CONFLICT OF LAWS

REVIEWER
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

SUBMITTED BY:

ABINUMAN, HAZEL MACASAET, NANCY

AGLINAO, JUSELYN RABINO, MALIMA
AGUINALDO, CHARLES KENNETH MEDINA, JEFFREY
BAS, JULIAN HUA, JOCELYN
CADIGAL, AYRA ANGELINE ROBLEADO, KEN
DELFIN, JOSE RICKY SANTIAGO, ARMANDO
DIMAAMPAO, SHERLYN SAYCO, MAUREEN AVA
FELIX, BERNARD VALBUENA, JOHN
GALLO EMMANUEL VILLA, EDZIL
GAMAZAN, TERE VILLANUEVA, JOBELLE
JACALNE, JESSY RUTH VILLARINO, ART
LOPEZ, MARK ANTHONY VIRAY, ABRAHAM
ORILLANEDA, YVES SAMUEL
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
A. Definition and Nature of Conflict of Laws ……………………………………………………. 3
B. Function and Scope of Conflict of Laws ……………………………………………………… 3
C. Distinction from Public International Law ……………………………………………………. 3
1. Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 US 113 (1895) ...……………………………………………… 4
2. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 122191 (1998) …….……………………… 4
II. Sources of Private International Law ...…………………………………………………………………. 5
A. Domestic ...………………………….…………………………………………………………. 5
B. International ...…………………………………………………………………………………. 15
C. Judicial Decisions ..……………………………………………………………………………. 16
D. The Constitution ..…………….………………………………………………………………. 16
III. CHOICE OF FORUM.………………….………………………………………………………………. 16
A. Definition of Jurisdiction ...…………….……………………………………………………… 16
B. Jurisdiction vs. Venue ...…………….…….…………………………………………………… 17
C. Acquisition of Jurisdiction ...…………….………………………………………………….…. 17
1. Gemperle vs. Schenker, 19 SCRA 45 (1967) …………………………………….…… 18
2. International Shoe Co. vs. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ………...…..…………. 19
3. Shaffer vs. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) …………………………………….….….… 20
4. Perkins vs. Roxas, 72 Phil. 514 (1941) ..…………………………………….….……. 21
5. Macasaet et al. vs. Co Jr., G.R. No. 156759, 5 June 2013 .………………….….……. 22
6. Velayo-Fong vs. Spouses Velayo, G.R. No. 155488, 6 December 2006 ..….…..….….. 22
7. San Pedro vs. Ong et al., G.R. No. 177598, 17 October 2008 …….…..….………….. 23
8. French Oil Mill Machinery Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126477,
11 September 1998 …….……………………………………………...….………….... 24
9. Pioneer International LTD vs. Hon. Teofilo Guadiz Jr. et al., G.R. No. 156848, 11
October 2007 .…….…………………………………………………...….………….. 25
10. Manotoc vs. CA et al., G.R. No. 130974, 16 August 2006 …………...….…….…….. 26
11. Leah Palma Vs. Hon. Danilo P. Galvez, G.R. No. 165273, March 10, 2010 .……….. 26
D. Question on Assumption of Jurisdiction ……………………………………………..……….. 27
1. Heine vs. New York Insurance, 45 F2d 426 (1940) ………………………..…….….. 27
2. In Re: Union Carbide, 634 F Supp. 842 S.D.N.Y. 1986) …………………….…..….. 28
3. Hasegawa vs. Kitamura, G.R. No. 149177, 23 November 2007 …………….…..…... 29
4. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio et al., G.R. No. 198587, 14 January 2015 …. 29
IV. CHOICE OF LAW ……………………………………………..…………………………………..…... 30
A. Approaches to Choice of Law ………………………..……………………………………..... 30
1. Gray v. Gray (1934) ………….……………..……………………………………..... 31
2. Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. vs. Carroll (1892) ……………...……………..... 31
3. Auten vs. Auten (1954) …………………………………………………………........ 32
 4. Haag vs. Barnes (1961) ……………………………..……………………………...... 33
B. Underlying Principles in Determining Choice of Law ……….………………………….......... 34
1. Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator, 1994 ……………..……………………………...... 37
2. Bank of America NT & Asia vs. American Realty Corp., 1999 …………..…….......... 38
3. Butler vs. Adoption Media LLC, 2007 …………………………………....….…......... 38
4. Francisco vs. Stolt Achievement MT, 2002 ……………………………….…….......... 38
5. Babcock vs. Jackson, 1963 ……………………………….……………………........... 39
C. Characterization …………….…………..………………………………… …………...…........ 39
1. Gibbs vs. Gov’t of PI, 1933 ……………………………….……………………......... 40
2. Grant vs. Mcauliffe, 1953 ……………………………….……...………………......... 41
3. Cadalin vs. POEA Administrator, 1994 ……………………………….……...…........ 41
D. Issues/Problems/Principles Affecting Choice of Law ……….…………………..…….....….... 42
1. Haumschild vs. Continental Casualty, 1959 ……….…………………..…...….….… 43
2. Aznar vs. Garcia, 1963 ……….…………………..…...………………………….….. 43
3. Annesley v. Annesley, 1926 ……….…………………..…...…………………………. 44
4. Bellis vs. Bellis, 1968 ……….…………………..……………………………..….…. 44
E. Proof of Foreign Law ……….…………………..…...………………………………..…….… 45
1. Wildvalley Shipping vs. Court of Appeals, 2000 ………………….……………...… 46
2. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. vs. Guerrero, 2003 ……………….…………...… 47
3. Edi-Staff Builders International vs. NLRC, 2007 ……………….………...……...… 47
4. In Re Estate of Johnson, 1918 ……………….………….…………………………... 47
5. Walton vs. Arabian American Oil Co., 1956 .………….………………….………... 48
6. Leary vs. Gledhill, 1951 .………….…………………………………....…………... 48
7. Zalamea vs. CA, 1993 .………….……………………………………...……..……. 49
8. Miciano vs. Brimo, 1924 ……….……………………………………...…..…….…. 50
9. Suntay vs. Suntay, 1952 ……….………………….…………………...…………… 50
10. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Fisher, 1961 ….……………….…...……..….….. 51
11. Board of Commissioners vs. Dela Rosa, 1991 ….……………….…...………..….... 52
V. ENFORCEMENT AND RECOGNITION ….……………….…...………………………………..….. 53
A. Distinction between Enforcement and Recognition .…...…………………….…………..….. 53
B. Bases of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments …………….………..………. 53
C. Policies Underlying Enforcement of Foreign Judgments …….…………….………..………. 53
D. Requisites for Recognition or Enforcement, Proof of Foreign Judgments .…………….....…. 54
E. Effect of Foreign Judgments, Res Judicata .……………...……………………………..……. 55
F. Grounds for Non-Recognition .……………...……………………………………...……..…. 55
G. Procedure for Enforcement .……………...…………………………………………...…..….. 55
1. Northwest Orient Airlines Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and C.F. Sharp, 1995 ……..…. 56
2. Boudard v. Tait, 1939 ………..…………………………………………………...…. 56
3. Ramirez vs. Gmur, 1918 ……..………………………………………………..….…. 56
4. Querubin vs. Querubin, 1950 .…………………………………………….….….…. 56
 5. Fujiki vs. Marimay G.R. No. 196049, 26 June 2013 ………………………..………… 57
6. Roehr vs. Rodriguez G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003 ………………………....……… 57
7. St. Aviation Services vs. Grand Int'l Airways G.R. No. 140288, 2006 …...…....……… 57
8. Phil. Aluminum Wheels vs. FASGI Enterprises G.R. No. 137378, 2000 …...….……… 57
VI. PERSONAL LAW, CITIZENSHIP, DOMICILE ………………………..…………………………….… 58
A. Personal Law ………………………..………………………………………………….…….… 58
B. Citizenship ………………………..…………………………………………………….…….… 61
1. Bengson III vs. HRET G.R. No. 142840, 7 May 2001 …………….………….……..… 66
2. Poe-Llamanzares vs COMELEC G.R. Nos. 221697-221700, 8 March 2016 .…..…..… 67
3. Djumantan vs. Domingo G.R. No. 99358, 30 January 1995 …………...…….….….… 68
4. Mercado vs. Manzano, 1999 …………...……………………………………..….….… 69
5. Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano, 1968 …………...…….….…… 69
6. Jacot vs. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, 2008 …………...…………………………………..… 70
7. Sobejana Condon vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 198742, 2012 ……………………..…..… 71
8. Maquiling vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, 2013 ……………………………..…..… 72
9. Arnado vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, 2015……………………………...……..… 73
10. David vs. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113, 2015 ………………………………….………..… 73
11. Fujiki vs. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, 26 June 2013 …………………………....…..… 74
C. Domicile …………………………………………………….……....………………………..… 75
VII. TORTS AND DAMAGES …………………………………………….……...………………………..… 80
A. Definition of Torts ……………………………………..…….……...………………………...… 80
B. Torts and Crimes …..…………………………………..…….……...………………………...… 81
C. Conflict of Laws in Torts .....…………………………..…….……...………………………...… 81
D. Approaches to Conflicts of Law in Torts ……………..…….……...………….……………...… 81
E. Lex Loci Delicti vs. Most Significant Relationship …..…….……...………….……………...… 82
1. Dowis et al. vs. Mud Slingers Inc., et al., 2005 …….……...………….…..………...… 83
2. Melton vs. Stephens, 2014 …….……...………….…..……………………………...… 84
3. Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. CA, G.R. No. 122191, 8 October 1998 …….…………...… 84
4. First National Bank in Fort Collins vs. Rostek, 1973 ……….……………….……...… 85
5. Kamelgard vs. Macura, 2009 ……….……………………………………….……...… 85
6. Lankenau vs. Boles, 2014 ……….………………………………..………….……...… 86
7. Winter vs. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2014 ……………..………….………..… 87
8. FutureSelect Portfolio Management Inc. vs. Tremont Group Holdings, 2014 …….….. 87
VIII. CONTRACTS ………………………………….…..………………………………………….……….… 88
A. Conflict of Laws in Contracts ………….…..…………………………………………...…….… 88
B. Approaches to Contractual Conflicts of Law ………….…..……………………….……...….… 88
C. Capacity to Contract ………….…..……………………….……...…………………………...… 90
D. Depecage ………….………….…..……………………….……...…………………………...… 90
1. Bagong Filipinas Overseas Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. L-66006,
28 February 1985 …….…..………………….……...……………..………………...… 90
 2. Atienza vs. Philimare Shipping, 176 SCRA 325, 1989 ..…………..………….……...… 90
3. Pakistan International Airlines vs. Blas Ople, G.R. No. 61594, 28 September 1990 .… 91
4. Erie Insurance Exchange vs. Edmund D. Heffernan II, Md. 2007 ………………….… 92
5. Government vs. Frank, G.R. No. 2935, 23 March 1909 …………………………….… 93
6. IN re KMH, 2007 ……………………………………..………………………….….… 93
7. Triple Eight Integrated Services Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129584, 3 December 1998 .. 93
IX. PROPERTY ……………………………………..………………………………………….……….….… 94
A. Rules on Ownership of Property, Real Property in the Philippines ……………….………….… 94
B. Conflict of Laws in Property, Issues ………………………...………………………………..… 95
C. Conflicts of Law Rule in the Philippines …………………...…………………….…………..… 95
D. Capacity to Transfer or Acquire Property …...……………...…………………….…………..… 95
E. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Conveyances …………...…………………….……….…..… 95
F. Exception to Philippine Conflicts Rule in Property Law …...…………………....……….…..… 95
G. Situs of Personal Properties, Money, Debts, and Corporate Shares of Stock …....……….…..… 95
1. Laurel vs. Garcia, 1990 …....………………………………………………...….…..… 96
2. Roberts vs. Locke, 2013 …....………………………………………………...….…..… 96
3. Tayag vs. Benguet Consolidated, 1968 ……………………………………...…..…..… 97
4. Ramirez vs. Vda de Ramirez, 1982 ……………………….………………....…..…..… 98
5. Matthews vs. Taylor, 2009 ……………………….………………………....…..…..… 98
6. Cheesman vs. IAC, 1991 ……………………….……………………….............…..… 99
7. Llantino vs. Co Liong Chong, 1990 …………….……………...……….............…..… 99
X. MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE …………….……………...………................................................…..… 100
A. Requisites of a Valid Marriage …….……………...……….............................................…..… 100
B. Effects of Marriage …….……………...………................................................................…..… 101
C. Rules on Marriage Celebrated Abroad ………...………...................................................…..… 101
D. Divorce ………………………………………...………...................................................…..… 102
1. US vs. Jarvison, 2005 ……....………...………...................................................…..… 103
2. Cook vs. Cook, 2005 ………………...………...................................................…..…. 103
3. Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015 ………...………...................................................…..…. 103
4. Langan vs. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 2005 ……....................................................…..…. 104
5. Tenchavez vs. Escano, 1965 ……......................................................................…...…. 104
6. Van Dorn vs. Romillo, 1985 ……......................................................................…...…. 105
7. San Luis vs. San Luis, 2007 ……......................................................................…...…. 106
8. Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, 1989 …......................................................................…...…. 106
9. Roehr vs. Rodriguez, 2003 …...........................................................................…...…. 107
10. Republic vs. Orbecido, 2005 …........................................................................…...…. 107
11. Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas, 2010 …........................................................................…...…. 108
12. Fujiki vs. Marinay, 2013 …......................................................................………...…. 109
13. Orion Savings Bank Vs. Shigekane Suzuki, 2014 ....................................………....…. 109
14. Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2018 ....................................…...…. 110
 XI. ADOPTION ...................................................................................................................................…...…. 111
A. Validity of Adoption, Governing Law .............................................................................…...…. 111
B. Domestic Adoption .............................................................................……….……………...…. 111
C. Foreign Adoptions .............................................................................………..……………...…. 114
D. Adoption by Resident or Non-Resident Alien ....................................………..………...…...…. 114
1. Ramirez Marcaida vs. Aglubat, 1962 ....................................………..………….....…. 115
2. Republic vs. Miller 1999 ....................................………..…………………...….....…. 116
XII. SUCCESSION AND WILLS ....................................………..…………………………………….....…. 116
A. Definition of Succession ....................................………..…………………...…....................…. 117
B. Types of Succession ....................................………..…………………...…...........................…. 117
C. Types of Wills, Requisites for Validity .............................………..…………………...….....…. 117
D. Conflict of Laws in Wills and Succession, Issues ...........................................………..….....…. 117
E. Conflict of Laws Rule in the Philippines ....................................………..…………………..…. 117
1. In the Matter of the Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen, Aznar vs. Garcia,
G.R. No. L-16749, 31 January 1963 ....................................………..………..........…. 119
2. Dalton vs. Giberson, 1952 ...................................................………..………..........…. 119
3. Miciano vs. Brimo, 1927 ...................................................………..……….............…. 120
4. Bohanan vs. Bohanan, 1960 .............................................………..……….............…. 121
XIII. CORPORATIONS .........................................................................................………..……….............…. 121
A. Corporations Defined ......................................................................………..……….............…. 121
B. How Organized ......................................................................………..………….….............…. 121
C. Powers of a Corporation .........................................................………..………….….............… 122
D. Domestic and Foreign Corporations .......................................………..………….….............… 122
E. State of Incorporation .......................................………………..……..………….….............… 122
F. Domicile of Corporations .......................................…………………..………….….............… 122
G. Residence of Corporations .....................................…………………..…………..….............… 123
H. Nationality of Corporations.....................................…………………..………….….............… 123
I. Conflicts Rule in Corporation Law ........................…………………..…………..….............… 123
J. Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations...................…………………..…………..….............… 124
K. Right of Foreign Corporation to Bring Suit ............…………………..…………..…............… 124
1. Cargill Inc. vs. Intra Strata Assurance, 2010 ……………….…………..…............… 124
2. Steelcase vs. Design International Selections Inc., 2012 …….…………..…..........… 124
3. State Investment House Inc. vs. Citibank, 1991 …….…………..….........................… 125
4. Rogers vs. Guaranty Trust Co., 1932 …….…………………………...…..…..........… 125
5. Western Air Lines Inc. vs. Sobieski, 1961 ….………………………...…..…............…126
6. Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. vs. Johnson, 1959 ………………...…..…..........… 127
7. Hyatt Elevators vs. Goldstar Elevators, 2005 ………………………...…..…..........… 127
8. Clavecilla Radio System vs. Antillon, 1967 ………………………...…..….............… 128
9. Tayag vs. Benguet Consolidated, 1968 ………………………...…..…………........… 128
10. Narra Nickel Mining and Dev’t Corp. vs. Redmont Consolidated, 2014 ..……........… 129
 11. Gamboa vs. Teves, 2011 ………………………...…..…………...............................… 130

XIV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ………………………...…..……………….……...............................… 130

A. Conflict in Intellectual Property Rights ………………………...…..………..........................… 130
B. Approaches to IP Conflicts of Law ………………..……...…..…………...............................… 130
1. Bridgeman Art Library vs. Corel Corp., 1999 …...…..………….............................… 131
2. Subafilms Ltd. vs. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 1994 …….............................… 132
3. Allarcom Pay Television vs. General Instrument Corp., 1995 …..............................… 133
4. Itar-Tass Russian News Agency vs. Russian Kurier Inc., 1988 …................................. 133
5. Sarl Louis Feraud Intern vs. Viewfinder Inc., 2007 ………………............................... 134
 GLOSSARY OF TERMS
● Comity- recognition in which one
nation allows, within its territory,
the legislative, executive or judicial
acts of another nation having regard
to both international duty and
convenience, rights of its citizens and
others persons under the protection
of its laws.
● Domiciliary Theory – in general, the
status, condition, rights, obligations,
& capacity of a person should be
governed by the law of his domicile.
● Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel-
issue preclusion by barring
re-litigation of an issue already
litigated in a prior proceeding.
● Doctrine of Forum non conveniens.
allows a court to dismiss a civil
action (even though the forum or
venue is proper and the court has
jurisdiction over the case and the
parties) where an appropriate and
more convenient alternative forum
exists in which to try the action.
● Doctrine of Processual Presumption
this rule means that when the proper
foreign law has not been properly
proved, the court of the forum may
presume that the said foreign law is
the same as its local or domestic law.
● Lex Domicilii – law of the domicile;
in conflicts, the law of one’s domicile
applied in the choice of law
questions
● Lex Fori – law of the forum; that is,
the positive law of the state, country
or jurisdiction of whose judicial
system of the court where the suit is
brought or remedy is sought is an
integral part. Substantive rights are
determined by the law where the
action arose (lex loci) while the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
procedural rights are governed by the
law of the place of the forum (lex
fori)
● Lex Loci – law of the place
● Lex Loci Contractus – the law of the
place where the contract was made
or law of the place where the
contract is to be governed (place of
performance) which may or may not
be the same as that of the place
where it was made
● Lex Loci Rei Sitae – law of the place
where the thing or subject matter is
situated; the title to realty or question
of real estate law can be affected
only by the law of the place where it
is situated
● Lex Situs – law of the place where
property is situated; the general rule
is that lands and other immovables
are governed by the law of the state
where they are situated
● Lex Loci Actus – law of the place
where the act was done
● Lex Loci Celebrationis – law of the
place where the contract is made
● Lex Loci Solutionis – law of the
place of solution; the law of the place
where payment or performance of a
contract is to be made
● Lex Loci Delicti Commissi – law of
the place where the crime took place
● Lex Mereatoria – law merchant;
commercial law; that system of laws
which is adopted by all commercial
nations and constitute as part of the
law of the land; part of common law
● Lex Non Scripta – the unwritten
common law, which includes general
and particular customs and particular
local laws
● Lex Patriae – national law
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 1
 ● Long Arm Statutes – Statutes
allowing the courts to exercise
jurisdiction when there are minimum
contacts between the non-resident
defendant and the forum.
● Nationality Theory – by virtue of
which the status and capacity of an
individual are generally governed by
the law of his nationality. This is
principally adopted in the
Philippines.
● Renvoi Doctrine – doctrine whereby
a jural matter is presented which the
conflict of laws rules of the forum
refer to a foreign law which in turn,
refers the matter back to the law of
the forum or a third state. When
reference is made back to the law of
the forum, this is said to be
“remission” while reference to a
third state is called “transmission”

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 2

I. INTRODUCTION
DEFINITION AND NATURE OF
CONFLICT OF LAWS
In a catena of cases decided by the U.S
Court, conflict of laws has been defined as:
-the law concerning the rights of persons
within the dominion and territory of one
nation,by reason of acts, private or public,
done within the dominion of another
nation. (Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 US 113, 1985)
Conflict of Laws is that part of the
municipal law of the state which directs
its courts and administrative agencies,
when confronted with a legal problem
involving a foreign element, whether or
not, they should apply a foreign law or
foreign laws. (Paras, Philippine Conflict of
Laws, 1996)
Private international law as those
universal principles of right and justice
which govern the courts of one state
having before them cases involving the
operation and effect of laws of another
state and country. (Minor, Conflict of Laws,
1901)
▪ Private international law is that part of law
which comes into play when the issue before
the court affects some fact or event, or
transaction that is so closely connected with
a foreign system of law as to necessitate
recourse to that system. (Cheshire, Private
International Law, 1947)
NATURE OF CONFLICT OF LAW
Municipal law or private law of each state
which regulates relations of individuals
among themselves or with their state.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
It is the law of the forum that furnishes the
yardstick for the presence or absence of
jurisdiction.
FUNCTION AND SCOPE OF
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Objectives of Conflict of Laws
- to provide rational and valid rules or
guidelines in deciding cases not only by
courts but also by administrative agencies
and public officers who are called upon to
act on a given situation where either or all
the parties, event or transaction are linked to
more than one jurisdiction.
FUNCTIONS: (Philippine Conflict of Laws
by Paras
▪ the determination of which country has
jurisdiction
▪ the applicability to a particular case of
either the local or the foreign law
▪ the determination of the force, validity and
effectiveness of a foreign judgment
FUNCTIONS: (Conflict of Laws by Coquia
& Pangalangan)
▪ to proscribe the conditions under which a
court or agency is competent to entertain a
suit or proceeding involving facts containing
a foreign element;
▪to determine the extent, validity and
enforceability of foreign judgment;
▪ to determine for each class of cases the
particular system of law by reference to
which the rights of the parties must be
ascertained.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 3
 BASIS PRIVATE PUBLIC because AT Stewart had given up their
INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL business in France. Guyot then sought to
LAW LAW enforce the foreign judgment in the federal
(CONFLICT OF district court of New york. The court held
LAWS) the judgment enforceable without retrial on
the merit. Hilton filed for an appeal in the
1. As to Municipal in International in US Supreme Court.
nature character character
ISSUE: Do laws have any effect, of their
As to Dealt by private Parties involved own force, beyond the limits of the
persons individuals are
involved sovereign states sovereignty from which its authority is
and other derived?
entities
possessed of an RULING:
international
personality No law has any effect, of its own force,
beyond the limits of the sovereignty from
As to Transactions are Transactions are which its authority is derived. Judgments
transaction private one entered into rendered in France, or in any foreign
s between private which generally country, by the laws of which our own
involved individuals affect public
judgments are reviewable upon the merits,
interest; those
which in general are not entitled to full credit and conclusive
are of interest effect when sued upon in this country, but
only to are prima facie evidence only of the justice
sovereign of the plaintiffs’ claim.
states
The court’s decision in Hilton v. Guyot
reflects the traditional Rule of Reciprocity.
As to Resort to Municipal Remedies may
According to this concept, foreign nation
remedies Tribunals be peaceful or
or forcible judgments were granted the same or
sanctions comparable treatment as American
judgments where the Court in Hilton found
that French was given by the judgment
HILTON VS. GUYOT, 159 US 113 (1895) nation. Since the courts would not have
enforced or executed a judgment rendered in
FACTS: this country, it therefore held that the French
judgment at issue should be non-conclusive
The parties in this case are Gustave Bertin here.
Guyot, a French national who served as the
official liquidator of the firm of Charles SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. CA,
Fortin & Co. against Henry Hilton and G.R. NO. 122191 (1998)
William Libbey, both are US citizens,
co-partners of A. T. Stewart & Co. The case FACTS:
arose when Fortin & Co. filed in France a Petitioner claims that before us is a conflict
complaint for collection of money against of laws that must be settled at the outset. It
AT Stewart & Co. The French Court ruled in maintains that the private respondent's claim
favor of Fortin however they failed to collect for alleged abuse of rights occurred in the

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 4
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It alleges that the
existence of a foreign element qualifies the
instant case for the application of the law of
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of
the lex loci delicti commissi rule (law of the
place where the delict [tort] was committed).
On the other hand, the private respondent
contends that since her Amended Complaint
is based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil
Code, the instant case is properly a matter of
domestic law.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine Law
should govern.
RULING:
A factual situation that cuts across territorial
lines and is affected by the diverse laws of
two or more states is said to contain a
"foreign element". The presence of a foreign
element is inevitable since social and
economic affairs of individuals and
associations are rarely confined to the
geographic limits of their birth or
conception. The foreign element consisted in
the fact that private respondent Morada is a
resident Philippine national, and that
petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign
corporation. Also, by virtue of the
employment of Morada with the petitioner
Saudi Arabian Airlines as a flight
stewardess, events did transpire during her
many occasions of travel across national
borders, particularly from Manila,
Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and
vice versa, that caused a "conflicts" situation
to arise. The private respondent's Amended
Complaint she asserted that her cause of
action on Articles 19 and 21 of the New
Civil Code.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
II. SOURCES OF PRIVATE
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Private International Law is that part of the
law of each state or nation which determines
whether, in dealing with a legal situation, the
law of some other state or nation will be
recognized, given effect or applied.
(Conflicts of law, Coquia 2000)
Private International Law principally
governs individuals in their private
transactions which involves a foreign
element. The sources of law are generally
derived from internal law of each state and
not from any “international” law extraneous
to municipal law. Private international law
governs individuals or corporations and the
transactions related to private transactions
between individuals. As to the remedies, all
the remedies are provided by municipal laws
of the state, such as resort to courts or
administrative tribunals. (Conflicts of law,
Coquia 2000)
A. DOMESTIC
1. The 1987 Philippine Constitution:
(Article IV; Article V, Sec.1; Article
XII, Sec.1 and Sec.2;)
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
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 5
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.
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.
ARTICLE V | Suffrage
SECTION 1. Suffrage may be exercised by
all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen
years of age, and who shall have resided in
the Philippines for at least one year and in
the place wherein they propose to vote for at
least six months immediately preceding the
election. No literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement shall be imposed on
the exercise of suffrage.
ARTICLE XII | National Economy and
Patrimony
SECTION 1. The goals of the national
economy are a more equitable distribution of
opportunities,
income, and wealth; a sustained increase in
the amount of goods and services produced
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
by the nation for the benefit of the people;
and an expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all, especially
the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and
full employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through
industries that make full and efficient use of
human and natural resources, and which are
competitive in both domestic and foreign
markets. However, the State shall protect
Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign
competition and trade practices. In the
pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the
economy and all regions of the country shall
be given optimum opportunity to develop.
Private enterprises, including corporations,
cooperatives, and similar collective
organizations, shall be encouraged to
broaden the base of their ownership.
SECTION 2. Section 2. All lands of the
public domain, waters, minerals, coal,
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces
of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State.
With the exception of agricultural lands, all
other natural resources shall not be
alienated. The exploration, development,
and utilization of natural resources shall be
under the full control and supervision of the
State. The State may directly undertake such
activities, or it may enter into co-production,
joint venture, or production-sharing
agreements with Filipino citizens, or
corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens. Such agreements may be for a
period not exceeding twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five
years, and under such terms and conditions
as may be provided by law. In cases of water
rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries,
or industrial uses other than the development
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 6
of water power, beneficial use may be the
measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation’s marine
wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and
reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to
Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale
utilization of natural resources by Filipino
citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and
fish workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements
with foreign-owned corporations involving
either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other
mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on
real contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the
development and use of local scientific and
technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of
every contract entered into in accordance
with this provision, within thirty days from
its execution.
2. The New Civil Code of the Philippines:
(Article 14 to 17; Article 815 to 819, 829,
1039, 1319 and 1753)
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
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.
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.
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 laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country.
ARTICLE 815. When a Filipino is in a
foreign country, he is 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 probated in the Philippines.
ARTICLE 816. The will of an alien who is
abroad produces effect in the Philippines if
made with the formalities prescribed by the
law of the place in which he resides, or
according to the formalities observed in his
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 7
country, or in conformity with those which
this Code prescribes.
ARTICLE 817. A will made in the
Philippines by a citizen or subject of another
country, which is executed in accordance
with the law of the country of which he is a
citizen or subject, and which might be
proved and allowed by the law of his own
country, shall have the same effect as if
executed according to the laws of 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.
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.
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.
ARTICLE 1039. Capacity to succeed is
governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.
ARTICLE 1319. Consent is manifested by
the meeting of the offer and the acceptance
upon the thing and the cause which are to
constitute the contract. The offer must be
certain and the acceptance absolute. A
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
qualified acceptance constitutes a
counter-offer.
Acceptance made by letter or telegram does
not bind the offerer except from the time it
came to his knowledge. The contract, in
such a case, is presumed to have been
entered into in the place where the offer was
made.
ARTICLE 1753. The law of the country to
which the goods are to be transported shall
govern the liability of the common carrier
for their loss, destruction or deterioration
3. The Family Code:
(Article 10, 21, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 80, 96,
184 and 187)
ARTICLE. 10. Marriages between Filipino
citizens abroad may be solemnized by a
consul general, consul or vice-consul of the
Republic of the Philippines. The issuance of
the marriage license and the duties of the
local civil registrar and of the solemnizing
officer with regard to the celebration of
marriage shall be performed by said
consular official.
ARTICLE 21. When either or both of the
contracting parties are citizens of a foreign
country, it shall be necessary for them before
a marriage license can be obtained, to
submit a certificate of legal capacity to
contract marriage, issued by their respective
diplomatic or consular officials.
Stateless persons or refugees from other
countries shall, in lieu of the certificate of
legal capacity herein required, submit an
affidavit stating the circumstances showing
such capacity to contract marriage.
ARTICLE 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,
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 8
shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4),
(5) and (6), 3637 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
(As amended by Executive Order 227)
ARTICLE 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)
ARTICLE 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
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of
the full or half blood.
ARTICLE 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;
(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.
ARTICLE 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.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 9
Enjoyment And Disposition Of The
Community Property
ARTICLE 96. The administration and
enjoyment of the community property shall
belong to both spouses jointly. In case of
disagreement, the husband’s decision shall
prevail, subject to recourse to the court by
the wife for proper remedy, which must be
availed of within five years from the date of
the contract implementing such a decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated
or otherwise unable to participate in the
administration of the common properties,
the other spouse may assume sole powers of
administration. These powers do not include
disposition or encumbrance without
authority of the court or the written consent
of the other spouse. In the absence of such
authority or consent, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void. However, the
transaction shall be construed as a
continuing offer on the part of the
consenting spouse and the third person, and
may be perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the offer is
withdrawn by either or both offerors.
ARTICLE 184. The following persons may
not adopt:
(1) The guardian with respect to the ward
prior to the approval of the final accounts
rendered upon the termination of their
guardianship relation;
(2) Any person who has been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude;
(3) An alien, except:
(a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to
adopt a relative by consanguinity;
(b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate
child of his or her Filipino spouse; or
(c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen
and seeks to adopt jointly with his or her
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
spouse a relative by consanguinity of the
latter.
Aliens not included in the foregoing
exceptions may adopt Filipino children in
accordance with the rules on inter-country
adoptions as may be provided by law.(28a,
E. O. 91 and PD 603)
ARTICLE 187. The following may not be
adopted:
(1) A person of legal age, unless he or she is
a child by nature of the adopter or his or her
spouse, or, prior to the adoption, said person
has been consistently considered and treated
by the adopter as his or her own child during
the minority.
(2) An alien with whose government the
Republic of the Philippines has no
diplomatic relations;
(3) A person who has already been adopted
unless such adoption has been previously
revoked or rescinded. (30a, E. O. 91 and PD
603)
4. The 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;
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 10
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.
5. The Corporation Code:
(Secs.123, 129 and 133; RA7042 Sec.3(d))
SECTION. 123. Definition and rights of
foreign corporations. - For the purposes of
this Code, a foreign corporation is one
formed, organized or existing under any
laws other than those of the Philippines and
whose laws allow Filipino citizens and
corporations to do business in its own
country or state.
It shall have the right to transact business in
the Philippines after it shall have obtained a
license to transact business in this country in
accordance with this Code and a certificate
of authority from the appropriate
government agency.
SECTION 129. Law applicable. - Any
foreign corporation lawfully doing business
in the Philippines shall be bound by all laws,
rules and regulations applicable to domestic
corporations of the same class, except such
only as provide for the creation, formation,
organization or dissolution of corporations
or those which fix the relations, liabilities,
responsibilities, or duties of stockholders,
members, or officers of corporations to each
other or to the corporation.
SECTION 133. Doing business without a
license. - No foreign corporation transacting
business in the Philippines without a license,
or its successors or assigns, shall be
permitted to maintain or intervene in any
action, suit or proceeding in any court or
administrative agency of the Philippines; but
such corporation may be sued or proceeded
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
against before Philippine courts or
administrative tribunals on any valid cause
of action recognized under Philippine laws.
SECTION 3. Definitions. - As used in this
Act:
d) The praise "doing business" shall include
soliciting orders, service contracts, opening
offices,whether called "liaison" offices or
branches; appointing representatives or
distributors domiciled in the Philippines or
who in any calendar year stay in the country
for a period or periods totalling one hundred
eighty (180) days or more; participating in
the management, supervision or control of
any domestic business, firm, entity or
corporation in the Philippines; and any other
act or acts that imply a continuity of
commercial dealings or arrangements, and
contemplate to that extent the performance
of acts or works, or the exercise of some of
the functions normally incident to, and in
progressive prosecution of, commercial gain
or of the purpose and object of the business
organization: Provided, however, That the
phrase "doing business: shall not be deemed
to include mere investment as a shareholder
by a foreign entity in domestic corporations
duly registered to do business, and/or the
exercise of rights as such investor; nor
having a nominee director or officer to
represent its interests in such corporation;
nor appointing a representative or distributor
domiciled in the Philippines which transacts
business in its own name and for its own
account.
6. The 2019 Revised Rules of Court:
(Rule 4, Sec. 2; Rule 8, Sec. 6; Rule 11, Sec.
2; Rule 14, Sec. 12, 14, 15, and 16; Rule23,
Secs. 11 and 12; Rule 39, Sec. 48; Rule 73,
Sec. 1; Rule 77, Sec. 1; Rule 92, Sec. 1; Rule
131, Sec. 3(n); Rule 132, Secs. 19(a), 24,
and 25)
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 11
RULE 4, 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.(2[b]a)
RULE 8, 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. (6a)
RULE 11, 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. (2a)
RULE 14 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 in house
counsel of the corporation wherever 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
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
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. (11a)
SECTION 13. Duty of counsel of record.
– Where the summons is improperly served
and a lawyer makes a special appearance on
behalf of the defendant to, among others,
question the validity of service of summons,
the counsel shall be deputized by the court
to serve summons on his or her client. (n)
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;
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 12
(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. (12a)
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. (13a)
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. (14a)
RULE 23, 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
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
(c) the person referred to in Section 14
hereof. (11)
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. (12)
RULE 39, 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. (50a)
RULE 73, SECTION 1. Where estate of
deceased persons settled. — If the
decedents 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
settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 13
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.
RULE 77, 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.
RULE 92. 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.
RULE 131, SECTION 3(N); Disputable
presumptions. – (n) That a court, or judge
acting as such, whether in the Philippines or
elsewhere, was acting in the lawful exercise
of jurisdiction.
RULE 132, SECTION 19. Classes of
documents. – For the purpose of their
presentation in evidence, documents are
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
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;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a
notary public except last wills and
testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public
documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines
and the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private. (19a)
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 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
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 14
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.
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. (24a)
SECTION 25. What attestation of copy
must state. – Whenever a copy of a
document or record is attested for the
purpose of evidence, the attestation must
state, in substance, that the copy is a correct
copy of the original, or a specific part
thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the
attesting officer, if there be any, or if he or
she be the clerk of a court having a seal,
under the seal of such court. (25a)
B. INTERNATIONAL
1. Statutes Of Hague Convention
Conference On PRIL
▪ The Hague Conference is an increasingly
interdependent world.
▪ In a recently drawn up strategic plan, we
formulated our mission as follows:
▪ To be a forum for the Member States for
the development and implementation of
common rules of private international law in
order to coordinate the relationships
between different private law systems in
international situations.
▪ To promote international judicial and
administrative co-operation in the fields of
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
protection of the family and children, civil
procedure and commercial law.
The Hague Conference On Private
International Law
▪ To provide high-standard legal services
and technical assistance for the benefit of
Member States and States Parties to Hague
Conventions, their government officials,
judiciary and practitioners.
▪ To provide high-quality and readily
accessible information to Member States
and States Parties to Hague Conventions,
their government officials, judiciary,
practitioners and the public in general. This
mission should be seen against the
background of a rapid growth of the
Organization, and of the numbers of parties
to Hague Conventions.
2. Convention On The Jurisdiction Of
The Selected Forum In The Case Of
International Sales Of Goods
▪ Forms the basis for a widely accepted body
of international sales law.
▪ Better shot at getting contracts enforced
internationally in case of a breach.
▪ Protection for those who forgot to put a
Choice of Law provision in the contract.
3. Convention On The Settlement
Of The Conflicts Between The Law Of
Nationality And The Law Of Domicile.
▪ Being convinced that it is in the general
interest of the international community to
secure that all its members should recognize
that every person should have a nationality
and should have one nationality only;
▪ Recognizing accordingly that the ideal
towards which the efforts of humanity
should be directed in this domain is the
abolition of all cases both of statelessness
and of double nationality;
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 15
▪ Being of opinion that, under the economic
and social conditions which at present exist
in the various countries, it is not possible to
reach immediately a uniform solution of all
the above-mentioned problems;
▪ Being desirous, nevertheless, as a first step
toward this great achievement, of settling in
a first attempt at progressive codification,
those questions relating to the conflict of
nationality laws on which it is possible at the
present time to reach international
agreement,
4. Convention On The Recognition
Of The Legal Personality Of Foreign
Companies, Associations, And
Institutions
▪ In both public and private international
law, it is the nation-state that grants or
denies recognition. In public international
law, the "recognizing" nation-state expresses
"a value judgment acknowledging that a
given fact situation is in accord with the
exigencies of the international legal order."
In private international law (or conflict of
laws), on the other hand, the "recognizing"
nation-state agrees to extend to its own
system certain legal effects attributed to a
factual situation in the legal system of
another nation-state. (Conflict of Laws
Rules by Treaty: Recognition Of Companies
In A Regional Market: Eric Stein)
C. JUDICIAL DECISIONS
• Most important source of conflict of
laws rules are decisions of courts.
• Private International Law is more
completely judge-made than almost any
other branch of law.
• In the Philippines: judicial decisions
undoubtedly form the main bulk of source
of conflict rules.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Article 8 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines provides that ‘judicial decisions
applying to or interpreting the laws, or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal
system of the Philippines’. Only decisions of
its Supreme Court establish jurisprudence
and are binding on all other courts.
D. THE CONSTITUTION
▪ The fundamental and supreme law of the
land.
Statutes – including Acts of
Congress, municipal charters, municipal
legislation, court rules, administrative rules
and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuances.
What are the sources of Conflict of Laws?
DIRECT SOURCES: Bilateral and
multilateral treaties and international
conventions; constitutions; codifications and
statutes; judicial decisions; and international
customs.
INDIRECT SOURCES: the same as other
branches of law among others, the natural
moral law and the writings and treaties of
thinkers and famous writers and jurists on
the subject.
III. CHOICE OF FORUM
A. DEFINITION OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of
the court to hear, try and decide a case.
Judicial jurisdiction is the power or
authority of a court to try a case, render
judgment and execute it in accordance with
law.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 16
 instituting an action through proper
Legislative jurisdiction which is the ability pleading.
of the state to promulgate laws and enforce
them on all persons and property within its b. Jurisdiction over the person of the
territory. defendant is acquired through.;
i .Voluntary appearance where action is in
B. JURISDICTION V. VENUE personam. (Rules Of Court, Rule 14 Sec 23)
ii. Coercive process through personal or
JURISDICTION VENUE substituted service of summons where action
is a personam (Rules Of Court,Rule 14,
Refers to the authority The place where Secs 5 And 6)
of the court to hear, try the case is
and decide a case. instituted, heard or iii. Constructive Service by Publication
tried. where the identity/whereabouts of defendant
is unknown (Rules Of Court, Rule 14,
Jurisdiction over It may be waived.
Sec.16)
subject matter is The waiver may be
conferred by law and expressed or iv. Extra- territorial Service ( Rules Of
cannot be waived. implied, i.e., failure Court, Rule 14, Secs 17 And 18)
to object thereto
whether through a v. Service upon a foreign private judicial
motion to dismiss entities which has transacted business in the
or an answer raising Philippines through its resident agent
said affirmative designated in accordance with that purpose,
defense. or if none, the government official
It is fixed by law and It may be changed designated by law to that effect, or any of its
cannot be subject of by the written officers, agents, directors or trustees within
agreement of parties. agreement of the the Philippines. If the foreign private
parties juridical entity is not registered in the
Philippines, or has no resident agent but has
Lack of jurisdiction It is not a ground transacted or is doing business in it, as
over subject matter may for a motu propio defined by law, such service may, with leave
be a ground for motu dismissal except in
of court, be effected outside of the
propio dismissal. summary
procedure. Philippines through any of the following
means;
Substantive Procedural
1. By personal service coursed through
the appropriate court in the foreign
C. ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION
country with the assistance of the
1. Jurisdiction over the person- department of foreign affairs.
a. Jurisdiction over the person of the 2. By publication once in a newspaper
plaintiff is acquired from the moment he of general circulation in the country
invokes the aid or power of the court by where the defendant may be found
and by serving a copy of the

