FINAL EXAM REVIEWER: CONFLICTS OF LAW
Between an adopted child and a legitimate
Based on the book of Pe Benito.
Marriage and Divorce
Marriages Not Subject of Recognition
While the Philippines gives full faith and credit to conventions
and contracts performed abroad, the same is true only when
the acts and contracts do not violate public policy or
prohibitive laws. Hence not all marriages celebrated abroad
and valid in the place of celebration are valid in our
jurisdiction. There are exceptions to the general rule of
according to the validity to marriages celebrated abroad.
The following marriages shall not be recognized in our
jurisdiction:
I. Incestuous Marriages
a. Between ascendants and descendants of any
degree; and
b. Between brothers and sisters, whether of the
full or half blood.
II. Void Marriages by reason of public policy
a. Between collateral blood relatives whether
legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil
degree;
b. Between step-parents and step-children;
c. Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
d. Between the adopting parent and the adopted
child;
e. Between the surviving spouse of the adopting
parent and the adopted child;
f. Between the surviving spouse of the adopted
child and the adopter;
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
g.
child of the adopter;
h. Between adopted children of the same adopter;
and;
i. Between parties where one, with the intention
to marry the other, killed that other person’s
spouse, or his or her own spouse.
III. Polygamous or Bigamous Marriages
IV. Same-sex Marriages
If the foreign marriage fall under any of the foregoing
categories, the same is not recognized in our jurisdiction.
Hence, there can be no marriage between first cousins in our
jurisdiction, though other jurisdictions may allow the same.
Also, while same-sex marriages have been legalized in some
jurisdictions, the Philippines is still sticking to the time-honored
definition of marriage as “being between a man and a
woman.” The Philippines has also no law on same-sex unions,
as the same is still a union between man and man or woman
and woman. (Pages 270-271)
Right to Re-marry after Divorce
Citizens of the Philippines whose foreign spouses have
obtained a divorce abroad are capacitated to remarry under
our laws. We give implicit recognition to the divorce as a way
of equalizing the rights of the Filipino spouse to the foreign
spouse who is now freed from the marital bonds by virtue of
the divorce. If this were not the case, the Filipino spouse will
forever be held “hostaged” by the marriage which no longer
exists. Hence to remove the unfairness of the situation,
Filipinos are now allowed to remarry once their foreign
spouses obtain a divorce decree. Thus, paragraph 2 of Article
26 of the Family Code provide for the following:
Page 1
 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), 36, 37
and 38.
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.
It is important, however, that the divorce be judicially
recognized first by Philippine courts before the Philippine
national can rely on the effects of the divorce. For one, the
Filipino cannot remarry until and unless the divorce is properly
recognized and annotated in the local civil registry. (Page 292)
Republic v. Orbecido
Issue: Whether Cipriano can remarry under Article 26 of the
Family Code?
Held: Yes. Taking into consideration the legislative intent and
applying the rule of reason, we hold that Paragraph 2 of
Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage
were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes
naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if
the other party was a foreigner at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to
sanction absurdity and injustice.
The twin elements for the application of Paragraph 2 of Article
26 as follows:
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
a. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
b. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the
time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at
the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating the latter to remarry. (Pages 293-296)
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas
Issue: Whether a foreigner may invoke the benefit of
paragraph 2 Article 26 of the Family Code?
Held: No. An action based on the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code is not limited to the recognition of the
foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree
capacitated the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare
that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract
another marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however, can
make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that
already established by the decree), whose status and legal
capacity are generally governed by his national law.
In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse
can claim no right under this provision.
The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in
Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings
(such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a particular fact.
(Pages 297-300)
Page 2
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
Issue: Whether the divorced husband may file a case for
adultery against his divorced wife?
Held: No. Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery,
as well as four other crimes against chastity, cannot be
prosecuted except upon sworn written complaint filed by the
offended spouse.
The law specifically provides that in prosecution of adultery
and concubinage the person who can legally file the
complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a
valid divorce decree in his country, the Federal Republic of
Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is
concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law
on the matter of status of persons.
Under the same considerations and rationale, private
respondent, being no longer the husband of petitioner, had
no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the
imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed
suit. (Pages 288-289)
Roehr v. Rodriguez
Issue: Whether RTC is correct in reopening case to litigate
issues of custody and distribution of assets despite the divorce
between the parties?
