Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conflict of Laws Notes Agpalo Bookpdf PDF
Conflict of Laws Notes Agpalo Bookpdf PDF
**Conflict of laws presupposes two or more conflicting laws, between a local law and a foreign law involving a foreign
TEST FACTORS / POINTS OF CONTACT / CONNECTING FACTORS:
1. Nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin
2. The seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation
3. The situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex
situs is decisive when real rights are involved
4. The place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been
made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committd. The lex loci actus is particularly important in
contracts and torts
5. The place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g. the place of performance of contractual duties,
or the pace where a power of attorney is to be exercised
LEGAL CAPACITY: LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO
Government vs. Frank, G.R. No. 2935, March 23, 1909
FACTS:
In Chicago, Ill., USA, Frank entered into an employment contract as stenographer with the
Government. The contract is to be performed in the Philippines. However, upon arrival in the
Philippines, Frank left the service. Government thus sued him for the breach. Frank raised the defense
of minority, contending that by Philippine laws, he does not have legal capacity to enter into contracts.
ISSUE: Whether or not Frank has legal capacity to enter into contracts
HELD:
It is not disputed that at the time and place of the making of the contract in question, the defendant had
full capacity to make the same. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the
execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the
contract is made. Matters connected with its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the
place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of
evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.
The plaintiff (defendant) being fully qualified to enter into the contract at the place and time the contract
is made, he cannot implead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is being enforced.
Conflict of Laws Page !4
GENERAL RULE: No foreign law may or should interfere with the operation and application of Philippine laws.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When the Philippine Legislature has, by law, given its consent to the extension of a specific foreign law
to the Philippines (e.g. COGSA)
2. When Congress enacts a law adopting or copying a specific foreign statute
3. When State enters into a treaty or convention
4. When parties themselves stipulate that foreign law governs their relationship
5. Borrowing Statute - a statute which directs the court of the forum to apply the foreign statute to the
pending claims based on a foreign law
6. When Philippine conflict of laws rule refer to foreign law as applicable law (e.g. nationality principle)
EXCEPTION TO THE BORROWING STATUTE
Cadalin vs. POEA, G.R. No. L-104776, Dec. 5, 1994
FACTS:
Cadalin et al. are OCWs deployed to various Middle Eastern countries, including Bahrain. Under the
contracts, the choice of applicable law is Bahrain law in case of contractual disputes. The contracts
were later pre-terminated so Cadalin et al. filed with RTC a case for recovery of unpaid wages, etc.
Under Bahrain law, the action has already prescribed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bahrain law should be applied on the question of prescription of action
HELD:
Statute of limitations is sui generis -- it may be procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given such a law. This distinction, however, becomes irrelevant when there is a
borrowing statute, as in the case of our Rules of Court, which provides that any action barred under
the law of the country where the cause of action arose is also barred in the Philippines. But, in this
case, SC did not apply our Rules of Court on the ground that doing so would contravene the
constitutional provision on protecting the rights of labor. The courts of the forum will not enforce an
foreign claims obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.
D. Agreement on Applicable Law
GENERAL RULE: Parties are free to stipulate as to the applicable foreign law to govern their dispute arising
from the contract.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Where there is some basis for applying law of the forum (minimum contact)
2. Where plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the forum
3. Where a reasonable reading of the choice of law and forum agreement does not preclude the filing of
the action in the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant
BUT if there is no agreement as to applicable law governing contract --
Apply the law of the State of the Most Significant Relationship, taking into account the following CONTACTS:
1. Place of contracting
2. Place of negotiation of the contract
3. Place of performance
4. Location of the subject matter of the contract
5. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the contracting parties
K. Nationality and Domicile of Corporations
**The nationality of a private corporation is determined by the character or citizenship of its controlling
stockholders.
**The domicile of a domestic corporation is its principal place of business (contained in the AOI). For foreign
corporations, their domicile is in the country under whose laws they are incorporated.
2 TESTS TO DETERMINE FILIPINO CORPORATION:
1. Grandfather rule - governs the strict application of the ownership of a corporation (generally 60%
Filipino-owned)
2. Control test - a corporation that is at least 60% Filipino-owned is considered a Filipino for purposes of
determining the Filipino ownership of a corporation whose nationality is put in issue
CORPORATION DOMICILED IN ONE STATE BUT DOING BUSINESS IN ANOTHER IS A RESIDENT OF THE
LATTER
Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995
FACTS:
Northwest, a US corporation, and Sharp, a Filipino corporation but with a branch in Japan, entered into
an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. Sharp,
however, was unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, prompting Northwest to sue for
collection in Japan. Summons was served on Sharp’s branch office in Japan but because the manager
authorized to receive summons was said to be in Manila, the same was also served on Sharp’s Manila
head office through diplomatic channels. Sharp nevertheless failed to appear during the hearing and
judgment was rendered. Northwest now filed a case before the Philippine court to enforce the foreign
judgment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Japanese court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sharp
HELD:
The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was incorporated. In a strict technical
sense, such domicile as a corporation may have is single in its essence and a corporation can only
have one domicile which is the state of its creation. Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one state
may, for certain purposes, be regarded as a resident in another state in which it has offices and
transacts business.
In as much as Sharp was admittedly doing business in Japan through its duly registered branches at
the time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual presumption, Sharp
may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts
therein and may be deemed to have assented to the said court’s lawful methods of serving process.
FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES IS A RESIDENT
The Family Code, in reverting to the provision of the Civil Code that a child below seven years old
should not be separated from the mother (Article 363), has expressly repealed the earlier Article 17,
paragraph three of the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree No. 603) which reduced the
child's age to five years.
The general rule that a child under seven years of age shall not be separated from his mother finds its
raison d'être in the basic need of a child for his mother's loving care. Only the most compelling of
reasons shall justify the court's awarding the custody of such a child to someone other than his mother,
such as her unfitness to exercise sole parental authority. In the past the following grounds have been
considered ample justification to deprive a mother of custody and parental authority: neglect,
abandonment, unemployment and immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of
the child, insanity and being sick with a communicable disease.
F. Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriage and Annulment of Marriage
JURISDICTION ACQUIRED BY SUMMONS BY PUBLICATION
Rayray vs. Chae Kung Lee, G.R. No. L-18176, Oct. 26, 1966
FACTS:
Plaintiff Lazaro Rayray (Filipino) seeks the annulment of his marriage (celebrated in South Korea) to
defendant Chae Kyung Lee (South Korean whose whereabouts are unknown). Inasmuch as, the
latter's whereabouts is unknown, and she was formerly a resident of Pusan, Korea, summons was
served by publication. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the ground: (1) that the court could
not nullify a marriage contracted abroad; and (2) that facts proven do not warrant the relief prayed for.
CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction to nullify a marriage contracted abroad
HELD:
In order that a given case could be validly decided by a court of justice, it must have jurisdiction over
(1) the subject-matter of the litigation; (2) the person of the parties therein; and (3) in actions in rem or
quasi-in-rem, the res.
The subject-matter of the present case is the annulment of plaintiff’s marriage to the defendant, which
is within the jurisdiction of our courts of first instance, and, in Manila, of its Court of Juvenile and
Conflict of Laws Page !37
Domestic Relations.
The same acquired jurisdiction over plaintiff herein by his submission thereto in consequence of the
filing of the complaint herein. Defendant was placed under the jurisdiction of said court, upon the
service of summons by publication.
This is an action in rem, for it concerns the status of the parties herein, and status affects or binds the
whole world. The res in the present case is the relation between said parties, or their marriage tie.
Jurisdiction over the same depends upon the nationality or domicile of the parities, not the place of
celebration of marriage, or the locus celebrationis. Plaintiff here is a citizen of the Philippines,
domiciled therein. His status is, therefore, subject to our jurisdiction, on both counts. True that
defendant was and – under plaintiff’s theory – still is a non-resident alien. But this fact does not deprive
the lower court of its jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of her marriage to plaintiff herein.
Indeed, marriage is one of the cases of double status, in that status therein involves and affects two
persons. One is married, never in abstract or a vacuum, but, always to somebody else. Hence, a
judicial decree on the marriage status of a person necessarily reflects upon the status of another and
the relation between them. The prevailing rule is, accordingly, that a court has jurisdiction over the res,
in an action for annulment of marriage, provided, at least, one of the parties is domiciled in, or a
national of, the forum. Since plaintiff is a Filipino, domiciled in the Philippines, it follows that the lower
court had jurisdiction over the res, in addition to its jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties.
In other words, it could validly inquire into the legality of the marriage between the parties herein.
VIII. ADOPTION
A. Domestic Adoption (RA 8552)
WHO MAY ADOPT:
1. Filipino citizen of legal age, at least 16 years older than adoptee (16-year age gap waived if (1) adopter is
biological parent of adoptee or (2) spouse of adoptee’s parent)
2. Aliens of legal age, at least 16 years older than adoptee, provided:
• His/her country has diplomatic relations with the Philippines
• 3-year continuous residence in the Philippines prior to application for adoption and until decree of
adoption is entered
• Certification of legal capacity to adopt in his/her country by his/her diplomatic or consular office or
any appropriate government agency
• His/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country
Exceptions to Residency and Certification:
◻ Former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity
◻ One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his/her Filipino spouse
◻ One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her spouse a
relative within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse
3. Guardian, with respect to the ward, after termination of guardianship and clearance of his/her financial
accountabilities
GENERAL RULE: Husband and wife must jointly adopt.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. If one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the other
2. If one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate child, with consent of other spouse
3. If the spouses are legally separated from each other
The application for adoption become final, the document was notarized. Thereafter it was
authenticated by the Philippine Vice Consul, Philippine Embassy, Madrid.
The document of adoption was filed in the Office of Civil Registrar of Manila, however the registrar
refused to register the document on the ground under Philippines law adoption can only be had
through judicial proceeding. And since notarial document of adoption is not judicial proceeding, is not
entitled to registration.
HELD:
Yes. Registration of civil status is not limited by law of local adoption. We cannot carve out prohibition
where the law does not so state.
Private International Law offers no obstacle to recognition of foreign adoption. This rests on the
principle that the status of adoption, created by the law of a state having jurisdiction to create it, will be
given the same effect in another state to the status of adoption when created by its own law. It is quite
obvious then that the status of adoption, once created under the proper foreign law, will be recognized
in this country except where public policy or interests of its inhabitants forbid its enforcement and
demand the substitution of lex fori.
Adoption created under the law of a foreign country is entitled to registration in the corresponding civil
register of the Philippines.