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 17
 summons and the court order
by registered mail at the last known
address of the defendant.
3. By facsimile
4. By electronic means with the
prescribed proof of service; or
5. By electronic means as the court in its
discretion, may direct (Rules of Court Rule
14, Sec 14)
2. Jurisdiction over the res-
Jurisdiction over the res (thing or property)
is acquired by the court over the property or
thing in contest, and is obtained by seizure
under legal process of the court. This may
result either from the seizure of the thing
under legal process whereby it is brought
into actual custody of law, or institution of
legal proceedings whereby the power of the
court over the thing is recognized and made
effective.
3. Jurisdiction over the
subject matter- Jurisdiction over the subject
matter of a complaint is conferred by law.
It cannot be lost through waiver or estoppel.
It can be raised at any time in the
proceedings, whether during trial or on
appeal. The basic rule is that the jurisdiction
of a court over the subject matter is
determined from the allegations in the
complaint, the law in force at the time the
complaint is filed, and the character of the
relief sought, irrespective of whether the
plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims averred.
4. Jurisdiction over foreign
Corporations- The Philippines adhere to the
internal affairs rule. Thus, Section 146’ of
the Revised Corporation Code of the
Philippines states:
SEC. 146. Law Applicable. - A foreign
corporation lawfully doing business in the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Philippines shall be bound by all laws, rules
and regulations applicable to domestic
corporations of the same class, except such
only as provide for the creation, formation,
organization or dissolution of corporations
or those which fix the relations, liabilities,
responsibilities, or duties of stockholders,
members, or officers of corporations to each
other or to the corporation.
In a nutshell, Section 146 tells us that
Philippine laws shall apply to foreign
corporations except only to matters relating
to the "creation, formation, organization or
dissolution of corporations or those which
fix the relations, liabilities, responsibilities,
or duties of stockholders, members, or
officers of corporations to each other or to
the corporation."
GEMPERLE VS. SCHENKER, 19 SCRA
45 (1967)
FACTS: This is an appeal taken by plaintiff,
William F. Gemperle, from a decision of the
Court of First Instance of Rizal dismissing
this case for lack of jurisdiction over the
person of defendant Paul Schenker and for
want of cause of action against his wife and
co-defendant, Helen Schenker because he is
beyond the reach of the magistracy of the
Philippine courts." Paul Schenker, acting
through his wife and attorney-in-fact, Helen
Schenker filed a complaint with the Court of
First Instance of Rizal against herein
plaintiff William F. Gemperle for the
enforcement of Schenker's allegedly initial
subscription to the shares of stock of the
Philippines-Swiss Trading Co., Inc. and the
exercise of his alleged pre-emptive rights to
the then unissued original capital stock of
said corporation and the increase thereof, as
well as for an accounting and damages.
Alleging that, in connection with said
complaint, Mrs. Schenker had caused to be
published some allegations thereof and other
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 18
matters, which were impertinent, irrelevant
and immaterial to said case No. Q-2796,
aside from being false and derogatory to the
reputation, good name and credit of
Gemperle, "with the only purpose of
attacking" his" honesty, integrity and
reputation" and of bringing him "into public
hatred, discredit, disrepute and contempt as
a man and a businessman", Gemperle
commenced the present action against the
Schenkers for the recovery of damages,
attorney's fees, and costs, in addition to
praying for a judgment ordering Mrs.
Schenker "to retract in writing the said
defamatory expressions". In due course,
thereafter, the lower court dismissed the
case. A reconsideration was filed but the
same was denied. Thus, Gemperle
interposed the present appeal.
ISSUE:Whether or not the lower court had
acquired jurisdiction over the person of
Schenker.
HELD: YES. While admittedly, Schenker, a
Swiss citizen, residing in Zurich,
Switzerland, has not been actually served
with summons in the Philippines.
Nevertheless, we hold that the lower court
had acquired jurisdiction over said
defendant, through service of the summons
addressed to him upon Mrs. Schenker, it
appears from said answer that she is the
representative and attorney-in-fact of her
husband aforementioned civil case No.
Q-2796, which apparently was filed at her
behest, in her aforementioned representative
capacity. In other words, Mrs. Schenker had
authority to sue, and had actually sued on
behalf of her husband, so that she was, also,
empowered to represent him in suits filed
against him, particularly in a case, like the of
the one at bar, which is consequence of the
action brought by her on his behalf.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from
should be, is hereby, reversed, and the case
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
remanded to the lower court for
proceedings, with the costs of this instance
defendants-appellees. It is so ordered
INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. VS.
WASHINGTON, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
FACTS: Defendant was an out of state
company that employed salesmen within the
state of Washington. Washington sued
Defendant to recover unpaid unemployment
taxes and served Defendant in two ways: (1)
by mail and (2) by serving one of its
salesmen within the state. Defendant
appealed from a verdict for Washington,
claiming that Washington had no personal
jurisdiction over Defendant.
ISSUE: Is service of process upon
Defendant’s agent sufficient notice when the
corporation’s activities result in a large
volume of interstate business so that the
corporation receives the protection of the
laws of the state and the suit is related to the
activities which make the corporation
present?
HELD: YES. The general rule is that in
order to have jurisdiction with someone
outside the state, the person must have
certain minimum contacts with it such that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend
“traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. For a corporation, the
“minimum contacts” required are not just
continuous and systematic activities but also
those that give rise to the liabilities sued on.
Defendant could have sued someone in
Washington. It was afforded the protection
of the laws of that state, and therefore it
should be subject to suit.
In order for a state to exercise personal
jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant
must have such minimum contacts with the
state so that exercising jurisdiction over the
defendant would not offend “traditional
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 19
notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
SHAFFER VS. HEITNER, 433 U.S. 186
(1977)
FACTS: Plaintiff, a stockholder for
Greyhound Corp., a company incorporated
in Delaware with its principal place of
business in Arizona, sued Greyhound Corp.,
Greyhound Lines, Inc., (a subsidiary of
Greyhound Corp.) and present and former
officers of the two companies for violating
duties to Greyhound Corp. by causing it to
be liable for damages in an antitrust suit and
a fine in a criminal contempt action in
Oregon. Plaintiff filed a motion for
sequestration of the officers’ stock. Under a
Delaware statute, Delaware is the site of all
stock in Delaware corporations. The stock
was seized. Defendants were notified by
certified mail of the sequestration and notice
was published in a Delaware newspaper.
Defendants entered a special appearance so
they could move to quash service of process
and vacate the sequestration order.
Defendant argued that the order violated due
process and therefore the property could not
be attached in Delaware.
In addition, Defendants argued that they did
not have the minimum contacts with
Delaware required to establish jurisdiction
under International Shoe Co. v. Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95
(1945). Moreover, Defendants argued that
the sequestration procedures were
inconsistent with the Sniadach cases (see
Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S.
337, 89 S.Ct. 1820, 23 L.Ed.2d 349 (1969).
The Court of Chancery found for Plaintiff
and the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed
the Court of Chancery. The Supreme Court
of Delaware reasoned that the Sniadach
cases involved default judgments and not
compelling a party to appear. This court
further reasoned that sequestration
procedures help to adjudicate claims of
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
mismanagement against Delaware
companies, and do not cause permanent
deprivation of property to their shareholders.
Defendants appealed.
ISSUE: In order for the forum state to
exercise in rem jurisdiction on a nonresident,
must the nonresident have minimum
contacts with the forum state such that the
defendant has purposefully availed itself of
the benefits of that state’s laws? If so, must
the cause of action be sufficiently related to
the contacts the nonresident has with the
forum state?
HELD: Yes to both. Judgment reversed. In
rem is not a proceeding against the property,
it is a proceeding against a person’s interest
in the property. You need to give an owner
of property reasonable and appropriate
notice of an in rem proceeding so that he or
she recognizes that such a proceeding
directly affects his or her interests. Having
property in a state does not give the state
jurisdiction over causes of action unrelated
to the property unless the person also passes
the minimum contacts test articulated in the
International Shoe decision. If it is
unconstitutional to exercise jurisdiction over
the person directly then it should be
unconstitutional to assert jurisdiction
indirectly. Plaintiff’s argument that Delaware
has an interest in asserting jurisdiction over
corporate fiduciaries is not established by
Delaware law.
Delaware law determines that it has
jurisdiction over Defendants because
Defendants’ property is in Delaware; and
not due to their status as corporate
fiduciaries. First, the statute authorizing
jurisdiction does not specifically apply to
stockholder derivative actions. Moreover,
Plaintiff’s inability to secure jurisdiction
over seven of the defendants because they
didn’t have property in Delaware shows that
there is no necessary relationship between
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 20
corporate fiduciaries and stockholders. In
addition, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
Delaware is a fair forum. Plaintiff must
demonstrate more than the applicability of
Delaware’s laws to the controversy to
establish a basis for jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s
argument that Defendants have received
benefits from Delaware laws only
demonstrates that it would be appropriate for
Delaware law to govern obligations between
Defendant and stockholders. This argument
does not require that Delaware be permitted
to exercise jurisdiction, especially
considering its lack of a long-arm statute.
PERKINS VS. ROXAS, 72 PHIL. 514
(1941)
FACTS: July 5, 1938, respondent Eugene
Perkins filed a complaint in the CFI- Manila
against the Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company for the recovery of a sum
consisting of dividends which have been
declared and made payable on shares of
stock registered in his name, payment of
which was being withheld by the company,
and for the recognition of his right to the
control and disposal of said shares to the
exclusion of all others. The company
alleged, by way of defense, that the
withholding of plaintiff’s right to the
disposal and control of the shares was due to
certain demands made with respect to said
shares by the petitioner Idonah Perkins, and
by one Engelhard.
Idonah Perkins filed a demurrer thereto on
the ground that “the court has no jurisdiction
of the subject of the action,” because the
alleged judgment of the SC of the State of
New York is res judicata. Petitioner’s
demurrer was overruled, thus this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the local court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
action.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
HELD: NO. By jurisdiction over the subject
matter is meant the nature of the cause of
action and of the relief sought, and this is
conferred by the sovereign authority which
organizes the court, and is to be sought for
in general nature of its powers, or in
authority specially conferred.
Idonah Slade Perkins in her cross-complaint
brought suit against Eugene Arthur Perkins
and the Benguet Consolidated Mining
Company upon the alleged judgment of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York and
asked the court below to render judgment
enforcing that New York judgment, and to
issue execution thereon. This is a form of
action recognized by section 309 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (now section 47,
Rule 39, Rules of Court) and which falls
within the general jurisdiction of the Court
of First Instance of Manila, to adjudicate,
settle and determine.
The petitioner expresses the fear that the
respondent judge may render judgment
"annulling the final, subsisting, valid
judgment rendered and entered in this
petitioner's favor by the courts of the State
of New York, ... which decision is res
judicata on all the questions constituting the
subject matter of civil case No. 53317," and
argues on the assumption that the respondent
judge is without jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the cause. Whether or not the
respondent judge in the course of the
proceedings will give validity and efficacy to
the New York judgment set up by the
petitioner in her cross-complaint is a
question that goes to the merits of the
controversy and relates to the rights of the
parties as between each other, and not to the
jurisdiction or power of the court. The test
of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal
has power to enter upon the inquiry, not
whether its conclusion in the course of it is
right or wrong. If its decision is erroneous,
its judgment can be reversed on appeal; but
its determination of the question, which the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 21
petitioner here anticipates and seeks to
prevent, is the exercise by that court — and
the rightful exercise — of its jurisdiction.
MACASAET ET AL. VS. CO JR., (G.R.
NO. 156759, 5 JUNE 2013)
FACTS: Co, Jr. sued Abante Tonite, a daily
tabloid of general circulation and its
managing director, circulation manager,
editors, and columnist reports (respondents)
claiming damages because of an allegedly
libelous article petitioners published in the
June 6, 2000 issue of Abante Tonite. The
suit was raffled to Branch 51 of the RTC,
which in due course issued summons to be
served on each defendant, including Abante
Tonite, at their business address at Monica
Publishing Corporation, Intramuros, Manila.
RTC Sheriff Raul Medina proceeded to the
stated address to effect the personal service
of the summons on the defendants but were
futile; they were then out of the office and
unavailable. He returned in the afternoon of
that day to make a second attempt at serving
the summons, but he was informed that
petitioners were still out of the office. He
decided to resort to substituted service of the
summons, and explained why in his sheriff’s
return. Petitioners moved for the dismissal
of the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction
over their persons because of the invalid and
ineffectual substituted service of summons.
RTC denied the motion to dismiss, and
directed petitioners to file their answers to
the complaint within the remaining period
allowed by the Rules of Court. Considering
that summons cannot be served within a
reasonable time to the persons of all the
defendants, hence substituted service of
summonses was validly applied (Secretary
of the President, wife of defendant and
editorial staff). Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied by the
RTC. Petitioners brought a petition for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus in the CA
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
to nullify the orders of the RTC which were
respectively dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not jurisdiction over the
petitioners has been acquired.
HELD: Yes. Jurisdiction over the person, or
jurisdiction in personam –the power of the
court to render a personal judgment or to
subject the parties in a particular action to
the judgment and other rulings rendered in
the action – is an element of due process that
is essential in all actions, civil as well as
criminal, except in actions in rem or quasi in
rem. Jurisdiction over the defendant in an
action in rem or quasi in rem is not required,
and the court acquires jurisdiction over an
action as long as it acquires jurisdiction over
the res that is the subject matter of the
action. The purpose of summons in such
action is not the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the defendant but mainly to satisfy the
constitutional requirement of due process.
VELAYO-FONG VS. SPOUSES
VELAYO, (G.R. NO. 155488, 6
DECEMBER 2006)
FACTS:Spouses Raymond and Maria Hedy
Velayo filed a complaint for collection of
sum of money against Velayo-Fong for
maliciously instituting a criminal complaint
before the NBI and a petition before the
SEC which prevented the respondents from
leaving the country and paralyzed the their
business transactions. In the complaint,
Spouses Velayo alleged that Velayo-Fong
was a resident of Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Since Velayo-Fong was a non-resident and
not found in the Philippines, Spouses
Velayo-Fong prayed for a writ to attach
Velayo-Fong’s properties found in the
Philippines.
However, before the application for the writ
can be acted upon by the RTC, Spouses
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 22
Velayo filed an Urgent Motion praying that
the summons be served to Velayo-Fong at
her Two Condominium Suites. One at Roxas
Boulevard, Pasay City and another, at
Burgos Street, T. Towers Condominium,
Makati. Subsequently, the RTC granted the
said motion.
Then, the Process Server indicated on his
Officers Return that after several failed
attempts to serve the copy of summons and
complaints issued at the given addresses of
Velayo-Fong, finally, the Process Server was
able to serve personally the summon
together with the copy of the complaint
upon Velayo-Fong, not at her two addresses
but at the lobby of a hotel, right in the
presence of a lobby counter personnel but
Velayo-Fong refused to sign in receipt
thereof. RTC in its Order declared
Velayo-Fong in default for failure to file an
answer.
ISSUE: How may service of summons be
effected on a non-resident?
HELD: Under Sec. 17, Rule nd14 of the
Rules of Court, when the defendant is a
nonresident and he is not found in the
country, summons may be served
extraterritorially. This kind of service of
summons applies only where the action is in
rem because in rem and quasi in rem
actions, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer
jurisdiction on the court provided that the
court acquires jurisdiction over the res.
Where the action is in personam and when
the defendant is a non-resident, personal
service of summons within the state is
essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction
over the person. This cannot be done,
however, if the defendant is not physically
present in the country, and thus, the court
cannot acquire jurisdiction over his person
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
and therefore cannot validly try and decide
the case against him.
In the present case, Spouses Velayo’s cause
of action and their prayer that actual and
moral damages, plus attorney’s fees, be
awarded in their favor affect the parties
alone, not the whole world. Any judgment
therein is binding only upon the parties
properly impleaded. Thus, it is an action in
personam. As such, personal service of
summons upon the defendants is essential in
order for the court to acquire jurisdiction
over their persons.
SAN PEDRO VS. ONG ET AL., (G.R.
NO. 177598, 17 OCTOBER 2008)
FACTS: San Pedro purchased from the
spouses Guillermo Narciso and Brigida
Santiago (spouses Narciso) two parcels of
land as evidenced by Deeds of Sale executed
in his favor by the spouses Narciso on 8
April 1996
San Pedro inquired with the Registry of
Deeds of Bulacan as to the status of his
application for the issuance in his name of
new TCTs for the subject properties. He was
surprised to find out, however, that the
subject properties were still registered in the
names of the Narciso spouses and were
mortgaged to Willy Ong. San Pedro filed
with the RTC on 7 May 1999 a Petition for
Nullification of Mortgage with Damages
against the spouses Narciso, Dela Peña,
Landayan, Ong, and Caballes... spouses
Narciso admitted to selling the subject
properties to San Pedro, and denied
authorizing the mortgage of the same to
Ong. Their signatures on the SPAs were
fraudulently secured by Dela Peña who
misrepresented to them that such a
document was necessary to facilitate the
transfer of the TCTs of the subject
properties to San Pedro. The spouses
Narciso denied that they participated in or
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 23
benefited from the loan obligation obtained
by Dela Peña from Ong. On 14 May 1991,
the RTC issued summons to spouses
Narciso, Dela PeNA, Landayan, Ong, and
Caballes, directing them to file their
Answers to San Pedro's Petition in Civil
Case No. 515-M-99. On the same day, the
Sheriff served the summons on all concerned
as evidenced by the Sheriff's Return.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case filed
by San Pedro.
HELD:YES. Given that the case at bar is an
action for quieting of title, settled to be
quasi in rem, the RTC was not required to
acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants, it being sufficient for the said
court to acquire jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the case. By San Pedro's institution
of Civil Case No. 515-M-99, the RTC
already acquired jurisdiction over the subject
properties - the res. Therefore, the service of
summons to the defendants in said case,
including Dela Pena, did not affect the
jurisdiction of the RTC to hear and decide
Civil Case No. 515-M-99, and did not
invalidate the proceedings held therein on
the basis of jurisdiction.
FRENCH OIL MILL MACHINERY CO.
INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, (G.R.
NO. 126477, 11 SEPTEMBER 1998)
FACTS: Complaint alleged that defendant
French Oil Mill Machinery (FOMMCO) is a
corporation with principal office at, Piqua,
Ohio, United States of America, engaged in
business in the Philippines through its agent
Trans-World Trading Company. FOMMCO
may be served with summons and other
court processes through its agent,
Trans-World Trading Company. Defendant
Trans-World Trading Company
(Trans-World) is the agent of FOMMCO in
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
the Philippines, with office at Don Pablo
Building, 144 Amorsolo St., Makati, Metro
Manila, where it may be served with
summons and other court processes.
Summons was served on Trans-World which
moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that
it is not the petitioner's agent. Petitioner filed
a special appearance with motion to dismiss
contending the court had no jurisdiction over
its person due to improper service of
summons. It argued that:
(a) it is not doing business in the
Philippines and
(b) Trans-World is not its agent,
therefore the procedure in Sections
14[2] and 17 [3], Rule 14 should
have been observed.
The court a quo initially dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over
petitioner.
ISSUE: Is the service of summons proper?
HELD: YES. The service of summons is
proper. Under the Rules of Court, if the
defendant is a foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines, summons may
be served on (a) its resident agent designated
in accordance with law; (b) if there is no
resident agent, the government official
designated by law to that effect, or (c) any of
its officer or agent within the Philippines.
Here, the private respondent alleged in its
complaint that Trans-World is petitioners
agent, so that the service was made on the
latter. Such general allegation is insufficient
to show the agency relationship between
petitioner and Trans-World. However,
although there is no requirement to first
substantiate the allegation of agency yet it is
necessary that there must be specific
allegations in the complaint that establishes
the connection between the principal foreign
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 24
corporation and its alleged agent with
respect to the transaction in question.
PIONEER INTERNATIONAL LTD VS.
HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ JR. ET AL.,
(G.R. NO. 156848, 11 OCTOBER 2007)
FACTS: Antonio D. Todaro (Todaro) filed a
complaint for sum of money and damages
with preliminary attachment against PIL,
Pioneer Concrete Philippines, Inc. (PCPI),
Pioneer Philippines Holdings, Inc. (PPHI),
John G. McDonald (McDonald), and Philip
J. Klepzig (Klepzig). PIL and its
co-defendants were served copies of the
summons and of the complaint at PPHI and
PCPI’s office in Alabang, Muntinlupa,
through Cecille L. De Leon (De Leon), who
was Klepzig’s Executive Assistant. Todaro
alleged that PIL is a corporation duly
organized under Australian laws, while PCPI
and PPHI are corporations duly organized
under Philippine laws. PIL is engaged in the
ready-mix and concrete aggregates business
and has established a presence worldwide.
PIL established PPHI as the holding
company of the stocks of its operating
company in the Philippines, PCPI.
McDonald is the Chief Executive Officer of
PIL’s Hong Kong office while Klepzig is the
President and Managing Director of PPHI
and PCPI. For his part, Todaro further
alleged that he was the managing director of
Betonval Readyconcrete, Inc. (Betonval)
from June 1975 up to his resignation in
February 1996.
ISSUE:(1) Whether or not the trial court has
acquired jurisdiction over the person of PIL,
despite its claim that it is a foreign
corporation “not doing business” in the
Philippines.
(2) Whether or not the trial court has
acquired jurisdiction over the person of PIL
since the summons was improperly served.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
HELD: (1) Yes. Section 12, Rule 14 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides the
manner by which summons may be served
upon a foreign juridical entity which has
transacted business in the Philippines.
“Service upon foreign private juridical
entity.—When the defendant is a foreign
juridical entity which has transacted
business in the Philippines, 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
any of its officers or agents within the
Philippines.” As to the first issue, PIL insists
that its sole act of “transacting” or “doing
business” in the Philippines consisted of its
investment in PPHI. Under Philippine law,
PIL’s mere investment in PPHI does not
constitute “doing business.” The Supreme
Court declared that, based on the allegations
in Todaro’s complaint, PIL was doing
business in the Philippines when it
negotiated Todaro’s employment with PPHI.
(2) NO. When summons is served on a
foreign juridical entity, there are three
prescribed ways: (1) service on its resident
agent designated in accordance with law for
that purpose, (2) service on the government
official designated by law to receive
summons if the corporation does not have a
resident agent, and (3) service on any of the
corporation’s officers or agents within the
Philippines.In the present case, service of
summons on PIL failed to follow any of the
prescribed processes. PIL had no resident
agent in the Philippines. Summons was not
served on the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the designated
government agency, since PIL is not
registered with the SEC. Summons for PIL
were served on De Leon, Klepzig’s
Executive Assistant. Klepzig is PIL’s “agent
within the Philippines” because PIL
authorized Klepzig to notify Todaro of the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 25
cessation of his consultancy. However,
summons was not served personally on
Klepzig as agent of PIL. Instead, summons
were served on De Leon, Klepzig’s
Executive Assistant. In this instance, De
Leon was not PIL’s agent but a mere
employee of Klepzig.
MANOTOC VS. CA ET AL., (G.R. NO.
130974, 16 AUGUST 2006)
FACTS: Based on paragraph two of the
Complaint, the trial court issued a Summons
addressed to petitioner at Alexandra Homes,
E2 Room 104, at No. 29 Meralco Avenue,
Pasig City. The Summons and a copy of the
Complaint were allegedly served upon (Mr.)
Macky de la Cruz, an alleged caretaker of
the petitioner at the condominium unit
mentioned earlier. When the petitioner failed
to file her Answer, the trial court declared
her in default. Petitioner, filed a Motion to
Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
of the trial court over her person due to an
invalid substituted service of summons.
Trial court rejected Manotoc’s Motion to
Dismiss and relied on the presumption that
the sheriff’s substituted service was made in
the regular performance of official duty, and
such presumption stood in the absence of
proof to the contrary.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Substituted
service was valid.
HELD:NO. Requirements for Substituted
Service, Section 8 of Rule 14 of the old
Revised
Rules of Court which applies to this case can
be broken down to the following
requirements: (1)Impossibility of Prompt
Personal Service (2)Specific Details in the
Return (3)A Person of Suitable Age and
Discretion (4)A Competent Person in
Charge.A meticulous scrutiny of the
aforementioned Return readily reveals the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
absence of material data on the serious
efforts to serve the Summons on petitioner
Manotoc in person. There is no clear valid
reason cited in the Return why those efforts
proved inadequate, to reach the conclusion
that personal service has become impossible
or unattainable outside the generally
couched phrases of “on many occasions
several attempts were made to serve the
summons . . . personally,” “at reasonable
hours during the day,” and “to no avail for
the reason that the said defendant is usually
out of her place and/or residence or
premises.”
Before resorting to substituted service, a
plaintiff must demonstrate an effort in good
faith to locate the defendant through more
direct means. Respondent Trajano failed to
demonstrate that there was strict compliance
with the requirements of the then Section 8,
Rule 14 (now Section 7, Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure), the proceedings
held before the trial court perforce must be
annulled.
LEAH PALMA VS. HON. DANILO P.
GALVEZ, (G.R. NO. 165273, MARCH
10, 2010)
FACTS: Petitioner Leah Palma filed with
the RTC an action for damages against the
Philippine Heart Center and its doctors and
nurses professional fault, negligence and
omission for having removed her right ovary
against her will, and losing the same and the
tissues extracted from her during the
surgery.The RTC’s process server submitted
his return of summons stating that the alias
summons, together with a copy of the
amended complaint and its annexes, were
served upon private respondent thru her
husband Alfredo Agudo, who received and
signed the same as private respondent was
out of the country. Agudo filed a Motion to
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 26
Dismiss on the ground that the RTC had not
acquired jurisdiction over her as she was not
properly served with summons, since she
was temporarily out of the country; that
service of summons on her should conform
to Section 16, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court.
Palma filed her Opposition to the motion to
dismiss, arguing that a substituted service of
summons on private respondent’s husband
was valid and binding on her; that service of
summons under Section 16, Rule 14 was not
exclusive and may be effected by other
modes of service, i.e., by personal or
substituted service.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid
service of summons on private respondent.
HELD:Yes. Considering that the private
respondent was temporarily out of the
country, the summons and complaint may be
validly served on her through substituted
service under Section 7, Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court.
Section 16 of Rule 14 uses the words “may”
and “also,” it is not mandatory. Other
methods of service of summons allowed
under the Rules may also be availed of by
the serving officer on a defendant-resident
who is temporarily out of the Philippines.
Thus, if a resident defendant is
temporarily out of the country, any of the
following modes of service may be resorted
to: (1) substituted service set forth in section
7, Rule 14; (2) personal service outside the
country, with leave of court; (3) service by
publication, also with leave of court; or (4)
in any other manner the court may deem
sufficient.
The service was made at the defendant’s
residence and her husband acknowledged
receipt thereof. The husband was
presumably of suitable age and discretion,
who was residing in that place and,
therefore, was competent to receive the
summons on private respondent’s behalf.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
D. QUESTION ON ASSUMPTION OF
JURISDICTION
1. Dismiss the Case for lack of
jurisdiction or on the ground of Forum
Non Conveniens.
Doctrine of forum non conveniens. allows
a court to dismiss a civil action (even though
the forum or venue is proper and the court
has jurisdiction over the case and the parties)
where an appropriate and more convenient
alternative forum exists in which to try the
action. It avoids global forum shopping and
prevents harassment of defendants.
When can a court refuse dismissal on the
grounds of forum non conveniens?
If there is no other forum that could hear the
case, or if the other forum would not award
the plaintiff any money even if he or she
won. Also, courts will not grant a forum non
conveniens dismissal where the alternative
forum's judicial system is grossly
inadequate.
2. Assume Jurisdiction- the presence of
decrees that internal law should apply. Any
one of the following factors justifies the
application of internal law:
a. A specific law of the forum The
proper foreign law was not properly
pleaded and proved.
b. The case falls under any of the
exceptions to the application of
foreign law.
HEINE VS. NEW YORK INSURANCE,
45 F2D 426 (1940)
FACTS: The New York Life Insurance
Company and the Guardian Insurance
Company ("the insurance companies") were
corporations created in New York, USA. As
conditions to be allowed to conduct business
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 27
in Germany, they were made to agree to be
supervised by German authorities, to invest
the proceeds of policies in German
securities, and to establish a local agency to
whom summons may be served. The
insurance companies were later sued before
courts in both the US and Germany for the
recovery on some 240 life insurance policies
issued in Germany to German nationals,
payable in German currency.
As the US courts have jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties, they have no
choice but to try the case. It is argued by the
plaintiffs that, because the court has
jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the
parties, it has no discretion, but should
proceed with the case, regardless of where
the cause of action arose, or the law by
which it is controlled, or the residence or
convenience of the parties and witnesses, or
the difficulty the court would encounter in
attempting to interpret and enforce a foreign
contract, or the interference with the other
business of the court. But that is a matter
resting in its discretion. It may retain
jurisdiction, or it may, in the exercise of a
sound discretion, decline to do so, as the
circumstances suggest.
ISSUE: Whether or not the US courts may
dismiss the case on the ground of forum non
conveniens.
HELD: Yes. Under the circumstances, the
case may be more suitably tried before
German courts.The courts have repeatedly
refused, in their discretion, to entertain
jurisdiction of causes of action arising in a
foreign jurisdiction, where both parties are
nonresidents of the forum. The courts in
both jurisdictions are competent to try the
case and summons may be served upon the
insurance companies in both jurisdictions.
Requiring the insurance companies to
defend their interests in the US would
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
subject them to great and unnecessary
inconvenience and expenses, including the
possibility of having to bring documentary
evidence all the way from their office in
Germany. Moreover, trying the case in the
US additionally burdens the courts in that
jurisdiction, to the detriment of other
litigants. The assumption of jurisdiction
over a case the cause of action of which
arose from another jurisdiction and
wherein both parties are non-residents is
discretionary upon the court.
IN RE: UNION CARBIDE, 634 F SUPP.
842 S.D.N.Y. 1986)
FACTS: A chemical plant operated by
Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in
Bhopal, India released a lethal gas known as
methyl isocyanate, resulting in the deaths of
over 2,000 persons and injuries of over
200,000. Four days after the Bhopal
accident, the first of some 145 purported
class actions in federal district courts in the
United States was commenced on behalf of
victims of the disaster. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation assigned the actions
to the Southern District of New York where
they became the subject of a consolidated
complaint filed in June 1985. In the
meantime, India enacted the Bhopal Gas
Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act,
granting to its government, the Union of
India (UOI) the exclusive right to represent
the victims in India or elsewhere. Thereupon
the UOI, purporting to act in the apacity of
parens patriae, and with retainers executed
by many of the victims, filed a complaint in
the Southern District of New York. The
UOI's decision to bring suit in the United
States was attributed to the fact that,
although numerous lawsuits had been
instituted by victims in India against UCIL,
the Indian courts did not have jurisdiction
over Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC), the parent company,
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 28
which was a defendant in the United States
actions. The UCC filed a motion to dismiss
the actions on grounds of forum non
conveniens, which the Southern District of
New York granted. Plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE: Did the district court err in
dismissing the actions on grounds of forum
non conveniens?
HELD: YES.The court modified the district
court's order and affirmed the modified
order. The court held that there was no abuse
of discretion in the district court's dismissal
of personal injury actions because all but a
few of the 200,000 individual plaintiffs were
Indian citizens located in India, and the
defendant had consented to the jurisdiction
of Indian courts. However, the court held
that the district court erred in when it
imposed a condition that defendant consent
to enforcement of a final Indian court
judgment. The court also found an error in
the requirement that the defendant consent
to granting plaintiffs broad discovery rights
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
when the defendant was confined to the
more limited discovery authorized under
Indian law.
HASEGAWA VS. KITAMURA, G.R. NO.
149177, 23 NOVEMBER 2007
FACTS: Nippon, a Japanese consultancy
firm entered into a one-year ICA contract
with Kitamura, a Japanese national
permanently residing in the Philippines. In
February 2000, Kitamura was informed that
Nippon is no longer renewing his ICA and
his services would only be utilized until
March 31, 2000. Aggrieved, Kitamura now
filed an action for specific performance and
damages with the RTC of Lipa City. Nippon
filed a motion to dismiss. The trial and
appellate court ruled in favor of Kitamura,
hence this petition.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC of Lipa
City has jurisdiction for contracts executed
by and between two foreign nationals in
foreign country wholly written in a foreign
language?
HELD:Yes. In the judicial resolution of
conflict problems, 3 consecutive phases are
involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and
recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Jurisdiction and choice of law are two
different concepts. Jurisdiction considers
whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
travel to this state; choice of law asks the
further question whether the application of a
substantive law which will determine the
merits of the case is fair to both parties. The
power to exercise jurisdiction does not
automatically give a state a constitutional
authority to apply forum law.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS.
REBESENCIO ET AL., G.R. NO.
198587, 14 JANUARY 2015
FACTS:Saudi Arabian Airlines (SAUDIA)
hired Milagros Morada as a Flight Attendant
for its airlines based in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia. While on a lay-over in Jakarta,
Morada went to a disco with fellow crew
members Thamer & Allah, both Saudi
nationals. Because it was almost morning
when they returned to their hotels, they
agreed to have breakfast together at the
room of Thamer. In which Allah left on
some pretext. Thamer attempted to rape
Morada but she was rescued by hotel
personnel when they heard her cries for
help.One year and a half year later, Morada
was again ordered to see SAUDIA’s Chief
Legal Officer. Instead, she was brought to a
Saudi court where she was asked to sign a
blank document, which turned out to be a
notice to her to appear in court. Monada
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 29
returned to Manila. The next time she was
escorted by SAUDIA’s legal officer to court,
the judge rendered a decision against her
sentencing her to five months imprisonment
and to 286 lashes. Apparently, she was tried
by the court which found her guilty of (1)
adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and
listening to the music in violation of Islamic
laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew,
in contravention of Islamic tradition. After
denial by SAUDIA, Morada sought help
from the Philippine Embassy during the
appeal. The Prince of Makkah dismissed the
case against her. SAUDIA fired her without
notice. Morada filed a complaint for
damages against SAUDIA, with the RTC of
QC. SAUDIA filed Omnibus Motion to
Dismiss which raised the ground that the
court has no jurisdiction, among others
which was denied
ISSUE:Whether RTC of QC has jurisdiction
to hear and try the case.
HELD:YES. The RTC of QC has
jurisdiction and Philippine law should
govern.Its jurisdiction has basis on Sec. 1 of
RA 7691 and Rules of Court on venue.
Pragmatic considerations, including the
convenience of the parties, also weigh
heavily in favor of the RTC QC assuming
jurisdiction. Paramount is the private interest
of the litigant. Weighing the relative claims
of the parties, the court a quo found it best to
hear the case in the Philippines.
Had it refused to take cognizance of the
case, it would be forcing Morada to seek
remedial action elsewhere, i.e. in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where she no
longer maintains substantial connections.
That would have caused a fundamental
unfairness to her. By filing a complaint,
Morada has voluntarily submitted to the
jurisdiction of the court. By filing several
motions and praying for reliefs (such as
dismissal), SAUDIA has effectively
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
submitted to the trial court’s jurisdiction.
IV. CHOICE OF LAW
A. APPROACHES TO CHOICE OF
LAW
1. Traditional Approach
Vested Right Theory- Under this theory, an
act done in a foreign jurisdiction gives rise
to the existence of a right if the laws of that
state so provide. The right vest in the
plaintiff and he carries it with him to be
enforced in any forum he chooses to bring
suit. The forum refers to the law of the place
of occurrence of the last act necessary to
complete the cause of action. Moreover, the
law of the state of the last act is considered
the law applicable to all substantive issues of
the case. So, if the laws of the state where
the last act occurred create no legal right,
there is nothing for the forum to recognize
and enforce even if its own law creates such
a right.
2. Modern Approaches
Place of the Most Significant Relationship
(Most Significant Relation–hip Approach)
This theory identifies a plurality which was
the state of the most significant relationship,
the factual contacts of each state were
considered in the light of factors that must
be considered in the light of choice of law
principles. To determine the pertinent
principles which may differ in each area of
substantive law. In both tort and contract
cases, the contracts are evaluated depending
on their importance and relevance to the
issue at hand.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 30

