Garcia, Bon Charlo C.

JD Blk 3-1

CHAPTER I

There are two branches of international law, Public international law which governs the
relationship of states and international entities, and Private international law which comprehends laws
regulating private interactions across national frontiers.

In the case of Nevsun Resources Ltd. V. Araya, the Eritrean workers were not barred to file a
claim for damages in Canadian courts as it was held that the act of state doctrine played no role in
Canadian law and is not part of Canadian common law. Although a viable defense to a foreign court’s
attempt to review the acts of a sovereign, Canadian jurisprudence allows judicial discretion to decline or
enforce foreign laws.

In the case of Abdullahi V. Pfizer, the people of Nigeria were subjected to the testing of an
experimental antibiotic without their consent which they used as a basis to file a tort case before a New
York district court, the court granted stating that “the prohibition of non-consensual medical
experimentation” is a concept in international law which is universally accepted. In this aspect it was
further elucidated that statues, concepts and other sources of international law are generally recognized
when there is 1. Universality, 2. Specificity, 3. Mutual concern, 4. When dismissal is not appropriate if an
adequate and presently available alternative does not exist (forum non conviniens). The concept of Lex
Loci Celebrationis and Lex Loci contractus was further tacked in the Hasegawa V. Kitamura case, the law
of the country where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be performed, place of business,
and domicile or incorporation of the parties. The court held that the invocation of the conflict of laws
rule was premature, as it was not impleaded and proven that there was a conflict with the laws of Japan.

CHAPTER II

Choice of law are governed by several principles. Principle 1, in applying Local laws, art 15 of our
civil code recognizes the nationality principle, which applies to Filipinos even though living abroad. This
also applies to foreign nationals where our laws recognize that on aspects like family rights, status,
condition etc., their laws shall apply; this recognition gives the dilemma of the Renvoi problem, where
the foreign law, if pleaded and proven, directs to apply foreign law instead of local law. In the case of
Aznar V. Garcia, a US citizen from California, died in the Philippines while domiciled herein, where he
bequeathed his estate to Garcia, his illegitimate child, and the rest to Daney, the courts held, when it
came to the extrinsic validity of the execution of the will, the local laws shall apply, and to the intrinsic
validity of the disposition of the estate, California/ US law shall apply or the nationality of the deceased.
 Principle 2, Needs of the interstate and international systems, the courts must also consider the
needs of the interstate and international systems in determining applicable law. Principle 3, relevant
policies of the forum. In the case of Pitzer college V. Indian Harbor, the plaintiff holds an insurance
policy with Indian Harbor Co., which covered legal and remediation expenses for pollution, it also
designated New York law as the law of choice, Pitzer commenced with remediation without the
knowledge of Indian Harbor. The court held that New York law, contravenes California’s fundamental
public policy, which requires the insurer to prove of the insured’s late notice. Furthermore, in the need
to adhere to public policy, in the case of Cadalin et al. V. POEA, Petitioners were recruited by AIBC and
employed by BRII to work in several countries. They were prematurely terminated, they sued AIBC and
BRII for illegal dismissal, private respondents alleged Art. 156 of Amiri Decree no. 23, where claims
arising out of employment contract shall not be actionable from the lapse of one year from the date of
expiry of the contract. The courts held that Amiri Decree no. 23, is not applicable in our jurisdiction, for
it being contrary to public policy on the protection of labor. Principle 4, relevant policies of other
interested parties, this indulges the courts to engage in a governmental interest analysis when two
states have conflicting laws and interests.

CHAPTER III

A contract is an agreement among several parties involving the delivery of a product or

performance an act. The dilemma arises when the contract induces a conflict of law, this is prevalent on
international contracts, for the most part contracts are subject to the law stipulated by the parties to be
their choice of law, in the absence of stipulation, lex loci contractus.

Art. 1306 of our civil code establishes that parties may establish stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions, so long as such are not contrary to law, good morals, public policy, or public
order. In the case of Bagong Filipinas Overseas corporation V. NLRC et al., Private respondent entered
into a contract of shipboard employment with petitioner, a hong kong based firm. Private respondent
died during employment and his widow was awarded with worker’s disability compensation benefits,
the NLRC also awarded here 36 months of salary as additional death benefits. The courts held in this
case that Hong kong law was not applicable, and what is to be applied is the shipboard employment
contract, the contract provides an award of P20,000 for which the Philippine government is liable under
Philippine law.

A new development of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) during the advent of the
Covid-19 Pandemic, which is the clause that defines force majeure. Our jurisdiction, defined force
majeure as those events which are unforeseeable, or even though foreseeable are inevitable, this in
contrast with the provision of the ICC which defined force majeure as “the occurrence of an event or
circumstance that prevents or impedes a party from performing one or more of its contractual obligations
under the contract, if and to the extent that that party proves: a. that such impediment is beyond its
reasonable control; b. that it could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the conclusion of
the contract; and c. that the effects of the impediment could not reasonably have been avoided or
overcome by the affected party”.
 CHAPTER IV

Our jurisdiction recognizes several sources of obligation under art. 1157 of the civil code;

1. Law;
2. Contracts, Culpa contractual;
3. Quasi-contracts;
4. Quasi-delicts.

This chapter focuses on quasi-delicts or as defined Quasi Delicts in Art. 2176 if the civil code
“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done”. Such as the key problems in the foregoing chapter, the
dilemma arises when a foreign element is included. Such as but not limited to, Cross border
torts, torts committed on international waters by registered ships.

