Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
1987 CONSTITUTION In turn, Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution provides that the
ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time
of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Notes: The citizens referred to in par. 3 are those considered Filipino
citizens under the 1973 Constitution at the time of the effectivity of
the new Constitution on February 2, 1987.
Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provides that the following are
citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution.
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizen of the Philippines.
3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution of 1935.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who were citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution of the Philippines;
2. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before
the adoption of said Constitution, had been elected to the
public office in the Philippines;
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and upon
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship;
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens
of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born
citizens.
Note: The right of election must be exercised within a reasonable
period after reaching the age of majority. The phrase “upon reaching
the age of majority” has been construed to mean within a reasonable
period after reaching the age of the majority, which election should be
made within three (3) years after reaching such age. (Opinion of SOJ No.
129, s. 1948) But where the election was made five (5) years after
attaining the age of majority, the Supreme Court held that petitioner
had lost his right to claim Philippine citizenship. (Lim Teco v.
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
Commissioner of Customs) The election must be expressed and cannot
be implied. (Cu v. Republic)
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired
in the manner provided by law.
SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens
shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Notes: Dual citizenship is a result of the concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more states; a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said states. Such situation may arise when
a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the
principle of jus sanguinis in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli.
Dual citizenship is involuntary. (Mercado v. Manzano)
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. Dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. (Ibid.)
REVISED PENAL CODE
ARTICLE 2. Application of Its Provisions. — Except as
provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
or airship;
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should
commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national
security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
Book Two of this Code.
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
ARTICLE 14. Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to
the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Notes: The Civil Code follows the nationality rule, to the effect that
Philippine laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad. (Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, 2014)
ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of
the country wherein said property may be found.
Notes: With respect to property, be it personal or real, it is subject to
the law of the country where it is situated. This is the principle of lex
rei sitae. It is a principle that real or immovable property is exclusively
subject to the laws of the country or state where it is located. The
reason is found in the very nature of immovable property — its
immobility. Thus, all matters concerning the title and disposition of real
property are determined by what is known as the lex loci rae sitae,
which can alone prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from
one person to another, or by which an interest therein can be gained
or lost.
ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills,
and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of
the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic
or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a
foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property,
and those which have for their object public order, public
policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines

laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or 5. Philippine law (Arts. 816-817 for aliens; Art. 15, applying to
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. Filipinos by analogy).

Notes: Par. 1 of Art. 17 is reflective of the principle of lex loci The provisions of Arts. 815-817 refer to the formal validity of wills
celebrationis. Par. 2 is an exception to the said principle. executed by persons outside of their own state or country. With
respect to the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will, Art. 16 of
SUCCESSION the NCC provides that the national law of the deceased shall apply.
The place of execution does not affect the intrinsic validity of the
ARTICLE 815. When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is contents of the will (Tolentino).
authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by
the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be Re: Art. 817: If an alien executes a will in the Philippines, not in
conformity with our law, but in conformity with the law of his own
probated in the Philippines.
state or country, the will can be probated in the Philippines (In Re
Estate of Johnson).
ARTICLE 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces
effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities
The Code did not mean to invalidate the will of a Filipino, executed in
prescribed by the law of the place in which he resides, or
a foreign country, when it is made in conformity with our law and not
according to the formalities observed in his country, or in
in conformity with the law of the place of execution. Under Arts. 816
conformity with those which this Code prescribes.
and 817, an alien who makes a will in a place other than his country is
permitted to follow the laws of his own country; Art. 816 even allows
Notes: Every testator, whether a Filipino or alien, wherever he may be,
an alien executing a will in a foreign country other than his own, to
has five (5) choices as to what law to follow for the form of his will:
follow the formalities prescribed by our law. It cannot be assumed that
1. The law of his citizenship (Arts. 816-817 for aliens; applying to
the Code places the Filipino citizen in a worse position than the alien
Filipinos by analogy, Art. 15)
in relation to our own law.
