizenship and nature, contents and effect of a contract. What
the avowed domicile of the decedent, it goes is covered by intrinsic? meeting of
without saying that Atty. Ancheta was also the minds, adequate consideration, object of
duty-bound to prove the pertinent laws of the contract.
Maryland on the matter. This is a 2005 case, it
is not impossible to research on the laws of March 5, 2013 – first hour
Maryland although even if it was in 1984, still, By Loumie Hao
there is a way because Atty. Ancheta was part
of a big law firm. They clearly have the Let’s finish our discussion for contracts. We
capacity to find a certified and authenticate saw that for contracts in conflict of laws there
copy of said laws. are three elements. Let’s look at the points of
contact as to the elements.
OBLIGATIONS AND
Let’s go to the extrinsic validity of contracts.
CONTRACTS When it comes to extrinsic validity, it is
always the lex loci celebrationis. For
This is more on contracts. What is a contract contracts, we call it lex loci contractus or the
from the view point of Conflict of laws? It is place where the contract was entered into
an agreement between two or more parties pursuant to Artcicle 17.1.
which in accordance with ___ which gives rise
to an obligation of at least one of them who is What are not covered by the lex loci
called the promissory. contractus? The exceptions are
1. Article 17.2 – When the contract is
What are the issues NOT included in so far as entered into in the Philippine
contracts are concerned? diplomatic officials in the foreign
1. Agreements creating a status (e.g countries. This is what you call the
marriage or adoption contract) – these are consular contract. The Philippine
governed by other laws; different law shall apply, not the law of the
points of contact. place or country. (principle of
2. Agreements transferring or territoriality)
extinguishing rights in rem 2. When the contract involves
alienations or encumbrance of
So these are not covered in this chapter. We property because lex situs or lex
will just focus on an ordinary contract. rei sitae prevails over the loci
contactus.
Elements of a contract (NOT the same with
the Civil law: object, consideration and What about the capacity to enter into the
consent) contracts? Whether the parties are
1. Formal or extrinsic validity – the capacitated to enter into the contracts? This
external sign of making the contract; the is governed by the national law. In the
means of signifying consent; so Philippines only those who have reached the
the formalities. age of majority can enter into contracts. So

24
definitely, that is covered by Article 15 – they cannot stipulate on the courts. Unlike in
capacity. Exceptions: here, we can stipulate in the venue but we
1. there’s only one case which the SC cannot stipulate on the jurisdiction. In
says it is the les loci celebrationis and Conflict of Laws, what law to apply – no
that is the case of Insular vs. Frank. problem. But what court to try -- ___. Again,
It is just one case. It is normally the you have to distinguish between choice of law
national law. and jurisdiction. And the parties cannot
2. of course when the contract involves abolish compulsory domestic rules. If you
alienations or encumbrance of remember the cases of Pakistani vs Ople,
property that is covered by the lex Cadalin vs POEA, Bank of America vs
situs or lex rei sitae. American Realty, the parties cannot choose a
law which contravenes public policy.
Let’s go the the intrinsic validity or the
essential validity, the provisions of the Exceptions:
contract. Meeting of the minds, etc. 1. While the parties may stipulate on the
perfection, consideration, etc. proper law of the contract, they
cannot stipulate on the jurisdiction of
Questions on intrinsic validity: the courts.
1. Was there meeting of the minds? 2. The parties cannot abolish
(consent) compulsory domestic rules
2. Was there adequate consideration? 3. The parties cannot abolish choose a
(consideration) law which contravenes public policy
3. Did the obligor perform his (Pakistani Airlines vs Ople, Cadalin vs
obligations under the contract? POEA, Bank of America vs American
Realty)
This is governed by the lex contractus which
could either be: (General Rule) Take note ha, this is now the lex loci
1. Lex loci voluntatis (the law contractus. When does the lex loci
voluntarily agreed by the parties) – contractus govern the intrinsic validity? Lex
the parties expressly agreed that loci contractus if:
such particular legal system will 1. The parties have not stipulated a
apply. different law.
Ex: if the contract would say “In case 2. The law they choose to govern the
of breach or questions on the validity contract cannot, on some legal
of contracts, Philippine law will apply. grounds, be applied.
2. Lex loci intentionis (the law intended
by the parties) – there is no Sometimes, this can fall under the lex loci
agreement but it can be presumed intentionis. Of the entered into the contract in
that such law was intended by the some foreign country, it is presumed that
parties. they intended the foreign country to govern
the contract. If the lex loci voluntatis cannot
Note: Lex loci contractus is different from lex apply, then the lex loci contractus can be
contracus. applied. for contracts, you know very well,
Lex loci contractus – the place where the that the agreememnts between the parties
contract was entered into; extrinsic validity govern as long they are not contrary to law.
Lex contractus – the proper law of the So they can also agree on what law to apply.
contract; intrinsic validity But take note, as to the extrinsic validity and
the capacity, this cannot be agreed upon.
In intrinsic validity, although the parties may Extrinsic validity – lex loci contractus;
stipulate on the proper law of the contract,

