foreign element

SCOPE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS

DIVERSITY OF LAWS AND CUSTOMS Sources of A38, ICJ GR: from internal
law Statute: law of each
HILTON v. GUYOT *custom state, NOT from
*treaties any international
FACTS: *GPIL law extraneous
*juridical to municipal law
Guyot sued Hilton and Libbey in US Circuit decisions NATIONAL
Court for the amount due based on the *teachings of CONFLICT
FRENCH JUDGMENT. US CC held judgment most highly RULES: Internal
conclusive, entered decree in favor of Guyot qualified law of each
W/O EXAMINING ANEW MERITS OF THE publicists country
CASE
XPN: if conflict
-Hilton and Libbey now appeals: French courts governed by
gives no force and effect to the duly rendered treaty
judgments in US Courts against French e.g. Hague
citizens SO US courts should also not give Convention on
force and effect to French judgments against the Conflict of
US citizens Laws relating to
the form of
ISSUE: testamentary
dispositions.
Whether or not the French court decision is
applicable and recognizable in the US courts. INTERNATIONA
L CONFLICT
RULING:
RULES:
No. *international
conventions
General rule - Law has only effect within *foreign case law
territory of state. ("No law has any effect, of its *commentaries
own force, beyond the limits of the sovereignty interpreting
from which its authority is derived. ") these
conventions.
Exception - if there's comity of nations. The
principle that one sovereign nation voluntarily Persons *States *Individuals
adopts or enforces the laws of another involved *Internationall *Corporations
sovereign nation out of deference, mutuality, y Recognized
and respect. Under comity, a reviewing court organizations
does not reopen cases that have already been .
heard in other courts; instead, it examines the
foreign judicial system. After considering Transaction State to state Private
factors Under comity, a reviewing court does s governed Government transactions
not reopen cases that have already been to
heard in other courts; instead, it examines the government
foreign judicial system. After considering
factors. Remedies *Diplomatic *courts
protest *admin tribunals
In the case at bar, French only gives prima *peaceful
facie effect (not conclusive) on the judgment of means of
foreign courts unless that state has treaty with settlement of
France. international
disputes:
Private international law - that part of >diplomatic
municipal law which governs cases involving a negotiations
foreign element. >arbitration
>conciliation
Private International law v. Public international *adjudication
law by filing case
before int'l
CATEGOR PUBLAW PRIVLAW tribunals
Y *war
Applicability Relationships Relationship of
of ratione of states individuals in Object and function of conflict of laws:
personae among their private
and ratione themselves. transactions
materiae which involve a
1. To provide rational and valid rules or
guidelines in deciding cases where involved
relates to more than one jurisdiction;
2. The protection of rational expectations;
3. For the stability and uniformity of solutions.
(They comply with the declaration of
principles and state policy enshrined in the
PH constitution)
Scope of conflict of laws: Almost all subjects.
CHAPTER 2: BRIEF HISTORY AND
DEVELOPEMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS
CHAPTER 3: SOURCES OF CONFLCITS OF
LAWS
1. Codes and statutes - Conflict of Laws from
Continental Europe - codified - so Civil
Codes are primary sources of Conflict of
Laws rules.
2. Treatises and international conventions
3. Treatises, commentaries, and studies of
learned societies
4. Judicial decisions
PART 2: JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF
LAW
CHAPTER 4: JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction - power of the court
PART 3: PERSONAL LAW
Importance of a personal law: To allow the
courts to exercise jurisdiction or determine the
governing choice-of-law rule on a specific
situation or transaction involving him.
Merits and demerits of nationality as personal
law
Merits of nationality: It was used to establish
the requisite link between an individual and the
state.
Demerits of nationality
1. Nationality as a criterion for personal law
does not solve problems relating to
individuals who are stateless as well as
those with multiple nationalities.
2. It does not offer any decisive solution in
states with diverse legal systems since there
is no single national law.
3. A person’s ties to his nation may be so
attenuated if he has lived in another country
for most of his life.
Importance of nationality in the Philippines
Nationality law theory - it is a conflict of laws
theory by virtue of which jurisdiction over the
particular subject matter affecting a person, such
as status of a natural person, is determined by
the latter’s nationality. (Art. 15 of the CC of the
PH)
Determination of nationality
Article 4 of the PH constitution enumerates
who are Filipino citizens:
1. Those who are citizens of the PH at the time
of the adoption of this constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens
of the PH;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect PH citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law.