2. The law of the place of execution (Art. 17)
3. The law of his domicile (Art. 816 for aliens abroad; applying to
aliens in the Philippines and to Filipinos by analogy)
4. The law of his residence (same basis as 3)
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
ARTICLE 818. Two or more persons cannot make a will
jointly, or in the same instrument, either for their reciprocal
benefit or for the benefit of a third person.
Notes: A joint will is one where the same instrument is made the will
of two or more persons and jointly signed by them. Such a will
contained in a single instrument is the will of each of the makers, and
at the death of one may be probated as his will, and be again probated
at the death of the other as the will of the latter. Such wills are usually
executed to make testamentary dispositions of joint property
(Tolentino).
If there are separate documents, each serving as one independent will
(even if they are written on the same sheet), they are not “the joint
wills” prohibited by Art. 818 (Balane; Tolentino).
ARTICLE 819. Wills, prohibited by the preceding article,
executed by Filipinos in a foreign country shall not be valid in
the Philippines, even though authorized by the laws of the
country where they may have been executed.
Notes: Although the general rule is that a will may be made by a
Filipino, who is abroad, in accordance with the formalities prescribed
by the law in the country where the will is executed (Arts. 817 and
815), the present article creates an exception to that rule. A joint will
is against the public policy of the Philippines. (Tolentino)
Rules on Joint Wills:
1. If executed by Filipinos in the Philippines - void (Art. 819)
2. If executed by Filipinos abroad - void, even if authorized by the
law of the place of execution (Art. 819) This is an exception
to the permissive provisions of Arts. 17 and 815.
3. If executed by aliens abroad - governed by Art. 816
4. If executed by aliens in the Philippines - controverted:
a. One view: void because of public policy
b. Other view - Art. 817 governs
5. If executed by a Filipino and an alien - as to the Filipino, always
void; as to the alien, number 3 or 4 would apply.
ARTICLE 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by
a person who does not have his domicile in this country, is
valid when it is done according to the law of the place where
the will was made, or according to the law of the place in
which the testator had his domicile at the time; and if the
revocation takes place in this country, when it is in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
Notes:
1. If revocation is made in the Philippines, follow Philippine law.
2. If revocation is made outside the Philippines:
a. If testator is not domiciled in the Philippines:
i. Follow the law of the place where the will was
made; or
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines

ii. Follow the law of the place where the testator COMMON CARRIERS
was domiciled at the time of the revocation.
b. If testator is domiciled in the Philippines (governed by ARTICLE 1753. The law of the country to which the goods are
Art. 829) to be transported shall govern the liability of the common
i. Follow PH law; or carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
ii. Follow the law of the place of revocation (lex
loci celebracionis under Art. 17)
iii. Follow the law of the place where the will was
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
made (by analogy with the rules on revocation
where the testator is a non-PH domiciliary)
MARRIAGE

ARTICLE 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law

Art. 10. Marriages between Filipino citizens abroad may be
of the nation of the decedent.
solemnized by a consul-general, consul or vice-consul of the
Republic of the Philippines. The issuance of the marriage
CONTRACTS
license and the duties of the local civil registrar and of the
solemnizing officer with regard to the celebration of marriage
ARTICLE 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the
shall be performed by said consular official.
offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which
are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and
Art. 21. When either or both of the contracting parties are
the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a
citizens of a foreign country, it shall be necessary for them
counter-offer.
before a marriage license can be obtained, to submit a
certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage, issued by
Acceptance made by letter or telegram does not bind the
their respective diplomatic or consular officials.
offerer except from the time it came to his knowledge. The
contract, in such a case, is presumed to have been entered into
Stateless persons or refugees from other countries shall, in
in the place where the offer was made.
lieu of the certificate of legal capacity herein required, submit
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
an affidavit stating the circumstances showing such capacity
to contract marriage.
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), 3637 and 38.
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of
age even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally
authorized to perform marriages unless such
marriages were contracted with either or both parties
believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had
the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those
covered the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing
under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting
party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under
Article 53.
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time
of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes
manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended by
Executive Order 227)
Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and
void from the beginning, whether relationship between the
parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree;
and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half
blood.
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the
beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate
or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent
and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and
the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the
adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry
the other, killed that other person’s spouse, or his or
her own spouse.