Held: Yes. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by
foreigners in other countries are recognizable in our
jurisdiction, but legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and
support of the children, must still be determined by our courts.
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign
judgment, such as the award of custody to the petitioner by
the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed
to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so
on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of
Court. (now Ruke 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure)
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent
was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the
German court so that there is basis for declaring that judgment
as res judicata with regard to rights of the petitioner to have
parental custody of their two children. Absent any finding that
private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children,
the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to
determine issue of parental custody, care, support and
education mindful of the best interests of the children. (Pages
290-292)
Corporations
Steelcase v. Design International
Issue: Whether Steelcase is doing business in the Philippines
Held: No. Steelcase is not doing business in the Philippines
The rule that an unlicensed foreign corporations doing
business in the Philippines do not have the capacity to sue
before the local courts is well established. Section 133 of the
Corporation Code of the Philippines explicitly states:
Section 133. Doing business without a license. – No
foreign corporation transacting business in the
Philippines without a license, or its successors or
assigns, shall be permitted to maintain or intervene in
any action, suit or proceeding in any court or
Page 3
 administrative agency of the Philippines; but such
corporation may be sued or proceeded against before
Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any
valid cause of action recognized under Philippine laws.
The phrase “doing business” is clearly defined in Section 3 (d)
of R.A. No. 7042 ( Foreign Investments Act of 1991)
This definition is supplemented by its IRRs, Rule I, Section 1(f)
which elaborates on the meaning of the same phrase:
f. The following acts shall not be deemed “doing
business” in the Philippines:
(3) Appointing a representative or distributor
domiciled in the Philippines which transacts business in
the representative’s or distributor’s own name and
account;
From the preceding citations, the appointment of a distributor
in the Philippines is not sufficient to constitute “doing business”
unless it is under the full control of the foreign corporation. On
the other hand, if the distributor is an independent entity to
which buys and distributes products, other than those of the
foreign corporation, for its own account, the latter cannot be
considered to be doing business in the Philippines.
The dealership agreement between Steelcase and DISI had
been described by the owner himself as: basically a buy and
sell arrangement.
From the preceding facts, the only reasonable conclusion that
can be reached is that DISI was an independent contractor,
distributing various products of Steelcase and of other
companies, acting in its own name and for its own account.
Steelcase cannot be considered doing business in the
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
Philippines by its act of appointing a distributor. (Pages 329-
334)
Transboundary Pollution (Pages 385-393)
What are the laws applicable to enjoin hazardous effects of
pollution?
1. Governmental interest analysis – This approach indulges
courts to consider government interests when two or more
states have conflicting laws and interests.
The governmental analysis approach involves the ff
steps:
a) The court determines whether the relevant
law of the affected jurisdictions with regard to the issue
in question is the same or different.
b) If there is a difference, the court examines
each jurisdiction’s interest in the application of its own
law to determine whether a true conflict exists.
c) If the court finds that there is a true conflict, it
carefully evaluates and compares the nature and the
strength of the interest of each jurisdiction to
determine which state’s interest would be more
impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of
the other state.
2. Lex loci delicti - This calls for the application of the law of the
place where the damage is suffered or inflicted. It looks to the
domestic law of a state which shall be applied to polluting
activities whose sources are foreign. Hence, so long as the
effects are felt locally even if the source comes from outside
the country, domestic law may be applied to govern the act
complained of.
Page 4
3. Most significant relationship approach - An examination is
made as to what state has the most connection to a case. The
law of the state which has the most connection shall be
applied in the resolution of the conflict. The points of contract,
as enumerated in the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of
Laws, are:
a) the place where the injury occurred;
b) the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred;
c) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties, and
d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the
parties is centered.
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals
Issue: Whether the application of CERCLA to Teck involves an
extraterritorial application of domestic law of the United States.
Held: No. The location where a party arranged for disposal of
disposed of hazardous substances is not controlling for the
purposes of assessing whether CERCLA is being applied
extraterritorially, because CERCLA imposes liability for releases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and not
merely for disposal or arranging for disposal of such
substances. The argument that this case presents an
extraterritorial application of CERCLA fails because CERCLA
liability does not attach until there is an actual or threatened
release of hazardous substances into the environment.