Natural-born citizens
Natural-born citizens - those who are citizens
of the PH without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect citizenship.
An individual may be considered a natural-
born citizen following the following
principles:
1. Jus sanguinis - the rule of descent or
blood.(Applied by PH)
2. Jus soli - law of the place of one’s birth to
determine one’s nationality.
TALAROC v. UY
FACTS:
-Alejandro Uy was elected as Municipal Mayor
of Manticao, Misamis Oriental on Nov 13, 1951
-One of the losing candidates (TALAROC) field
a petition for quo warranto vs. Uy [allegedly,
UY IS A CHINESE CITIZEN]
TC: granted quo warranto petition: position
vacant!
-UY Appealed:
(1) father was a subject of China (Uy Piangco)
but had a Filipino mother
(2) born in Iligan, Province of Lanao in 1912
(so at the time this case was filed he was
around 40 y.o.)
(3) never been to China
(4) voted in previous elections, held offices in
the government (inspector of Bureau of Plant
Industry, public school teacher, filing clerk,
acting municipal treasurer)
(5) her mother was born a Filipino citizen but
was only required to be a Chinese citizen by
reason of his father's national laws. Upon the
death of Uy's father (in 1917), his mother
reacquired her Filipino citizenship.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Uy is a Filipino citizen
RULING:
Yes.
Article IV, entitled "Citizenship", of the
Constitution provides:
SECTION 1. The following are the citizens of
the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine
Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.
On the strength of the Roa doctrine, Alejandro
D. Uy undoubtedly was considered a full-
fledged Philippine citizen on the date of the
adoption of the constitution, when jus soli had
been the prevailing doctrine. It has been seen
that, according to the rule of the Roa case, a
Filipino woman married to Chinese ipso facto
reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon her
husband's demise and that there after her
minor children's nationality automatically
followed that of the mother's.
ROA case: The principle of jus soli was
prevailing until September 16, 1947. (1912 -
1947)
TN: The 1935 constitution is applicable in this
case.
CO v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FACTS:
Jose Ong Jr. was proclaimed the winner for
representative in the 2nd district of Northern
Samar in the 1987 elections. Petitioners filed
election protests before HRET, claiming:
(1) Ong was a not a natural-born citizen
(2) not a resident of 2nd district of Northern
Samar.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Ong Jr. is a Filipino citizen.
RULING:
Yes.
According to Article 4 Sec. 1 par. 3 of the 1987
Constitution: Those born before January 17,
1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
are citizens of the Philippines. Furthermore,
Sec. 2 of the same article states that "those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed
natural born citizens."
In the case at bar, not only was his mother a
natural born citizen but his father had been
naturalized when the respondent was only nine
(9) years old. The Court ruled that Jose Ong
need not have elected to be a Filipino when he
came of age because he was already a Filipino
when his father became a Filipino through
naturalization in 1957 by virtue of the
1935Constitution.
TN: Re Mallare rule - the exercise of the right
of suffrage and the participation in election
exercises constitute a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship.
Citizen by naturalization
Naturalization - it confers to an alien a
nationality after birth by any of the means
provided by the law. (It is by judicial method in
the PH)
Qualifications for applicants for
naturalization
1. The petitioner must not be less than 21
years of age on the date of hearing of the
petition;
2. He must have, as a rule, resided in the PH
for a continuous period of not less than 10
years.
a) The reason is to enable the government
to observe the applicant’s conduct and
ensure that he has embodied the
principles and spirit of PH constitution.
b) The minimum 10-year residence
requirement may be reduced to 5 years
in any of the following cases:
i. If the applicant has honorably held
office under the government of the
Philippines or under any of the
provinces, cities, municipalities or
political subdivisions thereof;
ii. If he has established a new industry
or introduced a useful invention in
the PH;
iii. If he is married to a Filipino woman;
iv. If he had been engaged as a teacher
in a public or recognized private
school not established for the
exclusive instruction of children of
persons of a particular nationality or
race in any of the branches of
education or industry for a period of
2 years;
v. If he was born in the Philippines.