Art. 80. In the absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage
settlement, the property relations of the spouses shall be
governed by Philippine laws, regardless of the place of the
celebration of the marriage and their residence.
This rule shall not apply:
(1) Where both spouses are aliens;
(2) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts
affecting property not situated in the Philippines and
executed in the country where the property is located;
and
(3) With respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts
entered into in the Philippines but affecting property
situated in a foreign country whose laws require
different formalities for its extrinsic validity.
RULES OF COURT
RULE 4 – VENUE OF ACTIONS
Section 2. Venue of personal actions. – All other actions may
be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of
the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a
nonresident defendant where he may be found, at the election
of the plaintiff.
RULE 8 – MANNER OF MAKING ALLEGATIONS IN
PLEADINGS
Section 6. Judgment. – In pleading a judgment or decision of
a domestic or foreign court, judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal,
or of a board or officer, it is sufficient to aver the judgment or
decision without setting forth matter showing jurisdiction to
render it. An authenticated copy of the judgment or decision
shall be attached to the pleading.
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
Notes: Under this provision, the jurisdiction of the court a quo is
presumed, but the amended Section 6 requires that an authenticated
copy of the judgment or decision be attached to the pleading.
On May 14, 2019, the Apostille Convention on authentication of
documents took effect in the Philippines. Under this Convention, in
countries and territories which are Apostille-contracting parties, there
is no need for authentication of the relevant judgment or decision, as
it is sufficient to have the same Apostillized in the place where the
document originates.
RULE 11 – WHEN TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS
Section 2. Answer of a defendant foreign private juridical
entity. – Where the defendant is a foreign private juridical
entity and service of summons is made on the government
official designated by law to receive the same, the answer
shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt of
summons by such entity.
Notes:
1. If foreign corporation has ceased to transact business in the
Philippines or has no resident agent in the Philippines, the
service of any summons or other legal process may be made
upon the Securities and Exchange Commission in any action
or proceeding arising out of any business or transaction which
occurred in the Philippines. The SEC shall, within 10 days,
transmit by mail a copy of such summons or other legal
process to the corporation at its home or principal office.
2. If a foreign banking corporation has no agent or head or no
person was authorized to receive summons, processes, and all
legal notices, they may be served upon the Bangko Sentral
Deputy Governor In-Charge of the supervising and examining
departments. The said Deputy Governor shall register and
transmit by mail to the president or secretary of the bank at
its head or principal office a copy, duly certified by him, of the
summons, process, or notice.
3. If a foreign insurance company, ceased to transact business in
the Philippines or has no resident agent on whom any notice,
proof of loss, summons or legal process may be served, they
may be served upon the Insurance Commissioner who shall,
within 10 days, transmit by mail, postage paid, a copy of
summons or other legal process to the company at its home
or principal office.
RULE 14 – SUMMONS
Section 12. Service upon domestic private juridical entity. –
When the defendant is a corporation, partnership or
association organized under the laws of the Philippines with
a juridical personality, service may be made on the president,
managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary,
treasurer, or inhouse counsel of the corporation wherever
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
they may be found, or in their absence or unavailability, on
their secretaries.
If such service cannot be made upon any of the foregoing
persons, it shall be made upon the person who customarily
receives the correspondence for the defendant at its principal
office.
In case the domestic juridical entity is under receivership or
liquidation, service of summons shall be made on the receiver
or liquidator, as the case may be.
Should there be a refusal on the part of the persons above
mentioned to receive summons despite at least three (3)
attempts on two (2) different dates, service may be made
electronically, if allowed by the court, as provided under
Section 6 of this Rule.
Notes: It is an exclusive enumeration of the persons authorized to
receive summons for domestic private juridical entities. The officer
upon whom service is made must be the one who is named in the
statute; otherwise, the service is invalid. (DOLE Phils., Inc. v. Quilala,
2008) The purpose is to render it reasonably certain that the
corporation will receive prompt and proper notice in an action against
it, or to ensure that the summons is served on a representative so
integrated with the corporation that such person will know what to
do with the legal papers served on him. (Delta Motor Sales Corp. v.
