CASE DOCTRINES

IV. JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW

CHOICE OF FORUM
W/N a common carrier engaged in inter-island shipping stipulate thru condition printed at the back of passage tickets to its vessels
that any and all actions arising out of the contract of carriage should be filed only in a particular province or city. NO, such contract
of adhesion is void and unenforceable.
Art. 24 of the Civil Code: In all contractual property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his
moral dependence, ignorance indigence, mental weakness, tender age and other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his
protection.

Under circumstances obligation in the inter-island shipping industry, it is not just and fair to bind passengers to the terms of
the conditions printed at the back of the passage tickets.
o
There is an acute shortage in inter-island vessels plying between the country's several islands, and with that, the
facilities they offer leave much to be desired, thus, passengers literally scramble to whatever accommodations may be
availed of, even through circuitous routes, and/or at the risk of their safety and this was precisely the experience of
Tandog and Tiro.
o
Under these circumstances, it is hardly just and proper to expect the passengers to examine their tickets for
conditions that may be printed much charge them with having consented to the conditions, so printed, especially if
there are a number of such conditions in fine print, as in this case.
o
Bulk of those who board these inter-island vessels come from the lowincome groups and are less literate, and who
have little or no choice but to avail of petitioner's vessels.
Although venue may be changed or transferred from one province to another by agreement of the parties in writing, based
on Rule 4, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, such an agreement will not be held valid where it practically negates the action of
the claimants.
o
Considering the expense and trouble a passenger residing outside of Cebu City would incur to prosecute a claim in
the City of Cebu, he would most probably decide not to file the action at all. The condition will defeat the ends of
justice. (Sweet Lines v. Teves)

In, HSBC v. Sherman:

While it is true that the transaction took place in Singaporean setting and that the Joint and Several Guarantee contains a choiceof-forum clause, the very essence of due process dictates that the stipulation that [t]his guarantee and all rights, obligations and
liabilities arising hereunder shall be construed and determined under and may be enforced in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of Singapore. We hereby agree that the Courts in Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising under this
guarantee be liberally construed. One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have
jurisdiction in the absence of some reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem, or in
personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice. Indeed, as pointed-out by petitioner BANK at the outset, the instant case presents a very odd
situation. In the ordinary habits of life, anyone would be disinclined to litigate before a foreign tribunal, with more reason as a
defendant. However, in this case, private respondents are Philippine residents (a fact which was not disputed by them) who would
rather face a complaint against them before a foreign court and in the process incur considerable expenses, not to mention
inconvenience, than to have a Philippine court try and resolve the case. Private respondents' stance is hardly comprehensible, unless
their ultimate intent is to evade, or at least delay, the payment of a just obligation.
CHOICE OF LAW
Re: a foreigner's illegitimate children's successional rights (Bellis v. Bellis)
Court ruled that provision in a foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law
and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in view of those matters that Article 10
now Article 16 of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.
Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national
law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes, is valid.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes under the texas law, which is the national law
of the deceased.
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

Domiciliary administrator refused to part with the stock certificates (from a domestic corporation) of the deceased. Ancilliary
administrator in the Philippines had the stocks of certificate declared as lost. (Tayag v. Benguet)
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 the scope of the power of the ancillary administrator was, in an earlier case, set forth by Justice Malcolm. 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 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."
Probate court has authority to issue the order enforcing the ancillary administrators right to the stock certificates when the actual
situs of the shares of stocks is in the Philippines.
It would follow then that the authority of the probate court to require that ancillary administrator's right to "the stock certificates
covering the 33,002 shares ... standing in her name in the books of [appellant] Benguet Consolidated, Inc...." be respected is equally
beyond question. For appellant is a Philippine corporation owing full allegiance and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of local
courts. Its shares of stock cannot therefore be considered in any wise as immune from lawful court orders.
Re: an illegal dismissal case wherein the ER is from Pakistan and the EEs are Filipinas. (Pakistan Intl Airport v. Ople)
W/N Pakistani law is the governing law.
Public Policy. This contractual provision cannot be invoked to prevent the application of Philippine labor laws and regulations to the
subject matter of this case. EE-ER relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws
and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties by agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship.
Substantive Contacts/Most significant relationship. Karachi courts cannot be the sole venue for the settlement of disputes. Contract
executed and performed in the Philippines, Petitioner is a corp. doing business in the Phils and private respondents are citizens
PIA did not prove Pakistani law, thus it is presumed to be the same as Philippine law.
W/N there was bad faith on the part of TWA, considering that TWA contends that overbooking of flights is a common and accepted
practice in the US. (Zalamea v. CA)
The US 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 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.
Even if the claimed U.S. Code of Federal Regulations exist, the same isnt applicable 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 would be Philippine law. Under Bahrain law, where some of the
complainants were deployed, the prescriptive period for claims arising out of a contract of employment is one year. Whether it is the
Bahrain law on prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription that shall be the
governing law. (Cadalin v. POEA Administrator)
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such as service of process, joinder of
actions, period and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are governed by the laws of the forum. This is true even if the action is based
upon a foreign substantive law.
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed either as procedural or
substantive, depending on the characterization given such a law.
Exception: However, the characterization of a statute into a procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant when the country of
the forum has a "borrowing statute." A "borrowing statute" directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations
to the pending claims based on a foreign law. While there are several kinds of "borrowing statutes," one form provides that an
action barred by the laws of the place where it accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even though the local statute has not run
against it. Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this kind. Said Section provides: If by the laws of the state or country where
the cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is also barred in the Philippines Islands.
Exception to the exception: The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy. To
enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims in question would contravene the
public policy on the protection to labor.
Re: a case of damages against United Airlines filed in the Philippines. This was the case about a family who was rudely attended to by
one of the staff of United Airlines.
The court held that the CA erred in applying the laws of the US as Philippine law is the applicable law. Although, the contract of
carriage was to be performed in the US, the tickets were purchased through United's agent in Manila. It is true that the tickets were
"rewritten" in Washington, D.C. however, such fact did not change the nature of the original contract of carriage entered into by the
parties in Manila.
According to the doctrine of lex loci contractus, as a general rule, the law of the place where a contract is made or entered into
governs with respect to its nature and validity, obligation and interpretation. This has been said to be the rule even though the place
where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be performed, and particularly so, if the place of the making
and the place of performance are the same.
Whether the foreign judgment should be given recognition and enforcement in the Philippines. (Asiavest v. CA)
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 the 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.
A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the country from which it comes, until a contrary showing, on the basis of
a presumption of regularity of proceedings and the giving of due notice in the foreign forum.
As to what the Malaysian procedural law is, remains a question of fact, not of law. It may not be taken judicial notice of and must be
pleaded and proved like any other fact. Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provide that it may be
evidenced by an official publication or by a duly attested or authenticated copy thereof.
Fraud to hinder the enforcement within the jurisdiction of a foreign judgment must be extrinsic, i.e., fraud based on facts not
controverted or resolved in the case where judgment is rendered, or that which would go to the jurisdiction of the court or would
deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to defend the action to which he has a meritorious defense. Intrinsic
fraud is one which goes to the very existence of the cause of action is deemed already adjudged, and it, therefore, cannot militate
against the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment. Evidence is wanting on the alleged extrinsic fraud. Hence, such
unsubstantiated allegation cannot give rise to liability therein.
Lastly, there is no merit to the argument that the foreign judgment is not enforceable in view of the absence of any statement of
facts and law upon which the award in favor of the petitioner was based. As aforestated, the lex fori or the internal law of the forum
governs matters of remedy and procedure. Considering that under the procedural rules of the High Court of Malaya, a valid
judgment may be rendered even without stating in the judgment every fact and law upon which the judgment is based, then the
same must be accorded respect and the courts in this jurisdiction cannot invalidate the judgment of the foreign court simply
because our rules provide otherwise.
Whether or not a divorce decree can be admitted in evidence. (Garcia v. Recio)
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