3. He must be of good moral character and
believe in the principles underlying the PH
constitution, and must have conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his
residence in the PH in his relations with the
constituted government as well as with the
community in which he is living.
a) The law requires moral character to the
highest degree - being a law-abiding
citizen is inadequate to prove
irreproachable conduct.
b) Irreproachable conduct - proved by
competent evidence, testimony of two
witnesses who must be well known in
the community and enjoy such a high
reputation for probity that their word may
be taken on its face value.
4. He must own real estate in the PH worth not
less then P5,000, Philippine currency, or
must have some lucrative trade, profession
or lawful occupation.
YU KIAN CHIE V. REPUBLIC
FACTS:
Yu Kian Chie
-Chinese citizen
-complete with all requirement, but the
economic requirements were problematic: he
alleged that he had an average income (in
1957) of P3k from Republic Hardware.
OSG opposed: failed to prove lucrative income
TC: granted Yu's petition
During appeal:
-Yu moved to reopen case, present additional
documentary proof of his income (claimed that
his income increased to P5200 in 1961)
CFI: affirm TC (for naturalization)
-appeal by OSG.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Yu sufficiently proved he had
lucrative income.
RULING:
No.
In the case at bar, as far as salary is
concerned, petitioner, appellee herein, was
only receiving P150.00, the rest being in the
form of allowances and bonuses which may or
may not be given to appellee. In other words,
petitioner's employer was not duty bound to
give such allowances and bonuses, but must
spring from purely voluntary actuations,
conditioned to the circumstance that the
employer was making profits. When there are
no profits, the allowances and the bonuses are
not given. It is not, therefore, safe to consider
that the income of petitioner is P3,000.00
yearly, or more.
Disqualifications for naturalization
GR: It is the state that has the burden of proving
the disqualification of an applicant for PH
citizenship.
XPN: Naturalization - an applicant must prove
that he has none of the disqualifications. (This is
based on the ground that naturalization is a
privilege and not a right - hence, must be
construed against the applicant)
Other qualifications and disqualification:
1. Crime involving moral turpitude - an act
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social life in general, contrary to
accepted and customary law of right and
duty between men or conduct contrary to
honesty, modesty or good morals.
2. The applicant must deal with and receive
Filipinos in his home, and visit Filipino
homes in a spirit of friendship, friendliness
and equality without any discrimination.
3. The applicant must fully establish that his
nation grants reciprocal rights to Filipino
citizens at the time of the hearing of his
application.
Procedure for naturalization
The following are the steps for
naturalization:
1. A declaration of intention to become a
citizen must first be filed, unless the
applicant is exempted from this requirement;
a) This requirement is mandatory and
prerequisite to naturalization subject to
exceptions.
b) Effect of non-compliance: Petition will
constitute fatal defect and will be void.
c) 1 year prior to the filing of his petition for
the admission to PH citizenship.
d) The applicant shall file with the Office of
the Solicitor General a declaration under
oath of his intention.
2. The petition for naturalization must then be
filed;
a) The RTC of the province in which the
applicant has resided has exclusive
jurisdiction to hear the petition.
3. After publication in the official gazette or
newspaper of general publication the
petition will be heard;
4. If the petition is approved, there will be a
rehearing 2 years after the promulgation of
the judgement awarding naturalization.
5. The last step will be the taking of the oath of
allegiance to support and defend the
constitution and the laws of the Philippines.
Declaration of intention
The following are the exemptions to the filing
of declaration of intention:
1. Persons born in the PH and who have
received their primary and secondary
education in public schools or private
schools recognized by the government, and
not limited to any race or nationality;
2. Those who have resided continuously in the
PH for a period of 30 years or more before
filing their application;
3. The widow and minor children of an alien
who declared his intention to become a
citizen of the PH and dies before he is
actually naturalized.
Effect of naturalization on wife and children
Woman
- any woman is now or may hereafter be married
to a citizen of the PH, and who might herself be
lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of
the PH.
Minor children
1. Minor children of persons naturalized
and born in the PH - they shall be
considered citizens of the PH.
2. Foreign-born minor child - he shall be
automatically become a PH citizen if he is in
the PH/resides in the PH at the time of the
naturalization of the parent.