The fact that an act which is sought to be regulated has a
foreign source but whose effects are felt locally, extraterritorial
application cannot be claimed.
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
Intellectual Property
Fredco Manufacturing v. Harvard
Issue: Whether or not respondent’s trade name is infringed.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court further ruled that Harvard
University is entitled to protection in the Philippines of its trade
name “Harvard” even without registration of such trade name
in the Philippines. Under Philippine law, a trade name of a
national of a State that is a party to the Paris Convention,
whether or not the trade name forms part of a trademark, is
protected “without the obligation of filing or registration.”
“Harvard” is the trade name of the world famous Harvard
University, and it is also a trademark of Harvard University.
Under Article 8 of the Paris Convention, as well as Section 37
of R.A. No. 166, Harvard University is entitled to protection in
the Philippines of its trade name “Harvard” even without
registration of such trade name in the Philippines. This means
that no educational entity in the Philippines can use the trade
name “Harvard” without the consent of Harvard University.
Likewise, no entity in the Philippines can claim, expressly or
impliedly through the use of the name and mark “Harvard,”
that its products or services are authorized, approved, or
licensed by, or sourced from, Harvard University without the
latter’s consent.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Effect of Foreign Judgments
Foreign judgments are recognized and allowed to be enforced
in our jurisdiction as a matter of comity with the international
community. We give full faith and credit to judgments issued
by foreign courts as long as these judgments are not contrary
to public policy or prohibitive laws.
Page 5
The enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by Section
48 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments or final orders. -
The effect of a judgment or final order of a tribunal of a foreign
country, having jurisdiction to render the judgment or final
order is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment or final order upon a specific
thing, the judgment or final order is conclusive upon
the title to the thing; and
(b) In case of a judgment or final order against a
person, the judgment or final order is presumptive
evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title.
In either case, the judgment or final order may be repelled by
evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. (Pages 407-408)
Res Judicata Effect of Foreign Judgment
Although issued in another jurisdiction, the decision of a
foreign court has the effect of res judicata in our jurisdiction.
Thus, foreign decisions are afforded conclusiveness of
judgment in our jurisdiction as if they were also a decision
rendered by local courts.
Generally, a foreign judgment is entitled to respect and
recognition by our courts. The only duty of our courts is to
ensure that the judgment is genuine, authentic, and in
accordance with foreign law. If those are complied with, the
court’s remaining duty is to enforce the foreign judgment.
Under no circumstance are local courts authorized to reopen
the case and relitigate the issues under our procedures. Local
courts may not review the correctness or appropriateness of
C. S. DE LA ROSA ©
the foreign court’s decision so long as they do not violate
public policy or prohibitive laws. (Page 408)
Fujiki v. Marinay
Issue 1: Whether the Philippine court is authorized to relitigate
the issues already decided by the foreign court.
Held: No. A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring
a marriage void does not require relitigation under a Philippine
court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage. Philippine courts cannot presume to know
the foreign laws under which foreign judgment was rendered.
(Pages 408-410)
St Aviation Services v. Grand International Airways
Issues: 1) Whether Singapore High Court has acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent by the service of
summons upon its office in the Philippines
2) Whether the judgment by default by the Singapore
High Court is enforceable in the Philippines.
Held: Both yes. Considering that the Writ of Summons was
served upon respondent in accordance with our Rules,
jurisdiction was acquired by Singapore High Court over its
person. Clearly, the judgment of default rendered by the that
court against respondent is valid. (Pages 415-417)
Philippine Aluminum Wheels v. FASGI
Issue: Whether the decision of the California court may be
enforced in the Philippines.
Held: Yes. A valid judgment rendered by a foreign tribunal may
be recognized insofar as the immediate parties and the
Page 6
underlying cause of action are concerned so long as it is
convincingly shown that there has been an opportunity for a
full and fair hearing; that trial has been conducted; and that
there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice in court and in
the system of laws under which it is sitting or fraud in
procuring the judgment. A foreign judgment is presumed to
be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until
a contrary showing, on the basis of presumption of regularity
of the proceedings and giving of due notice in foreign forum.
(Pages 418-419)

C. S. DE LA ROSA © Page 7