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. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce
must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgment; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce
decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.
Raytheon mainly asserts that the written contract between Rouzie and BMSI included a valid choice of law clause, that is, that the
contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut. It also mentions the presence of foreign elements in the dispute
namely, the parties and witnesses involved are American corporations and citizens and the evidence to be presented is located
outside the Philippines that renders our local courts inconvenient forums. Raytheon theorizes that the foreign elements of the
dispute necessitate the immediate application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. (Raytheon v. Rouzie)
Recently in Hasegawa v. Kitamura, the Court outlined 3 consecutive phases involved in judicial resolution of conflicts-of-laws
problems, namely: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments. Thus, in the instances where the Court
held that the local judicial machinery was adequate to resolve controversies with a foreign element, the following requisites had to
be proved: (1) that the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort; (2) that the Philippine Court is in a
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine Court has or is likely to have the
power to enforce its decision.
On the matter of jurisdiction over a conflicts-of-laws problem where the case is filed in a Philippine court and where the court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties and the res, it may or can proceed to try the case even if the rules of conflict-of-laws
or the convenience of the parties point to a foreign forum. This is an exercise of sovereign prerogative of the country where the case
is filed.
That the subject contract included a stipulation that the same shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut does not
suggest that the Philippine courts, or any other foreign tribunal for that matter, are precluded from hearing the civil action.
Jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct 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 choice of law stipulation will become relevant only when the substantive issues of the instant case
develop, that is, after hearing on the merits proceeds before the trial court. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in
conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most "convenient" or available forum and the
parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. Raytheons averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are
not sufficient to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction over the Civil Case and the parties involved.

MINIMUM CONTACT
One basic principle underlies all rules of jurisdiction in International Law: a State does not have jurisdiction in the absence of some
reasonable basis for exercising it, whether the proceedings are in rem quasi in rem or in personam. To be reasonable, the jurisdiction
must be based on some minimum contacts that will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (HSBC v.
Sherman)
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal
system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent
should the chosen legal system regulate the situation. Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what
category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as characterization, or the doctrine of qualification. It is the
process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule. The purpose of
characterization is to enable the forum to select the proper law.
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. These
test factors or points of contact or connecting factors could be any of the following: (1) the nationality of a person, his
domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin; (2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation; (3) the
situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights
are involved; (4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a
marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts; (5) the
place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power
of attorney is to be exercised; (6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex
loci intentionis; (7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex forithe law of the
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