3. Foreign-born minor child that is not in
the PH at the time the parent is
naturalized - he shall be a PH citizen only
during his minority.
a) XPN: If he begins to reside permanently
in the PH when still a minor, he will
continue to be a PH citizen even after
becoming of age.
4. Child born outside the PH after the
naturalization of his parent - he shall be
considered a PH citizen.
a) XPN: If within 1 year, after reaching the
age of majority, he fails to register
himself as a PH citizen at the American
consulate of the country where he
resides and to take the necessary oath
of allegiance.
VIVO v. CLORIBEL
FACTS:
This is a case of Chinese nationals who came
to the Philippines for a visit but who refused to
leave. They arrived from Hongkong and were
admitted in the Philippines as temporary
visitors on October 1960,with an initial
authorized stay of three (3) months. The
husband and father of these aliens applied for
naturalization, and CFI granted. The
respondents requested an extension to stay
but it was denied.
ISSUE/S:
WON Chua (the mother/wife) automatically
became a naturalized Filipino.
RULING:
No.
Chua Pic Luan, does not, under Section 15 of
the Revised Naturalization Law, automatically
become a Filipino citizen on account of her
marriage to a naturalized Filipino citizen,
since she must first prove that she
possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications for
naturalization.
In relation to the abovementioned provision,
third paragraph of Section 2 of the Revised
Naturalization Law provides that she must be
of good moral character and must have
conducted herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period
of her residence in the Philippines in her
relation with the constituted government
In the case at bar, by having misrepresented
before Philippine consular and administrative
authorities that she came to the country for
only a temporary visit when, in fact, her
intention was to stay permanently; and for
having intentionally delayed court processes
the better to prolong her stay, respondent
Chua Pic Luan demonstrated her incapacity to
satisfy the qualifications.
As to the foreign-born minor children
The law provides that they are extended
citizenship “if dwelling (lawful residence) in the
Philippines at the time of the naturalization of
the parent.”
In the case at bar, prior to the time the father of
respondents visitors was supposed to have
taken his oath of citizenship their lawful period
of stay had already expired and they had
already been required to leave, they were
no longer lawfully residing here
MOY YA LIM YAO V. COMMISSIONER OF
IMMIGRATION
FACTS:
Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa
to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant,
for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the
Philippines. She was permitted to come into
the Philippines. She contracted marriage with
Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim
analleged Filipino citizen.
ISSUE/S:
Whether Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a
Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen.
RULING:
Yes.
Under Section 15, CA 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized,
becomes ipso factor a Filipina PROVIDED she
is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines.
Subsequently, alien marrying aliens later
naturalized: follow nationality of husband,
provided she does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under Section 4.
TN: This decision is reversed in the case of
Burca v. Republic (1973). It held that:
Our laws do not allow judicial action or
proceeding for declaration of the citizenship of
an individual.
1. Alien woman married to a Filipino must first
apply by filing a petition for citizenship reciting
that she possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications
2. Said petition must be filed in CFI where alien
resided at least 1 year immediately preceding
the filing of petition.
3. Any action by any other office, other than
the judgment of a competent court of justice,
certifying or declaring that an alien wife of a
Filipino citizen automatically becomes a
Filipino citizen is null and void
(in short, still needs to apply for naturalization;
no automatic acquisition of citizenship)
No judicial declaration of PH citizenship in
the following cases:
1. A declaration of PH citizenship may not be
granted in an action of declaratory relief.
2. The summary procedure for the correction of
error in the entry in the Civil Registry is not
allowed.
a) XPN: It may be granted provided that an
appropriate action is made wherein all
parties who may be affected by the
entries are notified and represented and
there is a full blown adversary
proceeding.
Loss of PH citizenship
A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any
of the following ways:
1. By naturalization in foreign countries;
FRIVALDO v. COMELEC (1989)
FACTS:
-Frivaldo was proclaimed gov-elect of
Sorsogon but the League of Municipalities
contested the proclamation on the ground that
Frivaldo was a naturalized US Citizen in 1983
- Frivaldo’s answer:
(1) just sought US citizenship to protect himself
from Marcos
(2) naturalization was not impressed with
voluntariness, merely forced upon himself as a
means to survival against the unrelenting
persecution by Marcos' agents abroad
ISSUE/S:
WON Frivaldo is not a Filipino citizen, thus, not
qualified to win his seat?