Conflict of laws on such circumstances arises when there are several ways to settle tort
disputes as provided by conflicting statutes. The doctrine of Lex Loci Delicti or to simply put it,
the law of the place of the wrong or tort applies. The parties' rights are based on the jurisdiction
in which the wrong was committed, and the law of that jurisdiction must be applied to
determine the parties' rights and obligations. The Government interest analysis approach was
also expounded, as mentioned in the previous chapter. If there is an actual legal conflict, the
court will apply the law of the state whose interests are most harmed. This strategy involves
determining whether there are differences in the laws of the relevant countries.

In the case of Saudi Arabian airlines V. CA, the defendants-appellant employed the
plaintiff-appellee as a flight attendant, while in Jakarta, Indonesia, some Arabian nationals
attempted to rape Plaintiff. Almost two years later she was brought to see a certain Mr. Ali
Meniewy, who confiscated her passport. Over a year and a half afterwards, Mr. Miniewy made
her sign several documents, which are notices to appear in court. She was found guilty of several
offenses, such as adultery and others which are contrary to Islamic law. Prince Makkah
dismissed her case due to wrongful conviction. When she returned to the Philippines, she sued
Saudia.

The courts held in this case that Philippine law applied in this suit for damages. The
foreign element in this case was between the contract of employment of Morada, a Philippine
national, and Saudia, a foreign corporation. In applying lex loci actus it can be held that the
Philippines could be the situs of the tort, because the Philippines is where the petitioners
allegedly deceived private respondent.

CHAPTER V

Citizenship in the Philippines is acquired based on Sec. 1 Art. IV of the 1987 constitution;

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
 3. Those born before Jan. 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of Majority;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Conflict of laws arises when it involved different nationals of different states, and when
individuals hold two or more citizenships or dual allegiance. They bring challenges with them when it
comes to the application of their national laws and how those laws interact with the laws of other
states. Dual allegiance is deemed harmful to the national interest under Section 5 of Article IV of the
Constitution. This dual loyalty, however, only applies in the case of a naturalized Filipino citizen who
nevertheless maintains his allegiance to his motherland.

In the case of Bengson III V. HOR, Teodoro Cruz was born of Filipino parents in San
Celemente, Tarlac. He joined the US marines and swore allegiance to the US, and applied as a natural
Citizen thereto. In 1995 Cruz ran as representative of the 2nd district of Pangasinan and won. Bengson
filed a quo warranto case against Cruz before the HRET for being an alien citizen. The court ruled that
Cruz is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, there are two ways of acquiring Citizenship which is by
birth, or by naturalization. As defined natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.”; Cruz, though
losing his Filipino citizenship, reacquired it through RA 2630.

CHAPTER VI

There are three kinds of domilice, Domicile of origin or birth, Domicile of choice, and Domicile
by operation of law. In determining domicile there are twin elements to consider “the fact of residing or
physical presence in a fixed place” and animus manendi or the “intention of returning there
permanently.

Domicile and Citizenship are two distinct and varying concepts, a citizen of a foreign nation may
be domiciled on another nation. However, the normal circumstance is that the domicile of the person is
also the same as to the country of his citizenship. In distinguishing both, Justice Leonen, in the case of
Arnado V. Comelec stated that;

“Domicile requires both physical presence and animus manendi or the intent to return.
Citizenship maybe presumed from one’s domicile, but the presumption is disputable. Further proof
other than domicile may be required to prove citizenship.”

In some cases, a person's domicile may be lost as a result of actions taken with the intention of
leaving their home. A person's residency, church membership, voting, holding office, paying taxes, and
property ownership are all indications of domicile. By deciding on a new domicile, dwelling there, and
intending for it to be his permanent home, a person can quit their current one.

In the case of Romualdez Marcos V. Comelec, Imelda Marcos filed a Certificate of candidacy for
the position of the representative of Leyte. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent, at the time filed an
opposition alleging that Imelda did not meet the residency requirement of one year required for the
position. The court held that Leyte is the domicile of Imelda Marcos, there is a difference between
domicile
and residence wherein “residence” merely indicates place of abode whether permanent or temporary,
while “domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has intention of
returning. It was noted when the 1987 constitution speak of “residence” it actually means “domicile”. In
this case, Imelda’s domicile of origin is Leyte; and domicile of origin is not easily lost, 1. There must be an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile, 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former
domicile and establish a new one, and 3. Acts which corresponds to the purpose of abandoning. In
absence of any proof, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue.