CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIVATE

Course Outline BASIS INTERNATIONAL LAW PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL

(CONFLICT OF LAW) LAW

1. As to nature Municipal in character International in character

PART ONE:
2. As to persons Dealt by private Parties involved are sovereign
INTRODUCTION
involved individuals states and other entities
possessed of an international
I. SCOPE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS personality
 Embraces cases or situations where a foreign element is involved 3. As to transactions Transactions are private Transactions are entered into
 A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by involved one between private which generally affect public
diverse laws of two or more States is said to contain a foreign element individuals interest; those which in
general are of interest only to
NATURE sovereign states
 Municipal Law or private law of each state which regulates relations of 4. As to remedies or Resort to Municipal Remedies may be peaceful or
individuals among themselves or with their state sanctions Tribunals forcible
 It is the law of the forum that furnishes the yardstick for the presence or
absence of jurisdiction

DEFINITION
 Is that part of the municipal law of the state which directs its courts and
administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a
foreign element, whether or not, they should apply a foreign law or foreign laws
(Paras)
IMPORTANCE
1. to adjust conflicting rights in international, mercantile and corporate
transactions; and
2. to solve personal, family, property and successional contractual problems,
possessed of facts or elements operating in two or more states
OBJECT AND FUNCTION
 Is to provide rational and valid rules or guidelines in deciding cases not only by
courts but also by administrative agencies and public officers who are called
upon to act on a given situation where either or all the parties, event or
transaction are linked to more than one jurisdiction
FUNCTIONS
According to Paras
1. the determination of which country has jurisdiction
2. the applicability to a particular case of either the local or the foreign law
3. the determination of the force, validity and effectiveness of a foreign judgment
According to Coquia
1. to proscribe the conditions under which a court or agency is competent to
entertain a suit or proceeding involving facts containing a foreign element;
2. to determine the extent, validity and enforceability of foreign judgment;
3. to determine for each class of cases the particular system if law by reference
to which the rights of the parties must be ascertained
II. BRIEF HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS (25)
In Ancient Rome, it presented a fertile place for the
development of “ conflict rules” because two legal systems were in
vogue: Roman citizens were governed by the civil law of Rome; all
others were under the jurisdiction of their own provincial legislation
-- how easily, therefore, “conflict” theories could have arisen. But
the theories did not come for only one law prevailed whenever a
Roman citizen was involved, namely, Roman civil law. However,
there were two incidental developments – the concept of domicile
and the concept of lex situs – ( where the immovables were
concerned. )
In 212 A.D., the Edict of Caracalla conferred Roman
citizenship on all the people living within the Roman Empire:
consequently only one law remained – the civil law of Rome – for
any and all acts, events, and transactions within the Empire. Law
was, thus, placed on territorial without personal or racial
discrimination.
In the 5th century, the Roman Empire was overthrown by
the so-called “barbarian tribe”: personal law replaced territorial law.
This simply means that every person, regardless of residence, was
considered subject to the law of his original nation or tribe. If the
parties to a contract came from different nations, the law of the
debtor prevailed – for it was then believed that his interest were
paramount.

III. SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS

1
 1. Indirect sources
 Natural moral law
 Works of writers
2. Direct sources
 constitutions
 codifications
 special laws
 treatises and international conventions
 judicial decisions
 international customs such as lex situs, lex loci celebrationis,
lex nationalii/domicilii, territoriality, generality
PART TWO: JURISDICTION
IV. JURISDICTION (2)
 Authority of a tribunal to hear and decide a case and possible enforceability in
foreign states, subject to the rights of said states (Paras)
 In international law, it is often defined as the right of a State to exercise
authority over persons and things within its boundaries, subject to certain
exceptions
JUDICIAL JURISDICTION VERSUS LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION (Coquia)
 Judicial Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court or administrative
tribunal to try a case, render judgment and execute it in accordance with law
while Legislative Jurisdiction which is the power of the state to promulgate
laws and regulations and enforce them on all persons and property within its
territory
FOUR MAJOR QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONFLICT OF LAWS PROBLEM -
1. Has the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over his property
2. Has the court jurisdiction over the subject matter, usually referred to as
“competency”
3. Has the suit been brought in the proper venue in cases where a foreign element
is involved and
4. Is there a statute or doctrine under which a court otherwise qualified to try the
case may or may not refuse to entertain it
A. BASIS OF EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION / KINDS OF JURISDICTION
1. Jurisdiction over the person which is based on forum-defendant contacts;
2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter and
3. Jurisdiction over the res based on forum-property contacts
1. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON
 is the power of the court to render judgment that will be binding on the
parties involved: the plaintiff and defendant (Paras)
Acquired through
Plaintiff - institution of action by proper pleading
Defendant - voluntary appearance or by the coercive power of
legal process exerted over the person (Paras)
Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired from the
moment he invokes the aid of the court and voluntarily submits himself
by institution of the suit through proper pleadings
Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired through
voluntary appearance or personal or substituted service of summons
(Coquia)
WILLIAM GEMPERLE V. HELEN SCHENKER
19 SCRA 45 (Jan. 23, 1967 GR No. L-18164)
FACTS : Paul Schenker acting through his wife Helen Schenker filed a complaint
against petitioner for the enforcement of Paul Schenker’s allegedly initial
subscription to the shares of stock of the Phil. Swiss Trading Company
and the exercise of his alleged preemptive rights to the unissued original
capital stock of said corporation. Believing that the suit was only for the
purpose of harassing and degrading his reputation, he also filed a
damage suit against the Schenkers. The trial rendered in favor of
Gemperle thus Helen Schenker appealed alleging that Paul Schenker
cannot be sued or joined as defendants because the trial court never
acquired jurisdiction over his person because he was outside of the Phil.
thus he is beyond the jurisdiction of our court.
ISSUE : Whether or not the court can acquire jurisdiction over the person of an
alien defendant?
HELD : Yes, where a Swiss citizen, residing abroad was served with summons
through his wife who was residing in the Phil. and who was his
representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior civil case which was filed at
her behest in her aforementioned capacity, the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over his person by means of service of summons to his wife.
As a the wife had authority to sue in his behalf, so she was also
empowered to represent him in suits filed against him, particularly in a
case which is a consequence of the action brought by her in his behalf.
SPS. DOMINGO BELEN vs. HON. PABLO CHAVEZ
2
 G.R. No. 175335, March 26, 2008
FACTS : Respondent Sps. Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb filed an action before the
RTC of Rosario, Batangas against petitioners, Sps. Belen for the
enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by Judge Green of the
superior court of the State of California, in a complaint for breach of
contract against herein petitioners ordering them to pay private
respondents monetary award. The summons was served on petitioner’s
address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna received by a certain Marcelo
Belen as alleged in the complaint. Atty. Alcantara, whose services were
retained by the petitioner’s relatives, entered his appearance for the
petitioners, filed an answer stating among others that petitioners are
actually residents of California, USA. Atty. Alcantara on a later date
moved to dismiss the
certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does
not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice
 In both in rem and quasi-in rem actions, all that due process required is that
defendant be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard which are met
by service of summons by publication
LONG-ARM STATUTES
 statutes which specify the contacts which jurisdiction will be asserted over a
defendant outside of state territory
3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
 is conferred by law and defined as the authority of a court to hear and decide
cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong
 acquire through the allegations in the petition or complaint, read together with
the proper jurisdictional law, that will confer jurisdiction on the court

complaint due to the judgment of dismissal rendered by the same
foreign court which was denied for failure to present a copy thereof.
Subsequently, the RTC ordered a judgment in favor of the respondents
which judgment was not received by Atty. Alcantara due to his death but
by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla. Thereafter, Att. Carmelo Culvera,
petitioner’s new counsel assailed the judgment before the CA for lack of
jurisdiction over the petitioners in view of the improper service of
summons. The CA affirmed the said decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE : Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
petitioner.
HELD : Yes. Even if the service of summons was defective upon non- resident
defendants, the appearance of Atty. Alcantara impliedly authorized by
the defendants to appear on their behalf and his filing of numerous
pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants.
CLASSIFICATION OF ACTIONS (as to object)
1. Action in personam – any judgment that the court will render in that case
binds only the parties to the action and their privies or their successors-in-
interest;
2. Action in rem – any judgment that the court will render in the case binds
not only the parties to the case but the whole world
3. Quasi in rem action – quasi in rem is actually in personam because it is
directed only against a particular individual but the purpose of the
proceeding is to subject his property to the obligation of lien burdening it.
The object of the case is the sale or other disposition of property of the
defendant which one may have a right or lien over the property
Example: an action to subject certain property of the defendant to
payment of a claim. An action between parties where the
direct object is to reach and dispose of property owned by
them, or of some interest therein

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY

 is the subject matter of litigation results either from the seizure of the property
under a legal process or from the institution of legal proceedings wherein the
court’s power over the property is recognized and made effective
 this kind of jurisdiction is referred to as in rem jurisdiction. Another form of
jurisdiction is quasi in rem jurisdiction which affects only the interests of
particular persons in the thing
FACTS
NOTE: Summons of publication is effective in the following cases –
 if the action is in rem
 quasi in rem
 involves personal status of plaintiff
MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST AND FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS TEST
 Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in
personam, is he is not present within the territory of the forum, he should have
IDONAH PERKINS V. ROXAS
June 19, 1941 GR No. 4751
: Respondent Eugene Perkins filed a complaint against Benguet
Consolidated Mining Company for the recovery of dividends but it was
withheld by the corporation because of the demands made by the
petitioner Idonah Perkins and George Englehard. Respondent then
amended the complaint and included the herein petitioner. Summons by
publication were then served upon the non-resident defendants, Idonah
and Englehard. Petitioners contended that the court cannot acquire
jurisdiction over the subject matter because there was already a
judgment of the Supreme Court of New York declaring that she was the

3
 legal owner of the questioned shares and the trial court cannot amend,
annul, modify or reverse the same because it was already res judicata.
ISSUE : Whether or not CFI can assume jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the case.
HELD : Yes, because jurisdiction over the subject matter is the nature of the
cause of action which is conferred by the sovereign authority which
organizes the court. In the case at bar the respondent’s action calls for
the adjudication of title to certain shares of stock of the corporation and
the granting of affirmative reliefs which fall within the general
jurisdiction of the CFI of Manila.
B. WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICTS PROBLEM / WAYS OF DISPOSING
CONFLICTS CASES
1. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction
2. Dismiss the case on the ground of Forum Non-Conveniens
3. Assume jurisdiction and apply the forum law
1. DISMISS THE CASE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Effect of absence or presence of Jurisdiction (Paras)
1. when a court is without jurisdiction, it has no alternative except to dismiss the
case for being null and void due to lack of due process
2. if a tribunal possesses jurisdiction, it may:
a. refuse to assume jurisdiction on the ground of forum non convenience or
b. assume jurisdiction, in which case it may:
- apply the internal law of the forum (lex fori) or
- apply proper foreign (lex causae)
2. DISMISS THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS
 refusal of assume jurisdiction because it would prove inconvenient for the
forum
 a forum may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction
is authorized by law on the ground that the forum is inconvenient or the
ends of justice would be best served by trial in another forum or the
controversy may be more suitably tried elsewhere (Doctrine of Forum
Non-Conveniens)
ELEMENTS:
a. the forum state is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort to;
b. it is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law
and the facts; and
c. it has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision
MANIFESTATIONS:
 the witnesses and evidence may not be readily available
 the court dockets of the forum may already be clogged; to
permit additional cases would inevitably hamper the speedy
administration of justice
 the evils of forum-shopping ought to be curbed
 the forum has no particular interest in the case
 other courts are open: certainly the case may be better tried
in said courts
HEINE V. NEW YORK INSURANCE CO.,
45 Fed (2d) 426 (1940)
FACTS : Plaintiffs were German nationals and residents of Germany. Defendant
on the other hand was a corporation or an entity organized in New York.
Plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants for the recovery of
insurance claims on insurance contracts issued by the defendant
corporation. But the action was brought not in New York nor in Germany
but in Oregon, USA. Plaintiffs contends that the court should take
cognizance of the case because anyway it has acquired jurisdiction over
the subject matter, over the plaintiffs (because plaintiffs filed a pleading
in Oregon court) and over the defendant (by means of service of
summons having been made on its residents or statutory agents in
Oregon).
ISSUE : Whether or not the Oregon court can refuse to take cognizance of the
case.
HELD : Yes, the Oregon court can refuse to take cognizance or to assume
jurisdiction over the case on the ground of forum non-conveniens, were
both parties are not residents of the place where the court was located
and exercising jurisdiction and especially the courts of Germany and New
York are open and functioning.
But it may also take cognizance of the case in the exercise of its sound
discretion.
3. ASSUME JURISDICTION AND APPLY THE FORUM LAW
 As a general rule, no rule of Private International Law would be violated if the
courts should decide to dispose cases, according to the internal law of the
forum
 EXCEPT: where a foreign, sovereign, diplomatic, official or public vessel or
property of another state is involved, or where a state has by treaty, accepted
limitations upon its jurisdiction over certain persons of things
INSTANCES WHEN INTERNAL / DOMESTIC LAW SHOULD BE APPLIED:
4
 1. when a specific law of the forum expressly provides or decrees in its
conflict rules that internal law should apply
Examples:
i. Article 16 of the Civil Code – real and personal property subject to
the law of the country where they are situated and testamentary
succession governed by lex nationalii
ii. Article 829 of the Civil Code – makes revocation done outside the
Philippines valid according the law of the place where will was made
or lex domicilii
iii. Article 819 of the Civil Code – prohibits Filipinos from making joint
wills even if valid in foreign country
2. when the proper foreign law has not been properly pleaded and proved
 NOTE: as a general rule, courts do not take judicial notice of foreign
laws must be pleaded and proved
 The following actions may be resorted in case of failure to prove and
plead the proper foreign law
i. Dismiss the case for inability to establish cause of action
ii. Assume that the foreign law of the same as the law of the forum
(processual presumption)
iii. Apply the law of the forum
3. when the case involves any of the exceptions to the application of the
proper foreign law as when the foreign law is
 contrary to an important public policy of the forum
 penal in nature
 procedural in nature
 purely fiscal and administrative in nature
 application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice
to the citizens of the forum
 the case involves real or personal property situated in the
forum
 contrary to good morals
 application might endanger the vital interest of the state
Foreign Law was not properly pleaded and proved
FLEUMER V. HIX, 54 PHIL 610
March 17, 1930 GR No. L-32636
FACTS : Petitioner was an administrator of the estate of Edward Hix. When the
petitioner went to court to have the will of deceased Edward probated, it
was refused by the court. Petitioner contends that the deceased was a
resident of Virginia and the will he executed was within the formalities of
Virginia law. In fact he presented the proof such law in a book found in a
national library and thereafter he let it certified by the director of our
national library.
ISSUE : Whether or not proof of Virginia law was properly laid down.
HELD : No, because there was no showing that the book which he presented
was an official publication of West Virginia, nor there was an attestation
by the officer having the custody of the original and there was no proof
that the law he presented was still enforced at the time alleged will was
executed.
Phil. court are not bound to take cognizance of a foreign law which must
be proved as a fact and in the absence of such proof it is considered as
the same as ours.
Furthermore, the due execution of the will was not established because
it was not acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two
competent witnesses or that these witnesses subscribed to the will in the
presence of the testator and of each other as the law of West Virginia
seems to require.
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHONAN
106 Phil 997, January30, 1960 L-12105
FACTS : During the probate of the will and testament of C.O. Bohonan, it was not
disputed that testator Bohonan was a citizen of Nevada and that his will
shall be disposed in accordance with the law of Nevada. Proof of such
foreign law having been offered and taken by the probate court. After
the probate becomes final Magdalena and her children filed with the
court contending that they have deprived of the legitime so they asked
the court to present again the Nevada law to determine on whether or
not the deprivation was in accordance with Nevada laws and to
determine also whether the Nevada law shall apply.
ISSUES : 1) Whether or not the court shall again take judicial notice on
Nevada law
2) Whether or not Nevada law shall apply in the disposition of the
estate of a foreign individual
HELD : 1) Not anymore because it has already been presented and admitted
in court during the probate of the will and that appellant did not
dispute the said law.
In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not
dispute the provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Thus, the
court can taken judicial notice without proof of such law having
been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.
5
 2) Nevada law shall apply. Art.16 of the Civil Code provides that the
validity of testamentary disposition the amount of successional
right the order of succession, the intrinsic validity of the will and
capacity to succeed shall be the governed by the law of the person
whose succession is under consideration regardless of the nature
of the property and regardless of the place where the property is
situated.
NOTE: there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be
properly pleaded and proved as a fact, otherwise, our courts will presume
that the foreign law is the same as our internal law
RAYTHEON INTERNATIONAL INC., vs. STOCKTON ROUZIE, JR.,
G.R. No. 162894, February 26, 2008
FACTS : Respondent, a resident of La Union, instituted an action for damages
arising from breach of contract against petitioner as well as Brand
Marine Services, Inc. (BMSI) and Rust Intl. Inc. (RUST) alleging that
BMSI a foreign corp. organized under the laws of the State of
Connecticut, entered into a contract with respondent where BMSI hired
respondent to negotiate the sale of services in government projects in
which respondent was not paid his commissions from the Pinatubo
dredging project which he secured in behalf of BMSI. Petitioner sought
the dismissal of the complaint on grounds of failure to state a cause of
action and forum non conveniens since the rights and obligations of the
parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Connecticut.
ISSUE : Whether or not the complaint should be dismissed on grounds of forum
non conveniens
HELD : No. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court in conflict 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. In the said case, petitioner’s
averments of the foreign elements in the instant case are not sufficient
to oust the trial court of its jurisdiction. The propriety in dismissing a
case based on the principle of forum non conveniens requires a factual
determination thus, it is more properly considered a matter of defense.
V. THE PROBLEM OF CHARACTERIZATION (6)
CHARACTERIZATION, defined
 the process by which a court at the beginning of the choice-of-law process
assigns a disputed question to an area in substantive law, such as torts,
contracts, family law of property (Coquia)
 the process of determining under what category a certain set of facts or rules
fall, the ultimate purpose of which is enable the forum to select the proper law
(Paras)
Factors which give rise to the problem of characterization: Different legal systems –
 attach to the same legal term with different meanings, that is, an identity of
names covers a difference of nature or content of legal idea;
 may contain ideas or conceptions completely unknown to one another;
 apply difference principles for the solution of problems, which, in general terms,
are of common nature
STEPS IN CHARACTERIZATION
1. The determination of the facts involved
 determine whether or not foreign element is involved
 law of the forum must be guided by its own rules of pleading and proof
2. The characterization of the factual situation
 process of assigning facts into their particular category
 do the facts constitute a problem of –
Suggested Solution –
a. in the absence of an express conflicts rule on the matter, it is
suggested that the characterization of the forum should be adhered
to unless there would result a clear case of injustice
b. apply Philippine express conflict rules
GIBBS V. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS
59 Phil 293 (1933)
FACTS : Petitioner Allison Gibbs was the husband of the deceased Eva Gibbs.
Both were citizen and domiciliary of California at the time of Eva Gibbs’
death. During the existence of their marriage, the spouses acquire parcel
of lands located in the Phil. When Eva died Allison the petitioner then
went to the Register of Deeds and demanded the latter to issue to him a
transfer certificate of title but the Register of Deeds refused to issue and
to register the transfer of title in favor of Allison. So he went to the court
praying that the Register of Deeds shall issue a corresponding title to
him without requiring previous payment of any inheritance tax because
they are citizens and residents of California therefore Californian law will
apply, which provides that community property of spouses who are
citizens of California, upon the death of the wife previous to that of the
husband belongs, absolutely to the husband without admission
ISSUE : Which law shall apply (California or Phil)
HELD : The Phil. law shall apply because the property in question was located in
the Phil. because real property as well as personal property shall be
subject to the law of the country where it is situated, irrespective of the
domicile of the parties or of the place where the marriage was
celebrated. Phil. jurisprudence adopted the doctrine of lex rei sitae
therefore Phil. law shall apply.
6

3. The determination of the conflicts rule which is to be applied
 what conflicts rule must be followed?
 our own conflicts rule should be followed for the following reasons –
a. purpose of conflict rules
b. we still have to identify or definitely ascertain the precise foreign
country that has the nearest or the most intimate connection with
the facts that have been brought out
4. The characterization of the point of contract or the connecting factor –
 whose characterization of the point of contact should be adhered to?
 in case of doubt, the characterization of the forum must certainly prevail
Exceptions –
1. if problem deals with real or personal property, if the question deals
with the validity of their disposition or alienation, or the capacity of
the contracting parties – lex situs govern. If property is situated
at the boundary of two states, lex situs of the portion of the land
directly involved
2. if the forum is merely an incidental place of trial, the
characterization of the forum has to give way to any common
characterization that may exist in the foreign countries involved.
If, upon the other hand, there is no common characterization, we
are of the belief that we may avail ourselves of the characterization
that will uphold the efficacy of the contract. If this may be attained
by making use of our own characterization, by all means, we must
do.
5. The characterization of the problem as substantive or procedural
 procedural matters are governed by the law of the forum (exception to the
application of the proper foreign law)
 a law on prescription of actions is sui generic in the sense that it may be
viewed either as procedural or substantive, depending on the
characterization given to such law
 characterization as to substantive or procedural is irrelevant when the
country of the forum has borrowing statute, which has the effect of
treating the foreign statute of limitation as one substance
Solution:
 consider prescriptive period or the statute of frauds that the parties had in
mind at the time the transaction took place.
Totality approach:
a. first get the law intended by the parties to govern the contract;
b. then, proceed to apply that intended law in its totality including its
periods of prescription and its statute of frauds, except if subject
matter governs property located in the Philippines, our own law on
prescription and our own statute of frauds must apply
Sec. 48, Rules of Civil Procedure – if barred at the place where the
cause of action arose, it is also barred here
 STATUTE OF FRAUDS
Substantive – if the words of the law relate to forbidding the obligation
Procedural – if the law forbids the enforcement of the obligation
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Substantive – when the limitation was directed to the newly created
liability specifically to warrant a qualification of the right
Procedural – if it operates to bar the legal remedy without impairing the
substantive right involved
 BORROWING STATUTE
directs the state of the forum to apply the foreign statute of limitations to
the pending
claims based on a foreign law (treats the statute of limitations as a
substantive law)
CADALIN V. POEA ADMINISTRATOR
238 SCRA 721 (1994)
FACTS : Petitioners filed a class suit against ABC corporation and BRII
corporation a domestic licensed to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino
workers abroad on behalf of its foreign principals on the non-payment of
the unexpired portion of the employment contracts which where
terminated prematurely, fringe benefits and refund of SSS. Respondent
argued that the case has already prescribed in view of the Amari decree
which provides that “A claim arising out of a contract of employment
shall not be actionable after the lapse of one year from the date of the
expiry date of the contract.” But the MLRC ruled that the actions has not
yet prescribed because the prescriptive period for filing of the claims was
three years and not one year as provided in the Amari decree.
ISSUE : Whether or not the Amari decree shall apply
HELD : As a general rule, a foreign procedure law (service of summons, period
of actions, etc.) will not be applied in the forum which shall be governed
by the laws of the forum.
A law on prescription 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.
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.
7

“If by the laws of the state where the cause of action arose, the action is
barred, it is also barred in the Phil.”
II.
A borrowing statute shall not be applied if it is prejudicial to labor and to
the constitution or obnoxious to the forum’s public policy.
The courts of the forum will not enforce any foreign claim obnoxious to
the forum’s public policy.
LWV CONS. CORP. vs. MARCELO DUPO
G.R. No. 172342, July 13, 2009
FACTS : Respondent filed a complaint for payment of service award against
petitioner before NLRC invoking Saudi labor Workmen’s Law. Petitioner
offered payment and prescription as defenses that under Art. 13 of the
Saudi Labor Law, action to enforce payment of the service award must
be filed within one year from the termination of a labor contract for a
specific period. However, the one year prescriptive period lapsed.
ISSUE : Whether or not the Saudi Labor Law on prescription of action will apply.
HELD : No. Applicable law is Art. 291 of the Phil. Labor Code which provides that
“all money claims arising from employer-employee relations shall be
filed within 3 years from the time the cause of action accrued otherwise
they shall be forever barred.” It is not limited to money claims
recoverable under the labor code but also applies to claims of overseas
contract workers. As held in the Cadalin case, procedural matters are
governed by the laws of the forum even if the action is based
upon a foreign substantive law. Thus, respondent’s action has not
prescribed.
6. The pleading and proving of the proper foreign law
 if a duly proved foreign law has already been given a judicial interpretation
in the country of origin, it must generally be given an identical
interpretation in the Philippines, unless, we already have similar or
identical internal law and said internal law has received a diametrically
opposite construction before our own tribunals
7. The application of the proper foreign law to the problem
THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI (11)
A. RENVOI, definition
 procedure whereby a jural matter is presented which the conflict of laws
rules of the forum refer to a foreign law, the conflict of law of which in
turn, refers the matter back to the law of the forum (remission) or a third
state (transmission)
 literally means referring back : problem arises when there is doubt as to
whether a reference to a foreign law –
a. is a reference to the internal law of said foreign law; or
b. is a reference to the whole of the foreign, including its conflicts
rule
B. VARIOUS WAYS OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI
SOLUTIONS TO THE RENVOI
1. Reject the renvoi
 meaning, we do not want the problem to be sent back to us; that we
do not want the matter to be referred back to us (Paras)
 if the conflicts rules of the forum refer the case to the law of another
state, it is deemed to mean only the internal law of the state. Thus,
the court will apply the foreign law (Coquia)
2. Accept the renvoi
 apply or accept it by reference to the whole law, including the conflicts
rule of the foreign law (Paras)
 if the conflicts rules of the forum refer the case to the law of another
state, it is deemed to include the totality of the foreign law (internal
law and conflicts of laws rule). Thus, the court will recognize the
referral back and apply local law. (Coquia)
3. Follow the DESISTMENT THEORY (also referred to as the MUTUAL-
DISCLAIMER OF JURISDICTION THEORY)
 meaning, we desist or refrain from applying the foreign law because it
is inadequate as it is founded on a different basis
 the reason for the desistance is that the forum court upon reference to
another state’s law sees that such law is limited in application to its
own national and has no provision for application to a non-
national(Paras)
 the forum court upon reference to another state’s law sees that such
law is limited in application to its own nationals domiciled in its territory
and has no provision for application to nationals domiciled outside of
the territory. Hence, the local court will apply local law. This has the
same result as the acceptance of the renvoi but the process used by
the forum court is to desist applying the foreign law. (Coquia)
8
 4. Use “FOREIGN COURT THEORY”
 meaning, the local forum, in deciding the case, will put itself in the
position of the foreign court and whatever it does respecting the case,
the Philippine court will likewise do. (Paras)
 foreign court assumes the same position that the foreign court would
take if the case is litigated in the foreign state: Hence –
a. if the foreign court would accept the renvoi, the local court shall
apply the foreign law.
b. if the foreign law would reject the renvoi, the local court shall
apply lex fori
c. if the foreign court would apply the desistment theory, the local
court shall apply the foreign law
d. if the foreign court would use the foreign court theory, then
international pingpong would ensue (Coquia)
DOUBLE RENVOI
 it is that which occurs when the local court, in adopting the foreign
court theory, discovers that the foreign court accepts the renvoi
TRANSMISSION
 the process of applying the law of a foreign state thru the law of a
second foreign state
DOUBLE RENVOI versus TRANSMISSION
 double renvoi deals with 2 countries while transmission deals with
three or more countries
 double renvoi deals with referring back while transmission with a
transmitting
SUGGESTED CONCLUSION
 the theory to be adopted must consider the circumstances of a given
situation that will best result in fairness, equity and justice
AZNAR V GARCIA
117 Phil 106, 7 SCRA 95 (1963)
FACTS : Edward Christensen was a citizen of California. He came to the Phl.
where he became a domiciliary till the time of his death. Before he died
he executed a will instituting his natural child Maria as his only heir to
his estate but left a legacy P3600 in favor of Helen also his acknowledge
natural child. Helen claims that she was deprived of her legitime, she
claims that our Phil. law that should be applied because Art. 16 par.2 of
the Civil Code, California law should be applied, that under California law
the matter is referred back to the law of domicile, that therefore Phil.
law is ultimately applicable, that finally therefore her share shall be
increased in view of the successional rights of illegitimate children under
Phil. law. Maria contends that it is clear that under Art.16 par.2 of Civil
Code, the national of the ceased must apply, our courts must apply the
internal law of California that there are no compulsory heirs and
consequently a testator could dispose of any property possessed by him
in absolute dominion and that illegitimate children not being entitled to
anything under California law.
ISSUE : Which law shall apply?
HELD : Phil. law shall apply. There are two rules in California on the matter, the
internal law which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled in California
and the conflicts rule which will apply to Californian citizens domiciled n
other states which states that “If there is no law to the contrary in the
placed where personal property is situate, it is deemed to follow the
person of its owner and is governed by the law of his domicile.
As the domicile of the deceased who was citizen of California was the
Phil., the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged
natural child of the latter’s legacy should be governed by the Phil. law.
Therefore Helen’s legacy shall be increased.
C. Usefulness of Renvoi (to avoid unjust results)
BELLIS VS BELLIS
20 SCRA 359 (1968)
FACTS : Decedent Amos Bellis was a citizen and a domiciliary of Texas at the
time of his death. He made two wills before he died which are executed
in the Phil., one disposing his properties in Texas and the other his
properties in the Phil. Although respondents were given their shares in
other properties, they were however deprived in the residuary estate of
the decedent. They filed an opposition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimes to which they would be entitled if the Phil. law
were to apply. But the executor contended that since the decedent is a
Texan citizen the Texas law shall be applied. There are no compulsory
heirs under Texas law and therefore no legitimes.
ISSUE : Whether or not respondents entitled to that residuary estate of the
decedent. Whether or not renvoi shall be applied.
HELD : No, because under Art.16 of the NCC that in case of intestate and
testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of success and
to the amount of successional rights, and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provision and the capacity to succeed shall be governed by
the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may b e the nature of the property and regardless of the place
wherein said property may be found.
9
 Testamentary provisions that successional right to decedent’s estate
would be governed by law other than the national law of the decedent is
void.
nvoi doctrine because the decedent is a resident and citizen of Texas at
the time of his death. Renvoi can be applied only if the decedent is a
citizen of one country but a resident in another at the time of his death.
So that even if Texas has a conflict rule regarding successional right the
same would not result in a reference back to Phil. law but would still
refer to Texas Law.
VII. NOTICE OF PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW (RULE 132, RULES OF COURT; RULE 130,
RULES OF COURT)
A. Extent of Judicial Notice
 Section 1, Rule 129, Rules of Court , Judicial Notice, when
mandatory – A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of
states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the
world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of
time, and the geographical divisions
 Section 2, Rule 129, Rules of Court , Judicial Notice, when
discretionary – a court may take judicial notice of matters which are
of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration,
or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions
B. Proof of Foreign Law
1. Written Law (Constitution, Statute)
 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
2. Unwritten Law (Constitution, Statute)
 Oral testimony of expert witnesses or
 By printed and published books of reports of decisions of the country
involved, if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts;
 May exist without enforcement
RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDMENTS
 a foreign judgment is recognized when it is given the same effect that
it has in the state where it was rendered with respect to the parties,
the subject matter of the action and the issued involved. Where the
foreign judgment is being presented as a defense to the claim of the
plaintiff, what is involved is the recognition of a foreign judgment
 a foreign judgment is enforced when, in addition to being recognized, a
party is given affirmative relief to which the judgment entitles him.
When a plaintiff asks the court of one state to carry out and make
effective a judgment obtained by him in another state, what is involved
is the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Requisites:
1. foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi-judicial
tribunal which had competent jurisdiction over the parties and the
case in the proper judicial proceedings in which the defendant
shall have been given reasonable notice and the opportunity to be
heard;
2. it must be a judgment on civil and commercial matters;
3. the judgment must be valid according to the court that delivered
it;
4. judgment must be final and executory to constitute res judicata in
another action
Elements of res judicata:
a. Final
b. Rendered by a competent court
c. On the merits
d. Involve the same parties, subject matter and cause of
action
5. foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or the
good morals of the state where it is to be enforced
6. judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion,
mistake of fact or mistake of law
7. the foreign judgment must not be barred by prescription under
the law of the state in which it was promulgated or under the law
of the state in which its recognition/enforcement is sought
DISTINCTION BETWEEN RECOGNITION
AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
RECOGNITION ENFORCEMENT
OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMEN
Courts will allow the foreign judgment to be Plaintiff wants courts to positively c
presented as a defense to a local litigation make effective in the state a foreign j
Involves merely the sense of justice Virtually implies a direct act of sovere
Does not require either an action of a special Necessitates a separate action or proc
proceeding brought precisely to make the foreign
effective
Necessarily carries with it recognition
 For both recognition and enforcement, proof of
the foreign judgment has to be presented. Moreover, the requisites or
conditions for the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments must
be present.
10

EFFECTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
 Under the Rules of Court, in case of judgment
against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title of the
thing.
 In case of judgment against a person, the
judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and
their successors-in-interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment may
be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion or clear mistake of law of fact
C. Philippine Courts not authorized to take judicial notice of foreign laws
IN RE ESTATE OF JOHNSON
39 Phil 157
FACTS : Emil Johnson was a naturalized citizen of USA but he died in the Phil. He
made a holographic will before he died but was witnessed only by two
witnesses instead of three as required by Phil. law. A petition for probate
was filed before the CFI of Manila by his executor, who contended that
Johnson was a citizen of USA at the time of his death and that the will
was duly executed in accordance with the laws of Illinois, USA which
pursuant to the provision of the Civil Procedure, it can be probated here
in the Phil. He then presented the proof of said law before the court
which was admitted by the same. However, Ebba, the daughter of the
late Johnson moved to annul the decree of probate and prayed for the
commencement of intestate administration of the estate on the ground
that Johnson was not a resident of the state of Illinois (became a
resident in Manila, but offering only a general statement) and that the
probated will was not in accordance with the laws of that state.
ISSUES : 1. Whether or not Johnson is a citizen of USA.
2. Whether or not the will was valid according to the national law of
the decedent.
HELD : 1. Johnson remains a citizen of USA. The petition does not deny the
citizenship of Johnson but only asserts that he became a resident of
the Phil. Mere residency in another country without any intention of
renouncing his citizenship does not necessary follow that he will
immediately acquire citizenship in the state of his new domicile.
2. Yes. The will was in accordance with the laws of USA. The trial
judge was fully satisfied with the proof of such law presented by the
executor of the deceased. Even presuming that the trial judge in
taking judicial notice of the law of USA, such error is not available to
the petitioner daughter because she did not offer any evidence as
what the true law of USA is which would appear that the law found
by the court is different from the true law of Illinois USA.
A.1. Exceptions to the application of the proper foreign law –
When the foreign law is-
 contrary to an important public policy of the forum
 penal in nature
 procedural in nature
 purely fiscal and administrative in nature
 application of the foreign law may work undeniable injustice
to the citizens of the forum
 the case involves real or personal property situated in the
forum
 contrary to good morals
PARDO V. REPUBLIC
85 Phil 323
FACTS : Petitioner Vicente Pardo was a Spanish citizen born in Spain in 1895. In
1905 he went to the Phil. and resides here wherein he married a Filipino
and employed in Manila. Petitioner arrived in the Phil. when he was only
ten years old and has already lived here for 44 years. Petitioner filed a
petition for naturalization but it was opposed by the herein respondent
on the ground that he did not or the evidence that he presented on
whether the laws of Spain grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized
citizen of that country is not sufficient. Petitioner only presented a
certificate signed by the Consul Gen. of Spain in the Phil. stating that in
accordance with Art.17 and 25 of the Spanish Code, Filipinos are eligible
to Spanish citizenship in Spain besides court should have take judicial
notice on this law.
ISSUE : Whether or not court shall take judicial notice.
HELD : Yes, because mot of our laws comes from Spain, the court may take
judicial notice. As the Civil Code has been and still the basic code in
force in the Phil. Art.17 of thereof may be regarded as matters known to
judges of the Phil. by reason of their, judicial functions and may be
judicially recognized by them without the introduction of proof.
A copy of a foreign law certified only by the local consul of the
applicant’s country does not conform to the requirements concerning the
certification and authentication of such law.
11
 Proof of a foreign law on regarding the acquisition of citizenship,
although not meeting the prescribed rule of practice under the Rules of
court, may be allowed and used as basis for a favorable action, if in the
light of all the circumstances, the court is satisfied of the authenticity of
the written proof offered.
PHIL. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK V. ESCOLIN
56 SCRA 266
FACTS : Spouses Charles and Linnie Hodges executed a mutual will wherein they
mutually made a testamentary provisions in favor of each other. Both
spouses resided in the Phil. at the time of the death of Linnie Hodges.
The validity of certain testamentary provisions made by Linnie in favor of
his husband, arose a question as to what exactly were the laws of Texas
on the matter at the time of death of Linnie. PCIB contended that since
Hodges spouses were both residents of the Phil. at the time of the death
of Linnie, Texan Law would result in the renvoi. The other party
contended that no renvoi was possible therefore Texas Law shall be the
applicable law. But PCIB previous admitted that under the laws of Texas
that there is such a legitime of ¼ of said conjugal estate.
ISSUES : 1. Whether or not there is a need to ascertain the laws of Texas.
2. Whether or not by previous admitted on what the Texas law is all
about creates a estoppel?
HELD : 1. 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 exception in
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.
2. Yes, it creates estoppel. The existence and effects of foreign laws
being questions of fact, such previous admission thereof creates
estoppels in any further proceedings.
PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V. BOHONAN
106 Phil 997, January30, 1960 L-12105
FACTS : During the probate of the will and testament of C.O. Bohonan, it was not
disputed that testator Bohonan was a citizen of Nevada and that his will
shall be disposed in accordance with the law of Nevada. Proof of such
foreign law having been offered and taken by the probate court. After
the probate becomes final Magdalena and her children filed with the
court contending that they have deprived of the legitime so they asked
the court to present again the Nevada law to determine on whether or
not the deprivation was in accordance with Nevada laws and to
determine also whether the Nevada law shall apply.
ISSUES : 1) Whether or not the court shall again take judicial notice on
Nevada law
2) Whether or not Nevada law shall apply in the disposition of the
estate of a foreign individual
HELD : 1) Not anymore because it has already been presented and admitted
in court during the probate of the will and that appellant did not
dispute the said law.
In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not
dispute the provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Thus, the
court can taken judicial notice without proof of such law having
been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.
2) Nevada law shall apply. Art.16 of the Civil Code provides that the
validity of testamentary disposition the amount of successional
right the order of succession, the intrinsic validity of the will and
capacity to succeed shall be the governed by the law of the person
whose succession is under consideration regardless of the nature
of the property and regardless of the place where the property is
situated.
LIM V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
36 Phil 472
FACTS : Two children(minors) born in China from a Chinese father and who were
in the custody of their Filipino mother were denied by the respondent to
enter into the Phil. on the ground that under Chinese immigration laws a
certificate shall be necessary in order to enter into the Phil. Petitioners
contended that they are entitled to enter, regardless of the provisions of
the law since the are citizens of the Phil. and that their mother who is
entitled to their custody and charged with their maintenance and
education, is clearly entitled to take up her residence in the Phil. and
should not be required, to that end, to abandon her minor children. But
petitioners failed to prove and present the Chinese law.
ISSUE : In the absence of any evidence of the Chinese law, what law shall apply.
HELD : Infant children of a Filipino woman born in China out of lawful wedlock,
whose father was a Chinese person, seeking entry into the Phil. in the
custody and control of their mother for the purpose of taking up their
12
 residence here with her are not subject to exclusion under the Chinese
Immigration laws.
In the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a
foreign law, it will be presumed to be the same as the domestic law on
the same subject.
Since the court was not advised of any provision of Chinese law which
differentiates the status of infant children, born out of lawful wedlock,
the court therefore assumes that China law is the same in Phil. law
regarding the rights and status of infant children born out of wedlock.
BEAM V. YATCO
82 Phil 30
FACTS : A.W. Beam and his wife Lydia Beam were residents and citizens of
California at the time of Lydia Beam’s death. But sometime during their
marriage they resided her and acquired properties in the Phil. When
Lydia Beam died half of her properties were inherited by the plaintiffs
and consequently the defendant imposed an inheritance tax. Plaintiffs
refused to pay or paid under protest on the ground that A.W. Beam was
a Utah citizen, that under the law of Utah properties acquired by the
spouses during the marriage belong to them separately however A.W.
Beam failed to prove his citizenship. Defendant contends that since he
failed to prove his Utah citizenship the law of the Phil. shall govern. And
that since the properties in questions were acquired by them during their
marriage, it should be considered as part of the community property and
upon the death of the wife, the one belong to her passed by succession
to her heirs in accordance with Art.1401 of the Civil Code and therefore
subject to the inheritance tax.
ISSUE : Failure of A.W. Beam to prove Utah law, what law shall apply?
HELD : When a foreign law is pleaded and no evidence has been presented as to
said law it is presumed that Utah law is the same as in the law of the
forum.
MICIANO V. BRIMO
50 Phil 67
FACTS : A Turkish national made a will wherein he stated that his property shall
be distributed in accordance with Phil. laws and not that of his nation
since the provisions of the will is void. When the judicial administrator of
the Turkish filed a scheme partition proceedings, brothers of the
deceased Turkish opposed on the ground that said provisions in the will
is void being in violation of Art. 16 of the Civil Code. However, the
oppositor failed to prove that the said testamentary provisions are not in
accordance with the Turkish Laws and failed to present any evidence
showing what the Turkish laws are on the matter.
ISSUE : Whether or not partition proceedings be refused. What law shall be
applied.
HELD : No, it shall not be refused because foreign laws shall be proved as a fact
and in the absence of such proof, they are presumed to be same as
these of the Phil. Thus partition proceedings may be continued.
However, by failure to prove by the brother oppositor on what the
Turkish law is all about, the court indulged in a presumption that Turkish
law was the same as ours. And his estate shall be distributed in
accordance with the Phil. laws but testamentary provision made by the
testator shall be void for being contrary to the law.
COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. FISHER
110 Phil 636
FACTS : Stevenson was born in the Phil. of British parents and was married to
Beatrice also a British national. Stevenson died and instituted his wife as
his sole heir to certain properties acquired by both spouses while
residing here in the Phil. when the wife filed a preliminary estate4 and
inheritance tax return, she claims for a deduction of taxes on the ground
that under the Phil. civil law, in the absence of
any ante-nuptial agreement, the contracting parties are presumed to
have adopted the system of conjugal partnership as to the properties
acquired during the marriage, hence, the taxable net estate shall be
reduced. But the petitioner contended that the property relation of the
husband should not be governed by the Phil. but by the English law
which does not recognize legal partnership between spouses, hence all
properties acquired by the husband during the marriage shall belong
exclusively to the husband, and therefore the taxable net estate is the
whole of the decedent’s estate. But petitioner failed to prove said English
law.
ISSUE : Whether or not English law shall be applied.
HELD : No. The pertinent English law that allegedly vests in the decedent
husband full ownership of the properties acquired during the marriage
has not been proven by the petitioner except for a mere allegation in his
13
 answer which is not sufficient. In the absence of such proof, it is
presumed that the law of England on the matter is the same as our law.
PART THREE: PERSONAL LAW
YAM KA LIM VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
30 Phil 46
FACTS : Yam Ka Lim, of Chinese descent, arrived at the port of Manila from the
port of Hongkong and sought admission into the Philippine Islands,
claiming that he is the legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai, a resident
Chinese merchant. The board of special inquiry, questioned his right to
enter the Philippines and after examining the evidence submitted by the
petitioner and from the testimonies of the witnesses, refused to permit
him to land upon the ground that they did not believe him to be the
legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai. Notice of the said decision was
given to Yam Long sai and to his representative William Tracey Page,
giving them 2 days to appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs. Later
a bond was given for the release of the plaintiff. No appeal was taken
from the decision of the board of special inquiry to the Insular Collector
of Customs. Without having first decided whether the Collector of
Customs had abused his authority, the lower court proceeded to hear
evidence upon the question whether or not Yam Ka Lim was the
legitimate minor son of Yam Long Sai. After hearing the evidence and
taking into consideration the laws of China, without any proof as to what
they were, the lower court decided that the said Yam Ka Lim was the
legitimate son of the said Yam Long Sai and ordered him to be released
from the custody of the Collector of Customs and that he be permitted to
enter the Philippine Islands and that the said bond theretofore given be
canceled. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE : Whether or nor the court erred in taking judicial notice of the laws of
China relative to marriage and child legitimacy, which differ from those
in force in the Philippine Islands.
HELD : Yes, the lower court committed an error in taking judicial notice of what
the laws of marriage in China are. The statutes of other countries must
be pleaded and proved the same as any other fact. In the absence of
such pleading and proof the laws of a foreign state will be presumed to
be the same as our own.
There was ample proof in the record to show, or at least to convince the
board of special inquiry, that said Yam Ka Lim was not the legitimate
minor son of the said Yam Long Sai.
VIII. NATIONALITY
 refers to membership in a political community.
 The Philippines adheres to the nationality law Theory
Nationality Law Theory
 is a conflict of law theory by virtue of which jurisdiction over the particular
subject matter affecting a person such as status of a natural person, is
determined by the latter’s nationality (Coquia)
 it is national law of the individual that regulates his civil status, capacity,
condition, his family rights and duties, laws on succession and capacity to
succeed
Nationality vs. Citizenship
 while nationality is membership in an ethnic, social, racial and cultural group,
citizenship is membership in a political society
NATIONALITY CONFLICT RULE
 Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad. (9a)
A. DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY
 Each State has the prerogative and authority to determine by its own municipal
law who are its nationals or citizens
 The Hague Convention on Conflict of National Laws provides “it is for each
state to determine who are its nationals. This law shall be recognized by other
states insofar as it is consistent with international convention, international
customs, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to
nationality.
NOTE: Nationality may be acquired by birth or by naturalization
The three kinds of citizens of the Philippines are –
1. Natural Born Citizens
2. Naturalized Citizens or Citizens by Naturalization
3. Citizens by election
1. NATURAL BORN CITIZENS – those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Native born citizen is one born in the country of which he is a
citizen, hence, a child born to a Filipino mother in Germany is a natural born,
but not native born citizen
14
 Article IV of the Philippine Constitution (1987), The following are citizens
of the Philippines –
a. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution;
b. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
c. Those born before January 17. 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philppine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (within three
years)
d. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
TWO THEORIES on whether place or ancestry determines citizenship
1. JUS SOLI PRINCIPLE – the law of the place of one’s birth determine one’s
nationality
2. JUS SANGUINIS PRINCIPLE – one follows the citizenship of his parents;
this is citizenship by blood
 The Philippine Constitution applies the Jus Sanguinis principle which means the
rule of descent or blood.
TALAROC V. UY, 92
Phil 52 (1952)
FACTS : Respondent Yu was elected as Municipal Mayor. However his election
was questioned by the defeated candidate Talaroc, the herein petitioner,
on the ground that Uy was a Chinese and therefore ineligible for the
position. Respondent contended that his father is a Chinese citizen.while
he was still a minor his father died and that his mother without expressly
expatriating herself ipso facto reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon the
death of her husband. He thus followed his mother’s citizenship and is a
citizen of the Phil. by the mere fact of his birth.
ISSUE : Whether or not Uy is Filipino citizen.
HELD : Filipino, a Filipino woman married to Chinese ipso facto reacquired her
Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband and that thereafter
her minor children’s nationality automatically followed that of the
mother’s.
The rule applies only to minor children not to persons who are already in
age.
CO V. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REP.
199 SCRA 692
FACTS : Private respondents Ong’s father was a Chinese citizen married to a
natural born Filipina in 1932. They bore 8 children, one of whom is
private respondent who was born in 1948. On 1955, private
respondent’s father took his Oath of Allegiance and was declared a
Filipino citizen. In 1984 and 1986 elections, he registered himself as a
voter of Laoang Samar. The following year he ran in the elections for
representative in the 2 nd district of Northern Samar in which he was
proclaimed winner. Petitioner then filed protests on the ground that Ong,
the private respondent was not a natural born citizen of the Phil.
because he failed to file a statement or formal declaration when he
reached the age of majority to elect Phil. citizenship which is required
under the law.
ISSUE : Whether or not there is a need for Ong to file a sworn statement.
HELD : Not anymore. He was already a citizen. Not only because his mother was
a natural born citizen but also his father had been naturalized when the
respondent was still a minor. He exercises his right of suffrage and
established his life here in the Phil.
The exercise of right of suffrage and the participation in election
exercises constitute a positive act of Phil. citizenship.
To require the respondent to elect Phil. citizenship, would not only have
been superfluous but would also have resulted in absurdity considering
that it was the law itself that had already elected Phil. citizenship for
him.
An attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through a direct
action of its nullity, not through a collateral approach.
CORDORA VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. 176947, February 19, 2008
15

FACTS : Gaudencio M. Cordora (Cordora) filed a complaint against Gustavo S.
Tambunting before the COMELEC Law Department that the latter was
not eligible to run for local public office because he lacked the required
citizenship and residency requirements. Cordora presented a certification
from the Bureau of Immigration which stated that Tambunting claimed
that he is an American. According to Cordora, respondent acquired
American citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii. On the
other hand, Tambunting maintained that he did not make any
misrepresentation in his certificates of candidacy. To refute Cordora’s
claim that Tambunting is not a natural-born Filipino, Tambunting
presented a copy of his birth certificate which showed that he was born
of a Filipino mother and an American father, further denying that he was
naturalized as an American citizen and that he also took an oath of
allegiance on 18 November 2003 pursuant to Republic Act No. 9225. The
COMELEC Law Department recommended the dismissal of Cordora’s
complaint against Tambunting because Cordora failed to substantiate his
charges against Tambunting. Cordora’s reliance on the certification of
the Bureau of Immigration that Tambunting traveled on an American
passport is not sufficient to prove that Tambunting is an American citizen
which was affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. Commissioner Rene V.
Sarmiento wrote a separate opinion which concurred with the findings of
the En Banc Resolution, pointed out that Tambunting could be
considered a dual citizen. Moreover, Tambunting effectively renounced
his American citizenship when he filed his certificates of candidacy in
2001 and 2004 and ran for public office. Cordora filed a motion for
reconsideration but was dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE : Whether or not Tambunting is a dual citizen.
HELD : Yes. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer
necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to
acquire American citizenship. Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual
citizenship prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before the
2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting had dual citizenship did not
disqualify him from running for public office.
The SC reiterated a previous ruling in Mercado v. Manzano, wherein dual
citizenship is not a ground for disqualification from running for any
elective local position. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a
person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states whose
parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus
sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a
person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is
concurrently considered a citizen of both states. In Sections 2 and 3 of
R.A. No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per
se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization.
Section 5(3) of R.A. No. 9225 states that naturalized citizens who
reacquire Filipino citizenship and desire to run for elective public office in
the Philippines shall "meet the qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time
of filing the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath" aside from the oath of allegiance
prescribed in Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. In the present case,
Tambunting, a natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become a
naturalized citizen of another country. Hence, the twin requirements in
R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to him.
2. NATURALIZED CITIZENS or CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION – those
who are not natural-born citizens; those who become such through judicial
proceedings
NATURALIZATION is the process of acquiring citizenship of another
country;
a. In the strict sense, it is a judicial process, where formalities of the
law have to be complied with including a judicial hearing and
approval of the petition
b. In the loose and broad sense, it may mean not only the judicial
process but also the acquisition of another citizenship by such acts
as marriage to a citizen, and the exercise of the option to elect a
particular citizenship (Paras)
NATURALIZATION confers to an alien a nationality after birth by any
means provided by the law. In the Philippines, naturalization is by
judicial method under Commonwealth Act No. 473 as amended by
republic Act 530. (Coquia)
QUALIFICATIONS OF NATURALIZATION
a. The petitioner must not be less than 21 years of age on the date of
the hearing of the petition;
b. He must have, as a rule resided in the Philippines for a continuous
period of not less than 10 years;
Note: The minimum ten-year residence requirement is to enable
the government to observe the applicant’s conduct and to
ensure that he has imbibed the principles and spirit of our
Constitution.
However, this period may be reduced to five years in any
of the following cases:
16
 (1) If the applicant has honourably held office under the
Government of the Philippines or under any of the
provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions
thereof;
(2) If he has established a new industry or introduced a useful
invention in the Philippines;
(3) If he is married to a Filipino woman’
(4) If he had been engaged as a teacher in a public or
recognized private school not established for the exclusive
instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality
or race in any of the branches of education or industry for
a period of two years;
(5) If he was born in the Philippines.
c. He must be of good moral character, and believe in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he
is living;
d. He mush own real estate in the Philippines worth not less that Php
5,000.00, or must have some lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
occupation;
e. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one
of the principal Philippine languages
f. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the
public schools or private schools where Philippine history,
government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the
school curriculum during the entire period of the residence required
of him, prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as
citizen (Paras)
YU KIAN CHLE V. REPUBLIC
13 SCRA 282 (1965)
FACTS : Petitioner a citizen of China filed a petition for naturalization before the
CFI of Manila. The petition was granted, thus the respondent appealed.
During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen
case to enable him to present Additional Documentary Proof of his
Income, claiming that his income has risen from P3,000 in 1957 to
P5,100 in 1960 and P1,000 in 1961. The respondent through the Sol.
Gen. moved for the reversal of the decision on the ground that the
petitioner failed to prove that he has a lucrative income considering that
the increase he received was due to the bonuses given by his employer.
ISSUE: Whether or not the applicant has a lucrative income.
HELD: In considering whether an applicant for naturalization has a lucrative
income, allowance and bonuses which may or may not be given to him
as where they spring from purely voluntary actuations of his employer
conditioned to the circumstance that the employer was making profits,
should not be added to his basic salary.
3. CITIZENS BY ELECTION – citizens by virtue of certain legal provisions,
become such by choosing (or electing) Philippine citizenship after attaining
the age of majority or within a reasonable time (within 3 years)
B. Procedure for Naturalization
The following are the steps for naturalization –
1. A declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen must first be filed,
with the Office of the Solicitor General, unless the applicant is exempted
from this requirement;
Exemptions to the filing of Declaration of Intention –
 Persons born in the Philippines and who have received their
primary and secondary education in public schools or private
schools recognized by the government, and not limited to any
race or nationality
 Those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a
period of thirty years or more before filing their application
 The widow and minor children of an alien who declared his
intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he
is actually naturalized
2. The petition for naturalization must then be filed
3. After publication in the official gazette or newspaper of general publication
the petition will be heard
4. If the petition is approved, there will be a rehearing two years after the
promulgation of the judgment awarding naturalization
5. Taking of the oath of allegiance to support and defend the constitution
and the laws of the Philippines (Coquia)
NOTE: The law provides for exemptions to the filing of declaration of intention. They
are the following:
(1) Persons born in the Philippines and who have received their primary and
secondary education in public schools or private schools recognized by the
Government, and not limited to any race or nationality;
(2) Those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of
thirty years or more before filing their application;
(3) The widow and minor children of an alien who declared his intention to
become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually
naturalized.
Effect of Naturalization on Wife and Children
VIVO V. CLORIBEL
25 SCRA 616
17
FACTS : Private respondent Chua Pre Luan, a Chinese mother and her minor
children cam here in the Phil. and were admitted as temporary visitors
with an initial authorized stay of three months. Meanwhile, her husband
and the father of these aliens had applied for naturalization. After the
expiration of their temporary stay, respondents petitioned for an
indefinite extension stay however these was opposed by the petitioner
Commissioner of Immigration. However they are given a two year
extension. On the specified date of the expiration of such extension,
respondent did not leave the country but instead filed for mandamus
with injunction to implement the extension previously authorized by the
Sec. of Foreign Affairs on the ground that the eventual conversion into
naturalized Filipino of her husband will also automatically make her a
Filipino citizen. The Immigration Commissioner in his answer alleged that
even if her husband will become a Filipino citizen, she would not
automatically become a Filipino citizen, as she has yet to show that she
can be lawfully naturalized.
ISSUE: Whether or not the eventual conversion of respondent’s husband would
also automatically make her a Filipino citizen?
HELD: No, an alien woman, married to a naturalized Filipino citizen, does not
automatically make her a Filipino citizen, since she must first prove that
she possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications of
naturalization.
By having misrepresented before Phil. consular and administrative
authorities that she came to the country for only a temporary visit when,
in fact, her intention was to stay permanently and for having
intentionally delayed court processes prolong her stay, respondent
demonstrated her incapacity to satisfy the qualifications for
naturalization that she must be of good moral character and must have
conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during her
entire stay in the Phil.
As to foreign-born minor children, they are extended citizenship “if
dwelling in the Phil. at the time of the naturalization of their parent.”
Dwelling means “lawful residence.” In the case at bar, since their stay in
the country was already expired, it cannot be said that they lawfully
dwells herein the Phil. Hence, citizenship cannot be extended to them.
MOY YA LIM YAO V. COMMISSONER OF IM.,
41 SCRA 292
FACTS : Petitioner Chinese citizen came to the Phil. and contracted a marriage
with Edilberto Lim a Filipino citizen. Petitioner was allowed only to enter
and stay in the Phil. until Feb. 13, 1962, a month after she got married
to a Filipino citizen (Jan. 25, 1962). After the expiration of her authority
to stay in the P.I. the respondent ordered her to leave and causing her
arrest and deportation upon her failure to do so on the ground that
“mere marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien woman does not
automatically confer on the latter Phil. citizenship.” The alien wife must
first posses all the qualifications required by law to become a Filipino
citizen by naturalization and none of the disqualifications. That is she
must first present proof in the naturalization proceedings that she is not
disqualified and that she possessed all the qualifications provided by law.
ISSUE : Whether or not mere marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino citizen
automatically confer to the alien woman a Filipino citizenship.
HELD : An alien woman marrying a Filipino native-born (or naturalized) becomes
ipso facto a Filipino provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Phil. under Sec. 4 Ipso facto means that it is no longer necessary for her
to prove that she possessed the requisite qualifications in a
naturalization proceedings.
Likewise an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently
naturalized her follows the Phil. citizenship of her naturalized husband
provided she possesses none of the disqualifications provided by law.
(Sec.4)
These decisions in effect ruled that it is not necessary for an alien citizen
to prove in a judicial proceeding that she posses all the qualifications set
forth in Sec. 2 and none of the disqualifications under Sec.4.
C. Loss of Citizenship
Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the following ways (Pursuant to
Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Republic Act No 106) by –
1. Naturalization in foreign countries
2. Express renunciation of citizenship
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws
of a foreign country upon attaining 21 years old or more: provided,
however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship
in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any
country;
4. Rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of
a foreign country:
5. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization;
6. Having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the
Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary
pardon of amnesty has been granted and;
7. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, if by virtue
of the laws in force of her husband’s country, she acquires his
nationality
FRIVALDO V. COMELEC
174 SCRA 245
18

FACTS : Petitioner Frivaldo was proclaimed as governor of the province of
Sorsogon and subsequently assumed office. However his election was
opposed by private respondent on the ground that Frivaldo was not a
Filipino citizen having been naturalized in the US in 1983 and that he
failed to repatriate himself after his naturalization in the US. Thus being
an alien he was disqualified to hold any public office in the Phil. and his
election did not cure the defect.
Petitioner admitted the allegation but pleaded a special defense that he
has sough American citizenship only to protect himself against Pres.
Marcos, that his naturalization was not impressed with voluntariness but
was merely force as a means of survival against the unrelenting
persecution by the Martial Law Dictator’s agents abroad and by actively
participating in the election he automatically forfeits his American
citizenship.
ISSUE : Whether or not by actively participating in the election, petitioner can
automatically forfeit his American citizenship and automatically restore
his Phil. Citizenship.
HELD : No. There filing of certificate of candidacy does automatically restore his
Phil. citizenship. And even if petitioner loss his naturalized American
citizenship it will not and could not have the effect of automatic
restoration of his Phil. citizenship.
Reparation requires an express and unequivocal act.
If he really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire
Phil. citizenship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance with
the laws of our country. That is by:
1) Naturalization
2) Direct act of Congress
3) Repatriation
Phil. citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered.
FRIVALDO V. COMELEC
257 SCRA 727
FACTS : Frivaldo obtained the highest number of votes in 3 successive elections
but was twice declared by the Supreme Court to be disqualified to hold
office due to his alien citizenship. He now claims to have re-assumed his
lost Phil citizenship thru repatriation. It was established that he took his
oath of allegiance under the provisions of PD 725 on June 30, 1995,
much later than the time he filed his Cert. of Candidacy.
ISSUE : Whether or not Frivaldo reacquired his Phil citizenship thru repatriation
HELD : Yes. Under Phil. law citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
Congress, by naturalization or repatriation. The law does not specify
any particular date or time when the candidate must possess citizenship,
unlike that for residence and age. The SC holds that the repatriation of
Frivaldo retroacted to the date of the filing of his application on August
17, 1994. Being a former Filipino, he deserves a liberal interpretation of
Phil. Laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality should be
deemed mooted by his repatriation.
LABO, JR. V. COMELEC
176 SCRA 1
FACTS : Petitioner Labo Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio. However his election
was opposed by respondent Lardizabal on the ground that petitioner was
not a citizen of the Phil. based on the administrative decisions rendered
by the Commission of Immigration and Deportation stating that
petitioner was not a citizen of the Phil. since it was contained in the
official statement of Australian citizen by reason of his naturalization.
Petitioner did not deny and admitted the allegations that he was indeed
naturalized in Australia, however he contended that since his Australian
citizenship has already been annulled, he has been therefore
automatically reacquired and reinstated as a citizen of the Phil.
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner automatically reacquired his Phil. Citizenship
on the ground that his Australian citizenship has already been annulled?
HELD : No, the annulment of petitioner’s Australian citizenship did not
automatically restore his Phil. citizenship.
Lost Phil. citizenship may be reacquired only through:
1) Direct act of congress
2) Naturalization or
3) Repatriation
It does not appear however that petitioner has reacquired his Phil.
citizenship by any of these methods.
AZNAR V. COMELEC
185 SCRA 703
FACTS : Lito Osmeña filed his candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of
provincial governor of Cebu however his candidacy was opposed by
petitioner Aznar on the ground that his is allegedly not a Filipino citizen,
being a citizen of USA considering that Osmeña was issued alien
certificate of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter
the Phil. by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Because of
these petitioner assumed that private respondent is an American and
19
 being an American, private respondent must have taken and sworn to
the Oath of Allegiance required by the US Naturalization Laws. Concealment of applicant’s income to evade payment of lawful taxes
Private respondent on the other hand maintains that he is a Filipino shows that his moral character is not irreproachable
citizen alleging that he is the legitimate child of a Filipino, that he is a
holder of a valid and subsisting Phil. passport and that he had been
continuously residing in the Phil. since birth and has not gone out of the
country for more than six months and that he has been a registered
voter in the Phil. since 1965. D. Dual allegiance and Dual Citizenship

ISSUE : Whether or not by mere possessing Alien Certificate of Registration Through the application of the jus soli and jus sanguinis principles a child born of
automatically renders Osmeña an American citizenship and automatically parents who are nationals of a country applying the principle of jus sanguinis, in a
renounces his Filipino citizenship. country applying the jus soli principle has dual nationality.

HELD : No, considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9255 – “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an
American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino.
Private respondent remains a Filipino and the loss of his Phil. citizenship Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
cannot be presumed. Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Petitioner must first present proof that Osmeña had his Filipino
citizenship by any of the modes provided for by law namely:
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any provision of law to the contrary
1) By naturalization in foreign country
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens
2) By express renunciation of citizenship and
of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship
3) By subscribing to an Oath of Allegiance to support the
upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
constitution or laws of a foreign country.

Hence, the petitioner failed to present any of these direct proof, Osmeña
remains a Filipino citizen.
REPUBLIC V. LI YAO
241 SCRA 748
FACTS : Respondent LiYao is a Chinese national and was naturalized as a Filipino
citizen in 1952, the Sol. Gen. filed a petition to cancel Li Yao’s
naturalization on the ground that prior to his naturalization he obtain
unlawful acts which would disqualify for naturalization by maliciously
evading the payment of his correct income taxes for 1946-1951.
Respondent however alleged that he already settled his tax liability
under PD.58 which granted tax amnesty and thereby rendered him free
of any civil, criminal, or administrative liability.
ISSUE : Whether or not tax amnesty obliterates his lack of good moral character?
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that
I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare
that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed
this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this
Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine
citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions:

HELD : No, tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good
moral character and irreproachable conduct which are grounds for
denaturalization.

20
 (1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must Meet the requirements
under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189,
otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other
existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for
holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws
and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities
prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of
which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in
the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens.
MERCADO vs. MANZANO
307 SCRA 630
FACTS : Mercado and Manzano were candidates for Vice Mayor of Makati City.
Manzano won but his proclamation was suspended in view of a pending
petition for disqualification filed by a certain Mamaril who allege that
Maznzano was not a Filipino citizen but an American citizen. The
COMELEC granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy of MAnzano on the ground that he is a dual
citizen invoking Sec. 40 of Local Gov’t. Code that person having dual
citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position.
ISSUE : W/N private respondent is a dual citizen?
HELD : No. The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Sec. 40 refers to dual
allegiance which differs persons with dual citizenship hence does not fall
under the disqualification. By filing a certificate of candidacy when he
ran for his present post, manzano elected Phil. Citizenship and in effect
renounced his American citizenship. Thus, the filing of such certificate of
candidacy sufficed to renounced his American citizenship, effectively
removing the disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.
E. PROBLEMS IN APPLYING THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
1. Dual or multiple citizenship
 In matters of status, he is usually considered by the forum as exclusively
his own national, his additional foreign nationality is disregarded
 In case the litigation arises in a third country, the law most consistently
applied is at that of the country of which the person is not only a national
but where he has his domicile or habitual residence, or in the absence
thereof, his residence
 In view of the rule set in the Hague Convention on Conflict of National
Laws, each state determines who its own nationals are. Article 5 thereof
provides “a third state shall, of the nationalities which such a
person possesses, recognized exclusively in its territory either
the nationality of the country of which he is habitually and
principally resident, or the nationality of the county with which in
the circumstances he appears to be closely connected”. Any
question as to whether or not a person possesses the nationality of a
particular state shall be determined in accordance with the state’s
internal law. Hence it is possible that an individual can be claimed as a
national of two or more states.
 Application of the jus soli and jus sanguinis – A child born of parents who
are nationals of a country applying the principle of jus sanguinis, in a
country applying the jus soli has dual nationality. Thus: A Filipino citizen
who marries an alien may acquire the citizenship of his or her spouse if
the spouse’s national law so allows. A Filipino citizen however, who
marries an alien shall retain Philippine citizenship, unless by his act or
omission, he is deemed under the law, to have renounced it by taking an
oath of allegiance to the spouse’s country or by express renunciation.
Another instance of dual or multiple nationalities is the case of an
individual who is naturalized citizen of another state but has not
effectively renounced his former nationality.
 In the determination of the rights of an individual who may claim
multiple nationalities in the third state, the International Court of Justice
applied the principle of effective nationality.”
MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP ARISES DUE TO:
21
 a. through a naturalized citizen’s failure to comply with certain legal
requirements in the country of origin
b. from a combined application of jus soli and jus sanguinis principle
c. by the legislative act of states
d. by the voluntary act of individual concerned
OH HEK HOW V. REPUBLIC
29 SCRA 94
FACTS : Petitioner a Chinese national filed a petition for naturalization as a citizen
of the Phils. He was allowed by the court to take oath of allegiance and
subsequently was issued a certificate for naturalization. Public
respondent opposed on the ground that petitioner has failed to secure
from Minister of the Interior Nationalist China a permission required by
laws thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese citizenships.
Petitioner contends that said requirements is no longer necessary and
that the naturalization of an alien as Phil. Citizen is governed exclusively
by Phil. Laws and not by any foreign law.
ISSUE : Whether or not a permission from the petitioner’s country is necessary
for a valid renunciation is required for naturalization in the Phil.
HELD : Yes. Sec. 12 of the CA 473 requires the petitioner to absolutely and
forever renounce all allegiance to any foreign country particularly to the
state of which he is a subject or a citizen. Therefore an applicant cannot
be naturalized as a citizen of the Phil. Without first validly renouncing his
former citizenship. The purpose is to divest him of his former nationality
before acquiring Phil. Citizenship because otherwise he would have two
distinct sovereignties which our laws do not permit except: a) when a
foreign country grants the same privilege to Filipino citizens, and b0
such had been agredd upon by treaty between the Phils. and that foreign
state.
2. STATELESSNESS
 refers to an individual who has been stripped of his nationality by his own
former government without having an opportunity to acquire another.
 Stateless persons are generally subject to the law of their domicile or
habitual residence, or in default thereof, to the law of their temporary
residence
STATELESSNESS ARISES DUE TO:
1. Deprivation of his citizenship for any cause such as commission of a
crime;
2. Renunciation of one’s nationality by certain acts, express or implied;
3. Voluntary release from his original state;
4. He may have been born in a country which recognizes only the
principle of jus sanguinis -- or citizenship by blood, of parents whose
law recognizes only the principle of jus soli -- citizenship by birth in
a certain place. Thus he is neither a citizen of the country of his
parents.
 However, the Hague Conference of 1928 on International Private Law
suggested that personal law of stateless individuals shall be the law of the
domicile or the law of the place of temporary residence.
 NOTE: The Convention on the Adoption on the Reduction of
Statelessness (1961) mandates that the jus sanguinis country grants its
nationality to person born within its territory if he would be otherwise
stateless, and the jus soli country to extend its nationality to a person
who would otherwise be considered stateless when any of his parents is a
citizen of the contracting state
KOOKOORITCHIN V. SOLICITOR GENERAL
81 Phil 435 (1948)
FACTS : Petitioner was born in Russia and grew up as a citizen of the defunct
Empires of Russia under the Czar government. After WWII, he came to
the Phils. and resided here and married a Filipina. He then petition for
naturalization and the court granted his petition. The Solicitor General
appealed contending that he is Russian and not a stateless person
because he failed to show that under the laws of Russia, he had lost his
Russian citizenship. Petitioner contends that he is a stateless person
because the empire of Russian had already ceased to exist since the
Czar was overthrown by the Bolshevists and that he disclaims allegiance
or connection with the Soviet Government.
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is a stateless person.
HELD : The fact that the Czar’s government had been already overthrown and
replaced by the Bolshevists to which he disclaims allegiance, he is
deemed to be a stateless person. Knowing the history, nature and
character of the Soviet dictatorship which is presently the greatest
menace to humanity and civilization, it would be technically fastidious to
require further evidence of petitioners claims that he is a stateless
person that his testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian
Communist government and because he has been at war with it, he fled
from Russia to permanently resided in the Phils. after having established
his life in the Phil., marrying a Filipina and joining the guerrillas during
the Japanese Regime, it would be fair that his petition for naturalization
be granted.
22

XI. DOMICILE
 Municipal Law concept is stated in the Civil Code :
Article 50. For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the
domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence. (40a)
 For juridical persons, domicile is determined by the law creating or recognizing it.
A. DEFINITION
 One’s true, fixed permanent home and principal establishment, and to which,
whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning
 To acquire a domicile, there must be concurrence of intention to make it one’s
domicile and physical presence, while “residence” simply requires bodily presence
of an inhabitant in a given place (Coquia)
Distinctions between residence and domicile
1. Residence is an act; while domicile is an act coupled with an intent;
2. Residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which he has taken up
his abode ceases; while domicile has no such intent, the abiding is animo manendi.
Domiciliary Theory
 Is the theory that in general the status, condition, rights, obligations and capacity
of a person should be governed by the law of his domicile (Paras)
Domicile vs. Citizenship or Nationality
 Domicile speaks of one’s permanent place of abode, in general: while , citizenship
and nationality indicate ties of allegiance and loyalty. A person may be a citizen or
national of one state, without being a domiciliary thereof; conversely, one may
possess his domicile in one state without necessarily being a citizen or national
thereof
CAASI V. COURT OF APPEALS
191 SCRA 229
FACTS : Merito Miguel (respondent) run for the position of municipal mayor in
Bolinao, Pangasinan to which he was elected. However his election was
opposed by the petitioners on the ground that he is a green card holder,
hence, a permanent resident of the US not of Bolinao because on the
back of the card, it printed that “Person identified by this card is entitled
to reside permanently and work in the US. In his answer admitted that
he hold a green card but he denied that he is a permanent resident of
the US. He alleged that he obtained the green card only for convenience
in order that he may freely enter the US for his periodic medical
examination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a
permanent resident of Bolinao, that he voted in all elections including
the plebiscite for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
After hearing, the COMELEC ruled that the possession of a green card by
Miguel does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his
residence in the Phil. because in spite of his green card, respondent has
sufficiently indicated his intention to continuously reside in Bolinao as
shown by his having voted in all previous elections.
It is also averred that the act of filing of certificate of candidacy
constitutes a waiver of status as a permanent resident/immigrant in the
US.
ISSUE : 1. Whether or not possession of Miguel of a green card constitutes an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Phil.
2. Whether or not mere filing of certificate of candidacy constitutes a
waiver of status as a permanent resident in the US.
HELD : 1. Yes, Miguel’s immigration to the US constitutes an abandonment of
his domicile and residence in the Phil. for he did not go to US
merely to visit his children but with the intention to live there
permanently as evidence by his application for an immigrant’s visa.
Base on that application he was issued by the US govt. the requisite
green card or authority to reside there permanently.
2. No. His act of filing a COC did not constitute a waiver of his status
as a permanent resident or immigrant in the US. The waiver of his
green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent
of and done prior to the filing of his candidacy and without such
prior waiver, he is disqualified to run for any elective office.
GARCIA FULE V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. L-40502, November 29, 1976
FACTS : Petitioner, Virginia Fule filed with the CFI of Laguna a petition for letters
of administration alleging, inter alia that Amado Garcia, a property
owner of Calamba, Laguna died intestate in Manila, leaving real estate
and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna. Private respondent,
Preciosa Garcia assailed the petition for failure to satisfy the
jurisdictional requirement and improper laying of venue. She contended
that the quoted statement avers no domicile or residence of the
deceased Amado Garcia. On the contrary, Preciosa Garcia claims that,
23
 as appearing in his death certificate presented by Virginia Fule herself
before the Calamba court and in other papers, the last residence of
Amado Garcia was at 11 Carmel, Carmel Subd. Quezon City.
Parentically, in her amended petition, Virginia Fule categorically alleged
that Amado G. Garcia was residing in Calamba, Laguna at the time of his
death, and that he was a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention
for the first district of Laguna.
ISSUE : 1. Whether or not the deceased’s last place of residence was at
Calamba, Laguna.
2. What does the term “resides” mean? Does it refer to the actual
residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his death?
HELD : 1. No. The SC ruled that the last place of residence of the deceased
Amado G. Garcia was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision,
Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna. A death certificate is
admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his
death. 12 As it is, the death certificate of Amado G. Garcia, which
was presented in evidence by Virginia G. Fule herself and also by
Preciosa B. Garcia, shows that his last place of residence was at 11
Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City.
2. This term "resides," like, the terms "residing" and "residence," should
be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or
rule in which it is employed. Even where the statute uses the word
"domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile
in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the
terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes
fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same
meaning as the term "inhabitant." In other words, "resides" should
be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence
or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and
actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely
residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or
domicile. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an
inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence
in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. No
particular length of time of residence is required though; however,
the residence must be more than temporary.
SALUDO, JR. V. AMERICAN EXPRESS
G.R. No. 159507, April 19, 2006
FACTS : Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. filed a complaint for damages against the
American Express International, Inc. (AMEX) and/or its officers alleging
inter alia, that plaintiff "is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, and a member
of the House of Representatives and a resident of Ichon, Macrohon,
Southern Leyte, Philippines." The complaint's cause of action stemmed
from the alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner Saludo's AMEX credit
card and the supplementary card issued to his daughter. Respondents
raised the affirmative defenses that the complaint should be dismissed
on the ground that venue was improperly laid because none of the
parties was a resident of Leyte. Moreover, notwithstanding the claim in
his complaint, petitioner Saludo was not allegedly a resident thereof as
evidenced by the fact that his community tax certificate, which was
presented when he executed the complaint's verification and certification
of non-forum shopping, was
issued at Pasay City. To buttress their contention, respondents pointed
out that petitioner Saludo's complaint was prepared in Pasay City and
signed by a lawyer of the said city. Respondents prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint a quo.
Saludo asserted that such allegations was baseless and unfounded
considering that he was the congressman of the lone district thereof at
the time of the filing of his complaint. The court a quo denied the
affirmative defenses interposed by respondents stating in its order that
the plaintiff at the time he filed the complaint was and still is, the
incumbent Congressman of the Lone District of Southern Leyte with
residence at Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte, is enough to dispell any
and all doubts about his actual residence. As such his personal, actual
and physical habitation or his actual residence or place of abode can
never be in some other place but in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte.
Respondents sought the reconsideration thereof but the court a quo
denied the same. They then filed with the appellate court a petition for
certiorari and prohibition which the appellate court granted the said
petition.
Petitioner Saludo sought the reconsideration of the said decision but the
appellate court denied his motion for reconsideration. Hence, this
petition for review.
ISSUE : Whether petitioner Saludo was a resident of Southern Leyte at the time
of filing of the complaint.
HELD : Yes. Since petitioner Saludo, as congressman or the lone representative
of the district of Southern Leyte, had his residence (or domicile) therein
as the term is construed in relation to election laws, necessarily, he is
also deemed to have had his residence therein for purposes of venue for
filing personal actions. This is because "residence is not domicile, but
domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an
unlimited time.
In the instant case, since plaintiff has a house in Makati City for the
purpose of exercising his profession or doing business and also a house
in Ichon, Macrohon, Southern Leyte, for doing business and/or for
election or political purposes where he also lives or stays physically,
personally and actually then he can have residences in these two places.
Because it would then be preposterous to acknowledge and recognize
plaintiff Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr. as congressman of Southern Leyte
24
 without also recognizing him as actually, personally and physically
residing thereat, when such residence is required by law.
The fact then that petitioner Saludo's community tax certificate was
issued at Pasay City is of no moment because granting arguendo that he
could be considered a resident therein, the same does not preclude his
having a residence in Southern Leyte for purposes of venue. A man can
have but one domicile for one and the same purpose at any time, but he
may have numerous places of residence. It is, likewise, undeniable that
the term domicile is not exactly synonymous in legal contemplation with
the term residence, for it is an established principle in Conflict of Laws
that domicile refers to the relatively more permanent abode of a person
while residence applies to a temporary stay of a person in a given place.
UYTENGSU vs. REPUBLIC
95 Phil 890 (1954)
FACTS : Petitioner Wilfred Uytengsu was born in the Phil. of Chinese parents. He
began his studies here from primary school to college. He filed an
application for naturalization but after the filing he immediately left the
Phil. for the US not returning until several months after the first date set
for the hearing of his application. Subsequently, the CFI of Cebu granted
his application for naturalization.
The republic appealed on the ground that petitioner failed to meet the
residency requirements laid down by law for naturalization that he will
reside continuously in the Phil from the date of the filing of the petition
up to the time of his admission to Phil. citizenship.
Petitioner contends that the word residence laid down by law is
synonymous with domicile which one acquired is not lost by physical
absence until another domicile is obtained and that he continued to be
domiciled in, and hence a resident of the Phil. his purpose in staying in
the US at the time was merely to study therein.
ISSUE : Whether or not for purposes of that law residence is synonymous with
domicile.
HELD : No. for purposes of naturalization law residence requires physical
presence in that place for a longer or shorter period of time. Residence is
used to indicate the place of abode whether permanent or temporary
while domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when
absent, on has the intention of returning. Residence is not domicile by
domicile is residence coupled with intention to remain for an unlimited
time.
Hence, absence during period intervening between the filing of
application and hearing is an obstacle to petitioner’s naturalization.
B. MERITS AND DEMERITS OF DOMICILE
MERITS –
1. In cases where the individual who belongs to a country following the
domiciliary theory is involved in a case before the Philippine courts, his
personal status, capacity, condition, and family rights will be governed by
the law of his domicile;
2. In cases of stateless persons who may claim dual or multiple nationality,
in which case the court will have to refer to their domicile;
3. When an alien domiciled in the Philippines executes a will abroad
DEMERITS –
1. One’s domicile is not ascertainable without first resorting to the courts to
establish whether or not there is animo manendi
2. The notion of domicile differs widely with some states distinguishing
between residence and domicile or attributing different meanings of
domicile for different purposes;
3. If the law of the domicile of origin is given utmost significance, then it will
give rise to the same problem as in nationality
4. In cases where the individual who belongs to a country following the
C. GENERAL RULES ON DOMICILE
1. No person shall be without a domicile;
2. A person cannot have two simultaneous domicile since the very purpose
for identifying one’s domicile is to establish a connection between the
person and a definite legal system;
3. Domicile establishes a connection between a person and a particular
territorial unit.
4. Once acquired, it remains the domicile unless a new one is obtained:
a. by capacitated persons
b. with freedom of choice
c. with actual physical presence
d. and provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent
place of abode, there should be animus manendi (intent to
remain) or animus nonrevertendi (intent not to remain)
5. The presumption is in favor of the continuance of domicile. The burden of
proving a change of domicile is upon whoever alleges that a change has
been secured.
25

ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC
248 SCRA 300
FACTS : Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for the
position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. She stated in the
COC that she is a resident of the place for seven months. Private
respondent Montejo subsequently filed a Petition for Cancellation and
Disqualification on the ground that Imelda failed to meet the
constitutional requirement of one-year residency. COMELEC granted the
Petition for Disqualification, holding that Imelda is deemed to have
abandoned Tacloban City as her place of domicile when she lived and
even voted in Ilocos and Manila.
ISSUE : Whether or not Imelda is deemed to have abandoned her domicile of
origin
HELD : An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and
maintained residence in different places. Residence implies a factual
relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from
legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do
other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not
constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion that “she could not have
been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed
her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many
places” flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court
carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for
election purposes.
UJANO V. REPUBLIC
17 SCRA 147
FACTS : Petitioner Ujano was born of Filipino parent in Ilocos Sur. He left the Phil.
for the US from which he acquired American citizenship by naturalization
and resided there for 20 years. He returned to the Phil. and was
admitted for a temporary stay.
He filed a petition to reacquire his Phil. citizenship, intending to renounce
his allegiance to the US. However his petition was denied by the court on
the ground that he did not have the residence required by law, which is
six months before he filed his petition for reacquisition of the Phil.
citizenship.
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner’s domicile is required to reacquire his
citizenship.
HELD : Yes. One of the qualifications for reacquiring Phil. citizenship is that the
applicant shall have resided in the Phils. at least six months before he
applies for reacquisition.
Residence here has already been interpreted to mean the actual or
constructive permanent home otherwise known as domicile. A place in a
country where he lives and stays permanently and to which he intends
to return after temporary absence, no matter how long.
So an alien who has been admitted as a temporary visitor cannot be said
to have established his domicile here because the period of his stay her
is only temporary and must leave when the purpose of his coming is
accomplished.
D. KINDS OF DOMICILE
1. Domicile of origin refers to a person’s domicile at birth.
2. Domicile of choice, which is also called voluntary domicile, is the place freely
chosen by a person sui juris.
3. Constructive domicile or domicile by operation of law - that which is assigned
to a person after birth on account of legal disability caused for instance by
minority, insanity or marriage in the case of a woman
NOTE: The forum determines domicile according to his own standards
VELILLA V. POSADAS
62 Phil 624 (1935)
FACTS : Arthur Moody was on American citizen who came here in the Phil. and
domiciled therein. Moody died in India, but before his death he executed
a will bequeathing all his properties, consisting mainly of bands and
shares of stocks of corporations organized under Phil. law in favor of his
only sister who was then a citizen and resident of US. The BIR imposed
an inheritance tax over those properties inherited by Moody’s sister.
Petitioner as administrator was a non-resident of the Phils. and the levy
and imposition of inheritance tax over the properties of Moody
constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law.
ISSUE : Whether or not Moody was legally domiciled in the Phil. at the time of his
death.
HELD : Yes. There’s nothing on record which would appear that he adopted a
new domicile while he was absent from Manila.
To effect the abandonment of one’s domicile, there must be a deliberate
and provable choice of new domicile, coupled with actual residence in
26
 the place chosen, with a provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and
permanent place of abode.
CARABALLO V. REPUBLIC
4 SCRA 1055
FACTS : Ricardo Caraballo, petitioner, an American citizen who lives in Clark
Field, Pampanga by reason of his enlistment in the US air Force together
with his wife to adopt a minor Filipino child. However this was apposed
by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner is a non-resident-
alien because being enlisted as a staff seargent in the US Airforce, his
stay in the Phils.is merely temporary.
FACTS
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is a non-resident alien.
HELD : Yes, petitioner is a non-resident alien thus disqualified to adopt. For
purpose of adoption, person is deemed to be a resident of a place in a
country where he has abode and lives there permanently. It is a place
chosen by him freely and voluntarily, although he may later on change
his mind and live elsewhere.
A place in a country or stat where he lives and stays permanently and to
which he intends to return after a temporary absence no matter how
long is his domicile.
GO CHEN AND GO LEK V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
65 Phil 550
FACTS : Petitioners were minor children of Go Tuan and Tan Bon. After Go
Tuan’s death, Tan Bon married another Chinese. Shortly thereafter, she
ISSUE
came to the Philippines with her second husband. She was admitted as
the wife of a Chinese merchant, and has been residing in the Phil. For 8
years. Petitioners remained in china until Tan bon who is engaged in
furniture business in Cebu asked them to join her in the Phil.
HELD
Thereafter, Lek and Chen, arrived in Cebu and took up their abode with
their stepmother and brother.
ISSUE : Whether or not Tan Bon is entitled to bring her minor children by her
first marriage to the Phil.
HELD : No. A man’s domicile is also a domicile of his wife and minor children
and that he is duty bound to protect, support and keep them in his
company. A Chinaman’s chinese wife and her minor children, then do
not enter the Phil through their own right but by virtue of the right of the
husband or father, unless the Chinese wife belongs to the privileged
class. Tan Bon who seeks to bring in her minor children, did not enter
the Phils. by her own right but by virtue of her second husband’s right
thus, she is not entitled to bring in her minor children by another
chinaman who never had a legal residence in the archipelago.
DE LA VINA V. VILLAREAL AND GALANO
41 Phil 13 (1920)
: Narcisa Geopano filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Iloilo against Diego de la Viña, alleging That she was a
resident of the municipality of Iloilo and that the defendant was a
resident of Negros Oriental; that she was the legitimate wife of the
defendant, having been married to him in Negros oriental that defendant
had been committing acts of adultery with one Ana Calog, sustaining
illicit relations with her and having her as his concubine and that the
defendant ejected the plaintiff from the conjugal home, for which reason
she was obliged to live in the city of Iloilo, where she had since
established her habitual residence. Upon the said allegations, she prayed
for a decree of divorce, partition of the conjugal property and alimony.
Dela Vina filed a petition for certiorari on the ground that CFI, Iloilo had
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said action for divorce because
the defendant was a resident of Negros oriental and the plaintiff, as his
wife, must also be considered a resident of the same province because
under the law, the domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the
wife. De la Vina asserted that the plaintiff, Geopano could not acquire a
residence in Iloilo before their marriage was legally dissolved.
: Whether or not Geopano cannot acquire a residence in Iloilo before their
marriage was legally dissolved.
: No. It is true that the domicile of the wife follows that of her husband.
However there are exceptions namely:
1. The wife may acquire another and separate domicile from that of
her husband where the theoretical duty of the husband and wife is
dissolved; or
2. Where the husband has given due course for divorce; or
3. Where there is a separation of the parties by agreement, or a
permanent separation due to desertion of the wife by the husband
or attributable to cruel treatment on the part of the husband; or
4. Where there has been forfeiture by the wife of the benefit of the
husband’s domicile.
27
 In the case at bar, defendant’s case comes under one of the exceptions.
Therefore, Narcisa may acquire a residence or domicile separate to that
of her husband, during the existence of the marriage, where her
husband, de La Vina has given course for divorce.
FACTS
X. PRINCIPLES ON PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY
A. DEFINITION
ISSUES
STATUS
 Status, is the place of an individual in a society and consists of personal
qualities and relationships, more or less permanent, with which the state
and the community are concerned
HELD
 Personal status is the general term that includes both condition and
capacity, and more specifically embraces such matters as the beginning
and end of human personality, capacity to have rights in general, capacity
to engage in legal transactions, protection of personal interests, family
relations, particularly the relations between husband and wife, parent and
child, guardian and ward, also transactions of family law, especially
marriage, divorce, separation, adoption, legitimation and emancipation,
and finally succession both testate and intestate.
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATUS
1. Status is conferred principally by the state not by the individual;
2. Status is a matter or public or social interest B.
3. Status being a concept of social order, cannot easily be terminated at
the mere will of desire of the parties concerned;
4. Status is generally supposed to have a universal character, when a
certain status is created by law of one country, it is generally judicially
recognized all over the world
CAPACITY
 Capacity more often referred as Juridical capacity, is the fitness of a man
to be the subject of legal relations while capacity to act is the power to do
acts with juridical effects.
RECTO V. HARDEN
100 Phil 427
: Appelant Esperanza Harden engaged the professional service of
Appealee Recto in an action against her husband Fred Harden for divorce
whereby it was agreed that Mrs. Harden shall pay Recto 20% of the vale
of her share in the conjugal partnership after liquidation. Pending
litigation, several instruments were executed by Mr. Harden and Mrs.
Harden, mutually releasing and forever discharging each other from all
actions, debts and claims to the conjugal partnership. Subsequently
Recto filed a manifestation in court that the purpose of said instrument
was to defeat his claim of Attorney’s fees and praying that he be payed
of Attorney’s fess. Counsel fro both spouses moved for the dismissal of
the case on the ground that the agreement between Recto and Mrs.
Harden could not bind the conjugal partnership because it was made
without her husband’s consent and that the said contract has for its
purpose to secure a decree of divorce in violation of the Art. 1305, 1352,
1409 of the Civil Code.
: 1. Whether or not the agreement between Recto and Mrs. Harden
binds the conjugal partnership.
2. Whether or not the said contract which is allegedly void shall be
governed by Art. 1305, 1352, 1409 of the Civil Code?
: 1. No. The wife merely bound herself and assumed the persona
obligation. The contract neither gives any right to her lawyer
whatsoever, personal or real, in and to her aforesaid
2. No. Inasmuch as both spouses were citizens of USA, their status
and the dissolution thereof shall be governed by Art. 15 of the Civil
Code, that is by their nat’l law, by the laws of USA which sanction
divorce. In short, the contract between Recto and Mrs. Harden are
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
Legislative jurisdiction v. judicial jurisdiction
 Judicial Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court or
administrative tribunal to try a case, render judgment and execute it
in accordance with law while Legislative Jurisdiction which is the
power of the state to promulgate laws and regulations and enforce
them on all persons and property within its territory (Coquia)
BARNUEVO V. FUSTER
28
 29 Phil 606  The determination of the exact moment personality begins is referred
to the individual’s personal law. Articles 40 and 41 of our Civil Code
FACTS : Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yañez were joined in a Catholic or give our internal rules on the beginning of human personality.
canonical marriage in the city of Malaga, Spain.On April, 1899, they
made an agreement in a public document, by which they "resolved to
Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall
separate and live apart. Then, Constanza commenced divorce
be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it,
proceedings against her husband alleging his adultery. She prayed that
provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the
she be granted a divorce that the conjugal society be liquidated that her
following article. (29a)
share be adjudicated to her and payment of support be ordered. The
court then decreed the suspension of life in common between plaintiff
and defendant, ordered payment of support and directed plaintiff and
defendant that the communal property be divided. Both parties
appealed in which both appeals have one common issue relating to the
alleged dowry brought into the marriage by the wife in the amount of
30,000 spanish dollars in which Constanza as paraphernal.
Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is
ISSUE : W/N Phil courts may take cognizance of the case to decree the divorce alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's
on appeal. womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less
than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within
HELD : Yes. In the present action for divorce the Court of First Instance, Manila twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal
did not lack jurisdiction over the persons of the litigants, for, although womb. (30a)
Spanish Catholic subjects, they were residents of this city and had their
domicile herein. Foreign Catholics domiciled in Spain, subject to the  As civil personality is commenced at birth, it is extinguished by death.
ecclesiastical courts in actions for divorce according to the said article 80 Under the principle of personal law, a declaration of death issued by a
of the Civil Code, could not allege lack of jurisdiction by invoking, as the competent court is considered valid for all purposes. Upon the death of
law of their personal statute, a law of their nation which gives a person, some of his rights and obligations are totally extinguished
jurisdiction in such a case to territorial courts, or to a certain court while others are passed on to his successors.
within or without the territory of their nation.
D. ABSENCE
The Courts of First Instance of the Philippine Islands have the power and
jurisdiction to try actions for divorce and have the authority to decide on  The domestic law of different countries do not treat absentees alike and
questions concerning foreigners’ status by applying their national law. this has given rise to difficult problems in conflict of laws. There are three
suggested ways of dealing with the problem: first, there is a rebuttable
presumption that a person is dead when he has been absent for a number
of years; second, a person’s unexplained absence is judicially investigated
and established which results in legal effects similar to those of death;
and third, a judicial decree shall have to be issued declaring the person
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT dead before legal effects of death take place.
 Philippine laws follow the rebuttable presumption of the common law. Our
Civil Code states:
Beginning of personality of natural persons National Law of the Child (Art. 15, of the
Civil Code) Article 390. After an absence of seven years, it being unknown whether or
Ways and effect of emancipation National Law (Art. 15, of the CC) not the absentee still lives, he shall be presumed dead for all purposes,
Age of majority National Law (Art. 15 except for those of succession.
Use of names and surnames National Law (Art. 15
Use of titles of nobility National Law (Art. 15
The absentee shall not be presumed dead for the purpose of opening
Absence National Law (Art. 15
his succession till after an absence of ten years. If he disappeared after
Presumptions of death and survivorship Lex fori (Arts. 43, 390, 391, CC; Rule 131,
the age of seventy-five years, an absence of five years shall be
Sec. 5 (jj), Rules of Court
sufficient in order that his succession may be opened. (n)
C. BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY
Article 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes,
including the division of the estate among the heirs:

29
 (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an
aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for
four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;
(2) A person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and
has been missing for four years;
(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other
circumstances and his existence has not been known for four
years. (n)
 However, for specific purposes, our laws require that a declaration of death
be issued before certain legal effects of death arise. For instance, article 41
of the Family Code requires that for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage, the spouse presnt must first institute a summary
proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee
spouse without which the subsequent marriage is void ab initio.
E. NAME
 The law expressly states that “no person can change his name or surname
without judicial authority.” Case law shows the courts have allowed
petitions on grounds that the name 1) is ridiculous or tainted with
dishonour or extremely difficult to pronounce; or 2) when the change is
necessary to avoid confusion; 3) when the right to a new name is a
consequence of a change in status; 4) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino
name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper
social and business life.
F. AGE OF MAJORITY
 The legal disability attached to minority and rights recognized upn
attainment of the age of majority are aspects of personal status. It is the
individual’s personal law which determines whether he has reached the age
of majority. Once emancipated, parental authority over the person and
property of the child is terminated and he is qualified and responsible all
acts of civil life save the exceptions established by existing laws in special
cases, such as the parent’s continued observance of their responsibilities
under article 46 of P.D. 603.
 Likewise, although Republic Act No. 6809 lowered the age of majority to 18
years from 21 years, it expressly stated that parental consent for
contracting marriage is required until the age of twenty-one.
G. CAPACITY
 A person’s ability to act with legal effects is governed by his personal law.
One’s personal law is viewed as best qualified to decide what restrictions
should be imposed on the individual. Rules on capacity of an individual to
bind himself
INSULAR GOV’T. V. FRANK
13 Phil 236 (1909)
FACTS : Mr. Frank an American citizen entered into a contract with the Phil. gov’t
to serve as a stenographer for a period of two years. He only serve for
six months hence petitioner filed a suit against him. Mr. Frank alleged
that he was under Phil. law a minor at the time the contract was entered
into and was therefore not responsible under the law. However, it was
disclosed that the contract was entered into in USA in which Frank was
considered an adult.
ISSUE : Whether or not Mr. Frank be held liable.
HELD : He should be held liable, because his capacity to enter into a contract
should be governed by his national law.
PART FOUR: CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS
XI. CHOICE OF LAW IN FAMILY RELATIONS
A. MARRIAGE (13 & 14)
 Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal
and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social
institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the
property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
Marriage as a contract has two kinds of requisites:
1. Formal Requisites, generally do not affect the validity of the marriage. Art. 3
of the Family Code provides for three formal requisites namely –
a. authority of the solemnizing officer
b. marriage license
c. marriage ceremony where the contracting parties appear before the
solemnizing officer
2. Essential Requisites, affects the validity of the marriage. Art. 3 of the Family
Code prescribes two essential requisites to marriage:
a. legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and female
b. consent freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer
30
THEORIES ON THE FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE – Mixed Apply rule on marriages between foreign
uphold the validity of the marriage
Celebrated in the Between Foreigners National Law (Art. 21, Family Code) prov
1. Compulsory Theory – it is imperative for the parties to follow the formalities Philippines marriage is not highly immoral or univers
of the place of celebration (this is followed in the Philippines) considered incestuous
2. Optional Theory – parties may follow either the lex loci celebrationis or their Mixed National Law of the Filipino (otherwise, p
national law. This rule is followed in most countries policy may be militated against)
3. Ecclesiastical Rule – The formalities of both the lex loci celebrationis and the Marriage by Proxy Lex loci celebrationis (with prejudice with
national law of the parties must be complied with Note: a marriage by foregoing rules
proxy is considered
celebrated where the
QUERY: Is a common-law marriage valid in the Phils. If between foreigners and if proxy appears
the relationship began abroad?

ANS: Yes, provided it is valid according to their national and according to the place
where the relationship began. To avoid injustice, particular conceptions of
marriage in foreign jurisdiction must be considered provided it is not
bigamous, polygamous or universally considered incestuous.
3. Extrinsic validity of marriage
UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED INCESTOUS:
RULES GOVERNING EXTRINSIC VALIDITY
1. Between ascendants and descendants, whether relationship is
illegitimate or legitimate GENERAL RULE lex loci celebrationis
2. Brothers and sisters – whether full or half-blood or legitimate or 1. All states recognized as valid those marriages celebrated in foreign country if they
illegitimate comply with the formalities prescribed therein (Hague Convention)
2. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments shall be
governed by the laws of the country in which they were executed (Article 17, Civil
If Turk brings to the Phils. 4 wives, validly married to him. Should all marriages Code)
be considered valid here? 3. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in
force in the country they were solemnized and valid there as such shall also be
1. For cohabitation purposes, first wife shall be considered legitimate, the rest valid in this country (Art. 26, Family Code)
concubines.
2. For purposes and determining successional rights, all wives and children,
considered as legitimate in view of the nationality theory. EXCEPTIONS:

The following are void marriages between Filipinos even if valid in the foreign country
FACTUAL SITUATION where celebrated of in case of mixed marriages celebrated in the Philippines –
POINT OF CONTACT
Celebrated Abroad Between Filipinos G.R. Lex loci celebrationis 1. When either or both parties are below 18 years of age even with parental consent;
Exceptions: 2. Bigamous and polygamous marriages
1. Art. 26 (solemnized outside the Philippines) 3. Mistake at to identity of contracting party
Art. 35, par. 1, 4, 5 & 6, (void ab initio), 4. A subsequent marriage performed without recording in the Civil Registry the
36 (incapacity), Art. 37 (incestuous), judgment or annulment or declaration of nullity and partition and distribution of
(public policy) of the family code properties and the delivery of children’s presumptive legitimes;
polygamous & incestuous marriages 5. Marriages where either spouse is psychologically incapacitated;
2. consular marriages 6. Incestuous marriages
Between Foreigners G.R. Lex loci celebrationis 7. Void by reason of public policy
Exceptions:
1. Highly immoral (bigamous, polygamous & NOTE: These exceptions put into issue the capacity of the parties to enter the
incestuous marriages marriage and therefore relation to the substantive requirements for
2. Universally considered incestuous, ie. marriage. since the personal law of the parties, e.g., the national law of the
Between brothers-sisters & between Filipinos, governs the questions of intrinsic validity of marriages between the
ascendants and descendants

31
 Filipinos abroad, the above enumerations are exceptions to lex loci
celebrationis precisely because they are controlled by lex nationalii
MIXED MARRIAGES ABROAD
-between Filipino and Alien
-marriages of first cousins abroad
-considered valid not being universally considered incestuous
-doubt should be resolved in favor of validity of marriage
MIXED MARRIAGE IN THE PHILIPPINES
- Filipinos national law shall be followed otherwise public policy may be militated against
MARRIAGES BY POXY
-if in the Phil. invalid due to required Physical presence-Filipinos and mixed marriages
only
-if foreigners, valid – if valid in their national law
-if abroad, whether between Filipinos or foreigners or mixed , rule is lex loci
celebrationis, place where proxy appears subject to exceptions.
ADONG V. CHEONG SENG GEE
43 Phil 43 (1922)
FACTS : Cheong Boo a native of China died intestate in the Phil. His estate was
claimed on one hand by Cheong Seng Gee who alleged that he was a
legitimate child of the former by virtue of marriage to Tan Dit in China in
1895. On the other hand, Mora Adong also claimed the said estate by
vertue of her marriage to the deceased in 1896 in the Phil. the trial court
ruled that Cheong Seng Gee failed to establish the Chinese marriage.
Respondent appealed contending that the alleged marriage in China
could be sufficiently proven mainly by matrimonial letter.
ISSUE : Whether or not a marriage contracted in China, proven mainly by a
matrimonial letter is valid in the Phil.
HELD : No. The rule is that all marriages contracted outside the Phil. which
would be valid by the laws of the country in which the same were
contracted are valid in the Phil. provided that it is first necessary to
prove the existence of such foreign law and the alleged foreign marriage
by convincing evidence.
In the case at bar there is no competent testimony what the laws of
China concerning marriage were in 1895 and the respondent failed to
prove the existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage by a clear and
strong and unequivocal evidence as to produce moral conviction of the
existence of the alleged prior Chinese marriage.
PEOPLE V. MORA DUMPO
62 Phil 246 (1935)
FACTS : Moro Hassan and Mora Dumpo were legally married according to the
rites and practices of the Mohammedan. Mora Dumpo allegedly
contracted another marriage with another man without her previous
marriage being dissolved. Respondent was then prosecuted and
convicted of the crime of bigamy. Respondent appealed alleging that her
second marriage was null and void according to the Mohammedan rites
on the ground that her father had not given his consent thereto.
ISSUE : Whether or not she should be prosecuted for bigamy.
HELD : No. it appears from the Mohammedan rites that before an Imam or
Mohammedan priest could solemnize marriage, it is first necessary to
secure the consent of the bride’s father or, in the absence thereof that of
the chief of the tribe to which she belongs for the marriage to be valid,
otherwise absence of such consent would make the marriage void.
In the case at bar there was a failure of the respondent to obtain such
consent hence she should not be prosecuted for bigamy.
WONG WOO YU V. VIVO
13 SCRA 552
FACTS : In the proceedings held before the Board of Special Inquiry, petitioner
declared that she was married to Perfecto Blas a Filipino in China in 1929
an that their marriage was celebrated by a village leader. On the basis of
such declaration, the BSI admitted her into the Phil. as a non-quota
immigrant. However this decision was reversed by the new set members
of the BSI on the ground that there was no substantial basis of a
husband-wife relationship between Woo and Blas and that there was
some discrepancies found in the statements made by them in sever
investigations conducted by immigration authorities concerning their
alleged marriage before a village leader in China in 1929.
ISSUE : Whether or not the alleged marriage be given effect in the Phil.
HELD : No. The rule that a marriage contracted outside the Phil. which is valid
under the law of the country in which it was celebrated is also valid in
the Phil. cannot be given effect in the case at bar because there was no
proof presented relative to the law of marriage in China.
32
 In such case we should apply the general rule that in the absence of
proof of the foreign law, it should be presumed that it is the same as our
own.
Since our law only recognizes a marriage celebrated before any of the
officers mentioned under the law and a village leader is not one of them,
it is clear that petitioner’s marriage, even if true, cannot be recognized
in this jurisdiction.
4. Intrinsic validity of marriage
RULES GOVERNING INTRINSIC VALIDITY
 controlled by the parties personal laws (either domiciliary or nationality)
5. Effects of marriage
a. personal relations between spouses
MARRIAGE AS A STATUS
 Marriage as a status carries with it implications in two fields:
1. Personal rights and obligations of the spouses – personal affair between
husband and wife and will not ordinarily be interfered with the courts of
justice. Includes mutual fidelity, cohabitation, respect, assistance and
support; right of wife to use husband’s surname; duty to follow husband’s
residence;
GOVERNING LAW: National law of the husband.(given preference-
Point of contact) Subsequent change of nationality of the spouses are
proposed to have the following effects: (Effect of Change)
a. if both will have a common nationality – the new one
b. if only one will change – the last common nationality
c. if there never was any common nationality – the national law of the
husband at the time of the wedding (Hague Convention) (Paras)
 it is governed by the NATIONAL LAW OF THE PARTIES.
 if the spouses are of different nationalities, generally the national law of
the husband may prevail as long as said law is not contrary to laws,
customs and good morals of the forum.
 this includes mutual fidelity, respect, cohabitation, support, and the right
of the wife to use the husband’s family name.
 Art 69. of the Family Code reads: “The husband and the wife shall fix
the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The
court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter
should lived abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for
the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is
not compatible with the solidarity of the family.”
CASE:
Japanese woman came and admitted to the Philippines as transient. Her
passport was found to have been forged. Deportation proceedings
ensued. Later she married a Filipino. Could she still be subject to
deportation?
ANS: Yes. Mere marriage to a Filipino did not automatically make her a
Filipino. It is essential that she must not be possess any of the
disqualifications for naturalization.
b. property relations of spouses
GOVERNING LAW: in the absence of a contrary stipulation in the
marriage settlement, national of the husband, regardless of the place of
celebration of the marriage and their residence. (Paras)
 it is governed by the national law of the husband
without prejudice to what the Civil Code provides concerning REAL
property located in the Philippines
 Art 80 of the Family Code provides: In the
absence of a contrary stipulation in a marriage settlement, the property
relations of the spouses shall be governed by the Phil laws, regardless of
the place of the celebration of the marriage and their residence.
(Coquia)
However, this rule shall not apply:
a. where both spouses are aliens
b. with respect to the extrinsic validity of contracts affecting property
not situated in the Philippines and executed in the country where
the property is located; and
c. with respect to the extrinsic validity of the contracts entered into in
the Philippines not affecting property situated in a foreign country
whose laws require different formalities for their extrinsic validity
(Art. 80, Family Code)
NOTE: The subsequent change of the nationality of the husband or the wife has no
effect on the spouses’ original property regime EXCEPT when the law of the
original nationality itself changes the marital regime, in which case the
property relations should change accordingly. This is the DOCTRINE OF
IMMUTABILITY IN THE MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIME.
33
 Reasons:
1. Marital peace in property relationship
shall be more or less guaranteed;
2. The spouse will not be able to prejudice
creditors, who in turn cannot jeopardize the interest of the spouses;
3. Even the spouses may protect themselves
from each other.
IMMUTABILITY OF THE REGIME
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE MUTABILITY OF THE LAW
 While subsequent change of nationality does not affect the original
property regime (doctrine of immutability) in the marital property
relationship, it cannot be denied that when the law of the original
nationality itself changes the marital regime, the property relations has
to change accordingly.
B. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT
 Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that : All marriages solemnized
outside the Phil, in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be
valid in this country except those prohibited under Article 35, 37 and
38.
 Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall have the capacity to remarry under Phil. Law.
ANNULMENT/DECLARATOIN OF NULLITY – lex loci celebrationis
 Grounds for annulment (if the marriage is voidable merely) and
grounds for declaration of nullity (if the marriage is void ab initio) are
governed by the law alleged to have been violated; in other words, it
is the law of the place of celebration (lex loci celebrationis) subject to
certain exceptions, that furnished the grounds
1. Jurisdiction to annul - in practically all civil countries
following the nationality principle nationals of the forum are
permitted to sue for annulment irrespective of their
domicile. In many countries today however, jurisdiction is
FACTS
vested in the court of the domicile of the parties
Jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant is not
essential. It is the status of the plaintiff that is in issue. He
should be domiciled in the forum.
2. The governing law – lex loci celebrationis (of the
marriage) determines the consequences of any defect to
form. Generally, the same applies with reference to
substantive or intrinsic validity. But with regard to capacity
of the parties to marry, their national law is determinative
ABSOLUTE DIVORCES
 GENERAL RULE: our courts only observe relative divorce (legal
separation). Any divorce sought in the Philippine courts will not be
granted Filipino couples cannot obtain absolute divorces abroad and
neither shall a valid divorce obtained abroad by Filipino couples be
recognized here.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. Valid divorce abroad between foreigners whose national law
allow divorce
2. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner
is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly
obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to
remarry under Philippine Law.
 Hague Convention provides that the granting of divorce or separation
must comply with the national law of the spouses and the law of the
place where the application for divorce is made
 Grounds for annulment (if the marriage is voidable merely) and
grounds for declaration of nullity (if the marriage is void ab initio) are
governed by the law alleged to have been violated; in other words, it
is the law of the place of celebration (lex loci celebrationis) subject to
certain exceptions, that furnished the grounds
1. DIVORCE DECREES OBTAINED BY FILIPINOS
TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO
15 SCRA 355
: On 24 February 1948 in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City Vicenta
Escaño exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, without the
knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, was duly registered
with the local civil register. The parents of Escaño, alarmed about the
scandal that would ensue from the clandestine marriage sought priestly
advice. Father Reynes suggested a recelebration to validate what he
believed to be an invalid marriage, from the standpoint of the Church,
due to the lack of authority from the Archbishop or the parish priest for
the officiating chaplain to celebrate the marriage, however, the
recelebration did not take place. On 24 June 1950, she left for the United
34
 States. On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce
against the herein plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in
character." On 21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and
absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal. Escano’s
parents filed a petition with the Archbishop of Cebu to annul their
daughter’s marriage with Tenchavez. Thereafter, Vicenta sought papal
dispensation of her marriage. Then, Vicenta married an American,
Russell Leo Moran, in Nevada. She acquired American citizenship on 8
August 1958. But on 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint against
Escaño for legal separation and damages. Vicenta claimed a valid divorce
from plaintiff and an equally valid marriage to her present husband. The
lower court did not decree a legal separation but freed Tenchavez from
supporting his wife, hence this appeal.
VAN DORN V. ROMILLO
139 SCRA 139 (1985)
FACTS : Petitioner is a Filipina citizen while private respondent is an American
citizen. They were married in Hongkong but thereafter obtained a
divorce in the USA. Subsequently after the divorce petitioner remarried
to another American citizen.
Private respondent filed a suit against petitioner before the RTC of Pasig
stating that petitioner’s business in Ermita, the Galleon Shop is their
conjugal property and asking that petitioner should make an accounting
because even if they have obtained a divorce in the US, the same is not
valid and binding in the Phil. being contrary to law and public policy.

Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the
cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce
proceedings before the Nevada court wherein respondent had
ISSUE : W/N the divorce filed by Escaño is valid.
acknowledged that he and she had no community property.

HELD : No. It is equally clear from the record that the valid marriage between ISSUE : Whether or not the divorce is recognized as valid in the Phil.
Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escaño remained subsisting and
undissolved under Philippine law, notwithstanding the decree of absolute HELD : Yes. A divorce decree granted by a US court between a Filipina and her
divorce that the wife sought from the State of Nevada, on grounds of American husband is binding on the American husband and is recognized
"extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." At the time the divorce as valid in the Phil.
decree was issued, Vicenta Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino
citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law, and Article 15 of the Civil Absolute divorce obtained by an alien abroad may be recognized as valid
Code of the Philippines (Rep. Act No. 386), already in force at the time, in the Phil. if valid under the national law of such alien.
expressly provided:
Only Phil. nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces
the same being considered contrary to our public policy and morality.
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.

From the preceding facts and considerations, there flows as a necessary

consequence that in this jurisdiction Vicenta Escaño's divorce and second
marriage are not entitled to recognition as valid; for her previous union to This ruling does not apply if the divorce is obtained by the Filipina.
plaintiff Tenchavez must be declared to be existent and undissolved. It
follows, likewise, that her refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her An American granted absolute divorce in his country with is Filipina wife
denial of consortium and her desertion of her husband constitute in law a is stopped from asserting his right over property allegedly held in the
wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is entitled to the Phils. as conjugal property by him and his former wife.
corresponding indemnity (Civil Code, Art. 2176). Wherefore, her marriage
and cohabitation with Russell Leo Moran is technically "intercourse with a
person not her husband" from the standpoint of Philippine Law, and
entitles plaintiff-appellant Tenchavez to a decree of "legal separation
under our law, on the basis of adultery" (Revised Penal Code, Art. 333).
PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA
174 SCRA 653

35
FACTS : Petitioner is a Filipina while private respondent Geiling is a German
national. Both parties were married in Germany. Subsequently because
of some marital disharmony Geiling filed a divorce suit in Germany.
Thereafter, the German court granted the divorce on the ground of
failure of marriage of the spouses. Subsequently after the divorce decree
private respondent filed a complaint for adultery before the CFI of Manila
against petitioner, alleging that while still married to him, petitioner had
affairs with two other men. Petitioner filed for the dismissal of the case
on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction to try and decide the
case3 because there is already a divorce decree between the spouses
under the national law of his former spouse prior to the filing of the
criminal complaint hence he cannot qualify as an offended spouse.
ISSUE : Whether or not the case be dismissed.
HELD : Yes. The status of the complainant as well as the accused must be
determined as of the time the complaint was filed. Thus, the person who
initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is
meant that he is still married to the accused spouse at the time of the
filing of the complaint. In the case at bar private respondent being no
longer the husband of petitioner had no legal standing to commence the
adultery case, since there was already a valid divorce obtained by him in
his country by which its legal effects may be recognized in the Phil.
insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons.
QUITA V. COURT OF APPEALS
300 SCRA 406
FACTS : Petitoner and Arturo Padlan were Filipino citizens and married under the
Phil. laws. Because o some marital conflicts, petitioner obtained a
divorce in US and subsequently contracted a second marriage still in US.
When Arturo died petitioner claimed as a hereditary heir of Arturo
contending that their divorce in US is invalid being contrary to law and
public policy in the Phil. Private respondent Blandina Padlan on the other
hand claimed that she was the lawful heir because Arturo’s previous
marriage was already dissolved by virtue of divorce filed by the
petitioner in the USA.
When the case was elevated in the CA, the latter ordered to remand the
case to the trial court because there was factual issue involved. However
it was contended by the petitioner that there is no need to remand the
case because there was no factual issue involved because what is only to
be resolved is whom of them is the proper heir of Arturo.
ISSUE : Whether or not there was a factual issue involved as to remand the case
to the trial court.
HELD : Yes, there was, because there is still a need to determine as to what is
the citizenship of the petitioner at the time of her divorce of his husband
because:
a) If she is no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce,
then she is no longer entitled to inherit from her husband
“because a divorce obtained by an alien abroad, is recognized
in the Phil. provided they are valid according to his/her national
law.
b) But if she is still a Filipino citizen at the time of the divorce,
then she is still entitled to inherit from her husband because a
divorce by a Filipino citizen abroad is not valid and binding
being contrary to law and public policy.
REPUBLIC vs. CIRPRIANO ORBECIDO, III
G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
FACTS : Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church
of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. In 1986, Cipriano’s
wife left for the United States with their son. A few years later, Orbecido
discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen. In
2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce
decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. Cipriano thereafter
filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed.
Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same. The Republic,
herein petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
sought reconsideration but it was denied (that said article is not
applicable to the said case because it only applies to a valid mixed
marriage). Hence this petition for review.
ISSUE : W/N RESPONDENT CAN REMARRY UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE FAMILY
CODE
HELD : Yes. The SC stated the twin elements for the application of par. 2, Art.
26:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between
a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid
divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to
remarry.
In this case, when Cipriano’s wife was naturalized as an American
citizen, there was still a valid marriage that has been celebrated between
36
 her and Cipriano. The naturalized alien wife subsequently obtained a
valid divorce capacitating her to remarry. Clearly, the twin requisites for 1. Their national law is willing to recognized Philippine
the application of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 are both present in this case. jurisdiction
Thus, Cipriano, the “divorced” Filipino spouse, should be allowed to 2. Separation is agreeable to the internal law of the national
remarry. state o the parties
Par. 2, Art. 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving NOTE: Grounds for legal separation are the cumulative grounds
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino provided by the national law of the parties (lex
citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign nationalii)
citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise
be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a foreigner at the time 2. Validity of foreign divorce between foreigners
of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to
sanction absurdity and injustice. The foreign decree of divorce will be recognized as valid here only
if the following conditions concur –
ART. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in
accordance with the laws in force in the country where they a. The foreign court must have jurisdiction to grant the
were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in absolute divorce;
this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), b. The divorce must be recognized as valid by the national
(5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. law of the parties

NOTE: while there is no provision of law requiring Philippines

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is
courts to recognize a divorce decree between non-Filipinos
validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained
rendered by a foreign court, such will be recognized under the
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry,
principle of international comity unless to do so would violate an
the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under
important public policy of the Philippines (Coquia)
Philippine law. (Emphasis supplied
C. ANNULMENT AND DECLARATION OF NULLITY

The grounds for annulment is governed by the law of the place of

the celebration.

The service of summons is governed by the state or the domicile

or the residence of the parties.

DISTINCTION: ANNULMENT AND DECLARATION OF

Accordingly, for his plea to prosper, respondent herein must prove NULLITY OF MARRIAGE;
his allegation that his wife was naturalized as an American citizen. A voidable marriage is valid until it is annulled. The
Likewise, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own remedy here is therefore, Annulment. If the marriage is null and
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and void, there is no need of a declaration of nullity, since there is
demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign nothing to annul..
law must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of
foreign laws. Like any other fact, such laws must be alleged and D. Parental Relations
proved. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce 1. determination of legitimacy of child
decree allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 2. common law principles on legitimacy
26. Otherwise, there would be no evidence sufficient to declare that he 3. parental authority over the child
is capacitated to enter into another marriage.

LEGAL SEPARATION

 There is no obstacle to aliens in securing relative divorce in the

Philippines, provided –
37
  NOTE: Presumptions of Legitimacy are not mere rules of evidence but are
considered as substantive law, hence, governed as well by the
national law of the male parent

RIGHST OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD:

E. Adoption 1. to bear the surname of the father and the mother;
2. to receive support from their parents, brothers and sisters, in proper
LEGITIMACY, LEGITIMATION AND ADOPTION cases
3. to the legitime and other successional rights

FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
Paternity and Filiation (including Parental 1. if legitimate – national law of the father (Art.
Authority and Reciprocal Support) – 15, Civil Code)
legitimacy, legitimation, recognition, 2. if illegitimate – national law of the mother
presumptions of legitimacy , rights and unless recognized by the father in which
obligations of parents and children, including case, national law of the father (Art. 15, of
parental authority, and reciprocal support the Civil Code)
3. determination of whether legitimate or
illegitimate (national law of the father, as a
rule) (Art. 15, Civil Code)
Doctrine of Immutability of Status –
of parent’s nationality does not affect the
status of the child
Adoption – creation of the status of adoption; In general, national law of the adopted
rights and obligations of adopter and adopted NOTE: In the Philippines adoption by a
Filipino does not confer Filipino citizenship on an
adopted alien child
Guardianship
1. over the person
a. appointing court court of the domicile of the ward
b. powers of guardian coextensive with those of the appointing court
(law of the appointing state)
2. over the property
a. appointing court court where the property is found (lex rei sitae)
coextensive with those of the appointing court
b. powers of guardian (law of the appointing state)
see 3 (a) and 3 (b)
3. over the person and over the
property
where the body is buried
4. funerals
GOVERNING LAW OF THE LEGITIMACY OF A CHILD
 The legitimacy of the child is determined by the national law of the
parents at the time of birth, Art. 15, NCC. If the parents belong to different
nationalities, legitimacy of the child is determined by the national law of the
male parent
 NOTE: The law governing the capacity to succeed and the amount of
successional rights of the legitimate children are governed by the
national law of the decedent
LEGITIMATION
 Is the act by which a person not born legitimate, is placed upon the same
footing as a legitimate child
LAWS OF REGULATING RELATIONS
BETWEEN LEGITIMATE/ LEGITIMATED CHILDREN AND PARENTS
GOVERNING LAW OF THE LEGITIMATED CHILD
 The national law of the male parent at the time of the marriage shall
govern
a. whether legitimation has been effected
b. whether or not the legitimation will have retroactive effect
c. other connected matters
 Personal law of the father controls the rights and duties of parents
and children;
EXCEPT: parental interest in the immovable property of the child which may
be regulated by the lex situs
NOTE: Reference to the personal law of the father may result in joint
exercise of parental authority over the property of the child by
father and mother (Art. 221, Family Code). Father’s personal law
could grant parental authority to the mother of the illegitimate
children (Art. 176, Family Code)
NOTE: Change in the nationality of the male parent affects the
consequent relations between the parents and child
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS INVOLVED UNDER PHILIPPINE LAWS INCLUDE:
1. Personal Care
2. Parental Authority
3. Provide for Education
4. Reciprocal Support
LAWS REGULATING RELATIONS BETWEEN ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
 Relations between the mother and the illegitimate child are governed
by the mother’s personal law.

38
  If the child is later legitimated, personal law of the child follows that
of the father
RIGHST OF AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD:
1. to bear the surname of the mother;
2. to receive support
3. to legitime
ADOPTION
 is the process of making a child whether related or not to the adoption,
possess in general the rights accorded to a legitimate. (Paras)
 the act by which relations of paternity and affiliation are recognized as
legally existing between person not so related by nature. (Coquia)
NOTES:
1. Jurisdiction to Grant Adoption – The Philippine Courts shall have
jurisdiction to grant petition for adoption but must apply the lex
fori with respect to procedural matters
2. Capacity of Aliens to Adopt - The cumulative substantive
requirements of the forum and of the national law of the adopter
must be complied with (Principle of Cumulation) see Art. 184,
Family Code, PD 603, RA 852, Domestic Adoption Act and RA
8043, Inter-Country Adoption Act
3. Effect or Consequences of Adoption –
a. successional rights – governed by the conflict rules on
succession
b. parental authority – governed by the national law of the
adopter
4. Recognition of Decree of Adoption - The Philippines recognized
the principle of foreign adoptions validly rendered and recognized
where effected. However, such adoption is still subject to
municipal law, i.e. the obligation to register and adoption in the
civil register, except, such adoption shall not be recognized if it is
contrary to public policy or residents’ interest forbids its
enforcement (Agpalo)
REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS
227 SCRA 401
FACTS : James Anthony Hughes as American citizen and his wife Lenita Hughes
who was later naturalized as a citizen of USA jointly filed a petition to
adopt Ma. Cecilia, and Neil and Mario all surnamed Mabunay, minor
niece and nephews of Lenita, who had been living with the couple even
prior to the filing of the petition. The minors as well as their parents
gave consent to the adoption.
ISSUE : Whether or not the spouses can successfully adopt the three Filipino
minors?
HELD : In the case of James being an alien he is not qualified to adopt because
under the Family Code, an alien is not qualified to adopt except:
a) A former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative by
consanguinity
b) One who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his/her Filipino
spouse or
c) One who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt
jointly with his or her spouse a relative by consanguinity of the
latter.
In the case of Lenita, although she is qualified to adopt under par. 3(a)
of Art. 184 FC, the problem is under Article 185 of the said law, which
requires a joint adoption by the husband and wife which is a condition
that must be read along together with Art.184. Because Art. 185 of the
Family Code provides that:
“The husband and wife must jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
1) When one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child or
2) When one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of the
other.
They will not also fall under par.3(c) because Lenita is already naturalized
in other country. For joint adoption, it must be necessary that one of
them is a Filipino.
UGGI LINDAMAND THERKELSEN V. REPUBLIC
12 SCRA 400
FACTS : Petitioners Uggi Lindamand a Danish subject who has been granted
permanent residence in the Phil. and his wife Erlinda Blancaflor seeks to
adopt the minor Charles Blanclaflor who is the natural child of Erlinda in
the former marriage. It appears that the minor sought to be adopted has
been living with them ever since the marriage of petitioners and Uggi
has treated the minor as his son. The Manila Juvenile and Domesti
Ralations Court, denied the application on the ground that an alien
cannot adopt a Filipino unless the adoption would make the Filipino
minor a citizen of the alien country. Petitioner-husband being an alien,
he cannot adopt the minor who is a Filipino citizen, following that of his
natural mother.
ISSUE : Whether or not the adoption of minor will prosper.
HELD : Yes, the New Civil Code only disqualifies from being adopters those
aliens that are either:
a) Non-residents or
39
 b) Who are residents but the Republic of the Phil. has broken lease, easement, police power, eminent
diplomatic relations with their govt. Outside of these two cases, domain, taxation, quieting of title, registration
alienage by itself alone does not disqualify a foreigner from and prescription
adopting a person under the law.
Exceptions:
There is no requirement that in order for an alien to adopt, it must be
Exceptions
that the adopted Filipino minor becomes a citizen of his country.
(a) successional rights
(b) capacity to succeed (a) national law of decedent (Art. 16,
(c) contracts involving real property but (b) national law of decedent (Art. 16,
which do not deal with the title thereto (c) the law intended will be the prope
(d) contracts where real property is given as contract (lex loci voluntatis or lex
security intentionis)
NG HIAN V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (d) the principal contract is governed
34 Phil 248 law of the contract (lex loci volun
intentionis)
FACTS : Marcosa Jiongco was born in the Phil. of a Filipino mother and a
Chine3se father. She was married to a Chinese citizen. Marcosa Jiongco Note: The mortgage is governed b
adopted the child of his husband in the former marriage named Ng Hian, lex re sitae.
the herein petitioner. When Jiongco and her adopted child arrived at the (2) Tangible Personal Property
port of Manila, the respondent refused Ng Hian, the petitioner, to enter (chooses in possession)
the Phil.
(a) In general, tangible personal property (a) Lex re sitae (Art. 16, par. 1, Civil
ISSUE : Whether or not Ng Hian be allowed to enter the Phil. (extrinsic and intrinsic validity of
alienations, transfers, mortgages,
capacity of parties, interpretation of
documents, effects of ownership, co-
ownership, accession, usufruct, lease,
easement, police power, eminent
HELD : Yes. In the case of Ex parte Fong Yim, the Federal Court of the United domain, taxation, quieting of title,
States held that “A Chinese merchant domiciled in the US has the right registration and prescription
to bring into this country with his wife and minor children legally adopted Exceptions:
by him in China, where it is shown that the adoption was confide and
that the children have lived as members of his family and have been (a) successional rights Exceptions
supported by him for several years.” (b) capacity to succeed
(c) contracts involving real property but (a) national law of decedent (Art. 16,
In the case at bar, the fact that Ng Hian had been adopted by his which do not deal with the title thereto (b) national law of decedent (Art. 16,
stepmother who has the right to enter territory of the Phil., we are of the (d) contracts where real property is given as (c) the law intended will be the prope
opinion and so hold that Ng Hian has also the right to enter the Phil. as security the contract (lex loci voluntatis or
her adopted son. intentionis)
(d) the principal contract is governed
PART FOUR: CHOICE OF LAW proper law of the contract (lex lo
PROBLEMS voluntatis or lex loci intentionis)

Note: The pledge is governed b

XII. Choice of Law in Property (19) lex re sitae.

Synopsis of Conflict of Rules on Property (b) means of transportation (b)

1) vessels 1) Law of the flag or in some cas
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT registration
(1) Real Property (extrinsic and intrinsic validity of (1) Lex re sitae (Art. 16, par. 1, Civil Code) 2) other means 2) Law of the depot (storage plac
alienations, transfers, mortgages, capacity of or resting place
parties, interpretation of documents, effects of (c) thing in transit (these things have a (c)
ownership, co-ownership, accession, usufruct,