forumis particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of procedure not going to the substance of the claim
involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is
excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law;
and (8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as
such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.
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 conflicts 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 petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. (Saudi Arabian Airlines
v. CA)
In the judicial resolution of conflicts problems, three consecutive phases are involved: jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition
and enforcement of judgments.
Analytically, jurisdiction and choice of law are two distinct 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 constitutional authority to apply forum law. While jurisdiction and the choice of the lex fori will often
coincide, the minimum contacts for one do not always provide the necessary significant contacts for the other. The question of
whether the law of a state can be applied to a transaction is different from the question of whether the courts of that state have
jurisdiction to enter a judgment.
Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where a contract is made. The
doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractusmeans the law of the place where a contract is executed or to be performed. It
controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or
the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly. 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. In a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to be
performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties.This rule takes into account several contacts
and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue to be resolved. Since these 3
principles in conflict of laws make reference to the law applicable to a dispute, they are rules proper for the 2nd phase, the choice of
law. They determine which state's law is to be applied in resolving the substantive issues of a conflicts problem. Necessarily, as the
only issue in this case is that of jurisdiction, choice-of-law rules are not only inapplicable but also not yet called for.
Further, Nippons premature invocation of choice-of-law rules is exposed by the fact that they have not yet pointed out any conflict
between the laws of Japan and ours. Before determining which law should apply, 1st there should exist a conflict of laws situation
requiring the application of the conflict of laws rules. Also, when the law of a foreign country is invoked to provide the proper rules
for the solution of a case, the existence of such law must be pleaded and proved. (Hasegawa v. Kitamura)
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
The Supreme Court formally adopted the minimum contacts/fair play and substantial justice test for determining whether there was
proper personal jurisdiction over the defendant.. Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in
personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (International Shoe v. Washington)
W/N, as a matter of federal due process, the business done in Ohio by the respondent mining company was sufficiently substantial
and of such a nature as to permit Ohio to entertain a cause of action against a foreign corporation, where the cause of action arose
from activities entirely distinct from its activities in Ohio. (Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated)
The amount and kind of activities which must be carried on by the foreign corporation in the state of the forum so as to make it
reasonable and just to subject the corporation to the jurisdiction of that state are to be determined in each case. The corporate
activities of a foreign corporation which, under state statute, make it necessary for it to secure a license and to designate a statutory
agent upon whom process may be served provide a helpful but not a conclusive test. On the other hand, if the same corporation
carries on, in that state, other continuous and systematic corporate activities as it did hereconsisting of directors' meetings,
business correspondence, banking, stock transfers, payment of salaries, purchasing of machinery, etc.those activities are enough
to make it fair and reasonable to subject that corporation to proceedings in personam in that state, at least insofar as the
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

