CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010)

PART ONE INTRODUCTION

I. SCOPE OF CONFLICT OF LAWS: NATURE, DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE A.DIVERSITY OF LAWS, CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES HILTON V GUYOT (1895) B. DEFINITION Distinguished from Public International Law and other Disciplines C.OBJECT, FUNCTION AND SCOPE II. HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CONFLICT OF LAWS A.ROMAN LAW ORIGIN B.MODERN DEVELOPMENTS Conflicts of Laws in the Philippines III. SOURCES OF CONFLICT OF LAWS A.CODES AND STATUTES B.TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS C.TREATISES ,COMMENTARIES AND STUDIES OF LEARNED SOCIETIES D.JUDICIAL DECISIONS 1.

IDONAH PERKINS V ROXAS (1941) B.WAYS OF DEALING WITH A CONFLICTS PROBLEM Dismiss the Case

Doctrine of forum non conveniens HEINE V NEW YORK INSURANCE COMPANY (1940) IN RE: UNION CARBIDE (1986) WING ON COMPANY V SYYAP (1967)

2. Assume Jurisdiction
Forum law decrees application of internal law Forum law was not properly pleaded and proved FLEUMER V HIX (1930) PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. V BOHANAN (1960) Forum law cannot be applied V. CHOICE OF LAW A.THE CORRELATION BETWEEN JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW B.APPROACHES TO CHOICE OF LAW 1. Traditional Approach Vested Rights Theory GRAY V GRAY (1934) ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R.R. CO. V CARROLL (1892) Local Law Theory Cavers Principles Of Preference 2. Modern Approaches Place Of Most Significant Relationship AUTEN V AUTEN(1954) HAAG V BARNES (1961) Interest Analysis BABCOCK V JACKSON Comparative Impairment Functional Analysis Choice Influencing Considerations VI. PROBLEM OF CHARACTERIZATION A.CHARACTERIZATION AND THE SINGLE-ASPECT METHOD 1. Subject Matter Characterization GIBBS V GOVT OF PI(1933) 2. Substance-Procedure Dichotomy

PART TWO JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW

IV. JURISDICTION A.BASIS OF EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction Over the Person WILLIAN GEMPERLE V HELEN SCHENKER (1967) Jurisdiction over the Property PENNOYER V NEFF (1878) INTERNATIONAL SHOE CO. V WASHINGTON MULLANE V CENTRAL HANOVER BANK &TRUST CO., TRUSTEE, ET AL. (1950) SHAFFER V HEITNER (1977) Long arm Statutes 3. Jurisdiction Over the Subject Matter

2.

CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010) GRANT V MCAULIFFE (1953) Statute Of Frauds Statutes Of Limitations And Borrowing Statutes CADALIN V POEA ADMINISTRATOR (1994)

C. EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN LAW 1. Contrary to an Important Public Policy of the Forum PAKISTAN INTL AIRLINES V OPLE (1990)

B.DEPACAGE HAUMSCHILD V CONTINENTAL CASUALTY (1959) 2. When Procedural in Nature VII. PROBLEM OF RENVOI A.DEFINITION B.VARIOUS WAYS OF DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF RENVOI AZNAR V GARCIA (1963) ANNESLEY, DAVIDSON V ANNESLEY (1926) C.USEFULNESS OF RENVOI UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO V DATER (1936) Objections to Renvoi Inapplicability of Renvoi in a False Conflict PFAU V TRENT ALUMINUM CO. BELLIS V BELLIS (1968) 3. Issues are Related to Property (Lex Situs) 4. Issue Involved in the Enforcement of Foreign Claim is Fiscal or Administrative 5. Contrary to Good Morals (Contra Bonos Mores) 6. Undeniable Injustice to Citizens of the Forum 7. When Penal in Character 8. Endanger Vital Interests of the State

PART THREE PERSONAL LAW

IX. NATIONALITY A. IMPORTANCE OF A PERSONAL LAW B. DETERMINATION OF NATIONALITY 1. Natural-born Citizens TALAROC V UY (1952) CO V ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HR (1991)

VIII. NOTICE AND PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW A. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE B. PROOF OF FOREIGN LAW PCIB V ESCOLIN (1974) IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHNSON (1918) Effects of Failure to Plead and Prove Foreign Law WALTON V ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL (1956) LEARY V GLEDHILL (1951) ZALAMEA V CA (1993) MICIANO V BRIMO (1924) SUNTAY V SUNTAY (1952) CIR V FISHER (1961) BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS V DELA ROSA (1991)