40
 changing status because they
move)
1) loss, destruction, deterioration
2) validity and effect of the seizure
of the goods
3) disposition or alienation of the
the goods
(3) Intangible Personal Property
(chooses in action)
(a) recovery of debts or involuntary
or garnishment of debts
(b) voluntary assignment of debts
(c) taxation of debts
(d) administration of debts
(e) negotiability or non-negotiability
of an instrument
(f) validity of transfer, delivery or
negotiation of instrument
(g) effect on a corporation of the
sale of corporate shares
(h) effect between the parties of
the Sale of corporate shares
(i) taxation on the dividends of
Corporate shares
(j) taxation on the income from the
sale of corporate shares
(k) franchises
(l) goodwill of a business and
1) Law of the destination (Art. 1753 of
The civil code)
2) locus regit actum (where seized)
because said place is temporary situs
3) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci intentionis
because here there is contract
(3)
(a) where debtor may be effectively
serve with summons (usually the
domicile)
(b) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis (proper law of the
contract
Other theories:
1) national law of the debtor or
creditor
2) domicile of the debtor or the
creditor
3) lex loci celebrationis
4) lex loci solutionis
(c) domicile of creditor
(d) lex situs of assets of the debtor ( for
these assets can be held liable for the
payment of the debts
(e) the right embodied in the instrument
(ex. In the case of Swedish bill of
exchange, Swedish law determines its
negotiability)
(f) in general, situs of the instrument at the
time of transfer, delivery or negotiation
(g) law of the place of incorporation
(h) law of the place of incorporation
(i) law of the place of incorporation
(j) law of the place where the sale was
consummated
(k) law of the place that granted them
taxation thereon (l) law of the place where the busi
carried on
(m) patents, copyrights,trademarks,
tradenamed\s (m) in the absence of a treaty, the
protected only by the state th
granted them
Note: Foreigners may sue for infring
of trademarks and tradename
the Philippines only if Filipinos
granted reciprocal concession
state of the foreigners.
A. The Controlling Law
The old law on movables was mobilia sequuntur personam which meant
that the rights over movables were governed by the law of the owner’s
domicile.
The applicable law is the lex situs. The conventional wisdom for lex situs is
the execise of power, the state where the property is situated having the sole
power to decide the validity and effects of the transfer of property.
The rationale for the lex situs or lex re sitae rule now universally
recognized is that being physically a part of the country, it should be subject to
the laws thereof.
B. Capacity to transfer or acquire property
The capacity of the person to transfer or acquire real property is governed
by the law of the place where the property is located.
LLANTINO V. CO LIONG CHONG
188 SCRA 592
FACTS : Petitioners spouses leased their lands in favor of the respondent who
was a Chinese national. Knowing that the lease would end in 1967, the
Llantinos requested respondent for a conference but the latter did not
honor the request and instead informed them that he had already
constructed a commercial building on the land, that the lease was for a
period of 60 years and that he was already a Filipino citizen. Petitioners
filed a case contending that respondent had, at the execution of the
contract, no right to hold by lease the property involved for being an
alien.
ISSUE : Whether or not the contract of lease is valid.
HELD : Yes. A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid. So is an option
giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he is
granted Phil. citizenship. Aliens are not completely excluded by the
41
 constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. The only
instance where a contract of lease may be considered invalid is if there
are circumstances attendant to its execution which are used as a
scheme to circumvent the constitutional prohibition that is exemption if
an alien is given not only a lease of but also an option to buy a piece of
land without any condition that he is granted Phil. Citizenship. If the
period of lease is unreasonable say 50 years or more, it may amount to
an indirect circumvention of the restriction and will be construed as a
sale, in violation of the constitutional provision.
CHEESMAN V. IAC
193 SCRA 93
FACTS : Plaintiff Cheesman, an American citizen got married in 1970 to Criselda,
Cheesman, a Filipina, but separated in 1981. A deed of sale was
executed in 1974 conveying a parcel of land and the house therein
infavor of Criselda. Thomas, although aware of the deed, did not object
to the transfer being made only to his wife. In 1981, Criselda sold it to
Estelita Padilla. Thomas sued Criselda and Estelita and prayed for the
annulment of sale on the ground that the transaction had been executed
without his knowledge and consent. Defendants contended that the
property sold was paraphernal, having been purchased by Criselda with
funds exclusively belonging to her. That Thomas, being an American
citizen was disqualified to have any interest or right of ownership in the
land. Thus, Estelita was a buyer in good faith.
ISSUE : Whether or not Cheesman, an alien is capacitated to question the
subsequent sale made by his wife.
HELD : No. The fundamental law prohibits the sale to aliens of residential land.
Sec. 14, Art. XIV of the l1973 Constitution ordains that ‚‘‘ Save in cases
of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or
conveyed except to individuals xxx qualified to acquire lands of public
domain. Thus, he had no capacity or peronality to question the
subsequent sale of the same property by his wife on the theory that in
doing so, he is merely excersing the prerogative of a husband in respect
of a conjugal property. To sustain such a theory would permit in direct
controversies of the constitutional prohibition.
The theory of lex sitae governs the following things connected with real property:
a)the extrinsic validity of alientation
b)Transfers
c)Mortgages
d)Capacity of the parties
d)Interpretation of documents
e)Effects of ownership
f) Co-ownership
g)Accession
h)Usufruct
i)Lease
j)Easement
k)Police power
l)Eminent Domain
m)Taxation
n) Quieting of title o)Registration and p)Prescription
Example:
A Japanese donated in Germany in favor of a Filipino a parcel of land in the
Philippines.
(a) The law of which country governs the formalities of the
donation? Why?
Answer: The law of the Philippines – the lex re sitae
governs the formalities of the donation. (Art. 16, par. 1, Civil
Code).
The law of lex celebrationis does not apply because the
transaction relates to land and must therefore be governed
by the law of the place where the land is situated.
(b) The law of which country governs the capacity of the
Japanese to make the alienation? Why?
Answer: The law of the Philippines – the lex rei sitae –
governs the capacity of the Japanese to alienate. (Art. 16,
par. 1 Civil Code) Here the doctrine of national law under Art.
15, of the Civil Code yields precisely because the subject
matter is land.
(c) The law of which country governs the intrinsic validity of the
donation? Why?
Answer: The law of the Philippines – lex re sitae governs
the intrinsic validity of the donation. (Art. 16, par. 1, Civil
Code). The general rule of lex voluntatis or lex intentionis
yields to the lex re sitae rule because the subject matter is
land.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE IN THE CASE OF REAL PROPERTY
1.) In case of successional rights – national law of the deceased
2.) Capacity to succeed – national law of the deceased
Example: A Turkish citizen died leaving parcels of land in the Philippines. How
should the court distribute the successional rights of his heirs to said
real property? Suppose one of the compulsory heirs is a Chinese, what
law governs the capacity of this Chinese heir to inherit land in our
country?
42
 Answer: The successional rights of the heir to the parcels of land in the Philippines
shall be governed by the national law of the deceased that is Turkish
law.
The capacity of the Chinese heir to inherit Philippine realty is also
determined by Turkish law for this is the decedent’s national law.
3.) Contracts involving real property but which do not deal with the title to such
real property
Example: In Manila, a German, owning land in Switzerland, agreed to pay as
salary to a Japanese employee, 10% of the annual produce of the land
in Switzerland, on condition that’s said land would not be expropriated
by the Swiss authorities. It was the mutual desire of both parties that
the stipulation of their employment contract should be governed by
Philippine laws. What law governs the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of
their agreement?
Answer: The extrinsic validity of the agreement is governed by Philippine law
because the contract was celebrated in our country.The intrinsic
validity shall also be determined by Philippine law for this was likewise
the lex loci voluntatis. The fact that the contract involved land located
in Switzerland is of no moment, for the agreement does not concern
itself with any transfer of title thereto, at least as between the parties.
4.) Contracts where real property is given by way of security, the principal
contract (generally the contract of loan)
a) if the principal contract is valid, the validity of the accessory contract
of mortgage is still to be determined by the lex res sitae. If the
mortgage is void by the lex re sitae, the principal contract can still
remain valid
b) if tested by the lex loci voluntatis or lex loci intentionis, the principal
contract is void, the mortgage would also be void, even if considered
independently by itself the mortgage would have been regarded as
valid by the lex re sitae.
Example: Two Frenchmen in France entered into a contract of loan, with
Philippine land as security by way of mortgage. Assuming that in
France, a contract of loan to be valid must be in public instrument, in
the Philippines it does not have to be. Now, then if the contract of
loan and contract of mortgage are in private instrument, can the
mortgage be enforced in the Philippines?
Answer: No. Since the contract of loan is in a private instrument and therefore
void in France, the contract of mortgage is rendered automatically
void in our country – for when a principal contract fails, the
assessory obligations shall also be void.
C. Extrinsic And Intrinsic Validity Of Conveyance
Formalities of a contract to convey property are likewise governed by the
lex situs
Rules:
2. Any transfer of property which requires registration of title
cannot be accepted by the registry of property unless the
formal requirements of the lex situs are complied with
3. Lex situs law applies to the essential validity of transfer
unless the lex intentionis is clearly established.
4. Lex situs also governs the effects of the conveyance of
properties.
RULES FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY:
Personal property may be tangible or intangible. The tangible are more
appropriately referred to as choses in possession whereas intangible are more
accurately known as choses in action.
Example of Choses in possession that usually move:
Query: If, the contract certain limitations of liability as to as to the
negligence on the part of the carrier are agreed upon, can the
carrier invoke this clause of the contract at the point of
destination, the laws thereof, as well as those of the place,
where the contract was made, permitting such limitations, if the
damage and negligence of the carrier which caused such damage
occurred while the merchandise was in transit in a state which
did not recognize the validity of such stipulation?
Answer: Yes, the carrier can invoke the clause in question. It does not
matter that in the state where the damages occurred the
stipulation is not recognized. What is important is the recognition
given to the stipulation at the place of destination. Art. 1753 of
the civil code provides that thelaw of country to which the goods
are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common
carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Example of Choses in action in intangible personal property:
1) For recovery of debts or for the involuntary assignment of debts
Example: A German, domiciled and found in California, owes a Filipino in
Manila in the amount of money. Generally, where should the
Filipino sue for the recovery of the debt?
Answer: Generally, the suit must be instituted in California because the
debtor is domiciled and found there. However, should he be in
Japan, for instance, litigation may be commenced in Japan
because this is the convenient and practical solution.
43
 2) Validity and effectiveness of a voluntary assignment of a debt depends
on the lex loci voluntatis or lex loci intentionis.In other words the
proper law of the contract.
Example: A Filipino is the creditor of a German domiciled in Manila. The
credit is the result of a business transaction entered into in
Manila. Payment is stipulated to be in Manila. If the Filipino
while vacationing in Japan assigns his credit in favor of a
Russian, also domiciled in Manila. What law governs the validity
and effectiveness of the assignment?
Answer: The proper law that should control the validity and effectiveness
of the assignment should be Philippine law, for it is evident that
it is this law that the parties intended to be applicable . ( lex loci
intentionis)I
D. Exceptions to Lex Situs Rule
There are at least three (3) exceptions to the application of the lex situs rule:
(Co-quia)
1. Where the transaction does not affect transfer of title to or
ownership of the land.The governing law is lex intentionis or lex
voluntatisI
2. In contracts where real property is offered by way of a security for
the performance of an obligation.
Example: Mortgage of the land is governed by lex situs but the loan
contract is governed by the rules on ordinary contracts.
3. Testate or intestate succession and capacity to succeed are
governed by the national law of the decedent.
E. Situs of Certain Properties
1. personal property for tax purposes
ASIATIC PETROLEUM V. CO QUICO
69 Phil 433 (1940)
FACTS : Co Quico entered into a contract of agency with Asiatic by virtue of
which the former became the sales agent on commission of the latter.
Respondent was in default in the sum of P2,213 and without rendering
account to Asiatic left for China. Asiatic filed a complaint and after
summons by publication Co Quico was decalred in default and thereafter
Co’s deposit in the Bank was levied. Co’s counsel moved to declare the
proceedings as null and void on the ground that the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the respondent because the action is one
in personam against a non-resident who was summoned by publication
and did not appear.
ISSUE : Whether or not the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant
HELD : Yes. Although respondent was outside the Philippines at the time the
action was instituted, he possessed property found and located here in
the Philippines and such property was within the reach of our courts. It
is well emphasized in this connection that all property within the state is
subject to the jurisdiction of its courts and they have the right to
adjudicate title thereto, to enforce liens therupon and to subject it to the
payment of the debts of its owners, whether resident or not.
2. Money
3. Debts
2 kinds of movable property:
a) choses in possession – embraces all types of tangible physical
objects
b) choses in action – refers to intangible objects
4. corporate shares of stocks
CIR V. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK
106 Phil 903
FACTS : Respondent Calamba Sugar Estate Inc. (CSEI), represented by its
trustee, the Anglo Cal. Nat’l Bank is a foreign corporation organized
under the laws of California, duly licensed to do business in the Phils.
Petitoner notified CSEI of an assessment for an alleged deficiency
income taxes. Based on the allegation that the sale of its shares of
stocks was perfected and payment took place in USA and that the sale
was made in accordance with the laws of USA, the CTA absolved CSEI
from liability on the ground that the capital gains which constituted
income were derived from abroad and not subject to income tax.
Petitioner appealed contending that the situs of shares of stock of
corporation is considered to be at the domicile of the latter.
ISSUE : WON the situs of the corporate shares of stock is within the Philippines
HELD : No. Shares of stock of corporation are considered as intangible personal
properties. Sec. 24 of NIRC levies income taxes on foreign corporations
only on income derived from sources within the Philippines and with
respect to capital gains on the sale of personal properties. Sec 37 (e) of
NIRC deems the place of the sale as also that place or source of capital
gain. Moreover, income derived from sale abroad is not taxable here in
the Phils. Only income within the Philippines are taxable.
F. Patents, Trademarks, Trade Name, Copyright
Trademark – is the name or symbols of goods made or manufactured ex.
Guess
44
 Trade name – the name or symbol of the store or business place ex. Rustan’s
Service mark – the name or symbol of services rendered ex. Federal Express
Copyright – the right of literary property as recognized and sanctioned by
positive law.
A certificate of registration of a trade name or a trademark is prima facie
evidence of the validity of such registration but the same may be rebutted.
Generally, the protection is for 20 years renewable for another 20 years.
Under the law, “any foreign corporation or juristic person to which a mark
or trade name has been registered or assigned under this Act may bring an
action hereunder for infringement, for unfair competition or false designation of
origin or false description whether or not it has been licensed to do business in
the Philippines under the corporation code, at the time it brings the complaint:
provided that the country of which said foreign corporation or juristic person is
a citizen or in which it is domiciled, by treaty, convention or law, grants a
similar privilege to corporations or juristic persons of the Philippines.
The Court decided that although the company has bot done business in the
Philippines, it has the right to protect its reputation.The Court sustained the
well established rule that the right to the use of company’s corporate and trade
name is a property right which may be asserted against the whole world.
PHILIPS EXPORT BV V. CA
206 SCRA 457
FACTS : Philips Export B. V. (PEBV), a foreign corporation organized under the
laws of the Netherlands, is the registered owner of the trademark Philips
and Philips Shield Emblem issued by the Philippine Patent Office. The
other petitioner, Philips Electrical Lamps & Philips Industrial Dev’t Inc.
authorized users of the trademark and logo, were incorporated and
registered with the SEC. Respondent Standard Philips Corp. (Standard)
on the other hand was issued a certificate of Registration by the SEC.
Petitioners filed a letter of complaint with the SEC for cancellation of the
word “Philips“ from Standard‘s corporate name in view of the prior
registration with the Bureau of Patents of such trademark and logo.
Standard refused to amend its articles of incorporation. Hence,
petitioners filed with SEC a petition praying for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injuction alleging inter alia, infringement of trademark.
Private respondent contended that petitioner PEBV has no legal capacity
to sue.
ISSUE : WON the foreign corporation although not doing business in the
Philippines can sue action for infringement under the IPC.
HELD : Yes. The Court declared that a corporation’s right to use its corporate
and trade name is a property right, a right in rem, which it may assert
and protect against the world in the same manner as it may protect
against the world in the same manner as it may protect its tangible
property, real or personal, against tresspass or conversion. It is
regarded, to a certain extent, as a property right and one whcih cannot
be impaired or defeated by subsequent appropriation by another
corporation in the same field.
EMERALD GARMENT MANUFACTURING v. CA
251 SCRA 600
FACTS : Private respondent H.D. Lee Co. Inc., a foreign corporation organized
under the laws of Delaware, USA filed with the Bureau of Patents
Trademark & Technology Transfer (BPTTT), a petition for cancellation of
registration for the trademark. “Stylistic Mr. Lee“ used on skirts, jeans
etc. Issued in the name of petitioner Emerald Mnfg. Corp, a domestic
corporation. Private respondent averred that petitioner’s trademark so
closely resembled its own trademark “LEE“ as to cause confusion,
mistake and deception on the part of the purchasing public as to the
origin of the goods. Petitioner in its anwer, contended that its trademark
was entirely and unmistakably different from that of private respondent
and that its certificate of registration was legally and validly granted. As
a defense Emerald questioned the capacity to sue of Lee Co., being a
foreign corporation not licensed to do business in the country.
ISSUE : Whether or not H.D. Lee Co., a foreign corporation had the capacity to
sue action for infringement
HELD : Yes. The Supreme Court ruled in the case that H.D Lee Co., Inc. had the
capacity to sue for infringement irrespective of its lack of license to
engage in business in the Philippines but denied the company protection
for it failed to prove actual use of the emblem in the local market, a
requirement of Secs. 2 and 2-a of the of the same law. Finally, in 1998,
the Intellectual Property Code of the Phils. (RA 8293) was passed into
law. This law allowed foreign corporation not engaged in business in the
Phis. to file civl or administrative action for opposition, cancellation,
infringement or unfair competition.
XIII. Choice of Law in Contracts (21)
SYNOPSIS OF CONFLICT RULES ON CONTRACTS
45
 FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
(1) Formal or Extrinsic Validity (1) lex loci celebrationis (Art. 17, par.
Exceptions: 1, CC
(a) alienation and (a) Lex situs (Art. 16, par.1, NCC)
encumbrance of (b) Law of the Phils. (if made in
property the
(b) consular contracts Philippines

(2) Capacity of the Contracting (2) national law (Art. 15, civil code)
parties except
estoppel or in the case of Insular
Bank
v. Frank, adhering the theory of
lex loci
(3) Intrinsic validity (including celebrationis
interpretation of instruments and
amount of damages for breach (3) the proper law of the contract –
lex
contractus meaning the lex loci
voluntatis or the lex loci intentionis

Other theories:
(a) lex loci celebrationis – defect:
this
makes possible the invasion of
the
national law
(b) lex nationalii – defect: this may
impede commercial transactions
(c) lex loci solutionis – law of the
place of
performance – defect: there
may be
several places of performance
(d) Prof. Minor’s solution:
1) perfection – lex loci
celebrationis
2) cause or consideration – lex
loci
considerations
3) performance – lex loci
solutionis

46
 (c) intrinsic validity applies)

CONFLICTS RULES FOR SPECIFIC CONTRACTS (8) Money Deposits (6)

(a) lex loci celebrationis
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT (9) Contracts with Arbitration Clause (b) national law
(1) Sales and Barter (1) (c) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
(a) extrinsic validity (a) lex situs intentionis
(b) capacity of parties (b) lex situs (10) Pledge, Chattel Mortgage, Real
(c) intrinsic validity (c) lex situs Mortgage and Antichresis (7) (a) lex situs
(a) extrinsic validity (b) lex situs
(2) Lease of Property (2) (b) capacity of parties (c) lex situs
(a) extrinsic validity (a) lex situs (c) intrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties (b) lex situs (8) Law of the place governs the
(c) intrinsic validity (c) lex situs lex deposit

(3) Lease of Services
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties
(c) intrinsic validity
(4) Contract of Common Carriage
of Goods
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties
(c) intrinsic validity
(d) liability for loss,
destruction or
deterioration of goods in
transit
(5) Contract of Agency
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties to be
principal or agent
(c) intrinsic validity
(6) Simple Loan (Mutuum)
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties
(c) intrinsic validity
(7) Commodatum
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties
(3)
(a) lex loci celebrationis
(b) national law
(c) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis
(4)
(a) fixed situs of the carrier
(depot)
(b) fixed situs of the carrier
(c) fixed situs of the carrier
(d) law of the destination (Art.
1753)
(5) (a) lex loci celebrationis (unless
the
agency deals with the
conveyance
or encumbering of property –
in
which case the lex situs of the
property applies)
(b) national law of the parties
(unless
the agency deals with the
conveyance or encumbering
of
property – in which case the
lex
situs of the property applies)
(c) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis (unless the
agency
deals with the conveyance or
encumbering of property – in
which
case the lex situs of the
property
(9) Forum that has been agreed by
the
(11) Guaranty and Suretyship parties
(a) extrinsic validity
(b) capacity of parties (10) (a) lex situs
(c) intrinsic validity (b) lex situs
(c) lex situs
Note: These are accessory contracts
only,
therefore, if the principal
contract
(generally the contract of loan)
is
defective, the accessory
contract
must also be deemed defective
(11)
(a) lex loci celebrationis
(b) national law
(c) lex loci voluntatis or lex loci
intentionis
Note:These are also accessory
contracts;
if the principal contract is
defective,
the accessory contract is also
generally defective.
A. Contract involving a foreign element
By reason of these differing rules, the forum court presented with a
contracts case involving a foreign element must be aware that the parties may
have entered into a contract with a particular state law in mind, expecting it to
govern questions that may arise from the contract. To do otherwise would
defeat the parties reasonable ecpectations.

47

B. Extrinsic validity of contracts
Lex loci celebrationis governs the formal or extrinsic validity of
contracts. Art. 17 “The forms and solemnties of contracts, wills, and other
public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they
are executed”. These principles are derived from a broader proposition that the
place governs the act (locus regit actum).
Query: How about contracts entered into by cablegram, telex or fax
messages between persons from different countries? What is
deemed to be the place of execution of the contract?
Answer: Art. 1319 of the civil code states that “Acceptance made by
letter or telegram does not bind the offeror except from the
time it came to his knowledge”. The contract in such case is
presumed to have been entered into the place where the offer
was made.
Example: A Chinese sold in Chile to a Filipino a parcel of land in the Phils.
The Philippine formalities of such a sale should be followed.
(Art. 16 par 1 of the civil code)
Bar Q: Suppose our law provides that certain instrument shall be
void and unenforceable unless they beat a documentary
stamps, and a written contract is enteres into in the Phils. to
be performed in France. The contract was not stamped in the
Philippines as required by its law. The placing of stamp on
written contract is not however required by the laws of
France. In an action brought on the contract in France, may
the defendant avail himself of the invalidity of contract?
Anwer: Since the forum of the problem is France, the answer will
depend not on Philippine Conflict of laws but on French
conflict of laws. On the assumption that the French conflicts
rule on the matter is identical with ours, it is believed that the
contract should be considered valid, and the defense of
invalidity cannot be sustained. The rule to apply is evidently
lex loci voluntatis or the lex loci intentionis – that which was
voluntarily agreed upon or intended by the parties.
C. Intrinsic validity of contracts
The intrinsic validity of contracts including the considerations or cause
thereof, the interpretation of the instruments, and the nature or amount of
damages for breach or non-performance must be governed by the proper law of
the contract (lex contractus). This is the law voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties (lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them expressly or implicitly
(lex lcoci intentionis)
1. lex loci contractus or lex loci celebrationis
The law of the place of the making or lex loci contractus refers to
the place where the contract is made.
2. lex loci solutionis
The law of the place of performance calls for the reference to a
law other than the place where the acts of offer and acceptance took
place. All matters relating to the time, place and manner of
performance, sufficiency of performance and valid excuses for non-
performance are determined by lex loci solutionis which is useful
because it is undoubtedly always connected to the contract in a
significant way.
3. lex loci intentionis
The intrinsic validity of contracts should be governed by the law
intended by the parties or lex loci intentionis. This intention may be
expressed in the choice-of-law provision in the contract
Art. 1306 of the civil code “The contracting parties may establish
such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public oerder or public policy”
D. Capacity to enter into contracts
The capacity of the parties to enter into contract is generally governed by
the national law (Art. 15, civil code) Except in the case of alienation or
encumbering of properties, both real and personal, for here the capacity is
governed by the lex situs (Art, 16 par 1)
Another exception. is that case of Insular Gov’t v. Frank which
disregarded the nationality law principle. Frank had the capacity to enter into a
contract whether in the US or in the Phils. since he was of majority age as
determined by his national law. The SC held that in a case not involving
property that instead of national law, what should determine capacity to enter
into a contract is the lex loci celebrationis.
Bar Q: X and Y entered into a contract in Madrid, Spain wherein it was
agreed that X would construct for Y an apartment in Manila, in
consideration being Y’s house and lot in San Francisco California.
The laws of what country would govern the:
(a)validity of the contract;
(b) its performance and
(c) its consideration?
Answer: (a) The validity of the contract would depend on the lex situs
namely the Philippine law since the contract deals with a building to
be constructed in Manila. Philippine law should govern everything
about the contract. (Art. 16, par 1 civil code)
48
 (b)Prof. Minor however would say that the validity of the contract
would be governed by the lex loci celebrationis – Spanish law;
performance and damages in case of breach would depend on the
lex loci intentionis – Philippine law; and the sufficiency of
consideration would depend on lex loci considerationis – California
law.
E. Choice of law issues in conflicts contracts cases
Under the principle of freedom of contract, the parties may stipulate on the
law to govern their contract agreement.
KING MAU v. SYCIP
94 Phil 784
FACTS : King Mau, as agent of defendant Francisco Sycip, sold and caused the
shipment of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion to Jas Maxwell Fasset,
under the agency agreement set forth in a letter in New York addressed
to Sycip and accepted by the latter. King was made the exclusive agent
of Sycip in the sale of Philippine coconut oil and its derivatives outside
the Phils., King filed this action to collect P50,089.92 as his share as
agent in the sale of 1,000 tons of coconut oil emulsion. Sycip however
contends that the transaction for the sale of coconut oil emulsion was
not covered by the agency contract because it was agreed upon in
another contract and that it was an independent and separate
transaction for which King has been duly compensated.
ISSUE : Whether or not there is conflict of laws involved in this case.
HELD : No. There is no conflcit of laws involved in the case because it is only a
question of enforcing an obligation created by or arising from contract,
and unless the enforcement of the contract be against public policy of
the forum, it must be enforced. The contention that as the contract was
executed in New York, the CFI of Manila has no jurisdiction over this
case, is without merit, becuase a non-resident may sue a resident in the
courts of this country where the defendant may be summoned and his
property leviable upon execution in case of favorable, final and
executory judgment.
HSBC v. SHERMAN
176 SCRA 331
FACTS : Eastern Book Supply Service Co., a company incorporated in Singapore
was granted by petitioner bank an overdraft facility of Singapore
$200,000. As a security for the repayment, both private respondent
Sherman, Reloj and a certain Lowe executed a Joint and Several
Guarantee in favor or petitioner bank. The company failed to pay its
obligation even after demand was made. Petitioner bank filed a case in
the RTC of Quezon City. Private respondents claim that Philippine courts
have no jurisdiction over the case because a stipulation in their
guarantee which states that “we hereby agree that the courts of
Republic of Singapore shall have jurisdiction over all disputes arising
under this guarantee“.
ISSUE : Whether or not the venue stipulation in the Guarantee divested of
Philippine courts of jurisdiction
HELD : No, becuase the parties did not thereby stipulate that only the courts of
Singapore to the exclusion of all the rest has jurisdiction. Neither did the
clause in question operate to divest Philippine courts of jurisdiction. In
international law, jurisdiction is defined as the right of a State to
exercise authority over persons and things within its boundaries, subject
to certain exceptions. A State is competent to take hold of any judicial
matter it sees fit by making its courts and agencies assume jurisdiction
over all kinds of cases brought before them.
Contracts with Arbitration Clause
A multinational contract that contains an arbitration clause gives
rise to the issue of whether one of the parties may compel the other to
submit to arbitration.
PUROMINES INC. v. CA
220 SCRA 281
FACTS : Puromines Inc., and Makati Agro Track Inc., contracted with Philip
Brothers Oceanic Inc., for the sale of prilled urea in bulk. The contract
provided inter alia an arbitration clause which states that disputes
arising therefrom shall be settled by arbitration clause in London. On
May 22, 1988 "M/V Liliana Dimitrova“ loaded
49
 on board at Yuzhay UUSR, a shipment of 15,500 metric tons of urea
fro transport to Iloilo and Manila to be delivered for Puromines. About
13,500 metric tons were discharged in Manila in bad order and
condition. Damages were valued at P683,056.29. Puromines filed a
complaint with RTC Manila for breach of contract of carriage against
Maritime Factors Inc., as ship agent of the vessel in the Phils., while
Philip Brothers was impleaded as charter of the vessel. It filed a motion
to dismiss asserting the application of arbitration clause.
ISSUE : Whether or not the arbitration clause agreed upon in the Sales Contract
is valid and applicable
HELD : Yes. Whether the liability of respondent should be based on the sales
contract or that of the bill of lading, the parties are nevetheless
obligated to respect the arbitration provisions on the sales contract
and/or the bill of lading. Petitioner being a signatory and party to the
sales contract cannot escape from his obligation under arbitration clause
therein.
CONTRACTS OF ADHESION
It is one that is not negotiated by the parties, having been drafted by the
dominant party and usually embodied in a standardized form. It is called a contract
of adhesion because the only participation of the other party is in affixing her
signature or adhering thereto. Likewise known as a “take it or leave it contract”
PAN AM WORLD AIRWAYS v. RAPADAS
209 SCRA 567
FACTS : Jose Rapadas while standing in line to board the flight from Guam to
Manila was ordered by a Pan Am Control agent to check in his samsonite
attache case. He instead went to the tail end of the line trying to get
through without having to cheack in his attache case. He was again
spotted and for fear that he would miss the plane, he checked it in
without declaring its contents or value. Unfortunately, it never arrived in
Manila and Pan Am offered to settle the claim for $160.00. Rapadas
refused and filed a case placing the value of the lost attache case and its
contents at $42,403.90. In its answer, Pan Am acknowledged
responsibility for the loss but asserted that the claim was subject to the
“Notice of Baggage Liability Limitations“ forming part of the passenger’s
ticket.
ISSUE : Whether or not the said notice (a contract of adhesion) be cosidered
adequate under the circumstances of the case.
HELD : Yes. There is no dispute that there was such a Notice appearing on page
2 of the airline ticket stating that the Warsaw Convention governs in
case of death or injury to passenger of the loss, damage or destruction
to passenger’s luggage. The plane ticket is what is known as a contract
of adhesion and these contracts are not entirely prohibited. The Court,
finds the provisions in the plane ticket sufficient to govern the limitations
of liabilities of the airline for loss of luggage. If the passenger fails to
adhere evidence to oversome the stipulaions, he cannot avoid tha
application of the liability limitations.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. CA
255 SCRA 48
FACTS : Gilda Mejia shipped through PAL a one-unit microwave from San
Franciso, California to Mania. Upon arrival of the unit, Mejia discovered
that the front glass door was broken and the damage rendered it
unserviceable. Oral and written demands were made for reimbursement
of the value of the oven and transportation charges paid by Mejia to PAL,
which the latter ignored. Mejia demanded through an Attorney P30,000
for actual damages, P10,000 for moral damages and P15,000 monthly
loss for income in her catering and restaurant business. PAL alleged that
there was no valid cause of action since it acted in good faith and in
compliance with the Warsaw Convention and had exercised due diligence
in the selection, hiring and supervision of its employees.
ISSUE : Whether or not the petitioner’s liability for damage to Mejia’s microwave
should be limited by the provisions of the airway bill.
HELD : No. While the Warsaw Convention has the force and effect of law in the
Philippines, being a treaty commitment by the government and as a
signatory thereto, the same does not operate as an exclusive
enumeration of the instances when a carrier shall be liable for breach of
contract or as an absolute limit of the extent of liability, nor does it
preclude the operation of the Civil Code or other pertinent laws.
Contracts for International Air-Transportation
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to
International Transportation by Air or known as Warsaw Convention. The
Convention which applies to all international transportation of persons,
baggage or goods performed by aircraft for hire, enumerate instances
when the carrier is liable, fixing the maximum amount of damages to be
included in each case.
However, the limits of liability shall not apply if it is proved that
the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants
or agents done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with
knowledge that damage would probably result provided in such case, it
is proved that the servant or agent was acting within the scope of his
employment.
50
 Philippine law (Art. 816, civil
code)
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES. v. CA or lex loci celebrationis (Art.
65 SCRA 237 (b) made by a Filipino abroad 17,
par. 1)
FACTS : Spouses Mendoza went on a world tour with their children and niece. (b) lex nationalii or lex loci
They were issued KLM tickets for their entire trip. However, their coupon (c)made by an alien in the celebrationis
for Aer Lingus, which would carry them from Barcelona Spain to Lourdes Philippines (Art. 815, civil code)
France was marked RQ or on request. When they checked in at the
airport of Barcelona, only the young wards were allowed to take the (2) Extrinsic validity of Joint Wills (c) lex nationalii or lex loci
plane to Lourdes while the spouses were loaded by the manager in an (made in celebrationis
inhumane manner. So they had to take a train to reach their destination. the same instrument) (Art. 817, civil code)
The respondents filed a complaint against KLM as the principal of the Aer (a) made by Filipinos abroad (2)
Lingus for damages arising from breach of contract of carriage and for
the humiliating treatment they had received. The KLM sought complete (a) lex nationalii (is void even if
exoneration on the ground that tickets issued to respondents stipulate (b) made by aliens abroad valid where made) (Art. 819,
that carriage thereunder is subject to Art. 30 of the Warsaw Convention, civil code)
which provides that in case of transportation to be performed by various
successive carriers, the liability of carrier for damages shall be limited to (c) made by aliens in the (b) valid if valid according to lex
occurrences on its own lines Philippines nationalii or lex domicilii or
lex loci celebrationis
ISSUE : Whether or not the limited liability condition printed on the respondents
ticket is binding upon them. (c) lex loci celebrationis therefore
void even if apparently
HELD : No. The applicability insisted upon by the KLM of Article 30 of the allowed by Art. 817 –
Warsaw Convention cannot be sustained because the article presupposes (3) Intrinsic validity of Wills because the prohibition on
the occurrence of either an accident or delay, neither of which took place (including the joint wills is clear expression
at the Barcelona airport. What is here manifest instead is that the Aer order of succession, amount of of our public policy
Lingus through its manager there refused to transport the respondents successional rights, and intrinsic
to their planned and contracted destination. validity (3) lex nationalii of the deceased -
of the provisions of the will) regardless of the location and
As noted by the CA that condition was printed in letters so small nature of
that one would have to use a magnifying glass to read the words.The (4) Capacity to succeed the property (Art. 16, par. 2, civil
KLM was chargeable with the duty and responsibility specifically code)
informing the respondents of conditions prescribed in their tickets or in
the vary least to ascertain the respondents read them before they (5) Revocation of the wills (4) lex nationalii of the deceased - not
accepted their passage tickets. that of the heir ( Art. 1039, civil code)
(a) if done in the Philippines
(5)