Mangosing, 1976)
Section 14. Service upon foreign private juridical entities. –
When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which
has transacted or is doing business in the Philippines, as
defined by law, service may be made on its resident agent
designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if
there be no such agent, on the government official designated
by law to that effect, or on any of its officers, agents, directors
or trustees within the Philippines.
If the foreign private juridical entity is not registered in the
Philippines, or has no resident agent but has transacted or is
doing business in it, as defined by law, such service may, with
leave of court, be effected outside of the Philippines through
any of the following means:
(a) By personal service coursed through the appropriate
court in the foreign country with the assistance of the
Department of Foreign Affairs;
(b) By publication once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the country where the defendant may be
found and by serving a copy of the summons and the
court order by registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant;
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
(c) By facsimile;
(d) By electronic means with the prescribed proof of
service; or
(e) By such other means as the court, in its discretion, may
direct.
Notes:
1. If a foreign corporation has a license to do business, then
summons to it will be served on the resident agent designated
by it for the purpose or otherwise in accordance with the
provisions of the corporation.
2. If the foreign corporation has not designated a resident agent,
summons shall be served upon the government official
designated by law, or on any of its officers, agents, directors or
trustees within the Philippines. (See Notes on Rule 12, Sec. 2)
3. If a foreign corporation actually doing business in the
Philippines has not applied for a license to do so and has not
designated an agent to receive summons, then service of
summons on it will be made pursuant to the provisions of the
Rules of Court, particularly Rule 14, Section 14.
Section 15. Service upon public corporations. – When the
defendant is the Republic of the Philippines, service may be
effected on the Solicitor General; in case of a province, city or
municipality, or like public corporations, service may be
effected on its executive head, or on such other officer or
officers as the law or the court may direct.
Section 16. Service upon defendant whose identity or
whereabouts are unknown. – In any action where the
defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or
whenever his or her whereabouts are unknown and cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry, within ninety (90) calendar
days from the commencement of the action, service may, by
leave of court, be effected upon him or her by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for
such time as the court may order.
Any order granting such leave shall specify a reasonable time,
which shall not be less than sixty (60) calendar days after
notice, within which the defendant must answer.
Notes: As an exception to the preferred mode of service, service of
summons by publication may only be resorted to when the
whereabouts of the defendant are not only unknown, but cannot be
ascertained by diligent inquiry. (Express Padala S.P.A. v. Ocampo, 2017)
Summons by publication under the circumstances described in Sec. 16,
Rule 14 applies to any action, whether in personam, in rem or quasi in
rem. (Santos v. PNOC Exploration Corp., 2008)
The service of summons by publication is complemented by service of
summons by registered mail to the defendant’s last known address.
This complementary service is evidenced by an affidavit “showing the
deposit of a copy of the summons and order for publication in the
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
post office, postage prepaid, directed to the defendant by registered
mail to his last known address.” (Express Padala S.P.A. v. Ocampo, 2017)
RULE 23 – DEPOSITIONS PENDING ACTIONS
Section 11. Persons before whom depositions may be taken in
foreign countries. – In a foreign state or country, depositions
may be taken (a) on notice before a secretary of embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice-consul, or consular
agent of the Republic of the Philippines; (b) before such
person or officer as may be appointed by commission or
under letters rogatory; or (c) the person referred to in Section
14 hereof.
Notes: Leave of court is not required when the deposition is to be
taken before a secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent of the Republic of the Philippines, and
the defendant’s answer has already been served. However, if the
deposition is to be taken in a foreign country where the Philippines
has no secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice-
consul, or consulate agent, it may be taken only before such person or
officer as may be appointed by commission or under letters rogatory.
(Dulay v. Dulay, 2005)
Sec. 14, Rule 14, mentioned in Sec. 11(c) provides that the parties may
stipulate in writing the person before whom depositions may be taken.
Such person must be authorized to administer oaths. They may
likewise stipulate the time and place of the deposition, but not the
manner of taking depositions which should be in accordance with the
rules. They may stipulate that the questions and answers are to be
taken down directly on a typewriter, computer or in handwriting.