2. Citizens by Naturalization YU KIAN CHIE V REPUBLIC (1965) C. PROCEDURE FOR NATURALIZATION Declaration of Intention Effect of Naturalization on Wife and Children VIVO V CLORIBEL (1968) MOY YA LIM YAO V COMM OF IMMIGRATION (1971)

D. LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP 1. Naturalization in Foreign Countries

CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010) FRIVALDO V COMELEC (1989) FRIVALDO V COMELEC (1996) LABO V COMELEC (1989) D. KINDS OF DOMICILE 1. Domicile of Origin 2. Domicile of Choice

VELILLA V POSADAS (1935) 2. Express Renunciation of Citizenship AZNAR V COMELEC (1990) 3. Subscribing to an Oath of Allegiance to support the Constitution or Laws of a Foreign Country upon attaining 20 year of age (subject to certain exceptions) 4. REPUBLIC V LI YAO (1992) XI. PRINCIPLES ON PERSONAL STATUS AND CAPACITY A. DEFINITION RECTO V HARDEN (1959) WHITE V TENANT (1888) CARABALLO V REPUBLIC (1962) GO CHEN AND GO LEK V CC (1932) DE LA VINA V VILLAREAL (1920)

E. PROBLEMS IN APPLYING THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE 1. Dual or Multiple Citizenship NOTTEBOHM CASE LIECHTENSTEIN V GUATEMALA (1955) OH HEK HOW V REPUBLIC (1969) 2. Statelessness KOOKOORITCHKIN V SOLGEN (1948)

B. LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION DISTINGUISHED FROM JUDICIAL JURISDICTION BARNUEVO V FUSTER (1913)

C. BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY D. ABSENCE

X. DOMICILE E. NAME A. DEFINITION CAASI V CA (1990) UYTENGSU V REPUBLIC (1954) G. CAPACITY INSULAR GOVERNMENT V FRANK (1909) B. MERITS AND DEMERITS OFDOMICILE C. GENERAL RULES ON DOMICILE ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V COMELEC (1995) UJANO V REPUBLIC (1966) IN RE: DORRANCES ESTATE (1932) F. AGE OF MAJORITY

PART FOUR CHOICE OF LAW PROBLEMS

XII. CHOICE OF LAW IN FAMILY RELATIONS

CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010) A. MARRIAGE B. DIVORCE AND SEPARATION C.ANNULMENT AND DECLARATION OF NULLITY D.PARENTAL RELATIONS E. ADOPTION XIII. CHOICE OF LAW IN PROPERTY A.THE CONTROLLING LAW B. CAPACITY TO TRANSFER OR ACQUIRE PROPERTY C.EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF CONVEYANCES D.EXCEPTIONS TO LEX SITUS RULE E.SITUS OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES XIV. CHOICE OF LAW IN CONTRACTS

ASAHI METAL V SC OF CALIFORNIA (1987) WW VOLKSWAGEN CORP V WOODSON (1980) 3. Alien Tort Act HILAO V ESTATE OF MARCOS (1996) FILARTIGA V PENA-IRALA (1980) GUINTO V MARCOS (1986) 4. Philippine Rule on Foreign Torts TIME INC V REYES ET AL (1971)

XV. CHOICE OF LAW IN WILLS, SUCCESSION AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

E. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN TORTS AND CRIMES F. LEX LOCI DELICTI

XVI. CHOICE OF LAW IN TORTS AND CRIMES A. POLICIES BEHIND CONFLICTS TORT LAW

LIANG V PEOPLE (2000) US V FOWLER (1901)

B. LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI LOUCKS V STANDARDS OIL (1913) PEOPLE V WONG CHENG (1922) US V LOOK CHAW (1910) C. MODERN THEORIES ON FOREIGN TORT LIABILITY 1. Most Significant Relationship SAUDI ARABIA AIRLINES V CA (1998) 2. Interest Analysis 3. Cavers Principle of Preference SCHMIDT V DRISCOLL HOTEL (1957) American Contributions to Conflicts Tort Law 2. Exceptions to the Rule of Incorporation Test D. FOREIGN TORT CLAIMS 1. Conditions for the Enforcement of Tort Claims 2. Products Liability of the Foreign Manufacturer a. Constitutional and Statutory Restrictions PALTING V SAN JOSE PETROLEUM (1966) XVII. CHOICE OF LAW AFFECTING CORPORATIONS AND OTHER JURIDICAL ENTITIES A. CORPORATIONS 1. Personal Law of a Corporation ME GRAY V INSULAR LUMBER CO (1939) BANK OF AUGUSTA V EARLE (1839)

CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010) b. Control Test during War FILIPINAS COMPANIA V CHRISTERN (1951)S 3. Domicile or Residence of Foreign Corporations STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE V CITIBANK (1991) 4. Jurisdiction over Foreign Corporations 5. Right of Foreign Corporations to Bring Suit HOME INSURANCE CO V EASTERN SHIPPING (1983) ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE V CEBU STEVEDORING (1966) 6. Exceptions to the License Requirement a. Isolated Transactions EASTBOARD NAVIGATION V YSMAEL & CO (1957) b. Action to Protect Trademark. Trade Name, Goodwill, Patent or for Unfair Competition LEVITON INDUSTRIES V SALVADOR (1982) c. Agreements Fully Transacted Outside the Philippines HANG LUNG BANK V SAULOG (1991) d. Petition Filed is Merely a Corollary Defense in a Suit against it PHIL COLUMBIA ENTERPRISES V LANTIN (1971) C. PARTNERSHIPS Extraterritorial Enforcement of In Personam Judgments against Partnerships 1. Religious Societies and the Corporation Sole 2. Transnational Corporations Derivative Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporations

PART FIVE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS

XVIII. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS A. DISTINCTION BETWEEN RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT B. BASES OF RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS GODARD V GRAY (1870)

C. POLICIES UNDERLYING RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT D. REQUISITES FOR RECOGNITION OR ENFORCEMENT 1. Foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or quasijudicial tribunal which had jurisdiction over the parties and the case in the proper judicial proceedings NORTHWEST V CA & SHARP (1995) BOUDARD V TAIT (1939)

7. Definition and Scope of Transacting Business WANG LABORATORIES V MENDOZA (1987)

RAMIREZ V GMUR (1918) BORTHWICK V CASTRO (1987)

CIR V JAPAN AIRLINES (1991) MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES V CA (1992) GRANGER V MICROWAVE SYSTEMS (1990) 2. Judgment must be valid under the laws of the court that rendered it. 3. Judgment must be final and executory to constitute res judicata in another action. NOUVION V FREEMAN (1889) B. SPECIAL CORPORATIONS

CONFLICT OF LAWS PRIL FINALS REVIEWER!

Rachelle Mayuga |Dahlia Salamat (Second Semester, A.Y. 2009-2010) QUERUBIN V QUERUBIN (1950)

COWANS V TECONDEROGA PULP (1927)

4. State where the foreign judgment was obtained allows recognition or enforcement of Philippine judgments. 5. Judgment must be for a fixed sum of money. QUERUBIN V QUERUBIN (1950)

REMINDERS Person A: 1-7, 12-15 25 DA Person B: 8-11, 16-18 seal RACH Notes from book: Focus on enumerations Include important lines (for fill in the blanks) Number everything or use bullet points (not whole paragraphs) For cases: Keep it short Format: summary issue held Case ratios only Indicate what law applicable (i.e. Phil law by virtue of lex national, lex domicile etc) and WHY Right indent the whole case part Include brief facts (max 3 sentences) EAP notes: Take note of her stand in the book Include important statements in class (borrow chas or maans notes) Kapag stand ni maam, label it as EAP: Underlying reason is blahblah. QUESTION: Narealize ko ngayon, diba meron na pala tayong fantastic barops reviewer? Do we factor that in dito, or pwede ring huwag na. Naalala ko maganda na rin iyon pang-memorize eh. So dapat ang bulk ng ating reviewer na ito ay iyong mga sinisabi ni Maam plus case ratios kasi lalabas iyon. Lets discuss tomorrow Dito ka na gumawa pala, save as das part na lang then ako na magcompile. Yahoo! LETS DO THIS!

6. Foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or good morals of the country where it is to be enforced. 7. Judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion, mistake of fact or mistake of law. E. GROUNDS FOR NON-RECOGNITION F. MODERN DEVELOPMENTS IN ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS 1. Hague Conference on Private International Law 2. EEC Convention of 1968 3. Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act G. PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT INGENOHL V OLSEN (1925)