The Correlation Between Jurisdiction
And Choice Of Law
The exercise of jurisdiction and choice
of law decisions are related in three (3)
important ways:
1) The factors that justify the forum
court’s exercise of judicial
jurisdiction maybe same factors that
will determine whether or not it is
proper for the forum to apply its own
internal law;
2) If the forum does apply its internal
law because it has real interest in the
case, then the outcome of the case
will be decided by the forum where
the case if filed, so the plaintiff will
bring his suit in the state which has a
real interest in the applying its
internal law;
3) Generally, the forum will most likely
apply its own law rather than the foreign
law, the plaintiff will usually bring his claim
in the courts of the state which internal law
is favorable to him.
However, jurisdiction and choice of law are
two distinct concepts. In some cases, the
court may exercise jurisdiction but will not
apply its law. In some instances, there are
cases in which the forum cannot assume
jurisdiction, although its internal law is
applicable as the proper law.
GRAY V. GRAY (1934)
FACTS:Gray filed an action in New
Hampshire for damages arising out of
personal injuries alleged to have been
caused by her husband while driving from
their home in New Hampshire to Maine
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
where the accident happened. In Maine,
spouses are barred from maintaining an
action against each other, but there is no
such prohibition in New Hampshire.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gray has a cause of
action against her husband.
HELD: NONE, If there is a conflict
between the lex loci and lex fori, the former
governs in torts the same as in contracts, in
respect to the legal effects and incident of
acts. Therefore, whatever would be a
defense to this action if it had been brought
in the state of Maine is defense here,
although it would not be if the cause of
action had arisen in this state.
Local conduct should be governed by local
law. Rules of conduct have no force to
regulate acts done outside the jurisdiction
which made the rules, save as their operation
is enforced over the parties within the
jurisdiction. In the great majority of cases
complaints of conduct are adjusted in the
jurisdiction where the conduct took place. It
is desirable that the remedy be the same
wherever the action is brought.
It has become settled that reason, justice and
expediency require that causes of action for
foreign torts should be dealt with as herein
indicated.
ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R.R.
CO. v. CARROL (1892)
FACTS:Plaintiff Carrol, a resident of
Alabama, was a brakeman employed by
defendants, an Alabama corporation which
operated a railroad from Tennessee, through
Alabama to Mississippi, under the contract
entered into in Alabama.
Carrol was injured in Mississippi as a result
of an alleged negligent failure to spot a
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 31
defective link between two freight cars
which the defendant’s employees were
under duty to inspect.
Under Mississippi law, Carrol could not
recover against his employer because the
negligence was caused by the act of a fellow
employee while under Alabama law,
absolute liability was imposed on the
company for injuries suffered by employees
in the course of their employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not Carrol has a cause
of action against the defendant.
HELD: NONE. There can be no recovery in
one State for injuries to the person sustained
in another State unless the infliction of the
injuries is actionable under the law of the
State in which they were received.
Section 2590 of the Code of Alabama
has no efficacy beyond the territory of
Alabama. When a personal injury is received
in Alabama by servant employee, such
incident under a statutory circumstance
create right of action in the said state, which,
being transitory, may be enforced in any
other State or country by reason of comity;
but for injury committed elsewhere that in
Alabama the statutes gives no right to
recovery, and the aggrieved party must refer
to the local law to ascertain what his rights
are. Under the law, the plaintiff has no cause
of action, hence, he has no rights which the
court the forum can enforce
AUTEN v. AUTEN (1954)
FACTS: The Auten couple were married in
England in 1917 and lived there until 1931,
when the husband deserted his wife and two
children and moved to New York. The wife
later on moved to New York where a
separation agreement was executed in 1933.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Under the said agreement, the husband has
to pay the amount of 50 pounds a month
through a New York trustee for the support
of his wife and the children; and not to bring
any action relating to their separation. Mr.
Auten failed to give financial support, so his
wife brought a suit for legal separation in
England, on the grounds of adultery.
Although Mr. Auten was served with the
process, the case never went to trial and
Mrs. Auten received nothing. In 1947, Mrs.
Auten filed an action against Mr. Auten in
New York to enforce the separation
agreement. The husband admitted making
the agreement, but argued that the wife’s
institution of the English violation
proceeding was a violation thereof, and thus,
his obligation was extinguished.
ISSUE: Whether or not the commencement
of the action for separation repudiates the
separation agreement.
HELD: NO. Under the grouping contracts
theory of the conflict of laws, the courts,
instead of regarding as conclusive the
parties’ intention or the place of making or
performance, lay emphasis rather than the
law of the place, which has the most
significant contact with the matter in
dispute. The merit of the approach is that it
gives to the place having the most interest in
the problem paramount control over the
legal issues arising out of a particular factual
context, thus allowing the forum to apply the
policy of the jurisdiction “most intimately
concerned with the outcome of the particular
litigation. Moreover, by stressing the
significant contacts, it enables the court, not
only to reflect the relative interests of the
several jurisdictions involved, but also give
effect to the probable intention of the parties
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 32
and consideration to whether one rule or the
other produces the best practical result.
In this case, examination of the respective
contacts with New York and England
compels the conclusion that the England law
which must be applied to determine the
impact and effect to be given the wife’s
institution of the separation suit. It is
England which has all the truly significant
contacts, while New York’s sole nexus with
the matter in dispute is that it is the place
where the agreement was made and where
the trustee, to whom the money were to be
paid, had his office. So, the law of England
would govern the effect of the wife’s
institution of a separate action.
HAAG V. BARNES (1961)
FACTS: An illegitimate child was born to
Norman Barnes, an Illinois lawyer, and
Dorothy Haag, then a New York legal
secretary. After she got pregnant, she went
to California to live with her sister. She
traveled to Chicago prior to the child’s birth,
where Barnes promised to shoulder her
hospital expenses. The parties then entered
into a support agreement in Chicago
providing that Barnes would pay $275
dollars a month until the child reached the
age of sixteen (16) in exchange for his
release from any obligation. The agreement
contained a choice of law clause in favor of
Illinois which upheld such agreement if the
sum was at least $800. However, New York
law gives no binding effect to agreements by
parents of illegitimate children unless it was
judicially approved.
Haag and the child returned to New York
and filed the support in which Barnes
interposed the Illinois agreement as a bar to
the instant action.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ISSUE: Whether or not the Illinois
agreement is a bar to instant action.
HELD: YES. The agreement recites that it
shall in all respects be interpreted, construed
and governed by the laws of the State of
Illinois' ' and since it was also drawn and
signed by the complainant in Illinois, the
traditional conflicts rule, would treat these
factors as conclusive and applying the
Illinois law. But even if the parties’ intention
and the place of the making of the contract
are not given decisive effect, they are
nevertheless to be given heavy weight in
determining which jurisdiction has the most
significant contacts with the matter in
dispute. And these important factors are
taken together with others of the “significant
contacts” in the case, they likewise point to
Illinois law, i.e., 1)both parties are
designated in the agreement as being of
Chicago, Illinois, and the defendant's place
of business is always has been Illinois; 2) the
child was born in Illinois; 3) the persons
designated to act as agents for principals are
Illinois residents, as are the attorneys for
both parties who drew the agreement; and 4)
all contributions for support always have
been, and still being are, made from
Chicago.
On the contrary, the New York contacts are
of far less weight and significance. Chief
among these is the fact that the child and
mother presently live in New York. When
measured against the parties’ clearly
expressed intention to have their agreement
governed by Illinois law and more
substantial Illinois contacts, it cannot be
denied that the center of gravity of the
agreement is Illinois and that, absent
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 33
compelling public policy to the contrary,
Illinois law should apply.
Underlying Principles Of Choice Of Law
When parties enter into an agreement, their
relationship is governed by a particular law.
The default law is always the local law since
the minds of the parties are set on the local
law upon entering into the agreement
especially in cases when there is no foreign
element involve, except in cases wherein the
parties stipulate a foreign law to govern their
relationship, as they are free to stipulate
their choice of law that will govern their
relationship. In some cases, when the law of
the domicile of a person applies, as are
instances when a foreign law offers more
benefits to a person. In these instances, the
foreign law shall be applied except when
there are compelling reasons not to apply the
same.
B. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES IN
DETERMINING CHOICE OF LAW
Choice of Law Principles.
Section 6 of US Restatement (2nd) of Laws
provides the underlying principles in
determining the law applicable to a conflict
case. Section 6 of the US Restatement (2nd)
of Laws states:
Section 6. Choice of Law Principles
(1) A court, subject to constitutional
restrictions, will follow a statutory
directive of its own state on choice of
law.
(2) When there is no such directive, the
factors relevant to the choice of the
applicable rule of law include:
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
a.) The needs of the interstate and
international systems;
b.) The relative policies of the forum;
c.) The relevant policies of the other
interested states and the relative
interests of those states in the
determination of the particular issue;
d.) The protection of justified
expectations;
e.) The basic policies underlying the
particular field of law;
f.) Certainty, predictability and
uniformity of result; and
g.) Ease in the determination and
application of the law to be applied.
Principle 1: Local Law
This principle looks to the statutory directive
of the state on choice of law. It provides the
local law to be the default law that will
govern the relationship of the parties to a
dispute. The specific conflict of law rules on
the civil code of the state must be applied
before one considers the application of
foreign, provided that these directives
comply with the constitution of the state.
Examples:
Article 15 of the Civil Code
specifies that the national law
governs family rights, duties, status,
and condition of Filipinos, even if
they are living abroad. This statutory
directive is implicit and mandatory
for Philippine citizens.
Article 16 of the Civil Code directs
the application of the lex rei sitae or
the law of the place where the
property is situated for real or
personal properties. This article also
specifies that intestate and
testamentary successions are
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 34
 governed by the national law of the
decedent.
Principle 2: Needs of the Interstate and
International Systems
Courts must consider the needs of the
interstate and international systems in
determining the applicable law. If we apply
only the local laws that favor the interest of
the forum state, this would only stifle the
growth of free trade and discourage the
people from trading with their counterparts
in other countries. So, the courts must
formulate principles and reconcile multi
state laws with the end view of encouraging
international trade among people.
Principle 3: Relevant Policies of the
Forum
The policies of the forum take primordial
consideration when considering the
applicable law to a case. Each forum
considers certain values to be of highest
importance to them. In the Philippines,
courts consider the protection for labor to be
of highest import. If a case implicates a
foreign law which is prejudicial to the
interest of the labor, courts are quick to
strike down the foreign law in favor of the
applicability of the local law. Also, state
policy does not recognize divorce in our
jurisdiction. When a foreign law is involved
which will weaken the family as a social
unit, courts will strike it down as against
public policy.
Principle 4: Relevant Policies of Other
Interested Parties
This principle indulges the courts to
engage in a government interest analysis
when two states have conflicting laws and
interests. In doing so, courts compare the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
laws and interests of two states, determine if
there is a real conflict, and if there’s any,
apply the law of the state whose interests are
more impaired.
Steps in Government Interest Analysis
Test
1. The court determines whether the
relevant law of the affected
jurisdictions with regard to the issue
in question is the same or different.
2. If there is a difference, the court
examines each jurisdiction’s interest
in the application of its own law to
determine whether a true conflict
exists.
3. If the court finds that there is true
conflict, if carefully evaluate and
compare the nature and strength of
the interest of each jurisdiction to
determine which state's interest
would be more impaired if its policy
were subordinated to the policy of
the other state.
Principle 5: Protection of Justified
Expectations
Parties enter into contracts or into
legal relations with the objective of
achieving a desired result. They are free to
stipulate the terms and conditions of their
agreement, which become part of the law of
the contract. When the parties specify a
particular law to govern their legal relations,
courts must enforce this choice of law,
unless it is contrary to statutory directive of
the forum, or contravenes public policy.
Principle 6: Basic Policies Underlying the
Particular Field of Law
The reason and objectives of the laws in
question should be given consideration.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 35
Hence, courts should look at the type of law
involved. If it is a contract law, what are the
rights intended to be protected? If it is torts
law, what are the damages available to the
parties? Where did the torts happen? By
looking at the particular laws involved,
courts may be in a better position to decide
which rights to uphold and protect.
Principle 7: Certainty, Predictability and
Uniformity of Result
Most judicial systems favor stability in
judicial decisions that is why they have
formulated principles like res judicata and
stare decisis. When facts of a case fall
squarely with the facts of a previously
decided case, the doctrine in the latter case
is usually applied to the case in dispute. In
torts cases, courts usually choose between
lex loci delicti and most significant
relationship. Once they choose either of the
two, they usually follow this approach in
deciding future cases. This is to provide
stability in judicial decisions so judges can
focus on their functions of interpreting the
laws instead of setting policies.
Principle 8: Ease in Determining and
Application of the Law to be Applied
This theory adheres to simplicity in
determining which law to apply. If a court is
bound by a particular doctrine by virtue of
stare decisis, it is simpler for the court to
apply the same doctrine in future cases.
There is no need to adopt new and more
complicated analyses for what only needs to
be done is apply the law which has been
applied before. For example, in torts cases,
the lex loci delicti approach is much simpler
thE most significant relationship for the
latter requires a more elaborate analysis of
each state’s connection to a particular case.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Other Principles Affecting Choice of Law
Proof of Foreign Law and Processual
Presumption
Foreign laws have to be properly proved
before they are admitted into evidence.
Failure to prove foreign law will result in the
exclusion of the foreign law and a
presumption will arise that foreign law is the
same as local law, and the local law will
become the governing law of the contract or
dispute of the parties.
In the same way, foreign documents also
need to be proved before they can be
admitted to evidence. They will be excluded
if they are not properly proved, and will not
be admitted as evidence in court.
Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the 2019
Revised Rules on Evidence prescribe the
rules governing proof of foreign law, to wit:
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 1) an official record thereof or
by a copy attested by the officer having legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and
2) 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
foreign country, which is a contracting party
to a treaty or convention to which the
Philippines is also a party, or considered
public document under such treaty or
convention, 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 Philippines.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 36
For documents originating from a foreign
country which is not a contracting party to a
treaty or convention, 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
office.
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 abolished the
requirement, or has exempted the document
itself from this formality, ie, the Apostille
Convention.
Exemptions to Proof of Foreign Laws
1) Presentation of a foreign-licensed
attorney who will testify in open
court concerning her knowledge of
the law in question;
2) In case of administrative agencies
recognizing foreign laws without
proof thereof, for they are bound by
technical rules of procedure and may
properly recognize the existence of a
foreign law by judicial notice.
3) The lack of objection to the improper
presentation by one party of proof of
foreign law. If a party starts
presenting objectionable proof of
foreign law, and the other party does
not object, the court may properly
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
consider as proved the foreign law in
question.
4) Recognizance of a tribunal of the
existence of a universally known law
or a law whose existence is known to
most men due to its universal
application.
5) In case of laws appearing in official
websites like those of the Office of
the President or the Library of
Congress may be properly
recognized since these official sites
of government agencies which have
custody of laws.
CADALIN V POEA (1994)
FACTS: Cadalin and 728 other OCWs
instituted a class suit by filing an “Amended
Complaint” with the POEA for money
claims arising from their recruitment by
ASIA INTERNATIONAL BUILDERS
CORPORATION (AIBC) and employment
by BROWN & ROOT INTERNATIONAL,
INC (BRI) which is a foreign corporation
with headquarters in Houston, Texas. The
complaint sought the payment of the
unexpired portion of the employment
contracts, which was terminated prematurely
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign law
should govern or the contract of the parties.
HELD: A basic policy of contract is to
protect the expectation of the parties. Such
party expectation is protected by giving
effect to the parties’ own choice of the
applicable law. The choice of law must,
however, bear some relationship between the
parties or their transaction. There is no
question that the contracts sought to be
enforced by claimants have a direct
connection with the Bahrain law because the
services were rendered in that country.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 37
BANK OF AMERICA VS AMERICAN
REALTY CORPORATION
(GR 133876 DECEMBER 29, 1999)
FACTS: Bank of America granted loans to 3
foreign corporations. As security, the latter
mortgaged a property located in the
Philippines owned by herein respondent
ARC. ARC is a third party mortgagor who
pledged its own property in favor of the 3
debtor-foreign corporations. The debtors
failed to pay. Thus, the petitioner filed
collection suits in foreign courts to enforce
the loan.
ISSUE: Whether or not the English law is
the governing law with regard to the
principal agreements.
HELD: This Court adopted the
well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction
that there is no judicial notice of any foreign
law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded
and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law
involved is not properly pleaded and proved,
our courts will presume that the foreign law
is the same as our local or domestic or
internal law. This is what we refer to as the
doctrine of processual presumption. In the
instant case, assuming that the English Law
on the matter were properly pleaded and
proved in said foreign law would still not
find applicability. Thus, when the foreign
law, judgment or contract is contrary to a
sound and established public policy of the
forum, the said foreign law, judgment or
order shall not be applied.
BUTLER V. ADOPTION MEDIA, LLC -
(486 F. SUPP. 2D 1022 N.D. CAL. 2007)
FACTS: The Butlers have been registered
domestic partners in the state of California
since 2000. In 2002, they were seeking to
adopt a child and had been certified and
approved to adopt in California. Defendants,
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
the Gwilliams were Arizona residents who
run businesses that operate adoption-related
websites. The defendants adopted a policy
allowing only individuals in an opposite-sex
marriage to post profiles. Plaintiffs sued
defendants, alleging violations of the Unruh
Civil Rights Act and violations of
California's unfair competition and false
advertising laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not the California law
applies to the plaintiff’s substantive claim.
HELD: Federal courts sitting in diversity
look to the law of the forum state when
making a choice-of-law determination.
Thus, because the complaint in the present
action was filed in California, California's
choice-of-law rules apply. In the absence of
an effective choice of law by the parties,
California applies the "governmental
interest" test. In this case, California has the
constitutional authority to bar discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation in public
accommodations, California's interest in
combating discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation is compelling, and the
Unruh Act prohibits such discrimination in
order to eliminate the harms caused by the
discriminatory conduct, not to silence
particular viewpoints.
FRANCISCO VS STOLT
ACHIEVEMENT MT (2002)
FACTS: Francisco was injured on a
chemical tanker ship. Francisco was
employed aboard the M/T STOLT
ACHIEVEMENT, which was allegedly
operated by Stolt-Nielsen Transportation
Group Inc. a Liberian corporation. Francisco
sued Stolt in Louisiana state court, asserting
claims under the Jones Act. He alleged that
the suit in state court was authorized by the
saving to suitors clause. However, His
contract states that disputes arising from his
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 38
employment, including personal injury
claims, were subject to arbitration in the
Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not Francisco’s injury
was subject to the arbitration in the
Philippines.
HELD: Where the subject matter of an
action or proceeding pending in a State court
relates to an arbitration agreement or award
falling under the Convention, the defendant
or the defendants may, at any time before the
trial thereof, remove such action or
proceeding to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing
the place where the action or proceeding is
pending. In order for the Convention to
apply, there must be an agreement in writing
to arbitrate. The Court finds that such an
agreement exists. The employment contract
clearly sets forth that if there is a dispute, it
must be submitted to arbitration.
BABCOCK V. JACKSON (1963)
FACTS: Babcock and her friends, Mr. and
Mrs. William Jackson, all residents of
Rochester, New York, left that city in
Jackson's automobile, Babcock as guest, for
a week-end trip to Canada. As Jackson was
driving in the Province of Ontario, he
apparently lost control of the car; it went off
the highway into an adjacent stone wall, and
Babcock was seriously injured. Upon her
return to New York, Babcock brought the
present action against William Jackson,
alleging negligence on his part in operating
his automobile. At the time of the accident,
there was in force in Ontario a statute
providing that "the owner or driver of a
motor vehicle, other than a vehicle operated
in the business of carrying passengers for
compensation, is not liable for any loss or
damage resulting from bodily injury to, or
the death of any person being carried in the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
motor vehicle. Even though no such bar is
recognized under this State's substantive law
of torts, defendant Jackson moved to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the law of
the place where the accident occurred
governs and that Ontario's guest statute
barred recovery.
ISSUE: Was plaintiff Babcock barred from
recovering damages for a wrong committed
in Ontario, Canada?
HELD: The reviewing court reversed its
prior choice of law rule for torts, which was
based on the law of the place of the tort, and
held that the applicable choice of law rule
should also reflect a consideration of other
factors relevant to the purposes served by
the enforcement or denial of the remedy.
Comparison of the relative "contacts" and
"interests" of New York and Ontario in the
action made it clear that the concern of New
York was unquestionably greater and more
direct, and the interest of Ontario was at best
minimal.
C. CHARACTERIZATION
It is the process by which the court at the
beginning of the choice-of-law process
assigns a disputed question to an area in
substantive law, such as torts, contracts,
family law or property. After identifying the
branch of law, the next step will be
determining whether there is a conflict of
law problem by the presence of foreign
element. If one is involved, the court then
employable conflicts of law doctrines in
determining the applicable law. If none, the
court applies the rule, law, or jurisprudence
prevailing in the forum
● Single-aspect method- it is
concentrated on one element of a
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 39
 situation in order to connect the case
to a particular legal community. For
example: an issue determined as
contractual is immediately referred
to the place of contracting, while one
that is tortious is assigned the law of
place where the tort occurred.
● Multi-aspect method- all important
factors of the case are analyzed and
the applicable law is arrived at by
rationally elaborating and applying
the policies and purposes underlying
the particular rules that come in
question as well as the needs of
interstate or international intercourse.
The Philippines follows the single-aspect
method and our conflicts are mostly found in
the Civil Code, to wit: Article 15, Article 16,
and Article 17 of the Code.
Types Of Characterization:
1. Subject Matter Characterization- It
calls for classification by a court of a factual
situation into a legal category. It is of
appreciable significance to in a single aspect
method because the legal category to which
an issue is assigned determines the
governing law.
Case illustrated: Gibbs vs. Gov’t of PI,
(1933) wherein the court, although
absolutely silent on the matter of
characterization, characterized the issue in
Gibbs as one involving real property, to be
governed by the lex situs, or one involving
succession to be governed by the national
law of the decedent, Article 1386 of the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Civil Code of California, which was in effect
at the time of the death of Mrs. Gibbs.
The Court ruled that the first paragraph of
Article 10 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines applies, which provides that
personal property is subject to laws of the
nation of the owner thereof; real property to
the laws of the country in which it is
situated.
Under this principle, the nature and extent of
the title vested in Mrs. Gibbs at the time of
the acquisition of the community lands in
question must be determined in accordance
with lex rei sitae. It is admitted that the
Philippines land in question were acquired
as community property of the conjugal
partnership of the decedent and his wife.
Under the law of the Philippines, she was
vested with a title equal to that of her
husband under Article 1407 of the Civil
Code which provides that: “All the property
of the spouses shall be deemed partnership
property in the absence of proof that it
belongs exclusively to the husband or wife.”
The descendible interest of Eva Gibbs in the
land in question was transmitted to his heirs
by virtue of inheritance and this
transmission falls within the ambit of
Section 1536 of the Article XI of Chapter 40
of the Administrative Code which levies tax
on inheritance
2. Substance Procedure Dichotomy
It directs the court to the extent it will apply
foreign law. If the issue is substantive, the
court may apply foreign law. If procedural,
will follow the law of the forum.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 40
The reason for applying forum law to
matters of procedure is to avoid heavy
burden on courts of forum and to promote
orderly, unhampered, and speedy
administration of justice.
Case illustrated: Grant vs. Mcauliffe,
(1953) wherein two California residents
driving separate cars in Arizona crashed into
one another and one died as a result. Under
Arizona law, a tort action did not survive the
death of the plaintiff, while under California
law it did. The issue in the case is whether
the survival statutes are substantive or
procedural for purposes of conflict of laws.
The court concluded that the survival of
causes of action should be governed by the
law of the forum, holding that:
“Statutes providing for the survival of a tort
action if the plaintiff dies are procedural, not
substantive, and may be applied to a suit that
arises from an injury sustained in a different
jurisdiction.”
“A survival statute as to tort actions is not
substantive law that would govern litigation
over injuries sustained wherever the case is
tried. This court recognizes the doctrine that
the substantive law of the place of the wrong
must govern litigation wherever it is tried.
However, the forum state may always follow
its own procedural rules of law. Since the
authorities are split on whether a survival
statute is procedural or substantive, this
court will determine which argument has the
most merit. Because a survival statute does
not create a new cause of action but simply
allows the continuation of an existing action,
it is procedural. All the relevant contacts are
with California and the survival statute does
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
not relate to liability but is a procedural rule
to enforce claims for damages. Since a court
may always follow its own procedural rules,
this case may properly be tried under
California law.”
Statute of Frauds- It is considered
substantive if the words of the law relate to
forbidding the creation of obligation. It is
considered procedural if forbids the
enforcement of the obligation
Statutes of Limitations and Borrowing
Statutes- Statutes of limitations by tradition
are considered as procedural because they
barred only the legal remedy without
impairing the substantial right involved.
Thus, a suit could still be maintained in
another jurisdiction which has a longer
statute of limitations.
However, certain statutes of limitations have
been classified as substantive if they provide
a shorter period for certain types of claims
that fall within a wider classification covered
by a general statute of limitations.
In order to eliminate forum shopping, many
states including the Philippines, have passed
statutes which bar the filing of a suit in the
forum if it is already barred by the statute of
limitations in the place where the action
arose, subject to some exemptions.
In the case of Cadalin vs. POEA
Administrator, wherein there is an issue on
what law of prescription on the labor action
filed, the Court refused to enforce the
one-year prescription period of filing of
action under the Amiri Decree and held that
“to enforce the one-year period of the Amari
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 41
Decree would contravene public policy on
protection of law.
D. ISSUES/PROBLEMS/PRINCIPLES
AFFECTING CHOICE OF LAW
1. Depecage is a term or phenomenon where
different aspects of a case involving foreign
elements may be governed by different
systems of laws.
Since a single element of a case is made to
relate it to one legal system, the depecage
technique allows the other relevant interests
of the parties to be addressed to permit the
courts to arrive at a functionally sound result
without rejecting the methodology of
traditional approach.
2. The Problem of Renvoi
a. Definition- is a procedure whereby a legal
matter presented is referred by the conflict
of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state,
the conflict of law rules of which, in turn,
refers the matter to the law of the forum or a
third state.
Remission- when reference is made back to
the law of the forum.
Transmission- when reference is made to a
third state.
b. How to Deal with Renvoi
1. The court applies the internal law of
another state thereby rejecting the renvoi.
2. The court accepts the renvoi and refers
not just to another’s internal law but to the
whole law which includes choice of law
rules applicable in multi-state cases.
c. Usefulness of Renvoi
“The doctrine of Renvoi means nothing else
than a change in the character and function
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
of conflict rules. Till now they have been
understood to determine the internal law
directly applicable to a juristic relation.
Instead of this, the Renvoi doctrine would
have them exercise the function of indicating
the laws which determine the internal law
directly applicable to a juristic relation.
(Buzatti)”.
d. Objections
The universal application of the doctrine
would place the court in a
perpetually-enclosed circle from which it
would never emerge and that it would never
find a suitable body of substantive rules to
apply to a particular case; that the courts
may be unnecessarily burdened with the task
of identifying the choice of law of another
state.
“The principle of Renvoi is logically
unworkable. If the rule adopted by our
system is so framed that the foreign law is to
be applied in its totality, including its rules
of private international law, it must also be
the import of the foreign rule that our law in
its turn is to be applied in its totality,
including our own rules of private
international law. The consequence is-that in
virtue of the foreign law ours is applied in its
totality and in virtue of ours, the foreign law
is again applied in its totality and so on and
so on; a logical 'cabinet of mirrors'
(Spiegelkabinet)”.
e. False Conflict
Renvoi is inapplicable in a false conflict. The
US Restatement (2nd) of the Conflict of Laws
provides for the use of renvoi when there is
a disinterested forum, in order to ensure that
only the laws advancing the policies of the
interested parties will be applied.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 42
HAUMSCHILD VS. CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY, (1959)
FACTS: On Nov. 17, 1956, plaintiff
Jacquelyn Haumschild and respondent Le
Roy Gleason were married in Lincoln
County, Wisconsin, where they had their
domicile. On March 10, 1958, such marriage
was annulled. On December 19, 1956, the
plaintiff was injured while driving a motor
truck driven by Gleason in California.
Plaintiff then filed an action against Gleason
and Continental Casualty Company to
recover damages for personal injury
sustained as a result of the motor vehicle
accident.
The defendants moved for summary
judgment dismissing the action on the
grounds that under the California law, one
spouse is immune from suit, and that the
plaintiff by her conduct is estopped to assert
the invalidity of her marriage to Gleason.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conflict of law
of domicile or the conflict of law of the
place where the accident took place is
applicable to determine any issue of
incapacity to sue based on family
relationship.
HELD: The law on domicile applies. The
court should adopt the rule that whenever
the courts are confronted with a conflict of
law problem as to which law governs the
capacity of one spouse to sue the other in
tort, the law to be applied is that of the state
of domicile. Thus, the place of accident,
California, governed the issue of negligence
while Wisconsin law governed the issue of
interspousal immunity.
AZNAR VS. GARCIA, (1963)
The Court Accepted the Renvoi
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
FACTS: In accordance with the will
executed by the decedent Edward
Christensen on March 5, 1951, the executor,
in his final account and project partition,
ratified the payment of P3,600 to appellant
Maria Helen Christensen, for such amount
that was bequeathed and devised by the
testator to her. The executor also proposed
that the residue of the estate be transferred to
the decedent’s daughter, Marai Lucy
Christensen, in accordance with the
provisions of the will.
Opposition to the approval of the project of
partition was filed by Helen Christensen,
insofar as it deprived her of her legitime as
an acknowledged natural child of the
decedent; that the distribution should be
governed by the laws of the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine law
governs the partition of the estate of Edward
Christensen.
HELD: Yes.The internal law of California
had subscribed to two sets of laws of its
citizens, one for the resident therein and
another for those domiciled in other
jurisdictions. So, the California internal law
prescribed for its citizens residing therein,
and enforce the conflict of law rules for the
citizens domiciled abroad. If the court must
enforce the law of California as mandated by
in comity, as so declared in Article 16 of the
Civil Code, then the court must enforce the
law of California in accordance with the
express mandate thereof.
Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers
back to the case when the decedent is not
domiciled in California, to the law of his
domicile, the Philippines in the case at bar.
The court of domicile cannot and should not
refer the case back to California. Such action
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 43
would leave the issue incapable of
determination because the case will then be
like a football, tossed back and forth
between the two states, between the country
of which the decedent was a citizen and the
country of his domicile.
The Philippine court must apply its own law
as directed in the conflict of law rules of the
decedent, if the question has to be decided,
especially as the application of the internal
law of California provides no legitime for
the children while the Philippine law, Article
887(4) and 894, Civil Code of the
Philippines, makes natural children legally
acknowledged forced heirs of the parent
recognizing them
ANNESLEY V. ANNESLEY, (1926)
Double Renvoi
FACTS: The testatrix, a British subject, died
in France in 1924 domiciled according to
English law. In 1919, she made in France a
will in English form. By clause 5 of the will,
the ultimate residue was given to her
daughter, Miss Annesley, absolutely. On
July 4, 1921, Mrs. Annesley executed in
France a codicil in English form, by which
she stated, in clause 4: “I will confirm my
said will in all respects as altered by this
codicil, and in particular I confirm clause 8
of my said will as though such clause were
set out in this codicil.” Summons was taken
out asking whether the domicile of the
testatrix at the time of her death was French
or English. It was admitted that if it were
French, for purposes of French law, the
testatrix could only dispose of one-third
(1/3) of her personal property. By her will
she purported to dispose of the whole of her
personal property.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ISSUE: Whether the domicile of the
testatrix was English or French, and what
particular would apply.
HELD: France is her domicile. According
to the French municipal law, the law
applicable in the case of a foreigner not
legally domiciled in France is the law of the
that person’s nationality, and in this case the
British. But the British law refers back to
French law, the law of domicile, and
question arises, will the French law accept
this reference back, or renvoi, and apply
French municipal law. Thus, as regards to
her English personal estate and her French
movable property, the testatrix had power
only to dispose of one-third thereof by her
will.
BELLIS VS. BELLIS, (1968)
Renvoi does not apply
FACTS: Amos Bellis, born in Texas, USA,
and a citizen thereof. On August 5, 1952,
Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in
which he directed that after all taxes,
obligation, and expenses of administration
are paid for, his estate should be divided in
trust. Subsequently, Bellis did a resident of
San Antonio, Texas on July 8, 1958. In the
project partition, the executor, pursuant to
the clause of the will, delivered to the
illegitimate children their legacies, and
divided the residuary estate into seven equal
portions for the benefit of the testator’s
seven illegitimate children by his first and
second marriages. Consequently, the
illegitimate children filed their respective
oppositions to the project of partition on the
ground that they were deprived of their
legitime as compulsory heirs of the
deceased. Relying upon Article 16 of the
Civil, the CFI of Manila applied the national
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 44
law of the decedent, Texas law, which does
not provide for legitimes.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Texas law,
which does not provide for legitimes applies
to the instant case.
HELD: Yes. The doctrine of renvoi, applied
by the court in Aznar v. Christensen-Garcia,
does not apply to the instant case as they
never invoked nor mentioned it in their
arguments. Said doctrine is usually pertinent
where the decedent is a national of one
country, and a domicile of another. In the
present case, it is not disputed that the
decedent is both a national of Texas and a
domicile thereof at the time of his death. So
even assuming Texas has a conflict of law
rule providing the domiciliary system to
Philippine law, it would still refer to Texas
law. Nonetheless, if Texas has conflict rules
adopting the situs theory (lex rei sitae)
calling for the application of the law of the
place where the properties are located,
renvoi would arise, since the properties
involved in this case are found in the
Philippines. In the absence, however, of
proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas,
it should not be presumed different from
ours.
E. PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW
Under the Rules of Court, Foreign law may
be proved by presenting either of the
following:
1.) Official publication of the law (and
consularized) [Rule 132, Section 24,
Rules of Court];
2.) Copy of the law attested by the
officer having legal custody of the
record or by his deputy. (and
consularized) [Rule 132, Section 24,
Rules of Court]; and
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
3.) Certification of the said officer that
he has legal custody of the original
copy of the record.
What are the requisites for a copy of a
foreign public document to be admissible?
1.) It must be attested by the officer having
legal custody of the records or by his
deputy; and
2.) It must be accompanied by a certificate
by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice-consular or
consular agent or Foreign Service officer,
and with the seal of his office.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines,
such copy must be accompanied by a
certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or
consular officer in the Philippine foreign
service stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept and authenticated
by the seal of his office.
1. Judicial Notice; Exceptions
Judicial Notice - is the cognizance of
certain facts which judges may properly take
and act upon without proof because they are
supposed to be known to them. It is based on
considerations of expediency and
convenience. It displaces evidence, being
equivalent to proof.
Functions:
● It dispenses the presentation of
evidence and fulfills the purpose for
which the evidence is designed to
fulfill.
● It abbreviates the litigation by
admission of matters that need no
evidence because judicial notice is a
substitute for formal proof of a
matter by evidence.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 45
Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws
General Rule:
Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign
laws. They must be alleged and proved.
Exception:
When said laws are within the actual
knowledge of the court and such laws are:
1.) Well and generally known; or
2.) Actually ruled upon in other cases
before it and none of the parties
claimed otherwise. (PCIB vs.
Escolin, March 29, 1974)
2. Effect of Failure to Plead
Question: What is the effect of failure to
plead and prove the foreign law?
Failure to plead or proved foreign law, the
court may:
a. Dismiss the case for inability to establish
cause of action
b. Assume that the foreign law is the same as
the law of the forum
c. Apply the law of the forum
Explain why the foreign law cannot be
applied if it has not been pleaded and
proved.
The party whose cause of action or defense
depended upon the foreign law has the
burden of proving the foreign law. Such
foreign law is treated as a question of fact to
be properly pleaded and proved in
conformity with the law of evidence of the
state where it is presented.The rationale is
that a judge is not authorized to take
judicial notice of a foreign law and is
presumed to know only domestic law.
In addition, jurisprudences provide that
failure to plead the foreign law, the court
may either dismiss the case, assume that
foreign law is the same as the law of the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
forum or apply the law of the forum.
Processual Presumption
Doctrine of Processual Presumption - this
rule means that when the proper foreign law
has not been properly proved, the court of
the forum may presume that the said foreign
law is the same as its local or domestic law.
WILDVALLEY SHIPPING VS. COURT
OF APPEALS, (2000)
FACTS: This involves the Philippine Roxas
Vessel headed by Captain Colon bound to
Venezuela. Mr. Vasquez, the harbor pilot,
was designated to navigate the vessel
through the Orinoco River. Unfortunately, it
ran around the river obstructing the ingress
and egress of Malandrinon owned by
Widlvalley. Widvalley filed a case for
damages before the RTC of Manila. Capt.
Oscar Leon Monzon, the Assistant
HarborMaster of Venezuela, testified on the
existence of the written foreign public
documents to ewit: the pilotage law of
Venezuela and the rules governing the
navigation of the Orinoco River by
presenting photocopies of the said rules.
ISSUE:Whether or not Venezuelan law is
applicable to the case at bar?
RULING: NO. It is well-settled that foreign
laws do not prove themselves in our
jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized
to take judicial notice of them. Like any
other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
The court has interpreted Section 25 (now
Section 24) to include competent evidence
like the testimony of a witness to prove the
existence of a written foreign law.
For a copy of a foreign public document to”
be admissible, the following requisites are
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 46
mandatory: (1) It must be attested by the
officer having legal custody of the records or
by his deputy; and (2) It must be
accompanied by a certificate by a secretary
of the embassy or legation, consul general,
consul, vice consular or consular agent or
foreign service officer, and with the seal of
his office. The latter requirement is not a
mere technicality but is intended to justify
the giving of full faith and credit to the
genuineness of a document in a foreign
country.
The Court reiterates that under the rules of
private international law, a foreign law must
be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. In
the absence of pleading and proof, the laws
of a foreign country, or state, will be
presumed to be the same as our own local or
domestic law and this is known as
processual presumption.
MANUFACTURERS HANOVER TRUST
CO. VS. GUERRERO (2003)
FACTS: Guerrero filed before RTC a
complaint against Hanover for damages
arising from illegally withheld taxes and
illegal conversion of his account. Hanover,
in its answer, presented the affidavit of a
New York Attorney, Allyssa Walden, which
essentially stated that New York was the
governing law for the contract, and that said
law barred Guerrero’s claim.
ISSUE: Whether the New York Law was
proved by the Walden affidavit.
HELD: No. Foreign laws are not a matter of
judicial notice. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proven. The citations in
Walden's affidavit do not constitute proof of
the official records or decisions of the US
Courts. While Hanover attached copies, it
does not comply with Section 24, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court on proof of official
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
records or decisions of foreign courts. Thus,
Hanover only alleged, but has not proved,
what New York Law and Jurisprudence are
on the matters at issue.
EDI-STAFF BUILDERS
INTERNATIONAL VS. NLRC, (2007)
FACTS: Private respondent Gran was an
OFW recruited by EDI and deployed by ESI
to work in KSA. However, after five months,
Gran received a termination letter and right
there and then was removed from his post.
The termination states that he was
incompetent which is required by his line of
work, that he is failed to enrich his
knowledge during 5- month stay he is
disobedient because he failed to submit the
required daily reports.
Grant instituted a labor case for illegal
dismissal against the petitioner. Both parties
agreed that Saudi Labor Law should govern
all the termination of Gran’s employment.
ISSUE: W/N Saudi Labor Laws should be
applied.
RULING: No, Saudi Labor Law was not
proved in the court. EDI the petitioner did
not present proof as to the existence and
specific provision of such foreign law.
Therefore, processual presumption applies
and Philippine Labor Laws shall be used.
IN RE ESTATE OF JOHNSON, 1918 -
FACTS: Johnson was a US citizen, whose
will was probated in Manila. In the hearing
for the probate of his will, it was alleged to
be made in accordance with the laws of
Illinois. The trial court judge took judicial
notice of the said foreign law.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court is correct.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 47
HELD: No. The trial court judge erred in
taking judicial notice. The judge cannot take
judicial notice of the acts of the Legislative
Department of the US particularly the
various laws of the American states.
Likewise, the Philippine courts cannot take
judicial notice of the same under “matters of
public knowledge”. The proper rule is to
require proof of the Statute whenever it is
determinative of the issues in Philippine
courts.
WALTON VS. ARABIAN AMERICAN
OIL CO., 1956 - JACALNE
FACTS: Walton (Plaintiff), a resident of
Arkansas, was traveling by car in Saudi
Arabia when he was struck by a truck owned
and operated by Arabian American Oil
(Defendant), a Delaware corporation.
Walton (Plaintiff) brought suit in federal
district court in New York. At trial, Plaintiff
did not plead or offer to prove Arabian
American on torts. Neither did Arabian
American (Defendant). The trial judge
refused to take judicial notice of Arabian
American on his own motion and refused
dismissal of the suit.
ISSUE: Whether or not a court may decide
a tort suit, based on an injury sustained in a
foreign country, based on the law of the
forum, where neither party pleads or proves
the applicable foreign law?
RULING: NO. A court may not decide a
tort suit, based on an injury sustained in a
foreign country, based on the law of the
forum, where neither party pleads or proves
the applicable foreign law. Since this case is
in federal court on diversity jurisdiction, the
New York conflict of laws rule is applicable
and it holds that the law of the place of the
tort is controlling. While New York
procedures allow a judge to take judicial
notice of foreign law even though neither
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
party proves it, the judge would be abusing
his discretion if he were to take notice of a
foreign system of laws unfamiliar to our
own. Walton (Plaintiff) claims that the facts
of the incident establish liability under the
most rudimentary principle of tort law. But
there can be no rudimentary elements of
negligence in the sense they are universally
recognized and without proof of Saudi law
no decision should have been rendered. New
York law requires the plaintiff to go forward
to establish the foreign law, which he
intentionally failed to do. Lastly, Plaintiff
argues that Saudi Arabia has no system of
laws and that these types of claims are
decided at the whim of a dictatorial
monarch. The claim that a foreign country is
uncivilized or has no system of laws that a
civilized country would recognize as
adequate must be supported by substantial
proof before it will be accepted. The
majority of the court feels that since Walton
(Plaintiff) deliberately refused to prove
Saudi law, his complaint should be
dismissed.
Courts are not required to take judicial
notice of foreign law when it is neither
pleaded nor proved, but may not apply its
own law to a foreign tort on the unsupported
basis that the country where the accident
took place is also uncivilized.
LEARY VS. GLEDHILL, (1951)
FACTS: Leary instituted this action in New
Jersey to recover the loan contracted in
France against Gledhill. Gledhill moved to
dismiss the case on the ground that Leary’s
proof was insufficient as there is no pleading
or proof of the law of France where the
transaction occurred.
ISSUE: Whether French law is applicable.
HELD: Leary can recover despite failure to
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 48
prove French law. Although the court
recognizes the fact that France adopts civil
law rather than common law principles, the
cause of action of Leary may still be
pursued, as there are three presumptions that
the court may apply in the case. These are:
(1) French law is the same as law of the
forum; (2) French law, like all civilized
countries, recognizes certain fundamental
principles (taking of a loan creates
obligation to repay); (3) By failing to prove
French law, parties acquiesce to apply forum
law.
In this case the rights of the parties are to be
determined by the law of New Jersey which
unquestionably permits recovery on the facts
proven. In New Jersey, in the absence of
proof as to the applicable foreign law, the
courts have frequently applied the
presumption that the common law exists in
the foreign jurisdiction.
The transaction occurred in France. Which
New Jersey court may properly take judicial
knowledge that France is not a common law,
but rather a civil jurisdiction. The law of
France is the same as the law of the forum;
that the law of France, like all civilized
countries, recognizes certain fundamental
principles, as, e.g., that the taking of a loan
creates an obligation upon the borrower to
make repayment; that the parties by failing
to prove the law of France have acquiesced
in having their dispute determined by the
law of the forum.
ZALAMEA VS. CA, (1993)
FACTS:Petitioners purchased airline tickets
from Manila agent respondent Trans World
Airlines Inc. for a flight to New York to Los
Angeles. The tickets of petitioners were
purchased at discounted 75% while their
daughter was a full fare ticket. All three
tickets presented confirmed reservations.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
On the appointment date, petitioners
checked in but were placed on the waitlist
because the number of passengers who had
checked in before them had already taken
all seats available on the flight. Those
holding full- time tickets were given first
priority among the wait listed passengers.
Mr. Zalamea, who was holding the full fare
ticket of his daughter was allowed to board,
while his wife and daughter, who presented
the discounted ticket were denied boarding.
Petitioners filed an action for damages based
on breach of contract of air carriage. The
lower court ruled in favor of petitioners
while CA held that moral damages are
recoverable in damages suit predicated upon
a breach of contract of carriage only where
there is fraud or bad faith. Since it is a
matter of record that overbooking of flights
is a common and accepted practice of
airlines in the United States and is
specifically allowed under the Code of
Federal Regulations by Civil Aeronautics
Board, no found nor bad faith if could be
updated on respondent Transworld Airlines.
ISSUE: Whether or not TWZ acted with
bad faith and would entitle Zalameas to
Moral and Exemplary damages.
RULING: The U.S. law or regulation
allegedly authorizing overbooking has never
been proved. Foreign laws do not prove
themselves nor can the courts take judicial
notice of them. Like any other fact, they
must be alleged and proved. Written law
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 deputy, and accompanied with a
certificate that such officer has custody. The
certificate may be made by a secretary of an
embassy or legation, consul general, consul,
vice-consul, or consular agent or by any
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 49
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 office.
Respondent TWA relied solely on the
statement of Ms. Gwendolyn Lather, its
customer service agent, in her deposition
that the Code of Federal Regulations of the
Civil Aeronautics Board allows
overbooking. No official publication of said
code was presented as evidence. Thus, the
respondent court’s finding that overbooking
is specifically allowed by the US Code of
Federal Regulations has no basis in fact.
Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations does exist, the same is not
applicable to the case at bar in accordance
with the principle of lex loci contractus
which require that the law of the place
where the airline ticket was issued should be
applied by the court where the passengers
are residents and nationals of the forum and
the ticket is issued in such State by the
defendant airline. Since the tickets were sold
and issued in the Philippines, the applicable
law in this case would be Philippine law.
MICIANO VS. BRIMO
(G.R. No. L-22595 | 01 November 1927)
FACTS: Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of
Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate.
Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of
the estate left, filed a scheme of partition.
However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers
of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s
opposition is that the proposed partition is
contrary to Turkish law.
ISSUE: Whether the Turkish Law will still
apply.
HELD: The fact that Andre did not prove
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
that said testamentary dispositions are not in
accordance with the Turkish Law, in as
much as he did not present any evidence to
prove the same, and in the absence of
evidence on such laws, they are presumed to
be the same as those of the Philippines.
SUNTAY VS. SUNTAY, (1952)
FACTS: Jose Suntay, a Filipino resident
citizen, died in Amoy, China. He entered
into a contract of marriage twice in his
lifetime. He had children by his first
marriage with Manuela Cruz, including
appellee Federico. He also had a son,
appellant Silvino, by his second marriage
with Maria Natividad, who survived him.
Intestate proceedings were instituted in CFI
Bulacan. On October 15, 1934, his widow
filed a petition in CFL Bulacan for the
probate of his last will and testament,
claimed to have been executed and signed in
the Philippines in November 1929. Said
petition was denied because of the loss of
the will after the filing of the petition and
before the hearing thereof. The probate court
dismissed the petition. In the meantime, the
Pacific war supervened. After liberation,
Silvino filed a petition in the intestate
proceedings praying for the probate of the
will executed in the Philippines in
November 1929 or of the will executed in
Amoy, China in January 1931. He claimed
that he had found among the files, records
and documents of his late father, a will and
testament in Chinese characters executed
and signed by the deceased in January 1931,
and that the same was filed, recorded, and
probated in the Amoy District Court in
China. The CFI disallowed the alleged last
will and testament executed in November
1929 and the alleged last will and testament
executed in Amoy, China.
ISSUE: Whether or not the last will and testament
executed in Amoy, China should be allowed?
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 50