RULING:
Yes.
If he really wanted to disavow US Citizenship,
he could have RE-ACQUIRED it by:
(1) direct act of Congress
(2) naturalization
(3) repatriation - will not grant PH citizenship
automatically. Filing a certificate of candidacy
and participating in the elections does not
automatically grant the person his PH
citizenship.
Repatriation - is the recovery of original
citizenship. If what was lost was naturalized
citizenship, that is what will be reacquired. If
natural-born citizenship was lost, then natural-
born citizenship will be reacquired. Technically,
it is not acquiring citizenship as a person, but it
is merely re-taking what was once his.
(Process: A person should apply w/ the
Special Committee on Naturalization, and then
take oath and allegiance)
FRIVALDO v. COMELEC (1996)
FACTS:
Frivaldo, again, got the highest number of
votes
-he was 2x declared to be disqualified because
he was a US Citizen
-he now claims to have repatriated BUT HE
DID SO AFTER FILING HIS CERTIFICATE
OF CANDIDACY (took oath of allegiance
under PD 752 at 2p, June 30, 1995)
ISSUE/S:
WON is a Filipino citizen if he repatriated after
filing his COC.
RULING:
Yes.
The law does not specify any particular date or
time when the candidate must possess
citizenship. Frivaldo's repatriation
RETROACTED TO THE DATE OF FILING OF
HIS APPLICATION ON AUGUST 17, 1994. He
being a former Filipino who has served the
people repeatedly, Frivaldo deserves a liberal
interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever
defects there were in his nationality should not
be deemed mooted by his repatriation.
LABO, JR. v. COMELEC
FACTS:
-Labo married an Australian, he was
naturalized as an Australian citizen
-he was elected mayor of Baguio
-petition for quo warranto filed by Lardizabal on
the ground of ineligibility because of citizenship
COMELEC decision: Labo is a Citizen of RP
CID: Labo was not a citizen, Australian
Government (through consul) said in official
statement that LABO IS AN AUSRALIAN
citizen + has Australian passport.
ISSUE/S:
WON LABO is a FILIPINO CITIZEN, thus,
qualified to run for Mayor of Baguio?

RULING:
No.
In accordance w/ CA 63, he has lost his
Philippine citizenship:
1. Naturalization to a foreign country
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to oath of allegiance to
support Constitution and laws of a foreign
country.
4. By express renunciation of citizenship;
AZNAR v. COMELEC
FACTS:
-Lito Osmena filed candidacy for Provincial
Governor of Cebu in the 1988 local elections.
-Aznar filed petition for disqualification on the
ground that Osmena allegedly is a citizen of
US
Proof: Certificate by Deportation Commissioner
certifying that Osmena is an American and a
holder of Alien Certificate of Registration
-defense:
Legitimate child of a Filipino
Holder of a valid and subsisting RP Passport
Continuously residing in RP since birth, not
gone out of country for more than 6 months
Registered voter of RP since 1965.
ISSUE/S:
WON Osmena is a Filipino Citizen?
RULING:
Yes, because there is no express renunciation
of citizenship.
The petitioner failed to present direct
proof that private respondent had lost
his Filipino citizenship by any of the modes
provided for under C.A. No. 63. these are:
(1) by naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and
(3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country.
In the instant case, private respondent
vehemently denies having taken the oath of
allegiance of the United States. He is a holder
of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport
and has continuously participated in the
electoral process in this country since 1963 up
to the present, both as a voter and as a
candidate. Considering the fact that admittedly
Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American,
the mere fact tha the has a Certificate stating
he is an American does not mean that he is not
still a Filipino.
REPUBLIC v. LI YAO
FACTS:
-Li Yao was naturalized in 1952
-he allegedly evaded payment of correct
income taxes for 1946-1951 (or before his
naturalization certificate was issued)
-OSG filed petition to cancel Li Yao's
naturalization certification on ground that
certificate was acquired through fraudulent
means (no good conduct, proper and
irreproachable conduct).
ISSUE/S:
WON Cancellation of the Certificate of
Naturalization is valid?
RULING:
Yes.
