Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

1.

The general rule is that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated. However, in intestate and testamentary successions, the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall
be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, regardless of the country
where said property may be found.
In this case, since Edward is a national of California, his property is governed by the laws of said state.
However, such foreign law contains a refer back to the law of the domicile. Hence, the Philippine law to which
Edward is domiciled was applied in this case.

2. frivaldo vs comelec. The reacquisition of Philippine citizenship may be made through the direct act of Congress,
by naturalization, or repatriation. In this case, Frivaldo reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation.
The repatriation of Frivaldo as provided for by law is to be given retroactive effect as to the date of his application
therefor. Hence, he possessed the vital requirement of Filipino citinzenship as of the start of the term of office of
governor.

3. Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000

FACTS:

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In
1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino
and has since then participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May
1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles fileda petition for her disqualification as candidate on the ground that
she is an Australian.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino

HELD:

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the
nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli
which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

The herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a
Conflict of Laws Page ! 9
Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If
Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship
resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. The fact that she holds an Australian passport and alien registration
certificate is an assertion of her Australian citizenship but not a renunciation of her Philippine citizenship. Moreover,
by filing her certificate of candidacy, she has effectively renounced her Australian citizenship

3. Oh hek How vs republic. Oh hek how is a Chinese national and applied and subsequently granted Philippine
citinzep by naturalization. However questioned its validity by the Government. The acquisition of Ph citinzeship is
exclusively governed by Phillipine laws and cannot be controlled by any foreign law. However, in this case, the
Chinese law provides rules on how their citinzenship may be strip off of that status before applying and acquiring
citinzenship of any country.
Issue: WON a permission to renounce citizenship is necessary from the Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China.
Held: Yes. Chinese citizen must acquire permission to the M.I.N.C. for the renunciation of nationality. This
requirement is prior to the application of Philippine citizenship that is a naturalized citizen is subject to another law
in terms of losing citizenship.
4. A child can have dual citizenship when he has a filipino mother or father or both, and is born in a foreign country
where the laws of such state follows the principle of jus solis.
Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such
children are citizens of that country 3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship 4.
Those who retained or reacquired their Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 after having been naturalized in a
foreign country

5. It has been held that there is no hard and fast rule for deter- mining domicile. Each case must depend upon the
particular facts or circumstances. However, there are three rules which are established: (1) a man has a domicile
somewhere; (2) a domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but only
one domicile at a time.

6. The following are the test in determining nationality of a corporation under Ph. Law

a) Grandfather rule = is a method of determining the nationality of a corporation which in turn is owned by another
corporation by breaking down the equity structure of the shareholders of the corporation. The percentage share of
the 2nd corpo in the first is multiplied by the latters own Filipino equity, and the product of these percentages
determines the ultimate filipini ownership of the subsidiary corporation. At least 60% of the outstanding capital of
the corpo must be owned by Philippine nationals.
b) Control test = a corporation is considered a Filipino corp if 60% outstanding capital stock of such corporation is
owned by Filipino national, and the equity relationship between alien and Filipino is not in doubt.
c) place of incorporation test = the corporation is a national of the country under whose laws it is organized or
incorporated.

7. Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995

FACTS:

Northwest, a US corporation, and Sharp, a Filipino corporation but with a branch in Japan, entered into an
agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. Sharp, however, was unable
to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, prompting Northwest to sue for collection in Japan. Summons was served
on Sharps branch office in Japan but because the manager authorized to receive summons was said to be in Manila,
the same was also served on Sharps Manila head office through diplomatic channels. Sharp nevertheless failed to
appear during the hearing and judgment was rendered. Northwest now filed a case before the Philippine court to
enforce the foreign judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Japanese court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sharp

HELD:

The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was incorporated. In a strict technical sense, such
domicile as a corporation may have is single in its essence and a corporation can only have one domicile which is
the state of its creation. Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one state may, for certain purposes, be regarded as a
resident in another state in which it has offices and transacts business.
In as much as Sharp was admittedly doing business in Japan through its duly registered branches at the time the
collection suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual presumption, Sharp may be deemed a resident
of Japan, and, as such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be deemed to have assented to
the said courts lawful methods of serving process.

State Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank, et al, G.R. No. 79926-27, Oct. 17, 1991

FACTS:

Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) obtained loans from Citibank, Bank of America and HSBC, all foreign corporations
but with branches in the Philippines. Meanwhile, State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) and State Financing Center,
Inc. (SFCI), also creditors of CMI, filed collection suits against the latter with writs of preliminary attachment.
Subsequently, the three banks jointly filed with the court a petition for involuntary insolvency of CMI. SHI and
SFCI opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not resident creditors in contemplation of the
Insolvency Law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a foreign corporation with a branch in the Philippines and doing business therein can be
considered a resident

HELD:

Foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines are considered residents of the Philippines, as
the word is understood in Sec. 20 of the Insolvency Law, authorizing at least three resident creditors of the
Philippines to file a petition to declare a corporation insolvent. The Tax Code declares that the term resident foreign
corporation applies to foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines as distinguished from
a non-resident foreign corporation which is not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The Offshore
Banking Law sates that: Branches, subsidiaries, affiliates, extension offices or any other units of corporation or
juridical person organized under the laws of any foreign country operating in the Philippines shall be considered
residents of the Philippines. The General Banking Act places branches and agencies in the Philippines of foreign
banks in the category as commercial banks, rural banks, stock savings and loan association making no distinction
between the former ad the latter in so far as the terms banking institutions and banks are used in said Act.

8. A foreign corporation, whether resident or non resident, is taxed only on income derived from sources within the
PH.