RULING: NO.
In an intestate proceeding that had already
been instituted in the Philippines, the widow
and child of the testator are not estopped
from asking for the probate of a lost will or
of a foreign will just because of the transfer
or assignment of their share, right, title and
interest in the estate of the deceased. The
validity and legality of such assignments
cannot be threshed out in the probate
proceeding which is concerned only with the
probate of the will.
In the absence of proof that the municipal
district court of Amoy is a probate court and
on the Chinese law of procedure in probate
matters, it may be presumed that the
proceedings in the matter of probating or
allowing a will in the Chinese courts are the
same as those provided for in our laws on
the subject. It is a proceeding in rem and for
the validity of such proceedings personal
notice or by publication or both to all
interested parties must be made.
Sections 41 and 42 of Rule 123 provides as
follows:
"SEC. 41. Proof of Public or official record.
— An official record or an entry therein,
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
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 within the United
States or its territory, the certificate may be
made by a judge of a court of record of the
district or political subdivision in which the
record is kept, authenticated by the seal of
the court, or may be made by any public
officer having a seal of the office and having
official duties in the district or political
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
subdivision in which the record is kept,
authenticated by the seal of his office. If the
office in which the record is kept is in a
foreign country, the certificate may be made
by a secretary of embassy or legation, consul
general, consul, vice consul, or consular
agent or by any officer in the foreign service
of the United States stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office."
"SEC. 42. What attestation of copy must
state. — Whenever a copy of writing is
attested for the purpose of evidence, the
attestation must state, in substance, that the
copy is a correct copy of the original, or a
specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of
the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he
be the clerk of a court having a seal, under
the seal of such court."
In the latter case, the Supreme Court said:
"A foreign law may be proved by the
certificate of the officer having in charge
of the original, under the seal of the state
or country. It may also be proved by an
official copy of the same published under
the authority of the particular state and
purporting to contain such law.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL
REVENUE VS. FISHER, ET. AL.
(G.R. NO. L-11622 | 28 JANUARY 1961)
FACTS: Spouses Walter and Beatrice
Stevenson are British subjects. Walter dies
leaving Beatrice as sole heir. The Collector
of Internal Revenue assessed estate tax on
the whole property of the spouses because
English law does not recognize conjugal
partnership.
ISSUE: Whether the English law will apply.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 51
HELD: No. The pertinent English law that
allegedly vests in the husband full
ownership of properties acquired during the
marriage was not proved by the Collector of
Internal Revenue. In the absence of proof,
the Court is justified in indulging in
“processual presumption” in presuming that
the law of England on the matter is the same
as our law.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VS.
DELA ROSA, (1991)
FACTS: On July 12, 1960, Santiago
Gatchalian, grandfather of William
Gatchalian, was recognized by the Bureau of
Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen
following the citizenship of natural mother
Mariana Gatchalian. On June 27, 1961,
Willian, then twelve years old, arrived in
Manila from Hongkong together with a
daughter and a son of Santiago. They had
with them a certificate of registration and
identity issued by the Philippine consulate in
Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the
signature of the secretary of foreign affairs,
Felixberto Serrano, and sought admission as
Filipino citizens.
On July 6, 1961, the board of special inquiry
admitted the Gatchalians as Filipino citizens
and issued an identification certificate to
William. The board of commissioners was
directed by the Secretary of Justice to
Review all cases where entry was allowed
on the ground that the entrant was a Filipino
citizen such included the case of William.
As a result of the decision of the board of
special inquiry which recommended the
reversal of the decision of the Board of
Commissioners. Acting commissioner
issued an order affirming the decision of the
Board of Special Inquiry.
On August 15, 1990, the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation ordered the
arrest of William and was released upon
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
posting P 200,000 cash bond. Thus on the
29thof the same month, he filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC
of Manila. A motion to dismiss was filed but
denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not William Gatchalian
is a Filipino citizen based on the validity of
his parents’ marriage abroad.
RULING: Yes. His grandfather, Santiago
Gatchalian, was born of a Filipina mother,
despite being an illegitimate child. His
father, Francisco Gatchalian, and he were
certified as Filipinos by the Philippine
Consulate in Hong Kong.William Gatchalian
is declared as a Filipino Citizen. Having
declared the assailed marriage as valid,
respondent William Gatchalian follows the
citizenship of his father, a Filipino as a
legitimate child. Respondent belongs to a
class of Filipinos who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
constitution.
Art. 267. In the absence of a record of birth,
authentic document, final judgment or
possession of status, legitimate filiation may
be proved by any other means allowed by
the Rules of Court and special laws. (See
also Art. 172 of the Family Code)
Philippine law, following the lex loci
celebrationis, adheres to the rule that a
marriage formally valid where celebrated is
valid everywhere. Referring to marriages
contracted abroad, Art. 71 of the Civil Code
(now Art. 26 of the Family Code) provides
that "(a)ll marriages performed outside of
the Philippines in accordance with the laws
in force in the country where they were
performed, and valid there as such, shall also
be valid in this country . . ."
3. Exceptions to Application of Foreign
Law
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 52
1. Forum law decrees application of
internal law- Article 16 which makes
property subject to the law where they are
situated.
2. Foreign law was not properly pleaded
and proved- Forum law should be applied
when there is failure to plead and prove the
pertinent foreign law.
3. Foreign law cannot be applied when:
a. when the foreign law is contrary to an
important public policy of the forum;
b. when the foreign law is penal in nature;
c. when the foreign law is purely fiscal or
administrative in nature;
d. when the foreign law is procedural in
nature;
e. when the application of the foreign law
will work undeniable injustice to the citizens
of the forum;
f. the the case involves real or personal
property situated in the forum; and
g. when the foreign law is contrary to good
morals.
V. ENFORCEMENT AND
RECOGNITION
A. Distinction between Enforcement
and Recognition
Recognition is a passive act of giving effect
to judgment of forum-1 without necessarily
filing an action in forum-2.
Ex. A divorce decree issued in Italy to an
Italian gives him capacity to remarry in the
Philippines
Enforcement of a foreign judgment
requires filing of an action in court. An
action of debt must be brought in Forum-2
on the Forum-1 judgment and a new
judgment by Forum-2 must be handed down
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
before the plaintiff can have properties of the
defendant attached.
B. BASES OF RECOGNITION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN
JUDGMENTS
Foreign judgments are recognized and
allowed to be enforced in our jurisdiction as
a matter of comity with the international
community.
The theory of comity would appear to mean
that, in order to obtain reciprocal treatment
from the courts of other countries, we are
compelled to take foreign judgments as they
stand and to give them full faith and credit,
so long as these judgments are not contrary
to public policy or our prohibitive laws. One
effect of recognition based on comity is that
it calls for reciprocity between concerned
jurisdictions.
Ex. Forum-1 would withhold recognition
and enforcement of the judgment if it comes
from Forum-2, a country which does not
give the same concession to a judgment
coming from Forum-1.
C. Policies Underlying Enforcement
of Foreign Judgments
Doctrine of Res Judicata
• Seeks to end litigation by
disallowing a suit on the claim
• Parties are prevented from
litigating issues that have been
determined between them by a
valid local judgment. Foreign
judgments, subject only to few
exceptions, are not open to
re-examination on the merits
when placed in issue before local
courts.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 53
This principle seeks to accomplish a policy
common to all states which is to give finality
to litigation. Once a court has rendered
judgment in a case, the issues which were
therein litigated or which could have been
litigated become binding on the parties and
their privies after the time for appeal has
expired or if they lose their appeal.
Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel
• issue preclusion by barring
re-litigation of an issue already
litigated in a prior proceeding
D. REQUISITES FOR
RECOGNITION OR
ENFORCEMENT, PROOF OF
FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
Requisites for Recognition or
Enforcement
1. The foreign judgment was
rendered by a judicial or a
quasi-judicial tribunal which
had jurisdiction over the
parties and the case in the
proper judicial proceedings.
2. The judgment must be valid
under the laws of the court
that rendered it.
3. The judgment must be final
and executory to constitute
res judicata in another action.
4. The state where the foreign
judgment was obtained
allows recognition or
enforcement in the Philippine
judgments
5. The judgment must be for a
fixed sum of money.
6. The foreign judgment must
not be contrary to the public
policy or good morals of the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
country where it is to be
enforced.
7. The judgment must not have
been obtained by fraud,
collusion, mistake of fact or
mistake of law.
Proofs of Foreign Judgment
Rule 132, Sec 24 and 25 of Revised Rules
of Court of PH
• 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 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 foreign country, 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
office. (25a)
• Section 25. What attestation of
copy must state. — Whenever a
copy of a document or record is
attested for the purpose of
evidence, the attestation must
state, in substance, that the copy
is a correct copy of the original,
or a specific part thereof, as the
case may be. The attestation must
be under the official seal of the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 54
 attesting officer, if there be any, A foreign judgment is not conclusive if:
or if he be the clerk of a court a. The judgment was rendered
having a seal, under the seal of under a system which does
such court. (26a) not provide impartial
tribunals or procedure
compatible with the
E. EFFECT OF FOREIGN requirements of due process
JUDGMENTS, RES JUDICATA of law;
b. The foreign court did not
The enforcement of foreign judgments is have personal jurisdiction
governed by Section 48 of Rule 39 of over the defendant; or
Revised Rules of Court of PH c. The foreign court did not
have jurisdiction over the
Section 48. Effect of foreign judgments or subject matter.
final orders. — The effect of a judgment or A foreign judgment need not be
final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, recognized if :
having jurisdiction to render the judgment or a. The defendant in the
final order is as follows: proceedings in the foreign
court did not receive notice of
(a) In case of a judgment or final the proceedings in sufficient
order upon a specific thing, the time to enable him to defend;
judgment or final order, is b. The judgment was obtained
conclusive upon the title to the by fraud;
thing, and c. The cause of action or claim
for relief on which the
(b) In case of a judgment or final judgment is based is
order against a person, the repugnant to the public policy
judgment or final order is of this state;
presumptive evidence of a right d. The foreign judgment
as between the parties and their conflicts with another final
successors in interest by a and conclusive judgment;
subsequent title.
G. PROCEDURE FOR
In either case, the judgment or ENFORCEMENT
final order may be repelled by
evidence of a want of (Compared to the simple procedure of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the exequatur, Philippine mode is protracted &
party, collusion, fraud, or clear expensive).
mistake of law or fact. (50a)
Our laws require that a petition should be
F. GROUNDS FOR filed in proper court attaching authenticated
NON-RECOGNITION copy of foreign judgment to be enforced.
The Philippine consul must certify that it
Section 4 of the Uniform Money – had been rendered by a court of competent
Judgment Recognition Act of the jurisdiction.
U.S reads:

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 55
The petition must comply w/ all the
requisites of an enforceable judgment.
Requirement to file an action anew. Attempt
to reconcile the principle of territorial
jurisdiction of courts w/c demands that the
enforcement of a judgment outside the
territory of rendering court must be placed
upon some other basis than the authority of
the rendering court w/c ceased at its
jurisdictional limits- & the principle of res
judicata.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES vs
COURT OF APPEALS and C.F. SHARP
(G.R. No. 112573 February 9, 1995)
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid
and binding in the country from which it
comes, until the contrary is shown. It is also
proper to presume the regularity of the
proceedings and the giving of due notice
therein.
The judgment may, however, be assailed by
evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. (See Sec. 50, R 39)
Being the party challenging the judgment
rendered by the Japanese court, SHARP had
the duty to demonstrate the invalidity of
such judgment.
BOUDARD vs TAIT
(G.R. No. L-45193 April 5, 1939)
The process of a court has no extraterritorial
effect, and no jurisdiction is acquired over
the person of the defendant by serving him
beyond the boundaries of the state. Nor has
a judgment of a court of a foreign country
against a resident of this country having no
property in such foreign country based on
process served here, any effect here against
either the defendant personally or his
property situated here.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
In an action strictly in personam, such as the
instant case, personal service of summons
within the forum is required for the court to
acquire jurisdiction over the defendant. To
confer jurisdiction on the court, personal or
substituted service of summons on the
defendant not extraterritorial service is
necessary.
RAMIREZ vs GMUR
(G.R. No. L-11796 August 5, 1918)
The evidence shows that both Kauffman and
Leona are domiciled in Iloilo, Philippines
and that their departure to Switzerland was
for medical purpose, and that Kauffman
went to Paris in 1904 to obtain a divorce
without an intention to establish permanent
residence in that city.
A court, where neither of the spouses is
domiciled, and to which one or both of them
may resort merely for the purpose of
obtaining a divorce, has no jurisdiction to
determine their matrimonial status; and a
divorce granted by such a court is not
entitled to recognition elsewhere.
MARGARET QUERUBIN vs.
SILVESTRE QUERUBIN
(G.R. No. L-3693 July 29, 1950)
In general, a decree of divorce awarding
custody of the child to one of the spouses is
respected by the Courts of other states "at
the time and under the circumstances of its
rendition" but such a decree has no
controlling effects in another state as to facts
and conditions occurring subsequently to the
date of the decree; and the Court of another
state may, in proper proceedings, award
custody otherwise upon proof of matters
subsequent to the decree which justify the
decree to the interest of the child.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 56
FUJIKI VS MARINAY
(GR NO. 196049 June 26, 2013)
For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign
judgment relating to the status of a marriage
where one of the parties is a citizen of a
foreign country, the petitioner only needs to
prove the foreign judgment as a fact under
the Rules of Court. To be more specific, a
copy of the foreign judgment may be
admitted in evidence and proven as a fact
under Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in
relation to Rule 39, Section 48 (b) of the
Rules of Court.
ROEHR vs RODRIGUEZ, et. al.
(GR NO. 142820 June 20, 2003)
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained
by foreigners in other countries are
recognizable in our jurisdiction. But the
legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care
and support of the children, must still be
determined by our courts. Before our courts
can give the effect of res judicata to a
foreign judgment, such as the award of
custody to Wolfgang by the German court, it
must be shown that the parties opposed to
the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to do so on grounds allowed
under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of
Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure).
ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO vs.
GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS
G.R. No. 140288
October 23, 2006
In the Philippines, jurisdiction over a party
is acquired by service of summons by the
sheriff, his deputy or other proper court
officer either personally by handing a copy
thereof to the defendant or by substituted
service.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
In this case, the Writ of Summons issued by
the Singapore High Court was served upon
respondent at its office located at Mercure
Hotel (formerly Village Hotel), MIA Road,
Pasay City. The Sheriff's Return shows that
it was received on May 2, 1998 by Joyce T.
Austria, Secretary of the General Manager
of respondent company. But respondent
completely ignored the summons, hence, it
was declared in default. Considering that the
Writ of Summons was served upon
respondent in accordance with our Rules,
jurisdiction was acquired by the Singapore
High Court over its person. Clearly, the
judgment of default rendered by that court
against the respondent is valid.
PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS vs
FASGI ENTERPRISES
(GR 137378 12 October 2000)
In this jurisdiction, a valid judgment
rendered by a foreign tribunal may be
recognized insofar as the immediate parties
and the underlying cause of action are
concerned so long as it is convincingly
shown that there has been an opportunity for
a full and fair hearing before a court of
competent jurisdiction; that trial upon
regular proceedings has been conducted,
following due citation or voluntary
appearance of the defendant and under a
system of jurisprudence likely to secure an
impartial administration of justice; and that
there is nothing to indicate either a prejudice
in court and in the system of laws under
which it is sitting or fraud in procuring the
judgment.
PAWI claims that its counsel, Mr. Ready, has
acted without its authority. Verily, in this
jurisdiction, it is clear that an attorney
cannot, without a client’s authorization,
settle the action or subject matter of the
litigation even when he honestly believes
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 57
that such a settlement will best serve his
client’s interest. However, PAWI failed to
substantiate this complaint with sufficient
evidence. Hence, the foreign judgment must
be enforced.
VI. PERSONAL LAW and
CITIZENSHIP
A. PERSONAL LAW
Is the law which attaches to a person
wherever he may go and generally governs
his status, capacity, condition, family
relations, and the consequences of his
actuations.
It allows courts to exercise jurisdiction or
determine the governing choice-of-law rule
on a specific situation or transaction
involving a person wherever he may be
(COQUIA, Conflict, supra at 88).
Different Theories of Personal Law
● The Nationality Theory or Personal
Theory - the status and capacity of a
person Is determined by the law of
his nationality or national law.
NOTE: The Philippines follows the
Nationality Theory.
● The Domiciliary Theory or
Territorial Theory - the status and
capacity of a person is determined by
the law of his domicile.
NOTE: The United States, like other
common law countries, follows the
domiciliary theory
● The Situs of Eclectic Theory - the
particular place or situs of an event
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
or transaction is generally the
controlling law.
Importance Of Personal Law
● Serves as a permanent connection
between the individual and a state.
● The reason for assigning him a
personal law that allows 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
● Nationality was used to establish the
link between an individual and a
state
● Laws should apply to the citizens
wherever they are.
● Does not apply to those who are
stateless.
● Does not offer any decisive solution
in states with a diverse legal system
such as the United States.
Importance of Nationality in the
Philippines
● It is the nationality of an individual
that regulates his civil status,
capacity, condition, his family rights
and duties, laws on succession, and
capacity to succeed.
● NATIONAL LAW THEORY
according to the Supreme Court is a
conflict of laws theory by virtue of
which jurisdiction over the particular
subject matter affecting a person,
such as the status of a natural person,
is determined by the latter’s
nationality.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 58

ARTICLE 15 OF THE NCC:
● Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to status, condition, and
capacity of persons are binding upon
the citizens of the Philippines even
though living abroad.
● A notion that an individual’s
personal rights shall be governed not
by the laws of his location but by his
political allegiance.
1. Personal Status Is the general term
that includes both condition and
capacity, and more specifically
embraces such matters as the
beginning and end of human
personality, capacity to have rights in
general, capacity to engage in legal
transactions and protection of
personal interest, family relations
particularly relations between
husband and wife, parent and child,
guardian and ward, also transaction
of family law, especially marriage,
divorce, separation, adoption,
legitimation and emancipation and
finally succession both testate and
intestate.
Status- taken from the Roman
doctrine of status libertates
(freedom) status civitates
(citizenshio) and status familiae
(position as head of the house or
as free person subject to the pater
familia)
2. Capacity:
Art. 15 of the Civil Code follows the
nationality principle.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
- Applies to Filipino nationals but
in cases of aliens, the court may
refer to the law of their domicile.
● Judicial capacity is the fitness of a
man to be the subject of legal
relations; is inherent in every natural
person and is lost only through death.
● Capacity to act is the power to do acts
with juridical effects; acquired and
may be lost
● Civil capacity is the union of both
juridical capacity and a capacity to act.
●
Determination of Nationality
Each state, through its municipal laws, has
the prerogative and authority to determine
who are its nationals or citizens. (Article 2
of The Hague Convention)
3. Beginning and End of Personality
Art. 40 and 41 of the Civil Code give
internal rules on the beginning of human
personality.
ARTICLE 40. Birth determines personality;
but the conceived child shall be considered
born for all purposes that are favorable to it,
provided it be born later with the conditions
specified in the following article
ARTICLE 41. For civil purposes, the foetus
is considered born if it is alive at the time it
is completely delivered from the mother’s
womb. However, if the fetus had an
intra-uterine life of less than seven months,
it is not deemed born if it dies within
twenty-four hours after its complete delivery
from the maternal womb.
● An individual is recognized as a
person once he is born regardless of
the length of time, he stays alive
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 59
 except if he had an intra-uterine life of
less than seven months.
● A civil personality is commenced at
birth, it is extinguished by death.
● Under the principle of personal law, a
declaration of death issued by a
competent court is considered valid for
all purposes.
● Upon the death of a person, some of
his rights and obligations are totally
extinguished while others are passed
on to his successors.
4. Absence
The domestic laws of different countries do
not treat absentees like and this has given
rise to difficult problems in conflict of laws.
Suggested ways of dealing with the
problem:
1. rebuttable presumption that a
person is dead when he has been
absent for a number of years;
2. a person’s unexplained absence is
judicially investigated and
established which results in legal
effects similar to those of death;
and
3. a judicial decree shall have to be
issued declaring the persons dead
before legal effects of death take
place.
Presumption of Death under the Civil
Code:
ARTICLE 390. After an absence of seven
years, it is unknown whether or not the
absentee still lives, he shall be presumed
dead for all purposes, except for those of
succession.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for
the purpose of opening his succession till
after an absence of ten years. If he
disappeared after the age of seventy-five
years, an absence of five years shall be
sufficient in order that his succession may be
opened.
ARTICLE 391. The following shall be
presumed dead for all purposes, including
the division of the estate among the heirs:
(1) A person on board a vessel lost
during a sea voyage, or an airplane
which is missing, who has not been
heard of for four years since the loss
of the vessel or airplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who
has taken part in war, and has been
missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger
of death under other circumstances
and his existence has not been
known for four years.
For specific purposes, a declaration of death
issued before certain legal effects of death
arises.
Art. 41 of the Family Code requires that for
the purpose of contracting a subsequent
marriage, the spouse present must first
institute a summary proceeding for the
declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee spouse without which subsequent
marriage is void ab initio.
5. Name
A person’s name is determined by law and
cannot be changed without judicial
intervention.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 60
The law expressly states that “no person can
change his name or surname without judicial
authority”.
The courts have allowed petitions on
the following grounds that the name:
1. Is ridiculous or tainted with
dishonor er expressly difficult to
pronounce;
2. When the change is necessary to
avoid confusion;
3. When the right to a new name is
consequence of a change in
status; or
4. A sincere desire to adopt a
Filipino name to erase signs of a
former alien nationality which
unduly hamper social and
business life.
ARTICLE 364. Legitimate and legitimated
children shall principally use the surname of
the father.
ARTICLE 365. An adopted child shall bear
the surname of the adopter.
ARTICLE 366. A natural child
acknowledged by both parents shall
principally use the surname of the father. If
recognized by only one of the parents, a
natural child shall employ the surname of
the recognizing parent.
6. Age of Majority
It is the individual’s personal law which
determines whether he has reached the age
of majority.
Once emancipated, parental authority over
the person and property of the child is
terminated and he is qualified and
responsible for all acts of civil life.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
B. CITIZENSHIP
1. Definition- Is a person’s membership
in a particular state.
How Acquired: Citizenship is acquired
either at birth or by naturalization.
Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution:
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 the law.
2. Importance of Citizenship
● Citizenship is important because it is
the source of rights.
● It is the source of benefits as some
rights are only available to the citizens
of a country.
Natural Born Citizens
Are those who are citizens of the Philippines
without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph 3, section 1 hereof is DEEMED,
NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS.
● JUS SOLI- Follows the law of the
place where one is born.
● JUS SANGUINIS- The rule of the
descent or blood.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 61
Citizen By Naturalization- Naturalization currency or must have some lucrative trade,
may either be judicial or Administrative. business, or lawful profession.
5. He must be able to speak and write
JUDICIAL: The petition is filed before a
English or Spanish and any of the principal
competent court.
Philippine languages.
1. The petitioner must not be less than 21
6. He must have enrolled his minor children
years of age at the date of the hearing of the
of school age in any of the public or private
petition.
schools recognized by the Bureau of Private
2. He must have resided in the Philippines
Schools where Philippine history,
for a continuous period of not less than 10
government, and civics are taught or
years.
prescribed as part of the school curriculum
during the entire period of the residence
It may be reduced to 5 years if:
required of him, prior to the hearing of his
a. If the applicant honorably held office
petition for naturalization.
under the Government of the Philippines or
under any of the provinces, cities,
Administrative
municipalities, or political subdivisions
The petition is filed before a special
thereof.
committee.
b. Introduced new industries or useful
1. The applicant must be born and reside in
inventions in the Philippines.
the Philippines since birth.
c. If he is married to a Filipino woman.
2. The applicant must not be less than 18
d. If he had been engaged as a teacher in a
years of age at the time of the filing of the
private or public school not established for
petition. 3. The applicant must be of good
the exclusive instruction of children of
moral character and believe in the
persons of particular nationality or race in
underlying principles of the Philippine
any of the branches of education or industry
Constitution, and must have conducted
for a period of two years.
himself/ herself in a proper and
e. If he was born in the Philippines.
irreproachable manner during his/her entire
period of residence in the Philippines in his
3. He must be of good moral character and
relation to the duly constituted government
believe in the principles underlying the
as well as with the community in which he/
Philippine Constitution and must have
she is living.
conducted himself in a proper and
4. The applicant must have received his/ her
irreproachable manner during the entire
primary and secondary education in any
period of his residence in the Philippines in
public or private educational institution duly
his relations with the constituted
recognized by the Department of Education,
Government as well as with the community
Culture and Sports., where Philippine
in which he is residing.
history, government, and civic are taught and
prescribed as part of the school curriculum
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines
and where enrollment is not limited to any
worth not less than P5000 Philippine
race or nationality. Provided that he/ she
should have minor children of school age,

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 62
he/ she must have enrolled them in similar
schools.
5. The applicant must have known trade,
business, profession, or lawful occupation,
from which he/ she derives sufficient income
for his/ her support and if he/ she is married
and or has dependents, also that of his/ her
family. Provided, however, that this shall not
apply to applicants who are college degree
holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to
do so by reason of their citizenship.
6. The applicant must be able to read, write
and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of
the Philippines.
7. The applicant must have mingled with the
Filipinos and evinced a desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals
of the Filipino people.
Disqualifications:
1. Those who oppose the organized
government or are affiliated with any
association or group of persons who uphold
and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments.
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity
of violence and personal assault, or
assassination for the success or
predominance of their ideas.
3. Polygamists, or believers in the practice
of polygamy.
4. Those convicted of crimes involving
moral turpitude.
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases.
6. Those who during the period of their
residence in the Philippines have not
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions, and
ideals of the Filipinos.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
7. Citizens or subjects of foreign countries
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right
to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Procedure For Naturalization
● A declaration of intention to become a
citizen must first be filed unless the
applicant is exempted.
● Shall be filed with the OSG under oath
that the applicant has his bona fide
intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines.
EXEMPTIONS:
1. If born in the Philippines and received his
primary and secondary education in public
schools or private schools recognized by the
Government, and not limited to any
particular race or nationality.
2. If continuously resided in the Philippines
for a period of 30 years or more before the
filing of the application.
3. The widow and minor children of an alien
who declared his intention to become a
citizen of the Philippines and dies before he
is actually naturalized.
4. The petition for naturalization must then
be filed, one year after the submission of a
declaration of intention.
5. After the publication in the OG or
newspaper of general circulation the petition
will be heard.
6. If the petition is approved, there will be
rehearing two years after the promulgation
of the judgment awarding naturalization.
7. Taking of Oath of allegiance to support
and defend the Constitution and laws of the
Philippines.
Effect Of Naturalization On Wives And
Children
1. Any woman now or hereafter be married
to a citizen of the Philippines, and who
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 63
might herself be lawfully naturalized shall
be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
2. Minor children of persons naturalized
under this law who have been born in the
Philippines shall be considered citizens
thereof.
3. Foreign-born minor child, if in the
Philippines at the time of the naturalization
of the parent, shall automatically become a
Philippine citizen.
4. Foreign-born minor child, who is not in
the Philippines at the time the parent is
naturalized shall be deemed a Philippine
citizen only during his minority unless he
begins to reside permanently in the
Philippines when still minor, in which case
he will continue to be a Philippine citizen
even after coming of age.
5. Child born outside the Philippines after
the naturalization of his parent shall be
considered a Philippine citizen unless within
one year after reaching the age of majority,
he fails to register himself as a Philippine
citizen at the American Consulate of the
country where he resides and to take the
necessary oath of allegiance
Problems In Applying The Nationality
Principle
Dual Or Multiple Citizenship
a. A child born of parents who are nationals
of a country applying the jus sanguinis, in a
country applying the jus soli principle has
dual nationality.
b. A Filipino citizen who marries an alien
may acquire the citizenship of his or her
spouse if the spouse’s national law so
allows. A Filipino citizen, however, who
marries an alien may retain his Filipino
citizenship unless, by his or her act or
omission, he is deemed under the law, to
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
have renounced it by taking an oath of
allegiance to the spouse’s country or by
express renunciation.
c. An individual who is naturalized in a
foreign country but who has not effectively
renounced his former nationality.
Statelessness
a. DE JURE STATELESSNESS 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
the individuals possessed of nationality but
whose country does not give them protection
outside their own territory.
Causes Of Statelessness
1. Deprivation of citizenship for any
cause, e.g., a commission of a
crime;
2. Renunciation of nationality by
express or implied acts;
3. 3. voluntary release from the
original state; and
4. 4. If born in a country
recognizing only the principle of
jus sanguinis of parents whose
law recognizes only the principle
of jus soli
NOTE: The Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness,
adopted in 1961, mandates that
the jus sanguinis country grant its
nationality to a person born
within its territory if he would
otherwise be stateless, and the jus
soli country extends its
nationality to a person who
would otherwise be considered
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 64
 stateless when one of his parents is a
citizen of the contracting state.
Stateless persons are generally subject to the
law of their domicile or habitual residence,
and in default thereof, to the law of their
temporary residence.
Dual Citizenship Distinguished From
Dual Allegiance
● Dual citizenship arises when, as 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.
● Dual allegiance refers to the situation
in which a person simultaneously
owes, by some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states. While dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual
allegiance is the result of an
individual's volition.
Causes Of Multiple Citizenship
1. A naturalized citizen's failure to
effectively renounce his former nationality;
2. Application of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis
principles;
3. The legislative act of States; or
4. The voluntary act of the individual
concerned
5. Status of Foundlings
Foundlings are those abandoned children
with no known natural parents.
Foundlings are likewise citizens under
international law.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
6. Expatriation
Is the commission of an act that results in
the loss of citizenship.
Lose Of Philippine Citizenship
1. By naturalization of foreign countries;
2. By express renunciation of citizenship;
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of
age or more: Provided, however, that a
Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine
citizenship in any manner while the
Republic of the Philippines is at war with
any country;
4. By rendering services to, or accepting a
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country: Provided, that rendering of service
to, or acceptance of such commission in, the
armed forces of a foreign country, and the
taking of an oath of allegiance incident
thereto, with the consent of the Republic of
the Philippines shall not divest a Filipino of
his Philippine citizenship if either of the
following circumstances is present:
a. The Republic of the Philippines has a
defensive or offensive pact of alliance with
the said foreign country.
b. The said foreign country maintains armed
forces on Philippine territory with the
consent of the RP: Provided, that the
Filipino citizen concerned, at the time of
rendering said service or acceptance of said
commission and taking the oath of
allegiance incident thereto, states that he
does so only in connection with his service
to a said foreign country. Provided finally,
that any Filipino citizen who is rendering
service to, or is commissioned in, the armed
forces of a foreign country under any of the
circumstances mentioned in par. (a) and (b)
shall not be permitted to participate nor vote
in any election of the RP during the period
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 65
of his service to, or commission in, the
armed forces of the said foreign country.
Upon his discharge from the service of the
said foreign country, he shall automatically
be entitled to the full enjoyment of his civil
and political rights as a Filipino citizen;
5. By cancellation of the certificate of
naturalization; and
6. By having been declared by a competent
authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a
plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.
R.A. 9225 was enacted to allow the
re-acquisition and retention of Philippine
citizenship by:
1. Natural-born citizens who. were deemed
to have lost their Philippine citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country; and
2. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who, after the effectivity of the law, became
The law provides that they are deemed to
have reacquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance.
7. Citizenship And Conflicts Of
Laws.
General Principles In Dealing With
Conflict Of Nationality Laws
1. It is for each State to determine who are
its nationals under its own law, which shall
be recognized by other States;
2. Any question as to the possession of
nationality shall be determined in
accordance with the law of that State;
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
3. A person having two or more nationalities
may be regarded as a national by each of the
States whose nationality he possesses;
4. A State may not afford diplomatic
protection to one of its nationals against a
State whose nationality such person also
possesses;
5. 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;
6. 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.
ANTONIO BENGSON III v. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL and TEODORO C. CRUZ
(G.R. No. 142840, 7 May 2001)
FACTS: Teodoro Cruz was a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines. He was born in
Tarlac in 1960 to Filipino parents.
Twenty-five years later, Cruz enlisted in the
US Marine Corps and without the consent of
the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath
of allegiance to the USA. As a consequence,
he lost his Filipino citizenship under CA No.
63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in
Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost
or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a
Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship,
among other, “rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of
a foreign country.” In 1994, Cruz reacquired
his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 66
Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such status as a natural-born Filipino.
Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or
Petition dismissed.
Accepting Commission In, the Armed
Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran MARY GRACE
for and was elected as the Representative of NATIVIDAD POE-LLAMANZARES VS
the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998 COMELEC EN BANC (G.R. NOS.
elections. He won over petitioner Bengson 221697-221700, MARCH 08, 2016)
who was then running for re-election.
FACTS: In 1968, Mary Grace Natividad S.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a case with Poe-Llamanzares was found abandoned as a
respondent HRET claiming that Cruz was newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro,
not qualified to become a member of the Iloilo. Parental care and custody over the
HOR since he is not a natural-born citizen as petitioner were passed on by Edgardo to his
required under Article VI, Section 6 of the relatives, Emiliano Militar, and his
Constitution. wife. Three days later, Emiliano reported
and registered the petitioner as a foundling
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the
with the Office of the Civil Registrar of
petition for quo warranto and declaring Cruz
Iloilo City. At the age of 5, she was adopted
the duly elected Representative in the said
by FPJ and Susan Roces.
election.
In 1991 she got married to Teodoro Misael
ISSUE: Whether Cruz, a natural-born
Daniel V. Llamanzares, a citizen of both the
Filipino who became an American citizen,
Philippines and the U.S., at Sanctuario de
can still be considered a natural-born
San Jose Parish in San Juan City. The
Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine
petitioner became a naturalized American
citizenship.
citizen. But because of the untimely demise
RULING: YES, The Court held that of her father, she returned to the Philippines
Filipino citizens who have lost their and decided to live permanently here.
citizenship may however reacquire the same
In October 2015, the petitioner filed her
in the manner provided by law. C.A. No. 63
COC for the Presidency for the May 2016
enumerates the three modes by which
Elections. In her COC, the petitioner
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by
declared that she declared among others that
a former citizen: a. by naturalization, b. by
she is a natural-born citizen. Petitioner's
repatriation, and c. by the direct act of
filing of her COC for President in the
Congress.
upcoming elections triggered the filing of
Repatriation results in the recovery of the several COMELEC cases against her
original nationality This means that a
ISSUE: Whether Grace Poe, a foundling,
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship
can be deemed a natural-born citizen of the
will be restored to his prior status as a
Philippines is qualified to run as a President.
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other
hand, if he was originally a natural-born
citizen before he lost his Philippine