XIV. Choice of Law in Wills, Succession and Administration (20)
SYNOPSIS OF CONFLICTS RULES
FACTUAL SITUATION
(1) Extrinsic Validity of Wills
(a) made by an alien abroad
(b) if done outside the (a) lex loci actus (of the revocation)
Philippines (Art. 1039, civil code)
1) by a non-domiciliary
(b)
1) lex loci celebrationis (of the
making
2) by a domiciliary of of will, not the revocation) or lex
the Phils. domicilii (Art. 829, civil code)
2) lex domicilii (Phil. Law) or lex
POINT OF CONTACT (6) Probate of the wills made abroad loci
(1) (a) if not yet probated actus (of the revocation) (Art.
(a) lex nationalii or lex domicilii or abroad 17,

51
 civil code) Extrinsic validity of will deals with the forms and solemnities in
(6) the making of wills; the number of witnesses; the form of the will – oral, private
(a) lex fori of the Philippines instrument, public instrument
applies as .
(b) if already probated to the procedural aspects – Art. 17 “The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other
abroad that is public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
– the will must be fully country in which they are executed”.
probated
here and due execution must When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic
be or consular officials of the RP in a foreign country, the
shown solemnities established by the Philippine laws shall be
observed in their execution.
(b) lex fori of the Philippines
(7) Executors and Administrators agains Art. 815 “ When a Filipino is in the foreign country, he is authorized to
(a) where appointed applies the procedural make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the
aspects – country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in
that is – the will must also the Philippines”
be
(b) powers probated here – but instead Art. 816 “ The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the
of Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law
proving the due execution, of the place in which he resides or according to the formalities
generally it is enough to ask observed in his country or in conformity with those which this
for Code prescribes”
the enforcement here of the
foreign judgment on the Art. 817 “A will made in the Philippines by a citizen or subject of another
probate country, which is executed in accordance with the law of the
abroad country of which he is a citizen or subject and which might be
proved and allowed by the law of his own country, shall have
(7) the same effect as if executed according to the laws of the
(a) place where domiciled at Philippines.
death
or in case of non-domiciliary, The following are our conflicts rules on the extrinsic validity of
where assets are found wills:

(b) co-extensive with the 1. if the will was made by an alien abroad, he must comply with the
qualifying formalities of the lex nationalii or lex domicilii or Philippine law (Art. 816,
or appointing court – that is civil code) or lex loci celebrationis (Art. 17, par. 1, civil code)
–
powers may be exercised Example: If a Japanese domiciled in Argentina makes a will in Mexico
only while vacationing there, the will may be considered
within the territorial extrinsically valid by our courts, if it has complied with the
jurisdiction of formalities prescribed in Japan, Argentina, Mexico or the
the court concerned Philippines.
NOTE: These rules also apply to
principal 2. If a Filipino makes a will abroad, he may comply with the formalities of
domiciliary or ancillary the lex nationalii (Philippine law) or lex loci celebrationis (law of the place
administrators and receivers where he may be or where he makes a will) (Art. 815, civil code)
even in non-succession
cases. 3. If an alien makes a will in the Philippines, he is allowed to comply with
the formalities of his own country (lex nationalii) or the law of the
Philippines (Art. 817, civil code)
A. Extrinsic validity of wills
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF JOINT WILLS

52
 the instrument was so executed as to be admissible to probate under the
laws of the State of Illinois. Nevertheless, even supposing that the trial
Art. 818 “Two or more persons cannot make a will jointly or in the same
court may have erred in taking judicial notice of the law of Illinois on the
instrument, either for their reciprocal benefit or for the benefit
point in question such error is not available to the petitioner because the
of a third person”.
petition does not state any fact from which it would appear that the law
of Illinois is different from what the court found.
Art. 819 “Wills prohibited by the preceding article executed by Filipinos in
a foreign country shall not be valid in the Philippines, even
though authorized by the laws of the country where they may
have been executed” B. Intrinsic validity of wills

The following are the rules:
1. If joint wills are made by Filipinos abroad, the same shall be considered
void in the Philippines even if they were valid in the place where they were
executed.
2. joint wills made by aliens abroad shall be considered valid in the Philippines
if valid according to the lex nationalii or lex domicilii or lex loci celebrationis
3. joint wills made by aliens in the Phils., even if valid in accordance with their
national law, will not be countenanced in the Phils. because otherwise our
public policy may be militated against.
EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF HOLOGRAPHIC WILLS
The rules contained in Art. 816 & 817 on wills made by aliens abroad or
in the Phils., apply to holographic wills.
The intrinsic validity of the wills including the order of succession, the
amount of successional rights, and the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
will shall be governed by the lex nationalii of the deceased regardless of the
location and nature of the property whether real or personal. (Art. 16, par. 2,
civil code)
Art. 16 par 2 “However, intestate and testamentary successions, both
with respect to the order of succession and the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of the
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”

Art. 810 of the civil code defines holographic will as one entirely written, Example: A Chinese died in Manila leaving a BMW car and a parcel of
dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is not subject to land in Pampanga, Phils. The law of which country
any other form, need not be witnessed and may be made in or out governs the successional rights of his heirs to both the
of the Phils. car and land?

IN RE ESTATE OF JOHNSON
39 Phil 156

FACTS : A petition was filed for probate of the holographic will of Emil Johnson,
Suppose the Chinese also left parcels of land in China and Cuba, what
a native of Sweden and a naturalized citizen of the US, who died in
should our courts do?
Manila on the ground that Johnson was at the time of his death a
citizen of Illinois, USA and that the will was duly executed in
Answer: The law of China, being the lex nationalii of the deceased,
accordance with the law of Illinois, hence could be properly probated
governs the successional rights to both the car and the
here in the Phils. pursuant to Sec. 636 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
parcel of land. (Art. 16 par. 2, civil code)
After the will was admitted to probate, an alleged daughter of Johnson
moved for the annulment of the decree of probate and the
Our courts have no jurisdiction to award the Chinese and Cuban lands
commencement of the intestate administration of the estate on the
in favor of the heirs of the deceased since they are outside the Philippines. As
ground that the deceased testator was not a resident of the State of
a matter of fact, in the inventory of the assets of the deceased, these lands will
Illinois and that the probated will was not in accordance with the laws
ordinarily not be included unless the properties are themselves within the
of said State
territorial jurisdiction of the Phils. (Gibbs v. Gov’t)
ISSUE : Whether or not order of probate be set aside on the ground invoked by
the appellant
CAYETANO v. LEONIDAS
HELD : No. The proof adduced by the trial court shows that the testator was at 129 SCRA 522
the time of his death a citizen of the US and of the State of Illinois, his
will was provable under this section in the Courts of the Phils., provided

53
FACTS : Adoracion Campos died leaving Hermogenes Campos as the only
compulsory heir. Nenita Paguia on the other hand, filed a petition of
the reprobate of the will of the deceased, which was allegedly
executed in the US and for her appointment as the administratrix of
the estate. The will of the deceased was admitted to and allowed
probate in the Phils. and Paguia was then appointed as administratrix.
Although the parties admit that the Pennsylvania law does not provide
for legitimes, the petitioner-father of the deceased argued that such
law should not apply because it would be contrary to the sound and
established public policy and would ran counter to the specific
provisions of Philippine law.
ISSUE : Which law shall govern the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the
Philippine law
HELD : The private respondents have sufficiently established that Adoracion
was at the time of her death an American citizen and a permanent
resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Therefore, the law which
governs her will is the law of Pennsylvania, USA, which is the
national law of the decedent. It is a settled rule that as regards the
intrinsic validity of the will, as provided for by Art. 16 par 2 and Art.
1039 of the Civil Code, the national law of the decedent must apply.
PAULA LLORENTE v. CA & ALLICIA LLORENTE
345 SCRA 592
FACTS : The deceased Lorenzo Llorente, an enlisted serviceman of the US Navy
married to herein petitioner Paula Llorente was admitted to US
citizenship in 1943. Upon discovery of petitioner’s adulterous
relationship with his brother, he subsequently filed for a divorce
before the Superior Court of California, which the court granted.
Meanwhile, he returned to the Phils. and married respondent Alicia
Llorente in Manila producing three children. In Lorenzo’s last will and
testament, he bequeathed all his properties to Alicia and to their
children. Paula then filed with the same court, RTC of Camarines Sur,
a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her
favor. The Court declared the intrinsic disposition of the will as void
and found that the divorce granted to Lorenzo is void and cannot be
applied in the Phils.
ISSUE : Whether or not the will was intrinsically valid
HELD : Whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo
are issues best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and
proved. Whether the will was executed in accordance with the formalities
required is answered by referring to the Philippine law. In this case, the
court remanded the case to the trial court for ruling on the intrinsic
validity of the will of the deceased.
C. Interpretation of wills
Pursuant to the nationality principle in our Civil Code, the interpretation of
a will or testament must be governed by the rules of interpretation of the decedent’s
national law.
In contracts, the principal rule in wills is that “where the terms are clear
and unambiguous, the lex intentionis of the parties should be followed.” “When there
are ambiguous provisions, the intention of the party or the exact meaning he may
have ascribed to them can be inferred by referring to the context of the instrument
or the testator’s contemporaneous and subsequent acts.
In case a will admits of different dispositions, the interpretation by which
the disposition is to be operative shall be referred.
D. Revocation
Being a unilateral and purely personal act, a will is revocable at any timr
before the death of the testator. Any waiver or restriction of this right is void.
If a revocation done outside the Philippines by a person who does not have
a domicile in this country is valid when it is done according to:
1. the law of the place where the wil was made (lex loci celebrationis)
2. the law of the place where the testator had his domicile at that time (lex
loci domicilii)
If a revocation is done outside the Phils. by one domiciled in the
Philippines, the law of the domicile, which is Phlippine law or the law of the place of
the revocation (lex loci actus) controls.
Under the Philippine law, wills are deemed revoked except in the following
cases:
1. by implication of law
2. by some will, codocil or other writing, executed as provided in the
case of wills
3. by burning, tearing, cancelling or obliterating the will with the
intention of revoking it, by the testator himself or by some other
persons in his presence and by his express direction.
QUERY: When a testator revokes his will in the state where he is domiciled and
then changes his domicile to another state where he dies. If the
revocation of his will was valid by the laws of the State where he
revoked it but invalid by the laws of the state of domicile at the time of
his death, which law will control the situation?
54
 ANSWER: Common law countries apply law of the domicile at the time of the
testator’s death. However, Philippine law clearly provides the law of
the place of revocation
E. Probate
Probate is an adjudication that the last will and testament of a person was
executed with all the formalities required by law.
Under Rule 70, Sec. 9 of the Revised Rules of Court, a will shall be disallowed in
any of the following cases:
1. If not executed and attested as required by law
2. If the testator was insane or otherwise incapable to make a will at
the time of its execution
3. If it was executed under duress, the influence of fears and threats
4. If it was produced by undue and improper pressure and influence
on the part of the beneficiary or some other person for his
benefits
5. If the signature of the testator was procured by fraud or trick and
he did not intend that the instruments should be his will at the
time of fixing the signature thereat
SUNTAY v. SUNTAY
95 Phil 500
FACTS : Jose Suntay, a Filipino citizen died in China leaving real and personal
properties in the Phils. and a house in Amoy China. Intestate
proceedings were instituted in the CFI of Bulacan and Federico, the
child of the deceased on his first marriage was appointed as an
administrator of the estate. Subsequently, the surviving widow, filed a
petition for probate of the will claiming that it has been executed and
signed in the Phils. by the deceased. However, the petition was
denied because the will was lost before hearing. After the war,
Selvino, the son of the deceased on his second marriage petitioned for
testate proceedings praying for the probate of the will executed in
China in 1931, which he claimed was already probated there. CFI of
Bulacan disallowed the alleged will. Selvino appealed contending that
the wills proved and allowed in a foreign country, according to the
laws of such foreign countries, may be allowed, filed and recorded
by the CFI in the Phils.
ISSUE : Whether or not the will executed in China be probated here in the
Philippines
HELD : No. In the absence of proof that the municipal court of China is a
probate court and on the Chinese law of procedure in probate matters,
it may be presumed that the proceedings in the matter of probating a
will in the Chinese courts are the same as those provided in out laws
on the subject. Hence, in the absence of notice to the interested heirs
residing in the Phils., probate of a will can be denied.
VDA DE PEREZ v.TOLETE
232 SCRA 722
FACTS : Jose and Evelyn lived in New York with their three children. They make
a will executd separately but containing the same provisions that if any
of them survived, theiir properties would go to their children with
Rafael, brother of the deceased Jose as trustee. In January 1982, Jose
and his entire family perished in a fire that gutted their home. Rafael
filed a separate proceedings for the probate of the two wills in New
York. They were admitted to probate and letters testamentary were
issued in his favor. On the other hand, Salud, the mother of Evelyn
filed in CFI Bulacan, a petition to reprobate the wills and insisted that
the separate wills of Cunanan spouses should be probated jointly.
ISSUE : Whether or not joint probate be allowed
HELD : Yes. Sec. 1 of RRC provides that “the rules shall be liberally construed
in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceedings”. What the law expressly prohibits is the making of joint
wills. In this case, the Cunanan spouses executed separate wills.
Since the two wills contain essentially the same provisions and
pertain to property which in all probability are conjugal in nature,
practical considerations dictate their joint probate.
Moreover, the evidence necessary for the reprobate of the wills
which have been probated outside the Phils. are as follows:
1. the due execution of the will in accordance with the foreign
laws
2. the testator domiciled in a foreign country
3. the will has been admitted to reprobate in such country
4. the fact that the foreign tribunal id a foreign court
5. the laws on foreign country or procedure and allowance of wills
55
 F. Administration of estates
The administration of the estate of the deceased consists of the duties to
manage and settle the decedent’s debts and distribute the residuum of the
estate to the deceased’s heirs. When the will has been proved and allowed, it is
the duty of the probate court to issue letters testamentary thereon to the
person so named in the will upon the latter’s application
The title of domiciliary administrator is of no extraterritorial force and
extends only to assets of a decedent found within the state or country where it
was granted.
Trust is a right of property real or personal held by one party for the
benefit of another. It may be created by deed during the lifetime of the settler
or by will.
Testamentary trusts depend for their extrinsic validity on the will which
created them. The rules governing wills as to capacity and extrinsic
requirements apply. Since a trust involves a property, the rule of lex situs
determines the validity of a trust created by a last will and testament.

An administrator appointed in one state has no power over properties in

another state or country. An ancillary administrator is one appointed by the
court of foreign country where the assets or property are located.

TAYAG v. BENGUET CONSOLIDATED INC.

26 SCRA 242

FACTS : Perkins died leaving two stock certificates in the Benguet Consolidated
Inc., a Phil. Corporation. The certificates were in possession of Country
Trust Co. of New York, which was the domiciliary adminstrator of the
estate of the deceased. Meanwhile, anciliary administration proceedings
in the CFI of Manial were instituted and the court appointed Lazaro
Marquez as anciliary administrator, wo was substituted by Renato Tayag. XV. Choice of Law in Torts and Crimes (22 & 23)
A dispute arose between the domiciliary and anciliary administratoes as
to which of them was entitled to the possession of the stock certificates.
The CFI ordered the domiciliary administrator to produce and deposit the A. Synopsis of conflicts rules
certificates with Tayag or with the Cerk of Court, but the former did not
comply with the said order. Tayag petitioned the Court to issued an FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
order declaring the stocks certificates as lost, which the court granted. Liability and damages for torts in Lex loci delicti commissi (law of the
Hence, this appeal by the oppositor Benguet Consolidated Inc. general place where the delict was
committed)
ISSUE : Whether or not ancillary administrator is entitled to the possession of the NOTE: the locus delicti (place of
stock certificates commission of torts) is faced by NOTE: liability of foreign torts may
the problem of characterization. be enforced in the Philippines if:
HELD : Yes. The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies, In civil law countries, the locus  the tort is
leaving in a country other than that of is last domicile, property to be delicti is generally where the act not penal in character
administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable for his began; in common law countries,  if the
individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs. It would follow it is where the act first became enforcement of the tortuous
then that the authority of the probate court to require that anciliary effective liability would not
administrato’s right to the stock certificates…standing in her name in the contravene our public policy
books of appellant-Benguet Consolidated Inc., be respected is equally  if our
beyond question. For appellant is a Phil. Corporation owing full allegiance judicial machinery is
and subject to the unrestricted jurisdiction of the local courts. Its shares adequate for such
of stock cannot therefore be considered in any wise as immune from enforcement
lawful court orders

 PHILIPPINE CONFLICT RULE ON TORTS

G. Trusts

56
 Article 20 of the Civil Code provides “Every person who, contrary to law,
willfully and negligently cause damage to another, shall indemnity the
latter for the same.”
 As a general rule, the liability and damages for torts are governed by lex
loci delicti (law of the place where the delict was committed)
Characterization of the place of wrong (locus delicti)
1. Common law theory – looks at the place where the last event necessary
to make an actor liable for an alleged tort occurs (where the injury is
sustained)
2. Civil law theory – view the situs of torts as the place where the tortuous
act was committed
Modern theories in tort liability
1. Obligation Theory – the tortuous act gives rise to an obligation, which is
transitory and follows the person committing the tortuous act and may
be enforced wherever he may be found
2. Doctrine of Elective Concurrence – either the laws of the state where
the actor engaged in this conduct and where the injury was incurred
may be invoked
3. Theory of Most Significant Relationship – the applicable law shall be
the law of the country which has the most significant relationship to the
situation. In determining the state which has the most significant
relationship, the following factors are to be taken into account:
a. place where the injury occurred
b. place of conduct causing the injury
c. domicile, residence, nationality place of incorporation and place
of business
d. place where relationship between the parties is centered
(Saudi Arabian Airlines v. CA, 297 SCRA 469)
4. State-Interest Analysis – this principle provides for the following
methodology:
a. determine false or spurious conflicts (i.e., internal laws of the
different states have the same result or when only one state
has an interest in applying its tort law.
b. if there is true conflict:
1. if interested forum – apply the law of such State which has
greater interest in upholding its tort law;
2. if disinterested forum – dismiss on the ground of non
forum conveniens
5. Caver’s Principle of Preference – guideline on which rules on torts may
be applied by states in absence of statutory provisionState-Interest
Analysis – this principle provides for the following methodology:
a. determine false or spurious conflicts (i.e., internal laws of the
different states have the same result or when only one state
has an interest in applying its tort law.
b. if there is true conflict:
a. where the state of injury provides for higher standard of
conduct or financial protection against injury than the
state where the tortuous act was done, the law of the
former shall govern;
b. where the state of injury and conduct provides for lowed
standard and financial protection that the home state of
the person suffering the injury, the law of the state of
conduct and injury shall govern;
c. where the state in which the defendant has acted has
established special controls over conduct of the kind in
which defendant was engaged, the special controls and
benefits must he applied although the state has no
relationship to the defendant;
d. where the law in which the relationship has its seat
imposed higher standard of conduct or financial protection
than the law of the state of the injury, the former law shall
govern.
Conditions for the Enforcement of Tort Claims
 The tort is not penal in character
 If the enforcement of the tortuous liability would not contravene our public
policy
 If our judicial machinery is adequate for such enforcement
Philippine Rule
 Salonga suggests for the following methodology in solving tort problems in
the Philippines:
a. ascertain and weigh the purpose underlying the tort law of the forum.
If the tort law of the Philippines embodies a social or economic policy,
then the law of the forum on torts shall be applied;
b. if the Philippines has no concern or interest in the application of the
internal law and the other states have interest, apply the law of such
state
NOTE : The state where an injury has occurred has interest in
compensating the injured party. Whereas, the state where the
action has acted has interest in regulating conduct of persons
found in its territory
SPECIAL RULES
1. If the tort committed aboard a public vessel, whether on the high seas or in
a foreign territorial waters, the country to which the vessel belongs is the
locus delicti; the law of the flag is thus the lex loci delicti commissi;
57
 2. if the tort takes place aboard a private or merchant vessel on the high seas,
the law of the flag is likewise the lex loci delicti commissi;
3. if the tort concerns property, whether real or personal, the lex situs is
usually also the lex loci delicti commissi;
4. maritime torts
a. if the colliding vessels are of the same state, or carry the same flag,
said law is the lex loci delicti commissi;
b. if the vessels come from different states, whose laws however, on the
matter are identical, said laws constitute the lex loci delicti commissi;
c. if the vessels come from different states with different laws, the lex
loci commissi is the general maritime law as understood and applied by
the forum where the case is tried
B. LIABILITY AND DAMAGES FOR TORTS IN GENERAL
 liability and damages for torts in general, are governed the lex loci delicti
commissi (the law of the place where the delict or wrong was committed)
C. LOCUS DELICTI
GENERAL RULE : The essential elements of a crime and its penalties are
generally determined by the law of where the crime was committed (locus
regit actum)
EXCEPTIONS:
1. crimes committed by state officials, diplomatic representatives
and officials of recognized international organizations (base on the
theory of state immunity from suits)
2. crimes committed on board a foreign vessel even if within the
territorial waters of the coastal state, as long as the effect of such
crime does no affect the peace and order of the coastal state;
3. crimes which, although committed by Philippine nationals aboard
are punishable under the local law pursuant to the protective
principle of criminal jurisdiction (Article 2 of the RPC)
THEORIES TO WHAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION
1. Territoriality theory – where the crime was committed
2. Nationality theory – country which the criminal is a citizen or a
subject
3. Real Theory – any state whose penal code has been violated has
jurisdiction, where the crime was committed inside or outside its
territory;
4. Protective theory – any state whose national interests may be
jeopardized has jurisdiction so that it may protect itself;
5. Cosmopolitan or university theory – state where the criminal is
found or which has his custody has jurisdiction;
6. Passive personality theory – the state of which the victim is a
citizen or subject has jurisdiction
NOTE : In the Philippines, we follow the territoriality theory in general.
Hence, our penal laws apply only to crimes committed within
the country.
EXCEPTION: Article 2 of RPC, stresses the protective theory:
a. Offense committed while in a Philippine vessel or airship
b. Forging or Counterfeiting any coin currency note of the
Philippines, or any obligation issued by the government;
c. Introduction into the country of the abovementioned obligations
and securities;
d. While being public officers and employees, any offense committed
in the exercise of their functions;
e. Crimes against national security and the law of the nations as
defined in Title 1 Book 1 of the RPC.
CRIMES COMMITED ABOARD PRIVATE OR MERCHANT VESSELS
1. if the crime committed aboard a private or merchant vessel
occurred on the high seas, the country of the flag of the vessel
has jurisdiction. Thus, if the vessel carries the French flag,
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction except, those provided in
Article 2 of RPC.
2. If the crime aboard a private or merchant vessel of a foreign state
took place inside Philippine territorial waters – two theories have
generally been used to determine the question of jurisdiction: the
English rule (which emphasizes the territorial principle) and the
French rule (which stresses the nationality theory).
a. The English Rule – here the territory where the crime was
committed (Philippines) will have jurisdiction except:
 in matters relating to the internal order and discipline in
the vessel and
 those which affect solely the ship and its occupants such
as minor or petty criminal offenses committed by
members of the crew.
c. The French Rule – under this rule, founded on the
opinion of the French Council of State in 1806, the state
whose flag is flown by the vessel, would have jurisdiction
except if the crime affects the peace, order, security and
safety of the territory.
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
1. essential elements of a crime, generally where committed (locus
58
and
penalties therefor
2. the locus delicti of
certain crimes:
frustrated and consummated,
homicide, murder, infanticide,
and parricide
frustrated and consummated,
homicide, murder, infanticide,
and parricide
bigamy
theft and robbery
conspiracy to commit treason,
rebellion, or sedition note:
other conspiracies are not
penalized by our laws
regit actum)
THEORIES TO WHAT COURT HAS
JURISDICTION
1. Territoriality theory – where the
crime was committed D.
2. Nationality theory – country
which the criminal is a citizen or
a subject
3. Real Theory – any state whose
penal code has been violated has
jurisdiction, where the crime was
committed inside or outside its
territory;
4. Protective theory – any state
whose national interests may be
jeopardized has jurisdiction so
that it may protect itself;
5. Cosmopolitan or university theory
– state where the criminal is
found or which has his custody
has jurisdiction;
6. Passive personality theory – the
state of which the victim is a
citizen or subject has jurisdiction
NOTE : In the Philippines,
we follow the territoriality theory
in general. Hence, our penal
laws apply only to crimes
committed within the country.
where the victim was injured (not
where the aggressor wielded his
weapon
where the intended victim was (not
where the aggressor was situated) so
long as the weapon or the bullet
either touched him or fell inside the
territory where he was
where the illegal marriage was
performed
where the property was unlawfully
taken from the victim (not the place
to which the criminal went after the
commission of the crime)
where the conspiracy was formed
(not where the overt act of treason,
FACTS
rebellion or sedition was committed)
libel where published or circulated
continuing crime any place where the offense begins,
exists or continues
complex crimes any place where any of the essential
elements of the crime took
CRIMES V. TORTS
 TORT is transitory in character and as such, liability is deemed personal to
the tortfeasor and makes him amenable to suit in whatever jurisdiction he
is found while CRIME is local in that the perpetrator of the wrong can be
sued only in the state wherein he commits the crime
 TORT is an injury to an individual who may be situated in any place, while
a CRIME is an injury to the state where it is committed
 TORTS law assign liability to the perpetrators in order to indemnify the
victim for injuries he sustained while PENAL laws are promulgated to
punish and reform the perpetrators and deter them and others from
violating the law
Bar Question: A French vessel in transit is anchored along a pier at Port
Area, Manila. There was found in a cabin of one of the
members of the crew, who is a Frenchman, a package of
opium. The French sailor admitted possession of the
same. May he be criminally prosecuted for illegal
possession of opium in our courts? Why?
Suppose the package opium was already lowered from
the boat and placed on a banca that was floating on the
water alongside the vessel ready to be brought ashore,
amy a criminal prosecution be filed in the Philippines?
Why?
Answer: (a) No prosecution will succeed in the case involving
merely the illegal possession of opium because there is
actually no disturbance of the public order in the Phils.
(b) The act of placing the opium aboard that banca ready
to be brought ashore is a violation of our public policy,
morals, safety and order consequently the act should be
punished.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. CA
297 SCRA 469
: Milagros Morada, a flight attendant of the petitioner SAUDIA was
attemptedly raped by a certain Saudi national. Three years later after
the said incident, before the departure of her flight from Riyadh for
59
 Manila, an officer of the petitioner brought her to the Saudi court where
she was made to sign a document written in Arabic and interrogated by
a judge. Petitioner assure her that these were merely a routine
procedure necessary to drop the case against the two men who
attemptedly raped her. But to her shock, she was sentenced to
imprisonment and to 286 lashes of adultery, going to the disco and
listening to the music and socializing with male crew, all in violation of
Islamic law. Petitioner terminated her contract before she was allowed to
return to Manila. Morada then filed a case for damages against the
petitioner based on violations of these provisions which are actionable
Art. 19 “Every person must in the exercise of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his dues and observe honesty and good faith“ and Art 21
“Ny person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall
compensate the latter for damage“ The petitioner questioned the
jurisdcition of the Philippine courts to try the case for lack of substantial
interest in the case and that Philippine law shall not govern this case.
ISSUES : (1)Whether or not Philippine law shall govern this case
(2)Whether or not Philippine court has jurisdiction to try the case.
HELD : (1)Yes, because Philippines is the situs of the tort complained of and the
place having the mist interest in the problem. It is in the Philippines
where the petitioner allegedly deceived private respondent, a Filipina
residing and working here. Under the State of the Most Significant
Relationship Rules, the following contacts are to be taken into account:
a. Place where the injury occured
b. Place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred
c. Domicile, residence, nationality, place of
incorporation and place of business of the parties
d. Place where the relationship if any between the
parties is centered.
(2) Yes. Where the action is one involving torts, the connecting poin of
contract could be the place where tortious conduct occurred. The RTC of
Quezon City possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. A
party whose cause of action is based on a Philippine law particularly
Arts. 19 & 21 has no obligation to plead and prove the law of another
State.
TIME INC. REYES et al
39 SCRA 303
FACTS : Villegas and Enrile filed a case for libel against TIME Inc., a foreign
corporation for an alleged libel arising from a publication of TIME
magazine that Villeas was the source of graft and corruption and
nepotism in Asia and that it was Enrile who helped Villegas borrow an
amount without interest. TIME Inc., moved to dismiss the case for lack
of jurisdiction and improper venue relying upon the provisions of RA
4363 that if the offended party is a public officer with office in Manila,
the proviso limits him to two choices of venue namely in the CFI of
Manial or in the city or province where the libelous acrticle was printed
and first published. However, the complaint was lodged in the CFI of
Rizal despite the fact that the plaintiffs are public officers with offices in
Manila.
ISSUE : Whether or not the CFI of Rizal has jurisdiction to try the case
HELD : No. A libeled public official must sue in court of the locality where he
holds office in order that the prosecution of action should interfere as a
little as possible with the discharge of his official duties and labors. The
only alternative allowed him by law is to prosecute those responsible for
the libel in the place where the offending article was printed and first
published. Since the offending publication was not printed in the
Philippines, the alternative venue was not open to respondent Mayor
Villegas of Manila and Undersecretary of Finance Enrile who were the
offended parties. Hence, the venue provisions of RA 4363 should be
deemed mandatory for the party bringing the action, unless tha question
of venue should be waived by the defendant, which is not the case here.
LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
323 SCRA 692
FACTS : Petitioner is a foreigner and economist working with the Asian Dev’t
Bank. Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words
against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the MeTC
Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation. Petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the protocol submitted by
the DFA to the counrt stating that the petitioner is covered by the
immunity from legal process based on the agreement between the ADB
and Philippine government regarding the headquarters of ADB in the
country which provides that staffs and officers of the bank including the
consultants and experts performing missions in the bank shall enjoy
immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in
their official capacity except when the bank waives the immunity.
ISSUE : Whether or not the said immunity clause can be invoked by the
petitioner.
HELD : No. The mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto
result in the dropping of the charges. The immunity mentioned therein is
not absolute but subject to exception that the act was done in official
capacity. The commission of the said crime is not part of of his official
functions.
PEOPLE v. WONG CHENG
45 Phil 729
60
 FACTS : Wong Cheng, a Chinese citizen, is accused of having illegally smoked (requisites): kind of stocks,
opium aboard the English mercahnt vessel Changsa, wile it was transfer of stocks to bind
anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shore of the city. corporation, issuance, amount and
Womg Cheng filed a demurrer to the information alleging lac of legality and dividends and duties
jurisdiction of the lower court, whcih granted the demurrer and of members, stockholders and
dismissed the case. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court officers
contending that the court has jurisdiction over the case because the Validity of corporate acts and law of the place of incorporation and
crime was committed aboard merchant vessel within our jurisdictional contracts (including ultra vires law of the place of performance (the
waters. acts) act or contract must be authorized
by both laws)
ISSUE : Whether or not Philippine courts acquire jurisdiction over the crime
committed aboard merchant vessels within our jurisdictional waters. Right to sue and amenability to law of the place of incorporation
court processes and suits against provided that the public policy of the
it forum is not militated against
Domicile If not fixed by the law creating or
recognizing the corporation or by
any other provision – the domicile is
where its legal representation is
established or where it exercises its
HELD : Yes. Under the English Rule, which is based on the territorial principle principal functions (Article 15)
and followed in the US ‚“crimes perpetrated under such circumstances Receivers (appointment and Principal receiver is appointed by the
are in general triable in the courts of the country within whose territory powers) courts of the state of incorporation;
they were committed. Hence, if the passenger starts smoking opium ancillary receivers, by the courts of
within our territorial waters aboard a foreign merchant vessel that any state where the corporation has
offense becomes a breach of public order and therefore triable in our assets (authority is co-extensive)
courts. with the authority of the appointing