proceedings in personam seek to enforce causes of action relating to those very activities or to other activities of the corporation
within the state.
Apart from the foregoing, it is a well-settled principle of Constitutional Law that, in an action strictly in personam, like the one at bar,
personal service of summons, within the forum, is essential to the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, who
does not voluntarily submit himself to the authority of the court. In other words, summons by publication cannot consistently with
the due process clause in the Bill of Rights confer upon the court jurisdiction over said defendant. Due process of law requires
personal service to support a personal judgment, and, when the proceeding is strictly in personam brought to determine the
personal rights and obligations of the parties, personal service within the state or a voluntary appearance in the case is essential to
the acquisition of jurisdiction so as to constitute compliance with the constitutional requirement of due process. (Pantaleon v.
Asuncion)
W/N Jones, a California resident, bring suit against a Florida corporations employees (Florida residents) in a California court for a
claim of libel by asserting that California has personal jurisdiction over Florida residents. (Calder v. Jones)
California is the focal point of both the story and the harm suffered. Therefore, jurisdiction over Calder, South, and the company is
proper in California based on the effects of their Florida conduct in California. Californias long-arm statute permits an assertion
of jurisdiction over a nonresident person whenever permitted by the state and federal Constitutions. Therefore, turning to the
Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment permits personal jurisdiction over a person in any state with which the
person has certain minimum contactssuch that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. "
What is essential is that there is opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court to properly determine its
efficacy. This is because in this jurisdiction, with respect to actions in personam, as distinguished from actions in rem, a foreign
judgment merely constitutes prima facie evidence of the justness of the claim of a party and, as such, is subject to proof to the
contrary. In this case, neither the trial court nor the appellate court was even furnished copies of the pleadings in the US Court or
apprised of the evidence presented thereat, to assure a proper determination of whether the issues then being litigated in the US
court were exactly the issues raised in this case such that the judgment that might be rendered would constitute res judicata. The
trial court arbitrarily dismissed the case even after finding that Ducat was not a party in the U.S. case. (Philsec v. CA)
JURISDICTION OVER THE RES
Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the litigation may result either from a seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into the actual custody of the law, or it may result from the institution of legal proceedings wherein,
under special provisions of law, the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. The jurisdiction of the
court over the property, considered as the exclusive object of such action, is evidently based upon the following conditions and
considerations, namely: (1) that the property is located within the district; (2) that the purpose of the litigation is to subject the
property by sale to an obligation fixed upon it by the mortgage; and (3) that the court at a proper stage of the proceedings takes the
property into custody, if necessary, and expose it to sale for the purpose of satisfying the mortgage debt. The Court noted the
following matters regarding foreclosure proceeding against the property of a nonresident mortgagor who fails to come in and
submit himself personally to the jurisdiction of the court: (I) That the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power which it
possesses over the property; (II) that jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and is nonessential; (III) that the relief granted by
the court must be limited to such as can be enforced against the property itself In a foreclosure proceeding against a nonresident
owner it is necessary for the court, as in all cases of foreclosure, to ascertain the amount due and to make an order requiring the
defendant to pay the money into court. This step is a necessary precursor of the order of sale. (El Banco v. Palanca)
CFI has acquired jurisdiction. Idonah Perkins lost. Section 398 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that when a non-resident
defendant is sued in the Philippine courts and it appears, by the complaint or by affidavits, that the action relates to real or personal
property within the Philippines in which said defendant has or claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent, or in which the relief
demanded consists, wholly or in part, in excluding such person from any interest therein, service of summons maybe made by
publication. (Perkins v. Dizon)
A state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks, an interest which the state can protect
even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines. The court rejected the contention that a state's power to
regulate must be determined by a 'conceptualistic discussion of theories of the place of contracting or of performance. Instead,
great weight was given to the consequences of the contractual obligations in the state where the insured resided and the 'degree of
interest' that state had in seeing that those obligations were faithfully carried out. Due process requires only that in order to subject
a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Travelers
Health v. Virginia)
The Robinsons seek to base jurisdiction on one, isolated occurrence and whatever inferences can be drawn therefrom: the fortu itous
circumstance that a single Audi automobile, sold in New York to New York residents, happened to suffer an accident while passing
through Oklahoma. (World Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson)
This argument seems to make the point that the purchase of automobiles in New York, from which the petitioners earn substantial
revenue, would not occur but for the fact that the automobiles are capable of use in distant States like Oklahoma. Respondents
observe that the very purpose of an automobile is to travel, and that travel of automobiles sold by petitioners is facilitated by an
extensive chain of Volkswagen service centers throughout the country, including some in Oklahoma.However, financial benefits
accruing to the defendant from a collateral relation to the forum State will not support jurisdiction if they do not stem from a
constitutionally cognizable contact with that State.
ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE
Courts will not inquire into the validity of the acts of a foreign government done within its own territory. Every sovereign state is
bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment of the acts
of the government of another done within its own territory. Courts will not examine a foreign law to determine whether it was
adopted in conformity with the internal procedures and requirements of the enacting state. So long as the act is the act of the
foreign sovereign, it matters not how grossly the sovereign has transgressed its own laws. If no institution of legal authority would
refuse to effectuate the decree, its formal status (because it was not published in the Official Gazette in Cuba) is irrelevant. It has not
been seriously contended that the judicial institutions of Cuba would declare the decree invalid. Nor, it should be noted, does the
plaintiff before us make any such claim. (French v. Banco National de Cuba)
In In Re: PNB, in order to obtain assets from the Philippine National Bank, or to hold the Bank in contempt for the transfer of those
assets to the Republic of the Philippines, the District court necessarily (and expressly) held invalid the forfeiture judgment of the
Philippine Supreme Court. Although the act of state doctrine is normally inapplicable to court judgments arising from private
litigation, there is no inflexible rule preventing a judgment sought by a foreign government from qualifying as an act of state.
The USCA held that, generally, the act of state doctrine applies to official acts of foreign sovereigns performed within their own
territory. (Credit Suisse Case). The act of the Philippine Supreme Court was not wholly external, however. Its judgment, which the
district court declared invalid, was issued in the Philippines and much of its force upon the Philippine National Bank arose from the
fact that the Bank is a Philippine corporation. Because the RPs interest in the enforcement of its laws does not end at its borders,
the fact that the escrow funds were deposited in Singapore does not preclude the application of the act of state doctrine.
As a practical tool for keeping the judicial branch out of the conduct of foreign affairs, the classification of "act of state" is not a
promise to the ruler of any foreign country that his conduct, if challenged by his own country after his fall, may not become the
subject of scrutiny in our courts. No estoppel exists insulating a deposed dictator from accounting. No guarantee has been granted
that immunity may be acquired by an ex-chief magistrate invoking the magic words "act of state" to cover his or her past
performance. (Republic v. Marcos)
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION V. FORUM NON-CONVENIENS
These are statutes drawn with generality, giving a plaintiff a choice of courts to pursue his remedy. However, the plaintiff may not,
by choosing an inconvenient forum, harass a defendant by inflicting upon him trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his
remedy. But, if the choice of forum is strongly in favor of the defendant, the choice should rarely be disturbed. Gilbert is not a
resident of New York, nor did any event connected with the case take place there, nor does any witness with the possible exception
of experts live there. No one connected with that side of the case save counsel for the plaintiff resides there. His affidavits and
arguments are devoted to controverting claims as to Gulf Oils inconvenience, rather than to showing that the present forum serves
any convenience for himself, with one exception -- that this case involves a claim for an amount close to $400,000 which may
stagger the imagination of a local jury unaccustomed to dealing with such amounts. This is a strange and unproven premise, an
assumption we do not easily make. (Gulf Oil v. Gilbert)
Neither are we ready to rule on the private respondents' invocation of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as the exact nature of
the relationship of the parties is still to be established. We leave this matter to the sound discretion of the trial court judge who is in
the best position, after some vital facts are established, to determine whether special circumstances require that his court desist
from assuming jurisdiction over the suit. (KK Shell v. Court of Appeals)
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