25
capacity – national law. Intrinsic – no 2 Lease Lex Lex Lex
problem. of Situs Situs Situs
Prope
Another theory in lex loci intentionis, may be rty
implied from such factors: 3 Lease Lex Loci Natio Lex
1. The law having the most substantial of Celebra nal Loci
connection with transaction. Servic tionis Law Volun
es tatis/
2. The nationality and domicile of the Intent
parties. ionis
3. The law most favourable for the
effectivity or efficacy of the contract 4 Contr Fixed Fixed Fixed Liability
act of Situs of Situs Situs for
for it should be presumed that the Carria Carrier of of loss,dest
parties intended to be bound by the ge of Carrie Carrie ruction,
agreement. Goods r r or
deteriora
tion of
Limitations and principles in the Choice of goods in
Law: transitu
1. If of 2 possible choices, one law – Law of
provides certain specific remedies in Destinati
case of breach, and the other does not on
– the first law applies if the contract 5 Contr Lex Loci Natio Les If agency
makes mention of said remedies. act of Celebra nal Loci deals
2. Several laws may be selected, each of Agenc tionis Law Volun with
y of the tatis/ conveya
which governs different elements of Partie Intent nce or
the transaction but parties cannot s ionis encumbr
select a law which has no connection ance of
or relationship at all with the property
transaction. – Lex
Situs
3. If the law selected should change, it is
the law as changed that would apply, 6 Simpl Lex Loci Natio Les
for it is presumed that at the time of e Celebra nal Loci
Loan tionis Law Volun
contracting, the parties were or of the tatis/
cognizant of the dynamic quality of Mutuu Partie Intent
law. m s ionis
4. If under the law selected, the contract
7 Comm Lex Lex Lex
is legal, but in the place of odatu Situs Situs Situs
performance, it is illegal, the law m
selected must prevail, and the
contract should be considered legal.
5 Contr Lex Loci Natio Les If agency
Factu Point of Contact act of Celebra nal Loci deals
al Agenc tionis Law Volun with
Situat y of the tatis/ conveya
ion Extrins Capa Intrin Others Partie Intent nce or
ic city sic s ionis encumbr
ance of
1 Sales Lex Lex Lex property
and Situs Situs Situs – Lex
Barter Situs

26
6 Simpl Lex Loci Natio Les Ma’am: What kind of element are we talking
e Celebra nal Loci here? We are talking of the extrinsic validity
Loan tionis Law Volun of the contract – lex loci voluntatis since it is
or of the tatis/ expressly stated in the contract.
Mutuu Partie Intent
m s ionis
United Airlines vs CA
7 Comm Lex Lex Lex
odatu Situs Situs Situs
m
Facts: Passenger did not check in upon arrival
at the airport thinking there is no need to do
so. He was bumped off. He sued airline.
According to the airline, it was his failure to
comply with the proper procedure which
Norse Management vs National Seamen caused them to be bumped off.
A seaman died while onboard a vessel which Issue: What law will apply?
is of Singapore registry. His wife filed for
compensation and death benefits and alleged Held: The principle applied was lex loci
that it is the Singaporean law that will apply contractus which is the law of the place
since the vessel is of Singaporean registry. where the contract was entered into. Since
According to Norse management, the the contract was entered into in the
Philippine law should apply because National Philippines although performed in the US,
Seamen Board has no jurisdiction to take Philippine law will apply and they need to
judicial notice of foreign law, second foreign check in. Hence, they were denied
law must be proven first. compensation since they were required to
check in.
Issue: Whether Philippine law or Singapore
law should apply? Note: In the US, especially in domestic travels,
passengers sometimes need not check in. Just
Held: The employment contract expressly go straight to the boarding area then the
stated that in cases of injury, death benefits boarding passes will be distributed upon
and illness while onboard the vessel, the law boarding. Sometimes free seating is even
that will be applicable shall be the Workmen’s allowed.
Compensation Act of the Philippines or
Workmen’s compensation of where the vessel According to Ma’am, this case dealt with
was registered whichever is higher. The offer intrinsic validity so she’s confused(?) why lex
of Norse Management is to pay 30k pesos, but loci contractus was applied.
in Singaporean law, the death benefit is the
monthly benefit x 36 which is higher than the
Philippine law. TORTS
According to SC, the Singaporean law shall Primary question: where was the tort
apply because it is expressly stated in the committed?
contract. The national seamen board has
jurisdiction to apply Singapore law because it There is only a need to determine where the
is expressly stated that it has jurisdiction over tort was committed if it was filed here but it
seamen’s contract and second, national was committed elsewhere.
seamen board has already decided in several
cases which was cited by the SC that is Article 2176 – An act or omission which
familiar with the Singaporean law. causes damage to another, there being fault of

27
negligence and there being no pre-existing Let us say that the case is filed here in the
contractual relationship between the parties. Philippines. But there is an issue where the
tort is committed.
Tort – a legal wrong committed upon a
person or property independent of a contract. There are THREE THEORIES to determine
the locus delicti.
It could either be a direct invasion of some 1. The CIVIL LAW THEORY – where the
legal right of an individual, the infraction of act began.
some public duty wherein which damage 2. The COMMON LAW THEORY – where
accrues to the individual or the violation of the tortious act became effective.
some private obligation by which damage 3. The THEORY OF DR. RABEL [please
accrues to another. Anything that causes check spelling kay wala ko
damage to another is a tort – outside any powerpoint] – The place which has
contractual obligation. the most essential or substantial
connection with the act.
Elements of tort action:
1. Legal duty Example:
2. Breach of that duty In your book, there is an example there. In the
3. Damage as a proximate result map of the USA, there are three states that are
adjacent to each other: California, Nevada and
Point of contact – tort. What will govern the Oregon. If there is a house there in the middle
liability of the tortfeasor and whether or not of these states on the border of California.
the victim is entitled to damages? It is the law The person living there shot his gun and then
of the place where the tort was committed hit his neighbor in Nevada, but the nearest
– lex loci delicti comisii. hospital was in Oregon, and the neighbor died
there. So, what is the Locus Delicti?
Ex: If a Filipino goes to HK, drives on the
wrong side of the road and hits a pedestrian. If you follow the Civil law theory, it is
Can the victim sue the Filipino here? Yes. California. That is the place where he fired the
Jurisdiction – no problem because the gun. According to the Common Law Theory, it
defendant is in the Philippines, our courts is Nevada because the neighbor was hit there.
have jurisdiction over torts. But what law will So that is the place where the act became
apply? The tort was committed in HK. Lex loci effective. And under Dr. Rabel’s theory, it is
delicti comissi. The state where the social California because it has the most substantial
disturbance occurred ____ redress the wrong. connection to the tort. So these are the
questions that will face our courts if say, the
neighbor in the example is Filipino and the
2nd Part relatives are suing here.
by Mark Francis Layog
What are the issues governed by the Locus
So what is the locus delicti? It is the place Delicti:
where the fault or wrong was committed. 1. Are the parties to the case proper;
Take note that conflict often arises in the Meaning, are the defendant and
characterization of the locus delicti commissi. plaintiff a real party in interest;
So that is the big question in torts. (and it is) 2. Whether the act is considered the
Because the point of contact is so simple, the proximate cause of the injury;
lex loci delicti commissi. 3. The issue on contributory negligence;
4. Damages;
5. Kinds of damages;

28
6. Requisites for the issuance of What if the lex loci delicti commissi is the lex
damages; causae, the foreign law? When should our
7. Burden of proof; and courts apply the internal law? According to
8. Defenses. our authors, when the Philippines have a
substantial connection to the parties or the
These are all governed by the Lex Locus operative facts or when our internal law on
Delicti. tort embodies the social-economic policy that
warrants application to the case. So, aside
Now, the issue on the choice of law, or the from the exceptions to co comity, we can add
choice of locus delicti is “where did the tort this when it comes to torts.
happen?”
As for jurisdiction, liability for foreign torts When should our courts apply the foreign
may be enforced in the Philippines. law? When we have no considerable interest
in the application of internal law, or the
1. We have a case filed here, even if the tort is foreign state, by virtue of its relation to the
committed outside. Can that be tried here? foreign parties, has such an interest. I really
Yes, provided that the tort is not penal. We don’t know why this is discussed because the
know that under the principle of territoriality. point of contact is the lex loci delicti
Crimes committed outside the Philippines commissi. But ofcouse you have the
cannot be tried here. exceptions and things like that.
2. The liability will not contravene our public
policy; and Specifics: if the tort is committed aboard a
3. Our judicial facility is adequate for such public vessel whether on the high seas or in
enforcement. foreign territorial waters, the law of the flag.
If committed onboard a private vessel or a
In general, a suit to recover from a foreign merchant ship, again law of the flag.
court is cognizable in any state where If it concerns property, lex situs.
jurisdiction may be acquired over the person
of the defendant. So, definitely, if the Collision
defendant is Filipino, it is easier to file the Just read the table. It’s there. (sorry wala jud
action here even if the tort happened outside ko ppt. huhuhu)
like our Hong Kong pedestrian example.
So those are the laws on tort. Let us go to
So, before our courts may validly decide a crimes. Very easy =). Take note that if there is
case on foreign tort, apply the lex loci delicti a foreign element, can we try cases involving
commissi. And the defendant is properly foreigners? Yes, as long as the crime is
served with summons or the defendant committed here. The only foreign element is
voluntarily appears. Easy =). that the accused or the private complainant is
a foreigner. But, if the crime is committed
Now, what must the court do when faced with outside the Phil., definitely, Philippine courts
a problem involving torts and the lex fori is in do not have jurisdiction. But if the crime is
conflict with the lex cause? Ascertain and committed outside the jurisdiction of the
weigh the purpose of the tort law to follow as Philippines, definitely, we do not have
applied to the tort case. Remember ha, the jurisdiction. So, will there be a conflict
applicable law is the lex loci delicti commissi. problem in jurisdiction? Not really, because
This is just an issue on what if our law is so when we talk about criminal jurisdiction, we
much different from the foreign law? So this have our four elements. When we talk about
is just a suggestion by our authors. choice of law, in penal laws, we apply the
internal law. There is no conflict problem
when we talk about crimes.