Any of the following may be the reason for
cancellation:
(1) Naturalization certificate obtained through
fraud/illegally.
(2) Naturalized person returns to his native
country/some other foreign country w/n 5 years
following issuance of naturalization certificate.
(3) Invalid declaration of intention.
(4) Minor children failed to graduate in a school
required by law through fault of parents.
(5) Naturalized citizen allowed himself to be
used as a dummy.
In the case at bar, Li Yao did not show any
good conduct, proper and irreproachable
conduct. Li Yao cannot invoke estoppel nor res
judicata as a defense because naturalization is
a mere privilege and not a right. If fraudulent,
not res judicata
Problems in applying the nationality principle
1. Dual or multiple citizenship - In view of the
Hague convention on conflict of national
laws, each state determines who its own
nationals are (determined by State’s internal
law). Hence, it is possible that an individual
can be claimed by two or more states.
a) PH constitution discourages dual or
multiple nationalities - it provides that
dual allegiance is inimical to the national
interest.
b) Principle of effective nationality -
helps to determine the rights of an
individual who may claim multiple
nationality in a third state.
NOTTEBOHM CASE
FACTS:
Nottebohm is a natural-born German who
stayed in Guatemala for more than 30 years
(since 1903)before WWII broke out. He never
applied to be a citizen of Guatemala
-as protection during the war, he sought
Liechtenstein citizenship, it being a neautral
country. (approved)
-upon his return to Guatemala in 1943, he was
refused entry as a result of war measures. He
was arrested, detained, and expelled and
refused readmission by the Guatemalan
government, and his property in Guatemala
were seized.
-he thus returned to Liechtenstein, and
Liechtenstein government offered their
protection on Nottebohm, suing Guatemala
government
-Nationality defense of Guatemala:
(1) Nottebohm not national of Guatemala
(2) Nottebohm fraudulently acquired
Liechtenstein citizenship + w/o any genuine
intention to establish a durable link between
Liechtenstein and Nottebohm.
ISSUE/S:
WON Liechtenstein could protect Nottebohm's
interest, he having genuine link with the
Principality?
RULING:
No.
In accordance with the principle of effective
nationality, the national must prove a
meaningful connection to the state in question.
That principle had previously been applied only
in cases of dual nationality to determine the
nationality that should be used in a given case.
In the case at bar, a state will not automatically
accept the conferring state’s designation
unless it has acted in conformity with the
general aim of forging a genuine bond between
it and its national aim. In this case, there was
no relationship between Liechtenstein (P) and
Nottebohm (P). the change of nationality was
merely a subterfuge mandated by the war.
Under this circumstance, Guatemala (D) was
not forced to recognize it.
Merely acquired naturalization to substitute for
his status as a national of a belligerent State
that of a national of a neutral state w/ sole aim
of coming w/n protection of Liechtenstein but
not of becoming wedded to its traditions,
interests, its way of life or of assuming the
obligation, is not considered as a genuine
reason or ground to acquire naturalization.
OH HEK HOW v. REPUBLIC
FACTS:
-Oh hek filed petition for naturalization, granted
-later filed a motion alleging that he complied
w/ RA 530 and prayed that he be allowed to
take his oath of allegiance + issued certificate
of naturalization
CFI: authorized him to take oath + issued cert
of naturalization.
ISSUE/S:
WON OH HEK COULD BE NATURALIZED
W/O EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF HIS
CHINESE CITIZENSHIP?
RULING:
No, because petitioner needs to acquire the
permission from the Minister of the Interior of
Nationalist China for a valid renunciation of his
Chinese citizenship.
In Go A. Leng v. Republic, a decision granting
the application for naturalization of a Chinese
national was reversed by this Court, upon the
ground, among others, of "his failure to secure"
the aforementioned permission.
It is argued that the same is not required by
our laws and that the naturalization of an alien,
as a citizen of the Philippines, is governed
exclusively by such laws and cannot be
controlled by any foreign law. 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."
In the case at bar, 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. 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.
2. Statelessness
a) De jure statlessness - refers to an
individual who has been stripped of his
nationality by his own former
government without having an
opportunity to acquire another.
b) De facto statelessness - refers to
individuals possessed of a nationality
but whose country does not give them
protection outside their own territory.