In Communications Materials v. Court of Appeals, by entering into the Representative Agreement with ITEC, Petitioner is charged
with knowledge that ITEC was not licensed to engage in business activities in the country, and is thus estopped from raising in
defense such incapacity of ITEC, having chosen to ignore or even presumptively take advantage of the same. Having acquired
jurisdiction, it is now for the Philippine Court, based on the facts of the case, whether to give due course to the suit or dismiss it, on
the principle of forum non conveniens. Hence, the Philippine Court may refuse to assume jurisdiction in spite of its having acquired
jurisdiction. Conversely, the court may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so; provided, that the following
requisites are met: 1) That the Philippine Court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; 2) That the Philippine Court is
in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and, 3) That the Philippine Court has or is likely to have
power to enforce its decision.
In Manila Hotel v. NLRC, the NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum.
We note that the main aspects of the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign elements. The
only link that the Philippines has with the case is that respondent Santos is a Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign
corporations. Not all cases involving our citizens can be tried here.
The employment contract.-- Respondent Santos was hired directly by the Palace Hotel, a foreign employer, through correspondence
sent to the Sultanate of Oman, where respondent Santos was then employed. He was hired without the intervention of the POEA or
any authorized recruitment agency of the government.[36]
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so
provided: (1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2) that the Philippine court is in a
position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to
enforce its decision.[37] The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
Not Convenient.-- We fail to see how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the incidents of the case - from the time of
recruitment, to employment to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is compounded by the fact that the
proper defendants, the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they doing business in the
Philippines. Likewise, the main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents of the Philippines.
No power to determine applicable law.-- Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment
contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls to fore the application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the
place where the contract was made).[38]
The employment contract was not perfected in the Philippines. Respondent Santos signified his acceptance by writing a letter while
he was in the Republic of Oman. This letter was sent to the Palace Hotel in the Peoples Republic of China.
No power to determine the facts.-- Neither can the NLRC determine the facts surrounding the alleged illegal dismissal as all acts
complained of took place in Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. The NLRC was not in a position to determine whether the
Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected operations of the Palace Hotel as to justify respondent Santos retrenchment.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision.-- Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such
would not have any binding effect against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace Hotel is a corporation incorporated under the
laws of China and was not even served with summons. Jurisdiction over its person was not acquired.
This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve controversies involving foreign employers. Neither are
we saying that we do not have power over an employment contract executed in a foreign country. If Santos were an overseas
contract worker, a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him. He is not an overseas contract
worker a fact which he admits with conviction.
In Pacific Consultants v. Schonfeld, the arbitration clause of the contract provides that any question of interpretation,
understanding or fulfillment of the conditions of employment, as well as any question arising between the Employee and the
Company which is in consequence of our connected with his employment with the Company and cannot be settled amicably, is to be
finally settled, binding to both parties through written submissions, by the Court of Arbitration in London.

xoxo, Cla & Trish <3

Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held in the vintage case of Philippine Banking Corporation v. Tensuan, is that
while they are considered valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do NOT, as a rule, supersede the general rule set
forth in Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or restrictive words. They should be considered merely as
an agreement or additional forum, not as limiting venue to the specified place. They are not exclusive but, rather permissive. If the
intention of the parties were to restrict venue, there must be accompanying language clearly and categorically expressing their
purpose and design that actions between them be litigated only at the place named by them. In the instant case, no restrictive
words like "only," "solely," "exclusively in this court," "in no other court save ," "particularly," "nowhere else but/except ," or
words of equal import were stated in the contract. It CANNOT be said that the court of arbitration in London is an exclusive venue to
bring forth any complaint arising out of the employment contract.
The bare fact that Schonfeld is a Canadian citizen and was a repatriate does NOT warrant the application of the principle for the
following reasons:
(1) The Labor Code of the Philippines does NOT include forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. (2) The
propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence, it is properly considered as defense.
(3) In Bank of America, NT&SA, Bank of America International, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that: Philippine Court may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so if the following requisites are met: (1) the Philippine Court is one to which the
parties may conveniently resort to; (2) the Philippine Court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts;
and, (3) the Philippine Court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
WHICH/WHAT LAW THE ASSUMING COURT WILL APPLY
In Aznar v. Christensen-Garcia:
Edward was a US Citizen and domiciled in the Philippines at the time of his death. The law that governs the validity of his
testamentary dispositions is defined in Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which is as follows: ART. 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 where said property may be found. The laws of California have prescribed two
sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Article 946 of the
California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in Kaufman, is its internal law. If the law on succession and the
conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own intended and appropriate sphere, the principle cited in
Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply to such of its citizens as are not domiciled in
California but in other jurisdictions. The national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the
California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile.
The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in
California, to the law of his domicile, which is the Philippines in the case at bar. The Philippine court therefore must apply its own
law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent.
RENVOI DOCTRINE: A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-oflaws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The German
term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.' Another theory, known as the "doctrine of renvoi", has been advanced. The theory
of the doctrine of renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law
of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the
other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum.
In Bellis v. Bellis:
The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes. Under Texas law, there are no legitimes. Even if the other will was
executed in the Philippines, his national law, still, will govern the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it
shall be governed by the Philippine law. Article 16, Paragraph 2 of Civil code render applicable the national law of the decedent, in
intestate and testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession, (b) the amount of successional rights,
(c) the intrinsic validity of provisions of will, and (d) the capacity to succeed.
GENERAL RULE: A foreign procedural law will not be applied in the forum.
EXCEPTION: When the country of the forum has a "borrowing statute," the country of the forum will apply the foreign statute of
limitations.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: The court of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public policy.
(Cadalin v. POEA)
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