Personal law of corporations

XVI. CHOICE OF LAW AFFECTING CORPORATIONS AND OTHER JURIDICAL
ENTITIES
A. CORPORATIONS
FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
Powers and Liabilities General Rule: the law of the place
of incorporation
Exceptions:
 For constitutional purposes
– even if the corporation was
incorporated in the Phil., it is not
deemed a Filipino corporation and
therefore cannot acquire land,
exploit our natural resources and
perate public utilities unless 60%
of capital is Filipino owned
 For wartime purposes – we
pierce the corporation veil and go
to the nationality of the
controlling stockholders to
determine if the corporation is an
enemy (control test)
Formation of the Corporation law of the place of incorporation
The personal law of a corporation is the law of the State where it
is incorporated. Since a corporation is an artificial being created by law, it
possesses only the rights and powers conferred upon in its charter. Hence,
if the law creating the corporation does not give authority to enter into
certain contracts, such contracts made by it in another state shall e void
despite the express permission given by the laws of that other state.
Matters where the personal law of the corporation governs:
1. Requisites for formation of the corporation and its legal
character
2. Capacity and powers of the corporation; note: however two
requisites should be asked in determining the legal effect of
an act of a corporation: (a) is the corporation authorized by
its charter to do the particular act? (b) is this act permitted
by the law of the place where the act is done
3. Kinds of stocks allowed and transfer of stocks in a way that
would be binding on the corporation
4. Issuance, amount and legality of dividends
5. The internal organization of the corporate enterprise, the
rights and liabilities of shareholders, members, directors,
61
 officers, their relation inter se and stockholders’ FACTS
participation in the management and in the profits
6. Alteration or modification of the charter and the dissolution
of the corporation
M.E. GRAY v. INSULAR LUMBER CO.
67 Phil 139
FACTS : Defendant Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York and is licensed to engage business in the Philippines to which
plaintiff is a stockholder. However, plaintiff M.E. Gray does not own 3%
of the total capital stock nor does he represent stockholders who own
3% of its capital. Plaintiff asked the corporation to let him examine its
books but the corporation refused on the ground that under New York
laws, only stockholder owning at least 3% of the total capital stock are
entitled to such right. Plaintiff contends that under the Philippine law, he
is entitled to examine the books of the corporation to which he is a
stockholder.
ISSUE
ISSUE : Whether or not Philippine law shall govern in this case giving the plaintiff
the right to examine the books of the corporation.
HELD
HELD : No. The stipulation of facts is binding upon the parties and cannot be
altered by either of them.The plaintiff is bound to adhere the agreement
made by him with the defendant corporation because the personal law of
the corporation is the law of the State where it is incoporated.The
defendant is a corporation under New York law licensed to do business in
the Philippines. Under the laws of New York, the rights of a stockholder
to examine the books of corporation organized under said laws consist in
making a written request within 30 days. The plaintiff not being a
stockholder owning at least 3% of the capital stocks of the defendant
corporation has no right to examine its books and records nor to require
a statement of its affairs.
b. Control Test during the war
Exceptions to the rule of incorporation test
 In wartime, the courts may pierce the veil of corporate identity and look into
a. Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions
 A state, if it sees fit, may by legislation exclude a foreign corporation
altogether, subject to constitutional limitations or prescribe any conditions it
may see fit as prerequisite to the corporation’s right to do business within its
territory.
FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN HUENEFELD
FACTS
PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INC.
18 SCRA 924
: San Jose Petroleum, a Panamanian Corporation filed with the Philippine
SEC a sworn registration statement for the registration and licensing for
sale in the Philippine Voting Trust Certificates representing 2M shares of
its capital stock with a par value of $0.35 a share at P1.00. allegedly,
the entire proceeds of the sale will be devoted exclusively to finance the
operations of San Jose Oil, Co. Inc., a domestic mining corporation.
Petitioner Plating anf others, who were prospective investors in the
shares of respondent corporation opposed on such registration and
licensing on the ground that the tie-up between the issuer San Jose
Petroleum Oil, Investment, a Panamanian corporation and San Jose Oil,
a domestic corporation violates the Philippine Constitution that “the
privilege to
utilize, exploit, and develop our natural resources was granted to
corporation 60% of its capital stock belongs to Filipino with parity rights
granted to the US citizen. Respondent corporation contends that it was
an American business enterprise entitled to parity rights in the
Philippines as embodied in the Laurel-Langley agreement.
: Whether or not San Jose Petroleum, an American business enterprise is
entitled to parity rights in the Philippines.
: No. Respondent corporation was not owned and controlled directly by
the citizens of the US because it was owned and controlled by a
corporation organized in Panorama. Neither it was indirectly owned and
controlled by American citizens through Oil Investment , for the latter
was owned and controlled by two Venezuelan corporation. The tie-up
violates the constitution. Granting arguendo that these individual
stockholders are American citizens, it is necessary to establish that the
different status of which they are stockholders are citizens, allow Filipino
citizens, or corporation or association owned and controlled by Filipino
citizens to engage in the exploitation of the natural resources of said
states.
the nationality of the controlling stockholders to determine the “citizenship”
of the corporation
89 Phil 54
: Christern Huenefeld & Co., Inc. obtained from petitioner fire insurance in
the sum of P100,000 covering merchandise contained in a building in
Binondo Manila. In 1942, during the Japanese military occupation, the
building and insured merchandise were burned. The total loss was fixed
at P92,650.00. At first, the petitioner refused to pay the claim, however
62
 in pursuance of the order of the Director of the Philippine Executive
Commission, it paid to the respondent the said amount of loss. The
petitioner then filed in the CFI of Manila for recovery of the amount it
paid to respondent on the gound that the policy issued in 1941 had
ceased to be effective because of the outbreak of the war between the
U.S. and Germany and that the payment made by the petitioner to
respondent corporation during the Japanese military occupation was
under pressure.
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner is entitled to recover what was paid to
respondent.
HELD : Yes. In wartime, the courts may pierce the veil of corporate identity and
look into the nationality of the controlling stockholders to determine the
citizenship of the corporation. Under Phil. Insurance Law in Sec. 8
provides that “any one except a public enemy may be insure“. An
insurance policy ceases to be allowable as soon as an insured becomes a
public enemy. The respondent having become an enemy corporation on
December 10, 1941, the insurance policy issued in its favor by the
petitioner, a Philippine corporation had ceased to be valid and
enforceable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to recover what was paid to
the respondent.
Domicile or residence of foreign corporation
 A foreign corporation that has been granted license to operate in the
Philippines acquires domicile in the Philippines. The object of the Corporation
Code in requiring a foreign corporation to secure a license to transact
business in the Philippines is to prevent it from acquiring a domicile for the
purpose of business without taking steps necessary to render it amenable to
suit in the local courts.
STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. CITIBANK
203 SCRA 9
FACTS : Respondent banks, the Bank of America N.T., & Citibank N.A. and
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation jointly filed with the CFI of
Rizal for involuntary solvency of Consolidated Mines Inc., (CMI) on the
ground that the latter committed specific acts of insolvency. The
petitioners State Investment House Inc., & State Financing Center Inc.
opposed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the petition because respondent banks are not resident
creditors and they were merely licensed to do business and being
branches in the Philippines could not be deemed as resident creditors as
contemplated under the insolvency law.
ISSUE : Whether or not the respondent banks being branches in the Philippines
may be considered “residents of the Phil Islands as that term is used in
Sec. 20, of the Insolvency law.
HELD : Yes. A foreign corporation that has been granted license to operate in
the Philippines acquires domicile in the Philippines. Our laws and
jurisprudence indicate a purpose to assimilate foreign corporation, duly
licensed to do business here to the status of domestic corporations.
What effectively makes such a foreign corporation a resident corporation
in the Philippines is its actually being in the Philippines and licitly doing
business here “locality of existence“ being to repeat the necessary
element in the signification of the term resident corporation.
Jurisdiction over foreign corporations
 The prevailing rule is that with the consent of a state, a foreign corporation
shall be recognized and will be allowed to transact business in any state
which gives its consent. The consent doctrine is established in Secs. 125,
126, 127, & 129 of the Corporation Code.
 Art. 29 of the Corporation Code mandates that all foreign corporations
lawfully doing business in the Philippines shall be bound by all laws, rules
and regulations applicable to domestic corporations.
 Service upon foreign corporations doing business in the Philippines may be
made on:
1. Its resident agent
2. In the absence thereof, process will be served on the government
official designated by law or any of its officers or agent within the
Philippines
3. On any officer or agent of said corporation in the Philippines
4. Serving summons through diplomatic channels
Right of foreign corporations to bring suit
 The right of a private corporation to bring suit in the forum and its amenability
to court processes and suits against it, are governed by the lex fori. From the
theoretical viewpoint, the country like ours may completely prohibit a foreign
corporation from transacting business in the Philippines; we may even prohibit
it from filing suit here.
 Acquisition by a foreign corporation of a license to transact business in the
Philippines is an essential prerequisite for filing a suit of the corporation before
our courts. This rule is embodied in Article 133 of the Corporation Code which
says that “such corporation may be sued or proceeded against before
Philippine courts or administrative tribunals on any valid cause of action
recognized under Philippine laws.
Bar Question: A issued in the RTC of Manila by California Candy Corporation, a
corporation organized under the laws of California for damages in
the amount of P5M arising from a breach of contract whereby A had
63
 agreed to sell to said corporation 500 tons of sugar to be delivered
in San Francisco, where the contract was entered into. Would you
grant A’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
plaintiff corporation has no capacity to sue, it not having previously
obtained a license to transact business in the Philippines? State
your reasons briefly.
Answer: I would deny the motion to dismiss. (1) The contract was an
isolated transaction. (2) The plaintiff was not transacting business
in the Philippines the contract having entered into in San Francisco
and expressly agreed upon to be consummated there. So long,
therefore as the jurisdictional requirements are complied with, the
plaintiff’s suit may properly be entertained by our tribunals of
justice.
Bar Question: A New York Corporation takes part in bidding for the construction of
a building in Makati. The New York Corporation won the bid, but the
construction company which opened the bid refused to sign the
contract with the New York corporation for the construction of the
building. The New York Corporation then sued. As New York
Corporation had not expressly obtained a license to engage in
business in the Philippines, the construction company moved to
dismiss the suit on the ground that New York has no right or
personality to sue in the Philippine courts. How should the motion
to dismiss be resolved?
Answer: The motion to dismiss should be denied. To take part in the bidding
does not constitute “transacting business” as the term is
understood in the Philippine law – for this is an isolated act.
HOME INSURANCE v. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES
123 SCRA 424
FACTS : Petitioner Home Insurance was the insurer of the two consignees Atlas
Consolidated Mining Dev’t Corp. and Hansa Transport Kantor, whose
goods were transported by herein respondent shipping lines. When the
shipments arrived in Manila, some of the goods were in bad order.
Hence, the petitioner, a foreign insurance company paid for the
damaged goods. Upon payment, petitioner became subrogated of the
right to claim against respondent. Respondent in its answer to
petitioner’s complaint however denied the latter’s capacity to sue by
asserting that at the time the contract of insurance was entered into
petitioner was not yet licensed to do business in the Philippines.
Petitioner however contends that the company was duly licensed to do
business in the Philippines through its agent Mr. Victor Bello.
ISSUE : Whether or not the petitioner has the capacity to sue before the
Philippine Courts.
HELD : Yes. The lack of capacity to sue at the time of the execution of the
contract was cured by the subsequent registration and was strengthened
by the procedural aspect of this case. A foreign corporation duly licensed
to do business in the Philippines has the right to bring suit before our
courts. When the complaints in these two cases were filed the petitioner
had already secured the necessary license to conduct its insurance
business in the Philippines. It could alreay file suits. Moreover, the
general denials made by private respondents were inadequate to attack
the foreign corporation’s lack of capacity to sue in the light of its positive
averment that it is authorized to do so.
ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. CEBU STEVEDORING
17 Phil 1037
FACTS : Petitioners, both foreign corporations existing under the laws of the US
sued Cebu Stevedoring Co., a domestic corporation for recovery of a
sum of money. They alleged that the latter, as a common carrier
undertook to carry a shipment of copra for delivery to Procter and
Gamble in Cebu, however upon discharge, the copra was found
damaged. Plaintiffs as subrogees to the shipper and consignee demand
settlement from defendant due to its failure to comply with its obligation
as carrier to deliver the copra in good order. Defendant moved to
dismiss the case on the grounds that plaintiffs had no legal personality
to appear before Philippine courts and had no capacity to sue.
ISSUE : Whether or not the plaintiffs had the capacity to sue before our courts.
HELD : No. Sec. 69 of the Corp. Law provides that no foreign corporation shall
be permitted to transact business in the Phils unless it shall have the
license required by law and until it complies with this law, shall not be
permitted to maintain any suit in the local courts. Sec. 4, Rule 8 of RRC
requires that “fact showing the capacity of a party to sue or be sued or
the authority of a party to sue or be sued in a representative capacity or
the legal existence of an organized association of persons that is made a
party must be averred. In the case at bar, all that was averred was that
they are both foreign corporations existing under the laws of the U.S.
Exceptions to license requirement:
a. Isolated Transactions
 An isolated business is one which is occasional,
incidental and casual not of a character to indicate a purpose to engage in
business. A business is isolated if there is no continuity of conduct and intention on
64
 the part of the foreign corporation to establish a continuous business within the
state.
b. Action to protect trademark, trade name, good will, patent or for unfair
competition
 A foreign corporation engaging in business
without a license may file a complaint for unfair competition since that is
essentially a suit enjoining the unfair trader from pursuing the unlawful
competition and in order to allow the aggrieved party to recover damages. This
rule is based on equity considerations.
LEVITON INDUSTRIES v. SALVADOR
114 SCRA 420
FACTS : Private respondent Leviton Mfg. Co. Inc., a foreign corporation organized
and existing under the laws of New York USA, is the largest
manufacturer of electrical devices under the trademark,“Leviton“ Said
electrical devices are being exported to the Philippines and well known to
Filipino consumers under the trademark “leviton“. Petitioners Leviton
Industries, a partnership organized in the Phils. began manufacturing
electrical devices under the tradename “Leviton Industries“ and claimed
that they had registered with the Philippine Patent Office the trademarks
“Leviton Label and Leviton“. Private respondent filed a complaint for
unfair competition against petitioner because the trademark on its
products would cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.
Petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground that the private respondent
failed to allege its capacity to sue and no license to business in the
Philippines.
ISSUE : Whether or not private respondent has the capacity to sue for unfair
competition before Philippine Courts.
HELD : Yes. A foreign corporation engaging in business without a license may
file a complaint for unfair competition since that is essentially a suit
enjoining the unfair trader pursuing the unlawful competition and in
order to allow the aggrieved party to recover damages. An action to
protect trademark, trade name, goodwill patent or unfair competition is
one of the exceptions to license requirement in bringing suit before the
Philippine courts by a foreign corporation. However Sec. 21-A of RA 166
is without qualification. Its literal tenor indicates as a condition sine qua
non the registration of the trademark of the suing foreign corporation
with the Philippine Patent Office.
c. Agreements fully transacted outside the Philippines
 A foreign corporation is allowed to maintain an action on a transaction
wholly celebrated and consummated abroad. The vital policy of stabilizing
commercial transactions will be greatly jeopardized if our laws deprived foreign
corporations of this privilege.
HANG LUNG BANK v. SAULOG
201 SCRA 137
FACTS : Petitioner which was not doing business in the Phils. entered into two
continuing guarantee agreements with Cordova Chin San in Hongkong
whereby the latter agreed to pay on demand all sums of money which
may be due the bank from Worlder Enterprise. When Worlder Enterprise
defaulted its payment, petitioner filed a suit in Hongkong against
Worlder and Chin San, a resident of Philippines and thereafter obtained a
favorable judgment ordering Worlder and Chin San to pay the petitioner.
A demand letter was sent by the petitioner to Chin San at his Philippine
address but the latter made no reply. Petitioner then filed an action
before RTC of Makati to enforce his claim for a sum of money which was
perfected, esecuted and consummates in Hongkong. Chin San moved to
dismiss the action on the ground that petitioner has no capacity to sue
before our courts.
ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner foreign bank has the capacity to sue before
the Phil. courts.
HELD : Yes. A foreign corporation is allowed to maintain an action on a
transaction wholly celebrated and consummated abroad. Petitioner may
not be denied the privilege of pursuing its claims against private
respondent for a contract which was entered into and consummated
outside the Philippines. Otherwise we will be hampering the growth and
dev’t of business relations between Filipinos and foreign nationals. The
vital policy of estabilizing commercial transactions will be greatly
jeopardized if our laws deprived foreign corporations of this privilege.
d. Petition filed is merely a corollary defense in a suit against it
 A foreign corporation is not maintaining a suit in our courts but is merely
defending itself when it files a complaint for the sole purpose of preventing the
lower court from exercising jurisdiction over the case. As suc, a foreign
corporation is not required to allege and prove that it has capacity to sue.
65
 The main characteristic of a transnational is that all the locally
PHILIPPINE COLUMBIA ENTERPRISES v. LANTIN incorporated branches are joined together by the common control
39 Phil 376 and management of higher officials in the home state.

FACTS : Plaintiff Katoh & Co., Inc. is a foreign corporation organized in Japan
while defendant is a domestic corporation. Plaintiff filed an action against
the defendant for the collection of ten different shipments of steel
products allegedly ordered by the defendant but the latter refused to pay
after duly receiving the said shipments. Defendant moved to dismiss on
the ground that the plaintiff had not engaged in business in the
Philippines and that the transactions were made and consummated in
Japan. Hence, the plaintiff had no capacity to sue before the Philippine
courts. Plaintiff contends that since defendant filed a counterclaim
against the plaintiff, they would be recognizing the plaintiff’s legal
capacity to sue.
ISSUE : Whether or not plaintiff has the capacity to sue before Philippine courts
HELD : Yes. Petition filed is merely a corollary defense in a suit against it. The
filing of a counterclaim, by a Philippine corporation does not constitute
an implied recognition of the foreign corporation’s legal capacity. This is
because in a counterclaim, the plaintiff (foreign corporation) in the main
case becomes the defendant. Thus, the prohibition does not apply.
Query: Does a state has jurisdiction over a parent corporation by
reason of the dact that it has jurisdiction over the
parent’s subsidiary corporation as to extent to which a
state has jurisdiction over a subsidiary by reason of the
fact that it has jurisdiction over the parent.
Answer: The Restatement Seond on Conflict of Laws suggests that
jurisdiction over the parent will exist if the parent
controls and dominates the subsidiary. The American
courts have ruled that jurisdiction over the parent
corporation can be acquired when the separate existence
of subsidiary has not been faithfully maintained. Theee
activities of the subsidiary in the state will provide a basis
for jurisdiction over the parent if these activities:
 Provide a basis for jurisdiction over the subsidiary
 Can be said to have been done in the course for the
parent corporation or on its behalf
C. Partnership

The existence or non-existence of the legal or juridical personality of the

partnership, the capacity of the firm to contract and the liability of the firm and
B. Special Corporation partners to thrid persons are all governed by the personal law of the
partnership – this is the law of the place where it was created.
1. Religious Societies and Corporation Sole
Philippine internal law provides that if the domicile of the partnership is not
A religious society which is a corporate aggregate. A corporation identified by the law creating it , it is deemed domiciled in the place where its
Sole is an incoporated office composed of only one person. Art. 110 legal representation is established or where it exercises its principal functions.
of the Corporation Code states “The chief archbishop, bishop, priest,
minister, or other presiding elder of a religious sect may form a
corporation sole for the purpose of managing its affairs, property FACTUAL SITUATION POINT OF CONTACT
and temporalities“ The existence of non existence of the personal law of the partnership,
legal personality of the firm, that is, the law of the place where it
capacity to contract, liability of was created (Article 15 of the Code
the firm and the partners to third of Commerce, subject to the
2. Transnational Corporations persons exceptions given in the case of
corporation)
Transnational corporations are clusters of several corporations, Exceptions:
each with a separate entity, existing and spread out in several  For constitutional purposes
countries but controlled by the headquarters in a developed state  For wartime purposes
where it was originally organized. Creation of branches in the Philippine Law (law of the place
Philippines; validity and effect of where branches were created)
The personal law of the transnational corporation is that of the the branches’ commercial Article 15 of the Code of Commerce,
host country, the major decisions regarding its operation and transaction and the jurisdiction of
management come from the parent corporation in the industrialized the court
state. Dissolution, winding up and Philippine Law (law of the place
termination of branches in the where branches were created)
Phil. Article 15 of the Code of Commerce,

66
 Domicile If not fixed by the law creating or
recognizing the partnership by any
other provision – the domicile is
where its legal representation is
established or where it exercises its
principal functions (Article 15)
Receivers (appointment and Principal receiver is appointed by the
powers) courts of the state of incorporation;
ancillary receivers, by the courts of
any state where the corporation has
assets (authority is co-extensive)
with the authority of the appointing
RECOGNITION
OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT
Courts will allow the foreign judgment to be
presented as a defense to a local litigation
Involves merely the sense of justice
Does not require either an action of a special
proceeding
May exist without enforcement
ENFORCEMENT
OF FOREIGN JUDGMEN
Plaintiff wants courts to positively c
make effective in the state a foreign j
Virtually implies a direct act of sovere
Necessitates a separate action or proc
brought precisely to make the foreign
effective
Necessarily carries with it recognition

D. Foundations
Reasons why not all foreign judgments can be recognized or enforced in our
Foundations are combinations of capital, independent of indiciduals, and country:
organized principally for charitable, medical, or educational purposes .
1. The requisite proof thereof may not be adequate
Query: If a foreign corporation does business in the Philippines and obtains 2. They may contravene our established public policies
a license therefore, does it become a domestic corporation or does 3. They may contradict one another: obviously, we cannot be guided by
it remain a foreign corporation. contradictions
4. In some other countries the administration of justice may be
Answer: (a) If aside from doing business here and obtaining a license shockingly corrupt
therefor, it is incorporated under our laws, it becomes a domestic
corporation. It becomes anew juristic entity and its foreign
personality and foreign charter are automatically disregarded.

(b) If on the other hand, it becomes not a domestic corporation but

a domesticated one, it could be considered a Philippine corporation
in some aspects, and a foreign corporation in other matters. B. Bases for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

Domestication is the process whereby state effect a change in the
status of a foreign corporation at least in legal effect that is for
certain local purposes, a codition precedent to its being permitted
to transact business within the State.
PART FIVE: FOREIGN JUDGEMENTS (4)
a) Theory of Comity – under this theory, we apply the foreign law
because of its convenience and finally because we want to give
protection to our citizens, residents, and transients in our land.
b) Theory of Vested Rights or Obligation of Foreign Judgments
– here we seek to enforce the final judgment not the foreign law
itself but the rights that have been vested under such foreign law.

c) Theory of Local Law – foreign law is applied not because it is

XVII. Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Foreign judgment refers to all decisions rendered outside the forum and
encompasses judgments, decrees and orders of courts of foreign countries as well
as those of sister states in a federal system of government.
A foreign judgment does not itself have any extra-territorial application.
Thus, it may ordinarily be enforced only within the territory of the tribunal issuing it.
For a foreign judgment to be effective in our country, it is imperative that it be
proved in accordance with our prescribed rules on the matter.
foreign but because our own laws, by applying similar rules,
require us to do so, hence, it is as if the foreign law has become
part and parcel of our own local law.
d) Theory of Harmony of Laws – this theory insist that in many
cases we have to apply foreign laws so that wherever a case is
decided, that is, irrespective of the forum, the solution should be
approximately the same, thus identical or similar solutions
anywhere and everywhere. When the goal is realized there will be
a “harmony of laws”

A. Distinction between recognition and enforcement

67
 e) Theory of Justice – the purpose of all laws, including Conflict of
Laws, is the dispensing of justice, if this can be attained in many
cases by applying the proper foreign law, we must do so.
Defects of Theory of Comity:
1. Theory presupposes the existence of an international duty. There is no
such duty. Theoretically, every state may apply its own internal law
exclusively.
2. The theory assumes, although in a minimal sense, a desire to show
courtesy to other states. This is not true. The real reason for the
application of proper foreign law id the avoidance of “gross
inconvenience and injustice to litigants”, whether natives or foreigners.
According to Prof. Minor, the basis of COL is something more than
comity to the litigants. It is an answer to the demands of justice and
enlightened policy.
3. Theory apparently leaves the application of the foreign law to the
discretion of the forum. Clearly, this will prevent the adoption of
definite rules and principles for COL.
Kinds of Comity:
1. Comity based on reciprocity – is simple. If the laws
and judgments of the forum are recognized in a foreign
state, the forum in turn will recognize the laws and
judgments emanating from said foreign state.
2. Comity based on persuasiveness of the foreign
judgment – it says that if the forum is persuaded that a
foreign judgment is meritorious and has been rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction, it will not hesitate to
enforce that foreign judgment in the forum even if the
foreign forum does not reciprocate
Collateral Matters:
The following collateral matters must first be examined before proper
foreign law is to be applied:
1. Nature and Proof of foreign judgments
2. Nature and composition of conflicts rules
3. Characterization or classification of conflict rules and judgments
4. Various theories on status and capacity
5. Problem of the renvoi
C. Policies Underlying Recognition and Enforcement
1) Res Judicata – under this principle those who have contested an
issue shall be bound by the result of the contest and that matters
once tried and decided with finality in one jurisdiction shall be
considered settled as between the parties.
2) Bar and Merger
Merger – considers the plaintiff’s cause of action as merged in
the judgment and as a result he may not relitigate that exact
claim.
Bar – refers to a situation where a successful defendant
interposes the judgment in his favour to avert a second action by
the plaintiff on the same claim.
3) Doctrine of Collateral estoppel – renders conclusive all
essential issues of fact actually litigated in the suit decided on by
the foreign court.
Whereas res judicata seeks to end litigation by disallowing a suit
on the same claim; collateral estoppels is concerned with the
issue preclusion by barring relitigation of an issue already litigated
on a prior proceeding.
D. Requisites for Recognition and Enforcement
1. There must be proof of the foreign judgment; for the recognition,
there is no necessity for a separate action or proceeding
2. The judgment must be on a civil or commercial matter
3. There must be no lack of jurisdiction, no want of notice, no
collusion, no fraud, no clear mistake of law or fact
Note:
a. Fraud here must be Extrinsic fraud – that is fraud
based on facts not controverted or resolved in the case
where the judgment was rendered
b. Regarding clear mistake of law or fact, the supreme court
of the U.S. reversing the SC of the Phils., held that even
if there is a clear mistake of law or fact, this alone will
not prevent the recognition or enforcement of a foreign
court (Hongkong) judgment which otherwise fulfils all the
other requisites.
4. The judgment must not contravene a sound established policy of
the forum.
Note:
a. An unfaithful mother, awarded by a US court custody of
her child, was denied said custody by our Philippine
courts
68
 b. A litigant not satisfied with the decision of a Philippine
court, resorted to a foreign court to obtain another
remedy. Failing in this foreign venture, he now seeks the
enforcement of the Philippine decision which he had
formerly abandoned.
HELD: The litigants, whether they are citizens or
foreigners, should respect the decisions of
Philippine courts, but if they choose to resort to
a foreign court, asking for a remedy that is
incompatible with the execution of a decision
obtained in the Philippines and obtained a
decision that is adverse, they should not be
permitted to repudiate the decision of the
foreign court and to ask the enforcement of the
decision of the Philippine court which they have
abandoned. To permit them to litigate in that
manner is contrary to the order and public
interest of the Philippines because it disturbs the
orderly administration of justice.
5. The judgment must be res judicata in the state that rendered it.
The requisites for res judicata are the following:
a. Judgment must be final
b. The court rendering the judgment must have
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties
c. The judgment must be on the merits
d. There must be identity of the parties, subject
matter and cause of action – except that the
recognition or enforcement of a foreign action is
now the recognition or enforcement of the
foreign judgment on the original cause of action
Provisions of the Rules of Court on Foreign Judgments:
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. The effect of a
judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgments as follows:
a) In case a judgment against a specific thing, the
judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing
b) In case of a judgment against a person, the
judgment is presumptive evidence of a right as
between the parties and their successors in interest
by a subsequent title; but the judgment may be
repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law
Whose judgment is really enforced?
It would seem that when our courts enforce a foreign
judgment by allowing it, the effect is that it is really our own
court’s judgment that we enforce.
NORTHWEST ORIENT AIRLINES v. CA
241 SCRA 192
FACTS : Plaintiff Northwest Airlines and defendant C.F. Sharp & Co., through its
Japan branch entered into an international passenger sales agency
agreement, whereby it authorized the latter to sell its airline tickets.
Defendant was unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, hence
plaintiff sued the defendant for the collection of the unremitted proceeds
with a claim for damages in a Tokyo court. A writ of summons were
issued against defendant at its office in Yokohama but the bailiff failed
twice to serve the writs. The Tokyo court decided to have the writs of
summons served at defendant’s head office in Manila, in which the
defendant accepted but failed to appear at the hearings. The Tokyo court
decided in favor of the plaintiff. However the judgment remained
unsatisfied. Hence, petitioner filed a suit for the enforcement of
judgment before RTC of Manila. Defendant filed its answer, and averred
that the judgment of the Japanese court was void having been rendered
without due and proper notice to them. The said case for enforcement
was tried on the merits and defendant moved for demurrer of evidence
on the ground that the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is void
for want of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.
ISSUE : Whether or not the foreign judgment can be recognized and enforced
under Philippine courts.
HELD : Yes. A foreign judgment is presumed to be valid and binding in the
country from which it comes, until the contrary is shown. It is also
proper to presume the regularity of the proceedings ang the giving of
due notice therein.
Alternatively, in the light of the absence of proof regarding Japanese
law, the processual presumption may be invoked. Apllying it, the
Japanese law on the matter is presumed to be similar with the Philippine
law on service of summons on a private corporation doing business in
the Philippines. Sec. 14 of the Rules of Court provides that if defendant
is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines, the service
may be made:
69