(e.g. refugees)
c) To fix the problem of statelessness,
conventions were promulgated. In one of
the conventions, the following
constituted its provision:
i. Jus sanguinis country - It
mandates that the jus sanguinis
country grant its nationality to a
person born within its territory if he
would otherwise be stateless.
 ii. Jus soli - It mandates to extend its
nationality to a person who would
otherwise be considered stateless
when one of his parents is a citizen
of the contracting states.
KOOKOORITCHKIN v. SOLICITOR
GENERAL
FACTS:
-Ermes Kookooritchkin was born in Russia,
grew up as a citizen of the now defunct
Imperial Russian Government under the Czars
-during WW1, he was part of Russia's military
service
-when the 1917 Russian revolution broke out,
he joined the White Russian Army, but the
latter was overwhelmed by the Bolsheviks. He
refused to join the Bolshevik regime so fled to
Shanghai and found his way to Manila (arrived
under the group of Admiral Stark in 1923)
-he established permanent residence in Iriga,
Camarines Sur since 1925
-he was a guerilla officer during the war
-married a Filipino named Concepcion
Segovia, and had a son Ronald, who is
studying at St. Agnes Academy, a school duly
recognized by the Government
-he is a shop superintendent and receives an
annual salary of P13,200
-can speak and write English and Bicol dialect.
-disclaims allegiance to the present
Communist Government of Russia
-he filed 1941 petition for naturalization
ISSUE/S:
WON Kookooritchkin should be granted Cert of
Naturalization?
RULING:
Yes.
It is a "well-known fact that the ruthlessness of
modern dictatorships had scattered throughout
the world a large number of stateless refugees
or displaced persons, w/o country and w/o flag.
The tyrannical intolerance of said dictatorships
toward all opposition induced them to resort to
beastly oppression, concentration camps and
blood purges, and it is only natural that the not
so fortunate ones who were able to escape to
foreign countries should feel the loss of all
bonds of attachment to the hells which were
formerly their fatherland's."
Kookooritchkin is Stateless: Empire of Russia
ceased to exist and he disclaims allegiance or
connection with the Soviet Government now
existing in Russia. (AS LONG AS STATELESS
PERSONS POSSESS ALL THE
QUALIFICATIONS, THEY CAN BE
NATURALIZED AS PHILIPPINE CITIZENS
W/O THE REQUIREMENT OF
RECIPROCITY.)
Bank of Amerika v. CA
FACTS:
Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr. and Aurelio J. Litonjua
(Litonjuas) were engaged in the shipping
business owning 2 vessels: Don Aurelio and El
Champion
Because their business where doing well, Bank
of America (BA) offered them to take a loan for
them to increase their ships.
BA acquired through them as borrowers four
more ships: (a) El Carrier; (b) El General; (c) El
Challenger; and (d) El Conqueror. The
registration, operation, income, funds,
possession of the vessel belonged to the
corporation.
May 10, 1993: Litonjuas filed a complaint to the
RTC Pasig claming that during its operations
and the foreclosure sale, BA as trutees failed
to fully render an account of the income. They
lost all their 6 vessels and 10% of their
personal funds and they still have an unpaid
balance of their loans.
BA NT&SA, and BA international filed a Motion
to Dismiss on grounds of forum non
conveniens and lack of cause of action against
them
RTC and CA: Dismissed
ISSUE:
1. W/N there is grounds of forum non
conveniens
2. W/N there is litis pendentia
HELD: Denied
1. NO.
The doctrine of forum non-conveniens, literally
meaning 'the forum is inconvenient', emerged
in private international law to deter the practice
of global forum shopping
Under this doctrine, a court, in conflicts of law
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.
Whether a suit should be entertained or
dismissed on the basis of said doctrine
depends largely upon the facts of the particular
case and is addressed to the sound discretion
of the trial court.
Philippine Court may assume jurisdiction over
the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that
the following requisites are met:
(1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort to; - present
(2) that the Philippine Court is in a position to
make an intelligent decision as to the law and
the facts; and, - present
(3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to
have power to enforce its decision - present
This Court further ruled that while it is within
the discretion of the trial court to abstain from
assuming jurisdiction on this ground, it should
do so only after vital facts are established, to
determine whether special circumstances
require the court's desistance; and that the
propriety of dismissing a case based on this
principle of forum non conveniens requires a
factual determination, hence it is more properly
considered a matter of defense.