V. FOREIGN LAW
ASCERTAINMENT AND PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW; DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION
Sy Loc Jieng vs Sy Quia:
EXISTENCE OF FOREIGN LAW MUST BE PROVED AS A QUESTION OF FACT. When in a litigation the application of a foreign law is
sought, it is necessary to prove before the courts of the Islands, in a satisfactory manner, the existence of such a law as a question of
fact; and when proof of such a law is lacking, it is improper to apply unknown laws to suits pending before the courts of the Islands.
In Re the Estate of Johnson
Will made here by alien. A will made within the Philippine Islands by a citizen or subject of another state or country, which is
executed in accordance with the law of the state or country of which he is a citizen or subject, and which might be proved and
allowed by the law of his own state or country, may be proved, allowed, and recorded in the Philippine Islands, and shall have the
same effect as if executed according to the laws of these Islands. (but in this case, Phil law not applied to will because Johnson was
not a citizen, thus Illinois law applied)
Williamette vs Muzzal
The foreign law is a matter of fact. You ask the witness what the law is; he may from his recollection, or on producing and referring
to books, say what it is. (Lord Campbell concurring in an opinion of Lord Chief Justice Denman in a well-known English case where a
witness was called upon to prove the Roman laws of marriage and was permitted to testify, though he referred to a book containing
the decrees of the Council of Trent as controlling.)
Processual Presumption
Doctrine of Processual Presumption: The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent thereof, otherwise,
such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of the forum.
CIR vs Fisher
The application of Art 1325 of the Old Civil Code (adheres to the dominance of the nationality law in determining the property
regime of spouses) is misplaced because it covers marriages between an alien and a Filipino and a marriage celebrated abroad. This
makes the English law applicable to the case at bar (because again, they are both British), but it was not satisfactorily proved that
the English law states that the ownership of the property of the spouses should all vest in the husband, thus it cannot indulge in a
processual presumption on what the English law has to say on the matter.
Reciprocity
Reciprocity provided by the Philippine and Californian Laws CANNOT be availed of. The reciprocity must be total, that is, with
respect to transfer or death taxes of any and every character, in the case of the Philippine law, and to legacy, succession, or death
taxes of any and every character, in the case of the California law. Therefore, if any of the two states collects or imposes and does
not exempt any transfer, death, legacy, or succession tax of any character, the reciprocity does not work.
PCIB vs Escolin
The courts of the Philippines Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice of the laws of the various States of the American
Union. Such laws must be proved as facts. The proponent should show the foreign law; as certified by person holding/having custody
of such law, with a certificate that such officer does have custody over said law. The Garcia case can't be used to show what Texas
law may contain, as there's a time difference between this case and that case, thus the Texas law might have changed in between
the rulings
Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co vs Guerrero
Under Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents of a sovereign authority or tribunal may be proved by (1) an official
publication thereof or (2) a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody thereof. Such official publication or copy must be
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that the attesting officer has the legal custody thereof.
The certificate may be issued by any of the authorized Philippine embassy or consular officials stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. 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, and must be under the official seal of the attesting officer.
An exception to the Rule is that a foreign law may be proved in open court by the testimony of an active law practitioner familiar
with the foreign law and quoting the specific foreign law involved. (in this case, the exception cannot be relied on because foreign
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

law was not proved in court, they merely relied on affidavit and there was nothing in the affidavit/petition that alleged the foreign
law, only jurisprudence)
Multiple Contact Test:
The following were considered to determine, in the absence of a specific Congressional directive as to the statutes reach, which
jurisdictions law should be applied:
1) Place of the wrongful act;
2) Law of the flag;
3) Allegiance or domicile of the injured;
4) Allegiance of the defendant shipowner;
5) Place of contract;
6) Inaccessibility of foreign forum; and
7) Law of the forum.
Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law:
In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, the forum contacts to be considered include:
a) Place of contracting;
b) Place of negotiation of the contract;
c) Place of performance;
d) Location of the subject matter of the contract; and
e) Domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties
Crescent Petroleum vs M/V Lok Maheshwari
A party whose cause of action or defense depends upon a 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 this case, Crescents insistence on enforcing a maritime lien
before Philippine courts depended on the existence of a maritime lien under the proper law. By erroneously claiming a maritime lien
under Philippine law instead of proving that a maritime lien exists under Canadian law, Crescent failed to establish a cause of action.
EDI Staffbuilders International vs NLRC
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving the foreign
law. The foreign law is treated as a question of fact to be properly pleaded and proved as the judge or labor arbiter cannot take
judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.
In the present case, the employment contract signed by Gran specifically states that Saudi Labor Laws will govern matters not
provided for in the contract (e.g. specific causes for termination, termination procedures, etc.). Being the law intended by the parties
(lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, Saudi Labor Laws should govern all matters relating to the termination of the
employment of Gran. The petitioner it did not prove the pertinent Saudi laws on the matter; thus, the International Law doctrine of
presumed-identity approach or processual presumption comes into play. Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is
not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. Thus, we apply Philippine labor laws.
Yao-Kee vs Sy-Gonzales
To establish a valid foreign marriage, two things must be proven: (1) the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact and (2) the
alleged foreign marriage by convincing evidence. The petitioners did not present any competent evidence relative to the law and
custom of China on marriage. Accordingly, in the absence of proof of the Chinese law on marriage, it should be presumed that it is
the same as ours. Since Yao Kee admitted in her testimony that there was no solemnizing officer as is known in the Philippines when
her alleged marriage to Sy Kiat was celebrated, it follows that her marriage to Sy Kiat, even if true, cannot be recognized in this
jurisdiction.
EXCEPTIONS TO APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW
Bank of America vs American Realty Corp
In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage creditor may institute against the debtor either a personal action for
debt, or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may pursue either but not both.
In our jurisdiction, the remedies are alternative and not cumulative. ARC consisted real estate mortgages, and it subjected itself to
the liabilities of a 3rd party mortgagor. The mere act of filing an ordinary action for collection operates as a waiver of the mortgageecreditors remedy to foreclose the mortgage. BANTSA is deemed to have elected a remedy, as a result of which a waiver of the other
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

necessarily must arise. No final judgment in the collection suit is required for the rule on waiver to apply.
BANTSA alleged that under English Law, the mortgagee doesnt lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of
money. This is untenable. Philippine law should apply. There is no judicial notice of any foreign law. Any foreign law must be
properly pleaded and proved as a fact. 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. Additionally, 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.
The public policy sought to be protected is the principle embedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of
action. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents
of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust
negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws.

