CONFLICT OF LAWS

1. Principle of Forum Non Conveniens

- Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in Conflict of Laws cases, may
refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most ‘convenient’ or available
forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere.

In the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14,
2015, it defines forum non conveniens as a device akin to the rule against forum
shopping. It is designated to frustrate illicit means for securing advantages and vexing
litigants that would otherwise be possible if the venue of litigation (or dispute resolution)
were left entirely to the whim of either party.

Furthermore, it states that the use of the word “may” shows that the matter of jurisdiction
rests on the sound discretion of a court. Neither the mere invocation of forum non
conveniens nor the averment of foreign elements operates to automatically divest a court
of jurisdiction. Rather, a court should renounce jurisdiction only “after ‘vital facts are
established, to determine, whether special circumstances’ require the court’s desistance.
As the propriety of applying forum non conveniens is contingent on a factual
determination, it is, therefore, a matter of defense.

2. Renvoi Doctrine

- In the case of Aznar vs. Garcia, it states that the recognition of the renvoi theory implies
that the rules of the Conflict of Laws are to be understood as incorporating not only the
ordinary or internal law of the foreign state or country, but its rules of the Conflict of
Laws as well. According to this theory, ‘the law of a country’ means the whole of its law.

It is sometimes called “table tennis” theory, as the law is being referred back and forth
from the forum law to the law of domicile of the foreign party which involves a Conflict
of Laws rule, pointing back to the forum law as applicable law.

It is also a procedure whereby a jural matter presented is referred by the Conflict of Laws
rules of the forum to a foreign state, the Conflict of Laws rule of which in turn refers the
matter back to the law of the forum (remission) or a third state (transmission).

Furthermore, in jurisdictions which have recognized the use of renvoi in choice-of-law

analysis, it has been employed in cases where the domiciliary and nationality laws are
applied to the individual in issues involving succession, domestic relations, and real
properties.

3. Doctrine of Processual Presumption or the Presumed-Identity Approach

- In the case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam vs. Glow Laks Enterprise, Ltd. G. R. No.
156330, November 19, 2014, it states that in the absence of pleading and proof, the laws
 of the foreign country or state will be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic
law

However, there are exceptions to the procedural requirements for proving foreign law, to
wit:

a. Presentation of a foreign-licensed attorney who will testify in open court concerning

her knowledge of the law in question (Mercantile Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Yi, G. R.
No. 234501, March 18, 2019;
b. Administrative agencies recognizing foreign laws without proof thereof;
c. Lack of objection to the improper presentation by one party of proof of foreign law;
and
d. Laws appearing in official websites of government agencies which have custody of
laws

Moreover, in the case of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Sherman, G. R. No.
72494, August 11, 1989, it further provides that in International Law, jurisdiction is often
defined as the right of State to exercise authority over persons and things within its
boundaries subject to certain exception as mentioned above. Also, a state is competent to
take hold of any judicial matter it sees fit by making its courts and agencies assume
jurisdiction over all kinds of cases brought before them.

4. Doctrine of Qualification or Classification

- Under this doctrine, it posits that before a choice of applicable law can be made, it is
necessary to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This
determination 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 question
specified in a conflict rule.” The purpose of “characterization” is to enable the forum to
select the proper law. (Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 122191,
October 8, 1998.)

The law chosen should be applied only insofar as it brings about the good it intended to
bring. The selected proper law is applied to the factual situation to decide: (1) the legal
consequences resulting from the situation; or (2) the interests created in the thing in
question.

The following are the steps in characterization:

a. The determination of the facts involved;

b. The characterization of the factual situation;
c. The determination of the conflicts rule which is to be applied;
d. The characterization of the point of contact where the connecting factor;
e. The characterization of the problem as procedural or substantive;
f. The pleading and proving of the proper foreign law; and
 g. The application of the proper foreign law to the problem

5. General Principles in Dealing with Conflict of Nationality Laws

The following are the general principles in dealing with conflict of national laws:

a. It is for each State to determine who are its nationals under its own law, which shall be
recognized by other States;
b. Any question as to the possession of nationality shall be determined in accordance with
the law of that State;
c. A person having two or more nationalities may be regarded as a national by each of the
States whose nationality he possesses;
d. A State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a State whose
nationality such person also possesses;
e. Theory of Effective Nationality – A third State shall recognize exclusively in its territory
either the nationality of the country of which one is habitually and principally a resident,
or the nationality of the country with which in the circumstances one appears to be in fact
most closely connected; and
f. A person possessing two nationalities acquired without any voluntary act on his part may
renounce one of them without the authorization of the State whose nationality he desires
to surrender (Hague Conventions on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of
Nationality Laws).

6. Retention of Philippine Citizenship

- Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason

of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.