1) on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that
purpose;
2) absence thereof, on the government offcial designated by law to
that effect or
3) on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.
Accordingly, the extraterritorial service of summons on it by the
Japanese court was valid not only under the processual presumption but
also because of the presumption of regularity of performance of official
duty.
BOUDARD v. TAIT
67 Phil 170
FACTS : Mr. Boudard, as widow of Maria Boudard and as guardian of their
children obtained a favorable judgment from the CFI of Hanoi, French
Indo-China, for the sum of 40,000 piastras against Tait who had been
declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial. Said judgment
was based on the fact that Mr. Boudard, who was an employee of Tait,
was killed in Hanoi by co-employees although outside the fulfillment of a
duty. Boudard filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for the execution of
the Hanoi judgment but the court dismissed on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction of the Hanoi Court, Tait not being a resident of that country.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE : Whether or not the judgment of Hanoi Court is conclusive in our
jurisdiction.
HELD : No. The exhibits presented by the appellant show that the summons
alleged to have been adressed to the appellee, was delivered in Manila
to J.M. Shotwell, a representative or agent of Churchwill & Tait Inc.,
which is an entity entirely different from the appellee. The rule in
matters of this nature is that judicial proceedings in a foreign country,
regarding payment of money, are only effective against a party if
summons is duly served on him within such foreign country before the
proceedings. The fundamental rule is that jurisdiction in personam over
non-residents, so as to sustain a money judgment, must be based upon
personal service within the state which renders the judgment.
RAMIREZ v. GMUR
42 Phil 855
FACTS : Samuel, a native of Switzerland and domiciliary of the Philippines for
many years died in Iloilo, leaving a valuable estate which he disposed by
will. He had one natural daughter Leona Castro. It was shown that in
1985, Castro married to Frederick Kauffman, a British subject. Three
children were born of this marriage. In 1904, Kauffman went to Pari,
France pusposely for obtaining a divorce from Castro under French law.
A divorce decree was then issued. Castro married Dr. Earnest Mory in
England. Two children were born of that marriage. In 1910, Castro died.
Both sets of children claim that Leona Castro was the recognized natural
daughter of Bischoff and she would have been his forced heir had she
been alive at the time of her father’s death.
ISSUE : Whether or not the divorce decree obtained in France be recognized as
valid in the courts of the Philippines
HELD : No. The decree of divorce upon which reliance is placed by the
representation of the Mory children cannot be recognized as valid in the
Philippines. The French tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an action
for the dissolution of a marriage contracted in these Islands by persons
domiciled here, such marriage being indissoluble under the laws then
prevaling in this country. The claims of Mory children to participate in
the estate of Samuel Bischoff must therefore be rejected. The right to
inherit is limited to legitimate, legitimated and acknowledged natural
children. The children of adulterous relations are wholly excluded.
BORTHWICK v. CASTRO
152 SCRA 229
FACTS : Petitioner William Borthwick, an American citizen living in the Philippines
owned real property interests in Hawaii. Private respondent Joseph
Scallon sued Borthwick on the promissory notes which the latter issued
and became due. Petitioner was declared in default by the Circuit Court
of Hawaii due to his failure to appear and answer the complaint.
However, private respondent failed to have the foreign judgment
executed in Hawaii and California be enforced because petitioner had no
assets in those States. The foreign judgment was sought to be enforced
in the Philippines by filing before CFI of Makati, a complaint to enforce
the same, on the ground that petitioner had real properties in
Madaluyong City. Petitioner was again declared in default and was
ordered to pay Scallon the amount prayed for. The court issued an
amendatory order and upon receipt, petitioner moved for new trial but
the same was denied. Hence, this petition contending that the foreign
judgment was unenforceable in the Phils.for bwing rendered without
jurisdiction over his person.
ISSUE : Whether or not foreign judgment is enforceable in Philippine courts.
HELD : Yes, because both the Hawaii court and Philippine court accorded
Borthwick the opportunity to answer the complaint and impugn the
70
 complaints against him which opoortunities he failed to do so, hence he
was declared in default. It is true that the foreign judgment against the
person is merely presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties
and rejection threof may be justified, among others by evidence of want
of jurisdiction of the issuing authority under Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court. Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to impugn the judgment
against him. Thus, the verdict must go against him.
Absence fraud, collusion, a default judgment is as conclusive as
adjudication between the parties as when rendered after answer and
complete contest in open court.
QUERUBIN v. QUERUBIN
87 Phil 124
FACTS : Silvestre Querubin, a Filipino citizen, married petitioner Margaret
Querubin in New Mexico, USA. They had a daughter named Querubina.
Both spouses instituted a divorce proceedings against each other. The
Superior Court of Los Angeles granted the divorce decree filed by
Margaret and the same court awarded “joint custody“ of the child.
Querubina was to be kept in a neutral home subject to reasonable visits
by both parties. Both parents were restrained from taking Querubina out
of California without the permission of the Court. Upon Margaret’s
petition, an interlocutory decree was granted by the court awarding her
the custody of Querubina. But Silvestre together with Querubina, left
San Francisco and went to the Philippines and stayed in Caoayan, Ilocos
Sur, with the intent of protecting the child from the effects of her
mother’s scandalous conduct. Margaret filed a petition for habeas corpus
before CFI for the custody of Querubina under the interlocutiry decree of
California court, granting her the child’s custody must be complied within
the Philippines.
ISSUE : Whether or not the interlocutory decree can be given effect within the
Philippine courts.
HELD : No. The decree is by no means final. It is subject to change with the
circumstancess. Because the decree is interlocutory, it cannot be
implemented in the Philippines where the judgment is merely
intelocutory, the determination of the question by the court which
rendered it did not settle and adjudge finally the rights of the parties.
ST. AVIATION SERVICES CO. v. GRAND INT’L AIRWAYS INC
GR 140288, October 23, 2006
FACTS : Petitioner is a foreign corporation based in Singapore, engaged in the
manufacture, repair and maintenance of airplanes and aircrafts and
respondent is a domestic corporation engaged in airline operations,
executed an agreement whereby petitioner agreed to undertake
maintenance and modification works on respondent’s aircraft. They
further agreed that the validity of the agreement shall be governed by
the laws of Singapore and that any suit arising therefrom shall be
submitted to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.
Petitioner undertook the contracted works and billed respondent of the
expenses. However, the respondent failed to pay despite repeated
demands by the petitioner, which is in violation of the terms agreed
upon. Petitioner then filed with the High Court of Singapore an action for
collection of sum of money. The court issued a writ of summons to be
served extraterritorially upon respondent thru the assistance of the
sheriff of Pasay City to effect said summons to respondent. However,
despite receipt of summons, the respondent still failed to answer the
claim. The High Court of Singapore rendered a judgment by default
against respondent. For the said judgment remained unsatisfied,
petitioner petitoned with the RTC of Pasay City for the enforcement of
said foreign judgment. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction over its person, which was denied. On appeal, the CA
granted the petition of the respondent. Hence, this instant petition
before the SC contending that High Court of Singapore acquired
jurisdiction over the person of respondent and that the judgment of
default rendered by the same is enforceable in the Phils.
ISSUES : (1) Whether or not Singapore Court acquired jurisdiction over the person
of respondent
(2) Whether or not foreign judgment by default is enforceable in the
Phils.
HELD : (1) Yes. Generally, matters of remedy an procedure such as those
relating to the service of process upon a defendant are governed by the
lex fori, which is the law Singapore. The service of summons outside
Singapore is in accordance with the Rules of Court of Singapore which
provides that the originating process may be served:
a. thru the gov’t of that country, where the
government is willing to effect service
b. thru a Singapore Consular authority in that
country, except where service thru such
authority is contrary to the law of the
country or
c. by a method of service authorized by law of
that country for service of any originating
process issued by that country
71
 In this case, the writ of summons issued by the Singapore Court was
served upon respondent at its office at Pasay City and was received by
Joyce Austria, Secretary of the General Manager of the respondent
company. Considering, that the writ of summons was served upon
respondent in accordance with our rules, the jurisdiction was acquired
by Singapore High Court over its person.
(2) Yes. Generally, in the absence of a treaty or special contract, no
sovereign is bound to give effect within its dominion to a judgment
rendered by a foreign tribunal, however under the rules of comity,
utility and convenience, nations have established a usage among
civilized states by which final judgments of foreign courts of competent
jurisdiction are reciprocally respected and rendered effective under
certain conditions that may vary in different countries. The conditions
for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Philippine
legal system is contained in Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which
provides:
Sec. 48. Effect of foreign judgment – The effect of a judgment
of final order of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
render the judgment or final order is as follows:
a. In case of judgment or final order upon a specific ting,
the judgment or final order is conclusive upon the title of
the thing
b. In case of a judgment or final order against a person, the
judgment or final order is presumptive evidence of a right
as between the parties and their successors-in-interest by
a subsequent title.
In either case the judgment may be repelled by evidence of a want of
jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact.
The party attacking a foreign judgment has the burden of overcoming
the presumption of its validity.
ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD v. CA
GR 110263, July 20, 2001
FACTS : Petitioner, a Malaysian corporation filed a collection suit against private
respondent, a domestic corporation before Malaysian Court in Kuala
Lumpur. Petitioner sought to recover the indemnity of the performance
bond it had put up in favor of private respondent, to guarantee the
completion of the Felda project. The Malaysian Court decided in favor of
the petitioner, but private respondent failed to pay the same. Petitioner
instituted a complaint with the RTC of Pasay City to enforce the
judgment of foreign court. Private respondent moved to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that said foreign judgment is unenforceable in
the Philippines for want of jurisdiction over the person of private
respondent. The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint. Hence, this
petition contending that Malaysian court acquired jurisdiction over the
person or private respondent by its voluntary submission to the court’s
authority thru its appointed counsel Mr. Tee, and that said foreign
judgment should be recognized and enforced in the Philippines.
ISSUES : (1) Whether or not Malaysian court acquired jurisdiction over the person
of private
respondent
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in denying recognition and enforcement
to said foreign
judgment
HELD : (1)Yes. The recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not
necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the courts of
country in which such judgment was rendered differs from that
country in which the judgment is relied on. Matters of remedy and
procedure such as those relating to service of summons or court
process upon the defendant, is governed by lex fori, which is the law
of Malaysia.
In the instant case, records show that upon filing of the case, Messrs.
Allen & Gledhill, Advocates and Solicitors with address in Kuala
Lumpur, entered their conditional apperance for private respondent
questioning the regularity of the writ of service of summons but
subsequently withdrew the same when it realized that the writ was
properly served and that the matter was represented by their counsel
Mr. Tee. Supported also by documentary evidence shows that
summons in chambers abs affidavit of Khaw Chay Tee, counsel for
private respondent.
It was then incumbent upon private respondent to present evidence
as to what Malaysian procedural law is and to show that under it, as
alleged by it, is invalid. However in this case it did not. Accordingly,
the presumption and regularity of service of summons and the
decision thereafter rendered by Malaysian court must be respected.
72
 (2) Yes. There is no merit to the argument that the foreign judgment is
not enforceable in the Philippines in view of the absence of any
statement of facts and law upon which the award in favor of the
petitioner is based. Considering that under Malaysian court, 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
invalifate the judgment of the foreign court simply because our rules
provide otherwise.
LAW:
E. Grounds for non-recognition
A foreign judgment is not conclusive if:
1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not
provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the
requirements of due process of law
2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the
defendant
3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter
A foreign judgment need not be recognized if:
1) The defendant in the proceedings in the foreign court did not
receive notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him
to defend
2) The judgment was obtained by fraud
3) The cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is
based is repugnant to the public policy of this state
4) The foreign judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive
judgment
5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement
between the parties under which the dispute in question settled
otherwise than the proceeding in that court
6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the
foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of
the action (forum non-conveniens)
F. Procedure for enforcement
1. A petition should be filed in the proper court attaching an
authenticated copy of the foreign judgment to be enforced
Authentication calls for the Philippine consul assigned to the
country where the foreign judgment was decreed to certify that had
been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction
2. The petition must comply with all the requisites of an enforceable
judgment
3. A requirement to file action anew has been considered as “an
attempt to reconcile the principle of territorial jurisdiction of courts
which demands that the enforcement of judgment outside the
territory of the rendering court must be placed upon some other
basis than the authority of the rendering court which ceased at its
jurisdictional limits – and the principle of res judicata.
FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS
RA 9285 incorporated the UNCITRAL
(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) AWARD Model Law
FEATURES OF RA 9285 APPLYING AND INCOPORATING THE UNCITRAL MODEL
1. The RTC must refer to arbitration in proper cases.
Under Sec. 24, the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes
that are properly the subject of arbitration pursuant to an arbitration
clause and mandates the referral to arbitration in such cases.
2. Foreign arbitral awards must be confirmed by the RTC
Foreign arbitral awards while mutually stipulated by the parties in
the arbitration clause to be final and binding are not immediately
enforceable or cannot be implemented immediately.
Foreign arbitral awards when confirmed by the RTC are deemed
not as a judgment of the foreign court but as a foreign arbitral award and
when confirmed, are enforced as final and executor decisions of our
courts of law.
3. RTC has jurisdiction to review foreign arbitral awards
While the RTC does not have jurisdiction over disputes governed
by arbitration mutually agreed upon by the parties, still the foreign
arbitral award is subject to judicial review by the RTC which can set
aside, reject or vacate it.
4. Grounds for judicial review different in domestic and foreign
arbitral awards
For foreign or international arbitral awards which must first be
confirmed by the RTC, the grounds for setting aside, rejecting or vacating
the awards by the RTC are provided under Art. 34 (2) of the UNCITRAL
Model Law.
For final domestic arbitral award also need confirmation by the
RTC pursuant to Sec 23 of RA 786 and shall be recognized as final and
73
 executor decisions of the RTC, they may only be assailed before the RTC
and vacated on the grounds provided under Sec. 25 of RA 876.
5. RTC decision of assailed foreign arbitral award appealable
Sec. 46 of RA 9285. A decision of the RTC confirming, vacating,
setting aside, modifying or correcting an arbitral award may be appealed
to the CA in accordance with the rules and procedure to be promulgated
by the SC.
The losing party who appeals from the judgment of the court
confirming an arbitral award shall be required by the appellate court to
post a counterbond executed in favour of the prevailing party equal to
the amount of the award in accordance with the rules to be promulgated
by the SC.
Distinctions between foreign arbitral award from foreign judgment:
1. Foreign arbitral award is a better alternative because the same is readily
enforceable whereas foreign judgment is not readily enforceable for it requires proof
and allegations of a foreign law.
2. Foreign arbitral award, when confirmed by the RTC shall be recognized and enforced
as foreign arbitral award and not as judgment of a foreign court, whereas foreign
judgment when confirmed by the RTC shall be enforced as a judgment of the
foreign court.
3. Foreign arbitral award when validly stipulated upon by the parties shall be final and
binding whereas in foreign judgment there is no stipulation involved executed by
the parties.
4. Foreign arbitral award is done thru alternative dispute resolution whereas foreign
judgment does not involved alternative dispute resolution because the same should
be done in regular courts proceedings.
Grounds for the rejection of a foreign arbitral award under Art. V of
New York Convention:
a. Recognition & enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request
of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to
the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is
sought proof that:
1. parties to the agreement referred to in Art. II were, under the law
applicable to them under some incapacity or said agreement is not
valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or under
the law of the country where the award was made.
2. Party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper
notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration
proceedings or otherwise unable to present his case.
3. Award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling
within the terms of the submission to arbitration
4. Composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was
not in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
5. Award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set
aside or suspended by a competent authority in which the award
was made.
b. Recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if
the competent authority in the country where recognition and
enforcement is sought finds that:
1. Subject matter of the difference is not capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law of that country
2. Recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the
public policy of that country.
KOGIES v. LERMA & PGSMC
GR 143581, January 7, 2008
FACTS : Petitoner Korea Technologies Co. Ltd. (KOGIES), A Koren Corp. engaged
in the supply and installation of LPG Cylinder manufacturing plants and
private respondent Pacific General Steel Mfg. Corp. (PGSMC), a domestic
corp., executed a contract in the Philippines whereby KOGIES would set
up an LPG cylinder mfg. plant in Carmona, Cavite. For allegedly altering
the quantity and lowering the quality of the machineries & equipment
delivered by KOGIES, PGSMC cancelled the contract and would
dismantle & transfer the machineries in Carmona plant. KOGIES
asserted that PGSMC could not unilaterally rescind the contract and that
their dispute should be settled by arbitration as agreed upon in Art. 15,
the arbitration clause of their contract. KOGIES then instituted an
Application for Arbitration before KCAB in Seoul, Korea pursuant to said
Art. 15 as amended and resolved said dispute in their favor. Meanwhile,
KOGIES, filed a complaint for specific performance against PGSMC
before RTC of Muntinlupa alleging among others that PGSMC violated
Art. 15 of the contract by unilaterally rescinding the same without
resorting to arbitration and thus praying that PGSMC be restrained from
dismantling & transferring the machinery. PGSMC opposed to the TRO
since Art. 15 was null and void for being against public policy as it ousts
the local courts of jurisdiction. The RTC denied said application of TRO
and held that Art. 15 was invalid which later affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE : Whether or not arbitration clause Is valid
HELD : Yes. Established is the rule that the law of the place where the contract
is made governs. The contract was perfected in the Philippines.
Therefore our laws ought to govern. Nonetheless Art. 2044 of the Civil
Code sanctions the validity of mutually agreed arbitral clause or finality
of an arbitral award. The arbitration clause was mutually agreed upon by
the parties. It has not been shown to be contrary to any law or against
public policy.
OIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. CA
74
 293 SCRA 26
FACTS : Petitoner Oil & Natural Gas Commission, a foreign corporation controlled
by the gov’t of India entered into a contract with private respondent
PACEMCO whereby the latter undertook to supply petitioner 4,300 metric
tons of oil well cement. The oil well cement was loaded on board by the
ship MV Surutana Nava at the port of Surigao City. Due to a dispute
between the shipowner & private respondent, the cargo did not reach its
destination in India and instead it was withheld in Bangkok. Despite the
fact the private respondent had already received payment and despite
several demands, it failed to deliver the oil well cement. Petitioner then
informed private respondent that they referred the claim to an arbitrator
pursuant to clause 16 of their contract. The chosen arbitrator, one Shri
Malhotra resolved the dispute in petitioner’s favor. To enable to execute
the arbitral award, petitioner filed before the Court of Civil Judge in
Dehra Dun, India, praying that the decision of arbitrator be made “The
Rule of Court” in India. The foreign court issued an order in favor of the
petitioner, in which the said arbitral award shall be a part of the decree.
Accordingly, petitioner filed a complaint with RTC of Surigao City for
the enforcement of the foreign judgment. The RTC dismissed the
complaint for lack of valid cause of action and held that the referral of
the dispute to the arbitrator is erroneous. The CA affirmed the trial
court’s decision declaring that arbitrator did not have jurisdiction, thus
the foreign court could not validly adopt the arbitrator’s award. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE : Whether or not the foreign judgment is valid and enforceable in the
Philippines.
HELD : Yes. The recognition to be accorded a foreign judgment is not
necessarily affected by the fact that the procedure in the court’s of
country in which the judgment was rendered differs from that of the
court’s of the country in which the judgment is relied on. Matters of
remedy & procedure are governed by the lex fori. Thus, if under the
procedural rules of the Civil Court of India, a valid judgment may be
rendered by adopting the arbitrator’s findings, the same must be
respected.
MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. CA
GR 155635, November 7, 2008
FACTS : Vicente Bayot, A Filipino citizen and Rebecca Makapugay, identified as an
American citizen were married in Mandaluyong City on April 20, 1979, &
were later blessed with a child named Alix. Sometime in 1996, Rebecca
initiated divorce proceedings in the Dominican Republic. The Dominican
Court issued Civil Decree on February 22, 1996 ordering the dissolution
of their marriage and leaving them to remarry after completing the legal
requirements but giving them the joint custody and guardianship over
Alix. One year later, the same Court issued another civil decree settling
the couple’s property relations pursuant to an agreement they executed
which states that the conjugal property, which they acquired during their
marriage consists only of real and personal properties at Muntinlupa. On
March 14, 1996, Rebecca filed a petition before the RTC of Makati City
for declaration of nullity of marriage pursuant to said civil decree issued
by the Dominican Court. On May 29, 1996, Rebecca executed an
Affidavit of Acknowledgment stating under oath that she is an American
citizen and that since 1993 she and Vicente have been living separately.
In 2001, Rebecca filed another petition before RTC of Muntinlupa for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage. Vicente then moved to
dismiss the case on grounds of lack of cause of action and that petition
is barred by the prior judgment of divorce which motion was denied.
Rebecca on the other hand interposed an opposition insisting her Filipino
citizenship as affirmed by the DOJ and that there is no valid divorce to
speak of. On appeal, the CA effectively dismissed the petition of
Rebecca.
ISSUE : Whether or not divorce decree is valid as to constitute res judicata.
HELD : Yes. At the time of the divorce, Rebecca was still to be recognized as an
American citizen. At the very least, she chose before, during & shortly
after her divorce, her American citizenship to govern her marital
relationship. Being an American citizen she was bound by the national
laws of the US, a country which allows divorce. Given the validity of
divorce secured by Rebecca, the same shall be given a res judicata
effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of divorce decree, the
marital vinculum between Rebecca and Vicente is considered severed.
ROEHR v. RODRIGUEZ
404 SCRA 495
FACTS : Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, A German citizen and resident of Germany
married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina in Harmburg,
Germany in 1980. Their marriage was subsequently ratified in Negros
Oriental in 1981. In 1996, private respondent filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage before RTC of Makati City. Petitioner
moved to dismiss the case but the same was denied. On December 16,
1997, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the CFI of Hamburg-
Blankenese, wherein the court awarded to him the custody of their two
children. In view of said decree, petitioner filed a second motion to
dismiss on action filed by private respondent on the ground that the trial
court
had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action as a decree of
divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of
petitioner and private respondent. The trial court thru public respondent
Judge Salonga granted the motion. Private respondent filed a motion for
75
 partial reconsideration praying that the case proceed for the purpose of
determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of
properties. Public respondent reversed her previous order and allowed
the case to proceed.
ISSUE : Whether or not the case be allowed to proceed despite the decree of
divorce already obtained in Germany.
HELD : Yes. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are cognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof
e.g. custody, care and support of the children must still be determined
by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a
foreign judgment, such as the award of custody of petitioner by the
German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the
judgment, had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds under
Rule 39, Sec 50(now Sec. 48) of the Rules of Court.
RULE 39, SEC. 48. Effect of foreign judgments. - The effect of a
judgment of a tribunal of a foreign country, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment is as follows:
(a) In case of a judgment upon a specific thing, the judgment is
conclusive upon the title to the thing;
(b) In case of a judgment against a person, the judgment is
presumptive evidence of a right as between the parties and their
successors in interest by a subsequent title; but the judgment
may be repelled by evidence of a want of jurisdiction, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or
fact.
QUASHA LAW OFFICE & LEGEND INT’L RESORTS LTD., versus
SPECIAL SIXTH DIVISION OF CA, KHOO BOO BOON & PICAZO LAW FIRM
GR 182013, December 4, 2009
FACTS : Petitioner LIRL, a Hongkong corp., licensed to operate a resort Casino
hotel in Subic Bay Phils. filed a complaint for annulment of contract,
specific performance with damages & application for TRO before RTC of
Olongapo against PAGCOR & SBMA on the basis of the agreement it
entered into with the latter which was later amended which in effect
suspend, limit, reduce, or modify petitioner’s license to operate the
Subic Bay Casinos and from entering with any agreement from other
entities for the operation of other Casinos in the Subic Free Port Zone.
The trial court annulled the amendment of the aforesaid agreement.
Meanwhile, petitioner LIRL’s companies filed before the Hongkong Court
for winding up, which ordered the appointment of Kelvin Flynn & Borrelli,
as liquidators of petitioner LIRL and further granting to them the power
to manage its business. Pursuant to said orders, Flynn sent a letter to
private respondent Boon, informing him that he had already been
terminated as CEO of LIRL-Subic as well as private respondent Picazo
law office notifying that its legal services had also been terminated.
Petitioner LIRL later engaged the legal services of petitioner Quasha Law
office as its new counsel to represent in all proceedings in the Phils.
Petitioner Quasha Law Office filed its Entry of Appearance as counsel of
petitioner in a case pending before the appellate court. The appellate
court refused to recognize their appearance because being a foreign
judgment, our courts could not take judicial notice thereof and further
concludes that untill the alleged order of the Hongkon Court had been
recognized before our local courts, it was still the private respondent
Picazo Law Office was recognized as the only counsel entitled to
represent petitioner LIRL.
ISSUE : Whether or not the order of the Hongkong Court can be recognized and
enforced in our Courts.
HELD : No. The act of terminating the legal services of private respondent
Picazo law Office and engaging in its place petitioner Quasha law office
was a mere exercise of petitioner LIRL’s prerogative, thru its appointed
liquidators, which was an internal affair that requires no prior recognition
in a separate action. Therefore, the court can no longer pass upon the
issue.
PHILIPPINE ALUMINUM WHEELS INC. v. FASGI ENTERPRISES INC.
342 SCRA 722
FACTS : Based on their distributorship agreement executed in US, petitioner
PAWI, a Phil. Corp., shipped 8,594 wheels to respondent FASGI, a
Californian corp.,and the latter paid the FOB value of said wheels. After
finding that the shipment was defective and in non-compliance with the
requirement, FASGI filed an action against PAWI and FPS, an Italian
corp., for breach of contract with recovery of damages before the
California District Court. Pending resolution of the case, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement whereby petitioner had to execute
several letters of credit (LC) in favor of FASGI. However, dispite its
assurances and FASGI’s insistence, PAWI still failed to open the first LC
allegedly due to Central Bank inquiries and restrictions. The parties
subsequently entered into a Supplemental Settlement of Agreeement
and motion for entry of judgment, which was executed by FASGI’s
president and PAWI’s counsel Mr. Thomas Ready. For failure again to
comply with their agreement, respondent pursue the case with California
Court, which obtained a favorable judgment. Unable to satisfy said
foreign judgment, respondent filed a complaint for its enforcement
before RTC of Makati City. The trial court dismissed the case on grounds
that the decree was tainted with collusion, fraud and clear mistake of
law. On appeal, the CA ordered the full enforcement of the California
judgment. Hence this appeal. Petitioner contends that the foreign
judgment cannot be enforced because Mr. Ready had already terminated
76
 his services from them and that the motion for entry of judgment is
void.
ISSUE : Whether or not foreign judgment is enforceable before the Philippine
courts.
HELD : Yes. From the time the stipulation for judgment was entered until the
certificate of finality of judgment was issued by the California Court, no
notification was issued by PAWI to FASGI regarding its termination of
Mr. Ready’s services. If PAWI were indeed hoodwinked by Mr. Ready,
who purportedly acted in collusion with FASGI, it should have aptly
raised the issue before the forum which issued the judgment, in line with
the principle of international comity.
Fraud to hinder the enforcement within this jurisdiction of a foreign
judgment must be extrinsic, that is fraud based on facts not
controverted or resolved in the case where judgment is rendered or
would deprive the party against whom judgment is rendered a chance to
defend an action to which he has a meritorious case or defense. The
fraud involved in this case was intrinsic or that fraud which goes to the
very existence of the cause of action – such as fraud in obtaining
consent to a contract is deemed adjudged and therefore cannot militate
against the recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment.
one country on the same issue with finality; it can no longer be
relitigated in another country invoking principle of comity and vested
rights.
ISSUES : (1) Whether or not foreign judgment can be recognized in our courts as
the same is
capable of pecuniary estimation.
(2) Whether or not foreign judgment should outrightly be enforced
before our courts
even without filing a separate action.
HELD : (1) Yes. The Court ruled that the complaint to enforce foreign judgment
is one capable of pecuniary estimation and that petitioners’ payment
of docket fees of only P410.00 corresponds to the same amount
required for “other actions not involving property”
(2) No. Sec. 48, Rule 39 acknowledges that the final judgment is not
conclusive yet but presumptive evidence of a right of petitioner
against the Marcos Estate. Marcos Estate is not precluded to present
evidence; if any of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud or clear mistake of law or fact. Such issues are to be
litigated before the trial court but within the confines of the matters
for proof as laid down in the aforesaid rule.

The actionable issues are generally restricted to a review of

MIJARES v. RANADA
455 SCRA 397
FACTS : Plaintiffs filed a class suit with the US District Court of Hawaii against the
estate of Pres. Marcos alleging that they suffered tortious acts in the
hands of military forces during the Marcos regime. The US District Court
awarded to the plaintiff class an amount of $1.96B, as compensatory &
exemplary damages. Meanwhile, present petitioners filed a complaint
with Makati RTC for the enforcement of foreign judgment, claiming that
they are members of the plaintiff class in whose favor said foreign court
awarded damages and that the same should be recognized and enforced
in our courts pursuant to Rule 39, Sec, 48 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Marcos estate moved to dismiss the case raising non-
payment of correct filing fees. Petitioners however claimed that the
required filing fees are exorbitant despite the fact that said action is not
capable of pecuniary estimation. On the other hand, respondent Judge
Ranada ruled against
FACTS
petitioners. In its present petition for certiorari, petitioners assailed the
twin orders of respondent Judge and asserted that said action belongs to
the class where the Court has recognized as being incapable of
pecuniary estimation. CHR likewise intervened in this case asserting the
immediate enforcement & execution of the said foreign judgment
because once the case has been decided between the same parties in
jurisdiction of the foreign court, the service of personal notice,
collusion, fraud or mistake of fact or law. As stated in Ferrer’s case.
“If every judgment of a foreign court were reviewable on the merits,
the plaintiff would be forced back on his original cause of action,
rendering immaterial the previously concluded litigation”.
Moreover, there is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or
conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign
judgment or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof. However,
generally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the
land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations.
DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. v. SARMIENTO
75 SCRA 124
: Heller, an American citizen & Airman First Class of US Air Force,
presently assigned and stationed at Clark Air Base, Pampanga, who
sustained serious physical injuries due to bus collision filed an action for
damages before CFI of Pampanga against petitioners Dangwa, a
domestic corp. & owner of the bus company and James Gayot, the bus
driver. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of
improper venue since Heller is not a resident of Pampanga in view of his
allegation in the complaint. Heller opposed contending that he has the
privilege to elect with court to file his action and he had chosen CFI of
Pampanga because he is a resident thereof not only at the time of the
commencement of present action but even before the accident

77
 happened. Respondent Judge Sarmiento ruled in favor of Heller declaring
that his action was properly instituted in CFI of Pampanga because
residence under this action need not be continuous, it is sufficient that a
party, though a foreign subject has is actual residence in the place
where the action was brought. Hence, this petition for prohibition.
ISSUE : Whether or not CFI of Pampanga’s order of dismissal is proper.
no specific provision as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of
marriage however only a party who can demonstrate a proper interest
can file the same. The said petition must be prosecuted or defended in
the name of the real party in interest and must be based on a cause of
action.
Hence, the case was remanded to the trial court for reception of
additional evidence necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando
was granted a divorce decree and whether foreign law which granted the
same allows or restricts remarriage.

HELD : Yes. There is no question that private respondent Heller has his fixed - nothing follows -
place of abode at Clark Air Base Pampanga. There is no showing that
Heller has not resided consistently and with continuity in his place of
abode at Clark Air Base at the time he filed his action. As held in Koh v.
CA, the term “resides” as employed in the rule on venue on personal except the final examinations, hehehe!!!
action filed with the CFI means the place of abode, whether permanent
or temporary of the plaintiff or the defendant as distinguished from
domicile which denotes a fix permanent residence, to which, when break a leg pips!!!
absent, one has the intention of returning.

FELICITAS AMOR-CATALAN v. CA
514 SCRA 607

FACTS : Petitoner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married respondent Orlando in 1950 in

Mabini Pangasinan. Thereafter, they migrated to the USA and allegedly
became naturalized citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage, they
divorced in April 1988. Orlando subsequently married respondent
Merope in Calasiao Pangasinan. Petitioner filed a petition for declaration
of nullity of marriage with damages before RTC of Dagupan City against
respondents Orlando and Merope contending that said marriage was
bigamous since Merope had a prior subsisting marriage with Eusebio.
Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action
as petitioner was allegedly not a real-party-in-interest, however it was
denied. The trial court decided in favor of the petitioner. On appeal, the
CA reversed the decision of the trial court. Hence this instant petition for
review contending that petitioner has the personality to file petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage.

ISSUE : Whether or not petitioner has the personality to file petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage.

HELD : No. Petitioner’s personality to file said petition cannot be ascertained

because of the absence of divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it.
It is true that under the New Civil Code which is the law in force at the
time the respondents were married or even in the Family Code, there is

78