VI. NATURE OF CONFLICTS RULES, THE PROBLEM OF CHARACTERIZATION AND RENVOI

In the Matter of Testate Estate of Edward Christensen
ART. 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 where said property may be found.
In the case at bar requires the determination of the meaning of the term "national law" as used therein. The court noted that there
is no single American law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the US since each state has its own private law
applicable to its citizens only and in force only within the state. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code cannot,
therefore, possibly mean or apply to any general American law. it refers then to the private law of the State of California.
On doctrine of renvoi:
It first stated that the problem behind the theory of doctrine has bee encapsulated by authorities in the statement; "When the
Conflict of Laws rule of the forum refers a jural matter to a foreign law for decision, is the reference to the purely internal rules of
law of the foreign system; i.e., to the totality of the foreign law minus its Conflict of Laws rules?"
One type of renvoi is where a jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the
conflict-of-laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The
German term for this judicial process is 'Ruckverweisung.' Thus, after a decision has been arrived that a foreign law is to be resorted
to as governing a particular case, the further question may arise: Are the rules as to the conflict of laws contained in such foreign law
also to be resorted to? This is a question which, while it has been considered by the courts in but a few instances, has been the
subject of frequent discussion by textwriters and essayists. The doctrine involved has been descriptively designated as the
"Renvoyer" to send back, or the "Ruchversweisung", or the "Weiterverweisung." If an affirmative answer to the question postulated
above and the operation of the adoption of the foreign law in toto would in many cases result in returning the main controversy to
be decided according to the law of the forum.
The second theory is known as the "doctrine of renvoi." The doctrine postulates that the court of the forum, in determining the
question before it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then
apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum. The
doctrine of the renvoi has generally been repudiated by the American authorities. The recognition of this renvoi theory implies that
the rules of the conflict of laws are to be understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal law of the foreign state or
country, but its rules of the conflict of laws as well. According to this theory 'the law of a country' means the whole of its law.
Von Bar theses:
(1) Every court shall observe the law of its country as regards the application of foreign laws.
(2) Provided that no express provision to the contrary exists, the court shall respect:
a) The provisions of a foreign law which disclaims the right to bind its nationals abroad as regards their personal statute, and desires
that said personal statute shall be determined by the law of the domicile, or even by the law of the place where the act in question
occurred.
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

(b) The decision of two or more foreign systems of law, provided it be certain that one of them is necessarily competent, which
agree in attributing the determination of a question to the same system of law.
In the case at bar, the estate of Edward through its executor argues that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed
out as the national law is the internal law of California. However, the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its
citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason then demands that the California
internal law should be enforced as it is prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the
citizens domiciled abroad. If the court then must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in
Article 16 of the Philippine Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof
and as above explained, i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad.
The national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e. Article 946,
which authorizes the reference or return of the question to the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California,
Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, the
Philippines in the case at bar. The court of the domicile cannot and should not refer the case back to California; such action 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 laws rule of the state of the decedent, if the question has to be decided, especially as the
application of the internal law of California provides no legitime for children while the Philippine law, Arts. 887(4) and 894, Civil Code
of the Philippines, makes natural children legally acknowledged forced heirs of the parent recognizing them.
Aznar vs Christiansen-Garcia
The laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in
other jurisdictions. Article 946 of the California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rule, while the rule applied in Kaufman, is its internal
law. If the law on succession and the conflict of laws rules of California are to be enforced jointly, each in its own intended and
appropriate sphere, the principle cited in Kaufman should apply to citizens living in the State, but Article 946 should apply to such of
its citizens as are not domiciled in California but in other jurisdictions. The national law mentioned in Article 16 of our Civil Code is
the law on conflict of laws in the California Civil Code, i.e., Article 946, which authorizes the reference or return of the question to
the law of the testator's domicile. The conflict of laws rule in California, Article 946, Civil Code, precisely refers back the case, when a
decedent is not domiciled in California, to the law of his domicile, which is the Philippines in the case at bar. The Philippine court
therefore must apply its own law as directed in the conflict of laws rule of the state of the decedent.
RENVOI DOCTRINE
A jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-laws rule of which, in
turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum. This is renvoi in the narrower sense. The German term for this judicial
process is 'Ruckverweisung.' Another theory, known as the "doctrine of renvoi", has been advanced. The theory of the doctrine of
renvoi is that the court of the forum, in determining the question before it, must take into account the whole law of the other
jurisdiction, but also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual question which the rules of the other
jurisdiction prescribe. This may be the law of the forum.
Bellis vs Bellis
Under Texas law, there are no legitimes. Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines, his national law, still, will govern the
properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by the Philippine law.
Llorente vs CA
While the substance of the foreign law was pleaded, the CA did not admit the foreign law. The CA and the RTC called to the fore the
renvoi doctrine, where the case was referred back to the law of the decedents domicile, in this case,
Philippine law.
While the trial court stated that the law of New York was not sufficiently proven, in the same breath it made the categorical, albeit
equally unproven statement that American law follows the domiciliary theory hence, Philippine law applies when determining the
validity of Lorenzos will. First, there is no such thing as one American law. The "national law" indicated in Article 16 of the Civil Code
cannot possibly apply to general American law. There is no such law governing the validity of testamentary provisions in the US.
Each State of the union has its own law applicable to its citizens and in force only within the State. It can therefore refer to no other
than the law of the State of which the decedent was a resident. Second, there is no showing that the application of the renvoi
doctrine is called for or required by New York State law.
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