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 67
RULING: YES, Foundlings are not
considered natural-born citizens however,
the Court held that she is a Filipino citizen.
While the Philippines is not a party to the
1930 Hague Convention, it is a signatory to
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights,
Article 15(1) of which effectively affirms
Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention.
The principles found in the two conventions,
while yet unratified by the Philippines, are
generally accepted principles of
international law.
In sum, all of the international law
conventions and instruments on the matter of
nationality of foundlings were designed to
address the plight of a defenseless class
which suffers from a misfortune not of their
own making. We cannot be restrictive as to
their application if we are a country which
calls itself civilized and a member of the
community of nations.
DJUMANTAN VS. HON. DOMINGO
(G.R. NO. 99358, JANUARY 30, 1995)
FACTS: Petitioner Djumantan, an
Indonesian national, and Bernard Banez, a
Filipino working in Indonesia, were married
in Islamic rites in Indonesia. Banez and the
petitioner arrived in the Philippines and the
petitioner was admitted as a temporary
visitor under Section 9(a) of the Immigration
Act of 1940. Subsequently, the immigration
status of the petitioner was changed from
temporary visitor to that of a permanent
resident and she was issued an alien
certificate of registration.
The petitioner became the "guest" of Banez's
Filipino wife upon Bane's representation that
the petitioner was a family friend. Bane's
Filipino wife later found out about their
relationship and her eldest son subsequently
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
filed a complaint with the Ombudsman
which referred the complaint to the
Commission on Immigration and
Deportation ("CID"). Deportation
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner.
The ClD found the second marriage of
Banez to respondent Djumantan irregular
and not in accordance with the laws of the
Philippines. It then revoked the section 13(a)
visa previously granted to the petitioner.
Petitioner contends that being the spouse of
a Filipino citizen, she was entitled to be
admitted and granted permanent residency
in the Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether the marriage of the
petitioner, a foreigner, to a Filipino citizen
entitled her to be admitted and to permanent
residency in the Philippines.
RULING: NO, the marriage of the
petitioner to a Filipino citizen did not
automatically bestow upon her the privilege
to enter and stay in the Philippines. There is
no law guaranteeing aliens married to
Filipino citizens the right to be admitted,
much less to be given permanent residency
in the Philippines.
The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen
does not withdraw her from the operation of
the immigration laws governing the
admission and exclusion of aliens. The
marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino
husband does not ipso facto make her a
Filipino citizen and does not excuse her
from her failure to depart from the country
upon the expiration of her extended stay
here as an alien. Thus, she should still
follow the formalities to be considered a
Filipino citizen.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 68

ERNESTO S. MERCADO vs. EDUARDO
BARRIOS MANZANO and the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
(G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999)
FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and
Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for
Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998
elections. Based on the results of the
election, Manzano garnered the highest
number of votes. However, his proclamation
was suspended due to the pending petition
for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado
on the ground that he was not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States. It
appears that Manzano is both a Filipino and
a US citizen. The Commission on Elections
declared Manzano disqualified as a
candidate for said elective position.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the
COMELEC En Banc, the disqualification of
the respondent was reversed. Respondent
was held to have renounced his US
citizenship when he attained the age of
majority and registered himself as a voter in
the elections of 1992, 1995, and 1998.
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the
Vice-Mayor of Makati City.
ISSUE: Whether being a dual citizen is
tantamount to being disqualified to hold a
public office.
RULING: NO. The court held that the
phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec.
40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be
understood as referring to dual
allegiance. Persons with mere dual
citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Dual citizenship is different from dual
allegiance. The former arises when, as a
result of the application of the different laws
of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the
said states. Dual allegiance, on the other
hand, refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. While dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is
a result of an individual's volition. Article IV
Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by
law." By electing Philippine citizenship,
such candidates at the same time forswear
allegiance to the other country of which they
are also citizens and thereby terminate their
status as dual citizens.
Here, the Manzano’s oath of allegiance to
the Philippines, which condition imposed by
law is satisfied and complied with
considering the fact that he has spent his
youth and adulthood, received his education,
practiced his profession as an artist, and
taken part in past elections in the
Philippines, leaves no doubt of his election
of Philippine citizenship. Manzano did not
apply for naturalization to be deemed as a
US citizen.
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
COMMISSIONERS V. GO CALLANO
25 SCRA 890 (1968)
FACTS: Private respondents Beato Go
Callano, Manuel Go Callano, Gonzalo Go
Callano, and Julio Go Callano were the
children of Go Chiao Lin, Chinese citizen,
and Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen. In
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 69
1946, the private respondents and their
parents went to Amoy, China, for a vacation.
Unfortunately, Go Chiao Lin died while
vacationing in China. Their mother
subsequently returned to the Philippines,
leaving the private respondents behind. On
December 26, 1961, private respondents
returned to the Philippines. At the airport,
the Immigration Inspector referred them to
Board of Special Inquiry No. 2 which
promulgated a decision finding the private
respondents to de the illegitimate children of
Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen, and
entitled to admission as Filipino citizens.
Subsequently, however, the Board of
Immigration Commissioners, exercising its
power of review, issued an order reversing
the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry
and ordered their exclusion as aliens not
properly documented for admission. The
Board of Immigration Commissioners
maintained that even if the private
respondents were considered to be Filipino
citizens when they left the Philippines in
1946, they lost that citizenship, firstly, by
staying in China for a period of fifteen years,
and secondly, because they have become
citizens of the Republic of China in
accordance with the Chinese Nationality
Law, arising from the recognition accorded
them by their common-law father.
ISSUE: Whether prolonged stay from the
Philippines and recognition by an alien
father are expatriating acts.
HELD:No, they are not expatriating acts.
The Supreme Court, quoting the decision of
the Court of Appeals, held as follows: The
question, whether petitioners [private
respondents] who are admittedly Filipino
citizens at birth subsequently acquired
Chinese citizenship under the Chinese Law
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
of Nationality by reason of recognition or a
prolonged stay in China, is a fit subject for
the Chinese law and the Chinese court to
determine, which cannot be resolved by a
Philippine court without encroaching on the
legal system of China. For, the settled rule of
international law, affirmed by the Hague
Convention on Conflict of Nationality Laws
of April 12, 1930 and by the International
Court of Justice, is that "Any question as to
whether a person possesses the nationality of
a particular state should be determined in
accordance with laws of that state."
There was no necessity of deciding that
question because so far as concerns the
petitioners status, the only question in this
proceedings is: did petitioners lose their
Philippine Citizenship upon the performance
of certain acts or the happening of certain
events in China? -in deciding this question
no foreign law can be applied. The
petitioners are admittedly Filipino citizens at
birth and their status must be governed.
JACOT V. DAL G.R. NO. 179848,
NOVEMBER 27, 2008
FACTS: Jacot, a natural-born Filipino,
naturalized in the United States on
December 13, 1989. He applied for the
reacquisition of his Filipino citizenship
under RA 9225 with the Philippine
Consulate General ("PCG") of Los Angeles,
California. On June 19, 2006, the PCG
issued an Order of Approval and Jacot
subsequently took his Oath of Allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.
On March 26, 2007, Jacot filed his
Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
Vice Mayor of Catarman in Camiguin. Dal
filed a Petition for Jacot's) Disqualification
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 70
on the ground that he failed to renounce his their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as
U.S. citizenship as required by Section 5(2) candidates in Philippine elections.
of Republic Act No. 9225. In answer to the
The intent of the legislators was not only for
Petition, Jacot argued that his Oath of
Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their
Allegiance made before the PCG and the
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act
oath contained in his Certificate of
No. 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to
Candidacy operated as an effective
the Republic of the Philippines, but also to
renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship
Subsequently, the COMELEC Second
if they wish to run for elective posts in the
Division granted the disqualification and
Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in
barred him from assuming the post of Vice
Philippine elections, Filipinos must only
Mayor.
have one citizenship, namely, Philippine
ISSUE: Whether petitioner is disqualified citizenship.
from running as a candidate for his failure to
SOBEJANA-CONDON V. COMELEC
make a personal and sworn renunciation of
G.R. NO. 198742, AUGUST 10, 2012
his U.S. citizenship.
FACTS: Petitioner Sobejana-Condon, a
HELD: Yes, he is disqualified.
natural-born Filipino citizen, naturalized in
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires Australia on December 13, 1984. On
that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, December 2, 2005, she applied to reacquire
who are already naturalized citizens of a her Philippine citizenship with the
foreign country, must take the following Philippine Embassy in Canberra, Australia.
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Her application was approved and she took
Philippines to reacquire or retain their the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic on
Philippine citizenship. By the oath dictated December 5, 2005.
in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino
On September 18, 2006, she filed an
swears allegiance to the Philippines, but
unsworn Declaration of Renunciation of
there is nothing therein on his renunciation
Australian Citizenship before the
of foreign citizenship.
Department of Immigration and Indigenous
Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 Affairs,Canberra, Australia. The latter office
compels natural-born Filipinos, who have subsequently issued an Order certifying that
been naturalized as citizens of a foreign she has ceased to be an Australian citizen.
country, but who reacquired or retained their
She ran for the position of Vice Mayor of
Philippine citizenship: (1) to take the oath of
Caba, La Union in the 2010 elections and
allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act
won. Subsequently, several registered voters
No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective
filed quo warranto proceedings against her
public offices in the Philippines, to
with the RTC on the ground that she is a
additionally execute a personal and sworn
dual citizen who failed to renounce her
renunciation of any and all foreign
foreign citizenship as required by Republic
citizenship before an authorized public
Act No. 9225. In response,
officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
Sobejana-Condon argued that the

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 71
Declaration of Renunciation of Australian
Citizenship she executed in Australia
sufficiently complied with Section 5(2),
Republic Act No. 9225 and that her act of
running for public office is a clear
abandonment of her Australian citizenship.
The RTC disqualified the petitioner and
nullified her proclamation as Vice Mayor.
The COMELEC En Banc, on appeal,
concurred and affirmed the decision of the
RTC.
ISSUE: Whether the "sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship" in Section 5(2) of
Republic Act No. 9225 is a mere proforma
requirement.
HELD: No, it is not a mere pro-forma
requirement. Petitioner is disqualified from
running for elective office for failure to
renounce her Australian citizenship in
accordance with Section 5(2) of Republic
Act No. 9225.
On September 18, 2006, or a year before she
initially sought elective public office, she
filed a renunciation of Australian citizenship
in Canberra, Australia. Admittedly, however,
the same was not under oath contrary to the
exact mandate of Section 5(2) that the
renunciation of foreign citizenship must be
sworn before an officer authorized to
administer oath.
It bears stressing that the Court's duty to
interpret the law according to its true intent
is exercised only when the law is ambiguous
or of doubtful meaning. The first and
fundamental duty of the Court is to apply the
law. As such, when the law is clear and free
from any doubt, there is no occasion for
construction or interpretation; there is only
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
room for application. Section 5(2) of
Republic Act No. 9225 is one such instance.
MAQUILING V. COMELEC (G.R. NO.
195649, APRIL 16, 2013)
FACTS: Arnado was a natural-born Filipino
citizen who naturalized in the United States.
He applied for repatriation under Republic
Act No. 9225 and took the oath of allegiance
to the Republic on July 10, 2008. He
subsequently executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation of his U.S. citizenship before
filing his Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor
of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in the 2010
elections.
Balua, another mayoralty candidate, filed a
petition to disqualify Arnado on the ground
that Arnado was not a resident of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he
was a foreigner, as evidenced by a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration
indicating the nationality of Arnado as
"USA- American." In addition, Balua also
stated that Arnado continued to use his US
passport in his travels abroad even after
executing the Affidavit of Renunciation.
The COMELEC First Division disqualified
Arnado on the ground that "Arnado's act of
consistently using his U.S passport after
renouncing his U.S. citizenship on April 3,
2009 effectively negated his Affidavit of
Renunciation." Arnado filed a Motion for
Reconsideration with the COMELEC En
Banc and the latter sided with Arnado,
stating in its decision that “[t]he use of a US
passport [.…….] does not operate to revert
back his status as a dual citizen prior to his
renunciation as there is no law saying such."
ISSUE:Whether the use of a foreign
passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 72
amounts to undoing a renunciation earlier
made.
HELD: Yes, the use of a foreign passport
undoes an earlier renunciation.
The use of foreign passport after renouncing
one's foreign citizenship is a positive and
voluntary act of representation as to one's
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation
but it recants the Oath of Renunciation
required to qualify one to run for an elective
position. By renouncing his foreign
citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a
Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of
such renunciation under the laws of the
foreign country.
However, this legal presumption does not
operate permanently and is open to attack
when, after renouncing the foreign
citizenship, the citizen performs positive
acts showing his continued possession of a
foreign citizenship,
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is
not a hollow oath that can simply be
professed at any time, only to be violated the
next day. It requires an absolute and
perpetual renunciation of the foreign
citizenship and a full divestment of all civil
and political rights granted by the foreign
country which granted the citizenship.
ARNADO V. COMELEC
(G.R. NO. 210164, AUGUST 18, 2015)
Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino
citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship
after he was naturalized as a US citizen.
Subsequently, and in preparation for his
plans to run for public office in the
Philippines, Arnado applied for repatriation
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
under RA 9225 before the Consul in San
Francisco. He took the Oath of Allegiance
and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of
his foreign citizenship. He then filed his
2009 COC for the mayoralty post of Lanao
del Norte for the 2010 elections. However,
his co-candidate filed a petition to disqualify
on the ground that he continued to use his
US passport for entry to and exit from the
Philippines after executing his Affidavit of
Renunciation.
Arnado was disqualified from running for
public office by virtue of his subsequent use
of a US passport, which effectively
disavowed or recalled his 2009 Affidavit of
Renunciation. Arnado failed to comply with
the 2nd requisite because as held in
Maquiling, his 2009 Affidavit of
Renunciation was deemed withdrawn when
he used his US passport after executing said
affidavit. Since then up to the time he filed
his COC in 2012, Arnado had not cured the
defect in his qualification.
DAVID VS. AGBAY,
(G.R. NO. 199113, 2015)
Petitioner migrated to Canada where he
became a Canadian citizen by naturalization.
Upon retirement, petitioner and his wife
returned to the Philippines and purchased a
lot along the beach in Oriental Mindoro
where they constructed a residential house.
However, the portion where they built their
house is public land and part of the salvage
zone. Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application (MLA) over the subject land
with the DENR. In the said application,
petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino
citizen.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 73
Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed family court in Japan which declared the
the application on the ground that petitioner, marriage between Marinay and Maekara
a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own void on the ground of bigamy.
land. She also filed a criminal complaint for
On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition
falsification of public documents under
in the RTC entitled: “Judicial Recognition of
Article 172 of the RPC against the
Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute
petitioner. Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired
Nullity of Marriage).” The RTC ruled that
his Filipino citizenship under the provisions
the petition was in “gross violation” of the
of Republic Act No. 9225.
provisions of A.M. 02-10-11 pertaining to
Petitioner may be indicted for falsification the venue and the party who may file the
for representing himself as a Filipino in his petition. The RTC took the view that only
Public Land Application despite his “the husband or the wife,” in this case either
subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to
citizenship under the provisions of R.A. declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
9225. Considering that petitioner was
The Supreme Court ruled that A.M. No.
naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the
02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to
effectivity of R.A. 9225, he belongs to the
recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
first category of natural- born Filipinos
status of a marriage where one of the parties
under the first paragraph of Section 3 who
is a citizen of a foreign country. Since the
lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization
recognition of a foreign judgment only
in a foreign country. As the new law allows
requires proof of fact of the judgment, it
dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire
may be made in a special proceeding for
his Philippine citizenship by taking the
cancellation or correction of entries in the
required oath of allegiance.
civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of
FUJIKI VS. MARINAY Court.
(G.R. NO. 196049, 26 JUNE 2013)
Moreover, the Court held that Fujiki has the
personality to file a petition to recognize the
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying
Japanese national who married respondent
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the
on the ground of bigamy because the
Philippines on 23 January 2004. Eventually,
judgment concerns his civil status as married
they lost contact with each other. In 2008,
to Marinay. For the same reason, he has the
Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi
personality to file a petition under Rule 108
Maekara (Maekara). Without the first
to cancel the entry of marriage between
marriage being dissolved, Marinay and
Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on
Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in
the basis of the decree of the Japanese
Quezon City, Philippines. However, Marinay
Family Court.
allegedly suffered physical abuse from
Maekara. Fujiki and Marinay were able to
reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki
helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 74
C. DOMICILE c.) Constructive domicile – domicile by
operation of law.
1. Definition-
3. General Rules On Domicile:
The domicile of a person is the place where
he has his true, fixed, permanent home and 1.) General application is that no person
principal establishment, and in cases of his shall be without domicile;
absence, he has the intention of returning
2.) Person cannot have two simultaneous
with no intention of moving.
domiciles;
Three Elements Of Domicile:
3.) Establishes a connection between person
1.) The fact of residing or physical presence and particular territorial unit;
in a fixed place;
4.) Burden of proving change of domicile is
2.) The intention of returning there upon the one who alleges that changes have
permanently (Animus manendi), and been secured.
3) Over acts that correspond to the intention. 4. Loss, Retention And Change of
Domicile
Domicile Vs Residence
Domicile may be lost through the
DOMICILE RESIDENCE performance of certain acts indicative of an
intent to abandon domicile. These acts,
permanent temporary
however, may also indicate the intent to
implies an act -applies to retain one's domicile.
coupled with intent. temporary stay of a A person may abandon his domicile by
person in a given choosing a new domicile, actually residing
place. therein, and intending that place to be his
permanent residence.
a person can only a person may have
have one domicile. several residences. Example:
Members of the armed forces, students, and
clergymen, while assigned or staying
NOTE: For Juridical persons, the domicile somewhere else do not lose their domicile so
is determined by the law creating or long as they retain the intent to return to
recognizing it. their domicile.
2. Kinds Of Domicile Acts Indicative of Domicile
a.) Domicile of origin – refers to a person's ● Person's residence
domicile at birth. ● Membership in church
b.) Domicile of Choice – the place freely ● Voting
● Holding office
chosen by a person (Sui Juris/ Voluntary
● Paying taxes, and
domicile)
● Ownership of property

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 75

What Determines The Question Of
Domicile?
It is determined by the law of the forum
state.
Use of the Law of Domicile
There are certain foreign states which apply
the law of domicile in determining certain
legal considerations.
Example: The state of California provides in
its Civil Code that it shall be the law of the
domicile that shall govern the successional
rights of its citizens.
Significance of Domicile
It is significant because it is the source of
rights and obligations.
Article 50 of the Civil Code states:
“for the exercise of civil rights and the
fulfillment of civil obligations, the
domicile of natural persons is the place of
their habitual residence.”
5. Permanent Residency Overseas And
The Process Of Foreign Naturalization
Permanent Residency Overseas- Getting
permanent resident status in a foreign
country necessarily implies abandonment of
the domicile of a green card holder.
Green Card- it is a permanent visa card
usually issued to applicants who are given
the privilege to stay in a foreign country (ex.
United States) on a PERMANENT BASIS.
Process of Foreign Naturalization
For people with non-immigrant visas
(tourists and students), they usually file a
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
petition for adjustment of status from
non-immigrant to permanent resident.
For people who are still in the Philippines,
and who are petitioned by their loved ones
abroad, they have to wait for the approval
and release of their immigrant visas before
they can go abroad.
Once the person complies with the
conditions of his permanent residency and
after a continued stay in that country, the
permanent resident becomes eligible to
apply for citizenship.
6. Requirement of Domicile And Absentee
Voting
Section 1, Article V of the 1987
Constitution states:
"suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of
the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by
law, who are at least eighteen years of age,
and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year, and in the
place wherein they propose to vote, for at
least six months immediately preceding the
election”.
Section 2, Article V of the 1987
Constitution states: “The Congress shall
provide a system for securing the secrecy
and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad.”
Formerly, the residency requirement must
conform with the doctrine of domicile so
that persons may be allowed to vote despite
being absent in the Philippines for a
considerable time. However, subsequent
legislation on dual citizenship, like Republic
Act No. 9225, have allowed dual citizens of
the Philippines to vote even though they lack
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 76
the residency and domicile previously
required by law.
Republic Act No. 10590 further reinforced
the right to vote of absentee voters by
omitting the affidavit requirement found in
Republic Act No. 9189. (affidavit declaring
the intention to resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not
later than three (3) years after approval of
his/her registration as an overseas absentee
voter)
7. Venue In Estate Proceedings
The residence of a person is significant in
determining the venue of estate proceedings
and ordinary civil actions.
Residence, for venue purposes, usually refer
only to actual residence or place of abode,
and not to a person's domicile. It must be his
personal, actual or physical habitation or his
actual residence or abode.
ROMUALDEZ MARCOS VS.
COMELEC
(248 SCRA 300, 1995)
The Supreme Court ruled that Marcos
possessed the one-year residency
requirement and is qualified to run for the
position of representative of Leyte. The
Court held that there is a difference between
domicile and residence. "Residence" is used
to indicate a place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes
a fixed permanent residence to which, when
absent, one has the intention of returning. A
man may have a residence in one place and a
domicile in another. Residence is not
domicile, but domicile is residence coupled
with the intention to remain for an unlimited
time. A man can have but one domicile for
the same purpose at any time, but he may
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
have numerous places of residence. His
place of residence is generally his place of
domicile, but it is not by any means
necessarily so since no length of residence
without intention of remaining will
constitute domicile.
JALOSJOS VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO.
(191970, 24 APRIL 2012)
The COMELEC holds that Jalosjos failed to
present ample proof of a bona fide intention
to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay. However, the Supreme Court held
that when he came to the Philippines in
November 2008 to live with his brother in
Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that
Jalosjos did so with intent to change his
domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up
his Australian citizenship, and renounced his
allegiance to that country. In addition, he
reacquired his old citizenship by taking an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, resulting in his being issued a
Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.
By his acts, Jalosjos forfeited his legal right
to live in Australia, clearly proving that he
gave up his domicile there. And he has since
lived nowhere else except in Ipil,
Zamboanga Sibugay. It is a settled maxim
that a man must have a domicile or
residence somewhere.
CABALLERO VS. COMELEC (G.R.
NO. 209835, 22 SEPTEMBER 2015)
Petitioner Caballero, a candidate for
mayoralty race of the Municipality of
Uyugan, Province of Batanes committed a
misrepresentation in his COC when he
declared that he is a resident of Uyugan,
Batanes. Petitioner became a Canadian
citizen and retained his Filipino citizenship
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 77
by virtue of RA 9225. However, petitioner's
retention of his Philippine citizenship under
RA No. 9225 did not automatically make
him regain his residence in Uyugan,
Batanes. When a natural-born Filipino with
dual citizenship seeks for an elective public
office, residency in the Philippines becomes
material.
CAASI VS. CA, (G.R. NO. 88831, 8
NOVEMBER 1990)
Petitioner Mateo Caasi, a rival candidate of
Merito Miguel filed a petition to disqualify
the latter from being a candidate for the
position of municipal mayor of Pangasinan
on the ground that Miguel is a green card
holder. According to Caasi, a green card is
proof that the holder is a permanent resident
of the United States. The Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the Petitioner. Under
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
states that, “Any person who is a permanent
resident of or an immigrant to a foreign
country shall not be qualified to run for any
elective office under this Code, unless such
person has waived his status as permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.”.
COQUILLA VS. COMELEC (G.R. NO.
151914, 31 JULY 2002)
Petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras
by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in
the U.S. Navy in 1965. From then on and
until November 10, 2000, when he
reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner
was an alien without any right to reside in
the Philippines save as our immigration laws
may have allowed him to stay as a visitor or
as a resident alien. Hence, the Supreme
Court affirmed the cancellation of the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
petitioner’s COC for making such
misrepresentation. The petitioner has not
satisfied the residency requirement provided
for by the constitution for persons seeking
an elective office.
POE-LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC,
G.R. NOS. 221697-221700, 8 MARCH
2016
Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency
because she satisfied the requirements of
ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain
permanently) coupled with ANIMUS NON
REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to
US) in acquiring a new domicile in the
Philippines. Starting May 24,2005, upon
returning to the Philippines, Grace Poe
presented overwhelming evidence of her
actual stay and intent to abandon
permanently her domicile in the US, coupled
with her eventual application to reacquire
Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. In
order to qualify to run for public office in the
Philippines, an immigrant to a foreign
country must waive such status as
manifested by some act or acts independent
of and done prior to the filing of the
certificate of candidacy. A person can have
but one domicile at a time.
MACALINTAL VS. COMELEC, G.R.
NO. 157013, 10 JULY 2003
This case is a petition for certiorari and
prohibition filed by Petitioner, seeking a
declaration that certain provisions of
Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003) suffer from
constitutional infirmity. The Court upholds
the right of the petitioner to file the present
petition. The petitioner raises questions
about the constitutionality of allowing
Filipino immigrants or permanent residents
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 78
of other countries to participate in their right themselves the right of suffrage under RA
of suffrage just by executing an affidavit 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
expressing their intention to return to the 2003 before the May 2004 elections.
country. Secondly the Petitioner also Wherein COMELEC rejected their petition
questioned the legality of the COMELEC ’s arguing that upon acquiring foreign
power to declare winning national citizenship, they have renounced their
candidates, that is only reserved by law to Philippine citizenship and have abandoned
the CONGRESS of the Philippines. Lastly, their domicile. And they did not to meet the
Petitioner also questioned the power of residency requirement among others
CONGRESS through the Joint provided in Section 1
Congressional Oversight Committee , can
Article 5 of the Constitution by first
exercise the power to review, revise, amend,
establishing their domicile. Wherein the
and approve the Implementing Rules and
issue: the dual citizens who have re-acquired
Regulations that the Commission on
their Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA
Elections shall promulgate without violating
9225 can exercise their right of suffrage
the independence of the COMELEC . The
under RA 9189? Here the Court held that
court ruled contrary to petitioner’s claim that
pursuant to Section 5 of RA 9225 states that
Section 5(d) circumvents the Constitution,
those who retained or reacquired their
Congress enacted the law prescribing a
citizenship under this act shall enjoy full
system of overseas absentee voting in
civil and political rights, subject to certain
compliance with the constitutional mandate.
conditions including the fulfillment of the
Then on the second question the courts state
requirements under Section 1 Article 5 of
that COMELEC being an Independent
the Constitution and RA 9189. The phrase
Constitutional Body in its own capacity
“all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
vested by Law may proclaim winning
authorized by law” served as the guide to
national candidates except for the position of
Congress in establishing a system for
President and Vice President, that is allotted
absentee voting. Applying the doctrine of
to the Congress of the Philippines. On the
necessary implication, The Constitution
last petition the Court ruled that
provides an exception to the residency
CONGRESS has no power to review, revise,
requirement In Article 5, just by executing
amend, and approve the Implementing Rules
an affidavit to express the intention to
and Regulations of Comelec, wherein such
reacquire the domicile in the Philippines
actions are in the discretionary powers given
without the requirement to physically stay in
by Law to the COMELEC only.
the Philippines.
NICOLAS-LEWIS VS. COMELEC, G.R.
JAO VS. CA, G.R. NO. 128314, 29 MAY
NO. 162759, 4 AUGUST 2006
2002
Petitioners were dual citizens who
Petitioner and defendant were brothers who
re-acquired their Philippine citizenship
battled the administration over the estate of
under RA 9225, the Citizens Retention and
their parents wherein the defendant filed a
Re-acquisition Act of 2003. Who filed a
petition for the issuance of letters of
petition to the COMELEC to avail

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 79
administration before the RTC, but
Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the
petition on the grounds of improper venue.
He argued that the deceased spouses did not
reside in Quezon City either during their
lifetime or at the time of their deaths. The
decedents actual residence was in Angeles
City and submitted documentary evidence
indicating that their permanent residence
was in Angeles City, Pampanga. The court
denied his and held that 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.
SAN LUIS VS. SAN LUIS, G.R. NO.
134029, 6 FEBRUARY 2007
Felicisimo San Luis was the former
governor of the Province of Laguna. He
contracted three marriages, and his last
marriage with Felicidad San Luis which
lasted for 18 years up to the time of his
death wherein he did not have any children,
Felicidad filed a petition for the dissolution
of their conjugal properties. However,
Rodolfo, his Eldest son on his first marriage,
filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of
improper venue and failure to state a cause
of action. claimed that Felicidad has no legal
personality to file the petition because she is
only a mistress of his father because at the
time of death, he was still married to his
second wife. Felicidad presented the
evidence that proved the marriage of
Felicisimo to Merry lee had already been
dissolved. And she claimed that Felicisimo
had the capacity to marry her, the issue here
is if letters of administration were validly
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
filed in the Regional Trial Court in Makati?
The Court cites that the petition contended
by the petitioner lack of merit, and
dismissed the distinction between
“residence” for purposes of election laws
and “residence” for purposes of fixing the
venue of actions. In election cases,
“residence” and “domicile” are treated as
synonymous terms, that is, the fixed
permanent residence to which when absent,
one has the intention of returning. However,
for purposes of fixing venues under the
Rules of Court, the “residence” of a person
is his personal, actual, or physical
habitation, or actual residence or place of
abode, which may not necessarily be his
legal residence or domicile provided he
resides therein with continuity and
consistency. Hence,it is possible that a
person may have his residence in one place
and domicile in another. Petitioners
established that his father was domiciled in
Sta. Cruz, Laguna, respondent proved that
he also maintained a residence in Alabang,
Muntinlupa from 1982 up to the time of his
death.
VII. TORTS AND
DAMAGES
A. DEFINITION OF TORTS
A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to
injury or harm to another and amounts to a
civil wrong for which courts impose
liability.
It is a civil wrong wherein one person’s
conduct causes a compensable injury to the
person, property, or recognized interest of
another, in violation of a duty imposed by
law.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 80

Tortious Act-It is a wrongful act. It is the
commission or omission of an act by one,
without right, whereby another receives,
some direct or indirect injury, in person,
property, or reputation.
Tortfeasor-very person legally responsible
is liable for a tort committed by him
provided it is the proximate cause of an
injury to another.
Elements of Quasi- Delict
● The damages suffered by the
plaintiff;
● The fault or negligence of the
defendant or some other person to
whose act he must respond;
● The connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence and
the damages incurred; and
● That there must be no pre-existing
contractual relation between the
parties.
Concept of Negligence
Article 1173 of the New Civil Code provides, it
consists in the omission of that diligence which
is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the
persons, of the time and of the place.”
In determining negligence, the standard
employed is the ordinary prudent person test.
Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent
man would have foreseen that an effect harmful
to another was sufficiently probable to warrant
his foregoing or guarding against its
consequences.
Quasi-delicts or torts are one of the
sources of obligations under the Civil
Code.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Article 2176 of the New Civil Code
provides, “Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done.”
B. TORTS AND CRIMES
Torts & Crimes distinguished
a. There can be quasi-delict as long as
there is fault or negligence resulting
in damage or injury to another while
in crimes there must be a law
punishing the act.
b. Criminal intent is not necessary for
torts, while in crimes there must be a
criminal intent for criminal liability
to exist.
c. Quasi-delict is a wrongful act against
a private individual. Crime is a
wrong against the State or the public
interest.
d. Quasi-delict is a preponderance of
evidence while in crimes guilt of the
accused must be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.
e. Either reparation or indemnification
of the injury or damage, while in
crimes either imprisonment, fine, or
both.
C. CONFLICT OF LAWS IN TORTS
Conflicts usually occur in cases of
cross-border torts when the act or conduct
causing the injury happens in one state while
the resulting injury is felt in another state.
D. APPROACHES TO CONFLICTS’
TORTS
There are several approaches to conflict
torts:
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 81
 1. Lex Loci Delicti or the vested
rights doctrine
This is the traditional rule that employs the
law of the place of injury. This is fairly
straightforward since what only needs to be
done is the application of the law of the
place where the injury or damage was
sustained. This is based on the vested rights
theory since the rights of the parties are
vested in the place of injury and nowhere
else.
2. Governmental interest analysis
approach
A three-tiered approach that involves an
examination of whether there is a difference
in the law of the jurisdictions involved,
whether there is a true conflict of law, and if
a true conflict exists, the court will apply the
law of the state whose interest is more
impaired.
3. Choice-influencing consideration approach
This approach requires an examination of
several factors to determine the applicable law.
The five factors are:
● Predictability of results
● Maintenance of the interstate and
international order
● Simplification of the judicial task
● Advancement of the forum’s
governmental interest
● Application of the better rule of law
4. Lex Fori
This approach is where the rights and
liabilities of the parties are governed by the
law of the forum.
5. Most significant relationship approach
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
An examination is made as to what state has
the most connected to a case. The law of the
state which has the most connection shall be
applied in the resolution of the conflict.
● The place where the injury occurred;
● the place where the conduct causing
the injury occurred;
● the domicile, residence, nationality,
place of incorporation, and place of
business of the parties, and
● the place where the relationship, if
any, between the parties is centered.
E. Lex Loci Delicti vs. Most Significant
Relationship
The most common approaches to conflict
torts are the Lex Loci Delicti and the most
significant relationship test. Jurisdictions
that employ lex loci delicti favors its
simplicity, ease of application, stability, and
predictability. With this approach, all that is
needed to be done is to apply the law of the
place of injury with no need for
contacts-counting. It is disfavoured,
however, because it is inflexible and does
not respond to the needs of modern litigation
Especially with the advent of the internet, it
will be tremendously difficult to pinpoint the
place of injury, as torts may have a
cross-border character.
Jurisdictions that employ the most
significant relationship approach, on the
other hand, favor its responsiveness to
modern times and litigation, flexibility,
fairness, and judiciousness. Proponents of
this approach argue that there is a greater
chance of justice being obtained as in the
Saudi Arabian Airlines case. It is also
fine-tuned in modern litigation where it is
difficult to pinpoint the place of injury or
where the place of injury could be in several
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 82
states It is described, however, as eclectic, as
in Dowis. for its tendency to ignore stare
decisis, making judicial decisions
unpredictable.
Philippines’ Preference for Most
Significant Relationship
The Court held in Saudi Arabian
Airlines vs. CA, that the most significant
relationship expressly preferred being in
step with the modern trend in tort liability as
against the widely- criticized lex loci delicti.
Abandonment of Stare Decisis
Justice Kavanaugh stated that the
doctrine of stare decisis is not etched in
stone when the Court has to abandon
long-standing precedent. The grounds for
overruling a prior constitutional decision:
● When the prior decision is not only
wrong but grievously or egregiously
wrong;
● When the prior decision caused
significant negative jurisprudential or
real-world consequences; and
● When overruling the prior decision
would unduly upset reliance
interests, based on the variety of
reliance interest and the age of the
precedent.
DOWIS ET AL. VS. MUD SLINGERS
INC., ET AL., 2005
FACTS: The Plaintiff, Johnny Edwin Dowis,
was a Tennessee resident, hired by Mud
Slingers, a Missouri corporation, to hang
large sheets of precast plaster molding in a
Baymont Inn & Suites in Roswell, Fulton
County, Georgia. While working in Roswell,
Georgia, Plaintiff was in a basket (manlift)
of a telescopic boom forklift operated by the
Defendant Graves for Plaintiff's employer.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
The boom tipped over, causing the Plaintiff
to fall four stories. Plaintiff filed a Workers'
Compensation claim against the
Defendant-employer in Missouri rather than
under the Georgia Workers' Compensation
Act. Thereafter, Dowis filed the tort action
in Georgia against the employer and its
president, based on Missouri workers'
compensation law.
The trial court granted summary judgment to
appellees, based on the exclusive remedy
provision of the Georgia Workers'
Compensation Law, and the rule of lex loci
delicti. That judgment was affirmed by the
court of appeals, and the state supreme court
granted certiorari review. The Court of
Appeal holds that lex loci delicti and
application of Georgia’s exclusive remedy
provision precluded Dowis from
maintaining his tort action inGeorgia.
ISSUE: Whether or not Georgia should
abandon its adherence to lex loci delicti
RULING: No, Georgia will not abandon its
adherence to lex loci delicti.
The appellants Dowis urge that Georgia join
this group of states and adopt the “most
significant relationship” test of the
Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws,
and thus, allow them under Missouri law to
proceed with their Georgia lawsuit against
Mud Slingers and Graves. But it is
well-settled that Georgia will continue to
adhere to traditional conflict of laws rule
until a better approach is found. The
doctrine of lex loci delicti has served the
resolution of conflict of laws issues in tort
actions in this State for nearly 100 years. It
is desirable to have stability and certainty in
the law; therefore, stare decisis is a valid and
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 83
compelling argument for maintaining the
doctrine.
MELTON VS. STEPHENS JULY 22,
2014)
FACTS: A motor vehicle collision
transpired between Appellees–Plaintiffs,
Stacy S. Stephens (Stacy) and Chad
Stephens (Chad) (collectively, Stephens) and
Melton at an intersection in Lawrence
County, Illinois. Both parties are residents of
the State of Indiana. Both individuals were
making roundtrips that originated in Indiana
and which were designed to return them to
their respective places of employment when
their vehicles collided inIllinois.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court
properly held that Illinois substantive law is
applicable to a collision which occurred in
Illinois between two Indiana residents after
considering the choice of law factors
delineated in Hubbard Manufacturing Co.,
Inc. v. Greeson?
HELD: Yes, as lex loci delicti applies. The
Court and both parties agree that the
distinction between Indiana and Illinois'
substantive law are important enough to
affect the outcome of the litigation therefore
Lex Loci Delicti will apply. Under this
presumption, the court applies the
substantive laws of the state where the last
event necessary to make an actor liable for
the alleged wrong takes place.
Where the issue is the choice between the
law of the place where an allegedly
wrongful act or omission took place and
the law of the place where physical injury
was inflicted, the general rule is that the
‘place of the tort’ is the place where the
injury or death was inflicted and not the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
place where the allegedly wrongful act or
omission took place.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. CA,
G.R. NO. 122191, (OCTOBER 8, 1998)
FACTS:Milagros Morada was hired as a
flight attendant of SAUDIA and was based
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. During a lay-over
in Indonesia, Morada, together with other
crew members - Thamer and Allah went
disco dancing. The three of them returned to
their hotels when it was almost morning and
agreed to have breakfast in the room of
Thamer. However, Thamer attempted to rape
Morada. Hotel personnels rescued Morada
while Thamer and Allah were both arrested
by the Indonesian police.
Upon Morada's return to Jeddah, she was
interrogated by SAUDIA officials regarding
the incident. They even requested for her to
help arrange the release of the two in
Indonesia - to which she refused to do so.
Later, she learned that after two weeks of
imprisonment, Thamer and Allah were
allowed to be deported through the help of
the Saudi Arabian government. Eventually,
the two were again in service at SAUDI
while Morada was transferred to the
Philippines. When Morada was requested by
her superiors, her passport was taken from
her and was pressured to drop the case or
her passport will not be returned. She
eventually agreed to such a request just to
get her passport back.
Years later, Morada was once again
summoned by SAUDIA to Jeddah for
further investigation. Morada agreed when
she received assurance from SAUDIA's
Manila Manager, Aslam Saleemi, that the
investigation was routinary and that it posed
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 84
no danger to her. She was once again
interrogated by the judge about the incident.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippines is
the situs of tort?
HELD: YES. The relevant point of contact
in this case is Lex Loci Actus. Considering
that the complaint in the court a quo is one
involving torts, the "connecting factor" or
"point of contact" could be the place or
places where the tortious conduct or lex loci
actus occurred. And applying the torts
principle in a conflict case, we find that the
Philippines could be said as a situs of the
tort (the place where the alleged tortious
conduct took place). This is because it is in
the Philippines where the petitioner
allegedly deceived a private respondent, a
Filipina residing and working here.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT
COLLINS VS. ROSTEK, (1973)
FACTS: Facts: The First National Bank in
Fort Collins (petitioner herein), is the
guardian of the natural children of Carol
Hardin Rostek. The respondent is the
administratrix of the estate of John E.
Rostek. Petitioner filed a wrongful death
action in Colorado district court alleging that
negligent operation of the aircraft on the part
of John E. Rostek caused the accident and
the ensuing death of his guest-passenger,
Carol Hardin Rostek.
The respondent filed a motion for summary
judgment alleging the rights of the parties
are governed by the South Dakota Aircraft
Guest Statute. For purposes of the summary
judgment motion the parties stipulated that
at most the petitioner's evidence would show
simple negligence on the part of John
Rostek. The parties also stipulated that John
and Carol Rostek were both citizens and
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
residents of the state of Colorado, and that
Carol Rostek's natural children, who are her
sole heirs at law, resided with her in
Colorado.
The district court dismissed the case on the
ground that lex loci delicti ( the law of the
place of the wrong) or South Dakota law,
applied.
ISSUE: Whether South Dakota or Colorado
law should be applied.
HELD: Colorado law should be applied.
With the industrial revolution and the
passage of time, it became clear that the
mechanical application of lex loci delicti to
every multistate tort controversy often
yielded harsh, unjust results, unrelated to the
controversy expectations of the parties. A
greater number of jurisdictions have
abandoned or rejected lex loci delicti in
favor of a more flexible and rational choice
of law approach in multistate tort cases. A
court in New York then proceeded to
formulate a specific rule governing the
application of guest statutes in multistate tort
controversies. This rule generally embodies
the rational underpinnings of the newer
approaches to choice of law problems,
emphasizing the expectations of the parties
and the interests of the different jurisdictions
involved.
KAMELGARD VS. MACURA, (2009)
FACTS: Facts: The plaintiff, a bariatric
surgeon who lives and practices in New
Jersey, brought this diversity suit in the
federal district court in Chicago. He claims
to have been defamed by the defendant,
another bariatric surgeon, who practices in
New York. The plaintiff had testified against
the defendant in a malpractice suit in New
York, and the defendant had
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 85
retaliated-according to the plaintiff's
complaint-by mailing a defamatory letter on
or about March 1, 2006, to the American
College of Surgeons, which is located in
Chicago.
Thereafter, he received a letter from the
American College of Surgeons, notifying
him that the College had received a
complaint about his testimony as an expert
witness in the New York malpractice suit
against the defendant. But the letter did not
identify the complainant. After investigation,
the College sent the plaintiff a letter
charging him with unprofessional conduct.
The plaintiff claims not to have known that
the defendant was the source of complaints
against him until after a year at a convention
in California a bariatric surgeon told him
about the Florida letter and concluded that
the defendant must have been the author of
the complaint to the College.
Plaintiff contends the Illinois statute of
limitations is applicable to his suit which
requires that a suit for defamation be
brought within a year of the “publication” of
the defamatory statement unless the plaintiff
could not have discovered the defamation
within that period (this law is same as New
Jersey). The plaintiff couldn't obtain the
letter on which he based his claim against
the College of Surgeons, the claim had no
merit and therefore Illinois (where the
College's headquarters are located) had no
connection to the suit: a New Jersey resident
would be suing in Illinois a New York
resident over a letter mailed to Florida from
New York (presumably-but certainly not
from Illinois). The district judge dismissed
the suit without prejudice, on the grounds
that the venue in Chicago was improper
since without defamatory statements to the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
College, Illinois has no connection to the
suit. Plaintiff appealed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Illinois law
should apply.
HELD: NO. It used to be a flat rule (called
lex loci delicti-the law of the place of the
wrong) that the law applicable in a tort case
is the law of the place where the tort
occurred. And that means the place where
the injury caused by the tort occurred. Injury
is necessary to make an act a tort because
there is no tort without an injury. The court
stated that “in effect” because most states,
including Illinois, nowadays apply the law
of the state that has the “most significant
relationship” to the claim, rather than the lex
loci delicti. But as we explained in the
Spinozzi case, the state with the most
significant relation to a claim is usually the
state in which the tort (and therefore the
injury) occurred. That state “has the greatest
interest in striking a reasonable balance
among safety, cost, and other factors
pertinent to the design and administration of
a system of tort law. When the defamatory
statement is communicated in many different
states, it makes sense to apply the law of the
plaintiff's domicile, and that is the usual
result in Illinois.
LANKENAU VS. BOLES, 2014
FACTS: Plaintiff Lankenau, a New York
resident, was a passenger in a vehicle which
collided with a tractor-trailer operated by
defendant Boles, an employee of defendant
M & S Leasing Co., LLC, both of whom
were New Jersey residents. The accident
occurred in Pennsylvania, USA. Plaintiff
sued defendants in the Supreme Court of
New York and defendants presented the
affirmative defense that plaintiff failed to
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 86
mitigate her damages by not wearing a
seatbelt during the collision. Under
Pennsylvania law, the non-use of a seatbelt
may not be presented as a defense in the
case, while under New York law, the same is
allowed to be presented as a defense in
assessing damages and the plaintiff's
mitigation thereof. The Supreme Court
denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the
defendants' defense.
ISSUE: Whether New York or Pennsylvania
law applies.
HELD:New York law applies. If conflicting
conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law
of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred
will generally apply because that jurisdiction
has the greatest interest in regulating
behavior within its borders." Conversely,
where the conflicting laws serve only to
allocate losses between the parties, such as
vicarious liability or comparative negligence
rules, the jurisdiction where the tort
occurred has only a minimal interest in
applying its own law.
WINTER VS. NOVARTIS
PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., 2014
FACTS: Baldwin sued Novartis before the
U.S. District Court of Missouri after two of
her teeth were extracted and she developed
osteonecrosis of the jaw. She alleged that
Novartis negligently failed to provide
adequate warnings for two drugs she took,
Aredia and Zometa. Baldwin was awarded
$225,000 in compensatory damages after a
jury trial. Novartis appealed, challenging the
district court's application of Missouri law to
the punitive damages claim.
ISSUE: Whether Missouri law applies to the
punitive damages claim.
HELD: Yes. Missouri law applied to the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
punitive damages claim. District courts
sitting in diversity apply the choice- of-law
rules of the state where they sit. Under
Missouri's choice-of-law rules, courts apply
the substantive law of the state with the
"most significant relationship" to the
occurrence and the parties. Missouri,
adopting the Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws, requires consideration of
four factors in determining the applicable
law for tort actions: "the place where the
injury occurred," "the place where the
conduct causing the injury occurred," "the
domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the
parties," and "the place where the
relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered." More importantly, for personal
injury actions, Missouri applies the law of
the place of injury, unless some other
formulation state has a more significant
relationship. Missouri's "essentially
establishes a presumption that the state with
the most significant relationship is the state
where the injury occurred.
FUTURESELECT PORTFOLIO
MANAGEMENT INC. VS. TREMONT
GROUP HOLDINGS, 2014
FACTS: FutureSelect sued Tremont and
Tremont's parent companies, Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corp. and MassMutual, after
FutureSelect lost $200 million in Tremont's
Rye Funds which were invested in Ben
Madoff's fraudulent securities investment
scheme. FutureSeclect alleged that the
defendants failed to conduct due diligence
on Madoff's operations, that they were
negligent, and that they violated the
Washington state securities act. Under New
York law, the complaint was not actionable
under New York's state security law.
However, the complaint was actionable
under the Washington state securities act.
The trial court found Washington's security
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 87
law did not apply and dismissed the
complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed.
ISSUE: Whether New York or Washington
law applies.
HELD: Washington law applies. To
determine the jurisdiction with the most
significant relationship to the dispute, we
must consider (1) the place where plaintiff
acted in reliance on the representations; (2)
the place where the plaintiff received the
representations; (3) the place where the
defendant made the representations; (4) the
domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation, and place of business of the
parties; (5) the place where a tangible thing,
which is the subject of the transaction
between the parties, was situated at the time;
and (6) the place where the plaintiff is to
render performance under a contract that he
has been induced to enter by the false
representations of the defendant.
VIII. CONTRACTS
A. CONFLICT OF LAWS IN
CONTRACT
Contract is the meeting of the minds
between 2 persons whereby one binds
himself, with respect to the other, to give
something or render some service.
Principal purposes of contract:
1. protect the reasonable expectations of
the parties to the contract
2.secure stability in commercial transactions
B. APPROACHES TO
CONTRACTUAL CONFLICTS OF LAW
States, in their municipal laws, have
different rules on the formalities of a
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
contract, the capacity of parties, and the
essential requisites for the intrinsic validity
of contracts, interpretation and the law
governing execution. Forum courts should
be aware if there is a law that parties have in
mind when they enter into a contract.
Interpretations of contracts are applied only
when the lex loci intentionis cannot be
ascertained. Unlike family law, contract law
does not reflect strong state policies or
values.
1. Extrinsic Validity
a. Lex Loci Celebrationis
Lex loci celebrationis governs the formal or
extrinsic validity of contracts. A contract is
valid as to form if in accordance with any
form recognized as valid by the law of the
country where it was made, and that no
contract is valid which is not made in
accordance with the local form.
Article 17 of the Civil Code states that 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.
As to Contracts entered into by
cablegram, telex or fax: Article 1319 of
the Civil Code states that acceptance made
by letter or telegram does not bind the
offeror except from the time it came to his
knowledge. The contract is presumed to
have been entered into the place where the
offer was made.
2. Intrinsic Validity
Intrinsic validity refers to the nature,
contents and effects of the agreement.
Art. 1318, CC: requisites of a contract
a. consent of the contracting parties
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 88
 b. object certain b. Lex Loci Solutionis
c. cause of the obligation This refers to the law of the place of the
performance. All matters relating to time,
There are 3 possible laws that will govern
place, manner of performance, sufficiency
intrinsic validity of contracts:
of performance and valid excuses for
1. law of the place of the making non-performance are determined by lex loci
solutionis because it is undoubtedly related
2. law of the place of performance
to the contract in a significant way.
3. law intended by the parties
c. Lex Loci Intentionis
a. Lex Loci Contractus
This refers to the law intended by the
This refers to the law of the place where parties. When the parties stipulate that the
the contract is made. This is the place contract be governed by a specific law, such
where the last act is done which is necessary will be recognized unless there are
to bring the binding agreement into being so cogent reasons for not doing so e.g. the
far as the acts of the parties are concerned. choice-of-law provision is contrary to a
fundamental policy of the forum.
Also construction and interpretation of
Advantages Disadvantages contracts may be agreed upon by parties.
Article 1306 of the Civil Code. The
● Relative ease in ● It will lead
contracting parties may establish such
establishing the to unjust results
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions
place of when the place of
making is entirely as they may deem convenient, provided
contracting.
incidental or that they are not contrary to law, morals,
causal and has no good customs, public order or public policy.
significant
relationship with Article 1370 of the Civil Code. If the terms
the contract or the of the contract are clear and leave no doubt
performance. upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of the
stipulations shall control.
● In applying it
consistently, The law looks at the acts of the parties
certainty and and the surrounding circumstances which
stability are may possibly have exerted some influence
achieved. upon their actions and then assumes that
their intentions are in harmony with such
acts and circumstances. Parties are
presumed to contemplate entering into a
NOTE: Philippines follows Lex Loci
Contractus. valid contract. The court should apply the
law that will sustain the contract.

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 89
 d. Place of the most significant
relationship
Under the "state of the most significant
relationship rule," to ascertain what state law
to apply to a dispute, the court should
determine which state has the most
substantial connection to the occurrence and
the parties. Law of the place which has the
most connection to the issue.
C. CAPACITY TO CONTRACT
The capacity to enter into contracts is
governed by the rule on status and
capacity (personal law). In countries that
follow the nationality principle, the
national law prevails (Art. 15, CC). In
countries that follow the domiciliary
principle, law of their domicile governs
D. DEPECAGE
the process whereby different issues in a
single case arising out of a single set of facts
may be decided according to the law of
different states. (Pe Benito, 2016)
Depecage from the French "depacer"
meaning to dissect. Where different aspects
of a case involving a foreign element may be
governed by different systems of laws.
In Depecage multiple characterization
involves the multiple issues and is resolved
by the appropriate law by cutting the issues
so that they can arrive at the right forum, and
allow the court to try and arrive at a just
resolution of the court.
BAGONG FILIPINAS OVERSEAS
CORPORATION VS. NLRC, G.R. NO.
L-66006, 28 FEBRUARY 1985
FACTS:Pancho entered into a shipboard
employment contract with Hong
Kong-based firm Bagong Filipinas Overseas
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Corporation. Pancho was hired to work as an
oiler in the M/V Olivines for a period of 12
months with a gross monthly wage of $195.
During the term of the contract, Pancho had
a cerebral stroke necessitating his
repatriation to the Philippines, where he
eventually died.
The National Seamen Board awarded his
widow, Proserfina, P20,000 as disability
compensation benefits. Upon appeal, the
National Labor Relations Commission
("NRC") awarded her $621 times 36 months
or its equivalent in Philippine currency by
applying Hong Kong law in the computation
of benefits.
ISSUE:Whether Hong Kong law or the
shipboard Pancho's wife. employment
contract governs the award of benefits to
award of benefits.
HELD:The shipboard employment contract
governs the awards of benefits.
We hold that the shipboard employment
contract is controlling in this case. The
contract provides that the beneficiaries of the
seaman are entitled to P20,000 "over and
above the benefits' for which the Philippine
Government is liable under Philippine law."
Hong Kong law on workmen's compensation
is not the applicable law.
ATIENZA VS. PHILIMARE SHIPPING,
176 SCRA 325, 1989
FACTS: Joseph B. Atienza worked as Third
Mate on board the MV Tibati for the
stipulated compensation of $850 a month
from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1982.
His employment was covered under the
Crew Agreement, which provided for
insurance benefits "as per NSB Standard
Format" and was validated and approved by
the National Seamen Board on January 14,
1981. Atienza died while working on the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 90
vessel in Bombay, India. His father claimed
for death benefits in the amount of $30,600,
which was computed at the rate of 36
months times the seaman's monthly salary
plus 10% thereof pursuant to the Workmen's
Compensation Law of Singapore. Philimare
disputed the amount and argued that the
death benefits were limited to P40,000
pursuant to Section D(1) of the NSB
Standard Format. The Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration ("POEA")
ruled in favor of Philimare and held
Philippine law to be the applicable law.
ISSUE: Whether Atienza's death benefits
should be computed based on Singapore or
Philippine law.
HELD: It should be computed based on
Philippine law.
Our ruling is that Norse is not applicable to
the present petition. The reason is that in
that case, it was specifically stipulated by the
parties in the Crew Agreement that
"compensation shall be paid to employee in
accordance with and subject to the
limitations of the Workmen's Compensation
Act of the Philippines or the Workmen's
Insurance Law of the registry of the vessel,
whichever is greater." That was why the
higher benefits prescribed by the foreign law
were awarded. By contrast, no such
stipulation appears in the Crew Agreement
now under consideration Instead, it is clearly
stated therein that the insurance benefits
shall be "as per NSB Standard Format, I in
the event "of death of the seaman during the
term of his contract, over and above the
benefits for which the Philippine
Government is liable under Philippine law.
The petitioner argues that the Standard
Format prescribed only the minimum
benefits and does not preclude the parties
from stipulating for higher compensation.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
That may be true enough. But the point is
that the parties in this case did not provide
for such higher benefits as the parties did in
the Norse case. There was no stipulation in
the Crew Agreement of January 3, 1981 that
the employee would be entitled to whichever
greater insurance benefits were offered by
either Philippine law or the foreign law; on
the contrary, it was plainly provided that
insurance benefits would be determined
according to the NSB Standard Format then
in force. The consequence is that the
petitioner cannot now claim a higher award
than the compensation prescribed in the said
format.
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL
AIRLINES VS. BLAS OPLE, G.R. NO.
61594, 28 SEPTEMBER 1990
FACTS: Petitioner Pakistan International
Airlines ("PIA") entered into two separate
contracts with respondents Farrales and
Mamasig.
Respondents trained in Pakistan and began
working as flight attendants for PIA, with
base station in Manila and flying
assignments to different parts of the Middle
East and Europe. With one year and four
months remaining in their contracts of
employment, PIA terminated the services of
private respondents "effective 1 September
1980, conformably to clause 6(b) of the
employment agreement [they had] executed
with [PIA]."
Private respondents subsequently instituted a
complaint for illegal dismissal and
non-payment of benefits and bonuses against
PIA with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment ("MOLE"). Acting on the
complaint, MOLE Regional Director
Francisco L. Estrella ordered their
reinstatement with full back wages or, in the
alternative, the payment to them of the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 91
amounts equivalent to their salaries for the
remainder of the fixed three-year period of
their employment contracts.
ISSUE: Whether the principle of party
autonomy in contracts is absolute.
HELD: No. The terms and conditions of the
contract are subject to public policy
considerations.
A contract freely entered into should, of
course, be respected, as PIA argues, since a
contract is the law between the parties. The
principle of party autonomy in contracts is
not, however, an absolute principle. The rule
in Article 1306 of our Civil Code is that the
contracting parties may establish such
stipulations as they may deem convenient,
"provided they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public
policy. Thus, counter-balancing the principle
of autonomy of contracting parties is the
equally general rule that provisions of
applicable law, especially provisions relating
to matters affected with public policy, are
deemed written into the contract. Put a little
differently, the governing principle is that
parties may not contract away applicable
provisions of law, especially peremptory
provisions dealing with matters heavily
impressed with public interest. The law
relating to labor and employment is clearly
such an area, and parties are not at liberty to
insulate themselves and their relationships
from the impact of labor laws and
regulations by simply contracting with each
other. It is, thus, necessary to appraise the
contractual provisions invoked by petitioner
PLA in terms of their consistency with
applicable Philippine law and regulations.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE VS.
EDMUND D. HEFFERNAN II, MD. 2007
FACTS: Two minors, Mallory Heffernan
and Curtis Jones, were passengers in a
vehicle driven by another minor, John
McMahon, Jr. While driving in the State of
Delaware with his two passengers,
McMahon fell asleep and collided with a
tractor-trailer. All of them perished in the
collision. Heffernan's parents held a Pioneer
Family Auto Policy and a Personal
Catastrophe Policy with Erie Insurance
which were issued, sold, and delivered in
Maryland to Maryland residents. The auto
policy included underinsured motorists
coverage in the amount of $300,000 per
person / $300,000 per accident; the
catastrophe policy provided $1,000,000 in
underinsured motorists coverage. It must be
noted that the vehicle driven by Mr.
McMahon was an underinsured motor
vehicle with respect to the Erie policy.
The parents of the minor Heffernan sued
Erie in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, seeking damages pursuant to the
underinsured motorists coverage. Erie
subsequently removed the case to federal
court. Erie contended that Maryland law
should be applied, including Maryland's cap
on non-economic damages which would
drastically reduce the damages that the
parents could recover. The Erie policies
provided that Erie would pay damages "that
the law entitles you' to recover from the
owner or operator of an underinsured motor
vehicle.
ISSUE: Whether Maryland law or Delaware
law governs the claim of the Heffernans.
HELD: Delaware law is applicable. This
case calls for the construction of two
identical phrases within two separate
insurance policies issued by Erie to the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 92
Heffernans. Specifically, the policies provide
that Erie will pay damages "that the law
entitles you' to recover from an uninsured /
underinsured motorist.
Generally, in a conflict-of-laws situation, a
court must determine at the outset the nature
of the problem presented to it for solution,
specifically, if it relates to tort contracts,
property, or some other field, or to a matter
& Substance or procedure. Accordingly, we
first address the nature of an action by an
insured against his own insurer for
uninsured motorist benefits. The action by
the insure; against the insurer is a contract
action. Recovery is based upon the element
of tortious conduct, in this case, the
negligence of a third party.
GOVERNMENT VS. FRANK, G.R. NO.
2935, 23 MARCH 1909
FACTS: Defendant Frank entered into a
contract with plaintiff Insular Government of
the Philippine Islands to work as a
stenographer in the Philippines. The contract
was executed in the State of Illinois, USA,
and contained a provision that in case of a
violation of the terms of the contract by the
defendant, he will become liable to the
plaintiff for the amount incurred by the
plaintiff in transporting the defendant from
Chicago to Manila and the one-half salary
paid to the defendant.
Before the expiration of the contract, the
defendant left the service of the plaintiff and
refused further compliance with the terms of
the contract. Plaintiff sued the defendant for
damages with the Court of First Instance of
Manila. The defendant put up the special
defense of the minority by alleging that he
was a minor under Philippine law at the time
the contract was entered into.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ISSUE: Whether the defendant can put up
the defense of the minority as against the
plaintiff's claims.
HELD: NO. The defendant alleged in his
special defense that he was a minor and,
therefore, the contract could not be enforced
against him. The record discloses that, at the
time the contract was entered into in the
State of Illinois, he was an adult under the
laws of that State and had full authority to
contract. It is not disputed - upon the
contrary the fact is admitted - that at the
time and place of the making of the contract
in question the defendant had full capacity
to make the same.
No rule is better settled in law than that
matters bearing upon the execution,
interpretation, and validity of a contract are
determined by the law of the place where the
contract is made. Matters connected with its
performance are regulated by the law
prevailing at the place of performance.
Matters respecting a remedy, such as the
bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence,
and statutes of limitations, depend upon the
law of the place where the suit is brought.
TRIPLE EIGHT INTEGRATED
SERVICES INC. VS. NLRC, G.R. NO.
129584, 3 DECEMBER 1998
FACTS: Private respondent Osdana was
recruited by petitioner for employment with
the latter's principal, Gulf Catering
Company ("GCC"). Petitioner and private
respondent signed a Contractor-Employee
Agreement.
Osdana left for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,
commenced working for GCC, and was
assigned to the College of Public
Administration of the Oleysha University.
She was made to wash dishes, cook pots and
utensils, and perform janitorial work and
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 93
other tasks which were unrelated to her job
designation as waitress.
Osdana suffered from numbness and pain in
her arms that led to her confinement at the
Ladies Villa, a housing facility of GCC.
Osdana later resumed work, this time as
Food Server and Cook at the Hota Bani
Tameem Hospital until she was again
confined at the Ladies Villa for no apparent
reason. When she returned to work, she was
re-assigned to the Oleysha University where
she was made to work long hours and under
harsh conditions. She underwent two
surgical operations and was later discharged
from the hospital: However, she was
subsequently dismissed from work and was
not given her separation pay nor was she
paid her salaries.
When she returned to the Philippines,
Osdana filed a complaint with the POEA
against the petitioner for unpaid and
'underpaid salaries, salaries for the
unexpired portion of the employment
contract, moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees, as well as the revocation,
cancellation, suspension, and/or imposition
of administrative sanctions against
petitioner.
ISSUE: What law governs private
respondent's dismissal from employment?
HELD: Philippine law applies.
Petitioner attributes good faith on the part of
its principal, claiming that it was the concern
for the welfare and physical well-being of
private respondent that drove her employer
to take the painful decision of terminating
her from the service and having her
repatriated to the Philippines at its expense.
The employer did not want to risk the
aggravation of the illness of the private
respondent, which could have been the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
logical consequence were the private
respondent allowed to continue with her job.
The Court notes, however, that aside from
these bare allegations, petitioner has not
presented any medical certificate or similar
document from a competent public health
authority in support of its claims. On the
medical certificate requirement, petitioner
erroneously argues that the private
respondent was employed in Saudi Arabia
and not here in the Philippines. Hence, there
was a physical impossibility to secure from a
Philippine public health authority the
alluded medical certificate that the public
respondent's illness will not be cured within
a period of six months. Petitioner entirely
misses the point, as counsel for private
respondent states in the Comment. The rule
simply prescribes a certification by a
competent public health authority and not a
Philippine public health authority.
IX. PROPERTY
A. Rules on Ownership of Property, Real
Property in the Philippines
The Philippines adheres to the rule of lex rei
sitae or the law of the place where the
property is situated. This is embodied in
Article 16 of the Civil Code.
ARTICLE 12, Section 7. Save in cases of
hereditary succession, no private lands shall
be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals, corporations, or associations
qualified to acquire or hold lands of the
public domain.
ARTICLE 12 Section 8. Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines who
has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 94
transferee of private lands, subject to
limitations provided by law.
B. Conflict of Laws in Property, Issues
The idea that the situs rule promotes
uniformity of result, predictability of
outcome, and clarity of title for property
sounds good if you say it fast. In the real
world, we confront greater complexity than
imagined in this philosophy. The situs rule is
a good one in many cases, but in other cases
it promotes perverse or destructive results.
And in still other cases, we find important
value conflicts between the interests of the
situs state and the interests of the state where
the parties are domiciled or their contractual
relationship is centered. Those cases also
present conflicts between the rights of the
parties who claim the protection of the law
of different jurisdictions. Adjudicating such
cases requires choices about which values
should prevail, which interests should take
precedence, and whose rights should be
vindicated. Only if we confront those real
conflicts will we make reasonable and fair
choices of applicable law. (Washburn Law
Journal, vol 54, no.1)
C. Capacity to Transfer or Acquire
Property
This is governed by the law of the place
where the property is located.
D. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of
Conveyances
The lex situs law applies to the following:
1) formalities of a contract to convey
property
2) the essential validity of the
transfer (unless the lex intentionis is clearly
established)
3) the effects of the conveyance or
properties.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
E. Exception to Philippine Conflicts Rule
in Property Law
Exceptions to the Lex Situs rule:
1) where the transaction does not
affect transfer of title to or
ownership of the land (proper
law: lex intentionis or lex
voluntatis)
F. Situs of Personal Properties, Money,
Debts, and Corporate Shares of Stock
1. Situs of Personal Property for
Tax Purposes
The maxim mobilia sequuntur personam
cannot be applied to limit the right of the
state to tax property within its jurisdiction. It
yields to established facts of legal
ownership, actual presence, and control
elsewhere, and cannot be applied if it would
result in inescapable and patent injustice.
2. Situs of Money
Leon vs. Manufacturers Life Insurance:
having been endorsed in an annuity in
Canada under a contract executed in that
country, Canada was the situs of the
money, hence the probate court of Manila
has no jurisdiction over the funds.
3. Situs of Debts
2 Kinds of Movable Property:
1) choses in possession – embraces all
types of tangible physical objects
2) choses in action – refers to intangible
objects a) mere rights of actions b) rights
represented by a document (capable of
delivery and susceptible to negotiation as a
separate legal entity)
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 95
 4. Situs of Corporate Shares of
Stocks
Under the Corporation Code (Sec. 63),
shares of stock are personal property and
may be transferred by delivery of the
certificate or certificates endorsed by the
owner or his attorney in fact. But such
transfer shall not be valid until recorded in
the books of the corporation in the
manner provided.
LAUREL VS. GARCIA, 1990
FACTS:
Petitioners seek to stop the Philippine
Government from selling the Roppongi
Property, which is located in Japan. It is one
of the properties given by the Japanese
Government as reparations for damage done
by the latter to the former during the war.
Petitioner argues that under Philippine Law,
the subject property is property of public
dominion. As such, it is outside the
commerce of men. Therefore, it cannot be
alienated.
Respondents aver that Japanese Law, and
not Philippine Law, shall apply to the case
because the property is located in Japan.
They posit that the principle of lex situs
applies.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine Law
applies to the case at bar.
HELD: YES. We see no reason why a
conflict of law rule should apply when no
conflict of law situation exists. A conflict of
law situation arises only when: (1) There is a
dispute over the title or ownership of an
immovable, such that the capacity to take
and transfer immovables, the formalities of
conveyance, the essential validity and effect
of the transfer, or the interpretation and
effect of a conveyance, are to be determined;
and (2) A foreign law on land ownership and
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
its conveyance is asserted to conflict with a
domestic law on the same matters. Hence,
the need to determine which law should
apply.
In the instant case, none of the above
elements exists.The issues are not concerned
with validity of ownership or title. There is
no question that the property belongs to the
Philippines. The issue is the authority of the
respondent officials to validly dispose of
property belonging to the State. And the
validity of the procedures adopted to effect
its sale. This is governed by Philippine Law.
The rule of lex situs does not apply.
The assertion that the opinion of the
Secretary of Justice sheds light on the
relevance of the lex situs rule is misplaced.
The opinion does not tackle the alienability
of the real properties procured through
reparations nor the existence in what body
of the authority to sell them. In discussing
who is capable of acquiring the lots, the
Secretary merely explains that it is the
foreign law which should determine who
can acquire the properties so that the
constitutional limitation on acquisition of
lands of the public domain to Filipino
citizens and entities wholly owned by
Filipinos is inapplicable.
ROBERTS VS. LOCKE, 2013
FACTS: On September 24, 2009, Roberts
filed a complaint for divorce against Locke
in the Second Judicial District Court for
Albany County in Laramie, Wyoming. The
parties are tenured professors at the
University of Wyoming. Roberts asked the
court to equitably divide the assets and debts
she and Locke had accumulated during their
twenty-three year marriage. Chief among
those assets were a Smith Barney investment
account, a plot of land and a house in
Indiana, what had been the marital home in
Laramie, and a beachfront property in Costa
Rica, on which they had built a house and
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 96
apartments. Their debts, including one
against the Smith Barney account, largely
related to their credit financing of the
purchase and improvement of their real
property.
In a pretrial statement, Locke proposed that
the district court order the Indiana property
sold, and require that the proceeds be used
first to retire the debt on that property, and
then to compensate him for his premarital
investment in the property, with any
remainder of the sale price to be divided
evenly between the parties. He also asked
that the decree allow him to retain the
Laramie home and require him to pay the
mortgage and other debt associated with it.
He further proposed that the court order the
Costa Rican property to be sold, require the
proceeds to be used to pay off the Smith
Barney debt related to that property, and
then equally split the remainder of the
proceeds from the sale of the Costa Rican
property and any equity left in the Smith
Barney account between the parties.
The trial court had jurisdiction to order
marital property in Costa Rica to be sold and
its proceeds divided.
ISSUE: Did the district court have
jurisdiction to order Roberts to convey the
Costa Rican property to Locke so that he
could sell it, with the proceeds of sale to be
distributed as provided in the divorce
decree?
HELD: YES. Roberts has not shown that
the district court abused its discretion in
holding her in contempt of court, or that the
court lacked jurisdiction to order her to
convey her interest in the Costa Rican
property to Locke.
Because Roberts has provided no proof of
her assertions regarding Costa Rican law, we
reject her argument that those laws deprived
the district court of jurisdiction to order her
to convey her interest in the Costa Rican
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
property to Locke in their divorce. This
result seems particularly appropriate in light
of the fact that Roberts filed for divorce in
Albany County and asked the district court
to utilize its power to award her the property
in Costa Rica, only questioning that court's
authority to effect a property division when
her efforts were unsuccessful.
TAYAG VS. BENGUET
CONSOLIDATED, 1968
FACTS: County Trust Company of New
York, United States of America is the
domiciliary administration of the decedent,
Idonah Slade Perkins who owned 33,002
shares of stocks in the appellant, domestic
corporation, Benguet Consolidated Inc.
located in the Philippines. A dispute arose
between the appellee, Tayag who is the
appointed ancillary of Perkins in the
Philippines and the domiciliary
administration as to who is entitled to the
possession of the certificate of shares,
however, County Trust Company refuses to
transfer the said certificate to Tayag despite
the order of the court. Hence, the appellee
was compelled to petition the court for the
appellant to declare the subject certificates
as lost to which appellant alleged that no
new certificate can be issued and the same
cannot be rendered as lost in accordance
with their by-laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not the certificate of
shares of stock can be declared lost.
HELD: Yes. Administration whether
principal or ancillary certainly extends to the
assets of a decedent found within the state or
country where it was granted.
It is often necessary to have more than one
administration of an estate. When a person
dies intestate owning property located in the
country of his domicile as well as in a
foreign country, administration is had in
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 97
both countries. That which is granted in the
jurisdiction of the decedent's last domicile is
termed the principal administration, while
any other administration is termed the
ancillary administration. The reason for the
latter is because a grant of administration
does not ex proprio vigore have any effect
beyond the limits of the country in which it
is granted.Hence, an administration
appointed in a foreign state has no authority
in the Philippines. The ancillary
administration is proper, whenever a person
dies, leaving in a country other than that of
his last domicile, property to be
administered in the nature of the deceased’s
liable for his individual debts or to be
distributed among his heirs.
RAMIREZ VS. VDA DE RAMIREZ,
1982
FACTS: Jose Ramirez died leaving a will
where, among other dispositions, he granted
a usufruct over a real property in favor of an
alien, Wanda Wrobleski. This was opposed
on the ground that it violated the
Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether the testamentary
disposition in favor of Wanda Wrobleski is
valid.
HELD: No, the testamentary disposition
violates the Constitution.
The court a quo upheld the validity of the
usufruct given to Wanda on the ground that
the Constitution covers not only succession
by operation of law but also testamentary
succession. We are of the opinion that the
Constitutional provision which enables
aliens to acquire private lands does not
extend to testamentary succession for
otherwise the prohibition will be for naught
and meaningless. Any alien would be able to
circumvent the prohibition by paying money
to a Philippine landowner in exchange for a
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
device of a piece of land.
MATTHEWS VS. TAYLOR, 2009
FACTS: On June 30, 1988, Benjamin Taylor
(Benjamin), a British subject, married
Taylor, a 17-year old Filipina. On June 9,
1989, while their marriage was subsisting,
Joselyn bought a 1,294 square-meter lot in
Boracay, for and in consideration
of P129,000.00. The sale was allegedly
financed by Benjamin. They constructed
improvements thereon and eventually
converted the property to a vacation and
tourist resort, also using Benjamin’s funds.
All required permits and licenses for the
operation of the resort were obtained in the
name of Ginna Celestino, Joselyn’s sister.
However, Benjamin and Joselyn had a
falling out, and Joselyn ran away with Kim
Philippsen.
Joselyn executed a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) in favor of Benjamin,
authorizing the latter to maintain, sell, lease,
and sub-lease and otherwise enter into
contract with third parties with respect to
their Boracay property. On July 20, 1992,
Joselyn as lessor and petitioner Philip
Matthews as lessee, entered into an
Agreement of Lease involving the Boracay
property for a period of 25 years, with an
annual rental of P12,000.00. The agreement
was signed by the parties and executed
before a Notary Public. Petitioner thereafter
took possession of the property and renamed
the resort.
Claiming that the Agreement was null and
void since it was entered into by Joselyn
without his (Benjamin’s) consent, Benjamin
instituted an action for Declaration of
Nullity of Agreement of Lease with
Damages against Joselyn and the petitioner.
Benjamin claimed that his funds were used
in the acquisition and improvement of the
Boracay property, and coupled with the fact
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 98
that he was Joselyn’s husband, any
transaction involving said property required
his consent.
ISSUE: Can an alien husband nullify a lease
contract entered into by his Filipina wife
bought during their marriage?
HELD: NO. An alien husband cannot
nullify a lease contract entered into by his
Filipina wife bought during their
marriage.The rule is clear and inflexible:
aliens are absolutely not allowed to acquire
public or private lands in the Philippines,
save only in constitutionally recognized
exceptions. There is no rule more settled
than this constitutional prohibition, as more
and more aliens attempt to circumvent the
provision by trying to own lands through
another.
Benjamin has no right to nullify the
Agreement of Lease between Joselyn and
petitioner. Benjamin, being an alien, is
absolutely prohibited from acquiring private
and public lands in the Philippines.
Considering that Joselyn appeared to be the
designated “vendee” in the Deed of Sale of
said property, she acquired sole ownership
thereto. This is true even if we sustain
Benjamin’s claim that he provided the funds
for such acquisition. By entering into such a
contract knowing that it was illegal, no
implied trust was created in his favor; no
reimbursement for his expenses can be
allowed; and no declaration can be made
that the subject property was part of the
conjugal/community property of the
spouses.
CHEESMAN VS. IAC, 1991
FACTS: Petitioner Thomas Cheesman, an
American citizen, is married to Criselda
Cheesman, a Filipino citizen, though they
have been separated. Criselda bought a
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
parcel of land of Armando Altares without
object from Thomas. Criselda subsequently
sold the property to Estrellita Padilla without
the consent of Thomas, who later challenged
the sale before the CFI on the ground that it
was executed without his consent. The CFI
and IAC ruled uphold the validity of the
sale.
ISSUE: Whether or not Thomas may
question the sale.
HELD: No, he has no personality to
question the Sale. He had no capacity to
question the sale of the property by his wife
on the theory that he is merely exercising the
prerogative of a husband in respect to the
conjugal property. To sustain such theory
would permit indirect constitutional
prohibition under Sec. 14, Article XIV of
the Constitution which provides that “save
in hereditary succession, no private lands
shall be transferred or conveyed except to
individuals or persons, xxxx qualified to
hold land of the public domain”. If the
property were to be declared conjugal, this
would accord to him an interest and right
over the land, as he would have a decisive
role in its disposition.
LLANTINO VS. CO LIONG CHONG,
1990
FACTS: Plaintiffs aver that they are the
owners of a commercial residential land
situated in the municipality of Virac,
Catanduanes, which sometime in 1954 they
leased to the defendant who was then a
Chinese national and went by the name of
Co Liong Chong for a period of thirteen (13)
years for the sum of P6,150.00 for the whole
period. The defendant was placed in
possession of the property but knowing that
the period of the lease would end with the
year 1967, petitioners requested private
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 99
respondent for a conference but the latter did
not honor the request and instead he
informed the petitioners that he had already
constructed a commercial building on the
land worth P50,000.00; that the lease
contract was for a period of sixty (60) years,
counted from 1954; and that he is already a
Filipino citizen. The claim of Chong came
as a surprise to the Llantinos because they
did not remember having agreed to a
sixty-year lease agreement as that would
virtually make Chong the owner of the realty
which, as a Chinese national, he had no right
to own and neither could he have acquired
such ownership after naturalization
subsequent to 1954. On December 16, 1967,
in order to avoid a court litigation the
Llantinos once more invited Chong to a
conference about the matter but again Chong
ignored the invitation. Hence, on January 10,
1968, the Llantinos filed their complaint to
quiet title with damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of lease
entered into by and between the petitioners
including Virgilio Llantino now deceased
and private respondent on October 5, 1954
for a period of sixty (60) years is valid.
HELD: The lower court correctly ruled that
the defendant-appellee Chong had at the
time of the execution of the contract, the
right to hold by lease the property involved
in the case although at the time of the
execution of the contract, he was still a
Chinese national.
Ratio Decidendi: In the present case, it has
been established that there is only one
contract and there is no option to buy the
leased property in favor of Chong. There is
nothing in the record, either in the lease
contract or in the complaint itself, to indicate
any scheme to circumvent the constitutional
prohibition. On the contrary, the Llantinos
themselves admit openly that right from the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
start and before entering into the contract,
Chong had merely asked them for a lease of
the premises to which they agreed.
Admittedly under the terms of the contract
there is nothing to prevent the Llantinos
from disposing of their title to the land to
any qualified party but subject to the rights
of the lessee Chong. Neither is there under
the terms of the said contract to indicate that
the ownership of the Llantinos of the leased
premises has been virtually transferred to the
lessee
X. MARRIAGE AND
DIVORCE
Article 1 of the Family Code. Marriage is
a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation
of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not
subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations
during the marriage within the limits
provided by this Code.
A. Requisites of a Valid Marriage
ARTICLE 3 of Family Code. The formal
requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the
cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title;
and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place
with the appearance of the contracting
parties before the solemnizing officer and
their personal declaration that they take each
other as husband and wife in the presence of
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 100
not less than two witnesses of legal age.
1. Extrinsic Validity
This is governed by lex loci celebrationis.
Extrinsic validity covers questions on
formalities or external conduct required of
parties for legally valid marriage.
Article 2. Hague Convention on
Celebration & Recognition of Validity of
Marriages: Formal requirements governed
by law of state of celebration.
General rule: All states recognize as
valid marriages celebrated in foreign
countries if the formalities prescribed there
were complied with.
Lex Loci Celebrationis (expressed in Art
26 of Family Code):
“All marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines in accordance w/ the laws in
force in the country where they were
solemnized, and valid there as such,
shall also be valid in this country…”
2. Intrinsic Validity
Intrinsic requirements refer to capacity or
general ability of a person to marry, for
instance defined by requirements of age &
parental consent, but it does not refer clearly
to an individual’s being permitted to
marry a specific person or person of a
determinate class./
What law controls intrinsic
requirements?
The parties’ personal laws—either domicile
or nationality.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Municipal laws of each state provide
substantive requirements of marriage.
B. Effects of Marriage
Marriage holds the marriage together and
prevents the disintegration of family life.
C. Rules on Marriage Celebrated Abroad
Art. 9 of the relevant Hague convention:
Marriage celebrated by a diplomatic agent
or consular official in accordance with his
state law shall be considered valid as long
as it is not prohibited by the state of
celebration
1. Formal Requirements
Philippine law: Marriage of Filipino
nationals shall be officiated by Philippine
consul general, consul or vice consul (in w/c
case the formal & extrinsic requirements of
a valid marriage license & due publication
& registration under Philippine law have to
be complied with).
This is said to apply to marriage b/w
Filipino nationals & an alien provided the
alien complies with marriage requisites
under his/her national law.
Additional requirements for:
1) aliens - submission of a certificate of
legal capacity to contract marriage issued
by diplomatic/consular office
2) stateless persons or refugees-
submission of affidavit stating
circumstances showing legal capacity to
contract marriage
2. Full Faith and Credit
Marriages celebrated outside the Philippines
are valid and binding unless they violate
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 101
public policy or contravene our prohibitive
laws. It must be noted that certain rituals
performed by members of indigenous tribes
are also considered valid through state
recognition and practice.
3. Capacity
Capacity generally refers to the mental
ability of one or both of the parties to the
marriage to agree to become spouses. Both
parties must be of "sound" mind and capable
of agreeing to the marriage. Not all forms of
mental illness and insanity serve to render
someone incapable of entering into a
marriage.
A common test of capacity is the ability of
individuals to understand the nature of
marriage and what their responsibilities are
to their partners once they enter into the
union, such as financial obligations. Physical
incapacity and in particular the physical
inability to have sexual intercourse -- does
not in and of itself render one incapable of
marrying, and does not on its face void a
marriage that has already occurred.
4. Marriages not Subject of Recognition
1. Incestous Marriage (Article 37,
Family Code)
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.
2. Void Marriage (Art 38, Family
Code)
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be
void from the beginning for reasons of
public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
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;
(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.
3. Polygamous or Bigamous
Marriage (Art. 35, Family Code)
4. Same- sex marriages (Art. 2,
Family Code)
C. Divorce
Divorce may be absolute or limited
Absolute: termination of legal relationship
b/w spouses by an act of law.
Limited: (Legal separation) separation form
bed & board w/c does not effect the
dissolution of marital ties. But it modifies
the incidents of marriage by relieving
spouses of duty of living w// each other.
This does not necessarily affect economic
rights & duties since the court may order
one to provide for support. For such
purpose, it is essential that the court has
jurisdiction over the respondent spouse &
the property sought to be affected by decree.
Local law governs legal consequences of
divorce of spouses, nationals of the same
country, who marry, are domiciled &
divorce.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 102
1. Limited Recognition of Divorce
Divorce is against public policy in the
Philippines but it is given limited
recognition to promote justice and fairness
to Philippine nationals.
2. Right to Re-marry after a Divorce
Citizens of the Philippines whose foreign
spouses have obtained a divorce abroad are
capacitated to remarry under our laws. It is
important the divorce is be judicially
recognized and annotated in the local civil
registry before the Filipino can remarry.
3. Recognition of Foreign Divorce,
Procedure
Recognition of foreign divorce now only
requires one proceeding which is a special
proceeding for correction of entry in the
civil registry. There is no more need to file
an initial petition for recognition since he
US VS. JARVISON, 2005
FACTS: Esther and Ben Jarvison, both
members of the Navajo tribe, were married
in Navajo rites in 1953. Ben is accused for
the sexual molestation of their
granddaughter and the government is now
compelling Esther to testify against Ben for
circumstances known to her concerning the
molestation. Esther refused to testify and
invoked spousal testimonial privilege. The
district court sustained her on the ground
that the Jarvisons had a valid marriage based
on their 1953 traditional Navajo marriage
ceremony. The government appealed.
ISSUE: Whether the Jarvisons' marriage in
a traditional Navajo ceremony on June 25,
1953 was valid.
HELD: YES. Our analysis of the district
court's conclusion that the Jarvisons had a
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
valid marriage requires us first to examine
what law would apply to the question of a
marriage between two Navajo tribal
members who live completely within the
boundaries of the Navajo Reservation. It is
often assumed without discussion by courts
that, in cases arising on an Indian
Reservation within a State, the substantive
law of the State is controlling in such
situations. However, because the Navajo
Nation retains sovereign authority to
regulate domestic relations laws, including
marriage of its Indian subjects, Navajo law
is dispositive as to the validity of the
marriage in question.
COOK VS. COOK, 2005
FACTS: Alan and Peggy Cook were first
cousins and they were married in Virginia on
April 7, 1984. Marriage between first
cousins is valid in Virginia. They then
moved to Arizona in 1989. At that time,
Arizona considered as void marriages
between first cousins except that "Marriages
valid by the laws of the place where
contracted are valid in this state." (S 63-108,
Arizona Code of 1939). In 1996, Arizona
marriage laws were amended to provide that
"Marriages valid by the laws of the place
where contracted are valid in this state,
except marriages that are void and
prohibited by § 25-101."
ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Allan and
Peggy Cook is valid under Arizona law.
HELD: YES. The first question we must
decide is whether the validity of the
marriage should be determined under
Arizona or Virginia law. If determined under
Virginia law, the marriage is valid; if
determined under Arizona law, we are
presented with statutory and constitutional
issues as to whether the marriage is valid. It
is unnecessary to address those issues if
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 103
Virginia law applies.
Under a conflict-of-law analysis, Arizona
authorities require us to recognize the
preeminence of the Arizona legislature's
express statutory enactments as to whether a
particular out-of-state marriage is valid or
void in Arizona. We do not apply the law
from the state of Virginia, even though
Virginia had the most significant relationship
to the parties at the time of the marriage.
LANGAN VS. ST. VINCENT’S
HOSPITAL, 2005
FACTS: Neil Conrad and John Lagan lived
in New York both male affirmed their
commitment under Vermont Civil Union
Laws. Mr. Neil Conrad Spice handler was
struck by an automobile and subsequently
died under the care and treatment at St.
Vincent Hospital. John Lagan subsequently
commenced an action against St. Vincent
hospital. He sought damages for medical
practice and lack of informed consent. On
his own behalf, he sought damages for
wrongful death. A wrongful death statute is
a statute is a claim against a person who can
be liable for death. The claim is brought in
civil action usually by relatives. The
defendant St. Vincent hospital moved to
dismiss the wrongful death claim on the
ground that plaintiff was not the decedent’s
distribute and therefore could not recover
damages for wrongful death. The plaintiff
cross- moved for summary judgment and
argued that his status under Vermont’s civil
union law entitled him to sue the decedent's
surviving spouse. The plaintiff also argued
that even if he does not expressly fall within
the meaning of “ spouse” as used in EPTL,
New York is nevertheless bound by
considerations of equity to recognize his
right to decedent’s wrongful death.
ISSUE: Whether or not John Lagan is
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
considered a surviving spouse for the
purpose of death under the wrongful death
statute in New York?
HELD: NO. The highest court denied John
Lagan standing as surviving “spouse’’ thus
preventing John Lagan from bringing suit
against St. Vincent Hospital. It would have
been inconceivable to the drafters of the
wrongful death statute that the surviving
spouse would be of the same sex. The term
“spouse” as used in EPTL is limited to those
persons who were married to decedent at the
time of death and cannot, through statutory
construction, be interpreted expansively to
include persons like the plaintiff and
decedent who were partners in a Vermont
civil union but were not joined in marriage.
Theories of full faith and credit have no
application simply because decedent were
not married.
TENCHAVEZ VS. ESCANO, 1965
FACTS: The 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions have the same 60 percent
Filipino ownership and control requirement
for public utilities like PLOT. Any deviation
from this requirement necessitates an
amendment to the Constitution as
exemplified by the Parity Amendment. The
Constitution expressly declares as State
policy the development of an economy
"effectively controlled" by Filipinos. The
Constitution explicitly reserves the
ownership and operation of public utilities to
Philippine nationals, who are defined in the
Foreign Investments Act of 1991 as Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at
least 60 percent of whose capital with voting
rights belongs to Filipinos.
ISSUE: Whether the divorce obtained by
Vicenta abroad was valid and binding in the
Philippines.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 104
HELD: NO. The divorce decree obtained in
the US is not valid, because at the time it
was issued, Vicenta, like Pastor, was still a
Filipino citizen. She was then subject to
Philippine law. Philippine law cannot
recognize a foreig decree of absolute divorce
between Filipino citizens, for this would
violate declared public policy.
VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, 1985
FACTS: Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen
of the Philippines while Richard Upton is a
citizen of the United States; that they were
married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the
marriage, they established their residence in
the Philippines; that they begot two children
born on April 4, 1973 and December 18,
1975, respectively; that the parties were
divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982;
and that Alice has re-married also in
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed
suit against petitioner in Civil Case No.
1075-P of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
CXV, in Pasay City, stating that petitioner's
business in Ermita, Manila, (the Galleon
Shop, for short), is conjugal property of the
parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered
to render an accounting of that business, and
that private respondent be declared with
right to manage the conjugal property.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that the cause of action is barred by
previous judgment in the divorce
proceedings before the Nevada Court
wherein respondent had acknowledged that
he and petitioner had "no community
property" as of June 11, 1982.
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss on
the ground that the property involved is
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
located in the Philippines so that the Divorce
Decree has no bearing in the case.
ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign
divorce on the parties and their alleged
conjugal property in the Philippines?
HELD: The foreign divorce is valid. It is
true that owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code,
only Philippine nationals are covered by the
policy against absolute divorces, the same
being considered contrary to our concept of
public police and morality. However, aliens
may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they
are valid according to their national law. In
this case, the divorce in Nevada released
private respondent from the marriage from
the standards of American law, under
which divorce dissolves the marriage.
To maintain, as private respondent does,
that, under our laws, petitioner has to be
considered still married to private
respondent and still subject to a wife's
obligations under Article 109 of the Civil
Code cannot be just.
The petitioner should not be obliged to live
together with, observe respect and fidelity,
and render support to private respondents.
The latter should not continue to be one of
her heirs with possible rights to conjugal
property. She should not be discriminated
against in her own country if the ends of
justice are to be served.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, the
private respondent is no longer the husband
of the petitioner. He would have no standing
to sue in the case below as petitioner's
husband entitled to exercise control over
conjugal assets. As he is bound by the
Decision of his own country's Court, which
validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 105
whose decision he does not repudiate, he is
estopped by his own representation before
said Court from asserting his right over the
alleged conjugal property.
SAN LUIS VS. SAN LUIS, 2007
FACTS: Felicisimo San Luis contracted
three marriages during his lifetime. His first
marriage was with Virginia Sulit. The couple
had 6 children: Rodolfo, Mila, Edgar, Linda,
Emilita and Manuel. Virginia died and five
years later, Felicisimo married Merry Lee
Corwin and had Tobias. Merry Lee, an
American citizen, thereafter obtained a
Decree Granting Absolute Divorce against.
Felicisimo from the Family Court of the
First Circuit, State of Hawaii, United States
of America.
Consequently, Felicisimo married
respondent Felicidad San Luis at Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
After 18 years, Felicisimo died. Felicidad
San Luis then sought the dissolution of their
conjugal partnership assets and the
settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. Felicidad
San Luis filed a petition for letters of
administration before the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City.
ISSUE: Whether a Filipino who is divorced
by his alien spouse abroad may validly
remarry under the Civil Code.
HELD: YES. In resolving this issue, the
Court need not retroactively apply the
provisions of the Family Code, particularly
Art. 26, par. (2) considering that there is
sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing them
to rule in the affirmative.
Art. 26 of Civil Code provides:
All marriages solemnized outside the
Philippines in accordance with the laws in
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
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), 36, 37 and 38.
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen
and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad
by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have
capacity to remarry under Philippine law.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 traces its origin to
the 1985 case of Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr.
The Van Dorn case involved a marriage
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner.
The Court held therein that a divorce decree
validly obtained by the alien spouse is valid
in the Philippines, and consequently, the
Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry
under Philippine law.
As such, the Van Dorn case is sufficient
basis in resolving a situation where a divorce
is validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse.
PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA, 1989
FACTS: Pilapil and Geiling were married in
Germany. But Geiling obtained a divorce in
a German court on the grounds of failure of
marriage. A few months later, Geiling filed a
complaint for adultery which was dismissed;
it was refiled by the fiscal.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent Geiling
can prosecute petitioner Pilapil on the
ground of adultery even though they are no
longer husband and wife as decree of
divorce was already issued.
HELD: NO. Geiling has no legal standing
to commence the adultery case because the
person who initiates the adultery case must
be an offended spouse, meaning he must still
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 106
be married to the accused spouse at the time
of the filing of the complaint. Because of the
divorce decree, Geiling is no longer the
husband of Pilapil. Hence he had no more
legal standing to commence the adultery
case. He is no longer an offended “spouse”.
ROEHR VS. RODRIGUEZ, 2003
FACTS: Roehr, a German citizen and
resident of Germany, married Rodriguez, a
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany.
On August 28, 1996, Rodriguez filed a
petition for the declaration of nullity of
marriage at the Makati RTC, but the petition
was denied. Meanwhile, Roehr obtained a
decree of divorce from the Court of First
Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese in
Germany, which was promulgated in 1997.
The custody of the two children was granted
to Wolfgang by the said court.
Roehr filed a Second Motion to Dismiss, on
the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the matter since there is
already a divorce decree obtained abroad.
Judge Guevara-Salonga granted the motion
to dismiss. Rodriguez, however, filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying
that the case should proceed for the purpose
of determining the issues of custody of their
children and the distribution of the
properties. The judge issued an order
partially setting aside her order to dismiss for
the purpose of tackling the issues of property
relations of the spouses as well as the
custody of the children.
ISSUE: Whether our courts take cognizance
of the custody issue of the children
HELD: YES. The divorce was validly
obtained and is recognized in the
Philippines. It has been consistently held
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien
may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
provided such decree is valid according to
the national law of the foreigner. In this
case, the divorce decree has not been
questioned by either party. Only the custody
of the children is doubted.
While the court in Germany that granted the
divorce decree has decided regarding the
custody of the children, as a general rule, the
legal effects of divorce, even if obtained
abroad, must still be determined by our
courts. This includes issues on custody and
care and support of children. Before our
courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
foreign judgment, such as the award of
custody to petitioner by the German court, it
must be shown that the parties opposed to the
judgment had been given ample opportunity
to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39,
Section 50 of the Rules of Court. The
proceedings in the German court were
merely summary.
In addition, the divorce decree did not touch
on the issue as to who the offending spouse
was. Absent any finding that the private
respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the
children, the trial court was correct in setting
the issue for hearing to determine the issue of
parental custody, care, support and education
mindful of the best interests of the children.
REPUBLIC VS. ORBECIDO, 2005
FACTS: Cipriano Orbecido III married
Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United
Church of Christ in the Philippines in
Lam-an, Ozamis City, on May 24, 1981.
They were blessed with a son and a
daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 107
and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido. Lady
Myros left for the United States bringing
along their son Kristoffer in 1986. After a
few years, Cipriano discovered that his wife
had been naturalized as an American citizen.
Cipriano learned from his son that his wife
had obtained a divorce decree sometime in
2000 and then married a certain Innocent
Stanley and lived in California.
He then filed with the trial court a petition
for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph
2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No
opposition was filed. Finding merit in the
petition, the court granted the same. The
Republic, herein petitioner, through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
sought reconsideration but it was denied.
Orbecido filed a petition for review of
certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent
Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of
the Family Code.
HELD: Yes. The Court’s unanimous
decision in holding Article 26, paragraph 2
of the Family Code be interpreted as
allowing a Filipino citizen who has been
divorced by a spouse who had acquired a
citizenship and remarried, also to remarry
under Philippine law.
The article should be interpreted to include
cases involving parties who, at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, were
Filipino citizens, but later on,one of them
became naturalized as a foreign citizen and
obtained a divorce decree.The instant case
was one where at the time the marriage was
solemnized, the parties were two Filipino
citizens, but later on, the wife was
naturalized as an American citizen and
subsequently obtained a divorce granting her
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
capacity to remarry, and indeed, she
remarried an American citizen while
residing in the US. The Filipino spouse
should likewise be allowed to remarry as if
the other party were a foreigner at the time
of the solemnization of the
marriage.However, since Orbecido was not
able to prove as fact his wife’s
naturalization, he was still barred from
remarrying.
CORPUZ VS. STO. TOMAS, 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Corpuz was a former
Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization. He
married a Filipina. He later filed a petition
for divorce for his first wife since he
discovered that she was having an affair.
This was granted. Two years after the
divorce, Gerbert found another Filipina to
love. He desired to marry her. So he
registered the Canadian divorce decree in the
Civil Registry Office. But he was informed
that despite the registration of the divorce
decree the marriage between him and his
first wife still subsists under Philippine law
and for the divorce decree to be enforceable,
it must first be judicially recognized by a
competent Philippine court.
Petitioner then filed for judicial recognition
of foreign divorce and declaration of
marriage as dissolved with the RTC. The
RTC denied the petition on the basis that the
petitioner lacked locus standi. Thus,
petitioner directly appeals to the Supreme
Court via a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the 2nd paragraph
of Art 26 of the FC extends to aliens the
right to petition a court of this jurisdiction
for the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 108
HELD: NO. Only a Filipino spouse can
avail of the remedy under the 2nd paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code because the
substantive right it establishes is in favor of
the Filipino spouse. Hence, only the
Filipino spouse can invoke the 2nd
paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code.
However, the unavailability of the 2nd
paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code to
aliens does not necessarily strip the
petitioner of legal interest to petition the
RTC for the recognition of his foreign
divorce decree. The petitioner, being a
naturalized Canadian citizen now, is clothed
by the presumptive evidence of the
authenticity of foreign divorce decree with
conformity to alien’s national law.
FUJIKI VS. MARINAY, 2013
FACTS: Minoru Fujiki, a Japanese national,
married Maria Marinay in the Philippines in
2004. However, they eventually lost contact
with each other. In 2008, Marinay married
Shinichi Maekara, another Japanese, without
her prior marriage with Fujiki being
dissolved. Marinay allegedly suffered
physical abuse from Maekara and so she left
the latter and re-established her relationship
with Fujiki.
Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment
from a family court in Japan which declared
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
void for being bigamous. Subsequently,
Fujiki filed a petition before the RTC titled
“Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment
(or Decree of Absolute Nullity of
Marriage)” and prayed that the Japanese
Family Court judgment be recognized in the
Philippines and the subsequent marriage of
Fujiki to Maekera be declared void ab initio
under Articles 35 (4) and 41 of the Family
Code.The RTC denied the petition stating
that the petition was in gross violation of
Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages. It took the view that only “the
husband or the wife”, in this case either
Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to
declare their marriage void, and not Fujiki.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fujiki, a husband of
a prior marriage, can file a petition to
recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the
subsequent marriage between Marinay and
Maekera on the ground of bigamy.
HELD: YES. While the Philippines does
not have a divorce law, Philippine courts
may, however, recognize a foreign divorce
decree under the second paragraph of Article
26 of the Family Code, to capacitate a
Filipino citizen to remarry when his or her
foreign spouse obtained a divorce decree
abroad.
In this case, there is therefore no reason to
disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the
Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara
on the ground of bigamy. The Japanese
Family Court judgment is fully consistent
with Philippine public policy, as bigamous
marriages are declared void from the
beginning under Article 35 (4) of the Family
Code.
ORION SAVINGS BANK VS.
SHIGEKANE SUZUKI, 2014
FACTS: Shigekane Suzuki, a Japanese
national, met with Ms. Helen Soneja to
inquire about a condominium unit and a
parking slot at Cityland Pioneer,
Mandaluyong City, allegedly owned by
Yung Sam Kang, a Korean national.
After payment of the price of the unit and
parking slot, Kang then executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale. Suzuki took possession of the
condominium unit and parking lot, and
commenced the renovation of the interior of
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 109
the condominium unit. Kang thereafter made
several representations with Suzuki to
deliver the titles to the properties, which
were then allegedly in possession of
Alexander Perez (Perez, Orion’s Loans
Officer) for safekeeping. Despite several
verbal demands, Kang failed to deliver the
documents.
Suzuki later on learned that Kang had left
the country, prompting Suzuki to verify the
status of the properties. He learned that CCT
No. 9118 representing the title to the
Parking Slot No. 42 contained no
annotations although it remained under the
name of Cityland Pioneer. Despite the
cancellation of the mortgage to Orion, the
titles to the properties remained in
possession of Perez. Suzuki then demanded
the delivery of the titles. Orion, through
Perez, however, refused to surrender the
titles, and cited the need to consult Orion’s
legal counsel as its reason.
ISSUE: Whether or not Korean Law should
be applied in conveying the conjugal
property of spouses Kang?
HELD: In the present case, Orion, the
Korean law should not be applied. It merely
attached a “Certification from the Embassy
of the Republic of Korea”29 to prove the
existence of Korean Law. This certification,
does not qualify as sufficient proof of the
conjugal nature of the property for there is
no showing that it was properly
authenticated by the seal of his office, as
required under Section 24 of Rule 132.30.
Accordingly, the International Law doctrine
of presumed-identity approach or processual
presumption comes into play, i.e., where a
foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is
that foreign law is the same as Philippine
Law. Under Philippine Law, the phrase
“Yung Sam Kang ‘married to’ Hyun Sook
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Jung” is merely descriptive of the civil status
of Kang.32 In other words, the import from
the certificates of title is that Kang is the
owner of the properties as they are registered
in his name alone, and that he is married to
Hyun Sook Jung.
REPUBLIC VS. MANALO, G.R. NO.
221029, 24 APRIL 2018
FACTS: Marelyn Tanedo Manalo was
married to a Japanese national, Yoshino
Minoro. Manalo filed a case for divorce in
Japan and after due proceedings, a divorce
decree dated December 6, 2011, was
granted. Manalo now wants to cancel the
entry of marriage between her and Minoro
from the Civil Registry and to be allowed to
reuse her maiden surname, Manalo.
According to Article 26, paragraph 2 of the
Family Code, where a marriage between a
Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse
incapacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity
to remarry under Philippine law
ISSUE: Under Article 26, paragraph 2 of
the Family Code, can the Filipino spouse
initiate the divorce instead of the foreign
spouse?
HELD: YES. The Court ruled that in
interpreting the law, the intent should be
taken into consideration. According to
Justice Alicia Sempio-Dy, a member of the
Civil Code Revision Committee, the aim of
the amendment is to avoid the absurd
situation of having the Filipino deemed still
married to a foreign spouse even though the
latter is no longer married to the former.
According to the Supreme Court, the
wording of Article 26, paragraph 2 of the
Family Code requires only that there be a
valid divorce obtained abroad and does not
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 110
discriminate as to who should file the
divorce, i.e., whether it is the Filipino spouse
or the foreign spouse. Also, even if
assuming arguendo that the provision should
be interpreted that the divorce proceeding
should be initiated by the foreign spouse, the
Court will not follow such interpretation
since doing so would be contrary to the
legislative intent of the law.
In the issue of the application of Article 15
of the Civil Code in this case, the Court
ruled that even if Manalo should be bound
by the nationality principle, blind adherence
to it should not be allowed if it will cause
unjust discrimination and oppression to
certain classes of individuals whose rights
are equally protected by the law.
The Court also ruled that Article 26 of the
Family Code is in violation of the equal
protection clause. They said that the
limitation provided by Article 26 is based on
a superficial, arbitrary, and whimsical
classification. The violation of the equal
protection clause in this case is shown by the
discrimination against Filipino spouses who
initiated a foreign divorce proceeding and
Filipinos who obtained a divorce decree
because the foreign spouse had initiated the
divorce proceedings. Their circumstances
are alike, and making a distinction between
them as regards to the validity of the divorce
decree obtained would give one undue favor
and unjustly discriminate against the other.
XI. ADOPTION
Definition: The act by which relations of
paternity & affiliation as legally existing
between persons not so related by nature.
A. Validity of Adoption, Governing Law
1. Republic Act No. 8552 - An Act
Establishing The Rules And Policies
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
On the Domestic Adoption of
Filipino Children and for Other
Purposes
2. Rule on Adoption of Filipino
Children [22 August 2002;
superseded Rules 99 and 100]
3. Republic Act 8043: The
Inter-Country Adoption Act Of 1995
B. Domestic Adoption
1. Who May Adopt?
SEC. 7. RA 8552. Who May Adopt. – The
following may adopt:
(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in
possession of full civil capacity and legal
rights, of good moral character, has not been
convicted of any crime involving moral
turpitude, emotionally and psychologically
capable of caring for children, at least
sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee,
and who is in a position to support and care
for his/her children in keeping with the
means of the family. The requirement of
sixteen (16) year difference between the age
of the adopter and adoptee may be waived
when the adopter is the biological parent of
the adoptee, or is the spouse of the adoptee’s
parent;
(b) Any alien possessing the same
qualifications as above stated for Filipino
nationals: Provided, That his/her country has
diplomatic relations with the Republic of the
Philippines, that he/she has been living in
the Philippines for at least three (3)
continuous years prior to the filing of the
application for adoption and maintains such
residence until the adoption decree is
entered, that he/she has been certified by
his/her diplomatic or consular office or any
appropriate government agency that he/she
has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her
country, and mat his/her government allows
the adoptee to enter his/her country as
his/her adopted son/daughter: Provided,
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 111
further, That the requirements on residency
and certification of the alien’s qualification
to adopt in his/her country may be waived
for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to
adopt a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate
son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen
and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her
spouse a relative within the fourth (4th)
degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouse; or
(c) The guardian with respect to the ward
after the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his/her financial
accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except
in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the
legitimate son/ daughter of the other; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own
illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,
However, that the other spouse has signified
his/her consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from
each other.
In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or
one spouse adopts the illegitimate
son/daughter of the other, joint parental
authority shall be exercised by the spouses.
2. Who May Be Adopted?
RA 8552 SEC. 8. Who May Be Adopted. –
The following may be adopted:
(a) Any person below eighteen (18) years of
age who has been administratively or
judicially declared available for adoption;
(b) The legitimate son/daughter of one
spouse by the other spouse;
(c) An illegitimate son/daughter by a
qualified adopter to improve his/her status to
that of legitimacy;
(d) A person of legal age if, prior to the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
adoption, said person has been consistently
considered and treated by the adopter(s) as
his/her own child since minority;
(e) A child whose adoption has been
previously rescinded; or
(f) A child whose biological or adoptive
parent(s) has died: Provided, That no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6)
months from the time of death of said
parent(s).
3. Procedure for Domestic Adoption
SEC. 10. Hurried Decisions. – In all
proceedings for adoption, the court shall
require proof that the biological parent(s)
has been properly counseled to prevent
him/her from making hurried decisions
caused by strain or anxiety to give up the
child, and to sustain that all measures to
strengthen die family have been exhausted
and that any prolonged stay of me child in
his/her own home will be inimical to his/her
welfare and interest.
SEC. 11. Case Study. – No petition for
adoption shall be set for hearing unless a
licensed social worker of the Department,
the social service office of the local
government unit, or any child-placing or
child-caring agency has made a case study
of the adoptee, his/her biological parent(s),
as well as the adopter(s), and has submitted
the report and recommendations on the
matter to the court hearing such petition.
At the time of preparation of the adoptee’s
case study, the concerned social worker shall
confirm with the Civil Registry the real
identity and registered name of the adoptee.
If the birth of the adoptee was not registered
with the Civil Registry, it shall be the
responsibility of the concerned social worker
to ensure that the adoptee is registered.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 112
The case study on the adoptee shall establish
that he/she is legally available for adoption
and that the documents to support this fact
are valid and authentic. Further, the case
study of the adopter(s) shall ascertain his/her
genuine intentions and that the adoption is in
the best interest of the child.
The Department shall intervene on behalf of
the adoptee if it finds, after the conduct of
the case studies, that the petition should be
denied. The case studies and other relevant
documents and records pertaining to the
adoptee and the adoption shall be preserved
by the Department.
SEC. 12. Supervised Trial Custody. – No
petition for adoption shall be finally granted
until the adopters) has been given by the
court a supervised trial custody period for at
least six (6) months within which the parties
are expected to adjust psychologically and
emotionally to each other and establish a
bonding relationship. During said period,
temporary parental authority shall be vested
in the adopter(s).The court may motu
proprio or upon motion of any party reduce
the trial period if it finds the same to be in
the best interest of the adoptee, stating the
reasons for the reduction of the period.
However, for alien adopters), he/she must
complete the six (6)-month trial custody
except for those enumerated in Sec. 7 (b) (i)
(ii) (iii).
If the child is below seven (7) years of age
and is placed with the prospective adopter(s)
through a pre-adoption placement authority
issued by the Department, the prospective
adopter(s) shall enjoy all the benefits to
which biological parent(s) is entitled from
the date the adoptee is placed with the
prospective adopter(s).
SEC. 13. Decree of Adoption. – If, after the
publication of the order of hearing has been
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
complied with, and no opposition has been
interposed to the petition, and after
consideration of the case studies, me
qualifications of the adopter(s), trial custody
report and the evidence submitted, the court
is convinced that the petitioners are qualified
to adopt, and that the adoption would
redound to me best interest of the adoptee, a
decree of adoption shall be entered which
shall be effective as of the date die original
petition was filed. This provision shall also
apply in case the petitioner(s) dies before the
issuance of the decree of adoption to protect
the interest of the adoptee. The decree shall
state the name by which the child is to be
known.
SEC. 14. Civil Registry Record. – An
amended certificate of birth shall be issued
by the Civil Registry, as required by the
Rules of Court, attesting to the fact that the
adoptee is the child of the adopters) by being
registered with his/her surname. The original
certificate of birth shall be stamped
“cancelled” with the annotation of the
issuance of an amended birth certificate in
its place and shall be sealed in the civil
registry records. The new birth certificate to
be issued to the adoptee shall not bear any
notation that it is an amended issue.
SEC. 15. Confidential Nature of
Proceedings and Records. – All hearings in
adoption cases shall be confidential and shall
not be open to the public. All records,
books, and papers relating to the adoption
cases in the files of the court, the
Department, or any other agency or
institution participating in the adoption
proceedings shall be kept strictly
confidential.
If the court finds that the disclosure of the
information to a third person is necessary for
purposes connected with or arising out of
the adoption and will be for the best interest
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 113
of the adoptee, the court may merit the
necessary information to be released,
restricting the purposes for which it may be
used.
C. Foreign Adoptions
RA 8043 Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. —
It is hereby declared the policy of the State
to provide every neglected and abandoned
child with a family that will provide such
child with love and care as well as
opportunities for growth and development.
Towards this end, efforts shall be exerted to
place the child with an adoptive family in
the Philippines. However, recognizing that
inter-country adoption may be considered as
allowing aliens not presently allowed by law
to adopt Filipino children if such children
cannot be adopted by qualified Filipino
citizens or aliens, the State shall take
measures to ensure that inter-country
adoptions are allowed when the same shall
prove beneficial to the child’s best interests,
and shall serve and protect his/her
fundamental rights.
D. Adoption by Resident or Non-Resident
Alien
1. Who May Adopt?
Sec. 9. Who May Adopt. — An alien or
a Filipino citizen permanently residing
abroad may file an application for
inter-country adoption of a Filipino child
if he/she:
(a) is at least twenty-seven (27)
years of age and at least sixteen (16)
years older than the child to be adopted,
at the time of application unless the
adopter is the parent by nature of the
child to be adopted or the spouse of such
parent:
(b) if married, his/her spouse must
jointly file for the adoption;
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
(c) has the capacity to act and
assume all rights and responsibilities of
parental authority under his national
laws, and has undergone the appropriate
counseling from an accredited counselor
in his/her country;
(d) has not been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude;
(e) is eligible to adopt under
his/her national law;
(f) is in a position to provide the
proper care and support and to give the
necessary moral values and example to
all his children, including the child to be
adopted;
(g) agrees to uphold the basic
rights of the child as embodied under
Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on
the Rights of the Child, and to abide by
the rules and regulations issued to
implement the provisions of this Act;
(h) comes from a country with
whom the Philippines has diplomatic
relations and whose government
maintains a similarly authorized and
accredited agency and that adoption is
allowed under his/her national laws; and
(i) possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications
provided herein and in other applicable
Philippine laws.
2. Who May Be Adopted?
Sec. 8. Who May be Adopted. — Only a
legally free child may be the subject of
inter-country adoption. In order that such
child may be considered for placement, the
following documents must be submitted to
the Board:
(a)Child study;
(b)Birth certificate/foundling
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 114
certificate;
(c)Deed of voluntary
commitment/decree of abandonment/death
certificate of parents;
(d)Medical evaluation /history;
(e)Psychological evaluation, as
necessary; and
(f)Recent photo of the child.
3. Procedure for Adoption
Sec. 10. Where to File Application. —
An application to adopt a Filipino child
shall be filed either with the Philippine
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the child, or with the Board, through
an intermediate agency, whether
governmental or an authorized and
accredited agency, in the country of the
prospective adoptive parents, which
application shall be in accordance with
the requirements as set forth in the
implementing rules and regulations to be
promulgated by the Board.
The application shall be supported by the
following documents written and
officially translated in English.
(a) Birth certificate of
applicant(s);
(b) Marriage contract, if married,
and divorce decree, if applicable;
(c) Written consent of their
biological or adoptive children above ten
(10) years of age, in the form of sworn
statement;
(d) Physical, medical and
psychological evaluation by a duly licensed
physician and psychologist;
(e) Income tax returns or any
document showing the financial capability of
the applicant(s);
(f) Police clearance of applicant(s);
(g) Character reference from the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
local church/minister, the applicant’s
employer and a member of the immediate
community who have known the
applicant(s) for at least five (5) years; and
(h) Recent postcard-size pictures of
the applicant(s) and his immediate family;
The Rules of Court shall apply in case of
adoption by judicial proceedings.
RAMIREZ MARCAIDA VS. AGLUBAT,
1962
FACTS: Refusal of the Local Civil Registrar
of Manila to record an Escritura de
Adopcion executed in Madrid, Spain, is now
challenged before this Court on appeal by
registrant-adoptee from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Manila
confirmatory of such refusal. The disputed
deed of adoption had its inception, thus:
Prior to October 21, 1958, proceedings for
adoption were started before the Court of
First Instance of Madrid, Spain by Maria
Garnier Garreau, then 84 years of age,
adopting Josefina Juana de Dios Ramirez
Marcaida, 55 years, a citizen of the
Philippines. Both were residents of Madrid,
Spain. On that date, October 21, 1958, the
court granted the application for adoption
and gave the necessary judicial authority,
once the judgment becomes final, to execute
the corresponding adoption document. In
compliance, on November 29, 1958, the
notarial document of adoption which
embodies the court order of adoption —
whereunder Maria Garnier Garreau formally
adopted petitioner, was executed in Madrid.
In conformity with our law, this escritura de
adopcion was, on December 10, 1953,
authenticated by Emilio S. Martinez,
Philippine Vice Consul, Philippine Embassy,
Madrid, who issued the corresponding
certificate of authentication. The document
of adoption was filed in the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Manila on January
15, 1959. The Registrar, however, refused to
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 115
register that document upon the ground that
under Philippine law, adoption can only be
had through judicial proceedings. And since
the notarial document of adoption is not a
judicial proceeding, it is not entitled to
registration.
ISSUE: Is the trial court correct in
concluding that what is registrable is only
adoption obtained through a judgment
rendered by a Philippine court?
HELD: Private international law offers no
obstacle to recognition of foreign adoption.
This rests on the principle that the status of
adoption, created by the law of a State
having jurisdiction to create it, will be given
the same effect in another state as is given
by the latter state to the status of adoption
when created by its own law. It is quite
obvious then that the status of adoption,
once created under the proper foreign law,
will be recognized in this country, except
where public policy or the interests of its
inhabitants forbid its enforcement and
demand the substitution of the lex fori. At
any rate, whatever may be the effect of
adoption, the rights of the State and adoptee
and other persons interested are fully
safeguarded by Article 15 of our Civil Code
which, in terms explicit, provides that:
"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."
An adoption created under the law of a
foreign country is entitled to registration in
the corresponding civil register of the
Philippines. It is to be understood, however,
that the effects of such adoption shall be
governed by the laws of this country.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
REPUBLIC VS. MILLER 1999
FACTS: On July 29, 1988, the spouses
Claude A. Miler and Jumrus S. Miller, both
U.S. citizens, filed a petition for adoption
with the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City for the adoption of Michael Magno
Madayag. On May 12, 1989, the court
granted the petition. The Solicitor General,
however, appealed the decision to the Court
of Appeals which certified the case to the
Supreme Court. It is the position of the
Solicitor General that aliens are not allowed
to adopt under the Family Code.
ISSUE: Are the spouses Miller entitled to
adopt in the Philippines?
HELD: YES, they are allowed. This Court
has ruled that an alien qualified to adopt
under the Child and Youth Welfare Code,
which was in force at the time of the filing
of the petition, acquired a vested right which
could not be affected by the subsequent
enactment of a new law disqualifying him.
Consequently, the enactment of the Family
Code, effective August 3, 1988, will not
impair the right of respondents who are
aliens to adopt a Filipino child because the
right has become vested at the time of filing
of the petition for adoption and shall be
governed by the law then in force. An alien
who filed a petition for adoption before the
effectiveness of the Family Code, although
denied the right to adopt under Article 184
of said Code may continue with his petition
under the law prevailing before the Family
Code.
XII. SUCCESSION AND
WILLS
A. Definition of Succession
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 116
Art. 774. Succession is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of which the property,
rights and obligations to the extent of the
value of the inheritance of a person are
transmitted through his death to another or
others either by his will or by operation of
law.
B. Types of Succession
(Art. 778-779, NCC).
Testamentary- one that results from the
designation of an heir, made in a will
executed in the form prescribed by law.
Intestate- occurs when a person dies
without leaving a will and mixed succession.
Mixed- mixture of both testate and intestate
succession.
C. Types of Wills, Requisites for Validity
• Will- is an act whereby a person is
permitted, with the formalities
prescribed by law, to control to a certain
degree the disposition of his/her estate,
to take effect after his/her death (Art.
783, NCC).
• Holographic will- one which is entirely
written, dated and signed by the hand of
the testator. It is subject to no other
form, and may be made in or out of the
Philippines, and need not be witnessed.
(Art. 810,, NCC)
• Notarial will- written and notarized. It
must be signed and sworn to by the
Testator himself or signed for him by a
person in his presence at his express
direction, and also signed and sworn to
by three or more credible Witnesses all
in each other’s presence. It must also be
acknowledged before a notary public by
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
the testator and the witness. (Art.
804-806, NCC).
D. Conflict of Laws in Wills and
Succession, Issues
• The pertinent conflict of law rules are
found in Article 17 and 815 of the Civil
Code, both referring to the law of the
place where the will was executed as the
law governing the forms and solemnities
of wills.
• Wills are governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed as
provided by Article 17 of the Civil Code.
• Example: A Filipino may execute a will
in any forms established by the law of
the country in which he may be (Art.
815)
• An alien who is abroad may also execute
a will according to the formalities
prescribed by the law of the place which
he resides, or according to the
formalities observed in his country, or in
conformity with those which the Civil
Code provides. (Art. 830, NCC)
• Formalities are important since they will
be validated during probate proceedings.
Any deviation from the prescribed
formalities may result in disallowance of
the will and the testament of the testator
will not be enforced.
E. Conflict of Laws Rule in the
Philippines
1. Extrinsic Validity of Wills
• If there are certain formalities in foreign
countries which may be different from
Philippine laws, the will be deemed valid
as long as they are not violative of the
Philippine public policy.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 117