(Noche, p. 659)
Section 12. Commission or letters rogatory. – A commission
or letters rogatory shall be issued only when necessary or
convenient, on application and notice, and on such terms and
with such direction as are just and appropriate. Officers may
be designated in notices or commissions either by name or
descriptive title and letters rogatory may be addressed to the
appropriate judicial authority in the foreign country.
Notes:
1. A commission is an instrument issued by a court of justice or
other competent tribunal to authorize a person to take
depositions, or do any other act by authority of such court or
tribunal. (Dasmariñas Garments, Inc. v. Reyes, 1993)
2. A letter rogatory is an instrument sent in the name and by
authority of a judge or court to another, requesting the latter
to cause to be examined, upon interrogatories filed in a case
pending before the former, a witness who is within the
jurisdiction of the judge or court to whom such letter is
addressed. (Id.)
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
Commissions are directives to officials of the issuing jurisdiction; letters
rogatory are requests to foreign tribunals. Commissions are taken in
accordance with the rules laid down by the court issuing the
commission, while in letters rogatory, the methods of procedure are
under the control of the foreign tribunal. (Dulay v. Dulay, 2005)
RULE 39 – EXECUTION, SATISFACTION AND EFFECT
OF JUDGMENTS
Section 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.
Notes: 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
a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice
in the foreign forum. (Arca, et. al. v. Javier, 1954) The presumption of
validity of the foreign judgment shall apply only after it has duly been
presented and admitted in evidence. Our courts cannot take judicial
notice of foreign laws and judgments. Like any other fact, they must
be alleged and proved.
Fraud to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a foreign
judgment, must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on facts not controverted
or resolved in the case where judgment is rendered, or that which
would go to the jurisdiction of the court or would deprive the party
against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action to
which he has a meritorious case or defense.
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS
RULE 73 – Venue and Process
Section 1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. — If the
decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his
death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved,
or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in
the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides
at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which
he had estate. The court first taking cognizance of the
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The
jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the
place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his
estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in
an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the
want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
Notes:
1. If the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of
his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved,
or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in
the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides
at the time of his death, and
2. If he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First
Instance of any province in which he had estate.
While S1 R73 speaks of “jurisdiction” what it actually refers to is venue.
In order to determine the proper venue in estate proceedings, one
looks into the fact of residency in the Philippines and not the fact of
citizenship. If the decedent was residing in the Philippines at the time
of death, regardless of whether the decedent is a citizen or alien, the
estate must be settled in the decedent’s place of residence. Conversely,
if the decedent was not a resident at the time of death, estate
proceedings may be commenced in any place where any of the
decedent’s properties are located. In determining venue, residence
refers to actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of
abode, which may not necessarily be one’s legal residence or domicile
provided one resides therein with continuity and consistency. (San Luis
v. San Luis, 2007)
The CFI in the above provision now refers to the RTC or MTC
depending on the gross value of the estate of the decedent. Under
R.A. No. 11576 (amending BP 129), the jurisdictional amount was
raised to P2,000,000. If the gross value of the estate is below P2 million,
it is cognizable by the MTC; otherwise, the petition for reprobate shall
be filed before the RTC.
RULE 77 – Allowance of Will Proved Outside of
Philippines and Administration of Estate Thereunder
Section 1. Will proved outside Philippines may be allowed
here. — Wills proved and allowed in a foreign country,
according to the laws of such country, may be allowed, filed,
and recorded by the proper Court of First Instance in the
Philippines.
Notes: Reprobate is a special proceeding to establish the validity of a
will proved in a foreign country.
• It is not necessary that wills executed abroad be first probated
and allowed in the country of its execution before it can be
probated in the Philippines. While there is a proceeding for
reprobate provided for in Rule 77, it does not mean that a will
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
not probated abroad cannot be probated in the Philippines.
Rule 77 should be read in conjunction with Article 816, which
provides that the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect
in the Philippines if made in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by the law of the place where he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his country.