The case of David vs. Agbay, G. R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015, distinguishes re-
acquisition from retention whereby clarifying that although the heading is “Retention of
Philippine Citizenship,” the authors of the law intentionally employed the terms “re-
acquire” and “retain” to describe the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from the title of the law using both re-
acquisition and retention. The re-acquisition will apply to those who lost their Philippine
citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63. The second aspect is the retention of
Philippine citizenship applying to future instances.

It was held in the case of Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G. R. No. 195649, April, 16, 2013,
that the petitioner was repatriated under R. A. No. 9225 and made his oath of allegiance
and renunciation of U.S. Citizenship. Thereafter, he repeatedly used his U.S. Passport.
The Supreme Court ruled that the repeated use of the U.S. Passport is a positive
 declaration that he is a U.S. citizen, reverting him back to the status as if no oath of
renunciation was made thus rendering him disqualified to run for public office.

7. Rules of Divorce in the Philippines

- As a general rule, we only observe relative divorce or legal separation (a mensa et thoro)
in the Philippines. However, there are two exceptions, as follows:

a. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

Severing marital ties between parties in a mixed marriage and capacitating the Filipino
spouse to remarry as a necessary consequence of upholding the validity of a divorce
obtained abroad by the alien spouse. If the foreigner obtains a valid foreign divorce, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law. (San Luis vs. San
Luis, G. R. No. 133743, February 6, 2007)

b. Valid divorce obtained abroad between foreigners whose national laws allow divorce.

Under this exception, 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. (Republic vs.
Orbecido III, G. R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005).

8. Doctrine of Immutability of Status

- The determination of the legitimacy of a child is governed by the common personal law
of the parents, either domiciliary or nationality. In most countries, the personal law of the
father is applied to determine the legitimate relationship.

The Philippine Rule for Status and Personal Law Governing Rights and Duties between
Child and Parents are as follows:

a. Legitimacy governed by parents’ national law;

b. Legitimacy governed by the national law of the father, if parents have different
nationalities;
c. Personal law of the illegitimate child is the mother’s personal law, unless the child is
recognized by the father, in which case the personal law of the father applies.

Under the doctrine of immutability of status, it means that the status of the illegitimate
child is not affected by a subsequent change of nationality of the parents. If the child is
later legitimated, the personal law of the child follows that of the father.

However, the rights and duties of parent and child would be governed by the new
national law of the parents, and thus, may be mutable.
 This is enunciated in the Roman law concept of patria potestas, a principle wherein the
personal law of the father controls the rights and duties of parents and children.

9. Three (3) Possible Laws That May Govern Intrinsic Validity of Contracts

9.1 Lex Loci Contractus or the law of the place where the contract is made or executed.
The very reason for this is that the parties’ mindsets are usually focused on the law of
the place of execution when they enter into contracts. (Pe Benito)

The rule that lex loci contractus, the law of the place where the contract is made,
governs in this jurisdiction. Courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim
obnoxious to the forum’s public policy. Here in the Philippines, employment
agreements are more than contractual in nature. The Constitution itself, in Article
XIII, Section 3, guarantees the special protection of workers (Princess Talent Center
Production, Inc. vs. Masagca, G. R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018).

9.2 Lex Loci Celebrationis or the law of the place of performance or celebration. Here,
the reason is that since a contract is to be performed in a particular place or state, it is
proper that the law of the state govern the relationship of the parties. (Pe Benito).

9.3 State of the Most Significant Relationship Rule or the Center of Gravity Doctrine of
the Grouping-of-Contacts Theory or the law of the place with the most connection to
the dispute. The reason for this is convenience and practicality.

The following are the factual contacts to consider:

a. Place of contracting;
b. Place of Negotiating;
c. Place of Performance;
d. Situs of the subject matter of the contract; and
e. Parties’ domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, place of business.

These contacts are evaluated depending on their relative importance to the issue at
hand.

10. Rule of Generality in Criminal Cases

Under the Civil Code, Art. 14, penal laws and those of public security shall be obligatory
upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory subject to the principles of Public
International Law and to treaty stipulations.

As a general rule, Lex Loci Delicti or the law of the place where the crime was
committed will govern.

However, these are the exceptions to the Rule:

10.1 Theory of State Immunity which covers the crimes committed by heads of state/state
officials, diplomatic representative, and administrative officers attached to the
diplomat or attaché and officials of recognized international organizations.

10.2 French Rule wherein it covers the crimes committed on board a foreign vessel even if
within the territorial waters of the coastal state, as long as the effect of such crime
does not affect the peace and order of the coastal state.

10.3 Extraterritoriality which are crimes punishable under the local law, although
committed by Philippine nationals abroad, pursuant to the protective principle of
criminal jurisdiction.