UNIVERSITY OF _______________

COLLEGE OF LAW

MID-TERM Examination

Conflict of Laws

I. Multiple Choice

1. C
2. D
3. D
4. B
5. B

II. Essay

1. The disqualification case filed by the opponent of the said foundling on

the ground that she is not a natural born citizen will not prosper.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that foundlings are not
excluded class under the Constitution. It further held in that case that
domestic laws and international laws accord the status of foundling as a
natural born citizens of the State where the foundling was found. And, as
long as there is a high probability that both parents of the foundlings are
Filipinos, that foundling is considered a natural born citizen.

Here, the foundling was abandoned in a parish church of Dagupan City,

where constituents of said place are said to be Filipinos in majority.
Hence, there is a high probability that the parents of said foundling are
Filipinos. Likewise, the Philippines does not discriminate against
foundlings and acknowledges citizenship in accordance with human
rights treaties and conventions where the Philippines is a signatory.

Therefore, she is a natural born citizen and is eligible to run as a Senator.

2.

(a)

X could not be a beneficiary of repatriation act under R.A. 9225.

Accordingly, only natural born citizen who have been naturalized in a

foreign country shall be a beneficiary under the abovementioned law.

Since X is a former Spanish businessman, he is therefore, not a natural

born Filipino but a naturalized Filipino Citizen. Under the Constitution, a
natural born Filipino citizens are those who are citizen of the Philippines
at birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine Citizenship.

Obviously, in this case, X does fall into this category. Hence, he cannot
be a beneficiary under RA 9225, but he may still become a naturalized
Filipino citizen under naturalization act or some other laws which grants
Filipino citizenship to aliens.

(b)

The wife of X and their children could be repatriated under RA 9225.

Again, as a rule, only those who are natural born Filipino could be a
beneficiary of RA 9225. Since the wife of X was a former natural born
Filipino citizen, she is a beneficiary of repatriation act under RA 9225.

The same goes with the children of X. Under RA 9225, unmarried

children, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, and were below
eighteen years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship are
deemed citizens of the Philippines.

3. If were the Judge, I will rule that Atty. Rodolfo dela Cruz could not be
cited in contempt, for he is a natural born Filipino Citizen and a member
of Philippine Bar.
Under RA 9225, those natural born Filipino citizens who were
naturalized in a foreign country are deemed to reacquire their Filipino
citizenship upon approval of their application for repatriation under the
said law. When Atty. Rodolfo dela Cruz applied for repatriation, he then
reacquires his Filipino citizenship as a natural born Filipino.

The practice of law in the Philippines requires an individual to be a

natural born citizen and must be admitted to the bar. These personal
circumstances are said to be satisfied by Atty. Rodolfo dela Cruz. Thus,
he must therefore eligible to practice law in the Philippines and must not
be cited in contempt.

4. (a)

No. The said naturalized U.S. citizen is not retaining his Filipino
Citizenship.

Under RA 9225, there are two groups of beneficiaries, the first one is
those who were naturalized citizen of a foreign country before the
effectivity of RA 9225, and second those who were naturalized after the
effectivity of the same law.

Those who belongs to the first group which is the same scenario in this
case, is considered to be deemed re-acquiring Philippine citizenship, not
retaining, after taking oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.

(b) No. Those natural born Filipinos who were naturalized after the
effectivity of RA 9225 are said to be deemed retaining their Filipino
citizenship from the time they were naturalized in a foreign country until
he took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. They are
considered as they never lost their Filipino citizenship.

5. The five different approaches in resolving conflicts in torts are the

following:
1. Lex loci delicti. The most common, simplest and predictable way
of resolving conflicts in torts where the court uses the law of the
place of the injury;

2. Government Interest analysis approach. It involves the

determination of the difference of the law of two states,
determination of the existence of conflicts of laws, and if there is,
the forum court shall apply the law of the state which is said to be
more impaired than the other;

3. Choice influencing considerations. It involves examination of

various factors in the determination of what law shall be applied
between two or more states, such as predictability and government
interest, among others;

4. Lex Fori. This test determines the rights and obligations of the
parties; and lastly.

5. Most significant relationship approach. This approach is use in

determining which law between two or more states is most
connected to the occurrence of an event resulting in a conflict and
to the parties.