• Those laws or conventions in foreign
countries violative of the Philippine laws
are deemed invalid and ineffectual as
enshrined in Article 17, NCC.
• Thus, joint wills are not allowed in our
country in view of the undue influence
that one party may exert on the other in
the execution of the will.
2. Allowance of Will Executed Outside the
Philippines
• Philippine laws do not prohibit the
probate of wills executed by foreigners
abroad although the same have not as yet
been probated and allowed in the
countries of their execution. A foreign
will can be given legal effects in our
jurisdiction.
• Article 816 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines 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.
3. Revocation of Wills
• A will is a unilateral and purely personal
act, it is revocable at any time before the
deat of the testator. Any waiver or
restriction of this is void. (Art. 828,
NCC)
• A revocation done outside the
Philippines, by a person who does not
have a domicile in this country, is valid
when it is done according to1.) the law
of the place where the will was made (
lex loci celebrationis) or 2.) the law of
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
place where the testator had his domicile
at that time (lex domicilii). (Art. 829,
NCC)
• If the revocation is done outside the
Philippines by one domiciled in the
Philippines, the law of the domicile,
which is Philippine law or the law of the
place of the revocation controls (lex loci
actus).
• If the revocation takes place in this
country, it is valid when it is in
accordance with the provision of the
Civil Code.
• Under Philippine law, wills are not
deemed revoked except in the following
cases: 1) by implication of law; or 2) by
some will or codicil, or other writing,
executed as provided in the case of wills;
or 3) by burning, tearing, cancelling, or
obliterating the will with the intention
of revoking it, by the testator himself, or
by some other person in his presence,
and by this express direction (Art. 830,
NCC).
4. Allowance of Will Proved Outside the
Philippines
● Wills proved outside the Philippines
may be allowed in the Philippines
under Rule 77 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, a will duly probated in a
foreign country, the same may also
be allowed in the Philippines by
filing petition for its allowance, with
the authenticated copy of the decree
of allowance from the foreign court
duly attached to the petition to
comply with rules on proof of
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 118
 foreign law and proof of foreign
documents.
● under Philippine law. On the other hand,
5. Intrinsic Validity of Wills
● Refers to the validity of the
dispositions made by the decedent in
the will.
● It is the national law of the decedent
which shall govern the intrinsic
validity of the will.
● Courts should look to the law of the
country where the decedent is a
citizen and apply the law
accordingly. If it is a foreign law, it
has to be properly proved, otherwise
processual presumption will apply,
making Philippine law applicable.
IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE
OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, AZNAR
VS. GARCIA, G.R. NO. L-16749, 31 JANUARY
FACTS: Edward E. Christensen, though
born in New York, migrated to California,
where he resided
and consequently was considered a
California citizen. In 1913, he came to the
Philippines where he became a domiciliary
until his death. However, during the entire
period of his
residence in this country he had always
considered himself a citizen of California. In
his will executed on March 5, 1951, he
instituted an acknowledged natural daughter,
Maria Lucy Christensen as his only heir, but
left a legacy of sum of money in favor of
Helen Christensen Garcia who has been
declared an acknowledged natural daughter.
Counsel for appellant claims that California
law should be applied; that under California
law, the matter is referred back to the law of
the domicile; that therefore Philippine law is
ultimately applicable; that finally, the share
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
of Helen must be increased in view of the
successional rights of illegitimate children
counsel for the heir of Christensen contends
that inasmuch as it is clear that under Article
16 of our Civil Code, the national law of the
deceased must apply, our courts must
immediately apply the internal law of
California on the matter; that under
California law there are no compulsory heirs
and consequently a testator could dispose of
any property possessed by him in absolute
dominion and that finally, illegitimate
children not being entitled to anything and
his will remain undisturbed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Philippine Law
should prevail in administering the estate of
Christensen
HELD: Yes. As the domicile of the
deceased Christensen, a citizen of
California, is the Philippines, the validity of
the provisions of his will depriving his
acknowledged natural child, the appellant,
should be governed by the Philippine Law,
the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the
Civil Code of California, not by the internal
law of California. The decision appealed
from is hereby reversed and the case
returned to the lower court with instructions
that the partition be made as the Philippine
law on succession provides. Judgment
reversed, with costs against appellees.
DALTON VS. GIBERSON, 1952
FACTS: William R. Giberson was a citizen
of the State of Illinois, United States, and a
resident of Cebu. William died on August 6,
1943 in the concentration camp at the
University of Sto. Tomas, Manila,
Philippines. On February 10, 1949, Lela G.
Dalton presented an application in the lower
court calling for the legalization of a
document which, it claims, is the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 119
holographic will of William, granted on
April 29, 1920 in San Francisco, California.
Spring Giberson, legitimate son of William,
filed a motion requesting the dismissal of the
request, claiming that, before a will made in
a foreign country may be legalized in the
Philippines, it must be demonstrated that the
will had been previously legalized in
California and that the request of Lela does
not allege that the will had already been
legalized in California.
ISSUE: Whether or not a testament granted
abroad is required to be previously legalized
abroad before it can be legalized in the
Philippines
HELD: NO. A person may dispose of its
assets after his death by will. The granting
of a will is a legal act which can be
performed in the Philippines or abroad; if it
is granted in a foreign country, it has to be in
accordance with the laws of that country.
This is a universally adopted rule. Article
635 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
respecting the freedom of the testator to
grant his will anywhere, provides that the
will legalized in a foreign country in
accordance with the laws of that country
may also be legalized in the Philippines.
This provision is substantive and creates the
rights of the beneficiaries of the will since
they are assured to have the same be
legalized in the Philippines. Wills made
outside of the Islands, if they can be
legalized in the country in which they were
granted, gives them cause of action for
judicial order in compliance with the last
will of the testator irrespective of the place
of execution. Article 1 of Rule 78 does not
prevent a person to legalize in the
Philippines a testament granted in a foreign
country, if it can be legalized according to
the laws of that country. The will is not
required to be previously legalized in that
country. Therefore, Spring’s contention is
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
untenable.
MICIANO VS. BRIMO, 1927
FACTS: Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of
Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate.
Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of
the estate left, filed a scheme of partition.
However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers
of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo‘s
opposition is based on the fact that the
partition in question puts into effect the
provisions of Joseph Brimo‘s will which are
not in accordance with the laws of his
Turkish nationality, for which reason they
are void as being in violation of Article 10
of the Civil Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not the national law of
the testator is the one to govern his
testamentary disposition.
HELD: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen,
though he declared in his will that Philippine
laws must govern the disposition of his
estate; however, it must not prejudice the
heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the
testator‘s national law must govern in
accordance with Article 10 of the Civil
Code.Though the last part of the second
clause of the will expressly said that ―it be
made and disposed of in accordance with the
laws in force in the Philippine Island‖, this
condition, described as impossible
conditions, shall be considered as not
imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or
legatee in any manner whatsoever, even
should the testator otherwise provide.
Impossible conditions are further defined as
those contrary to law or good morals. Thus,
the national law of the testator shall govern
in his testamentary dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition
submitted by the judicial administrator, in
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 120
such a manner as to include Andre Brimo, as
one of the legatees.
BOHANAN VS. BOHANAN, 1960
FACTS: Bohanan was a citizen of the
United States and Nevada at the time of his
death. In his will, he distributed the majority
of his estate to his grandson, to his brother,
and to his sister. He gave his two children
the paltry sums of P6,000 each and left
nothing to their mother, his former wife,
who had already divorced. The former wife
and her two children opposed the partition
project. to their legitime?
ISSUE: Is the former wife and her two
children entitled to legitime?
HELD: NO, they are not entitled to their
legitime. The court below had found that
the testator and Magdalena C. Bohanan were
married on January 30, 1909, and that
divorce was granted to him on May 20,
1922; that sometime in 1925, Magdalena C.
Bohanan married Carl Aaron and this
marriage was subsisting at the time of the
death of the testator. Since no right to share
in the inheritance in favor of a divorced wife
exists in the State of Nevada and since the
court below had already found that there was
no conjugal property between the testator
and Magdalena C. Bohanan, the latter can
no longer claim any portion of the estate left
by the testator.
XIII. CORPORATION
A. Corporations Defined
SEC. 2. Corporation defined. – A
corporation is an artificial being created by
operation of law, having the right of
succession and the powers, attributes and
properties expressly authorized by law or
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
incident to its existence.
● Artificial Being
● Created by Law
● Right to Succession
● Powers and attributes
expressly authorized by law
or incidental to its existence
B. How Organized
SEC. 18. Registration, Incorporation and
Commencement of Corporate Existence.
– A person or group of persons desiring to
incorporate shall submit the intended
corporate name to the Commission for
verification. If the Commission finds that the
name is distinguishable from a name already
reserved or registered for the use of another
corporation, not protected by law and is not
contrary to law, rules and regulations, the
name shall be reserved in favor of the
incorporators. The incorporators shall then
submit their articles of incorporation and
bylaws to the Commission. If the
Commission finds that the submitted
documents and information are fully
compliant with the requirements of this
Code, other relevant laws, rules and
regulations, the Commission shall issue the
certificate of incorporation. A private
corporation organized under this Code
commences its corporate existence and
juridical personality from the date the
Commission issues the certificate of
incorporation under its official seal and
thereupon the incorporators,
stockholders/members and their successors
shall constitute a body corporate under the
name stated in the articles of incorporation
for the period of time mentioned therein,
unless said period is extended or the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 121
corporation is sooner dissolved in
accordance with law.
C. Powers of a Corporation
SEC. 35. Corporate Powers and Capacity. –
Every corporation incorporated under this
Code has the power and capacity:
(a) To sue and be sued in its corporate
name;
(b) To have perpetual existence unless the
certificate of incorporation provides
otherwise;
(c) To adopt and use a corporate seal;
(d) To amend its articles of incorporation in
accordance with the provisions of this
Code;
(e) To adopt bylaws, not contrary to law,
morals or public policy, and to amend or
repeal the same in accordance with this
Code;
(f) In case of stock corporations, to issue or
sell stocks to subscribers and to sell
treasury stocks in accordance with the
provisions of this Code; and to admit
members to the corporation if it be a
nonstock corporation;
(g) To purchase, receive, take or grant, hold,
convey, sell, lease, pledge, mortgage, and
otherwise deal with such real and personal
property, including securities and bonds of
other corporations, as the transaction of the
lawful business of the corporation may
reasonably and necessarily require, subject
to the limitations prescribed by law and the
Constitution; (h) To enter into a partnership,
joint venture, merger, consolidation, or any
other commercial agreement with natural
and juridical persons; (i) To make
reasonable donations, including those for
the public welfare or for hospital,
charitable, cultural, scientific, civic, or
similar purposes: Provided, That no foreign
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
corporation shall give donations in aid of
any political party or candidate or for
purposes of partisan political activity;
(j) To establish pension, retirement, and
other plans for the benefit of its directors,
trustees, officers, and employees; and
(k) To exercise such other powers as may
be essential or necessary to carry out its
purpose or purposes as stated in the articles
of incorporation.
D. Domestic and Foreign Corporations
Domestic Corporations are those organized
and existing under the laws of the
Philippines.
Foreign Corporations are formed,
organized or existing under any laws other
than those of the Philippines and whole laws
allow Filipino citizens and corporations to
do business in its own country or State.
E. State of Incorporation
By incorporation in a particular state, a
corporation thereby agrees that the laws of
that state shall be the governing law with
respect to the internal affairs of the
corporation.
F. Domicile of Corporations
The domicile of a corporation is the place
where their legal representation is
established or where they exercise their
principal function as stated in the articles of
incorporation.
ARTICLE 51. When the law creating or
recognizing them, or any other provision
does not fix the domicile of juridical
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 122
persons, the same shall be understood to be
the place where their legal representation is
established or where they exercise their
principal functions
G. Residence of Corporations
A corporation may only have one domicile
but it can be a resident of several states.
If foreign corporations are considered
domestic corporations, they should also be
considered residents thereof.
The idea that corporations cannot have a
residence separate from their domicile is
therefore wrong and erroneous since
domicile and residence are two completely
different doctrines.
H. Nationality of Corporations
The nationality of a corporation serves as a
legal basis for subjecting an enterprise or its
activities to the laws, the economic and
fiscal powers, and the various social and
financial policies of the State to which it is
supposed to belong.
1. Control Test
A corporation is a Philippine National if it is
organized under the laws of the Philippines
of which at least sixty percent (60%) of the
capital stock outstanding and entitled to vote
is owned and held by citizens of the
Philippines.
Under the “liberal” Control Test, there is no
need to further trace the ownership of the
60% (or more) Filipino stockholdings of the
Investing Corporation since a corporation
which is at least 60% Filipino-owned is
considered as Filipino. [Narra Nickel
Mining & Development Corp. v. Redmont
Consolidated Mines Corp., G.R. No.
195580, April 21, 2014].
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
The "control test" is still the prevailing mode
of determining whether or not a corporation
is a Filipino corporation, within the ambit of
Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution,
entitled to undertake the exploration,
development and utilization of the natural
resources of the Philippines. When in the
mind of the Court, there is doubt, based on
the attendant facts and circumstances of the
case, in the 60-40 Filipino equity ownership
in the corporation, then it may apply the
"grandfather rule."
Note: Control Test: So long as shareholders
are 60% Filipino.
2. Grandfather Rule
It is a method of determining the nationality
of a corporation, which is owned in part by
another corporation, by breaking down the
equity structure of the shareholder
corporation.
The Grandfather Rule is applied if doubt
exists as to the locus of the “beneficial
ownership” and “control” of a corporation,
even if the 60-40 Filipino to foreign equity
ratio is apparently met by the subject or
investee corporation.
Note: Grandfather Test: The Grandfather
Rule applies only when the 60-40 Filipino
foreign equity ownership is in doubt
I. Conflicts Rule in Corporation Law
1. Personal Law of Corporation
Personal law of the Corporation is the law of
the state in which it is incorporated.
2. Internal Affairs Rule
SEC. 146. Law Applicable. – A foes and
regulations applicable to domestic
corporation lawfully doing business in the
Philippines shall be bound by all laws, rulc
corporations of the same class, except those
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 123
which provide for the creation, formation,
organization or dissolution of corporations
or those which fix the relations, liabilities,
responsibilities, or duties of stockholders,
members, or officers of corporations to each
other or to the corporation.
J. Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations
The Philippines adheres to the internal
affairs rule under Section 146 of the Revised
Corp. Code of the Philippines. Thus,
Philippine laws shall apply to foreign
corporations except only to matters relating
to creation, formation, organization,
dissolution, or those which fix the relations,
liabilities, or duties of stockholders,
members, or officers of the corporations to
each other or to the corporation.
K. Right of Foreign Corporation to Bring
Suit
Acquisition by a foreign corporation of a
license to transact business in the Philippines
is an essential requisite for filing suit before
the local courts. This rule is embodied in
Article 133 of the Corporation Code which
also says that “such corporation may be sued
or proceeded against before Philippine
courts or administrative tribunals on any
valid cause of action recognized under
Philippine laws.
CARGILL INC. VS. INTRA STRATA
ASSURANCE, 2010
FACTS: Cargill is a corporation organized
in the State of Delaware. It executed a
contract with Northern Mindanao
corporation ("NMC”), for the sale of
molasses. Intra Strata Assurance
Corporation issued a performance bond to
guarantee Northern’s performance. Northern
was unable to completely deliver the
molasses that Cargill subsequently sued it
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
together with Intra Strata before the
Regional Trial Court. The parties entered
into a compromise agreement but Northern
also failed to comply with the terms thereof.
The lower court then rendered judgment
against Intra Strata. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court's decision
on the ground that Cargill did not have the
capacity to file this suit since it is a foreign
corporation doing business in the Philippines
without the requisite license.
ISSUE: Whether Cargill has capacity to sue
in the Philippines.
HELD: Yes, Cargill has capacity to sue in
the Philippines.
Under Article 123 of the Corporation Code,
a foreign corporation must first obtain a
license and a certificate from the appropriate
government agency before it can transact
business in the Philippines. Where a foreign
corporation does business in the Philippines
without the proper license, it cannot
maintain any action or proceeding before
Philippine courts as provided under Section
133 of the Corporation Code.
STEELCASE VS. DESIGN
INTERNATIONAL SELECTIONS INC.,
2012
FACTS: Steelcase is a foreign corporation
existing under the laws of Michigan while
Design International ("DISI") is a Philippine
corporation. Steelcase and DISI orally
entered into a dealership agreement whereby
Steelcase granted DISI the right to market,
sell, distribute, install, and service its
products to end-user customers within the
Philippines. The agreement was breached
and Steelcase filed a complaint for sum of
money against DISI. Upon a motion to
dismiss by DISI, the court dismissed the
complaint on the ground that Steelcase was
doing business in the Philippines without a
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 124
license to do so and hence, cannot maintain
a suit in our courts. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUE: Whether Steelcase is doing business
in the Philippines.
HELD: No, Steelcase is not doing business
in the Philippines.
The rule that unlicensed foreign
corporations doing business in the
Philippines do not have the capacity to sue
before the local courts is well-established.
Section 133 of the Corporation Code of the
Philippines explicitly states: “Sec. 133.
Doing business without a license. - No
foreign corporation transacting business in
the Philippines without a license, or its
successors or assigns, shall be permitted to
maintain or intervene in any action, suit or
proceeding in any court or administrative
agency of the Philippines; but such
corporation may be sued or proceeded
against before Philippine courts or
administrative tribunals on any valid cause
of action recognized under Philippine laws.”
STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. VS.
CITIBANK, 1991
FACTS: Consolidated Mines Inc. ("CMI")
obtained three loans from Bank of America,
Citibank, and Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation ("HSBC"). The three
banks filed a petition for voluntary
insolvency against MI with the Court of
First Instance of Rizal ("CFI") after CMI
failed to pay. Earlier, CMI was sued by State
Investment for damages and the collection of
a sum of money in the CFI which issued a
writ of preliminary attachment over CMI's
properties. Upon learning of the petition for
insolvency, State Investment opposed the
petition and subsequently filed a motion for
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
summary judgment on the ground that the
three banks were not resident creditors of
CMI under the Insolvency Law. The CFI,
which has been reorganized as the Regional
Trial Court ("RTC"), granted the motion and
held that it had no jurisdiction since the
three banks were not residents of the
Philippines. The Court of Appeals, however,
reversed the decision of the RTC and held
that the three banks were residents of the
Philippines.
ISSUE: Whether Bank of America,
Citibank, and HSBC are residents of the
Philippines.
HELD: Yes, they are residents of the
Philippines.
The National Internal Revenue Code
declares that the term ''resident foreign
corporation' applies to a foreign corporation
engaged in trade or business within the
Philippines,' as distinguished from a
"non-resident foreign corporation" ... (which
is one) not engaged in trade or business
within the Philippines.
The Offshore Banking Law, Presidential
Decree No. 1034, states "that branches,
subsidiaries, affiliation, extension offices or
any other units of corporation or juridical
person organized under the laws of any
foreign country operating in the Philippines
shall be considered residents of the
Philippines.
ROGERS VS. GUARANTY TRUST CO.,
1932
FACTS: Rogers owns 200 shares of the
common stock of the American Tobacco
Company ("ATC"). He also owns 400 shares
of common stock B. ATC was organized
under the laws of New Jersey, and in that
state maintains its 'principal and registered
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 125
office' as designated in its charter, holds the
stockholders' meetings, and does a
substantial amount of business. It is also
authorized by the laws of New York, many
other states, and a number of foreign
countries to do and carry on business. The
board of directors of ATC adopted
resolutions approving (1) the reduction by
one-half of the par value and the doubling of
the number of shares of its common stock
and common stock B and (2) the issue and
sale of common stock B to employees
pursuant to chapter 175, New Jersey Laws.
Rogers filed suit before a New York district
court questioning the resolutions. Defendant
company moved to dismiss the suit because
it is an attempt to regulate the internal affairs
of a corporation foreign to New York, and
that the court should decline to take
jurisdiction. District court dismissed the
complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether New Jersey or New York
law should apply.
HELD: New Jersey law applies. When, by
acquisition of his stock, plaintiff became a
member of the corporation he, like every
other shareholder, impliedly agreed that, in
respect of its internal affairs, the company
was to be governed by the laws of the state
in which it was organized. His rights,
whatever the tribunal chose for their
vindication, are to be determined upon the
ascertainment and proper application of New
Jersey law. It has long been settled doctrine
that a court — state or federal — sitting in
one state will, as a general rule, decline to
interfere with, or control by injunction or
otherwise, the management of the injunction
or otherwise, corporation organized under
the laws of another state but will leave
controversies as to such matters to the courts
of the state of the domicile.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Obviously no definite rule of general
application can be formulated by which it
may be determined under what
circumstances a court will assume
jurisdiction of stockholders' suits relating to
the conduct of internal affairs of foreign
corporations. But it safely may be said that
jurisdiction will be declined whenever
considerations of convenience, efficiency,
and justice point to the courts of the state of
the domicile as appropriate tribunals for the
determination of the particular case. As the
tobacco company, in addition to its
registered office, has property, operates
directly or through subsidiary branch
factories in New Jersey and carries on
business there and in other states and
countries, it may not be deemed to have
been organized in that state as a mere matter
of convenience for the purpose of carrying
on all its business in another state or be
deemed in New York to be a local concern.
So far as concerns the cancellation of the
allotted shares and other relief sought by
plaintiff the situs of the stock is in New
Jersey and all questions relating to the
validity of the plan, authorization, issue,
allotment, and sale of the same may be
conveniently and effectively determined in
New Jersey courts, the authoritative and final
interpreters of the statutes of that state.
WESTERN AIR LINES INC. VS.
SOBIESKI, 1961
FACTS: Western Air Lines ("Western") is a
Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in California. The board of
Western resolved to eliminate cumulative
voting for directors and began proceedings
in compliance with the relevant Delaware
laws to amend the certificate of
incorporation. The Commissioner of
Corporations of California advised Western
that the proposed amendment would
constitute a "sale" of securities and that
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 126
Western should get a permit to engage in the
solicitation of proxies and other activities
pursuant to California law. Western applied
for a permit but was denied by the
Commissioner who opined that "the fiction
of Delaware residence should yield to the
totality of California contacts.
ISSUE: Whether California law or Delaware
law govern the sale of securities.
HELD: California law governs the sale.
Western complains that the commissioner,
since the institution of this action, has
created a new class of foreign corporation
called a pseudo-foreign corporation, and
urges that such definition of such
corporation is mere fiat; that the
commissioner has usurped the function of
the Legislature which has seen fit to divide
corporations into only two classes domestic
and foreign; and that the commissioner has
seen fit by his arbitrary definition to create a
third. Western's position in this respect is not
well taken. The commissioner did not create
any new class of corporation. He merely
named a class of corporation which has, in
effect, existed for many years, one with its
technical domicile outside of this state but
one which exercises most of its corporate
vitality within this state.
MANSFIELD HARDWOOD LUMBER
CO. VS. JOHNSON, 1959
FACTS: The court previously held that
"growing minority' of jurisdictions
recognize the existence of a fiduciary
relationship inuring from the officers or
directors or majority stockholders to the
individual or minority stockholders,
particularly concerning the purchase of
stock from a shareholder."
ISSUE: What law should determine this
relationship, the law of Delaware
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
(incorporation) or Louisiana (domicile)?
HELD: Louisiana law. It is well settled that
a federal court in a diversity case must apply
the conflict-of-laws rule of the state in which
it sits. While Louisiana conflict-of-laws is
silent on which law determines whether such
a fiduciary relationship exists in a foreign
corporation, its various conflict-of-laws rules
are generally the same as in other states.
Therefore, we must look to the general law.
HYATT ELEVATORS VS. GOLDSTAR
ELEVATORS, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner Hyatt Elevators
("Hyatt") respondent Goldstar Elevators
("Goldstar") are domestic corporations
engaged in the installation, sale, and
distribution of escalators and elevators.
Hyatt filed a complaint for unfair trade
practices and damages against LG Industrial
Systems and LG International Corporation
before Branch 123 of the Regional Trial
Court of Mandaluyong City. Hyatt
subsequently impleaded Goldstar in the suit.
Goldstar filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds of improper venue as neither Hyatt
nor the defendants reside in Mandaluyong
City. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss
and held that the venue was properly laid.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
and held that "venue was clearly improper,
because none of the litigants 'resided' in
Mandaluyong City, where the case was filed.
ISSUE: Whether the venue was properly
laid in Mandaluyong City.
HELD: No. Mandaluyong City is an
improper venue. The resolution of this case
rests upon a proper understanding of Section
2 of Rule 4 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Court: "Sec. 2. Venue of personal actions. -
All other actions may be commenced and
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 127
tried where the plaintiff or any of the
principal plaintiff resides, or where the
defendant or any of the principal defendant
resides, or in the case of a non-resident
defendant where he may be found, at the
election of the plaintiff.
CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM VS.
ANTILLON, 1967
FACTS:
The New Cagayan Grocery ("Necagro") sent
a telegram thru Clavecilla Radio System
with the following message: “REURTEL
WASHED NOT AVAILABLE REFINED
TWENTY FIFTY IF AGREEABLE SHALL
SHIP LATER REPLY POHANG” However,
when said message was delivered, the word
"NOT" between the words "WASHED', and
"AVAlLABLE was omitted, changing
completely the meaning of the message. Due
to the erroneous message, Necagro filed a
complaint against Clavecilla Radio System
with the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan
de Oro City, Clavecilla filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of improper venue.
The City Judge denied the motion.
Thereafter Clavecilla filed a petition for
prohibition with preliminary injunction with
the Court of First Instance to enjoin the City
Judge from further proceeding with the case.
The CFI dismissed the petition and held that
the Clavecilla Radio System may be sued
either in Manila where it has its principal
office or in Cagayan de Oro City where it
may be served.
ISSUE: Whether the venue was properly
laid in Cagayan de Oro City.
HELD: NO, the proper venue is Manila.
Settled is the principle in corporation law
that the residence of a corporation is the
place where its principal office is
established. Since it is not disputed that the
Clavecilla Radio System has its principal
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
office in Manila, it follows that the suit
against it may properly be filed in the City
of Manila.
TAYAG VS. BENGUET
CONSOLIDATED, 1968
FACTS: Idonah Slade Perkins, an American
citizen who died in New York City, left
among others, two stock certificates issued
by Benguet Consolidated, a corporation
domiciled in the Philippines. One property
she left behind were two stock
certificates covering 33,002 shares of stocks
of the Benguet Consolidated, Inc.
As ancillary administrator of Perkins’ estate
in the Philippines, Tayag now wants to take
ownership of these stock certificates but
County Trust Company of New York, the
domiciliary administrator, refused to part
with them. Thus, the probate court of the
Philippines was forced to issue an order
declaring the stock certificates as lost and
ordering Benguet Consolidated to issue new
stock certificates representing Perkins’
shares. Benguet Consolidated appealed the
order, arguing that the stock certificates are
not lost as they are in existence and
currently in the possession of the County
Trust Company of New York. According to
BCI’s by laws, it can only issue new stock
certificates, in lieu of lost, stolen, or
destroyed certificates of stocks, only after
court of law has issued a final and executory
order as to who really owns a certificate or
stock.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arguments of
Benguet Consolidated, Inc. are correct.
HELD: No. Benguet Consolidated is a
corporation who owes its existence to
Philippine laws. It has been given rights and
privileges under the law. Corollary, it also
has obligations under the law and one of
those is to follow valid legal court orders. It
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 128
is not immune from judicial control because
it is domiciled here in the Philippines. BCI
is a Philippine corporation owing full
allegiance and subject to the unrestricted
jurisdiction of local courts.
Tayag, as ancillary administrator, has the
power to gain control and possession of all
assets of the decedent within the jurisdiction
of the Philippines
It is to be noted that Justice Malcolm in an
earlier case, set the scope of the power of the
ancillary administrator forth. Thus: "It is
often necessary to have more than one
administration of an estate. When a person
dies intestate owning property in the country
of his domicile as well as in a foreign
country, administration is had in both
countries. That which is granted in the
jurisdiction of the decedent's last domicile is
termed the principal administration, while
any other administration is termed the
ancillary administration. The reason for the
latter is because a grant of administration
does not ex proprio vigore have any effect
beyond the limits of the country in which it
is granted. Hence, an administrator
appointed in a foreign state has no authority
in the [Philippines]. The ancillary
administration is proper, whenever a person
dies, leaving in a country other than that of
his last domicile, property to be
administered in the nature of assets of the
deceased liable for his individual debts or to
be distributed among his heirs."
Further still, the argument invoked by BCI
that it can only issue new stock certificates
in accordance with its by laws is misplaced.
It is worth noting that CTC-NY did not
appeal the order of the court
It simply refused to turn over the stock
certificates hence ownership can be said to
have been settled in favor of the estate of
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
Perkins here.
NARRA NICKEL MINING AND DEV’T
CORP. VS. REDMONT
CONSOLIDATED, 2014
FACTS: Redmont Consolidated Mines, Inc.
filed before the Panel of Arbitrators (POA)
of the DENR separate petitions for denial of
McArthur Mining, Inc., Tesoro and Mining
and Development, Inc., and Narra Nickel
Mining and Development Corporation
applications Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement (MPSA) on the ground that they
are not “qualified persons'' and thus
disqualified from engaging in mining
activities through MPSAs reserved only for
Filipino citizens. McArthur, is composed,
among others, by Madridejos Mining
Corporation (Filipino) owning 5,997 out of
10,000 shares, and MBMI Resources, Inc.
(Canadian) owning 3,998 out of 10,000
shares. MBMI also owns 3,331 out of
10,000 shares of Madridejos Mining
Corporation; Tesoro and Mining and
Development, Inc., is composed, among
others, by Sara Marie Mining, Inc. (Filipino)
owning 5,997 out of 10,000 shares, and
MBMI Resources, Inc. (Canadian) owning
3,998 out of 10,000 shares. MBMI also
owns 3,331 out of 10,000 shares of Sara
Marie Mining, Inc. Narra, is composed,
among others, by Patricia Louise Mining &
Development Corporation (Filipino) owning
5,997 out of 10,000 shares, and MBMI
Resources, Inc. (Canadian) owning 3,998
out of 10,000 shares. MBMI also owns
3,396 out of 10,000 shares of Patricia Louise
Mining & Development Corporation.
ISSUE: Whether McArthur, Tesoro and
Narra are Filipino nationals.
HELD: NO. McArthur, Tesoro and Narra
are not Filipino since MBMI, a 100%
Canadian corporation, owns 60% or more of
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 129
their equity interests. A conclusion is
derived from grandfathering petitioners’
corporate owners. The ownership of the
“layered” corporations boils down to a
group wherein MBMI has joint venture
agreements with, practically exercising
majority control over the corporations
mentioned. In effect, whether looking at the
capital structure or the underlying
relationships between and among the
corporations, petitioners are NOT Filipino
nationals and must be considered foreign
since 60% or more of their capital stocks or
equity interests are owned by MBMI.
GAMBOA VS. TEVES, 2011
FACTS: The issue arose when petitioner
Gamboa questioned the indirect sale of
shares involving almost 12 million shares of
the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) owned by PTIC to First
Pacific. Petitioner believed that the increase
of common shareholdings of foreigners First
Pacific’s common shareholdings of
foreigners in PLDT to about 81.4% was
violative to the Constitution which limits
foreign ownership of the capital of a public
utility to not more than 40%.
In 2011, the trial court in this case ruled in
favor of the petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ownership and
control of the capital of a public utility
which is more than 40% is violative to the
Constitution?
HELD: NO. The 1935, 1973 and 1987
Constitutions have the same 60 percent
Filipino ownership and control requirement
for public utilities like PLOT. Any deviation
from this requirement necessitates an
amendment to the Constitution as
exemplified by the Parity Amendment. The
Constitution expressly declares as State
policy the development of an economy
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
"effectively controlled" by Filipinos. The
Constitution explicitly reserves the
ownership and operation of public utilities to
Philippine nationals, who are defined in the
Foreign Investments Act of 1991 as Filipino
citizens, or corporations or associations at
least 60 percent of whose capital with voting
rights belongs to Filipinos.
XIV. INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
A. Conflict in Intellectual Property Rights
Laws protecting intellectual property
rights vary from one country to another
despite efforts at standardizing intellectual
property laws and international conventions.
The problem arises when foreign
laws differ from domestic laws on
intellectual property.
Conflicts also occur because states
have different rules with respect to IP rights.
IP owner’s rights are only limited to
what is provided under domestic law. Hence,
if domestic law does not apply for
registration, it would be difficult to apply for
protection with courts of these countries.
B. Approaches to IP Conflicts of Law
1. Territorial Approach states that the laws
have no extraterritorial application.
In the case of Subafilms, Ltd. v.
MGM-Pathe, the Court ruled that national
treatment principle bars the extraterritorial
application of foreign copyright laws for it
mandates the application of local laws for
the equal treatment of the rights of
foreigners. Otherwise, there would be no
national treatment if foreign law is applied.
Likewise, in the case of Allarcom
Pay Television, the Court ruled that the
Federal Copyright Act has no extraterritorial
application since the potential infringement
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 130
was only completed in Canada once the
signal was received and viewed. So, the US
Copyright Law did not apply, and therefore
did not preempt Allarcom’s state law claims.
2. Most significant relationship
It applies the law of the state that has
the most significant relationship to the
parties to the case. The law of the state
which has the most connection shall be
applied in the resolution of the conflict.
The points of contact as provided by the
Restatement (2nd) Conflict of law are:
a.) place where the injury occurred;
b.) the place where the conduct
causing the injury occurred;
c.) the domicile, residence,
nationality, place of incorporation and place
of business of the parties; and
d.) the place where the relationship,
if any, between the parties is centered.
● In the case of Itar-Tass Russian
News Agency v. Russian Kurier,
Inc., the court applied Russian law to
ownership issues while and applies
US law to infringement issues and
ruled that:
● Conflict rule for issues of
ownership-Copyright is a form of
property, and the usual rule is that
the interests of the parties in property
are determined by the law of the
state with the “most significant
relationship” to the property and the
parties. Since the works at issue were
created by Russian nationals and first
published in Russia, Russian law is
the appropriate source of law to
determine issues of ownership of
rights.
3. Lex loci delicti
The traditional rule that employs the law of
the palace of injury. It requires the
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
application of the law of the state where the
tort is committed. If an infringing act is
committed within the borders of State X, its
is the law of State X that will govern the tort
claim. This approach offers simplicity, ease
of application, and stability and
predictability in judicial decisions.
4. Public Policy Exception
When the application of a foreign law
conflicts with an established policy of the
forum, the foreign law may not be applied as
being anathema to public policy.
The public policy inquiry rarely results in
refusal to enforce a judgment unless it is
inherently vicious, wicked or immoral, and
shocking to the prevailing moral sense.
BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY VS.
COREL CORP., 1999
FACTS: Bridgeman sued Corel for what it
considered to be an infringement of its
copyright over certain photographic
transparencies of well-known works of art.
Bridgeman claimed Corel copied these
photographic transparencies and marketed
and distributed them in compact discs
containing images of the same works of art.
The District Court granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment dismissing
plaintiff's complaint for infringement. In the
memorandum opinion, the court stated that
United Kingdom law was the applicable law
in resolving the issue of copyrightability of
the transparencies. The plaintiff filed a
motion for reconsideration questioning the
court's decision.
ISSUE: Whether the Copyright Act or the
Berne Convention is the source of plaintiff's
claim to copyrightability of its works.
HELD:Copyright Act is the source of
plaintiff's claims. In most circumstances,
choice of law issues do not arise under the
Berne and Universal Copyright Conventions.
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 131
Each adopts a rule of national treatment.
Article 5 of the Berne Convention, for
example, provides that "authors shall enjoy,
in respect of works for which they are
protected under this Convention, in countries
of the Union other than the country of
origin, the rights which their respective laws
do now or may hereafter grant to their
nationals, as well as the rights specially
granted by this convention" and that "the
extent of protection, as well as the means of
redress afforded to the author to protect his
rights, shall be governed exclusively by the
laws of the country where protection is
claimed." Hence, the Conventions make
clear that the holder of, for example, a
British copyright who sues for infringement
in a United States court is entitled to the
same remedies as holders of United States
copyrights and, as this Court previously
held, to the determination of infringement
under the same rule of law.
SUBAFILMS LTD. VS. MGM-PATHE
COMMUNICATIONS CO., 1994
FACTS: In 1966, the musical group The
Beatles, through Subafilms, Ltd., entered
into a joint venture with the Hearst
Corporation to produce the animated motion
picture entitled "Yellow Submarine"
(Submarine). Over the next year, Hearst,
acting on behalf of the joint venture
(Producer), negotiated an agreement with
United Artists Corporation (UA) to
distribute and finance the film.In the early
1980s, with the advent of the home video
market, UA entered into several licensing
agreements to distribute a number of its
films on videocassette. Subsequently, in
1987, UA's successor company, MGM/UA
Communications Co. (MGM/UA), over the
Producer's objections, authorized its
subsidiary MGM/UA Home Video, Inc. to
distribute Submarine for the domestic home
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
video market, and, pursuant to an earlier
licensing agreement, notified Warner Bros.,
Inc. that Submarine had been cleared for
international videocassette distribution.
Warner, through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Warner Home Video, Inc., in turn
entered into agreements with third parties
for distribution of Submarine on
videocassette around the world.
In 1988, Plaintiffs Subafilms and Hearst
brought suit against defendants MGM/UA,
Warner, and their respective subsidiaries,
contending that the videocassette
distribution ofSubmarine, both foreign and
domestic, constituted copyright infringement
and a breach of the 1967 agreements. The
trial court held that the defendants
committed copyright violations. This was
affirmed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A petition for
a rehearing en banc of the judgment was
granted.
ISSUE: Did the defendants’ act of
authorizing its subsidiary to distribute the
Picture constitute copyright infringement?
HELD: NO. The en banc court vacated the
prior decision in part and remanded, holding
where authorization of alleged infringement
activity took place in the United States for
extraterritorial acts not cognizable as
copyright violations, authorization alone
could not constitute infringement.
Defendants' authorization was therefore not
actionable.
Because there can be no liability under the
United States copyright laws for authorizing
an act that itself could not constitute
infringement of rights secured by those
laws, and that wholly extraterritorial acts of
infringement are not cognizable under the
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 132
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. §§ 101 et
seq., Peter Starr Prod. Co. v. Twin
Continental Films, Inc.,783 F.2d 1440 (9th
Cir. 1986), is overruled insofar as it held that
allegations of an authorization within the
United States of infringing acts that take
place entirely abroad state a claim for
infringement under the Act.
ALLARCOM PAY TELEVISION VS.
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORP., 1995
FACTS:
Allarcom had the exclusive right from
certain producers to exhibit their motion
pictures in Canada. Showtime and General
Instrument, through the use of a decoder
device, were able to transmit their signal to
Canada that allowed some programs in the
United States to be broadcasted in Canada
which was Allarcom's exclusive territory.
Allarcom sued in the district court for
copyright infringement under the Federal
Copyright Act ('FCA").
ISSUE: Whether the FCA has
extraterritorial application.
HELD: No. In order for U.S. copyright law
to apply, at least one alleged infringement
must be completed entirely within the
United States, and that mere authorization of
extraterritorial infringement was not a
completed act of infringement in the United
States. In this case, defendants either
initiated a potential infringement in the
United States by broadcasting the Showtime
signal, which contained copyrighted
material, or defendants authorized people in
Canada to engage in infringement. In either
case, the potential infringement was only
completed in Canada once the signal was
received and viewed. Accordingly, U.S.
copyright law did not apply, and therefore
did not preempt Allarcom's state law claims.
CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER
Philippine Law School
ITAR-TASS RUSSIAN NEWS AGENCY
VS. RUSSIAN KURIER INC., 1988
FACTS: Russian Kurier, Incorporated owns
and operates the Kurier newspaper , a
Russian language newspaper based in New
York City. Oleg Pogrebnoy is the president,
sole shareholder, and editor-in-chief of
Kurier. Kurier admits that it published
approximately 500 Russian language news
articles owned by third-party organizations,
including Itar-Tass Russian News Agency,
several Russian newspapers and magazines,
Russian language magazines published in
Israel, and the Union of Journalists of
Russia. The plaintiffs sued Kurier and
Pogrebnoy for copyright infringement in a
United States district court. Applying
Russian law, the district court ultimately
enjoined Kurier from publishing articles
from the plaintiffs’ publications and imposed
monetary damages for infringement. Kurier
appealed.
ISSUE: Whether the Russian copyright law
applies to the present case.
HELD: YES. The court held that under the
Berne Convention, Russian copyright law
applied as the choice of law. The court
stated that appellant Russian newspapers did
not have standing to file suit against
appellant's publication of individual articles,
because only the newspaper compilation
services, the individual Russian reporters,
and its union could assert violations of
appellant's publications. However, the court
stated that appellee Russian newspapers
could sue for violations of their newspapers
as a whole. The court affirmed the trial
court's finding of violations as to the
appellees that had standing, and remanded
for further proceedings.
An author who is a national of one of the
member states of either the Berne
ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ
Midyear Class (2022) Page 133
Convention or the Universal Copyright
Convention, or one who first published his
work in any such member state, is entitled
to the same copyright protection in each
other member state as such other state
according to its own nationals.
proceedings will be given respect…even if
the result under the foreign proceeding
would be different than under American
law."