• The probate and allowance of a will in a foreign country is not
sufficient to authorize the distribution of the testator’s
property located in the Philippines. The will must be
reprobated in the Philippines in accordance with R77. This is
because the powers and processes of a probate court cannot
ex proprio vigore (by its own inherent force) have any effect
beyond the limits of the state in which it was granted. (Collector
of Internal Revenue v. Fischer, 1961)
GENERAL GUARDIANS AND GUARDIANSHIP
RULE 92 – Venue
Section 1. Where to institute proceedings. — Guardianship of
a person or estate of a minor or incompetent may be instituted
in the Court of First Instance of the province, or in the justice
of the peace court of the municipality, or in the municipal
court chartered city where the minor or incompetent persons
resides, and if he resides in a foreign country, in the Court of
First Instance of the province wherein his property or the
party thereof is situated; provided, however, that where the
value of the property of such minor or incompetent exceeds
that jurisdiction of the justice of the peace or municipal court,
the proceedings shall be instituted in the Court of First
Instance.
In the City of Manila the proceedings shall be instituted in the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
Notes:
1. The RTCs have jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings
under the ROC, with respect to incompetents who are not
minors.
a. Where the ward is a resident, the proceedings should be
filed in the RTC in province where such ward resides.
b. If the ward resides in a foreign country, the petition must
be filed in the RTC of the province where his property is
situated.
2. In case of guardianship over minors, it is the Family Courts who
have jurisdiction over the proceedings. (Rule on Guardianship of
Minors)
RULE 131 – BURDEN OF PROOF, BURDEN OF
EVIDENCE AND PRESUMPTIONS
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following
presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines
(n) That a court, or judge acting as such, whether in the
Philippines or elsewhere, was acting in the lawful
exercise of jurisdiction;
Note: Where the record is silent, it will be presumed in favor of the
judgment that what ought to have been done was rightly done by a
court or judge acting as such, whether in the Philippines or elsewhere.
Expediency of judicial proceedings is the reason for the presumption.
RULE 132 – PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
Section 19. Classes of documents. – For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are either public or
private.
Public documents are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public
officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country;
Notes: Whether a document is public or private is relevant in
determining its admissibility as evidence. Public documents are
admissible in evidence even without further proof of their due
execution and genuineness.
• A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign
character, or because it has been acknowledged before a
notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public
official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a
public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-
authenticating and requires no further authentication in order
to be presented as evidence in court.
• It is admissible even against a third person insofar as due
execution and the date of the document.
On the other hand, private documents are inadmissible in evidence
unless they are properly authenticated. A private document is
admissible only between the parties thereto or their privies.
Section 24. Proof of official record. – The record of public
documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when
admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official
publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having
the legal custody of the record, or by his or her deputy, and
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with
a certificate that such officer has the custody.
If the office in which the record is kept is in a foreign country,
which is a contracting party to a treaty or convention to which
the Philippines is also a party, or considered a public
document under such treaty or convention pursuant to
Conflict of Law Rules in the Philippines

paragraph (c) of Section 19 hereof, the certificate or its
equivalent shall be in the form prescribed by such treaty or
convention subject to reciprocity granted to public documents
originating from the Philippines.
For documents originating from a foreign country which is
not a contracting party to a treaty or convention referred to in
the next preceding sentence, the certificate may be made by a
secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign
service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
or her office.
3. A copy attested by an officer having legal custody of the
record, or his or her deputy, with a certificate that such officer
has custody, if the record is not kept in the Philippines.
Under the Apostille Convention on Authentication of Documents to
which the Philippines is a signatory, where a foreign country which is
a signatory to the convention has affixed an apostille to a document,
that document need no longer be authenticated by a Philippine
consular officer in order to be received in evidence in the Philippines.

A document that is accompanied by a certificate or its

equivalent may be presented in evidence without further
proof, the certificate or its equivalent being prima facie
evidence of the due execution and genuineness of the
document involved. The certificate shall not be required when
a treaty or convention between a foreign country and the
Philippines has abolished the requirement, or has exempted
the document itself from this formality.

Notes: Public documents in Sec. 19(a), Rule 132 may be proved by:
1. The original copy;
2. Official publication thereof; or