2. NO.
litis pendentia to be a ground for the dismissal
of an action there must be:
(a) identity of the parties or at least such as to
represent the same interest in both actions -
present
(b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same acts -
not shown
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such
that the judgment which may be rendered in
one would, regardless of which party is
successful, amount to res judicata in the other
- not shown
It merely mentioned that civil cases were filed
in Hongkong and England
Raytheon International, Inc. v. Stockton W.
Rouzie, Jr
Doctrine:
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a
court, in conflicts-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.
Facts:
Brand Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI), a
corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Connecticut, United
States of America, and respondent Stockton
W. Rouzie, Jr., an American citizen, entered
into a contract whereby BMSI hired respondent
as its representative to negotiate the sale of
services in several government projects in the
Philippines for an agreed remuneration of 10%
of the gross receipts.
Respondent filed before the Arbitration Branch
of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) a suit against BMSI and Rust
International, Inc. (RUST), Rodney C. Gilbert
and Walter G. Browning for alleged
nonpayment of commissions, illegal
termination and breach of employment contract
which rendered judgment ordering BMSI and
RUST to pay respondent’s money claims.
Upon appeal by BMSI, the NLRC reversed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed
respondent’s complaint on the ground of lack
of jurisdiction. Respondent elevated the case
to this Court but was dismissed in a Resolution
which became final and executory.
Respondent, then a resident of La Union,
instituted an action for damages before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La
Union to Raytheon International, Inc. as well as
BMSI and RUST, the two corporations
impleaded in the earlier labor case. The
complaint essentially reiterated the allegations
in the labor case that BMSI verbally employed
respondent to negotiate the sale of services in
government projects and that respondent was
not paid the commissions due him from the
Pinatubo dredging project which he secured on
behalf of BMSI. The complaint also averred
that BMSI and RUST as well as petitioner itself
had combined and functioned as one
company.
In response, petitioner alleged that contrary to
respondent’s claim, it was a foreign corporation
duly licensed to do business in the Philippines
and denied entering into any arrangement with
respondent or paying the latter any sum of
money. Petitioner also denied combining with
BMSI and RUST for the purpose of assuming
the alleged obligation of the said companies.
Petitioner sought the dismissal of the complaint
on grounds of failure to state a cause of action
and forum non conveniens and prayed for
damages by way of compulsory counterclaim.
Petitioner then filed an Omnibus Motion for
Preliminary Hearing Based on Affirmative
Defenses and for Summary Judgment seeking
the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of
forum non conveniens and failure to state a
cause of action. Respondent opposed the
same. Pending the resolution of the omnibus
motion, the deposition of Walter Browning was
taken before the Philippine Consulate General
in Chicago.
RTC denied petitioner’s omnibus motion and
held that the factual allegations in the
complaint, assuming the same to be admitted,
were sufficient for the trial court to render a
valid judgment thereon. It also ruled that the
principle of forum non conveniens was
inapplicable because the trial court could
enforce judgment on petitioner, it being a
foreign corporation licensed to do business in
the Philippines.
The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
Decision denying the petition for certiorari for
lack of merit, and also denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
refusing to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action against Raytheon
International, Inc.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
refusing to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of forum non conveniens.
Ruling:

No, the Court found a failure to state a cause

of action against Raytheon International, Inc.,
referring to the insufficiency of allegation in the
pleading. As a general rule, the elementary
test for failure to state a cause of action is
whether the complaint alleges facts which if
true would justify the relief demanded. The
evidences are not quite sufficient to meet a
ruling that the complaint fails to state a cause
of action.
No, the court finds lack of merit on the
complaint on ground of forum non conveniens
and states that the Philippine Courts have the
jurisdiction over the parties.
Hasegawa v. Kitamura – the Court outlined
three consecutive phases involved in judicial
resolution of conflicts-of-laws problems,
namely: jurisdiction, choice of law, and
recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Thus, in the instances where the Court held
that the local judicial machinery was adequate
to resolve controversies with a foreign element,
the following requisites had to be proved: (1)
that the Philippine Court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort; (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 the power to enforce its
decision.