The hasty application of Philippine law and the complete disregard of the will, already probated as duly executed in accordance with
the formalities of Philippine law, is fatal, especially in light of the factual and legal circumstances here obtaining.
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 policy and morality.
However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, provided they are valid according to their national law. Once proven that the person
who initiated the divorce was no longer a Filipino citizen when he obtained the divorce from his spouse, the spouse will lose her
right to inherit from him.
Divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the status of persons.
Saudia Arabian Airlines vs CA
Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree with petitioner that the problem
herein could present a conflicts case.
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 forms in which this foreign element may appear are many. The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the
parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties
situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume a complex form. In the instant case, 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 SAUDIA 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. We thus find private respondents assertion that the case is purely
domestic, imprecise. A conflicts problem presents itself here, and the question of jurisdiction confronts the court a quo.
As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions:
(1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and
(2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always
do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding which of these two important values should
be stressed. Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall.
This process is known as characterization, or the doctrine of qualification. It is the process of deciding whether or not the facts
relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule. The purpose of characterization is to enable the forum to select the
proper law.
Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of
conflict rules is the indication of a test or connecting factor or point of contact. Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a
factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res,
the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing.
TESTS ON POINTS OF CONTACT
(1) the nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;
(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;
(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real
rights are involved;
(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated,
a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;
(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a
power of attorney is to be exercised;
(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex forithe law of the forumis particularly
important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of procedure not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by
it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a
given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as
such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment.
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 conflicts 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 petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina residing and working here. According to her, she
had honestly believed that petitioner would, in the exercise of its rights and in the performance of its duties, act with justice, give
her her due and observe honesty and good faith. Instead, petitioner failed to protect her, she claimed. That certain acts or parts of
the injury allegedly occurred in another country is of no moment. For in our view what is important here is the place where the overall harm or the totality of the alleged injury to the person, reputation, social standing and human rights of complainant, had lodged,
according to the plaintiff below (herein private respondent). All told, it is not without basis to identify the Philippines as the situs of
the alleged tort.
State of the most significant relationship rule should be appropriate to apply now, given the factual context of this case. In
applying said principle to determine the State which has the most significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into
account and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue: (a) the 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.
Prescinding from this premise that the Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the place having the most interest in
the problem, the Philippine law on tort liability should have paramount application to and control in the resolution of the legal
issues arising out of this case.
The action was based on Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, not the Saudi Arabian laws. There was no need to pleas and allege Saudi
Arabian laws.
PCIB vs Escolin
Texas law applies, but because of estoppel and it is yet to be proven. No proof yet of what Texas law is, but PCIB allegedly averred
that under the laws of Texas, there is such legitime of 1/4 of the said conjugal estate
o PCIB would be estopped to claim that the estate of Mrs. Hodges should be less than as contended by it (which is initially at least
of the estate), for admissions by a party related to the effects of foreign laws, which have to be proven in our courts like any other
controverted fact, create estoppel.
Elementary is the rule that foreign laws may not be taken judicial notice of and have to be proven like any other fact in dispute
between the parties in any proceeding, with the rare exceptional n instances when the said laws are already within the actual
knowledge of the court, such as when they are well and generally known, or they have been actually ruled upon in other cases
before it and none of the parties concerned claim otherwise.

VII. PROPERTY
Laurel vs Garcia
Conflict issues:
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 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 the 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
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa

CASE DOCTRINES

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. Furthermore, the Japanese law its coverage and effects, when enacted, and
exceptions to its provisions has not been presented to the Court. Respondents simply assert that the lex loci rei sitae or Japanese
law should apply without stating what the law provides.
Other issues:
The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Art. 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and
intended for some public service. As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of
collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is
intended for the common public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.
Salvacion vs Central Bank
The present petition has far-reaching implications on the right of a national to obtain redress for a wrong committed by an alien who
takes refuge under a law and regulation promulgated for a purpose which does not contemplate the application thereof envisaged
by the alien. More specifically, the petition raises the question whether the protection against attachment, garnishment or other
court process accorded to foreign currency deposits by PD No. 1246 and CB Circular No. 960 applies when the deposit does not
come from a lender or investor but from a mere transient or tourist who is not expected to maintain the deposit in the bank for
long.
Sec. 7. Rules and Regulations. The Monetary Board of the Central Bank shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act which shall take effect after the publication of such rules and regulations in the
Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. In case the Central
Bank promulgates new rules and regulations decreasing the rights of depositors, the rules and regulations at the time the deposit
was made shall govern.
The aforecited Section 113 was copied from Section 8 of Republic Act NO. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, thus:
Sec. 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by Presidential
Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and
considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such
foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person government official, bureau or office whether judicial
or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private: Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits
shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or
any administrative body whatsoever.
Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable judgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her
parents fully deserve. It then proceeded to show that the economic basis for the enactment of RA No. 6426 is not anymore present;
and even if it still exists, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive.
The intention of the law may be good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice
and inequality such as the case before us.
The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the Offshore Banking System and the Foreign Currency
Deposit System were designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and, subsequently, to give the latter protection.
However, the foreign currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged by PD Nos. 1034 and
1035 and given incentives and protection by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country and,
therefore, will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time. Considering that Bartelli is just a tourist or a transient, he is not
entitled to the protection of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against attachment, garnishment or other
court processes.
In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of
Central Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative
body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result
especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code
which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended
right and justice to prevail.
xoxo, Cla & Trish <3
Conflict Midterms 2013 - Atty. Gulapa