29
Let’s just go to the theories on extra- Now the last case which I would like to
territorial competence. remind you is the case of SAUDIA. The first
1. Territorial theory- this is the one we case that we discussed. The flight attendant
follow. that sued saudia.
2. Nationality theory – some states
perhaps follow that. That will be the coverage of our final exam.
3. Protective theory
4. Real or eclectic theory
5. Universal “Give to the world the best you have and the
6. Tacit nationality best will come back to you."
(please check sa ppt kay again, wala ko
~ M. Bridges
ato. Huhuhu!)
These are merely theories. But we follow the

principle of territoriality. So what law will
apply? No problem, the LEX FORI even
though the private complainant is a foreigner
and the accused is a foreigner, the crime is
committed here and they insist in applying
their own law, no way! So that is our
discussion on torts and crimes.
Let us just discuss the last few cases. Quite

old noh?
Asalli vs Comissioner of Customs (Iris’

report)
Obviously, they were apprehended while

onboard a Philippine vessel, and therefore the
crime of smuggling or whatever possession of
these goods, the crime is committed within
Philippine territory. Thus, our courts have
jurisdiction.
People vs Wong Cheng (Undue-nathan Tay’s

report)
Here, the Supreme Court held that our court’s

had Jurisdiction over the crime committed
(smoking of Opium) on a British Ship because
it was made within the Territory of the
Philippines (2.5km away from the shore).
Note: we have jurisdiction because of the

English and French rule. If the crime disturbs
public peace, the law of the place where it is
committed has jurisdiction. Otherwise, the
the flag of the ship will have jurisdiction.

30

Conflicts Atty. Suarez TSN 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts Atty. Suarez TSN 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Conflicts Atty. Suarez TSN 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflicts of Law – First Exam

From the lectures of Atty. Melissa Romana Suarez

NOVEMBER 13, 2013 courts automatically use our laws on transportation?

NATURE, DEFINITION AND SCOPE

So the elements of the definition.

So when we talk about the issue in China, the refusal to

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 1 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Private Public International So insofar as we are concerned in conflict of laws we look

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 2 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 3 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Somebody

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 4 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 5 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

States in the US have different grounds in granting divorce.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 6 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

How is conflict of laws observed? Dacasin vs Dacasin February 15, 2005

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 7 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Northwest vs CA The spouse alfredo and Lourdes valmonte are residents of

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 8 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 9 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 10 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 11 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 12 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

1. Dualist – the majority opinion; the 2 subjects are

Thus, having acquired jurisdiction, it is now for the

-there is no other reason that the court has no jurisdiction

Communication Materials vs. CA

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 13 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

As Athona failed to pay the interest on the loan, 1488 Inc.

Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by law with the power

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 14 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 15 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

With respect to judicial notice, the exception is provided

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 16 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Granting that there was a will duly executed by Jose B.

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 17 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 18 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Whether the foreign law, which was the Californian law,

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 19 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

To prove the pertinent California law, Attorney Allison Benedicto v CA

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 20 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 21 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 22 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 23 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 24 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Weighing the relative claims of the parties, the court a quo

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 25 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

As already discussed, there is basis for the claim that over-all

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 26 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 27 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 28 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Asiavest vs CA do anything about it. We don’t know. Under the principle

HELD: No. Although the foreign judgment was duly

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 29 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

7 factors: On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 30 4 MANRESA 2013-2014

Facts: LWV hired work to a company. After working for

Banzon, Delfin, Estrella, Galagar, Garcia, Page 31 4 MANRESA 2013-2014