SARL LOUIS FERAUD INTERN VS.

VIEWFINDER INC., 2007

FACTS:
A French court found Viewfinder liable for
copyright infringement when it published
photographs of plaintiffs Fraud's and
Balmain's fashion shows without their
permission. This finding was upheld on
appeal by another French court. Plaintiffs
filed a case for enforcement with the district
court in New York. The district court
dismissed the case on the ground that
enforcement would be repugnant to the
public policy of New York. The court held
that the fashion shows were public events
and that Viewfinder had a First Amendment
right to publish the photographs.

ISSUE: Whether enforcement of the French

courts' decision is violative of the public
policy of New York.

HELD: It will be violative if enforcement

will be repugnant to the First Amendment.
The "public policy inquiry rarely results in
refusal to enforce a judgment unless it is
inherently vicious, wicked or immoral, and
shocking to the prevailing moral sense." A
judgment is unenforceable as against public
policy to the extent that it is repugnant to
fundamental notions of what is decent and
just in the State where enforcement is
sought. The standard is high, and
infrequently met. Furthermore, "it is well
established that mere divergence from
American procedure does not render a
foreign judgment unenforceable." "Under
New York law. foreign decrees and

CONFLICT OF LAWS REVIEWER ATTY. KIRK D. AVESTRUZ

Philippine Law School Midyear Class (2022) Page 134